university of wales - approaches to research into …...1 academic equivalency working paper series...

1

Academic Equivalency Working Paper SeriesVolume 1 Number 1

Approaches to Research into Academic Equivalency of Qualifications Awarded by the University of Wales

Chung-Husan LiangJune 2011

Centre for Research into Academic Equivalency

ISSN: 2046-2093

Centre for Research into Academic Equivalency

The University of Wales has identified equivalency assurance as a key component of its work on the standards of awards in higher education. To this end, it has founded the Centre for Research into Academic Equivalency. The broad purpose of an equivalency assurance exercise is to look at current systems in place to ensure the equivalency of standards of awards which share the same title or are within cognate subject areas, no matter where they are taught.

Academic Equivalency Working Paper Series

The Centre for Research into Academic Equivalency – University of Wales believes works of equivalency assurance will be beneficial to the higher education sector. Therefore, the Working Paper Series is made available through various formats. This is to inform the sector and welcome subsequent suggestions or comments. Contents of these papers are views of the author(s), and do not represent views of the University. Should you require any further information, please contact the Centre directly.

Papers are normally presented in the language used for drafting. However, the text of this publication can be made available in alternative formats on request, please contact the Centre for details.

Centre for Research into Academic Equivalency University of Wales, University Registry, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff. CF10 3NS

www.wales.ac.uk/[email protected]

Academic Equivalency Working Paper Series Vol. 1, no. 1

1

Academic Equivalency Working Paper Series Volume 1 Number 1

Approaches to Research into the Academic Equivalency of Qualifications Awarded by the University of Wales

Chung-Hsuan Liang

June 2011

Abstract

This is a preliminary inquiry which aims to draw a blueprint for academic equivalency research within the context of the University of Wales. The significance of this is stressed. Objectives and focuses of research into academic equivalency are also explored. Elements of a qualification are illustrated to further illuminate potential directions for this area of research. The concept of academic equivalency is defined and distinctive traits are also found. These will foster the construct of academic equivalency as a distinctive research field within the higher education sector.

Copyright and Citation

Copyrights of this Working Paper Series remain with the author(s). You may copy or download it for your own personal use. The paper must not be published elsewhere without the author’s or the publisher’s written permission. If you copy this paper you must:

• Include this copyright note.

• Not use the paper for commercial purposes or gain in any way.

This paper may be cited or briefly quoted in line with the usual academic conventions.

• Citation of Academic Equivalency Working Paper Series should use a version of the following format:

Liang, C.-H. (2011). Approaches to Research into the Academic Equivalency of Qualifications Awarded by the University of Wales. Academic Equivalency Working Paper Series, 1(1). Centre for Research into Academic Equivalency - University of Wales.

© Prifysgol Cymru / University of Wales

ISSN 2046-2093


2

Introduction – Why Equivalency Matters?

The recent expansion of the higher education sector in the UK has featured many institutions deciding to seek to provide education to wider target groups. The University of Wales is no exception, indeed, its very nature highlights the shift of focus of the University. There are collaborative institutions and centres worldwide which are currently providing different routes to gain qualifications awarded by the University of Wales. Johnson & Wolf (2009) reported the significant impact from globalisation on the higher education sector. The increasing interdependence of the world economy also changes the strategies traditionally adopted by many higher education providers i.e. serving their local community only.

Understanding of the equivalency of academic qualifications has become an important issue which needs to be taken forward. There are many discussions around the recognition of standing of qualifications; the cross-national recognition and equivalency debates are shaping up. This highlights the first significant element of equivalency - external equivalency. With the expansion of higher education provision, a second aspect of equivalency emerges - internal equivalency. For example, the University of Wales awards qualifications in different localities and the design between them will be regarded as internal equivalency due to the structure of the University. It is worth noting that the University of Wales is not an isolated example, many institutions with degree awarding powers also possess such networks.

Quality of education provision must always be a supreme concern for practitioners and scholars. The discussion of quality assurance of higher education often concerns the ‘quality’ of qualifications. The attention to this is further emphasised by global/geographical expansion, and in an increasing global world it is little surprise that equivalency of qualifications has become an issue amongst many writers. The special issue of Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice dedicated to equivalency in 2009 demonstrated the growing interest in this area of research. The establishment of the National Academic Recognition Information Centre (NARIC) in many European countries1 supports further the importance of this issue.

With this degree of activities, it is perhaps surprising that academic equivalency remains an underdeveloped concept, especially in the empirical research context. The University of Wales believes that action to raise awareness of this area of research might benefit not only the quality and standards of education, but also the development of the research field. The purpose of this article is to expand work derived from a trial methodology which was devised by the University of Wales Equivalency Assurance Group. The aim of the Centre is to develop a series of investigations into different levels, disciplines and aspects of qualifications. The objective is to understand (internal) equivalency between qualifications awarded by the University of Wales.

Objectives – What Are We Looking For?

Further to the above discussions, some questions have emerged. They are:

1. What are the standards of qualifications in the context of the University of Wales?

1 http://www.naric.org.uk UK NARIC is the agency for NARIC network in the UK. As stated in its web pages, the mission of UK NARIC is to ‘provide information, advice and expert opinion on vocational, academic and professional skills and qualifications from over 180 countries worldwide.’ This aim is consistent across the network.


3

2. What is the expected standard of qualifications in the context of the University of Wales? 3. Are qualifications awarded by the University of Wales in a given discipline equivalent to one

another? 4. What is the implication of introducing a mechanism of equivalency assurance in the context

of the University of Wales?

Understanding these questions will serve as ultimate goals for the Centre for Research into Academic Equivalency – University of Wales (CRAE-UW). However, they will not only be limited to the application within the University of Wales, it is hoped that they will spark debate and reflection within the sector.

Defining Academic Equivalency and the Focus of the Centre

The use of terminology in the context of equivalency research is confusing. Several terminologies are used interchangeably, and include: equivalency, equivalence, comparability and standing. The first two terminologies: equivalency and equivalence are often interchangeable; however there are some noticeable distinctions between them. Equivalence is a general noun used to describe similarity between different objects. The meaning will be the existence of nearly, but not essentially identical elements between observed objects. Equivalency is a more specific terminology which refers to the equivalence in a stable nature, but the use of equivalency is rare in publications. Therefore, I define the use of equivalency as a terminology referring to the academic equivalence between established structures (e.g. the structure of qualifications). The lack of the distinction between equivalency and equivalence needs to be addressed, therefore, I will adopt my definition here in order to 1) avoid confusion 2) illuminate future development of this area of research.

Comparability is used to describe a different concept to equivalency, and the popularity amongst writers in this field of research can be traced back to the first beginning of efforts in relation to mutual recognition of qualifications. Recognition of qualifications was usually achieved by comparing the qualifications in question in earlier years. This led to the use of comparability in many publications. However, comparability does not represent the nature of equivalency, since any given objects/structures could be comparable. Judgements could be made regardless of the diversity between these objects/structures, although the fitness for purpose of these judgements could be problematic. Another factor which attributes to the popular use of comparability is the adoption of qualification frameworks. These frameworks often emphasised the comparable elements within, and this led to the extension of terminology used in relevant fields. The use of comparability in equivalency studies does not represent the assuming similarity between qualifications. The comparison occurring during equivalency studies will be fair and suitable for purpose due to the significant similarity between qualifications. The use of comparability does not demonstrate this element within this field, therefore the adoption of this terminology is not appropriate.

The use of standing is similar to that of comparability which does not provide an adequate route for understanding academic equivalency of qualifications. Standing is often used to describe perceived standards of qualifications and awards. However, each course has its own ‘standing’ in ‘individual’ minds which results in confusion when using this terminology. It also does not recognise the


4

comparative element across objects e.g. qualifications, hence remaining as perceptions with limited value2 for adoption.

I will attempt to define equivalency as a concept suitable for adoption within this inquiry. It was significant to note that no such attempt was raised amongst current publications. Therefore, I will define it from a more comprehensive manner for future utilisation.

Equivalency is essentially associated with post-positivism3 due to its position within the broader view from a comparative research paradigm. Nevertheless constructivism4 also contributes to this concept, for example, in the area of generating and understanding the difference between disciplines. The argument regarding comparability strongly demonstrated the dominant role of post-positivism in this field. The underpinning epistemology of this approach is to assume that equivalency can be observed and measured. This is consistent with the objectives of this inquiry and adopting this approach will allow the demonstration of the physical/visual comparison for academic equivalency to be made.

Paradigms within post-positivism can further contribute to the definition of equivalency. For example, the underpinning theory of (quasi-) experimental research design is particularly helpful to illustrate the nature of equivalency. In this paradigm, hypotheses need to be developed and challenged. In the context of equivalency, there will be two fundamental hypotheses: null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis will be assuming that no difference exists between qualifications, and the degree of equivalency is thereby established. Subsequently, the alternative hypothesis will be accepting differences which exist between qualifications, and the equivalency is challenged. The intervention (experimental) and placebo (controlled) perspectives can also be seen as the varying delivery of education. The examination of hypotheses is often carried out by means of statistical tests.

In the context of statistical tests, null hypotheses will be rejected only if evidence falls outside of a confidence range. This usually applies to 95% of a normal distribution (Gauss curve), and the probability value falls below the value of 0.05. The implication of this is that equivalency can be said to have been established, and the only way to reject this assumption (null hypothesis) is to demonstrate significant differences between qualifications. This way of thinking can be further divided into two layers. Firstly, the notion of significant difference is similar to the Lisbon Recognition Convention in 1997. It was assumed by the authors of the Convention that recognition of qualifications can be achieved as long as no substantial differences are found. The consistency between this and the above discussion illustrates further that the underpinning theory of equivalency is a post-positivist approach as comparative study is essentially a post-positivist approach. Secondly, either accepting or rejecting a set of hypotheses demonstrates a process of comparing; the consistency between theory of statistical tests and examining equivalency highlights the element of comparability. This further establishes the nature of equivalency study as a comparative inquiry.

Through the discussion, it is clear that equivalency can be indentified with several distinctive characteristics. Academic equivalency (research) is to: 2 Combining various views on academic equivalency (e.g. quality versus standards) with individual perceptive perspectives imposes a too complex approach to work with. This is the rationale behind the ‘limited value’ stressed here. 3 An epistemological stance for research which focuses on establishing causality with evidence-based methods such as statistical analysis and hypothesis testing. 4 An epistemological stance for research which emphasises that the understanding of reality is constructed rather than tested.


5

examine qualifications in questions (Objectives-led)

compare elements between qualifications (Paradigms-led)

seek significant differences between qualifications (Consensus-led)

These demonstrate the unique elements to equivalency, and the need for the researcher to establish it as a research paradigm. Epistemological explanation of its origins will encourage and reinforce empirical research agenda in this field. In combination, these activities will cause the paradigm of academic equivalency to become apparent.

Elements of Qualifications and Criteria for Equivalency Research

Studies of equivalency of qualifications have proved to be surprisingly limited, however, associated issues such as quality assurance in higher education are popular amongst academic scholars. Inquiries into equivalency were neglected until the late 2000s5. The significant shift of attention was largely attributed to the globalisation of higher education. Mobility of qualifications also drew academic research to academic equivalency (Johnson & Wolf, 2009). I will discuss issues concerning qualifications from the elements of qualifications, and this will enable me to define the criteria for further assessment.

Definitions and Components of a Qualification

Bergan (2007; 2009) identified five components which make up an academic qualification - level, workload, quality, profile and learning outcomes. His purpose in using them was to harmonise differences within the higher education sector in Europe, especially the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), a major development in support of the Bologna Declaration of 1998. This concept was relatively new to the sector, however the elements/components existed in present academic discussions. Throughout the review, this was the only clear outline for understanding qualifications, and I shall adopt it as an initial direction. Bergan’s route was recognised by the Council of Europe and combining this with national organisations, such as the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) in the UK, set to follow European standards, we have an indication or sense of consensus engaging to systematic understanding of education equivalency.

Debates concerning equivalency issues were found in the 1990s6, the Dearing Report in 1997 was a significant step to seek academic equivalency between qualifications in the higher education sector in the United Kingdom. In order to explore means of assuring equivalency between qualifications awarded by the University of Wales, it is important to consider further these components.

1. Level

Level was the first component discussed by Bergan which demonstrated its significance. When in the early stage of developing the national qualifications framework, the structure of levels (predominantly a hierarchical one) is established. For instance, the commitment from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (now the National Education Qualifications Authority) in the early 1990s was clear. The 5 This particularly refers to scholarly activities. 6 This phenomenon was a combination of national interest in higher education and provisional union of European countries. System of higher education was perceived as an area due for a review nationally in the UK, and this undermined the production of the Dearing Report. Movements towards a unified entity raised issues of recognition of qualifications across European countries. Nomenclatural difference and academic equivalency imposed a significant barrier for mutual recognition in the pan-European educational context.


6

framework developed for qualifications was made in a hierarchical manner. Qualifications were assigned into different levels based on their (intended) outcomes. This early attempt was followed by many countries such as Australia and South Africa, and the concept of level was popular amongst most of these countries (Philips, 2003). The Dearing Report in 1997 also adopted a similar approach in the UK. The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education used an eight level structure to describe qualifications within the higher education sector in the United Kingdom (Bridges & Tory, 2001). Bergan’s classification reflected this worldwide recognition and further stressed its importance for academic equivalency.

The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales & Northern Ireland (FHEQ) and the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in Scotland (SCQF) both also adopted a hierarchical level structure. The noticeable difference between them was the number of levels used within. The SCQF adopted a twelve level structure rather than the eight level one in FHEQ.

Bologna Process United Kingdom

First Cycle Short-cycle Foundation Degrees, Diplomas

Full- cycle Bachelors Degree

Second Cycle Masters Degree

Third Cycle Doctorate Degree

Table 1 Nomenclature between Bologna Process and United Kingdom

Within the context of European higher education, there has been talk of three levels of higher education, usually described as ‘cycles’, originating from the Bologna Process. The first cycle was further divided into one shorter cycle and a full cycle. The EURYDICE Report in 2007 analysed and compared national education systems in Europe which also confirmed the integration of the position in the United Kingdom which was, in broad terms, more familiar with the concept than many of its neighbouring partners. The Higher Education Credit Framework for England and Universities UK (UUK) also ensured the compliance of the FHEQ framework to the EHEA structure. The use of nomenclature in the United Kingdom corresponding to the (Bologna) cycles is illustrated in Table 1.

Bergan (2007) further adopted five descriptors to analyse the elements within levels. He summarised them as follows7:

Knowledge and understanding;

Practice: applied knowledge and understanding;

Generic cognitive skills;

Communication, information and communication technology and numeracy skills;

Autonomy, accountability and ability to work with others.

These elements were noticeably outcome-based, which was consistent with publications by QAA or its consultation groups such as the Burgess Group (Burgess, 2006). These elements were also similar to those of the Dublin Descriptors used in the EHEA. The consistency regarding the use of this concept demonstrates two significant trends. Firstly, the use of levels seemed to be favoured by many countries including the UK. Secondly, writers such as Fernie & Pilcher (2009) also accepted this characteristic being a prominent feature in qualification frameworks. The Credit and Qualification

7 Cited in Bergan (2007), page 80-81.


7

Framework for Wales (CQFW) adopted by the Welsh Assembly Government in 2003 also used levels to group qualifications and to help awards in Wales conform to practice in other parts of the UK.

The adoption of levels has not been without criticism. Blackmur (2004) argues it did not achieve its original aims, since levels were clearly categorised and easy for stakeholders to understand, some domains of this concept remained problematic. He further stressed three limitations for this concept.

Firstly, the hierarchical system could be problematic, groups were sometimes felt to be ambiguous. For example, the taught Master’s degrees and research Master’s degrees were placed into the same level, although the comparability between these two was debatable. The Dearing Report (NCIHE, 1997) has placed these degrees into different levels. However, owing to the general consensus of the sector to comply with European consensus (Bologna Process), the structure of levels was made to appear consistent with the European system. This demonstrated a dilemma, faced by many countries, as the need to balance between national tradition and broader consensual agreement. In this case, the UK chose to move towards the broader scenario.

Secondly, Level Descriptors were argued by Blackmur to be inadequate, especially in the context of comparison across disciplines. He opposed too the use of the same descriptors across different (disciplinary) degrees within the same level. This critique was understandable, but also ambiguous in its own way. Level was intended to be a medium to summarise qualifications in any given country, and its purpose was to provide clearer and easier understanding for interested parties. The overarching Framework could provide a general picture of qualifications in any given locality, but would sacrifice the ability for diversity amongst qualifications. Blackmur’s argument on this particular occasion failed to address its coherence with the original ideology which was the purpose of such frameworks.

Thirdly, he stressed the issue of nomenclature within levels. This was consistent with his concerns on comparability. Limitations are unavoidable due to the geographic and cultural differences, and would also be significant in all frameworks. However, identification of the common use of terminology when describing qualifications could be achieved. For example, the EURYDICE Report (2007) demonstrated these issues and their corresponding terminologies in an overarching framework. QAA’s FHEQ and CQFW in Wales both preserved the use of traditional terminology and illustrated its use clearly in a broader context. Blackmur’s argument raised the challenge presented by differences, but did not recognise the possibility of the challenge being overcome.

The use of level and its descriptors is essential to understanding qualifications, since a clear illustration of level will enable better identification of a qualification in either a national or a broader context. To achieve this, a qualification will need to be linked to the broader framework by fulfilling all the level descriptors such as the Dublin Descriptors; this will ensure the equivalency between qualifications in the same level. Although Blackmur (2004) presented some problems with the nature of levels, there is also significant evidence to argue otherwise. The acknowledgment of these will allow a more careful move towards understanding qualifications; however they will not be as radical as described by Blackmur.

2. Workload

Workload was the second component stressed by Bergan (2007; 2009). Workload has been measured traditionally by the use of time, however Bergan noticed the inconsistency of both the use and measurement of time cross-nationally. Therefore, the use of time to describe or measure workloads


8

was seen to be inadequate. This led to the development of a single unifying workload system such as the European Credit and Transfer Accumulation System (ECTS).

Johnson & Wolf (2009) argued that mobility in a globalising world is important, especially within the context of academic equivalency. This further evidenced the strong association between equivalency, workload and transferability. The ECTS was a prime example to support their view. In reviews of the Bologna Process Stocktaking Exercises undertaken between 2007 and 2009, the trend of implementing ECTS in European countries was noticeable (Rauhvargers et al., 2009). This further signalled the wide acceptance of a recognised and transferable workload system and its benefits to qualifications.

The workload unit in the UK was somehow undefined. The autonomy of Universities allowed them to develop and define workload within their structures. Work of the QAA such as the Higher Education Credit Framework for England also confirmed this situation, and looked for a means to standardise this. The first task was to define the annual workload unit, which was used by QAA as 120 notional units (presumably for full-time undergraduate and taught postgraduate courses). This was set equivalent to 60 ECTS Credits. QAA further demonstrated its compliance with EHEA in all three cycles by stating the transferability between UK and European Credits.

Notwithstanding these efforts, the partial refusal8 of adopting ECTS in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was an interesting phenomenon, especially as the United Kingdom had been a prominent advocate for unifying the European higher education system. The diversity of education providers (universities) was clearly shown by the Burgess Group, and it was evident that not all institutions had clear procedures on workloads (Burgess, 2006). Although the Pan-European report (EURYDICE, 2007) and the final Burgess report (2006) were both positive about the current situation in most parts of the UK, the real adoption of a clear workload system amongst practitioners remained unclear. In the face of resistance, QAA showed significant commitment on this issue, as the development of the Higher Education Credit Framework for England was a clear example.

All countries within the UK had developed similar credit frameworks, with the exception of Scotland, which had conformed to the ECTS when the SCQF was introduced9. The introduction of a unifying credit system was clearly outlined in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For example, Reynolds (2001) had outlined a blueprint in the early 2000s. The adoption of CQFW helped put the proposals into reality. It was noted that all these Frameworks in England, Wales and Northern Ireland may not be implemented fully at present as no concrete evidence of their effectiveness and impact on current practice is evident. Most publications and discussions on the issues were hypothetical. For example, Teichler (2003) attempted to highlight credit issues in Europe, but the efforts were predominantly an illustration of policies. Discussion on rhetoric perspectives was lacking, suggesting that current understanding of workload issues remained unclear. Fernie & Pilcher (2009) criticised many of these publications or reports as not being real studies, as they had been carried out as an introduction for the public. Consequently, investigation is required.

Another interesting aspect regarding workload was the wording used in many national/regional frameworks. For example, the word ‘encourage’ was often used in QAA’s documentation. Could

8 This refers to the unit used for calculating workload which is not ECTS Credit but a UK specific system- a notional learning time. 9 SCQF was formally launched in December 2001.


9

this represent the dilemma of centralisation? This was often discussed by many writers10 such as Ensor (2003) who made critiques on ideologies adopted by the South African education authority. Clearly conclusive consensus on the issue remained to be achieved. The ECTS could be interpreted as a centralisation process, however the controversy it raised showed the challenge to regional policies. The evidence of the lack of consensus in England showed that even the centralised agencies such as QAA in the UK were finding consensus difficult to achieve.

It was agued by some writers that the unification of a European system was to facilitate sharing the success of the United Kingdom (Adam, 2001). However, the commercialisation amongst universities in the UK also reflected the highly diverse individualism found in institutional autonomy. The decentralism amongst higher education in the UK was a significant trait, indeed, one which was felt to have facilitated the same success that other now craved. Te attempt to re-centralise some aspects of it e.g. the credit system would prove to be a problematic approach. The argument will be that the success which other parties wanted to share could have been attributed to the opposite approach i.e. de-centralisation. Nonetheless, a transferable (not essentially identical) system would allow a more transparent mechanism for understanding equivalency.

Overall, workload was usually described in terms of earned credits. This enabled the transferability, mobility and portability of awards. It also corresponded with the Level, defined previously. This concept would be a very important criterion in research into academic equivalency, because of its tangibility. The unit of credit could be clearly measured as long as the definition was clear. In an individual, but united way, equivalency could be partially achieved on the basis of comparing workload between qualifications.

3. Quality

The third component discussed by Bergan (2007) was quality, one of the most debatable and popular issues amongst higher education practitioners. Many scholarly activities for discussion have been focused on quality issues, the dedicated journal `Quality in Higher Education’ is clear evidence of this. Throughout the literature review of Bergan’s components, the number of publications concerning quality and quality assurance are comparably higher than others.

Bergan (2007) divided the concept of quality into two: individual quality, and collective quality. He believed that individual quality describes the quality of the qualification in question, and this was largely associated with grading (system). Collective quality was defined as the quality of education provided by the institution (institutional provision); this was understood as an issue of quality assurance.

Bergan went on to demonstrate the deviation of scales provided by ECTS, his assumption was grading would be of a normal distribution (Gauss curve), but it was not the case in reality. For example, the recent headline as the proportion of A or above grades in Advance-Level examination is a demonstration of the problematic situation (Newton, 2005). Efforts to standardise grading is noted, for instance, Johnson (2008) addressed the Framework for Achievement (FfA) (QCA, 2004) as an important step to a formalised grading system in a national context. The Quality and Curriculum Authority (QCA) also stressed the connections between FfA and NQF, stating that the FfA would provide clear understanding of NQF to the stakeholders (QCA, 2004). This objective has not been

10 Coleman’s (2003) work also provides a critical review of higher education providers’ role in a global context.


10

fully tested yet. The current implementation of the FfA was in the consultation stage which was similar to that noted by Johnson in 2008.

The importance of grading has been discussed by many writers such as Johnson (2008) and Jones (1999). Debates regarding the potential advantages and disadvantages of grading on learners’ motivation were considerable as Johnson (2008) noted. He advised certain social cognitive theories to explain the effect of grading. In this concept, grading could form future expectations and could also facilitate the motivation for students to strive for excellence. Johnson (2008) noted that Smith (2000) has argued that a lack of grading provided little incentive for teachers and trainers to strive for excellence because there was none of the personal satisfaction attached to knowing how well students had performed.

There were many debates regarding the significance of grading, however the consistency of grading standards was a major concern for many. Critique usually fell on the binary system, and so the alternative approach, comprehensive grading, found favour. Smith (2000) believed this type of grading would improve the validity and consistency of assessment. Another significant concern regarding grading was the use of competence-based elements within. The competence-based approach was widely adopted in many localities, including the UK. Some factors such as institution contexts and settings were stressed by Johnson (2008) as influential on validity of assessment, this especially applied to the measurement of competency. For example, the QAA descriptors for qualifications were clearly competence-based. The grading process was not clearly set, contexts such as workplaces or college-based simulations were also not clear. The importance of this is that the measurements need to be consistent across these contexts. The mechanism to achieve this is not shown in current guidelines.

Quirk (1995) suggested that many institutions could use graded assessments as marketing tools, this illuminated the possibility of earning high grades which could potentially make courses more appealing to students. Overall, individual quality could be achieved via robust and systematic grading/assessment. The consistency and validity of such practice will not only ensure the quality in individual level, but also make the courses/qualifications more attractive. This could be further interpreted as a means to ensure academic equivalency i.e. comparing grading systems.

Collective quality was the other sub-concept stressed by Bergan (2007). It was used to describe the quality of provision and internal/external quality assurance. Bergan’s illustration focused on European standards, since his purpose was to provide a European summative consensus on this issue. Brink (2010) investigated issues relating to quality and standards and concluded that quality is about the process of education. Universities UK’s definition on quality11 was also consistent with Brink’s view, as Quality came to be described as the effectiveness of the learning experience provided by the institutions. It was worth noting that quality was well-defined, but standards in higher education remained unresolved. This was evident in the QAA’s publication `Debating Standards’ in 2008. Standards issues were ambiguously referred to as being self-regulated. If Brink’s (2010) view on the definition of quality is adopted, this confusion of responsibility will not be a problem. However, if Bergan’s (2007) more comprehensive view is adopted, the self-regulating standards need to be addressed further.

11 In UUK (2008), page 23.


11

Three fundamental issues concerning quality were argued by Brink (2010), and were largely attributed to the tension between social consensus (notions) and academic definitions. He summarised them as12:

reputation as a proxy for excellence (imitation of `old’ Universities)

elite Universities gained unfair advantage- existing images of exclusivity

relational view on quality - ranking on a linear scale

These issues were perceived as difficulties when the notion of quality as excellence existed. Therefore, it was vital not to limit the notion of quality simply as excellence. An alternative approach emerged which was to define quality as `fitness for purpose’. QAA and UUK have both emphasised the independence of Universities in the UK. Since institutions’ purposes are self-defined, the issue had become one of self-regulation.

Bergan’s (2007) European scope provided two dimensions of quality assurance and their assessments - internal and external quality assurance. Self-regulation was defined as internal quality assurance which was consistent with the QAA’s statement. It was stressed that all higher education providers should assess their own provision. External quality assurance was usually carried out by external parties, e.g. external auditors/reviewers for the institutional audits and reviews carried out by the QAA in the UK.

Bergan illustrated the European standards for quality assurance within higher education institutions and outlined the standards into three domains: internal, external and external agencies.

The European standards for internal quality assurance were13:

Policy and procedures for quality assurance

Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards

Assessment of students

Quality assurance of teaching staff

Learning resources and student support

Information system

Public information

The European standards for external quality assurance were14:

Use of internal quality assurance procedures

Development of external quality assurance processes

Criteria for decisions

Processes fit for purpose

Reporting

Follow-up procedures

Periodic review

System-wide analyses

12 Cited in Brink (2010), page 140. 13 Cited in Bergan (2007), page 112. 14 Cited in Bergan (2007), page 113.


12

The European standards for agencies with external quality assurance responsibilities were15:

Use of external quality assurance procedures for higher education

Official status

Activities

Resources

Mission statement

Independence

External quality assurance criteria and processes used by the agencies

Accountability procedures

These standards were adopted by the Bologna Process Ministerial meeting in Bergen in May 2005, and it became clear that these were referring to collective quality assurance. The internal quality assurance standards were the responsibility of the physical/virtual education provider. External quality assurance could be further divided into two scenarios. The first scenario would be employing external parties to assess quality on an impartial basis. The other scenario saw the awarding body provide an external quality assurance exercise for validation purposes, perceived as external quality assurance. The European standards for agencies with external quality assurance responsibilities were developed to complement some countries’ commitments to establish national organisations/agencies to promote quality in higher education. Noticeably, not all European countries had such agencies in places, but the QAA were to play a prominent role for the UK.

Apart from countries in EHEA, other non-European countries such as Australia and New Zealand were also active in quality assurance. The National Qualification Framework from New Zealand was briefly discussed in previous sections, and the Australian model was also very similar to its neighbouring country. Coleman (2003) reported an empirical investigation on quality assurance practice for transnational degree courses awarded by Australian universities. It was achieved by interviewing domestic (on campus) and off-shore staff amongst these institutions/universities. The result was mixed. It was reported that the quality of transnational provision could vary between domestic and off-shore courses. Considerable responses and perceptions from off-shore staff showed concerns about the difference of quality in their provision. However, there were also participants who recognised affirming equivalency and indifferent quality between courses. This demonstrated the mixed conduct of such practice.

It is worth noting that Coleman’s consecutive investigations16 on this issue could not be generalised or transferred across contexts. The structure of higher education provision illustrated by Coleman was a centralised provision. Australian universities provided all materials/resources for off-shore providers, and grading and assessment were also carried out by the central universities. This structure of provision was defined as ‘core and periphery’ by Coleman. This centralised provision significantly differed from others. The difference could be seen through a comparison with the UK infrastructure. Firstly, Australian universities reserved more power over the conduct of courses, including the syllabus, materials and resources. They also maintained the requirement to use an identical grading system throughout. On the other hand, many UK institutions did not use a centralised approach, and validation and quality monitoring process were more often adopted. This demonstrates the different approaches to providing off-campus/off-shore courses. Coleman (2003) argued that the approach of

15 Cited in Bergan (2007), page 114-115. 16 See Coleman (1999); (2001); (2003).


13

Australian Universities was consistent with its original aim, which was to attract more overseas students to on-campus courses. UK institutions’ aim for off-campus (collaborative) provision was not so clear in comparison with their Australian counterparts, therefore the approaches to provision were different.

Subsequently, the role of national quality assurance agencies was different between these two systems. Although the objectives of the two agencies, the QAA and the Australian University Quality Agency (AUQA) were consistent, the practical approach to quality issues differed. QAA assumed a more proactive role than AUQA. For example, QAA would set out review schedules and methodologies for institutions in the UK and overseas. AUQA, however, did not automatically review off-shore programmes, Coleman (2003) reported that such visits rarely happen. He also reported that such visits would only happen if the given university invited AUQA to do so. This demonstrates a reverse contrast of centralisation and decentralisation. QAA adopts a structured methodology to look at institutions/courses provided by UK institutions and their international partners; this signified a centralised view on quality. AUQA, on the other hand, adopted a more domestic view by focusing on the review of on-campus provision; it decentralise its power to the discretion of the universities.

Through the above discussion, several arguments have surfaced. There was no debate about the importance of quality in the provision of education. Quality assurance needed to be in place to ensure a satisfactory learning experience. The argument was how we know that the quality assurance processes are doing what they were intended to do. Assessment of such was not clearly addressed in the publications reviewed. Much discussion remains on the level of addressing the importance of quality and quality assurance; practical perspectives were missed. Inquiries on these issues are urgently needed.

The other argument was concerning the problematic reliance, and potentially false assumption, particularly applied to the quality assurance agencies. Reliance on the outcomes of these reviews was significant, however many reports seemed to adopt a language to conform to agencies’ views. This led to a problematic assumption, which was that of the credibility and validity of such reviews. Unfortunately, credibility and validity issues were not explicitly addressed in methodologies and so reviews will only be trustworthy if the above issues are treated carefully, otherwise the danger of false assumption exists. This could further lead to exposure of great academic/reputational risks, echoing Brink’s (2010) observation on tensions between notions and definitions discussed earlier.

4. Profile

Bergan (2009) identified profile as a part of a qualification. He further divided the concept of profile in two ways. The first was that profile ‘may refer to the overall orientation of an institution or a study programme’ 17 . The second meaning was to see profile as ‘the individual characteristics of a qualification’18. He demonstrated the two-tier ways of defining profile by using practical examples. It was noted that this concept was not widely recognised nor discussed amongst publications.

The first definition was to define the orientation of a qualification through a binary system for delivery. This was usually perceived as University or non-University19 study programmes. The

17 Cited in Bergan (2009), page 46. 18 Cited in Bergan (2009), page 46. 19 A German term-Fachhochschulen was used by Bergan, this is similar to polytechnic used in the UK.


14

definition of profile from EHEA was also consistent with this; it defined profile through stating the purpose of a course on examples of applied vocational versus theoretical academic studies. Bergan further illustrated the two-tier diversity of higher education provision in Europe, and argued that the diversifying of learning paths to qualifications is associated with this view of profile. The overlapping of theoretical and applying elements of different study pathways was also discussed by Bergan (2007). This, overall, demonstrated that profile could be a simple concept, but the complexity of it was considerable.

The second definition of profile was to see it as individual characteristics of a qualification. This could be complex, for example, Bergan (2007; 2009) noticed the flexibility of courses in the European Region. The promotion of a unifying workload system was also significant which increases the diversity of characteristics of individual qualifications. It was also noted that most qualifications could consist of elements which were not traditionally associated with the given courses. Another challenge of this was the view on specialisation or broadness, especially noticeable in the context of recognition of qualifications between North American and European countries. King (2007) also noticed this difference in views when considering the Bologna Process from a North American perspective.

The balance between specialisation and broadness was promoted by Bergan (2009), however, it also provided a challenge. The concept of balance is ambiguous, and simply provides a vision without practical guidance. Given the diversity of higher education provision in the UK, it is understandable that many institutions started to offer even more pathways to qualifications. For example, the professional doctor was a response to the above argument. This qualification offers a new dimension to the existing perceptions in relation to PhD as a research degree. The challenge here was to establish the difference in qualifications’ profiles, otherwise it could be misunderstood amongst stakeholders.

5. Learning outcomes

Learning outcomes were the last element raised by Bergan (2007). He stressed it as being the key to assessing and describing qualifications. His rationale for this was that learning outcomes indicated what the holder of a qualification was expected to know, understand and be able to do. He also highlighted the significant association between learning outcomes and all of the elements above. He noted that the current use of learning outcomes was developed in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The evidence for this has been illustrated earlier in the discussion of the development of the qualifications framework and its concepts. The competence-based elements of such a framework drew further attention to learning outcomes. This was also one of the most discussed and debated areas within the academic discourse regarding qualifications.

Adam (2006) systematically reviewed the concept of learning outcomes. He traced the origins of the concept to the work of Ivan Pavlov (1846-1936). Behaviourism20 was highlighted as an influential paradigm on early views of learning outcomes, particularly when referred to the work of JB Watson (1878-1958) and BF Skinner (1904-1990). The distinctive traits of such approaches could be seen as ‘the emphasis on clear identification and measurement and the need to produce observable and

20 An approach which believes conditioning can result in behavioural change. This was derived from early work by experiments on animals. The general stance is the behaviours can be manipulated by interventions hence input has profound effects, e.g. causality, on outcomes.


15

measurable outcomes’ 21 . This was argued by Johnson (2008) as a potentially flawed view on epistemological issues due to different stances such as the predictability and measurability of behaviour. Benefit was, however, also argued as weighted more than its limits. This was particularly in association with the discussion regarding to recognition evident in works by Rauhvargers (2009) and Teichler (2003).

Adam (2004; 2006) attempted to define learning outcomes, firstly outlining his view that there was no agreement on them. He further illustrated eight different definitions from varying sources, his final judgement on these definitions being that they had a key common aspect. This was ‘the desire for more precision and consideration as to what exactly a learner acquires in terms of knowledge and/or skills when they successfully complete a period of learning’ 22 . Adam’s statement on learning outcomes was regarded as a seminal work on this issue for many writers, such as Hunt (2009) and Bergan (2009), who were clearly in agreement with him. Johnson’s (2008) discussion on competence-based qualifications also reflected this approach. Therefore, it is clear that the current view on learning outcomes has been integrated more or less consensually as Adam observed.

Learning outcomes were difficult to formulate as Bergan (2007) demonstrated. Adam (2004) also stressed the danger of creating inadequate learning outcomes. The presentation of learning outcomes could be divided into two sub-divisions: generic and subject specific outcomes (Adam, 2006). The identification of generic skills was stressed as important in enhancing the employability of graduates by Adam. Bloom (1956) identified learning in six categories: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation23 . The use of active verbs and identification of learning were advocated as a useful way to generate learning outcomes.

Application of learning outcomes could be beneficial in many ways. This was further discussed by Adam in the following levels24:

Institutional/local level - implications for teaching, learning and assessment.

National level - permeating the ways the NQF is described and relevant tools.

International level - possibility of transparency, mobility and fair recognition.

Advantages of using established learning outcomes were discussed explicitly by both Adam (2004; 2006) and Bergan (2007; 2009), who saw two perspectives. Firstly, the shift from inputs to outcomes was a progressive and advantageous change of views. The ‘traditional’ view of learning was stressed by Bergan (2007) when discussing credits. It was argued that learning outcomes replaced the traditional focus on time spent on a course/qualification as the sole measurement. Both Adam and Bergan believed that the shift from seeing ‘input’ as the only assessment to a more balanced view which considered output (outcomes) was a positive move.

Secondly, the shift of focus onto the learner was another advantage (Adam, 2006). This concept was argued to ‘promote the idea of the teacher as a facilitator of the learning process...it further involved that students should be actively involved in the planning and management of their own learning and take more responsibility’25. This not only demonstrated the advantage which could be gained from

21 Cited in Adam (2006), page 2. 22 Cited in Adam (2006), page 5. 23 Cited in Adam (2006), page 7. 24 Cited in Adam (2006), page 8-9. 25 Cited in Adam (2006), page 12.


16

the participation of students, it was also consistent with the current trend such as the engagement of students emphasised by the QAA (2003; 2009). This was a significant trait which showed the wide agreement and utilisation of this approach, especially in the UK. Adam (2004) also observed the wide use of learning outcomes within the higher education sector in the UK in a report of overseeing the adoption of this approach in European countries.

It was argued by Adam (2004) that the adoption of such an approach was initiated in the 1990s, and he cited the level descriptors in the Dearing Report (NCIHE, 1997) as the first clear evidence of this. However, it was argued in his later works that level descriptors (aims or competence) and learning outcomes are not identical/interchangeable concepts. He illustrated the use of these concepts, but the conclusion was not a decisive one. He stressed that further work needed to be done to define the distinction between them. This brought significant confusion to the issue and it also demonstrated the interlacing nature of these defined components of qualifications.

With close examination of Adam’s definition, it was clear that he did raise two very similar definitions. This could explain the confusion identified by him. If the sole purpose of the level descriptor is to distinguish levels and their implications, it could be separated from elements of learning outcomes. Otherwise it could be confused with the generic sub-division of learning outcomes if the descriptors were described in a detailed manner. Therefore, the argument will return to the attention to subject-specific outcomes, which are not covered by the level descriptors, and so confusion could be avoided in this context. Criticisms noted by Adam (2006) could also be treated in this approach.

There were also some other issues raised by Adam (2006), and they were philosophical and practical objections. The former was his objection to the classification of learning in higher education, the latter was concern regarding implementation and availability of resources. The first challenge is an ontological one, but the common belief that knowledge could be learnt helps resolve this view i.e. the fundamental ontology regarding the provision of higher education. However, if a more liberal paradigm was taken, the tension of this seems to be unavoidable. The origin of learning outcomes being a behaviourism derived from a science philosophy (epistemology) was destined for this clash between views. The latter objections were largely associated with the work and demand brought by this concept. Some claimed the detail of learning outcomes could also limit the creativity within the education process. This is a confusing statement as all creativity needs to be based on some forms of initial learning e.g. the basic use of language. The setting of learning outcomes should be seen as minimum baselines rather than exact descriptors. Such a claim did not appear to address this issue, hence it may not be seen as significant to implementation.

Overall, the use of learning outcomes was a positive way forward toward agreeing how to define qualifications. It warranted significant benefits to the understanding of qualifications, such as providing better information to learners and employers. It was noted that attention to subject specific outcomes was particularly important to respond to criticism. This will provide a clear illustration of any given qualifications.

Conclusion

Future Pathways for the CRAE-UW


17

Equivalency assurance is a key element which contributes to the understanding of quality in higher education. The University of Wales is keen to support further academic equivalency research. Through the review of current academic research activities regarding equivalency, two significant traits are found. Firstly, Frameworks for qualifications are often discussed, however, these discussions or debates mostly focused on theoretical and ideological perspectives. The need for empirical equivalency research is urgent. Secondly, the concept of equivalency is becoming clearer within the educational research paradigm, popular debate and political discourse. The components which make up a qualification were identified, although further examination will be needed for verification of their value. This will be beneficial not only to the quality of education provided by the University, and so the development of this research field, which, surely, will be a key component to understanding transnational education.

Through the discussion of academic equivalency, comparative research elements are established within equivalency research, and so future methodological consideration will relate to the paradigm of comparative research. This will illustrate a balanced view on equivalency issues with adequate broadness and depth. The aim of this exercise is also an evaluation research. Hartas (2010) defined evaluation as ‘a process whereby we appraise the worth of an educational activity in a systematic manner’26; this indicates the significant considerations for this inquiry.

Previous efforts within the University to investigate equivalency will provide CARE-UW with the foundation for redevelopment. Based on discussions in previous sections, qualifications and their components were defined, and their components as criteria for equivalency assessment may be adopted. The distinction between subjects will need to be clarified but the comparable elements can be utilised amongst all levels of qualifications. This will provide a clear identification for institutions to prepare for equivalency assurance exercises. It will also set out a systematic and standardised structure for future implementation.

Overall, this will be a mixed-method approach which will enhance the rigour of the research, and will also provide the possibility of triangulation. This will create a means to achieve balance between objectivity and subjectivity in the context of making judgements on academic equivalency.

References

Adam, S. (2001). A Pan-European credit accumulation framework- dream or disaster? Higher Education Quarterly, 55(3), 292-305.

Adam, S. (2004). Using learning outcomes. A consideration of the nature, role, application and implications for European education of employing 'learning outcomes' at the local, national and international levels. Paper presented at the United Kingdom Bologna Seminar.

Adam, S. (2006). An introduction to learning outcomes. A consideration of the nature, function and position of learning outcomes in the creation of the European Higher Education Area. In E. Froment, J. Kohler, L. Purser & L. Wilson (Eds.), EUA Bologna Handbook- Making Bologna Work. Berlin: Raabe Verlag.

Allais, S. M. (2003). The national qualification framework in South Africa: a democratic project trapped in a neo-liberal paradigm? Journal of Education and Work, 16(3), 305-324.

Altbach, P., & Kelly, G. (1986). Perspectives on comparative education. In P. Altbach & G. Kelly (Eds.), New approach to comparative education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bergan, S. (2004). A tale of two cultures in higher education policies: the rule of law or an excess of legalism. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(2), 172-185.

26 Cited in Hartas (2010), page 270.


18

Bergan, S. (2007). Qualification - Introduction to a concept. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Bergan, S. (2009). Academic recognition: status and challenges. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 16(1), 39-53.

Birtwistle, T. (2009). Towards 2010 (and then beyond) - the context of the Bologna Process. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(1), 55-63.

Blackmur, D. (2004). A critique of the concept of a national qualification framework. Quality in Higher Education, 10(3), 267-284.

Bologna Process Template for National Reports. (2008). from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/links/National-reports-2007/National_Report_Finland2007.pdf

Bridges, P. H., & Tory, J. H. (2001). Credits, Qualifications and the fluttering standard. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(3), 257-269.

Brill, L. d. A. (2009). Experience of diploma recognition under EEC General System Directives in the Netherlands. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(1), 13-23.

Brink, C. (2010). Quality and standards: clarity, comparability and responsibility. Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 139-152.

Brockmann, M., Clarke, L., & Winch, C. (2009). Difficulties in recognition vocational skills and qualifications across Europe. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(1), 97-109.

Burgess, R. (2006). Proposals for national arrangements for the use if academic credit in higher education in England. London: Universities UK.

Coleman, D. (1999). University foundation studies as academic preparation: an analysis of results. Research and Development in Higher Education, 21, 73-84.

Coleman, D. (2001). The core and the periphery: The case of Foundation Studies Programs in the organisational and educational transformations of higher education. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Coleman, D. (2003). Quality assurance in transnational education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(4), 354-378.

Cook, A. (2001). Testing the water: practitioner opinion of a regional credit scheme (NICATS). Higher Education Quarterly, 55(3), 239-256.

Crosier, D., Purser, L., & Smidt, H. (2007). Trend V: Universities shaping the European Higher Education Area. Brussels: European University Association.

Ensor, P. (2003). The national qualification framework and higher education in South Africa: some epistemological issues. Journal of Education and Work, 16(3), 325-346.

EURYDICE. (2007). Focus on the Structure of Higher Education in Europe 2006/07. Brussels: Eurydice European Unit.

Fernie, S., & Pilcher, N. (2009). National qualification frameworks: developing research perspectives. Quality in Higher Education, 15(3), 221-232.

Gosling, D. (2001). Lost opportunity: what a credit framework would have added to the national qualification framework. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(3), 270-284.

Hantrais, L., & Mangen, S. (1996). Method and management of cross-national research. In L. Hantrais & S. Mangen (Eds.), Cross-national research methods. London: Pinter.

Hartas, D. (2010). Evaluation research in education. In D. Hartas (Ed.), Education Research and Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Continuum.

Hunt, E. S. (2009). Transatlantic recognition issues: seeking new directions in the twenty-first century. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(1), 65-81.

Johnson, M. (2008). Grading in competence-based qualifications - is it desirable and how might it affect validity. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(2), 175-184.

Johnson, S., & Wolf, A. (2009). Qualification and mobility in a globalising world: why equivalence matters. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(1), 3-11.


19

Jones, A. (1999). The place of judgement in competency-based assessment. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 51(1), 145-160.

King, C. (2007). The Bologna Process: Bridge or Fortress? A Review of the Debates from a North American Perspective. Vancouver: Institute of European Studies, University of British Columbia.

NCIHE. (1997). The Dearing Report - National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. London: NCIHE.

Newton, P. E. (2005). The public understanding of measurement inaccuracy. British Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 419-442.

Philips, D. (2003). Lessons from New Zealand's national qualification framework. Journal of Education and Work, 16(3), 289-304.

QAA. (2003). Handbook for institutional review: Wales. Retrieved. from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reviewWales/handbook/welsh_handbook_english.pdf.

QAA. (2008). Higher education credit framework for England: Guidance on academic credit arrangements in higher education in England. Retrieved. from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/england/credit/creditframework.pdf.

QAA. (2009). Handbook for Institutional review: Wales (Second edition). Retrieved. from http://www.qaa/reviews/reviewWales/Handbook2009.pdf.

QCA. (2004). A framework for achievement. Retrieved. from http://orderline.qcda.gov.uk/gempdf/1847210910.PDF.

Quirk, R. (1995). Reporting of achievement in a competency-based education and training system. Sydney: Assessment Centre for Vocational Education.

Rauhvargers, A. (2007). Bologna Process Stocktaking London 2007. London: Department for Education and Skills.

Rauhvargers, A. (2009). Recognition and qualifications framework. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(1), 111-1285.

Rauhvargers, A., Bergan, S., & Divis, J. (2003). United we stand: the recognition of joint degree. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(4), 342-353.

Rauhvargers, A., Deane, C., & Pauwels, W. (2009). Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 2009. Leuven: Education and Culture DG.

Reynolds, S. (2001). The Welsh credit vision. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(3), 285-291.

Smith, L. R. (2000). Issues impacting on the quality of assessment in vocational education and training in Queensland. Brisbane: Department of Employment , Training and Industrial Relations.

Teichler, U. (2003). Mutual recognition and credit transfer in Europe: experiences and problems. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(4), 312-341.

UUK. (2008). Quality and Standards in UK Universities: A Guide to How the System Works. London: UniversitiesUK.

Valk, A. (2009). Recognition of prior and experiential learning in European universities. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(1), 83-95.

West, A., & Barham, E. (2009). Student mobility, qualifications and academic recognition in the EU. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(1), 25-37.

university of wales - approaches to research into …...1 academic equivalency working paper series...

Documents