The purpose of credit in the Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector is to provide recognition of a unit of competency (unit) and/or module in which a learner has previously been assessed as competent.
This Fact Sheet is in reference to Outcome Standard 1.7 of the Registration Standards 2025 (2025 Standards) and provides advice for RTOs awarding credit for units and/or modules (units/modules) and considers credit in relation to training product revisions and changes that can occur over time. Reference should also be made to the TAC Fact Sheets: Training Product Equivalence and Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL).
Awarding credit means acknowledging that a potential or current student has already demonstrated competency in an equivalent unit and is not required to enrol in or complete the current unit (unless licensing or regulatory requirements prevent this) to meet the requirements of a pre-requisite, qualification or skill set. The outcome is the formal recognition of this achievement through a credit result.
An RTO can issue credit to a student in the following situations:
- The student provides evidence of holding the current unit/module; or
- The student provides evidence of holding the superseded unit/module equivalent to the current unit/module outcomes.
The unit of competency does not have to be on the RTO’s scope of delivery as the RTO is not awarding the unit, merely recognising it for credit.
The Record of Results indicate that the unit has been achieved through a credit transfer process. If RPL is offered, the training product (unit or qualification) for which RPL is sought must be on the RTO’s scope of delivery
Responsibilities under the Australian Qualifications Framework
When awarding credit, RTOs need to consider the requirements of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) which indicates that RTOs are ‘responsible for ensuring the quality of the learning outcomes and that the graduate has satisfactorily completed any requirements for the awarding of the qualification 1'
This advice is also in line with the requirements of the AQF Pathways Policy 2 which indicates that:
- the RTO will recognise learning regardless of how, when and where it was acquired, provided that the learning is relevant and current and has a relationship to the learning outcomes of the qualification; and
- that giving credit “should not impinge upon…the integrity of qualification outcomes”.
Awarding credit does not mean the individual has completed the current unit. To be awarded a current unit/module—whether for personal reasons or to meet licensing or regulatory requirements—the individual must enrol and be formally assessed in that unit/module. This may be done through an assessment-only pathway, such as RPL.
Awarding Credit when an Individual holds the Current Unit or Module
Where a learner provides suitable evidence for successfully completing a unit/module with an RTO—all RTOs must provide credit for that unit/module.
Before providing credit on the basis of a qualification and record of results, or a Statement of Attainment, an RTO should authenticate the information in the document by contacting the organisation that issued the document and confirming its authenticity or checking the information on the Unique Student Identifier (USI) website.
In some cases, licensing or regulatory requirements may prevent a unit/module being awarded through a credit process.
Equivalence of Training Products
When a Training Package or an accredited course developer determines equivalence, they conduct an analysis of the new unit and/or module and the one it immediately supersedes . This determination does not consider the unit/module from versions superseded twice or more, that is, does not review historical versions.
Awarding Credit when Successive Versions are ‘Equivalent’.
RTOs can award credit using the ‘equivalent’ determination where the unit/modules already attained by the learner is specified as equivalent and immediately precedes the unit/module for which credit transfer will be awarded.
As the determination of ‘equivalence’ is based on unchanged workplace outcomes, it is reasonable to allow for an immediately equivalent superseded unit/module to be used to grant credit automatically.
Awarding Credit when Equivalent Units or Modules have been Superseded twice or more
Where an award of credit is sought for equivalent units/modules that have been superseded twice or more (e.g. there is a unit/modules interceding):
- the RTO must conduct a mapping process to confirm no gaps exist in the content and learning outcomes3 between the unit/module already attained by the learner and the unit/module for which the learner seeks an award of credit; and
- where a mapping process identifies gaps in the content and learning outcomes, no award of credit can be provided. (In this case, the RTO could consider assessing the learner’s achievement of the gaps and award the unit through RPL).
The mapping includes a review of the elements, performance criteria, performance evidence and knowledge evidence and assessment requirements in the unit to ensure that every requirement of the current unit/module is evident in the unit/module for which credit is sought. This mapping should be undertaken by an appropriately qualified person.
The mapping process may reveal that there have been no changes in substance between equivalent units superseded twice or more and, with that knowledge, the RTO could safely and confidently grant credit. It may also reveal that there have been substantial changes.
Where a mapping process identifies gaps in the content and learning outcomes, no award of credit can be provided. In this case the RTO may offer RPL or an accelerated delivery pathway so that learners can upgrade to the current unit.
An example of a mapping process is available in the TAC Fact Sheet: Training Product Equivalence. The RTO should keep a record of its analysis and outcomes to support its decisions relating to credit.
The Importance of Mapping – Quality and Integrity of Outcomes
Where an equivalent unit has been superseded twice or more, the RTO conducts a mapping process to confirm no gaps exist in the content and learning outcomes between the unit/module attained by the learner and the unit/module for which the learner seeks credit. This mapping may identify:
- significant gaps in the equivalence chain; or
- changes in additional performance criteria and additional knowledge evidence relating to safe work practices, which may have implications for workplace safety.
An example of a comparison of an equivalent unit of competency superseded twice or more with an earlier version of the unit is provided below:
RIIMPO318F Conduct civil construction skid steer loader operations
RIIMPO318F is the current version (Release 1: 2021) of a string of equivalent units: RIIMPO318E (2018) – RIIMPO318D (2015) – RIIMPO318B (2013) – RIIMPO318A (2011).
Comparing RIIMPO318F (Release 1 2021) with RIIMPO318B (2013) reveals considerable gaps in the performance criteria, most notably relating to ‘safe work practices’, emergency procedures, managing and reporting hazards, communication with others, and completing documentation.
When Unit or Module Information is no longer available
There are instances where the content of a previous version of a unit or module is no longer available on the national VET Register, training.gov.au. This could be due to the increased focus on safety and operation of equipment and that the achievement of a past equivalent unit used as credit for the current version of the unit could be unsafe.
CPCCBC4008 Supervise site communication and administration processes for building and construction projects (as detailed in the TAC Fact Sheet: Training Product Equivalence).
Refer back two versions to CPCCBC4008A (Release 1).
This unit is listed on training.gov.au, but the content of the unit can no longer be accessed. The mapping contained in the Companion Volume for this training product indicates that CPCCBC4008A is equivalent to CPCCBC4008B. And in the next release of the training package, CPCCBC4008B is equivalent to the current unit CPCCBC4008.
An RTO has no way of knowing the content of CPCCBC4008A, or what differences or similarities exist between this unit and the other two superseding versions of the unit, it would not be reasonable to grant credit in this situation as no mapping or evidence could be sourced.
When Versions are ‘Not Equivalent’
Credit cannot be awarded when versions of units or modules are not equivalent, however the RTO could undertake an RPL process with the student.
RPL is a formal assessment process where all unit requirements are addressed, and the judgement is made using evidence that meets all the Rules of Evidence. The TAC Fact Sheet: Recognition of Prior Learning assists in interpreting the requirements of Outcome Standards 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. Aspects of the superseded unit that were unchanged in the current unit could be accepted as demonstrated as they had been assessed for the award of the superseded unit.
Determining the Vocational Competency of Trainers and Assessors
RTOs are required to demonstrate that nominated trainers and assessors are vocationally competent and current, in accordance with Outcome Standard 3.3. This means that the trainers and assessors hold the unit they deliver and assess or are able to prove that they have equivalent competence. This is different to holding an equivalent unit of competency.
Evidence used to demonstrate equivalence of vocational competency may include relevant past training (including superseded and pre-existing industry qualifications), experience and professional development. The TAC Fact Sheet: Current Industry Skills and Knowledge provides guidance on the requirements of Outcome Standard 3.3.
What are Auditors looking for?
RTOs are required to demonstrate that potential and current students are made aware of opportunities to seek credit for units/modules previously completed and are supported in doing so.
When equivalence is part of a decision about credit, RPL and vocational competence, an RTO must provide evidence of documented mapping indicating how judgements and decisions occurred. This mapping forms part of the assessment system and should be included in the RTO’s validation processes. RTOs must:
- retain evidence of the documents provided and outcomes so that they can be reviewed to ensure fairness, transparency and consistency;
- demonstrate the process they used to verify the authenticity of the original training product being used for credit; and
- ensure the credit transfer process is reviewed as part of the RTO’s continuous improvement processes.
An Overview of the Decision Process for Awarding Credit
The following flow chart provides guidance on key questions that the RTO must consider when awarding credit.
1 Australian Qualifications Framework – Second Edition January 2013 (page78)
2 Australian Qualifications Framework – Second Edition January 2013 (page28)
3 Content includes a unit of competency’s Elements, Performance Criteria and Assessment Requirements
Print this page
