{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-01fa354590d08bef","slug":"2006-05-04-from-review-findings-to-sustained-improvement-in-recognition-of-prior-learning-processes","language":"en","publication_status":"PUBLISHED","publication_date":"2006-05-04","last_modified_date":"2006-05-04","title":"From review findings to sustained improvement in recognition of prior learning processes","summary":"Describes how improvement in recognition of prior learning can be planned, measured and maintained through clear responsibility and follow-up evidence.","category":{"code":"QUALITY_IMPROVEMENT_METHODS","label":"Quality Improvement Methods"},"article_type":"Quality improvement method","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Contemporary lifelong-learning and mobility policy","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Against the background of the contemporary lifelong-learning and mobility policy, education authorities and providers should review how recognition of prior learning processes is defined, implemented and evidenced. The purpose of an improvement method is not to produce an action plan; it is to change a material condition and verify that the change is sustained. For recognition of prior learning, the unit of review should correspond to the full reach of the decision, including significant differences in provision and population.","Risk assessment of the issue under review should give particular attention to jurisdictional uncertainty in complaints, loss of records across borders, and unclear awarding responsibility. A provider should also consider different treatment of comparable learning and claims that overstate recognition or transferability."]},{"heading":"Improvement objective and baseline","paragraphs":["Implementation of recognition of prior learning processes should be organised around a decision that can be tested. For the issue under review, effectiveness should be judged against an agreed outcome and reference period, not against completion of activities alone. In the context of recognition of prior learning, oversight requires a traceable line from the approved objective through responsible action to evidence of outcome.","The stated reference is the contemporary lifelong-learning and mobility policy. Application to the practice depends on evidence from the relevant jurisdiction or institution. When examining recognition of prior learning, decision-makers should state which matters are evidenced, which express policy and which require authorised judgement.","For decisions concerning recognition of prior learning, effectiveness is the demonstrated change in the condition the action was intended to address. In work concerning recognition of prior learning, completion of training, publication of guidance or installation of a system is an output and should not be reported as an outcome without further evidence."],"bullets":["Provide support suited to mobile learners.","Preserve verifiable records.","State the legal and academic status of the offer.","Apply criteria consistently.","Monitor partner and jurisdictional risks."]},{"heading":"Controls and accountable action","paragraphs":["Proportionality in relation to recognition of prior learning processes does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. As regards recognition of prior learning, transparency supports fair decision-making but does not make qualifications automatically equivalent. The basis and intended use of recognition should be explicit in each consequential decision. A short-term increase in activity may not represent sustained improvement. Measures should remain in place long enough to detect recurrence and unintended effects. Where recognition of prior learning is under review, no exception should continue without a documented basis, accountable approval and scheduled review.","For the assessment of recognition of prior learning, each source should have a stated purpose in supporting or limiting the conclusion. For the improvement objective, the most relevant material is likely to include secure and verifiable learner records, documented credit and recognition decisions, published admission and recognition criteria, and outcomes for mobile and non-mobile learners. For recognition of prior learning, confidence is strengthened by corroboration, not by the volume of records drawn from the same underlying source.","The assurance record for recognition of prior learning should retain the date of the evidence, the source responsible for it, the scope examined and the version of any instrument or definition applied. When examining recognition of prior learning, traceable source and version information allow genuine improvement to be distinguished from administrative revision. For decisions concerning recognition of prior learning, a superseded conclusion should be retained where it formed the basis of a material decision."]},{"heading":"Evidence of effect","paragraphs":["The method for the intervention is to set a baseline and success measure before intervention, define the review period, compare the result with the intended outcome and examine adverse or unequal effects. In work concerning recognition of prior learning, continue monitoring long enough to determine whether the improvement is sustained. As regards recognition of prior learning, contrary evidence should not be removed merely because aggregate performance appears acceptable.","Improvement of recognition of prior learning should proceed through controlled tests where risk permits."],"bullets":["What condition should change?","What was the baseline?","Did the effect reach the intended group?","Has the improvement been sustained?","When should an effect be visible?"]},{"heading":"Sustaining improvement","paragraphs":["The quality significance of recognition of prior learning processes follows from a basic distinction between availability and effective provision. For the intervention, learners should receive accurate information about the status, level, content and recognition of learning before committing time or money across jurisdictions. For the assessment of recognition of prior learning, review should cover the stages at which learners receive information, provision, assessment, support and remedy.","For the intervention, governing bodies should receive a concise account of the intended result, affected scope, principal risks, evidence limitations and unresolved exceptions. For recognition of prior learning, an action may be complete while the underlying condition remains, and the two determinations should be recorded separately.","In the context of recognition of prior learning, a clear objective, proportionate evidential basis and account of affected learners are required. When examining recognition of prior learning, assurance should be withheld for the affected scope until the limitation is resolved."]}],"word_count":813,"content_hash":"sha256-7a66bc97ebf933a9021d870159fb9c6f15654262afe849dc7a1ad9a7c1870712","seo_keywords":["from review findings to sustained improvement in recognition of prior learning processes","education quality improvement","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}