This paper is focussing on early childhood educators who have entered teacher training. They were offered an opportunity to participate in a process or recognition of prior learning (RPL) in connection with their admission to a teacher-training programme. The RPL process did not address admission to the programme in relation to the eligibility requirements for the programme; rather, it was intended to be part of the coming training process. It turned out that only a few of the admitted participants accepted the challenge to participate in the RPL process and thus receive credit. However, we know that this group of students has completed the first part of their training with good results, i.e. better results than the traditional students. For this reason, we wish to analyse the impact of their earlier experiences and informal learning, and how it is recognised during the training process. Breier (2005) discusses ‘“rpl” as opposed to “RPL”’, using the abbreviation RPL for Recognition of Prior Learning taking place before/outside the educational process, and rpl for recognition of prior learning within the educational process. Thus, in this paper we will mainly study ‘rpl’ in teacher training. RPL/rpl has been studied and analysed from a number of different perspectives. Andersson and Harris (2006) present a number of examples of different perspectives used in the analysis of RPL: assessment theory, the sociology of education, poststructuralism and situated knowledge/learning theory, activity, actor-network and complexity theory, and symbolic interactionism. In this paper, our theoretical point of departure is taken in a sociocultural perspective (Säljö, 2000, 2005). According to Lave and Wenger (1991) learning is not an separate process, related to individual performance, within the individual himself. In a sociocultural perspective, learning is an ongoing process, between people (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

The paper is based on interviews presenting the perspective of participating students and their teachers. The following questions are considered: What are the requirements on the programme and teachers when training is targeted at a group of students who are expected to have experience and knowledge acquired through informal learning? Do these students differ from other students, and, if so, what are the consequences for the organisation of the programme? What type of knowledge do these students have, and how can this be related to the higher education they are receiving? What are the consequences of bringing ‘new groups’ of students into higher education?

Will the function be that of a Trojan horse (cf. Harris, 1999), bringing new students into the university and starting a process of change from within? This study will probably create new knowledge about how vocational experience is utilized within teacher training. Futhermore, it will also say something about, how prior learning and experience are used in higher education generally.