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.