Experience: the learning Australian universities won't recognise.

 This is an update of an article I published in "The Age" in 2012: very little has changed....

In 1998 Andrew Wilson was a sergeant in the Metropolitan Police. After fifteen years in the service he was a training officer at the Police College at Hendon, where he developed a keen interest in computing and produced range of online training materials. The training manager suggested that he consider a degree in computing for career development.

 Andrew approached the Computer Science faculty at the nearby Middlesex University about enrolling and suggested that he might get some credit for his training and experience in applied computing.

 The academics told him he had some very high level learning in quite specific areas, but it did not fit into their degree. They would only give him lower level credits and it would still take him five years part-time to complete his degree. However, given his high level practical experience, they were interested in using him as a guest lecturer in the higher levels, but couldn’t give him credit for this either. Frustrated, Andrew turned to the university's innovative Work Based Learning Centre to see what they offered.

 Using the Work Based Learning approach Andrew Wilson presented his experiential learning as a portfolio for accreditation. His high level learning was assessed at Masters level and Andrew completed an MA in Work Based Learning Studies over the next two years.

 Andrew was fortunate that he lived in the UK: an Australian university would not provide these opportunities.

 Today educationalists live in danger of being deafened by a chorus of employers, politicians and the media banging on about the skills shortage affecting Australia. And yes, there is always a shortage of skilled workers due to changes in demand, structural changes in employment and new technology. But the critics are missing one key point: namely that there are many people who have the skills, knowledge and experience required in a range of work areas. What these workers lack is the recognition that qualifications would give them. This excludes them from roles for which they have the capability but not the “on paper” qualifications.

 I would argue that what we actually have is a qualifications shortage, caused by the reluctance of Australian universities to embrace a flexible, accessible and rigorous system of accreditation of experiential and work-based learning. Academics are unwilling to recognise the value of learning from experience unless it can be mapped precisely against taught units.

 Research into over-skilling (the workplace phenomenon where workers suffer boredom and low job satisfaction through under-utilization of their skills) indicates that this is more a result of lack of qualifications rather than lack of skills. Graduates are much less likely to suffer this.

 One of the most effective and flexible approaches to the recognition and accreditation of learning was developed at London’s Middlesex University in the 1990s. Central to the Middlesex methodology is a learning partnership developed with employees and organisations.

 By using a system of general and specific credit, Middlesex was able to recognise and accredit learning from a wide range of formal and informal, work-based and experiential settings.

 Accreditation of individual learning was specifically an educational activity, underpinned by reflection and portfolio development by the student. This ‘inclusive’ model used general credit to broaden the range of learning that could be accredited into the framework. Organisational learning was also accredited into the academic framework.

 The conventional methodologies are centred on an ‘exclusive’ model that asserts the primacy of institutional learning over experiential learning and in which credit is usually only granted against specific units of study or competencies. This approach lacks the flexibility of models based on general credit and does not meet the needs of mature, experienced work-based learners.

 Universities are self-accrediting institutions, determining their own qualifications. If they choose to accredit learning from outside their qualification framework into their programs they can. So why don’t they?

Is it simply academic snobbery, the reluctance of “subject experts” to accept that there may be people whose experiential learning in their specialism is both extensive and of a high level? Or is it too difficult?

 This approach demands both flexibility and rigour - such qualifications must meet the highest standards to demonstrate their value and validity in the higher education framework. It is not an easy route but it offers access and recognition to many who find mainstream higher education an inefficient, inflexible and time-consuming activity.

 Many universities are embracing online and distance learning to extend their reach and accessibility. My recent experience of this suggests that technology is dragging the conventional teaching and learning approaches into a new era with some difficulty. Innovation is both professionally threatening and intellectually demanding and I think that the recognition and accreditation of experiential and work based learning is seen in this way by many academics.

 A more flexible approach by universities would enable the development of skilled, qualified workers, the recognition of organisational learning and a partnership between employers, employees and higher education. In this age of innovation there is a market in Australia for this approach. I would say there is a need. Sadly, it appears Australian universities are not interested - I have seen no bold engagement with this approach in Australian universities, but lots of barriers.

 Pat Kennedy was a member of the team that developed the Middlesex University accreditation model and Academic Director of the Australian Centre for Work Based Learning Partnerships. He is now a consultant in education and management and a director at Management Capability.