Formation Continue du Supérieur

Using ECVET for Geographical Mobility Part II of the ECVET's user guide. This  part II of the ‘ECVET Users’ Guide’  explains the role of ECVET in facilitating the transnational mobility of learners. It presents some possible scenarios for using ECVET in this context. It seeks to encourage ECVET mobility through explaining the added value and the potential of using ECVET for mobility. It is part of a series of documents that constitute the ‘ECVET Users’ Guide’. Download ECVET User guide Part II - Using ECVET for Geographical Mobility.

ECVET and geographical mobility
Substantially increasing transnational mobility of VET learners and teachers, and recognising the knowledge, skills and competencies they have acquired abroad, will be an important challenge for the future. The Bruges Communiqué on enhanced European Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training.
While mobility in vocational education and training (VET) is already happening, the political ambition in Europe is to increase the numbers and the duration of mobility exchanges significantly. Development of learning mobility in VET implies putting in place a range of support activities adapted to the target group of VET learners including for example: language learning, creating funding opportunities or other preparatory and accompanying measures. The recognition of qualifications and the transparency of what learners have achieved abroad are core to mobility in vocational education and training. ECVET was designed as one of the European instruments to improve this recognition and transparency (other instruments being for example, the European Qualifications Framework or Europass).
2.1 Learning mobility using ECVET
ECVET supports the valorisation of learning mobility because:
• The learning outcomes approach ensures a better understanding and comparability of qualifications and learning achievements across countries. When using ECVET for learning mobility, the learning outcomes that the learner is expected to achieve abroad are clearly agreed by the partner institutions and stated in a Learning Agreement. Consequently everyone, including the home institution, the host institution and the learner; have a shared understanding of the objectives of the mobility. Following the participation in appropriate learning activities, learners acquire the expected knowledge, skills and competencies and they are assessed on what they have achieved. The learning outcomes that they have achieved abroad are documented in a transcript of record and thus made visible.
• The validation and recognition of learning outcomes are in the framework of mutual trust among partner institutions.
Individuals’ mobility periods are set in a broader framework of agreements. Partner institutions set the conditions for smoother exchanges of learners and develop mutual trust. They also agree to the conditions under which learners’ credit (i.e. assessed learning outcomes) achieved abroad will be validated and recognised. These agreements are formalised in Memoranda of Understanding.
ECVET can accommodate different forms of validation and recognition of learners’ learning outcomes, such as:
• Awarding credit for the unit(s) of learning outcomes concerned.
• Exemption from an assessment or its part.
• Transcription of the learning outcomes achieved abroad in learners’ transcripts of record.
• Awarding additional credit to what s/he would have normally achieved.
• The integration of mobility into learning pathways.
When using ECVET all interested parties (learners, employers, education and training providers) will have a clearer understanding and evidence about the added value of learning in a partner institution. ECVET can improve the validation and recognition of both key competencies (such as foreign language skills) as well as more technical skills and competences.
Learners will have the chance to enrich their learning pathway by acquiring abroad the knowledge, skills and competences which they would not have had the possibility to achieve in their home institution (for example, because of the differences in technologies used or because of the variety of products). ECVET may also help VET providers to respond to certain labour market needs by sending learners abroad for units they cannot deliver themselves (for example, because of the investment necessary to purchase the technology). For the same reasons, VET providers may be able to attract new learners from abroad.
What does it mean to use ECVET for transnational mobility?
In short, using ECVET for transnational mobility implies that:
• In one country, the competent institution (the host institution) assesses the learner’s achievement of learning outcomes (as defined in units) and provides evidence of the results of the assessment (written statement on learning outcomes achieved or an assessment grid for example).
• In another country, the competent institution (the home institution) validates and recognises credit for units of learning outcomes. ECVET credit points are allocated to the learning outcomes, enabling the learner to add these credit points to those necessary to achieve a particular qualification. The unit(s) of learning outcomes achieved abroad is (are) recorded in a learner’s transcript of record.
For organised mobility (i.e. when the learner goes abroad as part of an inter-institutional agreement), the process takes place in the framework of a Memorandum of Understanding and it is supported by an individual Learning Agreement. Therefore, the learning outcomes to be achieved, the assessment, validation and recognition processes are agreed between the competent institutions a priori thus facilitating the recognition of credit.

Building on the lively discussion that took place during the 4th IAU Global Meeting of Associations in Delhi, India, in April, 2011, IAU invited a number of experts from around the world to take part in a discussion about the need to re-examine the concept of internationalization. Is the concept and the definition of internationalization keeping up with developments in higher education? Is there a shared understanding of the concept? Has internationalization lost sight of its central purposes?
IAU is posing these and other questions in a reflection directly in line with the findings of the 3rd Global Survey on Internationalization. The Survey clearly points out the differences in why internationalization is pursued in different parts of the world and how it impacts on various institutions in vastly diverse contexts. Furthermore, this initiative is a natural sequel to past normative efforts of the Association, such as the Policy Statement and Declaration and Checklist for Good Practice.
The Ad hoc international Expert Group was created to bring together perspectives from all parts of the world inter alia to: assess the extent to which internationalization activities fit the current conceptual umbrella, to critically examine the causes that are leading to some questioning and even criticism of the concept and to investigate the ways to address these concerns. The Group has met for the first time 'virtually' this summer. The Agenda lists the main questions and issues that were covered. The Notes, prepared by IAU following this first meeting, summarize what was actually a wide ranging beginning to a rich discussion. IAU and all the members of the Group are committed to continue this discussion and move forward in concrete ways in an effort to reposition/reinvent internationalization as a valuable and transformative process of change in higher education in the current context.
As it is essential that we keep the momentum in this initiative going, the Group members agreed to use a large number of upcoming international events to raise similar questions and share the inputs that various audiences may make to the discussion. In case you are interested in taking part in some of these discussions, a number of events was mentioned by the Group members.
Finally, IAU will be buidling a virtual space for sharing related papers and documents on its webpages devoted to internationalization. Should you have a paper or a presentation that you wish to make known to the Group, or simply to comment on this initiative, please contact Eva Egron-Polak or Ross Hudson.

What is GIQAC? (Global Initiative on Quality Assurance Capacity)
A global initiative to support of capacity building in quality assurance to:
- Improve the efforts of regional networks to build QA capacity of accreditation agencies, tertiary education institutions, and government staff with QA functions;
- Serve as a worldwide focal point for knowledge sharing among regional networks, cross-regional identify synergies, and avoid duplication of efforts;
- Help support regional networks in the development of their work programs and identification of additional resources to ensure their long-term sustainability. 
Why start GIQAC?
Harmonization of credentials and competencies has resulted in a greater focus on quality factors in tertiary education, while the heterogeneity of study programs and country contexts presents a challenge to uniform quality assessments.  Quality assurance practices should meet international norms, yet be appropriate, sustainable, and based on candid consideration of local needs and indigenous capacity.   Regional networks to support QA capacity building in Asia, Latin America, and Africa have recently emerged with the support of DGF resources.  The Arab States are now proposing their own network.  A worldwide initiative such as GIQAC will serve as an umbrella for the disparate regional networks, providing global coherence, a forum for cross-regional knowledge sharing, and the ability to leverage additional resources to make these efforts sustainable. 
Who would be the members of the GIQAC GPP?
General membership would be open to all members of regional networks for quality assurance, to members of INQAAHE, and to other professionals, university officials, and government representatives working on quality assurance in developing countries. The Governing Board would have one representative from each of the regional networks for quality assurance, one representative each from INQAAHE, UNESCO, and several donor agencies. The World Bank would also be a member and chair the Governing Board in the first year of operation. Advisory committees would be convened by the Board on an ad hoc basis. The Secretariat would operate from UNESCO’s Higher Education Division.
What would GIQAC do?
Spearhead global dialogue on QA capacity building and harmonization; facilitate cross-regional knowledge sharing through seminars and forums; identify and disseminate information on good practices; establish and oversee a global clearinghouse of relevant documentation; support the regional networks in their capacity building efforts which include:
- Technical assistance to governments, agencies and universities to design, establish, develop, or reform QA systems, processes, and mutual recognition arrangements;
- General and specialized training for professionals, university faculty, and government officials who conduct QA activities;
- Staff exchanges of QA professionals;
- Analysis and reporting on QA systems.
How much would GIQAC cost?
First year would be about $1,340,000 (consolidating approximately $800,000 in pre-existing DGF commitments to RIACES, AAU, and ANQAHE as sub-grants); the subsequent 2 years would be approximately $800,000 each year.
Who are partners?
Partners include:
Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN)
Red Iberoamericana para la Acreditación de la Calidad de la Educación Superior (RIACES)
African Quality Assurance Network (AfriQAN)
Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ANQAHE)
International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE)
UNESCO - Division of Higher Education.

By Yana Lapikova. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday Russia should urgently modernize its higher education system so that it conforms to today's demands.
Russia allocated nine billion rubles (over $300 million) to create an innovative educational infrastructure in Russian universities in 2010-2012. Higher education budget expenditures more than doubled since 2005 and stood at 390 billion rubles (almost $14.5 billion) in 2011.
"Now that we've laid the foundation, our next steps should be aimed at modernizing the entire network of higher education institutions in Russia, to make it so that the honorable title of university, academy or institute indeed mean in practice modern quality and ample education, contemporary education," Putin said at a meeting with the heads of Russian universities.
"In the next five years some 70 billion rubles ($2.4 billion) will be allocated to support higher education (federal and national research universities)," Putin said, adding that educational institutions taking part in the program should become the driving force in developing whole regions and strategically important industrial sectors.
Putin also said that Russia has launched a 12-billion-ruble ($415-million) project to attract the best international specialists to its universities.

By PATRICK PRENDERGAST. EDUCATION WE ALL KNOW the kinds of disruption we don’t want: riots, looting, corruption – negative energy that causes damage to society. There is no condoning such ideas and actions. But in the right context, disruptive ideas can have a positive side – innovation that challenges the status quo and creates new ways of doing things, often leading to new intellectual property and, ultimately, to new jobs.
The best universities can drive innovation in society. Innovation is inherent in excellent education, as it is in excellent research – it has been called the “third pillar” in the mission of universities. In the humanities as much as in the sciences, the best practitioners are innovators. They are creative in coming up with new ideas and turning them into reality. When James Joyce wrote Ulysses he was being disruptive in changing the way we think about the novel. Joyce was a true innovator. A century later he might have created Google.
The best universities educate their students with the capability to embrace innovation – and I don’t mean just technological innovation, but innovation that changes the world in all kinds of beneficial ways. Of great interest to us all is innovation that is commercially valuable; in our society, job-creating innovation is needed like never before. By virtue of the breadth of activity in our universities, high-value jobs are being created constantly. Through innovation in education, universities generate income from sources other than the public purse – it is a myth that Irish universities are wholly publicly funded. The reality is, in Trinity for instance, less than half of our budget is a block grant from the exchequer.
One key consideration here is to grow employment for lecturers and teachers, demonstrators and researchers staff. Trinity now employs hundreds of lecturers from nonexchequer sources due to recent innovations in teaching. Meanwhile, innovation from research in science, engineering and technology is a key policy objective. Universities generate a stream of commercially exploitable technologies, and university research has given rise to intellectual property in many fields, such as in medical devices, drug discovery and ICT, all of which offer a potential basis for licensing or the formation of new businesses.
However, creating such commercial opportunities from original, disruptive and innovative research can be a slow burn, requiring sustained investment – global experience suggests the return on investment requires persistence and a strong faith in the global competitiveness of the (mainly young) people engaged in this activity. The real question is how best to build the most supportive environment – or ecosystem – for this innovation. It must be a positive environment where their energies are released in a way that benefits them – the risk-takers – and then society as a whole; universities such as Trinity are vital to that innovation ecosystem. But they are only a part of the total ecosystem. We must not believe that universities can pump out fully formed campus companies.
A critical component of the whole innovation ecosystem is high-quality higher education. In my opinion it is crucial to recognise the core mission of universities in education and research, including imbuing students with a sense of ambition and a global perspective. And to have the confidence that they can create jobs as well as get a job. My worry here is that budget cuts are materially affecting students as we struggle with inadequate funding to deliver an international-standard, research-led curriculum. You cannot teach an undergraduate student how to do independent scientific research when there is only €50 in the kitty to buy research consumables for his or her project.
The innovation eco-system also needs co-ordination of the regulatory and tax issues, legal frameworks and employment conditions, alongside the right kind of risk-taking culture in society. Our PhDs and postdoctoral researchers have a key role to play here. To advance this Trinity and UCD created the Trinity/UCD Innovation Academy working together to create business-aware graduates at PhD level, and funded in part by the Programme for Research in Third-Level Institutions. We must remember what universities are actually intended to do and what they have done successfully as a cornerstone of society for generations. Universities are educational organisations dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge – so while they must be pro-commercial, they will lose their way if they put commercial activities ahead of the education of students by academics who are active in research at the frontier of their disciplines. The way to do it is to integrate the universities students directly into the innovation ecosystem by believing in the transformative power of higher education and research.
Only when we have a well-resourced and balanced ecosystem that fully values quality in education and research and allows it to bear fruit in innovation will we realise the kind of creative disruption that Ireland needs.

By Levy, Daniel. The Decline of Private Higher Education. No topic in private higher education study has attracted as great attention globally as has growth. This is appropriate as private growth has soared to nearly a third of the world’s total higher education enrollment. But while private growth continues to be the dominant trend, important declines in private shares have emerged. These must be analyzed and understood.
What is private decline depends partly on definition. For the most part declines occur in private enrollment shares, rarely in absolute numbers. Declines also sometimes occur in private subsectors rather than in the private sector overall. Some declines are merely transitory. Short of actual decline we also find notable slowing of private growth rates.
After citing notable historical examples of private decline, we focus on contemporary social factors and political factors. The social factors revolve around two main dynamics: diminution of social distinctiveness or groups that have fueled private growth; demographic changes that fall hard on private sectors. On the political side we consider political regime change and regulation, then shifting to analysis of hefty multi-dimensional expansion within the public sector.
None of these dynamics reverses the continued dominant tendency of private growth but they do provide counter-tendencies important to grasp and with potential to accelerate.

Das Organ für Akkreditierung und Qualitätssicherung der Schweizerischen Hochschulen (OAQ) ist damit beauftragt, die Qualität von Lehre und Forschung an den universitären Hochschulen in der Schweiz zu sichern und zu fördern. Es arbeitet fachlich und operativ unabhängig und stützt sich dabei auf internationale Praktiken und Forschungsdaten. Es organisiert und verwaltet sich im Rahmen seiner Geschäftsordnung selbst und verfügt über ein eigenes Budget.
The OAQ began its work on 1 October 2001. The basis for its mandate is formed by the Federal Law on Financial Aid to Universities (UFG, SR 414.20)and Cooperation in Matters Relating to Universities of 8 October 1999 (UFG), the Intercantonal Convention on Coordinating University Policy of 9 December 1999 and the Cooperation Agreement between the Federal Government and University Cantons on Matters Relating to Universities (SR 414.205) of 14 December 2000.
In accordance with the relevant legal provisions, the OAQ has been charged with assuring and promoting the quality of teaching and research at Swiss academic institutions. To this end the OAQ carries out quality evaluations, establishes guidelines for internal quality assurance at academic institutions and provides the relevant services.
The OAQ fulfils a number of tasks relating to quality assurance and accreditation at the behest of the Swiss University Conference (SUK/CUS), the body responsible for coordinating university-related activities of the federal government and cantons throughout Switzerland. It develops guidelines and quality standards for academic accreditation in Switzerland and carries out accreditation procedures on the basis of Guidelines introduced by the SUK/CUS. It participates in international collaboration in the field of accreditation and quality assurance. It may participate in an advisory function in evaluations carried out by the universities on their own responsibility and organize evaluations of specific disciplines in consultation with the Rectors' Conference of the Swiss Universities (CRUS).
The OAQ carries out quality evaluations on behalf of the State Secretariat for Education and Research (SER) under the qualifying procedure for financial support stipulated by the Federal Law on Financial Aid to Universities and Cooperation in Matters Relating to Universities. The qualifying procedure stipulated by the UFG requires quality audits at all cantonal universities to be carried out every four years which focus on the quality assurance systems operated by the universities.

Q&A
- staat voor "quality", "assessment", "questions" en "answers", maar gaat hier over kwaliteitszorg in het hoger onderwijs.
- bestaat uit het Q&Amagazine en de website Q&Azine. Het magazine wordt thematisch ingericht en verschijnt enige malen per jaar, de website is altijd online
- biedt informatie, tips, meningen, voorbeelden en andere inzichten
- is gratis, vrij toegankelijk, interactief en (meestal) Nederlandstalig
- wordt mogelijk gemaakt door de NVAO, maar is van en voor alle bij de kwaliteitszorg betrokken medewerkers, instellingen en organisaties in het hoger onderwijs. Nr. 3: Over de grenzen, apr 2011.

Bestaat de Europese hogeronderwijsruimte?
JA: Ligia Deca (Head of the Bologna Secretariat)
The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) launched in Vienna last year by 47 ministers of higher education does exist.
In fact, EHEA tools have become part of daily life in higher education institutions across this vast territory. However, it sometimes looks as if we need criticism to become aware of the obvious presence of the EHEA. Have we realized our dream - 47 highly diverse, yet comparable, higher education systems that trust each other enough to see significantly higher academic mobility and improved diploma recognition, apart from higher quality and more diverse student bodies at the same time? I would say we did. My arguments? Institutional autonomy, academic freedom and stakeholder participation are just a few traits of the incredibly original European academic democracy which is seen as the cornerstone of the EHEA. At the same time, the EHEA acts as a non-stop debating forum on how these principles can inspire actions for the well-being of students, academic staff and universities themselves. Naturally taking into account the different cultural, social and historical backgrounds. The Council of Europe’s basic values regarding human rights, democracy and the rule of law are also cornerstones for the EHEA, especially since EHEA candidates must adhere to the Council of Europe’s “European Cultural Convention”.
Europe is seen as a continent where quality of higher education seems to be at the heart of every national debate. Although the Bologna Process did not invent the concept of “quality assurance”, it did enshrine a European institutional framework for quality enhancement, while allowing for national specificities. My own country, Romania, serves as an example of the trust these structures have brought about: a university can be assessed by any quality assurance agency listed in EQAR.
Recognition and qualifications frameworks are also quantifiable tools for the existence of the EHEA. The Lisbon Recognition Convention is ratified by almost all EHEA members, while by next year all EHEA countries should have national qualifications frameworks compatible with the Overarching Framework of Qualifications of the EHEA. In addition, an overwhelming majority of the EHEA countries have the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) in place as an easy transfer unit for personal academic achievement. The “Independent Assessment of the Bologna Process” study clearly states that mobility numbers for students, academics and researchers have increased and the foreseen build-up of an EHEA Mobility Strategy says something about the consolidation of the area in the next decade. I agree that the tools described above might sound more appealing for policy makers or HE researchers than for students and professors, but mobility would be very difficult, if not impossible, without them. Apart from the countless newspaper articles disputing its benefits or investigating its ever increasing number of action lines, external recognition is an interesting indicator for the existence of the EHEA. Julie Bishop, the Australian Minister for Education Science and Training said: that ‘If Australia is not able to maintain alignment with these developments, a significant proportion of the current 32,000 European enrolments in Australian institutions may find other destinations more attractive.’
Finally, I would ask you to make a small imaginary exercise. Try to describe your student or teacher current experience without the aid of the notions mentioned above. Is there someone who doesn’t know any mobile students or that has never seen a quality assessment questionnaire? Is there someone who has never heard of ECTS? If you reach the conclusion that the first descriptors that come to your mind are some of the elements described above, then we can safely assume that the EHEA does exist. Still very much work in progress, but surely a reality.

NEE: Karl Dittrich (voorzitter NVAO)
Tijdens de vele bijeenkomsten over de voortgang van het Bologna-proces in maart 2010, constateerden Europese ministers verantwoordelijk voor het Hoger Onderwijs, dat de European Higher Education Area (EHEA) een feit was. Hun redenering was simpel: bijna alle afspraken uit de Bolognaverklaringen zijn uitgevoerd of in uitvoering genomen.
Het gebeurt wel vaker dat politieke wensen en de weerbarstige werkelijkheid uit elkaar lopen. De EHEA is voor mij een van de meest onthutsende voorbeelden van deze kloof. Het Europese hoger onderwijslandschap is op het eerste gezicht eenvormiger geworden, in de praktijk zijn de verschillen nog vrijwel even groot als vóór de Bologna-verklaring. Toegegeven, de bachelor-masterstructuur lijkt te zijn ingevoerd. Er is sprake van een versteviging van de externe kwaliteitszorg, we hebben kwalificatieraamwerken gekregen en met de invoering van ECTS is een eerste stap gezet om studenten en arbeidsmarkt goed te informeren. Maar, wie beter kijkt, ziet meer.
Kijk maar eens naar de wijze waarop de bachelor-masterstructuur is ingevoerd en de moeilijkheden die vooral grote landen hebben om hun onderwijsstelsels om te vormen. Kijk maar eens naar het ontbreken van serieuze vormen van kwaliteitsbewaking in allerlei Europese landen. Kijk maar eens consolinaar de gebrekkige wijze waarop de kwalificatieraamwerken worden ingevoerd en getoetst. Elk van deze belangrijke en kwaliteitsverhogende maatregelen zijn op een verschillende wijze ingevoerd en getoetst. En dat de nationale overheden het niet zo nauw namen met de waarheid tijdens de invulling van de tweejaarlijkse stock-taking – daar is iedereen die het Europese onderwijs ook maar een beetje kent van overtuigd.
Europa heeft meer tijd nodig
Is dat verrassend? Nee! Is dat erg? Ook niet! De Bologna-verklaring heeft heel wat veranderingen tot stand gebracht. Ik ben erg onder de indruk van de wijze waarop met name een aantal voormalig Oost-Europese landen zich op de implementatie van de Bologna-afspraken heeft gestort. Hun hoger onderwijsstelsels worden in snel tempo klaargemaakt voor de mondialiserende economie. Petje af. We moeten ons echter wel realiseren dat de afspraken en voornemens die de ministers in opeenvolgende conferenties maakten, zo talrijk zijn, dat het onmogelijk is om ze in een tijdsbestek van tien jaar te implementeren! Europa heeft dus meer tijd nodig en zal zich die ook moeten gunnen. De startpositie van de landen is te verschillend, de kwaliteitsverschillen zijn enorm.
Meer en meer mengt Brussel zich niet alleen in discussies, maar probeert het de regie naar zich toe te trekken. Het Europese register, de stimulans om quality labels op te richten, steeds meer gedetailleerde regels over de inhoud van beroepen en dus van het onderwijs dat tot deze beroepen opleidt en steeds meer pogingen tot “Europeanisering”. Het subsidiariteitsbeginsel sla ik hoog aan. Het komt steeds meer onder druk te staan door de pogingen van de EU om, via haar bevoegdheden voor de arbeidsmarkt, het hoger onderwijs aan regels te onderwerpen. Naar mijn overtuiging kan een dergelijke beweging slechts met kwaliteitsverlaging gepaard gaan. Nivellering ligt mijn inziens op de loer: het gemiddelde zal gaan tellen. Voor landen die het moeten hebben van hun kennis, is dat een zeer bedreigende ontwikkeling. Daarom mag wat mij betreft de European Higher Education Area nog even een papieren werkelijkheid blijven!

Underserved Students Who Earn Credit Through Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) Have Higher Degree Completion Rates and Shorter Time-to-Degree
The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) links learning and work. CAEL works at all levels within the higher education, public, and private sectors to make it easier for people to get the education and training they need.
Underserved Students Who Earn Credit Through Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) Have Higher Degree Completion Rates and Shorter Time-to-Degree.
What Is Prior Learning Assessment?
Prior learning is a term used by educators to describe learning that a person acquires outside a traditional academic environment. This learning may have been acquired through work experience, employer training programs, independent study, non-credit courses, volunteer or community service, travel, or non-college courses or seminars.
Prior learning assessment (PLA) is a term used to describe the process by which an individual’s experiential learning is assessed and evaluated for purposes of granting college credit, certification, or advanced standing toward further education or training. There are four generally accepted approaches to PLA and, when properly conducted, all ensure academic quality:
1. National standardized exams in specified disciplines, e.g., Advanced Placement (AP) exams, College Level Examination Program (CLEP) tests, Excelsior college exams, Dantes Subject Standardized Texts (DSST);
2. Challenge exams for local courses;
3. Evaluated non-college programs, e.g., American Council on Education (ACE) evaluations of corporate training and military training;
4. Individualized assessments, particularly portfoliobased assessments
Background: Credit from Prior Learning and Adult Student Outcomes
Earning college credit for prior learning can help adult students in many ways. For example, earning prior learning credit can help students avoid having to take courses in subjects they have already mastered. This is especially helpful for adult students who have acquired college-level learning through on-the-job training, work experience, the military, volunteer work, open source courseware and other self-study. Earning credit for prior learning saves students both time and tuition dollars in earning a degree. Advocates further believe that such credit also has a motivational factor, encouraging students to persist towards degree completion.
In 2010, the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) released a report on a multi-institutional study on prior learning assessment (PLA) and adult student outcomes. The study examined data from 62,475 adult students at 48 colleges and universities, following the students’ academic progress over the course of seven years (See Fueling the Race for Postsecondary Success).
Outcomes for Hispanic and Black, non-Hispanic Students Among PLA students and non-PLA students identified by race/ethnicity in our study, we found that for each racial/ethnic group, graduation rates for PLA students are higher than non-PLA students. The most dramatic difference was for Hispanic students at the bachelor’s degree level; Hispanic PLA students earned bachelor’s degrees at a rate that was almost eight times higher than that of Hispanic non-PLA students.
The data from the 48 postsecondary institutions in our study show that students with PLA credit had better academic outcomes, particularly in terms of graduation rates and persistence, than other adult students. Many PLA students also shortened the time required to earn a degree, depending on the number of PLA credits earned. In this research brief, CAEL showcases the findings by race/ethnicity and income – two demographic categories often used to define underserved student groups. The data show that black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and lowincome students with PLA credits have better academic outcomes than similar students without PLA credits. The positive findings for low-income, black non-Hispanic and Hispanic students suggest that awarding college credit for significant life learning could be an effective way to accelerate degree completion, while lowering the cost, for underserved student populations.
Figure 2 shows that decreases in average time to degree were apparent for all three subgroups earning PLA credits, with the most dramatic decreases for black non-Hispanic PLA students. With 13-24 PLA credits, black non-Hispanic PLA students saved an average of 14.2 months for the bachelor’s degree, while those earning 49 or more PLA credits saved an average of 21.3 months (Figure 2).
Outcomes for Lower-Income Students
Although data on students’ income level was not available to CAEL, several institutions were able to indicate which students received need-based financial aid. By examining the graduation rates and time to degree of financial aid recipients, and by calculating the cost savings associated with earning PLA credit, we can conclude that PLA could be an effective way to accelerate degree completion, thus lowering the out-of-pocket cost, for lower-income students. Similar to the patterns CAEL found with other student subgroups, financial aid recipients earning PLA credit had dramatically higher bachelor’s degree completion rates than their non-PLA counterparts (72% compared to 16%) (Figure 3).
In terms of time to degree, financial aid recipients without PLA credits earned their bachelor’s degrees in an average of 42.6 months (non-financial aid recipients without PLA credits had a comparable average time to degree of 42.0 months). However, as the number of PLA credits earned increased, the financial aid recipients required less time to earn their degrees, on average. Financial aid recipients with 1-6 PLA credits saved more than 7 months, and those with 13-24 PLA credits saved more than 11 months.
PLA and Tuition Savings
Whether or not they are financial aid recipients, students from low-income families still struggle to pay for a college education. The College Board recently reported that the median debt of bachelor’s degree earners from families earning less than $30,000 per year in 2007-2008 was $16,500 for those attending public institutions, $21,000 for those attending private institutions, and $30,500 for those attending for-profit institutions (See Trends in Student Aid 2010, The College Board Advocacy & Policy Center. Trends in Higher Education Series).
For lower-income adult students who are facing this kind of college tuition debt, the ability to earn credit though prior learning assessment can have real financial implications, since the cost of having prior learning evaluated for credit is typically less than the cost of the tuition for the same number of credit hours. For example, an adult student who earns 15 PLA credits (The average number of PLA credits earned by students in our study was 17.6) that can be applied toward the degree can save from a low of around $1,605 at a large public university to a high of around $6,000 at other institutions. The table on the following page provides several scenarios of tuition cost savings, using five institutions from our study as examples.
Summary and Conclusion
The findings outlined in this research brief show that Hispanic and black, non-Hispanic students who earn PLA credits had higher graduation rates and required less time to earn their degrees, compared to their peers without PLA credit. Combined with the impressive outcomes of the financial aid recipients with PLA credit, the findings suggest that PLA could be a potentially important strategy for helping underserved or disadvantaged adult populations succeed in completing postsecondary degrees, and at a substantial cost savings.
CAEL’s new online PLA service LearningCounts.org, in partnership with ACE and the College Board, is providing a way to expand student access to PLA generally, but is also working to provide special opportunities to lowerincome students through scholarships and public sector workforce development programs (these are special LearningCounts.org initiatives funded by the Walmart Foundation and the Joyce Foundation). As we serve more low-income and other underserved populations with PLA, we are looking forward to learning more about how these students use PLA, how many PLA credits they earn, and what kinds of work and life experiences are providing them with that learning. This information will be informing how we educate policy-makers, public officials institutions and advocacy organizations about the uses and value of PLA.

Welcome to Moveonnet. Moveonnet provides a comprehensive directory of 6085 universities worldwide and tools for the communication between the international relations offices.

The Worldwide Directory of Higher Education

World Atlas

View here the location of all Institutions of Higher Education. From the world map you can zoom in and geographically view institutions by country or even individually. The dynamic map provides you with links to country and individual institution’s pages in moveonnet containing further information.

Institutions of Higher Education

Here you can find general information on institutions of higher education, contacts, list of partners, information for exchange students, ranking positions, location on a map, etc.

Countries

The country updates include general country information, a list of the different regions/states, links and explanations on the higher education systems and the different institution types as well as a list of the higher education institutions.

Networks

The network section includes general information, aims, contacts and members.

International programmes

For information on international programmes, e.g. Master, Bachelor or Summer courses including description, modalities, contacts etc. please have a look in this section.