4. ANTECEDENTES Y MARCO TEÓRICO
4.6 ESTADO DEL ARTE DEL AGUA
3.3.3.1 Supporting quicker or easier recognition
Only a quarter of competent authorities interviewed for the case studies believe that the use of ECTS has made the recognition of professional qualifications quicker or
easier (see Table 3.11 below). Among those competent authorities that have actually received recognition applications based on ECTS, a third believes that ECTS has made recognition quicker or easier. Yet the proportion of these competent authorities holding the opposite view also increases (from 44% to 54%).
The nature of the impact of ECTS is in supporting the recognition decision rather than providing a basis for that decision. Competent authorities described it as giving a useful proxy for understanding more about level and content, although it is one part of the
recognition jigsaw:
▪
“We have ECTS to recognise qualifications when other information is not sufficient. We can probably look at it more in the future” (pharmaceutical technician/assistantcompetent authority).
▪
“Yes [ECTS supports recognition], because the training content is more specific and clear” (social worker competent authority).▪
“The use of ECTS expressed in terms of student workload helps in the recognition process, but it is still not enough to explain what a student is able to do at completion” (competent authority for multiple professions).▪
“It is useful in case where applicants have studied in country A for some years and then go on to study in country B. Perhaps for a master qualification or perhaps for a year abroad as part of their degree. ECTS allows applicants the flexibility to mix and match and gives us the guarantee that they have reached a certain level” (civil engineers competent authority).One competent authority, for social workers, explicitly drew out the point that ECTS was a „better measure of non-teaching elements‟, which was an important consideration in the context of national professional requirements. However, this was not something that competent authorities in general picked up on.
Those competent authorities that did not believe ECTS supports quicker and easier recognition can be split into several camps:
▪
Competent authorities that recognised some value in having ECTS as complementary information, but which did not find that this had a concrete impact on facilitating the recognition process. According to one competent authority for physiotherapists: „the applications have to still be analysed and to review the training contents, so the recognition process has not became easier or quicker‟.▪
Competent authorities that were not interested in duration as much as learning outcomes. One competent authority for accountants said: „our approach is to use learning outcomes. We compare the learning outcomes of qualifications achieved in Europe to our own qualifications, and then decide on recognition...[The] duration of [the] course does not come into the process‟. This response shows that the understanding of what is ECTS varies. ECTS is frequently understood as being only about workload (number of credit points) while the learning outcomes dimension is not seen as part of ECTS.▪
Competent authorities that were only interested in teaching hours. As one competent authority for medical/biomedical laboratory technicians put it: „The workload needs to be recalculated so as to include only teaching time, as this is the current basis ofcomparison‟.
▪
Only one competent authority put forward a response for lack of added value in ECTS being a lack of confidence in the way „different universities use the points‟.Unsurprisingly, very few competent authorities suggested that ECTS had led to cases of „automatic recognition‟ (see Table 3.11 below). The common view was that this could not occur without a degree of harmonisation of curricula / training contents.
Table 3.11 Impact of ECTS on the recognition process
Yes No Don’t know Total
Has the use of ECTS in context of the Bologna Process made the recognition of professional qualifications easier or quicker?
Competent authorities (all) 15 (24%) 28 (44%) 20 (32%) 63 (100%)
Competent authorities that have dealt with applications presented in terms of ECTS credits
10 (34%) 16 (55%) 3 (10%) 29 (100%)
Has ECTS led in any cases to the "automatic" recognition of professional qualifications?
Competent authorities (all) 2 (3%) 51 (81%) 10 (16%) 63 (100%)
Source: case studies
3.3.3.2 Improving comparability and transparency
Around half of competent authorities (48%) believe that the use of ECTS creates more transparency on the qualification obtained in another Member State. This rises to 59% of competent authorities that have experience of dealing with recognition applications in terms of ECTS (see Table 3.12 below).
Competent authorities were relatively evenly split in terms of whether they thought it is (or might be in future) easier to compare qualifications using ECTS than using years/teaching hours (see Table 3.12 below).
Among those competent authorities who thought that it provided a better/easier basis for comparing qualifications than years/hours were those that felt capturing the practical element of training was important, as well as competent authorities that already used ECTS to „prove‟ equivalence in actual cases. It was also noted that ECTS, as a common framework system, provided a more straightforward analysis („have they achieved enough credits?‟) in cases where the applicant had followed an unconventional training route (e.g. taken a year out, studied abroad for year) wherein the calculation of total size/length of learning is not easy in terms of years‟ of study.
Those competent authorities that thought ECTS may be a better system in future, either thought that it was not yet well-enough established to add value in terms of transparency and comparability or were looking for additional guarantees on the basis for credit allocation (which they assumed would follow alongside greater experience of ECTS across higher education).
Competent authorities that did not agree ECTS improved the comparability of qualifications cited a lack of transparency in the definition of student workload („does it include only teaching hours or self-study and preparation for exams?‟). This is a reasonable question given that the evidence shows different approaches to credit allocation across Europe. There was an underlying concern here that self-study hours are increased by universities while reducing teaching time – but while maintaining the same ECTS points – even though there is no evidence that this is happening at a larger scale in practice38.
In most countries, funding for teaching activities remains in some way related to inputs – including hours taught – credit is sometimes used as an output criterion in parallel to inputs rather than instead of inputs, hence universities have an interest in maintaining the number of taught inputs. For competent authorities interested primarily in the length of taught study, the fact that taught content would be diminishing is seen as potentially problematic.
There was also the concern that even if ECTS were externally checked or monitored, this would increase bureaucracy. One competent authority, for social workers, questioned both the veracity of information provided to it and the value of information given in practice. It
38
For discussion of funding models in higher education in Europe, including the input and output indicators used, see Cheps, IoE and Technopolis (2010) Progress in higher education reform across Europe Funding Reform
gave the example of an applicant presenting subject title and corresponding ECTS – „this is not very helpful, it doesn‟t say how the learning was delivered, which is very important‟. It also described applicants having copied the host national training standards as topics covered in the training: „it can be difficult to assess the veracity of these statements‟. This issue is presumably addressed by tools such as the Diploma supplement, but it highlights a current level of confusion for sceptical competent authorities.
Table 3.12 Impact of ECTS on the transparency and comparability of qualifications Number of competent authorities
% of competent authorities
Do competent authorities consider that the use of ECTS creates more transparency on the qualification obtained in another Member State??
Yes – all competent authorities
[Yes – those with experience of ECTS in applications for recognition]
30
[17]
48%
[59%]
No – all competent authorities
[No – those with experience of ECTS in applications for recognition]
11
[8]
17%
[28%]
Don‟t know – all competent authorities
[Don‟t know – those with experience of ECTS in applications for recognition]
22
[4]
35%
[14%]
Total 63 [29] 100%
According to competent authorities, is it or would it be easier to compare qualifications using ECTS than using years/teaching hours?
Yes – now 11 17%
Yes - in future 14 22%
No 14 22%
Don't know 24 38%
Grand Total 63 100%
Source: case studies