Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Distance Education and e-Learning

Models, Policies and Research

Insung Jung, Colin Latchem

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136849855
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Quality assurance (QA) in open and distance learning (ODL) can be a contentious issue. Some argue that it should be judged by the same criteria and methods as face-to-face education, while others claim that it is so different in its organization, enrolments and operations that conventional QA mechanisms cannot apply. Some advocate the use of specific guidelines and standards for e-learning; others believe that, regardless of the technology, the basic principles of quality teaching and learning should apply. Providers who have enjoyed freedom from external scrutiny may resist attempts at external regulation and auditing and look upon QA as yet another imposition of corporatization and bureaucracy on education. Others see it as a means of establishing a culture of quality, self-reflection and self-improvement.

There is little research-based literature to guide policy-makers, managers and practitioners in applying QA in education and training to ensure the right balance is found between accountability and autonomy, as well as assuring quality for the time and costs involved. In this respect, Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Distance Education and e-Learning is a book that is long overdue. It explains what is involved in QA and accreditation in education. It describes and analyzes applications of these practices in open, distance, dual-mode and conventional universities throughout Europe, North America, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific, looking at open schooling, e-learning in conventional schools, non-formal adult and community education, and corporate and small-to-medium enterprises.

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Distance Education and e-Learning is edited and authored by experts with extensive international experience in ODL, e-learning and QA who give careful consideration to the possibilities and challenges involved. The book will be an invaluable guide for all policy-makers, managers, practitioners and researchers in the field.

1

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Denise Chalmers and Shannon Johnston

Introduction

Quality assurance (QA) has long been applied in the corporate sector to ensure stakeholder satisfaction, compare standards with those of other organizations and raise standards in the face of competition. Applying rigorous QA and accreditation to educational processes and outcomes, particularly in higher education, is a more recent phenomenon. This chapter examines these issues in regard to conventional university education.

Defining Quality

The meaning of ‘quality’ has long been contested in higher education. Harvey and Green’s (1993) five discrete but interrelated ways of thinking about quality are frequently cited as capturing the meanings of quality in the context of education:

1. Excellence. Quality as something exceptional, distinctive and elitist.

2. Consistency. Quality as a perfect, consistent or flawless outcome.

3. Fitness for purpose. Quality as fulfilling pre-determined requirements, needs or desires.

4. Value for money. Quality as return on investment.

5. Transformation (e.g., the enhancement and empowerment of students or the development of new knowledge).

QA in higher education is most typically judged in terms of fitness for purpose or value for money (judged by governments and, with the introduction of fees, students). But it may involve some or all of these meanings. For example, in judging online learning resources for a particular group of students, if quality of learning is the defining criterion, these may be evaluated in terms of the purposes for which they are intended, their content and instructional design, the quality of the learning outcomes they aim to elicit and their capacity to challenge and transform the students’ understanding. If consistency is the main criterion, they may be judged against the equivalent face-to-face offerings and, if value for money is the main criterion, they may be judged in terms of the costs and cost benefits and how these compare with the face-to-face alternatives.

These different emphases or definitions of quality can contribute to a misalignment of focus and purpose in quality reviews and processes. While governments may be primarily interested in efficiency, cost-effectiveness, community satisfaction and accountability, institutions may be more concerned with assuring or improving the quality of their courses, learning processes and outcomes, management and staffing, while students may be more concerned with the costs, convenience and career opportunities. These different ‘stakeholders may also disagree on the criteria and standards by which institutions should be assessed. Institutions may claim that they operate to a high academic standard, while employers complain that their courses do not meet labour market needs, and the students believe that the teaching and support do not meet their needs. QA requires that all of these different viewpoints be reconciled. So agreement must be reached on the key performance indicators (PIs) in regard to:

• Student outcomes.

• Curriculum, courses and courseware.

• Teaching and learning.

• Student and staff support.

• Assessment, evaluation and internal QA systems.

• Management.

• Staff.

• Resourcing.

• Returns on investment and benefits to the national economy and society.

In reality, agreement is not always achieved and the determination of the PIs and measures to be used is often contentious. The more powerful stakeholder’s perspective is usually the one that prevails. Gallagher (2010) provides a detailed review of QA in higher education, which highlights the ways in which the agendas of powerful stakeholders dominate.

Judging Quality

Performance Indicators and Performance Models

The rationale behind the use of PIs and performance models by governments and QA agencies is to ensure that the education equips students for employment and provides the nation with a highly skilled workforce that supports economic growth. PIs identify the achievement of what is deemed to be important. They are categorized into four types: input, output, process and outcome, each of which has different characteristics and objectives which are operationally related and may be judged qualitatively or quantitatively (Borden & Bottrill, 1994). Qualitative indicators are based on non-numerical assessments, typified by process and outcome indicators, while quantitative indicators are based on numerical assessments of performance, typified by input and output indicators. Each type of indicator yields valuable information regarding quality. At the same time, each type is subject to limitations and criticisms. No single indicator or single type of indicator can objectively capture all of the aspects of quality. Therefore, a range of indicators from each of the four types must be used in order to adequately assess the quality of the institutions and ensure that no one type of indicator is privileged over another.

There are five performance models: accreditation, quality audits, performance-based funding, performance reporting, and surveys and tests of learning (Fisher, Rubenson, Rockwell, Grosjean, & Atkinson-Grosjean, 2000). Each of these employs a variety of PIs, all of which require contextualization and interpretation and need to be situated in the assumptions inherent in their adoption (Chalmers, 2008).

Accreditation

Accreditation is a process of assessment and review by an accreditation or certification body which enables an institution, programme or course of study to be recognized or certified as meeting certain required standards. The endowment of accreditation is binary: an institution, a course or a programme either receives or does not receive accreditation. However, minimum standards usually apply and the pass/fail nature of accreditation is often softened by the provision of probationary periods and opportunities to reapply for accreditation. While accreditation methods and purposes are similar to audit and other forms of external review, they require applicants to prove their suitability by fulfilling the accreditation criteria, while auditing presumes the institution is functioning appropriately, and the external review is responsible for proving otherwise.

Accreditation is an increasingly popular form of performance model, particularly in European higher education. It is used in countries such as the United Kingdom and Sweden as a mechanism to upgrade providers such as colleges and polytechnics to university status. Government accreditation agencies also become more prevalent in countries with a burgeoning private higher education sector, for example in Eastern Europe and some Asian countries. In the United States, accreditation agencies are self-regulated and independent of the Federal and State Governments. The various agencies have established their own QA regulations and performance funding requirements but these are found to be generally ineffective in strengthening institutional processes for academic quality (Dill, 2003). Charged with recommending a national strategy for reforming post-secondary education, the Report of the Commission appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings – the Spellings Commission (US Department of Education, 2006) – signalled the US Federal Government’s intention to use institutional accreditation as an aggressive QA tool, but this has been strongly resisted, despite persistent attempts from the current administration (Gallagher, 2010) (see also Chapter 6).

Quality Audits

Quality audits are typically conducted by QA agencies established by government ministries or departments. Some countries have several QA agencies which themselves are reviewed and accredited against national protocols. The audits require institutions to conduct self-reviews which are verified by external review teams which then make recommendations for improvement and monitor progress. Audits can be administered at institutional or subject/programme level and typically involve drilling down through the different levels of operation to check consistency, due diligence and quality in all policymaking, management and practice. Audits tend to use predominantly qualitative process PIs that are developed and collected at the institutional level, although some countries have standardized national PIs against which institutions are audited.

Audits can lead to positive outcomes, but critics of this approach suggest that the focus on ‘fitness-for-purpose’, which is defined by the institutions themselves, is not rigorous and can allow the setting of low expectations. Consequently, there has been a trend for audits to review both for ‘fitness-for-purpose’ and ‘fitness-of-purpose’. Over 70 countries currently have QA agencies, but audits may not be compulsory for all of the higher education institutions in all of these countries.

Until recently, the Australian Universities Quality Agency monitored, audited and reported on QA in Australian higher education. The Australian Federal Government has now established a new body, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, a super authority with responsibility for accreditation, auditing and establishing and monitoring standards for all tertiary education institutions, including universities and private providers of tertiary education. While the purposes of accreditation and auditing remain distinct, bringing these functions together under a single, responsible entity is an uncommon response that will be watched closely by other nations.

Performance Funding and Performance Budgeting

Performance funding typically involves national or state governments rewarding performance, using indicators that reflect national or state priorities. For example, the UK government has adopted this approach to provide incentives for universities to increase their enrolment of students from low socio-economic backgrounds. Australia has also recently established performance funding on the basis of mission-based compacts, 3-year agreements that show how each university’s mission contributes to the Government’s goals for higher education and include details of major higher education and research funding and performance targets. Universities are allocated performance funding on the basis of meeting university targets agreed as part of these compacts and set against a framework of PIs related to the quality of teaching and learning, the student experience, participation and attainment. Performance funding can be the most contentious of the performance models as it employs a limited set of indicators that do not necessarily account for the variety in institutional missions, contexts or resources and tends to favour the well-established, better-resourced institutions.

Performance budgeting also ties funding to institutional performance, requires the key PIs to be defined at the outset and is concerned with final outcomes and the strategies and activities employed in achieving these outcomes. Generally speaking, this involves a larger set of indicators but each indicator is only one factor in determining the total allocation of funds. This approach is usually used for budget preparation rather than as a reward for performance.

Governments, educational authorities and institutions often prefer performance budgeting over performance funding because the looser association allows for more discretion and flexibility in determining funding allocation and this approach can take account of individual institutional circumstances. However, the boundaries between performance budgeting and performance funding can be blurred and initiatives often borrow elements from both approaches.

The advantages of performance budgeting over performance funding are that the larger set of indicators allows a broader scope of performance to be evaluated. It is thus more valid and reliable as a result of having multiple measures, allows greater consideration of an institution’s circumstances and is more flexible. The disadvantage is that there is less direct incentive for institutions to perform well on particular indicators. In both cases, choice and weighting of input and output indicators will depend ...