This article was published in the Ed Journal (1998, July): United States Distance Learning Association, Byron CA and republished by Distance Learning Week [Online](1999). Available: http://www.pbs.org/adultlearning/als/dlweek/highered2.htm#more .

Quality in Distance learning

Educators developing distance learning courses to meet the needs of today's learners continue to face challenges from the community of "traditional" educators and accrediting bodies. Educational technologies and learning methodologies used to provide flexible learning programs to students are indited as not meeting appropriate standards of "quality." The assumption is made that the classroom is the best place for learning to occur. Distance learning methodologies are judged primarily on their ability to duplicate classroom experiences. New methods are needed to insure and validate the quality of distance learning programs.

The problem...

The problem of quality assurance and distance education was highlighted in February 1998 when the Council for Higher Education Accreditation hosted a conference addressing Quality Assurance and Distance Education. At this conference executive directors of accreditation organizations, leaders of state and national education associations, directors of corporate colleges, presidents of colleges and universities, and professionals working on distance education policy issues considered the following areas significant:

• Quality assurance of distance learning is one of the most important concerns facing higher education today
• Distance learning provides unique challenges to the traditional accreditation process. In many cases, new forms of distance learning may
• involve independent learning
• have no traditional faculty
• have no face-to-face contact with students
• be offered at multiple places at different times
• involve outside contractors and brokers
• Distance learning promises to take advantage of new educational markets that transcend regions and borders
• There is not, as yet, any organized strategy to assure quality of many of the new forms of distance learning
• There is not, as yet, consensus about terminology (e.g., whether to talk about "distance education," or "distance learning," or "technology-based learning.")
• The accreditation community is in the early stages of addressing this challenge (move this to the last bullet position)
•  

The following quality assurance issues were identified at the conference:

• How do we deal with outcomes?
• What do the new developments in distance learning mean for traditional forms of regional and specialized accreditation?
• Do the current quality assurance processes hinder quick response to new markets?
• How can we decide on a good definition and description of distance learning?
• How do we ensure consumer protection?
• What is the unit of accreditation: course, program, degree, certificates, or institution?
• How can we determine existing commonalties among quality assurance players?
• How do we keep diversity among institutions in the pursuit of common national standards?
• How does accreditation keep pace with the changing demands of education providers?
• How can we deal with specific challenges to traditional higher education: non-term structure of courses, no traditional seat time, enrollment in multiple programs and institutions, and issues resulting from full-time/part-time enrollments?
• How can we monitor the activity of third-party contractors such as brokers and individual entrepreneurs?
• How do we deal with new roles and definitions of faculty?
• How can we deal with the dilemma between the need for flexibility in creating standards and the need for rigorous and solid procedures?
• Who would comprise a visitation team and where would they visit?)

The CHEA references and Internet Web site links are provided at the end of this article for you to review the source of the above information in more detail.

The Problem remains. . .

Notwithstanding conferences such as this, there is still very limited guidance in the quality assurance area for distance learning. The problem remains that many in education feel that in order for distance learning to be successful it must duplicate experiences that occur in the classroom. The extensional approach that has been the foundation of early distance learning programs relied on technology to connect students and faculty in multiple geographical locations. The emphasis was placed on the technology with the assumption that effective learning would be the product of a "technically" reproduced classroom experience for the student and the instructor.

As educators look forward, new models of delivery must be accompanied by enhanced assessments that look beyond the traditional classroom methods into more comprehensive measurements of student outcomes. Asynchronous modes of distance learning may require that educators look more toward to learner-centered activities in the development of courses.

The good news . . .

The good news is that distance learning methods produce positive results. Thanks to the research over the years, study after study has shown that distance learning provides education that is equivalent to or better than the traditional classroom. Thomas L. Russell (1995), Director of the Office of Instructional Telecommunications North Carolina State University has compiled a summary of 218 research reports, summaries, and papers written between the years 1945-1995. The worst score for distance learning was "no significant difference" from the classroom with a number of studies showing distance learning better than the classroom.

A 1992 study by Pennsylvania State University suggests that employee retention during training via distance learning is equal or superior to classroom instruction. Another study shows that interactive video-based instruction achieved a 25 to 50 percent higher retention rate than classroom instruction (Multimedia and Videodisc Monitor, March, 1992). Mounting evidence shows that the quality of learning is higher with either interactive computer-based training and other self-directed, technology-based training than traditional instruction. (Wall Street Journal, January 3, 1996) Case studies show that self-paced, multimedia training can take 20 to 80 percent less time than instructor-led training, due to a tighter instructional design and learners' option to bypass content already mastered (Training and Development, February, 1996). A survey of more than 100 companies shows that multimedia training can reduce learning time by 50% when compared with classroom training.

Assessment is the key

Assessment is the key to breaking loose from the past and moving forward in developing innovative learning programs that provide for increased flexibility in learning activities. If distance learning is to continue to expand into the mainstream of higher education, criteria must be established for the iinnovative learning methodologies appearing on the horizon. The purpose of this article is not to provide specific criteria and assessment procedures. It is intended to provide a foundation for the reader's further research into the area of quality and distance education.

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools provides some important points to consider as educators work to refine criteria and assessment procedures:

• The relevance of initiating a distance learning program to the mission and purpose of the institution
• The commitment of the Board, administration, and faculty to a distance learning program
• The availability of financial resources sufficient to initiate and maintain a distance learning program
• The potential interest or "market" of students for a distance learning program
• The programmatic areas for which distance learning is appropriate
• The administrative responsibility of the distance learning program
• The interest, ability, and competence of the faculty to provide instructional services in a distance learning mode
• The availability of a strategy for making appropriate learning resources and services available for distance learning students
• The flexibility to alter existing institutional systems to provide the depth and breadth of support services that distance learning students expect and should be provided, including admissions, registration, academic advising, financial aid, remedial services, placements services, testing, orientation, computing, and other related support services
• The availability of facilities and equipment necessary to deliver a distance learning program
• A detailed plan for the systematic evaluation of the distance learning program and how the evaluation findings will be used to support program improvements.

Other organizations also provide some excellent considerations for distance learning quality assurance. Many of the resources listed at the end of this article are readily available via WWW sites on the Internet. Educators need to harness their academic resources to develop collaborative strategies to evaluate distance education and its effectiveness for students in the changing educational environment.

Sources for Distance Learning Quality Information

Burgstahler, S. (1997). Teaching on the net: What's the difference? [Online]. Available: http://www.thejournal.com/past/APRIL/0497feat2.html [1998, June 18].

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education [Online]. Available: http://eminfo.emc.maricopa.edu/innovation/intro/7principles.html [1998, June 18].

Code of good practice: Principles of student assessment. (1994). [Online]. Available: http://www.unisa.edu.au/adminfo/codes/old%20codes/ASSESSMT.HTM [1998, June 18].

Conference summary: Quality assurance and distance education. (1998). [Online]. Available: http://www.chea.org/index.html/Events/QA_summary.html [1998, June 18].

Commission on Colleges, Southern Associations of Colleges and Schools. (no date). Guidelines for planning distance learning activities. Decatur, GA: Author.

Council on Social Work, Commission on Accreditation. (1995). Distance education guidelines [Online]. Available: http://www.cswe.org/distance.htm [1998, June 18].

Distance Education Advisory Committee, Pennsylvania State University. (1996). Distance education at Penn State: Vision, principles, and policies [Online]. Available: http://www.cde.psu.edu/de/Programmatic_Vision.html [1998, June 18].

Distance learning course design suggestions (1996). [Online]. Available: http://eastnet.educ.ecu.edu/schofed/lset/greer/WALTON/suggest.htm [1998, June 18].

Evaluation tools (1998). [Online]. Available: http://mime1.marc.gatech.edu/MM_Tools/evaluation.html [1998, June 18].

Guiding principles for distance learning in a learning society. (1996). [Online]. Available: http://www.lucent.com/cedl/ace.html [1998, June 18].

Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. (1998). [Online]. Available: http://www.tecweb.org/eddevel/de95.html [1998, June 18].

King, J. W. (no date). Seven principles of good teaching practice [Online]. Available: http://www.ag.iastate.edu/departments/agronomy/nciss/kingsat2.html [1998, June 18].

Krauth, B. (1996). Principles of good practice for distance learning programs [Online]. Available: http://cause-www.colorado.edu/information-resources/ir-library/abstracts/cem9613.html [1998, June 18].

Office of Interactive Distance Learning, Florida State University. (1998). Instructional design for interactive distance learning [Online]. Available: http://www.idl.fsu.edu/design/instructionaldesign.html [1998, June 18].

Phipps, R. A., Merisotis, J. P., & Wellman, J. V. (1998). Assuring quality in distance learning: A preliminary review [Online]. Available: http://www.chea.org/index.html/Perspective/assuring.html [1998, June 18].

Russell, T. (1995). The "no significant difference" phenomenon [Online]. Available: http://media.hku.hk/cmr/edtech/NSD/phenom.html [1998, June 18].

Southern Regional Electronic Campus (1998). [Online]. Available: http://www.srec.sreb.org/index.html [1998, June 18].

University of Massachusetts. (1996). Course administration principles for distance learning [Online]. Available: http://willow.uml.edu/www/Telecom/twt/TADS/tadscap.html [1998, June 18].