Giving credit: A review of RPL and credit transfer in the VET sector - 1995-2001

This review covers recognition of prior learning (RPL) and credit transfer from 1995 to 2001, giving an overview of Australian research and discourse, together with analysis of the national data for the period.

A significant amount of literature was generated throughout the 1990s, mostly as policy-related material such as national or state training authority frameworks or policies, guidelines for RPL assessment systems and training or promotional materials. Very little critical research studied the conduct and extent of RPL or the perceived benefits, barriers and issues or implications. Most of the literature was also written before the introduction of training packages and the Australian Quality Training Framework. This literature generally centres on defining RPL and how it is similar to or different from assessment.

This review documents how the concepts of RPL and credit transfer have evolved since 1995. Whilst credit transfer is still seen as much as it always was 'an administrative process' the concept of RPL has changed as the assessment environment has matured. This review identifies the emerging issues surrounding RPL and discusses its relevance in the current assessment system.

The following proposals are the culmination of a review of the literature and are directed at policymakers either in training organisations, enterprises and/or national and state or territory training bodies. These proposals attempt to enhance the flexibility of the training and assessment system within the VET sector and assessment practices nationally.

1. Promote the term assessment to ensure that all purposes of assessment (including RPL) are clearly placed within this framework. The distinctions between assessment, RPL and credit transfer are artificial and the separation between RPL and assessment should be removed. The term credit transfer should be retained as separate from assessment, as it involves the recognition of formal training previously undertaken, which is deemed equivalent through a set of administrative procedures. Mutual recognition involves the recognition and acceptance of qualifications and statements of attainment by other registered training organisations (RTOs) and it enables individuals to receive national recognition of their achievements; this should be distinct from the other forms of recognition processes.
2. RPL should be seen as a purpose of assessment with an important role in the training cycle, especially as a precursor to training. RPL is bound by the same principles and rules of evidence and quality assurance strategies as other assessments.
   
   At a training organisation level, RPL should be included within the broader framework of policies and procedures for assessment. This would then integrate RPL within the broader concept of assessment and ensure that it maintains equivalent credibility and quality assurance strategies to other assessments.
   
   Confidence may be lacking in qualifications obtained via RPL or within specific contexts (e.g. workplaces); however, to ensure valid and generalisable judgements, the focus should be on the validity of the inferences drawn from the evidence. 'Validity of an assessment refers to the use and interpretation of evidence collected . . . it is not simply a property of the assessment task' (Gillis & Bateman 1999). Therefore the focus should be on the collection and interpretation of evidence, on the judgement made and the quality assurance strategies used in the assessment system.
3. Further analysis of the proposed benefits and barriers to RPL should be investigated. In general very little of the literature critically analyses whether introducing and establishing an RPL assessment system has fulfilled the desired purposes, either in training organisations or within industry. Such analysis is essential if RPL is to remain separate from an assessment system.
   
   This report also gives an overview of the trends and extent of use of RPL at a national level between 1995 and 2001 inclusively.
   
   The data collection requirements of the Australian Vocational Education and Training Management Information Statistical Standard (AVETMISS 2001) distinguish between RPL and credit transfer. RPL is granted after an assessment or evaluation undertaken by the training provider. Credit transfer arrangements, on the other hand, allow status or credit to be given for satisfactory completion of equivalent subjects at another education or training institution such as another VET provider or a secondary school and is essentially an administrative process.
   
   In practice, the distinction between RPL and an enrolment leading to an assessment and a pass is not clear-cut. It is probably more realistic to view RPL not only as just another form of assessment but also as a form of accelerated progression. This is the practice adopted by some providers. In addition, reported RPL is affected by funding considerations, since providers in most states gain more credits from an enrolment that leads to attendance in a class. Consequently, RPL enrolment figures should be regarded as indicative only.
   
   This having been said, data 1995?2001 shows that:
4. RPL and credit transfer are features of VET more relevant to clients seeking full qualifications and these processes are assisting these students to a higher extent.
   
   The incidence of both RPL and credit transfer increases with increasing Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level:
   • Of diploma and higher-level students, 10.6% in 1999 and 9.7% in 2000 had RPL subject enrolments, with a further 6.3% and 6.5% respectively having credit transfer enrolments. The rates are also well above average for students in certificate III and IV programs.
   • For students in AQF certificate I or II programs, the corresponding proportions are 2.5% and 2.3% for RPL, and 1.6% and 1.5% for credit transfer, roughly a quarter of the rates for students in diploma and higher-level programs and well below the overall rates.
   • RPL and credit transfer are of negligible importance for students enrolled in non-award and subject-only programs, and programs leading to a recognised qualification outside the AQF.
5. Among the range of factors which affect RPL and credit transfer rates, age appears to be the second in importance after the AQF category of the program undertaken.
   • The incidence of RPL is greatest for students in the 20 to 24 and 25 to 39 age groups (in the range 4.6% to 5.1% from 1997 to 2000), followed by students aged 40 to 64 years, where the rate has been consistently close to the overall rate. The rate for young people up to 19 years of age is lower than for older students, in the range 2.5% to 2.6% from 1997 to 2000, in contrast to an overall rate in the range 3.6% to 4.0% in these years.
   • The incidence of credit transfer among the age groups follows a somewhat different pattern, being greatest for 20 to 24 year olds (4.2% in 1999, 4.0% in 2000), followed by young people up to the age of 19 years (3.1% in 1999, 3.0% and 2000), then students aged 25 to 39 years (2.4% in 1999 and 2000) and lowest for students aged 40 to 64 years (1.6% in 1999 and 2000).
6. Providers are offering RPL and credit transfer in differing amounts. The proportion of students with RPL enrolments is highest in the TAFE sector, and this has been consistently the case (5.0% of students in 1998 and 1999, 4.3% in 2000). The proportion of students with RPL in the private provider sector is lower than in the TAFE sector, but has grown much more rapidly, from 0.9% in 1996 to 2.6% in 2000. The incidence of RPL is lowest in the community provider sector, probably because completion of recognised qualifications appears to be even less important for community provider students than in the other two sectors.
7. Qualitative research is required to determine whether the current services offered by VET providers recognise the full extent of RPL and credit transfer entitlements among VET students.