General discussion and feedback

Thanks Marc,

Exactly the kind of feedback and input we need. I'm not an expert in the US systems for accreditation and value your feedback to design an operational set of guidelines that will work across our six geographic regions and +20 countries.

1. The OERu proposed articulation process will need to cater for US-based institutions where an OERu course is evaluated against the outcomes of your own course / programme requirements. If I understand this correctly, US partners will only be able to transfer credit if the assessment was conducted by a US partner institution? If so, not a problem - we would just advertise to learners that they could only apply the credit for credentials at US-based receiving institutions if the assessment was conducted by a US OERu partner institution. This of course would generate a unique opportunity for US partners to design assessment only services for OERu courses which map to local courses. Should be easy enough to adapt the guidelines to meeting this requirement.

1. Indeed, many countries and national qualification frameworks are moving towards a competency-based approach. However, this is not true of all national qualification systems in the network. I envisage a system which can accommodate the needs of all our respective accreditation jurisdictions. The OERu network could agree that all partners are required to specify competencies / learning outcomes in the course design documentation for individual courses. The competencies / graduate profile for agreed credentials /programmes like the BGS should be developed and mapped to the COL Transnational Qualification's Framework which provides a mapping system for translating between systems based on notional learning hours and those which use competencies. So I think we have a pragmatic solution to address these differences - for example systems which don't require competencies, would be able to map to the notional learning hour "equivalent" for the programme. The reality is that we have international differences in the "course size" in terms of the "number" / "depth" of competencies included in the standard national "course size" and we need a common framework / language to interpret these differences. Again, I think the international qualifications framework developed by COL is a wheel we don't need to reinvent.

Yep - our meeting will provide a pathway for solutions.

• Parent
• More

• History
• View source
• Link to

Mackiwg (talk)‎22:44, 5 November 2014