Published on the occasion of the first CAPLA International Day of Recognition, 09 June 2026
For years, I believed that if I could just explain RPL clearly enough, the process, the rigour, the evidence requirements, everyone would see its value. I was wrong. Not about RPL's value but about what "clearly" actually means to different people.
The VU Meter Problem
The expression "move the needle" comes from analog VU meters used in sound recording. If the sound was too quiet, the needle simply didn't move, nothing was registered even though recording was technically happening. The sound had to be loud enough, and in the right frequency range, for it to register.
Across Canada and around the world, we are doing high-quality, rigorous, impactful recognition work. But if the language we use doesn't resonate with the systems and key players we are speaking to, the needle may not move. Our message won't be loud enough to register. And when nothing is registered, even important work becomes invisible.
One Practice, Different Conversations
One of the occupational hazards of working in RPL is that we become very attached to our own terminology :) Terms like prior learning assessment, portfolio review, challenge process, and credit assessment all make sense to those of us who live in this field. But these terms describe the mechanism, not the value. And people don't engage with mechanisms, they engage with outcomes that align with their needs.
After nearly three decades working at the intersection of adult learning, competency recognition, and workforce development, I have come to understand that the RPL ecosystem has several distinct audiences. While there are genuine areas of overlap, most players care about quality, credibility, and outcomes, each one is primarily listening through the lens of their own priorities and needs.
- Learners and Candidates are not asking "How rigorous is the assessment?" They are asking: "Does my experience count? Can I skip what I already know? Will this help me get where I'm going faster?" Candidates are listening for signals that their existing knowledge, skills, and experience are recognized and valued. They use emotionally charged language, recognition, validation, confidence, opportunity, belonging. They talk about being seen. What resonates most with this group is language about progress and momentum, not process and protocol. When we lead with evidence requirements or assessment procedures, we may be communicating accurately but we are not communicating value from the learner's perspective.
- Post-Secondary Institutions are listening through a lens of quality assurance and academic integrity. When RPL is framed as an exception, it creates resistance. When it is framed as a structured assessment process that measures achievement of the same learning outcomes expected of all students, just through a different pathway, the conversation shifts from risk to rigour. The question they are really asking is: "How do we maintain standards while creating flexible pathways?"
- Employers and Industry generally don't wake up thinking about RPL. They think about workforce capability. Words like credit equivalency and advanced standing carry little weight in an industry context. What resonates is time-to-competence, reduced retraining, and confidence that skills have been verified. The employer question is: "How quickly can this person contribute, and how confident can we be in their competency?" I have seen employer engagement increase dramatically when RPL is described as a way to confirm what workers already know and can do rather than as an academic exercise.
- Government and Regulatory Bodies operate at a systems level. They are not primarily focused on individual advancement or organizational productivity. Their concern is whether the recognition system is fair, consistent, transparent, and defensible and how it impacts the labour market and economic growth. RPL gains traction at this level when it is framed as a system-level enabler: improving workforce responsiveness, supporting labour mobility, advancing equity, and increasing the efficiency of public training investments. The question they are asking is: "Can this system be trusted to produce consistent, defensible outcomes?"
We Are Translators of Value
Here is the insight that has most changed how I approach this work. We are not actually changing the RPL practice from one audience to another, we are translating its value proposition. The assessment methodology, the evidence standards, the quality frameworks, these remain the same. What shifts is the language we use to make that value visible to each player.
When we rely on one-size-fits-all RPL language, we almost always miss somebody. It can sound too academic in workforce contexts, too operational in academic ones, and too abstract in policy conversations. This doesn't mean the practice lacks value. It means its value hasn't been translated.
Most successful RPL initiatives are not necessarily those with the most sophisticated assessment tools or the most comprehensive policies. They are often the ones that have become intentionally fluent in the right language for each audience.
They know that (mostly):
- Learners are listening for opportunity and progress
- Institutions are listening for academic integrity and learning pathways
- Employers are listening for skills validation and job readiness
- Regulators are listening for standards and defensibility
When we communicate through those different lenses, the conversation shifts from explaining the process to demonstrating the value.
To become an effective RPL Practitioner, we have to become translators of value, not just administrators of process.
Final Thoughts
As I was preparing this session for CAPLA's first International Day of Recognition, I found myself sitting with a question and I want to leave it with you too.
If your RPL practice disappeared tomorrow, who would notice? Would employers notice? Would learners? Would institutions? Would policymakers?
And perhaps more importantly, would they have the language to explain what went missing?
As skills shortages deepen, career pathways become less linear, and learning increasingly happens outside formal educational settings, the need for trusted recognition systems will only grow.
The opportunity before us is not simply to improve our RPL assessment practices. It is to build recognition systems that are understood, trusted, and valued across the entire ecosystem. And that starts with using the right language.
Taruna Goel is an RPL Strategist with North Pacific Metrics in Vancouver, Canada, and a recognized expert in competency assessment, prior learning recognition, and workforce credentialing. This article is adapted from her session presented at CAPLA's inaugural International Day of Recognition on June 09, 2026.
Connect on LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/tarunagoel
