National Qualifications Frameworks as a Global Phenomenon: A comparative perspective
National Qualifications Frameworks as a Global Phenomenon: A comparative perspective
复制标题
作为全球现象的国家资格框架：比较视角
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Young
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Young
本期特刊文章中讨论的以结果来定义资格的想法起源于美国职业心理学的早期发展以及随后对教师能力的衡量。然而，国家资格框架的想法最近的发展在很大程度上要归功于1984年在苏格兰启动的16行动计划(见本期Raffe的文章)和1986年在整个英国引入的职业资格NVQ框架[1]。虽然英格兰和苏格兰的发展都局限于职业资格，并共享一个共同的基于结果的资格定义(Young，2002)，但这两个倡议之间存在着重要的差异(Raffe，1997)[2]。戴维·拉菲在本期文章中评论了《16世纪行动计划》对苏格兰16岁后教育提供的影响相对有限。与此同时，它被广泛接受，成为导致2001年启动苏格兰信用和资格框架的一系列改革的重要基础(另见本期的Raffe)。与之形成鲜明对比的是，NVQ框架于1987年作为英国教育和培训领域的一场革命大张旗鼓地推出，成为越来越尖锐的批评对象(Raggatt&Williams，2000)，并摇摇欲坠地处于日益边缘化的地位[3]。自20世纪80年代中期以来，越来越多的国家制定了国家资格框架[4]，这表明它们是对全球压力的回应，而不仅仅是针对特定国家的压力(Young，2002)。然而，除了一些针对具体国家的分析外，无论是在政策上还是在研究文献中，关于资格框架作为一种全球现象的辩论相对较少。造成这种情况的可能原因有很多。其一是，在修辞或宏大目标的层面上，这是一个很难不同意的发展--谁不希望资格认证彼此之间更紧密地联系在一起，并表现出更大的透明度？许多参与者认为，引入NQF几乎是不可避免的，就像货币变化一样。第二个可能的原因
The idea of qualifications defined in terms of outcomes that is discussed in the articles in this Special Issue has its origins in early developments in occupational psychology in the United States and the attempts to measure teacher competence that followed. However, the more recent development of the idea of a national qualifications framework owes much of its inspiration to the 16 Action Plan launched in 1984 in Scotland (see Raffe’s article in this issue) and the NVQ framework for vocational qualifications that was introduced across the whole of the UK in 1986 [1]. Although both English and Scottish developments were limited to vocational qualifications and shared a common outcomes-based definition of qualifications (Young, 2002), there were important differences between the two initiatives (Raffe, 1997) [2]. In his article in this issue David Raffe comments on the relatively limited influence of the 16 Action Plan on the provision of post-16 education in Scotland. At the same time, it was sufficiently widely accepted to be a significant basis for the succession of reforms that led to the launch of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework in 2001 (see also Raffe in this issue). In stark contrast, the NVQ framework, launched with much fanfare, as a revolution in education and training acoss the UK in 1987, became the subject of increasingly sharp criticism (Raggatt & Williams, 2000) and has staggered to a position of ever increasing marginality [3]. Since the mid-1980s, national qualifications frameworks have been developed by a growing number of countries [4], which suggests that they are responses to global rather than just country-specific pressures (Young, 2002). However, apart from a number of country-specific analyses, there has been relatively little debate about qualification frameworks as a global phenomenon in either the policy or the research literature. There are a number of possible reasons for this. One is that at the level of rhetoric or broad goals, it is a development with which it is difficult to disagree— who could not want qualifications to be more linked to each other and to exhibit greater transparency? The introduction of an NQF has been seen by many involved, like a change of currency, as something almost inevitable. A second possible reason