Implementation of the national qualifications

framework: Students’ View

Bologna With Students’ Eyes 2012  Nevena Vuksanović Executive Committee Member2nd Regional Meeting of Ministers of Education on the Implementation of EHEA22nd-23rd of November, 2012Strasbourg

• The European Students' Union (ESU) is an umbrella organisation of 47 National Unions of Students (NUS) from 38 countries, among which are The NUSes are open to all students in their respective country regardless of political persuasion, religion, ethnic or cultural origin, sexual orientation or social standing. Our members are also student-run, autonomous, representative and operate according to democratic principles.

• The aim of ESU is to represent and promote the educational, social, economic and cultural interests of students at the European level towards all relevant bodies and in particular the European Union, Bologna Follow Up Group, Council of Europe and UNESCO. Through its members, ESU represents over 11 million students in Europe.

ASYOU28 May str. 9/13Baku, Azerbaijan(+994 12) 493 96 24

Full Memebers of ESU

Azerbaijan ASUBaku, Azerbaijan AZ 1141 Tel/Fax: +994 12 434 22 03

UASS Ukraine Kyiv Academic Shlihter str., 8, office 44 zip 02105 Tel/Fax: +38 044 383 58 23

E.Tatishvili Str. 36 App. 2 - 0179 Tbilisi - Georgia

Candidate Members to ESU

BWSE 2012

• Taking stock of the Bologna Process from the perspective of national unions of students

• Desk research• Questionnaire• Trends from BWSE 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2010• In time for the Bucharest Ministerial Conference• Political recommendations

EHEA 2012:“STATE OF PLAY”

QF – Students’ View• NUSes report delays and most reported ones are those for elaborating a QF for

general education, vocational education or the third cycle. There are some exceptions – such as Norway – where qualification frameworks exist and function for areas other than higher education. In Germany for example, while a QF for higher education is now largely in place, there is still work to be done on a general one. In Slovenia, there is considerable room for progress, and there is no functional qualifications framework yet, at any level.

• Another major problem in terms of QF design is the fact that there is not enough integration between the NQF, learning outcomes, ECTS and flexible learning paths yet.

• ANOSR Romania reported that adapting curricula and teaching methods in correlation with the defined learning outcomes is often meeting resistance at institutional level.

• Similarly, the Slovakian student unions SRVS reported that even when learning outcomes are defined, there is often little or no correlation to the core curricula, evaluation methods and workload estimates.

Student mobility• 20% benchmark• EHEA mobility strategy• Financing is the largest obstacle today • Little progress with portability of loans and grants • Social background of students participating in mobility • Balanced mobility in Europe

Living expenses abroad?

Portability of loans and grants

ECTS and Cycles• Only five out of 34 countries reported no problems with

implementation of the cycle system.• Barriers limits access from first to second cycle• The majority of countries allocate ECTS on the basis of

workload • The minority of countries allocate ECTS based on learning

outcomes.

Implementation of ECTS

ECTS allocated based on workload

ECTS based on learning outcomes

Student Centered Learning• Considerable progress in the last decade• Not very much progress since 2009• Still a long way from becoming a reality in most European

higher education institutions

Diploma supplement

Quality Assurance• The level of student participation has improved on all levels

since 2009, but there is considerable room for improvement. • Compliance with the European Standards and Guidelines for

QA has improved since 2009, however there is still not full compliance.

• The European Quality Assurance Register seems to be more consolidated than in 2009, but its level of support by the national students’ unions has increased very little.

• Rankings and classifications of institutions that also aim to provide information about higher education remain controversial with some unions supporting their development and many seeing little value there.

• Descriptive transparence tools are move favored.

Participation in internal QA

Participation in external QA

Participation in QA agencies

Student Participation• Increasing threat that students will be treated more as

consumers than full members of the academic community• Increasing influence of external stakeholders in

governance of HEIs• Students do have an increasing say on the matters directly

related to the learning process (like curricula design), however, they are being gradually excluded from the top-level decisions.

Student representation

Student participation

How do students see improvement in implementation of QFs?• QF not only a tool for compatibility and comparability of degrees,

but also a bridge for the further development of life-long learning, one for access to higher education for non-traditional learners and one towards fostering greater personal development by increased recognition of Los and their role in gaining qualifications.

• Commitment, full implementation, linkage of Los and ECTS. • QFs need to be usable in restructuring curricula, especially in

terms of making them relevant to students’ interests and personal objectives and transparent enough to enable students to make better, informed decisions on study paths. This, in the long run, will help in making higher education more student-centred and valuable for students and society in general.

• The remaining work on qualifications frameworks must not be limited to discussions among small circles of experts, but must include students and other stakeholders. This is the only way in which ownership of the QF concept can be built, and the comprehensive nature of the resulting frameworks can be guaranteed. Defining qualifications and conceptualising, writing, implementing and assessing learning outcomes needs to be done in cooperation with all stakeholders.

• There needs to be a multi-level approach to making sure that qualification frameworks reach their goals.

• The role of qualification frameworks in recognition—for both educational and employment-related purposes-needs to be better identified, especially in those countries that have until now put various obstacles in the face of academic recognition.

Recommendations from ESU1. Public responsibility and investing: in higher

education. Reaching the targets in the Bologna Process will not be possible without financial support.

2. Student mobility: financing of mobility. Deadline for portability of loans and grants.

3. Learning outcomes: Linking ECTS and qualification frameworks to learning outcomes.

4. Student Centered Learning: Incentives for higher education institutions.

5. ECTS and cycles: Guarantee open and flexible progression between cycles.

6. Quality assurance: Revising the European Standards and Guidelines, enhance student participation in QA.

Thank you! www.esu-online.orgExecutive Committee: ec@esu-online.orgnevena@esu-online.orgTwitter: @ESUtwt and @NevVuksanovic