ECVET Understanding the relationships between credit systems & qualifications frameworks QF-EHEA Isabelle Le Mouillour Roma, 18 February 2010 QF-LLL ECTS 0
Qualifications frameworks 1 QF-EHEA ECTS ECVET EQF NQF Credit systems SQF The study aims at specifying and clarifying the relationships between credit systems and qualifications frameworks at European, national and sector levels, as well as developing scenarios for a credit and qualifications framework at European level, EQF and QF-EHEA ECTS and ECVET Germany, Finland, France, Slovenia, Spain, UK-EWNI, Scotland Australia, South Africa set of scenarios Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 1
Two main questions for this morning: 1) How qualifications frameworks and credit systems are linked and operate? 2) How could the European tools for Education and Training evolve? To keep in mind Qualifications frameworks Direct influence of QF on how qualifications are designed and awarded vary QF are embedded in a broader context of qualifications systems Credit systems Design of CS is more common and adapted to qualifications sub-systems Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 2
Working definitions Credit systems Qualifications frameworks To enable accumulation of learning outcomes gained in formal, non-formal and/or informal settings, and To facilitate their transfer from one setting to another for validation and recognition. Sectoral, bridging, integrated According to their scope and the extent to which the sub-systems are expected to share certain common rules Descriptive, reforming and transformational According to the level of change expected Credit arrangements (generic term) validation/recognition/transfer and accumulation of credit Use of a credit points convention Credit systems use of units/modules and explicit rules on their accumulation and/or transfer Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 3
How are qualifications frameworks and credit systems linked? It depends upon: The way they are conceived Mechanisms or processes The way they are considered Mechanisms or processes The distinction mechanism/ process highlights the importance of how stakeholders use these instruments in their implementation QF Levels Procedures for referencing Catalogue(s) of qualifications offered As mechanism As process Inclusion/exclusion of qualifications Stakeholders involvement CS Units Credit points Rules for accumulation and transfer Remits of stakeholders concerned To practice transfer and open-up qualifications and programmes Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 4
How are qualifications frameworks and credit systems linked? It depends upon: The way they are used, the level at which they operate (Active or passive role) QF Regulating or influencing the way qualifications are designed and awarded (using level descriptors) Ensuring quality of qualifications Describe relationship between qualifications through a structure of levels Communicate the range of recognised qualifications offered Active role CS Qualifications: Measure of volume (CP) Use units/modules Refer to rules to accumulate credits Empower certain actors to recognise credits Passive role Describe size of qualifications (or components) Describe relationship between components Provide information on content of components Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 5
How are qualifications frameworks and credit systems linked? It depends upon: The way they are used, the level at which they operate (Active or passive role) The distinction between the active/passive role shows that both instruments have features which: Facilitate the description/understanding of the qualifications system Introduce aspects that modify existing practice in the conception, design and award of qualifications Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 6
Passive role and related purposes Related purposes QF Understanding of qualifications Informing users and securing trust Organising qualifications titles (naming guidelines) Examples Homogeneity of qualifications Variety of qualifications titles International orientation of E&T Relating qualifications types Related purposes CS Further differentiating qualifications titles at same level Aligning qualifications size with level Facilitating linkages Managing individual pathways Related purposes QF & CS Introduction of new qualifications Examples QF-EHEA Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 7 AU Esp. Adult education To describe qualifications (their components) with regard to two dimensions (level, breadth) To introduce templates/ standardised items to be described regarding units/ modules
Specific dimensions of the active role Through regulation Explicit requirement: Use of levels, descriptors for qualification design, Use of common templates Through quality assurance Referencing qualifications to QF, allocation of credit points, design of units, etc Through guidelines Based upon consensus, incl. common terminology, common principles, operational items Through common terminology Examples QCF (EWNI) Examples South African Framework Examples AQF Examples Making explicit non formalised terminology (level, level descriptor, learning outcomes, qualifications, etc.) Use of level descriptors as references for designing qualifications or programmes 1) Reference to locate qualifications on a level 2) Indicator for designing new qualifications All frameworks Different levels of details and use Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 8
Articulating qualifications frameworks and credit systems Two ways of articulating QF/CS : The QF is based on a CS (qualifications are unit-based) e.g. QCF The QF introduces guidelines, proposes orientations for credits, and subsystems or awarding bodies can develop CS Articulation around the active role For design of progressive learning pathways (units for articulation of qualifications across levels, possibility for units transfer to higher levels) However this requires (some level of) centralised governance of these articulation possibilities it is more common at the level of a sub-system or of a awarding body Articulation based upon Units common to several qualifications Decisions about equivalence of units that are comparable Optional units Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 9
Accumulation, transfer and progression Progression depends upon (for instance) decisions on access criteria articulation of the content of qualifications and programmes Transfer does not require accumulation (and vice-versa) The differences: 1. The governance of the qualifications system If progression is a requirement => qualifications/units designed and updated in a coordinated manner; It becomes complex if many awarding bodies are concerned 2. The guarantee individuals have that their credit will be recognised Issues such as costs of recognition process, reputation, need to deal with this case by case etc. might hinder the recognition of credits, unless the demand from learners or the industry reach the critical masse Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 10
No integration Qualifications description/ construction QF has its own rules CA has its own rules Level of integration Transfer and accumulation arrangements Depending on subsystems and institutional policies Governance/ Administration of framework QF/CA have separate governance/administration arrangements possibly not the same institutions Integration passive role of QF/CA Integration active role of QF/CA Qualifications level and volume described in the same way Qualifications and their components are designed in the same way As above but facilitated by a common description of level and volume Facilitated by common design of qualifications - can be regulated to a certain extent Though other obstacles remain Coordination of QF/CA governance. Requires joint governance of level allocation and volume calculation Single QF/CA governance. Information is collected, standardised and searchable at the level of units Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 11
Question 2: Possible future of European instruments The European meta-instruments: ECTS The Framework of Qualifications for the EHEA (EHEA framework) QF for Lifelong learning (EQF) ECVET Caveats: Alternative options for the future (no predictions, or forecasts) Both ECTS and ECVET introduce a credit (points) convention and provide guidelines for credit accumulation and transfer, they depend on national/institutional implementation Both QF-EHEA and EQF are based on criteria to refer not qualifications but levels of a qualifications system/framework Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 12
Similarities Objectives: to facilitate mobility (even though target groups differ) To trigger national reform (modernisation in view of LLL) To improve transparency and the understanding of qualifications Shared principles All are based on learning outcomes (at least their EU understanding is) even though the definitions of LO differ between the EHEA framework and EQF/ECVET The referencing criteria for the two QF are very similar The credit points convention used by the two credit instruments is the same (60 points = 1 year of formal learning) Differences The scope of these instruments EQF covers all ET sub-systems, others only one sub-system (HE or VET) but also geographical scope The implementation strategies and the level of advancement of implementation The main actors involved in implementation at national level Some differences in the explicitly formulated objectives even though these differences may be becoming less clear, e.g.: openness to other forms of learning is much stronger in EQF/ECVET than in EHEA QF and ECTS focus on enhancing quality of ET is much more explicit in the EHEA QF than the other instruments Differences in the definition of certain concepts (LO, credit/credit points) Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 13
Impact of the European tools on national developments Many countries take the EU definitions The developments of NQF show the impact of EQF ECTS is formally implemented in most EU countries Changes in education and training systems Developments in higher vocational education and training New demography of learners Strengthening of the international dimension of education and training Some commonalities already EQF compatible with the EHEA QF (higher levels) ECVET/ECTS: same credit points convention, learning outcomes approach ECVET/EQF share a number of definitions The governance As for today, drivers and enablers for change EQF/ECVET: Open Method of Coordination, technical working groups (Member States, social partners), supporting and steering role by the European Commission EHEA QF: inter-ministerial agreements, exchange among HE institutions ECTS: European LLL programme, network of ECTS counsellors Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 14
2- Governance: consensual framing and stimuli Status quo: Some commonalities in concepts between certain instruments Governance for all instruments is completely distinct Common language: principles and terminology Two instruments Integration of terminology and principles for credit transfer in VET and HE Integration of terminology and principles for QF Governance for credit and for QF remain separate Diversity in terminology and its understanding All in one Integration of terminology and principles Stronger and common governance Governance: consensual framing, stimuli, evaluation and feedback 4+ Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 15
Scenario 1 - Status quo Continuity (governance, concepts/principles) Evolution of the instruments: No equal development intensity or pace; Separate governance spheres Greater use of NFIL (=> better understanding the distinction qualification/programme) The conceptual difference modules/units remains in European definitions but less at national/institutional level Impact: Conceptual basis of ECVET/ECTS converges but the instruments sound different EQF better known to wider public, EHEA framework more for insiders Governance mainly concerned with promotion Guidelines are written but it is difficult to address inconsistencies in implementation Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 16
Scenario 2 Two instruments Nature: Single set of guidelines for credit, single qualifications framework Evolution of the instruments: Issue of branding and renaming for the credit system, this issue is more difficult than the conceptual integration Higher Education institutions - EHEA, their diversified offer of qualifications leads to stronger buy-in to national overarching frameworks Governance large mixed groups (VET/HE), stronger planning, steering, monitoring Impact: Greater consistency in implementation Greater trust between HE and VET at European level Greater need for resources and commitment from countries/institutions Increased legibility for learners and other stakeholders Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 17
Scenario 3 All in one Nature: Single European Credit and Qualifications Framework Evolution of the instruments: Principles/ guidelines for credit arrangements are a requirement of the qualifications framework Recommendations concern: common credit convention for measuring the volume of learning, use of units Credit points value and level figure on qualification documents Unique governance (planning, financing, reviewing) with several layers Impact: Stronger signalling effect of qualifications (volume, nature of qualifications) Greater visibility at policy level (real opportunities for transfer?) Governance requires more resources and commitment The links between European governance level and the grassroots level are stronger Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 18
Thanks for your attention For referring to the study, please quote: Cedefop. Exploring the linkages between credit systems and qualifications frameworks. To be published in 2010. Isabelle Le Mouillour (ECVET, qualifications & learning outcomes) Area Enhanced Cooperation in VET and Lifelong Learning Postal address: PO Box 22427 GR-551 02 Thessaloniki (Finikas) Tel. 0030 23 1049 01 30 Mail: Isabelle.Le-Mouillour@cedefop.europa.eu Presentation title- to be Other info, venue, date, slide Num to be changed from View->Header 19