Section 8 · Assessment, evidence and portfolio logic

In an evidence-based methodology, a judgement about competence is only as sound as the evidence that supports it. This section explains how learning is assessed, what counts as evidence, and how that evidence is gathered, recorded and assembled into a portfolio. It describes the methodological approach that IFP-LATAM applies; the formal assessment, certification and recognition of qualifications remain with the competent national authorities.

Why evidence-based assessment matters

Competence is not directly observable. What can be observed is performance — what a learner says, writes, makes, demonstrates and decides. Evidence-based assessment treats every judgement as a claim that must be backed by collected evidence, gathered against transparent criteria and recorded so that it can be reviewed. This protects learners (a result reflects what they actually did), assessors (decisions are defensible) and partner institutions (results are consistent and auditable). The approach is methodologically grounded in German dual vocational education and draws on German and Swiss vocational education principles, adapted for international TVET implementation.

Two purposes: formative and summative

Methods that generate evidence

No single method captures competence on its own. A robust assessment design combines several methods so that strengths of one offset the limits of another. The methods below are complementary instruments, selected according to what is being assessed.

• Workplace demonstration — the learner performs a real task in a genuine work setting; strong evidence of authentic capability.
• Simulation — a controlled re-creation of a work situation, used where real conditions would be unsafe, costly or rare.
• Observation records — the assessor’s dated, criterion-referenced notes on what was seen during demonstration or simulation.
• Project evidence — outputs from an extended, multi-step task that shows planning, execution and review over time.
• Practical tasks — discrete, bounded performances that isolate a specific skill under defined conditions.
• Written reflection — the learner’s own account of choices made, problems met and lessons drawn, evidencing self-awareness and judgement.
• Structured interviews — a planned set of questions that probe underlying knowledge and the reasoning behind a performance.
• RPL evidence — for recognition of prior learning, evidence of competence already held (work products, references, testimonials) assembled and verified against the same criteria.

Assessment rubrics

A rubric makes the criteria explicit before assessment begins. It states what is being judged, describes performance at each level in observable terms, and is shared with learners in advance. Rubrics make judgements consistent between assessors and across time, turn feedback into something specific and actionable, and give partner institutions a transparent basis for quality assurance. Every summative judgement in this methodology references a rubric.

Portfolio logic

A portfolio is the organised collection of evidence that, taken together, supports a judgement of competence. Rather than resting on a single moment, it assembles workplace demonstrations, observation records, project outputs, written reflections and interview notes into one reviewable whole. Good portfolio evidence is valid (it relates to the criteria), authentic (it is the learner’s own work), current (it reflects present capability) and sufficient (there is enough of it to be confident). The portfolio is what makes an assessment decision auditable after the fact.

The three dimensions of evidence

Across all of these methods, sound evidence speaks to three distinct questions. The descriptor logic IFP-LATAM applies — used only as an indicative comparison tool, assigning no levels and conferring no recognition — frames competence along the same three dimensions: knowledge; skills; and responsibility and autonomy. The evidence triangle below shows why all three corners matter: a learner may know a procedure, may be able to do it under guidance, and may be able to do it independently and responsibly — and assessment needs evidence at each corner.

The evidence triangle: a defensible judgement of competence rests on evidence at all three corners, not one. Competence is evidenced at all three corners.

Mapping to the IFP-LATAM Exercise & Practice Tool

These three dimensions are reflected directly in the difficulty levels of the existing IFP-LATAM Exercise & Practice Tool. Each level targets a deeper layer of competence, moving from recalling knowledge, to applying it, to transferring it across complex situations.

Tool level	What it asks of the learner	Evidence dimension
Easy	Knowledge recall — retrieving facts, terms and procedures.	Knowledge (what the learner knows)
Medium	Knowledge application — using what is known to carry out a defined task.	Skills (what the learner can do)
Hard	Transfer and multi-complex competence — adapting and combining skills in new, layered situations.	Responsibility & autonomy (how independently the learner can act)

---

Section 9 · Recognition of prior learning

Many capable adults, informal-sector workers and experienced practitioners hold valuable competence that was never written down. Recognition of prior learning (RPL) is a structured way to make that competence visible, document the evidence behind it, and connect it to clear next steps — while keeping every recognition decision firmly in the hands of the competent national authority.

Across the partner contexts IFP-LATAM works with, a large share of skilled work is learned on the job, through family enterprises, apprenticeship by observation, or years of practice in trades such as construction, electrical installation, automotive repair, hospitality, care work and agriculture. These workers often perform at a high standard but lack a certificate that a training institute, employer or authority can read. RPL addresses this gap by treating demonstrated competence as evidence to be gathered and assessed, rather than assuming that learning only counts when it happens in a classroom. The aim is not to shortcut standards; it is to apply the same standards to learning wherever it occurred.

The methodology described here is methodologically grounded in German dual vocational education and draws on German and Swiss vocational education principles, adapted for international TVET implementation. It uses the three descriptor dimensions — knowledge; skills; and responsibility and autonomy — to describe what a person can do, and it applies EQF descriptor logic only as an indicative comparison tool. It does not assign EQF or NQF levels and creates no formal recognition.

The RPL workflow, step by step

RPL is best understood as a sequence that moves from lived experience to a clear, readable profile. Each stage produces something concrete that the next stage can build on.

The RPL pathway: lived experience is converted into documented evidence, assessed against defined criteria, checked for gaps, supported by short bridge training where needed, and expressed as an indicative readability profile.

What the evidence can and cannot do

RPL is a support tool, not a recognition authority. The evidence it produces is designed to be read and used by the bodies that hold the actual decision.

---

Section 10 · Micro-credentials as competence signals

Micro-credentials are assessed records of small, defined volumes of learning. In this methodology they are used as competence signals and complementary partial credentials — they make specific competences visible and verifiable, and they sit on top of a national qualification without replacing, re-levelling or revaluing it.

Naming

To keep the signal clear and avoid any misreading as a recognised level, the credential uses a careful name:

The name does not place “EQF” next to “badge”, and no badge is presented as an EQF-issued or EQF-recognised credential.

What this is / what this is not

---

Section 11 · Workforce readiness vs workforce readability

These are two different things, and a system can be strong in one and weak in the other. This methodology is designed to strengthen both — but it is important not to confuse them.

A person can be ready but unreadable. A national qualification can be strong domestically but unclear internationally. Micro-credentials and descriptor-based profiles do not add competence — they make existing competence easier to read.

Figure 7 — Readiness and readability are independent; the goal is the top-right quadrant.

Four familiar situations

---

Section 12 · Descriptor-based comparison and qualification frameworks

This methodology uses the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) only as descriptor logic — a widely understood way to describe competence. It is used to compare and to make competence readable, never to assign a level or to confer recognition.

Three descriptor dimensions

Competence is described against three dimensions that institutions across many systems already recognise:

Comparison is useful — but it is not recognition

Describing learning outcomes against these dimensions lets partners compare an occupational profile to descriptor expectations, identify gaps and design bridging. The comparison is graded honestly (for example: substantial, good, partial or short overlap) and is always presented as a comparison, never asserted as an assigned level. Across the qualification systems examined in IFP-LATAM’s analysis, the assignment of a level is a reserved act of a national authority. IFP-LATAM therefore documents readiness against descriptor expectations; it does not perform levelling.