European Qualification Framework (Eqf) - Responsibility And Autonomy Domain; Meanings And Implications
Abstract
The EQF has been inspiring, for nearly a decade, the professionalization researches and the national policies for defining qualifications. Of the three domains of the EQF: knowledge, skills, responsibility and autonomy, especially
Keywords: EQFlearning outcomescompetenceresponsibilityautonomyworking/learning task
Introduction
The importance and legitimacy of European Qualifications Framework
The description and the assessment of the competences which define a qualification is a topic that has been a priority at the international level. The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) has been inspiring, for a decade, the researches and national policies for defining qualifications. It may be assumed that the EQF-2008 (European Commission, 2008) accelerated this tendency by promoting a lot of discussions and projects around the relationships between the learning outcomes and desired competences that define a given qualification, strengthening the necessity of developing national qualifications frameworks.
The fundamental purpose of the EQF system is to improve the transparency, comparability and portability of people's qualifications (European Commission, 2017, p.1). The EQF system is structured in terms of learning outcomes and qualification levels hierarchically organized on 8 levels, characterized by three domains of descriptors. The EQF does not impose the 8 qualification levels; what matters is the reporting of each national level to one of the EQF levels; it has the value of a meta-framework to which existing systems can be compared or which may inspire the revision or design of new national qualifications systems.
Problem Statement
10 years of use of the EQF raises the question of whether accumulated experiences and associated reflections justify some reconsideration, corrections or developments. Our point of view is that in the two variants (EQF-2008 and EQF-2017) persist some critical elements of conceptual and internal validity. So, we are, primarily, interested in the quality of the theoretical model: fundamentals, levels, and characteristics that differentiate the descriptors of each level and between levels, and, secondly, in the practice of implementing the EQF.
Research Questions
-
What are the similarities and differences between the EQF-2008 and the EQF-2017?
-
Is EQF-2017 a theoretical and methodological progression to the initial version, EQF-2008?
-
Is it possible to overcome some critical issues associated with the third area of learning outcomes,
responsibility and autonomy ?
Purpose of the Study
For the purpose of the present paper, we are focusing on the next specific objectives:
To identify the similarities and differences between the EQF-2008 and the EQF-2017;
To answer the question whether the EQF-2017 represents a theoretical and methodological advancement to the original version;
To identify critical issues associated with the third area of learning outcomes,
responsibility and autonomy (R&A);
To propose another approach to R&A and highlight the possible consequences of two matrices.
Research Methods
The basic method is the content analysis of core documents, EQF-2008 and EQF-2017, of other EU documents and specialized studies; besides, the authors have experienced, in over 10 years, a lot of training and research activities arising from EQF documents and from different legislative changes that have occurred in connection with competence based education, professional teachers’ standards and the development of Romanian Qualification Framework for Higher Education. (Potolea, Toma, Zaharia, Mironov, & Borzea, 2007; Zaharia, Potolea, Toma, & Murgescu, 2010; Toma, 2013).
Findings
EQF - 2008 and EQF -2017: constant, revisions, open issues
The comparative analysis of the two variants is summarized in the table below (Table 01).
Similarities
-
The EQF-2008 and EQF-2017 basically rely on the same conception of the structure and importance of the EQF: focusing on learning outcomes, 8 levels of qualification, 3 domains of differentiated descriptors for each level, principles close to implementation;
-
V1 and V2, in particular V2, pay attention more to EQF implementation management and are less interested in the quality of the EQF system: clarification of basic concepts, valid differentiation of qualification levels, functional relationships between the three domains. These are already considered clarified and EQF documents refer to the best procedures to ensure the relevant comparability between the different qualification systems.
-
In the center of the EQF, 2008 and 2017, there is the EQF level descriptors table (Annex II);
-
Layer levels and level descriptors are the same, with one exception;
-
The 2008 and 2017 EQF Annexes are not complementary or optional, but essential elements for the substantiation and robustness of the comparative process.
Differences
-
The differences between V1 and V2 are quantitative and qualitative. EQF-2017, (V2), is better developed, with a wider register of possible beneficiaries (comparative analysis of qualifications defined by international bodies and professionalisation systems in third world countries);
-
V2 diversifies the set of necessary procedures: referencing criteria, credit system, extension of quality assurance principles, a common format for publishing the results of the referencing proces.
As we have seen, two plans are relevant to the analysis and assessment of the EQF consistency: a) the EQF system plan that includes concepts and tools; b) the EQF system use plan, which addresses the management of EQF applications.
From our point of view, in recent years, efforts have focused on the consistent application of the EQF in order to benefit from all the benefits of comprehension analysis based on the EQF. The quality of applications cannot, however, be dissociated from the quality of the concept and the investigative tools. In this regard, we can ask ourselves whether the EQF levels and descriptors' schematics bring/raise open issues that could justify some revisions or additions. A critical issue is about terminology and conceptual relationships: What is
If we compare the EQF-2008 descriptor table (Annex II) with the EQF-2017 Annex II, we find that they are identical, with one exception. In the 2017 version, the items corresponding to the eight ranges, including the third field, are the same, unchanged; only the head of the third column was changed! In EQF-2017, the difference lies
The third area of learning outcomes is no longer called
competence/autonomy and responsibility butresponsibility and autonomy . We have no explanation about the new option. Is it a change of label? Why are R & A terms reverting to the original A & R? Can we have a qualification program where the synthetic outcome of learning, competence, may be lacking? Sometimes, the text displaysskills and competences , but not as a distinct learning outcome within a specific model. All of us know that the current trend in training programs is to establish sets of competence: general, specific, transversal. Can a qualifying reference framework ignore the competence issue? Appendix I includes the definition of competence, but its features are not found in the texture of the model.The current configuration of the EQF-2017 cannot be understood unless we study the processes and documents that prepared the adoption of the document in 2017. This could also provide some partial answers to some of the questions we have formulated. After 8 years of effective use of the EQF - 2008, the European Commission produced în 2016 a ”Proposal...” (European Commission, 2016). It was appreciated that the EQF represents "a significant driver in the development of NQF”, 39 countries using the EQF as a translation grid between national qualifications systems. It was noted, as well, that despite the success of its implementation, "its objectives on the transparency, comparability and portability of qualifications have not been fully reached" (European Commission, 2016, p.3). The conclusion of the ”Proposal...” is that of the need to revise the EQF-2008 and 13 changes are proposed; the most important we mentioned earlier, too. The first recommended change is:
" The termcompetence,... as a type of learning outcome is replaced withresponsibility and autonomy - to be more faithful to the corresponding learning outcomes descriptors" (European Commission, 2016, p.13). But we doubt that the exclusion of the termcompetence from the major learning outcomes is a way of clarifying the concept. Can thecompetence be simply replaced byresponsibility and autonomy ? We doubt again. Most opinions oncompetence consider attitude alongside other factors to be only a component of competence. We also, do not believe that replacingcompetence withresponsibility and autonomy contributes to increasing the prestige and fidelity of relevant learning descriptors.
Responsibility versus autonomy
Given that
Content analysis of the R & A section
Following the content analysis of EQF-2008 and EQF-2017, only the descriptors for the R & A domain were selected for each qualification level. Within the ”autonomy & responsibility” domain there are two important subcategories: ”autonomy” and ”responsibility”, each of them having its meaning.
We have selected the descriptors of each one of them, separate them in two columns and then put each of them it in relation to the nature and complexity of the work/learning task and to the context in which competence is proven. (Table
Discussion
-
”
Autonomy” and”task nature and complexity ” are described for each of the 8 levels EQF; that explain why, usually, in the NQFs analysed, the qualifications' description is clear at the two indicators. -
Although the third EQF category is ”
responsibility and autonomy ”, for the EQF levels 1 and 2, we observe that ”responsibility ” has no descriptors; we consider that even when caring out a simple task it is expected to prove, at least, a minimum personal responsibility to protect himself, and ensure the health and safety of the work; our suggestion is to be mentioned, in the third column, ”strict limited professional responsibility”, for EQF level 1, and ”limited professional responsibility” for EQF level 2. As a matter of facts, in their NQFs, different countries specify, for level 1:able to take personal decisions and act in simple, clear situations (Denmark); or for EQF level 2:take responsibility for accomplish own tasks. No responsibility for other (Portugal). -
The
”responsibility” descriptors refer, at different levels, to different types of responsibility: individual, professional, social, and to different component: decision-making, completion of tasks, performance of teams, management of the professional development of individuals and groups, sustained commitment to the development of new ideas or processes at the forefront of work or study contexts.
Responsibility and autonomy in other contexts or from other points of view
We propose interpretation of
If we accept the above premise, then it would be necessary to construct a typology of work/learning
situations. Thus, some problems are algorithmic, other heuristic; some are well determined, others are poorly determined, etc. A simplified classification is the following: a) simple tasks, routines involve algorithmic solutions; b) tasks/problem solving typical, specific problems; the subject should acknowledge the fact that the matter in question belongs to a particular type of problem he has previously encountered and, on this basis, adopt the appropriate solution; c) tasks/solving critical issues for the subject, which presuppose the learning of the solving procedures; d) complex/open task/ problems that involve heuristic, creative, innovative approaches. If we relate to the control/independence indicator, then we could identify the following degrees of control/independence: maximum supervision and assistance, granted permanently; moderate supervision and assistance, on certain critical sequences; partial supervision/control; minimum or no supervision and assistance. From the combination of working/learning tasks - with degree of control/independence, the following matrix results (Table
The second term,
We notice that the two matrices contain a number of 16 cassettes each. What would be their usefulness? Do they have any heuristic or practical value?
a) These boxes clarify more clearly not only the analytical nature of the R & A terms, but also put them in relationship. Thus, the semantic load of these concepts becomes enriched, perhaps becoming more complex and closer to real processes.
b) If the nature of the task/problem is a competence reference, analyzing the types of tasks could have implications for the definition of various types of competencies: some simple, some more complex.
c) Competence, as formulated in the 2008 and 2017 EQF Recommendation: ”The proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and / or methodological abilities, in work or study situations and in professional and personal development”, does not spontaneously or mechanically develop. Its learning goes through some stages, the boxes of the two matrices suggesting milestones and approaches to formative procedures. The basic mechanism is that of moving from a systematic control of learning to building the ability to execute or to autonomously invent the professional/learning task.
d) The evaluation may also benefit from these matrices. They can fulfill both formative and sumative evaluations. Adopting the assessment of progress in the development of a competence at different stages in relation to control/independence can identify, on the one hand, the weaknesses of the formative process and the adoption of corrective measures and, on the other hand, it can potentiate and ensure the quality of the acquired competence.
Conclusion
The paper focuses on the importance of bringing research-based evidence to enrich the EQF and, consequently, the overall process of defining educational and professional competences.
As discussed in the previous sections, some of the preliminary results of the three EQF key concepts analysis:
Responsibility and autonomy cannot work in a vacuum, apart from reporting to the type of working/learning task to be solved. Taking into consideration the previous findings, we have tried to obtain an explicit tool to help the work of those who have to define the autonomy & responsibility component of a given competence. Each of the two matrix puts into question four types of tasks with four degrees of control/independence and with responsibility. Some matrix implications for the competence development and its demonstration are: they allow a broader discussion around the EQF and, consequently, improve its efficiency and acceptance by the different stakeholders and help the description of the qualifications and the design, development and evaluation of the educational processes.
References
- European Commission (2008). The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF)
- Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008 ISBN 978-92-79-08474-4,
- European Commission (2016). Proposal for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning and repealing the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning. Strasbourg, XXX COM(2016) 383/2, 2016/0180 (NLE). Retrieved, (at 10.10.2018) from: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/docs/20160713/proposal
- European Commission (2017). Council Recommendation of 22 May 2017 on the European Qualifications
- Framework for lifelong learning and repealing the recommendation of the European Parliament and
- of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for
- lifelong learning (2017/C 189/03), Official Journal of the European Union, 15.06.2017. Retrieved,
- at 10.10.2018, from: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/.../language..
- Potolea, D., Toma, S., Zaharia, S. E., Mironov, C. M. & Borzea, A. E. (2007), Conceptual basis for the development of the Romanian Qualification Framework for Higher Education, Bucharest: Ed. ACPART.
- Toma, S. (2013). Contributions to the Design of the Romanian Qualifications Framework, in: Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal, ISSN: 1877-0428, 76, 44-48 https://dx.doi.org/101016
- Zaharia, S.E., Potolea, D., Toma, S. & Murgescu, B. (2010). Romanian Qualification Framework for Higher Education - a component of the European Qualification Framework, in European Journal of Qualifications, April 2010, no.1, pp. 4-19, Ed.Scrib. Retrieved, (at 10.10.2018) from http://www.bequal.info/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=11%3Ajournals&Itemid=148&lang=en
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
15 August 2019
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-066-2
Publisher
Future Academy
Volume
67
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-2235
Subjects
Educational strategies,teacher education, educational policy, organization of education, management of education, teacher training
Cite this article as:
Toma*, S., & Potolea, D. (2019). European Qualification Framework (Eqf) - Responsibility And Autonomy Domain; Meanings And Implications. In E. Soare, & C. Langa (Eds.), Education Facing Contemporary World Issues, vol 67. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1-9). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.08.03.1