Quality Assurance in Open Distance Learning

1
Quality Assurance in Open Distance Learning

• Prof. Wendy R. Kilfoil
• Bureau for Learning Development
• Unisa

2
Outline of presentation

• Clarification of terms
• Distance education in the U.S.
• Distance Education and Training Council
• Quality Assurance Agency in the U.K.
• Distance education in S.A.
• Unisas accreditation experience
• Guidelines for institutions
• Suggestions to HEQC

3
Quality control

• Responsibility of academics to build in quality
  controls
• Use methods and design activities that lead to
  quality outcomes
• Academics knowledge, enthusiasm, use of
  appropriate media, monitoring of student
  progress, planning and instructional design

4
Quality assurance/ quality management system

• Management responsibility
• Put in place mechanisms and standard procedures
  to ensure that quality control is working.
• Harman (1998, p.346) quality assurance refers
  to systematic management and assessment
  procedures adopted to ensure achievement of
  specific quality or improved quality, and to
  enable key stakeholders to have confidence in the
  management of quality and the outcomes achieved.

5
Quality assessment

• External agency
• Middlehurst (1992, pp.28-9) judgment of
  performance and outcomes against certain criteria
  or objectives, in order to establish whether the
  required standard has been achieved, and if
  failures or shortfalls occur, to ensure that they
  are corrected.

6
Quality audit

• External agency and institutional responsibility
• SAQA (1998)the process of examining the
  indicators which show the degree of excellence
  achieved.
• Alderman (1996, p.185) Audit is a powerful
  instrument of change, but it is not a measure of
  quality. It does not, for example, compare
  standards of degrees, or make judgments as to the
  quality of teaching.

7
Accreditation

• Certification
• CHE (2002. p.9) Accreditation signals that
  programmes that lead to registered qualifications
  achieve set standards, conduct their activities
  with integrity, deliver outcomes that justify
  public confidence and demonstrate accountability
  for the effective use of public or private funds.
  It allows government to invest public funds with
  confidence in programmes that demonstrate their
  ability to pass through a process of rigorous
  external scrutiny.

8
Accountability and improvement

• Higher education
• costly to nation, parents and students
• decisive factor in the economic success of a
  nation
• social impact
• iproves the quality of life of graduates
• Accountability
• not control
• does not undermine the autonomy of the
  institution
• Improvement or enhancement of the educational
  inputs, processes and outcomes
• feedback loop from quality assurance or
  accreditation process

9
Distance education in the U.S.

• Regional and national accrediting agencies, all
  with standards for distance education
• Standards often focus online distance education
  as it was the progress of technology that
  stimulated the growth of the industry.
• Distance education expected to produce equivalent
  outcomes and meet the same standards as
  traditional, campus-based programmes
• Non-governmental
• Focus improvement

10
Distance Education and Training Council

• Accredits all distance education programmes in
  the U.S. at school and tertiary level, public and
  private
• Accredits internationally
• Member participation in standard setting
• New emphasis on outcomes assessment
• Non-governmental
• Focus improvement

11
Quality Assurance Agency in the U.K.

• Contact and DE
• Non-governmental
• Members participate in standard setting
• Increasing database of standards for specific
  disciplines
• Assumes the OU model with tutors and regional
  offices
• Standards for online
• Distance education should provide an equivalent
  experience to contact tuition
• Focus improvement

12
Distance education in S.A.

• HEQC
• Initial neglect of distance education
• SAIDEs criteria
• Audit and accreditation
• Governmental
• Focus accountability

13
Unisas accreditation experience

• DETC accreditation 2002
• Methodology
• Self-evaluation report
• Preparatory visit
• Pre-visit activities student surveys, materials
  evaluation
• Examining panel
• Response to chairpersons report
• Accrediting Commissions decision and
  recommendations

14
Guidelines for institutions

• Institute a system of data and management
  information collection and include a feedback
  loop that will enhance the quality of the
  learning experiences of students.
• Place quality assurance of academic programmes
  under the control of the Senate.
• When drawing up the SER, wide participation and
  team work are essential.
• Draw up an outcomes assessment plan
• assessment of students by academics
• assessment of academics and programmes by
  students
• national and international benchmarking
• Get involved in setting standards and serve on
  examining panels.
• Guard your autonomy move the system towards self
  regulation and quality improvement.

15
Suggestions to HEQC

• Involve the higher education community in drawing
  up standards and serving on examining panels.
• Integrate with the SAQA system and use the
  outcomes of registered qualifications in
  evaluating programmesBe sensitive to context and
  the individual institutions mission in order to
  foster diversity.
• Include distance education guidelines in
  standards.
• Define the role of professional bodies.
• Run annual workshops for training evaluators,
  planning self studies, etc.
• Apply the self study, site visit, peer evaluation
  system used internationally.
• After the first accreditation, allow institutions
  to opt for a comprehensive study with emphases or
  a focused self study.
• Use a flexible system with more set questions for
  an original accreditation visit, and more
  self-generated questions for future visits.
• Make accreditation about quality improvement not
  control.

16
Conclusion

• Morrison, Magennis Carey (1995, p.129)
  universities are being encouraged to report
  simple, readily available quantitative measures
  at the expense of complex qualitative assessments
  of the quality of higher education, based upon
  professional judgments.
• Improvement the focus not merely accountability
  and control.