Influence of National Qualifications Frameworks in Conceptualising Feedback to Students

This article was downloaded by [Columbia University]On 12 November 2014 At 1300Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number 1072954 Registeredoffice Mortimer House 37-41 Mortimer Street London W1T 3JH UK

Social Work Education TheInternational JournalPublication details including instructions for authors andsubscription informationhttpwwwtandfonlinecomloicswe20

Influence of National QualificationsFrameworks in ConceptualisingFeedback to StudentsGavin Herona amp Pam Green Listera

a Gavin Heron amp Pam Green Lister University of Strathclyde UKPublished online 17 Sep 2013

To cite this article Gavin Heron amp Pam Green Lister (2014) Influence of National QualificationsFrameworks in Conceptualising Feedback to Students Social Work Education The InternationalJournal 334 420-434 DOI 101080026154792013834322

To link to this article httpdxdoiorg101080026154792013834322

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor amp Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theldquoContentrdquo) contained in the publications on our platform However Taylor amp Francisour agents and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy completeness or suitability for any purpose of the Content Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authorsand are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor amp Francis The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses actions claimsproceedings demands costs expenses damages and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content

This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposes Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction redistribution reselling loan sub-licensingsystematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden Terms ampConditions of access and use can be found at httpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions

Influence of National QualificationsFrameworks in ConceptualisingFeedback to StudentsGavin Heron amp Pam Green Lister

Social work students in Britain receive feedback on a range of academic and practice issues

as they progress through qualifying courses however the way in which feedback differs toreflect the increasing complexity of learning as the course progresses is unclear There is

little if any guidance at a national level and the most widely known documents thatprovide information about the hierarchy of qualifications are the National Qualifications

Frameworks (NQFs) Despite the widespread acceptance of NQFs there is little evidencesupporting their use in professional areas such as social work This study uses a

documentary analysis to critique the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework(SCQF) The findings suggest that there are fundamental difficulties with the SCQF andits value in helping academics to better conceptualise feedback that reflects the increasing

complexity of learning throughout the social work qualifying course Whilst the SCQF isspecific to a Scottish context it is suggested that the inherent limitations and dominance of

a neo-liberal ideology are common to other NQFs It may be necessary to create theconditions where academics and students are able to discuss and debate the merits of

NQFs and their implementation in social work qualifying courses

Keywords National Qualifications Frameworks Feedback Documentary Analysis

Background

Feedback is an integral element of the learning process however the way in which it

differs to reflect the increasing complexity of learning as students progress through

their course remains unclear Social work courses use a variety of assessment tools in

the classroom and practice placement such as written essay assignments exams

practice-based case studies and verbal presentations The feedback linked with these

assessment tools will vary in application across HEIs in the UK and Europe At present

q 2013 Taylor amp Francis

Correspondence to Gavin Heron University of Strathclyde Department of Social Work Lord Hope Building Level 6

141 St James Road Glasgow G4 0LT UK Email gavinherontiscalicouk

Gavin Heron amp Pam Green Lister University of Strathclyde UK

Social Work Education 2014Vol 33 No 4 420ndash434 httpdxdoiorg101080026154792013834322

there is little guidance for academics to ensure their feedback is aligned appropriately

to the academic level at which students are being assessed How might academics for

example differentiate between their feedback for undergraduate assignments at year 2

compared to year 3 and is the criteria used consistent with other institutions In order

to provide feedback throughout a social work course academics require some

understanding of what constitutes good feedback and the way in which it is located on

a hierarchy that reflects student learning throughout the course Social work

academics are likely to make some reference to their own National Qualifications

Frameworks (NQFs) for information about the hierarchy of levels when devising and

delivering undergraduate and postgraduate professional qualifications Yet the extent

to which NQFs are effective in contributing to key aspects of the learning process and

or useful for quality assurance and monitoring purposes remains unclear The Scottish

Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) is the focus of this paper because it is

widely regarded as one of the most successful NQFs (Raffe Howieson amp Tinklin

2007) It is the tension between the official success of the SCQF and the authorsrsquo

extensive experience of giving feedback to students on undergraduate and

postgraduate qualifying courses that is the focus of this documentary analysis

Role of Feedback in the Learning Process

Despite growing interest in developing better-engineered feedback practices (Yorke

2003) there do not appear to be common frameworks or practices for academics to

adopt According to Boud (2000 p 155) feedback is so lsquocommon placersquo that it actually

gets lsquoignoredrsquo which explains at least to some extent why it lsquobecomes under-

conceptualisedrsquo There is however little disagreement about the importance of

feedback in the learning process Black and Wiliamrsquos (1998) meta-analysis for

example of over 250 studies in a wide range of educational settings suggests significant

benefits in learning are accrued from feedback Perhaps the most consistent finding is

the usefulness of establishing a set of principles for conceptualising feedback (eg

Sadler 1989) and the role of feedback in closing the gap between studentsrsquo current and

desired performance (Ivanic Clark amp Rimmershaw 2000) The extent to which such

ideas have filtered into practice across Higher Education (HE) is questionable Over the

past decade the most powerful criticism has come from successive National Student

Surveys in Britain which have shown a significant level of student dissatisfaction withassessment and feedback practices Shay (2008 p 595) believes that lsquoIt has become a

fairly common refrain in the educational development literature to acknowledge that

there is a crisis in higher education assessment practicersquo There is no reason to believe

that social work is immune to such problems A study by Heron (2011) which

examined academicsrsquo written feedback to students on a major practice-based

assessment suggests there are inconsistencies and discrepancies in feedback which are

unlikely to be conducive to effective learning This raises questions about the way

feedback is aligned to student assessments on qualifying courses and the extent to

which the NQFs have value in minimising inconsistencies within and across HEIs

Social Work Education 421

Recent strategies to address the deficits in feedback have emerged from individual

universities funding bodies and organisations such as the Higher Education AcademyPerhaps the most common theme in the literature is the need to engage students more

fully in the assessment process Using peer assessment exemplars peer feedback andself-evaluation are some of the activities that according to Carless (2007) help

students use feedback to lsquofeedforwardrsquo into the summative work For OrsquoDonovanPrice and Rust (2008) these activities can be used in group settings to create a

lsquocommunity of practicersquo in order to build a mutual understanding of tacit and explicitknowledge among students and academics in the assessment process The extent towhich NQFs enhance students and academicsrsquo understanding of feedback practices

might be a key factor determining its value for the learning process

National Qualifications Frameworks

NQFs are intended to provide a guide to the way qualifications are set at differentlevels and compared both nationally and internationally The overarching aim of

NQFs is to enhance transparency progression and portability of qualifications in anational context and in a way that enables comparisons across countries Blackmur

(2004 p 267) states that NQFs lsquocan at a bare minimum be conceptualised as a set ofprinciples to classify qualificationsrsquo NQFs often have important differences in terms

of for example range of qualifications and regulatory function For Young andGordon (2007 p 440) lsquoWhatever the precise focus NQFs tend to be structured

around a set of reference levels defined by descriptorsrsquo Within these descriptorslearning outcomes are measured and related to each other The concept of a hierarchy

is the fundamental dimension on which all NQFs are based Blackmur (2004 p 270)notes that

The matter of how ldquohigherrdquo is conceptualised and measured is of major importanceEfficient choices in labour markets require knowledge of in what sense and to whatextent one qualification is regarded as ldquohigherrdquo or ldquolowerrdquo than another (or neitherhigher nor lower)

It is the hierarchy within NQFs that offers academics a reference point or guide whenproviding feedback at the appropriate academic level

The increasing complexity is conveyed primarily in the descriptors The ScottishCredit and Qualifications Framework (2009 p 17) for example states that each level

descriptor lsquoincreases in demand by changes to factors such as complexity depth ofknowledge and the learnerrsquos autonomyrsquo Deciding on what makes a course higher or

lower in terms of complexity and the number of credit points to be awarded requiresdetailed knowledge of the descriptors at each Level on which a qualification is located

In Scotland social work courses are undertaken between SCQF Levels 7 and 10 forundergraduate students (a social work qualifying degree is four years in Scotland andthree years in England Wales and Northern Ireland) and Level 11 for postgraduate

students These levels are not the same for other countries due to differences in NQFhierarchies For example Mexico has five levels England and Wales have eight levels

422 G Heron and P G Lister

and the recently revised New Zealand framework has 10 levels The use of different

NQF levels across countries is likely to make any interpretation of student progressionand portability of qualifications more complex

A Critique Ideology and Practice

NQFs have come under increasing scrutiny and some of the criticisms raise

fundamental questions about their contribution to student learning Perhaps the mostcontroversial issue for NQFs is the focus on learning outcomes For Allais (20072011) the use of learning outcomes within NQFs is problematic because they

downplay the complexity of the learning process key terminology is insufficientlydefined and descriptors become lsquorelatively unintelligiblersquo due to over-specification

Young (2003) believes that NQFs are less to do with improving the quality ofeducation and more with providing governments with a tool to make educational

institutions more accountable Greater accountability is not problematic per se but theform it takes within NQFs is to lsquoact againstrsquo the quality of learning (Young 2003)

Young (2007 p 485) also points out that

social scientists and educational researchers have shown little interest in NQFs andmuch of the international literature takes the form of advocacymdashthat NQFs are apositive modern necessary development which all countries should adopt ratherthan adopting an analytical approach to their possibilities

Alternatively Rauhvargers (2009 pp 120ndash121) seems less concerned about the lack

of any empirical base and believes that NQFs will lsquoimprove the recognition ofqualificationsrsquo in terms of lsquolevel profile workload quality and learning outcomes

compared with the present study and course content based approachrsquoThe lack of research and evaluations supporting NQFs is perhaps surprising given

their widespread use This includes The European Qualifications Framework (EQF)

which covers all qualifications systems and was adopted as a Recommendation in 2008by the European Parliament The existence of the EQF seems both rational and

desirable as an umbrella framework however NQFs are at different stages ofdevelopment and the potential for comparability with the EQF is yet to be realised

(Birtwistle 2009) For McBride and Keevy (2010) this situation is neither unique norunintentional and reflects the neo-liberal ideology that underpins NQFs Within this

neo-liberalism the concept of lsquoneutralityrsquo is presented as a natural or obvious solutionto problems in education and as such does not require any empirical evidence criticaldebate or discussion (Cort 2010) Yet Cort (2010 p 307) points out that

the EQF [European Qualifications Framework] is not neutral but will influencenational education policies in the direction of a higher degree of standardisation andcommodification of education and an introduction of market principles into theeducation sectors

Standardisation of NQFs does not appear to equate with greater clarity or

understanding for academics According to Karseth and Solbrekke (2010 p 567)lsquothere seems to be a great lack of clarity when it comes to understanding how to

operationalise the main building blocks of the framework ie learning outcomesrsquo This

is not to suggest that outcomes are not important to social work education ForCarpenter (2011) outcomes should be located and aligned with other key aspects of

the learning process including the on-going involvement of students service usersand academics The lack of clarity for quality assurance mechanisms such as

moderation by External Examiners and university review processes do not appear tohave been resolved and introduce further complications for student learning By

focussing on one aspect of the learning process this study will examine the way theSCQF might help academics to reconceptualise feedback

Approach

Documentary analysis is a way of interrogating text in considerable detail and the most

common approaches include document study content analysis and text analysis(Sarantakos 2005) This study uses a content analysis to examine the SCQF

Documentary analysis has the potential to explain behaviour relationships and trendswithin society (McCulloch 2011) use text from awide range of sources (eg individuals

groups organisations governments) and include a variety of forms (eg reports booksjournals case notes) For Prior (2003) documentary analysis requires the researcher toconsider the way in which key issues and themes are integrated and interpreted within

organised settings in order for the document to be understood fully This study uses adocumentary analysis to examine key elements of the SCQF and the extent to which it

might help academics to better conceptualise feedback that reflects the increasingcomplexity of learning throughout social work qualifying courses By focussing on key

elements of the SCQF in relation to academic feedback the intention is to offer amore in-depth analysis of the documentrsquos value for student learning The document used for this

study is the Scottish Credit andQualifications Framework (2009)Handbook which is thelatest edition detailing the SCQF It is 139 pages in length including 44 pages of annexesAlthough documentary analysis in education can provide insights into a range of

historical and contemporary social activity Taylor (2008 pp 39ndash40) notes that it hasbeen given little attention in social work

Despite their frequent relegation to the realm of the mundane and boring writingand documentation are vital elements of social work education and practice Inorder to extend analyses of communicative practices it is important to explore theproduction and consumption of texts

Understanding the use or consumption of the SCQF in social work education is made

particularly difficult by its increasing use and changing purpose A recent review of theSCQF level descriptors (Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework 2011) noted

The SCQF Level Descriptors were developed to allow organisations to attach leveland credit to qualifications and learning programmes However their usage hasincreased and they are now used for multi purposes

The Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (2009) notes that whilst it has noregulatory function the SCQF is widely used by educational institutions and

associated bodies to enhance understanding of the different qualifications and the

relationships that exist between them A report commissioned by the Scottish SocialServices Council benchmarked the Scottish Standards in Social Work Education with

SCQF levels 9 and 10 (Coles and Gordon nd) However the extent to which these havebeen fully articulated in student learning and practice remains unclear For example a

report by McGoldrick and Duncan (2008 p 30) showed employing agencies studentsand service users lacked sufficient understanding and awareness of the SCQF and

translating it into practice is lsquoa minefield and often fraught with difficultiesrsquoSelecting specific elements of the SCQF when it has lsquomulti purposesrsquo and is

insufficiently understood by key stakeholders is problematic because the selection

may be overly narrow reflect the authorsrsquo bias or fail to incorporate the full complexityof the document within a wider economic social and political context This would

include issues already discussed such as neutrality lack of empirical evidence and theneo-liberal ideology underpinning the NQFs

Despite such issues a particular strength of documentary analysis is that thepotential for bias can be reduced by citing relevant parts of a text and providing an

analysis of its meaning Unlike other forms of research data (eg interview transcriptscommentaries on observations) the SCQF document is widely accessible which means

it is relatively easy for others to check if for example certain pieces of text have beentaken out of context or the extent to which the interpretations of the authors might bevalid The importance of this documentary analysis is to stimulate discussion and

question the way in which the SCQF is currently being used on social work qualifyingcourses As Cohen Manion and Morrison (2007 p 203) point out documents lsquoare

social products located in specific contexts and as such have to be interrogated andinterpreted rather than simply acceptedrsquo

Process

The documentary analysis involved a process with key stages

the SCQF was read comprehensively to ensure the authors had an overview of the fulldocument

from this reading there appeared to be a lack of clarity in the way the documentmight be used to enhance student feedback and

those aspects which created the most confusion for the authors especially in terms ofthe way hierarchies might be used to enhance feedback became scrutinised as part ofthe documentary analysis

Based on the lack of clarity in the document five key aspects were identified whichwere considered relevant to understanding the way in which the hierarchy of the SCQF

might be meaningful to the way academics conceptualise feedback These were

1 Level differentiation successive years of the undergraduate degree course are locatedon different levels of the SCQF The descriptors at each level have to be sufficiently

different in order to convey a hierarchy It is the concept of hierarchy that underpinsthe academicrsquos ability to align feedback to the different years of a qualifying course

2 Knowledge the depth and volume of knowledge is relevant to the degree ofcomplexity that defines each SCQF level Academics expect and indeed require morein-depth knowledge of key ideas theories and concepts as students progress throughthe course and feedback should reflect this progression

3 Terminology the use of certain words is crucial to understanding the descriptorsFeedback should reflect the terminology specific to the level of study and in a waythat facilitates student learning

4 Context the descriptors have to be applicable to a social work context if academicsand students are to interpret them in a useful way When applied to a social workcontext the descriptors should enhance the value of feedback

5 Comparisons with EQF the extent to which the SCQF fits with the EQF willdetermine how qualifications in Scotland compare across Europe Feedback is a keyaspect of the learning process that enables students to achieve the necessary outcomesand it should therefore be possible to compare feedback between the SCQF and EQFat different levels of the hierarchy

Given that these areas are derived from the authorsrsquo experiences of providing feedback

on qualifying courses there is of course a risk that this could be construed as lsquocherrypickingrsquo however the intention is to represent those aspects that are most pertinent tothe day-to-day experiences of social work academics As the defining features of the

SCQF are shared by many NQFs this study will have relevance beyond a Scottishcontext

Critique

The SCQF Levels 7ndash11 are examined because they correspond with the undergraduateand postgraduate social work courses in Scotland The five key aspects relating to the

SCQF hierarchy noted above are presented separately however many of the issueswill overlap (Note in order to enhance clarity certain words and sections of the

descriptors have been made italic by the authors) These data are compared across thedifferent levels of the hierarchy in order to illustrate the extent to which the SCQF

might help academics to better conceptualise feedback

Level Differentiation

For feedback to be effective it should correspond with the appropriate descriptors at

the SCQF level on which the assessment is located This means it should be possible todifferentiate between the descriptors at different levels in terms of how they might

influence academic feedback Comparisons between Level 8 (Year 2 students) andLevel 9 (Year 3 students) are considered in order to illustrate descriptor differentiationDescriptors from two characteristics of the SCQF are used to demonstrate the

variation in the way descriptors might convey a hierarchy A descriptor at Level 8 of thelsquoknowledge and understandingrsquo characteristic states

A broad knowledge of the scope defining features and main areas of a subjectdiscipline

The corresponding descriptor at Level 9 is

A broad and integrated knowledge and understanding of the scope main areas andboundaries of a subjectdiscipline

The difference between the descriptors is quite obvious in the words lsquointegratedrsquo and

lsquoboundariesrsquo which signify a greater level of complexity at Level 9 This provides a clear

differentiation between levels and helps to convey what feedback should encapsulate at

SCQF Level 8 compared to Level 9 Other descriptors are however less clear in terms

of a hierarchy of complexity The characteristic lsquogeneric and cognitive skillsrsquo for SCQF

Levels 8 and 9 have the following descriptors

Level 8

Undertake critical analysis evaluation andor synthesis of ideas conceptsinformation and issues that are within the common understandings of the subjectdiscipline

Use a range of approaches to formulate evidence-based solutionsresponses to definedandor routine problemsissues

Critically evaluate evidence-based solutionsresponses to defined andor routineproblemsissues

Level 9

Undertake critical analysis evaluation andor synthesis of ideas conceptsinformation and issues

Identify and analyse routine professional problems and issues

Draw on a range of sources in making judgements

The different level of complexity is not obvious from the descriptors and it is

unclear as to how they might guide academic feedback to the appropriate SCQF level

The lsquocommon understandingsrsquo at Level 8 may imply a narrower focus in terms of

breadth of knowledge in that students do not have to lsquoundertake critical analysisrsquo of

areas that are not common In contrast the second descriptor requires lsquoevidence-based

solutionsresponsesrsquo which is not required at Level 9 It is difficult to understand why a

requirement for an evidence base is required at Level 8 but not at Level 9 especially in

a profession such as social work Similarly it is difficult to understand how the third

descriptor at Level 8 lsquoCritically evaluate evidence-based solutionsresponses to

defined andor routine problemsissuesrsquo is less complex than the third descriptor at

Level 9 lsquoDraw on a range of sources in making judgementsrsquo Not only do these

descriptors fail to convey a meaningful hierarchy of complexity the opposite appears

to be evident in some instances The lsquocommon understandingsrsquo may demand

additional cognitive skills in order to determine what is meant when critical evaluation

and an evidence base are required at Level 8 and not Level 9 For professions such as

social work in which students study a range of contested and often controversial areas

(eg poverty rights of asylum seekers) it is not entirely obvious as to what common

understandings might be especially across the range of voluntary and statutory

settings in areas such as child care criminal justice and community care The lack of

clarity and indeed reversal of complexity on certain descriptors is unlikely to help

academics align feedback with the academic year at which students are studying and

the corresponding SCQF level In the absence of greater differentiation between levels

it is difficult to foresee how greater clarity can be achieved

Knowledge

Providing effective feedback requires academics to gauge key ideas theories and

concepts in terms of an appropriate range and depth of knowledge The indicators

used to gauge such knowledge should also be conveyed to students in various ways (e

g teaching methods) The descriptors between SCQF Levels 9 and 11 are used to

examine some of the ways in which knowledge is described Descriptors at Levels 9ndash11

for the lsquoknowledge and understandingrsquo characteristic are as follows

Level 9

A critical understanding of a selection of the principal theories principles conceptsand terminology

Level 10

A critical understanding of the principal theories concepts and principles

Level 11

A critical understanding of the principal theories principles and concepts

The only noticeable difference between this descriptor at Level 10 and Level 11 is

the reversal of the order of the terms lsquoprinciplesrsquo and lsquoconceptsrsquo Any notion of a

hierarchy of complexity across these two levels appears quite meaningless Level 9 is

different in that it includes the words lsquoselectionrsquo and lsquoterminologyrsquo The inclusion of

these words raises a question about range and depth of knowledge The emphasis

on lsquoselectionrsquo suggests fewer principles and a narrower range of knowledge which

warrants the lower level on the hierarchy Yet the knowledge range for this

descriptor is also increased by the addition of the word lsquoterminologyrsquo It is not clear

how reducing the range of principal theories via lsquoselectionrsquo and then adding a

requirement for a critical understanding of lsquoterminologyrsquo makes the overall breadth

of knowledge different between the three levels The use of the word lsquoselectionrsquo

conveys a difference in volume of knowledge rather than depth of knowledge It is

the lsquocritical understandingrsquo in this descriptor that conveys depth of knowledge and

it is the same across all three descriptors It is difficult to see how academics can

take sufficient guidance from these descriptors when feeding back on studentsrsquo

depth of knowledge within assessments The absence of clarity in the SCQF

descriptors suggests that academics have to make their own judgements about how

to feedback on issues of depth and range of knowledge in student assignments This

is unlikely to enhance issues of clarity or consistency for students when interpreting

the meaning of academic feedback

Terminology

The terminology used in feedback and associated guidance for assignments should

convey some notion of the SCQF levels The term lsquocriticalrsquo is examined because it is

widely used in social work literature and subject to on-going discussion Use of the

term critical is considered across SCQF Levels 7ndash11 which cover study at both

undergraduate and postgraduate level The concept of lsquocriticalrsquo varies both in

frequency and in the way it is used with other terms within the descriptors These are

listed as follows

Level 7 no reference

Level 8 critical analysis critically evaluate

Level 9 critical understanding critical analysis

Level 10 critical understanding critically identify critically review

Level 11 critical analysis critical knowledge critical awareness critically review

The term lsquocriticalrsquo is not used in any descriptors at Level 7 which would correspond

with for example assignments that are generally descriptive in nature with limited levels

of analysis The increase in frequency of the term lsquocriticalrsquo between Levels 9 and 11

indicates a hierarchy in that students must produce assignments that demonstrate it in

greater volume For this to be the case however greater clarity is required in relation to

the use of terminology It is not clear how individuals might discriminate between

subsequent levels when descriptors incorporate lsquocriticalrsquo or lsquocriticallyrsquo alongside the

words lsquoanalysisrsquo lsquoevaluatersquo lsquounderstandingrsquo lsquoidentifyrsquo lsquoreviewrsquo lsquoknowledgersquo and

lsquoawarenessrsquo For example the term lsquocritical understandingrsquo is used at Level 10 but not

at Level 11 where terms such as lsquocritical analysisrsquo and lsquocritical awarenessrsquo are used The

way in which students and academics might interpret and differentiate between this

terminology is likely to be quite varied Without greater precision in it usage it is

difficult to foresee how terms such as lsquocritical analysisrsquo or lsquocritical reviewrsquo as used within

the SCQF can contribute to the way academics conceptualise student feedback This is

of particular importance where academics want to use their feedback to encourage

students to be more precise in the way they use terminology or undertake tasks that

enhance critical thinking skills It also raises questions about the extent to which

academics might be motivated in involving students in feedback practices when courses

are aligned to a framework which lacks clarity in the use of key terminology Of course

encouraging students to look critically at NQFs and the underpinning ideologies might

provide a useful debate but itmight be less effective in raising their confidence about the

course especially the different levels at which their assessments and feedback are located

Context

Feedback on assessments undertaken on social work courses should have relevance

both in an academic context and a practice context Given that students in any cohort

will experience a range of different placement settings it is particularly important for

academics to know that their feedback is consistently applied The extent to which the

SCQF assists with this consistency is considered in relation to the postgraduate course

The postgraduate course (SCQF Level 11) is used here to examine the way in which the

SCQF might be interpreted andor applied to a social work context The descriptors

for the characteristic lsquoAutonomy accountability and working with othersrsquo is examined

The SCQF Level 11 descriptors for this characteristic are to

Take responsibility for own work andor significant responsibility for the work ofothers

Take responsibility for a significant range of resources

Demonstrate leadership andor initiative and make an identifiable contribution tochange and development

Practise in ways which draw on critical reflection on own and othersrsquo roles andresponsibilities

Deal with complex ethical and professional issues and make informed judgements onissues not addressed by current professional andor ethical codes or practices

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Postgraduate DiplomaMasters students often

have little social carework experience and do not always have a relevant

undergraduate qualification It is therefore difficult to ascertain how some of these

descriptors might be realised over the relatively short duration of most student

placements These descriptors are more akin to tasksactivities undertaken by those

in management roles andor experienced practitioners Having to lsquoTake

responsibility for own work andor significant responsibility for the work of

othersrsquo or lsquoa significant range of resourcesrsquo is often neither realistic nor desirable for

inexperienced students even when they are closely supervised by qualified practice

teachers Many social carework placements (eg childrenrsquos homes) do not often

allow for this level of responsibility for staff let alone students Furthermore it is

unclear what activity a student social worker might be required to do in order to

show evidence of having to lsquoDeal with complex ethical and professional issues and

make informed judgements on issues not addressed by current professional andor

ethical codes or practicesrsquo Even if the student were to engage in such an activity

how could it be included in the assessment with relevant references to literature

when it is lsquonot addressed by current professional andor ethical codes or practicesrsquo

Achieving this descriptor would require a range of social work literature to exist

and be reproduced in a way that makes it outwith or beyond the current ways of

working It is unclear how academics might provide feedback if students were to

meet this descriptor in an assessment The descriptor may also place unrealistic

expectations on students at a time when they have least experience andor

confidence in challenging the status quo Feedback is supposed to help students

progress with achievable tasks in their learning and help build on previous

experience yet some of these descriptors might actually undermine this process

Comparisons with EQF

The degree of lsquofitrsquo between the SCQF and EQF will determine greatly the extent towhich courses and the component parts such as feedback can be compared

internationally Giving feedback to for example international exchange studentsrequires academic feedback from the visiting country to reflect the appropriate level of

the NQF hierarchy in the home country in order for the student to align it with pastand future learning Whilst academics have to undertake this task there appears to be

little evidence on which to draw upon in terms of feedback Evidence which is availablecomes from the SCQFndashEQF steering group which reported lsquoa very high level of

satisfactionrsquo with the referencing of aims descriptors and content between the SCQFand the EQF (Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework 2009 p 86) yet onlyseven of the 12 SCQF Levels are lsquoconfidently referencedrsquo with the EQF With regards to

an undergraduate social work degree in Scotland only two of the four levels (8 and 10)are matched with the EQF SCQF Level 7 is matched with EQF Level 5 in a way that is

lsquodifficult to employ ldquobest fitrdquo on the basis of an analysis of the descriptors alonersquo (ScottishCredit and Qualifications Framework 2009) It is not clear what if anything might be

used to improve the fit SCQF Level 8 is also matched with EQF Level 5 and islsquoconfidently referencedrsquo (Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework 2009) SCQF

Level 9 is matched with EQF Level 6 but the former lsquois intended to bemore demandingrsquoSCQF Level 10 is also matched with EQF Level 6 but unlike SCQF Level 9 it is

lsquoconfidently referencedrsquo Given the issues previously highlighted in this documentaryanalysis it is not clear what the SCQFndashEQF Steering Group is actually comparing orwhat their judgements are based upon The SCQFndashEQF Steering Grouprsquos view of a very

high level of satisfaction between the two frameworks seemsmuch less convincing whenconsidered in relation to an undergraduate course It is therefore unclear as to how

academic feedback might contribute to the transparency portability and progression ofsocial work qualifications between the SCQF and other European countries

Discussion

This study uses a documentary analysis to examine aspects of the SCQF The findings

suggest that there are some fundamental problems with the SCQF and the extent towhich it might help academics to better conceptualise feedback that reflects the

increasing complexity of learning at successive years of the social work qualifyingcourse Despite being referred to as a lsquosuccessrsquo and influential in shaping other NQFs

(Raffe et al 2007) it is not clear what the SCQF actually contributes to the learningprocess especially the way in which academics might conceptualise feedback either interms of applying principles of feedback to practice or in closing the gap between

studentsrsquo current and desired performance This is disappointing and unlikely toalleviate some of the longstanding problems in providing quality feedback in HE In

particular it is difficult to know how the inconsistencies and confusion in key areas of

the SCQF are conducive to enhancing student involvement in assessment andfeedback practices Many of the problems arising in relation to feedback are likely to be

applicable to other teaching and learning practices such as the location of courseassignments to reflect the corresponding level in the SCQF These issues are not

subject-specific limitations of the SCQF hierarchy and descriptors might beproblematic for a wide range of disciplines and professions Furthermore given the

concept of hierarchy is fundamental to all NQFs the findings in relation to the SCQFmay have relevance to other national frameworksThere is a clear tension in the way courses are aligned to NQFs in terms of for

example credit points study levels and terminology within specific documentation(eg course handbooks) and the expectations on academics to provide better quality

feedback Perhaps it is time for social work academics and practitioners to take moreresponsibility for researching and shaping NQFs and in a way that challenges

dominant ideologies that marginalise the complexity of student learning At presentthere is a risk that NQFs are inappropriately used within a managerialsit approach that

promotes documentation that is dislocated with the realities of student learningA useful starting point might be to involve students in discussions about social work

qualifying courses in relation to the

merits and limitations of NQFs and the underpinning ideology

extent to which NQFs might align with course assignments and influence feedbackespecially in terms of a hierarchy and

role of students in influencing or changing features of NQFs to ensure greatertransparency progression and portability of their qualifications

Involving students in this way will require social work academics to accept greater

responsibility for their own understanding of NQFs in relation to qualifying courses

Conclusion

Findings from this documentary analysis suggest that there are fundamental difficultieswith the SCQF hierarchy of levels associated descriptors and their relevance for

conceptualising feedback in social work qualifying courses Academics are expected toprovide feedback throughout the qualifying course however there is little guidance

from the SCQF in terms of a hierarchy of complexity that reflects student learning asthey progress through the course There is growing pressure on academics to improve

the quality of feedback within HEIs and it is disappointing that NQFs seem unable tomake a useful contribution to such an important aspect of student learning If NQFs are

here to stay social work academics might have to give greater attention to theirdevelopment both nationally and internationally They have a particular responsibilityto ensure NQFs are used in a rigorous and meaningful way This will require activities

that involve students in a purposeful dialogue about NQFs and ways in which NQFscontribute or detract from the learning process Achieving this may require a research

base that challenges the dominant ideologies underpinning NQFs and an outcomes-

based approach that distorts or diminishes the learning process There are clear benefits

arising from the harmonisation of qualifications however this can only be meaningful

when the NQFs reflect the complexity of the student learning experience

References

Allais S M (2007) Why the South African NQF failed Lessons for countries wanting to introducenational qualifications frameworks European Journal of Education 42 523ndash547 doi101111j1465-3435200700326x

Allais S M (2011) The impact and implementation of national qualifications frameworks Acomparison of 16 countries Journal of Education and Work 24 233ndash258 doi101080136390802011584685

Birtwistle T (2009) Towards 2010 (and then beyond) - the context of the Bologna ProcessAssessment in Education Principles Policy amp Practice 1 55ndash63 doi10108009695940802704088

Black P amp Wiliam D (1998) Assessment and classroom learning Assessment in EducationPrinciples Policy Practice 5 7ndash74 doi1010800969595980050102

Blackmur D (2004) A critique of the concept of a national qualifications framework Quality inHigher Education 10 267ndash284 doi1010801353832042000299559

Boud D (2000) Sustainable assessment Rethinking assessment for the learning society Studies inContinuing Education 22 151ndash167 doi101080713695728

Carless D (2007) Learning-oriented assessment Conceptual bases and practical implicationsInnovations in Education and Teaching International 44 57ndash66 doi10108014703290601081332

Carpenter J (2011) Evaluating social work education A review of outcomes measures researchdesigns and practicalities Social Work Education 30 122ndash140 doi101080026154792011540375

Cohen L Manion L amp Morrison K (2007) Research methods in education (6th ed) LondonRoutledge

Coles M amp Gordon J (nd) Benchmarking the standards in social work education against the Scottishcredit and qualifications framework Six case studies Scotland Scottish Social Services Council

Cort P (2010) Stating the obvious The European qualifications framework is not a neutralevidence-based policy tool European Educational Research Journal 9 304ndash316 doi102304eerj201093304

Heron (2011) Examining principles of formative and summative feedback British Journal of SocialWork 41 276ndash295 doi101093bjswbcq049

Ivanic R Clark R amp Rimmershaw R (2000) What am I supposed to make of this The messagesconveyed to students by tutorsrsquo written comments In M R Lea amp B Stierer (Eds) Studentwriting in higher education New Contexts Buckingham SHREOpen University Press

Karseth B amp Solbrekke T D (2010) Qualifications frameworks The avenue towards theconvergence of European higher education European Journal of Education 45 563ndash576doi101111j1465-3435201001449x

McBride V amp Keevy J (2010) Is the national qualifications framework a broken promise Adialogue Journal of Educational Change 11 193ndash203 doi101007s10833-010-9131-0

McCulloch G (2011) Historical and documentary research in education In L Cohen L Manion ampK Morrison (Eds) Research methods in education (pp 248ndash254) London Routledge

McGoldrick R amp Duncan D (2008)New degree New Standards A project investigating the alignmentof the Standards in Social Work Education (SiSWE) to the Scottish Credit and QualificationsFramework (SCQF) Dundee Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services

OrsquoDonovan B Price M amp Rust C (2008) Developing student understanding of assessmentstandards A nested hierarchy of approaches Teaching in Higher Education 13 205ndash217doi10108013562510801923344

Prior L (2003) Using documents in social research London SageRaffe D Howieson C amp Tinklin T (2007) The impact of a unified curriculum and qualifications

system The higher still reform of post-16 education in Scotland British Educational ResearchJournal 33 479ndash508 doi101111j1465-3435200700322x

Rauhvargers A (2009) Recognition and qualifications frameworks Assessment in EducationPrinciples Policy and Practice 16 111ndash125 doi10108009695940802704161

Sadler D R (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems InstructionalScience 18 119ndash144 doi101007BF00117714

Sarantakos S (2005) Social research (3rd ed) Basingstoke Palgrave MacMillanScottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (2009) SCQF handbook User guide Edinburgh

Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework PartnershipScottish credit and qualifications framework (2011) Review of the SCQF Level Descriptors Retrieved

from wwwscqforgukNewsampactionfrac14fullnewsampidfrac1417Shay S (2008) Beyond social constructivist perspectives on assessment The centring of knowledge

Teaching in Higher Education 13 595ndash605 doi0108013562510802334970Taylor C (2008) Trafficking in facts Writing practices in social work Qualitative Social Work 7

25ndash42 doi1011771473325007086414Yorke M (2003) Formative assessment in higher education Moves towards theory and the

enhancement of pedagogical practice Higher Education 45 477ndash501 doiorg101023A1023967026413

Young M F D (2003) National qualifications frameworks as a global phenomenon A comparativeperspective Journal of Education and Work 16 223ndash237 doi1010801363908032000099412

Young M (2007) Qualifications frameworks Some conceptual issues European Journal ofEducation 42 445ndash457 doi101111j1465-3435200700323x

Young M amp Gordon J (2007) Editorial European Journal of Education 42 439ndash444 doi101111j1465-3435200700324x

Abstract

Background


Approach

Process

Critique


Knowledge

Terminology

Context


Discussion

Conclusion

References