Download An analysis of self

Compatibility of NQFs with QF-EHEA:
Analysis of Verification Reports
Bryan Maguire
2nd 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
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 5
Binary: professional and academic bachelors
and masters
National credit system 2:3 ECTS
Pre-Bologna (USSR) qualifications also
referenced to NFQ
Lithuania
Legal/conceptual problem around definition
of “qualification” identified in selfcertification 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
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 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 EQFLLL 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 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)
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 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?
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)