KNEXT Academic Rigor and Quality

Academic Rigor and Quality
954-892-0178
Partner with KNEXT to Increase Adult Student
Persistence and Graduation Rates
Use KNEXT PLA to help students feel invested in their education and your institution
FEATURES & BENEFITS
Manage your PLA process online
Students who earn PLA credit are twice as
likely to earn their bachelor’s degree.
Degree Completion by PLA Credit-Earning for Students
Indicating an Initial Goal of a Bachelor's Degree.
Improve the utilization and efficiency of your organization's
prior learning assessment process with KNEXT tools
Outsource your portfolio management or entire prior
learning assessment process, potentially saving your
institution time and money with our fully integrated
approach
Did not earn degree or credential
Earned Bachelor’s Degree
Earned Associate’s Degree
100%
90%
70%
36%
80%
70%
60%
Utilize our professional evaluators to assess prior learning,
with an emphasis on the quality of students’ results and a
sound and expertly reviewed process
Privately label the Learning Recognition Course, portfolio
management, and learning assessments, while tailoring the
program to your institution’s needs
Train your own staff to assess prior learning and engage
students through our online portfolio process.
58%
0%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
27%
0%
3%
Did not earn PLA
credit (n=21,055)
5%
Earned PLA credit
(n=9,760)
Source: CAEL (March 2010) Fueling the Race to Postsecondary Success: A 48 Institution Study of
Prior Learning Assessment and Adult Student Outcomes.
Retrieved 31 October 2011 from CAEL website: http://www.cael.org/pdfs/PLA_Fueling-the-Race p.34
Please note figures have been rounded.
Turnkey PLA Management
When you partner with KNEXT, we’ll strive to seamlessly integrate our Prior Learning Assessment into your
organization. A dedicated account supervisor will customize the PLA process to help meet your
organization’s needs and seamlessly transition your students into our program. You also have the option to
private-label our coursework, portfolio and resources, further customizing our products and services to
meet your specific needs.
About KNEXT
KNEXT, an independent Kaplan Higher Education subsidiary, is an education software and solutions
company focused on helping higher education institutions build (or enhance) prior learning assessment
offerings and online portfolio management. By enabling individuals to translate their prior learning into
college credit and track their progress through online portfolios, we help institutions recruit engaged adult
learners and increase both persistence and graduation rates.
To learn how KNEXT can help you increase the efficiency of your Prior Learning Assessment process,
please call Susan Huggins at 954-892-0178.
At KNEXT, we place a premium on the quality and integrity of our services. The KNEXT portfolio process is
designed with the high level of academic rigor that can be found at regionally and nationally accredited higher
learning institutions—with a strong emphasis on quality throughout the course and assessment process. It
adheres to the Ten Standards for Quality Assurance in Assessing Learning, as set forth by the Council for
Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL).
What is the KNEXT portfolio process?
The portfolio serves as the basis for the student to recognize their learning and understand how it aligns with
college credit. In our self-paced, online Learning Recognition Course, students document their prior experiences, and extrapolate the learning from these experiences in an online portfolio. Students refine their
learning descriptions by formulating learning statements. Students then use a course match model to map
their learning statements to the learning outcomes of college-level courses that are offered by regionally or
nationally accredited institutions. To have prior learning considered for credit, students must complete all
requirements for the college course aligned with their prior learning and provide evidence of their
learning/competency.
How are KNEXT student portfolios evaluated?
KNEXT evaluators conduct an unbiased review of student portfolios. They evaluate student portfolios against
the following criteria:
1. Explanation of Applied Learning
• Can the student apply what he or she has learned?
• Does the student provide real-life examples to explain how the college-level learning was
applied?
2. Evidence of College-level Writing
• Does the student’s writing demonstrate skill and articulation at the college level?
• Does it demonstrate critical and reflective thinking?
3. Understanding of College-level Learning
• Does the student’s learning demonstrate problem solving ability, depth and breadth of knowl
edge, and a balance between theory and practice?
4. Course Outcome Attainment
• Has the student met all of the course outcomes for the course?
• Does the student understand the concepts and theories generally covered in the course?
5. Documentation Alignment
• Does the student’s documentation align to the learning?
• Does it provide evidence that the student knows and can do what he or she says?
Evaluators may request additional information or documentation from the student. All communication
between the evaluator and students occurs through the portfolio system. Evaluators are not permitted to have
direct contact with students, to decrease the likelihood of bias in the evaluation. Evaluators complete one
evaluation form for each course petition within the portfolio, clearly documenting how the students’ learning
did or did not meet the evaluation criteria and including comments directed to the students with constructive
feedback on their portfolios. Credit is recommended on a “Full Credit” or “No Credit” basis. A “Full Credit”
recommendation is granted when it is determined that the learning, as demonstrated in the portfolio, is
college-level and meets the criteria for awarding academic credit.
A “No Credit” recommendation is granted when it is determined that the learning demonstrated in the portfolio
does not meet the criteria to be awarded academic credit. Partial credit is not recommended in this process.
Students who earn “No Credit” recommendations have an opportunity for these course petitions to be
reviewed by a second evaluator. Students must request the second review within 10 calendar days from
issuance of the credit recommendation letter. The second evaluator is a different, unbiased assigned person,
but follows the same process to review the original portfolio. The second reviewer does not see the original
evaluator’s results. If there is a discrepancy between the two evaluations, a third evaluator will conduct a final
review.
How qualified are KNEXT portfolio evaluators?
KNEXT portfolio evaluators have a complete understanding of experiential learning. Each evaluator receives
training in prior learning assessment, as well as our portfolio process. The training includes modules on prior
learning assessment, sponsored and non-sponsored learning, the KNEXT portfolio development and assessment processes, the components of an experiential learning portfolio, and the evaluation rubric and expectations of portfolio evaluators. Each evaluator is required to score a minimum of 80% on each module objective
quiz before passing the course and entering their probationary period.
All evaluators have a graduate degree from a regionally or nationally accredited institution and extensive
teaching and/or work experience in their area of expertise. Most portfolio evaluators are full-time or part-time
faculty who currently teach at regionally and nationally accredited institutions of higher education. They have
experience working with adults and understand the ways in which they learn.
KNEXT portfolio evaluators must be academically and/or professionally qualified to evaluate student learning.
These qualifications include:
• Degree from regionally or nationally accredited institution
• Graduate degree with 18 graduate credits in area of expertise
• Extensive teaching experience and/or work experience in area of expertise
• Recent college-level teaching experience
• Experience teaching the specific course or related course
What quality assurance measures does KNEXT have in place?
KNEXT conducts a regular independent review of its processes to ensure that the quality and integrity of our
services meet the level of academic rigor required by regionally and nationally accredited colleges and
universities. KNEXT evaluators complete the initial training course and enter a probationary period after
successful completion of initial training. Our evaluators receive their first round of assignments and coaching
before we give them the approval to evaluate additional portfolios. KNEXT evaluators receive regular performance reviews and ongoing professional development.
KNEXT also performs regular audits of KNEXT student portfolios. Twenty percent of submitted course
petitions are audited twice a year. The audit includes an independent review by a second evaluator. The
second evaluator does not see original evaluation and conducts the review in accordance with the requirements of the original evaluation process. The second evaluator completes the online evaluation form using
the same rubric as the original reviewer. After the audit process, we conduct a thorough analysis of the data,
including inter-rater reliability studies, to ensure the reliability and validity of our evaluation process. This
analysis also helps us to identify training and coaching needs for our evaluators and helps us to identify ways
to improve and refine our process.
Ten Standards for Quality Assurance in Assessing Learning (CAEL)
KNEXT strictly adheres to the standards established by the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning
(CAEL). These standards reflect industry best practices in portfolio assessment. The Ten Standards for
Quality Assurance in Assessing Learning are:
1.Credit or its equivalent should be awarded only for learning and not for experience.
2.Assessment should be based on standards and criteria for the level of acceptable learning that are both
agreed upon and made public.
3.Assessment should be treated as an integral part of learning not apart from it, and should be based on
an understanding of learning processes.
4.The determination of credit awards and competence levels must be made by appropriate subject matter
and academic or credentialing experts.
5.Credit or other credentialing should be appropriate to the academic context in which it is awarded and
accepted.
6.If awards are for credit, transcript entries should clearly describe what learning is being recognized and
be monitored to avoid giving credit twice for the same learning.
7.Policies, procedures, and criteria applied to assessment, including provision for appeal, should be fully
disclosed and prominently available to all parties involved in the assessment process.
8.Fees charged for assessment should be based on the services performed in the process and not deter
mined by the amount of credit awarded.
9.All personnel involved in assessment of learning should pursue and receive adequate training and
continuing professional development for the functions they perform.
10.Assessment programs should be regularly monitored, reviewed, evaluated, and revised as needed to
reflect changes in the needs being served, the purposes being met, and in the state of the assessment
arts.
Fiddler, M., Marienau, C., & Whitaker, U. (2006). Assessing learning: Standards, principles, & procedures (2nd ed.). Dubuque,
IA: Kendall/Hunt.
The student demonstrates an
appropriate understanding of
college-level learning. The portfolio
demonstrates problem solving ability,
depth and breadth of knowledge, and a
balance between theory and practice
The student demonstrates a limited
understanding of college-level
learning. The portfolio demonstrates
minimal problem solving ability, limited
depth and breadth of knowledge, and
little to no balance between theory and
practice.
The course petition demonstrates that
some of the course outcomes have
been met. The student has gained
some understanding of the concepts
and theories generally covered in the
course.
Documentation provided supports
some of the student’s learning claims.
The documentation is aligned to the
student’s learning, but may not be
aligned to the course outcomes.
The student does not demonstrate an
understanding of college-level learning.
The portfolio does not demonstrate
problem solving ability, depth and
breadth of knowledge, and balance
between theory and practice.
The course petition demonstrates that
none of the course outcomes have
been met. The student has limited
understanding of the concepts and
theories generally covered in the
course.
Documentation provided does not
support the student’s learning claims.
The documentation is not aligned to
the student’s learning and the course
outcomes.
Documentation provided supports all
of the student’s learning claims. The
documentation is aligned to the
student’s learning and the course
outcomes.
The course petition demonstrates that
all course outcomes have been met.
The student has gained a basic
understanding of the concepts and
theories generally covered in the
course.
The student’s writing demonstrates skill
and articulation at a college level. The
writing demonstrates critical and
reflective thinking and is concise and
organized. The writing contains some
grammatical or mechanical errors that
require minor editing.
The student’s writing demonstrates
some skill and articulation at a college
level. While the writing may be
organized, it is not concise and does not
demonstrate critical and reflective
thinking. The writing contains
grammatical or mechanical errors that
impede meaning and require editing.
The student’s writing demonstrates a
lack of skill and articulation at a college
level. The writing is not organized and
does not demonstrate critical and
reflective thinking. The writing contains
many grammatical or mechanical errors
that impede meaning and require major
editing and revision.
Documentation provided clearly
supports the student’s learning
claims. The documentation is clearly
aligned to the student’s learning and
the course outcomes.
The course petition demonstrates that
all course outcomes have been met.
The student has gained a significant
understanding of the concepts and
theories generally covered in the
course.
The student demonstrates an
appropriate understanding of
college-level learning. The portfolio
demonstrates a high level of problem
solving ability, extensive depth and
breadth of knowledge, and a balance
between theory and practice.
The student’s writing clearly
demonstrates skill and articulation at a
college level. The writing demonstrates
critical and reflective thinking. The
writing is concise and well organized.
The writing contains no grammatical or
mechanical errors.
The portfolio content is well designed
and demonstrates a strong ability to
apply the learning acquired outside of
the classroom. Real-life examples to
explain how the college-level learning
was applied were thoroughly described
in the Learning Autobiography.
Highly Competent (6 points)
A score of 20 out of 30 is required for a “Full Credit” recommendation to be granted. If a score of 0 is given for any
criteria, a “No Credit” Recommendation must be decided.
Documentation
Alignment
Course Outcome
Attainment
Understanding of
College-level Learning
Evidence of
College-level Writing
Explanation of Applied
Learning
The portfolio content demonstrates an
ability to apply the learning acquired
outside of the classroom. Real -life
examples to explain how the
college-level learning was applied were
adequately described in the Learning
Autobiography.
Competent (4 points)
The portfolio content demonstrates
minimal ability to apply the learning
acquired outside of the classroom. Real
life examples to explain how the
college-level learning was applied were
inadequately described in the Learning
Autobiography.
Marginal (2 points)
The portfolio content does not
demonstrate an ability to apply the
learning acquired outside of the
classroom. Real-life examples to explain
how the college-level learning was
applied were not described in the
Learning Autobiography.
Weak (0 points)
KNEXT Portfolio Evaluation Rubric