Cross-disciplinary analysis of the credit accumulation and transfer (CAT) policy and practices in higher education institutions in Hong Kong

Credit transfer assessment involves a systematic process that requires a significantcontributions from academic and administrative staff to ensure efficient articulation and admission (Schudde et al. 2021). A well-articulated and developed CAT policy can benefit students in minimising duplicated study through the recognition of their prior learning (Cheung et al., 2020), including credits obtained in formal learning and alternative forms of learning. Previous studies have compared the CAT governance structure and articulation arrangements between publicly funded institutions and self-financed institutions mainly in the United States. Other studies have examined the transfer student support, reporting that a considerable number of transfer students suffered from heavier study loads than their first-year-first-degree (FYFD) counterparts because of duplicated learning resulted from variance in the credit transfer systems (Ching et al., 2021). This paper presents the findings of a study that examines the CAT systems and practices of eight functioning articulation pathways from sub-degree programmes to local senior year or top-up bachelor’s degree programmes in two distinct discipline areas in health studies and arts through documentary review, individual interviews with programme leaders and questionnaires. The findings suggest that CAT practices are driven not only by institutional policy but also domain-specific training standards. Collegial decisions are made amidst tensions between policies, institutional culture, and disciplinary academic judgment. The findings highlight that both sending and receiving ends may have insufficiencies or constraints in the implementation of CAT guidelines, which can impede SYA students’ learning progression and personal well-being in the higher education system. The cross-discipline comparisons shed light on the considerations behind the CAT policies, decision-making procedures and practices of the participating institutions. The discussion references the framework of CAT policy under the Hong Kong Qualification Framework (QFS, 2016) as well as the features of other creditable CAT systems in North America (AACRAO, 2018; BCCAT, 2015). Insights drawn from this study suggest a domain-specific approach to enhancing the efficiency of the CAT systems in place and inspire further dialogues and collaborations across disciplines between the sending and receiving institutions, which can improve cross-discipline students’ mobility in the higher education sector.