Integrating assessment and Recognition of Prior Learning in South African higher education: a university case study

Abstract

The article reports on the integration of assessment and recognition of prior learning (ARPL) at postgraduate level in one South African university. An analysis of interviews with administrators, lecturers and students who have been involved in the ARPL process provides insight into the implementation practices that accompany the formal introduction of ARPL into the institution. The factors necessary to support ARPL policy implementation, the scope of assessment procedures and the facilitation of ARPL in a learner-centred manner are discussed as focal areas for quality assurance in ARPL integration.

Full text

131
Integrating assessment and Recognition of Prior Learning in
South African higher education: a university case study
Liezel Frick
Centre for Higher and Adult Education, Stellenbosch University
Liezel Frick is currently a researcher appointed within the Centre for Higher and Adult Education
and seconded to the Centre for Teaching and Learning. She has been part of various research
projects within higher and adult education. Her interests lie in the areas of continuing professional
development (CPD), integrated scholarship, student learning in higher education, lifelong learning
as part of organizational development, and community education.
Eli Bitzer
Centre for Higher and Adult Education, Stellenbosch University
A past president of the SA Association for Research and Development in Higher Education
(SAARDHE), Eli Bitzer is a consulting editor of the South African Journal of Higher Education
and co-ordinator of several research projects and an NRF-rated researcher in the established
researcher category. He has been study leader and promoter to more than 22 master’s and doctoral
students and has contributed numerous articles to scholarly journals, chapters in books and has
presented a range of papers at conferences in Southern Africa and abroad. His current research
includes projects on the status of teaching, learning and assessment as well as the role and
importance of scholarship in higher education.
Brenda Leibowitz
Centre for Teaching and Learning, Stellenbosch University
Brenda Leibowitz is the Director of the Centre for Teaching and Learning at Stellenbosch University.
Her interests are in the professional development of lecturers, using research to inform teaching,
the role of language in teaching and learning, and social justice in higher education. She was
previously the Director of Race and Values in Education at the national Department of Education.
Before that she focused on writing across the curriculum in the Arts Faculty at the University of
the Western Cape.
Abstract
The article reports on the integration of assessment and recognition of prior learning (ARPL) at
postgraduate level in one South African university. An analysis of interviews with administrators,
lecturers and students who have been involved in the ARPL process provides insight into the
implementation practices that accompany the formal introduction of ARPL into the institution.
The factors necessary to support ARPL policy implementation, the scope of assessment procedures
and the facilitation of ARPL in a learner-centred manner are discussed as focal areas for quality
assurance in ARPL integration.
Key words: assessment and recognition of prior learning; university; case study.

132
Introduction
The assessment and recognition of prior learning (ARPL)
1
has gained prominence in the South
African higher education sector in the past decade. Integrating ARPL has resulted in varied
approaches. The South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) policy on ARPL proposes an audit
of current practice as part of any higher education institution’s quality assurance procedure. ARPL
therefore forms an integral part of quality assurance when discussing transformation in higher
education.
A South African university formed the site of this study. It has established ARPL policies at both
the institutional and faculty levels, although ARPL is still a relatively novel phenomenon in the
majority of the faculties. A research project was initiated to investigate existing ARPL practices
on campus. A general policy analysis and interviews at the institutional level supplied the backdrop
to the study. This was followed by interviews with administrators involved in the ARPL process
and lecturers who have successfully guided learners through the ARPL process, as well as interviews
with learners who have gained access to higher education via the ARPL route. The analysis of these
interviews provided insight into the current practices of ARPL at the institution and will be used
for the development of an ARPL training resource for staff at the institution.
This article focuses on some of the factors necessary to support ARPL policy implementation.
Recommendations will be made on how staff can ensure quality ARPL assessment procedures, and
at the same time effectively facilitate ARPL in a learner-centred manner. Literature on the topic
of ARPL gives insight into trends surrounding ARPL and will be discussed according to an
investigation of the factors necessary to support ARPL policy implementation, the effectiveness
of different ARPL assessment procedures, and how ARPL can be managed in a learner-centred
manner.
Factors supporting ARPL policy implementation
A number of factors seem to have the potential to influence ARPL policy implementation. They
include conceptual clarity on ARPL, institutional practices regarding ARPL and conducive curriculum
planning and development. These factors will be discussed briefly.
Conceptualising ARPL
A thorough conceptualisation of, and clearly thought through approach to ARPL is necessary for
effective policy formulation and implementation. Andersson (2006:32, in reference to Kvale,
1996:121) differentiates between ‘selection’ and ‘transformation’ as the main functions of educational
assessment, with the focus on either the individual or knowledge. Assessment can then either be
the selection of individuals or knowledge to be recognised; or the transformation of individuals
or knowledge in the process of assessment. This differentiation provides a useful distinction between
the various functions that ARPL can fulfil and adds to an understanding of the approaches Harris
1 Recognition of prior learning (RPL) seems to be more commonly used in literature. However, the authors of this article
concur with authors such as Hope (2001), Keevy (2006), Kgobe (1997), Schuetze and Slowey (2002) and Van Niekerk (1998)
that the term assessment and recognition of prior learning (ARPL) may be more appropriate to use. Andersson (2006) uses
RPL as a basis for conceptualization, but emphasizes the central role of assessment in the process of recognizing prior
learning. Assessment forms an integral part of the process whereby prior learning is considered and acknowledged –
particularly in the specific institutional context.

133
(1999)
2
presents. The Procrustean, Learning and Development, Radical and Trojan-horse approaches
are identified as possible ways of looking at ARPL practice.
The Procrustean approach to ARPL assesses individual competence according to prescribed
outcomes and standards, with a focus on the future development of specific knowledge and skills.
Knowledge is viewed as a measurable commodity with an exchangeable market value (Harris,
1999). This approach seems to have a strong selective function in terms of both the individual and
knowledge, but limited transformative potential if compared to Kvale’s (1996, in Andersson, 2006)
distinctions in educational assessment. This approach to ARPL allows institutions to make
judgements about learners’ preparedness for study and/or eligibility for credit (Osman & Castle,
2002; 2004).
The Learning and Development approach (Harris, 1999) has a less stringent classification of
individual competence and prior knowledge. Individual advancement and the democratising of
education underpin this approach. The transformative potential for the individual and knowledge
construction in this approach would seem to be greater than in the case of the Procrustean approach
(Harris, 1999). However, knowledge is still stratified, with disciplinary knowledge more highly
valued than that gained from experience. Individuals’ prior learning therefore has to be moulded
to conform to fit in with dominant academic discourses and existing disciplinary bodies of knowledge.
ARPL functions as the acculturation process into the elite academic system of formal knowledge
structures, which are not challenged. The transformative value in terms of knowledge assessment
is therefore limited.
Harris (1999) describes the Radical approach to ARPL as a move towards social change, with a
closer link between experience, learning and knowledge as socially constructed entities. Radicalism
has a strong transformational focus in both the assessment of the individual and of knowledge.
However, this approach risks idealising experiential knowledge and thereby excluding and alienating
more formalised discourses. Harris (1999) presents the Trojan-horse approach as a conceptualisation
of ARPL, where more permeable knowledge boundaries, curriculum flexibility and practice-based
learning programmes are evident, changes that are notable in some contexts in South African
higher education. This approach has a transformation function for both the individual and knowledge
systems. The Trojan-horse approach has a critical element that aims to align experiential knowledge
(as obtained in practice) with disciplinary knowledge (as promoted in theory), neither of which
are deemed beyond contestation. ARPL therefore becomes part of the construction of knowledge
and curricula, transforming both the individual and the knowledge. A more transformative approach
to ARPL facilitates equity and redress through the progression from one NQF level to another
(Harris, 2000a).
These different understandings of ARPL have led to the development of three main models of it,
namely the credit exchange model, the developmental model, and the transformational model
(Osman & Castle, 2004). Institutional culture plays a determining role in which the ARPL model
2 Authors such as Breier (2001), Harris (1999, 2000) and Osman and Castle (2004) emphasise the transformative value of
ARPL as a tool in the redress of social inequality and the facilitation of social inclusion. However, it has to be noted that
other literature on ARPL (Osman & castle, 2002; Castle & Atwood, 2001) also focuses on broader instrumental issues such
as the accessibility of education systems in general, which does not necessarily focus on the role of ARPL in social redress
and inclusion. A distinction between transformative or instrumental approaches to ARPL may, however, be too simplistic
in the specific context of the study.

134
is adopted into practice. Most institutions have a complicated mix of all these approaches to ARPL
(Breier, 2001), the credit exchange being the most efficient but having the least implications for
institutional change, as it does not address the issues of equity and redress, as in the case of the
developmental and transformative models (Breier, 2001).
The implementation of ARPL becomes troublesome in any approaches or models when formal
learning has to be matched with informal (work or life experience) learning (Breier, 2001). Osman
and Castle (2002; 2004) argue that a clear-cut distinction between forms of learning is not easily
made, and that more constructive dialogue is needed to reconcile different forms of learning within
the South African context. Michelson (2006:155) adds that not all forms of learning are valued in
the higher education context:
University-based RPL is defended on the grounds that it does not challenge academic claims
to epistemological authority: it posits academic knowledge as the norm around which
judgements of inclusion and exclusion can be made; it extends the academy’s traditional gate-
keeping function; and it calibrates the legitimacy of students’ knowledge according to sameness
and correspondences.
Michelson (2006) argues that ARPL has therefore become part of the power struggle between
different forms of knowledge, where learning situated in a particular context may not be valued
in another knowledge context.
Institutional practices that commit to effective ARPL implementation
Kistan (2002) notes a limited institutional capacity to develop and implement ARPL in South
African higher education. Cretchley and Castle (2001) cite inadequate support as a major obstacle
in the development and implementation of ARPL within the higher education system.
Negativity towards ARPL in academic circles needs to be seen against the backdrop of its relatively
recent introduction into the South African higher education system. ARPL demands a new
perspective on learning and challenges traditional approaches to teaching and learning in terms
of policy, curriculum development, andragogical approaches, assessment, and support services
(Geyser, 2001). Support services required may lead to high start-up costs (Osman & Castle, 2004).
The financial viability and the lack of structured funding may become a disincentive to the
implementation of ARPL (SAQA, 2004). Van Rooy (2002), however, observes a noticeable growing
acceptance of ARPL in higher education.
The effective implementation of ARPL in higher education institutions demands clarity in terms
of available resources and their allocation. It is clear that ARPL will only succeed in South African
universities if it is backed by a considerable investment in research, policy development and
advocacy.
Curricula that supports effective ARPL implementation
ARPL may seem like an ideal solution to many adult learning problems, but it is quite difficult to
implement in a mass education system governed by a universal time-based calendar, a credit system
and limited resources. Furthermore, it requires a choice in curricular offerings and requires a
flexible institutional structure that provides a variety of entry and exit points and routes through

135
programmes. Flexible entry and exit points in programmes allows for the utilisation of prior
learning and for an individual pace and level of learning (Cretchley & Castle, 2001).
Michelson (1999, as quoted in Van Rooy, 2002) promotes learner input into curriculum development,
which has implications in terms of institutional commitment to ARPL and flexibility in terms of
module construction. Harris (2000b) suggests that learners be given the opportunity to self-assess
their prior learning in comparison to the whole curriculum, and be given opportunities to
consolidate their prior and new learning throughout the programme. This will enable learners to
plan ahead and link prior learning to the existing curriculum (which is referred to as the spine
module and has a strong reflective nature). Learners should ideally also be able to customise
aspects of the learning programme to address their own needs and interests (referred to as open
modules). This flexibility may refer to the integration of Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge
3
in
curriculum development, which is not always easily achieved (Harris, 2000b). Curriculum
development would then require a critical review of (and possible changes to) the dominant
pedagogical stance(s). Harris (2000b), however, argues that curricular change may not be sufficient
and therefore supports an even broader notion of equivalence, which implies flexibility not only
in terms of modular and programme construction, but also in terms of awarding credit.
Quality assessment procedures in the ARPL process
The SAQA ARPL policy (2004) demands stringent ARPL assessment, but not more so than that of
learners in full-time programmes. The same assessment criteria should be used in both cases.
Assessment in ARPL should be closely related to the context in which prior learning has occurred,
also referred to as authentic assessment (Harris, 2000a).
The actual measurement of learning may involve several techniques and methods, which range
from highly individualised to highly formalised forms. Van Rooy (2002) identifies the following
continuum:
3
Gibbons, Limoges, Noworthy, Swarttzman, Scott and Trow (1994) refer to Mode 1 knowledge as knowledge created within
academic disciplines through research that often becomes universally accepted and incorporated in traditional academic
curricula. Mode 2 knowledge is described as knowledge constructed by multiple stakeholders in multiple contexts, which
has a more applied nature.
Individual-
Formalised
ised
Portfolio Assessment Challenge tests Standardised Programme &
development interviews examinations course
evaluations
Figure 1: Continuum of assessment methods in ARPL (adapted from Van Rooy, 2002, p. 78).
Standardised testing is useful in the case of a nationally uniform curriculum, where test results
are transferable between institutions (which is not the case with the results of challenge examinations),
but it does not allow for behavioural or cross-field competencies (Van Rooy, 2002). Challenge
examinations are useful in situations where individuals have little documented evidence of experience
and learning, but these examinations may relate too closely to the formal content and the format
of scoring may be different between or within institutions (Van Rooy, 2002). Assessment interviews

136
with interactive questioning make fewer literacy demands on ARPL candidates, and are potentially
less intimidating than other approaches. However, they demand a high level of assessor skill and
high investment in terms of time and costs (Van Rooy, 2002).
Harris (2000a) describes a portfolio as an open-ended and context-sensitive method of assessment
in ARPL. Portfolio development is a process that allows for the recording of a wide range of
experiential learning and helps the learner to connect prior learning to higher education programmes
or qualifications (Van Rooy, 2002). Breier (2001) and Geyser (2001) recommend portfolio preparation
that provides ARPL candidates with initial guidance, helps them to reflect on their personal learning
histories and engages them in critical dialogue.
Faculty members and administrators are often cautious of ARPL as it raises questions about
standards. Standards must be set by establishing criteria against which experiential learning is
assessed to determine whether it is adequate for higher education purposes (Van Rooy, 2002). A
combination appropriate to the specific context would probably form the most comprehensive,
valid and reliable ARPL assessment approach. Harris (2000a) concludes that ARPL should be seen
as a learning process, not merely an assessment event.
Facilitation of learner-centred ARPL
ARPL is and should be inherently learner- or student-centred. To accomplish this important goal,
both academic staff and students play an important role, as briefly outlined below.
The academic’s role in ARPL
Hendricks and Volbrecht (2003) identify the most important role players in ARPL in higher
education level as the facilitators and assessors of learning. ARPL requires trained staff and academic
support (Osman & Castle, 2004).
In the university setting, academics are usually required to be the facilitators of the reflective
process and to conduct ARPL assessments. The definition of the role of the assessor has changed
in recent times from being a so-called gatekeeper who prevents learners from developing further,
to a supportive guide who follows a learner-centred approach (SAQA, 2004). Assessors fulfil the
role of a mediator, between learners’ personal meanings, culturally established meanings and the
established meanings within higher education. The assessor/facilitator becomes a guiding participant
in the process of placing a learner’s prior knowledge, skills and/or attitudes within a wider system
of practice (Harris, 2000a). Hendricks and Volbrecht (2003) add the necessity for assessors/facilitators
of learning to become more reflexively aware of the types of knowledge needed to be an effective
mediator in the ARPL process. Staff development of mainstream academics therefore becomes
imperative in the ARPL process.
ARPL learners demand more time and effort from lecturers, who are already overburdened by a
diverse and heavy academic workload (Geyser, 2001; Kistan, 2002; Osman & Castle, 2004). The
burden ARPL places on academics should be taken into account in their workloads and their
chances for promotion (Castle & Atwood, 2001), as ARPL assessment is labour-intensive and
requires more staff and staff time per learner than mainstream assessment procedures. Faculty
members involved in ARPL need support, such as a reduced teaching load and training for the
development of ARPL facilitation skills (Van Rooy, 2002).

137
It becomes clear that the facilitator in the ARPL process has a multitude of roles to fulfil and needs
adequate and appropriate support to fulfil these responsibilities.
The learner and ARPL
Geyser (2001) stresses the central role the learner plays in the entire ARPL process. It is the learner
who finds and presents relevant evidence of prior learning. Harris (2000a) presents learning as
both a process of self-organisation and one of enculturation that occurs within the educational
realm. Personal contact with fellow ARPL candidates and staff is important in terms of socialisation
into the system and feedback on progress (Donoghue, Pelletier, Adams & Duffield, 2002).
Learner counselling and support are imperative in the access phase (Castle & Atwood, 2001). It
is not uncommon for ARPL learners to enter the higher education system with unrealistic
expectations (Van Rooy, 2002), and learners are often insecure about what constitutes ARPL (Osman
& Castle, 2004). Donoghue et al. (2002) cite various practical facilitative assistance strategies that
will help ARPL learners to succeed, such as writing skills workshops, library orientations, and
assignments that encourage critical thinking and analysis, literature searches and the use of
references are valuable in developing learners’ capacities. Information sessions and workshops
work tend to be more effective than simple paperwork applications. Feedback through consultation
is essential in the effective facilitation of ARPL learners.
The criteria or guidelines about ARPL in the literature tend to remain at the general level. The
question therefore arises: how can ARPL be integrated into an existing higher education system?
The reported case study aims to provide insight into an example in practice.
Methodology
The primary aim of the project was to investigate the current ARPL practices at the postgraduate
level at a South African university. It forms part of a wider process of self-evaluation and quality
assurance at the specific higher education institution. The context of this institution can be
described as an historically white university, with a focus on the development of research capacity,
and not drawing many part-time students. The vision statement of the university refers to diversity,
but does not have a strong focus on university access for mature or part-time students. The
institution does not have a strong history of ARPL, although the extent of practice varies across
faculties.
The purpose of the project was to develop a model of support by the Centre for Teaching and
Learning (CTL) for faculty wishing to implement ARPL. The research questions that guided the
project included:
• What are the current ARPL implementation practices at the postgraduate level
4
at the
institution?
• How can staff who wish to implement ARPL be supported?
4 The general focus of ARPL at the university is mainly on the postgraduate level. This was seen as a good starting point as
the institution lacks an embedded history of ARPL. The decision was taken to pilot ARPL at the institution at the postgraduate
level as the greatest need for ARPL was at the postgraduate level and because the numbers of students involved at this level
would be more easily manageable in the initial phases of this relatively new and unknown practice within the particular
institution. The focus on postgraduate ARPL is also motivated by the commitment of the specific university to research
excellence, as well as to access.

138
A qualitative methodology was used in the investigation. The research results did not lead to broad
generalisations, but rather enhanced an understanding of ARPL within the specific context. Relevant
international and national scholarly literature on ARPL was studied to identify trends in ARPL
practice. Document analysis followed, giving valuable background information and creating an
understanding of the complexities of ARPL. Furthermore, the data obtained through document
analysis facilitated triangulation and improved the quality of the analysis (Babbie & Mouton, 2001).
Scheduled, semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain information and substantiate the
key information gained through literature review and document analysis (Gubrium & Holstein,
2002). Qualitative research need not be totally unstructured (Tuckman, 1994), therefore the
interview structure was specified in advance. Structure added to neutrality, efficient time use and
reliability. The investigation of ARPL at different levels led to a holistic understanding of ARPL at
the postgraduate level.
Sampling was done purposefully as respondents were chosen for their involvement and expertise
relating to ARPL within higher education. Gubrium and Holstein (2002: 87) refer to these
respondents as key informants. Babbie and Mouton (2001) advise that this type of sampling is
suitable in conducting qualitative research, which seeks to gain the maximum amount of information
within a specific context. The interviews were not conducted in order to make broad generalisations.
The respondents in this case only represented a theoretical population who acted as spokespersons
for the topic of inquiry. They were selected in terms of their expertise, knowledge and understanding
of ARPL in the context within which the research project was conducted. Therefore a purposive
sample was sufficient to obtain in-depth qualitative data.
The sample for this study included nine administrators from eight different faculties responsible
for the implementation and monitoring of ARPL. Interviews were conducted with six lecturers
involved in facilitation of postgraduate programmes in four different faculties where ARPL learners
were involved and who had teaching experience with postgraduate ARPL admissions. Five learners
from two different faculties that had been involved in the ARPL process on the postgraduate level
at the university contributed to the study. The lack of efficient record keeping structures on ARPL
cases at the university, as well as the relatively recent introduction of ARPL into the postgraduate
system and a resulting low frequency up to date, posed difficulties when selecting students. Although
initially stratified random sampling of postgraduate ARPL learners was envisioned, a purposive
sample of learners had to be drawn.
Results and discussion
ARPL at the university proved to be a relatively new phenomenon, even though some faculties had
practiced ARPL prior to formal policy. ARPL is still mostly in a developmental stage and current
practices will need to be revisited regularly in order to refine and contextualise the ARPL process.
Much can, however, be learnt from current ARPL practices at the institution. This article reports
on the perils, possible pitfalls and progress of ARPL at the postgraduate level at the university and
aims to provide a realistic and holistic view of ARPL within the specific institutional context. This
view provides a valuable insight into the dynamics of ARPL as practised at the postgraduate level.

139
Factors necessary to support ARPL policy
A number of important results emerged from this study regarding the three key factors identified
above, and to be discussed briefly in the next paragraphs.
5
Conceptualisation of ARPL
All of the APRL cases studied focused mainly on selection as assessment measure of both individuals
and knowledge, and conformed mainly to the credit exchange model of ARPL. Some faculty policies
(three of the eight were analysed prior to the interviews) did allow for a more transformative
approach, especially in the light of current diversity issues at the institution, but the visible evidence
thereof could not be found. The lack of a transformational emphasis might be attributed to the
fact that ARPL was still in a developmental stage and was mainly practiced at postgraduate level.
The institutional vision furthermore does not prominently advocate the inclusion of mature
learners, but rather emphasises research excellence.
The strong institutional focus on research may also have an influence on the conceptualisation
and practice of ARPL – especially at postgraduate level – as there is a university-wide focus on
research and lecturers’ research productivity. The institutional focus on research within the
institutional vision, mission and practices may explain the emphasis on formal learning in ARPL,
although it may limit the transformative potential of a process such as ARPL. The type of learning
most prominently articulated in ARPL practices at the university still centred on formal learning,
as is evident in the following responses from administrators within the institution:
We are very specific in terms of the module contents and the courses. So that, I do not think
they [the faculty] are going to make big adjustments to accommodate students. I think they
are rather going to evaluate them [the students] on the grounds of the students’ qualifications,
and then compare how it corresponds to their outcomes that are expected within their
programmes. (Administrator in Law)
The person must have some or other qualification. They [the faculty] go and look at, and
they use the SAQA qualifications framework to look at which level the qualification will be
acknowledged. And on these grounds a student will be considered. (Administrator in the Arts
and Humanities)
… so a student must usually, actually always, at least have a degree, a first degree, because
after his [sic] first degree he must have an Honours, and if he doesn’t have his Honours, he
must have something to substitute the Honours. This means something comparable with the
Honours. (Administrator in Education)
Institutional support at faculty level
Even though the university had made a formal institutional commitment to implement ARPL at
the postgraduate level by establishing institutional and faculty ARPL policies, resource availability
did play a role in respondents’ views on ARPL. The time-consuming nature of ARPL placed high
5 The interviews were conducted in both English and Afrikaans, depending on the preference of the interviewee. Afrikaans
quotations were translated for the sake of consistency, but care was taken in each case not to alter the meaning conveyed
by the respondent. Neither the original English nor translated Afrikaans quotations were edited in terms of grammar.

140
demands in terms of person hours for each application, as is evident in the following responses
from lecturers who had supported ARPL students:
I had to do all of this extra work. Look, marking three essays isn’t such a big job, its dealing
with of this admin work. I’m a bit reluctant to make it easy and say all of these people can
come and apply, because I have to do all of that work and get everybody together …'c9 you’re
dumped with administering the whole lot, amongst everything else you have to deal with
this. I have to answer all of the questions. (Lecturer in the Arts and Humanities)
It was an additional burden for me because not only was I running the course and teaching
the course but I had to run around with all the administration relating to that. More often
than not they were the complicated students, so I would spend weeks doing that. And getting
a little bit frustrated because that doesn’t translate anything as an academic, for me. (Lecturer
in the Natural Sciences)
Lecturers commented on the time and resource-consuming nature of the ARPL process, which
made it difficult to give prompt and comprehensive feedback to the learner. Lecturers also
commented on the lack of recognition they received for this effort, as the following comments
indicate:
It [the lack of recognition] is one of the reasons why I’m a little bit hesitant to take this course
on, unless there is university buy-in, because you know, the university is very happy to accept
certain people doing things but if you’re not, you’ve got to look at ultimately within the
reward system. And if that time is being taken away from your research and you’re being
rewarded for your research, then obviously the sensible thing is not to do that, which I think
is wrong. There should be some way of evaluating other activities that are not directly relating
to research products. I think we should be servicing our society and our community. (Lecturer
in the Natural Sciences)
It’s a huge amount of extra time and basically what ends up happening is that those students
fall by the wayside because that time is, you know, it’s not productive time. Even though I
think individuals might carry through that because they really want that person, but often
there are other people (mainstream candidates). (Lecturer in the Arts and Humanities)
The low frequency of applications did not make group induction and assessment procedures a
viable option. All cases investigated were still handled on an ad hoc basis, as the following response
from a lecturer indicates:
I think you have to treat each case as a unique case, it requires a person dedicated to that
activity. Because every case is unique, it may be that they’ve got work experience, it might
be that they’re top-top notch students but that they’ve come from a different training system.
(Lecturer in the Natural Sciences)
Given the relatively low frequency and dispersion of ARPL applications, it is inevitable that ad hoc
types of support will be most prevalent. If the frequency increases and the dispersion becomes
more concentrated in future, support systems may have to adapt to the increased demands of ARPL
learners. The current institutional emphasis on research output and excellence at postgraduate

141
level limits departmental input for this resource-intensive endeavour. The limitation may contribute
to the marginalisation of ARPL and the disempowerment of ARPL learners.
The university charged no extra fees for the ARPL procedure and treated it within the normal
mainstream applications fee structure. Any extra costs (such as travel to attend an interview, or
material costs to compile a portfolio) came from the applicants’ own accounts.
There was a lack of effective record-keeping systems to track ARPL students from application to
completion in all faculties where interviews were conducted. This may be attributed to the relative
novelty of the system in some environments. However, even the environments that had practised
some form of ARPL prior to the implementation of the formal policy lacked effective record-keeping
systems.
Curriculum and ARPL
Examples of programmes with flexible entry and exit points at postgraduate level were found in
two faculties, mainly in the form of postgraduate diplomas, as the following lecturer’s response
indicates:
We also have cases where students did not have training that fits into one of the accredited
subdivisions, but you realise that the student already has four to six years training after
secondary school and there we have brought in something like a postgraduate diploma that
would correspond to the NQF level more or less on a Honours or fourth year level, which
would fulfil a typical bridge function. If we are unsure what they had up to third year, and
they want to articulate to the fifth year, we have brought in the postgraduate diploma that
can function additionally to fill the gaps, solidify the basis and to enable a form of specialisation
in the second half, which is sensible to take further on the Master’s level. (Lecturer in
Agricultural Sciences)
Not all of the faculties made such provisions that facilitated the implementation of ARPL. Part of
the reason could be attributed to the funding of postgraduate students that is often linked to project
funds dependent on completion of research outputs. Postgraduate learners are encouraged to
complete the full cycle of the programme offering, as stated by the following respondents:
We couldn’t get her into a direct research Master’s, even though she was eminently capable
of doing so. But in a way it’s not so bad because she is picking up some of the general skills
that an Honours degree would do. She’s doing a lot better than some of the Honours students
that have gone through the system. (Lecturer in the Natural Sciences)
At this stage our faculty has relatively strict rules. They don’t want to accept somebody with
a BTech, even if he[sic] has lots of experience, because he does not have the basic sciences.
(Administrator in Engineering)
The structure of postgraduate programmes did make allowances for individual pace of learning
and progress and individually suited programme offerings were often easier to achieve than at
undergraduate level. Although learners did not seem to have direct input into curriculum design
of modular work, as advocated by Michelson (1999, in Van Rooy, 2002), they were able to give input
on the research topic and focus, as the following students’ comment indicates:

142
All postgrad courses are self-driven, allowing one to pursue any particular interests one may
have. Outside facilitators can be found if the department cannot support your particular area
of specialisation. (Student in the Arts and Humanities)
The matching of prior learning to outcomes in the ARPL process was often problematic at the
postgraduate level, especially in cases where outcomes were broadly defined – as where a Baccalaureus-
degree and appropriate work experience formed the usual entry requirement, or when the programme
outcomes were not clearly identified and measurable – as the following responses from lecturers
indicate:
How do I measure whether the person was successful because he [sic] could achieve what
is generic in a B-degree? … What is generic in a B-degree? I tried to sit and think what I can
write down what is generic so that you can say now you [the student] must go and develop
a portfolio on that thing. This is an impossible task. (Lecturer in the Economic and Management
Sciences)
In areas that are specific it is easier because you can say what the person should know, and
he [sic] must prove that he has achieved this … I don’t think it is as problematic in subject-
specific master’s degrees. (Lecturer in Agricultural Sciences)
Ensuring quality assessment procedures in the ARPL process
A wide array of assessment procedures in the ARPL process was found in current practices. The
academic environments that had gone through the ARPL process had contextualised assessment
procedures to suit their various academic approaches. The most commonly used approaches to
ARPL assessment included:
• ARPL candidates at the university were sometimes required to follow background modules
prior or parallel to admittance into a programme. These modules were considered credit-
bearing and therefore had to be passed before a qualification could be obtained. This measure
was usually taken after careful consideration of the applicant’s credentials and served as a
quality control measure. It was also considered a way for an ARPL applicant to perform
him/herself into a programme on his/her own merit.
• Challenge examinations were used in some of the cases. At postgraduate level, applicants were
usually required to write the final year undergraduate examinations in a specific subject area.
ARPL applicants were given the study material in advance when challenge examinations were
used. In other cases standardised examinations (such as the Graduate Management Admission
Test) were used as an entrance examination requirement for all ARPL applicants. Assessors who
did use standardised tests warned that they could be highly contextual and may not be available
in all disciplines of study, which could limit its applicability as a generic ARPL assessment
measure. Other entrance examinations included language proficiency tests prior to admittance.
These tests were usually developed within a specific context (such as Engineering or Journalism).
Language proficiency tests were reported to be important in the case of international applicants
who may not have English as a first language.
• An alternative to following full modules or writing challenge examinations proved to be a series
of assignments the applicant had to complete within a certain timeframe. Assignments were

143
considered to be more appropriate in some fields of study. They were used to simultaneously
assess a candidate’s ability to pose a logical, coherent argument, and to demonstrate language
proficiency and current expertise on a specific topic. An interesting variation on this theme
was noted where three assignments were given consecutively (not simultaneously), with
constructive feedback after each assignment was assessed and an average mark given after all
the assignments were completed. This enabled the applicant to learn within the ARPL process,
and it gave the assessor the opportunity to monitor the growth, learning and potential of the
applicant. ARPL was therefore not a once-off assessment event. The assessor who used this
assessment strategy advised that assignments should be well-structured with clear guidelines
and feedback to the applicant, who often did not possess the specific academic background and
language. As a result, this type of endeavour was reported to be laborious and time-consuming.
• Most departments required complete curriculum vitae from the ARPL applicant upon application.
Full details of academic achievements in prior learning experiences had to be included. This
information tended to focus on formal learning achievements, such as certificates, diplomas,
and degrees. Applicants were also required to include names and contact details of referees in
the curriculum vitae. The referees were usually previous or current employers or supervisors,
persons who could then be contacted for more information on the applicant in terms of abilities
and prior learning. Assessors commented on the danger of applicant-bias in the selection of
possible referees. ARPL assessors in the study agreed that this could pose a problem in terms
of bias, reliability, and fairness of the assessment procedure, but stated that within the South
African milieu referees were often known to them. This is often not the case when ARPL
applicants are from abroad.
• Applicants were sometimes required to substantiate and supplement the information given in
the curriculum vitae by means of an interview. ARPL assessors at the university who had used
interviews as an assessment measure promote the use of an interview schedule to structure
the process and ensure that valid and reliable information is obtained from the applicant. It
was also advised that the interview be conducted with a panel of assessors present, in order to
ensure fairness and rigour. ARPL assessor panels that have been used at the university consisted
of subject specialists (usually the prospective study leader at postgraduate level), the departmental
chairperson, and other members concerned with ARPL within the specific faculty. In some of
these cases there were specific committees assigned to deal with ARPL. In other cases ad hoc
committees were appointed to conduct the interviews.
• Self-reflective statements were also used as a form of ARPL assessment at postgraduate level.
These statements provided a wide array of information on ARPL candidates, and assessors found
they served as an indication of an applicant’s self-assessment ability, language proficiency, areas
where learning and development were needed and possible research interests. Assessors advised
that the instructions to self-reflective statements be well-formulated. Quality in the assessment
of self-reflective statements was ensured by careful formulation of the initial assignment, and
making sure the applicant understood what was expected of him/her. Assessors also utilised
standard assessment rubrics and assessment panels in the eventual assessment process.
• Portfolios are a much debated form of ARPL assessment in research literature (Donoghue et
al., 2002; Osman & Castle, 2002; Van Rooy, 2002; Castle & Atwood, 2001; Cretchley & Castle,
2001; Harris, 2000a), and an often used form of ARPL assessment in practice – also at the

144
specific university. Some of the cases that reported the use of portfolios as an assessment
instrument in ARPL, upon further investigation, only referred to a form of curriculum vitae
with a compilation of evidence of formal learning. The conceptualisation of a portfolio was
therefore not clear and standardised at the institution. Applicants were neither prepared nor
trained in portfolio development, while assessors were not trained in portfolio assessment. The
lack of critical understanding of portfolio development and assessment within ARPL raised
concern in terms of quality of assessment when considering the rigour, reliability and validity
of ARPL assessment procedures.
The majority of the academic environments included in the study noted the use of a combination
of assessment instruments, usually a combination of curriculum vitae with more than one of the
other assessment instruments mentioned above. The following response attests to this trend:
I always search for triangulation in admissions. I look for points of reference, I go into the
detail of the student’s application form and then I look whether the person has the type of
profile that will benefit from the programme. Then I look at what the undergraduate studies
were, how the undergraduate studies were. If I see an average or poor study record, then the
test mark [standardized test] must help me to determine whether the student did poorly
because there were other reasons why the student did not study, but he [sic] does have the
ability, or with a poor test mark, this poor performance at university was as a result of lacking
ability … the mark [standardised test] is only to help look at the profile of the candidate. You
cannot look at only one facet ... each candidate is a new person that you see in front of you,
as you work through the material, you must try to always look objectively at the candidate
and gain as much information as possible about the candidate. I want a complete CV. I even
expanded it this year, it must be work and social, because many times people have done
things in their social circumstances, because a Toastmaster, he takes the lead in a community
organisation, whatever. The important roles that people fulfill above and beyond their normal
work assignments. (Lecturer in Economic and Management Sciences)
All the mentioned assessment procedures were mainly focused on giving ARPL applicants access
rather than credit within higher education. This trend may be attributed to the fact that ARPL was
mainly focused on the postgraduate level, which is in line with the recommendations of Castle
and Atwood (2001), who do not recommend ARPL for credit in postgraduate programmes.
Postgraduate curricular aims are generally to deepen and extend prior knowledge. Some authors
(Castle & Atwood, 2001) argue that ARPL for credit could rob learners of the opportunity to
contribute to knowledge construction, skills development and value transformation that would
empower themselves as well as their peer learner group. Lecturers who were interviewed in the
study emphasise the value gained through collegial peer interaction between students in the
academic environment, which students would not have if they obtain credit (even if it is only for
a particular component):
It is a responsibility to determine whether you have the ability to successfully do the thing
[the programme] here. Because there is an expectation that once you’re sitting in that class
that you are going to contribute to the learning experience ... you learn a lot from the network,
you must collaborate. In many areas people know more than the lecturer, with practical
experience and then you share your experiences with your colleagues through the conversations

145
that take place. You learn how other people see things and integrate them. You must be able
to contribute. If you cannot contribute to the learning process, then you don’t actually belong
in the class. (Lecturer in Economic and Management Sciences)
The maintenance of standards played a determining role in ARPL decisions, a trend also identified
by Van Rooy (2002). The following responses attest to the importance attributed to the maintenance
of standards. Two lecturers commented:
The purpose of ARPL is the recognition of prior learning, with the aim of achieving success
in a degree. And I think the ARPL is also a security mechanism of departments to see whether
they can determine or assess if they [ARPL students] can be successful or not. If they
[departments[ can see that somebody is not going to be successful, you are not necessarily
going to make a rod for your own back by admitting such a person .... The assumption is
that it is about admission to university study and that a person must be able to complete the
university study at a Master’s level by mastering certain theory. (Lecturer in Agricultural
Sciences)
What are the levels of knowledgeability necessary in a specific area so that the person is able
to gain access at that level? And then the person must be able to prove that you can do it.
My colleague has done this. He wrote down a number of issues on which persons must be
knowledgeable and they had to write essays on this to prove that they understand and can
place it in context. And those essays are evaluated to say whether you can have access. Those
levels of knowledgeability are assumed as a given, that you must know of it before you can
progress with a Master’s degree in that field. (Lecturer in Economic and Management Sciences)
An administrator also attested to the importance of ensuring quality:
Quality assurance is kept in mind with anything we do. So the way in which we handle this
type of access, and the documents that must be submitted, is sufficient in my opinion because
we are strict with this type of access. It is not just I want to come and study and yes, very
well, we’ll put you through the process. A person’s merit is really considered, because if we
allow persons that aren’t really on standard, it is going to have a negative impact on the
faculty’s throughput rate. (Administrator in Education)
Although responses indicated that a variety of assessment methods were already utilised in ARPL
on campus, the choice of instrument(s) was not necessarily negotiated with the ARPL applicant.
I [the lecturer] decided on three essays. It was a teaching and learning experience throughout
… I can show you all the stuff that I sent her, because it was quite rigorous … the essays had
guidelines and bibliographies and so on. If it was only one essay, I might have said I’m sorry
it’s not such a good essay, but then she had never written essays before like that. (Lecturer
in the Arts and Humanities)
Academics are expected to uphold standards of assessment, but if the power over assessment
measures of ARPL applicants at the postgraduate level resides totally within academia, alternative
forms of learning may go unnoticed and unrecognised. This view is supported by Michelson (2006),
who argues that ARPL practices at universities are rooted in matrices of power that differentiate
between forms of knowledge that are valued (and those that are not).

146
Effective facilitation of ARPL in a learner-centred manner
It was pointed out above that academic staff and students themselves play a crucial role in ensuring
a learner- or student-centred approach to ARPL. A number of findings in this regard are briefly
discussed.
Academics’ views of their roles in ARPL
Osman (2006) notes that underlying belief systems are likely to translate into the practice of APRL,
even if policies are designed to transform institutions and their practices. Administrators in this
study noted positive responses towards ARPL within the various faculties, although academics
remained hesitant about the barriers to implementing ARPL. Kistan (2002) warns that critics must
distinguish between maintaining a comfortable status quo versus a true investment in high quality
and standards in higher education. It may be easy for scepticism to be interpreted as realism.
The following comment from an administrator at the particular university attests to the contested
nature of knowledge that comes to the fore in ARPL:
No, I think it’s positive, very positive. There is just one fear that people have – people [students]
must not be forced on them [lecturers]. They [the students] must have the right standards
and the right background. Because we sit with, look there are contradictions within the
university, strong contradictions. For instance, you are told we are a university of excellence,
but then they want to allow all sorts of people here. And then they say we must maintain
good throughput rates. And how are you supposed to have good throughput if people don’t
have the ability – this is contradictory. (Administrator in the Agricultural Sciences)
Also note the collegial solidarity that the administrator conveys with his/her academic counterparts.
Support and training for staff to implement ARPL had not been introduced at the university.
Collegial networking seemed to be the most frequently utilised resource for advice and support.
Feedback from staff members who had negotiated the ARPL process indicated the need for self-
help type of support on demand, supplemented by individual consultation if necessary. The low
frequency and often urgency of ARPL applications did not make ARPL training workshops for staff
a viable option. Administrative support for ARPL at the university was settled with faculty officers,
who proved to be generally well-informed on ARPL policies within their faculties.
Academics at the university fulfilled dual roles of facilitators and assessors in the ARPL process.
The academics interviewed saw their role in ARPL as the negotiators of a contract with the
prospective learner. They wanted to help prospective learners, but felt it their responsibility to
make sure that an applicant did have the potential and capabilities to successfully complete the
intended studies. Some interviewees were positive about incorporating ARPL learners into the
system:
I must not allow you to set yourself up for failure. Because if I allow you to, I create the
expectation that you can study successfully. If I allow anybody and you are allowed in, then
I’m not doing my job. (Lecturer in Economic and Management Sciences)
The guys [academic staff] are scientific and objective. And remember, if you are able to enroll
a student, then that student is a gain for the faculty and for that department. So, I have

147
never come across somebody that is reluctant about getting students in. They look at the
end product, at the graduated student. If they see potential in the applicant, then they see
a graduated student. This is inherently satisfying for academics, but it is also for the money
guys, dollars. Because when a master’s student graduates, what is it then? It is a financial
profit for the faculty. And naturally, it is another better trained professional. (Administrator
in Education)
Other interviewees were more sceptical about ARPL and ARPL learners‘ abilities to cope in the
higher education environment:
You know I’m not really very keen on just trying to diversify our department or university
and getting students who can’t cope … one has to make sure that the person can get through,
otherwise you get them in and they have all of these high hopes and all and they just can’t
feature at all, they can’t deal with some of the stuff. Otherwise all they do is struggle. (Lecturer
in the Arts and Humanities)
The ARPL access procedures could be there to give people access to postgraduate programmes
but the unsaid assumption is – and I don’t know if this is spelt out – is that that access
procedure takes place in the context that you allow people in who you know will be able to
do and complete the study as it exists. (Lecturer in the Arts and Humanities)
… in the end they must be committed and their commitment lies in the fact that they have
to work for it. It’s not an easy thing, otherwise they can just ride through it. One should make
it very rigorous and if they can stick it out till the end then they’re worth it. (Lecturer in the
Arts and Humanities)
Academic preparedness of ARPL learners
Taylor and Clemans (2000) found that the most successful ARPL processes seemed to take place
in faculties where ARPL was specifically mentioned as an option in course information brochures
and application forms and when brief guidelines and step-by-step procedures were clearly outlined.
Three of the ARPL learners interviewed indicated that their main initial difficulty centred on
finding relevant ARPL information at the institution, which is understandable, as only one faculty
mentioned ARPL specifically as a component of the Yearbook, and only one (other) faculty had a
specific link to ARPL on the faculty website. The relative novelty of the process at the university
could explain this lack of information on ARPL.
University culture in general, and programme objectives in particular, expect learners (especially
at a postgraduate level) to think critically and produce scholarly work (Donoghue et al., 2002).
These abilities were not necessarily well-developed in all applicants and needed to be cultivated
within a safe learning environment, as indicated by the following responses:
It [student success] is a configuration or interplay of influences, circumstances, potential,
mechanisms that identify enough limitations and then make the necessary provisions. But
that combination of personal potential, let’s say biographical particulars that the prior
learning or training had entailed, and if such a student is then really able to attend the
workshops, that are more residential. (Lecturer in Theology)

148
You realise that there are different levels of preparedness. You don’t have a crystal ball
beforehand to be able to determine this. Sometimes you get a student that comes here and
is like a fish in the water and others that simply struggle. They are incapable of coping with
whatever help you provide. But this is mostly the exception. (Lecturer in Theology)
Although learners’ levels of empowerment and extent of learning were not specifically measured,
these aspects seemed highly dependent on the support received from academic staff, as this student’s
response indicates:
[The lecturer] was very supportive. I met with him several times to discuss the essays. He
taught me about the standards and academic rigour that was expected of me. (Student in
the Arts and Humanities)
Post-entry support of ARPL learners at postgraduate level often centres on individual academic
supervisors. All the ARPL learners interviewed indicated the value they placed on the input and
feedback from their supervisors, even at the initial ARPL phases. This process required substantial
input from academics directly involved in ARPL, both pre- and post-entry. Lecturers who were
interviewed indicated that they found the initial ARPL process and post-entry support labour-
intensive, as these comments indicate:
Motivation and often it’s a certain amount of brains is required. I mean, you’ve got to have
what it takes to do a degree at that level. But it’s a lot of sweat and a lot of systems. (Lecturer
in the Arts and Humanities)
I’ve had an experience with a [foreign] student and I’d say it’s probably the equivalent of
pulling all my teeth out to get his thesis written, because I refused to write their theses for
them. So it’s a longer process because it’s a kind of iteration, it’s a very small iteration every
time, and sometimes it’s like two steps forward and three steps back. (Lecturer in the Natural
Sciences)
The following responses by lecturers, however, indicate that ARPL postgraduate learners may be
more suitable for postgraduate studies than mainstream students in some cases:
But this particular research project required quite a practical background, which our regular
students wouldn’t have had. So she came with both some theoretical and practical backgrounds
and therefore was perfect for the project. (Lecturer in the Natural Sciences)
I go with an intuition when it comes to a research project, you know, that’s how I do it and
generally it works. The students that I have had for certain research projects have been
excellent choices. I don’t regret that at all. (Lecturer in the Natural Sciences)
I want that diversity, but it’s not the only thing – I want good research and so it’s the right
person for the job, whether that person, you know, whatever background that person has.
(Lecturer in the Natural Sciences)
The formal ARPL procedures at the university mainly focused on pre-entry support, contrary to
the notion of both pre- and post-entry support as propagated by Harris (2000a). Once accepted,
learners were put into the mainstream and had to cope with the day-to-day realities of being a
student at the institution. The cultivation of scholarly abilities through post-entry support does

149
take place through input from individual supervisors and extended support services on campus,
such as the International Office (in the case of foreign students), the Library and the Language
Centre. The indispensability of these services, especially in terms of post-entry support of ARPL
learners, is evident from the following responses:
The International Office was a great service because they were able to take the qualifications
from all over and find out whether or not they were equivalent to our own qualifications.
(Lecturer in Theology)
I find the library very useful as well. They are fantastic. I send my students there and say
you’ve got to learn how to use the Library, the sooner you do that the better … and then I
phone [the Librarian] and the students come back smiling and they understand what’s going
on. (Lecturer in the Natural Sciences)
I sent them [the foreign ARPL students] on the scientific writing course … they understand
the process a lot better. I mean I probably would have done the same thing, but it would have
taken a lot longer, than have an intensive organized place that they can get that information.
(Lecturer in the Agricultural Sciences)
There were some departments that presented post-entry workshops in the form of research
methodology workshops and progress report sessions. This type of endeavour was reported to build
relationships between academic staff and learners, as well as amongst learners themselves, as the
following responses indicate:
There are research workshops two to three times a year. So they [the students] are not just
thrown to the wolves, but they have the opportunity to be trained two to three times a year,
or get exposure in a workshop situation on how to do research. It is also to share each others’
experiences of what was positive and negative. In the past we made this input in June and
then we realised there were students that had done nothing up to June. Therefore we have
spaced it so that they have it at the start of the year, middle of the year and then somewhere
in the second semester also, that you give a more spaced opportunity to the problems typical
to a novice student, the student that now picks up speed but still needs an adjustment here
and there and the guy in the second semester that have incurred some or other problem and
just need a small nudge. (Lecturer in Theology)
We are in the process to create a type of virtual campus in some of the subject areas at
master’s level so that you can send a student a CD-Rom before he [sic] arrives so that he can
take part in the included prior learning. We realised just in terms of subject concepts, to first
give content to certain key concepts ... so that a student that arrives here and we talk about
x, y or z at least understands more or less the same thing. And this is also when you have
students from different traditions, you find different formulations and this must be interrelated
to be able to communicate. (Lecturer in Theology)
Learner-centredness took on various forms in the different faculty contexts at the specific institution.
The commitment of individual lecturers seemed to be the driving force behind such initiatives in
most cases. Given the relatively low prevalence of ARPL applications across the university at the
time of the study, it seemed unlikely that all lecturers would be as committed to the integration
of ARPL into academic practice beyond taking notice of the available policy documents.

150
Recommendations
What can be learnt from these findings? Although the scope of the study reported on in this article
does not allow for broad generalisations, it does lead to the following recommendations that might
be taken seriously in the implementation of ARPL in a higher education setting.
ARPL forms an inherent part of the drive towards quality assurance at any higher education
institution. The following recommendations might serve to support ARPL policy implementation
at the particular institution:
• Institutions need to contextualise ARPL and take a clear stance on their intended approach or
approaches to ARPL. This will have a determining influence on the incorporation of an
appropriate ARPL model and the practices flowing from such a model. This contextualisation
clearly needs to be congruent with the overall mission and vision of the institution in order
for it to be accepted as part the broader institutional processes. In this study, for example, the
specific institution has a distinctive research and teaching focus, which may explain why adult
learning (and consequently ARPL) does not feature as strongly in its mission, vision and
practices. This focus may limit the potential transformation that ARPL could bring about within
the institution. If conceptual clarity is not provided this could lead to a situation where ARPL
is attended to in terms of policy, but where individual lecturers wishing to gain adequate ARPL
expertise lack support and acknowledgement.
• ARPL will remain a marginalised academic endeavour if adequate resources are not allocated
to its development and implementation. Human resources, training, administrative support
and adequate infrastructure need to be provided and maintained for the purposes of ARPL. This
includes recognition for services rendered in the name of ARPL for all those involved in the
process. The incorporation of ARPL procedures into existing committees within faculties may
help to streamline the process and ensure adherence to current quality assurance measures.
A web-based information component is furthermore envisioned to guide staff members through
the ARPL process. As all academic staff members have access to computers and the intranet,
infrastructure does not pose a major problem.
• Part of resource expenditure on ARPL-related infrastructure should include a record-keeping
system that tracks ARPL candidates from application through completion. Quality assurance
of the ARPL process may be compromised in future if such a record keeping system is not
devised and properly implemented. A lack of record-keeping is in contrast to the institutional
drive for excellence and serves as a limitation to adequate research support – particularly at
the postgraduate level.
The quality of ARPL assessment can be enhanced in a variety of ways, but five aspects clearly
emerged from the specific case:
• Ease of ARPL implementation depends heavily on the university context and the mission of the
institution. In a research-focused institution where access for non-traditional students does
not enjoy a high premium, different approaches and methods might be required, as opposed
to institutions where access for mature and non-traditional students is a priority.

151
• Triangulation is an important quality assurance measure in ARPL assessment. A singular method
of assessment is often insufficient to ensure a valid, reliable, rigorous, and fair assessment of
prior learning. It can therefore be advised that while the use of each of the previously mentioned
assessment methods may be useful in the ARPL process, a singular method should not be used
as the only assessment tool. In the specific case study, combinations of methods suitable to
specific academic contexts were used.
• An appropriate selection of assessment methods will also contribute to creating a learner profile
for each ARPL applicant. Profiling is essential as it enables the assessor(s) to form an holistic
picture of any particular applicant and include traditionally non-academic knowledge and skills
that do enhance the applicants’ potential to succeed. A learner profile will also enable assessors
to justify assessment decisions.
• APRL applicants need to be thoroughly briefed on the assessment methods that will be used.
Ideally, this should be negotiated with the applicant, but it might not always be possible. A
properly prepared applicant will have a better chance at success. The initial investment in time
and effort on the facilitator’s part will streamline the eventual assessment procedure in ARPL.
This aspect contributes to fairness in assessment.
• A panel of assessors is recommended in all ARPL assessments. Reliability, fairness and rigour
of assessment might be enhanced after careful consideration.
A learner-centred approach might improve the quality of ARPL processes. From this particular
case study it seems imperative that information on ARPL must be readily available to both academic
staff and prospective ARPL applicants. The information presented must be phrased in a user-friendly
manner and be updated regularly. University calendars and websites can be utilised for this purpose.
What also seems important is that bureaucratic systems need to be streamlined to accommodate
learners from a variety of backgrounds and geographical locations. Clear and transparent procedures
will ensure that a learner-centred approach is possible throughout the whole ARPL process.
The case revealed that the ARPL process needs to be thoroughly negotiated with applicants. This
might ensure that the most appropriate assessment approaches are used and all forms of learning
are considered and valued. A negotiation process will also ensure that applicants understand what
is expected of them and limit possible unrealistic expectations. This approach will contribute to
quality output. It seems in addition that ARPL learners value the individual relationship built up
with the facilitator/assessor. This relationship is important to the initial applicants’ trust in the
university system and the ARPL process. Furthermore, ARPL applicants need prompt and
comprehensive feedback on their progress throughout the ARPL process. This places high demands
on academic personnel, but ensures that the process evolves from a mere assessment procedure
to a learning experience. Finally, it appears that ARPL learners need post-entry support to be able
to cope in mainstream higher education. Support systems on campus must be actively promoted
and involved in the process, as it will lighten the academics’ burden and enhance the ARPL learners’
academic experience.

152
Conclusions
ARPL at the postgraduate level proved to be a relative novel process at the specific university, with
a current relatively low frequency of applications. A more instrumental approach to ARPL is
followed at present. Whether this trend will change with a higher frequency of applications cannot
be predicted. At present, ARPL still seems to fulfil a gatekeeping function within the institution.
Limited evidence could be found of truly transformative ARPL practices at the departmental level,
which may be attributed to a lack of institutional transformation - even if administrators and
lecturers see the value of a transformation through ARPL.
ARPL comes at a cost in terms of monetary expenditure and human resources. These costs to the
individual lecturer and the institution must be balanced against the benefits gained from ARPL.
These may be difficult to quantify, however.
ARPL has implications for curriculum design, even at the postgraduate level. Flexible entry and
exit points may be more difficult to achieve, especially in the light of research stipulations and
funding for specific projects. Despite these limitations, postgraduate programmes can be more
accommodating to ARPL learners as there is less set curricular progression within a programme
(as is often the case in undergraduate programmes) and a greater emphasis on the research project
focus and scope.
Assessment takes on many forms within the institution, often combining assessment methods
suitable to the context and the needs of the ARPL candidate. Assessment that serves to maintain
standards continues to play a central role in ARPL procedures.
Lecturers acted as both facilitators and assessors in the specific case study. Even though various
support structures are in place to assist the lecturer and the ARPL student, ARPL continues to be
a resource-intensive endeavour for the individual lecturer. The commitment of the individual
lecturer also plays a determining role in the extent to which ARPL is integrated in a learner-centred
manner within faculties. ARPL learners are dependent upon these individuals for support and
guidance.
Within institutions where ARPL is a relatively infrequent practice – where ARPL lacks the benefit
of economy of scale – it might be called into question whether ARPL should be encouraged at all.
If so, time-saving methods should be adopted. For example, a web-based information source backed
by individual consultation is deemed the most appropriate support structure for lecturers.
Streamlined bureaucratic systems, administrative support and the use of existing support centres
will further facilitate the integration of ARPL in academic practice.
How will quality be enhanced in ARPL? The current study indicates that the careful planning of
policy implementation procedures, the appropriate selection of assessment instruments, and the
creation of a truly learner-centred approach to ARPL are factors that can greatly enhance the
quality and therefore the successful implementation of ARPL in higher education at the university.

153
References
Andersson, P. (2006). Different faces and functions of RPL: an assessment perspective. In Andersson,
P. and Harris, J. (Eds.) (2006). Re-theorising the recognition of prior learning. Leicester: NIACE.
Babbie, E. & Mouton, J. (2001). The practice of social research. South African Edition. Cape Town:
Oxford University Press.
Breier, M. (2001). How to bridge the “great divide”: The dilemma for the policy and practice of
“Recognition of Prior Learning” (RPL) in South Africa. Perspectives in Education, 19(4), 89-
108.
Castle, J. & Atwood, G. (2001). Recognition of prior learning (RPL) for access or credit? Problematic
issues in a university…'c9 Studies in the education of adults, 33(1), 60-72.
Cretchley, G. & Castle, J. (2001). OBE, RPL, and adult education: good bedfellows in higher
education in South Africa? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(6), 487-501.
Donoghue, J., Pelletier, D., Adams, A. & Duffield, C. (2002). Recognition of prior learning as
university entry criteria is successful in postgraduate nursing students. Innovations in Education
and Teaching International, 39(1), 54-62.
Geyser, H.C. (2001). RPL: Lessons from abroad. South African Journal of Higher Education, 15(2),
30-36.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1994). The new
production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
London: Sage.
Gubrium, J.F. & Holstein, J.A. (Eds.) (2002). Handbook of interview research. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Harris, J. (1999). Ways of seeing the recognition of prior learning (RPL): what contribution can
such practices make to social inclusion? Studies in the Education of Adults, 31(2): 124-139.
Harris, J. (2000a). Prior learning. Theories of learning and the recognition of prior learning.
Implications for South African education and training. National Centre for Curriculum Research
and Development research report, March 2000.
Harris, J. (2000b). RPL: Power, pedagogy and possibility. Conceptual and implementation guides.
Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.
Hendricks, N. & Volbrecht, T. (2003). RPL as cognitive praxis in linking higher education, the
African Renaissance and lifelong learning. South African Journal of Higher Education, 17(1),
47-53.
Hope, A. (2001). Quality assurance. In Farrell, G.M. (Ed.). The changing faces of virtual education.
The Commonwealth of Learning.
Keevy, J. (2006). Preparing teachers for a changing context. Paper presented at the Conference
of the Institute of Education, University of London. London, 3-6 May 2006.
Kgobe, M. (1997). The National Qualifications Framework in South Africa and “out of school
youth”: problems and possibilities. International Review of Education, 43(4): 317-330.
Kistan, C. (2002). Recognition of prior learning: a challenge to higher education. South African
Journal of Higher Education, 16(1), 169-173.
Michelson, E. (2006). Beyond Galileo’s telescope: situated knowledge and the recognition of prior
learning. In Andersson, P. and Harris, J. (Eds.) (2006). Re-theorising the recognition of prior
learning. Leicester: NIACE.

154
Osman, R. (2006). RPL: an emerging and contested practice in South Africa. In Andersson, P. and
Harris, J. (Eds.) (2006). Re-theorising the recognition of prior learning. Leicester: NIACE.
Osman, R. & Castle, J. (2002). Recognition of prior learning: a soft option in higher education in
South Africa? South African Journal of Higher Education, 16(2), 63-68.
Osman, R. & Castle, J. (2004). The recognition of prior learning in higher education: new challenges
for teaching and learning. In Gravett, S & Geyser, H 2004. Teaching and learning in higher
education. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Republic of South Africa (1998). South African Qualifications Authority Act. Pretoria: State
Publishers.
Schuetze, H.G. & Slowey, M. (2002). Participation and exclusion: A comparative analysis of non-
traditional students and lifelong learners in higher education. Higher Education, 44: 309-327.
South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) (2004). Criteria and guidelines for the implementation
of the recognition of prior learning. Pretoria: State Publishers.
Taylor, T. & Clemans, A. (2000). Avoiding the hoops: a study of recognition of prior learning
processes in Australian faculties of education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3),
263-280.
Tuckman, B.W. (1994). Conducting educational research. Fourth Edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt
Brace College Publishers.
Van Niekerk, M.H. (1998). Putting a portfolio together – some guidelines. Progressio, 20(2): 81-
101.
Van Rooy, T. (2002). Recognition of prior learning (RPL): from principle to practice in higher
education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 16(2), 75-82.
Liezel Frick*
Centre for Higher and Adult Education
Department of Curriculum Studies
Faculty of Education
University of Stellenbosch
Private Bag X1
Matieland, 7602
Tel: (021) 808 3807
E-mail: blf@sun.ac.za
Eli Bitzer
Centre for Higher and Adult Education
Department of Curriculum Studies
Faculty of Education
Stellenbosch University
Private Bag X1
Matieland, 7602
Tel: (021) 808 2277
E-mail: emb2@sun.ac.za

155
Brenda Leibowitz
Centre for Teaching and Learning,
Stellenbosch University
Private Bag X1
Matieland, 7602
Tel: (021) 808 3717
E-mail: bleibowitz@sun.ac.za
* Corresponding author