The Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) is seeking opinions on the draft Circular on articulation between vocational high schools, intermediate schools, colleges and universities.
One of the contents in the draft being consulted is "proposing that learners at higher levels can articulate to complete programs at lower levels according to learning needs, careers and the requirements of the labor market".
New proposal to protect the rights of learners
Clarifying this content, Prof. Dr. Nguyen Tien Thao, Director of the Higher Education Department - Ministry of Education and Training, said that the goal of this proposal is to protect the legitimate rights of learners, reduce waste in training and create conditions for lifelong learning.
According to Mr. Thao, in modern education, learners can study in many environments, many programs and many different times suitable for their needs and aspirations.
In fact, many people have a need to return to study after many years of working, learn more vocational certificates, learn technical programs or practice in new fields, switch between professions, accumulate learning results in each stage... Therefore, if a module has been assessed as meeting standards, there needs to be a mechanism for recognition, preservation and reasonable use, instead of forcing learners to retake the same content" - Prof. Dr. Nguyen Tien Thao analyzed.
Mr. Thao believes that this approach is in line with international trends in credit recognition and learning outcome recognition, saving time and costs for learners, while encouraging lifelong learning, flexible learning and shifting between learning - career paths. Especially, in the context of digital transformation, digital learning records, credit data and quality assurance systems allow the recognition of learning outcomes to be transparent, based and post-inspected.
Mr. Thao affirmed that the draft does not design a training stream from high level to low level, nor does it encourage learners who are studying at a higher level to switch to studying at a lower level as a training trend. The core issue here is to recognize the accumulated learning results, so that learners can use the knowledge and skills that have been assessed as meeting standards in a learning roadmap that is more suitable for personal conditions, professional needs or job positions.
Giving an example, Mr. Thao analyzed: A student has completed some basic modules of the major at the university level but has not completed the university-level training program and then switches to studying a college program suitable for immediate career needs.
Reduce re-study, save study time
The draft Circular proposes that training institutions may consider exempting some equivalent modules, but learners must still be admitted or meet the input conditions of the program, still have to complete the missing modules, practice, internship and output standards of the college program before being granted a degree.
Thus, this is a mechanism to recognize learning outcomes, reduce re-study of equivalent content, thereby saving learning time but still having to complete the output standards of the program" - Mr. Thao stated, while affirming that credit recognition does not mean relaxing standards. Conversely, this regulation requires training institutions to compare more carefully about output standards, learning content, learning volume, evaluation conditions and accountability.
The draft Circular is in the process of being consulted. When the Circular is issued, training institutions must issue specific regulations on articulation training and recognition of learning results; publicize input conditions, conditions for recognition of modules, maximum credit ratio considered for recognition, responsibility of professional councils and input requirements of learners.
The recognition is not carried out on a large scale, not automatically and not only based on the name of the module. Each case must be considered based on academic records, module outlines, credit volume, duration, professional content, evaluation methods and output standards.
The training institution is responsible for the quality of the recognition decision; the learner is responsible for completing the remaining requirements of the training program. This mechanism needs to be linked to digital learning records, credit data and educational databases to serve storage, verification, post-inspection, inspection, examination and training quality assessment.
