Lighting the Spark
REPORT | Anne Walsh, Organisational Improvement, TAFE NSW - North Coast Institute
One thing that teachers like to do is talk; particularly to each other. The Colloquium hoped to address some of the big questions related to recognition of prior learning. Certainly ideas were generated and played with. However, it seemed that the participants were intent on another agenda. That was to share, compare and extend experience and understanding rather than answer specific questions.
The commitment to increase Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) is being driven by industry skill needs, underpinned by government incentives and reflected in TAFE NSW policy. Key speakers for the day positioned recognition as a process of national interest as well as one of personal interest to the RPL candidate.
Why the topic?
In response to the demand for more RPL, the NSW State government has recently set targets of an increase in RPL by NSW TAFE by 23,000 students, or approximately 500 RPL students per institute.
Systemic incentives to increase RPL include:
- The allocation of full Annual Student Hour (ASH) link to A-Z resources
- Funds allocation to TAFE NSW from COAG. These funds, totalling over $7 million, will be used in three major projects:
- Promotion
- Skills Express
- Professional Development
By the end of the day I was impressed by the depth and breadth of experience in the room. However, this was overlaid with concern over the differences in ideas about how to go about providing the best recognition services for our students. The basic principles were agreed – recognition is a form of assessment. From there on, opinions differed. There were advocates for a centralised approach with specific staff in the Institute taking responsibility for the whole process. In contrast, others argued that this made recognition “different” and deskilled staff by removing RPL from their responsibility. Both articulated reasonable and rational argument leaving the undecided, undecided.
Lighting the Spark
The intended purpose of the three spark topics was to promote thinking and dialogue. There was some difference in form – the first being deliberately controversial while the following two were more informative. This in itself was interesting.
The first spark challenged the participants to think about the validity of a portfolio as the primary form of evidence. It gave rise to debate over challenge tests, workplace observations and other ways of demonstrating prior learning. Clearly there was support for flexibility and creativity when giving advice about how “evidence” should be presented for a recognition application - very valuable conversation indeed.
Resources: Essential resources in conducting RPL for TAFE teachers were outlined in SPARK 2 by Jill Allbrecht – 10 Tips for RPL
The next spark opened up a world of recognition-related resources. It was loosely based on the very successful State of Recognition workshops being run across the state. Although some participants were familiar with the material, many were surprised to find out how much was available and how well it had been hidden on the DET intranet.
The final spark made it clear that the outcome of a recognition application was more than just a student having their skills and experience acknowledged. Recognition results in many ‘products’; some are meaningful to the individual, some to their employing organisation and others to the industry or professional as a whole. Hence, we should not take the process lightly – it has more significance than simply shortening the length of time taken to complete a qualification.
Strategic Conversations
For some, the highlights of the day were the two strategic conversations which hoped to address some of the big questions related to recognition of prior learning. These were an opportunity for the participants to consider some key questions and to work towards possible strategies for resolving them. Certainly ideas were generated and played with.
Those who have facilitated large groups of teachers often comment on how challenging this can be. The strategic conversations were no exception. Despite the best attempts of the facilitators, the participants took advantage of this rare opportunity to share, compare and extend experience and understanding rather than answer the specific questions put forward by the facilitators.
For the purpose of strategic conversations the room was structured into large groups. Moving among these and listening to their discussions it was clear that the participants had quite different experiences with recognition. Some were unsure and unclear about some aspects. Others were brim full of confidence with a clear idea of how it worked for them in their particular assessment context. Then there were others who seemed to be trying to bridge across the two; exploring both the common features and the characteristics that made some circumstances unique.
Barriers to RPL
Interestingly, the groups didn’t necessarily focus on the ‘big’ questions of recognition – relationships with industry, national agendas… Rather, they questioned and challenged some of the nuts and bolts issues – what information to provide, who takes responsibility for interpreting evidence, how is it funded, how much RTO effort should be expended, is it different than other assessment processes, should it be a commercial activity and many more.
We invite your comments on these.
Recognition is time consuming Deling with an application for recognition is time not being spent on something else (in business terms this is a lost opportunity cost). It is a highly individualised process and the student may require a lot of support. This needs to be recognised, particularly in resourcing considerations.
- Nomenclature Some suggested RPL may be absorbed into ‘related duties’ while all other assessment activities are considered ‘teaching’
- Recognition is hardThere is some resistance on based on a perception for some that the recognition process is too hard.
- Language RPL is a form of assessment. If we remove “RPL” and insert “assessment” it suddenly becomes much easier for staff to understand.
Methodology There is a high reliance on ‘portfolios’ of evidence. Some candidates do not have the skills to develop effectively. Portfolois also require particular skills of the assessor. A learning conversation may be a more valid and reliable framework for assessing RPL applications.
- Terminology Different understandings of the term “Portfolio” exist, and the level of evidence collection needed for this activity.
- Evidence vs event-based assessment Most teaching staff are very familiar and comfortable with event-based assessment. RPL is evidence-based; quite a different approach.
- Holistic balance In assessing RPL applications, a balance is needed between broad, holistic assessment and a demand for evidence for every individual element in each unit of competence.
Statistics It may be that not all RPL is being reported as such, but rather, in the system as a pass.
- Confidence Unfamiliarity with the process impact on willingness to take part.
- Workplace experienceThe lack of very recent workplace experience can lead to teachers being somewhat insulated from current work practices. This in turn may lead to placing higher evidence expectations on RPL candidates than are placed on students undertaking standard assessment tasks.
- Online tools/professional development More professional development would address teacher unfamiliarity and confidence. Available online tools could be made more accessable.
Resources: The notable exception to this comment about online tools is the new e-services student ‘what if’ function – fantastic tool!
Other interesting points
- RPL has opened up niche commercial markets for some Institutes (eg aeroskills and poultry)
- Skills Express has provided a framework that trade teachers feel comfortable with and are willing to use.
As a practitioner, what did I take back to my colleagues?
Some answers, some more questions and some food for thought.
Sharing
What was evident was the wide variety in experience and understanding. It was also clear that although there is a common DET/TAFE policy, the implementation procedures in each Institute, and even within faculties, differ considerably. This had the potential to create tensions but instead promoted sharing and learning with many moments of “aha!”, ”can you?”, “how?, “will you share?” Many business cards, phone numbers and email addresses were exchanged; networking at its best!
By the end of the day I was impressed by the depth and breadth of experience in the room. However, this was overlaid with concern over the differences in ideas about how to go about providing the best recognition services for our students. The basic principles were agreed – recognition is a form of assessment. From there on, opinions differed. There were advocates for a centralised approach with specific staff in the Institute taking responsibility for the whole process. In contrast, others argued that this made recognition “different” and deskilled staff by removing RPL from their responsibility. Both articulated reasonable and rational argument leaving the undecided, undecided.
What next
Towards the end of the day the participants re-formed their groups based on the Institute they represented and were given the opportunity to talk through “what next?” The North Coast Institute group included Faculty Managers, Head Teachers, full time and part time teachers. Collectively they agreed that although recognition has been around for a long time, not all staff have been actively involved. As a result there are significant differences in experience, understanding and willingness to engage. It was decided that the recently revised Institute procedures were very helpful in simplifying the process. Together with some simple “how to” information for staff and students, short, just-in-time professional development was needed. The Institute network of Assessment Coaches will be targeted as a support framework for teachers assessing recognition applications.
Note: Other practitioners, Deborah Willmer and Kate Appleton have also written interesting and valuable summaries of the outcomes of their group conversations – both what gets in the way of RPL and strategies to go forward. Their articles can be found on the colloquium’s website.
The overwhelming agreement was that the Institute needs a centrally coordinated approach to providing information and advice to recognition candidates. However, specific advice on evidence requirements and the subsequent assessment of recognition applications should be a local process. This is for several reasons:
(a) Convenience of the candidate.
(b) To ensure the most appropriately qualified persons are involved in the assessment.
(c) To ensure that knowledge and experience is distributed across the Institute.
Overall, the day would have been more beneficial if the agenda was restructured to allow more time for the strategic conversations. However, if a similar activity was offered in the future I would certainly be recommending attendance.
Go to the Colloquium page for: