The process and results of the comparative analysis of the HQF and EQF levels

Summary ReportPrepared within the frame of priority project TÁMOP-4.1.3

in September 2014

CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary (3)II. The referencing process (6)III. Conclusions and recommendations (31)

PrefaceThis report summarises the results of the analytical process carried out within the frame of priority project TÁMOP-4.1.3 in August and September 2014. The analysis aimed at comparing the levels of the Hungarian Qualifications Framework (HuQF) to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and at referencing the levels of the two frameworks. This is one of the most important activity at the end of developing a national qualifications framework, before the results are submitted to the Advisory Board of the EQF.The scope of the analyses included the features of the two frameworks, and it did not extend to external social and application aspects. In other words, experst carried out a technical analysis, and verification of the results, debates with national stakeholders using the frameworks, as well as its social reconciliation shall be the task of the next period; the present summary report may lay the foundation to this.The analyses were carried out by an expert team of three memberswith a background in general education, VET and higher education respectively: Ágnes Narancsik, Kinga Szebeni and Pál Veress. In the past years they gained considerable experience in the development of their own sector’s qualification system, in the wording and evaluation of learning outcomes, and in the work related to qualification frameworks. The broader plan for the process, principles and practice from international work served as a basis for the expert team to elaborate the national methodology. It included the list of key analysis points for both the individual and the group work. Thorough discussion led to the agreement on the results which was put it into a final report. The internal coordination and the finalisation of the summary report were carried out by Kinga Szebeni. The report is divided into three parts. The Executive Summary briefly documents the activities and summarises the most important conclusions in a concise formThe second, relatively extensive part of the report gives a detailed and complete presentation of the referencing tasks and the conclusions. As part of it, results of the comparative analyses between the descriptor categories as well as the levels of the HuQF and EQF are described.The third part summarises the most important conclusions and the recommendations resulting therefrom. (We plan to process the considerable amount of accumulated background material of the analyses, and based on this to elaborate in detail the results

1

and conclusions to the political decision-makers and experts dealing with the development of the HuQF; however, this will be prepared only later.)Results of the referencing were presented to the international experts monitoring the development of the HuQf and the preparation of the Referencing Report during their visit to Budapest (Sept 2014).

Budapest, 30 September 2014

András Derényileading expert

Education Authority

Kinga SzebeniVET expert

Ministry for National Economy

Ágnes Narancsikpublic education expert

Education Authority

Pál Veressprofessor of economics, higher

education and higher vocational education expert

Education Authority

2

I. Executive Summary

In the design of the descriptor categories of the HuQF, two important features of the EQF, i.e. the hierarchic and cumulative nature of the level descriptions have been taken into consideration and this has been applied for the HuQF as well. This means that the HuQF is also hierarchic and cumulative, which means that the descriptors characterizing the lower levels are included in the competences at higher levels (and the descriptions are without repetitions), while the depth, scope and complexity of the above descriptor components always exceed the previous level.For the description of the competence elements, not only their definitions and interpretations, but also their development options have been developed.For the description of knowledge element and its development, the following aspects served as a starting point: the depth of knowledge (the amount of knowledge that a person has), the organisation of knowledge (the interrelations among the schemes), the scope of knowledge (how extended special field is covered by the scheme system), flexibility (how flexibly a person can use the person’s knowledge in different situations), formability (to what extent the knowledge structure can incorporate new information).Three aspects for the description of the levels of skills were used: motoric skills, field-general cognitive skills (mental operations about the declarative knowledge making the acts implemented in thinking more effective; which occur as the general features of thinking) and field-specific cognitive skills (which may range from the simple, automatically applied mental operations to the strategic operations that allow the efficient solution of the complex problems in a field).A multi-dimensional approach for the description of the attitude element has been applied, taking into account the emotional (affective; emotional reactions for the attitude object), mental (cognitive; the evaluation of the attitude object with the relevant information known) and behavioural (conative; behavioural intentions related to the attitude object) components based on the favourable or unfavourable evaluation, judgement of the attitude object.Regarding autonomy and responsibility, the relation between the individual and his/her social context and the participation therein is fundamental. Determining factors are the activity performed autonomously or with assistance or guidance, in cooperation or individually, controlling or being controlled. Descriptions indicates where the person is able to act independently and where he/she needs control or supervision, what the person takes responsibility for, and how the person participates in the activities happening in the social context.Regarding the hierarchical structure of the HuQF, it proved to be a key issue to provide clear disctinctions between level descriptors to differentiate the neighbouring levels. Developers of the HuQF endeavoured to describe levels clearly and to ensure that continuous development is reflected within the levels. Detailed instructions were elaborated in all the four descriptor categories to mirror the progression and construction at each level.A methodology of comparative analyses has been established to indetify the relation between the levels, strongly based on the content of the “Referencing Note” published by the European Commission. Its first step was to carry out the technical analysis. As part of the technical analysis, a conceptional analysis took place. Experts concluded that neither framework is a prescriptive tool, but both of them are descriptive, i.e. they do not serve the objective of regulating but of determining points of reference. In both frameworks statements are made to describe for the learning outcomes. The identities and differences of the learning outcome approaches of the EQF and HuQF have been analysed (see more in the Referencing Report). Regarding Knowledge and Skills, the analysis assessed an identical content base in the use of the two frameworks. The descriptor category of the HuQF named Attitudes is generally not part of the EQF; however, some references to them might be identified in the EQF learning outcomes.

3

Being a significant dimension of the learning process, Hungary decided to adopt attitudes in the descriptors of the HuQF. Thanks to this descriptor category, a more detailed and more complete description of the level and content of the learning outcome can be provided. The HuQF category named Autonomy and Responsibility does not show complete overlapping with the EQF category named Competences; however, the conceptual bases of the two subcategories, i.e. the autonomy of acting, ranging from the need of control, through independence, to the responsibility for management and leadership, can be considered identical. Furthermore, it was also assessed that the HuQF in general, similarly to other national frameworks, provides more detailed and concrete descriptions of the levels than the EQF. However, the concepts and terminology used by the HuQF are less consistent, as well as the definition of the competence elements cannot be considered complete in every case in the HuQF: consistent relating to the fields of work and study are missing from the HuQF. At the same time, though inconsistently, the HuQF relates the learning outcomes comprehensively, i.e. to the work, private life, social life, and social activities of the qualified person. The fact that some parts of the level description system (grid) of the HuQF are somewhat broadly formulated and that the aspects of the descriptions compared to the EQF show some differences did not endangere the comparison of the two frameworks. A structural comparative analysis as part of the technical analysis has also been carried out. Although both frameworks consist of eight levels, due to the difference between the approaches to learning outcomes, the EQF consists of three columns, whereas the HuQF consists of four columns. The aims of the two frameworks were also analysed, whose common points are the following: functioning as a tool of reference, lifelong learning, mobility for study and work purposes, and serving all stakeholders. However, the object of reference, i.e. what is intended to be referenced for proper information supply is different. The HuQF helps the assessment of the levels of the state-recognised, specific qualifications that can be obtained in Hungary, whereas the EQF is used in an international context and it serves as the tool of referencing among the different national qualification systems thus it indirectly contributes to making the competence levels characterizing the specific qualifications of the different countries transparent and comparable. Both frameworks have a cumulative nature, and levels are constructed hierarchically: the principle is that each level should include the features of the lower level, and that each level should include an extra challenge, a development stage or an added value interpreted as learning outcome compared to the previous level. Neither the EQF, nor the HuQF systematizes the learning outcome types divided into three or four parts at the levels, and they do not present the relations among the dimensions of knowledge-skills-(attitude-) autonomy and responsibility either. Regarding Level 1 of the HuQF, it should be mentioned that the Hungarian Qualifications System presently does not offer a state-recognized qualification based on a standardised examination and quality assured assessment at this level. At this level the completed level of education for reference should be the primary school certificate of completed Grade 6 issued in general education, which definitely means the end of the general, in other words grounding phase of the education system, i.e. it certifies the acquisition of key competences and general knowledge.The content-based semantic-textual comparison of the level descriptors of the two frameworks has also been performed. In this phase, each descriptor was analysed and compared separately and together as well. The most important conclusions drawn from the analysis are the following:

- Compared to the EQF, the HuQF expects autonomy, creativity, innovative skills, the skill for re-arranging the acquired knowledge schemes and using them in new conditions, as well as the knowledge, autonomy, responsibility and attitudes required for this at an earlier level;- Compared to the EQF, the HuQF expects the knowledge of abstract concepts and the skill for abstraction at an earlier level;

4

- However, the EQF describes skills, preparedness and responsibility for strategic-managerial tasks in a significantly more explicit way, whereas these appear in the HuQF in a less elaborated form. - The HuQF expects peer-to-peer co-operation and independent task execution more dominantly at higher levels as well.

Based on the above findings, experts concluded that the first three HuQF levels describe learning outcomes on higher levels than the first three EQF levels do. It seemed obvious that Level 4 was identical. For these levels, for the proper underpinning of the match, experts also performed a so called level referencing counter-verification: they analysed the referencing of each HuQF level to the EQF level which is directly below and above it item by item. Counter-verification only partly proved the results of the primary analysis. Semantic equivalence could only be indetified with absolute certainty between Level 2 of the HuQF and Level 3 of the EQF. Referencing between Level 1 of the HuQF and Level 2 of the EQF, as well as Level 3 of the HuQF and Level 4 of the EQF resulted only in partial match, but it showed significant differences as well. The opposite was the case with elements of the learning outcomes at Levels 5 and 6: the semantic comparison revealed that descriptors of the HuQF did not refer explicitly to the same learning outcomes elements on the respective levels of the EQF. Considering the above findings, Levels 5 and 6 of the HuQF provide more evidence for the identity of these levels, and experts concluded an overall match of the levels by using the best-fit principle. However, regarding Level 6 experts would like to see more precise descriptions in the future to provide a basis for a more confident referencing. The match between Levels 7 and 8 has been evidenced. Based on the primary comparisons and counter-verifications, only analysing the occurrences and identities of the expressions and their semantic equivalence, the following final conclusion can be drawn from referencing the levels of the HuQF to the EQF:

Illustration 1: Referencing levels of HuQF to those of EQF

5

The semantic comparison is only one element of the analyses for referencing. Experts recommended that an analysis from social aspects should be prepared, also involving policy-related aspects.

The experts’ analysis above has been compared with the results of the linking (see chapter III.7) and a discussion amongst policy-makers took place. Although this exercise did not bring any changes on levels 4-8, it showed different results for levels 1-3. Primary education qualification has been linked to HuQF level 2 with the notice that the level suggestion is based on regulatory documents, while the referencing analysis of HuQF and EQF showed that HuQF level 2 and 3 in terms of description categories in knowledge and competences are slightly above EQF level 2 and 3 respectively. The policy decision supported that although the levels’ descriptions do not indicate full semantic congruity, the HuQF levels 2 and 3 should be referenced to EQF level 2 and 3 due to the fact that the regulatory documents over-estimate the average expected learning outcomes. Average requirements – knowledge and competences/skills – determined in documents are not reflected in actual students’ performance measured by national competence assessment and international testing like PISA, PIRLS, TIMMS and others. The findings related to the inconsistency between regulatory documents and real student achievement including reviews of curricula is planned to be dealt with in general education in the future.  

II. The referencing process

An expert team of three members was requested to carry out the technical analysis required for referencing the Hungarian Qualifications Framework to the European Qualifications Framework. The experts represented the fields of general education, higher education as well as VET and adult education. Regarding the professional background, the team provided research and development and teaching background, as well as expertise in public administration. In addition to the above, each expert participated in the development process of the HuQF related to the qualifications being relevant to his/her field. The experts determined the methodology of analysis together. The task of referencing is included in Point 2 of the EQF Recommendation: „member states relate their national qualifications frameworks to the European Qualifications Framework by 2010, in particular by referencing, in a transparent manner, their qualification levels set out in Annex II, and, where appropriate, by developing national qualifications frameworks in accordance with their national legislation and practice”. For a uniform implementation, the Advisory Group of the EQF summarised the principles and criteria for the referencing procedure in 10 points. This guiding document includes a detailed explanation for the implementation of each of the 10 points, and is supplemented with the best practices of the member states that have already successfully fulfilled the task of referencing (EQF Note 5: Referencing National Qualifications levels to the EQF). The Referencing Note is regularly updated by the European Commission therefore the Hungarian experts used the version revised in 2013 for the work.In compliance with international practice, the referencing process was based on the following analytical aspects:

1. structural analysis – its aim is to compare the structures and architectures of the two frameworks, as well as to analyse the common and different points of the aims of the two frameworks

2. conceptual analysis – analysis of the concept of learning outcomes, comparison of the learning outcome approach of the national qualifications

6

framework to that of the EQF, explanation of the contents of national descriptor categories, description of the differences and identities in the definitions

3. linguistic analysis – it is also called a semantic analysis, during which words and expressions which are identical or have identical meanings, as well as identical terminology is searched and referenced in the two frameworks.

Firstly the expert team elaborated a detailed methodological guide and a template, in which individual analyses were prepared. In every case, the comparison was based on the table included in Annex 2 to the no. 1229/2012 Government Decree, and the table included in Annex II to the Recommendation of the European Parliament and Council (23 April 2008) on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning. During the analysis, the experts used the official Hungarian translation of the EQF Recommendation as a starting point, however, they agreed that in the case of contradictions and inaccuracies the English version should be analysed as the translation might disregard professionally important distinctions.

II.1 The detailed process and result of structural analysis

The primary aim of structural analysis is to compare the structures and architectures of the two frameworks. As indicated in the Referencing Report, the structure and theoretical bases of the EQF were significantly taken into consideration in the elaboration of the Hungarian framework, and the EQF served as a reference for the design of the HuQF during the whole development process. However, as an independent policy tool, the HuQF became slightly different from the EQF regarding its concept, function and conceptual system and was adapted to the features of the Hungarian qualification system. Finally, these differences did not lead to a different number of levels as both frameworks consist of eight levels. However, linguistic analysis showed that these cannot be automatically referenced to one another. The Referencing Report tells the history, aspects and main decision points of the establishment of the descriptor categories. The Hungarian experts used the competence approach widely used by the representatives of educational sciences, cognitive sciences and psychology, i.e. the approach of the integrated display of knowledge – skills – attitudes and these were used as the description categories of the HuQF (similarly to the approach used in the recommendation of the EU on the key competences required for lifelong learning). Nevertheless, influenced by the EQF, HuQF kept the aspects of the EQF category named “Competence”, and this important feature of actions performed with competence is described the fourth category of the HuQF named “Autonomy and Responsibility”. Thus the HuQF became a four-column structure framework. The partially different standardization of learning outcomes in the two documents (three- or four-part division) makes comparison more difficult on the one hand and easier on the other hand. It makes comparison more difficult in that there are concepts in the two frameworks that do not overlap. Nevertheless, it makes comparison easier as the four-part division fundamentally allows for a more sophisticated description of learning outcomes in the HuQF. It is an important difference that while the EQF Recommendation gives a definition for the interpretation of the different categories (though this is not consistent in the category of “Competence”), the official version of the HuQF published in

7

a government decree does not include this. The scope and content of the descriptive categories can be found in the studies laying a foundation to the establishment of the HuQF, and they give scientifically grounded and detailed explanations on each of the categories. The cumulative nature is identical in the operation of both frameworks, which means that they have a hierarchic structure based on the principle that each level should include an extra challenge, development stage or added value interpreted as learning outcome compared to the previous level, and that each level should include the features of lower levels. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in the case of the HuQF wording does not give certainty in every case, what is more, it produces contradictions in the HuQF at some places.

II.2 The detailed process and result of conceptual analysis

Both frameworks describe the so called learning outcomes with the use of level descriptors. Learning outcomes means statements “of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do on the completion of a learning process” as defined by the EQF Recommendation. A similar definition or interpretation would be needed in the HuQF as well. The aim of the second analytical task of referencing is to analyse the concept of learning outcomes, to compare the learning outcome approach of the the national qualifications framework and that of the EQF, to compare the contents of descriptor categories, and to identify similarities and differences. It was already presented in the previous point how and in which categories competence is described by the HuQF. It should be noted that interpretation and use is more difficult as either the EQF or the HuQF does not systemise the three or four-part learning outcome types at the levels, thus the correlation among knowledge - skills - attitudes – autonomy and responsibility remains unclear, which is typically an important organising principle in the construction and operation of competences. Regarding this, the HuQF has a co-ordinative and taxonomic nature. Results of the comparison between the four Hungarian descriptive categories and the three EQF descriptive categories are presented below.

The result of referencing the categories:The EQF gives the following definition for the KNOWLEDGE category (in Annex I): „knowledge means the outcome of the assimilation of information through learning. Knowledge is the body of facts, principles, theories and practices that is related to a field of work or study. In the context of the European Qualifications Framework, knowledge is described as theoretical and/or factual”. By analysing the level descriptors, it can also be stated that the EQF makes a distinction according to the broad or specialised nature of knowledge. In addition to the knowledge of facts, the HuQF puts an emphasis on the understanding of correlations, whereas the EQF defines the so called theoretical knowledge which not only includes facts but the understanding of theories as well. EQF describes knowledge with regard to depth, organisation, scope, flexibility and plasticity. Somewhat inconsistently, but the HuQF relates knowledge to a field of study, work, specialisation or learning, whereas the EQF only defines a field of work or study. The knowledge which is out of the context of work or concerns entrepreneurship is excluded from the EQF. In summary, the two categories with the above features can be referenced to each other.

8

Skills in the EQF “means the ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve problems. In the context of the European Qualifications Framework, skills are described as cognitive (involving the use of logical, intuitive and creative thinking) or practical (involving manual dexterity and the use of methods, materials, tools, and instruments).” The EQF typically relates them to a field of work or study. It makes distinctions according to novelty, predictability, complexity, and specialisation. The HuQF presents Skills as a unity of three “skill elements”: motor skills manifested in activities, domain-specific cognitive skills and domain-general cognitive abilities that are usually typical of thinking. It makes distinctions for skills according to the level of routines, novelty, predictability, complexity, and how familiar the context is. The HuQF gives a more detailed description, and it also presents for example communication skill and learning skill. The descriptors of the Skills in the HuQF and in the EQF use considerably identical expressions with identical semantic contents. The Attitude category in the HuQF expresses an evaluation of learning, work, and of the object of the other competence elements of learning outcomes. It can express favourable/unfavourable evaluation, assumptions, views, intentions and efforts. These elements are not included in the EQF.In Annex I of the EQF Competence “means the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities, in work or study situations and in professional and personal development. In the context of the European Qualifications Framework, competence is described in terms of responsibility and autonomy.” The framework descriptors, the grid only focusses on the last two aspects, i.e. on the responsibility and the autonomy. The level of autonomy is influenced by the level of organisation and stability of context, and the predictability of change, whereas responsibility is levelled according to the need and directness of the supervision received, or the control and evaluation provided on the environment and others’ activities. The HuQF describes Autonomy & Responsibility according to the extent and object of the learning outcome, as well as in relation to the dimensions of behaviour in a social context. Typical aspects of the HuQF are self-regulation, self-organisation, self-control, the level where the individual is able to act autonomously and where the individual needs control and help. The concepts, contents and aspects of Competence in the EQF and Autonomy & Responsibility in the HuQF though partly differ, however, at the crucial points they describe the same content.Based on the above, the expert team accepted the conclusion that though the learning outcome approach is not identical in the two frameworks, the conceptual basis required for referencing is provided.

II.3 The process and result of linguistic analysis

During the semantic analysis experts examined the texts of the descriptors and searched for the occurrence of words and expressions with identic forms and/or meanings in the two frameworks. The aim of analysis was to find evidences for the correlation between the levels of the two frameworks; by paying special attention to the key expressions that characterise each level. This method was used by most of the member states in the referencing process. At the same time, the fact that the level descriptors of both the EQF and the HuQF are short, thus concise, complex and abstract statements was considered to be a difficulty by the

9

experts. Consequently, the results of linguistic referencing can be considered objective only to a limited extent as the result may significantly be influenced by reader’s understanding and the interpretation of concepts. As it was mentioned in the document earlier as well, experts put special emphasis on the question of which domain of reality statements related to. The HuQF presents several names (“field of learning”, “field of study”, “special field”, „”topic” etc.), nevertheless, inconsistently. The lack of precise referencing can be mentioned in general therefore the analysis does not point out at this in every specific case when this would be needed. The issue of referencing should be addressed when the concept of the HuQF is possibly reconsidered.

The analysis covered each descriptor, their elements separately, but also the combined interpretation of the whole level. In the case of each level description, experts endeavoured to identify the key concepts which refer to the competence added at the concerned level. When the level of referencing is analysed, the issue of the “scope” and “depth” of competence arises as a specific problem. Scope means how wide the range of activities serving as the basis for referencing is; whereas depth specifies how far a competence is from the possible “boundaries” of the given activity. The question is how scope is taken into consideration for the interpretation of a level. Linguistic analysis shows in several cases that different results are produced in the separate comparison of scope and depth.During the referencing of descriptors and levels, experts used the best-fit principle in its simplest, quantitative interpretation aimed at the average. At the same time, they also wanted to express the strength of correspondence between the levels considered identical. With the above aspects taken into consideration, this was indicated on a 3-stage scale as follows:

1. strong correspondence – regarding the competences, there is a considerable accordance between the descriptors that characterise the levels, and between the whole levels that are referenced regarding both scope and depth, which is also underpinned by the use of identical terminology in several cases.

2. medium correspondence – there may be insignificant differences, or shifts in emphasis in the scope and depth of the analysed competence, in the use of the words in the level descriptions, however, when descriptors are put into a context, the number and quality of the evidences to provide the identity of levels are still satisfactorily convincing.

3. weak correspondence – there is a considerable difference in the scope or depth of the analysed competences, the basis of referencing to reality may differ, or the compared levels may be characterised by competences that differ from one another; at the same time, the analysed level is even more different from other levels than from that to which it shows weak referencing.

Detailed results of the referencing:

Level 1 of the HuQF

Level 1 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension

10

– Knows the most important concepts and basic facts of a particular topic.– Has a basic knowledge of the mother tongue, logical thinking and literacy.– Knows the distinctive materials and tools necessary for practical activities.– Understands and complies with rules and procedures of task execution.

Level 1 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension - basic general knowledge

In both systems, Level 1 demands basic knowledge (facts, concepts, tools) required for completing simple tasks/work processes, and the knowledge of the operations required for their theoretical and practical use though the EQF gives only an extremely concise description. At the same time, the HuQF does not mention that these are general, non-specialised knowledge competences. With all this taken into consideration, it may be stated that the descriptors characterise the same knowledge level.

Level 1 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension– Has acquired a basic level of the key competences (especially: communication in

the mother tongue, mathematical-logical thinking).– Able to apply the knowledge necessary to solve a certain task/problem, provided

that this requires the application of undemanding routines and algorithms.

Level 1 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension– basic skills required to carry out simple tasks

Both systems assume key competences (mother tongue, mathematics-logic) at basic development level, and the ability to solve simple problems based on practised schemata, routines and algorithms though regarding problem solving the HuQF can be rather referenced to Level 2 of the EQF. In summary, the learning outcome levels characterised by the descriptors can be considered identical.

Level 1 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES dimension– Willing to understand tasks, motivated to implement them successfully.– Demonstrates inquisitiveness and interest in learning and basic work situations.– Ready to work in a team and to share his/her knowledge with others.

Level 1 of the HuQF – AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimension– Capable of autonomous task execution in simple, routine job situations.– Needs guidance and continuous supervision in the case of novel or complex tasks.– Able to evaluate his/her own work with external guidance.

Level 1 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension

11

– work or study under direct supervision in a structured context

Both systems emphasise the necessity of guidance, continuous supervision, however, the HuQF does not assume guidance and supervision in simple, routine situations. The limited autonomy and independence that characterises the individual in a routine job situation only appears at Level 2 of the EQF. The descriptor of the HuQF according to which the individual, though under guidance and supervision but is able to carry out novel and complex tasks can be also interpreted at a level that exceeds Level 1 of the EQF. In addition to this, self-evaluation (implemented with support) is also a characteristic of the HuQF that exceeds the content of Level 1 of the EQF.

Based on the experts’ opinion, due to the features detailed above, in summary Level 1 of the HuQF can be referenced to Level 2 of the EQF. The strength of correspondence is: 2 – medium referencing.

It shall be noted that the analyses of the linking of qualifications showed that presently no qualification based on state-accredited, standardised examination and quality-assured assessment-evaluation is provided in the Hungarian qualification system at Level 1 of the HuQF. At this level the certificate issued on the completion of Grade 6 in general education can be considered the completed level of education for reference, which definitely means the end of the general, so called grounding phase of the education system, i.e. it certifies the acquisition of key competences and general knowledge which is not detailed.

Level 2 of the HuQF

Level 2 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension- Knows the basic facts, concepts and simple correlations of a given topic (area of

learning, speciality).– Has a general command of the mother tongue/language, mathematical-logical and

science-literacy. – Has the basic-intermediate level theoretical and practical knowledge necessary for

the exercise of a particular profession.

Level 2 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension- basic factual knowledge of a field of work or study

The different use of concepts makes comparison more difficult. There is a difference between the organisation levels of the two KNOWLEDGE contents: the EQF goes on mentioning only “factual knowledge”, whereas the HuQF mentions theoretical knowledge as well. At Level 2 of the HuQF, the knowledge of correlations between basic facts and concepts, or the internal logic of processes is a new element. The content of knowledge becomes specialised as well: though the EQF goes on describing only “basic” knowledge at this level, this knowledge is related to a specific field of study or work, which has not

12

appeared at Level 1 yet. This specialised knowledge appears in the HuQF bound to the exercise of an occupation. In the HuQF literacy is supplemented by “science-literacy”. Considering the fact that several evidences suggested that the KNOWLEDGE described at Level 2 of the HuQF was identical to the KNOWLEDGE of Level 3 of the EQF, the experts applied a counter-verification of referencing.

Knowledge

EQF 3 HuQF 2knowledge of facts, principles, processes and general concepts, in a field of work or study

Knows the basic facts, concepts and simple correlations of a given topic (area of learning, speciality)Has a general command of the mother tongue/language, mathematical-logical and science-literacy. Has the basic-intermediate level theoretical and practical knowledge necessary for the exercise of a particular profession.

Remark: In comparison to the knowledge of “general concepts” in the EQF, Level 2 of the HuQF expects general literacy in a specific field, which means a deeper and more specialised requirement compared to the EQF. In both systems, the knowledge required for employment and exercise of an occupation also appear in addition to learning. The EQF expects the knowledge of processes, which is reduced in the HuQF: the knowledge of simple correlations is expectable. The fact that Level 2 of the HuQF expects the knowledge of a profession at intermediate level in both theory and practice confirms that it is closer to Level 3 of the EQF. Nevertheless, the fact that the EQF expects the knowledge of general concepts and facts while the HuQF expects the knowledge of basic concepts and facts does not allow referencing. At the same time, the HuQF gives the details of this knowledge, and it describes general literacy, which can be already aligned with the EQF.

In summary, the experts have stated that there are more evidences and arguments to prove that in the Knowledge dimension Level 2 of the HuQF can be referenced to Level 3 of the EQF instead of referencing Level 2 of the HuQF to Level 2 of the EQF.

Level 2 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension– Able to identify uncomplicated correlations of cause and effect.– Able to carry out identification, distinction and comparison in relation to different

topics, upon predetermined specific criteria.– Able to carry out multi-component tasks/or series of tasks occasionally.– Able to use basic materials and tools with guidance.– Able to compose a written and verbal statement in a given field, react to a

statement, use basic terminology.– Possesses basic competencies necessary for cooperation.

Level 2 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension

13

– basic cognitive and practical skills required to use relevant information in order to carry out tasks and to solve routine problems using simple rules and tools

At this level, both tools focus on solving simple problems, however, the HuQF describes the skills required therefor in more detail. Thinking operations are extended compared to Level 1 by the skills to compare, identify, distinguish and conclude. Considering that based on the HuQF description of a considerably wider content the cognitive skills seem to be at a higher level, the experts carried out counter-verification for the referencing of levels at this level as well.

Skills Skills

EKKR 3 MKKR 2

a range of cognitive and practical skills required to accomplish tasks and solve problems by selecting and applying basic methods, tools, materials and information

Able to identify uncomplicated correlations of cause and effect.Able to carry out identification, distinction and comparison in relation to different topics, upon predetermined specific criteria.Able to carry out multi-component tasks/or series of tasks occasionally.Able to use basic materials and tools with guidance.- Able to compose a written and verbal statement in a given field, react to a statement, use basic terminology.- Possesses basic competencies necessary for cooperation.

Remark: While the EQF says that the individual has a range of cognitive and practical skills, the HuQF gives a more detailed list of it. The key word is “basic” in both cases. Regarding this, Level 2 of the HuQF can be referenced to Level 3 of the EQF. However, it is an important difference that while the HuQf states that the learner is able to carry out tasks with guidance at this level, the EQF does not explicitly state this, i.e. independent task completion can be considered implicitly included in the description of the EQF, however, this rather belongs to the autonomy and responsibility descriptors.

With all the above taken into consideration, based on the experts’ opinion, Regarding Skills, Level 2 of the HuQF can be rather referenced to Level 3 of the EQF.

Level 2 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES and AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimensions

- In learning situations and tasks he/she is open to activities developing his knowledge.

- Is aware of fundamental moral and collective values, basic civic rights and responsibilities.

- In simple task-situations works independently and with responsibility. - In the case of more complex tasks, instructions are sufficient instead of close

control.

14

- A sense of responsibility is developing, and self-control emerges in the process of the evaluation of the work.

Level 2 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension- work or study under supervision with some autonomy

Out of the descriptors in the two frameworks, the degree of autonomy can be compared more easily: here task completion with some autonomy appears in the EQF as well. The HuQF makes a distinction between simple and more complex tasks, whereas the EQF does not do this. In the first case the HuQF expects full independence, whereas in the second case it expects instructions instead of close control. No explicit expectation appears for “novel tasks”, however, they are supposed to be identical with those at Level 1 of the HuQF. Self-control that appears in the evaluation of the own work, as well as emerging sense of responsibility are important features that question whether the descriptors of the two frameworks describe an identical level in this category as the latter feature only appears at Level 3 of the EQF in the “Competence” dimension. This also justified the need for counter-verification for the referencing of the levels:

Competence Autonomy & Responsibility

EQF 3 HuQF 2

take responsibility for completion of tasks in work or studyadapt own behaviour to circumstances in solving problems

–In simple task-situations works independently and with responsibility.–In the case of more complex tasks, instructions are sufficient instead of close control.–A sense of responsibility is developing, and self-control emerges in the process of the evaluation of the work.

Remark: In both systems, autonomy and responsibility are definitely expected in addition to task completion with guidance.With all the above taken into consideration, based on the experts’ opinion, regarding Autonomy and & Responsibility, Level 2 of the HuQF can be rather referenced to Level 3 of the EQF.

By summarising the above facts, the experts’ opinion stated that Level 2 of the HuQF can be referenced to Level 3 of the EQF. The strength of correspondence is: 2 – medium

The completed level of education for reference of Level 2 is the primary school certificate. This document certifies that the learner has basic knowledge acquired at school: i.e. the knowledge that is relevant in the European culture and can be classified as general knowledge. Within this the learner acquires more and more complex knowledge contents, and knows a growing number of abstract concepts out of the field of mathematics as well that can be easily interpreted by generalising. The contents of knowledge schemata become extended, in VET the knowledge to provide the basis of expertise also appears.

15

Level 3 of the HuQF

Level 3 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension– Knows basic facts, concepts and processes related to a given field of work or

study, recognises and understands multi-factor correlations – In addition to being acquainted with tools, methods and procedures for carrying

out tasks, he/she also applies basic methods of autonomous knowledge acquisition – Possesses a broader inventory of knowledge element s/units in the field of

study/work of his/her interest.– Knows and applies rules, processes of task execution.

Level 3 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension– knowledge of facts, principles, processes and general concepts, in a field of work

or study

In the HuQF, enrichment of knowledge is provided on the one hand by the incorporation of the fundamental methods of cognition, on the other hand by the knowledge of more complex correlations and the formation of the basic elements of expert knowledge (structure/schema system) in the knowledge domain of the individual interest/occupation. Beyond the definition of “simple correlations” at the previous level, the HuQF mentions the knowledge of “multi-factor correlations”, which can be also interpreted as principles. Importantly, it should be noted that the EQF expects theoretical knowledge only at Level 4. In the HuQF, the knowledge of “procedures” and rules is required at this level. It should be noted that “principles” can be interpreted as “rules” by their definition (rule of action or conduct / rule or method for application in action). The HuQF includes a wider range of knowledge, whereas “knowledge in broad context” appears in the EQF only at Level 4. Independent knowledge acquisition and the knowledge of how to acquire knowledge are missing from the EQF, it can be at most identified as a part of “self-management” described in the Competence category of the EQF, however, this appears there at Level 4. The counter-verification for the referencing of levels was needed in this case.

Knowledge

EQF 4 HuQF 3

factual and theoretical knowledge in broad contexts within a field of work or study

Knows basic facts, concepts and processes related to a given field of work or study, recognises and understands multi-factor correlations.– In addition to being acquainted with tools, methods and procedures for carrying out tasks, he/she also applies basic methods of autonomous knowledge acquisition.– Possesses a broader inventory of knowledge element s/units in the field of study/work of

16

his/her interest.– Knows and applies rules, processes of task execution

Remark: Level 4 of the EQF requires knowledge in broad context, whereas the HuQF requires basic knowledge in detail, and in addition to this it expects knowledge in broad context in a special field.

In Knowledge, Level 3 of the HuQF exceeds Level 3 of the EQF, however, it does not fully reach Level 4 of the EQF therefore it can be rather referenced to Level 3 of the EQF.

Level 3 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension– Able to establish linkage between knowledge and knowledge schemata, and

develop a new schema in a well-known context. – In addition to the routine performance of simple tasks, he/she is also able to solve

new problems with unusual elements creatively. – Able to select and apply the appropriate tools, materials.– Able to perceive correlations and think in a systemic context.

Level 3 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension– a range of cognitive and practical skills required to accomplish tasks and solve

problems by selecting and applying basic methods, tools, materials and information

Considerable semantic overlapping can be identified between the contents of the two descriptors. Compared to the previous level, the skill to overview and systemise a field of study/work, the sensitivity to problems, and the skill to select the adequate tools, methods, information and materials for problem solving appear in both frameworks. The description of the HuQF also shows a significant advancement in the field of independent decision-making as at Level 2 the individual was able to use (basic) tools only with guidance, whereas at Level 3 the individual is already able to make a decision for the selection independently. The HuQF also emphasises the appearance of creative thinking, which is required at this level as the elements in the field of learning or in the context may change. The EQF mentions the changeability of context in the Competence category, at Level 4. A counter-verification for the referencing of levels was also carried out.

Skills Skills

EQF 4 HuQF 3

a range of cognitive and practical skills required to generate solutions to specific problems in a field of work or study

Able to establish linkage between knowledge and knowledge schemata, and develop a new schema in a well-known context.– In addition to the routine performance of simple tasks, he/she is also able to solve new problems with unusual elements creatively.– Able to select and apply the appropriate tools, materials.

17

– Able to perceive correlations and think in a systemic context.

Remark: The EQF focusses on specificity and special field at Level 4, whereas the HuQF requires creative problem solving, and the completion of whole and complete tasks at system level with the use of a wide range of knowledge.

Consequently, based on the content of the Skills dimension, Level 3 of the HuQF can be referenced to Level 4 of the EQF.

Level 3 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES and AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimensions

– Able to judge and apply in a critical manner information from diverse sources.– Open to make joint efforts, work in a group, and accepts interdependence.– Complies with the widely accepted social norms both in professional and private

communication.– Complies with the widely accepted social norms both in professional and private

communication.

– Self-control and systematic self-reflection concerning individual learning and work activities becomes common.

Level 3 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension– take responsibility for completion of tasks in work or study– adapt own behaviour to circumstances in solving problems

The EQF emphasises the responsibility taken for an individual activity, whereas the HuQF also highlights self-control and self-reflection deriving therefrom. Both tools refer to the observation of social expectations and norms. The HuQF mentions vocational commitment, which is a relation beyond the individual and the tasks completed by the individual, and aims at a wider community. In addition to this, the HuQF also includes critical attitude. All this suggests that Level 3 of the HuQF exceeds Level 3 of the EQF therefore a counter-verification for the referencing of levels was required.

Competence Autonomy & Responsibility

EQF 4 HuQF 3

exercise self-management within the guidelines of work or study contexts that are usually predictable, but are subject to changesupervise the routine work of others, taking some responsibility for the evaluation and improvement of work or study activities

Self-control and systematic self-reflection concerning individual learning and work activities becomes common

Remark: The component of “managing others” is missing from the HuQF. The HuQF

18

describes the presence of self-control and self-reflection in individual learning and work, which can be referenced to the expression of “self-management” in the EQF. The “evaluation” and “improvement” included in the EQF cannot be explicitly found in the expectations of the HuQF.

Level 3 of the HuQF in this descriptor category, though exceeds Level 3 of the EQF, does not fully reach Level 4 of the EQF.

There was a considerable debate among the experts on the referencing of the whole level, with the partial results also taken into consideration. Exclusively based on the results of the semantic referencing, Level 3 of the HuQF is close to Level 4 of the EQF, and it seems to be closer to this level than to Level 3. At the same time, the experts also took into consideration the fact that learners’ results did not reach the features at Level 3 of the HuQF as evidenced by the results of the different competence assessments. Considering that the main aim of the HuQF is to provide information, and the government does not intend to reform the education system related to its introduction, the experts finally concluded that:

with the use of the best-fit principle, Level 3 of the HuQF can be referenced to Level 3 of the EQF. The strength of correspondence is: 3 – weak correspondence.

Level 4 of the HuQF

Level 4 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension– Knows basic facts and concepts related to a given field of work or study,

understands key processes and correlations.– Knows the language and terminology of a given field, preferably in a foreign

language as well.– Knows and understands the conceptual correlations and structure of his field of

interest.– Understands the correlations of complicated, multi-factor phenomena.– Is familiar with the methods necessary for employing the facts, concepts,

correlations and procedures of a given field.

Level 4 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension– factual and theoretical knowledge in broad contexts within a field of work or

study

The expectation of the EQF for factual and theoretical knowledge in broad context is concretised and interpreted by the HuQF. At this level the key word is correlation, which is included in the HuQF four times. It can be stated that the known and understood correlations are more complex at this level, they consist of several components (one can say that they constitute a “system of correlations”), and for their interpretation and understanding a shift from the knowledge of facts to literacy, and the enhancement of

19

the knowledge of methods is needed. Although the competences of knowledge in the HuQF seem to be broader, in summary the two tools describe an identical level.

Level 4 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension– Able to apply knowledge related to a field of work or study in an unusual context.– Able to think systematically, and use certain forms of abstraction.– Able to gather new information, and process it independently. – Able to plan and implement his/her learning and problem-solving strategy on his

own and make the necessary corrections.– Able to identify problem situations in his/her field of work or study and articulate

adequate proposals for solving them

Level 4 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension- a range of cognitive and practical skills required to generate solutions to specific

problems in a field of work or study

Both systems expect solutions to specific problems at his level. The new element in the HuQF to indicate this level is “unusual context”. At Level 3 task completion was a “routine performance” happening in a “well-known context” although “new, unusual elements” occurred there as well. This is the basis of reference for extra content at this level. The HuQF describes problem solving in more detail at this level, however, even with this taken into account, extra skills are difficult to find here. In the EQF the extra skills for problem solving are needed by the specific nature of the problem and the individual shall be able to use broader correlations of knowledge for solving a special and concrete problem than those described in KNOWLEDGE. The HuQF highlights that at this level the individual already needs the skill of abstract thinking (in the EQF solving an abstract problem only appears at Level 5). The two levels already show differences in the partial elements of the competences therefore they can be considered identical only with weak correspondence.

Level 4 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES, AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimensions Attitudes

– Open to undertaking new tasks.– Able to assess possibilities; consider risks, alternatives and consequences; is cap-

able of making compromises.– Follows ethical and legal norms in decision-making situations, understands the

correlations between values, behaviour and lifestyle.– Committed to the profession and to quality work.– Keen on continuous self-education and applies its proceedings.

Autonomy & Responsibility– Characterised by independence and self-control in the performance of work, in the

solution of problems and in learning as well.

20

– Takes responsibility for his/her own actions or for the work of a small group or community he/she is in charge of

Level 4 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension- exercise self-management within the guidelines of work or study contexts

that are usually predictable, but are subject to change- supervise the routine work of others, taking some responsibility for the evaluation

and improvement of work or study

In the EQF the stability of context is replaced by its changeability at this level. This important condition is not explicitly defined in the HuQF, at the same time the openness to undertaking new tasks presupposes preparedness for changeability. In the EQF the individual already shows “self-management”, however, “within the guidelines of the contexts”, i.e. the individual is still basically determined by the context. Contrary to this the HuQF describes autonomy and self-control at this level and does not mention limiting or restricting factors, the individual even has to solve the problem independently. Management appears in both frameworks: taking responsibility for the work of others (HuQF), and supervising the routine work of others (EQF). The description is more precise in the EQF as it turns out that the supervised group only performs routine work, and the individual shall evaluate them and improve their work only with limited responsibility. The HuQF does not mention these aspects, however, the expression of responsibility taken for the work of a small group or community he/she is in charge of suggests more responsibility (although it turns out that the individual manages only few persons at this level). Competences are described in a much broader context in the HuQF with the supplementations in the Attitudes (e.g. decision-making). Some elements of competences in the HuQF seem to be at a higher level, however, in summary the levels are identical, and the strength of correspondence is: 2 - medium.

The completed level of education for reference at Level 4 is the secondary school leaving certificate. Factual and theoretical knowledge in broad context in a field as included in the EQF appears in the Hungarian secondary school leaving certificate in addition to complex and sound school education in the form of the knowledge of a special field to provide the basis for expertise, and also in the fact that the learner acquires novel knowledge at a higher level of abstraction.

Level 5 of the HuQF

Level 5 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension- Has a fundamental general and specialized, theoretical and practical knowledge,

related to a particular field of study/work.- His/her sound knowledge regarding the application of methods and tools ensures

lasting exercise of the given profession at a high level.- Knows the specific terminology of the given field (in the mother tongue and in at

least one foreign language).

Level 5 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension

21

- comprehensive, specialised, factual and theoretical knowledge within a field of work or study and an awareness of the boundaries of that knowledge

At this level the common feature of the two frameworks is comprehensive but already specialised knowledge. The EQF consistently mentions a context of work or study, whereas the HuQF emphasises the world of work at this level (in the other categories as well). The “awareness of the boundaries of the knowledge” as included in the EQF, and a similar description appears in the HuQF only at Level 7. Apart from this, the two levels are almost identical.

Level 5 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension- Able to solve the tasks related to a given profession: to design and carry them out,

to choose the appropriate methods and tools, to apply them in an individual and complex manner.

- His/her skills to communicate in his mother tongue and in a foreign language enable him/her to carry out a professional cooperation with speakers of other languages.

- Able to improve his/her knowledge, and apply different methods of knowledge acquisition, self-improvement and current information and communication technologies for that purpose.

- Able to make responsible decisions related to employment and entrepreneurship.

Level 5 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension- a comprehensive range of cognitive and practical skills required to develop

creative solutions to abstract problems

Referencing can be carried out with the use of the first statement in the HuQF as this mentions in an unambiguously identifiable manner the same content as the EQF, namely the extended skills in the field of problem solving. At this level problems are already complex and cannot be solved with routine, design and decisions are needed for the solution, which is a complex activity. Creativity appears at this level in the EQF, however, in the HuQf it appeared already before therefore it can be considered given at this level as well. Both the HuQF and the EQF require complex skills for task completion. The ability to communicate in professional issues in a foreign language is a decisive element in the HuQF. Consequently, the two levels are identical regarding skills.

Level 5 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES, AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimensions Attitudes

- Open to the new achievements and innovations in his/her field of work/study. Takes efforts to be acquainted with, understand and use them.

- Aims for continuous self-education .- Committed to high quality professional work.- Self-critical concerning his/her own work.- Accepts and genuinely stands for the social role and the values of his/her

profession.

22

Autonomy & Responsibility - Works autonomously under continuous self-monitoring.- Takes responsibility for his or her own work as well as for the work, achievements

or failures of the team under his/her supervision.In decision making, takes into consideration the ethical and legal rules of his field of work.

Level 5 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension- exercise management and supervision in contexts of work or study activities

where there is unpredictable change - review and develop performance of self and others

Self-education – this is a core concept in both frameworks. The EQF describes this in competence, whereas the HuQF highlights it as an Attitude and Skill as well. At this level self-education is generally typical of the individual in both frameworks. The other key concept is management. In compliance with the world of work, the EQF makes more delicate distinctions for the gradually growing partial responsibilities related to management, control and supervision. Related to the context of learning or work, based on the EQF statement, the individual shall be prepared for not only the changing context but for the unpredictability of the changes as well. In this respect the HuQF does not give any information. Although the EQF provides broader relations, the HuQF gives extra information with the Attitudes. In the experts’ evaluation the two levels were identical.In summary, Level 5 of the HuQF can be referenced to Level 5 of the EQF. The strength of correspondence: 2 – medium.

Level 6 of the HuQF

Level 6 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension- Knows the fundamental comprehensive facts, tendencies and limits of his/her field

of work or study.- Knows the key correlations, theories and terminology of his/her field of study or

work.- Knows fundamental methods for knowledge acquisition and problem-solving of

his/her speciality.

Level 6 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension- advanced knowledge of a field of work or study, involving a critical

understanding of theories and principles

Both frameworks characterises the individual with comprehensive theoretical and factual knowledge for the special field (the expression “fundamental” is slightly misleading in the HuQF), which means they expect knowledge of the special field at a higher level than before. The critical understanding of theories and principles can be referenced to the

23

knowledge of correlations and theories described in the HuQF. While the EQF expects the critical understanding of the professional knowledge received in ready-made form, the critical element does not explicitly appear at this level in the HuQF (although critical use of information appeared in the HuQF in Attitudes already at Level 3, and self-critical and critical thinking at Levels 5 and 6). Although the awareness of the boundaries of the field of work appeared in the EQF already at Level 5, and in the HuQf only at Level 6, in summary the two frameworks describe an approximately identical knowledge level.

Level 6 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension- Capable of carrying out an elementary analysis of the concepts which constitute

the foundations of the knowledge of a given field of work or study, to outline correlations, and to make proper evaluations.

- Has the necessary skills for studying autonomously.- Able to identify frequently occurring problems in his/her field, explore the

theoretical and practical background needed for their solution and able to address them (through the application of standard procedures).

- Able to use and understand the literature of his/her profession, its library and IT sources.

- Able to cooperate with others.- Capable of managing different resources.- Able to use his professional knowledge in accordance with the diverse

expectations of a given workplace.

Level 6 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension- advanced skills, demonstrating mastery and innovation, required to solve complex

and unpredictable problems in a specialised field of work or study

Referencing at text level is more difficult as the two descriptions do not use identical terminologies and they try to describe skills from different aspects. Problem solving serves as the only stable starting point as in this case the HuQF emphasises its routine nature, which can be solved by standard operations, contrary to this a problem in the EQF is unpredictable and complex, whose solution needs “advanced” knowledge of the field of work and innovative skills. Innovation is not mentioned by the HuQF but according to an expert interpretation the skill described in the descriptor at Level 4 of the Skills, i.e. the skill “to plan and implement his/her learning and problem-solving strategy on his own and make the necessary corrections, to identify problem situations in his/her field of work or study and articulate adequate proposals for solving them” can be interpreted as a the ability for innovation as well. Based on the HuQF description in the statement for independent learning, it may seem to be a lower level compared to the previous levels (4 and 5), and to the EQF. Although the HuQF descriptor has a broader content, the EQF descriptor emphasises unpredictability and complexity, which is a higher level. Consequently, in Skills, the HuQF does not reach Level 6 of the EQF.

Level 6 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES, AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimensions Attitudes

24

- Knows, accepts and genuinely communicates his/her job’s social function and its relationship to the world.

- Willing to disseminate the general way of thinking and basics features of the practical operation of his/her profession.

- Strives for continuous self-education.

Autonomy & Responsibility- Capable of thinking over independently the comprehensive, fundamental

questions of his profession and of elaborating them by using given sources.- Responsibly communicates the fundamental principles of the profession.- Cooperative and shows responsible behaviour with the professionals of his field.- Consciously accepts the ethical standards of his profession.

Level 6 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension- manage complex technical or professional activities or projects, taking

responsibility for decision-making in unpredictable work or study contexts- take responsibility for managing professional development of individuals and

groups

Both systems require a high level of professional autonomy and responsibility at this level. At the same time, the EQF considers the managerial tasks undertaken in a field of work (decision-making, control, responsibility for the development of others) as a priority issue, which does not explicitly appear in the HuQF (though Skills include the concept of “managing different resources” which may also include human resource management as well). The HuQF rather focusses on cooperation and the acceptance of ethical norms.

Based on the best-fit principle, Level 6 of the HuQF and Level 6 of the EQF can be considered identical. The strength of correspondence is: 3 – weak correspondence.

Level 7 of the HuQF

Level 7 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension- Knows the general and specific features, main tendencies and exact limits of the

general domains of a given field of work or study, as well as its links to related fields.

- Has an in-depth knowledge of the correlations, theories and the related terminology of a given field of work or study.

- Knows the particular research methods (especially those related to knowledge acquisition and problem solving) used in his field, abstraction techniques and the methods to cope with practical aspects of theoretical questions.

25

Level 7 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension- highly specialised knowledge, some of which is at the forefront of knowledge in a

field of work or study, as the basis for original thinking and/or research - critical awareness of knowledge issues in a field and at the interface between

different fields

The features of this level are based on the specialisation and extension of the knowledge domain in both frameworks. The other identity is knowledge to support research. While the EQF highlights the knowledge of new information and procedures required for innovation, the HuQF does not explicitly include this, its approach rather static, it expects the knowledge of techniques, terminologies and theories needed for abstraction. The awareness of the boundaries of the knowledge appears in the HuQF only at Level 7, whereas in the EQF the description of Level 5 already included it, however, specialised knowledge required for handling the related fields of work is described here in both frameworks. “Critical awareness” does not appear in the HuQF in Knowledge (however, it can be understood as part of the evaluation activities included in the first statement of the Skills category). Regarding this descriptor the two levels are identical.

Level 7 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension- Capable to perform exhaustive analysis of diverse conceptual domains

constituting the body of knowledge of a given field of work or study, to devise general and specific correlations and to carry out related evaluation activities.

- Able to identify profession-specific issues, explore and outline the theoretical and practical.

- Able to approach profession-specific problems in an interdisciplinary , comprehensive manner.

- Able to join research and development projects.- Is advanced at using the info-communication techniques of his/her field as well as

using and processing Hungarian and foreign language publications.- Able to apply a wide range of methods and techniques in various contexts of

different degree of complexity and predictability.- Able to produce in a scientific format analyses and summaries of sub-fields of his

area of study.- Able to apply his professional skills in accordance with the various requirements of

a given workplace.

Level 7 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension- specialised problem-solving skills required in research and/or innovation in

order to develop new knowledge and procedures and to integrate knowledge from different fields

At this level both systems focus on the skills to integrate the different fields of work, to develop new procedures, to identify problems, and to elaborate the methods of solution. A more precise translation of the EQF would show the identity of the two level descriptions more appropriately. At this level, the main point in both tools is a high-level

26

problem solving skill that also allows joining research activities, producing innovation (EQF), and participating in development activities (HuQF). The application of knowledge and information concerns several fields in both frameworks, and the individual shall be able to manage (integrate/synthetize) this. The HuQF refers to the context here: its complexity, predictability are “various” at this level, which can be also interpreted in a way that the individual shall be able to handle complex and unpredictable operational situations as well. The EQF mentions context in Competence at this level as well (it describes an approximately identical context there, however, it expects the individual to be able to manage, which “might be included” in the statement of the HuQF mentioning “the application of methods and techniques” as well). The two levels can be considered identical.

Level 7 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES, AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimensions Attitudes

- Knows and identifies with the specific and general relations and professional identity that constitute the characteristics of his profession and its individual and social functions. This is the basis for his unfolding vocational commitment.

- Able to understand and genuinely communicate the particulars and the synthesis of his/her profession’s topics.

- His/her professional interest deepens and is consolidated.

Autonomy & Responsibility- Possesses considerable autonomy in elaborating general and specific professional

issues, in representing and justifying professional views.- Assumes responsibility in taking initiative for cooperation.- Is a partner on equal footing in cases of professional cooperation?- Thinks over and stands for the ethical positions of his field.

Level 7 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension- manage and transform work or study contexts that are complex, unpredictable

and require new strategic approaches- take responsibility for contributing to professional knowledge and practice and/or

for reviewing the strategic performance of teams

Due to their different contents and particularly different wording, these may be the two descriptor lists that are the most difficult to reference. It can be stated that the two frameworks describe features related to an individual who is professionally independent, innovative, and promotes the work of a group. The EQF gives a definitely active role to the individual in forming and managing the context, whereas in the HuQF this role is rather passive and co-ordinative (“joins the project”, “assumes responsibility in taking initiative”, “a partner on equal footing”), and assuming responsibility for and taking an active role in forming the events and the strategic performance of others as indicated by the EQF cannot be identified here. At the same time, due to the principle of accumulation and hierarchy it shall be assumed that management is a part of this level as well. Therefore the levels are identical.

27

In summary, Level 7 of the HuQf and Level 7 of the EQF are identical. The strength of correspondence is: 1 – strong correspondence.

Level 8 of the HuQF

Level 8 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension- Has an in-depth knowledge, enabling him/her to undertake research, the general

and specific features, main tendencies and exact limits, consensual and contentious correlations of his field.

- Has a creative understanding of the theoretical elements, correlations, conceptual systems and terminology of a given field.

- Possesses the methodological and research skills necessary to perform independent research in a given field.

Level 8 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension- knowledge at the most advanced frontier of a field of work or study and at the

interface between fields

In both systems, the main point in the knowledge expected at this level is the exact knowledge, research and exceeding the boundaries of a field of science or work, though the HuQF is rather research-centred. The two levels are identical.

Level 8 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension- Capable of analysing a given field in a creative manner, able to draft specific and

general correlations through the application of new approaches, and make appropriate evaluations.

- Able to use and further develop the special knowledge acquisition and problem-solving methods of his/her field.

- Able to develop innovative, previously unknown practical aspects of a theoretical issue.

- Able to plan and carry out new projects, conduct research in a given field of science, and develop new techniques and approaches.

- Able to identify unanticipated professional problems, and explore the theoretical and practical background needed for solving them in detail.

- Able to establish and disseminate new correlations vital for his profession as well as comprehensive links having significance for individual and community existence.

Level 8 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension- the most advanced and specialised skills and techniques, including synthesis and

evaluation, required to solve critical problems in research and/or innovation and to extend and redefine existing knowledge or professional practice

28

Both tools focus on the skills to produce new knowledge and new practices, and to further develop a field of science or work at a high level, among these the skills to synthetize and evaluate are those that are described in more detail by the HuQF. The two levels are identical.

Level 8 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES, AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimensions Attitudes

- Represents and, in relation to his/her field of interest, further develops the relations contributing to the process of human self-creation as a result of the speciality of the given field of work.

- Disposes of an interest and learning skills, which permits him to identify and solve research problems of the field which are covert or unpredictable at the moment.

- Has a solid sense of vocation, stable commitment to look for new approaches, accepts the necessity of working persistently.

Autonomy & Responsibility- Develops and initiates new knowledge areas and initiates new practical solutions

creatively and independently.- Able to participate as a leader and is giving evidence of high skills for cooperation

in the process of defining theoretical and practical issues.- Able to take part on an equal footing in a professional discussion of a given field.- Undertakes to raise and answer new ethical questions in relation to the theoretical

and practical issues of his profession with responsibility.

Level 8 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension- demonstrate substantial authority, innovation, autonomy, scholarly and

professional integrity and sustained commitment to the development of new ideas or processes at the forefront of work or study contexts including research

In both cases the descriptions express that the individual shall be competent at producing new knowledge at this level. Both frameworks make effort to describe the high-level autonomy, managerial and other competence and role required therefor, with different use of wording and approach. The two levels are identical. Assuming responsibility is approached from an ethical aspect. The two levels are identical.

In summary, Level 8 of the HuQF can be referenced to Level 8 of the EQF. The strength of correspondence is: 1 – strong correspondence.

29

The summarised results of the comparative analyses carried out for each level show the following regarding the referencing of the two frameworks:

HuQF levels

EQF levels

Strength of correspondence*

no qualification

-> EQF 1 -

HUQF 1 -> EQF 2 2HUQF 2 ->

EQF 32

HUQF 3 -> 3HUQF 4 -> EQF 4 2HUQF 5 -> EQF 5 2HUQF 6 -> EQF 6 3HUQF 7 -> EQF 7 1HUQF 8 -> EQF 8 1

*1 – strong, 2 – medium, 3 – weak correspondence

III. Conclusions and recommendations

Several conclusions can be drawn from the technical phase of referencing the HuQF to the EQF. On the one hand the comparative analysis can provide an appropriate basis for comparing the descriptors of the two frameworks and the levels characterised by the descriptors; and for revealing the differences and identities of the approaches, conceptual elements and the details. At the same time, the limits of the linguistic-semantic analysis playing an important role in the technical analysis clearly manifested themselves as well; these occurred due to the formal features, i.e. the length and conciseness of the texts, as well as due to their quality, i.e. their inconsistent use of wording or vague meaning at some places. Therefore it is definitely recommended that descriptors should be reconsidered and further developed later. During a possible reconsideration of the concept of the HuQF it also seems to be necessary to address and revise how consistently and completely the descriptors of the HuQF are related to reality, or at least whether there is coherence between them.

However, this cannot be independent of the development trends of education and training policies. The framework can function only if the policy for skills and education considers the framework an appropriate tool to achieve the set aims, and is able to use its underlying potential. Today it is obvious that the use of cross-border tools of education policy is unavoidable therefore understanding the frameworks, credit systems, common

30

taxonomies and other tools, as well as benefiting their introduction are extremely important.

The conclusions drawn by the above analysis raise several issues that are otherwise well-known from everyday practice. The question is how realistic the result can be considered and what conclusions can be drawn from it if everyday practice, as well as the results of national and international student assessments show insignificant or considerable deviations from it time to time. It may be an important task as well to compare results and reflect them on the real picture of the Hungarian labour market that copes with an crowding out effect and the migration of skilled labour force. The answers to these questions shall be found within the frames of social and professional debates. It is recommended that the final result of referencing the two frameworks should be stated only after the above debates and considering their results.

31