Philippine Credit Transfer System

National Orientation – Mindanao Cluster

GUIDE TO MATCHING LEARNING OUTCOMES

(Between TVET and Higher Education)

DAVID B. BUNGALLON
Executive Director, National Institute for Technical
Education and Skills Development
TESDA
 Proposed Philippine Credit Transfer System
• A framework for learner progression
through the PQF levels.
• Supports the implementation of:
 Ladderized Education Act of 2014
(RA 10647),
 Philippine Qualifications
Framework Act of 2018 (RA 10968)
 Enhanced Basic Education Act of
2013 (RA 10533).
• Provides the guidelines in implementing
credit pathways for equivalency.
• Promotes Lifelong learning by
supporting learner progression.
Underpinning Principles of PCTS
supports lifelong learning

outcomes-based
learner-centered, fair and transparent

quality-assured

supports institutional autonomy and academic

freedom

promotes co-operation
Credit Pathways Based on Equivalencies

Articulation
• Program Design
(Embedded)
Credit Recognition of
Transfer Prior Learning
• Block credit • Formal
• Specified Credit • Non-formal
• Unspecified Credit • Informal

Award of
Credit

Credit transfer may match learning outcomes from a TVET program with a higher education
Bachelor (PQF level 6) in the same or related discipline/industry.
 TVET: A pathway to better employment &
higher education

1 Technician/
Technologist level
Occupational destination
employment
PCTS
2
PQF Level 5: Diploma
Higher PQF Level 6:
PQF Level 4: Certificate education Baccalaureate
destination

PCTS
PQF Levels 1/2/3:
Certificates
Design of PQF Level 5: Diploma Program

Features:
• Labor market driven program
• Terminal with occupational destination
• Transitive to higher education program
• Industry participated curriculum
• PQF descriptor responsive
• 17 PLOs’ and 82 indicators compliant
• Partnered with Higher Education Institution for credit transfer
• Adopts Flexible Learning Delivery
• Requires Supervised Industry Learning
 The Guide to Matching Learning Outcomes (GMLO)

 The GMLO outlines 10 considerations in matching learning

outcomes as a means of determining equivalencies and
award of credit between higher education and TVET
programs

 It intends to provide guidance on the credit transfer

mechanisms to assist CHED and TESDA and the HEIs and
TVIs to reach formal agreement on equivalencies of
learning outcome and transfer of credits.
1. Comparability of Policies, Standards and Guidelines, and
Training Regulations
• Comparing the learning outcomes
from CHED’s PSGs and TESDA’s TR
in the same or similar
discipline/industry
 learning outcomes
 structure
 Subject and units
 core and elective component
parts
 volume or amount of learning to
achieve the learning outcomes
 learning and teaching
approaches
 assessment methods
 assessment criteria
 progression rules
2. Equivalencies are determined by discipline/industry experts

A Team of
discipline/industry
experts is jointly
designated by CHED
and TESDA
3. Comparability of PQF Levels

 PQF level descriptors describe the

differences between the levels. It is
an indicator of the complexity,
breadth and depth of learning and
learner autonomy required to
achieve the learning outcome at
each level
4. Comparability of Discipline/Industry area

 The matching of learning outcomes to determine equivalencies is

primarily a matching of the discipline content in a higher education
program with the industry requirements in TVET program.
 The learning outcomes being compared are required to be
sufficiently similar.
 The wording of the learning outcomes does not need to be exactly
the same, but the outcome must be comparable.
5. Comparability of Common course/subject areas and
common competencies

 The common subject areas in higher education and the

common competencies in TVET may be matched to determine
equivalencies.
6. Comparability of the complexity of learning outcomes

 Making a comparison of the complexity of learning outcomes is guided

by the following steps:
 Use of an instrument such as Blooms Taxonomy to broadly match the level of
complexity of the learning outcomes.
 Consider the active verbs used in the learning outcomes being matched to gauge
the comparative complexity.
 Consider the context and purpose of the learning outcomes and how the
learning is demonstrated.
7. Comparability of learning outcomes across multiple
learning outcomes

 Multiple learning outcomes are compared to determine

equivalencies for a single learning outcome.

 The determination of equivalencies is presented as a matrix of

mapped components of learning outcomes across the total of the
compared learning outcomes in a program
8. Principles of assessment and rules of evidence

 The principles of assessment require assessment methodologies to

be fair, valid, reliable and flexible.

 The rules of evidence require the evidence collected to be valid,

sufficient, authentic and current.
9. Teaching Workload is not considered

 Equivalency of learning outcomes applies regardless of the workload,

or number of teaching hours allocated by a provider for a subject in
a program of learning.

 The volume or amount of learning allocated to a learning outcome in

a PSG and a Training Regulation is an indicator of the complexity of
the learning outcome and is a factor taken into consideration in
making a judgment on equivalencies.
10. Mode of delivery and assessment not a consideration

 Teaching and learning methodologies are not a consideration in

the matching process

 Teaching and assessment maybe performed using different modes/

methodologies and/or in different settings but must result in the
achievement of the same learning out comes.
Thank You