Executive summary

Valuing recognition of prior learning: Selected case studies of Australian private providers of training

The nature of work and employment is changing rapidly and pervasively. As a result, there is an increasing emphasis on lifelong formal and informal education and training as a critical component in ensuring a highly skilled workforce that maintains and demonstrates currency of knowledge and skills. In this context, recognising the prior learning of students undertaking vocational education and training (VET) can make a significant contribution to providing the sort of responsive, relevant, and integrated learning necessary for the present and ongoing maintenance of a quality Australian workforce.

This research uses a case study methodology designed around a series of interviews with key personnel to provide insight into the way eight registered private training providers from across Australia understand, promote, use, support and value processes for the recognition of prior learning (RPL).

What is RPL?

There is no clear agreement among writers, researchers and major policy-influencing agencies regarding what RPL is, does or encompasses. Views vary from quite tightly defined notions of RPL as access to a training program or qualification, through to conceptions of it being a reflective process that can directly influence the nature of learning and the process of training. For the purposes of this study, then, RPL was considered to be a process that can:

• provide advanced standing into a training program or towards a training qualification
• contribute to the enhancement of learning and teaching in vocational education and training
• service both system/institutional and personal goals and needs
• support social growth, access, social justice, and lifelong learning.

Factors influencing RPL processes

The overriding issues highlighted by the staff interviewed for this study are the following:

• The RPL process and supporting information need to be clear, concise and jargon free. Complexity, as well as the appearance of complexity, appear to be major disincentives for students seeking RPL, and it further seems that many providers will not be motivated to promote and implement RPL as a valued process for students if they themselves must interpret complex, often imprecise and jargon-riddled policies and documentation.
  
  
• The administrative costs associated with RPL are seen to be a significant disincentive for both candidates and providers, and may be exacerbating equity concerns regarding access of disadvantaged persons. The concerns of providers towards the volume and impact of the administrative demands made upon them by ‘the system’ cannot be overstated. The issue, however, does not appear to be the amount of paperwork per se but rather the significant amount of that paperwork that does not appear to the providers to contribute in any obvious way to the quality of the training they provide, or to the quality of the training at a system level. There is also a significant concern among some of the providers interviewed that the cost of RPL has the greatest impacts on many of the disadvantaged people whose access to training it is supposedly assisting.
  
  
• The approach now commonly taken in the audit of registered training organisations against Australian Qualifications Training Framework standards is seen to be inappropriate and to devalue ‘professional judgment’, which is considered the most powerful assessment process for RPL purposes. It is the strong and pervasive opinion of those interviewed for this study that the audit process explicitly devalues professional judgment by highly qualified assessors by generally demanding comprehensive, detailed presentation of evidence with respect to elements of competency and generally rejecting subjective, holistic observations made of the performance of workplace tasks.
  
  
• The ‘shelf-life’ of qualifications and experience used for the purpose of RPL, particularly in some industry areas, requires consideration. The interviewees expressed concern that the rate, pervasiveness and depth of change in some industry areas—for example, sound, video and information technology—are such that even quite recently acquired qualifications and experience may no longer reflect accepted industry practice or standards.
  
  
• Considerable concern is expressed about the significant and obvious difference in standards among training providers when the national training agenda mandates the acceptance of assessments by all other registered training providers. This is not seen to be a major concern when the candidate is only seeking RPL for a small percentage of a training program because providers generally believe they can ‘compensate for deficiencies before graduation’. It is, however, seen to be a major problem when the candidate is seeking a significant amount of recognition towards a qualification that will carry the name of the new provider.
  
  
• There is a concern about the increasing difficulty that RPL candidates will have validating experience as businesses move to electronic record keeping as paper files of all but the essential industrial relations and workplace conditions information are frequently discarded. This might leave candidates in the position of not being able to formally validate relevant experience if they cannot access electronic files.
  
  
• RPL can be a powerful process to assist student career planning. It can help candidates understand where their strengths, weaknesses and interests lie, particularly if the process has included direct interaction with workplace supervisors and mentors. This can help them map not only appropriate careers but also appropriate pathways for attaining their goals.
  
  
• RPL can have a significant impact on learner confidence and motivation. Through the RPL process, candidates can come to realise how much they already know and can do, and thus may try a qualification or training program that they otherwise might not have attempted, or at least would have approached with trepidation.
  
  
• RPL can assist significantly the development of learner-centred training programs. It can provide information and insights regarding what candidates already know and how each candidate learns best, which allows trainers to tailor the teaching–learning process to match learning styles.
  
  
• RPL can provide significant assistance to employers regarding the potential contribution of the candidate to the business. It is seen as a very effective way of assisting senior staff of the business to understand the existing knowledge, skill and experience of the candidate (their employee) so that, in turn, the business can make maximum productive use of the employee.

Key themes

The following key themes, with significant implications for training policy, are argued to span these issues:

• There are significant advantages of RPL that lie in the potential use by students, trainers and employers of the information gained through the process itself, not just in the advanced standing that it may provide towards a qualification or program of study.
  
  
• Effective RPL requires experienced professional assessors able to make informed professional judgments.
  
  
• The current high administrative costs of RPL and the subsequent cost impost on candidates may be operating to decrease the relative access of candidates from disadvantaged groups.
  
  
• There is a perception that it is not worth the effort to promote RPL because of the amount of paperwork that will need to be completed to fulfil the requirements of the auditors.
  

Copyright © NCVER 2003-2008    ABN 87 007 967 311