Search results

This paper aims to provide a critical analysis of the European Commission's and the member states' attempts to introduce a European Qualifications Framework and national frameworks respectively.

The paper is based on a review of policies and substantive desk research in countries that have applied a qualification framework approach.

The analysis shows that qualifications frameworks (QFs) are resisted partly from inertia and conservatism and partly because important educational purposes are being defended. NQF experiences suggest that hopes associated with QFs are unrealistic (e.g. accreditation of prior learning).

The paper draws mainly on conceptual and secondary analysis. In future primary empirical analysis would be desirable.

The findings are extremely relevant to policy makers on the European and national levels. The lessons from NQFs suggest incrementalism, building blocks, supporting policies, consensus and staying as close as possible to practice are important.

This paper is one of the few attempts to evaluate current initiatives based on prior experiences.

The purpose of this paper is to question the appropriateness of a proposal for a new European Qualifications Framework. The framework has three perspectives: historical; analytical; and national.

The approaches are diverse since the first insists on the institutional and decision‐making processes at European level questioning the impact that could have on the recently formalised Open Method of Coordination. The second goes into more detailed analyses of the instrument itself and of its shortcomings both in conceptual terms and on its pragmatic ones. The last approach is a comparative one by which the French system is “benchmarked” against EQF guidelines.

The main conclusion is that there is obviously a political will to question the role and the structure of qualifications in view of an economy and a society of knowledge and that research has much to contribute – on very different levels – like the three chosen for this article.

Choosing to mix three quite different approaches in one short text is an attempt to be valued since it shows the different aspects under which a so‐called “neutral” instrument needs to be regarded.

Practically, this speaks for the further involvement of research in the present, very institutional and organisational discussions on European qualifications.

In terms of research, it is seldom that these various levels are considered together. The article proves that there is a case to do so.

The purpose of this paper is to review three international frameworks, including the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), in relation to one country’s higher professional and vocational education system.

The frameworks were examined in the context of English higher work-related education, and areas of mismatch identified. These were investigated to identify the extent to which they were due to weaknesses in the national system or to limiting assumptions contained in the frameworks.

Assumptions based on stages of education are problematic in the context of lifelong higher and professional education, while more open, lifelong-learning oriented assumptions can be too skeletal to aid comparisons between systems of initial vocational education and training. Particular problems are identified with assumptions contained in the ISCED that do not reflect the reality of professional education.

International frameworks need to take account of patterns of learning that take place outside of formal institutions and throughout life, but which lead to equivalent outcomes. Nevertheless, it is not adequate to substitute assumptions based only on the level of achievement.

The assumptions underpinning the ISCED in particular mean that equivalent achievements in different systems can be classified differently, leading to under-reporting of individual achievements, a lack of comparability in international statistics, and potential for policy distortion.

The paper builds on the work of Hippach-Schneider et al. by providing additional evidence, from a different national context, for issues relating to the ISCED in the context of higher professional and vocational education, and extends this analysis to the two major European frameworks.

This paper aims to explore the development of the concept of competence in Lithuania beginning from the period of transition from the Soviet planned economy and post‐totalitarian regime to the market economy and democratic society and ending with the designing and implementation of the National Qualifications System and Qualifications Framework.

The paper takes the form of desktop research of scientific literature and analysis of documents related to competences and qualifications in Lithuania.

The understanding of competence in Lithuania varies between the official usage in the laws and policy documents, common usage in education institutions and the approaches of employers, and this differentiation of understanding is caused by complex reasons related to the development of education, world of work and society in the socio‐economic transformations. In the National Qualifications System and National Framework of Qualifications of Lithuania competences are understood to be a bridge between the system of activities and the system of education.

The research involves mainly those concepts of competence that are originated by different social stakeholders and have influence on the processes of initial and continuing vocational training in Lithuania. All different scientific concepts of competence proposed by different scholars and circulating only in the scientific discourse have not been considered.

The article provides useful information for the policy makers and different stakeholders looking for information on the existing variety of the concepts of competences in Lithuania.

The paper provides a discourse that integrates the various complex conceptual and contextual issues related to the concept of competence.

National training packages have become the mandated framework for course delivery in Australia’s vocational education and training sector. Each training package contains: qualifications that can be issued, industry‐derived competencies, and assessment guidelines but do not contain an endorsed curriculum component or learning outcomes. All public and private vocational education and training providers must use training packages, or industry‐endorsed competencies in cases where they do not exist, if they are to receive public funding for their programs. This article describes the operation of Australia’s national training packages and considers some of their strengths and weaknesses, many of which may be shared by similar systems elsewhere. Argues that training packages may result in poorer student learning outcomes, and that they may threaten the end of effective credit transfer between the vocational education and training and higher education sectors. Suggests that national training packages are not a good model for other countries and that Australia’s current vocational education and training policy needs to be reviewed.

This paper aims to explore structural and systemic influences in the development of competence models and qualifications systems at sectoral and national levels across Europe, considering the influences of different socio‐economic models of skill formation on the processes of design and provision of qualifications.

The paper is based on a meta analysis of three European projects that used literature review, documentary analysis and interviews with practitioners and policy makers.

The main methodological and practical challenges posed by varieties of competence and qualifications to inter‐country comparability of qualifications are shown to be related to different socio‐economic models of skill formation.

The research is limited to 13 countries and four sectors but these were carefully selected to maximise coverage of European diversity with respect to competence models, training regimes and approaches to qualifications. There is clearly a need for further research involving more countries and sectors.

The paper offers recommendations for improving the potential of the European Qualifications Framework to promote comparability of qualifications and hence mobility of labour. These recommendations will be of interest to policy makers and practitioners involved in using the EQF and similar instruments.

This is the first systematic attempt to explore the methodological and practical difficulties of establishing comparability between qualifications.

This paper aims to analyse how learning levels differ within and between degrees and diplomas with specific application to the Bachelor of Applied Business Studies degree and the New Zealand Diploma of Business, which are delivered at a New Zealand polytechnic.

A literature review and content analysis of National Qualifications Frameworks was conducted to analyse how learning levels differ within and between degrees and diplomas with specific application to the Bachelor of Applied Business Studies degree and the New Zealand Diploma of Business which are offered at a New Zealand polytechnic.

A literature review and content analysis of National Qualifications Frameworks reveals that learning levels are differentiated by level of complexity, degree of abstraction, depth in a major subject, research competency, learner autonomy and responsibility, relative demand placed on students and increasing complexity and unpredictability of operational context. This analysis failed to find any difference in learning level between Bachelor of Applied Business Studies and New Zealand Diploma of Business papers nominally at the same level on the New Zealand National Qualifications Framework. The degree comprises a portion of papers at a higher learning level than the diploma and it is at this level that the difference is realised.

Future research should investigate learning level differences between disciplines, qualifications and institutions.

This paper provides a framework on which to base course design, delivery and assessment of the Bachelor of Applied Business Studies degree and the New Zealand Diploma of Business and credit transfer between them.

This case study addresses the increasingly important issue of the compatibility of learning levels between different qualifications. As many economies acknowledge the necessity for increasingly skilled workforces, credit transfer to enable seamless transfer between qualifications is becoming a focus in seeking to facilitate lifelong learning. There are few studies that focus on National Qualifications level descriptors and the implications for different qualification types.

Examines the proposals made by the National Committee of Inquiry in Higher Education (Dearing Report) for a national quality assurance regime that is focused on academic standards. Provides a simple conceptual aid to explain relationships between the elements of the policy framework. Considers the methodologies that are being developed by the Quality Assurance Agency and the implications for institutional and academic practice. Identifies factors and issues that will need to be considered during policy development.

This paper aims to explain the distinction between educational standards and learning outcomes and to indicate the problems that potentially arise when a learning outcomes approach is applied to a qualification meta‐framework like the European Qualification Framework, or indeed to national qualification frameworks.

The methods used are documentary, political and conceptual analysis, with some reference to empirical work carried out in relation to other projects.

It is found that there are substantial differences between learning outcomes and standards with large educational and political implications. Furthermore, the “pure” form of learning outcomes approach contains a design flaw, which makes its coherent implementation problematic.

The stimulation of further research on learning outcomes based approaches to qualifications and the problems that arise in their implementation.

The EU needs to think carefully about the fitness for purpose of the current descriptors for EQF and whether or not it is desirable to move away from a pure outcome‐based approach to qualification frameworks and meta‐frameworks.

As far as the authors are aware, this is the first paper to draw attention to this distinction.

Though the notion of competence is common terminology in European VET policy at national and supra‐national level, understandings vary widely, both across countries and within. The particular conceptions of competence adopted in the EQF are themselves problematic and the framework allows for a variety of interpretations. The purpose of this paper is to clarify those applied in the EQF and the vocational education and qualifications systems of particular European countries and to contribute to the development of a transnational understanding of the term, one which is compatible with a rapidly changing labour market.

Drawing on evidence from work funded by the Nuffield Foundation entitled “Cross‐national Equivalence of Vocational Skills and Qualifications”, the paper explores the various conceptions of competence in the EQF and the national systems – in particular in the sectors of construction, ICT and health – of England, Germany, France and The Netherlands.

Interpretations are located on a continuum from the comprehensive occupational model traditionally found in many European countries to the task‐focused model of the English NVQ system.

Much developmental work involving all stakeholders is necessary to arrive at a commonly agreed conception. A broad understanding of competence would relate to the potential of labour, itself determined through the occupational capacity embodied in the qualification.

Zones of Mutual Trust need to be based on transnational categories of VET.

The value of the paper is in seeking to go beyond identifying differences by developing transnational categories and suggesting the nature of Zones of Mutual Trust for implementing the EQF.