Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Flexible paths to assessment for OER learners: A comparative study
Dianne Conrad and Rory McGrealAthabasca University
OER12Cambridge, UKApril 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
Jim Taylor, USQ
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
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) USAAPEL (Accreditation of Prior and Experiential Learning) UKAPL (Assessment of Prior Learning) USARPL (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 institutionNon-formal learning: workplace, societies, organisations, unionsInformal 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/schools-departments/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)
EducationOur Content
Our Support
Our StudentsJudith Murray, TRU
EducationAny Content
Any Support
Any studentsJudith Murray, TRU
OUR ASSESSMENT
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
