RECOGNITION OF PRIOR
LEARNING
SAQA : Bridging and
expanding existing islands
of excellent practice
22 FEBRUARY 2011
esmith@unisa.ac.az
DR ELIZABETH SMITH
ELIZABETH SMITH
TRAINING
z
D Phil:
An RPL strategy for South African Technikons
z
z
z
z
(RAU/UJ: 2003)
Registered Assessor: ETDP SETA (2008/2010)
Assessor Training: (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology: MELBOURNE
AUSTRALIA: 2001)
Certificate of Mastery in Prior Learning Assessment
(Council for Adult and Experiential learning and De Paul University:
CHICAGO:2000)
Certificate of Achievement as a Prior Learning Assessor 2000
(Council for Adult and Experiential learning and De Paul University: CHICAGO:
2000)
ELIZABETH SMITH
RPL PROJECTS
z
Founder member of the CTP National RPL Policy Task Team
z
Designed, planned, implemented, merged and managed RPL for distance education: TSA
and UNISA
z
Conference papers:
–
2010
–
–
2009
2003
2001
1999
1998
–
1998
–
–
–
z
z
z
z
The New Kid on the Block has Come to Stay:
Lessons from twelve years of RPL implementation at
Unisa.
SAQA/DoE Jhb
Managing RPL at Institutions
IVETA
Cape Town An RPL strategy for use in South African organisations
CAEL 2001 Orlando
Story of an African School
PLAR 99
Vancouver PLAR: A Tool for African Renaissance
EAIR
London
Closing the Gap between Face-to-face and Distance
learning
INPE 98
Ankara
No Labels Please!
SAQA
Workshop
JHB
Conducted four national RPL training workshops in conjunction with international
presenters from Melbourne, Ottowa, Chicago and a number of national presenters
Wrote RPL training modules for RAU/UJ and the Institute for Staff Development at TSA
Offered training workshops to academic and administrative staff at UNISA, RAU, University
of Stellenbosch, Technikon Northern Gauteng, Departments of Labour and Water Affairs,
TUT
Designed and oversaw RPL fast-tracking for 3800 FNB candidates: N Dip: Banking
RESEARCH
1)
2)
A literature study of the nature of RPL as
well as current RPL practices; and
Responses to three surveys of user
perspectives from RPL finalists; academic
assessors; and RPL advisors and
administrators on their lived experiences of
current and past RPL processes at UNISA.
(Smith 2003; Hlongwane 2008; Janakk 2010).
UNISA CRITERIA FOR
SUCCESSFUL RPL
A successful RPL strategy:
z
z
z
z
reflects academic rigour;
is user-friendly and client-centred;
upholds equality among all individuals;
is participatory and stakeholder driven;
UNISA CRITERIA FOR
SUCCESSFUL RPL
z
z
z
fosters partnerships and articulation
(portability) of qualifications;
serves the needs of the country’s individuals,
communities and organisations within the
economy;
is a well-managed, cost effective process
and
UNISA CRITERIA FOR
SUCCESSFUL RPL
z
provides relevant support and postassessment care to candidates to enable
them to bridge the gap between
informal/non-formal prior learning and formal
learning.
ACADEMIC RIGOUR
z
z
z
z
It is important to ensure that RPL
assessments reflect academic rigour, so that
the process can be seen to be above
reproach and in this way have maximum
benefit to all stakeholders:
candidates
assessing institutions
workplace.
BALANCED YARDSTICKS
z
z
At UNISA, the most important yardsticks of a
successful RPL practice have emerged as:
user satisfaction balanced with academic
rigour and accountability.
These can only be assured if the rights of
each user of RPL are respected.
STAKEHOLDER RIGHTS IN RPL
z
z
z
z
All stakeholders in the RPL process should
be equal partners:
the candidate
the assessing institution
the employer.
(Osman and Castle, 2002:66)
CANDIDATE RIGHTS
z
The RPL candidate usually voluntarily
approaches the assessment centre for
assessment, specifying which aspect/s of
knowledge/learning he wants assessed and
for what purpose. S/He usually pays for the
service, and therefore has the rights of a
consumer:
(Smith 2003)
CANDIDATE RIGHTS
z
z
z
z
the right to the information required;
the right to be served in her mother tongue
or the right to an interpreter/translator;
the right to up-front access to the standards
and criteria which will be used;
the right to up-front access to the relevant
learning outcomes to demonstrate
competence;
CANDIDATE RIGHTS
z
the right to have access to competent trained
z
educators and assessors who want him to
succeed;
the right to be assessed by assessment
methods which are flexible, appropriate to
the subject and the needs of the candidate ;
z
the right to have prior learning evaluated
within a reasonable period of time;
CANDIDATE RIGHTS
z
z
z
z
z
the right to transfer credits gained by means
of the RPL process to other institutions;
the right to confidentiality;
the right to decide which evidence to submit ;
the right to fair, valid and transparent
assessment processes;
the right to question poor service and
demand compensation or redress ;
CANDIDATE RIGHTS
z
z
z
the right to negotiate the use of suitable
assessment tools if personal circumstances
demand it (Learners with Disabilities);
the right to appeal, and
the right to user-friendly value-for-money
documentation recording the results of the
assessment and accreditation processes in a
format which meets his/her needs.
ASSESSING INSTITUTION: RIGHTS
z
z
According to current thinking regarding
quality management in higher education, the
institution is answerable for academic
standards.
To fulfil this requirement, it has the following
rights regarding RPL:
(Smith2003)
ASSESSING INSTITUTION: RIGHTS
The assessing institution has the right to:
z screen the application and deny further
z
z
z
access to RPL assessment;
structure the assessment panel as it sees fit;
specify the requirements for assessment e g
learning outcomes, unit standards;
request verifiable proof of claims of prior
learning made by candidates;
ASSESSING INSTITUTION: RIGHTS
z
z
z
z
specify the format for submission of the
evidence by the candidate, e g portfolios;
stipulate which assessment tools will be
used;
stipulate at which level candidates may enter
formal training programmes ;
recommend / stipulate any further training
interventions as prerequisites to studies;
ASSESSING INSTITUTION: RIGHTS
z
z
z
z
stipulate requirements which assessors must
meet;
stipulate prerequisite training for assessors
before they are contracted;
carry out follow-up research using RPL data
generated among its candidates, and
levy costs based on the number of direct
expenses related to the RPL process.
BALANCED YARDSTICKS
z
USER-FRIENDLY RPL PROCESS
z
ACADEMIC RIGOUR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
EMERGENT THEMES
From the perspective of the RPL candidate,
user-friendliness can be assured by
incorporating:
z regular communication between RPL staff
and candidates;
z opportunities for interaction with RPL staff
and with academic staff;
USER-FRIENDLINESS cont
z
z
z
optional face-to-face portfolio development
workshops;
additional optional training in research,
writing, and job-readiness skills; and
learner support and career counselling.
ACADEMIC RIGOUR &
ACCOUNTABILITY
From the perspective of the academic
assessor, academic rigour and
accountability can be assured by
incorporating:
z regular interaction between RPL personnel
and academic staff;
z a screening process as the first step in an
assessment process;
ACADEMIC RIGOUR cont
z
z
z
z
a panel approach to assessment;
higher order institutional decision-makers
ultimately ratifying the process;
sufficient checks and balances to ensure
academic rigour; and
sufficient quality control mechanisms to
ensure accountability.
OVERCOMING STAFF
RELUCTANCE
To overcome staff reluctance, an RPL strategy
should include:
z measures to give staff recognition for
participating in RPL processes;
z regular liaison with and training in the RPL
process; and
z appointing faculty champions of RPL,
preferably subject specialists.
FLEXIBLE ASSESSMENT TOOLS
Assessors should be flexible in their choice of
assessment tools which should:
z
z
fit the profile of the candidate, the situation and the
context; and
offer fast-tracking in terms of theoretical knowledge
where candidates have shown mastery of practical
skills (applied knowledge), but lack theoretical
underpinning knowledge.
MODEL
z
z
Responsible and accountable RPL processes should
be in place at all relevant levels of the institution to
ensure that the learner will make the successful
transition from informal/non-formal learning to formal
learning.
These processes should occur at three levels within
the institution:
– at institutional level;
– at departmental/ faculty/agency level, and
– at candidate level.
CHALLENGES:
DEVELOPMENT OF RPL AT HEIs
z
z
z
The development of RPL practice at
institutions still occurs on a need-to-know
and need-to-do basis;
process development and implementation
are unstructured, haphazard;
there is still no coherent national strategy
which can serve as a blueprint for
implementing RPL .