School of Continuing and Professional Studies > Student Resources > Undergraduate Resources > Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) > Course Match for PLA
Course Match PLA
Course Match Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) is for students in credit-based programs
Students pursuing these degrees can demonstrate learning related to the learning outcomes of a specific course. Credit can be awarded if Course Match PLA submission meets college level learning and demonstrates
connection between their knowledge and experience.
Students select a course in their degree program (not a residency requirement) or a current course from another department at DePaul that matches college-level learning gained from their experience (knowledge or demonstrable skills). Evidence can be a paper or oral presentation that relates personal or professional experience to the ideas of others, cited in the paper or presentation. In addition, supplemental artifacts such as work products may be submitted. If you have not previously completed PLA, you are encouraged to take the RPL 101 – Prior Learning Assessment class.
A $150 fee will be charged upon submission to SCPSassessment@depaul.edu. The PLA submission (form and evidence) will be sent to a content expert in a related field who will determine whether the student has demonstrated the learning outcomes of the course. Students will receive an email notifying them of the content expert’s assessment decision.
Course Match PLA Resources
Course Match PLA Examples
Course Match Submission Form
BADM 340 – Implementing Corporate Training Programs
BADM 340 Form
BADM 340 Essay
DCM 302 – Project Assessment
DCM 302 Form
DCM 302 Essay
Content experts will use this rubric to assess Course Match PLA submissions. Submissions need to demonstrate college-level learning through experience, knowledge, and connection in the context of a course’s learning outcomes.
Meets College-Level Learning
Does Not Meet College-Level Learning
Communicates relevant explanation of personal and/or professional experience related to learning outcome(s).
Explanation of experience is comprehensive and detailed. There is a clear relationship between the description of the experience and the learning outcome(s).
Explanation of experience is simplistic and incomplete. Explanation of relationship between experience and learning outcome(s) is superficial.
Explanation of the experience is unclear and non-specific. The relationship between the experience and the learning outcome(s) is non-existent or irrelevant.
Understands relevant theories, models, or best practices related to learning outcome(s). Demonstrates understanding of relationship among relevant theories, models, or best practices.
Explanation describes theoretical underpinnings of relevant concepts and provides analysis (compares/contrasts) with other relevant ideas. Explanation demonstrates critique of strengths/weaknesses of ideas. Scholarly evidence is appropriate.
Explanation is at a basic level and focuses on summarizing a single theory through factual description. Limited evidence of understanding theories in relationship to one another. Scholarly evidence is inappropriate or incomplete.
Lack of evidence or incomplete understanding of relevant theories. Lack of evidence of scholarly investigation and understanding of knowledge related to learning outcome(s).
Demonstrates understanding of experience in relationship to broader body of knowledge. Can apply knowledge to experience. Provides self-assessment of experience in relationship to knowledge.
Comprehensive explanation of how the experience fits into the appropriate knowledge base. Explanation provides detailed self-reflection and critique of personal performance within the experience in relationship to knowledge gained. Assesses how to utilize knowledge to improve outcome of experience.
Superficial level of self-reflection that recognizes basic level of relationship between experience and body of knowledge but is unable to critique or adequately explain the significance of the connection.
Lack of understanding of how experience relates to broader body of knowledge. Lack of understanding that experience is situated within body of knowledge. Lack of application of knowledge to experience.