Search results

We analyze the relationship between initial vocational education and training (VET) and training policies by looking at the ways and extent to which different approaches foster the acquisition of general and transferable skills. The factors that particularly affect the investment in training and the investment in transferable skills are analyzed both from the point of view of the individual and the employer. We argue that with the reform of their national training systems, Spain and the United Kingdom have followed different routes in order to foster precisely an increase in the investment on transferable skills. Those pathways differ in the extent to which policy strategies have aimed at reducing either individual worker or firms’ constraints to receive or invest in transferable training, and in the extent to which the emphasis for certification focused on “demonstrated learning outcomes” as opposed to “particular learning processes or places.” The paper concludes with the presentation of some policy implications.

In the last decade, the speed and intensity with which regional level connections are expanding in all areas of the world has been remarkable. Higher education in Africa is no exception. This chapter focuses on African policies and programme initiatives to further higher education regionalization. Regionalization is defined as the process of ‘building closer collaboration and alignment among higher education actors and systems in a designated area or framework, commonly called a region’. An analytical framework, consisting of functional, organizational and political approaches, is applied to the evolution of higher education regionalization at the continental level in Africa through a close examination of the progress related to the implementation of the “African Union Strategy for the Harmonization of Higher Education Programmes.” Special emphasis is given to the harmonization of degree structures and the recognition of qualifications through sub-regional qualification frameworks. Key issues and challenges such as rationales, governance, benefits and risks, unintended consequences, language, engagement for all and innovation are raised at the end of the chapter to stimulate further reflection and exploration of the complex process of higher education regionalization.

Why evaluate quality in Library and Information Science (LIS) schools? From a historical perspective, quality assurance always has been considered a strategic issue by LIS schools for improvement of the teaching and learning experience and for accountability. Internationalization has added a new role to quality assurance in LIS. In terms of the context of the World Trade Organization General Agreement on Trade in Services (WTO-GATS), LIS is increasingly recognized as part of the knowledge sector. The WTO-GATS has approved a multilateral framework that sets out rules for the conduct of international trade in services, including educational services. The GATS includes both general rules—for example, those related to the transparency of trade-related regulations—and a framework for specific commitments under which countries choose whether, and under what conditions, to allow access to their markets for foreign suppliers. The provisions in the GATS related to trade regulations and ways countries choose to allow access to their markets are relevant to the recognition of international standards or qualifications for professionals. Although not mandatory, international standards are encouraged, both for quality assurance of LIS school offerings in general, and for recognition of a specific LIS school outside its home country. Additionally, in the context of an increasingly internationalized job market, employers need reliable information on how to evaluate specific higher education degrees and assess degrees recognized and granted in their domestic market. The goals are to facilitate the mobility of students and to increase employability. The need to reinforce the comparability of higher education internationally through quality assurance systems is now becoming more pressing.

This chapter adds to the volume by providing a first-hand account, discussion, and reflection on our experience of coming in as outside “experts” from Australia to develop courses for universities in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. This chapter provides a comparative analysis of two cases illustrating and discussing cross-cultural collaborations for curriculum development for an Industrial Design (ID) program and an interdisciplinary design program in the Middle East, namely the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This chapter aims to provide a better understanding of Quality Assurance (QA) processes and the purpose of curriculum development for employability and entrepreneurship in the MENA region. To meet this aim, we describe the planning processes for the development of the new curricula and the evolution of the programs. We reflect on the differences and similarities of QA frameworks, and their interpretation and use by the universities in the KSA, the UAE, and Australia. We compare the processes and outcomes around specialization versus inter- and transdisciplinarity, as well as around employability in traditional industry versus education for entrepreneurship and future jobs. We observed significant differences between the two recipient MENA countries, and between them and Australia. These related to the understanding and foci of the graduate attributes; the understanding and implementation of course development processes; and the responsibility of provision and oversight of QA oversight in each country. In closing the chapter, we share important learnings through our reflections.

The background and context of Australian Library and Information Services (LIS) education and the role LIS education plays in constructing the Australian workplace are explored in this chapter. It provides an analysis of the broader historical, social and educational imperatives which have shaped Australian LIS education. It also examines the pedagogical, structural and epistemological construct surrounding the development of education for LIS in that country. Specific questions are raised about divisions in LIS education and training which lay the framework for further research and discussion. The historical context for LIS education is covered and insights into the nature and background of the broader educational frameworks which have influenced it are provided.