middlehurst & woodfield -- quality review in distance learning- policy and practice in five...

7/28/2019 Middlehurst & Woodfield -- Quality Review in Distance Learning- Policy and Practice in Five Countries

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/middlehurst-woodfield-quality-review-in-distance-learning-policy-and 1/22

ROBIN MIDDLEHURST AND STEVE WOODFIELD

QUALITY REVIEW IN DISTANCE LEARNING: POLICY

AND PRACTICE IN FIVE COUNTRIES

ABSTRACT. This paper is a contribution to knowledge sharing in the field of

distance learning. It presents and discusses the findings of a study on the quality

review of distance learning in a sample of five countries. The study was commis-sioned by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation’s (CHEA) International

Commission in order to understand better the nature of existing arrangements and

their potential impact in the context of growth in electronically supported learning

and the import and export of education world-wide.

Introduction

Attaining the socio-economic status of a ‘‘Knowledge Society’’

through the medium of education is a policy aspiration of most

governments across the world. Developments in Information and

Communications Technologies (ICTs) provide both a driver and amechanism for achieving this status. Ministries of Education

increasingly view distance and electronically mediated learning as key

to increasing and widening access to education and researchers have

highlighted the expansion of distance learning in a variety of forms.

They also note the importance of ICT in the growth of cross-border

education and trade in educational services (OECD 2004; van der

Wende & van de Ven 2003). However, the resulting complexity of

‘‘borderless developments’’ raises challenges for quality review

arrangements (CVCP 2000; Middlehurst 2001).

Introducing the Study

Researchers at the University of Surrey, UK, undertook the study

between November 2002 and December 2003, relying largely on

readily available sources published in English. Data were used to

create country case studies for Jordan, Malaysia, Australia, Kenya

and the UK. The sample countries were illustrative of different

Tertiary Education and Management (2006) 12: 37–58 Ó Springer 2006

DOI 10.1007/s11233-005-4072-5



approaches to distance learning and quality review. In-country

experts amended and verified each case and a summary report was

produced in two parts. The first part offered policy analyses while the

second presented data from each country.

Time and resources were the chief limitations in the study, while

accurate comparative data were hard to obtain. None of the core

areas of research focus – higher education, distance learning and

quality review – had agreed and stable definitions, and, on the

ground, both policy and practice were in rapid evolution. Yet despite

the difficulties, it remained important to capture a snapshot of current

practice to demonstrate the nature of change, highlight the problems

of existing data categories and assumptions, and share differentnational responses to what are often common international issues.

Introducing the Countries

Each country had a different demographic profile. Jordan had the

smallest population (5.2 million), while the UK had the largest

(60.1 million).The age profile also differed, with 43% of Kenya’s

population under the age of 15 and 67% of Australia’s population

aged between 15 and 64. The bulk of the population in most of the

sample countries were urban dwellers, except for Kenya, with 75% of

the population living in rural areas (CIA 2003; UNDP 2002).The educational contexts reflect historical, political and economic

differences that contribute to significant variations in demand and

supply of tertiary-level education. UNESCO’s Institute of Statistics

provides data on Tertiary Participation Enrolments, as shown in

Table I.

Demand is strong in Jordan and the number of institutions has

grown to 12 private and eight public universities (Ministry of Higher

Education in Jordan 2002a) with further applications in the pipe-line.

Kenya is similar in that demand for higher education heavily out-

strips supply; despite recent expansion in the number of universities

(largely private) many students still study abroad. Australia and the

UK provide contrasts: participation in both countries is relativelyhigh by OECD standards and there are more public and state-

supported institutions than private universities. Malaysia presents a

mixed economy of public, private non-profit and for-profit institu-

tions with many overseas partnerships (OECD 2004).

Despite these differences, there are parallels in educational poli-

cies. Jordan aims to become the hub of modern commerce in the

ROBIN MIDDLEHURST AND STEVE WOODFIELD38



Arab region through modernising the economy and society. ICT will

be integrated into all areas of learning and work (Ministry of Higher

Education, Jordan, 2002b). Themes in the Higher Education Devel-

opment Programme include: developing lifelong learning, ensuring

responsiveness to the economy, providing access to ICTs andimproving the quality of learning. Part of the strategy has involved

developing partnerships between Jordanian and overseas universities.

There are parallels with Malaysia where the government, with its

Vision 2020, is seeking to transform Malaysia into the economic,

political and educational hub of South East Asia. ICT is also sig-

nificant; the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) initiative is intended

to make Malaysia the centre of excellence for future multimedia

industries. By 2002, 23 higher education institutions had had MSC

status conferred, marking them out as proficient in key aspects of

ICT such as infrastructure and content development, research and

training (Ministry of Education 2002).

In Australia and the UK, re-structuring of higher education hasbeen a key feature of policy. Australia has removed its binary line

between different types of higher education institution, as has the

UK. In both countries, a parallel process of ‘‘corporatizing’’

university governance has been underway as a means of connecting

publicly funded higher education more closely to economic needs

(Gamage 2000). There have also been moves to expand participation

TABLE I

Tertiary participation enrolments in the five countries

Enrolment Ratio

TE 2001/2002 (%)*

Enrolment

TE 2001/2002

Australia 65 868,689

Jordan 31 162,688

Kenya 3** 98,607**

Malaysia 27 557,118

United Kingdom 64 2,240,680

UNESCO Institute of Statistics (December 2004).

*Gross Enrolment Ratio.

**UNESCO Information Services Estimation.

Enrolment ratio (Gross) Number of pupils enrolled in the given level of education,

regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the population in the relevant official

age-group.

QUALITY REVIEW IN DISTANCE LEARNING 39



further, to recruit overseas students and reform the finance system.

Other initiatives include promoting lifelong learning, increasing

access to higher education to under-represented groups and com-

mercialising research. Kenyan policy has also involved financial

restructuring with pressure on institutions to diversify activities to

generate additional income sources.

Distance Learning National, Regional and International

Much of Jordan’s distance learning provision either originated

abroad or was developed through international collaboration withBritish and American universities. Local private institutions also offer

post-experience courses but these qualifications are not recognised by

the government. Jordan’s own experience began in 2001 with the

Jordan Distance Learning Centre, an affiliate of the World Bank

project for a Global Development Learning Network (GDLN),

hosted by the University of Jordan. GDLN learning centres now exist

across the developing world. The University is also developing its

own on-line post experience courses and a local open university,

teaching Bachelor level courses in English, is planned.

Distance learning provision at regional level is developing fast.

The Arab Open University currently dominates, its provision seekingto ‘‘provide opportunities for education for those who were unable to

continue their higher studies for economic, social or geographic

reasons’’ (Awadat 2002). The AOU has links with the UK Open

University, thus enabling students to gain both UK and Jordanian

qualifications. Courses are in English, except for specialist areas of

Islamic study. The Syrian Virtual University, established in 2002 with

links to US and Canadian universities, is a new competitor which

aims to lead the online education movement in the Arab region.

Historically, Kenyan distance education was split between public

and private sectors. Most programmes were dual-mode, including

residential and external study. Problems with funding, expertise and

lack of necessary ICT and audio-visual equipment hindered earlyattempts to offer courses using other distance methods (Chale &

Michaud 1997). However, in 2001 the Kenya Education Network

(KNET) was set up to help improve the ICT capacity of 23 higher

education institutions (Agatu 2001).

The main regional provider is the African Virtual University

(AVU), an inter-governmental distance learning institution based in




Nairobi, established with the support and use of facilities from the

World Bank and assistance from vice-chancellors in a number of

African universities. Now independent of the World Bank, it plans to

expand to 150 learning centres in 50 African countries by 2007, to

introduce 4-year degree programmes in Computer Science and

Business Studies (in French and English) and to develop its own

communications’ infrastructure. International partner institutions

initially deliver courses electronically and accredit programmes and

award degrees. However, capacity-building processes with selected

African institutions will change this in future.

Overseas’ providers also offer courses directly or through local

agents. For example, Kenya College of Accountancy organisescourses from the University of South Africa and the University of

London has an arrangement with the Kenya School of Professional

Studies (Njine 2002). Other international providers offering distance

education in Kenya originate in India and the USA.

In Australia, largely for geographical reasons, distance education

has played a significant role for over 80 years. Many students also

choose distance learning for its flexibility, drawing on public and pri-

vate provision. Australia was an early adopter of new technologies and

in the last decade, most Australian universities have developed on-line

programmes either additional to or, more often, mirroring face-to-face

programmes in selected areas (OECD 2004). A minority of Australianuniversities has set out to develop all courses in on-line form.

Open Learning Australia (OLA) offers a different form of higher

education and vocational training. Owned by a consortium of uni-

versities, it acts as a broker between students and provider institu-

tions in Australia. Australian institutions are also involved in a large

international consortium: Universitas 21, established in 1997 with 17

members in 10 countries as an international network of leading

research-intensive universities. In 2001, a majority of members

established a joint venture company, Universitas 21 Global, with

Thompson Learning. This new company is expected to offer online

education with a focus on Asia. Participating universities in their

relevant jurisdictions will accredit the Universitas 21 Global courses,utilising the organisation’s quality assurance arm, U21Pedagogica.

Beginning in the 1970s, distance learning provision is also

well-established in Malaysian public universities, with strong gov-

ernment support and companies specialising in e-learning are

increasing. In 1998, eleven public universities created Meteor

Distance Learning (MDL) Sdn. Bhd. which became UNITEM




(Universiti Terbuka Malaysia – the Open University of Malaysia) in

1999. It is expected to take over distance learning programmes from

the public universities, creating open and e-learning opportunities

throughout Southeast Asia (British Council 2000). Malaysia also

has a Virtual University, Universiti Tunku Abdul Razak (UNI-

TAR) which received its charter as part of the Government’s

Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) initiative in December 1997.

UNITAR offers vocationally focused courses in English, also tar-

geting students who failed to gain places on full-time courses and

students in employment. Original plans for solely on-line learning

have been modified by introducing a network of support centres for

students in Malaysia and elsewhere. Like UNTIEM, UNITARoffers expertise in course design commercially since there is much

local expertise in this area (Healy 2001).

At a regional level, some private colleges and public universities

have programmes with the Cambodian National University and the

Multimedia University and several private colleges already operate

regionally.

Foreign distance based courses started to appear in 1998, tending

to focus on professional qualifications, external degrees, and voca-

tionally based courses such as MBAs. Professional courses continue

to be offered via distance learning and in 2000, there were over 70,000

Malaysian students taking UK professional courses at a distance.Australian provision also exists. The international reputation of

professional courses additionally attracts Chinese and Indonesian

students who use such programmes as routes towards work in the

USA (Healy 2001).

The UK’s distance learning provision is also well established in

higher education and professional training. Around 90% of UK

campus universities have developed distance education courses in

several subject areas and at various levels (British Council 2003) and

the commercial sector relies heavily on distance learning for training

staff.

Besides the traditional universities and colleges, there are four

principal providers of distance learning (at higher education level) inthe UK and other smaller providers:

• The Open University (OU) is the largest with over 200,000 stu-

dents and clients a year.

• The University of London External Programme offers oppor-

tunities to obtain University of London degrees at a distance




through self-study or through overseas providers (who are not

accredited by the University).

• The National Extension College is a private provider offering

over 150 professional and non-professional courses.

• The Open Learning Foundation (OLF) is a consortium of forty

member universities that award their own degrees, using OLF

materials.

The UK’s national e-university, established with government support

in 2001, has not proved to be successful, although a parallel Scottish

venture – the Interactive University – is expanding. The Open Uni-

versity (OU) has also invested in e-learning and is regarded as theUK’s main e-learning institution.

Approaches to Quality Review

Approaches to quality review tend to be both nationally distinctive

and at different stages of development, particularly for distance

learning. Public and private provision is often treated separately.

In Jordan, ‘‘licensing’’ gives permission for a higher education

institution to operate and is separated from ‘‘accreditation’’ which

offers recognition to the institution and its programmes. Recent

policies have sought to strengthen quality assurance arrangements(Ministry of Higher Education in Jordan 2002b) including:

• creating a new independent Higher Education Quality Assurance

Council of Jordan (HEQACJ)

• restructuring the existing Accreditation Council to incorporate

all stakeholders (including government, employers and profes-

sional bodies)

• specifying that programmes must be evaluated in-house and

externally

• tying financial aid to public universities to compliance with

accreditation standards

• amending the accreditation process so that new programmes areevaluated according to need, feasibility and job opportunities for

graduates

• relating accreditation directly to a new national electronic test

(NET) of student achievement

• ranking all programs and universities and making these rankings

public.




To date, no specific criteria have been developed for accrediting

distance learning and the Higher Education Council (HEC) has not

recognised degrees obtained solely though distance learning. How-

ever, this stance is changing under pressures to develop distance

and on-line learning and the HEC has now accredited all degrees

offered from the newly formed Arab Open University (Khader

2002).

In Kenya, accreditation refers to a process of quality control and

assurance whereby an institution or its programmes is recognised as

meeting the minimum accepted standards for offering university level

education under the Universities Act. The Council for Higher Edu-

cation (CHE) is the sole accrediting and quality assurance body andis concerned with accrediting private universities that wish to achieve

university status. Other Government ministries are expected to reg-

ulate institutions that they have established (e.g. the Ministry of

Health and the Medical Training College) as well as programmes for

the training of their personnel by other providers.

Public universities are responsible for the quality of their own

courses, although some feel that the CHE accreditation system is

more rigorous than university quality assurance and suggest that it

should be used for the accreditation of new programmes (Teng’o

2003). Public and accredited universities are responsible, under the

direction of CHE, for any other institutions offering their pro-grammes. Proposed new legislation may in future apply CHE

accreditation rules to all higher education institutions, including

trans-national, for-profit, private and electronic providers although

the specific rules for electronic and other distance education pro-

grammes are expected to be different to residential programmes

(Njine 2002).

In Australia, each State/Territory has an Accreditation

Authority and institutions wishing to operate in multiple States

must seek mutual recognition arrangements between the juris-

dictions. After establishment, universities (and some non-

university institutions) become self-accrediting and responsible for

their own academic standards and quality assurance pro-cesses.They may also be subject to audits by state-auditors gen-

eral (Woodhouse 2003).

Key external reference points are provided for all institutions in

the form of the Australian Quality Assurance Framework for Higher

Education and the Australian Qualifications’ Framework. The

former involves five main elements:




• Public funding from the Commonwealth Government, via DE-

TYA, is tied to an accountability framework. The Australian

Universities’ Teaching Committee (AUTC) also aims to promote

quality and excellence in university teaching and learning (DE-

ETYA 2000).

• Australian universities must develop annual Quality Assurance

and Improvement Plans as part of their accountability to

government. When an Australian university operates in a dis-

tant location under its own name, the Council or governing

body is responsible for quality assurance. If there are serious

concerns about the quality of delivery, arrangements may be

subject to review by State or Territory governments (DETYA2000).

• Professional bodies and associations act as external arbiters in

the quality assurance framework through accreditation of pro-

fessional courses and through on-going monitoring of the quality

of these courses (UNESCO 2002).

• State/Territory Governments’ responsibilities related to quality

assurance in higher education are standardised in Protocols that

control the term ‘‘university’’ and protect the capacity to confer

higher education awards. State/Territory accrediting authorities

are responsible for the accreditation of programmes and awards

offered by around 100 non-self-accrediting, non-universityinstitutions based on the National Protocols.

• The Australian Universities’ Quality Agency (AUQA) conducts

‘‘whole of institution’’ audits of self-accrediting institutions

(mainly universities) and State/Territory accreditation agencies

on a 5-yearly basis and assists in improving academic quality in

institutions (Woodhouse 2003).

Australian regulatory and quality assurance systems have never

distinguished between methods of teaching and learning. Degrees

obtained by distance learning receive the same level of recognition

from employers and from other universities for admission to

further study (UNESCO 2002). Australian universities offeringcourses offshore are expected to maintain standards at least

equivalent to those provided in Australia and they carry full

responsibility for all aspects of delivery. However, researchers

note that regulating providers without a physical presence (e.g.

purely online delivery) is very difficult (McBurnie & Ziguras

2001). A number of Australian tertiary institutions have received




accreditation from the International Council for Open and Dis-

tance Education (ICDE).

In Malaysia, three departments in the Ministry of Education

regulate higher education: the Higher Education Department co-

ordinates and monitors the activities of public institutions of higher

learning, the Technical and Vocational Education Department reg-

ulates the polytechnics and the Department of Private Education

regulates private providers.

The National Accreditation Board (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara,

LAN) was established to provide quality standards and guidelines

for courses offered in private institutions. It determines accredita-

tion, monitors the implementation of compulsory subjects andadvises on the establishment, registration and approval of courses

from private institutions. As in Jordan, all educational institutions

must be licensed and may subsequently apply for accreditation for

their courses, thereby achieving formal recognition that their cer-

tificates, diplomas and degrees accord with the standards set by

LAN.

Public universities are generally self-accrediting, only requiring

Ministry approval to conduct new courses. All qualifications from

public and foreign universities are subject to recognition by the Public

Service Department (JPS) if graduates are to be employed in the

public sector (Suleiman 2002). In December 2001 a Quality Assur-ance Division (QAD) was set up in the Ministry, with a remit similar

to that of LAN. Trial institutional audits started in January 2003,

with a 5-year review cycle.

Professional courses must obtain approval to recruit students in

Malaysia and professional bodies in the country of origin must

accredit a foreign qualification before it can be recommended for

approval in Malaysia.

Distance learning courses are approved and accredited by LAN

according to the same standards as other campus-based courses;

there are also guidelines and regulations covering the conduct of

distance learning programmes. All qualifications offered externally

must have corresponding internal courses in Malaysia and there islegislative provision that students studying through distance

learning require at least 20 hours face-to-face with their tutors.

Also, if overseas-based distance learning institutions are not

licensed by the JPS, then they must have a local private partner,

even if they are totally on-line (British Council 2000). In December

2003, the Malaysian Education Minister reported that part-time




distance learning and online qualifications at all levels would not

be recognised by the Public Service Department due to numerous

reports of poor quality teaching and lack of recognition in their

home countries (http://www.Studymalaysia.com 2002). Part-time

distance learning and online courses must now be recognised under

LAN procedures.

Development of the new Malaysian Qualifications’ Framework

(MQF) to include all qualifications offered nationally by any kind

of provider or mode, will bring changes to the way quality

assurance is implemented in Malaysia. Several proposals are

being considered including separating the standard setting func-

tion from the ‘‘accreditation’’ process and merging of the QADwith LAN to create a single quality assurance body for Malay-

sian higher education by 2005 (Ministry of Education 2002;

Suleiman 2002).

The UK system has parallels with Australia. While the Depart-

ment for Education and Skills (DfES) is responsible for all univer-

sities, institutions are autonomous, having powers granted by royal

Charters and legislation. The power to award degrees is legally

regulated and all institutions that are recognised by the UK

authorities are listed at the DfES web site under the Recognised

Bodies Order.

• Recognised bodies – offer degrees by virtue of their own degreeawarding powers.

• Listed bodies – offer degrees by virtue of the degree awarding

powers of another institution (a recognised body).

Recognised bodies must validate (formally approve) all courses.

Foreign based institutions must make it clear that their degrees are

not UK qualifications (unless validated), although they can award

non-degree qualifications. The Open University’s national and

international service, Open University Validation Services (OUVS)

was established in 1992 to validate courses and programmes from

other institutions.

Each publicly funded higher education institution is legallyresponsible for the standards and quality of its academic awards

and programmes and receives guidance in the form of external

reference points from the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). These

include: a National Qualifications Framework, Codes of Practice,

Programme Specifications, Subject Benchmark Statements and

Student Progress Files. In addition, from 2004, all higher education




institutions in England will be required to make available infor-

mation on the institutional context, student admissions, progres-

sion and completion, and internal procedures for assuring

academic quality and standards. The QAA is responsible for

reviewing ‘‘academic quality’’ through an external audit process.

Related, but different approaches to external quality review operate

in Scotland and Wales.

Where practicable, the audit process includes consideration of

provision offered by institutions in collaboration with other provid-

ers, both in the UK and overseas. Distance learning offered by

publicly funded UK institutions is covered by the same quality

assurance systems as other forms of provision; the QAA has recentlypublished new Guidelines to support the quality assurance of ‘‘dis-

tributed learning’’.

The British Accreditation Council for Independent Further and

Higher Education (BAC) accredits UK independent (private)

higher and further education colleges. Although some BAC-

accredited colleges offer distance learning, those that solely deliver

courses by distance mode tend to seek accreditation through the

Open and Distance Learning Quality Council. The BAC also

accredits colleges from outside the UK that offer qualifications in

formal partnership with a British university or other authorised

body. Courses that lead to vocational or professional qualificationsare subject to accreditation by the relevant vocational or profes-

sional organisations.

Private and independent institutions may be accredited by the

Open and Distance Quality Council (ODLQC) or the British

Learning Association (BLA). The BLA’s Quality Mark provides a

quality assurance system using internal self assessment and external

verification of providers of open and flexible learning. The BLA also

has a code of practice produced in conjunction with the Department

for Education and Skills. The Online and Distance Quality Council

(ODLQC) is the only organisation in the UK that is formally

recognised as responsible for the accreditation (approval) of insti-

tutions offering open and distance education courses. Accreditedproviders can be self-contained organisations, a unit embedded

within a larger organisation, one member of a partnership between

one or more organisations, or one aspect of more wide-ranging

provision offered by a larger organisation. In the last case, some

standards apply directly to the provision, and some to the parent

body.




Conclusions Arising from the Case-studies

Distance learning

The nature and status of distance learning differs across the sample

countries for geographical, cultural, historical and technological

reasons. As John Daniel has noted, distance learning is evolving as a

function of time, place and technology (Daniel 1996). However, in all

countries distance learning is being promoted at national and insti-

tutional levels and is becoming increasingly interconnected with other

forms of provision: face-to-face, on and off-site, vocational and

work-related training and trans-national (or cross-border) education.The term ‘‘distance learning’’ may have several synonyms such as

‘‘flexible’’ or ‘‘distributed’’ learning and these often hide real differ-

ences in learning experience, forms of delivery and formal status

(accredited or non-accredited, leading to qualifications or not). The

scope of the term is growing wider as new forms of provision are

embraced, delivered by a variety of providers, both public and pri-

vate, either operating alone or in collaboration. In all the countries

sampled, open and virtual universities and other brokers of distance

learning are part of the picture, and in some, such as Australia,

Malaysia and the UK, consortia of institutions are also combining

with private sector partners. Individual governments and interna-

tional aid agencies such as the World Bank are seeking to build ICTcapacity at technological and human levels and international col-

laboration, nationally and regionally is actively encouraged. Gov-

ernment rationales for the development of distance learning include

increasing access, creating greater flexibility and choice for students,

facilitating international collaboration for capacity-building and

enabling the import of courses of economic relevance. The full impact

of such policies requires continued monitoring and investigation.

Quality review arrangements

There is considerable variety in the regulatory and reviewarrangements, as well as similarities where countries have learned

from each other. The forthcoming Malaysian Qualifications’

Framework has clearly benefited from Australian, New Zealand and

UK experiences. While terminology may appear similar (for

example: accreditation and recognition) in practice it often applies

differently to different kinds of provider (private or public sector or




overseas), different types of provision (distance learning or face-to-

face) or at different levels of the system (institution, programme or

educational service). In some countries, such as Kenya and Jordan,

there are few actors and agencies involved in regulation and quality

review arrangements. Elsewhere, as in the UK and Australia, there

are many levels to the system and an elaborate infrastructure that

guides the accreditation, assurance and enhancement of quality and

academic standards. It is worth considering the relative cost-benefits

of each system.

The purposes of quality review differ, as do the procedures, powers

and consequences of reviews. For example, developments in Jordan

point to the ranking of programmes and institutions as a purpose of the system while the UK is seeking to avoid such rankings. Also in

Jordan, plans suggest a link between financial aid and compliance

with accreditation standards, perhaps following the USA. The

Council for Higher Education in Kenya is only concerned at present

with private providers while the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency is

largely concerned with public providers (and does not accredit pro-

vision). While it is appropriate to discuss stages of development in

quality review – with Jordan and Kenya at earlier stages, historically,

than the UK and Australia – the trajectory towards ‘‘maturity’’ is far

from clear or straightforward.

The quality review of distance learning does not exist in somecountries, either because of a traditional lack of distance learning

or because of the development stage of quality review arrange-

ments more generally. Difficulties exist since some criteria that

apply to traditional provision, such as requirements for locally

taught qualifications, are difficult to meet. In other cases, distance

learning (local or trans-national) is treated differently from face-to-

face provision, as in Malaysia. Contrastingly, in Australia, no

distinctions are made in quality review procedures for different

forms of delivery and provision. However, it is important to note

that distance learning for the most part does not mean pure

‘‘electronically delivered’’ learning. This kind of provision appears

difficult to track or is ‘‘invisible’’ within the national regulatorysystems of many countries.

Quality review processes everywhere are continuing to evolve,

prompted by wider developments such as growth and variety of

provision and providers, national and international expectations and

comparators.




Lessons from the Wider Literature

Quality review in distance learning falls into several categories

reflecting historical, cultural and regulatory differences. These include:

• Not recognised . Distance learning, if visible, may not be formally

recognised since it is treated as different to campus-based or

‘‘higher-education level’’ provision.

• Not visible, ignored . Distance learning, without a visible presence

in another country (such as a branch campus, tutorial support or

learning centre) is ignored for recognition, accreditation and

quality assurance purposes.• Visible and subject to specific accreditation. Distance learning

that is visible through a local presence must be accredited or

licensed.

• Subject to general accreditation arrangements. Distance learning

follows the same accreditation arrangements as other forms of

learning, although standards and processes may be modified to

accommodate new learning media.

• Same accreditation status, but special review mechanisms. Dis-

tance learning is treated the same (in principle and level of rigour

in the review process) but its unique characteristics as a delivery

medium and mode of learning are recognised in the methods

used for review.• Specialist agencies and approaches: Distance learning is regarded

as significantly different in mode of learning and delivery

mechanisms, particularly in relation to aspects of ‘‘borderless

education’’ (where the educational process is ‘‘disaggregated’’

across a range of providers and aspects of provision). Specialist

agencies and review processes have developed to accommodate

such differences.

A variety of agencies and associations are involved in quality reviews

with differences in the scale and scope of their operations and in

whether they are offering non-profit or for-profit services. Growth in

cross-border and trade in education has led to a parallel rise in cross-

border quality review as well as trade in quality review and accredi-

tation services including:

• Specialist agencies with local and international reach, covering

particular sectors or all sectors.

• Specialist networks and associations set up by institutions.




• Professional bodies operating locally and internationally.

• National agencies focusing on their own country and including

imported providers and provision from other countries.

• National or state agencies operating overseas in relation to their

national providers.

• National or state agencies operating overseas in relation to their

own and other providers.

• Regional agencies and associations.

• International agencies and associations.

Additionally, other groups build capacity and spread good practice,

albeit not exclusively for distance learning. At a regional level theseinclude the European Network of Quality Agencies (ENQA) and at a

global level, the International Network of Quality Assurance Agen-

cies in Higher Education and the Global Forum on International

Quality Assurance, Accreditation and the Recognition of Qualifica-

tions set up by UNESCO. Much relevant guidance is also published.

The USA arguably leads the way in its range of networks and

associations for distance learning, its variety of quality review and

improvement processes, and in the amount of distance learning that is

reviewed. For example, CHEA reported that 5,655 institutions were

accredited by the 17 institutional accreditors (national and regional)

and that of these, 1,979 offered some form of distance learning pro-

grammes or courses (CHEA 2002). However, we should not forgetthat other countries have sizeable distance learning provision. India,

for example, has ten open universities and around 62 distance edu-

cation directorates in traditional universities, some of which have

study centres overseas. In Thailand and Turkey, the national open

universities enrol respectively 41 and 38% of the total student pop-

ulation in the home country (World Bank 2002).

Variety also exists in quality review processes for distance learning

which can best be understood as parts of a system. The content of

each part of the system may or may not be different to the quality

review processes applied to other modes of learning. The main

approaches are:Inputs. Frames of reference, policies, principles, criteria, benchmarks,

standards, codes of practice and guidelines for each component

under review

Processes. Accreditation (provider and programme levels), audit

(providers, provision and services to the student), internal review,

external assessments.




Outputs. Reports (public or private), performance indicators,

descriptive information, comparative information and data.

Outcomes. A license to operate as provider, access to funding (insti-

tutional or student-based), access to partners, recognition of

qualifications for unlimited or limited purposes (e.g. licensed

graduates for entry to professions, recognition of qualifications for

entry to public service employment).

Quality review processes serve a variety of purposes including

improvement and development, assurance, accountability for the

education provided or the use of public funds and provision of

information to students, other institutions, governments, employersand other interested parties. The forms of review currently differ

according to both purpose and audience.

Challenges and Policy Issues in the Quality Review of Distance

Learning

One of the most obvious challenges for quality review arising from

new forms of distance learning is that the learning is not site-specific.

‘‘Accreditation’’ as it has evolved in the US, and mirrored in other

countries, involves site-based tasks such as visiting campuses and

examining classrooms. Eaton (2002) describes some of the newchallenges arising when reviewing electronic forms of distance

learning:

• Computer-mediated classrooms;

• Separation in time between communications;

• Availability of online services such as advising, mentoring and

library services which are integrated with the online teaching and

learning environment;

• Changes in faculty roles (by reducing face-to-face interactions

and increasing written interactions, by separating curriculum

design from delivery, by increasing standardised rather than

individually created materials and by shifting the determinationof curriculum standards and outcomes to corporate providers);

• Extending the range of ‘‘institution’’ and ‘‘learning environ-

ment’’ to include online communities of practice or campuses

and online chat rooms;

• Changing the meaning of college degrees since electronic access

can enable students to be mobile, attending more than one




institution either serially or simultaneously, online or onsite. A

degree can thus represent a single and distinctive institutionally

based experience or a multi-faceted portfolio of educational

experiences.

The range of providers also presents challenges – for example, online

consortia and corporate universities – as well as the expanded focus

on training since distance learning is often a favoured mode of

instruction for post-experience learning. Accreditation agencies need

to broaden their services and reach, not least because of the

increasingly blurred boundaries between providers and forms of

provision. This also has implications for the organisation of qualityreview processes within government departments since more than one

Ministry or department is often involved.

Stella and Gnanam (2004) comment from experience of the

NAAC in India, highlighting both general challenges and those that

may be of particular significance for developing countries. Their

concerns include the lower standards of enrolling students, inade-

quacy of student support services, limitations caused by lack of face-

to-face interaction between teachers and learners and the perception

that distance learning is not of equal status to traditional forms of

education. They report that despite considerable progress in assuring

the quality and effectiveness of distance learning, key differences

between traditional, face-to-face provision and distance learning needto be taken into account in quality review processes.

The growth of cross-border education, usually involving some

measure of distance learning, raises other issues. In 2001, CHEA’s

second international seminar on Quality Review drew particular

attention to cross-border distance learning, the impact of new com-

petitors and the growing market in higher education. Another con-

cern was the ‘‘disaggregation’’ of parts of the educational process

across a range of providers. The questions and issues discussed

included:

• Potential for cultural imperialism in quality assurance;

• Difficulties of identifying cross-cultural indicators and substan-tive transnational indicators of quality;

• The need to capture good practice in quality assurance

arrangements for imported and exported education, including

consumer protection and ethical practice;

• Measures for dealing with low levels of literacy and limited study

skills among students, including differences across countries;




• Quality assurance of virtual providers;

• Meeting the costs of quality assurance.

In a specialist symposium on quality in distributed learning environ-

ments held in 2000, other issues were raised (Twigg 2001). If – as some

would argue – online and borderless education represent a fundamental

shift in the nature of higher education, then significant modifications in

quality review are necessary. Most national and state systems focus on

‘‘providers’’ (institutions and their programmes) and were created by

professionals for professionals. In future, Twigg suggests, the focus

should be on the consumer. Key concerns for consumers include levels

of conformity of the institution, programme or course to acceptedpractice, whether good practice is exemplified in relevant provision and

how students as consumers can differentiate and choose between the

multiplicity of offerings available. Popular commercial web-sites

offered an analogy for quality review systems of the future. For

example, Amazon.com, eBay and Zagat offer pathways through their

web-sites based on a statement of preferences (what a customer is

seeking); they provide an opportunity for consumer and expert input

about the preferences; and offer simple rankings of consumer reviews.

A ‘‘student-focused review system’’ might contain some of these

characteristics and adopt some of these tools.

In the commercial sector, associations are developing different

solutions to the quality challenges. For example, the AmericanSociety for Training and Development offers ‘‘e-learning courseware

certification’’ through an affiliated body, the ASTD Certification

Institute. The focus is on matters such as user interface, technical

compatibility, production quality and instructional design (OBHE

2003). The British Learning Association’s ‘‘Quality Mark’’ focuses on

four separate activities: learning centres, advice and guidance, learner

support and materials’ development. This explicitly addresses the

issue of ‘‘disaggregation’’ in the educational process, a common

feature in distance learning. The generic ISO range of standards are

also widely used and several higher education institutions in different

countries including Australia, Canada, Thailand, Indonesia, Malay-sia, Latvia and the UK (with the majority in Asia) have gained ISO

9001 certification for ‘‘quality management of organisational activity

to ensure customer satisfaction and regulatory compliance’’. There

have been recent discussions with the ISO body to consider devel-

oping more tailored standards for all levels of education, to include

e-learning.




Conclusions

Our case-studies and analysis of the wider literature illustrate the

diversity, complexity and volatility in the quality review of distance

learning. While institutions, agencies and governments are clearly

debating key issues, exchanging practice and building capacity, there

is much still to be achieved. Enhancing and streamlining quality

review systems is a priority so that distance learning is accorded the

same status as other forms of provision. In addition, new review

methods are needed to address ‘‘non-visible’’ and cross-border pro-

vision to protect and inform all interested parties, from students to

governments and employers. Policy agencies also need to address theissues of classification and terminology that make it difficult to

compare practice across countries. Finally, researchers need to

undertake fine-grained studies of different countries that take account

of important contextual features so that those who are seeking to

import or export education can ensure that ‘‘quality’’ is delivered and

assured in ways that are acceptable for each country.

References

Agatu M. (2001). Internet project targets varsities. Nairobi: Daily Nation. April 9th

2001.Awadat, I. (2002). New way of learning gets underway through the AOU. The Star,

Jordan 13/07/2002.

British Council (2000). Global Education and Training Information Service – Malaysia

Profile. March 2000.

British Council (2003). Personal communication.

Chale E.M. and Michaud P. (1997). Distance Learning for Change in Africa: A Case

Study of Senegal and Kenya. IDRC Study/Acacia Initiative. Ottawa, Canada:

International Development Research Centre.

CHEA (2002). Accreditation and Assuring Quality in Distance Learning. Washington:

CHEA. CHEA Monograph Series, Number 1.

CIA (2003). CIA-The World Factbook – Australia. Available at: http://www.cia.

gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html. Last updated: 1st August 2003.

CVCP (2000). The Business of Borderless Education: UK Perspectives, Vols. 1–3.

London: CVCP (now Universities UK).

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (2000). The Australian Higher

Education Quality Assurance Framework. Canberra: Commonwealth of Austra-

lia00/G Occasional Paper Series.

Daniel, J. (1996). Mega-Universities and the Knowledge Media: Technology Strategies

for Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.




Eaton, J.S. (2002). Maintaining the Delicate Balance: Distance Learning, Higher

Education Accreditation, and the Politics of Self-Regulation. Washington: Amer-

ican Council on Education.

Gamage D. (2000). Australian Higher Education: Current Issues and Policy

Directions. International Higher Education, Fall 2000.

Healy, P. (2001). Malaysia: Distance Learning and In-Country Delivery – A report on

the Market. The British Council.

Khader L. (2002). Arab Open University gets off to a slow start in Amman. The Star,

Jordan. 19th October 2002.

McBurnie, G. & Ziguras, C. (2001). The regulation of transnational higher education

in Southeast Asia: Case studies of Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia, Higher

Education, 42, 85–105.

Middlehurst, R. (2001). Quality assurance implications of new forms of higher

education. Helsinki: ENQA Occasional Paper.

Ministry of Education, Malaysia (2002). Maklumat Pendidikan Swasta 2002, Jabatan

Pendidikan Swasta, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Ministry of Higher Education, Jordan (2002a). Jordanian Higher Education. Ministry

of Higher Education, Jordan.

Ministry of Higher Education, Jordan (2002b). Vision Forum for the Future of

Education: General Education, Higher Education and Vocational, Technical

Education and Training. Ministry of Higher Education.

Njine, G.C. (2002). Case Study – Africa. Prepared for ‘‘The First Global Forum on

International Quality Assurance, Accreditation and the Recognition of Qualifi-

cations in Higher Education: Globalisation and Higher Education’’. UNESCO

17–18 October 2002.

OBHE (2003). Quality Assurance in Borderless Higher Education. Six initiatives.

Briefing Note No.11, May 2003. London: OBHE.OECD (2004). Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities and

Challenge. Paris: OECD.

Stella, A. & Gnanam, A. (2004). Quality in Distance Education: The Challenges to

be Addressed, Higher Education, 47, 143–160.

http://www.Studymalaysia.com (2002). Information sourced from Study in Malaysia

Handbook (International) 3rd Edition, Malaysian Ministry of Education.

Suleiman, M. (2002). ‘IV. Case Study Malaysia: New Providers of Higher Education

in Malaysia’ in Case Studies – Asia and the Pacific for ‘‘The First Global Forum

on International Quality Assurance, Accreditation and the Recognition of

Qualifications in Higher Education: Globalisation and Higher Education’’.

UNESCO.

TengÕo D. (2003). WhatÕs in a Name? Chartered or Registered. in Universities: A

Special Journal . Nairobi: Daily Nation. October 13th 2003.

Twigg (2001). Quality Assurance for Whom?Providers and Consumers in Today’sDistributed Learning Environment. New York: Center for Academic Transforma-

tion.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2002). Kenya Data Profile.

Available at: http://www.undp.org/hdr2002/indicator/cty_f_KEN.html.

UNESCO (2002). Australia – Education system. Source: Department of Education,

Science and Training, Canberra, 2002, for academic year 2001–2002.




Woodhouse, D. (2003). Accreditation and Audit in Australia. Presentation at

INQAAHE – Asia Pacific Sub-network Forum, January 2003.

Van der Wende, M. & van de Ven, M. (2003). The Use of ICT in Higher Education: A

Mirror of Europe. Utrecht: Lemma.

World Bank (2002). Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Higher

Education. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Centre for Policy and Change in Tertiary Education

Univeristy of Surrey

Senate House,

Guildford , Surrey, GU2 7XH ,

United KingdomE-mail: [email protected]


middlehurst & woodfield -- quality review in distance learning- policy and practice in five...

Documents