second in a series maintaining the delicate balance · 2019. 6. 5. · corporation. “distance”...

American Council on EducationCenter for Policy Analysis

SECOND IN A SERIES

Maintaining the DelicateBalance:

Judith S. Eaton

This paper is based on Distance Learning: Academic and Political Challenges for Higher Education Accreditation, by J.S. Eaton (Number 1 inCouncil for Higher Education Accreditation Monograph Series 2001), Washington, DC.

Distance Learning, HigherEducation Accreditation, and thePolitics of Self-Regulation

Copyright © 2002American Council on Education

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means elec-tronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing from the publisher.

American Council on EducationOne Dupont Circle NWWashington, DC 20036Fax: (202) 785-2990

Additional copies of this publication are available by sending a check or money order for $15 per copy,plus $6.95 shipping and handling (for orders of morethan one copy, call the number below), to the following address:

ACE Fulfillment ServiceDepartment 191Washington, DC 20055-0191Phone: (301) 632-6757Fax: (301) 843-0159

A free electronic version of this report is available through www.acenet.edu/bookstore

Distributed Education: Challenges, Choices, and a New Environment

For the American Council on Education:

Senior Vice President, Programs & Analysis

Michael A. Baer

Director, Center for Policy Analysis

Jacqueline E. King

Research Associate

Eugene Anderson

For EDUCAUSE:

President

Brian L. Hawkins

Vice President

Carole A. Barone

We are grateful to the AT&T Foundation, Accenture, and Compaq Corporation for their generous support of this series on distributed education.

Foreword v

Introduction 1

The Impact of Distance Learning 3

The Challenge of Distance Learning to Accreditation 5

Distance Learning and Familiar Political Understandings 7

Distance Learning, Federal Fund Availability, and Accreditation 9

Distance Learning and Protecting Students Through Expanded Public Information 11About Quality

Distance Learning and International Quality Assurance 13

References 15

Appendix A: 17Assuring Quality in Distance Learning

Appendix B: 2312 Important Questions About External Quality Review

Appendix C: 25Statement of Commitment by the Regional Accrediting Commissions for the Evaluation of Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs

Appendix D: 29Council for Higher Education Accreditation Fact Sheet #1: Overview of Accreditation

Appendix E: 33Council for Higher Education Accreditation Fact Sheet #2: The Role of Accreditation and Assuring Quality in Electronically Delivered Distance Learning

Appendix F: 37Principles for U.S. Accreditors Working Internationally: Accreditationof Non-U.S. Institutions and Programs

About the Author 39

Table of Contents

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n / E D U C A U S E V

aintaining the Delicate Balance: Distance Learning, Higher Education Accreditation,and the Politics of Self-Regulation is the second monograph in a series of invited paperson distributed education commissioned by the American Council on Education (ACE)

and EDUCAUSE. Accreditation and federal support of higher education are based on a traditional model of

education with students and a faculty member in a classroom. Distance education offers a newmodel of higher education that is not site-based. This paper describes the challenge of regulatingdistance education providers and funding students who participate in distance education courses.The paper also examines two related areas in which the responsibilities of institutions and accredi-tors are growing because of distance learning: protecting students and the public against poor-quality higher education, and attending to quality in an increasingly internationalized highereducation marketplace.

The genesis of this series evolved from a design meeting held at ACE in spring 1999. Extensivediscussion and exploration of major issues led to a partnership with EDUCAUSE and a close working relationship with its president, Brian L. Hawkins, and vice president, Carole A. Barone.

This series, Distributed Education: Challenges, Choices, and a New Environment, has been sustained with generous support from the AT&T Foundation, Accenture, and the CompaqCorporation.

“Distance” or “distributed” learning raises a strategic and financial challenge for every type of higher education institution. Advancements in technology and expansion of markets for distrib-uted learning pose questions for college and university presidents, regardless of their institutionalmission. Our goal in this series is to provide presidents, provosts, and other senior decisionmakers with a sense of the landscape of technologically mediated education and the means tomake wise strategic choices.

Michael A. BaerSenior Vice President, Programs & Analysis

American Council on Education

Foreword

M

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n / E D U C A U S E 1

Introduction

he delicate balance of accreditation toassure quality in higher education,the self-regulation of higher educa-

tion institutions, and the availability of federalmoney to colleges and universities has beencentral to higher education for many years.However, the emergence of distance learning—the electronic delivery of higher educationdegrees, programs, courses, and services—hasthe potential to undo this balance and thepolitical understandings that accompany it. If this were to happen, 50 years of a productivearrangement between the federal governmentand higher education could be, at minimum,jolted.

This delicate balance rests, first and foremost, on government’s acceptance ofinstitutional and programmatic accreditationas a reliable affirmation of quality in highereducation. It is through the commitment toaccreditation that higher education claims itsself-regulation efforts are effective. For manyyears, the federal government has, by andlarge, accepted this claim for the predomi-nantly site-based activities of higher educa-tion. The federal government relies onaccredited status as a signal that institutionsand programs demonstrate sufficient qualityto warrant allocation of federal funds (e.g.,money for student grants and loans, research,and other federal programs). If accreditationwere perceived as failing to affirm quality, the

likely reaction would be a substantial increasein government regulation of higher educationand an erosion of its self-regulation status.

As distance learning activity expands anddiversifies, the federal government, as it hasdone in the case of site-based learning, is turning to accreditation to affirm that distancelearning providers are meeting quality expec-tations. Accreditation has emerged as a signifi-cant factor in maintaining the availability offederal funds in these distance learning envi-ronments and maintaining higher education’sindependence from government regulation.

This essay examines this delicate balance ofaccreditation, the federal government, and theself-regulation of higher education. It exploresthe challenge of distance learning and what isneeded to keep this balance in check. It brieflyaddresses two related areas in which theresponsibilities of institutions and accreditorsare growing because of distance learning: protecting students and the public againstpoor-quality higher education, and attendingto quality in the emerging internationalization of higher education. These areas, too, areaffecting the balance that needs to be maintained.

Accreditation has

emerged as a

significant factor

in maintaining the

availability of federal

funds in these distance

learning environments

and maintaining

higher education’s

independence from

government regulation.

T


The Impact of DistanceLearning

hether distance learning spellsthe end of traditional campuses,as some maintain, or whether dis-

tance learning instead represents a powerfuladdition to a growing array of delivery optionsfor higher education, its impact on higher edu-cation is great and growing. Distance learningis creating alternative models of teaching andlearning, new job descriptions for faculty, andnew types of higher education providers.

The most familiar impact of distance learning is the growth of credit-bearing distance learning offerings and enrollments at accredited, degree-granting colleges and universities. In the 1997–98 academic year, 1.6 million students were enrolled in 54,000 college-level, credit-bearing distance learningcourses in 1,680 degree-granting colleges anduniversities. These courses were deliveredelectronically, via television, or by mail (U.S.Department of Education, 1999). These offerings and enrollments are anticipated togrow dramatically. Dun and Bradstreet, forexample, estimates that the number of institu-tions offering distance learning programsnearly doubled in 1999 (Dun and Bradstreet,2000).

Another major impact of distance learningis the appearance of “new providers” of highereducation: freestanding online institutions,higher education consortia (degree-grantingand non–degree-granting), corporate universities, and unaffiliated online providers

of courses and programs. These new providersfall into the following categories:• New freestanding, degree-granting online

institutions: A small number of high-profilenew providers of distance learning—sometimes called “virtual universities.”These include degree-granting, nonprofitinstitutions and degree-granting, for-profitdistance learning providers.

• Degree-granting consortia: A network ofinstitutions from which students may selecta range of online courses and programs andearn a degree granted by the consortia.

• Non–degree-granting consortia: A networkof degree-granting institutions from whichstudents may select a range of online courses and programs but which requirethat students earn a degree from a memberinstitution.

• Corporate universities: Corporations thatmaintain private teaching and trainingenterprises initially enrolling employeesand, increasingly, enrolling outside cus-tomers as well. Many of these corporateuniversities are still site based, but they are moving quickly to online modes ofoperation.

• Unaffiliated providers of online programsand courses: Online courses and programsthat are not affiliated with any institution.These range from credit-bearing educa-tional activities to single-instance noncredit offerings (for example, a four-hour online seminar).

The most familiar

impact of distance

learning is the growth

of credit-bearing

distance learning

offerings and

enrollments at

accredited, degree-

granting colleges

and universities.

W

4 M a i n t a i n i n g t h e D e l i c a t e B a l a n c e

Both impacts—the development of distancelearning in traditional institutions and theemergence of electronically based newproviders—will continue to be with us in highereducation. However, a hybrid model of dis-tance learning likely will be increasingly com-mon in the foreseeable future. In this hybridmode, site-based and electronically deliveredinstruction and support services will beoffered together, whether from traditionalinstitutions or new providers. Today, studentsattend traditional campuses while takingcourses online. Faculty are designing teachingand learning environments that rely on bothface-to-face contact and online access.Institutions are offering courses, programs,and degrees that are site based, electronicallydelivered, and a combination of both.


The Challenge of DistanceLearning to Accreditation

* For a further discussion of these issues, see Distributed Learning and Its Challenges: An Overview (2001), the first paper in the

ACE/EDUCAUSE series, Distributed Learning: Challenges, Choices, and a New Environment.

istance learning is creating signifi-cant challenges for accreditationbecause accreditation values, poli-

cies, and practices were created in an era ofsite-based education. This has meant thataccreditors, and the faculty and administratorson review teams perform primarily site-basedtasks: visiting campuses, examining class-rooms, touring facilities, and, in general, scrutinizing the resources and capacity of anacademic community, especially the teachingand learning environment. Distance learninginvolves an alternative array of resources andcapacities such as electronic classrooms andcampuses. The educational environments thataccreditors observe are changing, as are thequestions that they need to ask.

Through electronic communication,remote access, and virtual faculty-student rela-tionships, distance learning goes to the heartof the higher education enterprise—teachingand learning. Accreditors are now called uponto review institutions and programs that rou-tinely involve three key components: • Computer-mediated classrooms: Faculty

and students engage with each other elec-tronically, relying heavily on the writtenword rather than face-to-face exchange.

• Separation in time between communica-tions: Teachers and students depend onasynchronous modes of communication,such as e-mail exchanges.

• Availability of online services: Student services such as advising, counseling, men-toring, and library services are integratedwith the online teaching and learning environment.*

Distance learning challenges accreditationby altering the traditional faculty role in highereducation, thus diminishing face-to-face con-tact with students. It may also alter the funda-mental intellectual tasks of faculty members.Some distance learning models, for example,separate curriculum design from curriculumdelivery, substituting standardized course con-tent for curricula designed by individual faculty members. Similarly, distance learningcan shift the responsibility for determiningacademic standards from faculty members tothe staff of corporate or other distance learning providers or standards may already beembedded in commercially prepared curricula.

Distance learning challenges accreditationby altering what we mean by “higher educa-tion institution,” replacing or augmenting lec-ture halls with chat rooms, campuses with theWorld Wide Web, and communities of learningwith the borderless networks of cyberspace. An“institution” no longer needs to be anchoredin physical space and time; it can exist any-where, anytime—a liberating notion, in onesense, but a notion that raises important ques-tions about whether the Internet can substi-

[D]istance learning

can shift the

responsibility for

determining academic

standards from faculty

members to the staff

of corporate or other

distance learning

providers.

D


tute for the campus as a supportive environ-ment for creative learning.

Distance learning challenges accreditationby altering what we mean by a college degree.Electronic access encourages and supportsmore mobile student behavior, allowing stu-dents to attend more than one institutioneither serially or simultaneously, online oronsite. The college degree, traditionally theculmination of a distinctive institutionallybased experience, is coming to represent a dif-ferent type of experience: the completion of anidiosyncratic amalgam of educational experi-ences selected by the student from a number ofunrelated institutions and delivered by a mixof technological as well as physical means.

These changes in faculty work, institution-al operation, and student behavior are puttingpressure on accreditors to undertake addition-al responsibilities. Their success in meetingthe challenge of assuring quality in distance

learning relies on the alacrity with which theyundertake certain tasks: • Identifying the distinctive features of dis-

tance learning delivery, whether withintraditional settings or supplied by newproviders.

• Modifying accreditation guidelines, poli-cies, or standards to assure quality withinthe distinctive environment of distancedelivery.

• Paying additional attention to studentachievement and learning outcomes in virtual or all-electronic distance learningenvironments where site-based features arenot present.

Distance learning

challenges

accreditation by

altering what we mean

by a college degree.


Distance Learning andFamiliar Political Understandings

ow is distance learning changingfamiliar political understandings?Until recently, most decisions by the

higher education community and the govern-ment about education quality and the use offederal funds were made primarily in the con-text of site-based education delivery. As withaccreditation, the site-based model of educa-tion was a given: Students, whether full- orpart-time, came to physical campuses, attendedclasses, and participated in other onsite activi-ties. Both the accountable use of student aidand other federal funds and the effectivenessof institutions in creating environments forstudent learning were assessed on the basis of the verifiable physical presence of studentsat verifiable physical locations over measur-able amounts of time. We knew how federalfunds were used, and we knew students werelearning because we could observe thesethings firsthand.

By contrast, distance learning creates anelectronically based environment for highereducation that is not entirely, and sometimesnot at all, dependent on physical presence andphysical space. This sounds simple—merely ashift from physical space to cyberspace. Butjust as electronic technology is profoundlyaffecting other sectors and issues—from retail-ing to intellectual property rights to healthcare—distance learning also is powerfullyaffecting the foundations on which the under-standing between government and higher edu-cation was built. For both parties to this

understanding, the safety and familiarity ofphysical site and presence is being replacedwith the uncertainty and the unknown of theelectronic environment.

Three issues concern the federal govern-ment as this shift is taking place: • Can the federal funds be delivered in a dis-

tance learning environment—i.e., can fraudand abuse be avoided? (This is also a con-cern for state governments, which are pri-marily responsible for consumer protectionthrough the licensing of private collegesand universities and through the authoriza-tion of public institutions.)

• Can accreditation continue to be reliedupon to assure quality in a distance learningenvironment, or will alternative forms ofquality review be needed?

• And, more broadly, can the federal govern-ment remain comfortable with the principle of self-regulation in higher edu-cation as distance learning expands, or aremore government controls needed?

The future of higher education and thepolitical understanding between quality andthe use of federal funds depend on the answersto these three questions.

With respect to the safe delivery of federalfunds, the government needs to be confidentthat student aid dispensed in distance learningsettings is going to students who actually par-ticipate in courses and programs. Governmentneeds the cooperation of higher education tostop distance learning providers who would

[T]he government

needs to be confident

that student aid

dispensed in distance

learning settings is

going to students who

actually participate in

courses and programs.

H


exploit students seeking higher education byoffering credentialing opportunities over theInternet that are “too good to be true”—opportunities that may involve high tuitioncosts to be covered, in part, by federal funds.Government needs assistance from highereducation as it seeks to protect students fromfly-by-night distance learning providers, whoare present one day and disappear the next.

In terms of accreditation and self-regulation, government needs the accredita-tion community to assure that it can continueto review and promote quality in higher educa-tion, even in the face of significant academicchanges driven by distance learning, and stu-dent aid grants and loans will purchase aquality educational experience in a distanceenvironment. Government is keenly awarethat distance learning is exerting pressure onthe accreditation community to expand andmodify its site-based model of quality and self-regulation and is watching carefully to see howsuccessfully accreditors and the institutionsthey review respond to this challenge.

Government officials have legitimate andimportant concerns about the impact of dis-tance learning. We in the higher educationcommunity—whether institutional or accredi-tation leaders—have an obligation to acknowl-edge the implications of distance learning forour political understandings with governmentabout public funding and about quality.Nurturing and, if necessary, adjusting thesepolitical understandings to prevent their disruption amidst a changing educationalenvironment are essential to preserving self-regulation and institutional autonomy.


Distance Learning, Federal FundAvailability, and Accreditation

nstitutions, accreditors, and governmentcan work together profitably to addressthe potential impact of distance learning

on accreditation and availability of federalfunds—and the creative tension that this causes.Several issues to be pursued are:• Defining the term “course”: “Course” has

traditionally referred to a three-credit offering(or variations such as two or more credits)that is part of a curriculum. This credit maynot count toward a degree. “Course” alsohas come to refer to offerings that are notpart of a curriculum and do not carry cred-it. Distance learning creates tension byrapidly increasing the number of coursesthat are not part of a curriculum, do notcarry credit, and do not lead to a degree.

• Measuring time: “Time” traditionally hasreferred to the period students spend in aclassroom or studying. The government hasrequired evidence of time spent in theclassroom or studying to allow students toreceive federal student aid. Distance learningcreates tension by not always allowing formeasuring time in the same manner—students may not be in physical classrooms,and what is considered “studying” may bedefined differently from 10 years ago.

• Documenting student learning outcomes:Accreditors traditionally have been used tousing grades to describe how well studentshave learned. Distance learning createstension by emphasizing competencies aswell as grades: Direct access to informationabout student performance supersedes fac-ulty judgment in the form of grades.

• Changing student attendance patterns:Student attendance at primarily one institu-tion (whether full-time or part-time) isyielding to student attendance patterns thatinclude attendance at more than one insti-tution to obtain a degree. Distance learningcreates tension because it is an importantenabler of these new attendance patterns.

The federal government has published tworeports to help attract additional attention tothe above issues and to the tensions that dis-tance learning introduces. These reportsframe some of the questions that must beaddressed to preserve political understandingsand the delicate balance between higher edu-cation and the government. Both reportsaddress distance learning: One focuses on distance learning and student aid availability,and the other specifically addresses distancelearning and its relation to accreditation(among other issues).

The Report to Congress on the DistanceEducation Demonstration Program (U.S.Department of Education, 2001) raises impor-tant core questions about student aid avail-ability, including some of the issues discussedalready. The report details the work to date inthe Distance Education DemonstrationProgram authorized by the 1998 amendmentsto the federal 1965 Higher Education Act. Thefocus of the demonstration program is todevelop effective means to provide student aidwhile assuring quality, emphasizing studentachievement, and preventing fraud and abusein distance learning environments. The first

Distance learning

creates tension by

rapidly increasing

the number of

courses that are not

part of a curriculum,

do not carry credit,

and do not lead

to a degree.

I

1 0 M a i n t a i n i n g t h e D e l i c a t e B a l a n c e

phase of the demonstration program involvedeight institutions, five systems, and two con-sortia for a total of 111 institutions offeringelectronically based distance learning. The keyto the program’s success will be determininghow the lessons learned can be translated intopractices and expectations in distance learningthat will help preserve the autonomy of institutions.

The report offers for consideration a “student-based” delivery system for student aid—payingmore attention to the student and giving lessattention to the means by which an educationalexperience is provided (e.g., whether the expe-rience is site based or distance based). In astudent-based system, the governing assump-tion that federal funds must be tied to site-based education would be broken. This isbecause a student-based system removes fromconsideration the issue of how higher educa-tion is delivered.

The report offers the following questionsfor consideration:• Should federal policy distinguish among

various means of delivering education?• Should federal requirements to receive

student aid change?• Should current federal rules that treat

“correspondence students” (primarily students who rely on education throughreceiving print materials via mail) differ-ently be retained?

• Are there viable alternatives to the federalgovernment’s current manner of measuringinstruction that relies on time spent in theclassroom or studying?

How we choose to answer the questionsraised in the report can fashion student aidavailability in the future as well as sculpt thefederal government’s expectations of accredi-tation in a distance learning environment.

The second report, The Power of theInternet for Learning: Moving from Promise to Practice (Web-based Education Commission,2000), examines distance learning and its

impact on education at all levels. Among otherissues, this report specifically addresses therelationship between distance learning and theresponsibility of higher education to assurequality through accreditation.

The Web-based Commission report speaksto the importance of voluntary accreditationto assure quality control of web-based learningand, among other tasks, calls upon the accred-itation community to do several things:• Determine whether new accreditation stan-

dards and policies are needed.• Assist colleges and universities as these

institutions develop web-based learning.• Improve capacity for course accreditation

in addition to program and institutionalaccreditation.

The commission report also urges thataccreditors and institutions pay much greaterattention to student learning outcomes inaddition to looking at education resources andcapacity. The report urges attention to much-needed consumer information that assists stu-dents in making judgments about the qualityof institutions and programs based on, amongother factors, accredited status.

Both reports affirm that changes broughtabout by distance learning will need to bematched by changes in student aid policy andaccreditation if we are to maintain our delicatebalance. This means addressing the key fea-tures of student aid decisions and rethinkingsome accreditation procedures and practices.Adjusting political understandings will requireattention to how distance learning affects thefundamental building blocks of federal policyrelated to student aid and accreditation. It willrequire attention to issues such as definition of course, the notion of time, and the role ofstudent outcomes. This must be accompaniedby attention to how well accreditation sustainsrigorous scrutiny of quality.

he issue of sound consumer informa-tion and protecting students frompoor-quality education is a growing

dimension of the delicate balance of accredita-tion, availability of federal funds, and self-regulation—especially for accreditors. In theface of new providers and new forms of deliv-ery that are diversifying higher education, gov-ernment has a growing interest in the capacityof higher education to provide more compre-hensive and detailed information about qualityto serve the public interest. With 70 percent ofhigh school graduates attending some form ofpostsecondary education, public interest inthe effectiveness of colleges and universities,as well as the value that institutions provide inreturn for tuition fees that they charge, is high.More and better information about quality isessential.

Traditional providers of higher educationfulfill this responsibility in part by pointing totheir reputations as highly effective collegesand universities. The accredited status of theinstitution and its various programs also areimportant pieces of information for the public.Additionally, institutions provide informationabout graduation rates, retention and attritionof students, transfer rates, and other indicatorsof the ways in which they add value.

“New” providers of higher education havea trickier assignment. Many have shorter his-tories of service and cannot rely as easily onthe reputations of their institutions. Like theircounterparts with greater longevity, they arebuilding reputations for quality over time.

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n / E D U C A U S E 1 1

Distance Learning and ProtectingStudents Through Expanded PublicInformation About Quality

T Some may choose to become accredited as anindicator of quality; others may not. Some pro-vide documentation of student competenciesgained through attendance in courses and programs.

The accrediting community has an equallychallenging assignment. The public increas-ingly views accreditors as responsible for pro-viding more and more explicit informationabout not only the quality of traditional institu-tions but also that of new providers, accreditedor unaccredited. More and more frequently,the public calls upon accreditors to answerstraightforward questions such as “Is this aquality institution or not?” “What does youraccreditation guarantee?” “What is yourprocess for determining quality and how can I have confidence in it?” Students and the public want a blueprint that is easy to follow,some guidance on how to reach quick, reliablejudgments about quality in traditional and newsettings—what to examine, whom to contact,and how to make comparisons.

Traditional institutions, new providers,and accreditors will need to take additionalsteps to make more information readily avail-able and understandable to students.

Accreditors need to: • Expand the information they provide to

students and the public, especially bydeveloping strategies that make their spe-cific judgments about quality more explicitto answer the questions above.

• Assure easier availability and clearerdescriptions about what accreditation guarantees and what it does not.

The public increasingly

views accreditors

as responsible for

providing more and

more explicit

information about not

only the quality of

traditional institutions

but also that of new

providers, accredited

or unaccredited.


• Develop more comprehensive efforts toeducate the public about the importance ofthe role of accreditation in our society.

• Strengthen communication about qualityamong accreditors and with those whoundertake alternative forms of externalquality review of education and training(e.g., certification boards).

Institutions need to:• Develop additional strategies to share more

detailed information about institutionaleffectiveness as defined by student successand achievement (e.g., competenciesgained, transfer success, entry to graduateschool, employment).

• Rely more extensively on the quality of stu-dent performance to help students and thepublic make judgments about overall insti-tutional performance and quality.

Distance learning creates pressure to repo-sition accreditation as a source of informationabout quality. The type of information that stu-dents, the public, and government want fromaccreditation is shifting toward more explicityes or no responses to whether accreditationassures quality. This is a move away fromaccreditation judgments that traditionally have functioned more as diagnoses to improvequality rather than as either-or statements.Without these yes or no responses, studentsand others will turn to other sources—includinggovernment, the media, or the business sector—to obtain what they need to know aboutquality. The reputation and seriousness ofhigher education are at risk, and as accredi-tors, we have a responsibility to reach beyondthe institutions we serve to respond to publicneed.

Distance learning

creates pressure to

reposition accreditation

as a source of

information about

quality.

nother emerging dimension of the delicate balance is the interna-tionalizing of higher education—

accommodating the growing number ofstudents who cross national boundaries in pur-suit of higher education, the faculty willing topursue scholarly interests wherever in theworld these interests might lead, and institu-tions and programs seeking to expand theirpresence beyond their home countries. Thisinternationalization is adding to the tasks ofaccreditors in the United States and thoseengaged in quality assurance in other coun-tries. Effective management of internationalquality assurance likely will be required ofaccreditors as part of maintaining the delicatebalance.

Today’s discussion of international qualityassurance cannot take place without attentionto the growth of distance learning, with manycountries around the world using distancelearning technologies to enlarge their owncourse, program, and degree offerings and toimport and export education programs andservices. Countries such as India and SouthAfrica are heavy importers of distance learningprograms as they seek to expand educationalopportunities for their own citizens. China,Thailand, and Japan employ distance learningtechnologies to develop their own programsand degrees, bolstering their existing highereducation systems. Western and EasternEuropean countries are struggling to deter-mine what place, if any, distance learningproviders have alongside their traditional edu-cation providers. The United States, Australia,


Distance Learning and International Quality Assurance

A and the United Kingdom are major exportersof higher education through electronic technology.

Several fundamental questions about qualityassurance and accreditation have emerged inthe international arena:• What controls over higher education

imports do receiving countries need? Whatstrategies do these countries need toemploy to assure that they are importingquality higher education?

• What controls over higher educationexports do sending countries need? Howcan the United States, as a major exporterof higher education, assure that receivingcountries have full and useful informationabout the quality of higher education thatis exported?

• Do we need a global ethic to buttress theimport and export of higher education? Isthere a needed ethos to guide countries inthe exchange of higher education that willassure quality and protect the public? Or isthe market—viewed by some as a powerfultool to eliminate poor quality—enough?

To date, there are few internationalanswers for these important questions.However, a robust international quality assur-ance conversation is underway that involvesconsideration of several potential solutions:• A Bilateral Agreement Solution: Countries

engaged in significant import or export ofhigher education with each other enter intoquality assurance agreements. The solution

Effective

management of

international quality

assurance likely will

be required of

accreditors as part

of maintaining the

delicate balance.


would likely involve many such agree-ments; some worry about whether a largenumber of bilateral agreements makessense.

• An International Standards Solution:Countries around the world come togetherto develop a single set of internationalquality assurance standards by which allcountries will abide as a framework for theimport or export of higher education.

• A Market Solution: Countries rely on com-petition among different institutions andprograms to assure quality. The premisehere is that poor-quality institutions wouldnot be able to compete against better-quality institutions, and that the formerwould be weeded from the landscape.

• A World Trade Organization (WTO)Solution: Countries would rely on theframework of the liberalization of trade and services, including higher education,currently being explored by the WTO.National and institutional discretion aboutimport and export would be honored, butwithin an international regulatory frame-work.

Some highly effective international agree-ments already exist. The Washington Accordfor Engineering is one example. Others, suchas the European “Accreditation Scheme” pro-posal, are under active discussion. Someplaces, such as Hong Kong, have developedcomprehensive review practices for the importof higher education. In the United States,national, regional, and specialized accreditorsare actively engaged in the expansion of theirinternational activity, and the Council forHigher Education Accreditation, the national

coordinating body for U.S. accreditation, isbeginning to look at principles or good prac-tices that might govern the conduct of U.S.accreditors abroad. This would influence the exporting behavior of U.S. colleges anduniversities.

None of these solutions, however, fullyaddresses the question of a global ethos forhigher education. An international conversa-tion about quality review and the role of themarket should result in an international commitment that higher education is a publicgood that cannot be left solely to competitionfor students and money. There is an interna-tional public interest that higher educationmust serve.

* * *The delicate balance of accreditation, the

availability of federal money, and the self-regulation of colleges and universities willrequire careful attention in the future.Distance learning, by altering the academicwork of colleges and universities, is alteringthe responsibilities of accreditors and theexpectations of government about whataccreditation should do to assure quality.Accreditors are challenged to respond effec-tively to changes in government expectations.Absent government’s confidence in accredita-tion to assure quality, this delicate balance willbe undermined and the self-regulation of col-leges and universities will be at risk.

An international

conversation about

quality review and the

role of the market

should result in

an international

commitment that higher

education is a public

good that cannot be left

solely to competition

for students and money.


References

“Dun and Bradstreet Report Shows Shift Toward Distance Ed.” InFocus 5 (May/June 2000): 1, 6.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Distance Education atPostsecondary Education Institutions, 1997-98. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation, 1999.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Report to Congress onthe Distance Education Demonstration Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation, 2001.

Web-based Education Commission to the President and the Congress of the United States. ThePower of the Internet for Learning: Moving from Promise to Practice. Washington, DC: Web-based Education Commission, 2000.


Appendix AAssuring quality in distance learning*

Recommendations and Next StepsThis paper provides background informationand analyses to help frame approaches to quality assurance in distance learning pro-grams. Much more remains to be done to gather more complete information about dis-tance learning programs, and considerableattention needs to be paid to strengtheningpolicies and procedures for quality assurance.The pace at which institutions are moving intotechnology-mediated learning is remarkable.A continuing policy development and researchagenda must proceed at the same rate, or quality control for distance learning could bebypassed altogether. Such a turn of eventscould further degrade public perceptionsabout the meaning of a college degree, andincrease potential for consumer fraud andabuse.

To aid in the development of this policyand research agenda, we conclude with somesuggestions for next steps, including:• A policy agenda for academic accredita-

tion;• Options for federal policy development;

and• Topics requiring additional research and

analysis.

A Policy Agenda for Academic AccreditationThe accreditation model remains a viable andeffective means for public quality assurance indistance learning. The research conducted forthis paper shows that the core processes of set-ting and measuring standards can work effec-tively in distance learning settings. If thedecision is made by states or the federal gov-ernment to increase public financial supportfor technology-mediated learning—includingTitle IV financial aid—the accreditation role inthe triad of quality assurance remains an effec-tive means to assure quality for purposes ofpublic accountability.

Yet accreditation is challenged by distancelearning to adapt standards that are rigorous,to be prepared to re-evaluate traditionalprocesses, to be open to alternatives, and toprovide public evidence of measures of perfor-mance against the standards. It also mustengage in public discussion about fundamentalquestions regarding the purpose and values of higher education, particularly in degree-granting collegiate programs.

We believe there are central threshold ques-tions about the core qualities of collegiatehigher education, and the meaning of a collegedegree, which accreditors have long struggledwith and which have new urgency because ofdistance learning. They include questionsabout the core curriculum, and what learningexperiences are necessary for the college

*Source: Phipps, R. A., Wellman, J. V., and Merisotis, J. P. 1998. Assuring quality in distance learning. Washington, DC: Council forHigher Education Accreditation. Note: References can be found in original document.


becoming increasingly important (and somewould say imperative) for institutions partici-pating in distance learning to identify a clearlyunderstood set of outcomes, especially studentknowledge, skills, and competency levels.Once these student learning outcomes areidentified, reliable and valid methods for mea-suring their achievement should be developed.

Require providers to substantiate evidence ofcontact between faculty and students.

Faculty contact in and out of class is veryimportant in student motivation and involve-ment. The concern of faculty often helps stu-dents get through rough times and continuetheir studies. Faculty contact—a primarydimension of interactivity—is a common element to student academic success; the moreinteractive the instruction, the more effectivethe learning outcome is likely to be (Sumler &Zirkin, 1995). The key ingredients appear tobe the availability of the instructor—whetherthrough direct person-to-person contact orthrough electronic means—and the intellectualengagement of the student, regardless of themethod utilized. Evidence of substantial inter-activity between students and faculty should beexpected even in situations without full-timeor conventional faculty. The issues of core faculty and the faculty role in governance areimportant but separate considerations.

Require evidence of effective instructional techniques.

There is a substantial body of research evidence relating to effective instruction, andinstitutions participating in distance learningshould embrace these techniques. Theyinclude:

Modular Learning: Individualized instruc-tional approaches that “emphasize small,modularized units of content, mastery of oneunit before moving to the next, immediate andfrequent feedback to students on theirprogress, and active student involvement inthe learning process are consistently effective

degree to be awarded. They also require clarityabout the role of the faculty as professionals inthe institution, with delegated authority overcentral issues like admissions criteria, studentevaluation, and the curriculum. This issue isone of both governance and central educa-tional purpose in a collegiate degree-grantinginstitution. Another concern is whether thereare minimum requirements for studentinvolvement in an intellectual community asan element of the collegiate learning experi-ence, and the prominence of the accultura-tion, personal skills, and values developmentas central qualities of higher education. Thisissue concerns minimum expectations for timewith others in debate, questioning, give andtake, and the like. Physical time in a classroomneed not be the only—and may not be the best—way to meet these goals; community service orwork-study requirements may be alternativeways to achieve them.

Distance learning substitutes traditionalcommunity-based approaches to teaching andlearning with new kinds of “virtual” commu-nities. Moving into a non-institutionally basedmodel of teaching and learning means thatnew ways to validate quality must be found thatfocus on effectiveness in achieving learninggoals and outcomes. To do this requires bothadapting traditional standards to sharpen thefocus on teaching and learning, and providingto the public evidence of effectiveness in meeting goals.

In addition to posing these threshold ques-tions about values and governance, we offerthe following specific recommendations forsteps that need to be undertaken by the accreditation community:

Establish reliable and valid performance measurements for distance learning.

Almost two decades ago, Howard Bowen(1980) observed that in higher education, trueoutcomes in the form of learning and personaldevelopment of students are on the whole unexamined and only vaguely discerned. It is


in enhancing subject matter learning overmore traditional learning formats such as lec-ture and recitation” (Pascarella & Terenzini,1991).

Collaboration: Learning is enhancedthrough cooperation and reciprocity amongstudents. The learning process involves collab-oration and a social context, where workingtogether helps each student. Sharing ideas in agroup setting improves thinking and deepensunderstanding. Study groups, collaborativelearning, group problem solving, and discus-sion of assignments can be dramaticallystrengthened through technology-mediatedlearning (Chickering & Ehremann, 1996).

Varied Learning Styles: Students learn inmany different ways and bring to the learningactivity varied talents and experiences.Technology has the enormous potential toenable students to learn in a variety of ways.Technology-mediated learning can providedramatic visuals and well-organized printedinformation, encourage self-reflection andself-evaluation, encourage collaboration andgroup problem solving, and create tasksrequiring analysis, synthesis, and evaluation(Chickering & Ehremann, 1996).

Promote systematic efforts for selecting andtraining faculty.

Not every faculty member will have theskills and temperament for technology-mediated learning. In addition to careful selec-tion of faculty members, proper training withrespect to learner needs and the use of tech-nology is essential. Training needs to be con-tinuous because of the changing requirementsof technology. Furthermore, an integratedteam, such as computer service technicians,counselors, site administrators, distributionclerks, and library resource personnel, is needed to support faculty efforts (Commissionon Higher Education, March 1997).

Assure the availability of learning resources. Libraries and learning resources are being

transformed by technology. The rapid pace ofreplacing traditional libraries and resourcecenters with computer networks and onlineretrieval systems requires that students, faculty, staff, and administrators be providedongoing orientation and training sessions foraccessing information.

Promote ongoing monitoring and enhancementof the technology infrastructure of institutions.

In order to assure that students partici-pating in learning activities do not experienceinterruptions and/or problems in communica-tions, an institution’s technological infrastruc-ture needs to be monitored continually and,when appropriate, enhanced. Major compo-nents include expanded network capacity,addition of dial-in ports for remote access,enhancement of e-mail, file-serving and othercentralized services, creation of a softwarelibrary, and enhancement of network security.

Focus attention on the development of course-ware and the availability of information.

Courseware is, by and large, produced byfaculty on campus, commercial enterprises, ora combination of the two. Regardless of thesource of courseware development, the ulti-mate knowledge, skills, and competency levelscontained in the courseware should be deter-mined or approved by faculty possessing theappropriate academic and professional experi-ence. With respect to courseware developedcommercially, the institutions should validatethe academic quality of the materials andensure that the courseware is consistent withgoals and objectives of the institution’s cur-riculum. In addition, knowledge media arereplacing the professor as the student’s primarysource of information. Since faculty are nolonger the major source of information, of par-ticular importance is the ability of faculty toguide students through the morass of theInternet to verify the reliability of information.


Faculty also should be capable of identifying orcreating courseware that encourages interac-tivity, collaboration, and modular learningactivities, and evokes student motivation.

Examine alternatives to the traditional accreditation process.

The traditional accreditation process hasthree basic dimensions: the setting of stan-dards, the institutional self-study, and peerevaluation against those standards. Therequirements of distance learning suggest thatan alternative model, which is less process-driven and more oriented to public informa-tion about effectiveness in meeting standards,may be substituted. This is because many dis-tance learning programs—particularly the truly“virtual” universities—do not have the samecommunity of faculty and staff who worktogether on a daily basis who can easily cometogether and form review committees. Whilealternative configurations of committees couldbe established, including ones that confer by e-mail and conference call, the value added ofcommittee work in contrast to other means ofgathering information should be examined.

Options for Federal Policy Development As Congress approaches the reauthorization ofthe Higher Education Act, the question loomslarge of whether—and if so, how—the federalinstitutional and student financial need stan-dards should change to permit students in dis-tance learning environments to have access toTitle IV. There are a number of issues in thecurrent federal standards that appear to beparticularly problematic for distance learning,including:• The definition of “sites,” “branch cam-

puses,” and “locations,” and the require-ment that each site meet standards.

• Requirements for program length. Many of the new programs are offered in short-course formats, or are not time-specific atall.

• Standards for administrative capacity,including records management for finan-cial aid offices.

• Requirements for campus security, drugenforcement policies, and crime reporting,when no campus exists.

• The requirement that student credit isrecorded either in credit hours or clockhours.

• The requirement that students be enrolledat least six hours to be eligible to receiveaid. All other things being equal, therestriction against less-than-half-time students in Title IV could mean that thelarge majority of students in technology- mediated distance education programs arenot eligible for aid, since many of themenroll in only one course at a time.

• The measurement of student financialneed. Although the methodology for evalu-ating income and tuition charges may beadequate for students in these programs,the methodology for calculating studentexpense budgets—including living expenses, transportation and books—needs to be revisited.

It is easier to identify the regulatory barriersto distance learning than to know how theyshould be rewritten in a way that does notinvite a new spate of fraud in the aid programs.Some of these criteria—such as campus crimedata-gathering or the definitions of sites—might be easily changed. But other standardssuch as financial and administrative responsi-bility pose more difficult challenges. If enoughis not known about how to rework these provi-sions to accommodate distance learningproviders, without inviting new opportunitiesfor fraud, all of the aid programs could becomevulnerable. An alternative that might solve theproblem would be to create a new definition ofa “distance learning” institution in the law,and amend the “experimental sites” provisionin the law to extend Title IV eligibility to dis-tance learning institutions that are accredited

by a recognized accreditor but fail to meet fed-eral institutional eligibility standards. Theexperimental sites provision also would allowmonitoring and research to be done so thatmore appropriate standards can be written inthe future.

Issues for Further Research and Analysis Studying distance learning is somewhat likechasing quicksilver: the pace of change in thefield is so rapid—both because of changes intechnology and in the organizational arrange-ments for delivering it—that establishing asolid base of information will be a never-ending task. A research effort to obtain definitive information about the state of dis-tance learning is likely to be protracted andself-perpetuating, and could postponeprogress in developing appropriate oversightand quality control policies. Nevertheless,more information would be useful in someareas, both in developing appropriate over-sight policies and in knowing more about howdistance learning might be used as a substitutefor conventional higher education. Key ques-tions requiring further research and analysisinclude:• What are the demographic characteristics

of students now being served by distancelearning programs, and how does this com-pare to student characteristics for conven-tional institutional programs?

• What can we generalize about the matricu-lation, enrollment, and patterns of learningprogression for students in distance learning? What percentage of the averagecourse work is received through distancelearning? Are programs geared mostly tovocational, or lower division, upper divi-sion, graduate, professional, or continuingeducation?

• Who (or what) is doing the teaching in dis-tance learning programs? Are there faculty,and if so what percentage of their time isaccounted for by employment in distancelearning programs? What are their com-pensation patterns?

• Who designs the curriculum and coursematerials?

• What do we know about the corporate status of distance learning providers? Arethey predominantly public, or private, forprofit or non-profit? Are they licensed bythe state, and if so how are the regulated?What percentage of the private sector enti-ties are publicly traded?

• For consortium or other partnership orga-nizations, what entity awards the degree orcertificate?

• What tuition or fees do students pay for dis-tance learning programs? What percentageof total institutional revenues come fromtuition or fee sources? What are the othersources of revenue for the programs?

• Can distance learning be provided at thesame or lower cost than conventional education?

• Is there greater capacity to measure student learning outcomes in distancelearning programs, and if so, how arelearning goals set and measured?



he Council for Higher EducationAccreditation (CHEA) is interested inassisting individuals who wish to pur-

sue higher education in the United States. Tothis end, we have prepared a series of ques-tions that students and others may find usefulto ask about the external quality review of acourse, institution, or program in which theymight enroll.

While CHEA considers external qualityreview to be an important and constructiveprocess for higher education institutions,external quality review may be only one amongmany considerations relevant to an individ-ual’s choice of a course of study, program, orinstitution. CHEA does not endorse any specific course of study, program or institu-tion, but encourages careful scrutiny of mater-ials, commitments and claims of all providersof higher education.

If you are considering enrolling in a course of study or program at a higher education institution,you may find it useful to inquire about the externalquality review of the course, program, or institution.1. Is the course, program, or institution

accredited?2. What are the standards of quality? Is there

an available summary of the last review?3. If the course, program, or institution is not

accredited, is it certified for quality byanother organization?

4. What external quality review is performedby this other organization and what are thestandards? Is there a summary of the lastreview?

5. How can the organization that accredits orprovides other types of external qualityreviews be contacted?

You may address these and similar questions to:• The institution or provider under consider-

ation for enrollment• Certifying organization, if necessary

If you are considering enrolling in an initial courseof study or program at one institution and maywant to enroll in a further course of study or pro-gram at another higher education institution in thefuture, you may find it useful to inquire abouttransferability of credits and courses.1. Will other institutions accept the credits

and courses earned?2. Will other institutions count the credits

and courses toward a degree?3. Will graduate schools accept the credits

and courses for admission?4. Who decides toward what the credits or

courses count? How can they be contacted?

Appendix B12 Important Questions About External Quality Review*

* For additional information, contact the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, One Dupont Circle, NW, Washington, DC, at

[email protected] or www.chea.org.

T


You may address these and similar questions to:• The institution or provider under consider-

ation for enrollment• The institution or provider under consider-

ation for transfer

If you intend to use a course of study or programfor employment purposes or would like youremployer to provide tuition assistance, you mayfind it useful to inquire about acceptance of creditsand courses by employers.1. Will employers accept the credits and

courses earned?2. Will employers acknowledge the credits

and courses for upgrading, retraining andadditional compensation?

3. Who should be contacted to learn whatcourses and credits an employer mayaccept?

You may address these and similar questions to:• The employer or likely future employer


echnologically mediated instructionoffered at a distance has rapidlybecome an important component of

higher education. Growing numbers of col-leges and universities are going on-line withcourses and programs, while those alreadyinvolved are expanding these activities. Newproviders, often lacking traditional institu-tional hallmarks, are emerging. This phenom-enon is creating opportunities to serve newstudent clienteles and to better serve existingpopulations, and it is encouraging innovationthroughout the academy. While these are wel-come developments, the new delivery systemstest conventional assumptions, raising freshquestions as to the essential nature and con-tent of an educational experience and theresources required to support it. As such theypresent extraordinary and distinct challengesto the eight regional accrediting commissionswhich assure the quality of the great majorityof degree-granting institutions of higher learning in the United States.

The approach of the regional commissionsto these emergent forms of learning isexpressed in a set of commitments aimed atensuring high quality in distance education.These include commitment to those tradi-tions, principles, and values which have guided the regionals’ approach to educationalinnovation; commitment to cooperationamong the eight regional commissions

directed toward a consistent approach to theevaluation of distance education informedthrough collaboration with others; and com-mitment to supporting good practice amonginstitutions.

Commitment to Traditions, Values, and PrinciplesThe lengthy history of regional accreditationhas been one of adaptation to a changing edu-cational environment, of maintaining highstandards while also recognizing that educa-tion can be provided effectively in a variety ofways. Responsible innovation has been encouraged within a system of accountabilitygrounded in enduring values and principlesthrough which quality has been defined. Theresult has been an ever-expanding set of educa-tional opportunities, marked by diversity andexcellence, to meet the changing needs of oursociety. It is in keeping with this tradition thatthe regional commissions individually and col-lectively are responding to new forms of dis-tance education. Of necessity, this will be awork in progress; educational change continues apace with technological changemaking efforts to develop settled definitions ofthe essential structures and conditions in dis-tance education, and procedures to apply tothem, neither possible nor even desirable.Rather, the regionals’ response will be devel-opmental, though experience thus far indi-cates a strong evaluative competence among

Appendix CStatement of Commitment by the RegionalAccrediting Commissions for the Evaluation of Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs*

T

*This statement was developed by the eight U.S. regional (institutional) accrediting commissions during 2000 and 2001. For additional

information, contact one of these commissions or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.


individual regional accreditors in respondingto the ingenuity of colleges and universities asthey use technology to better achieve theireducational goals.

As they proceed with the assessment ofeducational programming offered at a dis-tance, the regional commissions will continueto work toward a balance between account-ability and innovation. They will seek to sus-tain an equilibrium between fulfilling theexpectation that regional accreditation is adependable indicator of institutional qualityand encouraging perceptive and imaginativeexperimentation. Sound departures from tra-ditional formulas will be validated; thosefalling short will not.

The regional commissions use mission-driven standards to define institutional quality.The college or university that has purposesappropriate to higher education, the resourcesnecessary to achieve those purposes, demon-strates that it is achieving them and has theability to continue to do so, is one worthy ofthe distinction of being regionally accredited.This implicitly flexible paradigm is particu-larly appropriate for the assessment of newforms of distance education as well as techno-logically spawned innovations in educationalpractice on-campus.

While endeavoring to maintain balanceand flexibility in the evaluation of new formsof delivery, the regional commissions are alsoresolved to sustain certain values. Theseinclude, among other things:• that education is best experienced within a

community of learning where competentprofessionals are actively and cooperativelyinvolved with creating, providing, andimproving the instructional program;

• that learning is dynamic and interactive,regardless of the setting in which it occurs;

• that instructional programs leading todegrees having integrity are organizedaround substantive and coherent curriculawhich define expected learning outcomes;

• that institutions accept the obligation toaddress student needs related to, and toprovide the resources necessary for, theiracademic success;

• that institutions are responsible for theeducation provided in their name;

• that institutions undertake the assessmentand improvement of their quality, givingparticular emphasis to student learning;

• that institutions voluntarily subject them-selves to peer review.

There can be no doubt that there are chal-lenges in sustaining these important valuesthrough technologically mediated instruction.The regional commissions appreciate this reality, and also recognize that these valuesmay be expressed in valid new ways as inven-tive institutions seek to utilize technology toachieve their goals.

The regional commissions will continue to limit their scope to include only degree-granting institutions of higher learning. Theyare also aware that many of the educationalofferings provided at a distance do not lead todegrees, but rather are short-term and highlyfocused, providing specific skills-training andleading to at most certificates. Such activitiesat regionally accredited colleges or universi-ties, or at those that seek regional accredita-tion, undertaken in their name, are consideredas included within the institution’s accredita-tion and thus are subject to evaluation.

The regional commissions are attentive tothe fact that their field of view increasinglyincludes educational entities and configura-tions which test conventional ideas as to whatconstitutes an institution of higher learning.Generating opportunities for innovative collaboration and the application of new tech-nologies to education has resulted in unprecedented cooperative agreements andconfigurations among accredited colleges anduniversities as well as with entities outside theacademy. While frequently resulting in a bene-ficial expansion of educational opportunity


and a greater optimization of assets, thesearrangements often result in a diffusion ofresponsibility for the overall quality of the stu-dent’s academic experience. In addition, inthese situations quality is often dependent on the continued availability of multipleresources only loosely bound. The regionalcommission, as they review such arrange-ments, will consider it essential that account-ability be clearly fixed and meaningfullyexpressed within the accredited entity and thatreasonable guarantees are provided to assurethe continued availability of necessaryresources outside the institution’s control.

Commitment to Cooperation, Consistency,CollaborationThe regional approach to quality assurance hasserved our society well. Though fundamentallysimilar, the eight commissions have been ableto reflect America’s rich cultural diversity intheir criteria and operations and undertakeuseful local experimentation from which thewhole had benefited. In addition, regionalismhas greatly fostered self-regulation by keepingthese accreditors close to their member institutions.

Technologically mediated instruction,increasingly asynchronous and web-based, andas such not location dependent, raises ques-tions about the suitability of the regionalapproach to quality assurance. The regionalcommissions recognize this. However, theyalso note that the great majority of collegiateinstruction offered in the United Statesremains on-ground, and that nearly all on-lineprogramming leading to degrees is being pro-vided by traditional institutions which have asubstantial academic infrastructure within asingle region. To be sure, this may change overtime, but for the present, the regional frame-work continues to be appropriately responsiveto the current realities of American highereducation and is effective in fulfilling thenation’s overall quality assurance needs.

Nonetheless, because the new delivery sys-tems are becoming increasingly important,with institutions developing national andinternational student populations enjoyingonly virtual residence, the regional commis-sions have sought and will continue to seek asignificant degree of cross-regional con-sistency, compatible with their independenceand autonomy, in evaluating these activities.Moreover, the commissions are seeking toassure that technologically mediated instruc-tion offered at a distance by whatever institu-tion in whatever region meets the same highstandards for quality through the applicationof an evaluative framework utilizing peerreview common to all the regions:• the first-time development of distance edu-

cation programming leading to a degreedesignated for students off-campus will besubject to careful prior review;

• institutional effectiveness in providing edu-cation at a distance will be explicitly andrigorously appraised as a part of the regularevaluation of colleges and universities suchas the comprehensive visit and interimreport;

• an essential element in all evaluativeprocesses will be institutional self-evaluation for the purpose of enhancingquality;

• in cases where deficiencies are identifiedand/or concerns regarding integrity, reme-diation will be expected and aggressivelymonitored;

• appropriate action will be taken in keepingwith individual commission policy and pro-cedure in those cases where an institutionis found to be demonstrably incapable ofeffectively offering distance education programming.


As each of the regional commissions con-tinues to accrue skill in assessing distance edu-cation programming, they are pledged to learnfrom the experiences of one another particu-larly when innovative approaches are utilized.

While most institutions providing educa-tional programming at a distance are clearlybased in one of the six regions, placing themwithin the jurisdiction of the local accreditingcommission, technology has already demon-strated the possibility of a virtual institutionthat is not plainly confined to a given location.In those cases, it is not obvious which regionalcommission should have quality assuranceresponsibility. Though few such institutionswithout apparent regional residency are antici-pated, this circumstance presents difficultissues which the regional commissions workingthrough C-RAC are seeking to address.

The regional accrediting commissions areaware of the need for a collaborative approachwhich extends beyond their community, thatothers, particularly the states and federal gov-ernment, have substantial voice in addressingquality assurance issues related to distanceeducation programming. Building on a well-established tradition of cooperation with statehigher education offices and the United StatesDepartment of Education, the eight commis-sions are pledged to continue to work individu-ally and collectively with those agencies toachieve our commonly held goals of assuringthe quality of academic offerings regardless ofthe medium of their delivery. To that end, thecommissions will seek the continued assis-tance of the Council on Higher EducationAccreditation (CHEA) as a convener and facilitator.

No less importantly, as self-regulatory enti-ties, the regional commissions recognize thenecessity of working collaboratively with theiraffiliated colleges and universities. Each of thecommissions have well established practicesand procedures to ensure meaningful institu-tional involvement in developing standardsand more broadly defining in general terms

the practice of accreditation within its region.It is with a redoubled commitment to the par-ticipative involvement of their respective institutional memberships that the regionalcommissions will fashion their response to thequality assurance challenges created by tech-nologically mediated instruction offered at adistance.

Commitment to Supporting Good PracticeAs the higher education community increas-ingly expand educational opportunitiesthrough electronically offered programming,the regional commissions are committed tosupporting good practice in distance educa-tion among affiliated colleges and universities.Doing so is in keeping with their mission toencourage institutional improvement toward agoal of excellence. To this end several yearsago, each commission adopted and imple-mented a common statement of Principles ofGood Practice in Electronically OfferedAcademic Degree and Certificate Programsdeveloped by the Western Cooperative forEducational Telecommunications (WCET),resulting in a shared approach to distance edu-cation. More recently, desiring to complementthese efforts, the regional commissions collec-tively, through their national organization, theCouncil of Regional Accrediting Commissions(C-RAC), contracted with WCET to fashion amore detailed elucidation of those elementswhich exemplify quality in distance education.Based upon the expertise of WCET and thealready substantial experience of the regionalcommissions in assessing distance education,the resulting statement, Best Practices forElectronically Offered Degree and CertificatePrograms, provides a comprehensive anddemanding expression of what is consideredcurrent best practice. It is being utilized byeach commission, compatibly with their poli-cies and procedures to promote good practicein distance education among their affiliatedcolleges and universities.


ccreditation” is a process of externalquality review used by higher educa-tion to scrutinize colleges, universi-

ties and educational programs for qualityassurance and quality improvement. In theU.S., accreditation is carried out by private,nonprofit organizations designed for this spe-cific purpose.

“Recognition” is a process of external qual-ity review of accrediting organizations toaffirm their quality and effectiveness. In theU.S., recognition is carried out by a federalagency, the United States Department ofEducation (USDE), and by a private organiza-tion, the Council for Higher EducationAccreditation (CHEA).

Institutions and educational programs seekaccredited status as a means of demonstratingtheir academic quality to students and the pub-lic and to become eligible for federal funds.

Numbers of Accredited Institutions and Programs• 6,351 institutions are accredited• 17,605 programs are accredited

These institutions and programs areaccredited by organizations recognized eitherby the United States Department of Education(USDE) or by organizations recognized by theCouncil for Higher Education Accreditation(CHEA), or undergoing a CHEA recognitionreview.

Of the 6,351 institutions:• 4,119 (64.8%) are degree-granting

(associate degree and above)• 2,232 (35.1%) are non–degree-granting• 3,563 (56.1%) are nonprofit• 2,788 (43.8%) are for-profitSource: CHEA Internal Review, Summer 2001

5,839 accredited institutions are in the fed-eral Title IV (student aid) Program. 3,884 ofthese institutions are nonprofit and 1,955 arefor-profit. 790 foreign institutions are TitleIV–eligible (USDE, Office of Student FinancialAid, 2000).

Types and Numbers of Recognized AccreditorsTypes of Accreditors• Regional: Regional accreditors operate in

eight specific clusters of states (regions) inthe U.S. and review entire institutions, 98%or more of which are both degree-grantingand nonprofit. There are 2,932 regionallyaccredited institutions. Almost all institu-tions are comprehensive.

• National: National accreditors operatethroughout the country and review entireinstitutions, 34.8% of which are degree-granting and 65.1% of which are non–degree-granting. 20.4% are nonprofit and79.5% are for-profit. There are 3,419nationally accredited institutions. Many are

Appendix DCouncil for Higher Education Accreditation Fact Sheet #1: Overview of Accreditation,September 2001*

A“

*For additional information, contact the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, One Dupont Circle, NW, Washington, DC, at



single-purpose institutions focusing on,e.g., education in business and informationtechnology. Some are faith-based.

• Specialized: Specialized accreditors oper-ate throughout the country and review programs and some single-purpose institu-tions. There are more than 17,600 of these accredited programs and single-purpose operations.

In 2000-2001:• 57 accreditors were recognized by USDE.• 59 accreditors were recognized by CHEA or

undergoing a CHEA recognition review.• 38 of these accreditors are both USDE- and

CHEA-recognized or undergoing a CHEAreview.

Source: CHEA 2001 Almanac of External Quality

Review

Purposes of AccreditationAccreditation serves the following purposes:• Assuring Quality. Accreditation is the pri-

mary means by which colleges, universitiesand programs assure academic quality tostudents and the public.

• Access to Federal Funds. Accreditation ofinstitutions and programs is required inorder for students to gain access to federalfunds such as student grants and loans andother federal support.

• Easing Transfer. Accreditation of institu-tions and programs is important to stu-dents for smooth transfer of courses andprograms among colleges and universities.

• Engendering Employer Confidence.Accredited status of an institution or pro-gram is important to employers when eval-uating credentials of job applicants andproviding financial support to currentemployees seeking additional education.

Recognition Purposes and StandardsUSDE and CHEA each review the quality andeffectiveness of accrediting organizations: • USDE’s primary purpose is to assure that

federal student aid funds are purchasingquality courses and programs. USDE’srecognition is based on ten standards thatinclude attention to, e.g., recruitment andadmission practices, fiscal and administra-tive capacity and facilities.

• CHEA’s primary purpose is to assure andstrengthen academic quality and ongoingquality improvement in courses, programsand degrees. CHEA’s recognition is basedon five standards that include, e.g., advancingacademic quality and encouraging neededimprovement.

Please visit the USDE Website atwww.ed.gov/offices/OPE/accreditation/ foradditional information about the USDE recog-nition standards and a list of recognizedaccreditors. Please visit the CHEA Website atwww.chea.org for additional information aboutthe CHEA recognition standards and a list ofCHEA accreditors.


Accreditation of Distance Learning• Most distance learning currently available

is offered by accredited institutions. USDEreported that 1,680 institutions were offering distance learning in 1997-98, all of which were accredited institutions.

• 17 of the 19 (89.4%) institutional accredi-tors (regional and national) that are USDE-or CHEA-recognized (or undergoing aCHEA recognition review) are activelyengaged in scrutinizing distance learning.This involves the application of accredita-tion standards, guidelines or policies to dis-tance learning courses, programs anddegrees to determine academic quality.Where appropriate, accreditors have modified and expanded their practices toaddress unique features of distance learning (e.g., examination of computermediated instruction may vary from exami-nation of classroom-based instruction).

• Both USDE and CHEA review the distancelearning activities of these accreditors:

• Based on the 1998 reauthorization ofthe Higher Education Act, currentUSDE recognition standards are appliedto accreditors’ standards, policy andguidelines for all types of educationaldelivery, including distance learning.

• CHEA recognition standards are appliedto accreditors’ standards, policy andguidelines for all types of educationaldelivery, including distance learning.

The Council for Higher EducationAccreditation (CHEA) is a nationally based,private, nonprofit organization that coordi-nates national, regional and specializedaccreditation and represents 3,000 degree-granting accredited institutions and 59 accred-iting organizations (2000-2001). CHEA’sprimary responsibilities are advocacy for self-regulation of higher education through volun-tary accreditation, scrutiny (“recognition”) ofaccrediting organizations and articulation andpresentation of key accreditation issues andchallenges to higher education, governmentand the public.

Contact CHEA at One Dupont Circle, #510 Washington, DC 20036Phone: 202-955-6126 Fax: 202-955-6129 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.chea.org


nstitutional (national and regional) andprogrammatic (specialized) accreditorshave been reviewing distance-based

higher education since the establishment ofcorrespondence schools more than 100 yearsago. With the advent of the World Wide Weband Internet-based distance learning, accredi-tors are now actively engaged in refining and applying their quality review practices to meetthe needs of electronically delivered courses,programs and degrees. Fact Sheet #2 providesa brief description of the role of accreditationto assure quality as distance learning opportu-nities expand and diversify.

Who Offers Electronically Delivered DistanceLearning? • The United States Department of

Education (USDE) reports that 1,680 insti-tutions were offering distance learning in1997-98. These institutions are accreditedand enrolled 1.6 million distance learningstudents in 1997-98.**

How Is Distance Learning Reviewed for Quality?• Accreditation (external peer review of insti-

tutions and programs to assure andimprove quality) is the primary means bywhich higher education distance learningofferings are currently reviewed for quality.Accreditors are responsible for scrutiny ofdistance learning for all higher educationinstitutions and programs they review thatoffer education through distance.

• 17 of the 19 (89.4%) “recognized” institu-tional accreditors (regional and national)are actively engaged in scrutinizing dis-tance learning—applying accreditationstandards, guidelines or policies to distancelearning offerings and degrees to deter-mine academic quality.*** Where appro-priate, accreditors have modified andexpanded their practices to address uniquefeatures of distance learning.

• Accreditors do not employ identical reviewpractices to assure quality in distance learning. Standards, policies and guide-lines vary by the type of accreditor and thetype of institution or program that isreviewed.

*For additional information, contact the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, One Dupont Circle, NW, Washington, DC, at


**Distance Education at Postsecondary Education Institutions 1997-98, United States Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics Report, NCES 2000-013, December 1999. Most recent data available.

***“Recognition” is a status achieved by accrediting organizations that have undergone a review of their quality and met the standards of

either the USDE or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), a private organization that coordinates regional, national and

specialized accreditation.

Appendix ECouncil for Higher Education Accreditation Fact Sheet #2:The Role of Accreditation and Assuring Quality inElectronically Delivered Distance Learning, September 2001*

I


Regional AccreditationThe eight regional accrediting commissionsare adopting a common platform for review ofdistance learning.* This platform calls forscrutiny of teaching and learning, curriculum,student services, faculty and evaluation prac-tices. The Statement and Best Practices affectapproximately 3,000 colleges and universities:• Middle States Association of Colleges and

Schools, Commission on HigherEducation (www.msache.org)

• New England Association of Schools andColleges, Commission on Institutions ofHigher Education (www.neasc.org)

• New England Association of Schools andColleges, Commission on Technical andCareer Institutions (www.neasc.org)

• North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, The Higher LearningCommission (www.ncahigherlearning-commission.org)

• Northwest Association of Schools,Colleges and Universities; Commission on Colleges and Universities (www.coc-nasc.org)

• Southern Association of Colleges andSchools, Commission on Colleges(www.sacscoc.org)

• Western Association of Schools andColleges, Accrediting Commission forCommunity and Junior Colleges(www.wascweb.org)

• Western Association of Schools andColleges, Accrediting Commission forSenior Colleges and Universities(www.wascweb.org)

National AccreditationThe nine national accreditors have indepen-dently developed standards for distance learning. These standards are often accompa-nied by additional requirements from theaccreditors such as special reports, expandedattention to student learning outcomes andspecial site visits. These standards affect morethan 2,400 institutions: • One accreditor has developed new stan-

dards: Accrediting Commission of CareerSchools and Colleges of Technology(www.accsct.org)

• One accreditor reviews only distance learning operations: Accrediting Commis-sion of the Distance Education andTraining Council (www.detc.org)

• One accreditor has developed supple-mental standards: Accrediting Council forIndependent Colleges and Schools(www.acics.org)

• Two accreditors have standards that specifi-cally address extension offerings, alterna-tive sites and delivery systems includingdistance learning: Accrediting Associationof Bible Colleges, Commission onAccreditation (www.aabc.org) andAssociation of Theological Schools in theUnited States and Canada, Commission onAccrediting (www.ats.edu)

• One accreditor has standards specificallyfor interactive distance learning:Accrediting Council for ContinuingEducation and Training (www.accet.org)

*Statement of Commitment by the Regional Accrediting Commissions for the Evaluation of Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate

Programs and Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs, 2001. Available from the Websites of the regional

accreditors.


• Three accreditors are using the same stan-dards for review of distance learning thatare used for site-based education:Accrediting Bureau of Health EducationSchools (www.abhes.org), Council onOccupational Education(www.council.org), TransnationalAssociation of Christian Colleges andSchools Accrediting Commission(www.tracs.org)

How Are Accrediting Organizations HeldAccountable for Review of Quality of DistanceLearning?• Both CHEA and USDE undertake recogni-

tion reviews of accreditors, including theirdistance learning activities, on a periodicbasis. In addition, accreditors that developnew standards or policies for distancelearning may undergo a special review.

• CHEA recognition standards are applied toaccreditors’ standards, policy and guide-lines for all types of educational delivery,including distance learning. These stan-dards include attention to advancing academic quality, demonstrating account-ability and encouraging needed qualityimprovement.

• USDE recognition standards are applied toaccreditors’ standards, policy and guide-lines for all types of educational delivery,including distance learning. These stan-dards include attention to recruitment andadmission practices, fiscal and administra-tive capacity and facilities.


Purpose These principles are to advise Council forHigher Education Accreditation (CHEA)accrediting organizations and to provide aframework for U.S. accreditors undertakingreviews of non-United States (U.S.) institutionsand programs operating in countries outsidethe U.S. They are intended to strengthen theworking relationship among U.S. accreditorsand international quality assurance agenciesand encourage and enhance ongoing coopera-tion and communication.

Principle 1. Considerations and Actions for U.S.Accreditors When Determining to UndertakeAccreditation of Non-U.S. Institutions andPrograms in Another CountryU.S. accreditors will:• Assure that they have the organizational

capacity to undertake an internationalreview (e.g., language, trained staff andevaluators, budget, experience, basic infor-mation about the country);

• Promulgate a clear statement of the scopeof the accreditation and the use of U.S.accredited status by an institution or pro-gram in another country, especially withregard to transfer of credit and degree andqualifications equivalency;

• Assure clear understanding of the relation-ship of the U.S. review to any internationalagreements that address accreditation andquality assurance;

• Clarify the relationship of internationalreview activity to the priorities of theaccrediting organization;

• Communicate with other U.S. accreditorsabout international review activity.

Principle 2. Expectations for Conduct of U.S.Accreditation Reviews of Non-U.S. Institutionsand Programs in Another Country U.S. accreditors will: • Inform, consult and cooperate with national

quality assurance agencies in countrieswhere reviews are undertaken and seekinformation and guidance from these agen-cies;

• Communicate with chancellors, presidentsand rectors and other college and universityofficials at institutions where reviews areundertaken;

• Assure that U.S. staff and evaluators areadequately informed about higher educa-tion and quality assurance in the countriesin which they are conducting reviews topreclude the appearance of cultural insen-sitivity;

• Communicate fully and clearly about costsand currencies associated with a review.

Appendix FPrinciples for U.S. Accreditors Working Internationally:Accreditation of Non-U.S. Institutions and Programs*

* Developed by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, One Dupont Circle, NW, Washington, DC, [email protected] or www.chea.org.


Principle 3. Accreditor Expectations of Providersof U.S. Online and Web-based Instruction andPrograms Exporting to Another CountryU.S. accreditors will: • Work closely with U.S. institutional and

programmatic exporters of online andWeb-based education to assure quality asofferings are made available in a variety ofcountries, especially when Web-based andonline offerings involve instructionalstrategies that are unfamiliar to the hostcountry;

• Work with U.S. exporters to inform poten-tial students of the language expectationsand requirements associated with onlineand Web-based courses, programs anddegrees;

• Work with U.S. exporters to review lan-guage, literacy and study skill levels of thetarget audience for online and Web-basedofferings, preparing separate or supple-mental material to meet special needs ifappropriate.

Principle 4. Responsibilities of U.S. AccreditorsWorking with Non-U.S. Institutions and Programsto Students and Colleagues in Another CountryU.S. accreditors will: • Work with other countries to provide the

most comprehensive and accurate informa-tion available about U.S. exports to avoid“accreditation mills” and “diploma mills”;

• Develop, working with international col-leagues, an information protocol that canbe used to assist countries in reviewingimports from the U.S.


Judith S. Eaton is president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). CHEA is aprivate, nonprofit national organization that coordinates accreditation in the United States.CHEA represents more than 3,000 colleges and universities and 60 national, regional, and specialized accreditors.

About the Author


Distributed Education and Its Challenges: An Overview,by Diana G. Oblinger, Carole A. Barone, and Brian L. Hawkins.

Send check or money order for $15 (plus $6.95 for shipping and handling) to:

ACE Fulfillment ServiceDepartment 191Washington, DC 20055-0191Phone: (301) 632-6757Fax: (301) 843-0159

The ACE/EDUCAUSE series—

DistributedEducation:Challenges, Choices, and a New Environment

• Distance learning partnerships, by Richard Katz of EDUCAUSE, and Ian Napier andElizabeth Ferrara of Accenture.

• The importance of leadership in promoting distributed education, by John C. Hitt, presidentof the University of Central Florida.

• Student learning as currency, by Sally Johnstone, director of the Western Cooperative forEducational Telecommunications at the Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation.

• The barriers to development and implementation of distributed learning courses,by Arthur Levine, president of Teachers College, Columbia University.

—will include four additional monographs on the following topics:

The

ACE/

EDUC

AUSE

ser

ies

Available now:

American Council on Education

second in a series maintaining the delicate balance · 2019. 6. 5. · corporation. “distance”...

Documents