Credit for Prior Learning - Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
RESEARCH REPORT
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability
Mary Beth Lakin Christopher J. Nellum
Deborah Seymour Jennifer R. Crandall
with foreword by Martha J. Kanter
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 1ACE and the American Council on Education are registered marks of the American Council on Education and may not be used or reproduced without the express written permission of ACE. American Council on Education One Dupont Circle NW Washington, DC 20036 © 2015. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, with- out permission in writing from the publisher.
Table of Contents
Foreword....................................................................................................................................................................................................... i
Credit for Prior Learning Timeline.............................................................................................................................................ii
Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Background ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
What the Research Tells Us............................................................................................................................................................. 5
About This Study................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Participating Institutions ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
Interview Participants..................................................................................................................................................................10
Organization of Research Report................................................................................................................................................11
What We Learned................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Organizational Culture............................................................................................................................................................... 12
Infrastructure.................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Student Outreach........................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Student Support.............................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Faculty Engagement.....................................................................................................................................................................19
Implications ...........................................................................................................................................................................................24
References.................................................................................................................................................................................................28
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................................................................29Foreword Although U.S. colleges and universities have entered same time, they could reduce the total cost of higher the second decade of the twenty-first century, too education without compromising academic qual- many outmoded twentieth-century practices still ity. Frankly, America’s social, economic, and civic abound in our institutions, especially when it comes prosperity is at stake, and we don’t have the luxury to what students know and are able to do when they of time to hold students back or waste their time or first enroll. A research university president has said ours. that at his institution, first-time freshmen can only To advance students beyond the courses for which receive credit for two courses for which they have they already have met the requirements challenges previously earned top Advanced Placement scores the longstanding academic and business models of or comparable documentation. When asked why higher education. Most of us would like to think it’s this was so, he gave a plausible answer: “We firmly not about the money, but we also know that main- believe that students need the entire four years of taining the status quo may be more powerful than coursework and the residential experience we offer rethinking and implementing the infrastructure to to engage, learn, mature, and deepen their relation- advance students’ academic standing through credit ships with others before they are ready to graduate.” for prior learning. Could this be the case? Maybe so. He makes a good argument, but even so, why should But hopefully not! students repeat courses in which they have already Credit for Prior Learning: Charting Institutional succeeded? If traditional and post-traditional stu- Practice for Sustainability introduces higher edu- dents can demonstrate that they have acquired the cation leaders to the exciting opportunity to deploy knowledge and skills readily expected of them in “credit for prior learning” as part of redesigning our the freshmen or sophomore year, why not offer them colleges and universities for the twenty-first cen- the opportunity for greater challenge? The chance tury. The co-authors—Lakin, Nellum, Seymour, and to accelerate? The prospect of entering their major? Crandall—give us the theory, strategy, and process Why hold them back? for faculty and administrators to undertake some Today, these questions are harder to answer because bold, new initiatives for envisioning and creating we are at a turning point in our history, a time when new pathways for students to progress more quickly we need more students to complete their under- through their undergraduate arts, sciences, and graduate and graduate programs of study in greater occupational programs that take advantage of what numbers than ever before. Numerous studies have they have already learned. As a result, campuses told us that our nation needs more highly educated have the opportunity to increase persistence to graduates who are far better prepared than they are degree and improve college affordability. right now for their first job or for advancement in Today, our students are bringing the most diverse their current or next career. set of histories, experiences, and cultures to our These questions also point to the heart of whether classrooms than ever before. We have the opportu- or not higher education leaders will have the nity before us to harness their assets and capabil- interest and flexibility to rethink their revenue ities so they can perform to their highest levels of streams and take greater advantage of upper- academic success in the years ahead. A collaborative division and graduate offerings in the years ahead. academic culture is an essential ingredient for real- They could leverage more robust partnerships with izing the potential of credit for prior learning on our high schools and community colleges, enabling campuses—what better time than now to take up this students to move forward academically, and at the challenge? Martha J. Kanter is a distinguished visiting professor of higher education and senior fellow of the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University. She served as the U.S. under secretary of education from 2009 to 2013. Credit for Prior Learning Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability i
Credit for Prior Learning Timeline
2014: Completion initiatives, state mandates to
2013: CREDIT® evaluates Massive Open recognize military training, and the re-emergence
Online Courses (MOOCs) for college credit of competency-based education in U.S. higher
recommendations, one of several PLA options to education provide new opportunities for the
provide academic credit for MOOCS. advancement of CPL.
2014
2013
2011: CAEL develops Learning Counts, a national
2010: A CAEL study of 48 higher education 2011 online web portal, offering advising services,
institutions and 62,000 students reports that 2010 portfolio courses, and faculty evaluations of
learners with prior learning assessment (PLA) 2009 student portfolios.
credit had better academic outcomes, including
better graduation rates.
2009: ACE reviews go virtual, offering eligible
military and corporate programs a streamlined
1997: The evaluation program changes its name process for program evaluation.
to the College Credit Recommendation Service 1997
(CREDIT®).
1979: The American Association of Collegiate
Registrars (AACRAO), the American Council
on Education (ACE), and the Council for Higher
Education Accreditation (CHEA) developed the
1976: ACE rolls out the first edition of the 1979 Joint Statement of Transfer and Award of Credit,
National Guide to College Credit for Training which was re-affirmed in 2001.
Programs, a directory of organizations providing 1976
training with ACE credit recommendations,
1975
which was published online in 2000.
1974 1975: ACE launches the Credit by Examination
program to review and provide recommendations
1971 for national examinations.
1974: Ten task force institutions and ETS launch
the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning
(CAEL) Project with Carnegie funding, holding 1974: ACE’s Office of Educational Credit begins
the first national CAEL conference to discuss 1965 the evaluation of non-military courses, first known
assessment of non-traditional learning. as the Program on Non-Collegiate Sponsored
Instruction.
1971: ETS and the College Entrance Examination 1965: Educational Testing Service (ETS)
Board sponsor the Commission on Non- introduces the Comprehensive College Tests to
1942 replace the college-level GED tests developed
Traditional Study to create greater access for
adult learners. in 1942 by ACE. These tests later become part of
the College Board’s College-Level Examination
Program (CLEP).
1942: ACE convenes a committee to develop
policies and procedures for the evaluation of
military training, publishing Sound Educational 1918: The Emergency Council on Education,
Credit for Military Experience: A Recommended later changed to American Council on Education
Program the following year and, in 1944, the
1918 (ACE), is formally organized to help military,
first Guide to the Evaluation of Educational government, and higher education sectors
Experiences in the Armed Services. The Military collaborate in meeting the educational needs of
Guide is transferred online in 2007. World War I veterans.
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability iiIntroduction
Credit for prior learning, also known as prior learn- to postsecondary education if more institutions
ing assessment, has become a closely reviewed granted credit for what individuals already know.
topic, more salient in current conversations on While there is an uptick in public support and
postsecondary attainment than ever before. With funded initiatives, there is also a continued lack
the national and state focus on postsecondary of CPL awareness and application across a major-
access, affordability, and acceleration to attain- ity of higher education institutions, underscored
ment, it is the attention to the field as one strategy in ACE’s 2013 brief, Credit for Prior Learning:
for drawing in adult students, rather than the field From the Student, Campus, and Industry Perspec-
itself, that is newfound. tives. Similarly, in a 2012 survey (NCES), only 27
At least some form of credit for prior learning, or percent of institutions reported that they grant
CPL, has been in place in United States higher academic credit to students for what they have
education since World War I, when the higher edu- learned through prior learning assessment, such
cation community was focused on finding options as credit by exam, evaluation of military training
for returning veterans to demonstrate skills and and industry licenses, and portfolio demonstration.
knowledge in order to transition into the civilian Reports from state initiatives highlight the barriers
workforce. Those early efforts led to the develop- that often hinder widespread implementation, with
ment of the GED® test, College-Level Examination more work to be done on the policy side to alleviate
Program (CLEP), and other methods for verifying financial barriers for both students and institutions.
college-level equivalencies. The American Council This research report, Credit for Prior Learning:
on Education (ACE) College Credit Recommenda- Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainabil-
tion Service, with a faculty-driven review, provided ity, identifies and addresses some of the cultural
veterans after World War II with recognized third- barriers and successful strategies to viewing CPL
party validation of their formal training. as central to institutional mission and an essential
By the mid-1970s, many institutions put into place component in the continuum of teaching, learning,
individualized assessments, specifically the port- and assessment. Interviews with leaders and prac-
folio, applying the Council for Adult and Experien- titioners from a diverse group of seven institutions
tial Learning (CAEL) standards for prior learning located across the United States offer insights into
assessment. At the same time, colleges and common challenges, successful strategies, and
universities began to standardize the acceptance innovative CPL practices. The study was guided by
of CLEP exams to meet general education require- three primary questions:
ments, while ACE broadened CPL options through 1. What types of infrastructure contribute to and
the expansion of its 30-year practice to encompass sustain innovative1 institutional practices?
the evaluation of military occupations as well as
2. How do institutions share information with
corporate training.
and support students?
Fast forward to the current decade and we see
3. In what ways do institutions encourage faculty
numerous state, regional, and national initiatives
engagement?
to bring adults back into education to complete
a postsecondary credential. Promising research We welcome the opportunity to share this report
shows some evidence of prior learning assessment to spark more discussion on advancing greater
boosting enrollment, persistence, and attainment. awareness, acceptance, and application of credit for
A recent Lumina Gallup Poll (2012) reflects grow- prior learning options.
ing interest among the general public in returning
1 Innovation includes both the creation and implementation of ideas that are novel and useful.
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 1Acknowledgments The co-authors of this research report would like to thank our colleagues at the American Council on Education (ACE) Center for Policy Research and Strategy (CPRS) and the Center for Education Attainment and Innovation (CEAI) for supporting this very important work. We are especially grateful for the time, effort, and insights provided by the campus liaisons, administrators, and faculty members at each of the participating institutions. This research report serves as a reflection of their commitment to helping all learners reach their educational goals. We also thank CPRS Graduate Research Associates Lucia Brajkovic, Christine Nelson, Dani Molina, and Yang Hu for their contributions during the design and data analysis phases of the study. Finally, we appreciate the sage reflections of Martha J. Kanter, who graciously wrote the foreword for this research report. Credit for Prior Learning Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 2
Background
Post-traditional students, or those who delay entry and also result in saving students time and money
into postsecondary education past the completion (Day 2013; Ryu 2013).
of high school or high school equivalency, can
CPL Language and Definitions
benefit from attending institutions that offer a wide
ACE defines CPL as academic credit granted for
range of CPL options. Participating in postsec-
demonstrated college-level equivalencies gained
ondary education at higher rates than ever before
through learning experiences outside of the col-
(Soares 2013), these students “encompass many life
lege classroom, using one of the well-established
stages and identities” (p. 2) and often bring learn-
methods for assessing extra-institutional learning,
ing experiences from other settings (see Figure 1).
including third-party validation of formal training
Their presence on college and university campuses
or individualized assessment, such as portfolios.
is likely to continue to grow, given our changing
Although this is a commonly accepted definition,
demographics and shift to a knowledge-based
institutions use different terminology to refer to
economy (Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl 2013). As
the practice of validating learning that has taken
the educational demands of the labor market shift,
place outside of a postsecondary institution. Prior
colleges and universities need to be prepared to
learning and prior learning assessment are often
accommodate a more diverse student population.
used interchangeably with credit for prior learning
Credits earned through college-level knowledge
and will be the terms used throughout this research
and skills gained through previously completed
report as equivalents to CPL.
coursework, exams, or work experience can facil-
itate student persistence and degree completion Prior learning assessment methods fall under
four generally accepted approaches: standardized
Figure 1: Percentage of Post-traditional Undergraduates from 2004 to 2012
100
90
80
70
60 2004
50 2008
40 2012
30
20
10
0
Student Veterans Single Parents Racial Minorities
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04, 2007–08, 2011–12 National Postsecondary Student
Aid Studies (NPSAS: 05, NPSAS: 08, and NPSAS: 12)
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 3exams, third-party evaluations, individualized of credit for prior learning. Credits awarded for
assessments, and institution-led exams or assess- prior learning are most often applied toward pre-
ments. See Figure 2 for a representation of meth- requisites, general education, electives, and major
ods used by the institutions participating in this requirements. Seldom, if ever, can credit for prior
research study. learning fulfill residency requirements. Institutions
State legislatures and higher education accreditors limit the number of prior learning credits that can
and boards often leave colleges and universities be applied to a certificate or degree. For accredited
the task of establishing their own specific CPL colleges and universities, this percentage is typi-
policies (Sherman, Klein-Collins, and Palmer 2012). cally predetermined by a regional accrediting body
This can contribute to differences across institu- or state system.
tions in methods they accept and their application
Figure 2: Prior Learning Assessment Methods
METHODS FOR EARNING CREDIT FOR PRIOR LEARNING
Standardized exams are established subject area proficiency tests.
Examples include Advanced Placement (AP) exams, College Level Examination Program (CLEP),
DANTES Subject Standardized Test (DSST), Excelsior College Exams, International Baccalaureate
(IB) Diploma Programme, New York University School of Professional Studies Foreign Language
Proficiency Exams, and the Thomas Edison State College (NJ) Examination Program (TECEP).
Third-party evaluation providers are widely recognized for evaluations of employer- and mili-
tary-based training sessions and industry certifications. Evaluations result in credit recommen-
dations for individuals who successfully complete the training or certification. Institutions decide
whether or not to award such credit.
Examples include ACE College Credit Recommendation Service (CREDIT®) and the National Col-
lege Credit Recommendation Service (NCCRS). Some institutions and consortia provide their own
third-party or “locally based” evaluations of employers and other organizations.
Individualized assessments are demonstrations of college-level learning obtained from work or
other experiential learning such as volunteer service.
Examples include portfolios, demonstrations, oral interviews, or a combination of methods.
Institution-led exams or assessments, also called Challenge Exams, are typically created by fac-
ulty and allow students to earn course credit for which they are able to demonstrate knowledge.
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 4What the Research Tells Us
Due in part to the large number of post-traditional their current credit for prior learning practices
students in higher education and the propensity found two-year, lower-division-only institutions
of these students to bring learning experiences more likely to award CPL credit than other institu-
from various sources, many colleges and universi- tional types, with CLEP the top type of CPL credit
ties offer alternative approaches to validating and awarded by all types of institutions. According to
credentialing college-level knowledge. Research one study, adult students with PLA credit at two-
results are promising, showing that adult students year institutions were “four times more likely to
who earn credit for prior learning have better aca- complete degrees than non-PLA students,” while
demic outcomes compared with their peers who do their counterparts at “4-year institutions were twice
not earn such credit (Hayward and Williams as likely to earn degrees” (p. 38) compared with
2014; Klein- their non-PLA peers (Klein-Collins 2010).
Collins 2010). In light of the potential for Hayward and Williams (2014) extend
CAEL’s 2010 exam- institutional-level research on prior
ination of over 62,000 CPL to improve academic learning by examining graduation
adult student records outcomes for students, rates for adults across four two-year
across 48 colleges and institutions disaggregated by
we must better understand
universities found that 56 prior learning assessment type.
percent of students 25 and how different stakeholders Of the three assessments
older who earned prior learning experience CPL policies under investigation—ACE
assessment (PLA) credit gradu- credit recommendations,
ated from a degree program com- and practices. CLEP, and portfolios—
pared with 21 percent of their peers graduation rates were
without PLA credit. Not surprisingly, students with higher for students who earned credit through
PLA credit shortened the time required to complete CLEP or a combination of CPL methods. Other
a four-year or two-year degree, depending on the research studies on successful CLEP test-takers
number of PLA credits earned. Findings cut across find those students maintaining significantly
ethnicity, gender, age, and socio-economic status higher GPA than non-CLEP test-taking students
(Klein-Collins 2010). Similarly, early research found (Berry 2013). Although Hayward and Williams’
that higher retention and completion rates for study of four community colleges suggests
adults in Central Michigan University’s Individu- standardized tests facilitate degree completion
alized Degree Program could be attributed to the more than other forms of CPL, collectively emerg-
number of credit hours transferred in or awarded ing research suggests the benefits of diverse
through experiential learning (Billingham and CPL options for diverse groups of students—and
Travaglini 1981). the need for further study on outcomes by CPL
CPL may be particularly relevant for two-year methods.
colleges whose student bodies tend to enter with In light of the potential for CPL to improve aca-
college-level competencies acquired through work demic outcomes for students, we must better
experience (Brigham and Klein-Collins 2010). A understand how different stakeholders experience
2014 50 Second Survey from the American Asso- CPL policies and practices. In a recent survey of
ciation of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions campus administrators, students,2 and employ-
Officers (AACRAO) asking institutions to identify ers, Ryu (2013) found that over 90 percent of the
2 Student respondents in Ryu (2013) were ACE transcript users for (corporate) CREDIT and responded only on the use of ACE
transcripts, not on other options or in general.
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 5414 participating institutions award some form of often expressed frustration with the lack of clear credit for prior learning and 82 percent of student information on process, one area that institutions respondents were successful in their attempt to must address in order for CPL to not only gain earn such credit. Saving money and decreasing momentum, but also to make it a well-understood time to degree were the primary motivations and deeply ingrained practice on campuses and behind seeking credit for prior learning for almost within industry (Ryu 2013). AACRAO’s 2014 study half of the 1,348 student respondents. Despite the underscores this need with its findings regarding apparent success of many students in applying the wide range and complexity of CPL practices, CPL, prior learning acceptance rates, campus coupled with the lack of financial support and insti- policies and practices, and types of earned credits tutional tracking. varied greatly across campuses and assessment methods (p.2). Along with that success, students Credit for Prior Learning Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 6
About This Study
The purpose of this study was to understand and field experiences with a variety of colleges
institutional perspectives on comprehensive credit and universities to develop a CPL implementation
for prior learning policy and practice. Through matrix (see Table 1). We used those experiences to
interviews with staff, administrators, and faculty help us identify, create, and describe stages along a
on seven campuses, we wanted to broaden the spectrum of CPL implementation areas, including
field’s knowledge base on how institutions assess student outreach and support, faculty engagement,
and award academic credit, and to fill in some of and campus infrastructure. Using the matrix helped
the gaps in areas with little previous research. The us to identify institutions at different points along
interviews would illuminate the paths institutions the spectrum.3
take toward establishing and sustaining compre- We invited 10 colleges and universities to partici-
hensive policy and implementation. To fill in the pate and held screening calls to determine where
gaps, we identified and answered the following on the implementation spectrum each of the key
questions about CPL implementation: activities the institutions were situated. Each
1. What types of infrastructure contribute to and institution was asked to identify a liaison who
sustain innovative institutional practices? could serve as a conduit for information and invite
2. How do institutions share information with other administrators and faculty with knowledge
and support students? of CPL practices and policies to participate in the
3. In what ways do institutions encourage faculty screening process. We ultimately selected seven
engagement? institutions that met the criteria for the study and
developed institutional profiles for each (Table
Participating Institutions 2). The seven participating institutions included
To carry out these goals, we sought to identify the American Public University System, Bellevue
colleges and universities that offer a variety of University (NE), Fayetteville Technical Community
views of the CPL landscape. The research team College (NC), Graceland University (IA), Ivy Tech
conducted an environmental scan and reflected Community College (IN), State University of New
on ACE’s long-standing experience with credit for York (SUNY) Empire State College, and the Univer-
prior learning, including two years of focus groups sity of Memphis (TN).
3 We used the matrix as an analytic tool, but refrain from identifying where on the spectrum we placed the participating
institutions.
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 7ACE AND CREDIT FOR PRIOR LEARNING
Since its founding in 1918, ACE has had a commitment to helping institutions serve nontraditional
learners. ACE is a national leader in the evaluation of education and training obtained outside the
classroom. With thousands of training courses, reviewed over more than six decades, ACE has
been recognized for its focus on student learning outcomes as a cornerstone of its review process.
Currently ACE’s Center for Education Attainment and Innovation provides the following programs
in the service of higher education institutions and the students they serve:
•• Since 1945, Military Programs has provided evaluations of military training, and since the
1970s, of occupations, to help students with military backgrounds receive equivalent college
credit. In collaboration with the Department of Defense and the service branches, it pro-
vides formal verification of learning experiences that warrant academic credit, increasing
access to postsecondary education and offering avenues to civilian careers and professional
credentials.
•• Beginning in 1974, ACE CREDIT® has helped adults gain academic credit for formal courses
and examinations taken outside of traditional degree programs, including Fortune 500
companies, professional and volunteer associations, schools, training suppliers, labor unions,
and government agencies. Through the ACE review process, employers and training provid-
ers can validate the quality of their programs and support employees and other learners by
helping them translate their learning experiences into academic credit.
•• College and University Partnerships (CUP) collaborates with higher education institutions,
employers, and other organizations and stakeholders to boost adult learners’ postsecondary
attainment by creating pathways to completion. Through webinars, technical services, and
special initiatives, CUP advances greater awareness, acceptance, and application of effective
credit for prior learning policy and practice.
•• Veterans’ Programs works with institutions to build effective programs for student veterans.
In partnerships with other organizations, Veterans’ Programs leads initiatives to help student
veterans succeed in educational pursuits and transition to meaningful careers that take
advantage of their skills and knowledge.
With its current research and other initiatives on credit for prior learning, alternative credentialing,
and competency-based learning, ACE is committed to helping institutions and other organizations
chart a course to expand opportunities for postsecondary attainment.
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 8Table 1: CPL Implementation Matrix
INSTITUTIONAL New/Emerging Stage Developing Stage Effective Practice Stage
CPL STAGES
Has general under- Acknowledges the Has broad and deep
standing and informa- role of prior learning in understanding of credit
tion on prior learning, postsecondary path- for prior learning policies
with demonstrated ways. Begins to develop and uses that knowledge
institutional interest. standard policies and to integrate, and sustain
procedures. systematic and accessi-
ble CPL practices.
Faculty Forms advisory group to Creates venues for information Provides professional prepara-
engagement and study and craft policy and sharing across institutional tion for faculty and staff, includ-
development practice; goes to conferences constituencies and commit- ing participation in conferences,
to learn more; invites experts tees; involves faculty groups research, and writing; encour-
to provide overviews. in developing and vetting ages faculty to include CPL
policies/practices, such as activities in annual reviews, and
crosswalks, mapping, and promotion/tenure evaluations;
articulations. implements incentives and areas
of recognition.
Student outreach Academic advisors and Shares some information on Informs students of CPL options
and support program coordinators help website and uses other venues prior to admission as well as
DE F INI T IO N S A ND ACT IVIT IE S
direct students to current to communicate with students, when they are admitted; pro-
CPL options. such as orientation and advis- vides expert advising about
ing. prior learning assessment; and
uses all types of communication
tools to share information with
students (social media, website,
orientation, and more), from
outreach with potential students
to graduation.
Infrastructure, Scans the landscape for Expands current policy and Selects appropriate CPL tools
policies, and current and informal institu- practice; puts people and that match institutional context
processes tional CPL practices; seeks structures into place to man- and curriculum and recognize
policy and practice models age programs; begins to coor- diversity of learners and their
among peer institutions. dinate CPL-related programs experiences; promotes active
and services across adminis- use of CPL in all degree areas,
trative, student service, and including major requirements
academic spheres. and general education; well-
established policies and prac-
tices promote effective CPL
program and administrative
management. Embeds CPL
within other programs, such as
competency-based learning.
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 9Table 2. Characteristics of Participating Institutions
Program
Institution Control For-profit? Online? Region
Focus
American Public University System Comprehensive Private Yes Yes HLC
Bellevue University (NE) Four-year Private No No HLC
Fayetteville Technical Community Two-year Public No No SACS
College (NC)
Graceland University (IA) Master’s Private No No NCA
Ivy Tech Community College (IN) Two-year Public No No NCA
SUNY Empire State Master’s Public No No MSACS
University of Memphis (TN) Four-year Public No No SACS
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS), 2012-2013
Interview Participants
With the assistance of campus liaisons, the the nature of CPL initiatives at the institution
research team conducted phone interviews with and the ways in which students can apply credits
three to seven staff, administrators, and faculty earned for prior learning. We also asked specific
members at each of the seven institutions for a questions about whether and how the institution
total of 37 interviews, each lasting an average of 60 makes students aware of CPL opportunities,
minutes (see Appendix for the study’s interview supports students who might benefit from earning
questions). The role of administrators interviewed credit for prior learning, and encourages faculty
ranged in position from senior leadership (e.g., vice to engage in the process of assessing students’
president of enrollment management) to depart- prior learning. Finally, participants discussed the
ment chairs, and registrars to program directors status of infrastructure to sustain long-term CPL
and managers. Interviewees shared insights about implementation.
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 10Organization of Research Report
The remaining sections of this research report are institutions as they grapple with similar challenges
organized primarily around the research questions in their journey to advance along the CPL imple-
that guided the study: mentation matrix.
1. What types of infrastructure contribute to and A fourth set of findings about organizational
sustain innovative institutional practices? culture emerged as the staff, administrators, and
2. How do institutions share information with faculty we interviewed highlighted the unique
and support students? importance of institutional culture and context
3. In what ways do institutions encourage faculty for understanding their ability to implement and
engagement? sustain CPL practice and policy. We share these
In each section we share what we learned about findings briefly before unpacking what we found
institutional infrastructure, student outreach and regarding the research questions.
support, and faculty engagement; we first describe Lastly, we discuss the implications of our find-
challenges institutions faced and then strategies ings for institutions at various stages of the CPL
used across the institutions to address these process and make specific recommendations for a
challenges. At the end of each section a spotlight shared CPL lexicon, organizational culture, ele-
of an innovative practice is used to showcase the ments of campus infrastructure, student outreach
efforts of one of the participating institutions. We and support, and faculty engagement.
believe these “policies in practice” can aid other
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 11What We Learned
Organizational Culture required for the development, implementation, and
sustainable operation of credit for prior learning
For many institutions, credit for prior learning
efforts. These interconnected elements provide a
initiatives represent a significant departure in
framework that supports the effective and efficient
terms of how institutions have historically awarded
functioning of CPL initiatives. An institution is
credit. Embracing CPL means first acknowledg-
more likely to build a strong infrastructure if, as
ing that college-level learning can occur outside
previously mentioned, it views credit for prior
the traditional classroom setting. Such a cultural
learning as integral to an institution’s mission;
shift can challenge, and ultimately alter, the way
identifies it in its strategic goals; and sup-
in which colleges and
ports it through transparent policies and
universities engage in Embracing CPL means procedures, organizational structures,
assessing and awarding
students credit for their
first acknowledging that robust leadership, and continued data
analysis on enrollment, persistence,
learning. Organizational cul- college-level learning
and completion. CPL programs
ture, defined as shared values, can occur outside are vulnerable when processes
assumptions, expectations, atti-
tudes, and norms, plays an import- the traditional are segmented, services are
fragmented, and leadership
ant role in the provision of credit for classroom setting. is lacking. Our findings
prior learning activities, a reality borne
also indicate that dedicated
out in our study.
resources such as staffing and financial support
Across the seven institutions, we found that the contribute to fostering and sustaining credit for
presence of institutional practice and policy that prior learning from outreach to graduation.
guide credit for prior learning activities are neces-
sary, though not alone sufficient, conditions that Challenges Institutions Faced
enable administrators and faculty to implement To varying degrees, all institutions faced a dis-
and sustain such initiatives. Participants consis- connect between institutional policy and practice,
tently highlighted the relevance of cultural influ- along with challenges in collecting data and pro-
ences that shaped the context in which credit for viding sufficient financial and human capital.
prior learning initiatives exist at their institutions. Ill-defined institutional mission, policies, and
Efforts to provide credit for prior learning are more procedures. Separate processes or lack of clear
likely to be successful if such practices and policies and recognized policies and procedures can create
are congruent with institutional mission and the ambiguity about an institution’s commitment to
strategic goals of those in leadership positions, CPL. When asked about the sustainability of CPL
two basic components of organizational culture. at an institution, one CPL coordinator was unsure
Specifically, participants often tied mission and of the institution’s commitment: “I think the institu-
leadership to their ability to establish and build tion recognizes the value and importance [of CPL]
necessary infrastructure, outreach, and support for . . . I hope we can move forward with these discus-
students who might benefit by earning credit for sions and have a better plan (emphasis added).”
prior learning, and engage faculty members in the Another staff member reinforced this uncertainty
process of assessing prior learning. by simply expressing, “I’m not sure how we’re
going to [sustain CPL over time].”
Infrastructure
In this study, we define infrastructure as organiza- Inadequate data collection. Five of the institutions
tional structures, dedicated resources, and services recognized that they should increase tracking and
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 12dissemination of outcomes for persistence by CPL While the resources needed to develop and sustain
method. This was evident in the divergent range of CPL will vary across institutions, finding capital for
responses received from the majority of the institu- additional investments could be a challenge.
tions on their capacity to collect and analyze data.
Successful Strategies Across
When asked about evidence, responses ranged Institutions
from “I don’t know” or “I don’t think so,” to “not
Establish clear institutional policies and
greatly” or “not in a formal way,” to “I’m positive it
procedures
exists” or “we keep our data very well here.” Only
Two institutions that highlighted strategies for
one institution indicated that it does track data
developing an infrastructure for CPL used cross-
on persistence related to the use of CPL. Another
walks and/or consensus-building as transparent,
institution suggested that although it has the
accessible, and consistent tools to facilitate the
capability to do so, it does not track students’ use
alignment of policy and practice.
of CPL primarily because “nobody thought that is
important enough” or “[CPL] is just not something •• Develop crosswalks. Two institutions explic-
we award a lot of credit for.” itly mentioned crosswalks—charts that map
prior coursework or training to their college-
Weak leadership. Another concern in sustaining
level equivalent—as a means of communicat-
CPL is having leadership in place capable of driv-
ing approved course equivalents across the
ing change. One senior administrator, whose insti-
institution and/or system. One senior admin-
tution is in the process of strategizing how best
istrator expressed that the institution relies
to implement CPL, touched on the importance of
heavily on crosswalks for two reasons. First,
having leaders who are advocates of credit for prior
to ensure that “faculty are not spending their
learning. After recommendations are made, “what’s
time looking at things they’ve already agreed
going to be required here is better and consistent
to in curriculum committees that a certain cer-
designation of . . . leadership around this issue if it
tification, for instance, matches a certain class.
is to be sustained. We have [dedicated staff] . . . but
And second, so the student has a consistent
given where they fall within the structure and the
experience. We don’t [want] a student coming
other responsibilities they may have, they proba-
in with a certain kind of experience that is well
bly are not going to be super effective in driving
documented [on one campus] and getting a
improvement and change.” Participants recognized
different answer than a student with the same
that in addition to having dedicated personnel who
experience [at another campus].”
engage with CPL procedures and processes, insti-
tutions need to do more in terms of identifying who •• Invest in a high level of collaboration. Atten-
the institutional or regional leaders are if CPL is to tion to a collaborative process was one institu-
take on a greater role for students. Leaders, several tion’s strategy for aligning policy and practice.
participants noted, need vision and the ability to “We put some effort into the codifying pro-
procure the resources to advance and sustain CPL. cess,” one PLA coordinator stressed, “so that
everybody should have a vote in the process
Insufficient financial support. Although few par-
of awarding credits. After a credit evaluation’s
ticipants spoke explicitly of the need for financial
initial pass, it continues through a series of
capital to invest in CPL, almost all referred to the
stages that involve review by requisite fac-
lack of financial incentives for faculty reviewing
ulty and administrators before landing in the
portfolios, and several mentioned the need for
registrar’s office and getting posted online.”
additional resources. One coordinator shared that
Collaboration at this institution goes beyond
in order to build and sustain CPL, the institution
the realm of academics and includes market-
needs “increased resources, digital technology,
ing departments that “help market [approved
and staffing,” all of which require financial support.
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 13credits] to the local and military newspaper.” •• Dedicated personnel. All institutions have
“We want everyone to understand the process,” faculty and staff responsible for handling cer-
the PLA coordinator said. tain components of CPL, but only three of the
institutions seem to have individuals—prior
Commit resources and services
learning specialists, academic advisors or
Organizational structures in place that streamline
mentors, or veterans coordinators—who inter-
and develop the credit for prior learning process
act directly with students to provide them
are inextricably tied to policies and procedures.
assistance throughout the CPL process. Two
Such structures include student service enrollment
institutions described a mentoring process
models, programs for tracking student data, dedi-
for students working on portfolios. One of
cated personnel, and financial support.
these institutions advocates a model whereby
•• Consider a one-stop model. One promising a faculty member “mentor[s] students in [his
strategy is the one-stop enrollment model or her] classes, guiding them along the way,
whereby students are provided services at one and advises a select group of students on . . .
location. One institution structures its infor- organizing their prior learning assessments.”
mation sessions as a “one-stop environment Several interviewees serve in positions dedi-
. . . where there are different key departments cated to advancing CPL for service members
in the same room, bursar’s office, financial aid, and veterans and assisting them as they nav-
testing center, admissions, experiential learn- igate unchartered territory. “We are available
ing credit, [and] advisors” to facilitate stu- to students on a daily basis,” one coordinator
dent access to information and enrollment. explained. “We provide continual assistance
Another institution is transitioning to a sim- all the way through, until they finish. We keep
ilar one-stop enrollment process that will a pretty good database, [and] track them if
provide trained “student professionals and they don’t take classes for some time because
resources; there will be no need to go to multi- of their other obligations.”
ple offices. Trained staff will have access to the
•• Secure external funding. Findings indicate
student information system.” This institution
that when financial constraints limited or pro-
is exploring how to integrate CPL into its cur-
hibited the development or expansion of CPL
rent model.
programs, institutions procured additional
•• Invest in an interactive database. Although funding to advance CPL work through exter-
the majority of the institutions mentioned nal grants. Three of the seven institutions
the use of a database generally or for advis- received multi-year grants either to expand
ing or tracking student progress, one noted their CPL program across campus; map mil-
its use of CollegeSource’s Transfer Evaluation itary training to curriculum credit; or design,
System (TES) as a means of tracking course implement, and disseminate a framework for
and degree articulation agreements. A course student self-assessment and demonstration
description database of course titles, descrip- of college-level learning acquired outside the
tions, and number of credits, TES is designed college classroom. The grants were through a
to automate and streamline analysis of trans- state board of regents, the Department of Edu-
fer courses and transcripts, the administration cation’s Funds for the Improvement of Post-
and maintenance of course equivalencies, and secondary Education, and Lumina Foundation,
communication of course data among staff, respectively.
faculty, and other users.
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 14INNOVATIVE PRACTICE SPOTLIGHT
University of Memphis (TN)
Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning
The Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning at the University of Memphis is home to the
experiential learning program (ELP), a university-wide initiative intended to consolidate and
centralize CPL opportunities on campus. Designed to be a one-stop resource for students, faculty,
and units, the ELP staff promote credit for prior learning options across campus and answer general
questions about converting experiential learning into college credit. Since its founding in 2014, the
ELP has improved the visibility of CPL on campus and added a full-time portfolio coach in response
to increased interest in portfolio preparation.
Prior to establishing the Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning, nontraditional credit oppor-
tunities were available only in the University College, which offers individuals interdisciplinary
degrees not offered by other colleges at the University of Memphis. The initial request to create the
Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning came from the former provost (now president), who
wanted to encourage other colleges on campus to make credit for prior learning options available
to all students.
Student Outreach Lack of student awareness. Without a doubt,
administrators and faculty at all of the institutions
Student outreach consists of institutions’ strat-
expressed frustration regarding potential and
egies to identify and reach students who might
current students’ lack of awareness of both the
benefit from earning prior learning credits and
existence of CPL and options for earning credit for
providing them with the necessary information
prior learning. They explained that if students ever
about such opportunities. The broad goal of these
even learn about CPL options, information shared
efforts should be to connect students with consis-
“through formal channels” is done inconsistently
tent, accurate, and timely information. Common
only after a student enrolls at the institution. One
outreach challenges included forms of outreach
faculty member shared that “when students do
not initiated by the institution and general lack of
learn of it [CPL], it is by accident or they have to
awareness about CPL among students. Our find-
get in front of someone like an advisor or testing
ings suggest that a robust CPL outreach strategy
center person who happens to know something
utilizes technology, initiates community-based
about it.”
efforts, and touches students early and often with
information. Word of mouth as primary outreach. Outside of
formal outreach initiatives, administrators believed
Challenges Institutions Faced that the typical marketing for CPL was shared
All of the institutions had some difficulty identify- through students’ personal email accounts. Like-
ing and reaching students with relevant informal wise, several faculty members indicated that “word
learning experiences or training who might benefit of mouth” is crucial for student awareness about
from earning credit for prior learning. The chal- opportunities to earn credit for prior learning. One
lenge is twofold: 1) identifying fruitful avenues faculty member explained that his institution relied
for potential students and 2) developing touch on students’ personal accounts as a method for
points for enrolled students to continue sharing outreach because they “never had a big advertising
information. budget.” He and others emphasized that lack of
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 15budget, or working at an institution where prior of “identify[ing] people that do [qualify]” early
learning experience is not central to the mission, enough.
results in dependence on passive forms of student
Pursue community-based outreach
outreach (i.e., word of mouth) to inform potential
Four institutions pursued community-based
and current students about CPL opportunities.
outreach as a strategy, stressing the importance
Successful Strategies Across of forming partnerships to improve recruitment of
Institutions CPL-eligible candidates.
Use technology as a tool •• Nurture strategic partnerships with local
Technology can be used as a tool for information businesses. Outreach teams of university staff
dissemination, communication, and to process the or professional recruiters at three of the insti-
awarding and credentialing of academic credits. All tutions are tasked with working with local
seven of the institutions relied heavily on tech- establishments and agencies to identify and
nology to make information about CPL options share information with employees who might
available to students. The prominence, robustness, have significant experience and could bene-
and effectiveness of efforts to integrate technolog- fit from CPL opportunities. A senior campus
ical tools (e.g., websites and targeted emails) for administrator explained that her institution
outreach varied across the campuses, but many of “[recruits] from prisons, the youth opportu-
the study participants believed the attempt was nity center, and the day-care center. Some of
worthwhile given the potential long-term time the employees there have a lot of experience
savings for advising staff. and maybe some college credit, so we can help
•• Improve web presence. Several institutions recruit them.”
pride themselves on having “open and trans- •• Collaborate with local military personnel. A
parent” websites that have contributed to much more common technique for colleges
student outreach. Institutions with the most and universities in the vicinity of a military
developed websites maintained comprehen- base is to target service members and veterans
sive and dynamic pages, some with multi- who often qualify for college-level credit. With
media, which included information about all either approach, administrators discussed the
of the prior learning opportunities (i.e., port- need to tailor outreach efforts to adult learners
folio assessment and exams) at the institu- who they believe are acutely focused on reduc-
tion. Institutions with a less developed web ing time-to-degree, a benefit that earning cred-
presence for CPL had multiple websites, typ- its for prior learning can provide.
ically maintained by offices or centers based
on a specific function (e.g., career or testing Initiate early student engagement
centers) with varying levels of content and Five of the campuses found success structuring
consistency. and facilitating early opportunities for students
to interact with staff and faculty advisors to learn
•• Target email campaigns. Another approach
how leveraging previous experiences might min-
used by two of the institutions was to imple-
imize the time spent pursuing a postsecondary
ment targeted email campaigns intended to
credential.
inform eligible current students about the
available options for earning credit for prior •• Structure academic planning and advising.
learning. Institutions and administrators else- Several administrators suggested that the key
where echoed sentiments of “desperately to identifying students to earn credit for prior
[needing] a diagnostic” to aid in the process learning is to “infuse” one-on-one conversa-
tions between front-line institutional agents
Credit for Prior Learning
Charting Institutional Practice for Sustainability 16You can also read
