Concerned Learning Material Developers wanting to address the poor quality of training material. For discussion of problems, and solutions to: the widely varying prices, sometimes obviously stolen material, and the question of who controls the Quality of QCTO material.
ETQA’s Must Be Held Responsible for The Quality of Learning Materials
30th Jul 2015 at 8:43 am #29503
If like me, you are passionate about skills development and have been operating in this environment for a significant amount of time, you will have experienced great frustration when dealing with material developers on whom you rely to deliver effective training interventions.
When you applied for accreditation as a private skills development provider (SDP) in South Africa, your ETQA seems to require you to jump through expensive fiery hoops before they would grant your their stamp of approval. You had to provide them with a water-tight QMS, prove capacity in terms of your facilitators, assessors, moderators – all who already have to be constituent to the same ETQA.
You must have documented your delivery and workplace sites and ensure that these meet set requirements in terms of ‘fit-for-purpose’ and health and safety requirements – certified. You have to have a LMS system that meets their requirements and purchase/lease office equipment and multimedia technology for use when you are eventually going to train. You must have secured learning materials in a format and layout that they are familiar with. You are expected to spend an excessive amount of money to ensure that your company meets all these requirements before you are allowed to trade and get a return on your significant investment. You would also have to wait for a significant period of time before your accreditation and pray that you don’t have any remediation.
Given that your learning materials and assessment tools are your bread and butter, why is it that those ‘material developers’ are not quality assured in the same manner? Yes your assessors and moderators are SME’s but they may not ‘like’ designing materials or may not possess sufficient computer skills to reformat your expensive learning materials into documents that fit your corporate identity. (Remember too that these materials have been sold to numerous other SDP’s over the years. Contrary to popular belief, the fact that these materials have been sold so many time over does not mean that these are good. It is really because it is cheap. You may also have mistakenly believed their sales pitch when they claim that their materials are accredited.)
Am I alone in believing that – at the very most – the ETQA’s must accredit QMS and material designers and developers with the same QA processes applied to SDP’s. At the very least, they must make the quality assurance of these documents a service that is available – free of charge – through their regional offices where their clients (you the SDP) operate from.
For 2 years now I have been lobbying the ETDP and Services SETA’s and the SABPP with this idea without any success. With the QCTO structures set to take over from many SAQA structures, one would have assumed that the SETA top management would take a more proactive stance to ensure their longevity and usefulness. (Don’t get me started on the expensive and complicated exercise that is the QCTO!)
The fact that TVET / FET colleges are given preferential treatment and resourced by government at the expense of private SDP’s is detrimental to the growing SA’n economy, but these colleges are not nearly as stringently policed. I believe that it is in the best interests of SDP’s to join me in calling on the ETQA’s to at least put structures in place to ensure that the tools we use is the least of our concerns and worth the money spent.
31st Jul 2015 at 3:02 am #29534
In a way I do agree with you, but in the other side it think this will create big issues in the processes. I’m a ETDP Graduate, work in the industry for years, designed QMS’s for several corporates, design material AND I PURCHASE material from designers due to time constraint. I’ve recently purchased two full qualifications – and to my shock I’ve realised the material is really not good quality and there is actually nothing I can do. This is NOT the QCTO or SETA’s fault and mistake – it’s my own. I have the knowledge, education and ability to do a QA check first and ensure that my SLA agreement with the seller is in place stating that a certain time period will be provided to review and then a % of payment will take place. I think its unfair to pass this responsibility on to somebody else. If we are in the industry we must take accountability and responsibility to get ourselfs educated enough to ensure we KNOW what is required in terms of standards and quality. Just my opinion.
31st Jul 2015 at 5:08 am #29533
While having materials validated will add some time to the process, I believe that developers will be forced to either improve the quality of their offering or get out of the business of ripping SDP’s off. I find it strange where the DoE polices schools and prescribes textbooks and standardise national assessments, but the quality assurance of ‘textbooks’ and assessments for adult learners is solely the responsibility of the ‘school’. Why the double standard?
1st Aug 2015 at 6:27 pm #29532
Celeste, it must be frustrating and costly to purchase learning materials that are substandard. It would, however, not be practicable to have learning material developers accredited – that would require re-accreditation, in the same way that training providers are accredited. And I must say, there are also numerous providers who are accredited who deliver substandard training – not only my view; I have heard many people telling horror stories, even for skills development such as assessment, moderation and learning material development. Also, SETAs can already not cope with accreditation and re-accreditation of providers. An added burden will make any accreditation impossible. And the funds for a ‘free service’ will have to be recovered somewhere along the line.
There are ways in which providers can protect themselves – e.g. asking for the credentials of the person(s) who developed the materials (and then check the credentials); asking for samples that demonstrate how the learning guide and assessments are aligned to each other and to the unit standards (and don’t rely on the alignment matrix – check or have it checked by a competent moderator who is SME on the topic); ensuring that you understand how to evaluate materials (or ask your moderator to do so). Develop a Service Level Agreement that allows you to evaluate materials before making the final part of the payment (but providers then also need to keep to the payment terms – some seem to think they can pay the last part when they have funds available). if a ‘supplier’ has a long list of full qualifications falling under almost every SETA available at ‘cheap’ prices (or is offering month-end/Valentines’ day/Mothers’ day specials – you may smell a rat. very few small businesses have the resources and capacity to develop so many totally diverse qualifications. It takes months – even for a highly skilled developer – to develop a full qualification. And although the belief is that developers sell their materials to ‘numerous’ providers, competent individuals will rarely do that because material development is a never-ending process. Every time I look at a programme (that was very well accepted by a client and that met all requirements), I note some scope for improvement and updating, or making it more practical and useful.
20th Aug 2015 at 10:14 am #29531
Sorry for the late reply Marie (my daughters’ second name).
I agree with everything you said here and would just like to pick up on a comment you made. “Also, SETAs can already not cope with accreditation and re-accreditation of providers. An added burden will make any accreditation impossible. And the funds for a ‘free service’ will have to be recovered somewhere along the line.”
What responsibilities fall to the staff in the regional SETA offices? All of the accreditation and re-accreditation of providers is the responsibility of the head office staff. Why can the expertise of developers and moderators throughout the country be contracted to the regional offices? We all know that there is always a surplus in the skills funds and provision is already made for administrative costs. To my mind, this means that the SETA cannot plead poverty.
In addition, if the materials were validated prior to the SDP seeking accreditation, then the validation report from the regional moderator should go a long way to reducing the time and costs incurred in accreditation/re-accreditation because this service is also free (except with the SABPP).
I cannot see a down side. I really can’t.
20th Aug 2015 at 11:13 am #29530
Celeste, good developers make their monthly income through HARD work, designing and developing audience- and learner-oriented examples, activities, being creative and innovative in developing materials, making sure that learners will BENEFIT from the learning activities.
Good developers know how to make sure that the materials they develop will meet all the requirements of the qualification/skills programme/unit standard. Also that the materials are contextualised for the target audience, and always improving. If the latter is done, no two programmes are exactly the same. And that is what it should all be about – continuous improvement. A good material developer’s materials will never be returned by an evaluator/SETA for corrective action.
The challenge is for providers to find good developers. If a provider is not prepared to pay for quality materials, the provider cannot complain about development fees. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but it is the reality.
Are you prepared to have people pay only once for training and then let all future learners attend your training free of charge?
20th Aug 2015 at 11:31 am #29529
I couldn’t agree more Marie!
I work alone, and given the average amount of time it takes me to deliver decent materials (LG 7-10 days, formatives and class activities 3-5 days, summative 2-3 days, facilitation assessment & moderation guide 5 days), amounts to basically a month, where I have to then be content to sell it for around R2000. The math just doesn’t add up.
In terms of the customisation and tweaking to audience requirements, I do believe that that must remain the responsibility of the QA manager and moderators of the SDP, not the ETQA.
20th Aug 2015 at 1:55 pm #29528
Hi Celeste, you must be very frustrated in paying for cheap materials and getting burned for poor quality at the same time. Today I feel the need to support the SETAs here. For many years accreditation applications and learning programme applications has been submitted, learning materials, policies, processes in every format possible to the SETAs. The requirements are clearly set out in the old SAQA Guidelines for Providers, not that all Providers took the time to actually read through these guidelines. The most shocking applications has been received, many phone calls, emails, meetings (where SETA staff goes to the provider premises for capacity building) at no cost to the Provider (if I may add). No provider has paid for these services (air travel, accommodation, SETA staff salaries, external Consultants, external/internal Verifiers, Certificates to name but a few). To add more responsibility to the SETAs is not fair. The SETAs must also report to Authorities and get slapped with various audits, industry pressure, rules and regulations from government, councils, DHET – again to mention a few).
Learning Material Developers are not recorded in any Government Gazette, SAQA Guideline or any Act to be registered, or be registered Assessors/Moderators/SMEs – they could design and develop material getting information and input from SMEs, make use of Assessors/Moderators/Facilitators and the like to ensure that the material content is meeting the requirements. Then again you do get learning material developers that are registered Assessors/Moderators, are in fact very current with the content and conducts facilitation as well. Unfortunately it is up to you to ensure that if you buy cheap learning material, that this is quality assured by your SME/Assessors/Moderators and to make 100% sure that the material is in fact meeting the requirements of the qualification/skills programme/learning intervention.
It has always been the Provider’s responsibility to ensure that the learning material they offer is quality assured and up to date (a huge lack of annual reviews by Providers has been evident for many years now). Once approved by the specific ETQA (Now the QMD – Quality Management Department) – learning material is not reviewed, updated or improved – this is where it all started falling apart, as Providers paid for material once off, and has not kept the learning material up to date. This is not the SETA’s fault and the onus lies on the Provider.
I have taken the following information from the SAQA guidelines for ease of reference:
Taken from the SAQA document: Criteria and Guidelines for Providers: The outline of NQF structures and systems below captures the dynamic relationship between the separate functions of standards setting and quality assurance.
• Accountable for the standards of learning achievements and provision in their area of primary focus.
• Responsible for assuring the quality of learning achievements within a specified context for registered standards (units and qualifications) chiefly through
(a) registration of assessors;
(b) accreditation of providers, and
(c) quality management system.
Accountable to the ETQA – through primary focus – for management, development and delivery of learning programmes and services leading to standards and qualifications for which they are accredited
Responsible for ensuring the quality of the learning experience according to the requirements of the registered standards and qualifications
Responsible for recording, researching and reporting the achievements of learners and the impact of their learning services in respect of the standards and qualifications for which they are accredited
PROVIDERS (According to the SAQA Quality Assurance and Development Framework Implementation)
• accredited by one ETQA; shared primary focus; quality management system; ability to develop, deliver and evaluate learning programmes for specified registered standards or qualifications; financial, administrative and physical resources; policies and practices for staffing; learner services; assessment management; reporting; and ability to achieve desired outcomes using available resources and according to ETQA procedures.
SAQA: Criteria for Providers
A body may be accredited as a provider by an Education and Training Quality Assurance Body whose primary focus coincides with the primary focus of the provider, provided that the body seeking accreditation –
(a) is registered as a provider in terms of the applicable legislation at the time of application for accreditation;
(b) has a quality management system which includes but is not limited to –
(i) quality management policies which define that which the provider wishes to achieve;
(ii) quality management procedures which enable the provider to practise its defined quality management policies; or
(iii) review mechanisms which ensure that the quality management policies and procedures defined are applied and remain effective;
(c) is able to develop, deliver and evaluate learning programmes which culminate in specified registered standards or qualifications;
(d) has the –
necessary financial, administrative and physical resources;
policies and practices for staff selection, appraisal and development;
policies and practices for learner entry, guidance and support systems;
policies & practices for the management of off-site practical/work-site components where appropriate;
policies and practices for the management of assessment which include appeals systems;
necessary reporting procedures; and
the ability to achieve the desired outcomes, using available resources and procedures considered by the ETQA to be needed to develop, deliver and evaluate learning programmes which culminate in specified registered standards or qualifications contemplated in paragraph (c); and
(e) has not already been granted accreditation by or applied for accreditation to another Education and Training Quality Assurance Body contemplated in Regulation 2 of the ETQA Regulations
Amongst the policies and practices that providers need to ensure they cover – depending on their type and form of provision – are the following:
programme/course development and design;
teaching and learning services and responsibilities;
learner support, access issues including equal opportunities, authenticity of assessment evidence and appeals systems, as well as the use of tutors and mentors and learning resources;
the language of teaching and learning;
finances, fees and payment regulations5;
collaboration and partnerships;
management and administration;
evaluation and research;
internal quality assurance mechanisms and reviews;
quality assurance reviews and accreditation.
The 8 core criteria can be described as quality indicators:
1. Policy Statement
The organization’s aims, objectives and purposes need to be spelt out.
2. Quality management systems
Identify processes and outline procedures that implement quality management in the organisation.
3. Review mechanisms
Outline the ways in which the implementation of policies would be monitored.
4. Programme delivery
Outline how learning programmes would be developed, delivered and evaluated.
5. Staff policies
Outline policies and procedures for staff selection, appraisal and development.
6. Learner policies
Policies and procedures for the selection of learners are outlined, and learners are given guidance and support.
7. Assessment policies
Outline policies and procedures for forms of assessments that are used and how they are managed.
8. Management system and policies
Indicate the financial, administrative and physical structures and resources of the organisation, as well as procedures of accountability within the organisation.
20th Aug 2015 at 2:53 pm #29527
I must admit that personally I do not feel it is the direct responsibility of the ETQA to accredit material developers. That being said however it is the responsibility of the ETQA to ensure the material submitted by the provider at the time of accreditation meets the required standard as set out in the requirements of the individual unit standards – the specific outcomes are covered and all assessment criteria have been adequately covered and so on. So indirectly the ETQA is ensuring the training or learning material conforms to a specific and pre-determined standard. One should be able to assume that if the programme approval is granted then the material must and should be up to standard.
In addition, and I hate to say it, the provider should ensure the material is up to standard before accepting it and submitting it to the ETQA for approval. If however the ETQA grants programme approval on sub standard material that does not meet the unit standard requirement as outlined then the blame can be apportioned to both the provider and the ETQA.
My question would be how in the first place the material was ever accepted by the provider and secondly how did it pass the ETQA requirements for approval???
20th Aug 2015 at 3:05 pm #29526
20th Aug 2015 at 3:13 pm #29525
Just to add: under Skills Development Act section 26H Functions of QCTO ….. “the QCTO is responsible for – ” …section 3(b) “the quality assurance of occupational standards and qualifications and learning in and for the workplace”.
Does that imply that the QCTO is responsible for the quality of the training material as well?
20th Aug 2015 at 3:48 pm #29524
Hi Lynel. Thank you for contributing to this topic.
Trust me when I say you are preaching to the converted and the SDP who requests the cheapest possible materials in the fastest possible time is the only reason why the L&D developers are getting the bad rep. You have made many valid points, but in defense of my views, I just want to respond to a few.
1. QCTO QMD – As it currently stands, the focus of the QCTO is largely artisan-based, and previously disregarded professions; e.g. funeral services, taxi drivers, etc. That is a good thing. But the QCTO QMD/DQP/AQP set up is an expensive exercise. How will those qualifications that currently fall within the scope of Service, LG, MerSETA, ETDP, etc. then be quality assured under the QCO structure if the current SAQA ETQA structure do not have the capacity and are not responsible for materials?
2. Learning Material Development and updating is the responsibility of the SDP. I have never purchased materials from anyone, but have had to (i) facilitate content from very weak learner guides; (ii) assess learners formatively and summatively using illogical assessment tools, and (iii) fix materials bought by my SDP employer far too many times than I care to remember. The truth is that while it should be the responsibility of EVERY SDP to employ a capable and strong Quality Assurance Manager, who is not only a constituent moderator and qualified learning programme and assessment designer and developer, but should also be reasonably computer savvy. This QA Manager should be supported by at least one administrator who must serve as a ‘sounding board’ for material issues.
The truth is that IF the SDP has a QA Manager, (s)he isn’t necessarily SAQA/QCTO savvy and their function becomes purely administrative in nature (LMS, PoE control and overseeing assessment & moderation practices, securing learning materials, etc.)
3. The SDP QMS – Thde biggest sham in most SDP’s, the QMS is sourced from someone else who simply replaced the name and logo of the last SDP they sold the policies to, without any regard for this new organisations’ procedures. The QA Manager – being an administrator and not really competent – (i) does not know how important these documents are to the quality of the SDP delivery, (ii) sees at as just something on the tick list to keep the verifyers happy for accreditation / validation purposes. (Every single SDP I have worked with is guilty of this and one never ‘updated’ the dates on the QMS documents in the 4 years since it was bought!)
4. Learner entry, guidance and support – This lies squarely on the shoulders of the SDP, and IF they have SOMEONE responsible for this, (s)he seldom if ever knows anything about assessment, portfolios, and ‘that SAQA-stuff”.
In many instances, the cheap/shoddy materials that the SDP has sourced is the ONLY redeeming quality of the SDP – and probably their most expensive asset, because the administrators who ‘support and administer learning’ are paid a pittance because they are glorified general office assistants!
Yes, the ETQA must monitor and evaluate the SDP with eagle eyes so that the learners are not short-changed. But let’s be honest, there are thrice as many fly-by-night SDP set-ups that are accredited as there are developers out there. Getting one person in the SETA regional office capacitated to validate learning materials is a very small cost in the overall scheme of things. And while they’re at it, these same validators could play a more active role in ensuring that their constituent SDP’s do more to ensure that their QMS is a living and breathing document and process and not just ‘one more thing that the verifyer must check’.
20th Aug 2015 at 4:00 pm #29523
Sylvia, it is a good question. The QCTO web page link to ‘Quality assurance framework’ under ‘Occupational Quality Assurance’ leads to a blank page. I could only find policies and procedures for quality assurance of assessment. The QCTO states its ‘role is to oversee the design, implementation, assessment and certification of occupational qualifications on the Occupational Qualifications Sub-Framework (OQSF).’ I see a list of accredited providers but must be overlooking the requirements and procedure for accreditation of providers, so it is not clear to me whether they will do quality assurance of materials submitted to them.
20th Aug 2015 at 4:15 pm #29522
Des, I agree with you! When you were verifying SDF in EL earlier this year I showed you ‘before and after’ materials, remember? Just like you, I couldn’t understand how the old materials were accredited by the ETDP SETA. As the ideal QA I described in my reply to Lynel, [and yes that is me blowing my own trumpet 😉 ] I took it upon myself to fix the materials to the point where you, me and most importantly – The Learners – could be assured that ALL outcomes were properly assessed and meaningfully integrated. Because more than 50% of the materials and assessments were changed, there should have been a clear policy and procedure in place for me to defend my edits to the SETA before implementation. I should have been requested to submit the materials for re-accreditation, preferably to the local office. But when I contacted the HO, I was told not to worry, as long as (i) my moderator had signed it off – which he did), and (ii) I have constructed a detailed overarching report ‘in case the verifyer requests it on your next external vist’. You would be hard-pressed to find a more detailed overarching report than the one that I wrote, [yes this too 😉 ] but is it not too late to wait for the next visit? What if – like many SDP’s have been known to make themselves guilty of – I just got someone to accept this material and give me a report? I wouldn’t even think about doing this and I certainly wouldn’t stand idly by and endorse this type of corruption if I were to know about it.
Yes education – like everything – is already highly bureaucratic, and adding the another step in the manner as I propose will add to the administrative burden.
The question is though, what do we have to loose?
20th Aug 2015 at 4:34 pm #29521
Bad form Mz Zwane. Bad form. Nothing in what Marie said was in any way racist or bitter. You have to know that asking R18000 for a qualification (which we now have every reason to think may have been plagiarised from other providers) is exactly what is making it impossible for someone like myself to make a living while delivering the best quality materials at a price commensurate with the amount of time and effort I put in in design and development. FYI, the material that Marie referred to is exactly what I attached here.
The question I ask then is what action will AgriSETA take against for blatantly plagiarising their materials?
Does the fact that I feel the same as Marie, make me racist too Mz Zwane?
20th Aug 2015 at 7:21 pm #29520
Hi to all,
I must apologise for only picking up the tone of this discussion now. Unfortunately my internet connection has been down -something that happens quite regularly where I am, and after re-starting I’ve just managed to connect.
However, I have now read the posts by Dudu and suspended her from the skills-universe. Her attack and her language were quite uncalled for.
I apologise particularly to Celeste and to Marie who seem to have borne the brunt of the attack. Who would have thought that skills development could get this heated!
20th Aug 2015 at 7:26 pm #29519
20th Aug 2015 at 7:32 pm #29518
20th Aug 2015 at 7:39 pm #29517
Thank you Celeste and Marie.
Yes, it is so interesting how easy it is for any of us to just “let fly” on the internet. Co-incidentally, last night I was at a book launch for Marleen Potgieter’s latest book on Social Media. She’s an excellent lawyer who I have known for a number of years and very much respect her work in implementing employment equity. She has now written on the legal dangers of social media. Many people have lost their jobs – or their reputations – for their postings.
I will do a review of the book and let you all have the details next week – I would suggest everyone go out and buy it, and read it.
Have a good evening.
21st Aug 2015 at 7:49 am #29516
21st Aug 2015 at 7:58 am #29515
21st Aug 2015 at 8:44 am #29514
Hi Celeste, I feel that I need to clear some “hanging” questions/remarks quickly.
1. It was not my intention to preach, but merely to state facts (especially for those whom have the same frustrations, but have not done their homework on who is responsible and accountable for what).
2. Providers offering learning interventions is responsible for maintaining their learning materials.
3. Learning Material approval and accreditation applications are not validated by one single “validator” at a SETA (not sure where you get that information, but this is not true). There are panels, discussions, input on reports/recommendations ect.
4. The sample of the learning material is sent to the SETA, not the full set of all materials linked to the qualification (so the Provider sends in the material that is the best, and leaves the material that is not up to standard to fix later (which they forget about). This is when the material is being questioned at a verification date in most cases. Yes, material was approved, but only a sample.
5. Buying a QMS or copying a pre-designed QMS to ensure that you comply, is not how it is supposed to be. Each business/company/provider is unique – all they have to do is follow the SAQA guidelines and compliment this with their processes and procedures – this is hardly ever done. We know this.
6. Providers should never accept any learning material as “approved and accredited” when buying it.
7. Maybe SETAs should clearly note down what sample was approved and keep a copy of this, so that they compare this same approved material at a later stage, it will give them more reason to reject re-accreditation as it will be very clear that no reviews have been done.
No matter how frustrated you get, don’t ever loose your passion for skills development. Keep doing what you doing as you are making a difference. Every effort is worth it. Keep it up!
21st Aug 2015 at 9:05 am #29513
Hi Sylvia, I don’t think they will take the responsibility of assuring the quality of learning material. There should be a generic framework of requirements, but after that, pending on the industry and occupation – there are just too much additions and industry specific information that is added to learning material. The QCTO will delegate this process back to the QMD to evaluate (again – sample base).
Quality Assuring learning material is not an easy task, this could also be the reason that SAQA never actually stipulated how it will be validated in detail.
21st Aug 2015 at 9:23 am #29512
Thank you again Lynel
Trust me, I understand where you’re coming from. Everything you have said is 100% correct in terms of what is supposed to happen. When I speak about materials being sent to the ETQA for validation, I am referring to when SDP’s seek accreditation for skills programmes or standalone unit standards. Obviously I was then requested to send the whole package. That being said, my only experience with seeking accreditation for a full qualification was with Services SETA in 2012, and while the process may have changed since then, we had to submit the entire document pack and not just the Roll-out strategy/Implementation Plan and a sample of the learner docs, but the whole document pack – including model answers and marking matrices for every one of the 10 modules.
Could it be that different ETQA’s operate differently? I know that the SABPP work in panels as you said.
ITO the approved for delivery report issued for a skills programme where SDP’s seek approval for multiple US’s which will be delivered in one intervention (e.g. 120372 combined with 120385) are a submitted, the SDP got approval for both US’s, but separately because the SDP bought the 2 US’s from the same developer who designed each as standalone. The then QA manager – not being savvy in assessment integration, computer application, etc. didn’t / couldn’t integrate the assessment and learners are then issued with 2 complete portfolio’s for assessment. As you know, there is a significant overlap in the assessment outcomes in these US’s, which means that because the materials were sourced from the same developer, the same questions that are asked in the first portfolio is asked again in the second. (The same was true for US’s 15221; 15217; 15218; 15232 and 15228 as Des can attest to having seen in EL.)
For me, it is precisely because there is still so much to be done ito clarification and streamlining in the SD arena, that I enjoy it and will not loose passion.
Thank you for the complement and motivation! This is why I enjoy interacting with the members in this forum.
21st Aug 2015 at 10:05 am #29511
Hi Celeste, you are welcome! We all should be complimenting and motivating each other at all times. Most of us are here because we want to share experiences, our knowledge, learn from each other, get guidance or input – and skills universe is the best place to do just that. I have learned so much, and this is a big THANKS to Skills Universe and all members.
Back to some facts:
1. 100% correct! Every ETQA operates differently. Why? Well, they are sector and industry specific. Industry plays a big role and this is sometimes forgotten. There are regulatory requirements (which keep changing/updating/improving their requirements and stipulations) which the SETA must adhere to (sometimes the providers whom are not employers miss this important fact). This is why there was a generic minimum eight core criteria from SAQA – please note the wording “minimum” and this was the foundation only.
2. 100% correct! A huge overlap of assessment outcomes with regards to unit standards that are similar. The problem here is when a learner only need one specific unit standard to complete (for instance RPL) – then the portfolio will be correct. The integration of unit standards into a portfolio shouldn’t repeat questions this is why the matrix will be very important as it will clearly indicate where the same outcome or a different unit standard has been addressed accordingly. So, the portfolio’s on single unit standards will be valid, but if one offers a combination of unit standards in one learning programme (skills programme/module), then the integrated portfolio should not have any repeated questions with the same outcome/answer.
It would benefit the provider to have this separate and to have an integrated portfolio.
24th Aug 2015 at 10:12 am #29510
Dear Celeste – my pennies’worth. Thre are no longer ETQAs – they are gone. Currently SETAs are performing quality assurance functions that are delegated to them by the QCTO. You can direct your suggestions to the Quality Assurance director at the QCTO. I am sure they will take serious note of the discussions taking place here and your constructive proposals.
24th Aug 2015 at 10:42 am #29509
I thank you for your input and advice Mr Samuels.
While we all know that this would happen, it is just so unfortunate that (as it would seem right now) the QCTO is currently more focused on the artisan-type set-up at the expense of the soft skills. This is obviously only my impression and I would welcome the QCTO QA Director to ‘bring me right’ and share their feedback with others here.
24th Aug 2015 at 10:49 am #29508
Thank you Joe for your clarification – it is much appreciated.
I understand that the ETQAs are now QAPs. The document that helped me greatly to understand what a QAP Quality Assurance Partner is I found on the QCTO website, but to aid the discussion, I tried to upload unsuccessfully – so here is the link:
The QAP must be distinguished from the AQP which is an Assessment Quality Partner. I hope that I have stated that correctly.
24th Aug 2015 at 10:54 am #29507
24th Aug 2015 at 3:49 pm #29506
Dear Skills Member
My humble apologies for my commend which I have made last week.
In reference to the agriseta learning material , kindly contact Cynthia Manugu if you have ever bought or seen any of our learning material taken from the existing agriseta course material.
Please contact Cynthia and attached a proof of payment to her as well, she will then take a step forward.
24th Aug 2015 at 4:07 pm #29505
24th Aug 2015 at 4:29 pm #29504
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.