Validation of non-formal and informal learning (VNFIL) is an important part of lifelong learning ecosystems. It can offer an alternative route to qualification and motivate individuals to participate in further learning. But development of validation arrangements and assuring the uptake of validation services is a complex process.
European guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning developed by Cedefop have been supporting the work of validation policy makers and practitioners. They cover validation features, conditions for its implementation, review of validation tools and information on different contexts in which validation can be useful.
The Guidelines have contributed to a coherent approach to VNFIL at the European level and informed the efforts of ETF partner countries which have been developing their own validation arrangements.
This year the works on third edition of the Guidelines have been launched. In support of this effort Cedefop has prepared a survey to identify issues to be addressed in the new edition of the Guidelines.
Which topics would you like to find in the updated Guidelines on validation?
Individuals and organisations from ETF partner countries engaged in VNFIL are invited and encouraged to take part in the survey.
Please, share your latest experiences in implementing validation and voice your expectations with regard to the content of the revised Guidelines.
The survey takes about 10-15 minutes to complete and you can access it here. It is open until the end of June.
The discussion in the EQF AG yesterday mentioned more attention to different forms of certification.
Certainly this will be become more important when there is a wider range of unitised qualifications and micro-credentials that could be used.
I as a candidate may not meet all the learning outcomes of qualification A, but I might meet those of Units 1, 3 and 5 of qualification A or alternatively micro-credentials L, M and O.
VNFIL is very much about alternative pathways to certification, but there can also be alternative forms of certification.
The problem only is how will these alternatives be identified?
Is this the responsibility of counsellors, or candidates? Have we sufficiently mapped similar units across qualifications and micro-credentials ?
Please log in or sign up to comment.