ENQA, in cooperation with FHR - Fachhochschulrat, is organising a workshop on quality assurance and learning outcomes which will be held on 9-10 September 2010 in Vienna, Austria.
Learning outcomes are described as written statements of what a learner is expected to know, understand and/or be able to do at the end of a period of learning. At the beginning of the 90s, a EU pilot project on ECTS showed that study programmes were much easier to compare if they were described in terms of outcomes, instead of inputs. Learning outcomes started to gain importance at policy level and have been then supported by the development of national qualifications frameworks (Berlin Communiqué), the adoption of the ESG, the overarching outcomes-focused Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (FQEHEA) (Bergen Communiqué) and the European Qualifications Frameworks for Lifelong Learning. The ESG and Qualifications Frameworks are having an increasing influence on quality assurance procedures.
The results of an ENQA survey on quality procedures of quality assurance agencies across Europe and beyond (2008) witnessed the education’s shift from a teaching to a learning focus and the methods of agencies are more and more based on learning outcomes. This survey revealed that learning outcomes only start to be addressed in external QA at programme and institutional level procedures.
QA agencies cannot ignore student centered learning and learning outcomes, which are part of the Bologna reform agenda. The importance of learning outcomes will increase for several reasons. Firstly, learning outcomes make qualifications more transparent for students. Then, the range of graduates is becoming wider and thanks to learning outcomes, employers may have a better understanding of the acquired knowledge, skills and competences in order to recruit the most suitable candidate. Learning outcomes benefit for quality assurance as they increase transparency and comparability between qualifications standards. Learning outcomes are also valuable in terms of course design.
Naturally, objections have also been expressed with regard to student-centred learning and learning outcomes. They mainly question the focus on the individual learner, the difficulties in the formulation and implementation, and the inappropriate approach to higher education and academic study.
The workshop will address the question of what stakeholders expect from quality assurance agencies in connection with learning outcome orientation. The opportunities and challenges of the learning outcome orientation in the higher education sector will be discussed from different perspectives. The workshop will try to define the role that learning outcomes should play in external quality assurance and how they can or should be considered within the scope of external quality assurance.
Background/motives, opportunities and challenges of the shift towards “learning outcomes” and the possible impact on quality assurance agencies.
The programme is available here:
The Students’ Perspective: Pros and cons of “learning outcomes”. Expectations towards quality assurance agencies.
Perspective of the higher education institutions: Challenges of “learning outcome orientation” for quality assurance of higher education institutions. Interaction between internal and external quality assurance.
Perspective of the business world/employers: What is expected from the higher education institutions and quality assurance agencies?

„Inclusion through Education and Culture”
Joint Conference of the The University Network  of the European Capitals of Culture and the Compostela Group of Universities.
14-15 October 2010
University of Pécs
Pécs, European Capital of Culture 2010.
Programme.
The University Network of the European Capitals of Culture (UNeECC), an international non-profit association, was founded in Pécs Hungary in December 2006, by 15 founding members. The creation of UNeECC originates from the idea that it would be useful for Universities and establishments of Higher Education based in European Capitals of Culture to use this well known and prestigious European institution to stimulate new forms of academic and educational institutional collaboration.
The Compostela Group of Universities (CGU) is a large, prominent, open and inclusive non-profit worldwide network whose overarching goal is to facilitate and promote cooperation in Higher Education, in both the public and private sectors. It achieves this by acting as platform to foster and support projects among its members as well as by participating in activities as an entity in its own right. 

Actuellement, en France, les niveaux de formation sont déterminés par la nomenclature approuvée par décision, du 21 mars 1969, du groupe permanent de la formation professionnelle et de la promotion sociale, le 21 mars 1969, nomenclature fixée par les travaux de la Commission statistique nationale de la formation professionnelle et de la promotion sociale. Cette dernière s'appuyait sur la circulaire n°II-67-300 du 11 juillet 1967 qui venait chambouler le classement de la circulaire du 22-12-1959. Elle sera modifiée par la circulaire n°91-031 du 13 février 1991. Le classement de 1959 partait du niveau le plus bas, le niveau I, pour arriver au niveau le plus élevé, le niveau V, qui correspondait à l'Enseignement supérieur. Le classement de 1967 partait du niveau le plus bas, le niveau VI, pour arriver au niveau I. La circulaire de 1991 a simplifié l'ensemble en réduisant l'ensemble à seulement 5 niveaux: Niveau V: niveau brevet des collèges; Niveau IV: niveau baccalauréat; Niveau III: niveau bac + 2; Niveau II: niveau bac + 3 ou bac + 4; Niveau I: niveau au moins égal à bac + 5.

Niveau V: Personnel occupant des emplois exigeant normalement un niveau de formation équivalent à celui du brevet d'études professionnelles (BEP) ou du certificat d'aptitude professionnelle (CAP), et par assimilation, du certificat de formation professionnelle des adultes (CFPA) du premier degré. Ce niveau correspond à une qualification complète pour l'exercice d'une activité bien déterminée avec la capacité d'utiliser les instruments et les techniques qui s'y rapportent. Cette activité concerne principalement un travail d'exécution qui peut être autonome dans la limite des techniques qui y sont afférentes.
Niveau IV: Personnel occupant des emplois de maîtrise ou d'ouvrier hautement qualifié et pouvant attester d'un niveau de formation équivalent à celui du brevet professionnel (BP), du brevet de technicien (BT), du baccalauréat professionnel ou du baccalauréat technologique. Une qualification de niveau IV implique davantage de connaissances théoriques que le niveau précédent. Cette activité concerne principalement un travail technique qui peut être exécuté de façon autonome et/ou comporter des responsabilités d'encadrement (maîtrise) et de coordination.
Niveau III: Personnel occupant des emplois qui exigent normalement des formations du niveau du diplôme des Instituts Universitaires de Technologie (DUT) ou du brevet de technicien supérieur (BTS) ou de fin de premier cycle de l'enseignement supérieur. La qualification de niveau III correspond à des connaissances et des capacités de niveau supérieur sans toutefois comporter la maîtrise des fondements scientifiques des domaines concernés. Les capacités et connaissances requises permettent d'assurer de façon autonome ou indépendante des responsabilités de conception et/ou d'encadrement et/ou de gestion.
Niveau II: Personnel occupant des emplois exigeant normalement une formation d'un niveau comparable à celui de la licence ou de la maîtrise. A ce niveau, l'exercice d'une activité professionnelle salariée ou indépendante implique la maîtrise des fondements scientifiques de la profession, conduisant généralement à l'autonomie dans l'exercice de cette activité.
Niveau I: Personnel occupant des emplois exigeant normalement une formation de niveau supérieur à celui de la maîtrise. En plus d'une connaissance affirmée des fondements scientifiques d'une activité professionnelle, une qualification de niveau I nécessite la maîtrise de processus de conception ou de recherche.
L'Europe a défini 8 niveaux pour le European Qualifications Framework (EQF). Ils vont du niveau le plus bas, le niveau 1, au niveau le plus haut, le niveau 8. Les niveaux 1 à 4 relèvent du secondaire, les niveaux 5 à 8 de l'Enseignement supérieur.La progression est donc inverse de celle du système français. Le système français ne reconnaît toujours pas le doctorat comme un niveau de qualification. Le doctorat est encore complètement inconnu dans les grilles salariales hexagonales. Le système européen correspond en fait aux niveaux définis par la circulaire du 22-12-1959, simplement le niveau V s'est décomposé en quatre niveaux permettant d'intégrer le LMD.
Voici l'EQF: Level 1 The learning outcomes relevant to Level 1 are: basic general knowledge, basic skills required to carry out simple tasks, work or study under direct supervision in a structured context.
Level 2: The learning outcomes relevant to Level 2 are: basic factual knowledge of a field of work or study, basic cognitive and practical skills required to use relevant information in order to carry out tasks and to solve routine problems using simple rules and tools, work or study under supervision with some autonomy.
Level 3: The learning outcomes relevant to Level 3 are: knowledge of facts, principles, processes and general concepts, in a field of work or study, a range of cognitive and practical skills required to accomplish tasks and solve problems by selecting and applying basic methods, tools, materials and information, take responsibility for completion of tasks in work or study, adapt own behaviour to circumstances in solving problems.
Level 4: The learning outcomes relevant to Level 4 are: factual and theoretical knowledge in broad contexts within a field of work or study, a range of cognitive and practical skills required to generate solutions to specific problems in a field of work or study, exercise self-management within the guidelines of work or study contexts that are usually predictable, but are subject to change, supervise the routine work of others, taking some responsibility for the evaluation and improvement of work or study activities.
Level 5*: The learning outcomes relevant to Level 5 are: comprehensive, specialised, factual and theoretical knowledge within a field of work or study and an awareness of the boundaries of that knowledge, a comprehensive range of cognitive and practical skills required to develop creative solutions to abstract problems, exercise management and supervision in contexts of work or study activities where there is unpredictable change, review and develop performance of self and others.
Level 6**: The learning outcomes relevant to Level 6 are: advanced knowledge of a field of work or study, involving a critical understanding of theories and principles, advanced skills, demonstrating mastery and innovation, required to solve complex and unpredictable problems in a specialised field of work or study, manage complex technical or professional activities or projects, taking responsibility for decision-making in unpredictable work or study contexts, take responsibility for managing professional development of individuals and groups.
Level 7***: The learning outcomes relevant to Level 7 are: highly specialised knowledge, some of which is at the forefront of knowledge in a field of work or study, as the basis for original thinking and/or research, critical awareness of knowledge issues in a field and at the interface between different fields, specialised problem-solving skills required in research and/or innovation in order to develop new knowledge and procedures and to integrate knowledge from different fields, manage and transform work or study contexts that are complex, unpredictable and require new strategic approaches, take responsibility for contributing to professional knowledge and practice and/or for reviewing the strategic performance of teams.
Level 8****: The learning outcomes relevant to Level 8 are: knowledge at the most advanced frontier of a field of work or study and at the interface between fields, the most advanced and specialised skills and techniques, including synthesis and evaluation, required to solve critical problems in research and/or innovation and to extend and redefine existing knowledge or professional practice, demonstrate substantial authority, innovation, autonomy, scholarly and professional integrity and sustained commitment to the development of new ideas or processes at the forefront of work or study contexts including research.
Compatibility with the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area
* The descriptor for the higher education short cycle (within or linked to the first cycle), developed by the Joint Quality Initiative as part of the Bologna process, corresponds to the learning outcomes for EQF level 5.
** The descriptor for the first cycle in the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area agreed by the ministers responsible for higher education at their meeting in Bergen in May 2005 in the framework of the Bologna process corresponds to the learning outcomes for EQF level 6.
*** The descriptor for the second cycle in the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area agreed by the ministers responsible for higher education at their meeting in Bergen in May 2005 in the framework of the Bologna process corresponds to the learning outcomes for EQF level 7.
**** The descriptor for the third cycle in the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area agreed by the ministers responsible for higher education at their meeting in Bergen in May 2005 in the framework of the Bologna process corresponds to the learning outcomes for EQF level 8.

This study reviews the development of those tools in the context of the Copenhagen and the Bologna processes (ECVET, ECTS, EQF-LLL, EHEA-QF) and across a sample of European and non-European countries (Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Scotland, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, the UK-EWNI (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and the UK-Scotland.
It analyses development initiatives and reforms of credit systems and qualifications frameworks. The articulation between both tools reveals difficulties and opportunities. This analysis leads to grounded insights in the functioning of credits systems and qualifications frameworks concerning learning pathways (transfer and progression), governance of education and training systems, and qualifications policies, especially qualification designs and awarding procedures.
This international comparative study invites debate on possible futures for European tools within the European education area. Dowload Linking credit systems and qualifications frameworks.
In France, the qualifications not awarded by any of the competent ministries have to ‘qualify for a profession’, i.e. be recognised in the labour market, and this needs to be supported by data on graduate labour market entry. Other criteria concern aspects such as the way qualifications have to be described, the way they are accessed (to be accessible through validation of non-formal and informal learning).
The existing French structure of five levels is currently being reconsidered under the influence of the EQF development. It is possible that France could evolve towards an eight levels framework, in line with the EQF eight levels. The current lowest qualifications in the national register would correspond to level 3 of EQF, so levels one and two of a potential French eight-level NQF would remain empty, or would contain no qualifications from the formal system. However, certificates (not considered as qualifications in the French system) exist at those levels and are likely to use the reference to them.

With demographic trends pushing Europe towards an ever-ageing population, active ageing policies are an integral part of the EU’s new Europe 2020 strategy. Making sure people have the right skills and training has a key role in this.


Note:  The Labour Force Survey indicators here express the proportion of people aged either 50-64 or 25-64 that stated they received education or training in the four weeks prior to being surveyed. It is complemented by an indicator from the Adult Education Survey that looks at obstacles to lifelong learning for 55-64 year olds.
Data presented here originate from Eurostat’s Labour Force Survey (EU LFS) and from the Adult Education Survey. They are subject to their methodologies.

TNow available: Final Report of CONFINTEA VI and trilingual version of Belém Framework for Action.
The Sixth International Conference on Adult Education (CONFINTEA VI) was held from 1 to 4 December 2009 in Belém, Brazil, with the participation of over 1,100 delegates, including 55 Ministers and Deputy Ministers from 144 UNESCO Member States. CONFINTEA VI continued a series of global UNESCO meetings on adult education and learning which have been held every 12 years since 1949. The Conference closed with the adoption of the Belém Framework for Action, which records the commitments of Member States and presents a strategic guide for the global development of adult literacy and adult education within the perspective of lifelong learning. The Belém Framework furthermore includes national and international monitoring and accountability mechanisms to ensure the follow-up of commitments. A Final Report was also produced, containing the proceedings of the conference and a verbatim copy of the keynote speeches. Télécharger la version française: Confintea VI final report.

The UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) is an international research, capacity-building and documentation institute based in Hamburg (Germany), with a multicultural staff (35 from 18 countries), and is currently seeking a full-time Project Secretary.
Duties for this post include: - Supporting research staff and the Director in logistical preparations for conferences and seminars held in Hamburg and in other countries, and ensuring their smooth running. - Interacting daily with travel agencies, hotels and meeting participants as well as other internal and external sources and responding to inquiries, or assigning the communication to the appropriate person. - Assisting in all administrative formalities, especially finding accommodation and visa issues as well as providing introductory information to new staff members, fellows and study visitors. - Carrying out secretarial duties and preparing simple correspondence independently; undertaking research and selecting information from pertinent files, records and reports; preparing or summarising abstracts; verifying and correcting correspondence prepared by other staff for format, spelling and grammar; and compiling and carrying out pre-editing of official documents. - Maintaining senior research specialists’ calendars and keeping the main filing system up-to-date.
Your profile: - You will have completed secondary education and high-level vocational education as travel agent/event organisation specialist/secretary/senior office assistant. - You should have competence in the administrative organisation of conferences and similar events gained from at least five years’ experience. - You have good communication and interpersonal skills. - You are familiar with the use of MS-Excel, Word and Outlook Express. - You possess outstanding organisational talent You have a very good command of English (preferably a native speaker) and French and a working knowledge of German.
Terms & conditions: The post is at grade GS 5, common to the United Nations system, with a salary of approximately Euro 35,029 (with dependants) or Euro 34,029 (without dependants) per annum, exempt from direct taxation. In addition, UNESCO offers an attractive benefits package.
Applications, accompanied by full curriculum vitae, references and copies of relevant certificates, must be submitted by 14 September 2010 to the following address: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, Feldbrunnenstrasse 58, 20148 Hamburg, uil-apps@unesco.org.

The National Qualifications Authority of Ireland and the Higher Education Authority organised a conference, as part of the national Bologna Expert programme, entitled:
National Qualifications Frameworks and the European Overarching Frameworks: Supporting Lifelong Learning in European Education and Training on 15 April 2010 in Dublin Castle.
The National Qualifications Authority of Ireland co-hosted this conference with the Higher Education Authority, supported by the Further Education and Training Awards Council, the Higher Education and Training Awards Council and the Irish Universities Quality Board. The conference attracted an international audience of over 150 delegates from countries across the European Union and beyond. The conference aimed to contribute to building mutual trust and understanding in order to better achieve the shared goals of supporting individuals’ lifelong learning and mobility. Download the Conference Report.
The conference heard that the existence of two meta-frameworks gave some potential for confusion and agreed that dissemination of targeted information to key audiences is essential to minimise this. The primacy of National Qualifications Frameworks (NQFs) over the meta-frameworks was stressed. Stakeholders need to engage with the national system and the benefits of the meta-frameworks will follow. If frameworks are to have any effect then NQFs must meet national challenges for the development of education and training systems.
The issues paper highlighted the separation that exists in many countries between those parts of the system that are responsible for NQF development and those engaged in qualifications recognition. It was noted that NQFs never stand alone: they are linked to other instruments of recognition. In order to support recognition and mobility, the importance of closer cooperation between people dealing with recognition and those dealing with NQFs was stressed. Equally, the discussion highlighted the need for learning-outcomes-based NQFs to be underpinned by robust quality assurance and to be referenced to the meta-frameworks in a transparent way in order to build mutual trust between countries.
The conference concluded with a global perspective. Speakers, including those from Australia and the United States, highlighted the benefits of countries learning from each other. Over 100 countries worldwide are in the process of developing NQFs and there are also examples of several transnational (meta-) frameworks. The Bologna and EQF pro-cesses were seen by participants as major influences on the way NQFs are being developed. Further consideration of how European and global developments can be articulated would be beneficial and, indeed, necessary if we are to increase mobility for learners worldwide.

Communiqué de presse. Télécharger des extraits: 1.Les raisons d’une longue absence, 2.La place de la négociation sur l’emploi dans la régulation sociale, 3.Trois négociations interprofessionnelles complémentaires.
Le 31 décembre 1958, un accord national interprofessionnel (ANI) crée des allocations pour les travailleurs sans emploi. Au-delà d’une garantie de revenu, elles doivent satisfaire « l’impérieux besoin de faciliter les orientations et les reclassements nécessaires ». Ainsi dès leur création, l’Unédic et les Assédic sont en charge des questions d’emploi autant que de l’indemnisation du chômage. Cet accord constitue le texte fondateur de la négociation interprofessionnelle sur l’emploi. Cinquante ans plus tard, l’ANI du 7 janvier 2009 sur la formation continue clôt le cycle des négociations multidimensionnelles sur l’emploi qui avaient été programmées par l’ANI du 11 janvier 2008 sur la modernisation du marché du travail.
Extrait sur la formation:
L’évolution a été plus complexe dans ce domaine. Jusqu’aux dernières décennies du XIXe siècle, le mouvement syndical rejette tout aussi radicalement la formation professionnelle assurée par le patronat que celle qui est organisée par les collectivités publiques (Charlot, Figeat, 1985 ; Freyssinet, 1991). Toutes deux sont accusées de combiner un objectif disciplinaire (« former les sous-officiers de l’armée industrielle ») et une stratégie d’expropriation des travailleurs du contrôle de la transmission des qualifications ouvrières.
À l’opposé, les syndicats de métier luttent pour conserver le contrôle de l’apprentissage, complété en cas de besoin par des cours du soir qui sont assurés par leurs membres les plus expérimentés. Le progrès de l’idéologie républicaine infléchit les analyses des syndicats sur la nature de l’appareil d’État. Progressivement, ils se rallient à l’idée qu’une formation professionnelle assurée par l’État constitue une garantie contre l’emprise du patronat. Mais, dans le même temps, probablement sous l’influence des syndicalistes enseignants en leur sein, ils privilégient la formation professionnelle initiale qui doit équiper le travailleur pour toute la durée de sa vie active. La formation professionnelle des adultes est perçue tantôt comme la manifestation des défaillances de la formation initiale, tantôt comme une stratégie visant à diviser la classe ouvrière en stimulant des comportements de promotion individuelle (On trouvera dans David, 1976 (2e partie) une analyse détaillée des positions des différentes confédérations patronales et syndicales sur la formation des travailleurs après la Seconde Guerre mondiale et jusqu’au milieu des années 1970). Certes, il subsiste quelques tentatives pour faire vivre des centres de formation professionnelle gérés par les syndicats, héritages de l’esprit du XIXe siècle, mais, quelle que soit leur valeur symbolique, leur importance quantitative est minime.
De son côté, le patronat a toujours été partagé entre la volonté de contrôler la formation professionnelle pour l’adapter à ses besoins et l’intérêt d’en socialiser le coût en le transférant à l’État. Les options ont varié selon les périodes et surtout selon la taille des entreprises et leurs caractéristiques sectorielles. Dans la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle, s’amorce un mouvement de création d’établissements d’enseignement professionnel, soit à l’initiative directe de grandes entreprises, soit sous la responsabilité d’organisations ou institutions patronales (notamment les Chambres de commerce et d’industrie et les Chambres des métiers). Le champ couvert va des écoles d’apprentissage jusqu’aux écoles d’ingénieurs. Souvent typiques de modèles paternalistes, ces initiatives excluent toute présence des syndicats. Après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, une double évolution se met en place progressivement. D’une part, la fermeture quasi généralisée des centres d’apprentissage d’entreprise amène les entreprises à faire largement appel, pour la formation initiale, à l’Éducation nationale et aux centres de formation d’apprentis, en essayant d’y renforcer leur influence. D’autre part, le succès du concept d’« investissement en formation » les conduit à faire de la formation continue un élément de leur stratégie et donc à l’exclure de toute procédure de négociation. Au total, jusqu’aux années 1960, ni le patronat, ni les syndicats n’envisagent de négociations globales dans ce domaine. À partir de 1963, ils commencent à en faire une expérience indirecte et limitée, à l’échelle des entreprises ou parfois des branches, dans le cadre des conventions du Fonds national de l’emploi (FNE) associées à la gestion des restructurations.