Impact of the National Qualifications Framework on curriculum delivery in higher education
Ami Sundar
Curriculum Manager
Eastern Institute of Technology, Hawke's Bay, New Zealand
Reforms in education, through the introduction of the New Zealand National Qualifications Framework, are having spiralling compliance cost to curriculum delivery. Increasingly, traditional providers of education are faced with huge delivery cost, which raises pedagogical and philosophical issues of quality in education.
Now that Industry Training Organisations and National Standards Bodies are responsible for the construction of qualifications and setting of standards, providers are faced with a learning curve that is critical for the survival of the National Qualifications Framework. Issues relating to the Framework and delivery of Unit Standards in context of curriculum design, standards, academic ethos, assessment and moderation, and staff development, are providing newer challenges for institutions to cope with in a competitive market.
In the tertiary sector, there is both support and scepticism about the National Framework Qualifications. While the Polytechnics have generally accepted the Framework, there are still a number of unresolved issues and many more emerge as the experiment continues. In this paper an attempt is made to highlight the key features of the Framework that impact on some of the pedagogical and philosophical issues of curriculum and its delivery in higher education. It further argues that flexibility and accessibility may be its strength but excellence and coherence is the heart of it that needs to be guarded against on the Framework than to make believe propaganda of the Qualifications Authority.
Introduction
Of all the education reforms that have been introduced since 1990 in New Zealand, the introduction of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) is certain to be the most profound and far reaching. The fact is that the development of the NQF is a great deal more than just an attempt to tidy up a confusing qualification structure. It is almost certain that this revolution is not understood at all by the general public.
The purpose of this investigative paper is to highlight the key features of the National Qualifications Framework that impact on some of the pedagogical and philosophical issues of curriculum and its delivery in higher education. It further argues that excellence and coherence in qualifications are real issues for the success of the Framework.
Background
The current reform is a quiet revolution that permeates the New Zealand education scene. This can be attributed to the "economic rationalisation" (Codd, 1995) that motivated the Government to generate economic growth, because unemployment was perceived as a consequence of inadequacies in the education system. The belief of new liberal idealogues, who used the ailing economy to legitimise their control over educational enterprises, was that setting national standards for all qualifications would lead towards upskilling the New Zealand workforce. Strathdee (1994:79), in discussing the change to the new Qualifications Framework, captures the essence of it when he states,
Who decides what counts as valuable knowledge and how this knowledge is organised, delivered and assessed, indicates who currently has power in our society. In this way, there is always a politics of official knowledge.
What follows in this paper epitomises the very nature of this control and the attempt to push through reforms without the least concern about the consequences on standards in the short-term.
The Framework
The 1990 Education Amendment Act created the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the National Qualifications Framework, aimed at streamlining the number of qualifications and the way these are delivered and managed in N.Z. The Framework in itself is well received in many quarters. However, in higher education (especially in universities) there is scepticism about its academic rigour and the "unknown factor" of its final form. The Framework offers choices to learners because qualifications are more accessible, flexible and portable- somewhat an antithesis of higher education, which is seen to be selective, less accessible and restricted to those with "brains".
The Framework's structure operates at two levels that impact on curriculum delivery and its related activities.
- Industry Training Organisations (ITOs) and National Standard Setting Bodies (NSBs) are responsible for setting national standards for every qualification on the Framework. To date, there are 53 ITOs and 6 NSBs (Spotlight, 1996:4). These organisations have the responsibility to set the standards and qualifications from Level 1-8 onto the Framework.
- Providers like the polytechnics, PTEs and wananga are responsible for delivery of qualifications. They are to meet several conditions, including quality management systems, tendering for funds, accreditation, assessment and moderation, and reporting as part of the "new world" environment in education.
The pre-occupation in implementing educational reform is the single-mindedness of the Qualifications Authority. Structural change, coupled with experimentation in curriculum delivery, is creating confusion and overload of information. More emphasis has gone into the infrastructure than in curriculum-the core business of education and training that is expanded on next.
The curriculum design
The unit-based approach forms the main thrust of offering choices to learners to select relevant courses in attaining a national qualification. Standards are defined in terms of meeting performance criteria. On its prima-facie, the Unit Standard approach looks seductive intellectually and pedagogically. The presentation of learning outcomes in a logical order seems to be very attractive, appealing and eminently reasonable. This, however, represents a very parochial view of learning, considering that the process of learning is a much more complex concept. The format in this model emphasises only intended learning elements under each set of learning outcomes as being relevant and worth considering for their mastery; thus neglecting other aspects of learning that occur as being irrelevant and peripheral to the specific learning outcome. What happens to unintended learning that concurrently takes place with intended learning? The popular assumption that assessment will validate that process somehow in retrospect, is both fallacious and misleading. Competency-based assessment is designed to meet specified standards. Other underlying knowledge and understanding are secondary to this experience. Is it all important?
The rational empirical model (Tyler, 1949) forms the basis of prescriptive work in curriculum development and its approach is tailor-made. It is described as a "deficit" model (Sundar, 1985) because it presupposes that certain skills lacking in a learner can be corrected through a set of learning strategies that will correct that particular deficiency. Gonczi (1994) and O'Neil (1992) support this argument by stating that tasks are atomised and made mechanical under this approach because it is unconcerned with the connections between the tasks and coming together of them as a whole. Hinchcliff (1994) raised a number of potent issues about learning tied down by pre-determined, positivist performance criteria because inspiration, intellectual excitement, etc can not be 'quantified'. Different individuals bring in a wide range of skills in their repertoire of behaviour and pre-set standards can not account for holistic learning. A reductionist approach ignores underlying attributes, group processes and their effects on performance.
Contrary to the popular belief that institutions offering Unit Standards will be free to choose their mode of delivery (The NZ Curriculum Framework, 1993) the opposite is often true. The argument that flexibility frees the teacher to select whatever method is best suited for achieving the stated learning outcomes is a misconception. Instead, there is a direct relationship between unit standard and mode of delivery. The irony is how does one get to meet standards set by another organisation without aligning teaching and learning towards those performance criteria prescribed by it. How does a tutor avoid from not working towards achieving a particular outcome without taking the cue from the stated learning outcome in deciding the mode of delivery? One cannot assess performance unless you teach performance (O'Neil, 1992:16). Irwin (1994:82) stresses the view that in practice the registration of outcomes as part of the unit standards imposes considerable difficulties for curriculum delivery and carries the risk of conformity and of restricting diversity and innovation. Many tutors are driven by assessment tasks to measure performance criteria. What concerns is that teaching and learning have become a series of assessment tasks at the expense of critical thinking and creativity. The prescriptive nature of the model is stultifying and product oriented. It impedes teachers from innovating and creating better teaching strategies.
Standards in education
Unit Standards purport to contain both education and training outcomes and the 'standards' against which the performance of outcomes will be assessed. Only lower level, usually vocational, Unit Standards contain 'standards' to be met for the award of credit (Irwin, Elley, Hall, 1995). Training outcomes are catered for, but educational outcomes especially at higher levels are restricted to allow for intellectual debate and exploration. Unit Standards are incompatible with the notion of excellence and would have a disruptive effect on coherence and integrity of university degrees. Not only would this produce a fragmentation of knowledge but it would emphasise measurable behaviours at the expense of creative problem-solving and higher level of cognitive capabilities (Codd, 1994:6).
There is even a bigger issue in higher education. A Ministerial Lead Group (1994) suggested the registration and recognition of two kinds of degrees on the Framework. There is this issue of standards and credibility at stake again. The final report is due to come out shortly and the battle over standards will come up for further debate.
Academic ethos
When the knowledge base in education is considered, the unit-based approach scores on skills at the expense of other areas of learning, namely the affective domain. Acquiring knowledge and skills are important and so are value and attitude because we live in a culture. Whether one domain of learning is more important than another is a matter for debate. The affective domain under the unit-based approach is given a lukewarm emphasis. Furthermore, the ability for a Unit Standard to assess some of the more long term attitudinal and value-oriented goals is restricted under this model. The varying time frame for each Unit Standard can leave tutors with little time to get to know and understand their customers sufficiently well in order to assess them adequately. Rathgen (1993:43) states that certainly it's important to meet individual needs, but we may find that more individualisation leads to depersonalisation, with students not having a tutor who knows them well enough to advise them and track their learning path. The likely result is a cafeteria model - a model that allows everyone to pick and choose whatever they wish as long as they are able to pay for the services. Thus, the humanistic element of education is missing somewhere within this approach to learning.
It can be argued that a unit-based approach has a limited advantage as a skills training model, but is not good enough as an approach to account for the all-important aspects of learning for excellence and quality through education. Achieving a National Qualification is surely no guarantee of finding a good job. The qualification may show that it is neither strong academically nor vocationally: instead learners could end up choosing from "a large buffet of scholastic junk food" (O'Neil, 1992:7). What's in store as a surprise for tomorrow is unknown. There is far too much experimentation carried. Perhaps an undreamed of monster is being created that may create "initiative fatigue" (Haffenden & Brown, 1989, 24) as an inhibiting factor for sustained enthusiasm for innovation.
Assessment and moderation
Assessment and moderation are the integral part of any curriculum delivery package. As stated earlier, accountability has been one of the driving forces behind a modular approach to make education meet the entrepreneurial needs of business. Greater accountability for money spent on education is the agenda for some of the key players in this change. Assessment of learning outcomes in some tangible and quantifiable way is seen to be satisfying some groups' agendas of controlling funding of educational institutions. Assessment and moderation have become the "buzz" words for review and quality assurance, as these processes will produce a measurable yardstick. Consequently, in some areas programmes have turned into a series of assessments. Over-killing the system with an endless series of assessment is the consequence of this Framework. While moderation of assessment forms an important part of accountability, it is only a small part of the teaching and learning process. The current trend places little emphasis on the improvement of the currency or "undervalue" (Haffenden & Brown, 1989:15) of knowledge and processes by which outcomes are achieved. Achievement of competencies is the bandwagon for the moment. However, research studies (Irwin, 1994; Gonczi, 1994) are beginning to show some of their inadequacies. Competencies are incorporated in assessment methods for their verification and, if assessment methods do not fit the purpose, then there are inadequacies in the system.
The behaviourist approach to the delivery of Unit Standards leads towards discrete and fragmented learning outcomes. The missing link between the main concept or qualification and what happens in different modules seems somewhat lost in the process of competency-based assessment. A learner can possibly master a series of learning outcomes without understanding the overall purpose of the qualification, and there may be no summative method of evaluating its effectiveness anyway. The value of a qualification is an issue of credibility. Construction of qualifications, with credit values and levels, does not seem to be working either as some Unit Standards are over-rated in credits or they lack cohesiveness in building towards a qualification. Monitoring national qualifications at different levels on the National Framework is paramount. The last thing that the nation can afford is a education system that does not understand the worth of the document at each level.
Staff development
Historically, staff development has been given the step motherly treatment. While there is an acknowledgment of such training, very little is done in a planned way. Resourcing staff development programmes becomes an issue. It is always the change that comes first rather than the staff to prepare for that change. Considering that curriculum change is slow and ever developing, training staff to meet current and future needs can not be over emphasised.
Compliance cost
The introduction of the NQF has spiralling compliance cost to providers in quality management systems, accreditation, moderation, health and safety, etc. This being further exacerbated by the fact that Government funding to tertiary institutions is to be reduced by 5 per cent by 1999. There is a gradual reduction on EFTS subsidy from 79 % in 1995 to 75% in 1999 (Todd, 1994:8-24). An estimate by the Polytechnic sector (25 of them) showed their infrastructure cost has soared by some 30 per cent to meet these requirements, without any increase in their budget. Reduction in teaching hours, lack of resources for classroom teaching and increase in workload are new phenomena of education reform facing tutors of today.
Conclusion
The impact of the NQF on curriculum delivery has certainly given a structure that allows for seamless education. It has opened windows for opportunity in terms of flexibility and accessibility but, when it come to issues of coherence and excellence in education, then it becomes murky. Spiralling costs to education in an uncertain environment is definitely negating the very essence of the change. Academic issues in relation to curriculum delivery are complicated and can not be analysed easily. The success of the Framework will be judged against quality in education and that remains more elusive and inconclusive than perhaps the Government wants the public to believe for now.
References
A Single Harmonised Qualifications Framework (1994). A Report of the Ministerial Tertiary Lead Group, November.
Beckford, N H. (1995). Learn. New Qualifications Authority, Number 4, 51.
Haffenden, I & Brown, A. (1989). Implications of Competency-Based Curricula. Report of Phase 1 of an FEU Project (RP495), University of Surrey.
Hager, P. (1994). "Use and Misuse of Competency Standards." Australian Training Review, Dec1993/Jan/Feb 1994, 3.
Hall, B. (1994). "Britain's System of National Vocational Qualifications is not Working." Australian Training Review, Editorial.
Hinchcliff, J. (1994). Quality: An Alternative Perspective. Auckland Institute of Technology, 1-13.
Gonczi, A. (1994). An Integrated Competency Approach to Professional Education and Assessment. University of Sydney, 1-32.
Irwin,M., Elley, W., and Hall, C. (1995). Unit Standards in the National Qualifications Framework. Education Forum, May.
Irwin, M. (1994). Curriculum, Assessment and Qualifications. New Zealand Business Roundtable for the Education Forum.
O'Neil, J. (1992). "Preparing for the Changing Workplace," Educational Leadership, 49(6), 6-9.
O'Neil, J. (1992). "Putting Performance Assessment to the Test," Educational Leadership, 49(8), 14-19.
Rathgen, E. (1993). "Re-thinking Modules," English in Aotearoa, NZ Association for the Teaching of English, 5(19), 42-44.
Smithers, A, (1994). "All Our Futures: Britain's Education Revolution." Australian Training Review, Editorial, Dec. 1993/Jan/Feb. 1994, 2.
Strathdee, R (1994). "Some Factors Driving the New Qualifications Framework," NZ Journal of Adult Learning, 22(1), 79-90
Sundar, A. N (1985). The Relationships Between the Selected Variables of Primary Head teachers and their Views on Curriculum Guidelines in Fiji. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York.
The NZ Curriculum Framework (1993). Ministry of Education, Wellington: The Learning Media.
Todd, J (1994). Funding Growth in Tertiary Education and Training. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
| Please cite as: Sundar, A. (1996). Impact of the National Qualifications Framework on curriculum delivery in higher education. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July.
http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/sundar.html |
[ HERDSA ]
[ Proceedings Contents ]
This URL: http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/sundar.html
Created 3 June 2002. Last revision: 3 June 2002.
© Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc
