<< Chapter < Page Chapter >> Page >

In the early history of higher education, quality education was defined as a small group of elite students living together and learning under the guidance of a resident scholar. Later, quality was believed to primarily exist in those institutions that were expensive and highly exclusive (Daniel, Kanwar,&Uvalic-Trumbic, 2009). In the last few decades, quality has evolved to include accrediting bodies, and, for some, rankings in popular news magazines. However, the assurance of quality for higher education institutions in the United States has been addressed primarily by the regional accreditors (i.e., Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, etc.) and discipline-specific accreditation organizations such as the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) for business programs, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) for education programs and teacher certification, and various others. The regional accreditors emphasize a review process with an institution’s self-study report, demonstrating that established standards (e.g., faculty credentials, financial performance, student satisfaction, and the achievement of learner outcomes) have been met. Yet in spite of the accreditation process, public scrutiny of higher education is greater than ever before (Wergin, 2005). Because of this, many institutions are finding that their standard processes for quality assurance are now inadequate and, often, not a continuous process for improvement (Dill, 2000).

With the establishment of the Spellings Commission in 2005, the federal government became more heavily involved in institutional accountability. Institutions are being asked to provide more transparent evidence of student achievement and institutional performance, to establish methods for comparing to and benchmarking against other institutions, and to establish threshold levels for learning standards (Eaton, 2007). Because of the changing landscape and increased call for accountability, higher education is now being challenged to reconceptualize methods and processes used to indicate quality and excellence, including those used for assessing and evaluating programs delivered online.

It has been said that delivering higher education online provides tremendous potential for the institution (Shelton&Saltsman, 2005). However, it is highly subject to suspicion and criticism (Casey, 2008). Therefore, online education programs must be diligent in demonstrating quality higher education to both its constituents and accreditors.

Quality evaluation for online education programs

Meyer (2002) reminds us that quality higher education is “a complex and difficult concept, one that depends on a range of factors arising from the student, the curriculum, the instructional design, technology used, [and] faculty characteristics” (p. 101). While the total concept of quality for all program elements may be difficult to grasp, it is not an excuse to ignore the need for assessing and demonstrating quality online education. Moreover, if enrollment growth continues as expected, the demand for quality will only increase (Cavanaugh, 2002).

Get Jobilize Job Search Mobile App in your pocket Now!

Get it on Google Play Download on the App Store Now




Source:  OpenStax, Ncpea handbook of online instruction and programs in education leadership. OpenStax CNX. Mar 06, 2012 Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11375/1.24
Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.

Notification Switch

Would you like to follow the 'Ncpea handbook of online instruction and programs in education leadership' conversation and receive update notifications?

Ask