REACTION Conference 14 september

1. AP(E)L ….in KATHO REACTION Conference14 september Coordinator Impetus & Expertise Centre Distance Learning Jean Claude Callens

2. Introduction • Definitions • Organisation of AP(e)L in the K.U.Leuven Association • APEL in KATHO • Discussion • AP(e)L monitor • Questions?

3. Introduction1.1 K.U.Leuven Association? An association consists of one university and at least one university college. A university or university college cannot belong to more than one association. Associations were formed around • Catholic University of Leuven • Ghent University • University of Antwerp • Free University of Brussels • Hasselt University / transnational University Limburg

4. 1.2 KATHO and the K.U.Leuven Association?Members • EHSAL - Europese Hogeschool Brussel • Groep T - Leuven Hogeschool • Hogeschool Sint-Lukas Brussel • Hogeschool voor Wetenschap & Kunst • Katholieke Hogeschool Brugge-Oostende • Katholieke Hogeschool Kempen • Katholieke Hogeschool Leuven • Katholieke Hogeschool Limburg • Katholieke Hogeschool Mechelen • Katholieke Hogeschool Sint-Lieven • Katholieke Hogeschool Zuid-West-Vlaanderen • Lessius Hogeschool • Katholieke Universiteit Leuven The K.U.Leuven Association also collaborates closely with K.U.Brussel.

5. 1.3 KATHO? KATHO offers a wide range of disciplines basic study-areas -Social Sciences, -Health Care, -Bio-Technology, -Industrial Sciences, -Informatics, -Business Studies, -Teacher Training. The institutes are located in 4 sites: Kortrijk - Roeselare - Tielt - Torhout

6. KATHO Department HIVV: Kortrijk (hivv@katho.be) Department VHTI: Kortrijk: (vhti@katho.be Department HANTAL: Kortrijk (hantal@katho.be) Department IPSOC: Kortrijk (ipsoc@katho.be) Department HIVB: Roeselare (hivb@katho.be) Department RENO: Torhout: (reno@katho.be) Department PHO: Tielt (pho@katho.be) Each department has developped a AP(e)L procedure based on the guidelines in the AP(e)L monitor

7. 2. Definitions • PAC (EVC) Prior acquired competencies, not ratified by a certificate. • PAQ (EVK) Prior acquired qualification (obtained after a positive evaluation in an educational programme).

8. 3. Organisation of APEL in the K.U.Leuven association Board of governors K.U.Leuven Association: responsible for APEL. Delegate this to: APEL committee (each institution is represented) Quality assurance instrument: APEL monitor (includes procedures and checklists) PAC PAQ At the association level The assessment at institution level Assessment executed by the associated institutions Student can be exempted from a ‘course’, organised in an institution Any certificate of competence; is recognised by each institution

9. Exercise:Assess the ‘mood’ of this women Bron: Gilling & Brightwell

10. PAQ(EVK) Prior aquired qualification (obtained after a positive evaluation in an educational programme). assessment takes place at the institution level Student can be exempted from a ‘course’, organised in an institution PAC (EVC) Prior aquired competencies, (not ratified by a certificate) At the association level Assessment is executed by the associated institutions Certificate is recognized by each institution Student can be exempted from a ‘course’, after matching with the certificate of competence to use the same quality standards for the procedure and instruments  APEL monitor

11. Rationale of the APEL monitor: ‘to define quality standards for procedure and instruments to be used by all members of the K.U.Leuven association’

12. 4. Organisation of AP(e)L in KATHO-teacher education (PHO)

13. 5. Discussion The introduction of AP(e)L in higher education can be seen as an important step in the flexibilisation of curricula. However, during the implementation of AP(e)L in the K.U.Leuven Association different colleagues made some remarks. We present four of them.

14. 5.1 Discussion:analytical view versus holistic view Sculpture of Damián Ortega

15. 5.2 Discussion: ‘Mc Donaldisation’ of higher education?

16. 5.3 Discussion: ‘Mercantilisation’ of higher education?

17. Assessment en development are like the ‘Laurel and Hardy’ of education 5.4 Discussion: ‘It takes two to tango’

18. 6. APEL Monitor General standards • quality • approach These general standards are used to define: • Quality standards for procedure • Quality standards for instruments • Checklists: • Portfolio • criterion-based interview • practical assignment

19. 6.APEL Monitor: 6.1General standards 6.1.1 General standards for quality The evidence for PAC (EVC) has to correspond with the following general standards for quality: • Authenticity: Is the evidence a proof of the candidate’s performance? • Topicality: Does the evidence reflect the candidate’s current ‘competence level’? • Relevance: Is the evidence sufficiently match with training courses? • Quantity: Does the evidence refer to a sufficiently long period of experience? • Variation in contexts: Does the evidence refer to more than one context?

20. 6.1.2 General standards for approach: • Transparency: Does the procedure give the candidate enough information about the possibilities and requirements? • Accessibility: Is the procedure accessible to all candidate students without discrimination? • Feasibility study: Is it feasable to implement the procedure and instruments in an organisation? • Privacy: Are privacy and personal integrity of the applicant respected? • Justice: Are the decisions taken -by all concerned persons - considered as fair? • Reasonable period of feedback: is a decision taken in a reasonable period, which allows the candidate to start further study?

21. 6.2 These general standards are used to define:6.2.1 APEL Monitor:Quality standards for procedure • Phase 1: information and orientation • Phase 2: recognition • Is the candidate being assisted to ‘register’ his competencies? • Phase 3: appraisal • Do the assessors note their findings apart from each other, and do they try to reach a consensus afterwards during an ‘assessor consultation’? • Are the assessments carried out by competent assessors? • Is a combination of assessment instruments used? • Phase 4: recognition - accreditation • Is a ‘proof of competence’ given as a positive result of the competence assessment? • Phase 5: feedback • Does the candidate get the opportunity to discuss the decision with the assessors, so that it becomes clear on which basis the decision was taken? • Can the candidate make a complaint?

22. 6.2 The general standards are used to define:6.2.1 APEL Monitor:Quality standards for procedure6.2.2 Quality standards for instruments • Checklists: • Portfolio • criterion-based interview • practical assignment

23. Quality standards for instruments (1) Portfolio checklist • Are there clear guidelinesand directives for the candidate? • Are different functions allocated to supervisor and assessor? • Are APEL indicators consistently used during the appraisal of PAC? • Does the portfolio motivate the candidate to reflect on his experiences? • Is the candidate responsible for his portfolio?

24. Quality standards for instruments (2) Criterion- based interview checklist • Is the interview structured and standardised? • Is the time foreseen in the procedure, sufficient to carry out the interview? • Does the assessment focus on a limited number of competencies? • Are there 2 assessors who carry out the interview? • Have the assessors been trained sufficiently? • Does an assessor consultation take place after the interview? • Are the assessors familiar with the professional field? • Are predefined criteria and an assessment scale used? • Is the methodology used correctly? (e.g. the STAR) • Focus on performed behavior (example)

25. Quality standards for instruments (3) Practical assignment checklist • A practical assignment can adopt several forms; it can concern a group discussion, customer simulations or an in-basket. • This checklist is the same as described by the criterion-based interview.

26. 7. QUESTIONS?