Please cite this publication as:

Benkei-Kovács Balázs & Vámos Ágnes (2017): Recognition of prior learning in Hungarian
higher education: Individual paths progressing macro level expectations. In: Estela C
Martiano, Saba Senses-Ozyurt (ed.) Educating for democratic citizenship. 236 p. World
Council for Curriculum, Instruction (WCCI), San Diego (CA):2017. pp. 183-200. (ISBN:978-0-
692-81603-5)

WCCI Budapest 2016 Conference

Authors:

Balazs Benkei-Kovacs PhD, Title: senior lecturer,

Affiliation: Insitute of Research on Adult Education and Knowledge Management,

Faculty of Education and Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University (Budapest, Hungary)

(corresponding author)

E-mail: benkeikovacs.balazs@ppk.elte.hu

Professor Agnes Vamos CSc, Title: univeristy professor,

Affiliation: Institute of Education,

Faculty of Education and Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University (Budapest, Hungary)

 Patterns of thinking on RPL in Hungarian Higher Education: individual paths

progressing towards macro-level expectations

1. INTRODUCTION
The validation or recognition of prior learning is “a process of evaluating an adult
learner’s previous experience, skills, knowledge and informal learning and articulating it
towards a formal qualification” (Singh, 2011, p. 803).
This study analyzes the recognition of prior learning based on the database of a large-
scale Hungarian quantitative study (Vámos, 2010). We supplemented the quantitative research
with qualitative in-depth analysis (focus group interviews, 2014) in accordance with the
principle of triangulation. The goal of the study is to explore those attitudes that best
characterize higher education practitioners' views regarding the recognition of prior learning.
Currently Hungary is not in Europe’s frontline in the development of the system of
recognizing prior learning. The 2014 European inventory on validation of non-formal and
informal learning describes Hungary as a “country without strategy in place” (CEDEFOP,
2014, p. 8) in the field of validation. Earlier in the typology of Patrick Werquin, Hungary was
designed as a “country with only limited experience in the field” (OECD, 2007, p. 8). However,
after 2010, there has been a larger breathe reform taking place in Hungarian higher education
and two of its elements has been the gradual introduction of the learning outcomes approach
and supporting the implementation of validation in higher education.
The modernization and structural transformation of the Hungarian higher education
system was launched when Hungary joined the European higher education area within the
framework of the so-called Bologna Process (2005-2006) (Vamos & Lenard, 2014). The
practical implementation of European innovations is only possible gradually, step-by-step in
Hungary which is well reflected by the slow spread of the ‘prior learning recognition’
methodology. We are facing the contradiction that everyone agrees that the phenomenon is
important; however, its realization encounters difficulties in many countries or occasionally
even fails (Singh, 2011).
This system development can be followed on multiple levels. Within the analysis of the
systems we can study the characteristics of subsystems such as organization, organizational
behaviour, and regulation etc. Furthermore, we can also study the smallest, most active units of
the organizations, the individuals acting within the systems (cf. Mclaughlin, 1990). Previous
Hungarian studies in this field focused primarily on systemic changes. Even though by studying
the individual, the practitioner teacher in our case, we can explore those attitude-scales that can
determine the success factors of changing the given system since they either obstruct or support
innovations (Slowey, 1995).
In terms of allocating tasks, the logic of higher education differs from the other sectors
of the economy due to the specific characteristics of the organizational mechanisms in higher
education. For those working in the university sector, some job descriptions necessitate carrying
out a great number of different tasks (see in detail in Annex 2) Teachers’ activities regarding
these tasks are simultaneously defined by the need to work autonomously and by hierarchical
dependency; researching and teaching roles and the development-innovation function as well.
Those personal expectations, values and beliefs that are attached to these roles often change
very slowly over the years. The goal of this study is to present this latent, less researched tacit
stratum.
Former analyses on Hungarian HEI sectors in this area of research neglected this aspect
of the issue. Effective research on the recognition of prior learning has started in Hungary a
decade ago and the first study of the higher education sector taking this approach was conducted
with an exploratory character within the framework of the macro-level research of the OECD
(Werquin, 2010).
A more intensive developmental work in modelling validation was initiated due to
encouragement from the European Union (Derényi–Tót 2011). Institutional case studies
showed how validation of prior learning happens in practice. From a certain point of view, in
the field of validation, university teachers can be understood as the main change agents, since
their attitudes have a significant impact on the process and the results of the recognition of prior
learning. Development can be slowed down by misunderstandings and hindering factors which
is the main rationale for researching the phenomenon at the level of the individual (cf.
Mclaughlin, 1990).

1.1. OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD OF STUDY

The European educational policy has introduced the term ‘validation’ to describe the
recognition of prior learning which appeared in Europe uniformly around 2003-2004, after the
establishment of the common European principles (Council of the European Union, 2004). The
phenomenon and the use of terminology have been studied by a number of macro-level
researches in the past decade that created a number of different clusters based on the varying
practices of countries. It can be generally said, supported by Singh’s research (2011), that the
definition and models of validation are exceptionally heterogeneous: “the definition of RPL
differs from country-to-country and from one institution to another” (Singh, 2011, 2).
Studying the issue of validation started globally around the early 90’s (Evans, 1993),
but its more intensive presence can be dated back to the first years of the 21st century. Research
interest has specifically accelerated in the last few years, especially in studying the higher
education sector (Fox, 2005; Corradi–Evans–Valk, 2006; Andersson–Fejes, 2005; Murphy,
2008; Triby, 2009; Valk, 2009; Andersson–Sandberg, 2011; Singh, 2011; Pitman–Vidovich,
2013).
As we have indicated in the introduction, the study of this field runs in three parallel
main areas: 1. analysing the system of the national level of validation (e.g. Werquin, 2010); 2.
studying institutions within national systems where sectorial and field-related characteristics
emerge (e.g. Fox, 2005; Pitman & Vidovich, 2013); 3. through researching the most important
actors involved in validation (e.g. Singh, 2011).
International organizations (OECD, CEDEFOP, UNESCO) have undertaken the task
of conducting macro-level studies of the practices of different countries. Institutional studies
are primarily made in countries with existing validational systems (France, the Netherlands,
Australia etc.). And last, analyses on those involved in the process (France, Canada) have been
carried out either to track educational policy reforms or they are a part of preparing the
implementation process. The current study is of the latter current.
 The fact that macro-level system studies currently emphasize the possibility of learning
from one another instead of the differences between the development grade of countries, and
separating existing systems from the lagging ones, also has an effect on the use and designation
of concepts. They highlight different good practices, accepting the fact that these are tied to
specific cultural roots and system developments that are based on unique social factors,
backgrounds and needsi. Singh (2011) points out that while the names of certain national models
differ their content often does not vary significantly.

1.2. LEGAL FRAMEWORKS OF THE VALIDATION OF PRIOR LEARNING

Davies (2006) differentiates between three strategies regarding the legislation of
validation systems in her study of the higher education sector. These are the following:
● there are European countries that definitively prescribe the introduction of
validation for higher education institutions (e.g. France);
● other countries prohibit the use of the tool (e.g. Greece);
● most countries allow and support the operation of validation processes through
their legislation in a non-mandatory, non-prescriptive manner.
It is the local educational policies that are important regarding how widespread the use
of validation becomes in given countries. On an institutional level, validation in higher
education can serve three basic goals in accordance with the legislation: 1) exemption from
entrance exams; 2) regulation of exemption from courses, modules or units; 3) acquiring full
qualification. Solutions differ in various countries in accordance with these three goals (see
Otero, 2007.).
Universities greatly fear validation, especially in the implementation phase. From these
validation goals it is not only ’full qualification’ or recognition of course’ units that are under
attack. There is a general fear attached to them that they undermine the authority of the degrees
(Triby, 2009) as well. In addition, authoritarian members of the university sphere even contest
the legitimacy of recognition of experience when it comes to partial or full exemption from
entrance exams or courses requirements (Singh, 2011).
The introduction of different functional goals of validation shows a varying picture both
temporally and geographically and they are usually realized in a multi-stage configuration. The
first function - exemption from entrance exams - was granted in the 1980s in France and Spain
while in other states it was typically granted a decade later. The second function - exemption
from courses - was made possible in the 1990s. While the third function - attaining full
qualification - appeared at the very end of the 20th century for the first time: 1999 in Ireland
and 2002 in France.
There have been a number of system-level structural transformations in the university
sector in the past twenty years that favoured the introduction and operation of validation. Many
innovations that are necessary preconditions or supportive measures of an effective national
validation system have gained ground.
However, international studies worldwide show that the penetration of validation into
higher education is a specifically slow process that faces a number of difficulties and obstacles
(Castle & Attwood, 2001; Fox, 2005; Murphy, 2008). Usually those institutions step forward
in building higher educational validation systems that participate within the framework of
international projects (e.g. Valex, Validus) or as institutions undertaking experimental
development (Murphy, 2008; Andersson & Sandberg, 2011; Singh, 2011). The size, scope and
type of higher education institutions has also an imporatant effect on the acceptance or the
refusal of the phenomenon (Piman & Vidovich, 2013).
Definitely, we can deduce that those validation systems that result from relatively
swiftly executed educational policy reforms on a nation-wide level require further development.
Their more widespread acceptance needs more time even in those countries (Australia or South-
Africa) where the phenomenon has been on the agenda for a long time. (Singh, 2011;Fox,
2005.)

2. METHODS OF ANALYSIS
2.1. EMPIRICAL STUDY
We studied the points of view of higher education teachers and higher education leaders
(course- and programme leaders, heads of departments and institutions, directors) based on the
data collected (N=821) during the quantitative research phase in 2010. Previously there had
been no precedence in our research topic for such data mining and processing in this database.
Higher education in Hungary has not yet undergone a systematic change in terms of introducing
validation since then; in this way, we consider the available attitude-study data to be relevant
even today.
In addition, we supplemented the study with a qualitative panel about the way higher
education practitioners think. The focus group interview analyses of the qualitative research
stage were conducted in 2014 within the framework of a developmental program. As such, our
study complies with the principle of triangulation which suggests combining different research
methods to enhance the reliability of the results (Gibbs, 2009.; Babbie, 2004).

2.2. RESEARCH DESCRIPTION

The ambition of the study is to explore the views of actors who have not yet been studied
- teachers and leaders in higher education - regarding their awareness of validation. We seek to
explore the patterns of thinking and attitudes towards validation and to identify typical personal
developmental paths that actors go through when they encounter the new educational device.
The hypotheses of the study:
a) Teachers’ and leaders’ views differ regarding the validation of prior learning. Behind
these differences there might be the different levels of professional knowledge, responsibility
and involvement or different views on the learning outcomes approach.
b) Teachers’ and leaders’ views on validation are in connection with how they think
about their own roles. These differ based on their attitude towards learning, higher education
and innovation.
c) Teachers’ views and their institution’s beliefs on validation are typically connected.
The samples of the quantitative studyii have been recorded during the 2010 research,
821 teachers and 321 higher education leaders (course- and programme leaders, heads of
departments and institutions, directors) answered the questions. In the qualitative stage there
were 13 focus group interviewsiii conducted in 2014 whose participants have been invited from
related academic disciplines. The groups cooperated in the fields of technology, economy,
agriculture, humanities, pedagogy, and health. Typically a focus group discussion had 4-5
interviewees and the interviewer.
 The analysis of the database of the empirical quantitative study was conducted with
statistical methods based on a number of variables. In the following sections we will present
the significant results (sig.**). (We will call it to attention where this correlation does not stand.)
The in-depth interviews were analysed with the methods of qualitative content analysis and we
primarily focused on emotional attitudes.

3. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH RESULTS

3.1. THE PRESENCE AND FREQUENCY OF THE RECOGNITION OF PRIOR LEARNING
Teachers in Hungarian higher education typically meet the need for the recognition of
prior learning infrequently and regarding only a small number of students.
Teachers’ and leaders’ experiences differ in terms of the frequency of requests to
recognize prior learning. From the 821 teachers who answered only 3% indicated that students
seek them out regularly regarding this issue, 18% claim that they had never encountered such
requests, while 32% claim that this is a regular phenomenon but only for a small number of
students.
69% of the 321 leaders meet this request from a varying number of students; but they
do so regularly, which is a significant difference. The occurrence of the request to recognize
prior learning varies significantly according to different academic disciplines (see Figure 1). At
one extreme there are fields where respondents almost never or very rarely meet such requests
(e.g. medicine; natural sciences) while in other fields such as computer sciences or economics
most respondents regularly deal with the phenomenon (Figure 1).
We have studied the above question based on geographical distribution as well, based
on the variable of the headquarters of the respondents’ institutions. The results show that the
smaller the municipality is where the higher educational institution operates, the more frequent
the request are to validate prior learning is and the more students are involved (see Figure 2).
If we consider the headquarter types and the maintenance organizations of the
institutionsiv in conjunction, we can see that validation requests are more typical of those
capital-based institutions that are maintained privately. In country seats, it is more typical of
state-owned public colleges and less typical of private institutions to encounter the
phenomenon, while in other types of smaller cities the differences are not significant.
Encountering the need for validation and the concept of outcome-based learning in
higher education are correlated. Those respondents who are familiar with the concept and
approach of learning outcomes - because they participated in projects or they are better
informed about changes in higher education - have a different attitude towards validation than
those respondents who are not familiar with the term (sig.**). 40% of those respondents who
know the concept well meet students who want to validate prior learning but they reported
differences in the frequency of the request. In addition, there are no respondents in this group
who have never met such a request. In contrast, 25% of those respondents who are unfamiliar
with the learning outcomes approach claim to have never encountered a validation request.
3.2. VIEWS AND OPINIONS ON PRIOR LEARNING
There is a significant difference between the opinions of teachers and leaders regarding
students: fewer leaders (21%) than teachers (36%) think that students request credit validation
due to „laziness”. More respondents connect this request with student mobility and student
rights.
In terms of student rights, there are also differences of opinion based on whether the
respondent is familiar with the learning outcomes approach or not. 91% of those who know the
concept think it is important to understand validation as a student right whereas only 80% of
those who are unfamiliar with it acknowledge this right.
We studied thoughts on validation through Question 33 in the leaders’ questionnaire
and Question 39 in the teacher questionnaire. In order to evaluate the answers we have
conducted a cluster analysis to explore connection. We found that the difference between
teachers’ thinking is rooted in their open-mindedness or closed-mindedness. Based on their
answers, teachers can be divided into two major groups. The first group contains those who
think in terms of a closed higher education - they consider higher education to be either the
source or the primary organization spreading knowledge. The other group consists of those who
see higher education open and also accept difference sources of knowledge. They consider
students to be the agents of their own learning and knowledge.
The first group typically worries about the quality differences between higher education
institutions, they are sceptical of recognizing prior learning and are more negative towards
student requests due to their distrust of the source of prior knowledge. The second group
typically considers validation of prior learning to be a student right and they accept the validity
of the knowledge regardless of its source. They represent more progressive views and their
thinking is more in harmony with the learning outcome-based approach.
The result of asking the same questions among leaders (N=321) are that there are
differences in the evaluation of those external factors that endanger the autonomy of higher
education. The attitude of the respondents depends on how much they reject dependence on the
world of work, to what degree can they accept student mobility and how much competition they
see in other institutions.
We grouped course- and programme leaders and directors of studies based on their
affiliation with universities and colleges and studied their attitudes towards the above
mentioned points with the Mann-Whitney test. We found that a significant difference can only
be found in the thinking of those who aim to preserve the status of universities. It is more typical
of course leaders and directors of colleges to accept that knowledge can be attained outside of
higher education (sig.**) while the exact opposite is more typical of those working in
universities - they think that knowledge should be attained by studying at university (sig..**).v
In terms of the quality of the degree earned at the end of the course, university teachers consider
external knowledge to be more dangerous than college teachers.
We studied teachers’ thinking about teaching roles in higher education - that is, about
higher education role preferences - through a cluster analysis of answers received to question
no. 18. from the Teachers’ questionnaire. We found that teaching and researching are the most
favoured tasks in higher education while the field of innovation and development related to the
academic discipline are the least popular or they are not on the agenda at all. Furthermore, the
former has the least amount of deviation among opinions while the latter has the most.
We will present attitude-patterns towards recognition of prior learning based on
teachers’ role preferences and attitude variables related to their tasks:

• The group that is very happy or happy to undertake tasks related to the
development and innovation of the academic discipline worries less about
institutional autonomy and considers validation less harmful in terms of the
quality of the degree. They are more likely to accept that one might acquire
knowledge in an informal environment as well.
• The correlation is somewhat different in the case of those who actively
participate in renewing and developing educational programs (Activity field
no.6 and no. 7.). The degree to which they enjoy program development tasks has
an effect on how they perceive learning in non-formal circumstances.
Universities are the primary source of knowledge for those who are committed
to program development.
• The group that most prefers teaching is more likely to accept mobility and
student rights. Their approach is much more open compared to those who are
less enthusiastic about teaching.
The remaining relationships that had been explored show no significant correlation
between teaching roles and validation of prior learning.

4. RESULTS OF THE QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

We can conclude based on the analysis of the focus group discussions that - due to the
innovative nature of development - currently the unsure use of concepts is most characteristic
of the phenomenon in Hungary (e.g. the terms ‘validation’ and ‘credit transfer’ are often used
interchangeablyvi).
It is important to highlight that the implementation of validation is in an early stage in
the Hungarian higher education system which results in a greater degree of distrust towards it.
Derenyi and Tot (2011) suggested equally without large scale empirical data analisys that it is
generally characteristic of Hungarian higher education that the concept of validation is
relatively less known. In the practice, its most common (and legally regulated) forms are
acknowledging the work experience of older, part-time students, and exempting them from
practical courses. In addition to these, requests largely arise outside formal procedures and are
handled with deals between students and teachers.
4.1. OBSERVED ATTITUDES TOWARDS VALIDATION DURING DEVELOPMENT
According to the findings of the interview analyses opinions on the issue of validation
are diverse. It cannot be labelled uniformly positive, since the emotional components of the
general attitude towards validation range from heightened sense of expectations, surprise and
acceptance to doubt, incomprehension and disappointment. We followed the methodology of
the qualitative content analysis of Gibbs (2009).
Teachers’ thinking has gone through numerous emotional-cognitive steps to understand
the fundamentals of validation, which was supported by group facilitation during development.
In order to demonstrate the different emotional and cognitive phases we have chosen typical
segments from the focus group discussions. The chosen interviews extracts illustrate well that
the progression of participants differ even in the case of programs coordinated at national level
and they arrive at different stages by the end. With the help of sequences we can identify the
pre-development and the post-development affective attitudes of every quoted university
teacher. The final emotional state is strongly influenced by the type of new knowledge they
gained during the development process or by the lack of it.
The following sequences are represent the most typical emotional progression paths:
• uncertainty in prior views, disappointment due to lack of new knowledge, uncertainty
about moving forward:
“It’s probably because of my own interest - and my laziness - that this validation is
the only white spot for me in this development project. So we are sort of using it in practice
but I’m still here a little - or not that little! - almost at a total loss.” (Teacher from the
agricultural workgroup)
• uncertainty in prior views, some lack in new knowledge, anticipating moving forward:
“I think that we generally had less time for validation in this project. Personally I would
have liked to have more [time for it]. But I think you need a change of approach for that.
So, the thing is, you can’t just simply force it on those teaching in higher education
institutions. This validation method requires a completely different attitude. A completely
different attitude.” (Teacher from the joint working group of humanities and education)
• certainty in prior views, surprise at new knowledge, anticipating moving forward:
“I was a bit surprised at how differently we think when we started on validation. While
I was in my own institution I thought that the practice we go by is used across the country
and that everyone does this. And what surprised me the most is that it’s not at all natural
for big universities to recognize credits coming from elsewherevii, or that this doesn’t only
depend on the course description but that certain interests that stretch between
institutions are important as wellviii” (Teacher from the engineering workgroup)
• negative prior views, interest raised through new knowledge, anticipating moving
forward:
“It’s the validation process that caught my interest. Because I knew that in our
institution it is explicitly mentioned in the Study and Exam Guide but that it’s not really
working. It sometimes happens in teacher training but that’s not what we’re talking about.
From this point of view I had some expectations to learn how this works and to find out
who it can be implemented in practice.” (Teacher from the agricultural workgroup)
• negative prior views, strong surprise upon new knowledge, openness developing
“How in the world could you get this person from a non-formal training and get them
partially or fully into the university? So I still can’t decide on this, whether you can do
this or not…? So they showed it at the University of Debrecen and it was pretty good to
find out how this happens” (Teacher from the engineering workgroup)
• negative personal views, partial acceptance of validation due to new knowledge, open
to moving forward,
“Before this, I was completely convinced that validation has absolutely no place in the
field of natural sciences. And now that we went through it in minute detail it turns out
that now I’m not so much against it. I think there are some areas that can be accepted.
There are some areas that I think even the profession will demand, and I think they should
 too so that every knowledge that is recognized is checked.” (Teacher from the economics
workgroup)
• negative prior views, initial doubts upon new knowledge, and finally revaluation
“So there were a lot of fights about validation in our group especially at the beginning:
No! Forget about it! We can’t do this… so the colleagues weren’t really open at the
beginning. But as we continued on and as we got more information from the work groups
or from the material produced here, this opinion started changing.” (Teacher from the
economics workgroup)

4.2. ANALYSIS OF THE OBSERVED ATTITUDE COMPONENTS

If we understand validation as an object of attitude, we can analyse the elements of every
characteristic based on the attitude components: separating the cognitive, affective and
behavioral aspects (Schwarz & Bohner, 2001.)
1. In the case of the cognitive component we seek to find out how the individual
perceives validation, what they know about it and to what extent do they consider it authetntic
knowledge.
2. The affective component shows individuals’ emotional attitude regarding their
knowledge about validation. In principle these emotions define behaviour motifs.
3. The analysis of the behavioral component shows what the individual says about how
he or she behaves in a validation-related situation. The primacy of the intentions are definitive.
During the interview analyses we found dynamic attitudes in the cognitive field and
occasionally in the emotional area as well although anticipation is the most marked element in
the latter. The field of the activity remained in the phases of passive refusal, learning or
experimentation.

5. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

We confirmed with a quantitative study that there is a significant difference between
teachers’ and leaders’ attitudes towards validation, and how they perceive it.
Teachers are typically uncertain, distrustful, they remain distant regarding validation
and they are exempt from liability. Unlike course- or programme leaders, they perceive the
organizational context where validation needs to take place to a lesser extent. As opposed to
this, course- or programme leaders are more likely to see that this issue cannot remain in the
personal jurisdiction of teachers; thus, they are more open to the new phenomenon.
The empirical research supported with empirical data the findings of international
research which claimed that the Hungarian higher education sector is an early stage concerning
its system development and thinking about the practice of recognizing prior learning.
Individual attitudes concerning validation significantly correlate with how much
experience the given individual has in the area, what effects they were exposed to during the
system-level development of higher education, and last but not least, their initial level of
knowledge about the context of validation.
Openness towards the learning outcome approach and validation can be strengthened
by a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. During the analysis of the views of professionals
working in higher education we noted that one group consists of those who have little prior
knowledge about the phenomenon and their incomplete knowledge on validation results in
uncertainty.
 The other group started from the certainty of refusing validation behind which stood
their certainty about and - the protection of - the values attached to science, their own academic
discipline or higher education rather than experience about validation. Social learning and new
experiences might support the transformation of their views.
Top-down developmental methods and unprocessed, neglected personal experiences
might both cause frustration and fear about the future and a change of mentality is a necessary
prerequisite to further develop the educational system.

5.1. HYPOTHESIS JUSTIFICATION

1. Teachers’ and course leaders’ views on validation of prior learning are different, behind
which lies the different levels of responsibility and involvement along with different thinking
about learning outcomes.
• Our research confirmed that teachers’ and course and programme leaders’ views on the
recognition of prior learning are different primarily. It is likely that leaders are more open
due to their personal experience with validation.
• As a partial result we can claim that those practitioners who deal with validation indirectly
(as a task) are more motivated to learn about validation. Possible emotional basis for this
could be curiosity and the need to dissolve uncertainty.
2. Teachers’ views and institutional specificities are correlated.
• We found such levels of difference within higher education based on fields of study that a
top-down system-level change in itself might provide uncertain results.
• It is important to note that higher education institutions differ based on maintaining
organizations, locality and institutional type (college versus university).
6. SUMMARY
The results are not typically Hungarian results. Other studies show that there might be
doubts about validation even in countries such as South-Africa (Singh, 2011) or Australia
(Pitman-Vidovich, 2013). University teachers’ attitudes greatly differ even though the
educational policy reform in this field took place in the middle of the 1990s. This was confirmed
by Singh (2011) who found strong doubts concerning validation in the mentality of teachers in
South-Africa which he could also disprove empirically.
Therefore, we can state that higher education teachers have a dual attutide: on the one
hand, they may be the most important agents of reform, the real innovators; but on the other
hand, due to their role as teachers or due to individual reasons they may also be the greatest
obstacles of a reform. This duality is especially true of the creation and maintenance of a
validation system.
If individuals develop an interest in validation, gaining a deeper understanding of the
phenomenon might bring about a certain degree of trust as well. Thus, before implementing a
central educational policy regulation in this matter, the primary task is to form and support
positive attitudes towards validation. Until this aspect of the educational innovation project
brings favourable results the later stages of the implementation should be postponed and further
research should be conducted.
A new analysis of the OECD (Wurzburg, 2010) defines the educational sector as a
priority area that is difficult to change primarily due to the fact that its operation affects our
entire society and every citizen is involved in it. This is especially true in the case of
implementing system-level changes in a complex process as validation, which involves a large
number of practitioners.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The data collection for this paper was carried out under the TÁMOP-4.2.1/B-09/1/KMR project
entitled Country Cooperation for the Renewal of Teacher Education, and under the TAMOP
4.1.3./2. project entitled Development of Higher Educational services, and supported by the
European Union and the Hungarian Government. Their funding is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

• Andersson, P. & Fejes, A. (2005). Recognition of prior learning as a technique for

fabricating the adult learner: a genealogical analysis on Swedish adult education policy.
Journal of Education Policy, 20, 595–613.
• Andersson, P. & Sandberg, F. (2011). RPL for accreditation in higher education: as a
process of mutual understanding or merely lifeworld colonisation? Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 767–780.
• Babbie, E. (2009). The Practice of Social Research (12th ed.). Stamford, CO: Cengage
Learning
• Castle, J. & Attwood, G. (2001). Recognition of prior learning (RPL) for access or credit?
Problematic issues in a university adult education department in South Africa. Studies in
the Education of Adults, 33, 60–72.
• Cedefop. (2009). European Guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning.
Retrieved from http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/En/Files/4054_en.pdf
• Corradi, C., Evans, N. & Valk, A. (Eds). (2006). Recognising Experiental Learning.
Estonia: Tartu University Press.
• Council of the European Union. (2004). Common European principles for validation of
non-formal and informal learning. Retrieved from
http://www2.cedefop.europa.eu/etv/Information_resources/EuropeanInventory/publicatio
ns/principles/validation2004_en.pdf
• Council of the European Union. (2012). Recommendation on the validation of non-formal
and informal learning. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
• Davies, P (2006): Norms and regulations for the recognition of non-formal and informal
learning in Europen universities: An overview. In Corradi, C., Evans, N. & Valk, A. (Eds)
Recognising Experiental Learning. (pp. 179-195). Estonia, LV: Tartu University Press.
• Derenyi A. & Tot E. (2011). Validáció. A hozott tudás elismerese a felsőoktatásban
[Validation. The recognition of prior learning in the higher education]. Budapest:
Oktataskutato es Fejleszto Intezet.
• Evans, N. & Turner, A (1993). The Potential of the Assessment of Experiential Learning
in Universities. London: Learning from Experience Trust.
• Fox, T. (2005). Adult learning and recognition of prior learning: The „white elephant” in
Australian universities. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 54, 352–370.
• Gibbs, G. (2008). Analysing qualitative data. London, UK: SAGE publications.
• Mclaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and
micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19 (9), 11–16.
• Murphy, A. (2008). APEL Matters in Higher Education. Kilkenny, IE: Red Lion Press.
• Pitman, T. – Vidovich, L. (2013). Converting RPL into academic capital: lessons from
Australian universities. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32, 501–517.
• Schwarz N. – Bohner G. (2001). The Construction of Attitudes. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz
(Eds.) (2001), Intrapersonal Processes, Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology (pp.
436-457). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Singh, M. (2011). Let the doors of learning be open to all: a case for recognition of prior
learning. SAJHE (South African Journal of Higher Education), 25, 803–818.
• Slowey M. (1995). Implementing Change from Within in Universities and Colleges: Ten
Personal Accounts from Middle Managers. New York: Routledge Publishing.
• Triby, E. (2009). Accreditation of prior experiential learning and the development of higher
education. European journal of vocational training, 46, 114–128.
• Trowler, P. (1996). Angels in Marble? Accrediting prior experiential learning in higher
education. Studies in Higher Education, 21 (1), 17-30.
• Valk, A. (2009): Recognition of Prior and Experiential Learning in European Universities.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16, 83–95.
• Vamos, A. & Lenard, S. (Eds.) (2014). Training Programme and Organisation in the
Bologna Process of Hungarian Higher Education: The BaBe Project. Budapest: ELTE
Eötvös Kiadó. Retrieved from http://www.eltereader.hu
• Vámos, A. (Ed.) (2010). A tanulási eredmények alkalmazása a felsőoktatási
intézményekben [Practice of the ’learning outcomes’ approach in higher education
institutions]. Budapest: Tempus Public Foundation.
• Werquin, P. (2010). Recognising non-formal and informal learning, outcomes, policies and
practices. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org
• Wurzburg, G. (2010). Making reform happen in education. In OECD. Making reform
happen, 159–181. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org
APPENDICES

Figure 1. Frequency of recognition of prior learning according to fields of study

(N=821)
Art Education Dozens of students
Social sciences regularly request
Economics validation every semester.
Sports sciences
A small number of
Agriculture
students regularly request
Humanities validation
Computer sciences
Engineering I am approached with such
Natural sciences a request only a few times.
Medicine
Arts I have never been asked to
Law - Public administration do so.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Figure 1. Frequency of recognition of prior learning according to fields of study (N=821)

Note: Due to the small number of respondents, results in the fields of „Law” and „Public administration” studies
(N=10) and the Arts (N=13) are not significant.
Question asked: Teachers’ questionnaire, Question 38: How typical is it for your courses and in what quantities
that students ask you to recognize their prior learning?

Figure 2. Frequency of recognition of prior learning based on the

headquarters of the institution (N=821)
100%
13%
20% 19% I have never been asked to do so.

75%
43% I am approached with such a
46% request only a few times.
48%
50%
A small number of students
regularly request validation.
25% 39%
32% Dozens of students regularly
29% request validation every semester.

0% 2% 3% 5%
Capital Country seats Other cities
Question asked: Teachers’ questionnaire, Question 38: How typical is it for your courses and in what quantities
that students ask you to recognize their prior learning?
Structure of the study
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.1. OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD OF STUDY............................................................................................. 3
1.2. LEGAL FRAMEWORKS OF THE VALIDATION OF PRIOR LEARNING ................................................. 4
2. METHODS OF ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 5
2.1. EMPIRICAL STUDY ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.2. RESEARCH DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 5
3. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH RESULTS ............................................................................................. 6
3.1. THE PRESENCE AND FREQUENCY OF THE RECOGNITION OF PRIOR LEARNING ............................ 6
3.2. VIEWS AND OPINIONS ON PRIOR LEARNING ................................................................................. 7
4. RESULTS OF THE QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 8
4.1. OBSERVED ATTITUDES TOWARDS VALIDATION DURING DEVELOPMENT..................................... 8
4.2. ANALYSIS OF THE OBSERVED ATTITUDE COMPONENTS ............................................................. 10
5. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION................................................................................................... 10
5.1. HYPOTHESIS JUSTIFICATION ....................................................................................................... 11
6. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 11
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 12
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 1. Frequency of recognition of prior learning according to fields of study (N=821) .............. 14
Figure 2. Frequency of recognition of prior learning based on the headquarters of the institution
(N=821) .................................................................................................................................................. 14

i
It is significant from an Educational policy point of view that the integration of the immigrant population had an
important role in building the validation system in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Australia. In contrast,
it was rather the sociological approach to the issues of social justice that were significant in France. The equality
of the members of society in terms of educational policy was especially important rationale in South-Africa, while
in Portugal the significant factor was the adjustment of the lagging classes (Singh, 2011; Werquin, 2010).
ii
This qualitative data collection was carried out under the shelter of the TÁMOP -4.2.1/B-09/1/KMR project
focusing on Renewal of Teacher Education.
iii
This research-phase was realized in the frames of the TAMOP 4.1.3./2. project entitled Development of Higher
Educational services.
iv
In Hungary we can ditinguish three major categories: state-owned public higher education institutions, privately
owned HEIs, and HEIs connected to some religious communities. In addition, we separate colleges from
universities based on the level of scientific performance.
v
This result correlates with the studies of Pitman-Vidovich (2012) and Pitman-Vidovich (2013), both of which
studied patterns related to recognition of prior learning in Australian higher education institutions.
vi
Validation as understood in training: it is always the comparison of someone’s prior knowledge with
qualification requirements (e.g. learning outcomes or references) and the result of the comparison is always
some type of formal recognition (credit, exemption, transfer, qualification).
vii
The teacher who answered primarily understands validation as the recognitizion of knowledge that is
formalized in credits.
viii
Compare: Pimtan-Vidovich, 2012.