Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Revision of the ECTS Users' Guide
Composition
Armenia, Austria, Belgium/Flemish Community, Germany, France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Moldova, Sweden, Ukraine, UK, EUA, EURASHE, ESU, ENQA
Purpose
To prepare a revised version of the ECTS Users' Guide by mid-2014, by reflecting on policy development and implementation in the area of ECTS and learning outcomes since the previous revision of the ECTS Users' Guide in 2009, giving consideration to issues such as the following (and including in its scope further issues to be identified in consultation with the Working Group and external experts):
    Linking ECTS better with student workload and learning outcomes
    ECTS in short-cycle provision, in 1st and 2nd cycle programmes of different length and in 3rd cycle
    Including the attainment of learning outcomes in assessment procedures
    Reflecting the developments in the area of the recognition of prior learning and with relation to the new EU Directive on Professional Qualifications
Reflecting on the use of the Grading table in Annex 3 of the current ECTS Users' Guide
Specific Tasks
    to identify in consultation with experts the key items to be reviewed
    to develop a revised version of the Guide
    to liaise with the Structural Working Group for their input
    to consult with external stakeholders
    to present a finalised draft to the Structural Working Group and the BFUG for adoption
Last Update
ECTS Guide
2012-2015 ToR_Revision of the ECTS Users' Guide Ad-Hoc WG.
News and documents.
Contact Person
Adam Tyson – European Commission
Klara Engels-Perenyi – European Commission

The last issue of the magazine in 2012 is a joint issue prepared together by the ECVET core and support teams. It contains:
    An editorial by Erik Hess, Policy Officer ECVET at European Commission DG EAC, reviewing the year 2012 and stating the priorities for 2013;
    An article on the second joint ECVET-EQAVET-EQF seminar held in October in Paris on using units within professional qualifications;
    An article on the customized seminar for the UEAPME (European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized enterprise) held in September in Brussels;
    An article on the customized seminar for the nuclear energy sector held in September in Brussels;
    An article on the pilot projects’ approaches to the definition of units of learning outcomes and their assessment;
    An article on the ECVET expert teams from Greece, Malta, Italy and Slovenia; 4 articles each describing a pilot project: VET-CCS (Vocational Education and Training Credit Conversion System in Malta), CO.L.O.R (competency valorisation and learning outcome recognition for migrants and mobile workers within Italy), ESyCQ (ECVET-solution to the recognition of prior learning in Germany) MEN-ECVET (analysing alternatives for recognised mobility in France);
    An article on the NetECVET network, which promotes ECVET to practitioners;
    An article on the “PEP goes local” project, follow up of the PEP project (Partnership for Experimenting with ECVET in a Practical Context). Download ECVET Magazine n. 12.
MEN-ECVET – Analysing alternatives for recognised mobility in France
MEN-ECVET is a pilot project led by the French Ministry of National Education which analyses how ECVET can be introduced into the existing framework for the design and award of qualifications under the responsibility of this ministry. The project works with five qualifications, all of the same type and level (vocational leaving certificates Baccalauréat Professionnel EQF level 4), but covering different sectors (manufacturing and services).
The project will result in recommendations on how to proceed with further implementation of ECVET in France for the qualifications under the responsibility of the Ministry of National Education.
In the first stage, the project analysed the compatibility between ECVET technical specifications and the national regulatory framework, in particular the rules and practices for designing and describing qualifications. The results of this first stage of analysis were presented in an earlier version of the ECVET Magazine (number 7, 2012). In the second stage, the project partners analysed the practical feasibility of recognised mobility as part of the existing system. In the context of this project recognised mobility is about:
• Transnational mobility of learners in initial VET;
• Recognition takes the form of award of a full unit or part of a unit which will be part of the full qualification. The unit (or part of the unit) is assessed abroad and validated and recognised upon return. This second stage of the project is discussed in this article.
Identifying the possibilities
The work of the project identified two possible options for introducing recognised mobility to France. The feasibility of these options is being analysed. The options are:
• Option 1 - Achieving part of an existing unit abroad;
• Option 2 - Designing and recognising an optional unit which would certify the acquisition of competences specific to mobility.
In initial VET, it is already possible for VET providers to break down the final assessment into several continuous assessments. This rule is the basis for the first option. It means that each unit in a given qualification can be achieved either via a final assessment (upon completion of the full programme – hence not compatible with mobility) or via continuous assessment. Continuous assessment means that the learner undergoes several assessments (the number and nature of these is defined in the qualification standard) during his/her pathway. When all the assessments are validated the unit is achieved and there is no final assessment. While final assessment has to be undertaken in strictly defined conditions, in particular when it comes to the composition of the jury, continuous assessment is more flexible and can be carried out by an external assessor (namely the in-company trainer). This is notably used when the continuous assessment concerns competences achieved as part of workbased learning. Theoretically, it would hence be possible to delegate one of the continuous assessments to a foreign partner institution, even though this would require adjustments in the current regulations.
The second option would introduce a new element to VET qualifications of the Ministry of National Education. The possibility of ‘optional units’ already exists. It is relatively wide-spread in the general education leaving certificate (Baccalauréat Général) where students take an optional subject (and related assessment) in addition to those subjects that are required for this qualification. Though also possible in VET, in practice the use of optional units in this sector of education is rare. Via the introduction of an optional unit, the MEN-ECVET project aims to recognise explicitly the competence achieved through international mobility. It would be a transversal unit (not specific to any given qualification) on international competence which would certify that the person has achieved the capacity to orientate himself/herself in a foreign professional environment.
Method followed
To identify and further fine-tune these two options the project followed this method:
• The project core team interviewed practitioners who took part in earlier ECVET experimentations in France and who were also working within the framework of the Ministry of National Education;
• These people were interviewed about their methods of testing ECVET, the solutions as well as difficulties. Based on these interviews the two above described options were fine-tuned;
• Two working groups were successively set up, one for each of the above options. Each of the groups had a different sectoral focus. They worked on the basis of the five qualifications chosen for the MEN-ECVET project, each covering different sectors: manufacturing and services.
Results of the analysis
Both groups were able to develop hypothetical examples of processes where mobility would be recognised. Regarding the first option, the group reviewed the qualifications standards and identified which of the units contain knowledge, skills and competence that could be achieved abroad. The reflection took into account the feasibility for students to develop the required skills and competence abroad, in a foreign environment, and also in a limited period of time. The group also took into consideration the added value mobility would have for the development of those competences. As a result, for each qualification chosen for the project, a set of competences which is part of one larger unit from the French qualification standard concerned was recommended for mobility. The group also discussed how the competences would be assessed and validated. The group concluded that this approach to recognised mobility would be feasible. The main challenge for further development of this option is that the host organisation needs to provide learning that corresponds to the competences defined in the French national qualification standard for the given part of a unit. The second group analysed, based on existing research and experience, the possibility to define and describe transversal competence linked to international experience. The group also analysed how such a unit could be assessed. The group concluded that the development of this option needed further analysis and fine-tuning: The main challenge being the need to identify a clear and unambiguous set of competences corresponding to the international experience, which can be assessed rigorously and in an objective manner.
Next steps
In the next steps, the project is going to:
• Refine the analysis of the second option to assess whether it is truly feasible to define and assess (in an objective manner) the set of competences expected; and
• Analyse the possibilities for using ECVET points in the context of qualifications of the Ministry of National Education.
The project is expected to conclude in the summer of 2013. The final report will include, among other aspects, recommendations regarding the two options discussed above. It will contain suggestions for regulatory amendments that will be submitted for decision at the ministry level.
More info: Martine PATY, Ministère de l'éducation nationale. E-mail: martine.paty@education.gouv.fr. Website: http://www.ciep.fr/expert_educ/professionnel/Leo_men-ecvet.php.
See also: ECVET Magazine n. 11, ECVET Magazine n. 10, ECVET Magazine n. 9, ECVET Magazine n. 8, ECVET Magazine n. 7, ECVET Magazine n. 6, ECVET Magazine n. 5, Issue 4, April 2011, Issue 3, January 2011, Issue 2, November 2010, Issue 1, June 2010, Issue 4, April 2010, Issue 3, November 2009, Issue 2, July 2009, Issue 1, April 2009.

The issue 11, prepared by the ECVET support team, is dedicated to the annual ECVET Forum 2012 held in Brussels from May 31 to June 1. In this issue Cedefop has a prominent role. Link to the ECVET Forum 2012. Download ECVET Magazine n. 11.
Update on Erasmus for All and the national teams of ECVET experts, Alison Crabb and Erik Hess (European Commission, DG Education and Culture)
Introduction
There are a number of initiatives that support the development of an ECVET community of practice, e.g. the forthcoming “Erasmus for All” programme and the creation of national teams of ECVET experts. Alison Crabb and Erik Hess led a discussion and information session on the idea of a community of practice. This plenary session was introduced by two videos from “You Tube”:
• the first video introduced ‘Erasmus for All’ which has been proposed by the European Commission on 23 November 2011. It was clear that this programme could provide a response to the funding problems facing a growing number of mobility schemes. More information is available at: http//ec.europa.eu/education/Erasmusfor-all/
• the second video looked at some of the ECVET technical specifications including the use of a Memorandum of Understanding. This video is particularly useful for those who are new to ECVET. A copy can be found at: http://www.ecvet-team.eu/fr/content/documentation-forum-2012
Through a series of questions, the “Erasmus for All” programme was further explained by Alison Crabb.
Erasmus for All is the future EU programme for education, training, youth and sport proposed by the European Commission. Could you tell us more about the objectives of the programme, and why the decision was made to merge some previous programmes?
Erasmus for All proposes to bring together youth, training, formal, informal and non-formal education, international cooperation and sport. It offers three key actions: learning mobility, cooperation for innovation and developing good practice, and support for policy reform. After several decades of experience of Leonardo da Vinci, Erasmus, Youth and other programmes, we know that learning is the common goal of many activities supported by European programmes. We can see that different learning sectors are cooperating more - our objective is to offer a programme which reflects this.
What is the connection with ECVET?
I think there are two things to note, both of which demonstrate interesting developments in VET at a European level:
• firstly there is a proposal related to “Sector Skills Alliances”. This targeted action supports cooperation in addressing skill mismatches in order to ensure that VET systems provide the skills required by the labour market. We are looking for “win-win” solutions which increase competitiveness as well as learners’ employability. “Sector Skills Alliances” can promote cooperation between the world of education and training; develop sector-specific expertise; and work with those authorities who are involved in policy-making or decision-making for education and training systems. The core of the action is to identify the skills needs for the sector. Based on evidence, the “Sector Skills Alliances” will design and produce joint curricula and set out a range of teaching and learning methods which provide learners with the skills required by the labour market. Our overall goal is to have a more systemic impact on training. The call for pilot projects is focused on five sectors: automobile, aeronautics, health care, tourism, and sustainable energy including construction. More information is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/calls/s0112_en.htm
• the second new aspect of Erasmus for All relates to mobility. In terms of volume, the objective is to double the number of participating VET learners, as well as to increase the number of participating staff. In terms of quality (where ECVET can play an important role), the objective is to make mobility part of the overall strategy of participating institutions. Mobility should not be based on a single "pioneer" member of staff; we really want to make an impact on the whole institution.
Will a quota be set for VET mobility?
In the proposal from the European Commission, a minimum percentage of the budget is assigned to individual education sectors (VET, higher education etc…). At the moment the percentage assigned to VET includes funding for adult education and is 17 per cent. The percentage assigned to higher education is 25 per cent. In relation to “learning mobility”, the proposal is to direct around 60 per cent of budget to this activity. We should note that the budget is still under discussion.
Should young learners be sent abroad?
Yes. Many organisations have years of experience with Comenius and Leonardo da Vinci. They know that once learning outcomes are set and the right framework is in place, mobility can provide young learners with a good quality experience. While mobility must give learners an experience that is compatible and valued in their national systems, the benefits for young learners can be very convincing.
Are there study visits in the future programme?
Study visits are not included in the European Commission proposal. However the proposal includes measures which support staff and their professional mobility e.g. job shadowing, teaching, experiencing different forms of learning.
How can mobility be promoted to encourage more VET students to go abroad?
Demand from learners is already high. The funding needed to support this demand already exceeds the available budget by 100 per cent. But are we sure that workplaces are ready to receive more trainees? It is important to promote the benefits of mobility, not only for participating learners, but also for their home institutions and for the host workplaces. We also have to stress the connection to ECVET, explaining the value of using learning outcomes, and the need to ensure that learning meets the expectations of the learners’ curricula. This is the challenge for VET policy makers.
Why is cooperation with 3rd countries available to the higher education sector and not to VET?
VET systems are more diverse than higher education systems. This makes well-structured cooperation with third country institutions more of a challenge. It is mainly for this reason that cooperation with third countries is not yet available to VET. Through a second series of questions, the role of the national teams of ECVET experts was further explained by Erik Hess. The questions arose in response to the European Commission’s call for proposals to create these national teams.
What will be the role of the experts?
The role of the national experts is to bridge the gap between the policy level where national authorities, social partners and others work on ECVET implementation and those individuals who work in VET institutions. Trainers and training providers need materials that are easy to use. The guidelines and templates must be easy to understand and suitable for an audience that is not as well informed as people in this forum. There is a real danger that those individuals in VET organisations who will put ECVET into practice do not understand what we are talking about. We have to modify our materials in order to meet the needs of trainers in companies, individuals in VET providers and the learners. The national teams of ECVET experts will be attached to the Lifelong Learning Programme’s National Agencies, and they will contribute to the adoption, implementation and use of ECVET. They will provide information and give advice to promoters (schools, companies etc.). They will organise seminars, workshops, launch information campaigns and modify guidance so it can easily be understood by all.
A question about a possible road map: what is the plan?
This is a restricted call for proposals. There is no specific roadmap in place. In making this call in the VET area, we were inspired by the success story of the Bologna experts in the higher education sector. This is a two year call under the Lifelong Learning Programme - we expect the proposals to address technical issues in an activity plan overseen by the National Agencies.
How will the European coordination be done?
It is not our intention to set up a governance body. Our governance arrangements are already in place - the ECVET Users Group - many of whom are here today. We have linked the national teams of ECVET experts to National Agencies so they can support the success of ECVET implementation through project funding. At a European level, there is close cooperation with social partners and Member States. This is helping us to produce guidance, users’ guides, and templates for a Memorandum of Understanding and Learning Agreement. One task for the national teams of ECVET experts is to use this information in their national context.
Can ECVET experts come from a range of backgrounds, including the business world?
Decisions on national experts are made at a national level. It would not be appropriate for us to decide on individuals. Individuals from the business world may well have an excellent background for this role.
How can the quality of the experts be assured?
When we prepared the restricted call, we included some criteria so that the experts are able to support ECVET implementation. But we also provided flexibility to allow the selectors to choose the most suitable people in order to meet national, regional or sectorial needs. I would stress that we are at the start of a process and we are learning and listening to feedback.
Will there be an EU evaluation of the whole project (e.g. an assessment of what has been delivered by each team of experts)?
There is no plan for an assessment – it will be part of the global evaluation of the Lifelong Learning Programme. However, the National Agencies will have to prove they have delivered what they intended to do in the activity plan. The executive agency will assess progress and the final reports that are submitted by the National Agencies.
You mentioned the need to simplify. How?
At a European level we are working in a wide range of areas where different instruments are being developed: e.g. we have the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), the European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET) and ECVET. This has led to numerous contacts points (national reference points, national coordination points etc.) There is much to gain from greater synergy. We can reflect on the advantages of the merger of different coordination points. This is for Member States to consider as they reflect on the need to create a simplified approach at the national level. Other questions were submitted to the European Commission officials. Due to the time constraints, it was not possible to answer all of them during the forum. All the unanswered questions have been sent to the European Commission for comment. Download ECVET Magazine n. 11.
See also: ECVET Magazine n. 10, ECVET Magazine n. 9, ECVET Magazine n. 8, ECVET Magazine n. 7, ECVET Magazine n. 6, ECVET Magazine n. 5, Issue 4, April 2011, Issue 3, January 2011, Issue 2, November 2010, Issue 1, June 2010, Issue 4, April 2010, Issue 3, November 2009, Issue 2, July 2009, Issue 1, April 2009.

In February 1999 the European Commission (DG EAC) established a steering group to undertake a study on the possible development of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) into a European Credit System allowing for accumulation and transfer within the LLL perspective.
The project was conceived as a feasibility study designed to be completed in a relatively short period. The members of the Steering Group gained feedback from their respective countries, regions or organisations and in total, over 200 individuals and organisations were consulted.
The FULL REPORT contains four sections: Introduction to the Report; Methodology; Main Findings; and Conclusions and Recommendations. There is also a full set of Appendices (pdf format) that contains: information on the membership of the steering group (Annex1); the project terms of reference (Annex2); the feasibility study information package and questionnaire (Annex3); and the  set of steering group reports (Annex4). A series of questions and answers on the ECTS extension was subsequently prepared by the full group of ECTS counsellors.
Main Findings
In the last ten years many European member States have introduced their own different national credit-based education innovations. Most have also reformed their education and training systems to adjust them to the realities of the global dimension of the education sector. These developments are clearly linked to the creation of a common European higher education area envisaged by the Sorbonne and Bologna declarations. The Bologna Declaration specifically mentions the establishment of ‘a system of credits – such as in the ECTS system’. It suggests ‘Credits could also be acquired in non-higher education contexts, including lifelong learning, providing they are recognised by receiving Universities concerned.’ The work of the Steering Group confirms that this aspiration is feasible. The application of a credits-based approach to lifelong learning will aid the harmonisation of the architecture of education systems in Europe.
Overall, a broadly favourable consensus of opinion emerged from the research. All of the national reports are positive about proceeding with the initiative, whilst at the same time, raising significant issues that have to be overcome in this highly complex area.
Several countries are developing systems to promote lifelong learning but they are all in the early stages. All countries, whatever their stage of development, suffer from similar problems associated with the need to improve the skills and knowledge of their citizens in the context of a highly competitive global economy. The creation of an effective pan-European credit-based framework for lifelong learning would benefit all European citizens. Furthermore, where systems do not currently exist, an ECTS-based framework would act as a template and spur for development.
Some European countries already have sophisticated national credit systems covering different types of education, whilst for others, ECTS is their only experience of credits. National credit systems have clearly been created to achieve quite different local, regional, national and international objectives. ECTS is compatible with all existing credit systems. ECTS is currently designed to act as a framework to facilitate credit transfer. Systems for credit transfer can be distinguished from those for credit accumulation. In the latter the students’ entire educational programme is expressed in terms of credits. ECTS can easily be applied as an accumulation system but this will require appropriate support and guidance.
It should be noted that various negative opinions were raised. However, these emphasise the structural difficulties and long-term practical problems that need to be overcome. One serious negative concern is based on a misconception. This is the opinion that the introduction of credit accumulation creates an ‘à la carte’ framework in which the student has complete freedom to mix credits/units (different types and levels of education) at will, and then demand a recognised qualification. It must be emphasised that this is not possible, nor envisaged. It is for each relevant national structure to determine how educational programmes are validated and constructed, for universities to take the ultimate decision.
The current state of the ECTS is relatively healthy and buoyant. It is accepted and used by over 1000 higher education institutions. The tools it uses are tried and tested and have been shown to be effective. The principles on which it is based are sound. However, it does require further embedding within institutions. For the current purposes of credit transfer ECTS works well. In this context no changes to its procedures and processes are necessary. The principles that underpin ECTS (as a credit transfer system) will also serve to underpin a broader European credit (accumulation) system. However, a number of adaptations and developments to the existing ECTS tools and procedures would be necessary for its application to lifelong learning.
Conclusions and Recommendations
It is timely to go ahead with the development of credit-based pilot projects to facilitate lifelong learning. The majority of those consulted enthusiastically agreed with the development of ECTS to achieve this end. Those who had reservations were concerned with legitimate issues associated with quality, institutional autonomy, and the risk of mismatching units and programmes (‘à la carte’ credit systems).
A new European credit system would increase the transparency of national systems, encourage flexibility in the development of personalised study courses and of joint curricula and facilitate agreements for the mobility of learners, not only between educational sectors in the same country, but also between those of different countries. Credit systems are powerful enabling devices, which aid mobility between various forms of education and training. The application of ECTS to different systems and types of education will facilitate the recognition of learning gained both nationally and internationally.
The development and introduction of an ECTS credit-based lifelong learning framework will be a complex process, best achieved at the strategic policy level through processes enabling a wide dialogue between European higher education institutions, initial education providers, professional bodies and employers. At the tactical level there is a strong argument for short, well-focussed follow-up projects, involving these bodies.
It is difficult to envisage a European system that did not require some convergence at national/institutional level. Like ECTS, a more comprehensive European credit-based system for lifelong learning should be developed on a voluntary basis, first in pilot projects and then with the participation of all interested countries and institutions. The experience with ECTS has shown that countries and institutions may at first resist change but then will slowly adjust to a system that facilitates mutual benefit, understanding and mobility. The Bologna Declaration is an indication of the political support offered by European governments to such a process.

Issue n. 10 of the ECVET Magazine was prepared by the ECVET Support Team which coordinates the ECVET Network. Download ECVET Magazine n.10.
It contains:
- An Editorial by Mr Antonio Silva Mendes, European Commisson, Director - Lifelong Learning: Policies and programme
- An article on 'Quality Assurance in ECVET mobility: A basis for trust';
- An article on 'EQAVET- promoting a culture of quality assurance in VET';
- An article on 'Quality Assurance and ECVET: The results from pilot projects';
- An article on 'Joint activities between ECVET – EQAVET – EQF and higher Education';
- The ECVET calendar of activities 2012;
- A report about 'The annual ECVET forum - An ECVET Community of Practice: what does it mean?';
- An article about a step by step sectoral approach – 'ECVET in the shipbuilding industry';
- An introduction of the Hungarian Team of ECVET experts;
- An article on the CREDCHEM example 'From “trying ECVET” to “putting ECVET into practice”.
By Daniela Ulicna, ICF GHK. Quality Assurance and ECVET - The results from pilot projects
The ECVET Recommendation invites Member States to apply quality assurance when using ECVET. However, when you ask ECVET pilot project promoters how they address the issue of ECVET and quality assurance, the answer is often vague. Many speak about the quality assurance of their project rather than quality assurance of the processes implied by the ECVET technical specifications. This shows that the understanding of what aspects of ECVET need to be quality assured, and how this could be done, is not yet clear for most of those involved in pilot projects.
Nevertheless, when you investigate the work of the projects, it becomes clear that pilot project promoters see the ECVET technical specifi cations as containing elements of quality assurance. Although they do not use the vocabulary of quality assurance or use the four stages of the European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET) cycle, they put in place quality assurance processes. Sometimes it is not always easy to distinguish between what the technical specifications require and what is quality assurance. Tools such as a Memorandum of Understanding or a Learning Agreement are elements to ECVET implementation and they are also key instruments for quality assurance.
It is possible to consider the activities and processes used by the ECVET pilot projects in relation to the EQAVET quality circle of planning-implementation evaluation and review. This is particularly relevant when thinking about the use of ECVET to support the geographical mobility of learners in a partnership framework. If we look at each of the four stages of the EQAVET quality circle, there are many activities within a mobility programme that contribute to quality assurance. The following analysis looks at the quality assurance processes used by the pilot projects:
Planning
When planning mobility, project organisers:
• identifi ed the learning outcomes that the learners were expected to achieve abroad (all projects);
• discussed learning outcomes with a partner institution to ensure there is a common understanding between the partners (all projects had discussions about the defi nition of learning outcomes with their partners);
• described learning outcomes in a Learning Agreement which is signed by the learner who becomes aware of the expectations placed on them (all those projects that tested ECVET through real mobility did this);
• clarified how unit(s) based on learning outcomes would be validated and recognised and under what conditions (e.g. the CREDCHEM project discussed how units could be validated in the context of qualifications that are not based on units. The Be-TWIN project developed a methodology which validated ECVET and units in relation to higher education and ECTS);
• put measures in place to ensure that when the learner returns their unit(s) would be validated and if possible (depending on national rules) recognised (e.g. ECVET ASSET or M.O.T.O).
Implementation
When implementing the mobility projects, organisers:
• ensured that the learning activities are ongoing and that learners took part in activities which related to the agreed learning outcomes (e.g. in the Finland-Iceland exchange in the M.O.T.O project, a teacher from a partner institution kept in touch with the employer who hosted the mobile learner);
• ensured that the assessment is carried out abroad (e.g. the ECVET ASSET and OPIR projects used assessment grids to support this);
• on the learners’ return, received documentation about each learner’s assessment (transcript of record). These were then reviewed and the organisers verified that the conditions that enabled them to validate credit had been met.
Evaluation
On the learners’ return, the project organisers:
• gathered information of whether each learner’s credit had been validated and recognised;
• identified, if this had not happened, the reasons why;
• collected feedback from learners, teachers and partner organisations on what had worked and what had not worked in relation to the instruments and methods they had developed (e.g. Aerovet and OPIR collected feedback from teachers).
Review
The pilot projects were designed to test ECVET. For many projects, the review phase was used to reflect on their experiences and to provide conclusions and recommendations for the future use of ECVET. When ECVET is implemented, the review phase should be used to improve future mobility exchanges.
In addition to aspects of quality assurance that can be organised in relation to the EQAVET quality cycle, it is possible to think of quality assurance from the perspective of ‘ECVET functions’. For each function the outcomes need to be quality assured e.g. most projects made sure that descriptions of learning outcomes covered the knowledge, skills and competences that are relevant for the professions involved in the mobility project. They involved experts in the process (such as the chamber of commerce) or included a validation stage where experts reviewed the descriptions of learning outcomes.
To ensure the host organisation provided appropriate learning opportunities and could deliver the unit to the required quality, the MOTO project provided guidance to the host institution from the sending organisation about the expected learning outcomes. Teachers in the host institution then made sure that the local host enterprise was able to prepare the student to meet the expected learning outcomes.
To ensure assessment in the host organisation was comparable to assessment by the home institution, some projects developed common assessment grids to record students’ results e.g. in the OPIR project, descriptions of a unit’s learning outcomes were accompanied by a description of the assessment criteria and indicators which supported the assessment process.
The way projects consider quality assurance is still a ‘work in progress’. However we know that the expectations and requirements for quality assurance are likely to differ depending on whether conversations are with a certification body or a training centre. The requirements also differ when credit transfer relates to organised mobility of students compared to another form of mobility. Some quality assurance measures are likely to appear too onerous for a short-term mobility project.
In conclusion, based on the work from the pilot projects, it is clear that there isn’t a common understanding of what is important for quality assurance when using ECVET. More work will be needed to develop this common understanding. In this context, it is worthwhile noting that the updated version of ECVET’s Guide on Mobility, adopted by the ECVET Users’ Group and due to be published by the European Commission, will identify quality assurance issues that support geographical mobility. This should start the process of building a common understanding. Download ECVET Magazine n.10.
See also: ECVET Magazine n. 9, ECVET Magazine n. 8, ECVET Magazine n. 7, ECVET Magazine n. 6, ECVET Magazine n. 5, Issue 4, April 2011, Issue 3, January 2011, Issue 2, November 2010, Issue 1, June 2010, Issue 4, April 2010, Issue 3, November 2009, Issue 2, July 2009, Issue 1, April 2009.

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 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.