Internet Learning Volume 4, Number 2, Fall 2015 | Page 82

The Intersection of EPAS and QM Rubric Standards for Best Practice in Distance Education
fiscal management used to implement
and maintain the goals of the institution
or program.
3. What is the best use of data from
QM course reviews for incorporation
into strategic planning and outcome
evaluation?
4. How does learner engagement in course
design elements influence overall
programmatic or degree competencies?
Each of these items may close the
gap between the two types of standards,
with utility for initial or re-accreditation of
institutions and programs.
Conclusion
The author concludes that exemplar
ACOTE and QM Standards are generally
well matched, with an excellent opportunity
for mutual benefit. This conclusion
reinforces that of Legon (2006). Legon
notes consistency in his comparison of QM
with accreditation standards for distance
learning, also recommending further
development of the QM Standards. As
previously noted, specialized standards
are concerned with general institutional
compliance with operational and
administrative matters that are outside the
scope of QM reviews. QM Standards are
specific to individual courses but do not
address the linkages across curriculum
design, competencies for graduation, or
program evaluation, necessary components
of professional education. Accrediting
bodies for professional programs, such as
ACOTE, typically address the quality of the
program and institution, needing to add
course design to their assessment. Together,
the Standards are complementary. The
intent of each accrediting organization and
their respective standards is the benefit of
stakeholders. Key points to the article are:
• Individual course design and structure
cannot be examined in isolation
from curricula, programs, degrees,
or organizations for professional
education.
• Individual course design and structure
should be integral to programs for
professional accreditation.
• Integration across accrediting body
standards and quality improvement
standards will promote best practice for
distance education.
Revisions to each set of Standards
have the potential to improve the quality of
distance education. Modifications would
benefit the public, students, institutions
of higher education, and their respective
professions. The author recommends
additional research and collaboration to
examine specific concerns of accreditation
for distance education.
Key Points:
• Individual course design and
structure cannot be examined
in isolation from curricula,
programs, degrees, or
organizations for professional
education.
• Individual course design and
structure should be integral
to programs for professional
accreditation.
• Integration across accrediting
body standards and quality
improvement standards will
promote best practice for
distance education.
81