Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) is an assessment process that involves assessment of an individual’s relevant prior learning and experience (including skills and knowledge obtained through formal and informal learning) to determine the extent to which the individual meets requirements specified in the training product.
Units of Competency are developed based on an industry need, identified in and derived from workplaces, so it is not surprising that employees who undertake that work have unrecognised competencies. There are many ways competence can be achieved other than through formal training. RPL provides an opportunity to have those competencies recognised towards qualifications or skill sets and further training.
Outcome Standard 1.6 in the Registration Standards 2025 (2025 Standards) places strong emphasis on ensuring:
- RPL processes are undertaken in accordance with the RTO’s assessment system and maintain the integrity of the training product; and
- RPL is conducted with the same rigour, fairness, and validity as any other assessment, ensuring that the student applying for RPL demonstrates that they meet the required standard, using evidence that is current, authentic, valid and sufficient including a judgement process that is valid, fair, flexible and reliable.
The RTO must have the training product for which RPL is sought on its scope of delivery.
RPL vs Credit Transfer
Credit Transfer is an administrative process of recognising and awarding credit for prior successful completion of an equivalent unit of competency or module, without the need for additional assessment. In contrast, RPL is an assessment process and must meet the Principles of Assessment and the Rules of Evidence.
More information is available in the Fact Sheet: Awarding Credit.
How does RPL work?
While the structure and complexity of the RPL process will vary based on the size of the RTO, its operating environment and the student cohort, the formal assessment pathway is best described as a process of key steps.
The steps, depicted in the diagram below, provide a framework for ensuring valid determinations of competence and that the student is able to reflect current workplace practices to meet the requirements of the training product.
In Outcome Standard 1.6, the RTO is required to offer VET students the opportunity to seek RPL, and to inform them of policies, procedures and processes to support students in the RPL process. This could be done through the RTO’s website, brochures, and/or Student Handbook.
1.Initial Inquiry and Information Sharing
The process begins when a person expresses interest in having their existing skills and experience formally recognised. At this stage, they receive guidance about what RPL involves, including eligibility criteria, the types of evidence that may be required, and how their experience might align with specific units or modules. This step provides the foundation for informed decision-making.
2.Application and Self-Assessment
Once the person decides to proceed, they complete an application form and often a self-assessment checklist. This allows them to reflect on their own capabilities and identify areas where they may already meet the requirements of the training product. It also helps the assessor understand the individual’s background and determine the suitability of RPL as a pathway.
3.Evidence Gathering
The person then begins collecting evidence to demonstrate their competence and build a comprehensive picture of their experience and capabilities. This can include a wide range of materials, such as:
- work samples or portfolios;
- job descriptions, resumes, and performance reviews;
- references or testimonials from supervisors or colleagues;
- certificates from previous training or study; and
- photos, videos, or other artefacts that show skills in action.
It is important that this stage is not too onerous as it could prevent a student with a legitimate claim from progressing. This evidence does not have to meet the Rules of Evidence as it is not being used to assess competence, but merely to determine the student’s suitability and readiness to engage in the RPL process.
4.Pre assessment interview
At this stage, a qualified assessor conducts a structured interview with the applicant to:
- clarify the evidence provided and its relevance to the units of competency;
- identify any gaps in the evidence or areas that may require further documentation or assessment; and
- confirm the applicant’s readiness to proceed with a full RPL assessment or if they need to enrol in training.
This conversation is also an opportunity to explain the assessment process, expectations, and next steps. It ensures the applicant understands how their evidence will be evaluated and what support is available. The assessor may also begin mapping the evidence to specific unit requirements and provide tailored advice on strengthening the portfolio if needed and/or opportunities to demonstrate in a practical environment.
5.Assessment of Evidence
A qualified assessor reviews the submitted evidence against the relevant units of competency. This is a rigorous process that ensures the evidence is:
- Valid – directly related to the skills and knowledge required;
- Sufficient – covers all aspects of the competency;
- Authentic – clearly attributable to the student; and
- Current – reflects recent and relevant experience.
If additional evidence is required to meet the rules of evidence the assessor will also conduct additional interviews, request additional documentation or observe tasks to confirm all aspects of the student’s competence. It would be wise to administer a knowledge assessment before a skills assessment as these are quicker and cheaper to deliver and might indicate the need for training ahead of the more expensive and time-consuming skill observations.
6.Assessment Decision and Feedback
If the evidence meets all unit requirements, the individual is judged competent in the relevant units. If there are gaps, the assessor provides feedback and may recommend targeted training or further assessment to address those areas. This ensures the integrity of the qualification while supporting the individual’s progress.
7.Formal Recognition and Documentation
Once competence is confirmed, the individual’s record will show that the unit(s) has been achieved and may receive formal documentation—such as a Statement of Attainment or a VET qualification—recognising their achievements.
The record of results could indicate that the unit had been awarded through an RPL process, but as the unit meets all the requirements of the Standards, particularly the assessment requirements, there is no need to differentiate between RPL-based and training-based outcomes.
RPL is considered by some to be a ‘lesser’ form of training, and indicating ‘RPL’ on a record or results may be harmful other than indicating ‘CO’, like all other outcomes.
Assessment Principles in RPL
RPL assessments must adhere to the same principles that apply to all competency-based assessment. The Principles of Assessment are detailed in Outcome Standard 1.4 and include:
- Fairness - the process must be equitable and transparent. Students should be fully informed about what is required, supported throughout the process, and given opportunities to provide additional evidence if needed.
- Flexibility - RPL must accommodate the diverse ways in which students have gained their skills and knowledge. Assessors should be open to various forms of evidence and assessment methods that suit the student’s background.
- Validity - the evidence must clearly relate to the specific requirements of the unit(s) of competency. It should demonstrate that the student has the skills and knowledge outlined in the training package or accredited course.
- Reliability - the assessment outcomes should be consistent across different assessors and contexts. This means that if another assessor reviewed the same evidence, they would reach the same conclusion.
Rules of Evidence in RPL
To ensure the integrity of the assessment, the evidence provided must meet include:
- Validity - The evidence must directly relate to the competency being assessed. It should clearly show that the student meets the performance criteria and required knowledge.
- Sufficiency - There must be enough evidence to make a reliable judgement. A single document or example is rarely enough—assessors need a range of evidence that covers all aspects of the competency. This is often defined in the Performance Evidence requirements.
- Authenticity - The evidence must be the student’s own work. Assessors may verify this through interviews, third-party reports, or direct observation.
- Currency - The evidence must reflect current skills and knowledge. Outdated qualifications or experience may not be sufficient unless supported by recent application in the workplace.
These qualities need to be confirmed from time to time by including examples of RPL in the assessment validation schedule (Outcome Standard 1.5).
Common Challenges in RPL
Confidentiality Restrictions: In some cases, individuals may be unable to share workplace documents due to privacy, intellectual property or security concerns. This can make it difficult to provide direct evidence of their skills. Assessors may be able to accept redacted or de-identified documents, seek verification from employers/ supervisors, or conduct workplace observations or simulations to confirm competence.
Informal or Unstructured Learning: Skills gained through volunteering, life experience, or informal roles are often relevant—but not always easy to document. Individuals may find it difficult to present this evidence in a way that aligns with the training product requirements. Assessors can support candidates by using a range of methods such as structured interviews, providing templates, or alternative formats for evidence such as videos, photos, or voice recordings.
Uncertain Currency: Evidence must reflect the candidate’s current competence, and sometimes what’s presented is simply too outdated, both in terms of skills and also knowledge. Assessors may ask for more recent examples, updated attestations, or evidence of refresher activities. If needed, an assessment that incorporates a practical task or observation can be used to confirm that the individual’s skills are relevant and up to date.
Quantity without Quality: It’s not uncommon for individuals to submit large volumes of documents, hoping that more will be better. But without clear links to the training product requirements, this can overwhelm the assessment process. Assessors need to focus on quality—evidence that is mapped, relevant, and clearly aligned with the training product. Setting expectations early and providing guidance can help, but assessors must also be prepared to reject evidence that doesn’t meet the required standards.
Supporting Diverse Students in RPL
Outcome Standard 1.6 requires that RTOs demonstrate that students are supported to seek RPL.
RPL must be accessible to all students, including those from diverse cultural, linguistic, educational, and employment backgrounds, many of whom may face a range of barriers that affect their ability to engage with education, demonstrate their skills and hinder their ability to navigate systems or present evidence. For example:
- lack of confidence or unfamiliarity with assessment language and expectations may make it difficult for students to showcase their capabilities;
- cultural differences may influence how competence is expressed or understood, potentially leading to misinterpretation;
- some students may be unable to access or present conventional workplace evidence;
- people with disability may experience disadvantage with the way evidence is presented, requiring inclusive and flexible approaches to support equitable participation.
To alleviate some of these issues, RTOs may choose to implement support strategies such as those suggested below relevant to their size, operating environment and learner cohort, including:
- RPL Advisors – to provide guidance throughout the RPL process, including helping students prepare evidence and understand assessment requirements.
- Plain English resources that use RPL kits, checklists or self-assessment tools that avoid jargon and are written in accessible, easy to understand language.
- Flexible evidence formats that accept oral, visual, and workplace evidence, structured interviews, and workplace observations to support students with limited documentation.
- Reasonable adjustments are made in the RPL process for people with disability that may include verbal responses, adjustments to timeframes or mobility aids.
- Orientation or information sessions that offer introductory briefings that clearly explain the RPL process using practical examples and plain language.
- Progressive submission and feedback to allow staged evidence submission with ongoing feedback to help build confidence and improve the relevance and quality of submissions.
Applicants might also benefit from having access to training materials, such as presentations like PowerPoint slides, used to deliver the current unit. Through these resources the applicants can become familiar with current terminology and work from the same base as those who have undertaken the course.
Supporting students does not mean lowering standards. All students must still meet the requirements of the training product. These strategies ensure that every student has a reasonable and fair opportunity to succeed by providing effective communication, flexibility, and inclusive practice, while upholding validity, authenticity, currency, and sufficiency of evidence.
Validating RPL and Quality Assurance
RPL is an integral part of the RTO’s overall assessment system. RPL processes and outcomes must be subject to the same rigorous validation and continuous improvement requirements as all other assessments.
More information is available in the Fact Sheet: Assessment Validation
What Auditors are looking for?
Auditors expect RTOs to maintain evidence of their RPL processes and validation activities. These records demonstrate compliance with many aspects of Outcome Standards 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6.
| Evidence | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Information for learners about the opportunity and advantages to undertake RPL | Demonstrates that all students have been invited to consider RPL and understand the process involved. |
| Validation plans that include RPL coverage | Demonstrates that validation is systematically planned and includes RPL. |
| Completed RPL assessment records | Shows how the RTO ensures evidence meets unit and training product requirements. |
| Validation meeting minutes or reports | Confirms whether assessor decisions were reviewed, benchmarked, and consistent. |
| Records of assessment tool improvements | Evidence that feedback and validation findings lead to meaningful action and updates. |
| Industry consultation records | Supports workplace relevance and effective contextualisation of assessment tools and processes. |
| Records of RPL outcome validation | Demonstrates consistency in assessment decisions across assessors, cohorts, or delivery sites. |
| Evidence that assessment tools were reviewed before use for RPL | Confirms tools were fit-for-purpose and aligned with unit requirements. |
| Completed assessment records, showing how each requirement was met | Provides transparency and traceability in assessment decisions. |
| Mapping documentation linking student evidence to unit requirements | Substantiates the validity of RPL decisions beyond simple checklists. |
| RPL register tracking applications, outcomes, assessor involvement, and issues | Enables monitoring of RPL activity and identification of trends or concerns. |
| Continuous improvement log documenting actions from validation or feedback | Demonstrates responsiveness and commitment to quality improvement. |
All documentation should be systematically maintained, readily retrievable, and clearly linked to continuous improvement processes. This strengthens the RTO’s ability to demonstrate transparency, integrity, and commitment to quality during audits or reviews.
Recordkeeping
RTOs must retain comprehensive, accurate records that demonstrate how assessment decisions are made and how the process upholds the integrity of the training product awarded in line with Outcome Standard 1.6.
| Record | Purpose |
|---|---|
| RPL Application Form | Confirms the student’s intention to pursue RPL and formally initiates the assessment process. |
| Pre-assessment Interview/Checklist | Documents initial suitability and readiness for RPL; may identify potential gaps or the need for additional support. |
| Decision not to proceed | Documents the decision not to proceed to enrolment for RPL and the reasons why. |
| Enrolment form | Demonstrates enrolment in RPL and records all the necessary data for AVETMISS submission |
| Evidence mapping document | Clearly shows how the student’s evidence aligns with each part of the relevant training product. |
| Third-party reports / Statutory Declarations | Supports authenticity and confirms workplace relevance and context of evidence, where applicable. |
| Assessor Judgement Record | Documents how the assessor made the final decision, including any supplementary or gap assessments conducted. |
| Validation records | Confirms that RPL tools and outcomes were reviewed and validated, and that assessor decisions were consistent. |
| Feedback to student | Demonstrates transparency, supports fairness, and informs students of outcomes and any further pathways. |
| Appeal or Review documentation (if applicable) | Shows that procedural fairness is available and implemented where required. |
| Certification or Statement of Attainment | Issued in accordance with AQF and relevant standards, post-RPL outcome. |
When RPL may not be Appropriate
There may be some situations where RPL may not be the most suitable assessment pathway including:
Licensing or regulatory requirements – some licensing or regulatory authorities prevent RTOs from issuing certification based on RPL and require students to undertake formal training and supervised assessment. This is common in safety critical or high-risk contexts such as traffic management.
Low-cost or short courses – for certain short duration or low-cost courses, it may not be practical or cost effective to establish a tailored RPL process. In these cases, it may be more appropriate for students to proceed directly to formal assessment using the RTO’s validated assessment tools.
Evidence limitations – during application, an RTO may determine that a student does not have sufficient or appropriate evidence to meet the Rules of Evidence and Principles of Assessment, even with support or other assessment options. In such cases, a training pathway may be recommended to ensure the student can develop and demonstrate the required competencies. In such cases, where an RTO decides not to offer RPL, the RTO must:
- document the decision with an evidence-based rationale such as an educational, safety, or regulatory reasons;
- be transparent about the decision including communicating the decision to the individual before enrolment or commencement;
- provide support to the student to understand options; and
- be able to justify their decision in line with Outcome Standard 1.6.
Case Study Examples
CASE STUDY 1:Aged Care Support Worker - CHCAGE011 Provide support to people living with dementiaGrace has been working as a personal care assistant in an aged care facility for six years, providing daily support to residents with dementia. She holds a Certificate III in Individual Support (Ageing), but this qualification does not include the dementia unit. Her employer requires staff in dementia-specific care areas to hold the CHCAGE011 to comply with new organisational policies and enhance care quality. RPL ProcessPre-assessment InterviewGrace met with an assessor to discuss her experience, explain the new workplace requirement and review the types of evidence she could provide. The assessor explained the unit requirements and the RPL process clearly, including the need for current evidence mapped to the unit requirements. Evidence CollectionGrace was able to provide:
Evidence Mapping and AnalysisThe assessor mapped the evidence to the unit’s elements, performance criteria, performance evidence, knowledge evidence, and assessment conditions. While her documentation demonstrated strong planning and understanding, A gap was identified in directly observed evidence of Grace applying strategies to manage responsive behaviours (e.g. calming an agitated resident or redirecting a distressed person), which is a key requirement of CHCAGE011. Gap AssessmentGrace participated in a knowledge test and a practical workplace observation, where the assessor directly observed her:
Assessment JudgementAfter considering the collected evidence and successful completion of the practical observation, Grace was deemed competent. Feedback and SupportGrace received detailed feedback highlighting her strengths in applying person-centred care approaches. Recording and DocumentationAll evidence, mapping documents, observation notes, assessment records, and feedback were securely documented in line with compliance requirements. |
|---|
CASE STUDY 2:Senior Project Manager - BSB50820 Diploma of Project ManagementSanjay has over 15 years’ experience as a senior project manager in the IT and infrastructure sector. When looking to formalise his skills, he approaches an RTO to obtain BSB50820 Diploma of Project Management. RPL ProcessPre-assessment InterviewSanjay discusses his experience and potential evidence sources with an assessor. While he has managed numerous high value projects, most of his documentation (e.g. project plans, stakeholder analyses, risk registers) is subject to strict client confidentiality and intellectual property agreements. Evidence Feasibility ReviewDuring planning, Sanjay and the assessor explore options to supply redacted or summarised evidence, attestations from his employer and clients, or alternative documentation. However, the extent of redaction required would compromise the evidence’s validity and sufficiency. Decision to use RTO Assessment ToolsGiven these limitations, the assessor advises Sanjay that pursuing RPL for the full qualification would not provide sufficient, authentic or current evidence. Instead, it would be more appropriate and efficient for Sanjay to demonstrate his competence through the RTO’s formal assessment tools and structured assessment activities (e.g. simulated project environments, case study tasks, presentations). Assessment CompletionSanjay agrees to proceed using the RTO’s assessments, which include comprehensive workplace simulation projects that align with the units’ performance criteria and assessment conditions. OutcomeDuring the pre-assessment interview and evidence mapping process, the assessor identified that while Sanjay had extensive experience in managing scope, time, and stakeholder engagement, he had limited exposure to areas such as BSBPMG540 Manage project integration, BSBPMG537 Manage project procurement, and BSBPMG534 Manage project human resources. In these units, Sanjay lacked the required depth of knowledge and practical application experience to meet competency standards, even if evidence could have been provided. As a result, Sanjay enrolled in structured training for these units to develop the necessary skills before assessment. For other units (e.g. BSBPMG530 Manage project scope and BSBPMG538 Manage project stakeholder engagement), Sanjay proceeded directly to assessment using the RTO’s validated tools. Through this blended approach, Sanjay was able to have his existing expertise formally recognised while building and demonstrating competence in new areas, leading to a complete qualification outcome. Feedback and SupportThe assessor provided Sanjay with a detailed learning plan outlining which units would require training, which could be assessed directly, and suggested additional resources to support his development. This transparent approach ensured Sanjay understood his learning pathway, felt supported, and was set up for success. Recording and DocumentationAll pre-assessment interview notes, evidence mapping documents, and records of Sanjay’s skills analysis were thoroughly documented. The need for structured training in specific units—due to identified gaps in knowledge and experience—was clearly justified and mutually agreed upon, with sign-off from both Sanjay and the assessor. For units assessed directly, detailed records and mapping showed how performance and knowledge evidence met unit requirements using RTO tools. Sanjay’s individual learning plan, outlining training and assessment pathways for each unit, was filed in his student record. All assessment tools, feedback, assessor judgments, and continuous improvement actions were recorded in accordance with RTO compliance requirements, with assessment records retained for two years following qualification completion. |
|---|
CASE STUDY 3:RPL for Food Safety Supervision Skill SetLily is a hospitality manager who has worked in hospitality businesses for over 15 years. She is responsible for supervising kitchen teams, implementing food safety programs, and leading internal hygiene audits. Lily holds a valid food safety supervisor certificate from previous accredited training and has completed multiple in-house and external refresher courses. She is now completing the Food Safety Supervision Skill Set SITSS00069 to formally update her credentials for compliance and licensing renewal. RPL ProcessPre-assessment InterviewLily met with her assessor to discuss her extensive experience, responsibilities, and evidence. The assessor explained the requirements for both units and the type of evidence needed.
Evidence CollectionLily provided:
Evidence Mapping and AnalysisThe assessor carefully mapped Lily’s evidence to all of the unit’s elements, performance criteria, performance evidence, knowledge evidence, and assessment conditions for SITXFSA005 Use hygienic practices for food safety and SITXFSA006 Participate in safe food handling practices. The evidence was found to be valid, authentic, current, and sufficient, demonstrating consistent application of food safety principles in supervisory contexts. Assessment JudgementLily was deemed competent for both units without requiring any supplementary gap assessment. OutcomeLily’s comprehensive and well documented evidence enabled her to receive full RPL for the skill set immediately. This allowed her to formally meet licensing requirements as a certified Food Safety Supervisor under state and local council regulations, renew her compliance credentials, and continue leading food safety practices in her workplace. Feedback and SupportThe assessor provided written feedback congratulating Lily on her high standard of documentation and proactive leadership in food safety. The discussion also covered future professional development opportunities. Recording and DocumentationAll pre-assessment notes, evidence mapping, assessor judgments, and feedback were thoroughly documented. Assessment records retained for at least two years from completion. Certification records retained for 30 years in line with compliance requirements. |
|---|
Print this page
