Educational Programs and Policies Committee

Minutes, April 27, 2009

Attendance: Bruce Conrad, Mary Anne Gaffney, Catherine Schifter, Robert Aiken, Keya Sadeghipour, Tamara Johns, Kate Wingert, Michele O’Connor, and Jason Gasper-Hulvat

Withdrawals: Discussion concerning withdrawals arose at the start of the meeting. There was concern that faculty no longer know if students withdraw from classes. Bruce described the way to navigate the Blackboard site for each class to find that information. Mary Anne will write these down these directions and send them to Michele. They will then be sent out to Associate Deans for distribution to faculty.

CLEP: There was no dissent for CLEP in response to the e-mail message sent. Michele asked for a vote. All present were in favor of keeping CLEP as is.

Adult learning: Michele stated that the organization CAEL was hired to make recommendations on issues regarding adult learners. Michele recommends that experiences of adult learners should always be tied to a specific course and that wording of this nature can be included in the course bulletin and other documents. This will need to be organized for every department that offers credit for experience. Adult experiential learning can be reviewed by a faculty committee, however this is time consuming. Review can be carried out in a number of ways, for example review of a portfolio or an exam.

One question that will need resolution: do credits come in as a transfer or as particular credits assigned to a course – this is best done so that if the credits are transferred out of Temple the receiving school knows what is being transferred. In the state there is a movement for credits to be transcripted so that they will carry through from, for example, community college to university.

Another question is when the student will need to apply for transfer. For example, will the student need to apply after a set amount of credits completed at the university rather than at the senior year of study.

Some examples of how adult learner credits are brought in include: block credits, occupational competency, challenge exams, CLEP or AP exams (or similar exams already in place).

Extensive coordination will be required for all departments involved in order to avoid the problem of the university saying ‘yes’ to adult learning credits and departments saying ‘no’. The procedures have to be clearly outlined in university literature to avoid this situation. Standards need to be rigorously applied across colleges in the university. Coordination needs to occur between service courses and colleges (for example physics or chemistry in the acceptance of credits for a student in engineering).

Questions arose(Mary Anne) about a person who learns through experience or on who learns independently. This could be covered either by accepting credits that are learned only in the occupational setting or by requiring a challenge exam that determines if the person knows the material. Other questions arose (Bruce, Keya) about students wanting credit for courses such as high school level algebra or high level physics or chemistry. (Michele) Math courses could be taken care of through placement exams already in use (rather than through a challenge exam). Not all adult learner courses are entry level. The courses for credit need to be considered at the department level and faculty point persons within the departments need to agree to work with incoming students. This would be particularly important if the acceptance of work was determined by essay or portfolio.

(Michele)Data is needed from colleges to see what is currently being done and also to determine if the college is willing to accept adult learners’ credits for experience. A survey was take in 2007 to determine what was being done and how credits were accepted and applied. This needs updating but is a beginning. The bulletin should show by college who gives credit and give specific instructions to tell the applicant what to do (colleges that now accept credits have no uniform guidelines).

The goal is to bring more adult learners to the university and to make the process clear. A framework in the catalog or online materials needs to be implemented.

EPPC Meeting minutes from 3pm. (continuing with discussion of portfolio and life experience credit)

Michele: :Experiences/content need to be tied to actual Temple course(s), Student presents for a specific course, Wants to give clear details of the process for students, Wants to have a timely process

Next Meeting will be May 11th – Michele will bring a text which includes the decisions made so far this semester related to Credit for Prior Learning

Additional questions of how to grant credit were discussed.

Michele “Credits could be posted as Transfer Credit or as graded courses (either as a letter grade or Credit /No Credit). As Transfer Credit a student who transfers from Temple would need to go through the processes again at another institution. As a graded course these would appear as other Temple classes and have transferability accordingly.

Keya: Could see that in some subjects a letter grade may be feasible using credit by exam.

Bruce and Catherine expressed concern generally about distinguishing between letter grades for a course based on a single exam or a portfolio review verses the ability to assess that a student meets the content at a passing level.

Credit/Non Credit verses a letter grade could limit the use to meet requirements in ways Transfer Credit would not.

Michele: Question of fees also needs to be addressed. Example given of CLEP with a $10 fee that is believed to have been the per credit tuition at the time the policy was written and does not reflect costs. Practice differs from institution to institution with some charging a fixed fee to administer the exam or portfolio review, some charge a fee based on their per-credit tuition.

Bruce asked if this would be a charge to apply or a charge for posting the credit.

Michele: Charge would be for the process. Things to consider are that a charge should be reasonable to reflect the cost to administer and the cost/policies should be such to discourage students who do not have the knowledge from a prior learning background from seeking this option.

Bruce and Keya expressed they could see students who failed a class reviewing the material over the summer and applying for such a process if cost or policy were not a deterrent. Charge would need to be large enough but should be reasonable. Per Credit Tuition seemed too high.

Michele: Could a fee be based on the cost of faculty time for the process?

Mary Anne: Expressed that as a group EPPC could recommend a fee to be sufficient but did not seem EPPC was the appropriate group to set the specific fee.

Michele asked that at the next meeting EPPC review a CORE Math question connected with a new Math sequence required for Education which have a Gen Ed waiver but do not complete the QA and QB core.

Mary Anne asked if Michele could invite Chris to give an update on the Student Feedback forms.

Next meeting on May 11th will be the end of the year meeting.