The content of this page is the same as the draft for public comment issued on 2009-07-08 (July 8th). The commenting period ends on 2009-09-09 (September 9th). The official document is available here (for those with access) or through the CEN/ISSS workshop site. Comments shall be sent to the workshop secretariat (nikolaus.kovacs@din.de)

Please add comments and make changes to the development copy where the changes already made (by Luis) have been recorded, so that we can all see the original and the changes more easily.

Guidelines on a European Learner Mobility model

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

CEN issued an "Open Call for Project Team Experts" on 19th December 2008, to work on "Guidelines for a European Learner Mobility Model". Two deliverables were specified:

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

This document constitutes a draft of the first of those two deliverables: "The Guidelines on a European Learner Mobility model" (in brief: "the Guidelines").

1.2 Purpose

The objective of the project as defined by the above mentioned call 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.

1.3 Message

In these Guidelines, the Project Team presents a case based on an understanding of

• stakeholders and their requirements (section 4).
• learning, education and training (LET) practice that generates or uses information relevant to learner mobility (section 5).
• current practice in learner mobility (section 6).

A conceptual model is constructed (section 7), used in conjunction with the definitions of the concepts in the model (Terms and definitions, section 3), to represent the relevant aspects both of current practice and of valuable and plausible extensions to that practice. Various compelling motives for development of learner mobility practice are outlined (section 10), and two issues are taken up: first, intended learning outcomes, and their representation within learner mobility documents (section 11); and second, authentication of electronic documents.

The recommendations (section 13), and the proposals for future activities (section 14), will be drafted as soon as a consensus of the team as a whole can be reached.

2. Scope

2.1 The context of this work

Figure 1: A diagrammatic representation of learner mobility

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

First, the European and National policy stakeholders, as the main initiator and promoter of European and cross-cultural and trans-national LET policies and instruments, is from above the diagram, looking at the whole, which is why they are not represented explicitly.

Second, there are the three other stakeholder groups: (1) Learners, (2) Employers, and (3) LET organisations offering training, education, and learning opportunities – each of these three stakeholder groups organises their information about learning, education and training (LET) using 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 involved in the administration processes involved in taking up learning opportunities, through services relevant to LET itself, to services relevant to helping learners secure desired employment.

And finally, the Standardization Entities are building the bridge between the European policies and instruments and the demands and needs from all the above mentioned stakeholder groups on the one side and the according and necessary European standards and norms (EN) based on the information models developed by the European Standardization Organizations in consensus.

2.2 This work in context

The specification produced as part of this work relates specifically to 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 others: There are organisation like HR-XML that are set up and run by employers and that are 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. Terms and definitions

3.1 Learner Mobility domain terms

Terms used in the representation of the EuroLM DS conceptual and domain models (in alphabetical order)

awarding process

process in which an awarding body confers a qualification, or some credit, on a learner, on the basis of the results of evaluation processes

credit

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
[ECTS Users' Guide]

credit instance

particular amount of credit, within a specified scheme or framework

diploma

official documentary record of the awarding of a qualification

evaluation process

process of applying an evaluation specification to a specific learner at a specific time

evaluation result

result

recorded outcome of an evaluation process

evaluation specification

methods (written, oral and practical tests/examinations, projects and portfolios) used to evaluate learners' achievement of expected learning outcomes of a specified learning opportunity

evaluation strategy

assessment strategy

broad approach to assessment used in the learning opportunity
[CWA 15903]

evidence

actions done, effects achieved, artefacts created, or records generated through the agency of a learner, able to be evaluated for the purpose of determining whether that learner has attained some intended learning outcome

framework

scheme, system

system of concepts, definitions and provisions through which educational practices are ordered, related and articulated

intended learning outcome

learning objective

statement of what a learner is expected to know, understand, or be able to do after successful completion of a process of learning
[ECTS Users' Guide]

learner

<European Learner Mobility> individual engaged in a learning process (formal, non-formal or informal learning)
[ECTS Users' Guide]

learner

student

<Diploma Supplement> learner enrolled in a formal educational programme

learning opportunity

chance to participate in education or training
[CWA 15903]

learning opportunity instance

single occurrence of a learning opportunity

learning opportunity specification

abstract description of a learning opportunity, consisting of information that will be consistent across multiple instances of the learning opportunity
[CWA 15903]

level

educational level

one of a set of terms, properly defined within a framework, system, or scheme that specifies levels, applied to an entity in order to group it together with other entities relevant to the same stage of education

module

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

programme

set of educational components, based on learning outcomes, that are recognised for the award of a specific qualification

provider

learning opportunity provider
awarding body

organisation that offers learning opportunities, that evaluates the outcomes of learning, or that awards credit or qualifications

qualification

status awarded by a provider to a learner, meaningful within a system of education and within the society in which that system is embedded

transcript

collection of information, represented in a learner mobility document, about learning opportunities taken by a learner, including any available associated results for that learner

3.2 Informative terms

application profile

assemblage of metadata elements selected from one or more metadata schemas and combined in a compound schema
[CWA 15555]

class

group containing members that have attributes, behaviours, relationships or semantics in common

domain

class of resource to which statements using a property may be made

literal

literal value for a property defined within a statement

property

specific aspect, characteristic, attribute, or relation used to describe resources

range

values that may be used for a property

record

instantiation of a set of descriptions, created according to a binding specification

resource

anything that might be identified

sub property of

superclass of a property

URI

uniform resource identifier

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

4.1 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 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.

(from the Call)

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, 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 will be explored later, in section 11.

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

4.2 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 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. The 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 battle against students 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 LO at a comparable level, this may be recognised as partly overlapping the new study. In the process of recognising this earlier education, it is important to gain detailed information abort this education, both on programme level and on the level of modules, so that any credit obtained in previous education can be credited to the current course.

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.

(from the 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, etc. 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 competence 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 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, 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. universities), and uses that information to fill in the education section of online CVs by embedding academic career and results from DS. Examples similar to this can be seen with the Europass CV and Almalaurea (http://www.almalaurea.it/en/), Monster and any 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 achievements that relates to job requirements.

4.3 Developers and implementers

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".

(from the Call)

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" the DS
• interoperability among student information systems by sending electronically structured data from institution to institution eliminating the paper processes
• exposing DS data for consumption of the Recruitment service providers or companies
• feeding academic records of students to national or European databases

4.4 Business cases in general

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

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.

5. 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.

5.1 Single HEI normal delivery and assessment

This is the traditional case, where a single university is responsible for a complete 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 of this context, or it may be regarded as the "default" case. This kind of educational practice is widespread in all countries.

5.2 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 full student.

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

This is certainly already happening in some countries, mainly with work-based learners.

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.

5.3 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 it may be optional. In cases where it is a programme requirement, there may be some kind of grade assigned to performance during the experience, 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 the recording of the results of such a period in terms that cohere with the descriptions of the 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.

5.4 Programme shared between different institutions

The practice is already growing of higher education institutions delegating some or all of the teaching of programmes to further 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.

5.5 Sequential delivery and assessment – traditional mobility within a cycle

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

1. By direct 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 process that follows these learner mobility programs are a bit different – however they have one thing in common and that is that they are labour intensive, usually with manual processing.

5.6 Parallel delivery and assessment

Another practice that is at least planned, though not yet widely implemented, is where modules taken in parallel in different institutions are combined together towards a full qualification. This is not unlike a sequential credit transfer arrangement, but has the extra challenge of needing to coordinate the concurrent learning processes.

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

The information in learner mobility documents arises from different administrative processes at the institutions.

Description of the 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 portfolio of programmes, 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 – in particular, section 8, but possibly other sections. This information will need to come from a national body.

Personal information

Information about a learner (name, address, etc.) first appears 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.

Assessment of qualification for a learner

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 a 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 etc). These processes can be anywhere from fully manual to fully automatic.

Result for each module

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.

5.8 Subsequent information flows and processes relating to learner mobility

The information that flows between the institutions and the learners/students are generally paper based. There is no or little information that is flowing 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.

Information flow between institutions

To ease and enable exchange between different institutions, the institutions need to compare/harmonise their curriculum and agree to an exchange program.

Between student and guest institutions when applying for a course

The guest institution needs to verify that the student has sufficient qualifications to follow the course that is applied for. The guest institution must then read the students curriculum and the description of the courses the student has already taken. The source for this is the ECTS catalogue and the associated curriculum. Based on the findings in the ECTS and curriculum, the student is granted access to the course. If the student is a part of an exchange program the guest institutions course would fit within the host institution's curriculum.

Between student and institution when going back 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 do. Sources for such 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 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.

6. Current transparency and learner mobility practice

6.1 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; passes the DS on to a future employer or HEI as evidence of the qualification and the results.

This is now analysed in terms of current practice in Ireland.

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 must generate an electronic DS on behalf of a graduate.

Figure 2

Technical:

The HEI must be capable of generating the XML representation of the DS using information stored in their Student Information System and/or other systems. The XML DS will need to be 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 3

Technical:

Making an electronic DS available to a graduate can be done in a variety of ways depending on the model being used. An "offline" model may be 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.

Graduate grants access to their DS to a third party

Use Case:

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

Figure 4

Technical:

Sharing a DS depends on the model being used. In an offline document model, the graduate may simply send 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 may have 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 may be distributed to the third party either directly by the HEI (most secure) or via the student as part of an ePortfolio (use with caution).

Third party authenticates DS

Use Case:

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

Figure 5

Technical:

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 will authenticate the digital signature on the document and will present the results of verification to the third party on screen. The third party will need to interpret these results and make 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 will authenticate the document and present 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 (i.e. plagiarism!).

6.2 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.

6.3 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 adminstered 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.

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.

6.4 Extent of current learner mobility practice: national or European

What is suggested here is 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, and we are also planning workshop activities to ask different delegates about the actualities in their country.

7. Conceptual Model of relevant educational practice

Throughout, "LO" stands for "learning opportunity"

7.1 Concepts

The definitions of these concepts are given above

For each concept below, there is
a concept name
and there may be

• examples, or where they can be found
• narrower terms, or sub-types

Please also note that the relationships, following, clarify the concept definitions.

awarding process definition relationship propositions

• an awarding process may be embodied in a ceremony; records of it may be embodied in certificates

learner definition relationship propositions

• e.g. you, me, anyone
• student

provider (of LO, assessment or evaluation services, credit, award) definition relationship propositions

• e.g. any university
• LO provider, awarding body

LO specification definition relationship propositions

• to be found in prospectuses and other materials and catalogues that advertise educational programmes, courses or modules
• component, module, programme

LO instance definition relationship propositions

• embodied in particular organised activities of learners and educators; may be mentioned in course advertising materials

qualification definition relationship propositions

• represented by its title, e.g. "Master of Science in Interoperability Specifications"

credit instance definition relationship propositions

• e.g. 20 ECTS credits at EQF level 7

level definition relationship propositions

• e.g. a number referring to a particular framework

framework definition relationship propositions

• e.g. EQF; ECTS; other national credit or qualification frameworks, schemes, systems, etc. (e.g. in the UK: CATS; SCQF)

intended learning outcome (at any level of aggregation) definition relationship propositions

• often given in course or assessment documentation
• knowledge; transferable skill; competence

evaluation strategy definition relationship propositions

• often described in course advertising materials

evaluation specification definition relationship propositions

• described in course or examination or assessment regulations; may include specification of assessment criteria

evaluation process definition relationship propositions

• embodied in the actions of particular evaluators evaluating particular evidence; records of the evaluation process may be embodied as results

evidence definition relationship propositions

• e.g. a particular exam script; a particular piece of coursework; a video; an observed performance.
• the type of evidence is just the type of particular pieces of evidence, as specified in evaluation specifications

evaluation result definition relationship propositions

• found in academic records and given on transcripts

date

• a particular, specific date

duration

• a time interval with no specific starting or finishing time or date

7.2 Diagrams

These diagrams 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. The inverse relationship may or may not be described separately below.

Date and duration are not given in the diagrams, as they would add unnecessary detail. Each process (yellow) has an associated date. The LO specification and LO instance both have duration.

Outline conceptual model

Figure 6: Outline conceptual model of educational practice relevant to learner mobility. Clearer pdf version

This models the concepts used in the Diploma Supplement, but leaves out related detail. The whole evaluation process and details are represented by a grey box on the left, while the credit model (to be addressed through a separate CWA) is contained in the grey box towards the right of the diagram. Relationships of separate concepts to the boxes may naturally be described differently from the relationships between those same concepts and the detailed parts of the box.

More detailed model

Figure 7: More detailed conceptual model of educational practice relevant to learner mobility. Clearer pdf version

Three central processes are here shown as yellow ovals. The learning opportunity instance is the course, etc., in which organised formal learning takes place. The evaluation process is where the outcomes of that learning are evaluated and recorded as results, and in the awarding process, those results are used as the basis for awarding credit or qualifications.

Three fundamental entities that play essential and irreducible basic roles in these processes are the learner, the provider, and the evidence. These are distinguished by a green background.

This diagram expands the previous one by filling in some more detail. On the right, the credit model is represented similarly to the proposed CWA, while on the left, the concepts represented are those either that appear in the MLO CWA or seem necessary to understanding how intended learning outcomes relate to the other major concepts. The labels of the relationships with the concepts expanded from the grey boxes is naturally different from the labels of the relationships with the box as a whole.

7.3 Relationships between concepts

The aim of this extended conceptual model is to add to the model developed for the Enquiry Draft, to clarify things that were less than fully clear, and in particular to open up the relationship between a LO instance and an evaluation process, by introducing the concept of intended learning outcomes. This, in turn, will prepare the ground for a later discussion of competences as one type of intended learning outcome where, typically, work is regarded as a learning opportunity, and the evaluation of a competence is in a work context.

For ease of reference, relationships are listed here in order of the concept highest in the list above.

awarding process

Because the award of credit and qualifications is not usually reified in common usage (i.e., thought of as an entity in its own right), rather than describing the relationships between the awarding process and other concepts, awarding processes are described here as if they were multi-way relationships. There are two kinds of awarding process relevant to learner mobility – first, the awarding of a qualification, and second, the awarding of credit towards a potential qualification – and in both cases the award is to a learner.

The evaluation process that forms the basis of the award of a qualification is probably more often discussed, and therefore easier to conceptualise as a separate entity, with its own relationships; and these are given below.

This evaluation process that forms the basis for the award of credit is less often reified in common usage. Credit is generally awarded on the basis of successful completion, which means that the learner must "pass" rather than "fail", if the LO is assessed, but the detail of the evaluation result does not affect the credit.

learner

provider

Most of the propositions that follow next about providers and LOs are at least implicit in MLO.

LO specification

LO instance

qualification

credit instance

("some credit" above reads more naturally, but means a credit instance)

level

framework

intended learning outcome

Although defining intended learning outcomes is useful in many ways, many courses still have not defined them. In these cases, we need to assume that there is, for each course, an undefined set of intended learning outcomes, which are in some way evaluated, and relate to the evaluation specifications and processes that are realised.

(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)

evaluation strategy

evaluation specification

An broader evaluation specification, for a whole programme and its associated qualification, can give rules about how to combine narrower evaluation specifications into an overall result. These are often found written into assessment specifications or regulations.

The evaluation specification may not be made explicit for narrower evaluations. The very limited evaluation that supports the award of credit is just the evaluation of whether the LO was completed successfully, and this is often not explicitly specified separately from the evaluation that concludes in results for that LO.

(The last proposition in this group is one way of conceptualising the fact that attendance at a course, or completion of an exercise, may be a requirement taken into account in a wider evaluation. This is not represented in the diagrams.)

evaluation process

An evaluation process is the application of an evaluation specification to one particular learner at a particular time, and can have broader or narrower scope. At the programme level, the evaluation process would give the overall result of the programme; detailed results of evaluation with narrower scope would be represented in the transcript, not in the qualification itself.

(The last proposition in this group is another way of conceptualising the fact that attendance at a course, or completion of an exercise, may be a requirement taken into account in a wider evaluation. This is not represented in the diagrams.)

evidence

evaluation result

8. Current European Learner Mobility tools or documents

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. The programme integrates 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).

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.

8.1 European Qualifications frameworks

Qualifications frameworks can be defined as "a systematic description of an education system's qualifications where all learning achievements are measured and related to each other". 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 are establishing 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.

8.2 European framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences

The "Single Community Framework for the transparency of Qualifications and Competences" [EUROPASS SITE], 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 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]

8.3 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. The European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training (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.

9. Current technical standards and their suitability

The following table provides an overview of existing specifications for the transparency instruments (including the European Credit Transfer System as an integral part of the Europass-DS).

Transparency Instruments Country	Europass-CV	Europass-LP	Europass-Mob	Europass-DS	Europass-CS	ECTS
France						CDM-FR (Schema)
Germany
Greece
Ireland				Digitary
Italy
Norway	Veiledning for bruk av Europass CV.pdf (in Norwegian)	Veiledning for bruk av Europass sprakpass.pdf (in Norwegian)				CDM-ECTS, CDM-U
Sweden						EMIL
UK				HEAR(UK DS)		XCRI-CAP
Organisation
CEDEFOP	Europass-CVLP	Europass-CVLP	Europass-Mobility (draft)
CEN WSLT / TC353						MLO-AD
Eifel	Europass CV IMS of IMS LIP  (deprecated) Europass-XML-CV to HR-XML HR-XML to Europass-XML-CV			French EDS of IMS VDEX/LIP
JISC CETIS	LEAP2A

9.1 Developing ELM 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 8 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 8: Policy development and technical implementation for European learner mobility

9.2 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 2005]: "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/ISSS WSLT, 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, Miles, et. al., 2008).

Building APs involves the following processes (Hillman, 2006):

• 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 2007]. 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 modeling 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.

9.3 The Diploma Supplement case

The Diploma Supplement 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 ELM 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, ELM 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.

10. Drivers for future change

10.1 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 separately documented 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.

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.

10.2 Useful information not represented in current mobility documents

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 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 CEDEFOP work does not explicitly suggest ways of recording learning outcomes in transcripts, but it does refer to the ENQA report on Standards and Guidelines [ESG], which emphasises that

The realisation of the EHEA depends crucially on a commitment at all levels of an
institution to ensuring that its programmes have clear and explicit intended outcomes;
that its staff are ready, willing and able to provide teaching and learner support that
will help its students achieve those outcomes ...

10.3 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 meeting of Europass National Centres (held in Sofia) the European Commission announced that in a mid-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.

11. Intended learning outcomes

This issue has been identified above as the most salient one for broadening the scope of learner mobility documentation.

11.1 Motives for representing intended learning outcomes

There are several indications that the outputs or outcomes of learning processes are seen as being of substantial significance, and that they may be increasingly seen as of comparable importance to the inputs to educational processes – that is, the topics and methods of study.

• The ECTS Users' Guide has plenty of material and discussion on the topic of learning outcomes.
• The EQF brochure distinguishes knowledge, skills, and competence as three possible kinds of learning outcome.
• In 2007, Aviana Bulgarelli [Bulgarelli] spoke on the "shift to learning outcomes in European education and training policies and practises".
• Many arguments for the use of learning outcomes are given in detail by two CEDEFOP publications [CEDEFOP 2008], [CEDEFOP 2009] under the common title "The shift to learning outcomes" (though with different subtitles).
• The ENIC-NARIC / ENQA joint project, "Study on the Diploma Supplement as seen by its users" [ENQA] has, among its recommendations (p.33) "There should be greater emphasis on learning outcomes and the provision of personalised information which should distinguish the graduate from others. The use of clearly described learning outcomes facilitates the understanding of the document."
• As an example of EU funded work, the ICOPER best practice network [ICOPER] is addressing such issues as "exchange of competency models and learning outcomes".

Clearly, if learning outcomes corresponded to entry requirements, either for further study or for employment, they would have the potential to contribute greatly to European learner mobility. However, intended learning outcomes are not directly represented in European learner mobility documents, while competences are recorded only informally in the Europass CV, under "personal skills and competences", while only very specific areas of linguistic competence are self-assessed in the Europass Language Passport.

11.2 What are intended learning outcomes, and how can they be used?

The EQF [EQF brochure] defines "learning outcomes" as meaning "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". CEDEFOP [CEDEFOP 2008], [CEDEFOP 2009] uses the definition "Learning outcomes are statements of what a learner knows, understands and is able to do after completion of learning." These definitions make good sense, but it is difficult to be sure of exactly what the influence of a learning process may have been on "what a learner knows, understands or is able to do". It is easier to focus on intended learning outcomes. The European Credit Transfer System Users's Guide [ECTS Users' Guide] defines "Learning Outcomes" in their glossary in this intended sense as "Statements of what a learner is expected to know, understand and be able to do after successful completion of a process of learning." The ENQA use of the term "intended learning outcomes" and not just "learning outcomes" in their Standards and Guidelines document [ESG]. Given intended learning outcomes, it is possible to make judgements about whether learners have achieved any particular intended outcome, much more easily than finding out just what a particular learner knows, or can do.

Expressions of intended learning outcomes can be used in several ways, most obviously in conjunction with learning opportunities.

• They are naturally used in the design of learning opportunities, to express their intended outcomes.
• They can be used in the design of the evaluation or assessment that is part of, or follows, the learning opportunity with those intended learning outcomes.

When used separately from the learning opportunities that intend to result in them, they may be easier to think of in terms of definitions of knowledge, skill or competence.

• They can be listed as pre-requisites for acceptance into learning opportunities.
• They can be used in person specifications in the course of recruitment.
• Individuals can claim to have attained them.
• Evidence can be assembled by individuals to support a claim to their attainment.
• They can be used by employers or professional bodies as the basis for review processes that tie in with career progression.
• may add more...

In wider personal and professional development, action planning and target setting, individuals can plan to attain knowledge, skill, competence, etc., for example as defined by some professional body. This may be a requirement for career progression. Continued certification by the professional body may depend on adequate evidence being presented to assessors. E-portfolio tools may help in these processes.

11.3 Positioning learning outcomes in learner mobility models

The conceptual model

The conceptual model, given earlier in these Guidelines, has been expressly designed to included intended learning outcomes, which are related by the conceptual model to learning opportunity specifications, rather than their instances. It would make little sense for two instances of the same specification to have different intended learning outcomes: in that case they should be regarded as instances of different learning opportunity specifications.

As suggested by the proposed conceptual model, evidence generated by a learner can be taken as evidence of the attainment of a relevant learning outcome. How that evidence is to be evaluated may be specified somewhere – this would correspond to an evaluation specification in the conceptual model.

A possible domain model including intended learning outcomes

Intended learning outcomes may be specified for each component learning opportunity, but, particularly for generic, transferable or key skills, the evidence for attaining any one of those outcomes may be spread across several components (courses, modules, units, etc.). What follows is a first attempt to describe how this could be met.

Intended learning outcomes could be associated with each LO specification. This association is already provided for in MLO with the "objective" property. For each learning outcome, an indication would be given whether those outcomes have been assessed, and if assessed, whether achieved or not yet achieved. In terms of this model, the evidence for the achievement of a learning outcome would be in the results of the learning opportunity instances taken by the learner, so each result needs to be able to be cross-referenced against the learning outcomes that it is evidence for. Other evidence, perhaps not directly under the control of the provider, could also be referred to.

Here is one possible view of a possible abstract model, based on the abstract model for European Learner Mobility documents in the draft European Learner Mobility specification, and envisaged as applied to a programme where all the learning outcomes recorded were the objectives of formal programmes.

Figure 9: A possible abstract model including intended learning outcomes Clearer PDF version

For applications where learning outcomes may be assessed as attained independently from formally offered learning opportunities, this model could easily be modified so that the learning outcomes were represented at the top level, as direct parts of the learner mobility document. Evidence, as before, would either be represented through results of LO instances taken, or could potentially refer to any other resource recognised as evidence by the institution.

11.4 How learning outcomes or competences might be included in Europass documents

The current Europass Diploma Supplement

Current Diploma Supplement documents tend to record the results of formal learning opportunities in the form of a transcript, in section 4.3, where marks or grades associated with each module, and credits for the module, are given against the module title. Section 4.3 would therefore also be the natural place to record the attainment of learning outcomes that have been officially assessed. A transcript including learning outcomes could be envisaged as including:

• a section listing the intended learning outcomes of the programme;
• if they have been assessed, whether the learner has attained the intended learning outcomes;
• the component units taken, with their results and credit values (as common at present);
• for each unit result, which learning outcomes are evidenced by that result.
  This reflects the abstract model given above. However, it must be stressed that this is no more than a first attempt to suggest a way of including intended learning outcomes, and there may be ones that are seen to be better.

Cross-referring the unit results, to the learning outcomes they are evidence for, can easily be envisaged in an electronic document, using the familiar hyperlink approach. This would not be difficult to represent using any common technological approach. To envisage the same on paper would perhaps involve some cross-reference codes, much as in footnotes, endnotes, or bibliographic references.

Perhaps a more difficult question would be how to represent assessments of the attainment of the outcomes that are not be directly tied to course units or modules. This is particularly true in view of the fact that several courses typically contribute to the same generic learning outcomes that are recognised as relevant to employment, or even to later learning opportunities.

The current Europass Certificate Supplement

For the current Certificate Supplement, the position is substantially easier. As the Certificate Supplement typically does not attempt to represent individual assessments or results, there would be no need to include any evidence, and the intended learning outcomes may be listed, without assessment results, alongside the relevant learning opportunity components. The abstract model can be a restricted version of the one for the Diploma Supplement, where the results and evidence relationships are left out.

The current Europass CV

The Europass CV has a section for self-assessed "personal skills and competences". This is clearly expected not to be the same as institutionally-assessed competences. The Europass CV template only allows learners to document their skills under certain predefined headings:

• Languages (as in the Europass Language Passport)
• Social skills and competences
• Organisational skills and competences
• Technical skills and competences
• Artistic skills and competences
• Other skills and competences
• Driving licences

There is no explicit, separate place for the intended learning outcomes of educational opportunities that are taken by a learner, and this implies that the current Europass CV structure is not well-adapted to representing learning outcomes in a way that is coherent with the currently represented skills and competences.

The current Europass Language Passport

The Europass Language Passport relies on a self-assessment grid, which contains descriptions of different levels of proficiency in different areas of language. These descriptions could be intended as descriptions of learning outcomes of learning opportunities. No other learning outcomes are immediately relevant.

Possible future mobility documents

If representing learning outcomes ever became a high enough priority that it was seen as an essential part of learner mobility documentation, it would make sense to represent those learning outcomes as a primary part of learner mobility documents, and not just as dependent on having taken particular learning opportunities with intended learning outcomes. This would assume that the "provider" – whether the educational institution or some other provider of assessment services – had methods of assessing whether a learning outcome had been attained, and that these methods went beyond the evaluation of the intended learning outcomes of regular learning opportunities. This is not difficult to imagine.

Currently, with an electronic version of a Diploma Supplement, one can envisage the names of component learning opportunities acting as links to detailed definitions of those opportunites (held by the institution in MLO format). Similarly, in the future, one could envisage the names of intended learning outcomes being linked to detailed definitions of those outcomes. These definitions could be held either by the educational institutions, or by industry bodies (e.g., in the UK, Sector Skills Councils) with the remit to define occupational standards for their industry. In each case, the linkage would be by URI. The URI would be the identifier for the learning outcome, but following W3C recommendations, may not be the address of a web page, but instead may redirect to a web page. In any case, the result of entering the URI in a browser should be that some useful information concerning the learning outcome would be displayed, at least containing a definition, and possibly with links to more information.

There are various possibilities for changing the structure of an electronic version of the Europass CV to represent learning outcomes, including knowledge, skills, and competences. The simplest way to do this might be to replace the predefined headings with an open structure allowing learners to give their own headings for skills that they believe are relevant to the opportunities to which they are aiming in writing their CV. This has the potential to result in a more focused document, not attempting to cover every kind of skill.

If the European Language Portfolio (of which the Europass Language Passport is one of three constituent parts), or something similar, was given a formal structure, one could envisage other language related learning outcomes being represented as well as the standard ones as defined by the Council of Europe.

11.5 Other structures beyond Europass needed for effective deployment of services based on learning outcomes

We cannot leave the topic of learning outcomes without mentioning one more topic of importance, though no detail will be explored here. If learning outcomes are to play their hoped for role in effectively linking the outcomes of education to the requirements of employment, the learning outcomes assessed by HEIs need to be identifiable as the same as those required by employers. This goes against the tendency of everyone to invent and agree their own definitions for everything. To be useful, definitions of learning outcomes, skills, competencies, etc. need to be widely shared and recognised. If using a common reference framework for learning outcomes, skill and competence is too much to expect (and it probably is), then individual definitions will have to be cross-mapped to each other so that common meanings can be recognised in varied contexts.

Mechanisms for doing this should be explored for a future CWA.

12. Authentication of electronic documents for European learner mobility

12.1 Two general requirements

1. The need for certain decision-making parties (i.e. recruiters, government bodies, etc.) to have authentic and legally recognised evidence of the qualifications presented by a particular individual. They may need this for auditing purposes or as evidence in a court case.
2. The practical need for the burden of proof to be shifted from the individual to the decision-making party. This need may have arisen because of the difficulty in obtaining "original" certified paper documents, which traditionally placed a (costly) burden of proof on the individual.

The second point could be addressed through the provision of online registries. This would be a highly usable way to authenticate qualifications. The decision-making party connects to a trusted online resource and authenticates the individual's record. Furthermore, addressing Data Protection issues can be done by building in a mechanism for the individual to control access to their record and to monitor access.

Addressing the first point, a practical issue here is that decision-making parties (recuiters, government bodies, etc.) may need to maintain an authentic record (or at least, a reference to an authentic record) over the long term that constitutes legally recognisable evidence of the individual's qualifications. Verifying qualification records using an online resource alone may not necessarily address this. Key questions about online repositories include:

1. What is the online record? Is it a number of fields in a database (name, qualification, year of graduation, etc.)? Does this constitute a proper record? If this record was presented in a court of law to a 70 year-old judge who knows little or nothing about technology, how confident are that he/she would admit this as evidence?
2. How secure is the online record? What security protects the record from tampering/modification. How can one prove that this record was never tampered with over a period of time that could stretch for as long as the career lifetime of the individual to whom the record pertains?
3. What is the lifetime of the repository? What happens to data when an online repository is upgraded over time? Information systems inevitably change over time. With this in mind, what if data records are inadvertently modified over time during a system upgrade?

There may therefore be a need for a more complete assertion which traditionally has taken the form of an (electronic) document. "This is to certify that person A graduated from institution B with qualification C, signed by institution official D". Such an assertion represented in a tamper-evident and secure document would constitute authentic evidence. Ideally, these assertions would be both human-readable, and machine-processable (for interoperability). Authenticity and tamper-evidence of this entire document can be asserted electronically using digital signatures, which have been around in various forms for a long time. In order to address the legal issue, we need to ensure that our documents contain a digital signature(s) that complies with the relevant legislation (EU Digital Signature Directive 1999/93/EC) and related technical standards (XML Digital Signatures, X.509 certificates, XAdES Advanced Electronic Signatures ETSI TS 101 903, Advanced Electronic Signatures for PDF).

The technical means exist to address needs both these requirements separately. It is easy to see these two needs as opposing each other, and that the solution is either "online repositories" or "digitally signed documents". However, both approaches have been shown to be able to be combined.
A good suggested way to meet these requirements is to:

1. Use legally-binding, standards-compliant digital signatures to create a digitally-signed record (i.e. document)
2. Provide a secure online repository to main the long-term validity of the digitally-signed record compliant with relevant legislation and technical standards
3. Implement online services that can be used to authenticate the digitally-signed record in real-time (including revocation checks on the document itself), in a secure manner that preserves the data privacy of the individual and can be audited

12.2 Requirements and implementation strategies for their fulfillment

The following requirements have been established for electronic graduation documents (including DS and other documents):

1. Legally admissable as evidence in electronic form
2. Authentic and tamper evident
3. Compatible with relevant technical standards
4. Valid for (at least) the career length of the graduate
5. Capable of being revoked by issuing institution after being issued
6. Must be available only to the graduate and to third parties authorised by the graduate in a controlled and auditable manner

The following elements need to be implemented in order to meet these requirements:

Element	What	How	Requirements met
Digital signature creation	Employ a facility for the creation of legally-binding, standards-compliant digital signatures resulting in a digitally-signed record (i.e. official electronic record) that can be admitted as evidence in a court of law.	Implement digital signatures that are advanced electronic signatures (i.e. PKI-based) containing qualified certificates (issued under very strict conditions including face-to-face identity verification of the signatory) created using a secure signature creation device (i.e. certified cryptographic hardware). The signatures should comply with relevant EU technical standards for long-lived digital signatures such as ETSI TS 101 903 (XML Advanced Electronic Signatures – XAdES) or ETSI TS 101 733 (CMS Advanced Electronic Signatures – CAdES). Any XML or other data representation that is covered by the digital signature should be accompanied by a fixed-layout, human-readable representation of the document to represent "what was actually seen when signed".	1, 2, 3
Document repository	Provide a secure online repository to preserve and maintain the long-term validity of the official electronic record in line with relevant legislation and technical standards.	Implement a document repository that will maintain the cryptographic integrity of signed documents according to the "long-term" XAdES-A/CAdES-A standards. This will ensure the validity of the signed document in the long term even after the expiry of digital certificates and the original signing algorithm/key becomes weak over time. This insulates the signed record from any tampering that may arise over time due to changes in information system, etc. This standard is appropriate for documents that need to archived for very long periods of time.	1, 2, 3, 4
Online services	Implement a suite of online services that can be used to perform various operations on the official electronic record in a controlled and auditable manner.	Implement various functionality via online services, including: (HEI) – Issue document to graduate (HEI) – Revoke document (HEI) – Notify recruiter of revoked document (law permitting) (HEI) – Gather statistics on document usage (Graduate) – Online document access (Graduate) – Configure document access controls to third parties (i.e. recuiters) (Graduate) – View access logs to shared documents (Recruiter) – Request document from graduate for authentication (Recruiter) – Verify document (Recruiter) – Re-verify document to ensure status has not changed (assumes (2) already occurred) (Recruiter) – View access logs to documents Services such as these can be implemented both in user-space (i.e. human-accessible – web sites/applications) and system-space (i.e. system-accessible – web services).	5, 6

13. Future policy recommendations

Proposals for future policy recommendations will be agreed by the team and circulated to all concerned.

14. Proposals for future activities

Proposals for future activities will be agreed by the team and circulated to all concerned.

14.1 Dissemination

A dissemination plan will be agreed and circulated to all concerned.

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.

Documents

• [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. paragraph 25 -27. Available at http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/recognition/Criteria%20and%20procedures_EN.asp
  
  
• [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
  
  
• [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
  
  
• [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
  
  
• [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] "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] Proposal for a 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 through http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2008&nu_doc=179 or directly at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0179:FIN: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]
  
  
• [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
  
  
• [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
  
  
• [IETF-RFC2426] vCard MIME Directory Profile. Available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2426.txt (html)
  
  
• [IETF-RFC3986] Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax. Available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt (html)
  
  
• [METADATA] Erik Duval et al. Metadata Principles and Practicalities. D-Lib Magazine, April 2002, Volume 8 Number 4. Available at http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april02/weibel/04weibel.html
  
  
• [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 2007] Formalizing Dublin Core Application Profiles Description Set Profiles and Graph Constraints. Nilsson, M. et al. Available at http://kmr.nada.kth.se/papers/SemanticWeb/MTSR07-DSPjournalpaper.pdf
  
  
• [RUST 2005] Thoughts from a different planet. 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

European Learner Mobility sites

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

Other sites

• [ICOPER] ICOPER Best Practice Network. See http://www.icoper.org/
  
  
• [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
  
  
• [ORM] Object-Role Modelling version 2 (ORM 2). See http://www.orm.net/
  
  
• [UML] Unified Modelling Language (UML), v2.1.2. See http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.1.2/
  
  
• [W3C-RDFS] Resource Description Framework Schema Language 1.0. See http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/

Books

• [CAMBRIDGE 2001] Cambridge, B.L. et al. (Eds.). Electronic portfolios: Emerging practices is 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.