This document discusses the pressures facing higher education programs, particularly those in educational technology, from trends toward accountability, accreditation, and quality assessments. It provides historical context on changes in higher education and discusses current environmental factors like a focus on immediate economic returns from education. Programs are pushed to demonstrate quality and value through formal mechanisms like accreditation that increasingly emphasize outputs, assessment and relevance to the job market. However, critics argue this can discourage innovation and fail to acknowledge different institutional missions. The impacts on educational technology programs and AECT's potential leadership role are considered.

1. Volume 57, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2013 47
W
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Ellen S. Hoffman, Educational
Technology, University of Hawai’I at Mānoa, E-
mail: ehoffman@hawaii.edu
Abstract
At a time when higher education is being
pushed not only to increase efficiencies to pro-
vide greater value and to innovate to meet new
global challenges, processes of accountability
and accreditation to demonstrate quality may
be leading to conformance and a one-size-fits-
all model of what institutions and programs
should be. Further, in the public marketplace,
rankings are increasingly viewed as key quality
indicators not only for students and their par-
ents in making educational choices, but to ad-
ministrators who perceive these as important for
their institutions’ futures and funding. The in-
fluence of markets and accountability policy as
increasingly major drivers of change impacting
the field of educational technology are reviewed
from historical and current perspectives. Lead-
ership roles that the Association for Education-
al Communications and Technology (AECT)
and its members might develop in response to
these expanding pressures are proposed which
may lead to higher visibility for the field, greater
policy advocacy, and new research agendas. In
particular, the issues of quality assessments and
Ratings, Quality, and Accreditation:
Policy Implications for
Educational Communications
and Technology Programs in
a Digital Age
By Ellen S. Hoffman, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
visibility are viewed for ensuring higher educa-
tion programs in the educational technology
field continue to provide excellence and value to
future professionals.
Keywords: AECT, accreditation, account-
ability, educational technology, futures, higher
education, innovation, policy
Introduction
ith all the headlines in the popular press
declaring the death of formal higher
education institutions due to the rise of
e-learning and particularly freely available open
courses, commonly called MOOCs, it might
appear the future of traditional academic pro-
grams is in jeopardy. If you accept that prem-
ise, read no further. An article about where
educational communications and technology
(ECT)1
programs are headed probably has little
relevance. According to the pundits, anyone
will be able to learn anything at anytime with
no college or formal classrooms needed (Barber,
Donnelly, Rizvi, & Summers, 2013). Why leave
1
At least one of the problems we face is that we can’t even
agree on the name of our discipline. This article uses one
variant (educational communications and technology) to
meet the needs of having a topic to discuss but does not
maketheclaimthisisthebestorevenmostwidelyaccepted.
The intent is to cover the broad field represented by AECT.

2. 48 TechTrends • September/October 2013 Volume 57, Number 5
home when top ranked universities are putting
their courses online for free, even if that doesn’t
earn you credit towards a degree? The whole
concept of tuition, courses, credit hours and
possibly even degrees will be something talked
about fondly as the way it was “back in the good
old days,” rather like dial telephones and vinyl
phonograph albums.
Unlikesuchout-of-datetechnologies,itwould
be hard to argue that education will disappear as
learning can be argued to be a hard-wired hu-
man imperative. Further, the need to ensure the
socialization of individuals is a public necessity
which in complex societies requires some level
of formality and continuity, and the demand for
higher education has been increasing globally
(Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2010; Sanyal &
Martin, 2007). Yet, while the predicted total dis-
ruption of formal education as we know it today
may not be what happens. Are there consider-
ations that the designers of academic programs
should consider to be successful in a future heav-
ily inundated with e-learning of all types? What
will be the impacts of policy, accreditation, qual-
ity indicators, and other external pressures not
only on higher education institutions in general,
but specifically on existing and planned pro-
grams in our field? What have we learned about
technology and education that may help us navi-
gate these new conditions? What role should the
Association for Educational Communications
and Technology (AECT)—the publisher of this
journal—play in leading the efforts to meet this
indefinable future?
Beyond the Disruption Hype
If you are a regular reader of TechTrends,
you are probably someone who recognizes that
simplistic forecasts of severe disruption and
technological determinism are implausible out-
comes (Ceruzzi, 2005; Dawes, 1993; Geels &
Smit, 2000). While extreme projections of aca-
demic collapse may get a few futurists attention
by the media and even big speaking fees, we are
fully aware that education is a complex system
and change is rarely straightforward, particularly
where technology is concerned. As educational
technology historians have pointed out, despite
every claim in the past that some new technol-
ogy, from film to television to computers, would
revolutionize the way education is done, no tech-
nology upstart has significantly changed the par-
adigm of teacher and students within a formal
learning setting covering what at least someone
considers key content (Cuban, 2001). Even those
arguing for major changes and cost reductions
admit to the stability of higher education. “It is
easy, and wrong, to underplay the staying power
and resiliency of colleges and universities—a les-
son that history teaches us. We should avoid that
mistake” (Bowen, 2012, p. p. 15).
A Brief History of Higher Education Change
Just because formal higher education has
survived for centuries doesn’t mean it will per-
sist unaltered. It is easy to look at recent decades
of enrollment growths and continual capital
improvements at many campuses to believe in
the strengths and stability of the higher educa-
tion enterprise (Cohen, 1998). A popular man-
tra suggests that a teacher from 100 years ago
could enter today’s classroom and not even no-
tice change, although the ubiquitous presence
of mobile digital technologies belies such an as-
sertion. Further, it is little surprise that claims of
disruption are marginalized in the ivory tower
when these directly challenge the future jobs of
faculty and persistence of higher education in-
stitutions (DeMillo, 2011; Josephson, 2013).
But a longer review of higher education his-
tory discloses major changes in disciplines, cli-
entele, and the underlying technologies that sup-
port our pedagogies (Altbach, Berdahl, & Gum-
port, 1996; DeMillo, 2011). Outside pressures
continually promote modification, including
those based on federal legislation such as the U.S.
Morrill Act of 1862, which pushed institutions
from the classics to more pragmatic concerns in
agriculture and the sciences, or the U.S. GI Bill of
1944, which led to massive new enrollments and
opened institutions to a less elite student body.
The push for greater scientific and technical ex-
pertise in the mid-century twentieth century led
to federal research funding through such agen-
cies as the National Science Foundation and the
rise of the great research institutions. Social pres-
sures in the 1960s opened academia to new dis-
ciplines with greater concerns for diversity and
multiculturalism in both curriculum and per-
sonnel. More recent trends may be less clear, but
at least one that has impacted most institutions
is the growth of databases and data management
for administration and an accompanying growth
in non-teaching personnel, including IT and
data managers required by the ever-growing
presence of technology in all facets of campus life
and the globalization of information availability
(Altbach, Berdahl, & Gumport, 2011).
Rather than trying to predict the future, this
article will examine some of the environmental
pressures facing higher education now and po-
tential areas for focusing response, with the em-
phasis on impacts on ECT programs and leader-
ship by AECT. The spotlight is on the U.S. policy

3. Volume 57, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2013 49
environment with the recognition that there are
both similarities and differences in other coun-
tries, but that change in higher education will
ultimately result in global impacts (Altbach, et
al., 2010; Sanyal & Martin, 2007).
Environmental Setting
for Change
While the upsurge of social changes that have
arisen in the 21st century are beyond the scope
of a short article such as this, one possible way to
provide perspective is through the views of au-
thor Douglas Rushkoff (2013), who refers to the
current situation as “Present Shock,” the title of
his recent book. He argues that we have shifted
from a culture focused on trying to understand
the future as we faced the new millennium at the
end of 20th century, to one immersed in infor-
mation and the now. He suggests this has led to
a focus on instant results, impatience with long-
terms plans, and even the decline of the narra-
tives that are the glue for our institutions and
values. Immediate profits are more valued than
long-term growth and sustainability, complex
scenarios are ignored (i.e., evidence of climate
change), and the constant data flow inhibits the
ability to make connections and deeper analyses.
Within this focus on the present, media at-
tention has been drawn to such questions as the
more immediate return on investment of a col-
lege education that may no longer ensure life-
long, high salary jobs, particularly as the aver-
age student debt from college loans has climbed
(Altbach, et al., 2011; Altbach, et al., 2010;
Bowen, 2012). Since the late twentieth century,
multiple reports and shifting requirements for
accountability have placed growth of the nation-
al economy and job readiness as a central value
in the role of higher education. This economic
concern has been exacerbated by the recent re-
cession in which colleges have been pushed to
examine issues of efficiency and the bottom line
as funding growth not only slowed but in gen-
eral declined.
While higher education may always
have been a source of intellectual know-
how for society, this was usually indi-
rect; walled campuses express this sense
of distance. Today, for better or worse,
the inter-relationship between higher
education and society, but more par-
ticularly the economy, is direct. (Hazel-
korn, 2012b, p. 9)
Academia continues to argue for the impor-
tance of educational values beyond the econom-
ic, holding on to the narratives of the impor-
tance of a well-educated populace for democrat-
ic functioning in the Jeffersonian tradition and
the importance of higher education in bringing
individuals in contact with other cultures and
ideas. However, in recent years these values have
received far less public acknowledgement than
the economic ones. Further, the public invest-
ments in higher education are being reviewed
with new pressures for efficiency, accountability
and control to justify public spending and trust.
The focus on present is also impacting stu-
dent and parent choices in college selection.
These choices are made within an information
network that is rich on instant data but not nec-
essarily strong on suitable indicators for deci-
sion-making and often influenced by the most
recent trend-setting report, the catchiest adver-
tising, or the most up-to-date rankings based on
measures that may be unclear to the consumer.
“Students are now much more focused on em-
ployability as opposed to employment. They as-
sess their choice of an institution and education
programmes as an opportunity-cost – balancing
the cost of tuition fee and/or cost-of-living and
the career and salary opportunities” (Hazelkorn,
2013, p. 3).
Within these frameworks, and accompa-
nied by rapid growth in ubiquitous and instant
communications technologies that are expand-
ing the reach of traditional academic programs,
those disciplines that cannot show “relevance”
and ability to bring in students are potentially at
risk (Barber, et al., 2013).
Approaches to Accountability,
Quality and Accreditation
In an era of increasing education account-
ability and concerns with the value of higher
education, institutions and academic programs
are under pressure to ensure they deliver a qual-
ity product. As outlined by Sanyal and Martin
(2007), formal quality assurance in higher edu-
cation today comes in the form of accreditation,
quality audit, and quality assessment, with ac-
creditation the most familiar and the focus of
the U.S. policy model.
Formal Approaches: Accreditation
and Assessment
According to Sanyal and Martin (2007), ac-
creditation is “the outcome of a process by which
a governmental, parastatal or private body (ac-
creditation agency) evaluates the quality of a
higher education institution as a whole, or a
specific higher education programme/course,

4. 50 TechTrends • September/October 2013 Volume 57, Number 5
in order to formally recognize it as having met
certain predetermined criteria or standards and
award a quality label” (p. 6). This is most familiar
as it is exercised by the six U.S. regional accred-
iting agencies, empowered and loosely regu-
lated by the federal government that determine
which higher education institutions can legally
award degrees (Council for Higher Education
Accreditation, 2012). Accreditation can also oc-
cur at the program level by designated profes-
sional organizations such as the American Bar
Association (ABA), Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), or the
one most familiar to ECT programs, the Na-
tional Council for the Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE). Until 2010, AECT was an
authorized specialized accreditor for programs
in educational technology and media specialists
within the NCATE arena (Hoffman, 2013; Per-
sichitte, 2008).
As with other quality assurance mechanisms,
accreditation is meant to ensure social account-
ability, academic improvement, institutional
performance efficiency and effectiveness, value
for money, and consumer protection (Singh,
2010). Singh further notes that accreditation
less commonly deals with values, such as so-
cial purposes like equity, social justice, and de-
mocracy. Recent writings on accreditation note
shifting emphases related to economic concerns,
including recognition of the political nature of
the process accompanied by competing concep-
tions of quality, and power differentials among
stakeholders who may hold these differing views
of quality (Skolnik, 2010).
Quality assurance has become a rapidly
growing concern in a context of ongoing
change in higher education around the
world. At the same time, defining and
measuring quality usefully has become
more difficult…. Today, “customers” or
“stakeholders” have a considerable in-
fluence in determining the perception
and measures of quality. Fee-paying stu-
dents, professional bodies, employers,
politicians, and funding agencies are all
voicing their particular expectations of
what a degree or diploma should repre-
sent. (Altbach, et al., 2010, p. 51)
Although accreditation historically focused
on processes, inputs, and resources until the
end of the 20th century, more recent trends
are towards outputs, value added, mission ap-
propriateness, improvement, relevance to the
labor market, and a culture of quantitatively
data-driven assessment (Altbach, et al., 2010;
Bardo, 2009; Brittingham, 2009; Skolnik, 2010).
Accreditation is facing more policy scrutiny and
increasing federal guidelines on reporting and
conformance. And with these newer emphases
have come revised definitions of the purposes
with economic emphases, such as that by Mur-
ray (2012). He proposed that the role of ac-
creditation “is to assure that the standards that
uniquely define institutions and programs are
adhered to so that their increasingly high costs
produce solid value” (p. 52).
At the same time that accreditation and the
accompanying assessment culture is pushed as
a means of certifying quality, its critics have ar-
gued that accreditation “may be unprecedented
in its power to discourage innovation in higher
education” (Skolnik, 2010, p. 12) at a time when
rapid change may be needed. Christenson, best
known for his writings on how technology will
disrupt the existing higher educational model,
argues against the conformance pressures of the
accreditation model and the stability it creates
because of the difficulties in measuring quality
of higher education’s “product” (Christensen &
Eyring, 2011).
In a 2012 speech on “The Uses and Misuses
of Accreditation,” Princeton President Shirley
M. Tilghman focused on the issue of a narrow
definition of assessment that relies on overly
proscriptive measures of student learning. She
pointed to an increasingly adversarial and ex-
pensive process of documentation that insuf-
ficiently acknowledges differing institutional
missions, incorporates a limited view of higher
education’s goals, and that constrains “innova-
tion, creativity and improvement, even among
institutions with a proven record of excellence in
learning and teaching” (Tilghman, 2012). She
raised the specter of a narrowly defined standard
of learning outcomes that could become one-
size-fits all following the “No Child Left Behind”
approach of standardized testing now facing the
nation’s public schools.
The Role of the Market
The culture of assessment and accreditation
plays an increasingly important role internally
for institutions seeking to demonstrate quality as
well as an unavoidable process given increased
policy attention in the early 21st century. How-
ever, for the public, accreditation is generally
assumed as a given for higher education rather
than a primary means for selecting institutions
or programs. In a media-rich world, such formal
mechanisms of evaluation may provide a basis
for asserting higher education quality, at least
at present in the U.S., but increasingly market

5. Volume 57, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2013 51
forces are playing an intensified role in higher
education (Hansmann, 2012).
What was once a market that had predomi-
nantly relied on regional strengths and the pri-
marily non-profit and public nature of its insti-
tutions has shifted with the entry of new players
at a national level and the growth of profit-mak-
ing higher education using business models of
advertising and branding along with technology
as a driver for expanded mechanisms of instruc-
tional design and delivery (Altbach, et al., 2010).
In a world of intensifying social media and viral
videos, attention focuses on the headlines about
the newest online courses delivered through new
partnerships between existing institutions and
start-up high-tech businesses, the ever-present
advertising by for-profit institutions operating at
a national or even trans-national level promising
student success, or the college ratings promoted
by the national media, such as the U.S. News
and World Report “best of” series (colleges, pro-
grams, graduate schools, etc.). Public attention
in the present becomes focused on the continual
barrage of “information” on higher education
that may have limited relation to quality or out-
comes. Rankings are used in many ways:
Politicians regularly refer to rankings
as a measure of their nation’s economic
strengths and aspirations, universities
use them to help set or define targets
mapping their performance against the
various metrics, academics use rankings
to bolster their own professional reputa-
tion and status, and students use them
to help them make choices about where
to study (Hazelkorn, 2012a).
Recent revelations of gaming the data to in-
crease rankings indicate these are having more
impact than higher education might desire. Fur-
ther, even in formal research studies attempting
to show limited influence of ratings, findings in-
dicate increased admission applications related
to an increase in rankings (Bowman & Bastedo,
2009) and effects on the views of senior admin-
istrators at other institutions based on these
rankings regardless of other quality indicators
(Bastedo & Bowman, 2010; Hazelkorn, 2012a).
The importance of rankings has increased with
the more recent annual international best uni-
versities lists developed by such institutions as
Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Academic Rank-
ing of World Universities (ARWU) beginning in
2003 or Thompson-Reuters Times Higher Edu-
cation Times QS World University (THE-QS) in
2004 (Hazelkorn, 2011). As Hazelkorn (2012b)
notes, the world-class research university is in-
creasingly the model by which all institutions
are judged despite a recognition that diverse
missions are required to support different stu-
dent needs, equality of access, varied disciplin-
ary foci, and issues of life-long learning ignored
in the focus on completion rates.
The policy tension arises because the
pressures of and responses to globalisa-
tion and rankings are emphasizing elite
forms of higher education, while the
demands and needs of society and the
economy are urging horizontal differ-
entiation with wider participation and
diversified opportunities (p. 4).
Considerations for Response –
Four New Roles for Leading
Forward
In an education world caught between the
requirements for conforming with accreditation
pressures while also needing to be innovative to
meet new market imperatives and competition,
traditional higher education and the programs
within it face competing challenges to maintain
stability while rapidly innovating not previously
encountered. Emerging and ubiquitous tech-
nologies, new expectations for learning, and
increased pressure for value have the potential
to disrupt the system. As suggested by many of
the authors examining the current change envi-
ronment of higher education, the one thing that
faculty cannot afford to do in this rapidly chang-
ing higher education environment is nothing
(DeMillo, 2011; Josephson, 2013). Action is re-
quired both in terms of professional roles and
in relation to the programs they manage. The
challenge is deciding what actions to pursue
when change is rapid and the future uncertain,
and how to establish the leadership required to
promote quality education.
As a response to such competing demands,
Christensen and Eyring (2011) proposed that
success will require programs to seek continu-
ous innovation within their unique mission.
Many thoughtful proposals have been made
with practical recommendations for innova-
tion and about how technology and related new
designs for learning can improve higher edu-
cation, and ideally, lower costs while retaining
value (some recent examples: i.e., Barber, et al.,
2013; Bates, 2011; Bowen, 2012; Christensen &
Eyring, 2011; DeMillo, 2011; Josephson, 2013;
McCluskey, 2012; Salmi, 2009). Given the many
recommendations for change and leadership,
the remainder of the paper will avoid the sug-
gestions made repeatedly by others and focus on

6. 52 TechTrends • September/October 2013 Volume 57, Number 5
those that can be influenced directly by AECT
and its members working individually and for
collective action.
Program Quality and Assessment
Accreditation and program review. Re-
jecting the costs, time-consuming reporting and
review, and proscriptive requirements of the
formal accreditation process formerly used in
NCATE reviews, AECT has shown leadership
in developing new standards that allow institu-
tions greater leeway to apply these within the
diverse missions of their programs. Further, the
standards not only reflect knowledge and skills
expected from program completers but incor-
porate the values and ethics that are key to pro-
fessional success (Hoffman, 2013).
AECT has developed a formal endorse-
ment process for higher education certificate
programs to recognize their application of the
AECT standards (Hoffman, 2013). A second
program for graduate program recognition
should come online this year. The requirements
are designed to promote innovation and self-
study rather than setting highly proscriptive
protocols or arduous evidence requirements for
applying. Programs are reviewed by peers with
the intent of both receiving recognition as well
as feedback for future efforts. Ideally the AECT
standards can also be used by programs need-
ing to meet formal accreditation or institutional
review to show alignment, benchmarking, and
program self-improvement.
Recognizing Innovation
Although these standards-based awards ad-
dress a foundational level of accountability and
outcomes, AECT members may consider future
actions to examine other forms of recognition
that are more focused on innovation and excel-
lence. This could be something equivalent to the
well-known Baldridge Awards in which pro-
grams could apply but the focus is on evidence
of quality, innovation, and continuous program
improvement rather than a competition among
member programs. This conforms well with rec-
ommendations that higher education should set
its own criteria rather than accept the rankings
by outsiders such as U.S. News and World Re-
ports (Hazelkorn, 2011). Such a process within
AECT could be an alternative to rankings with
greater emphasis on self-determined criteria that
allow awards to reflect differing missions and
goals for each program applying rather than set-
ting the elite institutions as a standard for all.
New Roles for Research and Design
AECT distinguishes itself from other tech-
nology professional organizations by its particu-
lar focus on research on educational technology
and learning design and theory as that serves pre
school, school, university, college, government,
industry and all levels of learning. What makes
this emphasis important at present are the many
calls for new research to support the changing
designs of instruction and the most effective and
compelling uses of technology. What innova-
tions in educational environments, particularly
those in terms of design and technology sup-
port, are working, and what should we mea-
sure to ensure we understand why these work?
For example, a recent white paper developed as
the result of a national workshop sponsored by
NSF made a series of recommendations on new
models for post-secondary learning required to
meet the challenges of the changing education
environment, not only in higher education but
all adult education settings (Josephson, 2013).
This proposal, as well as others similar ones, not
only align well with the general areas of interest
to members, but could also serve as a focus for
research and development for the field.
While reporting and sharing research results
by individuals has been the norm, the collec-
tive of specializations and divisions of historical
and emerging knowledge represented by AECT
and its diverse global membership offer excit-
ing opportunities to bring together researchers
to pursue some of the proposed agendas, high-
light and critique such white papers, and even to
create new collaborations. Beyond encouraging
research collaborations and perhaps new meth-
odologies, AECT should also find ways to syn-
thesize research findings in ways that appeal to
practitioners and policy makers so those results
have wider impacts. This could extend to hav-
ing workshops that create the next generation
of research recommendations or bring together
practitioners and researchers to examine how
research might be applied and scaled.
AECT and Public Advocacy
In a higher education world increasingly im-
pacted by market forces, AECT can add value to
membership by being a public advocate for the
field and its important contributions. As Daniel
Willingham noted in his keynote speech at the
2012 AECT Annual Convention, the organiza-
tion is well poised to contribute to important
policy discussions and make significant con-
tributions to the future directions of education

7. Volume 57, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2013 53
through its members’ programs and research.
AECT has the potential to help enable a large-
scale and highly public responses to current ed-
ucational issues that are not possible by individ-
ual faculty or departments alone. This involves a
more concerted effort at marketing and brand-
ing for the good of the whole, and a more visible
public presence in social and political contexts.
The promotions could involve more publicity for
recognized programs, highlighting impacts of
individual members who make significant con-
tributions to society, spotlights on research and
best practices, as well as the overall accomplish-
ments of AECT. All the tools of marketing and
outreach need to be explored and appropriately
applied to gain greater visibility. Such visibility
can also be applied to ensure the accomplish-
ments and knowledge base are clear to policy
makers and other public opinion leaders.
This is a new kind of integrative leadership for
our profession. Such promotional activities have
not previously been a focus for the organization
but other professional associations have begun
to explore such directions. Beginning examina-
tions of such outreach could be as simple as a se-
ries of working groups to propose new outreach
directions and could lead to a re-examination
of the organization’s staffing and structures, but
will also require discussions about strategic di-
rections to obtain member support for such far-
reaching redirections. Recent efforts to update
the AECT web site, an increase the presence in
social networking venues, and expanded pub-
lic webinars are a step in the right direction but
should be part of a more coordinated and more
outward-looking campaign.
Conclusions
Even though we would like the serenity of
knowing, we can’t predict the future accurately
which leaves gaping questions about appropriate
actions and efforts. Even within AECT there is
no consensus among members about where we
are headed other than that change is inevitable
and will impact us all.
Ultimately, the changes impact more
than individual institutions; they will
likely reshape the entire ecology of post-
secondary learning. Like any ecological
disruptions, not all species will survive,
as new niches in the ecosystem are filled
by species better suited to new condi-
tions. (Josephson, 2013, p. 6)
While the proposals for evolving and defin-
ing strong leadership for the field, for our pro-
grams, and how we value them in society are
included here are a start, it should be clear there
is no consensus that these are the best directions
or even indications these could get a majority of
AECT members to support, but as change con-
tinues we may need to be open to more extreme
ideas and proponents of innovation both within
and beyond the organization.
Within the context of innovation impera-
tives, ECT programs have potential to not only
be survivors but become exemplars for what it
possible. As noted by Persichitte (2008) in her
examination of the history of ECT programs,
“systemic change is inherent in the field” (p.
328). “Our field is a moving target and most
of us, practitioners and academics, embrace
this environment of continuous change” (p.
327). Design of effective and engaging learn-
ing environments, a focus on outcomes in hu-
man performance, and a deep understanding of
technology for learning make ECT a stand-out
for leadership in the coming higher education
world. Given this historical foundation, AECT
as an association which brings together the pro-
fessionals and students who make up these pro-
grams has the potential to have a deep impact
on the future of the programs as well as higher
education more broadly. A good start would be
evolving the capacity of our future leaders and
graduate students to: embrace program inno-
vation within a quality paradigm; realize new
roles in research and development; increase
awareness of market forces; and work together
in a concerted effort to raise the visibility of our
contributions to influence policy-makers as well
as education’s stakeholders more broadly.
Ellen Hoffman is a Professor and Chair of the Department
of Educational Technology in the College of Education at
the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa and a member of the
AECT Board. She has done extensive work converting
older policy ideas about accreditation to a new process of
endorsement for Knowledge Age educational technology
program leadership in the world. In this article she lays out
historical, economic, policy and innovation literature as
foundations for an exploration of ‘quality control’ gestures
in contemporary higher education systems through ac-
creditation policy making and implementations designed
for popular market thinking. She goes on to identify the
knowledge, skills, values, and ethics underpinning a new
AECT endorsement processes for higher education pro-
grams, urging our profession to develop new roles for
education technology-integrated leaders in innovation,
research and design, and advocacy efforts.

8. 54 TechTrends • September/October 2013 Volume 57, Number 5
References
Altbach, P. G., Berdahl, R. O., & Gumport,
P. J. (1996). Higher education in Ameri-
can society. New York, NY: Prometheus
Books.
Altbach, P. G., Berdahl, R. O., & Gumport, P.
J. (Eds.). (2011). American higher educa-
tion in the twenty-first century: Social,
political, and economic challenges. Bal-
timore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L.
(2010). Trends in global higher education:
Tracking an academic revolution. Paris,
FR: UNESCO & Sense Publishers.
Barber, M., Donnelly, K., Rizvi, S., & Sum-
mers, L. (2013). An avalanche is coming:
Higher education and the revolution
ahead. London, UK: Institute for Public
Policy Research. Retrieved from http://
www.ippr.org/publication/55/10432/an-
avalanche-is-coming-higher-education-
and-the-revolution-ahead
Bardo, J. W. (2009). The impact of the chang-
ing climate for accreditation on the indi-
vidual college or university: Five trends
and their implications. New Directions
for Higher Education, 2009(145), 47-58.
doi: 10.1002/he.334
Bastedo, M., & Bowman, N. (2010). U.S.
News & World Report college rankings:
Modeling institutional effects on orga-
nizational reputation. American Journal
of Education, 116(2), 163-183. doi:
10.1086/649437
Bates, T., & Sangra, A. (2011). Managing tech-
nology in higher education: Strategies for
transforming teaching and learning. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, W. G. (2012). The “cost disease” in
higher education: Is technology the an-
swer? The Tanner Lectures, Stanford
University. New York, NY: ITHAKA.
Retrieved from http://www.ithaka.org/
sites/default/files/files/ITHAKA-The-
CostDiseaseinHigherEducation.pdf
Bowman, N., & Bastedo, M. (2009). Getting
on the front page: Organizational reputa-
tion, status signals, and the impact of
U.S. News and World Report on student
decisions. Research in Higher Education,
50(5), 415-436. doi: 10.1007/s11162-009-
9129-8
Brittingham, B. (2009). Accreditation in the
United States: How did we get to where
we are? New Directions for Higher Educa-
tion, 2009(145), 7-27. doi: 10.1002/he.331
Ceruzzi, P. E. (2005). Moore’s Law and tech-
nological determinism: Reflections on
the history of technology. Technology
and Culture 46(3), 584-593. doi: 10.1353/
tech.2005.0116
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011).
The innovative university: Changing
the DNA of higher education from the
inside out. Forum for the Future of Higher
Education, 2012, 47-53. Retrieved from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/
ff1207s.pdf
Cohen, A. M. (1998). The shaping of American
higher education: Emergence and growth
of the contemporary system. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
(2012). 2012-2013 Directory of CHEA-
Recognized Organizations. Washington,
DC: CHEA. Retrieved from http://www.
chea.org/pdf/2012-2013_Directory_of_
CHEA_Recognized_Organizations.pdf
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused:
Computers in the classroom. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Dawes, R. M. (1993). Prediction of the fu-
ture versus an understanding of the
past: A basic asymmetry. The American
Journal of Psychology, 106(1), 1-24. doi:
10.2307/1422863
DeMillo, R. A. (2011). Abelard to Apple: The
fate of American colleges and universities.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Geels, F. W., & Smit, W. A. (2000). Failed
technology futures: Pitfalls and les-
sons from a historical survey. Futures,
32(9–10), 867-885. doi: 10.1016/S0016-
3287(00)00036-7
Hansmann, H. (2012). The evolving economic
structure of higher education. University
of Chicago Law Review, 79(1), 159-183.
Retrieved from http://lawreview.uchica-
go.edu/page/vol-79-issue-1-winter-2011
Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the re-
shaping of higher education: The battle
for world-class excellence. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hazelkorn, E. (2012a). The effects of rank-
ings on student choices and institutional
selection. In B. W. A. Jongbloed & J. J.
Vossensteyn (Eds.), Access and expansion
post-massification opportunities and bar-
riers to further growth in higher education
participation. London, UK: Routledge,
forthcoming.
Hazelkorn, E. (2012b). Everyone wants to be
like Harvard – or do they? Cherishing
all missions equally. In A. Curaj, P. Scott,
L. Vlasceanu & L. Wilson (Eds.), Euro-
pean higher education at the crossroads
between the Bologna process and national
reforms (pp. 837-862). New York, NY:
Springer.
Hazelkorn, E. (2013). How rankings are re-
shaping higher education. In V. Climent,
F. Michavila & Y. M. Ripolles (Eds.), Los
rankings univeritarios: Mitos y realidades.
Madrid, Spain: Editorial Tecnos.
Hoffman, E. S. (2013). 2012 AECT committee
and division reports: Standards Commit-
tee. TechTrends, 57(2), 18. doi: 10.1007/
s11528-013-0640-6
Josephson, A. (2013). New technology-based
models for postsecondary learning:
Conceptual frameworks and research
agendas: Report of a National Science
Foundation-sponsored Computing Re-
search Association Workshop held at
MIT on January 9-11, 2013. Washington,
DC: Computing Research Association.
Retrieved from http://www.cra.org/
uploads/documents/resources/rissues/
Postseconday_Learning_NSF-CRA_re-
port.pdf
McCluskey, F. B. W. M. L. (2012). The idea of
the digital university: Ancient traditions,
disruptive technologies and the battle for
the soul of higher education. Washington,
DC: Westphalia Press.
Murray, F. B. (2012). Six misconcep-
tions about accreditation in higher
education: Lessons from teacher
education. Change, 44(4), 52-58. doi:
10.1080/00091383.2012.691866
Persichitte, K. A. (2008). Implications for aca-
demic programs. In A. Januszewski, M.
Molenda & P. Harris (Eds.), Educational
technology: A definition with commentary
(2nd ed., pp. 327-339). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rushkoff, D. (2013). Present shock: When
everything happens now. New York, NY:
Current.
Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing
world-class universities. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
Sanyal, B. C., & Martin, M. (2007). Quality as-
surance and the role of accreditation: An
overview. In J. Tres & Global University
Network for Innovation (Eds.), Higher
education in the world 2007: Accredita-
tion for quality assurance: What is at
stake? (2nd ed., pp. 3-17). New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Singh, M. (2010). Quality assurance in higher
education: Which pasts to build on,
what futures to contemplate? Quality in
Higher Education, 16(2), 189-194. doi:
10.1080/13538322.2010.485735
Skolnik, M. L. (2010). Quality assurance in
higher education as a political process.
Higher Education Management and Pol-
icy, 22(1), 67-86. Retrieved from http://
www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/50310012.pdf
Tilghman, S. M. (2012). The uses and misuses
of accreditation: Speech presented to the
Reinvention Center Conference on Nov.
9, 2012. Retrieved April 10, 2013, Re-
trieved from http://www.princeton.edu/
president/speeches/20121109

9. Copyright of TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning is the property
of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.