1. education

LIFELONG LEARNING PROGRAMME – Transversal Programme
VALEW Model Guidelines
How to validate learning at work
Impressum
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work
This publication has been produced by:
Fondazione Politecnico di Milano (Italy) – The Project Coordinator
The University of Edinburgh (The United Kingdom) – Final text revision
Estonian Qualification Authority (Estonia)
Foundation European Centre Valuation Prior Learning (The Netherlands)
Scienter España (Spain)
Scienter (Italy)
Agenzia Regionale per l’istruzione la formazione e il lavoro – ARIFL (Italy)
IG Metall (Germany)
Université de Strasbourg (France)
Publication date: July 2010
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
The VALEW project – To VAlidate LEarning at Work – has been funded with support
from the European Commission. Project Number: 147634-LLP-1-2008-1-IT-EQF
This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be
held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Photos: Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien e.V., © Yuri Arcurs - Fotolia.com,
© Monkey Business - Fotolia.com, © Fotolia.com
Design & Layout: Jasmina Car
Content
1
Introduction
4
The VALEW Model
5
Why might you want to use these guidelines?
7
How to use the guidelines
7
2
Identification of Standards
Estonian Qualification Authority
8
Basic Concepts
Linking the Labour Market to the Lifelong Learning System
10
Competence Standards and Frameworks
11
Development of Competence Standards and Frameworks
13
Functional and Occupational Mapping
3
Collection of Evidence
Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
9
14
20
Evidence Identification and Collection Procedures
22
Portability of Evidence
23
Evidence Categories and Examples
24
Assigning Levels to Evidences
24
How to Build and Evaluate Evidence
26
4
Recognition, Assessment, and Certification
Foundation European Centre Valuation Prior Learning
27
The Overall Rationale: The total VPL Process in 5 Phases and 10 Steps
27
VPL in 5 Phases
28
Types of Award
31
5
Reference to EQF and other existing Qualification/Competence Frameworks
(national, regional, sectoral etc)
Scienter; the University of Edinburgh
32
The EQF-based Approach
32
EQF Levelling: General Indications
34
EQF Levelling: Application in the VALEW Model
35
Further Considerations
38
6
IG Metall; ARIFL; Scienter España; Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
40
Which Players Can Recognise and therefore Add Value to a Certification?
40
Ensure Recognition
Attractiveness of and Resistance to Validation of Learning Outcomes at Work from
the Various Stakeholders’ Perspectives
Key Factors of Success
Readiness Index and Proposal to Check Progress against Generalised Validation
41
44
and Recognition of Learning Achievement in the Workplace
45
47
Moving Forward
7
Annexes 48
1
Introduction
The VALEW Model brings together in one volume everything companies, their employees,
training agencies and policy-makers need to know about how to unmask and validate skills
learned informally at work. The book is a comprehensive introduction to identifying workers’
competences, evidencing and assessing those competences, awarding recognition, levelling
the competences to the European Qualifications Framework, and forward planning for the
inclusion of all of these processes in industrial education and training systems.
The validation of competences acquired in non-formal/informal learning environments is
playing an increasingly important role at European level, particularly as regards the principles of
lifelong and life-wide learning.
The European Guidelines for the Validation of Non-formal and Informal Learning, as well as all
the recently created European-level tools (e.g. the European Qualifications Framework), move
in this direction: they aim to build trust across European countries to facilitate transparency,
mobility, social inclusion and competitiveness.
These instruments are meant to offer a framework and a set of guiding principles around
which to attune/design systems for the validation of competences while maintaining the
specificities that bind those systems to the contexts from which they come, and their particular
needs and goals.
With this same rationale, the VALEW project – to VAlidate LEarning at Work – aimed to
develop a model for certification of competences acquired in non-formal/informal learning
environments (notably the work place), complete with criteria for demonstrating the
competences and their level with reference to the EQF.
4 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
1
Introduction
Specifically, VALEW activities included:

A benchmarking activity among partner countries to understand and cross-compare the
methods in use in each country, shedding light on opportunities and criticalities of the
certification processes concerning non-formal and informal learning
 The development of a shared model for the validation of competences acquired at work
that integrates and homogenises local approaches
 The production of a set of guidelines on how to build a validation system, containing
recommendations based on the indications which emerged during the lifespan of the
project, including stakeholders’ consultation and piloting
This document contains the VALEW guidelines on validation of learning at the workplace
and it addresses any actor – be it a company, an employer, a public authority, a labour union,
a trade union, an HR department, etc – interested in establishing a credible system for the
recognition of competences informally acquired at the workplace.
Based on the VALEW Model, the guidelines cover all the elements identified as necessary to
develop a validation system, starting from the identification of standards up to recognition
mechanisms of competences certified, and they accompany the user in understanding the
concepts behind, and choosing and implementing the most adequate methods and procedures
to fulfil, expected objectives according to the specific needs and the particularities of one’s
own context.
The VALEW Model
When using these guidelines, one will notice that the VALEW Model for the validation of
competences acquired at work is not meant as a binding tool aimed at replacing existing
local practices, but rather as a guiding framework addressing any actor willing to establish a
validation system and providing the conceptual and operational map to adapt it to specific
contexts and different needs.
Flexibility and openness embody the existing context – including both opportunities and
constraints – in the development of a validation system which allows a context-based attuning
of the instruments provided, respecting legal constraints, existing regulation and taking
advantage of available resources.
To develop such a comprehensive model, its rationale and its core elements, the VALEW
partnership undertook a comparative analysis of already-existing practices in participating
countries, then went through consultation with all relevant actors directly involved in a
potential system (public authorities, employers, employees, professional associations, etc)
to validate and broaden the set of relevant elements covered (be they strictly related to the
validation methodologies or to more political concerns).
5 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
1
Introduction
The guidelines include therefore all the necessary steps to build and run an effective and
quality-assured validation system (including the adoption of standards, the overall assessment
procedure, the mechanisms for external recognition and for levelling, of the learning outcomes
recognised, to the EQF and any other relevant frameworks) while defining them in relation to
the external constraints and surrounding factors which need to be considered when starting to
conceive a validation system.
The belief behind VALEW is in fact that the analysis of the context is paramount for the
development of a successful validation system, in order to tailor it to the specificities of the
context and avoid duplication of effort.
At the methodological and technical level, this means being aware of which are the constraints
as well as the opportunities offered by the system, including instruments, methodologies and
infrastructures already developed by others.
From a more political perspective, commitment on the part of a wide set of relevant actors
(employers, employees, labour unions, public authorities etc) is essential to any validation
system able to achieve social impact, and their opinions, expectations and interests must be
investigated.
Quality assurance
REFERENCE
FRAMEWORKS
Socio-cultural dimension:
Example: validation vs evaluation
Policy aims:
 Employability
 Phatways labour-school?
 Relationship
with EQF and
the Competence
Frameworks
(Levelling)
2. Application
3. Intake
4. Instruction
Coach
5. Portfolio/proof
6. Assessment
7. Assessment Report
8. Accreditation
9. Certificate/diploma
10. Evaluation
Labour market motivations
(employers, professionals)
Reference to
the Competence
Frameworks
ENSURE
RECOGNITION
Assessor
Administration
Service infrastructure:
1. Responsibilities involved:
 Assessment Body
 Certification Body
2.Which services can be supplied around
certifications:
 Training services in lifelong learning using
vouchers system
 Coaching services
1. Informing
EQF Levelling
Certifying
body
Economic dimension.
Dimensions to be considered
 Development costs
 Running costs
6 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
1
Introduction
Why might you want to use these guidelines?
There are several reasons why you might wish to use these guidelines. The VALEW Model, on
which the guidelines are based, is a European product, which offers the widest coverage while
respecting diversity and grass-roots initiatives thanks to its flexibility and openness.
In particular the model:

Is based on multiple concrete experiences and validated at European level:
the VALEW Model was designed starting from a critical analysis of existing European
experiences and was validated throughout by grass-roots consultation with relevant
stakeholders and through dialogue with experts at EU level. It is also based on critical
outcomes emerging from pilot interviews and focus groups carried out in the UK, France,
Germany, Italy and Spain
 Allows flexibility to adapt to different national and organisational contexts
 Allows benchmarking and bench-learning, by working also as an analytical tool and an
interpreting model to compare validation systems across Europe and across different sectors
 Is evolutionary, open to future development, thanks to its capacity to represent through
abstract categories its building blocks in evolutionary scenarios, and to move its borders to
include/exclude selected elements
How to use the guidelines
The guidelines are divided into five chapters referring to the main blocks of the whole
validation process, as represented in the core model.
These chapters are:
2. Identification of Standards
3. Collection of Evidence
4. Recognition, Assessment and Certification
5. Reference to the EQF and other Qualification Frameworks
6. Ensure Recognition
Each chapter includes an explanation of the concepts addressed and of the role that the
specific step plays in the system. The core of the chapter is dedicated to recommendation to
the reader on how to achieve the specific step according to available options. The reader will
be guided in recognising the most adequate solution by being equipped with a review (and
explanation) of existing alternatives and different scenarios.
The guidelines reflect the adaptability and openness of the VALEW Model. Thus they can be
used as a flexible tool on the basis of specific needs. While some might feel the need to be
equipped with “from cradle to grave” indications for the development of a system, covering
all the steps, others might need only a few chapters.
Likewise, while the core recommendations should be adequate for all, it is possible that some
indications can be completely disregarded by some readers but be highly valuable for others.
This perfectly fits the rationale of the VALEW Model itself and does not take out value from
these guidelines.
7 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
2
Identification of Standards
Estonian Qualification Authority
Any competence recognition and certification process needs to refer to competence
standards. Frameworks and standards are necessary because they are the shared reference
against which both individual and organisational competences can be recognised and
evaluated.
In this chapter, the Estonian Qualification Authority will take the reader through their
national frameworks, showing how they can be constructed and how they can link the
labour market with the learning system.
Accordingly, this chapter is the prerequisite for developing a consistent competence
evaluation system.
Any vocational (professional) qualifications system constitutes an interface between the
labour market and the lifelong learning system. In this interface, two complementary and
concurrent processes occur: 1) identification and formalisation of labour market needs and
expectations for employees’ competences; 2) assessment, validation and certification of
employees’ competences.
Labour market needs and expectations are formalised in sets of competence standards.
There are two groups of competence standards: 1) occupational standards (competence
units and job (occupational) profiles); and 2) training and learning (education) standards
(qualification units and qualifications). In addition, there could be assessment standards.
All these types of competence standards can be referenced to different competence
frameworks: 1) sectoral competence frameworks; 2) qualifications frameworks; and
3) qualifications and credit frameworks.
Functional and occupational mapping of competences based on functional analysis
and standard-setting has proved to be the most efficient, flexible and comprehensive
methodology for identification and formalisation of competence standards. This
methodology can be applied to a sector of economy (industry), to a sub-sector, to an
enterprise or to an occupation.
In the context of the VALEW Model, identification of standards means identification
of competence standards. This is based on terminology adopted in the European
Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF)1.
1 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/pdf/eqf/broch_en.pdf
8 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
2
Identification of Standards
Estonian Qualification Authority
Basic Concepts
Qualification: a formal outcome of an assessment and validation process, which is obtained
when a competent body determines that an individual has achieved learning outcomes to
given standards
Learning outcome: a statement of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do on
completion of a learning process, defined in terms of knowledge, skills and competence
Knowledge: 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.
Knowledge is described as theoretical and/or factual
Skills: the ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve
problems. 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)
Competence: 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 EQF, competence is described in terms of responsibility and
autonomy
National qualifications framework: an instrument for the classification of qualifications
according to a set of criteria for specified levels of learning achieved, which aims to integrate
and co-ordinate national qualifications sub-systems and improve the transparency, access,
progression and quality of qualifications in relation to the labour market and civil society
Sector: a grouping of professional activities on the basis of their main economic function,
product, service or technology
9 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
2
Identification of Standards
Estonian Qualification Authority
Linking the Labour Market to the Lifelong Learning System
The most important consequence of fast labour market changes is that a closer link – and
new methods for defining the link – between the needs of the labour market and the
lifelong learning system (more specifically, the education and training system) are necessary.
A vocational qualifications system is the proper link or interface between the labour market
and the lifelong learning system (cf Figure 1 Competence circle). In the context of validating
learning at work some elements of the competence circle may be optional, as indicated by
broken lines.
Job
task
Competence
Occupational
standard
Education
standard
Curriculum
VOCATIONAL
QUALIFICATIONS SYSTEM
Diploma,
certificate
Qualification
awarding
Validation
LEARNING
LABOUR MARKET
Expected competences
Assessment
Actual competences
Figure 1 Competence circle
The development of vocational qualifications systems, i.e. well-functioning competence
circles, is a complicated task as it means linking two different logics: the logic of the world of
employment and the logic of the world of education and training. Employers are interested in
what people need to do, how they will do it, and how well they will do it (i.e. OUTCOMES).
Education professionals are interested in what people learn, how they will learn it, and how
the quality and content of learning will be assessed (i.e. INPUTS, methods of teaching, learning
and assessment).
In the process of developing a vocational qualifications system the needs and expectations of
the labour market must be translated into a language that can be understood in education
and training, including the assessment of persons’ learning outcomes. One immediate option
is to develop training and learning standards (qualifications and curricula) which describe
what people will be able to do at the end of a study program. Then, learning outcomes
can be linked to employment outcomes (occupational standards). Nevertheless, the primary
linkage is between the occupational standard outcomes and the training standard outcomes.
If this direct linkage is made, employment requirements will directly determine the learning
outcomes.
10 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
2
Identification of Standards
Estonian Qualification Authority
Occupational standards are important instruments in their own capacity, because they provide
the basis for a variety of activities related to human resource management (recruitment,
selection, promotion, remuneration, training, certification or assessment) inside the so-called
“small competence circle” where training and learning processes are left out. In the “large
competence circle” these standards additionally serve as an instrument for the elaboration of
qualifications and study programmes, thus ensuring relevance, transparency and quality of the
outcomes of the training and learning processes.
Competence Standards and Frameworks
“Competence” in the framework of the VALEW Model means “competence at work”.
A competence standard is a description of what an individual needs to do, know and
understand in order to carry out a particular job role or function in a particular sector of
economy (industry). It specifies the standard of performance that people are expected to
achieve in their work, i.e. the knowledge and skills they need in order to perform effectively.
These standards are agreed by employers and employee representatives.
The set of competence standards consists of two groups:
1. Occupational standards:
 Competence units
 Job (occupational) profiles
2. Training and learning standards:
 Qualification units
 Qualifications
All the aforementioned competence standards may be referenced (incorporated) into their
corresponding competence frameworks. A typology of competence frameworks consists of
three major groups:
1.Sectoral competence frameworks (e.g. UK National Occupational Standards, the European
e-Competence Framework)
2.Qualifications frameworks (e.g. national qualifications frameworks, EQF) where individual
qualifications (and possibly competence units and qualification units) are referenced to
qualification levels
3.Qualifications and credit frameworks (e.g. English/Welsh/Northern Irish Qualifications
and Credit Framework, Irish National Framework of Qualifications) where individual
qualifications (and possibly competence units and qualification units) are referenced to
qualification levels and additionally assigned a credit value
11 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
2
Identification of Standards
Estonian Qualification Authority
Occupational standards (different names are used in different countries: in UK
National Occupational Standards; in France Référentiels Professionnels; in Germany
Ausbildungsordnungen) are descriptions of the work functions to be carried out within the
framework of a specific occupational activity, as well as the related:



Knowledge (cognitive competences)
Skills (functional competences)
Competence (personal and ethical competences)
Occupational standards are used to:


Describe good practice in particular areas of work
Set out a statement of competence which brings together the skills, knowledge and
understanding necessary to do the work
 Provide managers with a tool for a wide variety of workforce management and quality
control
 Offer a framework for training and development
 Form the basis of a range of vocational qualifications
Each competence unit describes a key part of someone’s job. Units are split into elements,
which contain performance criteria over a range of situations. Each unit will specify the
knowledge, skills and understanding that people need to do their jobs. Units are often
introduced with a summary or commentary, saying what the unit is about, who it is for, how it
links to other units and how it fits into the qualifications framework.
A job profile describes the full range of performance, knowledge and skills needed for a
particular job (occupation) specified by grouping together competence units. Competence can
refer to clusters (or a cluster) of identifiable actions relevant to a function, role or occupation
which are measurable. When you combine the descriptions of expected knowledge, skills,
competence and range into these units, you have a set of learning outcomes.
A qualification unit (learning outcomes unit) is a knowledge, skills and competence set which
constitutes a part of a qualification. The unit can be the smallest part of a qualification that
can be assessed, validated and (possibly) certified. Therefore, assessment criteria are an
essential compulsory component of a qualification unit. It is important to underline that in
general there is no one-to-one correspondence between competence units and qualification
units. A unit can be specific to a single qualification or common to several qualifications.
A qualification is made up of separate qualification units that set out what a learner must
be able to do and to what standard. Each unit is like a mini-qualification, representing a
training target for building up credits towards a final award, diploma or certificate. The overall
qualification is achieved through continuous training and assessment. Assessment is conducted
through on-the-job observation, questioning (interview), or other relevant method (cf Chapter
3). Learners produce evidence to prove they have the competence to meet the qualification
standards. Assessors sign off units when a learner is ready, after testing the learner’s
underpinning knowledge, understanding and work-based competence to see if competence in
the workplace can be demonstrated.
12 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
2
Identification of Standards
Estonian Qualification Authority
Figure 2 below illustrates relations between different groups of competence standards.
Occupational
Standard
Qualification
Competence
Unit
Qualification
Unit
Figure 2 Competence standards and frameworks
Occupational standards are measurable industry benchmarks in that they specify what workers
must be able to do at different levels of qualification or job responsibility. They should relate
to recognisable job roles within the sector (industry), identified through a process of functional
analysis (cf Section 2.4 below, Development of Competence Standards and Frameworks). A
competence unit is the most disaggregated and detailed section of an occupational standards
statement, drawn from the functional map and developed to include clear detail of the
knowledge, skill and range required for, and delivered by, a qualification unit.
Occupational standards are a group of competence units which together circumscribe a
recognised job or occupation. The primary purpose of the occupational standards is to set a
benchmark of knowledge, skills and competence by which education and training providers
can demonstrate that they are qualifying individuals with the correct minimum competence
to enter the labour market. These standards allow also for workers to be assessed in the
workplace as to their competence against the expected competence described in competence
units. For this to happen there need to be competent assessors in the workplace or specialist
assessors brought in to observe and assess the competence of an individual.
Development of Competence Standards and Frameworks
Competence standards are developed by a standard-setting body (SSB) (e.g. Sector Skills
Council (UK)), representing employers, industry professionals and educators.
At European level, the CEN (European Committee for Standardization www.cen.eu) is a major
provider of European standards and technical specifications. It supported the development
of the European e-Competence Framework (e-CF; www.ecompetences.eu), a competence
standard for the ICT sector developed in cooperation with large companies, both IT vendors/
providers and end-users. The e-CF is one of the frameworks that was used in the VALEW
project for the testing phase on recognition of ICT competences.
13 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
2
Identification of Standards
Estonian Qualification Authority
An SSB usually manages standard-setting and qualification-awarding processes in a single
sector of industry, e.g. transport. Therefore competence standards are typically developed
sector-wise. For this purpose, the SSB establishes an expert working group or working
groups. Draft competence standards are sent out for wider consultation in the sector.
Final amendments based on the results of the consultation are then made before the draft
standards are submitted to the SSB for official approval.
The methodology applied for the European e-Competence Framework development has been
recently documented in the CEN CWA publication "Building the e-CF – a combination of
sound methodology and expert contribution" (CEN 2010).
The most general and commonly used methodology for competence standards and
frameworks development is based on functional and occupational mapping of sectors, subsectors or occupations2. This methodology, described briefly below, has been successfully used
in several sectors in the UK and internationally3.
Functional and Occupational Mapping
The aim of the functional and occupational mapping is to identify the work functions and the
occupations within the sector. A sector knowledge, skills and competence framework includes:






Functional map covering the whole sector of economy (industry)
Framework of competence units developed from the functional map by disaggregating
the identified competences to such an extent that they describe work tasks which can be
measured, evaluated and linked to specific knowledge and skills
Skills which need to be developed and which can be transferred to the workplace
Knowledge statements, written as learning outcome statements, which underpin and
support the competence and skills framework
Common assessment strategy to validate all of the above components
In addition it is advantageous to have a detailed body of knowledge extrapolated from the
learning outcomes which describe the breadth and depth of knowledge which has to be
understood by the individual and which can be tested in a controlled situation
The Functional Map is designed to include:

Functional analysis that forms the basis for the development of occupational standards as
and when appropriate
 Functional analysis that forms the basis for the development of a labour market
investigation
 Assessment of the impact of national and European legislation and codes of practice,
statutory requirements and contractual conditions and the role played by key organisations
including trade unions and professional or statutory bodies
14 | 60
2 Occupational and Functional Map of the UK Waste Management Sector. EU Skills – Final Report – Waste Management
OFM 24 June, 2005. http://www.ciwm.co.uk/pmm/12160 | 3 Guide to Developing a Sector Qualification Strategy
Including: Functional Mapping; a Competence, Skills & Knowledge Framework; a Quality Assurance Process. European
Observatoire of Sport and Employment (2007-2008). http://www.easesport.org/ease/fichiers/File/25_mars_2009/eqf_sport_
combined_guides.pdf
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
2
Identification of Standards
Estonian Qualification Authority
The Occupational Map is designed to include:
Broad job roles, by job category, vocational and academic qualifications, and links between
the sector and other related sectors
 Changes in technology, working practices and market conditions
 An initial appraisal of the sector’s size, scope and boundaries
The functional analysis should be cross-matched to existing occupational standards that relate
to job functions on:
 The role played by qualifications for progression purposes
 The coverage of existing qualifications and those in development
 The links between the sector and other related sectors
Information sources that have been used to make the analysis that might contribute to
further development of occupational standards
Functional analysis is a method used to identify the required competences of a productive
function by means of a deductive strategy. By concentrating on the functions or outcomes
instead of the activities, the descriptions produced are independent of the technology or
methods used to achieve the function. In other words, instead of describing what people are
doing, functional analysis describes what people have to achieve.
The functional analysis process can be applied to a single occupation, a group of occupations,
to a sub-sector or to a whole sector. The difference is only one of scale. The same general
model for analysis of occupations can also be used as the basis for analysing occupational
functions in the entire sector.
Most sectors can be broken down into sub-systems. Within each of these sub-systems there
are groups of occupations and work functions that have similar process characteristics, even
though their application may be different. Design, for example, is a process that occurs in
many sectors. A competence unit such as a design skill standard written for one sector can be
adapted to meet many different work contexts and applications.
Each of these systems’ areas can be further broken down, sometimes through several stages,
into work functions for which competence units can be defined. The advantage of this
framework approach is that it can be applied to any sector and it enables common functions
to be recognised within and between sectors. This considerably lightens the workload in
seeking matches with existing work roles and competence units and also introduces a rigour to
whole-sector analysis that considerably simplifies and streamlines the process of occupational
standards development.
The starting point for functional analysis is the development of a general statement – a “key
purpose” – which encapsulates what the sector is there to provide. This is subsequently broken
down into key areas that represent the sum of broad activities that are necessary to deliver this
service. The process of analytical breakdown continues until the activities described represent
a reasonable description that could be applied to individual work outputs against which a
competence unit can be set. Figure 3 below illustrates a functional mapping approach for the
waste management sector.
15 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
2
Identification of Standards
Estonian Qualification Authority
The process of functional analysis raises a number of issues relating to the commonality of
work functions across the sector. The mapping process goes only as far as defining distinctively
different functions. It does not seek to delineate between the same function as it is applied
in different sector contexts. For example, the function of “plant maintenance” can apply to a
very wide range of different job roles within the sector. The extent to which these variations
in context need to be reflected in different standards is an issue that is part of the standardssetting process.
Similarly, there are a number of functions for which responsibilities within the work team are
shared, for example the function of “Maintaining a safe and healthy working environment”:

The Plant Operative will – “contribute to” maintaining a safe and healthy working
environment, because the scope of their responsibilities is necessarily limited
 The Plant Supervisor will – “maintain” a safe and healthy working environment, because,
on the ground, they have functional responsibility for action
 The Plant Manager will – “ensure that” a safe and healthy working environment is
maintained, because they are ultimately accountable for health and safety
Therefore, from this one function it will be necessary to develop three complementary
competence units, probably at three different qualification levels, each reflecting the different
level of responsibility. This differentiation is again applied at the standards-setting stage.
Setting standards is an expensive, rigorous and time-consuming process involving considerable
development work, consultation and testing. There is little purpose in unnecessarily duplicating
effort when there are quite valid standards already in place. The final stage of the functional
mapping process is therefore to identify all potentially relevant competence units that might be
used within a future qualifications framework for the sector.
Because of the hierarchical structure of the functional map, each of the functions appears
only once. However, in occupations, the same function may be a component of several job
roles. Hence there is no direct read-across from the occupational to the functional map. In
the same context, many occupations are multi-role and the functions of which they are made
up appear in different areas of the functional map. It is at the qualifications design stage that
the functional map becomes extremely useful, as it is used as a menu from which functions
comprising work roles can be drawn down.
16 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
2
Identification of Standards
Estonian Qualification Authority
Example of a functional anaysis:
Key Purpose:
Provide best value and environmentally compatible waste management services and solutions that optimise
the value of waste as a resource, use cost-effective processing and resource management systems that
exploit appropriate technologies, employ safe working practices, and consistently meet the needs and
expectations of stakeholders, customers and the community within a regulated policy framework.
Key Area
Key Function
Work Function (Unit)
3.1.1 Confirm schedule
3.1.2 Prepare for operations
3.1.3Operate vehicle and ancillary equipment
3.1 Collect Waste
1 Policy
3.1.4 Load, secure and unload materials
3.1.5 Manage spillages
2 Specification
3 Carry out Activities
3.2 Assess Waste
4 Control Programmes
3.1.6 Work with others to solve operational problems
5 Manage the Organisation
6 Maintain Capability
3.3 Identity Waste
Figure 3 Functional map for the waste management sector4
The major challenge in establishing a valid and robust occupational map for a sector is to
confirm those occupations that are truly unique to the sector. The occupational map will
indicate all those occupations within the sector. It will also provide the basis for future research
to identify all potentially relevant existing qualifications and where there are current gaps.
The map will also identify those occupations for which a given SSB has either a primary
responsibility or one that is shared with other SSBs.
The occupational map also serves a useful purpose in providing career development
information for the sector, enabling the SSB to show the routes and pathways to vocational
qualification for each occupation and bring together a database that includes:







Academic awards
Professional awards
Other vocational qualifications
Trade certificates
Safety certificates
Registration certificates
Licences
The process of developing occupational standards is normally linked to a commitment to
develop the related vocational qualifications. However, some sectors have developed the
standards for their sector in advance of a clear specification as to how they will be used in
4 Occupational and Functional Map of the UK Waste Management Sector, p.7. EU Skills – Final Report – Waste
Management OFM 24 June, 2005. http://www.ciwm.co.uk/pmm/12160
17 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
2
Identification of Standards
Estonian Qualification Authority
vocational qualifications. The argument for taking the latter course is primarily because there
is a utility in the standards that goes well beyond their use in qualifications. The standards
can be used as a basis for recruitment and staff appraisal and for the specification of training
within the sector or enterprise and have many other applications as well. Therefore, having a
comprehensive framework of competence units from the outset is a major asset.
Once the occupational standards development process has been completed, it remains for
the standards to be grouped as units and for a structure to be devised for the award that
properly reflects the variables in the occupation. Increasingly, vocational awards offer a range
of options to take account of variations in the skills mix within jobs. Figure 4 below illustrates
the functional and occupational mapping process.
Functional Map
Prioritise
Occupation for
Qualification
Development
Occupational Map
Process Controller
Core
Options
Define Work
Functions in
Occupation
Select and Adapt
Standards to fit
Work Context
Define
Qualification
Structure
Figure 4 Developing occupational standards and vocational qualifications5
As part of the occupational mapping process, occupations are broadly classified into groups
that reflect the main divisions within the sector. The NQF (national qualifications framework)
sets out the levels at which qualifications can be recognised. NQFs are designed to help
learners make informed decisions on the qualifications they need, by comparing the levels (and
possibly credit values) of different qualifications and identifying clear progression routes for
their career. In the case of a qualifications and credit framework, both level and credit value are
attached to a competence or qualification unit.
The occupational map can only ever be an approximation of the levels-structure within the
sector. The actual decision on level comes at a later stage when each occupation is analysed in
detail in terms of work functions and defined in terms of competence units.
5 Occupational and Functional Map of the UK Waste Management Sector, p.11. EU Skills – Final Report – Waste
Management OFM 24 June, 2005. http://www.ciwm.co.uk/mediastore/FILES/12160.pdf
18 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
2
Identification of Standards
Estonian Qualification Authority
When the functional mapping is complete it should be complemented with performance
criteria, an extension of the functional analysis process which includes three specifications:
employment specification (with identification of performance requirement and range), training
specification (with identification of skills and knowledge) and assessment specification.
Performance requirements are a specification of what has to be achieved in employment to
meet the outcomes described in competence units. Range describes the field of application,
i.e. the tools, equipment, materials, methods or processes needed to achieve the performance
requirements.
Skills are what is evidenced to prove performance has been achieved and knowledge describes
what one needs to know to achieve performance.
The assessment specification (assessment standards, assessment criteria) describes what
will be assessed, the quality with which performance has to be achieved. The assessment
specification identifies both what the person (employee or learner) must do and the
knowledge which must be tested. The assessment specification does not give a detailed
description of assessment methods. How the assessment will be made is determined locally.
This is accomplished in dialogue between the assessor and the person to be assessed. The
dialogue includes agreement about the type of evidence used in the assessment and validation
process (cf Chapter 3 below). This is a matter of quality assurance: regardless who awards the
qualification, the same assessment standards need to be applied.
19 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
3
Collection of Evidence
Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
Collection of evidence is one of the most critical steps in the recognition and certification
process of competences acquired in non-formal/informal learning environments. In fact,
evidence demonstrates the effective mastery of the competences to be recognised.
Accordingly, candidates have to understand what pieces of evidence they can provide
consistently to show competence dimensions (i.e. technical and behavioural) either in their
single aspects or in a holistic way.
This phase can be supported by tutors, in case candidates need to move from a tacit
knowledge/experience/abilities condition to an explicit one through awareness-raising.
In this chapter some main issues related to “evidence” will be discussed and concrete
examples of building and evaluating evidence will be shown. These examples refer to
the ICT sector with a particular focus on behavioural/soft skills, as planned in the VALEW
proposal.
In particular in Table 1 (see Annex 1) the European e-Competence Framework (e-CF) and
the DOSY Framework (on soft skills) will be integrated and become the reference to collect
evidence. (See also Chapter 2, paragraph 2.4.)
Accordingly, in this chapter the main focus is on e-competences and ICT skills, where soft
skills (transversal competences) are in some way embedded in the e-competences. In fact,
“competence” is a holistic concept including all the integrated behaviours necessary to
perform. So, while training may identify the components of competences and accordingly
develop courses e.g. on skills and knowledge, “recognition” must keep the competence
dimensions together, otherwise one is assessing either skills or knowledge, i.e. parts of
competence, and not a whole competence.
However, in the VALEW Model, the suggested tools and the overall approach may be
applied to other competence sectors in addition to ICT. What will change is the specific
evidence to be provided. It depends on the specific competence contents to be recognised.
The European e-Competence Framework (e-CF) in brief (www.ecompetences.eu)
The European e-Competence Framework (e-CF) is a European-wide reference framework
of information and communication technology (ICT) competences that can be used and
understood by ICT professionals and human resources managers including ICT user and
supply companies, small and medium sized enterprises, the public sector, and educational
and social partners across the European Union. The framework has been developed by a
large number of European ICT and human resources (HR) experts in the context of the CEN
Workshop on ICT Skills.
20 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
3
Collection of Evidence
Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
This European reference framework for ICT competences makes a link between national
and company systems. It jointly defines 32 ICT practitioner and manager competences
as needed and applied in the workplace. These 32 ICT competences are structured in
four dimensions and classified according to their corresponding ICT business areas.
They are further specified on five proficiency levels (e-1 to e-5) which are related to the
European Qualifications Framework (EQF) levels 3 – 8. This provides a European basis for
internationally efficient personnel planning and development. The European e-Competence
Framework is supported by the European Commission and the Council of Ministers.
The DOSY Framework in brief
DOSY is a competence framework representing organisational/transversal competences
described through learning outcomes.
It derives its name from the European project “DOSY – Developing Organisational Skills
for Young Workers” where it was developed by a group of European organisations
representing both the labour market and the education and training system.
The DOSY approach stated that organisational competences cannot but be contextualised
in the specific work process and job environment. Therefore, an effective action to develop
them could not be limited to theoretical training, delivered either through open distance
learning or in the traditional classroom in a training centre. Likewise daily work activity as
such was not enough to develop those competences. Rather a training moment was to
be integrated in the work experience, by establishing a training path based on alternating
working activities and moments dedicated to the study of “ad hoc” material. These
two components had to support each other, allowing the learner to reflect on the work
experience and on the working process in which he/she was daily integrated. With this
approach in mind, the DOSY project developed a training model for enterprises, targeting
young people with an apprenticeship contract, and tested it in several companies.
The model revolved around the interplay between daily work experience in the
company based on project work (supervised by a mentor within the enterprise) and
an individual path where scope was created for reflection on the work experience
(and with continuous support offered by a tutor from a training centre).The common
backbone of such a training path was a set of six micro-modules (“Self-diagnosis and self
learning”; “Positioning inside the enterprise”; “Learning to learn”; “Communication and
cooperation”; “Problem solving; Improving your working skills”), representing the soft
side of the integrated job activities/context that the learner was experiencing, and against
which the development of competences was assessed.
This training model permitted the development and assessment of a set of organisational
competences as they manifested themselves in the work experience, while helping to “decontextualise” them and develop their transferability to other working/life contexts, to the
advantage of the individual.
21 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
3
Collection of Evidence
Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
Evidence Identification and Collection Procedures
Collecting evidence is one of the fundamental steps to be included in any certification process
of competences acquired within non-formal and informal learning environments, e.g. on the
job. Demonstrating one’s own competences is a necessary starting point.
First, some questions must be asked with regard to the meaning of “evidence” and more
specifically, the kind of evidence that relates to demonstrating competences.
“Evidence” fulfils the need to be as objective and transparent as possible when assessing
and certifying competences which are not formally developed under the responsibility of the
school system. “Evidence” refers to any objective information showing directly or indirectly
competences or parts of them. Candidates have to be able to both preserve and update
evidence and to show it to different actors over time. Hence, it has to be transferable and
communicable.
Examples of this may be e.g. written documents such as reports or emails; multimedia files
such as video clips on candidates’ performances; specific products; statements of endorsers
etc. Concerning evidence material such as written documents and products, candidates have
to be able to clearly indicate their involvement. Their competences vary depending on whether
they are creators, developers, supervisors, etc. These examples refer to e-competence but of
course they can also be used and applied in other competence sectors. Such evidence has to
be documented and provided by individuals specifying if they have developed it by themselves,
in a team or by the help of others, etc. Evidence can come from professional contexts within a
company but it can also be developed from other contexts, e.g. leisure time.
In general, evidence can demonstrate a whole competence or parts of it. Competence is
a complex concept which is a combination of hard and soft aspects and is manifested in
complex and integrated behaviours, making it a holistic construct. The EQF defines it as
follows: “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”. The definition coming from the European e-Competence Framework (e-CF),
agreed by several large companies and countries including France, Germany and the UK,
states that competence is “a demonstrated ability to apply knowledge, skills and attitudes
for achieving observable results”. Consequently, the e-CF speaks about “e-Competences”,
plural, not referring to their components (e.g. skills and knowledge) but considering them
as the competence set for the ICT sector. A person can be competent in e.g. “testing” but
not in developing a business plan. Being able to develop a business plan is not a skill but
a full competence, according to the e-CF description. Both can become discrete jobs. To
demonstrate this, there are companies only engaged in e.g. testing ICT products, which is their
core, main business.
In Table 1 (see Annex 1), each e-Competence is related to DOSY skills to make the soft
dimension explicit and the identification of related evidence easier .
22 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
3
Collection of Evidence
Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
Accordingly, evidence can include all these dimensions (i.e. knowledge, skills and attitudes) or
only demonstrate one of them, e.g. a piece of knowledge or a skill.
Collecting “holistic” evidence requires practical indications about how and where the different
competence dimensions emerge. Consequently, some time will have to be spent highlighting
these dimensions. On the other hand, in terms of effectiveness of demonstration of
competence, collecting “holistic” evidence is better than identifying “punctual” evidence for
each of the competence components. In the VALEW model holistic approaches are therefore
preferred and evidence showing whole competences is encouraged.
All in all, collecting evidence is quite demanding and the following could represent limitations:

Candidates have to become aware of their competences, to reconstruct the history of their
experiences and identify links between what is produced in their jobs or activities and the
competences to be demonstrated
 Sometimes candidates might not have saved their work and in consequence not be in the
position of finding any pieces of evidence
 Very often evidence includes confidential information and candidates are not allowed
to use company data for personal aims, when the certification is not requested by their
company
 In general, accessibility of evidence may not be easy
To make the task less difficult, people should be invited to build personal portfolios and keep
them updated over time. Moreover, coaches and counsellors should be strongly recommended
to support people in collecting evidence, in order to avoid disappointment at Panel stage
where a panel of experts will assess the evidence.
They should help them make their implicit know-how explicit and more visible. Getting
endorsements is also a very good way of demonstrating one’s own competences and virtual
communities can become more and more trustworthy sources of information.
Portability of Evidence
Type of evidence may change according to the competences to be demonstrated. In general,
manual skills need different pieces of evidence from white-collar and managerial ones. For
manual competences, video clips are recommended since they may show candidates’ manual
abilities.
ICT professions can be included in the white-collar jobs where competences are more related
to conceptual dimensions. In these cases, excluding direct on-the-job observation, final
products and written documentation can be enough. The criticality may be to demonstrate
one’s own authorship.
On the other hand, communication skills may also be documented by video clips. Currently,
the use of e-portfolios and multimedia curricula is growing.
23 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
3
Collection of Evidence
Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
Evidence Categories and Examples
Evidence can be categorized into three types:
1.Formal documentation, e.g. statements, declarations, co-operation contracts,
self-statements, diplomas, certifications
2. Outputs, e.g. products delivered by candidates
3. Actions, e.g. observable behaviours
Certificates and diplomas, especially if “vendor specific”, are not always of interest to
companies which prefer broader experiences. Moreover, declarations and self-statements
where good references are reported are not always reliable (this problem is quite common in
Germany). Observable behaviours can be useful for manual competences, e.g. in simulation
contexts; otherwise they imply a constant observation at the work place.
Consequently, products seem to be the most suitable proofs in the ICT context, and
accordingly these VALEW guidelines mainly focus on products. Products can be works in
process or finished works, and they can be either tangible or intangible. Specimens, letters,
minutes of meetings, reports, and ICT programs and routines may also be pieces of evidence.
In general, evidence should be:





“Natural”, i.e. products delivered by candidates within their work activities or during their
leisure time
“Genuine”, i.e. actually delivered by candidates
“Sound”, i.e. related to the competence or set of competences to be demonstrated
“Updated”, i.e. consistent with ongoing innovations, technologies, sectoral improvements
etc
“Simple”, i.e. easy to build and inexpensive
Evidence has to be complemented by a final examination. This may be done through an “oral”
exam or a simulation.
Assigning Levels to Evidences
Proficiency or learning “level” is a basic concept used within reference frameworks (EQF,
European e-Competence Framework, DOSY Framework).
From the EQF descriptors, it is possible to distil three dimensions defining EQF levels (see Figure
5 below):

Autonomy, ranging between “Responding to instructions” and “Making personal choices”,
from acting under supervision to acting autonomously with authority and commitment
 Context complexity, ranging between “Structured – Predictable” situations and
“Unpredictable – Unstructured” situations
 Action verbs (complexity of behaviour), ranging between “operative/routine abilities” and
“decision-making/innovative capacities”
24 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
3
Collection of Evidence
Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
AUTONOMY
BEHAVIOUR
CONTEXT COMPLEXITY
Figure 5 The three dimensions of proficiency-learning levels
(User guidelines for the application of the European e-Competence Framework)
A correspondence model was developed to make the European e-Competence Framework
levels in line with the EQF levels. It is based on these three dimensions mentioned above (i.e.
autonomy, context complexity, action verbs).
In Figure 6 below a summary is given:
e-Competence Level
EQF Level
5
8
4
7
3
6
2
4 and 5
1
3
Figure 6 Summary of the correspondence betwen EQF and e-CF levelss
(User guidelines for the application of the European e-Competence Framework)
Accordingly, each identified e-Competence can be shown at different proficiency levels that
are consistent with the EQF levels. With respect to this, each piece of evidence demonstrating
an e-Competence at a defined proficiency level has to fulfil the level definition referring to
the three dimensions above. In Table 1 (see Annex 1), examples of pieces of evidence related
to competences and levels are shown. For each piece of evidence, the three dimensions are
to be made explicit. Autonomy dimension is related to the role played by the candidate in
the evidence development (e.g. “executor”, “creator”, “supervisor”, etc); while context
complexity is related to the features of the project/process/activity expressed by the evidence
(e.g. a large, international, multi-stakeholder project is usually less structured and predictable
than a local project); action verbs are related to the content of evidence, i.e. the object of
evidence can be something “used”, “applied”, “transformed”, “conceived”, “decided”, etc
(see also Chapter 5 of these guidelines, paragraph 5.2, EQF Levelling: General Indications).
25 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
3
Collection of Evidence
Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
How to Build and Evaluate Evidence
Table 2 (see Annex 2) shows the excerpt of a tool helping candidates to focus on their
competences in order to make them explicit. In addition to this document, which can be filled
in or recorded by a descriptive speech, evidence has to be collected. Some examples of pieces
of evidence are illustrated in Table 1 (see Annex 1).
A coach may help candidates’ awareness process, moving from tacit to explicit knowledge,
skills and competences.
In general, to identify suitable metrics, i.e. a computation system for the evaluation indicators
used in the assessment phase, bottom-up approaches are preferred. A recommended way to
proceed is to collect a range of feedbacks from assessors evaluating candidates according to
common guidelines. Their judgments and scores can be compared with each other and then
normalized to build a reference evaluation standard. Consequently, at this stage, common
guiding principles are provided instead of measures established a priori.
Hereafter some indicators are provided. They are in line with the EQF dimensions and the
related e-CF, as in Table 3 (see Annex 3), and can also be used to define specific learning
levels. In fact, according to such indicators, each piece of evidence can be related to specific
EQF levels, hence identifying specific levels for the competence/competences it intends to
demonstrate.
Such indicators are in line with the approach that Lombardy Region, in Italy, is adopting to
certify competences acquired in non-formal/informal learning environments.
Accordingly, Table 4 (see Annex 4 ) , Table 5 (see Annex 5), Table 6 (see Annex 6), Table 7 (see
Annex 7) are addressed to assessors .
Table 4 (see Annex 4) and Table 5 (see Annex 5) are used when assessors have to evaluate
evidence related to a competence or a set of competences. The indicators listed in the first
column of those tables are in line with the EQF and hence can relate competence and evidence
to its levels.
Table 6 (see Annex 6) and Table 7 (see Annex 7) provide indications for live evaluation, in
particular related to an oral examination. However, here the focus is on e-competences in the
ICT sector. If the assessment were focused on other competences more related to manual
activities, the assessment could be organised with a simulation proof. In the present case, the
indicators have to change.
All those tools are in line with the approach to the certification of competences acquired in
non-formal/informal learning environments currently being used in Lombardy Region.
26 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
4
Recognition, Assessment, and Certification
Foundation European Centre Valuation Prior Learning
The process of competence recognition and certification is quite complex. It goes through
several steps, from the application for recognition, to the evidence collection, the
competence evaluation and certification. Each step includes specific actions to be carried
on for the specific work profiles of candidates. These profiles have to guarantee the
observance of the procedure for quality assurance. In this chapter the whole recognition
and certification process, according to a VPL approach, will be shown. It reflects European
guidelines and is fully coherent with procedures put into action from other European
countries. For this reason it has become the reference for the VALEW Model.
The Overall Rationale: The total VPL Process in 5 Phases and 10 Steps
The Valuation of Prior Learning (VPL) is the name for a broad view of the implementation of
lifelong learning. The target is to change the socio-economic system in a flexible way that
adapts itself to the fast-changing needs for competences in the job market. In the context of
the present network society, VPL addresses these needs by clarifying the real human potential
of competences on the basis of the analysis and recognition of personal competences. VPL
offers a strategy for personal development in the context of organisations, governments
and private services, and is of crucial importance for individuals to keep pace with the fast
competence development in the knowledge society and the increasing speed of competence
marketing within the network society.
In view of this context, VPL concentrates generally on the needs pertaining to:
“I”: me, the individual:
I am able to take control of MY own competence development and career to become or stay
employable, no matter if I am young or old, the context I’m in, and the way I am learning.
“WE”: the communities/organisations I’m in
Companies, non-profit and volunteer organizations, private life: OUR organisation will support
ME in my learning project, individually or with others, and make it possible for ME to use this
to follow MY personal mission and to reach MY goal, while contributing to the larger goal of
the community I am working/learning in.
27 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
4
Recognition, Assessment, and Certification
Foundation European Centre Valuation Prior Learning
“THEY”: the system and its elements
EQF, NVQ, VET, guidelines, tools and advice and other services for individuals, labour
organisations, local municipalities and welfare care: To support ME and US from within
THEIR existing frameworks, so that I can keep on developing and OUR community can also
further develop. This becomes ‘the us-level’, the level of collective services that is and must be
available for all citizens.
VPL in 5 Phases
In each VPL system we recognise the parts of a total VPL procedure, which consists in general
of five phases:
1. Engagement and awareness of the value of your own competences
2. Recognition (formal and informal) of your competences, by looking back, reflections
3. Valuation and validation of your competences, formal, informal and looking forward
4. (Advice concerning the) development of your competences
5. Structurally taking up your competence-based development process, according to a
personal plan perhaps steered through your organisation
Together these five phases form the VPL process. The phases are again divided into 10 steps.
Below the 10-step model is presented in a table. On the basis of this table, each individual can
go through those 10 steps.
1
Awareness
2
Starting/
targets
Commitment
3
Preparation
& PDP
4
Retro­
spection
Recognition
5
Choose
standard
6
7
8
Valuation
Validation
Prospection
Valuation
9
Working on
PDP
Development
VPL is a continuous valuing process. It takes place at all levels, from very informal, such as
being appreciated by your colleague or your client, up to the most formal valuation, such as
accreditation with a diploma according to national standards.
VPL includes stimulating learning, or knowledge development. We call this the broad, or
formative, VPL approach. The broad approach is prospective and aims at development.
VPL also includes a narrow, summative approach, focusing on an overview of competences
and their recognition and validation. The summative approach is also called the retrospective
approach of VPL.
This chapter of the VALEW guidelines focuses on Steps 6 and 7 in Figure 7 below, the formal
recognition of acquired competences.
28 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
10
Empower­
ment
Empower­
ment
4
Recognition, Assessment, and Certification
Foundation European Centre Valuation Prior Learning
1. Informing
2. Application
3. Intake
Coach
4. Instruction
6. Assessment
7. Assessment Report
8. Accreditation
9. Certificate/diploma
Assessor
Administration
5. Portfolio/proof
Certifying
body
10. Evaluation
Figure 7 The accreditation procedure
Step 1: Informing
The individual should receive detailed information about










the procedure
the time it will take
the instruments to be used
the qualification standard to be used
the actors involved
the code of appeal
the costs
the requirements for admission (CV etc)
any manual for use by candidates
the application form
Step 2: Application
It should be made clear to the applicant where to apply and what the consequences of
applying for both the individual as well as the VPL/accrediting organisation are, like a time
and payment schedule, quality criteria, and grievance procedure. It is suggested that the total
VPL-procedure doesn’t take longer than three months and that a payment schedule is agreed
upon, either paying the whole procedure in advance after signing the application or payed in
installments like one before entering the Portfolio phase, one before entering the assessment
phase and the last installment before the formal accreditation phase. The second payment
option could include the option for the individual or the VPL-organisation to stop the VPLprocedure halfway.
Step 3: Intake
During the intake step the coach will make, together with the individual, a first portfolio,
based on readily available information combined with the results of possible competence tests,
e.g. (digital) quick-scan.
29 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
4
Recognition, Assessment, and Certification
Foundation European Centre Valuation Prior Learning
Step 4: Instruction
The individual will receive instructions from the coach on
 how to proceed with completing the portfolio
 training for tests/assessments that will follow, such as
– Competence-based interview
– Workplace evaluation
– Tests (competence, motivation, personality, theory, capacity, etc)
how proof will have to be given and what proof would be valid: for each standard the
type of evidence can differ, and more than one type of evidence can be used to prove a
competence and/or a level of education or work
Step 5: Portfolio/proof
In the portfolio, evidence is collected and structured according to the needs of the qualification
demand. The question is whether it is possible to present and provide understandable and
valid evidence. This is the most difficult part, because when the evidence is created, it is often
not known yet for what it will be used. For example, specific activities as a volunteer can at a
later stage be relevant evidence for an HRM department, or for an assessment in an industrial
sector, or to get an accreditation in the vocational education system or just within the
volunteer organisation. The way the evidence is presented and stored in the portfolio needs to
be open enough to be recognised by all, yet specific enough to get the highest effect in each
of the specific situations. And there are a lot of organisations/companies which still don’t work
with portfolios and/or competence profiles.
Instruments that can be used:
 (Digital) portfolio
 Documentary research
 CV (Curriculum Vitae)
 180-degree feedback
The 180 degree feedback is the method in which the employee makes a self-assessment and
the manager makes an assessment and gives a feedback on the self-assessment.
 360-degree feedback
In the 360-degree feedback method, the individual gathers in a systematic way judgements
of colleagues, others in the work environment, clients, one’s private environment, as well as
a self-assessment. These outcomes are compared with the outcomes of the management,
preferably according to a pre-defined list of criteria. This way of working gives a more reliable
picture of the reality than only the judgement of the manager. It also gives a better feedback/
insight into bottlenecks in teams and organisations.
30 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
4
Recognition, Assessment, and Certification
Foundation European Centre Valuation Prior Learning
Step 6: Assessment
1. The assessment can consist of a combination of different types:
a. Workplace visit/research, company scan
b. Practical assessment/observation
c. Role play (on DVD, practice, simulation)
d. Portfolio assessment/reflection discussion)
e. Criterion-based interview
2.The assessment should be done by a certified assessor, preferably two: one from education/
training and the other from the workplace.
Step 7: VPL report
The VPL report emanates from the findings of the assessment. The report contains the method
used, the material reviewed, the tests made, and all the results. It should contain also a
summary and advice for the certifying body.
Step 8: Accreditation
Based on the VPL report the certifying body substantiates the findings, partly or in whole, and
decides which awards, certificates or diploma will be issued.
Step 9: Certificate/diploma
A formal certificate or diploma is issued.
Step 10: Evaluation
The evaluation of the whole process takes place, listing points for improvement, which will be
fed back into the quality system.
Types of Award
Awarding may pertain to one or more of five levels:
1. Self estimation and recognition
2. Social/societal recognition (e.g. DOSY)
3. Company/organisational recognition
4. Industrial sector recognition (e.g. e-competences)
5. National vocational qualifications (NVQs)
At European level there is the EQF. This is not an awarding system but simply a translation
device between different European countries’ NVQs.
31 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
5
Reference to EQF and other existing Qualification/
Competence Frameworks (national, regional, sectoral etc)
Scienter; the University of Edinburgh
The purpose of this chapter is to show a shared methodology for assigning EQF levels
to existing qualifications (or competences)6, as well as to other certificates or forms of
recognition of learning outcomes, however acquired, so as to form a bridge – in the most
objective possible way – between the informal learning experience and shared codes
systematizing learning achievement (and its level).
6 The approach proposed is originated by the work developed by another EQF project supported by the European
Commission (€QUALIFISE), active in the financial service sector, in which formal international qualifications exist. An
effort has been made here in order to include consideration of less formal (e.g. company-based) forms of recognition of
learning outcomes, specifically acquired at the workplace.
The EQF-based Approach
In the specific framework of the VALEW Model – which is aimed at making visible, recognising,
validating and certifying competences informally acquired at work – the importance of framing
and translating the informal learning experience into a structured and shared system of
learning classification is paramount. It addresses the core issue of how to connect experience
acquired at work to formal description and recognition of learning achievement, so as to open
up channels to formal education and inter and intra-sector labour mobility, as well as to selfdevelopment projects.
The EQF can help structure indicators to position competences onto the EQF levels.
Learning outcomes, meant as statements expressing what a learner knows, understands and
is able to do (see Chapter 1 of these guidelines and the EQF definition), are the first building
blocks of such a bridge. Through the abstractness of language, they permit the expression
of the learning result of experience, providing for the basic link to acknowledged codes
describing learning/education achievements and professional standards (formal qualifications,
national qualification frameworks, job profiles, etc).
In this schema, the EQF offers itself as a tool with high potential to “systematize” learning
outcomes and ensure them a “relative value” – a position – within a shared learning taxonomy
potentially able to encompass all learning contexts as well as the different languages they use.
In fact, the EQF was designed to be a translation device to facilitate the comparison of
qualifications and qualification levels across Europe, to assist geographical and labour market
mobility as well as lifelong learning.
32 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
5
Reference to EQF and other existing Qualification/
Competence Frameworks (national, regional, sectoral etc)
Scienter; the University of Edinburgh
The ‘level’ of a qualification (or a competence) is an indication of the demands made
on the learner, the complexity and depth of achievement and the learner’s autonomy in
demonstrating that achievement.
The EQF level descriptors provide a general, shared understanding of learning and achievement
at each of the eight levels on the Framework and are designed to enable their use across a
wide range of learning contexts.
Before qualifications (or competences) can be levelled to the EQF, it is usual for them to be
expressed in terms of learning outcomes and assessment criteria. As illustrated above, learning
outcomes describe what a learner will know, understand or be able to do. Assessment criteria
are the set of standards a learner is expected to meet to demonstrate that each learning
outcome has been achieved.
Each qualification, at whatever level, can be further described in terms of the type of learning
achievement. The EQF distinguishes three main learning categories:



Knowledge (knowledge and understanding)
Skills (application and action)
Competence (autonomy and accountability)
All qualifications are likely to reflect aspects of these categories, although some will focus on
one or two of them rather than all three.
Given this architecture, the EQF works as an overarching framework within which all types of
qualifications and certificates, and the related qualification systems, might be compared, by
means of their expression in learning outcomes and thanks to the ongoing institutional effort
of referencing national qualifications systems to the eight EQF levels7.
In this context, specific competences and sets of competences acquired informally at work
and expressed as learning outcomes are often easily placed (at least partially) within existing
qualifications and national/sectoral qualification frameworks where available, and through
them, assigned an EQF level.
In the absence of such frameworks, or when dealing with more unstructured learning
experiences and related learning outcomes, the EQF can residually work as an adequate
shared reference framework to attach a level to learning achievements. In this case, however,
indicators are needed to support an objective assessment of learning outcomes against the
eight levels of the EQF, on the basis of evidences provided.
The guidance in the following sections is to help qualification evaluators assign an EQF
level to an individual qualification – meant as a set of learning outcomes including different
combinations of competences, knowledge and skills, however acquired – including any
component units, and to allocate a value to the qualification’s weighting towards each of
7 We refer here to the ongoing effort undertaken by the EU Member States, at different paces, to level their national
qualifications systems to the EQF by 2013. Meanwhile, the EQF infrastructure offers to different sectoral, international
competence frameworks (such as the European e-Competence framework) the possibility to build on its descriptors and
levels to obtain a full transferability and European acknowledgement.
33 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
5
Reference to EQF and other existing Qualification/
Competence Frameworks (national, regional, sectoral etc)
Scienter; the University of Edinburgh
the three learning categories. Specifically, the VALEW Model proposes the appointment of a
panel of experts who will be in charge of the levelling exercise by reflecting individually on the
qualification and then together in a meeting which will lead to a decision on the level.
EQF Levelling: General Indications
In order to ensure the highest degree of objectivity to such a levelling process, especially
when informal learning is concerned, some general indications are provided, starting from
the appraisal of available reference frameworks (and the related level-assessment criteria),
but offering also some parameters and dimensions to consider in order to evaluate more
“scattered” learning outcomes and competences against the EQF levels.
Given the multi-levelled picture provided above, as well as the heterogeneous setting
characterising qualification frameworks and prior-learning recognition across Europe, the
VALEW Model proposes three different idealtypic hypotheses referring to a continuum from
a well-known set of competences finding full correspondence within existing qualifications,
to a highly unstructured set of learning outcomes emerging from working experiences and
requiring adequate indicators able to support level-assessment.
The first two hypotheses correspond to situations in which the competences acquired
informally, and expressed in learning outcomes, match existing qualifications, defined job
profiles and fully-developed reference frameworks, referring to both professional and/or
institutional standards, either national or sectoral, and already levelled to the EQF. In this case,
it is possible to use their descriptors and indicators to assign a level to observed and assessed
learning outcomes.
Specifically:
1.In the case in which the learning outcomes refer to competences clearly corresponding to
existing qualifications within national qualifications systems, the latter provide for indicators
and descriptors which help the assignment of levels both within these systems and,
indirectly, to the EQF.
2.In the case in which the set of competences under evaluation is more unstructured and
does not find correspondence in any existing national qualifications system, it is possible to
use the descriptors, indicators and levelling methodology provided by already-developed
sectoral, European and international frameworks, e.g. the European e-Competence
Framework.
3.The third hypothesis refers instead to more unstructured learning outcomes as emerging
from the learning experience that takes place at work. In this case – and as described in
Chapter 3 of these guidelines (Collection of Evidence) – some reliable and shared indicators
are needed to objectively assess learning against expected standards and attach it a level
of proficiency on the basis of evidences provided. (Please see Table 5 (Annex 5) and Table 7
(Annex 7) to these guidelines.)
34 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
5
Reference to EQF and other existing Qualification/
Competence Frameworks (national, regional, sectoral etc)
Scienter; the University of Edinburgh
In the absence of immediate reference to existing qualifications and the related descriptors, the
EQF descriptors offer a set of abstract parameters, expressed in terms of ranges, referring to
autonomy level (from none to full) and to context complexity (from highly structured to nonstructured working contexts), and for each of them specific indicators can be identified. (E.g.
please see Table 5 (Annex 5) and Table 7 (Annex 7) to these guidelines.)
In addition to this process of “operationalisation” of the EQF dimensions, reliable indicators
can also be drawn from the common patrimony of prior-learning recognition, starting for
instance from the lesson and methodology offered by the Bilan de Compétences.
This overall recommendation on how evaluators should behave in order to assess learning
outcomes and competence levels against the EQF levels fulfils a triple goal:
1.It allows the highest possible objectivity in assessing learning achievement levels, thereby
guaranteeing impartiality, transparency and above all equality of the process, by means of
referencing to shared and acknowledged indicators supporting judgement, but likely to fit
the specific features of the context.
2.It provides for a cost-effective methodology which, when possible, relies on existing
instruments, thereby reducing the risk of arbitrariness of judgement as well as reducing the
effort required on the part of the single evaluation panel.
3.The residual employment of the EQF parameters and other indicators avoids bypassing the
national and sectoral levels, by exploring in the first instance the availability and suitability
of existing national qualifications systems and/or transnational and sectoral frameworks,
thereby respecting national and context specificities while adopting their own EQF-levelling
system to guarantee European comparability.
EQF Levelling: Application in the VALEW Model
As regards the levelling of qualifications, it may be found that the application of this VALEW
guidance may lead to related and/or unexpected outcomes, e.g.:

Checking the internal coherence of a qualification. During the levelling process, it may
be found that the learning outcomes and the assessment materials do not match each
other – does the assessment provide appropriate evidence that the candidate has fully
achieved the learning outcomes and does the qualification deliver what it promises?
 Testing the adequacy of the assessment tools, the coverage of the assessment criteria and
the score necessary for obtaining the qualification
 Checking external relevance – does the qualification continue to meet market
requirements or should it be reviewed?
Outcomes like these should also be recorded on the meeting documentation (Form A, Annex
8 to these guidelines) so that, where appropriate, action may be taken by the organisation
concerned.
35 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
5
Reference to EQF and other existing Qualification/
Competence Frameworks (national, regional, sectoral etc)
Scienter; the University of Edinburgh
Prior to the meeting:
1.The process to level each qualification to the EQF should take place at a formal meeting and
the decisions and the reasons for those decisions should be formally documented on the
templates provided (Form A and Form B).
2.The Panel chosen to assign the appropriate EQF level to each qualification should consist
of a reasonable number of suitably competent people – no fewer than three. The Panel’s
expertise should encompass the following:
a. he content of the qualification under review
b. related sector occupation/s
c. framework-levelling experience
d. training delivery, e.g. teachers or lecturers in the subject
e. relevant assessment experience
f. non-related sectors and/or qualifications
3. Panel members must be unbiased and capable of acting objectively. They must be jointly
prepared to agree and document the final outcome and the reasons for the decisions
taken. The Chair of the Panel should be independent from the qualification’s owner to
achieve maximum objectivity.
4. It is essential that individual Panel members prepare, prior to the formal meeting, in order to
familiarise themselves with:
a.all the appropriate qualifications materials, in particular the learning outcomes and any
available assessment materials
b. the EQF level descriptors
5. This preparation will enable them to make initial decisions (prior to the Panel meeting) on
“best fits” for the units or qualifications. Experience shows that the outputs of the Panel
meeting will be more effective if this prior work has taken place. Panel members should be
informed of the need to complete preparatory work before the meeting and asked to set
aside sufficient time.
6. The following materials should be provided to Panel members, with sufficient time before
the meeting for individual consideration and at the meeting for group discussion:
a. guidance for levelling procedures
b. blank Form A and multiple copies of blank Form B
c. the EQF level descriptors
d.syllabuses for the qualification or for all its constituent units under review (covering the
learning outcomes and assessment criteria for each)8
e. assessment materials9
7. Where a qualification is made up of several units (whether mandatory or optional), the
whole group of units should be reviewed during the same meeting. Sufficient time
should be set aside for the meeting, according to the number of units involved, to enable
considered judgements. It is important to stress that qualifications can be levelled by unit or
by whole qualification.
8 In case the certification is provided in several countries or the panel is international, the use of the English version is
recommended | 9 As above
36 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
5
Reference to EQF and other existing Qualification/
Competence Frameworks (national, regional, sectoral etc)
Scienter; the University of Edinburgh
8. Each member of the Panel should record their individual findings (on Form B). If possible,
Panel members should provisionally complete Form B before the meeting, as long as
they have been able to give consideration to all the available material. In this case the
meeting could begin with a discussion about the individual findings of the Panel members.
After discussion, the Panel’s final decision will be recorded on Form A together with the
reasoning behind the overall decision reached. Form A and the reasoning will serve as an
audit trail on how and why each qualification (and its units) has been allocated a particular
level within the EQF.
During the meeting:
1. Assigning a level is not an exact science and the aim of the Panel should be to find the best
fit across the level descriptors. It should be noted that the levelling exercise depends to a
certain extent on subjective judgement and it is recommended that the Panel refer to any
existing examples from the sector involved, to help in reaching an objective decision.
2. It is suggested that the Panel begin by individual analysis of the documentation (if this work
has not been completed before the actual gathering of the Panel). The collective analysis
should start with a discussion on the approximate level at which they believe the unit or
qualification being reviewed sits. They should then carefully review the EQF level descriptors
above, below and at this chosen level to establish its accuracy. The aim will be to decide on
the best fit for each learning category for each unit or qualification, i.e. for (a) Knowledge,
(b) Skills and (c) Competence.
3. The Panel should review all the learning outcomes and assessment criteria for each unit.
An overall level to each type of learning category for each unit should be recorded by each
Panel member and then discussed.
4. In the event that different levels for different learning categories are recorded, the
‘weighting’ system based on the values recorded for the weighting of each learning
category (described below) can be used to determine the overall level for each unit or
qualification.
5. It is possible to denote the scope of the qualification by incorporating the letters K, KS
or KSC in the title (to indicate whether it is based on knowledge only, a combination of
knowledge and skills, or if it is a full competence qualification), as long as this attribution is
explained. It may also be possible to use colours to illustrate the qualification’s scope, i.e.:
1. Knowledge only Level 4 (K)
2. Knowledge and Skills Level 4 (KS)
3. Knowledge, Skills and Competence Level 4 (KSC)
It is not recommended that any coding be mandatory but could be used where it helps to
distinguish between qualification types.
6. The Panel should weight each qualification in terms of approximate percentages,
according to the extent to which its learning is based on (a) ‘Knowledge’/knowledge and
understanding, (b) ‘Skills’/application and action, and (c) ‘Competence’/autonomy and
accountability. All qualifications are likely to reflect aspects of all three learning categories,
although some will focus on one or two rather than all three. For example if in assessing a
qualification the Panel considers that it is mostly made up of pure knowledge, with some
elements of skill but little or no elements of ‘competence’ to be assessed, they might record
the following result:
37 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
5
Reference to EQF and other existing Qualification/
Competence Frameworks (national, regional, sectoral etc)
Scienter; the University of Edinburgh
Learning Category
Knowledge Skills
Competence
Weighting
90%
10%
0%
Level
4
3
n/a
Overall Level = 4
Equally, a qualification based on competence assessment might have the following result:
Learning Category
Knowledge Skills
Competence
Weighting
10%
20%
70%
Level
3
4
4
Overall Level = 4
7. When each unit has been reviewed and allocated a level, the overall level of the
qualification can be determined. If, after discussion, a joint decision cannot be agreed, the
Panel may decide to record the majority decision. A summary of any major differences of
opinion should be recorded.
8. Similarly, when each unit has been reviewed and a percentage weighting for each learning
category recorded, the overall weighting for each learning category can be determined.
If, after discussion, a joint decision cannot be agreed, the Panel may decide to record the
majority decision. A summary of any major differences of opinion should be recorded.
Further Considerations
Other considerations and comparisons with previously levelled qualifications include:
1. As illustrated in the introduction above, the Panel should preliminarily consider where
the learning outcomes position themselves on the abovementioned continuum, from full
correspondence in existing national qualifications frameworks to non-structured learning
outcomes requiring the deployment of a set of indicators able to objectively support levelassignment against the EQF descriptors. In the latter case, the EQF dimensions described
in Chapter 3 of these guidelines – including context complexity, level of autonomy and
behaviour and the related EQF levels – can be investigated through some specific indicators
able to assess whether the competences informally acquired imply:
 full to no autonomy
 non-structured to highly structured context
 degree of risk management (from high to very low)
2. It may be useful to consider the typical candidate taking the qualification, including
their experience and job responsibilities whilst acknowledging, for example, that not all
qualifications for senior personnel are necessarily at a high level.
3.It has been found that the translated/national version of the EQF level descriptors does
not always properly reflect the English (master) version. It may be very useful to translate
into the national language the guidelines given here, and to use translated forms for
the levelling process, so that any language difficulties can be addressed for the country
concerned. Problems with mis-translated level descriptors should be brought to the
attention of the relevant national authorities.
38 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
5
Reference to EQF and other existing Qualification/
Competence Frameworks (national, regional, sectoral etc)
Scienter; the University of Edinburgh
4. It may be useful to consider whether the qualification has entry requirements or is a
requirement for progression, as this may also provide an indication of the level. Again, it
should be noted that progression qualifications are not necessarily at a higher level.
5. The Panel should consider the assessment materials or evidence used, including any
assessment strategy and any learning materials available.
6. Sometimes the qualification might be a requirement for a certain (regulated) job role in
which case this could give an indication of the expected level of ‘competence’ required,
but the qualification requirements as a whole should be taken into account in the levelling
decision.
7. It should be noted that, where a qualification is not made up of units, it can be broken
down into smaller logical parts for the purposes of the levelling exercise to help the levelling
decision process.
8. The definition of competence in the EQF level descriptors is based on autonomy and
accountability. It should be noted that, in levelling decisions where autonomy and
accountability are not relevant, it may be helpful to use the wider EQF definition of
“competence”, meaning:
‘the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities
in work or study situations and in professional development’
** The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF) Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities 2008
Recording decisions:
1. Form A (Annex 8 to these guidelines) is designed to record the full Panel’s decisions on
the qualification under review (on the first page) and the final decisions on the allocation
of level and learning category weighting value (on the second page). Each field can be
extended as necessary to record as much information as is felt necessary.
2. Form B (Annex 9 to these guidelines) is designed to record individual Panel members’
judgements on qualifications or individual units, prior to discussion with the rest of the
group. This is the working form, which can be copied as many times as necessary prior to
the meeting.
3. The first field of each form, Panel Reference, is to record the number or reference of the
Panel meeting, partly so that related pages can be kept together easily (where there may be
a series of Panel meetings to review different qualifications).
4. Additional space for comments on the front of the form should be used for any other
relevant information about the Panel or the qualification. For example, is the qualification a
regulatory requirement or a ‘licence to practice’? A representative of the regulatory body in
this case should be part of the Panel.
5. It will be important that the Panel document their reasons for assigning a particular level
to a qualification (and its units) in a way that is transparent to an independent auditor. It is
suggested that one way to justify a decision might be to refer to the descriptors in the level
above and below and explain why they are not suitable.
6. After the Panel have reached a final decision and have agreed on the comments and values
logged on the master qualification template form (Form A), all members should add their
signatures against their names on the front of the form.
39 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
6
Ensure Recognition
IG Metall; ARIFL; Scienter España; Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
Competence recognition and certification as a concept and set of practices must first
be recognised by the labour market, i.e. shared and agreed to by companies and all the
organisations potentially interested in competence certifications: VET institutions, public
administrations, etc. The more such bodies can recognise competence certification systems,
the more the value of these systems (their acknowledgement and reputation) will increase
and “virtuous circles” grow.
In this chapter, this issue will be discussed taking into account the stakeholders, how to
attract them, and the enabling factors for success.
European studies and research on validation of workplace learning show that from a
practical standpoint, a wide set of technical instruments and methodologies is now
available to fulfil the objective of making informal learning observable, measurable and
classifiable, making it possible to have reliable devices for validating informal learning
at work. The different chapters of these guidelines provide indication on which steps to
undertake and which methods to adopt in order to create such a system and equip it with
the necessary transparency and objectivity to fulfil a quality assurance aspiration.
It is worth acknowledging however that, although the design of recognition systems as a
technical process can rely on a wide set of methodologies developed across Europe, the
recognition of learning outcomes at the workplace is not yet a generalised phenomenon.
The explanation for this needs to be sought within the other milestone of a validation
system, the consensus required on the political level by the actors of the system as a whole.
In that respect it seems that the overall usefulness and relevance of recognition systems is
not perceived enough or actively acknowledged by key social constituents.
The following paragraphs analyse the enhancing and inhibiting factors which key players
face when validation of learning at work is at stake, and outlines which key conditions
allow for a systemic endorsement of a validation system and its institutionalisation.
Which Players Can Recognise and therefore Add Value to a Certification?
In an ideal case, a marketable competence certification should be recognised by a variety
of players and from a variety of perspectives. Together these perspectives should cover both
the formal and informal dimension of recognition, which are both equally important for the
successful implementation of a competence certification on the labour market and over time.
40 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
6
Ensure Recognition
IG Metall; ARIFL; Scienter España; Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
To cover the formal dimension, the following players come into consideration:
1. public authorities (e.g. ministries, national qualifications authorities, regional governments
etc): These players can ensure recognition of a certification from a formal and educational
systems/sector approaches point of view.
2. sectoral and professional bodies with recognised certification functions
3. education and training providers: Mutual recognition of certification and diplomas
by different educational and training players helps to increase mobility, transparency and
interoperability in professional education and training, and thus acceptance and accessibility
of specific certifications.
To cover the informal dimension, the direct players within the labour market are:

employers, who are the indirect beneficiaries of certifications. To ensure the value of
certifications on the labour market, it is crucial that they are well known and accepted by
employers. This acceptance can be achieved by formal support (see above); nevertheless the
informal dimension of recognition by employers is often driven by its own dynamic.
 direct end-users, who are the certification candidates and holders. They have to feel
motivated to acquire the certification by seeing a real added value for their personal and/
or career development. Such added value can only be transmitted if strong support by the
other players is provided.
 labour unions, which are the legitimate political entity for dialogue and cooperation
between labour, employers and the state. They are a building block in the creation of a
system of validation which requires the commitment of all social partners. In that respect,
the viability and success of informal-learning validation at work is conditional upon an
overall climate of co-operation between the social forces, and specifically labour and
capital.
High quality and market value of the certification in terms of content, method, etc is a
prerequisite to facilitate recognition among all the above-mentioned parties. How such a
level of quality can be ensured is covered by previous chapters and is therefore here taken for
granted.
Attractiveness of and Resistance to Validation of Learning Outcomes at Work from the Various Stakeholders’ Perspectives
The actors listed above have different interests and are constrained as institutions between
change and conservation, according to an incentive-disincentive dynamic. According to this,
validation of informal learning and specifically of work-based learning is perceived as both
attractive and problematic or even threatening for different reasons.
Public authorities might be willing to implement validation systems for workers through
an active welfare policy which feeds into lifelong-learning realisation. In terms of public
spending, recognising competences acquired through non-formal paths would moreover
allow for cutting off the direct costs of continuing vocational training and social subsidies
for unemployment. Building a sound infrastructure able to back the validation system would
require however a significant effort, both organisational and economic, of a systemic breadth.
It would entail a certain degree of transformation of the public institution itself to comply
41 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
6
Ensure Recognition
IG Metall; ARIFL; Scienter España; Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
with the new pattern of services provided to society. At a higher and more political level,
governments and public authorities need to account to, and maintain a consensus with,
different actors and ensure a balance of interest among legitimate social constituents. They
might be therefore in a sensitive position with respect to some expected resistance from formal
education systems and their providers, who are happy to maintain a certain monopoly on
education provision and learning recognition.
Education and training providers might to a certain extent benefit from systems of
validation of informal learning (including workplace learning) able to enhance mobility
among and towards learning paths, providing them with new “customers” and designing an
expanding role for education and lifelong learning in society. However, widening the borders
of learning provision within the jurisdictions of its traditional agents might be perceived as
a threat, while concerns around the quality of non-traditional education create resistance to
what might be seen as lower access requirements to formal paths.
At a micro level, while the commitment of employers and employers’ associations is
pivotal to turn work-based learning validation into practice, some structural factors downplay
their interest in supporting validation when not creating explicit resistance. Workplace training
seems to some extent irreconcilable with the employability/lifelong-learning development
vision embedded in the validation discourse. While the latter requires a focus on transversal
skills and the transferability/portability of competences across segments of the labour
market, enterprises tend to invest in developing skills for the immediate usage of the specific
internal productive process. In general, employers are not always conscious of the benefits of
continuous training, including the recognition of competences at work, due to high turnover
rates, which scatter investment in HR development, in the perception of managers. More
specifically, companies are highly concerned on one hand with the loss of their human capital,
and on the other with the burden of incoming contractual obligations. Many enterprises
would be highly interested, however, in using attuned validation practices serving their needs,
as well as those of their employees, with a variety of purposes. A company might gain in
external visibility and quality assurance by presenting itself in a commonly accepted language
to customers and partners, while better managing its own human resources. Companies are
particularly interested in certifications of informal learning in the workplace when it comes
to recruitment, seconding and outsourcing, or when potential clients ask for secondees to
be certified, especially in the ICT sector (not necessarily with vendor-specific certifications).
Moreover companies can be interested in such certifications to recognise and certify
competences acquired during apprenticeships (beyond specific training measures).
In general large companies are at present not very interested in such certifications for their
employees because on one hand they are afraid of possible claims from certified employees
(e.g. career or salary improvements), and on the other hand they often already have in-house
assessment tools and procedures, customized for their needs. By contrast, SMEs have not
usually got such internal instruments and could be supported by external certification devices.
Unfortunately, SMEs are not usually aware of the importance of competence recognition and
development. In this sense, it would be important to develop communication campaigns and
learning measures to enhance their culture and their willingness to pay attention to such
opportunities. Another issue in this context is related to costs, i.e. who pays. In fact, companies
(both large ones and SMEs) are not very keen to support financially such external certifications.
Moreover some of them state that certifications should be based on reputation; that is, they
42 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
6
Ensure Recognition
IG Metall; ARIFL; Scienter España; Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
should be issued by acknowledged bodies and based on quality assurance in their processes
and procedures. The network of stakeholders believing in and supporting the validation of
informal learning at work is of great importance to raise perceptions of reliability.
The enterprise system as a whole would benefit from an active policy device contributing to
making the system more flexible, thereby favouring offer-demand matching in the labour
market. In this sense, the existence of national or sectoral standards as well as competencebased national qualification frameworks provides scope for validation of informal learning
by offering already-developed tools. Such tools allow companies to cut costs of standards
development while also helping in the identification of skill shortages and future competence
needs in the economic system, so as to manage, in a competitiveness perspective, both the
contingent and future HR and development strategies of companies.
The existence of such a system is fundamentally attractive for the individual worker. In
terms of transferability, the possibility to “speak a common language” allows for validation to
produce self-standing outputs which can be utilised outside the company in an employability
perspective, as well as in a lifelong-learning project in education and training paths. Validation
mechanisms offer individuals chances for building a flexible competence capital to be usable
within their workplace as well as portable across their lifelong learning and professional
experience. Procedures need however to be reliable, transparent and accountable, since
the individual must be able to trust the company with regard to his/her evaluation and the
consequence it could bring to the individual’s position in the organisational chart. In that
respect not all workers are the same, as different professions and positions in the labour
market also entail different interests and incentives to undergo a validation process.
Professional and sectoral bodies, representing specific categories of qualified workers,
have a strong interest in certification systems able to contribute to professionalisation and
career paths within the specific sectors, as well as to internal and external competitiveness.
As certifying bodies, they might moreover be interested in producing their own certification
label which regulates the profession and is a guarantee of quality in the labour (and sell/buy)
market. This in turn raises questions with regard to the extent to which a one-size-fits-all
public policy on informal learning recognition (i.e. a national validation system linked to an
NQF) might be perceived as inappropriate and overbearing for these sectoral and professional
bodies that traditionally lean towards self regulation.
From the point of view of the candidates for certification, the position of the labour union is
a sensitive one. In an evolutionary scenario of changing industrial relations, the labour unions
hold a strong interest in maintaining and expanding their areas of jurisdiction so as to increase
their manoeuvring scope and raise their political importance as the sole legitimate workers’
representative in the political arena. As a new area for bargaining between employers and
labour (and the state), the validation and recognition of informal learning at work represents
an important playing field where employees might be able to gain in rights, opportunities,
improved conditions and power. It is in particular in terms of wage policy that this advantage
is perceived, though the overall implications of an institutionalisation of work-based learning
are wider and include both opportunities and threats to the labour union position, i.e. an
increasing shift from collective to individual bargaining.
43 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
6
Ensure Recognition
IG Metall; ARIFL; Scienter España; Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
Key Factors of Success
To achieve a broad recognition of a competence certification, early involvement of relevant
players in the certification establishment and recognition process is crucial. As early as possible,
relevant stakeholders should be identified. For coherent market implementation on national/
EU levels, the highest possible level of certification activity, with good contact to the user base
(employers and professionals), should be ensured.
Who should be involved concretely would vary according to the focus of the certification
and should be analysed carefully in each specific case. Depending on the certification focus,
relevant players could be e.g. chambers of commerce, VET or higher education networks,
ministries, employers plus professional associations, and trade unions. A successful example
from Lombardy Region counted on working together with professional associations in both the
definition of competences and the assessment of VET final exams.
Once the competence certification is available within the labour market, a combined effort
by all players involved should be made in order to reach as soon as possible a critical mass
of certifications awarded in a reasonable time and a provable recognition and acceptance of
the certification by employers. To achieve this aim, establishing right from the beginning a
well-functioning and thoroughly visible service infrastructure for assessment, certification and
accompanying supporting/consulting processes is a necessity.
To achieve a provable recognition within the labour market by employers and certification
candidates, rewarding approaches for certified competences can be fostered from a formal
perspective. For example, in a competence certification system that was developed by
Lombardy Region in 2007, the number of formative credits that are to be obtained for a
course could be “discounted” for people who have certified competences in related subjects.
To ensure recognition and flexibility, competence certifications could be included in
ECTS/ECVET or other translation devices which ensure connections between training
and certification paths. Moreover, to ensure recognition of a certification over time, the
establishment of a re-certification process, e.g. every three years, might be considered.
Finally, a tailored communication strategy should be developed and implemented in parallel,
addressing the variety of players and perspectives involved, in order to support the positive
image-building of the certification. To ensure straightforward communication and an easily
accessible service infrastructure, a responsible body should be identified which can be
contacted by all. A well-suited communication strategy would include:


certification marketing towards end-users (easy comprehensiveness of process and benefits)
certification marketing towards indirect beneficiaries (quality of certification outcomes in
work environment and benefits)
 a lead by a responsible body, supported by other players involved
The overall process could be supported in practical terms by promoting a standardized tool for
proving personal competences.
44 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
6
Ensure Recognition
IG Metall; ARIFL; Scienter España; Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
Readiness Index and Proposal to Check Progress against Generalised
Validation and Recognition of Learning Achievement in the Workplace
A careful analysis, taking into account the inhibiting and enhancing factors listed above –
as well as both the existing conditions and the specific actions needed to tackle resistance
and commit all relevant actors – provides an insight into the readiness of the system to
institutionalise (and formally reward) the recognition of work-based learning.
The necessity of involving “opposite” stakeholders so as to build the system from the bottom
up, with consensus and shared effort as a basis for success, requires taking into account
the positions of each so as to appreciate fully the viability of a validation system in given
conditions. To this aim, a readiness index has been developed by the VALEW project, to collect,
rank and compare the different stakeholders’ perspectives/perceptions on the following
dimensions:
1. need perceived (for a validation system)
2. awareness of possible solutions
3. willingness to commit
4. willingness to “pay”
5. existing professional capacity in the system
The index allows the degree of system-readiness (at a national or a more specific level) to be
rated on each dimension (from 1 – very low, to 5 – very high), so as to calculate the overall
readiness of the system with regard to the recognition of informal learning at work, taking into
account, as backdrop information, the actual use and the legislative/regulation conditions, as
well as the availability of a national qualifications framework.
Such an index (and above all the process of compiling and interpreting it) could also be used as
a starting point for discussion among different stakeholders in a specific system, as a working
tool to undertake the process of design and implementation of a validation system, to collect
different views and needs, understand problems and opportunities and investigate the viability
of the system.
45 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
6
Ensure Recognition
IG Metall; ARIFL; Scienter España; Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
Readiness Index
Potential Users
(Individuals)
Employers
Stakeholders
Policy-Makers
----
Very low
very high
----
Very low
very high
----
Very low
very high
----
Very low
very high high
Need perceived
Awareness of possible
solutions
Willingness to commit
Willingness to pay
Existence of professional
capacity in the system
(as perceived)
Actual use (as perceived)
Legislative/Regulation
conditions
Qualification framework
in place
Total
Readiness index:
46 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
Total
6
Ensure Recognition
IG Metall; ARIFL; Scienter España; Fondazione Politecnico di Milano
Moving Forward
A first piloting of the readiness index in the countries involved in the VALEW project has
provided some interesting, though not fully representative, insights into the state of the art of
European systems with regard to validation of work-based learning. What emerges is that even
in the most advanced systems in terms of validation, things are moving slowly and obstacles
exist on the way to full acceptance of informal learning recognition.
It is however true that a widespread interest exists today among stakeholders, while more
general reforms in the policy panorama, including education and training and welfare and
employment policy, are progressively moving towards the creation of approaches, mindsets
and supporting infrastructures to allow for more dialogue among learning systems and the
labour market. In this scenario, the development of the European Qualifications Framework,
although not representing a panacea, is an important step in the passage, from segmented
education systems based on learning inputs, towards lifelong and life-wide learning systems
that use competences as their currency and learning outcomes as their shared language.
47 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
7
Annexes
Chapter 3: Collection of Evidence







Annex 1: Table 1 “e-Competences, DOSY skills, levels and pieces of evidence”
This annex is related to one of the tools developed during the VALEW project.
Annex 2: Table 2 “Making competence explicit”
Annex 3: Table 3 “Correspondence model EQF, e-CF levels (from CWA 2008 The European
e-Competence Framework)”
Annex 4: Table 4 “Evidence Assessment Grid”;
Annex 5: Table 5 “EQF Indicators related to the Evidence Assessment Grid”
Annex 6: Table 6 “Oral Examination Grids”
Annex 7: Table 7 “EQF Indicators related to the Oral Examination Grids”
The second and the last four annexes are related to some tools currently used in Lombardy
Region approach to the certification of competence acquired in non-formal/informal learning
environments.
Chapter 5: Reference to EQF and other existing Qualification/
Competence Frameworks (national, regional, sectoral etc)

Annex 8: FORM A “Master template for allocating EQF level and learning category
weighting to OVERALL QUALIFICATION”
 Annex 9: FORM B “Working Template for allocating EQF level and learning category
weighting to INDIVIDUAL UNITS”
48 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
e-Competence
A.3. Business Plan Development
Addresses the design and structure of a business or product plan
through the identification of alternative approaches; includes return
on investment propositions. Presents
cost benefit analysis and reasoned
arguments in support of the selected strategy. This activity may
include the development of enterprise-wide information architectures
and processes to ensure strategic
application of technology for business benefit. Ensures compliance of
business and technology strategies.
Communicates and sells business
plan to relevant stakeholders and
addresses political, financial, and
organisational interests, including
SWOT analysis. For product plans
this will incorporate the marketing
and sales strategy and potential use
of Value Added
Resellers (VARs).
B.3. Testing
Constructs and executes systematic
test procedures for IT systems or
customer usability requirements to
establish compliance with design
specifications. Ensures that new
or revised components or systems
perform to expectation. Ensures
meeting internal, external, national
and international standards including health and safety for either
usability, performance, reliability or
compatibility. Produces documents
and reports to evidence certification
requirements.
EQF
Level
7
5
2
Organises test
programmes and
builds scripts to
stress-test likely
vulnerabilities.
Records and reports
outcomes providing
analysis of results.
4
Provides leadership
for the creation
of an information
systems strategy
which meets the
requirements of the
business.
e-Competence
Level
C.L1  read and identify the main points and
ideas from documents about straightforward
subjects;  write about straightforward
subjects.
WWO.L1  understand what needs to be
done to achieve these objectives;  carry out
tasks to meet your own responsibilities;
IOLP.L1  understand the short-term targets
you have been given, and plan how these will
be met;  follow your plan to meet targets
and improve your performance;  review
your progress and achievements.
L2  use your plan to meet targets, identifying when you need support from others.
C.L3  create opportunities for others to contribute to group discussions about complex
subjects;  organise information coherently,
selecting a form and style of writing appropriate to complex subject matter;  read and
summarise information from extended documents;  make a presentation using a range
of techniques to engage the audience.
WWO.L4  develop a strategy for using the
relevant key skill over an extended period of
time, and plan how you will do this;  monitor progress, critically reflect on your performance in using the relevant skill, and adapt
your strategy, as necessary, to achieve the
quality of outcomes required;  evaluate your
overall strategy and present the outcomes
from your work, including ways of further
improving your skills.
IOLP.L3  agree targets and plan how these
will be met over an extended period of time;
 use your plan, seeking feedback and
support from relevant sources, to help meet
targets;  seek information from relevant
sources to establish evidence of your achievements, when reviewing your progress.
DOSY Level
Technical documents
Technical reports
Typology
Performance
Technical documents
Analysis / Ethical
Technical reports
Hacking procedure Endorsement
documentation
Project brochures;
CRM project:
Feasibility Study;
Comparative
analysis between
systems; Reports
on partners’ feedbacks; Product
presentations;
Documentation
on the application
system
Evidence
How to
collect
Creator
Under general
supervision
Structured-unpredictable
„Making“, „organising“,
„using“ (tools for testing),
„building“ (reports),
„testing“, „writing“
(technical documentation),
„defining“ (Code review
elements), „analysing“,
„developing“, „programming“, „discovering“.
Designing, managing, surveying, monitoring, evaluating, improving, finding
non-standard solutions
Original thinking, problem
solving, taking care and
responsibility, developing,
innovating, managing,
transforming; Planning,
making decisions, supervising, building teams, reviewing performances
Complexity (of projects/ Behaviour/Action Verbs
activities described in
(gathered from the evithe evidence)
dence)
Creator
Structured-unpredictable
taking responsibility
Role in the
drafting of
evidence
7
Annexes
Annex 1: Table 1 “e-Competences, DOSY skills, levels and pieces of evidence”
49 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
D.4. Purchasing
Applies a consistent procurement
procedure, including deployment
of the following sub processes:
specification requirements, supplier
identification, proposal analysis,
contract negotiation, supplier selection, contract placement. Ensures
that the entire purchasing process
is fit for purpose and adds business
value to the organisation.
C.1. User Support
Responds to user requests and
issues; records relevant information.
Resolves or escalates incidents and
optimises system performance.
Monitors solution outcome and
resultant customer satisfaction.
6
4
e-Competence
EQF
Level
2
Understands
and applies the
principles of the
procurement process; places orders
based on existing
supplier contracts.
Ensures the correct
execution of orders,
including validation
of deliverables and
correlation with
subsequent payments.
3
Manages others’
activities and is
accountable for ensuring that agreed
service levels are
met. Plans resource
allocation to ensure
support is available within user
business hours.
Acts creatively, and
seeks opportunities
for continuous service improvement
by analysing root
causes. Manages
costs to budget.
e-Competence
Level
C.L1  take part in discussions about
straightforward subjects;  read and identify
the main points and ideas from documents
about straightforward subjects;  write about
straightforward subjects;  make a presentation about knowledge of a subject.
WWO.L1  understand what needs to be
done to achieve these objectives;  carry out
tasks to meet your own responsibilities; 
organise tasks to meet your responsibilities
and work co-operatively with others.
IOLP.L1  understand the short-term targets
you have been given, and plan how these will
be met;  follow your plan to meet targets
and improve your performance;  review
your progress and achievements.
L2  identify evidence of your achievements
when reviewing your progress.
C.L2  help move discussions forward; 
give a short talk using an image to illustrate
your main points;  read and summarise
information from extended documents;  use
a suitable structure and style when writing
extended documents.
L3  create opportunities for others to contribute to group discussions about complex
subjects;  make a presentation using a range of techniques to engage the audience.
WWO.L2  plan what needs to be done to
achieve these objectives and clarify responsibilities;  organise tasks to meet your responsibilities and work co-operatively with others.
L3  seek to establish and maintain co-operative working relationships, agreeing ways
to overcome any difficulties;  review work
with others, including factors that influenced
the outcome.
IOLP.L2  help set short-term targets and
plan how these will be met;  use your plan
to meet targets, identifying when you need
support from others.
L3  seek information from relevant sources
to establish evidence of your achievements,
when reviewing your progress.
DOSY Level
Typology
Performance data
related to the use
of order process
applications;
Reports on the
matching of parameters required by
the order process
and those ones
achieved
Formal documentation; Demo;
Endorsement
Help Desk
Formal and technical
management;
documents
Call Centre
Technical reports
management;
Trouble ticketing;
SLA execution;
Audit on achieved
performances
compared against
service level agreements;
Customer satisfaction surveys
Evidence
How to
collect
Under general
supervision
Taking
responsibility
Role in the
drafting of
evidence
Structured-predictable
Structured-unpredictable
Scheduling, organising,
integrating, finding standard solutions, interacting,
communicating, working
in team
Supporting, controlling,
monitoring, investigating,
taking care and responsibility, measuring, improving,
managing.
Planning, making decisions,
supervising, building teams,
training people, reviewing
performances, finding creative solutions by application
of specific technical or
business knowledge/skills
Complexity (of projects/ Behaviour/Action Verbs
activities described in
(gathered from the evithe evidence)
dence)
7
Annexes
Annex 1: Table 1 “e-Competences, DOSY skills, levels and pieces of evidence”
50 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
e-Competence
E.3. Risk Management
Implements the management of risk
across information systems through
the application of the enterprisedefined risk management policy
and procedure. Assesses risk to
the organisation’s business, and
documents potential risk and containment plans.
EQF
Level
6
3
Decides on appropriate actions
required to adapt
security and
address risk exposure. Evaluates,
manages and ensures validation of
exceptions; audits
ICT processes and
environment.
e-Competence
Level
C.L2  help move discussions forward; 
give a short talk using an image to illustrate
your main points;  read and summarise
information from extended documents;  use
a suitable structure and style when writing
extended documents.
L3  create opportunities for others to contribute to group discussions about complex
subjects;  make a presentation using a range of techniques to engage the audience.
WWO.L2  plan what needs to be done to
achieve these objectives and clarify responsibilities;  organise tasks to meet your responsibilities and work co-operatively with others.
L3  seek to establish and maintain co-operative working relationships, agreeing ways
to overcome any difficulties;  review work
with others, including factors that influenced
the outcome.
IOLP.L2  help set short-term targets and
plan how these will be met;  use your plan
to meet targets, identifying when you need
support from others.
L3  seek information from relevant sources
to establish evidence of your achievements,
when reviewing your progress.
DOSY Level
Organisation and
implementation of
company‘s business data back-up;
Procedures of
authentication of
data; Audits
Evidence
Technical documentsTechnical reports, Email, Demo,
Endorsement
Typology
How to
collect
Understanding, applying,
adapting, investigating, deploying, managing, taking
responsibility, consulting.
Planning, making decisions,
supervising, building teams,
training people, reviewing
performances, finding creative solutions by application
of specific technical or
business knowledge/skills
Complexity (of projects/ Behaviour/Action Verbs
activities described in
(gathered from the evithe evidence)
dence)
Concept
Structured-unpredictable
creator (whole
document or
some parts of
it); Supervisor;
Reviser
Role in the
drafting of
evidence
7
Annexes
Annex 1: Table 1 “e-Competences, DOSY skills, levels and pieces of evidence”
51 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
7
Annexes
Annex 2:
Table 2 Excerpt from the document “Making competence explicit”
(being adopted by Lombardy Region)
Making competence explicit
Recognition of competence (fill in the name of the competence): .............................................
Tell me what you can do and in what way
Imagine having to convey this competence to someone who wants to acquire it. Explain what
this competence is. How do you practice this competence?
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
How did you get this competence? (Training courses, self-training, experience in the field)
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
Describe some contexts (private or public companies; large, medium or small enterprises; nonprofit associations; leisure; activities, processes, projects) where you practised this competence,
specifying times and terms
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
Describe briefly the most significant experience in which you practised this competence
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
Concerning the experience described above, did you practise this competence individually or
working in a team?
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
52 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
7
Annexes
What was your role?
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
Concerning the experience described above, how did you manage the activities related to this
competence? (E.g. did you plan activities? Did you identify some priorities?)
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
Concerning the experience described above, which tools did you use?
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
Thinking about the experience described above, which risks might you contemplate?
(Give some examples)
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
Thinking about the experience described above, which problems might occur and how might
you manage them?
(Give some examples)
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
Thinking about the experience described above, which mistakes might you make and how
might you prevent them?
(Give some examples)
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
How might you correct them?
(Give some examples)
.................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
53 | 60
.................................................................................................................................................
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
4
3
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, critical
awareness of knowledge issues in a field and at
the interface between different fields, specialised
problem-solving skills in research and/or innovation to develop new knowledge and procedures
and to integrate knowledge from different fields,
managing and transforming work or study contexts that are complex, unpredictable and require
new strategic approaches, taking responsibility for
contributing to professional knowledge and practice and/or for reviewing the strategic performance
of teams
Advanced knowledge of a field of work or study,
involving a critical understanding of theories and
principles, advanced skills, demonstrating mastery
and innovation in solving complex and unpredictable problems in a specialised field of work
or study, management of complex technical or
professional activities or projects, taking responsibility for decision-making in unpredictable work or
study contexts, for continuing personal and group
professional development
Comprehensive, specialised, factual and theoretical knowledge within a field of work or study
and an awareness of the boundaries of that
knowledge, expertise in a comprehensive range of
cognitive and practical skills in developing creative
solutions to abstract problems, management and
supervision in contexts where there is unpredictable change, reviewing and developing performance
of self and others
Factual and theoretical knowledge in broad contexts within a field of work or study, expertise in a
range of cognitive and practical skills in generating
solutions to specific problems in a field of work
or study, self-management within the guidelines
of work or study contexts that are usually predictable, but are subject to change, supervising the
routine work of others, taking some responsibility
for the evaluation and improvement of work or
study activities
Knowledge of facts, principles, processes and general concepts in a field of work or study, a range
of cognitive and practical skills in accomplishing
tasks, problem-solving with basic methods, tools,
materials and information, responsibility for completion of tasks in work or study, adapting own
behaviour to circumstances in solving problems
7
6
5
4
3
1
2
5
e-Comp
Levels
Knowledge at the most advanced frontier, the
most advanced and specialised skills and techniques to solve critical problems in research and/
or innovation, demonstrating substantial authority,
innovation, autonomy, scholarly or professional
integrity
EQF Level descriptions
8
EQF
levels
Able to apply knowledge and skills to
solve straightforward problems; responsible for own actions; operating in a
stable environment
Associate
Operates with capability and independence in specified boundaries and may
supervise others in this environment;
conceptual and abstract model- building
using creative thinking; uses theoretical
knowledge and practical skills to solve
complex problems within a predictable
and sometimes unpredictable context
Professional
Respected for innovative methods and
use of initiative in specific technical or
business areas; providing leadership and
taking responsibility for team performances and development in unpredictable
environments
Senior Professional/Manager
Extensive scope of responsibilities deploying specialised integration capability
in complex environments; full responsibility for strategic development of staff
working in unfamiliar and unpredictable
situations
Lead Professional/Senior Manager
Overall accountability and responsibility;
recognised inside and outside the organisation for innovative solutions and for
shaping the future using outstanding
leading edge thinking and knowledge
Principal
e-Comp Level descriptions
Support/Service
Concepts/Basic
principles
Consulting
IS strategy/holistic
solutions.
IS strategy or
programme
management.
Typical tasks
Structured –
predictable
Structured –
unpredictable
Unpredictable –
unstructured
Complexity
Conceiving, transforming, innovating, finding creative solutions
by application of a
wide range of technical and/or management principles
Behaviour
54 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
der routine supervision. Uses minor
discretion in resolving problems or
enquiries. Works without frequent
reference to others
Responds to instructions. Works un-
Uses discretion in identifying and
resolving complex problems and
assignments. Specific instruction is
usually given and work is reviewed
at frequent milestones. Determines
when problems should be escalated
to a higher level
Works under general supervision.
Applying, adapting,
developing, deploying,
maintaining, repairing,
finding basic/simple
solutions,
Scheduling, organising, integrating,
finding standard
solutions, interacting,
communicating, working in team
Designing, managing,
surveying, monitoring,
evaluating, improving,
finding non-standard
solutions
Planning, making
decisions, supervising,
building teams, training people, reviewing
Interprets instructions; makes
performances, finding
choices. Works under broad direccreative solutions by
tion. Full accountability for own
application of specific
technical work or project/supervitechnical or business
sory responsibilities. Receives assignments in the form of objectives. knowledge/skills
Establishes own milestones, team
objectives and delegates assignments. Work is often self-initiated
including technical, financial and
quality aspects. Establishes organisational objectives and delegates
assignments. Accountability for
actions and decisions taken by self
and subordinates
Has defined authority and responsibility for a significant area of work,
rity and responsibility for all aspects
of a significant area of work, including policy formation and application. Is held fully accountable for
actions taken and decisions made,
both by self and subordinates
Makes personal choices : Has autho-
Autonomy
7
Annexes
Annex 3: Table 3 “Correspondence model EQF, e-CF levels from The User guidelines
for the application of the European e-Competence Framework (CEN 2008 and 2010)”
7
Annexes
Annex 4: Table 4 “Evidence Assessment Grid”
(being adopted by Lombardy Region)
EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT GRID
Indicator n
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
Note
1
Score*
Evidence n
…
…
Indicator c
Evidence 3
Indicator b
Evidence 2
Indicator a
Evidence 1
Competence
* completely satisfied
(3)/on average (2)/not
satisfied (1)
Scores highlighted in red (1 and 2) are not fully satisfactory, so they need an investigation in
the final assessment stage.
During the evidence assessment the EQF indicators need to be satisfied also (please see
Annex 5: Table 5 “EQF indicators related to the Evidence Assessment Grid”).
If they are not satisfied, a more thorough analysis is needed during the final assessment phase.
Brief report on the evidence assessment
55 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
7
Annexes
Annex 5: Table 5 “EQF indicators related to the Evidence Assessment Grid”
(being adopted by Lombardy Region)
EQF INDICATORS RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT GRID
Guideline for those responsible for the certification process, to evaluate the coherence of the
application with the competences to be certified, e.g. AT EQF LEVEL 5.
EQF dimensions
Indicators for competences at Level 5
Score
Context complexity
The context is unstable and unpredictable.
The project or the reference activities have
different objectives at different levels.
YES 
NO 
Activity typologies
The activities require understanding,
discretion, problem-solving abilities. The
activities require theoretical thought in
addition to practical skills.
YES 
NO 
Autonomy
The activities require the ability to carry
out activities alone, without external
help, even though under supervision,
and anunderstanding of which tools and
resources are to be used.
YES 
NO 
Such indicators will be used during both the evaluation of evidence and the final assessment.
The aim is to confirm competence at Level 5. In fact, this was evaluated at the process outset
and based only on the candidate‘s CV and project/activity overview.
56 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
7
Annexes
Annex 6: Table 6 “Oral Examination Grids”
(being adopted by Lombardy Region)
Oral Examination Grids
Indicator 1
Competence 1 = not evident;
not shown 
2 = scarcely evident,
scarcely shown 
3 = evident, shown 
4 = absolutely
evident, absolutely
shown 
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
Indicator 4
Indicator n
1 = not evident;
not shown 
2 = scarcely evident,
scarcely shown 
3 = evident, shown 
4 = absolutely
evident, absolutely
shown 
1 = not evident;
not shown 
2 = scarcely evident,
scarcely shown 
3 = evident, shown 
4 = absolutely
evident, absolutely
shown 
1 = not evident;
not shown 
2 = scarcely evident,
scarcely shown 
3 = evident, shown 
4 = absolutely
evident, absolutely
shown 
1 = not evident;
not shown 
2 = scarcely evident,
scarcely shown 
3 = evident, shown 
4 = absolutely
evident, absolutely
shown 
Note
To recognize and certify a competence, it is necessary that the score for each indicator be „evident,
shown“ or „absolutely evident, absolutely shown“. Furthermore, the EQF indicators must be
confirmed (please see Annex 7: Table 7 “EQF Indicators related to the Oral Examination Grids”).
Where just one indicator gets a lower score, the candidate must repeat the certification process,
in accordance with the certification body and the assessor, following a guidance interview.
Brief report on the final assessment
57 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
Note
7
Annexes
Annex 7: Table 7 “EQF Indicators related to the Oral Examination Grids”
(being adopted by Lombardy Region)
EQF INDICATORS RELATED TO THE ORAL EXAMINATION GRIDS
Guideline for those responsible for the certification process, to evaluate the coherence of the
application with the competences to be certified, e.g. AT EQF LEVEL 5.
EQF dimensions
Indicators for competences at Level 5
Score
Context complexity
The context is unstable and unpredictable.
The project or the reference activities have
different objectives at different levels.
YES 
NO 
Activity typologies
The activities require understanding,
discretion, problem-solving abilities.
The activities require theoretical thought in
addition to practical skills.
YES 
NO 
Autonomy
The activities require the ability to carry out
activities alone, without external help, even
though under supervision, and an
understanding of which tools and resources
are to be used.
YES 
NO 
Such indicators will be used during both the evaluation of evidence and the final assessment.
The aim is to confirm competence at Level 5. In fact, this was evaluated at the process outset
and based only on the candidate‘s CV and project/activity overview.
58 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
7
Annexes
Annex 8: FORM A “Master template for allocating EQF level and learning
category weighting to OVERALL QUALIFICATION”
Panel Reference:
ALLOCATION OF EQF LEVEL AND LEARNING CATEGORY VALUES
The comments are important for the audit trail. The Panel assigning values need to have a
common understanding of what these terms mean to them.
Learning category
EQF
Level
(best fit)
Learning
category
weighting
(percentage)
Comments
about why the level (and learning category
weighting value) has been allocated in this way
Knowledge
Knowledge and
understanding
Skills
Application and
action
Competence
Autonomy and
accountability
Overall EQF level
Other comments:
59 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010
7
Annexes
Annex 9: FORM B “Working Template for allocating EQF level and learning
category weighting to INDIVIDUAL UNITS”
Panel Reference:
Name:
Qualification/Unit under review:
The Panel assigning values need to have a common understanding of what these terms mean to
them.
Learning category
Level
(best fit)
Learning category Comments
weighting
about why the level (and
(percentage)
learning category weighting
values) have been allocated in
this way
Knowledge
Knowledge and understanding
Skills
Application and action
Competence
Autonomy and accountability
Overall level
Other comments:
60 | 60
VALEW Model Guidelines – How to validate learning at work July 2010