Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
International competency frameworks increasingly shape expectations for higher vocational education, but implementation often presumes institutional resources and coordination that are unevenly distributed. This study examines how stakeholders in Sichuan define international competencies for vocational graduates and why global frameworks are difficult to enact in inland institutions. A qualitative descriptive design was used, drawing on semi-structured interviews with 18 purposively selected administrators, teachers, local employers, and international managers. Data were analysed through inductive thematic analysis and deductive mapping against DeSeCo, GCED, and PISA-VET. Five competency domains were identified: intercultural fluency and global mindset; communication and language proficiency; technical and regulatory literacy; ethical and emotional readiness; and strategic and professional readiness. Five connected barriers constrained integration: ambiguous policy translation, limited curriculum and experiential resources, narrow assessment and recognition, insufficient dual-capability faculty, and uneven student readiness. Local employers and international managers agreed on the importance of technical compliance, communication, and adaptability, although the international managers placed greater emphasis on company culture, service orientation, and coping with unfamiliar situations. The study develops a framework–capacity mismatch lens to explain how global competency expectations are reshaped by local mediation conditions. Effective localisation requires feasible mechanisms for policy translation, faculty development, assessment recognition, and employer-linked learning rather than direct framework adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: