What we learned from comparison through the ESVaC scheme

1
What we learned from comparison through the
ESVaC scheme

• Carl-Ludwig Centner Merfyn Morgan,
  Rhineland-Palatinate and Wales
• 18 September 2007

2
Background

• Working Group
• - Rheinland-Pfalz/Germany
• - Västra Götaland/Sweden
• - Wales/Great Britain
• The group focused on
• - the testing procedure
• - feedback of the stakeholders in the regions
  regarding the other regions systems.

3
Methodology

• The group developed a comparative grid,
  highlighting the most important aspects of the
  testing.
• The grid was based on the 13 dimensions /
  questions agreed at the Barcelona meeting in
  September 2006.

4
Methodology The 13 dimensions

• How is the assessment being done?
• Which levels of qualifications can be gained?
• How is the qualification linked to the
  professional standard?
• How are the descriptors of the European
  Qualification Framework reflected in the
  assessment?
• Who is responsible for the assessment?
• How are the assessors qualified?
• Type of assessment?
• Frequency of assessment?
• Duration of assessment?
• Methods of assessment?
• Scale used to measure the competencies?
• Examples for tasks/questions
• Which are the financial results of the
  competence stated (salary)?

5
Methodology

• The grids were completed by each region and
  shared with the other ESVaC partners.
• Focus groups of suitable partners selected by
  the ESVaC partners were held in each region.
  They considered the completed grids and compared
  with their own system.
• Reports from each region were produced and used
  as the basis for the working groups project
  report presented in April 2007.

6
Outcomes Rheinland-Pfalz/Germany

• Overview
• The German experts found similarities in the
  evaluation system in Wales, particularly the
  weekly intermediate evaluation.
• They found it difficult to consider the Västra
  Götaland system due to lack of information in the
  grid.
• Methods of Assessment
• In Germany intermediate examinations as well as
  final examinations are derived out of real
  customer orders. The examinations are directly
  supervised by the board of examiners.
  Artificial working samples as in Wales or
  Västra Götaland are not allowed.

7
Outcomes Rheinland-Pfalz/Germany

• Level of Qualification
• In Germany four levels of qualification can be
  attained in building. In Wales NVQ levels 2 and
  3 can be attained. Both Germany and Wales
  consider the different performance potentials of
  the trainees.
• How these the German qualifications fit into the
  levels of the EQF is currently discussed in
  Germany. There is also no classification related
  to the EQF in Wales as yet.

8
Outcomes Rheinland-Pfalz/Germany

• Vocational Standard
• In construction in Germany recognised
  qualifications are acquired through the
  examinations which are linked to the vocational
  standards by being a customer order. The
  vocational standards are exactly defined in the
  training regulations for the different levels.
• The basis in Wales is a learning/training
  programme for which the vocational standards are
  laid down by the industry. As in Germany the
  vocational standard is the basis of the
  training-scheme.
• In Västra Götaland the vocational standard is
  attained by the time of working, the vocational
  standard itself is not assessed.

9
Outcomes Rheinland-Pfalz/Germany

• Assessment
• In Germany as well as in Wales an independent
  board of examiners is responsible for the
  assessment. In Germany it is the responsibility
  of the Chamber of Commerce.
• In Västra Götaland no independent authority
  assesses the trainees skills, the teacher test
  their own input and learning effect on the
  trainees. The vocational standard depends on the
  vocational practice of the teacher.

10
Outcomes Rheinland-Pfalz/Germany

• Qualifications of Assessors
• Assessors in Germany come from two different
  vocational areas. Whilst the teachers acquire
  expert knowledge in their academic education, the
  representatives of employees and employers have
  to complete the Training certificate of the
  German Chambers (Ausbildereignungsverordnung -
  AEVO).
• The experts see similarities to the education
  certificate in Wales, which partly consists of
  the same fields as the German certificate.
• In Västra Götaland the professional competence is
  very much emphasised. The assessors/teachers are
  very well educated.

11
Outcomes Rheinland-Pfalz/Germany

• Assessment
• All three countries use a graded procedure
  assessment with a theoretical and a practical
  test.
• The aim in Germany is to establish an extended
  final examination. The German experts regard the
  Welsh assessment as an ideal form the trainee
  gets a weekly feedback, which allows the early
  recognition of deficits and countermeasures if
  necessary.
• The German experts found that the Västra Götaland
  lacks intermediate assessment and leaves the
  responsibility with the teachers.

12
Outcomes Wales

• Overview
• The Welsh focus group felt that there were
  similarities in the Wales and German systems in
  that they are highly structured the
  information available did not give a similar
  impression of the Swedish system.
• Assessment System
• The assessment system in Germany appeared to be
  more robust and rigorous than in Wales and
  Sweden.

13
Outcomes Wales

• Professional Standard
• The professional standard (i.e. national
  occupational standard in Wales) is set by the
  industry and the qualification is based on that
  standard. Theory (knowledge and understanding)
  and practical skills are tested in all three
  systems. The knowledge underpins the practical
  skills.
• Qualifications of Assessors
• The Welsh focus group found that all three
  systems appear to provide training and
  qualification for their assessors and verifiers.
  The German and Swedish systems specify a minimum
  period of training for these key personnel.

14
Outcomes Wales

• Assessment
• The Welsh focus group found that all three
  systems appear to use a range of assessment
  methods. There is emphasis on the final
  examination (practical and written) in the German
  system.
• A view from the Welsh focus group was that the
  system in Wales would benefit from having a final
  written and practical examination.
• Assessment is more frequent in the Welsh system,
  i.e. on average once per week over a two-year
  period.

15
Outcomes Wales

• Measuring Competence
• The Welsh focus group found that the main
  differences were in the scales for measuring
  competence. In Wales, the NVQ system is not
  graded the candidate is required to meet all
  the required standards before he/she can be
  deemed to be competent and be awarded the
  qualification (e.g. NVQ level 2 in bricklaying).
  
• Useful examples of assessment tasks and questions
  were provided by Germany. These were seen as
  similar to some of those used in assessments in
  Wales. Online tests are becoming increasingly
  available in Wales.

16
Outcomes Wales

• Shared Quality Assurance Criteria
• In the Welsh focus group there was significant
  interest in the concept of shared quality
  assurance criteria and the process through which
  the criteria had been achieved. It was felt that
  the criteria covered the ground extremely well.
  Further clarification might be needed in some
  areas, e.g
• - Step 2 - Definition of learning objectives
  
• - Step 3 - Information and guidance
• - Step 4 Evaluation.

17
Conclusions

• Even though the approaches of the partners and
  the feedback of the stakeholders are varied, some
  common points can be stated
• - A continuous feedback/assessment of
  the learning progress of the trainees was
  favoured by both partners
• - The level of competence, expected in the
  examinations seems to be similar in both Wales
  and Germany.

18
Conclusions

• Mutual Recognition
• The statements of the experts indicate a great
  interest in the VET systems in European countries
  and the willingness to discuss the advantages and
  disadvantages of these.
• The ability expected to attain the different
  levels of qualification seems to be similar in
  both countries.
• The EQF and the NQFs are believed to create the
  necessary background to compare vocational
  qualifications. There is a good chance for a
  common conception of good practice in both Wales
  and Germany and the necessary openness of the
  responsible partners involved in this part of the
  ESVaC project.

19
Conclusions

• Challenges to Mutual Recognition
• This is only the first step and the possible
  basis for a mutual recognition for the experience
  of the last phase showed that it is very
  difficult to provide the right information to
  enable the partners to understand the function of
  the elements of the VET systems.
• A crucial point is whether the partners involved
  can influence change in elements of the VET
  systems if they prove to be incompatible with
  other partners standards.
• In Wales and in Germany there is still a long way
  to go. In both countries powerful institutional
  players (business, state, VET institutions, etc)
  are involved and many questions still need to be
  discussed.

20
Conclusions

• Methodological Conclusions
• The use of the grid showed that the information
  on VET systems can hardly be provided using a
  highly condensed grid.
• It would have been useful either to bring the
  experts together for a special meeting or to
  arrange a meeting in each country with at least
  one expert of each county present.
• The VET systems are more than its parts. The
  cultural background of the different regions are
  reflected in the systems as well and this
  background is necessary to understand the systems
  and their components.
• Furthermore some elements of the systems only
  fulfil their purposes in relation to other
  elements and cannot be judged by looking at them
  as independent features

21
Next Steps

• A possibility to get ahead in a pilot project is
  to get a multinational company to get involved in
  a possible ESVaC II.
• The aim should be a comparison of competences and
  validation systems in similar circumstances. A
  big INTERNALIONAL company does ensure similar
  conditions and offers the possibility to compare
  the competences in real working /live
  situations in different countries.
• Furthermore such businesses should be interested
  in the mobility of its employees thus ensuring
  commitment and possibly generating financial
  support.