Tu profesor te pide que redactes cuando imparte las clases de Lengua y Literatura?

of quality assurance in higher education institutions. However, the differ- ing curriculum regulations in the two countries result in varying curricu- lar procedures. While Finnish universities enjoy extensive autonomy, the State Educational Standards play a major role in curriculum development in Russian HEIs. In Russia, the State Educational Standards not only de- termine a significant proportion of the curriculum, but also function as the criterion against which the quality of education is measured. Thus, the relationship between curriculum development and quality assurance is more straightforward in Russia, although also in Finland the cyclical re- vision of the curriculum is at the core of quality assurance of education.

To better understand the challenges facing those developing cur- ricula, this chapter begins with an introduction of the European con- text and especially the qualifications frameworks that are currently be- ing developed. Familiarity with concepts such as Dublin Descriptors is important in order to better understand the nature and aims of the State Educational Standards and the curriculum planning in Finnish HEIs. One of the most important concepts in curriculum planning is learning

outcomes, which have been defined as “statements of what a learner is

expected to know, understand and/or be able to do at the end of a period of learning”1.

The learning outcomes based approach shifts the attention from en- try requirements, length of study, and the curriculum to the results of the learning process. Since it is less important how the qualification and the learning outcomes have been achieved, concepts such as APEL, the assessment of prior experimental learning, are growing in importance. The new approach affects qualifications, curriculum development, and quality assurance, as well as teaching, learning and assessment proc- esses. The outcomes-based approach thus represents the change from a teacher-centred viewpoint to a student-centred approach.

4.1. Qualifications frameworks

Before proceeding to a more detailed introduction of the European qualifications frameworks, a definition of the word qualification itself should be given. A generally accepted definition of a qualification is: “any degree, diploma or other certificate issued by a competent authority at- testing that particular learning outcomes have been achieved, normally following the successful completion of a recognised higher education programme of study”2. This definition should be borne in mind when

reading the following discussion on European and national qualifica- tions frameworks.

4.1.1. European qualifications frameworks

European qualifications frameworks

- Framework for Qualifications in the EHEA for Bologna countries

covers only HE

- European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning for EU

countries covers all education

- EHEA QF based on Dublin Descriptors, which describe skills and competences

- EHEA QF defines learning outcomes for Short cycle, 1st cycle, 2nd cycle and 3rd cycle

- in the Tuning project, specific learning outcomes and competences defined for subject areas

- www.bologna2009benelux.org/qf, http://tuning.unideusto.org/ tuningeu

There are currently two processes of qualifications framework develop- ment in Europe: the Framework for Qualifications of the EHEA (the Bo- logna Framework), and EQF-LLL, the European Qualifications Frame- work for lifelong learning. The systems are interlinked and they share many common principles, but there are also differences between the two systems: the Bologna Framework covers only higher education and it is intended for use in all 46 Bologna countries. The EQF-LLL, on the other hand, covers all qualification levels from primary to higher educa- tion and is being developed for the 27 EU countries. The underlying principles of the frameworks will now be examined. Before that, how- ever, a short review of earlier developments is in place.

The proposed frameworks are far from being the first attempts at defining the level of education in a systematized way. The way in which they differ from the previous frameworks is that they are based on learn- ing outcomes rather than other criteria. For example, the International Standard Classification of Education, ISCED, published by UNESCO, is largely based on the duration of education. There are seven levels of education, ranging from pre-primary education at level 0 to education leading to an advanced research qualification at level 6. In Finland, both Licentiate and Doctoral degrees are classified as level 6, and in Russia Kandidat Nauk and Doktor Nauk are at ISCED level 6. There is no 5B level education in the Finnish system, but both Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees are classified as level 5A. In Russia, middle level professional education is at level 5B in the ISCED system. Higher education at Bach- elor, Master and Specialist level is classified as level 5A education3. Bologna Framework

The first steps towards a qualifications framework for the EHEA were taken already in the Bologna Declaration in 1999 when the first and the second cycle of higher education were identified. The next steps in- volved national initiatives in some Bologna countries, as well as several international initiatives. Of these, perhaps the most important ones are the Trans-European Evaluation Project (TEEP) I and II, the Joint Qual- ity Initiative of the Dublin Descriptors, and the Tuning project. TEEP was a pilot project by ENQA and its member agencies in 2002–2003, fol- lowed by TEEP II in 2005–20064. The first TEEP explored the European

areas, while TEEP II aspired to identify means and common elements for quality education in joint programmes, again in three subject areas.

The Joint Quality Initiative (JQI) is an informal network for qual- ity assurance and accreditation in Europe5. The most notable achieve-

ment of the JQI is the Dublin Descriptors. A complete set of general descriptors were published in 2004. Based on these general descriptors, which can be applied to all subject areas, specific descriptors have been prepared for certain fields of study. The Dublin Descriptors were later adopted as the cycle descriptors for the Framework for Qualifications of the EHEA. The Dublin Descriptors are mainly intended for align- ing qualifications and national frameworks, which themselves may have more detailed functions or additional elements. The main elements of the Dublin Descriptors are knowledge and understanding, applying knowledge and understanding, making judgements, communication skills, and learning skills. The Descriptors do not represent threshold or minimum requirements, but rather offer generic statements of typical expectations of learning at the end of each cycle by describing the nature of the whole qualification.

Tuning Educational Structures in Europe is the universities’ concrete contribution to the Bologna Process6_{. Over 100 universities in the Bologna} countries have been involved in the project, which was launched in 2000. The project is coordinated by the University of Deusto and the Univer- sity of Groningen, and financed by the European Commission. Tuning is complementary to the JQI, which concentrates on the comparability of the three cycles in general terms. Tuning, on the other hand, focuses on the level of subject areas, educational structures and the content of studies, which are the responsibility of higher education institutions. The emphasis is on the comparability of curricula as regards structures, programmes and actual teaching. In the first two phases, Tuning worked with 9 subject areas – business, chemistry, earth sciences, education, European studies, history, mathematics, nursing and physics – while the aim of the third phase was to encourage the use of the Tuning methodol- ogy and related tools and products. In autumn 2008, third cycle studies were included as an area of special interest in the Tuning project.

The Tuning methodology contains five lines of approach: gener- ic competences or transferable skills; subject-specific competences; the role of ECTS as an accumulation system; approaches to learning,

teaching and assessment, and the role of quality enhancement in the educational process. Some of the key documents of the Tuning project include the Tuning List of Key Questions for Programme Design and Programme Delivery, Maintenance and Evaluation in the Framework of the Bologna Reform, and the Tuning Checklist for Curriculum Evalu- ation. In the Tuning project, reference points have been developed at subject area level so that study programmes can be made comparable, compatible and transparent. Learning outcomes and competences are used as reference points. An important aspect of the project was the Eu- rope-wide consultation of employers, graduates and academic staff for identifying the most important competences, which were then employed in the set of reference points. Some competences are specific to a field of study, while others are common to any degree course. The Tuning Subject Area Groups have developed cycle descriptors for their subjects to make the levels of learning comparable.

In the Berlin Communiqué in 2003, the Ministers of Education called for a European qualifications framework. The Ministers committed both to elaborating an overarching qualifications framework for the EHEA and to setting up national qualifications frameworks in their respective countries. The national frameworks will be the focus of the next chap- ter, while the focus here is on the EHEA framework. In Bergen in 2005, the Ministers adopted the overarching Framework for Qualifications

of the European Higher Education Area7, prepared by a Bologna Work-

ing Group on Qualifications Frameworks. The Framework made use of both the Dublin Descriptors and the Tuning project. The Framework is defined as “an overarching framework that makes transparent the re- lationship between European national higher education frameworks of qualifications and the qualifications they contain”8. The EHEA Frame-

work functions as an articulation mechanism between national qualifica- tions frameworks. Each Bologna country is to prepare a National Quali- fications Framework (NQF) which relates to the general framework. A self-certification report of the compatibility with the EHEA framework should also be published.

The framework defines the learning outcomes for short cycle qualifi- cation, first cycle qualification, second cycle qualification and third cycle qualification using the Dublin Descriptors. The short cycle qualification is approximately 120 ECTS in length and is within or linked to the first

cycle. First cycle qualifications typically include 180-240 ECTS, and sec- ond cycle degrees carry 90-120 ECTS, while the credit amount for third cycle degrees is not specified. The following quote serves as an example of a learning outcome defined in the framework:

“Qualifications that signify completion of the second cycle are awarded to

students who can apply their knowledge and understanding, and problem solving abilities in new or unfamiliar environments within broader (or multi- disciplinary) contexts related to their field of study9_.”

Around five such statements have been formulated for each of the four cycles. The view taken is that learning is cumulative and that the more advanced degrees are built upon the knowledge and skills gathered in previous studies.

EQF-LLL

The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning, EQF- LLL or simply EQF, is a common European framework which links EU Member States’ qualifications systems together. The EQF has been de- scribed as a translation device which makes qualifications more readable. It aims at promoting mobility and facilitating lifelong learning. The EQF was published in July 2005 as a Staff Working Document and adopted in February 2008 by the European Council. The EQF has been designed as an instrument for the promotion of lifelong learning as it encompass- es general, adult, vocational and higher education. It thus applies to all types of qualifications. There are eight reference levels which describe the learning outcomes relevant to each level. The knowledge, skills and competences acquired at each level are described in the framework. EU Member States are to relate their national qualifications systems to the EQF by 2010, but the EQF has also had an impact on countries outside the EU. The EQF is compatible with the EHEA Framework so that EQF level 5 corresponds to short cycle, EQF level 6 to first cycle, EQF level 7 to second cycle and EQF level 8 to third cycle degrees.

The EQF and the EHEA Framework have many similar characteris- tics, although their scope is different. Both frameworks intend to facili- tate transparency, recognition and mobility. The EQF aims at connect- ing the different parts of the educational systems in the EU Member States into a comprehensive framework. Due to the nature of the EQF,

the level descriptors are generic descriptors that can be used to describe all types of learning, while the Bologna cycle descriptors are more spe- cifically aimed at describing higher education.

Although the emphasis here has been on Europe and particularly on the EHEA Framework for Qualifications, it is worth noting that there are also global initiatives for qualifications frameworks, for example, by the International Labour Organization ILO and by the Organisation for Eco- nomic Co-operation and Development OECD10. In addition, the Tuning

approach, although initially developed for Europe, has been tested on several continents and has, for example, resulted in a project called Tun- ing América Latina11.

4.1.2. National qualifications frameworks

National qualifications frameworks in Finland and Russia

– EHEA QF designed to facilitate mobility, national QFs describe education systems’ qualifications

– systematic descriptions based on learning outcomes

– learning achievements measured and related to each other in the national framework

– a proposal made in Finland in 2005, new proposal in August 2009

– Tuning Russia in 2006–2007, no national framework as yet

While the EHEA Framework is designed to facilitate movement between educational systems and to provide the broad structure within which national qualifications frameworks can be built, it is the national quali- fications frameworks that are closest to operational reality. A National Qualifications Framework (NQF) is defined as follows:

“the single description, at national level or level of an education system, which is internationally understood and through which all qualifications and other learning achievements in higher education may be described and related to each other in a coherent way and which defines the relationship between higher education qualifications”12_.

National qualifications frameworks are systematic descriptions of edu- cation system qualifications that relate to the European frameworks. All

learning achievements are measured and related to each other in the framework. What is essential for the national frameworks is that the de- scriptions should be systematic and based on learning outcomes. More- over, the learning paths should be clear. Qualifications frameworks are not, and are not intended to be, total descriptions of educational sys- tems in different countries. Rather, they outline the main features of the educational system. The frameworks give both generic descriptions and specific features for different fields and they should include information on workload, level, learning outcome, competences and profiles. The purpose of the national frameworks is to offer transparency for learn- ers and other stakeholders, and a better linkage to the labour market in general13.

Finland

As an EU Member State and a Bologna signatory country, Finland has decided to prepare a national framework which is compatible with both the EHEA Framework and the EQF-LLL by 2010. At the time of writing, the work on the national framework was still in progress. In 2004, the Ministry of Education set a working group to prepare a national quali- fications framework for higher education. The group consisted of rep- resentatives from universities and universities of applied sciences, the national student organisations, FINHEEC, the National Board of Edu- cation (ENIC/NARIC) and the Ministry of Education. The group’s task was to draw up a clear and transparent Finnish higher education qualifi- cations framework which would describe the main types of qualifications in terms of learning outcomes.

In February 2005, the working group published its report, which in- cluded a proposal for a framework. The proposal is publicly available at the Ministry of Education website14. The qualifications were divided into

first, second and third cycle degrees so that university and UAS Bach- elor’s degrees formed the first cycle. The second cycle consisted of Mas- ter’s degrees granted by universities and at universities of applied sci- ences. The third cycle was formed by the scientific postgraduate degrees of Licentiate and Doctorate, which can only be granted by universities. After the proposal was published, there was a wide consultation of stake- holders. More than 60 statements were received. The main comments were collected in one document, and seminars were organised on rel-

evant aspects of the proposal. The proposal was, however, not officially approved.

In August 2008, a working group was appointed by the Ministry of Education to prepare a national qualifications framework for all levels of education. The working group presented its proposal in August 2009. The earlier proposal with some modifications will be integrated to the overarching qualifications framework15.

Russia

A draft framework for the Russian Federation European Qualifications System has been developed by a working group set by the Ministry of Education and Science in 2006. The group formulated qualification descriptors for different levels of education. The draft framework cor- responds to the EQF in respect to the main parameters. The nation- al framework is of importance as it functions as the basis for creating professional standards. The professional standards, in turn, are taken into consideration when designing State Educational Standards. Having a competence-based qualification framework is hoped to have a posi- tive impact on the State Educational Standards, study programmes, and teachers’ working methods. According to the Russian Federal National Bologna Process Report for 2009, the national framework is still under discussion16.

A one-year Tuning-Russia project was launched in May 2006. The purpose of the project was to implement the Tuning methodology in Russian HEIs in two subject areas, mathematics and European stud- ies. The project acted as a pilot and it aimed at introducing the Tuning methodology more widely into Russian higher education, and especially at adopting a competence-based approach for developing educational standards. The consortium consisted of four HEIs from EU countries and three Russian HEIs. In addition, the Russian Ministry of Educa- tion and Science and the National Training Foundation17 took part in the

project. Some of the principal outcomes of the project include transla- tions of the Tuning methodology and tools into Russian, Tuning-based model curricula in mathematics and European studies, and the wide dissemination of materials for information and implementation in the Russian Federation.

4.2. Curriculum development in Finland

In this section, curriculum development in Finnish higher education in- stitutions is examined from three perspectives. First, the focus will be on the curriculum reform which took place because of the Bologna Process. Second, the legal framework for beginning new education is introduced. Third, an outline of the annual curriculum processes in Finnish HEIs is given. Before moving to the Bologna curriculum reform, however, a