European Qualification Framework (Eqf) - Responsibility And Autonomy Domain; Meanings And Implications

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 autonomy and responsibility ? In what relationships are they? A second problem may relate to the extent to which some descriptors occupy a valid position. The third, and perhaps the most important, problem concerns the internal and external coherence of responsibility and autonomy as a learning outcomes domain. Of the three categories of issues, in the present context, we are mainly concerned with the third: responsibility and autonomy - EQF 2017.

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 in giving up the term of competence ;

• The third area of ​​learning outcomes is no longer called competence/autonomy and responsibility but responsibility 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 displays skills 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 term competence,... as a type of learning outcome is replaced with responsibility 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 term competence from the major learning outcomes is a way of clarifying the concept. Can the competence be simply replaced by responsibility and autonomy ? We doubt again. Most opinions on competence consider attitude alongside other factors to be only a component of competence. We also, do not believe that replacing competence with responsibility and autonomy contributes to increasing the prestige and fidelity of relevant learning descriptors.

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 02 )

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 autonomy from the point of view of the control/independence report: how much guidance, supervision is given to the one who resolves a learning/professional task or to what extent the subject matter relies more or less on own resources in organizing and accomplishment of that task without external assistance? Surely, control/independence could be thought of as a boundary of a continuum: maximum control - maximum independence, within which we can have different combinatorial variables. Control and independence do not operate in an abstract vacuum, but in relation to something - a task or a situation to be solved. If we ignore the nature of the task or the problem to be solved, then the identity of competence is undermined.

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 03 ):

The second term, responsibility , for us, in the present context, means accountability, acceptance of the consequences for decisions on the problem-solving process and the quality of the final product. Responsibility also involves justifying actions, judgments and decisions . In the relationship between A & R , autonomy is the primary term because only the degree of autonomy justifies the level of responsibility. So, we suggest the order ”autonomy and responsibility” when the two concepts are used together. In the succession of levels 1-8, the degree of supervision/control decreases and accountability increases. The interactions between control/independence and responsibility are summarizes in Table 04 :

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.