A comparison of policies and practices in assessment in a Further Education Institution

[摘要] A new Outcomes-based Education (OBE) system, as well as a new Further Education andTraining (FET) framework, has been proposed by the government to address past inequalities andprovide a skilled labour force. The introduction of OBE has necessitated a paradigm shift in botheducational and assessment practices.The FET policies, led by the introduction of the Green Paper for FET in 1998, aimed to inform theFET institutions on the implementation of outcomes-based assessment. However, theimplementation of these policies has posed many obstacles and challenges. Lecturers are unsureabout the implementation strategies, and their attempts to cope with these uncertainties are seldomeffective. Consequently, lecturers struggle to bring their assessment practices in line with thepolicies. This was the research problem of the study.The aim of the study was to determine discrepancies between the policies and the practices. TheFET policies and related literature were consulted to determine how assessment practices shouldchange. Subsequently, a questionnaire and focus group discussions were used to determine thecurrent assessment practices of lecturers at the Klerksdorp campus of Vuselela College.Thereafter, the requirements of the policies and the current assessment practices of the lecturerswere compared to determine the extent to which the lecturers had adopted the new assessmentpractices.Various discrepancies were found. The first discrepancy existed between the implementationstrategies of the new FET curriculum and the actual implementation process at the college. Nolearnerships had been implemented in the N-courses and the implementation process had beendelayed several times. A second discrepancy existed between the requirements for lecturers to beregistered as assessors and the registration process. Lecturers completed the training courses butstruggled to register as assessors. A bottleneck existed with the registration process because of thenumber of lecturers that had to be registered. In addition, the training did not provide the lecturerswith sufficient knowledge to implement outcomes-based assessment while the training waspresented on the wrong National Qualifications Framework (NQF) level.Another discrepancy existed with regard to the implementation of the learnerships and theimplementation of outcomes-based assessment. Lecturers were only expected to implement outcomes-based assessment in courses where learnerships had been implemented. This meant thatlecturers who lectured on N-courses were still required to use more traditional assessmentmethods. While some lecturers preferred paper-based assessment methods, other lecturers felt thatthe restrictions imposed by the DoE were depriving them of the opportunity to use morealternative methods. Problems such as an increase in the workload, administration and paperworkand learner numbers were also experienced.Regarding these discrepancies, it was firstly recommended that the DoE be realistic aboutimplementation dates and be transparent about delays and problems. Lecturers could assist theDoE in the implementation process by writing unit standards. Secondly, it was recommended thatthe DoE should have an efficient structure in place to deal with the vast number of lecturers thatwould have to register as assessors. This can be done by employing extra human resources.Better training is necessary to support and empower lecturers to implement outcomes-basedassessment. Thirdly, lecturers could be encouraged to implement the new assessment practices bygiving them recognition for good work, providing them with assistance and appointing lecturerswho act solely as assessors.These discrepancies are more related and the recommendations more useful to this particularcollege than the assistance that is provided by the DoE by making the college aware of theobstacles and challenges that the new assessment practices pose.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University