3. Evalua�on Terms of Reference
The purposes of the evaluation were, in summary:
1
2
To conduct a summative assessment of the project, evaluating its overall effectiveness, efficiency and impact, and to assess the sustainability of RPL operations in institutions post-project.
To review RPL practices across the EU and benchmark the effectiveness of practices in Ireland against those of other EU countries.
3
To capture key learnings and identify what RPL activities should be advanced to enhance accessibility and flexibility for learners and enterprise.
The external evaluation builds upon an earlier self-evaluation activity undertaken by the PMO. Key themes within the PMO’s self-evaluation included extending RPL practice, sustaining momentum, the experience of implementation and project impact (PMO, 2024).
It is noted that a mid-term review of all HCI Pillar 3 funded projects was carried out in 2023. As the projects were at an earlier stage the focus of that review was the project’s initial aims and progress. This included consideration of project implementation, management, and alignment with government strategies and impact. The mid-term review concluded that the National RPL in HE project had been established successfully, with governance and project management structures created, and that overall delivery was on target. It was further noted in the mid-term report that the implementation of agreed governance and management structures coupled with the 0.5 FTE network leads situated in each HEI had provided a structure to support sectoral collaboration regarding RPL (Indecon 2023).
4. Evalua�on Design and Methods
The PMO utilised the CIPP Evaluation Model (Stu�lebeam, 2015) as a framework for its self-evaluation activity, encompassing context, input, process and product (impact). CIPP is predicated on a cooperative and participatory approach, in which the evaluators engage with stakeholders to secure their meaningful participation in the evaluation process, while maintaining an appropriate degree of independence.
The external evaluation facilitated a collaborative and participatory process for stakeholder input, validating aspects of the findings within the self-evaluation and undertaking additional data collection and analyses. The external evaluation also overlays additional conceptual distinctions associated with the theory of
change approach, utilising a Programme Logic Model (PLM)7. The PLM provides a useful framework for the visualisation of multifaceted elements and relationships within the project (see Section 8).
The external evaluation team considered a breadth of evidence provided by the PMO, including data, outputs reports, HCI reports, and examples (see section 4.1). This secondary data was triangulated by the evaluation team through direct engagements with stakeholders (see section 4.2) and audits of the publicly available policies, websites and programme information of the 14 project partner HEIs (see 4.3). In all evaluation activities and workstreams a minimum of two expert evaluators were involved. This facilitated a highlevel of inter-rater reliability, reducing potential subjectivity and bias.
7 PLMs are also well recognised tools used in programme and project evaluation by public sector stakeholders and funders (see, for example, the Government of Ireland’s Frameworks for Policy Planning and Evaluation).
4.1 Document Review
The evaluation team was provided with a substantive volume of documentation and associated data that was reflective of e�orts to track, monitor and report on activities carried out by the PMO and project partner HEIs throughout the lifespan of the project. It is noted that the project was ongoing at the time of the evaluation, with several reports and publications created and made available to the evaluation team by the PMO as they were generated. These sources of evidence are referenced throughout this report and data derived from the project’s outputs reports is reproduced where appropriate. A full list of the documentation and data provided by the PMO is available in Appendix I.
4.2 Stakeholder Perspec�ves
The evaluation team engaged with a breadth of stakeholders over a four-month period spanning November 2024 –February 2025. The matrix in Table 2 provides a summary of the methods used to obtain input and perspectives from the key stakeholder groups.
All interviews and focus groups were facilitated online. Participants were made aware the conversations were not video or audio recorded, but that detailed notes would be taken. An introduction to the project team was provided at each interview as well as information around the purpose and format of the discussion, confidentiality and process. Opportunities for the submission of additional feedback or comments via email were provided to all participants.
4.2.1 Design Thinking Workshop
Early in the evaluation process, an inperson workshop was facilitated for RPL Network Leads, the RPL PMO sta� and interested members of the project steering group. The workshop took place on November 27 on TU Dublin’s Grangegorman campus. The event was embedded in the agenda of a pre-planned network lead meeting and delivered over a period of three hours.
The workshop utilised Lego Serious Play and elicited individual as well as shared reflections and narratives, promoting exchange and negotiation of perspectives among participants. An explicit emphasis
Table 2: Summary of Methods for Obtaining Key Stakeholder Input
Meetings Workshop Interviews Focus Groups Surveys
on blockers, enablers and visualising a well-functioning RPL ecosystem within an institutional setting underpinned the workshop activities. Outputs from the workshop provide triangulation of perspectives gleaned from individual interviews with key stakeholders and the self-evaluation undertaken by the PMO in 2024. Outputs were captured on Padlet as well as through text and audiovisual notes for later review by the evaluation team.
4.2.2
Project Management Office
The evaluation team carried out individual interviews with all four members of the PMO, including the director who was in situ from March 2021 and departed at the end of November 2024. The evaluation team also engaged directly with the subsequent post holder in a series of meetings. Questions were specific to the roles held by each PMO member.
4.2.3 Project Partner Ins�tu�on Senior Leaders
A total of 12 senior leaders attended interviews with the evaluation team. Questions explored the roles of senior leaders in their respective organisations, how RPL aligns with their institution’s strategic priorities and objectives, how well established RPL practice was within their institution, where challenges were perceived in relation to further embedding (if any), and lastly whether their institution had been able to develop an understanding of the costs and resource requirements associated with embedding RPL.
4.2.4 Project Leads
Project leads were invited to participate in individual online interviews with representatives of the evaluation team.
Interviews were conducted with 16 project leads8 , representing all 14 HEIs. Questions explored the roles the individual project leads held in relation to RPL in their organisations, their perceptions of how well established or embedded RPL practice was in their institution, uptake of sta� development activities, engagement with employers to open up new upskilling and reskilling opportunities for workers, and perceptions of the costs and resource requirements associated with embedding RPL in their institution following completion of the project.
4.2.5 Academic Staff and RPL Prac��oners
The evaluation team sought to engage with academic sta�, who play an important role in assessing RPL applications. A small group interview was arranged with two academic sta� members from one HEI and the project lead situated in the institution. However, access to academic sta� was not consistently available in all HEIs. Following discussions with the PMO, it was agreed that the perspectives of academic sta� and RPL practitioners could be additionally captured via a survey distributed to past participants of the RPL Digital Badge. A total of 59 survey submissions were received. Thirty-two respondents self-identified as academic post holders (teaching and/or research) while a further 34 respondents identified as RPL practitioners holding other roles within and external to the project partner
HEIs, including 27 professional sta� (administrative, quality or support) and 5 sta� working in leadership or management. An additional two responses
8 In one instance, the RPL Network Lead was not in post at the �me of the evalua�on due to scheduled leave arrangements. In another instance, the RPL Network Lead was new to post and unable to speak to the interview themes.
were received to a version of the survey created for academic sta� who had not participated in the badge. Questions explored what forms of professional development support and/or training in RPL practice the respondents had participated in during the past three years (in addition to the RPL Digital Badge) and perceived gains and challenges in engaging in professional development for RPL practitioners.
4.2.6
Learners
Project Leads were asked for their assistance in reaching out to learners with an invitation to participate in focus groups, interviews and surveys as part of the evaluation process. Substantial e�orts were made to ensure that the evaluation was informed by learners who had availed of RPL processes as individuals as well as in the context of an enterprise or discipline specific cohort.
In total, five individual learners that had availed of RPL participated in online focus groups while a further four engaged via individual online interviews. In both instances, the questions were provided in advance. The questions explored the following themes:
• How the learner became aware of the opportunity to use the RPL process.
• The learners’ experience of the RPL process (how clear, easy or challenging they found it).
• Any suggestions for improvement.
• The personal benefit learners experienced by availing of RPL.
In consultation with project leads, the evaluation team elicited the enterprise cohort RPL learner perspective via online
survey submissions from two distinct groups, one cohort enrolled in a TU and one cohort at a University. A total of five learners responded to the surveys, which elicited responses to questions aligned with the themes of the focus groups and interviews.
4.2.7 Enterprise Partners
The evaluation team liaised with project leads in order to invite input from enterprise partners. This was noted from the outset to be a challenging group to engage with as not all project leads acted as direct contacts for enterprise partners. Notably, a number of enterprise partners with experience of RPL had previously made substantial contributions to case studies and testimonials captured in various formats by the PMO.
Acknowledging this, the evaluation team drew upon these secondary sources as well as engaging directly with one enterprise representative who participated in an interview with the evaluation team. Additional perspective was obtained from Ibec, with two representatives engaging in an interview with the evaluation team.
4.2.8
Key Agencies and Stakeholders
The evaluation team also engaged directly with representatives of the HEA (the project funder), QQI, IUA and THEA to inform the evaluation. Input was obtained through individual and group interviews facilitated online.
4.2.9
Steering Group/Commi�ee
The lead and coordinating members of the evaluation team joined online meetings of the project steering group on several occasions throughout the evaluation.
Meetings provided opportunities to clarify and agree priorities for specific aspects of the evaluation, including the elicitation of focused institutional examples of resourcing for RPL (Section 6) as well as benchmarking of the Irish RPL context against European comparators (Section 7). Updates on the progress of the evaluation and preliminary findings were also shared by the evaluation team.
4.3 Policy, Website and Programme Informa�on Audits
Following review of work undertaken by the PMO and consultation with PMO sta�, the evaluation team developed a process for auditing the internal RPL policies published by the project partner HEIs. This data provided validation of information collected by the PMO (documented in project outputs reports) regarding the update and publication of RPL policies by the project partner HEIs during the project. However, it also provided further insight into the extent to which those policies indicated consistency across the sector.
A similar process was developed to facilitate auditing of general communication about RPL via project partner HEI websites and the extent to which RPL information was visible in published programme information, which was randomly sampled at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. All audits were carried out across the period December 2024 - January 2025. Outcomes were shared with the PMO and informed discussion pertaining to the first of the projects’ three objectives, which was to conduct a summative assessment of the project, evaluating its overall e�ectiveness, e�iciency and impact, and to assess the sustainability of RPL operations in institutions following the conclusion of the
project. Findings from the audit process are summarised and discussed in Section 5.3 of this report.
4.2 Limita�ons
The objectives of the project were focused on further realising the potential of RPL in Irish higher education. However, RPL was already practised (in various forms and to varying extents) by some of the project partner HEIs prior to the project’s initiation. This means that it was at times di�icult for the evaluation team to discern whether an activity or output is attributable to the project or may have occurred independently. In some instances, the PMO and other stakeholders clearly identified that particular activities preceded the project or were enabled by core/alternative funding streams. However, communications and marketing work undertaken within the project subsequently raised the visibility of those activities, facilitating valuable peer learning and awareness raising. As a result, clear cut delineations between ‘project’ and ‘non-project’ RPL activity are not always possible or meaningful.
4.3 Project Partner Data
In this report, information referencing work within individual HEIs, including outputs and audit data, local activities and practice case studies, is de-identified. This is because the focus of this evaluation is the extent to which the national rather than institutional project objectives have been achieved. The achievements of individual HEIs should only be considered in the fuller context of the profile, mission and strategic priorities of those institutions.
However, the diversity across the 14 project partner HEIs is a recurring theme within the data collected and reviewed by the evaluation team. In many instances, stakeholders, including senior leaders, identified that the profile and priorities of their institution directly impacted (both negatively and positively) capacity to progress project objectives locally. It is noted that a degree of variance in project outputs across the partner network was anticipated from the outset, with the funding proposal acknowledging that the starting point for each HEI would vary, and that the project would therefore seek to extend what had already been achieved in HE, whilst enabling HEIs to enhance their capacity to practice RPL within the context of their own missions and strategies.
The evaluation considers the impact of diversity across the sector on the achievement of project objectives. However, discussions are thematic and focus on the variables perceived to impact success in embedding RPL practice at institutional level rather than the institutions themselves. Two exceptions are noted to this overall approach:
Section 6 explores the resource implications of RPL practice for HEIs, which is a recurring theme in stakeholder input to the evaluation. To inform this
discussion, the responses of four HEIs to a series of focused questions about how their institution distributes and manages responsibility for RPL are juxtaposed. Contributions were purposefully sought from the four institutions that had variable profiles of maturity surrounding RPL practice prior to the project’s initiation. These contributions have been deidentified in keeping with the thematic discussions throughout the report, and to maintain a focus on the resourcing models rather than institutional identities. However, it is acknowledged that project stakeholders and those familiar with the Irish higher education sector may find these examples identifiable.
Throughout this report the evaluation team have included illustrative links to published case studies, RPL stories and project materials. These identify and showcase the activities of individual HEIs, via materials that are already in the public domain, exemplifying work undertaken during the project to disseminate and communicate RPL information. The inclusion or omission of material representing particular HEIs within these links is incidental and does not reflect or imply any views on the achievement of individual HEIs by the evaluation team.
5.1 Work Package 1 Governance and Management
5. Implementa�on of Project Work Packages
The self-evaluation report prepared by the PMO in 2024 describes 33 interventions, initiatives and activities undertaken up to that point, identifying the work packages to which they were linked and their status at time of publication.
The interdependent nature of the seven work packages identified in the HCI funding application and discussed in the self-evaluation report means that they should not be considered discrete.
Acknowledging the overlap of activities and outputs across the work packages, they nonetheless provide a useful structure for summary discussion of the project’s implementation throughout this section.
The National RPL in HE Project represented an unprecedented level of sector wide collaboration to progress a set of common objectives. The governance of the project and the experience of managing and distributing responsibilities, progressing project objectives and monitoring progress across the project partner HEIs has therefore provided valuable opportunities for learning that may inform future sector wide initiatives.
5.1.1 Governance
As noted in Section 1.2, two representative bodies, THEA and the IUA, served as cosponsors of the project. Registrars from THEA and IUA member institutions as well as the registrar of a partner HEI that was not a member of the THEA or IUA networks, have been regularly briefed on project progress by the PMO and via the IUA and
THEA steering group representatives. Registrars have retained overall governance oversight of the project.
An interim steering group was convened by the project director in March 2021, later transitioning to a more permanent steering group comprising representation from THEA, IUA, several of the project partner HEIs and national and international RPL experts. The role of steering group Chair has rotated between IUA and THEA nominees. Subgroups were also established under the overall steering group to progress specific areas of work, while working groups were established across the Project Lead network to focus on particular activities.
Acknowledging the significant competing demands for attention across the sector during the project (see Section 2.2), it was identified by stakeholders participating in interviews with the evaluation team that bringing decision-makers together to
obtain approvals for key outputs such as the pilot framework (see Section 5.5) was challenging. It may be of value to embed the capacity to approve material via digital circulation/email in exceptional circumstances within the Terms of Reference of project steering groups and oversight bodies.
A potential learning is that projects of this nature require a commitment from all senior leaders providing oversight to meet and engage as a unified body at key junctures. That commitment would support the exercise of oversight and promote alignment around key objectives as well as more e�iciently progressing decision-making.
Figure 1: National RPL in HE Project Governance and Management Structures. Reproduced from the Self-evaluation Report of the PMO (2024)
5.1.2 Project Design and Objectives
The project’s funding application outlined the broad objectives and scope intended. However, project stakeholders identified in interviews with the evaluation team that the relatively short timeline available to prepare the funding application meant aspects of the proposal remained open to variable interpretation by the project partner HEIs. Members of the PMO confirmed that a more focused project
design and objectives emerged following a period of research and analysis undertaken during the first year of the project and post establishment of project governance and management structures. The project establishment timelines in Table 3, recreated from the self-evaluation report produced by the PMO in 2024, provide a useful overview of progress during this phase.
Timelines
September 2020
October 2020
December 2020
December 2020
June 2021
March – June 2021
March 2021
March – June 2021
March – June 2021
May & June 2021
June 2021
June 2021
March – June 2021
June, September, October 2021
September & October 2021
November 2021
December 2021, February & April 2022
February 2022
November 2021, February, March, April 2022
Activity
Announcement of approval of project
Proto-Steering Group established
RPL Project Manager appointed, took up position March 2012
Project briefing for 19 HEI leads
Research O�icer recruited & appointed, took up position
September 2021
Signing of MoA between HEIs & IT Carlow
Establishment of the Project Steering Group
Registrars Oversight - Meetings with IUA & THEA Registrars
Establishment of the Project Network appointment of four project leads incl. UCC, MTU x 2, IADT
3 meetings of the project network
Development of the Project Roadmap
Brand Identity Development
Bi-lateral meetings with HEIs; Enterprise partners and Project Stakeholders
Meetings of the Network
Registrars Oversight – Meetings with IUA & THEA Registrars
9 additional project leads in post, bringing the network to 13; a further 2 project leads appointed; selection process in place in 2 HEIs; process not started in 2 HEIs
Meetings of Project Steering Group
Registrars Oversight – Meetings with IUA& THEA Registrars
18 project leads in place; some HEIs have chosen to create greater-than-half-time positions; four meetings
Table 3: Na�onal RPL in HE Project Establishment Timelines. Reproduced from the Self-evalua�on Report of the PMO (2024)
A ‘Visioning Workshop’ was facilitated in April 2021 in cooperation with the Maynooth University Innovation Lab (Mi: Lab). The workshop was attended by steering group members as well as learner and enterprise representatives and was intended to create a vision statement for the project, align participants and share analysis of the blockers and enablers of progressing RPL in HEIs. The workshop delivered three prototype statements which were presented to the project steering group, resulting in the selection of a working vision statement and set of guiding values in May 2021.
There is good evidence across the documentation reviewed that the outputs from the Visioning Workshop and subsequent process of analysis and research (see Section 5.2) provided clarity and baseline understandings that informed subsequent activities. The importance of the establishing phase of the project was also reinforced in interviews with key stakeholders. However, this was also noted to create challenges in relation to expectations surrounding project finances and spending
A potential learning is that projects of this nature, which have the potential to foster national alignment in areas of practice considered to be strategically important, could usefully be allocated longer lead times for applications. Alternatively, future proposals could be advised to anticipate the need for an establishing phase and be supported to action this prior to full deployment of project resources.
5.1.3 Management of Resources (including Human Resources)
The project director commenced in March 2021. According to documentation reviewed by the evaluation team, over the project lifespan, the central PMO expanded to include a head of sta� development, a project liaison o�icer and a communications and engagement specialist (later replaced by a digital engagement and communications o�icer).
A head of RPL research and development was also in post from November 2021December 2022, reflecting the focus on research and analysis during the initial phase of the project (see Section 5.2). All current members of the PMO have served as direct informants to the evaluation, participating in interviews with the evaluation team in addition to facilitating the provision of relevant background information, documentation and data.
A Memorandum of Agreement was developed to facilitate distribution of project funding to participating HEIs via what was formerly Institute of Technology Carlow (now SETU) as the HEI responsible for leading on this aspect of the project’s administration (HCI Pillar 3 Progress Report 2, 2021). A total of 18 project leads were appointed, some on an interim basis, with all project partner HEIs appointing long-term project leads by mid-2022 (HCI Pillar 3 Report, June 2022). The project leads, supported by their registrars, worked to implement project objectives through their internal structures during the project lifespan and have been key informants to this external evaluation. A template job specification was circulated to the partner HEI network to support the recruitment process, and the project director supported this activity by participating in selection boards. As may be expected, some changeover of
personnel occurred across the project lifetime. In the course of the evaluation, members of the evaluation team met with project leads who had been in post since the early stages of the project as well as some that had been appointed very recently to the role. All project lead roles were due to conclude in March 2025.
A range of stakeholders commented on the variable ways in which project leads were deployed within the project partner HEIs. It was noted that challenges were frequently encountered in HEIs where the role was positioned in administrative areas, as much of the work to be progressed was academic in nature or required influencing the behaviour of academic sta�. Various project leads reported that they were not senior enough within their institutions to easily progress, for example, the development and consultation of new or revised RPL policies. Inputs from both the PMO and project leads to the evaluation also identified that the positioning of project leads within HEIs typically did not facilitate engagement with enterprise partners (see Section 5.4). Finally, where roles were filled via 0.5 FTE secondments rather than new appointments, the extent to which project leads were able to clearly delineate and protect time for progressing project activities was also noted to vary.
“I was asked to do it alongside my other duties. That has disadvantaged me in terms of the time commitment I can give to the role” (Project lead)
“I was located in admissions. I’m not sure that’s the best place for this role” (Project lead)
The variability in how project leads were deployed locally is reflected in the diverse focus of their activities within the HCI Pillar 3 Reports submitted by the PMO. For example, Report 8 (June 2024) indicated that three project leads had been working on implementing coherence and consistency for RPL activity across their institutions while two others were focused on enhancing admissions and student registration systems. One project lead was reported to have examined how RPL applications could be incorporated into the institution’s Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system to move away from manual recording of RPL applications, while another was reported to have implemented a 1:1 sta� and student engagement process to support RPL applicants.
A high degree of autonomy was also retained by individual HEIs surrounding the appointment, positioning and activities of project leads. One advantage of this is that the roles could be integrated into HEIs in what were considered locally appropriate ways. Autonomy can also be seen as conducive to local innovation. This is reflected in the self-evaluation report produced by the PMO in 2024, which included reporting from project leads on ‘doing things others may not have done’, identifying initiatives progressed under the auspices of the project that were considered unique to a particular HEI.
Key stakeholders making input to the evaluation reflected that balancing local autonomy within HEIs with consistency surrounding agreed outputs or objectives was a challenge for the project. This was visible to the evaluation team in activities discussed under project monitoring and reporting.
A potential learning for nationally scoped projects in future may be that additional parameters (for example, the level and location of project leads) should be agreed with project partners prior to project lead appointments. A better balance could be achieved between on the one hand, facilitating autonomy and appropriate integration with local structures, and on the other, ensuring funded project sta� across the partner network will be appropriately enabled to progress project objectives.
5.1.4 Monitoring and Repor�ng
The evaluation team reviewed a breadth of reports coordinated and prepared by members of the PMO as well as project leads. These included individual HEI Action Plans, HCI Pillar 3 reports to the HEA, Outputs Reports and a self-evaluation report prepared by the PMO in 2024.
Input from stakeholders confirmed that the approach to monitoring and reporting evolved over time during the project lifetime. Following a period of research and analysis (see Section 5.2) action plan templates covering 13 action areas were developed by the PMO in consultation with project leads. Individual HEI action plans were subsequently developed by the relevant project lead in consultation with relevant institutional stakeholders and committees and signed o� by the Registrar or equivalent senior leader. The development of the HEI Action Plans enabled locally appropriate goal setting to be formalised early in the
Figure 2: Na�onal RPL in HE Project Ini�a�ves in Individual HEIs. Reproduced from the Selfevalua�on Report of the PMO (2024)
project. However, challenges were observed in embedding clarity and accountability in individual action plans, despite the provision of guidance on using SMART goals (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound), identifying responsible persons and identifying key performance indicators. A concern raised by stakeholders was that self-reporting on variable indicators did not provide a clear or evidence-based view of individual or collective achievement enabled by the project.
The HCI reports e�ectively capture the narrative of progress across the project’s work packages over time. However, they were noted to also be primarily based on self-reported activity by project stakeholders. Although some overlap between the HCI Pillar 3 reports and Outputs Reports was observable, the latter were more quantitative and provide a fuller picture of progress within individual HEIs, as well as collectively, at sectoral level.
A potential learning from the project was that longer lead times may be needed to return HCI Pillar 3 (or equivalent) reports in projects of this nature, which feature highly distributed accountabilities. Project stakeholders identified that the current timeframes were not feasible, as information requests needed to be disseminated to the 14 project partners after reporting requests were received and subsequently returned for collation and analysis prior to submission.
It was also noted that the initiation of a financial auditing process may not have taken account of or had a full understanding of the structures and systems within HEIs or the scope of the
project, creating subsequent frustrations. The auditing process initially resulted in 48 open observations, of which 37 were later closed with support from the PMO.
A potential learning from the project was that future sector wide projects may benefit from establishing finance o�ice contacts within HEIs from the outset. Reflections from the PMO indicated that small changes to the financial auditing process in terms of communication, document storage and file sharing could facilitate significant enhancements, reducing associated workload.
5.2 Work Package 2 Research & Analysis
User-experience research undertaken by Mi:Lab in consultation with the PMO focused on provision of human-centred insights and was documented in the RPL Service Mapping and Solution Co-Creation Book of Discovery (October 2022). This report outlined the design thinking process that was followed.
Although three project partner HEIs were audited within the Mi:Lab process, a subsequent period of research and analysis saw participation by all partner HEIs in two detailed surveys, which facilitated an institutional audit and review process to map existing RPL policies, practices, systems and data. This work informed the development of a project roadmap and established a baseline for RPL practice within each HEI, which would subsequently inform project activities by providing information about the level of preparedness and support needs across the partner HEI network. It also provided a
sectoral picture to inform benchmarking by individual HEIs and informed the development of the individual HEI action plans (see Section 5.1.4). The HCI Pillar 3 Report 4 (June 2022) indicated that a complete report on the findings was shared with project stakeholders and that key findings were presented to Registrars in February 2022.
The evaluation team notes that the early research and analysis activity undertaken by the PMO and RPL Network Leads was e�ective in providing an understanding of what the baseline was for RPL practice across the project partner HEIs. This information served to inform and provide an evidence base for subsequent project activities.
5.2.1 Technical (Data) Defini�on of RPL in Higher Educa�on Although not reported on under Work Package 2 by the PMO, the development of the Technical (Data) Definition was an important achievement for the project that is essential to the sector’s future analysis and research capacity surrounding RPL.
The HCI funding proposal for the project noted that the lack of reliable data on RPL in Ireland was a challenge that the project would help to resolve, both for HEIs and nationally. The lack of consistency in data collection and reporting on RPL across the project partner network was confirmed in a survey carried out by the PMO in January 2022. HCI Pillar 3 reports indicate that a Data-collection Systems Development Subgroup was established to bring forward proposals on RPL data collection, analytics, and reporting in January 2022. The subgroup scoped options for greater coherence and consistency in RPL data, analytics and reporting and identified a
common technical definition as the most critical component of any potential action.
A particular achievement of the project is the subsequent agreement and embedding of a Technical (Data) Definition of RPL across the project partner HEIs. An agreed technical definition is essential to facilitate consistent data collection and reporting processes within HEI’s systems, to develop a sectoral baseline dataset for RPL activity and to subsequently provide evidence of the provision of RPL by HEIs and any expansion of this attributable to the project.
The Technical (Data) Definition of RPL was approved in principle by project partner HEIs in June 2022. Following this, a subset of project partner HEIs voluntarily tested the definition across SeptemberDecember 2022 to facilitate refinement and finalisation. The Data-collection Systems Development subgroup subsequently recommended initiation of a process to integrate the definition into operating systems (Banner, ITS and SITS) of the project partner HEIs. The Technical (Data) Definition of RPL provides a basis for better quality data capture and reporting on RPL in future.
The evaluation team heard consistently from project stakeholders that the agreement of the Technical (Data) Definition of RPL was an essential foundational piece of work and an important project milestone. It was also acknowledged that agreement of the technical definition was not an easy task, with di�erent philosophical positions to be acknowledged, including the view that RPL should be applied to experiential rather than certified learning.
Notably, a relevant submission was made by the PMO to the HEA’s consultation on the development of a new Student Record
System (SRS) in March 2024. The submission outlined limitations for RPL data capture in the current system, within which HEI’s can return data on RPL on an entry basis under a specific code (code 11)9. Currently, HEIs are required to complete entry basis information for fulltime undergraduate first-year enrolments, utilising one entry basis for each student only. The limitations of this current process in relation to RPL were set out in the submission, including:
• Reporting of entry bases under singular codes does not enable the capture of the multiple entry bases that may be used by learners. For example, learners progressing from Further Education and Training (FET) or mature learners may also be utilising RPL.
• The code does not capture RPL processes used for credit, exemptions, advanced entry or full awards, including those used by learners whose recorded entry basis was via a FET Award or as a mature learner.
• SRS data capture is currently focused on full-time undergraduate students. These programmes are less likely to be relevant to lifelong learners who may be utilising RPL to access postgraduate study, micro-credentials or special purpose awards.
9 The submission noted input from project partners indica�ng that many HEIs were repor�ng zero returns for code 11, sugges�ng this underrepresented RPL ac�vity.
A potential learning from the project is that with agreement reached on a technical definition across the sector, there is good potential for HEIs to provide more consistent and accurate information on RPL in reporting to the HEA within the new SRS if fields are developed to enable this.
The evaluation team has identified in a recommendation in Section 9 that statutory reporting on RPL be embedded within SRS to facilitate ongoing dialogue with and monitoring by the HEA.
5.3 Work Package 3 Capacity
Building Tools and Resources
5.3.1 Policy Development
Following the development of the Technical (Data) Definition of RPL (see Section 5.2.1) and Pilot Framework for RPL in HE (see Section 5.5), project leads began reporting on activity to develop, approve, or implement aligned RPL policies and procedures in their institutions.
By October 2024, 12 of the 14 project partner HEIs were reported to have approved new policies (Outputs Report 3, 2024). Two of those HEIs were reported to have approved their first RPL policy (HCI Pillar 3 Report 8, June 2024). Although challenges were indicated by some project leads in progressing policy development due to their role or location within the HEI (see also Section 5.1.3), inputs to the evaluation reflected that the establishment of consistent RPL policies across the sector was widely viewed as an important precursor to, and foundation for, consistent practice and implementation.
“When the policy is approved it will have a huge impact on how RPL is assessed. It will make units that don’t assess it yet look at how they do things” (Project lead)
“After we amalgamated, we had to develop one policy and procedure. We have that now, institution wide. It has been in play for at least one academic year. We are fortunate that we have that bedrock of how we can operationalise RPL” (Project lead)
The evaluation team undertook an independent audit of the published policies of the 14 project partner HEIs across December 2024 – January 2025. The criteria externally validated information contained in the Outputs Reports, which tracked and captured the progress of the project partner HEIs in
terms of updating, approving and publishing institutional RPL policies. However, the audit expanded on the information collected by the PMO, evaluating the degree of consistency observable within the documented policies of the project partner HEIs in relation to specific criteria.
Figure 3 summarises the findings from the audit, distinguishing between the Universities and TUs/IoTs). The findings reflect that policies were documented and published by all 14 project partner HEIs, with the scope of RPL permitted (admission, exemption or award) specified. They indicate that in almost all instances a definition of RPL is provided. However, greater variance is observable in findings against other criteria, including the extent to which the assessment process and potential outcomes are explained and the guidance and support available to applicants is detailed.
Figure 3: Summary Findings Evaluation Team Policy Audit
The variance in detail identified may reflect di�ering approaches to the articulation of policy, with some aspects of the process more fully explained in the associated procedures of some HEIs. Nonetheless, the outcomes of the audit indicate that the comprehensiveness of the information made available within policy documentation di�ers across the project partner network. Inputs to the evaluation from project leads reinforced that the e�ectiveness of policy depends on supporting processes and consistent implementation.
“There are policies and we are trying to write some procedures as the policies are high level... Some schools have their own procedure around documentation, some don’t” (Project lead)
“The policy is well established, but how well it is embedded in the departments is questionable” (Project lead)
“It’s there in writing but not in practice, it’s not enforced” (Project lead)
“A policy was written before and sat on a shelf but wasn’t put in practice” (Project lead)
5.3.2 Staff Training and Development
Developing the capacity of sta� to practice RPL is one of the three project objectives and an important enabler for the implementation of the RPL framework and associated institutional policies. An event publication prepared by the PMO RPL in 2025 Outcomes, Reflections and Next Steps stated that this objective was progressed nationally through the development of an RPL Toolkit (see Section 5.3.3) and delivery of the RPL Digital Badge. Engagement with the Digital Badge, which 4 cohorts have been facilitated to enrol on across 2023 – 2024, was tracked by the PMO. Figures provided by the PMO are reproduced iin Table 4 below.
RPL Digital Badge - Total Number of Badges Issued
Table 4: RPL Digital Badges Issued. Reproduced from the RPL in 2025 Outcomes, Reflec�ons and Next Steps Event Publica�on
The PMO additionally noted in inputs to the evaluation that meetings with the project leads had provided opportunities for training and capacity building across the project network, facilitating peer-to-peer learning opportunities within a community of practice.
Project leads have also provided and tracked local sta� development initiatives within project partner HEIs. These are summarised in Project Outputs Report 3 (December 2024), which confirmed that training was locally available within all 14 HEIs, with accredited training available in four institutions. Increases were noted in the number of HEIs o�ering discipline specific training, small group sessions and workshops. Six HEIs reported on a community of practice. This is significant, as it demonstrates that activities to develop sta� capacity have been progressed across all 14 project partner HEIs.
Notably, project reports and data as well as direct inputs to the evaluation by project leads indicate that there is a substantial variability in the approaches taken to sta� training and development within local HEIs. For example, HCI Pillar 3 Report 8 (June 2024) indicated that seven partners reported direct progress in sta� training and development, with six confirming sta� registration and completion of the RPL Digital Badge. One institution developed a micro-credential in RPL for tertiary education to be made available to sta� for continual professional development (CPD) while another reported developing an RPL clinic for sta� to provide guidance and advice on RPL implementation.
“I do a lot of one to ones to focus on the nitty gritty in practice ... a lot of learning takes place in that space as they can ask questions relevant to their own context” (Project lead)
“We would have assessors reach out, we deal with them as quickly as possible. We’ve had a lot of those. We try to pick up the rest with scheduled webinars” (Project lead)
The evaluation team acknowledge that, where it is not considered core to their role, HEI sta� may prefer to seek support in response to an immediate need to engage with an RPL process rather than proactively undertake professional development in RPL. Nonetheless, the further development of the RPL toolkit (see Section 5.3.3) and continued availability of the RPL Digital Badge will provide important self-access resources and opportunities for professional development, potentially reducing individual support needs.
In addition to reviewing data and information provided by the PMO on sta� development and training activities, the evaluation team was supported by the PMO to issue a survey to past participants of the RPL Digital Badge. The purpose of the survey was to understand what professional development opportunities for RPL the participants had engaged with (in addition to the badge). The survey also sought to identify what (if any) barriers the participants perceived to engagement in professional development and training opportunities.
In total, 59 survey submissions were received, with 32 respondents selfidentifying as academic post holders (teaching and/or research). Academic post holders most commonly reported that their role in relation to RPL entailed assessing applications (50%) or directly supporting applicants (31%), although a further 16% indicated that oversight of RPL policy and practice formed part of their role and 12.5% indicated that they also handled the administration of applications. Respondents to the survey were asked to identify what (if any) forms of professional development, support or training in RPL practice they had engaged with over the past three-year period. Across all responses ‘not applicable’ was the most common response (38%), followed by one-to-one support from a colleague (25%), workshops arranged by my institution (22%) and workshops arranged by another institution (22%). Open text responses included references to seminars, micro credential courses, and workshops within own faculty. The most common barriers that academic sta� identified to participating in professional development or training opportunities were time and workload. Other responses indicated lack of interest or support from management, lack of incentives and not being allocated time for training.
The particular importance of engaging academic sta� who may act as assessors of RPL applications in development and training activities was emphasised by multiple project stakeholders, many of whom reported encountering resistance or disinterest from some colleagues. This challenge is also reflected in the findings of a recent PhD study on RPL practice in Ireland, which identified cultural acceptance for RPL at national, institutional and individual sta� levels as the dominant challenge to RPL practice and implementation (Goggin 2024 p.182).
“Many may not be aware, and some are reluctant to embrace it” (Project lead)
“There are pockets where RPL would not have received the same level of support. I tried to reach out to those, but for a lot of areas they have enough applications already not to have to worry about student numbers” (Project lead)
“There is a communication issue, a tension between those who are committed and those who are not convinced. [It depends] which are in power in institutions” (Project stakeholder)
“In some schools it is well embedded and in one not so well, there is a lack of sta� buy in” (Project lead)
Notably, the perspectives of sta� who had not engaged with RPL development opportunities or RPL practice were not captured within the survey discussed above or represented in other inputs to this evaluation.
A potential learning from the project is that in order to increase capacity to implement RPL in HEIs, senior leaders may need to more actively encourage academic sta� and institutional stakeholders to engage. It may be necessary to reinforce the importance of RPL with Schools and Departments as well as at institutional and national levels.
5.3.3 RPL Toolkit
Following the development of the pilot Framework for RPL in Higher Education (see Section 5.5), the RPL Toolkit was created. The toolkit was intended to provide practical ‘how-to’ resources/tools in multimedia formats that had been co-created with the sector. The toolkit reviewed by the evaluation team sets out guidance for HEIs on the definition and scope of RPL, as well as factors to consider in implementing each of the five stages of the pilot framework. This includes consideration of how applicants may obtain information about RPL and how the RPL process works. Factors to consider for HEI sta� include whether the RPL policy includes guidance for learners, whether the programme entry criteria refer to RPL, and what information is available on the RPL webpage for learners and sta�.
Acknowledging the achievement represented in the existing toolkit, the evaluation team observed that there is scope to substantially expand this resource, which could usefully include additional (downloadable and customisable) templates, exemplars and selfaccess resources and incorporate more dynamic multimedia formats. At the time of writing, the evaluation team understood work in this area had already been progressed and would shortly be published.
The evaluation team undertook an audit to explore the extent to which the principles outlined in the toolkit were visibly applied on the websites of the project partner HEIs. As per the audit of HEI policies (see Section 5.3.1), the criteria externally validated information contained in the Outputs Reports which tracked and captured the progress of the project partner HEIs in terms of website communications. However, the website audit expanded somewhat on the information collected by the RPL PMO and included an assessment of website attributes as per Table 5.
5: Summary Findings Evalua�on Website Audit
Table
The findings confirm that project partner HEI RPL webpages have been established and that they consistently use inclusive, learner friendly language. However, the findings were more variable in relation to other criteria, including whether the webpages were easy to locate. The evaluation team classified webpages that required use of search functions internal to the HEI website, navigation through multiple pages or (in two instances) conducting a Google search for RPL with the name of the institution to find the webpage as ‘partially’.
A further audit was undertaken of the extent to which RPL featured in the programme information published on project partner HEI websites. The audit entailed random sampling of information provided for one undergraduate and one postgraduate programme per institution. Where RPL was mentioned within programme information, the evaluation team assessed the extent to which the information was easy to locate, defined, inclusive, explained the types of RPL applicable and provided links or contact information. An assessment was also made regarding the clarity of information pertaining to accepted evidence, assessment criteria, procedures and alignment with the HEI’s RPL policy.
TUs and IoTs
Programme Sampling
Table 6: Summary Findings Evalua�on Programme Informa�on Audit
Acknowledging limitations associated with the sample size, the findings from the audit summarised in Table 6 indicate that RPL was often not mentioned in programme information. Where the evaluation team identified the reference to RPL as partial, this reflected that information was locatable in an associated prospectus or that RPL could be inferred in information referring to entry requirements (for example, for mature learners) despite not being directly stated. This finding aligns with input to the evaluation from stakeholders including senior leaders, members of the PMO and project leads suggesting that although foundational work to establish definitions, frameworks and policies has been accomplished, there is work yet to be done on embedding RPL ‘on the ground’ at programme level and in learner facing information. Direct inputs to the evaluation from
learners who had availed of RPL also reinforced this.
“They didn't have a lot of info on it at the time, so I wasn't super aware of what it was” (Learner)
“At the time, it was like RPL info was on its own page on the site but not connected to the course” (Learner)
“I heard about it through a friend that did a similar path” (Learner)
Project partner institutions have also undertaken work to develop local toolkits.
The HCI Pillar 3 Report 8 (June 2024) indicates that three institutions referenced plans to develop or contribute to toolkits within their university, while a further ten reported progress on the development of information and repositories for sta�. It is noted that some of this activity is reported to be internally facing (for example, hosted on Moodle or SharePoint sites) and was thus necessarily excluded from the evaluation team’s audit of RPL information on project partner HEIs’ websites.
5.4 Work Package 4 RPL for Enterprise
Working with employers to open up new upskilling and reskilling opportunities for workers was one of the three project objectives. Pro-active engagement with enterprise was also highlighted in the HCI Pillar 3 funding application, which highlighted the opportunity to leverage RPL to facilitate up-/re-skilling opportunities.
Throughout the evaluation, stakeholders consistently stated that this objective and associated work package had proved the most challenging to progress, with substantial opportunities for learning indicated. This was particularly the case in the early phases of the project. It was widely acknowledged by stakeholders that the foundational work of establishing a baseline of activity, agreeing a technical definition (see Section 5.2.1) establishing a national framework (see Section 5.5) and updating the policies of HEIs needed to occur first. This provided the enabling conditions for subsequently promoting RPL to enterprise.
A potential learning from the project is that where foundational work is needed to develop sectoral frameworks or capacity within HEIs, it may be useful to clearly define this as a precursor to any outward or enterprise facing activity. This would potentially contribute to managing expectations from funders and other stakeholders regarding pace and outputs
Early activity under this Work Package produced three case studies of existing RPL practice, which were provided to the evaluation team for review.
• Case Study 1: SETU Carlow & Lloyds Pharmacy
• Case Study 2: MTU & the Atlantic Flight Training Academy (AFTA)
• Case Study 3: UCC & the Carbery Group
Although the activities documented in the case studies were not a direct output of the project, the production of the case
studies e�ectively leveraged their potential value for peer learning. The work to compile them has facilitated sharing of processes, challenges, critical success factors and key learnings, o�ering a valuable resource for informing future work.
The PMO produced an RPL for Enterprise Brochure which provides a high-level overview of what RPL is, how it can be used and potential benefits to employers. During the lifetime of the project, enterprise activity has been highlighted in further case studies and promotional resources have been produced and are hosted on the project’s YouTube channel and/or published on priorlearning.ie. These include:
• The Academic Programme Recognition for Industry Learners (APRIL) case study, which showcases work by ATU with Optum Ireland to enrol an enterprise cohort on a BSc in Applied Data Technologies.
• A partnership between Merit Medical Galway and ATU to enrol enterprise learners on a BSc in Quality for Industry, which is overviewed in a short video.
• The impact of ongoing work at SETU to work with the Defence Forces, which is overviewed in a short video and also captured in an RPL learner story
• A collaboration between MTU and Boston Scientific and a collaboration between UCC and Tirlán Ireland and Bailey’s Irish Cream, both of which are included in an RPL for Enterprise Booklet
At a national level, in March 2023 the project hosted an #RPLforEnterprise Think In event exploring how RPL might be used to deliver solutions for upskilling, reskilling, organisational development and talent retention. Project Outputs Report 3 (December 2024) indicated a range of activities being progressed within project partner HEIs to increase engagement with RPL by enterprise. Many of these activities remain focused on establishing opportunities, for example, increasing awareness of RPL among internal sta� or departments with enterprise touchpoints, holding information sessions for enterprise and engaging with enterprise bodies such as Skillnet and Regional Skills Fora. Six project leads reported that an active enterprise cohort was enrolled in their HEI.
Inputs to the evaluation from project stakeholders highlighted the interdependency of achieving the project’s enterprise focused objective and pre-existing institutional profiles in relation to enterprise engagement. Comments from senior leaders reflected a diversity of perspectives in terms of both opportunities and priorities in this area across the sector.
“The move to use RPL for upskilling and reskilling in companies has come out of this project, it’s not something we were doing. It has helped us to work closely with the Regional Skills Initiative and to link into companies through an existing network. That is where the project goes next, that is where the real value is for us. RPL is helpful in terms of upskilling and reskilling” (HEI Senior leader)
“We haven’t yet got individual industries coming with cohorts of people” (HEI Senior leader)
“Our view is that that objective didn’t align with our priorities with employers. It’s important to recognise work-based learning/RPL but we are not accrediting someone else’s learning” (HEI Senior leader)
“It’s easier with the cohort to RPL. It’s scalable, you are taking a set of criteria and applying that to an entire cohort” (HEI Senior leader)
A useful summary of RPL for Enterprise activity within the project, which acknowledges the inherent diversity of project partner HEIs and the impact this may have on achievement in this area, is included in the HEA’s project showcase webpage.
“There are currently ten RPL for Enterprise pilot projects in operation across nine institutional partners which aim to support the upskilling and reskilling of workers. Given the di�erent starting points in the participating HEIs, the pilots reflect the diversity of institutional contexts, as well as existing enterprise relationships, engagement and lifelong learning strategies. For example, some HEIs are in the initial preparatory stages of RPL for Enterprise, exploring current enterprise links, gauging potential demand and institutional capacity, whilst others are building on track records of success, forging new collaborations with enterprise partners or deepening existing ones. The sectors directly engaging with, or identified as having the potential to benefit from the pilots include Health & Social Work, Manufacturing, Construction, Public & Civil-Service Administration & Defence, Arts, Entertainment & Recreation and Information, Communication & Telecommunications.”
Extracted from the HEA website project showcase page
Project leads indicated, as per discussion in Section 5.1.3, that their roles within their institutions did not always enable them to make these connections, but also that where enterprise relationships were known, these did not always lend themselves to developing opportunities through RPL.
“We haven’t done anything in the employer space. That doesn’t mean the institution isn’t doing it, but it’s just not my role” (Project lead)
“We were trying to find where we had relationships with industry and found that really di�icult. We don’t have a centralised repository for enterprise activity (Project lead)
“Employer engagement for the bigger HEIs is di�icult. It’s complex, there are many touchpoints in an institution where engagement can take place, and one touchpoint may not know about others” (Project lead)
“We’re not in that position, we don’t have enterprise engagement. It was trying to force an agenda but there was no willingness to embrace it” (Project lead)
“It can be a challenge to make a connection with the right individuals in enterprise. Although we work with a number of employers, there is a narrow reason why we are doing that. There is a particular need and they are looking for support. But broadening that out into a scenario where the company will engage to progress a cohort of learners to progress study is di�icult” (Project lead)
A poten�al learning from the project is that enterprise rela�onships are dispersed across HEIs and may not be readily accessible to central project staff who are not already situated with access to those rela�onships. A precommitment to intrains�tu�onal coordina�on by all project partners may be beneficial for similarly scoped projects in future.
The evaluation team has identified in a recommendation in Section 9 that national coordination with employer representative organisations take place to develop a strategy to raise awareness of RPL and ensure the opportunities it presents are understood by enterprise.
5.5 Work Package 5 Create Na�onal Framework for RPL in Higher Educa�on
The development and agreement of the Pilot National Framework for RPL in HE responded to repeated calls for a framework that would facilitate greater coherence in practice across the sector (see Section 2.1). Alongside the Technical (Data) Definition of RPL, the framework is a particularly important output for the project and has facilitated a policy alignment process across the project partner HEIs.
The framework includes:
• A definition of RPL
• The two core values of learner-centredness and quality assurance
• The five stages of a typical RPL process
• Initial operational guidelines for assessing and communicating RPL
Figure 4: Five Stages of a Typical RPL Process. Reproduced from Pilot Na�onal Frameworks for RPL in HE Summary.
The framework is intended to foster shared understanding and a common language for RPL, support coherence and consistency and assist with mainstreaming and expanding RPL practice across the sector.
The PMO reported on the process of developing the framework in June 2022 as follows:
An early dra� of the Framework was prepared by the Framework WG, which was further developed by the Project Management Team and a three-person panel of RPL experts. An extensive consulta�on process ensued:
• Ins�tu�onal Reflec�on & Surveys, Literature Review, Nov 2021 – Jan 2022
• Concept scoping by the Framework WG (subgroup of the HEI Project Leads), Jan 2022
• Pilot Framework dra�ed, 2022
• Input from an RPL Expert Panel, March 2022
• Input from IUA & THEA Representa�ves, March 2022
• Workshop session with HEI Project Leads, April 2022
• Input from the RPL Steering Group, April 2022
• Consulta�on with QQI, April 2022
• Consulta�on with Partner HEIs, May 2022.
Extracted from: HCI Pillar 3 Report 4 (June 2022)
The framework aligns closely with those developed by European organisations and networks including Cedefop (2023) and the European University Continuing Education Network (see Section 7.5). The evaluation team note that the framework served as an important enabling resource for the subsequent alignment of institutional policies across the project partner HEIs with a consistent central reference point.
5.6 Work Package 6 RPL Pla�orm (Website) for Irish Higher Educa�on
The project website, www.priorlearning.ie, was reported to be live in HCI Pillar 3 Report 4 (June 2022). The site’s availability coincided with the project’s soft launch in December 2021 and provided links to the project’s Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube profiles, as well as learner testimonials, contact details of project leads, and general information.
The site serves as a valuable repository of information and makes project outputs and resources readily available. Project stakeholders highlighted the importance of continued availability of the resources and information made available on the webpage following completion of the project. The evaluation team has identified in a recommendation in Section 9 that the existing communications material, including priorlearning.ie, RPL stories and practical resources developed by the project are maintained, hosted and actively promoted for use by the sector, potentially via the NFETLHE.
Figure 5: Landing Page www.priorlearning.ie
5.7 Work Package 7
Dissemina�on & Communica�on
The evaluation team heard from the PMO and stakeholders that communication within and beyond the project network was a significant focus within the project’s activities. Bi-lateral meetings were held early in the project by the project director with all members of the project partner HEI network as well as enterprise partners, including the Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation (Ibec), the Irish Small to Medium Enterprise Association (ISME) and the Dublin Regional Skills Forum Manager. The project director additionally met during this early stage with Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI), the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (DFHERIS), representatives of the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (NFETLHE), and the project manager for the IUA’s Microcredentials Project. During subsequent phases of the project, the PMO facilitated an online event with the RPL Practitioner’s Network to share learnings with the tertiary sector. HCI Pillar 3 reports indicate ongoing engagement with national and international stakeholders, experts and networks throughout the project lifetime, including:
• Ongoing engagement with QQI, including the National Academic Recognition Information Centre (NARIC) Ireland service.
• Engagement with the sectoral Ukrainian Helpdesk based at Maynooth University.
• Forming linkages with the National Centre for Guidance in Education.
• Membership of the 3-IN-ATPLUS European RPL consortium (funded through Erasmus+ and led by Austria).
• Contributing to the 4th Validation of Prior Learning Biennale coordinated by Cedefop.
• Facilitating the RPL for Enterprise Think In Event
• Participating in the IUA/ Enterprise Ireland Universities and SME’s Skills and Talent for the small to medium enterprise sector event at UL.
• Facilitating an #RPLforEnterprise Think In event.
Active engagement with national and European stakeholders and experts early in the process provided opportunities to raise awareness of the project and explore how project outputs might integrate with or support complementary activities, for example linkages with the sectoral Ukrainian helpdesk.
It is noted that some stakeholders interviewed by the evaluation team, including QQI and Ibec, indicated that their involvement was somewhat limited post the establishing phases of the project, as activity became more concentrated on consulting with and securing agreement between the 14 project partner HEIs on project outputs including the Technical Definition and Pilot National Framework.
At national level, a brand identity for the project was developed to support the
objective of promoting RPL nationally and regionally, with a soft launch taking place in December 2021. An audit of the project’s social media platforms postlaunch indicated engagement rates were being achieved that were higher than those of public sector peer organisations, the findings of which were informative for shaping future campaigns (HCI Pillar 3 Report 4 June 2022).
A renewed social media plan had been developed by the digital communications and engagement o�icer in post at the time of the evaluation. The PMO has also collaborated with a public relations company in its latter stages to generate mainstream publicity, obtaining significant media exposure, including features on RTE’s Nationwide and sponsored articles in The Irish Times, throughout 2024.
Stakeholders making input to the evaluation highlighted tensions to be navigated between, on the one hand, the objective of promoting awareness of RPL in HE across the sector, to enterprise and across Irish society, and on the other, the concern that capacity to deliver RPL was still being built within the system. This was particularly noted in relation to RPL for Enterprise (see Section 5.4). Learners who had availed of RPL processes typically reflected a strong view that more can be done to raise awareness of the opportunities RPL provides to prospective applicants.
“Raising awareness is essential as RPL isn’t common knowledge” (Learner)
“More awareness of RPL is needed. It should be on the prospectus, should be in industry communication” (Learner)
“I didn't know it existed. I probably would have done it 10 years earlier if so. I'm coming in at quite a late stage. It's great that it exists, but it'd be good to raise awareness” (Learner)
“RPL has been around since 1999, it’s a disgrace that people don’t know about it” (Learner)
“This process can benefit other members of [organisation] toget courses throughtheRPL. I feel members need tobemademoreawarethat they can beeligibleforthesecourses” (Cohort Learner)
6. Sustaining RPL Practice
Assessing the sustainability of RPL operations in institutions following the conclusion of the project was withinthe terms of reference for the evaluation.Shortly before this evaluation commenced it had beenannounced that funding for the National RPL in HE Project by the HEA in its current form would not be renewed. Subsequently, during the evaluation it was confirmed that an additional €500,000 would be awarded to fund a specific and curtailed set of activities for a 14-month period following the original five-year term of the project.
6.1 Resource Requirements
In the context of the announcement that a subsequent phase of the project would not be funded, how the ongoing work to embed RPL practice could or should besupported by HEIs was a particularly prominent theme in the evaluation team’s discussions with stakeholders. Concerns were expressed that project work to develop and embed RPL remained at a precarious point in most (but not all) HEIs.
“For the momentum to be sustained, I would say somebody needs to stay doing this work. It gets lost otherwise, I don’t think it’s high on people’s agendas” (Project lead)
“All the work and resources that have gone in, in a way it will be lost. We are not in a position to embed it yet ... it’s wasted” (Project lead)
“I don’t think there is an awareness of the work that goes into embedding something like RPL. The attention and respect is there for sure. But there is a di�erence in translating why this project needs to happen and why resources need to be put in place” (Project lead)
There was broad consensus across the stakeholder groups that sustaining RPL required a distribution of responsibility and resources across both academic and central areas. The view that RPL was an academic as well as an administrative responsibility was widely stated.
“We need a champion; we need to resource that in each faculty. It needs to be an academic champion” (Project lead)
“Everyone agrees that assessment of learning is an academic achievement and is aligned with the responsibility of academic sta� already employed by the university” (Project lead)
“Where I have seen it successfully done, it’s the programme coordinator that is doing it and it is part of their academic duties” (Senior leader)
“Resources are required in colleges to makes sure policies and procedures are maintained and continuously improved” (Project lead)
A recurrent theme in inputs from project leads was that the coordination of RPL processes as well as support and training would require ongoing resourcing in central areas of HEIs.
“An additional cost comes into play in thecoordinating of RPL. To ensure that learners are supported and mentored there needs to be a management of that process, someone that drives the support network to get to the point where they hand over the learning to who is assessing it. That is where the additional cost lies” (Project lead)
“We need an executive administrator, someone who works in a central o�ice. The primary role should be organising training and make sure RPL is kept on the agenda of meetings with enterprise” (Project lead)
“
Input from senior leaders in particular highlighted budgetary constraints and competing priorities as the challenges associated with sustaining activity that had been primarily enabled or funded via the project.
“In the current climate, more and more is running on project-based funding or other national initiatives. The roles we give people are for two or three year contracts ... The person dedicated to the project over the last two years, we’d like to keep them on, but it all comes down to budgets” (Senior leader)
“There are so many things you need to devote resources to, but can you a�ord a whole post to this? One full time post at least is essential” (Senior leader)
“The issue for us is how to make this systemic” (Senior leader)
“It’s poorly resourced even through the project funding – we were only part funded for [project lead role] … The admissions architecture would also need to change, so that is anindirect cost” (Senior leader)
“
6.2 Examples of Ins�tu�onal Resourcing
Following discussions with the project steering group and PMO, the evaluation team sought responses to focused prompts eliciting information about the resources associated with RPL practice from four HEIs. It was considered that focused examples may facilitate useful discussion and insights in relation to the resource requirements of sustaining RPL for HEIs when the project concluded. This approach also avoided unnecessary duplication of the high quality RPL stories and enterprise case studies already produced by the PMO, many of which are linked to in Sections 5.4 and 5.7.Notably, the extent to which RPL practice was already practiced within Irish HEIs prior to the project’s initiation varied substantially across the project partner network. This diversity has been intentionally reflected in the examples. HEI A represents a context where RPL was known to be well established.
The examples, which were drawn from responses to a structured questionnaire10, also reflect the diverse strategies being employed within individual HEIs to progress the project objective of embedding RPL practice.For example, HEI B is in the process of establishing a faculty advisor model to complement central coordination of RPL. HEI C highlights the benefits of direct support provided by the central project lead to learners and also to sta�. In HEI D an emphasis is placed on the process of embedding RPL within systems and process to negate the need for a dedicated RPL resource in future.
10 The questionnaire was made available for completion asynchronously or synchronously, in the latter case via a facilitated online interview.
Profile of HEI A
RPL was characterised by HEI A as fully embedded within the institution. This was defined in the questionnaire as: widely understood by sta�, supported by established processes and considered to be a normal element of institutional practice in all or most areas).
RPL is not included in the HEI’s documented strategy. It is considered that the tradition and culture of RPL within the institution and the acceptance of all forms of learning to facilitate access, transfer and progression negates the need for RPL to be included. Rather, the HEI’s commitment to RPL is evident through the student supports provided and other structures that facilitate engagement between the university and external partners to raise awareness of upskilling and reskilling opportunities and collaborative course development.
Nonetheless, HEI A reports that ongoing e�ort is required to ensure that awareness of the opportunity of RPL is created among students, sta�, enterprise and broader society. The submission notes that RPL needs to be flexible and adaptable to the broader environment where change is ongoing in terms of student population, workplace requirements and course provision. Additionally, the submission identifies that new sta� joining the HEI may not come with an understanding of RPL or how it is used and implemented, and that RPL is not widely known or used in all disciplines, meaning continuous e�ort is needed to enable understanding.
RPL in HEI A is largely enabled by core funding and existing budgets, which have been augmented by National RPL in HE Project funding.
Profile of HEI B
RPL was characterised by HEI B as partially embedded within the institution. This was defined in the questionnaire as: understood by staff in some areas, supported by existing (potentially new) processes and implemented in some but not all areas
RPL is included in the HEI’s documented strategy, which specifies the need to expand provision and enhance access and progression pathways. A key aim is to expand RPL across all disciplines for both admission and exemption purposes. An RPL steering group was reported to have met regularly in HEI B to collaborate on RPL policy development.
A focus of activity for HEI B has been establishing dedicated faculty advisors. This model is considered to have the potential to ensure a consistent response to learners across the institution and mainstream RPL within access and progression pathways. The submission notes that a relatively conservative amount of funding would ensure dedicated personnel were responsible for the RPL agenda and the coordination of RPL activity institutionally and at faculty level going forward.
RPL in HEI B is largely enabled by National RPL in HE Project Funding (or other external sources of funding).
Profile of HEI C
RPL was characterised by HEI C as partially embedded within the institution. This was defined in the questionnaire as: understood by staff in some areas, supported by existing (potentially new) processes and implemented in some but not all areas.
RPL is included in the HEI’s documented strategy. An RPL steering group was also formed to oversee achievement of the objectives of the National RPL in HE project locally.
A focus of activity for the project lead in HEI C has been supporting and guiding prospective RPL learners to reflect on their learning and gather relevant material to support their applications. The experience of HEI C is that learners, and in particular learners relying on non-formal and informal (experiential) prior learning, often need more comprehensive guidance and extensive support than can be provided at programme level. It is noted that this can have significant resource implications. Concerns were put forward by HEI C that without dedicated funding support in future, challenges may arise in relation to providing guidance to RPL applicants and that RPL expertise and capacity within the institution may be negatively impacted. The project lead has also provided or signposted training and development for staff.
RPL in HEI C is largely enabled by National RPL in HE Project Funding (or other external sources of funding).
Profile of HEI D
RPL was characterised by HEI D as partially embedded within the institution. This was defined in the questionnaire as: understood by staff in some areas, supported by existing (potentially new) processes and implemented in some but not all areas.
RPL is included in the HEI’s documented strategy, although not prominent.
A particular focus of activity for HEI D has been embedding RPL within the application systems and establishing streamlined associated processes. A stated objective for HEI D is to systematise RPL within the institution, negating the need for a dedicated RPL lead. This would include identifying roles and responsibilities for the implementation of RPL within relevant policies and procedures. Stakeholders in HEI D identified that foundational work had been undertaken via the project, but that further momentum and action was needed to embed RPL practice.
RPL in HEI D is largely enabled by National RPL in HE Project Funding (or other external sources of funding).
6..2.5 Resourcing Governance and Oversight
The four HEIs were asked to identify where oversight and governance of RPL policy resided within the institution (for example, which committees, councils, boards etc. review or approve RPL policy) and to identify the policy owners. They were also asked to assess the current resource implications of RPL policy at the senior leadership level.
In all four HEIs, RPL policy ownership rested with Vice or Deputy Presidents or Registrars. Oversight and governance of RPL was shared across Academic Councils, subcommittees and executive functions within institutions. A request to assess the resource implications of RPL for senior leaders elicited somewhat variable responses. Resource implications were perceived to be largely absorbed into existing activity in HEI A and HEI D. In HEI C, where it is noted a steering group has been established to oversee progress toward the National RPL in HE Project objectives, the allocation of some additional time for dedicated meetings and related activities is indicated.
and Senior Leaders
11 Responding HEIs were asked to select the most appropriate answer from the first 3 options below, or otherwise provide an explanation under the fourth ‘other’ option.
1. Negligible (e.g. largely absorbed into existing activities as part of business as usual with limited or no additional demands on time of senior leaders)
2. Moderate (e.g. requires some allocation of additional time by senior leaders to dedicated meetings and related activities)
3. Substantial (e.g. requires a substantive allocation of additional time by senior leaders and/or delegation to a dedicated staff member)
Resource Requirements for Oversight of RPL in HEIs
In all HEIs, specific committees, panels or groups were reported to convene for the specific purpose of providing oversight or guidance of RPL. In HEI A, where RPL is well established, additional relevant sta� convene as needed, in response to queries that arise in the implementation of RPL throughout the academic year. In HEI B, practice is noted to be variable across schools and faculties. HEI C, the review and validation of RPL decisions is formalised within the wider responsibilities of programme boards. In HEI D it was noted that the goal is to discontinue the current practice of having senior academics act as reviewers of RPL applications separately to standard application processes.
Additional committees, panels or groups convening implement or provide oversight of RPL.
In HEI A, where specific queries arise regarding RPL during the academic year the relevant staff from the RPL function and the Office of Vice President Academic Affairs and Registrar come together to consult on the existing policy and its provisions as required.
In HEI B, practice is noted to vary across schools and faculties. Informal panels may convene to discuss particular RPL cases. Applications for module or stage exemptions based on formal accredited prior learning are approved by the Vice President for Student Experience.
In HEI C, individual programme boards have responsibility for implementation of RPL, and review and validated RPL decisions each academic year. An RPL steering group formed to oversee the achievement of the National RPL in HE project also convenes to provide leadership and guidance on awareness-raising initiatives and RPL training and development.
6.2.6 Resourcing Stages of the RPL Framework
In HEI D, a separate advanced review process is in place which entails a senior academic reviewing RPL applications. A stated goal is to negate the need for advanced review by embedding RPL into standard application processes.
Each HEI was invited to assess the resource implications currently associated with implementing each stage of the Pilot National Framework for RPL and to provide an overview of where responsibility for the stage resided. Responses varied in relation to the information stage, in which the learner obtains information about RPL and how the process works. In HEI A, the distribution of responsibility for RPL reflects its embedded status. Although there is evidence of some distribution of responsibilities across HEIs B, C and D, these institutions report that work undertaken in this area has been achieved via the National RPL in HE Project and is therefore more vulnerable to reduced institutional capacity following the conclusion of the project.
Information Stage
Negligible12 Resource Implications
In HEI A, overall responsibility for information for all prospective learners resides with the marketing unit. General information on RPL is embedded within information packs provided by various offices including those responsible for access and mature students. Specific information is under the remit of the RPL student mentor and RPL work-integrated learning advisor. Department staff promoting programmes are responsible for references to RPL in their own literature.
Moderate Resource Implications
Substantial Resource Implications
Moderate Resource Implications
In HEI B, it is noted that a more centralised approach has developed as part of the National RPL in HE Project. A comprehensive RPL webpage has been developed and is located prominently on the HEI’s website. An RPL email address has been established. Additionally, information on RPL is provided by programme directors and offices responsible for lifelong learning.
In HEI C, information is available from the project lead and through the RPL webpage, both of which have been enabled by the National RPL in HE Project. College and School staff refine information provided by programme directors. It is noted that marketing material does not always contain information on RPL. An RPL field is only visible on course pages on the website if it has been populated. RPL applicants are typically directed toward central resources and advised to liaise with the project lead.
HEI C identifies that the information sources established through the project will require ongoing maintenance and updates after project funding ends.
In HEI D operational responsibility for RPL information rests with the project leads. This is noted to be problematic as there will be no capacity post-project. Input from HEI D indicated that longer-term, the objective of systematising RPL will reduce or negate the need for resourcing. The intention is to establish systems and awareness with a view to achieving a negligible resource implication for this stage. However, currently there are no guiding resources available to show RPL applicants and so an investment of time will be needed to include this on the website.
12 Responding HEIs were asked to select the most appropriate answer from the first 3 options below, or otherwise provide an explanation under the fourth ‘other’ option.
1. Negligible (e.g. largely absorbed into existing activities as part of business as usual with limited or no additional demands on time of relevant staff)
2. Moderate (e.g. requires some allocation of additional time by relevant staff to dedicated meetings and related activities)
3. Substantial (e.g. requires a substantive allocation of additional time by relevant staff)
4. Other (please provide a brief explanation)
HEI A
HEI B
HEI C
HEI D
Responses in relation to the identification stage, in which the learner explores their prior learning with a view to making an application varied substantially. In HEI A, although the overall assessment is indicated as negligible, this is qualified in commentary identifying that the resource implications will vary substantially depending on the nature and purpose of the application. In HEI C, a focus of the project lead’s activities has been provision of direct guidance and support for learners. A high dependency on this resource is noted (and also presents a vulnerability following the conclusion of the project). However, the role of the project lead in HEI C could be considered to have some equivalence to that of the RPL mentor identified in the identification and documentation stages by HEI A. This may indicate that the resource requirements between HEI A and HEI C may not be as dissimilar as they initially appear.
Negligible/Other Resource Implications
In HEI A, responsibility is distributed across heads of department, course coordinators, module lecturers and RPL student mentors. For enterprise engagements the company work-integrated learning advisor is also involved.
In HEI A, it is noted that resource implications will vary depending on the nature of the application. Applications for advanced entry and full awards may require more time from staff to determine if the learner has sufficient prior learning to warrant the application.
Substantial Resource Implications
In HEI B, potential RPL applicants can liaise with programme directors, with lecturers, the project lead, RPL faculty advisors or professional services staff. RPL applicants have different avenues for accessing RPL, although there is a centralised contact point and recent developments are aiming to build consistency.
Substantial Resource Implications
In HEI C, while programme directors and module lecturers can offer some general advice in relation to the identification stage it usually falls to the project lead to provide more nuanced advice and guidance to help prospective RPL learners to explore their experiences and learning to date with a view to making an RPL application.
Moderate Resource Implications
In HEI D, as per the information stage, currently there are no general guiding resources available to show RPL applicants and so an investment of time will be needed to include this on the website. Programme directors are considered best placed to advise on whether RPL is available and can establish from talking with a potential applicant whether they should be advised to proceed. It was noted that a general guide may not answer all the questions individual applicants may have.
Identification Stage
HEI A
HEI B
HEI C
HEI D
Responses in relation to the documentation stage, in which the learner undertakes a reflective process and gathers relevant materials to substantiate their application are again varied. In responses relevant to this stage, it becomes more apparent that the individualised support provided by a designated RPL mentor in HEI A is analogous to the work undertaken by the project lead in HEI C. HEI’s A, B and C o�er multiple points of contact for learners. HEI D has provided a response that could be characterised as an outlier, with responsibility for preparing documentation intended to be more definitively located with the RPL application.
Moderate Resource Implications
In HEI A, the RPL mentor works with the learner to put their application together, advising them on the completeness of their application. If clarification on the intended meaning of a learning or programme outcome is required, then the mentor seeks this from the relevant academic on behalf of the learner. The role of the mentor and the academic assessor is intentionally separated to ensure the objectivity of the application process.
Substantial Resource Implications
In HEI B, as per the identification stage, potential RPL applicants can liaise with programme directors, with lecturers, the project lead, RPL faculty advisors or professional services staff. RPL applicants have different avenues for accessing RPL, although there is a centralised contact point and recent developments are aiming to build consistency.
Substantial Resource Implications
In HEI C the project lead has been responsible for supporting and guiding prospective RPL students to reflect on their learning to date and for providing information on the gathering of relevant materials to support their application.
Negligible Resource Implications
In HEI D this is considered to be the responsibility of the learner. It is intended that guidance will be built into the application process as part of the drive to systematise RPL in the institution. Subsequently, learners will be responsible for looking at the programme they are applying for and demonstrating how their experience relates to that programme.
Responses in relation to the assessment stage, in which the learner’s application is assessed by the HEI, reflect the more definitive responsibility of academic sta� within HEI’s for this part of the process. The resource implications of this stage were noted to vary by institutions A, B and C in relation to the nature and purpose of the RPL application.
Documentation Stage
Negligible/Moderate Resource Implications
In HEI A, academic staff roles are listed as having responsibility, with seniority dependent on the nature of the application. It is noted that applications for full academic awards are usually assessed by a combination of the head of department, course coordinator and module lecturers. Additional detail included by HEI A indicates that assessors are also responsible for the reporting of the outcome of the assessment to the Registrar’s office and that the outcomes of module assessments are presented at the standard examination processing boards per semester. They are subject to the same scrutiny as any other forms of assessment which includes consideration by external examiners.
In the assessment of a full academic award staff may need the allocation of additional time to assess an application as they must be satisfied the learner meets the learning and programme outcomes of an award in keeping with the quality assurance standards of the University.
