A critical analysis of quality assurance of occupational learning in South Africa.
Date
2015-05-18
Authors
Traut, Nadia
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
The introduction of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) brought with it
decentralised learning and assessment practices and associated quality assurance systems
that have been extensively critiqued over the past 19 years.
This research utilised the case study approach to examine quality assurance of occupational
education in South Africa in respect of three quality assurance cases of occupational
learning. The analysis was conducting using a Quality Assurance Analytic Tool developed
for this study that included analytic categories of ‘Purpose’; ‘Map of Qualifications’;
‘Bureaucracy’; and ‘Agreements’. Despite each case providing unique data in terms of the
model implemented, a recurring pattern emerged: while quality assurance is necessary to
provide accountability to the stakeholders and is ultimately obligated to support the
objectives of the NQF and ensure consistency across provision sites, definitions of quality
were lacking and this creates a barrier to evaluation.
This research agrees with literature which argues that quality assurance is justified as the
custodian of quality in order to satisfy public accountability. However, quality must be defined
and shared, so that all role players are aware of the goals and measurements. The study
also argues that quality assurance should ensure consistency of output of education and
training and as such, standardised curriculum, centralised assessment and associated
quality assurance mechanisms should be put in place.
Finally, recommendations are made for the improvement of the Quality Assurance Analytic
Tool that was able to effectively evaluate what was working broadly in respect of the
categories investigated and was able to conclude that effective evaluation is largely
dependent on the articulation of clear and specific objectives for quality assurance and
definitions of quality, but was not able to evaluate achievement of quality assurance in great
detail.