12.4: Assessing An Articulation Request - Best Practices
-
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
In each discipline the traditions, norms, and body of knowledge of that discipline exercise a broad influence over what is appropriate to cover in introductory, intermediate and advanced levels. Additionally, each institution’s academic governance normally scrutinizes and approves every new course and program, and assesses its suitability for inclusion in the calendar. At the same time, the norms of academic autonomy include the right and responsibility of faculty members to design and teach a course according to their own professional judgment, faculty teaching the same course in the same institution may choose different texts, readings, assignments, exercises, topics and evaluation methods. In the same way, a post-secondary course with the same name or title will not be identical from one institution to another, and the degree of similarity may vary according to the discipline.
Assessing Equivalence
There are several approaches to assessing equivalence.
- Content: There is no universal rule regarding the percentage of match since it is recognized that an appropriate match can vary from discipline to discipline. In some disciplines, where mastery of key concepts is prerequisite to success in subsequent courses, it may be vital to have a substantial match of content in courses. Some institutions or disciplines have developed a rule of thumb for the percentage of match while others make case-by-case judgments. Best practice, however, is to avoid inflexible rules about percentage of match, and to focus on discipline and context-appropriate content.
- Outcomes: Courses can have similar goals, objectives, aims, and outcomes, even if the content varies. For example, two writing courses may use different texts, assignments, instructional styles, methods of delivery, and evaluation and grading practices, and yet have the same goal of teaching students to write at a postsecondary level.
- Level: A course which has no equivalent in the calendar of an institution may still be suitable to satisfy some of the elective requirements of a credential. For example, some institutions may not offer linguistics, criminology, religious studies, archaeology, languages, or courses in applied and professional studies. However, if a course is taught at the appropriate level and the standard expected of students is equivalent to that of the credential to which the credit can be applied, it can be deemed equivalent for the purposes of awarding unassigned or elective transfer credit.
Assessing An Online Course
Evaluating a course for transfer credit involves assessing its equivalence to a specific course at the receiving institution. Evaluators must take a fair and balanced approach to the assessment of all courses, and this should be no different for online courses. The assessment must be based on the variables of equivalence, as outlined above, and delivery mode should only be taken into account if it appears likely that it unduly impacts on the equivalence of the course to possible matching courses at the evaluating institution.
If a realistic assessment is not possible, because of the paucity of information provided by the sending institution or the student, reasonable efforts should be made to request a satisfactory course outline, upon which a sound decision can be based. While the onus for procuring this has often been placed on the student, electronic communication methods have made this easier.
However, the reality is that an evaluator only has so much time for the assessment task, and cannot be expected to hunt down information. Given this, it is fair to reject a request for transfer credit if the evidence presented does not allow for an adequate assessment of equivalence, or raises unanswered questions about the integrity of exams, the hours of learning expected, or any other variable deemed as a sine qua non in a reasonable assessment process.
Awarding Credit
For a student, the best type of transfer credit is assigned credit. Transfer credit is assigned when a course is assessed as being equivalent to a specific course at a receiving institution. For example, College X MATH 111 = University Y MATH 100.
Most credentials require that students complete certain courses at each level. Awarding assigned credit allows students to demonstrate that they have fulfilled requirements. Therefore, it is sound practice to award assigned credit wherever possible.
If the course is appropriate for credit in the discipline, but no close match can be established with a department’s courses, then “unassigned” discipline-specific transfer credit can be awarded. This type of credit verifies that the course is taught at the expected level and standard, that it conforms to the norms of the discipline, and that it is suitable as an elective credit within a degree program. Students can usually use unassigned credit to fulfill general program requirements. More general designations, such as “Arts (3)” or “Humanities (3)” can be used where the receiving institution does not have a corresponding discipline, but the course is identifiable as appropriate for elective credit within a faculty or program. If the course has no corresponding discipline, program, or faculty, but is obviously at the appropriate academic level, the receiving institution can use a designation such as "general elective.” In rare cases, an institution may use this more general designation for a course for which they have a corresponding discipline, but which appears to fall outside the norm for how similar courses are delivered or organized at the institution.
“No credit” is an articulation, and will appear in the institutional or provincial/state transfer guide. Awarding “no credit” means that a student is denied credit for learning achieved, and must replace that credit with additional coursework. This is expensive for the student, the institution, and the system. Where an institution does not offer a similar course or program, every effort should be made to award a minimum of elective credit.
There are two situations in which it is acceptable to award “no credit”.
- The course is not taught at the post-secondary level. A course which appears to be English composition, but which is really English as a Second Language, will be evaluated as being preparatory. Many courses are not designed for transfer (e.g., purely vocational courses such as welding, or preparatory courses such as high school algebra) except to similar programs at other institutions. Occasionally such courses are submitted for articulation in error.
- A "no credit" is appropriate when it is clear that there is no possibility of the student applying credit for the course towards any program at that institution. For example, a specialized course in a technology, a practicum course for a professional program, or a studio or field course in a subject not congruent with the programs at the receiving institution may not be applicable to any credential.
A word about pedagogy: normally, how a course is taught is assumed to be immaterial to the assessment of equivalence, but there are some cases where the manner in which a course is structured and taught is integral to content mastery. For example, at one university, in order to assign a W (“writing intensive”) designation to a course, a committee assesses the nature and number of opportunities for students to write and revise. In some First Nations courses culturally sensitive pedagogy may be inextricably linked to course content. In such cases, best practice requires the receiving institution to communicate its expectations clearly.