Study on the Application and Inspiration of New Zealand Qualifications Framework and Australian Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning

• Main Authors: Li-Ling Laing, 梁琍坽
• Other Authors: 楊國賜
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2013
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/06623551654455608300

博士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 社會教育學系 === 102 === The research topic is related to study on AQF and NZQF with its application and inspiration on lifelong learning. There are four topics in my research, including study on the purposes of setting up AQF/NZQF and its background, how to design the AQF /NZQFin order to meet these aims or purposes, what are the implementation organisations, what are the help and barriers of implementation, what are the impacts or results of AQF /NZQF implementation with future direction, how to apply AQF/NZQF in promoting lifelong learning. The research method undertakes document analysis, literature review and interview. Firstly the literature review will include the theories of lifelong learning and National Qualifications Framework ( referred to as NQF), ILO research finding , European Qualifications Framework and APEC international framework and Taiwan current lifelong learning status, followed by document analysis of new reform of NZQF and AQF as well as semi-structured interview. The interviewees will include AQFC and NZQA, universities, VET providers and educational stakeholders. The research conclusions are in the following. (1) NZQF and AQF in the early stage faced them problem that the education system was unable to respond quickly to the demand of globalization, knowledge society and new technology challenge. The new version of NZQF and AQF in the 21century is to meet with global trend of NQF development. (2) The purpose of these two countries was to create a single unified framework in order to provide multi learning pathways for lifelong learning and enhance the national economic competitiveness. (3)The design pattern of AQF and NZQA is learning outcome-led and emphasizes on learning output as well as competence-based approach. The competence-based units are developed by the industry and are the basis of vocational education and training programs. The new version of AQF and NZQF does not ignore the importance of learning input. (4)The implementation agencies are NQF agencies, industry bodies for developing competence units and quality assurance authorities. (5)The implementation barriers are that universities do not accept NQF, industry bodies have conflicts with educational providers, and government quality assurance and funding agencies do not match the NQF principles. (6)The successful evidence of NQF implementation in these countries was limited, but NQF has impact on VET along with facilitating the mobility between different education and training sectors and recognition of prior learning. It also provides more learning pathways for students, and creates educational market. There are more opportunities for universities to develop multi-functions programs. However, the relationships between education and workplace are required to make more effort. (7)The future policy directions will be implementing mandatory quality assurance evaluation for educational providers and qualifications along with strengthening qualifications teaching and assessment. (8) The application of AQF and NZQF for lifelong learning is to create learning outcome-led level and qualifications descriptors as the common language for VET and Higher Education, which are used for basis of prior learning recognition and create the qualifications as currency value. (9)The inspiration of AQF and NZQF for lifelong learning is that the real value of NQFs lies in providing the lifelong learning opportunities and enhancing the workforce performance. The learning equivalence and value beyond of AQF and NZQF is required to meet the same learning outcome standards. 　The research suggestions are as follows: 1. Suggestions for the governments of New Zealand and Australia include (1) implementing regular NQF impact review and setting up the review or assessment indicators; (2) exchanging and sharing international experience of NQF implementation; (3) supporting educational providers’ network for developing learning outcome, teaching course and assessment of qualifications; (4) reflecting the differences between learning outcome and learning input; (5) rethinking the logical similarity principle of NQF; (6) conducting the relationship between qualifications and workforce; (7) systematically studying on the prior learning recognition based on NQF learning outcome; (8) setting up research group to develop the NQF learning outcome for non-formal and informal learning; (9) Doing research on how to build the trust zone for different qualifications between various sectors. 2. Suggestions for Taiwan’s government. (1) Having a NQF is better than having not. (2) The design pattern can take AQF and NZQF as a policy learning. (3) In the short-term, to negotiate between different government agencies goes firstly, followed by setting up agency in charge of NQF development and planning. (4) In the middle term, to legislate for quality assurance regulations and authority of NQF qualifications. (5) In the long term, planning to transform the learning outcome into teaching courses and assessment systematically. 3. Suggestion for international regional qualifications framework (1) It is worthwhile to promote international regional qualifications framework such as EQF and Asian Pacific Qualifications framework. 4. Suggestions for follow-up research (1) Doing research on Taiwan needs for NQF; (2) Doing study on the feasibility of creating one single unified qualifications framework; (3) Doing survey on the knowing of NQF for the public, including educational stakeholders; (4) Taking research on the feasibility of developing competence-based qualifications between industry, VET providers and recognition of prior learning based on the learning outcome; (5) Studying on other good model of NQFs in the world in addition to AQF and NZQF.