|dc.contributor.advisor||Kapp, C. A.||
|dc.contributor.other||University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Education. Dept. of Curriculum Studies.||
|dc.description||Thesis (MPhil (Curriculum Studies)--University of Stellenbosch, 2007.||
|dc.description.abstract||A new Outcomes-based Education (OBE) system, as well as a new Further Education and
Training (FET) framework, has been proposed by the government to address past inequalities and
provide a skilled labour force. The introduction of OBE has necessitated a paradigm shift in both
educational and assessment practices.
The FET policies, led by the introduction of the Green Paper for FET in 1998, aimed to inform the
FET institutions on the implementation of outcomes-based assessment. However, the
implementation of these policies has posed many obstacles and challenges. Lecturers are unsure
about the implementation strategies, and their attempts to cope with these uncertainties are seldom
effective. Consequently, lecturers struggle to bring their assessment practices in line with the
policies. This was the research problem of the study.
The aim of the study was to determine discrepancies between the policies and the practices. The
FET policies and related literature were consulted to determine how assessment practices should
change. Subsequently, a questionnaire and focus group discussions were used to determine the
current assessment practices of lecturers at the Klerksdorp campus of Vuselela College.
Thereafter, the requirements of the policies and the current assessment practices of the lecturers
were compared to determine the extent to which the lecturers had adopted the new assessment
Various discrepancies were found. The first discrepancy existed between the implementation
strategies of the new FET curriculum and the actual implementation process at the college. No
learnerships had been implemented in the N-courses and the implementation process had been
delayed several times. A second discrepancy existed between the requirements for lecturers to be
registered as assessors and the registration process. Lecturers completed the training courses but
struggled to register as assessors. A bottleneck existed with the registration process because of the
number of lecturers that had to be registered. In addition, the training did not provide the lecturers
with sufficient knowledge to implement outcomes-based assessment while the training was
presented on the wrong National Qualifications Framework (NQF) level.
Another discrepancy existed with regard to the implementation of the learnerships and the
implementation of outcomes-based assessment. Lecturers were only expected to implement outcomes-based assessment in courses where learnerships had been implemented. This meant that
lecturers who lectured on N-courses were still required to use more traditional assessment
methods. While some lecturers preferred paper-based assessment methods, other lecturers felt that
the restrictions imposed by the DoE were depriving them of the opportunity to use more
alternative methods. Problems such as an increase in the workload, administration and paperwork
and learner numbers were also experienced.
Regarding these discrepancies, it was firstly recommended that the DoE be realistic about
implementation dates and be transparent about delays and problems. Lecturers could assist the
DoE in the implementation process by writing unit standards. Secondly, it was recommended that
the DoE should have an efficient structure in place to deal with the vast number of lecturers that
would 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-based
assessment. Thirdly, lecturers could be encouraged to implement the new assessment practices by
giving them recognition for good work, providing them with assistance and appointing lecturers
who act solely as assessors.
These discrepancies are more related and the recommendations more useful to this particular
college than the assistance that is provided by the DoE by making the college aware of the
obstacles and challenges that the new assessment practices pose.||en_ZA
|dc.publisher||Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch||
|dc.subject||Dissertations -- Curriculum studies||
|dc.subject||Theses -- Curriculum studies||
|dc.subject||Vuselela College (Klerksdorp, South Africa)||
|dc.subject||South Africa. Dept. of Education -- Regulations||
|dc.subject||College teachers -- Training of -- South Africa -- Evaluation||
|dc.title||A comparison of policies and practices in assessment in a Further Education Institution||en_ZA
|dc.rights.holder||University of Stellenbosch||