Academic Rigor and Quality

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Did not earn degree or credentialEarned Bachelor’s DegreeEarned Associate’s Degree

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%Did not earn PLAcredit (n=21,055)

Earned PLA credit(n=9,760)

0%

0%

70% 36%

27%

58%

5%3%

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 KNEXTKNEXT, 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.

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 experi-ences, 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 assess-ment processes, the components of an experiential learning portfolio, and the evaluation rubric and expecta-tions 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 perfor-mance 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 require-ments 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.

Expl

anat

ion

of A

pplie

d Le

arni

ng

Evid

ence

of

Col

lege

-leve

l Writ

ing

Und

erst

andi

ng o

f C

olle

ge-le

vel L

earn

ing

Cou

rse

Out

com

e A

ttain

men

t

Doc

umen

tatio

n A

lignm

ent

The

portf

olio

con

tent

doe

s no

t de

mon

stra

te a

n ab

ility

to a

pply

the

lear

ning

acq

uire

d ou

tsid

e of

the

clas

sroo

m. R

eal-l

ife e

xam

ples

to e

xpla

in

how

the

colle

ge-le

vel l

earn

ing

was

ap

plie

d w

ere

not d

escr

ibed

in th

e Le

arni

ng A

utob

iogr

aphy

.

The

portf

olio

con

tent

dem

onst

rate

s m

inim

al a

bilit

y to

app

ly th

e le

arni

ng

acqu

ired

outs

ide

of th

e cl

assr

oom

. Rea

l lif

e ex

ampl

es to

exp

lain

how

the

colle

ge-le

vel l

earn

ing

was

app

lied

wer

e in

adeq

uate

ly d

escr

ibed

in th

e Le

arni

ng

Aut

obio

grap

hy.

The

portf

olio

con

tent

dem

onst

rate

s an

ab

ility

to a

pply

the

lear

ning

acq

uire

d ou

tsid

e of

the

clas

sroo

m. R

eal -

life

exam

ples

to e

xpla

in h

ow th

e co

llege

-leve

l lea

rnin

g w

as a

pplie

d w

ere

adeq

uate

ly d

escr

ibed

in th

e Le

arni

ng

Aut

obio

grap

hy.

The

portf

olio

con

tent

is w

ell d

esig

ned

and

dem

onst

rate

s a

stro

ng a

bilit

y to

ap

ply

the

lear

ning

acq

uire

d ou

tsid

e of

th

e cl

assr

oom

. Rea

l-life

exa

mpl

es to

ex

plai

n ho

w th

e co

llege

-leve

l lea

rnin

g w

as a

pplie

d w

ere

thor

ough

ly d

escr

ibed

in

the

Lear

ning

Aut

obio

grap

hy.

The

stud

ent’s

writ

ing

dem

onst

rate

s a

lack

of s

kill

and

artic

ulat

ion

at a

col

lege

le

vel.

The

writ

ing

is n

ot o

rgan

ized

and

do

es n

ot d

emon

stra

te c

ritic

al a

nd

refle

ctiv

e th

inki

ng. T

he w

ritin

g co

ntai

ns

man

y gr

amm

atic

al o

r mec

hani

cal e

rror

s th

at im

pede

mea

ning

and

requ

ire m

ajor

ed

iting

and

revi

sion

.

The

stud

ent’s

writ

ing

dem

onst

rate

s so

me

skill

and

arti

cula

tion

at a

col

lege

le

vel.

Whi

le th

e w

ritin

g m

ay b

e or

gani

zed,

it is

not

con

cise

and

doe

s no

t de

mon

stra

te c

ritic

al a

nd re

flect

ive

thin

king

. The

writ

ing

cont

ains

gr

amm

atic

al o

r mec

hani

cal e

rror

s th

at

impe

de m

eani

ng a

nd re

quire

edi

ting.

The

stud

ent’s

writ

ing

dem

onst

rate

s sk

ill

and

artic

ulat

ion

at a

col

lege

leve

l. Th

e w

ritin

g de

mon

stra

tes

criti

cal a

nd

refle

ctiv

e th

inki

ng a

nd is

con

cise

and

or

gani

zed.

The

writ

ing

cont

ains

som

e gr

amm

atic

al o

r mec

hani

cal e

rror

s th

at

requ

ire m

inor

edi

ting.

The

stud

ent’s

writ

ing

clea

rly

dem

onst

rate

s sk

ill a

nd a

rticu

latio

n at

a

colle

ge le

vel.

The

writ

ing

dem

onst

rate

s cr

itica

l and

refle

ctiv

e th

inki

ng. T

he

writ

ing

is c

onci

se a

nd w

ell o

rgan

ized

. Th

e w

ritin

g co

ntai

ns n

o gr

amm

atic

al o

r m

echa

nica

l err

ors.

The

stud

ent d

oes

not d

emon

stra

te a

n un

ders

tand

ing

of c

olle

ge-le

vel l

earn

ing.

Th

e po

rtfol

io d

oes

not d

emon

stra

te

prob

lem

sol

ving

abi

lity,

dep

th a

nd

brea

dth

of k

now

ledg

e, a

nd b

alan

ce

betw

een

theo

ry a

nd p

ract

ice.

The

stud

ent d

emon

stra

tes

a lim

ited

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

col

lege

-leve

l le

arni

ng. T

he p

ortfo

lio d

emon

stra

tes

min

imal

pro

blem

sol

ving

abi

lity,

lim

ited

dept

h an

d br

eadt

h of

kno

wle

dge,

and

lit

tle to

no

bala

nce

betw

een

theo

ry a

nd

prac

tice.

The

stud

ent d

emon

stra

tes

an

appr

opria

te u

nder

stan

ding

of

colle

ge-le

vel l

earn

ing.

The

por

tfolio

de

mon

stra

tes

prob

lem

sol

ving

abi

lity,

de

pth

and

brea

dth

of k

now

ledg

e, a

nd a

ba

lanc

e be

twee

n th

eory

and

pra

ctic

e

The

stud

ent d

emon

stra

tes

an

appr

opria

te u

nder

stan

ding

of

colle

ge-le

vel l

earn

ing.

The

por

tfolio

de

mon

stra

tes

a hi

gh le

vel o

f pro

blem

so

lvin

g ab

ility

, ext

ensi

ve d

epth

and

br

eadt

h of

kno

wle

dge,

and

a b

alan

ce

betw

een

theo

ry a

nd p

ract

ice.

The

cour

se p

etiti

on d

emon

stra

tes

that

no

ne o

f the

cou

rse

outc

omes

hav

e be

en m

et. T

he s

tude

nt h

as li

mite

d un

ders

tand

ing

of th

e co

ncep

ts a

nd

theo

ries

gene

rally

cov

ered

in th

e co

urse

.

The

cour

se p

etiti

on d

emon

stra

tes

that

so

me

of th

e co

urse

out

com

es h

ave

been

met

. The

stu

dent

has

gai

ned

som

e un

ders

tand

ing

of th

e co

ncep

ts

and

theo

ries

gene

rally

cov

ered

in th

e co

urse

.

The

cour

se p

etiti

on d

emon

stra

tes

that

al

l cou

rse

outc

omes

hav

e be

en m

et.

The

stud

ent h

as g

aine

d a

basi

c un

ders

tand

ing

of th

e co

ncep

ts a

nd

theo

ries

gene

rally

cov

ered

in th

e co

urse

.

The

cour

se p

etiti

on d

emon

stra

tes

that

al

l cou

rse

outc

omes

hav

e be

en m

et.

The

stud

ent h

as g

aine

d a

sign

ifica

nt

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

the

conc

epts

and

th

eorie

s ge

nera

lly c

over

ed in

the

cour

se.

Doc

umen

tatio

n pr

ovid

ed d

oes

not

supp

ort t

he s

tude

nt’s

lear

ning

cla

ims.

Th

e do

cum

enta

tion

is n

ot a

ligne

d to

th

e st

uden

t’s le

arni

ng a

nd th

e co

urse

ou

tcom

es.

Doc

umen

tatio

n pr

ovid

ed s

uppo

rts

som

e of

the

stud

ent’s

lear

ning

cla

ims.

Th

e do

cum

enta

tion

is a

ligne

d to

the

stud

ent’s

lear

ning

, but

may

not

be

alig

ned

to th

e co

urse

out

com

es.

Doc

umen

tatio

n pr

ovid

ed s

uppo

rts a

ll of

the

stud

ent’s

lear

ning

cla

ims.

The

do

cum

enta

tion

is a

ligne

d to

the

stud

ent’s

lear

ning

and

the

cour

se

outc

omes

.

Doc

umen

tatio

n pr

ovid

ed c

lear

ly

supp

orts

the

stud

ent’s

lear

ning

cl

aim

s. T

he d

ocum

enta

tion

is c

lear

ly

alig

ned

to th

e st

uden

t’s le

arni

ng a

nd

the

cour

se o

utco

mes

.

Wea

k (0

poi

nts)

Mar

gina

l (2

poin

ts)

Com

pete

nt (4

poi

nts)

Hig

hly

Com

pete

nt (6

poi

nts)

KN

EXT

Port

folio

Eva

luat

ion

Rub

ric

A sc

ore

of 2

0 ou

t of 3

0 is

requ

ired

for a

“Ful

l Cre

dit”

reco

mm

enda

tion

to b

e gr

ante

d. If

a s

core

of 0

is g

iven

for a

ny

crite

ria, a

“No

Cre

dit”

Rec

omm

enda

tion

mus

t be

deci

ded.