A five-domain assessment model for trustworthy and effective digitally delivered learning.
This original QUAA model considers five interconnected domains rather than the functionality of a learning platform alone. It is suitable for proportionate institutional self-review and, subject to an agreed independent scope, external quality review.
Quality indicators include visible learning outcomes, structured content, accessible materials, learner workload, instructional interaction and appropriate formative feedback. Evidence may include a mapped learning path, sample lesson and accessible alternative resources.
Reviewers examine how students access teaching, academic help, technical support and feedback; the response pathways for vulnerable learners; and whether digital learning remains inclusive across devices and connectivity constraints.
This domain covers alignment with learning outcomes, original work, authentic assessment, identity assurance proportionate to risk, fair accommodations, appeals, record retention and human oversight of AI-supported assessment.
Institutions should document service availability, authentication, data protection, third-party technology governance, accessibility testing, incident response and continuity arrangements for critical teaching and assessment activity.
Performance evidence should use real measurements with declared definitions and denominators. Quality cycles involve reviewing feedback, identifying trends, assigning actions and verifying that the resulting changes improve the learning experience.
Emerging, Structured, Established and Leading are illustrative descriptions of increasing implementation maturity; they are not badges or completed evaluations by themselves. Any published outcome would require a formal reviewed record, declared criteria and an authorized decision.
These pages describe a developing review methodology. QUAA is not currently accepting formal external reviews or issuing awards. Any future review would require adopted criteria, a documented scope and verified authority to conduct that specific service.
Before a case could be accepted, QUAA would identify the legal provider, awarding body where applicable, country, delivery sites, programmes and learner groups. An agreed scope would list the applicable criteria version, evidence sources, interviews or observations, exclusions and review limits. Evidence could include policies, dated records, sampled assessments, learner information and demonstrated practice.
Reviewers would need verified subject competence, relevant higher-education experience and declared conflicts. Appointments and decisions must be separated from commercial activity. A report would state evidence, strengths, concerns, limitations and recommendations; factual correction would not permit negotiation of findings. Publication would require a valid independent decision and explicit authorization.
No review service page proves that a review has occurred. An enquiry is not an application or decision. Any future complaint or appeal must follow an adopted, independent process. An absent public record is not a finding by another regulator or accreditor.