The process and results of the comparative analysis of the HQF and EQF levels
Summary Report
Prepared within the frame of priority project TÁMOP-4.1.3
in September 2014
CONTENTS
I.
Executive Summary (3)
II.
The referencing process (6)
III.
Conclusions and recommendations (31)
Preface
This report summarises the results of the analytical process carried out within the frame
of priority project TÁMOP-4.1.3 in August and September 2014. The analysis aimed at
comparing the levels of the Hungarian Qualifications Framework (HuQF) to the European
Qualifications Framework (EQF) and at referencing the levels of the two frameworks. This
is one of the most important activity at the end of developing a national qualifications
framework, before the results are submitted to the Advisory Board of the EQF.
The scope of the analyses included the features of the two frameworks, and it did not
extend to external social and application aspects. In other words, experst carried out a
technical analysis, and verification of the results, debates with national stakeholders
using the frameworks, as well as its social reconciliation shall be the task of the next
period; the present summary report may lay the foundation to this.
The analyses were carried out by an expert team of three memberswith a background in
general education, VET and higher education respectively: Ágnes Narancsik, Kinga
Szebeni and Pál Veress. In the past years they gained considerable experience in the
development of their own sector’s qualification system, in the wording and evaluation of
learning outcomes, and in the work related to qualification frameworks.
The broader plan for the process, principles and practice from international work served
as a basis for the expert team to elaborate the national methodology. It included the list
of key analysis points for both the individual and the group work. Thorough discussion
led to the agreement on the results which was put it into a final report. The internal
coordination and the finalisation of the summary report were carried out by Kinga
Szebeni.
The report is divided into three parts. The Executive Summary briefly documents the
activities and summarises the most important conclusions in a concise form
The second, relatively extensive part of the report gives a detailed and complete
presentation of the referencing tasks and the conclusions. As part of it, results of the
comparative analyses between the descriptor categories as well as the levels of the HuQF
and EQF are described.
1
The third part summarises the most important conclusions and the recommendations
resulting therefrom. (We plan to process the considerable amount of accumulated
background material of the analyses, and based on this to elaborate in detail the results
and conclusions to the political decision-makers and experts dealing with the
development of the HuQF; however, this will be prepared only later.)
Results of the referencing were presented to the international experts monitoring the
development of the HuQf and the preparation of the Referencing Report during their visit
to Budapest (Sept 2014).
Budapest, 30 September 2014
András Derényi
leading expert
Education Authority
Kinga Szebeni
VET expert
Ministry for National Economy
Ágnes Narancsik
public education expert
Education Authority
Pál Veress
professor of economics, higher
education and higher vocational
education expert
Education Authority
2
I.
Executive Summary
In the design of the descriptor categories of the HuQF, two important features of the
EQF, i.e. the hierarchic and cumulative nature of the level descriptions have been taken
into consideration and this has been applied for the HuQF as well. This means that the
HuQF is also hierarchic and cumulative, which means that the descriptors characterizing
the lower levels are included in the competences at higher levels (and the descriptions
are without repetitions), while the depth, scope and complexity of the above descriptor
components always exceed the previous level.
For the description of the competence elements, not only their definitions and
interpretations, but also their development options have been developed.
For the description of knowledge element and its development, the following aspects
served as a starting point: the depth of knowledge (the amount of knowledge that a
person has), the organisation of knowledge (the interrelations among the schemes), the
scope of knowledge (how extended special field is covered by the scheme system),
flexibility (how flexibly a person can use the person’s knowledge in different situations),
formability (to what extent the knowledge structure can incorporate new information).
Three aspects for the description of the levels of skills were used: motoric skills, fieldgeneral cognitive skills (mental operations about the declarative knowledge making the
acts implemented in thinking more effective; which occur as the general features of
thinking) and field-specific cognitive skills (which may range from the simple,
automatically applied mental operations to the strategic operations that allow the
efficient solution of the complex problems in a field).
A multi-dimensional approach for the description of the attitude element has been
applied, taking into account the emotional (affective; emotional reactions for the attitude
object), mental (cognitive; the evaluation of the attitude object with the relevant
information known) and behavioural (conative; behavioural intentions related to the
attitude object) components based on the favourable or unfavourable evaluation,
judgement of the attitude object.
Regarding autonomy and responsibility, the relation between the individual and his/her
social context and the participation therein is fundamental. Determining factors are the
activity performed autonomously or with assistance or guidance, in cooperation or
individually, controlling or being controlled. Descriptions indicates where the person is
able to act independently and where he/she needs control or supervision, what the
person takes responsibility for, and how the person participates in the activities
happening in the social context.
Regarding the hierarchical structure of the HuQF, it proved to be a key issue to provide
clear disctinctions between level descriptors to differentiate the neighbouring levels.
Developers of the HuQF endeavoured to describe levels clearly and to ensure that
continuous development is reflected within the levels. Detailed instructions were
elaborated in all the four descriptor categories to mirror the progression and construction
at each level.
A methodology of comparative analyses has been established to indetify the relation
between the levels, strongly based on the content of the “Referencing Note” published by
the European Commission. Its first step was to carry out the technical analysis. As part
of the technical analysis, a conceptional analysis took place. Experts concluded that
neither framework is a prescriptive tool, but both of them are descriptive, i.e. they do not
serve the objective of regulating but of determining points of reference. In both
frameworks statements are made to describe for the learning outcomes. The identities
and differences of the learning outcome approaches of the EQF and HuQF have been
analysed (see more in the Referencing Report). Regarding Knowledge and Skills, the
3
analysis assessed an identical content base in the use of the two frameworks. The
descriptor category of the HuQF named Attitudes is generally not part of the EQF;
however, some references to them might be identified in the EQF learning outcomes.
Being a significant dimension of the learning process, Hungary decided to adopt attitudes
in the descriptors of the HuQF. Thanks to this descriptor category, a more detailed and
more complete description of the level and content of the learning outcome can be
provided. The HuQF category named Autonomy and Responsibility does not show
complete overlapping with the EQF category named Competences; however, the
conceptual bases of the two subcategories, i.e. the autonomy of acting, ranging from the
need of control, through independence, to the responsibility for management and
leadership, can be considered identical.
Furthermore, it was also assessed that the HuQF in general, similarly to other national
frameworks, provides more detailed and concrete descriptions of the levels than the EQF.
However, the concepts and terminology used by the HuQF are less consistent, as well as
the definition of the competence elements cannot be considered complete in every case
in the HuQF: consistent relating to the fields of work and study are missing from the
HuQF. At the same time, though inconsistently, the HuQF relates the learning outcomes
comprehensively, i.e. to the work, private life, social life, and social activities of the
qualified person. The fact that some parts of the level description system (grid) of the
HuQF are somewhat broadly formulated and that the aspects of the descriptions
compared to the EQF show some differences did not endangere the comparison of the
two frameworks.
A structural comparative analysis as part of the technical analysis has also been
carried out. Although both frameworks consist of eight levels, due to the difference
between the approaches to learning outcomes, the EQF consists of three columns,
whereas the HuQF consists of four columns. The aims of the two frameworks were also
analysed, whose common points are the following: functioning as a tool of reference,
lifelong learning, mobility for study and work purposes, and serving all stakeholders.
However, the object of reference, i.e. what is intended to be referenced for proper
information supply is different. The HuQF helps the assessment of the levels of the staterecognised, specific qualifications that can be obtained in Hungary, whereas the EQF is
used in an international context and it serves as the tool of referencing among the
different national qualification systems thus it indirectly contributes to making the
competence levels characterizing the specific qualifications of the different countries
transparent and comparable. Both frameworks have a cumulative nature, and levels are
constructed hierarchically: the principle is that each level should include the features of
the lower level, and that each level should include an extra challenge, a development
stage or an added value interpreted as learning outcome compared to the previous level.
Neither the EQF, nor the HuQF systematizes the learning outcome types divided into
three or four parts at the levels, and they do not present the relations among the
dimensions of knowledge-skills-(attitude-) autonomy and responsibility either.
Regarding Level 1 of the HuQF, it should be mentioned that the Hungarian Qualifications
System presently does not offer a state-recognized qualification based on a standardised
examination and quality assured assessment at this level. At this level the completed
level of education for reference should be the primary school certificate of completed
Grade 6 issued in general education, which definitely means the end of the general, in
other words grounding phase of the education system, i.e. it certifies the acquisition of
key competences and general knowledge.
The content-based semantic-textual comparison of the level descriptors of the two
frameworks has also been performed. In this phase, each descriptor was analysed and
compared separately and together as well. The most important conclusions drawn from
the analysis are the following:
- Compared to the EQF, the HuQF expects autonomy, creativity, innovative skills,
the skill for re-arranging the acquired knowledge schemes and using them in new
4
conditions, as well as the knowledge, autonomy, responsibility and attitudes required
for this at an earlier level;
- Compared to the EQF, the HuQF expects the knowledge of abstract concepts and
the skill for abstraction at an earlier level;
- However, the EQF describes skills, preparedness and responsibility for strategicmanagerial tasks in a significantly more explicit way, whereas these appear in the
HuQF in a less elaborated form.
- The HuQF expects peer-to-peer co-operation and independent task execution more
dominantly at higher levels as well.
Based on the above findings, experts concluded that the first three HuQF levels
describe learning outcomes on higher levels than the first three EQF levels do. It
seemed obvious that Level 4 was identical. For these levels, for the proper underpinning
of the match, experts also performed a so called level referencing counter-verification:
they analysed the referencing of each HuQF level to the EQF level which is directly below
and above it item by item. Counter-verification only partly proved the results of the
primary analysis. Semantic equivalence could only be indetified with absolute certainty
between Level 2 of the HuQF and Level 3 of the EQF. Referencing between Level 1 of the
HuQF and Level 2 of the EQF, as well as Level 3 of the HuQF and Level 4 of the EQF
resulted only in partial match, but it showed significant differences as well.
The opposite was the case with elements of the learning outcomes at Levels 5 and 6: the
semantic comparison revealed that descriptors of the HuQF did not refer explicitly to the
same learning outcomes elements on the respective levels of the EQF. Considering the
above findings, Levels 5 and 6 of the HuQF provide more evidence for the identity of
these levels, and experts concluded an overall match of the levels by using the best-fit
principle. However, regarding Level 6 experts would like to see more precise descriptions
in the future to provide a basis for a more confident referencing. The match between
Levels 7 and 8 has been evidenced.
Based on the primary comparisons and counter-verifications, only analysing the
occurrences and identities of the expressions and their semantic equivalence, the
following final conclusion can be drawn from referencing the levels of the HuQF to the
EQF:
5
Illustration 1: Referencing levels of HuQF to those of EQF
The semantic comparison is only one element of the analyses for referencing. Experts
recommended that an analysis from social aspects should be prepared, also involving
policy-related aspects.
The experts’ analysis above has been compared with the results of the linking (see
chapter III.7) and a discussion amongst policy-makers took place. Although this exercise
did not bring any changes on levels 4-8, it showed different results for levels 1-3.
Primary education qualification has been linked to HuQF level 2 with the notice that the
level suggestion is based on regulatory documents, while the referencing analysis of
HuQF and EQF showed that HuQF level 2 and 3 in terms of description categories in
knowledge and competences are slightly above EQF level 2 and 3 respectively. The policy
decision supported that although the levels’ descriptions do not indicate full semantic
congruity, the HuQF levels 2 and 3 should be referenced to EQF level 2 and 3 due to the
fact that the regulatory documents over-estimate the average expected learning
outcomes. Average requirements – knowledge and competences/skills – determined in
documents are not reflected in actual students’ performance measured by national
competence assessment and international testing like PISA, PIRLS, TIMMS and others.
The findings related to the inconsistency between regulatory documents and real student
achievement including reviews of curricula is planned to be dealt with in general
education in the future.
II.
The referencing process
An expert team of three members was requested to carry out the technical analysis
required for referencing the Hungarian Qualifications Framework to the European
Qualifications Framework. The experts represented the fields of general education, higher
education as well as VET and adult education. Regarding the professional background,
the team provided research and development and teaching background, as well as
expertise in public administration. In addition to the above, each expert participated in
6
the development process of the HuQF related to the qualifications being relevant to
his/her field.
The experts determined the methodology of analysis together. The task of referencing is
included in Point 2 of the EQF Recommendation: „member states relate their national
qualifications frameworks to the European Qualifications Framework by 2010, in
particular by referencing, in a transparent manner, their qualification levels set out in
Annex II, and, where appropriate, by developing national qualifications frameworks in
accordance with their national legislation and practice”. For a uniform implementation,
the Advisory Group of the EQF summarised the principles and criteria for the referencing
procedure in 10 points. This guiding document includes a detailed explanation for the
implementation of each of the 10 points, and is supplemented with the best practices of
the member states that have already successfully fulfilled the task of referencing (EQF
Note 5: Referencing National Qualifications levels to the EQF). The Referencing Note is
regularly updated by the European Commission therefore the Hungarian experts used the
version revised in 2013 for the work.
In compliance with international practice, the referencing process was based on the
following analytical aspects:
1. structural analysis – its aim is to compare the structures and architectures
of the two frameworks, as well as to analyse the common and different points
of the aims of the two frameworks
2. conceptual analysis – analysis of the concept of learning outcomes,
comparison of the learning outcome approach of the national qualifications
framework to that of the EQF, explanation of the contents of national
descriptor categories, description of the differences and identities in the
definitions
3. linguistic analysis – it is also called a semantic analysis, during which words
and expressions which are identical or have identical meanings, as well as
identical terminology is searched and referenced in the two frameworks.
Firstly the expert team elaborated a detailed methodological guide and a template, in
which individual analyses were prepared. In every case, the comparison was based on
the table included in Annex 2 to the no. 1229/2012 Government Decree, and the table
included in Annex II to the Recommendation of the European Parliament and Council (23
April 2008) on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong
learning. During the analysis, the experts used the official Hungarian translation of the
EQF Recommendation as a starting point, however, they agreed that in the case of
contradictions and inaccuracies the English version should be analysed as the translation
might disregard professionally important distinctions.
II.1 The detailed process and result of structural analysis
The primary aim of structural analysis is to compare the structures and architectures of
the two frameworks. As indicated in the Referencing Report, the structure and theoretical
7
bases of the EQF were significantly taken into consideration in the elaboration of the
Hungarian framework, and the EQF served as a reference for the design of the HuQF
during the whole development process. However, as an independent policy tool, the
HuQF became slightly different from the EQF regarding its concept, function and
conceptual system and was adapted to the features of the Hungarian qualification
system. Finally, these differences did not lead to a different number of levels as both
frameworks consist of eight levels. However, linguistic analysis showed that these
cannot be automatically referenced to one another.
The Referencing Report tells the history, aspects and main decision points of the
establishment of the descriptor categories. The Hungarian experts used the competence
approach widely used by the representatives of educational sciences, cognitive sciences
and psychology, i.e. the approach of the integrated display of knowledge – skills –
attitudes and these were used as the description categories of the HuQF (similarly to the
approach used in the recommendation of the EU on the key competences required for
lifelong learning). Nevertheless, influenced by the EQF, HuQF kept the aspects of the EQF
category named “Competence”, and this important feature of actions performed with
competence is described the fourth category of the HuQF named “Autonomy and
Responsibility”. Thus the HuQF became a four-column structure framework.
The partially different standardization of learning outcomes in the two documents (threeor four-part division) makes comparison more difficult on the one hand and easier on the
other hand. It makes comparison more difficult in that there are concepts in the two
frameworks that do not overlap. Nevertheless, it makes comparison easier as the fourpart division fundamentally allows for a more sophisticated description of learning
outcomes in the HuQF. It is an important difference that while the EQF Recommendation
gives a definition for the interpretation of the different categories (though this is not
consistent in the category of “Competence”), the official version of the HuQF published in
a government decree does not include this. The scope and content of the descriptive
categories can be found in the studies laying a foundation to the establishment of the
HuQF, and they give scientifically grounded and detailed explanations on each of the
categories.
The cumulative nature is identical in the operation of both frameworks, which means that
they have a hierarchic structure based on the principle that each level should include
an extra challenge, development stage or added value interpreted as learning outcome
compared to the previous level, and that each level should include the features of lower
levels. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in the case of the HuQF wording does not
give certainty in every case, what is more, it produces contradictions in the HuQF at
some places.
II.2
The detailed process and result of conceptual analysis
Both frameworks describe the so called learning outcomes with the use of level
descriptors. Learning outcomes means statements “of what a learner knows, understands
and is able to do on the completion of a learning process” as defined by the EQF
Recommendation. A similar definition or interpretation would be needed in the HuQF as
well. The aim of the second analytical task of referencing is to analyse the concept of
learning outcomes, to compare the learning outcome approach of the the national
qualifications framework and that of the EQF, to compare the contents of descriptor
categories, and to identify similarities and differences. It was already presented in the
8
previous point how and in which categories competence is described by the HuQF. It
should be noted that interpretation and use is more difficult as either the EQF or the
HuQF does not systemise the three or four-part learning outcome types at the levels,
thus the correlation among knowledge - skills - attitudes – autonomy and responsibility
remains unclear, which is typically an important organising principle in the construction
and operation of competences. Regarding this, the HuQF has a co-ordinative and
taxonomic nature.
Results of the comparison between the four Hungarian descriptive categories and the
three EQF descriptive categories are presented below.
The result of referencing the categories:
The EQF gives the following definition for the KNOWLEDGE category (in Annex I):
„knowledge means the outcome of the assimilation of information through learning.
Knowledge is the body of facts, principles, theories and practices that is related to a field
of work or study. In the context of the European Qualifications Framework, knowledge is
described as theoretical and/or factual”. By analysing the level descriptors, it can also be
stated that the EQF makes a distinction according to the broad or specialised nature of
knowledge. In addition to the knowledge of facts, the HuQF puts an emphasis on the
understanding of correlations, whereas the EQF defines the so called theoretical
knowledge which not only includes facts but the understanding of theories as well. EQF
describes knowledge with regard to depth, organisation, scope, flexibility and plasticity.
Somewhat inconsistently, but the HuQF relates knowledge to a field of study, work,
specialisation or learning, whereas the EQF only defines a field of work or study. The
knowledge which is out of the context of work or concerns entrepreneurship is excluded
from the EQF. In summary, the two categories with the above features can be
referenced to each other.
Skills in the EQF “means the ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete
tasks and solve problems. In the context of the European Qualifications Framework, skills
are described as cognitive (involving the use of logical, intuitive and creative thinking) or
practical (involving manual dexterity and the use of methods, materials, tools, and
instruments).” The EQF typically relates them to a field of work or study. It makes
distinctions according to novelty, predictability, complexity, and specialisation. The HuQF
presents Skills as a unity of three “skill elements”: motor skills manifested in activities,
domain-specific cognitive skills and domain-general cognitive abilities that are usually
typical of thinking. It makes distinctions for skills according to the level of routines,
novelty, predictability, complexity, and how familiar the context is. The HuQF gives a
more detailed description, and it also presents for example communication skill and
learning skill. The descriptors of the Skills in the HuQF and in the EQF use considerably
identical expressions with identical semantic contents.
The Attitude category in the HuQF expresses an evaluation of learning, work, and of the
object of the other competence elements of learning outcomes. It can express
favourable/unfavourable evaluation, assumptions, views, intentions and efforts. These
elements are not included in the EQF.
In Annex I of the EQF Competence “means the proven ability to use knowledge, skills
and personal, social and/or methodological abilities, in work or study situations and in
professional and personal development. In the context of the European Qualifications
Framework, competence is described in terms of responsibility and autonomy.” The
framework descriptors, the grid only focusses on the last two aspects, i.e. on the
9
responsibility and the autonomy. The level of autonomy is influenced by the level of
organisation and stability of context, and the predictability of change, whereas
responsibility is levelled according to the need and directness of the supervision received,
or the control and evaluation provided on the environment and others’ activities. The
HuQF describes Autonomy & Responsibility according to the extent and object of the
learning outcome, as well as in relation to the dimensions of behaviour in a social
context. Typical aspects of the HuQF are self-regulation, self-organisation, self-control,
the level where the individual is able to act autonomously and where the individual needs
control and help. The concepts, contents and aspects of Competence in the EQF and
Autonomy & Responsibility in the HuQF though partly differ, however, at the crucial
points they describe the same content.
Based on the above, the expert team accepted the conclusion that though the learning
outcome approach is not identical in the two frameworks, the conceptual basis
required for referencing is provided.
II.3
The process and result of linguistic analysis
During the semantic analysis experts examined the texts of the descriptors and searched
for the occurrence of words and expressions with identic forms and/or meanings in the
two frameworks. The aim of analysis was to find evidences for the correlation between
the levels of the two frameworks; by paying special attention to the key expressions that
characterise each level.
This method was used by most of the member states in the referencing process. At the
same time, the fact that the level descriptors of both the EQF and the HuQF are short,
thus concise, complex and abstract statements was considered to be a difficulty by the
experts. Consequently, the results of linguistic referencing can be considered objective
only to a limited extent as the result may significantly be influenced by reader’s
understanding and the interpretation of concepts.
As it was mentioned in the document earlier as well, experts put special emphasis on the
question of which domain of reality statements related to. The HuQF presents several
names (“field of learning”, “field of study”, “special field”, „”topic” etc.), nevertheless,
inconsistently. The lack of precise referencing can be mentioned in general therefore the
analysis does not point out at this in every specific case when this would be needed. The
issue of referencing should be addressed when the concept of the HuQF is possibly
reconsidered.
The analysis covered each descriptor, their elements separately, but also the combined
interpretation of the whole level. In the case of each level description, experts
endeavoured to identify the key concepts which refer to the competence added at the
concerned level. When the level of referencing is analysed, the issue of the “scope” and
“depth” of competence arises as a specific problem. Scope means how wide the range of
activities serving as the basis for referencing is; whereas depth specifies how far a
competence is from the possible “boundaries” of the given activity. The question is how
scope is taken into consideration for the interpretation of a level. Linguistic analysis
10
shows in several cases that different results are produced in the separate comparison of
scope and depth.
During the referencing of descriptors and levels, experts used the best-fit principle in its
simplest, quantitative interpretation aimed at the average. At the same time, they also
wanted to express the strength of correspondence between the levels considered
identical. With the above aspects taken into consideration, this was indicated on a 3stage scale as follows:
1. strong correspondence – regarding the competences, there is a considerable
accordance between the descriptors that characterise the levels, and between the
whole levels that are referenced regarding both scope and depth, which is also
underpinned by the use of identical terminology in several cases.
2. medium correspondence – there may be insignificant differences, or shifts in
emphasis in the scope and depth of the analysed competence, in the use of the
words in the level descriptions, however, when descriptors are put into a context,
the number and quality of the evidences to provide the identity of levels are still
satisfactorily convincing.
3. weak correspondence – there is a considerable difference in the scope or depth
of the analysed competences, the basis of referencing to reality may differ, or the
compared levels may be characterised by competences that differ from one
another; at the same time, the analysed level is even more different from other
levels than from that to which it shows weak referencing.
Detailed results of the referencing:
Level 1 of the HuQF
Level 1 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
–
–
–
–
Knows the most important concepts and basic facts of a particular topic.
Has a basic knowledge of the mother tongue, logical thinking and literacy.
Knows the distinctive materials and tools necessary for practical activities.
Understands and complies with rules and procedures of task execution.
Level 1 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
- basic general knowledge
In both systems, Level 1 demands basic knowledge (facts, concepts, tools) required for
completing simple tasks/work processes, and the knowledge of the operations required
for their theoretical and practical use though the EQF gives only an extremely concise
description. At the same time, the HuQF does not mention that these are general, nonspecialised knowledge competences. With all this taken into consideration, it may be
stated that the descriptors characterise the same knowledge level.
11
Level 1 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension
–
Has acquired a basic level of the key competences (especially: communication in
the mother tongue, mathematical-logical thinking).
–
Able to apply the knowledge necessary to solve a certain task/problem, provided
that this requires the application of undemanding routines and algorithms.
Level 1 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension
–
basic skills required to carry out simple tasks
Both systems assume key competences (mother tongue, mathematics-logic) at basic
development level, and the ability to solve simple problems based on practised
schemata, routines and algorithms though regarding problem solving the HuQF can be
rather referenced to Level 2 of the EQF. In summary, the learning outcome levels
characterised by the descriptors can be considered identical.
Level 1 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES dimension
–
Willing to understand tasks, motivated to implement them successfully.
–
Demonstrates inquisitiveness and interest in learning and basic work situations.
–
Ready to work in a team and to share his/her knowledge with others.
Level 1 of the HuQF – AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimension
–
Capable of autonomous task execution in simple, routine job situations.
–
Needs guidance and continuous supervision in the case of novel or complex tasks.
–
Able to evaluate his/her own work with external guidance.
Level 1 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension
–
work or study under direct supervision in a structured context
Both systems emphasise the necessity of guidance, continuous supervision, however, the
HuQF does not assume guidance and supervision in simple, routine situations. The
limited autonomy and independence that characterises the individual in a routine job
situation only appears at Level 2 of the EQF. The descriptor of the HuQF according to
which the individual, though under guidance and supervision but is able to carry out
novel and complex tasks can be also interpreted at a level that exceeds Level 1 of the
EQF. In addition to this, self-evaluation (implemented with support) is also a
characteristic of the HuQF that exceeds the content of Level 1 of the EQF.
Based on the experts’ opinion, due to the features detailed above, in summary Level 1
of the HuQF can be referenced to Level 2 of the EQF. The strength of
correspondence is: 2 – medium referencing.
12
It shall be noted that the analyses of the linking of qualifications showed that presently
no qualification based on state-accredited, standardised examination and quality-assured
assessment-evaluation is provided in the Hungarian qualification system at Level 1 of the
HuQF. At this level the certificate issued on the completion of Grade 6 in general
education can be considered the completed level of education for reference, which
definitely means the end of the general, so called grounding phase of the education
system, i.e. it certifies the acquisition of key competences and general knowledge which
is not detailed.
Level 2 of the HuQF
Level 2 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
-
Knows the basic facts, concepts and simple correlations of a given topic (area of
learning, speciality).
–
Has a general command of the mother tongue/language, mathematical-logical and
science-literacy.
–
Has the basic-intermediate level theoretical and practical knowledge necessary for
the exercise of a particular profession.
Level 2 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
-
basic factual knowledge of a field of work or study
The different use of concepts makes comparison more difficult. There is a difference
between the organisation levels of the two KNOWLEDGE contents: the EQF goes on
mentioning only “factual knowledge”, whereas the HuQF mentions theoretical knowledge
as well. At Level 2 of the HuQF, the knowledge of correlations between basic facts and
concepts, or the internal logic of processes is a new element. The content of knowledge
becomes specialised as well: though the EQF goes on describing only “basic” knowledge
at this level, this knowledge is related to a specific field of study or work, which has not
appeared at Level 1 yet. This specialised knowledge appears in the HuQF bound to the
exercise of an occupation. In the HuQF literacy is supplemented by “science-literacy”.
Considering the fact that several evidences suggested that the KNOWLEDGE described at
Level 2 of the HuQF was identical to the KNOWLEDGE of Level 3 of the EQF, the experts
applied a counter-verification of referencing.
Knowledge
EQF 3
HuQF 2
knowledge of facts, principles, processes
and general concepts, in a field of work
or study
Knows the basic facts, concepts and simple
correlations of a given topic (area of learning,
speciality)
Has
13
a
general
command
of
the
mother
tongue/language, mathematical-logical and
science-literacy. Has the basic-intermediate
level theoretical and practical knowledge
necessary for the exercise of a particular
profession.
Remark: In comparison to the knowledge of “general concepts” in the EQF, Level 2 of the
HuQF expects general literacy in a specific field, which means a deeper and more
specialised requirement compared to the EQF. In both systems, the knowledge required
for employment and exercise of an occupation also appear in addition to learning. The
EQF expects the knowledge of processes, which is reduced in the HuQF: the knowledge
of simple correlations is expectable. The fact that Level 2 of the HuQF expects the
knowledge of a profession at intermediate level in both theory and practice confirms that
it is closer to Level 3 of the EQF. Nevertheless, the fact that the EQF expects the
knowledge of general concepts and facts while the HuQF expects the knowledge of basic
concepts and facts does not allow referencing. At the same time, the HuQF gives the
details of this knowledge, and it describes general literacy, which can be already aligned
with the EQF.
In summary, the experts have stated that there are more evidences and arguments to
prove that in the Knowledge dimension Level 2 of the HuQF can be referenced to Level 3
of the EQF instead of referencing Level 2 of the HuQF to Level 2 of the EQF.
Level 2 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension
–
Able to identify uncomplicated correlations of cause and effect.
–
Able to carry out identification, distinction and comparison in relation to different
topics, upon predetermined specific criteria.
–
Able to carry out multi-component tasks/or series of tasks occasionally.
–
Able to use basic materials and tools with guidance.
–
Able to compose a written and verbal statement in a given field, react to a
statement, use basic terminology.
–
Possesses basic competencies necessary for cooperation.
Level 2 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension
–
basic cognitive and practical skills required to use relevant information in order to
carry out tasks and to solve routine problems using simple rules and tools
At this level, both tools focus on solving simple problems, however, the HuQF describes
the skills required therefor in more detail. Thinking operations are extended compared to
Level 1 by the skills to compare, identify, distinguish and conclude. Considering that
based on the HuQF description of a considerably wider content the cognitive skills seem
to be at a higher level, the experts carried out counter-verification for the referencing of
levels at this level as well.
14
Skills
Skills
EKKR 3
MKKR 2
a range of cognitive and practical skills
required to accomplish tasks and solve
problems by selecting and applying basic
methods, tools, materials and information
Able to identify uncomplicated correlations
of cause and effect.
Able to carry out identification, distinction
and comparison in relation to different
topics, upon predetermined specific criteria.
Able to carry out multi-component tasks/or
series of tasks occasionally.
Able to use basic materials and tools with
guidance.
- Able to compose a written and verbal
statement in a given field, react to a
statement, use basic terminology.
- Possesses basic competencies necessary
for cooperation.
Remark: While the EQF says that the individual has a range of cognitive and practical
skills, the HuQF gives a more detailed list of it. The key word is “basic” in both cases.
Regarding this, Level 2 of the HuQF can be referenced to Level 3 of the EQF. However, it
is an important difference that while the HuQf states that the learner is able to carry out
tasks with guidance at this level, the EQF does not explicitly state this, i.e. independent
task completion can be considered implicitly included in the description of the EQF,
however, this rather belongs to the autonomy and responsibility descriptors.
With all the above taken into consideration, based on the experts’ opinion, Regarding
Skills, Level 2 of the HuQF can be rather referenced to Level 3 of the EQF.
Level 2 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES and AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY
dimensions
-
In learning situations and tasks he/she is open to activities developing his
knowledge.
-
Is aware of fundamental moral and collective values, basic civic rights and
responsibilities.
-
In simple task-situations works independently and with responsibility.
-
In the case of more complex tasks, instructions are sufficient instead of close
control.
-
A sense of responsibility is developing, and self-control emerges in the process of
the evaluation of the work.
Level 2 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension
-
work or study under supervision with some autonomy
15
Out of the descriptors in the two frameworks, the degree of autonomy can be compared
more easily: here task completion with some autonomy appears in the EQF as well. The
HuQF makes a distinction between simple and more complex tasks, whereas the EQF
does not do this. In the first case the HuQF expects full independence, whereas in the
second case it expects instructions instead of close control. No explicit expectation
appears for “novel tasks”, however, they are supposed to be identical with those at Level
1 of the HuQF. Self-control that appears in the evaluation of the own work, as well as
emerging sense of responsibility are important features that question whether the
descriptors of the two frameworks describe an identical level in this category as the latter
feature only appears at Level 3 of the EQF in the “Competence” dimension. This also
justified the need for counter-verification for the referencing of the levels:
Competence
Autonomy & Responsibility
EQF 3
HuQF 2
take responsibility for
tasks in work or study
completion
of
adapt own behaviour to circumstances in
solving problems
–In
simple
task-situations
independently and with responsibility.
works
–In the case of more complex tasks,
instructions are sufficient instead of close
control.
–A sense of responsibility is developing, and
self-control emerges in the process of the
evaluation of the work.
Remark: In both systems, autonomy and responsibility are definitely expected in addition
to task completion with guidance.
With all the above taken into consideration, based on the experts’ opinion, regarding
Autonomy and & Responsibility, Level 2 of the HuQF can be rather referenced to Level 3
of the EQF.
By summarising the above facts, the experts’ opinion stated that Level 2 of the HuQF
can be referenced to Level 3 of the EQF. The strength of correspondence is: 2 –
medium
The completed level of education for reference of Level 2 is the primary school certificate.
This document certifies that the learner has basic knowledge acquired at school: i.e. the
knowledge that is relevant in the European culture and can be classified as general
knowledge. Within this the learner acquires more and more complex knowledge contents,
and knows a growing number of abstract concepts out of the field of mathematics as well
that can be easily interpreted by generalising. The contents of knowledge schemata
become extended, in VET the knowledge to provide the basis of expertise also appears.
Level 3 of the HuQF
Level 3 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
16
–
Knows basic facts, concepts and processes related to a given field of work or
study, recognises and understands multi-factor correlations
–
In addition to being acquainted with tools, methods and procedures for carrying
out tasks, he/she also applies basic methods of autonomous knowledge
acquisition
–
Possesses a broader inventory of knowledge element s/units in the field of
study/work of his/her interest.
–
Knows and applies rules, processes of task execution.
Level 3 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
–
knowledge of facts, principles, processes and general concepts, in a field of work
or study
In the HuQF, enrichment of knowledge is provided on the one hand by the incorporation
of the fundamental methods of cognition, on the other hand by the knowledge of more
complex correlations and the formation of the basic elements of expert knowledge
(structure/schema
system)
in
the
knowledge
domain
of
the
individual
interest/occupation. Beyond the definition of “simple correlations” at the previous level,
the HuQF mentions the knowledge of “multi-factor correlations”, which can be also
interpreted as principles. Importantly, it should be noted that the EQF expects theoretical
knowledge only at Level 4. In the HuQF, the knowledge of “procedures” and rules is
required at this level. It should be noted that “principles” can be interpreted as “rules” by
their definition (rule of action or conduct / rule or method for application in action).
The HuQF includes a wider range of knowledge, whereas “knowledge in broad context”
appears in the EQF only at Level 4. Independent knowledge acquisition and the
knowledge of how to acquire knowledge are missing from the EQF, it can be at most
identified as a part of “self-management” described in the Competence category of the
EQF, however, this appears there at Level 4. The counter-verification for the referencing
of levels was needed in this case.
Knowledge
EQF 4
HuQF 3
factual and theoretical knowledge in
broad contexts within a field of work or
study
Knows basic facts, concepts and processes
related to a given field of work or study,
recognises and understands multi-factor
correlations.
– In addition to being acquainted with tools,
methods and procedures for carrying out
tasks, he/she also applies basic methods of
autonomous knowledge acquisition.
– Possesses a broader inventory of knowledge
element s/units in the field of study/work of
his/her interest.
– Knows and applies rules, processes of task
17
execution
Remark: Level 4 of the EQF requires knowledge in broad context, whereas the HuQF
requires basic knowledge in detail, and in addition to this it expects knowledge in broad
context in a special field.
In Knowledge, Level 3 of the HuQF exceeds Level 3 of the EQF, however, it does not fully
reach Level 4 of the EQF therefore it can be rather referenced to Level 3 of the EQF.
Level 3 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension
–
Able to establish linkage between knowledge and knowledge schemata, and
develop a new schema in a well-known context.
–
In addition to the routine performance of simple tasks, he/she is also able to solve
new problems with unusual elements creatively.
–
Able to select and apply the appropriate tools, materials.
–
Able to perceive correlations and think in a systemic context.
Level 3 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension
–
a range of cognitive and practical skills required to accomplish tasks and solve
problems by selecting and applying basic methods, tools, materials and
information
Considerable semantic overlapping can be identified between the contents of the two
descriptors. Compared to the previous level, the skill to overview and systemise a field of
study/work, the sensitivity to problems, and the skill to select the adequate tools,
methods, information and materials for problem solving appear in both frameworks. The
description of the HuQF also shows a significant advancement in the field of independent
decision-making as at Level 2 the individual was able to use (basic) tools only with
guidance, whereas at Level 3 the individual is already able to make a decision for the
selection independently. The HuQF also emphasises the appearance of creative thinking,
which is required at this level as the elements in the field of learning or in the context
may change. The EQF mentions the changeability of context in the Competence category,
at Level 4. A counter-verification for the referencing of levels was also carried out.
Skills
Skills
EQF 4
HuQF 3
a range of cognitive and practical skills
required to generate solutions to specific
problems in a field of work or study
Able to establish linkage between knowledge
and knowledge schemata, and develop a new
schema in a well-known context.
– In addition to the routine performance of
simple tasks, he/she is also able to solve new
problems with unusual elements creatively.
– Able to select and apply the appropriate
tools, materials.
18
– Able to perceive correlations and think in a
systemic context.
Remark: The EQF focusses on specificity and special field at Level 4, whereas the HuQF
requires creative problem solving, and the completion of whole and complete tasks at
system level with the use of a wide range of knowledge.
Consequently, based on the content of the Skills dimension, Level 3 of the HuQF can be
referenced to Level 4 of the EQF.
Level 3 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES and AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY
dimensions
–
Able to judge and apply in a critical manner information from diverse sources.
–
Open to make joint efforts, work in a group, and accepts interdependence.
–
Complies with the widely accepted social norms both in professional and private
communication.
–
Complies with the widely accepted social norms both in professional and private
communication.
–
Self-control and systematic self-reflection concerning individual learning and work
activities becomes common.
Level 3 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension
–
take responsibility for completion of tasks in work or study
–
adapt own behaviour to circumstances in solving problems
The EQF emphasises the responsibility taken for an individual activity, whereas the HuQF
also highlights self-control and self-reflection deriving therefrom. Both tools refer to the
observation of social expectations and norms. The HuQF mentions vocational
commitment, which is a relation beyond the individual and the tasks completed by the
individual, and aims at a wider community. In addition to this, the HuQF also includes
critical attitude. All this suggests that Level 3 of the HuQF exceeds Level 3 of the EQF
therefore a counter-verification for the referencing of levels was required.
Competence
Autonomy & Responsibility
EQF 4
HuQF 3
exercise self-management within the
guidelines of work or study contexts that
are usually predictable, but are subject
to change
Self-control and systematic self-reflection
concerning individual learning and work
activities becomes common
supervise the routine work of others,
taking some responsibility for the
evaluation and improvement of work or
19
study activities
Remark: The component of “managing others” is missing from the HuQF. The HuQF
describes the presence of self-control and self-reflection in individual learning and work,
which can be referenced to the expression of “self-management” in the EQF. The
“evaluation” and “improvement” included in the EQF cannot be explicitly found in the
expectations of the HuQF.
Level 3 of the HuQF in this descriptor category, though exceeds Level 3 of the EQF, does
not fully reach Level 4 of the EQF.
There was a considerable debate among the experts on the referencing of the whole
level, with the partial results also taken into consideration. Exclusively based on the
results of the semantic referencing, Level 3 of the HuQF is close to Level 4 of the EQF,
and it seems to be closer to this level than to Level 3. At the same time, the experts also
took into consideration the fact that learners’ results did not reach the features at Level 3
of the HuQF as evidenced by the results of the different competence assessments.
Considering that the main aim of the HuQF is to provide information, and the
government does not intend to reform the education system related to its introduction,
the experts finally concluded that:
with the use of the best-fit principle, Level 3 of the HuQF can be referenced to
Level 3 of the EQF. The strength of correspondence is: 3 – weak
correspondence.
Level 4 of the HuQF
Level 4 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
–
Knows basic facts and concepts related to a given field of work or study,
understands key processes and correlations.
–
Knows the language and terminology of a given field, preferably in a foreign
language as well.
–
Knows and understands the conceptual correlations and structure of his field of
interest.
–
Understands the correlations of complicated, multi-factor phenomena.
–
Is familiar with the methods necessary for employing the facts, concepts,
correlations and procedures of a given field.
Level 4 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
–
factual and theoretical knowledge in broad contexts within a field of work or
study
20
The expectation of the EQF for factual and theoretical knowledge in broad context is
concretised and interpreted by the HuQF. At this level the key word is correlation, which
is included in the HuQF four times. It can be stated that the known and understood
correlations are more complex at this level, they consist of several components (one can
say that they constitute a “system of correlations”), and for their interpretation and
understanding a shift from the knowledge of facts to literacy, and the enhancement of
the knowledge of methods is needed. Although the competences of knowledge in the
HuQF seem to be broader, in summary the two tools describe an identical level.
Level 4 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension
–
Able to apply knowledge related to a field of work or study in an unusual context.
–
Able to think systematically, and use certain forms of abstraction.
–
Able to gather new information, and process it independently.
–
Able to plan and implement his/her learning and problem-solving strategy on his
own and make the necessary corrections.
–
Able to identify problem situations in his/her field of work or study and articulate
adequate proposals for solving them
Level 4 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension
-
a range of cognitive and practical skills required to generate solutions to specific
problems in a field of work or study
Both systems expect solutions to specific problems at his level. The new element in the
HuQF to indicate this level is “unusual context”. At Level 3 task completion was a “routine
performance” happening in a “well-known context” although “new, unusual elements”
occurred there as well. This is the basis of reference for extra content at this level. The
HuQF describes problem solving in more detail at this level, however, even with this
taken into account, extra skills are difficult to find here. In the EQF the extra skills for
problem solving are needed by the specific nature of the problem and the individual shall
be able to use broader correlations of knowledge for solving a special and concrete
problem than those described in KNOWLEDGE. The HuQF highlights that at this level the
individual already needs the skill of abstract thinking (in the EQF solving an abstract
problem only appears at Level 5). The two levels already show differences in the partial
elements of the competences therefore they can be considered identical only with weak
correspondence.
Level 4 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES, AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimensions
Attitudes
–
Open to undertaking new tasks.
–
Able to assess possibilities; consider risks, alternatives and consequences; is
capable of making compromises.
–
Follows ethical and legal norms in decision-making situations, understands the
correlations between values, behaviour and lifestyle.
21
–
Committed to the profession and to quality work.
–
Keen on continuous self-education and applies its proceedings.
Autonomy & Responsibility
–
Characterised by independence and self-control in the performance of work, in the
solution of problems and in learning as well.
–
Takes responsibility for his/her own actions or for the work of a small group or
community he/she is in charge of
Level 4 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension
-
exercise self-management within the guidelines of work or study contexts
that are usually predictable, but are subject to change
-
supervise the routine work of others, taking some responsibility for the evaluation
and improvement of work or study
In the EQF the stability of context is replaced by its changeability at this level. This
important condition is not explicitly defined in the HuQF, at the same time the openness
to undertaking new tasks presupposes preparedness for changeability. In the EQF the
individual already shows “self-management”, however, “within the guidelines of the
contexts”, i.e. the individual is still basically determined by the context. Contrary to this
the HuQF describes autonomy and self-control at this level and does not mention limiting
or restricting factors, the individual even has to solve the problem independently.
Management appears in both frameworks: taking responsibility for the work of others
(HuQF), and supervising the routine work of others (EQF). The description is more
precise in the EQF as it turns out that the supervised group only performs routine work,
and the individual shall evaluate them and improve their work only with limited
responsibility. The HuQF does not mention these aspects, however, the expression of
responsibility taken for the work of a small group or community he/she is in charge of
suggests more responsibility (although it turns out that the individual manages only few
persons at this level). Competences are described in a much broader context in the HuQF
with the supplementations in the Attitudes (e.g. decision-making).
Some elements of competences in the HuQF seem to be at a higher level,
however, in summary the levels are identical, and the strength of
correspondence is: 2 - medium.
The completed level of education for reference at Level 4 is the secondary school leaving
certificate. Factual and theoretical knowledge in broad context in a field as included in the
EQF appears in the Hungarian secondary school leaving certificate in addition to complex
and sound school education in the form of the knowledge of a special field to provide the
basis for expertise, and also in the fact that the learner acquires novel knowledge at a
higher level of abstraction.
Level 5 of the HuQF
Level 5 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
22
-
Has a fundamental general and specialized, theoretical and practical knowledge,
related to a particular field of study/work.
-
His/her sound knowledge regarding the application of methods and tools ensures
lasting exercise of the given profession at a high level.
-
Knows the specific terminology of the given field (in the mother tongue and in at
least one foreign language).
Level 5 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
-
comprehensive, specialised, factual and theoretical knowledge within a field of
work or study and an awareness of the boundaries of that knowledge
At this level the common feature of the two frameworks is comprehensive but already
specialised knowledge. The EQF consistently mentions a context of work or study,
whereas the HuQF emphasises the world of work at this level (in the other categories as
well). The “awareness of the boundaries of the knowledge” as included in the EQF, and a
similar description appears in the HuQF only at Level 7. Apart from this, the two levels
are almost identical.
Level 5 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension
-
Able to solve the tasks related to a given profession: to design and carry them
out, to choose the appropriate methods and tools, to apply them in an individual
and complex manner.
-
His/her skills to communicate in his mother tongue and in a foreign language
enable him/her to carry out a professional cooperation with speakers of other
languages.
-
Able to improve his/her knowledge, and apply different methods of knowledge
acquisition, self-improvement and current information and communication
technologies for that purpose.
-
Able to make responsible decisions related to employment and entrepreneurship.
Level 5 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension
-
a comprehensive range of cognitive and practical skills required to develop
creative solutions to abstract problems
Referencing can be carried out with the use of the first statement in the HuQF as this
mentions in an unambiguously identifiable manner the same content as the EQF, namely
the extended skills in the field of problem solving. At this level problems are already
complex and cannot be solved with routine, design and decisions are needed for the
solution, which is a complex activity. Creativity appears at this level in the EQF, however,
in the HuQf it appeared already before therefore it can be considered given at this level
as well. Both the HuQF and the EQF require complex skills for task completion. The ability
to communicate in professional issues in a foreign language is a decisive element in the
HuQF. Consequently, the two levels are identical regarding skills.
23
Level 5 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES, AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimensions
Attitudes
-
Open to the new achievements and innovations in his/her field of work/study.
Takes efforts to be acquainted with, understand and use them.
-
Aims for continuous self-education.
-
Committed to high quality professional work.
-
Self-critical concerning his/her own work.
-
Accepts and genuinely stands for the social role and the values of his/her
profession.
Autonomy & Responsibility
-
Works autonomously under continuous self-monitoring.
-
Takes responsibility for his or her own work as well as for the work, achievements
or failures of the team under his/her supervision.
In decision making, takes into consideration the ethical and legal rules of his field
of work.
Level 5 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension
-
exercise management and supervision in contexts of work or study activities
where there is unpredictable change
-
review and develop performance of self and others
Self-education – this is a core concept in both frameworks. The EQF describes this in
competence, whereas the HuQF highlights it as an Attitude and Skill as well. At this level
self-education is generally typical of the individual in both frameworks. The other key
concept is management. In compliance with the world of work, the EQF makes more
delicate distinctions for the gradually growing partial responsibilities related to
management, control and supervision. Related to the context of learning or work, based
on the EQF statement, the individual shall be prepared for not only the changing context
but for the unpredictability of the changes as well. In this respect the HuQF does not give
any information. Although the EQF provides broader relations, the HuQF gives extra
information with the Attitudes. In the experts’ evaluation the two levels were identical.
In summary, Level 5 of the HuQF can be referenced to Level 5 of the EQF. The
strength of correspondence: 2 – medium.
Level 6 of the HuQF
Level 6 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
-
Knows the fundamental comprehensive facts, tendencies and limits of his/her field
of work or study.
24
-
Knows the key correlations, theories and terminology of his/her field of study or
work.
-
Knows fundamental methods for knowledge acquisition and problem-solving of
his/her speciality.
Level 6 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
-
advanced knowledge of a field of work
understanding of theories and principles
or
study,
involving
a
critical
Both frameworks characterises the individual with comprehensive theoretical and factual
knowledge for the special field (the expression “fundamental” is slightly misleading in the
HuQF), which means they expect knowledge of the special field at a higher level than
before. The critical understanding of theories and principles can be referenced to the
knowledge of correlations and theories described in the HuQF. While the EQF expects the
critical understanding of the professional knowledge received in ready-made form, the
critical element does not explicitly appear at this level in the HuQF (although critical use
of information appeared in the HuQF in Attitudes already at Level 3, and self-critical and
critical thinking at Levels 5 and 6). Although the awareness of the boundaries of the field
of work appeared in the EQF already at Level 5, and in the HuQf only at Level 6, in
summary the two frameworks describe an approximately identical knowledge level.
Level 6 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension
-
Capable of carrying out an elementary analysis of the concepts which constitute
the foundations of the knowledge of a given field of work or study, to outline
correlations, and to make proper evaluations.
-
Has the necessary skills for studying autonomously.
-
Able to identify frequently occurring problems in his/her field, explore the
theoretical and practical background needed for their solution and able to address
them (through the application of standard procedures).
-
Able to use and understand the literature of his/her profession, its library and IT
sources.
-
Able to cooperate with others.
-
Capable of managing different resources.
-
Able to use his professional knowledge in
expectations of a given workplace.
accordance
with
the
diverse
Level 6 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension
-
advanced skills, demonstrating mastery and innovation, required to solve complex
and unpredictable problems in a specialised field of work or study
Referencing at text level is more difficult as the two descriptions do not use identical
terminologies and they try to describe skills from different aspects. Problem solving
serves as the only stable starting point as in this case the HuQF emphasises its routine
25
nature, which can be solved by standard operations, contrary to this a problem in the
EQF is unpredictable and complex, whose solution needs “advanced” knowledge of the
field of work and innovative skills. Innovation is not mentioned by the HuQF but
according to an expert interpretation the skill described in the descriptor at Level 4 of the
Skills, i.e. the skill “to plan and implement his/her learning and problem-solving strategy
on his own and make the necessary corrections, to identify problem situations in his/her
field of work or study and articulate adequate proposals for solving them” can be
interpreted as a the ability for innovation as well. Based on the HuQF description in the
statement for independent learning, it may seem to be a lower level compared to the
previous levels (4 and 5), and to the EQF. Although the HuQF descriptor has a broader
content, the EQF descriptor emphasises unpredictability and complexity, which is a
higher level. Consequently, in Skills, the HuQF does not reach Level 6 of the EQF.
Level 6 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES, AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimensions
Attitudes
-
Knows, accepts and genuinely communicates his/her job’s social function and its
relationship to the world.
-
Willing to disseminate the general way of thinking and basics features of the
practical operation of his/her profession.
-
Strives for continuous self-education.
Autonomy & Responsibility
-
Capable of thinking over independently the comprehensive, fundamental
questions of his profession and of elaborating them by using given sources.
-
Responsibly communicates the fundamental principles of the profession.
-
Cooperative and shows responsible behaviour with the professionals of his field.
-
Consciously accepts the ethical standards of his profession.
Level 6 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension
-
manage complex technical or professional activities or projects,
responsibility for decision-making in unpredictable work or study contexts
taking
-
take responsibility for managing professional development of individuals and
groups
Both systems require a high level of professional autonomy and responsibility at this
level. At the same time, the EQF considers the managerial tasks undertaken in a field of
work (decision-making, control, responsibility for the development of others) as a priority
issue, which does not explicitly appear in the HuQF (though Skills include the concept of
“managing different resources” which may also include human resource management as
well). The HuQF rather focusses on cooperation and the acceptance of ethical norms.
26
Based on the best-fit principle, Level 6 of the HuQF and Level 6 of the EQF can
be considered identical. The strength of correspondence is: 3 – weak
correspondence.
Level 7 of the HuQF
Level 7 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
-
Knows the general and specific features, main tendencies and exact limits of the
general domains of a given field of work or study, as well as its links to related
fields.
-
Has an in-depth knowledge of the correlations, theories and the related
terminology of a given field of work or study.
-
Knows the particular research methods (especially those related to knowledge
acquisition and problem solving) used in his field, abstraction techniques and the
methods to cope with practical aspects of theoretical questions.
Level 7 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
-
highly specialised knowledge, some of which is at the forefront of knowledge in a
field of work or study, as the basis for original thinking and/or research
-
critical awareness of knowledge issues in a field and at the interface between
different fields
The features of this level are based on the specialisation and extension of the knowledge
domain in both frameworks. The other identity is knowledge to support research. While
the EQF highlights the knowledge of new information and procedures required for
innovation, the HuQF does not explicitly include this, its approach rather static, it expects
the knowledge of techniques, terminologies and theories needed for abstraction. The
awareness of the boundaries of the knowledge appears in the HuQF only at Level 7,
whereas in the EQF the description of Level 5 already included it, however, specialised
knowledge required for handling the related fields of work is described here in both
frameworks. “Critical awareness” does not appear in the HuQF in Knowledge (however, it
can be understood as part of the evaluation activities included in the first statement of
the Skills category). Regarding this descriptor the two levels are identical.
Level 7 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension
-
Capable to perform exhaustive analysis of diverse conceptual domains
constituting the body of knowledge of a given field of work or study, to devise
general and specific correlations and to carry out related evaluation activities.
-
Able to identify profession-specific issues, explore and outline the theoretical and
practical.
27
-
Able to approach profession-specific
comprehensive manner.
problems
in
an
interdisciplinary,
-
Able to join research and development projects.
-
Is advanced at using the info-communication techniques of his/her field as well as
using and processing Hungarian and foreign language publications.
-
Able to apply a wide range of methods and techniques in various contexts of
different degree of complexity and predictability.
-
Able to produce in a scientific format analyses and summaries of sub-fields of his
area of study.
-
Able to apply his professional skills in accordance with the various requirements of
a given workplace.
Level 7 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension
-
specialised problem-solving skills required in research and/or innovation in
order to develop new knowledge and procedures and to integrate knowledge from
different fields
At this level both systems focus on the skills to integrate the different fields of work, to
develop new procedures, to identify problems, and to elaborate the methods of solution.
A more precise translation of the EQF would show the identity of the two level
descriptions more appropriately. At this level, the main point in both tools is a high-level
problem solving skill that also allows joining research activities, producing innovation
(EQF), and participating in development activities (HuQF). The application of knowledge
and information concerns several fields in both frameworks, and the individual shall be
able to manage (integrate/synthetize) this. The HuQF refers to the context here: its
complexity, predictability are “various” at this level, which can be also interpreted in a
way that the individual shall be able to handle complex and unpredictable operational
situations as well. The EQF mentions context in Competence at this level as well (it
describes an approximately identical context there, however, it expects the individual to
be able to manage, which “might be included” in the statement of the HuQF mentioning
“the application of methods and techniques” as well). The two levels can be considered
identical.
Level 7 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES, AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimensions
Attitudes
-
Knows and identifies with the specific and general relations and professional
identity that constitute the characteristics of his profession and its individual and
social functions. This is the basis for his unfolding vocational commitment.
-
Able to understand and genuinely communicate the particulars and the synthesis
of his/her profession’s topics.
-
His/her professional interest deepens and is consolidated.
28
Autonomy & Responsibility
-
Possesses considerable autonomy in elaborating general and specific professional
issues, in representing and justifying professional views.
-
Assumes responsibility in taking initiative for cooperation.
-
Is a partner on equal footing in cases of professional cooperation?
-
Thinks over and stands for the ethical positions of his field.
Level 7 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension
-
manage and transform work or study contexts that are complex, unpredictable
and require new strategic approaches
-
take responsibility for contributing to professional knowledge and practice and/or
for reviewing the strategic performance of teams
Due to their different contents and particularly different wording, these may be the two
descriptor lists that are the most difficult to reference. It can be stated that the two
frameworks describe features related to an individual who is professionally independent,
innovative, and promotes the work of a group. The EQF gives a definitely active role to
the individual in forming and managing the context, whereas in the HuQF this role is
rather passive and co-ordinative (“joins the project”, “assumes responsibility in taking
initiative”, “a partner on equal footing”), and assuming responsibility for and taking an
active role in forming the events and the strategic performance of others as indicated by
the EQF cannot be identified here. At the same time, due to the principle of accumulation
and hierarchy it shall be assumed that management is a part of this level as well.
Therefore the levels are identical.
In summary, Level 7 of the HuQf and Level 7 of the EQF are identical. The
strength of correspondence is: 1 – strong correspondence.
Level 8 of the HuQF
Level 8 of the HuQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
-
Has an in-depth knowledge, enabling him/her to undertake research, the general
and specific features, main tendencies and exact limits, consensual and
contentious correlations of his field.
-
Has a creative understanding of the theoretical elements, correlations, conceptual
systems and terminology of a given field.
-
Possesses the methodological and
independent research in a given field.
research
skills
necessary
to
perform
Level 8 of the EQF – KNOWLEDGE dimension
-
knowledge at the most advanced frontier of a field of work or study and at the
interface between fields
29
In both systems, the main point in the knowledge expected at this level is the exact
knowledge, research and exceeding the boundaries of a field of science or work, though
the HuQF is rather research-centred. The two levels are identical.
Level 8 of the HuQF – SKILLS dimension
-
Capable of analysing a given field in a creative manner, able to draft specific and
general correlations through the application of new approaches, and make
appropriate evaluations.
-
Able to use and further develop the special knowledge acquisition and problemsolving methods of his/her field.
-
Able to develop innovative, previously unknown practical aspects of a theoretical
issue.
-
Able to plan and carry out new projects, conduct research in a given field of
science, and develop new techniques and approaches.
-
Able to identify unanticipated professional problems, and explore the theoretical
and practical background needed for solving them in detail.
-
Able to establish and disseminate new correlations vital for his profession as well
as comprehensive links having significance for
individual and community
existence.
Level 8 of the EQF – SKILLS dimension
-
the most advanced and specialised skills and techniques, including synthesis and
evaluation, required to solve critical problems in research and/or innovation and
to extend and redefine existing knowledge or professional practice
Both tools focus on the skills to produce new knowledge and new practices, and to
further develop a field of science or work at a high level, among these the skills to
synthetize and evaluate are those that are described in more detail by the HuQF. The two
levels are identical.
Level 8 of the HuQF – ATTITUDES, AUTONOMY & RESPONSIBILITY dimensions
Attitudes
-
Represents and, in relation to his/her field of interest, further develops the
relations contributing to the process of human self-creation as a result of the
speciality of the given field of work.
-
Disposes of an interest and learning skills, which permits him to identify and solve
research problems of the field which are covert or unpredictable at the moment.
-
Has a solid sense of vocation, stable commitment to look for new approaches,
accepts the necessity of working persistently.
Autonomy & Responsibility
30
-
Develops and initiates new knowledge areas and initiates new practical solutions
creatively and independently.
-
Able to participate as a leader and is giving evidence of high skills for cooperation
in the process of defining theoretical and practical issues.
-
Able to take part on an equal footing in a professional discussion of a given field.
-
Undertakes to raise and answer new ethical questions in relation to the theoretical
and practical issues of his profession with responsibility.
Level 8 of the EQF – COMPETENCE dimension
-
demonstrate substantial authority, innovation, autonomy, scholarly and
professional integrity and sustained commitment to the development of new
ideas or processes at the forefront of work or study contexts including research
In both cases the descriptions express that the individual shall be competent at
producing new knowledge at this level. Both frameworks make effort to describe the
high-level autonomy, managerial and other competence and role required therefor, with
different use of wording and approach. The two levels are identical. Assuming
responsibility is approached from an ethical aspect. The two levels are identical.
In summary, Level 8 of the HuQF can be referenced to Level 8 of the EQF. The
strength of correspondence is: 1 – strong correspondence.
The summarised results of the comparative analyses carried out for each level show the
following regarding the referencing of the two frameworks:
HuQF
levels
EQF
levels
Strength of
correspondence*
no
qualification
->
EQF 1
-
HUQF 1
->
EQF 2
2
HUQF 2
->
HUQF 3
->
HUQF 4
->
EQF 4
2
HUQF 5
->
EQF 5
2
HUQF 6
->
EQF 6
3
HUQF 7
->
EQF 7
1
HUQF 8
->
EQF 8
1
EQF 3
31
2
3
*1 – strong, 2 – medium, 3 – weak correspondence
III.
Conclusions and recommendations
Several conclusions can be drawn from the technical phase of referencing the HuQF to
the EQF. On the one hand the comparative analysis can provide an appropriate basis for
comparing the descriptors of the two frameworks and the levels characterised by the
descriptors; and for revealing the differences and identities of the approaches,
conceptual elements and the details. At the same time, the limits of the linguisticsemantic analysis playing an important role in the technical analysis clearly manifested
themselves as well; these occurred due to the formal features, i.e. the length and
conciseness of the texts, as well as due to their quality, i.e. their inconsistent use of
wording or vague meaning at some places. Therefore it is definitely recommended that
descriptors should be reconsidered and further developed later. During a possible
reconsideration of the concept of the HuQF it also seems to be necessary to address and
revise how consistently and completely the descriptors of the HuQF are related to reality,
or at least whether there is coherence between them.
However, this cannot be independent of the development trends of education and
training policies. The framework can function only if the policy for skills and education
considers the framework an appropriate tool to achieve the set aims, and is able to use
its underlying potential. Today it is obvious that the use of cross-border tools of
education policy is unavoidable therefore understanding the frameworks, credit systems,
common taxonomies and other tools, as well as benefiting their introduction are
extremely important.
The conclusions drawn by the above analysis raise several issues that are otherwise wellknown from everyday practice. The question is how realistic the result can be considered
and what conclusions can be drawn from it if everyday practice, as well as the results of
national and international student assessments show insignificant or considerable
deviations from it time to time. It may be an important task as well to compare results
and reflect them on the real picture of the Hungarian labour market that copes with an
crowding out effect and the migration of skilled labour force. The answers to these
questions shall be found within the frames of social and professional debates. It is
recommended that the final result of referencing the two frameworks should be stated
only after the above debates and considering their results.
32