ECA (European Consortium for Accreditation) has been founded in 2003 with the primary aim of mutual recognition of accreditation decisions. The two other aims of ECA are:
2. mutual learning and disseminating best practices in accreditation;
3. providing transparent information on quality and supporting internationalisation of institutions and students. ECA is an Affiliate of ENQA.
Conclusions of ECA Workshops
From 2003 until 2007 ECA held two Workshops in each year. During these plenary meetings ECA members shared and discussed the results of the work that took place in the Working groups. From 2008 onwards the Workshops are held annually. Below you can find the Conclusions of the fourteen Workshops that have been held until today.

The UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL), on behalf of the UNESCO Education Sector, has taken the initiative in working with Member States to develop the UNESCO Guidelines for the Recognition, Validation and Accreditation (RVA) of the Outcomes of Non-formal and Informal Learning. In June 2012, Mr Qian Tang, the Assistant Director-General for Education of UNESCO, officially approved the Guidelines and invited authorities in Member States to make efforts to implement the Guidelines in line with their specific national context.
Acting upon this initiative, the DVV International Regional Office in Southeast Asia organised a workshop on 7 and 8 January 2013, in Vientiane (Lao PDR) to facilitate the implementation of the UNESCO Guidelines for RVA in the sub-region. Eighteen policymakers and experts from Cambodia, Laos, the Asia South Pacific Association for Basic and Adult Education and the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Centre for Lifelong Learning participated in the workshop. With the help of DVV International and the UNESCO Office in Ha Noi, the Guidelines were translated into the national languages of Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam and disseminated to national stakeholders in the three countries. Mr Jin Yang, Senior Programme Specialist of UIL, served as a resource person and made four presentations at the workshop on the following topics:

• Conceptual evolution and policy developments in lifelong learning – A UNESCO perspective;
• The nature of learning and the importance of non-formal and informal learning;
• Synthesis report on RVA in UNESCO Member States, and
• The key messages of the UNESCO Guidelines for RVA

During group work, the country teams elaborated on opportunities/strengths, threats/weaknesses and developed some concrete key action points for implementing the Guidelines in their countries in the next two years. Additionally, the participants also requested UIL and DVV International to continuously support the implementation of the Guidelines through provision of technical expertise and capacity building in developing skill assessment tools and qualification criteria. In all, the two-day Workshop successfully mobilised several key change agents in the three countries for implementing the UNESCO Guidelines, deepened participants’ understanding of key concepts of lifelong learning and RVA, and strengthened their capacity for implementing the UNESCO Guidelines for RVA. These outputs will result in concrete steps for Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam in constructing a national RVA system.

Europe is undergoing substantial demographic and technological changes, and will have to adapt its higher education system as a result. Methods for recognising prior learning (RPL) are becoming increasingly important, and will need to be compatible across national boundaries.
Against this backdrop, the European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE), in co-operation with the European RPL Network (ERPLN), the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MŠMT) and the Czech Association of Schools of Professional Higher Education (CASPHE), organised the EURASHE Annual Lifelong Learning Seminar on RPL, 13-14 December 2012 in Prague. The title of the seminar was RPL: Flexible Ties within Higher Education, and attracted over 50 international participants from universities, as well as Czech and European organisations.
Mr Jin Yang, Senior Programme Specialist at UIL, spoke on the relevance of  UNESCO’s Guidelines on Recognition, Validation and Accreditation (RVA) of the Outcomes of Non-formal and Informal Learning to higher education. His talk focused on the principles and concrete mechanisms  necessary for integrating RVA into higher education policy. The aim of the conference was to

• Raise awareness of the importance of RPL among stakeholders
• Discuss methods of incorporating RPL into policy,
• Build partnerships within EURASHE and the European RPL network

In summary, the Seminar showed that RPL has been widely accepted in higher education systems of Europe, but challenges remain. Key quality issues discussed in the seminar include developing appropriate assessment criteria to take into account the wide range of prior learning, guidance and counselling of lifelong learners, and the accountability of recognition authorities. More information on the seminar. Read an abstract of Mr Yang’s speech.

This book presents the main outcomes of the OER test project. It provides the reader with the foundation for the development of envisaged framework, organised into the four topics: assessment methods; requirements and standards of resources; credentialisation and certification, and recognition and inter-institutional collaboration. Through consultation with a multi-disciplinary, cross-institutional team of experts the initiative developed a set of supporting tools and guidelines for assessment, recognition and portability of credit based on OER. In particular, our team of researchers developed a proposal for a ‘learning passport’, which would act as an instrument for credit portability between institutions and would allow the description of learning using existing conventions set out by the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) and the Council of Europe model diploma supplement. URL: Open Learning Recognition: Taking Open Educational Resources a Step Further.
3- Scenarios for Crediting Open Learning
Author: Jeff Haywood. During our exploration of how learning based upon open learning materials might be implemented by traditional universities, we recognised that we were dealing with unbundling of the academic processes that normally take place inside a single institution. Course design, delivery, assessment and award of credit must be viewed as separable and so we realised that permutations were possible depending upon where each of those elements took place.
The complexity was increased threefold when we considered that learners might be either existing students of an university, or intending students of that university or might be individuals with no connection with that university before or after credit was awarded. These permutations can be visualised as ‘scenarios’. In each scenario, the location of each of the four elements of the educational process (design to award), and the status of the learner, differ. Through expert discussions in a workshop, plus subsequent refinement by the project team, eight different scenarios were identified to recognize OER modulebased learning by a hypothetical Higher Education Institution.
The necessary conditions for all the scenarios to be viable are that the self-study materials are placed online for general access, and that those materials are sufficient in scope and quality of content, and required associated activities, to enable a learner to acquire the competences defined in the expected learning outcomes, and that a university is able to use them to guide the assessment of those learner competences. Effectively, the learning materials must be self-contained curricula. This is explained more fully in the next chapter.
These scenarios were designed to help universities analyse the opportunities and the barriers to their recognition and accreditation of OER module-based learning. In an attempt to make the scenarios more intelligible to traditional universities, they have been named using parallels in the traditional academic ‘business’. Universities might well regard the implications for their calculations of cost of assessment and price for credits differently depending upon the conditions in which they are being asked to apply them. For example, if the learner is already a student at the university to which s/he applies for OER module- based learning credit, that might be viewed very differently to the case of an individual with no formal status in the university.
The scenarios are not completely comprehensive but were regarded as covering all the likely situations that a university contemplating accrediting learning from OER modules might encounter, and those that it might consider when deciding its stance towards as part of its decision-making process. They are created from the viewpoint of University 1 (U1) which is being asked by learners to participate in the accreditation or recognition of the OER module-based learning. Please see the visualisation below where the scenarios are presented.

3.1 OER Traditional
This scenario may be the least challenging for a university. If it places self-study materials online for general access, and those materials are sufficient in scope and quality of content and required associated activities to enable a learner to acquire the competences defined in expected learning outcomes, and if the university is able to assess the competences, then credit may be easily awarded. Independent self-study courses are becoming more common as a way to create flexibility in degree programmes, as a minor part of the whole programme. However, there is no widening of access to HE. There is an increased flexibility in current provision, and perhaps the confidence of the university in this approach can be achieved through this careful exploration.
In OER Tradition, the normal university QA processes can be applied to both the curriculum (the materials and educational design) and the assessment. This is due to the fact that the curriculum is designed by academic staff of the university accrediting the student’s learning. Although the learning process is independent of teaching staff, assessment is done by them, according to their definition of the expected learning outcomes set at the time the OER/OCW module was released in public.
3.2 OER Erasmus
The Erasmus student exchange programme is predicated upon trust relationships between European universities, supported significantly by the Bologna Process and the ECTS credit system. It means that if a university is able to understand the education that a student has experienced at another university so as to evaluate the ‘fit’ with the curriculum of the student’s degree programme and is prepared to recognise the partner university’s assessment as valid, credit for study away from the campus is approved. Some of the Erasmus agreements are quite broad-ranging for many students, and some are individualised on an ad hoc basis. Many exchange programmes exist outside the Erasmus framework, for example with North American universities.
In OER module-based learning, a similar situation to physical Erasmus exchange arises and the ‘home’ university must be assured of the quality of the OER Modulebased education that the student will receive. Therefore, also for this scenarios normal QA process that approves Erasmus exchange agreements could be applied by any participating university, because curriculum (OER/OCW module) is provided by a ‘trusted university’. In fact, quality assurance may be easier for OER module-based study than for traditional study, as all the curriculum will be online and open to scrutiny. The assessments will be ‘known’ and the standard to which they are marked can be quality assured. To a large degree the trust relationship between peer universities makes such detailed checking unnecessary, although it may take place during the establishment of the agreement.
This scenario does provide for wider access to higher education in the same sense as physical Erasmus, although learners must already be students at a university. As with OER Traditional, this may be a mechanism for building confidence in accrediting module -based learning.
3.3 OER Summer School
The OER Summer School scenario takes a step on from OER Erasmus, because in this case although the learner is a current student at U1, s/he has decided to study and gain ECTS credits from a university with no relationship with her/his current university U1. Although students may well do this sort of independent study to enhance their CVs or gain what they see as useful skills and knowledge, normally this type of study would not be credited towards the degree for which they are studying. If such a situation arose, and credit was requested, a post hoc evaluation would be needed to determine whether the work was suitable and appropriate for inclusion in the degree programme and the standard was acceptable. Ideally, the learner would agree such a process in advance. The mechanism to approve or refuse credits might be very similar to that used to Recognise Prior Learning.
As before, there is a gain in curricular flexibility for students at University U1 but no widening of access to HE in general. However, as more high quality OER Module becomes available, students may increasingly wish to be able to search out suitable opportunities and expect their own universities to respect their needs. This viewpoint may well increase as direct fees for universities are introduced across Europe and their levels rise.
3.4 OER Anywhere
The OER Anywhere scenario is a variant of OER Summer School, except that the evaluation of the learning that has taken place is more challenging for U1 because the learning and the assessment have taken place at different universities, neither of which has a trust relationship with U1. Therefore, the U1 needs to assess the quality of both components to reach a decision on whether or not to recognise the credits gained. For this scenario either the traditional QA or RPL QA processes could be applied. Choice would depend upon to the degree of curricular flexibility for the degree in question.
3.5 OER Credit Market
U1 assesses learner using the methods it has decided are appropriate for its own OER module and offers ECTS credits to be taken away and used as learner wishes/is able. The parallel in traditional university education would be Continuing Professional Development/Education (CPD/CPD) where individual modules are studied without enrolment on a degree programme.
This scenario poses the biggest challenge to the university traditional QA processes, because the learner is neither a student of the university nor wishing to become one, but is solely interested in gaining academic credits. Setting aside the question of whether a university would wish to carry out this role, the challenges to the traditional QA processes are substantial. The award of credits to an individual assumes rigor in their identity, in the authenticity of their work and their participation in essential course components that may not be assessed formally but do contribute to achievement of learning outcomes. For students taking a whole degree, acceptance of some elements where this is less rigorously monitored is reasonable as long as the extent of these is limited. The quality of a year-long or multi-yearlong programme ensures that there is confidence in the overall quality of graduates and hence the university’s reputation (and indeed licence to award degrees) is not compromised. Traditional university QA processes are generally not designed to accommodate models where staff of the university are not closely involved in the process, and so in these scenarios, universities may wish to revert to an RPL mode to evaluate the learning themselves to be assured that the rigour and quality are correct. (This is reminiscent of franchising of awards by some universities, whereby they set the curriculum but the teaching and assessment are carried out by staff at another university at which the learners are current students. This QA role by the franchising university requires a different QA model to the traditional ‘in-house QA’ model and has run into difficulties on many occasions.) One model of operation in the OER Credit Market models is for an institution specify the attributes of ‘acceptable’ curricula with which it is prepared to engage, thus removing a substantial element of diversity from the experiences learners might offer. In the extreme it might specific exactly which curricula (‘only OCW in Subject Y from University of X’) it will consider. Alternatively it could define programmes of rigorous assessments in various subjects at one or more levels, and leave it to learners to gain the competences as they so fit (SATS or driving test model). By definition, these will tend to be examination oriented approaches and hence will eliminate a wide range of subjects and levels that cannot be effectively assessed in this way. The quality assurance task then resolves to ensuring rigour in the identification of learners (‘who they really are’) and in assessments and quality control of marking (‘what they really know’).
3.6 OER RPL Takeaway
Universities have used Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) to varying extents to enable entry to degree programmes of students whose background does contain suitable academic study for automatic entry.
Although less common, there could also be cases where learners wish to get recognition of prior learning for purposes other than to enter study programme. For former it is most common where employment experiences are being offered, especially to a professionally relevant degree programme such as Nursing or Law. Thus, the same mechanisms in terms of assessment of the competences of the intending student and the quality assurance processes that ensure its rigour could be applied. Where a fee is charged, this too might be applicable, with appropriate adjustment for the difficulty of the assessment. The openness to scrutiny of OER Module curricula may make the recognition easier. Normally, credit is only given for a moderate proportion of the curriculum if recognition is given at all. The incentive for University 1 is that it gains a student, and access to HE is widened to those from a non-traditional background. The intending student will still have to participate in normal university studies, with the costs and benefits that this entails.
In OER RPL the problem of assessing the knowledge and skills of the learner presenting for evaluation is little different to that which has to take place if their learning has been based at work, at home or in other non-educational settings. A mapping has to be made of their competences (level, extent, domain of study) onto the curriculum they wish to enter, with credit awarded and attendance at specific courses recognised. As already mentioned, in some respects, well-structured OER/OCW module materials make this evaluation simpler than it would be for many work-based or non-formal learning experiences. It is clear that there is more variation between partner universities in their RPL practices, and the degree to which they employ it as a route to entry to their degree programmes. In general, RPL lies in a different ‘area’ of QA to the normal academic curriculum and progression, and has a significant ‘ad hoc’ element which is not surprising given the diversity of learning situations that RPL brings forward. In this respect, the inherent flexibility of ‘traditional RPL’ should signal the potential for adoption in the OER/OCW module domain, should a university wish to follow this route.
3.7 RPL For Entry I & II
To enable learners who have studied using open learning materials to enter a university, some form of recognition of prior learning will normally be required. If the open learning materials are OERtest-compliant, and the learner is able to bring a Learning Passport that sets out the learning outcomes achieved from an openly-available curriculum and assessments that are explicit (as described in the next chapter), the burden of RPL will be much reduced. The condition under which the open learning materials are offered by the university also being asked for entry (i.e. U1 in our RPL II scenario) this is even simpler, as U1 knows that its open curriculum is at the appropriate standard and level, and the ECTS credit-equivalence is clear. In RPL for Entry I, this is not the case, and so some form of additional assessment or evaluation may well be required.