Have we got an Adult Education Model for PLAR?
Bruce Spencer, Athabasca University
Abstract: This paper will draw on recent scholarship and experiential
learning to explore the question of have we got an “adult education
model” for prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR)? It will
acknowledge the differences between “adult education” and “education for
adults” and argue that what we need is a model of PLAR informed by
adult education sensibilities.
Introduction
Having recently reviewed the edited collection by Per Anderson and Judy Harris Retheorising the Recognition of Prior Learning, (2006), I was left wondering what
specifically “adult education” has to offer in understanding the potential and practice of
prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) in higher education in Canada. The
edited collection was interesting, challenging and wide-ranging but left open the more
specific questions of what is the connection between PLAR and adult education, and why
and how we can apply PLAR as a form of advanced placement within university level
education? As adult educators do we have any insights to offer in the use of PLAR in
higher education? Can we go beyond the usual knee-jerk reaction “that it’s a good thing”
and offer some guidance on the why, how, and when of PLAR – drawing on adult
education literature and our experiential learning as adult educators
PLAR Overview
PLAR has become a worldwide “movement” encompassing Australasia, Southern Africa,
Europe and North America with an established International Consortium for Experiential
Learning. It attracts those who see PLAR as important for increasing access for
previously disadvantaged groups but also attracts politicians and business leaders which
suggests they may well view PLAR as a mechanism that will help them turn traditional
higher education towards meeting the needs, priorities, and interests of the “real” world,
as they see it. Adult educators have always valued student experience in the classroom
and while there is broad support for PLAR for adult students there are concerns about
processes, the transferability of knowledge, and the dilution of the social, emancipatory
purposes of adult education.
The process of PLAR is most often presented as theoretically unproblematic: the vast
majority of research focuses on the technical questions of how to measure learning’s
worth and also how to persuade traditional educational institutions, and “elitist”
academics, to accept PLAR credits (Thomas, 1998; European Commission, 2002). The
case for PLAR fits best with technical training programs that have identifiable skills and
abilities as the course objectives. Behavioural learning theories that emphasize
“competencies” or “learning outcomes” best fits with this instrumental approach to
training. Students are encouraged to match their skills to the course outline and outcomes
and claim the credits. PLAR can be useful for workers to demonstrate they have
knowledge and skills that are needed for promotions or are applied to “laddered” skillsbased job categories (for example in Australia). PLAR meets most opposition as a
method of gaining credit within academic programs (particularly the non-professional or
non-applied programs); most courses in traditional academic programs are presented as
non-instrumental since the knowledge areas, theories, and learning processes of critical
reading and writing they concentrate on are outside of common discourse/culture. (See
Spencer, 2005; Spencer & Kelly, 2005, for a more extensive discussion.)
Learning and Knowledge.
PLAR raises the question of whether all adult learning should be viewed in terms of what
is measurable, exchangeable, and credit-worthy. For example Derek Briton has argued
that the “use value” of certain knowledge is being confused with its “exchange value,”
what is very useful in one situation may not be “exchangeable” into course credits. It also
“undervalues” experiential learning that cannot be transferred (Briton et al., 1998). This
is not to claim that one kind of knowledge is superior to the other but rather that it is
different. This is not to deny that experiential learning can be useful when undertaking
course-based learning, but it may be quite legitimate to argue that the prior learning is
sufficiently different that it cannot be credited as if the applicant had undertaken the
course of study.
From a traditional adult education perspective some of the issues involved in considering
the importance of prior learning are very familiar. If we take a broad sweep of adult
education we find that credentialism has overtaken many formerly non-credential adult
courses and programs. Traditionally adult education could be defined as outside of the
“post-secondary system,” courses were offered to achieve a number of purposes
including social and community building, for example Canadian adult education can
historically be defined as “education for citizenship” (Selman, 1998; Schugurensky,
2006). The outcome of the course was not to be measured by a “grade” but by the
reflections and social actions of its participants. The learning could be individual and
social but it was not assessed for the purposes of credit. As adult educators adjusted noncredit courses to allow for awards of credit they had to face up to many of the same issues
that are associated with PLAR. A major challenge was to retain the social purposes and
collective learning of traditional adult education practice while ensuring that the course
would pass any external examination of its credit-worthiness. This same shift in emphasis
– from learning to credential – can be observed in PLAR processes.
Adult Learning.
With the move away from discussing “adult education” towards framing all discourse in
our field as “adult learning” has come confusion over the aims and purposes of our
practices. The emphasis shifts from the social purposes of adult education towards the
individual learning of the adult. Even to the point were some authors claim “informal and
incidental learning is at the heart of adult education because of its learner- centered focus
and the lessons that can be learned from life experience” (Marsick &Watkins, 2001,
p25). Such learning may be at the “heart” of adult learning but surely social purpose,
non-formal adult education is at the “heart of adult education” (See Welton 1987; and
chapter 1 Spencer, 2006 for argument and references.) PLAR accelerates this
individualistic focus but nonetheless it challenges us to consider how best we can
translate experiential learning into higher education credits and hence advanced standing
for mature students.
The challenge for progressive adult educators today is no different to that of past adult
educators, it is to marry the critical experiential learning that working people do engage
in to critical theoretical knowledge within the academy: to recognize experiential
knowledge when it is appropriate and build on it when needed. The chapters in Retheorising the Recognition of Prior Learning are not much help here; there is some
discussion of “course” versus “program” credits and PLAR courses embracing a kind of
“return to learn” preparatory skills but with a few exceptions there was not much
discussion of either the practices of PLAR or the academic justification for recognition –
academic arguments tended to be dismissed as “elitist” (some of them are but not all, and
they do need to be examined). Incidentally nor is the text as useful theoretically as it
might appear at first – there are a number of references to the work of Basil Bernstein in
seeking justification for the arguments put forward but no one really wrestles with the
confluence of his “code theory,” Bourdieu’s “habitus” plus “cultural capital,” and the
entry of working people into higher education. At the time of application, that is when
would-be students are using the PLAR process, unschooled and differently socialized
individuals may be significantly disadvantaged. An assessment of a PLAR portfolio
needs to be sensitive to such issues.
Building a Model
Maybe we can build an “adult education” model of PLAR from the ground up (I am
using “adult education” loosely here – it’s really referring to “the education of adults” see
Lindeman, 1947, for the distinction between “true adult education” that is social purpose
education and mainstream education for adults; Spencer, 2006, p110-111). We know that
most adults learn as they live – informal, including incidental, learning takes place all the
time. Much of this learning is related to problem solving either at home, leisure or work,
it is self-directed and self-motivated (we can invoke the writings of Malcolm Knowles
and Alan Tough to support this basic adult education perspective). In some cases this
learning will be augmented by non-formal educational opportunities at work, in the
community, in social movements (including unions), or in relation to leisure activities (a
short boating-safety course for example). None of this learning may carry a credential –
certainly not one recognized by an established educational institution. Some adults are
more curious about the social and physical world than others, some will search out
information and begin to develop their critical reading skills but others may not. For
example, for some, ten years work experience may be one year repeated ten times! (And
that may be because of the limitations of the job as much as the worker.)
It is very unusual for the knowledge gained experientially to be a close match for a
particular higher education course – although it may be the case in relation to some
applied areas such as nursing, management, engineering and the like, but even here the
match may only be with one or two courses including perhaps the general introductory
course. Even in these cases how much of the experiential knowledge will have been
subject to close analysis or critical scrutiny will vary and may not represent the kind of
grounding an academic wanted to achieve in the carefully designed introductory courses.
However, knowledge gained prior to course work may very well be substituted for the
“breadth” program planners may want to offer to younger students and therefore be
legitimate as unspecified “program” credits for mature students. How much scope there is
for such credits will vary from program to program.
PLAR advocates tend to favour careful assessment and a measured approach: the content
of portfolios are often ranked on a scale from 1 to 10 against a set of
factors/skills/abilities and then the score gets totted up and averaged for the number of
assessors and eventually translated to a number of course credits. In truth this does not
work very well for higher education. It may provide some useful guidance but assessment
of prior learning is more an art than a science: an art perhaps best practiced by adult
educators? What does this person know? How is that related to the program? How much
credit should they get so as not to make the program repetitive and overly long? Bearing
in mind that the program may well have been developed for the average18 year old
entrant the 38 year old may simply not need to travel the same distance to arrive at
roughly the same place. What the mature student may need is some work on academic
reading and writing, critical thinking and critical thought (Burbules & Berk, 1999). The
PLAR process may also help identify some other gaps in knowledge for the mature
student but they may not need 10 breadth courses in the same way as an 18 year old
student.
So far then our adult education model favouring PLAR is pragmatic – it is built on our
adult educator’s understandings of the importance of experience, problem solving,
maturity and other attributes that make the education of adults so rewarding. We can
acknowledge the importance of social purpose learning in making assessments and we
may also be able to acknowledge when some adults have been subject to an oppressive
“culture of silence” (Freire, 1981). In this context it is not elitist to argue that adult
students may not have had the opportunity to engage in critical reading and writing but it
would be elitist to assume that therefore they do not have significant insights and
understandings – not all analysis flows from text. This may not be so much an argument
for an adult education model of PLAR as an argument favouring advanced placement
(the outcome of the PLAR process) – I am assuming here that PLAR is not simply being
used for entry into institutions – and for specially tailored courses for mature students
who are granted advanced standing. However we look at it PLAR does challenge us to
consider what is “essential,” or “core,” academic work within a particular program, what
are the key insights, understandings and knowledge we want to open up? As adult
educators it also challenges us to consider what social purposes we want our program,
and the courses within it, to provoke.
Theoretical Framework?
If we have a kind of pragmatic adult education model of PLAR rooted in our experience
as adult educators and rejecting both the narrower more scientific approaches to PLAR
and elitist opposition – but recognizing legitimate differences in the exchange value of
knowledge – can we call on a theoretical model to support this perspective? It is a bit of a
stretch but I think we can use a “critical cultural studies” framework to underscore this
model. Cultural studies grew out of adult education (Edward P Thompson, Richard
Hoggart, Raymond Williams - see, for example, McIlroy & Westwood, 1993; Steele
1997): cultural studies approach an understanding of people’s lives by accepting
Williams’ caveat that “culture is ordinary” and by examining the everyday lives lived in
the context of the political and social events as they are experienced and acted upon by
individuals and social groups in society; it recognizes the importance and value of the
experiences of ordinary women and men and connects those to societal and academic
concerns. Critical cultural studies recognises the importance of class, gender, ethnicity
and sexuality in peoples lives and connects those to issues of identity and difference as
well as to the possibilities for agency and social action.
Equity and access. It is also worth noting that while PLAR may emphasize access
(dramatically illustrated in post-apartheid South Africa – a situation where over 80% of
the population was previously systematically disadvantaged) but there is little evidence
from empirical studies conducted across Europe that it has benefited previously
disadvantaged groups (European Commission, 2002). Like many other schemes aimed at
increasing access to education in the developed North it has tended to extend the
advantage of the more socially privileged (some of whom admittedly missed out first
time around) with only marginal advantages to others. This is not to argue that PLAR
cannot be useful in promoting greater access but PLAR, simply applied, may not achieve
the kind of equity some promoters expected.
In addition PLAR may have the potential to shake up traditional programs and teaching
but the mainstream promotion of PLAR does little to resuscitate the democratic social
purposes of adult education: to some extent it has the opposite tendency; it emphasizes
the argument that learning is essentially about skills and competencies useful for
employment (it is therefore both individualistic and economistic).
Conclusions
It would be inaccurate to argue we have an “adult education” model of PLAR but we can
argue that we have a model of PLAR based on our adult education practices and
understandings; one that acknowledges mature students learning and promotes
opportunities for the “education of adults.” What we have is an adult education argument
favouring PLAR and advanced standing which for some mature students will need to be
married to some kind of “return to learn” courses.
What is particularly striking about Re-theorising the Recognition of Prior Learning is that
the book finishes with an “Endword” dig by Michael Young at “the closed intellectual
world that many adult educators tend to take for granted” – a comment he makes in spite
of his acknowledgement that he has “not worked in the field of adult education” (p321).
It is always unfortunate when “trespassers,” no matter how knowledgeable in their own
fields, trample on adult education scholarship (particularly when they have not bothered
to read it): but if we can use our collective and experiential knowledge as adult education
scholars and practitioners we can craft an understanding of the role of PLAR within
higher education which rises above such careless disregard for our work and serves
mature students’ needs.
References
Anderson, P. & Harris, J. (Eds.). (2006). Re-theorising the recognition of prior learning
Leicester, UK: NIACE.
Briton, D., Gereluk, W. & Spencer, B. (1998). Prior learning assessment and recognition:
Issues for adult educators, CASAE Conference Proceedings, Ottawa: University of Ottawa,
24-28.
Burbules, N. & Berk, R. (1999) Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations,
differences, and limits. In Popkewitz, T. & Fendler, L (Eds), Critical theories in
education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics, New York: Routledge, 45-65.
European Commission. (2002). Social inclusion through APEL: A learners perspective.
Comparative report. Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University.
Freire, P. (1981). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum
Lindeman, E. (1947). Methods of democratic adult education. In S. Brookfield (Ed),
Learning democracy: Eduard Lindeman on adult education and social change (pp. 5359). London: Croom Helm, 1987.
Marsick,J. & Watkins, K. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. In Merriam, S. (Ed.)
New directions for adult and continuing education, no 89. The new update on adult
learning theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McIlroy, J., & Westwood, S. (Eds.) (1993). Border country: Raymond Williams in adult
education. Leicester, UK: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.
Schugurensky, D. (2006). Adult citizenship education: An overview of the field. In
Fenwick, T., Nesbit, T & Spencer, B. (Eds.) Contexts of adult education: Canadian
perspectives (68-80). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.
Selman, G. (1998). The imaginative training for citizenship. In Scott, S., Spencer, B. &
Thomas, A. (Eds.) Learning for life: Canadian readings in adult education (24-34).
Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.
Spencer, B. (2005). Prior learning assessment and recognition. In English, L. (Ed.)
International encyclopaedia of adult education. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 508-512.
Spencer, B. (2006). The purposes of adult education: A short introduction, Thompson
Educational Publishing, Toronto.
Spencer, B. & Kelly, J. (2005). Is workplace learning higher education? Canadian
Journal for the Study of Adult Education (printed 2007) Vol. 19, No. 2 pp.33-51.
Steele, T. (1997). The emergence of cultural studies: Adult education, cultural politics,
and the ‘English’ question. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Thomas, A. (1998). The tolerable contradictions of prior learning assessment. In Scott,
S., Spencer, B. & Thomas, A. (Eds.) Learning for life: Canadian readings in adult
education (354-364). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.
Welton M. (Ed.) (1987). Knowledge for the people: The struggle for adult learning in
English-speaking Canada, 1828-1973. Toronto: OISE Press.