QUALITY ON LINE THE

ON LINETHEQUALITY

PREPARED BY:THE INSTITUTE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY

SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY:

BENCHMARKS FOR SUCCESS IN

INTERNET-BASED DISTANCE EDUCATION

QUALITYON THE LINE

BENCHMARKS FOR SUCCESS ININTERNET-BASED DISTANCE EDUCATION

PREPARED BY:

The Institute forHigher Education Policy

APRIL 2000

The Institute for Higher Education Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan organizationwhose mission is to foster access to and quality in postsecondary education. The Institute’s

activities are designed to promote innovative solutions to the important and complex issuesfacing higher education. These activities include research and policy analysis, policy formulation,

program evaluation, strategic planning and implementation, and seminars and colloquia.

For further information, please contact:THE INSTITUTE

for Higher Education Policy1320 19th Street, NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20036Phone: 202-861-8223

Facsimile: 202-861-9307Internet: www.ihep.com

Email: [email protected]

Acknowledgements

This report was prepared by Ronald Phipps, SeniorAssociate, and Jamie Merisotis, President, at TheInstitute for Higher Education Policy, with

assistance from Mark Harvey, Project Assistant. ColleenO’Brien, Vice President at The Institute, providededitorial guidance.

We wish to express our heartfelt appreciation to theinstitutions that participated in this study for theirgracious hospitality during our visits and the enthusiasmwith which they greeted this study. We thank each ofthe faculty, administrators, and students—withoutwhom this study could not be completed—for takingthe time to complete the surveys and share their insights,thoughts, and opinions during the indepth interviews.

In addition, The Institute would like to thank thoseindividuals at the two sponsoring organizations whoprovided excellent guidance and feedback throughoutthe course of this project, especially ChristineMaitland and Rachel Hendrickson at the NationalEducation Association (NEA) and Matthew Pittinskyat Blackboard Inc. We also would like to thankthe communications staffs at both organizations,Gil Kline of Strategic Communications, Free HandPress, and Cavalier Press.

We heartily acknowledge the help of these individualsand organizations and recognize that they are notresponsible for errors of omission or interpretationcontained herein.

Table of Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................ vii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5

The Case Study .................................................................................................................................... 9

How Did the Benchmarks Rate? ........................................................................................................... 13

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 23

Selected References ............................................................................................................................ 27

Appendix One .................................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix Two ................................................................................................................................... 31

QUALITY ON THE LINE: Benchmarks for Success in Internet-Based Distance Education vii

Foreword

T he public debate over the merits of Internet-based distance learning too often consists ofhigh-pitched vitriol and hyperbole. Proponents

ooze with blind adoration, declaring that onlinelearning can resolve all the problems confrontingtraditional education. Opponents insist that coursestaught on the net are incapable of living up tothe standards of the traditional bricks andmortar classroom.

While many continue to divide themselves into these"for" and "against" camps, a first-of-its-kind studyproduced by The Institute for Higher Education Policyand sponsored by the National EducationAssociation, the nations' largest professionalassociation of higher education faculty, andBlackboard Inc., a leading Internet educationcompany, brings reason and research data to thisoverheated debate, providing more tangible measuresof quality in distance learning. The study makes clearthat distance learning can be quality learning.

Quality On the Line identifies 24 benchmarksconsidered essential to ensuring excellence in Internet-based distance learning. The benchmarks are dividedinto seven categories of quality measures currently inuse on campuses around the nation.

These benchmarks distill the best strategies used bycolleges and universities that are actively engaged inonline learning, ensuring quality for the students andfaculty who use it. This area of study is particularly

important considering the breakneck pace of growthin Internet-based distance learning.

This growth is no surprise. The opportunities for learningand growth online are virtually limitless. Internet-basededucation transcends typical time and space barriers,giving students the ability to access learning opportunitiesday and night from every corner of the globe. Courseworkcan now provide material in highly interactive audio,video, and textual formats at a pace set by the student.

These attributes are very exciting, but drasticallydifferent from the traditional classroom-basededucation. How can a teaching and learning processthat deviates so markedly from what has been practicedfor hundreds of years maintain quality? Who will bethe guardians of quality and the innovators to presentmaterial to students in new and engaging ways?

As the nation's largest education union and as a leadingonline education company, we believe the distance fromstudent to teacher must be measured in results—qualitylearning—achieved by our students. The benchmarksidentified in this study will ensure that as we plungeheadlong into a technology-driven future, unions andbusiness help America's campuses remain on the forwardedge of quality.

Bob Chase, PresidentNational EducationAssociation

Matthew Pittinsky,ChairmanBlackboard Inc.

QUALITY ON THE LINE: Benchmarks for Success in Internet-Based Distance Education 1

Executive Summary

In the 10 years since the coding language for theWorld Wide Web (WWW) was developed,educational institutions, research centers, libraries,

government agencies, commercial enterprises,advocacy groups, and a multitude of individuals haverushed to connect to the Internet. One of theconsequences of this tremendous surge in onlinecommunication has been the rapid growth oftechnology-mediated distance learning at the highereducation level. A recent survey by the U.S.Department of Education’s National Center forEducation Statistics (NCES) found that from 1994-95 to 1997-98 the number of distance educationprograms increased by 72 percent. Moreover, anadditional 20 percent of the institutions surveyed planto establish distance education programs within thenext three years. The survey estimated that more than1.6 million students were enrolled in distanceeducation courses in 1997-98.1

This extraordinary growth of technology-mediateddistance learning in higher education has promptedseveral different organizations to develop principles,guidelines, or benchmarks to ensure quality distanceeducation. The quality assurance benchmarkspromoted by these organizations are designed to applyto a wide variety of institutional contexts and consistof fairly broad statements. Virtually all of the strategiesinclude such topics as course development, facultytraining, student services, learning resources,infrastructure, and outcomes assessment.

These benchmarks, which were developed initially forall types of distance learning, have existed in variousforms for a number of years. The question that arisesis whether they are applicable to Internet-baseddistance education. In short, are the currentbenchmarks appropriate and necessary to ensure

quality Internet-based distance education? Twoorganizations—the National Education Association(NEA), the nation’s largest professional associationof higher education faculty, and Blackboard Inc., awidely used platform provider for online education—are interested in exploring these issues and theirimplications. The two organizations jointlycommissioned The Institute for Higher EducationPolicy to examine the benchmarks by studying activedistance learning programs at several institutions.

The Institute was approached by the twocommissioning organizations in part because of itsprevious experience in analyzing issues related toquality in distance education. The Institute’s widelycited 1999 report, What’s the Difference? A Review ofContemporary Research on the Effectiveness of DistanceLearning in Higher Education, has generatedconsiderable dialogue throughout academia aboutwhat constitutes quality in distance learning settings.This report is not intended to overcome many of thelimitations of previous research noted in What’s theDifference? Instead, it uses case studies to help build afoundation for future analyses capable of refining orexpanding upon the lessons learned from theinstitutions studied here.

Specifically, NEA and Blackboard Inc. asked TheInstitute to attempt to validate those benchmarks thathave been published by various entities, with specificattention to Internet-based distance education. Thisstudy is designed to ascertain the degree to which thebenchmarks are actually incorporated in the policies,procedures, and practices of colleges and universitiesthat are distance education leaders. In addition, thiscase study seeks to determine how important thebenchmarks are to the institutions’ faculty,administrators, and students.

1 This count is not unduplicated; the survey tallied students in each distance learning course in which they enrolled, not as individualstudents who may have enrolled in one or more distance learning courses.

2 QUALITY ON THE LINE: Benchmarks for Success in Internet-Based Distance Education

The case study process consisted of three sequentialphases. First, a comprehensive literature search wasconducted to compile those benchmarks recommendedby other organizations and groups as well as thosesuggested in various articles and publications. Thissearch resulted in a total of 45 benchmarks developedby these other organizations. Second, institutions thathave substantial experience in distance education andare providing leadership in Internet-based distanceeducation were identified. Third, these institutions werevisited by Institute staff to assess the degree to whichthe campuses incorporated the benchmarks in theirInternet-based distance learning courses and programs.Each site visit included interviews with faculty,administrators, and students. These individuals weresurveyed on both the presence and importance of theoriginal benchmarks to determine to what extent theyare being followed and if they make a difference in termsof academic quality.

The six institutions participating in the study were:Brevard Community College, Regents College, theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, theUniversity of Maryland University College, Utah StateUniversity, and Weber State University. To qualify forselection the institutions (1) must have substantialexperience in distance education; (2) are recognizedas among the leaders in distance education; (3) areregionally accredited; and (4) offer more than onedegree program via online distance learning. To ensurethat a broad spectrum of higher education institutionswere represented, the study included a communitycollege, a comprehensive institution, a researchinstitution, and a virtual institution.

The results of the study revealed that, for the most part,the benchmarks for quality Internet-based distanceeducation were considered important and, in general,the institutions strove to incorporate them into theirpolicies, practices, and procedures. At the same time,several benchmarks did not enjoy consensus amongadministrators, faculty, and students at the institutionsand, in some instances, were not consideredmandatory to ensure quality in distance education.

The following list represents the final benchmarksresulting from this study. The Institute’s analysis of the

data and information from the interviews resulted inthe elimination of 13 benchmarks and the additionof three benchmarks. Several benchmarks werecombined because they addressed the same issue(s)and were related to each other. The final outcome is alist of 24 benchmarks that are essential to ensurequality in Internet-based distance education. Thesebenchmarks may assist policymakers—such as collegeand university presidents and chief academic officers,state coordinating boards, accrediting bodies, statelegislatures, and governors’ offices—as well as facultyand students, in making reasonable and informedjudgments with regard to the quality of Internet-baseddistance education.

Institutional Support Benchmarks: A documented technology plan that includes

electronic security measures (i.e., passwordprotection, encryption, back-up systems) is in placeand operational to ensure both quality standardsand the integrity and validity of information.

: The reliability of the technology delivery system isas failsafe as possible.

: A centralized system provides support for buildingand maintaining the distance educationinfrastructure.

Course Development Benchmarks: Guidelines regarding minimum standards are used

for course development, design, and delivery, whilelearning outcomes—not the availability of existingtechnology—determine the technology being usedto deliver course content.

: Instructional materials are reviewed periodicallyto ensure they meet program standards.

: Courses are designed to require students to engagethemselves in analysis, synthesis, and evaluationas part of their course and program requirements.

Teaching/Learning Benchmarks: Student interaction with faculty and other students

is an essential characteristic and is facilitated througha variety of ways, including voice-mail and/or e-mail.

: Feedback to student assignments and questions isconstructive and provided in a timely manner.


: Students are instructed in the proper methods ofeffective research, including assessment of thevalidity of resources.

Course Structure Benchmarks: Before starting an online program, students are

advised about the program to determine (1) ifthey possess the self-motivation andcommitment to learn at a distance and (2) if theyhave access to the minimal technology requiredby the course design.

: Students are provided with supplemental courseinformation that outlines course objectives,concepts, and ideas, and learning outcomes foreach course are summarized in a clearly written,straightforward statement.

: Students have access to sufficient library resourcesthat may include a “virtual library” accessiblethrough the World Wide Web.

: Faculty and students agree upon expectationsregarding times for student assignment completionand faculty response.

Student Support Benchmarks: Students receive information about programs,

including admission requirements, tuition andfees, books and supplies, technical and proctoringrequirements, and student support services.

: Students are provided with hands-on trainingand information to aid them in securing materialthrough electronic databases, interlibraryloans, government archives, news services, andother sources.

: Throughout the duration of the course/program,students have access to technical assistance,including detailed instructions regarding theelectronic media used, practice sessions prior tothe beginning of the course, and convenient accessto technical support staff.

: Questions directed to student service personnel areanswered accurately and quickly, with a structuredsystem in place to address student complaints.

Faculty Support Benchmarks: Technical assistance in course development is

available to faculty, who are encouraged to use it.

: Faculty members are assisted in the transition fromclassroom teaching to online instruction and areassessed during the process.

: Instructor training and assistance, including peermentoring, continues through the progression ofthe online course.

: Faculty members are provided with writtenresources to deal with issues arising from studentuse of electronically-accessed data.

Evaluation and Assessment Benchmarks: The program’s educational effectiveness and

teaching/learning process is assessed through anevaluation process that uses several methods andapplies specific standards.

: Data on enrollment, costs, and successful/innovative uses of technology are used to evaluateprogram effectiveness.

: Intended learning outcomes are reviewed regularlyto ensure clarity, utility, and appropriateness.


Introduction

It has been only 10 years since the coding languagefor the World Wide Web (WWW) was developedby Tim Berners-Lee in Switzerland, and Wide Area

Information Servers and Gopher protocols became thefirst tools for “surfing the net.” Since that time,educational institutions, research centers, libraries,government agencies, commercial enterprises,advocacy groups, and a multitude of individuals haverushed to connect to the Internet (Johnson, 1999). Itseems clear to most observers that the Internet andWWW profoundly influence society in general andcolleges and universities in particular. Not since theprinting press was invented by Johann Gutenberg inthe 15th century has an “invention” generated suchpotential to change dramatically how peoplecommunicate and interact with one another.

One of the consequences of this tremendous surge inonline communication has been the rapid growth oftechnology-mediated distance learning at the highereducation level. A recent survey by the U.S. Departmentof Education’s National Center for Education Statistics(NCES) found that from 1994-95 to 1997-98 the numberof distance education degree programs increased by 72percent. Moreover, an additional 20 percent of theinstitutions surveyed plan to establish distance educationprograms within the next three years. The surveyestimated that more than 1.6 million students1 wereenrolled in distance education courses in 1997-98, anumber that is surely even higher today (Lewis, 1999).

This extraordinary growth of technology-mediateddistance learning in higher education has promptedseveral different organizations to develop principles,guidelines, or benchmarks to ensure quality distance

education.2 These organizations include the AmericanCouncil on Education, the National EducationAssociation, the Global Alliance for TransnationalEducation (GATE), the Southern Regional ElectronicCampus, the Commission on Higher Education of theMiddle States Association of Colleges and Schools, andthe Western Cooperative for EducationalTelecommunications, among others. The qualityassurance benchmarks promoted by theseorganizations are designed to apply to a wide varietyof institutional contexts and consist of fairly broadstatements. Virtually all of the strategies include suchtopics as course development, faculty training, studentservices, learning resources, infrastructure, andoutcomes assessment.

These benchmarks, which were developed initially forall types of distance learning, have been in existencein various forms for a number of years. The questionthat arises is whether they are applicable to Internet-based distance education. In short, are the currentbenchmarks appropriate and necessary to ensurequality Internet-based distance education? Twoorganizations—the National Education Association(NEA), the nation’s largest professional association ofhigher education faculty, and Blackboard Inc., a widelyused platform provider for online education—areinterested in exploring these issues and theirimplications. As a result, the two organizations jointlycommissioned The Institute for Higher EducationPolicy to examine the benchmarks by studying activedistance learning programs at several institutions. TheInstitute was approached by the two commissioningorganizations in part because of its previous experiencein analyzing issues related to quality in distance

1 This count is not unduplicated; the survey tallied students in each distance learning course in which they enrolled, not as individualstudents who may have enrolled in one or more distance learning courses.

2 For the remainder of the report, the term “benchmark” is used to describe the array of principles, strategies, and guidelines that have beenrecommended by the many organizations concerned with quality distance education. In general, a benchmark is an institutional behaviorthat contributes to ensuring quality in technology-mediated distance education.


education. The Institute’s widely cited 1999 report,What’s the Difference? A Review of Contemporary Researchon the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in HigherEducation, has generated considerable dialoguethroughout academia about what constitutes qualityin distance learning settings.

Specifically, NEA and Blackboard Inc. asked TheInstitute to attempt to validate those benchmarks thathave been published by various entities, with specificattention to Internet-based distance education. Giventhe rapid growth of Internet-based distance education,how realistic are the benchmarks? Do they make senseto practitioners of Internet-based distance education?Are they taken seriously by higher educationinstitutions? To what extent are the benchmarks beingincorporated into institutions’ distance learningoperations? Are there additional benchmarks that arenot found in the literature but are being used bypractitioners that can contribute to the quality ofdistance education?

This study is designed to answer these questions byascertaining the degree to which the benchmarks areactually being incorporated in the policies, procedures,and practices of colleges and universities that aredistance education leaders. In addition, this case studyseeks to determine how important the benchmarks areto the institutions’ faculty, administrators, and students.The results of this study can assist policymakers—suchas college and university presidents and chief academicofficers, state coordinating boards, accrediting bodies,state legislatures, and governors’ offices—as well asfaculty and students, in making reasonable andinformed judgments with regard to the quality ofInternet-based distance education.

A case study addressing quality benchmarks for Internet-based distance education inherently includes some ofthe very limitations noted in the What’s the Difference?report. The major conclusion of the report was that theresearch to date addressing the quality of distanceeducation was inconclusive and, thus, much is stillunknown regarding how, and in what ways, technology

can enhance the teaching/learning process (Phipps andMerisotis, 1999). This report is not intended toovercome many of these limitations. Instead, it uses casestudies to help build a foundation for future analysescapable of refining or expanding upon the lessonslearned from the institutions studied here.

Internet-based distance education was a specific focus ofthe case study for at least three reasons. First, Internet-based distance education is quickly becoming thepredominant technology in distance education, whichis not surprising given the accelerating power of personalcomputers, increasing telecommunications bandwidthcapabilities, and state-of-the-art software developmentand delivery. The recent NCES report shows that not onlyis Internet-based distance education the most prevalenttechnology, it is also the fastest growing. At least 58percent of the reporting institutions who offered distanceeducation used Internet-based courses, compared to 54percent who used two-way interactive video and 47percent who used one-way pre-recorded video. Even asthe percentage of institutions offering Internet-basedcourses3 jumped from approximately 22 percent to 58percent in three years, use of all of the other technologiesactually had declined since 1994-95. The report notesthat Internet-based distance education will be a growingavenue for technology-mediated learning in the comingyears (Lewis,1999).

In addition to the Internet’s profound influence ondistance education, it is also important to point outthat a growing number of faculty are using the Internetto complement traditional classroom-based courses.For instance, it is not uncommon for course syllabi tobe placed on the Web. Faculty also are using cyberspaceto provide access to threaded discussions, groupactivities, and quizzes for their on-campus students.

Second, Internet-based distance education allows theteaching/learning process to occur “at any time andany place.” The ability to provide asynchronousinteractive learning activities has become the signaturecharacteristic of this technology, setting it apart frommost of the other technologies. Not only does Internet-

3 In the 1994-95 survey, this category was entitled computer-based technologies. This name was changed in 1997-98 to Internet-based coursesto reflect more accurately the way in which the technologies are used.


based instruction allow the teacher and learner tocommunicate over any distance to any place, it altersthe concept of time. Generally, students can participatein a course at any time of day or night they choose.Indeed, because of this characteristic, the term “24-7”has become a part of the lexicon of distance education.

Third, because of these features, Internet-baseddistance education is, in many ways, fundamentallydifferent than traditional classroom-based education.Among other things, it is this distinctly differentconcept of time that engenders concern and skepticismfrom many in the higher education community. Forsome, though, it offers exciting new opportunities toteach students, as evidenced by the followingobservation from the League for Innovation in theCommunity College:

The beauty of the Web is that it provides anentirely new context for teaching and learning. Itremoves the physical and time constraints forinstructors as well as learners. Moving a course tothe Web presents the perfect opportunity to returnto the core principles of teaching and learning tocreate a new pedagogical model for our practices(Boettcher, 1999).

How can a teaching/learning process that deviates somarkedly from what has been practiced for hundredsof years embody quality education? This question hasbeen addressed in many ways by the range ofbenchmarks developed by a variety of organizationsconcerned about quality distance education. Thesebenchmarks are examined in more detail in thefollowing pages.


The Case Study

T he case study process consisted of threesequential phases. First, a comprehensiveliterature search was conducted to compile

those benchmarks recommended by severalorganizations, as well as those suggested in variousarticles and publications. Second, institutions wereidentified that have substantial experience and areproviding leadership in distance education. Third,these institutions were visited by Institute staff to assessthe degree to which the campuses incorporated thebenchmarks in their Internet-based distance learningcourses and programs. A more detailed explanationof each phase of the case study follows.

Phase I: Review of the LiteratureIn addition to reviewing benchmarks that have beenpublished by policy and educational organizations,several articles by prominent authors in distanceeducation were examined. (The selected referencesfound at the end of this report provide a betterunderstanding of the array of resources reviewed.)Considerable overlap existed among the benchmarksdeveloped by the various sources and, consequently, 45specific benchmarks were identified. These benchmarkswere grouped into the following seven categories:

: Institutional Support. The benchmarks in this categoryinclude those activities by the institution that helpto ensure an environment conducive to maintainingquality distance education, as well as policies thatencourage the development of Internet-basedteaching and learning. These benchmarks addresstechnological infrastructure issues, a technologyplan, and professional incentives for faculty.

: Course Development. This category includesbenchmarks for the development of courseware,which is produced largely either by individualfaculty (or groups of faculty members) on campus,

subject experts in organizations, and/orcommercial enterprises.

: Teaching/Learning Process. This category addressesthe array of activities related to pedagogy, the artof teaching. Included in this category are processbenchmarks involving interactivity, collaboration,and modular learning.

: Course Structure. The benchmarks in this categoryaddress those policies and procedures that supportand relate to the teaching/learning process. Theyinclude course objectives, availability of libraryresources, types of materials provided to students,response time to students, and student expectations.

: Student Support. This category includes the arrayof student services normally found on a collegecampus including admissions, financial aid, etc.—as well as student training and assistance whileusing the Internet.

: Faculty Support. Since not every faculty memberpossesses the skills and temperament for Internet-based distance learning, these benchmarksaddress activities that assist faculty in teachingonline, including policies for faculty transitionhelp as well as continuing assistance throughoutthe teaching period.

: Evaluation and Assessment.4 The benchmarks in thiscategory relate to policies and procedures thataddress how, or if, the institution evaluatesInternet-based distance learning. They includeoutcomes assessment and data collection.

Phase II: Identification of InstitutionsSix institutions were identified for site visits. To qualifyfor selection the institutions (1) must have substantialexperience in distance education; (2) are recognized asamong the leaders in distance education; (3) are

4 Placing the benchmarks in these seven categories is not the only way to classify them. Others may use, and have indeed used, other categories.The categories presented here reflect a simple logic that addresses major functions of any institution.


regionally accredited; and (4) offer more than onedegree program via online distance learning. To ensurethat a broad spectrum of higher education institutionswere represented, the case study included a communitycollege, a comprehensive institution, a researchinstitution, and a virtual institution. The followinginstitutions participated in the case study (a detailedprofile of each institution is provided in Appendix One):

: Brevard Community College. This Florida college beganoffering distance education courses in 1974 and isalso a participant in the PBS Adult Learning Service“Going the Distance Program.” Brevard received agrant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fundfor the Improvement of Postsecondary Education forfaculty training and development in order topositively impact student learning.

: Regents College. This unique institution began in1971 as the External Degree Program of theUniversity of the State of New York. Focusing onworking adults, the college offers online graduateprograms in Nursing and Liberal Studies. Over83,000 people worldwide have earned a collegedegree through Regents’ programs.

: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.5 As oneof three participants in the University of IllinoisOnline, the institution offers 20 degree- orcertificate-programs over the Internet, with morein development. The university received a grantfrom the Pew Grant Program of Course Redesignin 1999 to redesign a two-course sequence inEconomic Statistics.

: University of Maryland University College. This virtualinstitution was founded with the mission ofproviding continuing education to Maryland’sprofessional workforce. With over 25 yearsexperience in distance education, the collegeoffers14 bachelor’s and 10 master’s degree programsonline. The college has twice been awarded the

University Continuing Education Association’sAward for Innovative Distance Education.

: Utah State University. This institution has beeninvolved in various forms of distance educationsince 1911. The university offers two types of onlinecourses, semester-based and independent study,and has been selected as a participant in the federalLearning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships programcreated in the 1998 reauthorization of the HigherEducation Act.

: Weber State University (WSU). This comprehensiveinstitution launched WSU Online in 1997 andcurrently offers two-thirds of the online learningcourses in Utah. WSU received an Innovation inDistance Education Award from the UniversityContinuing Education Association in 1998.

Phase III: The Institutional VisitBetween September 1999 and January 2000, Institutestaff visited each institution. In addition toconducting indepth interviews with faculty,administrators, and students, a survey using a LikertScale6 was administered to each interviewee.7 Thesurvey also was administered to distance educationstudents who were not able to participate in theinterview process primarily because they did notreside near the institution. In all, 27 faculty, 62administrators, 16 individuals who were both afaculty member and an administrator, and 42students were interviewed and/or completed a survey,for a total of 147 respondents.

The Likert Scale listed the 45 benchmarks andrequested each person to rank each benchmark on twocriteria. First, to what extent is the benchmark true forthe distance learning program (ranked from1=completely absent to 7=completely present)?Second, how important is each benchmark to ensure

5 Unlike the other colleges and universities in the case study where the entire institution participated in the case study, at the University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign, only two Internet-based programs were reviewed: Master’s programs in Human Resource Development andCurriculum, Technology, and Education Reform.

6 A Likert scale is an instrument that asks an individual to respond to a series of statements by indicating whether he or she agrees ordisagrees with each statement.

7 The authors want to express their appreciation to the faculty, administrators, and students who were interviewed. We were struck by theknowledge and impressive professionalism of the faculty and administrators involved in distance learning, and the motivation and excitementof the students. The level of enthusiasm for teaching was extraordinary and the willingness of the faculty and administrators to share boththeir successes and challenges revealed a candor that enhanced the credibility of this study.


quality (ranked from 1=not important to 5=veryimportant)? Those persons who did not have sufficientknowledge or experience relating to the benchmarkcould check a “Not Applicable” box. The mean score,mode, and standard deviation were computed for eachbenchmark (see Appendix Two).

At the extremes, this process could result in fourhypothetical scenarios: a benchmark could be presentcompletely and very important; a benchmark couldbe present completely and not important; abenchmark could be absent completely and veryimportant; and a benchmark could be absentcompletely and not important. The actual results areprovided in the next section.

Benchmarks Identified from the LiteratureInstitutional Support

1. Faculty are provided professional incentives forinnovative practices to encourage development ofdistance learning courses.

2. There are institutional rewards for the effectiveteaching of distance learning courses.

3. A documented technology plan is in place toensure quality standards.

4. Electronic security measures are in place to ensurethe integrity and validity of information.

5. Support for building and maintaining the distanceeducation infrastructure is addressed by acentralized system.

Course Development6. Distance learning course development must be

approved through a broad peer review process.

7. Guidelines exist regarding minimum standards forcourse development, design, and delivery.

8. Course design is managed by teams comprised offaculty, content experts, instructional designers,technical experts, and evaluation personnel.

9. During course development, the various learningstyles of students are considered.

10. Assessment instruments are used to ascertain thespecific learning styles of students, which thendetermine the type of course delivery.

11. Courses are designed with a consistent structure,easily discernable to students of varying learningstyles.

12. The technology being used to deliver coursecontent is based on learning outcomes.

13. Instructional materials are reviewed periodicallyto ensure they meet program standards.

Teaching/Learning Process14. Student interaction with faculty is facilitated

through a variety of ways.

15. Student interaction with other students isfacilitated through a variety of ways.

16. Feedback to student assignments and questions isprovided in a timely manner.

17. Feedback to students is provided in a manner thatis constructive and non-threatening.

18. Courses are separated into self-contained segments(modules) that can be used to assess studentmastery before moving forward in the course orprogram.

19. The modules/segments are of varying lengthsdetermined by the complexity of learningoutcomes.

20. Each module/segment requires students to engagethemselves in analysis, synthesis, and evaluationas part of their course assignments.

21. Class voice-mail and/or e-mail systems areprovided to encourage students to work with eachother and their instructor(s).

22. Courses are designed to require students to workin groups utilizing problem-solving activities inorder to develop topic understanding.

23. Course materials promote collaboration amongstudents.

Course Structure

24. Students are provided with supplemental courseinformation that outlines course objectives,concepts, and ideas.

25. Specific expectations are set for students withrespect to a minimum amount of time per weekfor study and homework assignments.


26. Faculty are required to grade and return allassignments within a certain time period.

27. Sufficient library resources are made available tothe students.

28. Students are instructed in the proper methods ofeffective research, including assessment of resourcevalidity.

29. Before starting the program, students are advisedabout the program to determine if they have the self-motivation and commitment to learn at a distance.

30. Learning outcomes for each course are summarizedin a clearly written, straightforward statement.

Student Support31. Students can obtain assistance to help them use

electronically accessed data successfully.

32. Students are provided with hands-on training andinformation to aid them in securing materialthrough electronic databases, interlibrary loans,government archives, news services, etc.

33. Written information is supplied to the studentabout the program.

34. Easily accessible technical assistance is availableto all students throughout the duration of thecourse/program.

35. A structured system is in place to address studentcomplaints.

Faculty Support

36. Technical assistance in course development isavailable to faculty and they are encouraged to useit.

37. Faculty members are assisted in the transition fromclassroom teaching to distance instruction and areassessed in the process.

38. There are peer mentoring resources available tofaculty members teaching distance courses.

39. Distance instructor training continues throughoutthe progression of the online class.

40. Faculty members are provided with writtenresources to deal with issues arising from studentuse of electronically-accessed data.

Evaluation and Assessment41. The program’s educational effectiveness is

measured using several methods.

42. An evaluation process is used to improve theteaching/learning process.

43. Specific standards are in place to compare andimprove learning outcomes.

44. Data on enrollment, costs, and successful/innovative uses of technology are used to evaluateprogram effectiveness.

45. Intended learning outcomes are regularly reviewedto ensure clarity, utility, and appropriateness.


How Did the Benchmarks Rate?

I t was clear from the site visits that qualitybenchmarks were considered with great care andembraced by every institution that participated in

the case study. At every campus, at least one facultymember, administrator, or often several students statedthat the benchmarks were on target and (with someexceptions that will be explained later in the report)need to be addressed to ensure quality in Internet-based distance education courses and programs. As onerespondent said about the survey, “Good questions.While the ‘best’ possible program would have rated allof these items as very important and strongly agree,one must consider resources and growing pains so asto target the most important areas.”

In addition, several respondents were somewhatchagrined that Internet-based distance education wasunder such intense scrutiny while the traditionalclassroom-based teaching was not under the samespotlight. One person showed her exasperation bywriting, “The same standards and benchmarks we usein distance education should be applied to on-campuscourses as well. It doesn’t happen that way here oracross the country.”

It should be noted that all of the institutions are includedin the data presented in this report. Because theintention of this case study is to validate the benchmarksfor the higher education community in general, it servesno purpose to separate the data for each institution.While there are exceptions to the conclusions andcomments from the interviews, the following discussionrepresents a consensus of a majority of the institutionsin the case study. It is, therefore, not appropriate toassume that the attributes outlined in the discussionalways represent each and every institution.

The information for this case study is both quantitative(the survey using a Likert Scale) and qualitative (theindepth interviews). No effort was made to apply any

statistical tests to ascertain the degree of importanceof a benchmark and its presence at the institutions,and the difference between the two. Instead, the morethan 100 interviews (all lasting at least an hour) guidedthe analysis. The respondents were interviewed aftercompleting the survey and many of their commentswere directed to specific items in the survey. Theinterviews informed the quantitative data and servedto put a “human face” on the stark numbers. Thestandard deviations of each benchmark are presentedin Appendix Two to demonstrate more fully the rangeof consensus for each item.

This section is organized around the seven categoriesof benchmarks: Institutional Support, CourseDevelopment, Teaching/Learning Process, CourseStructure, Student Support, Faculty Support, andEvaluation and Assessment. Each category isaccompanied by a chart showing the relationshipbetween the degree of presence for the benchmark andits importance to the institution. The discussion of thecategory includes comments from the interviews.

Institutional SupportAll of the benchmarks in this category were consideredimportant to ensure quality Internet-based distanceeducation. The benchmark addressing electronicsecurity measures (#4) received exceptionally highratings both with regardto importance andpresence at theinstitution. There was amarked differencebetween the importanceof the benchmarkregarding a documentedtechnology plan (#3)and the actual presence of a plan on campus.Respondents at some institutions complained thatbecause of the extraordinary growth of Internet-based

When contemplating theeffect of the Internet onhigher education, we betterunderstand what 7th gradersare doing—because they arethe freshman class of 2005.

—ADMINISTRATOR

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


Figure One: Institutional Support Benchmarks

distance education, infrastructure is constantly tryingto keep pace with demand.

Compelling student demand has other consequenceswith regard to planning. Because of increasing studentinterest in Internet-based distance education at someof the institutions in the case study, administratorsrevealed that policies are being developed to catch upwith practice. One administrator said simply that theinstitution is moving ahead without all of the answers.While some institutions were farther ahead in theirplanning than others, some institutions that arestruggling to keep up with the demand for Internet-based courses have made a conscious decision to servestudents immediately and plan later.

Figure One reveals a substantial difference between theimportance of the benchmarks concerning professionalincentives and institutional rewards (#1 and 2) and theirpresence on campus. While considered very important,rewarding and providing incentives to faculty for good

online teaching did not receive highscores with regard to their presence at theinstitutions. This conclusion wasreinforced in the interviews, as revealedby comments from one faculty member:“We operate on a ‘shoestring,’ and thetenure, promotion, and reward systemdoes not take into account the extra timea faculty member needs to teach well indistance education courses.” Anotheradministrator noted that at his institution,distance education “has some of ourbetter instructors even though the rewardshave not been there for them.”

The dedication and knowledge of thefaculty who teach Internet-based distanceeducation was apparent in the structuredinterviews. The faculty who wereinterviewed showed keen insights into theteaching/learning process, and many wereconsidered by their peers as some of thebest teachers at the institution.

The high number of excellent facultyteaching Internet-based distance

education courses can be explained partially by thefaculty selection practice of many of the institutions.With few exceptions, faculty volunteered to teachdistance education courses. One institution used thephrase “work with the willing” to explain this facultyselection process. Faculty who came forward,irrespective of the course they wished to teach, wereoften allowed to develop a course. Frequently thesefaculty were veteran teachers who were eager to teachusing the Internet. This selection process, of course,produces an array of courses that may not necessarilyrepresent a strategic plan of course and programmaticofferings. This is not to suggest, however, that Internetcourses are generated without planning or strategy.As one administrator put it, “...although thisinstitution did not have a strategic plan, ‘strategicthinking’ was used in the development of Internetcourses and programs.” For instance, severalinstitutions attempted to develop Internet offeringsfor courses that had high enrollments such as lower-division, general education courses.

1. Faculty are provided professional incentives for innovative practices

to encourage development of distance learning courses.

2. There are institutional rewards for the effective teaching

of distance learning courses.

3. A documented technology plan is in place to ensure

quality standards.

4. Electronic security measures are in place to ensure the

integrity and validity of information.

5. Support for building and maintaining the distance

education infrastructure is addressed by a centralized system.

0

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree1 2 3 4 5

1

0

2 3 4 5

6 7

Not Important Very Important

Importance Presence

4.3

5.5

4.8

6.1

4.3

4.4

4.2

3.4

4.4

4.1

I M P O R T A N C E

P R E S E N C E


Many respondents suggested that a new benchmarkshould be added to the list: “The reliability of thetechnology delivery system should be as failsafe aspossible.” They explained its importance this way: “Ifthe lights go out in a traditional classroom, it may bean inconvenience. If the system crashes, it’s a calamity!”

Course DevelopmentThe three benchmarks relating to learning styles receiveda mixed reaction from the respondents. As shown inFigure Two, benchmarks 9 and 11 were not consideredvery important and did not have a high degree ofpresence at the institutions. Benchmark 10 received lowscores with respect to both importance and presence.The interviews helped to explain these sentiments. Manyfaculty and administrators stated that while theselearning style benchmarks sound good on paper,actually meeting the standard is very difficult. Onefaculty member suggested that the research on learningstyles is very poor and simply may not be an appropriatecriterion for benchmarks.

The benchmark addressing themanagement of course design (#8),also received a mixed reaction. Byand large, the development of acourse was the responsibility ofindividual academic departmentsand the extent to which theprocedure met the criteria in thebenchmark was a departmentaldecision. One faculty member said,“Some of the items suggest thatgreater evaluation, oversight, andcourse development ought to takeplace in distance education than fortraditionally delivered courses. Idon’t buy this assumption.Traditional courses rarely comeunder that kind of scrutiny on thiscampus or others.”

The notion of broad peer reviewgenerated many comments. Thebenchmark on the approval of coursedevelopment (#6) was not consideredvery important and did not show a high

degree of presence. There was considerable concernregarding the meaning of “broad.” Many respondentsmade it very clear that peer review is, and should be, similarto the traditional model primarily at the departmentallevel. As one respondent explained, “Quality control is adepartment responsibility; additional requirements mayendanger academic freedomand shared governance.”

It is important to note that apossible disparity existsbetween the technology that aninstitution might possess andthe technology available to the typical student. Althoughinstitutions may have enhanced, or are enhancing, theircapability with high speed networks with additionalbandwidth, and improved video quality, coursedevelopment must take into consideration the technologythat the students possess. Many students have olderpersonal computers, equipped with slow modems,insufficient memory, and small hard drives. Put more

6. Distance learning coursedevelopment must be approved

through a broad peer review process.

7. Guidelines exist regarding minimum standards for course

development, design, and delivery.

8. Course design is managed by teams comprised of faculty, content experts, instructional designers,

technical experts, and evaluation personnel.

9. During course development the various learning styles of students are considered.

10. Assessment instruments are used to ascertain the specific learning styles of students, which

then determine the type of course delivery.

11. Courses are designed with a consistent structure, easily discernable to

students of varying learning styles.

12. The technology being used to deliver course content is based

on learning outcomes.

13. Instructional materials are reviewed periodically to ensure

they meet program standards.

Importance Presence

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1

0

2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree


4.4

5.4

4.3

5.0

4.4

5.2

3.5

2.8

4.2

4.6

4.2

4.4

4.6

5.1

3.8

4.4

I M P O R T A N C E

P R E S E N C E

Figure Two: Course Develoment Benchmarks

The lines betweentraditional classroomeducation and Internet-based education arebecoming blurred.

—ADMINISTRATOR

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


bluntly by one administrator, “Bells and whistles have tobe available and understood by both the teacher and thestudent.” The disparity between the technologicalcapabilities of the institution and its students was referredto as “cutting edge, not bleeding edge” by one interviewee,while another referred to the “trailing edge” of technology.

Teaching/Learning ProcessThe majority of the benchmarks regarding the teaching/learning process were considered both important and

present on the campus. However,as shown in Figure Three, thebenchmarks related tocollaboration and modularlearning were not endorsedwidely. Benchmarks 22 and 23were not seen to be very important

and, likewise, did not display as high of a degree ofpresence at the institutions asother benchmarks in thiscategory. Several commentsmay help to explain this. Ingeneral, faculty andadministrators suggested thatcollaboration as an end initself was not necessary.Collaboration depends uponfactors such as the content ofthe course, the level ofinstruction (undergraduateversus graduate), and thevalues of the instructor.Regardless of its importance,however, one faculty membernoted that online studentsare collaborating muchmore than students intraditional classes.

With respect to modularlearning, several respondentsdid not consider thesebenchmarks very relevant.Benchmarks 18 and 19 are, asone faculty member wrote,“...naive and passe. In severalrespects, we have gone

beyond that.” Another stated that modular learning isnot supported by the research and is not appropriate asa stand-alone benchmark.

A Word About InteractivityFigure Three shows three benchmarks that address theprocess of interactivity (#14, #15, and #16), all ofwhich received high scores for importance andpresence. It has become increasingly evident thatinteractivity is the sine qua non for quality in distancelearning. Indeed, many would say that it is crucial forany type of learning. As Otto Peters, author of Learningand Teaching in Distance Education, writes:

If we take distance education seriously andunderstand it to be something more than themere distribution and reading of study materials,we must provide sufficient opportunities for

14. Student interaction with faculty is facilitated through

a variety of ways.

15. Student interaction with other students is facilitated

through a variety of ways.

16. Feedback to student assignments and questions

is provided in a timely manner.

17. Feedback to students is provided in a manner that

is constructive and non-threatening.

18. Courses are separated into self-contained segments (modules) that can be used to assess student

mastery before moving forward in the course or program.

19. The modules/segments are of varying lengths determined by

the complexity of learning outcomes.

20. Each module/segment requires students to engage themselves in analysis, synthesis, and

evaluation as part of their course assignments.

21. Class voice-mail and/or e-mail systems are provided to encourage students to

work with each other and their instructor(s).

22. Course are designed to require students to work in groups utilizing problem solving

activities in order to develop topic understanding.

23. Course materials promote collaboration among students.

0


1 2 3 4 5

1

0

2 3 4 5

6 7


Importance Presence

4.6

5.7

4.3

5.4

4.85.6

4.6

5.9

4.1

5.4

4.0

5.1

4.4

5.7

4.5

5.9

3.7

4.9

3.9

5.0

I M P O R T A N C E

P R E S E N C E

Figure Three: Teaching/Learning Process Benchmarks

Online courses requiremore discipline, butyou can work at yourown pace.

—STUDENT

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


dialogues. If, in addition, we understandacademic studies as a process in which the aim iseducation through knowledge, we cannot dowithout a considerable proportion of dialogicallearning and teaching in distance education.(Peters, 1999, pg. 39)

Many respondents agreed. One faculty member wrotethat “Students need to communicate almost on a dailybasis, not just once a week.” Another noted that “in orderto facilitate interactivity, in addition to e-mail and voice-mail, a conference system is very important.” One studentreflected the observations of several others in stating, “Themajority of online classes I have taken have been set upvery well for a successful educational experience. Theinstructors for these classes encouraged communicationbetween their students and themselves and were availableto answer questions at any time through e-mail. They

also provided timely and valuable feedback onassignments, which is very important for a student’sacademic success.”

The notion ofinteractivity ishighlighted here, notonly because it iscentral to the qualityof distance learning,but also because it leads to the realization that Internet-based distance education is evolving its own pedagogy.As noted by the League for Innovation in theCommunity College and others, online courses havecertain characteristics that are unique to thetechnology—which allows the exploration of newpedagogical models. Faculty are still learning about,and experimenting with, different ways that students

can interact with faculty,other students, and a widevariety of instructionalresources. One institutioncombines the use ofasychronous technologiesto facilitate much of theclassroom interactionsand synchronouscommunication tofacilitate small groupinteractions and courseoffice hours. With respectto interactivity, one facultymember lamented that,“Too often we try toemulate the classroom.Even software vendors tryto emulate the classroom.The fact is that onlinelearning is affecting howwe teach in traditionalclassrooms.”

Course StructureIn general, the coursestructure benchmarks wereseen as both important andpresent at the institutions.

24. Students are provided with supplemental course information that outlines course

objectives, concepts, and ideas.

25. Specific expectations are set for students with respect to a minimum amount of time

per week for study and homework assignments.

26. Faculty are required to grade and return all assignments

within a certain time period.

27. Sufficient library resources are made available to the students.

28. Students are instructed in the proper methods of effective research,

including assessment of resource validity.

29. Before starting the program, students are advised about the program to determine if they have the self-

motivation and commitment to learn at a distance.

30. Learning outcomes for each course are summarized in a clearly written, straightforward statement.

0


1 2 3 4 5

1

0

2 3 4 5

6 7


Importance Presence

4.5

5.4

4.5

5.2

4.4

5.1

4.7

5.8

4.4

4.7

4.2

4.9

4.7

6.1

I M P O R T A N C E

P R E S E N C E

Figure Four: Course Structure Benchmarks

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Self-directed study, which isprevalent at the graduate level,is being pushed down to theundergraduate level because ofonline learning.

—ADMINISTRATOR


However, as illustrated in Figure Four, benchmarks 25and 26 addressing specific time requirements were theexception, scoring lower in terms of presence. Manyrespondents balked at the prescriptive nature of these

benchmarks. Given thedynamic and innovativecharacteristics of Internet-based distance education,particularly the capacityfor students to pacethemselves in a variety of

ways, hard and fast rules on how much work shouldbe accomplished in a specific time period or theprecise response time for a faculty memberis inappropriate. One student responded to a minimumamount of time per week for study: “Yeah, they (faculty)give us recommendations, but they don’t ‘push’ you.That’s good! I enrolled in a [online] course so I wouldhave the freedom to study at my pace and when I wantedto study. I did everything at my own pace for the firstcourse and I got an ‘A.’ Therefore, stressing a strict pace is‘not important.’” However, there was strong consensusthat faculty and students mustagree when assignments need tobe completed and returned.

The very high ratings for thebenchmark regarding libraryresources (#27) are worthnoting. In many respects, thelibrary has come to thestudent’s home or workplace.At several institutions, thelibrarian scans any article thefaculty member requests,providing the full text online.In addition, the libraryresources include manyonline full-text books and, ifneeded, interlibrary loans.Reference assistance tostudents is not neglected andsome respondents suggestedthat a reference personshould be available 24 hoursa day, 7 days a week. At leastone institution required

students to take a four-hour, non-credit course aboutlibrary resources.

It may be helpful to examine briefly the issue of classsize, although there are no benchmarks directlyrelated to maximum class size. Because the case studyrevealed a wide variety of opinions, it is inappropriatethat a specific benchmark on maximum class size beintroduced. More than one respondent suggested thatthere should be a maximum size, say 20 or 25students. Another recommended that the first onlinecourse a faculty member teaches should enroll nomore than 15 students. Yet another institution isexperimenting with class size and is incrementallyincreasing student enrollment in Internet courses. Atthe other extreme, one institution offers a two-creditorientation course with over 300 students enrolled.When asked how much of the faculty time per weekwas required for the large enrollment course, theanswer was about 20 hours. The instructor noted thatappropriate interaction and successful studentoutcomes can be achieved in courses with large

31. Students can obtain assistance to help them use electronically

accessed data successfully.

32. Students are provided with hands-on training and information to aid them in securing

material through electronic databases, interlibrary loans, government archives, news services, etc.

33. Written information is supplied to the student about the program.

34. Easily accessible technical assistance is available to all students throughout

the duration of the course/program.

35. A structured system is in place to address student complaints.

0


1 2 3 4 5

1

0

2 3 4 5

6 7


Importance Presence

4.6

5.3

4.6

5.4

4.7

6.2

4.4

5.1

4.6

5.2

I M P O R T A N C E

P R E S E N C E

Figure Five: Student Support Benchmarks

Students need to understandmore fully the role andresponsibility they need toparticipate in online courses.

—ADMINISTRATOR

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


enrollments using a variety of methods, includingstudent collaboration. It could be argued thatmaximum class size relates more to faculty courseworkload than student outcomes. It appears,therefore, that a specific benchmark for class size isill advised, and much more experimentation needsto be conducted.

Student SupportEach of the benchmarks in this category were rankedas having a high degree of importance. However, itappears that, for at least three benchmarks concerningtechnical assistance and training for students (#31,32, and 34), the institutions feel they have some wayto go.

It is important to understand that traditional on-campus students are among those participating inInternet-based distance education, taking one or twoonline courses because it is convenient or to avoidconflicts with another course. Therefore, studentsupport services provide for a broader audience than

would otherwise beexpected. Furthermore, itwas noted that thosestudents who are at adistance and do notcome to the campus mayhave greater need forfeedback than thetraditional student. Asone student noted, “Ifind that online advisement and school services otherthan course work is the real problem.”

To address this problem, one institution hasestablished an electronic peer network in a web-basedenvironment that enables students to interactacademically and socially online. Students are ableto identify other students with common interests,participate in live chats and threaded discussiongroups, exchange books and study materials, locatestudy partners, access career resources, and/or joinan online study group.

Many respondents recognizedthat a number of students needmore preparation for workingon the Internet. As aconsequence, institutionsprovide technical help througha variety of ways, including an800 number, e-mail, a real-timechat room, and an onlinetutorial for technical assistance.Technical staff meet severaltimes a year to improve thetechnical support based onstudent complaints.

In areas other than technicalassistance, student supportpersonnel are devising severalways to help online students.One institution has set the goalof “one-stop shopping.”To accomplish this goal,advisors have informationon a computer screen that

Figure Six: Faculty Support Benchmarks

36. Technical assistance in course development is available to faculty

and they are encouraged to use it.

37. Faculty members are assisted in the transition from classroom teaching to distance

instruction and are assessed in the process.

38. There are peer mentoring resources available to faculty

members teaching distance courses.

39. Distance instructor training continues throughout the

progression of the online class.

40. Faculty members are provided with written resources to deal with issues arising

from student use of electronically-accessed data.

0


1 2 3 4 5

1

0

2 3 4 5

6 7


Importance Presence

4.0

4.1

4.4

4.7

4.3

4.6

4.4

4.7

4.8

6.1

I M P O R T A N C E

P R E S E N C E

I have only had two badexperiences with online classes,mainly because the course wasnot set up as completely or aswell as other courses. They weremore like correspondence coursesand lacked feedback from theprofessors on assignments.

—STUDENT

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


covers virtually all of a particular student’s needs,including financial aid, academic program, tuition andfees, etc. At another institution, an advisor saw herselfas a “coach,” providing both support andencouragement for online students. These issues ledseveral respondents to suggest that a new benchmarkneeds to be included under student support:“Questions directed to student service personnel mustbe answered accurately and quickly.”

Faculty SupportWith the possible exceptionof the benchmark addressingwritten resources for facultyon student use ofelectronically-accessed data(#40), the rest of the

benchmarks were considered very important. However,the three benchmarks concerning training andtechnical assistance for faculty (#37, 38, and 39) hadlower scores for presence.

Every institution in the case studyhas systematic processes fortransitioning faculty to onlineinstruction from the traditionalclassroom and for training andassisting faculty teaching onlinecourses. Given that a substantialnumber of faculty teaching onlinecourses volunteered for theassignment, and many are veteranteachers respected by their peers,their standards are quite high andtheir dedication is keen.Information from the interviewsstrongly suggested that a majorreason for the less than optimumpresence of assistance was lack ofresources, not lack of will. As notedearlier, several of the campuses aretrying to keep up with studentdemand, while sufficient personneland financial resources may belagging behind. This is particularlytrue in the area of technicalassistance. One faculty member

lamented that the technical aspect of online teachingis sometimes overwhelming. Another faculty memberwrote that “pedagogy of online learning must be partof training and the online environment.”

Evaluation and AssessmentAll of the benchmarks in this category are consideredimportant by the institutions in the case study.Benchmark 43 addressing specific standards, however,had a relatively low mark for presence. By and large, allof the institutions had systems in place that addressedevaluation and assessment. More than one institutionhad elaborate evaluation and assessment procedures. Itis clear that all of the institutions recognize theimportance of evaluation and assessment.

One interesting evaluation system for onlineinstruction that is still evolving invokes a medicalanalogy in which a physician examines a patient’s vitalsigns to determine the patient’s current state of health.Vital signs that are below acceptable standards are

41. The program's educational effectiveness is measured

using several methods.

42. An evaluation process is used to improve the

teaching/learning process.

43. Specific standards are in place to compare and

improve learning outcomes.

44. Data on enrollment, costs, and successful/innovative uses of technology

are used to evaluate program effectiveness.

45. Intended learning outcomes are regularly reviewed to ensure

clarity, utility, and appropriateness.

0


1 2 3 4 5

1

0

2 3 4 5

6 7


Importance Presence

4.4

5.1

4.2

5.0

4.2

4.3

4.5

5.2

4.5

5.5

I M P O R T A N C E

P R E S E N C E

Figure Seven: Evaluation and Assessment Benchmarks

Figuring out what works isan exciting challenge ineducation, but magnifiedby Internet-based distanceeducation. It’s an excitingtime to be an educator.

—FACULTY

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


examined in more detail, utilizing more preciseinformation and investigative techniques. In distanceeducation, data are used to calculate a program’s“health” rating in six areas: student demand; studentretention; student satisfaction; faculty satisfaction;student achievement; and financial efficiency.

One issue that was mentioned by more than onerespondent had to do more with outcomes,specifically student attrition. In The Institute forHigher Education Policy’s 1999 report, What’s theDifference? A Review of Contemporary Research on theEffectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education,concern regarding the apparent high attrition of

online students as compared to traditional studentswas highlighted (Phipps and Merisotis, 1999). Oneadministrator mentioned that there seems to be aninordinately high number of the following grades:“A,” “F,” and/or “W” (withdraw) for online students.Respondents from other institutions in the casestudy also referred to this problem. This anecdotalevidence suggests that there may be a bipolardistribution where students are either quitesuccessful or dropping out. This further supports theconclusion in What’s the Difference? that studentattrition in Internet-based distance educationcourses is an important research topic in theevaluation and assessment programs of institutions.


Recommendations

This case study of six higher education institutionsrevealed that, for the most part, the benchmarksfor quality Internet-based distance education

were considered important and, in general, theinstitutions strove to incorporate them into theirpolicies, practices, and procedures. At the same time,there were several benchmarks that did not enjoyconsensus among the administrators, faculty, andstudents at the institutions and, in some instances,were not considered mandatory to ensure qualitydistance education.

The purpose of this case study is to helppolicymakers make judgments with regard to qualityInternet-based distance education. The challenge,then, is to identify those benchmarks that areessential for quality distance education, in contrastto those benchmarks that contribute to and supportthe teaching/learning process, but are not necessaryor required to ensure quality.

Analysis of the quality indicators at these institutionssuggests that the benchmarks that are mandatory arethose for which the absence of the benchmark would detractfrom quality. Stated positively, the benchmark must beessential or imperative to ensure quality in Internet-based distance education. Our recommendations arebased upon the quantitative data from the surveys butare moderated by the hours of interviews with faculty,administrators, and students. Even though a particularbenchmark may have received a high score for eitherpresence and importance, the interviews informed andtempered our understanding.

The Institute’s analysis of the data and informationfrom the interviews resulted in the elimination of 13benchmarks and the addition of 3 benchmarks.Moreover, several benchmarks were combined becausethey addressed the same issue(s) and were related toeach other. The final outcome is a list of 24 benchmarks

that are essential to ensure quality in Internet-baseddistance education.

Benchmarks That Are Not EssentialThe following benchmarks are not essential forensuring quality Internet-based distance education.

Institutional Support Benchmarks

: Faculty are provided professional incentives forinnovative practices to encourage development ofdistance learning courses (#1).

: There are institutional rewards for the effective teachingof distance learning courses (#2).

This recommendation may be the most controversial.Both of these benchmarks enjoyed consensus withregard to their importance to ensuring quality. Yet,despite their relatively low presence at the institution,quality Internet-based distance education wasoccurring at every one of these institutions. As notedearlier, the faculty involved in distance education werededicated, experienced, enthusiastic, and exhibited ahigh degree of professionalism. Although theypreferred to receive professional incentives andinstitutional rewards, the vast majority of the facultyengaged in distance learning because they were excitedabout it, they found it intrinsically rewarding, and theywere already recognized by their peers as good teachers.Innovative distance education is happening every daywithout this benchmark. Moreover, many intervieweesnoted that distance education should be treated nodifferently than traditional classroom-based teaching.

Course Development Benchmarks: During course development the various learning styles

of students are considered (#9).

: Assessment instruments are used to ascertain the specificlearning styles of students, which then determine thetype of course delivery (#10).


: Courses are designed with a consistent structure, easilydiscernable to students of varying learning styles (#11).

The benchmarks addressing student learning stylesreceived a cool reception from many faculty andadministrators. In the view of several respondents,benchmarks addressing student learning styles were oftenplatitudes with little basis in research and were very difficultto accomplish. While there is an implicit recognition ofhow students learn and an explicit understanding of theimportance of interaction, constructive feedback, and othercharacteristics of good pedagogy, benchmarks that requiredthese practices are not necessary to ensure quality.

: Course design is managed by teams comprised of faculty,content experts, instructional designers, technicalexperts, and evaluation personnel (#8).

This benchmark was considered by many to be overkill.By and large, Internet-based distance education is theresponsibility of the instructor and the academicdepartment. The course development practices variedfrom department to department and institution toinstitution. The degree to which teams were formedfor course design depended upon many factors,including the experience and knowledge of the facultymember, the degree to which the instructor asked forassistance, and departmental policies.

: Distance learning course development must be approvedthrough a broad peer review process (#6).

The majority of faculty and administrators objectedstrongly to this benchmark, particularly expressingconcern about the definition of “broad.” Peer reviewfor distance education courses should be no differentthan that for traditional campus-based courses was acommon refrain. In addition to concerns aboutacademic freedom, subjecting distance learning coursesto procedures that are more rigorous than the usualcampus policies suggested a degree of oversight that wasboth unnecessary and detrimental to the ability offaculty to be innovative and responsive to student needs.

Teaching/Learning Benchmarks

: Courses are designed to require students to work ingroups utilizing problem-solving activities in order todevelop topic understanding (#22).

: Course materials promote collaboration amongstudents (#23).

The benchmark addressing the importance ofcollaboration was not viewed as essential to qualityInternet-based distance education. It is important tonote that many courses incorporated collaborationamong students and some instructors even requiredit. However, including this benchmark as mandatoryto ensure quality in distance education was notsupported by a large number of interviewees. Thedecision to design collaboration in a specific courseshould be based upon several factors, including thedifficulty of the content, course level, subject matter,and maturity of the students.

: Courses are separated into self-contained segments(modules) that can be used to assess student masterybefore moving forward in the course or program (#18).

: The modules/segments are of varying lengths determinedby the complexity of learning outcomes (#19).

Similar to the arguments about collaboration, manyfaculty and administrators did not view modularlearning as a requirement for quality. A few faculty,however, insisted that modular learning is a vitalpedagogical activity. Others were equally insistent thatthere are several reasons for not designing a course orother learning activities in self-contained segments, asknowledge was integrated across several courses. Theweight of evidence suggested that requiring modularlearning as a prerequisite for quality distance educationis inappropriate.

Course Structure Benchmarks: Specific expectations are set for students with respect to

a minimum amount of time per week for study andhomework assignments (#25).

: Faculty are required to grade and return all assignmentswithin a certain time period (#26).

Many faculty and administrators were concerned aboutthe prescriptive nature of these benchmarks regardingtime expectations for students and faculty. Internet-baseddistance education is complex, and the pedagogy isconstantly evolving as faculty experiment with a varietyof techniques. Moreover, much of the learning process is


self-paced, which argues against the imposition of rigidstandards. However, there was strong agreement thatstudents and instructors each must have clear expectationsof their responsibilities which should be no different thanfor any course, irrespective of its delivery.

New BenchmarksThere were three quality benchmarks that were notincluded in the original 45 but were recommended bya large majority of faculty and administrators and areconsistent with the outlined criteria.

: The reliability of the technology delivery system is asfailsafe as possible.

At every one of the institutions in this case study, abenchmark related to the importance of the reliabilityof technology was suggested. As stated by many, systemcrashes were unacceptable and must be avoided at allcosts. When the system is down, essentially little to nolearning takes place. If the system is down for any lengthof time, students often become discouraged, angry, andbegin to lose interest. Even if the system is down for ashort period of time, the experience is disruptive tostudents and fosters skepticism that it will happen again.Several faculty and administrators noted that studentattrition is often related to system unreliability.


As noted earlier, there are at least two benchmarksregarding faculty response to student assignments andfeedback. There was strong agreement that facultyshould respond to students as quickly as possible andthat students need to spend a sufficient amount of timeonline to achieve academic success. The benchmarkswere, however, too directive to be of much value. Manyfaculty and administrators recognized the potential ofthe Internet to transform the teaching/learning processand any benchmarks that inhibited their ability toinnovate and experiment were rejected. Thisbenchmark reinforces interaction and constructivefaculty and student relationships without constrainingpedagogical innovation.

: Questions directed to student service personnel areanswered accurately and quickly.

Because online students may never have the opportunityto visit the campus from which they are taking coursesor receiving their degree, it is essential that they enjoythe same access as traditional students to services suchas admissions, registration, financial aid, careercounseling, and academic course requirements. In fact,because they often do not have the opportunity for anyface-to-face communication with student servicepersonnel, extraordinary methods need to be developedto ensure that online students do not feel abandoned.These methods were discussed earlier in the report.

Benchmarks That Are Essential for QualityInternet-based Distance EducationThe following represents the final list of benchmarksresulting from this study. These benchmarks are themost essential to the success of an Internet-baseddistance education program at any institution. Thesebenchmarks may be useful to governmentpolicymakers, institutional decisionmakers, faculty,and students, as well as others with an interest inensuring that the highest quality of higher educationpossible is being provided via Internet-based programs.

Institutional Support Benchmarks: A documented technology plan that includes

electronic security measures (i.e., passwordprotection, encryption, back-up systems) is in placeand operational to ensure both quality standardsand the integrity and validity of information.

: The reliability of the technology delivery system isas failsafe as possible.

: A centralized system provides support for buildingand maintaining the distance educationinfrastructure.

Course Development Benchmarks: Guidelines regarding minimum standards are used

for course development, design, and delivery, whilelearning outcomes—not the availability of existingtechnology—determine the technology being usedto deliver course content.

: Instructional materials are reviewed periodicallyto ensure they meet program standards.


: Courses are designed to require students to engagethemselves in analysis, synthesis, and evaluationas part of their course and program requirements.

Teaching/Learning Benchmarks: Student interaction with faculty and other

students is an essential characteristic and isfacilitated through a variety of ways, includingvoice-mail and/or e-mail.

: Feedback to student assignments and questions isconstructive and provided in a timely manner.

: Students are instructed in the proper methods ofeffective research, including assessment of thevalidity of resources.

Course Structure Benchmarks

: Before starting an online program, students areadvised about the program to determine (1) if theypossess the self-motivation and commitment tolearn at a distance and (2) if they have access to theminimal technology required by the course design.

: Students are provided with supplemental courseinformation that outlines course objectives,concepts, and ideas, and learning outcomes foreach course are summarized in a clearly written,straightforward statement.

: Students have access to sufficient library resourcesthat may include a “virtual library” accessiblethrough the World Wide Web.


Student Support Benchmarks

: Students receive information about programs,including admission requirements, tuition andfees, books and supplies, technical and proctoringrequirements, and student support services.

: Students are provided with hands-on training andinformation to aid them in securing material throughelectronic databases, interlibrary loans, governmentarchives, news services, and other sources.

: Throughout the duration of the course/program,students have access to technical assistance,including detailed instructions regarding theelectronic media used, practice sessions prior tothe beginning of the course, and convenient accessto technical support staff.

: Questions directed to student service personnel areanswered accurately and quickly, with a structuredsystem in place to address student complaints.

Faculty Support Benchmarks: Technical assistance in course development is

available to faculty, who are encouraged to use it.

: Faculty members are assisted in the transition fromclassroom teaching to online instruction and areassessed during the process.

: Instructor training and assistance, including peermentoring, continues through the progression ofthe online course.

: Faculty members are provided with writtenresources to deal with issues arising from studentuse of electronically-accessed data.

Evaluation and Assessment Benchmarks: The program’s educational effectiveness and

teaching/learning process is assessed through anevaluation process that uses several methods andapplies specific standards.

: Data on enrollment, costs, and successful/innovative uses of technology are used to evaluateprogram effectiveness.

: Intended learning outcomes are reviewed regularlyto ensure clarity, utility, and appropriateness.


Selected References

Bates, A.W. 1995. Technology, Open Learning, andDistance Education. London and New York:Routledge.

Boaz, Mary, et al. 1999. Teaching at a Distance: AHandbook for Instructors. Los Angeles, CA: League forInnovation in the Community College andArchipelago, a Division of Harcourt Brace &Company.

Boettcher, Judith V. and Rita-Marie Conrad. 1999.Faculty Guide for Moving Teaching and Learning to theWeb. Los Angeles, CA: League for Innovation in theCommunity College, p.16.

Bowen, Howard. 1980. The Cost of Higher Education.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Coordinating Board for Higher EducationTelecommunications Advisory Group. 1997. FromHere to Transformation. Jefferson City, MO: MissouriCoordinating Board for Higher Education.

Center for Adult Learning and Educational Credentials.1996a. Guiding Principles for Distance Learning in aLearning Society. Washington, DC: American Councilon Education, December.

_______. 1996b. Distance Learning Evaluation Guide.Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Chickering, Arthur W. and Stephen C. Ehrmann. 1996.“Implementing the Seven Principles.” AAHEBulletin. Vol. 49, No.2 (October). From AAHEwebsite (www.aahe.org/technology/ehrmann.htm).

Commission on Higher Education (CHE), MiddleStates Association of Colleges and Schools. 1997a.Policy Statement on Distance Education. Philadelphia,PA: CHE, February.

_________. 1997b. Guidelines for Distance EducationPrograms. Philadelphia, PA: CHE, March.

Daniel, Sir John S. 1996. Mega-Universities andKnowledge Media: Technology Strategies for HigherEducation. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Gilbert, Steven W. 1996. “How to Think about Howto Learn.” Trusteeship. Special Issue, pp. 16-19.

Hazle, Leslie and Jacqueline Hess. 1998. QualityAssurance in Distance Education. Washington, DC:Academy for Educational Development, April.

Johnson, James. 1999. “The Thread of a Great and LongTradition.” TechKnowLogia. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 9-12.

Lewis, Laurie, Kyle Snow, and Elizabeth Farris. 1999.Distance Education at Postsecondary EducationInstitutions: 1997-98. National Center for EducationStatistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education,NCES #2000-013. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Pascarella, Ernest and Patrick Terenzini. 1991. HowCollege Affects Students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peters, Otto. 1999. Teaching and Learning inDistance Education: Analysis and Interpretationsfrom an International Perspective. London: KoganPage Limited.

Phipps, Ronald A. and Jamie P. Merisotis. 1999. What’sthe Difference? A Review of Contemporary Research onthe Effectiveness of Distance Learning in HigherEducation. Washington, DC: American Federationof Teachers and National Education Association.

Phipps, Ronald A., Jane V. Wellman, and Jamie P.Merisotis. 1998. Assuring Quality in Distance Learning:A Preliminary Review. Washington, DC: Council forHigher Education Accreditation.

Southern Regional Electronic Campus. 1997. Principlesof Good Practice. Atlanta, GA: Southern RegionalEducation Board, October.


Sumler, David and Barbara Zirkin. 1995.“Interactive or Not Interactive? That Is theQuestion.” Journal of Distance Education. Spring,pp, 95-112.

Tapscot, Don. 1996. The Digital Economy: Promise andPeril in the Age of Networked Intelligence. New York:McGraw-Hill.

U.S. Army. 1997. Army Distance Learning Program MasterPlan: Coordinating Draft. Volumes I-III, June. FromU.S. Army website (www.tadlp.monroe.army.mil/dlmasterplan.htm).

Western Cooperative for EducationalTelecommunications. 1997a. Distance Education: AConsumer’s Guide. Boulder, CO: Western InterstateCommission for Higher Education, April.

________ . 1997b. Good Practices in Distance Education.Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission forHigher Education, May.

Wisher, Robert A., et al. 1999. Training Through DistanceLearning: An Assessment of Research Findings.Alexandria, VA: United States Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.


Appendix One: Institutional Profiles

Brevard Community College Cocoa, FLCarnegie Class: Associate of Arts Enrollment: 14,732 Established: 1960

Brevard Community College began offering distance education telecourses in 1974 and has made distance learningvia the Internet a priority in recent years. Currently, two entire associate’s degree programs can be completed eitheronline or through telecourses, as well as a number of individual courses. Within the next three to five years theinstitution plans to expand the number of programs that can be completed at a distance, focusing on increasingstudent retention in distance classes. Brevard also is a participant in the PBS Adult Learning Service “Going theDistance Program,” which brings higher education to the growing numbers of adult students interested in distanceeducation. The institution has a comprehensive plan to improve the quality of teaching and productivity of studentsthrough the use of technology and distance education. Brevard will be assisted in achieving these goals through agrant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) thatis focused on faculty training and development in order to impact positively student learning.

Regents College Albany, NYCarnegie Class: Baccalaureate II Enrollment: 17,358 Established: 1970

Regents originally began as the External Degree Program of the University of the State of New York and operates onthe philosophy that “What you know is more important than where or how you learned it.” In April 1998, thecollege was granted an independent charter by the New York Board of Regents and now operates as a private institution.Focused on working adults, Regents provides an independent study program for various degrees ranging from Nursingto Information Technology. Students work at their own pace and can take examinations to demonstrate theirknowledge. This format has allowed over 83,000 people worldwide to earn a college degree through Regents’ programs.In February 1999 Regents was awarded a Meritorious Course Award from the University Continuing EducationAssociation in recognition of its Theoretical Frameworks of Nursing Practice course.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, ILCarnegie Class: Research I Enrollment: 36,019 Established: 1867

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is very active in distance learning on a number of different fronts.They are one of three participants in the University of Illinois Online (along with the Springfield and Chicagocampuses), which offers 20 degree- or certificate-programs over the Internet with more in development. The universityalso offers online master’s degree programs in six fields. The school received funding from the Pew Grant Programof Course Redesign in 1999 to redesign a two-course sequence in Economic Statistics to make the courses more“hands on.” Another innovative facet of the university’s distance education programs is the Idea Village. Still in itsinitial phases, the Idea Village is essentially an online college community that will feature portals to online classrooms,academic and social information, an online library, and an online help center.


University of Maryland University College College Park, MDCarnegie Class: Master’s I Enrollment: 13,786 Established: 1947

A virtual institution, the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) was founded with the mission ofproviding continuing education to Maryland’s professional workforce. With experience in distance education thatspans more than a quarter century UMUC began offering courses over the Internet in Fall 1997 and currently offers14 bachelor’s and 10 master’s degree programs online. The institution operates internationally, serving active dutymilitary personnel in Europe, the Mid-East, the Pacific, and East Asia. To assure that increasing numbers of studentsare well served, UMUC is focusing on infrastructure issues, including expansion of student services over the WorldWide Web as well as the availability of library resources online. UMUC was awarded the University ContinuingEducation Association’s Award for Innovative Distance Education in 1998 and 1999, and was included in ForbesMagazine’s list of the top 20 “cyber universities” in 1997.

Utah State University Logan, UTCarnegie Class: Research I Enrollment: 21,234 Established: 1888

Utah State University (USU) has been involved in various forms of distance education—from correspondence coursesto satellite-delivered courses—since 1911. The institution has now expanded those offerings to include two types ofonline courses, semester-based and independent study. The semester-based courses are similar to the courses thatstudents would take on campus and follow a similar schedule. The independent study courses allow students toenroll at anytime with the provision that they must complete the course within one calendar year of enrolling.Additionally, USU is now offering a number of degree programs online, mostly from the Department of SpecialEducation and Rehabilitation. USU also has been selected as a participant in the Learning Anytime AnywherePartnerships program created in the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. It will partner with PBSAdult Learning Service, the American Association for Higher Education, Western Governors University, and MadDuckTechnologies to find innovative ways of providing persons with disabilities access to postsecondary education.

Weber State University Ogden, UTCarnegie Class: Master’s II Enrollment: 14,613 Established: 1889

Weber State University (WSU) is heavily invested in distance learning. The institution began offering independentstudy courses over 10 years ago, and in Fall 1995 conceptualized an online campus. The plan included movingcourses to the Internet, and providing student services, academic advising, and technical support. Over the next twoyears the institution designed and tested all of its own tools including online chat and bookstore services. In Fall1997, WSU Online was launched. Currently it offers two-thirds of the online courses in Utah. These include over 70independent study courses offered in more than 20 disciplines. WSU also offers a number of associate’s and bachelor’sdegree programs in health professions. Despite the fact that the online venture is only two years old, it now enrollsmore than 2000 students and recieved an Innovation in Distance Education Award from the University ContinuingEducation Association in 1998.

Carnegie classification, enrollment, and establishment data are taken from the 1999 Higher Education Directory.Higher Education Publications, Falls Church, VA. Enrollment data are from 1997-98.


Appendix Two

Institutional Support1. Faculty are provided professional incentives for innovative practices 4.1 1.943 83 4

to encourage development of distance learning courses.4.4 0.782 97 5

2. There are institutional rewards for the effective 3.4 2.010 81 1teaching of distance learning courses.

4.2 0.769 98 43. A documented technology plan is in place to ensure quality standards. 4.4 1.796 72 5

4.3 0.753 94 54. Electronic security measures are in place to ensure 6.1 1.183 89 7

the integrity and validity of information.4.8 0.546 103 5

5. Support for building and maintaining the distance 5.5 1.606 87 7education infrastructure is addressed by a centralized system.

4.3 1.031 98 5

Course Development6. Distance learning course development must 4.4 2.001 85 7

be approved through a broad peer review process.3.8 1.168 100 5

7. Guidelines exist regarding minimum standards 5.1 1.789 86 7for course development, design, and delivery.

4.6 0.684 100 58. Course design is managed by teams comprised of faculty, content 4.4 2.083 89 7

experts, instructional designers, technical experts, and evaluation personnel.4.2 1.008 100 5

9. During course development, the various learning styles 4.6 1.829 77 4of students are considered.

4.2 0.972 97 510. Assessment instruments are used to ascertain the specific learning 2.8 1.737 104 1

styles of students, which then determine the type of course delivery.3.5 1.173 120 4

11. Courses are designed with a consistent structure, 5.2 1.692 116 6easily discernable to students of varying learning styles.

4.4 0.833 136 512. The technology being used to deliver course 5.0 1.736 70 5

content is based on learning outcomes.4.3 0.900 87 5

13. Instructional materials are reviewed periodically 5.4 1.723 87 7to ensure they meet program standards.

4.4 0.803 102 5

Teaching/Learning Process14. Student interaction with faculty is facilitated through a variety of ways. 5.7 1.457 136 7

4.6 0.736 141 515. Student interaction with other students 5.4 1.675 140 7

is facilitated through a variety of ways.4.3 0.872 142 5

16. Feedback to student assignments and 5.6 1.273 121 6questions is provided in a timely manner.

4.8 0.397 140 5

All

Average St Dev Count ModeAll Survey Results

Note: The set of values presented represent the presence and importance of each benchmark.


17. Feedback to students is provided in a manner 5.9 1.219 121 7that is constructive and non-threatening.

4.6 0.734 142 518. Courses are separated into self-contained segments (modules) 5.4 1.814 117 7

that can be used to assess student mastery before movingforward in the course or program.

4.1 0.943 133 419. The modules/segments are of varying lengths 5.1 1.780 71 7

determined by the complexity of learning outcomes.4.0 0.910 88 4

20. Each module/segment requires students to engage themselves in 5.7 1.421 110 7analysis, synthesis, and evaluation as part of their course assignments.

4.4 0.797 129 521. Class voice-mail and/or e-mail systems are provided to encourage 5.9 1.570 129 7

students to work with each other and their instructor(s).4.5 0.827 140 5

22. Course are designed to require students to work in groups utilizing 4.9 1.939 111 7problem-solving activities in order to develop topic understanding.

3.7 1.163 132 523. Course materials promote collaboration among students. 5.0 1.781 111 7

3.9 1.125 134 5

Course Structure24. Students are provided with supplemental course information 6.1 1.125 136 7

that outlines course objectives, concepts, and ideas.4.7 0.655 143 5

25. Specific expectations are set for students with respect to a minimum 4.9 1.617 122 6amount of time per week for study and homework assignments.

4.2 1.041 138 526. Faculty are required to grade and return all 4.7 1.896 108 6

assignments within a certain time period.4.4 0.901 134 5

27. Sufficient library resources are made available to the students. 5.8 1.546 135 74.7 0.609 141 5

28. Students are instructed in the proper methods of effective 5.1 1.827 116 7research, including assessment of resource validity.

4.4 0.793 136 529. Before starting the program, students are advised 5.2 1.896 123 7

about the program to determine if they have theself-motivation and commitment to learn at a distance.

4.5 0.807 141 530. Learning outcomes for each course are summarized 5.4 1.578 76 6

in a clearly written, straightforward statement.4.5 0.578 97 5

Student Support31. Students can obtain assistance to help them 5.2 1.650 130 7

use electronically accessed data successfully.4.6 0.700 140 5

32. Students are provided with hands-on training and information 5.1 1.834 126 6to aid them in securing material through electronic databases,interlibrary loans, government archives, news services, etc.

4.4 0.846 136 533. Written information is supplied to the student about the program. 6.2 1.218 135 7

4.7 0.653 144 5

All



34. Easily accessible technical assistance is available to all 5.4 1.743 126 7students throughout the duration of the course/program.

4.6 0.626 138 535. A structured system is in place to address student complaints. 5.3 1.657 116 7

4.6 0.721 133 5

Faculty Support36. Technical assistance in course development is 6.1 1.276 89 7

available to faculty and they are encouraged to use it.4.8 0.520 100 5

37. Faculty members are assisted in the transition from classroom 4.7 1.893 83 7teaching to distance instruction and are assessed in the process.

4.4 0.782 95 538. There are peer mentoring resources available to 4.6 1.890 82 7

faculty members teaching distance courses.4.3 0.763 96 5

39. Distance instructor training continues throughout 4.7 1.764 79 5the progression of the online class.

4.4 0.773 96 540. Faculty members are provided with written resources to deal 4.1 1.846 81 4

with issues arising from student use of electronically-accessed data.4.0 0.902 98 5

Evaluation and Assessment41. The program’s educational effectiveness is measured using several methods. 5.5 1.517 86 7

4.5 0.692 98 542. An evaluation process is used to improve the teaching/learning process. 5.2 1.754 84 6

4.5 0.632 96 543. Specific standards are in place to compare and improve learning outcomes. 4.3 1.848 72 4

4.2 0.814 96 544. Data on enrollment, costs, and successful/innovative uses 5.0 1.701 67 5

of technology are used to evaluate program effectiveness.4.2 0.906 96 5

45. Intended learning outcomes are regularly reviewed 5.1 1.602 80 6to ensure clarity, utility, and appropriateness.

4.4 0.765 99 5

All


Documents

QUALITY ON LINE THE