Alignment of the AQF with the New Zealand Qualifications Framework and the
European Qualifications Framework: consultation paper
Two international projects have been commenced that aim to align the AQF with the New Zealand
Qualifications Framework and with the European Qualifications Framework. The alignment of these
qualifications frameworks will support the understanding and recognition of Australian qualifications
in both New Zealand and Europe and the qualifications of New Zealand and Europe in Australia. The
alignment outcomes also will assist in supporting:
•
•
•
the effectiveness of student and worker mobility,
Australia’s international commitments, and
qualifications recognition decision making.
Working Groups of stakeholders are assisting each of the projects. The International Projects page
on the AQF website provides information about the projects and links to relevant documents.
The purpose of this consultation paper is to provide an opportunity for AQF stakeholders to
provide input to the projects. This could include responses to the following:
1. How could the outcomes of the projects assist work that you may be undertaking
internationally?
2. Are there any matters that should be taken into account for the determinations on the
comparability of AQF levels and the levels in the EQF (see attachment 1) and NZQF (see
attachment 2).
3. Are there any other issues that you believe should be considered during the course of the
projects?
Background information
Definition: Alignment is defined within the AQF as ‘a process of referencing or mapping
qualifications frameworks against each other in order to be able to make a statement about the
extent of broad comparability, without adjustments to either of the qualifications frameworks being
made.’
The Principles and Processes for the Alignment of the AQF with International Qualifications Frameworks,
approved by Ministers in March 2011 forms the key policy document for alignment projects. It
includes general alignment principles which are the criteria to be followed in any alignment projects. 1
1
These documents can be found on the AQF website on the International Project page www.aqf.edu.au
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
1|Page
The general methodology that is being followed with each project includes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Preparation of preliminary documentation of both countries’ qualifications systems and
preparation of a summary of Australia’s education and training system. For Australia, this is
the Country Education Profile published by the Department of Education
Initial research to determine if alignment is in the interests of Australia including a
description of the other National Qualifications Framework (NQF), quality assurance
systems, interest in alignment with Australia and a summary of Australia’s diplomatic and
trade relationships with the country and migration and student data
Development of a framework of understanding and building relationships between the
countries to develop confidence in and shared understanding of each other’s systems
Formal comparison of the learning outcomes of the levels in the qualifications frameworks
through joint working groups
Input from invited international experts
Consultation with AQF stakeholders
Preparation of a final report as the basis for recommending to Ministers the formal
agreement on alignment
New Zealand and Europe
The AQF Council agreed to commence alignment projects with the New Zealand Qualifications
Framework (NZQF) and the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) in 2013.
The New Zealand project commenced with an exchange of letters between the Chair of the AQF
Council and the Chair of the Board of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA).
Alignment between the AQF and the EQF was discussed at biennial Australia Europe Education
Policy Dialogues from 2011-2013. A joint EU-Australia Study on the (potential) role of qualifications
frameworks in supporting mobility of workers and learners was published in June 2011. 2
Joint Technical Working Groups that include international experts have been established for both
projects. Activities during 2014 have included agreement on terms of reference for the working
groups, information exchange about the respective national/regional qualification frameworks and
education and training systems and agreement on processes to be followed.
Establishing links between the qualifications frameworks
The general alignment principles include that ‘there is a clear and demonstrable link between the
qualifications levels in the AQF and the levels in the national or regional qualifications framework.’
Preliminary work has been undertaken investigating the comparability of the AQF and the NZQF
and EQF. Attachment 1 and 2 contain the summaries for each AQF level for both frameworks.
Alignment and qualifications recognition
Alignments will support, but not replace, qualifications recognition decision-making. Qualifications
recognition relates to the comparability of a foreign qualification against a specific benchmark for a
particular purpose. In contrast, alignment relates to the comparability of two qualifications
frameworks. A foreign qualification’s context in a national or regional qualifications framework is one
of many factors in the qualifications recognition process. It is up to each recognition authority to
2
This document can be found on the AQF website on the International Project page www.aqf.edu.au
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
2|Page
determine if and how the outcomes of an alignment are relevant to its organisational policies and
processes for qualifications recognition. An alignment does not guarantee recognition of
qualifications.
Responding to the consultation paper
Input and comments from all stakeholders to the consultation discussion points are welcome:
1. How could the outcomes of the projects assist work that you may be undertaking
internationally?
2. Are there any matters that should be taken into account for the determinations on the
comparability of AQF levels and the levels in the EQF (see attachment 1) and NZQF (see
attachment 2).
3. Are there any other issues that you believe should be considered during the course of the
projects?
Please email your responses to aqfc@aqf.edu.au by close of business on Monday 29 September
2014.
Any questions regarding the project can be emailed to aqfc@aqf.edu.au or by phone on
08 8306 8777.
Key documents available on the AQF website, International projects page:
Rationale for pursuing the comparability of the AQF with other regional or national qualifications frameworks
for the purpose of alignment AQF Council 2013
Principles and Processes for the Alignment of the AQF with International Qualifications Frameworks
Australian Qualifications Framework Second Edition January 2013 pages 107-109
General Alignment Principles Australian Qualifications Framework Second Edition January 2013 page
108
Joint EU-Australia Study on the (potential) role of qualifications frameworks in supporting mobility of workers
and learners European Commission and Australian Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations June 2011
ATTACHMENT 1 – Draft alignment of the learning outcomes in the AQF and EQF
levels – for comment
ATTACHMENT 2 – Draft alignment of the learning outcomes in the AQF and
NZQF levels – for comment
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
3|Page
ATTACHMENT 1 – Draft alignment of the learning outcomes in the AQF and EQF
levels – for comment
Notes:
1. This analysis has been undertaken on the basis of linguistic analysis of the levels in each
framework. Further analysis of the outcomes of qualifications at each level needs to be
completed before this preliminary judgement can be confirmed.
2. The European Qualifications Framework is an 8 level framework while the Australian
Qualifications Framework is structured around 10 levels. When mapping or aligning qualifications
frameworks that include different numbers of levels, a method needs to be applied to take this
into account. For the purposes of this task, the concept of levels as a band of complexity has
been applied when comparing AQF levels 4 and 5 with EQF level 4 and AQF levels 7 and 8 with
EQF level 6. Where indicated in the text below further information is being sought on the
meaning or context of the learning outcomes statements.
Summary table
AQF levels
EQF levels
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
5
6
9
7
10
8
Analysis of AQF and EQF levels
AQF level 1 and EQF level 1
Overall there is a good match between the levels. There are some minor differences in language
of the learning outcomes but it is clear that the levels align when considering the outcomes of an
analysis of a range of AQF Certificate I qualifications. The overwhelming majority specified that
qualifications at this level were pathway qualifications that may lead to a VET in Schools qualification,
career clarification and/or for use as a pre-vocational qualification. This compares with the outcomes
statements of European qualifications referenced to the EQF. European qualifications at this level are
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
4|Page
considered as first steps on the path to the labour market and for achieving basic skills by specifically
targeted groups such as young people with specific learning needs and for early school leavers. Like
the AQF qualifications at this level, EQF level 1 referenced qualifications have little significant value in
the labour market.
The AQF ‘foundational’ knowledge and skills learning outcomes equates to the EQF ‘basic
knowledge and skills’ on the basis of the AQF Glossary definition of foundational knowledge and
skills as ‘. . . a starting point . . . for the development of learning and work’. The AQF requirement
to obtain ‘knowledge for everyday life…’ is similar in meaning to the EQF requirement for ‘general
knowledge’. The EQF doesn’t include context but it is implied.
The skills learning outcomes are similar. The AQF skills to complete ‘defined routine activities’ and
resolve ‘simple issues’ indicates parity with the EQF ‘simple tasks’. There are no direct problem
solving learning outcomes in EQF but they are implied.
The context of the application of knowledge and skills is the same. The AQF ‘narrow
parameters’ connotes the same as the EQF ‘direct supervision’. The AQF Glossary defines
parameters as ‘boundaries that define the context of learning and/or work’.
AQF level 2 and EQF level 2
Overall there is a good match between the levels. There are no issues in aligning the level 2 of
the AQF and EQF.
The knowledge learning outcomes of the AQF and the EQF are similar.
The skills outcomes are similar. The AQF ‘defined activities’ and ‘limited range of predictable
problems’ equates to the EQF ‘routine problems’ .
The context of the application of knowledge and skills is the same. The AQF ‘structured and
stable contexts within narrow parameters’ equates to the EQF requirement for ‘some autonomy’.
AQF level 3 and EQF level 3
Overall there is a good match between the levels. The conclusion was reached after the
application of the ‘best fit’ principle involving also a comparison of the learning outcomes of AQF
level 3 with EQF level 4 where the differences in application are significant.
The knowledge learning outcomes of the AQF and the EQF are similar. Both require factual,
technical and procedural knowledge. The contexts of knowledge are similar: the AQF requirement
of application in ‘a specific area’ compares with the EQF ‘a field of work or study.’
The AQF skills learning outcomes are higher than the EQF. The AQF ‘routine activities’ and
‘predictable problems’ equates to the EQF ‘basic methods’ but the AQF skills to ‘apply specialised
methods’ and ‘unpredictable problems’ indicates a higher level of skills than the EQF: to apply ‘basic
methods’
Although the EQF provides minimal context for the application of knowledge and skills there
are similar requirements in terms of application of autonomy and judgement implied by the EQF
requirement to ‘adapt own behaviour’.
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
5|Page
AQF level 4 and EQF level 4
Overall there is a good match for the AQF level 4 and the EQF level 4 band (see note 2
above).
Taking to account the AQF definition of ‘broad knowledge’ as ‘general or extensive areas of
learning or work’, the knowledge learning outcomes match well. The minor differences are that the
AQF includes knowledge of a ‘specific area’ as an alternative context and circumscribes (some)
theoretical knowledge. The EQF does not qualify ‘knowledge’ in the same way.
The skills learning outcomes are similar. The AQF skill to solve ‘predictable and sometimes
unpredictable problems’ is similar in meaning to the EQF skill to ‘generate solutions to specific
problems’. Similarly, the AQF skill to ‘provide and transmit solutions’ is not inconsistent with the
EQF skill to ‘generate solutions’.
The context of the application of knowledge and skills is the same. The AQF definition of
autonomy and judgement equates to the EQF skill to ‘exercise self-management’. The contexts are
similar: the AQF requirement to apply knowledge and skills within ‘established parameters’ matches
the EQF context of ‘within guidelines’. When taking into consideration the AQF Certificate IV
descriptor which includes responsibility for others and quality of the output of others there is
considerable parity in the levels.
AQF level 5 and EQF level 4
Overall there is a good match of the AQF level 5 learning outcomes with the EQF level
4 band (see note 2 above). The conclusion was reached after the application of the ‘best fit’
principle involving also a comparison of AQF level 5 with EQF level 5.
Both the AQF and EQF require comparable levels of technical/factual and theoretical knowledge.
The AQF includes either broad or specific knowledge. The meaning of the EQF ‘knowledge in broad
context’ requires clarification.
The AQF skills learning outcomes are at a higher level than the EQF. The AQF includes a broader
range of skills, including to ‘transmit solutions and ‘information to others’. The problem solving skills
are similar: the AQF context of ‘sometimes complex problems’ compares with the EQF context of
‘specific problems’. The AQF skill to ‘analyse’ is implied in the EQF skill to ‘generate solutions’:
analysis is required in the process of generation solutions.
The context of the application of knowledge and skills is comparable. The AQF definition of
autonomy and judgement equates to the EQF skill to ‘exercise self-management’. The contexts are
similar: the AQF context of applying knowledge and skills within ‘established parameters’ matches
the EQF context of ‘within guidelines’. When taking into consideration the AQF Diploma descriptor
which includes responsibility for others there is considerable parity of level.
AQF level 6 and EQF level 5
Overall AQF level 6 and EQF level 5 are comparable. The conclusion was reached after the
application of the ‘best fit’ principle involving also a comparison of AQF level 6 with EQF level 4. The
EQF 5 skills and application levels are higher than AQF level 6 but overall the AQF level 6 is
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
6|Page
significantly higher and does not compare with EQF level 4. The AQF has broad criteria to
accommodate the qualifications at this level.
Although the EQF requirement for ‘comprehensive knowledge’ indicates a higher level than the
AQF ‘broad knowledge’, the knowledge requirements are comparable, particularly when taking into
account that the AQF Advanced Diploma descriptor requires ‘specialised and integrated knowledge’.
The EQF skills learning outcomes are at a slightly higher level than the AQF. However
the AQF requirement for skills to provide solutions to ‘unpredictable and sometime complex
problems’ is matched by the EQF skill to develop solutions to ‘abstract problems’. The EQF skill to
provide ‘creative solutions’ suggests a higher level but the AQF application includes the skill to
‘provide specialist advice’ which would involve exploration of extensive solutions to provide
specialist advice.
The context of the application of knowledge and skills is comparable. The AQF definition of
autonomy and judgement equates to the EQF ability to ‘exercise self-management’. The EQF context
of ‘management and supervision’ and requirement relating to ‘performance of self and other’
compares with the AQF Advanced Diploma descriptor which includes responsibility for team
outcomes within broad parameters’.
AQF level 7 and EQF level 6
Overall AQF level 7 learning outcomes compare with the EQF level 6 band (see note 2
above). The conclusion was reached after the application of the ‘best fit’ principle involving also a
comparison of AQF level 7 with EQF level 5. It was clear that the better fit was between AQF level
7 and EQF level 6. AQF level 7 is at the lower end of EQF level 6 lower end, and AQF level 8 is at
higher end.
While the expression of the knowledge learning outcomes is different, there is a comparable match
between the AQF and EQF at this level. The EQF requires ‘advanced knowledge’ which is matched
with the AQF requirement for depth. The AQF Bachelor Degree descriptor requires critical analysis
of knowledge which compares with the EQF requirement for ‘critical understanding of theories and
principles’.
The skills learning outcomes are comparable. When taken together with the AQF Bachelor Degree
requirement for skills to undertake critical analysis and synthesis, and for ‘independent . . . learning’,
the AQF requirement for ‘well developed’ skills matches with the EQF skills of ‘advanced skills,
demonstrating mastery’. The learning outcomes of both frameworks indicate similar problem solving
contexts. The AQF additionally includes a requirement for transmission of knowledge and skills.
The context of the application of knowledge and skills is comparable. The EQF requirements
relating to management suggest a higher level, but the AQF Bachelor Degree includes management
of others The EQF includes the context of ‘unpredictable work’ while the AQF Bachelor Degree
qualification type descriptor specifies ‘diverse contexts’.
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
7|Page
AQF level 8 and EQF level 6
Overall AQF level 8 compares with the EQF level 6 band (see note 2 above).
Both the AQF and EQF require and understanding of ‘advanced knowledge’. The AQF Bachelor
Honours descriptor also includes ‘coherent and advanced’ knowledge.
The skills learning outcomes are comparable. The requirement for ‘advanced skills’ in both
frameworks indicates a good match. The AQF Bachelor Honours Degree descriptor also requires
knowledge of research and a requirement for (in application) for initiative which matches the EQF
requirement for ‘innovation’.
The context of the application of knowledge and skills is comparable. The AQF requirement for
autonomy and the AQF Bachelor Honours descriptor relating to a requirement for planning and
executing project work or research match the EQF requirement for management for complex
technical or professional activities or project work.
AQF level 9 and EQF level 7
Overall there is a good match between the levels. Also the EQF level learning outcomes
compares with AQF Masters Degree descriptor.
The knowledge learning outcomes are a good match. The AQF requirement for ‘specialised
knowledge’ in the summary statement is reflected in the EQF requirement for ‘highly specialised
knowledge’. The AQF requirement for research implies that which is connoted by the EQF
reference to ‘forefront of knowledge’. The EQF requirement for ‘critical awareness’ is matched by
AQF skills learning outcomes relating to critical thought and research. The EQF ‘forefront of
knowledge’ is understood as meaning current / up to date knowledge. Verification from the
European experts of this is required
The skills learning outcomes are a good match. The AQF skills of critical thought, analysis and
synthesis imply the EQF requirement for skills to develop ‘new knowledge’ and to ‘integrate
knowledge.’ This is supported by the detailed AQF Masters Degree descriptor skills requirements.
The context of the application of knowledge and skills is comparable. The level descriptors
indicated a similar level notwithstanding differences in language and focus. The AQF application of
‘expert judgement, adaptability and responsibility’ is matched by the EQF specification for the
capacity to review ‘strategic performance of team’. Parity of levels also is established when taking
into account AQF Masters Degree descriptor which refers to professional knowledge and practice
includes the complex and unpredictable.
AQF level 10 and EQF level 8
Overall there is a good match between the levels. The difference lies only in the different
expression of the learning outcomes. The level described is the same.
The key knowledge indicator of knowledge at the ‘frontier’ of a discipline or field of knowledge is
used in a similar context in both the AQF and EQF descriptors.
The skills learning outcomes are a good match. Similarity of language indicates evinces similarity of
level. The AQF skills to ‘generate original knowledge’ and to ‘redefine existing knowledge or
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
8|Page
professional practice’ are matched by the EQF requirement for ‘most advanced’ skills to ‘extend and
redefine existing knowledge’.
The context of the application of knowledge and skills is comparable and similarity of language
is evident. The EQF’s ethical requirements are implied in the AQF requirements.
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
9|Page
ATTACHMENT 2 – Draft alignment of the learning outcomes in the AQF and
NZQF levels – for comment
Note:
This analysis has been undertaken on the basis of linguistic analysis of the levels in each framework.
Further analysis of the outcomes of qualifications at each level needs to be completed before this
preliminary judgement can be confirmed.
Summary table
AQF levels
NZQF levels
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
Analysis of AQF and NZQF levels
AQF level 1 and NZQF level 1
Overall there is a good match between the levels. There is significant correspondence of
language and intent in the learning outcomes. The AQF summary describes the context, the NZQF
level describes what a person would know. Qualification types both describe the type of knowledge
and skills as ‘initial’ (AQF) compared with ‘basic’ (NZQF). The context is the same.
The AQF and the NZQF knowledge learning outcomes are almost identical.
There is a good match between the skills required in both frameworks. The AQF specifies
‘foundational’ skills for ‘routine activities’ and the NZQF specifies ‘basic skills’ for ‘simple tasks’. The
context and intent is the same. AQF ‘foundational cognitive, technical and communication skills’
compares with the NZQF Certificate I requirement to ‘apply basic literacy and numeracy skills’. A
difference is that the NZQF requires to ‘apply basic solutions for problems’ while the AQF requires
to ‘identify and report simple issues and problems’.
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
10 | P a g e
The context of the application of knowledge and skills is similar. The AQF definition of
‘autonomy’ to ‘apply knowledge and skills with an appropriate degree of independence for the level
of the qualification’ is similar to the NZQF context of ‘responsibility for own learning’. The NZQF
context of ‘interacting with others’ is not specifically described in the AQF although there is a
requirement for ‘communication skills’ which implies interaction with others.
AQF level 2 and NZQF level 2
Overall there is a good match between the levels. There are differences in language but
learning outcomes are not inconsistent one with the other. The AQF summary indicates
circumscription and the NZQF Certificate purpose specifies a boundary of capacity.
Different language is used but this indicates a comparable level of knowledge.
There is a good match between the skills learning outcomes in both frameworks. The AQF skills for
‘defined activities’ equates to the NZQF ‘standard processes’. The AQF context of a ‘limited range
of predictable processes’ equates with the NZQF skill to ‘apply known solutions to familiar
problems’. The AQF ‘basic cognitive, technical and communication skills’ compare with the NZQF
Certificate 2 requirement to ‘apply basic literacy and numeracy skills..’.
The context of the application of knowledge and skills is comparable. The AQF demonstration
of ‘autonomy and limited judgement’ is analogous to the NZQF responsibility relating to learning and
performance. In both instances the amount of personal initiative is circumscribed. In the case of the
NZQF this circumscription is indicated not only by ‘some’ but also by the context of ‘(work under)
general supervision’. The NZQF ability to ‘collaborate with others’ is matched by the implications of
AQF definition of communication skills.
AQF level 3 NZQF level 3
Overall the levels are comparable. AQF qualifications at this level are characterised by breadth
of knowledge and skills whereas the NZQF defines the character of knowledge and skills by work
and further study and implies a degree of specialisation. The higher level AQF skills learning
outcomes are matched by the higher NZQF application requirement.
There are elements of difference which may be explained by the fact that AQF level 3 provides the
location for the qualifications for most apprenticeship graduates. NZ apprenticeships are at level 4 of
the NZQF. An argument could be used to say that some AQF level 3 qualifications may map to
NZQF level 4 but overall, there is comparability between the two level 3 learning outcomes
requirements.
The AQF acknowledges links between knowledge to a ‘specific area of work and learning’
reminiscent of the language used in the NZQF purpose statement for the Certificate level 3. It also
is similar to the NZQF statement relating to knowledge.
The AQF and NZQF skills learning outcomes are similar in that both demand breadth (as indicated
by ‘range’) and capacity to select and apply solutions standard/routine problems. The AQF, however,
requires capacity to deal with the sometimes unpredictable problems. Predictable compares with the
NZQF ‘familiar’ – ‘known, happened before’ problems. The AQF also, requires capacity to
communicate solutions although this may be matched by the NZQF requirement to ‘contribute to
group performance’ which implies communication.
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
11 | P a g e
The context of the application of knowledge and skills is at a higher level in the NZQF than the
AQF. Both the AQF and the NZQF require the exercise of responsibility or autonomy. In both
instances this is limited although: in the case of the AQF this is explicitly stated and in the case of the
NZQF it is implied by reference to ‘limited supervision’. However the NZQF requirement relating
to autonomy is far stronger than that of the AQF.
AQF level 4 and NZQF level 4
Overall there is a good match between the levels. The AQF level summary and Certificate IV
purpose statements and the NZQF Certificate level 4 purpose statement are similar.
The knowledge learning outcomes of the AQF and the NZQF are almost identical. Both require
operational/technical and theoretical knowledge.
The skills requirements of the AQF and the NZQF are almost identical. However the AQF specifies
an additional requirement for the capacity to communicate solutions to problems. However
communication skills are implied in the NZQF application requirement for ‘responsibility for
performance of others’ and the Certificate 4 requirement to ‘apply a range of communication skills
relevant to…’. The AQF ‘limited responsibility’ compares with NZQF ‘some responsibility’ although
context is slightly different.
The contexts of the application of knowledge and skills in the AQF and the NZQF are
essentially the same other than language used. The AQF language of ‘autonomy, judgment and. .
responsibility’ can be equated to the NZQF requirement for ‘self-management’. Both acknowledge
limited responsibility. The AQF specifies the exercise of responsibility in changing contexts. The
NZQF is silent on context but does specify limited responsibility for others.
AQF level 5 and NZQF level 5
Overall there is a good match between the levels. The AQF summary statement specifies
specialist knowledge and skills and the NZQF purpose statement for its level 5 qualifications refers
to specific field of study/work. Additionally the AQF specifies the context as broad. The higher level
AQF skills learning outcomes is matched by the higher NZQF application requirement. On balance a
good match taking into account the qualification type descriptor statements.
While overall, the knowledge learning outcomes are comparable, the expression of the knowledge
requirement differs between the AQF and NZQF. The NZQF describes the knowledge
requirements as ‘broad’ for a ‘specific’ field of work/study. The AQF on the other hand requires
knowledge or activity in either a specific or broad area.
The skills specifications, notwithstanding the differences in language, are similar although there is an
argument that the level of skills required by the AQF is higher than that of the NZQF. Both NQFs
acknowledge the ‘capacity to deal with the routine and the non-routine’. The AQF additionally
specifies an element of complexity and a requirement for capacity to communicate solutions/
information.
The contexts of the application of knowledge and skills are comparable. There is significance in
the difference in language of the requirements. Nevertheless both AQF and NZQF specify a
significant level of responsibility. The AQF ascribes greater complexity to context, for example
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
12 | P a g e
‘changing context’. AQF Diploma descriptor includes ‘personal responsibility and autonomy…’ and
‘to organise work of self and others…evaluate work of teams…’
AQF level 6 and NZQF level 6
Overall AQF level 6 compares with NZQF level 6. The establishment of comparability
between AQF and NZQF level 6 is based not so much on matching of the language of the descriptors
but rather on the overall interpretation of concepts and expressions in the qualification type descriptors.
The conclusion was reached after the application of the ‘best fit’ principle involving a comparison of
NZQF level 6 with AQF level 7 and AQF level 6 with NZ level 5. The conclusion is supported by
AEI NOOSR statements of comparability which are based on analysis of qualifications.
On the face of it there is significant difference between knowledge learning outcomes. The NZQF
specifies ‘specialised’ knowledge ‘with depth.’ The AQF descriptor (which is almost identical to the
NZQF level 5 descriptor) requires ‘broad’ knowledge but within a ‘specific field of work and
learning’. However taking into account the purpose of the AQF Advanced Diploma which specifies
‘specialised knowledge in a range of contexts’ and the AQF application statement which requires
capacity to ‘provide specialist advice’ which implies having specialist knowledge, the AQF and NZQF
knowledge requirements are comparable.
The AQF skills specifications are higher than the NZQF. While the cognitive and technical skills
required by the respective NQFs are similar, the AQF requires communication skills as an additional
skill although the NZQF requirement in the Certificate 6 implies communication skills through
‘demonstrate responsibility for leadership…’.
Overall the contexts of the application of knowledge and skills are similar. The NZQF context
of ‘complete self-management’ and ‘leadership’ is significantly stronger than that of the AQF which
limits autonomy and judgement. The AQF, on the other hand, requires capacity to provide specialist
advice albeit within parameters. AQF Advanced Diploma descriptor includes management, Associate
Degree include ‘self-management’. On balance the respective specifications for application supports a
judgement of comparability of level.
AQF level 7 and NZQF level 7
Overall there is a good match between the levels. The conclusion was reached after
comparing the language of the NQF level descriptors and the application of the ‘best fit’ principle
involving a comparison of NZQF level 7 with AQF level 8. The conclusion is supported by AEI
NOOSR statements of comparability which are based on analysis of qualifications.
On the face of it the knowledge learning outcomes are comparable. The purpose of the NZQF
Bachelor’s Degree, however, specifies that the knowledge is ‘introductory’. (This is being checked
by the NZQF)
The skills learning outcomes are a good match. There is a need to determine if there is any
difference between the skills to ‘select, adapt and apply’ in the NZQF and to ‘analyse and evaluate’ in
the AQF. The AQF level descriptor additionally specifies communication skills; but the NZQF
qualification type descriptors for Diploma 7 and Bachelor Degree require ‘advanced generic skills’
and ‘demonstrate communication and collaborative skills’.
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
13 | P a g e
The contexts of the application of knowledge and skills are similar. There is a difference in
language. Whereas the NZQF specifies ‘advanced skills’, the AQF specifies (in the skills descriptor)
‘well developed’ skills. The AQF requirement for ‘autonomy, judgement and responsibility’ compares
with NZQF requirement for ‘advanced generic skills’. ‘Specialist advice’ in the AQF implies
‘specialist knowledge and skills’ in NZQF.
AQF level 8 and NZQF level 8
Overall there is a good match between the levels. The AQF and NZQF learning outcomes
correspond in essentials. Both the AQF and NZQF specifications for the Bachelor Honours Degree
include research. The conclusion is supported by AEI NOOSR statements of comparability which
are based on analysis of qualifications.
Both the AQF and the NZQF knowledge learning outcomes focus on critical methodology. The
‘critical understanding’ of the NZQF is reflected in the AQF skills requirement to ‘analyse
critically…’
The AQF skills learning outcomes may indicate a slightly higher level. Communication skills are
identified in the AQF level criteria and in the NZQF Bachelor Honours Degree ‘communicate the
findings to the satisfaction of subject experts.’
The contexts of the application of knowledge and skills are similar. The NZQF learning
outcomes of ‘advanced generic knowledge and skills’ equates to the AQF requirements when the
AQF definition of ‘autonomy’ is taken into account. ‘Integrity’ in the NZQF descriptor appears to
have the same meaning as the AQF ‘responsibility as a practitioner’. This requires clarification.
AQF level 9 and NZQF level 9
Overall there is a good match between the levels. There are some differences. The AQF is
more detailed while the NZQF requires knowledge at the ‘forefront of knowledge’ which hints at a
higher level. However there is significant correlation in use of words and meaning in the purpose
statements for qualification types. Overall the intention is similar. The purpose statement for
qualification types has strong correlation in use of words and meaning. There is strong
correspondence between the AQF and NZQF criteria/descriptors taking into account the detail in
the qualification type descriptors at this level.
The NZQF learning outcome for knowledge ‘at the forefront…’ may indicate a higher level
although it is defined as ‘up to date’ which indicates the same context for both frameworks. The
AQF qualification type descriptor refers to ‘recent developments’. The NZQF requirement for
‘critical awareness’ approximates with critical analysis and reflection requirements in AQF skills
descriptor.
The difference between the skills learning outcomes lies in the NZQF use of ‘new skills’. ‘Mastery’
in the NZQF compares with the AQF definition of ‘mastery of knowledge and skills’ and the
requirement to ‘interpret and transmit knowledge…’ which would not be able to be achieved
without ‘mastery’ of the discipline. The skills to research and ’transmit knowledge’ in the AQF
compares with outcomes statements in the NZQF the detailed descriptor for the qualification. The
AQF additionally requires communication skills.
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
14 | P a g e
The contexts of the application of knowledge and skills are similar taking into account the AQF
definition of autonomy and the skills sections of the Masters Degree qualification type descriptor.
The AQF qualification type descriptor includes ‘high level personal autonomy and accountability’.
AQF level 10 and NZQF level 10
Overall there is a good match between the levels. The AQF is more detailed but there is a
strong correspondence between the AQF and NZQF learning outcomes. The purpose statements
for both refer to the same concept of new and/or original knowledge. The concept of independence
in the NZQF purpose statement is mirrored in the AQF skills descriptor. The NZQF requirement in
the purpose statement for ‘substantial contribution to knowledge’ is mirrored in the AQF skills
descriptor.
Both descriptors include knowledge at the frontier of a discipline or field of study. This also is in
NZQF application descriptor.
In general, the AQF skills learning outcomes are more specific than the NZQF descriptor. Both
include skills for critical reflection and generation/creation of new knowledge. The requirement for
‘substantial contribution to knowledge’ in NZQF purpose statement is reflected in AQF skills
requirement to be able to make a ‘substantial contribution to a discipline or area of professional
practice’. Research skills in the NZQF are not identified but implied. The AQF ‘extension of new
ideas’ compares with the NZQF ‘development of new ideas’ in application descriptor. The AQF
additionally requires communication skills.
The contexts of the application of knowledge and skills are similar. The AQF reference to the
application of ‘autonomy… judgement’ compares with the NZQF ‘commitment to professional
integrity’. The AQF qualification type descriptor includes ‘with full responsibility and
accountability…’ which indicates that the intention is similar.
Alignment of the AQF with the NZQF and the EQF: consultation paper
15 | P a g e