A Case for the Simplification of Recognition of Prior Learning

A case for the simplification of Recognition of Prior Learning

SAQA defines Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) as “The comparison of the previous learning and experience of a learner, howsoever obtained, against the learning outcomes required for a specified qualification, and the acceptance for purposes of qualification of that which meets the requirements”

In other words RPL is a way of recognising what individuals already know and can do. RPL is based on the premise that people learn both inside and outside formal learning structures (including learning from work and life experiences) and this learning can be worthy of recognition and credit. RPL is used extensively by those seeking admission to a course, as advance standing for a course or credits towards a qualification. Those seeking entry to a particular field of employment, promotion or self- development can also use RPL.

There are essentially two types of RPL

· The recognition of prior accredited learning – learning undertaken in a classroom or formalised study environment

· The recognition of prior experiential learning – or learning achieved through workplace and/or life experience

The first type is relatively simple to implement, provided there is a common means of assigning value to both the learner’s previous qualification and the target qualification.

The South African qualifications framework provides a standardised currency, via the mechanisms of level and credit, for determining the value of learning.

Recognition of prior experiential learning is far more difficult to implement as, according to many it involves designing instruments that will capture, measure and evaluate learning acquired experientially, and often informally, in a range of differing contexts.

The recognition of both the above types of learning, accredited and experiential usually involves the following process

· The candidate is advised to reflect on his/her prior learning and experience in the light of identified learning outcomes

· The learner identifies his/her readiness and indicates this to the RPL advisor

· The RPL advisor prepares the candidate for an assessment by explaining and demonstrating how to compile a portfolio of evidence

· Once the learner is ready, the advisor informs the assessor

· The assessor meets with the learner and evaluates his readiness. If not ready he/she is advised on areas to develop. Once learner is ready, the process continues

· The assessor meets with the learner and identifies the assessment plan and the methods of assessment

· This is a supportive process, and learner must fully understand the process before it begins

· When ready, the learner will submit the portfolio of evidence to the assessor, which contains all the “proof” to show competency on the specific outcomes of the unit standard and/or qualification

· If the portfolio is adequate the learner is certified competent, or the learner will be advised on how to reach competency.

RPL is therefore a process that recognises what learners already know and can do regardless of whether this learning was achieved formally or informally.

So the understanding of what RPL is does not cause a major problem. For some candidates and or training practitioners where the problem exists is in the understanding and interpretation of the HOW and the WHAT – how is RPL assessed and what is to be assessed?

The assessment process is subject to a variety of principles as outlined

· The application of the principles of the NQF

· The application of the principles of assessment in terms of credibility

· The submission of acceptable and sufficient evidence

· The assessment being based on the requirements of the specific unit standard, part qualification and/or qualification in terms of Specific outcomes and assessment criteria

· Identifying and sourcing relevant evidence

· The use of various assessment methods and instruments

· The application of a fair assessment process

· The application of moderation and evaluation requirements

Normally on the submission of a Portfolio of Evidence the candidate will be assessed against the unit standard, part qualification or full qualification. RPL credits should only be awarded where the learner can demonstrate his/her ability to apply foundational (theory) and practical competence in the various outcomes and related assessment criteria. Credits will be awarded if the candidate demonstrates competence related to the specific outcomes and not exclusively for work experience.

Here then is the case I would like to make

In the SAQA document “The Recognition of Prior Learning in the context of the South African National Qualifications Framework” it states

“However, it should be noted there is no fundamental difference in the assessment of previously acquired skills and knowledge and the assessment of skills and knowledge acquired through a current learning programme. The candidate seeking credits for previously acquired skills and knowledge must still comply with all the requirements as stated in unit standards or qualifications. The difference lies in the route to the assessment.”

In terms of this statement my argument is why can a candidate wishing to undergo an RPL assessment not just submit proof of life and/or workplace experience and in addition undergo the exact same assessment as any learner undertaking formal training?

Again SAQA in the same document states “RPL is a form of assessment, which ideally, should be fully integrated into all learning programmes.

As such, the principles of good assessment are equally true for RPL and all other forms of assessment. This includes taking a holistic view of the process of assessment, where the context of the learning, as well as the context of the person who is being assessed is taken into account”

This is not the current situation when it comes to RPL and in my opinion the RPL candidates is prejudiced and is being discriminated against by many providers.

Consider the following scenario

· A learner attends a five day training course to train as an assessor. On completion of the formal training the provider assists the learner in the compilation of a POE. After the 5th day the POE is completed and ready for submission to the assessor. In many instances no actual assessments have taken place and the assessments contained in the portfolio are fictitious (in direct conflict with the unit standard requirements)

· An RPL candidate has been working in a company for the past two years and wishes to apply for RPL assessment. This candidate must, in addition to completing a POE based on actual experience and knowledge gained over a period of two years and which POE will include actual assessments carried out in a workplace environment, submit proof of workplace and/or life experience related to the unit standard.

Which of the two candidates is the more highly qualified and experienced?

Why is the candidate with experience victimized and required to submit more evidence than the candidate undergoing formal training?

This is perhaps not the best example as both candidates are submitting POE’s. Consider another candidate who attends formal unit standard based training and only has to complete a summative written assessment on completion.

For the exact same unit standard an RPL candidate will be required to compile a portfolio of evidence verifying workplace and/or life experience and so on.

I therefore suggest an RPL candidate should be permitted to undergo the same written assessment as the learner attending formal training. This can apply to a single unit standard, a part qualification or a full qualification. If the RPL candidate is assessed as NYC then the additional requirement as set out by the assessor would need to be met. However if the RPL candidate can verifies by means of supporting documentation related to previous workplace based and/or life experience that areas where a decision of NYC in terms of the written assessment have been met then a competency decision should be awarded.

If the competency of a learner undergoing formal learning can be assessed on the basis of a written assessment, then surely it make sense that anyone who feels they can take a test or undergo the same assessment should be permitted to apply.

This I feel will simplify the RPL process and make it more accessible to a greater number of candidates. At the same time the process will reduce the workload on RPL candidates and assist those who are not capable of completing a POE - which in some instances is in fact a barrier to RPL (often not taken into consideration)