| The number of online degree programs offered by | | | | rise of distance education with little attention to new |
| universities, both within the United States and in | | | | benchmarks [ emphasis added] for evaluation and |
| other countries around the globe, has expanded | | | | assessment”. Many countries are implementing |
| remarkably from the year 2000 to 2005. Recent | | | | major new quality assurance processes and |
| research [ Pond (2002), Twigg, (2001), Swail and | | | | requirements that require documentation of learning |
| Kampits (2001), Nielson (1997)] indicates that this | | | | outcomes, the student experience, institutional |
| rapid expansion has superceded our understanding of | | | | planning processes, and proof of institutional financial |
| how to plan, organize, and evaluate these programs | | | | stability. |
| effectively. Currently available frameworks provide | | | | Establishing appropriate updated standards and |
| general guidelines for creating programs of high | | | | benchmarks for evaluating the quality and impact of |
| quality, but they are not specific enough to be of | | | | online degree programs is now essential. Recently |
| high value in comprehensively organizing and ensuring | | | | several organizations have proposed new guidelines |
| a quality online degree program. Hence, the | | | | for assessing the quality of these programs, but the |
| development of a solid and comprehensive | | | | resulting frameworks are still inadequate and |
| framework for benchmarking quality of online degree | | | | incomplete. |
| programs is critical to future program growth and | | | | To establish the status of currently available quality |
| expansion. | | | | assessment tools the authors reviewed a number of |
| This discussion is organized around four core themes. | | | | presently used quality assessment guidelines. |
| First, the authors present the status of currently | | | | Specifically, the authors examined these guidelines |
| available quality assessment frameworks for | | | | with the goal of assessing how well the set of |
| assessing the quality of online degree programs. | | | | guidelines incorporate the following criteria suggested |
| Second, emerging concepts for quality assessment | | | | by literature review as being critical to establishing |
| are reviewed. Third, the authors propose a | | | | quality: |
| comprehensive and utilitarian program improvement | | | | • To what extent do the program's teaching |
| model, and the model's core concepts, structure, and | | | | learning materials and processes? |
| focus are discussed. Finally, areas for further research | | | | • Foster collaborative learning? |
| in quality improvement and assessment for online | | | | • Facilitate formation of learning communities? |
| degree programs are outlined. | | | | • Facilitate social integration? |
| Current Status: The Need for a Review of Existing | | | | • Facilitate career integration? |
| Quality Guidelines | | | | • Impart the skills necessary to transfer |
| Increased student demand for flexible education has | | | | knowledge to job performance? |
| created considerable interest among many private | | | | • How flexible is the program in enabling learners |
| educational providers who want to capitalize on this | | | | to pursue education anywhere, anytime, at anypace? |
| emerging market of professionals wishing to maintain | | | | • How does the program prepare participants to |
| and update their skills in a rapidly changing economic | | | | become successful lifelong learners? |
| and technological environment. With the rapid | | | | • How well does the program address societal |
| expansion of higher education generally, and distance | | | | educational needs? |
| education online degree programs in particular, | | | | • Are program costs examined comprehensively |
| concern for the educational quality of these programs | | | | from the perspective of the learner, in terms of |
| has become an issue of paramount importance | | | | time, access, and dollars, as well as from the |
| globally. Swail and Kampits (2001) observe, | | | | perspective of the institution on these measures? |
| “Absent accountability, quality assurance , and | | | | • Are employer requirements concerning the |
| evaluation , distance learning increasingly attracts | | | | learning outcomes of online programs specifically listed |
| educational providers attuned to marketability and | | | | in appropriate situations and contexts and included as |
| profit” (p. 38). Past approaches to assessing | | | | a criterion of overall program quality? |
| quality based on guidelines have focused primarily on | | | | • To what extent are requirements of |
| evaluating inputs to the educational process, such as | | | | governments incorporated as a critical element of |
| facilities, quality of teaching and research staff, | | | | quality? |
| volumes in the library, the preparation and quality of | | | | • Are relevant cross-cultural challenges, choice of |
| incoming students. This approach for measuring and | | | | language of instruction, and meeting international |
| ensuring quality can no longer be sufficient in an | | | | standards and requirements for accreditation |
| environment that demands institutional accountability | | | | considered a key element of quality online programs? |
| for what students learn rather than what the | | | | • Do criteria incorporate performance evaluation |
| institution teaches. Swail and Kampits (2001) also | | | | criteria appropriate to the goals and processes of |
| observe, “Over the past three decades, | | | | online learning, rather than using simplistic comparisons |
| accreditors (and the public) have supported the rapid | | | | with what happens in face-2-face classrooms? |