The level of visible commitment to RPL across higher education providers varies. Butler (2000) points out that the single biggest supporting factor to managers, unions, staff and facilitators is the personal and visible commitment of a Director.
Reeve and Smith (1996) surmise the cost implications associated with RPL, in particular the running cost of a dedicated RPL office, its administration, the support measures for students and assessment and, in particular, staff development (1996:42). However, unlike others, they also mention ‘Sources of Income’ to support the process which includes the following:
Top slicing – where the institution may decide to allocate resources to RPL from its overall budget. Usually associated with centrally based services;
Funded courses – resources attracted from funding bodies;
Fees – A direct fee charged to the student or their employer calculated on the basis of the services necessary to support each individual.
With the varying forms in which the RPL process is implemented Smith (2004) highlights the cost factor to the candidate. With most HE providers, a programme or module has with it a fixed registration and running cost. A case study on a primary hospitality training provider in Australia (fictitious name given) does not charge students for the assessment of portfolios for the purpose of RPL. However, a standard charge of $100.00 does apply if formal testing of claimed skills is negotiated as part of the process, usually in lieu of other formal evidence. This particular college places a standard 50% limit on the amount of credit that can be given towards a qualification by RPL and any exceeding 50% of a qualification must be formally approved by an academic director. RPL at this college is managed by course chairpersons. This example has, in effect, a sliding scale of the degree of rigor applied to assessments. If a candidate is only seeking a small amount of credit towards a qualification, the college makes the process relatively quick and easy because it is argued that the appropriate standards will be ensured during the duration of the course. If the candidate is seeking a significant amount of RPL, the college applies considerable rigor to the process because it is argued there may not be sufficient time for the college to ensure the appropriate industry standards can be met. However, at staffing level, the institute needs to allocate responsibility of each task to
specific individuals (2004:23). Cleary and Whittaker (2002:9) highlight the processing of the portfolio of evidence as one of the major contributing cost factors to be considered.
In France, the process of portfolio submission for assessment tends to be centralized i.e. there may be a central committee within a university which considers all claims for RPL (Merrill & Hill, 2003). Although in agreement with this assessment methodology, in Canada, Arscott, Crowther et al. (2006) report that a jury assessment is considered by many institutions ‘as an unjustifiable expense... This is because in many courses, the teaching as well as the evaluation component is done by a single individual. Jury assessment, however, ensures fairness to both the learner and assessor in that the learning being presented meets an academic, professional, and experimental standard. As the jury method uses three kinds of subject-matter experts, the effectiveness of the assessment process is increased’ (2006: 73). The reality, in all cases where assessment of portfolio work takes place, would surely be that assessment by many experts would be grounds for a fairer and more credible mark.
In other countries, the nature of the process may be less centralised and RPL claims may be considered and assessed at school level rather than at departmental level as is currently recommended at Dublin Institute of Technology. Blom, Clayton and Bateman et al. (2004) discuss an alternative approach which directs the learners to go to the organisation’s intranet site to find learning materials and discover what to expect from the RPL process. They can then download an assessment matrix which comprises an initial self-assessment task, then source an assessor from the workplace who has the skills to assess the specific competency required of the learner. Once the recognition has been conducted, the assessor’s decision is recorded electronically in the learner’s training file and on hard copy. This is only an alternative if the institution provides such access. Garnett, Portland and Costley (2004) put an emphasis on the importance of the role of the RPL advisor as a highly skilled individual who requires support and staff development in order to facilitate student reflection on experience. This, they note, is necessary in order to identify and articulate learning achievement but also to advise on the nature, role and
sufficiency of evidence (2004:8). Meanwhile Wailey (2005) further identifies the widely accepted assessment criteria as follows:
Sufficiency – relating to sufficient breadth of evidence, including reflection,
to demonstrate the achievement of all the outcomes claimed;
Currency – demonstrating that what is being assessed is current learning; Quality – relating to the evidence demonstrating the required level of
learning achievement;
Validity – relating to the match between the evidence presented and the
learning and outcomes claimed. (2005:35)
In support of these criteria, Blom et al. (2004) add that within most established and successful RPL centres, the better resourced the enterprise-based training provider is, the more extensive its support materials and strategies are. They found that some or all of the following services best support the recognition process (Blom et al., 2004:6):
1 information sessions;
2 printed information and guides for candidates; 3 recognition workshops;
4 provision of evidence requirements;
5 provision of exemplars or guidelines for the types of evidence required;
6 meetings between individual candidates and assessors negotiated opportunities for recognition assessment to be undertaken.
DIT is also working towards these steps with an in-depth online RPL web page, which includes and addresses all of the above recognised criteria necessary for the successful implementation of the RPL process (Murphy, 2008).