Quality Assurance in Asian Distance Education: Diverse Approaches and Common Culture

With the phenomenal expansion of distance education in Asia during the past three decades, there has been growing public demand for quality and accountability in distance education. This study investigates the national quality assurance systems for distance education at the higher education level in Asia with the aim of contributing to a better understanding of the current level of development of quality assurance in Asian distance education and to offer potential directions for policy makers when developing and elaborating quality assurance systems for distance education. The analysis of the existing quality assurance frameworks in the 11 countries/territories selected reveals that the level of quality assurance policy integration in the overall national quality assurance in higher education policy framework varies considerably. The purpose of quality assurance, policy frameworks, methods, and instruments in place are generally tailored to each country’s particular circumstances. There are, however, obvious commonalities that underpin these different quality assurance efforts.


Introduction
suggests that there is ample evidence of distance education (DE) in Asia making great strides with regard to access, equity, and cost-benefit. What is uncertain, however, is whether DE in Asia is providing quality education.
Over the last few decades, there has been a substantial growth in DE in Asia. There are now at least 10 mega-universities, over 70 open universities, and a growing number of conventional institutions offering DE, as well as a rapidly growing number of private and/ Insung Jung 1 , Tat Meng Wong 2 , Chen Li 3 , Sanjaa Baigaltugs 4 , and Tian Belawati 5 1 International Christian University, Japan; 2 Wawasan Open University, Malaysia; 3 Beijing Normal University, China; 4 Mongolia University of Science and Technology; 5 Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia Education launched a pilot project (see http://www.icde.org/?module=Articles;action= Article.publicShow;ID=1765) to identify regulatory frameworks for distance and online education in different regions, to investigate the best practices, and to examine the rules and regulations hindering distance and online education development.
In Asia, several countries have recognized the need for well-defined QA policy frameworks for DE to assure that quality education is delivered to both students and the public, to safeguard against unscrupulous practices, and to initiate development of QA systems, specifically for DE. This study investigates national QA systems for DE at the higher education level in Asia. Its primary objective is to develop a better understanding of the current development of QA in Asian DE and to offer policy makers directions for developing and elaborating QA systems for DE in their own jurisdictions. DE in this study refers to various forms of technology/media-supported education, such as e-learning.
The study was carried out between January and December 2010 and employed three data collection steps: (a) 11 cases (10 countries and one territory) from East, South, and Southeast Asia were carefully chosen to include those with relatively well-established QA systems, those just introducing QA systems, and others still in the process of developing QA concepts in DE; (b) formal documents published by QA agencies (research institutes and governments in the selected countries/territories) and other references were analyzed to delineate DE development, QA policies, procedures, standards, and criteria for higher education in general and DE specifically; and (c) face-to-face, email, or telephone interviews with local experts working in the QA agencies and DE institutions were conducted to verify the data obtained. No quantitative data related to QA policy development and implementation (e.g., the number of accredited/assessed DE institutions, the number of QA criteria, and standards) were collected because they were not considered necessary for the purposes of this study. This paper outlines the development of DE in each of the 11 cases, discusses differences and similarities, and concludes with a set of recommendations for the further development of QA for Asian DE.
tive distance students in China was 3,560,000, or 12% of all students in the higher education sector. Of these, some 2,250,000 were studying through the OUSC, while 1,310,000 were in the online colleges. However, facing growing public concern over the quality of the

Quality Assurance Systems: Differences and Similarities
Asia currently has more open and distance teaching universities and more distance learners than any other region in the world (Latchem & Jung, 2009). The ever-expanding demand and increasing availability, sophistication, and affordability of technology is encouraging governments to urge more institutions to adopt DE, seek new markets, and offer their courses online. However, the biggest challenge facing all of these institutions is how to assure and improve quality, while at the same time widening access, reducing costs, and developing the kinds of mechanisms that will best support such efforts (Jung, 2005). This study revealed that diverse QA systems exist in Asia. Nevertheless, common elements are also clearly noticeable. This section discusses the differences and similarities found in various aspects of the QA systems in the 11 cases studied.

Basic Approaches to QA
An analysis of the cases shows that Asian countries have adopted three approaches to QA in DE. • In Korea, KERIS has managed the evaluation of cyber universities using a QA framework that is different from that used for conventional institutions. In the future, however, KCUE and/or other agencies that acquire the government's recognition as an accreditation agency may be put in charge of the quality auditing and accreditation of DE institutions.
The third category, which covers countries like Japan and Mongolia, has yet to determine its position or is in the process of developing QA procedures and criteria considerate of the distinctive features of DE.
Purposes of QA Brennan (1999) has suggested seven purposes for QA in higher education: (1)  In Asian countries, the common rationale behind the adoption of a QA system for DE is to ensure accountability and improve the quality of DE provision, although several other purposes for QA have also been observed.
To ensure public accountability and assign institutional status, accreditation is often adopted in several cases. Accreditation is the process of external assessment and peer review that determines whether an institution (or programme) qualifies for a certain status or to be recognized or certified as having met certain requirements. The result of accreditation is that an institution or programme either receives or does not receive accreditation. Accreditation for DE institutions or programmes takes place in Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines.
Under the aim of improving the quality of DE provision, academic audits are frequently used. Academic audits focus on the processes that an institution has in place to ensure quality. Typically, documents to be submitted include a critical self-analysis report and an external review verifying the self-report via an onsite visit prior to recommendations being made for improvement. A subsequent monitoring process is also put in place. Academic To stimulate competition within and between institutions, performance-based funding has been adopted in a few cases. Performance-based funding ties public funding to the performance of an institution or a programme. In the case of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Korea, the outcomes of accreditation or academic audits are directly or indirectly linked to governments' funding decisions.
To provide valuable information that allows the public and policy makers to make decisions and reflect on the customer-oriented focus of DE provision, several countries have made moves to publicly disclose QA information. Performance reporting refers to a QA approach that makes reports on institutional performance available to the public and submits them to government and/or QA authorities. While most Asian countries make the reports public, some countries, such as China, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka, disclose either the final outcome on the status of accreditation or audits only or limit sharing of the reports to those within institutions and QA authorities.
In the cases of Singapore and Hong Kong, where self-accreditation has been adopted, QA provides the basis for underwriting the transfer of authority between the government and institutions.

Regulatory QA Frameworks
There exist different types of regulatory frameworks for QA in DE.
• In China and Singapore, the government (MoE) directly regulates QA measures for DE institutions or programmes.
• In Hong Kong, India, Korea, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka, a government QA agency regulates QA in DE.
• Some QA bodies (Korea's KERIS, Indonesia's BAN-PT) are governmental initiatives, and others, as in India, are quasi-governmental structures where the QA agency has a close relationship with the government but is administered by autonomous governing structures. In Indonesia, QA in higher education is enforced both through self-evaluation monitored directly by the Ministry of National Education and accreditation by an independent accreditation agency (BAN-PT).
• In the Philippines, both technical panels organized by a government-operated QA agency and membership-based agencies or professional associations are responsible for QA.
• In Japan's case, three non-governmental membership-based agencies with government recognition regulate QA of higher education institutions.
In Asia, the regulatory approaches covering accreditation and/or academic audits for DE • In other countries, such as China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, and Singapore, accreditation and/or periodic audits are mandatory. In China, online institutions that fail to pass their annual academic audit are not allowed to recruit students the following year. In Korea's case, the outcomes of QA activities are directly linked to financial and administrative support from the government. Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore do not link the QA results to governmental funding decisions, but Malaysia links the outcome to a rating system, as well as to levels of institutional autonomy in the case of public universities.

QA Methods and Procedures
The QA regulatory systems practiced in the 11 Asian countries/territories generally adopt both internal and external reviews and follow four common procedures.
1. Review based on pre-determined QA criteria: A set of QA standards and criteria determined by the government or the QA agency are applied to all institutions or pro-grammes. In developing the standards and criteria, nationwide consultations with experts are often sought.

Self-assessment (self-study, self-evaluation):
The institution (or programme) undergoing the accreditation/academic audit process is required to conduct a self-assessment and report on how it meets the predetermined standards or criteria.

External review (peer review):
A team of external peers constituted by the QA agency analyzes the submitted documents, including the self-assessment report of the institution/programme, and validates the claims made in the report, generally by visiting the institution.

Final decision by the QA/accreditation agency:
Based on the results of the self-assessment and external review, the QA agency makes a final decision.
Some QA agencies (e.g., Japan's NIAD-UE and Mongolia's MNCEA) assist the institutions by providing training on how to prepare a good self-assessment report. Many agencies provide training for external reviewers. In the case of India's DEC, an institution's readiness is assessed before it is put through the formal QA process.

QA Standards and Criteria
The study revealed that in places where there is a QA system for DE, the QA criteria or guidelines for self-assessment and external review are often specified to cover input, process, and output variables in most if not all of the 12 key areas listed below: Education (ICDE) has also reviewed UT. The purpose of the ICDE quality review is to boost public confidence in the quality of the standards and services provided to students in DE.
The quality review does not involve a review of academic standards of courses or qualifications. It assumes that institutions will be operating within the overall national and/or state legislation as well as within the guidelines that are applicable to them at any given time. Thus, the aims of an ICDE review are to satisfy the public interest in knowing that an institution is (a) providing services to students of an acceptable quality and an appropriate standard in the context of national and regional standards, and (b) exercising its legal powers in a proper manner.

Conclusion
The level of QA policy integration in an overall national QA in higher education policy framework varies across the 11 cases examined. The experience of these countries/territories that are at different stages of QA system development shows that the QA purpose, policy framework, methods, and instruments are tailored to each country's particular circumstances, as was argued in the ecological model of QA in DE (Jung, 2010) and supported by a survey conducted by the Asia Pacific Quality Network (APQN, 2008). But at the same time, it reveals that there are commonalities that connect the different QA efforts in the cases examined, including the following: • working toward promoting a culture of quality within QA agencies and DE providers; • positioning QA in the pursuit of self-improvement and public accountability of DE institutions; • considering distinctive features of DE in QA frameworks or during evaluation processes; • linking QA results to direct or indirect funding, levels of autonomy, or other supports; • adopting both internal and external assessments; and • making QA results public.
Overall, QA in DE is still at an early stage of development compared with QA in conventional higher education. QA in DE is still a relatively new concept in some countries/territories, and the different QA approaches described above reflect the differences in cultures, expectations, and stages of development. Each of these approaches has its own particular strengths and weaknesses, so it would be invidious to prescribe any single approach. However, in light of these findings, it is suggested that the following principles should underpin national QA policy directions and that without them there will be a considerable waste of resources and human potential in Asian DE.
• All nations should see QA in DE as an integral part of broader national, regional, and international QA frameworks, as argued by Jung and Latchem (2007), Saito (2009), and Stella and Gnanam (2004). In a cross-border DE context, learners can be distributed anywhere and education can be delivered to them wherever they are. In the nottoo-distant future, learners may take some part of their course from one university, and others from another university, and yet others from a third university within their own nation or beyond. To protect learners from the risks of low-quality programmes and education of limited national and international validity, QA policies in the DE of a nation should be linked to the broader national, regional, and international QA frameworks.
• Concerted efforts are needed from governments, national and regional QA bodies, and institutions regarding cross-border accreditation and QA in Asian DE. Charmonman (2008) observed that while all ASEAN countries are promoting e-learning, there are problems with cross-accreditation that need to be resolved for the sake of educational development and the free flow of skilled manpower. He suggests that all ASEAN governments should either grant recognition to all online degree programmes accredited by another ASEAN government or establish a commission to do this.
• With the convergence of conventional and distance educational methods, there should be no distinctions between QA in DE and conventional higher education or between elearning and face-to-face teaching. However, having said that, specific QA guidelines, criteria, or methods are needed for the various modes of delivery practiced in India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka.
• The existence of a national QA framework would enable DE institutions to make QA an integral part of their institutional missions with respect to teaching and research and to promote a culture of quality in their institutions. Koul (2006) suggests the necessity of a "culture of quality" that is shared willingly by all staff members who both draw from and nurture it, links internal and external accountability, builds capacities in QA, and involves open and transparent management and communication. Such a culture entails questioning the status quo, admitting failures or underperformance, acknowledging the changes needed, and implementing these changes. Such behavioral change may well require a considerable paradigm shift in some of Asia's more hierarchical and bureaucratic institutions that currently only pay lip service to the idea of QA, but it is essential if DE is to deliver on its promises and be held in high regard (Latchem & Jung, 2009).
• Understanding the relative and value-laden nature of QA (Dondi, Moretti, & Nascimbeni, 2006), Asian governments, DE providers, and assessors should make an effort to understand distance learners' concerns and integrate their views when developing national and institutional QA policies because the success of DE typically relies to a greater extent on learners' motivation and engagement. This learner-centred QA framework has been studied and promoted in several different contexts, such as in Europe (Ehlers, 2004) and Asia (Jung, 2011).
• As COL (2009) and Shale and Gomes (1998) argue, quality key performance indicators (Q-KPIs) will help DE institutions monitor their performance against institutional objectives and key principles of their plan. DE institutions can use these Q-KPIs in selfassessment for continuous qualitative improvement. In particular, new DE institutions will benefit from using the indicators during formative evaluation and thus to correct and enhance their initial actions.
These policy directions should be further elaborated based on strong research evidence.
Future research is needed to investigate culturally considerate QA guidelines and key performance indicators, understand learners' perceptions of DE quality, look into different QA issues in various forms of DE, examine the feasibility of a regional or cross-border QA mechanism for Asian DE, and explore the possibilities of linking with other regions' QA frameworks.