Aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida:
Realidades, Desafíos y Oportunidades de la Educación Superior en América Latina
Editores
Maurizio Betti Mónica Kaechele Obreque
Gloria Mousalli-Kayat Francklin Rivas Echeverría
Datos de Catalogación Bibliográfica:
Aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida: Realidades, Desafíos y Oportunidades desde la Educación Superior en América Latina Editores: Maurizio Betti, Monica Kaechele Obreque, Gloria Mousalli-Kayat, Francklin Rivas Echeverría Impreso en Gráfica Lom, Chile, 2014
ISBN: 978-956-7019-96-0 Formato: 150 x 200 mm Páginas: 352
“Esta publicación fue producida en el marco del Proyecto TRALL. Transatlantic Lifelong Learning. Rebalancing Relations (www. alfa-trall.eu), contrato nº DCI-ALA/19.09.01/10/21526/245-361/ ALFAIII(2013)37, con el apoyo del Programa ALFA III – Lote 2 Proyectos Estructurales – de la Unión Europea.
El contenido de la misma es responsabilidad exclusiva de los autores y de los socios del consorcio Trall y en ningún caso debe considerarse que refleja los puntos de vista de la Unión Europea.
Editores: Maurizio Betti, Monica Kaechele-Obreque, Gloria Mousalli Kayat, Francklin Rivas Echeverría, en nombre del Consorcio TRALL. La versión electrónica de este documento está disponible en el sitio web del Proyecto TRALL:
http://www.alfa-trall.eu
Queda prohibida, salvo excepción prevista en la Ley, cualquier forma de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y transformación de esta obra sin autorización de los titulares de la propiedad intelectual.
Prólogo
Madhu Singh
(UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning)*
The potential of the UNESCO Guidelines for the recognition, validation and accreditation of the outcomes of non-formal and informal learning for continuing higher education in Latin America. Luigi Guerra (Università di Bologna, Italia)*
Proyecto Trall: iniciativa promotora de cambios
Sección I
Realidades y desarrollo de aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida en las instituciones de educación superior
Lucero Zamudio, José Fernando Rubio y Álvaro Toledo (Universidad Externado de Colombia)
Aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida:
Potencial transformador en la universidad
José H. Bahamón, Vladimir Rouvinski, Germán E. Nieto (Universidad Icesi, Colombia)
Innovación en el diseño curricular y el aprendizaje organizacional: el caso de la Universidad Icesi
Federico Colombo Speroni, Desirée D’Ambrosio y Neli Sarmiento (Universidad Católica de Salta, Argentina)
Una mirada a los estudios de posgrado en Argentina desde la perspectiva del aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida
Patricia Viera Duarte, Raúl Correa Santesteban y Enrique Martínez Larrechea (Universidad de la Empresa, Uruguay)
Educación universitaria y lifelong learning. Formación de profesores basada en competencias
Sección II
Aseguramiento de la calidad, créditos, competencias y validación de aprendizajes previos
Maurizio Betti e Ira Vannini
(Alma Mater Studiorum, Università di Bologna, Italia) Una ruta hacia un Sistema de Aseguramiento de la Calidad. Experiencia de los cursos Trall
07
14
48
57
58
76
95
113
132
133
Ruud Duvekot (Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Holanda) y Laurent Pourtau (Etcharry Formation Développement, Francia)
Breaking ground for competences and credits in lifelong learning Daniela Dávila Heitmann y Alejandra Martínez Barrientos (Universidad Católica Boliviana San Pablo, Bolivia) Validación de competencias en posgrado
Sara Aliria Jiménez García (Universidad de Colima, México) Conexiones ideológicas entre la educación a lo largo de la vida en la Unión Europea y la evaluación de académicos en México. ¿Quién dijo “evaluación y validación de aprendizajes previos”? Ruud Duvekot (Inholland University of Applied Sciences,
Holanda) y Francklin Rivas (Universidad de Los Andes, Venezuela) Assessment of non-formal and informal learning outcomes: a proposal for the training of assessors
Sección III
Oportunidades y desafíos en el aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida para las instituciones universitarias
Maurizio Betti y Marco Trentini (Alma Mater Studiorum, Università di Bologna, Italia)
Las universidades latinoamericanas y el aprendizaje permanente. Desafíos para las políticas institucionales
Sonia Sgroppo, Sonia Mariño, Patricia Demuth y Adolfo Torres (Universidad Nacional del Nordeste, Argentina)
El aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida: propuesta de generación de políticas y lineamientos institucionales. El caso de la Universidad Nacional del Nordeste de Argentina
Rui Vieira de Castro y Mónica Oliveira (Universidade do Minho, Portugal)
Enquadramento e materializações de iniciativas de Lifelong Learning em universidades latinoamericanas: um estudo de casos
Patricia Demuth, Sonia Sgroppo, Sonia Mariño, Adolfo Torres y Lucrecia Guerrero (Universidad Nacional del Nordeste, Argentina)
El conocimiento didáctico universitario y el aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida
167
194
208
229
253
254
272
290
332
Resúmenes343
Presentación de los autores314
1 “Transatlantic Lifelong Learning. Rebalancing Relations” es un proyecto
financiado por el programa Alfa III de la Comisión Europea, núm. de contrato DCI ALA/19.09.01/10 /21526/245-361 Z/ALFAIII(2013)37. El sitio web del proyecto es <http://www.alfa-trall.eu/>.
El aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida (lifelong learning) es, en la actualidad, un tema presente en la agenda de las instituciones de educación superior, de los organismos públicos y privados, ligados al ámbito laboral y de formación, y es considerado un elemento dinamizador de las propuestas colectivas para enfrentar los desafíos de la sociedad del conocimiento, y un recurso clave para fortalecer un modelo económico, político, cultural y educativo que ofrezca mecanismos de aprendizaje permanente.
La relevancia de las potenciales implicaciones del aprendizaje permanente es permeable, en primer lugar, a los individuos que aprenden a lo largo de la vida desde diferentes contextos y ópticas, participando en experiencias formales y no formales. Pero, al mismo tiempo, también abarca un sinnúmero de instituciones, organizaciones y asociaciones del ámbito privado y público, que demandan acciones educativas para la formación de talento humano en concordancia a sus necesidades de gestión y producción. Preparar a los ciudadanos para su participación activa en una economía donde el conocimiento es prioridad en los procesos productivos, requiere de nuevos esquemas educativos enfocados al aprendizaje más que en la formación; un modelo que declare la ruptura de fronteras de los itinerarios de aprendizaje, que implemente mecanismos efectivos en el fortalecimiento de habilidades y reconocimiento de competencias alcanzadas mediante la experiencias vividas y los saberes adquiridos.
En el marco de estas reflexiones se inscribe esta publicación, producto de las actividades realizadas por un amplio consorcio de instituciones de educación superior participantes en el proyecto Trall, “Transatlantic Lifelong Learning. Rebalancing Relations”. El proyecto Trall, financiado con el apoyo de la Comisión Europea,1 se inició a comienzos de 2011 y durante
tres años contó con la activa participación de 20 instituciones de educación superior de América Latina y de Europa, que han confrontado sus visiones, perspectivas y fortalezas, logrando definir diversos conceptos, instrumentos
y métodos que se han puesto a prueba mediante la implementación de cursos contextualizados en cada país donde se logró explotar las fortalezas del lifelong learning como enfoque educativo.
Un aprendizaje compartido entre los diferentes socios ha sido, sin duda, la clara conciencia, por un lado, de los desafíos que implica para el mundo universitario adoptar el aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida como el marco de referencia para situar también sus propios procesos formativos, y, por el otro lado, la conciencia de la necesidad de implementar los pasos oportunos para que esta visión del aprendizaje se radique efectivamente en las praxis universitarias.
En consideración del importante trabajo realizado por el consorcio Trall y también para evidenciar la amplia diversidad de instituciones participantes, nos parece importante dar visibilidad a los socios del proyecto nombrándolos en orden alfabético según el país de pertenencia: Universidad Católica de Salta y Universidad Nacional del Nordeste de Argentina; Universidad Católica Boliviana “San Pablo” de Bolivia; Universidade Federal de Goiás de Brasil; Universidad Católica de Temuco de Chile; Red de Educación Continua de América Latina y Europa (Recla), Universidad Icesi y Universidad del Externado de Colombia; Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar de Ecuador; Universidad de El Salvador de El Salvador; Universidad de Barcelona de España; AFMR Etcharry de Francia; Alma Mater Studiorum, Universitá di Bologna de Italia; Universidad de Colima de México; Inholland University de los Países Bajos; Universidad Católica “Nuestra Señora de Asunción” de Paraguay; Universidad Nacional Agraria “La Molina” de Perú; Universidade do Minho de Portugal; Universidad de la Empresa de Uruguay; Universidad de Los Andes de Venezuela.
Es necesario resaltar que la diversidad al interior del consorcio de TRALL (localización geográfica, idioma, carácter público o privado, etcétera) constituyó un elemento de riqueza que ha permitido enfrentar las temáticas del proyecto bajo diferentes puntos de observación. En consideración de la relevancia que la diversidad ha jugado en el desarrollo del proyecto hemos decidido mantenerla como un signo en esta publicación, utilizando para
las contribuciones los tres idiomas más utilizados en las comunicaciones internas y externas del proyecto: el español, el portugués y el inglés.
La diversidad de las experiencias formativas realizadas por los socios latinoamericanos, junto con la implementación de los instrumentos y de las metodologías diseñadas en las etapas iniciales del proyecto, han permitido abarcar diferentes ámbitos del conocimiento e involucrar a diferentes sectores sociales del territorio con los cuales o hacia los cuales los programas se dirigían. Los cursos pilotos desarrollados se han distribuidos en cuatro tipologías diferentes: aquellos que enfrentaron la adquisición de competencias de didáctica e investigación para el mismo ámbito universitario, los que fueron orientados al sector productivo, aquellos que apuntaban a la actualización en ámbito docente y, finalmente, el grupo de cursos que se desenvolvió en el ámbito social buscando la adquisición de competencias transversales especialmente en relación con poblaciones indígenas.
La perspectiva del aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida es hoy un imperativo para las sociedades que, gracias a los continuos cambios económicos y sociales impulsados por la globalización, por la rápida obsolescencia de los saberes y la necesidad de promover procesos de adquisición y de reconocimiento de nuevas competencias para los individuos, pone interrogantes a las instituciones de educación superior llamándolas a redefinir algunos conceptos y prácticas consolidadas. Las universidades están hoy llamadas a redefinir sus propios currículum formativos desde diversas perspectivas: a) diseñarlos con foco en las competencias, proceso que implica una estrecha relación con los llamados stakeholders; b) traducir el concepto del aprendizaje permanente en la universidad diseñando itinerarios que no se agoten en la formación inicial universitaria, sino que consideren y articulen itinerarios adicionales de especialización y actualización para adultos; c) articularse con otros sistemas formativos como el de la formación vocacional y profesional, buscando mecanismo de flexibilización de ingreso y salida entre ellos; d) poner a la persona que aprende al centro del proceso formativo y ello junto con el foco en
las competencias y la articulación vertical (dentro de itinerarios formativos universitarios de diferentes niveles) y horizontal (entre los sistemas universitario y vocacional/profesional) implica también dotarse de mecanismos de reconocimiento y certificación de las competencia que el individuo pueda haber adquirido en contextos no formales e informales.
Es evidente que la complejidad de los desafíos antes indicados conlleva la necesidad de que otros actores sociales relevantes sean involucrados en la reflexión y toma de decisiones sobre estos temas que tienen vínculos de tipo legal y normativo y pueden ser enfrentados sólo en una perspectiva estratégica de amplio alcance. En este sentido, asumen un papel relevante los gobiernos nacionales y las organizaciones supranacionales; las segundas especialmente en consideración de la posibilidad, en tiempos de globalización, de que los aprendizajes y las competencias certificadas en un contexto nacional puedan ser reconocidos en otros contextos nacionales permitiendo, por ende, la circulación de las personas con su propios bagajes de saberes.
Alrededor de estos temas de nivel macro y de la definición e implementación de herramientas e instrumentos para facilitar prácticas formativas internas, coherentemente con los principios del aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida, se ha desarrollado el proyecto Trall y en este volumen se presentan algunas de estas reflexiones y se describen algunas experiencias realizadas por las instituciones socias.
La participación de actores de casi todos los países de América Latina ha significado una enorme riqueza para la reflexión acerca de las implicancias de la adopción del aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida en el contexto universitario, reflexión que se ha concretado en resultados en diferentes ámbitos: teórico, metodológico y operativo. Gran parte de los alcances, desafíos y expectativas que han surgido en este camino se recogen en este libro mediante contribuciones de los diferentes socios, junto a la contribución de una invitada, la doctora Madhu Singh, del Institute for Lifelong Learning de Hamburgo, que presenta la visión de la Unesco sobre el aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida, pero especialmente en cuanto a reconocimiento, validación
y acreditación de los aprendizajes no formales e informales (RVA). Después de una reflexión sobre el estado de fondo de la educación continua en América Latina y la profundización de los principios de las áreas de acción que propone la Unesco para la implementación de sistemas de RVA concluye evidenciando los desafíos que, en estos ámbitos, se presentan a los países latinoamericanos.
Es de singular relevancia y de suma importancia el aporte que viene de la mano del profesor Luigi Guerra de la Universidad de Bologna, en el que refleja sus impresiones como director del proyecto, describiendo las vivencias de este viaje llamado Trall, que tan solo es el inicio de un periplo en la construcción de una visión compartida sobre el futuro de la educación en América Latina.
Las contribuciones han sido organizadas en tres secciones con el propósito de de reflejar adecuadamente las intenciones de los diversos autores. La primera sección, “Realidades y desarrollos del aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida en las instituciones de educación superior”, incluye los aportes de algunos socios latinoamericanos que, partiendo de las experiencias realizadas en sus propias universidades, reflexionan sobre los alcances del aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida en la universidad. Son parte de esta sección las contribuciones de Zamudio, Rubio y Toledo de la Universidad del Externado, de Bahamón, Rouvinsky y Nieto de la Universidad ICESI, de Colombo, D’Ambrosio y Sarmiento de la Universidad Católica de Salta y de Viera, Correa y Martínez de la Universidad de la Empresa.
La segunda sección recoge los artículos de diferentes autores, tanto de universidades latinoamericanas como europeas, en torno a unos tópicos relevantes para el proyecto relacionados con créditos y competencias, de Duvekot (Inholland University) y Porteau (AFMR Etcharry), con validación de aprendizaje no formales o informales, de Dávila y Martínez (Universidad Católica Boliviana) y de Duvekot (Inholland University) y Rivas (Universidad de los Andes), con la conexiones ideológicas entre las visiones europeas y la evaluación académica en México de Jiménez (Universidad de Colima) y con Sistema de Aseguramiento de Calidad de Betti y Vannini (Universitá di Bologna).
Las oportunidades y los desafíos del aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida para las instituciones universitarias son el eje que rige la tercera sección del libro, donde los artículos de socios latinoamericanos y europeos abren elementos de reflexión para que las universidades puedan ser, con siempre mayor fortaleza, actores de promoción del aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida. En esta sección se cuentan las contribuciones de Betti y Trentin (Università di Bologna), de Sgroppo, Demuth, Mariño, Torres y Guerrero (Universidad del Nordeste) y de Viera de Castro y Oliveira (Universidade do Minho).
Esta publicación representa el aporte de una comunidad que a lo largo de tres años investigó y desarrolló de manera exitosa experiencias educativas bajo el enfoque de aprendizaje a lo largo de la vida. Confiamos que la riqueza y la amplitud de las contribuciones presentes en este volumen sean una contribución concreta para seguir produciendo conocimientos y prácticas educativas valiosas para una sociedad más inclusiva y democrática.
Introduction
This paper seeks to address the issue of recognition, validation and accreditation of non-formal learning and informal learning, in particular how the UNESCO Guidelines on the Recognition, Validation and Accreditation of the outcomes of Non-formal and Informal Learning (UIL, 2012) can be helpful in terms of public policy and strategic implementation in continuing higher education institutions in Latin American countries.
The paper first briefly sets out the background of continuing higher education in the Latin American region in general. The paper then turns to the consideration of principles and the six areas of action in the UNESCO Guidelines and highlights these in relation to evidence from Member States reflecting the factors conducive to the development and implementation of RVA systems. The core of the paper looks at concepts of equity and inclusiveness, parity of esteem, personalisation, flexibility and openness, shared partnership, coordination and regulatory frameworks. Thus, in addition to drawing on the UNESCO Guidelines (UIL, 2012), the paper uses information from UIL country studies, namely on recognition practices (Singh and Duvekot, 2013; Singh, 2014); and on UIL’s work on improving lifelong learning through National Qualifications Frameworks (NQFs) (Singh, 2014). These studies help to juxtapose the Guidelines against the situation on the ground world-wide. The paper concludes with a section on the challenges ahead for continuing higher education in Latin American countries and recommends that RVA needs to be seen in relation to broader strategic issues at the level of regulatory frameworks on the one hand, and learning assessment, curriculum, and pedagogy, on the other hand. RVA should not be seen in terms of only short-term technical or operational issues as one may wrongly interpret the Guidelines by their very nature to be propagating.
Continuing higher education
The new global economic order, trade liberalization, and a less polarized world have presented unique opportunities for economic growth for the Latin American region, which persisted through the 2008 financial crisis and until recently (Balán, 2011). Awareness that increased productivity in the huge service sector and further diversification of the export base are heavily dependent upon a skilled workforce, enhanced research capacities, and technological innovation has led governments to tackle well-known deficiencies in their education systems at all levels. Although participation rates in higher education have increased in four countries (Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Mexico), and are already very high in Argentina and Chile, there is widespread concern about the low graduation rates, the small number of students in science and technology, the quality of teaching and learning, and the competencies and skills of graduates. Institutional diversity within a differentiated system of higher education has been long recognized as a requirement to enhance mass access, better serve the learning needs and goals of a highly diverse student body, and preserve student selectivity within academically demanding institutions and programs. By and large, however, postsecondary enrollments in Latin America remain concentrated in university first-degree programs, which absorb more than two-thirds of the total. Although tertiary, non university institutions play a growing role in training a skilled workforce (Fanelli, 2011), public funding from central governments are concentrated in the university sector while the non university segment relies more heavily than the universities upon private funding. These and many other countries in the region have also developed in recent years more consistent efforts to increase the international involvement and competitiveness of their higher education programs, institutions, and systems, as documented in several chapters in this volume. They often require a closer collaboration between institutions—public and private—and governments, as well as more active participation of the productive sectors in the life of academic institutions,
than what was possible within the traditional university model in Latin America. This is no doubt another crucial dimension of change required by higher education in the region.
Already in 1997 UNESCO’s Fifth International Conference on Adult Education emphasised the role of universities and Higher Education Institutions (HEI) in renegotiating and redefining their relations with the various economic partners and the public in many differ ways (UIL, 1999). Universities, as they have been traditionally known, are undergoing dramatic changes in the face of increasing pressure to respond to market forces and technological opportunities, in the context of the competitive global economy and the consequent need for continuing education. Higher education institutions are increasingly being called upon to transform their basic form and structure to become ‘lifelong learning’ institutions, which enable employees and unemployed people to access relevant learning opportunities.
The lifelong learning institutions have to be responsive to the needs of different economic sectors and be able to meet the training and education needs of the economy and government in flexible and appropriate ways. University departments are being challenges to move from being involved with only community-based learning to a much broader spectrum of university provision which will respond more directly to labour market demands. The language of competency-based, outcome-oriented is increasingly becoming part of the normal discourse of some higher education institutions. In this context people’s prior learning needs to seen in the light of their economic value and as an economic asset for purposes of employability and sustainable human resource management.
Notions of continuing higher education and lifelong learning are central to this institutional redefinition. University-based adult and continuing education has a range of meanings. Continuing vocational education and training (CVET) address “education or training after initial education and training - or after entry into working life” (Cedefop, 2008a). The term ‘adult education’ on the other hand, ‘refers to a wider field, which includes CVET,
and extends to the entire range of formal, non-formal and informal learning activities, general and vocational, undertaken taken by adults after leaving initial education and training’ (European Union, Council 2011, p. 3).
Both ‘lifelong education’ as well as ‘lifelong learning’ are the result of more than half a century of verifications and improvements started by UNESCO. The lifelong education proposal emphasised in the Faure report Learning to be (Faure et al., 1972) tended to place a greater emphasis on programmes for adults. Distance education and open learning, and various combinations of work and learning and now evident, are all consistent with ideas that were first given a high profile under the lifelong education banner. By contrast UNESCO’s Delors Report Learning: The treasure within (Delors et al., 1996), saw learning throughout life as vital for a society which builds on four pillars – learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together, and learning to be – in which everyone can learn according to his or her individual needs and interests, anywhere and anytime in an unrestricted, flexible and constructive way.
Lifelong learning implies a broader concept of education and training, implying the ability to work across different sectors in order to achieve a more integrated approach rather than fragmented approach to personal, social and economic development. Lifelong learning has become an organising principle of education and training. The concepts of formal, non-formal and innon-formal learning have become key terms within the lifelong learning approach. The recognition of non-formal and informal learning has relevance not only in regard to educational and training polices but also to related challenges of poverty-reduction, job-creation, employment, social inclusion, personal and professional fulfilment and active citizenship.
The demand for the recognition, validation and accreditation (RVA) of all forms of learning with a focus on non-formal and informal learning outcomes was expressed through the Belém Framework for Action, adopted by 144 Delegations of UNESCO Member States at the Sixth International Conference on Adult Education (CONFINTEA VI) in Brazil in December 2009.
To follow up on the Belém Framework for Action,1 the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong learning (UIL) developed the UNESCO Guidelines for the Recognition, Validation and Accreditation of the Outcomes of Non-formal and Informal Learning (UIL, 2012).
RVA is of great relevance as a response to the lack of lifelong learning opportunities and qualifications in many countries, and as a means of increasing social inclusion and participation in education. Recognition, validation and accreditation (RVA) of all forms of learning outcomes is a
key pillar in making lifelong learning a reality. It renders visible and gives value to the hidden and unrecognised competences that individuals have obtained through various means and in different phases of their lives. Valuing and recognising these learning outcomes may significantly improve individuals’ self-•esteem and
well-being, motivate them to further learning and strengthen their labour market opportunities. RVA may help to integrate broader sections of the population into an open and flexible education and training system and to build inclusive societies (UNESCO Guidelines, 2012: 1).
1 UNESCO holds a conference on adult learning, CONFINTEA (Conference
Internationale d’Education des Adultes), every 12 years. The latest one took place in Belém in Brazil in 2009. The Belém Framework for Action called on UNESCO to develop guidelines for the recognition, validation and accreditation of non-formal and informal learning.
Establishing core principles in RVA
While UNESCO views RVA’s contribution to lifelong learning as closely linked with the need for countries to learn and define their own understanding of RVA and one which reflects their own preoccupation to engage with social, economic and educational development. At the same time, however, given the global context, a common definition and language
are needed in order to promote the continuous exchange of country experiences on RVA.
According to the UNESCO Guidelines:
Recognition is defined as a process of granting official status to learning outcomes and/or competences, which can lead to the acknowledgement of their value in society.
Validation is the confirmation by an approved body that learning outcomes or competences acquired by an individual have been assessed against reference points or standards through pre-defined assessment methodologies.
Accreditation is a process by which an approved body, on the basis of assessment of learning outcomes and/or competences according to different purposes and methods, awards qualifications (certificates, diploma or titles), or grants equivalences, credit units or exemptions, or issues documents such as portfolios of competences. In some cases, the term accreditation applies to the evaluation of the quality of an institution or a programme as a whole (UIL, 2012: 8).
UNESCO, considers the term “recognition” as a broader term than the terms validation and accreditation; the term recognition of learning is not only a process of recording achievements of individuals arising from any kind of learning in any environment but also entails “social recognition”, i.e. meaning is derived from the way in which recognition (and certification) is viewed in a social context, its legitimacy in the educational system and its value in the labour market and society in general.
The UNESCO Guidelines highlights the following core values in recognising, validating and accrediting non-formal and informal learning (UIL, 2014: 4). These are:
b) ‘Promoting the equal value of learning outcomes from formal, non-formal and innon-formal learning’;
c) ‘Ensuring the centrality of individuals in the RVA process’;
d) ‘Improving flexibility and openness of formal education and training’; e) ‘Promoting quality assurance in the entire RVA process’;
f) Strengthening partnerships among all stakeholders (Ibid., p.4). The ensuing section will look into the meaning of the above principles in relation to continuing higher education.
Ensuring equity and inclusiveness in access to
learning opportunities
The first of the principles is:
ensuring equity and inclusiveness in access to learning opportunities. Every individual should have the right to access and engage in any form of learning suited to his/her needs, and have their learning outcomes made visible and valued (UIL, 2012: 4).
RVA is first and foremost about making diverse forms of learning opportunities accessible to all. With respect to continuing higher education and training, these diverse forms of learning increasingly cover a broad range of compensatory and enriching programmes:
First, there are those programmes that provide academic qualifications and credits through the development of degree courses and credits helping millions to improve their knowledge. Computer and internet makes it more convenient to access flexible forms of degree education.
Second, there are continuing education and training programmes that provide vocational training for helping workers to attain vocational certificates. Vocational training of workers especially low-skilled as well as of technical personal is important to improve the knowledge and technical level.
Third, there are community education and learning organisations that contribute to inspiring the learners learning continuously and collectively.
While there is an emphasis on formal and non-formal continuing higher education there is generally a neglect of informal learning or non-institutionalised learning such as working in community activities or learning by working. This includes learning experientially and through communication media.
Another feature of continuing higher education is that it is not only compensatory, giving a second chance to youth and adults who have missed out on initial learning opportunities. There is also continuing learning and continuous vocational education and training throughout life for people who enjoy learning for their private benefit and personal development.
Many universities have therefore started to be active, offering former students brush up courses and ongoing short courses for enterprises. In the next 10 years, universities are expected to become much bigger actors in the field. Their target group may be adults who have a new wish for higher education or a career change.
Thus despite the fact that the notion of ‘lifelong learning’ has replaced the notion of ‘lifelong education’ proposed in the Faure Report and promoted by UNESCO during the 1970s, many of the objectives and strategies of ‘lifelong education’ are now evident in all Latin American countries. Lifelong education proposal tends to place a greater emphasis on programmes for adults. By contrast lifelong learning pays considerable emphasis to strengthening the foundation for effective learning through the life span. In practice this entails developing the skills, knowledge and motivation among young people and adults to enable them to be self-directed leaners. Lifelong education implies a greater emphasis on learning within formal educational institutions than doe’s lifelong learning, which potential encompasses all forms of learning.
Promoting the equal value of learning outcomes
from formal, non-formal and informal learning
Another important core value highlighted in the Guidelines is the emphasis on:
promoting the equal value of learning outcomes from formal, non-formal and innon-formal learning. Competences that every individual has accumulated through non-formal and formal learning should be treated on a par with those that are obtained through formal learning (UIL, 2012: 4).
UNESCO uses the term ‘equal’ to mean the importance of relating non-formal to the formal learning without non-formal being necessarily reduced to the formal. For example, RVA does not necessarily mean that all participants should be obtaining a specific certificate or diploma for each non-formal activity. Nevertheless in order that non-formal learning should be accountable, non-formal education should find ways to improve its quality. Extending RVA processes to non-formal and informal learning can be an important way for exerting pressure on non-formal learning to raise its quality.
Ensure the centrality of the individuals in the RVA
process
According to the UNESCO Guidelines, “the process should respect and reflect individuals’ needs and their participation should be on a voluntary basis”.
This principle has been interpreted by refers to adapting RVA process to the personalized need of individuals to develop the skills and knowledge relevant to their life and work, be it through an opportunity to have a job or any other form of social participation (paid or unpaid), being a valued
volunteer or contributing in other ways to society. However, at the same tune an individual is a part of a social group and collectivity. It is necessary therefore to emphasise the human potential and capacities in all social contexts, and to involve all groups in society, irrespective of their gender, age, social class, ethnicity, mental health difficulties etc. to learn throughout their lives, – to learn what they like, at their own preferred pace, and from whomsoever they like, and to teach what they know to those who desire to learn it from them. It is in this sense that RVA of non-formal learning is a key bridge to learning and development of the human potential.
In the UK experience enhancing personalised learning depends on the: development of both formative and summative assessment for formal and informal learning; effective teaching and learning pedagogies and curricular entitlement and choice; organizing the institution for personalized learning and; beyond formal learning (DfES, 2006). Giving personalized learning in the UK context, an interpretative analysis, Pykett (2010) claims that “learner as king” within personalised education denotes new pedagogies of aiming at cultivating a more rational, reflexive, self-governing individual.
RVA should be used to show how best an individual’s existing competences can be deployed and strengthened and which learning environment and form of learning is best suited to a particular individual. For this reason, other learning environments and forms of learning must be utilised more effectively. These could include combinations of on-the-job training, mentoring, tutoring, bridging programmes, independent learning, and distance learning.
Improving flexibility and openness of formal
education and training
Under this principle, the UNESCO Guidelines emphasise further that: “education and training consider diverse forms of learning, taking into account learner’s needs and experiences”.
to adult learners, adopting new admission policies for mature studies, prolonging the time schedule to accommodate adults, opening information and counselling centres, establishing links between research , training and service to the community, cooperating with economic partners, dealing with issues such as gender inequalities and ethnic divisions. Universities are opening up to people with different occupational backgrounds. New forms of continuing training are being provided that is more responsive to the community and active professional needs, and to the learning aspirations of the present generation of adult citizens.
According to Lee and Cribben (2011), there are perhaps three major principles overall in lifelong education in Hong Kong. One in offering programmes that are open to the community outside the university in community learning centres; the other is “blended-learning” which combines the benefits of face to face and e-learning. A third major principle underpinning continuing higher education in Hong Kong is to provide ladders of opportunities for learners to progress from relatively low levels of attainment to progressively higher levels. Many providers offer courses which allow those who have not completed secondary schooling to access opportunity to study to attain higher level learning outcomes and so on through to post-secondary levels, degree and post graduate education (Ibid. p.53).
Promoting quality assurance in the entire RVA
process
According to the UNESCO Guidelines, “it is imperative that criteria and procedures for assessing and validating non-formal and informal learning are relevant, reliable, fair and transparent”.
In transferring good practice from countries with developed RVA to countries which are still in the process of developing RVA mechancis, many authors have emphasised that Governments need to understand that the shift to an outcomes-based approach has many implications for
the quality of assessment, validation and certification and learning and teaching strategies (Arthur 2009). Traditionally, assessment has been based on requirements of, and expected performance in formal education and training. This process however, is not suitable in a lifelong learning system that recognises a diversification of learning paths. In New Zealand, for example, there is no difference between the recognition of outcomes from non-formal and informal learning (RPL) and assessment against designated learning outcomes or standards, which make up the qualifications. In Australia, workplace learning assessment includes assessment of formal, non-formal and informal learning. By contrast, in developing countries such as Bangladesh, most informal and non-formal workplace learning has not met some quality assurance requirement such as accreditation and is not recognised through any credit transfer arrangement. This situation is in contrast with that in Australia, where credit transfer arrangements exist even for workplace learning.
The use of learning outcomes in a broad sense can promote clarity and thus enhance participation through emphasizing the relevance of programmes; however learning outcomes require attention to the several aspects. At the level of policy, learning outcomes need to be overarching; at the level qualifications standards, they need to deal with intended learning outcomes; and at the level of learning programmes, they need to deal with specific learning outcomes that are related to inputs and have a more pedagogical purpose (UNESCO, 2013, p. 148). Learning outcomes should not be formulated in narrow and restricted ways, limiting rather than broadening expectations of learners (Ibid.). From a lifelong learning perspective, learning outcomes need to reflect all contexts from a life-wide, life-deep and lifelong perspective. They need to include learning behaviours, knowledge, understanding, attitudes, values and competences. All these are required for personal growth, spiritual, social and economic well-being, democratic citizenship, cultural identity, and employability.
In many countries more discussion and research is needed to shape the concept of skills so that the notion of skills is not restricted to productive
skills only but reaches other areas of human capabilities (Castejon, 2013). Lifelong learning needs to go beyond skills and knowledge. However, only few countries (Bhutan, Indonesia, and Thailand) have reflected their national understandings of competences, which should normally include social, moral and civic dimensions in addition to knowledge and skills, in the design of their qualifications. Some countries have simply taken over the level descriptors from the European Qualifications Framework. Educational discourse cannot avoid moral issues and personal qualities such as honesty, integrity and consideration for others. These values, ethical issues and personal attributes must be reflected in the qualifications (UIL, 2014).
Strengthening partnerships among all stakeholders
In this context it has been suggested that member states: “emphasise a shared responsibility from design through to implementation and evaluation of the RVA system”.Information gathered from numerous countries o their policies and practices indicates that partnerships with various stakeholders differ significantly. Three models of implementation and coordination emerge from these countries (Singh, 2014): Systems of shared responsibility; shared systems dominated by industry-based processes, and systems driven by stakeholders from the adult learning sector. Lifelong learning is becoming ever more essential in today’s world and the involvement of different stakeholders is now an important part of the educational scene.
The six areas of action
Moving beyond principles to implementation on the ground, the iix Areas of Action outlined in UNESCO’s RVA Guidelines provide a template for continuing education institutions in Latin American countries to identify the critical factors in implementation, as well as obstacles and difficulties that need to be removed to ensure the smooth functioning of RVA. The
“Key areas of action” of the UNESCO Guidelines need to be viewed from a systemic perspective, that is, one which requires holistic thinking, seeing the wholeness, and addressing the question of how to develop dynamism and overcome inertia within different levels of systemic change. They present the strategic direction relevant for public policy planning with regard to RVA. These critical factors exist at the macro-level as well as at the meso- and micro-levels (Downes, 2011).
The six areas of action in Member States are as follows:
1. ‘Establishing RVA as a key component of a national lifelong learning strategy
2. Developing RVA systems that are accessible to all 3. Making RVA integral to education and training systems
4. Creating a coordinated national structure involving all stakeholders. 5. Building capacity of RVA personnel
6. Designing sustainable funding mechanisms
In order to highlight the potential of the UNESCO Guidelines, these six areas will be discussed in relation to the situation on the ground.
1. Establishing RVA as a key component of a national lifelong learning strategy
In the context it is suggested that member states:
develop a national lifelong learning strategy, facilitate the development of national references or standards that integrate the outcomes of non-formal and informal learning, and, based on the national context, establish a national qualifications framework (NQF); and develop equivalencies between the outcomes of formal, non-formal and informal learning in the national references, standards or NQFs through a shared understanding of learning outcomes (UIL, 2012: 4-6).
NQFs express the institutional arrangements which define the links and connections between different levels of training and the ways of entering, re-entering and recognising paths of programmes in educational itineraries, and areas and levels of competency. NQFs take account of equivalences between the academic route and that of competency standards. The Latin American countries that are making progress in this direction include Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Colombia (Vargas Zúñiga, 2005).
Evidence from UIL studies (Singh and Duvekot, 2013) has shown that lifelong learning through national qualifications frameworks is one of the many proposed solutions to socio-economic development challenges such as employment, poverty reduction, economic development, employability, social inclusion and cohesion, personal and professional development, and democratic citizenship in society.
Many countries establish progression pathways in NQFs in order to incorporate already existing learning activities (many of these run parallel to mainstream education) that support existing post-secondary education learning activities, university continuing education units, and community colleges to support lifelong learning during adulthood. In the early stages, in the 50s through to the 70s, universities offered programmes to the community outside the university. These programmes were generally for reasons of interest and quality of life rather than for accredited work. However at a later stage universities began to offer much more accredited work in response to the demands of society, and also degree programmes. There has also been a significant expansion of these opportunities on the basis of part-time basis with classes in the evenings and weekends. In the 1990s, many Open Universities were established (Lee and Cribben, 2011). In many countries these learning activities have increased substantially over the past 20 years. There is also a diversification of lifelong learning provision, including public institutions, open universities, private institutions and professional associations that concentrate on continuing professional development.
programmes and qualifications in Hong Kong, NQFs acts as a unified system for the recognition of qualifications and learning pathways for continuing higher education which include all learning outside the conventional system (Cribben, 2010). This strategy needs to be seen in relation Hong Kong’s 1990 s comprehensive education reform where the continuing education sector came to be regarded the fourth pillar of the lifelong learning system after , primary, TVET and higher education (Ibid.). NQFs expected to ensure that both education and training providers, employers and the public understand the range and different types of qualifications and how they can contribute to nurturing the core skills and competences of individuals and promote lifelong learning, across all sectors of society.
National qualifications frameworks have been shown to facilitate synergies between education in formal institutions, non-formal and informal learning by legislating for comparable standards between formal and non-formal learning, and between private, voluntary and public sector education both at the basic and higher levels of education. Many these forms of non-formal and informal education pay relatively more attention to vocationally-oriented non-formal and informal learning programmes.
The formation of national qualifications authorities and quality assurance agencies as gatekeepers of national and sectoral qualifications are important steps as they have open the door to the much needed recognition of non-formal and informal learning whereby all learning can be recognised regardless of the way it is required. In some countries and territories university continuing education departments are falling under the Qualifications Framework regulations, in terms of the programmes they offer, especially in relation to Associate Degrees and Higher Diplomas (Lee and Cribben, The current intense period of interest in the continuing development of national qualification frameworks has prompted the development of mechanisms for the recognition, validation and accreditation. UIL studies (Singh and Duvekot, 2013) have highlighted the diversity of approaches in the linking of RVA to national reference points. They identified the following discrete approaches:
1. Recognition of learning outcomes and competences based on standards defined in the NQFs;
2. Recognition of an individual’s learning outcomes and competences based on education and training curricula that can be directly linked to a nationally established qualification (Hong Kong and Malaysia);
3. Recognition of an individual’s learning outcomes and competences based on competence frameworks specific to work (occupational standards);
4. Recognition of NQFs in the technical and vocational education and training (TVET) sector;
5. Recognition of an individual’s learning outcomes and competences based on standards for non-formal basic education for adults and young people.
No national qualifications framework (NQF) in the full sense of the term have been set up in the Latin American region, however, there is trend towards adopting NQFs in Latin America through the implementation of the labour competency approach (the third approach listed above) in vocational training. The lifelong learning “Chile Califica” programme is a joint initiative of the Ministries of education, of economy and Labour. One of the components of this programme is to obtain certificates and competences that are equivalent to basic education. Another component is improving workers access to vocational training and finally to develop the certification of labour competences that are required to remain and develop in the world of work (Vargas Zúñiga, 2005).
The UIL studies also highlight that while there is a discernible global trend towards the establishment of national qualifications frameworks, the linkage of RVA to NQFs still has a long way to go. Many countries still need to put a lot of effort into establishing NQFs with standards and criteria that take into account learning outcomes from non-formal and informal learning experiences. In Hong Kong it has been argued that qualifications framework are a barrier to timely provision of courses needed in society, as the time to market in the development of new programmes has been lengthened. However, this is changing.
Furthermore, NQFs, do not themselves generate the recognition of non-formal and informal learning (Bateman, 2006). This has to occur through a closer relationship between education, working life and the individual. However, as can be seen in the above categorisation, alternative frameworks are being developed or implemented that are applicable in the existing social, economic and educational contexts. These initiatives can act as bridges in the transition to establishing NQFs with full linkage to RVA (Singh and Duvekot, 2013).
There are also issues of the tension between quality assurance of qualifications on the one hand, and the lifelong learning goals of broadening access to adults and early school leavers, on the other, has been highlighted by some authors. Comyn (2009) citing the Asian Development Bank (2008), suggests that NQFs may not be as relevant where the main problem is insufficient access to skills as opposed to improving the quality of assessment. Castejon (2013) also highlights that assessment is the core of qualification frameworks.
2. Developing RVA systems that are accessible to all
It is suggested that Member States:
develop procedures that identify, document, assess, validate and accredit learning outcomes, giving due consideration to those from experiential learning, self-directed learning and other forms of learning outside of formal education and training institutions; make use of both formative assessment (which draws more attention to identification, and documentation of learning progress and gives feedback to learners) and summative assessment (which aims explicitly to validate and recognise learning outcomes, leading to qualification); offer information, guidance and counselling services to clarify RVA procedures so that individuals become more aware of their own competences and more motivated to learn further and to have their learning outcomes recognized (UIL, 2012: 5).
Evidence from countries shows that different approaches to establishing RVA systems have emerged. In South Africa (Samuels, 2013) these are referred to as the credit-exchange approach, the developmental approach, the radical approach and the ‘Trojan horse’ approach. The credit-exchange approach to RVA measures the ability of an individual to perform certain job tasks to a predetermined standard. The developmental approach emphasises what the learner has learned rather than matching competence to pre-agreed standards. Curriculum and institutional prescriptions are used to determine ‘acceptable’ prior learning. The radical approach focuses on collective rather than individual learning – only the experience of the emancipated group counts as knowledge. Finally, the ‘Trojan horse’ approach to RVA involves an enquiry into the social construction of knowledge and curricula so that experiential knowledge and discipline-based knowledge move closer to (and complement) each other. Some countries, such as New Zealand and France, have institutionalised the process, while South Africa in the post-Apartheid era has investedin policies and legislation that promote redress and access. While some countries have a long tradition of RVA (France and New Zealand), others have experiences that are more recent.
Nevertheless, all of the countries surveyed have developed RVA processes and procedures with the following procedures (Singh and Duvekot, 2013):
• All countries have developed national reference points, which form the benchmarks used for assessment. Finland (Blomqvist and Louko, 2013) and Portugal (Gomes, 2013), for example, have competence-based frameworks for adults that are used for assessment of non-formal and innon-formal learning outcomes.
• Professionalization of assessment based on learning outcomes has become an important issue in developing RVA systems.
• Combining traditional methods and tests with other methods such as practical demonstrations has allowed the development of relatively flexible procedures. This requires competent assessors and reliable validation procedures to ensure the authority and reliability of the results.
• An important feature of RVA is the growing tendency towards continuity from formative assessment to summative accreditation, as seen in the steps to identify learning outcome equivalencies, such as increasing the understanding of portfolio methods, quality assurance guidelines, guidance and counselling knowledge, and learning outcome descriptions.
• Closely related to formative assessment, there is a growing use of portfolio methods alongside the role of RVA in opening up access and providing credits for learning outcomes from non-formal and informal learning.
• Credit transfer systems are increasingly becoming the focus of competence-based recognition reforms and have proven helpful where implemented. However, in any system of educational credit transfer, it is vital to put checks in place to safeguard quality and prevent corruption. The safeguard might rest in the hands of the examining committee entrusted with allocating credits (France, the Netherlands or Norway).
• Usually the assessment process used for RVA provides lots of additional support during the application process. The provision of information to key players is important.
• During the implementation process, many countries have shown that attention should be paid to the provision of individual support to identify and document skills. Implementation of RVA should not be a cumbersome process for the individual.
• Many countries have special support through flexible arrangements for early school-leavers, adults with special learning needs, people and workers with low levels of education and those excluded from the labour market.
3. Making RVA integral to education and training systems
It is suggested that Member States:
develop a mechanism for the formal education and training system that pays more attention to the quality of learning outcomes; create awareness and acceptance in formal education and training systems of the learning outcomes gained in non-traditional settings; use RVA to build bridges between the different education and training sectors and to promote the integration of the outcomes of formal, non-formal and informal learning; and develop approaches to increase interaction between educational institutions, enterprises and voluntary organisations to translate learning outcomes from working and life experiences into credits and/or qualifications (UIL, 2012: 5).
Several cultural barriers have been highlighted in the country case studies. In many countries, the perception that learning outcomes attained through the conventional system are superior to those attained through open and distance learning settings, workplace experience and general life experience remains a key challenge (Murangi, 2013). Some of the challenges relate to curriculum development integrating non-formal and informal learning. Others, as in the case of France, relate to creating closer links between schools, companies and services. France recommends a revision of the school’s fundamental role of transmission and general knowledge build-up towards taking greater account of the learning needs of businesses and services (Paulet, 2013). In Norway, a major limitation is that many education and training providers in the continuing education and training sector have not yet strongly prioritised RVA.
Often there are capacity limitations in terms of staff commitment and competences (Christensen and. In Denmark, too, it is felt that it is difficult to convince training providers that RVA can offer a better perspective. There are also individual barriers. It may be a problem that learners and
employees are not well informed about their right to RVA services. In New Zealand and South Africa, the situation is different. Most RVA is undertaken by registered training organisations that fall under the Quality Assurance Framework of their NQFs. Here, it is the technical and vocational providers of education and training that have been most intensively involved in RVA (Keller, 2013).
Technical and Vocational Education and Training systems face the challenge of accommodating a broader range of vocationally relevant adult learning, merging general with vocational education, and formal with non-formal and innon-formal learning modalities. Jarvis (2008) and Usher (2008) draw attention to the importance of countries also considering socio-cultural goals going beyond economic considerations and the skills needs of the adult population.
4. Creating a coordinated national structure involving all stakeholders
In this context it is suggested that Member States:
ensure all stakeholders have clearly-defined roles and responsibilities in developing a coherent and coordinated national structure to oversee the design, implementation and quality assurance of the RVA system; establish mechanisms to adopt credible and quality RVA procedures, standards and instruments, as well as awarding qualifications; facilitate RVA implementation by putting in place effective administrative processes for receiving applications, organising assessment and providing feedback on outcomes, recording results, awarding qualifications and designing appeal processes; and make efforts to build the RVA infrastructure at local level so that it is available where people live, work and learn, and make RVA a part of existing institutions in communities (UIL, 2012: 5-6).
The country cases show that those countries with established systems are also those that have made RVA a priority in their political agenda, and
have adopted policies and legislation specifically related to RVA in their education systems (Singh and Duvekot, 2013). There is evidence, notably from certain European countries (the Czech Republic, France, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands), of legislation and policies that usually deal with RVA within the legal framework of the education and training system or as regulation of training policies on the level of economic sectors.
In the economic sphere, national policies and collaborative agreements have also been established through co-operation with social partners. In Denmark, an agreement between the social partners (employers and employees) in 2007 enhanced the use of RVA and aimed at creating better opportunities for further education and training by offering individuals the opportunity to have their competences recognised in formal education and training.
In some countries, such as New Zealand, Mauritius, South Africa and Namibia, RVA legislation and policies are directly subsumed under regulations relevant for the NQF. National qualifications authorities play an important role in broadening interest in the lifelong learning system by coordinating various education and training initiatives in other learning environments than what is possible through conventional education. Qualifications authorities elicit and engage the support of stakeholders from several other sectors such as professional organisations and employment agencies, voluntary and community-based organisations; they have also been shown to use communication strategies in broadening the interest in lifelong learning, particularly the acceptance of outcomes of non-formal and informal learning among a diverse range of providers, employees and employers.
However, national qualification authorities face challenges in equipping education and training institutions/providers to initiate the recognition of non-formal and informal learning exercise. One reason for this is that national qualification authorities very often tend to be created as top down initiatives, and the absence of consultation at the bottom levels is
felt (Castejon, 2014). Thus while more and more countries are making the recognition of non-formal and informal learning or RPL a requirement for entry to all qualifications accredited by qualifications authorities, only few developing countries are able to get providers to deliver mechanisms for assessment, validation and accreditation of non-formal and informal learning.
At the level of non-state stakeholders, it is useful to take a closer look at the aims for the public, private and civil society sectors. In the private sector, the social partners (employers and employee associations) play an essential role in a number of countries. In the public sector, the responsibility of regional authorities ensures broadening stakeholders’ involvement. In civil society and the NGO sector, there is evidence from several countries that voluntary organisations are at the forefront in providing non-formal learning programmes for adults.
Several countries reported limitations with respect to the involvement of different sectors and stakeholders in the development of the RVA system. This involvement is important in creating cross-sectoral confidence and trust in RVA systems. Denmark identifies the lack of sustainable relationships between the education sector, the labour market, and civil society agencies as a key barrier to RVA (Aagaard and Andersen, 2013). This hinders the visibility of learning and validation of learning within and across the different learning sectors. France indicates a lack of trust in the validation system by employers, who may or may not accept qualification documents issued through the validation process. Norway reports that co-operation between the Labour and Welfare Administration and local centres responsible for the recognition of learning at upper secondary level is underutilised – relatively few unemployed people take advantage the opportunities provided to have their learning validated. Other limitations include those of the different domains in which general and vocational qualifications originate. In the Republic of Korea, the implementation of the Academic Credit Bank System and the Lifelong Learning Account System could be more strongly linked to the Korean Qualifications Framework and the Korean Skills Standards (Baik, 2013).
Norway and Denmark have reported that awareness among stakeholders of the benefits of RVA is crucial for the transition from the policy level to the actual implementation of RVA at the level of training providers. In Africa, the experience of Mauritius shows that it is effective to have a focused communication strategy to inform people about RVA, and to brief the major stakeholders on international best practices in RVA. The Mauritius Qualifications Authority intends to intensify its efforts to create increased public awareness of the benefits of linking the NQF with RVA (Allgoo, 2013).
One of the significant features of NQFs is that they provide tools for governments to deepen cooperation in areas of social, labor market, economic and education policies, and adult learning. A landmark development in some countries is the role of Departments other than Departments of Education, in improving core skills and competences of youth in higher secondary schools; improving the status and the share of TVET in education, which is unfortunately very low in most developing countries; as well as improving the level of basic education and literacy as foundation for further learning and training (UIL, 2014).
5. Building the capacities of RVA personnel
In this context it is suggested that Member States:
ensure appropriate qualifications, skills and competences of RVA personnel, allowing them to manage and conduct the assessment and validation processes in their specific socio-economic contexts; and establish a system for the training of RVA personnel, and facilitate networks for mutual learning at local and national levels, and across countries, to enhance their competences and to develop best practice (UIL, 2012: 6).
For countries that have yet to establish recognition mechanisms, the planning and development of recognition, assessment, and certification procedures and more importantly, their effective implementation, will not be an easy task. In a number of countries, while there is limited knowledge
of recognition of prior learning and its potential, there is little understanding of its actual practice. However, as developing countries are currently moving towards competence-based and learning outcomes-based systems, this transformation, governments believe, will improve conditions for the acceptance of recognition processes. For countries with a large non-formal education sector and large informal sectors with skilled people, mechanisms for the recognition of non-formal and informal learning must be embedded from the outset in policy, practices and funding, and priority areas need to be identified. In the longer term, many of these countries should consider recognising non-formal and informal learning not only in their TVET reform programme but also beyond skills development in their higher education system (Arthur, 2009).
6. Designing sustainable funding mechanisms
In this context it is suggested that Member States
provide sufficient financial resources to build the basic infrastructure of the RVA system. develop sustainable cost-sharing mechanisms involving multi-stakeholder partnerships i.e. public, private, community, as well as individual learners. Public funds and private contributions to education institutions, as well as training levies from enterprises, should also be used to fund the implementation of RVA; make special provision for access to RVA arrangements at a reduced rate or free of charge for vulnerable groups and individuals; and conduct cost-benefit analyses to develop evidence on the benefits of RVA for individuals, enterprises, education institutions and for society as a whole (UIL, 2012: 6).
An important systemic challenge reported by many countries concerns the costs for the individual and the system of information and guidance, assessors, facilitators, auditors and awarding bodies. For Mexico a major challenge is to put in place cost-sharing (state-supported and self-financing) mechanisms for the RVA of labour competences. Such a mechanism has
