About credit transfer

Ross Woods, 2014

First what is "credit transfer"? The AQF Glossary of Terminology defines credit transfer as "a process that provides students with agreed and consistent credit outcomes for components of a qualification based on identified equivalence in content and learning outcomes between matched qualifications." That is, credit transfer means acceptance of any credit from another institution, without assessment of the student, where the receiving RTO can demonstrate that it meets the requirements of the current version of the RTO’s units.

It seems that the training sector often fails to notice two points, that the AQF is binding on the training sector and that it applies across all three sectors: schools, higher education and vocational education.

In higher education, two institutions quite often have agreements to transfer credit from one to the other. For example, they can offer degrees jointly, include study at an overseas university in their own programs, or provide an articulation pathway from one institution to another with an agreed amount of transfer credit.

National Recognition

National Recognition (previously known as "Mutual Recognition") is often confused with credit transfer. It has been quite tightly defined as the obligatory acceptance of units from another RTO that are the same unit with the same code, evidenced by an RTO statement of attainment or record of achievement. As an interesting catch, units don’t have an expiry date so the accepting RTO has no right to demand that they be current or that competencies were performed in a particular context. The quality standard requires RTOs to accept credit through national recognition.

In a few cases, they must accept the credit, but might impose an RCC assessment to ensure that the student still actually has those skills. For example:

Brad passed a generic OHS unit several years ago in another industry, and is now applying to work for BigFat Corp., which has strict safety protocols because its workplace is potentially very dangerous.

The BigFat RTO accepts the transfer credit, but still requires Brad to pass an OHS assessment before being to allowed onto the work site.

Credit transfer is much more loosely defined than National Recognition. RTOs are not required to accept credit transfer and would be well-advised to refuse applicants whom they have reason to believe are less than fully competent.

Kinds of credit transfer

I’m collating a compendium of different kinds of cases of credit transfer. In the simplest case, an RTO can accept units from another RTO when the training package states that they are equivalent. This is often the case when there are no actual changes in requirements, such as when the code changes from an A to a B version the unit has a minor name change. The RTO only needs record that the training package says they are equivalent. However, if the content is actually differs between the units, the RTO needs to assess the gap skills.

Otherwise, some kind of mapping is usually necessary to demonstrate equivalence, and it can apply to acceptance of units from outside the VET sector. Mapping can be as simple as using the RTO’s standard assessment form.

1. In a few cases, the only reason two units are not equivalent is that the older unit is much broader or more demanding than the newer unit. (That is, equivalence is directional. Unit X might cover all requirements of Unit Y, but Unit Y doesn't cover all requirements of Unit X.) If the student has the more demanding unit, they can be awarded the less demanding unit.
2. In a couple of training packages, the training package mistakenly states that two units are not equivalent. Mapping resolves this confusion.
3. In some cases, two or more units together might cover all the requirements of the hoped-for unit.
4. Some units have mini and macro versions of the same thing. For example, the list of elements in unit X is the same as the list of units in qualification Y, and the list of performance criteria in unit X is the same as the list of elements in qualification Y. It is relatively easy to map equivalence.
5. In other cases, the units are worded differently but the assessment activities are equivalent. This is quite common with equivalent units from different packages.

Some credit transfers are increasingly treated as RPL, that is, the process for assessing and recognizing prior learning no matter how it was done. It may include any evidence such as unit descriptions, transcripts, etc. issued by any other institution (higher education, foreign, unaccredited, etc.).

The line between transfer credit and RPL is actually quite blurred but it is not really a problem. The main differences are:

• RTOs normally charge a fee for RPL but not for transfer credit.
• Credit transfer is usually only an administrative process, whereas RPL always includes a formal assessment.
• If the process is considered to be a full new assessment (as it is in RPL), the principles of assessment and rules of evidence come into full effect (currency, sufficiency, authenticity, fairness, flexibility, etc.) In a transfer credit situation, they probably apply anyway as a matter of good practice but are not necessarily required. For example, acceptance of an equivalent unit is administrative and needs very little assessment.

I get the impression that auditors only understand national recognition and seldom understand credit transfer. Some are even a little vague on RPL. For example, one auditor mistakenly accepts only a new assessment of the student through direct evidence. It would be more correct to accept other kinds of evidence, and if they cover all requirements, then they are adequate.

Ten ways of granting credit

In conclusion, we now have ten ways in which an RTO can credit a student with a VET unit:

1. Passing an assessment in the RTO as a regular tuition student.
2. Passing a Recognition of Prior Learning assessment.
3. National Recognition, the obligatory acceptance of units from another RTO that are the same unit with the same code, evidenced by an RTO statement of attainment or record of achievement.
4. Acceptance of units that the training package or training.gov.au states to be equivalent to a current unit.
5. Acceptance of a combination of units which the training package states to be equivalent to a current unit.

The remaining kinds of acceptance requires mapping of some kind to show them to be equivalent:

6. Equivalent units although the training package mistakenly says they are not.
7. Mini and macro versions of the same thing.
8. One unit is wider or more demanding than another.
9. Two or more units together cover all the requirements of the hoped-for unit.
10. Units are worded differently but the assessment activities are equivalent.