Transfer Nation Talks

Inside the LEARN Commission Report: A Conversation for Practitioners

• Transfer Nation • Season 5

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 45:52

A new national report names what a lot of us already know: the way higher education evaluates prior learning was not built for the volume, variety, or complexity of today's learners.

In today's episode, host Dr. Heather Adams sits down with Juana Sánchez, who facilitated the LEARN Commission on behalf of Sova and AACRAO, and Sarah Muller, assistant registrar for transfer credit at The Ohio State University and a LEARN Commissioner. They talk about what the Commission found, what its recommendations look like inside day-to-day work, and what it means to be an agent of change from within your own sphere of influence.

If you've ever had to explain a credit decision and wished your answer could be better, this conversation is for you.

Disclosure: Heather Adams works with Sova, which co-convened the LEARN Commission along with AACRAO. Episode producer Emily Kittrell served as a LEARN Commissioner. 

The work of the LEARN Commission is part of the Beyond Transfer initiative and is made possible with the generous support of the Ascendium Education Group.

Guests

  • Juana Sánchez — Beyond Transfer Director at Sova; led the LEARN Commission. 
  • Sarah Muller — Assistant Registrar for Transfer Credit at The Ohio State University; LEARN Commissioner. 

Resources 

Show Credits
Host | Dr. Heather Adams
Producers | Rhian Waterberg, Emily Kittrell, Caitlyn Potter Glaser
Sound Editing | Abraham Urias 

Keep talking with Transfer Nation
Website: www.transfernation.com
IG: @WeAreTransferNation
LinkedIn: Transfer Nation Page
TikTok: @TransferNation
FB Group: Transfer Nation
Email: WeAreTransferNation@gmail.com

Talk soon!
#TransferPride #TransferSuccess #TransferChampion #TNTalks #TransferNation


[00:00:00] Heather Adams:
Hello, everyone. Welcome to Transfer Nation Talks. I'm Heather Adams. I'm going to lay out a scenario for you, one that you may recognize. So a student visits your office or sends you an email or asks some version of a question like, I took this class at State University X, so why doesn't it count here towards my major? You know, you look up their record, you investigate the course, and you realize that the best answer you can really give them is some sort of bland version of, "Because that's just how it works here." So if you've ever been in that uncomfortable situation, or on that uncomfortable side of the conversation, today's episode is for you, for sure. There is a new report out from a national commission on credit evaluation that really helps explain what might be happening here and how we might address it.

So today, we're going to talk about what it says and what we can do with the recommendations, even if we're not in charge of policy at our institutions, or at the system or state level. Welcome to Transfer Nation Talks. I'm your host, Heather Adams, founder of Transfer Nation and a lifelong transfer advocate. Here at Transfer Nation and Transfer Nation Talks, we believe that transfer success is everyone's responsibility, no matter your role, title, or department. Today's students and learners, they're mobile, they're diverse, and they're complex. But our systems have not kept up. The results? Too many learners facing hidden barriers, lost credits, and unclear paths. This podcast is about changing that.

In each episode, we'll spotlight real conversations with professionals, learners, and partners from across higher education, people you might not think of as transfer folks, but who all play a part in helping learners thrive. So let's break down those silos, challenge assumptions, and reimagine what transfer can be and who is accountable for realizing that success. This is Transfer Nation Talks, and you are right on time. Let's talk transfer. Joining me today are Juana Sanchez and Sarah Muller. Juana led the LEARN Commission on behalf of AACRAO and Sova as part of the Beyond Transfer Initiative. You may have heard of the Beyond Transfer Blog. That's part of that initiative as well. And Sarah is Assistant Registrar for Transfer Credit at The Ohio State University and served as a LEARN Commissioner.

So Juana, Sarah, welcome to Transfer Nation Talks. I'm so glad you're here.

[00:02:36] Juana Sanchez:
Thanks for having me, Heather.

[00:02:38] Sarah Muller:
I'm excited to be here.

[00:02:39] Heather Adams:
Yay, me too. So, Juana, I want to start at the very beginning because that's a very good place to start, as Julie Andrews would say. But a lot of our listeners probably haven't heard of Julie Andrews and The Sound of Music or the LEARN Commission. So I would love you to give us a short version of what this is all about. What's the origin story? What is it? What brought it into being?

[00:03:02] Juana Sanchez:
Sure, I'm happy to. Let me start by breaking down the name, the LEARN Commission. So that is an acronym, and it stands for the Learning Evaluation and Recognition for the Next Generation LEARN Commission. And it was co-convened between Sova and AACRAO under our Beyond Transfer Initiative, recognizing that there was a need to really closely examine undergraduate learning and credit evaluation processes in order to address kind of a rising shift in the demographics of who undergraduate learners are today. The commission itself was robust. It was comprised of 15 individuals, like Sarah and Emily Kittrell, who helped produce this episode. And we were intentional about trying to create a table that would bring folks together with differing perspectives and skill sets.

And so the commission composition was intentionally constructed to include leaders from two- and four-year institutions across the country, to also include the voices of institutional accreditors, as well as policy researchers and advocates with expertise on transfer and learning evaluation. And the commission's work was made possible with the generous investment from Ascendium Education Group, ECMC Foundation, and the Kresge Foundation. And with their support, we were able to launch this work in July 2024. And we then undertook a year-and-a-half-long process where the commissioners looked deeply at different sides of credit evaluation. So not just drilling down into what we call traditional institution-to-institution course-credit transfer, but also expanding our aperture to think about things like high school dual enrollment credit transfer and credit for prior learning.

And the commission also considered how emerging technologies like AI are shifting the credit evaluation landscape and what implications that technology might have for staff as well as for policy and process. And before we go any further, I just want to acknowledge you were so kind in your introduction of me saying I led the commission. I was one of a mighty team here at Sova and AACRAO that included Lara Couturier and Leslie Fischbeck on the Sova side, as well as Quintina Barnett Gallion and Wendy Kilgore on the AACRAO side. And I want to make a special acknowledgement of Wendy's leadership to help steward a lot of the research and analysis that helped support the commission's work. Under Wendy's leadership, AACRAO produced a set of green papers to really provide the evidence base from which the commission was able to deliberate and shape its recommendations.

So the last thing I'll say is the commission report came out in December 2025, so it's still a
relatively new document, and we've been working to help more folks learn about that report.

[00:05:58] Heather Adams:
Love it. And yes, Wendy, oh my goodness, she's such an incredible researcher. It's really
unbelievable. I have an opportunity to work with her a couple of times on smaller research
projects, and she just blows it out of the water. It's pretty amazing. So thank you for mentioning those folks. All right, Sarah, we heard a lot about this. It sounds super important. There's so many incredible people involved in this. What was it like being part of this group?

[00:06:22] Sarah Muller:
So it was such an energizing experience. I felt so honored to be able to serve on the LEARN Commission. And it was so great to be surrounded by true transfer champions who are really all working towards that same goal of advancing learning mobility. And it really meant a lot to bring that on-the-ground perspective into the conversation. I see this work play out every day in my current role and really to make sure that voice was part of the broader discussion around policy and practice was really rewarding.

[00:06:55] Heather Adams:
One thing I noticed in the report right away is that it uses a phrase learning evaluation rather than credit evaluation. And that feels deliberate. So maybe talk a little bit about that and what's going on there.

[00:07:08] Juana Sanchez:
I think in some of the early stages of our work, we would use phrases like learning evaluation, a.k.a. credit evaluation, right? Because that is kind of a common thing that in the field we still say. Our terminology maybe hasn't quite caught up with the realities of the very diverse ways in which learners today are accessing postsecondary training, knowledge, and skills. We recognize that the ecosystem for learning has really expanded in recent years. What does that mean for learners and the types of learning that they are bringing to the table when they enroll in higher education? Well, they are no longer coming as empty vessels, right? We know that nationally, more than one-third of all undergraduate learners are transfer students.

So they have previously completed college coursework at another institution. We also know that nationally, more than a third of all high school graduates are graduating with some high school dual enrollment course credit under their belts. And an increasing number of states are really moving to expand high school dual enrollment course offerings across public high schools. We also know that more and more learners enrolled in higher education are adults, roughly 40%, and about an equal share are working full-time while they're pursuing higher education. Not to mention that there is an increase in the number of adults who are accessing relevant learning skills and competencies outside of higher education.

So these are the adults that are maybe pursuing training through apprenticeships or on-the-job training programs. Perhaps they are doing digital badges or online MOOCs, or maybe they are military veterans who are gaining relevant training that would be applicable to a postsecondary credential. So in that context, we know that the term credit evaluation might signal a narrower reality of only looking at college courses that are documented on a transcript. And this commission, it felt really important for this commission to be thinking more universally, more broadly about learning evaluation, given the totality of types of prior learning that learners are
bringing to the table.

[00:09:30] Heather Adams:
As an adult learner myself, I love that because I remember coming in feeling like I had 20 years of experience in life learning, and yet I entered college as though none of that mattered, which still got a great college education, but would have been really cool to have been acknowledged for some of the expertise I had. So I very much appreciate that definition of learner and learning.

Sarah, I wonder, because I hear different things from folks on the ground at institutions now. We always use transfer of credit, so it's kind of ingrained. Does what Juana just laid out ring true to you from where you sit? Is it kind of a mix of what comes across your desk these days, other than just traditional college transcripts?

[00:10:18] Sarah Muller:
Yes, so that absolutely rings true. Traditional course-to-course evaluation is definitely a large part of what we do, but it's definitely not the full picture anymore. So more and more we're seeing different types of learning come in, anywhere from dual enrollment to credentials to military experience, and coursework from a wider range of institutions. And each of those really require a slightly different lens. So what that means in practice for us is that the work is more complex than it used to be, and it's continuing to grow. So year over year, we're seeing an increase in the volume of transfer credit coming into the university. So it is definitely something we are seeing here at Ohio State.

[00:10:58] Heather Adams:
Okay, so before we get into what the commission recommends, Juana, you started on this a little bit in laying out sort of what a learner is today and why we're working with the terminology in a different light. But I think it's worth talking a little bit about the broader context. The report talks a little bit about the current state of learning evaluation. So I'm curious, just to get us sort of all on the same page, what did the group learn? What did they see across the transfer landscape?

[00:11:28] Juana Sanchez:
Yeah, so we've been talking a little bit about what our 21st century student or learner profile looks like. Spoiler alert, I think what the commission found through the green papers, is that institutions by and large are really still working under 20th century policies and practices. What we saw was first and foremost, there was just extremely high variability, not only across institutions, but within institutions. So right down to the departmental level, there will be a lot of variances in how credit, course credit, and other types of learning are actually evaluated, including what are kind of the decision-making rules that are being applied, how those rules are or are not documented. And there are just frankly many cooks in the kitchen, right?

These are diffuse decision-making processes where different professionals will be invoking their expertise, their judgment to assess whether a prior learning or course credit is equivalent to what is offered at their institution. Adding to that, there's just a lot of manual processes that means these decisions can take a lot of time to reach and for institutions to communicate these decisions to learners. One other takeaway that has just sat with me is that these processes, while they may seem really internal and like we're kind of getting into the weeds of what goes on in an institution, they're really consequential from the student's perspective. Whether a course is accepted, that might translate to an extra semester, an extra year that the student is looking at before they can reach graduation.

That added time is money, not only money in terms of additional tuition or fees, but also money when we think about the opportunity costs of being delayed from entering the workforce or being able to benefit from additional earnings that a credential could afford a student. So while sometimes it felt like we were wading into the weeds of thinking about how these processes work, we want to also be mindful of that bigger picture of these policies and processes are really consequential when it comes to how the learner experiences it and what is ultimately the impact on their trajectory.

[00:13:54] Heather Adams:
I love that diagnosis. And what strikes me next is that the commission's response isn't a list of fixes, not at first. Anyway, the first thing it asks for is a change in how we think about prior learning. I want to actually read you the commission's own words from page 11 of the report. The LEARN Commission is calling for a shift in mindset. Institutions and systems and all involved constituents should seek to maximize credential applicability and embrace the assumption that a learner is prepared for additional education unless proven otherwise. The report is asking us to flip the default paradigm. Right now, in a lot of places, the assumption tends to run on a deficit-based model. The "prove to me that this learning counts" type of model.

The report, conversely, is asking institutions and leaders to come at it from an asset-based
stance, really assuming the learning counts unless there's a real reason that it doesn't. Juana, I wonder, what does that look like in practice to you?

[00:15:10] Juana Sanchez:
Yeah, I think as we were trying to just wrap our arms around the status quo, what does it look like? Why does it look like this? Who is it really serving? We had to acknowledge that the status quo was essentially built this way, right? Our current approach to credit evaluation was intentionally designed or engineered this way because we are operating under a basic assumption that some learning is inherently inferior, right, that not all learning is equal. And that is why we have set up these hurdles where learners have to continuously prove that prior learning should be treated the same, it should have equal weight, and that it is really this unspoken, unaddressed assumption that continues to dictate how we construct credit evaluation policies and how our processes flow from there.

And so the commission felt it was important to not only name that, but to say if we are going to design a system that looks different and that produces different outcomes from students, we must also start with a different assumption. And that is an assumption that there probably is high quality and relevant learning that is occurring every day across multiple providers in different settings, and that it's worthwhile to recognize that learning, to give it credit, and to figure out how it is applicable to credentials that we are offering across postsecondary institutions. So that is a big shift in mindset that then asks us to do different things to understand: Where can we find the alignment between prior course credit or other types of learning experiences so that we are able to move students towards that goal while maintaining the focus on our end goal?

Is our focus really to set up barriers and push learners out by discounting the learning that they have? Or is our focus to validate that learning and help move learners toward their end goal? So that is really kind of the basis of that mindset shift that the commission describes. And it is that perception in that mindset shift that colors the rest of the recommendations.

[00:17:35] Heather Adams:
Sarah, you were in the room while this commission was working through this stance and articulating the conditions that they're seeing on the ground. Was there a conversation or a moment or something in the process that resonated with you or that shifted the way that you think about your work?

[00:17:53] Sarah Muller:
So I would say for me, it wasn't one specific moment. It was more of a gradual shift as we really started connecting on all the different pieces of this work. Very early on, we spent a lot of time talking about what the learner experience should look like. So from timely decisions to consistency to making sure students can actually use the credits they've earned. And as I got more involved in the LEARN work, that really started to show up in how I think day-to-day and lead my team. It helped me to think a little differently, not just about whether something should meet the standard, but how can we approach the work in a way to better support students overall.

[00:18:45] Heather Adams:
All right, we heard about the commission's diagnosis and the suggested mindset change. The report goes on to name 14 recommendations for institutions and systems. Unfortunately, we're not going to cover each one of those today. They are all certainly worth considering. But let's zoom in today.

Sarah, I'm interested in hearing how aspects of these recommendations show up in your day-to-day work. So when you look at the final report, which elements of it feel most familiar to you from your position? Ohio has some state-level guidelines in place to support learning equivalency work. Is that correct?

[00:19:25] Sarah Muller:
Yes. So at the state level, Ohio has a really strong framework in place around transfer. We have initiatives like the Ohio Transfer 36 and Transfer Assurance Guides, which really help create alignment across public institutions and really help support learning mobility. Additionally, at the state level, these courses that are approved within the frameworks have clearly defined learning outcomes. And one of the key pieces is the 70% threshold. So learning outcomes need to match at least 70%. And this is set at the state level and allows for really a consistent way to evaluate courses without needing a perfect match.

[00:20:04] Heather Adams:
And what about at the local level? How does OSU reinforce or maybe build upon some of those state level mandates?

[00:20:12] Sarah Muller:
Yeah, happy to share what we're doing at Ohio State. So we're definitely building upon the
framework the state has. And then we've got a lot of things also going on here at the university. So we use the 70% learning outcome standard as well. And we've made that visible in our public facing policies and transfer credit resources online. So expectations are transparent. At the same time, when there isn't a direct course match, we also use general education learning outcomes to still recognize that learning and award credit in a way that keeps students moving forward. And that's been working really well the past few years for our students. Another big focus for us over the years has been consistency.

So instead of treating evaluations as one-off decisions, we capture them and apply them going forward so all students benefit. And I'd say that's really helped us shift to a much more scalable and consistent model over time. It of course did take buy-in across campus from deans to transfer credit coordinators, but it's really paid off. At the same time, we've also put a lot of emphasis on using technology to support this work. I'm really excited to share that we recently moved into a new transfer platform that allows us to both automatically apply existing equivalencies and create new ones in real time. So what that looks like is an evaluator on my team can be reviewing a student's transcript and make a decision in real time that applies immediately, and then that would benefit future students as well.

So really excited about where we're headed at Ohio State. Altogether, this work has helped us create a more consistent experience for students, reduce delays, and better support the growing number of transfer learners.

[00:22:01] Heather Adams:
You're listening to this. And where do you see the report meeting what Sarah's describing?

[00:22:08] Juana Sanchez:
Gosh, I've been nodding along as Sarah was describing that. And there was so much alignment in the approach that Ohio as a state and OSU as an institution are taking and the direction of the recommendations from the LEARN Commission. And that is no accident, I should say. This commission really set out to articulate a bold vision and outline actionable recommendations that are possible because we see and have learned from real cases like OSU of how this work could be done in a different way. So I heard in Sarah's recap, recommendation number one that the LEARN Commission has is that the decisions to award and apply credit should really be based on learning outcomes. It should not be clouded by other types of additional criteria.

Often, we're hearing criteria used like the modality of a course that might be offered, what type of textbook is used in the course. And the commission came down quite clearly to say that additional criteria does little to preserve academic quality. We need to kind of relentlessly focus on the learning outcomes. Sarah spoke to the reality that perfect alignment doesn't need to exist. That 70% alignment is actually strong enough and that is sufficient for institutions, for students to then move forward in their next course sequence. The commission talks about also being mindful of what to do when you don't have that 70% alignment between courses. Sarah described that when it comes to gen eds, if there isn't an exact course match, and again here, course match is defined by 70%, they can look more universally at the gen ed set of learning outcomes and still help learners move forward.

So some of those things are directly aligned with what the commission is recommending because the commission was looking to learn from these types of institutional leaders. And I'll just say it maybe felt subtle in Sarah's remarks here, but this point around documenting rules once they are determined, right, once a decision is reached, being intentional about documenting and applying that rule going forward is another area that aligns with the commission's recommendations. And when technology can be harnessed to make that decision-making more clear to others, that is also a win not only for learners, but for all of the different professionals that are working on this across departments.

So I heard a lot that resonates with the recommendations. And I would say that is because the recommendations were really designed to be actionable based on what we're seeing in bright spots like Ohio.

[00:25:01] Heather Adams:
Just as a side note, I'd love to, if there is research on some of the other aspects of courses
that sometimes are the hitch or the hiccup to the 70%, like the textbooks or things that are
peripheral. Is there research that talks about that not being as impactful because we use the 70/30 kind of in a lot of different ways, right? Whether that's grading or just the majority of people in the room say X, right? We use that a lot, but I'd love to know if there is specific research on that because I get this pushback a lot from folks, faculty particularly.

[00:25:37] Juana Sanchez:
So the commission really strives to be evidence-based in all of its work and in its final report and in the green papers, we were not able to locate rigorous research that found a link between something like the modality of the course and the student outcomes or even like the grading basis of the course, right? Whether a student passed a course based on a letter grade versus pass/fail. So because of that, the LEARN Commission wrote here in the report that these types of factors, which are commonly used in the field today, should not be used because there isn't evidence that shows that's actually preserving academic quality. The commission further says that institutions should be then thinking about more systematically gathering student outcome data to better study trajectories of learners and use that information as a feedback loop to improve not only learning evaluation processes: are we making the right decisions about accepting or rejecting a particular
course or learning experience?

But also, do we have the right learning outcomes, right? Or do we need to make updates to our curricular pathways? Do we need to partner with sending institutions to ensure there's better alignment? Or do we need to make adjustments to classroom pedagogy and to student support services? So the commission is saying, let's not just assume these factors like grading basis, course modality, recency, let's not assume that they matter. Let's look to see if there's any evidence and not seeing any evidence, let's remove them. And let's continue to study this and track how students are faring so that we can, if needed, course correct, or think about other adjustments that don't just fall heavily on the student.

Like, we're not accepting that course, but rather we're making adjustments to how we're now offering BIO 202, if that's the next course in the sequence, or we're partnering with faculty to think about just-in-time supports or innovations in pedagogy that will ensure learners are succeeding, because it's not anyone's intent to kind of pass learners through, but it's really ensuring that there is rigor, right, that they are academically prepared, and that they're being supported through completion.

[00:28:08] Heather Adams:
I love that. Thank you, Juana, because I just was working on that document that I shared, I think, with you and the transfer team recently on the 70%, because we're using that in California with the common course numbering work. And this morning I was on a website, I think it was Imperial Valley College, and their dashboards are amazing. So if you're talking about like rigorous data, they had it down to success and retention by modality, success and retention by instructor, success and retention by, I think, even grading, pass/no pass versus letter grade, like down to the T, it was beautiful. I'll send you the link. It was, it was something to, I think it was something to really use as an example of an institution that is, what's the word I'm looking for, intentionally and rigorously looking at their evidence, their data to see what is working and where those student outcomes are really thriving.

So love knowing that. I want to come back to something the report implies pretty clearly. These are high-stakes decisions. Learning evaluation is often viewed as an administrative chore, and to some extent, it is, sure. However, if we take a step back, it's actually so much more important than just simply processing paperwork or documents. It's a moment that shapes whether and how a student keeps moving toward their educational goals. So here's where I really want to take the conversation. A lot of you listening right now do this work every day. You are registrars like Sarah, you're advisors like one of Juana's previous roles, your transfer coordinators, admission staff, orientation professionals, you may not write institutional policy, but you do work inside of it every single day.

So when a report like this shows up, what should you do with it once you've read it? Juana, you've thought about this a lot. So what does it look like to be someone who pushes the mindset change and the recommendations forward, even if you don't hold the title that comes with formal authority?

[00:30:29] Juana Sanchez:
Yeah, I appreciate you mentioning that. I did start my career as an academic advisor, and there was a part of my career where I facilitated what we call systems change work with institutions as somebody who was situated outside of an institution. Systems change or policy change work sometimes I think sounds a bit lofty or abstract, but what I think it boils down to is how are we questioning the status quo? Is it working for our students? And if that answer is yes, great. Or is it not? And I think all of the types of practitioner roles that you just enumerated have a really good seat to understanding if their current credit evaluation policies and processes are working well to serve learners, or are there maybe blind spots or areas where we are missing the mark with our learners?

I remember being an advisor and my task every day when I had a student in front of me was to get to the bottom of their case. And when I say get to the bottom of their case, I mean not only figuring out how do I help that student and what they need in front of me today, but to understand what are the policies or rules I'm invoking in order to make that judgment of what is the best course they should take or how is something transferring. And so I think it's always important to ask questions about what is the rule that we're invoking, what is kind of governing the decision, what is the rationale, and to document that rule so that we can then consistently apply it for other students as they come in front of us.

Secondly, I would say part of being a changemaker at your institution or an influencer at your institution is to also document when the existing rules are just not working for specific cases that we have, right? Looking at the case and elevating it up to other people within your team to ask if this is something that needs to be granted an exception for this learner, and this is our third time granting an exception for this type of case, why not go back and revise the rule? Policies and rules, like anything, should be viewed as fluid, as living, as things that might need to evolve over time as the problems that we're seeking to address evolve over time or as the needs of learners evolve over time.

So I think I would say it starts with those two things, recognizing that you, given your direct interaction with students, probably have the best perspective on how your evaluation processes are or are not working, and your ability to document the rationale being applied or the rules being applied is really important. And third, when you're able to note the types of cases where these rules just don't seem to be making sense anymore, that can be really compelling for then the decision makers, right? The folks with positional authority to wave a magic wand and change a policy. They need that type of information. They need that type of data or evidence in order to understand what needs to be improved upon.

[00:33:42] Heather Adams:
Sarah, I saw you nodding there a lot. So something's resonating. What about what Juana shared resonates and maybe something from your own career or how you're leading your team day-to-day? Was there something familiar there?

[00:33:57] Sarah Muller:
Yeah, I think a lot of what Juana was saying, just questioning the status quo, pausing and asking, why are we making this decision this way? It's really less about challenging and more about thoughtfully questioning long-held assumptions. It really comes back to focusing on the learning itself. Are we evaluating whether a student is ready to move forward or getting caught up in things that don't matter? And I think the key is that the change doesn't have to be big. Sometimes it's just asking better questions and making small, intentional shifts that really add up over time.

[00:34:35] Heather Adams:
I want to ask one more thing here, because as you're talking, Sarah, I'm thinking about how I would have read this as a transfer center director and a transfer coordinator before that. I think a lot of practitioners are going to feel really fired up after reading this report. And I would like to know, like, where do we take that energy? You know, what conversations might they join beyond their own office or their own mind or calling me up and talking about what we could do? Where can we put this energy? Oh, what are you seeing out there? Where are folks talking about this, taking action on it? Where can we go?

[00:35:14] Juana Sanchez:
Yeah, I think this is going to vary based on the campus and how your campus is structured. I think importantly, taking the conversation outside of your immediate office is usually a first step, I see. And if you're located in the registrar's office and admissions or enrollment management or transfer student advising, right? You might need to talk to one of those three groups of the first step, or maybe it's engaging a specific academic department where we're seeing bottlenecks, maybe something that is really core for every learner, like math. Maybe there's a high volume of courses that are being evaluated by the math department, so actually engaging the department chair or the designated faculty person who is over credit evaluation is an important conversation to have.

I would say kind of stepping out, some of us are located in institutions that are part of bigger systems, and there might be groups for people in your specific roles, so gatherings of other registrars, where you could also, one, share what you're seeing some of your challenges in your role, hear from others, or even identify things that sound innovative that others are doing at other sister campuses. And I would say, you know, we've seen this a lot with AACRAO, right? AACRAO has a lot of tables that are statewide to help provide that kind of colleague-to-colleague professional development and learning. And nationally, we're seeing some of that take place also under AACRAO. And we know coming up the Assembly, AACRAO's kind of largest convening of this type will be taking place in Arlington, Virginia.

And that can be another setting for practitioners to come and engage in shared problem solving, exchange ideas for how to make a case for this on your campus and learn models of what other people are doing that they can bring back to their campus to speed some of those cross- office conversations.

[00:37:15] Heather Adams:
Yes, please join us in July for the Assembly. Let's have this conversation together in real life, I mean, in real person. Sarah, okay, anything you'd add, you know, places that you personally found these conversations happening or maybe, even more urgently, like tips you'd have for folks who are on their campuses trying to advocate, what has worked? Where are you able to have these conversations and move things forward?

[00:37:41] Sarah Muller:
Yeah, I think internally it really comes down to bringing teams together, like Juana said, from other areas, not just your own. Reach out to advising, admissions, faculty, because that's where the real change is going to start when you bring in other perspectives, not just your own. And I'll say at the state level, there are a lot of strong opportunities. Here in Ohio, we have groups like the Ohio Transfer Council and transfer-focused communities where we create space to share these ideas and work through challenges together, which I found really valuable. I'm sure there's another colleague out there working through the same issue you're working through. You just have to, you know, reach out and connect and start those conversations.

[00:38:32] Heather Adams:
Okay, as we wrap up today's conversation, I want to make sure that we point out something concrete folks can walk away with. The 14 recommendations could feel like a lot. Sarah, for listeners who want to start somewhere, maybe even somewhere small, what would you tell them?

[00:38:52] Sarah Muller:
I would say pick one recommendation and run with it. You don't have to tackle everything at once. Pick one area that connects to your role and start there. And from there, pull in others, just like I said, whether it's in your office or across campus, and just keep building from there.

[00:39:07] Heather Adams:
Juana, anything that you'd add, any specific sections of the report or other papers that you think people should pay attention to?

[00:39:15] Juana Sanchez:
I think as a set, the LEARN commission's report and the green papers could also provide just helpful terminology or like case-making data points, right? Heather, you pose this question of like, well, what do we know from the research about course modality, right? Like go to the LEARN commission's green papers if you would like to pull some data points around national trends or what we know about the landscape. That could be a way to open up conversations with colleagues. So it's not only your lived experience, what you're seeing day-to-day, what you're documenting about the students in front of you, but also what we know from AACRAO's robust membership surveys, what we know from the literature, that could be helpful in getting more folks to pay attention to the challenges.

I think we know that one of the biggest challenges that makes this work feel like an uphill battle is that because a lot of us are responsible for credit evaluation, it can sometimes feel like no one is on first. or many of us hold pieces of credit evaluation, but because there's so many of us that are responsible, kind of like no one is ultimately responsible, or it may not be the first priority for, you know, for a given group of people. And so I think starting with just building some common awareness, using some common language, being able to point to the data, that can be a helpful way to have some productive discussions with your colleagues. And that could be another resource that the LEARN Commission offers.

[00:40:45] Heather Adams:
This has been so fun, and there's so many aspects of this report to talk about. But is there
anything from this kind of boots-on-the-ground in, you know, how can we work from our role today position, topic, and conversation piece that we didn't get to, that you really want our listeners to think about or know?

[00:41:07] Sarah Muller:
I'll say, I know a lot of listeners already know this, but just as a reminder, this work is
important. It does matter. So keep at it.

[00:41:15] Juana Sanchez:
And I would just add, yes, it is important. And we also want to hear from you, right? The
commission developed these recommendations based on what we were able to document from other states and specific institutions. The report does include a lot of those real-life examples, but we are still learning, right? Our work is not really over. In many ways, this report is an invitation to keep the conversation open. It's not saying this is done. And so to that end, I would say I know AACRAO will be having a survey out where we want to hear back from folks what they thought of the report. What are specific recommendations they are interested in advancing at their campuses? And what would they feel would be helpful in the terms of support?

So for example, is it that folks in the field feel like it'd be helpful to have some sample tools
to work from or more designated webinars or virtual spaces to have these types of conversations, colleague-to-colleague. So we are going to be looking for that feedback. Keep an eye out for that. And again, the Assembly will be one immediate upcoming place where we hope to have that kind of two-way learning take place. So your work does matter, and we want to continue to learn from you on what it takes to take some of these big ideas and turn them into practice at scale. We think about the urgency of this work every day. I know many of the listeners here are thinking about that urgency. And so how can we lean on each other to implement this vision and really make a meaningful difference for learners?

[00:42:59] Heather Adams:
It's literally in the name, folks. LEARN Commission, right? So, wow, I really enjoyed delving into the report from a practitioner's perspective today. And I just can't wait for folks to spread it around their campuses and around the field. Again, it's called Learning Evaluation for the 21st Century, Recommendations to Transform Policy and Practice to Meet Changing Needs. And you can find a direct link to it and all the green papers in the show notes. Thank you so much, Sarah, Juana. Thank you for joining me today. Thanks for this conversation and for all the incredible work that y'all are doing. I so appreciate you.

[00:43:41] Sarah Muller:
Thank you.

[00:43:43] Juana Sanchez: 
Thanks for having me. 

[00:43:45] Heather Adams:
Thank you so much for listening, everyone, and for all of the work that you
do on behalf of transfer students and the broader transfer community. I cannot wait to talk to you again soon. This podcast episode was produced by Emily Kittrell and edited by Abraham Urias. If today's conversation resonated with you, be sure to like, subscribe, and share with colleagues. You can also join the movement online at transfernation.com and on all the major social media platforms. Until next time, in transfer pride and community always. You are listening to Transfer Nation Talks. Transfer Nation is a community of educators and advocates working to improve the transfer and post-traditional student experience and celebrate transfer and community college as the pathway of success that it is.

You can join us here every week or so for conversations on, well, everything transfer. From
advocate conversations focused on grappling with today's most important transfer-centric topics, to the nuts and bolts on transfer programming services and building more inclusion for transfers on our campuses. To transfer stories and the inside scoop from transfers and transfer alum. You can continue the conversation with the community anytime on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, TikTok, and in person at the many events and transfer think tanks hosted by the Transfer Nation community. So be sure to join us on your favorite platform as we learn from and with one another, how to bust out of the status quo, disrupt systemic inequities, and reimagine, reform, renew, and regenerate educational opportunities that work for students, that center the student experience of today, rather than what works best for outdated and ineffective processes
and procedures.

Until our next conversation from the whole Transfer Nation team in transfer community and transfer pride. See you next time.

Head Shot

Dr. Heather Adams

Host