Review of the SCQF Level Descriptors

1. April 2011 to June 2012 Review of the SCQF Level Descriptors

2. Aims • Planning the Review of the Level Descriptors • Stage 1 • Stage 2 • Plans for the Revised Descriptors

3. Planning the Review • Began 2010 • Scope • Rationale • Appointment of consultants

4. Stage 1 • Literature Review • Individual Interviews • Focus Groups • Survey Monkey Survey • 35 documents • 25+ interviews with Board, QC, CRBs and Experts • 5 Groups • 97 responses

5. Findings - general • SCQF Embedded, well used and respected • Primary users are practitioners, but being used more by employers • Don’t change for the sake of it! • Must retain relationships with other frameworks • Clearer distinction between levels wanted

6. Findings - descriptors • 66% said no aspects of the descriptors caused issues • Language is technical but also accessible • Could be a better academic/vocational balance • Level 1 descriptor • Clarity re progression 6/7, 7/8, 8/9

7. Early findings - guidance • Mixed views about need for further guidance, suggestions included: • A glossary of key terms and their usage • Summary level descriptors or criteria • Additional/better contextual material • Stronger guidance about both the holistic and cumulative nature of the descriptors • Need to ensure guidance is consistent

8. End of Stage 1 • Proposals from the Consultants • Quality Committee Away Day • Plans for Consultation and Live Testing Stage Two

9. Stage 2 • Consultation Document agreed On website Return Date 16 March 2012 • Live Testing All levels Adam Smith College UWS SQA SPC Employers Minerva Momentum

10. Next Steps • Amendment to proposals in light of the consultation • Recommendation of Quality Committee • Agreement of Board • Dissemination of Revised Level Descriptors • A 5 Booklet • Ultimately a revised handbook