12.3: Requesting Articulation - Best Practices
-
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
Developing A New Course
Every course fulfills multiple objectives for students, instructors, departments, and institutions, and all those objectives must be taken into account as the course is being developed. Sometimes other objectives are more important than that of transferability. For example, if a college has determined that students have difficulty with certain content, it may develop a remedial course designed to bring them up to the standard of knowledge required for subsequent success in the discipline. This is sound pedagogical practice, even though the course may be denied transfer credit because it is viewed as preparatory. There are other reasons why a course may be difficult to articulate: it may be unique in the system, for example, or may be offered in response to localized social or economic conditions, or to take advantage of faculty specialization. At the same time, if a course is designed to transfer, it must be consistent with the norms, content and standards of the receiving institutions with which articulation is sought. It does not have to be identical to a course at a receiving institution—in fact, if it is to articulate widely, it must often integrate aspects of similar courses at several institutions.
The Course Outline
A detailed course outline is the starting point of any articulation process, since articulation demands a close examination of course elements in order to establish equivalence. While most institutions have developed satisfactory course outline templates for traditional courses, they do not always contain the level of detail necessary to establish equivalence. In the case of an outline for a new online course, besides ensuring it contains all the necessary information to ensure that an assessor can determine equivalence, special attention should be paid to the following course elements:
-
Student evaluation, including how exams are safe-guarded, and authentication measures to identify students taking exams. The importance of providing this information can not be overstated. The CIHE Best Practices document states:
When examinations are employed (paper, online, demonstrations of competency, etc.), they take place in circumstances that include firm student identification. The institution otherwise seeks to assure the integrity of student work.
- If proctoring is used, what are the procedures for selecting proctors, establishing student identity, assuring security of test instruments, administering the examinations, and assuring secure and prompt evaluation?
- If other methods are used to identify those who take the examination, how is identification firmly established? How are the conditions of the examination (security, time limits, etc.) controlled?
- Does the institution have in place effective policies and procedures to assure the integrity of student work?
- How hours are assessed, and what is expected from the student for hours of learning versus hours of instruction.
- How labs, practica, field work, or other non-classroom requirements are supervised and assessed.
-
Expectation regarding academic honesty. For example, the student Handbook for Charter Oak College in Connecticut (
http://www.charteroak.edu
) states:
For academic dishonesty, which shall in general mean conduct, which has as its intent or effect the false misrepresentation of a student’s academic performance including but not limited to:
- cheating on examination;
- plagiarizing, including submission of another’s ideas or papers as one’s own;
- stealing or having unauthorized access to examinations;
- falsifying records, transcripts, test scores or other data or (being represented by another individual for all or part of a distance learning course.
By registering for a Distance Learning course, a student attests that all assignments submitted and examinations completed are the work of the enrolled student. Dishonesty will result in an "F" in the course and may incur other disciplinary action for Charter Oak State College students including dismissal from the College.
- How student learning is supported in the online environment, including provision for collaboration between students and interaction with instructors.
- How library or other learning resources are accessed and used and the expectations for original research and use of such resources.
- Links to institutional and program URLs, and to any additional helpful information such as institutional policies regarding instructor credentials, lists of faculty associated with the program, or institutional or program accreditation or authorization.
- Whenever possible, a statement specifying what general or specific transfer credit the course should be awarded, including the year level credit. If the course has already been offered, existing articulations should be listed, along with a link to any online transfer guide containing that listing.
All course outlines should provide a detailed list of the topics covered, even if learning outcomes are also specified. Faculty members at institutions that do not design their courses from an outcomes perspective need detailed topic-based information to determine the best transfer equivalence.
Prior to Requesting Articulation
Check existing articulations. Search your state or provincial transfer guides, or those for nearby institutions, for similar courses. By this means it is possible to establish which other sending institutions have equivalent courses already receiving transfer credit. Those course outlines may be instructive, since they already receive the desired credit.
Consult colleagues. Once a draft course outline is ready, a developer can use the expertise of articulation committee members or willing colleagues for advice or feedback.
Reflect on, and balance advice received. Asking for advice and feedback on a course can be a sensitive area for faculty. Professional responsibility and autonomy include the freedom to develop and teach a course according to one’s professional judgment. Requesting advice from a faculty member at the receiving institution acknowledges that the receiving institution may exert some influence over the content or the structure of the course. Occasionally, a faculty member from a receiving institution responds by requesting modifications that may be unacceptable to the sending institution or that may compromise the transferability of the course at other institutions. In these instances, best practice involves communicating as diplomatically as possible and seeking a mutually acceptable solution.
Decide when “no credit” is acceptable. It is recognized that in some instances an award of “no credit” is appropriate, and is acceptable to the sending institution. For example, it may be important that students understand clearly that a course will not receive transfer credit at certain institutions, since they will then be in a better position to plan their transfer program. If an award of “no credit” is not acceptable, continued negotiation will be necessary.
Ensure that students are clear about transfer credit. Many student complaints about transfer credit occur because of a false expectation that a course will transfer, or will transfer as assigned credit rather than unassigned credit, or will satisfy a program requirement. Instructors should include information regarding course transferability in course syllabi, wherever possible.
Re-Articulating An Existing Course
Many online courses have already been delivered for years in traditional face-to-face mode. When a course has been redeveloped for online delivery, the question arises whether or not it should be re-articulated. However, once a course has been articulated and transfer credit established, it should be re-articulated only if the redevelopment results in substantive change.
- Substantive change to content or subject matter, or to objectives or outcomes. Course articulation is based on the principle of the equivalence of academic achievement and of knowledge and skills. Substantive changes, therefore, are changes to the content, subject matter, topics covered, or objectives/outcomes that will alter the equivalence of the course and therefore will likely the transfer credit which the course is awarded at other institutions. This is not intended to include relatively minor changes in topics, changes in texts, materials, or assignments, reasonable modifications to learning outcomes, or changes intended to update the course or keep it in line with the evolving norms of the discipline. Nor is it intended to include change in delivery mode, unless that change substantively affects the elements listed above.
- Substantive changes to assessment criteria or evaluation methods, only if certain assessment methods or weighting are integral to the articulation of a course. For example, some institutions require all courses, or certain courses, to have a final exam, and some require that a percentage of the final grade be based on a final exam. In the case of online courses, changes in evaluation methods may be considered substantive if, for example, they impact on the perceived integrity of the exams or assignments.
- Changes to the number of credits assigned to the course, or to the number of contact hours. Normally, a change to credit hours signals that content has been added or subtracted. Such changes affect equivalence and in turn the transfer credit assigned to the courses, including the number of credits awarded. Therefore re-articulation is appropriate.