www.ecvet-team.eu

ECVET development
Previous experience shows that units
are usually chosen as the reference
for assessment. Assessing every learning
outcome would be too stressful
for the learners and too much effort
for training providers and competent
authorities: while assessing the entire
qualification only reduces the options of
transfer and/or accumulation. The projects
ICARE, CPU-Europe, CO.L.O.R,
ESyCQ and EASYMetal will follow this
approach. The project 2get1care plans
to assess ‘clusters of units’, since the
training regulations for the qualifications
in question do not allow for continuous
assessment.
In France (MEN-ECVET), regulations for
a final one-off assessment are in place,
while in Malta (VET-CCS), current procedures
are being discussed.
Solutions found for
the question of ‘How’
and ‘Who’ to assess
When the partners discuss assessment
procedures, it is important to
respect existing (national or systemlevel)
regulations on assessment. This
applies to all projects, but particularly
to those who are implemented in a topdown
approach by national ministries
or regional bodies. For instance, in the
MEN-ECVET project, it is important to
take into account that the standards
of French qualifications systematically
contain assessment regulations defining
content and mode of an assessment
(e.g. oral, written or practical) as well
18 ECVET magazine n°12 / December 2012
as the relative weight of each unit, assessment
criteria, etc. Compared with
ECVET, this means that there is a clear
framework for the assessment (per unit)
that leads to certification.
In the Maltese VET-CCS project, where
a modernisation of procedures compatible
with ECVET is aimed at, a survey
carried out in training centres showed
that a wide range of different assessment
methods is currently used. To harmonise
the practice, but still allow for a certain
amount of independence of training centres,
new procedures could be introduced.
Certain‚ core units could be assessed
by external assessors according to
national standards compatible with
ECVET; whilst the assessment of specific
units could be carried out by training
centres according to internal standards.
Those projects that are intending to facilitate
transfer and accumulation within
a (international) partnership will have to
accept that different forms of assessment
can be reliable and valid. However,
in order to establish trust among competent
institutions, they will either establish
a common assessment procedure
and/or include clear descriptions of assessment
procedures, indicators and
criteria in their Memoranda of Understanding
(CO.L.O.R, ICARE).
In the EASYMetal project, the assessment
is envisaged as a means to
enhance transparency and to create
trust about learning outcomes between
training providers and the competent
institutions. Knowledge, skills and competences
are assessed by a written
test (knowledge), a working plan (competences),
a work sample (skills, competences
and social behaviour), and
an oral test (competences). It is also
intended to introduce common quality
standards as to the duration of assessment;
the ratio of assessors/learners;
and the criteria for the choice of a work
sample which should be applied in all
learning venues.
“ Those projects
that are intending
to facilitate transfer
and accumulation
within a (international)
partnership will have to
accept that different
forms of assessment can
be reliable and valid ”
In the ESyCQ project, assessment is
carried out through a test taken in a
test centre, supported by the CEMES
competence database. Tests can be
generated individually regarding every
defined unit of learning outcomes. The
test comprises open text – tasks as well
as multiple choice questions and can be
complemented by practical tests and
personalised audits to evaluate case
studies, etc. The database is renowned
and recognised by the competent institutions
and the test is supervised by