MERSETA has requested us to revise the NQF level 5 Certificate and Diploma qualifications to comply with requests by SAQA for changes in October 2005.
Proposed way forward
After discussion with MERSETA staff and the chair of the Plastics SGB the following approach is being proposed:
1. Most of the work is of a technical editing nature.
2. Xasa will do this technical editing and refer to working group members where additional information is required.
3. The revised work will be sent out for comment.
5. Any comments received will be incorporated
6. If people feel the need we can present the finalised documents to a workshop
We are not making any substantive changes to the documents, merely refining and expanding where required.
Quick review of the process to date
For a full history of the project please scroll down further on this page. In brief:
The level 4 and 5 qualifications were presented to the Consultative Panel in October 2005. This is the structure that has replaced National Standards Bodies. The qualification were recommended for registration with the proviso that in the case of the NQF level 5 qualifications they would only be tabled at the SAQA Qualifications and Standards Committee once certain changes had been effected. The NQF level 4 qualification was registered later ithat year.
The changes requested (see SAQA comments & Consultative Panel Comments) had been either addressed or we responded with comments where appropriate. This, however, did not suffice and the SAQA officials indicated that the changes we had made were no sufficient to address the concerns. At a follow-up meeting the following specific changes were requested:
|
Change requested |
Planned response |
1 |
Remove reference to presenting evidence in court in unit standard “Resolve manufacturing and quality related disputes” No. IAL5.2_04 |
This was always the make/break issue - A SAQA structure has, however, recently passed for consideration to the Board a qualification for forensic science which contains the same requirements. When I queried that this had been allowed I was told that we should re-submit the unit standard. |
2 |
The unit standards appeared too "thin." |
"Thin" meant that they had too little substance. For someone reading the qualification the wording was confusing because it had no context - we therefore agreed to expand the range and define terms with a particular meaning such as assessment, evaluation and audit. |
3 |
There appeared to be a lot of duplication - many of the unit standards have the same competencies |
There was also a lack of understanding that different contexts were being addressed, ie the design process, the manufacturing process and the installed equipment in operation. This as for 2 above by adding more descriptive statements where appropriate. In certain cases where the language was deemed to 'heavy' |
4 |
Some of the language was incomprehensible for a lay person |
As for 2 above we would use more common language or adding more definitions where this was not possible. |
Further issues that impact on the submission
As a result of the time gap between the original submission and MERSETA's go-ahead some other issues have emerged:
|
Issue |
Response |
1 |
Some of the registered unit standards selected for incorporation into these qualifications have expired been revised or been replaced |
The matrix and the unit standards will be checked for relevance, and where required alternative unit standards will be identified and included. A quick scan shows that one unit standard has expired and there is no clear replacement. |
2 |
New criteria and guidelines for submissions were introduced in January 2006 |
The qualifications and unit standards will have to be reviewed and adjusted to make certain they comply |
3 |
The research on international comparability may be dated |
We will have to do a quick scan to see if there is anything new elsewhere in the world. |
4 |
The references to the draft SANS standard for pressure equipment may be dated |
This will have to be checked and updated if necessary. |
|
. 