Sector Related Qualifications Frameworks in VET – A Potential of Risk?

Author(s):

Klaus Ruth(presenting / submitting)Georg Spöttl(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2011

Network:

2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

02 SES 02 C, Sector-Related Qualifications Framework and Competence Assessment: Principles and Case Studies

Paper Session

Time:

2011-09-13

15:15-16:45

Room:

K 24/21,1 FL., 52

Chair:

Martin Mulder

Contribution

Apart from the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and the National Qualifications Frameworks (NQF), Sector Related Qualifications Frameworks (SRQF) are currently emerging across Europe. There are a number of projects funded within the Program of Lifelong Learning of the European Commission that focus on SRQF. This article not only aims at providing an overview and a clustering of the existing sector approaches but rather at discussing the “inherent structure” of the construction principles of the qualifications frameworks. The sector approaches will be contrasted against each other and conclusions will be drawn whether these different approaches of qualifications frameworks actually guarantee comparability.

Three research questions will be pursued:

· What are the general shaping principles of the sector-related qualifications frameworks and how are their descriptors defined?

· How are work-process oriented qualifications frameworks within sectors shaped and how are their descriptors defined?

· Can the approaches of sector-related qualifications frameworks be compared with the EQF and its descriptors?

Obviously the results of these research questions must be thoroughly discussed. Above all it has to be clarified what could happen if the different qualifications frameworks are incompatible and completely different with regard to their descriptors. A discussion on the descriptors will refer to learning and teaching theories of Behaviorism and pedagogical psychology. Thus it will be shown whether and to what extent the descriptors are theoretically underpinned by specific approaches and which implications are refering to them.

Results available so far from the projects clearly prove the high relevance of the research questions and the fact that the compatibility between the different approaches is still very poor. Therefore it must be urgently clarified which risks are relating to this fact and how this set of problems could be overcome.

Method

The methods applied in order to comprehend the principles of shaping, construction and definition of the various qualifications frameworks will be analysed. Above all the following tools were used: • Analysis of the central political objectives of the European Commission and their relations to theoretical concepts; • Analysis of shaping principles of qualifications frameworks and the applied theoretical concepts; • Analysis of the definition of descriptors by contrasting them against the different theories; • Interviews with different stakeholders (political decision makers and project representatives) on the shaping of qualifications frameworks. The surveys were based on documents of selected projects (CareasyVet; VETAS, EQF PREDICT, Matching Frames, EASCMF; megal-qf-project) and the European Commission. The interview partners were recruited from projects and from the social partners.

Expected Outcomes

Based on the research questions, the following results will be presented: • The overall targets connected to the introduction of the EQF and above all the sector frameworks; • The results with regard to the question of compatibility of qualifications frameworks and their descriptors; • The level of the “theoretical support” of differently shaped qualifications frameworks. There are three possible strands of discussion based on these results: 1. There is a correspondence with the target groups linked to the EQF and the numerous variants of sector-related qualifications frameworks. 2. The surveys prove that the individual sector frameworks are incompatible. They are only rarely linked to established theories. At best they adhere to individually defined theoretical concepts. 3. There is practically no compatibility between the EQF and the various sector frameworks. With regard to the expected results it seems to be urgently advisable to discuss whether the EQF is thus questionable or whether it considerably loses importance. In both cases the consequences faced by the intended common European educational area must be thoroughly discussed. At the same time approaches should be pondered whether and how to counteract the identified potential risks.

References

CEDEFOP (2010): Linking credit systems and qualifications frameworks. An international comparative analysis (Research Paper No. 5), Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. CEDEDFOP (2010): The development of national qualifications frameworks in Europe, (Working Paper No. 8), Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. Young, M. (2005): InFocus Programme on Skills, Knowledge and Employability. National qualificatiopns frameworks: Their feasibility for effective implementation in developing countries (Skills Working Paper No. 22), Geneva: International Labour Office. Spöttl, G. (2010): Qualifikationsrahmen und Facharbeit – eine ungewöhnliche Herausforderung, in: Bildung und Erziehung 63, 2, p. 193-208. Spöttl, G. (2010): Implementierung des DQR. Vorüberlegungen für eine Klärung offener Fragen zur Unterstützung der Implementierung des DQR. Lernen & lehren, Heft 3, 2011. In print, publication September 2011. Project Homepages: www.careasyvet.net (CarEasyVET) www.project-vetas.eu (VETAS) www.project-predict.eu/index.php (EQF Predict) www.eascmf.eu (EASCMF) Various publications and manuscripts from the mentioned projects

Author Information

Klaus Ruth (presenting / submitting)

University Bremen

Institute Technology and Education

Bremen

Georg Spöttl (presenting)

Universität Bremen

Institut Technik und Bildung (ITB)