# Recognising Prior and Non-formal Learning with Credentials *Routes that credential what people already know.* ## About this course **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. | Outcome | Module | How it is assessed | |---|---|---| | 1. Design an RPL route that leads to a credential | RPL models | Module quiz and practice activity; final task (route design); final knowledge check | | 1. Design an RPL route that leads to a credential | Why RPL matters | Module quiz and practice activity (purpose and scope of the route) | | 2. Define evidence types and how to judge them | Evidence and judgement | Module quiz and practice activity; final task (evidence guide and assessor instructions); final knowledge check | | 3. Plan guidance and support for candidates | Candidate support | Module quiz and practice activity; final task (candidate guidance); final knowledge check | | 4. Address equity and cost barriers in RPL | Policy and funding | Module quiz and practice activity; final task (equity and cost plan); final knowledge check | > 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. Two routes to the same credential Diagram comparing two routes to one credential. Route A, learn then assess, leads from a programme to an assessment to the credential. Route B, assess existing evidence, leads from a portfolio of prior learning to an assessment to the same credential. Both routes meet the same standard. Two routes, one standard Route A: learn, then assess Programme Assessment Route B: assess existing evidence Prior learning Assessment Same credential Same standard Route A is led by a provider (cyan). Route B starts from the candidate's evidence (lime). ### 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.
Facilitator notes Run a 30 minute workshop. In groups of three, participants swap their purpose statements and mark each other's with three questions: Is the standard the same as in the programme? Is the target group clear? Would a candidate know in 30 seconds whether this route is for them? Collect common problems on a shared board. Typical issues are vague standards and a purpose statement that describes the provider's needs rather than the candidate's. Include a short round on terms: ask participants which words their country or sector uses for RPL and agree one working set for the cohort.
**Question 1.** Which statement best describes recognition of prior learning? [( )] A shortcut that gives credit for years of service in a job. [(X)] A route in which a candidate shows, with evidence, that they already meet the outcomes of a credential. [( )] A course that repeats the programme content at a faster pace. [( )] A reference letter from an employer that replaces assessment. [[?]] Think about what stays the same and what changes between routes. **** RPL keeps the standard and changes the way the candidate shows it. Years of service and letters alone do not show outcomes, and a faster course is still a programme, not a recognition route. **** **Question 2.** What is non-formal learning? [( )] Learning that happens only by accident. [( )] Learning in a programme that leads to a recognised qualification. [(X)] Organised learning that does not lead to a formal qualification, such as an employer course. [( )] Learning that cannot be evidenced. [[?]] Look for the word "organised" in the answer. **** Non-formal learning is organised but does not lead to a formal qualification. Formal learning leads to a qualification. Informal learning is usually not organised as learning. Non-formal learning can often be evidenced. **** **Question 3.** Why does a rigorous RPL route protect trust in a credential? [( )] It makes the credential cheaper to issue. [( )] It reduces the number of people who can apply. [(X)] Holders can show the same standard by different paths, and the route is transparent. [( )] It removes the need for assessors. [[?]] Trust comes from a standard that does not move. **** Trust grows when the same standard applies to all holders and the route is open to inspection. RPL does not remove assessors, and its purpose is not to reduce applicants or to cut cost. **** **Question 4.** Which item should not count as evidence on its own in the bookkeeping example? [( )] A set of reconciled ledgers with client permission. [(X)] A statement that the candidate has worked in the role for six years. [( )] A recorded observation of the candidate preparing a VAT return. [( )] A reflective account supported by work samples. [[?]] Time in role says little about what the person can do. **** Time served shows presence, not outcomes. The other options show work or performance that can be judged against the outcomes. **** ## 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. Stages of an RPL route Flow diagram with five stages: enquiry and fit check, evidence collection, assessment, decision, and credential or gap plan. A feedback loop returns from the decision to evidence collection when gaps exist. A review loop sits under the route. Stages of an RPL route 1 Enquiry and fit check 2 Evidence collection 3 Assessment 4 Decision 5 Credential or gap plan Gaps found: add evidence or complete a gap task Moderation, appeals and route review run across all stages ### 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.
Facilitator notes Run a 45 minute workshop. Participants present their route outline in three minutes each to a small group. The group asks one question: "What would stop a good candidate from finishing this route?" Participants note the answers and carry them to Module 4. If time allows, ask each group to compare a portfolio route and a challenge route for the same credential and decide which fits which candidate profile. Tip: ask groups to check that every stage has a named owner. Routes often fail at the handover between enquiry and assessment.
**Question 1.** A credential has outcomes that are easy to test in a two hour practical task. Which model is the most direct fit? [( )] A long portfolio of work samples collected over many years. [(X)] A challenge assessment using the same task as programme learners. [( )] Credit transfer without comparing outcomes. [( )] A letter of support from the candidate's manager. [[?]] Ask which model tests the outcome most directly at the lowest cost. **** When outcomes are observable in a short task, a challenge assessment is direct and efficient. A portfolio can work but costs more for both sides. Credit transfer needs a prior comparison, and a letter alone does not show outcomes. **** **Question 2.** In the mixed route, what is the purpose of the targeted interview? [( )] To repeat the whole assessment for every candidate. [(X)] To check outcomes that the portfolio showed only in part. [( )] To test the candidate's personality. [( )] To replace the portfolio. [[?]] Look at the word "targeted". **** A targeted interview focuses on gaps left by the portfolio. It does not repeat the whole assessment, and it does not replace the portfolio. **** **Question 3.** Which feature belongs in every sound RPL route? [( )] A lower standard than the programme. [( )] A fixed fee set by the assessor. [(X)] Clear decision rules, including what happens when evidence is partial. [( )] An assessment that no one may question. [[?]] Think about what an assessor needs in order to decide consistently. **** Clear decision rules support consistency and fairness. The standard must match the programme, fees are a policy decision and a route needs an appeal process. **** **Question 4.** What may an AI pre-screening tool do in an RPL route, according to this course? [( )] Decide whether to award or refuse the credential. [(X)] Help sort documents and check that required items are present, while a qualified person decides. [( )] Replace moderation. [( )] Remove the candidate's right to a human review. [[?]] Decide who keeps the decision. **** AI can support sorting and completeness checks. A qualified person decides, moderation continues and the candidate keeps the right to a human review. **** ## 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. A portfolio with evidence types A portfolio folder in the centre linked to six evidence types: work products, records of learning, third-party statements, observation, interview and reflective account. Below, five rules of evidence are listed: valid, sufficient, authentic, current, reliable. A portfolio and its evidence types Portfolio for one outcome Work products Records of learning Third-party statements Observation Interview or viva Reflective account Rules of evidence Valid Sufficient Authentic Current Reliable Lime: candidate-supplied evidence. Cyan: evidence created in assessment. ### 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.
Facilitator notes Run a 60 minute calibration workshop. Prepare three short sample evidence items for one outcome, with different strength: one strong, one partial, one weak or unclear. Ask participants to judge each item independently using their own guide entry, then compare. Discuss where judgements differ and which words in the guide caused the difference. Participants then edit their guide entries. For the AI element, ask participants to imagine a tool wrongly marking the partial item as "met". Discuss which oversight measure would catch the error and how quickly.
**Question 1.** A candidate submits a certificate from a short workshop with no description of what the workshop covered. Which rule of evidence is most at risk? [( )] Reliable. [( )] Authentic. [(X)] Valid, because the evidence may not relate to the outcome. [( )] Current. [[?]] Ask whether you can tell from the item what the candidate can do. **** Without a course outline, the assessor cannot tell whether the certificate relates to the outcome. Validity is the first concern. A record of learning can still support a portfolio when it is combined with other evidence. **** **Question 2.** What does triangulation mean in RPL assessment? [( )] Asking three assessors to meet. [(X)] Confirming a judgement with more than one type of evidence. [( )] Using a three-stage appeal process. [( )] Dividing the credential into three parts. [[?]] It is about the evidence, not the people. **** Triangulation confirms a judgement using different types of evidence, such as a work product, an observation and a third-party statement. It does not refer to the number of assessors or stages. **** **Question 3.** An assessor reads a well-written report that may have been drafted by someone else. What is the most appropriate step? [( )] Reject the candidate. [( )] Accept the report because it is well written. [(X)] Hold a short conversation about the report to check the candidate's role and understanding. [( )] Ask an AI tool to decide. [[?]] Look for the authenticity check in the assessor instructions. **** A short conversation about the work tests authenticity without presuming bad faith. Rejecting or accepting without checking would be unfair or unsafe, and a tool should not decide. **** **Question 4.** Which oversight measure is essential when an AI tool pre-screens portfolios? [( )] The tool's score replaces the assessor's judgement. [( )] The candidate is not told about the tool. [(X)] A qualified person makes every award and refusal decision, and the candidate can ask for a human-only review. [( )] The tool is trusted after one successful test. [[?]] Think about who is accountable for the decision. **** A person must decide, and candidates must have a route to human review. Hidden use, automatic scoring and one-off testing do not give enough protection. **** ## 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. The candidate journey through an RPL route Seven stages along a line: information, fit check, orientation, evidence building, assessment, decision and feedback, and after the decision. Support types sit under the line: advisers, language and format options, digital help, peer support, adjustments and alternative evidence. The candidate journey 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Information Fit check Orientation Evidence building Assessment Decision After Adviser or mentor Language and format options Digital help Peer support Reasonable adjustments Alternative evidence Support types (cyan) are offered by the provider along the whole journey. ### 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.
Facilitator notes Run a 45 minute role-play. Divide participants into trios: a candidate, an adviser and an observer. The candidate is given a short profile card (for example, a person who worked for a family business that closed, or a person who learned through volunteering). The adviser runs a 10 minute fit check conversation using the participant's own questions. The observer notes whether the questions were clear and respectful and whether the adviser stayed within the adviser role. Rotate roles. Close with a plenary on what to change in the guidance. Prepare profile cards in advance. Keep names and details fictional.
**Question 1.** Which statement describes a sound rule for adviser and assessor roles? [( )] The adviser should write the candidate's evidence summaries. [( )] The adviser should decide the outcome. [(X)] The adviser helps the candidate understand the guide and organise evidence, and does not assess the same candidate. [( )] The adviser and assessor should always be the same person to save cost. [[?]] Think about a conflict of interest. **** Separating support from assessment protects the credibility of the decision. An adviser who writes evidence or decides the outcome has a conflict of interest. **** **Question 2.** A candidate worked for a company that closed and has no references. What is the best option in a well-designed route? [( )] Refuse the application. [(X)] Offer an alternative way to show the outcomes, such as an observed task or a structured interview. [( )] Accept a verbal statement as sufficient evidence. [( )] Require the candidate to join the full programme. [[?]] The standard stays the same, but the way of showing it can change. **** Alternative evidence keeps the standard and removes an unfair barrier. Refusing or sending the candidate to the programme ignores existing learning, and a bare verbal statement is not enough evidence. **** **Question 3.** What is the purpose of a fit check at the start of the route? [( )] To reject as many candidates as possible. [( )] To replace the assessment. [(X)] To find out early whether RPL is likely to work or whether the programme would suit better, saving time for both sides. [( )] To collect fees. [[?]] Think about the candidate's time and effort. **** A fit check helps candidates decide with good information. It is not an assessment, a gate to keep people out or a fee step. **** **Question 4.** A provider uses an AI tool to check form completeness. What should the candidate be told? [( )] Nothing, because the tool is only technical. [( )] That the tool decides the outcome. [(X)] What the tool does, what it does not do, who decides and how to ask for a human review. [( )] That they cannot object to its use. [[?]] Think about transparency and the right to review. **** Candidates should know in plain language what a tool does, that people decide and how to ask for a human review. Hiding the tool or giving it decision power undermines trust. **** ## 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. Barriers and responses in RPL Two columns. The left column lists six barriers: awareness, language and literacy, evidence access, time, cost and digital access. The right column lists matching responses: outreach, plain language and oral options, alternative evidence, templates and limits, fee schedule and waivers, non-digital option. Arrows connect each barrier to its response. Barriers and responses Barrier Response Awareness Outreach with partners Language and literacy Plain language, oral options Evidence access Alternative evidence Time Templates, item limits Cost Fee schedule, waivers Digital access Non-digital option ### 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.
Facilitator notes Run a 45 minute policy clinic. Invite one external guest, for example a funder, a registry officer or a regulator, if available, to respond briefly to two or three plans. If no guest is available, ask participants to take roles: funder, candidate representative, finance officer and quality inspector. Each role asks one challenge question about a plan. Closing round: each participant states one change they will make to their route after the clinic. Collect these for use in the final task.
**Question 1.** Why do equity checks matter in RPL? [( )] Because RPL always favours disadvantaged groups. [(X)] Because groups with much non-formal learning can still be shut out by language, evidence access, time, cost or digital barriers. [( )] Because fairness means lowering the standard for some candidates. [( )] Because only large providers need them. [[?]] Think about who gains most and who is most at risk of being excluded. **** RPL can be fair only if the route is open in practice. The standard stays the same, but barriers in language, access, time, cost or technology can exclude the people who stand to gain most. **** **Question 2.** An RPL fee is higher than the cost of the programme for the same credential. What is the likely effect? [( )] More candidates will choose RPL. [(X)] Few candidates will use the route, especially those on low incomes. [( )] The quality of the credential will improve. [( )] Assessors will need less training. [[?]] Think about how candidates compare options. **** A route that costs more than the programme for the same result is unattractive. Cost is a design variable that needs attention in planning. **** **Question 3.** Which action best supports quality assurance of an RPL route? [( )] Keeping decisions private to protect candidates. [( )] Reviewing the route only after complaints. [(X)] Moderating a sample of decisions, recording agreement and reviewing the route each year with data. [( )] Letting each assessor set their own standard. [[?]] Look for repeated checks over time. **** Moderation and regular data review keep judgements consistent and show where to improve. Waiting for complaints or letting assessors set their own standards weakens rigor. **** **Question 4.** Which statement about funding is correct? [( )] Funding schemes for RPL exist in every jurisdiction. [( )] Employers cannot contribute to RPL. [(X)] Funding options depend on your jurisdiction, so you must check which schemes exist before planning on them. [( )] A fee waiver always lowers the standard. [[?]] Think about the VERIFY note in the text. **** Funding differs by country, region and sector. Do not assume a scheme exists. Employers can contribute, for example by releasing time, and a waiver changes cost, not the standard. **** ## 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.
Facilitator notes Give participants at least two weeks after the workshop to complete the route document. Offer an optional 30 minute clinic for questions. Assessors should be trained on the rubric and should moderate a sample of submissions, with a second assessor for borderline cases and for 20 per cent of all submissions (illustrative). Feedback should state what is met, what is not and what to add. Allow one resubmission. Remind assessors that the badge records the ability to design an RPL route in a controlled setting. It is not a statement about competence in any job.
### Rubric Assessors rate each criterion as **Not yet**, **Meets** or **Exceeds**. | Criterion | Not yet | Meets | Exceeds | |---|---|---|---| | 1. Purpose, scope and standard (Outcome 1) | Purpose or standard is missing or differs from the credential's outcomes. | Purpose, standard, target group and exclusions are clear and match the credential. | As Meets, and the scope shows a clear rationale for who benefits and who the route is not for. | | 2. Route model and stages (Outcome 1) | Model is unclear, stages lack owners or decision rules are missing. | A model is chosen with reasons. Stages have owners, time limits, decision rules, outputs, appeals and moderation. | As Meets, and the route addresses partial results and handover between stages with precise rules. | | 3. Evidence guide (Outcome 2) | Evidence types are generic, or fewer than three outcomes are covered, or rules of evidence are missing. | At least three outcomes have entries with indicators, acceptable evidence, insufficient evidence, and quantity and currency. The five rules of evidence are applied. | As Meets, and entries use triangulation and offer alternative evidence for candidates without records. | | 4. Assessor instructions (Outcome 2) | Steps are vague, or there is no authenticity check or recording rule. | Steps, authenticity checks, recording, conflicts of interest, referral and feedback are specified. | As Meets, and instructions include a calibration or moderation plan with a stated sampling rate. | | 5. AI statement and oversight (Outcomes 2 and 3) | AI use, if any, is unexplained, or a tool makes decisions, or candidates are not informed. | The statement says what any tool may and may not do, who decides, how candidates are told and how to request human review. Oversight checks are named. | As Meets, and the plan includes checks of tool results across candidate groups and a rule for stopping the tool. | | 6. Candidate guidance and support (Outcome 3) | Guidance is missing or assumes records and digital access. Adviser and assessor roles are mixed. | Information summary, fit check, support types and a gap plan are present. Adviser and assessor roles are separated. | As Meets, and support is mapped to each stage with a named owner and a response time. | | 7. Equity and cost (Outcome 4) | Barriers are not identified, or the fee is higher than the programme without justification. | Barriers and responses are linked to stages. Costs and fees are shown with illustrative figures. Funding ideas and review measures are stated. | As Meets, and the plan includes equity monitoring by group, a waiver approach and a cost comparison with the programme route. | | 8. Clarity, accuracy and professional quality | Text is hard to follow, has unsupported claims or invented sources. | Text is clear, organised and accurate. Items to check are marked VERIFY. | As Meets, and the document is ready for use by candidates and assessors with consistent terms. | ### 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 **Question 1.** Which description fits a recognition of prior learning route? [( )] A programme taught faster for experienced people. [(X)] A route in which candidates show with evidence that they meet the same outcomes and standard as programme learners. [( )] A route with a lower standard for adults. [( )] A reference system that replaces assessment. [[?]] The standard does not change. **** RPL keeps the credential standard and changes how candidates show it. It is not a faster course, a lower standard or a replacement of assessment by references. **** **Question 2.** A professional body expects many candidates, with outcomes that are broad and context-dependent. Which model fits best? [( )] A single multiple-choice test for all outcomes. [(X)] A mixed route with a short portfolio and a targeted assessment for gaps. [( )] Credit transfer without comparing outcomes. [( )] Years of membership as the only criterion. [[?]] Look for a model that handles both volume and breadth. **** A mixed route handles volume with templates and focuses effort on gaps. A single test cannot cover broad outcomes, credit transfer needs a prior comparison and years of membership do not show outcomes. **** **Question 3.** A candidate's portfolio contains one report from six years ago, written for an earlier version of a rapidly changing field. Which rule of evidence is the main concern? [( )] Authentic. [( )] Reliable. [(X)] Current. [( )] Valid. [[?]] Think about the age of the evidence and the speed of change in the field. **** In a fast-changing field, an old report may not show present capability. The assessor should ask for more recent evidence or set a short task. The report may still be valid and authentic. **** **Question 4.** Which assessor instruction best supports authenticity? [( )] Accept all evidence signed by the candidate. [(X)] Hold a short conversation about a work sample to check the candidate's role and understanding. [( )] Ask the candidate to submit more pages. [( )] Ask an AI tool to confirm that the candidate wrote it. [[?]] An assessor can ask questions about the work. **** A short conversation tests the candidate's role and understanding. A signature or extra pages do not prove authorship, and an AI tool cannot reliably decide authenticity. **** **Question 5.** An AI tool flags a portfolio as "not meeting" two outcomes. What should happen? [( )] The candidate is refused automatically. [(X)] An assessor reviews the portfolio, records their own reasons and decides. [( )] The tool's flag is accepted if its accuracy is above 90 per cent. [( )] The candidate is not told the tool was used. [[?]] Decide who holds the decision. **** A qualified person decides and records reasons. A tool's flag is advice, and the candidate must be told about the tool and may ask for human review. **** **Question 6.** Which support element best addresses the problem that a candidate has no documents from a closed employer? [( )] A longer application form. [( )] A fee waiver only. [(X)] An alternative evidence option such as an observed task or a structured interview. [( )] A requirement to retake the programme. [[?]] The barrier is access to evidence. **** An alternative route to show the outcomes removes the barrier and keeps the standard. A fee waiver does not solve a lack of evidence, and a longer form adds burden. **** **Question 7.** Why should advisers not sit on the assessment panel for the candidates they support? [( )] Advisers are less skilled than assessors. [(X)] It would create a conflict of interest and weaken the credibility of the decision. [( )] Candidates dislike advisers. [( )] It makes the process slower. [[?]] Think about independence. **** Separating support from assessment protects fairness and trust. Skill or speed is not the main issue. **** **Question 8.** A candidate fails to meet one outcome fully. Which feedback is most useful? [( )] "Not yet competent. Reapply next year." [(X)] A statement of what was met, what was not, what evidence would close the gap and the options, such as a gap task or credit within the programme. [( )] A numerical score only. [( )] A request to start the whole process again. [[?]] Feedback should lead to a next step. **** Useful feedback names what was met and what is missing, and gives options. A bare verdict or score does not help the candidate act, and starting again ignores what was shown. **** **Question 9.** Which measure best addresses cost barriers in an RPL route? [( )] Setting the fee above the programme fee to cover risk. [( )] Hiding the fee schedule until the end. [(X)] Publishing a clear fee schedule, using a free fit check, limiting evidence items and offering waivers where funding allows. [( )] Removing moderation to save money. [[?]] Look for several measures that reduce effort and cost without lowering the standard. **** A clear schedule, a fit check, templates, limited items and waivers lower cost and effort while keeping the standard. Removing moderation weakens rigor, and a high or hidden fee deters candidates. **** **Question 10.** An equity review of an RPL route should ask which question at each stage? [( )] How can we reduce the number of candidates? [( )] Which candidates are most profitable? [(X)] Who might struggle at this stage, why, and what would help? [( )] How can we avoid collecting any data? [[?]] Equity review looks at barriers. **** An equity review identifies barriers by stage and plans responses. It is supported by simple, lawful data on who enquires, who completes and with what outcome. **** ## 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.