View examples of how countries are implementing this aspect
4.1.1. Learning outcomes
Learning outcomes are used in qualifications standards and programme curricula as statements of intentions and expectations and to define and describe education, training and learning targets. In a validation process, the knowledge, skills, and competences de facto achieved by an individual, inside, and outside of formal education and training, are assessed against these predefined intentions and expectations.
The shift towards learning-outcomes-based qualifications in most European education and training systems is critical for the implementation of validation. The learning outcome approach draws attention to what an individual is expected to know, understand and be able to do at the end of a learning sequence. The focus is on the knowledge, skills and competences to be held by the individual, less on how, where and when the learning took place. This signals that a qualification can be achieved in different ways: not only through formal education and training but also through learning at work, in leisure time activities and at home. Without this flexibility, validation would be significantly restricted.
The way learning outcomes are formulated in qualifications influences the validation process, determining the choice of knowledge, skills and competences to be addressed and the judgement of them. While some learning-outcomes traditions focus exclusively on what can be readily observed and directly measured, others will be more open-ended and ready to accept and acknowledge ambiguity (Cedefop, 2016; 2017; 2022c). Choosing one or the other approach will largely decide the scope of learning to be considered by the validation process. A similar choice is involved when addressing different types or domains of learning. It will matter significantly if the focus is (for example) on occupational skills and functions or whether an effort has been made to include (for example) general subject-knowledge and transversal skills and competences. While learning outcomes can be seen as a condition for successful implementation of validation, the application of the approach requires careful reflection. If written too narrowly, important facets of the individual learning experience may be lost; if written too generally, validation may lose orientation, consistency and reliability. This draws attention to the fact that learning-outcomes-based reference points are the result of negotiations and compromises between stakeholders. A (continuous) dialogue between stakeholders on how to set targets and express learning-outcome expectations will usually be a necessary condition for relevance and credibility.
|
4.1.2. Learning experiences, reference points and standards
Any validation process requires a reference point. This might be official and formalised or informal or even tacitly shared. Some of the scepticism toward validation can be linked to the unclear role played by reference points in the process. A lack of visible standards, lack of clarity regarding how standards are applied, or the lack of involvement of stakeholders in the definition of those standards, can negatively influence trust in validation. Similarly, using different standards for formal education and training and for validation is sometimes interpreted as a confirmation that the learning taking place outside classrooms is not treated rigorously. This can result in the creation of A and B certificates, weakening the value of validation.
Reference points matter directly to each individual candidate and can directly influence what is considered as relevant learning experiences and outcomes, thus deciding what is attributed value through the validation process. At each stage of the process, from the early identification to the final certification, individuals must be aware of this reference point or standard.
For the initial phases, identification and documentation, the choices made regarding focus (depth and breadth of the learning addressed) are of crucial importance. If a too narrow conception is applied (by the professional as well as the candidate), this may influence the professional advice given and thus restrict candidate self-assessment. There is a need for validation practitioners to clarify and reflect on their own (p)references. The validation practitioner is there to support the candidate in identifying and documenting relevant learning and must therefore operate from a (conceptual) map sufficiently broad and detailed to capture and note the individual learning experiences in question. The questions in Box 18 points to issues to be considered when reflecting on the overall scope, also in the initial identification stage, of an individual learning experience.
|
When validation is used for the formal award of a qualification or certificate, mainly the third and fourth phase, the role of the reference point (the qualification standard, the curricula or programme description) is direct and of crucial importance. The standard will influence what the assessors are looking for and include when judging a candidate. Somewhat simplified, standards used for formal assessment and certification are rooted either in the education sector or the labour market. Educational and occupational standards may both be described and defined in terms of learning outcomes but will emphasise different aspects of learning. Education standards normally address a broader scope of expected learning than occupational standards, signalling the broad responsibilities and mandates of initial education and training. The task and function orientation of occupational standards may, on the other hand, focus narrower sets of skills and competences and may therefore not be suited to capturing some complex individual learning experiences.
|
Source: Cedefop.
The 2015 European guidelines warn against operating with separate standards for formal learning and for validation. This underlines that qualifications should be open to a diversity of learning forms and pathways, but that the expected outcomes should be the same. This is seen as key to avoiding A and B certificates and ensuring parity of esteem between formal, non-formal and informal learning. This principle is still valid, but requires further clarification.
Existing standards developed for one specific purpose, even when using learning outcomes, are not necessarily well suited to identifying some complex learning experiences of individuals. For example, standards developed for assessment and certification of school-based education and training are normally focused on the how, when and where of learning (inputs). These reference points are not well suited to capturing the diverse and sometimes unexpected learning taking place in non-formal and informal settings. While working for unified qualifications and certification standards, it is essential to reflect on whether reference points chosen are biased towards learning in formal settings and how they can better capture individual learning experiences outside formal education.
Having been developed for defined purposes, standards run the risk of reinforcing borderlines between education and training, the labour market and the third sector, as well as within the education and training sector itself. One of the key challenges in the years to come is to strengthen cooperation between stakeholders across different areas and sectors to see how standards in the labour market, third and the education and training sectors, and other areas, may better communicate with each other. Departing from a systematic use of learning outcomes emphasising the need for a common language to be used across sectors and areas, this will help to release the potential of validation for lifelong and life-wide learning.
|
4.1.3. Validation in the context of changing qualifications and certificates
Much of the discussion on validation has been linked to the opening of (initial) qualifications to non-formal and informal learning. In these cases, the issue is whether the standards and reference points underpinning these qualifications can be redefined in ways which allow the diverse experiences of individual learners to be considered. Over recent decades, however, qualifications systems have gradually evolved by allowing for the introduction of part-qualifications and modules (in public education and training systems) and by the increasing role played by task- and technology-related certificates offered by the labour market at national (and increasingly) at international level. These developments may directly influence validation. Developing modularised systems can potentially make it easier for the candidate to move in a stepwise fashion according to own needs and strengths. The increasing importance of smaller certificates operating (partly) outside ordinary qualifications systems raises new questions which need to be answered in the coming period.
4.1.3.1. Credentials and validation
Content and structure of qualifications evolve constantly. Short training courses and learning experiences are developing rapidly across Europe, delivered by a wide variety of public and private stakeholders, in response to the need for more flexible, learner-centred forms of education and training. These shorter forms of learning are certified in different ways, sometimes linked to formal qualifications systems and frameworks, more frequently outside these. While much attention has been paid in recent years to the role of microcredentials (Cedefop, 2022d), the role played by sector, vendor and task certificates and credentials in the labour market (and beyond) is not a new one. Smaller and specialised certificates and credentials have for a long time been used to document upskilling and reskilling and, in many cases, to signal whether an individual is authorised to carry out a task or a function. These diverse and highly specialised certificates and credentials play key roles in relation to continuing education and training, as well in facilitating the functioning of labour markets.
So far, the link between validation and this complex area of certification has been only vaguely addressed. The discussion on the potential accumulation and stackability of credentials and certificates may, however, point towards a more active role to be played in the future by validation. For this to happen, the standards and reference points underpinning these certificates and credentials must use a learning outcomes language, clearly stating what kind of knowledge, skills and competences are held by the individual. This makes it possible to specify what kind of learning outcomes have been achieved and, in a validation process, to judge whether it is possible to grant diverse certificates and credentials that can be combined and add to each other. The potential for connecting and accumulating different certificates thus depends on introducing and applying a common language, making it possible to judge whether different elements fit together and add up to a larger totality.
Digitalisation of credentials can facilitate this process (see Section 4.4 on ICT) holding large amounts of information and providing opportunities to increase transparency. Digitally issued credentials (such as through the Europass digital credentials infrastructure) give the possibility of certifying a wide range of activities and experiences by any issuer, which can be easily identified, categorised and connected to other information, such as how the certificate was awarded. Digital badges have emerged as a flexible format to document experiences. They are used in many ways to signal that an individual has carried out a certain experience or accomplishment. They have broad coverage, from the gamification of online learning to certification of assessed skills and competences. Platform workers, for example, obtain some type of certification based on client feedback and work accomplished.
The combination and accumulation of certificates and credentials into a larger totality, relevant for labour market or lifelong learning purposes, requires greater focus on the content of these same credentials. It is the content, not the length or size, of the credential which defines whether it can fit into a wider learning career. Validation can directly support this judgement on stackability but requires transparent descriptions of the profile and content of these certificates and credentials. The work on developing short learning outcomes-based descriptions for qualifications (in the context of the EQF AG and Europass) points towards an approach which can be used for full qualifications but, increasingly, also for smaller size certificates and credentials.
|
4.1.3.2. Validation and the link to qualifications frameworks and systems
Development of validation of non-formal and informal learning and of national qualifications frameworks (NQFs) share a common objective: enabling individuals to make progress in their learning careers based on learning outcomes achieved, not on duration and location of a particular learning programme.
The concept of a national qualifications system is now widely understood as all aspects of a country’s activity that result in the recognition of learning in Europe. These systems include the means of developing and operationalising national or regional policies on qualifications, institutional arrangements, quality assurance processes, assessment and awarding processes, skills recognition and other mechanisms that link education and training to the labour market and civil society. Arrangements for validation are an important and (usually) integrated part of these qualifications systems. By integrating, politically and legally, the validation of non-formal or informal learning with the national qualifications system, the validation aspect becomes more transparent through a clearer legal status, governance and financing.
Most important, validation gives practical support to progression between different levels and types of education and training. Integration of validation into the national qualification system requires that qualifications are opened up to a broader set of learning pathways and that validation arrangements are established as an accepted and normal route to a certificate or qualification. This requires a shift to learning outcomes.
An objective shared by most NQFs is a better relationship between different qualifications, aiding progression. This can be accomplished by reducing barriers to transfer and accumulation of learning achievements. Methods and systems for validating non-formal and informal learning, focusing on what has been achieved, contribute directly to this objective. If introduced systematically, validation will not only open up qualifications to a broader set of learning experiences but also make it easier for individuals to progress across institutional, sectoral and national borders.
Ensuring the integration of validation and NQFs may promote overall flexibility of education and training. This is particularly the case if validation supports exemption from parts of a programme to avoid repeating learning already achieved: this could aid progression and signal that non-formal and informal learning is taken seriously by education and training institutions. The savings in money and time will be significant if vertical (between levels) and horizontal (between subjects and areas) progression is made possible.
|