Abstract
The processes to assess students’ learning acquired in various non-formal and informal learning environments have become increasingly common in Finnish university language centres in recent years. This paper describes new developments at the University of Eastern Finland to assess students’ non-formal and informal learning of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) with an electronic examination system. Recognition of prior learning (RPL) had previously been organised as on-campus examinations, although demand for digitalisation and electronic examination systems had been voiced to provide students and staff more flexibility and convenience. The digitalisation of the RPL process aimed to develop the system in the most popular language for validation, English, and to provide students and RPL assessors an increasingly effective method for assessing prior learning. Finnish higher education institutions have invested heavily in digital learning environments and this described transformation to a digitalised RPL process can be seen as a logical response. We introduce the new RPL system and its change from previous face-to-face assessment to the digital version, the rationale for and practical implementation of the digitalisation. We also present RPL assessors’ perceptions of the change, preview student data on the new system and offer suggestions on the systematic and evidence-based development of the recognition and validation of EAP in university language centres.
1 Introduction
Recognition of prior learning (RPL), often also referred to as validation, is a principle in education to recognise and value all learning acquired by an individual, regardless of time or place (Colardyn and Bjørnåvold 2005; Duvekot et al. 2014; Hult and Andersson 2008; UNESCO 2012). RPL, along with lifelong learning, creates a continuous link between different forms of learning during a person’s lifetime. Consequently, learning from various environments, whether formal, non-formal or informal, can be evaluated and recognised for study purposes, including higher education (HE) courses and credits. Typically, formal learning takes place in an organised and structured environment such as a higher education institution (HEI), includes highly structured objectives and the learning is intentional from the learner’s perspective (European Commission 2001; UNESCO 2012). This type of learning can generally be recognised and validated through applications of similar courses completed elsewhere. However, the recognition processes for non-formal and informal learning are more challenging because the learning is more diverse by nature. Non-formal learning can transpire through planned activities such as workplace training and structured online learning, whereas informal learning has no structure, is mostly unintentional or incidental for the learner and can accumulate from daily activities related to work, family, leisure or interests (Berman 2020; Billett 2010; Brown et al. 2020; Cedefop 2014; Dressman and Sadler 2020). As learning is multifaceted and can be utilised for various purposes, the recognition of prior learning involves several stakeholders from individuals to society. The processes of recognition and validation within an HE aim to reduce overlapping education and increase learner mobility and flexible approaches to studying (Duvekot 2014; Mikkola and Petri 2019; Pokorny and Whittaker 2014; Werquin 2010). However, within the educational context, RPL should ultimately be viewed as a learner- and learning-centric approach that aims to value the efforts of individuals and enhance their self-esteem (Chisvert-Tarazona et al. 2019; Hamer 2013). Studies show that RPL, particularly if successful and resulting in the accumulation of credits, increases university students’ satisfaction with their studies (Mäkinen-Streng et al. 2017). Therefore, the methods and practicalities of RPL should be suitable to and supportive of today’s student body, which encourages the use of modern technology for RPL documentation and assessment. Various methods can be adopted in the assessment of learning outcomes, including summative testing and examinations and evidence-based methods such as portfolios, observations, simulations or work practices (Colardyn and Bjørnåvold 2005). The key issue, as in any assessment, is that RPL assessment is authentic, valid, transparent and reliable to ensure the quality and validity of the system (Bohlinger 2017; Evans 2006; Joosten-ten Brinke et al. 2009; Werquin 2010).
In this study we introduce the transition of the RPL process for non-formal and informal learning of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) from an on-campus examination set for a particular time and location into a more flexible and digitalised form using a national electronic examination system EXAM.[1] In 2010 the University of Eastern Finland (UEF) Language Centre introduced a consistent RPL system for twice-yearly RPL examinations for EAP courses, and overall the system has been mostly successful and well-perceived by RPL participants (Tuomainen 2014; 2015; 2018). However, in recent years, more flexibility and convenience have been sought by both students and RPL assessors to streamline and facilitate the process. Furthermore, since Finland invests heavily in educational technology, including digital assessment (Niemi et al. 2014), similar trends towards increased digitalisation have been seen in Finnish HEIs (Wennberg et al. 2018).
While digital learning and digital assessment, also in the HE context, are increasingly popular topics for research, little examination of the digitalisation of RPL, especially within the university language centre context, has been performed. Therefore, in this paper we describe the new, mostly electronic, RPL examination system launched in September 2019 at the UEF Language Centre for the recognition of non-formal and informal learning of EAP. The implementation of the new system is described, with a justification of the transition from the previous on-campus examinations to the electronic system. The planning and implementation of the electronic examination system are described, as are RPL assessor experiences and upcoming student data of the new RPL process.
2 RPL assessment in the Finnish university language centre context
The recognition of non-formal and informal learning as part of university degrees in Finland was established in 2005 and it has since allowed students to be accredited for learning acquired outside of formal learning (Government Decree on University Degrees 797/2004), including their academic and field-specific language and communication proficiency. In Finnish HE, the concepts of RPL and validating non-formal and informal learning are particularly highlighted because of the student age structure: Finnish university students are older than in most European Higher Education Area (EHEA) countries and enter university studies from increasingly heterogeneous backgrounds (Ministry of Education and Culture 2013; Ursin 2019). Therefore, the value of lifelong learning and learning acquired in a variety of learning environments and stages throughout one’s lifetime is emphasised in Finnish HE.
Another impetus for the strong implementation of the RPL principle in Finnish HE came with the recognition recommendations provided by the Finnish University Rectors’ Council and the Rectors’ Conference of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences (2009). These also prompted national development projects to create national guidelines for recognition in various HE study fields. In 2011, the national recommendations for the recognition of non-formal and informal language learning were produced (RPL in Higher Education 2011). The recommendations offer university language centres various methods to assess students’ prior learning such as examinations, portfolios, interviews, other written or oral contributions, expert lectures, learning diaries or assignments, the European Language Portfolio or any other suitable combination of the above.
On a national level, course-specific written and oral examinations are most commonly used for RPL and validation in Finnish university language centres, followed by portfolios and/or oral interviews (Anttila et al. 2014; Pilkington et al. 2019). Also the UEF Language Centre, based on the national recommendations, opted for the systematic system of RPL examinations for language and communication studies included in degrees, to be administered by assigned RPL assessors in each language (University of Eastern Finland Language Centre 2016). In European RPL policy, tests and examinations have been recommended for assessing skills obtained through non-formal and informal learning, particularly for their cost-effectiveness, extended applicability and perceived fairness (Cedefop 2015).
Various forms of formative and summative proficiency and performance testing have indeed been actively utilised for language assessment purposes since the 1970s (Green 2014; Shohamy 2007). Assessing proficiency in languages for academic and professional purposes in HE, however, is a specific method of communicative language testing which considers language performance, field-specific contexts and communicative capacity (Douglas 2013). Therefore, RPL assessment of university students’ non-formal and informal learning of EAP is essentially EAP performance and proficiency testing where the skills are assessed in relation to course-specific learning outcomes. According to Shohamy (2007), this type of testing includes linguistic skills in a specific domain, and success in such assessment requires a needs analysis for the specific context, conditions and criteria.
The validity of such examinations and assessment does require a close scrutiny of both the criteria for the testing and the specificity and authenticity of the activities and materials (Dolgova and Siczek 2019; Douglas 2013; Vahed and Alavi 2019). At the UEF Language Centre, the validity of the RPL examinations for EAP has always been pursued by matching the examination activities as closely with the course content and learning outcomes are possible, including striving for authentic EAP language use and specifying materials for the students’ degree programmes.
The RPL examination system in place since 2010 at the UEF Language Centre has been subject to study, especially with students of Business and Economics. In 2013 business students regarded the RPL examination process as functional and convenient (Tuomainen 2014). In a larger study (Tuomainen 2015), students of Business and Economics favoured the examination above other suggested methods of RPL assessment, especially due to the time-saving element of completing RPL assessment versus the corresponding course. Even students who had not taken part in any RPL assessment, were in favour of an examination to assess their prior learning of EAP. More recently, the RPL system at the UEF Language Centre was appreciated for the versatile and authentic nature of the examination in relation to the course learning outcomes. The communicative and collective implementation of the examination, with the RPL participants and the RPL assessor engaging in a variety of written and oral tasks, was regarded positively by students (Tuomainen 2018).
However, while examinations are a common method for assessing prior learning and have obtained encouraging feedback from participants, some RPL scholars are critical of examinations. For instance, Andersson (2008) has argued that examinations represent governing and power relations in formal education, and can be seen to force non-formal and informal learning into formally accepted competence. Similarly, other scholars have argued that recognising non-formal and informal learning in formal ways can limit the assessment and omit much of the learner’s own interpretations of experience (Cordova et al. 2014; Hamer 2013; Harris 2018; Snyman and van den Berg 2018). However, within the context of HE language and communication studies, where non-formal and informal learning are related to language learning, proficiency and competency, the role of the RPL applicant’s perceptions of experience may carry less significance than in knowledge and experience based RPL assessment.
3 The digitalisation process
Learning technologies can be defined as tools and resources which have been designed particularly for the education sector and aim at transforming learning to be more accessible and personalised (Adams Becker et al. 2017; Saville 2017). The use of learning technology and digitalisation can assist students in proceeding more effectively with their studies, including tests and assessment. For instance, if RPL examinations for EAP utilise constructed responses such as essays, the use of technology and computers can assist the RPL applicant in constructing the text and facilitate the RPL assessor’s marking and scoring (Schmidgall and Powers 2017). Other benefits of organising computer-based testing, such as for RPL assessment purposes, include reduced costs, quicker reporting of results, greater flexibility of locations and timing, enhanced security and lower storage costs of digital test materials (Saville 2017).
3.1 Digital RPL in line with European RPL guidelines
The digitalisation of the evidence and documentation of non-formal and informal learning can be seen to support the quality assurance of RPL, as required of educational systems and institutions within the EHEA. According to the European Commission (2012), RPL systems must enable equal access to the process which should be fair, transparent and impartial. Therefore, the use of a more flexible process for RPL with a nationwide electronic examination system, such as this at UEF with a high number of off-campus students, can be seen to enhance students’ access to RPL as time and location restrictions are reduced. The digitalisation of the RPL assessment can also be seen to be more respectful of individual rights and equal access and therefore supportive of the overall legitimacy of the RPL system (Cedefop 2015; Joosten-ten Brinke et al. 2009; Lepänjuuri and Burns 2014).
A recognition process for non-formal and informal learning within the EHEA typically includes identification and documentation, as described by the Council of the European Union (2012). In the initial stage, a HE student would identify his/her learning acquired in non-formal and informal learning environments in connection with the course- or module-specific learning outcomes in order to estimate whether an RPL process is viable. This highlights the significance of self-assessment in the RPL process to assist the student to reflect on prior learning (Brantmeier et al. 2012; Everhard 2015). If implemented digitally, the self-assessment questions and criteria could be more readily available to students and thus prompt more introspection and help the student to visualise meaningful accomplishments, skills and knowledge for the RPL process (Airola 2012; Browning 2018; Van Kleef 2014).
In the second stage of recognising non-formal and informal learning, the documentation or production of evidence of learning, RPL policies and guidelines allow for several methods to be adopted, including tests and examinations. It can be argued that in a more digitalised RPL process, the digital collection of documentation and evidence could increase the flexibility and efficiency of the process when time and location limitations are reduced. Digitalisation can provide students more freedom to plan their RPL processes and thus individual circumstances can be better accommodated. As a result, the transparency of the process and the necessary equal treatment of students are reinforced (Travers and Harris 2014; Werquin 2010).
3.2 Implementation of the digitalisation project at UEF Language Centre
The development of the RPL assessment at the UEF Language Centre stemmed from systematically developing teaching and assessment practices. Since the current RPL system for EAP had been in place since 2010, and studies had been performed on the system and students’ views on it, suggestions for development and enhancement had already been provided. The development was also influenced by Green’s (2014) principles of effective language assessment: Planning, Reflection, Improvement, Cooperation and Evidence (PRICE). The beginning of the digitalisation process with regards to the PRICE principles is detailed below in Figure 1.
The digitalisation process through the PRICE principle for effective language assessment (Green 2014).
The digitalisation of the RPL system was further encouraged by the active use of digital learning technology at the university. There was a collective wish from the Language Centre RPL assessors to develop the RPL examinations with an increased focus on digital, distance and blended learning environments, in line with Finnish HE policies (Ministry of Education and Culture 2018) and the strategy of the university (University of Eastern Finland 2018). In line too with previous studies, there was a need to increase the role of students’ self-assessment and self-reflection within the RPL process, as previously some students had problems connecting their prior learning and the course-specific learning outcomes, resulting in unsuccessful examinations (Tuomainen 2015). It was estimated that digital self-assessment could be easier for the RPL applicants to evaluate the relevance of their prior learning.
EAP has been the most popular language for RPL at the UEF Language Centre. In 2018, 374 students were assessed for their prior learning and nearly half of the number, 190 students, completed their RPL assessment for EAP. With this large number of RPL applicants for EAP, attempts were made to provide more options and alternatives to complete the RPL examination tasks and components in the students’ own schedules, especially using the new EXAM electronic examination system provided by the university’s Student and Learning Services. The EXAM system is operated under a Finnish digitalisation project DigiCampus[2] which is funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and coordinated by the University of Eastern Finland (DigiCampus 2019).
Since the EXAM system operates nationally in Finland on 13 different HEI campuses (EXAM Consortium 2019), the system allows HE students to complete electronic examinations on any of the locations. UEF has a significant number of students who reside in different parts of Finland (Ministry of Education and Culture 2014) and they actively seek distance and digital assessment opportunities. Thus, utilising the EXAM system would allow students in the RPL process to complete tasks with a computer under examination conditions but with relative freedom to select the time, date and location. The cost and workload of creating and maintaining a large databank of items for digital testing have been mentioned as limitations of digitalised testing (Saville 2017); however, after the initial workload, digital assessment can be more efficient than organising standard on-campus, pen-to-paper examinations.
The project of transforming the RPL examination system began in spring 2019, with the aim of implementing the system in September 2019 for the autumn semester RPL examinations. As the UEF Language Centre operates on the two campuses in Finland, Joensuu and Kuopio, the project was conducted by the two designated RPL assessors for EAP on both campuses, Annemari Heinonen in Joensuu and Satu Tuomainen in Kuopio. A grant was obtained from the university’s Learning Environment Development Fund (University of Eastern Finland 2019) to assist in the development of the digital examination system, including the creation of examination databases and to test, evaluate and finalise the system before its launch in September 2019.
4 Findings
Since the digitalisation of the RPL assessment is on-going, we present here the results of the current situation of the RPL assessment digitalisation, including the concrete change from the old RPL system to the new one, statistical information about the changes introduced by the new system, and views and experiences of the RPL assessors regarding the first implementation of the process. Data on RPL student experiences and views, obtained with online surveys, will be published in subsequent studies.
In this initial stage of the transition, not all RPL examinations for EAP at the UEF Language Centre could be included in the new digitalised RPL process because many included assessment tasks that could not be replicated in the EXAM system. While functional in many ways, EXAM currently does not offer a full variety of task options for language proficiency assessment. Therefore, courses where the EXAM electronic examination system could be used effectively were selected for the digitalisation.
Another criterion for selection was that in some degree programmes at UEF the intake of students is extensive (e.g. Medicine in the Kuopio campus), and this correlates with the number of students who register for the RPL examinations for EAP. In past years, however, the number of students with non-attendance and/or non-cancellation had been increasing especially in the Kuopio campus. This uncertainty of the actual number of participants frequently resulted in additional work and planning for the RPL assessor.
Based on these criteria, seven EAP courses and their RPL examinations were selected for the digitalisation process. The level, scope, campus and degree programmes of the courses can be seen in Table 1.
UEF Language Centre EAP courses in the RPL digitalisation process.
| Course | Level | Campus | Degree programmes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advanced English Academic and Professional Communication 1 ECTS | Master | Kuopio | Dentistry, Medicine |
| Advanced English Academic and Professional Communication 2 ECTS | Master | Joensuu, Kuopio | Applied Physics, Biology, Biomedicine, Chemistry, Computer Science, Environmental Science, Forestry, Mathematics, Physics |
| Advanced English Academic and Professional Communication 4 ECTS | Master | Joensuu | Law |
| English Academic and Professional Communication 1 ECTS | Bachelor | Kuopio | Clinical Nutrition, Health Promotion, Nursing Science, Pharmacy |
| English Academic and Professional Communication 2 ECTS | Bachelor | Joensuu, Kuopio | History, Geography, Humanities, Social Sciences, Social Work, Theology |
| English Academic and Professional Communication 3 ECTS | Bachelor | Joensuu | Psychology |
| Scientific Writing and Presentations 2 ECTS | Master | Kuopio | Pharmacy |
Overall, on the basis of the above mentioned considerations regarding the chosen courses, major transformations took place from the old RPL system to the new one. The RPL examination system was changed for most of the practicalities of the exam, paying more attention to the previously raised concerns by RPL assessors on the role of self-assessment and assessor workload, and RPL participants’ issues concerning flexibility of time and location. The new system aimed to lessen the RPL assessor workload with the digital assessment of the written part of each examination and potentially reduce the number of failed RPL applicants with a two-part, two-stage examination. Feedback was also given more weight in the entire RPL examination process to enhance the student experience. Table 2 describes the characteristics of the the old RPL examination system for EAP in 2010–2018, and the new digital system created for 2019 onwards.
The old and new RPL examinations for EAP at the UEF Language Centre.
| Examination characteristics | Old RPL examinations for EAP 2010–2018 | New RPL examinations for EAP 2019– |
|---|---|---|
| Self-assessment | Optional using self-assessment questions on the Language Centre RPL website | Mandatory with required self-assessment questions before registration |
| Registration | Open to all students | Open to all students but registration confirmed based on self-assessment |
| Exam available | Organised twice during the academic year (autumn/spring) in one day | Organised twice during the academic year (autumn/spring) within a four-week period |
| Exam schedule | Written and oral part during the same day | Written part in electronic EXAM system during one week, oral part on a set day |
| Location | On campus | EXAM can be completed in 13 locations in Finland, oral part organised on campus or online |
| Written part | Pen-to-paper academic essay for 60 min | Electronic academic essay for 55 min |
| Oral part | For all participants. Face-to-face on campus, pre-prepared academic presentation and discussion | Only for those who pass the electronic written part. Face-to-face on campus or online, pre-prepared academic presentation and discussion |
| Feedback | Provided only when asked by the participant | Feedback provided on both written and oral parts to all participants |
The implementation of the new digital RPL examination system for EAP yielded immediate results. In the Kuopio campus of the UEF the number of RPL registrations decreased in the new system whereas the Joensuu campus saw an increase in RPL registrations. The numbers of RPL registrations, attendants, unsuccessful students (including those who failed to attend the examination) and successful students are listed in Table 3 for autumn semesters 2017 and 2018 before the implementation of the new system, and for autumn 2019 with the new system.
RPL examination numbers in 2017–18 in the old system and in 2019 in the new system.
| RPL system | Year and campus | Registered | Attended | Faileda | Passed | Passing percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Old system | Autumn 2017 Joensuu campus | 9 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 100% |
| Old system | Autumn 2018 Joensuu campus | 13 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 100% |
| New system | Autumn 2019 Joensuu campus | 20 | 19 | 5 | 15 | 75% |
| Old system | Autumn 2017 Kuopio campus | 98 | 67 | 48 | 50 | 51% |
| Old system | Autumn 2018 Kuopio campus | 108 | 48 | 85 | 23 | 21% |
| New system | Autumn 2019 Kuopio campus | 67 | 50 | 37 | 28 | 42% |
aFail in the RPL assessment results from either failing the examination, or failing to attend the examination while registered.
Since the RPL participant survey data is still being elaborated, at this stage we can only speculate on the reasons for the changes in registration numbers. One reason for the decrease in the Kuopio campus may be that the new registration process increased the role of self-assessment and self-reflection, since potential RPL participants had to answer questions about their prior learning of EAP and indicate how their prior learning matched the course learning outcomes. Therefore, students who were accepted for the RPL examination based on their self-assessment of learning, arguably had a clear view of how relevant their prior learning of EAP was for the examination.
The smaller number of RPL applicants in the Kuopio campus may also have been a result of the change to a two-part, two-stage examination. In the new system, all students first have to complete the EXAM electronic written part, and only those who pass it with a suitable level of academic writing (content, language, style, accuracy) are invited to the oral component of each examination. This may have deterred some students from registering if they had assessed their skills in written EAP proficiency to be insufficient. However, several students on both campuses still failed the written part of their examination and thus the entire examination.
The increase of participants on the Joensuu campus, on the other hand, may have been due to the increased flexibility of the system: the majority of the students participating in the RPL examinations for EAP in Joensuu were Master’s level students who no longer live in the city and perhaps found the new digital examination more convenient.
Furthermore, as seen in Table 3, a positive trend can be observed in the new system regarding the percentage of students passing their RPL examinations for EAP. The new system increased the overall pass rate on the Kuopio campus from 21% in the 2018 autumn semester to 43% in autumn 2019, while the percentage on the Joensuu campus remained high in both systems. Even though the pass rate dropped by 25% on the Joensuu campus, the overall number of students passing the examination was still higher than in previous years.
From the RPL assessors’ perspectives, the transition to the new digitalised system has been successful on the whole. The initial workload from planning, creating and testing the databases for the EXAM system was considered laborious but since the implementation of the system the workload compared to the old examination days has been reduced. Administrative tasks in the RPL registration process and correcting the electronic examinations both take less time, and there is less uncertainty about the actual number of participants. In addition, the two-part, two-stage examination has reduced time and resources needed for the second, oral part of the examination, as students first must pass the written part to be eligible for the oral part.
Based on the RPL assessors’ perceptions of the first semester of the new RPL examinations for EAP, students who take part appear more conscious of how their skills and abilities match the required learning outcomes and therefore provide better candidates for passing the examinations. Students have also indicated they appreciate the more flexible time and location options for the examinations, although suggestions have already been made to make the RPL examinations fully digital, so that the oral components of each examination could also be performed and assessed through online methods.
The next stage in the digitalisation process is the collection of student feedback on the new RPL system and its implementation. Since the recognition processes for non-formal and informal learning are inherently student- and learner-centric, it is crucial that the development of this process involves the students. A randomly selected group of students was already involved in testing the system in August 2019, and the feedback data collected in December 2019 and May 2020 will be analysed in a future study in order to provide a more complete picture of the results of the new digitalised RPL examinations for EAP.
5 Conclusions
The concepts of recognition and validation, and especially for non-formal and informal learning in the HE context, are still relatively novel, and their methods under-used and varied. Research on RPL in Finnish HE has so far concentrated mostly on formal learning and establishing systems for formal validation and accreditation, with limited attention to non-formal and informal learning, possibly partly due to the vast array of assessment methods. Therefore, more research on assessing non-formal and informal learning is essential, including the context of academic and professional language and communication proficiency.
The aim of this study was to describe the transition from a traditional RPL examination to a more digitalised one at the UEF Language Centre. Modern HE continues to evolve and thus methods and materials for teaching and assessment must be developed accordingly. University students are increasingly comfortable with the use of computers for their study purposes, and many may prefer the use of computers for their assessment (Saville 2017). Computer-based testing has also been argued to introduce a more efficient and secure assessment environment while enhancing the test-taking experience (Zou and Thomas 2019).
The use of more digital learning and assessment environments had already been suggested in previous studies regarding the RPL system at the UEF Language Centre (Tuomainen 2015; 2018). Therefore, the project to transition some EAP examinations to the EXAM electronic examination system was a logical progression, particularly considering the extensive distance learning student population at UEF (Ministry of Education and Culture 2014). With the new digital system we consider that the efficacy of RPL assessment has increased since the students’ self-assessment and self-reflection have a larger role in support of their prior learning and the methods used provide more flexibility and efficiency for both students and assessors.
A comprehensive and varied RPL process, even with examinations, can entice and engage students in the process of self-assessment and reflection regarding their non-formal and informal learning of EAP. An examination requires preparation and contemplation of skills in advance but also utilises the application of those skills and knowledge in the examination itself. From the RPL assessors’ viewpoint at least, the RPL examination system and its new more digital implementation appear to be a functional method of assessing the students’ non-formal and informal learning. However, the success or failure of the system is ultimately decided by the RPL participants, whose views and experiences of the new system will be collected next in this on-going project.
As this digitalisation project continues, further developmental work will be conducted to develop the RPL system at the UEF Language Centre. After this first stage with the new system, we hope to continue to improve the system into an even more functional and learner-friendly direction and extend the system to include more courses. In the current technology-enhanced and computer-assisted learning and assessment environments, both students and RPL assessors can benefit from more options, flexibility and convenience for the RPL assessment methods, locations, scheduling, assessment and feedback. We hope that through this systematic development process we can encourage the use of versatile and flexible teaching and assessment methods in language centres across the EHEA, develop university pedagogy and enhance opportunities for more fluent and continuous completion of HE studies. We also wish universities and university language centres across the EHEA will continue to support these efforts.
References
Adams Becker, Samantha, Michele Cummins, Annie Davis, Alex Freeman, C. Glesinger Hall & Vidya Ananthanarayanan. 2017. NMC horizon report: 2017 higher education edition. Austin: New Media Consortium.Search in Google Scholar
Airola, Anneli. 2012. AHOT-suositukset korkeakoulujen kieli- ja viestintäopintoihin. [RPL recommendations for the language and communication studies at HEIs.] In Anneli Airola & Heidi Hirvonen (eds.), Osaaminen näkyväksi: Kokemuksia osaamisen tunnistamisesta Itä-Suomen korkeakouluissa, 114–119. Joensuu: Publications of the University of Eastern Finland General Series 8.Search in Google Scholar
Andersson, Per. 2008. Recognition of prior learning as a technique of governing. In Andreas Fejes & Katherine Nicoll (eds.), Foucault and lifelong learning: Governing the subject, 126–137. London and New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Anttila, Harry, Kristina Granstedt-Ketola, Minna Hirvonen, Sinikka Karjalainen, Tiina Laulajainen & Ulla Lautiainen (eds.). 2014. Benchmarking good AHOT practices in Finnish language centres – English exemption tests: The Network for Finnish University Language Centres. https://users.utu.fi/micnel/AHOT_engl.pdf (accessed 11 November 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Berman, Naomi. 2020. A critical examination of informal learning spaces. Higher Education Research and Development 39(1). 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1670147.Search in Google Scholar
Billett, Stephen. 2010. Lifelong learning and self: Work, subjectivity and learning. Studies in Continuing Education 32(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370903534223.Search in Google Scholar
Bohlinger, Sandra. 2017. Comparing recognition of prior learning (RPL) across countries. In Martin Mulder (ed.), Competence-based vocational and professional education, 589–606. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_27Search in Google Scholar
Brantmeier, Cindy, Robert Vanderplank & Michael Strube. 2012. What about me? Individual self-assessment by skill and level of language instruction. System 40(1). 144–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.01.003.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Eleanor J., Lynda Dunlop & Jayme Scally. 2020. ‘It’s about not achieving the outcomes that you necessarily expected’: Non-formal learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education 25(1). 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1541880.Search in Google Scholar
Browning, Kimberley Faye. 2018. Faculty perceptions of prior learning assessment and recognition: A university case study. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Cedefop. 2014. Terminology of European education and training policy, 2nd edn. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/4117_en.pdf (accessed 13 May 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Cedefop. 2015. European guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/3073_en.pdf (accessed 6 November 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Chisvert-Tarazona, María José, Alicia Ros-Garrido, Míriam Abiétar-López & Luis Carro. 2019. Context of validation of non-formal and informal learning in Spain: A comprehensive view. International Journal of Lifelong Education 38(2). 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2019.1582563.Search in Google Scholar
Colardyn, Danielle & Jens Bjørnåvold. 2005. The learning continuity: European inventory on validating non-formal and informal learning. Cedefop Panorama series 117. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Search in Google Scholar
Cordova, Jacqueline R., Gale M. Sinatra, Suzanne H. Jones, Gita Taasoobshirazi & Doug Lobardi. 2014. Confidence in prior knowledge, self-efficacy, interest and prior knowledge: Influences on conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology 39(2). 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.006.Search in Google Scholar
Council of the European Union. 2012. Council recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012H1222(01)&qid=1428241058816&from=EN (accessed 12 November 2019).Search in Google Scholar
DigiCampus. 2019. DigiCampus project website. https://info.digicampus.fi/?lang=en (accessed 20 November 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Dolgova, Natalia & Megan Siczek. 2019. Assessment from the ground up: Developing and validating a usage-based diagnostic assessment procedure in a graduate EAP context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41: 100771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100771.Search in Google Scholar
Douglas, Dan. 2013. ESP and assessment. In Brian Paltridge & Sue Starfield (eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes, 367–383. Malden: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118339855.ch19Search in Google Scholar
Dressman, Mark & Randall William Sadler (eds.). 2020. The handbook of informal language learning. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781119472384Search in Google Scholar
Duvekot, Ruud. 2014. Breaking ground for validation of prior learning in lifelong learning strategies. In Ruud Duvekot, Bénédicte Halba, Kirsten Aagaard, Sergij Gabršček & Jane Murray (eds.), The power of VPL: Validation of prior learning as a multi-targeted approach for access to learning opportunities for all, 21–38. Vught: Inholland University AS & European Centre Valuation Prior Learning.Search in Google Scholar
Duvekot, Ruud, Dae Joong Kang & Jane Murray (eds.). 2014. Linkages of VPL: Validation of prior learning as a multi-targeted approach for maximising learning opportunities for all. Vught: European Centre for Valuation of Prior Learning.Search in Google Scholar
European Commission. 2001. Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality. Communiqué 678. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Search in Google Scholar
European Commission. 2012. Council recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012PC0485&from=en (accessed 6 November 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Norman. 2006. Recognition, assessment and accreditation of prior experiential learning: Background and constituencies. In Consuelo Corradi, Norman Evans & Aune Valk (eds.), Recognising experiential learning: Practices in European universities, 17–36. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Everhard, Carol J. 2015. The assessment-autonomy relationship. In Carol J. Everhard & Linda Murphy (eds.), Assessment and autonomy in language learning, 8–34. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137414380_2Search in Google Scholar
EXAM Consortium. 2019. EXAM – Electronic exam software for higher education. https://e-exam.fi/in-english/ (accessed 20 November 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Finnish University Rectors’ Council and the Rectors’ Conference of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences. 2009. Oppimisesta osaamiseen: Aikaisemmin hankitun osaamisen tunnistaminen ja tunnustaminen. [From learning to knowing: The recognition of prior learning.] Committee report 2009.Search in Google Scholar
Government Decree on University Degrees 794/2004. https://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2004/en20040794.pdf (accessed 13 May 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Green, Anthony. 2014. Exploring language assessment and testing. London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315889627Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Judy. 2018. Prior learning assessment: Does Dewey’s theory offer insight? New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2018(158). 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20281.Search in Google Scholar
Hamer, Jen. 2013. Love, rights and solidarity in the recognition of prior learning (RPL). International Journal of Lifelong Education 32(4). 481–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2013.778074.Search in Google Scholar
Hult, Åsa & Per Andersson. 2008. Validation in the Nordic countries: Policy and practice. Nordiskt Nätverk för Vuxnas Lärande NVL.Search in Google Scholar
Joosten-ten Brinke, Desirée, Dominiqué M. A. Sluijsmans & Wim M. G. Jochems. 2009. Quality of assessment of prior learning (APL) in university programmes: Perceptions of candidates, tutors and assessors. Studies in Continuing Education 31(1). 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370902741894.Search in Google Scholar
Lepänjuuri, Aino & Eila Burns. 2014. From confusion to clarity: Personal perspectives on validation of prior learning (VPL) in the context of Finnish higher education. In Ruud Duvekot, Bénédicte Halba, Kirsten Aagaard, Sergij Gabršček & Jane Murray (eds.), The power of VPL: Validation of prior learning as a multi-targeted approach for access to learning opportunities for all, 181–188. Vught: Inholland University AS & European Centre Valuation Prior Learning.Search in Google Scholar
Mäkinen-Streng, Mirka, Kristiina Ojala & Nina Haltia. 2017. Acknowledging previously acquired learning and skills – Prevalence, practices and experiences related to the recognition of prior learning (RPL) in higher education studies. Helsinki: Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture. Finland 2017:35.Search in Google Scholar
Mikkola, Pia & Petri Haltia. 2019. Aiemmin hankitun osaamisen tunnustaminen korkeakouluissa. [The recognition of prior learning in higher education institutions.] Helsinki: Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö 2019. https://minedu.fi/documents/1410845/5217581/Selvitys+aiemmin+hankitun+osaamisen+tunnustamisen+ja+tunnistamisen+periaatteista+ja+k%C3%A4yt%C3%A4nteist%C3%A4+korkeakouluissa+(31.5.2019) (accessed 06 November 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland. 2013. Monipuoliset ja sujuvat opintopolut. [Versatile and fluent study paths.] Helsinki: Reports of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2013 (2). https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-200-5 (accessed 11 November 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Ministry of Education and Culture. 2014. Opiskelijatutkimus 2014: Korkeakouluopiskelijoiden toimeentulo ja opiskelu. [Student survey 2014: Higher education students’ income and studies.] Helsinki: Reports of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2014:10.Search in Google Scholar
Ministry of Education and Culture. 2018. Maailman osaavimmaksi kansaksi: Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön tulevaisuuskatsaus 2018. [Towards being the most knowledgeable nation in the world: The future report 2014 of the Ministry of Education and Culture.] Helsinki: Reports of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 21. 2018.Search in Google Scholar
Niemi, Hannele, Jari Multisilta, Lasse Lipponen & Marianne Vivitsou. 2014. Finnish innovations and technologies in schools: A guide towards new ecosystems of learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.10.1007/978-94-6209-749-0Search in Google Scholar
Pilkington, Diane, Jaana Suviniitty & Tomi Kauppinen. 2019. Recognition of prior learning of English: Test or assess? Language Learning in Higher Education 9(2). 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2019-0015.Search in Google Scholar
Pokorny, Helen & Ruth Whittaker. 2014. Exploring the learning experience of RPL. In Judy Harris, Christine Wihak & Joy Van Kleef (eds.), Handbook of the recognition of prior learning: Research into practice, 259–283. Leicester: NIACE.Search in Google Scholar
RPL in Higher Education (Finland) project. 2011. Kielten ja viestinnän työryhmän suositukset. [Recommendations from the working group for languages and communication.] https://www.tunnistaosaaminen.fi/sites/default/files/liitteet/kielet_ja_viestinta.pdf (accessed 11 November 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Saville, Nick. 2017. Digital assessment. In Michael Carrier, Ryan M. Damerow & Kathleen M. Bailey (eds.), Digital language learning and teaching: Research, theory and practice, 198–207. London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315523293-17Search in Google Scholar
Shohamy, Elana. 2007. Language tests as language policy tools. Assessment in Education 14(1). 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701272948.Search in Google Scholar
Schmidgall, Jonathan E. & Donald E. Powers. 2017. Technology and high-stakes language testing. In Carol A. Chapelle & Shannon Sauro (eds.), Handbook of technology and second language testing and learning, 317–331. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781118914069.ch21Search in Google Scholar
Snyman, Marici & Geesje van den Berg. 2018. The significance of the learner profile in recognition of prior learning. Adult Education Quarterly 68(1). 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713617731809.Search in Google Scholar
Travers, Nan & Judy Harris. 2014. Trends and issues in the professional development of RPL practitioners. In Judy Harris, Christine Wihak & Joy Van Kleef (eds.), Handbook of the recognition of prior learning: Research into practice, 233–258. Leicester: NIACE.Search in Google Scholar
Tuomainen, Satu. 2014. Using exemption examinations to assess Finnish business students’ non-formal and informal learning of ESP: A pilot study. Language Learning in Higher Education 4(1). 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2014-0003.Search in Google Scholar
Tuomainen, Satu. 2015. Recognition, assessment and student perceptions of non-formal and informal learning of English for specific purposes in a university context. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Tuomainen, Satu. 2018. Examination as the method in the recognition of prior language learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education 37(6). 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2018.1518346.Search in Google Scholar
UNESCO. 2012. UNESCO guidelines for the recognition, validation and accreditation of the outcomes of non-formal and informal learning. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.Search in Google Scholar
University of Eastern Finland Language Centre. 2016. Laatukäsikirja. [Quality manual.] https://www.uef.fi/documents/1253823/1253832/kielikeskuksen_laatukasikirja_1.0_9_27_2010.pdf/e58f4d8e-6807-4d2f-98bf-b5e16d9350ef (accessed 11 November 2019).Search in Google Scholar
University of Eastern Finland. 2018. UEF 2020: Strategic implementation programme 2018-2020. https://www.uef.fi/documents/10184/1819433/Strategic_Implementation_Programme_2018-2020.pdf (accessed 12 November 2019).Search in Google Scholar
University of Eastern Finland. 2019. Uusia opetuksen kehittämishankkeita Itä-Suomen yliopistoon. [New development projects for teaching at the University of Eastern Finland.] https://www.uef.fi/-/uusia-opetuksen-kehittamishankkeita-ita-suomen-yliopistoon (accessed 20 November 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Ursin, Jani. 2019. Student engagement in Finnish higher education: Conflicting realities? In Masahiro Tanaka (ed.), Student engagement and quality assurance in higher education, 24–34. London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780429025648-3Search in Google Scholar
Vahed, Sharareh Taghizadeh & Sayyed Mohammed Alavi. 2019. The role of discipline-related knowledge and test task objectivity in assessing reading for academic purposes. Language Assessment Quarterly 2019 (online), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1666848.Search in Google Scholar
Van Kleef, Joy. 2014. Adopting practical strategies to enhance quality in validation of prior learning. In Ruud Duvekot, Dae Joong Kang & Jane Murray (eds.), Linkages of VPL: Validation of prior learning as a multi-targeted approach for maximising learning opportunities for all, 21–36. Vught: European Centre for Valuation of Prior Learning.Search in Google Scholar
Wennberg, Mikko, Nita Korhonen & Marika Koramo. 2018. Impact evaluation of higher education reforms. Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2018: 33.Search in Google Scholar
Werquin, Patrick. 2010. Recognising non-formal and informal learning: Outcomes, policies and practices. Paris: OECD.10.1787/9789264063853-enSearch in Google Scholar
Zou, Bin & Michael Thomas. 2019. Recent developments in technology-enhanced and computer-assisted language learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.10.4018/978-1-7998-1282-1Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Annemari Heinonen and Satu Tuomainen, published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
