DOCUMENT RESUME HE 028 489 ED 386 087 Hall, Cedric AUTHOR Obstacles to the Integration of University TITLE Qualifications and Courses into the National Qualifications Framework. Nga Taumata Matauranga 0 Aotearoa Higher Education in New Zealand. Occasional Paper Number 1. ISBN-0-475-20000-4; ISSN-1173-0951 REPORT NO 94 PUB DATE 36p.; A publication of the Educational Development NOTE Centres of New Zealand Universities. Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.) PUB TYPE (120) MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. EDRS PRICE Academic Achievement; *Academic Standards; College DESCRIPTORS Credits; College Instruction; *Degree Requirements; Degrees (Academic); Educational Philosophy; Educational Policy; Educational Quality; Foreign Countries; *Government School Relationship; Grades (Scholastic); Higher Education; Program Design; Public Policy; *Qualifications; Student Evaluation; *Universities *New Zealand IDENTIFIERS ABSTRACT This paper identifies some of the major obstacles to the integration of university qualifications into New Zealand's National Qualifications Framework. Currently, New Zealand's universities are under pressure to integrate their qualifications into the Framework which employs a method of unit design that is generally more suited to trade and technical training than the general and professional education programs typically offered at universities. The paper examines problems that would arise if the Framework method of defining unit standards were applied to the design of university programs and papers. Several pedagogical problems are identified along with philosophical differences between the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) and the universities credit over matters such as the nature and structure of knowledge, transfer, the recognition of prior learning, the transfer of generic skills, and the primacy given by the NZQA to unit standards rather than to total qualification. Instead of universities following the unit standard model of development, an extended framework structure is suggested which emphasizes the total qualification. Such a structure is likely to allow for a more productive relationship to develop between the NZQA and universities. (Contains 21 references.) (JB) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** AVAILABLE BEST COPY "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS IOUCATICIOI IMPARTMENT U Ilmootch and lotwooNnoot MCI at Eouctotonsi MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY INFORMATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES CENTER (EM) Cedric Hall twooducIO /Toot document Mu Moo ot orgonaohoo wowed kern too Woof+ otptootong woosevo wen foods to 0 Maw clung** My. t04,00uCtI04' Oulity MAIO In INS 00Cit TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES floonts 01 voItor 01 oplot000 othoNt rtcOMttly motowent inAl 00 not INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." 0E111 voodoo or pottcy 0 Aotearoa Nga Taumata Matauranga Occasional Paper Series NEW ZEALAND: HIGHER EDUCATION IN Courses University Qualifications and Obstacles to the Integration of Paper No 1: Qualifications Framework into the National ISSN 1173-0951 ISBN 0-475-20000-4 Universities Development Centres of NZ Syndicate of Educational Published by: University of Wellington, C/O UTDC, Victoria New Zealand PO Box 600, Wellington, © Cedric Hall 1994 dealing for the purposes of Apart from any fair This paper is copyright. be reproduced criticism, or review, no part may private study, research, publisher. should be addressed to the without permission. Enquiries Syndicate membership: Auckland Office, University of Higher Education Research of Waikato Development Unit, University Teaching and Learning Wellington Centre, Victoria University of University Teaching Development Higher Educational Victoria University: Wellington Polytechnic and Development Group Canterbury Advisory Unit, University of Educational Research and University Education Centre, Lincoln Centre, University of Otago Higher Education Development University of Wellington Cedric Hall, Victoria Series Editor: Editorial Board: of Otago Graham Webb, University University Neil Fleming, Lincoln of Canterbury Roderick McKay, University Polytechnic Alison Viskovic, Wellington University of Wellington Joanna Kidman, Victoria of Waikato Neil Haigh, University of Auckland John Jones, University Education in New Zealand 0 Aotearoa: Higher Nga Taumata Matauranga of scholarly fill a gap in the publication series has been created to The Occasional Paper New Zealand. The of higher education in and research in the area commentary, argument research in higher education. debate on policy and series is to inform major aim of the OP those of the editorial and not necessarily those of the authors The views presented are Anyone wishing to submit a rigorous peer review. however, are subject to board. All papers, editor. should contact the series manuscript for consideration, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The final version of this paper has taken a long time to develop and has already been distributed to over 50 readers as a draft discussion paper. The final version resembles closely, but not exactly, the March 1994 discussion paper. The writer would like to thank all people who contributed comments on the earlier draft. Not everyone has agreed with everything I have said, but the overwhelming reaction has been one of strong support. In particular I would like to thank Angela Werren, Nicholas Tar ling, Les Holborow, Joanna Kidman, Megan Clark, John Barrington, Jim Collinge, Graham Webb, Terry Crooks, John Jones, Neil Haigh, Alison Viskovic, Michael Irwin, Warwick El ley, Rod McKay and Marilyn Davies. As mentioned, the views expressed in the paper are mine and need not agree with those who have contributed comments. I would also like to thank the staff of NZQA who have taken the time to meet with me and discuss the issues I have raised; my comments are in no way a criticism of their professionalism. I would also like to thank NZVCC for their support. The NZVCC position statement on the Framework draws upon some of the arguments contained in this paper; the development of these arguments owes a lot to discussion with colleagues appointed to the relevant Working Party, in particular, Alastair Fox and Peter Holland. I would like to thank Stuart Mackintosh Finally, for his desk-top publishing skills and Wiremu Kaa and Hemi Kingi for advising on a suitable title for the series. Cedric Hall ABSTRACT the identify some of the major obstacles to The purpose of this paper is to Qualifications qualifications into the National integration of university problems that would arise if the Framework. The paper examines standards were applied to the design fiamework method of defining unit Several pedagogical problems are of university programmes and papers. differences between NZQA and the identified along with philosophical %nowledge, nature and structure of universities over matters such as the of generic of prior learning, the transfer credit transfer, the recognition rather than the NZQA to unit standards skills, and the primacy given by standard of universities following the unit the total qualification. Instead suggested extended framework structure is model of development, an likely to total qualification. Such a structure is here which emphasises the the NZQA relationship to develop between allow for a more productive and universities. Obstacles to the Integration of University Qualifications and Courses into the National Qualifications Framework Cedric Hall (Victoria University of Wellington) Introduction Under the present climate of accountability, New Zealand universities are being required to look very closely at their procedures for ensuring the quality of their academic activities. Course and programme design, teaching, assessment and research productivity are all coming under increasing scrutiny. The decision of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors' Committee (NZVCC) to establish an academic audit unit is an example of the response of universities to the current climate. Within universities a number of well developed quality assurance systems already exist, including departmental reviews, the use of external examiners, probationary procedures for new lecturers, and appraisal mechanisms covering the evaluation of teaching, annual reporting, promotion and the professional development of staff. From the perspective of this paper, the procedures used by universities for designing and monitoring individual courses or papers (units of study) are of particular significance. At the present time universities are under pressure to integrate their qualifications into the National Qualifications Framework which employs a method of unit design that is generally more suited to trade and technical training than the general and professional educational programmes that are typically offered within universities. This paper examines some of the problems that would arise if the Framework method of defining unit standards were applied to the design of individual university papers. In particular, the arguments are made (i) that the specification of 'elements' (objectives) should not be separated from the course design process, (ii) that the elements (objectives) of a paper should not be part of the unit registration, and (iii) that performance criteria should be associated with the particular assessment tasks undertaken by students rather than individually with each element or objective. These issues have fundamental pedagogical implications. This paper also draws attention to other obstacles which limit the applicability of the Framework to university education. These include: the primacy given by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) to unit standards rather than the total qualification; the different outlooks of the universities and NZQA on credit transfer, the recognition of prior learning and the transfer of generic skills and competencies; the scope and 1 operate a and the capacity of the NZQA to structure of the Framework; both vocational and university Framework which incorporates here extended structure is suggested qualifications. On the latter point, an develop productive relationship to which would allow for a more between the NZQA and universities. Terminology by confusion in and course design is typified The literature on assessment often used for example, is 'Course', the use of terminology. of study (e.g. a degree) simultaneously to refer to a complete programme be called an within a programme. What used to and an individual paper in the referred to as a 'learning outcome' or, 'objective' is now more often 'element' of learning; Qualifications Framework, an case of the National inter-changeably while in other contexts sometimes these terms are used that an objective different variations or formats they are used to describe might take. that for this below are intended to ensure The definitions that are given made to understanding. No attempt is being paper there is a common adopting a standard institutions or bodies into force different groups, actually happened. benefits would arise if this language, although clearly and optional courses, The combination of core Programme: in order to modules, which a student must pass papers, units or other qualification. A programme obtain a degree, diploma or satisfy students must comply with to includes the rules that credits concerned (e.g. number of achievement of the qualification in a subject). the requirements for majoring to be achieved and of study unit: An individual unit Course, paper, module or awarded as which credit or points are within a programme for of a qualification. contribution towards the award either a of intent which identifies Objective: A succinct statement action or a achieved from a particular desired outcome to be experienced. This should be undertaken or desired process which objectives. The outcome and process definition allows for both (as used by the NZQA) are outcome and element terms learning examples of the first. Framework The National Qualifications established the New Zealand Amendment Act (1990) The Education for creating and (NZQA) with responsibilities Qualifications Authority 2 operating a framework linking secondary, technical, professional and other higher education qualifications. The functions of the NZQA include: "To oversee the setting of standards for qualifications in secondary schools and in post-secondary education and training:" (Para 253 (1)(a)) "To develop a framework for national qualifications in secondary schools and in post-secondary education and training in which- (i) All qualifications ... have a purpose and a relationship to each other that students and the public can understand; and (ii) There is a flexible system for the gaining of qualifications, with recognition of competency already achieved:" (Para 253 (1)(c)) In pursuance of these functions, the NZQA has established an eight level Framework which sequences the different qualifications that are nationally recognised through secondary and post-secondary education. Figure 1 shows the basic pattern.1 LEVEL 2 4 3 6 5 1 7 8 N tional Certificate National Diploma Higher degrees; higher certific- ates & Initial degree culminating at level 7 diplomas Figure 1: Levels of the New Zealand Qualifications Framework The NZQA identifies the building blocks of the Framework as 'unit standards' (see below) which are assigned to the Framework according to their level. In turn, qualifications consist of tailored packages of units or papers developed by providers (educational establishments and/or employers) to incorporate the set of unit standards considered appropriate to the profession, industry or field of study in question. Note that an individual paper can combine several unit standards and/or cover additional material not directly related to the unit standard(s) under study. The placement of unit standards within the Framework is intended to promote ease of movement of students between programmes and learning establishments. The development of systems for credit transfer and recognition of prior learning are therefore fundamental to the operation of the Framework; this work is currently underway in consultation with the various professional and educational groups. The NZQA does not itself develop curricula although it works with national advisory groups to develop unit standards. Its role is to establish 3 units the inclusion of programmes and policies and criteria for approving with required to do this in consultation in the Framework; the NZQA is Training Ministry, NZVCC, Industry the relevant groups (the NZQA Bodies and other parties). The Organisations, National Standards policies and criteria for accrediting also has the role of establishing of establishments to provide courses institutions and private training consult in this process. study and training; again it must NZQA Unit Standards which of 'elements' (outcome objectives) A unit standard identifies a set specified achieve in relation to students/trainees are expected to with the required to be registere performance criteria. Unit standards are information shown in Figure 2. Framework and comprise the standard relates (e.g. Broad area to which the unit Domain: Shorthand); Write and transcribe Title of unit standard (e.g. Title: 60 words per minute); shorthand expiry date; Level, credit rating, final date for comment, Data: unit standard Sub-field of the domain to which the Sub-field: relates (e.g. Office Systems); of the unit; A brief explanation of the purpose Purpose statement: for the educational and other requirements Prerequisites Entry information: entry; of evaluation (e.g. accreditation of Method Accreditation option: documentation by NZQA); Description of procedures for moderation; Moderation option: the unit standard; Information which helps contextualise Special notes: acquired; The skills and knowledge to be Elements: performance on each The standards against which Performance criteria: element will be measured: of application the Information which clarifies Range: and material performance criteria (e.g. the equipment conditions which that should be used, the environmental should apply, etc.). Framework2 Unit Standard for the Figure 2: Information specified in a Standards Bodies or developed either by National Unit standards are thorough training and are based on a Industry Training Organisations knowledge that are attitudes, competencies and needs analysis of the skills, professions concerned. The the industries or considered fundamental to generally carried out by the course design, is unit delivery, including (called the 'providers'). The educational institutions employers and/or requirements for accreditation expected to conform with unit delivery is of a system for the example, the development which include, for 4 evaluation of teaching, clear evidence o( the availability of the necessary financial, administrative and physical resources to support delivery, and assessment procedures which are fair, valid and consistent.3 Under this model, the elements and performance criteria given in the unit standard act like coat pegs on which providers are required to hang their content, teaching and assessment procedures. The integration of the two stages the development of unit standards and unit delivery is critical for achieving a coherent programme of training. This will be discussed shortly. NZVCC programme approval requirements Under the Education Amendment Act 1990, the NZVCC is assigned the responsibility, which it already held, for the approval of university courses and programmes. The NZVCC released a booklet in 1993 ouilining its procedures which are built on five criteria developed jointly by the NZQA and NZVCC. The criteria comprise:4 The acceptability of the proposed course [programme]* to the relevant academic, professional and other communities in terms of its stated objectives, nomenclature, content and structure. The adequacy and appropriateness of the regulations that specify requirements for admission, credit for previous study, recognition of prior learning, course [programme] structure, assessment procedures and the normal progression. The availability of appropriate academic staffing, teaching and research facilities, and support services. The adequacy of the means of ensuring that assessment and appeals procedures are appropriate, given the stated objectives, and fair. The adequacy of the provisions for monitoring course [programme] standards and quality, for reviewing course [programme] regulations and content, and for determining whether the course [programme] shall continue to be offered. (*Inserted by the writer; see Terminology earlier.) To a large extent the criteria ratify most of the procedures that the NZVCC Committee on University Academic Programmes (CUAP) have applied for some time. However it should be recognised that before CUAP consider the approval of a new programme a lengthy and detailed scrutiny within and between universities will have taken place. In respect of individual courses or papers, initial approval requirements focus on the following items: 5