Two UK case studies
1. Context
The two case studies presented here relate to VET teachers/trainers, working within
either Further Education colleges or for work-based providers of training. There are
two distinct forms of recognition of previous learning experience:
Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL)
The first recognises formal learning through the achievement of awards previously
gained. This system is generally known as the Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL).
For the purposes of entry to a programme of either initial or continuing training,
certain awards already held by the candidate will be recognised for exemption from a
part or from parts of the programme of training applied for. There will be a standard
tariff which formally recognises the `value’ of each of the awards when matched
against the target curriculum. An appropriate exemption will then follow.
Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL)
The second form of recognition credits the teacher/trainer for experience gained
through informal and non-formal learning. Though not subject to legislation, this form
of accreditation of learning is widely accepted and practised among providers of
initial and continuing training for VET.
APEL recognises that the individual is capable of learning from a multiplicity of
situations and experiences other than that of formal institutionalised learning. One
obvious learning situation is that of the individual’s work or employment. Another
example relates to what has been learned through the process and experience of
teaching itself.
2. Target Groups
Case Study I: for serving VET teachers/trainers who do not hold a full initial teaching
qualification and are applying for a Certificate in Education training programme. This
case illustrates the exemption model for the recognition of informal and non-formal
learning through a reflective process of critical self-evaluation. Application for such
recognition is optional.
1
Case Study 2: for serving VET teachers/trainers holding a full initial teaching
qualification applying for a CPD programme leading to a first degree award. This case
illustrates the integration model for the recognition of informal and non-formal
learning through a reflective process of critical self-evaluation. Within the validation
of this CPD programme, the reflective process is a formal requirement and has been
recognised as a substantial unit of study in its right.
3. Methodology
In both the above models, for the recognition and validation of non-formal and
informal learning, the individual must do three things:

identify experience which must be mapped against the learning outcomes of the
target curriculum

provide evidence of the activities which confirm that range of experience

provide a critical reflective commentary of the learning which has taken place
through the experience cited
The individual produces a portfolio of work to match these three requirements.
Evidence of the activities identified may take a variety of forms, including: letters of
confirmation from current and past employers, clients, colleagues, students/trainees,
appraisal reports, and the actual products of work undertaken. While it is usual to
provide evidence in written form, other forms may be acceptable (e.g. tape or video
recordings, computer presentations) if they best illustrate the experience being
claimed.
Within the portfolio, the experience recorded must show a match against the criteria
or learning outcomes for which exemption is being claimed (case study 1) or the
learning outcomes identified for such reflective learning (case study 2). The learning
experiences presented must be evidenced (as above) and considered to be:

Relevant

Sufficient

Current
Currency can be a particular difficulty, since the candidate might be advancing
informal or non-formal learning experiences from some time in the past. What the
2
candidate must show, at the least, is how that learning experience is still relevant at
the time of the presentation of the portfolio: at best, the candidate will be able to show
how the experience has been built upon subsequently.
What is being looked for, above all, in an APEL portfolio is the individual’s critical
reflection upon personal experience. Such reflection should show what has been
learned from the experiences being referred to and how this new learning has lead to
further development or applications to other situations. The reflection must exhibit
some sense of `growth’. Both models presume that, regardless of the context of the
experience itself and its description, what is being valued is the intellectual
understanding derived through the individual’s critical analysis.
4: Results
Case study 1: Exemption model
When completed, usually in consultation with a tutor, the portfolio is submitted for
appraisal of the claim. That scrutiny will be conducted by a panel of experts involved
in the training programme. The panel will make a judgement and validate which part,
or parts, of the programme will be accredited by virtue of the quality of the portfolio
submitted. The individual will then be exempted from undertaking the work normally
associated with that part or parts of the training programme.
Case study II: Integration model
When completed, the portfolio is submitted, as an assignment, to a marking tutor who
will assess the work against the learning outcomes as defined for that unit of study. A
sample of marked portfolios will be moderated by the programme team – in common
with all assignments submitted within the programme. Where a portfolio is deemed
not to meet the required learning outcomes, it is returned to the candidate for further
revisions/additions, as deemed necessary by the marking tutor and moderating team.
The portfolio is then re-submitted.
5: Key Questions/Issues
1. Questions of relevance, sufficiency, and currency.
2. Learning to identify and select appropriate experience.
3. Learning to analyse previous experience and its elements.
4. Learning to apply/transfer previous experience to new contexts/situations.
3
5. Learning to synthesise elements of informal/non-formal experience.
6. The value, to the individual, must be in terms of a perceived `growth’ (of
competence/self-knowledge/applied knowledge or understanding).
6: Added Value
The two case studies show different approaches to the recognition and validation of
informal/non-formal learning.
Both show that such learning can be formally
recognised within both initial and continuing training. Both case studies assume the
underlying model of the reflective practitioner in which learning from experience is
seen as an essential requirement for the practitioner VET teacher/trainer.
Both case studies allow for experience to be derived from a range of contexts –
personal, social, and work. In practice, perhaps inevitably, most learning actually
cited is derived from work experience – although portfolios of high quality critical
reflection often cross the boundaries between various contexts of experience.
Both forms of recognition (through exemption or through integration) require that the
individual learns to process experience through reflective activities of analysis,
synthesis, and application. In so doing, individuals learn to learn – thus promoting
their continuous development through reflection as a practitioner. The experience of
putting together a portfolio of informal/non-formal learning promotes a sense of
individual growth through self-recognition. Through engaging with experience the
individual learns how to process experience.
Edwin Webb/Stuart Bradley
University of Greenwich
November 2004
4