Balance agregado y Cuenta de resultados agregada

“Affects are not the meaning of experiences but the response it prompts”

(Colebrook, 2002:xix).

9.1.1 Policy affects

RPL in policy development is an integral part of an education for work strategy. Chapter II explored how the concept mutated as it passed through different LL policy territories that influenced RPL in fundamental ways. RPL became part of the assemblage of intense multiplicities of macro strategies and accords that had explicit prescribed goals such as those articulated in the Lisbon Agenda and Europe 2020. In this context, RPL and education policy finds acceptance if it conforms to the hegemonic interests of these agendas. Strong tracings of hegemonic neoliberal educational instrumentalism thus affected policy development of LL and RPL. LL steered towards education for work and RPL veered towards skills audits and into an efficiency machine in education and training. The recent Council of Europe Recommendations (2012) has set out an agenda that frames RPL as part of the solution for youth unemployment,

182

upskilling low skilled workers and addressing other serious and complex issues of inclusion in work and education. Educational strategies applied over decades have done little to redress educational inequalities; it is unrealistic to expect that RPL could do so. In addition, the resources required to implement the Recommendations are not included in the strategy – a common feature of policy development in LL and RPL. Policy is thus highly problematic and creates affects in the practice domain that operate to limit practice especially in universities.

9.1.2 Epistemological affects

The problems of RPL practice in universities are multiple. Much has been said in earlier chapters about the perceived lack of need for RPL as student numbers remain high and continue to grow. While this situation persists, little will be done to address a central problem of RPL in university education – the epistemological difference that pertains to experiential learning and in consequence RPL. The current approach to RPL upholds the universities’ authority by clinging to hierarchies and gives higher education power as gatekeepers of knowledge. Universities retreat into a defensive position about quality and standards when new concepts of learning, such as those inferred by RPL, threaten its power by challenging its epistemological stance. The overarching epistemological position is founded on traditional ways of doing education – teacher led and assessment and grade focused. This approach affects RPL and claimant experience. Claimants struggle with assessment because their learning is different, and assessors struggle as they often find that learning gained in experience is incompatible with learning in formal contexts (Chapter III, VI). This shows that there is a deep division between life learning and academic learning. In universities, knowledge is treated as an entity and hence it reifies knowledge from the world. Academic knowledge is thus beyond life while RPL knowledge is immanent and in life. RPL posits a different position which is that all learning is gained in experience; formal education is only one dimension of that experience (Chapters III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII). This is the basis of an epistemological battle in relation to RPL and more generally prior experiential learning in higher education. Yet recently experiential learning in terms of placements, internships and research initiatives has become popular. When they are an integral part of a curriculum, they are relatively unproblematic; however, when RPL claims arise, it is a different story. Concerns about quality and status of awards dominate RPL discourse and are aligned with issues of costs and resources (Chapter VI). This smoke screen protects the institution from addressing the problems of RPL practice and the challenges it raises. However, where RPL is an approved learning process in itself such as in CS2, concerns about costs and resources seem to disappear and epistemological wars are abandoned (Chapters

183

VII and VIII). If RPL practice is to advance, then universities need to advance ontologically, epistemologically and pedagogically. The pedagogy of immanence proposed later in this chapter provides affirmative options to advance thinking on these matters.

9.1.3 Practical affects

RPL is valued by the research participants as a mechanism to shorten time in education and save money (Chapters II, III, VI). Adult students struggle to pay fees and juggle competing priorities making the practical affects invaluable. They are grateful for the exemptions, but largely unaware that what is bestowed as an exemption and fee waiver has already been paid for in learning, time and in many cases in hard cash as well. Exemptions in this context are a right. If prior learning was accredited at the same level on the Framework of Qualifications with similar content, then why should any student have to pay again to take a subject? Affording learners the opportunity to audit the relevant modules (if they so wished) would allow them to re-visit and perhaps deepen and broaden the learning without “double-paying”.

The value of RPL in terms of supporting students to complete programmes is a contested outcome in this enquiry. The primary case studies showed that gaining credit exemptions though RPL is no guarantee that a student will complete a programme of study. In the US, where the costs of education are high and more flexible models of education are offered, RPL has better outcomes in this respect, and completion rates rise accordingly. Yet the degree programmes in the case studies were structured on American models of education. The degree in CS2 was built with the support of a US university and the model is comparable. The degree in CS1 is highly flexible and cyclical and unlike many degrees in Ireland uses a version of a grade point average system. Both degrees have tuition fees attached. Although fees are somewhat lower in Ireland the same logic applies – students avail of financial advantages where available. If the fees are very high, as in the US fee waivers could have a stronger motivational factor. On the other hand, if fees are not especially high and other priorities take over, it could be easier to drop out. Either way the quantitative data from both regions (Ireland and US) although not fully comparable, indicates that RPL as an instrumental process has instrumental outcomes and education can become commodified in the process.

184

RPL is framed as an instrumental procedure in policy development, and it is deeply connected with learning for work. Yet, it is impossible to ignore its potential as a learning process. Given the position of many practitioners, who may do RPL in addition to an already heavy workload, it is difficult to say if they will be able to develop practice in this way. Many RPL practitioners are not part of faculty and thus find it difficult to engage academics on such developmental matters. However, for those who can do so, a move towards the type of ILPs used in CS2 could be a good start. It could be of particular value to those learners who may have little documented evidence of their prior learning and need new ways of presenting their knowledge.

Concerns were voiced about standards and that RPL could jeopardise the perceived status of final awards in the public domain (Chapter VI). This is not the fault of RPL but a problem with the conceptualization of academic knowledge itself. Higher education, like RPL needs theorizing as it is in itself poorly conceived. I feel strongly that universities need to rethink their epistemological basis. Curriculum reviews are common in universities in Ireland; however, pedagogical reviews are rare. Universities must reconsider their approach to education; established practices are not working well enough to create new concepts and paradigms for the challenges that are now immanent.

The accounts from this enquiry show that the primary concern of adult students is to learn. They were interested in saving time and money only when learning is not compromised in the process (Chapters VII and VIII). Accounts by university managers made no mention of a role for learning in the RPL process itself. They valued RPL primarily as a process that can enhance individual confidence and support motivation for study (Chapter VI). In contrast, the accounts of participants / claimants provided an extraordinary insight into the nature of learning and showed that participants understood their own internal learning processes very well.

9.1.4 Independent learning affects

The model of RPL used in CS2 is impressive. Independent Learning Projects (ILPs) offer students the chance to integrate prior learning explicitly into the process of research and assessment. The outcomes are staggering in terms of the deep levels of learning experienced by students. All students in CS2 use ILPs either for RPL or as the capstone for their awards. The model is not without problems. In particular, the isolation of students working alone is a concern. Their learning could be enhanced if they were part of a group who could question,

185

problematize and critique the projects together. Being part of a learning group offers powerful learning as shown in Chapter VII.

Generally, the participant / claimant accounts express a skepticism about the wider consequences of RPL on learning. Participants were concerned that RPL would block learning by removing peer experts from groups and thereby reduce the power for the group as a result. In as much as they wanted to protect the integrity of the learning experience, participants also valued the power of RPL as a motivational mechanism. The desire for the new and the unforeseen in learning is motivating while to “repeat, repeat” deadens desire and consequently deadens learning. Managers agreed with the rationale that reducing repetition would increase motivation. On the other hand, accounts also show that the participants viewed repetition as positive because “you’d always learning something” (Nessa, CS1 [29]). The role of repetition in learning was valued as an opportunity to unlearn and to learn anew. In this context, repetition was part of learning and a means for evaluating prior learning and building on it in a more considered way.