6.2 Examining elements of quality within online education programs  (Page 7/9)

Accreditation and quality assurance. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) (2002) examined 17 institutional accreditors recognized by the United States Department of Education (USDE) or the CHEA. Each reviewed distance learning programs within their constituency which resulted in what they believed to be the seven key areas for assuring the quality of distance learning programs:

1. Institutional Mission: Does offering distance learning make sense in this institution?
2. Institutional Organizational Structure: Is the institution suitably structured to offer quality distance learning?
3. Institutional Resources: Does the institution sustain adequate financing to offer quality distance learning?
4. Curriculum and Instruction: Does the institution have appropriate curricula and design of instruction to offer quality distance learning?
5. Faculty Support: Are faculty competently engaged in offering distance learning and do they have adequate resources, facilities, and equipment?
6. Student Support: Do students have needed counseling, advising, equipment, facilities, and instructional materials to pursue distance learning?
7. Student Learning Outcomes: Does the institution routinely evaluate the quality of distance learning based on evidence of student achievement? (p. 7)

The CHEA report (2002) described three challenges that must be addressed for assuring the quality of online education programs: the alternative design of instruction, the abundance of alternative providers of higher education, and an expanded focus on training.

Concentric support model. Osika (2004) developed a concentric model for supporting online education programs using seven themes: faculty support, student support, content support, course management system support, technology support, program support, and community support. She validated this model with a panel of experts that consisted of administrators and those with various roles in online education programs including faculty and staff members.

Assessment recommendations. Moore and Kearsley (2005) postulated that while everyone within the institution has a role to play in quality education, they believed senior administrators should be responsible for measurement and quality improvements. While they did not offer a prescriptive plan for evaluation, they suggested assessment of the following areas: the number and quality of applications and enrollments; student achievement; student satisfaction; faculty satisfaction; program or institutional reputation; and the quality of course materials.

Six–factor solution. Haroff and Valentine (2006) surveyed adult educators and found six dimensions they believed to be important to program quality: (1) quality of instruction, (2) quality of administrative recognition, (3) quality of advisement, (4) quality of technical support, (5) quality of advance information, and (6) quality of course evaluation. It is interesting to note their inclusion of student advisement, which has not been heavily identified as a quality indicator in previous literature. They suggested a qualitative study be used to triangulate their results.