View
17
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Compatibility of NQFs with QF-EHEA: Analysis of Verification Reports. Bryan Maguire 2 nd Regional Meeting of Ministers of Education Strasbourg, 22-23 November, 2012 bmaguire@qqi.ie. Countries with joint EQF/ QF-EHEA referencing reports. Malta Estonia Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Austria. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Compatibility of NQFs with QF-EHEA: Analysis of Verification Reports
Bryan Maguire2nd Regional Meeting of Ministers of EducationStrasbourg, 22-23 November, 2012
bmaguire@qqi.ie
Countries with joint EQF/QF-EHEA referencing reports Malta Estonia Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Austria
Other national situations
Portugal – report published but not listed on ENIC-NARIC website
France – EQF referencing completed without higher education qualifications
Latvia
8 levels referenced/certified in one process led by NARIC
College qualifications at level 5Binary: professional and academic
bachelors and masters National credit system 2:3 ECTSPre-Bologna (USSR) qualifications also
referenced to NFQ
Lithuania
Legal/conceptual problem around definition of “qualification” identified in self-certification led to change in law
National descriptors, not just EQF/DublinBinary in first cycle only: professional
bachelors“Empty shelf” at EQF level 5Very little implementation of ECTS
Estonia
Joint referencing/certification report, led by ministry of education, with no separate chapter for QF-EHEA
Occupational qualifications as well as HE qualifications at EQF levels 5-8
Analysis of distinctive features in Estonian HE descriptors – teamwork, language, interdisciplinarity, teaching
Misread procedure on NARIC website
Self-certification Processes
No two self-certification processes are identicalDiverse initiators, governance, methods, participants, report formats, follow-upLow level of oversight at European levelPhenomenon is not adequately studied
Expectations rising
Expectations of partner countries are rising – frameworks should be implemented, QA should be operating, learning outcomes should be used
Verification of QF-EHEA and referencing of EQF-LLL can proceed as a single process but this can be quite complex, technically and politically
Process challenges
International experts critical to credibility but do not seem to limit national diversity (see Baltic criteria)
Process leadership requires technical and political competence/authority
Engaging in (high stakes) development/ reform of education/qualifications simultaneously with verification challenges neutrality/objectivity of self-certification
Stakeholders
Stakeholder involvement variesRelatively low in early countries with
“settled” NQFs- high in simultaneous development/verification
International dimension can throw new light on domestic issues such as level and profileTraditional perceived status differences
may be challenged where not justified by learning outcomes
European networked national actors (E4)
QA agencies have stated roles in criterion and verification process and are supported by ENQA to carry out these roles
ENIC/NARIC centres also have stated roles and their networks discuss the significance of self-certification
HEIs have access to EUA/EURASHE sharing/support
ESU supports student union participation
Never-ending Story
Self-certification is a station on the way, it is not a terminusMalta's revised report is an example“empty” short cycles (EQF L5) in LT, EE &
CZ. BE(fl) new short cycle since verification
Quality assurance becomes more critical after initial technical design of NQF
HEIs have a generational task ahead to move to student-centred pedagogy and
assessment, based on learning outcomes
Is self-certification worth it?
Domestic information/reformation is (properly) the primary purpose of NQFSelf-certification is incentive to do this well
International reputation is enhancedJoining the green space on EHEA map
European inter-national goals Transparency (reports used by ENIC/NARIC)Pathfinder group on automatic recognition
Global attractiveness (e.g. IE-NZ, ASEM)
Recommended