1 / 31

Results of 2007 Stocktaking and Analysis of National Action Plans for Recognition

Results of 2007 Stocktaking and Analysis of National Action Plans for Recognition. Prof. Andrejs Rauhvargers, Latvia Chairman of Stocktaking Working Group. The background of Stocktaking. Working group worked according to Bergen mandate

osgood
Download Presentation

Results of 2007 Stocktaking and Analysis of National Action Plans for Recognition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Results of 2007 Stocktaking and Analysis of National Action Plans for Recognition Prof. Andrejs Rauhvargers, Latvia Chairman of Stocktaking Working Group

  2. The background of Stocktaking • Working group worked according to Bergen mandate • Quantifiable indicators in combination with qualitative analysis • 2007 Stocktaking criteria more demanding than in 2005 • Main sources: National Reports • EURYDICE and EUA in the group • Cross-checked with main outcomes of ‘Bologna with Student Eyes’ • The purpose of Stocktaking was analysis of where we stand NOT races between countries!

  3. There has been good progress overall Best results in implementation of: ▪ Degree system ▪External quality assurance ▪Transparency tools:Diploma Supplementand ECTS Stocktaking outcomes at a glance Most work to do in: ▪ Qualifications frameworks ▪ Establishing quality improvement culture ▪Recognition practices of degrees and credits Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  4. Quantifiable indicators Greatest difference with 2005 • Students in QA • Access • Two cycles • External QA Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  5. Stocktaking on the Degree System 2 cycles - good progress and - good potential for completion Access • Fewer legal obstacles • - Bridging courses • - 2 levels of bachelors Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  6. Progress on implementing of doctoral studies as the third Bologna cycle • Growth in structured doctoral programmes • Normal length of full-time doctoral studies 3-4 years • Supervisory and assessment procedures • Qualifications framework • Interdisciplinary training & development of transferable skills • Credit transfer and accumulation in doctoral programmes Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  7. Employability of graduates – observations • seen as very important • lack of data • countries optimistic on prospects • variations influenced by changes in the labour market/ economy • highest rates entering the labour market: professional bachelors and countries with long two-cycle tradition • employment problems for newly introduced bachelors • proportion following studies in 2nd cycle: 80-100 % (university) to 5-10 % professional bachelors • Number of examples of measures to increase labour-market relevance Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  8. National Qualifications frameworks: still a lot to be done • Almost all have at least started, put in place working groups • Most countries in green category had started long before 2005 • Some point at confusion resulting from 2 parallel frameworks • Developing NQFs should be dealt with in a more integrated way with other strands linked to learning outcomes approach: • QA, in particular internal quality culture; • ECTS; • recognition and in particular recognition of prior learning • flexible learning paths Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  9. Quality assurance ExternalQA:good progress Student participation: greatest growth since 2005 International participation:more to be done Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  10. Implementation of ESG in Quality Assurance in one-third of countries QA system is line with the ESG, • all others have started work on implementing ESG Conclusions on QA • formal structures for QA are in place, • there is still a lot to be done to properly implement ESG ‘Things to do’ • implement a genuine quality culture in HEIs • link internal QA with learning outcomes Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  11. Diploma Supplement: - good progress, - need to check format - clarify third cycleECTS - used for transfer AND accumulation- link of credits to learning outcomes should be established Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  12. Joint degrees • In at least 12 countries laws explicitly address award and recognition of joint degrees, some have established procedures for joint quality assurance Obstacles mentioned: no legislation on JDs; law regulates what should be written in the diploma, more international cooperation in quality assurance of joint programmes needed Conditions for recognition of foreign joint degrees: • most typical: all parts of joint degree must be in some way quality assured, Other: • if all participating HEIs are recognised, • all parts of JD belong to an educational system • on condition that similar program exists in their country Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  13. Establishment and recognition of JDs A number of countries have recently changed legislation to encourage JDs Little information on the number of joint programmes at national level Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  14. Recognition of prior learning • Answers demonstrate lack of clarity of the issue overall. • RPL at an early stage of development in the majority of countries London Communiqué: • Working in cooperation with ENIC/NARIC, we invite BFUG to develop proposals for improving the recognition of prior learning. Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  15. Lithuania in Stocktaking scorecard

  16. Lithuania in Stocktaking scorecard

  17. Best progress:▪ Introduction of 3 cycles ▪ Access ▪External QA ▪ Student involvement ▪Diploma Supplement ▪ ECTS Conclusion1:There has been good progress Conclusion 2:Outlook for achieving thegoals is good, but there are some challenges Work to do:▪ Qualifications frameworks ▪ Establishing quality improvement culture ▪ International participation in QA ▪ Recognition practices of degrees and credits Approach to use:▪Linking the different action lines ▪ Focus on learning outcomes Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  18. Recommendations to countries • stress implementing a NQF based on learning outcomes • link the development of the QF to other action lines: QA, ECTS, LLL, flexible learning paths. • ensure progress also in the more challenging aspects • work further on implementing national plans for recognition to Ministers Set clear policy goals/ targets in the areas of the: • third cycle, • employability, • research, • lifelong learning, • flexible learning paths • social dimension Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  19. First analysis of the National Action Plans for Recognition Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  20. Implementation of the Lisbon Recognition Convention • Many have amended legislation to implement LRC principles • Some countries that have not ratified LRC state that they have already started implementing the principles • Recognition procedures, legal setup & terminology for differ greatly Needs to be done: • Ensure implementation of the Convention in the autonomous HEIs • Ensure coherence in the treatment of foreign degrees across EHEA • Disseminate good recognition practices Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  21. Mechanisms for (ways of) implementation of LRC legal framework • Typical: ENIC/NARIC issues a recommendation, HEIs make autonomous decisions but being well informed are expected to follow LRC principles • Hopeless: autonomous Universities take decisions and don’t have to inform about their decisions, so it is not possible to guarantee • Centralised: ENIC/NARIC or HEIs or ad-hoc committees prepare decision and minister/ ministry/ central body decides, so LRC implementation (theoretically) ensured Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  22. Mechanisms for (ways of) implementation of LRC legal framework (III) • Legal I: autonomous HEIs decide - but HEIs have to obey a laws and LRC is one - inspectorates check compliance • Legal II: LRC principles are transposed into national laws - HEIs ARE autonomous but they have to obey law • Quality-related - Fair recognition of qualifications is a part of quality so LRC implementation is checked at accreditation Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  23. Compliance of national legislation with the LRC legal framework – real or formal? Example 1. • the foreign higher education institution is reviewed • particular Department and program is assessed Criteria used - number of PhDs, teaching proceduresand examination procedures Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  24. Compliance of national legislation with the LRC legal framework - real or formal? Example 2. • If there is no substantial differencebetween the programmesstudentshall be entitled to credit for this programme Example 3 • compatibility of foreign programme with programmes in host country’s institution is established Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  25. 2 stages in recognition - but which? Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  26. Which direction does the recognition procedure go? “Typical” ENIC/NARIC (assessment + advise) → University (decision) “Upside down” University (advise or no role) → ENIC (assessment) → Minister (decision) Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  27. Competent authorities for recognition Most typical: competent recognition authorities are HEIs and employers depending on the purpose (often upon ENIC/NARIC advice) Other possibilities • ENIC/NARIC centre (upon advice of HEIs) • Minister upon advice of A) ENIC/NARIC centre B) Ad-hoc committee C) HEIs • Different competent authorities for formal recognition and for further studies or • Same authorities grant recognition in both cases • Different authorities depending on type of degrees Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  28. Do you have an impression that recognition procedures are coherent in Europe? Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  29. Summary of European best practices There has been found a nationally acceptable solution for ensuring that the HEIs follow the principles set in LRC legal framework • The implementation of the legal framework of the LRC is according to the spirit of the documents, not formal compliance with the letter • The LRC legal framework is applied also at recognition of qualifications from countries that are not parties to the Convention • Clear emphasis to identification and comparing learning outcomes not programme details • All the above is also applied at recognition of study periods Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  30. What further actions with the national plans on recognition? The wide information provides basis for further discussion with a view of • Moving towards more coherent recognition criteria and procedures across Europe, • Clarifying terminology, • At national level - identifying the cases where the criteria and procedures used should actually be adapted to be in line with the principles of LRC legal framework and improve national recognition practices Vilnius, 22 October 2007

  31. Thanks for your attention! Vilnius, 22 October 2007

More Related