On Accreditation and Open Education
Accreditation and competency are key issues that the open education movement has to satisfactorily address. There appear to be three categories of learners that have different needs, options and values when it comes to accreditation. The first group is comprised of students, primarily in the developed world, that take courses as part of an approved degree program at an accredited institution. The second group consists of learners that actively educate themselves, but do not necessarily need the courses to be accredited. The third group is comprised of learners that would like to take accredited courses, but simply do not have the means or ability to take courses from an accredited institution.
The first group of learners who have the means and the opportunity to take accredited courses will continue to do so. These individuals take courses to complete a degree, which in turn has the promise of gaining them entry into a profession of their choice. This traditional model works well and there is no reason that it cannot continue to work well. Universities, accrediting bodies, governments, and most professions are all wedded to this model.
The second set of learners are not as concerned about accreditation. They may already have a degree or a good job and are therefore not as concerned with accreditation. Or, they may not have a degree, but are simply not interested in engaging in a full degree program. The credibility of the source of their courses is important to them, but it does not necessarily have to be regulated by a regional accrediting body. Broadly, several groups of learners fall into this category: students taking extra courses, lifelong learners, test-prep students, continuing education students, and life skill learners. These individuals take courses for a variety of reasons: to learn a new skill, keep their brain young, gain CEUs etc.
The third group of learners consists of individuals who would like access to accredited courses, but simply do not have the means or ability to enroll in these institutions (Jarvis, 2007, Suarez-Orozco, 2007). Some of these individuals have financial struggles; others live in late-developing countries that do not have accrediting bodies or a robust educational infrastructure. The need and the desire is present, but the opportunity is lacking.
Accreditation is not an issue for individuals in the first group. Learners in the second group could benefit from some external source of regulation, but it does not have to be a formal accrediting body. The third group would like an accredited education, but simply have too many obstacles impeding them from reaching this goal. For the second and third groups, there has to be an alternative way of recognizing a person’s educational accomplishments outside of an accredited degree program. Sometimes independent (non-accredited) institutions offer a certificate. Another model might be drawn from skills based fields that do not require a formal degree. For example, many computer programmers, or hackers, do not have a degree in computer science. They are instead hired on a basis of their previous work (portfolio) and references from others. The same can be said for an artist or carpenter.
George Siemens (2008) addresses this issue head-on and suggests that the future of education and accreditation could be managed through a reputation system. The reputation system would function like eBay where other people would rate the individual. Recognized experts in an area would have more clout when rating others than people not recognized in that area. For instance, if a person was studying anthropology, then an expert in anthropology’s rating would have more power than another person who knows a lot about electrical engineering, but little about anthropology. These references and accomplishments would then be tracked in the person’s ePortfolio.
It is very unlikely that the traditional accreditation approach will ever be completely replaced. However, it is likely that a parallel, disruptive, reputation system could take root and provide a service where the current accreditation system cannot. Clay Christensen (1997) describes how a new disruptive product or service eventually unseats an old service or product by offering a simple and affordable alternative to the older established product. The disruptive service gains a foothold by providing a service to people that are currently overlooked or underserved by the primary competitor. Another way of saying this is that the disruptive service competes with non-competition.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
with open access/education and now open accreditation, what universities are selling is the scarce resource of a “vetted” accreditation, like the brand on a watch, car or service. The individual has to build those credits and paying for certification is a quick way to do this. it is also a quick way for someone to validate another’s credibility, like Angie’s list, better business bureau or a trusted colleagues valildation.
This entire issue has been folded, spindled and mutilated by large coporations with regards to internal knowledge networking/management. Once you are inside and on your own, validation from external sources may mean nothing. When was the last time someone looked at a doctor’s diploma and asked him where he graduated in his class. Reputations are made by other measures, except for academics who keep looking at those sheepskins and publication lists.
How people gain knowledge-based skills and how these are used is an interesting issue. The current financial crisis (2008) on Wall Street was created by whom and what are their credentials. What happened to Long-Term capital with their Nobel Laureate inputs?
And did a degree from Yale provide adequate credentials for the current president of the US?
The entire “Open” movement needs to be rethought, particularly from the perspective of the role of the “university” and the professorate in the future. What, indeed, is the function of the university when we are in an age of a surfeit of knowledge. Think Wkipedia and go back to the 60’s and the “free university” movement.