08 décembre 2012

The HUMART project

Final Report SQF HUMART SQF Humanities and Arts
The HUMART project is a break through initiative to identify common denominators in the academic sectors/domains of Humanities and the Arts. The project is implemented in the context of the Bologna Process, the creation of one European Qualifications Framework and the subject area reference points developed by Tuning. Furthermore the project seeks to create European wide transparency with regard to the relation between higher education and secondary and vocational education and training. This will allow for improved recognition of formal, informal and non formal learning against clear internationally established reference points.
At present the Higher Education sector is working with the two existing European Qualifications Frameworks.A Qualifications Framework is a common reference framework which links countries' qualifications systems, acting as a translation device to make qualifications more readable and understandable across different countries and systems in Europe. The Tuning HUMART project plans to bridge the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL) and the Qualifications Framework (QF) for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) at the level of academic sectors/domains.
A sector or domain is understood here as a combination of related fields of study which is based on more or less comparable learning profiles. Point of departure in this exercise are the reference points at subject area level as developed in the Tuning projects. The HUMART project seeks to develop a credit based sectoral qualifications framework to cover the levels 3 to 8 of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL). The work will build on a comparable project for the field of Social Sciences which has been completed in the year 2010.
HUMART outcomes
The outcomes of the SQF Humanities and Arts (HUMART) project are now available on the website. You are welcome to comment on the documents. Download SQF HUMART Final Report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The HUMART project is a break through initiative to identify common denominators in the academic sectors/domains of Humanities and the Arts. The project has been implemented in the context of the Bologna Process, the creation of a European Qualifications Framework and the subject area reference points developed by Tuning. Furthermore the project has sought to create European wide transparency with regard to the relation between higher education and secondary and vocational education and training. This should facilitate recognition of formal, informal and non- formal learning against clear internationally established reference points and descriptors. At present the Higher Education sector is working with the two existing European Qualifications Frameworks. A Qualifications Framework is a common reference framework which links countries' qualifications systems, acting as a translation device to make qualifications more readable and understandable across different countries and systems in Europe. The Tuning HUMART project has focused on the development of Sectoral Qualifications Frameworks for the Humanities and for the Performing and Creative Disciplines. These frameworks should help in the bridging of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL) and the Qualifications Framework (QF) for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) at the level of academic sectors/domains.
A sector or domain is understood here as a combination of related fields of study which is based on more or less comparable learning profiles. The HUMART project has sought to develop a credit based Sectoral Qualifications Framework to cover the levels 4 to 8 of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL). The work has built on a comparable project for the field of Social Sciences which was completed in the year 2010.
The objectives and outcomes of the SQF HUMART for Humanities and Arts have been established by using the strategy of reflection, debate and consultation in the form of working groups, a method which has proven to be successful in the Tuning I to IV projects (2000 - 2009). Close cooperation with and consultation of experts in the field of non-formal and informal learning at both national and international level were also applied. This cooperation and consultation has been of relevance in particular for mapping secondary formal, informal and non-formal level education.
The project was based on 9 subject area working groups reflecting a range of disciplines in the Humanities, that is History, Art History, Linguistics, Literary studies, Theology and Religious Studies and disciplines reflecting the Creative and Performing Disciplines, that is Art and Design, Dance and Theatre, Music and Architecture. The first four groups were asked to develop reference points/descriptors for their subject area. The other five groups had previously developed reference points/descriptors for their subject area based on the Dublin Descriptors and they were asked to convert them into EQF for LLL based ones. The major successful outcomes of the project are two Sectoral Frameworks and the nine subject-area based frameworks with descriptors based on the EQF for LLL. It is particularly underlined that the two SQFs use a methodology which is a development and improvement on the one that was used in the previous Tuning SQF for the Social Sciences. In addition to using the three EQF categories on the ‘horizontal’ plane, the SQFs vitally introduce a number of ‘dimensions’ in the vertical plane. This adds substantially to the readability of the frameworks. More information can be found on http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/ under SQF Humanities and Arts.
OUTCOME 5. SUGGESTIONS FOR FINE TUNING AND BRIDGING OF THE BOLOGNA (DUBLIN) DESCRIPTORS AND THE DESCRIPTORS OF THE EQF FOR LLL

The approach taken to the categorisation of Learning Outcomes by the QF EHEA in the Dublin Descriptors and by the EQF LLL in its descriptors of the eight levels of learning is not the same, although both relate closely to Bloom’s taxonomy. The Dublin Descriptors have been drawn up on a five categories of LOs namely:
a. Knowledge and Skills
b. Applying knowledge and understanding
c. Making judgments
d. Communication skills
e. Learning Skills.
The EQF descriptors are based on a tripartite division of learning outcomes each of which is closely defined as follows:
a. ‘Knowledge’ means the outcome of the assimilation of information through learning. Knowledge is the body of facts, principles, theories and practices that is related to a field of study or work. In the EQF, knowledge is described as theoretical and/or factual;
b. ‘Skills’ means the ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve problems. In the EQF, skills are described as cognitive (use of logical, intuitive and creative thinking) and practical (involving manual dexterity and the use of methods, materials, tools and instruments);
c. ‘Competence’ means the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities, in work or study situations and in professional and/or personal development. In the EQF, competence is described in terms of responsibility and autonomy.
This difference of approach has inevitably led to serious questions being raised about the degree of compatibility between the two learning frameworks, since compatibility cannot be taken for granted. Several attempts have been made to assess the relationship between the two of which this HUMART project is the latest. Mention may be here of three such previous attempts, the published results of which are all readily available on the internet.
The first is the result of the BE-TWIN project, entitled ECVET-ECTS: Building Bridges and Overcoming Differences, published in July 2010. This has a very positive attitude to the compatibility of the two systems.
The second is the results of the DOCET project conducted as part of the Erasmus Mundus Programme, entitled EQF-CDIO: a reference model for engineering education, published in the autumn of 2010. Although generally positive in is approach to the question of the compatibility of the two learning framework, this second report raised some doubts about the strict degree of coincidence between EQF learning levels 5 to 8, on the one hand, and the four Bologna cycles, on the other hand.
The third project is that of Tuning which produced in October 2010 its report on Tuning SQF for the Social Sciences. This was, as previously discussed earlier in this report, the first attempt to produce a set of sectoral learning outcomes on the EQF model for all programmes in the Social Sciences offered in HEIs. A clear methodology and procedure was developed for producing this table of learning outcomes for each of levels 4 to 8. Even if some members of the project initially felt some doubt, in a few cases even serious doubt, as to the degree of coincidence between the EQF levels and the Bologna cycles, the outcome of this exercise was an undoubted success.
On the basis of the Tuning SQF for the Social Sciences, Tuning HUMART has taken a significant step further. Its approach in the construction of the sectoral tables has been to use a grid which can be read, with greater clarity, in both planes. The first of these two planes is the ‘horizontal’ plane represented by the three categories of the EQF framework. The second plane is based on the more ‘progressive’ approach of the Dublin Descriptors, and constitutes sectoral ‘dimensions’ which are displayed in the vertical plane. This means that the resultant tables are more easily readable in both planes. The differences between the two sectors has resulted in lists of these vertical dimensions which varied somewhat even if there is a great degree of overlap. For the Humanities, these categories for each of levels 4, 6, 7 and 8 are as follows:
• The Human Being
• Cultures and Societies
• Texts and Contexts
• Theories and Concepts
• Interdisciplinarity
• Communication
• Initiative and Creativity
• Professional Development
For the Creative and Performing Disciplines for each of levels 4, 6 7 and 8 these dimensions are as follows:
• Making Performing, Designing, Conceptualising, Creation (skills/knowledge)
• Re-thinking, Considering and interpreting the Human (competences)
• Experimenting, innovating and Researching (skills/knowledge)
• Theories histories and Cultures (knowledge)
• Technical, environmental and Contextual issues (skills/knowledge)
• Communication, Collaboration and Interdisciplinarity (skills/competence)
• Initiative & Enterprise (skills/competence). Download SQF HUMART Final Report.

Posté par pcassuto à 00:42 - - Permalien [#]


ECTS and ECVET, Comparisons and Contrasts

Final Report SQF HUMARTHUMART outcomes
The outcomes of the SQF Humanities and Arts (HUMART) project are now available on the website. You are welcome to comment on the documents. Download ECTS and ECVET: Comparisons and Contrasts.
1. Introduction

In 2010, TUNING published my article entitled, ‘ECTS and ECVET, Comparisons and Contrasts’. This article was an annex to the final report for sectoral project in the Social Sciences. It was produced, on request, as a background to the possible attribution of ECTS credit ranges to qualifications in this sector at EQF levels 3 and 4, that is at the two levels immediately preceding the most frequent entry point of learners into higher education. The attribution of such credit ranges was one of the six major intended outcomes of the project. Given the great uncertainty about ECVET still pertaining at the moment the project moved towards its conclusion and, principally, the uncertainty concerning the way in which ECVET credits would be allocated in practice, it was thought impossible to pursue in depth this intended outcome of the project. Such a judgment was effectively inevitable given that the long-promised Users Guide for ECVET, a guide, which, it was hoped, would furnish answers to all the questions and doubts about ECVET raised in my article, and by others, had not yet been published.
This uncertainty still prevailed when the last adjustments were made to the article in early September 2010. Obviously, this situation still obtained at the time that this HUMART sectoral framework project held its initial meeting shortly after in early October 2010. The potential for making proposals for possible ECTS credit ranges for EQF levels 3 and 4, on the basis of equivalent ECVET credits, for this sector, could only be seriously advanced, during the course of the project, if greater clarification about ECVET were forthcoming and if this demonstrated real compatibility, in practical and not just theoretical terms, between ECVET and ECTS credits.
4. Conclusion

At the conclusion of this brief survey of credit attribution in the BIF sector, it seems an inescapable fact that it is going to prove no easier to propose ECTS credit ranges for EQF levels 3 and 4 within the HUMART sector than it was for the Social Sciences sector which preceded this project. Unless, of course, further clarification and simplification about ECVET credit attribution over a wide range of VET sectors is forthcoming in the next few months.
This is a disturbing conclusion which might be driving the HEI and non-HEI sectors further apart rather than achieving the greatly-to-be-desired end of bringing them closer together. This is all the more true given the unavoidable further conclusion that quite a number of the other questions about the way in which ECVET will be constructed and operated in practice have not been given satisfactory answers in these two groups of documents.
Nevertheless, it remains possible that the breaking down of barriers between the two educational sectors may still succeed. At best, it would appear that the transfer of credit from further/continuing to higher education is likely to proceed purely on the basis of comparisons of statements of learning outcomes for units which are at equivalent levels/cycles of the EQF and of the QF EHEA. However and because learning outcomes are not of themselves easily measurable and translatable into numbers of credits, this will only be achievable where there is clear and strict pre-agreement between individual further/continuing educational institutions, on the one hand, and individual HEIs, on the other hand. This is something that has been in existence now for some considerable time and before the idea of ECVET was conceived, although very rarely on a cross-frontier basis.
One can only hope fervently that as ECVET evolves, this pessimistic conclusion may prove to be erroneous. Download ECTS and ECVET: Comparisons and Contrasts.

Posté par pcassuto à 00:35 - - Permalien [#]

Actes et discours de Vincent Berger

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/test/images/logo_libe.pngPar Sylvestre Huet. Que penser du long discours de Vincent Berger lors des Assises de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche? Un Vincent Berger qui préside l’Université Paris Diderot, et conduit la très grande opération de l’IDEX Sorbonne Paris Cité.
Ce discours a suscité des réactions très diverses. Les uns s’enthousiasmant pour sa forme, flamboyante. Et même pour ce qui se présente comme une critique en règle de la politique gouvernementale passée et donc, l’espoir d’une politique radicalement différente. Suite de l'article...
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/test/images/logo_libe.png Με Sylvestre Huet. Τι γίνεται με την μακρά ομιλία σε ακροατήριο Vincent Berger Τριτοβάθμιας Εκπαίδευσης και Έρευνας; Μια Vincent Berger πρόεδρο στο Πανεπιστήμιο Paris Diderot και οδήγησε τη συντριπτική λειτουργία της IDEX Sorbonne Παρίσι Cité. Περισσότερα...

Posté par pcassuto à 00:01 - - Permalien [#]