Formation Continue du Supérieur

More information about this event.

The initiative has been executed with the valuable contribution of 15 African universities

The objective is to address key issues and stimulate in-depth dialogue about the challenges and benefits of universities engaging with their external communities.
University Affairs, Canada's most authoritative source of information about and for Canada's higher education, will be introducing a new blog on community-university engagement called Taking the Plunge.The blog aims to deepen the discourse about community engagement and create a new kind of interdependence between post-secondary institutions and the communities they interact with, whether these are local or global.
The blog is written by Dr. Margo Fryer, founding director of the University of British Columbia Learning Exchange and UBC-Community Learning Initiative.
For more information follow this link.

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.

On 10-11 December in Berlin, European ministers discuss new ways of cooperation in vocational education and training. The focus is on dual-education models, which have attracted the attention of several Member States. Cedefop Director Christian Lettmayr has been invited to be the keynote speaker at the conference.
Much of the economic and industrial success of Europe can be traced to the advanced skills of its workers. Several countries, like Germany, have established successful vocational training models that combine theoretical studies with working in a company; several more are now interested in exploring similar policy options.
The issue is not to copy another country’s system, but to see how the essential features of dual-education models - such as the close fit between qualifications and jobs, and the involvement of social partners - can be developed within another system.   
Ministers responsible for vocational training from several Member States will be debating this question on 10-11 December in Berlin at a meeting on "Vocational Training in Europe: Perspectives for the young generation".

The EQF is a common European reference framework which links countries' qualifications systems together, acting as a translation device to make qualifications more readable and understandable across different countries and systems in Europe. In this context, Tuning could bridge the European Qualification Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL) and the Qualification Framework (QF) for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) as well as bridging the subject area level and the general descriptors of both qualification frameworks. What is really required now are frameworks which offer descriptors and reference points at mediate level, more general than at subject area level and more precise than at the level of the EQF for LLL and the QF for the EHEA (the Dublin descriptors).
The project seeks to develop a credit based sectoral qualification framework for the sector/domain of the Social Sciences. The framework is intended to cover the levels 3 to 8 of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL). The achievement of such a framework as an intermediate level between the subject area level and the general level of the EQF will facilitate the recognition of prior (formal, informal and non formal) learning by developing clear reference points. It will also contribute to the relationship of higher and general education and vocational education and training. A sector or domain is understood here as a combination of related fields of study which is based on more or less comparable learning profiles.
Description
The project will cover and will be based on the following two groups of subject areas. A first group for which learning outcomes/competences based descriptors and reference points have been developed in the framework of the Tuning and Thematic network projects: Business, European Studies, Education Sciences, Occupational Therapy and Social Work. A second group for which it is thought absolutely necessary to develop descriptors and reference points as being key fields in the Social Sciences domain: Law, Psychology and International Relations. The 40 institutions involved in the second group will be selected on the basis of an Open Call. Particular attention will be given to the relation between secondary general education on the one hand and vocational education and training and higher education on the other hand by identifying and comparing recognition procedures as well as standard pathways for admission to higher education programmes. The project builds on the results of the Erasmus, Tempus and Alfa TUNING projects, which have played a major role in promoting the learning outcomes/competence approach in higher education. The credit part of the framework will be based on ECTS taking into account the work that has been accomplished as part of the ECVET initiative.
Objectives
The main objective of the project is to develop a European credit based sectoral qualification framework covering the levels 3 to 8 of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL) on the basis of the outputs of the TUNING project, that is cycle level descriptors and reference points for a range of subject areas. The development of such a framework, covering secondary level and higher education at sectoral level will be a major step forward and will prove to be extremely useful for the recognition of prior learning (formal, non formal and informal). The intention is to develop also more clarity about credit ranges regarding the levels 3 to 5.
The most important objectives are the following:
    identification of (main) subject areas not covered by the Tuning project so far. Establishment of subject area based working groups for these fields. Initiating preparation of key features and cycle (level) descriptors for these subject areas;
    mapping of secondary general education and vocational education and training level from the perspective of the sector as well as for each subject area involved. Identification of communalities and differences at national level;
    identification of communalities and differences at sectoral as well as at subject area level at European level;
    preparation of cycle descriptors for the levels 3, 4 and possibly 5 at subject area as well as at sectoral level;
    identification of entrance and exit points as well as entrance levels at levels 3 and 4 and possibly 5 on the basis of different learning routes taken;
    identification of (ECTS) credit ranges for the levels 3 to 5 as well as exploration of the link to the European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) initiative;
    identification of communalities and differences between the already prepared cycle (level) descriptors for the first, second, third level, i.e. the levels 6 to 8 of the EQF for LLL;
    preparation of sectoral cycle / level descriptors. These descriptors should be written in such a way that both the Dublin descriptors and the descriptors of the EQF for LLL are covered;
    identification of communalities between the different Tuning sectoral frameworks: sector by sector as well as all sectors concerned;
    identification of suggestions for fine tuning and bridging of the Bologna (Dublin) descriptors and the descriptors of the EQF for LLL.

The HUMART project is a break through initiative to identify common denominators in the academic sectors/domains of Humanities and the Arts. The project is implemented in the context of the Bologna Process, the creation of one European Qualifications Framework and the subject area reference points developed by Tuning. Furthermore the project seeks to create European wide transparency with regard to the relation between higher education and secondary and vocational education and training. This will allow for improved recognition of formal, informal and non formal learning against clear internationally established reference points.
At present the Higher Education sector is working with the two existing European Qualifications Frameworks.A Qualifications Framework is a common reference framework which links countries' qualifications systems, acting as a translation device to make qualifications more readable and understandable across different countries and systems in Europe. The Tuning HUMART project plans to bridge the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL) and the Qualifications Framework (QF) for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) at the level of academic sectors/domains.
A sector or domain is understood here as a combination of related fields of study which is based on more or less comparable learning profiles. Point of departure in this exercise are the reference points at subject area level as developed in the Tuning projects. The HUMART project seeks to develop a credit based sectoral qualifications framework to cover the levels 3 to 8 of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL). The work will build on a comparable project for the field of Social Sciences which has been completed in the year 2010.
Objectives
SQF HUMART Final Report 2010-2011
SQFs for the Creative and Performing Disciplines and the Humanities
Reference Points for the Design and Delivery of Degree Programmes in Art History
Reference Points for the Design and Delivery of Degree Programmes in Linguistics
Reference Points for the Design and Delivery of Degree Programmes in Literary Studies
Reference Points for the Design and Delivery of Degree Programmes in Theology and Religious Studies
ECTS and ECVET: Comparisons and Contrasts
EQF Level Descriptors Architecture
EQF Level Descriptors Art History
EQF Level Descriptors Visual and Performing Arts
EQF Level Descriptors History
EQF Level Descriptors Linguistics
EQF Level Descriptors Literary Studies
EQF Level Descriptors Music
EQF Level Descriptors Theology and Religious Studies.

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. Please direct any comments you might care to make in relation to this document to Ingrid van der Meer (y.van.der.meer@rug.nl). Download EQF Level Descriptors Linguistics.
Project Title: Sectoral Qualifications Framework for Humanities & Arts
GRADUATES IN LINGUISTICS AT LEVEL 4 ARE EXPECTED TO...
Knowledge
Demonstrate knowledge of the main categories for grammatical description and some basic grammatical processes.
Demonstrate broad knowledge of the influence of genres, contexts, audiences and purposes on language forms and their meanings.
Demonstrate broad understanding of the social and cultural role of language and discourse.
Skills
Carry out basic language description using appropriate descriptive terminology.
Describe and interpret in broad terms variation in and between different modes and genres of spoken and written texts.
Competence
Adjust their spoken and written language according to genres, contexts, audiences and purposes.
GRADUATES IN LINGUISTICS AT LEVEL 6 ARE EXPECTED TO...
Knowledge
Demonstrate advanced knowledge of the structure and use of language
Demonstrate advanced knowledge of the role of language data in linguistic argumentation
Demonstrate knowledge of linguistic theories, principles, hypotheses and explanations
Demonstrate knowledge of linguistic methodologies and their relationship to linguistic theories
Demonstrate advanced knowledge of the role of language in society
Demonstrate knowledge of the relatedness between linguistics and other disciplines
Demonstrate knowledge of the acquisition, production and comprehension of language.
Skills
Ask empirically motivated questions in relation to language
Analyse language data using appropriate linguistic techniques
Formulate linguistic generalizations on the basis of structured data
Collect, organise and interpret language data under guidance
Argue for or against a particular linguistic analysis on the basis of data sets.
Convey basic linguistic ideas to a non-specialist audience
Write and speak in the language of instruction
Engage in abstract thinking and carry out analysis and synthesis
Search for, process and analyse information from a variety of sources.
Competence
Demonstrate sensitivity to issues of register and language appropriacy.
Demonstrate a capacity to learn and stay up-to-date with learning
Demonstrate awareness of one’s own knowledge and skills
Demonstrate a capacity to reflect on one’s own performance
Demonstrate a capacity to reflect on one’s own problem solving skills.
GRADUATES IN LINGUISTICS AT LEVEL 7 ARE EXPECTED TO...
Knowledge
Demonstrate specialised knowledge within the areas of linguistics relevant to the program
Demonstrate theoretically grounded knowledge of the role of language data in linguistic argumentation
Demonstrate advanced knowledge of linguistic theories, principles, hypotheses and explanations
Demonstrate specialised knowledge of linguistic methodologies and their relationship to linguistic theories
Demonstrate specialised knowledge of the relatedness between linguistics and other disciplines.
Skills
Formulate theoretically grounded questions in relation to language
Formulate linguistic generalisations out of independently sourced data.
Select appropriate research methodologies
Collect and organise language data independently
Analyse and interpret complex language data within a relevant framework
Use appropriate linguistic techniques in handling data
Provide theoretically informed argumentation for or against a particular linguistic analysis on the basis of complex data sets.
Convey linguistic ideas to a non-specialist audience
Communicate in one or more major languages of the world
Write and speak according to the relevant register (formal, informal and specialist).
Competence
Demonstrate a capacity to generate new ideas
Demonstrate an ability to determine the nature of a problem and to reflect on the appropriate approach to its solution
Demonstrate an ability to be critical and self-critical
Demonstrate an ability to evaluate one’s own problem solving skills
Demonstrate an ability to work independently with abstract ideas
Demonstrate an ability to independently search for, process and analyse information from a variety of sources
GRADUATES IN LINGUISTICS AT LEVEL 8 ARE EXPECTED TO...
Knowledge
Demonstrate highly specialized knowledge as the basis for original thinking and research within linguistics.
Skills
Design and implement complex data collection procedures
Write and present for a targeted professional audience
Argue clearly and persuasively in a scholarly and/or professional environment
Communicate in a variety of modes at an expert level
Identify significant and topical research questions.
Competence
Demonstrate a capacity for original thinking in linguistics
Demonstrate a capacity to generate and recognise contributions to the field of linguistics
Recognise and respond to opportunities to promote linguistic ideas to a wider audience.

SQF Humanities and Arts
The HUMART project is a break through initiative to identify common denominators in the academic sectors/domains of Humanities and the Arts. The project is implemented in the context of the Bologna Process, the creation of one European Qualifications Framework and the subject area reference points developed by Tuning. Furthermore the project seeks to create European wide transparency with regard to the relation between higher education and secondary and vocational education and training. This will allow for improved recognition of formal, informal and non formal learning against clear internationally established reference points.
At present the Higher Education sector is working with the two existing European Qualifications Frameworks.A Qualifications Framework is a common reference framework which links countries' qualifications systems, acting as a translation device to make qualifications more readable and understandable across different countries and systems in Europe. The Tuning HUMART project plans to bridge the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL) and the Qualifications Framework (QF) for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) at the level of academic sectors/domains.
A sector or domain is understood here as a combination of related fields of study which is based on more or less comparable learning profiles. Point of departure in this exercise are the reference points at subject area level as developed in the Tuning projects. The HUMART project seeks to develop a credit based sectoral qualifications framework to cover the levels 3 to 8 of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL). The work will build on a comparable project for the field of Social Sciences which has been completed in the year 2010.
HUMART outcomes
The outcomes of the SQF Humanities and Arts (HUMART) project are now available on the website. You are welcome to comment on the documents. Download SQF HUMART Final Report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The HUMART project is a break through initiative to identify common denominators in the academic sectors/domains of Humanities and the Arts. The project has been implemented in the context of the Bologna Process, the creation of a European Qualifications Framework and the subject area reference points developed by Tuning. Furthermore the project has sought to create European wide transparency with regard to the relation between higher education and secondary and vocational education and training. This should facilitate recognition of formal, informal and non- formal learning against clear internationally established reference points and descriptors. At present the Higher Education sector is working with the two existing European Qualifications Frameworks. A Qualifications Framework is a common reference framework which links countries' qualifications systems, acting as a translation device to make qualifications more readable and understandable across different countries and systems in Europe. The Tuning HUMART project has focused on the development of Sectoral Qualifications Frameworks for the Humanities and for the Performing and Creative Disciplines. These frameworks should help in the bridging of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL) and the Qualifications Framework (QF) for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) at the level of academic sectors/domains.
A sector or domain is understood here as a combination of related fields of study which is based on more or less comparable learning profiles. The HUMART project has sought to develop a credit based Sectoral Qualifications Framework to cover the levels 4 to 8 of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for Life Long Learning (LLL). The work has built on a comparable project for the field of Social Sciences which was completed in the year 2010.
The objectives and outcomes of the SQF HUMART for Humanities and Arts have been established by using the strategy of reflection, debate and consultation in the form of working groups, a method which has proven to be successful in the Tuning I to IV projects (2000 - 2009). Close cooperation with and consultation of experts in the field of non-formal and informal learning at both national and international level were also applied. This cooperation and consultation has been of relevance in particular for mapping secondary formal, informal and non-formal level education.
The project was based on 9 subject area working groups reflecting a range of disciplines in the Humanities, that is History, Art History, Linguistics, Literary studies, Theology and Religious Studies and disciplines reflecting the Creative and Performing Disciplines, that is Art and Design, Dance and Theatre, Music and Architecture. The first four groups were asked to develop reference points/descriptors for their subject area. The other five groups had previously developed reference points/descriptors for their subject area based on the Dublin Descriptors and they were asked to convert them into EQF for LLL based ones. The major successful outcomes of the project are two Sectoral Frameworks and the nine subject-area based frameworks with descriptors based on the EQF for LLL. It is particularly underlined that the two SQFs use a methodology which is a development and improvement on the one that was used in the previous Tuning SQF for the Social Sciences. In addition to using the three EQF categories on the ‘horizontal’ plane, the SQFs vitally introduce a number of ‘dimensions’ in the vertical plane. This adds substantially to the readability of the frameworks. More information can be found on http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/ under SQF Humanities and Arts.
OUTCOME 5. SUGGESTIONS FOR FINE TUNING AND BRIDGING OF THE BOLOGNA (DUBLIN) DESCRIPTORS AND THE DESCRIPTORS OF THE EQF FOR LLL
The approach taken to the categorisation of Learning Outcomes by the QF EHEA in the Dublin Descriptors and by the EQF LLL in its descriptors of the eight levels of learning is not the same, although both relate closely to Bloom’s taxonomy. The Dublin Descriptors have been drawn up on a five categories of LOs namely:
a. Knowledge and Skills
b. Applying knowledge and understanding
c. Making judgments
d. Communication skills
e. Learning Skills.
The EQF descriptors are based on a tripartite division of learning outcomes each of which is closely defined as follows:
a. ‘Knowledge’ means the outcome of the assimilation of information through learning. Knowledge is the body of facts, principles, theories and practices that is related to a field of study or work. In the EQF, knowledge is described as theoretical and/or factual;
b. ‘Skills’ means the ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve problems. In the EQF, skills are described as cognitive (use of logical, intuitive and creative thinking) and practical (involving manual dexterity and the use of methods, materials, tools and instruments);
c. ‘Competence’ means the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities, in work or study situations and in professional and/or personal development. In the EQF, competence is described in terms of responsibility and autonomy.
This difference of approach has inevitably led to serious questions being raised about the degree of compatibility between the two learning frameworks, since compatibility cannot be taken for granted. Several attempts have been made to assess the relationship between the two of which this HUMART project is the latest. Mention may be here of three such previous attempts, the published results of which are all readily available on the internet.
The first is the result of the BE-TWIN project, entitled ECVET-ECTS: Building Bridges and Overcoming Differences, published in July 2010. This has a very positive attitude to the compatibility of the two systems.
The second is the results of the DOCET project conducted as part of the Erasmus Mundus Programme, entitled EQF-CDIO: a reference model for engineering education, published in the autumn of 2010. Although generally positive in is approach to the question of the compatibility of the two learning framework, this second report raised some doubts about the strict degree of coincidence between EQF learning levels 5 to 8, on the one hand, and the four Bologna cycles, on the other hand.
The third project is that of Tuning which produced in October 2010 its report on Tuning SQF for the Social Sciences. This was, as previously discussed earlier in this report, the first attempt to produce a set of sectoral learning outcomes on the EQF model for all programmes in the Social Sciences offered in HEIs. A clear methodology and procedure was developed for producing this table of learning outcomes for each of levels 4 to 8. Even if some members of the project initially felt some doubt, in a few cases even serious doubt, as to the degree of coincidence between the EQF levels and the Bologna cycles, the outcome of this exercise was an undoubted success.
On the basis of the Tuning SQF for the Social Sciences, Tuning HUMART has taken a significant step further. Its approach in the construction of the sectoral tables has been to use a grid which can be read, with greater clarity, in both planes. The first of these two planes is the ‘horizontal’ plane represented by the three categories of the EQF framework. The second plane is based on the more ‘progressive’ approach of the Dublin Descriptors, and constitutes sectoral ‘dimensions’ which are displayed in the vertical plane. This means that the resultant tables are more easily readable in both planes. The differences between the two sectors has resulted in lists of these vertical dimensions which varied somewhat even if there is a great degree of overlap. For the Humanities, these categories for each of levels 4, 6, 7 and 8 are as follows:
• The Human Being
• Cultures and Societies
• Texts and Contexts
• Theories and Concepts
• Interdisciplinarity
• Communication
• Initiative and Creativity
• Professional Development
For the Creative and Performing Disciplines for each of levels 4, 6 7 and 8 these dimensions are as follows:
• Making Performing, Designing, Conceptualising, Creation (skills/knowledge)
• Re-thinking, Considering and interpreting the Human (competences)
• Experimenting, innovating and Researching (skills/knowledge)
• Theories histories and Cultures (knowledge)
• Technical, environmental and Contextual issues (skills/knowledge)
• Communication, Collaboration and Interdisciplinarity (skills/competence)
• Initiative & Enterprise (skills/competence). Download SQF HUMART Final Report.

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.