The rise of distance education, which was also triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, has significantly transformed the landscape of higher education globally, providing flexible learning opportunities to a diverse range of students. However, expanding online learning could raise concerns regarding the output quality and integrity of these programs. This potential lack of trust directly or indirectly affects different dimensions of institutional development, but in the end, it has the potential to affect the national and international recognition of Georgian degrees. Additionally, the rapid implementation of distance education has often outpaced the development of necessary policies and frameworks to support quality assurance, leaving institutions to navigate this complex landscape without adequate guidance.

Many stakeholders, including students, employers and educators, but also – most importantly – international institutions may harbor skepticism regarding the rigor and integrity of online programs compared to traditional face-to-face education. This skepticism can hinder the broader acceptance of distance education as a viable alternative, emphasizing the need for robust quality assurance measures that can demonstrate the effectiveness and credibility of these programs.

Considering these challenges, we discuss the importance of implementing robust quality assurance measures across multiple dimensions. First, the national standards have to establish a system of trust, addressing the "rules of the game". Second, the national audits monitor the "rules of the game" by auditing the relevant cornerstones of the standards. Third, the institutions' internal quality assurance has to help to fill trustworthy standards with life. 

To focus on proper integration of distance education rules and best practices in the Georgian Higher Education System, the National Erasmus+ Office in Georgia hosted the Technical Assistance Mission (TAM) on "Quality Assurance and Recognition of Distance Education Programs," on October 9-10. Two Higher Education Experts (HERE) (Karl Ledermüller (University of WU – Vienna, Austria) and Tamar Sanikidze (HERE, Georgia) led the workshop, which was supported by SPHERE Obreal (Barcelona, ​​Spain) and funded by the European Union. 

The two-day workshop examined European approaches and mechanisms to assess the quality of distance education, and Georgia's current challenges, also by sharing best practices. The following report lays down the national standards of Georgia and an analytical framework to elaborate different layers of institutional implementation. The results are condensed by discussing the status of the national standards regarding distance education (elements) in higher education institutions and improvement potential in the different debates the challenges regarding the implementation of distance education not only, but also in the Georgian context.

Legal Framework and National Standards for Distance and E-Learning in Georgia

Recent amendments to Georgian higher education legislation have formally introduced distance learning and e-learning as recognized instructional modalities. These changes create a legal basis for integrating digital education into higher education, establishing foundational rules for quality assurance (QA), recognition of qualifications, and administrative procedures. Despite the legislative progress, several gaps remain in implementation mechanisms and institutional capacity.

Legislative Foundation for Digital Learning in Georgia

The core legal basis is established in the Law of Georgia on Higher Education, which distinguishes between distance learning and e-learning as two separate modalities with different regulatory expectations. This differentiation shapes the scope of use, technological requirements, assessment rules, and recognition frameworks for foreign qualifications.

Distance Learning (Article 47)7)

The Law defines distance learning as an ICT-based educational process, conducted remotely without the simultaneous physical presence of students and staff. Implementation requires adequate curriculum planning and relevant teaching methodologies. Key legislative provisions include:

• Delivery may be synchronous or asynchronous.
• Institutions must employ an appropriate interactive teaching platform.
• Universities must provide user guides or video instructions for both staff and students.
• The Minister—on the proposal of the National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement (NCEQE)—determines:

• Which program components are allowed for remote delivery;
• Rules for assessing learning outcomes in online format;
• Which institutions and programs may use distance learning and for what duration;

• Specific admission restrictions apply to foreign distance education at Bachelor's and Master's levels, requiring legal recognition of foreign programs.

E-Learning (Article 47)7)

E-learning is defined as a modern, licensed ICT-based process designed exclusively for students enrolled in accredited programs in Georgia. It is more strictly regulated than distance learning. Key provisions include:

• Teaching must be synchronous only;
• Institutions must use a licensed Learning Management System (LMS);
• The Minister determines:

• Maximum number of credits/programs allowed online;
• Eligible fields of study.

• Only theoretical courses are allowed online; any course with labs, clinical training, or internships is prohibited;
• Exams for e-learning courses must be conducted on-site, except for fully e-learning Master's programs, where online assessment may be allowed;
• Institutions must notify NCEQE 60 days in advance before introducing an e-learning course;
• Full Master's programs may be accredited as e-learning programs.

Recognition of Foreign Distance Education

Legislative amendments introduced detailed rules for recognizing foreign distance learning qualifications. Recognition is allowed only if the foreign institution:

• Operates in an EU Member State or the UK, offering an online program accredited by an ENQA agency listed in EQAR; or
• Operates in the United States, offering an online program accredited by an authorized US accrediting body.

In addition, the foreign online program:

• Must not include practical, laboratory, clinical, or WBL components;
• Must require in-person examinations.

This recognition framework sets a high threshold, prioritizing rigorous quality assurance mechanisms.

Comparative Overview of Distance Learning and E-Learning

The Georgian legislation creates two distinct, tightly regulated models of digital education. Their similarities and differences can be summarized as follows:

similarities

• Both are ICT-based, remotely delivered modalities;
• Neither requires the physical presence of students or staff;
• Both rely on ministerial approval and NCEQE oversight;
• Both require explicit indication in curricula or syllabi;
• Recognition rules for foreign qualifications apply equally.

Key Differences

• Format: Distance learning allows both synchronous and asynchronous approaches; e-learning is synchronous only;
• Scope: Distance learning is broader, applicable at all levels; e-learning is limited to accredited Georgian programs and selected full Master's programs;
• Practical Components: Distance learning is flexible (subject to ministerial approval), while e-learning strictly prohibits practice-based courses;
• Assessment: E-learning exams must be on-site (with limited exceptions), while distance learning assessment rules depend on ministerial decisions;
• Approval Processes: E-learning requires mandatory advance notification to NCEQE.

This dual model creates opportunities for flexible digital learning, but also introduces administrative complexities and heavy regulatory burdens.

Current Regulatory Status and Existing Gaps

The Minister has approved the maximum share of online credits and eligible fields of study (Resolution 142/N). Additionally, program accreditation standards have been partially updated to reflect digital learning requirements. However, the updates remain insufficient for comprehensive implementation.

Key challenges include:

• Insufficient integration of digital learning standards into institutional and program accreditation frameworks;
• Lack of operational QA mechanisms tailored to asynchronous online learning;
• Limited institutional capacities for technology adoption, course redesign, and digital pedagogy;
• Gaps in monitoring student engagement, academic integrity, and remote assessment mechanisms;
• Absence of a systemic model for aligning digital learning with workforce needs and international best practices.

Implementation Challenges for Higher Education Institutions

Although the legal framework is in place, Georgian higher education institutions face significant challenges in operationalizing both distance learning and e-learning:

• Ensuring continuous compliance with licensed platforms and ministerial rules;
• Redesigning programs and courses to fit synchronous/asynchronous requirements;
• Preparing comprehensive digital teaching materials, user manuals, and platforms;
• Training staff and students in digital competencies;
• Achieving accreditation for online Master's programs;
• Aligning institutional QA policies with national standards.

These challenges indicate a readiness gap between legal expectations and institutional capacities.

To sum up, Georgia has established a legal basis for distance and e-learning, introducing strict regulatory mechanisms to ensure quality and protect the integrity of higher education. However, the legislative reforms have outpaced the development of implementation mechanisms, accreditation standards, and institutional capacities.

A comprehensive, multi-layered implementation framework is required to bridge these gaps. The following chapter of the broader report (as indicated in the source document) should elaborate such a framework, focusing on operationalization, governance, QA standards, digital infrastructure, and capacity building for higher education institutions.

The analytical lens of integrating distance education.

In the context of implementing distance education in a trustworthy way the theoretical lens to identify important dimensions, where measures have to be taken, focusing on an integration of distance education in academic programs. The theoretical framework combines theoretically Halls (1974) cultural iceberg model, with the Strategy, Process and Structure theory of Miles et. al. (1978). The combination of these two theories condenses in the idea that on the observable surface of the iceberg (Halls, 1974) Strategy, Process and Structure (Miles et.al. 1978) are visible. Under the surface there exists the cultural layer(s) that cannot be – in contrast to the layers above the surface – designed from scratch but can be slightly changed by culture-strengthening measures. An application of this analytical framework can be found in Vettori/Ledermüller (2026-forthcoming)

The strategy layer focuses on overarching goals, missions and visions, but also – more applied – policies that guide an institution's approach to distance education. It emphasizes the importance of having a clear strategic framework that aligns with the institution's mission, including the establishment of comprehensive policies governing elements such as curriculum design, assessment methods, faculty qualifications or student support. Engaging key stakeholders—such as faculty, students, employers, and regulatory bodies—in the development of these strategies ensures that programs meet diverse needs and expectations while seeking accreditation from recognized bodies to validate the quality of distance education. In the workshop different strategies of workshop participants institutions. A broad range of strategies were discussed, also institutional strategies, like focusing on face-to-face settings supported, but not replacing them by online learning elements. A clear result of the workshop was that – regardless of a university's implicit strategy with distance learning – an explicit strategy integrated in strategy documents of universities is a very important factor to increase transparency and legitimacy regarding distance learning. 

The process layer examines the specific procedures and practices involved in the development, delivery, and assessment of distance education programs. It highlights the necessity of standardized procedures to maintain consistency and quality, not only for course delivery, but also for course and program development. Establishing standardized processes that are linked to quality assurance mechanisms, such as regular audits and internal evaluations, helps to reflect on the status quo of the system. In the workshop, especially experiences based on the COVID-19 pandemic were debated. These discussions ranged from processes to design courses, to deliver courses, but also to test, purchase (source) or run software tools. Little was done on overarching program-development processes; however, participants agreed on the fact that – especially when it comes to curriculum design of full distance programs – internal processes, that are aligned with a core strategy are key factors of implementation.

The structure layer focuses on the organizational framework – it's roles and responsibilities, technology infrastructure, and communication channels that support distance education. Conceptually, well-defined structures of roles and responsibilities (who is in charge, which roles are defined...), technological structure (eg IT facilities such as software and hardware) and a communicative structure (Jour Fixe and Meeting structure; a support structure for faculty and students...) lays the foundation for a structured implementation of distance education and online learning. 

In the workshop it was clear that participants from different institutions found structural elements in all of the three dimensions, but it was also clear that there was no complete portfolio on structural elements in one institution. For example, some participants defined clear ideas of IT-structure elements such as software tools, but reported lack of support for faculty members and students. Other workshop participants reported about communicative structure elements in the Higher Education Institution, but pointed out that a clear idea of ​​a software portfolio or a central support with technology was not given. All participants agreed that the deeper an institution focuses on full distance programs, the more work has to be invested in clear concepts (eg definition of the three dimensions: what are roles and responsibilities? What is the IT infrastructure? what does the communicative structure look like?) and in its financial and human resources (IT; support structures; not only clear roles and responsibilities, but also employees that fill the roles and responsibilities).

Lastly, the cultural layer examines the institutional values, beliefs, and practices that shape the environment in which distance education operates. This layer, in comparison to the other layers, cannot be conceptually designed. It exists in every institution and is built bottom up – regardless of top-down strategies, procedures or structures. However, it can be developed by culture-strengthening measures in order to support a culture that prioritizes continuous improvement and to contribute to the enhancement of distance education programs. 

A broad range of measures was discussed in the workshop ranging from professional development programs for faculty and staff, which are essential for enhancing their skills in online pedagogy, assessment design, and technology use. Fostering a support structure to help students with challenges regarding distance learning (from time management to technical issues) was seen as an important issue. Furthermore, encouraging a sense of community among distance learners and tutors through engagement initiatives, peer support networks, and collaboration opportunities can also help learners to enhance their motivation during independent learning phases without much social contact and therefore their success in online learning environments. It was pointed out that the learning success of students is directly related to the success of programs. Especially, when it comes to trust in the system, the achievement of meeting the learning goals is positively related to trust. A medical program that can guarantee that doctors are able to do some kind of operations successfully, as stated in the learning goals of a program (eg heart surgery) is more trustworthy, than a program that cannot guarantee the success of such an operation done by one of its graduates. 

Conclusion

In the workshop both dimensions – the legal and the implementation dimension – were compared, showing that a lot of requirements from the legal perspective (eg having a proper online learning platform) match the analytical implementation framework (for the integration of distance education structural elements like IT software are required). Therefore, it was concluded that the law or the standards not only have normative elements but also can be used as an (incomplete) guide to implementation.

Additionally, to the link between the legal dimension and the improvement framework, the following recommendations were discussed.

Even stronger focus on the standards regarding implementing distance education: Many, but not all dimensions ranging from the strategic to the cultural layer were taken into consideration in the standards. Especially the strategic and the culture layer were only marginally addressed in the standards, however the structural and the procedural layer are more in focus in the standards, but all layers are important, when it comes to implementation.

Organizational structure of IQA officers: It is stated in the legislation, that every faculty of a higher education institution needs a separate IQA officer, that is embedded in the faculty. Due to the relatively high variance of different potential organizational implementation of IQA in the international field (ranging from more central to more decentralized approaches) it was critically discussed, if the organizational form must be defined in the legislation. Especially, when the organizational structure that is required is very complex regarding implementation, because a lot of actors must be coordinated within an institution.

Implementation should be guided by institutional strategy and policies: To be consistent with distance education, universities should address distance education from a strategic viewpoint (top down) rather than from an operational viewpoint (bottom up) and must be discussed considering different aspects ranging from the institutional readiness to the program portfolio of an institution.