This report is based on the annual ENQA Internal Quality Assurance seminar on the theme of Learning from each other – using benchmarking to develop IQA that was held on 16-17 June 2011 in Helsinki, Finland.
It presents a general overview of the benchmarking theme and discusses common features and differences of the benchmarked agencies’ IQA activities in terms of the selected three themes: performance indicators, follow-up on feedback and staff competence/development. The report also puts forward the benchmarking partners’ views on strengths, weaknesses and recommendations for development of each other’s activities, as well as the good practice they have identified on the selected theme. Download the Report.
Internal Quality Assurance and Benchmarking
DOUGLAS BLACKSTOCK, NADINE BURQUEL, NÚRIA COMET, MATTI KAJASTE, SÉRGIO MACHADO DOS SANTOS, SANDRA MARCOS, MARION MOSER, HENRI PONDS, HARALD SCHEUTHLE, LUIS CARLOS VELÓN SIXTO
Introduction
The Internal Quality Assurance group of ENQA (IQA Group) has been organising a yearly seminar for its members since 2007. Staff members involved in IQA of all ENQA members can join the activities of the Group. The main objective is to share experiences concerning the internal quality assurance of work processes in the participating agencies.
The Group is coordinated by a Steering group (SG), consisting of five members. The composition of the Steering group changes gradually by election of one or two members every year.
The overarching theme of the 2011 seminar was how to use benchmarking as a tool for developing an agency’s internal quality assurance system. The seminar gathered around 45 participants in the premises of the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) in Helsinki on 16-17 June 2011.
“Benchmarking involves comparing different aspects of the work of a group of organisations. It can be a very flexible approach. You can compare services, products or processes; you can look at a wide range of issues or focus on areas of concern; and you can benchmark with similar organisations or take a cross-sector approach on common issues such as customer care. Benchmarking may take place as a one-off exercise or be an ongoing relationship. The benchmarking exercise should be a mutually beneficial relationship, with every organisation in the benchmarking group being able to learn and develop from the experience of others.”
The Steering group based the preparation of the benchmarking activity on this definition. Agencies which are similar to each other, i.e. in size or scope, were grouped in pairs or triplets. Each group included an agency member of the Steering group. They compared their own practice with others on a certain focus area before the seminar, between January and May 2011. In addition to good practices, the participating agencies were encouraged to openly share which processes they find challenging or ineffective in their agencies. The findings were presented in the IQA Seminar in June 2011.
The benchmarking exercise focused on the following areas:
• Benchmarking of performance indicators (with FINHEEC)
• Benchmarking of on the follow-up of feedback (with ACSUCYL)
• Benchmarking of staff competence/development (with NVAO)
The present report gathers good practise and expertise related to these three themes: follow up on feedback (chapter 2), staff development (chapter 3) and performance indicators (chapter 4). The first chapter of the report provides a general overview of the benchmarking theme and is based on the keynote speech given by Dr Nadine Burquel... Download the Report.
Conclusions
Following the comparison exercise of the two Agencies, these conclusions may be drawn: Is it possible to compare Agencies?
• The agencies work in very different contexts, using different processes although some have comparable procedures;
• The indicators used for this benchmarking exercise may seem, at first sight, to be of little value and have little meaning if considered alone. They are context sensitive;
• More data from different agencies would be needed to choose the best and most representative indicators.
Could indicators be a tool to compare the performance of the agencies?
• It is difficult and lengthy to compare agencies with this type of indicators;
• They are a good internal tools to monitor and improve the effectiveness of the quality management system;
• It is useful to know which indicators other agencies use (qualitative comparison).
FINAL THOUGHTS
Some areas to work on in the future were identified:
• The group considered that it could be more important to proceed with the exchange of practices on the use of different procedures;
• Nevertheless, when exchanging and comparing practices, agencies should also look at the way(s) in which they measure the impact of such practices (internal: resources; and external: results)
• It would be important to develop meaningful indicators to assess the impact of the agency’s work on HEIs and on the HE system as a whole. Download the Report.

About FLLLEX
The FLLLEX project addresses the challenges and implications of LifeLong Learning incorporation into European higher education institutions. How flexible are those institutions when it comes to LifeLong Learning? Hence: FLLLEX. LifeLong Learning opens up a multitude of new possibilities for higher education institutions but the impact on the organisation as such remains understudied. What is the role of higher education in the wider landscape of LifeLong Learning? What are the institutional changes for the future? What strategy can the project propose to other higher education institutions and what policy advise to European and national players?
Main outcomes of the FLLLEX project:
The FLLLEX-Radar: an instrument for assessing the degree of Lifelong Learning implementation in the institution. The FLLLEX-Radar has been developed and tested by the different partner institutions. The results of the evaluation as well as the experiences in using the instrument were discussed with external review panels.
FLLLEX project results and recommendations are summarized in a brochure.
FLLLEX results and institutional experiences were presented at the 22nd EURASHE annual conference on May 10-11 2012 in Riga.
The FLLLEX project (The Impact of LifeLong Learning Strategies on Professional Higher Education) is an EU funded project in the framework of the Transversal Programme, Key Activity 1. It has started on the 1st of January 2010 and will run until 31st of August 2012. The consortium includes 24 partners from 10 European countries.
What is the FLLLEX-Radar about?
Published by the FLLLEX consortium with special thanks to Josep Grifoll (ENQA – AQU). This publication can be downloaded on www.FLLLEX.eu.
Self-assessment instrument
The FLLLEX-Radar is a self-assessment instrument that will help you to assess and reflect on the situation of Lifelong Learning (LLL) at your institution. The FLLLEX-Radar is designed to address the challenges and implications stemming from the incorporation of Lifelong Learning into European higher education institutions (HEIs).
The main priority of the use made of the Radar is to promote discussion and food for thought through analysis of different strategic areas linked to the development of Lifelong Learning in the coming years.
The purpose of a self-evaluation like this is not to rank the individual institutions, but to strengthen the position of institutions within their national and international contexts. The focus is clearly on ‘enhancement’ rather than ‘accountability’. In this respect, one of the more important tasks to be carried out by institutions in the self-assessment process is oriented towards the organisation and facilitating of debates and discussion on Lifelong Learning provision among the institutional members and with relevant stakeholders.
The instrument is an outcome of the FLLLEX project (‘The Impact of Lifelong Learning Strategies
on Professional Higher Education’), an EU funded project within the framework of the Transversal Programme, Key Activity 1. Eight HEIs from eight different countries have developed
and tested the tool. The objective of the project is to identify challenges and implications of Lifelong Learning (LLL) incorporation into European higher education institutions (HEI’s), with special attention given to the recognition of prior learning and to different aspects of the management and services within higher education institutions.
Results and Recommendations of the FLLLEX project are summarized in Towards an institutional strategy of Lifelong Learning in Higher Professional Education. This publication, as well as more detailed reports of the different work packages, can be found on www.FLLLEX.eu.
Why assess the implementation of LLL?
HEI’s remain a preferential partner in most countries for the governing bodies responsible to implement the national goals of LLL. HEI’s have a particular role to fulfil in the landscape of LLL, together with or among all other stakeholders, including lifelong learners, social partners/employers and training providers (profit and non-profit). The project would like to assess this role, as determined by the national policies and as perceived by the institutions themselves. The FLLLEX-Radar assesses in the first place if your institution matches up with the expectations of the different stakeholders.
The aims of the self-assessment are:
• To develop an analysis of the current situation for Lifelong Learning provision
in higher education institutions.
• To provide food for thought, at different levels within higher education institutions,
on the future development of Lifelong Learning.
• To open dialogues with stakeholders and other groups of interest on Lifelong
Learning provision.
• To enhance quality assurance frameworks for Lifelong Learning provision.
Therefore, the FLLLEX self-assessment tool is organised according to four core dimensions:
1. Analysis of the broader context
2. Lifelong Learning provision at the HEI (current situation)
3. Institutional policy (preferred situation)
4. Quality assurance in the institution
Each dimension can be assessed separately. However, it is suggested to tackle those in the order as proposed in this guide and build upon the results of the previous one.
The FLLLEX-Radar is meant to serve as a starting point for strategy development. Hence it is designed to be used only one time within the institution, not for repetitions in a cyclical mode. Although we are aware that carrying out a self-assessment requires substantial staffing resources, we are convinced that if discussions of the focus groups are well organised, the result should be very relevant for establishing new institutional strategies for Lifelong Learning. Download The FLLLEX-Radar.

The Austrian Agency for Quality Assurance (AQA) is an independent institution for quality assurance, evaluation and certification for the entire higher education sector.
AQA develops and conducts quality assurance procedures in accordance with national and European standards.
AQA contributes with international expertise and know–how to the quality development of higher education institutions.
A new Federal Act for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (Hochschul-Qualitätssicherungsgesetz), coming into force by 1st March 2012, sets a common frame for quality assurance in all sectors of higher education in Austria (public universities, universities of applied sciences, private universities). Part of the new law is the establishment of the trans-sectoral "Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation Austria" by the 1st of March 2012. The new agency will unify the functions of AQA, FH Council and Accreditation Council for the private universities.
AQA will operate until 2013 and progressively integrate its activities into the new agency. AQA staff will take care of the current procedures in the proven manner and AQA meet all of its obligations.
Please contact us for any questions regarding the reorganisation.
ATTENTION: We moved to new office!
Our new contact details from 16.7.2012:
AQ Austria
Renngasse 5, 1010 Vienna
Tel: +43-1-532 02 20-0, Fax: -99
All mail adresses stay active.

Jordan has become the first Arab country to launch a national campaign to promote its vocational education and training system. The campaign, on behalf of Jordan’s Ministry of Labour, is to run for four years starting this year. Communications agency Prisma, specialists in social marketing, is in charge of both the design and operational side of things.
Part of a broader reform of Jordanian vocational education and training, the campaign has two aims: raising its profile and encouraging more young Jordanians to consider working in vocational jobs. What lies behind this is the determination of the Jordanian government to increase the overall labour market participation rate. At around 40% - some 66% for men and just 14% for women, it is one of the lowest in the region.
Skills mismatch is also an issue. “We have a lot of university graduates but the labour market need is for intermediate and skilled people and we have high youth unemployment. Many job opportunities in the Jordanian economy tend to go to foreign labour because Jordanians are not willing to take these jobs,” says Nadera Al-Bakheet, director of the E-TVET Council Secretariat.
Prisma is using social marketing techniques to bring about the desired change in attitudes; young people are the main target group, with young women a significant sub-group, followed by parents, teachers, career counsellors and employers. The approach involves identifying the current behaviour of target groups and looking at the barriers that are stopping them from changing this. “For instance what is preventing youth from taking up the opportunities of TVET? How may parents be discouraging students from doing this?” says Hala Darwazeh, co-ordinator of the campaign at Prisma.
The initiative is using a mix of traditional and social media to reach its audience. The campaign team are aware that engineering social change will not happen overnight but can be done slowly but surely. “Something that 20 years ago was socially acceptable such as smoking no longer is today. When anti-smoking campaigns started they faced some resistance but now it is the social norm that smoking is not cool,” says Saad Darwazeh, managing director of Prisma, “the question of job stereotyping for women is exactly the same.”
The article by Rebecca Warden appears in the new issue of ETF magazine Live&Learn.

Two IAU Member Universities have accepted to host the IAU Collaborative Workshop : A three-step activity to discuss links between higher education (HE) and Education for All (EFA) locally.
The University of Nairobi (Kenya) and Tribhuvan University (Nepal) and two Members of the HEEFA Reference Group are currently collaborating with the IAU to conduct a high-level Workshop which aims to enhance the contribution and involvement of higher education institutions in reaching the United Nations' EFA goals at the local level. The first Workshop will be held on 18-19 October 2012 in Nairobi, Kenya and the second Workshop on 6-7 December 2012 in Kathmandu, Nepal.
The Workshop is one of the activities undertaken within the IAU HE for EFA Project. Contact: Nadja Kymlicka.
Deux universités membres de l’AIU ont accepté d’organiser l’atelier collaboratif de l'AIU : Une activité en trois étapes pour discuter des liens entre l’enseignement supérieur et l’Education pour Tous (EPT) au niveau local.
L'Université de Nairobi (Kenya) et l'Université Tribhuvan (Népal) et deux membres du Groupe de référence travaillent en collaboration avec l’AIU pour organiser cet atelier de haut niveau qui vise à renforcer la contribution et l'implication des établissements d'enseignement supérieur dans la réalisation des objectifs de l'initiative EPT des Nations Unies au niveau local. Le premier atelier se tiendra les 18-19 octobre 2012 à Nairobi, Kenya ; le deuxième les 6-7 décembre 2012 à Katmandou, Népal.
L'atelier fait partie des activités menées dans le cadre du projet Enseignement supérieur et EPT de l'AIU.
Contact: Nadja Kymlicka.

‘Retention’ in the UK refers to students remaining within one HE institution and completing their programme of study within a specific timeframe. ‘Success’ recognises that students benefit from HE study in a wider range of ways, including personal development and progression into the labour market or further learning.
We work with institutions and other bodies to develop evidence-informed approaches to improving the retention and success of all students. We have a programme of work to disseminate research and support institutional development.
New: The final report of the What works? Student Retention and Success programme has been published by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation  (July 2012). Building student engagement and belonging in higher Education at a time of change: Final report from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme.
An Executive summary is also available: Summary of findings and recommendations from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme.
Building student engagement and belonging in higher education at a time of change: a summary of findings and recommendations from the What works? Student Retention & Success programme
What works? Summary report.
The 'What Works?' programme sought to analyse and evaluate best practice skills to ensure high student retention in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), with a particular focus on students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Twenty two HEIs collaborating through seven distinct projects participated in the programme from 2008-11. The methodology consisted of combining student survey data, qualitative research with students and staff, literature reviews and analysis of institutional data.
A fuller synthesis and discussion of the programme’s findings and both practical and strategic implications are given in the full programme report. Detailed findings are set out in the seven individual project reports. In addition, a compendium of effective practices in higher education has been published to provide more practical exemplars of successful interventions drawn from the institutions that have participated in What Works? and from the wider sector. Publisher: Paul Hamlyn Foundation.
“The work undertaken within the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme has given the opportunity to those institutions involved to develop and enhance the evaluation of their strategies and approaches further. It is now vital that the lessons learned and progress made through the programme is shared with and benefits all HE providers and their students. HEFCE will continue to encourage institutions to develop and enhance initiatives which contribute to success throughout the whole student lifecycle, including progression to post-graduate study and into employment.”
Sir Alan Langlands, Chief Executive of HEFCE
“The benefits that a university education typically adds to an individual’s career prospects and to their quality of life generally is widely recognised, but is something that needs greater articulation. The outcomes of the seven projects, summarised in this report, will help to convey this message and provide an excellent foundation to continue both the sharing and development of good practice across the sector.”
Professor Eric Thomas, President of Universities UK
Foreword
What is the secret of success in higher education? What can universities do to help prevent students from dropping out of their studies? These are clearly vitally important questions. Both morally and educationally, institutions have a duty to do everything they can to help students make a success of their higher education. At a time of profound change in the sector, these questions take on an added urgency. Students are investing heavily in their higher education and institutions stand to lose a considerable sum of money for each student that drops out.
This report is therefore greatly to be welcomed. It provides a timely and important set of insights into What Works? based on the experience of a wide range of interventions across the sector. The result is a radical new message. In place of the received wisdom of the importance to students of choice and flexibility, is the finding that it is a sense of belonging that is critical to both retention and success. It is the human side of higher education that comes first – finding friends, feeling confident and above all, feeling a part of your course of study and the institution – that is the necessary starting point for academic success.
This report challenges institutions to look afresh at their priorities and to consider: how the curriculum might be reorganised to provide for sustained engagement between teachers and students; how teaching can be organised to create student learning communities; and how to convey the message to students that they belong. The projects reported briefly here and at more length in the full report of the What Works? programme, offer a number of important new insights. If our higher education institutions are to maximise both their students’ happiness and their future success, these insights deserve close study across the sector.
Professor Patricia Broadfoot CBE, University of Bristol, Chair of What Works? Advisory Group
Introduction
This report presents a summary of the findings and recommendations of the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme, initiated and funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation and HEFCE.
With much widening participation research concentrating on the effectiveness of outreach and pre-entry work, the Paul Hamlyn Foundation was keen to support the higher education sector in identifying and sharing best practice, across the student lifecycle, to enable students from disadvantaged backgrounds, in particular, to succeed in higher education. HEFCE wished to support the improved evaluation and dissemination of good practice with regards to student retention and success, and to further build the evidence base for successful retention practice. This followed a National Audit Office report of 2007, which confirmed the strong performance of higher education institutions in retaining their students, but also found that the sector was carrying out little evaluation of the impact and transferability of good practice.
This is a time of immense change in the higher education system. The government is aiming to use student choice as a major driver in shaping HE provision, and some commentators anticipate that increased student fees will lead to higher expectations and, some argue, a stronger ‘consumer’ mindset amongst students. In this context, the need for institutions to understand how they can most effectively translate their strategic intentions to improve student retention and success into activities that will most effectively impact on student, department and institutional-level outcomes, is clearly paramount.
The What Works? programme has therefore sought to generate robust, evidence-based analysis and evaluation about the most effective practices to ensure high continuation and completion rates. Twenty two higher education institutions, collaborating through seven distinct projects (see p.12), which were selected through a competitive process, participated in the programme from 2008–11. They undertook extensive research to inform their enquiries and test specific hypotheses. Most studies combined student survey data, qualitative research with students and staff, literature reviews and analysis of institutional data.
A fuller synthesis and discussion of the programme’s findings and both practical and strategic implications is given in the full programme report. Detailed project-level findings are set out in the seven individual project reports. In addition a Compendium of Effective Practice in Higher Education Retention & Success has been published to provide more practical exemplars of successful interventions, drawn from the institutions that have participated in What Works? and from the wider sector. A second edition will be published in July 2012.
The Higher Education Academy will be leading ongoing work to support institutional teams across the sector to implement changes informed by the What Works? programme. Further details will be available in the summer from retention&success@heacademy.ac.uk. Download Building student engagement and belonging in higher Education at a time of change: Final report from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme.
Conclusions
This significant programme of evaluation and research reinforces and extends our knowledge about improving student retention and success. This is particularly important at a time like this when we stand on the precipice of radical change that has not been attempted in any other country. In the light of the higher student tuition fees, what will encourage students to participate in higher education, and reinforce their decision to stay and enable them to make the most of the opportunity they have selected? This study finds that belonging will go a long way to achieving these outcomes. Institutional approaches that promote belonging will have the following characteristics:
• supportive peer relations;
• meaningful interaction between staff and students;
• developing knowledge, confidence and identity as successful HE learners;
• an HE experience that is relevant to interests and future goals.
The study finds that student engagement and belonging are central to improving student retention and success. This challenges institutions to rethink their priorities, policies, processes and practices to enable a culture of belonging to be realised. The programme makes a significant contribution by recognising the importance of a mainstream approach to addressing student retention through a culture of belonging that maximises the success of all students, as opposed to interventions targeted at particular groups of students. This approach, which places the academic sphere at the heart of improving student retention and success, recognises the need for institutional transformation, as opposed to a student deficit approach that blames students and/or requires them to change in order to benefit from higher education. Such an approach tends towards reproduction, and continues to disadvantage non-traditional students and others who have not traditionally prospered in higher education. The What Works? approach puts academic programmes and high quality, student-centred learning and teaching at the heart of effective student retention and success.
Some of the key messages echo findings from the US and smaller studies in the UK. This, however, is a sizeable project that involved 22 higher education institutions and hundreds of students over a three-year period. The seven projects had different foci, and used a range of methods, but they all point to the overarching findings of this programme. The diversity of sites, methods and researchers extends the reliability and applicability of these findings, as the messages have high levels of consistency.
Challenges remain about relating research findings and evaluation of specific practices from particular contexts to improving practice within one’s own institution. To further assist with the process of translating global findings to effective practices we have compiled a sister publication, Compendium of effective practice: Proven ways of improving student retention and success (Andrews et al., 2012). The Paul Hamlyn Foundation is continuing to work with the Higher Education Academy and Action on Access to support institutional teams from 2012-2015 to review institutions’ strengths and areas for development, implement changes at the strategic and academic programme levels and to evaluate the impact of changes on student retention.
What to do now
i. Use this report, the summary report, the project reports, the Compendium of effective practice (Andrews et al., 2012), and research and practice from your own institution to engage colleagues in debate about student success. You might find the institutional reflective checklist a useful starting point for discussion.
ii. Use your institutional data and data in the HE system to assess your strengths and weakness with regard to student retention. Supplement this with further institutional data and research, such as National Student Satisfaction survey results and local research with students and staff to extend your understanding.
iii. Identify your priority areas for development, thinking about changes at the strategic and programme levels in particular.
iv. Establish teams to further review priority areas and develop and implement an action plan.
v. Consider joining the Higher Education Academy’s Retention and Success Change Programme to facilitate the process. Download Building student engagement and belonging in higher Education at a time of change: Final report from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme.

By Green, Francis; Mostafa, Tarek. Using data from the fifth European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS), this study measures job quality in the 27 countries of the European Union, as well as seven additional countries in Europe that participated in the survey. The intention was to find an objective means of assessing the principle established in a number of EU directives that work should adapt to the workers. Increased understanding of the social costs of poor job quality has focused attention on physical and social environments at work. Prolonged life expectancy and the ageing of the population suggest that jobs will have to be of good quality if more workers are to be persuaded to work longer. The indices constructed for this study do not rely on subjective measurement such as preferences and attitudes, but are built on the self-reported features of jobs that are associated with workers’ well-being. An executive summary is available. Download "Trends in job quality in Europe".
Executive summary
Introduction
This study measures job quality in the 27 countries of the European Union, as well as the seven additional countries in Europe that participated in the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS). Four indices were constructed for the study: earnings, prospects, intrinsic job quality and working time quality. The four indices cannot be reduced into a single index of job quality because associations between them are weak, and none can increase over time nor move in similar directions. They are, however, theoretically and conceptually coherent.
The intention was to fi nd an objective means of assessing the principle established in a number of EU directives that work should adapt to the workers. The indices constructed for this study do not rely on subjective measurement such as preferences and attitudes, but are built on the self-reported features of jobs that are associated with workers’ well-being.
Policy context
Following the introduction of the European Employment Strategy in 1997 through the Treaty of Amsterdam, and the subsequent launch of the Lisbon Growth and Jobs strategy in 2000, the idea of ‘more and better jobs’ came to the fore among European Union policy objectives. This development was paralleled by similar concerns from transnational bodies such as the OECD, and from individual national governments that wished to complement their targets for the numbers of people in employment with objectives for the quality of work and employment.
Subsequent years saw also the development at the European level of the concept of ‘fl exicurity’, a strategy to foster the introduction of policies to improve both fl exibility and security. While fl exicurity policies focused more on the labour market rather than individual jobs, fl exicurity was seen as consistent with the aim of raising the quality of work and employment.
The issues with which policymakers were concerned included productivity, the welfare of working people, raising job quality through initiatives such the use of available skills and acquisition of new skills, rising stress levels associated with ‘job strain’ and other environmental and psychosocial risks, and the growing prevalence of ‘precarious’ work.
Job insecurity became a particularly salient issue with the onset of the global economic crisis in the latter half of 2008, especially among young people. Policies to encourage sustainable employment have still been widely seen as important in the drive to improve job quality. Europe 2020, which is a strategy for sustainable growth and jobs, includes as one of its core guidelines ‘developing a skilled workforce responding to labour market needs, promoting job quality and lifelong learning’. Increased understanding of the social costs of poor job quality has focused attention on physical and social environments at work. Prolonged life expectancy and the ageing of the population suggest jobs will have to be of good quality if more workers are to be persuaded to work longer.
There are, therefore, many reasons for wishing to clarify the concept and measurement of the quality of paid work for the purposes of policy analyses, and this study seeks to deepen the analysis based on the data from the EWCS series.
Key findings
Using the four indices specifi cally constructed for this study, it was concluded that 14% of jobs in Europe are high-paid good jobs; 37% are well-balanced good jobs; 29% are poorly balanced jobs; and 20% are poor quality jobs.
Workers in poor quality jobs had, on average, the lowest levels of health and well-being, showing more health problems, lower subjective well-being, and found less meaning in their work. These poor quality jobs, where workers could be said to be most at risk, were especially concentrated in establishments with fewer than fi ve employees, and in the private sector. They were also more prevalent in countries with lower levels of GDP per capita, though the association with national income is far from perfect.
Overall levels of average job quality in the 15 Member States that have participated in every wave of the EWCS since 1995 show relative stability in three of the indices – skills and discretion, good physical environment and work intensity – although the latter has increased over time slightly. However, this apparent stability hides important differences by country. In contrast, there was a rise of more than fi ve points over time in the working time quality index. This rise largely reflects reductions in working time and less work during non-standard hours.
On average men have higher monthly earnings than women. In terms of the working time quality index, women do better; indeed, they work on average shorter hours, and less frequently do shift work during non-standard hours. Women also enjoy a slightly higher level of intrinsic job quality, which comes from working on average in somewhat better physical environments. Finally, the measurement of the prospects index is almost the same for men and women.
Levels of the four job quality indices vary across industries in Europe. Those working in the information and communication sectors or in fi nance and insurance are highest ranked on most indices.
The self-employed who have employees have the highest level of earnings. In contrast, the self-employed without employees have lower earnings, yet a higher working time quality index. This latter advantage is due to fl exibility in the management of their work, not to their having fewer work hours or less shift work.
Those employed on indefi nite contracts have relatively high values on most of the indicators, while those employees with fixed-term or temporary contracts have lower job quality on all dimensions.
Policy pointers
The lack of aggregate change in the physical environment suggests that efforts be redoubled to bring about improvements. Policy could usefully be focused on the increasing prevalence of posture-related risks in the workplace.
Similarly, rising levels of work intensity in the majority of countries contribute to a rising risk of high stress levels and their consequent ill effects on health and well-being. Policies to reduce the presence of stressors are indicated, as well as programmes to ameliorate the effects of high levels of stress. Some positive signs are found in the increases in the growth of the skills and discretion index in the majority of countries.
This index goes to the heart of the intrinsic character of work, and is at the same time associated on average with higher levels of productivity. In some countries where there is, however, evidence of a decline in this index, policy attention needs to be directed at the source of this fall.
The largest aggregate change, however, took place for the working time quality index, and here the picture is positive, showing rises both overall and in most countries. However, working time fl exibility still needs to be monitored. Policy towards ameliorating the detrimental effects of work on health and well-being needs to be conducted on a fairly broad front.

UNESCO GUIDELINES for the Recognition, Validation and Accreditation of the Outcomes of Non-formal and Informal Learning
Acknowledgements from the Director of UIL
As a priority to follow up the Belém Framework for Action adopted at the Sixth International Conference on Adult Education (CONFINTEA VI) in 2009, on behalf of UNESCO Secretariat, the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) has taken the initiative to develop the UNESCO Guidelines for the Recognition, Validation and Accreditation of the Outcomes of Nonformal and Informal Learning.
UIL is most grateful to a remarkable group of international experts who met at UIL in October 2011 to share their insights and experiences in creating this work. They include Sabine Seidel, Expert of the Institute of Development Planning and Research, Germany; Abdalla Ababenh, Director of National Centre for Human Resources Development, Jordan; Kaylash Allgoo, Director of Mauritius Qualifications Authority, Mauritius; Juan de Dios Castro, General Director and Sara Elena Mendoza, Deputy Director of Diversified Contents of the National Institute for Adult Education (INEA), Mexico; Sombat Suwanpitak, Deputy Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education, Thailand; Jens Bjørnåvold, Senior Expert of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop); Richard Walther, Coordinator of the Association for Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) 2012 Triennale Conference; Michel Aribaud, Specialist in Qualifications System of European Training Foundation (ETF); and Marie-Odile Paulet, Expert of the National Commission for UNESCO, France...
With the launching of the UNESCO Guidelines for the Recognition, Validation and Accreditation of the Outcomes of Non-formal and Informal Learning, my colleagues and I will do all we can to facilitate collaborative research and provide technical assistance and capacity-building to Member States in their construction and implementation of the RVA systems. Arne Carlsen, Director, UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. Download the UNESCO GUIDELINES for the RVA of the Outcomes of Non-formal and Informal Learning.
Introduction
Lifelong learning has been central to UNESCO’s mission to promote every individual’s right to education. The Faure Report – Learning to Be (1972) – and the Delors Report – Learning: the Treasure Within (1996) – have contributed to the development of policy and practice in lifelong learning and to the creation of learning societies in UNESCO Member States. Encompassing formal, non-formal and informal learning, lifelong learning emphasises the integration of learning and living – in life-wide contexts across family and community settings, in study, work and leisure, and throughout an individual’s life.
Today, in a complex and fast-changing world, it is necessary for individuals to acquire and adapt competences (knowledge, skills and attitudes) through all forms of learning to cope with various challenges. However, qualifications systems in many societies still focus on formal learning in educational institutions. As a result, a large part of individuals’ learning remains unrecognised, and many individuals’ motivation and confidence to continue learning is not well promoted. This leads to a huge under-utilisation of human talent and resources in society. Therefore, the learning outcomes that young people and adults acquire in the course of their life in non-formal and informal settings need to be made visible, assessed and accredited.
The demand for the recognition, validation and accreditation (RVA) of all forms of learning with a focus on non-formal and informal learning outcomes was expressed through the Belém Framework for Action, adopted by 144 Delegations of UNESCO Member States at the Sixth International Conference on Adult Education (CONFINTEA VI) in Brazil in December 2009. It called on UNESCO to develop Guidelines on all learning outcomes, including those acquired through non-formal and informal learning, so that these may be recognised and validated. At the same time, Member States committed themselves to developing or improving structures and mechanisms for the recognition of all forms of learning by establishing equivalency frameworks.
Vision
The RVA of non-formal and informal learning is a key lever in making lifelong learning a reality. It renders visible and gives value to the hidden and unrecognised competences that individuals have obtained through various means and in different phases of their lives. Valuing and recognising these learning outcomes may significantly improve individuals’ self-esteem and well-being, motivate them to further learning, and strengthen their labour market opportunities. RVA may help to integrate broader sections of the population into an open and flexible education and training system and to build inclusive societies.
Purposes
The overall aim of these Guidelines is to propose principles and mechanisms that can assist Member States in developing or improving structures and procedures to recognise the outcomes of all forms of learning, particularly those of non-formal and informal learning.
More specifically, the purposes are:
• to advocate for the importance of recognising the value of non-formal and informal learning;
• to develop a common understanding of RVA and outline the major considerations in developing a national RVA system;
• to assist Member States in developing tools, standards and mechanisms to identify, document, validate and recognise the learning outcomes of non-formal and informal learning; and
• to create an international platform to facilitate and ensure continuous dialogue on RVA among Member States.
Principles
• Ensuring equity and inclusiveness in access to learning opportunities. Every individual should have the right to access and engage in any form of learning suited to his/ her needs, and have their learning outcomes made visible and valued.
• Promoting the equal value of learning outcomes of formal, non-formal and informal learning. Competences that every individual has accumulated through non-formal and informal learning should be treated on a par with those that are obtained through formal learning.
• Ensuring the centrality of individuals in the RVA process. The process should respect and reflect individuals´ needs, and their participation should be on a voluntary basis.
• Improving flexibility and openness of formal education and training. Education and training systems should consider diverse forms of learning, taking into account learners’ needs and experiences.
• Promoting quality assurance in the entire RVA process. It is imperative that criteria and procedures for assessing and validating non-formal and informal learning are relevant, reliable, fair and transparent.
• Strengthening partnerships among all stakeholders. It is important to emphasise a shared responsibility from design through to implementation and evaluation of the RVA system.
Key areas of action at national level
1. Establishing RVA as a key component of a national lifelong learning strategy
Lifelong learning goes beyond formal education and training. It includes learning at work, in the family and community, and in leisure time. A national lifelong learning strategy aims to facilitate individuals’ access to competences enabling them to continue learning, enter the labour market and to attain professional and social mobility. Such a strategy would be incomplete if it did not include the RVA of competences or outcomes gained in all learning settings.
In this context it is suggested that Member States
(1) develop a national lifelong learning strategy, with RVA of non-formal and informal learning as a key pillar and as a means to improving personal fulfilment, access to and mobility within education and in the labour market;
(2) facilitate the development of national references or standards that integrate the RVA of non-formal and informal learning, and, based on the national context, establish a national qualifications framework (NQF); and
(3) develop equivalencies between the outcomes of formal, non-formal and informal learning in the national reference, standards or NQFs through a shared understanding of learning outcomes.
2. Developing RVA systems that are accessible to all
When available and accessible, RVA processes should allow broad groups of populations to have their learning outcomes assessed, validated and recognised, whether acquired nonformally or informally. This gives individuals an incentive to continue to learn, empowers them and enables them to become more active in the labour market and in society in general. For disadvantaged groups particularly, it can create a more level playing-field in education and training.
In this context it is suggested that Member States
(1) develop procedures that identify, document, assess, validate and accredit learning outcomes, giving due consideration to those from experiential learning, self-directed learning and other forms of non-standardised learning outside of formal education and training institutions;
(2) make use of both formative assessment (which draws more attention to identification, documentation, advice and counselling) and summative assessment (which aims explicitly to validate and recognise learning outcomes, leading to accreditation);
(3) offer information, guidance and counselling services to clarify RVA procedures so that individuals become more aware of their own competences and more motivated to learn further and to have their learning recognised, and
(4) provide special support through flexible arrangements for early school-leavers, adults with special learning needs, people and workers with low levels of education and those excluded from the labour market.
3. Making RVA integral to education and training systems
In most cases, traditional qualifications of formal education and learning have been defined with reference to fixed durations, subject, levels and location of study. The integration of RVA into formal systems stresses the importance of what learners actually know, are able to do and understand. This integration is crucial to creating alternative pathways in open and flexible education and training systems, meeting individuals’ diverse needs.
In this context it is suggested that Member States
(1) develop a mechanism for the formal education and training system that pays more attention to the quality of learning outcomes;
(2) create awareness and acceptance in formal education and training systems of the learning outcomes gained in non-traditional settings;
(3) use RVA to build bridges between the different education and training sectors and to promote the integration of formal, non-formal and informal learning; and
(4) develop approaches to increase interaction between educational institutions, enterprises and voluntary organisations to translate learning outcomes from working and life experiences into credits and/or qualifications.
4. Creating a coordinated national structure involving all stakeholders
RVA concerns stakeholders from different sectors (formal education institutions, industry and enterprises, social partners, adult education providers and voluntary organisations) and depends on their commitment to its smooth operation. It is therefore necessary to create a structure that involves all stakeholders through social dialogue and building consensus on principles for developing, implementing and financing national RVA systems.
In this context it is suggested that Member States
(1) ensure all stakeholders have clearly-defined roles and responsibilities in developing a coherent and coordinated national structure to oversee the design, implementation and quality assurance of the RVA system;
(2) establish mechanisms to adopt credible and quality RVA procedures, standards and instruments, as well as awarding qualifications;
(3) facilitate RVA implementation by putting in place effective administrative processes for receiving applications, organising assessment and providing feedback on outcomes, recording results, awarding qualifications and designing appeal processes; and (4) make efforts to build the RVA infrastructure at local level so that it is available where people live, work and learn, and make RVA a part of existing institutions in communities.
5. Building the capacities of RVA personnel
The quality of RVA hinges significantly on the capability of RVA administrators, assessors, facilitators, counsellors and other practitioners to set up and maintain inclusive RVA practices. The ongoing and continuous training of RVA personnel ensures reliability and trust in RVA practices.
In this context it is suggested that Member States
(1) ensure appropriate qualifications, skills and competences of RVA personnel, allowing them to manage and conduct the assessment and validation processes in their specific socio-economic contexts; and
(2) establish a system for the training of RVA personnel, and facilitate networks for mutual learning at local and national levels, and across countries, to enhance their competences and to develop best practice.
6. Designing sustainable funding mechanisms
Although RVA has multiple benefits, the cost can be a barrier to its promotion, in particular to meeting the learning needs of the disadvantaged. Developing a sustainable funding mechanism is key to establishing an RVA system. To make RVA available on a broader scale and accessible to more learners, funding has to come from diversified sources.
In this context it is suggested that Member States
(1) provide sufficient financial resources to build the basic infrastructure of the RVA system.
(2) develop sustainable cost-sharing mechanisms involving multi-stakeholder partnerships i.e. public, private, community, as well as individual learners. Public funds and private contributions to education institutions, as well as training levies from enterprises, should also be used to fund the implementation of RVA;
(3) make special provision for access to RVA arrangements at a reduced rate or free of charge for vulnerable groups and individuals; and
(4) conduct cost-benefit analyses to develop evidence on the benefits of RVA for individuals, enterprises, education institutions and for society as a whole.
UNESCO Commitments
In many Member States, the RVA of non-formal and informal learning outcomes is a new endeavour. Given the complexities in establishing an effective RVA system, there is a need to strengthen international cooperation and capacity-building in the field.
In this context, UNESCO will play an active role in the following areas:
(1) developing an RVA observatory for collecting and disseminating best practices at different stages in the development of RVA systems;
(2) facilitating policy dialogue, networking and sharing of experiences between Member States through peer-learning activities and cooperation among key stakeholders in different regions;
(3) facilitating studies on different RVA systems, mechanisms, instruments and tools through collaborative international research in the field of RVA; and
(4) responding to the request of Member States to provide technical assistance and capacity-building to key national stakeholders and practitioners to enable them to construct and implement the RVA systems.
Glossary
Recognition, Validation and Accreditation (RVA) of all forms of learning outcomes is a practice that makes visible and values the full range of competences (knowledge, skills and attitudes) that individuals have obtained in various contexts, and through various means in different phases of their lives.
• Recognition is a process of granting official status to learning outcomes and/or competences, which can lead to the acknowledgement of their value in society.
• Validation is the confirmation by an approved body that learning outcomes or competences acquired by an individual have been assessed against reference points or standards through pre-defined assessment methodologies.
• Accreditation is a process by which an approved body, on the basis of assessment of learning outcomes and/or competences according to different purposes and methods, awards qualifications (certificates, diplomas or titles), or grants equivalences, credit units or exemptions, or issues documents such as portfolios of competences. In some cases, the term accreditation applies to the evaluation of the quality of an institution or a programme as a whole.
Competences and learning outcomes
• Competences indicate a satisfactory state of knowledge, skills and attitudes and the ability to apply them in a variety of situations.
• Learning outcomes are achievements of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do as a result of a learning process.
Formal, non-formal and informal learning
• Formal learning takes place in education and training institutions, is recognised by relevant national authorities and leads to diplomas and qualifications. Formal learning is structured according to educational arrangements such as curricula, qualifications and teaching-learning requirements.
• Non-formal learning is learning that has been acquired in addition or alternatively to formal learning. In some cases, it is also structured according to educational and training arrangements, but more flexible. It usually takes place in community-based settings, the workplace and through the activities of civil society organisations. Through the recognition, validation and accreditation process, non-formal learning can also lead to qualifications and other recognitions.
• Informal learning is learning that occurs in daily life, in the family, in the workplace, in communities and through interests and activities of individuals. Through the recognition, validation and accreditation process, competences gained in informal learning can be made visible, and can contribute to qualifications and other recognitions. In some cases, the term experiential learning is used to refer to informal learning that focuses on learning from experience.
Qualifications and National Qualification Frameworks
• Qualification refers to what an individual is qualified to do. In the Guidelines, a qualification is an official record (certificate, diploma, degree) of learning achievement, which recognises the results of all forms of learning, including the satisfactory performance of a setoff related tasks. It can also be a condition that must be met or complied with for an individual to enter or progress in an occupation and/or for further learning.
• National Qualification Frameworks (NQF) are systems of equivalences and classifications of qualifications relating to a set of nationally agreed standards/criteria developed by competent public authorities. NQFs recognise learning outcomes and competences from all forms of learning.
Equivalence
• Equivalence refers to a state of being of equal value. The term is usually used to give equal value to the competences a learner obtained from outside the formal education and training system with those gained in the formal education and training system.
Bibliography
Delors,J. et al. 1996. Learning: The Treasure Within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century, Paris: UNESCO.
Faure, E. et al. 1972. Learning to Be: The World of Education Today and Tomorrow, Paris: UNESCO. Original edition : Faure, E. et al. 1972. Apprendre à être, Paris: UNESCO-Fayard. Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000018/001801e.pdf.
UIL. 2010. Belém Framework for Action. Harnessing the power and potential of adult learning and education for a viable future. The final document of the Sixth International Conference on Adult Education (CONFINTEA VI) which was adopted on 4 December 2009. Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001877/187789m.pdf.