Some institutions have course development teams, others use the tutor as the sole designer of 

a course. The different models probably have implications for both quality control and 

development time. 

Accreditation 

The interview analysis implies that accreditation of online courses and programs is very 

similar to the institutions  traditional accreditation schemes. Degrees, diplomas, certificates, 

and statements of completions are all widely used. The accreditation seem to be the same 

independent on whether the course or program is offered online or not. Many institutions 

basically state that the accreditation is the same as for campus courses. 

Accreditation could be an important competitive advantage and several strategies could be 

followed to achieve the necessary accreditation. Collaboration with institutions in other 

countries could result in bilateral accreditation. 

Assessment 

While summative assessment of online courses seem to be very traditional and often has a 

face to face component, formative assessment is more experimental and based on online 

activities. 

Most of the institutions apply several assessments methods in a course or program. Tutor 

assessment is the most common form of assessment found in the interviews. The interviews 

reveal many examples of self assessment, but they imply that computer assessment is 

relatively scarce. However there are several examples of online quizzes, multiple choice tests, 

and some examples of interactive exercises. The interview analysis imply that peer assessment 

is relatively scarce. The interviews indicate that some courses have no assessment simply 

because they are self study courses with no tutors. 

Enrollment and Progress Flexibility 

Both enrollment and progress can be more or less flexible. However, the two main models 

found in the interviews are group enrollment and progress and individual enrollment and 

progress. These models represent two different strategies that have important consequences 

for marketing strategies, administrative systems, and pedagogical approaches. 

The interviews testify that group based enrollment and progression is far more used than 

individual enrollment and progression. The analysis identified 46 institutions that used the 

group model and 12 that followed the individual model. In addition, 11 institutions offered 

both models. 

The preponderance of the group model could come from conventional thinking that sustain 

the semester and term system in traditional educational systems. Another possible reason is 

that the institutions have a well considered perception that team work and collaborative 

learning is hard to achieve with individual enrollment and progress. One can however argue 

that many students will prefer individual flexibility and that many institutions lack systems, 

structures, and competence on individual enrollment and progression. If so, one may 

hypothesize that open universities and distance teaching institutions should be more disposed 

of individual flexibility than traditional universities and colleges. However, the analysis has 

not found evidence to support this hypothesis. 

6