Inspecting the Foundations - Umalusi

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the following:• The completion of a state of readiness questionnaire and the submission of a report by theassessment body, followed up by a verification inspection visit by the convening monitor toestablish whether the report by the assessment body was in fact valid;• Daily reports to Umalusi on all kinds of irregularities by the assessment bodies;• Daily reports to Umalusi by the monitors deployed to the examination centres;• Random, unannounced visits to the examination centres by the Umalusi monitors; and, inaddition,• Umalusi staff shadow monitors and make random, unannounced visits to examination centres.Umalusi’s evaluative report on monitoring the GETC examination seeks to determine the relativecredibility of the examination and to establish whether there were any factors that compromisedthe credibility of the examination. While identifying certain shortcomings, Umalusi looks todetermine whether the examination has been managed in a credible manner and that all theassessment bodies have systems in place to ensure the effective running of the examinations.Umalusi ensures that reported irregularities are all handled in a satisfactory way by the IrregularityCommittees operating in the assessment bodies.The moderation of marking is yet another of the Umalusi quality assurance processes that is ofcritical importance as it largely determines the standard and quality of marking, and ensures thatmarking happens according to established practices and standards. In 2008, for example, themoderation of marking extended across ten assessment bodies, namely the nine provincial DoEsand the IEB, concentrating on the moderation of four learning areas with high learner enrolments,for example, English, Mathematical Literacy, Economic and Management Sciences, and NaturalSciences.In 2008, the moderation of marking was divided into two phases, namely:• Memorandum discussion; and• Moderation of marking.These processes help ensure that marking is standardized across the assessment bodies.The pre-marking is done prior to the memorandum discussion meetings and it showed a markedimprovement, and appears to contribute signifi cantly to the overall improvement in the qualityof discussions, marking, and internal moderation of marking. During the 2008 examination session,for example, a total of 4 575 answer scripts were pre-marked prior to the memorandum discussionmeetings. In the June 2008 memorandum discussion, 1 328 (29%) scripts were pre-marked whilst forthe October examination 3 247 (71%) were pre-marked. There was in 2008, a general 42% increasein the number of scripts pre-marked from June to October. Commendably, all the learning areasnow use a common instrument to capture the minutes of these meetings, and all fi nal markingguidelines need to be approved and signed off for distribution and implementation. In the 2008examination session, most of the assessment bodies adhered to the fi nal marking guidelines.The quality of marking has also been found to have improved, and these good standards shouldbe maintained through constant training and development to make sure that these goodpractices are transferred to the educators in the classroom. Nevertheless, marking still needs to becontinuously improved and assessment bodies should strive for improvement in terms of the type oftraining that is given to markers.The standardization of marks is a moderation process conducted only when necessary to addressthe variations in the standard of question papers, internal assessment, and the standard of markingthat may occur from examination to examination, and between sites of learning.37
In June and October 2008, for example, Umalusi standardized all 23 learning areas examined bythe DoE and the six learning areas examined by the IEB. Umalusi only standardizes if more than80% of the results have been captured and are thus available for the standardization process.In both examination sessions in 2008, all subjects were available for standardization. In the Juneexamination, for 16 of the learning areas, the raw marks were accepted, while the raw marks fornine of the learning areas were accepted for the November exam.In the statistical moderation process for the 2008 GETC: ABET, comparisons between the currentmark distributions and the mark distributions of the previous years since 2001 are used for the basisof standardization decisions. Pairs analyses are also used to compare the mean marks in twolearning areas taken by the same group of candidates. These analyses are based on the principlethat, as a group, the performances of the same candidates in two related learning areas (takenat the same level) should show close correspondence. On the basis of all these comparisons,together with qualitative reports from chief markers and internal and external moderators, marksare either not adjusted, or are adjusted upwards or downwards by specifi c amounts over defi nedmark ranges. The major rules that are employed in the standardization of examination results are asfollows:• No adjustments in excess of 10%, either upwards or downwards, are applied, except inexceptional cases; and• In the case of the individual candidate, the adjustment effected should not exceed 50% of themark obtained by the candidate.Umalusi and the DoE have agreed each to have pre-standardization meetings separatelybefore meeting together for the standardization meeting. These meetings are used by Umalusito interrogate the statistics supplied by the DoE. The DoE uses the pre-standardization meetingsto draft its proposals for adjustments, whilst Umalusi drafts provisional responses to probablerequests for adjustment. This process of having preparatory meetings to review the standardizationproposals of the other party appears to be providing greater stability in the last of the critical qualityassurance processes prior to the confi rmation of results.4.3.3 THE STATE OF ASSESSMENT FOR ADULTS AT NQF LEVEL 1 GETCIt is now eight years since the implementation of the fi rst ABET Level 4 examinations, quality assuredby Umalusi, and there are defi nite indications that the assessments in most of the learning areasare improving. The written examination still forms the core of the whole examination because ofits relatively reliable nature, and, though well conducted, still does not always receive the rigorousattention it deserves from the assessment bodies. The internal moderation of some of the questionpapers remains questionable, which impacts negatively on the standard.The reliability of the internal assessment component of the examination remains a matter ofongoing concern, but there are signs of improvement in respect of the quality of the tasks,structure, and presentation of portfolios. Overall, though, the implementation and managementof the SBA tasks continues to remain at an unacceptable level. For that reason, building andexpanding the capacity of the current corps of adult educators must be seen as one of the keypriorities to ensure effective growth and stability in the sector. The professional development andconditions of service of these ‘foot soldiers’ should be addressed as a matter of urgency.Some areas of concern, raised in the 2008 Umalusi report on the GETC exams, are worth re-iterating.In certain learning areas such as Applied Agriculture and Agricultural Technology; Economic andManagement Sciences; and Mathematical Literacy, Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences,ABET candidates continue to perform singularly poorly. The DoE has agreed that the standard ofteaching in these learning areas is often poor (the reasons for this situation are raised in Section 4.5below).38
Page 2 and 3: INSPECTING THE FOUNDATIONSTowards a
Page 4: AcknowledgementsThis report is the
Page 8 and 9: AcronymsABEABETAETAHCDoEECDETDPETQA
Page 10 and 11: describe Public Adult Learning Cent
Page 12 and 13: literacy campaigns. They attribute
Page 14 and 15: determine learner competence. But w
Page 16 and 17: 3. Methodology usedThis research co
Page 18 and 19: some offer FET subjects only. Numbe
Page 20 and 21: 4. Findings4.1 NQF LEVEL 1 QUALIFIC
Page 22 and 23: This history of a qualifi cation th
Page 24 and 25: the weighting used for Learning Are
Page 26 and 27: Table 3: GETC: ABET Learning Outcom
Page 28 and 29: (if this is seen to be in the inter
Page 30 and 31: was circulated at a national ABET m
Page 32 and 33: 4.2.1.5 Private ABET provider docum
Page 34 and 35: electives. Some of the examples of
Page 36 and 37: to maintain and improve the norms a
Page 40 and 41: The problem of English being the la
Page 42 and 43: This pattern of Setas’ being able
Page 44 and 45: learnership has been completed, it
Page 46 and 47: While the occupational qualifi cati
Page 48 and 49: • The associated curricula should
Page 50 and 51: Singizi (2007). Employment Pormotio
Page 52 and 53: PURPOSE AND RATIONALE OF THE QUALIF
Page 54 and 55: UNIT STANDARDS:Core 7511ID UNIT STA
Page 56 and 57: Appendix BGeneral Education and Tra
Page 58 and 59: This Recognition of Prior Learning
Page 60 and 61: Elective Component:The Elective Com
Page 62 and 63: ID Number; Unit Standard Title; Cre
Page 64 and 65: • ID 14569; Demonstrate an unders
Page 66 and 67: 2.3 Algebraic techniques are select
Page 68 and 69: learning components and should use
Page 70 and 71: A choice of three Reading Core Skil
Page 72 and 73: Numeracy and Mathematics:• VBQU26
Page 74 and 75: Currently, there are over one hundr
Page 76 and 77: wider selection of vocational subje
Page 78 and 79: UNIT STANDARDS (continued):Fundamen
Page 80 and 81: PROVIDERS CURRENTLY ACCREDITED TO O
Page 82 and 83: ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR CURRICULUM D
Page 84: Where possible and necessary, the c

Inspecting the Foundations - Umalusi

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?