National Institute for Educational Policy ResearchInternational Symposium on Education Reform 2013
Tokyo, December 10, 2013

TUNING Competences Frameworks: Key Tools for Educational Reform and theAssessment and Comparison of Learning in Global Perspective
Robert Wagenaar(International Tuning Academy, University of Groningen)

Introduction
During the last two decades the playground of Higher Education has changed fundamentally.
Globalization and Information and Communication Technology have given a further push toits internationalization. The required level of quality and effectiveness of higher education
programmes are no longer determined at local or national level only, but are also referenced
internationally today. This does not imply that it is felt like that by the majority of academic
staff. One can observe a striking difference between opinions and viewpoints ofgovernmental authorities, management of higher education institutions, its faculties anddepartments and academic leaders on the one hand and the average academic on the other.
One can also see differences between world regions.
Nevertheless, whether one likes it or not, in particular for the more renowned institutions inevery country competition in terms of attracting academic staff, young researchers / PHDstudents and master and bachelor students has moved from the national to the international
scene. Academics as well as students identify and select higher institutions which serve theirinterests best. Due to search engines, portals, web presentations, and new forms ofcommunication such as Facebook and other social media, this process has become a global
one. As a result the student body has changed in a large and growing number of institutions
as has often – partly - the language of instruction. Academics are noticing that students havebecome more demanding regarding the content of educational programmes as well as thelearning and teaching process. Not only because they have a wider and easier access to
information about higher education institutions, what is taught there, how it is taught and bywhom, but also because this information is easily exchanged via social media . This involves
risks, for all involved, because images and reputations can easily be built or destroyed,rightly or wrongly. This is also the case for the quality of education which is offered. At
present, there is more focus on this issue than ever before. Universities develop so-called
quality cultures as a result of external pressure in particular. A key question in this respect iswhat and who decides what high quality programmes are and on which basis?
Besides what has been said above, and besides personal development, there is anotherdimension which has a growing impact on the content, implementation and modes of delivery
of a higher education programme: its relevance for society. Relevance is understood here interms of preparing for citizenship and for employability. In particular employability seems to
be given more and more weight and is therefore competing with the actual interests andabilities of the student. This is understandable in a situation where an economic global crisis
is impacting so many, but it might lead to wrong choices, possibly followed by a growing
number of drop-outs. This can be a costly affair in more than mere financially. Although thechances for obtaining employment at a suitable level after graduation for one programmemight be better than for another, this does not imply that less successful programmes in thisrespect do not have an obligation regarding the transition to society of its graduates.
1

Education is simply not intended to be ‘art for the sake of art’. Degree programmes are also
not intended to mirror the academic profiles of the teaching staff itself in today’s dynamic
world. This has implications for the design and delivery of programmes as well as the for thecompetences which are developed and the desired outcomes.
Searching for a new paradigm
In 2001 the Tuning Educational Structures in Europe project (hereafter: Tuning) was
launched with these notions in mind. At the end of the1990th a growing concern developed
among the initiators and developers of the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation
System (ECTS) that one credit system would not be a sufficient answer to societal
challenges and was not the only panacea for (trans)national mobility of students andcooperation between higher education institutions in and outside Europe. It was concluded
that the emphasis should be much more on the outcomes of the learning process, but alsothat more attention should be given - within degree programmes - to transferable or generalskills. It was also thought necessary to stipulate the role of higher education institutions asmajor contributors to the welfare of society. This fitted in a trend in which higher education
institutions were forced to show that they are accountable, responsible, and sustainable. Thisshould not apply to the higher institution only but also to the individual degree programmes
on offer. A number of conclusions were drawn from this analysis:
 Higher Education structures and programmes and qualifications should be reformed
on a large scale to be able to respond to the needs of society; Academics should be given a key role in this process; The reform process would require the development of internationally sharedreference points / standards at disciplinary / subject area level; A language for communication should be developed which would be understood by
all major stakeholders, that is academics, students, graduates, (potential) employersof graduates as well as professional organisations; All stakeholders, including (potential) employers and professional organisations, but
in particular graduates should be (indirectly) involved in the process of curriculum
design and quality enhancement; The focus should be on diversification of degree programmes by profiling andstimulating flexibility; The reform should facilitate national and international mobility and the recognition of
periods of study, including qualifications for obtaining access to the next level ofprogrammes.
The concept of ‘competences’ was chosen as a means to communicate with stakeholders
despite awareness of the different meanings throughout the world attributed to the term.The
basic idea was and is that the role of education is primary to make the student / learnermore competent as a result of a learning process. Competences should be understood according to Tuning - as a representation of a dynamic combination of cognitive andmetacognitive skills, knowledge and understanding / insight, interpersonal, intellectual andpractical skills, and ethical values. In other words, high level competences required tooperate with confidence and success in a leading capacity in society. Besides competences
Tuning also introduced as part of its methodology the concept of learning outcomes.
Learning outcomes in Tuning state the level of competences to be developed in a course
unit, module or degree programme.
From the onset Tuning made a distinction between general or generic competences andsubject specific (disciplinary) competences. This was done to raise awareness about - inparticular - the generic competences. Although they might have been taught already as partof a degree programmes, it was noticed at the time that in most cases they were not madeexplicit in the course material. This may have changed somewhat over time but it still seems
2

to be an important point of attention in many degree programmes.
Having said this, a more far reaching conclusion was drawn from the analysis made; thereform process would require a paradigm shift n in the teaching, learning and assessment
process. As a consequence of focusing on the outcomes of the learning process in terms ofthe competences to be developed, the switch should be made from input or content basedlearning to outcomes or output based learning. To phrase this differently: to move from amore staff-centred approach, based on the concept of learning objectives to a concept ofstudent oriented learning, based on the concept of learning outcomes. A learning outcome isunderstood here as a statement of what a learner is expected to know, understand and beable to demonstrate after completion of a process of learning. A learning objective outlines
the material the teaching staff intends to cover or the questions related to the discipline thatthe class will address. This last approach means in practice that the focus is on the teachingprocess (not the learning process) and on knowledge transfer of the academic staff member
to the students. Student centred learning is an approach or system that supports the designof learning programmes which focus on the learners’ achievements, accommodates different
learners’ priorities and is taking into consideration student workload (i.e workload that is
feasible within the duration of the learning programme). It accommodates for learners’
greater involvement in the choice of content, mode, pace and place of learning.
From this perspective the Tuning initiative developed two main action lines: a methodology orapproach to develop current, high quality and relevant degree programmes for all levels,
bachelor, master and doctorate, and internationally established reference points or subject
area based competences frameworks to support the (re-)design, implementation, delivery
and quality enhancement of degree programmes. This paper focuses on the latter.
TUNING competences frameworks
Having outlined above that degree programmes are no longer developed and delivered in its
own right (only), but should be referenced against at least national, but preferablyinternationally established reference points, Tuning took the initiative for developing
international competences frameworks. More or less at the same time the Quality Assurance
Agency in the UK initiated the development of national based benchmark papers. In bothcases a bottom-up approach was applied by making a group of academics responsible forsetting-up a subject area based framework, respectively benchmark. The approach applied
was slightly different, although in both cases it was based on a process of discussion andreflection. With respect to Tuning, lists of key competences were formulated which were used
as a basis for consultation among stakeholders. For all subject areas / disciplines involved in
the Tuning project at the time a common list of 30 generic competences was drawn up andfor each individual subject area a subject area list of key competences was produced (seebelow). A consultation of stakeholders took place in 2001-2002 and was repeated in 2008
with more subject areas (9 instead of 7) and with a slightly adjusted and improved list ofgeneric competences. The stakeholders consulted were academics, graduates, employers
and in 2008 also students.
The consultation was based - in both cases - on different variables, that is, first:•
the degree of importance: the relevance of the competence, in the opinion of the
stakeholder (for work in their profession);•
the level of achievement: the achievement of this competence as a result of having
taken this university degree.
To evaluate these two variables, the respondents had to use a scale: 1 = none; 2 = weak; 3 =moderate; 4 = strong.
in addition they had to:•rank the generic and subject specific competences; based on the categorisation of the3five most important generic and the five most important subject specific onesThecompetence that was ranked highest in the survey was allocated five points, four forthe second and so on, with one point for the last in the selection. If the competence
was not chosen in the survey, it scored zero points.
The outcomes of the consultation were very informative and revealing and were used as
input for producing the Tuning competences frameworks for the subject areas involved.
What was learned in particular was the need in society for graduates with better developed
generic competences. Although doing well regarding the acquisition of knowledge of andinsight into the subject area, students did less well than thought necessary in developing
abstract thinking, analyzing and synthesizing skills (seen by the respondents as the mostimportant competence) as well as applying knowledge in practice, problem solving, learning
abilities, and written and oral communication skills. Also more attention should be given – inparticular according to employers and graduates - to leadership and teamwork competencesin the learning process. Furthermore, it was advised to offer more attention to creativity andthe development of an entrepreneurial spirit. These kind of consultations of the same
stakeholder groups were repeated in other regions of the world with adjusted lists (based on
the situation, culture and opinions of the academics of that region that drew up the lists) but
with more or less comparable outcomes.
The consultations and competence lists were only one of the basic elements for developing
the competences frameworks. Others were and are a description of the academic fieldcountry by country and synthesized at regional level– at first instance European and later
also other regions of the world. Furthermore the typical degrees offered were mapped, as
well as the social and professional needs, including the (potential) employability field, and if
possible future trends were identified. The last items showed us differences between
countries and higher education institutions. It was a confirmation that degree programmes
have and should have different profiles, in particular at master level, and that they are also
partly regionally bound.
Constructing subject area based competences frameworks
Since 2001 Tuning has built up much experience regarding the construction of (inter)national
competences frameworks. As part of the European Tuning projects a large number of
documents called Reference Points for the Design and Delivery of Degree Programmes in[name of subject area] - covering a large set of disciplines by now - have been developed.
These were validated by external peers before being finalized and published. In theEuropean context the term Reference points was used instead of, for example the term‘standards’ (which is in use in Russia and Australia to express the same idea). Although
Tuning intends to be standard setting, it wants to avoid at any cost that these reference
points are regarded as prescriptive. In the dynamic world of today, they simply cannot be set
in stone and therefore revision is needed every six years – preferably on the basis of a new
consultation round of stakeholders. The development of the reference points was based on acommon format, independent of the subject area involved.
For each competences framework to be developed, a group of 12 to 15 international experts
was established. Its members were selected from different countries and were representing
their higher education institution in the field involved. At its start Tuning focused only on
traditional research oriented mono-disciplines to be able to develop its approach and to avoid
unnecessary complications. At a later stage multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary degree
programmes as well as more applied disciplines were covered as well.
The process started with the mapping process as described above and the consultation of
stakeholders. As was already explained, to prepare for the consultation process a common
4list of generic competences was drawn up by the different groups together and each groupdeveloped its own list of so-called key subject area competence statements which should‘frame the subject area’. This last list contained on average of 25 statements. That list wasestablished on the basis of a collection of ideas and expectations regarding degree
programmes in the subject area based on an open discussion. On the basis of the long list
consensus was sought on the short list (key competences) to be used for the consultation
process. Because the focus was on competences to be covered in the discipline as a whole,
the first cycle / bachelor and the second cycle / master were not distinguished. To allow for
the consultation process, each university draw up a list of relevant employers for its field, a
list of graduates which graduated within the last 3 to 5 years and a list of academics to be
consulted. In the first European consultation round (2001-2002) no (mature) students wereconsulted. The Tuning America Latina project decided in 2004 to involve also students. Thishas been standard procedure since. After finishing the consultation process, its results wereanalysed by each subject area group. This led to a redefining of the original subject specificcompetences lists. The next step in the process was to design academic and professionalframeworks for each of the cycles, preferably formulated as descriptors and to build
consensus on the most relevant competences for each of them, combining both what iscommon for academic recognition and what is different (the specific features). It was also
checked whether the subject area frameworks were consistent with another recent
development at the time, the establishment of a Qualifications Framework for the European
Higher Education Area. This framework was endorsed in Europe by the ministers of
Education in 2005 as part of the Bologna Process. Below we will come back to thecomplementary relationship of these so-called overarching or meta-frameworks and thesubject area based frameworks.
The following step in the process of establishing competences frameworks was to check
whether these frameworks allowed for a realistic student workload. In other words: to‘measure’ the required student workload to achieve the desired competences levels, to be
expressed in terms of credits (besides learning outcomes). This step was followed by anopen discussion to identify the most suitable modes and approaches for teaching, learningand assessment to develop the competences identified. This reflection took place against the
proposed change of paradigm – student centred learning – as described above. The
outcome was an overview of different possibilities and strategies for each of the subject
areas from which the academic staff responsible for offering the degree programmes in each
institution could make their own selections and combinations. The last step was to relate thecompetences to consistent mechanisms for quality control and enhancement.
This approach can be visualized in the following image:Definir
DefineAnalyseDesignIncorporate
MeasureFormulate
Identify
Buildconsensus

Consult

Develop5

As part of the Tuning America Latina 2 Project (2011-2013) ideas about the development ofcompetences frameworks were further refined and deepened, by introducing the concept ofmeta-profiles. Both reference points and meta-profiles have the aim to identify and describe
the core (elements) of a discipline / subject area. However, the meta-profile approach isslightly different. While in the original approach the focus is on identifying the core or key
competences, both generic and subject specific, in the second approach the focus is on theclustering of generic and subject specific competences to derive to so-called metacompetences. The interlinked groups of meta-competences then serve as the basis fordefining a meta-profile (competences framework) which captures the essence of thediscipline in more general terms. When the meta-profile is decided, it can be used as atemplate for constructing individual degree programmes.
This new method which was and is being applied later in Tuning projects in other regions of
the world such as Russia, Africa and Central Asia, offers us a more sophisticated way
forward, because the existing template of collecting a long list of competences and thenboiling it down to the more essential ones, lacked sufficient structure.
Two main approaches have been developed for the grouping of competences. The first way
is to cluster the most related competences in a feasible number of groups, minimum 5 to 8
maximum. After having done so, a label for each group is decided which reflects best its
content and purpose. However, it is also possible to work the other way around, defininglabels for the group’s first and then using these as a basis for clustering the competences.
Each group or meta-competence will contain a mix of generic and subject specificcompetences. This is fully in line with the Tuning philosophy, which requires that these aredeveloped together. Although named generic and transferable skills or competences theseare or should always be developed in conjunction with the main field(s) of study, and not in
isolation. To illustrate this point: the competence abstract thinking, analyzing andsynthesizing in history is based on a different theoretical and methodological framework thanfor example the one used in physics or mathematics. This also applies - in general - for oral
and written skills, leadership, teamwork, entrepreneurial spirit etc. because each discipline
has its own academic culture and paradigm.

Overarching competences frameworks
Competences frameworks are not only a fundamental basis and reference for the design of
new and improvement of existing curricula, but also for the assessment and comparison oflearning in a national and global context. Different levels of competences frameworks can be
distinguished. While Tuning has focused on the subject area level, others, such as
governments and quality assurance organisations, have initiated overarching or metaframeworks which intend to cover all levels of learning or part of them. According to Tuning
these complementary frameworks are a requirement for the restructuring and/or enhancingof the quality of higher education sector and its qualifications.
Qualifications Frameworks are not a new phenomenon, but in recent years their content andstructure have changed. In principle every country has its qualifications framework or system
which – in the past or still - describes the different types of qualifications offered, its
interconnections, as well as pathways to progress within the system. This traditional model
has been replaced now in many countries by a model which focuses on the outcomes of alearning process, be it formal or informal. As its basis descriptors are used which describe
the expected / achieved learning in terms of competences and (indicated in terms of level) in
learning outcomes. This new type of qualifications framework has been developed attransnational level (Europe) as well as national level.
6At European level two meta-frameworks have been developed which are the Qualifications
Framework for the European Higher Education Area (QF for EHEA), initiated as part of the
Bologna Process, and the European Qualifications Framework for Life Long Learning (EQF
for LLL). Both can be defined as an overarching framework that makes transparent therelationship between European national higher education frameworks of qualifications. The
first one is based on the so-called Dublin Descriptors. These were developed in the same
period in which Tuning developed its first competences frameworks (2001-2005). In March
2002 at the official Bologna seminar Working on the European Dimension of Quality, which
took place in Amsterdam, the main conclusion was that general descriptors for the different
cycles and reference points at subject area level should go together. To quote from its
published report: “There is a widely-shared consensus that the ‘Dublin Descriptors’, defining
key outcomes for Bachelors and Masters programmes in general are useful. These genericdescriptors are complementary to the more specific outcomes of the Tuning project (…),
which have been developed at the level of areas of knowledge (‘disciplines’)”. The Dublin
descriptors outline the essential components of any degree programme that leads to thecompletion of a Bologna cycle, that is bachelor, master and doctorate. They are based on thefollowing dimensions:•
Acquiring knowledge and understanding•
Applying knowledge and understanding•
Making informed judgments and choices•
Communicating knowledge and understanding•
Capacities to continue learning•
Contributing to original research (doctorate only)
Besides the ‘Bologna’ QF- EHEA, the European Union established the EQF for LLL whichcontains eight levels, covering learning achievements at all educational levels. As far as
higher education is concerned, the top 4 levels (that is 5, 6, 7 and 8) in this Framework arecompatible with the three cycles, plus the short cycle (Associated Degree), included in the
Qualifications Framework for the EHEA. Hence, their outcomes correspond to thoseforeseen in the Dublin Descriptors, even though they are expressed in a slightly different
language. The EQF distinguishes three main categories to order its outcomes based
descriptors: knowledge, skills and competences. Competences should be read here as wider
competences, intending to describe responsibility and autonomy.
Within each subject area, discipline or professional sector, the QF for EHEA Dublin
Descriptors and /or the EQF for LLL level descriptors can be applied and adapted according
to the specific way that learning is acquired in that sector. Thus the Dublin Descriptors/EQF
descriptors form general reference points at the European level in which any specific Degree
Programme can be situated.
In particular during the last five years, the development of competences / learning outcomesbased National Qualifications Frameworks (NQFs) has gathered considerable momentum. To
establish such a framework, each country sets out its own qualifications framework according
to its educational structures and traditions. A National Qualifications Framework can be
described as a single description, at national level or level of an education system (forexample, Scotland, England and Wales), which is internationally understood and throughwhich all qualifications and other learning achievements may be described and related toeach other in a coherent way. Good examples are the qualifications frameworks of Australia,
South-Africa, Thailand, a growing number of European countries, as well as a model
developed by the Lumina Foundation for the USA. A national framework enables students,
employers and quality assurance and accreditation agencies to ‘compare and contrast’ thelearning achievements of students and benchmark (i.e. position) them according to othernational and regional frameworks.
7

The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) distinguishes – with regard to the higher
levels –the following items: purpose and volume of learning (expressed in time) besides thecategories knowledge, skills, applications of knowledge and skills. The Lumina USA Degree
Qualifications Profile is – as the QF for the EHEA - based on dimensions: Broad, Integrative
Knowledge, Specialised Knowledge, Intellectual Skills, Applied Learning and Civic Learning.
In this last model more emphasis is given to the learning process as a classifying principle.
All these overarching competences frameworks have in common that they are based onbroad descriptors which are general by definition because they include all types andorientations (applied, research driven etc.) of qualifications or other learning achievements.
Bridging meta-competences frameworks and Tuning subject area based competences
frameworks
In 2008 the Tuning management team concluded that it would be useful to bridge the gap
between the meta-level and the subject area level by developing an intermediate frameworklevel by grouping academic programmes in terms of domains or sectors. A sector or domain
is understood here as a combination of related fields of study which are based on more orless comparable learning profiles. Tuning distinguishes six sectors: Humanities, Creative andPerforming Disciplines, Engineering, Natural Sciences, Health Care and Social Sciences.
The basic aim for developing Sectoral Qualifications Frameworks (SQFs) was and is to
produce a common set of statements about expected achievement levels for students in any
and all of the disciplines represented, as well as seeking to define what these disciplines
have in common. The framework intends to show what sets them apart from disciplines inother sectors and give them their distinctive character as a sectoral grouping. At the start ofthe project period there was much doubt among the disciplinary experts whether it would bepossible to find sufficient common ground. During the project these hesitations were slowly
replaced by enthusiasm about the opportunities a SQF would offer.
From 2008 to 2010 a first project was implemented: the development of a Tuning Sectoral
Qualifications Framework (SQF) for the Social Sciences. The sector was represented by thefollowing academic areas: Business Studies, European Studies, Education Sciences,
Occupational Therapy and Social Work, Law, Psychology and International Relations. The
project designed a SQF which covers the higher education sector levels 5 to 8 as well as thepreceding levels 3 and 4. Its development proved to be a pioneering and innovative
experience, but most of all a major step forward towards linking the different initiatives – QF
for the EHEA, EQF for LLL, NQFs and Tuning Subject Area based Reference Points, - so far.
The Social Sciences SQF-project was followed by a project in which two SQFs weredeveloped, one for the Humanities and another one for the Creative and Performing
Disciplines. While the Social Sciences SQF project group limited itself to define competences
statements covering the broad categories of knowledge, skills and (wider) competences, theother two SQF project groups went a step further. Initiated by the Creative and Performing
Disciplines dimensions were identified to organize the competences statements. The catalyst
for generating mutual belief in the validity of a joint sectoral framework came from therealisation of the central role played in the Creative and Performing Disciplines by thedimension of Creativity (making, performing, designing, conceptualising) in all of thedisciplines represented. Also for the Humanities such a central dimension could be identified
in the concept of the Human Being (human condition, experience and expression).. In theframework of the OECD TUNING-AHELO project which aimed to develop a Conceptual
Framework of Expected/Desired Learning Outcomes in Engineering (2009) a set of
dimensions for organizing the competences was decided as well. It is intended to develop
SQFs based on dimensions for the other three other sectors in the near future. The following
table offers an overview of the dimensions identified for the three sectors covered so far:8

Table 1: SQF Dimensions
Humanities
Dimensions
The Human Being

Creative and Performing Disciplines
Dimensions
Making, Performing, Designing,
Conceptualising

Engineering
Dimensions

Cultures andSocieties

Re-thinking, Considering andinterpreting the Human

Basic andEngineering Sciences

Texts and Contexts

Experimenting, innovating &Researching

Theories andConcepts
Interdisciplinarity

Theories, Histories and Cultures

Engineering Analysis

Technical, environmental andContextual issues

Engineering Design

Communication

Communication, Collaboration &Interdisciplinarity

Generic Skills

Initiative andCreativity
Professional
Development

Initiative & EnterpriseEngineering PracticeProfessional Development

Professional
Development

The development of Tuning Sectoral Frameworks based on dimensions seems to be abreakthrough. They not only bridge the two European meta-frameworks and nationalframeworks globally but also the meta-profiles / reference points at subject area level. The
three sectoral frameworks or profiles developed so far offer the necessary precision which is
required for degree programme design, delivery, quality assurance and enhancement andthe recognition of degrees and periods of studies.
The following table offers descriptors of the first two dimensions of the Tuning SQFs for the
Humanities and the Creative and Performing Disciplines. It illustrates the kind of information
about what is actually (or should be) taught and learned in the framework of degree
programmes which belong to the sectors involved.
Table 2: Relation EQF and Tuning SQF dimensional approach
Sector at level 6
EQF

Knowledge

SkillsCompetences

EQF

Advanced knowledge of afield of work or study,
involving a criticalunderstanding of theories
and principles

Advanced skills,
demonstrating mastery andinnovation, required tosolve complex and
unpredictable problems ina specialised field of workor study• Manage complex
technical or professional
activities or projects,
taking responsibility fordecision-making in
unpredictable work or
study contexts• Take responsibility for
managing professional
development of
individuals and groups

CPD: Making,

Have advanced knowledge

Have the advanced skills

Be able to draw upon the9Performing,
Designing,
Conceptualising

CPD: Rethinking,Considering andInterpreting the
Human

HUM: The
Human Being

HUM: Culture
and Societiesof the processes andconcepts underlying
creation and/or
performance in their
specific discipline
Appreciate how thepractice and/or creation
generated within theirdiscipline both stems from,and shapes, our humanity

necessary to create, realise
and express their own
creative concepts

knowledge and skills gained
within their studies to act andrespond creatively in different
situations

Demonstrate interpretativeskill and a reflection of thehuman dimension in theircreative practice

Have a criticalunderstanding of thehuman condition,
experience and expressionin its various forms andenvironments
Have knowledge andcritical insight into howhuman behaviours,
institutions and modes of
expression emerge fromand interact with ideas,
beliefs and values

Be able to use disciplinary
knowledge to understandand interpret contemporarysocietal challenges

Be able to draw upon
experience gained within theirstudies to operate with an
ethical awareness and toencourage the development
and foster the well - being ofother individuals and groups
Be able to understand andrespect the individual humanin his/her personal, culturaland social dimension

Be able to draw onknowledge of the relevant
field to identify and define,with guidance, significant
problems and areas ofenquiry with respect tosocial and culturalinteraction

Be aware of the role ofhumanities and a humanistic
perspective in society, anddemonstrate an ethicalcommitment to their use toachieve social cohesion andsustainability

This information should be used as a reference for the designing of individual degree
programmes. The expression ‘reference’ is used here to express that each degree
programme will and should have its own individual profile. The profile of a degree is not only
defined by the competences framework but also by the mission of the institution, the role
foreseen for its graduates in society, the particular strengths of the department offering thedegree in terms of particular expertise(s), as well as the financial means available. According
to the philosophy of student centred learning and therefore that of Tuning, degree profiles
should be developed by the team of academics involved in offering the degree / qualification.
This team, which includes preferably one or more mature students, formulates the learning
outcomes followed by the outline of the degree programme and its individual modules. This
structure should allow for covering the development and achievement of all learning
outcomes defined in such a way that in terms of student workload the programme is realistic
and feasible. For the development of new programmes and enhancement of existing
programmes Tuning has developed a ten steps approach, which is included in the publication
A Tuning Guide to Formulating Degree Programme Profiles. Bilbao, Groningen, The Hague,
2010.
Tuning competences frameworks: tools for comparison and assessment of learning
The AHELO project has shown us that a Tuning competences framework is the foundation ofan assessment framework for allowing comparisons regarding the level of achievement oflearning in a particular subject area / discipline in transnational perspective. An assessment
framework measures the level of achievement of individual learners but also of a system.
This system can be the department within an institution, a local or regional system or anational system. In combination with meta-competences frameworks and sectoral10

frameworks, the Tuning competences frameworks are also important tools for recognition of
periods of learning as well as of qualifications.
With the exception of the TUNING-AHELO conceptual frameworks, which were developed ina global setting, all other Tuning competences frameworks were defined regionally: Europe,
Latin America, Africa, Russia. We can observe that in the different Tuning projects two maintypes of meta-profiles, or combinations of these have been developed. The first one focusses
on the learning process; the second one derives from the subject area or an academic
sector. Both are based on dimensions.
The dimensions identified for the ‘learning process approach’ are for example: Cognitive
Competences, Interpersonal Competence, Civic Competences, Practical Competences,
Methodological Competences and Professional Competences. The dimensions of the subject
area approach are reflected in the table above.
Both models can be used to develop and to position individual degree programmes
according to their own profile. These can be visualized as spiderwebs against thebackground of agreed competences statements of the Tuning subject area based
competences frameworks. Depending on its mission and role and its academic strengths thedifferent dimensions identified are more or lesser developed than the levels indicated in themeta-profile. This web visualizes individual profiles of a bachelor, a master and a PhDprogramme:

Learning Process

Humanities

Human Being

Professional
Development

CulturesandSocieties

Initiative andCreativity

Text andContext
Theories andConcepts

Communication

Legend:Interdisciplinarity

Green = First cycle / Bachelor
Red = MasterBlue = Doctorate

As was stated earlier, Tuning has developed competences frameworks already for a large
number of subject areas. All these frameworks cover the first and second cycle of higher
education, that is the bachelor and master, and often also the doctorate. It is important thatframeworks are developed which cover more than one level. It forces the designers / experts
to decide on the level of achievement that can or should be developed for each of thecompetences levels involved. It will guarantee that a good balance is defined. Below, an
example derived from the subject area of Architecture, is offered. This academic field decided
to develop its competences framework on the basis of the SQF for the Creative andPerforming Disciplines, not the one for Engineering. The reason for this choice was that theexperts of the European Tuning subject area group of architecture identified themselves11much more with the dimension of creativity than the dimension of modelling (typical forEngineering). Descriptors were developed for the levels 6 to 8 of the EQF, covering bachelor,master and doctorate.

Table 3: Levels of mastering competences, the example of Architecture:
ARCHITECTURE
Knowledge
Skills(Wider) Competences
EQF Categories:
Architectural Creation & Architectural Creativity
Graduates of Architecture are expected at level ….
Level/ Dimension
To have advanced
To have the advanced
To be able to draw upon the
6 / Conceptualising,knowledge of theskills to formulateknowledge and skills gained
Designing,processes, concepts andcritically , elaborate
within their architectural
Materialisingculturalvaluesguiding
creatively
andtranslatestudies so as to act andArchitecturearchitectural creation

7 / Conceptualising,
Designing,
MaterialisingArchitecture

To have highly
advanced knowledge ofthe processes, concepts
and cultural values
guiding architectural
creation, some of which
will be at the forefrontof their field

8 / Conceptualising,
Designing,
MaterialisingArchitecture

Knowing in depth all the
relevant methods andtechniques of inquiry
related to a particularfield of study ofarchitecture

innovatively into spatial
forms their own
architectural concepts
To have developed to ahigh professional level
their ability as architects
to formulate critically ,elaborate creatively andtranslate innovatively
into spatial forms theirown architecturalconcepts
Integrating previous
experience so as todemonstrate original
creative insights in thedomain of architecture
Functioning withcomplete creativeautonomy

respond critically andcreatively in different
situations
To emerge as well-developed
personalities, able to draw
upon the knowledge and skills
gained within theirarchitectural studies so as toact and respond critically andcreatively in situations that arecomplex, unpredictable
and require new strategic
approaches
Comprehending thetransferability of theirresearch capabilities to otherfields

Displaying professional,
creative andscholarly integrity

From the above it can be learned that different phrasing is used to indicate each level. The
Tuning experience has learned – as is also shown in the table - that level is indicated bycomplexity and scope.
When developing a measurement instrument it is not only very important to have agreementon the level of mastery or achievement. This level will be expressed in the form of a learning
outcome for that particular competence. That learning outcome, however, will still be rather
general, and therefore it is necessary to break it down in (for example 3) indicators. These
indicators in turn are supported by (for example 5) descriptors or assessment criteria, which
cover the level of attainment. This subdivision is made for each generic and subject area /disciplinary competence to be assessed / measured. Also in this respect, Tuning has
developed examples of good practice. With regard to the generic competences the
publication of Aurelio Villa Sánchez & Manuel Poblete Ruiz, eds., Comptence-basedlearning. A proposal for the assessment of generic competences. Bilbao, 2008 is referred to.
It is is also advised to consult this publication when developing or enhancing an individual
degree programme.

12Conclusion
This paper started with the assumption that the higher education sector is challenged bydynamisms of society, such as globalism and information and communication technologies,
which have raised (global) competition between higher education providers in terms ofoutcomes of achievement and level of appropriateness of what has been learned by its
graduates to serve today’s society/ies.
An analysis of the situation has shown that higher education institutions should take their
responsibility to respond to the needs of society. These needs are most of all well-educatedgraduates which have the knowledge, skills and competences to operate successfully in thatsociety. To educate such graduates a change of paradigm of the educational model in use isrequired, which means in practice a move from a staff-centred approach to a student oriented
approach. This last model implies that stakeholders groups are involved in the design,delivery and enhancement of the quality of degree programmes. It also implies that alanguage is used which is well understood by all parties. Such a language has been
proposed and developed by Tuning, by using the concepts of competences and learning
outcomes. Furthermore, Tuning has outlined a methodology for (re-)designing degree
programmes, and it has developed competences frameworks both at sectoral and subject
area level, against which individual degree programmes can be referenced.
It has been demonstrated in this paper that not only these Tuning competences frameworks
at subject area level (meta-profiles) but also overarching competences frameworks, such as
the Tuning SQFs and the European and National Qualifications Frameworks, are essential
instruments for reforming the higher education sector and its degree programmes. In
particular the Tuning meta-profiles allow for comparison of (the level of) learning. Therefore,
they form the backbone of any instrument for measuring learning at sectoral / subject arealevel in a comparative setting, locally, nationally, regionally and globally. Level descriptors
and indicators as developed by Tuning allow for fair measurement of performance andcomparison of learning.
Why is it important to compare learning achievements of programmes and systems withanother? It will first and foremost show us their relative strengths and weaknesses. This isimportant information in today’s world, which requires transparency and accountability. It willoffer the precise data to enhance degree programmes in a sophisticated way, by allowing us
to focus on its weaker elements. When the performance indicators are linked - as part of theassessment instruments - to civil and employment needs and requirements, it will also makeit possible to tailor the programmes better to those. However, it has to be stressed that
according to Tuning, higher education institutions and their academics should remain
responsible for content and form of their higher education programmes. Nevertheless,serving society best is a role of academics for which they can and should take full
responsibility as the Tuning experience has shown us. The new approach as explained inthis paper, will allow academia to show what high quality programmes are. It also allows toprove that it is doing its job well.

13