People on our Table: Mareya Dashorst (TAFE – TAA); Anna Duin (Workplace Development, Human Resources – Mitsibishi); Phil Handstock; Darren White (TAFE cookery); Carmen Moschetti; Luci Campestre
What issues people would like addressed at this workshop
- best ways
- simplify processes
- what evidence – what does the auditor want?
- who’s responsible if there’s a workplace accident/what is our liability
- clients vs auditors
- mature aged people
- valid, reliable
- too hard
- transferable skills
- knowledge (underpinning)
- poor personal experiences
- Process – glean knowledge, make relevant to competency
- Translating technical terms
- What is the evidence?
- Time involved
- Wholistic assessment – ‘what is their story’
- Professional judgement
- “may include” – deciphering the training package
- Online assessing – verification
- E-portfolio – being pro-active vs re-active
- Third parties – possibility of bias
“Guidelines for RTO” booklet
We move in the direction where we ask questions – Appreciative Inquiry Framework
Discover – what do we know about RPL?
Confidence vs Competence
Strong preference for ‘paper’ and ‘historical paper’
Issues around currently RPL process:
Perceptions – complex, costly, controversial
Percentages – only partially competent – only able to provide evidence for 80% of a competence, recognize the know and learn the unknown
Paradigms – Power – the least powerful person is made responsible for the RPL process, past, paper
Formal learning situations vs what can I do now?
Kolb’s experiential learning cycle
Giving a number of opportunities for offering RPL to clients – will increase the uptake of RPL – as the clients gains confidence in how the systems works and how to walk the walk
How do you ensure that you capture some of the ‘I don’t know that I don’t know’ info (or the unlearnt info) in an online RPL environment?
Dream – dare to dream?
Dreaming of developing “Connoisseurs of competence”
Characteristics of our dream RPL process
- pleasant and transparent
- user friendly for both parties
- contextualized assessment
- adequate time and resources
- client gains greater self esteem, knowledge of skills
- builds relationships
- flexibility – evidence
- RPL process is valued and have integrity, and is valid
- mapping tool
- consistency of outcomes
- develop pathways for more prof development/training
- make is cost effective to actually provide an RPL service
- less threatening and more of an open learning process
- availability and accessibility of RPL mentoring and moderators for RPL staff
- student focused
Designing a good RPL process
Six Steps to Recognition
- Use terms like ‘consistency’ and ‘confident’ instead of “are you ‘competent’”
- ask people to find the term ‘competent’ to come up with more user/client-friendly terms
- get clients to do ‘self assessment’ and ‘third party’ skills audits
- using the ‘job interview’ technique to assess clients for RPL
- behavourial interviewing?
- RPL clients should have access (perhaps at a cost) to course materials and self tests as part of the RPL process
- The time/cost of the RPL process will dramatically increase in the client’s employee will not be involved in the RPL process or if they are changing job roles.
- use Competency Navigator (http://www.portal.competencynavigator.com/) software – using key terms (ie HR) which then lags possible units of competence could gain RPL. Competency Navigator software = $50 per assessment it is used for.
- complete the ‘briefing’ stage of the Six Steps to Recognition, then refer person to a TAFE to complete an RPL assessment plan, with a $250 RPL voucher.
- Raises awareness of what is RPL
- Skills Stores being developed in SA (Margaret Thornton)