Enhancing Collaboration in Tertiary Education Using Recognition of Prior Learning to Facilitate the Accessibility of Continuing Education

Abstract

This research is situated within the Irish tertiary educational space between Higher Education and Further Education and Training. This research is set in the Literacy Development Centre (LDC), South-East Technological University (SETU), the Higher Education organisation, and the Longford Westmeath Education Training Board (LWETB), the Further Education organisation. This study builds on the research conducted by the authors and focuses on the continued provision of a 120 ECTS NFQ Level 6 qualification, the Higher Certificate in Literacy Development and the importance of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) in this educational progression. This article explores the impact of RPL as a means of educational access for adult learners. Two focus groups captured the differing accounts of experience, specifically the programme management team from both the higher and further education perspectives and the graduate perspective. The results demonstrated the individualised nature of RPL. While the onus was on each graduate to provide evidence of prior learning, the graduates expressed an experience of a ‘seamless’ RPL process while, conversely, the organisational team recalled experiencing a substantial, emotionally taxing workload. The data additionally demonstrates that the success of the project resulted from relationships and a culture of collaboration.

1. Introduction

In the landscape of Irish Tertiary Education, Irish Further Education and Training (FET) and Higher Education (HE) have tended to be largely separate to date in their educational approach (Iannelli et al., 2016). Currently within the Irish National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) (QQI, 2025), both Higher and Further Education offer programmes at NFQ Level 6, which has previously led to tension between the sectors due to similar offerings (Tierney & Clarke, 2008).

However, policy review is currently underway. The Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) Policy on Qualifications at NFQ Levels 5 and 6, Outline of the Structure of the National Framework of Qualifications re-examines the structure of current NFQ Level 6 Higher Certificate programmes and future delivery. It is hoped that this will streamline programme offerings in the tertiary sector, reduce competition for student recruitment, and enhance student progression and experience in both sectors (Tierney & Clarke, 2008).

This alignment between Further and Higher education is a strategic priority for both the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (DFHERIS) and for An tSeirbhís Oideachais Leanúnaigh agus Scileanna (SOLAS), the state agency responsible for the further education and training sector in Ireland. This priority was published in DFHERIS’s (2022) Policy Platform: Progressing A Unified Tertiary System for Learning, Skills and Knowledge and introduced in Future FET: Transforming Learning 2022–2024 (SOLAS, 2021). The most recent FET Strategy Creating Futures 2026–2030 (SOLAS, 2026) continues to build on this priority. Additionally, the Adult Literacy for Life (ALL) Strategy (2021–2031) introduced a ten-year plan to improve literacy, numeracy, and digital skills for adults in Ireland, emphasising accessible learning and coordinated support between different services included within these strategies is the continuous professional development of adult educators (SOLAS, 2021). This aligns globally with UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4: Promoting inclusive and equitable education, which is a key theme across the entire education sector.

The Literacy Development Centre (LDC), situated within the South-East Technological University of Ireland (SETU), is a national higher education centre offering focused programmes for educators and managers in adult literacy and the broader further education and training sector. Through collaboration with various stakeholders, the LDC has been instrumental in supporting the FET Strategy and ALL Strategy objectives. This research builds on the work of Power et al. (2025) on the Certificate in Adult Literacy Studies (CALS), a NFQ Level 6 Certificate (30 ECTS). We now explore the experience of all stakeholders as the CALS graduates progressed to complete the Higher Certificate in Literacy Development, a NFQ Level 6 (120 ECTS) major award, and engaged with Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) processes. All the learners involved in this study were employed by LWETB as adult educators who work with adults with unmet literacy needs (SOLAS, 2021). In Ireland, there are diverse routes to practicing as adult educators, where although the learners shared the educational experience on the CALS programme (Power et al., 2025), they had different educational experiences prior to enrolling on the CALS programme. This difference in prior learning was not a factor in completing a minor award (30 ECTS) CALS but was a consideration in progression to a major award. For some, it meant that their prior learning would make them eligible for exemption from certain modules on the major award.

Recognition of Prior Learning is a process whereby evidence of learning (formal, non-formal or informal) that has taken place prior to enrolment in higher education is recognised and given value (Widger et al., 2024; Osman, 2004; National RPL in Higher Education Project, 2022). Similarly, RPL is considered as an access point for adult learners to further their education both in Ireland and internationally (Conrad, 2008; de Paor, 2023; Salzmann et al., 2025). However, validation of this type of learning has been challenging because of lack of visibility and availability of such processes (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP, 2021)). Within the Irish educational landscape, Goggin et al. (2025) examine the alignment of RPL in practice with institutional RPL strategy and the cultural acceptance of such a strategy. They observed a ‘disparity between the espoused view and actual practice within higher education’ where the process was more ticking a box than true validation of experiential learning (Goggin et al., 2025, p. 4). In addition, there is a national strategy to work in partnership with enterprise, learners and the participating higher educational institutes, such as SETU, to bring RPL from ‘the margins to the mainstream’ and substantially grow RPL opportunities and enhance RPL services in and across the sector in a manner which is coherent, consistent and user-friendly (Denieffe, 2026, para. 1).

In examining the theoretical perspectives to explore the functionality of RPL within adult education, the constructivist theory in RPL, speaks to the critical theory of the individual in that adults construct new ideas and concepts based on their current or prior knowledge (Hamer, 2012). This also speaks to experiential learning theory grounded in the work of Dewey (as cited by D. A. Kolb, 2014, p. 5) that ‘there is an intimate and necessary relation between the processes of actual experience and education’. A. Y. Kolb and Kolb (2006) note that while experiential learning is widely standard practice, there are some challenges which include the correct alignment of the experiential learning to the traditional educational experience. Another challenge is that of the alignment of assessment to adequately measure the learning outcomes of experiential learning. Further, the requirement of institutional wide support is essential for the successful implementation of experiential learning in higher education, which will strengthen and broaden the experiential learning community of practice. In addition, Fleming (2025) examines ‘recognition’ as understood in the critical theory of Honneth (2014) in the recognition of the individual and introduces philosophy, psychology and pedagogy to the arenas of policies, procedures and pedagogy for RPL. Exploring the human need for recognition, Fleming highlights that RPL can be a transformative process in education by allowing recognition of both learning and the individual behind it. Cooper and Harris (2013) focus more directly on the ‘knowledge question’ in RPL. Their study questions the extent to which the feasibility of RPL is impacted by the disciplinary or knowledge area that candidates want to access. It starts from an assumption that while knowledge gained from life and work experience may be as valuable as formal, academic knowledge, these two forms of knowledge are not the same. However, while Cooper and Harris (2013) show that the nature of disciplinary knowledge can influence the feasibility of RPL, they also highlight that other factors can ensure its success including the attitudes of academics, pedagogical practices and institutional culture.

The approach used by the LDC reflects both Fleming’s (2025) recognition of the learner and Cooper and Harris’s (2013) emphasis that supportive academic and institutional cultures are an integral part of RPL success. The LDC mapped the previous learning of each of the CALS graduates identifying the pathways that each individual required to successfully complete the Higher Certificate in Literacy Development. Depending on the prior learning of applicants, module lists were created identifying which modules the applicant had to successfully complete in order to graduate with this major award. It resulted in four separate categories as detailed in Section 2 which also facilitated the cohort to graduate together.

As with our earlier research conducted on the CALS programme (Power et al., 2025), the ETB educators again had to manage their teaching responsibilities and personal commitments while studying part-time. This, however, was a commitment to a much larger body of learning. Despite these challenges, the LDC’s learner-centred approach (underpinned by the Principles of Good Adult Literacy Work (NALA, 2012)) supported nine of the 10 graduates to successfully earn their Higher Certificate in Arts in Literacy Development award in 2025 with the one remaining student graduating in 2026.

This research on the RPL process captures the experiences from the graduate and organisational perspective. A 2020 study by Fenton and Goggin (2020) showed that the benefits to the graduate can outweigh the administrative demands of the RPL process. This was also observed in this study as a considerable commitment was required from the programme administration team to capture the prior learning of each graduate and map the various pathways to completion of the Higher Certificate in Literacy Development. In order to gain an insight into the continuing experiences, both stakeholder groups involved with this RPL process were invited to participate in this research. There were two separate focus groups conducted: one with each of the stakeholder groups.

RPL Mapping Process and Pathways

The graduates of the CALS who were applying for the Higher Certificate in Literacy Development had diverse experience and qualifications. With this in mind, the LDC RPL panel collated the diverse learning into four separate categories. Four categories were created and the route to completion of the programme for each category is outlined below.

Category 1: Applicants with greater than 3 years tutor experience * + QQI Train the Trainer (Training Delivery and Evaluation) NFQ Level 6, 30 ECTS ** + CALS.

Advanced Entry into Year 2 where the graduate completed the following four mandatory modules to complete the programme:

Psychology of Adult Learning 1;

Groupwork;

Developing Literacies 2;

Counselling Issues in Adult Literacy.

Category 2: Applicants with less than 3 years tutor experience * + QQI Train the Trainer (Training Delivery and Evaluation) NFQ Level 6, 30 ECTS ** + CALS.

The graduate completed one mandatory module from Year 1:

Introduction to Philosophy in Adult Education.

In addition, the graduate completed the following four mandatory modules and one elective from Year 2 to complete the full programme:

Psychology of Adult Learning 1;

Groupwork;

Developing Literacies 2;

Counselling Issues in Adult Literacy;

Elective module (10 Credits)—to be decided.

Category 3: Applicants who have successfully completed CALS + Introduction to Study Skills and Academic Writing modules (Modules which are part of the Higher Certificate in Literacy Development NFQ Level 6, 10 ECTS each—LDC).

The graduate completes three mandatory modules from Year 1:

Introduction to Philosophy in Adult Education;

Practical Teaching Skills;

Introduction to Curriculum Development.

In addition, the graduate completed the following four mandatory modules and one elective from Year 2 to complete the full programme:

Psychology of Adult Learning 1;

Groupwork;

Developing Literacies 2;

Counselling Issues in Adult Literacy;

Elective module (10 Credits)—to be decided.

Category 4: Applicants who have successfully completed CALS only.

The graduate completed four mandatory modules in Year 1:

Introduction to Philosophy in Adult Education;

Practical Teaching Skills;

Introduction to Curriculum Development and Assessment;

Introduction to Study Skills and Academic Writing.

In addition, the graduate completed the following four mandatory modules and one elective from Year 2 to complete the full programme:

Psychology of Adult Learning 1;

Groupwork;

Developing Literacies 2;

Counselling Issues in Adult Literacy;

Elective module (10 Credits)—to be decided.

* Tutor experience refers to teaching/tutoring experience in an adult/further education setting equivalent to three years full-time experience (approximately 18 h per week) or equivalent if part-time.

** Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) Train the Trainer (Training Delivery and Evaluation) NFQ Level 6 (30 ECTS)—The purpose of this award is to enable the learner to acquire the knowledge, skill and competence to identify training and development needs and to deliver and evaluate a training intervention within a range of training and development contexts QQI (2012).

In order to gain an insight into the continuing experiences, especially the RPL process, both stakeholder groups were invited to participate in this research, which is explained further in the next section.

2. Research Methodology and Methods

As with the research conducted on the pilot programme (Power et al., 2025), an interpretivist paradigm (Kuhn, 1970) also underpins this study with the view that knowledge is subjective and socially constructed leading to a qualitative approach. It was again decided that a focus group would be a useful tool to explore experiences and insights from diverse perspectives (Denscombe, 2021) in a collaborative manner as participants react and respond to each other’s contributions (Bryman, 2016). It is important to acknowledge that all researchers had some involvement with the Higher Cert Programme in either an academic or organisational context. Further, some members of the research team were also participants in the research. Being both researchers and adult educators, reflexivity is a core element of our professional practice. Following Braun and Clarke’s (2022) reflexive thematic analysis approach, our positionality is viewed not as a threat to validity, but as a source of richer interpretative insights into participants’ experience. As with Smith and Duckworth, we participated in reflective discussions throughout the analysis and writing process to look beyond surface accounts (Brookfield, 1995 cited in Smith & Duckworth, 2022) and interrogate our interpretations.

As mentioned, the two focus groups were conducted to capture the graduate perspective and the organisational perspective from both the LDC and LWETB. The discussion areas explored in both focus groups include the benefits, challenges and lessons learned.

2.1. Data Generation and Analysis

Both the graduate and organisational focus groups were conducted on Microsoft Teams on two separate sessions. The graduate focus group lasted 40 min and the transcript was approximately 9000 words to capture the breadth and depth of discussion. Similarly, the organisational focus group discussion was 35 min in duration, with a transcript of 10,100 words of discussion.

Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s six-stage reflexive thematic analysis (2022). This allowed the researchers’ proximity to the data to be a resource as researchers were both participants and analysts (Braun & Clarke, 2022). The main analyst annotated the transcripts before creating a clean verbatim transcript which removed unnecessary words and false starts (Elsdon, n.d.) which began the familiarisation process. Additional members of the research team also actively familiarised themselves with the data from both focus groups through reading the transcripts numerous times. They then generated initial codes. These were on the deductive to inductive continuum (Byrne, 2022) in an attempt to answer the research questions (benefits, challenges, and lessons learned) and tell the story of the RPL experiences. Two members of the SETU team peer-reviewed the initial coding and performed a second iteration of coding. They clustered the codes identifying patterns and making links in the data (Braun & Clarke, 2022). They went back and forth between the data sets to ascertain if their interpretative analysis was true to the participants’ contributions. They then began to generate candidate themes which included the final themes of institutional supports, collaboration, and time constraints discussed below. Microsoft Word and Excel were used for coding and theme generation.

2.2. Ethical Considerations

This research received ethical approval from SETU and gatekeeper approval from the LWETB Further Education and Training Director. Consent was obtained from all participants prior to commencement of the data collection. The right to respect, anonymity, confidentiality, and withdrawal was also considered. The data is securely stored in accordance with SETU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) guidelines.

Consideration was also given to the institutional link between the participants and the researchers within SETU and LWETB. Conflicts of interest were considered due to the potential hierarchical nature of the relationships between some of the participants. This relationship issue could lead to social desirability where participants might provide responses that they thought their peers on the research team would prefer to hear (Creswell & Poth, 2016). This was also addressed by the careful selection of the focus group facilitators.

In line with our aforementioned positionality, power dynamics are mitigated. as the staff–graduate relationships are based on equal status. LDC graduates are themselves practitioners within further education and the collaborative approach to learning adhered to in the LDC further reduces hierarchy and power issues. Additionally, as the applicant participant focus group were graduates at the time of conducting the research, any perceived imbalance of power between the awarding institute, SETU and the participant is negated given that as a graduate, there is no perceived leverage with assessment and results. To further mitigate any potential bias or perceived imbalance in this group of volunteer participants, this graduate focus group was facilitated by a researcher from the LDC, SETU and not by a representative of their employer within LWETB. The identification of these graduate participants was only known to the facilitating researcher, from the LDC of that graduate focus group and not shared with the remaining researchers.

2.3. Sampling Method

Process of Participant Recruitment

As previously discussed, the sample population came from two cohorts: graduates and the programme administration and organisation teams. All participants were invited by email to participate. All five programme administration and organisation staff involved in the RPL process were invited to participate by email, including the co-authors of this research. The graduate cohort were invited to participate in the research using their personal/professional or SETU graduate email accounts, as supplied upon application via bcc to ensure GDPR compliance is upheld. Our small-scale research aligns with a qualitative approach focusing on depth and participant experience. Patton (2007) confirms that qualitative inquiry typically focuses in depth on relatively small samples, even single cases selected purposefully while quantitative methods typically depend on larger samples selected randomly. Five of the nine graduates volunteered to participate in the focus group representing 55% engagement in this research. They are all further education practitioners with diverse educational backgrounds who have successfully completed the Higher Certificate programme and work in a variety of contexts. There was 100% engagement for the programme organisation focus group. In total, ten participants were involved in the focus groups, as identified in Table 1, nine females and one male which is representative of gender patterns within FET (SOLAS, 2020).

Table 1. Research participants in this study.

Identifier	Gender	Role	Age Range
P 1	Female	Programme Organisation (PO)	55–64
P 2	Female	Programme Organisation (PO)	45–54
P 3	Female	Programme Organisation (PO)	55–64
P 4	Female	Programme Organisation (PO)	45–54
P 5	Female	Programme Organisation (PO)	55–64
P 6	Female	Graduate (G)	45–54
P 7	Female	Graduate (G)	55–64
P 8	Male	Graduate (G)	45–54
P 9	Female	Graduate (G)	35–44
P 10	Female	Graduate (G)	35–44

3. Results

The data gathered from both the organisational and graduate focus groups were captured using the framework of benefits, challenges, and lessons learned, with a number of themes identified under each heading.

3.1. Benefits of Engaging in the RPL Process

A number of benefits were identified from both the organisational team (herein for results and data analysis referred to as PO) and graduate (herein for results and data analysis referred to as G) perspectives:

Equity in education;

Valuing prior learning;

Time and cost benefits;

Validation and learning from the RPL process.

3.1.1. Equity in Education

The organisation team spoke about the ‘fairness’ of the RPL process for the graduates involved. All participants within this focus group recognised the pressures involved in adult education, especially for those already in professional roles where they viewed the RPL process as a way to reduce the burden. This was enhanced by the LDC’s creation of tailored pathways, which as P4 (PO) noted “really simplified it for the learners”. Graduates were coming to the programme with different levels of experience and qualifications and “it levelled things out for them” P5 (PO) and that graduates received support with the RPL process from both organisations. P5 (PO) also noted that LWETB is a “close-knit” organisation, which resulted in a range of support available for graduates beyond the management directly involved. P4 (PO) explained, “we actually had another coordinator offer their services to help the learners with the reflective practice module because their degree was in psychology, which just showed that everybody was on board and trying to help these staff”.

LDC staff spoke of their commitment to ensuring a fair system for organising RPL procedures at a group level. It was the first group cohort to go through the RPL process within the LDC and P3 (PO) observed that they were “trying to figure out what the commonalities were between the different people and trying to figure out a system which could recognise what they were bringing in a fair way”. Although it was a group-based RPL process, each application received individual consideration. The RPL process also ensured that the LWETB graduates, who had undertaken the CALS programme together, could continue their learning as a cohesive group. As P1 (PO) noted, it allowed them “to achieve a bigger bite of learning together”. Through the RPL pathway, the graduates were able to complete four more modules as a group: Psychology 1, Group Work, Developing Literacies 2, and Counselling.

There was a tremendous focus across both organisations that all graduates received equitable treatment which was tailored to their individual needs. P4 (PO) captured this, saying, “It provided a huge support for the learners. If they didn’t maybe understand some of the information they were receiving from either end, they had both organisations to try and figure it out together”.

This sense of equity was also expressed in the graduate focus group, where P6 (G) expressed that “there was a harmony” … “and I would underline that was really human-centred”. This was a point echoed by P7 (G) who noted that “We know how we were supported. So that did not go unnoticed”. P6 (G) said “from the perspective of administration, they were open and of course they did everything”.

This was also similarly expressed by P8 (G) who recalled:

“Yeah, I suppose for me, like I would, I left school when I was 15. So, I was out of education for so many years, well, in education in a different sense, in a skill sense. So, kind of over the years, I suppose I would have tied with the idea of going back to college, but it would be a kind of a passing phase because I didn’t really have the commitment, I guess, to investigate college and how long a course would take to do. And so the fact that, when I started working with the LWETB, the opportunity was literally put on my lap. So, for me, I was very grateful for that opportunity to literally to help that from both organisations to be able to have the opportunity to go back to college and have it paid for and given plenty of support and doing it from online and also meeting in the class. I thought the whole thing was perfect.”

Within the discussion P6 (G) also reflected that “but definitely this course played a serious role in how my life has been changed”.

3.1.2. Valuing Prior Learning

Participants of the organisational focus group spoke of the knowledge and experience which graduates brought with them to the programme, viewing RPL as a mechanism to build on this so that graduates could progress with their learning. Reflecting on the success of the CALS programme, P2 (PO) observed that “we could see what the practitioners had brought with them and that they wanted to progress”. P5 (PO) noted that RPL was “a really good way” to capture the types of learning that extend beyond formal learning. She later emphasised how essential this recognition is and asked, “What’s it saying to them and what’s it saying to us about the staff that we employ to deliver our modules on our programmes, if we don’t trust that they have something going for them?”

Further, P1 (PO) highlighted that the graduates were empowered as active agents in their own learning through involvement in the RPL process. P2 (PO) expanded on this explaining the deliberate choice of a reflective practice module as an exemption through assessment module. She observed that “if you’re reflecting on what have you done already and where’s it going to fit, you are being very actively involved in the process of RPL and learning”. The value placed on prior experience and learning by both organisations emphasises the wealth model approach (O’Grady & Byrne, 2018) that is often a feature of the adult education landscape in Ireland.

From the graduate perspective, RPL was valued in a number of ways. P6 (G) acknowledged that “the big benefit that it didn’t interrupt the learning process and brought me to the end”. P9 (G) expressed how:

“It’s also great to be able to see that we have, that some of our previous education has been looked at and been recognised because sometimes they leave such a gap when they come back to education that they’re kind of, I suppose, feel lost. But for it to be recognised, was unexpected”.

P10 (G) focused on the value of their prior experience:

“And I remember with my RPL it wasn’t a previous education, it was a subject, a module that was ‘RPLed’ for me based on my work experience. So, then I had to write a paragraph to justify why I believe that my experience, my work experience would be enough to have that subject or that module accredited”.

3.1.3. Time and Cost Benefits

As indicated, the RPL process ensured that graduates could complete the Higher Certificate in a cohesive manner, allowing them to take four modules together. From an LWETB organisation perspective, this represented a clear benefit of engaging with RPL. P5 (PO) declared that it was the “main driver” for their staff being able to proceed with the Higher Certificate. Although the organisation was committed to supporting staff in continuing their studies, ensuring that they were available to complete the full programme over two years would have placed unsustainable pressure on their timetabling systems. This was noted within the graduate focus group, with P10 (G) observing that “RPL in that respect is very, very beneficial. So, we invested our time in learning rather than kind of useless repetition or things that we really already know.”

RPL also significantly reduced costs for LWETB; P4 (PO) highlighted that “by doing the RPL, it saved us money. I’m not sure we could have went ahead if we had to do all of the modules. So that was a huge thing for us”. It is evident that without the RPL process, the cost and coordination of completion of the Higher Certificate could possibly have proved prohibitive for LWETB. This cost acknowledgement was also echoed within the graduate focus group with P10 (G) admitting “if it wasn’t paid, I would definitely work on that day because I would have to support financially my family. So, then it would definitely be a barrier for me and I wouldn’t be able to continue with it. Well, we were paid for it [by their employers LWETB]. So definitely that was one of the benefits of it.” Additionally, P8 (G) noted that cost was a factor for them “So I don’t think I would have pursued it or looked into it all that much if I wasn’t supported.”

3.1.4. Learning and Validation from the RPL Process

The appetite for learning more about the RPL process, emerging from working with a cohort in this way for the first time, was especially evident in discussion with LDC staff. P3 (PO) reflected that “it was interesting doing them as a group and trying to figure out what the commonalities were between the different people”. P5 (PO) also commented on the level of attention the process required, noting that at times they felt they had more “book learning” than “practical experience” at the start of the process, and so relied on the expertise of the LDC team. Their experience during the programme appears to have sparked a continued interest in learning more about RPL.

Participants from both organisations described learning from each other throughout the process. This collaborative approach was especially helpful when working with a group coming from the educational setting, because as P3 (PO) notes “trying to find the common stuff between them all wasn’t as obvious, maybe as in a different setting, because education, being education is more complicated”. P4 (PO) highlighted that the close working relationship between organisations resulted in extra support for graduates, saying “they had both organisations to try and figure it out together”.

P2 (PO) spoke enthusiastically of the reassurance gained from seeing that, even within this innovative approach to RPL, the established processes for the LDC worked effectively and remained steady. She said of the process, “we were being consistent. Just because it was a cohort, we didn’t deviate from our consistency”. She also highlighted a strong sense of professional pride in supporting the LWETB graduates through the process, noting that from a “from a humanistic perspective, we are about accessibility and that’s part of it for me”. P1 (PO) observed that the learning from the process had a ripple effect on “the wider department, the wider faculty, and it has informed the institute”. Moreover, the process has produced research opportunities and in educational settings that are often constrained by time, P1 (PO) emphasised the value of extending this work through the study itself, stating “so a huge advantage to me of it all is the ability to inform this research”. An appreciation of the learning opportunities and validation emerging from the RPL process is strongly reflected in the animated discussions captured during the focus group.

In contrast to the work involved in RPL by the organisational representatives, the graduate focus group had no sense of the work involved within this process with P6 (G) expressing “RPL—I thought it was seamless—I don’t remember it being difficult, except just to figure out whatever I had to have done. It was wonderful, absolutely”. A point which was echoed by P6 and P8 (G) “Yeah, we don’t even know what happened to it. Yes, yes, absolutely. It was very seamless.”

3.2. Challenges of Engaging in the RPL Process

While the benefits of the RPL process proved very evident, the process also came with its own set of challenges. The following themes were generated in this area:

Time pressure and heavy workloads;

Communication issues between organisations and “too many cooks”;

Inherent challenges of the RPL process.

3.2.1. Time Pressure and Heavy Workloads

All participants within the organisational focus group named ‘time’ and ‘heavy workloads’ as the biggest challenges of the RPL process. P2 (PO) explained that conversations about the process began in September/October 2022 and said that the “mapping and what we call the progression options took a long time to map. And then we still had to revisit them”. Navigating the external validation process at exam boards also increased the workload for the LDC team; P5 (PO) noted that “a lot of reporting” was involved with the process.

P5 (PO) described the significant level of work involved from an LWETB perspective while supporting the ten staff members involved with their RPL plans at various stages. She commented that she “can’t even imagine” the level of work that was necessary on the LDC side to support the process. P1 (PO) emphasised that it is important to capture the reality of the amount of work involved in getting ten graduates through the process as a cohort. She also expanded further on this, noting that the RPL workload needed to be placed in the context of already busy schedules. At times, P1 (PO) reflected that this brought a “taxing element” to the work for different individuals as they had to realign what they were doing and “there were so many variables that it was crazy”. Time and workload demands also added a layer of emotional labour as participants wanted to maintain collegial relationships with each other and between organisations. P1 (PO) elaborated:

“You don’t want to damage the relationships that we’ve built up as two organisations and pick up a phone and request an instant decision on an issue. Like you don’t want to do that because that’s ridiculous on everybody”.

She spoke of feeling overstretched and unacknowledged at times when extra requests were made of them but observed of the work involved “we’ve killed ourselves. But they [the graduates] didn’t know that we killed ourselves. They didn’t know what it was”.

Overall, participants stressed that while the RPL process was valuable, it came with some considerable demands on time and workload, particularly as they sought to balance the process with other professional responsibilities.

3.2.2. Communication Issues Between Organisations and “Too Many Cooks”

Another challenge of the RPL process which was acknowledged by all participants was the communication issues that can occur when working with a large cohort and coordinating across different organisations. This made it challenging to provide consistent support for graduates. P4 (PO) explained that at times she was approached for guidance, but at other times the graduate communicated directly with the LDC and sometimes both organisations, which created some confusion and as she highlighted that it made “it hard to figure some of it out”. Added to this, there were complications with missed deadlines and emails not being seen on time by everyone involved in the process. Similar challenges were noted from an LDC perspective, with P2 (PO) expressing the issue succinctly as “too many cooks”. P5 (PO) commented that the process was not a “straight line” and that at times she even felt “left a little bit at sea, [not knowing] what was actually happening”. This uncertainty appeared to come from the number of people involved in the process, which sometimes meant the pathway between the two organisations was unclear.

P5 (PO) further explained that gaps in individual students’ RPL requirements were occasionally identified quite late in the process, causing a “kerfuffle” on the LWETB side as staff scrambled to bridge these gaps for applicants. The LDC team identified that there “had been a little bit of pushback” on some of their processes which caused this gap at the end. P2 (PO) reflected that this could have occurred because of confusion around which communication methods were being used such as Moodle [Learning Management System utilised within SETU] or email. Further, P3 (PO) emphasised that GDPRs restricted some information being shared directly between organisations, meaning that some details could only be shared by graduates themselves.

Nevertheless, while all participants of the organisational focus group acknowledged the frustration caused by these issues, they were equally keen to reflect on how these challenges could be navigated for a more streamlined process in the future.

3.2.3. Inherent Challenges of the RPL Process Itself

As a process, RPL carries its own inherent challenges, as P2 (PO) declared “It’s not easy”. While there was great commitment from both organisations to support the cohort through the RPL journey, she spoke of the challenge of designing RPL pathways to cover all eventualities: “I think I remember at the time, oh yeah, this is it. This is going to capture it all. These are the four options. We have covered every eventuality, but we hadn’t”. P3 (PO) expanded on this, explaining that when it comes to the RPL process, everyone is unique and that no two graduates present with the same experiences or qualifications. She noted that is “both the beauty of it and the difficulty of it, is having to look at everybody completely individually”. Participants from both organisations agreed that the human element involved in RPL does not fit neatly into boxes.

P5 (PO) provided a further example of the complexity of RPL, speaking of the conversations among graduates when some had to complete extra work for the process while others did not. She wryly commented “the WhatsApp was on fire” [referring to the graduate group WhatsApp]. P3 (PO) and P5 (PO) both spoke of the disagreements that can arise in meetings within the RPL panel in the LDC as decisions are made. P3 (PO) viewed these “robust arguments” as being an essential part of the process and noted that “it makes it stronger for having those discussions”. These perspectives highlight the while the human element of RPL can lead to challenges, it is what makes it a learning experience for everyone involved, especially when participants remain open to honest discussion and collaboration.

Again, conversely from the graduate focus group, there were no challenges expressed with the RPL process, P6 (G) declared “I’m struggling to find something, at least to find something to criticise and I can’t, everything was so well organised”. This point was additionally made by P10 (G) “So no, no disadvantages in there. I don’t think so”.

3.3. Lessons Learned

In particular, the organisational focus group served as a useful space for reflection on the RPL process, with a number of clear lessons emerging for the future. These were as follows:

There will always be exceptions;

More clarity needed about the RPL process for applicants;

The need for stronger communication pathways with an RPL champion;

The RPL process is worth the work.

3.3.1. There Will Always Be Exceptions

Despite the significant amount of planning invested in designing the RPL process and in creating four pathways to streamline the RPL process for applicants; there were notable exceptions. As P2 (PO) reflected “it ended up being about ten options at the end of the day”. This observation resonated throughout the organisational focus group; participants repeatedly highlighted that people cannot be neatly categorised or expected to fit into boxes. P3 (PO) further emphasised the diversity of the graduate cohort involved in the educational RPL process, contrasting it with the more streamlined cohorts sometimes seen in other employment based RPL initiatives:

“Often, they’re talking about cohorts where people go in and they all do exactly the same CPD, and then two years in it’s like, can we do a cohort RPL with these people, but they all have more or less the same qualifications Whereas, for us, a lot of the people are coming with very different things; some people have degrees, some people don’t, some people have Train the Trainer…”

A key lesson emerging is the need to remain flexible and responsive to each individual RPL case, especially when cohorts from an educational setting with diverse qualifications and backgrounds are involved.

3.3.2. More Clarity Needed About the RPL Process for Applicants

Participants from both organisations agreed that greater clarity around the RPL process is needed for applicants. P4 (PO) described instances where graduates contacted her about RPL decisions that had already being made by the LDC as there was a lack of clarity, at times, about the process. She emphasised that, from a LWETB perspective, graduates needed clearer communication about confidentiality and permissions. They needed to be explicitly told that “even though your employer has paid for these other modules and they’ll be paying for the next modules. We won’t be discussing your case or can we have permission to discuss your case, under GDPR”. P5 (PO) confirmed that she felt graduates did not always understand the RPL process enough as she reflected, “but if they don’t know what it is, they don’t”. In addition, P3 (PO) observed that more clarity is needed about the level of work involved in the RPL process itself to avoid graduates not being “on the same trajectory” as the process evolves. Participants from both organisations suggested that the RPL process could possibly be started earlier, potentially becoming part of the induction process for applicants, so that they would have a clearer understanding of what would be expected of them throughout the RPL journey. Participants highlighted the lesson learned is that greater clarity is needed in relation to both the steps involved and the expectations placed on, and held by, graduates during the RPL process.

3.3.3. The Need for Stronger Communication Pathways with an RPL Champion

One of the most persistent challenges raised by participants during the organisational focus group was the lack of clear communication pathways. P4 (PO) commented that more clarity and coordination in communication would have made the process more straightforward, she observed that if the process was “streamlined a bit better in terms of the lines of communications, it probably would have made it easier for all six of us on this call and the ten learners”.

Participants also noted how easy it is for information to get fragmented or lost within email threads, particularly as P2 (PO) pointed out, “depending on how many people are involved in it”. Participants suggested various solutions to this challenge, including the creation of a dedicated Microsoft Teams space to support shared information between organisations. P5 (PO) suggested that there could be an online RPL champion, similar to the Onsite Champion in the CALS programme (Power et al., 2025). This person could be a consistent point of contact to improve communications between the organisations, acting as P5 (PO) described, “a second in command for queries”.

Overall, participants noted that a key lesson was that strengthening communications and having a dedicated RPL contact would significantly improve the whole process.

3.3.4. The RPL Process Is Worth the Work

Throughout the focus group, even as participants openly acknowledged the challenges of the RPL process, a strong collective belief in the value of the process was evident. Each participant expressed, at various points, their belief that it was worth the work and effort. P4 (PO) emphasised this point during the discussion of the lessons learned, noting “It’s worth doing. That’s the learning. Like it is, it is worth all the over and back”. Similarly, P5 (PO) commented that a pilot project was about the learning and appeared to capture the mood of the group when she said, “I think it was a great success”.

Even though, as iterated, the participants within the graduate focus group expressed the seamless nature of the RPL process from their perspective, they noted the “investment” as LWETB, their employer, made in them and expressed that they felt ‘valued and respected in that way, that, you know, somebody wants to give me that investment of their time and resources to build my skills as well. So that was important’ P10 (G).

P6 (G) concludes by iterating “if we talk about a different type of assets, for example, but it was trust. It was absolute trust. So, if somebody trusts you, believe in you, and gave you that opportunity, so that’s very individual and very subjective”.

4. Discussion

This discussion section shows how some of the themes generated during data analysis align to findings in existing literature. As mentioned, the wealth model of adult education (O’Grady & Byrne, 2018) encourages drawing on learners’ skills and prior experience to support their learning journey. While this framework underpins the adult literacy sector in Ireland, it can also be applied to the wider tertiary education sector and in this case specifically to RPL for adult educators working in this sector to gain professional recognition. It also aligns with our philosophical values and positionality as researchers and adult educators (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Both focus groups highlighted the significance that was placed on the diverse strengths and professional experiences of the applicants. While applicants in this RPL study aim to adopt a wealth model approach in their own practice with adult learners, the RPL process allowed them, as learners themselves, to harness their own ‘strengths and experiences as a resource’ (O’Grady & Byrne, 2018, p. 7).

RPL has been recognised as facilitating access to higher education in Europe for many years (Sandberg & Andersson, 2011). In their multidisciplinary study involving Swedish trade unions, the University of Lund and Linköping University, Sandberg and Andersson (2011) searched for the various ways that prior learning could be used for course accreditation in higher education. In their study, they highlight some of the challenges that academic discourse and language can present to RPL applicants. Sandberg and Andersson (2011, p. 10) emphasise the necessity of ‘mutual understanding between assessor and assessee’ to support participants to successfully integrate into higher education. As mentioned earlier, this need for supportive academic and institutional practices is also observed by Cooper and Harris (2013) and aligns with the LDC’s learner-centred approach (underpinned by the Principles of Good Adult Literacy Work (NALA, 2012)) to the RPL process. Similarly, de Paor (2023) focused on the challenge of aligning prior experiential learning with academic qualifications and advocated for the mainstreaming of the RPL process. Focusing on RPL providers, Salzmann et al. (2025) found that RPL implementation was most likely to happen in organisations with supportive RPL policies and in less regulated professional contexts.

Harris (1999) explores ‘ways of seeing’ different approaches to RPL assessment and identifies various models of RPL. These include the procrustean model which treats prior learning as acceptable if it fits predetermined outcomes or standards. Harris (1999) notes that knowledge is often viewed as ‘a product or commodity’ (p. 127) and is sometimes referred to as ‘a credit exchange model’ within RPL literature (p. 130). Another approach Harris explores is the learning and development model, which highlights the use of experiential learning and critical reflection in the RPL process. The learning and development model is particularly well-suited to adult learners returning to education with rich but varied professional and life experience, and in some respects aligns with the approach explored in this study. However, Harris (1999) observes that although this form of RPL can advance certain individuals it also represents ‘a reinscription of dominant discourses’ rather ‘than any challenge to them’ (p. 132) as prior learning is ultimately judged against existing academic standards. Harris (2014) continues with this theoretical reflection on RPL and observes the influence of Kolb’s experiential cycle of learning. This suggests that learning does not occur through experience alone, but rather it emerges through individual reflection on experience. This aligns with a tension in the RPL process explored in the current study. Even though the cohort’s prior experience and education aligned with curriculum learning outcomes, which suggests the process should be ‘seamless’ for everyone involved, RPL remains an individualised rather than a cohort process, maintaining adherence to existing curriculum structures. Additionally, drawing on earlier work by Pokorny, Pokorny et al. (2017) identified the RPL assessor as key to the RPL experience for the individual. where they consider ‘dialogic mediation and monologic teaching’ (p. 5). They explain the first as a collaborative process in which both the RPL students and assessor ‘worked together with the learning outcomes to identify learning that was equivalent but not the same as that within the taught curriculum’ (p. 5). This contrasts with a more one-sided approach in which the assessor was more concerned on ensuring that prior learning matched formal academic practice (Pokorny et al., 2017). While the RPL approach in this study was underpinned by a wealth model approach (O’Grady & Byrne, 2018) to learning and adopted a collaborative approach, there remain areas for improvement. As with Harris’s (1999) learning and development model, the work of Pokorny et al. (2017) highlights the potential for working even more dialogically with each individual graduate to map their respective learning and experience rather than focusing solely on aligning their learning to the existing curriculum. This is the heart of where the RPL process in this current study had scope for improvement. Working with each individual graduate to map their respective learning and experience rather than trying to fit it to a cohort approach may have resulted in a more ‘seamless’ experience for the programme organisation team also.

Since Sandberg and Andersson’s (2011) call for more critical research on RPL in higher education, much has been written about the methodologies, processes and analysis of implementation of RPL (Widger et al., 2024; Raciti et al., 2024). However, there are still few studies on its implementation with a cohort of learners (Fenton & Goggin, 2020) or specifically within the further education and training or vocational education sector (Kraus, 2026); whereas, both of these elements are examined within this current study. Given the current review of NFQ Level 6 programmes delivery, this has resulted in timely research situated within the Irish education system. Including both the perspectives of programme administration and organisation and graduates of the RPL process brings a well-rounded contribution to the body of knowledge in this area.

4.1. Benefits of Engaging in the RPL Process

As described earlier in this study, the two focus group areas provide diverse perspectives of the RPL process in supporting the progression of a cohort of tutors from LWETB from a minor to a major award. Participants in both focus groups highlighted a number of benefits with the positive experience of graduates coming to the fore. In examining the use of cohort RPL, as conducted in this current study, a similar cohort RPL approach was explored by Fenton and Goggin (2020). Their study looked at educational opportunities facilitated for pilots using cohort RPL. Both studies suggest that the benefits to the graduate in facilitating their educational progression far outweighed the work done in mapping their prior learning. Fenton and Goggin (2020) observe that the ‘lifestyle and, indeed workstyle’ of the cohort was taken into consideration in ‘the attainment of third level qualifications while maintaining active and full participation in the workforce’ (p. 137), which aligns to the considerations afforded to the RPL applicants in the current study. In the Fenton and Goggin study, as with our study, extensive mapping had to be conducted on the student cohort on application to the programme, in their instance pilots, in our study, the cohort were tutors within the further education sector. As with our study, theirs also had a focus on equity and valuing prior learning. This was also evident in de Paor’s (2023) study of RPL processes in the context of the Irish defence forces, where the applicant mapped their prior learning for programme recognition. Similarly, Salzmann et al.’s (2025) work highlights that institutional attitudes, structures and supports are essential components of a successful RPL process that supports learning.

4.2. Challenges of Engaging in the RPL Process

In both the Fenton and Goggin (2020) and de Paor (2023) studies, each applicant was required to produce a portfolio of their learning to date, which put the onus on the applicant to demonstrate their learning. However, the graduates in this current study were required to provide their information and in the case of their prior experience, complete a descriptive narrative of how this would count as sufficient prior learning to exempt them from particular subject learning. To facilitate this process, they were in constant contact with either the team from the LDC or from LWETB for clarity on any query regarding their respective RPL process. The resulting time pressure and workload for the RPL team was captured in this study, to map the graduate RPL and recognition of prior experience (RPE), as being significant, while for the graduates it was “seamless”. While de Paor’s (2023) study of the Tobar project also identified time pressures and workload as challenges of the RPL process, in that instance it was the learners themselves who highlighted it as ‘the most significant challenge’ (de Paor, 2023, p. 6) rather than the RPL team.

This disparity in workload experienced by the organisation team in comparison to the individual seeking recognition of their prior learning was due to a number of factors. Firstly, the graduate’s concern was in mapping their individual prior learning to align with the RPL pathways provided (see Section RPL Mapping Process and Pathways). The organisation team had to map the individual and the wider cohort so they could continue to deliver modules for the cohort. This balance required significant communication between organisations with timetabling, cost and ensuring the relevant staff in LWETB were released from their various roles to complete their education on the one agreed day per week. The graduates remained unaware of the logistical requirements of the programme in that regard. Perhaps the most significant challenge arose around GDPR and the role both organisations had in this respect. Under GDPR legislation, SETU, as the programme owner, could not discuss registered students with their employers, in this case, LWETB. This was a challenge as LWETB as employers were also contacted during the RPL process by the graduates seeking RPL. Constant backwards and forwards was needed to ensure information being communicated between organisations was GDPR compliant. Communication between all stakeholders was also found by de Paor (2023) as a challenge to the RPL process.

4.3. Lessons Learned

Perhaps within the ‘lessons learned’ from our perspective, we could adopt the model described within the Fenton and Goggin (2020) study and place more of the onus on the graduate as an entering or continuing student to demonstrate and map their RPL/RPE. As a result, the mapping workload would have been more balanced. Additionally, as identified within the organisational focus group, having a dedicated RPL contact would significantly improve the whole process which concurs with de Paor (2023) and would support applicants to map their prior learning to the programme they wish to be exempt from.

Other research conducted in a Swiss study by Kraus (2026) which sought to reform its vocational education and training system by introducing a RPL process designed to help low qualified workers gain formal qualifications shines further light on our current study. The method of implementation of RPL was met with tensions due to the incompatibilities in the application of RPL to how the state policy and education policy viewed the prior learning and experience of these low qualified workers in being recognised for their prior learning. In that study, “the specific barriers to accessing this would have to be removed, and candidates would need to be given systematic support and stability during the process. In addition, it would have to be expanded to include comprehensive support for low-qualified workers in obtaining qualifications and accessing further training. Providing step- by-step qualification pathways, including sectoral certificates, would also be necessary to make qualification pathways more manageable” (Kraus, 2026, p. 101). Whereas, in this current study, the graduate focus group spoke of how “supported” they felt in the RPL process and throughout their learning and cited that as a principal reason for continuing their education.

It is additionally important to note that while professional development occurs within the further education sector, LWETB are to be commended on the value they place in their practitioners in facilitating such an orchestrated large-scale educational professional development experience for their staff. Not alone did LWETB facilitate the professional development of their staff to the 30 ECTS CALS programme (Power et al., 2025), they funded and facilitated further professional development of this cohort of staff to complete the major award at that level. The feeling of being ‘invested in by their organisation’ drove away any impression of ‘being unworthy or having self-doubt as captured in previous research (Power et al., 2025). Due to the continuing investment in their staff by LWETB, the graduate focus group participants, as practitioners within LWETB felt valued and respected by their organisation. This commitment to professional development has already paid dividends to the staff and their learners within LWETB, benefiting from enhanced practice and loyalty to their organisation as a result. This was in line with the findings of Grummell and Murray (2015), where an organisational commitment to the professional development of their staff facilitates learning in meeting the Further Education and Training Professional Learning & Development Statement of Strategy 2020–2024 (SOLAS, 2020).

A summary of the feedback from both focus groups can be found in Table 2 below. This captures their respective benefits, challenges, and lessons learned which could inform future programme delivery through RPL.

Table 2. Focus group summary on the benefits, challenges and lessons learned within their participation in the Higher Certificate in Literacy Development programme.

	Summary Themes from All Stakeholder Focus Groups
Benefits of engaging in the RPL process	In summary, the following aligned themes emerged from both focus groups expressing the ‘fairness’ of the RPL process. The sense that the learners felt and were ‘supported’ through the RPL process.
	The sense that the process was ‘individualised’ and that the graduates as staff of LWETB and professional colleagues within education expressed that their individual prior learning was ‘recognised’ and ‘valued’.
	Engaging with the RPL process, the graduates expressed that they didn’t have to ‘repeat’ prior learning and that the learning process for each individual was therefore not ‘interrupted’, with an additional benefit to the funding organisation, LWETB, of savings in the cost of supporting their staff through this learning experience.
	The ‘consistency’ of the RPL process was expressed, in that the individual RPL was mapped within the cohort, aligning to the existing fair, but stringent RPL processes conducted with in the LDC—SETU.
	The graduates spoke of the ‘seamless’ way the RPL process was conducted from their perspective.
Challenges of engaging in the RPL process	This ‘seamless’ RPL experience wasn’t the same for the organisational representatives though with ‘time’ and ‘heavy workloads’ expressed within that focus group. Additionally noted were “robust arguments” within the RPL Committee within LDC, SETU as being an essential part of the process and noted that “it makes it stronger for having those discussions”.
	The sense that it is difficult to capture RPL in a completed framework when working with adult learners was also discussed by the organisational representative focus group, with one member expressing “I think I remember at the time, oh yeah, this is it. This is going to capture it all. These are the four options. We have covered every eventuality, but we hadn’t”.
Lessons learned, if any	Both focus groups expressed that the RPL process in continuing education was worth doing, but a lesson learned is that ‘cohort RPL’ may be the initial intention, in fact the ‘individual RPL’ is the practice.
	The RPL process would be easier for the organisation if permission was granted, under GDPR by the individual applicant for both organisations to discuss their prior learning as part of their RPL process and application.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, data from the focus groups conducted as part of this research demonstrates the overwhelming benefits of RPL as a means of access and equity to higher education. While this study has its identified limitations, such as the lack of gender balance and perceived hierarchy, there were measures taken to ensure that the graduate focus groups were comfortable in the environment where they could speak freely to enrich the research study. Even though this study involves detailing the RPL process in the continuing education of a small cohort of tutors within further education, the data captured demonstrated the individualised nature of RPL. The study also demonstrated the nuances of both the challenges in the additional ‘unseen’ workload with the programme organisational team with the ‘seamless’ experience for the individual graduate. However, in exploring the theoretical framework, we have learned that this excessive workload could have been more distributed had the programme organisational team worked placed more onus on each individual graduate to map their respective learning and experience rather than mapping pathways for a cohort programme delivery. The data also demonstrates that once again within this continued collaborative research a key to the success of the project was embedded within the relationships and culture of collaboration underpinning the ethos of the project.

An additional successful outcome from this collaborative and creative mode of facilitating the education of the graduates was how our colleagues within the further education sector detailed their own metamorphosis. Here, in this study, the graduates speak of being ‘seen’ and ‘valued’ both by their organisation and within the prior learning and experience that was considered in continuing their studies. Their appreciation of and loyalty to their employer because of such support in continuing their education was evident within their discussion as was their sense of belonging within LWETB and ‘owning’ their respective places within that organisation.