Qualification Framework - 2nd Round Discussions

[Anil]

Dear Colleagues,

This is the second round of regular discussions on Qualification
Framework commenced by Leigh Blackall at
http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/074c36ce5b7f6aaf

The first round of discussions was held during 30/07/2008 to
13/08/2008 and the summary of the same is available on
http://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework/tqf_discussion_summary

The outputs of the first round were:

1. One very remarkable immediate response during the discussions was
Paul's announcement of arrangement to share the VUSSC related
documents with WE.
2. The decision to use the term 'Qualification Framework' instead of
'Curriculum' as the prime topic of discussions.
3. The decision to change the name of the url http://www.wikieducator.org/Curriculum_INDEX
to http://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework (done)
4. Decision to list the existing National Qualification Standards
5. Decision to make the discussion forum a permanent venue for
discussions on National and Transnational Qualification Framework .

Now, let us commence the second round through the last comment of the
first round submitted by Vivek Sharma and the most important part of
his comment reads "I think that while conducting this activity, we
have to bear another factor in mind that this is to be implemented
soon…..The stakeholders – teachers, administrators, teacher
associations, publishers, students and so on have their own interests,
which will have to be kept in mind while development of curricula and
benchmarks" Based on this valuable suggestion, I would like to propose
an agenda for the second round - "Sharing of experiences in developing
Qualification Framework", if agreed, let us find out the major players
behind the consolidation of National Qualification Frameworks in
different Nations and request them to share their experience with us.

Warm regards
Anil

[Minhaaj ur Rehman]

Dear Anil, Leigh, Wayne and Peter,

Sorry for
jumping in this a little late but i was distracted by other technical
and face to face l4c workshop meetings that i am organizing in
Pakistan. Another reason that i didn't want to form an opinion about
the Qualification framework was my knowledge base about the topic.
Normally i review a lot of literature before i form an opinion about a
specific topic. In Qualification framework context i had to read a lot
about subtle frameworks, as Leigh mentioned Australian and
Newzealand's Qualification frameworks as well as current documentation
at wikieducator.

I have been browsing through requirements and content of different
courses on Newzealand's framework website on http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/framework/search/index.do.
I have look at Australian documentation on http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/framework/search/index.do
I compared them with current work on WE for example:
http://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework/Professional_Education/Management#Syllabus_.E2.80.93_1st_Year

I totally believe that we are on right track perfectly aligned with
our vision of creating OERs by 2015. I think there is a need for local
adaption and changes with respect to cultural norms, and more
participation and discussion is needed within country nodes to draw a
framework for the changes needed to localize the knowledge base. I
would like to quote the philosophy of Ubuntu and Free Software
Foundation here that is probably for softwares but in social context
that can be translated as 'Ability to use resources (software) in your
own language that can be modified according to your own needs'.

During this discussion i have found few posts that i have found
particularly important and relevant to this larger discussion about
Qualifications framework. I believe discussion was started by Peter
when he mentioned Assessment and Accreditation. This is a wonderful
idea to discuss. Without an assessment and accreditation framework,
Qualifications would be meaning less. Its like setting up a plan
without having someone to analyze the results and consistency with the
larger strategy. If COL is to empower VUSSC project then there should
be a solid accreditation and assessment criteria that should help
educators and students both find a meaning and accreditation from
their participation and work on WE. This discussion might not be
relevant to developed countries where educators would selflessly
develop open resources and do not need accreditation or attribution
for that (which i think should not be the case, they should be duly
awarded and honored for their services), but it is a very important
issues in third world. Proper recognition and atleast a digital
certification for their work should be granted.

I was having a discussion with local educators here and we all were of
view that wikieducator is a fabulous project that bridges the gap
between first and third worlds through education and OERs, but needs
for recognition and accreditation is higher on our side of the world.
Collaboration and Accreditation from developed world grooms these
educators and students from third world, in an unprecedented way and
mentioning that in their resumes and accomplishments can significantly
improve odds in their local environments. I absolutely see no qualms
from COLs side for not associating atleast a digital certificate for
their wiki skills workshops and content creation, although i were
calling the shots, i would have mailed printed certificates for these
people. These certificates can be mailed in batches if that costs a
lot to send them. Then these certificates can be distributed by
country node directors further.

I would sum up this discussion in my recommendations for what
qualifications framework should include in order to be geographically
and culturally neutral and universally useful:

* A framework including assessment and accreditation processes.
* Strong support and participation of COL deploying its means to
ensure Qualification framework's execution.
* Strong WE community support and activity in their respective country
nodes to proliferate this framework and contribute their feedback on
it.
* This should be first priority of newly elected council in addition
to finalizing governance policy if we are serious about acheiving our
goals by 2015.
* Formulating framework into understandable and executable processes
that are simple enough for laymen.

I hope my observations and insights into this topic would help you to
see the importance of the issues i have mentioned above.
Thanks
Minhaaj

[Wayne]

Hi Minhaaj --

Wow -- you've been doing your research!  These are very valuable insights regarding the challenges associated with cultural re-contextualisation.

Assessment and accreditation are critical pieces of the puzzle -- but also not without complexity.  We have a lot of work ahead of us and at some point I think we should invite some of the national accreditation bodies like NZQA, the Australian equivalent and other national qualifications authorities for advice and counsel as we move forward.

What do you think?

Cheers
Wayne

[Leigh Blackall]

Excellent summary Anil, and lead in to the next phase. Great to have you in the conversation Minhaaj, you prompt me to write this to see where it leads in relation to your concerns:

In Australia and NZ, people are trained to conduct assessment. These people are NOT subject experts nor teachers, but instead they are neutral people who understand their National Qualifications Framework and can assist people to gather evidence and organise for assessment and certification of their skills. Commonly this arrangement is employed in a process known as Recognition of Prior Learning - where someone seeks qualification through work experience rather than a formal course.

The assessor will help the candidate to understand the framework units they have nominated for wanting assessment in and help them gather appropriate evidence for assessment (video, documentation, certificates, references, exam results etc) and where necessary, arrange for an expert to come in and observe a demonstration of particular skills that need more than just evidence.

So, the Qualifications Framework (and in this case, a transnational framework) is a large collection of units that are assessment guides - and specify a certain agreed process for assessment. They are formal documents that a trained assessor can read and understand, and can assist people to seek assessment in. Similar to legal documents that lawyers help to interpret.

The question Peter raises is whether or not we need that assessor/mediator as much as all that. And I think if we succeeded in keeping the language plain and comprehensible to common readers, then they should serve as assessment guides for everyone - not just trained assessors.

--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
SL - Leroy Goalpost
http://learnonline.wordpress.com

[Minhaaj ur Rehman]

Thanks for your feedback Wayne and Leigh.
@Wayne you are right, we should invite these bodies to conversation at
some point but i am thinking that involving authorities from
developing world e.g india and Pakistan or other countries is what
would help because i am concerned with educational resource
utilization in these countries. To be honest, if we look at the
structure of WE and our OER content, its evident that people in third
world can benefit from it way better than people in western world.
Disparity in incomes and access to basic necessities does make a lot
of difference and i believe education is a basic human right that can
and should not be discriminated. Said that, i would love to see
creation/participation of National qualification authorities from
third world countries to keep our transnational qualification concerns
geographically neutral.

@Leigh I am glad to know that ordinary people are making contributions
in qualifications framework in NZ and Australia and i believe this is
the democratic way of knowledge creation and wiki way as we say it :)
As far as your arguments about asse ssment guide is concerned i do
think that this is a good idea to create a general guide but we being
the change agent and pioneer of this transnational framework should
step up to plate and create a model transnational framework of
assessment as a paradigm to follow that is universally acceptable and
unprejudiced. This would ofcourse need local modifications and thats
understandable, but, if we are to introduce a change like that, we
should be able to demonstrate HOW too. I liked your point about
keeping language simple (thats what i proposed in my earlier post) for
ordinary people to be able to comprehend and create a meaning from our
academic philosophies thats pretty much Greek to non-academic
audiences :)

I always think our academics in terms of excellence in knowledge and
spirit but i am ticked off by the chasm that academics and their
audiences have because of the vocabulary they use. Our vocabulary may
be good for academic journals and research papers but to be able to
connect with people it has to be as simple as slang. It is the
responsibility of us privileged people who have education to bridge
this knowledge gap and simplify things for those who don't have this
opportunity. If we don't fix the service bottlenecks for these people,
i don't see any purpose of our existence. I have always been involved
with practical work more than academic debates and i believe that it
is about time academics realize that doing things is more important
than thinking about them.

Lets get going :)

> > courses on Newzealand's framework website onhttp://www.nzqa.govt.nz/framework/search/index.do.
> > I have look at Australian documentation onhttp://www.nzqa.govt.nz/framework/search/index.do
> > I compared them with current work on WE for example:http://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework/Professional_Educ...

[aprasad]

Dear Paul,

 

I think we require more discussions in this matter.

 

The suggested Qualification Framework node on WE is not to create just another parallel system on WE. On the contrary it envisages triggering the development of National Frameworks  in countries where it has not been developed so far by networking educators and administrators trough regular discussions, assist the updating of existing Frameworks and be catalytic for development of Transnational Curriculum Framework that connect all parts of the globe by connecting all these efforts together. During this process WE will be able to adopt the frameworks for quality content development.

 

Parallel systems are one of the very difficult riddles to solve in all sectors of governance including education. But the interesting thing is that what parallel is not the systems but the mindsets. Once we succeed in getting the minds realise the beauty and worth of sharing, then there shall not have any parallel systems, only supplementary and complementary systems! Let us use WE as an effective medium for that.

 

Dr. Wayne may also want to comment on this very interesting and critical discussion thread.

 

Warm regards

Anil

On 8/25/08, Paul West <pw...@col.org> wrote:

Anil

Thanks for the update. I added this paragraph to the page:

"We note that the "Transnational Qualifications Framework" is being
developed by the Ministries of Education of the Commonwealth Small States as
a part of their Virtual University for the Small States of The Commonwealth
(http://www.col.org/vussc]. The WE community therefore will need to come up
with a another name to reflect this community initiative within WE."

Please give the acknowledgement for the existing TQF where it is mentioned
and work with the group to use another name for the WE version to try to
avoid confusion. Since the TQF concept document will not be accepted on the
WE site, a link to it can still be placed which I have also added.

It will be good practice to make it quite clear that this is a community
effort and not one initiated by Governments.

Thanks

Paul


> From: Anil <aple...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
> To: WikiEducator <wikied...@googlegroups.com>
> Cc: Wayne Mackintosh <wmack...@col.org>, <leighb...@gmail.com>,
> <cge...@gmail.com>, Paul G West <pw...@col.org>, <pro...@gmail.com>,
> <leol...@gmail.com>, <praws...@gmail.com>, <mensah...@gmail.com>,
> Savithri Singh <singh.s...@gmail.com>, Patricia Schlicht
> <PSch...@col.org>, "Dr. Srinivasan Ramakrishnan" <direct...@yahoo.com>,
> Pankaj Khare <pkh...@ignou.ac.in>, sanjay jasola <sja...@yahoo.com>, "Dr.
> Paily" <mup...@yahoo.com>, Missan <sanjayami...@gmail.com>,
> <pillai...@gmail.com>, Uma Kanjilal <ukan...@ignou.ac.in>
> Subject: Qualification Framework - 2nd Round Discussions

>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> This is the second round of regular discussions on Qualification
> Framework commenced by Leigh Blackall  at
> http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/074c36ce5b7f6
> aaf
>
> The first round of discussions was held during 30/07/2008 to
> 13/08/2008 and the summary of the same is available on
> http://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework/tqf_discussion_summary
>
> The outputs of the first round were:
>
> 1. One very remarkable immediate response during the discussions was
> Paul's announcement of arrangement to share the VUSSC related
> documents with WE.
> 2. The decision to use the term 'Qualification Framework' instead of
> 'Curriculum' as the prime topic of discussions.
> 3. The decision to change the name of the url
> http://www.wikieducator.org/Curriculum_INDEX
> to http://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework (done)
> 4. Decision to list the existing National Qualification Standards
> 5. Decision to make the discussion forum a permanent venue for
> discussions on National and Transnational Qualification Framework .
>
> Now, let us commence the second round through the last comment of the
> first round submitted by Vivek Sharma and the most important part of
> his comment reads "I think that while conducting this activity, we
> have to bear another factor in mind that this is to be implemented

> soonŠ..The stakeholders ­ teachers, administrators, teacher

> associations, publishers, students and so on have their own interests,
> which will have to be kept in mind while development of curricula and
> benchmarks" Based on this valuable suggestion, I would like to propose
> an agenda for the second round - "Sharing of experiences in developing
> Qualification Framework", if agreed, let us find out the major players
> behind the consolidation of National Qualification Frameworks in
> different Nations and request them to share their experience with us.
>
> Warm regards
> Anil

--
Warm regards

Anil
http://wikieducator.org/User:Anil_Prasad
http://wikieducator.org/India
http://wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework
http://wikieducator.org/Curriculum_INDEX/Professional_Education/Management/MHRM

Skype: apletters

[aprasad]

Dear Paul,

 

''There might be an opportunity to work as an informal group that wants to positively influence governments...'' - I hope it is just what the community want to do, again not only influence but willing to be influenced by novel ideas and works. Most of the community members, including me, are regular employees in different organizations and not in a position to put forward official proposals. We get freedom to collaborate with WE only because of the fact that it is a non-profit making voluntary service (which is informal) for betterment of education.

 

Therefore members discuss and develop models to share ideas in the first hand and to help the community members who are interested in developing content/ activity to select contextually relevant topics and set bench marks for its quality and quantity so that it will be most useful to the learners.

 

Then how governments and educational institutions are going to benefit? In the ever growing WE community potential players in governments will also be there. So they can use the community resources for official discussions in their concerned organizations on their own capacity and responsibility.

 

In the event of such potential players decide to share their formal frameworks to get community's contributions on content/activity development; still the community may work in the same informal voluntary way to help them without any official obligations. Members like me may cease to exist once it becomes highly official or formal <smile>

 

Warm regards

Anil

 

 

On 8/28/08, Paul West <pw...@col.org> wrote:

Anil

When COL discussed the TQF concept document with the small states' government officials (over 20 countries), we specifically presented the possibility of including a global forum via a section in WikiEducator. We received no support for this; it may be because the technology is still rather foreign to many people. We then held a session at the Pan Commonwealth Forum in London at which we presented the possibility of using wikis and blogs as a feedback mechanism for standards setting processes. The standards bodies were distinctly not keen about opening up the process to wikis, but were willing to consider an additional process for receiving feedback, like blogs and online surveys.

COL does not have a mandate to establish any standards setting bodies and would only have a role in this if specifically requested by a government. WikiEd likewise, has no mandate in this area and experience shows that the technology is not the technology of choice of the national agencies, at least not now. The WikiEd community can do what it likes, but should not make it look like it is doing something on behalf of governments when it is not. A mandate would have to be received from those governments for which WikiEd claims it is working.

If WikiEd links to the TQF concept document, discusses it and proposes work flows, processes or anything else, we (COL) can pass on that information (via a URL) to the government agencies involved. Let's be clear though, that the TQF process is a government initiative, part of the Virtual University initiative; it is not a WikiEd initiative and we all need to ensure that no false impressions are presented.

Regarding the establishment of national qualification authorities in countries where they do not exist yet: these are generally under development in one way or another. There are regional qualification authorities that have been established by governments and their regional bodies, to help their member countries to establish NQAs - - where required. Not all countries need them, preferring to work in co-operation across multiple countries where this seems more appropriate. I don't know how you would approach governments to offer to help them. Governments have various organisations they may approach including existing qualification agencies that already exist and have experience in doing this. WikiEd needs to have a formal structure (like a business registration, etc.) to even consider trying to take on what will be seen as consulting services.  

There might be an opportunity to work as an informal group that wants to positively influence governments, but I must recommend against trying to take on tasks that are in the jurisdiction of national governments, especially when they have not asked you to do this.

Paul

---

From: aprasad <aple...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:03:38 +0530
To: Paul G West <pw...@col.org>
Cc: WikiEducator <wikied...@googlegroups.com>, Wayne Mackintosh <wmack...@col.org>, <leighb...@gmail.com>, <cge...@gmail.com>, <pro...@gmail.com>, <leol...@gmail.com>, <praws...@gmail.com>, <mensah...@gmail.com>, Savithri Singh <singh.s...@gmail.com>, Patricia Schlicht <PSch...@col.org>, "Dr. Srinivasan Ramakrishnan" <direct...@yahoo.com>, Pankaj Khare <pkh...@ignou.ac.in>, sanjay jasola <sja...@yahoo.com>, "Dr. Paily" <mup...@yahoo.com>, Missan <sanjayami...@gmail.com>, <pillai...@gmail.com>, Uma Kanjilal <ukan...@ignou.ac.in>
Subject: Re: Qualification Framework - 2nd Round Discussions

Dear Paul,
 
I think we require more discussions in this matter.
 
The suggested Qualification Framework node on WE is not to create just another parallel system on WE. On the contrary it envisages triggering the development of National Frameworks  in countries where it has not been developed so far by networking educators and administrators trough regular discussions, assist the updating of existing Frameworks and be catalytic for development of Transnational Curriculum Framework that connect all parts of the globe by connecting all these efforts together. During this process WE will be able to adopt the frameworks for quality content development.
 
Parallel systems are one of the very difficult riddles to solve in all sectors of governance including education. But the interesting thing is that what parallel is not the systems but the mindsets. Once we succeed in getting the minds realise the beauty and worth of sharing, then there shall not have any parallel systems, only supplementary and complementary systems! Let us use WE as an effective medium for that.
 
Dr. Wayne may also want to comment on this very interesting and critical discussion thread.
 
Warm regards
Anil

Skype: apletters

[Leigh Blackall]

Hello all, thanks Anil for replying to Paul. My contribution to this discussion will continue on the Wikieducator list, so this is only a brief note to say that I remain very interested in discussions with well meaning colleagues for a conceptual development of a Transnational Qualification Framework (of general meaning) and that I look forward to the discussion progressing there.

If the name (TQF) has branded ownership with Paul's project, then I'd suggest a semantic name change so that we may proceed with what has been a stimulating and useful discussion around TQF generally. Peak government bodies and their mandates aside, the points we have so far discussed on the Wikieducator mailing list (which have been very well summarised by Anil) have helped me to progress my work in the New Zealand Polytechnic sector where I seek to internationalise the potential at least of the courses I develop and offer. Such work is seen as progressive here in NZ and our government bodies are well known for responding to acts of leadership from within the sector.

With regard to wikis (and blogs) - when the relevant government bodies around the world feel ready to use tried and tested technology like wikis, then they will be pleasantly surprised by a very large workforce (and general populace) already there and using it. To New Zealand's credit, its Ministry of Education, its Police Force and its National Library are all very well versed in the use of such technology and author significant documents such as the Police Review 2007, The Digital Content Strategy and the KAREN network project. Following this trend in the NZ Government sector, I wouldn't be surprised if the NZQF will adopt wikis in some capacity soon. Who knows.