Transcript Designing a National Qualifications Framework: the Experience of Hungary Qualifications Framework Baku Seminar 12 June 2007

Designing a National
Qualifications Framework: the
Experience of Hungary
Qualifications Framework
Baku Seminar
12 June 2007
1
European Dimensions
The Bergen Communiqué
„We adopt the overarching framework for
qualifications in the EHEA, comprising of three
cycles (…), generic descriptors for each cycle
based on learning outcomes and competences, and
credit ranges in the first and second cycle.”
„We commit ourselves to elaborate national
frameworks for qualifications compatible …
by 2010, and to having started work on this by
2007.”
2
Stocktaking 2007
Indicator 3: Implementation of national qualifications
framework
Number of countries in each score category for
Indicator 3
7
6
11
23
1
DEGREE SYSTEM
3. Implementation of national qualifications framework
Green (5)
A national QF in line with the overarching QF for EHEA is in place
Light green (4)
A proposal for a national QF in line with the overarching QF for EHEA has
been discussed with all relevant stakeholders at the national level and a
timetable for implementation has been agreed
Yellow (3)
A proposal for a national QF in line with the overarching QF for EHEA has
been prepared
Orange (2)
The development process leading to definition of national QF in line with the
overarching QF for EHEA has started, and it includes all the relevant national
stakeholders
Red (1)
Work at establishing national QF in line with the overarching QF for EHEA
has not started
3
Stocktaking





Most countries in the green category had started developing their national
framework before 2005: some have taken ten to fifteen years to complete
There is a concern among some of the other countries that the goal of having
national frameworks in place by 2010 might rush the national process. They
recognize that while the principles of the framework can be introduced in
legislation relatively quickly, it is likely to take some years before the
framework is fully implemented.
A great effort needs to be made before 2010, a lot of work to be done in many
countries, and there is a need to consider what kinds of support can be
provided through the Bologna Process to help
Continuation of the regional workshops started in the 2005-2007 period,
having an appropriate international organisation or network to facilitate
meetings and the creation of an expert pool, as suggested by the Qualifications
Frameworks Working Group.
Developing national frameworks of qualifications will bring together a number
of strands of the Bologna Process, all of which are based on a learning
outcomes approach: quality assurance; credit transfer and accumulation
systems; recognition of prior learning; lifelong learning; flexible learning paths
and the social dimension.
4
The London Communiqué
Some initial progress but much more effort
is required
 Commitment to fully implementing such
frameworks, certified against the
overarching Framework for Qualifications
of the EHEA, by 2010.
 Council of Europe is asked to support the
sharing of experience in the elaboration of
national qualifications frameworks.

5
Principles
Qualifications are national according to
national legislation.
 Qualifications are articulated/located in
national qualifications frameworks.
 Vision: national frameworks are linked
together through an alignment to a
European meta-framework.

6
Why ‘new style’ national frameworks?
Purposes of qualifications and qualification systems
 Routes of progression, points of integration and overlap
between different qualifications
 Recognizes the complexity of qualifications
 A nationally agreed framework that reflects the agreement of
stakeholders
 Effects on the relationship between national authorities and
institutions
How they can act as drivers of change
 Promote the attainment of qualification
 Raise national and international awareness
 Facilitate and support learners
 Improve access and social inclusion (entry and exit points,
alternative routes)
 Influence the reform of qualifications to better serve social
and economic needs)

7
The Hungarian Situation








Continental traditions
Several subsystems (not frameworks) co-exist
Facing a lot of new challenges (internationalization,
student numbers, social and economic expectations)
Advantages: an opportunity to review qualifications and
the whole qualification system
An evolving framework for higher education (effects of
the Bologna Process)
Public education: lessons from international
assessments (PISA)
Vocational education: new competence requirements –
needs of the labour market
Coordination: No single agency as yet
8
Hungary - The main challenge
Issues of quantity and quality
• levels of participation in higher education
• the content and the quality of learning
The main aim: „Hungary must shortly have a system of
higher education that by making the best use of its resources
will be able to contribute to the country’s effective
integration into the community of developed countries, and
will also serve the construction of a knowledge-based
society.”
A major objective: to create a framework for a modern
course structure that will also be able to better react to
demands of the labour market;
9
Recommendations:



Review the education system as a whole (public
and vocational, lifelong learning);
Re-examine vocational and academic needs and
create an integrated system of qualifications
that will gradually bring closer education and
training;
The implication of an integrated framework of
qualifications should be considered at the level
of curriculum practice.
10
Important Aspects




The curriculum that was established when at most 10%
continued in higher education, is not appropriate when
at least 35-40% are expected to continue at least for
three years after 18.
Existing participation on the basis of existing curricula,
even when it is possible, would not provide students
with the kind of skills and knowledge that are necessary
in the likely circumstances of the twenty first century.
Learner independence – the empowerment of students
New methods of student assessment are required.
11
Aims of the Framework
• Provide information for end users (employers, parents,
institutions, potential students) on the conditions for
obtaining an award and the actual content of a
qualification;
• Support international comparability of standards with
special regard to EU accession and the EHEA;
• Assist student choice by informing students about
possible routes of progression also within the context
of LLL;
• Give guidance to the higher education institutions in
defining their own academic standards and the external
evaluation bodies (e.g. Accreditation Board) in defining
points of reference for conducting external evaluation.
12
How do we start?



There should be some institutional base and
co-ordination
Discussion documents disseminated to all
stakeholders (learners, education providers,
government agencies, employers, business
sector, trade unions, community groups,
professional organizations)
An international process – a study of what is
available in the diversity of QFs and
involvement of experts
13
Approach










A clear understanding of the conceptual foundation (levels, descriptors,
etc.)
A shift from standardized content, organization and delivery of
qualifications
In terms of components the framework will include levels and outcome
focused indicators (credits). Credits expressed in learning outcomes, levels
and workload give coherence and clarity to the system
The use of learning outcomes in describing units, modules and whole
qualifications assists transparency, recognition and mobility
Traditional models give way to systems based on explicit reference points
using learning outcomes and competencies, levels, level indicators, subject
benchmarks, qualification descriptors
The use of a common language and approach - consistency will improve
transparency and quality
Even if we think of one particular sector to start with, it is important to
promote multiple pathways into and through that sector – LLL
The framework has a regulatory function - legal status
The framework should be linked to standards, internal and external
reference points, national and institutional quality assurance systems
There should be public understanding of the achievements represented by
different qualifications to achieve public confidence in standards.
14
Learning outcomes as building blocks of
qualifications frameworks





The purpose is to be more precise and to consider what
learners acquire in terms of knowledge and/or skills when
they successfully complete a unit/module, etc.
Focus on the learners achievement – not the teacher’s
intention There are different categories of outcomes: subject
specific: relate to the given field/subject/discipline and the
knowledge and/or skills associated with them;
Generic outcomes e.g. transferable skills);
The concept of LOs implies that it is less important how the
qualification was achieved – relevant to the recognition of
prior learning, which is enhanced by the use of Los;
QFs that employ output focused tools, particularly learning
outcomes facilitate the recognition of LLL.
15
Main Features

The cycles to be defined are: Bachelor, Master and Doctoral Studies,
though short cycles degrees are also taken into account.

The framework defines learning outcomes to be attached to each cycle,
type of qualification and programme, clearly indicating the differences
between each level.

A three stage process:
Stage 1: Different qualification levels are defined. Generic descriptors are
being applied (on the basis of the Dublin descriptors) for each level. The
descriptors are of three types:
–
–
–
The first section contains the learning outcomes of the
educational process that students who wish to hold the degree
will have to achieve Those are mainly for institutions and bodies
planning, conducting and evaluating degree programmes
The second section is a set of descriptors of how one can apply
the acquired knowledge and understanding in certain situations.
The third section describes more general competencies that can
be expected of a typical student at the given level. This
information is most important for employers.
16
Co-operation Mechanisms and Trustbuilding




A national mechanism for developing and approving a
framework, the legal background, implementation plan;
The location of a qualification within a national
framework should be verified through the Quality
Assurance mechanism;
National frameworks should articulate in a transparent
way with the EHEA framework;
The relationship between the national and the
European framework is verified through a selfcertification process, as a national responsibility;
17
Challenges
• The use of credits to quantify learning outcomes - direct
links with learning outcomes,
• Implications for curriculum design, teaching, learning and
assessment - a very long and time-consuming process,
• The process assumes close co-operation and consensus
between all stakeholders,
• How learning outcomes link into accreditation and quality
assurance?
• Short cycle degrees in the framework;
• The future of the binary system;
• The employability of graduates;
• Progression from one cycle to the next.
18
Implications for Curriculum Development









Set up subject specific coordination groups or pilot projects at
national level to help with the development of new curricula.
New approaches to curriculum design, teaching, learning and
assessment - a very long and time-consuming process,
Opportunity to revise pedagogical concepts by introducing
student-centred learning, modular structures and clearly
defined learning outcomes for the various degrees
More emphasis on developing skills and competencies
Greater need for individual student work, methods that lead to
better communication skills, creativity and innovation
Balance between specialist knowledge and generic skills, with
an emphasis on ”learning to learn
Dividing teaching contents between the two cycles
Introduction of new quality criteria emphasising final
competences
19
Student involvement in planning of study programmes
Steps/stages:
1
2
Decision to start
Setting the agenda:
Taken by the national body responsible for higher
education (minister?)
WG-Report nr. 1 (section 2.3)
The purpose of our NQF
3
Organising the process
Identifying stakeholders; setting up a committee/WG
4
Design
Profile. level structure,
level descriptors (learning outcomes), Credit ranges
5
Consultation
National discussion and acceptance of design by
stakeholders
6
Approval
According to national tradition by
Minister/Government/legislation
7
Administrative set-up
Division of tasks of implementation between HEI,
QAA and other bodies
8
Implementation at institutional/
programme level
Reformulation of individual study programmes to
learning outcome based approach
9
Inclusion of qualifications in the
NQF
Accreditation or similar (Berlin Communiqué)
10
Self-certification of compatibility
with the EHEA framework
(Alignment to Bologna cycles etc.)
WG Report nr. 1
Pilot projects
20
“We can't solve problems by
using the same kind of thinking
we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
21