Post on 06-May-2018
transcript
Peer Learning Activity ‘Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications’ 26-27 May 2016, Riga
Synthesis report 17 June 2016
Peer Learning Activity ‘Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications’ 26-27 May 2016, Riga
Synthesis report
A report submitted by the ECVET Secretariat
Date: 17 June 2016
ICF Consulting Services Limited Watling House 33 Cannon Street London EC4M 5SB
T +44 (0)20 3096 4800 F +44 (0)20 3368 6960
www.icfi.com
i
Document Control
Document Title Peer Learning Activity ‘Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications’, 26-27 May
2016, Riga – Synthesis Report
Job No. 30300780
Prepared by Anette Curth, Karin Luomi-Messerer
Checked by Daniela Ulicna
Date 17 June 2016
ii
Contents
1 Aims and objectives of the Peer Learning Activity 3
2 Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications 5 2.1 Country cases: Latvia, Germany, Finland, Czech Republic, Sweden ..................................... 5 2.2 Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications: A continuum............................................... 9 2.3 Transfer, accumulation and individual pathways ................................................................... 10 2.4 Conclusions and points for further discussion ....................................................................... 12
3 Stakeholder involvement 14 3.1 Sector Expert Councils and Sector Skills Councils in Latvia and the UK .............................. 14 3.2 Stakeholder involvement in qualification design, validation and assessment ....................... 15 3.3 Stakeholder involvement in review and update of qualifications ........................................... 16 3.4 Conclusions and points for further discussion ....................................................................... 17
4 What follows for ECVET? Points for further discussion 18
Annex 1 Agenda to the PLA ................................................................................... 20
3
1 Aims and objectives of the Peer Learning Activity
When discussing the Annual Work Programme 2016, the ECVET Users’ Group decided to
dedicate a Peer Learning Activity (PLA) to discussing ‘Units, modules, partial qualifications
and full qualifications. The PLA was implemented in May 2016 as the first PLA of the ECEVT
Network in 2016.
In their opening address, DG EMPL reminded participants of the broader European policy
context. Enhancing the quality and attractiveness of vocational education and training (VET)
is one of the key objectives of the ‘New Skills Agenda’ that will be launched in June as part of
a comprehensive package of policy initiatives.
As part of the New Skills Agenda, the European Commission would like to invite Member
States to further enhance their efforts to promote VET as an attractive career choice. At the
same time, VET is being increasingly challenged to adapt better and faster to changes on the
labour market, to equip learners with the right skills for employment and to empower them to
respond to these changes. Open and flexible learning pathways leading to the development
of vocational skills and qualifications that match labour market needs are seen as key to
respond to this challenge. The concept of units of learning outcomes is also central to the
ECVET 2009 Recommendation. It is expected that units will facilitate portability of learning
outcomes and help the learner to transfer and accumulate learning from one learning context
to another.1 Member States pay increasing attention to modularised and unitised VET
programmes and qualifications defined in learning outcomes; to an extent that is sometimes
referred to as the ‘quiet revolution’ in VET across Europe.2
However, some Member States put traditionally a strong focus on ‘full’ (holistic) qualifications,
as they believe that quality in VET is best achieved by comprehensive high quality VET
qualifications that ensure full ‘occupational proficiency’, including a skilled workers’ ability to
adapt to changing circumstances.
The PLA aimed to discuss how and why countries decide on units, partial qualifications or full
qualifications to meet labour market demands, with a focus on:
■ the different country approaches ;
■ the different views and interests of stakeholders: policy makers, social partners, VET
providers, learners;
■ the decision-making process: how is that organised, how and to what extent are
stakeholders involved in the design, reviewing and updating of unit-based systems (e.g.
envisaging units only as part of qualifications or also as standalone partial qualifications)
and qualifications (e.g. how VET providers and/or qualification designers collaborate on
designing units and modules writing learning outcomes) and extent to which those are /
should be involved in defining assessment criteria; and
■ the key success factors and barriers experienced or anticipated.
The PLA was held in Latvia, and special attention was given to Latvian VET reforms; as the
country is amongst the most recent cases of modularisation of the vocational education.3
1 Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the establishment of a
European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009H0708(02)&from=EN
2 Presentation by Michel Arribaud given during an International Seminar (‘Strengthening the Competence Based Approach in Finland - This is how we did it’) in the context of Tajtaja 2016. http://taitaja2016.fi/en/presentations-of-the-international-seminar/
3 In Latvia, VET is referred to as ‘vocational education’ (in Latvian: ‘profesionālā izglītība’), which includes periods
of practical learning in schools and enterprises. The term ‘training’ is not commonly used in the national context.
4
Participants of the PLA
The PLA was attended by representatives from eight countries: The Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the host country Latvia.
Besides members of the ECVET users’ group and ECVET experts, participants included representatives of national education and training research institutes, national employer organisations and trade unions, UEAPME, VET-providers, Cedefop, the ECVET Secretariat and the European Commission (DG EMPL)
Please note: The Presentations given at the meeting have been uploaded to the ECVET Secretariat website and are accessible here.
5
2 Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications
2.1 Country cases: Latvia, Germany, Finland, Czech Republic, Sweden
The host country, Latvia, emphasised that the rationale for developing modular VET
programmes can be broadly summarised as a response to the need to create a more modern
and flexible VET system able to more promptly respond to demands of each economic sector.
Moreover, Latvia aims to offer more flexible learning pathways to learners to facilitate school-
work transition.
In Latvia, a module is taken to be a didactic part of an education programme consisting of
related learning outcomes (knowledge, skills and competences). One module can correspond
to more than one qualification. Each modular VET programme in Latvia is structured in three
parts:
A. The compulsory part, providing common sectoral skills;
B. Optional modules, providing specific skills for a particular qualification, and
C. The free choice part, providing sector-specific or regional requirements and individual in-
depth vocational competences.
Each of these three parts can consist of modules related to general education topics,
professional competences modules, and/or module blocks. Each module is described in terms
of (1) its objectives, (2) learning outcomes in terms of knowledge, skills and competences to
be acquired, (3) procedures for the assessment of learning outcomes and (4) further education
opportunities.
A characteristic feature of the modularised system in Latvia is that separate modules can be
accumulated in different combinations, depending on the requirements of a particular
programme and the objectives of the learner. It is therefore very important for the learner to
obtain a certificate for each module.
Moreover, as partial recognition of qualifications is now possible, the system allows for
learners to directly enter the labour market after completing the compulsory part (A), if they
wish to do so. They can then further develop their competences at the workplace, and continue
later with optional modules (B) or free choice modules (C) to achieve a specialisation. In Latvia,
it is very important to obtain a certificate for each module or even unit.
More specifically, the modular approach in Latvia is expected to:
■ shorten the period necessary for acquiring a new qualification;
■ facilitate the transition of young people to the labour market;
■ contribute to professional development and specialisation by allowing learners to combine
particular modules or groups of modules – depending on their aims;
■ ensure that the acquisition of VET competences are based on attainable results; and
■ increase the flexibility of learning.
Over the last years, 22 IVET and 34 CVET programmes were developed, built on a modular
approach. The modular programmes, cover 14 sectors of Latvian economy.4 At the moment
(May 2016), Latvia is in a transitory period - full implementation of the new system is expected
to be achieved by the year 2017. At the moment, efforts are being made to prepare teachers
to work with the new approach. 5
4 The modular programmes are available online (in Latvian language): http://visc.gov.lv/profizglitiba/programmas_moduli.shtml 5 Presentation by Janis Gaigals, National Centre for Education, Latvia, given at the PLA
6
Modernising VET providers in Latvia: Ogre Technical School
The efforts to modernise VET in Latvia and enhance its quality were not restricted to systemic
reforms. Latvia has also made considerable investments to modernise of VET providers. For
instance, with support of an ERAF project, Latvia has invested 12 Million Euro to modernise Ogre
Technical School. The money was used to reconstruct various school buildings, and to modernise
the equipment and the class rooms.
Moreover, Ogre participated in the development of the modularised courses. The school now offers
new curricula and modularised VET programmes in
■ Forestry and forest machinery (forestry technican, forest machine mechanic, forest machine
operator, timber car driver)
■ Wood products manufacturing (furniture joiner, carpenter construction products)
■ Construction work (woodworker).
While forestry and wood work are the focus areas of Ogre, students can also be trained in the following
disciplines:
■ Computer science and electronics
■ Hospitality and food production (hospitlity servises, catering servises, bread and flour products)
■ Administrative work (accountant, customer service, secretary)
■ Design and Art (interior designer, multimedia designer, clothing designer, video operator)
7
Ogre Technical School has also invested in ensuring more opportunities for work-based learning. In
the study year 2015/2016, 193 students were offered the opportunity for work-based learning (WBL)
in collaboration with 59 regional companies.6
In Germany, VET students are trained in the dual system which is based on apprenticeships.
Apprentices are trained in two learning venues: 1) the training company, responsible for the
vocational competences, and 2) the vocational school, responsible for general education
topics and theoretical competences.
The German system is an example of an approach that works with ‘full qualifications’. A
vocational qualification is usually acquired through a three-year apprenticeship, and is
awarded when the final exam is successfully passed. Yet, even though the German system
does not work with units, modules, or partial qualifications, flexibility is ensured.
The Vocational Training Act (BBiG; 2005) foresees several forms of credit transfer. For
instance, the training period in initial VET can be shortened by crediting
■ previous training in the same occupation;
■ previous training in another relevant occupation;
■ work experience or previous school-based education;
■ early admission to the final examination.
Many occupations also allow for vertical flexibility. Within certain groups of similar
qualifications, students can change the learning path as the basic training is almost identical.
For instance, if they started an apprenticeship as a car mechanic, but then decide they would
prefer to follow the bike mechanic pathway, they can do so after the 1st year of training without
losing any time.7
Moreover, admission to final examinations is not restricted to those who followed the full three-
year apprenticeship training. It can also be granted based on work experience or non-formal
and informal learning, based on evidence of employment experience, initial training in a
relevant training occupation, or other credible demonstration of occupational proficiency.
Progression to Higher Education and Higher VET is possible – the vocational qualification
serves as entry qualification to further qualifications on EQF levels 6, 7 and 8.8
In Finland, a reform to introduce ‘competence-based qualifications’ has recently been
completed. A ‘vocational qualification’ is understood as an entity of units of learning outcomes.
All vocational qualifications are now divided into units - which are composed on the basis of
functions in working life. The Finnish system was designed to facilitate maximum flexibility for
the learner and ensure that all competences a learner acquired – regardless of the learning
context – can be identified, assessed, validated and recognised to shorten the period for
acquiring a full qualification. This includes validation of non-formal and informal learning and
recognition of prior learning. For example, competences acquired through hobbies, military or
civil service, voluntary work, or work experience can be validated and will be credited. In the
future, financing will also be based on units.
It is however important to note that despite the fact that the system is fully unitised, Finland
still aims to ensure that the individual learner acquires a full qualification based on an
individualised learning plan. However Finland is convinced that a unitised system in
combination with a competence-based approach best supports the individual learner’s needs:
Especially low-skilled workers are able to start with one unit and then add missing parts of
competencies – until they finally accumulate the full qualification. Moreover, the reform will
6 Presentation by Ilze Brante, Director of Ogre Technical School, given at the PLA 7 It should be noted though that this may mean that students have to look for another training company, if the current company cannot offer the training related to the new occupation. 8 Presentation by Wolfgang Kreher, Representation of the State of Hessen to the EU in Brussels, Isabelle Le Mouillour, BIBB, Germany
8
create one single qualification structure for IVET and CVET. For skilled workers, acquiring
additional units to add a new skill, or updating skills requirements, can also be very useful.
Consequently, thorough the unitised approach, the Finnish system is able to ensure a quick
response to labour market needs. 9
In Poland, a new system was legally implemented in 2015 which is called Integrated
Qualifications System (IQS). IQS is based on a lifelong learning perspective, hence the idea
that it does not matter so much at what point during their educational pathway and by what
training arrangements (IVET, CVET, HE or non-formal) a learner has acquired competences
or a qualification. What counts are the competences s/he has – in other words, it is about the
learning outcomes.
Consequently the IQS aims at
■ the integration of different subsectors (IVET, CVET, HE and elements of training outside
of formal education system);
■ transparent and understandable qualifications (described in terms of learning outcomes);
■ validation opportunities and new learning pathways; and
■ the portability of learning achievements and an assurance that learning outcomes are
comparable - hence assessed based on the same criteria.
The IQS works with units of learning outcomes and knows both full and partial qualifications:
■ Full qualifications are taken to be educational qualifications achieved after finishing
certain stages of education defined in the law on IQS;
■ Partial qualifications are taken to be non-full qualifications, i.e. all ‘market qualifications‘,
and all ‘regulated qualifications‘ (those based on non-educational regulations).
Both full and partial qualifications in Poland consist of a number of units of learning outcomes.
Units were introduced to increase the flexibility of learning, ensure the transparency of
qualifications, and to facilitate accumulation and transfer of learning achievements. Each unit
includes the description of learning outcomes and the respective assessment criteria. Units
can have a different role/character, they can comprise specific vocational skills or transversal
skills, but can also be used for ’capstone’ elements in a qualification. Each qualification
comprises
■ learning outcomes common to all occupations,
■ learning outcomes common to occupations in a given field, and
■ learning outcomes specific for the particular occupation.
For qualification designers, it is often difficult to ensure the balance between coherence of
units in a qualification and assure the portability of achievements.
Experiences with units confirm that solutions based on units of learning outcomes in the formal
IVET system have turned out to be popular among Polish students. 10
In Sweden, vocational programmes are offered through two different pathways: Upper
secondary school and adult education. In upper secondary school (16-20 year olds),
vocational programmes are offered as a 3-year programme, based on a structure defined on
national level. Programmes are either offered as school-based programmes with 15 weeks of
work-based learning, or as apprenticeships with a minimum of 50 % WBL.
VET programmes are also offered in adult education, equally on upper secondary level, but
targeting persons older than 20 year olds. In adult education, qualifications are more flexible.
Students follow an individual study plan that often includes credit for units acquired through
9 Presentation by Hanna Autere, Finnish National Board of Education, Finland, given at the PLA 10 Presentation by Wojciech Stęchły, Educational Research Institute, Poland, given at the PLA
9
prior learning (work experience or non-formal or informal learning). There is no specific
requisite as to WBL.
Over the course of the programmes, learners accumulate units to achieve a ‘full qualification’
on SQF level 3 or 4. For each passed unit the learner receives credits (one point for an hour
workload) and a grade, registered in a transcript of records. In adult education any unit could
be achieved through assessment and validation of non-formal or informal learning –a process
that also leads to credits and grade, registered in a transcript of record.11
2.2 Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications: A continuum
The country cases presented at the PLA confirmed that the modular and holistic approach are
largely theoretical extremes, with national experiences at different points in the continuum,
and often hard to pinpoint. When looking at the countries attending the PLA, while Finland, UK
and Ireland can be classified as fully modularised systems. Sweden, Latvia and Poland can
be positioned as unitised systems between radical modularisation and combination of both
forms (in case of PL and LV due to ongoing reforms). Germany and the Czech Republic have
rather traditional ‘holistic’ IVET systems, however CVET in both countries can be referred to
as a combination of both forms.
Yet, these classifications do not reflect the full picture. Education and training systems in
countries with holistic approaches (e.g. DE) offer solutions to facilitate transitions, flexible
pathways and the crediting of time. And, on the other hand, in countries with a fully
modularised system (e.g. FI, IE, UK), the flexibility must be seen as a means to the end of
offering more and flexible opportunities for learners to achieve a high quality (full) qualification.
An interesting concept in that regard – which seems to be relatively new in the debate – is the
idea of ‘capstone’ units. In the UK, this concept refers to the fact that a learner can accumulate
units, but in order to achieve the overarching qualification there is a need to achieve a specific
‘capstone’ unit – a unit for the final assessment. In Ireland, capstone units were just recently
implemented, understood as ‘programme outcomes’ to mitigate the risk of fragmentation of
qualifications by breaking them down in units; similarly to the UK.
In Poland, the concept is used as well. In some IVET qualifications, there are general
education components and vocational components. Often the general component serves the
role of a ‘capstone’. Or there might be a unit related to a specific task and a final unit related
to the most important / final task - the rationale is that the assessment of the final unit depends
on the units acquired before. The Czech Republic also uses the concept of ‘capstones’ as final
projects that learners need to do in order to prove general and holistic competences.
Partial qualifications are a reality. Yet, there is an ongoing discussion in countries whether ‘the
glass is half full or half empty’. Partial qualifications respond to needs of modernisation, and
allow responding swiftly and flexibly to industry requirements. Yet, it is also seen that partial
qualifications often do not include learning outcomes related to core and transversal skills to
a sufficient extent. Hence, partial qualifications can be a solution, but should not lead to a dead
end – VET systems should always foresee that components of qualifications (such as ‘minor’
awards in IE) can be topped up with additional modules to lead to a full qualification (‘major’
award in IE).
Modules are commonly understood as components of education and training programmes
which are identified in advance, intended for obtaining a specific qualification. Therefore, the
term ‘module’ belongs to the process level (i.e. the level of organisation and conduct of VET
programmes ) whilst ‘units’ refer to the outcome level in terms of parts of qualifications that
can be defined on the basis of knowledge, skills and competence. The ECVET
recommendation makes a clear distinction between units of learning outcomes and modules.
11 Presentation given by Eva Ekstedt Salzmann, Swedish National Agency for Education, Sweden, given at the PLA
10
However, in practice countries do not generally follow the ECVET distinction and both terms
are often used interchangeably. For instance, in the Latvian case, the term ‘modules’ is used,
but the term ‘units’ would also fit. From one country to another some qualifications systems
might not for instance differentiate both (e.g. in Germany, as in the VET systems following a
holistic approach), while in others – e.g. the UK – one module (process level) contains various
units (outcomes level).
2.3 Transfer, accumulation and individual pathways
Modularised VET systems usually foresee manners of accumulating units and modules related
to obtain a qualification in a more or less flexible way. When comparing practices between
countries, it can be observed that accumulation of units is often done progressively. There can
be a basic set of mandatory units that can be topped up with ‘free choice’ units, like in the
Latvian case, or units for specialisation, like in the Swedish case. Some countries award the
full qualification through a final exam, or through a final ‘capstone unit’.
Other countries (e.g. Finland) offer even more flexible ways of accumulation by adding learning
that stems from other qualifications or informal/non-formal learning contexts. This however
requires ways of transferring learning acquired in different contexts.
Following the definition that modules are related to the process level and units to the outcomes
level, it can be assumed that modules are broader and therefore more difficult to transfer
between learning contexts than units: complete equality is difficult to ensure. The same
problem however applies to the transfer of units. Theoretically, it would make sense to transfer
units with similar content from one pathway or learning context to another. In practice, this
requires a lot of flexibility. Examples from Finland and Poland show the level of units may still
be too broad-brushed to ensure transferability. Finland therefore looks at the level of learning
outcomes: While entire units may not be fully transferable, they often contain a number of
learning outcomes that are common to several units (and qualifications). An individual person-
by person approach is needed, in order to really do justice to a person’s personal learning
pathway.
Yet, this requires a clear and common standard in describing learning outcomes. This standard
needs to be communicated and applied by all stakeholders involved in qualification design. In
countries that have only recently introduced unitised systems, this may not be the case yet.
An example from Poland shows that sectors have a tendency to describe and to group learning
outcomes very specifically when they design new units; and comparability across sectors is
difficult. Poland advises sectors to apply more generic learning outcome descriptors, to ensure
transferability to other sectors, and professional contexts. Another option would be to design
generic units – e.g. a unit on data storage and archiving that could be used in finance, but also
in accounting, and would be transferrable to many contexts.
However, to unify practice an agreement between sectors would be required. The Polish
institutions are trying to coordinate this as much as possible (through meetings and
information), but it remains a challenge.
In the UK, although a system is in place that allows for the recognition of prior learning and
transfer of outcomes from one learning context to another, those possibilities are very rarely
used. In practice, accumulation is interpreted as credit transfer. In the apprenticeship frame,
for example, the two-year programme is split into two parts and a certificate is issued after the
first year, the so-called ‘subsidiary diploma’. Employers are usually more interested in the ‘full’
diploma and for colleges the selling point is also the whole qualification. However, this
certificate is seen as motivation for learners because it visualises their learning achievements.
Thus, using components of qualifications can encourage learners to continue obtaining a full
qualification.
Countries more experienced with the practice of transferring learning outcomes report that
assessment is key. If and when institutions trust each other’s assessment, they also trust the
11
documentation a learner brings along. Yet, experiences in the UK show that systems never
completely trust each other. Even when high-level agreements are in place, and units are
entirely transferrable, there is always some sort of administrative process connected to the
process of validation and recognition. Therefore, good documentation is of utmost importance
for the learner.
Another practical point to consider is the validity of units. There are differences across
countries how long units are ‘valid’ – while in some countries, the validity of units is unlimited,
others (e.g. Ireland), restrict the period during which units can be used and will be taken into
account for a full qualification. Such temporal limitation to a period of 3-5 years ensures that
the learning outcomes related to a unit are still up-to-date when the learner has accumulated
all units related to a full qualification.
VET systems that do not use modules can also offer more or less flexibility to learners. While
in some countries, such as Cyprus, there are no possibilities to use parts of qualifications,
other ‘holistic systems’ provide some flexibility: As mentioned earlier, the German
apprenticeship system clearly focuses on full qualifications and does not use units or modules.
Nevertheless, there are possibilities for transferring learning outcomes from other learning
contexts, including gaining credits for work experience. At the beginning of their training, all
apprentices are first introduced to the respective law (Vocational Training Act - BBiG; 2005)
that foresees several forms of credit transfer. Thus, apprentices are expected to be informed
about these possibilities. However, it can be quite challenging for companies to individualise
the training programme for an apprentice who wants to make use of previous learning
achievements.
It can be concluded that there is no uniform solution how to best organise transfer,
accumulation and individual pathways. Countries make different choices depending on
traditions and their main goals; sometimes it even seems that the same goals can be reached
in different ways. This is illustrated with the (fictional) case of Kaspers in the box below.
The case of Kaspers
Kaspers is an employee at HansaMatrix (Ogre, Latvia). He is a very experienced employee who has been with the company for many years. He works as a high category electronics’ technician, trains new employees and trainees and assesses learner’s results.
However Kaspers has only a lower secondary school qualification. As the company would like to give him tasks that formally require a higher level qualification, they are very interested to find ways how he can acquire such formal qualification in a quick and efficient manner.
Below a couple of examples on how this would be done in different countries/systems.
What are Kaspers’ options in a modularised system?
The new Latvian system will provide manners for Kaspers to be assessed in the relevant educational programme at the nearest vocational qualification examination. The institution for the validation of professional competence will issue a document certifying the State recognised first, second or third level vocational qualification (EQF level 2-4).12 Kaspers will get credits for his work experience and can take additional modules, if needed.
In Finland, Kaspers would have the possibility to demonstrate his competences using the national qualification requirements of the respective VET qualification as reference. The learning outcomes of his work experience would be validated and recognised. If necessary, Kaspers would be able to acquire additional competences through training. He would be
12 Cedefop Inventory on the validation of non-formal and informal learning – Country report Latvia. https://cumulus.cedefop.europa.eu/files/vetelib/2014/87068_LV.pdf
12
able to accumulate units to acquire the full qualification in an individualised and flexible way.13
In Sweden, Kaspers could acquire the qualification through adult learning programmes. A VET provider would draft an individualised learning plan for Kaspers that would include credit for units acquired through prior learning (work experience).14
In the UK (EN and NI), Kaspers’ employer might work with a VET provider, which would be able to award an accredited qualification. This can be done through the development of specific units which can be combined with existing units, tailored to the specific needs of the company. The Qualifications and Credit Framework sets out the conditions for the recognition of prior learning.15
What are Kaspers’ options in a holistic system?
For example, in Germany, Kaspers could take the final exam as an ‘external’ candidate to achieve the full qualification. His work experience would be ‘credited’ as equivalent to an apprenticeship in the dual system.
2.4 Conclusions and points for further discussion
The PLA showed that countries‘ VET systems have the tendency to structure qualifications
into smaller entities or components (units/modules/partial qualifications) to achieve greater
flexibility. At the same time they seem to strengthen the focus on high quality ‘full
qualifications‘. Hence there seems to be no uniform answer to the question of how to
modernise VET systems, facilitate flexible pathways, enhance the quality of VET and respond
to the demands of the labour market. Countries make choices depending on traditions and the
demands of key labour market stakeholders. The decision to use units / partial / full
qualifications often stems from the needs of the labour market, and can be sector specific:
Some sectors are against the units / partial qualifications, as it does not fit the specific need of
that sector, others insist on high flexibility. Yet, sometimes it seems that the same goals can
be achieved in different ways.
For instance, the German VET system – with full back-up of the social partners - sticks to full
qualifications, as the stakeholders strongly believe that full qualifications are the right means
to prepare learners for a fast-changing labour market. The concept of ‘occupational
proficiency’ entails the idea to not only train learners for a job, but qualify them for a career,
and to teach them to ‘learn how to learn’. This is believed to be a strong foundation that helps
skilled workers to adapt quickly to new skills demands.
To address the same problem, other Member States introduce flexible learning pathways that
allow for a quick re-qualification in case skills are outdated or certain are not required anymore
in the region. Yet, these Member States don’t advocate short or reduced training opportunities
that provide only basic skills or very specialised skills required by specific employers. In many
modularised systems – e.g. LV, PL, SE – a qualification consists of a compulsory foundation
phase during which learners acquire basic sectoral or professional skills. Modules and units
are an opportunity to flexibly build on these basic skills and accumulate additional skills with
additional modules.
The following key points may be interesting for further discussion about the portability of units
and modules.
13 According to information gained at the PLA. 14 According to information gained at the PLA. 15 Cedefop Inventory on the validation of non-formal and informal learning – Country report UK (EN and NI). https://cumulus.cedefop.europa.eu/files/vetelib/2014/87068_LV.pdf
13
■ Countries are finding it challenging to transfer entire units. Some are crediting learning
outcomes instead. ECVET however suggests that transfer should take place on the level
of units. Mobility projects have addressed this issue by agreeing specific ‘mobility units’ for
mobility projects. However in lifelong learning this will hardly be possible, given the number
of institutions involved, and the variety of individual learning pathways. What does that
mean for the ECVET concept of units and their portability?
■ Clear and common standards in formulating learning outcomes, which are followed by all
stakeholders involved, facilitate the transferability. How can that be achieved?
■ Learners and institutions are often not fully aware about the possibilities for credit transfer.
How can this be better promoted, to ensure that everyone has better access to
information?
■ Terminology issues persist. The terms modules and units are often not very clearly
differentiated and used interchangeably.
■ Trusted assessment procedures are key to establishing trust between institutions. For
countries introducing changes in the VET system this is a difficult process that takes time.
What experiences are there on how to approach this?
Another point that was repeatedly touched upon during the day was the involvement of labour
market stakeholders in the design, review and update of qualifications, and in the assessment
of learners. This point was in the focus of Day 2 of the PLA.
14
3 Stakeholder involvement
3.1 Sector Expert Councils and Sector Skills Councils in Latvia and the UK
Over the last 10 years, Latvia has worked on improving the quality of the VET-system. The
intention was to develop a way to better respond to the skills needs and formalise stakeholder
involvement. The following steps were taken:
■ 2005-2007: ESF project on developing methodology for quality improvement of VET and
on involvement of the social partners.16
■ 2009: National Conception on Raising Attractiveness of VET and social partner
participation in quality assurance of VET which foresaw the establishment of Sector Expert
Councils (SECs).
■ 2010-2015: ESF project on developing sectoral qualifications framework and improving
quality and effectiveness of VET –12 SECs were created and participated in activities.
The amendments to the Vocational education law (January 2015) stipulate that it is the goal
of SECs to ‘promote VET effectiveness and quality of VET by promoting cooperation between
state institutions, municipalities, employers and their organisations, trade unions,
professionals to deal with human resource development issues and compliance of VET to
labour market needs’.17
The Latvian Sector Expert Councils18 consist of employer representatives and sectoral
organisations, trade unions and government representatives. A total of 12 SECs have been
created who see themselves as regulators between labour market needs and training
organisations. They promote modern, forward-looking vocational education through a clear
and transparent system of Occupational Standards; and want to be the leading partner in
promoting cooperation between employers, employees, education institutions and public
institutions.19
The role of SECs is to contribute to raising the effectiveness and quality of VET by promoting
social partners’, VET providers and sectoral organisations’ cooperation in development of VET
that corresponds and is continuously updated to meet the labour market needs. SEC have
legal status, and their remit is to:
■ propose the numbers of students to be trained in particular VET programmes;
■ participate in the VET network development and planning of programmes, development of
sector qualifications structure;
■ propose sector experts for the development of occupational standards, qualification
demands, content of the VET programmes and the qualification exams;
■ appoint experts for the licensing and accreditation of VET programmes and participating
in qualification exams;
■ coordinate and promote the co-operation of employers with VET institutions (including co-
operation in work-based learning and training and qualification practice), and;
■ address demand/supply-related issues of sector specialists in the labour market.
In the years since their establishment, the SECs initiated 14 research reports on sectors, and
helped to prepare 14 Sectoral qualification frameworks, 61 Occupational Standards, 19
Qualification Requirements, and 56 VET modules-based programmes.
1616 Valaine et al., Methodological Recommendations for the Development of Modular VET Programmes, developed by a NCE Working Group, funded by the ESF, 2015. http://visc.gov.lv/profizglitiba/dokumenti/metmat/metiet_modul_progr_izstr_2015.pdf 17 Latvian Vocational Education Law in 2015, amendments (Article 12) 18 http://www.nozaruekspertupadomes.lv/nozaru-ekspertu-padomes 19 Cf presentation given by Anita Lice, LDKK Latvia, at the PLA.
15
Experiences with Sector Skills Councils also exist in the UK. Sector Skills Councils or
Standards Setting Organisations are responsible for the development of National
Occupational Standards (NOS), which are ‘statements of the standards of performance
individuals must achieve when carrying out functions in the workplace, together with
specifications of the underpinning knowledge and understanding’20.
The framework of the National Occupational Standards gives VET providers the liberty to work
closely together with employers to develop specific programmes tailored to their needs.
Experiences show that employer engagement has a significant impact to programme success.
VET providers participate in employer led forums and discussions to be able to develop
bespoke units and modules that are tailored to what the local labour market want. However,
new qualifications have to go through a rigorous assessment by panels formed of relevant
stakeholders in the sector. In a next step, they go to the awarding body. There must be a
strong business case to justify why a new qualification should be developed.
Moreover, VET providers train industry representatives to participate in the provision of
vocational programmes offered as apprenticeships or including a large WBL part.
3.2 Stakeholder involvement in qualification design, validation and assessment
The country cases presented at the PLA represent similar forms of sectoral engagement in
qualification design. In Latvia, Sector Expert Councils were established and integrated in the
law. Another form of stakeholder engagement in Latvia are regional councils. Besides Sector
expert councils, the new law from 2015 also establishes regional conventions that involve local
governments, VET-providers, and local employers, representing the local business needs.
This has been established as Latvia is aware that local skills needs may be very specific as
they differ from the national forecast of the Ministry of Economics.
In the UK, the qualification system has two legs: One for formal education, where qualifications
are designed by the National Institute for Education. Learning outcomes are 50-70 %
compulsory for all providers and 30%-50% depending on local needs. The other leg regards
CVET and adult education. Sectors Skills Councils define qualifications and assessment
standards, and form boards for assessment. These boards include employers, teachers,
anybody who meets the required criteria.
Obviously, VET providers are strongly engaged in training delivery and assessment. The
extent to which VET providers are involved in qualification design differs across Europe. For
instance, in DK, ES, FI, LV, NL, and PT, VET providers are very actively involved and can, for
instance, collaborate with social partners to design new qualifications based on local needs.
In other countries (e.g. CY, EL, HU), they are just implementers and do not take part in the
decision-making process. There is evidence that a closer involvement of stakeholders in
qualification design enhances the effectiveness of VET systems, as it helps to create links with
industry, to strengthen mutual respect and to improve understanding of the learning outcomes.
A close involvement of VET-providers is even more important in a learning-outcomes based
approach, as this has an influence on the delivery of VET-courses and qualifications. It
changes the pedagogy and the mentality of teachers. Teachers who are used to work with
input based approaches need to ‘turn everything around’ – instead of thinking of curricular
content they need to think about what is required to achieve the learning outcomes, and only
then think about how to organise it, and put in time lines. In Finland, VET-providers and
teachers were very strong advocates for the competence-based approach and for working
with units of learning outcomes, as their teaching practice showed that this approach is more
effective.
Engagement of employers in training (work-based learning - WBL) can be a challenge in
countries that have no tradition for that. In Latvia, for instance, employers often see a practical
20 See: http://nos.ukces.org.uk/Pages/index.aspx
16
engagement in the delivery of training and assessment as a burden. Experience shows that
only those with a high long-term need of skilled workers will engage. This is for a part due to
the fact that staff members have no experience in training young people. Latvia is currently
piloting ‘train the trainer’ courses to address these needs. However this requires an investment
of staff working time by the employer, and there is no agreement with employer organisations
yet on how much time would appropriate.
In countries with a strong tradition of delivering VET in the form of WBL at the work place (e.g.
apprenticeships), labour market stakeholders are usually also involved in the development of
assessment criteria, and in assessment. Many employers are directly involved in the
assessment of their trainees, and assessment happens at the work place. This however may
be validated by an external assessor. For instance in the UK, an external assessor – a teacher
from another institution – acts as an impartial validator.
In other countries assessment is carried out (or validated) by a panel or an independent body.
In Finland, as per law, all assessment happens at the work place, though work demonstrations.
Assessment is done by a committee that includes the VET provider, a company representative
and the learner him/herself.
3.3 Stakeholder involvement in review and update of qualifications
The country cases discussed show that all VET systems have regulations in place for
systematically reviewing and updating the content of qualifications and for including labour
market stakeholders in this process. Their approaches differ, however, in how this process is
organised and how frequently it is carried out.
In Finland, for example, learning outcomes are evaluated and review takes place
approximately every five years. This process is led by the Finish National Board of Education
who organises groups of experts with labour market stakeholders. Research on labour market
needs is also taken into account. The whole process takes about one year.
A unitised system can support close cooperation between training providers and companies.
For example, in the UK, colleges ask employers which units out of e.g. 40 that a qualification
consists of they want them to deliver. Thus, they have a good understanding of the (changing)
needs at the labour market. In case there is a need to include changes in the qualification, a
‘business case’ has to be prepared that needs to be approved by the responsible awarding
body based on a rigorous assessment by panels formed of relevant stakeholders in the sector.
In Germany, the review and updating takes about eight months. It is initiated by a request from
industry/sectoral stakeholders and the responsible ministry commissions the Federal Institute
for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB) to address this request. First, a decision has to
be made whether a new profession has to be introduced or whether an existing one should be
updated. Employer representatives and trade unions as well as VET providers are always
involved in this process.
In some countries, Sector Skills Councils or similar organisations have been established for
organising review and update of qualifications (e.g. in CZ, LV, PL). In the Czech Republic, for
example, qualifications are renewed every four years. Working groups are established for
carrying out this process which are composed of VET providers, employer and employee
representatives.
Challenges discussed in this context include:
■ Stakeholder engagement: Some countries have a long tradition in involving stakeholders
in designing and renewing qualifications whereas in other countries (e.g. PL), it seems to
be challenging to involve employers in these processes.
■ Time frame: Although small changes in qualifications can usually be accommodated at
local level and without elaborated renewal processes, employer sometimes express their
17
concern that processes for reviewing and updating qualifications take such a long time that
in a period of 1.5-2 years these qualifications are already outdated again.
3.4 Conclusions and points for further discussion
Stakeholder involvement is a necessity to ensure VET system respond adequately to the
needs of the labour market. This is true for all forms – modularised systems as well as holistic
systems. The Latvian case shows that the involvement of all stakeholders – social partners
and VET providers, but also the learners - is necessary to ensure effective modularisation.
As regards modularisation, from the view of the industry this may be an attractive way to short-
term secure skills demands, while ‘full qualifications’ may take too long to be responsive.
Education and training stakeholders may however think differently. For instance, they may be
interested to reference a VET qualification to the National Framework at a specific level, to
ensure a learner can progress to the next level, or to Higher Education. This may require that
the programmes includes more learning outcomes than those needed to match the industry’s
skills demand, or learning outcomes related to general education.
To ensure best chances for the learner – in a short-term and a long-term perspective -
countries’ stakeholder involvement strategies need to be structured in a way that balances
between these demands. Sector Skills Councils or Sector Expert Councils that include a broad
variety of stakeholders seem to be a successful way to address this. In other countries, good
experiences have been made with forms of tripartite arrangements that include state
representatives, social partners and education providers.
A balance between decision-making on national and regional/local level also seems to be
useful to ensure that you people develop the skills that are in demand by industry in their direct
environment.
18
4 What follows for ECVET? Points for further discussion
Education and training systems that work traditionally with units and modules are better
prepared to introduce ECVET compatible processes than systems which traditionally place a
higher value on full qualifications. In fact, units of learning outcomes are a central concept of
ECVET and their existence is a necessary precondition to work with ECVET, as units and
modules are the basis for validation and recognition. Hence, units are seen as a necessary
precondition to facilitate transfer and accumulation, not as an end in itself. Yet, from the point
of view of labour market stakeholders, units and modules are often seen as a means to ensure
more flexible responses to specific skills demands of the industry.
The PLA has shown that there is no obvious breakdown between modular systems and holistic
systems. Across countries, there seems to be a consensus that qualifications are made up by
different components, regardless of the terminology used (basic components, units, modules,
etc.). While the portability of qualification components seems to be more obvious in unitised
systems, holistic systems have also developed methods of internal transfer of credit (usually
expressed in shortening the training programme).
In all types of systems, governments, labour market stakeholder and VET providers in all
European countries seem to be working together to ensure high quality open and flexible VET
pathways that respond to the needs of the labour market. However, there are differences
regarding the structure and extent of this cooperation.
The following points provide food for thought for the further development of ECVET:
■ The country cases have confirmed that the modular and holistic approach are largely
theoretical extremes, with national experiences at different points in the continuum, and
often hard to pinpoint. Credit can be given in form of recognised training time or in form of
points related to a unit/module. However, the competences achieved by the learner are in
the focus in both cases.
■ Unitised systems usually foresee ways of accumulating units to ultimately achieve a full
qualification. In many countries, this includes arrangements for the validation of non-formal
and informal learning – especially in CVET and Adult Education.
■ Transfer of units between qualifications or learning pathways is less common. Where
arrangements are in place (e.g. in Finland), awarding bodies look at learners’
achievements on the level of learning outcomes, not on the level of units, as this enhances
options of transferability.
■ To organise VET qualifications as composed of units of learning outcomes it is necessary
to take into account the whole picture - provision, assessment, validation arrangements,
etc. Stakeholders should be included at all stages – from (re-)designing qualifications to
validation and recognition.
■ Stakeholder collaboration is needed to ensure clear and common standards in writing
outcomes. This is in the interest of learners as common standards enhance the chances
on transferability of learning outcomes and/or units.
■ Mutual trust is key, especially where assessment standards are concerned. ECVET
foresees arrangements (Memorandum of Understanding) to agree on practices for
validation of learning outcomes assessed by another institution on a higher level. This is a
precondition for recognition. Having such agreements in place on sectoral level (e.g.
arranged by Sector Skills Councils) would enhance the learners’ chances for the transfer
of learning outcomes from one learning context to another.
20
Annex 1 Agenda to the PLA
Peer Learning Activity ‘Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications’, 26–27 May 2016, Riga’
Time Agenda Item
Day 1: 26 May 2016
8:30 - 9.00 Welcome Coffee and Registration
9:00 – 9.20 Welcome address European Commission, DG EMPL
Welcome address host country
Līga Lejiņa, State Secretary, Ministry of Education and Science, Latvia (tbc)
9.20 – 9.40 Introduction to the PLA
Anette Curth, ECVET Secretariat
Topic 1: Design of units, partial qualifications and full qualifications to meet labour market demands
9.40 – 10.00 ‘Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications’:
An overview on different systems and solutions across Europe
Karin Luomi-Messerer, ECVET Secretariat
10.30 – 11.10 Presentation of host country practice I:
Revising VET curricula through modularisation to meet labour market needs
Janis Gaigals, National Centre for Education, Latvia, Deputy Head of VET
Q&A
11.10 – 11.30 Coffee Break
11.30 – 12.15 Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications – presentation of experiences from
visiting countries
Wolfgang Kreher, Representation of the State of Hessen to the EU in Brussels, Isabelle Le
Mouillour, BIBB, Germany
Hanna Autere, Finnish National Board of Education, Finland
Wojciech Stęchły, Educational Research Institute, Poland
12.15 – 12.45 Plenary discussion
How and why do countries decide on units, partial qualifications and/or full qualifications to meet
labour market demands
12.45 - 13.30 Lunch
Topic 2: Implementation of a modularised system: How VET providers adapt
13.30 – 14.30 Transfer to Ogre Technical School
14.30 – 14.45 Welcome at Ogre Technical school
14.45 – 15.15 Using modules in VET qualifications at Ogre Technical School:
How it works in practice
Ilze Brante, Director, Ogre Technical School
Q&A
15.15 – 16.00 Panel discussion with representatives of Ogre Technical School and the regional
economy
School management, teachers, students, regional employers
Facilitated by Dr Stylianos Mavromoustakos, EFVET
21
Time Agenda Item
16.00 – 16.30 Coffee Break
16.30 – 17.30 Workshop discussions
Workshop 1: How to ensure transfer and accumulation of modules and units in a modularised
system?
Workshop 2: How to enhance possibilities of accumulating units/partial qualifications in a
system that focuses on full qualifications?
17.30 – 18.30 Transfer back to Riga
As of 18.30 End of Day 1 official programme
20.00 Evening Dinner
Day 2: 27 May 2016
9:00 - 9.30 Welcome Coffee and Registration
Topic 3: The role of sector councils and occupational standards
9.30 – 10.00 Presentation of host country practice II:
Sector Expert Councils (SEC) and their role in developing occupational standards in
Latvia
Anita Līce, Employers' Confederation of Latvia (LDDK)
Q&A
10.00 – 10.45 Engagement of Labour Market stakeholders in qualification design and update -
experiences from visiting countries:
Eva Ekstedt Salzmann, The Swedish National Agency for Education, Sweden
Philip Whitney, National ECVET Expert, UK
10.45 – 11.10 Coffee Break
11.10 – 12.00
Workshop discussions
Workshop 1: How can social partners, VET providers and/or qualification designers collaborate
on qualification design and defining assessment criteria?
Workshop 2: How and to what extent should social partners VET providers and/or qualification
designers be involved in review and update of qualifications?
12.00 – 12.15 Key learning points from the meeting
Helene Hamers, Cedefop
Pavel Hradecky, University of Chemistry and Technology Prague, Czech Republic
Siobhán Magee, Further Education Support Service, Ireland
12.15 – 12.45 What follows?
Overall conclusions and next steps
Facilitated by ECVET Secretariat
12:45 - 13:00 Closing remarks
Host country representative (Latvia)
European Commission (DG EMPL)
13.00 – 14.00 Lunch
14.00 Departure of participants