1. RIGA ‘BOLOGNA’ CONFERENCE IMPROVING THE RECOGNITION SYSTEM OF DEGREES AND STUDY CREDIT POINTS IN THE EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA December 3-4 2004 The Impact of Emerging Qualifications frameworks on recognition - Stephen Adam -

2. The Impact of Emerging Qualifications frameworks on recognition 1.Introduction: The Berlin brief 2.National qualifications frameworks and the overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area 3.The relationship between qualifications frameworks and current recognition tools and practices 4.The potential benefits to recognition from qualifications frameworks 5.Problems and issues 6.Concluding thoughts + recommendation

3. Introduction: The Berlin brief ‘Ministers encourage the member States to elaborate a framework of comparable and compatible qualifications for their higher education systems, which should seek to describe qualifications in terms of workload, level, learning outcomes, competences and profile. They also undertake to elaborate an overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area. Within such frameworks, degrees should have different defined outcomes. First and second cycle degrees should have different orientations and various profiles in order to accommodate a diversity of individual, academic and labour market needs. First cycle degrees should give access, in the sense of the Lisbon Recognition Convention, to second cycle programmes. Second cycle degrees should give access to doctoral studies.’ Berlin Communiqué

4. But the future is difficult to foretell: We do not know the outcomes of the seminar in Denmark on 13/14 January 2005. We do not know the reactions of the Ministers in Bergen to the recommendations suggested to them.

5. National qualifications frameworks and the overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area (Requirement: explicit systems that map + explain the relationship and purposes of qualifications) National Qualifications Frameworks (new style) –Employ learning outcomes, levels, qualification descriptors, etc. –Retains ownership pf qualifications –Capable of achieving specific things –Capable of acting as drivers for change – facilitating Overarching framework of qualifications for the EHEA –A framework of frameworks –Articulation mechanism between national frameworks –Provide a common set of cycle descriptors

6. The relationship between qualifications frameworks and current recognition tools and practices 1.How will or might ‘new style’ qualifications frameworks improve recognition? 2.What sort of links exists between credential evaluation, qualifications frameworks and quality assurance and what is their significance? 3.What sort of impact will qualifications frameworks have on the work of the ENIC-NARIC networks and on credential evaluators within institutions? 4.What might be the impact of qualifications frameworks on recognition of specific issues?

7. The potential benefits to recognition from qualifications frameworks improve the transparency of qualifications, make credential evaluation easier (for HEI and other stakeholders) and judgements more accurate; act as a common language/methodological approach that internationally can improve recognition and understanding between educational systems; facilitate the recognition of APEL and lifelong learning between states; simplify our understanding and improve the expression of the curriculum between countries through the use of common reference points; facilitate the application of the Lisbon recognition convention and the code of practice for transitional education providers; ease the pressure of work on the ENIC-NARIC network; make ECTS based on learning outcomes and levels more effective; allow HEIs and credential evaluators to move away from imprecise input measurements to output/outcome measurements.

8. Problems and issues 1.Few countries have new style QFs. 2.The Bologna Process will lead to greater mobility and more recognition problems. 3.ECTS will have to be linked to levels and credits expressed in terms of learning outcomes. 4.QFs and the EQF will take time to implement. New style QFs are no universal panacea:

9. Concluding thoughts + recommendation Huge challenges + opportunities; Potential to increase clarity, accuracy and the fairness of recognition process; Will provide evidence of major differences + increase zones of trust and mistrust! Will help us tackle those hidden recognition difficulties that are so difficult to resolve – the recognition iceberg!

10. THE WORLD OF TRANPARENT FAIR RECGNITION PREJUDICE BIGOTRY DECISIONS BASED ON CUSTOM UNCLEAR REFERENCE POINTS CONFUSING EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS CONFUSING TITLES COMMON TERMS DIFFERENT MEANINGS DEGREE MILLS IGNORANCE XENOPHOBIA INERTIA