26th Aug 2020 at 8:22 pm #75966sylvia hammondKeymaster
First, I tweeted the original question from Jenny & received a response from SAQA – please contact firstname.lastname@example.org so the query can be forwarded to the correct Directorate.
So Jenny please go ahead and contact SAQA & let us know the outcome.
Second, I’ve been following the discussion raised by Lynel and the very comprehensive reply by Renee – thank you.
It occurs to me that there are a number of assumptions if it is one qualification moving from L2 – L5.
Apart from – as Lynel suggests, having the interest and commitment – actually I do recall working with a few technical guys, who were quite prepared to study over a long period of time like that – I don’t think that’s so much an issue.
But I wonder in today’s world of work – that implies that there is an employer, that the employment will continue for that one person for that period, and that the employer continues to exist for that period, and that the employer even if they do continue to exist, may not outsource that technical service, or that the technology of whatever they are doing is not surpassed by some fancy 4th IR computerised technology.
To my mind, breaking it up into part-qualifications or small qualifications would have made more practical sense. Because if anything changes, there is something to walk away with.27th Aug 2020 at 9:24 am #75970Lynel FarrellKeymaster
I have had the Assessment Specification Document and the Curriculum Document for this specific qualification since the 2nd September 2019. RPL is an option for sure!27th Aug 2020 at 9:28 am #75971Jenny MamdooParticipant
Thanks Sylvia. I’ve emailed them and will keep you all updated.27th Aug 2020 at 9:31 am #75972Lynel FarrellKeymaster
Spot on Sylvia! It would have been awesome to offer this into part-qualifications, whereby the learner would be able to do parts of the qualifications (perhaps per level) obtaining a statement of results of the part-qualifications, and build towards the full Qualification.27th Aug 2020 at 12:15 pm #75973Renee’ McGibbonParticipant
QCTO qualifications can also be done as part qualifications, so a learner does not need to do the entire qualification to achieve the credits for the completed sub-modules. It is similar to the “unit standard” approach from that perspective.
I am just not certain of how assessment works with the External Integrated Summative Assessment. I have actually been researching whether or not QCTO quality assured qualifications still require registered Assessors and Moderators for part qualifications as the QCTO only addresses EISA and the requirements for the accreditation of Assessment Quality Partners.
Surely formative assessments must still take place by Assessors who are registered, perhaps with the originating SETA/QDP), and unless the AQP does summative assessments for part qualifications, the Training Provider should still have this responsibility.
Lynell – Its great that you have the Assessment Spec document and Curriculum statement. I just didn’t find it on the website (but I must admit I didn’t look very carefully yesterday – I could well have looked in the wrong place).
W.r.t the workplace experience modules. I have raised the very question as well. What happens in qualifications where a learner is unemployed or is in a “freelancer”. It was explained that there are various methodologies that can be employed to prove “workplace” experience.
In the example that I used when I raised the scenario of a freelance photographer. It was explained that such a learner could gather evidence of practical/”workplace” experience. If for example part of the workplace module required evidence of experience in say group photography, the learner could arrange to do a photography session at a school or even a retirement home and the beneficiary would sign a logbook or document to say that the photography was indeed conducted by the actual learner.
I still think that it hasn’t been as carefully considered as it should have been due to the particularly high rate of unemployment in SA. I think that the general rationale surrounding the workplace experience modules is still hinged on a learner being employed, and that the employer will be around for the duration of the learning.
Unless there is a written policy regarding “workplace learning evidence criteria” that I haven’t yet found, I am still not certain of the rationale or requirements. If I find anything regarding this issue, I will share it with all on this platform.
(Apologies for the long essay, but this is a field that is open to much interpretation…)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.