Introduction
The formal recognition, or 'accreditation', of learning and achievement is one of the central functions of higher education (HE). In exercising this function HE providers are increasingly considering whether, and how, learning that has taken place in a range of contexts can, and should, be recognised.
A Round Table meeting was organised to provide an informal discussion forum to consider the range of issues faced by HE providers, their partners and stakeholders, when developing and refining approaches and practice in the accreditation of prior (experiential/certificated) learning (AP[E/C]L) and the recognition of learning outside formal teaching (LOFT).
The meeting was held in London and was attended by 65 delegates from Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in England, Wales and Scotland, and from stakeholder organisations.
This briefing note provides a summary of the discussions and feedback from the participants at the meeting; it is provided for information purpose only and no specific actions are expected or recommended.
Summary of discussions
1. Approaches and arrangements for the recognition of learning outside formal teaching / HE programmes
1.1 HEIs are at various stages of engagement with AP[E/C]L / LOFT. Some HEIs are considering the issues related to the recognition of learning, while others are drafting policies or piloting procedures to support the on-going development of long-established policies and practices.
1.2 A variety of approaches have developed across the sector reflecting the variability in institutional strategic objectives, mission, values and subject discipline expectations and requirements.
1.3 For several HEIs, AP[E]L and AP[C]L have many of the same issues attached to them. Making a coherent claim and the recognition of learning were reported as the two central features in either process.
1.4 Several HEIs use centralised systems and approaches which are frequently devolved to schools/faculties to interpret and develop their own practice within the centrally derived framework. Some HEIs permitted local variations for all schools/faculties, others only where there was significant AP[E/C]L activity, demand and / or confidence in a particular subject area.
1.5 Most HEIs have preferred to devolve the operation of AP[E/C]L procedures to the level of academic departments as this is where decisions are best made about the level and adequacy of students' achievement and their potential capability.
1.6 Modules or short courses are used by several HEIs to support students making an AP[E/C]L claim and provide advice on how to evidence their learning. Where such modules are used, they have not historically attracted credit or contributed to a validated award or programme. More recently, as activity in AP[E/C]L develops, HEIs are including such modules/courses as part of a validated programme of study.
2. Assessment of claims
2.1 AP[E]L claims are most frequently assessed using a portfolio of evidence and / or reflective account of learning.
2.2 Several HEIs reported that they do not routinely grade AP[E]L claims / portfolios.
2.3 There are large variations in practice for determining how 'contemporary' prior learning should be in order to be eligible for accreditation.
2.4 Time limits for accrediting prior certificated learning into a programme of study are set by several HEIs, but not all.
2.5 Some HEIs stated that the 'currency' of a claim is irrelevant if prior learning is evaluated by matching the learning against the validated learning outcomes of the module or programme as stated in the Programme Specification.
2.6 In some subject areas, and for some HEIs, continuing professional development in the workplace and the requirements of professional and regulatory bodies determines the perceived currency of learning.
2.7 External examiners are usually involved in the assessment of AP[E]L claims but rarely involved in the assessment of AP[C]L claims. External examiners are routinely used (including seeing samples of work) in all assessment of AP[E]L claims were external examiner involvement would be used for 'usual' assessment.
3. Regulatory Issues
3.1 The minimum and maximum proportions of study vs. AP[E/C]L permissible for the award of a qualification vs. eligibility to progress to the next level, varied between HEIs, levels of study and qualification. In a few cases up to two thirds of an award is eligible for AP[E/C]L.
3.2 Successful AP[E/C]L claims are often highlighted at Assessment / Award / Examination Boards, but there was variability among HEIs in their practice of including this information on transcripts and / or certificates.
3.3 The use and re-use of credit / 'double counting' of prior learning is interpreted differently by HEIs.
3.4 Some HEIs permit the re-use of credit / 'double counting' of prior learning for several awards, only where the subject disciplines are different and distinct, and / or where awards are made at different qualification levels. Other HEIs do not impose such restrictions.
3.5 Most HEIs represented were confident that, in a variety of circumstances, the use and re-use of credit / 'double counting' of prior learning via AP[E/C]L was logical and acceptable. The basis is that students need not be asked to demonstrate the same learning twice, if it is sufficiently relevant to the learning outcomes of the second qualification.
3.6 Most HEIs agreed that clear institutional criteria for the management of use and re-use of credit / 'double counting' of prior learning and the proportion of AP[E/C]L acceptable towards a second qualification, were needed. Currently there is a variety of practice in this area.
3.7 Quality assured, assessment-based evidence of achieving the stated learning outcomes was needed to help institutions assure themselves that AP[E/C]L procedures did not advantage or disadvantage any student.
4. Possible framework and recommendations for the development of QAA guidance on AP[E/C]L /LOFT
4.1 Participants reported that there was currently insufficient shared understanding of the processes/issues and good practice in AP[E/C]L / LOFT to have confidence that comparable approaches are being used across the sector. As such, participants were unanimous in their support for the Agency developing a guidance document on AP[E/C]L / LOFT.
4.2 A common framework could facilitate consistent practice and provide a useful external reference point for HEIs who wish to assure themselves they have robust procedures, amend internal processes and promote healthy dialogue within an HEI and across the sector.
4.3 A document targeted at quality managers was likely to promote greater comparability in practice.
4.4 The terms AP[E/C]L do not adequately cover all current activity in this area, but have a useful familiarity within the HE sector, and are widely used. LOFT probably was not an appropriate title for this area of work.
4.5 Participants recommended that any guidance document should:-
- be generic in nature;
- establish overarching principles of quality assurance in HE as applied to AP[E/C]L;
- accommodate practice-based terms as well as higher education language;
- contain as glossary and clear definitions of terms;
- make it clear that AP[E/C]L must reflect the learning outcomes of a programme.
5. Other Issues not covered elsewhere
5.1 Huge variations exist within and between HEIs in the practice of charging fees for AP[E/C]L claims, and in the amount.
5.2 Participants agreed that it is important for students, stakeholders and employers to clearly understand that the charging of a fee does not represent 'buying credit(s)'. Any fee / charge is made in relation to the assessment process.
PLENARY: Key messages
- HEIs represented at the meeting gave their unanimous and overall support to the Agency for the development of an advice/guidance document on AP[E/C]L.
- The guide should be flexible and broad enough to reflect the current variety of approaches and enable further development, but draw together a common and shared understanding to enable comparability of practice to be achieved.
- A guidance document which sets out high level principles that are integrated or cross referenced to existing sections of the Code of Practice, was preferred. It should be written for quality assurance managers as the primary target audience.
- Greater clarity is required on issues / problems and good practice in relation to use and reuse of credit / 'double counting' of prior learning.
- Advice and guidance on the issues associated with assessment, particularly grading AP[E]L claims would be welcomed.
- The recording of AP[E/C]L claims and the transparency of information presented to students, employers and stakeholders, and how HEIs keep their own records required further guidance.
- LOFT may not be the most appropriate description of this area of work, but a broad and inclusive guidance which respects the widespread use of the terms AP[E/C]L would be welcomed.
Top