Internet Learning Volume 4, Number 2, Fall 2015 | Page 81

Internet Learning
Implications/Recommendations
The comparison indicates instances
of close, limited, and poor congruity
across standards that address institutional
practices and those which address individual
course requirements. The comparison
suggests opportunities for dialog between
organizational members to consider
modifications for increased congruence
between institutional practices and individual
course requirements. Keen opportunities
exist in the areas of course design to align
with curricular framework, and program
evaluation for strategic planning. Such close
examination may serve as a model for other
professional accrediting bodies to engage
in open dialog. Limited communication
and lack of research across accrediting
bodies perpetuates a fragmented system.
The comparison of standards in this article
suggests possibilities for complimentary
cohesion without duplication. Could
specialized professional accrediting bodies,
such as ACOTE, examine course design as
part of accreditation? ACOTE Standards
appear to be missing items QM identifies
as essential components of good quality
distance education, particularly the design of
learning objectives, instructional materials,
and issues of accessibility and usability.
Modifications to ACOTE Standards could
include elements of course overview,
learner-centered objectives, instructional
materials and methods, course activities,
and accessibility. Could QM examine the
connection between individual courses and
larger curricular concerns? QM Standards
do not integrate individual courses with
overall programmatic concerns, a vital part
of professional education. Modifications to
QM standards could include the alignment
of individual course goals and learning
objectives with programmatic mission,
vision, and curricular design, demonstrating
consistency across individual
courses in support of professional programs
and degrees.
Modifying standards within
professional accrediting bodies and QM,
and across other accrediting organizations
has utility for education, practice and
research. Careful writing could incorporate
the missing concepts into updated standards
documents for each respective organization
without being prescriptive. Not all faculties
who have background in a content area
also have expertise in teaching. Faculty
development to acquire expertise in distance
education may enable improved clarity
in course design reflective of institutional
requirements, degree competencies, and
overall program cohesion. Clear course
design with program alignment is part of best
practices to improve student engagement,
satisfaction, and success (Ralston-Berg,
2014). Future research could include five
"components" of teaching: (a) instructional
design, (b) instructional delivery, (c)
instructional assessment, (d) content
expertise, and (e) course management
(Arreola, 2000 p24). Researching our
teaching, referred to as the Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), could
address many areas revealed in this study
examining the influence of accreditation on
learning. This author concurs with Keil and
Brown (2014) that accreditation agencies
and institutes of higher education could
collaborate to modify standards related to
distance education. For example, topics and
questions may include:
1. How does institutional membership,
professional development or adoption
of the QM rubric indicate organizational
commitment to faculty qualifications as
distance educators?
2. Does adoption of the QM rubric or
institutional memberships indicate
80