1. Applying the Principles of Prior Learning Assessment Debra A. Dagavarian Diane Holtzman Dennis Fotia

2.  From Fiddler, Marienau, and Whitaker, 2006 Steps and Principles  Identification: Review experience to identify learning that is potentially creditable or appropriate for credentialing

3.  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

4.  Evaluation: Determine the credit equivalency  Transcription: Prepare a useful record of results.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7.  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.

8.  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.

9.  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.

10.  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.

11.  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.

12.  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.

13.  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.

14.  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.

15.  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.

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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.)

19. Measurement Measure:  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......

20. 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

21. 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

22.  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

23. Steps and Principles  The outcomes assessment process in AACSB should include: 1. Definition of student learning goals & objectives 2. Alignment of curricula with the adopted goals 3. Identification of instruments and measures to assess learning 4. Collection, analyzing, and dissemination of assessment information 5. Using assessment information for continuous improvement (AACSB Assessment Resource Center, 2007)

24.  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.

25.  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

26. 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)

27.  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)

28.  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)

29.  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)

30.  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)

31.  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