The Mathematics / Numeracy and Communication / English teaching teams both received successful reports in 2024 External Verification reports. EV visits can be daunting for many lecturers and the current mode of delivery (arguably) makes this difficult in terms of preparation, as they are now conducted online. Not only did lecturers have to supply all materials in online format, many of them were involved in the then industrial dispute. This meant fewer hours to prepare the folders, conduct pre EV meetings, IV work etc., as many of them were working to contract only. Both the visits had to be rearranged as a result, which was acknowledged in the respective reports.
This post draws out some of the main points which contributed to two all green / high confidence Qualification Verification reports.
This demonstrates the levels needed to Assure Quality, and various groups were verified from levels 3-6 inclusive (VG 340) May 2024 and level 6 (VG 001) April 2024.
All colleagues are advised to read the EV reports, previous and most recent ones, to get a feel for all the criteria points in sections 2, 3 and 4. Knowledge and understanding of these are helpful for the online meeting discussions, where much of the good practice points can be fleshed out and written up in the External Verifier's report.
Core Skills Numeracy feedback highlights
The centre was congratulated on having appropriate and contextualised assessments. Marking and progress recording were clear.
Internal verification was thorough and effective. Comments made were valid and key in ensuring a good standard of assessment, marking and recording across the numeracy units.
A significant number of numeracy units have been prior verified.
Thorough internal verification of evidence, with good recording.
The candidates' qualifications are reviewed by the host department to ensure appropriate for the course. The host department allocates the candidates to the appropriate numeracy class. The assessor can change the unit being studied if the candidate is struggling. Candidates who require extra support are referred to the ELS team who provide the the necessary help.
Candidates must have scheduled contact with their assessor to review their progress and to revise their assessment plans accordingly.
For F3GF10, F3GF 11 and F3GF 12 the centre has devised a number of contextualised versions specific to their course.
Clear marking and recording on scripts.
Communication and English feedback highlights
The centre has received a High Confidence rating, with all quality criteria securely evidenced. The centre uses a range of learner-centred approaches to teaching of FA1W12 and FA5812. It is very clear from the discussion with both the learners and assessors as well as from the evidence provided that the delivery team are committed to providing a very high quality learning and teaching experience for students.
The team also received praise for their efforts in ensuring the suitability and the relevance of assessment material, with high standards maintained when making decisions about candidate evidence.
Internal verification procedures are also effective.
During this visit, evidence from all three sites was reviewed: Cumbernauld and Coatbridge for Communication (NC) (FA1W12/13 and 14, respectively), and Cumbernauld and Motherwell for Literature 1 (FA5812/114 and 111, respectively).
During the visit, candidates from SWAP Access to Nursing, SWAP Access Social Sciences, and NQ Psychology and Criminology courses were available to provide feedback on their learning and teaching experience, as well as the support available.
All candidates praised the organisation of the learning and teaching experience of both FA1W12 and FA5812, the range of assessments undertaken and the feedback provided, and were very satisfied with the support received from, and the frequency of contact with, their assessors. In particular, the candidates said they found classes intellectually stimulating, were encouraged to critically engage with the material taught, and to spend time on self-reflection, for example in relation to individual talks.
They also agreed that their support needs, where relevant, were met, for example by having a regular access to computers and/or having assessments, learning and teaching material available in different formats.
A very impressive assessor’s blog providing both students and the assessor with opportunities to review aspects of course delivery.
Assessments used in Communication (NC) incorporate vocationally relevant and current materials, enhancing engagement with specific student groups. More specifically, the department prepares learners for academic report writing, offering guidance modelled on reports in higher education settings. For example, the reports submitted to me prior to the EV activity were characterised by: an effective use of structure, information based on academic research into various and reliable sources, and inclusion of intext referencing and a bibliography list. The students then use this information to prepare an individual talk, supported with PowerPoint slides.
Additionally, students benefit from an interactive blog maintained by their assessor, fostering reflection, deepening knowledge, and nurturing a cohesive group dynamic. For all assessments there were detailed task instructions, a record of text, a marking guide, and performance criteria matched to the current specification. This level of detail is best practice.
The centre has a policy in place to ensure authenticity (POLAP 9: Assessment Malpractice and Maladministration Policy). This policy deals with plagiarism, collusion, copying, offensive and frivolous content, fabrication, deception , cheating, bribery, misconduct, sabotage. In line with recent developments in generative AI such as ChatGPT, the centre also has a policy on plagiarism and AI. We briefly touched upon SQA's policy on the use of generative AI in assessments (https://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/ 107507.html) in this context.
Candidates sign a declaration form upon the submission of each assessment to confirm their understanding of malpractice and expectations of authenticity. Several drafts of written work are retained (examples of these were presented to me as evidence), and the assessors work closely with candidates as work is generated. Submissions made by candidates are uploaded to Turnitin and automatically checked for plagiarism using antiplagiarism software, with the assessor being able to review the rate of plagiarism and to take action, if necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment