RECOGNITION OF PRIOR LEARNING

SAQA : Bridging and expanding existing islands of excellent practice22 FEBRUARY 2011esmith@unisa.ac.az DR ELIZABETH SMITH

ELIZABETH SMITH

TRAININGD Phil:An RPL strategy for South African Technikons (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 PROJECTSFounder member of the CTP National RPL Policy Task TeamDesigned, planned, implemented, merged and managed RPL for distance education: TSA and UNISAConference papers:

– 2010 SAQA JHB The New Kid on the Block has Come to Stay: Workshop Lessons from twelve years of RPL implementation at

Unisa.– 2009 SAQA/DoE Jhb Managing RPL at Institutions– 2003 IVETA Cape Town An RPL strategy for use in South African organisations– 2001 CAEL 2001 Orlando Story of an African School– 1999 PLAR 99 Vancouver PLAR: A Tool for African Renaissance– 1998 EAIR London Closing the Gap between Face-to-face and Distance

learning– 1998 INPE 98 Ankara No Labels Please!

Conducted four national RPL training workshops in conjunction with international presenters from Melbourne, Ottowa, Chicago and a number of national presentersWrote RPL training modules for RAU/UJ and the Institute for Staff Development at TSAOffered training workshops to academic and administrative staff at UNISA, RAU, University of Stellenbosch, Technikon Northern Gauteng, Departments of Labour and Water Affairs, TUTDesigned and oversaw RPL fast-tracking for 3800 FNB candidates: N Dip: Banking

RESEARCH

1) A literature study of the nature of RPL as well as current RPL practices; and

2) 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:

reflects academic rigour;is user-friendly and client-centred;upholds equality among all individuals;is participatory and stakeholder driven;

UNISA CRITERIA FOR SUCCESSFUL RPL

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

provides relevant support and post-assessment care to candidates to enable them to bridge the gap between informal/non-formal prior learning and formal learning.

ACADEMIC RIGOUR

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

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

All stakeholders in the RPL process should be equal partners:the candidate the assessing institution the employer.

(Osman and Castle, 2002:66)

CANDIDATE RIGHTS

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

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

the right to have access to competent trained 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 ;the right to have prior learning evaluated within a reasonable period of time;

CANDIDATE RIGHTS

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

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

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:screen the application and deny further 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

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

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

USER-FRIENDLY RPL PROCESS

ACADEMIC RIGOUR AND ACCOUNTABILITY

EMERGENT THEMES

From the perspective of the RPL candidate, user-friendliness can be assured by incorporating:regular communication between RPL staff and candidates;opportunities for interaction with RPL staff and with academic staff;

USER-FRIENDLINESS cont

optional face-to-face portfolio development workshops;additional optional training in research, writing, and job-readiness skills; andlearner support and career counselling.

ACADEMIC RIGOUR & ACCOUNTABILITY

From the perspective of the academic assessor, academic rigour and accountability can be assured by incorporating:regular interaction between RPL personnel and academic staff;a screening process as the first step in an assessment process;

ACADEMIC RIGOUR cont

a panel approach to assessment;higher order institutional decision-makers ultimately ratifying the process;sufficient checks and balances to ensure academic rigour; andsufficient quality control mechanisms to ensure accountability.

OVERCOMING STAFF RELUCTANCE

To overcome staff reluctance, an RPL strategy should include:measures to give staff recognition for participating in RPL processes;regular liaison with and training in the RPL process; andappointing faculty champions of RPL, preferably subject specialists.

FLEXIBLE ASSESSMENT TOOLS

Assessors should be flexible in their choice of assessment tools which should:fit the profile of the candidate, the situation and the context; andoffer fast-tracking in terms of theoretical knowledge where candidates have shown mastery of practical skills (applied knowledge), but lack theoretical underpinning knowledge.

MODEL

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

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 .