Transcript Qualifications frameworks: challenges, triumphs and failures

SEEC CONFERENCE: CREDIT CHANGES AND
CHALLENGES
LONDON, 10TH DECEMBER 2010
CURRENT ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE THE TWO CREDIT-LINKED METAFRAMEWORKS - THE OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE
EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA (FQ-EHEA) AND THE EUROPEAN
QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK FOR LIFELONG LEARNING (EQF)
Do we have a European
surfeit of meta-frameworks
= framework chaos?
Is the creation of a single
integrated European metacredit and qualifications
framework a possibility or a
dream?
Would it be of any benefit
and if so to whom?
STEPHEN ADAM
[email protected]
FOCUS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Multiple challenges currently facing European higher education reform
Some issues and questions
Boundaries and tools – overlap and potential domain confusions
Overarching Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher
Education Area (FQ-EHEA)
European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF)
European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)
The European Credit System for Vocational Education
and Training (ECVET)
Summary of problems
Is there any hope for some sensible rationalisation? Possible steps
towards a solution
STPEHEN ADAM: [email protected]
1. Multiple challenges!
Qualification
Frameworks
(FQ-EHEA-2012
deadline+ EQFLLL +
binary divide
issues)
New technology
Mission
statement/diversit
y in university
roles
Bologna process
EHEA established
but objectives not
achieved
(Budapest-Vienna
2010)
Mobility Targets
Revenue sources –
Finance
CURRENT EUROPEAN HIGHER
EDUCATION REFORM ISSUES
+
S U R V I V A L?
Mergers
CONTEXT:
• Growth in demand
• Constrained funding
• Demographic change
• Increased competition
• Globalisation
(By 2020 20%
study/training
abroad)
Quality Assurance
(Internal +
External) +
accreditation
issues
RANKINGS ?
Curriculum
reform/developme
nt
(for profit HEI)
Recognition issues
Markets
(Diploma
Supplement +
Lisbon Recognition
Convention + RPL)
Borderless
education (TNE)
Credit Systems +
confusions
ECTS v ECVET
Internationalisation
Student- centred
learning
Employability
Learning
outcomes –
delivery
assessment
2. Some issues and questions:
1.
and
There is a necessity to ‘facilitate the compatibility and
comparability between credit systems used in VET and
ECTS, which is used in the higher education sector,
thus [to] contribute to greater permeability between
levels of education and training.’
Recommendation on ECVET
2.
‘We are satisfied that national qualifications
frameworks compatible with the overarching
Framework for Qualifications of the EHEA will also
be compatible with the proposal from the European
Commission on a European Qualifications Framework
for Lifelong Learning.’
London Communiqué 2007
See
BeTWIN
project
2. Some issues and questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Can ECVET be made compatible with ECTS?
What is the difference between VET and HE
(nationally and internationally)?
What is the evidence to support the assertion
by Bologna ministers that new NQF compatible
with the FQ-EHEA are also going to be
compatible with the EQF?
Are European tools supporting recognition and
mobility clear, unambiguous and fit for purpose?
Are we suffering from framework proliferation,
overlap and confusions that could be
dysfunctional?
3. Boundaries and tools - overlap and domain confusions
International
qualification
metaframeworks
+associated
credit meta tools
National
qualification
and/or credit
frameworks
Regional
credit
frameworks
and
descriptors
INTERNATIONAL
FRAMEWORKS OF
FRAMEWORKS
(general + broad –
for framework
creators)
DIFFERENT
PURPOSES
LOCAL
HEI
institutional
credit systems
(Complex and
detailed specific
regulations - for
institutional staff)
4. Overarching Framework for Qualifications of the
European Higher Education Area (FQ-EHEA)



FQ-EHEA adopted by Bergen Communiqué 2005 + new deadline for new style NQF - all
to be implemented and prepared for self-certification by 2012
Three cycles with attached ECTS credit ranges for first and second cycles (Typically 180240, 90-120)
Purposes:








Sets the parameters within which the countries of the EHEA will develop their national
qualifications frameworks;
Describes the “outer limits” within which national frameworks should be situated;
Allows for diversity within those limits;
Ensures compatibility between national frameworks;
Presents a “common face” for higher education in Europe, which is important in a global context;
Facilitates movement between systems;
Is the face of “Bologna qualifications” to the rest of the world;
Provides the broad structure within which “new style” national qualifications frameworks will be
developed
NB: Many countries are finding the creation of NQF very difficult (cosmetic changes) + just
adopt the generic Dublin descriptors
5. European Qualifications Framework for
Lifelong Learning (EQF)



EQF established in 2008 by the EU Council and Parliament. All new qualifications
issued from 2012 to carry a reference to an appropriate EQF level. By 2010 National
Qualification Systems should be referenced (self-certificated) to the EQF.
The EQF applies to all types of education, training and qualifications, from school
education to academic, professional and vocational.
Purposes:






Acts as a translation device to make national qualifications more readable across Europe,
promoting workers' and learners' mobility between countries and facilitating their lifelong
learning;
The EQF aims to relate different countries' national qualifications systems to a common European
reference framework;
Individuals and employers will be able to use the EQF better to understand and compare the
qualifications levels of different countries and different education and training systems;
It encourages countries to relate their national qualifications systems to the EQF;
Acts as a catalyst for reforms: most Member States are now developing their own National
Qualifications Frameworks (NQFs) based on learning outcomes;
Encourages lifelong learning by promoting the validation of non-formal and informal learning.
NB. Progress is slow and for many countries problematic
6. European Credit Transfer and Accumulation
System (ECTS)


In 1988 0riginated mainly as a mobility ‘credit transfer’ tool to aid the recognition of
periods of study undertaken at a foreign host institution in the home institution. Since
the inception of the Bologna Process it has slowly developed and is now experiencing its
final and most difficult transitional phase with its gradual metamorphosis into a
student-centred credit accumulation system, based on learning outcomes.
Purposes:








ECTS makes teaching and learning in higher education more transparent across Europe and
facilitates the recognition of all studies;
The system allows for the transfer of learning experiences between different institutions, greater
student mobility and more flexible routes to gain degrees;
It aids curriculum design and quality assurance;
ECTS is a tool that helps to design, describe, and deliver programmes and award higher education
qualifications.
The use of ECTS, in conjunction with outcomes-based qualifications frameworks, makes
programmes and qualifications more transparent and facilitates the recognition of qualifications.
ECTS can be applied to all types of programmes, whatever their mode of delivery (school-based,
work-based), the learners’ status (full-time, part-time) and to all kinds of learning (formal, nonformal and informal);
It aims to facilitate planning, delivery, evaluation, recognition and validation of qualifications and
units of learning as well as student mobility.
ECTS is widely used in formal higher education and can be applied to other lifelong learning
activities.
NB. The ECTS transition to using learning outcomes is difficult + progress slow + appears
to have wide applications
ECTS - TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS:
60 ECTS credits are attached to the workload of a full-time year of formal learning
(academic year) and the associated learning outcomes. In most cases, learner workload
ranges from 1,500 to 1,800 hours for an academic year, whereby one credit corresponds
to 25 to 30 hours of work.
ECTS credit is a quantified means of expressing the volume of learning based on the
workload learners need in order to achieve the expected outcomes of a learning process at
a specified level.
ECTS credits are based on the workload students need in order to achieve expected
learning outcomes. Learning outcomes describe what a learner is expected to know,
understand and be able to do after successful completion of a process of learning.
They relate to level descriptors in national and European qualifications frameworks.
7. The European Credit System for Vocational
Education and Training (ECVET)


ECVET is a new European instrument recommended by the European Parliament and
Council 2009. It has been designed as a European credit system compatible with the
specificities of vocational education and training.
Purposes:






The system aims to facilitate the validation, recognition and accumulation of work-related skills
and knowledge acquired during a stay in another country or in different situations.
It should ensure that these experiences contribute to vocational qualifications.
ECVET aims for better compatibility between the different vocational education and training (VET)
systems in place across Europe and their qualifications.
By 2012, it should create a technical framework to describe qualifications in terms of units of
learning outcomes, and it includes assessment, transfer, accumulation and recognition procedures.
In ECVET, an individual’s learning outcomes are assessed and validated in order to transfer credits
from one qualification system to another, or from one learning "pathway" to another. According to
this approach, learners can accumulate the required learning outcomes for a given qualification
over time, in different countries or in different situations.
The system also allows the possibility to develop common references for VET qualifications and is
fully compatible with the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)
NB. It is too early to assess the value of ECVET but its definitions are potentially confusing
ECVET - TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS:
According to the technical specifications of ECVET, qualifications are described in terms of
units of learning outcomes. The Recommendation on ECVET (2009) defines a unit of
learning outcomes as “a component of a qualification, consisting in a coherent set of
knowledge, skills and competences that can be assessed and validated”. A credit for learning
outcomes on the other hand means “a set of learning outcomes of an individual which have
been assessed and which can be accumulated towards a qualification or transferred to other
learning programmes or qualifications”. This means that an assessed unit of learning
outcomes leads to obtaining a credit of learning outcomes.
ECVET points are allocated to a qualification as a whole and to its units. Allocation of
ECVET points to a qualification is based on using an agreement according to which 60
points are allocated to the learning outcomes expected to be achieved in a year of formal full
time VET.
ECVET points are a ‘numerical representation of the overall weight of learning outcomes in
a qualification and of the relative weight of units in relation to the qualification’.
The credit and ECVET points are thus different entities. While a credit is a set of knowledge,
skills and competences the learner has achieved, ECVET points provide information about
the weight of units within the qualification.
8. Summary of problems
• There are obvious terminological problems
and confusions
• Differences in key definitions used
• Credit is understood differently
• The relationship between the metaframeworks is unclear and potentially
baffling
• An artificial meta-disjunction/barrier
between VET and HE is being created
9. Is there any hope for some sensible
rationalisation? Steps towards a solution
It is unrealistic to call for a deep and immediate rationalisation between the
FQ-EHEA/ECTS and EQF/ECVET visions of reality but this should happen even
if the politics of the situation probably make this impossible at the moment.
However, there are some obvious recommendations to make to those
responsible for these initiatives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Seek the merging of ECTS and ECVET in order to establish for Europe one meta-credit
system, with a single definition and understanding of a credit and credit points.
Suggest the European Commission demonstrates that the stated compatibility between
ECTS and ECVET is explained in detail and tested in practice (Hopefully the Be-TWIN
methodology succeeds). The relationship between the European meta-credit systems
and national credit arrangements needs clarification.
Call for a detailed explanation of the practical relationship between FQ-EHEA and EQF
and their role vis à vis national qualifications frameworks and credit systems. Again it
is stated that FQ-EHEA and EQF are compatible but this needs to be made explicit.
Develop a set of common definitions between FQ-EHEA, EQF, ECTS and ECVET and
some mechanism to merge them. Many technical complications arise because these
instruments do not share common definitions of key concepts.