De: Anita.Jesenko@gov.si
Envoyé: mardi 29 mars 2016 09:38
À: Gelleni, Claudia
Cc: Alenka.Lisec@gov.si
Objet: Diploma Supplement
Dear
Claudia,
With a delay I
am sending you the comments in Diploma Supplement (DS). I hope that you find
them useful. We support the idea of evaluation the issuing the DS worldwide.
The Slovenian ENIC-NARIC Centre has carefully monitored the DS, submitted in the assessment procedure at the centre. DS recommended by the European Commission, Council of Europe and Unesco/Cepes could be a useful evaluation tool, but only if it contains the relying information on a certain higher education qualification.
In general, we noticed the following issues regarding the DS:
- 1. DS is not issued for all levels of higher education.
- 2. It is used only for qualifications of the “bologna” cycles, not for other qualifications.
- 3. DS is not issued for old qualifications (pre-bologna qualifications).
- 4. In case of a double/multiple degree, each institution involved issued each own DS. Such DS includes only information of a programme (part of program) done at one institution (content, ECTS, description of requirements done at one institution, one education system) and the most misleading information - there is no information on cooperation between institutions involved. Information of a double/multiple degree is missing or information on a common point of co-operation. For less experient credential evaluator it looks like the applicant finished two (or more) different programs and they obtained two (or more) different qualification of 120 ECTS in a very short period. Normally one common master’s thesis is prepared for all programs (the only common point, if information available).
- 5. Information in the DS is incomplete (e.g. function of the qualification, 5.1. – access to further study and 5.2. – professional status).
- 6. Information on a programme details 4.3. sometimes includes all information on a programme (courses/subjects offered) and not information on courses/subjects done by the graduate.
-
7.
Learning outcomes: In general, there is not standardized rules of
writing learning outcomes, the outcome of the programme are too “nice” or to
general (level descriptions only); the specific learning outcomes are missing.
Or only specific learning outcomes are exposed (a level could not be
identified)
- 8. DS is not signed by a responsible person and is without the official stamp (7.3., 7.4.)
- 9. Description of higher education system is too general. E.g. following the “bologna” cycles only. We miss a complete information of the system.
- 10. DS is used also at non-accredited (recognized) institutions and for non-accredited programs. (Description of the national education system is a “Bologna system” or a “worldwide American-like” system).
- 11. DS is issued for a qualification, placed in the National qualifications framework only. Qualification is recognized in the home country as a professional qualification (NQF) and not as an educational qualification (not a part of higher education system of the home country).
- 12. The content of the DS issued in a national language is different from the one issued in English.
- 13. Additional information and further information sources (6.1. and 6.2.) are in some cases too general. After a certain time the links and websites are not reachable anymore and contact data as well. This point is useful (accurate, reliable) only for just issued qualifications.
- 14. Transnational/cross-border education should be described more carefully.
Soon I will
send you some samples of DS.
Kind regards.
Anita
|
|
Anita Jesenko
|
