ECA
working group 1: Mutual recognition
PARIS, 6 December 2006
Europe in Transition:
ACCEPTING & RESPECTING
Marianne Cox
NARIC/ENIC
THE NETHERLANDS
• Academic Recognitionevaluation in view of further study and/or award national titles
• Professional Recognition
Evaluation of credentials for work purposes
Terminology
Council of Europe / UNESCO:
CONVENTIONS ON THE RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS
European Convention on the Equivalence:
• of Diplomas leading to Admission to Universities, 1953
• of Periods of University Study, 1956
• on the Academic Recognition of University Qualifications, 1959
• BILATERAL AGREEMENTS
focus: EQUALITY/EQUIVALENCE
Academic Recognition
After 1980:• More mobility of students
• Expansion & diversification of higher education
Recognition
Programmes should be comparable:Level, function, status & content
> specific purpose
Approach & Methodology
Lisbon Recognition Convention (1997)Defines criteria and procedures
Basic principles:
- Mutual trust in educational systems
• Reversed burden of proof
• Respecting the differences
Focus: Acceptance
Academic Recognition
EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES
Sectoral Directives:• geared to harmonization
- automatic recognition of diplomas
General Directives• geared to protection
- case-by-case evaluation
Professional Recognition
• SECTORAL DIRECTIVE (Doctors, nurses, architects etc.)
• DIRECTIVES of the GENERAL SYSTEM:• 1st Directive: 89/48/EEG ( higher education
diploma’s > 3 years)• 2nd Directive: 92/51/EEG ( post-secondary
vocational education)• 3rd Directive ( trades and services)• SLIM Directive: 2001/19/EG (reform General
System and sectoral directives)
• NEW DIRECTIVE 2005/36/EC
PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES
General DirectivesFocus: ACCEPTANCE
Compensation mechanisms:
• Relevant professional experience• Adaptation period or aptitude test
(set by host country)
Professional Recognition
Academic recognition
LISBON CONVENTION (1997) => instruments:
Diploma Supplement
ECTS
ENIC-NARIC Networks
Recommendations on International Qualifications
Code of Good Practice of Transnational Education
Implementation, practice & training
Regional agreements:Baltic States & Nordic Countries (based on
principles of LC)
Lisbon Convention
Lisbon convention reflects consensus on an agreed framework :
international principles & procedures
• LEGAL GROUNDING
• FLEXIBILITY
a. Can be applied in different educational systems
b. Equally to be applied in specialized sectors
c. Adaptation to changing environment
d. Applicable to input & output
FEATURES
To maintain standards and quality:
• Accountability
• International accepted standards
code of good practice: benchmarking
• Transparency of procedures and decisions
Basic principles:
• Mutual trust in educational systems
• Reversed burden of proof
• Finished product meets the minimum requirements
• Respecting differences
• only: Substantial differences
Professional & Academic Recognition
Evolution
1. Equivalence: course by course matching
2. Recognition: recognise fit for purpose
comparable level- function,status and
content
> specific purpose
3. Acceptance: accept results (qualifications) with
respect for differences
AGREEMENT = FRAMEWORK: FLEXIBLE
Trends
Shift from education> learning
Learning outcomes/competencies:
need for qualification structures & competency systems
Assessment of competencies: regardless of learning paths =>
OUTCOMES
=> new forms of assessment
FUTURE
Develop a new language in assessment
Tuning Educational Structures in Europe
NETHERLANDS-FLANDERS QUALIFICATION AREA
NL-VL:
a national convention
Within legal framework: accreditation affects the outcome=> accept each others degrees
Accrediation:
shift from specific recognition > generic recognition
based on acceptance of quality and level
Look at outcome rather than learning paths.
SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES
• Educational outlook:
broad orientation vs specialization
(liberal arts or early focus on main academic
disciplines)
• qualification frameworks, learning outcomes, learning paths
• Elements of qualifications:
workload, level, quality and profile
• national regulations concerning recognition
(centralized – non-centralized)
Conclusion?
ROAD MAP TOWARDS ACCEPTANCE
1. UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHERS SYSTEMS
INFORMATION & CONTACT & MUTUAL TRUST
2. UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHERS PROCEDURES
INFORMATION & EXPERTISE & FIND COMMON GROUND
3. FOCUS ON OUTCOMES
DEVELOP OUTCOME-BASED METHODOLOGY
What kind of agreement will sustain an open qualification area?
Tuning project:Background
Higher education institutions should adopt:
Easily readable and comparable degrees
System of 2 main cycles (undergraduate / graduate)
System of European credit transfer (ECTS)
Promotion of mobility, quality assurance, European dimension
Project was initiated in 2000 by a group of European universities as response to Bologna
Tuning Educational Structures in Europe
Current evaluation criteria:
Formal duration/study load of the programme
Overall level of achievement scan of subjects and their learning goals
Structure and profile of the programme
Focus at professional vs. scientific experience
Admission requirements (based on duration and learning goals of previous education)
Formal rights associated with the obtained degree
Quality of the programme / institution
Credential evaluation:now…
Input-based evaluation methodology
Credential evaluation:… and in the future?
towards an outcomes-based evaluation methodology?
Main evaluation question could be:What level of competence has actually been acquired
during the educational process?
Potential evaluation criteria:• Degree profile• Learning outcomes that have been acquired, defined in a certain level of competencesIrrespective of how long and which subject modules havebeen studied
Or even irrespective of when, where, and how has beenlearned (recognition of prior learning)
CoRe Project:Planned activities
Evaluation according to 2 methodologies
Traditional methodologyinput-based
Using Lisbon Criteria
Experimental methodologyoutcomes-based
Using Tuning profiles
Required information sources:
Diploma
Transcript
Required information sources:
Degree profile
Competence descriptions
Analysis and comparison of the evaluation results