|
Accrediting On-Line Institutions Diminishes Higher Education
By JAMES PERLEY and DENISE MARIE TANGUAY
On-line instruction and distance education have swept through institutions of higher education with astounding speed. Now, commercial interests are avidly pursuing those developments, a reality
that threatens to redefine higher education. While on-line courses offered by traditional institutions raise a number of questions about the equivalence and quality of offerings, and about faculty responsibility for the curriculum, totally on-line institutions raise questions about the meaning and preservation of higher education itself.
Such institutions raise the specter of a higher-education system that is nothing more than a collection of marketable commodities -- a system that could turn out to be all but unrecognizable to the scholarly communities that invent and reinvent higher education on a daily basis.
Several indications of the new, commercially based enterprise have emerged in the past few years: the rapid, franchise-like expansion of the University of Phoenix, the establishment of Western Governors University, and the announcement of a new virtual university to be funded by the corporate parent of the publisher Harcourt Brace.
More than any of those developments, however, the decision of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools to accredit Jones International University causes the greatest concern.
Why? Because it is inappropriate, if not impossible, to accredit an entirely on-line institution using traditional methods, in which faculty members and administrators work together on an extensive self-study process.
Consider just a few of the key issues: Can accreditors truly evaluate a university based solely on distance learning -- with classrooms, libraries, and faculty members located somewhere in cyberspace -- in the same way that they evaluate a traditional institution? Can we really call those institutions "colleges" or "universities" if they lack both a critical core of full-time faculty members and a system of governance by which the faculty is responsible for developing curricula and academic policy?
Can accreditors actually determine that new, on-line institutions meet the same basic criteria for quality -- or, at least, equivalent criteria -- that traditional accredited institutions must meet?
Neither the University of Phoenix nor Western Governors University raises the same questions about accreditation as a totally campus-free, on-line institution, such as Jones International. Phoenix has 81 campuses and offers only a portion of its programs on line. Western Governors markets on-line courses offered by traditional universities, and has a special accreditation status through a multiregional accrediting agency.
The fundamental difficulty with institutions that rely heavily, or exclusively, on distance education is that they are characterized by a practice called "unbundling." In that practice, course materials are prepared by a "content expert" and delivered by a "faculty facilitator," in a uniform manner, producing predictable and measurable "outcomes" that fit uniform assessment tools. Such a process of turning education into modular units represents a basic change in an essential characteristic of higher education.
The unbundling process removes the student from the content expert and packages the course material into discrete units -- disrupting or precluding the critical interaction between students and faculty members over time. It destroys the ability of a faculty member to alter classroom content and process in response to students' reactions to the materials, or to consider the varying educational backgrounds and needs of individual students who are taking a specific course. In fact, we believe that the practice so alters the educational process that institutions offering only prepackaged or unbundled courses should not be accredited in the same way as traditional forms of higher education.
Three major features have characterized higher education in this country, have insured its quality, and have established its pre-eminent position in the world. Those features are what distinguishes higher education from other postsecondary endeavors, such as corporate training centers, proprietary trade schools, and continuing adult-education courses that do not lead to a degree. The three defining features are: a guarantee of academic freedom; the existence of a functioning system of collegial governance; and the presence of a group of scholars and students engaged not only in teaching and learning, but also in advancing the frontiers of knowledge.
Academic freedom assures the right of faculty members to fulfill their responsibility to teach and engage in research protected from inappropriate external pressures, which might constrain their thinking and debate. Because of that essential principle, faculty members in the United States are free to examine the controversial as well as the conventional in a search for truth. That, in turn, insures that faculty members have the ability to constantly improve their courses and teaching. That right and that responsibility are a vital component of the search for quality.
The fact that our system of higher education has protected the right of academic freedom -- and allowed and encouraged multiple perspectives in every discipline to be developed, examined, and taught -- has distinguished the high standards of intellectual debate in the United States from the "party line" mandates of the educational systems of some other countries. The ability to pursue a line of research and writing that may conflict with mainstream thought has led to many discoveries that continue to expand the boundaries of knowledge.
At entirely on-line institutions, faculty members won't be able to assert their collective or individual rights and responsibilities to develop and modify course curricula, to determine how to assess student performance, or to make the actual assessments. The unbundling, or separation, of functions means that each operator must "stick to the program" -- that is, teach, write, or assess according to a pattern that someone else has prescribed.
The principles of collegial or shared governance are the second important feature characterizing our current model of higher education. At traditional institutions, governance functions are shared. Faculty members have primary responsibility for the overall curriculum and for specific course content, as well as for the evaluation of students and peers. Administrators have primary responsibility for insuring that the institution runs efficiently and effectively. Cooperation and consultation are, of course, ideal. But for the faculty to fulfill its responsibility to oversee the curriculum, a group of faculty members must be associated with an institution -- which is not normally the case with an institution that consists of classes taught in prepared, modular units.
Without a real faculty that establishes, monitors, and modifies curricula, those duties may fall to administrators, who also determine admissions standards. The checks and balances that faculties traditionally provide -- crucial for good governance and the maintenance of standards of excellence -- would disappear.
The single most important characteristic distinguishing higher education from secondary and other postsecondary endeavors is the commitment to the pursuit of new knowledge. The goal of higher education is to produce a student who is capable of independent and creative thinking and decision making, not merely a receiver of knowledge that has already been recorded. Faculty members in higher education not only transmit knowledge and encourage critical thinking, but also work with students to help them reach new insights and imagine new solutions to old problems.
In the name of efficiency, commercial interests are creating an increasing number of institutions without a research dimension. The accreditation of institutions that do not require or support research undermines an essential standard of higher education, in which research nourishes and informs teaching and learning. As more institutions without a research component appear and are accredited, accreditation will become less meaningful.
Institutions organized around the delivery of course materials prepared by outsiders thus omit some or all of the key features of American higher education. Such courses limit the creativity and academic curiosity of both student and teacher; rigid adherence to prescribed teaching formats makes education a one-way street -- from the content expert, through the facilitator, to the student. The lack of support for faculty research in entirely on-line universities undercuts the responsibility of higher education to explore new knowledge.
Finally, without the structure of shared governance over matters of curriculum, academic decisions -- and, in turn, the quality of the institution -- will be increasingly subject to capricious market forces. Many on-line colleges and universities already compete for students by advertising the easy A, the fast track to a degree, the quick fix for the resume -- without the effort that is required for true scholarship.
In short, we doubt strongly that a totally virtual institution could demonstrate that it provides an education equivalent to that offered at traditional colleges and universities.
We need to be able to count on accrediting agencies to be at least as careful in reviewing virtual education as they are in reviewing traditional education. We question the soundness of a decision by a regional accrediting agency to accredit a virtual institution, if that agency has not found that, at that institution, faculty members are appropriately involved in curricular design and oversight, academic freedom is being preserved, and research is supported. We may need to re-examine the fundamental meaning of accreditation and the standards applied by accrediting agencies to insure that what passes for higher education today and tomorrow really is higher education.
James Perley is the chair, and Denise Marie Tanguay is a member, of the American Association of University Professors' Committee on the Accrediting of Colleges and Universities.
By STEVEN CROW
The recent decision by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools to accredit Jones International University -- the first accreditation in the United States of a completely virtual institution -- has met opposition from some
individuals and organizations. Certain critics suggest that such new and untested institutions do not even warrant evaluation by a regional accrediting association. Others argue that, by definition, on-line institutions can't provide students with the same quality of learning experience that traditional institutions provide, and that accrediting standards should protect.
It would have been out of character, however, for the N.C.A.'s Commission on Institutions of Higher Education to deny an on-line institution the opportunity to be evaluated against the commission's standards. We have long demonstrated our commitment and capacity to be responsive to new educational trends. As a result, after the commission determined that Jones International had indeed met the standards, those opposing the decision -- notably, the American Association of University Professors -- turned to attacking the standards themselves or how we applied them.
I suggest that the primary issue for the A.A.U.P. and other critics is not the quality of learning that an on-line institution such as Jones International provides. Rather, the critics are reacting to the specter of reduced faculty control over the design, teaching, and evaluation of curricula at distance-education institutions.
Accrediting an on-line institution was new for us, but it followed a long line of excellent precedents. Throughout the past 87 years, the commission has been receptive to new methods of educational delivery and new institutional configurations. As classes and programs moved off campus, whether to remote classrooms or via television, we applied our traditional standards to evaluate those new avenues of access.
We had already accredited one institution, National Technological University, that relies on satellite delivery, and another one, the College for Financial Planning, that uses only correspondence methods. We also have extended the accreditation of many traditional institutions to cover the on-line courses and programs they have begun to offer. In each of those cases, we applied the same standards that we have applied to the most traditional colleges and universities.
Jones International -- along with any other virtual institution -- must meet those standards. For instance, an on-line institution, like any traditional college or university, must have a clearly articulated educational mission, state-government approval to operate and grant degrees, and a governing board with a strong contingent of representatives of the public. It must provide accurate information to students about its programs and must demonstrate fiscal stability, which includes providing externally audited statements. It must offer its students access to resources and services, such as libraries, that are needed for its degree programs.
To be accredited, on-line institutions also must go through an extensive preliminary review that screens out the poorly conceived, the academically dubious, and the inadequately financed. After navigating that review, Jones International had to prepare a detailed self-study document, similar to those compiled by traditional colleges and universities, containing evidence to support its claim that it had met our standards. Then, to determine the accuracy of the self-study, experienced teams of peer reviewers -- including experts in distance and adult education, extended library services, and finance, as well as specialists in the business-communications curricula that Jones International provides -- made two site visits to the corporate offices and educational headquarters.
The teams also conducted interviews by phone and e-mail to determine the accuracy of the self-study. They followed the same procedures that they would have with any traditional institution, except that their reviews of the curriculum and interviews with students, faculty members, and mentors were often conducted on line.
The process extended over several years. During that time, through the commission's multilayered review process, more than two dozen faculty members and administrators studied the evidence that supported the decision to grant accreditation. They represented private and public institutions, including major research and doctoral institutions. All of the site visitors had evaluated other institutions for the commission; in fact, the members of the teams brought cumulative experiences gained from more than 25 other site visits.
Because some of Jones International's services were recast in a virtual environment, the reviewers had to make some precedent-setting judgments. For example, they agreed that the institution might contract for the delivery of certain of its services, particularly some of its business services.
Nevertheless, throughout the review process for Jones International, the goal of the accrediting team remained the same as if it were reviewing any institution, traditional or virtual: to talk with as many constituents as possible, checking the completeness and validity of the self-study. And at each point, the basic question the team asked remained the same: Does this institution meet the accreditation standards?
We do pay special attention to additional, more-technological factors when evaluating on-line courses and institutions. Several years ago, staff members of the regional institutional-accrediting commissions created guidelines for distance education, which we and all other regional commissions adopted and now use to evaluate on-line courses and programs.
Following those guidelines, we ask such questions as: Does the institution use technology that is appropriate to the objectives of the program? Does it offer faculty support services specifically related to distance education? Does it provide help to students who are experiencing difficulty in using the required technology?
We also acknowledge that on-line institutions create special concerns about the quality of instruction, usually related to the lack of physical connection between faculty members and students, and among students. Those who believe that high-quality education requires face-to-face interaction will always question the performance of virtual institutions. However, many faculty members and students say on-line programs actually enhance interaction. Their positive, firsthand experiences undercut simplistic denials of the effectiveness of distance education.
All that raises the question: Are those who oppose the accreditation of any virtual institution, regardless of its resources and performance, more concerned about quality, or about who defines it?
The A.A.U.P. and other groups and individuals expressing the greatest reservations about on-line institutions, as distinguished from on-line instruction, argue that on-line programs at traditional institutions draw upon proven methods of insuring quality that non-traditional institutions often lack. Faculty members are central to that process, those critics assert: Only full-time faculty members are fully effective mentors and teachers; only full-time faculty members can develop an effective curriculum and protect its integrity; only full-time faculty members, who are free to teach their own curriculum, can exercise academic freedom -- and, thereby, provide the highest-quality learning experience for students.
At traditional institutions, faculty members are hired because they possess the requisite education and experience to fulfill those basic responsibilities. They design the curriculum and teach and evaluate it; they also hold themselves accountable to faculty governance, exercised through departments, colleges, and institution-wide curricular-review bodies.
But nothing inherent in an on-line institution demands radical redefinition of those traditional roles. At many institutions that use the Internet as a vehicle for instruction, the design, delivery, and evaluation of each course remain in the hands of a single faculty person, often full time. Faculty members control the learning environment; they use e-mail to lecture and encourage discussion on line, and to read, comment on, and grade papers. Faculty members might need help to master the technology and to design World-Wide Web sites, but the faculty-led classroom model is translated into the asynchronous environment of Internet instruction.
Of course, many on-line institutions, including Jones International, will not replicate every aspect of that model. Technology and the Internet enable a significant recasting of traditional educational processes and the role that faculty members play in those processes.
Jones International unbundles a faculty member's traditional role, placing various faculty responsibilities in the hands of several people. The institution hires content experts to work with its full-time instructional-design staff to create the degree requirements and the curriculum, and to evaluate their quality. The institution also employs mentors, skilled at facilitating learning on line, to teach and work directly with students. Full-time faculty members manage the quality of academic courses and programs by linking the content experts and the mentors, and supporting the professional-development needs of the mentors.
At the time of Jones International's accreditation review, more than 25 appropriately credentialed people -- including faculty members from some of the top research universities -- had designed, delivered, and evaluated courses for the 65 enrolled students.
If we are to develop truly effective, interactive courses, we will always need such experts in various disciplines to create content and to be partners with those with technical expertise. We will always need mentors who work directly with students to stimulate the questioning, creativity, and critical thinking that we all value in higher education. We will always need trained individuals to develop a credible, fair system to evaluate learning.
In accrediting an on-line institution, therefore, we must find evidence that knowledgeable people in each field of study have defined the content of the curriculum. We must ascertain that the students' learning experience allows for effective interactions, both between faculty members and students, and among students. And we must be sure that a valid system for evaluating student achievement exists.
In other words, the capacity of an on-line institution to foster and protect faculty responsibilities will continue to be a key consideration in assuring the quality of an institution -- and in granting accreditation.
Steven Crow is executive director of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.
-
 JOIN THE DEBATE
|
