Bologna process - Stocktaking and prospects

ACA’s German member – DAAD – together with the ACA Secretariat in Brussels produced an information note for the European Parliament (EP) on the main achievements, implementation status and future prospects of the Bologna Process. The note is based on the most recent Bologna evaluations and stocktaking reports (2009 and 2010) as well as on the authors’ expertise in Bologna-related issues, and was published on the EP website this month.
The 48-page document gives a general overview of the topics, developments and trends within the Bologna Process since the signing of the Sorbonne Declaration in 1998. It also provides analysis of the progress made with respect to the Bologna reforms, and identifies achievements and future challenges within the main Bologna action areas: degree and curricular reform, mobility, recognition of qualifications and lifelong learning, employability, social dimension, quality assurance, qualifications frameworks, linking the EHEA and ERA, and the external dimension. Overall, the report finds that good progress has been made in many of these fields, but further concerted action is needed in order to fully reach the Bologna goals by the end of this decade. Last but not least, the authors formulate a number of recommendations addressed to the EP, which outline concrete steps that could be taken to contribute to the achievement of the Bologna objectives. Download the note of Aca-Daad Bologna process - Stocktaking and prospects.
Abstract
The Bologna Process has led to fundamental changes in higher education across Europe. The launch of the EHEA in 2010 marked an important milestone on the way to an open area of higher learning with greater compatibility and comparability as well as increased international attractiveness and competitiveness of the European higher education systems. Good progress has been made in many fields, but much remains to be done in order to ensure full achievement of all Bologna goals in the next decade...
2.2.3. Recognition of Qualifications and Lifelong Learning
History
The importance of recognition for the emergence of an EHEA was already emphasised by the Sorbonne Declaration (1998). It was envisaged to improve international transparency of courses and ensure recognition of qualifications through gradual convergence towards a common framework of qualifications and cycles of study. The main recognition instrument and the only legally binding text is the Lisbon Recognition Convention of the Council of Europe/UNESCO (1997). The process of increasing transparency and improving recognition is facilitated by the ENIC and NARIC centres. Other recognition tools are the Diploma Supplement, ECTS and the QF EHEA. According to the Bergen Communiqué (2005) appropriate recognition procedures should create opportunities for flexible learning paths in higher education, including procedures for recognition of prior learning, and thus further embed lifelong learning in higher education.
Achievements and future challenges
According to the Stocktaking Report, the Diploma Supplement (DS) has been fully introduced in over half the Bologna countries (Rauhvargers, Deane & Pauwels 2009, p. 67). This means it is provided to all graduates automatically, free of charge and in a widely spoken European language (usually English). In the remaining countries the DS is either issued only on request or for a fee. In two countries the DS is not yet systematically issued (ibid.). Provision of the DS varies among student groups. While almost all countries issue the DS to holders of BA and MA degrees, fewer than two thirds of the countries issue the DS to doctoral candidates. In addition, in seven countries the DS is not issued to graduates of traditional degree programmes, while in four countries it is not issued to graduates of “short Bachelor” programmes (Rauhvargers, Deane & Pauwels 2009, p. 68).
In many cases, higher education institutions demand further reference documents in addition to the DS. This is mainly due to the fact that not enough graduates currently hold a DS. Thus it is apparent that awareness of the existence and utility of the DS must be increased further among students, higher education institutions and employers. Currently, there exists only limited information on whether and how the DS is used by these groups (Sursock & Smidt 2010, p. 56). Therefore appropriate monitoring procedures must be introduced in all countries. In addition, it is important to promote the usage of the DS according to the EU/CoE/UNESCO standards within the Bologna countries. In this respect, Sursock & Smidt (2010, p. 55) also report that the DS often varies in content, structure and layout, which minimises the quality of the document. The Europass framework should continue to be used for promoting the DS (Rauhvargers, Deane & Pauwels 2009, p. 70).
The Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC) has been ratified by almost all countries; however, its country-specific implementation differs widely (CHEPS, INCHER & ECOTEC 2010, p. 44). By January 2011, 46 Bologna signatory states have ratified the LRC. Only Greece has so far taken no steps at all in this regard. Despite these achievements the compatibility of national legislation with the LRC needs to be developed further in the Bologna countries. The ratification of the LRC cannot be equated with a uniform implementation of the LRC principles and subsidiary texts. Rather, interpretation of the LRC principles, terminology and recognition procedures diverge significantly (CHEPS, INCHER & ECOTEC 2010, p. 44). Regarding the application of the LRC principles, it is therefore necessary to find a shared language and uniform standards of implementation. Particular attention in this context must be given to the definition and interpretation of “substantial differences”, which differ greatly across the Bologna countries (ibid., p. 46). A prerequisite for this is that universities understand the transfer of the LRC principles and subsidiary texts into higher education law not as a threat to their autonomy but as an opportunity to strengthen their international profile.
All countries currently apply ECTS or a compatible system (EACEA/Eurydice 2010, p. 21).
Differences however exist in the procedures, the purposes for which credit points are awarded and the basis on which they are transferred. Full implementation of ECTS will be achieved when at least 75% of institutions and degree programmes use credit points to transfer and accumulate academic achievement, and implement them based on student workload and learning outcomes (ibid.). Recent research (CHEPS, INCHER & ECOTEC (2010)) shows that only 12 countries meet these requirements. 22 countries either evaluate only student workload (participation in attendance lectures) or learning outcomes; 13 other countries employ neither of these two concepts (see Annex fig. 2).
The extent to which credit points are awarded in doctoral programmes varies widely. No comparable indicators currently exist; therefore the evaluation reports make only general comments in this regard. In some countries, credit points are already awarded across all doctoral programmes, in some only for taught courses and in others not at all (Rauhvargers, Deane & Pauwels 2009, p. 48). The number of credit points awarded is regulated at institutional level.
An appropriate representation of formally acquired qualifications in the form of ECTS can only be achieved by awarding credit points based on learning outcomes. The EU’s ECTS Users’ Guide provides instructions on how to do this, and the EU Tuning project offers recommendations for practical implementation. Nevertheless, significant challenges remain, particularly regarding the proper linkage of credits with learning outcomes (Sursock & Smidt 2010, p. 55). Better interlinking would also increase the value of the DS and could contribute to achievements gained abroad being more easily recognised by students’ home institutions.
Only a few countries have a well established system for recognition of prior learning (RPL), including non-formal and informal qualifications acquired before entering a higher education programme. According to Rauhvargers, Deane & Pauwels (2009, p. 82), no significant progress has been made in this field compared to 2007. The use and prevalence of procedures for recognising prior learning has different traditions across the EHEA. In almost two thirds of the countries these qualifications are counted towards admission requirements for university degree programmes, while 25 countries recognise them in the form of exemption from certain requirements within study programmes. In 22 countries prior learning is translated into credit points (ibid.). RPL is in many cases at the discretion of the higher education institutions, and it is left to individuals to ask for recognition of their previous achievements.
RPL is only one aspect of lifelong learning (LLL).
According to the BFUG Coordinating Group on Lifelong Learning a number of activities have taken place to promote better understanding of LLL in higher education since 2007. The group also stated that considerable progress has been made towards increasing the understanding of LLL in higher education contexts. However, much remains to be done before LLL becomes a full reality in higher education systems across the EHEA. Moreover, there is a need for a Europe-wide accepted definition of the LLL concept as well as for comprehensive and reliable data, especially on funding of LLL (EACEA/Eurydice 2010, p. 34). Perhaps EUA’s European Universities’ Charter on LLL and future projects of EU’s LLL programme will contribute to make progress in this area. More...