This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 26 November 2014, At: 06:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

American Journal of DistanceEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20

Leadership in accreditationand networked learningJames W. Hall aa Chancellor of Antioch University , 150 E. SouthCollege Street, Yellow Springs, OH, 45387 E-mail:Published online: 24 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: James W. Hall (1998) Leadership in accreditation andnetworked learning, American Journal of Distance Education, 12:2, 5-15, DOI:10.1080/08923649809526990

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923649809526990

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

15 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATIONVol. 12 No. 2 1998

Leadership in Accreditation andNetworked Learning

James W. Hall

Abstract

Distance education and traditional campus-based education areexperiencing an historic convergence that has produced a highdegree of anticipation and anxiety among those who deal with insti-tutional evaluation and accreditation. Convergence of these twoapproaches as networked education is well-advanced; today'sinstruction, once mediated at the boundaries of the campus both bythe state regulatory authority and the regional or professionalaccreditation body, easily crosses physical boundaries and estab-lished jurisdictions. Accreditation threatens to become a pastiche ofintertwining jurisdictions, since neither government nor accreditorshave fully anticipated the implications of networked education.How will public policy ensure that appropriate educational and aca-demic controls persist, and how and by whom will the decisions thatguarantee the quality, continuity, and credibility of student work bemade? Students themselves may already be providing new direc-tions for leadership.

Introduction

Several years ago I predicted what has now become widely accepted:distance education and traditional campus-based education are experi-encing an historic convergence toward networked education (Hall 1995).For those who provide leadership in the accreditation of colleges anduniversities, this convergence presents significant challenges and a needto recreate the existing evaluation process.

Distance education, as it has developed in recent decades, has beenkey to university access for students who could not travel routinely to acampus. Distance education began as an extension of the traditional uni-versity, and its programs have been defined and evaluated in termscommon to the traditional university. Exemplified in particular by thelarge new distance institutions described as mega-universities by Daniel(1996), today distance education includes a throng of institutions offer-ing at least a few distance or online courses.

Telecommunications and computers have dramatically aided distanceinstitutions in reaching their students, and leaders in distance education

5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

15 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

have always assumed that their institutions (or discrete programs) wouldeventually emerge as preferred alternatives for many students. A few dis-tance educators, among them some notable leaders and visionaries, havesupposed that distance alternatives might replace the traditional ones, butthey have not accurately reckoned the extent and speed by which thetraditional university would become less traditional. As telecommunica-tions suffuses the whole teaching and learning process, the formerdistinctiveness between the two approaches is rapidly blurring.

Today, distance education is only one of the many new educationalelements that has diminished the dominance of the classroom model.Other elements include the award of advanced class standing, credit forlearning through experience, and cooperative education in the work-place. Increasingly, neither classroom nor distance, but networkededucation, defines the new convergence. Given the wide diversity ofcampuses, not every college or university will follow an identical pathand schedule, but for most, the convergence of these forms is already faralong. Within a few years, the classroom and the distance program, oncedefined wholly in physical terms, will become totally indistinct.

O'Donnell (1998, B7; In press), a professor of classical studies at theUniversity of Pennsylvania, best captures the effect of this blurring. Hewrites, "What distinguishes a great institution is the wisdom with whichits faculty members choose among the tools available to them, to findthe ones best suited to the tasks at hand." The tools for networked learn-ing, once the exclusive preserve of a band of adventurous andforward-looking distance educators, are today either being contemplatedor already used by all of academe. O'Donnell (1998) summarizes thetrend well: "What we can now anticipate is not the eradication of face-to-face education but its strengthening" (p. B7). Already, more and moreof today's students move effortlessly between the once polar extremes ofdistance and classroom.

This convergence of educational modes intersects as well with a morefundamental paradigm shift. Described most fully in an ICDE/SCOPreport (Hall 1996, 29), the shift is an "emerging learning paradigm" thatis "learner centered and outcome based, requiring new roles for faculty,students, administrators, college campuses, and many non-formal learn-ing sites." By shifting the focus to students' learning, our thinking aboutthe future university of convergence is dramatically different from thatof the past. Guskin (n.d.), former chancellor of Antioch University,describes the shift as one "from faculty productivity to student produc-

6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

15 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

HALL

tivity, from faculty disciplinary interests to what students need to learn,from faculty teaching styles to student learning styles, from classroomteaching to student learning."

This new paradigm of learning produces a high degree of anxietyamong leaders who are responsible for institutional evaluation andaccreditation. Once mediated at the boundaries of the campus, both bythe state regulatory authority and by the regional or professional accredi-tation body, instruction today crosses physical boundaries andestablished jurisdictions. Accreditation threatens to become a spaghettiof intertwining jurisdictions. In recent years accreditors have attemptedto shift institutional quality assessment away from such input measuresas the number of library books and faculty doctoral degree holderstoward output measures that describe what actually happens to studentsas the result of their study. But the fact is that the emergence of the uni-versity of convergence—the networked university—still raises urgentissues of assessment and institutional evaluation. While every accredita-tion organization has dealt with the issues of off-campus learning insome fashion, the explosive increase in courses, programs, and othereducational activities that occurs outside the classroom means new chal-lenges for accreditors.

The Emergence of "Meta Universities"

Aware of these new trends, leaders of the regional accreditation asso-ciations have been actively considering and testing new approaches forsome time. Accreditation based solely on a campus' input was adequateat a time when the college or university offering the degree also provid-ed essentially all of a student's courses, and at a single campus site.Consider, however, the comment of Steven D. Crow (1995, 358), Execu-tive Director of the North Central Association: "As the boundaries of thecampus have dissolved, we have still sought and found within the deliv-ering institution a recognizable entity . . . our primary point of referencehas been [a single] institution of higher education." What happens whenthat single institution is no longer the point of reference?

Accreditation policies have changed as the modes of education havechanged. Three generations of policy shifts are apparent. The first gener-ation, beginning in the late 1950s, responded to the onset of adultdegrees offered through established campus-based programs of continu-ing, adult, or extension education. The approach was reasonably simplebecause the responsibility for evaluation and control rested clearly with

7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

15 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

the collective institutional faculty, who were assumed to exercise qualitycontrol in traditional academic areas. The early accredited leading uni-versities in the field included the prototype adult degree programs at theUniversity of Oklahoma and Syracuse University. These special pro-grams grew out of the continuing education divisions of these and otheruniversities and included both reduced residency requirements and somedistance courses.

A second generation of institutions, the freestanding distance learninginstitutions, offered a new challenge for accreditors. Such institutions asthe British Open University and its many national parallels across theworld established well-defined curricular expectations, supported by afull-time faculty. Again, accreditors, lacking the trappings of a residen-tial campus and faced with unusual and innovative delivery models,could, nonetheless, still employ a variation of the single accountableinstitution approach.

The third generation, including such institutions as Empire State Col-lege of the State University of New York, Regents College, ThomasEdison College of New Jersey, and the various units of the UniversityWithout Walls, no longer had an actual campus. Nor did they have a resi-dent faculty in a single place. Further, they did not tend to have theaccouterments of the traditional campus, such as a library. In some cases,the curriculum itself could be shaped variably around the educationalneeds of an individual student. Credit was sometimes awarded for learn-ing not precisely parallel to that found in a college course catalogue. Thecentral issue for accreditors for this new set of institutions was to ascer-tain that the content and quality of the student's program met reasonablycomparable academic standards and that the institution provided ade-quate guidance, support, and resources to enable the student to succeed.

Interestingly, in the initial concept of the third generation, neitherEmpire State College nor Regents College was expected to be responsi-ble for all instruction. Both institutions developed parallel but differentresponses to Alan Pifer's (1970-71) call for an external degree in Ameri-ca. They were expected to certify what students had alreadylearned—those courses successfully completed and competencies thatcould be demonstrated. Both institutions initially flirted with, but did notestablish, a student "credit bank" that would be a cumulative and trans-ferable deposit toward earning a college degree. In both cases,accreditors were not prepared to separate the oversight of instruction bya single responsible faculty from certification of achievement. Empire

8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

15 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

HALL

State and Regents Colleges, two of the earliest fully accredited institu-tions in this third generation, created analogs to the more traditionalsingle institutional model for purposes of institutional review.

Today we are on the cusp of a fourth generation that might bedescribed as "meta-universities." These universities propose to drawtogether the courses, faculties, and resources of a wide number of collab-orating public and private colleges and universities and will likelyinclude collaboration with corporations as well. The Western GovernorsUniversity (WGU), still in planning, but already very much on the mindsof accreditors, may be the first non-profit meta-university to test theselimits. This "university" aims to be the structure that binds a student'swork done in a variety of institutions and locations throughout the west-ern United States.

While WGU may ultimately find it expedient to develop some analo-gy to the single campus approach to institutional accreditation, currently,its core concept does not include responsibility for student instruction.No single departmental faculty or institutional curriculum committeeprovides oversight and quality control. The time-honored tradition ofinstitutional self-accreditation, still common in European universities,becomes impossible. It is probably no coincidence that the concept forthe Western Governors University rises in the region with the longesthistory of policy collaboration across state borders.

Implications of Networked Education

As early as 1984, the former Council on Postsecondary Accreditation(COPA) and the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association(SHEEO) collaborated in preparing a policy statement that addresseddistance learning through telecommunications. At that time, the technol-ogy primarily available was video via television, but the policyrecognized that the available technology would improve as the yearspassed. COPA's policy was designed to encourage experimentation withnew technologies, not to put up roadblocks to distance education. Thefocus of the policy was on student achievement, as demonstrated by out-come measures. COPA clearly left jurisdiction to the authority of theindividual state, affirming that a sponsoring university, by transmittingan electronic signal or using interstate mail and telephone services acrossstate lines, did not constitute a "physical presence" in another state.Physical presence, justifying the activation of a state's approval mecha-nism, was suggested if the sponsoring university placed a human agent

9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

15 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

such as a counselor, tutor, or recruiter in another state. Finally, there wasan effort to encourage those states that did not exercise rigorous programreview to do so. This Trojan horse introduced a new issue into accredita-tion. With review and evaluation vested clearly within the home stateand accreditation region of the sponsoring institution, interstate andinterregional cooperation was offered as a possible approach for protec-tion of the student consumer studying at a distance.

In 1995, the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunica-tions, a program of the Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation (WICHE 1995), codified principles for electronically-deliv-ered degree programs—a model for many of the subsequent regionalversions—supplemented by a list of good practices that cover two broadareas: Curriculum and Instruction, and Institutional Context and Com-mitment.

In 1996, the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle StatesAssociation (MSA) developed a new policy for off-campus programs(Commission on Higher Education 1996). At the core of the new policywas a decision not to develop separate accreditation standards for dis-tance learning programs. MSA expects that all distance efforts will linkclearly to the established mission of the college or university and not dis-tort that mission or cause the institution to develop entirely separatestructural units. Some policy differences do occur within the variousregional organizations. Most recently, the American Council on Educa-tion's (ACE) Center for Adult Learning and Educational Credentialsjoined with the Alliance, an organization for alternative education, toproduce principles that recognize distance education as part of main-stream education (ACE 1996).

All of these approaches to the accreditation of distance learning, fromthe COPA/SHEEO policy statement of 1984 to the MSA policy of 1996,assume that control and responsibility are exercised by a single institu-tion. They also seem to assume that distance learning activities will bethe exceptional aspect of an institution's total offerings. However, nei-ther government nor accreditors have fully anticipated the implicationsof networked education. The problem for the next generation of leadersin accreditation is, therefore, twofold. First, the single, well-integrateduniversity as the point of reference is vitiated by the creation of newkinds of institutions—perhaps "universities" in name only—that willhave none of the usual referents for evaluation. Second, with conver-gence comes a quantum increase in the uses of networked learning,possibly becoming the primary mode of instruction within, the

10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

15 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

HALL

institution's offerings. There is significant and increasing evidence of thelatter.

By the close of 1997, many institutions, both non-profit and for-profit,were offering online, electronically-delivered courses as part of theirregular curriculum. A significant series of grants by the Alfred E. SloanFoundation support asynchronous learning at a number of prestigiousuniversities. Among these participants are some of the best known uni-versities in America, including Berkeley, New York University, and theState University of New York. The impact of these experiments hasalready greatly altered the public perception regarding the efficacy andquality of online courses. The student gains the real and practical possi-bility of enrolling in courses offered by universities throughout theworld.

Moreover, for-profit universities have exploited this form of learning.Corporations, already proficient in utilizing internal networks for train-ing and communication, now put more and more of their courses onlinefor employees or contract with universities to provide courses through-out their internal network. The result is a plethora of courses and,increasingly, full programs of study leading to a degree that either com-bine on-campus and off-campus study or are available through distanceformats.

As a consequence, institutional evaluation and accreditation, onceregulated by the boundaries of the campus, by the regulatory authority ofthe state within which the university was physically located, and by theregional or professional accreditation body, today cross all physicalboundaries and established jurisdictions.

Assessing Quality

Where, then, is accreditation headed? How will public policy ensurethat appropriate educational and academic controls persist? How willdecisions that guarantee the quality, continuity, and credibility of workpursued by a student be made? Which individuals and organizations willlead the way?

The Federal Constitution of the United States leaves to the individualstates the authority to regulate educational institutions with physicalpresence in their domain. But distance and networked education encour-age states to grasp legal precedents that might allow them to regulatenetworked learning and so pursue students who live and study beyondthat domain. States have sometimes sought to regulate the electronic

11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

15 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

signal sent into their domain from a sponsoring college or university inanother state. However, there is a substantial body of existing law thatseriously inhibits a state's regulatory authority from prohibiting suchactivity. Given this jurisdictional vacuum between individual states andany larger entity and the constitutional absence of federal jurisdiction,leadership in finding new viable solutions to accreditation is essential inthis age of networked education.

Outcome or performance assessment is frequently mentioned as a newapproach to accreditation. The rationale being if it is not possible to reg-ulate the functioning of an institution directly, then standardized reportsof student performance should be applied against an established andrather explicit set of competencies. If the focus is on the student's perfor-mance rather than on the institution providing the instruction, thensuccessful students will reflect positively on an institution, and accredi-tation can flow to the institution indirectly. Those providers withsuccessful students will ultimately be recognized for their capacity.

The problems here are many, however. For one thing, students willlikely have gained their education at multiple institutions. Competencyexaminations that test broadly defined cohorts tend to be set at the low-est common denominator and seldom deal with the level of quality thatis possible through traditional accreditation. Moreover, competency test-ing does not easily evaluate a student's complexity of knowledge andintellectual capacity.

Another frequently suggested way to assure high standards is nation-wide testing of all students who seek a university degree. Such a singlestandard would indeed insure that students, no matter where they studiedor in what mode the teaching and learning was accomplished, met acommon acceptable standard. Those who seek to advance the level ofsecondary education in America often promote such a solution. Howev-er, it is deeply flawed as an educational strategy for higher education inat least two ways. First, it would require that every institution offer acurriculum that prepares the student to take a specific test. Due to thelevel of generality that often characterizes such tests, the possibility fortesting in-depth knowledge, exploring the intellectual skills of the stu-dent, or engaging the student in the many nuances of advanced studywould be diminished. Such a strategy would also undermine the morecreative college efforts to improve teaching and learning by engaging astudent's individual educational goals and strengths. Nationwide stan-dardized testing as a means of conducting institutional accreditationseems misplaced in the American environment.

12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

15 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

HALL

Another strategy might be to establish a separate sector or organiza-tion for networked and distance education. Green (1997, 5) recentlyposed the question of whether distance and online education ought to bethought of as a separate "fourth sector of the nonprofit postsecondaryenterprise." Green's model would establish this new sector along withthe three existing sectors: "residential colleges and universities, com-muter comprehensive institutions, and community colleges." Theproblem with creating a wholly separate fourth sector is that the onlyjustification for such separation, given the convergence now occurring ineducational methodology, would be to support separate, and presumablydifferent, academic standards for the purposes of accreditation. Suchseparation can only work to the disadvantage of the distance institutions.

The last new accreditation strategy, and in my view, the most promis-ing, is to create voluntary cooperative accreditation commissions,designed to assess and accredit institutions or groupings of institutionsthat span national or multi-regional boundaries. Such a strategy wouldcome into play when no single regional organization or state has respon-sibility for jurisdiction. Recently, the Association of Specialized andProfessional Accreditors developed the possibility of doing regionalaccreditation and specialized accreditation reviews in a single collabora-tive process. Since one of the key institutional concerns has been theplethora of overlapping specialized accreditations that a complex univer-sity must accommodate, this is clearly a useful effort. It suggests, as anext step, the possibility that, through the auspices of the Council forHigher Education Accreditation, collaboration among one or moreaccrediting organizations could manage the review of an institutionwhose spread was national or extended beyond a single geographicregion.

The most interesting current example of such an approach is thearrangement proposed for evaluating the Western Governors University.In this instance, four regional accrediting associations are workingtogether, reaching across the existing physical jurisdictions. The WesternAssociation (WASC), Northwest Association, and North Central Associ-ation (NCA) have created the InterRegional Accreditation Committee(IRAC), which includes as members three commissioners from each ofthe four regional commissions. The key question before the IRAC is todetermine whether WGU is an accreditable entity. If the answer is yes,then the basis will have been established for national and even interna-tional accreditation (IRAC 1997).

13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

15 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

Conclusion

Given the dramatic changes that have already occurred in higher edu-cation, the clear trend toward convergence of educational modes ofdelivery, and the emergence of new organizations and combinations, thattranscend traditional boundaries, the whole area of institutional accredi-tation will require visionary and persuasive leadership. Clearly suchleadership has been available in the past as universities and associationshave responded to the unique needs of distance education, multi-campusprograms, and telecommunicated learning. But the more recent emergingeducational patterns far surpass in complexity what has gone before.

One area of concern that leaders will face is that of the enhancedimportance of the student in filling the interstices between the bound-aries and contributions of the various providers of education. Studentswho are enrolled in these admittedly experimental situations, especiallythose in student-centered academic environments, may be the catalyst inhelping accreditors find design, rationality, and purpose in what mightotherwise appear to be a chaotic assemblage of institutional and non-institutional experiences. Thus, the wise leader will recognize that, inaddition to the institutional participants, the student is a key to successfulevaluation and assessment. In this way, the experience already gained inassessing individual student learning outcomes may prove invaluable forthe future. We should not be surprised if it is the student who provides uswith answers to our questions about the next generation of institutionalaccreditation.

References

American Council on Education (ACE). 1996. Learning across time andspace: Guiding principles for distance learning in a learning society.Washington, DC: ACE.

The Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Associationof Colleges and Schools. 1996. Report of Task Force on DistanceLearning, chaired by James W. Hall. Philadelphia, PA: Middle StatesAssociation.

Crow, S. D. 1995. Distance learning: Challenges for institutional accred-itation. NCA Quarterly 69 (2-3): 354-358.

Daniel, J. S. 1996. Mega-universities and knowledge media: Technologystrategies for higher education. London: Kogan Page.

14

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

15 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

HALL

Green, K. C. 1997. Think twice—and businesslike—about distance edu-cation. AAHE Bulletin 50 (2): 3-6.

Guskin, A. n.d. Antioch University documents. Yellow Springs, OH.Hall, J. W. 1995. The convergence of means: The revolution in electron-

ic technology and the modern university. Educom Review 30 (4):42-45.

Hall, J. W. 1996. The educational paradigm shift: Implications for ICDEand the distance learning community. Report of the ICDE/SCOP TaskForce on the educational paradigm shift. Open Praxis 2:27-36.

InterRegional Accreditation Committee (IRAC). 1997. NCA Briefing 15(2): 7.

O'Donnell, J. J. 1998. Tools for teaching: Personal encounters incyberspace. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 13 January, B7.

O'Donnell, J. J. In press. Avatars of the word: From papyrus tocyberspace. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Pifer, A. 1970-71. Is it time for an external degree? The College BoardReview 78:5-10.

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). 1995.In When distance education crosses state boundaries: Western states'policies, 35-38. Denver, CO: WICHE.

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

15 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014