Moving Mountains: Will Qualifications Systems Promote Lifelong Learning?

European Journal of Education, Vol. 42, No.
4, 2007
Moving Mountains: will qualifications systems

promote lifelong learning?
PATRICK WERQUIN1
Qualifications Systems: one of the many ways of promoting lifelong

learning
As technological progress impacts more and more on production processes and as
individual consumer habits turn away from traditional [manufactured] to more
intangible goods (health, leisure, sports . . .), skills, knowledge and competences
have become key factors of economic growth and individual well being (Béduwé &
Planas, 2003; Brown, 2003; EC, 2001; Evans et al., 2002; Feinstein et al., 2004;
Guile & Griffiths, 2001; IJLE, 2004; NCVER, 2003a; 2003b; OECD, 2001;
Ottersten, 2004). Giving these to everyone and making sure that they are continu-
ally upgraded are therefore important elements for collective and individual
success. Having an effective and inclusive lifelong learning system is seen as
necessary for such a success in a world where certain groups of the population —
and more especially the low-qualified adult population — are experiencing diffi-
culties in undertaking learning activities (OECD, 2003). In many countries,
lifelong learning is also seen as the basis for democracy and citizenship.
In trying to move from rhetoric to reality in providing lifelong learning oppor-
tunities for all, some governments and stakeholders see qualifications systems as a
tool for promoting lifelong learning. There was a need to address systemic issues
when trying to meet the goal of lifelong learning for all (OECD, 2004c). These
movements or evolutions have involved all EU countries thanks to the Sorbonne-
Bologna, Copenhagen and Lisbon processes and the different consultations on
harmonising ‘mobility’ tools (EQF, ECVET, ECTS)2.
There are many ways of impacting on the lifelong learning system and im-
proving it. They range from teaching the teachers and training the trainers and
adequate investments and motivations for individuals to learn throughout their life
to paying special attention to certain groups such as low-skilled people, immigrants
or the unemployed. Amongst the many ways to improve the lifelong learning
system, using the national qualifications system has recently come to the forefront
of the research and policy-making arena.
Finding a conceptual bridge between national qualifications systems and life-
long learning is the result of the work that OECD has been carrying out in the
field of qualifications systems over the last five years. Many countries have been
involved3 and there seems to be identifiable processes and mechanisms through
which the national qualifications system influences the motivation and opportu-
nities to learn (OECD, 2007). This can in turn inform decision-makers about
possible policy actions based on the national qualifications systems that can
promote lifelong learning for all.
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,
UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
460 European Journal of Education
Identifying potential mechanisms has proven to be relatively straightforward.

The real future issues will be to substantiate such links that seem to be only true
in theory for most of the mechanisms identified below. OECD is now focusing on
two specific mechanisms, with even more countries involved4, that will be
addressed in more detail later in the article (qualifications frameworks, recognition of
non-formal and informal learning).
Twenty Mechanisms to Support Lifelong Learning

Since lifelong learning for all has become a widely shared policy objective amongst
OECD countries and beyond, the quest for mechanisms that could trigger more
and better lifelong learning using components of the national qualifications system
has begun. In this context, a national qualifications system is defined as the set of
all the arrangements leading to the recognition of learning, including non-formal
and informal learning.
The ground between national qualifications systems and lifelong learning —
and specifically the impact of the former on the latter — is under-researched. It is
also possibly under-utilised, as it now seems clear that the awareness that national
qualifications systems can be policy tools is rather recent. From observing policies
worldwide and programmes that countries have set in motion that imply national
qualifications systems, OECD (2007) identifies 20 mechanisms than can poten-
tially support lifelong learning using components of their national qualifications
system.
In this context, a mechanism is a structural change in a qualifications system
and/or a change in its conditions that results in a change in the extent, quality,
distribution and efficiency of lifelong learning. Mechanisms are therefore concep-
tual links between qualifications systems and lifelong learning in the sense that they
have been identified because of their potential power to trigger more and better
lifelong learning. But there is no systematic hard evidence yet to claim that they
really support lifelong learning under any condition. They are based on potential
behavioural change of the main stakeholder groups that are employers, providers
of education and training, providers of qualifications and individuals. Hence, the
word ‘mechanism’ may have a misleading connotation of always causing the same
impact; but there is not yet consistent evidence across enough different national,
regional or sectoral contexts.
Mechanisms should be seen as a check list for researchers who are willing to
advance research in bridging qualifications systems and lifelong learning and for
policy-makers aiming at improving their lifelong learning system. It is work in
progress and must be tested in as many different contexts as possible. These 20
mechanisms are the following5:
— Communicating returns to learning for qualification

— Recognising skills for employability
— Establishing a qualifications framework (see Section 2 for details)
— Increasing learner choice in qualifications
— Clarifying learning pathways
— Providing credit transfer
— Increasing flexibility in learning programmes leading to qualifications
— Creating new routes to qualifications
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Patrick Werquin 461
— Lowering cost of qualification

— Recognising non-formal and informal learning (see Section 3 for details)
— Monitoring the qualifications system
— Optimising stakeholder involvement in the qualifications system
— Improving needs analysis methods so that qualifications are up-to-date
— Improving qualification use in recruitment
— Ensuring that qualifications are portable
— Investing in pedagogical innovation
— Expressing qualifications as learning outcomes
— Improving coordination in the qualifications system
— Optimising quality assurance
— Improving information and guidance about qualifications systems.
Qualifications frameworks are intended to contribute to making progression routes

clear, help to spot — and therefore remove — dead ends and bring transparency
and coherence to qualifications systems. This may in turn bring quality assurance.
Amongst the stakeholders, individuals may therefore be motivated to learn if they
can be more easily guided towards appropriate qualifications.They could also trust
nationally-approved qualifications and feel attracted to quality-assured qualifica-
tions. Employers will find a qualifications framework helpful in setting out quali-
fication requirements for a job and in relating an applicant’s qualification profile to
a standard reference point. It may help to rationalise their training provision.
Finally, providers could find a framework of qualifications useful for promotional
material, as they can market qualifications according to a well-known structure
and, like recruiters (employers but also recruiters for universities), they may feel
more secure, knowing that certain qualifications are national benchmarks.
Another example is recognition of non-formal and informal learning systems.
This makes explicit the value of learning that is not assessed as part of a formal
learning programme and can act as a safety net for those who have not yet fully
engaged in learning. Individuals with relatively low levels of formal achievement
could be motivated to enter programmes and continue learning if their knowledge,
skills and wider competences acquired through experience can be recognised and
used to reduce the costs (in time and money) of qualification. Employers may see
wider skills supply if more learning is recognised in the workforce. Providers may
be encouraged to widen access to programmes if quality-assured recognition
systems are in place.
In any case, these mechanisms should be seen as serving broad policy responses
that countries are using to respond to the lifelong learning agenda. Where it
becomes interesting is that most of these mechanisms may serve different policy
responses, and to a very different extent.
How Mechanisms Support Policy Responses to the Lifelong Learning

Agenda
Since certain groups of the population — especially within the adult [low-
qualified] population (OECD, 2003; OECD, 2005) — are experiencing difficulties
in undertaking learning activities, different policy responses have been adopted to
help to develop lifelong learning activities and/or improve the skills and compe-
tences of the population. From OECD (2007) again, and after reviewing an

important part of the literature, it seems that the policy responses can be classified
into nine broad categories:
— Increase flexibility and responsiveness

— Motivate young people to learn
— Link education and work
— Facilitate open access to qualifications
— Diversify assessment processes
— Make qualifications progressive
— Make the qualifications system transparent
— Review funding and increase efficiency
— Better manage the qualifications system.
The immediate question — and the rationale for this article — concerns the bridge
that may exist between the 20 mechanisms and the nine policy responses to the
lifelong learning agenda. At this stage, it is important to stress that the two
concepts are separate. Policy responses are broad categories of policies which are
currently being used by countries to address the pressures for change in the
qualifications system; there is evidence that the countries are using some of them.
However, the evidence is still piecemeal and more work needs to be done, but there
is a set of facts and statements across the countries and some findings from the
available research literature that entitle one to believe that the impact may be real.
Before we turn to two examples of mechanisms and analyse them in more detail,
it is useful to establish the strength of the potential links between qualifications
systems and lifelong learning.
Providing a list of 20 mechanisms is interesting but only if it comes with a
sense of the strength of the link between each mechanism and each of the policy
responses they serve. By establishing this theoretical link, the exercise clearly
becomes a useful step for policy-makers as they introduce and refine policies for
lifelong learning. It also allows researchers to set the scene for further investi-
gations and to spot the links that should or could be substantiated as more and
more programmes are implemented in their country or internationally. The next
exercise is therefore to classify the 20 mechanisms in their order of importance
regarding the impact they may have on policy responses. OECD (2007) pro-
posed what is only a first approach on how strong the effect of a mechanism may
be on a policy response. It seems possible to separate strong mechanisms from
mechanisms having ‘only’ a supporting role and those that have no role at all
(Table I).
Interestingly enough, there is another way of considering the effect of a mecha-
nism, this time on other mechanisms rather than directly on policy responses.
Three are believed to have a catalytic role on some of the other mechanisms and
are called change mechanisms.
Combining the different ways of analysing the effect of mechanisms, OECD
(2007) proposes to identify some particularly powerful ones on the basis of
background documentation provided by the participating countries and of the
available pieces of evidence:
— Five highly-ranked strong mechanisms: Providing credit transfer; Optimising

stakeholder involvement in the qualifications system; Recognising non-formal

Patrick Werquin 463
and informal learning; Establishing a qualifications framework; and Creating

new routes to qualifications.
— Three change mechanisms: Establishing qualifications frameworks; Commu-
nicating returns to learning for qualifications; and Investing in pedagogical
innovation.
— Five highly-ranked supporting mechanisms: Monitoring the qualifications
system; Establishing qualifications frameworks; Investing in pedagogical innova-
tion; Expressing qualifications as learning outcomes; and Improving information
and guidance about qualifications system.
Finally, it should be kept in mind that this is a rather comprehensive [check] list of
the ways national qualifications systems may impact on policy responses. None of
the countries that have been reviewed (almost 20 amongst the most developed
economies) have qualifications systems that include all the mechanisms. This may
be because of a lack of awareness of the potential benefits of certain mechanisms;
this is mainly because all qualifications systems operate in specific cultures and
contexts and may not be suitable under the conditions that prevail in the country.
Every national qualifications system is unique and the functioning of mechanisms
will be influenced by the conditions operating the qualifications system. Therefore
it is not always possible to generalise about the strength of these mechanisms in
bringing about more and better lifelong learning. However, by linking them to the
generic policy responses, we can have an idea of which mechanisms are likely to
have a strong effect.
As stated above, of the 20 mechanisms identified, two (establishing qualifications
frameworks and recognition of non-formal and informal learning) share two important
features: they are very high on countries’ agendas and they bring to the forefront
of lifelong learning systems the notion of learning outcomes, even if some quali-
fications frameworks do not seem to be based on learning outcomes. As they also
appear as potentially very powerful mechanisms in the work proposed in OECD
(2007), they are now addressed in more detail as ways of exemplifying the above
statements about the possible role(s) of national qualifications systems in promot-
ing lifelong learning.
Qualifications Frameworks to Promote Lifelong Learning

The conceptual link(s) between mechanisms and policy responses has been rather
‘easy’ to establish, but this does not mean there is no drawback in implementing
such mechanisms. Most of the mechanisms listed in the first section come with a
cost, even if there are reasons to believe that, sometimes, it could just be a matter
of rearranging the spending more efficiently. The real difficulty is to find hard
evidence from field research or quantitative data to substantiate the theoretical
findings. Establishing a qualifications framework is a good example to study
further the many reasons stated above, but also because it is sometimes criticised
(Blackmur, 2004), sometimes praised (Bjørnåvold & Coles, 2007; Coles, 2007;
Gunning, 2000; NQAI, 2002) and often described with a great deal of scepticism
(Grootings, 2007; Young, 2003). It seems that that the level of ‘enthusiasm’ may
depend on the context and what a particular national qualifications framework is
trying to do.

Table I. Potential Links between Mechanisms and Policy Responses
Policy responses Mechanisms with a strong role Mechanisms with a supporting role
464
Increase flexibility and Increasing learner choice in qualifications Establishing qualifications frameworks
responsiveness of the Providing credit transfer Lowering cost of qualifications
qualifications system Increasing flexibility in learning programmes leading to qualifications Monitoring the qualifications system
Creating new routes to qualifications Investing in pedagogical innovation
Recognising non-formal and informal learning
Optimising stakeholder involvement in the qualifications system
Improving needs analysis methods so that qualifications are up to date
Ensuring qualifications are portable
Expressing qualifications as learning outcomes
Motivate young people Communicating returns to learning for qualifications Establishing qualifications frameworks
to learn for Recognising skills for employability Optimising stakeholder involvement in the
qualifications Increasing learner choice in qualifications qualifications system
Clarifying learning pathways Improving qualification use in recruitment
Providing credit transfer Ensuring qualifications are portable
European Journal of Education
Increasing flexibility in learning programmes leading to qualifications Expressing qualifications as learning outcomes
Creating new routes to qualifications
Lowering cost of qualifications
Investing in pedagogical innovation
Optimising quality assurance
Improving information and guidance about qualifications system
Link education and Recognising skills for employability Creating new routes to qualifications
work through Establishing qualifications frameworks Monitoring the qualifications system
qualifications Clarifying learning pathways Investing in pedagogical innovation
Providing credit transfer Expressing qualifications as learning outcomes
Increasing flexibility in learning programmes leading to qualifications Maximising co-ordination in the qualifications system
Recognising non-formal and informal learning Improving information and guidance about
Optimising stakeholder involvement in the qualifications system qualifications system
Improving needs analysis methods so that qualifications are up to date
Improving qualification use in recruitment
Facilitate open access Providing credit transfer Establishing qualifications frameworks
to qualifications Creating new routes to qualifications Increasing flexibility in learning programmes leading to
Lowering cost of qualifications qualifications
Recognising non-formal and informal learning Monitoring the qualifications system

Improving information and guidance about qualifications system Optimising stakeholder involvement in the
qualifications system
Increase the use of outcome-based assessment methods
Maximising co-ordination in the qualifications system
Diversify assessment Providing credit transfer Increasing flexibility in learning programmes leading to
processes Recognising non-formal and informal learning qualifications
Expressing qualifications as learning outcomes Monitoring the qualifications system
Investing in pedagogical innovation
Make qualifications Establishing qualifications frameworks Increasing flexibility in learning programmes leading to
progressive Clarifying learning pathways qualifications
Providing credit transfer Recognising non-formal and informal learning
Creating new routes to qualifications Monitoring the qualifications system
Expressing qualifications as learning outcomes Optimising stakeholder involvement in the qualifications
Maximising co-ordination in the qualifications system system
Optimising quality ass urance
Improving information and guidance about qualifications
system
Make the qualifications Establishing qualifications frameworks Communicating returns to learning for qualifications
system transparent Clarifying learning pathways Monitoring the qualifications system
Optimising stakeholder involvement in the qualifications system Ensuring qualifications are portable
Expressing qualifications as learning outcomes Improving information and guidance about qualifications
Maximising co-ordination in the qualifications system system
Optimising quality assurance processes
Review funding and Providing credit transfer Communicating returns to learning for qualification
increase efficiency of Lowering cost of qualification Establishing qualifications frameworks

the qualifications Recognising non-formal and informal learning Clarifying learning pathways
system Monitoring the qualifications system Creating new routes to qualifications
Optimising stakeholder involvement in the qualifications system Investing in pedagogical innovation
Improving needs analysis methods so that qualifications are up Expressing qualifications as learning outcomes
to date
Improving co-ordination in the qualifications system
Better manage the Establishing qualifications frameworks Providing credit transfer
qualifications system Monitoring the qualifications system Creating new routes to qualifications
Optimising stakeholder involvement in the qualifications system Improving needs analysis methods so that qualifications
Patrick Werquin
Improving co-ordination in the qualifications system are up to date

Optimising quality assurance Improving information and guidance about
465
qualifications system
Source: OECD (2007).

Definition — A Classifier
It is worth insisting on the fact that a qualifications framework is not the same as
a qualifications system, which is defined above. A qualifications framework can be
seen as one of the components of a qualifications system. All countries have a
national qualifications system in the sense that they all award qualifications, but
not all have a national qualifications framework. In short, it is a classifier that shows
how existing qualifications relate to one another (Coles, 2007; Coles & Werquin,
2007a). Additionally, it also shows where new qualifications would fit. This is by
definition but also because it has become rather usual practice that countries only
sponsor new qualifications if they appear in the framework. It is therefore a tool
for transparency as much as for planning, and this is particularly true in small
structures such as an enterprise that is often, if not always, struggling to identify the
training needs so as to anticipate the possible gaps in competences and better
organise the production process (Collar, 2006).
Transparency is much more than a national macro issue. To that extent, it is
true that international frameworks are meta-frameworks. But it is worth noting
that national frameworks are also meta-frameworks in most instances, since there
are sub-national frameworks such as sectoral frameworks. Incidentally, this is true
the other way around. National qualifications systems may not be inclusive of all
qualifications and therefore may not be all that national6.
Finally, it is probably true that qualifications frameworks are culturally biased
in the sense that what has value differs from one country to another and that
similar qualifications may appear at different levels in different contexts. Yet the
case could be made that qualifications frameworks are less culturally biased than
qualifications systems, of which they are a component, because the latter include
everything that leads to the recognition of learning — including cost and expenses,
mores and traditions, curriculum and standards, levels and social values, etc. —
and are more likely to vehicle all these interesting differences between countries
than qualifications frameworks. In this context, qualifications frameworks are
technical tools that come into play once countries have made their own decisions
according to their context, to allow for transparency, comparability and mobility.
These decisions have to do with components of the qualifications system as a
whole. The European Qualifications Framework, for instance, was never meant to
be a template, and therefore was not meant to be copied. It is typically a meta-
framework as seen above. Countries should build their own national qualifications
framework and then, once this is done according to their own background (all the
components of their qualifications system), they could use the EQF as a translation
device (Bjørnåvold, 2007; Bjørnåvold & Coles, 2007).
Most Frequently Quoted Objectives for Qualifications Frameworks — A

Technical Tool and a Tool for Reform
Qualifications frameworks are technical tools, as they allow some sort of classifi-
cation of all existing and forthcoming qualifications. On that ground, they are often
presented as being able to deliver direct benefits, such as better transparency.They
are also, if not more often, presented as tools for reform in a sort of bigger picture.
In education and training, where there is some inertia, establishing qualifications
frameworks is often seen as a catalyst that may smoothen the happening of many

Patrick Werquin 467
other programmes and reforms. Amongst the most quoted, one can find a broad
range of benefits which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Transparency is probably the feature — and therefore advantage — that is most
often used to describe qualifications frameworks. By classifying and connecting
qualifications with one another and therefore highlighting potential learning paths,
they provide transparency in the world of education and training, often seen as a
black box by users, from employers to learners and practitioners. For individuals
to make informed decisions about their education and training strategy, this
transparency is necessary. It is also viewed as a condition to decide on equivalency
and on qualifications transfer, within and between countries when international
frameworks exist. Transparency also seems to be a clear asset since individuals’
lifelong learning objectives may require combining qualifications from different
sectors. For employers, it is key to organise appropriate recruiting and make
adequate choices about applicants. For them, it is also a key component for inside
work (re)organisation. Finally, for providers of qualifications, transparency allows
better choice in deciding on the programmes they supply.
Mobility is the other keyword in the rhetoric about qualifications frameworks.
When it comes to international qualifications frameworks, it is even the more
frequent feature. It is clearly a potential consequence of transparency, since it is
made easier, and probably somewhat triggered, when all stakeholders accept full
and perfect information about qualifications. It is an asset for mobile workers
and students as well as for employers and learning institutions that may recruit
them. In fact, qualifications frameworks provide a basis for comparison and, by
facilitating comparability, they provide a basis for the mobility of individuals,
whatever their goal — study or work. International qualifications frameworks go
one step further by facilitating the recognition of qualifications between different
countries7.
All these potential added values of qualifications frameworks that are transpar-
ency, comparability and mobility are intrinsically linked. They are a tool for
collaboration, as they provide a reliable basis for comparison and equivalency,
especially international qualifications frameworks such as the EQF. More techni-
cally, qualifications frameworks are also a tool for improving consistency and
coherence. They help to spot missing links and create new qualifications or new
routes to existing ones, or bridge existing qualifications.
Qualifications frameworks also bring consistency in the sense that they are in
line with other recent developments. For example, they are intrinsically learning
outcomes based and therefore facilitate transparency and comparability: it is easier
to compare two applicants for a job or those who are entering a course according
to what they know or can do rather than to how long they have been studying or
practising. It must be noted however that qualifications frameworks can probably
be built without the concept of learning outcomes8. Nevertheless, one of their main
added values is that they put learning outcomes at the forefront in the way they are
implemented; again, with the reservation made above that there are very different
ways of interpreting this notion, both for different sub-sectors of education and for
different countries. This simple fact may explain why qualifications frameworks
have developed faster in some countries, as it is well-known that the tradition of
learning outcomes is more embedded and explicit in some countries such as the
UK than in others; or it is perhaps due to the existence of a different set of
pressures. Nevertheless, as quite frequently heard in countries like Germany, it

remains tempting to say that national qualifications frameworks in a particularly

recognisable format are an Anglo construction. It cannot be the only factor
however, since Finland also has a long tradition of learning outcomes. The imple-
mentation of international frameworks such as the EQF will probably help to
disseminate or impose the concept of learning outcomes, at least in Europe.
To that extent, qualifications frameworks are natural companions of recogni-
tion of non-formal and informal learning systems that rely on learning outcomes
only. It is indeed the main feature of recognition systems that the awarding of a
qualification is not dependent on a particular learning process or on the time it
took to achieve the learning outcomes. Qualifications frameworks are also natural
companions of recognition of non-formal and informal learning because the
descriptors used in them often cover the full range of learning outcomes, in work
or education and training situations, in academic and vocational sectors; and
recognition systems are based on the idea that all individuals learn everywhere and
all the time.
Qualifications frameworks are often presented as important tools for quality
assurance, mainly by allowing a close monitoring of all qualifications available and
therefore potentially providing relevant information for improving its use or its
financing. This may require statistical tools to know more about users and out-
comes for users. Finally, qualifications frameworks are sometimes presented as
tools for modernising education and training system9.
All these features and potential benefits lead to the idea that qualifications
frameworks have the potential to bring trust and confidence in qualifications for
users, especially employers and learners, but also providers of education and
training and providers of qualifications. By improving trust and confidence, it is
likely that qualifications that belong to a framework will have the welcome double
currency, both in the labour market and in the lifelong learning system, for
undertaking new learning activities in the future in the country and abroad.
Another positive consequence could be that more actors feel empowered and
that qualifications frameworks trigger more bottom-up initiatives, as opposed to
supply-driven systems where the demand is ignored because it is unknown. This
may also require statistical tools.
A qualifications framework seems to be a precious policy tool for policy and
decision-makers, as it establishes the basis for improving the quality, accessibility,
linkages and social recognition of qualifications within a country and internation-
ally. It is also a tool for individuals to establish their education and training strategy
as lifelong learning systems become more complex. Therefore, it is a potential
mechanism to promote lifelong learning. However, some issues still remain.
A Slow and Complex Process

If qualifications frameworks clearly seem to be potential mechanisms to promote
lifelong learning, amongst other benefits, the case against can probably also be
built. Even the rather positive literature does question them in terms of their
potential to deliver what they promise in all contexts. Examples of barriers are the
cultural background or the cost.
One argument that has received little attention is that, because/if the
approach to qualifications framework is highly technical (classifying qualifica-
tions), promoters may be diverted from the key element that is behind the

Patrick Werquin 469
awarding of any qualification: its social recognition. The reasons why qualifica-
tions are maintained, updated or created sometimes remain unclear, since they
do not have value or use or either. The difficulties that education and training
systems are facing in many countries may come from the fact that the technical
aspects have been the driving force where a more powerful engine could have
been the reason why a qualification is needed, and therefore wanted, by the
public and the labour market.
Another issue that is sometimes underlined is that not all qualifications frame-
works are comprehensive in the sense that they do not cover all levels from end of
compulsory education to highest academic degree and professional awards. By
construction, qualifications frameworks are sometimes not inclusive of all qualifi-
cations (ETF, 2006) and this sometimes prevents full transparency.
While waiting for a world qualifications framework10, the European Qualifica-
tions Framework is an interesting example of international frameworks. It has
received more criticism than most national qualifications frameworks probably
because it attempts to bridge different cultures and country contexts, some of
which are not very keen on using the concept of qualifications framework. In
addition, the technical process of deciding on the level of each qualification is not
totally transparent. The breakdown into three components (knowledge, vocational
skills and competences) adds to this complexity because some qualifications are at
a high level on one component and not so high on another. Hence, some countries
seem to have chosen to use only the knowledge component to decide on the level
of a given qualification. It is probably for all these reasons that the EQF is not yet
operational. It may take a long time — a rough guess is ten years — before it
becomes so and can replace the ISCED 97 classification of which it seems to be a
credible competitor11.
Qualifications frameworks may deliver according to the expectations only if
they are built with some constraints in mind, mainly in terms of respecting the
context in which they [will] operate and of sufficient funding and of continuous
updating. Designing a qualifications framework that delivers expected benefits
indeed demands the involvement of all the stakeholders and this takes time. Not
only is this process costly, but the stakeholders will bring their culture. It requires
adequate funding because the consulting process is expensive and because the
necessary organisational changes may also be costly. Finally, it may take five years
for a new qualification to appear in a framework; it is likely that this is also the time
when revisions may be needed.
By way of conclusion, the most convincing argument is to see qualifications
frameworks as catalysts. When a qualifications framework operates, it seems that
the other necessary reforms make the education and training system evolve more
smoothly.
Recognition of Non-Formal and Informal Learning: a quest for evidence

The implementation of a recognition of non-formal and informal learning system
is probably an even better example of the difficulty of trying to provide evidence for
the theoretical link between mechanisms and policy responses. It seems that most
countries are doing this mainly on the basis of faith. Most experts who have looked
carefully at the facts and figures are intrigued, even if there seems to be room for
hope.

Taking into account what individuals already know and can do is being exam-
ined as a possible response to the lifelong learning agenda in many countries in
their quest to make lifelong learning a reality for all. It is also a crucial component
of modern human resources strategies in the labour market and a step to be
considered on the road to pedagogical innovation.
Definitions — A Complex and Still Evolving Field

Besides the Greek philosopher, Plato (Laws12) and Napoleon (Charraud, 1992),
there is an extensive literature on the extent and distribution of self-reported and
recognised learning activities outside the formal sector (Andersson & Harris, 2006;
Combs et al., 1973; Duvekot et al., 2005; Van Kleef, 2006; Weil & McGill, 1989).
The definitions provided in these studies complement and/or compete with
each other and with those proposed by international organisations (EC, 2001;
EUROSTAT, 2006; OECD, 2007a; World Bank, 1974), which are the result of a
consensus, since they gather many countries around the table, all of which often
have a different approach to the question. In the international context, reaching
a consensus about the terms and concepts has proven to be rather difficult
and, therefore, definitions are published as formulated without leaving room
for these international organisations to exercise their usual editorial rights before
publication.
The idea that individuals acquire knowledge, skills and competences through-
out their lives and outside the formal education and training system is not new.
The concept of life wide learning, often used in conjunction with lifelong learning,
prevails in many studies and official documents. UNESCO (1972) is a good
example since the main concepts that are in use again 20 years later (UNESCO,
1996; OECD, 1996) were already present. The broad concept of life wide learning
and the increasingly accepted idea that ‘learning cannot be reduced to passive
reception of pieces of knowledge’ (Bjørnåvold, 2000) naturally lead to the
concept of learning outcome, as it no longer measures learning in terms of the
amount of input that enters the learning process (duration of learning typically,
but also context).
In the 1970s, planners and economists at the World Bank began to make a
distinction between non-formal and informal learning and formal education as a
response to the formal education system which was considered too slow to adapt
to the socio-economic changes of the time. The original definitions have changed
and are still not consensual. In this research and policy field, many terms are used
— recognition, validation or certification13, to name but a few — but it was only
recently that researchers, practitioners, policy-makers and even users felt the need
to clarify them. Until the last decade, the terms recognition, validation and certifi-
cation were almost synonymous and did not pose any specific problems at least not
in the domains of education and labour (Charraud, 1999). Not surprisingly, their
meaning became an issue when countries started to pass bills and draft laws and
adopt legislative frameworks describing the technical and institutional arrange-
ments required for recognising, validating and certifying what people know and
can do regardless of how they acquired these skills and competences or this
knowledge. The pressure to clarify the terminology also came from the users,
researchers, practitioners and individuals, because they all felt the need to better
communicate in an area where the vocabulary was unclear and, worse still, not

Patrick Werquin 471
shared within and between countries. Again, the role of international organisations
in this endeavour has been quite significant. This has resulted in the expected
overlapping of meanings which has often led to some confusion in this field. The
first set of concepts has to do with the notion of learning. Here, there are many
different terms, the most frequently used being formal, non-formal and informal
learning, used together or separately according to the circumstances; prior learn-
ing, which seems to have lost its initial broad meaning to become a synonym for
non-formal and informal learning; experience or prior/previous experience (the
latter used in a pleonastic way in this context); or even skills and competences
because they are not always and necessarily recognised in a qualification. Prior
knowledge is another alternative that has less currency because it does not make
much sense.To focus on formal, non-formal and informal learning, all three terms
have different definitions (see Table II for a summary of the recent/important
ones) and there seems to be no consensus except perhaps for the definition of
informal learning.
From the literature, it seems that there is no such thing as three modes of
learning but, rather, a continuum of learning, which goes from very formal
(formal learning) to not formal at all (informal learning); non-formal learning
being the intermediary position, with the least consensual definition. In short, so
far, formal learning is organised, has learning objectives and is intentional. Infor-
mal learning is not organised, has no learning objectives and is not intentional.
In between, it seems clear that non-formal learning is organised but it could have
learning objectives or not and be intentional or not. Often, it is additional con-
ditions, such as duration and certification, which make the difference. As can be
seen in Table III, there are instances where formal and non-formal learning are
relatively similar. The last two columns appear in italics because some countries
or authors refer to duration of the learning period or to the awarding of a
certificate/qualification at the end to decide on the form of learning. But those
arguments are not totally convincing because if all or part of non-formal and
informal learning are recognised in the future, it will not be possible to continue
using this approach in their definitions. In this context, the three other columns
seem more relevant.
It is important to note that formal and non-formal and informal learning may
be different modes of learning but that the knowledge, skills and competences
acquired are the same. All is a question of context, objectives and settings, even if,
as pointed out by West (2007), some modes of learning are more conducive to
certain subject matters than others. It makes sense to differentiate the different
modes of learning, but it leads to the same competence and knowledge that cannot
be separated: that is why some countries would rather talk about acquired
competences.
This article does not want to remain inclusive and leave the debate too open in
the short run. Therefore, on the basis of the many existing definitions, there must
be a way to avoid overlap. It is therefore suggested to use the following approaches
and the definitions provided in Table IV.
First, all the references to whether learning leads to a certification or not would
be dropped, as they prevent one from continuing to use the terms if/when different
forms of learning are recognised. Second, no reference would be made to whether
the learning is happening in the workplace, in an education and training institution
or elsewhere, which is in line with the pressure for expansion in what counts as

472
Table II. Keywords for Recent Definitions from the Literature

Formal Informal Non-Formal
Coombs et al. (1973) Formal Education: in the initial Informal Education: true lifelong Non-Formal Education: organised
education and training system learning process, daily experience but outside the formal sector; serve
(friends, neighbours etc.) identifiable clientele and has learning
objectives
ISCED 97 Formal Education: in the initial Informal Learning is intentional, but Non-Formal Education: Organised
education and training system, under it is less organised and less and sustained; all ages; within and
20–25 . . . structured . . . outside education institutions;
education programmes for adults
(literacy . . .)
EC (2000) Formal Learning: in education and Informal Learning: from everyday Non-Formal Learning: alongside
training institutions and leads to a situation; not necessarily intentional mainstream system of education; does
qualification not lead to a qualification
CEDEFOP (2005) Planned and intentional learning Not planned and non-intentional Planned and intentional activities, no
activities learning activities learning objective
EUROSTAT (2000 and 2006) Taken from ISCED 97 Informal Learning: intentional, less Taken from ISCED 97
organised, less structured than formal
learning
OECD (2007a) Formal Learning: in and educational Informal Learning: from daily work, Non-Formal Learning: programmed
institution, adult training centre or in family or leisure activities. Not but not assessed and does not lead to
the workplace organised or structured. Unintentional a qualification; intentional
CEDEFOP (2008) Formal Learning: in a school, a Informal Learning: from daily work, Non-Formal Learning: planned
training centre or on the job family or leisure activities. Not activities but no learning objectives;
organised or structured. Unintentional intentional
Source: proposed by the author.

Patrick Werquin 473
Table III. Synopsis of the Different Approaches

Organised Learning Intentional Duration Leads to a
Objectives Qualification
Formal Learning Yes Yes Yes Rather long Yes1

and/or full-time
Non-formal Learning Yes Yes or No Yes or No Rather short, No2
or part-time
Informal Learning No No No NA No
Notes:
1. ‘Almost always’ would be more accurate.
2. ‘Usually no’ would be more accurate.
formal learning (West, 2007). Third, the duration of the learning, which is impos-
sible to measure in most cases, would also be dropped. Therefore, only two
components would be used to define the mode of learning:
• Whether the learning is intentional; or whether it happens as a side effect;

and
• Whether the activity, whatever it may be, has [a] learning objective(s) or not.
In short, it is proposed to remove uncertainty by using the four cells of a

cross-tabulation where only two entries would be used: learning objectives and
intentionality. In other words, it is proposed to explicitly acknowledge that indi-
viduals learn all the time and everywhere but this may happen during activities that
have explicit learning objectives or not and with individuals being aware that they
are learning or not.
The novelty of this proposition is obviously the creation of a fourth mode of
learning: semi-formal learning. What is also rather new is that the four modes of
learning are mutually exclusive. Semi-formal learning seems to be an interesting
concept, as it is quite frequent. It has been identified thanks to the recognition
processes that many countries have set in motion: individuals often learn beyond any
given initial learning objectives and this mode of learning does not appear clearly
enough with the three usual categories that are formal, non-formal and informal
learning. Individuals learn about themselves, about team work, about behaving in
groups, whether heterogeneous or homogeneous . . . The concept of semi-formal
learning is close to that of informal learning but it is happening in the context of
a formal learning activity and this is its value; it adds a great deal to the notion of
informal learning that is very broad.
Finally, it may prove appropriate to move away from trying to give names to the
different modes of learning and, instead, use neutral ones such as Type I, II, III and
IV learning (see Table V). Another way of simplifying the vocabulary would be to
call these three concepts ‘learning that is not formal’.
In conclusion, this is definitely work in progress and much remains to be done;
especially with quantitative data to assess the relevance of some of the concepts. A
conclusion may well be that only one distinction is useful: between formal learning
and all the other modes of learning that would not be formal.

474
Table IV. Synopsis of the Different Approaches

Organised Learning Intentional Context Duration Leads to a
Objectives Qualification
Formal Learning Yes Yes Yes Education and Rather long and/or Yes1
(explicit learning training system or full-time
activities) the workplace
Non-formal Yes No Yes Education and Rather short, or No2
Learning (but not designated training system or part-time

as learning the workplace
activities)
Informal Learning No No No Every where all the NA No2
time
Semi-formal No Yes No Alongside explicit NA No2
Learning (because alongside learning activities
activities with learning
objectives)
Notes:
1. ‘Almost always’ would be more accurate.
2. ‘Usually no’ would be more accurate.

Patrick Werquin 475
Table V. Proposed New Definitions
There is intention to learn: Yes: Learning is intentional No: Learning is not

The activity is planned as intentional
a learning activity:
Yes: The activity has [a] Formal Learning (Type I Semi-formal Learning (Type
learning objective(s) Learning) III Learning)
No: The activity does not Non-formal Learning (Type Informal Learning (Type IV
have [a] learning II Learning) Learning)
objective(s)
Most Frequently Quoted Objectives for Recognition of Non-Formal and

Informal Learning Systems — A Wish List?
In short, recognition of non-formal and informal learning seems to have the
potential to provide applicants with qualifications that may have a double
currency: in the labour market and in the lifelong learning system. However, as
sometimes mistakenly thought, it seems rather obvious that recognising non-
formal and informal learning does not create the skills and competences being
recognised. It just makes them visible; even if the case could sometimes be made
that raising awareness of someone’s skills has a strong impact on the use s/he may
make of them.
The list of benefits that could arise from setting in motion recognition of
non-formal and informal learning systems is quite long and the benefits are of
unequal importance and value for users. Nevertheless, it seems that the following
list of not necessarily mutually exclusive benefits could be proposed:
— Recognition of non-formal and informal learning makes skills and knowl-

edge visible. This is a fact. For successful applicants, recognition pro-
grammes lead to the awarding of a qualification.
— As a consequence of the previous point, recognition of non-formal and
informal learning may help to spot the gaps in existing skills, at a country
or enterprise level. Therefore it is a tool for planning training and learning
activities.
— It is often argued that recognition of non-formal and informal learning
improves applicants’ self-esteem, as they become aware that they do have
knowledge and skills. It may increase their confidence and productivity, as
well as trust in others, in the enterprise, the family or the community.
— It mechanically improves the qualification distribution of a population
since successful applicants are awarded a qualification for what they know
or can do; whether this impact is significant in terms of size remains to be
proven.
— Recognising what people already know or can do avoids their having to
start from scratch when they undertake learning activities and therefore it
could promote lifelong learning. By the same token, it may facilitate a
more tailored approach to the development of training and learning paths
for individuals. That may lead to more effective training expenditure.

— Recognition of non-formal and informal learning improves the employ-

ability of job seekers and the perspectives of mobility for job owners
because many labour markets use qualifications as a proxy for skills,
knowledge and competences, since they are observable and skills are not.
In addition, qualifications are often well-known constructs and are there-
fore rather transparent in terms of being trustworthy or not; and employers
are risk averse when recruiting new workers.
— Recognition of non-formal and informal learning techniques is often used
to reduce the studying time required to be awarded a qualification in the
formal system. Often, these exemptions are used as entry routes into the
tertiary education system.
Most of the benefits above arise from this new visibility. However, the issue remains
whether they are great enough compared to the cost in terms of time and money
of documenting individuals skills. This cost is often presented as low for the
applicant and for the system (information and guidance officers, employers, assess-
ment panel, awarding institutions, governments), but it may not always be the case.
The rest of this section proposes a model for assessing the cost effectiveness of
recognition programmes.The fact is that there is a major alternative to recognition
of non-formal and informal learning: sending people on training leading to a
qualification! In both cases, after a recognition programme or after a period of
training, the individual would obtain a qualification.
Evidence and a Possible Model for Analysing Needs for Recognition

Programmes — A Long Way to Go
Most of the arguments above aiming at providing a credible rationale for recog-
nition programmes remain to be substantiated (see OECD, 2004b, for a review of
pros and cons and existing arrangements) even if there are good reasons to believe
that many of them are valid in the long run. Because recognition of non-formal and
informal learning does not create skills, a policy for creating skills may not rely
solely on recognition programmes. Rather, they should use them as an initial step
to identify skills gaps and to promote lifelong learning, especially amongst poten-
tial adult learners. To this extent, training and recognition could either be in
competition or complementary. For a country, or any other entity such as an
enterprise, to consider setting recognition programmes in motion for non-formal
and informal learning, at least three assumptions need to be made:
H1: [There are reasons to believe that] individuals have skills, knowledge and
competences that are not already recognised and validated in a qualification;
from the formal lifelong learning system for instance.
H2: These skills and competences and this knowledge have value either for
the individual, for family, employers, for the economy or society.
H3: These skills and competences and this knowledge that are not yet
recognised can be [technically] assessed.
H3 can be rewritten as:

Patrick Werquin 477
H’3: The cost of recognition of non-formal and informal learning remains

reasonable and is a function of the value of the qualification awarded.
In short, the first three hypotheses mean that there is no point in recognising what
people know or can do if such skills are not present, if they have no value or if it
is impossible to assess them — at least at an affordable cost.
The first assumption also means that individuals must not be too young —
beyond compulsory education of maybe upper secondary education seems to be a
reasonable threshold — as it is difficult to seriously believe that they received a
great deal of learning outside the formal education and training system at an early
stage; or at least that it is not worth investing in identifying and documenting these
skills and competences that are likely to be marginal compared to those already
certified by the formal system. The cost may be too high for the expected benefits
for most young people, unless maybe for early dropouts or other unqualified
people who have had a great deal of learning but could not get any of it certified.
The second assumption also implies that great attention needs to be paid to the
outcomes of any kind of recognition, validation and certification programme for
non-formal and informal learning. A typical outcome could be a qualification and
could allow people to communicate their knowledge, skills and competences to the
wider world.
The third assumption also means that there is no point in saying that an
individual has skills, knowledge or competences if there is no way to assess them;
or if it is too expensive, as rewritten in H’3. The standards against which these are
assessed are also key elements of the recognition process.
The last hypothesis H’3 is a more pragmatic assumption than H3 and it
allows for further elaboration. H’3 means that there is no point in recognising
what people know or can do if it is too expensive. The question therefore is what
is meant by ‘too expensive’. The idea is that recognition programmes must be
reasonably affordable so that the cost of achieving a qualification through a
recognition of non-formal and informal learning programme is not higher than
the cost of sending the individual on a regular course in the formal lifelong
learning system (in the education and training formal system or on the job for
example). The opinion that direct costs associated with further learning activi-
ties could be systematically lower in all circumstances thanks to the recognition
of non-formal and informal learning remains to be proven and will be addressed
in the next section.
As Figure 1 shows, the marginal cost of recognition programmes globally
increases with the number of applicants. The marginal cost is the cost for each
additional individual going through a recognition programme. The figure suggests
that the cost increases because it is assumed that the first individuals to enter a
recognition programme are highly motivated, well taken care of by the information
and guidance officers and have non-formal and informal learning experiences that
are easy to recognise. In fact, it suggests that the cost for the very first individual
is slightly higher than the minimal cost because the system needs some practice to
reach full speed and be cost effective. In short, the marginal cost of recognition
programme is equal to Ci (ni = 1) for the first individual, then goes down for a little
while because the system gradually improves and becomes more and more efficient
until it reaches Cm and takes care of nm applicants. It then starts to increase because
it becomes more and more difficult to find applicants who have previously

Marginal Cost
Cost of training
Cost of RNFIL
C
Ci
Cm
ni nm nk n nl
Figure 1. Recognition vs. Training.

- X-axis: N: number of individuals on training or in a recognition programme
- Y-axis: Cost for each additional individual, going on training or through a recognition programme
Main tags on X-axis:

- ni: number if individuals when RNFIL are set in motion (initial cost)
- nm: number of individuals when cost of RNFIL is minimal (Cm, when the system is most effective)
- nk: example of a number of individuals for which the cost of recognition is less than the cost of training
- n: number of individuals where cost of organising RNFIL is equal to cost of sending individuals on
training
- nl: number of individuals when cost of RNFIL has rocketed to the sky because all the people for which
documenting skills is easy have been through a RNFIL programme already and only the difficult cases are
left. At this stage, training is comparatively cheap because if a high number of individuals are on training,
the marginal cost of training is low (close, but not necessarily equal to Ce)
Main tags on Y-axis:

- Ci: initial marginal cost when recognition programmes are initially set in motion
- Cm: minimum marginal cost for recognition of non-formal and informal learning
- C: marginal cost where an additional applicant in a recognition programme costs the same as an
additional trainee.
acquired skills, knowledge and competences that are easy to document and evi-
dence.
Figure 1 also suggests that the marginal cost of training decreases with the
number of trainees because what is expensive is to set up the programme. When
initial expenditure (facilities, trainers, learning documents and their preparation,
practice material . . .) is given, the cost of each additional trainee is likely to be
lower (facilities already paid, trainers already there, documents already prepared)
and consists only of learning documents and practice material.
In short, each new trainee entering a training course benefits from return to
scale as there was an initial investment made for those who are already taking the
course or took it. Each new applicant to a recognition programme hardly benefits
from return to scale: the full documenting process has to be done from scratch,
involving time and money.

Patrick Werquin 479
It is claimed here that the marginal cost (cost for each additional individual) is
a more interesting concept than the average cost (total cost divided by the number
of individuals). The latter systematically decreases with each additional individual
but may remain high in both cases — recognition or training — and does not
sufficiently inform about the real variable of interest: the cost of each additional
individual.
Figure 1 suggests that there is a number of individuals interested either in
training and/or in a recognition programme for which the marginal costs of
training and recognition are equal: n. Whenever the number of individuals is less
than n (nk for instance), then training is more expensive and therefore recognition
of non-formal and informal learning more cost effective and, on the contrary, when
the number of individuals is greater than n (nl for instance), then it is less expensive
to send people on training. The situation with n applicants at a cost of Cn is key to
policy-makers as it is indifferent whether one sends people on a recognition
programme or on training. If there are fewer individuals, recognition of non-formal
and informal learning is a better option from a cost point of view.The real difficulty
is therefore to calculate C or/and n in each practical case that countries or
enterprises are dealing with. It seems obvious that this general model should be
adapted for each skill or category of skills. This is because the costs of training or
recognition are highly dependent on the type of skills.The comparison between the
cost of training and the cost of recognition — and therefore the value of n — will
be highly dependent on the type of skills under consideration. In any case, the
model suggests that all individuals should be sent to training rather than recogni-
tion from n + 1 on.
An interesting feature of the model is that it clearly shows how infrastructure
costs that recognition programmes initially incur and that are sometimes/often
initially subsidised by public finances can be decisive by lowering marginal costs or
recognition programmes. Figure 2 shows that more individuals (n’ > n) can be
oriented towards recognition rather than training if recognition programmes are
subsidised; the additional number of acceptable applicants is given by n’-n.
The model may also show that initiating recognition programmes may not be
worthwhile in some instances: pilot programmes may show that the cost of
documenting skills in some instances is higher than the cost of training. When
numbers are available and, again, they heavily depend on the context and the
learning outcomes targeted, the model may prove an interesting tool for
decision-makers. It questions the assumption usually made and barely ques-
tioned that, in the case of recognition of non-formal and informal learning, there
is a cost that comes from the time and effort it takes to document someone’s
skills. It may not be that cheap and — but this would require further develop-
ments — may be highly inequitable since highly-qualified people already have
CVs and have carefully stored work contracts and payrolls as well as documents
that prove the claim they are making about their skills. The Matthew effect that
is largely documented in the field of adult learning may also be an issue in the
field of recognition of non-formal and informal learning. The model proposed
above deals with this issue by comparing incorporating the time for documenting
her/his own skills in the model.
Another advantage of this model is that it does not address the problem of
whether it is suitable to organise recognition programmes by comparing costs and
benefits; which often fails in taking into account the time horizon. In comparing

Marginal Cost
Cost of training
Cost of RNFIL
without subsidy
Cost of RNFL
with subsidy
C
C’
Ci
Cm
C’i
n'-n
C’m
N
ni nm nk n n’ nl
Figure 2. Recognition vs. Training.

Main new tag on X-axis:
- n’: number of individuals where cost of organising RNFIL is equal to cost of sending individuals on
training when recognition programme are subsidised
Main new tags on Y-axis:

- C’i: initial marginal cost when recognition programme are initially set in motion, in the presence of
subsidies
- C’m: minimum marginal cost for recognition of non-formal and informal learning, in the presence of
subsidies
- C’: marginal cost where an additional applicant in a recognition programme costs the same as an
additional trainee, in the presence of subsidy.
the cost of recognition vs. the cost of training, the role of the remaining period of
time over which recognition or learning will deliver benefits is the same and is
therefore neutralised. It is an issue in both cases, as investing in a qualification pays
off for a longer period of time when individuals are young but it does not impact
on the choice of training vs. recognition.
This model deals with the direct cost of recognition of non-formal and
informal learning compared to the direct cost of learning in the formal lifelong
learning system. A natural question is therefore whether opportunity costs
could radically change this model. In a way, it is assumed here that opportunity
costs in terms of forgone earnings and time lost for leisure and other personal
activities while documenting one’s skills or while learning are the same, both
processes being rather time consuming; even if, to justify setting in motion
recognition programmes, it is often said that documenting skills is less time
consuming.
Opening Up
Qualifications frameworks and recognition programmes are clearly interesting
mechanisms for the promotion of lifelong learning.They are both recent and some

Patrick Werquin 481
of their drawbacks may not even be known yet. Qualifications frameworks seem on
the right track even if international ones may not be operational for a long time. It
will probably be harder for recognition programmes to prove useful for all the
reasons stated above; mainly because major issues or drivers such as cost and
individual motivation may have been wrongly estimated. They may lead to unex-
pected behaviour such as a loss in commitment to formal learning programmes.
The shift from learning to assessment will not go without damage and this will have
to be monitored closely. Finally, recognition of non-formal and informal learning
requires standards and learning outcomes to be defined (against which the learn-
ing can be assessed) and agreement is needed on assessment techniques, recogni-
tion methods and portability of credits. All this will need time in a field that is
constantly evolving. Even in the pioneering countries such as France, this is taking
time and the difficulties seem to be great.
It is well-known and widely accepted that education and training, and lifelong
learning more generally, are fields where reforms are very difficult to implement. It
will therefore be interesting to see whether national qualifications systems — and
all the possible mechanisms identified here and elsewhere — are successful in
moving these mountains.
NOTES
1. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the ones of the OECD Secretariat or its members’
economies.
The author would like to thank Mike Coles for his major contribution to
some of the arguments developed in the first part of the article.
The author would also like to thank Anne-Marie Charraud, Christina Keyes,
Jean Gordon and John West for their comments on earlier drafts.
2. European Qualifications Framework, European Credit in Vocational Educa-
tion and Training, European Credit Transfer System respectively.
3. Australia, Belgium (Flanders and Walloon), Czech Republic, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
and the UK.
4. Showing that these two mechanisms in particular are very high on many
countries’ agenda: Australia, Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Canada, Chile,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Korea, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, South
Africa, Spain, Switzerland and the UK.
5. Even if they remain self-explanatory, the names of the mechanisms are kept
short for brevity’s sake.
6. See ETF (2006) or Coles (2007) for a review.
7. The question of whether there is mobility or not in Europe will not be
addressed here but it seems that the situation in the European Union has not
evolved much in the last 10 years.The debate that has been going on since the
mid-90s is about whether mechanisms are put in place to cope with and
support a real need because mobility exists or to help create a situation where
it can develop in the future. National qualifications frameworks need huge
investments over a long period and one could ask whether it is worth it if the

demand is not there — see Ward (2007) for a study on mobility in

Europe.
8. From a conceptual point of view, this part is interesting because, even if most
curricula until recently were defined in terms of input, the awarding of a
qualification has more or less always been based on the capacity of the
applicant to achieve learning outcome to a given standard — whether by
written examination or practical case — but this will not be developed here.
9. See Coles and Werquin (2007b) for the case of the VET system.
10. However, countries like the US, may not be in it as it may be perceived as
bringing too much regulation.
11. The question of whether ISCED 97 is based on learning outcomes (compe-
tences) is at the heart of this competition.
12. ‘. . . whether they are slaves or freemen makes no difference; they acquire
their knowledge of medicine by obeying and observing their masters; empiri-
cally and not according to the natural way of learning, as the manner of
freemen is, who have learned scientifically themselves the art which they
impart scientifically to their pupils. You are aware that there are these two
classes of doctors?’ (Plato, Laws).
13. There is also accreditation, valorisation or valuation but they often remain valid
only in specific countries or regions.
REFERENCES
Andersson, P. & Harris, J. (Eds) (2006) Re-theorising the Recognition of Prior
Learning (NIACE).
Béduwé, C. & Planas, J. (2003) Educational Expansion and Labour Market: A
Comparative Study of Five European Countries — France, Germany, Italy, Spain
and the United Kingdom — with Special Reference to the United States.
CEDEFOP Research Series. (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities).
Bjørnåvold, J. (2000) Making Learning Visible: identification, assessment and recog-
nition of non-formal learning in Europe (CEDEFOP).
Bjørnåvold, J. (2007) The potential impact of the European Qualifications
Framework (EQF) on systems for validation of non-formal and informal
learning. Working Paper, CEDEFOP, June.
Bjørnåvold, J. & Coles, M. (2007) Governing education and training: the case
of qualifications frameworks, European Journal on Vocational Training,
forthcoming.
Blackmur, D. (2004) A critique of the concept of a national qualifications frame-
work, Quality in Higher Education, 10, No. 3.
Brown, L. B. (2003) International Models of Career-Technical Educations.Trends and
Issues Alert (ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education)
www.ericacve.org/pubs.asp
Charraud, A.-M. (1992) Vers une pluralité de références pour évaluer les compétences.
La validation des certifications en France (Memoire de DEA, Politiques sociales
et société, université Paris I Panthéon-La Sorbonne).
Charraud, A.-M. (1999) La validation des acquis professionnels, Éducations,
Revue des savoirs en éducation, n° 18–19, pp. 37–95.

Patrick Werquin 483
Charraud A.-M. (2006) La reconnaissance et la validation des acquis informels en

France. Working Paper, Commission Nationale de la Certification Profession-
nelle (CNCP), Paris, juillet.
Coles, M. (2007) Qualifications Frameworks in Europe: Platforms for Collaboration,
Integration and Reform. A paper for the Conference on ‘Making the European
Learning Area a Reality’, 3–5 June, Munich.
Coles, M. & Werquin, P. (2007a) The influence of qualifications frameworks on
the infrastructure of VET, in: R. Maclean & D. Wilson (Eds) International
Handbook of Technical and Vocational Education and Training (Spinger,
UNESCO-UNEVOC Book Series).
Coles, M. & Werquin, P. (2007b) National qualifications systems to modernise
VET systems, in: P. Descy & M. Tessaring (Eds) Modernising Vocational
Education and Training. Fourth Report on Vocational Training Research in Europe:
background report (Luxembourg, EUR-OP, CEDEFOP reference series)
(forthcoming).
Collar, D. (2006) The Currency of Qualifications in the UK Labour Market, QCA
Research Paper.
Coombs, P. H., Prosser, C. & Ahmed, M. (1973) New Paths to Learning for
Rural Children and Youth (New York, International Council for Educational
Development).
Duvekot, R., Schuur, K. & Paulusse, J. (Eds.) (2005) The Unfinished Story ofVPL
— Valuation and Validation of Prior Learning in Europe’s Learning Cultures
(Vught, Foundation EC-VPL, Kenniscentrum EVC).
Ec (European Commission) (2001) Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a
Reality, COM (2001) (Brussels, European Commission).
Etf (2006) A Review of International and National Developments in the Use of
qualifications Frameworks. A report prepared by M. Coles, Qualification and
Curriculum Authority Research Team.
Evans, K., Hodkinson, P. &. Unwin, L. (2002) Working to Learn: Transforming
Learning in the Workplace (London, Kogan Page).
Feinstein L., Galindo-Rueda, F. & Vignoles, A. (2004) The Labour Market
Impact of Adult Education and Training: A Cohort Analysis. Working Paper,
Centre for the Economics of Education, forthcoming in the Scottish Journal of
Political Economy.
Grootings, P. (2007) National Qualification Frameworks: A Strategic Approach
for Developing Comprehensive VET Reform Policies, European Training
Foundation (ETF), May.
Guile, D. & Griffiths, T. (2001) Learning through work experience, Journal of
Education and Work, 15, 3, pp. 113–131.
Gunning, D. (2000) The Development of a National System of Vocational Qualifica-
tions. A paper developed for UNESCO (The Scottish Qualifications
Authority).
Ijle (International Journal of Leadership in Education) (2004) Lifelong Learning:
A Simple Concept Oversimplifying a Complex Reality, Editorial, Vol. 23, 4,
pp. 315–317.
Ncver (National Centre for Vocational Education Research) (2003a) Defining
Generic Skills. www.ncver.edu.au/research/proj/nr2102b.pdf

Ncver (National Centre for Vocational Education Research) (2003b) Training and
Competitiveness: An Asian Firm Perspective www.ncver.edu.au/research/
commercial/op291.pdf
Nqai (National Qualifications Authority of Ireland) (2002) Towards a National
Framework of Qualifications — Establishment of Policies and Criteria, Document
Number: 2002/1, Dublin, April. www.nqai.ie
Oecd (2001) Education Policy Analysis (Paris, OECD).
Oecd (2003) Beyond Rhetoric: Adult Learning Policies and Practices (Paris, OECD).
Oecd (2004a) The Development and Use of Qualification Frameworks as a Means of
Reforming and Managing Qualifications Systems. Report of the Thematic Group
1 prepared by E. Mernagh, A. Murphy and T. Simota for the OECD activity
on ‘The role of national qualification system in promoting lifelong learning.’
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/39/33977045.pdf
Oecd (2004b) Standards and quality assurance in qualifications with special reference
to the recognition of non-formal and informal learning. Report of the Thematic
Group 1 prepared by J. Doyle for the OECD activity on The role of national
qualification system in promoting lifelong learning. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/
57/27/34376318.pdf
Oecd (2004c) Lifelong Learning, Policy Brief, (Paris, OECD).
Oecd (2005) Promoting Adult Learning (Paris, OECD).
Oecd (2007a) Qualifications Systems: Bridges to Lifelong Learning (Paris, OECD).
Oecd (2007b) Qualifications and Lifelong Learning, Policy Brief, (Paris, OECD).
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/2/38500491.pdf
Ottersten, E. K. (2004) Lifelong learning and challenges posed to European
labour markets, European Journal of Education, 39, No. 2.
Van Kleef, J. (2006) Building PLAR Through Theory: the case for implementing prior
learning assessment and recognition in adult practice settings. Master’s Thesis. St.
Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Svotia.
Ward, T. (2007) Modernising Vocational Education and Training: geographical
mobility, in: P. Descy & M. Tessaring (Eds) ModernisingVocational Education
and Training. Fourth Report onVocational Training Research in Europe: background
report (Luxembourg, EUR-OP (CEDEFOP reference series)) (forthcoming).
Weil, S.W. & McGill, I. (1989) Making Sense of Experimental Learning — Diver-
sity in Theory and Practice (The Society for Research into Higher Education,
Open University Press).
West, J. (2007) A Note on the Definitions of Formal, Non-formal and Informal
Learning. Unpublished working paper.
Young, M. (Ed) (2003) National Qualifications Frameworks, Special Issue of the
Journal of Education and Work, 16, No 3.

Moving Mountains: Will Qualifications Systems Promote Lifelong Learning?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moving Mountains: Will Qualifications Systems Promote Lifelong Learning?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Journal of Education, Vol. 42, No.

Moving Mountains: will qualifications systems

Qualifications Systems: one of the many ways of promoting lifelong

Identifying potential mechanisms has proven to be relatively straightforward.

Twenty Mechanisms to Support Lifelong Learning

— Communicating returns to learning for qualification

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

— Lowering cost of qualification

Qualifications frameworks are intended to contribute to making progression routes

How Mechanisms Support Policy Responses to the Lifelong Learning

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

— Increase flexibility and responsiveness

— Five highly-ranked strong mechanisms: Providing credit transfer; Optimising

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

and informal learning; Establishing a qualifications framework; and Creating

Qualifications Frameworks to Promote Lifelong Learning

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Improving co-ordination in the qualifications system are up to date

Source: OECD (2007).

Most Frequently Quoted Objectives for Qualifications Frameworks — A

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

remains tempting to say that national qualifications frameworks in a particularly

A Slow and Complex Process

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Recognition of Non-Formal and Informal Learning: a quest for evidence

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Definitions — A Complex and Still Evolving Field

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Table II. Keywords for Recent Definitions from the Literature

Source: proposed by the author.

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Table III. Synopsis of the Different Approaches

Formal Learning Yes Yes Yes Rather long Yes1

• Whether the learning is intentional; or whether it happens as a side effect;

In short, it is proposed to remove uncertainty by using the four cells of a

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Table IV. Synopsis of the Different Approaches

Learning (but not designated training system or part-time

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Table V. Proposed New Definitions

There is intention to learn: Yes: Learning is intentional No: Learning is not

Source: proposed by the author.

Most Frequently Quoted Objectives for Recognition of Non-Formal and

— Recognition of non-formal and informal learning makes skills and knowl-

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

— Recognition of non-formal and informal learning improves the employ-

Evidence and a Possible Model for Analysing Needs for Recognition

H3 can be rewritten as:

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

H’3: The cost of recognition of non-formal and informal learning remains

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Figure 1. Recognition vs. Training.

Main tags on X-axis:

Main tags on Y-axis:

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Figure 2. Recognition vs. Training.

Main new tags on Y-axis:

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.