Workshop B ECVET and progressive achievement of qualifications

1
Workshop B - ECVET and progressive achievement of
qualifications

• daniela.ulicna_at_ghkint.com

2
General

• In the first stage
• the use of ECVET will depend on the flexibility
  currently enabled by the systems while using
  the principles of ECVET it is possible to have
  different approaches
• it is important to focus on using ECVET where the
  needs are here the added value will be more
  quickly realised and the obstacles easier to
  overcome

3
How can existing national/ system assessment and
validation processes and requirements for
assessment and validation be reconciled?

• The job profile enables the different systems to
  overcome the differences in how qualifications
  are described
• Differences in assessment requirements are not a
  difficulty for systems where providers have
  autonomy in this area ? there is already trust
  within the system that they can assess
  appropriately

4
How can existing national/ system assessment and
validation processes and requirements for
assessment and validation be reconciled?

• Where assessment requirements are prescriptive
  this usually concerns assessment that leads to
  certification (it is less the case for continuous
  assessment)
• The existence of more rigorous QA mechanisms may
  be a condition for cooperation in these countries
• In countries where there is a final assessment
  this enables less rigid requirements regarding
  assessment during mobility

5
Under what conditions will units and ECVET
points facilitate recognition?

• Units
• The content needs to be transparent
• The assessment criteria and methods as well
• The level of detail will depend from system to
  system
• A common format for describing units for mobility
  periods could be useful
• Points
• It is too early to discuss the added value of
  points for recognition at this stage
• This will appear later

6
What are the implications of how units are
formulated?

• Units that are too big may be an obstacle for
  mobility
• The perfect match is unlikely some flexibility
  is important
• Possible approaches formulate common units
  formulate common broad references for units
  create specific optional units for mobility
  enable certain flexibility regarding the training
  pathway

7
Implications regarding who assesses, validates
and recognises?

• In the partner institution the assessor may or
  may not be the same type of actor. Is it a
  problem?
• For assessment that leads to certification an
  external assessor may be required (see also EQARF)

8
To conclude

• Building of trust is a long term process which
  requires continuous exchange and knowledge of the
  partner institution
• ECVET is 5 in one
• EQF (NQF) to describe LO
• ENQARF to QA assessment and validation
• Europass to document
• Validation of non-formal and informal learning
  to open up qualifications systems
• A transfer mechanism

9
Practical support needed

• An inventory of methods and tools that already
  exist regarding LO, units, MoU etc. (web-tool)
• Examples of how can LO descriptions match across
  the different countries