Designing a National Qualifications Framework: the Experience of Hungary

1
Designing a National Qualifications Framework
the Experience of Hungary

• NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORKS
• MUGLA, SEPTEMBER 27 28, 2007

2
Some Key Characteristics of HE Systems

• Development of common goals and policies
• Increased demands for relevance to society
• No corresponding increase in public funding
• Mission of HE teaching, research and service to
  society
• Division of labor between institutions
• Emphasis on quality
• HE not once in a lifetime experience
• Equal access

3
National Qualifications Frameworks

• bring together a number of strands of the Bologna
  Process, all of which are based on a learning
  outcomes approach
• quality assurance
• credit transfer and accumulation systems
• recognition of prior learning
• lifelong learning
• flexible learning paths
• the social dimension.

4
The London Communiqué

• Some initial progress but much more effort is
  required
• Commitment to fully implementing such frameworks,
  certified against the overarching Framework for
  Qualifications of the EHEA, by 2010
• Council of Europe is asked to support the sharing
  of experience in the elaboration of national
  qualifications frameworks.

5
National Qualifications Framework

• Criteria
• Within such frameworks, degrees should have
  different defined outcomes. First and second
  cycle degrees should have different orientations
  and various profiles in order to accommodate a
  diversity of individual, academic and labour
  market needs. First cycle degrees should give
  access, in the sense of the Lisbon Recognition
  Convention, to second cycle programmes. Second
  cycle degrees should give access to doctoral
  studies.
• (Berlin
  Communiqué)

6
Why new style national frameworks?

• Purposes of qualifications and qualification
  systems
• Routes of progression, points of integration and
  overlap between different qualifications
• Recognize the complexity of qualifications
• Reflect the agreement of stakeholders
• Effects on the relationship between national
  authorities and institutions
• How they can act as drivers of change
• Promote the attainment of qualification
• Raise national and international awareness
• Facilitate and support learners
• Improve access and social inclusion (entry and
  exit points, alternative routes)
• Influence the reform of qualifications to better
  serve social and economic needs)

7
Higher Education in Hungary

• Continental traditions
• Several subsystems (not frameworks) co-exist
• Facing a lot of new challenges (internationalizati
  on, student numbers, social and economic
  expectations)
• New institutional structures - mergers
• Advantages an opportunity to review
  qualifications and the whole qualification system
• An evolving framework for higher education
  (effects of the Bologna Process)
• Public education lessons from international
  assessments (PISA)
• Vocational education new competence requirements
  needs of the labour market

8
Facts and Figures

• Number of Institutions 71
• State 31 (18 universities and 13
  colleges)
• Church 26 (5
  universities and 21 colleges)
• Private 14 (2 universities and 12
  colleges)
• Number of Students 416 350
• Full time 238 675
• State Institutions 359 760
• Universities 271 000
• State Supported 220 000
• Number of Teachers 22 100
• State University 15 130

9
Challenges

• Higher education expansion is not accompanied by
  emphasis on quality
• The current course structure is inflexible and
  does not support mobility
• The financing system does not provide sufficient
  freedom for competitiveness, incentives for
  excellence (research)
• The infrastructure is inadequate for the changing
  demand
• The main challenge
• levels of participation in higher education
• the content and the quality of learning
• A major objective to create a framework for a
  modern course structure that will also be able to
  better react to demands of the labour market.

10
Recommendations

• Review the education system as a whole (public
  and vocational, lifelong learning)
• Re-examine vocational and academic needs and
  create an integrated system of qualifications
  that will gradually bring closer education and
  training
• The implication of an integrated framework of
  qualifications should be considered at the level
  of curriculum practice.

11
Important Aspects

• The curriculum that was established when at most
  10 continued in higher education, is not
  appropriate when at least 35-40 are expected to
  continue at least for three years after 18.
• Existing participation on the basis of existing
  curricula, even when it is possible, would not
  provide students with the kind of skills and
  knowledge that are necessary in the likely
  circumstances of the twenty first century.
• Learner independence the empowerment of
  students
• New methods of student assessment are required.

12
Aims of the Framework

• Provide information for end users (employers,
  parents, institutions, potential students) on the
  conditions for obtaining an award and the actual
  content of a qualification
• Support international comparability of standards
  with special regard to EU accession and the EHEA
• Assist student choice by informing students about
  possible routes of progression also within the
  context of LLL
• Give guidance to the higher education
  institutions in defining their own academic
  standards and the external evaluation bodies
  (e.g. Accreditation Board) in defining points of
  reference for conducting external evaluation.

13
Starting the Process

• Co-ordination of the process
• Discussion documents disseminated to all
  stakeholders (learners, education providers,
  government agencies, employers, business sector,
  trade unions, community groups, professional
  organizations)
• An international process a study of what is
  available in the diversity of QFs and involvement
  of experts
• Mainly English speaking countries the
  difference being that they introduced an NQF
  before the EHEA framework.

14
Approach

• A clear understanding of the conceptual
  foundation (levels, descriptors, etc.)
• A shift from standardized content, organization
  and delivery of qualifications
• Components the framework will include levels and
  outcome focused indicators (credits). Credits
  expressed in learning outcomes, levels and
  workload give coherence and clarity to the
  system
• Learning outcomes in describing units, modules
  and whole qualifications they assists
  transparency, recognition and mobility
• Explicit reference points using learning outcomes
  and competencies, levels, level indicators,
  subject benchmarks, qualification descriptors
• The use of a common terminology and approach -
  consistency will improve transparency and
  quality
• Even if we started with one particular sector, it
  is important to promote multiple pathways into
  and through that sector LLL
• The framework has a regulatory function - legal
  status
• The framework will be linked to standards,
  internal and external reference points, national
  and institutional quality assurance systems
• Promote public understanding of the achievements
  represented by different qualifications to
  achieve public confidence in standards.

15
Main Features

• The cycles defined are Bachelor, Master and
  Doctoral Studies, though short cycles degrees are
  also taken into account.
• The framework defines learning outcomes to be
  attached to each cycle, type of qualification and
  programme, clearly indicating the differences
  between each level.
• A three stage process
• Stage 1 Different qualification levels are
  defined. Generic descriptors are being applied
  (on the basis of the Dublin descriptors) for each
  level. The descriptors are of three types
• Type 1 contains the learning outcomes of the
  educational process that students who wish to
  hold the degree will have to achieve Those are
  mainly for institutions and bodies planning,
  conducting and evaluating degree programmes
• Type 2 a set of descriptors of how one can
  apply the acquired knowledge and understanding in
  certain situations.
• Type 3 describes more general competencies that
  can be expected of a typical student at the given
  level. This information is most important for
  employers.

16
Level descriptors

• The role of level descriptors
• Enable a general comparability of learning
  achievements. It is not expected that all
  qualifications on the given level will have all
  the characteristics in the level descriptors.
  Qualifications on the same level indicate that
  the learning achievements they represent are
  broadly comparable
• Reflect the hierarchy of the levels
• Assist the detailed description of the different
  concrete qualifications and the educational
  programmes that lead to those qualifications
• however should not be oriented only toward the
  educational goals, they should be able to define
  for employers what they can expect from the
  holders of the qualification.
• Fairly generic similarly to other countries
  they are not meant to give details of all the
  qualifications that the given level represents.
  Their purpose is to define the level so that all
  qualifications on that level can relate to it. By
  doing so they serve as
• the main point of reference for planning a unit,
  module or whole qualification
• a tool for feedback, assessment and evaluation.

17
Main Features 2

• Stage 2 description of the different types of
  awards in each cycle according to academic fields
  (mostly based on the ISCED classification).
  Guidelines for the preparation of the different
  types have been provided by the National Bologna
  Board, the descriptors are developed by the
  professional groups in each academic field.
• Stage 3 institutions will adjust their own
  curricula to the framework and issue the Diploma
  Supplement that will give sufficient information
  on all the academic and professional competencies
  gained by obtaining a certain award.
• The descriptors that define qualification levels
  describe output requirements. It is the
  responsibility of the institution how the
  students will achieve those results. Credit
  values are attached to each level. For the
  generic description of the different cycles the
  law defines the minimum credits required for
  obtaining an award.

18
Guidelines for Stage 2Qualification Requirements
by academic fields for First Cycle programmes

• Entry points with conditions of entry
• description and minimum credits for joint
  foundation courses (three types of indicators)
• the level of the qualification that can be gained
  in the given subject/field of study with
  minimum credits to be gained
• minimum credits to be gained for a
  specialization of the students choice.
  (national minimum 5 of total credits)
• theoretical and practical studies (the minimum
  percentage of practical subjects )
• practical training (traineeship) outside the
  institution
• aims and objectives of the programme.

19
Guidelines 2

• A description of professional competencies to be
  acquired with regard to the description of the
  Bachelor cycle (outcomes that describe those who
  wish to succeed in gaining a qualification in the
  given subject./study field - again three main
  classes of descriptors)
• A list and short annotation of the core
  material/subject areas most relevant for the
  qualification - no national minimum,
  institutional responsibility
• foreign language requirements as a condition for
  stepping up at each milestone and for gaining a
  degree

20
Conceptual Framework for Planning
21
Advantages of having a QF

• Generic descriptors - the QF is not meant to
  prescribe details in terms of the content of the
  curriculum (unlike the qualification requirements
  that are in use)
• Adequate flexibility for the institutions in
  designing their programmes in the given study
  fields
• Promote innovation in the education programmes
  within a frame agreed by all academic and
  awarding bodies
• Needs of further professional education and
  training - the descriptors for the different
  levels my provide points of reference for placing
  the qualifications of short cycle programmes at a
  certain level of the framework
• Quality assurance - learning outcomes increase
  transparency and the comparability of standards
  between and within qualifications
• Promotes all types of mobility
• Assist the employability of new graduates
• Ease progression from one cycle to the next

22
Challenges

• The use of credits to quantify learning outcomes
  - direct links with learning outcomes
• Implications for curriculum design, teaching,
  learning and assessment - a very long and
  time-consuming process
• The process assumes close co-operation and
  consensus between all stakeholders
• How learning outcomes link into accreditation and
  quality assurance
• Short cycle degrees in the framework
• The future of the binary system
• The employability of graduates
• Progression from one cycle to the next.

23
Implications for Curriculum Development

• Subject specific coordination groups and pilot
  projects at national level to help with the
  development of new curricula
• New approaches to curriculum design, teaching,
  learning and assessment - a very long and
  time-consuming process
• Opportunity to revise pedagogical concepts by
  introducing student-centred learning, modular
  structures and clearly defined learning outcomes
  for the various degrees
• More emphasis on developing skills and
  competencies
• Greater need for individual student work, methods
  that lead to better communication skills,
  creativity and innovation
• Balance between specialist knowledge and generic
  skills, with an emphasis on learning to learn
• Dividing teaching contents between the two
  cycles
• Introduction of new quality criteria emphasising
  final competences
• Student involvement in planning of study
  programmes.

24
Issues for Mobility and Recognition

• Direct link between
• the DS,
• the correct implementation of ECTS, (The credit
  accumulation and transfer system has been
  implemented (legal provisions) but moving from
  contact hours to student workload is still an
  issue) 
• the modularization of programmes
• a new style QF
• Mutual trust and confidence there is no
  identical content

25

• Implications for institutions
• Require a high measure of institutional autonomy
  and responsibility
• Imply a different relationship between HEIs and
  state/ministry
• Put in place outcome/output based systems and
  reference points
• Engender an internal/external reform in
  approaches to QA
• Need to facilitate institutional transparency,
  diversity and responsibility.

26
SUCCESS FACTORS

• Link the various elements of the reform process
• A synergy between top-down and bottom-up
  approaches (an impetus to strategic planning)
• The role of guidance, support and regulations at
  national level
• The timing and pace of reforms (speed and
  fine-tuning)
• The future of the current university system.