1 / 10

EQF descriptors and the QF - EHEA descriptors

EQF descriptors and the QF - EHEA descriptors. Mike Coles Leiden, 5 October 2006. Functions of the EQF. Translation device for comparing qualifications. Neutral reference point based on learning outcomes. A meta framework. EQF Level 8. Q. NQF/ NQS. EQF Level 7. NQF/ NQS. Q.

saxon
Télécharger la présentation

EQF descriptors and the QF - EHEA descriptors

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. EQF descriptorsand the QF - EHEA descriptors Mike Coles Leiden, 5 October 2006

  2. Functions of the EQF Translation devicefor comparing qualifications Neutral reference pointbased on learning outcomes A meta framework

  3. EQF Level 8 Q NQF/NQS EQF Level 7 NQF/ NQS Q EQF Level 6 Q NQF/NQS EQF Level 5 NQF/ NQS Q NQF/NQS EQF Level 4 Q EQF Level 3 Q NQF/NQS Q NQF/ NQS EQF Level 2 EQF Level 1 Country A Country B

  4. The Main elements of the EQF

  5. The Eight EQF Levels Knowledge EachEQFReference Level Skills Competences

  6. Focus on Learning Outcomes EQF LearningOutcomes Non-Formal Learning Informal Learning Formal Learning

  7. EQF concepts • Knowledge is theoretical or factual • Skills are cognitive and practical • Competence is about responsibility and autonomy • The descriptors are ‘read across’ • Each level assumes learning at the lower levels • Each new higher level introduces a new dimension of learning • Higher levels draw directly on EHEA descriptors

  8. Areas of similarity • Metaframeworks and interaction with local provision • Non mandatory • Use of levels (cycles) and descriptors • Broad scope of learning covered • Common view of dimensions of progression (knowledge, skills (application) and professional conduct • The use of the concept of ‘best fit’ to determine level • The association with a quality assurance process • Highly consultative development process

  9. Areas of difference • Scope - ages - learning – institutions • Coordination v articulation • The complexity in the sub systems to which the frameworks relate (NQS and VET in particular) • The generality of the descriptors • The stregnth of the focus of learning outcomes • The link to periods of learning • The volume of learning that constitutes a reasonable reference to a level • The strength of reference to other international qualifications frameworks • The source of the pressure for development

  10. Issues • The higher levels of the EQF are dominated by HE learning. What is the right balance with other (non HE) learning? • Are the purposes of the two frameworks the same? • Can the frameworks co-exist and complement one another? • How can the transparency of QS be enhanced through these two frameworks? • Language: is it possible to share understandings of words and phrases over different contexts? • The key competences - where do they fit?

More Related