This is the original wiki version of the core Guidelines as submitted November 2009. Please do not make any changes here.

Guidelines on a European Learner Mobility model

Contents

Foreword
1. Introduction
2. Scope
3. Stakeholders: their interests and business cases concerning learner mobility
4. Current relevant educational practice
5. Concepts and model relating to learner mobility
6. Current practice surrounding mobility documentation
7. Current technical standards and their development
8. Recommendations and proposals
References

Foreword

These Guidelines on European learner mobility support the Mobility of Learners across whole of Europe. It provides guidance for the understanding, implementation, and application of the European Learner Mobility (EuroLM) model. The development of the EuroLM model has been carried out within the context of the European standardization initiative CEN "Workshop on Learning Technologies" [WS-LT] and the European standardization committee CEN TC 353 "ICT for Learning, Education, and Training". The standardization project "Guidelines for a European Learner Mobility Model" was supported and funded by the European Commission under the 2008 ICT Standardization Work Programme.

The project was initiated and led by Cleo Sgouropoulou (ELOT, Greece). The appointed project team also comprised the following experts: Simon Grant (UK, JISC CETIS, editor of this document), Erlend Øverby (Norway, Hypatia AS), and Simone Ravaioli (Italy, KION) as paid experts, and Alessandra Biancolini (Italy, IFSOL), Andy Dowling (Ireland, Digitary), Luis Anido Rifón (Spain, University of Vigo), Christian M. Stracke (Germany, Vice Chair CEN TC 353), Geir Vangen (Norway, USIT/UiO), and Scott Wilson (UK, JISC CETIS) as unpaid experts. Other experts contributing to this work include: Bernard Blandin (France), Adam Cooper (UK, JISC CETIS), Tore Hoel (Norway), Jad Najjar (Austria, WUV), Alan Paull (UK), Mark Stubbs (UK, MMU), Kristiina Uolia (Finland), and Gérard Vidal (France).

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Within the CEN standardization community the need for integration and harmonization of existing and future European policies and standards in the area of learner mobility has clearly been identified over recent years. In response to this need, CEN started official work on "Guidelines for a European Learner Mobility Model" in 2008 with an "Open Call for Project Team Experts" [CALL]. Initially envisaged were two major results:

• Guidelines on a European Learner Mobility model; and
• A draft technical specification of the Europass Diploma Supplement.

1.2 Document structure

This document presents the core "Guidelines on a European Learner Mobility model" (or "Guidelines" for short). Of the several areas highlighted here for future work, two areas are given further treatment and presented as separate supplementary documents:

• on intended learning outcomes [ILOs]
• on electronic document authentication [AUTH]

The technical specification work is presented in two other documents, as:

• European Learner Mobility Achievement Information Model [EUROLMAI];
• Europass Diploma Supplement Application Profile of the EuroLMAI [DS PROFILE].

1.3 Purpose

The objective of the Guidelines, and the European Learner Mobility project as a whole is:

"the provision of guidelines on a data model for the expression and exchange of European Learner Mobility information, as defined by the European Transparency instruments. The results of the proposed work will contribute to the effort towards interoperable European-wide IT systems that manage and exchange Europass related information." [CALL]

1.4 Message

In these Guidelines, the project team presents a conceptual model for understanding European learner mobility and further development and application of instruments and tools based on an understanding of:

• stakeholders and their requirements (section 3);
• learning, education and training (LET) practice that generates or uses information relevant to learner mobility (section 4);
• current practice surrounding mobility documentation (section 6);
• current technical standards and specifications, and their development(section 7).

A high-level conceptual model is constructed (section 5), in conjunction with the definitions of the concepts in the model. This serves both as an exposition of a high-level conceptual model in itself, and to map out areas both where there is further discussion in these Guidelines, and where we envisage discussion being taken up in later work.

The recommendations and proposals for future activities (section 8) are put in the context of the case for development. We recommend the adoption of the accompanying specification produced, and the further development of several related specifications, each one relatively small and self-contained, to enable best advantage to be taken of the possibilities offered by electronic formats of learner mobility information.

1.5 Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this work.

AP	application profile
APEL	accreditation of prior experiential learning
CEDEFOP	Centre Européen pour le Développement de la Formation Professionnelle (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training)	[CEDEFOP]
CDM	Course Description Metadata	[CDM-NO]
CEN	Comité Européen de Normalisation (European Committee for Standardization)
CS	Europass Certificate Supplement	[EUROPASS CS]
CV	curriculum vitae; Europass Curriculum Vitae (CV)	[EUROPASS CV]
CWA	CEN Workshop Agreement
DC	Dublin Core (Metadata Initiative)	[DCMI]
DG	Directorate-General
DS, EDS	Europass Diploma Supplement	[EUROPASS DS]
EC	European Commission
ECTS	European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System	[ECTS]
ECVET	European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training	[ECVET]
EHEA	European Higher Education Area
EN	European Standard
ENIC-NARIC	European Network of Information Centres - National Academic Recognition Information Centres	[ENIC-NARIC]
ENQA	European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education	[ENQA]
EQARF	European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training	[EQARF]
EQF	European Qualifications Framework	[EQF]
EU	European Union
EUA	European University Association	[EUA]
EuroLM	European Learner Mobility
HEI	higher education institution
KSC	knowledge, skills and competence	from [EQF]
LET	learning, education and training
LP	Europass Language Passport	[EUROPASS LP]
LT	learning technology
MLO	Metadata for Learning Opportunities	[CWA 15903]
PDP	personal development planning
URL	uniform resource locator
VET	vocational education and training
WS-LT	The CEN Workshop on Learning Technologies	[WS-LT]
XML	eXtensible Markup Language

2. Scope

2.1 The context of this work

For abbreviations, please see above; for definitions of other terms, please see the section on concepts and model, below.

Figure 1: A diagrammatic representation of learner mobility

Figure 1 illustrates a broad view of learner mobility from different points of view.

First, European and National policy stakeholders — as the main initiators and promoters of European and cross-cultural and trans-national learning, education and training (LET) policies and instruments — could be imagined as being above the diagram, looking down at the whole. They are represented here looking in from all sides of the diagram.

Second, there are the three other stakeholder groups: (1) Learners, (2) Employers, and (3) LET organisations offering learning, education, and training opportunities. Each of these three stakeholder groups organises their information about LET around particular concepts that are useful to them: these are the arrows near the three sides of the diagram. In practice, this information is organised into structured sets: these are the boxes in the areas marked "Information Models". Some of these sets of information have agreed specifications of their electronic representation, some at present only have paper formats, which may or may not be generally agreed or standardized. The information models shown are only illustrative: on the employers' side, in particular, there are many more.

Third, there are the Developers and Implementers as additional stakeholders that may attempt to develop and offer services that are related to learner mobility in some way. Some of these services are shown in ovals within the central "Services" rectangle. In this broad view, services relevant to learner mobility range from those helping learners choose LET opportunities, and those related to the administration processes involved in taking up learning opportunities, through services relevant to LET itself, to services relevant to helping learners secure desired employment.

Lastly, it is the role of European standardization organisations, in consensus, to assemble the standards and specifications, to be used by developers and implementers, to build interoperable tools and services, that help satisfy the needs of the other stakeholder groups. Instead of standardizing long and inflexible information models, the standardization of small information entities offers a modular approach promoting reuse of base information schemes in larger models. These "building block" standards and specifications can then be mixed-and-matched in larger information models to cover specific needs and drive the implementation of European-wide Services. The standardization organisations themselves are also, like the policy stakeholders, not shown, as they should ideally have an overview of the complete picture, so that the standards and specifications produced or adopted can be optimally adapted for reuse across, and even beyond, the field of learner mobility.

2.2 This work in context

The original focus for the specification aspect of this work was the Diploma Supplement, which is just one of the information models shown in the LET organisations area. The team writing these Guidelines understands their remit to include general treatment of the concepts in the LET organisations domain, and therefore is potentially relevant to any of the information models in the same domain.

The domain of employers is also covered by other organisations like HR-XML, set up and run by employers, and dedicated to specifying identifiable sets of information relevant to Human Resources functions.

The domain of learners is less simple to allocate. Two of the Europass learner mobility documents — the Europass CV and the Europass Language Passport — are documents that are generated by learners themselves, without necessarily requiring any direct involvement of the LET organisations. And the whole area of e-portfolios is clearly relevant to a broad view of learner mobility. On the other hand, the topic of e-portfolios is much too broad to cover in guidelines such as the present ones. Indeed, several books have been written specifically about e-portfolios. Just limiting the field to books whose titles start with "Electronic portfolios", there are three currently available. [Cambridge 2001] [Cambridge 2009] [Grant 2009]

3. Stakeholders: their interests and business cases concerning learner mobility

3.1 Policy and governmental stakeholders

European Commission

The Education and Culture DG sets out a "European strategy and co-operation in education and training" [EU STRATEGY] whose three overall objectives are

• improving the quality and effectiveness of education and training systems;
• facilitating access to education and training systems; and
• opening up EU education and training systems to the wider world.

This would in practice include

• raising awareness on European policies;
• better dissemination and exploitation of the Europass DS;
• implementation of Bologna processes.

The [CALL] outlined the situation thus:

The European Union has set up the processes for transforming European education in a "world quality reference". The fulfilment of this ambitious goal involves the development and adoption of instruments for the expression of the European citizens' learning, training and employment related information across the entire European Education Area. ECTS and Europass constitute an important step towards this direction.

Apart from providing these standardized information structures, the "Europass decision" [EUROPASS] sets the way ahead for the creation of an open, interoperable Europass Internet-based information system, parts of which will be managed at national level in the different stakeholder countries, while others administered at Community level. The Europass information system is expected to facilitate submission and exchange of information among the interoperating parts, and shall be developed taking into account the opportunity of future developments, with particular reference to the integration of information services on job and learning opportunities.

The enhancement of learner mobility and employability is undoubtedly a high priority action item within the European Education Area. EU member states and the European Commission have in recent years strengthened their political cooperation through the Education and Training 2010 work programme, followed up by the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training [ET 2020]. They integrate previous actions in the fields of education and training at the European level, including vocational education and training under the Copenhagen Process, and links up to the Bologna Process, which is crucial in the development of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Strategic objective 1 of the ET 2020 framework is "Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality". Within this objective, it is noted that

work is needed to ensure the development of national qualifications frameworks based on relevant learning outcomes and their link to the European Qualifications Framework, the establishment of more flexible learning pathways — including better transitions between the various education and training sectors, greater openness towards non-formal and informal learning, and increased transparency and recognition of learning outcomes.

European policy processes and actions can achieve their full benefit only in combination with well defined frameworks and instruments that allow transparent expression and exchange of learning, training and employment information. Within this context, concrete tools have been developed to support European citizens, learning providers, companies, guidance counsellors and educational authorities and allow them to fully exploit the potential of the European lifelong learning area and the EU-wide labour market.

National and state government ministries

The interests of these bodies are similar in nature to those of the EC. Many governments have a policy of supporting lifelong learning, in recognition of the fact that few jobs last for a whole working life, and citizens need to continue their learning, education or training recurrently. In other words, citizens need to be mobile, between different employment, and between employment and LET. European governments are committed to implementing Europass, and they wish to be able to do that without unnecessary expense. More broadly, they are committed to implementing the Bologna process for higher education, alongside the other related processes. One expression of this commitment is the appointment of "Bologna Promoters" — professionals active in higher education who advise and work with peers on the implementation of the Bologna reforms.

Governments also tend to share with the EC a strong interest in quality assurance in higher education, to preserve the prestige of European higher education and the institutions involved. The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) is a body that supports quality assurance, partly through their "Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area" [ESG]

CEDEFOP and National Europass Centres

These bodies are generally interested in supporting the development, maintenance, and dissemination of Europass templates. CEDEFOP ([CEDEFOP]), as the body promoting the development of vocational education and training (VET) in the European Union, has a strong interest not only in the mobility of people with vocational qualifications, but also in the increased use of intended learning outcomes. This last point is expanded in the separate section on intended learning outcomes [ILOs].

National Europass Centres support the implementation of Europass in each European country, and therefore have a natural interest in everything which affects Europass documents or processes.

3.2 Users of learner mobility services

Learners

Learners have a broad range of direct interests in learner mobility and related procedures and documents.

• They may wish to study away from their home country as well as at home, in which case procedures need to be in place both for their study in different places to be harmonised, and for the results of study in one country to be accepted in the context of another country.
• They may be involved in a study program that includes courses to be taken with another LET provider, possibly in a different country.
• They may wish to work in a different country from the one in which their studies were completed. In this case, the results of their studies need to be understood and accepted by potential employers in other countries.
• Even if they do not move between countries, they may still have an interest in assembling and using information about their learning and its results. This information can be used either to support filling in application forms by hand, or more directly, if in a suitable common electronic format, it could easily be transferred between the place it is stored and the place it is asked for.

Learning, education and training institutions

These bodies have quite a few distinct but related interests in learner mobility processes. The information may be used by central administration, by faculties and departments, or by international relationship offices (IROs)

• They need to comply with regulations concerning the ECTS and (for HEIs) the Europass DS. They would like to do this efficiently.
• In any case, they need a coherent approach to reporting educational achievement. It makes a great deal of sense for this to be harmonised across different cases, so that the processes needed for reporting (e.g.) the Europass DS are largely common with the processes for any national requirements.
• Many institutions strive to keep students from dropping out of courses before completion. Any initiative that can maximise student retention is highly prized. One approach to this is a better level of assurance of suitability of applicants for programmes, and this in turn can potentially be provided by more accurate recognition of student abilities and achievements.
• In the process of admitting students, results from previous studies form an important basis. This information is mainly used to control required qualifications for the study applied for. Further on, this information can also be used as a basis for ranking people.
• If a learner, admitted to a course of study, has previously completed a learning opportunity at a comparable level, this may be recognised as partly overlapping the new study. In the process of recognising the earlier education, it is important to gain detailed information about it, both at programme level and at the level of modules, so that any credit obtained in previous education can be credited to the current course.
• LET providers may define part of a study programme to be taken away from the home institution, in a different institution in the same country or abroad.

The European Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) that have started to apply these transparency processes and make use of relevant transparency tools have been confronted with the administration cost of manual and labour-intensive information management. Consequently, the need for related support services at a European level, ranging from secure management and exchange of learning-related history, goals and accomplishments, to new learning and employment opportunities discovery, constitute clear "business cases" in the evolving European educational setting. [CALL]

Employers

Employers also potentially have much to gain from learner mobility.

• If information about the achievements is held in central repositories, it may enable them to search for suitable graduates.
• If the information about learning outcomes is recorded clearly, employers can have a better awareness of knowledge, skills and competences of potential employees, and so can fit them better into their required roles.
• If their employees engage with professional development, through the company or through professional bodies, achievements and competences recorded during education may feed through into the professional development record, making it easier and quicker for new employees to start their development processes.

Professional bodies

• The more that achievements are specified for different educational programmes, the more consistently can professional bodies assess whether criteria for various levels of membership have been met.
• In the future, competences or other learning outcomes that they specify for qualifying for professional membership may be embedded in mobility documents, making it easier for graduates to reuse their achievements towards their attainment of professional grades.

Recruitment service providers

As agents of employers, these organisations share many interests with employers. However, because they routinely deal with many "candidates", they are likely to benefit even more from the automation of routine processes, and the use of machine-processable information. A clear example of this kind of efficiency gain is where a recruitment agency imports academic records direct from the providers (e.g. Diploma Supplements from universities), and uses that information to fill in the education section of online CVs. Examples similar to this can be seen with the Europass CV and Almalaurea [ALMA], Monster and other web-based recruitment portals.

A future ambition of these organisations may well be to bridge the gap between academia and the workplace by having a "common currency" for educational competences or other achievements or learning outcomes that relate to job requirements.

3.3 Developers and implementers

The [CALL] noted that:

Industry is demonstrating a vivid and growing interest in the production of learner mobility related standards. In the Gartner Industry Research document issued on 2007-12-12 titled "Findings: Bologna Process Demands True International Student and Course Data Standards in Higher Education Throughout the EU" (by Jan-Martin Lowendhal), it is highlighted that "the Bologna process has reached the stage where international student and course data standards have become necessary for the efficiency needed to support student mobility", and that "the Bologna Process, aimed at establishing a common and transparent framework for European structures of higher education, is finally starting to make a broad impact on the design requirements of IT solution".

Benefits that may be of interest to these businesses include:

• simpler handling of personal educational achievement information across systems;
• compliance with Bologna Process and market requirements;
• enhancing products with automatic functionalities for "producing" and "consuming" learner mobility documents and reports;
• interoperability among student information systems by sending electronically structured data from institution to institution eliminating the paper processes;
• exposing achievement information for consumption of the Recruitment service providers or companies;
• feeding academic records of students to national or European databases.

3.4 Business cases in general

Many of these benefits and interests for all parties can be summarised in this list of activities to which learner mobility practices contribute.

1. Exploit academic achievements abroad to further continuing education or seeking jobs opportunities abroad.
2. Acknowledge previously achieved credits and academic achievements domestically and internationally.
3. Facilitate mobility of learners, incoming and outgoing, within the same country, across multiple countries, and/or from one field of studies to another.
4. Integrate foreign workers into the local work world.
5. Communicate the level, content and nature of qualifications to potential employers, domestically and internationally.
6. Contribute to the harmonisation of higher education achievements and qualifications, domestically and internationally.

4. Current relevant educational practice

In order to be clear about the meaning and significance of learner mobility information, it is essential to understand the processes and practices in the context of which the information arises — that is, the educational practice that generates the information, some of which is gathered together in mobility documents.

4.1 Single HEI normal delivery and assessment

This is the traditional case, where a single university is responsible for a complete stage of the educational process. They admit students onto degree programmes, deliver teaching, facilitate the learning, provide educational materials and resources, assess or evaluate what is learned, and award resulting qualifications and attached credit. This is the simplest case, and some learner mobility practices may be based on the assumption that this is the context; or it may be regarded as the "default" case. This kind of educational practice is widespread in all countries.

4.2 Learners taking lesser learning opportunities

Some learners wish to take only certain courses or modules from a particular provider, with no commitment (at the time) to complete a recognised full qualification. These learners may not be popular with traditional providers, as they generate relatively little income for an administrative cost which may be as much as a traditional student completing a full degree programme.

This practice has arisen in conjunction with the development of systems of credit transfer. Credit transfer only makes sense if learners can take learning opportunities smaller than a complete programme, so that credit from the learning opportunities they take can be transferred to another programme. If a particular module delivers a tangible benefit to a learner, it may be that the learner has more incentive to use that enhanced knowledge, skill or competence in the work context, rather than continuing to complete a qualification. This is already happening in some countries, mainly with work-based learners.

On the other hand, if a learner who has taken lesser learning opportunities does wish to proceed towards a full qualification, the learner has to apply for this at one of the institutions involved. This institution needs all the results and related information in order to recognise all the learning opportunities and award a qualification.

Whether learners take lesser learning opportunities for direct benefit, or to accumulate a qualification, the practice of offering and taking lesser learning opportunities makes a great deal of sense in the context of lifelong learning. It is much more practical for learners to take several short courses than several complete degree programmes. Hence the more focus there is on lifelong learning, the more demand there is likely to be for institutions to offer modules singly as well as in complete programmes.

This practice has several implications for mobility.

1. It requires institutions to provide results at the end of what might be a short period.
2. Subsequent institutions that follow on must be able to include the information from earlier ones.
3. Where it is supported, learners are enabled to move more easily between institutions, potentially being able to tailor a programme more exactly to their specific needs.

4.3 Award with experience component

Universities have for a long time included years abroad, work placements in a sandwich structure, or similar arrangements within degree programmes. These may be formally assessed, and their successful completion may be a condition of the overall qualification — alternatively they may be optional. In cases where they are programme requirements, there may be some kind of grade assigned to performance during such experiences, and this may contribute to the overall programme result.

Increasingly, institutions also have APEL (accreditation of prior experiential learning) or similar arrangements whereby periods of employment or other experience are assessed as contributing to the overall qualification, sometimes by exempting learners from some programme requirements.

One of the challenges of this practice is to record of the results of such a period in terms that cohere with the descriptions of more traditional courses and assessments. It may be, for example, that the periods of experience are assessed informally by workplace assessors, using their professional judgement, possibly without a specific marking scheme. This may result in challenges for quality assurance, and in turn with the acceptability of any credits derived from such processes with other institutions. This is less of a problem when the complete programme is managed by a single institution, as they have normally developed processes over many years to address these issues. But in the context of mobility, there may be more challenges, and one challenge that may be taken up by mobility documentation is the clear recording of what has been learned during such a period of experience.

4.4 Sequential delivery and assessment - traditional mobility within a cycle

Exchange of students between educational institutions may happen in three different ways.

1. By a direct, bilateral exchange agreement between institutions.
2. By partnership in exchange programmes (Leonardo, Erasmus etc.).
3. By applying for a course or part programme, as a "free mover". However, many institutions do not accept such free movers.

The administrative processes involved in these learner mobility programmes may differ, but they are usually labour intensive, involving manual processing. Much information flows between the institutions:

• exchange of information in the processes of making contracts/agreements between institutions (or renewal of these contracts);
• nomination of students for exchange;
• admission of students;
• exchange of results;
• exchange of plans/learning agreements.

In most of these processes, there are no common routines, and no established way of exchanging information. Some information exchange may be paper-based, some based on different kind of web schemas or portals.

4.5 Joint and shared programmes of study

Joint degrees have been important instruments for implementing the Bologna process, and have a lot of attention at least in some countries. One explanation of joint degrees is given by [Zgaga]. The Committee of the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region issued, in 2004, a Recommendation on the Recognition of Joint Degrees [CoE-JOINT] which states:

A joint degree should, for the purposes of this Recommendation, be understood as referring to a higher education qualification issued jointly by at least two or more higher education institutions or jointly by one or more higher education institutions and other awarding bodies, on the basis of a study programme developed and/or provided jointly by the higher education institutions, possibly also in cooperation with other institutions. A joint degree may be issued as

a. a joint diploma in addition to one or more national diplomas,
b. a joint diploma issued by the institutions offering the study programme in question without being accompanied by any national diploma
c. one or more national diplomas issued officially as the only attestation of the joint qualification in question.

The Explanatory Memorandum to this document is even more precise at this point:

This part of the Recommendation seeks to define joint degree as a generic term and to explore the main types of joint degrees. It is worth noting that the EUA study on joint degrees found that there is no common definition in use today, whether explicitly or implicitly, but a joint degree can be said to have all or some of the following characteristics:

• the programmes are developed and/or approved jointly by several institutions;
• students from each participating institution physically take part in the study programme at other institutions (but they do not necessarily study at all cooperating institutions);
• students' stay at the participating institutions should constitute a substantial part of the programme;
• periods of study and examinations passed at the partner institutions are recognized fully and automatically;
• the partner institutions work out the curriculum jointly and cooperate on admission and examinations. In addition, staff of participating institutions should be encouraged to teach at other institutions contributing to the joint degree;
• after completing the full programme, students either obtain the national degree of each participating institution or awarding body or a degree (usually an unofficial "certificate" or "diploma") awarded jointly by the partner institutions.

Apart from the joint degrees as specified above, the practice is also growing of higher education institutions delegating some or all of the teaching of programmes to other (non-higher) education institutions. Among other motives for this, mature students with lower academic confidence may benefit from the rather different educational environment and values present in institutions that do not primarily deliver higher education. These arrangements have so far been planned and implemented deliberately with specific partner institutions.

4.6 The origins of mobility-related information in current educational processes

Origins

Information relevant to learner mobility documents arises from different processes within and beyond the institutions, and may currently be stored in various places. These include:

• sources of information at a national level;
• course advertising materials;
• ECTS course catalogues;
• student record systems;
• agreements/contracts for exchange of students between institutions and for joint programmes;
• learning agreements;
• exchange programme nominations;
• employers' records of their employees / human resource systems;
• personal and professional development processes, and related records;
• systems managed by the learner, such as e-portfolios, and their related processes.

Description of learning opportunities

Both whole programmes of study and their component modules are established and revised frequently, often on a yearly basis. There are institutional routines for these processes, and they include different levels of approval of the programme. In the process of revising the course or programme catalogue or prospectus, the description of the programmes will be updated. For some programmes, there is a national overall plan for the study, that includes some of the description. It is important to have versions of descriptions, that makes it possible to recapture the description for each student at a later time.

Generic information for the Diploma Supplement

Parts of the Diploma Supplement and other mobility documents are standard within a country, but differ between countries. This is common particularly for section 8 of the DS, but may also occur with other sections. This information will need to come from a national body.

Personal information

Information about a learner (name, address, etc.) is first given to an educational institution in the processes of application and admission. Later on, this information is maintained by the student or administration in different registration processes. This is often done each semester. It is common to retrieve personal information from other national sources. In some countries, the learner's name and official home address are maintained on an official national register, and can be retrieved from this register.

Learner qualifications

The assessment itself can be initiated by the institution, or by the student, in cases where the institution does not notice that the student has fulfilled the conditions of a qualification. This process includes checking the requirements for the programme, and all the information about assessment results has to be collected and recorded. This ends up with producing documents for the qualification (Diploma, Transcript, Diploma Supplement etc). These processes can be anywhere from fully manual to fully automatic.

Module results

Information about module results arises primarily from two different processes:

1. The most common is results based on an examination process, or from the evaluation of some sort of coursework or dissertation. This process includes registration for classes and examination, the examination, the evaluation and registration of the results. After this, complaints from the students may be treated, before the results are final.
2. Also results gained at other institutions can be included in the qualification. These will be included as a result from a process of recognition. This process is based on information from other institutions.

4.7 Information flows and processes relating to learner mobility

The information that flows between institutions and learners is generally paper based. There is no or little information that flows automatically between systems initiated by this exchange process. For the purposes of this discussion, we assume that a student has a host institution, and would like to take course at a guest institution.

Harmonisation of programmes in preparation for learner mobility

To facilitate exchange between different institutions, the institutions need to compare/harmonise their curriculum and agree to an exchange program. This is not necessarily a simple process. Whereas it might be possible to agree in broad terms on the generic subjects of study, probing into the detail of intended learning outcomes may reveal discrepancies that the institutions find problematic.

When applying for a course in a guest institution

The process generally proceeds as follows.

1. Students apply to their host institution for nomination to an exchange programme. Accepted students can send applications to guest institutions. In some cases, host institution will apply for their students.
2. Guest institutions check the student qualifications against their rules for admission. They need to verify that students have sufficient qualifications to follow courses that are applied for. Guest institutions read the students' CV and the description of the courses the students have already taken. Courses and their associated curriculum are described in the ECTS catalogue. Based on these descriptions, the student is granted access to the course.
3. In principle, the guest institution's course should fit within the host institution's curriculum. To specify this, there may be a learning agreement that includes the different modules the student are to follow at the guest institution. The routines for dealing with these learning agreements seems for differs a lot between institutions.

When returning to the host institution

When the student has completed a course at the guest institution, the host institution needs to verify that the student has followed a course that fits within the curriculum, or whether only parts of the course actually studied do indeed fit their curriculum. A source for this information is the guest institutions' ECTS catalogue and curriculum. However, in many cases the student follows a different course from the one applied for, and this causes an extra burden on the administrative staff, to verify the content of the course actually taken, and how this fits within the local curriculum, and if extra credit points must be obtained to make it fit within the host institution's curriculum.

5. Concepts and model relating to learner mobility

The previous sections have described the origins of the information relevant to learner mobility. This section clarifies the concepts, and the model built from those concepts, intended to help take forward future developments in learner mobility processes.

The aim of this conceptual model is to clarify the meanings of the concepts, and the relationships between them, in this area of European learner mobility. As well as covering much of established practice, the intention is to introduce the concept of intended learning outcomes, as this is seen as a highly desirable way of connecting learning opportunity provision with assessment, and has been discussed extensively in many places. This prepares the ground for later discussion of competence as one type of intended learning outcome where, typically, the assessment of competence is in a "real world" context, rather than in a classroom or through formal examination.

The most central and vital concepts of the proposed model are shown in the concept map diagrams appearing below. These diagrams show relationships, and the relationships between the concepts complement the concept definitions themselves. Text versions of the relationships are given following the definition of each term, further below.

Because this conceptual model has been constructed for clarity and generality, some of the concepts may not immediately match terms in current use. Indeed, in areas where different people use different concepts and terms, it would be difficult to match all of them, and so what is presented here is an attempt to clarify and relate just those concepts that are most important in use, and in the clearest manner.

This model is conceived not only to deal with higher education, but any learning, education or training. With a very little further generalisation, it covers many more organised processes relevant to learning and mobility.

5.1 Diagrams

These diagrams illustrate the essential concepts of a useful model surrounding learner mobility. They do not attempt to show cardinality of any relationships or attributes. All concepts and relationships are described in the singular, regardless of whether they are essential or not, and how many objects of each type may play a part in the relationship.

In most cases, the relationships could be represented in either direction, usually with different labels. In these diagrams, only one direction is shown for each relationship. Both relationships, direct and inverse, are described below within the relationship propositions.

Date and duration are not given in the diagrams, as they would add unnecessary detail. Each process (yellow) will in any case have one or more associated dates.

Outline conceptual model

Figure 2: Outline conceptual model of educational practice relevant to learner mobility.

This illustrates the rough division of the subject matter into three distinct parts:

• learning opportunity provision
• assessment
• award of credit or qualification

Between these parts sits the learner, his or her actions, and evidence of those actions, which provide the basis for the rest of the system. (Evidence can include test results, or records of consequences or effects, or can be just in the memory of observers.) The process of learner action is shown as a yellow oval, while a green background is given to enduring objects: both the learner, and the material evidence, as things in the world that are caused or produced by learner action.

Intended learning outcomes act as the proper bridge between learning opportunity provision and assessment. Without this bridge, the connections are much less clear.

More detailed model

Figure 3: More detailed conceptual model of educational practice relevant to learner mobility.

Processes are here shown as yellow ovals. The learning opportunity instance is the course, etc., in which organised or formal learning takes place. This involves some action by the learner. The assessment process also requires learner action. The assessment process assesses the evidence, and produces assessment results. In the awarding process, those results are used as the basis for awarding credit or qualifications.

Three more social entities appear at this level — the organisations responsible for the three organised processes — and these are also given a green background.

5.2 Learner Mobility concepts and definitions

Definitions may be followed by

• the source of the definition
• alternative terms
• narrower terms, or sub-types.
• examples, or where examples can be found
• notes further clarifying the definition

The relationships between the concepts, drawn in the diagrams above as labelled arrows, are then listed. This gives more detail and clarity to the meaning of each relationship, allowing easier checking against common sense.

In the diagrams, if two concepts are clearly related, only one arrow is drawn, to avoid cluttering the diagrams unnecessarily. Here, in contrast, there is space to list the relationships both ways round.

The arrow labels in the diagram above do not always express the relationship in the most natural way: priority in the diagrams is given to conciseness. In contrast, the following lists of relationships offer a chance to express each relationship in a way which better matches our understanding of the subject matter. Wording may be changed, or the propositions may be extended (in parenthesis); but the intention remains that an arrow in the diagram corresponds to one or two propositions. Where it seems to make sense, the order in which the relationships are listed is intended to allow a natural reading of the sequence in which the relationships may materialise.

Words such as "may" are introduced in those places where it seems natural to express the relationship as optional. Terms are given in the plural where this seems appropriate. These details are intended simply to correspond with the way people think of the relationships, and not to prescribe the cardinality of the relationships in a formal information model.

assessing body

definition	organisation that assesses or evaluates the actions or products of learners that indicate their knowledge, skill, competence, or any expected learning outcome
examples	a university, an examinations body
notes	The same organisation may also be a learning opportunity provider or an awarding body. For less formal assessment, it could be the learner him/herself, or someone or some body providing learning support.

assessment process

definition	process of applying an assessment specification to a specific learner at a specific time or over a specific time interval
examples	materialised in the actions of particular assessors assessing particular evidence; records of the assessment process may be materialised as results
notes	An instance of putting the evaluation specification into effect, at a particular time or time interval, for a particular learner, by particular assessors. The assessment process includes the filtering and processing of the evidence to take into account, in accordance with the assessment specification. An assessment process can have broader or narrower scope. At the programme level, the assessment process would give the overall result of the programme; detailed results of assessment with narrower scope would be represented in the transcript, not as part of the record of the qualification itself.

assessment result

definition	recorded result of an assessment process
alternative terms	result
examples	found in academic records and given on transcripts; also as appreciated by learners themselves
notes	Any assessment result can be used formatively or summatively. To be used summatively, the result would typically include one or more marks, grades or classifications. Three types of assessment results are recognised for the purposes of EuroLM: a result predicted or expected by someone that a learner may achieve — the values of these may be of the same appearance as for the results achieved; a result actually achieved by a learner; a result of assessing whether a learner has actually attained an intended learning outcome. A predicted result is an odd thing. Though it may look the same as the result of a specified assessment process, it is produced by a process that is not the same as the specified process — it could be just an estimate by an individual on the basis of their personal knowledge. To the extent to which the process of predicting a result is less reliable than the specified assessment process, the predicted result will be less evidential, and less useful, than the proper result of the specified assessment process. A result predicted cannot play the official roles played by a result achieved, such as being the basis for an awarding process.

assessment specification

definition	description of methods used to evaluate learners' achievement of expected learning outcomes
source	Slightly adapted from [ECTS Users' Guide] Glossary term Assessment, which suggests the examples of written, oral and practical tests/examinations, assessment of projects and portfolios.
examples	described in course or examination or assessment regulations; may include specification of assessment criteria
notes	May specify (a) the assessment procedures used (b) the types of evidence taken into consideration (c) the range of possible results or outcomes. The nature of the assessment process will depend on the nature of the intended learning outcome to be assessed. A broader assessment specification, for a whole programme and its associated qualification, can give rules about how to combine narrower assessment specifications into an overall result. These may be found written into assessment specifications or regulations.

assessment strategy

definition	broad approach to assessment used in the learning opportunity
source	[CWA 15903]
notes	MLO (CWA15903) envisages this as a piece of text that may be very short.

awarding body

definition	organisation that awards credit or qualifications
examples	a university, an examinations body
notes	The same organisation may also be a learning opportunity provider or an assessing body.

awarding process

definition	process within which an awarding body confers a qualification, or some credit, on a learner, on the basis of the results or outcomes of assessment processes
examples	an awarding process may be materialised in a ceremony; records of it may be materialised in certificates
notes	Credit is generally awarded on the basis of successful completion, which means that the learner must "pass" rather than "fail", if the learning opportunity is assessed, but the detail of the assessment result does not affect the credit. The record of learning opportunities provided may be a sufficient basis, without needing assessment results.

combination rule

definition	rule governing what is allowed or accepted regarding combination of learning opportunities taken by a learner
examples	module A can only be taken after successful completion of module B, and must be studied in conjuction with module C.
notes	A set of combination rules restricts the combinations of learning opportunity instances that may be taken by a learner. These rules, created by the providers of the learning opportunities, may be imposed through restrictions on admission or registration processes. Other rules may govern the combinations of learning opportunities that qualify for an award, imposed by awarding bodies in the course of the awarding process, but such rules may be of a different kind.

competence

definition	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
source	[EQF]
notes	As there is little international consensus about this definition, the term is used with caution.

credit

definition	quantified means of expressing the volume of learning based on the workload students need in order to achieve the expected outcomes of a learning process at a specified level
source	[ECTS Users' Guide]

credit scheme

alternative terms	credit transfer scheme; credit transfer system
see	framework

credit value

definition	particular amount of credit
examples	20 ECTS credits at EQF level 7
notes	Credit value is only meaningful within a credit scheme or system, and the scheme may require the specification of a level. The European Credit Transfer System [ECTS] is one such scheme. Credit value is an abstract amount that can be applied in several circumstances.

credit value awarded

definition	amount of credit awarded to a particular learner on a particular occasion
notes	The [ECTS Users' Guide] Glossary explains the Award of Credit as: "The act of delivering learners the number of credits that are assigned to the component or a qualification. The award of credit recognises that learners' learning outcomes have been assessed and that the learner satisfies the requirements for the educational component or the qualification."

diploma

definition	official documentary record of the awarding of a qualification
notes	This is equivalent to the [ECTS Users' Guide] Glossary term Qualification: "Any degree, diploma or other certificate issued by a competent authority attesting the successful completion of a recognised programme of study." Here, the preferred usage of the term "qualification" (q.v.) is for the status conferred, not the documentation.

evidence

definition	actions done, effects achieved, artefacts created, or records generated through the agency of a learner, able to be assessed for the purpose of determining whether that learner has attained some intended learning outcome
narrower terms	evidence may be of specified types, but these are not treated here
examples	a particular exam script; a particular piece of coursework; a video; an observed performance.
notes	The types of evidence that are admissible for a particular assessment process are normally specified by the relevant assessment specification. Evidence relevant to assessment may include such things as attendance registers, to ensure that a learner has actually attended events involved in learning opportunity instances.

framework

definition	system of concepts, definitions and provisions through which educational practices are ordered, related and articulated
alternative terms	credit scheme
examples	EQF; ECTS; other national credit or qualification frameworks, schemes, systems, etc. (e.g. in the UK: CATS; SCQF)
notes	This term is intended to cover the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF: see the [EQF brochure]), the ECTS, and related (e.g. national) frameworks, schemes or systems; thus the educational practices that are intended here are those to do with credit and qualifications. The terms are defined together, as there is no clear distinction between them. The framework provisions may include legal ones. A national qualifications framework could be defined as "a systematic description of an education system's qualifications where all learning achievements are measured and related to each other" [Adam]. The EQF has the more detailed definition of a "national qualifications framework" as "an instrument for the classification of qualifications according to a set of criteria for specified levels of learning achieved, which aims to integrate and coordinate national qualifications subsystems and improve the transparency, access, progression and quality of qualifications in relation to the labour market and civil society".

intended learning outcome

definition	statement of what a learner is expected to know, understand, or be able to do after successful completion of a process of learning
source	[ECTS Users' Guide]
alternative terms	learning objective
narrower terms	knowledge; transferable skill; competence
examples	often given in course or assessment documentation
notes	The ECTS Users' Guide gives this definition for the term "learning outcome". The use of the word 'expected' clearly indicates that this refers to what is intended, not what is actually achieved. The EQF [EQF brochure] modified the definition of "learning outcomes" to be "statements of what a learner knows, understands, or is able to do on completion of a learning process", and CEDEFOP [CEDEFOP 2008], [CEDEFOP 2009] further simplified this to "Learning outcomes are statements of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do after completion of learning." However, while intended learning outcomes are relatively easy to formulate, it is much more difficult to be sure what the actual outcomes are of any learning process. This difficulty may have contributed to the lack of usage of the term "learning outcome" with its strict meaning, and its loose use to mean "intended learning outcome". An exemplary use of the full term "intended learning outcome" is by the ENQA in their "Strategies and Guidelines" document. [ESG] MLO [CWA 15903] has a property "Objective" which can properly be used to relate learning opportunities to their intended outcomes. One of the requirements of the EHEA is to have a course guide for each offered course. The course guide must include its learning objectives or competences (intended learning outcomes) that are worked on within the course. However, many courses do not yet take this through into relating the assessment processes to the same intended learning outcomes.

Hence, an intended learning outcome here includes a set or profile of intended learning outcomes, as there is no obvious difference in nature between intended learning outcomes at different levels: almost any intended learning outcome can potentially be analysed into more specific parts.

issuer

definition	body that issues a document
examples	an awarding body; a learning opportunity provider
notes	The issuer does not appear in the conceptual model, as the document is about the entities in the conceptual model, and in principle anyone can issue a document containing some information relating to these entities.

learner

definition	individual engaged in a learning process
source	[ECTS Users' Guide]
examples	you, me, anyone
notes	Broad term, for entire European Learner Mobility landscape. ECTS notes that learning processes can be formal, non-formal or informal. Thus this term can include everyone.

learner action

definition	activity undertaken by the learner
narrower terms	(very many categories are possible)
examples	can be seen by observation of the learner

learning opportunity

definition

formally specified education or training process

notes

This is close to the [ECTS Users' Guide] Glossary definition of Educational Component: "A self-contained and formally structured learning experience (such as: course unit, module, seminar, work placement)." [CWA 15903] gives the definition as "a chance to participate in education or training", which clearly includes opportunities to learn that are less structured, but this covers things that are difficult to document formally, and may be of less interest in the context of European learner mobility.

learning opportunity instance

definition	single presentation of a learning opportunity
examples	materialised in particular organised activities of learners and educators; may be mentioned in course advertising materials
notes	"Unlike a learning opportunity specification, a learning opportunity instance is not abstract, may be bound to particular dates or locations, and may be applied for or participated in by learners." [CWA 15903]. Thus the learning opportunity instance may be thought of as a process.

learning opportunity provided

definition	learning opportunity that is being or has been taken by one or more learners
notes	This is a record, and therefore a statement, of one learner's involvement in the process that is the learning opportunity instance.

learning opportunity provider

definition	organisation that validates or advertises learning opportunity specifications, or that runs learning opportunity instances
examples	a university, a school, a college, a training company
notes	The same organisation may also be an assessing body or an awarding body.

learning opportunity specification

definition	description of a learning opportunity, consisting of information that will be consistent across multiple instances of the learning opportunity
source	[CWA 15903]
narrower terms	component, module, programme
examples	to be found in prospectuses and other materials and catalogues that advertise educational programmes, courses or modules
notes	This does not address the question of how learning opportunity specifications are created, and by whom. They may be created at a higher level of authority, such as by Ministries of Education. MLO-AD [CWA 15903] specifies several properties that may belong to instances, or to specifications, where they are common to all the instances of a specification.

level

definition	one of a set of terms, properly defined within a framework or scheme, applied to an entity in order to group it together with other entities relevant to the same stage of education
alternative terms	education level; educational level
examples	a number referring to a particular scheme or framework
notes	This is similar in intention to the definition of level in [CWA 15903] which in turn refers to the Dublin Core term with name "educationLevel" and label "Audience Education Level". Level terms are typically (though not always) represented as consecutive small integers, but it is important to recognise that the level is not the number, but the position in a specified framework.

module

definition	course unit in a system in which each course unit carries the same number of credits or a multiple thereof
source	[ECTS Users' Guide]

programme

definition

learning opportunity for successful completion of which the learner can be awarded a specified qualification

notes

[ECTS Users' Guide] Glossary defines "Programme (educational)" as a "set of educational components, based on learning outcomes, that are recognised for the award of a specific qualification". In any learner mobility achievement information report, the programme refers to a top level learning opportunity, which typically (though not always) comprises a set of narrower learning opportunities. For a Diploma Supplement, there will be just one such programme.

result

see	assessment result

qualification

definition	status awarded to or conferred on a learner by an awarding body
examples	represented by its title, e.g. "Master of Science in Interoperability Specifications"
notes	This is compatible with the Qualification property of [CWA 15903]. A qualification is identified and represented by its name, and possibly also its subject. To be of value, a qualification must be meaningful within the system of education and within the society in which it is embedded. The EQF defines a qualification as "a formal outcome of an assessment and validation process which is obtained when a competent body determines that an individual has achieved learning outcomes to given standards", which says a lot about the process, but little about the nature of the outcome. The suggested term for the documentary evidence of the qualification is "diploma" (q.v.)

student

definition	learner enrolled in a formal educational programme
source	[ECTS Users' Guide]
notes	This is intended to cover a current or former student.

transcript

definition

collection of information, represented in a learner mobility achievement information report, about learning opportunity instances taken by a learner, including any available associated results for that learner

5.3 Generalising from education and relating to work and personal processes

The patterns displayed in this model appear very similar to those one might see in areas that are less explicitly educational. Figure 2, above, can be changed to omit specific mention of "learning" from the opportunity and the outcome — which then seems to fit the case of many employment opportunities — and to generalise from the award of credit or qualifications to other kinds of status recognition. At the same time, it may be useful to recognise the processes that tend to be managed more directly by the learner, including reflection and action planning. These are highly relevant when discussing e-portfolio tools, and related learning technology. Though they are often supported by educational institutions, employers, professional bodies and others, they are sometimes seen as less "formal".

The "intended learning outcome" of Figures 2 and 3 has been moved, joined by action plans and personal records, and relabelled more generally as an "intended outcome". Intended learning outcomes relate to the individual, but some intended outcomes of work processes or opportunities may not relate directly to the individual, but instead may be more about the company or organisation, its products or customers, etc. All these cases can be thought of as patterns in the future, or goals, shared between stakeholders.

Figure 4: Outline conceptual model of more general processes related to learning, education, training, etc..

The lower-level concepts may also be generalised, as can be seen in the following diagram. In addition, as can now be followed in the expanded diagram, the individual processes of planning and reflection may be distinguished, alongside observation and action. As illustrated, an intended learning outcome often relates to behaviour patterns within the individual — including skill, competence, etc. Intended learning outcomes can also relate to plain knowledge, and this could perhaps better be shown as an arrow to "belief", but this is not shown, as it is of less interest here, relating rather to older models of education.

These diagrams do not attempt to represent the interactions and processes between learners, or the existence or significance of peer groups. In the light of the increasing recognition of the importance of peer processes in learning, of peer assessment, and of the role of social networking in learning, it may be useful to extend the model in this direction.

It must be emphasised that these diagrams are simply an illustration of how the model could be generalised and extended to cover the less formal activities of informal and non-formal learning, and the associated learning technology. They are provisional, and not in any way definitive, fixed or stable. Their importance does not lie in their immediate application to European learner mobility documentation, but rather in their contribution to future thinking in related areas.

Figure 5: More detailed conceptual model of practice relevant to learning, education, training, etc..

This still does not use the term "competence", as some people might expect when dealing with work-related learning and process. This is discussed more at length in the separate section [ILOs], but this omission can be explained briefly here.

Competence and competency are terms that do not enjoy universal agreement about their definition and use. The EQF's definition [EQF brochure] of competence goes thus:

"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.

Whereas this is certainly indicative of the common meaning of the concept of competence, it is not ideal as a precise definition on which to base guidelines. Nor do there seem to be any other published definitions that could fill this gap effectively.

It is clear that learning opportunities — courses — may be designed so that the learner learns various different kinds of things. The EQF distinctions between knowledge, skill and competence, and the definitions given, are helpful for recognising some of the different categories. The EQF also states that

"learning outcomes" means statements of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do on completion of a learning process, which are defined in terms of knowledge, skills and competence

implying that competence is one kind of learning outcome, of which others include knowledge and skill. Given the ongoing debate, if not confusion, surrounding the distinctions between these and related terms (such as "competency") it was thought wise to deal only with learning outcomes, for which the definition is less controversial, rather than attempt to clarify here the nature of competence and related concepts. For further discussion, see the separate section of Guidelines relating to intended learning outcomes [ILOs].

6. Current practice surrounding mobility documentation

6.1 European Qualifications frameworks

Qualifications frameworks have be defined as "a systematic description of an education system's qualifications where all learning achievements are measured and related to each other" [Adam]. The aims and purposes of qualifications frameworks are manifold. In particular, they intend to:

• facilitate the comparability and compatibility of degrees and qualifications through the use of common reference points for competences;
• support the recognition of degrees, as well as the recognition of experimental, informal and non-formal learning;
• ease mobility, mostly through the easier recognition within and between the university sector and other types of post-secondary education;
• build the link between higher education and lifelong learning;
• contribute to the improvement of the European cooperation with regards to quality assurance;
• foster the social dimension, mainly through providing more flexible learning paths, thus promoting social inclusion;
• provide good guidance for curricula changes e.g. in terms of shifting from teaching-based to learner-centred systems;
• provide more transparency for the labour market and for learners, as it will become more visible and understandable what skills and competences are achieved at a given level or in a given degree.

Within the Bologna and Copenhagen context, two concrete frameworks have been developed:

1. The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning [EQF] aims to link countries' qualifications systems, acting as a translation device for qualifications across different EU Member States, employers and individuals, and so make it easier for individuals to work or study abroad. The EQF will relate different countries' national qualifications systems to a common European reference framework. Individuals and employers will be able to use the EQF to better understand and compare the qualifications levels of different countries and different education and training systems. The EQF was adopted by the European Parliament and Council on 23 April 2008.
   
   The EQF encourages countries to relate their qualifications systems or frameworks to the EQF by 2010 and to ensure that all new qualifications issued from 2012 carry a reference to the appropriate EQF level.
   
   The core of the EQF are eight reference levels describing what a learner knows, understands and is able to do — these can be seen as 'learning outcomes'. Levels of national qualifications will be placed at one of the central reference levels, ranging from basic (Level 1) to advanced (Level 8). It will therefore enable much easier comparison between national qualifications and should also mean that people do not have to repeat learning if they move to another country.
   
   The EQF applies to all types of education, training and qualifications, from school education to academic, professional and vocational. The system shifts the focus from the traditional approach which emphasises 'learning inputs' such as the length of a learning experience, or type of institution. It also encourages lifelong learning by promoting the validation of non-formal and informal learning.
   
   
2. The European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training [EQARF] is a reference instrument to help Member States to promote and monitor continuous improvement of their Vocational Education and Training (VET) systems, based on common European references.
   
   The Member States and the Commission have established a European Quality Assurance Reference Framework [EQARF] to serve as a reference instrument to help Member States to promote and monitor continuous improvement of their Vocational Education and Training (VET) systems, based on common European references. Therefore the Framework should encourage mutual trust in national VET systems within a genuine borderless lifelong learning area.
   
   Thus EQARF supports lifelong learning strategies, European labour market integration and promotes a culture of quality improvement at all levels, while respecting the rich diversity of national education systems. It should therefore underpin every policy initiative in vocational education and training.
   
   EQARF forms part of a series of European initiatives which aim is to recognise various skills and competencies received by learners across different countries or learning environments.

6.2 European framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences

The "single Community framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences" [EUROPASS], established in 2004, is described as a personal, coordinated portfolio of documents, which citizens can use on a voluntary basis to better communicate and present their qualifications and competences throughout Europe. Each of the Europass documents defines information structures for the presentation in a clear and comprehensive way of several types of learner information. In particular, Europass [EUROPASS SITE] consists of the:

• Europass CV, a curriculum vitae structure for the presentation of an individual's qualifications and competences. [EUROPASS CV]
• Europass Language Passport (LP), providing individuals with the opportunity to present their language skills. [EUROPASS LP]
• Europass Mobility, which records periods of learning attended by its holders in countries other than their own. [EUROPASS MOB]
• Europass Certificate Supplement (CS), describing the competences and qualifications corresponding to a vocational training certificate. [EUROPASS CS]
• Europass Diploma Supplement (DS), which supplies information on its holder's educational achievements at higher education level. [EUROPASS DS]

6.3 European credit systems and associated documents

Credit systems are important for the comparability and recognition of qualifications. Two such systems have been developed to support Higher Education studies and Vocational Education and Training (VET), respectively:

1. The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System [ECTS], which provides a common basis to formally recognise study periods abroad. The ECTS is a learner-centred system based on the student workload required to achieve the objectives of a programme, objectives preferably specified in terms of the learning outcomes and competences to be acquired.
   
   ECTS makes teaching and learning more transparent and facilitates the recognition of studies (formal, non-formal and informal). The system is used across Europe for credit transfer (student mobility) and credit accumulation (learning paths towards a degree). It also informs curriculum design and quality assurance.
   
   Institutions which apply ECTS publish their course catalogues on the web, including detailed descriptions of study programmes, units of learning, university regulations and student services. Course descriptions contain learning outcomes (what students are expected to know, understand and be able to do) and workload (the time students typically need to achieve the learning outcomes), expressed in terms of credits. In most cases, student workload ranges from 1,500 to 1,800 hours for an academic year, and one credit corresponds to 25-30 hours of work.
   
   Credit transfer and accumulation are helped by the use of the ECTS key documents: the course catalogues published by each participating university, the Erasmus Learning Agreement [ECTS AGREEMENT], and the Erasmus Transcript of Records [ECTS TRANSCRIPT], as well as the Diploma Supplement [EUROPASS DS].
   
   ECTS can feed into recognition decisions. These decisions, however, remain the responsibility of the competent authorities: professors involved in student exchange, university admission officers, recognition advisory centres [ENIC-NARIC], ministry officials or employers.
   
   
2. The European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training [ECVET] is a system under development for the transfer, accumulation and recognition of learning outcomes in Europe, including those outside the formal training system. Other tools are also being developed for the validation of informal and non-formal learning.
   
   The EU Member States and the Commission are developing a system to facilitate the recognition of knowledge, skills and competences gained by individuals in different learning environments or through periods of vocational education and training abroad. ECVET will give people greater control over their individual learning experiences and make it more attractive to move between different countries and different learning environments.
   
   Lifelong learning and mobility for learning are taking place increasingly in a wide variety of contexts; formal, non-formal and informal and in different countries. One of the key solutions to attracting more interest in trans-national mobility for vocational training and education (VET) and to supporting individuals' lifelong learning paths, is to facilitate validation, recognition and accumulation of learning outcomes acquired during a stay in another country or in different learning contexts.
   
   ECVET belongs to a series of European initiatives to recognise learning experiences across different countries and different types of institutions.
   
   ECVET aims for better comparability and compatibility between different national VET and qualification systems. The system, which should be implemented by Member States by 2012, is a voluntary framework to describe qualifications in terms of units of learning outcomes. Each of these units will be associated with a certain number of ECVET points developed on the basis of common European standards. 60 points should correspond to the learning outcomes achieved in a year of full time VET.

6.4 Existing practice with electronic Diploma Supplement documents

The practice represented here parallels the traditionally established practice with paper documentation. The learner takes an educational programme; is assessed at various times, with recorded results; is awarded a qualification; is given a diploma with a Diploma Supplement (DS); passes the DS on to a future employer or HEI as evidence of the qualification and the results.

HEI generates electronic DS for graduate

Use Case

When a student graduates from a HEI, they are entitled to a DS from that HEI. In this case, the HEI generates an electronic DS on behalf of a graduate.

Figure 6

Technical note

The HEI generates the XML representation of the DS using information stored in their Student Information System and/or other systems. The XML DS is secured (i.e. covered by a digital signature) before it is issued to the graduate to ensure that the DS can be properly authenticated and that any tampering with the DS will be detectable.

HEI makes DS available to graduate

Use Case

Once the HEI has created the electronic DS, the DS is made available to the graduate.

Figure 7

Technical note

Making an electronic DS available to a graduate is done in a variety of ways depending on the model being used. An "offline" model is implemented by simply providing the graduate with a secure (i.e. digitally-signed file) copy of their DS for viewing or verification offline using appropriate application software. This file could be distributed to the graduate by email or electronic download.

An alternative to this approach is an "online document" model, where the DS is made available online at a trusted website, perhaps controlled by the HEI or appropriate national body. This way, the student can login and access their DS online. Access to the online document can be easily recorded for Data Protection purposes, and access can be shut off at any time for whatever reason.

Usage

A hybrid approach to this is to use the online model to access and authenticate digitally-signed documents online via the trusted website described in the online model.
The hybrid document model is implemented at a number of HEIs in Ireland, UK, and Portugal.

Graduate grants access to their DS to a third party

Use Case

A graduate who possesses a DS needs to share their DS with a third party (i.e. a recruiter or other HEI) as part of a job/course application process.

Figure 8

Technical note

Sharing a DS depends on the model being used. In an offline document model, the graduate simply sends their digitally-signed file (i.e. certified PDF) to the third party for verification (along with a password to access the file, if required).

With an online model, the graduate has an online account at the issuing HEI that enables them to share their electronic DS online with authorised third parties (via a generated URL linking to a trusted site at the HEI). The graduate may or may not have the ability to control who can access the DS at that URL and for how long. The link is distributed to the third party either directly by the HEI (most secure) or via the student as part of an e-portfolio (use with caution).

Usage

The online approach to DS distribution is implemented at a number of HEIs in Ireland, UK, and Portugal.

Third party authenticates DS

Use Case

A third party who has been granted access to an electronic DS needs to verify the authenticity of the document and view its contents.

Figure 9

Technical note

With the offline model, a third party can open the electronic file using appropriate application software (i.e. Adobe Reader for signed PDF). The software authenticates the digital signature on the document and will present the results of verification to the third party on screen. The third party interprets these results and makes a decision on whether or not to trust the DS.

In the online case, the third party visits the secure URL linking back to the issuing HEI. The HEI system authenticates the document and presents comprehensive results on screen. Directly using a HEI-controlled website may lead to greater trust by third parties. This approach also permits recording of access to the document by the third party, and allows the HEI to revoke the document for whatever reason (e.g. plagiarism!).

Usage

The online approach to DS authentication is implemented at a number of HEIs in Ireland, UK, and Portugal.

6.5 Personally controlled use by the learner

There is another scenario that also parallels current paper use, but which could become much more widespread with electronic versions of mobility documents. Currently, learners refer to their results when filling in various forms, or when creating their own portfolios presenting their abilities to others. In effect, with paper-based practice, they are copying the information supplied by the educational institution and reusing it for whatever purpose they choose.

This is complementary to the previous scenario, in that there is a completely different relationship with security and authentication. In copying by the learner, the information loses any original authenticity, as anyone could decide to copy selectively or misleadingly. If, later, readers of the information thus copied want to be assured of its authenticity, the previous scenario needs to be revisited.

This scenario is of interest due to the increasing amount of information available in mobility documents. It is increasingly laborious to copy the information by hand, and therefore increasingly attractive to have a facility to copy the information directly into a tool that can hold and manage that information under the control of the learner. These tools include many now called "e-portfolio" tools. Just as with e-commerce, the automatic, electronic nature of the copying reduces the number of errors that would have been introduced by hand copying.

Two existing Europass documents belong in this learner controlled domain: the Europass CV and the Europass Language Passport. E-portfolio tools may be adapted to be able to output these documents, under the control of the learner, using information input from a Europass DS, CS, or Mobility. Thus this scenario has direct relevance to Europass as well as the wider picture of learner mobility.

In order to facilitate this scenario, the format of electronic versions of institution-controlled learner mobility documents needs to be compatible with the structures inherent in the learner-controlled tools (such as e-portfolios). E-portfolio tools have their own recent specification for portability and interoperability [LEAP2A]. The challenge here is to ensure that electronic learner mobility document specifications have an information model that is compatible with LEAP2A, so that it is relatively straightforward to create transforms from one format to the other.

6.6 Other scenarios of use of mobility documents

An interest that many learners share is to supply information in support of applications — whether to employment or to suitable formal educational opportunities. Some of these opportunities may have information systems associated with them which play a part in applications. Many employers use recruitment agencies; in some countries, access to higher education is administered through a central admissions service (in the UK, UCAS). If any of the information supplied in learner mobility documents is relevant to these services, it makes sense to facilitate transfer of that information from one system to the other. In principle, this could be done with the intervention of the learner or without.

Transfer of information with the learner's intervention may take on the character of either of the previous two scenarios. On the one hand, a learner may select, and possibly edit, information on its way to the destination information system. This has a similar nature to the learner controlled scenario above. On the other hand, a learner may give permission for the destination system to collect information directly from the issuing institution, in which case it is essentially the same as the first scenario above, with the "third party" being an intermediary, rather than a potential employer.

A different scenario, alternative to the one just mentioned, is where access to the mobility document information is "sold" by bodies holding it directly to commercial users such as large companies or recruitment agencies. This could be, for example, to scan through databases of such information looking for suitable graduates to approach to fill graduate vacancies. The information could either be obtained directly from the awarding institutions, or from some central repository that holds information from several awarding institutions, perhaps at a national level. This kind of "selling" of information may or may not be legally possible, depending on the permission needed and obtained from the graduates.

These examples would need the kind of results information found in Diploma Supplements, in order for the users of the information to be able to distinguish between the achievements of different learners. But information without results, as in the Certificate Supplement, could also be useful in more limited ways, though being queried by employers to verify the course content and intended learning outcomes of learners who have taken vocational LET opportunities.

6.7 Examples of current learner mobility practice around Europe

A brief review of how national practice accords with or varies from the given scenarios for all relevantly different countries. As we have limited personal experience, we invite comments from readers with knowledge in this area.

Spain

The higher education system in Spain is being adapted to the Bologna process. Currently, Spanish universities offer degrees both adapted to the Bologna process and not. The latter will no longer be available after 2010. Spanish Higher Education Study programmes will be based on a three-cycles model. The first one is the degree, from three to four years, except in the case of Medicine and Architecture for which the degree will remain as a 6 years programme.

The degree provides the needed competences to develop a professional career. These competences are defined by the Spanish Ministry of Education in close cooperation with Universities and Professional Associations. The second cycle is the master which allows learners to go deeper in a knowledge area and enables them to enter into the third and final cycle: the doctorate studies to obtain a PhD.

Each year of the study program is composed of a set of courses summing a maximum of 60 ECTS. Each ECTS unit is equivalent to 25 hours of student workload. Mobility between different LET providers is straightforward

Norway

The Norwegian higher education system is fully adopted to the Bologna process. In 2003 a quality reform was completed to harmonise all higher education to the European model on Bachelor, Master and Ph.D. The grading scheme was also adjusted to the letter model from A-F, where F is fail. A new system of credits in which a full academic year equals 60 credits has been introduced. A complete report on the Norwegian approach is available [NORWAY].

The aims of the Quality Reform of Norwegian higher education and the aims of the Bologna Declaration and the Lisbon Process when it comes to mobility of students and teachers are identical and therefore reinforce each other. As a result, Norwegian higher education institutions are working on their international strategies as well as reviewing and renewing their co-operation agreements with partner institutions abroad. Norwegian higher education institutions are strongly encouraged to participate in European and other international education and research programmes.

The Norwegian government has decided that each student is entitled to a period of study abroad as an integrated part of his/her Norwegian degree programme. It is the responsibility of the Norwegian higher education institutions to arrange for these stays abroad.

Norwegian higher education institutions are encouraged to increase the number of academic courses offered in English at their institutions in order to attract more foreign students to Norway.

One of the most important steps taken, however, is that student mobility has become one of the criteria for the national financing of higher education institution through the new financial system. The new funding formula for higher education institutions incorporates measures designed to promote internationalisation in Norwegian higher education. The institutions receive NOK 5000 (approx. Euro 700) per incoming and outgoing exchange student. The aim is increased and more balanced student mobility and exchange.

In Norway all information about mobility and international students exchange (Europass) are managed by The Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Higher Education (SIU) [SIU]. SIU is also the Norwegian contact centre for Europass. The Diploma Supplement has been mandatory in Norway since 2002, and is managed by The Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (see [NOKUT]).

Finland

Finland has introduced a credit system where 60 credits equal a full academic year. Bachelor's degree is 180 credits and Masters degree an additional 120 credits (=300 credits). All students must have a personal study plan. Universities select their students independently and entrance examinations are an important part of the selection process. An admitted student may only accept one student place in degree education in a given academic year.

Polytechnical universities offer polytechnic degrees varying from 210 credits to 270 credits. Polytechnic Master's degrees requires additional 60 to 90 credits. Also here, each student has a personal study plan. Students apply for polytechnic studies in a national application system. The polytechnics determine the admission criteria and arrange student selection and entrance examination at their discretion. Nearly 90% of applications are submitted electronically.

Under the new Universities Act, which was passed by Parliament in June 2009, Finnish universities will become independent corporations under public law or foundations under private law (Foundations Act). The universities will operate in their new form from 1 January 2010 onwards. Their operations are built on the freedom of education and research and university autonomy.

Universities and Polytechnics give each student a Diploma Supplement when graduating. This is compulsory by law.

Finland has also developed national data schemes for transferring student and study information via IT systems (student administration systems).

Italy

The Diploma Supplement was introduced in the Italian HE space with the reform promoted by ministerial decree n. 509 in 1999. Later on, the ministerial decree n. 9 of 30 April 2004, establishing the "Anagrafe Nazionale degli Studenti e dei Laureati", provided that Universities "issue the bilingual Diploma Supplement document, as mentioned in art. 11, para. 8 of decree n. 509/99 according to the model attached to this decree ... excepting integrations decided by the competent academic bodies" [ANAGRAFE]. As a result, the DS became mandatory in Italy in 2005.

In September 2007, NEC (National Europass Centre) set up a qualitative survey which involved 77 private and public universities in Italy; it aimed at identifying the state of usage of the EDS (Europass Diploma Supplement), and the concrete implementation of the information system supporting it. The purpose was to collect, where they existed, the main best practices, and to determine possible weak points. The survey mapped all the universities that currently were able to issue the EDS. It showed that less than 10% of Universities in Italy were actually able to issue the EDS.

In the Italian system, the UNESCO Diploma Supplement template is mostly used, not the Europass one.

This DS is not automatically issued to all graduates, as provided by law, but has to be requested by graduates.

Problems concerning development of a detailed information system, along with difficulties in the language translation of the titles, decreased the implementation of the tool. Moreover, the DS is NOT free of charge. As it has been erroneously described as a "certification" in the Italian legal syntax, having a legal value, graduates who ask for EDS have to pay a fee to the National Income and Tax Agency ("imposta di bollo").

Universities need a new system of rules establishing format, process and defining contents of the document they issue as Diploma Supplement. There is a lack of guidance at a European level, alongside a lack awareness on a national level.

The Italian NEC is trying to introduce the EDS in the field of non-academic higher education (Istruzione e Formazione Tecnica Superiore, for instance), where no specific rule yet exists. This could aim at establishing best practices in order to strengthen the whole process and benefit also the academic domain, with Higher Education institutions making some steps ahead in its adoption and implementation.

7. Current technical standards and their development

7.1 Overview of existing specifications

The interest in electronic versions of Europass documents is evidenced by the range and variety of existing related specifications, application profiles, and work in progress. These are the ones known to the team.

CEDEFOP Europass specifications

Europass has produced an XML vocabulary to describe the information contained in the CV and Language Passport. It is considered to be clear and self-explaining, while remaining sound and extensible, and also as close as possible to other related vocabularies, as those defined by HR-XML. The Europass XML Schema is currently on version 2.0 and is available through the Europass web site [EpXML].

CEDEFOP also have a draft XSD schema for the Europass Mobility [MOB-XSD].

Other specifications relating to the Europass Diploma Supplement

(For documentation on the DS itself, see [EUROPASS DS].)

Ireland, Digitary specification

Over 25 higher education institutions in Ireland, the UK and Portugal deliver the DS electronically using Digitary's specification. The Digitary approach has been in development since 2001, and has been continuously refined using feedback from stakeholders in the European Higher Education area. The Digitary specification does not specify the XML representation of the DS (or any other mobility document). Any type of XML document can be handled through Digitary. However, the Digitary approach defines the following elements:

• a high-level workflow that includes services for the issuing, distribution, and authentication electronic documents in a web-based environment.
• an XML container that uses ETSI-compliant digital signatures to digitally sign any type of XML payload (such as DS, transcript, or any other XML document).
• a document lifecycle that is compatible with ETSI standards that ensures the preservation of digital signatures for the career length of the graduate, and beyond.
• a PDF (ISO) electronic representation of the amalgamated document content and presentation (i.e. to unambiguously capture "what was seen by the document signatory when the document was signed").

More details on Digitary standards and specifications can be obtained from [Digitary].

UK Higher Education Achievement Report

Eighteen higher education institutions in the UK are helping to work towards a new approach to representing the achievements of students at the end of their degrees. This is the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR), which would be the key vehicle for measuring and recording student achievement [HEAR].

JISC CETIS are supporting the technical side of this work, and the intention is to keep technical developments of the HEAR in step with technical specifications for the Europass Diploma Supplement. A public web page serves as an index for supporting resources [AIWG].

France, application profile

EIfEL in France host information and resources about a French Diploma Supplement application profile [FrDS].

Other specifications related to other Europass documents

(For documentation on these, see [EUROPASS CV], [EUROPASS LP] and [EUROPASS MOB].)

France, Europass CV and LP

EIfEL hosts information and resources concerning various application profiles relating to Europass documents [EIFEL].

CETIS, LEAP2A

LEAP2A [LEAP2A] is an open specification developed by a community of practice facilitated by JISC CETIS in the UK [CETIS], for the portability and interoperability of information used or managed by e-portfolio tools. It has already been adopted internationally by various partners. It covers most if not all information commonly used in a range of e-portfolio systems, including sufficient information for creating CVs, as well as all kinds of personal records and reflections. It focuses on learner-maintained information, rather than information stored by organisations that is not intended for direct use by the people it refers to. It is well-adapted to covering nearly all of the information given in the Europass CV and Europass LP. Any skill or competence is able to be recorded as an "ability" in LEAP2A, and when any skills or competences are defined externally by URI, LEAP2A is able to include references to those URIs.

However, LEAP2A does not predefine the categories of skill and competence used in the Europass CV or LP — that is, they are not hard-coded into the specification.

Specifications relating to the ECTS course catalogues

(For documentation about the ECTS, see [ECTS].)

Information about courses, or more generally, "learning opportunities", is one essential component of providing information about learner achievement. Initiatives to standardise information about learning opportunities have been underway for several years.

Norway, CDM
In Norway all higher education is using the CDM (Course Description Metadata) specification. More information about the CDM can be found through [CDM-NO] (some in Norwegian). The CDM is used to share information about courses between all educational institutions, and all course information is aggregated by Utdanning.no [UTDANNING] to provide a service for Norwegian students. CDM is a XML schema describing the institutions, and their course offerings and study programs.

A French variant of CDM has also been used in France.

CDM was one of the sources contributing to the specification of MLO-AD.

Sweden, EMIL

See [EMIL].

UK, XCRI-CAP

XCRI [XCRI] is a JISC-funded, UK-oriented project to establish a specification to support the eXchange of Course-Related Information. A key activity for XCRI is the development of an information model specification, the XCRI Course Advertising Profile (or XCRI-CAP for short), primarily implemented through an XML Schema. Learning providers can publish their courses information in the standard XCRI-CAP format, so that it can be collected easily by organisations with course search services.

Experience with XCRI has fed in to the CEN WS-LT's MLO-AD specification, and thus has contributed to the concepts described in the current work.

CEN WS-LT, MLO-AD

MLO-AD (Metadata for Learning Opportunities - ADvertising) is a minimal set of common information elements derived from the following specifications: CDM-NO, CDM-FR, EMIL, XCRI, PAS1068. In October 2009 MLO-AD was approved as [CWA 15903], and the document has been submitted to CEN TC353 to become a European Standard (EN). This standard is expected to be agreed in 2010.

7.2 Developing EuroLM interoperability standards

The establishment of a common framework which is accepted all over Europe demonstrates that European Education has reached a stage of maturity where the recording and exchange of learner mobility information needs to be efficiently supported by technical interoperability standards. Several relevant standardization efforts exist, and significant national expertise has already been accumulated. However, harmonisation is deemed necessary towards a European solution, in order to provide viable support for emerging European learner information systems and dissuade service providers from developing proprietary services and platforms. This solution will support the development of a new generation of technology-enhanced services for learners (learning and employment opportunities exploration), higher educational institutions administrations (certification or augmentation of learner information), employers (work-place descriptions, recruiting and development of learners' competencies) and other stakeholders of learning, education and training throughout Europe, as the European Union and Commission, the Member States and their governments and ministries, etc.

The overall process extends from the elicitation of European requirements to policy consensus and adoption, and, further on, to the actual implementation of open, distributed information systems to support the exchange of learner information throughout Europe, in a transparent manner. The process involves two discrete, yet equally important stages.

• In the policy development stage, agreement is reached on the human, organisational and educational questions as to what information needs to be gathered and exchanged, for what purposes, in what contexts, and how this information should be organised. As far as the realisation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) is concerned, the Bologna process constitutes the coordinated effort for the establishment of a European-wide policy, involving frameworks and instruments that aspire to enhance transparency and comparability of qualifications, learner and employment mobility, intra-European and international cooperation. Figure 10 illustrates the steps of this policy development process in terms of national and European activities, the contributing parts, as well as the established and emerging implementation tools (National Qualifications Frameworks (NQF) and European Qualifications Frameworks (EQF), ECTS, Europass transparency documents, etc.).
• The technical implementation stage is to evaluate currently available interoperability specifications and standards, in order to provide technical formatting of information, thus enabling its accommodation and exchange between systems. In particular, the implementation of interoperating student management systems, capable of managing and exchanging the information structures defined at the policy development stage, requires a technical process, initiated with the analysis and evaluation of technical specifications and standards and concluding with the application profiling of the generic specifications.

Figure 10: Policy development and technical implementation for European learner mobility

7.3 The Diploma Supplement case

The Diploma Supplement (DS) has an important role to play to the transparent interpretation and recognition of academic and professional qualifications (diplomas, degrees, certificates) across the diverse European educational systems map, constituting an instrument upon which a high level of agreement on the content and structure has been achieved among the member states. Currently the DS is only issued in paper-based format. A major problem is now the lack of interoperable tools, impeding the reuse of data in existing student management systems for the production of an electronic DS.

The above has been the exact methodological framework for the development of an interoperability specification for the Europass DS.

As a first step, research and extensive study of the EU-defined transparency information structures, their so far application in the European countries and the problems that arise (e.g. security issues), has been conducted. In alignment with the "application profiling culture", there has been a firm decision to investigate the utilisation of currently available interoperability specifications and standards, rather than develop a new isolated specification and to draw on the extensive application profiling experience of transparency documents in European countries such as the UK, Norway, Germany, France and Greece.

This research work has led to the choice of a set of schemas as a "mix and match" basis for the production of the EuroLM DS specification: the Metadata for Learning Opportunities - Advertising (MLO-AD) [CWA 15903] and its ECTS refinements cover a substantial part of the technical representation aspects of DS information, given that a large subset of HE mobility information is related to the description and referencing on learning opportunities. In addition, EuroLM DS re-uses the emerging specification on a Credit Information Model, due to its particular capability of representing credit information in learning opportunities and transcripts of results for units of learning. Last but not least, consolidated DC and vCard elements are utilised.

7.4 Why Application Profiling?

Well established metadata standards for cross-domain and domain-specific information resource description have already been around for quite some time. Dublin Core Metadata and IEEE Learning Object Metadata, among others, are examples of such standards, providing semantic support for a broad range of purposes and business models.

Implementers often make explicit choices on the adoption of a metadata vocabulary for their particular service or system. Although they approve of re-use and acknowledge the importance of interoperability, the pressure to satisfy local requirements often forces adoption of subsets of possible options and interpretations. Indeed, different starting points, different functional requirements and levels of granularity for different things, different views of "reality", justify such practice, which, nevertheless, results to a tension between standard terms and localisations, and ends up hindering interoperability instead of supporting it.

So, what is the right course to be followed? As Godfrey Rust pinpoints [Rust]: "The days of "one size fits all" standards are over...Domains are now overlapping and becoming "liquid"...The challenge now is interoperability and re-purposing", through the building of metadata standards application profiles.

The term Application Profile (AP) denotes the "assemblage of metadata elements selected from one or more metadata schemas and combined in a compound schema. The purpose of an application profile is to adapt or combine existing schemas into a package that is tailored to the functional requirements of a particular application, while retaining interoperability with the original base schemas" (CEN WS-LT, 2006).

Application profiling provides with the ability to use community or domain-specific metadata standards or component parts of those standards in combination. By following application profiling principles, the implementers of metadata standards are able to assemble the components that they require for some particular set of functions. They are also safe in the knowledge that the assembled whole can be interpreted correctly by independently designed applications [Nilsson].

Building APs involves the following processes [Hillmann]:

• Determining the AP scope and purpose: outline of a specific community for the AP (who the target users are; who the stakeholders are; what the political realities are), identification of the community's information exchange needs, participation of metadata aware practitioners, etc.
• Choosing a basic schema (format): research on what others in the domain are using, consideration of stability/volatility of the standard and of how the community for the standard integrates new needs and ideas, documentation of choices and reasoning for attributes for describing terms
• Setting up documentation, decision making and community review processes
• Maintaining realistic expectations: creating an AP takes time, requires organisational effort and persistence may not be a model that can be sustained or re-produced in other communities

In 2008 the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative issued the Singapore Framework for Dublin Core Application Profiles (DCAPs) [DCMI-SF] providing a formalisation for building and documenting APs. The DC notion of the AP imposes no limitations on whether those properties or encoding schemes are defined and managed by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative or by some agency [Nilsson]. As described in the framework, a DCAP is a packet of documentation containing:

• Functional requirements, describing the functions that the application profile is designed to support, as well as functions that are out of scope
• A domain model, defining the basic entities and their relationships using a formal or informal modelling framework.
• A Description Set Profile, designed to offer a simple constraint language for metadata
• Usage guidelines, describing how to apply the application profile, how the used properties are intended to be used in the application context etc.
• Encoding syntax guidelines, defining application profile-specific syntaxes, if any.

8. Recommendations and proposals

In this last section, we provide (1) the summary of our motivation, (2) our recommendations, (3) proposals for future activities and finally (4) dissemination actions. The overarching need and recommendation is the integration and harmonization of both the (existing and future) European policies and the (existing and future) European standards.

8.1 Summary of motivation

Challenges with existing paper systems

There are many problems with purely paper-based systems for recording and evidencing achievements, some of which are mentioned in other sections of these Guidelines. Many of the arguments are well known. Paper format constrains what is recorded, and is biased in favour of short documents. Paper copies can be lost or destroyed. Achieving a reasonable degree of tamper-evidence is costly (as with bank notes and passports) and still a relatively easy target for forgery. A paper document is passive, and any supporting material has to be physically attached, which may be bulky or impractical for other reasons. It is unrealistic to attach any non-documentary evidence. It is relatively difficult and time-consuming to reproduce the information on a paper document within an information system, for use in the many other ways that such information can be used.

But there are other less expected problems. We have heard of a case in which requirements for authentication of paper documents have had the side-effect of making them almost unused. With paper-based authentication, the initial burden of proof is usually on learners, who have to produce valid paper certificates to verify a claims they may have made. Electronic systems enable the "relying party" — that is, the one who makes decisions based on the correctness of that information — to take more responsibility for verifying any claims made.

The authentication challenge

Electronic documents may have all these implied advantages, but it is still a challenge to ensure that they constitute authentic and legally recognised evidence of the qualifications presented by a particular individual. Relying parties may need this for auditing purposes, or occasionally as evidence in court cases.

The challenge of being more useful vocationally

CEDEFOP has researched and produced weighty documents on "The shift to learning outcomes" [CEDEFOP 2008], [CEDEFOP 2009] which lead the way in terms of pointing out what is missing from more traditional approaches to learner mobility. CEDEFOP is just one body in what seems to be a consensus that something like learning outcomes (other people refer to competencies, etc.) are the single most important feature not currently represented in institutionally-derived learner mobility documents, and represented rather inflexibly and thinly even in learner-generated documents.

The [CEDEFOP 2009] study argues that

...learning based uniquely on input will not respond adequately to future challenges for individuals, society or the economy. The trend is to rely, increasingly, on the identification of learning outcomes. This trend is recognised as critical in many different contexts across education and training systems.

The most recent CEDEFOP DS templates express explicitly a purpose

... to provide sufficient independent data to improve the international 'transparency' and fair academic and professional recognition of qualifications ...

and the professional aspect of this clearly requires development of the DS.

EQF strategy

The EQF recommendation, its strategy and "road map", is to be considered as the most important implication for further developments in our area; in the 9th Annual Meeting of the National Europass Centres (held in Sofia, 11-12 May 2009) the European Commission announced that, in the medium term, the two Europass supplements, the Diploma Supplement and the Certificate Supplement will be merged in a unique transparency tool, a kind of a "EQF Supplement" recording titles, qualifications and competences referred to the EQF levels, common frameworks and definitions.

With this in mind, it is important that any models and associated specifications developed are not rigidly tied to existing documents, but cover the ground in such a way that new and more effective electronic learner mobility documentation can be developed.

8.2 Recommendations

1. Proceed with adoption, recommendation and promotion of electronic versions of European Learner Mobility documents, starting with the Diploma Supplement, as outlined in the current work.
2. Rather than simply converting all the current Europass document structures into electronic form as they stand, consider the possibilities opened up by the electronic format, and redesign the specifications to take advantage of the potential offered by the electronic medium.
3. The field of European Learner Mobility, and the certification of learners' activity and achievement through LET, is closely linked, first, with course information (MLO, [CWA 15903]); second, with information exchanges between institutions; third, with exchanges between institutions and employers; and fourth, with information held by learners such as in e-portfolio tools and documents. Rather than designing electronic information structures simply around existing mobility documentation, identify synergy and areas of common interest, and design simple, common information structures that will serve interoperability needs across all relevant related areas.
4. This implies creating a series of relatively small specifications. The structures that are absolutely essential for interoperability across the areas noted should be considered for the creation of EN European Standards, as exemplified in the specification that is part of this work. Other recommendations, including bindings, implementation detail and good practice, should be worked on as small, coherent units, and considered for publication as CEN Workshop Agreements.
5. Ensure that all this work is coherent, with a unified information model, and consistent with the conceptual model described here, or with any eventual development of that conceptual model.
6. Apply principles that have been found to be successful in the past for other specification developments. As well as being small and self-contained, specifications should be built on the basis of a thorough and careful analysis of existing practices, and ease of implementation should be kept in mind as essential to ensure adoption by vendors.
7. Attempt, at every level, and as far as possible, to bring policy-makers together with system developers and implementers, and with the community of those developing specifications and standards, and users of learner mobility services.

8.3 Proposals for future activities

The essential approach here is to use the work we have done to identify feasible coherent areas of work to propose. These proposals emerge from the ground of current work to date, and have been widely discussed in the CEN Workshop on Learning Technologies [WS-LT], but are beyond the scope of the present work, awaiting consideration and resourcing.

As well as each individual area of work being coherent, the overall picture needs to make good sense. The conceptual model, detailed in Section 5 above, clarifies a view of the formal processes surrounding the learner, and points out relationships between the areas of opportunity provision, assessment and recognition, each of which typically involves formal processes. Adoption of this current work as a CWA would amount to a recognition of the utility of this model, but it will need to be kept under review and developed as needed. At any time in the future, the model itself could be extracted and adopted as a future CWA.

Intended learning outcomes

As described more fully in the separate section on intended learning outcomes [ILOs], a specification should be researched and agreed covering frameworks of intended learning outcomes, and their subtypes such as knowledge, skill and competence. This is needed for the effective connection of LET with the concerns of work and of employers, and to deliver the intention described in the introductory paragraph of current CEDEFOP DS templates [EUROPASS DS]. In particular, attention will be needed for linking between definitions across different frameworks.

Authentication

As described more fully in the separate section on electronic document authentication [AUTH], a CWA should be produced detailing guidelines for effective practice for authenticating electronic documents relating to European learner mobility achievement information.

Combination rules

It is very common that universities and other learning opportunity providers lay down rules and regulations governing the acceptable combinations and sequencing of their learning opportunities. These may be documented as "pre-requisites", stating courses (programmes or modules) that must be taken, or other requirements met, before registration on a particular course, or "co-requisites", stating modules that may only be taken together. There may be restrictions stating that certain modules cannot be taken together. These rules will restrict the possibility of registration on particular courses.

To enable the most effective automatic assistance with the investigation of opportunities, these rules will need to be specified in a way that is able to be interpreted by the appropriate learning technology. A standard or specification needs to be created, to facilitate this.

Assessment

The conceptual model shows assessment as linked to intended learning outcomes, and as having a hierarchical structure where, for instance, the assessment of an academic year is composed from assessments relating to the modules taken, and perhaps the year as a whole. This structure may include requirements about which components are assessed as part of a wider assessment, and how marks are combined. These requirements may have some similarities with the combination rules for learning opportunities, and if so, the overlap between these specifications should be maximised.

One of the benefits of the conceptual model is that it reveals that, in the DS Profile [DS PROFILE], there are several information model elements that should properly be defined in the light of a coherent conceptual model of assessment, as they do not properly belong to learning opportunities, but to the assessment that may be associated with a learning opportunity. These specifically include:

• language of assessment;
• grading scheme;
• result.

Work in this area could continue investigating the documentation of formal assessment processes, possibly towards defining a specification for representing common information structures for assessment specifications.

Administrative information supporting learner mobility

In these Guidelines, it has been pointed out (particularly in Section 4) that there are administrative procedures that are necessary to support learner mobility. Information that is not directly the concern of individual learners may need to flow between educational institutions and employers. The exact needs should be investigated, together with a strategy for meeting these needs.

Recognition

The award of credits and qualifications are seen in the model as the educational aspect of recognition of status in society. Recently, a CWA has been agreed for educational credit. It may be that a related model of qualifications could also be useful for learning technology. Such an agreement could clarify the relationship between qualifications, qualification frameworks, and levels within those frameworks, and between these qualification (or other status) framework levels and the levels within systems or schemes for credit (or other contributory value).

Personal responsibility for learning and development

The core conceptual model deals principally with formal processes. Extending this, the central part of the Figures 2 and 3, concerning the individual learner, is expanded in Section 5.3, Figures 4 and 5, to show personal processes, patterns, and other records and information. This personal area is already important for personal and professional development, and may become increasingly important for formal education and training, as learners take more responsibility for their own learning.

It is envisaged that this work will therefore eventually link up with specification and standardisation work in the area of personal development and electronic portfolios — for example, the current work on LEAP2A [LEAP2A].

8.4 Dissemination and awareness raising

Traditional dissemination, seen as letting as many people as possible know about this work, may be less important in this case than targeted awareness raising among particular audiences. Particular audiences who should be given priority may include:

• policy makers at the European level, including CEDEFOP and others involved with Europass and [ET 2020];
• those developing related specifications and standards, lest they go along incompatible paths;
• vendors and developers of learning technology;
• organisational users or "consumers" of learner mobility achievement information — such as HR departments in companies, headhunters, placement agencies, career centres, admission offices.

Where possible, the objective should be to bring these audiences together, and to a common understanding of the issues involved in European learner mobility.

References

• "Available at" means that the URL given is the URL of the document itself, or a version of it.
• "Available through" means that a link to the document appears on the page with the given URL, where other related material and documents may also be found.
• "See" introduces a web site or sub-site, that is, several relevant web pages which may be browsed.

All web references were accessed successfully in November 2009.

Documents

[Adam] Qualification Structures in European Higher Education. Stephen Adam. Danish Bologna Seminar 27-28th March 2003. Available at http://www.aic.lv/bolona/Bologna/Bol_semin/Copenh/S_Adam.pdf.

[ANAGRAFE] Decreto Ministeriale 30 aprile 2004 prot. n. 9/2004: Anagrafe Nazionale degli Studenti e dei Laureati. Available at http://www.miur.it/0006Menu_C/0012Docume/0015Atti_M/4126Anagra_cf2.htm

[Assessment] Recommendation on Criteria and Procedures for the Assessment of Foreign Qualifications (adopted by the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee at its second meeting, Riga, 6 June 2001). paragraphs 25-27. Available at http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/recognition/Criteria%20and%20procedures_EN.asp.

[AUTH] Guidelines on European learner mobility: electronic document authentication. Document presented alongside the present one. Also available in wiki form at http://wiki.teria.no/confluence/display/EuropeanLearnerMobility/Guidelines+-+authentication

[Bulgarelli] Rhetoric or reality? The shift to learning outcomes in European education and training policies and practises. Aviana Bulgarelli. 15 October 2007. Available at http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/etv/upload/etvnews/news/2924-att1-2-speech_lo_conference_bulgarelli_final.doc.

[CALL] Open Call for Project Team Experts 2008-30. Available at http://www.cen-isss-wslt.din.de/sixcms_upload/media/3050/Call%20for%20experts%202008-30%20LM.pdf on the [WS-LT] site.

[CEDEFOP 2008] The shift to learning outcomes: Conceptual, political and practical developments in Europe. Available through http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/etv/Information_Resources/Bookshop/publication_details.asp?pub_id=494.

[CEDEFOP 2009] The shift to learning outcomes: Policies and practices in Europe. Available through http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/etv/Information_resources/Bookshop/publication_details.asp?pub_id=525.

[CoE-JOINT] Recommendation on the Recognition of Joint Degrees. Committee of the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region. Available at http://www.aic.lv/bolona/Recognition/leg_aca/RecJDand_ExpM.pdf.

[CWA 15555] CWA 15555:2006, Guidelines and support for building application profiles in e-learning. Available at ftp://ftp.cenorm.be/PUBLIC/CWAs/e-Europe/WS-LT/cwa15555-00-2006-Jun.pdf.

[CWA 15903] CWA 15903:2008, Metadata for Learning Opportunities (MLO) - Advertising. Available at ftp://ftp.cenorm.be/PUBLIC/CWAs/e-Europe/WS-LT/CWA15903-00-2008-Dec.pdf.

[DCMI-TERMS] Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI): Terms. Available at http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/.

[DCMI-DSP] DCMI Description Set Profile. Available at http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/03/31/dc-dsp/.

[DCMI-SF] DCMI Singapore Framework. Available at http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/.

[DIPLOMA CODE] CODE OF CONDUCT APPROVED BY THE GROUP OF COORDINATORS FOR THE GENERAL SYSTEM OF RECOGNITION OF DIPLOMAS. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/docs/codeconduct/code_en.pdf.

[DIRECTIVE 2005/36/EC] DIRECTIVE 2005/36/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2005L0036:20081211:EN:PDF.

[DS PROFILE] Europass Diploma Supplement
Application Profile of the EuroLMAI. Associated document.

[ECTS AGREEMENT] Erasmus Learning Agreement standard form. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/learningform_en.doc.

[ECTS TRANSCRIPT] Erasmus Transcript of Records standard form. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/recordsform_en.doc.

[ECTS Users' Guide]. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/ects/guide_en.pdf.

[ECVET] Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European credit system for vocational education and training (ECVET). Available through http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2008&nu_doc=180 or directly at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0180:FIN:EN:PDF. See also http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc50_en.htm.

[ENQA-DS] "Study on the Diploma Supplement as seen by its users" - A project organized in joint cooperation between ENIC-NARIC and ENQA (November 2008). Available at http://www.enqa.eu/files/Diploma%20Supplement%20Study_Edit%20MS.pdf.

• See in particular: Conclusions and Recommendations (p. 33).

[EQARF] RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the establishment of a European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:155:0001:0010:EN:PDF. See also http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc1134_en.htm.

[EQF brochure] The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (brochure), April 2008. ISBN 978-92-79-08474-4. Available through [EQF].

[EQF leaflet] The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (leaflet), Education and Culture DG, April 2008. Available through [EQF].

[EQF-REC] RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2008 on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning. Available through [EQF]. English version available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:111:0001:0007:EN:PDF.

[ESG] Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area
3rd Edition. ENQA, Helsinki, Finland, 2009. Available through http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso.

[ET 2020] Strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:119:0002:0010:EN:PDF or through http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc1120_en.htm

[EUROLMAI] European Learner Mobility Achievement Information Model. Associated document. Also available in wiki form at http://wiki.teria.no/confluence/display/EuropeanLearnerMobility/EuroLM+Achievement+Information+Model

[EUROPASS] DECISION No 2241/2004/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 December 2004 on a single Community framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (Europass). Available through http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc46_en.htm or directly at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0005:0009:EN:PDF.

[EU STRATEGY] European strategy and co-operation in education and training. Web page available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc28_en.htm.

[HEAR] Media release from Universities UK, 2008-10-21. Available at http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Newsroom/Media-Releases/Pages/HEARtrial.aspx.

[Hillmann] Application Profiles: A Tutorial. Diane I. Hillmann. 6th International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications: Metadata for Knowledge and Learning. Manzanillo, Mexico. Available at http://dc2006.ucol.mx/papers/ViernesDianeHillmann.ppt.

[ILOs] Guidelines on European learner mobility: intended learning outcomes. Document presented alongside the present one. Also available in wiki form at http://wiki.teria.no/confluence/display/EuropeanLearnerMobility/Guidelines+-+intended+learning+outcomes

[MOBILITY-REC] RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 18 December 2006 on transnational mobility within the Community for education and training purposes: European Quality Charter for Mobility (2006/961/EC). Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0005:0009:EN:PDF.

[Nilsson] Nilsson, M., Miles, A. J., Johnston, P., Enoksson, F. Formalizing Dublin Core Application Profiles - Description Set Profiles and Graph Constraints, in Sicilia M-A., Lytras, M. D. (Eds.): Metadata and Semantics, Post-proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Metadata and Semantics Research, MTSR 2007, Corfu Island in Greece, 1-2 October 2007. Springer 2009, ISBN 978-0-387-77744-3 Available at http://kmr.nada.kth.se/papers/SemanticWeb/MTSR07-DSPjournalpaper.pdf.

[NORWAY] Implementation of the elements of the Bologna Process. May 2003. Available at http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Norway1.pdf.

[Rust] Thoughts from a different planet. Godfrey Rust. Presentation to FRBR Workshop, Ohio May 4 2005. Available at: http://www.oclc.org/research/events/frbr-workshop/presentations/rust/050502_Godfrey_Rust_FRBR_presentation.ppt.

[W3C-DTF] W3C DateTime Format. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime.

[W3C-VCARD] W3C Note: Representing vCard Objects in RDF/XML. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf.

[Zgaga] Joint Degrees - Problems and Developments. Pavel Zgaga. A presentation at the ERASMUS-EUDORA meeting Linz, January 15-18, 2004. Available at http://www.see-educoop.net/education_in/pdf/joint-degrees-problems-and-develop-oth-enl-t02.pdf.

European Learner Mobility sites

[CEDEFOP] See http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/.

[ECTS] European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System. See http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc48_en.htm.

[ENIC-NARIC] See http://www.enic-naric.net/.

[ENQA] See http://www.enqa.eu/.

[EpXML] Europass XML Schemas and XSLT Resources. Section of the Europass web site. See http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/hornav/Downloads/TechnicalResources/XML.csp.

[EQF] The European Qualifications Framework. See http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc44_en.htm.

[EUROPASS SITE] The Europass web site. See http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/.

[EUROPASS CV] Europass CV. See http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/vernav/Europasss+Documents/Europass+CV.csp.

• For examples, see http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/hornav/Downloads/EuropassCV/CVExamples.csp.

[EUROPASS LP] Europass Language Passport. See http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/vernav/Europasss+Documents/Europass+Language+Passport.csp.

• For examples, see http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/hornav/Downloads/LangPassport/ELPExamples.csp.

[EUROPASS MOB] Europass Mobility. See http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/vernav/InformationOn/EuropassMobility.csp.

• For examples, see http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/hornav/Downloads/Mobility/MobExamples.csp

[EUROPASS CS] Europass Certificate Supplement. See http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/vernav/InformationOn/EuropassCertificateSupplement.csp.

• For examples, see http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/hornav/Downloads/CSupplement/CSExamples.csp.

[EUROPASS DS] Europass Diploma Supplement. See http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/vernav/InformationOn/EuropassDiplomaSupplement.csp.

• For examples, see http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/hornav/Downloads/DSupplement/DSupplementExamples.csp.
• For templates, see http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/vernav/InformationOn/EuropassDiplomaSupplement/Restricted/DIPDownload/DSTemplate.csp.

[MOB-XSD] Draft XSD schema for the Europass Mobility. Available at http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/mobility/MobilitySchema_DRAFT.xsd.

Other sites

[AIWG] JISC CETIS Achievement Information Working Group web page. See http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/Achievement_Information_Working_Group.

[ALMA] Almalaurea web site. See http://www.almalaurea.it/en/.

[CDM-NO] Course Description Metadata web site. See http://cdm.utdanning.no/cdm. Includes documentation of an ECTS binding at http://cdm.utdanning.no/cdm-ects:documentation.

[CETIS] JISC CETIS web site. See http://jisc.cetis.ac.uk/.

[DCMI] Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI). See http://dublincore.org/.

[Digitary] Digitary standards web page. See http://www.digitary.net/standards.

[EIFEL] Europass sub-site of EIfEL web pages. See http://www.eife-l.org/publications/eportfolio/europass.

[EMIL] Education Information Markup Language (in Swedish). See http://www.nshu.se/page/3090/emil.htm.

[EUA] European University Association. See http://www.eua.be/.

[FrDS] French EDS Application Profile. Web page. See http://www.eife-l.org/publications/eportfolio/europass/eds-network/french-eds-application-profile.

[LEAP2A] The LEAP2A specification for portability and interoperability of e-portfolio information. Version of March 2009. See http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/2009-03/LEAP2A_specification.

[NOKUT] The Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education, web page on the DS. See http://www.nokut.no/sw15195.asp

[SIU] The Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Higher Education. Web site. See http://siu.no/en.

[UTDANNING] Web site (in Norwegian). See http://www.utdanning.no/.

[WS-LT] The CEN Workshop on Learning Technologies. See http://www.cen-isss-wslt.din.de/cmd?level=tpl-home&contextid=cenissswslt&languageid=en.

[XCRI] eXchanging Course-Related Information: web site. See http://www.xcri.org/.

Books

[Cambridge 2001] Cambridge, B.L. et al. (Eds.). Electronic portfolios: Emerging practices in student, faculty, and institutional learning. American Association for Higher Education.

[Cambridge 2009] Cambridge, D. et al. (Eds.). Electronic portfolios 2.0: emergent research on implementation and impact. Stylus Publishing, Sterling, Virginia.

[Grant 2009] Grant, S. Electronic portfolios: Personal information, personal development and personal values. Chandos Publishing, Oxford.