7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

1/200

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

2/200

A Framework for Qualificationsof the European HigherEducation Area

Bologna Working Group onQualifications Frameworks

Published by:Ministry of Science, Technologyand InnovationBredgade 43DK-1260 Copenhagen K

Tel: 3392 9700Fax: 3332 3501

This publication may be obtainedfree of charge as long as copiesare available. Please contact:

The National IT and TelecomAgency, Denmark

danmark.dkTelephone: 1881sp@itst.dkwww.netboghandel.dk

The publication can also bedownloaded from:http://www.vtu.dkISBN (internet): 87-91469-53-8

Printet by:

Grefta Tryk A/SImpression: 1,000ISBN: 87-91469-54-6

>

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

3/200

A Framework for Qualificationsof the European Higher

Education AreaBologna Working Group onQualifications Frameworks

Ministry of Science, Technology and InnovationFebruary 2005

>

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

4/200

Contents >

Executive summary 7

Introduction 13

1 Context higher education qualifications inEurope 171.1 The Bologna Process, European Higher

Education Area and qualifications systems 171.2 Qualifications frameworks and the purposes of

higher education 221.3 Qualifications frameworks at national and

European levels and for different areas oflearning 26222424252526

2 National frameworks of qualifications inhigher education 292.1 Introduction 29

2.2 Systems of higher education and nationalframeworks of higher education qualifications 312.3 The purposes of national higher education

frameworks of qualifications 322.4 Elements of national frameworks 362.4.1 Learning outcomes, including

competences 372.4.2 Levels and typical/generic qualifications 422.4.3 Credits and workload 442.4.4 Profile 472.5 Quality assurance and national frameworks of

qualifications within national contexts 482.6 The role of stakeholders in national frameworks 522.7 Conclusions: good practice for the development

of national frameworks of qualifications 54

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

5/200

Appendices 107

Appendix 1 109Working Group and experts

Appendix 2 111Terms of Reference for Working Group on OverarchingFramework of Qualification for the EHEA

Appendix 3 113Bologna Seminar on Qualification Structures inHigher Education in Europe

Appendix 4 117La validation des acquis de l'exprienceL'exprience Franaise: Prsentation & valuation

Appendix 5 141Some national Qualification Frameworks in Europe

Appendix 6 147From 1st cycle (e.g. Bachelors) to 2nd cycle(e.g. Masters) to doctorates: the differences / stepchanges between the respective Dublin descriptors

Appendix 7 151Bologna Conference on Qualification Frameworks

Report by the General RapporteurAppendix 8 193

The framework for qualifications of the EuropeanHigher Education Area

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

7/200

>

7

This report concerns the elaboration of qualificationsframeworks as called for by ministers in the BerlinCommuniqu; it makes recommendations and proposals for anoverarching Framework for Qualifications of the EuropeanHigher Education Area (EHEA), and offers advice on goodpractice in the elaboration of national qualifications frameworksfor higher education qualifications.

The report includes six chapters that cover:

1. The context higher education qualifications in Europe

2. National frameworks of qualifications in highereducation

3. The framework for qualifications of the EuropeanHigher Education Area

4. Linking frameworks of qualifications in higher

education

5. Frameworks for higher education and for othereducational areas

6. Conclusions

Chapter one draws the lines from the Bologna declaration of1999 to the Berlin Communiqu of 2003 in the development ofdescribing qualifications and frameworks. It also demonstrates

the impact of this development on the action lines of theBologna Process. Finally it points to the underlying goals,priorities and assumptions of higher education, which have tobe taken into account when developing qualificationsframeworks, namely: preparation for the labour market,preparation for life as active citizens in a democratic society,personal development and the development and maintenance ofa broad, advanced knowledge base.

Executive summary

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

8/200

>

8

Chapter two examines the nature, development andeffectiveness of existing national frameworks for qualificationsencompassing new style higher education. It reveals a widepattern of different experiences from which a number of goodpractice recommendations can be identified. Some usefulaspects that can facilitate the creation of successful newnational frameworks of qualifications are mentioned, including:

> the development and review process for producing good

national frameworks are most effective when they involveall relevant stakeholders both within and outside highereducation.

> a framework for higher education qualifications shouldidentify a clear and nationally-agreed set of purposes.Frameworks for higher education qualifications benefitfrom the inclusion of cycles and /or levels, and articulationwith outcome-focussed indicators and/or descriptors of

qualifications. Higher education frameworks ofqualifications can also benefit from being directly linked tocredit accumulation and transfer systems

> frameworks for higher education qualifications shouldexplicitly link academic standards, national and institutionalquality assurance systems, and public understanding of theplace and level of nationally recognised qualifications.Public confidence in academic standards requires publicunderstanding of the achievements represented by different

higher education qualifications and titles.

Chapter three explores the possibilities for formulating aframework for EHEA and recommends that:

> the framework for qualifications in the EHEA should be anoverarching framework with a high level of generality,consisting of three main cycles, with additional provisionfor a short cycle within or linked to the first cycle.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

9/200

>

9

> the framework should include cycle descriptors in the formof generic qualification descriptors that can be used asreference points.

> the Dublin Descriptors developed by the Joint QualityInitiative are proposed for adoption as the cycle descriptorsfor the framework for qualifications of the European HigherEducation Area. They offer generic statements of typicalexpectations of achievements and abilities associated with

awards that represent the end of each of a Bologna cycle.

> responsibility for the maintenance and development of theframework rests with the Bologna Follow-up Group andany successor executive structures established by theministers for the furtherance of the EHEA.

Chapter three also includes guidelines for the range of ECTStypically associated with the completion of each cycle:

> Short cycle (within or linked to the first cycle)qualifications - approximately 120 ECTS credits;

> First cycle qualifications - 180-240 ECTS credits;

> Second cycle qualifications - 90-120 ECTS credits theminimum requirement should amount to 60 ECTS credits atsecond cycle level;

>

Third cycle qualifications do not necessarily have creditsassociated with them.

Chapter four discusses how national frameworks ofqualifications need to articulate in a transparent way with theoverarching European framework for qualifications. Theprocess of articulation should involve the careful mapping ofnational qualifications (their levels, learning outcomes anddescriptors) with the cycle descriptors identified for theEuropean overarching framework.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

10/200

>

10

The following criteria are proposed for the verification thatnational frameworks are compatible with the EHEA framework:

> The national framework for higher education qualificationsand the body or bodies responsible for its development aredesignated by the national ministry with responsibility forhigher education

> There is a clear and demonstrable link between the

qualifications in the national framework and the cyclequalification descriptors of the European framework

> The national framework and its qualifications aredemonstrably based on learning outcomes and thequalifications are linked to ECTS credits

> The procedures for inclusion of qualifications in thenational framework are transparent

> The national quality assurance system for higher educationrefer to the national framework for higher educationqualifications and are consistent with the BerlinCommuniqu and any subsequent MinisterialCommuniqus in the Bologna Process

> The national framework, and any alignment with theEuropean framework, is referenced in all DiplomaSupplements

> The responsibilities of the domestic parties to the nationalframework are clearly determined and published

It is proposed that each country should certify the compatibilityof its own framework with the overarching frameworkaccording to the following procedures

> The competent national body/bodies shall self-certify thecompatibility of the national framework with the European

framework

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

11/200

>

11

> The self-certification process shall include the statedagreement of the quality assurance bodies of the country inquestion recognised through the Bologna Process

> The self-certification process shall involve internationalexperts

> The self-certification and the evidence supporting it shalladdress separately each of the criteria established and shall

be published

> The ENIC/NARIC network shall maintain a public listingof States that have completed the self-certification process

> The completion of the self-certification process shall benoted on Diploma Supplements issued subsequently byshowing the link between the national framework and theEuropean framework

The frameworks of qualifications have been identified as a keytool for the realisation of the European Higher Education Area.Therefore it is recommended

that all signatories will complete the self-certification processby 2010.

Chapter five looks at the framework and related initiatives

outside of higher education. It takes into account widerEuropean developments in lifelong learning, of which highereducation is an intrinsic part, developments in the Lisbonprocess and the linked future objectives process, as well asdevelopment in the Copenhagen process on increased Europeanco-operation in vocational education and training.

The change agenda being advanced through much of this workrelates closely with the sorts of changes required by theBologna process, as reflected through the introduction ofnational frameworks of qualifications, and an overarching

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

12/200

>

12

framework for qualifications of the European Higher EducationArea. It is proposed that:

> national frameworks should include awards that integraterecognition of non-formal and informal learningexperiences.

This chapter also notes that an increasing focus on theindividual learner rather than learning systems and institutions,

which challenges the traditional boundaries within and betweendifferent levels of education and training, is also relevant.

The development of the plans of the European Commissiontowards a European Qualifications Framework is regarded as ahelpful and important, and it is anticipated that the approachesdeveloped in this report will support and be compatible withsuch a framework.

Chapter six provides a summary of conclusions of the report.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

13/200

>

13

The conclusions of the Berlin conference (September 2003) ofthe ministers in charge of higher education included:

Degree structure: Ministers encourage the member statesto elaborate a framework of comparable and compatiblequalifications for their higher education systems, which

should seek to describe qualifications in terms of workload,level, learning outcomes, competences and profile.

They also undertake to elaborate an overarchingframework of qualifications for the European HigherEducation Area.

This report was commissioned by the Bologna Follow UpGroup (BFUG) in furtherance of these undertakings.

The report includes five chapters that cover:

> The context higher education qualifications in Europe

> National frameworks of qualifications in higher education

> The framework for qualifications of the European HigherEducation Area

> Linking frameworks of qualifications in higher education

> Frameworks for higher education and for other educational

areasMeeting in Dublin in March 2004, the BFUG approved theestablishment of a Working Group to coordinate the work onthe development of an overarching framework of qualificationsfor the EHEA, and appointed the following to that WorkingGroup: Mogens Berg (Denmark) as chair, the BFUG Chair (IanMcKenna (Ireland) until 1 July 2004, and Marlies Leegwater(The Netherlands) from 1st July), Jacque-Philippe Saint-Gerand(France), va Gonczi (Hungary), and Andrejs Rauhvargers

Introduction

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

14/200

>

14

(Latvia). The Working Group was joined by a number ofexperts (listed in Appendix 1 to this report).

The terms of reference BFUG (Appendix 2) provided for theWorking Group were to:

> identify reference points for national frameworks ofqualifications (in terms of workload, level, learningoutcomes, competences and profile), which may assist

Member States in establishing their frameworks;

> elaborate on an overarching framework of qualifications forthe European Higher Education Area;

> establish key principles for frameworks of qualifications,both at national and European levels.

The Working Group took into account other policy areas,including those within the Copenhagen Process and the widerLisbon Agenda as articulated in "Education and training 2010"1.The Working Group, with its experts, met 6 times; in Dublin,Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Stockholm, Budapest and Riga. Priorto this a preparatory group was set up by Denmark, Ireland, theUK (including Scotland), and the President of the LisbonRecognition Convention Committee. This preparatory groupundertook some coordinating work prior to the formalappointment of the Working Group.

The Working Group has drawn heavily upon work done byothers, especially that of the Joint Quality Initiative2 whoformulated and further developed the Dublin Descriptors andorganised an introductory conference in London in January2004. It has also drawn on experiences in countries that havealready established qualifications framework for their national

1 Title: www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/doc/

jir_council_final.pdf2 www.jointquality.org

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

15/200

>

15

higher education systems, and conducted a comparative studyof existing national frameworks.

The Working Group has consulted other organisations andnetworks that have contributed to the discussions; these includethe European University Association (EUA) (which has alsoacted as coordinator of the ECTS counsellors), the EuropeanAssociation of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE),the National Union of Students in Europe (ESIB), the EuropeanNetwork of Information Centres (ENIC) and the NationalAcademic Recognition Information Centres (NARIC), and theEuropean Consortium for Accreditation (ECA). The EuropeanCommission (EC) contributed both through their interests in theBologna process and as coordinator of the Copenhagen processand of the Lisbon process as articulated in Education andtraining 2010.

In widening input into the deliberations, the Chairman

presented interim findings of the Working Group at variousconferences of important European organisations and networkssuch as ESIB, EURASHE and the ENIC and NARIC. He alsoconducted a seminar in Vienna attended by Austrian officialsand organisations with regard to their Bologna and EUPresidency (2006). Members of the Working Group havepresented reports to Bologna seminars in Edinburgh, Santanderand Riga, and attended the Closing Conference on TuningEducational Structures in Europe. Phase 2.

The report was discussed in detail at a Bologna seminar inCopenhagen3 on 13-14 January 2005 and the report was revisedfollowing the comments at the seminar. The revised report,taking account of the conclusions and recommendations fromthe seminar, will be given to the BFUG, who commissioned thework. It will be available for the ministerial BolognaConference in Bergen in May 2005.

3 Appendix 7

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

16/200

>

16

The work was made possible thanks to financial support fromthe European Commission through the Socrates Programme.The Council of Europe has contributed to the work through theparticipation of the President of the Lisbon RecognitionConvention Committee.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

17/200

>

17

1.1 The Bologna Process, European HigherEducation Area and qualifications systems

The identification of first and second cycle studies, within theBologna Declaration (1999), was the first step towardsdeveloping an over-arching qualifications framework for theEuropean Higher Education Area (EHEA). By creating thisinitial division between cycles the first elements of a

qualifications framework were established.The next steps were several national and internationalinitiatives, including the development by the Joint Qualityinitiative (JQI) of the Dublin descriptors, the Trans-EuropeanEvaluation Project (TEEP), the Tuning project, anddevelopments in national qualification frameworks for exampleDenmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, with separatequalifications frameworks for Scotland and the rest of the UK.Various Bologna seminars, e.g. in Helsinki, Lisbon, and Zurich,

also provided additional discussion of context and detailedinformation. These initiatives were followed by the DanishBologna seminar on Qualification Structures in European

Higher Education, held in Copenhagen on 27-28th March 2003.This seminar was informed by a background report4 thatexplored alternative approaches for clarifying the cycles andlevels in European higher education qualifications. The reportand the seminar examined the issues and debates associatedwith concepts useful for describing qualifications. They also

focussed on current European approaches to qualificationsstructures, alternative methodologies and their theoreticalfoundations for conceiving different educational levels for allhigher education qualifications, including lifelong learning.

4 The report, Qualifications Structures in European Higher education Consideration of alternative approaches for clarifying cycles and levels in

European higher education qualifications can be downloaded from:http://www.bologna.dk

1 Context higher educationqualifications in Europe

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

18/200

>

18

The 2003 Danish seminar resulted in a series of detailedrecommendations to higher education stakeholders that weretaken up by the ministers at their meeting in Berlin; these aresummarised in Appendix 3. Their Berlin Communiqu (2003)called for the creation of an overarching framework for theEuropean Higher Education Area. The following statements areof particular importance in this connection:

Degree structure: Ministers encourage the member states toelaborate a framework of comparable and compatiblequalifications for their higher education systems, which should

seek to describe qualifications in terms of workload, level,learning outcomes, competences and profile.

They also undertake to elaborate an overarching framework ofqualifications for the European Higher Education Area.

Within such frameworks, degrees should have different defined

outcomes. First and second cycle degrees should have differentorientations and various profiles in order to accommodate adiversity of individual, academic and labour market needs.

First cycle degrees should give access, in the sense of theLisbon Recognition Convention, to second cycle programmes.Second cycle degrees should give access to doctoral studies.

Ministers invite the Follow-up Group to explore whether andhow shorter higher education may be linked to the first cycle of

a qualifications framework for the European Higher EducationArea5

Lifelong learning: Ministers furthermore call those workingon qualifications frameworks for the European Higher

Education Area to encompass the wide range of flexible

5 Berlin Communiqu 2003,

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

19/200

>

19

learning paths, opportunities and techniques and to makeappropriate use of ECTS credits.6

Additional actions: Ministers consider it necessary to gobeyond the present focus on two main cycles of highereducation to include a doctoral level as the third cycle in the

Bologna process.7

The challenge was thus to create a European qualificationsstructure that facilitates the connection between nationalframeworks of qualifications, in order to provide the basis forintroducing more precision to the relationship between differenthigher education qualifications with Europe. As qualificationsoriginate and exist within national or related systems, theframework should more properly be called a Framework forQualifications of the EHEA.

An effective overarching Framework for Qualifications of the

EHEA is necessary for many reasons. Primarily it should helpthe Bologna Process establish real transparency betweenexisting European systems of higher education through thedevelopment of a shared basis for understanding these systemsand the qualifications they contain. This should improve therecognition of foreign qualifications, enhance the mobility ofcitizens and make credential evaluation more accurate. Theoverarching framework should also provide guidance to thosecountries developing their national frameworks. Last, but not

least, it provides a context for effective quality assurance.There are significant direct and indirect connections betweenthe full Bologna agenda and the creation of effective systemsfor the description and location of qualifications in Europe. Theoverarching framework for qualifications should play a vitalrole in the EHEA. The majority of the ten action lines identified

6

Berlin Communiqu 20037 Berlin Communiqu 2003

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

20/200

>

20

in the policy documents of the Bologna Process will be affectedfundamentally and positively by the development of clear,outcomes-focussed qualifications frameworks that sharecommon methodological descriptors. The adoption of a systemof easily readable and comparable degrees, that aidsrecognition, requires these common and clear descriptors. Linksto the action lines are provided through:

> The adoption of a system essentially based on three8 main

cycles presupposes some agreement about the nature androle of degrees at different cycles/levels and is already thebasis for such a framework.

> The establishment of a system of credits is itself oneapproach to help describe and quantify qualifications andmake them more transparent.

> The promotion of mobility, of staff, students and

researchers, can only be facilitated by a commonunderstanding and the fair recognition of qualifications.

> The promotion of European cooperation in qualityassurance requires transparent and, if possible, commonEuropean approaches to the expression of qualifications,qualification descriptors and other external reference pointsfor quality and standards.

> The promotion of the European dimension in higher

education, especially integrated study programmes and jointdegrees, can be helped by more transparency betweenexisting courses, curricula and levels.

> Regarding lifelong learning, any consensus for describingdegrees and levels must have beneficial implications for

8 The Bologna Declaration formulated this goal with regard to the first and

second cycles; while the Berlin Communiqu added the doctoral degree asa third cycle

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

21/200

>

21

qualification structures, other higher educationqualifications, alternative pathways and degrees, and thusall stages and types of learning.

> Higher education institutions and students are paramountstakeholders who gain by the creation of effective nationaland European frameworks. The autonomy of highereducation institutions can be strengthened throughqualifications frameworks that provide for enough

flexibility and are not too rigid.

> National and European frameworks that provide varioustransition points, facilitate access for non-traditionallearners and thus promote greater social cohesion andstrengthen the social dimension.

> Promoting the attractiveness of the European highereducation area would be made easier as the transparency

and comparability of European higher education degrees ismade real by the development of a common framework ofqualifications. Refining of ways to describe degrees andlevels in higher education is fundamental to the BolognaProcess.

> A transparent and well-articulated overarching framework,supported by national frameworks, will also be ofconsiderable importance to the recognition, in other parts ofthe world, of qualifications resulting from the Bologna

reforms.

The development of conceptual approaches for describingqualifications is currently an important priority for manycountries as they undertake educational reforms in the light ofthe Bologna process. These developments are not restricted toEurope, or indeed to higher education, and can be seen in otherareas of education and training and in other parts of the world asshown by the experiences in, for example, Australia, NewZealand, and South Africa. Unfortunately, the situation iscomplicated by the existence of several alternative and

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

22/200

>

22

competing approaches. Some stakeholders in the Europeanhigher education sector have been aware of the problemsassociated with the current situation and there are a number ofongoing national and international attempts9 designed to resolvethese problems and move towards a more commonunderstanding.

There are different ways to express and measure studyprogrammes, including time-based (years) approaches, creditpoints, identification of learning outcomes and competencies,qualifications and level indicators, subject benchmarks10.

Traditional models and methods of expressing qualificationsstructures are giving way to systems based on explicit referencepoints using learning outcomes and competencies, levels andlevel indicators, subject benchmarks and qualificationdescriptors. These devices provide more precision and accuracyand facilitate transparency and comparison. Without these

common approaches, full recognition, real transparency andthus the creation of an effective European Higher EducationArea, will be more difficult to achieve.

1.2 Qualifications frameworks and thepurposes of higher education

The elaboration of a qualifications framework, whether an

overarching framework for the EHEA or a national framework,cannot be divorced from the underlying goals, priorities andassumptions of higher education. The Working Group hastherefore found it both useful and necessary to briefly sketch the

9 For example, the Joint Quality Initiative (JQI), European Network ofQuality Assurance (ENQA), Tuning, etc.

10 Subject benchmark statements is a UK approach that provides the academiccommunity with a means for describing the nature, standards and

characteristics of programmes in a specific subject. This approach has alsobeen adopted by the Tuning educational structures in Europeproject.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

23/200

>

23

assumptions on which it has based its work. The issues coveredin this chapter have, at least to some extent, been addressed inthe Bologna Declaration, as well as the Prague and BerlinCommuniqus. They have also been addressed in a number ofBologna seminars, most prominently in the Greek seminar onthe social dimension of higher education (February 2003), theDanish seminar on qualifications structures (March 2003), theCzech seminar on lifelong learning (June 2003), and theCouncil of Europe/Portuguese seminar on recognition (April2002)11. They were also addressed by the Council of Europeseminar on the public responsibility for higher education andresearch (September 2004), and were considered at theSlovenian, EUA and ESIB seminar on employability (October2004), and at the seminar on recognition organised by theLatvian authorities and the Council of Europe in Riga inDecember 200412.

As the Bologna Declaration has been implemented, there has

been debate among various stakeholders at national andEuropean levels, particularly within the Council of Europe, anda common understanding of the multiple purposes of highereducation is emerging. Broadly speaking, one may identify fourmain purposes of higher education:

> preparation for the labour market;

> preparation for life as active citizens in a democraticsociety;

> personal development;

> the development and maintenance of a broad, advancedknowledge base.

11 For these seminars see

http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/en/ bologna_seminars/index.htm12 For these seminars see http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

24/200

>

24

For the purpose of discussion, it may be convenient to separatethe four elements. It should nevertheless be underlined that thedistinction between the elements is not clear-cut, and the fourelements are interlinked. It may also be noted that while for thefirst three elements, the main emphasis will most likely be onthe individual earning the qualification, for the fourth elementemphasis may be at the level of society, not least in relatingqualifications to employability and other social objectives.Nevertheless, all four elements have individual as well associetal dimensions.

Preparation for the labour market

Preparation for the labour market is the dimension that has overthe past generation been most dominant in public discourse oneducation. Employers have complained that the currenteducation systems of many European countries provide studentswith insufficient preparation for the labour market, and this

concern was one of the driving forces behind the BolognaProcess.

Preparation for life as active citizens in a democratic society

While democratic institutions and laws are indispensable todemocratic societies, they can only function in societies markedby a democratic culture that is tolerant and accepts diversity andopen debate. Democracy ultimately depends on the active

participation of educated citizens. Education at all levels thusplays a key role in developing democratic culture. In addition totransferable (transversal) skills, the active participation ofcitizens requires a broad education in a variety of fields as wellas the nurture of democratic attitudes and values and the abilityto think critically. This aspect of higher education was referredto in the Bologna Declaration and brought much more explicitlyinto the Process through the Prague and Berlin Communiqus.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

25/200

>

25

Personal development

This aspect of higher education has not been explicitlyaddressed so far in the policy texts of the Bologna Process.While personal development may have been a more explicitgoal of education and higher education in earlier generations, itis still an underlying assumption of education in Europe. Theassumption may appear to have been challenged through thedevelopment of mass education, but it should nevertheless bemade explicit that whilst preparation for the labour market is animportant purpose of education, the aim of personaldevelopment has far from disappeared.

The development and maintenance of a broad, advanced

knowledge base

For society as a whole, it is important to have access toadvanced knowledge in a broad range of disciplines. At the

most advanced levels of knowledge, this relates to research andresearch training. It is, however, not limited to research, asadvanced knowledge and the transmission of such knowledgeplay important roles in a wide range of areas and at levels belowthat of research. Thus, whilst knowledge of advanced skills andmethods of, for example welding, as well as the ability todevelop them further, may not be characterised as research,these skills and their transmission are likely to be ofconsiderable importance to a modern, technologically advanced

society. This aspect of higher education was addressed by theBerlin Communiqu, in the context of the synergy between theEHEA and the European Research Area and the inclusion of thedoctoral degree as the third Bologna cycle.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

26/200

>

26

1.3 Qualifications frameworks at national andEuropean levels and for different areas oflearning

A qualifications framework provides a systematic description ofthe full range of qualifications within a given education system,as well as the ways in which learners can navigate betweenthem. Qualifications therefore have to be described in such away as to cover the full purpose of education, so the frameworkmust be multi-dimensional.

This is true for both national frameworks and the emergingframework for the EHEA. The latter will be less detailed thannational frameworks, but one of its purposes will be to providean overarching framework that will simplify mobility,transparency and recognition between national systems. At thesame time, it is important to recognise that national frameworks

will reflect the respective national discussions on the purposesof higher education and different agendas in higher educationpolicy. To find the right balance between the diversities ofnational frameworks and the benefits of a close linkagesbetween them is the main challenge for constructing anoverarching framework.

Developing qualifications frameworks is a task not only forhigher education and the Bologna process. The Copenhagen

process aims to develop instruments to enhance thetransparency of vocational qualifications and competences, andto increase co-operation in vocational education and training.This is to be promoted by developing reference levels, commonprinciples for certification, and common measures, including acredit transfer system for vocational education and training.

Few countries have developed comprehensive frameworkscovering both higher education and vocational education andtraining, and such a framework does not exist at the European

level. The European Commission and the European Council of

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

27/200

>

27

Education Ministers have expressed the view that the Europeanlabour market cannot function effectively and smoothly withouta European Framework to stand as a common reference for therecognition of qualifications. They call for the development ofsuch a framework within the Lisbon process13. These questionsare dealt with in chapter 5.

13 Joint Interim Report: Education and Training 2010 (February 2004)

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

28/200

>

28

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

29/200

>

29

2.1 Introduction

There are a number of concepts associated with and essential toan understanding of national frameworks of qualifications, butthere is unfortunately no widespread international agreement onthe accepted use of such terms as level, cycle, workload,learning outcome, qualifications framework, etc. Differences inthe use of these terms makes an explanation of nationalframeworks and their co-ordinated development problematic. In

order to overcome these difficulties the followings definitions(see box below) are employed in this chapter and throughout thewhole report:

Credit: a quantified means of expressing the volume oflearning based on the achievement of learning outcomes andtheir associated workloads.

Cycle: the three sequential levels identified by the BolognaProcess (first cycle, second cycle and third cycle) withinwhich all European higher education qualifications arelocated.

Europe/European: Europe/European refers to thosecountries that are signatories to the Bologna Declaration,whilst national is used to describe the contexts within eachof those countries or education systems.

Framework for Qualifications of the European HigherEducation Area: an overarching framework that makestransparent the relationship between European nationalhigher education frameworks of qualifications and thequalifications they contain. It is an articulation mechanismbetween national frameworks.

Learning outcomes: statements of what a learner isexpected to know, understand and/or be able to do at the endof a period of learning.

2 National frameworks ofqualifications in higher education

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

30/200

>

30

Levels: represent a series of sequential steps (adevelopmental continuum), expressed in terms of a range ofgeneric outcomes, against which typical qualifications can be

positioned.

National framework of qualifications (higher education):the single description, at national level or level of aneducation system, which is internationally understood andthrough which all qualifications and other learning

achievements in higher education may be described andrelated to each other in a coherent way and which defines therelationship between higher education qualifications.

Profile: either the specific (subject) field(s) of learning of aqualification or the broader aggregation of clusters ofqualifications or programmes from different fields that share acommon emphasis or purpose (e.g. an applied vocational asopposed to more theoretical academic studies).

Qualifications (higher education): any degree, diploma orother certificate issued by a competent authority attesting that

particular learning outcomes have been achieved, normallyfollowing the successful completion of a recognised highereducation programme of study.

Qualification descriptors: are generic statements of theoutcomes of study. They provide clear points of referencethat describe the main outcomes of a qualification often withreference to national levels.

Reference points: non-prescriptive indicators that supportthe articulation of qualifications, learning outcomes and/orother related concepts.

Workload: a quantitative measure of the learning activitiesthat may feasibly be required for the achievement of thelearning outcomes (e.g. lectures, seminars, practical work,

private study, information retrieval, research, examinations).

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

31/200

>

31

2.2 Systems of higher education and nationalframeworks of higher educationqualifications

All countries in the Bologna Process necessarily have a systemof higher education that includes an understanding of the rolesof higher education, of higher education institutions, and ofvarious stakeholders, such as learners, staff in higher education

institutions, and social partners. The elements of such nationalhigher education systems are often formally defined, howeverthere may be many aspects of higher education systems that arenot precisely defined but are understood within the society inwhich they operate. Within higher education systems, highereducation qualifications themselves are a key element and areoften not clearly separated in their definition from theprogrammes of study leading to them.

In recent years, there has been an increasing national and

international debate on higher education qualifications, and inparticular how they are organised, recognised and related toeach other on national and trans-national bases. In particular,the emerging developments within the Bologna Process havebeen key factors in stimulating such debates. The OECD hasmade some advances in this area with its project entitled The

Role of National Qualifications Systems in Promoting LifelongLearning. Emerging from this debate has been recognition ofthe need to have a specific policy focus on the higher education

qualifications attained by learners who have successfullyparticipated in programmes of various types.

In simple terms a national framework of higher educationqualifications is defined here as:

the single description, at national level or level of aneducation system, which is internationally understoodand through which all qualifications and other learningachievements in higher education may be described andrelated to each other in a coherent way and which

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

32/200

>

32

defines the relationship between higher educationqualifications.

Such national frameworks typically have a number of elements;these are discussed in detail in this chapter, and include sets ofspecific framework criteria, levels of learning outcome anddescriptors for qualifications. Some such frameworksencompass many areas of learning whilst others are confined tohigher education. Some frameworks may have more designelements and a tighter structure than others; some may have alegal basis whereas others represent a consensus of view ofsocial partners.

2.3 The purposes of national higher educationframeworks of qualifications

A comprehensive restructuring of the European landscape of

higher education is underway, and qualifications themselves arebecoming the focus of more attention as their meaning andrelevance are being considered in relation to the realities of the21st century. Part of this process is a pronounced tendency tocreate more explicit systems that map and explain the purposeand relationship between different qualifications.

There are various forms of national qualification frameworks;some include all levels and types of qualifications whilst others,

for example, specifically separate higher educationqualifications from other types of qualifications. There are thussome national systems that employ a single framework whilstothers have multiple frameworks that are generally integrated ina more or less formal way. Frameworks differ greatly in thedetail of their purposes and components.14

14

For example, some are credit-based using the ECTS system, some use othercredit systems and some use no credits at all.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

33/200

>

33

Some frameworks have a strong regulatory function based inlaw, whilst others are descriptions and have evolved byagreement between stakeholders.15 Modern nationalqualification structures invariably involve much more than asimple distinction between two cycles and commonly include arange of qualifications, intermediate qualifications and levels.The development of any over-arching European model willneed to be flexible enough to encompass such variations.

National frameworks of qualifications in higher education canact in two distinct ways: firstly, by directly achieving certainthings; and secondly, by enabling and encouraging otherdevelopments. This latter role has been shown to be importantas it helps to drive change and improvement within educationalsystems. These different dimensions can be illustrated byseparating and identifying them. National frameworks ofqualifications can achieve the following; they:

> make explicit the purposes and aims of qualifications - bytheir clear description through the articulation of thelearning outcomes, and by clarifying any rights toprofessional practice and recognition associated with them;

> delineate points of integration and overlap betweendifferent qualifications and qualification types - therebypositioning qualifications in relation to one another andshowing routes (and barriers) for progression;

> provide a nationally agreed framework that guides andreflects the agreement of stakeholders;

> provide a context for the review, articulation anddevelopment of existing qualifications

15 For example, in Scotland the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework

(SCQF) is a detailed agreement between stakeholders that entails nolegislation.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

34/200

>

34

> provide a context for the design of new qualifications.

National frameworks of qualifications can act as drivers ofchange in that they can help to:

> promote the attainment of qualifications - by indicatingtheir role and benefits for citizens, employers and allmembers of society;

> nationally and internationally, raise the awareness ofcitizens and employers in relation to qualifications - byclarification of the various national roles and relationshipsbetween qualifications and the opportunities, recognitionand mobility that are possible;

> facilitate and support learners and clarify all of theeducational opportunities available to them - byencompassing all higher education qualifications andproviding a comprehensive listing of all qualificationsincluding intermediate qualifications and, whereappropriate, their credit values;

> improve access and social inclusion - by creating a varietyof alternative routes, with entry and exit points thatacknowledge attainment;

> influence the reform of qualifications to reflect changingsocietal needs, including the introduction of new

qualifications;> facilitate curricular change;

> support (autonomous) higher education institutions inmeeting their responsibilities to learners and otherstakeholders

promote the attractiveness of the higher education from outsideof the country.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

35/200

>

35

There is no precise pattern to the way that national frameworksof qualifications develop. It is quite common for them to becreated by bottom-up or top-down approaches or, a fusion ofboth. Their very development, by consultation betweenstakeholders (see section 2.6), is often a cathartic procedurewhich itself is a dynamic learning experience for all concerned.The ownership, control and development of nationalframeworks of qualifications do not follow a single pattern andthis reflects the reality that such frameworks are, quite properly,an area of national autonomy and political decision- making.However, there is a need to explore the adoption of someelements of shared European methodologies and terminology todescribe and express qualifications and frameworks ofqualifications. This does not, and should not, mean that thecontent, purpose, organisation and delivery of qualificationsshould be standardised. Furthermore, it is essential to recognisethat national frameworks of qualifications are dynamicstructures that need to develop as the national situation and

priorities change.

National frameworks of qualifications are important parts of theacademic architecture within which autonomous highereducation institutions can flourish and be supported. Theyfacilitate the creation of academic independence within asystem of responsibility and external reference points. Highereducation institutions are provided with clear parameters for thedevelopment and validation of their own qualifications. They

can thus be held responsible and accountable for their activities(by internal and external quality assurance processes) whilstretaining real ownership of their curricula. Autonomous highereducation institutions can then demonstrate that each of theirqualifications is allocated to the appropriate level in anynational framework.

In Europe a number of countries have, as a means of reform,pioneered new outcomes-focussed approaches to their nationalhigher education frameworks of qualifications as well as the

qualifications they contain. They have gone beyond traditional

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

36/200

>

36

systems by emphasising not only input factors and formalcourse characteristics but by also identifying output factorsbased on learning outcomes. These countries share similar toolsand methodological approaches. It is this kind of approach thatis important for the development of national frameworks andFramework for qualifications of EHEA. Such frameworksemploy clear external reference points (learning outcomes,subject reference points/benchmark statements, levels/cycledescriptors, workload, qualification descriptors, etc.) andprovide a context for qualifications that are themselvesexpressed with greater clarity and precision with regard to theirnature, function and skills that they certify.

2.4 Elements of national frameworks

National frameworks of qualifications are typically constructedusing similar elements to those indicated in the Berlin

Communiqu. Qualifications themselves benefit from beingdescribed clearly, and are defined for this report as:

any degree, diploma or other certificate issued by a competentauthority attestingthat particular learning outcomes have beenachieved, normally followingthe successful completion of arecognised higher education programme of study.16

The award of a qualification indicates that the student hascompleted a range of studies to a given standard and/orindicates a level of achievement by an individual who isdeemed fit to perform a particular role, set of tasks or job.Qualifications are increasingly expressed in terms of what alearner is expected to know, understand and/or be able todemonstrate on the successful completion of the approvedprogramme of learning.

16

This definition is adapted from article 1.1 of the Council ofEurope/UNESCO Recognition Convention, Lisbon 1997

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

37/200

>

37

Higher education qualifications benefit from detaileddescription that reflect their purpose and function and facilitatetheir international comparisons and recognition. In new stylequalifications frameworks, qualifications are typically describedin terms of workload, cycle or level, learning outcomes,competence and profile. These elements are explored in thefollowing sections. It is these elements that provide thetransparency and ultimately the improved recognition requiredby the EHEA.

2.4.1 Learning outcomes, including competences

Learning outcomes represent one of the essential buildingblocks for transparency within higher education systems andqualifications; they were the subject of a Bologna Conferenceheld in Edinburgh, 1-2 July 2004, where all aspects of theirapplication were examined in the context of Bologna

developments. A background study and the conference reportprovide detailed information on the implementation of learningoutcomes across Europe. Learning outcomes have been definedabove as:

statements of what a learner is expected to know,understand and/or be able to do at the end of a periodof learning.17

Learning outcomes have applications in many locations: (i) the

individual higher education institution (for courseunits/modules and programmes of study18); (ii) nationally (forqualifications, qualifications frameworks and quality assurance

17 Source: the UK Using Learning Outcomes background report for theEdinburgh Bologna seminar 1-2 July 2004, section 1.2. This sectionexplores a number of definitions of learning outcomes. The use of the verbdo in the definition used above underlines the aspect of competence or

ability rather than the way in which this ability is demonstrated.18 This includes all the study leading to a particular qualification.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

38/200

>

38

regimes); and (iii) internationally (for wider recognition andtransparency purposes). They are important for theunderstanding of qualifications in society, for example bylearners and employers.

Learning outcomes statements are typically characterised by theuse of active verbs expressing knowledge, comprehension,application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation, etc. Withoutcomes-based approaches, they have implications forqualifications, curriculum design, teaching, learning andassessment, as well as quality assurance. They are thus likely toform an important part of 21st century approaches to highereducation (and, indeed, to education and training generally) andthe reconsideration of such vital questions as to what, whom,how, where and when we teach and assess. The very nature androle of education is being questioned, now more than everbefore, and learning outcomes are important tools in clarifyingthe results of learning for the student, citizen, employer and

educator.

In terms of curriculum design and development, learningoutcomes are at the forefront of educational change. They placea focus on the coherence and aims of the qualification, thejudgement of the designer and how the qualification fits withinthe traditions of the discipline. They represent a change inemphasis from teaching to learning typified by what isknown as the adoption of a student-centred approach, as

opposed to the more traditional, teacher-centred viewpoint.Student-centred learning produces a focus on the teaching -learning - assessment relationships and the fundamental linksbetween the design, delivery, assessment and measurement oflearning.

Learning outcomes are not just an isolated tool at the level ofcurriculum design but also represent an approach that plays asignificant role in a much wider context that includes: theintegration of academic and vocational education and training

(VET); the assessment of prior experiential learning (APEL);

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

39/200

>

39

the development of qualifications frameworks thataccommodate lifelong learning; the development of credittransfer and accumulation systems.

Achieving learning outcomes

The concept of learning outcomes implies that the manner ofthe achievement of a qualification is not as important as theachievement of the qualification itself. This is very relevant to

the recognition of prior learning, which is enhanced by theincreased use of learning outcomes. A broad understanding ofthe recognition of prior learning in relation to qualifications isthat this can be for the purposes of:

> entry to a programme leading to a qualification;

and also

> allocation of credit towards an qualification, or exemption

from some programme requirements

> eligibility for a full qualification

The recognition of prior learning can also be directly relevantin terms of facilitating employment. Making a full qualificationon the basis of the recognition of prior learning is a relativelynew concept. Many countries are seeking to encourage thecontinuation, expansion and further development of processesfor the recognition of prior learning. In France, a nationalsystem has been in place for some time; this is explained inAppendix 4. Whilst many higher education institutions withinthe UK also recognise and accredit prior learning, nationalguidelines have only recently been published19.

In June 2004 the Council of European Ministers, and therepresentatives of the Member States meeting within the

19 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/apel/guidance.htm

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

40/200

>

40

European Council, adopted Common European Principles forthe identification and validation of non-formal and informallearning20.

It is important to the development and implementation of aEuropean framework that the broad connections betweenlearning outcomes, levels, level descriptors and credits, andteaching, learning and assessment are recognised. Learningoutcomes have been described as a basic educational buildingblock and as such they have direct and powerful links with anumber of other educational tools. They make possible muchmore than the simple identification of learning achievements.They have a direct relationship to levels and level indicators.When learning outcomes are written they are created in thecontext of the institutional/national/international referencepoints that aid the maintenance of standards and quality. Thedevelopment of curricula in terms of learning outcomes doesnot, therefore, happen in a vacuum. Appropriate reference

points guide the application of module/unit and programmelearning outcomes.

Descriptors of learning outcomes

In the context of the above descriptor of learning outcomes(statements of what a learner is expected to know, understand,and/or be able to demonstrate at the end of a period of learning),there is a need to consider the extent to which commonapproaches to the understanding and definition of learningoutcomes between countries should be explored.

In the Tuning project, the description of competences embracesthree strands, knowing and understanding (theoreticalknowledge of an academic field, the capacity to know andunderstand), knowing how to act (practical and operationalapplication of knowledge to certain situations), knowing how

20 Council 9600/04

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

41/200

>

41

to be (values as an integral element of the way of perceivingand living with others and in a social context). Severalcountries, including Ireland21 and Denmark22 have subtlevariations in their approaches to, and definitions of, learningoutcomes.

Furthermore, a general distinction can be made between genericoutcomes associated with all holders of an qualification andspecific outcomes associated with disciplines and fields oflearning and their particular qualifications. Both the Tuningproject, and the shared qualification descriptors (Dublindescriptors) that were developed within the Joint QualityInitiative (JQI), include generic competences (skills andknowledge) and include attributes such as the capacity to learn,the capacity for analysis and syntheses etc. The Tuning projectidentified a list of 30 generic competences and has alsoidentified specific outcomes in each of the fields of learning thatit has examined.

There has been much discussion about the nature of learningoutcomes in higher education and in education generally. Sofar, there is no agreed approach to describing them in a genericsense. For the purposes of this report, learning outcomes areunderstood in their broadest sense and, in the case of the DublinDescriptors and the Tuning project, include competences.Within some discourses competences may have a more precisemeaning, for example, in some assessment contexts they are

associated with the performance of work-related tasks.In developing frameworks of qualifications the associateddescriptors of learning outcome statements need to be explicitabout whether they are, for example, written to representminimum threshold statements (showing the minimumrequirements to obtain a pass), or written as reference points

21

See annex 522 See annex 5

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

42/200

>

42

describing the typical (showing the normal level of achievementof successful learners). Either approach is legitimate but it isimportant, for the purpose of national and internationalunderstanding, that each national framework makes its approachabsolutely clear.

2.4.2 Levels and typical/generic qualifications

Levels are traditionally the key structural elements on whichmany national frameworks of qualifications are built. Levelscan be understood as:

representing a series of sequential steps (adevelopmental continuum), expressed in terms of arange of generic outcomes, against which typicalqualifications can be positioned.

Levels are pragmatic constructs; they have been developed overthe years. Different countries take different approaches indetermining the number of levels, the ways in which levels aredescribed, the range of outcomes spanned by levels, and thewidth and depth of levels.

Some national frameworks while having levels in whichqualifications are placed, do not explicitly set out the range ofoutcomes specifically associated with a level (for example theframework for England Wales and Northern Ireland). Others

have what are described as level descriptors orlevel indicators(for example Ireland) that set out the range of learningoutcomes associated with each level. Where there are noindicators or descriptors these can be understood in the contextof the typical qualifications contained within them.

The majority of national frameworks of qualifications employtheir own systems of levels, within the broad Bologna cycles, inorder to increase the understanding and transparency between

their qualifications. These levels need not be directly related to

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

43/200

>

43

years of full-time study, in either qualifications or/and creditframeworks e.g. in the Scottish Credit and QualificationsFramework (SCQF) each of the 12 identified levels across alllearning is the location of one or more typical qualification andeach level is distinguished in terms of the complexity and depthof knowledge and understanding, degree of independence andcreativity involved, general cognitive skills, the range andsophistication of practice, etc. The expression of clear levels isan important feature of any qualifications frameworks. Theydirectly facilitate the realisation of the common purposes thatqualifications frameworks are created to achieve.

The concept of typical/generic types of qualifications is alsoone that is incorporated in many national frameworks. The levelindicators/descriptors act to assist in the positioning oftypical/generic qualifications at levels.

These typical/generic qualifications are the principal class of

qualifications made within each level. For most levels, suchtypical/generic qualifications capture a typical range ofachievements in a typical qualification at the level there maybe more than one such typical qualification. They include thelearning outcomes as they have been defined in a nationalframework. For example, many national frameworksincorporate first, second and third cycle degrees, astypical/generic qualifications.

Typical/generic qualifications act as a guide (for curriculumdesigners and learners) as to the kinds of demand it isappropriate to make of learners. The generic qualificationsthemselves often have descriptors that define the learningoutcomes associated with them; these are normally generic innature and can be applied across subject disciplines and modesof learning. In higher education they are primarily used by:course designers (developing learning outcomes and assessmentcriteria); those involved in quality assurance (validating,reviewing and approving programmes of learning); credential

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

44/200

>

44

evaluators (nationally and internationally, as reference points tohelp make accurate recognition judgements).

2.4.3 Credits and workload

The Bologna signatory states identified ECTS as an importantcomponent of the European Higher Education Area andencouraged states to employ a system of credits to facilitate

international student mobility and international curriculumdevelopment. A large number of countries have already adoptedECTS by law as an accumulation system. Furthermore, theZurich Conference on credit transfer and accumulation, held bythe European Universities Association (EUA) in October 2002,stressed the central role of ECTS in higher education, whichwas endorsed by the ministers in Berlin.

A credit framework is a way of valuing, measuring, describing

and comparing learning achievement, and credits themselvesare aquantified means of expressing the volume of learningbased on the achievement of learning outcomes and theirassociated workload. Credits and levels are tools used torepresent learning and measure learning volume. National creditframeworks can provide the broad underlying principles to beshared by higher education institutions and their stakeholders,whilst individual credit schemes can exist at the institutionallevel and detail the procedures and rules of progressionestablished within them.

The drive to use credits is primarily because they support moreflexibility within education systems. They can link diverseforms and types of education. The contribution of credits tonational and the overarching European framework ofqualifications is that they can provide an additional dimension,an added value, to further improve mobility (student, staff andprogrammes of learning), recognition and transparency.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

45/200

>

45

The national role of credit frameworks varies between differentcountries just as their frameworks of qualifications and nationalsystems of higher education vary. Similarly, the detailed nature,purpose and rules behind national credit framework are diverse,and matters of domestic concern and autonomy - as are nationalframeworks of qualifications. At the national level credits areintroduced to achieve a range of objectives including any or allof the following:

> to promote student mobility (within and betweeninstitutions as well as internationally;

> to improve curriculum design (and innovation) andencourage flexible routes and pathways within and betweenqualifications;

> to facilitate the creation of diversity in national highereducation qualifications and institutions;

> to promote the development of multiple higher educationentry and exit points;

> to help encourage widening participation and lifelonglearning;

> to improve the recognition of learning achievementsincluding different modes, locations and types of learning(e.g. distance education and work-based APEL

approaches);> to provide a reference point for the purpose of quality

assurance;

> to provide a reference point for funding;

> to assist in the clarification of information to allstakeholders;

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

46/200

>

46

> to prevent overloaded curricula and undue burden onlearners.

Currently, many European countries are adopting, or havealready adopted national, regional or local creditframeworks/schemes to facilitate the modernisation of theireducation systems. Increasing numbers of these are based on theEuropean Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)using a tariff of 60-credits per full time year. This development

has resulted in a shift in ECTS from its traditional role as acredit transfer, mobility system primarily concerned with therecognition of periods of learning for students who take part oftheir studies in another country. It is now evolving into a widerpan-European credit accumulation and transfer system whichimpacts on all higher education programmes of learning.

In the development of national frameworks of qualificationsthere is a need to show that they are supported by credit systems

which are compatible with ECTS and that credits andqualifications are described in terms of learning outcomes,levels and associated workloads. Workload is defined for thispaper as:

a quantitative measure of all learning activities thatmay feasibly be required for the achievement of thelearning outcomes (e.g. lectures, seminars, practicalwork, private study, information retrieval, research,examinations).

The time required for an average student to undertake theworkload should inform the national credit system. Thefeasibility of attaining the learning outcomes required for creditwithin programmes is important for the credibility of theframework and its helpfulness to learners. It is important, inorder to avoid confusion, that there is consistent use of creditsin both national and European contexts.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

47/200

>

47

2.4.4 Profile

National frameworks typically include references to profile;this is an important element for consideration when buildingany national framework of qualifications. Profile can refereither to the specific (subject) field(s) of learning of aqualification or to the broader aggregation of clusters ofqualifications from different fields that share a commonemphasis or purpose, for example on applied vocational as

opposed to more theoretical academic studies.

Fields of learning are central to the European tradition of highereducation. Students typically obtain a degree in some field. Thework of the Tuning project has demonstrated how muchcommon ground can be identified by trans-nationalcollaborative efforts within fields of learning. This work willcontinue and inasmuch as higher learning is by definitionalways changing, the work is unending. Even the boundaries

between fields are evolving. The level of detail with which theboundaries are drawn varies across fields. In some cases thereare professional reasons for being quite precise about whether aqualification is or is not within a field, whereas for others somemeasure of ambiguity about which field a qualification belongsin may be acceptable. Various taxonomies of fields of learningexist. Recent years have also seen the development of a numberof trans-disciplinary study programmes and it is recognised that,at least in many fields, a learners competence andattractiveness to the labour market may be enhanced bysupplementing a concentration or core competence in a givenarea (e.g. economics or political science) with more limitedcompetence in other areas, such as foreign languages, law,statistics, history, etc.

Profile, in the sense of clusters of qualifications sharing apurpose, is a prominent feature of some qualifications systemsand is absent in others. In many cases the origins of thedistinctions are rooted in binary (or even more complex)

systems of provision. In some cases these distinctions have

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

48/200

>

48

been translated into outcomes terms and are a feature of the newpost-Bologna system. Other systems have reduced or eliminatedthese distinctions. The existence of these differences in profileis relevant to the framework objectives as they sometimesinfluence mobility between cycles, even within countries.

2.5 Quality assurance and nationalframeworks of qualifications withinnational contexts

Quality assurance has a double aspect: the internal qualityassurance and development at higher education institutions andthe external quality assurance undertaken by independentbodies.

In recent years there has been an increasing emphasis on thedevelopment and use of explicit criteria and processes for

quality assurance that are open to external scrutiny, and themajority of Bologna countries now have quality assurancebodies linked to higher education. Within the BerlinCommuniqu, the ministers committed themselves tosupporting further development of quality assurance atinstitutional, national and European level. They stressed thatconsistent with the principle of institutional autonomy, theprimary responsibility for quality assurance in higher educationlies with each institution itself and this provides the basis for

real accountability of the academic system within the nationalquality framework. They committed themselves to havenational quality assurance systems in place by 2005 meetingfour minimum criteria23. At the European level they stressed the

23 National quality assurance systems should include:A definition of the responsibilities of the bodies and institutions involved.Evaluation of programmes or institutions, including internal assessment,external review, participation of students and the publication of results.

A system of accreditation, certification or comparable procedures.International participation, co-operation and networking.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

49/200

>

49

need to develop mutually shared criteria and methodologies onquality assurance.

A set of common and shared principles for quality assurance isemerging; this is recognised as underpinning quality assuranceirrespective of the various national approaches which must, ifthey are to be effective, reflect local context and culture in thedetail of their application. These shared bases for qualityassurance are described in detail within the standards andguidelines being developed by the European Network forQuality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), and withEUA, EURASHE and ESIB under the mandate from theministers in their Berlin communiqu.

Within the EHEA there are however significant differences inapproach to quality assurance. Some countries include directministerial accreditation of individual programmes, whilst othersystems accredit institutions. In yet others the quality assurance

processes involve either the review of individual programmesand / or the audit of the institutions responsible for deliveringthe programmes of study. However, all systems include anelement of externality, whether by external inspectors or byacademic peers. There is also a general trend towards increasingthe input of students and other stakeholders within qualityassurance.

Increasingly, quality assurance involves procedures that are

more clearly defined, and it thus relies upon the use of explicitcriteria including, where they have been developed, nationalframeworks of qualifications. Greater transparency of qualityassurance procedures is also being supported through inclusionof a wider range of external, and in some cases international,reference points.

In all cases where national frameworks of qualifications havebeen developed, whether for general, vocational, and/or highereducation, they are primarily intended to provide information

on qualifications and in particular their inter-relationships; but

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

50/200

>

50

they can be and are also used in quality assurance. There are,however, differences in the ways in which the frameworks areused, and intended to be used. Where the delivery ofprogrammes is formally regulated, either by a ministry or otherorganisation external to the delivering institutions, theframework and its components may be used to establish and/oridentify whether specified minimum standards have been met.Such can be the basis of accreditation, although regulation ofprogrammes is not necessarily linked to minimum standards.Elsewhere, and in particular in those countries where theacademic institutions have autonomous powers to design theirown programmes and set academic standards themselves,qualification frameworks are used as a point of reference forboth general guidance and within a quality assurance system. Insuch cases the components of the framework tend to beexpressed within a less prescriptive context.

Externality is increasingly recognised as an essential part of

quality assurance, and so it should be within the developmentand application of new national qualifications frameworks. Forsuch frameworks to be of benefit to stakeholders, includingintending and current students, and their employers, theframeworks need to be expressed in terms that areunderstandable and relevant. These may not always sitcomfortably with the precise and detailed language often usedor thought to be necessary for regulation.

For pedagogical reasons and to address the needs ofstakeholders, the descriptors used within national frameworksare increasingly concerned with identifying achievements, orthe outcomes of learning, rather than referring primarily toinput measures. The inclusion of such an achievements/outcomes based approach will be essential if national frame-works are to meet the needs of all stakeholders and interestedparties. This shift in emphasis has a direct impact on qualityassurance processes and provides both the rationale and theneed to move away from the application of merely mechanistic

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

51/200

>

51

approaches, particularly where these are based primarily oninput measures (e.g. delivered material, time, etc.).

Traditionally within higher education, and largely irrespectiveof national agendas, programmes have been predominantlyplanned by the provider(s), with the coherence of theprogramme setting the context for any quality assurance,whether this is based on implicit/subjective or explicit/objectivecriteria. With the aspirations of the lifelong learning agendasbeing promoted at national levels throughout the EHEA, there isincreasing emphasis on the role of the stakeholder (student andemployer) in programme planning. To accommodate suchchanges new approaches to quality assurance will be required,including some that can cope with a primary interest in units ofstudy and their combination.

With different emphases in purpose, and marked diversity inquality assurance practices it is inevitable that the application of

national frameworks within quality assurance will vary withregard to emphasis and detail of process. Nevertheless, all areessentially concerned with trust building and establishingmutual confidence both within national and internationalcontexts. National frameworks have and can continue toprovide the stimulus for greater clarity about qualifications andtheir quality assurance, and progression between them. There isno single model for the application of national frameworks ofqualifications within quality assurance whether for assessing the

standards of those qualifications or the quality of the provisionthat leads to them. Experience in those countries that havedeveloped national frameworks has clearly demonstrated thatthey can be, and are a vital component of the quality assuranceenvironment. It is important to recognise that for nationalframeworks to fulfil their roles most effectively in supportingeffective confidence and trust in qualifications, their form,components and application will need to reflect thecharacteristics of the national context in which they work,including the quality culture of the HE community and how it

addresses the needs of stakeholders.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

52/200

>

52

2.6 The role of stakeholders in nationalframeworks

Qualifications are tools for the promotion of trust between thevarious parties who use these qualifications. There are manyelements that go into building up trust. Historicallyqualifications may have relied for their currency on trust builtup among relatively narrow groups of users. For example, suchgroups include those within a single professional oroccupational sector, or those concerned with certain stages ofeducation or training. In the era of lifelong learning, thecommunity of trust surrounding qualifications must bebroadened without undermining the strength of the trust itself.There are mechanisms to support the development of trust, suchas provisions for setting standards and assuring quality, but it isfundamentally a social and political process as well as a

technical one.

The centrality of trust to qualifications was well expressed inthe Report of the Study Team on the Implementation of theNational Qualifications Framework in South Africa in April2002.

The success of a qualifications framework may be measured bythe extent to which its standards and qualifications are valued

and used. Unless providers offer them, and unless committedemployers understand and demand them, standards andqualifications per se will be inert and disregarded. Thus aqualifications framework cannot stand on its own but needs tobe embedded in both the provider community and thecommunities of users. Trust, which is closely allied tocredibility and acceptance, is an essential attribute of

successful qualifications anywhere, whether conventional orotherwise. If outcomes-based qualifications are too far removed

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

53/200

>

53

from the contexts where learning is done or wherequalifications are put to use they will be rejected or ignored.24

The development of any framework of qualifications must takeinto account the need to develop trust among the variousstakeholders and confidence in the integrity of the resultantframework.25. It is vital to identify the stakeholders and advanceconsensus-building mechanisms in framework development. Animportant way to build trust and acceptance is to ensure that anytop-down approach is fused with a bottom-up process. There isno perfect way to achieve this and different states have adopteddifferent techniques. Whatever the approaches adopted, it isimportant to include a variety of stakeholders and a number ofways to build a consensus.

The stakeholders may include: learners/students; providers ofeducation and training; government and appropriate governmentagencies; awarding bodies; higher education

professors/teachers; employers and the business sector; tradeunions; community and voluntary organisations; professionalbodies; etc. The cooperation of governments, higher educationinstitutions and students based on partnership is an underlyingprinciple of the Bologna Process. Consensus-buildingmechanisms in the development of national frameworks ofqualifications may include a number of measures such as: thebroad composition of any statutory body and its executive staff;a publicly advertised consultation phase; publication of papers

and submissions, on the internet; international research andconsultation; formal survey work with learners and employers;a broadly-based consultative group that meets regularly to

24 Report of the study team on the Implementation of the NationalQualifications Framework in South Africa, April 2002, page 58.

25 The concept of zones of mutual trust has also been considered extensivelyin a recent report for CEDEFOP carried out in support of Copenhagen

process for VET: Mike Coles and Tim Oates: European reference levels foreducation and training, March 2004.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

54/200

>

54

produce extensive, supporting documentation; an openapproach by all to questioning the purposes of qualificationsand standards; sector meetings (e.g., to consider employment,community, and voluntary sector perspectives); bilateralmeetings with stakeholder organisations; the securing ofongoing political support for the initiative; consultation outsidethe state, particularly with neighbouring jurisdictions; andparticipation in European and international organisations andmeetings.

2.7 Conclusions: good practice for thedevelopment of national frameworks ofqualifications

An examination of the nature, development and effectiveness ofexisting new style higher education national frameworks ofqualifications reveals a wide pattern of different experiences

from which a number of good practice recommendations can beidentified. The following list indicates some of the most usefulaspects that can facilitate the creation of successful newnational frameworks of qualifications.

> The development and review process for producing goodframeworks is most effective when it involves all relevantstakeholders both within and outside higher education.Higher educations frameworks naturally link to VET andpost-secondary education and as such are best viewed andtreated as a national initiative. This also makes possible theinclusion of, or links to, other areas of education andtraining outside higher education.

> The framework for higher education qualifications shouldidentify a clear and nationally agreed set of purposes(section 2.3 of this report explores a range of possibilities).

> Frameworks for higher education qualifications benefit

from the inclusion of cycles and /or levels, and articulation

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

55/200

>

55

with outcome-focussed indicators and/or descriptors ofqualifications.

> The use of learning outcomes in describing units, modules,and whole qualifications aids their transparency,recognition and subsequent student and citizen mobility.The identification of formal links to learning outcomesshould play an important role in the development ofnational frameworks of qualifications.

> More flexible higher education frameworks ofqualifications have the benefit of promoting multiplepathways into and through higher education, and thusthrough encouraging lifelong learning and the efficient useof resources promote greater social cohesion.

> Higher education frameworks of qualifications benefit frombeing directly linked to credit accumulation and transfer

systems. Credits are student-centred tools that can enhancethe flexibility, clarity, progression and coherence ofeducational systems when they are expressed in terms oflearning outcomes, levels/cycles and workload. Creditsystems facilitate bridges and links between different forms,modes, levels and sectors of education and can beinstrumental in facilitating access, inclusion and lifelonglearning.

> Higher education frameworks of qualifications should

explicitly link to academic standards, national andinstitutional quality assurance systems, and publicunderstanding of the place and level of nationallyrecognised qualifications.

> Public confidence in academic standards requires publicunderstanding of the achievements represented by differenthigher education qualifications and titles. This confidenceand understanding is enhanced by the publication ofappropriate institutional audits and/or subject reviewreports.

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

56/200

>

56

> The development and application of new style nationalframeworks of qualifications facilitates the development ofautonomous higher education institutions by creating clearexternal reference points that help to promote high quality,responsible and responsive institutions.

> National frameworks of qualifications need to articulate in atransparent way with the overarching European frameworkfor qualifications. The process of articulation should

involve the careful mapping of national qualifications (theirlevels, learning outcomes and descriptors) with the cycledescriptors identified for the European overarchingframework (see chapter four for a discussion of appropriateprotocols).

7/30/2019 050218_QF_EHEA

57/200

>

57

3.1 Purposes and nature of the framework ofqualifications of the EHEA

A framework for qualifications can fulfil many purposes andthe various national frameworks already in existence ordevelopment embody diverse purposes. The framework for theEHEA derives its distinctive purposes from the objectivesexpressed through the Bologna Process. The most directly

relevant of these objectives are international transparency,recognition, and mobility.

> International transparency is at the heart of the BolognaDeclarations call for a system of easily readable andcomparable degrees. While other devices, such as theDiploma Supplement, also have a role to play in thisobjective, it will be difficult to ensure that qualificationscan be easily read and compared across borders without asimplifying architecture for mutual understanding, through

the construction of a framework,. Moreover the relativelyrapid success in the introduction of the two-cycle modelthrough much of the EHEA has in some ways alreadyserved to underline