Review by: Wirth, Markus (2004-09-13)

Starting with the still remaining scepticism towards online learning, this article addresses the discussion around quality assurance frameworks in higher education in general, and in online delivery in particular. Moreover, the author examines quality standards that have been proposed for the delivery of online instruction in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States.

Despite of the many differences between the country specific approaches to quality in online education, the authors of this article see enough common ground between the four observed frameworks to establish some general characteristics for a scholarly approach to online teaching and learning. All observed frameworks include criteria on clear statements of educational goals, sustaining institutional support for learners and engaging in collaborative learning and finally enhancing the teaching and learning environment. Another area of commonality is the fact that to a large degree the frameworks are driven by external demands. Before all, massification, diversity, cuts to fundings paired with a higher pressure towards efficiency lead to greater awareness for quality discussions. Parker cites Pond’s description of a paradigm shift in learning to a more learner centred, tailored, open, collaborative, [a.o.] distributed delivery model which also asks for a paradigm shift in quality evaluation. As a consequence, the article leads into a discussion on how and how well quality frameworks in the four observed jurisdictions have integrated the changing paradigms into their procedures and criteria. As one of the most crucial consequences it is suggested, that the thinking on quality assurance will have to shift dramatically from external ‘compliance based approaches’ toward ‘comparative benchmarking’ and mutual recognition for international quality standards. The authors argue however, that many quality management initiatives still fail, because they lack a consistent and comprehensible measurement of the learning outcomes. They see the solution to this problem nor in the pure product nor in the pure process orientation, but in measures that address the integrity of the teaching and learning processes within institutions. Especially the effectiveness of articulated educational goals must be seen as an important means to align course, program, and institutional goals. A second theme running through all the major frameworks presented in this article is the need for sustained institutional commitment to support distance learners. All too often however, the authors see online delivery of courses and programs that are presented in a rather experimental mode, without long-term, planned infrastructure and faculty development.

This article gives a solid overview on quality management frameworks in four jurisdictions with different backgrounds and development history that in the core consist of very similar concepts on what makes quality online education. A detailed appendix, including the central statements of the presented frameworks, gives the reader a short but comprehensible understanding of the author’s conclusions and statements.