This article is somehow related:

7 Myths and Facts About Online Learning Infographic

http://elearninginfographics.com/7-myths-and-facts-about-online-learning-infographic/#sthash.zOXQkzvy.dpuf

That's a nice infographic, thanks Hongxin. Without a doubt, an online education can at the very least match one at a face-to-face institution and, on most measurable dimensions, will typically exceed its effectiveness. I still think there are some things face-to-face universities tend on average to do better though, none of which have to do with curricula or teaching. The less tangible benefits of being part of a physical learning community such as serendipitous discovery, seeing people learning around you and engaging with others outside your discipline are seldom measured but often significantly contribute in an holistic way to the overall 'graduateness' of graduates. But that's why we have the Landing and why it plays such an important role! As has often been the case in the past, Athabasca leads the way here.

Jon

While I don't disagree with your main point Jon, that we need accreditation processes that are not anywhere near as dependent on final exams as they are today, I think the criticisms of the off site monitoring are over blown.  We should be giving students choice and access as meets their unique needs.

Nobody enjoys writing a high stakes test, driving or bussing to some particular location, nor being herded into a testing room, nor being invigilated, watched and treated as if they were cheating. Yet this is the procedure that 1000's of DE students endure - why because it makes sense for them - given other alternatives.

Now if we allowed at home invigilation that too creates some inconveniences and the relinquishing of control over your machine, but for some students, this is welcome relieve from the F2F alternative.  If it proves more cost effective and increases access for some, why wouldn't we be interested in providing this service?

Indeed - I do have mixed feelings about it. Face to face invigilation is one of the many reasons exams are inherently a bad idea - they are incredibly expensive, given that they not only fail to contribute to learning but, in most cases, make a negative contribution to the learning process.  While online invigilation may be a little less stressful for some students than face to face, it has to be done in a way that does not induce more fear. Standards for online privacy must necessarily be higher than those for face-to-face privacy because so much more invasion is possible, so much more of the process is hidden, and data collected are so much more persistent. At the very least, it must be made very clear to all concerned what is being collected and why, which may not have been the case here.

The interview is great.I like the proliferation of web 2.0which as Steven rightly pointed out will enhance distant learning.I do notice that he mentioned a book is due to be published in Spring and I can actually see the book in the Athabasca University store.........http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/bySeries?s=DistanceEducation

Great interview, interesting and revealing.