Quality Assurance for Online Programs

Quality Assurance for Online Programs Corresponding author SOOK-YOUNG CHOI, SEONG-HUN AHN* Department of Computer Education Woosuk University, Samnye-eup, Wanju-gun, Jeollabuk-do, 565-701 REPUBLIC OF KOREA Korean Educational Development Institute, Bawmegil 220-1, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 137-791 REPUBLIC OF KOREA sychoi@woosuk.ac.kr, sernself@hanmail.net doi: 10.4156/ijact.vol2.issue4.9 Abstract The need for determining and maintaining quality in the process of designing, developing and delivering online courses is becoming an important issue for universities and institutions worldwide. Teaching online may be a different process to conventional teaching, involving possible changes to pedagogy and teaching practice such as learner-centered education and collaborative learning. Accordingly, quality assurance appropriately reflecting characteristics of online learning would have to be considered. Therefore we reviewed the existing quality standards in this article. As a result we find that while there is some consensus among the guidelines on quality, there seems to be no united standards. Thus, there is a need to develop a comprehensive unified set of quality standards that would be applicable to online learning programs. Keywords: Quality Assurance, Online Program, Distance Education, E-learning; Quality Standard 1. Introduction Distance education is not a new phenomenon. Innovative use of technologies creates more effective techniques to distribute learning in non-national ways. As a result, new organizational structures and learning arrangements are appearing through higher education. Recently, there has been a remarkable growth in distance education and thus it has gradually become more commonplace at institutions of higher education (Schrum & Hong, 2005). This growth in distance education has raised questions of quality and accreditation in distance education (Bourne & Moore, 2004; Deubel, 2003). There has been a concern about the effectiveness of online learning and about whether an online program can truly help students attain their learning goals. Like any other product or service, the key to the success of a distance learning course is quality. Institutions are concerned with quality due to a lack of experience with the Internet. Others worry that the ease of distribution might allow less reputable organizations to lure learners to a low-quality product (Fountain, 2006). Higher education organizations and accreditation agencies have responded to these concerns with distance education quality. Thus, many principles, guidelines, or standards have been published by different organizations regarding how to ensure quality online courses (ADEC, 2003; AFT, 2002; WECT, 2002; CHEA, 2002). It is noticeable that online learning is increasingly becoming a common form of distance education (Mariasingam, 2005). While all the quality criteria and benchmarks developed for distance education will be applicable to online learning, there may be some special features of online learning that need to be addressed for quality. Thus, this article will discuss what indicators are required for quality assurance in online learning. It will examine existing quality standards for distance education programs and the related literature, and include a discussion regarding the quality assurance for online learning. 2. Importance of quality assurance In any circumstance, defining the term quality is a challenge because it is based on an individual s level of expectation (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001; Parker, 2003). The challenge is exacerbated 88

Quality Assurance for Online Programs SOOK-YOUNG CHOI, SEONG-HUN AHN by the fact that in higher education, there are many stakeholders with unique perspectives and interpretations. Because of the heightened focus on accountability in higher education, quality assurance of the online learning experience has become a critical issue (Parker, 2003). Thompson and Irele (2003) believed tracking progress and measuring quality will result in a focus in improvement and they cite Moore (1999), who put forth that "Evaluation...is the process of analyzing the feedback data gathered by the monitoring system, reviewing it, and making decisions"(p. 1) that will lead to improved materials, methods, processes, and outcomes. Moore also notes a good monitoring and evaluation system provides administrators with data on instructor, student, and/or system problems "while there is still enough time to take remedial action"(p. 572). The challenges of quality assurance arise because quality and quality assurance have been defined using traditional university categories. However, the emerging categories are associated with borderless and virtual education, which suggests a need to redefine quality and quality assurance arrangement (Cavanaugh, 2002). Assuring quality in online learning is critical. Twigg (2001a) stressed that in a distributed learning environment, where students face many choices, still greater differentiation is required and the author called for a process of quality assurance targeted at the course level. In addition, she contended that there is lack of the specificity needed to assure program quality and that using the pass/fail model of assessment based on concepts that are defined poorly, provides, at best a fractured foundation for evaluation (Twigg, 2001a). This lack of specificity regarding quality assurance of the degree program may be one reason for the lack of widespread acceptance of online degrees. Therefore, there is a need to review quality standards for distance education in the perspective of online learning. 3. Existing quality standards The guidelines for the best practice in distance and online education issued by some of the accreditation commissions and other organizations involved in quality assurance were reviewed to see how their guidelines reflected the quality requirements. Table 1 summarizes the components which quality standards developed by each accreditation commissions and organizations included. Table 1. Components which quality standards include Type Organization Components. Learning Design The American Council on. Learner Support Educations (ACE) s. Organizational Commitment Guiding Principles for Distance. Learning Outcomes Learning in a Learning Society. Technology Accrediting Commissions State and Regional Organization Faculty The Western Cooperative for Education Telecommunications (WCET) s Best Practices For Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) Electronic Campus Middle State Association of Colleges and Schools Guidelines for Distance Learning Program An Emerging Set of Guiding Principles and Practices. Institutional Context and Commitment. Curriculum and Instruction. Faculty support. Student support. Evaluation and Assessment. Curriculum and Instruction. Institutional Context and Commitment. Evaluation and Assessment. Mission, Education Program and Curricula. Students. Faculty. Library and Learning Resources. Effectiveness and Outcomes. Organization, Planning, and Human Resources. Facilities, Equipment, and other Resources. Learning Goals and Content presentation. Interactions. Assessment and Measurement. Institutional Media and Tools. Learner Support and Services 89

Professional Organizations The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) s Distance Education: Guidelines for Good Practice the National Education Association (NEA)- the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) s Quality On The Line, American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC) s Guiding principles for Distance Learning. Faculty s retaining academic control. Course design shaped to the potentials of the medium.. Students understanding course requirements and its preparing. Close personal interaction. Class size s setting through normal faculty channels. Experimentation with a broad variety of subjects. Providing of Equivalent research opportunities and advisement opportunities. Comparable student assessment. Evaluation of distance coursework at all levels. Institutional Support. Course Development. Teaching/Learning. Course Structure. Student Support. Faculty Support. Evaluation and Assessment. Design for active and effective learning. Support the needs of learners. Develop and maintain the technological and human infrastructure. Sustain administrative and organizational Commitment 3. 1. Accrediting Commissions Accrediting commissions have been studying how to address distance learning for several years, and many have drawn upon the guidelines developed by one of two organizations: the American Council on Educations (ACE) and the Western Cooperative for Education Telecommunications (WCET). The American Council on Education's Guiding Principles for Distance Learning in a Learning Society (ACE, 1996), developed by a national task force, presents recommendations regarding learning design, student support, organizational commitment, learning outcomes, and technology which it believes can be implemented by institutions of higher education and others. Best Practices For Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs (WCET, 2002) were initially drafted by the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications under the title "Some principles of good practice for the virtual university" (Johnstone & Krauth, 1996) and subsequently further developed by the eight regional accrediting commissions. 3. 2. State and Regional Organization Other organizations at the state and regional level have also developed quality assurance guidelines for post-secondary distance education. The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) has set forth principles of good practice that colleges and universities participating in its Electronic Campus are expected to uphold. SREB's Electronic Campus (SREB, 2001) was established "to help students find and enroll in high-quality courses and programs at colleges and universities in SREB states" (Southern Regional Education Board). Its Principles of Good Practices is based in part upon the 1996 WICHE principles. 3. 3. Guidelines for Distance Learning Program Guidelines for Distance Learning Program developed by the Commission on Higher Education, Middle State Association of Colleges and Schools (1997) are organized under a broader range of categories. The categories under which the Middle State Association has organized the guidelines are Mission, Education Program and Curricula; Students; Faculty; Library and Learning Resources; 90

Quality Assurance for Online Programs SOOK-YOUNG CHOI, SEONG-HUN AHN Effectiveness and Outcomes; Organization, Planning, and Human Resources; Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources; Catalog, Publication, and Promotional Materials, and Intellectual Properties. 3. 4. Faculty Faculty members at many different colleges and universities have also addressed the issue of quality assurance in distance education. In "Good Teaching Is Good Teaching," Ragan (1999) describes a three-year project launched in 1995 in which a set of principles and practices for distance education was developed. An Emerging Set of Guiding Principles and Practices was the result of collaboration of faculty from three universities engaged in distance education. Like many of the other sets of guidelines, particular attention was paid to how interaction between teachers and students was managed and how outcomes were assessed. 3. 5. Professional Organizations Members of professional organizations have also been concerned with the issue of quality in distance education. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) presents a set of guidelines for good practice in Distance Education: Guidelines for Good Practice (AFT, 2000) which is based in part upon survey responses by 200 AFT members who are practitioners of distance education. Compared to other guidelines, the AFT guidelines focus somewhat more upon the roles of faculty and students and issues concerning them. Like the AFT, the National Education Association (NEA) has been active in distance education policy debates in recent years. In conjunction with Blackboard Inc., the NEA commissioned the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) to conduct a study to determine whether existing distance education guidelines and principles were applicable to internet-based education. The results of the study are reported by Phipps and Merisotis in Quality On The Line (IHEP, 2000) which presents the final 24 benchmarks deemed essential to ensure quality in Internet-based education. The American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC) has listed its distance education guidelines in its document ADEC Guiding principles for Distance Learning (2002). The document categorizes the guidelines under four headings- Design for active and effective learning, Support the needs of learners, Develop and maintain the technological and human infrastructure, and Sustain administrative and organizational commitment. These four broad guiding principles are further detailed into many specific requirements. 4. Literature review on quality standards There seems to be no united approach to define the quality of online learning and to derive quality standards. According to Twigg (2001b), regional accrediting bodies have varying levels of specifications when it comes to defining high quality distance learning. Institutions and state systems are devising their own standards based on their reading of the accrediting bodies, the literature and so on. Novak (2002) claimed that whereas there is some consensus about what constitutes quality in distance education, there is also significant divergence that is directly related to the specific interests of the various stakeholders, with other stakeholders having suggested quality benchmarks from their own perspectives. Parker (2003) argued that many quality management initiatives fail because they lack a consistent and comprehensible measurement of the learning outcomes. Parker also contended that the effectiveness of articulated educational goals must be seen as an important means to align course, program, and institutional goals. Damme (2002) observed that quality assurance for distance education has been an important topic in discussions and conferences worldwide. Nevertheless, one has to recognize that borderless higher education and virtual higher education are still not covered to the same extent and thoroughness by formal quality assurance system as are those of the traditional delivery mode. After reviewing the existing quality guidelines, Mariasingam (2005) pointed out that there are gaps; that most of the quality guidelines do not cover all the requirements of comprehensive quality assurance. In addition, he stated that quality aspects that are common to traditional education and 91

distance education, and aspects which are specific to distance education and online education should be included in any quality assessment scheme for distance education. Although the literature regarding online education is expanding, a more in-depth and broader review of the factors that may lead to quality online education is needed (Meyer, 2002). Furthermore, in order to have an effective quality assurance model for online learning, studies on student s perception on quality issues should be conducted. Without considering the learners perspective, it may be difficult to bring a positive outcome in the on-line learning environment (Yang, 2006). It is accreditation s function to evaluate and approve the educational process. This process should be dynamic in order to be responsive to the changing needs of the field, similarly accreditation standards must also change (Swail & Kampits, 2001). The educational demands of the future, especially relative to the workforce needs, will not be satisfied by yesterday s solutions. Likewise, benchmarks developed for today will need to be constantly reviewed for appropriateness and modified as needed (Novak, 2002). Accrediting agencies, therefore, periodically have to revise the standards. The need to be compliant with the standards in order to get accreditation would compel institutions to have ongoing assessments and hence continual improvement of the quality in online learning. 5. Quality assurance in online education To maintain an effective and high-quality online learning offering, programs need to shift from teaching-centered perspective to learning-centered education. Learning should to some extent be determined by the learner, not the instructor or institution. It thus needs to encourage a focus on student motivation and learning outcomes, rather than concentrating on teaching inputs. Thus, the teacher s role would become one of coach rather than an instructor. The teacher would facilitate students learning at the meta-cognitive level, rather than providing solutions to students problems. For student motivation, an effective design of instructor- student interaction, and student -content interaction would be essential. Thus, various levels of interaction should be considered when developing online courses. In addition, course technology should be appropriately used to enrich instruction and foster learner interactivity. On-line instructors need to be more deliberate and structure delivery around communication between the instructor and the student. Furthermore, there would be a need for the learning materials to be designed to foster collaborative learning and to facilitate formation of learning communities on the Web. Meanwhile, providing appropriate learning materials to students would also be critical for quality assurance. Learning materials would need to be organized so that students could be easily accessible as needed. As the learning materials, current information of the subject matter would need to be provided and to be regularly updated. In addition, they would need to reflect a rich variety of perspective to give students the opportunity to judge the merit of different positions. Developing high quality learning content may be important for quality assurance. For effective planning and developing course content, it would be important to provide a workable set of guidelines in the development of online course across the institution. In addition, after course content is developed, discussions and reviews of the course content by peers would be an invaluable quality assurance process. Faculties responsible for online learning may need to devise and implement continuous review processes for quality assurance. 6. Conclusion The need for determining and maintaining quality in the process of designing, developing and delivering online courses is becoming an important issue for universities and institutions worldwide. Teaching online may be a different process to conventional teaching, involving possible changes to pedagogy and teaching practice such as learner-centered education and collaborative learning. Accordingly, quality assurance appropriately reflecting characteristics of online learning would have to be considered. This article reviewed the existing quality standards. While there is some consensus among the guidelines on quality, there seems to be no united standards. Thus, there is a need to develop a comprehensive unified set of quality standards that would be applicable to online learning programs. 92

Quality Assurance for Online Programs SOOK-YOUNG CHOI, SEONG-HUN AHN However, it is noteworthy that the topic of quality assurance in distance education is an evolving issue that will require continued attention by all parties concerned about higher education. 7. References [1] ADEC (American Distance Education Consortium). (2003). ADEC guiding principles for distance teaching and learning. Retrieved Jun 3, 2006, from http://www.adec.edu/admin/papers/distanceteaching_principles.html [2] AFT (American Federation of Teachers) (2000). Distance education: Guidelines for good practice. Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved Jun 3, 2006, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/higher_ed/distance.pdf [3] ACE (American Council on Education). (1996). Distance learning evaluation guide. Washington, D.C.: Author. [4] Anderson, T. D., & Elloumi, F. (2003). (Eds.). Theory and Practice of online learning. Retrieved Jun 3, 2006, from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ [5] Bourne, J., & Moore, J.C. (2004). Elements of Quality Online Education: Into the Mainstream. The Sloan Consortium: Needham, MA. Retrieved Jun 3, 2006, from http://www.sloanc.org/publications/books/vol5summary.pdf [6] Cavanaugh, C. (2002). Distance education quality: Success factors for resources, practices and results. Jacksonville, FL : Ideal Group. [7] CHEA (Council for Higher Education Accreditation). (2002). Accreditation and assuring quality in distance learning. CHEA Monograph Series 2002, Number 1. Retrieved Jun 3, 2006, from http://www.chea.org/research/accred-distance-5-9-02.pdf [8] Commission on Higher Education. (1997). Guidelines for Distance Learning Programs, Philadelphia, PA: Middle State Association of Colleges and Schools. [9] Damme, D. V. (2002). Quality assurance in an international environment: National and international interests and tensions. In International quality review: Values opportunities, and issues. 3-17. Washington, D.C.: Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) [10] Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections: Issues in building quality online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3). Retrieved Jun 3, 2006, http://www.ct4me.net/building_online_courses.htm [11] Fountain, S. (2007). An investigation into quality assurance in Internet-based education as defined by higher education organizations. Unpublished dissertation. Capella University. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://0- proquest.umi.com. novacat.nova.edu/ [12] IHEP (Institute of Higher Education Policy). (2000). Quality on the line: benchmarks for success in Internet-base distance education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Accreditation. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from http://www.ihep.org/organizations.php3?action=printcontentitem&o rgid=104&typeid=906&itemid=9239 [13] Johnstone, S. M., & Krauth, B. (1996). Some principles of good practice for the virtual university. Change, 28(2), 23-26. [14] Mariasingam, M. (2005). Quality criteria and benchmarks for online degree programs. Unpublished dissertation. The University of Wisconsin Madison. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://0- proquest.umi.com. novacat.nova.edu/ [15] Meyer, K.A. (2002). Qaulity in distance education : focus on online learning. ASHE ERIC Education Report. 29(4). San Francisco :Jossey-Bass [16] Moore, M. G.(1999). Monitoring and evaluation. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 1-5. [17] Novak, R.J. (2002). Benchmarking distance education. New Directions for Higher Education. 118, 79-92. [18] Oblinger, G. D., Barone, A. C., & Hawkins, L. B. (2001). Distributed education: Challenges, choices, and a new environment for the American Council on Education. American Council on Education. [19] Parker, N. K. (2003). The quality dilemma in online education. In T.D.Anderson & F.Elloumi (Eds.) Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabascau University (pp. 385-421). Retrieved Jun 3, 2006, from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/pdf/tpol_chp16.pdf 93

[20] Ragan, L. C. (1999). Good Teaching is Good Teaching: An Emerging Set of Guiding Principles and Practices for the Design and Development of Distance Education., CAUSE/EFFECT journal 22(1). Retrieved Jun 3, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/cem/cem99/cem9915.html [21] Schrum, L., & Hong, S. (2002). Dimensions and strategies for online success: voices form experienced educators. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1). [22] Southern Regional Education Board.(2001). Principles of good practice. The foundation for quality of the electronic campus of the Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved Jun 3, 2006, from http://www.thelearningpassport.org/publications/principals_2004.pdf [23] Swail, W. S., & Kampits, E. (2001). Distance education and accreditation. In Lubinesscu, E. S., Ratcliff, J.L., & Gaffney, M. A. (Eds.), How Accreditation Influences Assessment New Directions for Higher Education (pp.35-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [24] Thompson, M. M., & Irele, M. E. (2003). Evaluating distance education programs. In M. Moore & G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 567-584). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [25] Twigg, C. A. (2001a). Quality assurance for whom? Providers and consumers in today's distributed learning environment. The PEW Learning and Technology Program, Center for Academic Transformation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved Jun 3, 2006, from http://www.center.rpi.edu/monographs/quality.html [26] Twigg, C. A. (2001b). Innovations in online learning: Moving beyond no significant difference. The PEW Learning and Technology Program, Center for Academic Transformation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved Jun 3, 2006, from http://www.center.rpi.edu/pewsym/mono4.html#anchor-preface-49575 [27] WCET (Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunication). (2002). Best practices for electronically offered degree and certificate programs. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from http://wiche.edu/telecom/accrediting%20-%20best%20practices.pdf [28] Yang, Y. (2006). An investigation on students' perceptions of online course quality and contributing factors for those perceptions. Unpublished dissertation. Mississippi State University. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://0-uest.umi.com. novacat.nova.edu/ 94