Qualification versus competence?
5. Isn’t competence the overall notion for all learning? Isn’t the EQF a framework of competences?
The EQF is a (meta-)qualifications framework and not a competences framework, because it enables the classification of qualifications levels and systems. It is not intended to be used for the classification of individual competences. It is a learning-outcome orientated framework, in which the descriptors describe all forms of learning outcomes. The misunderstanding of the EQF as a competences framework is due to the fact that learning outcomes are formulated as statements about what the learners can do and so provide a certain “competence orientation”. The EQF is also, insofar, not a competences framework, as learning outcomes can, for example, also be knowledge without any corresponding competences or skills.
Learning outcomes are consequently always more comprehensive than competences and not the reverse. Hence, competences would not be the adequate umbrella term for the table. More correctly, the EQF should be called a “qualifications framework based on learning outcomes”.
- Why metaframework?
- What are principles of descriptors?
- What means knowledge, skills and competence?
- Why only these dimensions?
- Qualification versus competence?
- Qualification and different levels?
- Which column is more important?
- EQF as a ladder?
- Can EQF descriptors be used for NQF?
- Where are other competences?
- Can EQF classify programs and occupations?
- EQF and EHEA relationship?