A Documentary Study for Arrangements for Credit Accumulation and Transfer in Higher Education

POSTSCRIPT

Factors which are frequently quoted in favour of a CAT system include:

• equity

• student mobility

• increased access

• more efficient use of existing resources

• the development of a flexible work force

• the development of a system of higher education provision which is able to respond flexibly to the changing needs of society

Costs

Arguments on the grounds of economy (i.e. cost reduction) are used less frequently, but are undoubtedly a factor in decisions which have been taken elsewhere to make it possible for one, or more, years of 'higher' (i.e post-secondary) education to be undertaken at institutions where the provision of amenities and facilities is less generous than in universities, where the salaries - and qualifications - of the staff are not as high, and where the quality of the non-curricular experience available to the students is not so rich.

Vertical Transfers

The widening of access to Higher Education is as laudable an objective in Hong Kong as in other jurisdictions, and the development of arrangements for the 'vertical' transfer of credit associated with the proposed 'Community Colleges' which are to be developed by some of Hong Kong's universities will be an interesting exercise in the preservation of university quality by the employment of university resources at what will presumably be marginal costs. In so far as these Community Colleges will have a mission additional to the preparation of students for transfer to degree courses at three- or four-year institutions, however, care will need to be taken, as is evidenced by the American experience, that the measures they need to take for the sake of articulation with the four-year institutions are not such as to diminish their usefulness in the other roles which they are designed to fulfil.

Horizontal Transfers

In so far as arrangements for the 'horizontal' transfer of credit will facilitate the interchange of students on an intra-regional and international scale, and thus contribute to the broadening of the educational experience of local students (amongst other things) such arrangements also seem desirable. There is already a substantial trade, on the part of Hong Kong higher education institutions, in the exchange of students internationally - in particular with the mainland, on the one hand, and with the US (and, to a lesser extent, Canada) on the other. It is important, in the context of these exchanges, that the quality of the educational experience obtained by the Hong Kong students going overseas is properly evaluated - both in advance and in retrospect. It is also important that the Hong Kong institutions should prove themselves capable of meeting the same standards of 'transparency, coherence and reliability' in evaluating the educational records of incoming exchange students as are specified in other parts of the world for such activities. From this point of view, consideration might be given to subscribing to some such established scheme as the European Credit Transfer scheme (ECTS)(which offers a 'common currency' for these purposes and a requirement for the exchange of 'Information Packages' between partner institutions, designed to minimise any misunderstandings or false expectations) or becoming a signatory to the Council of Europe's 1997 'Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education in the European Region' (as Canada has done).

It is less clear, however, given the compact geographical area of Hong Kong; the small overall size of the HE sector in terms of number of institutions; the differentiation of mission between the individual institutions; and the deeply ingrained ideas of an institutional 'pecking order' that exist within the community; that there is advantage to be gained by developing a CATS scheme to promote the free transfer of registered students between the different universities within Hong Kong. It would appear that arrangements to provide wider access to highly specialised subject matter, or to the teaching of particularly distinguished staff might be made more easily by technological means (e.g. the use of the Web for teaching) than by the physical transfer of students (and their accumulated credits) between institutions.

A Choice of Philosophies

Pollard (1993) observes that

'To obtain awards by the accumulation of credit it must be accepted academically that complete programmes of study can validly be built from self-contained units (courses or modules) which are assessed independently and combined with other units. Issues of coherence and breadth must be dealt with by specifying pre-requisite knowledge for each unit ...'

and this contrasts with the view which Trowler (1996) states as being the

'central assumption ... of much of the UK higher education system'

namely, that

'learning takes place within one institution, over a fixed and limited period of time, according to rules best determined by academics'

The issue facing Hong Kong is which of these viewpoints it wishes to embrace. In making a choice, it needs to be borne in mind that neither credit accumulation nor credit transfer are ends in themselves, but tools by which academic (and other) objectives can be pursued: the prior question is what objectives are to be pursued, and in what order of priority; and to what extent will CAT, as opposed to other possible developments, be effective in helping to achieve them.

Quality

One of the recurring concerns in considering issues to do with CAT in all jurisdictions is that of quality, and some means must be found of dealing with anxieties on this score if any scheme is to succeed. The one element which appears to be essential to the preservation of quality in a higher education system in which CAT is employed is the preservation of the autonomy of institutions in matters concerning the:

• admission of students, and the:

• specification of pre-requisites for specific courses and for the award of specific qualifications, in terms of both range of subjects studied, and standard attained.

In addition it is important to provide for a distinction to be made between the levels at which credits are obtained, so that it is not possible (as it is alleged by Biggs to be possible in some instances) to qualify for a degree by the mere accumulation of a sufficient number of low-level credits.

The Recognition of Credit

Finally, there are two further dimensions to the process of the recognition of credit which need to be borne in mind. One is the recognition, for the purposes of granting educational credit and qualifications, of 'experiential learning' or 'prior learning assessment and recognition' (defined as 'a process of assessing and recognising what a person knows and can do') (see http://www.plar.com/about_plar/index.html and Appendix 31). And the other is the use of tests to determine the current state of knowledge of an individual in a specific field (or in general) and the award of educational credit on the basis of the results of such tests (see http://www.aacrao.com/pubs/po-004.html and Appendix 32). Both of these aspects of credit accumulation and transfer - in addition to the arrangements for accumulation within, and transfer between, institutions - need to be considered when policy in this area is being formulated.

1. Is it accepted that

' ...complete programmes of study can validly be built from self-contained units (courses or modules) which are assessed independently and combined with other units ..' (Pollard, 1993)

and that

'Issues of coherence and depth must be dealt with by specifying pre-requisite knowledge for each unit'? (ibid.)

Or does the 'central assumption' remain that

'learning takes place within one institution, over a fixed and limited period of time, according to rules best determined by academics'? (Trowler, 1996)

2. If credit transfer is to be countenanced on a significant scale in Hong Kong, will the interests of Hong Kong be best served by merely allowing, or encouraging, institutions to negotiate such bilateral arrangements with each other, and with institutions overseas, as they think necessary and desirable (as in North America)? Or should the territory attempt in addition to move in the direction of a 'national' (i.e territory-wide) 'framework' for the recognition of educational qualifications and the determination of 'equivalences' between them (as is being developed in Australia, New Zealand and the UK)?