Internet Learning Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 2012 | Page 72

Asynchronous Online Education Credit Hours by the Book

71

between DOE and Wheelen (Scott 2009c) discussed previously. In response to a DOE report,
Wheelen (2009) stated that the region placed emphasis on learning and that institutions were held
accountable for their academic offerings. An institution’s course work and learning outcomes
were evaluated during peer review processes.
Two regions clearly indicated the importance of learning over credit hours. The North
Central and Western Associations incorporated review of student learning, course objectives, and
assessments as part of accreditation reviews. The North Central commission proposed a standard
change to specifically address course substance and rigor. The new standard would require
institutions to demonstrate appropriate academic caliber and level through stated core
competencies and proven by student assessments (North Central Association of Colleges and
Schools—Higher Learning Commission 2011a). During the interview, P13 elaborated that the
commission was focused on student learning and that the amount of time spent “learning” was
not a true indicator students’ gained knowledge and skills. Simply put by P13, “we are more
interested in learning than in seat time.” Further discussion indicated the need for a new metric
that used stated objectives and competencies. The credit hour created a challenge on “how to
decide when a 3 credit course has substance and rigor” (P13). Discussing more, P13 referenced
the commission’s standards indicating that regardless of the format learning takes place, student
learning and outcomes were important for quality education. Learning methods may change, but
standards provide the foundation for quality education (North Central Association of Colleges
and Schools—Higher Learning Commission 2011a; 2011b; n.d.). Due to the nature of current
accreditation practices and credit hour methods, the commission relied on learning outcomes
when reviewing institutions. As indicated by P13, common learning standards and competencies
provide instructors the foundation for courses, but allowed freedom to use multiple methods and
tailor curriculum to learners. Similar discussion occurred with P11. Even though the Western
Association did use the credit hour as a basic metric, according to P11, the commission focused
on student learning and outcomes as an element of review. P11 referenced How to Become
Accredited: Procedures Manual for Eligibility, Candidacy, and Initial Accreditation (Western
Association of Schools and Colleges Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and
Universities 2010b) during the discussion associating points made with regional policies. During
this process, program goals and objectives, methodologies, course goals and objectives, and
assessment that aligned with outcomes were examined closely to ensure the region’s membership
met accreditation standards.
The credit hour is part of the U.S. education system genetic code and has been a useful
tool as the American educational structure developed and grew. Application and continued use of
the credit hour may not be in the best interest of learning with the many instructional formats
now available. The challenge for the U.S. education system is to make a change for a metric that
is based on learning. Information gathered during this study indicates that an alternative metric
based on competencies is possible. As indicated in the data, the credit hour is relied on greatly.
Historically, any proposed changes and any practices were ultimately forced into the credit hour
metric. Thus, perpetuating a system that has been proven as inappropriate.
About the Author
Fred Prasuhn is a recent doctoral graduate of the Adult Education program, Lifelong Education,
Administration, and Policy department, College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens,