单位职业资格标准:南非职业政策改革停滞不前

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Naomi Sumangala Alphonsus
{"title":"单位职业资格标准:南非职业政策改革停滞不前","authors":"Naomi Sumangala Alphonsus","doi":"10.1080/13636820.2021.1955404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper argues that the recent policy reform of occupational qualifications in South Africa is not substantially different from previous qualifications composed of unit standards and learning outcomes. The transition to democracy in the 1990s saw the introduction of a National Qualifications Framework (NQF) for post-school education. The framework adopted a model similar to competency-based training (CBT), where qualifications used unit standards and learning outcomes as a design template. Many problems ensued; amongst other concerns, researchers demonstrated that unit standards fragment learning by focusing on task performance at the expense of knowledge. Substantial changes were made in 2009, including the introduction of the Occupational Qualifications Sub-Framework of the revised NQF. Occupational qualifications are designed using a template to standardise the format of occupational standards and knowledge, practical skills, and work experience modules for the curriculum framework. For policymakers, occupational standards represent broad notions of competence based on occupational practice. The development of an occupational qualification is guided by a template for the process of deriving the curriculum framework from occupational standards. However, my research suggests that occupational qualifications based on occupational standards are further elaborated work tasks that are then used to develop curriculum framework contents, which further entrenches CBT approaches and their associated problems.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unit standards to occupational qualifications: South African vocational policy reform stuck in reverse\",\"authors\":\"Naomi Sumangala Alphonsus\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13636820.2021.1955404\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This paper argues that the recent policy reform of occupational qualifications in South Africa is not substantially different from previous qualifications composed of unit standards and learning outcomes. The transition to democracy in the 1990s saw the introduction of a National Qualifications Framework (NQF) for post-school education. The framework adopted a model similar to competency-based training (CBT), where qualifications used unit standards and learning outcomes as a design template. Many problems ensued; amongst other concerns, researchers demonstrated that unit standards fragment learning by focusing on task performance at the expense of knowledge. Substantial changes were made in 2009, including the introduction of the Occupational Qualifications Sub-Framework of the revised NQF. Occupational qualifications are designed using a template to standardise the format of occupational standards and knowledge, practical skills, and work experience modules for the curriculum framework. For policymakers, occupational standards represent broad notions of competence based on occupational practice. The development of an occupational qualification is guided by a template for the process of deriving the curriculum framework from occupational standards. However, my research suggests that occupational qualifications based on occupational standards are further elaborated work tasks that are then used to develop curriculum framework contents, which further entrenches CBT approaches and their associated problems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2021.1955404\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2021.1955404","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文认为,南非最近的职业资格政策改革与以前由单位标准和学习成果组成的资格没有本质上的不同。在20世纪90年代向民主过渡的过程中,为学校后教育引入了国家资格框架(NQF)。该框架采用了类似于基于能力的培训(CBT)的模式,其中资格证书使用单元标准和学习成果作为设计模板。随之而来的是许多问题;在其他问题中,研究人员证明了单元标准通过以牺牲知识为代价关注任务绩效来片断学习。2009年作出了重大改变,包括在修订后的资历架构中引入职业资历子框架。职业资格是使用模板设计的,以标准化课程框架的职业标准和知识、实践技能和工作经验模块的格式。对于政策制定者来说,职业标准代表了基于职业实践的能力的广泛概念。职业资格的发展是由一个模板来指导的,这个模板是从职业标准中衍生出课程框架的过程。然而,我的研究表明,基于职业标准的职业资格是进一步阐述的工作任务,然后用于开发课程框架内容,这进一步巩固了CBT方法及其相关问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unit standards to occupational qualifications: South African vocational policy reform stuck in reverse
ABSTRACT This paper argues that the recent policy reform of occupational qualifications in South Africa is not substantially different from previous qualifications composed of unit standards and learning outcomes. The transition to democracy in the 1990s saw the introduction of a National Qualifications Framework (NQF) for post-school education. The framework adopted a model similar to competency-based training (CBT), where qualifications used unit standards and learning outcomes as a design template. Many problems ensued; amongst other concerns, researchers demonstrated that unit standards fragment learning by focusing on task performance at the expense of knowledge. Substantial changes were made in 2009, including the introduction of the Occupational Qualifications Sub-Framework of the revised NQF. Occupational qualifications are designed using a template to standardise the format of occupational standards and knowledge, practical skills, and work experience modules for the curriculum framework. For policymakers, occupational standards represent broad notions of competence based on occupational practice. The development of an occupational qualification is guided by a template for the process of deriving the curriculum framework from occupational standards. However, my research suggests that occupational qualifications based on occupational standards are further elaborated work tasks that are then used to develop curriculum framework contents, which further entrenches CBT approaches and their associated problems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信