Session Information
99 ERC SES 04 A, Ignite Talks
Ignite Talks Session
Contribution
This presentation shares the findings of a critical constructivist grounded theory study carried out in Higher Education (HE) in Ireland on the assumptions present in the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL). Assumptions are significant because they represent the driving forces or motivations operating in each context. It is argued that understanding what assumptions are present will bring more transparent, equitable procedures and ultimately will support the delivery of RPL provision (Friesen, 2011; Hamer, 2016, Travers, 2017). Assumptions describe what is expected in each situation, and we act accordingly in response to these underlying assumptions. RPL provides for the identification, assessment, and validation of non-formal and informal learning which in turn allows for access to HE and/or for credits within programmes. RPL is a key component of the broader lifelong learning remit of Higher Education Institutions (HEI). RPL provides for the acknowledgement of learning gained through work, volunteering and life and in doing so RPL supports everyone across the lifespan where individuals choose to return to HE to support their career or for reskilling or upskilling.
This research took a grounded theory approach and followed Charmaz (2006), for the data analysis of 82 semi-structured interviews which were carried out between 2014 and 2016, first with RPL Mentors, then Assessors and finally with Candidates for RPL. The theoretical framework employed for this research adapted Van Kleef’s (2007) model of RPL by following Schein’s (2004) organisational culture model which had explicitly positioned assumptions at the deepest level of culture below espoused values. There were three rounds of coding in the data analysis. The second stage of coding foregrounded two major themes, and these were treated as conceptual categories; assumptions about what is possible through RPL and, assumptions about what is required for RPL. Thus, the findings show that two sets of interrelated assumptions exist in RPL.
This presentation will explore these major findings and the differences in expression between the participants will be explicated. Upholding the academic standards was assumed by all the participants although it was really emphasised by the assessors of RPL. Similarly, the assumption that protocols and procedures were in place was important to RPL mentors and assessors, yet it was not mentioned by the candidates for RPL at all. Instead, the candidates assumed that RPL frees up time, and they also assumed that it meant not repeating learning, and that RPL provided for acknowledgement for their prior learning. All three sets of participants assumed that RPL allows access to the HE system, and that it was a rigorous process. Candidates and RPL mentors assumed that evidence is key, while candidates and assessors assumed that RPL facilitates progression.
This research concludes that the interrelated assumptions that were expressed provides empirical evidence of the conditional nature of our expectations about RPL. Assumptions drive our expectations and the distinct roles of each of the participants whether assessor, RPL mentor or candidate for RPL was clearly apparent in the ways that the assumptions were expressed. For the assessors, although it was important to all, the academic standards were sacrosanct and operating safely within the parameters of policy and procedure was essential. Despite these assumptions, the candidates openly expressed their motivations for engaging with RPL and so distinctly different assumptions were named, such as the assumptions that RPL helps to free up time and that RPL means they do not have to repeat what is known already. This research concludes that the participants respect the inter-dependent nature of what is at stake; that RPL only works to provide access and/or credits for prior learning if the standards are upheld.
Method
This research followed Charmaz’s (2006) critical constructivist grounded theory approaches to analyse 82 semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews. For each interview, the researcher obtained institutional ethical approval, and all appropriate ethical guidelines were followed for this research study (Cohen et al., 2018). Data collection began in 2014 when 20 HEI’s in Ireland were contacted. Initial data collection was through purposive sampling. As a result, 21 RPL Mentors from 14 different institutions participated in the interviews. The interview questions directly asked all the participants what assumptions were significant in the Recognition of Prior Learning? All the interviews were transcribed. The second set of interviews was carried out in 2015 in one HEI setting with assessors of RPL (n=31), and in 2016 the third set of interviews was carried out with candidates for RPL (n=30). The interviews with the candidates were in the same HEI as the previous year’s interviews with the assessors. The theoretical framework for this research supported the data analysis and brought further developments to Van Kleef’s (2007) model of RPL to position assumptions at the core of her model. This was informed by Shein’s (2004) model of organisational culture as it placed assumptions at the deepest level. Data analysis employed grounded theory methods, and memos were written after each interview was transcribed. Constant comparison of the data supported the researcher and guided further sampling. As the research proceeded theoretical sampling developed across the three years of interviewing, and in that time, the issues and most dominant open codes that emerged subsequently informed further data collection in the field. The analysis delivered three rounds of coding, open codes, focused codes, and theoretical codes. The initial open codes were descriptive. The second round of coding was more focused, and the data was brought into themes or conceptual categories. The abstract theoretical codes were used to frame the research findings. The findings brought the assumptions in RPL to the fore. The empirical evidence shows that there is an inter-dependant quality to the assumptions present in RPL and each of the participants respects that what is possible through RPL is only acceptable if the academic standards are safeguarded.
Expected Outcomes
This research concludes that the assumptions in RPL have an inter-dependant nature: what is possible through RPL, whether it is for non-standard access, advanced entry, or whether RPL is for credits, is only acceptable if the academic standards, the very currency of HE is not diluted. Society depends on HE to safeguard the academic standards and the programmes that are delivered across the qualification frameworks. The interrelated assumptions that were expressed in this research provides empirical evidence of the conditional nature of our assumptions about RPL. Assumptions drive our actions and having a better idea of what these forces are provides a more holistic understanding to provision for RPL accordingly. This research concludes that the distinct roles of each of the participants came across in the assumptions that they expressed. The strong assumption about upholding the academic standards by assessors reflects their ultimate responsibility, where the assessment of modules and the standards relating to this are a central concern. Interestingly, this was a concern for all, as all the participants assumed that the academic standards must be protected. Participants responsible for the RPL enactment, assessors and mentors held the assumption that the policy and procedures for RPL within the HEI provided a safe practice framework. Interestingly this assumption was not present in the data of the RPL candidate. This research concludes that the candidates’ assumptions were focused on what motivated them to engage with RPL. When candidates expressed the assumption that RPL would free up time, and that it meant that they would not have to repeat learning, they were reflecting the juggle of managing their studies in HE along with work and family commitments. Ultimately, if successful with RPL the candidate acquires significant cultural capital which publicly legitimises their knowledge, skills, and competencies and provides for choice in future.
References
1.Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory; a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. 2.Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2018) Research Methods in Education. 8th edition. New York: Routledge. 3.Friesen, N. (2011) ‘Endword: Reflections on research for an emergent field,’ in J. Harris, M. Brier & C. Wihak (eds.) Researching the Recognition of Prior Learning; International Perspectives, Leicester: NIACE, 325-328. 4.Hamer, J. (2016) ‘Assessment Philosophy: A Critically Conscious Tool for Ethical Skills Recognition,’ PLA Inside Out: An International Journal on Theory, Research and Practice in Prior Learning Assessment. 5.Schein, E. (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 6.Travers, N. (2017) ‘Inherent tensions within the practices of prior learning assessment at SUNY Empire State College.’ in: Jelly, K. & Mandell, A. (eds.) Principles, Practices and Creative Tensions in Progressive Higher Education. Rotterdam, Boston, Tapei: Sense Publishers, 215-241. 7.Van Kleef, J. (2007) 'Strengthening PLAR: Integrating theory and practice in post-secondary education.' Journal of Applied Research on Learning, 1, 1-22.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.