Search Our Site

Become a Program Member!

Program Policies and Procedures

- Organizational Eligibility
- Course Eligibility
- Required Documentation
- Course Review
- Selection of Reviewers
- Evaluative Criteria
- Credit Recommendations
- Updating Credit Recommendations - Annual Review and Revalidation
- Publication of Evaluation Results

The following policies and procedures for the evaluation of noncollegiate sponsored learning experiences are those currently followed by the National Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction. They are based on policies and procedures approved by the New York State Board of Regents in 1975.
 
Organizational Eligibility
1.  An organization that offers formal training and that is not empowered to grant accredited degrees is eligible to have courses evaluated by National PONSI. Organizations that offer formal training but that do not grant regionally accredited degrees include businesses, professional and trade associations, voluntary associations, instructional vendors, labor unions, government agencies, hospitals, private schools, and cultural institutions.
2.  An organization may develop its own courses or purchase them from an instructional vendor. In either case, however, the sponsoring organization must demonstrate administrative control over the courses, meaning that the organization has the final say over course content and keeps records on participants' attendance and performance.
3.  An organization must demonstrate that it has securely stored official student records for at least the period covered by the credit recommendations. It must also show capability to retrieve student records and send transcripts to colleges upon request.

Course Eligibility
An organization selects courses for evaluation in consultation with the staff of National PONSI. Courses that meet the following criteria are eligible for evaluation.
1.  Formalized learning experiences officially sponsored by the organization requesting the evaluation can be evaluated. Unsupervised on-the-job training that is not evaluated or graded, and individualized independent study (contractual learning) cannot be evaluated. Formal learning experiences can take the form of classroom courses, computer assisted instruction, Internet supported courses, interactive video, correspondence courses, programmed instruction, and examinations for professional certification or licensure.
2.  Courses that are taught by vendors and that an organization neither keeps records for nor exercises control over cannot be evaluated for the organization; however, if the vendor keeps records on course participants, the vendor may have the courses evaluated.
3.  Learning experiences must be at the postsecondary level. Length or intensity alone does not mean that a course is comparable to college-level
instruction. Organizations are encouraged to make a preliminary self-assessment by comparing their courses with course descriptions in college catalogs or by consultation with college faculty or other professionals in higher education. Finally, however, it is up to the evaluation team to determine whether courses are at the college level.
4.  Classroom courses must include a minimum of 15 contact hours (50 minute hours), unless it can be demonstrated that learning outcomes are exceptional in proportion to instructional hours. Otherwise, a shorter course might be grouped with another course or courses in the same content area for the purpose of establishing a credit recommendation. Conversely, 15 contact hours does not always equate to one semester hour of recommended credit. This is in part because noncollegiate courses often contain material that is very specific to the organization in contrast to general or theoretical material. While this material may be vital to achieving an organization's training goals, it may not be considered comparable to college instruction. Therefore, the instructional hours that contribute to the credit recommendation may be less than the total number of contact hours in a course.
5.  Courses must be taught by individuals with qualifications appropriate for college-level instruction in their subject area. Instructors may be either employees of the organization or independent consultants hired to teach courses for the organization.
6.  Courses must include some means of testing students' mastery of course content (e.g., written exams, reports, oral presentations, skill performance, role plays, supervised laboratory experience, or other assessments). For evaluation instruments other than machine scoreable tests, criteria for grading should be clear. For example, a computer program might be evaluated on efficiency, readability, clarity of documentation; written business communications might be evaluated on clarity of purpose, organization, appropriateness of tone, and conciseness; oral presentations should be evaluated using a checklist that includes points for both delivery and content.
7.  Course content must be documented through a detailed outline (syllabus), texts, lesson plans, instructor's manual, student workbooks, completed homework assignments for at least three students representing excellent, average and below average grades (technical courses should show the extent of calculations required of the student), graded exams from the same three students as the homework assignments, examples of any other student work that contributes to the final grade, class rosters, and grade lists. The organization should also indicate how all exams and assignments are weighted to calculate the final grade in the course.
8.  If a course has been offered in the same form for some time preceding the evaluation, and the organization would like past participants to be able to benefit from a credit recommendation, the team can backdate their recommendation up to five years. The content for past years must be documented through exams, course outlines, class rosters, student records and, when available, completed student work and instructional materials.

Required Documentation
1.  Prior to the on-site review, sponsoring organizations submit information concerning their administrative practices and the courses for which they seek college credit recommendations. On the basis of this information, National PONSI staff decide whether the organization demonstrates sufficient stability and administrative and curricular control to present its educational programs for review.
a. Administrative information includes the following: a description of the administration of the organization's training function; procedures for selecting and evaluating instructional staff; procedures for curriculum development, evaluation, and revision; and procedures for insuring consistent quality in programs delivered at multiple locations.
b. Course information includes: general background on the development of the course, its intended audience, and student-instructor ratio; a detailed syllabus/course outline describing the learning objectives, content covered in each session, schedule of instruction and testing, and other instructional information. These submissions become part of the Program's record on the sponsoring organization.
2.  At the on-site review, the organization provides the following information for each course or program submitted:
a. Instructional materials used (textbooks, audio-visual materials, case studies, workbooks, problems, etc.). In the case of computer assisted instruction, interactive video, or for courses and programs delivered by television, examples of courseware and supplemental instructional materials are provided.
b. Graded examples of every assignment, written exercise, skill performance, quiz, or exam that contributes to a student's final grade.
c. Instructors' qualifications, including education and work experience.
d. Class roster/grade list documenting inclusive dates of student attendance and performance.
e. Student (and, if available, managerial) evaluations of instructor's classroom performance and the learning experience.
3.  For courses and programs involving other instructional approaches, (e.g., self‑paced computer assisted instruction, interactive video, correspondence or independent study courses, or proficiency examination programs) some of the foregoing information is not relevant. However, the student achievement of learning outcomes in these courses must be documented by appropriate alternative materials.
4.  Each participating organization must maintain permanent official records of students' participation and performance in any course or program which is reviewed. The sponsoring organization must demonstrate the capability to store and retrieve student records for the period covered by the credit recommendations.

Course Review
1.  All review sessions are supervised by a member of National PONSI's staff.
2.  The first time an organization submits courses for evaluation, the review session is always held at the training site of the sponsoring organization. This is because the initial review process involves not only documentation of courses but also administrative practices. Subsequent review sessions, involving additional courses or revalidation of existing credit recommendations, may occasionally be held in a location other than the sponsoring organization's training site.
3.  Appropriate individuals from the sponsoring organization are always present to describe for the review team the process by which the curriculum is developed, evaluated, and revised, and to answer questions that arise during the review of instructional materials.

Selection of Reviewers
1.  In conducting initial reviews, generally three subject‑matter specialists in the field under consideration are used. The names of individuals to serve in this capacity are solicited from postsecondary institutions, professional and educational associations, accrediting agencies, and noncollegiate organizations. At least two of the three reviewers will be college faculty members; if appropriate to the discipline involved, the third reviewer may be a practicing professional, whose role is to confirm the appropriateness of the material in relation to current practices in the field.
2.  The following criteria are considered in selecting subject matter experts:
a. Area of reviewer expertise. The individual's formal training and experience should closely approximate the area of courses or programs being reviewed.
b. Possible conflict of interest. Care is taken to avoid engaging reviewers who might be personally affected (either adversely or favorably) by the outcome of an evaluation.
c. Teaching experience. Preference is given to reviewers who have had five years or more teaching experience (with the exception of the practicing professional).
d. Assessment experience. Preference is given to reviewers with experience in curriculum development (e.g., membership on a curriculum committee), evaluation of transfer credit, or portfolio assessment (with the exception of the practicing professional).
e. Educational philosophy. Preference is given to reviewers who are generally receptive to the view that it is sound educational practice to acknowledge and award credit for college-level learning acquired in noncollegiate settings.

Evaluative Criteria
1.  In the exercise of their professional judgment, review team members consider the following factors in determining a credit recommendation:
a. The learning objectives to be achieved, the subject matter, its level of difficulty, and its applicability to a range of postsecondary programs. These factors are of primary importance.
b. Distinctive contributions of a noncollegiate learning environment. These include the wealth of practical experience instructors bring to the classroom, the opportunities for immediate application and reinforcement of classroom learning in the students' jobs, and the motivational impact created when student performance is a criterion in job promotion or retention.
c. Duration and concentration of effort in relationship to the generally accepted practices for determining credit in post-secondary institutions. For courses that are administered in a traditional lecture-discussion format, review teams use a baseline standard of one semester hour of credit for each 15 classroom contact hours, and one semester credit hour for each 30-45 hours (depending on the discipline) of laboratory work. However, credit recommendations made by reviewers are not derived by a simple arithmetic conversion. Learning outcomes, as demonstrated by student work on examinations and other assignments, are the foremost consideration in determining how much credit should be recommended. A credit recommendation might be revised downward if learning outcomes did not support the amount of credit suggested by the number of hours of instruction. The credit recommendation might also be revised downward from the amount suggested by the total instructional hours if a substantial amount of the material contained in the course were considered not comparable or not generalizable to college-level instruction. Conversely, a credit recommendation might be revised upward if one or more factors (e.g., advanced instructional delivery technologies, exceptionally low student-teacher ratio) suggest that course participants may be achieving more than would be typical in the specified instructional hours. Reviewers also consider the factors of pre‑ and post‑course assignments, prior work‑related experience and the reinforcement of the instructional material gained in the subsequent work setting.

Credit Recommendations
1.  Credit recommendations are reported in the following categories:
a. Associate Degree/Certificate Category. This category represents course work normally found in curricula in two-year institutions leading to an associate degree in a vocational area, sometimes called the Associate in Occupational Studies. It also represents course work normally found in yearlong credit-bearing certificate programs designed to provide students with occupational skills. In both of these instances, course content is specialized, and any accompanying shop training emphasizes procedural rather than analytical skills.
b. Lower Division Baccalaureate/Associate Degree. This category represents introductory-level course work normally found in the first two years of a baccalaureate degree program and course work in programs leading to the Associate in Arts, the Associate in Science, and the Associate in Applied Science degrees. The instruction stresses development of analytical abilities at the introductory level. Verbal, mathematical, and scientific concepts associated with an academic discipline are introduced, as are basic principles.
c. Upper Division Baccalaureate Degree. This category represents course work of the type found in the last two years of a baccalaureate program. The courses involve specialization of a theoretical or analytical nature beyond the introductory level. Successful performance by students normally requires prior study in the area.
d. Graduate Degree. This category represents course work with content of the type found in graduate programs. These courses often require independent study, original research, critical analysis, or the professional application of the specialized knowledge within the discipline. Students enrolled in such courses normally have completed baccalaureate work.
NOTE: In some instances, credit is recommended in more than one category. A decision must be made by the college as to which category of credit best applies to a student's educational program.
2.  A credit recommendation applies retroactively to the date a course or program was offered substantially in the same form as seen at the review, although credit recommendations are generally not made retroactive beyond 5 years from the time of review. Procedures for reporting and documenting students' successful completion of the learning experience must extend to the point to which the credit recommendation is backdated.

Updating Credit Recommendations - Annual Review and Revalidation
Credit recommendations are kept current by the following procedures:
1.  The Program conducts an Annual Review, during which participating organizations are asked to review the descriptions of their learning experiences in College Credit Recommendations and report any changes in location, length, objectives, or instructional topics. An indication of a substantive change in a course or program results in an ending date being affixed to the credit recommendation. Another on-site evaluation is necessary for the new version to receive a credit recommendation.
2.  A credit recommendation is valid for up to 5 years from the date of the review, provided no substantive changes have been made in the course or program. At the end of this 5-year period, the learning experience is re-evaluated to determine whether the credit recommendation should continue to apply. If so, the credit recommendation is revalidated.

The revalidation process is similar to an initial evaluation and helps to ensure the continued validity of the credit recommendations. Generally, a site visit is conducted with a team of college faculty, who review instructional materials and student completed examinations and any other means to assess student mastery for each learning experience. The team’s findings determine whether each previous credit recommendation continues or whether a new credit recommendation is warranted. The date when a learning experience was first reviewed and each subsequent revalidation date can be found at the end of each course exhibit in our Directory, CCR Online.

Publication of Evaluation Results
For each learning experience recommended for college credit, an exhibit is published, prior to 2003, in print editions of College Credit Recommendations, and thereafter in CCR Online. The exhibit contains the following information: title of course or program; organization course number, when available; location; length in contact hours and days or weeks; dates covered by the recommendation; statement of objectives; description of course content and instruction; credit recommendation in the appropriate degree category or categories and subject area(s); and date of review.

Updated June 18, 2007