CCL Home > Reports & Data > Commissioned Reports
November 2007
This work was funded by a contribution from the Canadian Council on Learning. However, the opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors. The Canadian Council on Learning bears no responsibility for its content.
Prepared by:
Joy Van Kleef, Canadian Institute for Recognizing LearningShirley Amichand, Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and TechnologyMarilyn Carkner, College of Extended Learning, University of New BrunswickMartha Ireland, G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education, Ryerson UniversityKim Orynik, Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and TechnologyDr. Judith Potter, College of Extended Learning, University of New Brunswick
In December 2005, the Canadian Institute for Recognizing Learning, the G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education at Ryerson University, the Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology, and the College of Extended Learning, University of New Brunswick formed a partnership to conduct research into quality assurance in prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) in post-secondary education. The Canadian Council on Learning (CCL) awarded the partners funding to support the preparation of an issues and strategies report, a guide to institutions, an annotated bibliography, and the dissemination of the project’s findings. This report is the fulfilment of the first of these commitments.
Empirical data collection was not within the parameters of funding for this project. Our research methodology included literature searches, semi-structured interviews with quality assurance experts at the partner institutions, focus groups with adult learners, and individual interviews with internationally educated professionals who had experienced PLAR.
The purpose of these interviews was to help focus our literature research and identify issues and possible strategies for further analysis. In addition, the project established an advisory committee of educators involved in PLAR development and delivery across Canada. The professional insights gained from two structured online discussions with the committee members contributed significantly to this report.
For the purpose of this study, we defined PLAR as a process that identifies, verifies, and recognizes relevant learning (knowledge and skills) that cannot be fully recognized by the traditional means of credential assessment, credit transfer, articulation, or accreditation. This learning may be acquired through a variety of non-formal and informal means such as work, independent study, or volunteering. The countries examined in this report share this definition although they use a variety of terms. Prior learning is acquired by youth and adults; however, this study focuses on PLAR for adults for the purpose of recognition by post-secondary institutions.
From our review of the literature on PLAR, our focus groups with adult learners, and our consultations with academic experts, immigrant professionals, and the advisory committee, we have made findings in four key areas of quality assurance in PLAR. They relate to:
There is no generally accepted definition of quality assurance in PLAR. For the purposes of this study, we adopted the following definition:
The establishment of and adherence to policies, processes, and assessment practices that ensure that the knowledge and skills of individual learners are recognized so that they can successfully engage in the subjects and levels of learning that contribute meaningfully to their educational and employment goals.
The importance of having quality assurance in PLAR seems obvious. Students need to know that they are adequately prepared for future study and employment. Faculty need to know that academic standards are being maintained and that the process is an enriching one for students.
In addition, the context in which PLAR is currently operating is expanding globally, and, as it does, there is an increasing demand for criteria to assess its quality on the part of direct users and indirect beneficiaries. As employers expand their use of PLAR, either internally or in collaboration with educational institutions, their investments in the PLAR process become more obvious and they will demand evidence of its quality. Workers will want to know that the results of their assessments are valued by their employers. Regulatory bodies need to ensure that PLAR processes do not jeopardize public safety. All of these stakeholders must be able to rely on the results of PLAR. It is increasingly important that educational institutions be able to assure their partners and stakeholders that PLAR is a credible, valuable, and academically sound process.
We examined the use of PLAR internationally and found a pattern in the various ways that quality assurance has been addressed. From this finding, we developed a quality assurance delivery framework based on five mechanisms that can operate independently or in combination:
Several countries, including the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands have passed legislation to ensure that prior learning is recognized by higher education institutions. Legislation tends to provide general direction, leaving the details of implementation up to government policy-makers or the education community. Quality assurance is not always addressed directly in legislation, but becomes an issue of accountability once the service is required. However, in some countries, such as Denmark, legislation has been used to assure quality. National legislation passed by the Czech Republic in August, 2007 establishes an inspection role for authorizing bodies.
Government policy-makers have been attracted to PLAR because of its capacity to reduce education costs and promote access to post-secondary education and lifelong learning. Some governments have developed policies that encourage, or even require, access to PLAR services. Government policy in some countries, such as Australia, also addresses the issue of quality assurance in recognizing prior learning.
In some countries, the implementation of PLAR has been initiated by members of the post-secondary education community rather than by governments. Cross-institutional collaboration was used to establish a common approach to PLAR and mechanisms to ensure its quality. In some instances, this collaboration has resulted in formal bodies such as the Quality Assurance Agency in the United Kingdom, the Southern England Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer (SEEC), and the Scottish Qualifications Authority. In other countries, informal types of collaboration and trans-national collaborations have also emerged.
In most jurisdictions, the implementation of PLAR and the development of methods of quality assurance have been driven by the internal systems of post-secondary institutions. The United States provides the clearest example of reliance on institutionally-based mechanisms to ensure quality. PLAR is unlegislated and institutions adopting PLAR operate without the guidance of government policy.
Non-governmental organizations also play useful roles in promoting the quality of PLAR. One of the most influential has been the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) in the United States. The Council of the European Union is another example of an indirect stakeholder; it has had an important influence on the development of quality assurance in PLAR through research initiatives and, more recently, the development and publication of Common European Principles for the Identification and Validation of Non-formal and Informal Learning (2004).
France and Norway are examples of countries that have combined national PLAR legislation with institutionally based quality assurance. Two examples of a combination of government policy and institution-based mechanisms are Ireland and New Zealand.
No provincial or territorial government has passed legislation to establish post-secondary PLAR as an individual right or to set PLAR quality standards. Nor are there stand-alone provincial policies on quality assurance. However, the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Quebec have developed general PLAR policy frameworks that either specify or embed elements of quality assurance, and Alberta is in the process of establishing one. Over the past 15 years, the federal government and all the provinces and territories have made some investment in PLAR initiation, pilot projects, research, and networking.
It is largely post-secondary institutions that determine when, how, and by whom PLAR will be managed. Collaboration is not widespread. There are no formal collaborative structures among colleges or universities, but there are a few notable examples of informal initiatives on the part of multi-stakeholder groups that incorporate quality assurance (e.g., the Association of Canadian Community Colleges’ Recognition for Learning Affinity Group and the Manitoba Prior Learning Assessment Network).
Indirect stakeholder support has been an important factor in the growth of PLAR in Canada. The Canadian Association for Prior Learning Assessment, the Canadian Institute for Recognizing Learning, and the Alberta Council on Admissions and Transfers are examples of stakeholders that have promoted the use of PLAR by educational institutions and other groups.
There are two dimensions to quality assurance in PLAR at the institutional level: the first relates to policies and procedures, and the second, to assessment methods and tools. Our literature review and consultations with adult learners and institutional experts revealed four recurring perspectives relating to PLAR policies and procedures.
Despite the lack of research devoted to quality assurance in PLAR assessment methods and tools, Canadian practitioners and researchers have been aware of the importance of selecting and developing methods that best fit the purpose of particular assessment situations. Current Canadian practices can be divided into five main methods of assessment: written examinations in various formats, oral examinations, performance assessments, product assessments including portfolios, and external training program reviews.
The value that PLAR brings to learning and assessment processes is well documented. The challenge is to find ways to deliver it with quality assurance without creating an undue burden for learners and institutions. The quality assurance delivery mechanisms presented in this paper create a framework for designing PLAR strategies as well as for describing and analyzing them within and across jurisdictions.
Overall, the attention paid to quality assurance in PLAR in Canada has been inadequate. There is a need for additional knowledge about PLAR – its risks and its potential. Additional research is also needed on how to improve PLAR practice and on PLAR’s impact on learners and institutions.
PLAR is an international practice that has evolved since the 1930s. After more than 70 years of experimentation and implementation throughout the world; there are lessons to be learned. There are strategies that have been proposed and implemented that Canadian institutions can adopt to improve the quality of assessments. A number of these strategies are presented in this report and in the companion volume, Quality Assurance in PLAR: A Guide for Institutions.
The current lack of discourse on virtually every aspect of quality assurance in PLAR makes it difficult to identify priorities. However, throughout our research, a number of issues repeatedly emerged, which suggested the need for research in the following areas:
New information in these areas could generate strategies to improve our understanding of the theoretical aspects of PLAR and our use of available mechanisms for quality assurance.