 |
Articulation |
Table of Contents
- History
- Current Situation
- How to Use This Guide
- Policy, Procedure and Record-Keeping
- Assessing Transfer and Articulation Requests
- Formal Articulation Versus Case-by-Case Assessment
- Functionality of the TCES
- Technology and Transfer Credit
- Training Needs within Institutions
- Effective Date Ranges
- Consistency of Process
- Volume of Articulation Requests
- Timeliness
- Cost of Articulating
- Some Principles to Live By
- Appendix 1
- Appendix 2
- Acknowledgement
In this Section
10. Effective Date Ranges
Occasionally, articulation requests are received that bear backdated start dates. For example, a request is received in September 2007 for a new course, but the requested start date for the agreement and the first offering of the course is given as September 1998, while the course outline bears a 2005 date. There is no consensus as to how a receiving institution should treat these requests, although it is normal practice to allow a one-year backdate. If the backdating is for a longer period, it can have a potential impact on the records of students who have already had their transfer credit evaluated and are now attending the receiving institution. Sometimes, it is worth analyzing records to see if any of those students now deserve additional transfer credit, but usually institutions do not do so for various reasons. One reason is that students have likely already made up for this credit and it will no longer benefit them. Also, because courses can change over time, it is not prudent to evaluate a course outline that does not match the start date. Hence, if backdated agreements are made, the course outline needs to match the date of the agreement and any subsequent updates also need to be provided and evaluated sequentially.
Receiving institutions should not be expected to retroactively assess old courses unless they choose to do so, perhaps, on behalf of an individual applicant or student. Retroactive changes of published transfer credit agreements should not occur unless the change clearly benefits all students. The evaluation of an old course should be made in terms of the receiving institution's current curriculum rather than of the curriculum in place at the time the course was taken. Its purpose is to assist a student from now forward, rather than to backfill a missing archive.
10.1 Special Responsibilities of Receiving Institutions
If an existing articulation agreement is reviewed, there are four possible outcomes, each with different timing implications: transfer credit might be improved, worsened, cancelled, or remain the same.
| Receiving institutions need to be mindful of the impact that they have on sending institutions. Abrupt changes can severely impact a sending institution by changing student enrolment patterns. In particular, if a significant curriculum change is contemplated at a receiving institution, advance notice to the sending institutions is mandatory, as well as consultation, preferably via the discipline articulation committee. At least a year's notice is needed for a smooth transition although unfortunately this often proves to be impractical. | Receiving institutions need to be mindful of the impact that curriculum change has on sending institutions |
When an existing transfer credit agreement is improved (from the student's perspective), it can become effective immediately or at the start of that academic year, without any need to give any special notice to the sending institution or to its students who might already be taking the course.
e.g. (hypothetical)
Existing agreement
DOUG BIOL 1105 (3) = UNBC BIOL 1XX (3)
Revised agreement
DOUG BIOL 1105 (3) = UNBC BIOL 123 (3)
This changes the credit from unassigned to assigned and can be assumed to be better for students. Hence, the change can be implemented immediately.
When an existing transfer credit agreement is worsened (from the student's perspective), the existing agreement must remain in effect until the sending institution and its students have been advised of the change. Generally, this means honouring the existing agreement until the end of the current academic year or for up to one calendar year.
e.g. (hypothetical)
Existing agreement
CNC HIST 204 (3) = UBC HIST 155 (3)
Revised agreement
CNC HIST 204 (3) = UBC HIST 2nd (3)
This changes the credit from assigned to unassigned and can be assumed to be less valuable for students. Hence, the change must not be implemented immediately. All students who took the course under the current agreements should receive the better credit indefinitely.
When there is no change to an existing transfer credit agreement, no issue of implementation timing arises.
Effective dating of articulation agreements requires close attention to detail and careful system design. An agreement made in 1998, that is effective for a course taken at the sending institution between Sept 1999 and Aug 2002, must be honoured for many subsequent years, or even indefinitely. Transfer rules and the supporting file structures rapidly become quite complex when there are significant changes from year to year.
| Another responsibility of the ICP at a receiving institution is to note potential or actual curriculum changes that might affect existing articulation agreements. Ideally, the ICP will have access and input to the curriculum approval process. Even minor changes, such as a proposal to re-number a course or change a discipline designation can have far-reaching impact on the sending institutions and on the record-keeping systems of the receiving institution. | Effective dating of articulation agreements requires close attention to detail and careful system design. |
e.g. In approx 2006 a proposal arose in the Psychology department at a large university to re-number PSYC 100 to PYSC 101. PSYC 100 + PSYC 102 are a popular first year course sequence, found in many transfer credit agreements. The reason for the change was to make the first year course sequence appear more standard by becoming PSYC 101 + 102.
However, some 15 years earlier, the same institution had offered PSYC 101, which had a higher credit value and had then been split into the current two courses. A simple course number change would have created the need for significant re-configuration of transfer agreements, complex date range-sensitive duplication rules and other complications. The benefits did not justify these costs, so the proposal was dropped at the urging of the ICP, after it had passed through two levels of internal approval.
| Previous Section: |