International TVET Methodology Orientation Resource

Section 2

Competence formation

Competence is more than knowing about an occupation. It is the proven ability to act capably, responsibly and to a recognised standard in real working situations. This section sets out what competence comprises and how it is built — an understanding methodologically grounded in German dual vocational education and drawing on German and Swiss vocational education principles, adapted for international TVET implementation.

In everyday use, training is sometimes equated with the transmission of knowledge: a learner is told facts and procedures and is expected to remember them. Occupational competence works differently. A competent worker not only knows what to do but can do it reliably, decide sensibly when conditions change, take responsibility for the outcome, and explain the reasoning behind a choice. Knowledge is necessary but never sufficient. Competence is demonstrated through action in realistic conditions and is judged against the standards a workplace and a national qualification system expect.

For this reason it is helpful to describe competence as a combination of several dimensions that develop together. The three descriptor dimensions used throughout this resource — knowledge; skills; and responsibility and autonomy — provide the overarching frame. Within and around them sit the more specific capacities listed below. None stands alone; an experienced practitioner draws on all of them at once.

The dimensions of competence

The cards below set out the capacities that, taken together, make up occupational competence. They are descriptive aids for planning and conversation, not levels and not formal classifications.

These dimensions describe what a competent worker can do; they do not assign or imply any national or comparative qualification level.

How competence forms

Competence is not delivered in a single lesson. It builds over time through a repeatable sequence of activities, each of which contributes something the others cannot. The eight steps below describe that process. In practice they form a loop: a learner moves through them more than once, with each pass set in a more demanding situation, until performance is dependable enough for assessment and transfer to the workplace.

1. Realistic occupational situations. Learning starts from a task that resembles real work — a genuine order, fault, product or client need — so that what is learned is anchored in practice rather than abstraction.
2. Guided instruction. A trainer or instructor explains and demonstrates the underlying knowledge and the correct method, making expectations and safety requirements explicit.
3. Practice. The learner carries out the task, repeatedly and with increasing independence, building the practical skill and the confidence that only doing brings.
4. Feedback. The trainer and, where relevant, workplace colleagues observe performance and give specific, timely guidance on what was done well and what to improve.
5. Reflection. The learner reviews their own performance, identifies why something worked or failed, and consolidates the judgement that turns a procedure into competence.
6. Evidence. Outputs, observations and records are gathered — products made, tasks logged, situations handled — so that learning can be shown rather than assumed.
7. Assessment. Competence is judged against a defined standard by qualified assessors, confirming that the learner can act reliably and to the required quality.
8. Workplace transfer. The proven competence is applied in ongoing real work, where it is reinforced, broadened and kept current under genuine conditions.

How to read this: Start at the top with a realistic occupational situation and move clockwise. Reflection and the gathering of evidence sit together at the foot of the cycle; assessment confirms competence against a defined standard before workplace transfer carries it into real work — which in turn opens new, more demanding situations and the loop begins again.

Section 4

Learning fields and occupational action situations

How methodologically grounded vocational education moves curriculum away from lists of separate subjects and toward the real tasks a competent person performs at work. This is the organising idea behind the learning-field (Lernfeld) approach, drawing on German and Swiss vocational education principles and adapted for international TVET implementation.

In many education systems a programme is described as a list of subjects: accounting, business law, human resources, mathematics, and so on. Each subject is taught, examined and graded on its own. The learner can pass every subject and still struggle on the first day of work, because real occupational tasks do not arrive labelled by subject. A supervisor does not ask an employee to "do some accounting" and then, separately, "do some law"; the supervisor asks the employee to decide whether the enterprise can afford a new order, or to bring a new colleague safely into the team. Each such task draws on several subjects at once. The learning-field approach reorganises the curriculum around exactly these realistic, recurring work tasks.

What a learning field is

A learning field (Lernfeld) is a structured unit of teaching and learning built around a coherent area of professional activity rather than around an academic discipline. Instead of "Accounting I", a learning field might be "Planning and monitoring the finances of a small enterprise". The field names the area of work, sets out the competences a learner should be able to demonstrate, and pulls in whatever knowledge, skills, and judgement that area genuinely requires. Several learning fields together describe a whole occupation, and they are sequenced so that competence deepens over time.

Occupational action situations

Inside each learning field, learning is anchored in occupational action situations — concrete, realistic scenarios taken from the world of work. An action situation describes a problem a competent worker would actually face, with enough detail that the learner must plan an approach, carry it out, and review the result. The learner does not merely recall facts; the learner acts. This is why the approach is sometimes described as competence-based: the target is not "knowing about" a topic but being able to perform responsibly in a defined situation, exercising the three descriptor dimensions of knowledge; skills; and responsibility and autonomy.

Because real tasks are interdisciplinary by nature, this design produces interdisciplinary, problem-based learning almost automatically. The starting point is a problem to be solved, not a chapter to be covered. Subject knowledge is still taught — and taught rigorously — but it is introduced when the situation calls for it and is immediately put to use. Learners see why a concept matters, which improves both motivation and retention.

From subject lists to occupational performance

The table below contrasts the two ways of organising the same content. The point is not that subjects disappear, but that they are recombined around what the learner must be able to do.

How to read this: Each row uses the same body of knowledge. The left column tests recall in isolation; the right column places that knowledge inside a task the learner could meet on the job, where several competences must be combined and a defensible decision produced.

A worked occupational action situation

The example below shows how a single realistic scenario becomes the spine of a learning field, integrating many subjects through one connected task. Notice that each strand is defined by what the learner actually does.

Why this matters for institutional partners

For ministries, TVET authorities, national training institutes, colleges, and employer bodies, the learning-field approach offers a practical bridge between training and work. Curricula expressed as occupational action situations are easier for employers to recognise, because they mirror real job tasks; they make work-based and classroom learning reinforce one another; and they describe competence in the shared language of knowledge, skills, and responsibility and autonomy. The structure is methodologically grounded in German dual vocational education and adapted for local contexts — it informs curriculum design and confers no recognition of its own. As always, the content, levelling, and admission of any resulting qualification rest with the competent national authorities, who remain the sovereign foundation of the qualification system.

Section 6

Learning-location cooperation

High-quality vocational education is produced not in one place but across several — a classroom, a workshop, a real workplace, an assessment setting. Methodologically grounded in German dual vocational education, this section explains how those learning locations and the people who staff them work together, where cooperation typically breaks down, and how clear roles and reliable information flow keep the whole system coherent.

Why cooperation across learning locations matters

In a dual or work-integrated model, a learner moves between distinct environments. A school or training institute teaches underpinning theory; a training centre or workshop builds foundational practical skills under controlled conditions; a real workplace develops applied competence and professional behaviour; and an assessment setting confirms what the learner can actually do. Each environment is valuable, but none is sufficient alone. The educational benefit comes from the connection between them — when what is taught in theory is reinforced in the workshop, applied at the workplace, and finally demonstrated in assessment. When these locations operate in isolation, the learner experiences a fragmented programme: topics that never meet practice, practice that no instructor ever observes, and evidence that no assessor can trust.

Cooperation is therefore not an administrative courtesy. It is the mechanism that turns separate inputs into a single, comparable learning outcome — described consistently in terms of knowledge; skills; and responsibility and autonomy. The competent national authority remains the foundation of the whole arrangement: it is the authority that recognises programmes and issues credentials, while the cooperating partners supply the teaching, supervision and evidence that make recognition meaningful.

The people and bodies involved

Several roles recur across almost every TVET system, even where the titles differ:

• Institution (school, college, national training institute): owns the curriculum, organises theory and coordinates the overall programme.
• Vocational teacher / instructor: delivers theory and structured practice, and links classroom content to workplace tasks.
• Workplace and workplace mentor: provides the real working environment, supervises day-to-day practice and confirms what the learner did on the job.
• Learner: the person moving between locations, responsible for keeping a record of tasks performed and evidence gathered.
• External assessor: judges demonstrated competence against agreed standards, independently of those who delivered the training.
• Sector body, chamber and competent authority: define standards, quality-assure the system and, in the case of the authority, recognise programmes and issue credentials.

How to read this: Read left to right as the learner's journey — curriculum to theory to practice to evidence to assessed competence to issued credential. The dashed line shows the loop closing: recognition decisions and sector standards return to the institution, so the next cohort's curriculum reflects what the system requires.

Where cooperation typically breaks down

Most failures are not failures of goodwill; they are failures of clarity and information flow. Common breakdowns include:

• Theory and practice drift apart. The workshop teaches one method while the workplace uses another, and no one reconciles them.
• Unobserved workplace learning. The learner performs real tasks, but the mentor keeps no record, so the evidence cannot be confirmed later.
• Silent handovers. The institution assumes the workplace is covering a topic; the workplace assumes the institution did. Gaps appear only at assessment.
• Assessor surprises. The external assessor applies a standard the trainers never saw, and learners are tested on competences they were never structured to build.
• One-directional communication. Instructions flow out to the workplace, but no feedback flows back, so problems are discovered too late to fix.

Information flow, shared expectations and feedback loops

Reliable cooperation depends on a small number of disciplined habits. Partners should agree, in writing and in advance, what each location is responsible for and how the learner will be supervised. Workplace evidence — the record of tasks performed, supervised and confirmed by the mentor — should be captured as it happens, not reconstructed before assessment. Trainer communication should run in both directions: the instructor tells the workplace what theory has been covered, and the mentor tells the instructor how the learner is performing in real conditions. Feedback loops then close the system: assessment results and employer observations return to the institution so the curriculum can be adjusted, and sector bodies and chambers feed evolving standards back into the programme. None of this changes where authority sits — recognition, levelling and admission rest with competent national authorities — but it ensures the evidence those authorities rely on is sound.

A shared responsibility matrix

Agreeing roles verbally is rarely enough. A simple matrix, signed by all partners, removes ambiguity and gives every party a reference point when questions arise. The table below shows an indicative pattern; the exact allocation is decided locally, and any role touching recognition or the issuing of credentials remains with the competent national authority.

Indicative only. The allocation of roles is determined by the cooperating partners and the competent national authority; this matrix illustrates a typical division of labour and creates no formal recognition.

Section 8

Assessment, evidence and portfolio logic

In an evidence-based methodology, a judgement about competence is only as sound as the evidence that supports it. This section explains how learning is assessed, what counts as evidence, and how that evidence is gathered, recorded and assembled into a portfolio. It describes the methodological approach that IFP-LATAM applies; the formal assessment, certification and recognition of qualifications remain with the competent national authorities.

Why evidence-based assessment matters

Competence is not directly observable. What can be observed is performance — what a learner says, writes, makes, demonstrates and decides. Evidence-based assessment treats every judgement as a claim that must be backed by collected evidence, gathered against transparent criteria and recorded so that it can be reviewed. This protects learners (a result reflects what they actually did), assessors (decisions are defensible) and partner institutions (results are consistent and auditable). The approach is methodologically grounded in German dual vocational education and draws on German and Swiss vocational education principles, adapted for international TVET implementation.

Two purposes: formative and summative

Methods that generate evidence

No single method captures competence on its own. A robust assessment design combines several methods so that strengths of one offset the limits of another. The methods below are complementary instruments, selected according to what is being assessed.

• Workplace demonstration — the learner performs a real task in a genuine work setting; strong evidence of authentic capability.
• Simulation — a controlled re-creation of a work situation, used where real conditions would be unsafe, costly or rare.
• Observation records — the assessor's dated, criterion-referenced notes on what was seen during demonstration or simulation.
• Project evidence — outputs from an extended, multi-step task that shows planning, execution and review over time.
• Practical tasks — discrete, bounded performances that isolate a specific skill under defined conditions.
• Written reflection — the learner's own account of choices made, problems met and lessons drawn, evidencing self-awareness and judgement.
• Structured interviews — a planned set of questions that probe underlying knowledge and the reasoning behind a performance.
• RPL evidence — for recognition of prior learning, evidence of competence already held (work products, references, testimonials) assembled and verified against the same criteria.

Assessment rubrics

A rubric makes the criteria explicit before assessment begins. It states what is being judged, describes performance at each level in observable terms, and is shared with learners in advance. Rubrics make judgements consistent between assessors and across time, turn feedback into something specific and actionable, and give partner institutions a transparent basis for quality assurance. Every summative judgement in this methodology references a rubric.

Portfolio logic

A portfolio is the organised collection of evidence that, taken together, supports a judgement of competence. Rather than resting on a single moment, it assembles workplace demonstrations, observation records, project outputs, written reflections and interview notes into one reviewable whole. Good portfolio evidence is valid (it relates to the criteria), authentic (it is the learner's own work), current (it reflects present capability) and sufficient (there is enough of it to be confident). The portfolio is what makes an assessment decision auditable after the fact.

The three dimensions of evidence

Across all of these methods, sound evidence speaks to three distinct questions. The descriptor logic IFP-LATAM applies — used only as an indicative comparison tool, assigning no levels and conferring no recognition — frames competence along the same three dimensions: knowledge; skills; and responsibility and autonomy. The evidence triangle below shows why all three corners matter: a learner may know a procedure, may be able to do it under guidance, and may be able to do it independently and responsibly — and assessment needs evidence at each corner.

How to read this: Each corner answers a different question. Knowledge alone does not prove a learner can perform; performance under close guidance does not prove they can act responsibly on their own. Assessment is designed so that evidence is collected at every corner.

Mapping to the IFP-LATAM Exercise & Practice Tool

These three dimensions are reflected directly in the difficulty levels of the existing IFP-LATAM Exercise & Practice Tool. Each level targets a deeper layer of competence, moving from recalling knowledge, to applying it, to transferring it across complex situations.

How to read this: The tool is a practice and formative instrument. It helps learners build evidence across the three dimensions before any summative judgement; it does not itself certify, level or recognise a qualification.

Section 10

Micro-credentials as competence signals

Micro-credentials are assessed records of small, defined volumes of learning. In this methodology they are used as competence signals and complementary partial credentials — they make specific competences visible and verifiable, and they sit on top of a national qualification without replacing, re-levelling or revaluing it.

Naming

To keep the signal clear and avoid any misreading as a recognised level, the credential uses a careful name:

The name does not place “EQF” next to “badge”, and no badge is presented as an EQF-issued or EQF-recognised credential.

What this is / what this is not

Section 12

Descriptor-based comparison and qualification frameworks

This methodology uses the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) only as descriptor logic — a widely understood way to describe competence. It is used to compare and to make competence readable, never to assign a level or to confer recognition.

Three descriptor dimensions

Competence is described against three dimensions that institutions across many systems already recognise:

Comparison is useful — but it is not recognition

Describing learning outcomes against these dimensions lets partners compare an occupational profile to descriptor expectations, identify gaps and design bridging. The comparison is graded honestly (for example: substantial, good, partial or short overlap) and is always presented as a comparison, never asserted as an assigned level. Across the qualification systems examined in IFP-LATAM’s analysis, the assignment of a level is a reserved act of a national authority. IFP-LATAM therefore documents readiness against descriptor expectations; it does not perform levelling.

Section 14

Implementation pathway for partners

A practical, step-by-step route for translating the methodology into a working programme. The pathway is methodologically grounded in German dual vocational education and adapted for international TVET implementation. Every step keeps the national qualification system as the sovereign foundation: recognition, levelling and admission remain with the competent national authorities, and IFP-LATAM provides methodological support only.

The pathway below is designed to be entered at whatever point fits a partner's current situation. A ministry, a sector skills council or a single TVET college can begin with a narrow occupational field, build confidence through a pilot cohort, and then decide independently whether and how to scale. Nothing in this sequence assigns qualification levels, confers recognition, or replaces an existing national curriculum; it organises method, evidence and cooperation so that the partner's own system is strengthened.

Twelve steps from occupational field to scale

1. Understand the occupational field. Describe the real work — the typical tasks, tools, settings and standards an experienced worker is expected to handle. This anchors everything that follows in actual practice rather than in topic lists.
2. Map the existing national qualification or curriculum. Lay out what the national system already defines for the occupation, including official standards and assessment rules. The national framework is the reference point; the work that follows is complementary.
3. Identify competence gaps. Compare the occupational field against the current curriculum to see where practice has moved ahead, where employer needs are unmet, and where evidence of competence is thin.
4. Define occupational action situations. Express the work as concrete situations a competent person must master — each described through knowledge, skills, and responsibility and autonomy.
5. Build learning fields. Group the action situations into coherent learning fields that organise teaching around whole tasks rather than isolated subjects.
6. Train instructors. Prepare teaching and workshop staff in the action-oriented method, in facilitating learning fields, and in fair, evidence-based assessment.
7. Organize workplace cooperation. Establish working relationships with employers, chambers or host enterprises so that part of the learning happens in real work settings, drawing on German and Swiss vocational education principles.
8. Create portfolio evidence. Set up a structured way for learners to collect demonstrable evidence of competence across knowledge, skills, and responsibility and autonomy.
9. Add micro-credentials where useful. Where a discrete competence benefits from a clear marker, issue a micro-credential as a complementary partial credential and competence signal — never a replacement qualification, level or degree.
10. Run a pilot cohort. Deliver the redesigned programme to a small first group, keeping scope deliberately limited so that learning and adjustment are manageable.
11. Review evidence and outcomes. Examine portfolio evidence, instructor observations, employer feedback and learner experience against the intended competences.
12. Scale with quality assurance. Extend the approach with documented quality-assurance routines, keeping decisions on recognition, levelling and admission entirely with the competent national authorities.

IFP-LATAM applies EQF descriptor logic only as an indicative comparison tool to support dialogue. It does not assign EQF or national qualification levels and creates no formal recognition. The descriptor dimensions used throughout — knowledge; skills; responsibility and autonomy — are a shared vocabulary for describing competence, not a levelling instrument.

Maturity stages and how support is offered

Partners enter this pathway at different levels of readiness. The table below sets out common stages, what a partner typically already has at each stage, and the descriptor-based methodological support IFP-LATAM can offer. Support is always advisory and methodological; it never includes assigning levels or granting recognition.

This pathway is a methodological and planning resource. It is not legal advice and does not establish recognition, equivalence or qualification levels. Sovereign decisions on national qualification systems, admission, levelling and recognition rest exclusively with the competent national authorities. IFP-LATAM's role throughout is to support method, evidence and cooperation.

Section 16

Practical tools and matrices

Ten short, reusable instruments that partner teams can use directly in a cooperation meeting, a curriculum workshop or an instructor briefing. Each tool is a working aid only. It supports planning, dialogue and quality reflection; it does not assign levels, confer recognition or replace any decision reserved for competent national authorities. Methodologically, these instruments draw on German and Swiss dual vocational education principles, adapted for international TVET implementation.

How to use this section: open the tool you need, copy the checklist or table into your own working document, and adapt the wording to your national qualification system, sector and language. The descriptor logic used throughout follows the three dimensions of knowledge; skills; and responsibility and autonomy.

1 · Competence Formation Checklist

Use when reviewing whether a learning unit actually forms competence, not only transmits knowledge.

• The unit names a realistic occupational situation the learner must handle.
• Knowledge, skills, and responsibility and autonomy are addressed together, not in isolation.
• The learner acts on a complete task: plan, carry out, check, and reflect.
• Performance is observable and can be described in evidence, not only in a test score.
• The expected standard reflects current workplace practice in the sector.
• Reflection on the learner's own decisions is built into the unit.
• Levelling against any national qualification framework remains a decision for the competent authority.

2 · Occupational Situation Design Template

Use to turn a real work situation into a teachable, assessable scenario.

Element	Guiding question
Situation	What real occupational situation does the learner face?
Trigger	What event or request starts the task?
Action expected	What must the learner plan, carry out and check?
Constraints	What safety, quality, time or cost conditions apply?
Knowledge drawn on	What must the learner understand to act well?
Responsibility	What decisions does the learner own, and within what limits?
Evidence	What visible result shows competent handling?

3 · Work-Process Mapping Template

Use with employers to capture how work is actually done before designing training.

Process step	Capture
Inputs	What materials, information or orders begin the step?
Activities	What does the worker do, in sequence?
Tools and standards	Which tools, norms and quality rules apply?
Decisions	Where does the worker judge, choose or adapt?
Interfaces	Who does the worker hand over to or rely on?
Output	What completed result leaves the step?
Common errors	What typically goes wrong, and how is it caught?

4 · Learning-Field Design Template

Use to organise curriculum around work processes rather than isolated subjects.

• The learning field is named after an occupational area of action, not a school subject.
• It groups related work processes mapped with employers.
• Target competences are stated across knowledge; skills; responsibility and autonomy.
• An indicative time allocation is set and reviewed with practitioners.
• Practical and theoretical learning are integrated within the field, not separated.
• Assessment evidence for the field is defined before delivery begins.
• Sequencing across fields moves from simpler to more complex action situations.

5 · Instructor Role Matrix

Use to clarify how the instructor's role shifts across a learning cycle.

Phase	Instructor role	Learner role
Orientation	Presents the situation and standard	Understands the task
Guided practice	Demonstrates and coaches	Tries with support
Independent action	Observes and steps back	Plans and carries out alone
Checking	Questions and probes	Checks own work
Reflection	Facilitates dialogue	Reflects and improves

6 · Portfolio Evidence Checklist

Use to judge whether a learner portfolio shows competence credibly.

• Each entry links to a defined occupational situation or learning field.
• Evidence is authentic work produced by the learner, with the role made clear.
• The three dimensions are visible: what was known, done, and decided.
• At least one entry shows the learner checking and correcting their own work.
• A short reflection explains choices, not only results.
• Evidence is dated and traceable to the workplace or learning context.
• Any micro-credential included is shown as a complementary partial credential, not a qualification.

7 · RPL Evidence Checklist

Use when preparing evidence for recognition of prior learning. Final recognition rests with the competent national authority.

• The competence claimed is stated in the three descriptor dimensions.
• Evidence is current, sufficient, authentic and relevant to the claim.
• Workplace evidence (products, references, records) supports the claim.
• Gaps against the target standard are identified honestly.
• The candidate can demonstrate the competence on request, not only describe it.
• The portfolio names the national standard it is being mapped against.
• The file is ready for review by the body holding recognition authority; this tool prepares, it does not decide.

8 · Micro-Credential Gap-Closing Matrix

Use to plan how complementary partial credentials close a specific competence gap. Micro-credentials are competence signals, never replacement qualifications, levels or degrees.

Gap	Plan
Target competence	Which work-relevant competence is missing?
Current state	What can the learner already do?
Signal needed	Which competence signal would evidence the gap is closed?
Dimensions	Knowledge; skills; responsibility and autonomy addressed?
Evidence	What observable result confirms the signal?
Relation to qualification	How does it complement, not replace, the national qualification?

9 · Workforce Readability Diagnostic

Use to check how clearly a programme's outcomes can be read and understood by employers, learners and partners. Readability is descriptive clarity only; it assigns no level and confers no recognition.

• Outcomes are written in the three dimensions and in plain occupational language.
• Each outcome ties to a real situation an employer would recognise.
• The expected standard is stated, not implied.
• Evidence of achievement is described, so a third party can interpret it.
• Any indicative comparison uses descriptor logic only, as an orientation tool.
• The national qualification system is named as the sovereign foundation.
• No claim of automatic recognition, equivalence or guaranteed outcome appears.

10 · Partner Readiness Checklist

Use before a first technical cooperation meeting to gauge readiness on both sides.

• The competent national authorities for recognition and levelling are identified.
• The national qualification system and its standards are documented and shared.
• Target occupations and priority sectors are agreed.
• Employer partners willing to map work processes are confirmed.
• Instructor and assessor capacity for a practice-based model is assessed.
• Roles, expectations and the non-recognition principle are understood by all sides.
• A small, realistic pilot scope is proposed for the first phase of cooperation.

Note on use: these tools are methodological aids drawing on German and Swiss vocational education principles, adapted for international TVET implementation. They support planning and dialogue only. They do not assign national or comparative levels, do not confer recognition, and do not replace any decision reserved for competent national authorities. Indicative comparison, where used, applies descriptor logic as an orientation tool and creates no formal recognition.

Section 18

Glossary

Plain institutional definitions of the key terms used in this resource.

Assessment evidence

The collected demonstrations of competence — such as observed performance, work products, records or witness statements — on which an assessment judgement is based.

Assessor

A qualified person who judges whether a learner has demonstrated the required competence against defined criteria, applying agreed evidence rules consistently.

Bridging

A short, targeted programme that helps a learner move from one level of competence or learning location to the next by addressing specific gaps.

Company trainer

A workplace-based practitioner responsible for guiding, supervising and assessing a learner's competence development during workplace learning.

Competence

The proven ability to apply knowledge and skills with appropriate responsibility and autonomy to perform tasks in a real work context.

Competence signal

A small, assessed indication that a person has demonstrated a specific competence; it complements national qualifications and carries no assigned level or formal recognition.

Credential stack

A set of related partial credentials that a learner accumulates over time to evidence a broader profile of competence, without forming a national qualification in itself.

Descriptor-based comparison

An indicative way of relating learning outcomes across contexts by describing them through knowledge, skills, and responsibility and autonomy, rather than by assigning any level.

Dual vocational education

An approach that combines structured learning at a training institution with substantial learning at a real workplace, with both locations sharing responsibility for competence development.

Employability

The combination of competences, attitudes and readiness that helps a person gain, keep and progress in work valued by employers and the labour market.

EQF descriptor logic

A way of describing competence through knowledge, skills, and responsibility and autonomy, used here only as an indicative comparison tool and never to assign a level or confer recognition.

Formative assessment

Assessment carried out during learning to give feedback and guide improvement, without contributing to a final pass or fail decision.

Gap-closing

Focused learning activity designed to address the specific differences between a learner's current competence and the competence a profile requires.

Institutional implementation

The structured adoption of a methodology by an organisation, including governance, roles, processes and quality assurance arrangements suited to its national context.

Instructor

A training-institution practitioner who plans, delivers and supports structured learning, working in cooperation with workplace-based trainers.

Knowledge

The body of facts, principles, theories and practices in a field of work or study that underpins competent action; one of the three descriptor dimensions.

Labour mobility

The capacity of workers to move between roles, employers, sectors or regions; supported by clear competence information but governed by competent national authorities.

Learning field

An organising unit of a curriculum built around a coherent area of occupational action, integrating knowledge and skills rather than separating them into subjects.

Learning outcome

A clear statement of what a learner is expected to know, be able to do, and take responsibility for after completing a learning process.

Learning-location cooperation

The structured coordination between a training institution and a workplace so that classroom and on-the-job learning reinforce one another.

Learning unit

A self-contained part of a programme covering a coherent set of learning outcomes that can be taught and assessed together.

Master trainer

An experienced practitioner who trains, supports and mentors other instructors and company trainers and helps maintain consistent training quality.

Micro-credential

A small assessed competence signal that complements national qualifications, carries no assigned level, and serves as a complementary partial credential rather than a replacement qualification.

Moderation

The process of checking that different assessors apply the same standards consistently, so that judgements are fair, comparable and reliable.

National qualification

A qualification defined, awarded or recognised under the authority of a country's competent bodies, forming the sovereign foundation for recognition and admission.

National qualification framework (NQF)

A nationally owned structure that classifies qualifications by agreed levels and descriptors; levelling and recognition within it rest with competent national authorities.

Occupational action situation

A realistic work situation, with its tasks, conditions and demands, used as the reference point for designing learning and assessment.

Occupational profile

A structured description of the typical tasks, competences and responsibilities associated with an occupation, used to guide curricula and assessment.

Partial credential

A complementary credential evidencing a defined part of a wider competence area; it supports pathways but is not a national qualification, level or degree.

Pilot cohort

A first, limited group of learners through which a programme is tested and refined before wider rollout.

Portfolio

An organised collection of a learner's work and records that evidences competence development over time and supports assessment.

Qualification

A formal outcome of an assessment and validation process, awarded when a person has achieved learning outcomes to agreed standards.

Quality assurance

The planned arrangements and checks that keep training design, delivery and assessment consistent, fair and fit for purpose.

Recognition of prior learning (RPL)

The documenting and assessing of learning a person already has, to support pathways where a competent authority accepts it; recognition remains a decision for that authority.

Responsibility and autonomy

The degree of independence, accountability and oversight a person exercises in applying knowledge and skills; one of the three descriptor dimensions.

Skill

The ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to carry out tasks and solve problems; one of the three descriptor dimensions.

Summative assessment

Assessment carried out at the end of a learning process to decide whether the required competence has been achieved.

Three descriptor dimensions

The three lenses used to describe competence — knowledge; skills; and responsibility and autonomy — applied here only for indicative comparison.

TVET

Technical and Vocational Education and Training: education and training that prepares people for skilled occupations and the world of work.

Work-process orientation

Designing learning around complete, realistic work processes — planning, carrying out and reviewing tasks — rather than isolated theoretical topics.

Workforce readability

The clarity with which a person's competences are described so that employers and institutions can understand them, without implying any assigned level or recognition.

Workforce readiness

The state of having the competences, attitudes and practical preparation needed to perform effectively in a real work environment.

Workplace learning

Structured learning that takes place at a real workplace, where the learner develops competence through guided, productive work.