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)