38 Credit recognition is voluntary and education providers vary in their willingness to recognize and
transfer credit. Reasons for not recognizing or transferring credit include the increased cost of flexible provision; a lack of trust in the learning or assessments delivered elsewhere; funding disincentives; the
requirements of regulatory or a lack of trust in the learning or assessments delivered elsewhere; funding disincentives; the requirements of regulatory or professional bodies; and time-serving norms and
expectations [Howieson and Raffe 2012].
3.3.6 Quality and standards
The international experience makes it clear that the quality assurance of RPL practices is vital for the broader success of RPL policy and implementation. In response to concerns about standards, quality
assurance is core to maintaining the credibility of a national qualifications framework and the integrity of individual qualifications. An important outcome of a robust NQF is the formalization of quality
assurance processes which may have previously been informal or loosely defined. As a result, quality assurance provides a benchmark against which trust in processes and qualifications can be developed.
In a European context, a set of nine principles for quality assurance ensure cross-national trust in RPL processes. The nine principles are:
a quality assurance policies and procedures should cover all levels of education and training systems;
b quality assurance should be an integral part of the internal management of education and training institutions;
c quality assurance should include regular evaluation of institutions or program by external monitoring bodies or agencies;
d external monitoring bodies or agencies carrying out quality assurance should be subject to regular review;
e quality assurance should include context, input, process and output dimensions, while giving emphasis to outputs and learning outcomes;
f quality assurance systems should include the following elements:
-
clear and measurable objectives and standards;
-
guidelines for implementation, including stakeholder involvement;
-
appropriate resources;
-
consistent evaluation methods including self-assessment and external review;
-
feedback mechanisms and procedures for improvement;
-
widely accessible evaluation results; g international, national and regional quality assurance initiatives should be coordinated to
ensure overview, coherence, synergy and system-wide analysis; h quality assurance should be a cooperative process across education and training, involving all
relevant stakeholders, within Member States and across the community; and i quality assurance guidelines at community level may provide reference points for evaluations
and peer learning [Cedefop 2009:23]. Many countries have developed a body to oversee and ensure the quality assurance of education and
training. In South Africa, for example, the Higher Education Quality Committee is composed of the SAQA, which provides intellectual and strategic leadership for the implementation of the NQF, and the
Council on Higher Education, which has statutory responsibility for coordinating and generating standards for all higher education qualifications
Chapter 3: International experiences DRAFT – ver.3.0
39
Who is involved? What are the results?
Why are they doing it? How is this done?
E u
ro p
e a
n l
e v
e l
EU Commission and Council European qualifications framework
EQF Comparability and
transparency Increased mobility
Open method of coordination OMC Technical cooperation peer learning
EU agencies Europass Common European principles
for validation Competitivenss
Experimental and research programs Lifielong learning program,
Framework research programs Cedefop and European Training
Foundation ETF Draft European guidelines for
validation Lifelong learnmg
Social partner organizations European credit system for vocational
education andtraining ECVET and European credit transfer system ECTS
Ministers of education and training
Employment ministers
N a
ti o
n a
l le
v e
l
Ministries National curricula
Knowledge society Systems Projects
Qualification authorities Qualifications
Mobility Networks Financing
Social partners Innovation
Legal framework NGOs
Skills supply
E d
u ca
ti o
n a
n d
t ra
in in
g
se ct
o r
Local government institutions Education programs standards
Education for all Defining assessment and validation
methods Private institutions
Certificates recognising participation Tailored training
Assessment centres Shortened study period
Universities Diplomas
Increased admission Vocational schools
Specialist recognition centres
Chapter 3: International experiences DRAFT – ver.3.0
40
Who is involved? What are the results?
Why are they doing it? How is this done?
B u
si n
e ss
s e
ct o
r
Business managers Occupational standards
Modernisation Mapping
Human resource managers Competence profile
Competitive advantage Counseling
Trade union representatives Work descriptions
Resourcing Assessment
Career planning Validation
V o
lu n
ta ry
s e
ct o
r
Communities NGOs Skills profile
Social and personal reasons Employability
Mapping Youthpass Europass CV Projects
In d
iv id
u a
l
Candidate Employee Motivation to learn
Personal reasons Supplementary learning
Self-esteem Employability
Documentation Mobility
Taking part in assessment Proof of knowledge and skills
Career advancement Personal reasons
Entrance to education
Table-12: An integrated view of validation of non formal and informal learning [Cedefop2009:19]
41
Chapter 4 Findings
The findings in this chapter emerged from stakeholder engagement. These included focus group discussions, stakeholder engagement sessions and workshops with the pilot fields as outlined below.
The study team undertook Focus Group consultations with a range of key agencies including the Indonesian Nursing Diploma Education Institutions Association AIPDKI, Indonesian Nursing Education
Institution Association AIPNI, Indonesian Nursing Association PPNI, Association of Nursing Study Programs, Ministry of Health BPSDM, Hotel Human Resource Manager Association HHRMA, Jakarta
International Hotel Association JIHA, Food Beverage Executive Club IFBEC, Housekeeper Association IHKA, Tourism study programs HILDIKTIPARI, Ministry of Tourism BPSD, Indonesian
Association of Accountants IAI, Indonesian Institute of Certified Public Accountants IAPI, Technician Accountant Association APPTASI, Ministry of Finance, Indonesian Hotel Restaurant Association
PHRI, selected Deans and Head of Study Programs, as well as lecturers in the relevant fields.
The team also conducted sessions with other stakeholders, such as the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry KADIN, National Professional Certification Agency BNSP, Board of National
Education Standards BSNP, National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education BAN PT, as well as some Regional Coordinators for Private Higher Education Institutions KOPERTIS. The team visited a few
sampled institutions, such as University of Indonesia, Padjadjaran University, Institute Technology of Bandung, Atma Jaya University, and College of Tourism STIP Bandung.
Workshops were conducted in Jakarta, Bandung, Denpasar, Yogyakarta, Surabaya, and Manado with key stakeholders of the three pilot fields - nursing, accountancy and tourism. A thorough literature study
was carried out by team members, particularly on the international experiences of implementing NQF. The team also conducted overseas study trips to Hong Kong, Ireland, and England, and took several
important stakeholders as participants. The team was invited to present the interim findings at the 12
th
International Workshop on Higher Education Reform 2015: Policy and practice of quality assurance and control in higher education, held in Tianjin – China, on 21-23 October 2015. The detailed reports on the
findings from the literature study, study trip, workshops, and paper presented are presented in the annexes of this document. This chapter presents the summary of the findings and analysis of the 4
stages in this study, as planned in the inception report.
4.1 Governance
4.1.1 Segmented development
It was evident in conducting this study that activities in the development of the national qualifications framework IQF have, to date, been conducted by many ministries, professional associations, and
industries, with limited or no coordination. The three main players are the MoM, MoEC, and MoRTHE. Until recently the development of the IQF could be considered as segmented, between the education
sector under MoEC and the skills training sector under MoM. Under MoM, the process of certification of an individual’s competence has been conducted long before the Presidential Decree on
the IQF was issued, and uses the Law on Manpower 132003 as its basis for the development of competency based training. In many cases the ministries’ bureaucracies tend to avoid mingling with
issues outside their jurisdictions, resulting in lack of synergy between ministries, even between units within the same ministry.
Certification process for competency based courses under MoEC is carried out separately, including courses in the same fields as those conducted under MoM. Some certification processes are also
