Recognition of prior learning in the vocational education and training sector

This report identifies and analyses what drives and what creates barriers to effective implementation of recognition of prior learning (RPL). It has been prepared to provide advice to the National Training Quality Council on how best to support registered training organisation compliance with the standards in the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF) Standards for registered training organisations.

The project was commissioned by the Australian National Training Authority to investigate the implications for registered training organisations of recognition of prior learning arrangements in the standards.

Key drivers

Research for this project has identified compliance with the Australian Quality Training Framework as a major reason for registered training organisations' interest in recognition of prior learning. A second major reason is an ongoing interest in meeting access and equity obligations and the demands of clients. Public registered training organisations are more inclined to identify the needs of students as an impetus for RPL than private registered training organisations and state training authorities, who focus on industry and employers' needs.

Industry indicated a desire to offer recognition of prior learning to identify skill gaps and to avoid unnecessary training through recognition of current skills gained via on-the-job training.

Students said they applied for recognition of prior learning because they have some work experience and did not want to repeat their training, as well as wanting to fast-track through a qualification, thereby saving time and entering the workforce sooner.

The national vocational education and training (VET) statistics confirm that recognition of prior learning helps students who are undertaking programs within the Australian Qualifications Framework and who are seeking full qualifications. Its incidence increases with each Australian Qualifications Framework level, such that in 2001 at diploma and higher levels, 10% of students had RPL modules or units of competency compared with 2% at Australian Qualifications Framework level I and II. RPL is virtually non-existent in non-Australian Qualifications Framework, general and preparatory VET programs. Thus the national aggregate figure of 4% of total students in 2001 having received some recognition of prior learning can be misleading because it is apparently not equally applicable to all groups and all VET programs.

Age is second in importance after Australian Qualifications Framework level as a determinant of level of recognition of prior learning uptake. RPL is less useful to young people, presumably because they have less relevant experience.

National data also indicate that the uptake of RPL among equity groups is relatively low. Research for this project indicates that this is partly because many people, including members of recognised equity groups, are more likely to participate in training than seek recognition of their existing skills because they value the learning experience over the benefits to be gained by RPL. This notwithstanding, registered training organisations agreed that more could be done to assist applicants from these groups. The barriers cited were similar to those for all students.

Key barriers

No single barrier was identified as significantly affecting implementation of RPL. Some students choose not to apply for it, even when eligible, because they have a preference for the training itself and the experience of learning through interacting with fellow students.

The processes for RPL were identified as one factor that, in some contexts, might affect its implementation. Other factors include awareness and understanding of RPL and perceptions of its relevance. How RPL is resourced is a possible barrier, as is its confusing language and its differing definitions.

RPL promotion, marketing and client awareness

The Australian Quality Training Framework standard requires that registered training organisations disseminate clear information to clients about RPL prior to enrolment. Analysis of promotional material provided by registered training organisations showed that good and relevant information was readily available for clients and written in simple English. Clients acknowledged the usefulness of the available information, although many indicated that their primary source of information on RPL was 'word of mouth' rather than the promotional material. Even though informing people early about RPL is essential, its proactive promotion was not favoured by all state training authorities. Some considered that marketing RPL sets up an artificial distinction between that and other forms of assessment. Most registered training organisations promote RPL to assessors.

RPL processes and client experiences

A gap was identified between the easy-to-read promotional information provided and the RPL process itself. Some students and some registered training organisations perceived the processes used are a key barrier to RPL uptake. They found the process too daunting (the forms) and too time consuming, preparing the evidence too much work and they were often unable to locate the evidence. However, processes were not universally identified as a barrier, since 60% of students indicated their processes were reasonable and many registered training organisations thought their processes reasonable and had made attempts to minimise cost and time, although they agreed there always was room for further improvement.

Another potential process barrier commonly cited was the registered training organisations' abilities in assessment. Many registered training organisations saw RPL as a high-risk assessment pathway and that all assessments within VET were in need of continuous improvement. Students similarly require assistance with identifying and gathering evidence, in varying amounts according to their characteristics.

Resourcing arrangements for RPL

The common perception among state training authorities was that the varying resourcing models and costing arrangements for RPL influence the levels of its uptake. The data collected from state training authorities confirms that there are considerable variations in resource and costing arrangements (refer table 9).

State training authorities resource registered training organisations to undertake RPL either at the same rate as the training program itself or at a rate less than the equivalent training hours. Some fund in an equivalent manner across programs and provider types, others fund differently across programs and/or providers.

As with the resourcing of registered training organisations for RPL, the costs charged by the organisations to students for RPL also vary widely, from no cost to what the market will bear as a full fee-for-service arrangement. Just over half of the students in this research considered the costs of RPL to them to be fair and reasonable.

A number of the participants at the policy engagement forum on RPL, conducted specifically to coordinate with this project, noted that any 'shortfall' between government-funded programs and the 'true cost' of RPL was funded by the registered training organisations or the client. National data shows 80% of all RPL occurs within mainstream government-funded VET and a further 15 to 18% through fee-for-service activity.

Although it proved beyond the capacity of this project to determine accurately the influence of resourcing and costing arrangements for RPL on its uptake, some funding arrangements clearly might act as disincentives and can influence the perceived parity of esteem of RPL vis-à-vis the training pathway.

Language and definition

There also are language and definitional issues that hinder effective discussions on recognition of prior learning at the least, and may act as a barrier to its effective implementation. While the Australian Quality Training Framework definition of RPL has been broadly adopted by all states and territories, this definition does not clearly determine whether credit transfer and/or mutual recognition are included. Most states and territories consider RPL, credit transfer and mutual recognition to be different aspects of 'recognition' more generally.

The assumption, promoted by the Australian Quality Training Framework, that RPL is different from other forms of assessment and therefore requires different (and often more bureaucratic) procedures and administrative arrangements, was also seen as a key barrier to implementing a time and cost-effective RPL process.

Both the Australian Quality Training Framework and the national data definition of recognition of prior learning focus on RPL that occurs upon enrolment. In reality other forms of RPL occur as well, including 'fast-track' or 'early assessment' situations shortly after tuition begins and once students have a clearer understanding of the requirements for the subject and of RPL. These situations, of which there apparently are many, are generally reported as a normal enrolment leading to a 'pass'.

Advice to the National Training Quality Council

Including recognition of prior learning within the Australian Quality Training Framework standards has raised the profile of RPL among registered training organisations and state training authorities, and is facilitating improvements in its implementation in order to comply with the Australian Quality Training Framework. The RPL provisions in the Australian Quality Training Framework standards have been the focus of several audits to date.

Although mindful of the requirements of the framework, registered training organisations see RPL as a driver whose importance depends on the demands of clients for the process.

As the national data show, there are considerable amounts of RPL occurring upon enrolment where apparently relevant. As this project has confirmed, there is additional RPL-like activity occurring early in the tuition phase as well, which is being recorded as a 'pass' rather than as RPL.

To facilitate more effective implementation of recognition of prior learning, the National Training Qualifications Council could consider certain strategies:

• Revising and clarifying the Australian Quality Training Framework's definition of RPL. Does the requirement that RPL be offered prior to enrolment mean it has to be conducted prior to enrolment, as is the common interpretation of the AQTF RPL definition, or can it also occur early in the tuition phase? If the latter, then registered training organisations should be encouraged to refer to early assessments or fast track assessments as RPL to reduce confusion and alleviate business pressures at enrolment time.
• Referring any proposed revised definition of RPL in the Australian Quality Training Framework to the National Training Statistics Committee for consideration for use in the Australian Vocational Education and Training Management Information System Standard, against which national data is recorded; noting that capturing RPL that occurs early in the tuition phase as well as upon enrolment may not be successful unless some of the resourcing arrangements for RPL are altered simultaneously.
• Unambiguously confirm within the Australian Quality Training Framework that recognition of prior learning is a form of assessment, by incorporating RPL into the assessment Standard 8.1. This would clarify that RPL is different from the administrative processes of credit transfer and mutual recognition, and that RPL assessments are to be conducted under the assessment principles in Standard 8.1: they do not require procedures that are different from other assessment and often more cumbersome and bureaucratic.
• Advocating that recognition of prior learning be counted by the Australian National Training Authority, and that state training authorities fund registered training organisations for RPL at the same rate as the training program itself, in order to remove any financial disincentive to RPL uptake and to provide additional resources to improve assessment practice. This would also reinforce that RPL outcomes are equal to training pathway outcomes.
• Having further work undertaken on the resourcing and costing of RPL with a view to achieving greater transparency at the very least and possibly also greater consistency in policies across the nation to avoid confusion and possible discrimination.
• Encouraging improved and practical support services for both registered training organisations and the RPL applicant.
  • Assessment per se is a critical issue among registered training organisations and assessors need access to ongoing professional development and collaboration opportunities to validate and establish assessment benchmarks.
  • Also there are alternatives to the commonly used hard copy portfolio approach to obtaining evidence that need development and consideration by assessors. The candidate needs clear guidelines in plain English about the RPL evidence gathering process and support in the collection of evidence. Existing RPL evidence guides and processes remain too academic and jargon ridden for many people.
  • Finally, industry considered their involvement was of critical importance to validate assessment decision making.
• Ensuring recognition of prior learning issues are considered in the revision of the Training Package for Assessment and Workplace Training.
• Introducing an RPL module in which students can enrol and receive the close support required. This already occurs in one jurisdiction as outlined in the body of this report. The module approach highlights that RPL is a learning process in its own right. It also acknowledges teachers' time involved in supporting and implementing RPL. It may also assist with identifying and capturing all forms of RPL activity in the national data collection.
• Encouraging the development and promotion of RPL practical case study examples and developing and promoting the range of strategies identified within this report to minimise cost and time, to simplify RPL processes and to encourage more learners to engage with RPL.