DEVELOPING NATIONAL AND MULTI-NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF PRIOR LEARNING - A SUMMARY OF THE FINAL PLENARY SESSION -


By Ken Blinkhorn
Ken Blinkhorn is currently proceeding on a doctoral dissertation in the area of prior learning assessment at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Ontario.

Dr. Morris Keeton, Director, Institute for Research on Adults in Higher Education, University of Maryland

The final plenary session, "Developing National and Multi-National Standards for the Assessment of Prior Learning - Why Bother?," concluded the proceedings of the 9th Annual PLA Conference on the morning of May 22, 1998. The conference again this year provided a network for individuals, groups and organizations representing local, regional and international views. It also provided a forum for the sharing of ideas on individualized assessment and reasons why adult learners should be accepted as partners in education and human resource planning. A day and a half of pre-conference sessions was followed by one full day of a variety of workshops. The closing plenary focused on a discussion of whether Canada should work toward identifying and implementing national and international standards for PLA. There were several small groups each of which contributed ideas to the following questions: (1) Is there a need for multi-national standards of good practice in PLAR? (2) What are the key barriers to achieving such standards? and (3) How might interested parties best collaborate to develop more widely shared and practiced standards? The session was structured in such a way that the groups would work independently at first, and later share their ideas to these questions by reporting to the larger group.

A panel consisting of Deb Blower, PLA Facilitator, Red River Community College, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Carolyn Mann, Faculty, Credit for Lifelong Learning, Sinclair Community College, Dayton, Ohio; Denis McGrath, Registrar, National Council for Educational Awards, Ireland; and Malcolm Day, Senior Nursing Lecturer, University of Sheffield, UK, presented reactions to the group reports. Dr. Morris Keeton, Director, Institute of Research on Adults in Higher Education, University of Maryland, served as the moderator.

I will present the findings in a manner which follows the agenda for the session by presenting the findings from the small group discussion and elaborate on some of the contributions made by the panel members as a way of summarizing the proceedings.

Small Group Reports
1. Is there a need for multi-national standards of good practice in PLAR? If so, what is the need? Why do we need common standards? What do we mean by "standard" in this case:

(a) the same content and levels of advanced learning for awards of credit or degrees across provincial, national and international lines? or

(b) agreed-upon principles such as in the CLFDB and CAEL materials plus publications of different content requirements of different jurisdictions? or

(c) more specific requirements such as adoption of the same job functions and performance standards for assessors of prior learning (as in NVQ in the UK)? or

(d) what other meaning?

Yes we need standards
- PLA is spreading-can't ignore it
- Globalization impact = need
- variation in educational units/credit hours -- What do these mean?
- search for level of standards is natural and inevitable but from specific place/setting
- different level stages

Concern with the use of the word "standard"
- some groups felt that rather than adopting one of the definitions for standards it would be best to go for a set of guidelines; guidelines could be based upon CAEL standards
- principles of best practice for consistency, reliability and validity
- very difficult to achieve uniform standards because different cultures would need special situation to accomplish their standards (eg. Aboriginals in Canada); establish Minimal Universal Framework which would be more specific as we move into more local situations
- need for portability
- before we get common standards it would be useful to have a common language (terms)
- need for standards for principles, practice, programs - not regulatory standards
- definition should be guidance as opposed to regulation
- from the above definitions choose the first part of (b) and (c) because before adopting (c) you would need the basic principles
- choose definition (a) but include all levels of formal learning and experiential learning
- caution about establishing standards too quickly-need to be adaptable

Why common standards
- variation in education hours
- mobility of people
- going from one step to another
- need standards as guidelines
- maintain consistency
- standards should relate to job functions, performance standards: more specific aspects
- standards could be created through a resource bank of information that is assessable
- when creating standards we have to ask: What are we standardizing? What is the relationship between ethics and technical practice? Who are the players?
- changing circumstances re: learning and credentialing
- shared information: a great asset but must remain flexible
- perhaps a need for principles, frameworks, guidelines, categories, processes, common terminology


Group participation during the final plenary

2. What are the key barriers to achieving such standards?
- various stages of development of different institutions
- lack of accreditation of assessors
- need to understand the assessment process
- whose responsibility is it to develop standards? What are the costs and funding mechanisms?
- ability to translate to own situation
- pull together what currently exists
- variety and complexity of jurisdictions involved in PLAR
- conflicting value systems of existing stakeholders
- diversity of ethnic and learning cultures
- range of types of recognition (university credit; workplace credit)
- gaining support of stakeholders
- lack of awareness about PLAR
- lack of exemplary practices to draw from
- stakeholder agreement on language
- who carries the message?-government/sectors (advocacy supporting role)
- lack of resources: research and training/ promotion and awareness increasing
- difficulty in attaining consensus
- overcoming protecting self-interest or turf
- lack of international organization: suggest MAPLAR (Multinational Agreement on Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition)
- overcoming culture, learning style, differences in purposes of goals (figure out accreditation or just figuring out one's life)
- lack of universal recognition at present time
- still evolving
- varying degree in learning and experience with PLA: everyone at different stage in this process
- variation in job functions and performance
- cultural, language/terminology, state of development, application
- purpose, scale, organizational, institu- tional, jurisdictional values
- return on investment

3. How might interested parties best collaborate to develop more widely shared and practiced standards?
Some considerations for a positive collaborative process:

- start with the learners and their needs
- practitioners reflect on and articulate their values and good practice for serving their learners
- valuing what others can contribute
- encourage inclusive critical dialogue
- include collaboration on the CAPLA conference agenda and address Best Practices/Principles that we are using currently
- chat groups on the Internet: on-line conferences, listserv
- develop a work plan at local levels
- process must be inclusive
- information exchange through WEB Site and Internet: wider use of CLFDB Website
- International Forums: CAPLA in Canada, CAEL in USA, others in Europe e.g. International Association of Lifelong Learning
- working through trade blocks: NAFTA, European Union, APEC
- set up annual conference (dialogue)
- support systems
- mentorship
- establish referral/resource centre
- have to figure out who interested parties are and then decide how to collaborate
- find the visionaries (groups, cultures) who can help keep this process going
- find ways to have open and continued dialogue
- need for an international organization or committee to develop standards
- determine why we are doing PLAR
- look for commonality: ethics, values, purpose, what is your interest, investment? (example: college professor vs. educator vs. government - all have different perspectives
- keeping the assessors in touch with the learners who have been assessed

These are not barriers to be overcome but circumstances to be taken into account.


Group participation during the final plenary

Panel's Contributions and Reactions
All of the panel members agreed that some standards needed to be developed. They also expressed concern that the word standards may have certain implications. Perhaps rather than establishing standards as rules and regulations, standards could be developed from a conceptual framework based on guiding principles. Since PLA requires flexibility, externally imposed standards have the possibility of narrowing the vision by creating artificial boxes.

Standards should be established internally based on the best practices. Since PLA is concerned with reflective learning, the dialogue on standards should be expanded rather than contracted. The panel members also stressed the need to separate the process of assessment from the product. It was suggested that standards should be developed for the process of assessment in a more general sense rather than solely for an academic outcome. The panel also reported that there is a need to separate the process for formal and non-formal sectors and the need to evaluate specific programs.

The main barrier for PLA appeared to be lack of a common language. It is difficult for organizations with common interests such as schools or professional associations to agree on standards let alone three or more countries to agree on learning and assessment. One of the difficulties has to do with the different standards set for professions and the academy which makes it difficult to develop common standards based on best practice. By expanding the dialogue to create multi-national standards the process could become overwhelming and get bogged down. There were several ways suggested to expand the dialogue. These were through conferences, newsletters and journal articles. It was also suggested that we listen to individuals who did not agree with the PLA process to see what their interpretation might be. The panel felt that challenges rather than barriers might be a more appropriate term because it would be important to constructively deal with diverse opinions and points of view. PLA does not operate in a vacuum but is associated with a variety of programs in diverse settings.

The panel presentation concluded with panel members describing ways in which discussions are continuing for developing national standards for PLA practice. For example the CAPLA Board has had ongoing discussions with HRDC about national standards over the past year. The input from participants during this session verified the importance of developing agreed-upon standards for PLA. In fact, this plenary session can be viewed as part of the continuing dialogue.

NOTICE
In the February, 1998 issue of The Hub, the article titled "Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR): A Tool For Self-Discovery" was wrongly credited. It should have read "By Cathy Favre, Idon East Corporation. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.