Recognition of Prior Learning Non-Formal and Informal Learning Principles and practice in Europe

1. Recognition of Prior LearningNon-Formal and Informal LearningPrinciples and practice in Europe Mireille Pouget ETF- CIS NQF workshop Torino 27-28 November 2008

2. Prior learning • What has been learned • At school/ college/University • At work (Work Based learning or WBL) • In a voluntary association/ leisure activity: the “civil society” • Personal life experience • Lifelong Learning: TIME • Lifewide Learning: SCOPE

3. What kind of prior learning • Formal learning: certificated: school/ college/ university • Non-formal learning (NFL) : taught, organised learning, but not usually certificated i.e. short training courses at work • Informal learning (IFL) : not taught formally, or learned unintentionally

4. Recognition and validation of certificated learning • Recognition of former qualifications by another institution • For access into a programme • For equivalences • Usually in the form of credits • Credits linked to Learning Outcomes (LOs) = Credit Transfer i.e. ECTS European Credit Transfer Scheme

5. Recognition & validation of non-formal and informal learning • No certificates / non recognised qualifications • knowledge, skills, competences acquired outside formal education • Different forms of knowledge • Difficult to assess formally • Difficult to translate into credits/ certificates • But “real” experiential learning

6. New representations of knowledge • New knowledge created at work • Competences in the workplace • Capacities • Knowledge in action not just in schools/ universities • Reflection on and in action: = reflective practitioners

7. Work skills & Competences

8. Why the recognition of NF-IFL? • Redressing inequalities • Value of the second chance for adults • Knowledge and competences become obsolete • Need for new skills • Knowledge economy in a globalised world • Rapid changes in labour market • Demographical changes/ ageingpopulation

9. Individual benefits Career development Less waste of time for the individual No need to re-learn what is already known Increase in self-confidence and self- esteem Economic benefits & Social benefits to communities / country employability Faster route to a qualified workforce Better integration of migrants workers Benefits

10. Make visible untapped resources of knowledge European Guidelines for the Validation of Non-Formal and Informal LearningNov 2008

11. Learning in a programme of study Assessment Validation of learning Common standards/ expected Learning Outcomes Certificate for formal qualification is issued Personal Activities Living in a community Work Identification of knowledge, skills, competences Documentation of evidence of LOs Validation of LOs using systems designed to be responsive to individuals

12. Guidance process self recognition self evaluation reflection Social recognition advice Certification Partial / complete advice advice evaluation and assessment Supplementary learning? Validation or giving value

13. Difficulty of assessing and validating new forms of knowledge • Conflict of value between formal and “other” knowledge • Conflict with existing formal systems of assessments in education and training • Perception of: • lack of rigour/ quality • risk / threat to traditions and status • Fear of change • Lack of training for professionals in tutoring/ counselling/ advising skills

14. Experience & validation Defining experiential learning outcomes representations of complex experiential learning Student centred ”matching” experiential learning to standards Need for transparency of assessment Question of parity of esteem with formal educ. Traditional education Traditions of inputs Focus on teaching not learning teacher centred Prescribed curricula Institution driven Reliable and familiar assessment methods Preoccupation with quality issues In a nutshell: the validation versus formal education

15. Learning versus teaching • shift from teaching to learning • New role for “teachers” • New role of validation / careers guidance advisers • Shift from inputs to learning outcomes (outputs) & competences • Needs for “credits ” and modularised programmes

16. Learning Outcomes (LOs) • A statement of what you are expected to do or understand or know after a learning experience • LOs are associated with level descriptors • irrespective of how and where the competence is acquired or learning is achieved

17. Writing your own LO: an example A written learning outcome comprises a verb, object and context preceded by the phrase: “As a result of this prior and current learning, I am able to show that I have…”

18. Tools of validation Portfolios: documented evidence • Extended CV • Work-based testing • Approach: reflective learning & writing • Analysis – example of problem solving • APEL–RPL modules • essential role of the (careers) guidance • adviser

19. The process: evidence driven • Draw out learners’ own Learning Outcomes • Documentation of evidence of LOs derived from jobs, projects, home, community • Validation of LOs using systems designed to be responsive to individuals • Absolute need for an adviser

20. The process of Validation is: • Not the same as assessing ”normal” students • Not the same as an exam • Not just comparing experience with each module outcome • Not just about procedures • Not just counting credits

21. What is about • It is a process of reflection and dialogue • I is assessing different knowledge/ competences • It uses different tools of assessment • It needs a different perspective • Perspective of a professional / life plan • It is a PEDAGOGICAL process

22. France Brief example VAE

23. The 2001 Social modernisation law • “Validation of Acquisitions from Experience” (VAE) • VAE part of employment and education legislation • 2002 decree concerning Higher Education • Covers ALL qualifications • Defines employers’ duty - VAE 24 h leave • A citizen’s right

24. VAE: all types of qualifications • Qualifications awarded by accredited organisations • Professional certificates/diplomas awarded by professional organisations • By professional colleges, universities • must be registered on a national list (National Repertory) - State Commission • wholeexperience of an individual • 3 years min of paid or unpaid experience relevant to the professional area

25. General procedures • Initial application form with the awarding institution • Meeting with adviser • funding source checked: unemployment agency, employer, part self funding • professional & personal ‘project’/ goals discussed • meeting with course director /subject expert • about 10 hours with adviser - construction of a portfolio • Presentation in front of a jury

26. Essential role of adviser • Advice, Guidance • Counselling, support, coaching, mentoring, tutoring • Can be an advocate for the candidate • Is in contact with the director programme/ subject specialist during the process • Sits on the jury

27. The Jury and validation • Subject experts + 1 external employer/expert in the field + adviser (no decision-making role) • Chair: director of programme or equivalent • Portfolio is studied by the jury beforehand • Decision based on jury discussion & presentation by candidate • accreditation can be partial or complete • In case of partial accreditation: jury’s role of prescription – advising a ‘route’ • The adviser and subjet expert get together to apply jury’s decision

28. The view of the jury’s Chair « We cannot evaluate the same things and in the same way …it is not the same as it would be for full-time ‘traditional’ students because, typically, if we were doing the same things as we do for ‘traditional’ students, I think there just would not be any validation. » « I persist to say that one mustn’t compare with what ‘traditional’ students know, because there is a difference of several years, and one cannot ask someone who has worked in industry for 10 years to be as competent […] up-to-date in all areas [of his expertise] as a student …”

29. Some conclusions 1: strategic thinking • National plan & legislation (as in France) • Ministerial responsibility – education? Must be joint thinking between ministries • Consensus with social partners • Devolved central funding • May be a need for an “operator” . See adult education institute in Norway : VOX • Need for accessible/ local facilities (Learning Centres in Sweden) • Need for pilots

30. Conclusions 2: capacity building • Central role of guidance • Training of advisers • Cooperation & dialogue between main actors: active partnerships • Need for creativity and individualisation • Student-centred approach • Blended learning: one-to-one, interviews, written work, group workshops • e-portfolios, vocational testing

31. Capacity building 2 • Need to develop capacities of a wide range of personnel • for joint elaboration of vocational and professional standards/ learning outcomes • To find a “common language” • To involve employers, vocational/ professional educators, adult education, universities • To train teachers to advise & facilitate learning environment for adults as well as young people • To enable a cultural change and a culture of change