Maintaining quality of higher education during difficult times: Accreditation compliance in foreign language education

Abstract

The world has witnessed substantial changes as a consequence of Covid-19 pandemic in many spheres of life including higher education. Assuring quality and maintaining compliance with accreditation criteria during the pandemic have been two critical considerations requiring change and adaptation in higher education institutions. The aim of this study was to investigate challenges in terms of assuring and sustaining quality and completing accreditation self-study process effectively under the circumstances of the pandemic. The study featured a case study design employing qualitative research methodology through interviews conducted mainly face-to-face and over Zoom. A semi-structured interview from created by the researcher was used to collect data from 10 instructors involved in the accreditation self-study process of a program during the most chaotic period of the pandemic. The themes that emerged from the study based on quality criteria and influence of the pandemic were: “Course Delivery”, “Format and Content of Assessment” and “Instructors’ Professional Development”. The perceptions of the instructors on the aforementioned themes were elaborated on and discussed in the study from different perspectives.

Keywords:

• accreditation
• quality
• higher education
• Covid-19 pandemic
• self-study

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

While assuring and maintaining quality in higher education remain a challenge for administrators and staff under normal circumstances, the difficulty is doubled by the unpredictable circumstances and uncertainty caused by the pandemic. This study aimed to investigate the challenges for higher education institutions to maintain quality and comply with accreditation criteria during the pandemic. The participants were all actively involved in accreditation self-study report process that took place during the pandemic, having the opportunity to connect their previous experiences at school with the modifications in parallel with the pandemic and quality criteria as identified by the accrediting agency. The themes that emerged from this study will facilitate adaptation of practices for relevant stakeholders of higher education and take proactive measures to assure and maintain quality in times of uncertainty.

1. Introduction

There was an unanticipated interruption in regular operations of universities across the world due to outbreak of Covid-19, which urged higher education institutions to rapidly switch from traditional to online mode of instructional delivery. Osabajo and Oke (2022) define online instruction as “the process by which students engage with teaching and learning through a technology-enabled environment with physical and virtual components” (p. 1), which could be realised in synchronous or asynchronous formats through such devices as laptops and mobile phones (Dhawan, 2020). Previous availability and familiarity of students and instructors with those devices may have eased the emergency transition to online instruction and contributed to maintenance of quality of the education process (W. Hussain et al., 2020a). Online instruction may lead to effective online learning and have a positive influence on education quality in case it is carefully and systematically designed; however, this careful consideration is lacking in most cases of emergency shifts (Hodges et al., 2020), which reflects the situation experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic. This shift was unforeseen and therefore unplanned requiring too much effort and preparation in a relatively limited period of time. According to O’Leary and O’Byrne, higher education institutions being subject to such an accelerated transformation period are expected to maintain their practices complying with the same high standards (2021). In this scope, a control mechanism is necessary for higher education institutions to check and verify whether modifications made due to changing circumstances are in line with specifications by relevant quality assurance frameworks so that quality is not compromised both during times of uncertainty and when things get back to normal after the emergency situation.

Accreditation, which may function as the aforementioned control mechanism, is a prominent form of quality assurance in which higher education institutions evaluate their practices against quality criteria as determined by accrediting agencies and try to continuously improve their practices. Various aspects of universities including but not limited to curriculum, assessment, syllabus, facilities, student services and financial capacity are adapted and developed in line with quality indicators by means of accreditation. “The basic assumption embedded in accreditation is that educational institutions are accountable for the quality of their programs … accreditation defines quality through professional standards and assessed criteria external to where the formation of quality occurs” (Romanowski & Islam, 2022, p. 5). The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), 2002) defines five key features of accreditation as self-study, peer review, site visit, action (judgment) of accrediting organization, monitoring and oversight. There are two forms of accreditation, which are institutional and program accreditation, which can also be referred to as programmatic accreditation. While institutional practices are evaluated against quality criteria in institutional accreditation as the name suggests, Mutereko (2018) indicates program accreditation concentrates on various aspects of programs operating under the umbrella of higher education institutions or independently. Whichever form it takes, as emphasized by Blankenberger and Williams (2020), institutional integrity and accountability are the core requirements of this quality assurance system. While accreditation process requires time, effort and dedication as such for elaboration, analysis and documentation of practices of higher education institutions to demonstrate that their policies and practices comply with quality standards and continuous quality improvement is at the core of school practices, the situation may become more complicated under times of uncertainty, which represents the case during the Covid-19 pandemic.

2. Literature review

2.1. Abrupt switch to online education

Although higher education institutions are expected to be cognizant of constantly monitoring the quality of design and delivery of learning (Crawford et al., 2020), maintaining quality under the circumstances brought by the pandemic would not be that easy due to conduct of remote activities, specifically online instruction. Whereas sudden transition to online instruction provided such benefits as digital literacy, effective time management, independent learning, self-improvement, collaboration, flexibility and convenience, it also gave rise to challenges like lack of concentration, lack of student-instructor interaction, limited engagement, lack of self-motivation and technical difficulties (Osobajo & Oke, 2022). In this framework, Neuwirth et al. claim that the difficulty lies in provision of quality education while supporting students’ competences to engage in interactive and meaningful educational experiences as part of the pandemic (2021). The situation was particularly difficult for students in terms of their adaptation to the new normal while being accustomed to traditional form of education for long years. From a wider perspective, Longhurst et al. point out reduction in student engagement during the pandemic (Longhurst et al., 2020) stems from a number of reasons, including access to practical work as one of the specific difficulties encountered by students, as also asserted by O’Leary and O’Byrne (2021). Regardless of those challenges, higher education institutions are expected to equip students with necessary skills and competencies while assuring and maintaining academic quality in all aspects of programs.

Not only the mode of instruction but also the format and content of assessment underwent changes as a consequence of the pandemic. Technology had a leading role in successful implementation of aforementioned practices in different forms. With reference to content, Longhurst et al. (2020) emphasize the possibility of mismatch between teaching activities taking place and assessment practices. According to F.N Hussain et al. (2020b), the major complications are conducting online assessments with students outside of the campus, difficulties encountered in monitoring exams, responding to individual student requests and assuring integrity. Therefore, there was a continuous effort for ensuring the safety and security of exams during the pandemic; within this scope, Kumar highlights utilization of technology in monitoring students’ assessment during the pandemic in such forms as cameras strengthened by AI technology to track students’ eye movements while taking exams, software used to track talk by others in the room where the exam is being taken and to disable access of other websites during exams (2020). However, according to Ramírez-Hurtado et al. (2021), online assessments are still questionable due to concerns in knowing the identity of the actual test-taker, monitoring the physical environment where the test is being taken and the legislative framework for protection of personal data.

In addition to course delivery and assessment that were subject to significant modifications owing to the pandemic, as the leading actors in the provision of education, instructors were directly influenced by the changing circumstances. They had to implement fully remote teaching practices including but not limited to mobile learning and zoom-based classes (Hodges et al., 2020); use of such innovative teaching technologies as Google Classrooms, WebQuest and some other online applications (Toquero, 2020). Despite use of different technologies to facilitate student learning, there was insufficient time for instructors to master online teaching background and adapt their teaching methodologies and materials. “Some staff members may not have been able to fully evaluate the theoretical and practical implications of distance learning prior to the cessation of face-to-face teaching”, as also highlighted by Longhurst et al. (2020, p. 305). Crawford et al. take this argument one step further and allege that many higher education institutions concentrated on transforming the content covered in face-to-face environment to online format not attaching sufficient importance to pedagogy of online teaching (2020), which caused program administrators to lose focus and time to prepare for accreditation especially in terms of documentation due to the abrupt transition to online mode of course delivery. This has led to difficulties for individuals in charge of the accreditation process (Abdelhadi, 2020) generating considerations in prioritizing practices.

2.2. The pandemic, quality assurance and accreditation

The sudden and unexpected change in the format of learning from face-to-face to online during the pandemic has created influences on the quality of programs, and, accordingly, as indicated by Hou et al., quality concerns have come to the surface due to this surge (2021). To assure maintenance of operations as required to act in response to the challenges, new legislative adjustments gained significance. Maintaining quality practices was particularly difficult in the beginning since there was considerable amount of work for establishing necessary infrastructure and meeting requirements for transition to online teaching (O’Leary & O’Byrne, 2021) making adjustments especially in terms of social distancing and remote learning through virtual technologies (Camilleri, 2021). The urge to quickly shift to a new mode of education generated drawbacks in quality assurance leading to scrutiny in meeting quality standards and documentation of practices to demonstrate quality claims. As a result of the new education system, Abdelhadi (2020) asserts, for example, with regard to certain forms of learning, the tasks completed by the students did not meet requirements and were inconsistent, which may be attributed to students’ need of a higher level of academic support (Blankenberger & Williams, 2020) owing mostly to changes in course methodology. The methodology could not be efficiently implemented due to the abrupt shift to online education. Therefore, instruction and assessment practices should be revised along with course learning outcomes and the quality of courses should be constantly tracked so as to meet the standards of accreditation even under unexpected circumstances.

It is certain that in this period of online education and degrees which are extremely accessible, higher education institutions need to adapt their practices to maintain quality, innovate and revive to succeed (Priddy & Pelletier, 2020); in other words, universities are expected to maintain their institutional and external quality practices including accreditation during the times of crisis as usual. Although international travel was not possible due to restricting circumstances, international accreditation requirements and practices were anticipated to continue as well. W. Hussain et al. (2020a) mention in this regard the significance of programs’ accountability to the students and the public for meeting required standards of accreditation, thereby not being exempt from their responsibility towards stakeholders due to the pandemic.

Still, like the education programs, accrediting agencies had to go through a number of unforeseen changes in the implementation of quality assurance due to the pandemic. Especially in the beginning of the pandemic, the agencies were aware that many of the instruments used by the accreditation review committees to make accreditation decisions would be either inaccessible or could only be accessed in an incomplete format. Some programs would not even be able to complete their annual reports including annual program updates (Potts, 2020). Despite difficulty experienced in the beginning of the pandemic, accreditation moved its practices online almost instantly after the first lockdown (O’Leary & O’Byrne, 2021). Under the circumstances, it was difficult to maintain extensive criteria and site evaluation by peers (Priddy & Pelletier, 2020) and have face-to-face contact with students and faculty on campus; therefore, in line with the restrictions, accrediting agencies turned the site visits to virtual visits. Also, they made modifications in their practices like working from home and purchasing electronic platforms to facilitate duties to be performed by staff (J. S. Eaton, 2021).

2.3. How can accreditation contribute to quality in times of uncertainty?

Despite the disruptions it brought in many spheres of life, the pandemic has created opportunities for improvement and innovation in higher education. Instructors were prompted to use new methodologies while conducting their educational programs and curriculum, and experienced use of virtual technologies in their teaching (Camilleri, 2021). Academic collaboration, acquiring additional digital skills and integration of blended learning can be counted as other advantages brought by the pandemic (Longhurst et al., 2020). Having limited number of alternatives in traditional teaching and assessment, instructors now have the opportunity to expand the range of formats of testing which are readily accessible online, and enhance satisfaction of students with the system of assessment (Ramírez-Hurtado et al., 2021). University education and different aspects of higher education quality already needed to be reconsidered and re-evaluated and therefore the pandemic could be seen as an impetus to initiate change (J. S. Eaton, 2021).

The pandemic has also contributed to the evolution of management of accreditation processes (Abdelhadi, 2020). “Accreditation now has an opportunity to move to an ambitious innovation agenda: expanding an accrediting organization’s scope of work, broadening standards and policies, and exploring the development of a cross-accreditation, consolidated service platform”, which is why, for example, virtual visits through electronic platforms are becoming widespread (J. S. Eaton, 2021). It is a fact that institutions being subject to change and innovation urge accreditation to adapt practices according to the new norms. Still, to be prepared for uncertain times, as indicated by Stukalo and Dluhopolskyi, accrediting agencies should develop alternative procedures to respond to the emerging needs (2020).

Studies on the quality dimensions of higher education in the scope of the pandemic have been conducted specifically in quality assurance and accreditation of health services (Engle, 2020; Kavak et al., 2020; Lancet, 2020) and the necessity and importance of virtual site visits during the period of crisis (Cobourne & Shellenbarger, 2021; Karimi & Manteufel, 2021; Nowicki & Kafel, 2021; Stukalo & Dluhopolskyi, 2020), higher education service quality (Camilleri, 2021; Ramírez-Hurtado et al., 2021), existing impact of the pandemic and future challenges for higher education (Toquero, 2020), the influence of Covid-19 on higher education policy shifts and quality assurance focusing on the actions by national accrediting agencies (Hou et al., 2021). The literature review revealed that there is no single study in the literature examining the challenges in maintaining quality and meeting accreditation criteria during times of uncertainty, Covid-19 pandemic in this particular case, as experienced by instructors actively involved in the self-study process. It is hoped that the findings of this study will provide insights for higher education policy makers and practitioners to understand complexities in different dimensions of higher education as well as taking proactive measures for potential challenges not to compromise but to maintain quality during extraordinary situations.

3. Objectives and research questions

The main aim of this study was to investigate perceptions of instructors actively involved in accreditation self-study process on maintaining accreditation compliance during the pandemic. In accordance with this, the difficulties encountered to maintain quality and meet accreditation criteria in foreign language education as specified by the accrediting agency while going through accreditation self-study process during the pandemic will be identified and elaborated on from instructors’ perspectives. Due to lack of empirical research in the particular field, this study aims to fill the gap in the literature seeking responses to the following research questions:

(i) what are the challenges for higher education institutions to maintain quality during the pandemic?

(ii) how do those challenges influence accreditation compliance during the self-study?

4. Materials and methods

The study was conducted in qualitative design employing a case-study methodology. Crowe et al. characterize case study as an approach that is used to create detailed interpretation of a complex matter in its actual conditions (2011). Accordingly, the topic was discussed in its own context elaborating on experiences of instructors working in the Foreign Languages Program of a state university in Turkiye.

4.1. Research context

As an established higher education institution, the university where this study was conducted holds national institutional accreditation besides over 25+ international programmatic accreditation certifications held by individual faculties in the scope of external quality assurance. There are sound tools to evaluate quality against performance indicators as defined in strategic plans created in cooperation with faculty as stakeholders and provide a platform for continuous quality improvement as part of internal quality assurance. The rationale behind selection of a foreign language education program was not about the extent or specific accreditation compliance criteria but its appropriateness for the research topic owing to following reasons: The program in question has been operating under the university umbrella for about 40 years and was granted 5-year initial programmatic accreditation, which was then followed by a 10-year reaccreditation, by a US accrediting agency specialized in intensive English education. In other words, accreditation-related practices have existed in the program for long years, before and during the pandemic as well as maintaining discussions for post-pandemic, facilitating a comparative analysis of practices. Similar to other schemes of programmatic accreditation, the standard areas are focused on such areas as curriculum, faculty, student services, facilities and equipment and program development and constitute a source for accreditation activities as well as exemplifying good practice. Self-study reports were prepared by assigned faculty members while applying for initial and re-accreditation responding to standards and providing evidence through documentation to the accrediting agency collecting feedback from relevant units and conducting meetings for knowledge exchange with the ones not actively involved in self-study report writing. As part of accreditation compliance criteria, the program is required to submit annual reports to the agency documenting its practices evaluating itself against the standards and an interim report by the completion of the first half of the re-accreditation period following a similar procedure to demonstrate accreditation compliance. Before initiation of the study, Institutional Review Board approval was obtained and informed consent was received from each participant to take part in the study.

4.2. Study group

To be able to reach in-depth relevant data, purposeful sampling methodology was utilized in the study. According to Patton (2002), “The logic and power of purposeful sampling lie in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry … ” (p. 230). Therefore, the study group comprised 10 instructors who actively took part in accreditation report writing process, which was a unique experience especially under pandemic circumstances (Please see Table 1 for information on the study group). The participating instructors’ experience in the school practices and accreditation report writing process were assumed to help them interpret and express the link between accreditation requirements, previous circumstances and conditions brought by the pandemic and how to connect all, defining the rationale behind responses to standards and providing evidence for quality claims. The instructors were asked if they wanted to participate and the ones who agreed were involved in the study.

Table 1. Information on the study group

	Age	Gender	Experience in School	Accreditation Training	Self-Study Experience
Instructor 1	31–35	Female	1–5 years	No	No
Instructor 2	31–35	Female	1–5 years	No	No
Instructor 3	41–45	Female	16–20 years	No	No
Instructor 4	31–35	Female	6–10 years	No	No
Instructor 5	31–35	Female	1–5 years	No	No
Instructor 6	51–55	Female	16–20 years	No	No
Instructor 7	36–40	Female	1–5 years	No	No
Instructor 8	56–60	Male	26–30 years	Yes	Yes
Instructor 9	36–40	Female	16–20 years	No	No
Instructor 10	36–40	Male	6–10 years	No	No

4.3. Data collection and analysis

Data was collected mainly through face-to-face interviews through a semi-structured interview form created by the researcher based on both the literature and experiences throughout the self-study process. The interview form included 12 questions in total. In case of unavailability or preference by instructors, individual Zoom meetings were conducted where responses to questions were sought. While the quality of face-to-face and online interviews is a controversial topic, Cabaroglu et al. concluded as a result of their study that the quality of interviews was the same for face-to-face and computer mediated communication (2010). Similarly, with a specific focus on Zoom, Gray et al. (2020) asserted “Zoom allows the interviewer to observe participant’s non-verbal communication and where the participant chooses to be during their interview” (p. 1297). Before proceeding with data collection through interviews either face-to-face or through Zoom, a pilot study was conducted and expert opinion and advice were obtained. Modifications were made in the final version of semi-structured interview form in accordance with outcomes of the pilot study and expert advice. The interviews were recorded in accordance with participants’ consent and then transcribed.

Data was analyzed through thematic analysis and themes were formed subsequent to participants’ responses. Braun and Clarke define thematic analysis as a popular form of qualitative data analysis, which helps researchers to interpret shared experiences about a specific research question being investigated (2012). Requiring interpretation of the researcher as a distinctive feature of qualitative data analysis, thematic analysis involves identification of themes, formation of codes and connection of codes with unprocessed data for subsequent evaluation (Guest et al., 2012). The themes that emerged as a result of the analysis were Course Delivery, Format and Content of Assessment and Instructors’ Professional Development. To support the claims made during the interviews, direct utterances of the participants were included in the form of direct quotations in relation to relevant themes in the study.

5. Findings

Thematic analysis of data from interviews with instructors actively involved in accreditation self-study process generated three categories each with a number of sub-categories as presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Accreditation compliance during difficult times

Theme	Sub-theme	Description	Quality Indicator	Accreditation-related Challenge
Course Delivery	Mode of teaching	Synchoronous and asynchronous classes instead of traditional face-to-face instruction	Providing course recordings, equal opportunities for access, curriculum design and materials selection in line with student needs and online environment	Maintaining accredited status through unfamiliar teaching practices; elaboration,comparison of practices prior to and during the pandemic; analysis and documentation of newly-introduced practices; providing evidence for quality claims
	Learner centeredness	Promotion of student autonomy, active engagement of students in class activities	Initiation of a learner-centered instructional design, individualized learning atmosphere	Meeting student needs under unpredictable circumstances; description and additional documentation for recently-adopted instructional design due to incomplete quality cycle
	Communication with students	Getting to know and establishing bonds with students, leading them towards relevant services to facilitate their learning	Communication with class representatives, offering online student services to support their academic well-being	Students’ unfamiliarity with the new normal; attracting students to online student services and demonstrating evidence of quality of those services due to confidentiality concerns, protection of personal data
Format and Content of Assessment	A new form of assessment	Administering exams in an online environment through online tools	Assuring safety and security of exams, monitoring students through technology, responding to requests for a number of reasons including technical issues	Uncertainty about quality assessment; extra time needed for research, explanation and documentation of practices, majority of which experienced for the first time
	Pandemic-related arrangements	Arranging assessment practices so that they contribute to achievement of learning outcomes	Increase in the frequency of exams and individual assignments, arrangement of exam durations to optimize screening time for students	Inrease in workload of those in charge of exam creation and self-study report writing processes; difficulty in reporting
	Continuous improvement	Regularly advancing assessment practices in the online environment to assure quality	Postponement of planned practices requiring substantial change, to reach more reliable data and implementation environment for quality improvement; asking for feedback from students and instructors	Accreditation involving rationale and evidence for substantial changes, involving data collection and analysis to verify quality claims; timing considered critical
Instructors’ Professional Development	Adaptation to changing circumstances	Incorporation of educational technology into classroom practices to keep students active and motivated	Importance attached to integration of educational technology before the pandemic facilitating familiarity; prioritising technology use to conduct classroom activities; peer learning in the online environment	Student success related with motivation and level of adaptation; demonstrating student achievement required in accreditation; limited communication in online meetings for accreditation self-study report
	Participation in PD activities	Provision of internal and external professional development opportunities for instructors	In-house PD activities continued with a focus on online teaching pedagogy in accordance with instructors’ needs to serve better to the needs of the students	PD of instructors a must for maintaining accredited status; PD activities cancelled or postponed initially leading to limitation of PD opportunities; description of new situation and verifying the standard being met during the pandemic

The main themes and sub-themes that emerged as a result of the study and as summarized above in Table 2 are explained in detail employing direct utterances that reflect instructors’ perceptions.

5.1. Course delivery

In accordance with the pandemic, transition to fully online education in a relatively limited period of time naturally led to modifications in academic and administrative practices as discussed by majority of instructors involved in the study. While the focus was mainly on health and safety, it was of utmost importance to at least maintain existing quality processes and cycles so that compliance with quality indicators as specified by the accrediting agency would be accomplished. Accordingly, there was an ongoing effort to make necessary modifications within the framework of quality and complying with accreditation criteria. Despite the emphasis on quality practices under pandemic conditions, the modifications and adaptations based on the circumstances required additional elaboration and analysis to be included in the self-study report as well as the documentation for standards to verify quality claims. The accrediting agency had taken all necessary steps to facilitate the sites under review during the pandemic including reporting and documentation for one full year of operation. Still, some participants in the study expressed their feelings of necessity to clarify practices prior to and during the pandemic, which led to an increase in their workload as anticipated, as shown in the following excerpt: “ … The workload was doubled almost tripled during the report writing process; we wanted to elaborate on the actual situation, the situation under pandemic conditions and the plans for post-pandemic” [Instructor 1].

In some instructors’ discourse, as there were certain arrangements that had to be made comparatively quickly in accordance with the speed, intensity and unpredictable conditions of the pandemic, it was of prime importance to interpret and explain the underlying rationale behind the decisions taken at the outset while reaching required documentation to support claims would require more effort compared to regular periods of self-study.

“It was relatively difficult to access the rationales or necessary documentation to support claims for accreditation standards as the circumstances required quick decision-making at the time … These were natural outcomes brought by the pandemic … ” [Instructor 2]

Despite the unstable conditions of the pandemic and difficulties faced during the transition period, many were proud of the program’s quick adaptation to the new normal where all necessary arrangements were made in line with surrounding circumstances considering quality crieria as internalised by means of programmatic accreditation for long years in the institution, as asserted by Instructor 4: “Transition to complete online education happened too fast and we were not well prepared for such a sharp change; still, we were one of the best in adapting to new normal as an institution.” [Instructor 4]

The practices concerning course delivery were directly influenced by the pandemic, which made the task of those dealing with the curriculum section of the self-study report relatively more laborious especially in terms of documentation. Together with transition to online education and also based on the assumption that not all students would have equal opportunities for access to education, the classes started to be offered both in synchronous and asynchronous modes of delivery to be able to better serve for the needs of the students. Moreover, the students had access to course recordings 7/24 in case they did not have opportunity to actively attend classes, which was considered another good practice and quality indicator in that there were continuous attempts to meet student needs even in unpredictable situations.

Majority of instructors also articulated their concerns regarding the replacement of traditional teaching with online course delivery in complying with accreditation criteria. As the automatic mode of traditional teaching had quickly shifted to online mode of delivery, and even though clearly explained by the accrediting agency that both modes were acceptable as substitutes of traditional teaching, there were considerations on the side of the instructors whether online classes could replace traditional instruction as can be seen by what Instructor 5 contends:

“As opposed to traditional teaching under normal circumstances, the courses were offered in synchronous and asynchronous format and we had concerns how to support this claim completely stemming from the pandemic despite the approval by the accrediting agency … ” [Instructor 5]

It can be discerned based on instructors’ comments that in line with feedback coming from students about usefulness of asynchronous content and accessibility of course recordings as part of an institutional policy, to create more interaction in class among students and instructors as well as promoting learner autonomy, a new learner-centered instructional design, which was already being considered as a new form of practice for the program, started to be implemented during the pandemic so that the students would study the theoretical background of topics individually, which would lead to a more interactive atmosphere and more time for practice during class. Many instructors also mentioned requirements for the process such as shooting videos and uploading them to the Learning Management System in order that videos and other related materials would be easily accessible by the students. Despite its strong foundation, this was a relatively recent practice involving completion of a quality cycle to provide elaboration and extra documentation during the self-study, which would all be effective in verification of quality claims.

“ … We believe we catered better to the needs of our students and instructors under pandemic conditions … Also, all the content produced during those difficult times is still being used as part of classroom methodology during face-to-face mode of instruction now.” [Instructor 2]

Instructors expressed concerns regarding the active engagement of students in meaningful and interactive activities since effective communication was crucial in the virtual environment, which was at times effortful due to such reasons as students’ unfamiliarity with the mode of delivery and laws for protection of personal data. Stemming from the nature of online education, it was not as easy for instructors to establish bonds with students letting alone getting to know them well as in traditional education, which led to considerations while directing the students towards relevant student services, which is one of the key indicators of quality. As mentioned by Instructor 7, “We had difficulty determining class representatives in the online environment, but we still maintained the practice as it is a very important aspect of program quality. Due to the nature of online education, communication with class representatives was realised through … our official online platform.” [Instructor 7]. Also, as the students were participating online, notwithstanding all student services like guidance for academic and psychological counselling started to be offered online during the pandemic, some instructors claimed it would not be a substitute for actual preferred face-to-face mode where confidentiality would not be an issue thereby attracting more students to participate.

It can be realized that the arrangements made in accordance with changing circumstances after the completion of latest self-study were felt obligated by instructors to be explained and elaborated on in the accreditation self-study report despite arrangement of modifications imperative due to pandemic conditions in compliance with accreditation criteria and accrediting agency’s adaptation arrangements in line with surrounding conditions. Accordingly, the efforts by the accrediting agency in terms of adaptation to changing circumstances was appreciated as seen in the following quote:

“I would recommend new beginners to work with an accrediting agency which foresees the consequences of special challenges stemming from the pandemic etc … and adapts all their processes and documentation and shape expectations accordingly, like the one we worked with.” [Instructor 9]

5.2. Format and content of assessment

With rapid transition to online education, along with the courses, exams started to be conducted online, which was another unfamiliar practice for students and instructors. In various instructors’ discourse, online administration of exams brought its own advantages in terms of practicality while leading to concerns regarding identity check, protection of personal data, inclusion of specific types of questions and accessibility. While the general tendency was to increase the number of exams, the aforementioned considerations were always subject to discussion, leading to elaboration of each during exam administration. The self-study process during the pandemic was seen as another checkpoint whether the implemented practices were in compliance with quality criteria as defined by the accrediting agency and as emphasised by Instructor 3: “ … Since we were not familiar with online assessment as a regular practice, we were questioning our own practices whether they would meet accreditation criteria and accreditation was definitely a checkpoint for us for verification.” [Instructor 3]

Many instructors discussed unlimited effort for provision of safety and security of online exams by the members working in relevant units also asking for input from instructors. Owing to unstable conditions of the pandemic, to provide safer and more secure exams for students, there had to be modifications in exam procedures including use of different platforms, monitoring students by means of different forms of technology during exams. There was a continuous effort on the side of responsible parties to offer the best practice possible, leading to alterations in practices as shown in following excerpts: “Modifications in assessment practices were for the good of the students and to maintain quality as such, but we needed extra time for explanation and documentation of those modifications.” [Instructor 4] and as also exemplified in “The students facing technical issues were given make-up exams for example, which was not a usual practice under normal circumstances … ” [Instructor 5].

While all necessary measures were taken not to compromise quality in terms of student achievement by the unit in charge of exam preparation, and although all practices were in compliance with accreditation standards even under pandemic conditions, validity of online exams was always subject to discussion mainly stemming from being an unaccustomed practice and related modifications in testing practices as discussed in the following quote of Instructor 8:

“While our staff did everything it could to protect exam validity, we were never fully confident whether the exams we gave online were valid measures of student achievement. As testers, it was frustrating to never be sure if the work we were producing was actually providing helpful feedback to either students or the administration.” [Instructor 8]

From the reflection of instructors emerges the discernment that, due to the pandemic, to be able to enhance screening time for the students to facilitate their learning, there was a tendency to increase the number of assessments while arranging durations allocated. Accordingly, in addition to duration of synchronous courses, the extent and content of exams were optimized for the students, bringing its own benefits while also leading to an increase in workload and further considerations as can be seen by what Instructor 9 claims:

“Arranging the duration of online exams would go hand in hand by administration of online exams in a more frequent manner to be better able to see whether the students have attained specified learning outcomes … and that caused consideration and elaboration of possible technical issues for each and every exam.” [Instructor 9]

It can be perceived that even though the quality assurance system worked as before even under pandemic circumstances, there were considerations for instructors demonstrating their feeling of need for continuous quality improvement. They mentioned necessity for postponements stemming from pandemic in some quality improvement practices assuming that more reliable data and implementation environment would be available in a face-to-face environment. As a result of the needs assessment conducted in the previous academic year, the exit exam determining students’ admission into their departments would be modified in accordance with feedback coming from both students and instructors. However, preparation and rationalization processes were necessary for modification or initiation of such practices, which was also the case in the study as emphasised in the following excerpts:

“ … We wanted to make some modifications in our existing exit exams to be implemented in face-to-face education and wanted to conduct a pilot study; however, we preferred to conduct the study in the face-to-face period to reach more reliable data to form the basis for the change.” [Instructor 2]

“Hopefully we will not need to return to pandemic practices as we can provide better education face to face. However, we did make many adjustments and managed to provide students with a decent alternative during the pandemic.” [Instructor 8]

5.3. Instructors’ professional development

In terms of professional development, instructors pointed out that swift transition to complete online education compelled them to quickly adapt to changing circumstances. Although integration of technology was still an important aspect of instruction prior to the pandemic, despite their familiarity, it was not a priority for a majority of them to conduct all classroom activities incorporating particular offerings of educational technology until the outbreak. It was not only provision of courses online using special techniques and digital literacy but a whole pedagogy behind keeping students active and motivated during the online class as can be seen by what Instructor 5 states: “We were not accustomed to Zoom, for example, but with the pandemic we started to conduct our classes through Zoom.” [Instructor 5] with instructors realising and highlighting the importance of quick adaptation as discussed in the following quote: “In my opinion, we were quick to adapt to the conditions brought about by the pandemic. Therefore, most units were soon able to work online and most members of those units were accustomed to working the way they had not experienced before.” [Instructor 10].

In many instructors’ discourse, group dynamics was an influential factor during hard times and it was difficult to be maintained in the lack of face-to-face communication. Therefore, collaboration, idea and knowledge sharing that naturally occured being in the same school environment were not as easy or familiar in the online environment. Also, continuously working from home was an influential factor in instructors’ motivation for work and the pandemic was effective in terms of concentration for individual instructors because of the distance. The instructors were aware of the significance of the situation, and everybody put some effort into contributing to group dynamics and school practices, which formed the basis for peer learning furthering instructors’ professional development. The instructors became united and one again after the outset of the pandemic with transition to online education as Instructor 5 asserts in her comment: “Everybody was so willing to help each other while trying to overcome difficulties during the process especially in terms of educational technologies; therefore, there was lots of learning from each other, peer learning and learning by doing.” [Instructor 5]

As part of quality criteria, the instructors are supposed to attend regular professional development activities to keep up with new approaches and techniques in foreign language teaching, and, in the beginning of the pandemic, the conferences and all professional gathering events worldwide were either cancelled or postponed, leaving the instructors with limited opportunity for continuous professional development. In various instructors’ discourse, previously planned professional development activities had to be either postponed or cancelled due to the outbreak of the pandemic. Despite the continuation of in-house professional development activities and the focus on online teaching pedagogy such as instructional style, integration of interactive materials and flipped methodology, the adaptation period led to limitation of opportunities for professional development during the pandemic. One of the potentialities highlighted was the relevance of internal professional development activities to changing circumstances as discussed by Instructor 7:

“We learned a lot in terms of interactive online materials and strategies to keep students motivated during online classes through our internal professional development activities including experience sharing sessions with colleagues, which I still use in my face-to-face classes … ” [Instructor 7].

However, some were still questioning whether this was an alternative during all the havoc resulting from the pandemic as shown in the following excerpt: “Participation rate in internal professional development activities was naturally influenced by instructors’ morale and motivation under pandemic conditions” [Instructor 1]. Luckily, in a relatively short period of time, many international seminars and conferences in the field started to be offered online after the first shockwave across the world, offering even more opportunity for instructors’professional development.

Some instructors referred to the impact of pandemic in terms of professional development as manifested in their willingness to cater better to student needs thereby extending offers from relevant units in the program aside from existing internal professional development activities. To be able to serve better to the needs of the students and increase their motivation considering the limitations, in addition to self-prepared materials, instructors wanted to have access to online and interactive versions of materials and worksheets to supplement classroom activites, adding to existing workload for related units. Such requests raised considerations for workload of some units during the pandemic as can be seen by what Instructor 10 says: “I had to get involved in a number of new practices brought about by the pandemic, which made my work routine much busier. This, in turn, made me nervous and concerned about the deadlines.” [Instructor 10]

From the reflection of instructors emerges the perception that communication among instructors was an issue directly influenced by the pandemic not only for knowledge and experience sharing but also for accreditation self-study report writing process. While the instructors were used to having face-to-face meetings, all the meetings had to be conducted online. While it was favoured by many instructors in the beginning due to its own advantages like accessibility and practicality, it turned out to be a consideration for some instructors especially dealing actively with the self-study process as demonstrated in the following excerpt:

“When we are doing face-to-face education, we naturally have more conversations with our colleagues, so it is much easier to share what is going well with accreditation and what challenges we are having. When that communication is limited, you feel more like you are working on your own.” [Instructor 8]

However, there were also those believing in the effectiveness of online meetings as referred to by Instructor 10:

“Actually, the online meetings we had were probably much more effective than face-to-face meetings … This is because all members of our unit were able to follow the screen while a host was sharing one. In this way, we were fully concentrated on and aware of what was going on.” [Instructor 10]

It can be perceived that some regular procedures implemented under normal circumstances were not continued, modified or new practices were adopted to keep up with conditions brought by the pandemic in terms of instructors’ professional development within the scope of quality. However, timing was a critical factor in the preparation phase of new practices to serve to the needs of instructors as indicated in the following excerpt:

“We implemented some questionnaires that we had not implemented prior to pandemic such as readiness to online education to cater for the needs of our instructors … We would have spent much more time for development of those questionnaires under normal circumstances. The process has influenced all of us to a certain extent … ” [Instructor 4]

6. Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore the challenges for higher education institutions to maintain quality during the pandemic and how those challenges influence accreditation compliance during the self-study. While the challenges faced during the pandemic will be discussed in relation to accreditation compliance criteria, how they influence accreditation compliance regarding specific difficulties encountered within the scope of self-study process under pandemic circumstances will be elaborated on but will not be compared with existing studies due to lack of research on this particular topic. J. Eaton (2020 May 21) identifies curriculum, academic calendar, assessment and faculty as four of the most critical aspects of learning experience, which need to be incorporated in its appropriate form into online education process (2020). Based on instructors’ perceptions on challenges for maintaining quality during the pandemic, course delivery, format and content of assessment and instructors’ professional development have been determined as the main challenges. Concerning course delivery, as also described in detail in Table 2, there was a shift from face-to-face to synchronous and asynchronous modes of teaching to accord teaching practices with the circumstances brought by the pandemic. Parallel with this finding, Longhurst et al. (2020) indicate the importance of synchronous classes in enhancing student interaction and thus engagement, serving students with different learning styles and preferences; also verifying compliance with quality criteria as specified by the accrediting agency. The main point is continuation and permanence of practices, which is evident in the use of materials and asynchronous videos created during the pandemic in traditional face-to-face classroom teaching as well, which is the case in the present study. Also, Hussain et al. reflect on the accessibility of course recordings and how this decreased negative influence of pandemic circumstances on students’ learning experiences compensating for missed lectures (2020b). During the period, one of the most important challenges was supporting students with quality materials in line with curriculum and accessible by all students regardless of their various levels of internet access (Rodrigo & Ladrido, 2022), which provided equal opportunities for access and curriculum design and materials selection carried out according to learning needs of the students and conditions of the learning environment, which reflect quality indicators for accreditation in the current study.

Putting the learner in the center of the learning process to facilitate his/her learning experiences leads to promotion of student autonomy and his/her active engagement in class activities, which forms the basis for the program’s quality claims according to the current study. In line with this finding, although not directly related with quality assurance and accreditation compliance, Vázquez-Cano underline the importance of student autonomy in the online environment where students get the opportunity to progressively gain their own convention and form that will facilitate their transformation into successful learners (2014). The results of the study align with the literature in terms of enhancement of student autonomy and seeing its reflections in the quality assurance period especially in terms of provision of a learner-centered instructional design and thus offering students an individualized learning atmosphere. As highlighted by Dickinson et al., the whole learning experience depends on the students’ capacity to create a positive influence in order that they could become active participants of the online learning process (2020), which reflects the findings of the current research.

Within the scope of communication with students during the pandemic, collecting feedback from them regarding practices during the extraordinary period becomes prominent as a quality indicator as a result of the current study. With regard to assuring and maintaining quality through feedback collection from stakeholders, while APEC and TEQSA feature the possibility of fundamental quality matters of online education leading to insufficient learning experiences (2017), which can be best determined and boosted by students through feedback, in pursuit of compliance with quality criteria as a checkpoint, Crawford et al. indicate the significance of regular and systematic feedback collection during the pandemic period from students and instructors contributing to evaluation of quality and supervising teaching and learning in the online environment; feedback leading to modifications in teaching practices (2020). In the current study, constant feedback collection continued as usual during the pandemic. Accordingly, this study demonstrates modifications of practices based on enhancement of student autonomy to help them adjust their speed of learning in accordance with their own conditions and compliance with quality criteria in the form of collecting feedback from stakeholders of online teaching and learning process.

Provision of student services relevant to student needs is another indicator of quality, which mainly requires communication through different channels in addition to face-to-face correspondence with students. The way of communication and interaction turned out to be an unfamiliar experience for both students and instructors at the outset of the pandemic. For example, Codreanu and Celik, addressing the issue of communication in the virtual environment, mention when students do not participate in classes through their computer camera, this influences them psychologically, leading to reduction of engagement thus interactive learning (2013), which may be one of the reasons hindering effective communication as also discussed in the study by O’Leary and O’Byrne since the students felt that communication with them is not sufficient in the online environment and must be improved (2021). Also, one of the shortcomings of interaction in the online environment is lack of means of non-verbal communication, which may lead students to feel isolated and confused (Osobajo & Oke, 2022). Communication is an important factor in getting to know students while directing them towards relevant student services and while determining student representatives to receive feedback regarding constituents of the program as part of quality assurance practices like the case in the current study.

Under pandemic circumstances, according to Crawford et al. there must be support for students to improve digitally but while doing this, academic quality should not be compromised (2020), which reveals the importance of enhancing student motivation through digital interactive content. Level of interaction and concentration of students need to be promoted to provide them with a better-quality online learning experience. It is certain that engagement of students in class activities and continuation of teaching-learning activities were essential constituents of the emergency online education plan (Chang & Wang, 2020), assurance for achievement of the objective of online course pedagogy (Coy et al., 2014) as well as one form of quality indicator under the umbrella of curriculum standard, which proved to be a consideration in numerous studies including the present study. The actual issue here lies in provision of quality education while trying to create meaningful and interactive activities under these unexpected circumstances.

Concerning the assessment practices realized during the pandemic period, assessing whether the students have attained the learning outcomes is critical for accountability of quality assurance practices. While transitioning from traditional to online education, programs may not have been prepared and proactive about online assessment in the way they wish (Blankenberger & Williams, 2020); however, the unintended switch to online assessment was also an opportunity to improve existing assessment conditions (Longhurst et al., 2020). In this regard, Hussain et al. mention difficulties to monitor exams and assure exam integrity (F.N Hussain et al., 2020b). Accordingly, the present study revealed that there was a continuous effort to offer valid and reliable online exams with a particular focus on exam safety and security, in line with quality criteria in terms of student achievement. It is a fact that assessment of course learning outcomes in face-to-face and virtual environments should not be treated the same (Neuwirth et al., 2021); adjustments are needed for compatibility. Despite all precautions taken in accordance with quality practices, considerations were attentively discussed and elaborated on before each and every exam.

As asserted by Kumar, technology is seen and favored for monitoring students during assessment (2020) and it was one of the most controversial issues in compliance with quality criteria, which led to this ongoing effort to provide safer exams as was the case in the present study. In terms of technology, as discussed by Ramirez-Hurtado et al., test review system, whether the system is useful and variety of assessment activities need improvement (2021) to better serve to the needs of the students. That is why, based on issues experienced throughout the pandemic, assessment has attracted the attention of businesses to offer new technologies suggesting remedies to existing problems and the use of those technologies has increased exceedingly since the outbreak of the pandemic (Doffman, 2020).

In addition to administration of exams through different forms of technology, in accordance with pandemic-related arrangements, the content and frequency of exams needed to be adapted to comply with quality criteria under the conditions of the pandemic. The current research indicated there was a tendency to optimize the duration of exams while increasing the number of assignments throughout the period. In this context, Ramirez-Hurtado et al. emphasize the importance of time spent being exposed to computer screen, referring to fluctuation in concentration levels of students as the duration increases suggesting reducing session durations (2021) which is also the case for assessments in the current case. This is also parallel with previous research in which Neuwirth et al. discuss that the tendency to give more assignments as alternative assessment created resistance on the side of the students leading to perception of additional work while leading to an increase in participation (2021). This is also supported by García-Peñalvo et al. in terms of spreading the assessment activities throughout the whole learning period rather than single particular points of time in the course (2020).

With reference to instructors’ professional development during the pandemic, while instructors were still questioning if universities were ready for online education at the time (Houlden & Veletsianos, 2020), there was this swift transition as a result of the pandemic. Leaving aside the instructors’ preparedness for digital environments as discussed in the current research, there was a whole teaching pedagogy to be mastered in a relatively short period of time to maintain quality practices. To assure quality of teaching in synchronous and asynchronous teaching, many universities provided required assistance for their instructors including use of online platforms to be used for teaching (Wu, 2020); and some universities launched digital capacity building programs for their faculty to facilitate the transition to complete online instruction (Hou et al., 2021), similar to the case in the present study contributing to maintenance of quality. Also, unlike the situation in the current research where the instructors adapted their approaches relatively quickly, for many, pedagogical adjustment was hard and considered the biggest concern for instructors. There were specific issues for instructors such as the time spent for getting prepared for online classes when compared to traditional format, as highlighted by Gewin (2020). Quality would be compromised without pedagogical adaptation of instructors, which urged the program in question to take all necessary measures in the area of provision of professional development opportunities.

As discussed in the current study, whereas collaboration, idea and knowledge sharing were difficult to be achieved at the outset of the pandemic, unlike previous research, it gained momentum as instructors realized the significance of collaboration under difficult circumstances. Ferri et al. assert online teaching leads to lack of interaction, which can be considered a pedagogical challenge (2020). However, according to Ramirez-Hurtado et al., integration of new methods and technologies should involve collaboration among instructors and administrators (2021), which was the case in the current study. Therefore, especially in challenging times, like the one in pandemic, it is essential for instructors to continue personal communication with other people while still teaching online (Verawardina et al., 2020).

While the pandemic created challenges in every field of life including higher education, it has also opened doors for new opportunities for universities. As asserted by Neuwirth et al., maintaining the quality of education in critical situations can be accepted as a means to reconstruct resilience (2021). By virtue of the pandemic, many instructors started to implement unfamiliar teaching methods such as synchronous and asynchronous teaching, interactive communications, virtual education technologies and video conferencing software (Camilleri, 2021). Although it was imperative as a result of the pandemic, regardless of the challenges faced in every sphere of life including teaching and learning practices in higher education, the pandemic period itself may be characterized as an immersive continuous professional development activity for instructors.

It is a fact that accreditation is one of the essential mechanisms for quality assurance, and, regardless of the field of study, complying with accreditation criteria is a reference and checkpoint for programs to evaluate their practices even in times of uncertainty. The notion of continuous quality improvement as the foundation of accreditation triggers program administrators and people in charge to act proactively within the limits, referring to ideal practice standards and applications as specified by accrediting agencies. Accordingly, the study focused on the challenges for higher education institutions to maintain quality during the pandemic and how those challenges influence accreditation compliance during the self-study elaborating on instructors’ perceptions based on experiences during the pandemic and the self-study report writing period.

7. Conclusion

The pandemic has influenced many areas of life including but not limited to higher education. There have been prevalent modifications in the provision of higher education, leading to considerations whether newly-adopted practices would help continue compliance with quality criteria, in particular as specified in accreditation standards. The present study analyzed various aspects of challenges for higher education institutions to maintain quality practices during the pandemic and how those challenges influence accreditation compliance during the self-study process. The challenges have been elaborated on in accordance with relevant quality indicators in the program in question and the particular challenges experienced as a result of emergency teaching practices adopted during the pandemic.

The research has revealed multiple factors impacting accreditation compliance during the pandemic in terms of course delivery with specific considerations stemming from mode of teaching, learner-centeredness and communication with students under the circumstances brought by the pandemic; format and content of assessment practices in the online environment and arrangements needed to comply with the circumstances as well as regular advancement of those practices; and instructors’ professional development for facilitating their adaptation to changing conditions and providing them with opportunities for continuous professional development. Throughout the self-study period, similar challenges deriving from emergency transition to online education and unfamiliarity with the new normal were experienced such as analysis and documentation of new practices, examining existing practices in contrast to situation prior to pandemic, uncertainty about whether newly-adopted practices are indicative of quality education, thus requiring additional time for research, explanation and documentation for verification of the program’s quality claims.

It has now become apparent that there may be unanticipated and unwanted interruptions in the provision of higher education, stimulating authorities to take proactive measures. “The combination of social unrest, the pandemic, technological advancements, and politicization will continue to leave many institutions with what Peter Vail called navigating the Whitewater for many years, with some simply hanging on to survive versus proactively reinventing to thrive” (Priddy & Pelletier, 2020, p. 31). It is obvious that the programs to be going through accreditation and accrediting agencies need to develop new ways for continuous quality improvement to be able to meet standards for international accreditation, which is a complicated and protracted procedure (W. Hussain et al., 2020a). To survive and act proactively in times of uncertainty like the pandemic the world has been experiencing, dynamism, adjustability and receptiveness of the quality framework are of prime importance (O’Leary & O’Byrne, 2021, p. 34). Therefore, it is important that both programs and accrediting agencies make necessary adjustments in their processes and practices to keep up with changing conditions to assure and maintain quality. To be able to achieve this, programs should have a contingency plan where possible actions to be taken not to compromise quality in case of unexpected situations are identified and regularly revised so that it is up-to-date. The awareness level of policy-makers and practitioners should be increased through additional trainings to facilitate the shift from traditional to unpredictable so that they can present solutions to social, educational, economic and managerial challenges under normal and extraordinary circumstances.

8. Limitations and future study

This study has limitations in terms of the following: first, it was conducted in a single program in a single university; second, interviews were conducted with a certain number of instructors actively involved in self-study process and third findings were based on the perceptions of the study group. Therefore, future research will benefit from perceptions of faculty from different departments/programs where students are subject to similar educational and administrative practices in the scope of quality assurance. Moreover, it would be worthwhile for future studies to investigate challenges from student perspectives and compare and contrast findings with instructors’ experiences. It is important to note that the concentration of this study is not generating findings that can be generalized to the whole population of instructors taking active part in accreditation self-study process nor programs undergoing accreditation self-study. Consequently, future studies should be conducted to reach generalizable results to navigate the field of higher education quality during times of uncertainty.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors have no funding to report

Notes on contributors

Nilüfer Ülker

Nilüfer Ülker is an Associate Professor and Director of School of Foreign Languages at Istanbul Technical University (ITU), Turkiye. She completed her PhD in Educational Administration and Supervision at Marmara University and she was a research scholar at Montana State University, USA between 2015-2016. Her research mainly focuses on higher education, internationalization and specifically quality and accreditation in higher education. She has a book; book chapters and articles published in national and international peer-reviewed journals and has participated as a presenter and moderator in several national and international conferences. She has been an international accreditation reviewer for an accrediting agency based in the USA since 2011.