We are very proud to present the new 2023 CALOHEE tools!
The aim of the Tuning CALOHEE projects is to offer easy to use instruments for making Higher Education degree programmes compatible and comparable. Core are Qualifications Reference Frameworks. We distinguish three types:
- General Qualifications Reference Frameworks
- Subject Area Qualifications Reference Frameworks and
- Subject Area Assessment / Learning Outcomes Reference Frameworks, including best practices for Teaching, Learning and Assessment
All these documents are based on the same philosophy and are fully aligned.
Tuning-CALOHEE General Qualifications Reference Frameworks are now available for the short / associated degree and the first and second cycle degree – Bachelor and Master – and the doctorate. These frameworks are based on a ‘merger’ of the EQF for LLL and the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area; not meant to compete or replace these, but as a state-of-the-art completion of the existing ones.
In addition, a detailed Guideline is developed to apply the CALOHEE general and subject-specific frameworks in the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG). The Frameworks and the Guideline are expected to be of a great help for developing profiles of joint programmes and degrees as well as to serve as a foundation for robust cooperation in European Universities Alliances, enhancing quality, jointness and consistency of curricula.
To offer insight in the present state of affairs the Subject Area Qualifications Frameworks have been compared with existing degree programmes. The findings are presented in the report below.
Transnational Comparative Assessments
The qualifications reference frameworks and assessment reference frameworks of five academic fields have been used to prepare assessment formats and actual test items to allow for measuring high level competences and skills. These are meant to be diagnostic, that is to identify the strength and weaknesses of present degree programmes and learning. The key conclusion: transnational comparative assessments are feasible and have added value, but are also complex to design to assure there is fair common ground regarding ‘what to test’.