Abstract:

Context and hypotheses:
Developing qualifications framework (QF) and improving the quality of teaching and learning in HE has been at the heart of the Bologna Process and their interaction continues to be of crucial importance for the modernization of HE institutions.
The challenge consists in analyzing how the tools conceived by EC for education, training and insertion on the labor market could work together and which is the role of each one in the overarching reform of HE.
Three years ago, QF which acts especially on education world, has been enriched by the ESCO taxonomy, by adding an essential third pillar regarding occupations so that to improve the match between HE and economic world for establishing the learning outcomes (LOs) for qualifications.
The main objective of our research is analyzing to what extent the duality of the tools QF and QA (Quality Assurance) contributes to the design and implementation of a modern and appropriate HE. QF and QA work as a dual mechanism in which QF is the “architect” and QA the “building evaluator”. Theoretically, the LOs for each study programme establish the targets of qualifications and QA ensures that these targets will be achieved in adequate conditions. We analyze how this theory works in practice and on long term, how an appropriate QA and the providing of necessary competences asked by new jobs lead to new targets in terms of LOs. Furthermore, we study how this duality leads to better skilled graduates and their easier insertion on labor market.
Another objective deals with establishing to what extent, after more than 10 years of improving quality and enhancing qualifications, the aim of QF to ensure transparency and of QA to ensure mutual trust are achieved. The trust in the frameworks is essential for the guarantee of comparability between awards issued by different bodies and parallelly for enhancing mobility of students and young workers.
The method used consists in the analysis of EC and Bologna regulations, EUA and CEDEFOP reports on QF and QA implementation in Bologna countries and in situ analysis based on interviews with stakeholders. We have done comparative analysis of NQFs based on referencing reports presented in the EC Advisory Group for EQF as well as on our previous research undertaken in European projects on the QF implementation in Romania and in other member states.

Results and conclusions:
Generally, European business welcomes the fact that QF, QA and ESCO tools express themselves in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes, rather than studies duration based input. In some cases, introducing QF as tool for improving dialogue universities - employers in defining LOs was not a success and did not have as result a better insertion on labor market, mainly because the EQF taxonomy does not belong to employers’ behavior. For defining quality and qualifications, one should consider the institution specificity and national context.
In many HE institutions, where QF and QA work together, LOs are well used for defining the curricula of study programs. This duality is sustained by the cooperation of National Qualifications Authorities and National Agencies for QA which work together for new study programs validation, QA Agencies applying in their methodologies the concepts and practices of EQF construct.
Despite the implementation of EC tools, qualifications delivered by universities should be flexible and adaptable so as not to stifle diversity, innovative teaching and creative research.

Keywords:

qualifications frameworks, quality assurance, ESCO taxonomy, higher education.