module 2/ lifelong learning and validation...
TRANSCRIPT
Module 2/ Lifelong Learning and Validation Procedure
1
Dear participant,
Please read the following material in preparation for the DUW-module and try to answer to
our questions. We will get back to these questions at the training.
To get an overview of the relevant terms and the frame conditions we recommend that you start
with the text European settings – Central Points of Reference in the VALERU-report by Eva Cendon
and Peter Dehnbostel (p. 5-11)*. After reading it, please take a look at the questions 1) and 2) and try
to answer them.
In a second step, we would like you to take a closer look at one very important milestone for lifelong
learning and the validation of non-formal and informal learning (VNIL): The European Qualifications
Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF). Have a look at this framework and start with the leaflet
European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF) **. Write down the questions you
have while reading the leaflet and then turn to the Explaining the European Qualifications
Framework for Lifelong Learning*** – there you might find some answers. If open questions remain,
bring them with you to the training. And before: try with question 3) a first appraisal of the EQF.
Finally, we come to the heart of the VNIL: the validation process. For this occasion please turn to the
text Validation Methodology**** by Eva Cendon and Peter Dehnbostel. Think of your surrounding
while reading through the proposed procedure and the methods and then try to answer question 4).
If you already want to know more about validation procedures in other countries like France,
England, Germany or Austria: Feel free to have a closer look on the text Partner Countries and their
Approaches again in the VALERU-report by Eva Cendon and Peter Dehnbostel (p. 11-17)*. (This is
optional reading!)
As preparation for the DUW-module we ask you to think of the possible subject discipline and target
group for the validation of non-formal and informal learning. Try to sketch (half a page) a possible
case of a person that could be representative of the target group for the validation of non-formal and
informal learning at your university:
What can be the subject discipline in which VNIL will take place?
Who can be the (imagined) person who wants to have her or his non-formal and informal
learning be validated?
What does she/he bring with her/him?
We will work with one of your examples within the workshop. Be prepared to shortly present your
example.
All the best for reading – we are looking forward to meeting you.
Eva, Anita and Erik
Module 2/ Lifelong Learning and Validation Procedure
2
Questions:
1) Think of occasions in your life in which you learned non-formally and informally. Give one
example for having learnt non-formally and informally and explain why.
2) In your opinion, why are learning outcomes so relevant for European developments
concerning the validation of non-formal and informal learning?
3) What is in your opinion the most important step to take when trying to implement a
procedure for the validation of non-formal and informal learning at your university? And
why?
4) Where do you see benefits of the EQF as meta-framework for the Russian education system?
Where are possible challenges?
Readings:
*Cendon, E./Dehnbostel, P. (2015). Validation of Non-Formal/Informal Learning in Russian Higher
Education. Report. WP 1.2. Berlin University for Professional Studies, Berlin. http://valeru.net/wp-
content/uploads/2015/04/VALERU_WP1.2_Report.pdf
**European Commission (2008). The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning.
Luxembourg. https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/sites/eac-eqf/files/leaflet_en.pdf
*** European Commission (2008a). Explaining the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong
Learning. Luxembourg. https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/sites/eac-eqf/files/brochexp_en.pdf
****Cendon, E./Dehnbostel, P. (2015). Validation of Non-Formal/Informal Learning in Russian Higher
Education. Methodology. WP 1.1. Berlin University for Professional Studies, Berlin.
http://valeru.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/VALERU_WP1.1_Methodology.pdf
www. valeru.eu
REPORT
WP 1.2
BERLIN, 13.04.2015
AUTHORS:
Eva CENDON
Peter DEHNBOSTEL
With assistance of:
Tina BASNER
Yvette PAVLICEK
2
CONTENTS
A) Introduction and Approach .................................................................................................................................3
1 Approach: The Plan ..............................................................................................................................................3
1.1 Framing .........................................................................................................................................................3
1.2 Analysing ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 4
2 Adaptions and Developments: Chronology of the Process .................................................................................. 4
B) European Settings – Central Points of Reference .................................................................................................. 5
1 Definition of Key Terms ...................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Validation ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Formal, Non-Formal and Informal Learning ................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Qualifications/ Competences ....................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Learning Outcomes ...................................................................................................................................... 7
2 Frame Conditions and Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Lisbon Process ............................................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Bologna Process .......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Copenhagen Process ................................................................................................................................... 10
C) Partner Countries and their Approaches .............................................................................................................. 11
1 France ................................................................................................................................................................ 11
2 United Kingdom ................................................................................................................................................. 13
3 Germany ............................................................................................................................................................ 15
4 Austria ............................................................................................................................................................... 16
5 Russian Federation ............................................................................................................................................. 17
D) Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................ 20
Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................. 23
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................ 23
3
A) INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH
The central aim of work package 1 (NIL validation methodology) led by the DUW team has been
� the conduct of a complex analysis of existing systems of NIL validation within the partners
� to analyse advantages and disadvantages of the systems in European and Russian universities and
� to elaborate a methodology that is based on this analysis.
The two deliverables of WP 1 are:
1.1 VALIDATION METHODOLOGY based on the results of the analysis („methodology“)
1.2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS of NIL validation systems („report“)
1 Approach: The Plan
Following an understanding of participatory research within WP1 we decided within the VALERU consortium at the
kick-off Meeting in Moscow to conduct WP1 in a process of three phases, as shown in the following figure:
Phases Topics Time frame Involved partners
Phase 1
Providing the basis
(Framing)
definitions of validation
national frame conditions and regulations
existing projects and initiatives
universities as players
assessment/resume
March – June 2014 all partners
Reflection and Focus (DUW, UoC, DUK, UBO, MIIGAiK) July 2014, Online Workshop
Phase 2
Focus and analysis
(Analysing)
comparative analysis of NIL validation –
advantages and disadvantages
July -August 2014 all partners
Reflection and Focus (DUW, UoC, DUK, UBO, MIIGAiK) at Bologna Seminar (September, Russia), 1 day workshop
Phase 3
Methodology
development of validation methods and
procedures as methodology
September - November
2014
DUW, UoC
Reflection and Dissemination (all partners) December 2014
Table 1: WP1 – a process in three phases
1.1 Framing
Framing formed the basis for a mutual understanding of the different (national) definitions, regulations and
approaches. At this stage national or international projects and initiatives should be singled out and described,
engaged universities as examples identified.
4
All partners were asked to undergo a stock-taking structured in the following way:
A) Definition of validation
B) Frame conditions and regulations
C) Existing projects and initiatives
D) Engaged universities
E) Assessment/Resume
1.2 Analysing
The second phase insights from phase 1 (framing) were and the review and reflection process. A closer look on
selected existing validation concepts and procedures led to a comparative analysis of NIL validation which is
available in the report (deliverable 1.2) of work package 1.
1.3 Methodology
The last phase of WP 1 has been dedicated to the development of a methodology (deliverable 1.2) – based on the
outcomes of the first two phases and closely linked to the circumstances in Russia. Methodology is defined as
methods and procedures for validation of non-formal and informal learning at Russian universities and closely
linked to the European validation procedure. The methodology should be both used for the development of the NIL
platform (WP 2) and for development of the trainings for experts (WP 3).
2 Adaptions and Developments: Chronology of the Process
During the process of conduct some developments and amendments had to be made. The chronology of the
process as it was finally conducted shall be outlined briefly:
JULY 2014: Virtual meeting of the reflection and focus group (DUW, DUK, MIIGAiK, UoC): Review and discussion of
draft reports sent by partners: Decisions: 1) feedback and questions for partners to become more concrete in
reports. 2) MIIGAiK coordinates one Russian report (instead single reports from different Russian partners).
SEPT. 2014: Chester Working Meeting: Presentation of methodology, draft and short update to reports for all
partners by DUW, reminder for handing in reports.
DEC. 2014: Workshop in Berlin: Presentation of methodology, discussion of drivers, challenges, aims and target
groups for VNIL in Russian Federation, testing of methodology in workshops, discussion on Russian report
(approved by Russian Ministry of Education in December).
FEB. 2015: presentation of outcomes of Berlin-Workshop (challenges, roles in validation procedure) in Krems.
MARCH/APRIL 2015: Last report handed in and finalization of Report with Country Reports as annexes (WP1.2) and
Methodology (WP 1.1), upload on VALERU-Website.
5
B) EUROPEAN SETTINGS – CENTRAL POINTS OF REFERENCE
1 Definition of Key Terms
1.1 Validation
In the European context the term validation has become the umbrella term for different sorts of terms and
understandings such as the accreditation of prior learning (APL), accreditation of learning outcomes, recognition of
prior learning (RPL) recognition of learning outcomes, certification of prior learning and certification of learning
outcomes (CEDEFOP, 2008; 2014). The definition of validation implies two elements: it is both a procedure and the
outcome of this procedure.
The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDFOP) assumes a very important role
regarding the development of the understanding of validation. CEDEFOP is a decentralized agency of the European
Union that focuses on European vocational education and training (VET) policies, supports their development and
contributes to their implementation. (CEDEFOP, 2015) Validation is defined in the following way: „Validation of
non-formal and informal learning is described as a process of confirmation by a competent body that learning
outcomes (knowledge, skills and/or competences) acquired by an individual in a formal, non-formal or informal
setting have been assessed against predefined criteria and are compliant with requirements of a validation
standard.” (CEDEFOP, 2008, 199; 2009, 15; 2014, 288) The Council of the European Union (2012, C 398/5) in its
recommendation follows a similar understanding of validation: “validation means a process of confirmation by an
authorised body that an individual has acquired learning outcomes measured against a relevant standard (...).”
An understanding of validation as procedure is provided the European guidelines for validation (CEDEFOP, 2009)
and the Council of the European Union recommendation on validation (2012). Both underline that validation of
non-formal and informal learning can normally be described in four distinct phases:
“(a) identification through dialogue of particular experiences of an individual;
(b) documentation to make visible the individual’s experiences;
(c) formal assessment of these experiences; and
(d) recognition leading to certification, for example, a partial or full qualification.” (CEDEFOP, 2014a, 26).
1.2 Formal, Non-Formal and Informal Learning
When referring to validation a closer examination of the term learning is necessary. Following CEDEFOP and the
European Commission in the European context learning is defined as a “process by which an individual assimilates
information, ideas and values and thus acquires knowledge, know-how, skills and/or competences” (CEDEFOP,
2014, 155). Important especially for the validation of non-formal and informal learning is the comment: “learning
occurs through personal reflection, reconstruction and social interaction. It may take place in formal, non-formal or
informal settings.” (ibid.)
6
The learning in different settings, bound to the individual leads to different forms of learning: formal learning, non-
formal learning and informal learning. These three forms of learning are commonly accepted from different
European organizations and institutions (Royal Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2006; CEDEFOP,
2014; Council of the European Union, 2012). They differ slightly in their definitions but in general, they are
consistent with each other. Following the understanding of the latest definition of the Council of the European
Union (2012, C 398/5) they can be described and distinguished as follows:
“(a) formal learning means learning which takes place in an organised and structured environment, specifically
dedicated to learning, and typically leads to the award of a qualification, usually in the form of a certificate or a
diploma; it includes systems of general education, initial vocational training and higher education;
(b) non-formal learning means learning which takes place through planned activities (in terms of learning
objectives, learning time) where some form of learning support is present (e.g. student-teacher relationships); it
may cover programmes to impart work skills, adult literacy and basic education for early school leavers; very
common cases of non-formal learning include in-company training, through which companies update and improve
the skills of their workers such as ICT skills, structured on-line learning (e.g. by making use of open educational
resources), and courses organised by civil society organisations for their members, their target group or the general
public;
(c) informal learning means learning resulting from daily activities related to work, family or leisure and is not
organised or structured in terms of objectives, time or learning support; it may be unintentional from the learner's
perspective; examples of learning outcomes acquired through informal learning are skills acquired through life and
work experiences, project management skills or ICT skills acquired at work, languages learned and intercultural
skills acquired during a stay in another country, ICT skills acquired outside work, skills acquired through
volunteering, cultural activities, sports, youth work and through activities at home (e.g. taking care of a child).”
1.3 Qualifications/ Competences
The term qualification consists of different aspects (CEDEFOP, 2008):
a) As a formal qualification: “qualification means a formal outcome of an assessment and validation process which
is obtained when a competent body determines that an individual has achieved learning outcomes to given
standards”. (Council of the European Union, 2012, C 398/5).
b) As “job requirements: the knowledge, aptitudes and skills required to perform the specific tasks attached to a
particular work position”. (CEDEFOP, 2008, 144)
Competence in the understanding of the European Commission and CEDEFOP focuses on the application of
knowledge in a specific context – hence, competence is closely linked to the person and to his or her performance.
CEDEFOP (2008, 47) defines competence in the following way: “The ability to apply learning outcomes adequately
in a defined context (education, work, personal or professional development).” In 2014, CEDEFOP (47) includes a
second definition of competence as “ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological
7
abilities, in work or study situations and in professional and personal development.” Both definitions emphasize
that competence includes besides cognitive aspects also practical skills and interpersonal characteristics (CEDEFOP,
2008, 2014)
With regard to competences assessed in companies CEDEFOP (2014a, 14f.) derives the following types of
competences specifically focused in employee appraisals:
(a) specific job-related skills and competences (relevant to most types of staff, occupation, positions)
(b) social and personal competences (relevant to management positions and career progression)
(c) digital literacy (relevant in almost every positon)
(d) language skills both foreign and/or mother tongue (relevant for management positions and jobs with significant
customer contact)
(e) analytical and mathematical competences (relevant for accountants, bookkeepers, managers and engineers)
1.4 Learning Outcomes
Learning outcomes are the lowest common denominator within the European context. While the understanding of
competences and its use and relevance differs in different countries and languages, the term learning outcomes is
quite clear: “learning outcomes means statements of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do on
completion of a learning process, which are defined in terms of knowledge, skills and competences” (Council of the
European Union 2012, C 398/5) Or, more detailed in the way learning outcomes can be expressed: “Set of
knowledge, skills and/or competences an individual has acquired and/or is able to demonstrate after completion of
a learning process, either formal, non-formal or informal.”
Central is that learning outcomes focus not on the process of learning but on its results. Knowledge, skills and
competences as way to structure learning outcomes are defined in the following way:
“‘knowledge’ means the outcome of the assimilation of information through learning. Knowledge is the body of
facts, principles, theories and practices that is related to a field of work or study. In the context of the European
Qualifications Framework, knowledge is described as theoretical and/or factual;”
“‘skills’ means the ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve problems. In the
context of the European Qualifications Framework, skills are described as cognitive (involving the use of logical,
intuitive and creative thinking) or practical (involving manual dexterity and the use of methods, materials, tools and
instruments);”
“‘competence’ means the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological
abilities, in work or study situations and in professional and personal development. In the context of the European
Qualifications Framework, competence is described in terms of responsibility and autonomy.”
8
These definitions of terms show that there is a shift from the institutions and the formal settings to the individual
and his/her learning, achievements, competencies, and last but not least, learning outcomes. The concentration on
the individual is accompanied and framed by the European developments that promote lifelong learning and
hence, validation.
2 Frame Conditions and Regulations
Certain frame conditions and regulations at European level are shaping the development in the validation of non-
formal and informal learning. Three strands of European developments level can be distinguished
(Cendon/Dehnbostel, 2015):
� Lisbon Process: focus on lifelong learning
� Bologna Process: focus on higher education
� Copenhagen Process: focus on vocational education and training
2.1 Lisbon Process
With the Lisbon Strategy (European Council, 2000) lifelong learning advanced to a strategy of the European Union.
Primary strategic goal within the Lisbon strategy and the following process is “to become the most competitive and
dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world” (European Council, 2000) having lifelong learning as its central
tool. After a first consultation process lifelong learning is understood as “all learning activity undertaken
throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competences within a personal, civic, social and/or
employment-related perspective” (European Commission, 2001, 9) Already at this point the whole range of
learning as formal, non-formal and normal learning is considered. With focus on mobility within Europe the
European Commission sees as prerequisite for lifelong learning the valuing of learning as “the identification,
assessment and recognition of non-formal and informal learning” (European Commission, 2001, 4).
An important breakthrough with regard to “a European area of lifelong learning” (European Commission 2001, 3) is
the development of the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF). The EQF includes the whole
education system from general education to vocational education and training and to higher education. It functions
as an instrument of translation and as a meta-framework for national qualifications systems of the member states.
The aim of the EQF is to make national qualifications transparent and comparable within Europe - regardless
whether acquired through formal, non-formal and formal learning. It functions as reference tool to compare the
different qualification levels of national qualifications systems and frameworks. As a result, mobility between the
different national qualifications systems and mobility on the European labor market shall be facilitated.
Within the EQF qualifications are described in learning outcomes. The EQF consists of eight levels defined by
descriptors. The learning outcomes are described within a set of descriptors for each level, namely knowledge, skills
and competence. It is recommended that the member states “use an approach based on learning outcomes when
defining and describing qualifications, and promote the validation of non-formal and informal learning.” (European
Union, 2008, C 111/3)
9
With this approach the EQF has the potential to make an important step towards the implementation of lifelong
learning. It initiates a change of perspective from input (what has to be learned) to outcome (what an individual
should be able to do at the end of a learning process) and a change of perspective from the educational institution
to the learner.
2.2 Bologna Process
The Bologna process has been initiated with the Bologna Declaration signed by 31 ministers from 29 European
countries in June 1999 (until March 2015 49 countries signed). It marks the most radical voluntary process of change
and cooperation by European higher education institutions. Its main goal is the creation of the European Higher
Education Area (EHEA). A central pacemaker of the Bologna process is the promotion of international
competitiveness of the higher education sector. International comparability shall promote Europeanisation and
internationalization of the tertiary sector. The following action lines were agreed at the first follow up conference in
Prague (Prague Communiqué, 2001):
� adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees
� adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles (BA/MA)
� establishment of a system of credits (ECTS)
� promotion of mobility for teachers, students, researchers and administrative staff
� promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance
� promotion of the European dimensions in higher education
� implementation of Lifelong learning strategies
� involvement of higher education institutions and students
In the Berlin Communiqué the ministers already “urge Higher Education Institutions and all concerned to enhance
the possibilities for lifelong learning at higher education level including the recognition of prior learning.” (Berlin
Communiqué 2003, 6). The Bergen Communiqué (2005, 3) puts the focus on the flexible learning paths into higher
education and on the improvement of the “recognition of prior learning including, where possible, non-formal and
informal learning for access to, and as elements in, higher education programmes.” The London Communiqué
(2007) emphasizes the necessity of a common understanding of higher education within lifelong learning and
especially with regard to recognition of prior learning. In the Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué (2009, 3) the
ministers stress the possibility of obtaining qualifications “through flexible learning paths, including part-time
studies, as well as work-based routes”. They underline “the need for basic principles and procedures for recognition
of prior learning on the basis of learning outcomes”. The Bucharest Communiqué (2012) focuses on the social
dimension of higher education e.g. through offering alternative access routes to higher education and through
recognition of prior learning.
10
Overall, the development and elaboration of the Bologna process show interesting aspects for the validation of
non-formal and informal learning. Lifelong learning – since Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve (2009) including widening
participation – has a central role. Main aspects are the support of flexible learning paths, the offer of adequate
modes of delivery of programmes and the development of validation procedures for the recognition of prior
learning (as non-formal and informal learning). Common currencies alongside with credits are learning outcomes
(at least in all policy documents). They become relevant especially for the permeability and for the comparability
between different systems. In addition, cooperation between higher education and the vocational world (here esp.
the workplace) plays a stronger role. The new connections advanced between higher education institutions and the
professional world range from work based learning to the cooperative development of programmes. And last but
not least the national qualifications frameworks (NQF) play a more important role in the documents.
2.3 Copenhagen Process
In the Copenhagen Declaration the European ministers for Vocational Education and Training aim at the creation of
a European dimension in vocational education and training. The overall aim is to make development, validation and
assessment of vocational acquired competences on all levels become reality. (Copenhagen Declaration, 2002)
Copenhagen Declaration can be regarded as basis for further processes as strengthening vocational education
training at European and at national level.
The Maastricht Communiqué (2004) emphasizes validation and mutual recognition of qualifications in VET as
preconditions for increasing mobility on the European labor market. Hence, it becomes highly relevant to identify
and validate competences and learning outcomes acquired through different pathways, including non-formal and
informal learning. For this purpose, a European credit system similar to the ECTS in higher education is proposed:
the European Credit Transfer System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET). (Maastricht Communiqué, 2004)
The credit system ECVET is understood as methodological framework and shall ensure transnational mobility and
the access to lifelong learning in vocational education and training. It is based on learning outcomes and is
therefore compatible with different qualifications systems. ECVET shall promote individual and flexible learning
paths for apprentices. Through a coherent structure it enables the development of common conventions for
references for vocational qualifications. (Commission of the European Communities, 2008)
The recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council “intends to facilitate transfer, recognition and
accumulation of learning outcomes of individuals who are aiming to achieve a qualification.” (Commission of the
European Communities, 2008, 14) Learning outcomes can be achieved through different learning paths, including
learning in formal, non-formal and informal settings. Although closely connected the central difference between
EQF and ECVET is stated: “While the main objective of the EQF is to increase the transparency, comparability and
portability of acquired qualifications, ECVET will facilitate the transfer, recognition and accumulation of learning
outcomes of individuals on their way to achieving a qualification.” (Commission of the European Communities,
2008, 15) At the moment, member states are on the way to adapt their national frameworks for an application of
ECVET and start piloting and reviewing the ECVET methodology.
11
The ECVET system provides a good way for more transparency, mobility, and comparability within VET at
European level. What needs to be further observed while piloting with ECVET is whether modularization and
division in small unites strengthens or weakens vocational competences. As in many countries VET is structured in
holistic qualifications, a very detailed modularization involves the danger of the erosion of vocation. Here, a good
balance in construction and organization will be needed.
C) PARTNER COUNTRIES AND THEIR APPROACHES
In this chapter the different approaches of the VALERU partner countries are sketched following the presented
structure from the introduction. The main focus is put on definitions and the frame conditions and regulations,
partly followed by special initiatives or engaged universities. There are more aspects on focusing on definitions and
frame conditions: First, the different definitions and implementations of VNIL within different European countries
show the possible spectrum and variations in the specific contexts. Above, the issue of terms and definitions has
been identified in several VALERU meetings. Hence it is important to clarify the different national understandings
and definitions. They show the importance to be clear upon what is understood by a term and for taking European
definitions as common reference. Finally, a closer look on frame conditions and regulations provides our Russian
partners a basis for possibilities and hindrances regarding VNIL within different frame conditions. The evaluation
can be a stepping stone for advancement of VNIL within the Russian frame conditions. For more in-depth
information on all countries the country reports can be found as annexes to this report on the VALERU website.
1 France
In France, validation is understood as “the confirmation by a competent authority that the results and learning
outcomes (knowledge, skills and / or competences) acquired by an individual in a formal, non-formal or informal
context were assessed according to predefined criteria and meet the requirements of a standard (or reference)
validation. The validation results in the allocation of all or part of a degree.” (Mamoune/Ribaud, 2014, 3) non-
formal/informal learning and learning outcomes are defined in line with the definition by CEDEFOP (2009).
The validation procedure in France as Validation des Acquis de l’Expérience (VAE) (validation of prior experience) “is a
procedure for obtaining all or part of a recognized qualification (university degree, professional diploma or
professional qualification certificate) via the formal recognition and accreditation of skills acquired through prior
experience and learning, notably work experience.” (Mamoune/Ribaud, 2014, 3)
In France, the validation of prior experience has a long history. Legislation and regulations date back to the mid-
1980s. The validation of prior experience (VAE) “is an individual right enshrined in the Social Modernization Law of
2002, the Labour Code and the Code of Education.” Hence, in France validation is possible in all fields of education.
Most important and most radical for higher education is the Loi de Modernisation Sociale (Social Modernization law)
from 2002 as it “opened up the possibility of granting any type of degree or certification based only on the prior
12
experience of the candidate. This is the law that led to the creation of the Validation des Acquis de l’Expérience
(VAE) procedure.” (Mamoune/Ribaud 2014, p. 6) VAE opens up the possibility for universities to validate a
candidate’s prior experience from “Baccalauréat” (school leaving certificate and at the same time first academic
degree) up to Ph.D. level. The validation process consists of six stages: (Mamoune/Ribaud, 2014, 4-5)
(1) information networks (built by universities) help the candidates to identify the degree that is the most
closely related to their experience.
(2) coaching centre within the universities assist the candidates in formulating their application.
(3) experts of the degree concerned and the department responsible for validation examine the admissibility of
the application. All competences and experiences are analyzed in relation to the requirements of the
degree concerned. At the end of this stage it is decided whether the candidate can continue to stage 4.
(4) The candidate has to submit an application portfolio detailing the knowledge, skills and abilities. A VAE
advisor (from the coaching centre) works with the candidate to clarify, formalize and generalize his/her
formal, informal or non-formal learning and experience. The portfolio includes two parts:
� administrative part: identity, education, qualifications already acquired or, employment contracts,
various certificates, etc.
� experience part: “contains the description and analysis of the experience that the candidate is basing
his/her application on.” (Mamoune/Ribaud, 2014, 5)
(5) A validation committee convened by the university holds an interview with the candidate based on the
application portfolio, which they have received and examined in advance. The committee is specific to each
candidate including a majority of faculty members and business or industry professionals from the field
concerned by the degree. The committee has to form its personal conviction at this time.
(6) The validation committee discusses and deliberates for a decision based on the application portfolio and the
interview. “The committee must ensure that the candidate has the same skills, aptitudes and knowledge as
a graduate of the degree concerned, and is capable of implementing them, including in a development
dynamic” (Mamoune/Ribaud 2014, p.5). Finally, the committee can decide to either grant the full degree,
only part of the degree or can provide the candidate with recommendations to complete the degree.
For this whole process quality criteria are defined to:
� “provide adequate reception conditions and ensure the transparency of the procedure,
� guarantee the confidentiality of the process,
� deliver a quality service and offer wait times and durations consistent with the needs and constraints of the
public,
� allocate the necessary resources,
� professionalise actors,
� develop cooperation and sharing of information between institutions,
� ensure equal treatment of applicants.” (Mamoune/Ribaud, 2014, 11)
13
2 United Kingdom
In United Kingdom the term validation “is used to describe the approval of a programme of learning by a
University.” (Talbot, 2014, 3) In terms of validation as recognition the word accreditation is used. It is understood as
„any process that acknowledges and establishes publicly that some reasonably substantial and significant element
of learning has taken place and can be assessed to have done so.” (QAA, 2004, 17) Non-formal and informal
learning are not used in the UK. Instead, the terms being applied are experiential learning and prior learning – both
types of learning can be certified or not. The UK Quality Code refers to „prior experiential (or informal)
learning“(QAA, 2013, 4). “
Universities in the UK are autonomous in developing programs as they are not subject to parliamentary laws.
Universities practices are governed by the Privy Council (responsible for awarding University status) and the Quality
Assurance Agency (QAA) (Talbot, 2014, 3). QAA audits the universities and publishes guidelines and quality
standards, e.g. the Quality Code (QAA, 2013). With regard to non-formal and informal learning the QAA has an
important role: “The QAA provides a series of guidelines including practices in respect of informal learning and is
also responsible for regular institutional audits to ensure the maintenance of academic standards and quality.”
(Talbot, 2014, 3)
“Academic credit is awarded for past experiential learning (the Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning- APEL)
and past certificated learning – learning which has a recognized credit value (APCL). We also award credit for
current experiential learning, usually for workplace projects. (…) The process of turning past learning, whether
certificated (ie formal) learning or experiential (ie informal) into new academic credit is usually referred to as the
Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL). APL using formal learning – ie certificated, credit bearing learning is usually
referred to as the Accreditation of Prior Certificated Learning (APCL). Where past learning is informal (ie
experiential) it is referred to the Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL). APL and APEL are features in
some vocational programmes.” (Talbot, 2014, 5, emphasis added) Interesting in the understanding of experiential
learning is its range from past to present to future.
A central validation procedure besides awarding academic credit to experiential learning at universities is validation
in Work Based Learning (WBL) programs: “Such programmes enable students to negotiate a curriculum and award
title relevant to their learning requirements in the workplace. WBL dispenses with the key organising principle of
most education programmes – subject discipline – in favour of learning tailored to the needs of the learner. This
results in the abandonment of another staple of educational practice – didactic instruction – in favour of the
facilitation of learning. Accompanying this change is a third radical departure – a recognition that knowledge is
socially constructed, distributed and has value even when it is not universal. Finally learning itself is not seen as
abstracted from context. Its value is seen from the perspective of the learner and is therefore assessed by its utility-
its ability to inform changed practices.” (Talbot, 2014, 5).
14
Such programs mainly consist of four components:
� „individual (or part-individual and part-group) programmes that are negotiated around a learning contract
or agreement
� recognition of previous learning, both for credit and as the starting-point for the programme
� the use of live, methodologically-sound projects and practitioner research, backed by appropriate forms of
learner support
� valid forms of assessment, normally referenced to generic criteria representing the relevant academic
level.” (Lester/Costley, 2010, 563)
Universities engaging in WBL programs in the UK are the ones that also engage more deeply in APL. They are
“mostly newer, more vocationally and teaching oriented institutions.” (Talbot, 2014, 7) The University of Chester
has developed a framework called Work Based and Integrative Studies (WBIS) “which enables individuals, cohorts
and organisations to create programmes and award titles precisely tailored to their requirements in the workplace”
(Talbot, 2014, 7).
Some characteristic of the validation process within the WBIS (Talbot, 2014, 7f):
� No formal entry requirements to take part in WBIS, judgements are made in the application.
� Tutor as counterpart during the whole process: Jon Talbot assumes that “this process is quite resource
intensive at the beginning of a student’s programme, tutor input declines over the course of the
programme as students are able to assume greater responsibility for their own learning.” (p.8).
� Diagnostic module: students “formally assess their own learning achievements as the basis for APL claims
before identifying what they need to learn as the basis for their own curriculum”; ensure that they are on
the appropriate level of study; exercise in reflective learning “to sensitise them to the programme’s
underpinning philosophy of improving practice by means of formal study of experience. “ (6)
� Students develop the cognitive ability through individual tuition and extensive use of formative assessment
following Vygotsky’s concept of scaffolding: “concentrates on the ‘zone of proximal development’”,
students construct “their own meaning (in assessment) and engages in dialogue with their tutor.” (6)
� Negotiated Experiential Learning Agreement (NELA): students negotiate their own learning outcomes and
how to demonstrate their achievement in the assessment process.
� Student submits a draft for formative assessment.
� Summative assessment: the prior focus of feedback “is on learning for the future rather than describing
what the student has done in order to justify a grade.” (8)
15
3 Germany
In Germany the term validation is used in alignment with European definition of validation. The broader term used
especially in the context of higher education is recognition (Anrechnung) defined both as the procedure and as the
outcome of the procedure. The terms non-formal and informal learning, qualifications, competences as well as
learning outcomes are defined in line with the European definition of the European Commission (2012).
Up to now, in Germany no legal framework and overall system of validation of non-formal and informal learning
exists; this also has to do with the state of a Federal Republic. In the last years the development of the German
Qualifications Framework (DQR) has fueled the discussion of permeability between higher education and vocational
education and training. DQR provides a framework that could act as a mediator between the different forms of
learning when it comes to validation. Whereas the Framework Act for Higher Education (1999/2005) provides the
general frame for admission to higher education “all specified regulations on admission are subject to the provision
of Land legislation.” (Cendon et al., 2014, 4) Hence, depending on where people study in Germany they have
different regulations concerning the validation of their non-formal and informal learning (Cendon et al., 2014)
specified regulations on admission are subject to the provision of Land legislation (BMBF 1999/2005, p. 10–11).
Mediating body between Federation and Länder is the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and
Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany (Standing Conference). Relevant for validation of
non-formal and informal learning are resolutions of the Standing Conference:
In 2002 it was agreed “that recognition of competences of up to 50% of a degree course is possible, presumed that
content and level is equivalent.” (Cendon et al., 2014, 6) In 2008 the possibilities of recognition were specified with
(1) individual recognition, (2) blanket recognition, and (3) combined recognition. “ Important (…) is the
differentiation between the recognition as higher education entrance qualification (e.g., a precondition for
studying) and the credit transfer of prior learning (acquired in vocational education and training) for studies.
Nevertheless, it is possible to combine admission examination and placement test.” (Cendon et al., 2014, 6)
“In 2009, the Standing Conference opened up access to higher education for professionally qualified persons in a
twofold way: Persons with advanced vocational qualifications [e.g. Meister, the authors] may receive a generally
higher education entrance qualification. (…) Persons who do not belong to this group but who have completed a
dual vocational education and training and have three years of professional experience as well as persons who
successfully pass an aptitude assessment procedure based on exam regulations at a HEI may receive a specified
higher education entrance qualification (for a specific study programme). Additional regulations can be applied by
the Länder themselves.” (Cendon et al., 2014, 6)
Quite some progress has been made since the mid-2000 years particularly with a state funded initiative on the
validation of vocational competences on study programs (ANKOM) that set the tone for a more systematic dealing
with this topic and helped to develop different approaches for the validation of non-formal and informal learning at
higher education institutions (HEIs). Hence on institutional level, quite some expertise on validation and validation
procedures has been developed (Cendon et al., 2014)
16
In ANKOM, three procedures of validation are distinguished:
(1) “Blanket recognition: Set for homogenous groups of candidates, for certain professions and certain
vocational trainings. Blanket recognition could be based on a cooperation between university and
institution of vocational education. The procedure is based on the decision of the examination board, exam
regulations and recognition regulations.
(2) Individual recognition: Set for heterogeneous candidates or persons with an individual education profile.
The procedure is based on individual procedures.
(3) Combined recognition: A combination of individual procedures and blanket procedures. The procedure is
based on recognition regulations or recognition principles, implementation with guidelines for filling out
forms, information material, advise offers.” (Cendon et al., 2014, 8)
A guideline for validation defines quality standards for the following five subject areas (Cendon et al., 2014, 8):
(1) Description of learning outcomes, (2) Equivalence check, (3) Formal establishment of the recognition regulation,
(4) Information and guidance, (5) Evaluation.
4 Austria
In Austria the term validation (Validierung) is in line with the European definition “a process, during which an
authorized body gives proof that a person has reached certain learning outcomes, measured along relevant
standards. As such, validation covers a process of four steps: identification of special experiences of a person, done
during an interview, documentation to make these experiences visible, formal evaluation of these experiences and
certification of the results from evaluation, leading to either parts or full qualifications.” (Reif/Baumgartner, 2015, 6)
However, in terms of usage in Austria, "’Validierung’ puts the focus on the technical process […]’Anerkennung’
(‘recognition’) seems to be used at a more general level.” (Reif/Baumgartner, 2015, 6)
With regard to formal, non-formal and informal learning Austrian universities comply with the definitions of the
European Commission (Reif/Baumgartner, 2015, 7). The definition of learning outcomes and competences is in line
with ECTS User´s Guide from 2005: “Learning outcomes are sets of competences, expressing what the student will
know, understand or be able to do after completion of a process of learning, long or short. […] Competences
represent a dynamic combination of attributes, abilities and attitudes. They can be subject specific or generic.”
(Reif/Baumgartner, 2015, 14)
For the validation of non-formal and informal learning in general, two frame conditions are important: The Austrian
Strategy for Lifelong Learning includes all sectors of education and training and has as one main aim the
development of a validation strategy. The National Qualifications Framework (NQR) including all sectors of
education and training focuses on learning outcomes and includes the three corridors of learning: formal, non-
formal and informal learning. Following these two frame conditions an overall strategy for the validation of non-
formal and informal learning shall be developed until 2015 and is underway (Reif/Baumgartner, 2015).
17
Up to now no legal regulation regarding the validation of non-formal and informal learning binds Austrian
universities to implement validation strategies and procedures. The University Act 2002 (UG 2002) offers
universities the possibility to recognise forms of prior learning as “ a) credits from prior learning at other
institutions, not necessarily HEIs - for example, higher vocational schools, but from the formal educational system,
and b) learning from ‘activities’ from prior work (German: ‘Tätigkeiten’) (…). These results of prior learning, being it
considered nonformal or informal, can be recognized if it is matching parts of the master programme for which
they are brought in for recognition.“ (Reif/Baumgartner, 2015, 11) The discussion in Austria is to a lesser extent
about the recognition of prior learning as credit for shortening programs. An aspect of greater relevance is the
admission to study programs. One form is the “’ University entrance qualification examination’, relevant for public
universities for admission to degree programmes (‘regular studies’). Here, a candidate without university entrance
qualification can apply under the condition that he/she is at least 20 years old and ‘can submit proof of the
completion of professional or non-professional prior education that clearly goes beyond compulsory education for
the studies aimed for.’ (…)The examination itself has to cover five exams: an essay on a general topic, two or three
exams during which the prior knowledge of skills necessary for the study programme in question need to be
demonstrated and one to two exams upon the candidates choice from the area of the study programme in
question. (Reif/Baumgartner, 2015, 12)
Within continuing higher education programmes (which are distinct from so called regular higher education
programmes BA/MA/Ph.D.) admission for persons with professional background and experience but without first
academic degree is possible. Procedures include equivalence evaluation.
The equivalence procedures are specific to the different study programs and institutions. At Danube University
Krems which is the biggest provider of continuing higher education studies in Austria the procedure of validation as
equivalence evaluation consists of the following steps (Reif/Baumgartner, 2015): (1) pre-check, (2) application, (3)
evaluation, (4) interview, (5) request for admission to rectorate, (6) decision.
5 Russian Federation
Within Russian Federation the “ general definition of validation that is equivalent to the Russian term ‘признание’
is most commonly used in legal acts pertaining to validation of education abroad and subsequent recognition of the
relevant documents (high school transcripts and other documents proving successful completion of the secondary
school)” (Ponomareva, 2014, 4). Following the Russian federal program The Development of Education in 2013-2020
established by the decree of the Russian Government on 15 May 2013 “validation of non-formal/informal education
is given in the as the process of formalizing the results of any educational experience gained in the course of a
specially organized or spontaneous educational activity which leads to the development of a specific skill or a
competence.” (Ponomareva, 2014, 4) Validation is conducted as (a) academic validation as recognition of education
abroad and (b) professional validation as allowance to work in Russian Federation.
18
In Russia, all definitions formal/non-formal and informal learning, of competences, learning outcomes and
qualification are very much in line with definitions at European level: Following the federal program, informal
learning is defined as “learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family or leisure. It is not
structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and typically does not lead to
certification. Informal learning may be intentional but in most cases it is non-intentional (or ‘incidental’/random)”
(Ponomareva, 2014, 4).
Non-formal learning is defined as “learning that is not provided by an education or training institution and typically
does not lead to certification. It is, however, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning
support). Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner's perspective“ (Ponomareva, 2014, 4).
The term competence is defined following the ECTS User´s guide (2005): “Competences represent a dynamic
combination of knowledge, understanding, skills and abilities. Competences are developed and acquired by the
students during the educational process. Some competences are subject-area related (specific to a field of study),
others are generic (common to any study programme). It is normally the case that competence development
proceeds in an integrated and cyclical manner throughout a study programme.” (Ponomareva, 2014, 4) As
qualification is understood “[a]ny degree, diploma or other certificate issued by a competent authority attesting the
successful completion of a recognized programme of study” (Ponomareva, 2014, 5)
Learning outcomes are defined as “statements – made by the academic staff – of what a learner is expected to
know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate after completion of a process of learning. Learning outcomes
have to be expressed in terms of the level of competence (knowledge, understanding, skills and abilities) to be
obtained by the learner.” (Ponomareva, 2014, 5)
In Russia the frame conditions and regulation show a quite young involvement with VNIL. Some frame conditions
have been set but the design of the whole system is still open. Article 17 of the Russian Federal Law from December
2013 states that education can take place – self-directed – outside the formal educational system and that higher
educational institutions can shorten programs based on recognition (Ponomareva, 2014, 5). Existing initiatives for
VNIL are focused on the professional context: as migrant trainings by NGOs (mainly for Russian language) and
procedure of workers qualifications evaluation. (Ponomareva, 2014, 6) First developments on recognition at
universities draw on language.
The understanding of validation is very much focused on recognition of professional education - up to date not
linked to HEs. As the country report shows the focus in learning is put on already certified non-formal learning.
Further insights on the situation in Russia brought the discussion within the workshop in Berlin, complemented by
the Higher Education Reform Experts (HERE) group that participated and provided their views on the challenges for
validation of NIL within the Russian context. The following challenges were spotted (VALERU, 2014, 14-20):
� current legislation in Russia
� the Qualifications Framework
19
� educational standards
� the weakness of professional standards system
� the issue of terminology
On institutional level, the partners detected following challenges that have to be met (VALERU, 2014, 14-20):
� lack of experience in VNIL validation
� mismatch between curriculum and educational program
� issue of credits vs. grading system
� no standardised procedure in place
� lack of clarity for responsibility within the university
� little awareness and reluctance to reach such students
� vagueness of experts competences
D) CONCLUSIONS
The European settings and the depictions of the different European approaches to the validation of NIL (mainly
based on the country reports of the involved partners) have shown that validation and all its closely connected
terms as learning outcomes, formal/non-formal/informal learning, competences, qualifications have found their
way in the different national contexts. However, practices show that there still exist some gaps between words and
actions. What can be drawn from the different perspectives?
The following table tries to show features that shall provide in a nutshell some central conclusions to the analysis.
This chart has been composed in conjunction with last available 2010 Update of the European Inventory on
Validation of Non-formal and Informal Learning (EC/CEDEFOP, 2010):
Country State of
develop-
ment
Approach Frame work conditions HEI Formalization
France high top down, including all
sectors and fields of
education and training
strong centrally
regulated, legal
framework
Implementing
role
through legally
established VAE
procedure
United
Kingdom
medium-
high
bottom up
driven by institutions
loose framework,
devolved responsibilities
strong role –
universities
are
autonomous
through standards (QAA),
procedures depends on
institutions
Germany medium-
high
different sectorial
approaches supported by
public funds
medium, decentralized
approaches caused by
complex allocation of
responsibilities
strong role through development of
good practice in projects
often below political level
Austria medium-
low
sectorial and target-group
specific approaches
loose framework
conditions, shall change
with NQF and validation
strategy (in process)
strong role
(public
universities)
through development of
good practice in target
oriented approaches
Table 2: Validation in a nutshell: four European approaches
20
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bergen Communiqué (2005). The European Higher Education Area – Achieving the Goals. Communiqué of the
Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, 19-20 May 2005. Available at:
http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Bergen_Communique1.pdf (accessed March 31, 2015)
Berlin Communiqué (2003). “Realising the European Higher Education Area”. Communiqué of the Conference of
Ministers responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on 19 September 2003. Available at:
http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Berlin_Communique1.pdf (accessed March 31, 2015).
Bologna Declaration (1999). The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999. Joint declaration of the European Ministers
of Education. Bologna. Available at:
http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION1.pdf (accessed March 31, 2015).
Bucharest Communiqué (2012). Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education
Area. Available at:
http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/%281%29/Bucharest%20Communique%202012%281%29.pdf (accessed
March 31, 2015).
CEDEFOP (2008). Terminology of European Education and Training Policy. A Selection of 100 Key Terms.
Luxembourg.
CEDEFOP (2009). European Guidelines for Validating Non-Formal and Informal Learning. Luxemburg. Available at:
http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/node/11010 (accessed March 31, 2015)
CEDEFOP (2014). Terminology of European Education and Training Policy. A Selection of 130 Key Terms. Second
edition. Luxemburg.
CEDEFOP (2014a). Use of Validation by Enterprises for Human Resource and Career Development purpose.
Cedefop Reference Series, No 96, Luxembourg.
CEDEFOP (2015). About Cedefop. Available at: http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/about-cedefop (accessed March
31, 2015).
Cendon, E./Dehnbostel, P. (2015). Validierung informell und nichtformal erworbener Kompetenzen als Beitrag zur
Durchlässigkeit im Bildungssystem, in: Bohlinger, Sandra/Fischer, Andreas (Hg.). Lehrbuch Europäische
Berufsbildungsforschung und -politik – Grundlagen, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven. Bertelsmann,
Bielefeld (in press).
Cendon, E./Dehnbostel, P./Mikoleit, M./Mörth, A. (2014). Validation of Non-Formal/Informal Learning in Russian
Higher Education. Country Report Germany. Berlin University for Professional Studies, Berlin. Available at:
http://www.valeru.eu/ (last accessed: March 31, 2015).
21
Commission of the European Communities (2008). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the establishment of the European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training
(ECVET). COM(2008) 180 final, 9.4.2008, Brussels. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52008PC0180&from=EN (accessed March 31, 2015).
Copenhagen Declaration (2002). Declaration of the European Ministers of Vocational Education and Training, and
the European Commission, convened in Copenhagen on 29 and 30 November 2002, on Enhanced European
Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training. "The Copenhagen Declaration". Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/vocational-policy/doc/copenhagen-declaration_en.pdf (accessed
March 31, 2015).
Council of the European Union (2012). Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-
formal and informal learning. Official Journal of the European Union (2012/C 398/01). 22/12/2012. Available
at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:398:0001:0005:EN:PDF (accessed
March 31, 2015).
EC/CEDEFOP (2010). 2010 update of the European Inventory on Validation of Non-formal and Informal Learning –
Executive summary of Final Report. By Jo Hawley, Manuel Souto Otero and Claire Duchemin. Thessaloniki:
Cedefop. Available at: https://cumulus.cedefop.europa.eu/files/vetelib/2011/77641.pdf (accessed March 31,
2015)
European Commission (2001). Communication from the Commission. Making a European Area o Lifelong Learning
a Reality. Brussels, 21.11.2001 COM(2001) 678 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0678&from=EN (accessed March 31, 2015).
European Council (2000). Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000. Presidency Conclusions. Available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_de.htm (accessed March 31, 2015).
European Union (2008). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the
establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning. (Text with EEA relevance).
Official Journal of the European Union (2008/C 111/01).23/04/2008. Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008H0506%2801%29&rid=1 (accessed March 31,
2015).
Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué (2009). The Bologna Process 2020 – The European Higher Education Area
in the new decade. Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher
Education, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve, 28-29 April 2009. Available at:
http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Leuven_Louvain-la-
Neuve_Communiqu%C3%A9_April_2009.pdf (accessed March 31, 2015).
22
London Communiqué (2007). Towards the European Higher Education Area: responding to challenges in a
globalised world. 18 May 2007. Available at:
http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/London_Communique18May2007.pdf (accessed March 31,
2015).
Maastricht Communiqué (2004). Maastricht Communiqué on the Future Priorities of Enhanced European
Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training (VET). Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/vocational-policy/doc/maastricht_en.pdf (accessed March 31, 2015).
Mamoune, A./Ribaud, V. (2014). Validation of Non-Formal/Informal Learning in Russian Higher Education. Country
Report France. University of Western Brittany, Brest. Available at: http://www.valeru.eu/ (last accessed:
March 31, 2015).
Ponomareva, E. et al. (2014). Validation of Non-Formal/Informal Learning in Russian Higher Education. Country
Report Russian Federation. Moscow State University of Geodesy and Cartography et al., Moscow. Available
at: http://www.valeru.eu/ (last accessed: March 31, 2015).
Prague Communiqué (2001). Towards the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué of the meeting of
European Ministers in charge of Higher Education in Prague on May 19th 2001. Available at:
http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/PRAGUE_COMMUNIQUE.pdf (accessed March 31, 2015).
QAA (2004). Guidelines on the accreditation of prior learning. September.
Available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Accreditation-Prior-Learning-
guidelines.pdf (accessed March 31, 2015).
QAA (2013). UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality. Chapter B6:
Assessment of students and recognition of prior learning. Available at:
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/quality-code-B6.pdf (accessed March 31, 2015).
Reif, L./Baumgartner, P. (2015). Validation of Non-Formal/Informal Learning in Russian Higher Education. Country
Report Austria. Danube University, Krems. Available at: http://www.valeru.eu/ (last accessed: March 31,
2015).
Royal Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research (2006). OECD Thematic Review on Recognition of non-formal
and informal learning. Country Report Norway 2006. N.p. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/norway/41782275.pdf (accessed March 31, 2015).
Talbot, J. (2014). Validation of Non-Formal/Informal Learning in Russian Higher Education. Country Report Great
Britain. University of Chester, Chester. Available at: http://www.valeru.eu/ (last accessed: March 31, 2015).
VALERU (2014): Workshop Nr. 1 Approaches & Competences. Documentation by Lil Reif and Eva Cendon.
Krems/Berlin.
23
ACRONYMS
ANKOM Initiative on the validation of vocational competences on study programs
APL Accreditation of Prior Learning
APCL Accreditation of Prior Certificated Learning
APEL Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning
CEDEFOP European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
DQR German Qualifications Framework
ECTS European Credit Transfer System
ECVET European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training
EHEA European Higher Education Area
EQF European Qualifications Framework
HE Higher Education
HEI Higher Education Institution
HERE Higher Education Reform Experts
NELA Negotiated Experiential Learning Agreement
NIL Non-formal and Informal Learning
NQF National Qualifications Framework
QAA Quality Assurance Agency
RPL Recognition of Prior Learning
VAE Validation des Acquis de l’Expérience (Validation of prior experience)
VET Vocational Education and Training
VNIL Validation of Non-formal and Informal Learning
WBIS Work Based and Integrative Studies
WBL Work Based Learning
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: WP1 – a process in three phases ....................................................................................................................3
Table 2: Validation in a nutshell: four European approaches .................................................................................... 19
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture
EuropeanQualificationsFramework
The european QualificaTions framework for lifelong learning
The european QualificaTions framework for lifelong learningDescripTors Defining levels in The european QualificaTions framework (eQf)
KNOWLEDGE SKILLS COMPE TENCE
In the context of EQF, knowledge is described as theoretical and/or factual.
In the context of EQF, skills are de-scribed as cognitive (involving the use of logical, intuitive and creative thinking) and practical (involving manual dexterity and the use of methods, materials, tools and in-struments).
In the context of EQF, competence is described in terms of responsibility and autonomy.
LEV
EL 1
The learning outcomes relevant to Level 1 are
>basic general knowledge >basic skills required to carry out simple tasks
>work or study under direct supervi-sion in a structured context
LEV
EL 2
The learning outcomes relevant to Level 2 are
>basic factual knowledge of a field of work or study
>basic cognitive and practical skills required to use relevant information in order to carry out tasks and to solve routine problems using simple rules and tools
>work or study under supervision with some autonomy
LEV
EL 3
The learning outcomes relevant to Level 3 are
>knowledge of facts, principles, pro-cesses and general concepts, in a field of work or study
>a range of cognitive and practical skills required to accomplish tasks and solve problems by selecting and applying basic methods, tools, materials and information
> take responsibility for completion of tasks in work or study
>adapt own behaviour to circum-stances in solving problems
LEV
EL 4
The learning outcomes relevant to Level 4 are
> factual and theoretical knowledge in broad contexts within a field of work or study
>a range of cognitive and practical skills required to generate solutions to specific problems in a field of work or study
>exercise self-management within the guidelines of work or study con-texts that are usually predictable, but are subject to change
>supervise the routine work of others, taking some responsibility for the evaluation and improvement of work or study activities
Each of the 8 levels is defined by a set of descriptors indicating the learning outcomes relevant to qualifications at that level in any system of qualifications.
LEV
EL 5
*The learning outcomes rel-evant to Level 5 are
>comprehensive, specialised, factual and theoretical knowledge within a field of work or study and an awareness of the boundaries of that knowledge
>a comprehensive range of cognitive and practical skills required to de-velop creative solutions to abstract problems
>exercise management and supervi-sion in contexts of work or study activities where there is unpredict-able change
> review and develop performance of self and others
LEV
EL 6
**
The learning outcomes rel-evant to Level 6 are
>advanced knowledge of a field of work or study, involving a critical understanding of theories and prin-ciples
>advanced skills, demonstrating mastery and innovation, required to solve complex and unpredictable problems in a specialised field of work or study
>manage complex technical or professional activities or projects, taking responsibility for decision-making in unpredictable work or study contexts
> take responsibility for managing professional development of indi-viduals and groups
LEV
EL 7
***
The learning outcomes rel-evant to Level 7 are
>highly specialised knowledge, some of which is at the forefront of know-ledge in a field of work or study, as the basis for original thinking and/or research
>critical awareness of knowledge issues in a field and at the interface between different fields
>specialised problem-solving skills required in research and/or in-novation in order to develop new knowledge and procedures and to integrate knowledge from different fields
>manage and transform work or study contexts that are complex, unpredictable and require new strategic approaches
> take responsibility for contribut-ing to professional knowledge and practice and/or for reviewing the strategic performance of teams
LEV
EL 8
****
The learning outcomes rel-evant to Level 8 are
>knowledge at the most advanced frontier of a field of work or study and at the interface between fields
> the most advanced and specialised skills and techniques, including syn-thesis and evaluation, required to solve critical problems in research and/or innovation and to extend and redefine existing knowledge or professional practice
>demonstrate substantial authority, innovation, autonomy, scholarly and professional integrity and sus-tained commitment to the develop-ment of new ideas or processes at the forefront of work or study con-texts including research
The Framework for Qualifications of the European
Higher Education Area provides descriptors for cy-
cles. Each cycle descriptor offers a generic statement
of typical expectations of achievements and abili-
ties associated with qualifications that represent the
end of that cycle.
* The descriptor for the higher education short
cycle (within or linked to the first cycle), developed
by the Joint Quality Initiative as part of the Bologna
process, corresponds to the learning outcomes for
EQF level 5.
** The descriptor for the first cycle in the Frame-
work for Qualifications of the European Higher
Education Area agreed by the ministers responsible
for higher education at their meeting in Bergen in
May 2005 in the framework of the Bologna process
corresponds to the learning outcomes for EQF level 6.
*** The descriptor for the second cycle in the Frame-
work for Qualifications of the European Higher Edu-
cation Area agreed by the ministers responsible for
higher education at their meeting in Bergen in May
2005 in the framework of the Bologna process cor-
responds to the learning outcomes for EQF level 7.
**** The descriptor for the third cycle in the Frame-
work for Qualifications of the European Higher Edu-
cation Area agreed by the ministers responsible for
higher education at their meeting in Bergen in May
2005 in the framework of the Bologna process cor-
responds to the learning outcomes for EQF level 8.
Compatibility with the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area
What is the EQF and what are its benefits?The EQF is a common European reference sys-tem which will link different countries’ national qualifications systems and frameworks together. In practice, it will function as a translation de-vice making qualifications more readable. This will help learners and workers wishing to move between countries or change jobs or move be-tween educational institutions at home.
Who is the EQF for? The primary users of the EQF will be bodies in charge of national and/or sectoral qualification systems and frameworks. Once they have related their respective systems to the EQF, the EQF will help individuals, employers and education and training providers compare individual qualifica-tions from different countries and education and training systems.
What levels and what types of education does the EQF cover? As an instrument for the promotion of lifelong learning, the EQF encompasses general and adult education, vocational education and train-ing as well as higher education. The eight levels cover the entire span of qualifications from those achieved at the end of compulsory education to those awarded at the highest level of academic and professional or vocational education and training. Each level should in principle be attain-able by way of a variety of education and career paths.
Why does the EQF use learning out-comes? The EQF uses 8 reference levels based on learning outcomes (defined in terms of knowledge, skills and competences). The EQF shifts the focus from input (lengths of a learning experience, type of institution) to what a person holding a particular qualification actually knows and is able to do. Shifting the focus to learning outcomes
• supportsabettermatchbetweentheneedsof the labour market (for knowledge, skills and competences) and education and training pro-vision
• facilitatesthevalidationofnon-formalandinformal learning
• facilitatesthetransferanduseofqualificationsacross different countries and education and training systems.
It also recognises that Europe’s education sys-tems are so diverse that comparisons based on inputs, say length of study, are impracticable.
Does the EQF award qualifications? No, the EQF describes levels of qualifications in terms of learning outcomes. The awarding of qualifications will remain a matter for national qualifications bodies.
What do countries have to do? What are the deadlines for implementation?It’s a voluntary framework, so there are no formal legal obligations on the countries. 2010 is the recommended target date for countries to relate their qualifications systems to the EQF, 2012 for them to ensure that individual qualification cer-tificates bear a reference to the appropriate EQF level.
What is the relationship with “Europass”?
Europass introduced a portfolio of documents to be used by individuals to describe their qualifications and competences. Europass does not, however, compare levels of qualifications. In the future, all relevant Europass documents, in particular the Europass diploma supplement and the Europass certificate supplement, should contain a clear refer-ence to the appropriate EQF level.
What is the relationship with the Bologna process in higher education? The EQF is fully compatible with the qualifica-
tions framework for Higher Education developed under the Bologna Process. Specifically, the EQF descriptors at levels 5-8 refer to the higher education descriptors agreed under the Bologna Process. However, the formulation of the EQF level descriptors differs from the Bologna level descriptors developed specifically for higher education needs because, as a lifelong learning framework the EQF also encompasses vocational education and training (VET) and work contexts, including at the highest levels.
More information is available at: ec.europa.eu/eqf
The european QualificaTions framework for lifelong learning
NC-30-08-272-EN
-D
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture
EuropeanQualificationsFramework
EuropeanQualificationsFrameworkhttp://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture
EuropEan commission
Explaining the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008
© European Communities, 2008Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
Printed on white chlorine-free PaPer
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
EXpLaininG THE EuropEan QuaLiFicaTions FramEWorK
For LiFELonG LEarninG
EuropEan commissionEducation and culture
Lifelong Learning: Education and Training policiescoordination of Lifelong Learning policies
3
EXpLaininG THE EuropEan QuaLiFicaTions FramEWorK For LiFELonG LEarninG
Key questions and answers1 This note is written for those policy makers and experts who are involved in implementing the EQF. The note is the first in a series of EQF reference documents supporting the implementation of the EQF.
The EQFThe proposal for the European Qualifications Framework was launched by the European Commission in September 2006. This recommendation outlines an overarching framework to be set up in Europe to facilitate comparison of qualifications and qualifications levels in order to promote geographical and labour market mobility as well as lifelong learning. The core of the framework consists of 8 qualifications levels described through learning outcomes (knowledge, skills and competence). Countries are invited to relate their national qualifications levels to the neutral reference established by the EQF. Following the adoption by the European Parliament and Council (December 2007), a process of implementation will start in 2008. Those countries deciding to go along with the EQF (it is a voluntary process) will be asked to do this in two stages. The first stage – referring national qualifications levels to the EQF – should be completed by 2010. The second – introducing a reference to the EQF in all new certificates – should be completed by 2012.
EQF – new perspectives, new approachesThe EQF represents a new approach to European cooperation in the field of qualifications. The introduction of a set of learning outcomes based reference levels/descriptors spanning all forms of qualifications and the entire range of qualifications levels have not been attempted previously. Successful implementation of the EQF therefore requires that everybody involved shares a clear understanding of:
1 The note has been written by Jörg Markowitsch, Karin Luomi-Messerer and Sonja Lengauer of 3s Research Laboratory, Vienna and Jens Bjornavold, Cedefop. Michael Graham, Georg Hanf and Mike Coles have worked on the text and added comments.
• Theobjectivesandmainintendedfunctionsoftheframework;
• theprinciplesandlogicappliedwhendefiningtheframework (how were the descriptors constructed, how should they be read?);
• therequirementstoimplementation(intermsofstakeholder involvement, transparency, quality assurance and peer review).
This note – by answering 12 frequently asked questions – concentrates on explaining the basic principles and logic of the European Qualifications Framework. The note addresses those policy makers and experts who are involved in the implementation of the EQF (and corresponding frameworks and solutions) at national, sectoral or regional level.
The following questions – which can be read separately – are included and explained:
1. Why is the EQF called a ‘Meta-framework’?2. What are the principles behind the EQF descriptors
and what is the significance of their wording?3. What is meant by ‘Knowledge, Skills and
Competence’ and why do we use these terms? 4. Why aren’t there more dimensions as in other
frameworks?5. Isn’t competence the overall notion for all learning?
Isn’t the EQF a framework of competences? 6. Is it possible to relate a qualification to different
levels?7. Is one column of the descriptors table more
important than the other?8. Does the EQF have to be seen as a ladder? Do all
steps have to be taken to reach a qualification on a certain level?
9. Can the descriptors of the EQF also be used for National Qualifications Frameworks?
10. Why are certain key competences, e.g. ‘learning to learn’, not part of the EQF?
11. Can the EQF be used to classify education programmes and occupations?
3
4
12. What is the relationship between the EQF and the framework for the European Higher Education Area?
1. Why is the EQF called a ‘meta-framework’? The EQF has been designed to act as a reference for different qualifications systems and frameworks in Europe. It takes into account the diversity of national systems and facilitates the translation and comparison of qualifications between countries. In this sense the EQF is a framework for frameworks and/or systems and it can therefore be defined as a ‘Meta-framework’. (A qualifications framework can be seen as part of a qualifications system in which the levels of qualifications are explicitly described in a single hierarchy.)
This meta-framework will enable qualifications systems with their implicit levels or/and national and sectoral qualifications frameworks to relate to each other. In the process of implementing the EQF it is intended that each country will reference its national qualifications (in terms of diplomas, certificates or awards) to the eight EQF levels via national qualifications frameworks or the implicit levels in the national qualifications systems. This means that in the first stage levels of national qualifications frameworks or parts of qualifications systems will be referred to the EQF levels. In the long run, all qualifications awarded in Europe should have a reference to the EQF.
A specific national qualification is, for example, a ‘master diploma for pastry cook’ in Germany or a ‘baccalauréat technologique’ in France. A level of a National Qualifications Framework is, for example, the ‘National Clusters at Access Level 2‘ in the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) or the ‘Junior Certificate at Level 3‘ in Ireland. A part of a National Qualifications System is, for example, represented by the qualifications provided by the ‘Secondary Technical and Vocational Schools’ in Austria or the qualifications provided by ‘Colleges (Főiskola)’ as part of higher education in Hungary. Examples for other international frameworks are the ‘European e-competence Framework’ as an
international sectoral framework or the ‘Caribbean Vocational Qualifications (CVQs)’.
2. What are the principles behind the EQF descriptors and what is the significance of their wording?
The descriptors have been written to cover the full range of learning outcomes, irrespective of the learning or institutional context from basic education, through school and unskilled worker levels up to doctoral or senior professional levels. They cover both work and study situations, academic as well as vocational settings, and initial as well as continuing education or training, i.e. all forms of learning formal, non-formal and informal.
In addition, the descriptors reflect both specialisations and generalisations. Thus, reaching a higher level does not necessarily imply that the required skills and knowledge will be more specialised, although this might be the case in many academic and research contexts. Moving from a lower to a higher level, in some study or work contexts, can also mean becoming more of a generalist.
The descriptors have been written to sufficiently distinguish between descriptors from the level below or the level above and show, from the previous level, distinct progress in dimensions of change (e.g. complexity of knowledge, see also question 8). Each level builds on and subsumes the levels beneath. However, in order to keep the table and the text as clear as possible, repetitions are avoided and the descriptors of the respective previous levels are implicitly included.
To achieve, at the same time, continuity, as well as discreteness, key words have been used to characterize levels (e.g. ‘factual and theoretical knowledge’, in contrast to ‘basic knowledge’ on the lower levels or ‘specialised knowledge’ on the higher levels; or ‘supervision’ of the work/study activities of others which come in at level 4 and 5, but are not relevant at levels below). These key words can also be under stood as indicators of threshold levels. A full understanding of one particular level therefore requires a ‘horizontal as well as vertical reading’ where lower and higher levels are taken into account (see also question 7).
5
Further criteria for formulating the descriptors were: to use only positive statements; to avoid jargon; to apply definite and concrete statements (e.g. avoiding terms like ‘appropriate’) and at the same time to be as simple and generic as possible. Thus, the descriptors of the present EQF table are deliberately rather generic, e.g. in comparison to previous versions (see also question 1 and 9. The column titles were pragmatically chosen to use simple and comprehensible terms, instead of possibly more precise, technical terms used by a small group of experts (see also question 3).
3. What is meant by ‘Knowledge, skills and competence’ and why do we use these terms?
There are many different possibilities for structuring and constituting the results of learning processes. Following discussions between technical experts from all countries involved in the development of the EQF it was agreed to use the distinction between knowledge, skills and competence (KSC) as basis of the framework, because it is the most established way for categorising learning outcomes.
Clearly, this categorisation was inspired by and connected to other, very similar, differentiations in learning outcomes. In France, for example, one generally distinguishes between savoir, savoir-faire and savoir-être; in the German-speaking countries, the common differentiation is between Fachkompetenz, Methodenkompetenz, Personalkompetenz and Sozialkompetenz; while in the English-speaking countries, the conventional categorisation is between ‘cognitive competence’, ‘functional competence’ und ‘social competence’.
The EQF’s differentiation between knowledge, skills and competence can therefore be seen as a pragmatic agreement between the various, widespread approaches and does not oblige countries to do the same. National or sectoral frameworks or systems may require different approaches, taking into account specific traditions and needs (see also questions 4 and 9).
The KSC differentiation of learning outcomes helps to clearly construct descriptors and to more easily classify
the levels of qualifications. Nevertheless, these three categories (KSC) should not be read in isolation from each other, but they should be collectively perceived. Thus, to grasp the characteristics of one level requires also ‘horizontal reading’ (see also question 6). Similarities may exist between the categories (e.g. the column ‘competence’ includes certain skills; the column ‘skills’ also contains certain forms of knowledge) but this is in the nature of things.
4. other qualifications frameworks use more or other categories or dimensions instead of knowledge, skills and competence. are quali-fications frameworks with other dimensions at all comparable?
In national, regional or sectoral qualifications frameworks, descriptors can be adapted to their respective aims and objectives (e.g. country-specific or sector-specific needs). That’s why there is no general or only one valid way to use descriptors; different ways are possible.
In the Scottish framework, for example, there is a differentiation between ‘Knowledge and Understanding’, ‘Practice: Applied Knowledge and Understanding’, ‘Generic Cognitive Skills’, ‘Communication, ICT Skills and Numeracy’, and ‘Autonomy, Accountability and Working with Others’. In Ireland, the following categories are used: ‘Breadth of Knowledge’, ‘Kind of Knowledge, Range of Know-How & Skill’, ‘Selectivity of Know-How & Skill’, ‘The Context of Competence’, ‘Role of Competence’, ‘The Competence Learning to Learn’, and ‘Insight (Competence)’.
The EQF was designed to have the fewest and simplest possible differentiations (see also question 3). The EQF can be seen as focussing on the most essential and substantial aspects. The interpretation of the EQF descriptors is made simpler because they take account of very similar descriptors in existing qualifications frameworks and because they enable comparability and allocation/relation.
5. some say that the EQF ought not to be a qualifications framework, but a compe-
6
tences framework. some even suggested that ‘competences’ would be the adequate umbrella term for the table. is this right and what is meant?
The EQF is a (meta-)qualifications framework and not a competences framework, because it enables the classification of qualifications levels and systems. It is not intended to be used for the classification of individual competences. It is a learning-outcome orientated framework, in which the descriptors describe all forms of learning outcomes. The misunderstanding of the EQF as a competences framework is due to the fact that learning outcomes are formulated as statements about what the learners can do and so provide a certain ‘competence orientation’. The EQF is also, insofar, not a competences framework, as learning outcomes can, for example, also be knowledge without any corresponding competences or skills.
Learning outcomes are consequently always more comprehensive than competences and not the reverse. Hence, competences would not be the adequate umbrella term for the table. More correctly, the EQF should be called a ‘qualifications framework based on learning outcomes’.
6. part of a national qualifications system seems to fit perfectly on a certain level in one of the three columns, but according to another dimension it would fit better on another level. is it possible to relate one and the same group of qualifications to different levels?
No, because the EQF is not a system to classify qualifications according to different dimensions. In other words, the EQF table should not be read as separate columns. To read one level means that the whole line (all three columns) must be read all the way across and, in addition, each level descriptor assumes inclusion of the outcomes for the levels below. Thus, a full understanding of a particular level requires that it should be read in relation to the preceding levels (see also questions 2 and 3).
Due to the nature of Europe‘s extensive qualifications systems and diverse qualifications, quite often parts
(a group of qualifications) of a national qualifications systems will fit into a certain level in one column, whereas at the same time they fit into another level of another column. There might be very different qualifications according to the complexity of knowledge or the range of skills required, but they can be just as difficult to achieve.
For example, ‘Le baccalauréat général‘ in France or the ‘General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE)’ in England, Wales and Northern Ireland might require more theoretical and factual knowledge, but less practical skills; whereas, the apprenticeship-leave exam in Germany or Austria might require more practical skills and less theoretical knowledge in a field.
Presentation of the EQF descriptors in a table with three columns should facilitate understanding of the EQF and the assignment of qualifications. If the table format results in contradictory interpretations, the columns should be seen as of secondary importance. Consequently, this means, that one should simply read the whole line (knowledge, skills and competence) and judge – all in all – in which of the levels the group of qualifications fits best. This way of reading the descriptors will help to establish ‘the centre of gravity’ of the qualification in question and thus make it possible to decide where to place it in relation to the EQF. This illustrates that due to the diversity of qualifications at national and sector level there will never be a perfect or absolute fit to the EQF levels - the principle of best fit has to be applied instead.
7. is one column of the descriptors table more important than the other?
Existing qualifications will vary considerably as regards their focus on knowledge, skills or competence. E.g. academic qualifications might focus more on knowledge, whereas certain vocational qualifications might focus more on skills or competence. The three dimensions introduced in the EQF should help to identify these differences in the process of assigning qualifications. By no means the EQF intends to promote or to discriminate any type of qualification, but to act as neutral reference point for all different sorts of qualifications. An important objective underpinning
7
the EQF is the promotion of parity of esteem between academic, vocational or higher education routes as well as between initial and further education. In this sense, all the dimensions of the table are of equal value.
A qualification may fit perfectly in a certain level in one of the columns, but according to the descriptors in another column, at first sight, may seem to fit better in another level (see also question 3). One could therefore – or simply because the column ‘knowledge’ comes before ‘skills’ – ask if a certain column has more importance than the others. This is not the case. All of the dimensions are equally important and the order of the columns is not meant to be of any particular consequence (see also question 6).
8. Does the EQF have to be seen as a ladder? Do all steps have to be taken to reach a qualifica-tion at a certain level? if yes, why is the ladder ending at the eighth step, since the EQF is a framework for lifelong learning? can somebody also acquire qualifications on different levels or does only the highest one count?
The EQF is a ladder in the sense that from level 1 to level 8 the associated learning becomes more complex and makes greater demands on the learner or worker. Increases in level 1 to 8 relate to different factors such as:
• thecomplexityanddepthofknowledgeandunderstanding;
• thedegreeofnecessarysupportorinstruction;• thedegreeofintegration,independenceand
creativity required; • therangeandcomplexityofapplication/practice;• thedegreeoftransparencyanddynamicsof
situations.
This list certainly is not comprehensive, as learning has many relevant dimensions, some which we might not even know. It should only indicate what is meant by ‘increasingly greater demands on learners/workers.’
Understanding the EQF as a ladder with 8 steps does not mean that it is necessary to differentiate the same number of levels in all national contexts, fields,
sectors or domains. National qualifications systems or frameworks might include more or less levels. In some fields, sectors or domains there might be no qualifications on a higher level available. In others there might be no qualifications at the lower levels existing or there might even be qualifications which go beyond the level 8. The EQF does not further differentiate between qualifications on level 8 and above.
For example, it is very unlikely that there are qualifications in the field of pharmacy at the lowest level, or it is very unlikely to find qualifications at the higher levels in the area of housekeeping and cleaning (although there might be exceptions). In many countries a PhD will be ranked at a level that corresponds to level 8 in the EQF and in some countries there might exist even further post-doctoral formal qualifications in a university career, such as the ‘habilitation’ in the German speaking countries. Another example is in the field of accounting, many countries require, in addition to a university degree, five to ten years experience and completion of further examinations before issuing certificates for public accountant).
The EQF is not an instrument for directly documenting individual learning progresses but to provide – in the first stage – a translation device between different national contexts and – on the long run – a reference tool for all qualifications issued in Europe. However, indicating EQF levels for qualifications does not mean that qualifications necessarily have to be acquired in the same sequence as the EQF levels:
For example: An apprenticeship certificate is related to e.g. level 3. After some years of work experience and further training within the company, a graduate of apprenticeship training wants to continue his or her learning career at a university (e.g. level 5). Within these particular national regulations, these skills and competencies acquired informally are accepted as entrance qualification for higher education instead of a formal qualification on level 4. After successful completion of the higher education
8
programme, this person is awarded a qualification, classified on level 5. Therefore, the person has received a formal qualification on level 3 and one on level 5, but not on level 4. It looks like this person has skipped the level 4. But, actually the person commands the necessary knowledge, skills and competence on level 4 at the beginning of the study programme, because it is an entrance requirement even though no formal qualification was awarded.
Over their lifetime, learners will primarily move from a lower to a higher level, but it is also possible to gain two different qualifications at the same level or to move from a higher to a lower level of qualification, if new learning is taken on and new skills are acquired.
For example, a person with a doctorate in engineering decides to study a new field such as economics, which might be placed at a lower level. Over a lifetime, many reasons like diseases, new interests and hobbies or unemployment can motivate a person to obtain new qualifications on lower levels, than the one he or she might have obtained before. For example, in addition to qualification and employment as an IT specialist, one might, for example, be interested in obtaining certain qualifications in the leisure industry (e.g. tour guiding, skiing instructor). This second qualification can also be related to a lower level than the original qualification.
9. can the descriptors of the EQF also be used for national Qualifications Frameworks (nQF)?
The purposes of qualifications frameworks vary according to their context (either international, national, regional or sectoral comparison); therefore, the specific design of the frameworks will also differ. The EQF is designed as a meta-framework (see question 1) and consequently uses more generic descriptors than most national, regional or sectoral frameworks.
The EQF descriptors do not substitute for the descriptors of other qualifications frameworks. But obviously, the structure and number of levels of
these other descriptors can be orientated towards the EQF. That means the EQF descriptors should not be used as a blueprint for the development of other frameworks without clearly considering and reflecting the respective needs. However, the EQF descriptors can be used as a starting point for this process and they can be changed, complemented etc. if appropriate.
An example for the alignment with the EQF can be found in the emerging NQF in Malta or in Lithuania which both encompass eight levels. The emerging NQF in Malta even uses a similar structure to the EQF by referring to knowledge, skills, and competence.
10. Why are certain competences like key competences or meta-competences (e.g. awareness for sustainable development, learning to learn or ethical competences) not mentioned in the EQF?
The EQF does not make any statements about the specific content of learning outcomes. What a country or society considers at the present or future as key competences (e.g. competence of foreign languages, communicative competence, entrepreneurial competence, cultural competence) might change between countries and societies, but also changes over time. The EQF does not refer to any specific key competences, but can cover all different types of key competences at different levels. There are also some other, more general, competences like ‘learning to learn’ or ‘ethical competence’, which have not been explicitly included in the EQF. These features, often referred to as meta-competences, have not been included because they cannot be seen independently from other knowledge, skills and competence. Thus, they have not been added as an additional dimension, but should be seen as an integral part of knowledge, skills and competence. For example, learning to learn plays an important role for gaining theoretical and factual knowledge; ethical competence is important for the development of autonomy and responsibility.
9
11. can the EQF be used for classifying educa-tional programmes and occupations?
The EQF was not designed to classify educational programmes or occupations, but instead focuses on qualifications systems and frameworks. The EQF levels do not reflect participation in any particular education programmes or competences required for particular tasks or occupations. Of course, qualifications are related to education and training and to the occupational world and these elements are very important in the EQF. ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) and ISCO (International Standard Classification of Occupations) are classifications specifically designed to classify education and occupations. The EQF only partially implies a hierarchy of educational programmes (e.g. a qualification on a higher level in the EQF very likely will correspond to a higher level on the ISCED levels) and a hierarchy of occupations (e.g. a qualification on a lower EQF level will very likely lead to an occupational activity ranked on a lower level in the ISCO skill levels). However, the EQF focuses on learning outcomes in the form of knowledge, skills and competence; these are seen autonomously of education programmes or occupational contexts.
The EQF thus constitutes a new instrument, which offers the possibility to combine educational and occupational taxonomies and, in a way, bridges ISCED and ISCO.
12. What is the relationship between the EQF and the framework for the European Higher Education area?
At the European level, the development of qualifications frameworks began with a qualifications framework for one education sector: The Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA) has been formed since 1999 (Bologna Declaration; the Dublin descriptors were adopted in 2005); whereas, the development of the EQF started in 2005. The two frameworks clearly have similarities and overlapping areas: both are meta-frameworks, cover a broad scope of learning and are designed to improve transparency with regard to qualifications within Europe. They are both associated with quality assurance and use the
concept of ‘best fit’ to determine levels. Both also have clear aspirations to support lifelong learning and labour mobility.
Despite these obvious similarities between the two frameworks, differences can also be observed with regard to their aims and the descriptors used. The QF-EHEA intends to harmonise systems whereas the EQF intends to relate systems to each other: One central objective of the Bologna process is to harmonise the European higher education systems by introducing common degree structures (three-cycles degree system). The EQF, on the other hand, is not an instrument for harmonising qualifications or parts of qualifications systems but it is intended to function as a type of translation device to make relationships between qualifications and different systems clearer.
To link these two meta-frameworks, the EQF document asserts compatibility with the QF-EHEA. A main reason for drawing the higher levels of the EQF directly on the EHEA descriptors is to avoid the development of two isolated frameworks. Thus, the learning outcomes of certain EQF levels correspond to the cycle descriptors of the QF-EHEA. There is a clear cross-referencing at levels 5 to 8. Thus, the QF-EHEA’s respective cycle descriptors – developed by the Joint Quality Initiative, as part of the Bologna process – are understood to be compatible with the descriptors for levels 5 to 8 of the EQF. Although different descriptors are used, both frameworks have a common view of the dimensions of progression regarding knowledge, skills (application) and professional conduct.
However, since the EQF is an overarching framework and seeks to include different forms of learning (not only learning in higher education but also more professional oriented qualifications), the descriptors are broader, more generic and have to be more encompassing than the Dublin descriptors applied to define the levels for the QF-EHEA. This means that the levels can be seen as equivalent, although the level descriptors are not the same. Consequently, EQF levels 5 to 8 can be compatible not only with qualification degrees acquired in formal way by studying in a higher education institution, but also with vocational
10
qualifications awarded through formal, non-formal or informal learning.
In the QF-EHEA, learning outcomes are understood as descriptions of what a learner is expected to know, to understand and to do at the end of the respective cycle. The Dublin descriptors refer to the following five dimensions: ‘knowledge and understanding’, ‘applying knowledge and understanding’, ‘making judgements’, ‘communication’ and ‘learning skills’. Whereas the first three dimensions are mainly covered by the knowledge and skills dimensions in the EQF, the EQF does not explicitly refer to key competences such as communication, or meta-competences, such as learning to learn. These are partly included in an inherent manner in all the columns, but can mainly be assumed in the competence column (see also question 10).
Although the descriptors defining levels in the EQF and the Dublin descriptors differ, the EQF level descriptors fully integrate the Bologna descriptors and are thus compatible to these.
For example, the learning outcomes relevant to EQF level 7 comprise, among other things, ‘specialised problem-solving skills required in research and/or innovation in order to develop new knowledge and procedures and to integrate knowledge from different fields.’ Accordingly, the second cycle of the QF-EHEA refers to the ‘originality in developing and/or applying ideas, often within a research context.’ Or, the learning outcomes of EQF level 8 include to ‘demonstrate substantial authority, innovation, autonomy, scholarly and professional integrity and sustained commitment to the development of new ideas or processes at the forefront of work or study contexts including research’ and the third cycle of the QF-EHEA refers to the ‘contribution through original research that extends the frontier of knowledge by developing a substantial body of work, some of which merits national or international refereed publication’ and to the capability ‘of critical analysis, evaluation and synthesis of new and complex ideas.’
European Commission
Explaining the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
2008 — 10 pp. — 29,7 X 21 cm
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Our priced publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice.The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents.
You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758.
NC-30-08-271-EN
-C
www. valeru.eu
VALIDATION METHODOLOGY
WP 1.1
BERLIN, 13.04.2015
AUTHORS:
Eva CENDON
Peter DEHNBOSTEL
2
CONTENTS
A) Introduction and Approach ....................................................................................................................................3
B) Validation Procedures in the European context .....................................................................................................3
C) Five-Phases-Model ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Phase 1: Information, Counselling and Mentoring ................................................................................................. 5
Phase 2: Identification and Balancing .................................................................................................................... 5
Phase 3: Documentation and Assessment ............................................................................................................. 6
Additional Qualification Measures ......................................................................................................................... 6
Phase 4: Validation ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Phase 5: Certification ............................................................................................................................................. 6
D) Methods For Validation ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Debate .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Declarative methods............................................................................................................................................... 7
Interview ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Observation ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
Portfolio method .................................................................................................................................................... 7
Presentation ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
Simulation and evidence extracted from work ........................................................................................................ 7
Tests and examinations .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Frequency and Acceptance of Methods ................................................................................................................. 8
E) Challenges and Steps to take ................................................................................................................................ 8
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................... 11
3
A) INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH
The development of a methodology for the validation of non-formal and informal learning in Russian higher
education has been inspired by the European dimension of the validation of non-formal and informal learning
(CEDEFOP, 2009, European Council, 2012).
The understanding of the term methodology has been specified to (a) procedures of validation of non-formal and
informal learning and (b) methods for validating non-formal and informal learning within a validation procedure.
Different procedures of validation have been analyzed and elaborated to one procedure of validation that can be
used as basis for the further development and implementation of validation procedures for non-formal and
informal learning at Russian universities.
This procedure has been tested at the VALERU workshop at DUW in December 2014 in Berlin. Critical issues have
been discussed there, possible disciplines and fields or validation defined and the potential target group for the
validation of non-formal and informal learning specified. (VALERU, 2014) Within the upcoming trainings of experts
at Russian partner universities the procedure can be filled with life, more concrete functions and specified
procedures and methods for the different purposes.
B) VALIDATION PROCEDURES IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT
Validation procedures in Europe and worldwide differ due to different political, economic, legal circumstances and
to different national and regional strategies (UNESCO, 2013; European Commission/CEDEFOP/ICFI, 2014).
Nevertheless, in the development of validation procedures common features can be seen: The European Centre for
the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) has monitored the development of validation procedures of
non-formal and informal learning in Europe for more than 15 years. CEDEFOP (2009) develops guidelines and
recommendations for validation based on an intensified exchange of experiences of 22 countries in Europe.
These European guidelines are relevant for the basic structure of validation. They stipulate an equal right for access
to validation for everyone. In addition, it is important to always keep in mind that in the course of a validation
procedure the privacy and the rights of the individual must be respected and any information collected for a
validation procedure must not be used for other purposes without the individual’s consent. According to the
guidelines, the institutions and procedures must be clear and individual tasks must be assigned for a successful
implementation of validation procedures. Three distinct stages of validation procedures are identified (CEDEFOP,
2009, 55ff.):
1) Orienting the individual
2) Assessing the individual
3) Auditing the process
4
Ad 1) The first stage focuses on the orientation of the individual, including production and distribution of
knowledge, interaction between the individual and advisors or counsellors, and other important actors. CEDEFOP
(2009, p. 56) states: “Orientation is never complete but it always reaches a significant point when the activity
begins to focus on assessing the individual’s actual learning.”
Ad 2) The second stage focuses on the assessment of the individual covering all aspects of the process of
assessment, from requirements and standards, to the identification of learning, the search for evidence until
organizing it for assessment. The monitoring of the effects of the validation on the individual is emphasized for this
stage.
Ad 3) The third stage focuses on the quality of the validation process with regard to orientation (stage 1) and
assessment (stage 2) and its efficiency and effectiveness, involving an external and independent review of these
two stages and has nothing to do with the learning of the candidate.
Concerning procedures of validation in the European context, the European Council (2012) promotes in its
recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning a more differentiated Four-Phases-Model
for the validation, but neglects the phase of information. The four phases are:
“(a) IDENTIFICATION of an individual's learning outcomes acquired through non-formal and informal learning;
(b) DOCUMENTATION of an individual's learning outcomes acquired through non-formal and informal learning;
(c) ASSESSMENT of an individual's learning outcomes acquired through non-formal and informal learning;
(d) CERTIFICATION of the results of the assessment of an individual's learning outcomes acquired through non-
formal and informal learning in the form of a qualification, or credits leading to a qualification, or in another form,
as appropriate;” (European Council, 2012, C 398/3).
C) FIVE-PHASES-MODEL
Besides the educational and occupational standards that need to be taken into consideration for the process of
validation process-based standards are essential. They include (CEDEFOP, 2009, 34):
� “assessment or evaluation standards (such as criteria defining types of qualifications, syllabi for
qualifications, assessor qualifications);
� validation standards (such as rules for methodologies, jury practice, availability of information, advice and
guidance);
� certification standards (such as criteria for awarding a certificate, (legal) definition of who can make awards,
regulation practice).”
These standards need to be agreed upon by the relevant stakeholders, they need to be visible, reviewed and further
developed on a regular basis. Hence, they form the foundation for quality and trust within the validation
methodology.
5
According to the guidelines of CEDEFOP, the council’s recommendations for validation, and appropriate practical
implementation (CEDEFOP, 2009; BBT, 2010; European Council 2012), as a validation methodology five phases can
be established that will lead to the identification and evaluation of informally and non-formally acquired
competences. The core of the four phases (European Council, 2012) is completed by a preceding Information phase,
including counseling and mentoring.
Figure 1: Five phases of validation
Phase 1: Information, Counselling and Mentoring
The goal of this phase is to enable interested individuals to get information about the possibilities to have their
professional competences and their learning outcomes validated. Furthermore, they receive the necessary
information for the course of the procedure and they can profit from counselling for the whole process. Information
needs to be provided on the whole procedure of validation – on timelines, costs, forms and presentation of
evidence of learning outcomes, quality and standards, assessment, support available and last but not least also the
appeal procedure. Very important for this phase is the issue of how to “market” the validation procedure in the
sense of how to reach the possible candidates.
Phase 2: Identification and Balancing
Identification and balancing form the basis of the process of validating non-formal and informal learning. In this
phase the individual´s competencies and learning outcomes are recorded and made visible. (CEDEFOP, 2009, 18)
Candidates identify and analyze their individual and professional competences and their educational background.
These are being documented e.g. in a portfolio that includes data, facts and proof pertaining to a certain
Phase 2: Identification and
Balancing
Phase 3: Documentation and
Assessment
Phase 4: Validation
Phase 5: Certification
Additional Qualification
Measures
Phase 1: Information,
Counselling and
Mentoring
6
professional qualification profile. Included here are formal education and non-formal education as well as informal
learning.
Phase 3: Documentation and Assessment
Documentation is of course part of the whole process of validation. Nevertheless, a structured documentation is
the outcome of the phase of identification and balancing and the basis for the assessment. Experts appraise the
documentation, e.g. as portfolio, interview the candidate and provide an assessment at the end. On the one hand,
they check if the submitted proofs are relevant, reliable and significant and on the other hand, they determine if
and how the scope and the level of the professional competence and the educational background fulfil the
requirements for the profession or degree programme. The assessment is being made from a holistic point of view
and is suitable for adults.
Additional Qualification Measures
Between Phase 3 “Documentation and Assessment and Phase 4 “Validation” is an possible side step that can be
very important. Depending on the relevance and the significance of individual´s documentation there can be made
recommendations for additional qualification measures an individual needs to follow (see e.g. French Procedure
Mamoune/Ribaud, 2014).
Phase 4: Validation
The institution responsible for validation decides, based on the assessment of the experts, which professional
competences exist and which requirements are fulfilled and then issues a certificate of learning achievement.
Furthermore, the institution decides which additional performances in the area of education must be delivered in
order for the candidate to obtain the desired degree or certificate.
Phase 5: Certification
The certification is being issued pertaining to the requirements and standards of the profession or degree
programme. The chambers or other certifying institutions issue a report or certify the requirements for the
profession or degree programme.
D) METHODS FOR VALIDATION
The developed Five-Phase-Model needs also to be filled with respective methods used for the process of validation.
It is essential that the used methods help to achieve “greater validity, reliability, fairness and fitness for purpose of
results.” (CEDEFOP, 2009, 60) Several methods have already been addressed within the validation procedure. Here
they shall be briefly characterized and valued with regard to the phases (2) Identification and Balancing) and (3)
documentation and assessment.
From existing European practices in validation procedures for identification, documentation and validation of non-
formal and informal learning eight methods of assessment can be extracted (CEDEFOP, 2009, 60-63):
7
Debate
In debates, candidates can show their capacity to sustain a considered argument and demonstrate depth of
adequate knowledge of a subject. In a debate they can also demonstrate their communication and social skills.
Declarative methods
In writing candidates make an evidence-based statement about their learning against preset criteria designed to
help them be evaluative. Central here is the ability to use critical reflection. Declarative methods are used in
conjunction with other methods that have more independent evaluation built in.
Interview
Interviews may be applied in areas where judgement and values are important. They are often accompanied by
other methods for a more complete assessment of a candidate, allowing commentary and clarification.
Observation
Candidate’s behavior is observed and assessed by a third party in a particular setting, e.g. in his or her professional
practice. The Assessment criteria are set in advance.
Portfolio method
A portfolio is an organized and structured collection of materials that presents and verifies skills and knowledge
acquired through experience. The collection of evidence is provided by the candidate. A portfolio might include
documents such as résumés, performance appraisals, references, photographs, drawings. In digital portfolios text,
audio, graphic and video‑based presentation of information can be combined. Portfolios need some counseling
and mediation by a tutor.
Presentation
With a presentation candidates show their ability to structure and reduce complex information and to perform in
front of experts or assessors. Communicative and social skills are relevant here too.
Simulation and evidence extracted from work
In the center of this method is the performance of the candidate in a structured situation modelled on real life, e.g.
as a role play. The method allows for testing complex interacting skill sets. Clear assessment criteria are required.
Tests and examinations
The candidate responds to preset questions orally or in writing. A test provides direct assessment of specific
knowledge and skills. An advantage of tests is that they are easier to prepare, and they are often understood as
more objective. A disadvantage is that the content that can be tested is limited.
8
Frequency and Acceptance of Methods
With regard to the core-phases in the validation process (2) Identification and Balancing and (3) Documentation and
Assessment, European practices show that methods have different acceptance. Furthermore, consideration needs
to be put on how the method suits the identification, documentation or the assessment of a specific type of
knowledge, skill or competence. (European Commission/CEDEFOP/ICFI, 2014)
Looking at the procedure of validation of non-formal and informal learning as whole, the portfolio method is most
often used, followed by interviews, tests and examinations. (European Commission/CEDEFOP/ICFI, 2014)
With regard to the phase of Identification and Balancing of non-formal and informal learning interviews, portfolios
and declarative methods are the most frequently accepted methods. For Documentation the portfolio method is
most accepted, followed by declarative methods, and simulations and evidence extracted from work. For
Assessment, tests and examinations become the most frequently accepted methods, followed by simulations and
evidence extracted from work, observations and interviews.
E) CHALLENGES AND STEPS TO TAKE
Until now, the Russian higher education system has been scarcely involved in the validation of non-formal and
informal learning (Ponomareva et al., 2014). Therefore, the presented methodology needs to be further developed
and geared to the needs at the involved Russian partner universities while taking into account the circumstances on
national and on institutional level. In accordance with the necessity of acquired experience outside higher
education the focus regarding the target group has been drawn on students who are working and studying with
focus on MA or transition from BA to MA. (VALERU, 2014)
Within the universities the question will arise how to adapt existing validation procedures for formal learning to
meet the needs of students who want their non-formal and informal learning validated. Challenges that probably
need to be dealt with:
� “how to avoid validation of non‑formal and informal learning being seen as undermining existing formal
education and training, for example by reducing the number of full‑time pupils and students;
� how to create incentives (economic and otherwise) that stimulate formal education to adopt validation
methodologies;
� how existing education objectives can be converted into competence objectives in each individual area of
education;
� how work on methods that are relevant and reliable for an assessment of prior learning can be organised,
simultaneously guaranteeing education quality;
� how to ensure coherent practices, based on consistent national standards;
9
� how pedagogical methods can be adapted to incorporate greater roles for guidance and counselling;
� what the administrative requirements are for guidance/counselling, documentation, assessment and
validation?” (CEDEFOP, 2009, 38)
On the other hand there will be benefits from the engagement with validation of non‑formal and informal learning,
as it can:
� “address the needs of mature learners and part‑time students, by recognizing alternative forms of entry
requirement and shortening the period of study through earning exemptions;
� engage people who are developing knowledge, skills and competences in third or voluntary sectors, work-
based learning, trade union learning and community learning;
� improve support strategies for retention, guidance and learner support by identifying the needs of learners
before entry;
� contribute to curriculum development on the nature of learning, knowledge and assessment. It is integral to
the development and operation of work‑based learning programmes;
� improve transparency of decisions regarding entry and credit, by developing a consistent, and recorded,
approach to validation for entry to or exemption within a programme;
� lead to the development of learning partnerships between colleges, universities, employers, professional
bodies, and community learning and voluntary sector learning providers, using formative and summative
assessment which may require collaboration between learning providers across different education and
training sectors to ensure the needs of the learner are most effectively met.” (CEDEFOP, 2009, 39)
At the workshop in Berlin the Russian partners spotted the following challenges on national level (VALERU, 2014,
14-20):
� current legislation in Russia
� Qualifications Framework
� educational standards
� weakness of professional standards system
� terminology
Within the universities the following challenges were detected:
� lack of experience in VNIL validation
� mismatch between curriculum and educational program
� Issue of credits vs. grading system
10
� no standardised procedure in place
� lack of clarity for responsibility within the university
� little awareness and reluctance to reach such students
� vagueness of experts competences
Taking the methodology both the procedure and the presented methods as basis, roles and function with in the
process need to be defined. The aim should be to meet the needs, try to focus more clearly on the disciplines and
professional fields. The following steps help with the implementation of a validation procedure:
� Focus on to concrete target group and the outcome of validation.
� Find relevant and interested actors at your university to involve.
� Define role and functions for the validation procedure.
� Attach the procedure to existing structures – try to use synergies.
� Make the process clear and simple for all actors involved – especially for possible candidates!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BBT (Bundesamt für Berufsbildung und Technologie) (2010). Validierung von Bildungsleistungen. Leitfaden für die
berufliche Grundbildung. Bern.
CEDEFOP (2009). European Guidelines for Validating Non-Formal and Informal Learning. Luxemburg. Available at:
http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/node/11010 (accessed March 31, 2015)
European Commission/CEDEFOP/ICFI (2014): European Inventory on Validation of Non-formal and Informal
Learning 2014. Thematic report: Validation Methods. Available at:
http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2014/87240.pdf (last accessed: March 31, 2015)
European Commission/CEDEFOP/ICFI (2014). European Inventory on Validation of Non-formal and Informal
Learning 2014. Final Synthesis Report. Available at:
http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2014/87244.pdf (last accessed: March 31, 2015)
European Council (2012). Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and
informal learning. Official Journal of the European Union (2012/C 398/01). 22/12/2012. Available at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:398:0001:0005:EN:PDF (accessed March
31, 2015).
Mamoune, A./Ribaud, V. (2014). Validation of Non-Formal/Informal Learning in Russian Higher Education. Country
Report France. University of Western Brittany, Brest. Available at: http://www.valeru.eu/ (last accessed:
March 31, 2015).
11
Ponomareva, E. et al. (2014). Validation of Non-Formal/Informal Learning in Russian Higher Education. Country
Report Russian Federation. Moscow State University of Geodesy and Cartography et al., Moscow. Available
at: http://www.valeru.eu/ (last accessed: March 31, 2015).
UNESCO (2013). Linking Recognition Practices and National Qualifications Frameworks. Edited by Madhu Singh
and Ruud Duvekot. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.
VALERU (2014). Workshop Nr. 1 Approaches & Competences. Documentation by Lil Reif and Eva Cendon.
Krems/Berlin.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Five phases of validation ............................................................................................................................. 5