Technikon SA
ABSTRACT
The National Qualifications Framework together with its underpinning principles, has sensitised both employers and employees to the potential for recognition of prior learning as a tool for gaining access to or continuing formal learning. This pilot project reflects the institutional process in developing an assessment framework for prior learning as Basis for awarding credit for prior learning.
INTRODUCTION
Recognition of prior learning assumes support of the principle that learning is worthy of recognition and credit irrespective of the place, time and context in which it was achieved. Non-formal/ non-certificated and therefore non-institutional learning through experience contributes to the performance of employees. In a framework such as the National Qualifications Framework, which aims at improving performance of those who contribute to the economy of the country, recognition of existing competences opens the door for further personal progression in formal learning.
Practice in the previous education system required that access to learning, and exemption from courses/subjects, be based on certified proof of previous learning. The focus was on the recognition of course-work. Recognition of prior learning requires a shift away from this focus on course content, to a more personalised approach. Competences gained by a person outside of formal education can be assessed, recognized and accredited where it is appropriate. RPL is therefore in harmony with the learner-centredness of the NQF. RPL is also empowering because it is so individualised. It is non-competitive and excludes failure because the experiences of every individual is different and will be assessed individually against criteria relevant to the individual's desired or chosen path of progression.
Against this background the application of RPL in higher education was explored.
Interpretation of RPL in higher education
Recognition of prior learning is defined as the process of awarding credit for learning outcomes achieved outside formal education. It includes the assessment of evidence of previous learning and the assignment of appropriate credit to such learning. Experience per se is not recognised, but the learning emanating from experience. General recognition of all experience and life skills, although contributing to particular competences, is not included. Only those learning outcomes relevant to the desired course of learning are considered.
The challenge for higher education
Higher education institutions could have a number of reasons for embarking on recognition of prior learning. Of these, access to higher education and exemption from courses already covered by prior learning are perhaps more important to this pilot study. Other reasons may include aims such as to facilitate progression of learners, to facilitate articulation between industry and education, and to draw learners for particular courses.
Traditional education practice determines that the content of prior learning, such as short courses in in-house training in industry, be compared with the content of the relevant syllabi in the institution. Credit is allocated when the content of the industry course covers at least 70% of the syllabus, has been evaluated and moderated, a record of the assessment can be produced, and the qualifications of the evaluators was at least One level above the level of the assessed course. These requirements are stringent not only because they exclude consideration of experience, but also because they are so rigid. Even where detail of course content is available, many employers do not issue certificates after training, or records of the assessment were not kept or were destroyed after some time, and in extreme cases, companies no longer exist. Without the certificated evidence, employees' chances of progressing to and in higher education are limited.
The challenge is therefore to develop a different framework which can provide for the assessment of learning as it can be deduced from experience. To do this, a number of processes and elements need to be developed to enable the implementation of RPL.
The first requirement would be that all learning be translated to a common denominator. Experience in employment is competence based, related to the functional roles of the individual. It is unlikely that the development of these competences would match the succession of knowledge and skills as they occur in the syllabi of courses/subjects. If higher education converts to learning outcomes and competences in the various fields, an equitable base for the assessment of current and prior learning is created.
The second requirement is determined by the first. A competence base would reflect a different curriculum and course structure, which relates to the accumulation of credits. Current courses are developed around discipline principles and concepts, and in some cases, themes. This makes the matching and linking of competences gained in employment difficult, if not impossible.
The pilot study
A pilot study with a group of volunteers provides the empirical information from which this process is derived. The group comprises thirty persons with supervisory experience, but with varying levels of formal education. The aim of the pilot study is to empower the individuals through open access to progress in formal learning toward qualifications that in turn would enable them to progress to higher functional roles in their organisation.
The process of RPL within the educational institute
Analysis of the essential roles and associated functions required for the process of RPL, as they occur in the pilot study, presents the following picture.
From these roles the process for an applicant who does not have the necessary formal qualifications to access higher education is deduced.
The process clearly indicates that RPL cannot be considered a short-term "quick-fix". It has to be planned for. It is not a quick process either. The collection of evidence and the consequent assessment process requires an investment of time from both the education provider and the applicant.
Options
The process described did not specify the assessment options available. An institute could decide to focus on one or two instruments only. Most higher education institutions have available some or other diagnostic test to determine the linguistic and learning potential of applicants for particular courses. This is particularly useful to diagnose the need for bridging courses for applicants whose linguistic and numerical skill proficiency is not sufficient to guarantee success in the chosen field. These tests could be applied to diagnose the level of proficiency of RPL applicants. An only proviso would be that the test accommodates multilingualism. For the assessment of prior learning for a particular field of learning, a number of strategies could be applied. It is envisaged that each institution would select its own complement of strategies. These include oral questioning, assignments integrating oral and written skills, role-play/simulation exercises, observation within a simulated workplace situation, analysis of video-taped simulations, or the preparation of a written portfolio of prior learning, supported by relevant documentation. These strategies could also be employed in various combinations. Whatever the choice, the implications remain that careful planning for each strategy is necessary. Questionnaires, whether for oral or written completion, have to be prepared and validated before general application. Very specific guidelines have to be prepared for assignments and the portfolio. In all cases it has to be ascertained prior to the general introduction of RPL that the chosen instruments will measure what they set out to measure.
Conclusions
The introduction of RPL will be resource intensive. It requires facilitators, councillors and assessors who all have to be trained. The restructuring of courses in terms of learning outcomes and standards will be costly and time consuming. This does not mean that RPL has to be postponed until standards are in place.
An interim strategy could focus on matching and linking identified learning outcomes with existing syllabi. Although not a perfect framework for RPL, it would provide the opportunity for progression. The facilitation, counselling and assessment also does not have to be provided by the institution. Outside agents who are experienced in this field could provide the service.
The value of this pilot study is that it catapults the need for higher education to make the paradigm shift from content to competence into the arena of education priorities. Failure to embark on this route will not only hamper the implementation of RPL, but also ancilliary issues such as articulation. As the NQF is implemented, RPL will become more and more commonplace. Higher education institutions will need to have systems in place to process the requests for RPL on a continuous and routine basis. Initiating these processes now affords the opportunity to validate procedures and instruments to ensure the smooth delivery of a RPL service in the future.
The next step in the project would be to clarify and describe exactly the selected strategy(instrument) applied for the RPL, together with the guidelines for facilitators/applicants/assessors .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CHALLIS,M. 1993: Introducing APEL. London: Routledge.
FIELD, M.1993: APL: Developing more flexible colleges. London: Routledge.
ROBERTS,P.J. 1995: Assessing candidates using diverse evidence.
WOOD, M. 1995: APL and bilingual learners. London: Routledge.
Back to Top
Bulletin
Index