The research paradigms: Empiricism

EDU 8 IMAGEI introduced the series of articles on Research Paradigms by listing all the different paradigms, also called philosophical perspectives, philosophical epochs or, sometimes also called the “isms”. This articles deals with the second paradigm, namely Empiricism.

Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. The philosophy behind empiricism is that all knowledge of matters of fact derives from the experience and that the mind is not furnished with a set of concepts in advance of experience. Experience can be something that people learn from events in which they participated, things that happened to them and observations that they made. Experience can also be “staged” through deliberate and pre-planned experimental arrangements. Sense experience is, therefore, the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

Empiricists present complimentary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. As the name and philosophy implies, empiricism means that all evidence of facts and phenomena must be empirical, or empirically based. Evidence should be observable by the senses or extensions of the senses.

Empiricists will at times opt for scepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don’t have them. David Hume,[1] for example, argued that our beliefs are a result of accumulated habits, developed in response to accumulated sense experiences. In his book entitled “Black Brain, White Brain”, Gavin Evans claims that religion is immune to logic. This is a typical empiricist argument. Evans does not understand, or conveniently ignores the value of abstract reasoning as a foundation of deductive reasoning. One wonders if Evans would also deny the possibility that there might be life in other corners of the universe as easily as he dispels the possible existence of a creator of the universe.

Second, empiricists attack the rationalists’ accounts of how reason is the source of concepts or knowledge. Empiricists are of the opinion that knowledge must be deducted or inferred from actual events that people can experience through their senses. The idea that people can learn through reasoning independently of the senses or through intuition are rejected. Stated differently, knowledge can only be derived a posteriori, i.e. through sensory experience. Innate ideas and superiority of knowledge does not exist.

A strong distinction is made between fact (objective) and values (subjective). Sense data is the ultimate objectivity, uncontaminated by value or theory. According to empiricism a person is born with an empty brain, like a clean slate, which is then filled by what he or she learns by experiencing things. Two learning processes take place – the individual experiences a sensation after which she or he reflects on it.

[1] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Empiricism. Accessed on 11/07/2016.

Continue Reading

Assessment-driven Training

An advantage in Outcomes-based Education and Training but hardly understood…

The Outcomes-based (OB) approach in learning were implemented in South Africa’s schools and learning institutions, but endured much criticism – especially from those who did not grasp the advantages. Let’s not throw away the baby with the bath water…

Many benefits in the OB assessment approach

The assessment-driven approach in OB was thoroughly researched and proven to focus learners on the outcomes that are directly related to workplace skills. However, most assessment design and developers still do not grasp the difference between content-based and outcomes-based learning and the advantages embedded in the assessment-driven approach. When they need to design and develop assessment guides and instruments they reach out to the book and not the outcomes.

Does assessment-driven mean we don’t start with the book?

Exactly just that. You start with the assessment criteria in the unit standard. In fact, when you design and develop the whole programme, you are not even supposed to have a book until you have developed your draft assessment guide and instruments. Only after the assessment instruments are drawn up, the outline of the book should be drafted.

But what is wrong with starting with the content or the book?

Developers who start with the book rather than the assessment criteria usually end up having question papers with irrelevant questions. Their preferred method is to look for steps, formulas, procedures, definitions and difficult terminologies within the book. These will then be channelled into matching column, multiple choice, alternative choice and insert-type questions. When doing this, most developers do not take in account the weight of different outcomes, and assessment instruments are developed that’s invalid, unfair to the learners and unreliable. The context of the specific organisation is also not taken into account, which lower standards due to the generic approach that is being used.

What about subjective type of questions?

Most developers do not want to add open questions for different reasons. Firstly you need open-minded assessors to mark open-ended questions…seemingly hard to find. Secondly, it takes more time assessing them and thirdly not all providers trust their assessors to apply their minds. The truth however is that most learners like open-ended questions as many like to express themselves rather than being restricted. Are we fair to our learners by providing assessments that are accommodating their individual needs?

What about the memorandum?

The outcomes and assessment criteria direct and assist in the formulation of the learning outcomes. The learning outcomes should be stated and developed in the book. Audience and context is crucial in the selection and research of the content, which should only answer to the learning outcomes. The memorandum and the book are now developed concurrently as both documents should answer to the learning outcomes. Although the book is used as guide in drawing up the memorandum, open ended questions should acknowledge learning acquired outside the boundaries of the book. That will also simplify assessment in recognition of prior learning (RPL) where a holistic approach rather than a delimited style is preferred.

Doesn’t the unit standard become the content?

Even the unit standard can become content if we see it as the Alpha and Omega. Remember, unit standards are compiled by Standard Generating Bodies which consisted of people…who have limitations. They recognise their own short-comings through publishing it for a time period so that the public can participate in a democratic manner. Therefore the unit standard only becomes a guide and not the only source in developing assessments. The context (obtained through analysing the internal and external environment of each specific organisation) of learning plays a much larger role when developing assessment activities.

But Higher Education still believes in books, journals, publications…content!

Maybe with a better balance between knowledge based and workplace based learning, they will understand the gap that was created through the years of content-based learning. Maybe then they will understand why our economy look like it does and why workplaces are reluctant to provide jobs for graduates.

Conclusion

The value of assessment-driven training is the fact that it focuses on the outcomes within the workplace context instead of generic content. It increases standards and excludes irrelevant learning. It is valid and reliable as it focuses on the purpose of the skill.

Let’s keep and feed this baby!

Continue Reading

RPL Challenges in Higher Education

Easy to legislate…difficult to apply?

Initially when Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) was proposed and imposed through different legislation and prescripts in the early 2000s, the purposes of RPL in South Africa were social redress and transformation.  Higher Education institutions realized sporadically that RPL implementation will not only change their mission statement, but will also influence their admission policy, existing resources, assessment procedures, staff, exit policy and mode of delivery.

Today, 16 years later, Higher Education institutions still struggle to grapple with challenges in RPL implementation which may compromise high standards of institutions which provide them with credibility and integrity.  Some challenges still hinders implementation…

Challenges in RPL implementation

During a RPL workshop in May 2016, the following challenges were anticipated by high level (level 8-10) attendees from different faculties in Higher Education:

  • Conceptual knowledge can be difficult to find in workplace evidence.
  • Inexperienced assessors will have difficulty to assess RPL evidence in a holistic manner due to lack of workplace experience.
  • Admission policy guidelines will have to be amended to be more inclusive.
  • Exit points are currently protecting HE interest –open exit points can be misrepresented.
  • Fee structures can’t be generic, but should differ over the huge range of programmes.
  • Promotion of RPL to own management and training staff.
  • RPL Office for speedy implementation rather than immediate integration.

Conceptual knowledge difficult to find in workplace evidence

One of the challenges of RPL assessors in Higher Education is to identify and recognize conceptual knowledge within the evidence provided from the workplace.  Conceptual knowledge is different from procedural knowledge that simply follow rules to get to the same outcome. As long as you know “how” to do geometry, you will achieve acceptable marks, but why you are following the steps might be unknown for the candidate.  Conceptual knowledge answers to the “why”.  An excellent chess player can win a match purely by using his procedural knowledge in pattern recognition. However he will not necessarily prove conceptual knowledge.  Conceptual knowledge however can develop through years of experience in following procedures, but this is the question academics should ask:  ‘do we have proof of conceptual knowledge in prior learning, to recognize learning in a Higher Education context?’.

To enable recognition of learning in an Academic institution, emphasis of conceptual knowledge should be higher than procedural knowledge.  A person’s competence can only be justified if he/she understands why he/she is following the procedure. Assessors need to be advised on the difference so that the integrity of deliverables from a Higher Education institution will uphold their credibility.  In the case where an RPL candidate lacks conceptual knowledge as required through set assessment criteria, the candidate should be referred to institutions where the emphasis is more on procedural knowledge.

Holistic RPL assessment approach

Consistency in assessment judgement can only be obtained if assessors speak the ‘same language’, e.g. share a common understanding of competence in their subject matter.  Holistic thinking skills are developed through years of experience, which leaves young RPL assessors as a risk in making an RPL judgement.

The problem however lies in the fact that if we only allow high level assessors to make RPL judgements, the cost of the RPL assessment should drastically increase.  RPL thus become an expensive option, which is against the intended purpose of RPL.

Admission Policy

The admission policy in Higher Education is expected to be very strict to be fair to all learners and the institution.  However, in the case of RPL, a generic approach should be used and applications should be judged in a holistic manner.  Once again high level subject matter expertise should be involved in the admission of individuals, which increase cost even in application.

Should exit be voluntary for the RPL candidate?

In all learning institutions, policy states that exit is voluntary for the RPL candidate.  This means that at any stage when the candidate feel he/she does not want to continue, they may exit.  Academics however reason that in most cases, the input of Higher Education is acknowledged within their products (publications or thesis).  In the case where a professor spent hours in finding the gap in the candidate’s evidence, and went through numerous hours of top-up learning, his institution should be acknowledged.  However this will not be possible if the candidate decides at this stage to exit and applies at another Higher Education Institution.  Policy should thus include guidelines to exit mechanisms to protect the interest of the institution.

Fee structures can’t be generic

An RPL candidate cannot be required to pay a minimum, generic fee for RPL in Higher Education, as the different fields, different levels and requirements on high levels will differ.  Fees must rather be broken down into consultation, assessor, moderation and administration fees per level and field.  The turnaround time of RPL is also a disputable concept as this will also increase fee structures.

Promotion of RPL in Higher Education

An advantage for Higher Education in applying RPL is the partnerships that they will form with different workplaces to associate with typical workplace evidence.  However, it seems that academics still fail to see these advantages for their own academic development.

Need for RPL Office

Although the integration of RPL into existing training structures seems to be the most cost-effective way of implementing RPL, it seems as if it will rather be an add-on that will only increase the workload of high level assessors.  If assessors do not agree on the necessity of this function, it will not carry sufficient weight to mandate this function.

The alternative is to start with a RPL office from which all initial RPL interventions are promoted and coordinated.  Promotion should take place not only outside the institution, but ideally internally so that staff can first pick the fruit of RPL endeavours.  Internal RPL will promote the concept to the highest levels and assist in the training of RPL facilitators, assessors and moderators.

Conclusion

So what do we say?  It is easy to legislate RPL, but not so easy to apply…

Unless Higher Education starts implementing it convincingly and forcefully, we will never know whether this will be feasible and viable in their environment.

Continue Reading

The research paradigms: Rationalism

EDU 11 IMAGEI introduced the series of articles on Research Paradigms by listing all the different paradigms, also called philosophical perspectives, philosophical epochs or, sometimes also called the “isms”. This articles deals with the first paradigm, namely Rationalism.

Rationalism took shape in modern times as an integral system of epistemological views, as a result of the development of mathematics and the natural sciences. It postulates that truth can be discovered through reason and rational thought. Rationalists assume that the world is deterministic and that cause and effect holds for all events. There are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. They also assume that these can be understood through sufficient understanding and thought. A priori (prior to experience) or rational insight is a source of much knowledge. Sense experience, on the other hand, is seen as being too confusing and tentative.

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world.

Rationalism adopts at least one of three claims: the intuition/deduction thesis, the innate knowledge thesis or the innate concept thesis.

The intuition/deduction thesis claims that some propositions in a particular subject area are knowable by us by intuition only while others are knowable by being deducted from intuited propositions. Intuition is regarded as a form of rational insight. Intellectually grasping a proposition, we just “see” it to be true in such a way as to form a true, defensible belief in it. Deduction is a process in which we derive conclusions from intuited premises through valid arguments, one in which the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. Intuition and deduction thus provide us with knowledge a priori, which is to say knowledge gained independently of sense experience.

Innate knowledge means having knowledge of some truth is a particular subject area. Like the intuition/deduction thesis, the innate knowledge thesis also asserts the existence of knowledge gained a priori, independently of experience. The difference between the intuition/deduction thesis and the innate knowledge thesis rests in the accompanying understanding of how this a priori knowledge is gained. The intuition/deduction thesis cites intuition and subsequent deductive reasoning. The innate knowledge thesis offers our rational nature. Our innate knowledge is not learned through either sense experience or intuition and deduction. It is just part of our nature. Experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge to consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge itself. It has in some way been with us all along.

According to the innate concept thesis some of the concepts are not gained from experience – they are part of our rational nature. While sense experiences may trigger a process by which they are brought to consciousness, experience does not provide the concepts or determine the information they contain. The content and strength of the innate concept thesis varies with the concepts claimed to be innate. The more a concept seems to be removed from experience and the mental options we can perform on experience the more plausible it may be claimed to be innate.

The above three thesis are necessary for a paradigm to be rationalist. The indispensability of reason thesis and the superiority of reason thesis may also be adopted by rationalists, although they are not essential. The indispensability of reason thesis claims that the knowledge that we gain by intuition and deduction and the knowledge that are innate to us could not have been gained through sense experience. The superiority of reason thesis claims that the knowledge we gain by intuition and deduction or have innately is superior to any knowledge gained by sense experience.

Rationalism is challenged by positivism, which seeks empirical evidence rather than relying on the perceived unreliability of individual thinking. It is also opposed by empiricism on the question of the source of knowledge and the techniques for verification of knowledge.

Continue Reading

Social research: research paradigms

EDU 9 IMAGEResearch paradigms, also called philosophical perspectives or philosophical epochs, reflect certain assumptions with respect to the nature of the world and how we come to know about it. The philosophical stance informs the methodology and thus provides a context for the process and grounding its logic and criteria and links the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes. Paradigms are systems of interrelated ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions.

Epistemology is the study of knowing; essentially it is the study of what knowledge is and how it is possible. Ontology is more concerned about the natural world – how it came to be rather than an analysis of what is. Paradigms act as perspectives that provide a rationale for the research and commit the researcher to particular methods of data collection, observation and interpretation. Paradigms are thus central to research design because they impact both on the nature of the research question, i.e. what is to be studied, and on the manner in which the question is to be studied.

In designing an assignment, thesis or dissertation the principle of coherence can be preserved by ensuring that the research question and methods used fit logically within the paradigm. If a researcher planned to study the learning experience of older people (say older than 40) attending TVET College studies, the use of an objective scale to measure experiences would probably not be effective because this is not the kind of research where you can expect exact and quantifiable responses (the results will be incoherent because you will expect positivist commitments from people who probably have different motives for studying at a late stage in their lives and who will, therefore, not respond the same to questions). You can probably achieve better coherence by grouping target group members together based on certain criteria, for example gender, age brackets, geographical location, etc. By doing so, you will be adopting a positivist ontology by trying to ensure that different sections of your target group have the same origin in terms of age, gender or geography. You can also achieve more coherent results by making use of a more suitable data gathering method, for example interviews.

We can define a paradigm as an integrated cluster of substantive concepts, variables and problems attached with corresponding methodological approaches and tools. The following research paradigms are important:

  • Rationalism.
  • Empiricism.
  • Positivism.
  • Post-positivism.
  • Social constructivism.
  • Critical theory.
  • Interpretivism.
  • Functionalism.
  • Behaviourism.
  • Premodernism.
  • Modernism.
  • Postmodernism.
  • Structuralism.
  • Post-structuralism.
  • Postcolonialism.
  • Neoliberalism.

We will discuss each of the above research paradigms in articles following on this one.

Continue Reading

Adapting to change in education and training

COMPUTER NETWORKTelevision killed drive-in movie theatres; Kodak did not respond fast enough to the emergence of digital cameras and cell phones; many video shops did not recognise the threat that DVDs and the internet posed to them. Still there are those who refuse to accept the signs of change. The same applies to the education and training environment.

If I were to guess I would predict that quality assurance bodies and public learning institutions, especially universities, are on the endangered species list. They might survive if they adapt to change really fast, but not in their current formats or functions. Somehow I doubt if they will make the cut-off date.

The same applies to private learning providers, but many do seem to have what it takes to do contingency planning and act proactively. There are some really exciting opportunities for private learning institutions in this, but only if they have the ability to manage change. It will not be easy – the threats are numerous.

The student unrests at public universities are a threat that is already causing serious damage in many different ways. Private learning institutions seem to be less vulnerable to students increasingly making more demands. This is probably because the students of private learning institutions are older and mostly employed.

Learning institutions are taking steps to protect them against the escalating demands of students. Internationally the new brokers use the internet to sell products and services that they do not own and did not develop. Uber don’t own any cars and yet they are the biggest taxi company in the world. Airbnb do not own any hotels and yet they are the biggest hotel company in the world. Private learning providers can offer education and training without designing standards or developing training materials. They also do not have to have physical contact with their students.

Public learning institutions and some private ones still cling to the idea that you need large classrooms, libraries, sporting facilities, etc. and they are bullied into complying with this by quality assurance bodies that don’t see the changes in the environment. They don’t understand that soon nobody will need to own motor vehicles any longer, that education and training can take place online by means of computers, tablets and even cell phones.

Smartphones will soon have the ability to provide us with professional legal and medical assistance. In 2015 more solar energy was installed worldwide than fossil energy generators. These changes enable people to move to safe living areas. They don’t need the infrastructure of metropolitan areas any longer and learning institutions can operate from the same safe areas.

You can now already choose to live and work where the weather is fine most of the year, water is available in abundance because desalination is rapidly becoming cheap, crime is (almost) non-existent and the ineffective local governments can’t charge you exorbitant fees for services that they don’t deliver.

In closing, and contradicting the above, I need point out that there seems to be an increase in resistance to electronics and especially the internet and social media amongst the youth. Young people still have a need for personal contact with other people, they need a facilitator who can answer questions and discuss salient issues. This should be kept in mind when you develop your strategy for the future.

Continue Reading

Book Published: The Art and Science of Assessing Student Performance

The-Art-and-Science-of-Assessing-Student-Performance-Book-Cover-Small

The Art and Science of Assessing Student Performance book is now available. About this book:

Conducting assessment is not just a science, but also an art. Different from the first edition of this book the emphasis in this second edition falls on the following:

  • Alignment of assessment procedures with international standards and practices.
  • More emphasis on formative assessment, feedback and workplace assessment as learning tools.
  • The promotion of cooperation between learning institutions, employers and students.

The following topics are covered:

  • A discussion of the concept assessment.
  • Preparing for assessment.
  • Conducting assessment.
  • Providing feedback on assessment.
  • Reviewing assessment instruments and procedures.

Author: Nel, J.P.

Date Published: 2016-05-31

ISBN: 978-0-620-69801-6 (print)
ISBN: 978-0-620-69802-3 (e-book)

Published By: iNtgrty

Number of Pages: 225

R218.00

Continue Reading

Why the new occupational curricula will not work yet

EDU IMAGE 13I fear that there are many Development Quality Partners (DQPs), Assessment Quality Partners (AQPs) and Qualification Development Facilitators (QDFs), not to mention the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO) who will be angry at me for writing this. Therefore, please respond and tell me how stupid I am – if you can. The problem is that we, the learning providers, are the ones who are supposed to develop learning materials and to offer the qualifications once they have been registered. The learning materials must be aligned with the curricula and that is where the problems hit you in the face. I will not use a specific qualification as an example because it then might well be seen as an attack on a specific QDF. The QDFs that I know are great people, so I don’t want to hurt any of them.

To begin with, one will find that different people submit different evidence for prior learning should they be interested in recognition of prior learning (RPL). It is, therefore, unlikely that such candidates will have evidence that covers all the assessment criteria or learning outcomes in a qualification. That is why a holistic approach to RPL should be followed, meaning that the RPL assessor should judge against the purpose of the qualification, not rigid criteria.  Specifying in the curriculum that internal assessment criteria should be used for RPL makes the process inflexible with the result that the achievement of the qualification through RPL would be extremely difficult.

Secondly, any occupational learning process follows a logical growth path, beginning with a number of exit levels outcomes to be achieved. The achievement of each exit level outcome requires knowledge, practical skills and workplace experience. One should not have any of those three elements, typically expressed as modules, standing alone. The reason for this is that competence starts with practical competence, followed by foundational competence and then, after some time has lapsed, reflexive competence. This growth path needs to be supported by relevant knowledge.

Thirdly, for some reason knowledge modules, practical skill modules and work experience modules are treated as if they are separate units of learning when each group of three should be one unit of learning. The result of this is that, what in the old unit standard-aligned qualifications constituted one unit of learning, consisting of theory, (simulated) practical and workplace practical work are now regarded as three separate units of learning. Because of this the new QCTO qualifications often contain only about a third of the learning content of the old qualifications, leading to too many credits being given to too little learning.

The ideal would be to have an equal number of exit level outcomes, knowledge modules, practical skills modules and work experience modules. It is possible to have, for example, more than one knowledge module that apply to the same skills module or work experience module, but then this should be indicated, for example by using sub-numbers. What is not acceptable is that there are knowledge modules that do not fit in with any practical or work experience module. The same applies to practical modules and work experience modules. Believe me, there are such qualifications already registered on the NQF.

Learning should follow a scaffolding or building blocks approach (they are not the same). It, however, is not possible to develop learning materials that achieve this if the logical line knowledge module – practical skill module – work experience module does not exist. Of course creative learning materials developers will “invent” their own modules, or content, to close the gaps, thereby offering more than what the curriculum requires. This, however, creates new challenges, for example that summative assessment testing knowledge or skills that are not in the curriculum.

In closing, you cannot achieve exit level outcomes without satisfying knowledge and skills requirements in a logical, systematic and complete way. If you don’t believe me, try to develop logical and well-structured learning manuals for some of the new qualifications – you will quickly stumble upon obstacles.

Continue Reading

Ten critical mistakes in the collection and use of data for a non-fiction book

RESEARCHPAGES 2 INTGRTYNon-fiction is normally represented as fact. It is assumed that the information in such books are accurate and, hopefully, well-researched. Unfortunately writers sometimes regard their perceptions as the only truth. Everybody has the right to write a book about her pet subject, believes, militancy, fanaticism, paranoia, etc. However, a writer who claims to have done scientific research when it is clear from the contents of the book that this is not the case not only does damage to the perceptions of her readers (if they are gullible enough to believe what they read) but also to her reputation as an authority in a particular field. The following are mistakes in collecting and using data for a book that can render your book worthless and your integrity questionable.

  1. Not satisfying your problem statement. The problem statement of a non-fiction book is often captured in the title or at least in the introduction. You must satisfy your problem statement if you claim to have done research. It serves no purpose collecting evidence, coming to conclusions and then not deriving any findings and recommendations from your conclusions.
  2. Using biased and superficial sources of information. You can never come to an objective conclusion if your target group is not a representative sample of the population. Using only sources that agree with your preconceived opinion is unscientific and dishonest. Using sources of information that cannot give you expert information is sometimes necessary. However, you cannot come to any valid conclusions if you don’t consult experts and well-researched documents as well.
  3. Bending the facts. The conclusions that you come to need to originate logically from the facts that you consider. You should not come to conclusions from only one or two sources of information. Your information needs to be corroborated by as many different reliable sources as possible. This is called triangulation.
  4. Being vague about your sources of information. Writing “many people to whom I spoke said that…” or “my research showed that…” creates the impression that you are either not writing the truth or you are embarrassed, for whatever reason, to acknowledge your sources of information, especially the people to whom you spoke. You need to give proper recognition to your sources so that you readers can see (and judge for themselves) if your arguments and conclusions are realistic and valid.
  5. Racism. The opinions of other people are not the only ones that can be labelled racist. Your opinion can also be racist even if you don’t think so. It does not help camouflaging your racist attitude behind innocent-sounding terminology. The writer of a book that I recently read wrote: “How dare a white person write a book on a black person?” My goodness.
  6. Perceptual errors. We all make perceptual errors. However, when you deliberately make such errors to achieve your personal (negative) objectives you are misleading you readers and destroying any credibility that your research might otherwise have had.
  7. Name dropping. It is necessary to recognise your sources of information, but it is unprofessional to just list names of important people without any indication of how they contributed to your book. You need to write what the “important person” said or wrote and then come to one or more conclusions on how what they said or wrote impacts on your problem statement.
  8. Going on an ego trip. Don’t write a book as if it is your memoirs if it is not. You research should focus on answering your problem statement or hypothesis, not about how clever or important you are. It is also not the right time to gain political points by complaining (actually boasting) about how much your suffered, how poor your parents were, how unfairly life or other people treated you. A “me, me, me” attitude only shows that you suffer from an inferiority complex. It does not contribute to the quality of your research.
  9. Repetition. Repeating the same argument over and over again does not make it true. Claiming on every tenth or so page that you did intensive research will not make your readers believe you if the contents of your book are clearly shallow, biased, vindictive, questionable, one-sided, subjective, negative, etc.
  10. Generalising. Don’t write statements like “Everybody feels that…” or “The only people saying so are…” unless you can substantiate your claims with viable, valid, authentic and corroborated facts.

In closing, once you have finished writing your book you should ask yourself what positive contribution the book will make and to whom. You should have the courage to admit that it is your opinion and not an objective and scientifically researched piece of work if you did not do proper research. If your motives were negative, for example selfish gain, jealousy, hate, sucking up to somebody or some (often political) organisation, etc. then you should not have written the book to begin with.

Continue Reading

Misconceptions about RPL

RPL WEBRPL should never be a complex process. There are a number of steps (we propose thirteen to fourteen steps) that can be followed in any field of learning and on any level. You should read my book entitled “The Concepts and Procedures Governing the Recognition of Prior Learning” if you wish to offer RPL in occupational and vocational learning or “A Holistic Approach to the Recognition of Prior Learning” if you are involved in RPL on higher education (academic) level.

Different people have such vastly different prior exposure to any field of learning that it is not realistic to mark an RPL portfolio according to a checklist based on a curriculum or other standard. That is why a holistic approach should be followed, meaning, amongst other things, that you should determine if the candidate achieved the purpose of the qualification or part qualification for which recognition is sought. It is a subjective form of assessment and the assessor must be an expert in the field of learning. Keep in mind, however, that RPL is not credit for life experiences if it is not relevant to the qualification or part qualification.

Even when a holistic approach to RPL is followed, you will find that candidates seldom achieve all the requirements for a qualification or part qualification. This can, and should be corrected by means of top-up learning. Top-up learning, in turn, requires that the RPL assessor do a gap analysis while assessing the portfolio of evidence. Top-up learning should be planned to close the gap.

Private learning providers can make a substantial contribution to RPL assessment by TVET colleges and HE universities and colleges by, for example, training lecturers in RPL, providing universities and colleges with RPL assessors and facilitators, doing the administration of RPL projects, and many more. However, TVET and HE institutions must make sure that the private providers are expert in RPL in the field of learning in which assistance is needed before they close agreements with them.

RPL candidates, their parents, sponsors and employers mostly pay for RPL. However, if RPL is regarded as equal in status to formal learning as is suggested in legislation (The NQF Act No 67 of 2008, the Skills Development Act No 97 of 1998 and the Skills Development Amendment Act No 37 of 2008) and the Articulation Draft Policy, then surely funds should be made available from the National Skills Fund for RPL.

RPL should be cheaper than formal learning. However, it is not always the case because RPL often requires lots of preparation, the availability of expensive equipment and is mostly offered to an individual. Even if offered to a group, individuals will still submit different portfolios of evidence which requires special preparation, different marking methods and different top-up learning content.

RPL can make a substantial contribution to transformation and redress, especially because it provides people who were denied access to formal learning or, for whatever other reason, did not receive formal recognition for knowledge and skills, an opportunity to enter lifelong learning.

We are often asked by potential learners if they cannot do RPL rather than formal learning because it is cheaper and faster. Judging from their comments at conferences on RPL one gets the impression that organised labour is often under the impression that people can be issued with certificates and degrees without learning. RPL is not a quick and easy route for an individual to get something for nothing. Also, RPL is not an alternative to formal learning. RPL cannot replace formal learning and an individual can only obtain credits or a certificate if they did gain relevant knowledge and skills previously.

In closing, it is not the individual only who benefits from RPL. Learning institutions, communities, the economy and the country at large can benefit from it. It is, therefore, important for the government, the industry, learning institutions and quality assurance bodies to support and promote RPL.

 

Continue Reading