OFFICE OF THE TASMANIAN BN 31/13 QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY

BRIEFING NOTE FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

THE TASMANIAN QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY

SUBJECT: English Applied TQA level 2. PURPOSE: To seek accreditation of the proposed courses. BACKGROUND: At its meetings of 4 April 2012 (Agenda Item 2.1) and 6 June 2012

(Agenda Item 2.1) the Authority made a set of decisions regarding the use of ACARA-developed content and achievement standards in relevant English, mathematics and science courses required for 2014. In the context of this course, English Applied (expiring 31 Dec 2013) was to be replaced by a new course drawing on ACARA-developed materials in Essential English Units 1 and 2. The Office undertook the necessary ‘cut and paste’ from the ACARA-developed materials in Essential English and used subject experts to assist in the construction of draft criteria and standards, modules of work and work requirements. As the various elements of the course document were developed they were published for general comment, with comments informing the refinement of subsequent drafts. This process involved four invitations for comment in the periods: 23 August – 17 September 2012; 18 – 30 September 2012; 1 - 15 October 2012; 16 - 30 October 2012. On 31 October 2012 a coherent, provisional draft course document was published for general comment. At its meeting of 3 April 2013 the Authority noted that, “as previously decided an updated English Applied course will be a coherent course in its own right.” Comments received, and those sought by TQA managers during face-to-face meetings in February 2013, identified some issues regarding the draft course and its suitability as a replacement for English Applied. Further meetings were held with some providers to clarify concerns and issues. The Office undertook re-working of the course document in light of comments received. In early August 2013 we approached two leading teachers in the area to request that they act as ‘critical friends’ and supply feedback on the re-drafted course prior to its general circulation. Neither was able to assist us.

The modified version of the course document was circulated for general comment in the period 9 to 23 August 2013. We received feedback from Hobart College and Rosny College. The course document was refined in light of the comments received. Rosny College made a significant contribution to this task. The revised course was published for comment as an exposure draft released as part of the accreditation process in the period 5 to 19 September 2013. We received three responses:

• Circular Head Christian School wrote to support the proposed course and pointed out an error in the award algorithm. This error has been corrected

• Debbie Heather from Elizabeth College asked if we could extend the comment period so as to take account of outcomes from a meeting of teachers held on 20 September 2013. These outcomes and TQA responses are noted in Attachment A

• Sharyn Lawrence (Curriculum Teacher Leader- English/ ESL) wrote a set of comments. These and TQA annotations are noted in Attachment A.

The proposed course has been analysed against the TQA’s Course Accreditation Criteria. The analysis is given in Attachment B.

CURRENT SITUATION: The following course document is ready for accreditation

consideration (Attachment C): New course: Replacing: English Applied TQA 2 size value 15

English Applied TQA 2 size value 15

ISSUES: 1) There have been some changes made to the exposure draft

course document. These have been made in response to the comments received (see Attachment A) and the Accreditation Report (see Attachment B). These refinements have included: • addition of an Access section re-group work • modifications to some criteria standard elements to

increase consistency and address group tasks • clarification of work requirements • additional Learning Outcomes • correction of award requirements • modification of order of document sections • additions to Rationale statement.

2) In order to address concerns regarding the use of an SA or higher award in this course as a proxy indicator that a learner has reached the TCE’s everyday adult reading and writing standard (see Item 2.2 and CEO Report, Authority meeting of 3 October 2012) the following has been added to the Quality Assurance Process: The TQA may require providers to supply further samples of individual students’ work to determine that standards have been applied appropriately when finalising students’ results. The nature and scope of this requirement will be risk-based. This ‘enhanced’ meeting-style model of quality assurance will have significant resource implications for the Office, and for providers. The Office will need to give providers clear and specific direction regarding this requirement.

RECOMMENDATIONS: That the course be accredited for use from 1 Jan 2014 until 31 Dec

2018. That the course be assigned a robustness level of 3. That the course be assigned the following characteristics for the TCE: Course: English Applied TQA 2 size value 15

TCE Contribution: level/credit points towards participation and achievement standard for PA or higher TQA 2, 15 credit points TCE Contribution: ‘Everyday Adult’ standard for SA award or higher Reading and writing

PREPARED BY: Dr Mike Jenkins

Liaison and Development Officer, TQA Date: 11 October 2013

APPROVED BY CEO: Acting under delegation from the Tasmanian Qualifications Authority to accredit senior secondary courses. Delegation to the CEO of the power to make accreditation decisions

under Section 26 is limited to those cases which meet the conditions below:

!

Delegation Conditions Comment The course proposed clearly fits all the criteria for accreditation established by the Authority.

The proposed course meets the Authority’s Senior Secondary Course Accreditation Criteria. See Attached Reports.

Accreditation of the proposed course is consistent with Authority policy decisions, including the need to streamline the number of courses.

At its meetings of 4 April 2012 (Agenda Item 2.1) and June 6 2012 (Agenda Item 2.1) the Authority decided that this replacement course was required.

An assessment of risk to the Authority’s reputation of a decision to accredit the course is agreed in consultation with the Chair of the Authority to be low.

The CEO and the Chair of the Authority met on 21 October 2013. It was agreed that accreditation of these proposed courses was low risk.

Course accreditation will only be carried out by delegation when the decision is positive (all refusals will be made by the Authority meeting) and in full compliance with Authority policy decisions

The recommendation is for a positive decision (ie accreditation).

Proposals for new courses, unless previously decided by the Authority, whether or not fully compliant in all other respects, will fall outside the delegation

The proposed course replaces an existing one. It is not a ‘new’ course.

Cases where there is not agreement that the risk to the Authority’s reputation is low would fall outside the delegation.

n/a

Signed by Dr Reg Allen CEO, Tasmanian Qualifications Authority Date: 21 October 2013 Acting under delegation from the Tasmanian Qualifications Authority to accredit senior secondary courses.

Attachments: A: Comments Received on Exposure Course Document English Applied – Office Annotations, Actions B: Analysis of Proposed Course C: Proposed Course Document!!

Attachment A: Comments Received on Exposure Course Document English Applied – Annotations/Actions

Respondent (name/s and provider):

Respondent statement: Office annotation Action

‘X’ on behalf of a group of teachers from ‘X’

Teachers attending the Southern Regional English Applied QA Meeting on Friday 20th September recommend two changes to the Work Requirements for Writing in Strand 2 – Read and view for meaning and purpose (p.12). 1). Include viewed texts for three pieces of written responses: Record reflective responses and synopsis of read or viewed texts 1 creative (not imaginative) response to a read or viewed text 1 analytical response to a read or viewed text 2). “Creative” to replace “imaginative” response to allow greater scope of genres or text types for students. With the inclusion of these two changes, the meeting endorsed the Exposure Draft.

Reply by email: ‘We can action the proposed change regarding addition 'or viewed' but will add a rule that at least one of the response-types must be based on a read text.’ ‘We use 'imaginative' as a common term as per ACARA-developed English glossaries for consistency. We will give the definition, noting that it includes 'creative'.’

As per annotation As per annotation

‘X’

• The changes to the discussion draft show that much of the teacher feedback has been successfully acted upon, resulting in a much more practical, appealing course for the target cohort. The wording of the standards, in particular, is clear and useful for both teachers and students. The inclusion of sample student reading/ viewing lists is helpful.

• It is disappointing to note that this new course

features ICT use but the course cannot be counted toward the ICT essential skills

While digital technology and ICT can be useful tools in accessing and creating texts, it is not clear that the course can

Respondent (name/s and provider):

Respondent statement: Office annotation Action

component of the TCE. While the previous course emphasised the use of technology, and included its assessment in the criteria, the new course has an integrated approach which will not enable the course to count toward ICT competence. There is a continuing paucity of level 2 courses that students can choose to show evidence of essential skills ICT for the TCE. The new English Applied 2 course had the potential to fulfil this requirement and thus, to enable more students to gain their TCE, which is a D o E priority. Of course, developing ICT competence is not a special domain of English but while it remains a compulsory component in the TCE it is important that we develop courses that enable it to be attained in a practical, engaging context.

• The list of suggested topics for the Negotiated

Study continues to be unwieldy and unattractive to the majority of students in this cohort. Even though it is only a suggested list is does provide important information for teachers new to the subject who are seeking direction for this module so it needs to be more realistic and appealing.

• The ability to work effectively in groups

remains a key employability attribute and is of vital importance for students who are on the employment pathway. The importance of this competency should be reflected in a formal way in the course since students need to develop their skills through explicit teaching, opportunities to be part of groups and formal

only be delivered through the use of these technologies. The list is suggested only, and has been developed with significant input from a range of providers. It is noted that the ACARA-developed course material that was used to construct (in part) this course notes that students work ‘independently and collaboratively’. The Course Description notes that learners will interact with others in a variety of settings to discuss ideas and

Access requirement statement added and ‘individual and group’ goals / objectives noted in two standard elements of criterion 7.

Respondent (name/s and provider):

Respondent statement: Office annotation Action

assessment. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS

SUGGESTION ALTERNATIVE Technology competence for TCE

Specify evidence of competent ICT use in the Negotiated Study; add several ICT use specific standards in criteria 1, 2 and 6

Group work Include group work development

Add group work to the Course Description; add a standard to Criterion 7 to include students using strategies and negotiates to complete group tasks

Negotiated Study Suggestions Amend list to include more ‘student-friendly’ options

Amend list to include more ‘student-friendly’, engaging options, particularly in the community and workplace sections

information. Course Content notes that learners will engage in conversations and group discussions etc

!!!

ATTACHMENT B: ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED COURSE

TQA Senior Secondary Course Accreditation Report On Exposure Draft Course Document

Course:

English Applied TQA Level 2, size 15

Course Proponent:

Tasmanian Qualifications Authority

Evaluation Officer(s):

‘X’

Evaluation Date:

25 September 2013

Accreditation History

English Applied is a replacement course for ENA215109 that was accredited for use from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2013.

Evaluation History 1. Rationale

The proposed course has a clearly identifiable rationale which includes consideration of strategic need, demand, coherence and increasing student participation/achievement Including appropriate consultation with stakeholders.

The Rationale briefly addresses the aims of the proposed course. It does not make clear the need for this specific course in the range of TQA level 2 English courses.

2. Coherence 2.a General Coherence The proposed course

• must have educational aims

and learning outcomes appropriate for students in the senior secondary phase of education in Tasmania; and

• must be at least at the

equivalent of the types of competencies characteristic of AQF Cert I; and

• has a balance of learning of

both domain-specific and generic skills and knowledge

• meets the TQA’s specifications document (if applicable).

• The aims, embedded in the rationale, and Learning

Outcomes are appropriate for students in the senior secondary phase of education in Tasmania.

• The proposed course is at least equivalent to the level

of the types of competencies of AQF Certificate 1. • The proposed course is designed to develop skills in

the spoken word, reading and viewing for comprehension, and creating text, generally applied to everyday adult settings: individual; community; and workplace.

• The proposed course meets the TQA’s as the course draws from Australian Curriculum: Essential English

Units 1 and 2, plus appropriate extra material and depth to justify size 15.

2.b Internal Coherence

• there is clarity regarding what content is compulsory, and what (if any) is optional. Language used reflects this (eg ‘must’ or ‘will’ not ‘should’ or ‘could’).

• (if applicable) the degree of optional content (eg choice between units/topics) is limited. Options allow for some specialisation, but there is a significant ‘core’ of common content

• there is clarity regarding the sequence for delivery of content (eg there are notations to say if the order in which contents is listed in the document reflects compulsory or suggested delivery sequencing)

• there is a clear match between

the stated Learning Outcomes and the Criteria/Standards, and between the Learning Outcomes, Content and Criteria/Standards.

• The Course Requirements clearly state that all three (3)

strands and the one (1) negotiated learning unit are compulsory. The term ‘will’ clearly indicates compulsory parts of each content strands. *The three settings in which the learning activities are contextualised are listed, however it is not stated if each must be included or to what extent they are included.

• Each of the three content strands clearly identifies

optional learning opportunities that are introduced by the stem - ‘This strand may also provide learners with opportunities to:’ These options do not outweigh the core content, but add depth. Examples are given for each content strand and are clearly described as illustrative only. *These sections may be italicised as indicated on p. 3. Some parts of the content strands do not use the terms ‘will’ or ‘may also’.

- In strand one, ‘Learners use oral presentations strategies...’ (p. 5) may mean ‘Learners will use oral presentation strategies....’

- In strand two (2), it is not clear whether the stem ‘Learners also develop:’ (p. 5) means ‘learners will develop:’ or ‘learners may also develop:’

*Using the terms ‘will’ or ‘may also’ in the above cases would provide consistency throughout the document.

• The proposed course document clearly describes the

delivery of content under the section ‘Course Requirements’, and also within each content strand under the heading ‘Delivery’.

• The proposed course content and criteria suggest a

broader range of Learning Outcomes than those listed. Suggestions for augmentation of Learning Outcomes are as follows:

- The content and assessment standards imply a

Note: while some Learning Outcomes may be aspirational (non-assessed, eg ‘develop a positive attitude towards…) the number of such objectives is limited. Overwhelmingly there is a clear match between the outcomes and the criteria/standards.

Learning Outcome similar to the AC Essential English Unit 2 Learning Outcome: examine how the structure and language of texts varies in different modes, mediums and contexts. This Learning Outcome does not appear in the proposed course document.

- Criterion 4 is entitled identify ideas, attitudes and values in texts. The first Learning Outcome does not refer to ‘attitudes’ and ‘values’.

- Learning being assessed in Criteria 6 and 7 do not appear in the Learning Outcomes

- The proposed course does not include aspirational Learning Outcomes, while the Rationale states ‘These skills will also allow them to enjoy and use language ...’ (p. 1).

*Notes:

- There is a typing error in the text of Negotiated Learning Unit (p. 9) first line – ‘It is recommend...’ should read ‘It is recommended...’.

- The positioning of the asterisked definition of

graphics organisers is illogical. (p. 9)

2.c Coherence with other courses

• if applicable, there are clear linages between a TQA 3 course and a ‘Foundation’ course at level 2 (or other specified TQA accredited pathway courses).

Note: a ‘Foundation’ course is not a simplified or ‘easier’ version of a TQA 3 course. It has its own distinctive features (content, standards, criteria etc) but prepares students who wish to study at TQA 3 in the same/ similar learning area.

• There are four (4) identified English courses for use

from 2014 at TQA level 2. They are: Essential Skills – Reading and Writing, English Foundation, English as an Additional Language or Dialect and the proposed course English Applied.

The positioning/target learners of the proposed course in this range of TQA level 2 English courses is not clear in the proposed course document. The pathway described in the proposed course document under ‘Pathways’ p. 2 is limited to a reference to Practical English, TQA level 1.

3. Overlap with other courses Does the proposed course duplicate, by titles or coverage • other TQA senior secondary

accredited courses?; or

• There are four (4) identified English courses for use

from 2014 at TQA level 2. They are: Essential Skills – Reading and Writing, English Foundation, English as an Additional Language or Dialect and the proposed course English Applied.

• nationally accredited VET courses?

Does the course document identify where any outcomes meet the requirements of VET units of competence in Training Packages to the extent that a learner may reasonably expect an RTO to grant direct recognition (RPL, credit transfer) for those units on the basis of successful achievement in the TQA accredited course. The Authority does not expect to accredit a course where almost all the outcomes (content and standards for assessment) align with those for VET Training Package units of competence except where the distinct nature and value of the course can be established on other grounds.

The four courses are drawn from different courses in the Senior Secondary Australian Curriculum or from an IBSA Foundation Training Package, and are therefore unique.

• There is no identified overlap with nationally accredited VET courses.

The proposed course draws from Australian Curriculum: Essential English Units 1 and 2. The ACARA content statements are referenced in the proposed course document under the heading Expectations defined by national standards, p.22.

4. Assessment • there is clarity regarding any

prescribed assessment instruments and work requirements

• the standards are expressed in

clear, unambiguous language (eg ‘sound understanding = C, good understanding = B’ lacks clarity. The standards must clearly describe features/ characteristics of the evidence of student work required by the standard). Note: panel to check criteria and all standard elements against issues noted in Appendix F of the Course Writer’s Guide and make comments here

• Work requirements are clearly stated within each of the

three strands and Negotiated Learning Unit of the proposed course content.

The graphic organiser on p. 12 is a useful, clarifying summary of work requirements. *It may be useful to include the name of each strand in the summary table for easy reference.

• The standards describe the required evidences clearly, unambiguously and specifically.

*Suggested amendments in wording or formatting of standards for consistency are as follows:

- Wording in Criterion 1 and 2 is not consistent o Criterion 1, ‘A’ rating reads:

communicates ideas demonstrating fluency and control of language

o Criterion 2, ‘A’ rating reads: communicates ideas demonstrating fluency and consistent control of language and expression.

- The formatting of the first row of standards in Criterion 3 is not consistent.

• (if applicable) the standards are

comparable with ACARA/ CCAFFL /VET standards in regard to their level of complexity and wording

• the degree of difficulty/

complexity of the standards and the range of criteria are comparable with those in accredited courses in the same/ similar learning area and level of complexity/size value

Note courses used for comparison and comments

• The standards are comparable with those of the Australian Curriculum: Essential English Units 1 and 2.

• It appears that the range of criteria and degree of

difficulty of standards of rating ‘C’ in the proposed course criteria are generally comparable with that of a ‘C’ rating in Essential Skills – Reading and Writing. *Generally the degree of difficulty of ‘A’ to ‘C’ standards in the proposed course is less than those described in English Foundation, TQA level 2.

5. Labelling and terminology

The names used in courses and for results (awards) are simple, plain, readily understandable by practitioners and not mislead reasonable persons. Are the names used for awards/title consistent with current TQA practice? The language used to describe the course, assessment and standards is simple, plain and readily understandable by practitioners.

Note: panel to check document against DoE ‘Without Prejudice: Guidelines for Inclusive Language’ and note comments here

Names for awards and the title are appropriate and consistent with current TQA practices. The language used in the proposed course is clear, simple and understandable. The language in the proposed course is inclusive and aligns with DoE ‘Without Prejudice: Guidelines for Inclusive Language’. The language used is ‘free from words, phrases or tones that promotes stereotypes, disadvantage or social barriers for particular people or groups’. (TQA Accreditation Guide for Development if Senior Secondary Courses, p32.)

6. Delivery The methods of delivering the proposed course are likely to achieve the purposes, aims and learning outcomes of the course.

It is recommended that content be delivered in programs of study that combine the three strands of the course content, prior to the Negotiated Learning Unit. Concurrent learning of the three areas of course content using programs of study, followed by a negotiated study, will achieve the aim and learning outcomes of the course.

7. Access Any limitations to access based on age, gender, employment, cultural, social or educational background are explicit, clearly stated and justified.

There are no limitations documented for access to the proposed course. However, in Pathways, it is stated that ‘Successful achievement in Practical English TQA level 1 can be used as a pathway to this course.’

8. Quality Assurance The assessment processes to be used to determine whether a student has achieved the learning outcomes of the course are of standard sufficient to deliver • a match between the standards

for achievement specified in the course and the standards demonstrated by students; and

• a level of comparability of

results/awards essentially the same as for all other Authority accredited courses; and

• community confidence in the

integrity and meaning of results.

The processes described in the proposed course document outline the reason for, and types of actions by the TQA that will ensure a match between the standards of achievement specified and the standards demonstrated by students.

9. Resource Requirements • What, if any, special

requirements are there for providers of the course (eg special equipment, resources)

• Are these clearly described?

• What requirements are there for the TQA (eg assessment)?

The proposed course states simply that ‘periodic access to relevant ICT hardware including computers and printers’ is required. It is expected that providers delivering such a course will have this resource available to students.

10. Evaluation The proposed course must identify • course monitoring; and

• evaluation processes.

The paragraphs under the section Course Evaluation identifies appropriate course monitoring and the evaluation process.

11. Size /Complexity • Are the level of complexity and

size value of the course clearly described?

• Does the ‘amount’ of content/ assessment regime match the size value indicated?

• Does the nature/aim/purpose of

the course, its content, learning outcomes and assessment standards match the characteristics of the learning

• The proposed course document clearly states and

defines the complexity level as TQA level 2. The size value is stated as 15, with no definition given.

• The ‘amount’ of content and work required to address

the TQA level 2 content, match a course of size 15 (150 hours).

at this level of complexity? (see paragraph in course size and complexity section of the course document for these characteristics).

12. Qualifications

• List the qualifications (including award types) to be conferred on successful completion of the course

• Is this information included in

the course documentation?

• Qualifications Available English Applied, TQA Level 2 (with the award of):

EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT HIGH ACHIEVEMENT COMMENDABLE ACHIEVEMENT SATISFACTORY ACHIEVEMENT

PRELIMINARY ACHIEVEMENT • Qualifications are included in the course document. *Note: The algorithms for HA and CA in the proposed course appear to be low:

- The algorithm for HA requires 2 ‘A’s, 3 ‘B’s, and 2 ‘C’s. A student could receive an HA if their work habits are of an ‘A’ standard (Criteria 6 and 7)

- The algorithm for CA requires 3 ‘B’s, and 3 ‘C’s. A student may be awarded a CA by achieving ‘B’s on less than half of the criteria.

One other TQA course with 7 criteria has been identified – Mathematics Methods – Foundation MTM215109, for which an HA requires 3 ‘A’s, 3 ‘B’s, and 1 ‘C’, and a CA requires 4 ‘B’s and 3 ‘C’s.

Overall Observations

The proposed course provides comprehensive learning opportunities in English skills for successful communication for practical and imaginary purposes in individual, community and workplace settings. It is a unique English course that generally meets the criteria of a TQA level 2 course of size value 15. This analysis includes some suggested considerations for amendments. (Refer to * in Criteria 2.b, 4, and 12.)

ATTACHMENT C: PROPOSED COURSE DOCUMENT

Please visit www.tqa.tas.gov.au/3435 to access the course document.