Lemmens The Virtual Challenge to International Cooperation in Higher Education Bernd Wächter (ed.) Aca papers on International Cooperation in Education The V irtual Challenge to International Cooperation in Higher Education

Quality assurance models and strategies 
Quality assurance models
Quality assurance approaches can loosely be divided into two dimensions
(see figure 1): market-state and internal-external, with different systems
occupying different places in the resulting four-quadrant model.
104
Market
Learning councils
Multi-lateral agreements
Centre for benchmarking
Kite-marks
Internal
External
Codes of practice
Accreditation
QM system
Licensing arrangements
State
Figure 1: Common dimensions of quality assurance systems 

---

If we look at the market-external quadrant, quality assurance arrangements
might include formal multi-lateral agreements between institutions and com-
panies or between institutions in consortia, and perhaps external kite-marks
for particular functions (such as kite-marks for learning centres or learner
support arrangements). The state-external quadrant will contain other strate-
gies such as accreditation, licensing or external peer- review systems. Within
the internal-state quadrant, quality assurance arrangements might include
codes of practice and quality management systems while in the internal-
market quadrant, learning councils and centres for benchmarking and best
practice may be more common.
Within the external-market quadrant, the external kite-mark approach offer-
ed, for example, by the British Association for Open Learning (BAOL) is a
means of quality assuring distinct educational functions. The criteria used to
assess quality (through a self-assessment and external review process) are
taken from the “Business Excellence Model” developed by the European
Foundation for Quality Management. The assessment criteria include: policy
and strategy for open learning, people management and resources, pro-
cesses, customer satisfaction, people satisfaction, impact on open learning
and results. The quality marks developed to date cover materials develop-
ment, advice and guidance, learner support and learning centres. When a
full range of kite-marks has been developed, this approach may prove useful
for dealing with the “disaggregation of function” that is evident among virtual
education providers such as UNext.com or NextEd.
Quality assurance strategies
In Table 1, a comparison is made between three sets of internal quality
assurance functions that together add up to an internal QA system. The first
set is typical of established universities, the second is taken from an educa-
tional broker organisation, the Western Governors University
6
, and the third
from a group of corporate universities
7
.
105
6
Phipps R, Wellman J & Merisotis J (1998)
Assuring Quality in Distance Learning: A Preliminary Review,
Washington DC, Council for Higher Education Accreditation 
7
Corporate Leadership Council (1999) 
Structures and Strategies of Corporate Virtual Universities (un-
published research report)

---

If we compare some of the quality strategies used in virtual education by
existing universities and by companies, differences in emphasis are evident.
An important input measure for universities are faculty credentials, selection
and training. For companies, selection and training (for curriculum design,
delivery and assessment) are also important, but the key focus will be align-
ment with business needs and priorities. The judgements of practitioners
rather than academic faculty will therefore be paramount.
In the delivery of a curriculum, universities place a lot of emphasis on “time-
on-task” measures, that is the time spent by students in classes (number of
hours), their years of study and the length of assessments. Companies place
more emphasis on outcomes and the creation of a productive learning en-
vironment. Both groups emphasise student support services and information
for students; in the virtual education context, high levels of technical support
are as important as “content-support”. Finally, universities focus on assess-
ing the goals and outcomes of learning particularly in terms of assessing
knowledge and understanding while companies are likely to concentrate
more on applied outcomes and comparative metrics. These differences of
emphasis in terms of aspects of quality are reflected in the different quality
assurance arrangements described in table 1 above.
106
Table 1: Comparison of QA functions in three organisational settings
Established universities: Western Governors
Corporate universities
faculty functions
University
Curriculum design and 
WGU programme 
Learning councils:
oversight
councils
standards and inno-
vation, personal devel-
opment planning, 
alignment with business
needs
Instructional delivery
Education providers
Faculty of learning:
technical support, 
measurement and 
standards
Student guidance
WGU
Learning resource 
centres
Assessment of 
WGU assessment
Learning councils/
student performance
council
learning faculty
Academic planning 
WGU associate
Chief learning officer
and co-ordination
academic officers
and deans

---