APEL

1
APEL

• Testing the assumptions where is the evidence?

Dr. Ian Scott
2
Where does most of the learning you use at work
come from?
3
Justifications
Social Justice excluded groups
Economic argument
Lueddeke 1997, European Commission 2000, 2001,
Cretchley Castle 2001, Gallacher Feutrie
2003.
4
Why APEL

• Challenges ownership
• Recognises prior learning in all its forms
• Makes for better learners?
• Stimulates learning?

• Its Empowering
• Encourages ownership of learning
• Good for marketing?
• Encourages life long learning?
• It helps to widen access?

5
(No Transcript)
6
Trevor Baylis
7
History

• Developed in states as a method to recognise
  skills and experience that servicemen had gained
  during active service.
• Started to move to UK in early 80s in
  polytechnics ( employment and unemployed focus).
• Main stream (on paper) in most CNAA institutions-
  use of CATS.
• Recognised by EU
• QAA guidelines published
• QCA draft guidelines
• Called AP(E)L, LOFT, RPL, PLA, PLAR etc etc

8
My Research

• Based around finding evidence to support or
  refute claims I am an empiricist.

9
APL/APEL thing

• APL is easy it is about finding equivalence,
  learning has been assessed and QAed.
• APEL is about experience, the learning needs to
  be validated (here in lies the problem).

10
Social inclusion
No direct empirical evidence that APEL has led to
increased participation in HE from previously
excluded groups.
Cleary et al 2002 looked at APEL in England,
France, Finland, Spain Scotland APEL learners
from middle class, population who already had a
good education (n 110).
Fraser 1995 concluded similarly, for students on
APEL access programme
Similar conclusions for NZ (Melrose Reid 2000
and Aus (Flowers and Hawke 2000).
11
the however bit
Swift 1985 asked was APEL a significant factor
in determine if students entered a liberal arts
programme in states. Programme was aimed at those
who had not attended college before.
Of 436 respondent 68 said they were strongly
influenced to join by the availability of APEL
not clear if APEL was important for choice of
programme or entering education. Also, many
deferred beginners rather than socially excluded.
But,
Swifts is the only paper I found looking at the
relation ship between APEL and student
pre-admission choice.
12
The Process
Credit exchange
Developmental
Experientially derived knowledge
Translation
Academy Outcomes
Loss and other costs
Disempowerment
13
Leaping limnality
Tacit, Practical, experiential knowledge
Knowledge of the academy
APEL process
14
What do HCSW perceive that they learn from the FP
Aim To establish what those students who have
previous care experience (to NVQ 3 level)
perceive that they learnt during the foundation
year in relation to other more traditional
students.
15
Cost Efficiency
Individual Pay less less time on
programme less maintenance costs Enter
labour marker faster
Very few (no) studies of cost savings to the
individual
Assumption of no learning gain through
repetition disputed by Scott 2007. ( NET 2007)
16
Time taken to complete

• Flint 2004 indicates that students that are given
  credit take longer to complete their degrees
  (although GPAs are higher).
• Surveys in US and Canada (CCTT, 2002 Pearson,
  2001) AP(E)L students more likely to complete.

17
Societal savings?

• Scott 2005 Nursing students that received 22
  remission via APEL brought savings/gains of aprox
  8,000 studens shared between SHA and University.
  SHA analogous to society.
• Individual also enter the workforce sooner

18
But

• Scott 2007 and submitted
• Second year nursing students with lots of
  clinical experience prior to entry perceived they
  learnt just as much across the curriculum as
  those without such experience serious challenge
  to the efficiency argument.

19
The Approach

• Retrospective, comparative study, using
  triangulation
• Compare students with and without HCSW
  experience, who had entered the branch ( 3
  months)
• Use more than one site ended up with just
  one other
• Responses to questionnaire
• Responses to telephone interview
• FP results

20
Sample

• Convienience sample (in every way)
• Questionnaires delivered at lectures
• Asked to complete with tear-offStructured
  and open questions
• Two sites both London based
• City and one other
• At start of year one before entered branch

21
Sample Sizes

• In total 114 questionnaires analysed.
• 50 at City, 64 at University X (about 80 more).

22
Student type

• GCSE and A levels
• GCSEs
• Access
• NVQ3
• BTEC
• Each can be with or without prior experience as
  a HCSW
• Also Entrance requirements plus other
  qualifications

23
What do HCSW perceive that they learn from the FP
Aim To establish what those students who have
previous care experience (to NVQ 3 level)
perceive that they learnt during the foundation
year in relation to other more traditional
students.
24
The Approach

• Retrospective, comparative study, using
  triangulation
• Compare students with and without HCSW
  experience, who had entered the branch ( 3
  months)
• Use more than one site ended up with just
  one other
• Responses to questionnaire

25
Sample

• Convienience sample (in every way)
• Questionnaires delivered at lectures
• Asked to complete with tear-offStructured
  and open questions
• Two sites both London based
• City and one other
• At start of year one before entered branch

26
Sample Sizes

• In total 114 questionnaires analysed.
• 50 at City, 64 at University X (about 80 more).

27
Student type

• GCSE and A levels
• GCSEs
• Access
• NVQ3
• BTEC
• Each can be with or without prior experience as
  a HCSW
• Also Entrance requirements plus other
  qualifications

28
(No Transcript)