Credit for Prior Learning Policy
This policy was posted for public comment from October 1 – 16, 2021.
Comments
|
I support the new policy. Although I have two concerns that I feel need to be fleshed out: One, this requires qualified faculty assessment (which is good) but this puts a workload burden on faculty. How will they be compensated, especially if it becomes a high volume task for certain departments? Two, while some individual judgement may be appropriate how will depts standardize parameters to ensure a fair decision making process for the student? |
|
I'm sorry, but I am a little confused. Your definition of Prior Learning is: Knowledge and skills acquired through life experience, work experience, and structured or unstructured study which occurred outside a traditional educational setting, such as technical skills gained through training in the workplace or military service, foreign language skills, and academic knowledge and skills gained in informal study. Here it lump life experience, work experience, structured or unstructured training, etc., then 3b talked about documented evidence. A woman who has worked as an Accountant for 10 years that doesn't have a degree and now wants to come back to get one, will not have documented work experience, unless maybe annual reviews. It might be a small company and she learned these skills on the job. They may run the latest Acct software, but she learned this on the job also. I've heard you are trying to separate the work exp., from college exp. say brought in from military, etc., or converting SAT to credit bearing. This is fine, but then you will need to revise the definition or put both of them there. We would also need to know how to direct a student if they requested this. Do they go to the department? You also mentioned they would not qualify for financial aid, but what is the cost. Cleps don't cost the same amount as taking the class. How much would this cost. Is that set by the department, etc. I can see the rationale, but we need more specifics. |
|
I have multiple questions/comments. IV.A.1.b - Although implied, the previous policy listed non-developmental, lower-division coursework. The clearer the policy, the better to support explanations to students. IV.A.2.c - Similarly to the statement above, why is there not a minimum or maximum of credit listed (i.e., 25%)? |
|
IV.A.2.d - This is a dangerous statement. Even though it states we cannot guarantee applicability, it essentially guarantees transferability. The legislation is flawed in that it does not take into account best transfer practices, which would require each institution to obtain original documentation (i.e., exam scores) before posting credit. The next statement is Evidence of Prior Learning, which reiterates the importance of documentation. IV.A.4 - The previous policy listed the process, what is the process for students to follow; staff to advise, etc.? IV.B.3.b - I am not 100% clear on this statement. Does it mean that fees will not be based on credit hours? Why is there no fee for a department’s assessment or evaluation? Portfolio reviews can be cumbersome and time consuming. There is value to that effort and assessment. IV.C.1 - Does prior learning have to be related to a student’s program of study? Can someone get LPN credit if they are studying Construction Management at SLCC? IV.C.1.a - Does this mean that general elective credit may not be granted? It appears prior learning must align with SLCC course equivalencies only. IV.C.4 - Are we taking all these organizations' credit recommendations? For example, our office recently received an ACE credit recommendation based on “Jiffy Lube University”. |
Responses
Qualified Faculty Assessment is Good, but Places Additional Workload on Faculty.
How will Departments Standardize Parameters to Ensure Fair Decision Making?
These are good questions about Credit for Prior Learning (CPL) using Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) and the role of faculty to (a) create valid assessment metrics in alignment with course outcomes, and (b) engage in the process to determine if/what credit could be awarded. The scope of these activities includes evaluating learning exactly as faculty would normally do in their course per the established course learning outcomes. Building on best practices and guidance from organizations like the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), SLCC’s Credit for Prior Learning Director will engage with faculty to develop outcome-aligned assessments and a scalable framework for student experience. It is important to track the time and energy of faculty engagement to ensure that it is within their contracted scope and, if the work extends beyond that, the college will need to explore ways to support and compensate faculty
Need for definitions for Work and College Experience. Highlights Practical Problems Academic Advisors May Have in Advising Students.
These comments, examples, and questions place the PLA policy in context and provides the opportunity to provide several responses:
- Awarding credit for prior learning is separate from transfer credit evaluation. Learning completed at an institution of higher education is assessed and recorded on that institution’s transcript. When an official transcript with a request for evaluation is submitted to SLCC’s Incoming Transcript Evaluation Office, transfer credit is evaluated for acceptance and applicability. When learning is completed outside a formal higher education institutional environment, the assessment of the evidence of that learning is Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) which can then award Credit for Prior Learning (CPL). Evidence of prior learning includes standard examinations (like AP, CLEP, ACT, etc.), military service, industry certification (like LPN license or CompTIA certification), course challenge exams, skills demonstrations, or individual course portfolios.
- Students are responsible to pay for any assessment fees to the assessor (like the CLEP exam, FLATS exam, or licensure fee) and a $3 posting fee to SLCC. Students will not be charged for the tuition & fees of awarded courses.
- Student processes are no longer included in policy documents. The draft student process is attached to this response and will be posted to the SLCC CPL webpage. The CPL Office will develop online and in-person engagement and training for faculty & staff on their roles and responsibilities in the CPL processes to support students.
Additional Responses by Policy Citation
IV.A.1.b - This definition is specific and includes credit-based courses (academic and technical). We added the statement about how developmental courses may not be awarded to the policy, so this section now reads:
“SLCC will only award credit for approved, lower-division, credit-based courses the college offers. Developmental course credit shall not be awarded.” This last sentence addresses this concern.
IV.A.2.c - NWCCU standards no longer specify a 25% threshold for awarding credit. The current rules around completion of a certificate of degree at SLCC state that students must complete and earn a minimum of 25% of required courses/credits directly from SLCC. Students may combine transfer credit and credit for prior learning towards the remaining percentage.
IV.A.2.d - This language comes directly from Board of Higher Education policy R472 as new practice. Awarding CPL for SLCC courses on the student’s official SLCC transcript through PLA is comparable to the student completing the course at SLCC: it is therefore not regarded as transfer credit. Per the new legislation and system policy, credit awarded at one USHE institution will be accepted in transfer as the awarded course at another USHE institution and will not be re-evaluated by a transfer receiving USHE institution. The institution awarding credit retains the original documentation supporting the decision.
IV.A.4 - The processes for students, faculty, and support staff are no longer included in policy documents. Those procedures will be posted to and maintained on the SLCC CPL/PLA webpage. The PLA/CPL Strategy and Implementation Team, with representatives from Student Affairs, Academic Affairs, and Institutional Effectiveness, drafted the student process attached to this response. Under the leadership of the CPL Director, additional processes will be developed, implemented, and assessed.
IV.B.3.b - This comes directly from Board policy R472; fees charged to students cannot be based on the amount of credit awarded. A small, standard posting fee of $3 will be assessed to students in addition to the cost of assessment. Examples assessment costs include examination fees, licensing fees, etc. The intent is to keep the cost for students low which enables CPL to be more equitable for all students.
Regarding faculty value and time, PLA of student learning aligns to the achievement of course outcomes. Faculty will develop standard PLA for course learning outcomes measured by assignments and exams within the existing course. Currently, a super majority of awarded credit over the past two years at SLCC included standard exams and military service. Individual student skills demonstration or portfolio review are PLA options that require more faculty engagement. It is important to track the time and energy of faculty engagement to ensure it is within their contracted scope and, if the work extends beyond that, the college will need to explore ways to support and compensate faculty.
IV.C.1 - PLA will be based first on the discipline of learning. How that awarded credit applies to the student’s choice of major is second. For example, a geosciences student wants credit for CSIS 1110. The CSIS faculty evaluate the student’s learning experiences to determine what credit could be awarded and then geosciences would engage with the student to determine the application of awarded credit to their degree requirements.
IV.C.1.a - The intent is that credit awarded in a specific course already in the college’s catalog. Elective credit in the major may be awarded if it is applicable to certificate or degree requirements, such as “complete 6 credits of any ART course.” Awarding credit without purpose of application to certificate or degree requirements can be detrimental to students, especially in financial aid/veteran’s aid funding
IV.C.4 - This is where the expertise of qualified teaching faculty is crucial. Their assessment of how the quality & rigor of learning aligns to course, program, and college-wide learning outcomes will determine if/what credit will be awarded. Recommendations from outside agencies may be used for reference in those assessments, and they may not be the sole determining factor