Compatibility of nqfs with qf ehea analysis of verification reports
Download
1 / 13

Compatibility of NQFs with QF-EHEA: Analysis of Verification Reports - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 57 Views
  • Uploaded on

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 [email protected] Countries with joint EQF/ QF-EHEA referencing reports. Malta Estonia Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Austria.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Compatibility of NQFs with QF-EHEA: Analysis of Verification Reports' - stacey-morris


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Compatibility of nqfs with qf ehea analysis of verification reports
Compatibility of NQFs with QF-EHEA: Analysis of Verification Reports

Bryan Maguire

2nd Regional Meeting of Ministers of EducationStrasbourg, 22-23 November, 2012

[email protected]


Countries with joint eqf qf ehea referencing reports
Countries with joint EQF/ ReportsQF-EHEA referencing reports

  • Malta

  • Estonia

  • Latvia

  • Lithuania

  • Luxembourg

  • Austria


Other national situations
Other national situations Reports

Portugal – report published but not listed on ENIC-NARIC website

France – EQF referencing completed without higher education qualifications


Latvia
Latvia Reports

8 levels referenced/certified in one process led by NARIC

College qualifications at level 5

Binary: professional and academic bachelors and masters

National credit system 2:3 ECTS

Pre-Bologna (USSR) qualifications also referenced to NFQ


Lithuania
Lithuania Reports

Legal/conceptual problem around definition of “qualification” identified in self-certification led to change in law

National descriptors, not just EQF/Dublin

Binary in first cycle only: professional bachelors

“Empty shelf” at EQF level 5

Very little implementation of ECTS


Estonia
Estonia Reports

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
Self-certification Processes Reports

No two self-certification processes are identical

Diverse initiators, governance, methods, participants, report formats, follow-up

Low level of oversight at European level

Phenomenon 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

Expectations rising


Process challenges
Process challenges should be implemented, QA should be operating, learning outcomes should be used

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
Stakeholders should be implemented, QA should be operating, learning outcomes should be used

Stakeholder involvement varies

Relatively 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 profile

Traditional perceived status differences may be challenged where not justified by learning outcomes


European networked national actors e4
European networked national actors (E4) should be implemented, QA should be operating, learning outcomes should be used

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
Never-ending Story should be implemented, QA should be operating, learning outcomes should be used

Self-certification is a station on the way, it is not a terminus

Malta'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
Is self-certification worth it? should be implemented, QA should be operating, learning outcomes should be used

Domestic information/reformation is (properly) the primary purpose of NQF

Self-certification is incentive to do this well

International reputation is enhanced

Joining 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)


ad