MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W99278197 · doi:10.21427/d7rk5s

An Exploration of RPL (Recognition of Prior Learning) in Companies and Organisations in Ireland Valorisation, Return on Investment, and Emerging Trends

2011· article· en· W99278197 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Katherine Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueARROW@Dublin Institute of Technology (Dublin Institute of Technology) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHigher Education AuthorityWaterford Institute of TechnologyIrish Research CouncilEuropean CommissionIrish Research Council for the Humanities and Social SciencesStrategic Innovation FundTechnological University DublinUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
KeywordsValorisationInvestment (military)BusinessOperations managementEngineeringPolitical scienceWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis explored the topic of recognition of prior learning (RPL) in companies and organisations in Ireland against a backdrop of global, European, and national policy initiatives on the recognition of all forms of formal, non-formal and informal learning. The immediate context was coloured by shifts in employment, in labour markets, and in education and training policies because of increasing economic difficulties globally, and the greater levels of attention being paid to the role of education and training in the economic and social development of a country. The primary research question for the thesis was: Is there a return on investment from the recognition of prior learning (RPL) to companies and organisations that use RPL in their learning and development strategies? Return on investment in this research was conceived as achievement of impact at a societal, organisational, and individual level. The research approach was broadly social constructionist and interpretative. It took a multiperspective approach to explore past, current, and future perspectives of RPL in companies and organisations. There were three methodological strands of inquiry employed in the thesis. The first was an historical study to analyse previous RPL projects using a framework of valorisation. The second was a comparative analysis of RPL case studies in sixteen companies, professional bodies, training bodies, and community organisations. The third and final was a Delphi Future-Oriented Survey with experts in the areas of higher education, further education, workplace learning, vocational education, educational policy, and industry. The research findings indicated that initially RPL suffered from efforts to reconcile perceptions of ‘traditional’ learning as the sole route to achieve a qualification with the RPL route. In current practice RPL in companies and organisations is concerned with engaging with, rewarding and recognising the services of its employees. RPL is also considered a means to address continuing professional development needs without recourse to ‘training’. Finally, RPL is a means to link national, sectoral, and organisational training and qualifications systems to validate and professionalise company training and provide the potential for occupational mobility. From a policy perspective return on investment from RPL is concerned with labour mobility, social inclusion, improved individual career prospects, employee morale, and alternate pathways to qualifications. In practice labour mobility and social inclusion were not high on company or organisational agendas. This thesis finds that drives for economic competitiveness and up-skilling of the labour force in conjunction with economic difficulties have prioritised accredited employee development initiatives which are tied to national and sectoral qualifications frameworks. RPL development in companies and organisations is linked to these drives particularly as a means of employee engagement within the context of continuing professional development (CPD) rather than the annual evaluation process. It is therefore suggested, on the basis of the research findings, that companies and organisations should consider re-conceptualising CPD using RPL to achieve employee engagement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARROW@Dublin Institute of Technology (Dublin Institute of Technology)Same topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207