Prior Learning Assessment & Recog- nition in Canadian Universities: View from the Web
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior Learning Assessment & Recognition (PLAR), the practice of formally assigning credit for learning gained outside the formal education system (Thomas, 2000), offers significant benefits to adult students. Previous research had demonstrated that adult students may not, however, be aware of the availability of PLAR. This study investigated the availability of PLAR information on the websites of 60 Canadian universities. The research found that 24 Canadian universities offered PLAR for advanced standing. Considerable variation existed in the ease with which PLAR information could be located and in the quality of information provided. Universities were also found to vary widely in the supports offered to learners seeking PLAR, in the formality of their institutional PLAR policies, and in the extent to which the practice is institution-wide or restricted to specific faculties or departments. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for adult learners and their advocates and for future research. RDA (Reconnaissance d’acquis), la pratique d’accorder officiellement du crédit pour un apprentissage acquis en dehors du système formel d’éducation (Thomas 2000), offre des bénéfices importants à des étudiants adultes. Des recherches faites auparavant avaient démontré que les étudiants adultes ne seraient peut-être pas au courant du RDA (Schmyr, 2003). Cette étude sur la disponibilité des informations sur RDA dans les sites web de 60 universités canadiennes a eu pour résultat de trouver que 24 universités canadiennes offraient RDA comme designation de classification scolaire avancée. La facilité avec laquelle des renseignements sur RDA pouvaient être localisés, de même que la qualité des renseignements, variaient beaucoup. L’appui offert par des universités à des étudiants recherchant RDA variait énormément, et aussi la formalité des politiques de RDA. Il s’agissait de savoir à quel point la pratique s’étendait à tous les départements d’un institut éducatif ou si elle n’était restreinte qu’à des facultés ou des départements bien spécifiques. On étudie les résultats quant aux implications pour des étudiants adultes et pour les recherches futures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".