International mutual recognition of vocational education learning outcomes: Proposal and practice in China

International efforts on the mutual recognition of TVET learning outcomes

The relationship between globalization and the mutual recognition of TVET learning outcomes has been documented in various theoretical and empirical studies. For example, some scholars have pointed out that the intensification of globalization in recent decades has progressively promoted connections between countries, thereby generating new demands in the field of vocational education (Acharya, 2023; Spoettl & Loose, 2015). More specifically, Tran and Dempsey (2017) argued that globalization has been a significant driving force for the internationalization of TVET, amplifying the need to recognize skill qualifications in foreign countries. Similarly, Mcauliffe and Khadria (2019), who used global migration statistics in 2020 as bases for their analysis, asserted that the recognition of vocational education qualifications has become a globally urgent problem due to increased migrant populations and the critical roles of qualifications in helping immigrants access employment opportunities and achieve professional success.

The attempts of international organizations to address the recognition of immigrants' skill qualifications have been analyzed (Brockmann et al., 2009; Maurer, 2021; Méhaut & Winch, 2011) because of their indispensability in advancing such acknowledgment across borders. Global institutions have implemented initiatives that have profoundly affected the recognition of immigrants' competencies and credentials, albeit additional measures are necessary (Brockmann et al., 2009; Wei & Zeng, 2025). A project that has drawn considerable attention is the World Reference Levels (WRL) established by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) given the involvement of a strong policy advisory role for national governments (Bray, 2014).

UNESCO initiated the WRL project in the hope of clearly defining the qualifications that can satisfy the newly emerging needs of the global labor market and address challenges pertaining to the recognition of immigrants' skills and qualifications (Cedefop, 2019). UNESCO reported that the development of the WRL dates back to the third TVET International Conference held in Shanghai in 2012, during which the Shanghai Consensus was issued to establish a framework for regulating the construction of learning outcome-based qualification certification systems and facilitating the mutual recognition of TVET qualifications. After a series of seminars, symposia, and discussions, June 2017 saw the development of a WRL model that comprises 11 competency elements, 8 levels of progression, and 51 indicators of achievement. In 2023, the WRL project advanced to the stage of supplementing a necessary tool for both practical implementation and the assessment of its real-world effects (UNESCO, 2023). The model stimulated strong interest in the mutual recognition of TVET learning outcomes in academia, but only some parts of the content of such a model have been openly released to date, thus preventing the WRL from effectively benefitting endeavors devoted to the aforementioned recognition.

Regional efforts on the mutual recognition of TVET learning outcomes

The mutual recognition of TVET qualifications has been central to research on and the implementation of regional qualifications frameworks. According to the Global Inventory of Regional and National Qualifications Frameworks (NQFs; Cedefop, 2019), seven such frames of reference at the regional level have been established worldwide, including the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), the Qualifications Reference Framework of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the Pacific Qualifications Framework. Such frames of reference lend themselves well to the recognition of the TVET qualifications of neighboring countries (Shen, 2017), yet there is a lack of cross-border coordination mechanisms, which leads to insufficient resource support, slow response to changes in skill demands, and inferior results in mutual recognition. In short, many flaws plague the development and use of regional qualifications frameworks as guidelines for mutually acknowledging TVET learning outcomes.

Of the abovementioned regional frameworks, the EQF for the reciprocal recognition of cross-border workers' qualifications has provoked notable responses from both policymakers and researchers for its functions and significant achievements (Bohlinger, 2019; Young, 2008). Elken (2015), for instance, pointed out that the EQF is an international mechanism for the regional mutual acknowledgment of lifelong learning qualifications. Its purpose is to establish a common reference standard for such validation grounded in respect for the diversity of qualification systems in EU member states (Europass, 2020).

As a supplementary yet essential component of the EQF, the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) has been examined for its rationales, mechanisms, functions, and effects (Du, 2011; Sun et al., 2013; Sun & Feng, 2019; Wang et al., 2012). The ECVET was established, according to the European Union, to break down barriers to the delivery of vocational education by member states and to promote the mobility of learners as well as the reciprocal recognition of skills and qualifications (Cedefop, 2009). Its credit transfer and accumulation process centers on learning outcomes, as indicated in documents related to ECVET operation (Sun & Feng, 2019). The presence of unified standards is indispensable to credit transfer from one situation to another to ensure the validity and reliability of the transferring result (Sun & Feng, 2019). The ECVET's quality assurance mechanism is key to ensuring the comparability of TVET curriculum content and evaluation benchmarks across countries and institutions. Nevertheless, although its functions and successes have been widely acknowledged by both researchers and policymakers, its use in many countries, including some European nations, is significantly influenced by differences in cultures and educational institutions (Du, 2011). Hence, the ECVET presents intrinsic problems for the mutual recognition of TVET learning outcomes in non-EU countries.

Existing efforts extended at the international and regional levels illustrate that even though many lessons can be borrowed from projects such as the WRL and ECVET, a framework for the international mutual recognition of TVET learning outcomes remains lacking.

International Vocational Education Levels (IVEL)

The IVEL proposed in this scheme references the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), the WRL, regional qualification frameworks such as the EQF, relevant NQFs, and the implementation details of typical vocational education systems. The IVEL contain four levels. As most countries and regions in the world have widely established vocational education at the secondary level, the IVEL framework uses secondary-level vocational education as a baseline. Defined by the skill/ability development degree, it sets out from the IVEL 1, and rising to Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 (Table 1).

Instead of pursuing the establishment of a universally applicable international qualification framework, the scheme focuses on the vocational education level hierarchies shared by most countries—analogous to the "greatest common factor" in mathematics. It prioritizes in-school students and other young job seekers, aiming to enhance the convenience of its promotion and implementation across different countries.

Conceptually, the content of the IVEL is designed on three dimensions (Table 2). Specifically, the academic qualification dimension of the first level of IVEL stipulated that it is equivalent to vocational education at the secondary education level, mainly corresponding to Level 3 of the ISCED, and can be downwardly compatible with vocational education at Level 2 of ISCED. The skill dimension defines that it corresponds to Level A of the WRL. The description of WRL Level A corresponding to this IVEL level is "Level A: Covers the essential requirements of modern society, learning and work (functional literacy, numeracy, use of information and communication technology, general knowledge), extending to the competencies associated with basic learning and simple work roles". With respect to the learning types, it may include primary vocational education schools, secondary vocational education schools, vocational senior high schools, and comprehensive senior high schools that provide vocational education.

With respect to the IVEL 2, in terms of educational qualification, this level corresponds to the fourth level of ISCED system, which is post-secondary non-tertiary education. In the meantime, the level can be downwardly compatible with vocational school education at the upper secondary level. In terms of skill dimension, it corresponds to WRL Level B. The description of WRL Level B is as follows: "At the academic level, it ranges in academic terms from the kinds of outcomes typically set for the end of compulsory education to the kind of outcomes typically associated with entry to tertiary or higher education studies. In work terms, it ranges from the capabilities required to carry out relatively independent, but routine, work roles to skilled work and supervisory roles". With regard to educational types, it covers apprenticeships, enterprise-based vocational education, and technical education in the workplace, rather than predominantly in schools.

With respect to the IVEL 3, in terms of academic qualification, this level is equivalent to higher education at the junior college level (associate degree level), corresponding to Level 5 of the ISCED. In terms of skills, it corresponds to Level C of the WRL. The description of WRL Level C is as follows: "Level C is characterised by the capabilities associated with the first cycle of tertiary or higher education, or the work roles of para-professionals, junior professionals, specialists and managers". In terms of learning types, it includes higher-level apprenticeships, advanced technical education, and other vocational education delivered primarily at the workplace. It also covers specialized institutions and community colleges established in some countries that provide higher vocational education.

With respect to the IVEL 4, in terms of academic qualification, this level is equivalent to higher education at the bachelor's degree level, corresponding to Level 6 of the ISCED. It is upwardly compatible with professional degree education at ISCED Level 7. In terms of skills, it corresponds to Level D of the WRL. The description of WRL Level D is as follows: "Level D is characterised by advanced intellectual and occupational capabilities. It includes outcomes associated with the second and third cycles of higher education, and the activities and responsibilities of independent specialists, technologists, analysts, and executives with extensive and/or strategic responsibilities". In terms of learning types, it covers specialized institutions that offer undergraduate-level vocational education, such as vocational undergraduate universities in China and Senmonshoku Daigaku (Specialist Universities) in Japan. It also includes Universities of Applied Sciences, Polytechnic Institutes, and certain programs in comprehensive universities. Additionally, it encompasses degree apprenticeships and technician education programs in some countries—forms of vocational education primarily delivered at the workplace.

Taxonomy of objectives for international vocational education

As a system of theoretical indicators, the taxonomy of objectives is crucial for advancing the global mutual recognition of TVET learning outcomes due to its functions in specifying the eventual ends of education and guiding the process of reciprocal acknowledgment. In international vocational education, the taxonomy lays the foundation for the development of TVET standards, but it cannot be borrowed directly from existing taxonomy frameworks because these fail to capture the nature and characteristics of TVET. Nevertheless, valuable lessons can be learned for the construction of a new taxonomy from some widely used schemas, especially Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), the Taxonomy of Objectives for Competency-Based Education (Thackaberry, 2017), the Taxonomy of Objectives for the Qualification Framework, and the Taxonomy of Objectives for WRL (Cedefop, 2019). These systems served as reference in the formulation of a new taxonomy of vocational education objectives under the IMRVELO.

The IMRVELO taxonomy divides learning objectives into three broad domains, namely foundational, operational, and developmental competencies. Foundational competencies refer to the basic literacy, fundamental knowledge, and general skills required for learners to engage in specific vocational activities. This domain encompasses basic vocational literacy and professional competence, which can be subdivided into ethical and professional awareness, professional behavior, knowledge foundation, and skill application at the third level of the IMRVELO structure. Operational competencies pertain to the vocational-related abilities that learners must possess when completing the key work tasks specified by a job responsibility. This domain covers three second-level indicators, namely work preparation, work execution, and work adaptation. Finally, developmental competencies denote socioemotional and advanced cognitive abilities that learners need for career development and success. This dimension comprises three second-level indicators, namely personal, interpersonal, and innovative competencies. The structure of the IMRVELO taxonomy of objectives is presented in Table 3. Guided by such a taxonomy, TVET teachers can develop curriculum resources, organize teaching activities, and carry out educational assessments.

Classification of international vocational education standards

Developed from the IVEL system, the level descriptors, and the objectives taxonomy, the "international vocational education standard classification" refers to a set of normative terminologies regulating the statements of standards established in each work fields. Given the distribution of taxonomy indicators across three levels, there are corresponding statements detailing each indicator. Such statements are defined by the level descriptors, so they have commonalities in terms of dimension and changes in degree according to the IVEL system, with demands for higher abilities growing level by level.

Specifically, the rules underlying level 1 stipulate what values, knowledge, skills, and abilities an individual must be equipped with to complete routine tasks under guidance. The rules governing level 2 indicate what is needed for a person to complete common work tasks independently. Level 3 identifies the values, knowledge, skills, and abilities required for an individual to implement work tasks of greater difficulty and complexity independently. The rules of level 4 specify the requirements for undertaking responsibilities and realizing achievements as a team leader. By referring to the detailed coverage of the standard classifications, researchers and practitioners can develop a system of standards in a certain work field by integrating it with specific real-world demands.

Framework for international vocational education curricula

To construct course models for participating institutions and provide curriculum resources for individuals, we developed IMRVELO in a way that allows for the design of a curriculum framework, laying a solid foundation for the global mutual recognition of TVET learning outcomes. This framework defines the course types, course levels, course categories, the required number of curricula, recommended credits, and study hours that TVET institutions should implement. It can also help researchers and practitioners develop course resources and enact credit transfers.

The IMRVELO curriculum framework endorses two types of courses. The primary type, called the standard course, is that developed while strictly following the classification of international vocational education standards. Its level and credits conferred in a standard course are fixed, and the objectives, content, and evaluative criteria all reflect the requirements indicated in the classification standards. Such courses can be delivered directly for teaching and credit recognition by participating institutions, and they serve as models for accrediting courses developed through other frameworks.

The IMRVELO curriculum framework likewise regulates the number of courses offered, along with the credits awarded for completion and study hours, in accordance with the foundational, operational, and developmental competencies laid out earlier. Specifically, standard courses at IVEL 1 includes 10 foundational competence courses, 3 operational competence courses, and 4 developmental competence classes. Standard courses at IVEL 2 are 10, 4, and 4 foundational, operational, and developmental competence courses, respectively. There are 10 foundational competence courses, 5 operational competence courses, and 8 developmental competence courses offered at the third level, while 10, 6, and 8 such classes, respectively, are delivered at IVEL 4.

The objectives pursued in standard courses are stipulated in the IMRVELO proposal. Foundational competence courses are aimed at developing the basic literacy, fundamental knowledge, and general skills required to engage in specific vocational activities. Classes focusing on operational competence are intended to develop learners' competence in performing practical job tasks. Developmental competence courses focus on cultivating learners' socioemotional and higher-order cognitive abilities, helping them achieve personal career development, continuously improve their abilities, and play an active role in teams in specific vocational fields. Since operational competence courses are designed to equip learners with the skills demanded by a given position, institutions are advised to endow three credits to each course, in contrast to the single credit that can be acquired each under foundational and developmental competence classes.

The second type of course endorsed in the framework is the accredited course, which is derived from other sources but recognized and accredited by the IMRVELO project. These are mainly developed by and implemented in participating institutions that commit to adhering to the IMRVELO proposal. Accredited courses are included in the international vocational education course catalog for management after being assessed as substantively equivalent in accordance with the classification of international vocational education standards. Recognition under an accredited course is governed by the principle of substantive equivalence, which means that the learning objectives, demands, and difficulties of the course are equivalent to that of its standard course counterpart. Nevertheless, there are many changes in curriculum content, learning material, and teaching method in the latter, to name a few. Accredited courses receive accreditation on the basis of category; thus, foundational, operational, and developmental competency courses cannot be recognized as other types of courses. That is, cross-category accreditation is prohibited.

The specific substitution rules specified in this scheme are as follows: If the course objectives and content level of a course offered by a cooperative institution are consistent with those of a "Professional Competence" standard course, it can substitute the standard course and be awarded corresponding credits in accordance with the principle of substantive equivalence. The maximum substitution volume is 8 courses (16 credits).

If a corporate technical and skill-based training course is consistent with an operational competency courses, it can substitute the standard course and be awarded corresponding credits in accordance with the principle of substantive equivalence. The maximum substitution volume varies by level: 9 credits for operational competency Level 1 courses, 12 credits for Level 2, 15 credits for Level 3, and 18 credits for Level 4.

Additionally, this scheme stipulates that the maximum substitutable credits of Accredited Courses from cooperative institutions or enterprises shall not exceed 50% of the total credits. This arrangement not only reflects the flexibility of international mutual recognition of vocational education learning outcomes but also effectively ensures the quality of mutually recognized outcomes.

International vocational education learning outcomes

International vocational education learning outcomes refer to the various measurable and cumulative learning achievements that a learner makes within the IMRVELO framework. They encompass credits earned by completing IMRVELO standard courses and other types of outcomes that have been uniformly standardized and recognized by this program. The latter ones should be traceable, such as academic degree certificates, corporate training certificates, vocational or skill certificates, and achievements from vocational skills competitions. These recognized achievements can be awarded credits following the rules on credit recognition and transfer. Through credit recognition, transfer, and accumulation, a qualified learner can be awarded an IVEL certificate.

To facilitate the recognition of TVET learning outcomes, some regulative principles must be followed. For instance, the recognition of learning outcomes should adhere to the fundamental principles of unified standards; quality-oriented, transparent processes; and traceable evidence. To this end, learning outcomes should have the following key characteristics: First, outcomes must be measurable. In other words, a quantitative or qualitative assessment should be performed to determine whether a course, a certificate, or an award can satisfy the demands stipulated in the IMRVELO proposal. Second, learning outcomes should be sustainable, which requires providers to hold skills competition programs periodically and continually as well as offer courses constantly. Third, outcomes should be characterized by openness instead of exclusivity for a minority or privileged group. Finally, it should be public welfare. Public welfare refers to public welfare programs that do not aim for profit. Any learning outcome obtained through purchase is excluded from the recognition catalog.

By accumulating required credits, a learner can be awarded certificates or diplomas designed by the IMRVELO team. This scheme offers four IVEL certificates, which are awarded to learners who have completed level 1, 2, 3, and 4 courses. The scheme also provides two types of diplomas for international higher vocational education, namely associate and bachelor's diplomas. The international vocational education diploma is a composite proof of learning achievements that combines the IVEL certificate and the academic certificates issued by TVET colleges and universities. With IMRVELO's certificates and/or diplomas, an individual can illustrate his/her abilities more easily in the labor market, even in a foreign context.

Work fields of international vocational education

To advance the implementation of the IMRVELO proposal, a necessary task was to build a framework for international cooperation in vocational education. Grounded in industry classification schemes such as the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (United Nations, 2008) and the Global Industry Classification Standard (MSCI, 2023), the IMRVELO scheme has design the work field as a constructive unit for standard development, curriculum resources development, and credit recognition. TVET researchers outline a work field on the basis of job position setting in the labor market, and a work field covers a cluster of positions linked to each other and the sharing of certain skills. Focusing on the key areas of the "Belt and Road Initiative", Chinese experts and practitioners have developed the first batch of work fields for catalog construction, but more such fields are needed for the objectives of the IMRVELO project to be achieved.

The work field catalog adopts the three-tier structure of industry category-industry subcategory-work field. The first batch of work fields covers 9 industry categories, 27 industry subcategories, and 34 work fields, each involving in-depth cooperation between Chinese enterprises and vocational colleges to ensure the implementation and promotion of the scheme. As the catalog currently encompasses a small part of the TVET sector, it is necessary to remain open and conduct updates regularly.