Comments on the Draft Guidelines for Credit Transfer and Course Articulation
'From Rhiannon Tinsley, University of the Highlands and Islands:
Dear all I have reviewed the draft guidelines, and – as a newcomer to the Standing Committee and its work – I commend the work that has gone into these. I found them clear and well-structured, and the ‘definitions of concepts’ section particularly useful. The draft guidelines present no problems to us in terms of regulatory frameworks, whether at institutional or national level (Scotland and UK – I hope Jo Smedley at University of South Wales will agree with me here!). The guiding principles and code of conduct are both welcome and appropriate, particularly re institutional autonomy, and quality assurance considerations.
The implementation, development of processes and protocols, templates etc will be a key part of the development – but having the guidelines in place will enable this work to be achieved without overly-complicated documentation and bureaucracy.
I look forward to seeing the outcome from the OERu Partners Meeting in Oct.'
Rhiannon—
Thank you for reviewing the guidelines. I appreciate your careful attention to the details, and I am glad you did not have too much trouble with them. I agree that the implementation and the development of our processes will be challenges that still lie ahead.''
From Phil Ker, Chief Executive, Otago Polytechnic (Copy of email posted with permission.)
I have read through this and it presents as sound in all respects, but it does seem a tad complex eg I am not why we really need the three categories of transfer credit. Phil
Phil, thanks for your feedback.
Fair comment about the complexity of having 3 categories of credit transfer.
I believe these were introduced to assist with the information design of the model to be used for developing systems to communicate pathways of study on the OERu website. They should also simplify local work flow processes for partners who require individual articulation agreements to recognize transfer credit, fpr example if the credential is an "approved" OERu qualification, then the processes required for mapping and articulating the OERu qualification with the local credential does not need to be repeated each time a course is approved for credit transfer.
To simplify the generic guidelines, the operational detail regarding types of credit could be shifted into guidlines for bi-laterial or mutilateral articulation agreements which is still to be developed?
Feedback from Registrar at KPU submitted by Diane Purvey
Hi Diane,
I’ve had a chance to review the guidelines and think they’re very comprehensive. The issues that a Registrar’s Office would typically be concerned with have been touched on, with clear language and definitions. It’s clear (and heartening) that the guidelines are modelled after the BCCAT system.
Just a couple of comments to pass along:
- In the Definitions and Concepts section the definition of a receiving institution states:
- Receiving institution is the OERu partner which recognises transfer credit towards an approved credential at the receiving institution.
- I realize the idea is to identify courses and credentials for which there is joint recognition and mobility. However, I wonder if it is limiting to include the statement specific to “towards an approved credential”? At KPU for example, we don’t only award transfer credit if it only applies towards a particular program (since students frequently change direction). We award everything for which we can determine a student should receive transfer credit and then how it is applied towards our credentials is a separate matter. I know it’s not like this at all institutions (some only specifically award credit if it applies to a particular credential, however I think KPU’s method provides more flexibility and ensures the transfer assessments are only done once, meaning we’re not touching a student’s record multiple times based on a student changing programs). As the OERu system grows, I wonder if there might be instances in which recognition of credit might be desirable, regardless of whether a specific credential is identified at the time of transfer? Just a thought.
- Learner centeredness section: Although well intentioned, the first sentence should perhaps follow institutional policies and not be specifically laid out as it has been?
Hope the feedback is useful
Feedback from Jo Smedeley from University of South Wales posted on email list
I agree with Rhiannon that the draft guidelines present no significant problems. Obviously, there are often some localised aspects to consider with credit transfer but this information is a valuable framework to work within.
To make absolutely certain from an institutional perspective, the information is currently with our Academic Standards and Quality Service (ASAQS). When I receive a response from them, I will provide any further pieces of information which they highlight.
Good to see this progressing.
Any queries at this stage, please let me know.
Feedback from University of Wollongong Academic Quality and Policy unit
I’ve had a read through the proposed guidelines and don’t see any reasons why the guidelines could not work harmoniously with our institutional Credit Policy. The guidelines explicitly states that two of the guiding principle is Institutional Autonomy (specifically “OERu partners retain decision-making autonomy regarding all aspects of credit transfer, summative assessment practices and local pricing for assessment services”) and Institutional policy takes precedence (specifically, “OERu partners operate within the parameters of existing institutional policies but seek to promote common linkages, practices and articulation among partners to promote mobility of credentials for OERu learners within the network. This means that the OERu transfer system operates within local institutional residency requirements and/or any prerequisites for transfer credit.”)
While the terminology they use is quite different to how we describe things at UOW, the definitions do explain how they are intending the terms to be understood.
We should note that in addition to the requirements in the guidelines UOW requires the following:
Formal Credit Arrangements with Other Institutions
- "The University’s formal credit transfer arrangements with other institutions are listed on the University website.
- All of the University’s formal credit transfer arrangements with other institutions are approved and reviewed as part of the course approval and review cycle and in accordance with the Credit for Prior Learning Procedures.
- Types of Formal Credit Arrangements:
- Articulation arrangements enable students to progress from a completed qualification at a partner institution to UOW with credit and/or admission in a defined qualification pathway.
- Credit transfer arrangements provide students from a partner institution with agreed and consistent credit outcomes for components of a qualification based on identified equivalence in content and learning outcomes between matched qualifications.
- Articulation and credit transfer agreements within the provisions of this policy are approved by the relevant Executive Dean on the advice of the relevant Associate Dean, Head of School or Head of Students where appropriate.
- All such agreements with non-Australian education providers must be reported to the Transnational Education Strategic Alliances (TESA) Committee and the Director of Student Services and will be added to a central register of articulation agreements.
- All such agreements with Australian providers must be reported to the Director of Student Services and will be added to a central register of articulation agreements." (With attribution to the University of Wollongong - cited here under the provisions of fair dealing.)
