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.