Вестник ТГПУ им Л.Н. Толстого №3 2005

№ 3,2005 ВЕСТНИК ТГПУ им. Л. Н. Толстого Theoretical issues Behaviourist discourse eschews the term ‘mental processes’ in favour of a discourse about the organism’s behaviour which will be similar in both humans and animals. However, in the West, the intellectual climate is swinging away from Behaviourism to an interest in cognitive processes. Constructivism claims that learning is an adaptive process where learners construct their own meaning by accommodating new material to pre-existing mental constructs. For example, a physics student who already has a mental construct of the idea of conservation of energy in the case of heat energy will be able to accommodate new examples of energy conservation in the case of electrical or nuclear energy. Teachers cannot specify or prescribe meaning, they can only facilitate it. The question can be raised as to whether all outcomes can be predetermined, and what is the freedom of individuals to choose their own outcomes? For example, how can outcomes in relation to creativity or originality be specified, and how can learning outcomes capture unforeseen learning? (Jessup, 1991, p. 128). Political and implementation issues Most apparent in the NQF frameworks to date is the tension that arises between central control and institutional autonomy as shown in the New Zealand example. It raises the issue of whose interests are best served by these frameworks. The regulatory state, the economic world, the learner, and the institution all have a legitimate and sometimes conflicting interest in the operation of a national qualification framework. As the state takes on amore regulatory function it is natural that higher education as a marketable and public good should increasingly be regulated in the interest of transparency and accountability. Another major stakeholder is the learner because frameworks provide opportunities for progression and 'upskiiling'. The main loss arising from the imposition of frameworks is likely to be in institutional autonomy. One political problem raised by NQFs relates to the threshold levels of performance in the achievement of learning outcomes, which allow entry to the next framework level. This is counter to the traditional modei where entry to an advanced qualification required a pass at a high grade to progress from a diploma to a degree or from an undergraduate degree to a Master’s degree. These traditional ‘levels’ acted as barriers or gates to the next level. How'ever, learning outcomes, set at threshold levels, stipulate the minimum acceptable standard performance. They have been seen as part of a process of ‘dumbing down’ which does not recognise or reward excellence. In that sense modem NQF levels clearly act as stepping-stones rather than as gates to progression. Although there is a perceived lowering of standards associated with threshold levels of performance at the expense of the meritocratic traditions of higher education, these frameworks may contribute to an opening up of educational ppportunities to all citizens. Young (2003, p. 230) refers to ‘pathologies of implementation’ in relation to some practical issues surrounding the introduction of national qualification frameworks. There can be ambiguity in the horizontal relation between levels and the equivalences between levels when higher education and vocational framework systems are in operation simultaneously. For example, there may be confusion about the levels at which Bachelor’s degree programmes should be pitched if degrees are awarded for both vocational and academic study. The university ab initio Bachelor’s degree is still perceived as the ‘gold standard’. Degrees earned in cumulative fashion by building on lower level qualifications have been perceived as sub­ standard imitations. These degrees tend to be awarded for vocational study. The coexistence of these two types has led in some countries, like Ireland, to a lack of parity of esteem between the two types of awards, and a resulting ‘status anxiety’ especially in the vocational institutions operating the ‘add-on’ system. Such status anxieties and reversion to ‘ab initio’ awards with no intermediate levels threaten to undermine the integrity of the qualification framework. In reality, the ‘add-on’ system is more flexible and student friendly and contributes to the concept of progression and frameworks. It is noteworthy that countries like the UK which did