Full text (pdf) - Cedefop - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Qualifications frameworks and credit systems: a toolkit for education in Europe Torsten Dunkel, Isabelle Le Mouillour 199 consistently being geared towards learning outcomes (with reference to the EQF) and of credit points being interpreted as quantitative indicators in the sense of notional learning time. Other issues needing clarification are whether it should be possible to accumulate credit points at different qualification levels and whether ECVET points should be put on a par with ECTS points or may be credited to them. It is also unclear whether a range of credit points per qualification level is appropriate and at what level (European, national and/or provider) the relevant agreements should be reached. Finally, clarification is required as to who should examine the outcomes, and in what form, until such time as clear standards have been devised for learning outcomes (Sellin, 2005). Conclusions Europe’s education systems are changing. There are certain general trends, occasioned by the tertiarisation of the economy (i.e. increasing employment in knowledge-intensive and also personal-service occupations) and a growing need for mobility. These trends are reflected in a wide acceptance of the fact that it is important from a social and economic point of view to focus on adult education, as well as to modularise initial and in particular further training to a greater extent. VET and higher education systems must develop more rapidly into open, diverse networks of educational facilities and practice. In order to bring about the necessary change and institutional transformation, it is essential to bridge the institutionalised and cultural gulf between the higher education and VET sectors, pathways and qualifications. Enhanced permeability of education systems means moving away from a discussion centring on diplomas to a clear definition of learning outcomes and the associated curriculum content, its organisation and the reciprocal accreditation of existing competence, i.e. the awarding of credits according to universally valid criteria. It is not currently known with any certainty which potential solutions are more successful and under what conditions, or whether a variety of solutions in Europe would be preferable to a one-size-fits-all approach. There is an 18-year disparity in experience between ECTS and ECVET, during which period the Bologna Process has become institutionalised. What lessons can be learned from the development of ECTS about organising credit systems and qualifications frameworks? ECTS, ECVET and EQF are three instruments all with similar objectives (including transparency and permeabil-
200 European journal of vocational training No 42/43 – 2007/3 2008/1 ity), yet they differ in terms of their fields of application. Neither the design phase nor the final implementation is complete in any one of them: this aspect is undoubtedly novel. We are dealing here with evolutionary elements of a European education area, which is itself in the process of taking shape and must hold its ground against other education areas. The Bologna Process, with its extensive strategy of development and recruitment of new members, is evidently pursuing the goal of international coexistence and taking up a clear position in the con<strong>text</strong> of the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) negotiations. The Copenhagen Process, for its part, is following more of an intensive line of development: individual instruments (including ECVET, CQAF, <strong>Europa</strong>ss and EQF) are being finetuned and harmonised with one another. It would furthermore appear sensible and necessary in the long term for the ECVET system to be merged with the ECTS system into an integrated, coherent overall system with a clear connection to the proposed European Qualifications Framework. The current challenge lies not so much in extending the credit system from a function of transfer to one of accumulation, or in firming up the calculation basis for credits, as might appear to be the case at first sight from a comparison of ECTS and ECVET. Rather, it lies in the related issue of how to apply credit systems in conjunction with procedures for the accreditation and validation of formally, non-formally and informally acquired learning outcomes and in particular occupational competence. The consequent permeability between education sectors requires a rethink of access to, and accreditation or validation of, VET and higher education study programmes. One key goal in terms of accreditation is to make lifelong learning a reality between and within national educational and labour markets. Further integrated development of credit systems from a transfer to an accumulation function, as well as from an input-based to an outcome related orientation, could help to build bridges in this area, so that the European Qualifications Framework can serve as a medium for the integration of general, higher and vocational education. Over and above these long-term aims of ECVET, ECTS and EQF, and indeed of the European education area, attention should be paid to devising precise and consistent terminology at the level of discourse, because the somewhat Babylonian linguistic confusion of the official documents tends to lose sight of the end user, i.e. the learner. We nevertheless have every hope that, as has been said, ‘the difference in wording is not expected to lead to differences in implementation’ (European Commission, 2006c, p. 3).
Page 1 and 2: Key words ECVET, ECTS, EQF, mobilit
Page 3 and 4: 186 European journal of vocational
Page 15: 198 European journal of vocational
Page 19: 202 European journal of vocational

Full text (pdf) - Cedefop - Europa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?