Flexible paths to assessment for
OER learners: A comparative study
Dianne Conrad and Rory McGreal
Athabasca University
OER12
Cambridge, UK
April 16, 2012
Outline
The issue
The research
Findings
Related thoughts
Concluding remarks, questions
The issue
Learners who access OER and
acquire knowledge/skills cannot
have their learning assessed and
accredited
Freedom, accessibility for learners
To enrol in and complete courses at institutions of their
choice
To change institutions as they strive to complete a
program/programs
To transfer credits among institutions nationally and
internationally
To have prior learning assessed and accredited
Research objectives
Map existing types of assessment/accreditation
Analyze and evaluate scalable approaches
Document lessons learned
Propose recommendations/way forward
Research study
SSHRC-funded (Canadian academic funding agency)
One year
31 post secondary institutions
10 countries
Open Educational Resource University (OERu)
Why OERu?
Present systems are unsustainable.
Present systems are not scalable for universal education.
We must find new more cost-effective learning systems with
higher quality.
OER will form part of this solution:
How many learners??
OER University Concept
Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 License
Jim Taylor, USQ
Findings
Perceptions of the nature of prior learning
Types of assessment protocols
Costs
Prior learning: Language
PLAR (Prior Learning Assessment and
Recognition) in Canada
PLA (Prior Learning Assessment) USA
APEL (Accreditation of Prior and Experiential
Learning) UK
APL (Assessment of Prior Learning) USA
RPL (Recognition of Prior Learning) South
Africa, Canada
Perceptions of the nature of prior learning
Understanding of prior learning follows divisions of
formal, informal, and non-formal learning:
Formal learning: a credentialing institution
Non-formal learning: workplace, societies,
organisations, unions
Informal learning: experiential or
happenstance
Rationale for its use includes issues of fairness,
access, and economy.
Some examples of definitions from policy
statements: UNISA
Recognition for prior learning (RPL) means the
comparison of the previous learning and experience of
a learner, howsoever obtained, to the learning
outcomes required for a specified qualification, and the
acceptance for purposes of qualification of that which
meets the requirements. (Definition accepted by SAQA,
Regulation 452, No 18787, March 1998)
Australian Qualifications Framework
Council
Recognition of prior learning is an
assessment process that involves
assessment of an individual’s
relevant prior learning (including
formal, informal and non-formal
learning) to determine the credit
outcomes of an individual
application for credit. (National
Quality Council Training packages
glossary)
Otago Polytechnic (New Zealand)
Assessment of Prior Learning (APL) and
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) are an
internationally-recognised, academically
valid way of recognising the knowledge that
people have gained through their
experience.
http://www.otagopolytechnic.ac.nz/schoolsdepartments/prior-learning-capable-nz.html.
USA: Shoreline Community College and
University of Memphis
Credit for prior experiential learning is awarded
only for college-level learning and must be
related to the theories, practices, and content of
the relevant academic field. (SCC, Policy 5162)
Experiential Learning Credit (ELC) is college
credit which is awarded based on formal and
informal learning that results from worksite
training, professional organization certification,
community volunteerism, and unique life
experiences.
Types of assessment protocols
Language confusion thickens
Initial distinction involves ‘transfer credit’: AU, Capella, Eastern
Michigan State, Empire State College, Massey University
AU: Transfer credit first
University of Leicester: APCL (a credential exists); APEL
Wawasan Open University (Malaysia): distinguishes
between CA (Certificate Attestation) and WE (Work
Experience)
Types of assessments
Costs
A large variety of pricing models exist.
Pricing models are dependent on institutional
placement and approach to RPL, on type of service, on
policy.
Cost comparison of pricing models is complicated by
program structures, degrees of government funding,
fee differentiation among student population, fixed fee
versus variable fee models and combinations of both.
Examples of fee types
Related thoughts: The understandable,
the irrefutable, and the possible
RPL paradigm is well understood and articulated across
practicing institutions.
Globally, institutions weigh and discuss similar RPL issues:
access, quality, rigor, quality, policy, internal structures, learner
support, assessment, cost, pedagogy, learners’ writing ability,
fairness, culture.
A varied methodological approach is acknowledged: portfolios,
exams, interviews, demonstrations, workshop or course
enrolment.
RPL processes include facilitators, coaches, mentors, advisors.
Costs and pricing models vary widely.
The possible
RPL “offers a contestable and ambiguous terrain
where different socio-economic and cultural
assumptions and strategies can be differentially
articulated. As a field of tension, it can be
exploited by different groups, each emphasizing
certain dimensions over others.” (Usher, Bryant,
and Johnston, 1997,105)
Our Students
Judith Murray, TRU
Our
Content
Education
Our
Support
Any students
Judith Murray, TRU
Any
Content
Education
Any
Support
Also possible…
New, cost-effective hybrid solutions?
Integrated assessment protocols (transfer credit,
challenge-for-credit, portfolio learning)
Enhanced portability for learners’ learning
Increased access for learners
Thank you
Dr. Dianne Conrad
Dr. Rory McGreal
diannec@athabascau.ca
rory@athabascau.ca