Recognising Prior and Non-formal Learning with Credentials

Routes that credential what people already know.

Course ID: ICB-P06. Framework alignment: ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill ASMT "Assessment and evidence" (VRITE pillar: Rigor), level L3 "Enable", stage A "Ability".

Who it is for. Programme and micro-credential leads, quality, registry and admissions staff, professional bodies and sector associations, policy makers and public agencies, and HR, talent acquisition and mobility teams. You may work in a university, a college, a training provider, a professional body, a sector association or a public agency. The worked examples use two of these contexts.

Prerequisite. ICB-P02 Assessment Design for Credentials: Valid, Reliable, Fair. You should already know how to write assessment criteria and why validity, reliability and fairness matter.

What you will be able to do. At level L3 you design assessments and rubrics for credentials, plan moderation and design recognition of prior learning (RPL) routes for a programme. In this course you practise that capability on realistic cases, in a controlled setting.

Learning outcomes. After this course you can:

1. Design a recognition of prior learning (RPL) route that leads to a credential.
2. Define evidence types for prior and non-formal learning and how to judge them.
3. Plan guidance and support for candidates.
4. Address equity and cost barriers in RPL.

Workload. 8 hours of notional learning in a blended cohort. This file covers the self-paced part. Live and workshop elements appear as facilitator notes. Plan about 4 to 5 hours for the self-paced modules and the rest for the workshop and the final task.

How it is assessed. You design an RPL route for one credential, including an evidence guide and assessor instructions. A person assesses it with the rubric in the section "Assessment and badge". You also answer a final knowledge check of 10 questions. The file does not grade the route.

Badge. "Recognising Prior and Non-formal Learning with Credentials (Ability, L3)", alignment code ICSF-ASMT-L3-A. Badge evidence: your RPL route document.

Quality focus. VRITE Rigor and Experience. Rigor asks that judgements rest on sound evidence and clear criteria. Experience asks that the candidate journey is clear, fair and usable.

AI focus. AI tools that pre-screen evidence: limits and oversight. Each module touches on this, and Module 3 treats it in detail.

Completing this course shows that you can design an RPL route. It does not prove that you are competent in any particular job.

Why RPL matters

What RPL is

People learn in many places. They learn at work, in volunteering, in community roles, in self-study, in short courses and in life. Much of this learning never appears on a certificate. Recognition of prior learning (RPL) is a set of routes by which a credential issuer assesses what a person already knows and can do, and awards a credential, or credit towards one, when the evidence meets the stated standard.

Some terms you will meet in this course:

• Prior learning: learning that took place before the candidate applied. It can be formal, non-formal or informal.
• Formal learning: learning in an organised programme that leads to a recognised qualification.
• Non-formal learning: organised learning that does not lead to a formal qualification, such as an employer course or a professional workshop.
• Informal learning: learning from daily work, family, community and personal activity, usually not organised as learning.
• Credit: a recorded amount of learning that counts towards a larger credential.
• Exemption: permission to skip a part of a programme because the candidate has met its outcomes.

Different systems use different words for similar ideas, such as validation, accreditation of prior learning or recognition of prior experiential learning. In your own route document, define the terms you use and use them consistently.

The core principle is simple. The standard stays the same. The route to showing it changes. A candidate who passes through an RPL route meets the same outcomes, at the same level, as a candidate who studied the programme.

Who benefits and why

RPL serves several groups.

• Learners and workers gain a credential for skills they already have. They avoid repeating what they know and can move faster to the next step.
• Employers and HR teams gain a clearer view of the skills in their workforce, and a fair way to support promotion, mobility and redeployment.
• Providers can reach adults who would not enrol on a full programme, and can keep programmes focused on genuine learning gaps.
• Professional bodies and sector associations can bring experienced practitioners into a registered or certified group through a defined route.
• Public agencies and policy makers can use RPL to support adult skills, career change and the integration of people who learned abroad or informally.

A good route also protects the credential. If the route is vague, the credential loses trust. If the route is rigorous and transparent, the credential gains trust, because holders of the credential can show the same standard by different paths.

Where RPL sits in the credential system

An RPL route is part of the design of a credential, not an add-on. When you design a credential you decide its outcomes, level, assessment and quality assurance. The RPL route uses all of these. It points at the same outcomes and applies the same standard. It differs in how the candidate shows the outcomes.

The EU Council Recommendation on micro-credentials (2022) lists validation of prior learning among the elements it expects micro-credential systems to support, and it is a stable reference for this course.

Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. Watch for Commission implementation reporting and national transpositions, as these may change how your country or sector describes validation.

Common misunderstandings

Some teams fear that RPL lowers standards. It does not, if the route is designed well. Others assume RPL means giving credit for years of service. Time in a job is not the same as learning. A route must ask what the candidate can show, not how long they have been present.

A third risk is cost. If the fee for RPL equals or exceeds the cost of a short programme, few candidates will choose it. Module 5 returns to this.

Worked example: A college opens a route for experienced bookkeepers

Context: a college or training provider. A college offers a micro-credential in "Digital bookkeeping for small businesses". The programme lead, a person in role E1, notices that many applicants already keep books for family firms. They have the skills, but no certificate. Enrolment on a 12-week course is a poor use of their time.

The lead writes a short purpose statement for an RPL route:

• Purpose: to credential applicants who already meet all five outcomes of the micro-credential through work or self-study.
• Standard: the same five outcomes, at the same level, as in the programme.
• Not covered: time served, job titles or letters of support alone. These can support evidence but cannot replace it.
• Result: the full micro-credential, with no mention of the route on the credential itself, although the record shows the route used.

The lead then lists who the route is for: adults with at least one year of regular bookkeeping tasks, in paid work or in a family or community organisation. The lead also states that the route does not suit a candidate who has never worked with accounting software, because the programme would serve them better.

Practice activity: Write a purpose and scope statement

Pick a real or imagined credential from your own context. Write a statement of 120 to 180 words that includes:

1. The credential and its level.
2. The purpose of an RPL route for it.
3. The standard the candidate must meet.
4. Who the route is for, and who it is not for.
5. One item that will not count as evidence on its own.

Keep this statement. You will build on it in every module and use it in the final task.

RPL models

Choosing a model

An RPL route is a design choice. Before you write evidence guides, you decide the model. A model describes what the candidate submits or does, who judges it and what the result is. Four models are common.

1. Portfolio route. The candidate collects evidence from past work and learning, maps it to the outcomes and submits it. Assessors judge the portfolio. This suits credentials with practical, varied outcomes.
2. Challenge assessment. The candidate takes the same assessment as programme learners, such as a test, a task or a viva, without attending the teaching. This suits credentials with clear, testable outcomes.
3. Mixed route. The candidate submits a short portfolio and then completes a targeted assessment for gaps. This is often the most practical model.
4. Credit transfer or exemption by certificate. The candidate holds a certificate or credential that the issuer has already compared with the outcomes. The issuer awards credit by a published equivalence. This model needs a prior comparison exercise.

None of these is the "best" model. The right choice depends on the outcomes, the volume of candidates, the available assessors and the cost.

Features of a sound route

Whatever model you choose, a sound route has these features.

• Defined entry. A statement of who can apply, and a short check of fit before the candidate invests time.
• Mapped outcomes. Each outcome of the credential is listed, with the evidence that can show it.
• Clear decision rules. Assessors know what "met" means and what happens when evidence is partial. For example, the route can allow full credit, partial credit with a gap task, or a referral to the programme.
• Defined outputs. The credential, or specified credit, is awarded in the same form as through the programme, with a record of the route.
• Time limits. A published time for each stage, so the candidate knows the schedule.
• Appeal and review. A route for candidates to question a decision, and a review of the route itself after each cohort.
• Moderation. A sample of decisions is checked by a second assessor so that judgements are consistent over time and across assessors. You studied moderation in ICB-P02. Apply it here to RPL decisions too.

Think of the route as a path with checkpoints. Each checkpoint has an owner, a time limit and a rule.

Matching model to credential

Use these questions to choose a model.

• Are the outcomes observable in a short task? If yes, a challenge assessment can work well and costs less.
• Are the outcomes broad and context-dependent? If yes, a portfolio with a conversation with an assessor may fit better.
• How many candidates do you expect? Small numbers allow rich assessment. Large numbers need clear templates and a mixed route.
• Is there existing evidence that is already assured? For example, a certificate from another issuer. Credit transfer or exemption can save effort, but only if you have compared the outcomes first.
• What do candidates expect? Many adults prefer to show real work rather than sit an exam, but some prefer a quick test.

Many programmes publish two options: a portfolio route and a challenge route. The candidate chooses. Both lead to the same credential.

A note on AI. Some providers use AI tools to pre-screen portfolios, for example to sort documents or flag gaps against outcomes. At the model stage, decide what such a tool is allowed to do. It may help with sorting and with checking that required items are present. It must not make the decision to award or refuse a credential. A qualified person decides, and the candidate can ask for a human review. You return to this in Module 3.

Worked example: A professional body designs a mixed route for practising project managers

Context: a professional body or sector association. A professional body for project managers, run by a registry lead in role E3 and a quality officer, defines a certified practitioner credential with six outcomes. Many members have practised for years without formal training. The body wants an RPL route.

The team decides on a mixed route:

• Stage 1, fit check: a 20 minute online form and a short call. The candidate confirms at least three years of project work and the type of projects led.
• Stage 2, short portfolio: for each outcome the candidate gives one or two evidence items and a half page summary. The portfolio is limited to 12 items in total.
• Stage 3, assessment: two trained assessors review the portfolio independently against the evidence guide.
• Stage 4, targeted interview: a 45 minute structured conversation covers only outcomes where the portfolio is partial.
• Stage 5, decision: full credential, credential after a gap task, or referral to the standard programme with credit for what was met.

The team sets decision rules: all six outcomes must be met. A single outcome partly met leads to a gap task. Three or more outcomes unmet lead to referral. A second assessor moderates 20 per cent of cases in the first year (illustrative figure).

Practice activity: Choose a model and draw the route

Using your purpose and scope statement from Module 1:

1. Choose one model, or a mix. Write two or three sentences explaining why.
2. List the stages of your route in order, with an owner and an illustrative time limit for each.
3. Write the decision rules in three lines: full credential, credential after a gap task, referral.
4. State what any AI tool may and may not do in your route.

Keep this model description. It becomes the first part of your final RPL route document.

Evidence and judgement

Evidence types

Evidence is anything that shows what a candidate can do or knows. For RPL, evidence comes from past work and learning, so you cannot control how it was made. You can control how you describe, collect and judge it.

Common evidence types:

• Work products: reports, designs, code, plans, financial records, lesson plans, photos of finished work. They show real performance.
• Records of learning: certificates, transcripts, course outlines, attendance records. They show that learning took place, but not always what the person can do now.
• Third-party statements: references, supervisor or client statements, testimonials. They give context and confirm claims.
• Observation: a trained assessor observes the candidate at work or in a simulated task. This is strong evidence of current performance.
• Interview or viva: a structured conversation in which the candidate explains choices, answers scenario questions and talks through their evidence.
• Reflective account: the candidate's own written or spoken account of what they did and learned, linked to the outcomes.
• Test or practical task: a short assessment, set for the purpose, to fill a gap.

No single item has to prove everything. A set of items from different types gives a stronger picture than one type alone. This idea is called triangulation: confirming a judgement with more than one kind of evidence.

The rules of evidence

Assessors judge evidence against the rules below. They are used in many assessment systems and you can adapt them to your own context.

• Valid: the evidence relates to the outcome being assessed.
• Sufficient: there is enough evidence to judge the outcome, not just a single instance.
• Authentic: the evidence is the candidate's own work, or the candidate's role in a team effort is clear.
• Current: the evidence shows what the candidate can do now, or is recent enough to be relied on for this field. Fast-changing fields need more recent evidence.
• Reliable: different assessors would reach the same judgement from the same evidence.

State these rules in your evidence guide, and give an example of each. For instance, "current" for a software role may mean evidence from the last three years, while for a long-established craft it may be longer.

The evidence guide and assessor instructions

An evidence guide is a document that tells candidates and assessors what evidence is expected for each outcome. For each outcome include:

1. The outcome, copied from the credential.
2. What "met" looks like, in plain language, with two or three performance indicators.
3. Examples of acceptable evidence, by type.
4. Examples that are not enough on their own.
5. How many items are expected and how recent they should be.

Assessor instructions tell assessors how to judge and record. Include:

• The steps of the assessment, in order.
• How to apply the rules of evidence.
• How to check authenticity, for example a short conversation about a work sample, or contact with a referee.
• How to record the decision and the reasons, so another person can review it.
• Rules on conflicts of interest and confidentiality.
• When to refer a case to a second assessor.
• How to give feedback to the candidate.

AI tools that pre-screen evidence: limits and oversight

Some providers use software to read portfolios and to compare the text with the outcomes. Such tools may flag missing items, group documents by outcome or suggest which parts of a document relate to which outcome. They can save time when volumes are large.

They also have limits. Plan for these.

• They can be wrong. A tool may link a document to the wrong outcome, miss a relevant passage or accept weak evidence because the wording matches the outcome.
• They can be biased. Tools trained on certain kinds of text may handle some writing styles, languages or formats less well. Candidates who write in a second language, or whose work is not text-based, may be disadvantaged.
• They cannot judge authenticity or context well. Whether a work sample is the candidate's own, or whether it shows current practice, calls for human judgement.
• They raise data protection questions. Portfolios hold personal data and sometimes employer data. Check the legal basis and the rules on processing and storage.

Oversight measures:

1. A qualified assessor makes every award and refusal decision.
2. The tool's output is advice. The assessor records their own reasons.
3. The candidate is told if a tool is used, and what it does.
4. The candidate can ask for a human-only review.
5. The team checks the tool's results on a sample of cases, including cases from different candidate groups, and records the findings.
6. The tool can be switched off without stopping the route.

Worked example: An evidence guide entry and assessor instruction for a college outcome

Context: a university, college or training provider. A training provider offers a micro-credential in "Workplace coaching skills". One outcome reads: "Plans and conducts a coaching conversation that helps a colleague set and review a goal". An assessor, supported by the quality lead (E3), writes this guide entry.

Outcome 2. Plans and conducts a coaching conversation that helps a colleague set and review a goal.

What "met" looks like:

• The candidate prepares for the conversation with a clear aim.
• The candidate uses questions that help the colleague set their own goal.
• The candidate agrees a review point and follows it up.

Acceptable evidence (examples): a recorded or observed coaching conversation; coaching notes with the colleague's agreement; a statement from the colleague describing the conversation; a reflective account of two conversations with a follow-up.

Not enough on its own: a certificate from a coaching course with no outline of content; a manager's statement that the candidate "is a good coach".

Quantity and currency: at least two conversations, with the most recent in the last three years (illustrative).

Assessor instruction: review the evidence against the three indicators. If you rely on written notes only, hold a 15 minute call to ask the candidate to walk through one conversation and explain one choice. Record your reasons under each indicator. If evidence meets two of three indicators, set a gap task: one observed conversation. If you are unsure, send the case to a second assessor.

Practice activity: Write an evidence guide entry

Choose one outcome from your own credential. Write an evidence guide entry of 150 to 250 words that includes the five points: the outcome, what "met" looks like, acceptable evidence, evidence not enough alone, and quantity and currency. Then write five lines of assessor instructions for that outcome, including one authenticity check and one rule for a partial result.

Finally, add three lines on AI pre-screening: what a tool may do, who decides, and how the candidate can request a human review. If you do not plan to use an AI tool, say so and say why.

Candidate support

The candidate journey

Many people who could succeed through RPL never start, or stop part-way. The route may be sound on paper, but the experience of the candidate can make it hard. Rigor needs a good design. Experience needs a good journey. This module is about the journey.

Think about what the candidate faces. They need to know that the route exists and whether it is for them. They need to decide whether it is worth the effort. They must find evidence from past jobs, sometimes from employers who no longer exist. They must match their experience to unfamiliar outcome language. They may feel doubt about whether their learning "counts". All this happens alongside work and family.

A good journey has these parts.

1. Information. A clear page that states who the route is for, what it leads to, how long it takes, what it costs and what evidence is needed.
2. Fit check. A short, low-cost way to find out whether RPL is likely to work, or whether the programme would suit better. A fit check saves time for both sides.
3. Orientation. An introduction to the outcomes, the evidence guide and the portfolio format.
4. Evidence building. Support to find, select and describe evidence.
5. Assessment. A clear schedule, with options for how to present evidence.
6. Decision and feedback. A decision with reasons, next steps and, where needed, a gap plan.
7. After the decision. Information on appeals, on the credential and on next steps for learning or work.

Types of support

Candidates need different kinds of help.

• Guidance on evidence. Explain what counts as evidence with examples. Provide a template that maps outcomes to evidence items, so that the candidate can see gaps early.
• Advisers or mentors. A named person who can answer questions, read a draft and give feedback on fit with the outcomes. The adviser helps but does not assess the same candidate.
• Language and format support. Plain language, translated guidance where relevant, and options such as an oral submission or a recorded interview for people who find written work hard.
• Digital support. Help with scanning, uploading and organising documents. Offer a non-digital option where feasible.
• Peer support. Short group sessions in which candidates share how they built their portfolio. Peer support can reduce isolation.
• Reasonable adjustments. Changes to the process, such as extra time or a different format, for candidates with disabilities or other needs. The standard stays the same.
• Support for those without records. Some candidates cannot get letters or documents, for example after a company closed or after forced migration. Provide other ways to show the outcomes, such as observation, a practical task or a structured interview.

An important design rule: keep the separation between support and assessment. An adviser can help a candidate understand the guide and organise evidence. The adviser must not write the evidence for the candidate or decide the outcome.

Feedback and the gap plan

When evidence does not meet all outcomes, the candidate needs useful feedback. Write feedback that says what was met, what was not, what evidence would close the gap and what the options are. Options may include more evidence, a gap task, a short training module or entry to the full programme with credit for what was met.

A good gap plan has a clear scope, a date and a cost. It does not require the candidate to repeat what they have already shown.

Support when AI tools are in the process

If a provider uses AI tools to pre-screen evidence, candidates need to know. Write a short plain-language notice: what the tool does, what it does not do, who decides and how to ask for a human review. Do not hide this in terms and conditions. Also check that the tool does not penalise candidates whose evidence is in a different language, a non-text format or an unusual structure. If the tool does penalise them, the process must route these candidates to a human reader from the start.

Worked example: A public agency supports adults without records

Context: a public agency. A public employment agency, working with a sector association for care services, runs an RPL route for a "Care support worker" credential. A programme officer (P2) finds that many adult applicants worked informally in family care or for employers that have closed. They have few documents.

The officer designs a support package:

• Information page in plain language and two additional languages used by local communities, with a one-page checklist.
• Fit check: a 20 minute call with an adviser. The adviser asks about care tasks, settings and how often the candidate did them.
• Orientation workshop: a two hour group session on evidence, with examples of acceptable evidence and a worked portfolio map.
• Alternative evidence: where documents are missing, candidates can show outcomes through a structured scenario interview and a short observed practical task at a partner care centre.
• Adviser separation: the adviser supports evidence building and cannot sit on the assessment panel for the same candidate.
• Gap plan: where one outcome is partly met, a short 6 hour training module is offered at no cost (illustrative).
• Notice about AI: the agency uses a tool only to check that required forms are complete. The notice says so, and states that people make every decision.

Practice activity: Plan candidate guidance and support

For your credential, produce a candidate guidance plan with these parts:

1. A 100 word information summary a candidate could read in two minutes: who the route is for, what it leads to, time, cost, evidence needed.
2. A list of five fit check questions.
3. A table of three likely barriers for candidates, and one support measure for each.
4. One alternative evidence option for a candidate with no documents.
5. One rule that keeps adviser and assessor roles separate.
6. A two sentence candidate notice about any AI tool, or a note that none is used.

Policy and funding

Equity in RPL

RPL is often presented as fair because it values learning wherever it happened. This is true only if the route is open in practice. Some groups meet more barriers than others: adults with low formal qualifications, migrants and refugees, people in informal work, older workers, people with disabilities, people with limited digital access and those with little time or money. These candidates often have the most learning outside formal systems, so they stand to gain most from RPL, and risk being shut out by design.

Barriers to watch for:

• Awareness. People do not know the route exists, or do not believe it is for them.
• Language and literacy. The guide uses technical wording. Written portfolios favour confident writers.
• Evidence access. Records are held by former employers or are lost. People who changed countries may lack documents.
• Time. Portfolio building takes hours that working adults struggle to find.
• Cost. Fees, travel, document certification, translation and time off work.
• Digital access. Uploads and online meetings assume devices and bandwidth.
• Trust. Candidates who had poor experiences in formal education may be wary of assessment.

An equity review of your route asks, for each stage: who might struggle here, why and what would help. Collect simple data to see whether the route reaches its intended groups, such as the number of enquiries, completions and outcomes by candidate group, within the limits of data protection law and with clear consent.

Cost and funding

Cost is a design variable. A route that costs more than the programme for the same result will not serve the people it was designed for. Think about who pays and how.

Cost to the issuer includes: assessor time, adviser time, moderation, administration, systems, training for staff and route review.

Cost to the candidate includes: fees, time spent on evidence, travel, certification and translation of documents, and lost income if time off work is needed.

Ways to manage cost:

• Design for efficiency. Use fit checks, templates, a limited number of evidence items and targeted interviews for gaps only.
• Scale assessment effort to need. Credit transfer for already assured certificates costs less than a full portfolio review.
• Publish a clear fee schedule. Show what each stage costs and what is included. Avoid hidden charges.
• Offer fee waivers or sliding scales for candidates with low income, where your funding allows.
• Seek public or sector funding. Some public agencies, sector funds and employers support RPL for target groups. Check which schemes exist in your jurisdiction.
• Let employers contribute. Employers can release time for candidates and provide evidence or observation opportunities.
• Count the benefits. Time saved by candidates, faster entry to the labour market and better use of programme places are all benefits to weigh against cost.

Use illustrative figures only when you plan. Replace them with your own costs before publishing a fee.

Policy context and quality assurance

RPL sits within public and sector policy. Many countries have national approaches to validation of non-formal and informal learning, and European policy documents refer to it. The EU Council Recommendation on micro-credentials (2022) is a stable reference. Check how your own country has applied it, and what rules your accreditation or quality body sets for RPL.

Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. Watch for Commission implementation reporting and national transpositions.

Quality assurance for RPL includes:

• Published policy. A public statement of what the route is, who may use it, the standard applied, fees and appeals.
• Staff competence. Assessors and advisers are trained in RPL and in the subject area.
• Moderation. A sample of decisions is checked by another assessor. Record the rate of agreement and act on differences.
• Data and review. Keep records of the route, the decisions and outcomes. Review the route each year with data on enquiries, completions, time, cost, candidate feedback and equity.
• Appeals. Provide a clear route for candidates to question a decision, with a time limit and an independent reviewer.
• Oversight of AI. Record any AI use, the checks you made, the findings and the decision to continue or stop.

For professional bodies, link the RPL route to registration or licensing rules. Where a legal or regulatory body sets entry requirements, check that your route is accepted.

Worked example: A university makes a route affordable

Context: a university, college or training provider. A university continuing education unit offers a micro-credential in "Data literacy for public administration". The unit lead (E1) and the finance officer review the draft RPL route. The first plan has a portfolio review by two assessors at an illustrative fee of 400 currency units, while the programme itself costs 600 units. The lead sees that most candidates would find the fee too high.

The team revises the route:

• Mixed route with fit check. A free 20 minute fit check filters out candidates who would not succeed.
• Reduced evidence load. Maximum eight evidence items. A template maps each item to outcomes.
• One assessor for clear cases. A second assessor reviews borderline cases and a 15 per cent sample (illustrative).
• Fee schedule. Fit check free. Assessment fee of 150 units. Gap task, where needed, 50 units (illustrative).
• Fee waivers. A small fund for candidates receiving public benefits, from an access budget.
• Employer contribution. Partner agencies release staff for two hours of preparation time.
• Equity data. The unit records enquiries and completions by age band and employment status, with consent, and reviews the data after the first cohort.

The lead writes a one-page cost note for the faculty board that shows the cost per candidate for the issuer, the fee and the effort asked of candidates.

Practice activity: Build an equity and cost plan

For your credential, prepare a plan of about 300 words with these parts:

1. Three groups who might face barriers in your route and one specific barrier for each.
2. A response to each barrier, linked to a stage of your route.
3. A cost table with illustrative figures: issuer cost per candidate by stage, candidate fee by stage and any waiver.
4. A funding idea: who else could contribute, and what you must check before approaching them.
5. Two review measures you will track after the first cohort, such as completion rate by group and median time to decision.
6. One line on how you will oversee any AI tool for fairness across groups.

Assessment and badge

The task

You assess your own readiness in two steps: you design an RPL route for one credential and you answer a final knowledge check. A person assesses the route document with the rubric below. The file does not grade your work.

Task: Design an RPL route for one credential, including an evidence guide and assessor instructions.

Choose one credential from your own context, real or realistic. It can be a micro-credential, a certificate or a professional designation. Use one of the two contexts from the course: a university, college or training provider, or a professional body, sector association or public agency. Produce an RPL route document of about 2,500 to 3,500 words, plus any annexes, with these parts:

1. Purpose and scope (from Module 1): the credential, the level, the purpose of the route, the standard, the target group and the exclusions.
2. Route model and stages (Module 2): the chosen model, a stage table with owners and time limits, decision rules, outputs, appeals and moderation.
3. Evidence guide (Module 3): for at least three outcomes of the credential, an entry with what "met" looks like, acceptable evidence, evidence not enough alone, and quantity and currency. Include the rules of evidence.
4. Assessor instructions (Module 3): steps, authenticity checks, recording, conflicts of interest, referral and feedback.
5. AI statement (Modules 2, 3 and 4): whether any AI tool is used for pre-screening, what it may and may not do, who decides, the notice to candidates, the human review option and the oversight checks.
6. Candidate guidance and support plan (Module 4): information summary, fit check questions, support types, adviser and assessor separation, alternative evidence and gap plan.
7. Equity and cost plan (Module 5): barriers and responses, illustrative cost table, fee and waiver approach, funding ideas, review measures and the status of any item you need to check, marked VERIFY.

Use illustrative figures and label them as such. Do not name commercial products or vendors. Do not include personal data of real people.

Evidence submitted for the badge: the RPL route document, in one file, submitted to your assessor through the Kursbibliothek.

Rubric

Assessors rate each criterion as Not yet, Meets or Exceeds.

Pass rule

To earn the badge Recognising Prior and Non-formal Learning with Credentials (Ability, L3), alignment code ICSF-ASMT-L3-A:

• Reach Meets or Exceeds on all eight criteria of the rubric. One resubmission is allowed for criteria rated Not yet.
• Complete the final knowledge check below with at least 7 of 10 correct answers. You may retry the check.
• Submit the RPL route document as badge evidence.

Final knowledge check

Sources and further reading

Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. Confirm that each source is current and that links, titles and versions match your own checks. The titles below name official texts and framework owners. Search for them on the websites of the issuing bodies.

• Council of the European Union. Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022 on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability. Published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
• Council of the European Union. Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning. Published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
• European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) and European Commission. European guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning.
• European Commission. European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO) and the Europass initiative, as references for describing skills and learning outcomes.
• UNESCO. Guidelines for the recognition, validation and accreditation of the outcomes of non-formal and informal learning. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.
• ICoBC. ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF) and the VRITE quality model. Available from ICoBC (info@icobc.net).
• Your national qualifications authority and quality assurance body. National rules and guidance on validation of non-formal and informal learning in your country.
• Your data protection authority. Guidance on processing personal data and on automated decision-making in education and assessment.

Prerequisite course: ICB-P02 Assessment Design for Credentials: Valid, Reliable, Fair.