The development of the model for recognition of prior learning for nurses in South Africa Development of RPL guidelines by the policy makers and stakeholders of nursing

Curationis 28(4): 50-56 The National Qualifications Framework (NQF) was established to address the compartmentalization of education and training, the absence of norms and standards and the need for international recognition. According to the South African Qualifications Authority (1996),this framework was aimed at developing a comprehensive qualifications structure and an integrated approach to education and training in the country (NCHE, 1996:46). Educational institutions, including those for nursing, were challenged with a view to rethink the whole culture of teaching and learning and was counted as knowledge. The major principle of the NQF was the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL), which had to be persued across all sectors (Musker, 1998: 8). RPL was seen as a means to widen access into learning programs for those who had been historically denied this. The challenge for educational institutions was how to ensure that RPL systems once implemented did not compromise academic standards. Research into methodologies to implement the NF in the absence of mechanisms was then essential. The purpose of the study was to develop and test a RPL model for nurses in South Africa. The study adopted a multi phase decisionsoriented evaluation research design. Stuffelbeam’s educational evaluation model was used to guide data collection and analysis. The research questions were incorporated under the different phases of evaluation. The model was development at six levels: level one was at the policy makers level; level two was at the stakeholders; levels three to six were at institutional level where three institutions participated at pilot site for the RPL model development. These levels are presented as tiers in the figure 1. This article present the results of the model development at the first two levels, which according to Stuffelbeam ‘s model is the context evaluation for boundary setting. Part two will present the model development at institutional level, involving the input and process evaluation and depicted as tiers three, and four.


Introduction
The National Qualifications Framework (NQF) was established to address the compartmentalization of education and training, the absence o f norm s and standards and the need for international recognition,.According to the South A frican Q u a lific atio n s A uthority (1996),this framework was aim ed at developing a comprehensive qualifi cations structure and an integrated approach to education and training in the country (NCHE, 1996:46).Educational institutions, including those for nursing, were challenged with a view to rethink the w hole cu ltu re o f teach in g and learning and what counted as knowledge.The major principle of the NQF was the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL), w hich had to be persued across all sectors (Musker, 1998: 8).RPL was seen as a means to widen access into learning program s for those who had been historically denied this.The challenge

Curationis November 2005
for educational institutions was how to ensure th at R PL system s once im p lem en ted did not com prom ise academ ic standards.R esearch into methodologies to implement the QF in the absence of mechanisms was then essential.The purpose of the study was to develop and test a RPL model for nurses in South A frica.The study adopted a m u lti phase d ecisio n soriented evaluation research design.Stuffelbeam 's educational evaluation model was used to guide data collection and analysis.The research questions were incorporated under the different phases of evaluation.The model was development at six levels: level one was at the policy makers level; level two was at the stakeholders' level; levels three to six were at institutional level where three institutions participated at pilot site for the RPL m odel developm ent.These levels are presented as tiers in the figure 1.This article presents the results of the model development at the first two levels, which according to Stuffelbeam 's model is the context evaluation for boundary setting.Part two will present the model developm ent at in stitu tio n al level, in v olving the input and process evaluation and depicted as tiers three, and four.Part three will present the result o f how the m odel w as tested at institutional level, using Stuffelbeams' product evaluation and depicted as tiers five and six (see figure 1).The first two research question formed the basis for this phase.

Research questions
1. What were the SANC's values and goals with regard to RPL for nurses?2. How acceptable were these to the nursing stakeholders?

Research design
Decision-oriented studies emphasize that the evaluation should be used pro actively to help improve a program as well as retrospectively to judge its worth.The main questions addressed are: how should a given enterprise be planned (planning decisions), and how should a given plan be carried out (implementation decisions), how should the program be revised (recycling decisions).Numerous methods are used namely, surveys, case studies, needs assessm ent, advocate team s, o b serv atio n s and quasiexperim ental m ethods (Stuffelbeam , 1987:104).The m ain advantage of decision-oriented studies is that they encourage educators to use evaluation continuously and systematically in their effort to plan and implement programs that meet educational needs.They also provide a rationale for helping educators to be accountable for to the decisions they have m ade in the course o f implementing the program.In this study the stakeholders were at different levels (policy m akers, program m anagers, program implementers, beneficiaries and consumers) so an appropriate design would be one that catered for different types of decisions at different levels in a system atic and co h e ren t way.Stuffelbeam's Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) was used to guide data collection and analysis (Stuffelbeam, 1987:68).

Process and Product (CIPP) model
The C ontext Input Process Product (CIPP) model of evaluation was originally developed to provide timely information in a systematic way for decision making as a proactive application of evaluation.It co n tain s three b asic steps: first delineation of questions to be answered; second providing information to decision m akers for th eir use and thereby improving ongoing programs; and third, making the decisions about the worth of such programs.As mentioned earlier, this article is based on the context evaluation phase.

Context evaluation for boundary setting
Determination of context was important in setting the boundaries for the RPL system by estab lish in g the policy makers' frame of reference with regard to RPL for the nursing education system, in order to ensure quality control of such a system (Stuffelbeam, 1992:36).For the purpose of this phase, three steps were used.The first step involved the researcher reviewing relevant literature, the second step involved the SANC EDCO determining RPL standards and the third step involved the various stakeholders of the profession reviewing the standard.In this manner, the model was developed, and refined before being implemented.
Step one: Literature review The purpose of the study was used as a basis for selecting and o rganizing in fo rm atio n to be in clu d ed in the discu ssio n docum ent.L iteratu re surveyed revealed problems related to innovation.These ranged from differing perceptions between the policy makers who plan the innovation and those of the im plem enters of the innovation (Wolf, 1996:14).In countries like UK, USA and Canada, RPL practices were occurring at a relatively slow pace due to lack of assessor training (Thomas 1989;P eruniak, 1993).O ther problem s identified in literature with regards to RPL practices were funding and lack of capacity (Thomas 1998;Butterwoths and Edwards 1993;Clark, Irvanistkaya and Goodwin 2000).Literature on the South African context of RPL revelaed that in South Africa, RPL was inextricably bound into prevailing social relations of power and knowledge.Different sectors (labor, business and education) held differing views and approaches to RPL practices (McMillan, 1997;Harris, 1999).Different RPL models were identified in literature.The first was the process based model by Willngham and Geisinger (1984).This model focus on the steps involved in RPL .The second was the developmental model which was based on Kolb's (1984) notion of experiential learning with a focus on re flectio n that leads to development (Butterworths 1992:311).The third model identified was the competence based model which used the N ational C ouncil V ocational Qualifications (NCVQ 1989).The main focus of this model was on assessment of competence ( Usher 1996:36).The result of this first step was a discussion docum ent which was used for the consultative workshop with the SANC Education Committee members.

Step two: Policy makers
The Education Com m ittee members (EDCO) of the South African Nursing Council formed part of the policy makers' sample during the context evaluation.There were eight members of the EDCO and three Council officers (N = ll).See table 1.

Data collection
One day consultative workshop was conducted by the researcher, with the SANC EDCO as participants.The EDCO's role was to set the boundaries for the RPL implementation, by identifying their goals, and values with regard to RPL.A ccording to F eustein (1 986), a workshop is a small or large group of people who meet to discuss, plan and or produce specific outputs, which may be written, recorded or illustrated (Feustein, 1986:34).According to Ingham and Gilbert (1992), the workshop method minimizes the time required for one to one in terview s and also allow s for explanations and explorations of difficult concepts.Unlike focus groups, which focus on probing retro sp ectiv e information, workshops are particularly suited for probing prospective information that may result in learning and developm ent (Ingham and Gilbert, 1992:41).A tape recorder was used during the consultative workshops.In p rep aratio n for the w orkshops, participants were given a discussion docum ent that was prepared by the researcher.The researcher provided additional information to ensure clarity about the document.The workshops was highly structured and focused.The first two research question was used as the workshop objectives.

Data analysis
Data analysis was done deductively by transcribing raw data from the taperecorder and organized sequentially according to the workshop objectives.D ata from the flip charts was also incorporated into the transcribed data.Tesch's method of content analysis was used to organize data (C ressw ell, 1994:155).The first step involved the researcher reading and re-reading the transcribed data to get the sense of the w hole w orkshop proceedings.The researcher went through the responses to each objective to think about the underlying meanings and these were jotted down.The study of the material culminated in a list of broad topics.Topics with similar meaning were clustered together and arranged as major topics to reduce the length of the topic list.What em erged was a w orkshop report document which was sent back to the E ducation Com m ittee m em bers for verification before it was sent to the stakeholders for further refinement.The report contained the EDCO's views on the following: the definition of RPL and RPL process; the assumptions about RPL and the standards there were to be used when implementing RPL practices.

Theoretical concepts
The key concepts extracted from literature were explored with reference to their meanings, in the context of the South African Education and Training system, and in terms of their relevance to social transformation.

Recognition of Prior learning
It was agreed that, RPL is based on the notion that how people learn and have learned should be recognized and used to help them progress as learners.
However, for maintenance of academic standards, assessment of that learning is important before it can be recognized through credits.

Recognition of Prior Learning process
The process of recognition of prior learning involved the identification, docum entation, assessm ent and recognition through awards or credits of that learning that was submitted and found to be relevant and current.The currency o f experientially acquired learning would be determined by its relevance to the specific program for which recognition was sought.RPL was understood as a means towards an end which might be access into advanced nursing program s or gaining o f an academic qualification in nursing for the individual and societal growth and development for the country.

Standards development
The participants brainstormed various issues concerning the RPL process.They looked at how the proposed system would address issues like the approval of RPL providers, how fees would be determined, how RPL would be marketed to nurses and issues pertain in g to ad m in istratio n .

Access at an advanced level
The EDCO agreed that it would be possible for enrolled nurses to access diplom a or degree program s at an advanced level.They felt though that the appropriateness of the level would have to be decided by institutions.
The committee resolved that to maintain its role o f quality assurance in the education and training of nurses, it was important to translate the standards into guidelines for the implementation of RPL..The m em bers placed value on the standards and they saw the EDCO as responsible in ensuring that standards were maintained.All stakeholder groups( KZN; FS; Gauteng) felt that the guidelines gave too much autonomy to the provider with little or no attention to the rights o f the candidate.Hence the stak eh o ld ers strongly recommended that the rights of the candidates be included in the guidelines.
(b) Rights of the RPL candidate:

Information:
The candidate has a right to adequate information about the fees payable; the duration; form of assessments available and other relevant information.

Assessment and results thereof:
The candidate has the right to fairness during the assessment.He/she also has a right to be notified about the results early (within 30 days) after assessment.

Post failure counseling
The candidate has a right to post failure counseling where he/she will be given adequate information with regard to the specific areas of weakness in his/her

Reassessment
The format that this will take will depend on the policy of the provider institution, but the candidate has a right to this information.

Appeal procedure
The procedure is to be decided by the provider institution, but the candidate has a right to know what procedure is to be followed.

Support
The candidate has a right to adequate su p p o rt during p rep aratio n for assessm en t.This support includes assistance during the preparation of evidence to make a claim as well as support during identification of deficits in knowledge and planning to close them.

c) Breakdown of the fee structure
The stakeholders realised the problems involved if fees were standardized, therefore they recommended that the amount charged for RPL should not exceed the am ount charged for the programme that the RPL candidate was challenging.It was agreed that in this way, exploitation of candidates by RPL p ro v id ers w ould be elim inated (especially in private institutions).One group recommended that the fee structure be broken down in such a way that the candidate would only pay for the services rendered and not the amount of credits.
In other words, if the candidate had sufficient evidence and was well versed in the profession for example by portfolio developm ent, he/she should be only charged for registration and assessment.

d) Qualifications of advisors
After extensive discussion on this issue, stakeholders agreed that advisors should at least be qualified nurse educators although working in the clinical settings.
This recommendation was well received since it would mean a closer working relationship between the service and the colleges/ universities.

e) RPL assessors
There was a general consensus that assessors should be qualified nurse ed u cato rs w ith adequate skills in assessment and currently involved with teaching nursing.

f) Human resource development
The stak eh o ld e rs supported the Education Committee's recommendation that people involved with RPL should receive adequate training.

Results of the context evaluation
T hese recom m endations w ere in co rp o rated into the proposed guidelines document in boxes under each sectio n and this docum ent was presented to the Education Committee of the South African Nursing Council for fu rth e r com m ents and refinem ent.R esponses from the E ducation Committee were incorporated and a final guidelines document was presented to the full Council and endorsed by the SANC.The proposed guidelines were divided into: RPL process; assessment guidelines and guidelines for granting credits.The policy makers had set the boundaries for RPL for South African nurses, based on what they view ed would be best practice.The stakeholders of the nursing profession had their input into refining the RPL guidelines.

Marketing:
• RPL should be marketed so that the community knows that it is available and that students can proceed quickly through a degree or a diploma.• RPL should be available to all individuals practicing or not currently practicing as nurses, registered or not currently registered with the South African Nursing Council (the latter with an aim of registration).

Application:
• All applicants should receive adequate information as well as orientation with regard to fees, duration, evaluation methods and exit level outcomes for the particular programme they wish to gain credit for.

Assessment:
• Provider should have the following available for the candidates: examples of portfolios, evaluation methods to be used and the stipulated assessment fee amount to be paid by the candidate .

•
Assessment methods chosen should depend on the learning outcomes to be assessed.

•
The assessor will decide on the appropriate level of structure of the chosen assessment method.For example, high structure will entail an oral examination and a low structure will entail a loosely structured interview.

•
There should be clear identification of evidence required.

•
Assessment is to be done by experts in the particular field of study.

Notification of results:
• Candidates have to be informed about the results within a month of final assessment.

•
Candidates must to be given particulars about failure.

•
Opportunities for post failure counseling should be available.

Quality assurance:
• Reliability should be ensured by using a variety of assessment methods.Multiple assessors should be used until experience indicates that learning can be judged with acceptable consistency.

•
Validity will be ensured by using clearly defined learning outcomes identifying performance criteria including any critical factors and standards necessary to meet the learning outcomes.• Competent assessment will be ensured by providing training for the assessors; use team approach to assessment; emphasize quality and not quantity.

•
Credit awards and their transcript entries will be monitored to avoid giving credit twice for the same performance.

•
Policies and procedures applied to assessment, including provision for appeal will be fully disclosed and prominently available.• Assessment programs will be regularly monitored, reviewed, evaluated and revised as needed to reflect changes in the needs being served by assessment.
Academic standards fo r assessing learning for a credit granting:

Standards for credit granting:
• Credit will be awarded for learning and not experience.• Credit will be awarded only for learning that has a balance, appropriate to subject, between theory and practice.• Credit will be given for learning that is appropriate to the academic context in which it is accepted.

Academic rigour
Threats to validity.
The major threat to validity, especially in evaluation studies, is error, which can o rig in ate from the research er, the p artic ip a n ts, the in stru m en t or the context.The researcher may be biased, or lack experience in conducting research.For this study, the fact that the researcher maintained different roles depending on the different phases, for example, that of a tech n ical co n su ltan t during the developm ent phase and as observer during the implementation and testing phases, ensured that bias was limited.
Collaboration of the researcher with the stakeholders may also pose a risk to validity.This error is also possible in evaluation studies where the decision makers are people at the macro level of policy making.The other stakeholders may view the role of the evaluator negatively.The evaluator can build in safeguards against this bias by adapting h is/h er role accordingly.F or this particu lar study the differen t roles assumed by the evaluative researcher were attempts to eliminate this error.The use of different stakeholder groups for different phases also limited bias.The social context may also be a risk to the validity of the study (Denzin, 1978:102)..

Ethical considerations
Permission to conduct the study was sought from the following: Directors General of the Departments of Health from the three regions, namely the Free State, KwaZulu Natal and Gauteng.Permission was also sought from the then Acting Registrar of the South African Nursing Council.The Executive Directors of the four identified organisations namely HOSPERSA; DENOSA; SADNU and NEHAWU were invited to send representatives to participate in the workshops.The Principals of the twentytwo institutions were also invited to send personnel to the w orkshop.Since workshop attendance was voluntary, there was no need for participants to sign consent forms.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this phase of the model developm ent culm inated in the refinem ent o f the RPL gu id elin es.
Comments and contributions from the stakeholders were incorporated into the guidelines and sent back to the Education Com m ittee for their com m ents and approval.The result of this evaluation was a document containing the refined guidelines collaboratively developed by the policy makers and the representatives of the stakeholders.These guidelines were to form the basis for decision making in the successive phases.The key elements that emerged during this phase were that the: the purpose of RPL (personal and societal grow th and development) was accepted, the right of RPL candidates were addressed by the RPL guidelines, decisions were made collaboratively including all relevant stakeholders, assessment standards were accomplished.The workshop interview technique in h ig h er education.A ssessm ent and evaluation in higher education.17

References
T O N , M 1985: Defining and assuring quality in experiential learning.New directions for experiential learning.Series No.9.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., M cM ILLAN, J 1887: Access, learning and contexts: Issues and implications (for RPL).Paper commissioned for HSRC/ UCT/Peninsula Technikon Research and Development in RPL MICHELSON, E 19%: Beyond Galileo's telescope: Situated know ledge and assessment of experiential learning.Adult Education Ouartelv.46(4):185-196.MUSKER, P 1998: Who's afraid of RPL? Joint Education Trust Bulletin.8 (2):8-10.N A T IO N A L C O M M IS S IO N ON H IG H E R E D U C A T IO N 1996: A framework for transformation.Report 124 o f 1996.Pretoria: D epartm ent of Education PEARSON, W 2000: Enhancing adult student persistence.The relationship between prior learning assessment and persistence towards the baccalaureate degree.Experiential Learning.PERUNIAK, GS 1993: The promise of experiential learning and challenges to its integrity by prior learning assessment.C anadian Journal of U niversity Continuing Education.19 (&): 13-21.S O U T H A F R IC A N N U R SIN G CO U N CIL 1999: Transformation of Nursing Education and Training in South Africa.Document 15/99.Pretoria: SANC.S O U T H A F R IC A N N U R SIN G COUNCIL 2000: Recognition of prior learning.Document S 1265.Pretoria: SANC SOUTH AFRICAN QUALIFICATIONS A U T H O R IT Y (SA Q A ) 1996: The National Qualifications Framework 124/ 1996: A total quality system for education and training in South Africa.Pretoria: SAQA.STUFFELBEAM, D L 1987: Educational Evaluation and decision making.Illinois: F.E Peacock Publishers.56 Curationis November 2005 S T U F F E L B E A M , DL 1992: The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability.Journal of research and development in education.5:9-25 THOM A S, A 1998: Prior learning in u n iv ersities in O ntario.An A ide-Memoire.Toronto: Council of Toronto Universities.U SH ER , R 1996: International case study on recognition of prior learning, contributions to the counseling of adult learners.Studies in Higher Education of Adults.W O L F , G K 1996: P rior learning assessment: A case study of acceptance of innovation and change.Sydney

RPL principles of institutional autonomy versus the rights of candidates:
(c) Flexible enough to allow for evaluation of each step before commencing the next step.In this way it will allow for built in quality assurance.Quota sampleThree provinces were selected based on their accessibility to the evaluative researcher.Quota sampling was done for each stak eh o ld er category.a)