Applying the Principles of Prior Learning Assessment

Debra A. DagavarianDiane Holtzman

Dennis Fotia

From Fiddler, Marienau, and Whitaker, 2006

Steps and Principles

Identification: Review experience to

identify learning that is potentially

creditable or appropriate for credentialing

Articulation: Relate proposed credit to

academic, personal and professional goals

Documentation: Prepare evidence to

support claim for credit

Measurement: Determine the degree and

level of competence achieved

Evaluation: Determine the credit equivalency

Transcription: Prepare a useful record of results.

1. Credit should be awarded only for learning, and not for experience.

2. College credit should be awarded only for college-level learning.

3. Credit should be awarded only for learning that has a balance, appropriate to the subject, between theory and practical application.

4. The determination of competence levels and of credit awards must be made by appropriate subject matter and academic experts.

5. Credit should be appropriate to the academic context in which it is accepted.

1. Credit awards and their transcript entries should be monitored to avoid giving credit twice for the same learning.

2. Policies and procedures applied to assessment, including provision for appeal, should be fully disclosed and prominently available.

3. Fees charged for assessment should be based on the services performed in the process and not determined by the amount of credit awarded.

4. All personnel involved in the assessment of learning should receive adequate training for the functions they perform, and there should be provision for their continued professional development.

5. Assessment programs should be regularly monitored, reviewed, evaluated, and revised as needed to reflect changes in the needs being served and in the state of the assessment arts.

Credit should be awarded only for learning, and not for experience.

Make sure all literature, as well

as how staff speak about the

program, reflects this.

The determination of competence levels and of credit awards must be made by appropriate subject matter and academic experts.

Criteria that will be used in making

assessments should be identified

and well understood by the faculty

conducting assessments.

Credit awards and their transcript entries should be monitored to avoid giving credit twice for the same learning.

Whether the assessment is conducted

on paper or orally, a written record of

the parameters of the student’s

knowledge needs to be on file.

Assessment programs should be regularly monitored, reviewed, evaluated, and revised as needed to reflect changes in the needs being served and in the state of the assessment arts.

Conduct periodic reviews of the program,

assess outcomes, conduct reliability

studies, etc., and use the results to make

appropriate changes in the program.

Make certain the goals of the program are

consistent with the institutional mission.

Employ accepted standards (i.e., CAEL, ACE,

etc.).

Make certain that faculty who conduct

assessments have had experience in

assessing college-level learning.

Academic assessments of student

portfolios should be thorough and

elaborated. Written evaluations should be

fairly detailed, and oral assessments

interactive. Students need to understand

their specific strengths and weaknesses in

the subject area.

Make use of the language adopted by the

appropriate accrediting association in describing how

prior learning should be evaluated and documented.

Demonstrate how the focus of prior learning

assessment on learning outcomes positively impacts

the evaluation process for all students at the

institution.

Contact other institutions with prior learning

programs in the same region that have gone

through the accrediting process and ask them

for suggestions.

Become familiar with the appropriate

accrediting association's policies, procedures

and written statements regarding innovative

programming.

Provide a rich and diverse range of

supporting materials to the accrediting

association's review team, e.g., faculty

training documentation, samples of

portfolios, etc.

Identification Identify strengths of program: instructional

materials, process, faculty assessment,

feedback to students, cost-effectiveness, etc.

Identify strong portfolios and experiential

learning narratives

Identify faculty supporters and superstars

Articulation

Articulate mission of PLA program as

consistent with institutional mission

Articulate outcomes of PLA for students

Articulate outcomes of PLA for faculty

Articulate outcomes of PLA for institution

Documentation

Document:

Numbers of portfolios sent for assessment,

portfolios returned for follow-up, portfolios

evaluated for credit/denied credit,

Number of credits granted (overall, by

subject, by where it fits into degree

program, etc.)

MeasurementMeasure:

Student success at earning PLA credits

Types of portfolios most commonly assessed

and most common types of evidence produced

Reliability of your PLA process

Etc. . . . . .

Evaluation

Evaluate quality of student portfolios

Evaluate quality of faculty assessments

Evaluate quality of training for faculty

Evaluate quality of instructional materials

for both faculty and students

Transcription

Prepare a useful record of results of

assessments

Prepare a useful record of how and where PLA

credit was used in degree programs

Prepare a useful record of faculty and student

evaluation of the program

Quality of faculty feedback to students

Student satisfaction of PLA process

What faculty get from conducting PLA

Institutional attitudes and beliefs about

PLA

Cost-Effectiveness of PLA process

Steps and Principles

The outcomes assessment process in AACSB should include:

1. Definition of student learning goals & objectives2. Alignment of curricula with the adopted goals3. Identification of instruments and measures to

assess learning4. Collection, analyzing, and dissemination of

assessment information5. Using assessment information for continuous

improvement (AACSB Assessment Resource Center, 2007)

In an accreditation review must provide evidence…◦ Goals and objectives exist for each program◦ Goals and objectives describe what students will

be or have as a result of completing a program◦ At least one direct measure for each learning

objective for each program and have the origin of the measures—how they were developed

◦ Information regarding the implementation of measures

◦ Systematic processes for review of data, closing the loop.

The Assurances of Learning Standards must be addressed: ◦ Ex: Standard 15: The school uses a well

documented, systematic process to develop, monitor, evaluate and revise the substance and delivery of curricula of degree programs and to assess the impact of the curricula on learning. (AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards, 2007)

Direct assessment of student learning can be done ◦ through course-embedded measures ◦ stand-alone testing ◦ or performance

Assessment Instruments and Measures

As presented before there are a variety of approaches to directly assess student learning-Highlight on ….Selection: an assessment tool whereby students are selected to participate in a program on the basis of their knowledge and skills developed from prior educational experiences. The learning goal can be validated through an appropriate process that provides evidence the goal/s are already prior to entering the program (AACSB Assurance of Learning Standards, 2007)

Ex: demonstration of competency of a second language, demonstration of an acceptable level of writing skills (essay)…competency in technology (standardized test or

user application test can be given)

Evidence in the report must demonstrate that ◦ AOL is a continuous improvement process and◦ Steps have been taken, based on data from

direct measures, to improve student learning◦ Continuous improvement actions have been

taken to improve the AOL process itself◦ There is broad faculty participation in the AOL process (Garceau & Tarnoff, 2011)

The report must answer if the documentation captures learning goals and learning objectives ◦ Connection between mission and learning goals◦ Connection between mission and learning

objectives◦ Distinct learning goals and learning objectives

for each program◦ Well written learning goals◦ Well written and measureable learning

objectives(Garceau & Tarnoff, 2011)

The report must answer if documentation capture stakeholder involvement◦ Which stakeholders were involved◦ How stakeholders were involved (process)◦ What stakeholders contributed:

Drafting or reviewing learning goals Drafting or reviewing learning objectives Developing or reviewing direct measures Responding to indirect measures Review of data for continuous improvement Help with implementation of improvements

(Garceau & Tarnoff, 2011)

Measures and Sampling are Reviewed ◦ Actual measures utilized◦ At least one direct measure for each learning objective◦ Any indirect measures used◦ Origin of measures and logic behind choices◦ Use of measures (i.e., formative vs. summative)◦ Location of measures (e.g., course-embedded)◦ Logic for placement of measures (e.g., curriculum map)◦ Sampling of each distinct student population◦ Systematic process is in place for review of data and

recommendations◦ The loop is closed for each learning objective in each

program◦ Effectiveness of improvements implements has been

evaluated (Garceau & Tarnoff, 2011)

Variety of accrediting bodies Similarities in the documentation of student

learning Focus on the necessity of continuous

improvement and the involvement of external stakeholders, as well as many internal stakeholders, in the accreditation/reaccreditation process