115759 Moderator Course R2950.00

SAQA US ID UNIT STANDARD TITLE
115759 Conduct moderation of outcomes-based assessments

Suggested price: R2,950.00

Minimum price: R1,500.00

Compare
SKU: 62-1-2 Category: Tag:

Description

SAQA US ID UNIT STANDARD TITLE
115759 Conduct moderation of outcomes-based assessments

PURPOSE OF THE UNIT STANDARD
This unit standard is for people who conduct internal or external moderation of outcomes-based assessments. The assessments could be in terms of outcomes defined in a number of documents, including but not limited to unit standards, exit level outcomes, assessment standards, curriculum statements and qualifications. This unit standard will contribute towards the achievement of a variety of qualifications particularly within the field of Education Training and Development Practices and Human Resource Development.

Those who have achieved this unit standard will be able to moderate assessments in terms of the relevant outcome statements and quality assurance requirements. The candidate-moderator will be able to use the prescribed Quality Assurance procedures in a fair, valid, reliable and practicable manner that is free of all bias and discrimination, paying particular attention to the three groups targeted for redress: race, gender and disability.

In particular, people credited with this unit standard are able to:

  • Demonstrate understanding of moderation within the context of an outcomes-based assessment system,
  • Plan and prepare for moderation,
  • Conduct moderation,
  • Advise and support assessors,
  • Report, record and administer moderation, and
  • Review moderation systems and processes.

UNIT STANDARD

SOUTH AFRICAN QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY
REGISTERED UNIT STANDARD:
Conduct moderation of outcomes-based assessments
SAQA US ID UNIT STANDARD TITLE
115759 Conduct moderation of outcomes-based assessments
ORIGINATOR
SGB Assessor Standards
PRIMARY OR DELEGATED QUALITY ASSURANCE FUNCTIONARY
ETDP SETA – Education, Training and Development Practices Sector Education and Training Authority
FIELD SUBFIELD
Field 05 – Education, Training and Development Higher Education and Training
ABET BAND UNIT STANDARD TYPE PRE-2009 NQF LEVEL NQF LEVEL CREDITS
Undefined Regular Level 6 Level TBA: Pre-2009 was L6 10
REGISTRATION STATUS REGISTRATION START DATE REGISTRATION END DATE SAQA DECISION NUMBER
Reregistered 2018-07-01 2023-06-30 SAQA 06120/18
LAST DATE FOR ENROLMENT LAST DATE FOR ACHIEVEMENT
2024-06-30 2027-06-30
In all of the tables in this document, both the pre-2009 NQF Level and the NQF Level is shown. In the text (purpose statements, qualification rules, etc), any references to NQF Levels are to the pre-2009 levels unless specifically stated otherwise. 
This unit standard replaces:
US ID Unit Standard Title Pre-2009 NQF Level NQF Level Credits Replacement Status
7977 Moderate Assessment Level 6 Level TBA: Pre-2009 was L6 10 Complete
9929 Moderate an assessment Level 5 Level TBA: Pre-2009 was L5 12 Complete
PURPOSE OF THE UNIT STANDARD
This unit standard is for people who conduct internal or external moderation of outcomes-based assessments. The assessments could be in terms of outcomes defined in a number of documents, including but not limited to unit standards, exit level outcomes, assessment standards, curriculum statements and qualifications. This unit standard will contribute towards the achievement of a variety of qualifications particularly within the field of Education Training and Development Practices and Human Resource Development.

Those who have achieved this unit standard will be able to moderate assessments in terms of the relevant outcome statements and quality assurance requirements. The candidate-moderator will be able to use the prescribed Quality Assurance procedures in a fair, valid, reliable and practicable manner that is free of all bias and discrimination, paying particular attention to the three groups targeted for redress: race, gender and disability.

In particular, people credited with this unit standard are able to:

  • Demonstrate understanding of moderation within the context of an outcomes-based assessment system,
  • Plan and prepare for moderation,
  • Conduct moderation,
  • Advise and support assessors,
  • Report, record and administer moderation, and
  • Review moderation systems and processes.
LEARNING ASSUMED TO BE IN PLACE AND RECOGNITION OF PRIOR LEARNING
The credit calculation is based on the assumption that learners have previous assessment experience when starting to learn towards this unit standard, and in particular, recognition for the unit standard: NLRD 115753: “Conduct outcomes-based assessments”. It is recommended that candidates should achieve NLRD 115755: “Design and develop outcomes-based assessments” before attempting this unit standard:

It is further assumed that the person has evaluative expertise within the field in which they are moderating assessments.

UNIT STANDARD RANGE
1. This is a generic unit standard, and applies to internal and/or external moderation within all fields of learning. It is accepted that moderation happens in different ways and at different levels in different sectors, including different models for what constitutes internal versus external moderation. This standard is intended to cover any situation in which moderation occurs, whether this be internally, i.e. within the ambit of the provider-assessor, or externally through cooperating providers, or externally through professional bodies and quality assurance bodies.

2. Assessment of candidate-moderators will only be valid for award of this unit standard if the following requirements are met:

  • Moderation is carried out for assessments that include candidates with special needs, and RPL situations. Where real assessments are not available to cover these situations, the candidate is able to demonstrate how special needs and RPL situations would be addressed within their moderation plan and process.
  • Moderation covers assessment instruments, assessment design and methodology, assessment records; assessment decisions, reporting and feedback mechanisms.
  • Moderation is carried out for assessments involving a variety of assessment techniques, such as work samples, simulations, role-plays, written items, oral, portfolios and projects.
  • Moderation activities include pre-assessment interactions with assessors, interactions during assessments and post-assessment interactions.
  • Moderation involves at least two sets of real assessment materials for the same standards and at least six assessor decisions.
  • The assessments that are moderated are in relation to a significant, meaningful and coherent outcome statement that includes assessment criteria and allows for judgements of competence in line with SAQA’s definition of competence i.e. embraces foundational, practical and reflexive dimensions of competence. This means that moderation of simple, single-task assessments will not be valid for awarding this unit standard.3. For the purposes of assessment against this unit standard, candidate-moderators should have access to organisational assessment and moderation policies, procedures and systems. It is assumed the organisational policies and procedures are of a quality sufficient for accreditation purposes. Where candidate-moderators are assessed in organisations that do not have a moderation system in place, assessors of moderators should provide a mock system for the purposes of the assessment.4. This unit standard applies to all Moderators, regardless of whether a person carries out moderation internally, as part of an organisation’s quality assurance system, or externally, as part of an ETQA or other process to verify assessment results supplied by the provider or assessment agency.Further range statements are provided in the body of the unit standard where they apply to particular specific outcomes or assessment criteria.
Specific Outcomes and Assessment Criteria:
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 1
Demonstrate understanding of moderation within the context of an outcomes-based assessment system.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 1
Moderation is explained in terms of its contribution to quality assured assessment and recognition systems within the context of principles and regulations concerning the NQF.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 2
A variety of moderation methods are described and compared in terms of strengths, weaknesses and applications. The descriptions show how moderation is intended to uphold the need for manageable, credible and reliable assessments.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 3
Key principles of assessment are described in terms of their importance and effect on the assessment and the application of the assessment results. Examples are provided to show how moderation may be effective in ensuring the principles of assessment are upheld.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE
See “Definition of Terms” for a definition of assessment principles.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 4
Examples are provided to show how moderation activities could verify the fairness and appropriateness of assessment methods and activities used by assessors in different assessment situations.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE
Assessment situations for gathering evidence of abilities in problem solving, knowledge, understanding, practical and technical skills, personal and attitudinal skills and values.
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 2
Plan and prepare for moderation.
OUTCOME RANGE
The planning and preparation is to take place within the context of an existing moderation system, whether internal or external, as well as an existing assessment plan.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 1
Planning and preparation activities are aligned with moderation system requirements.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 2
The scope of the moderation is confirmed with relevant parties.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE
Parties include the assessors and moderating bodies where these exist.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 3
Planning of the extent of moderation and methods of moderation ensures manageability of the process. Planning makes provision for sufficient moderation evidence to enable a reliable judgement to be passed on the assessments under review.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 4
The contexts of the assessments under review are clarified with the assessors or assessment agency, and special needs are taken into consideration in the moderation planning.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 5
Moderation methods and processes are sufficient to deal with all common forms of evidence for the assessments to be moderated, including evidence gathered for recognition of prior learning.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 6
The documentation is prepared in line with the moderation system requirements and in such a way as to ensure moderation decisions are clearly documented.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 7
Required physical and human resources are ensured to be ready and available for use. Logistical arrangements are confirmed with relevant role-players prior to the moderation.
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 3
Conduct moderation.
OUTCOME RANGE
  • Moderation to address the design of the assessment, activities before, during and after assessment, and assessment documentation.
  • Moderation to include assessments of candidates with special needs and for RPL cases. Where assessments do not include special needs or RPL cases, evidence for this may be produced through scenarios.
  • Evidence must be gathered for on-site and off-site moderation.
  • Evidence must be show candidate-moderators are able to moderate in situations where:
    – The moderation process confirms the assessment results, and where
    – The moderation process finds it cannot uphold the assessment results.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 1
The moderation is conducted in accordance with the moderation plan. Unforeseen events are handled without compromising the validity of the moderation.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 2
The assessment instruments and process are checked and judged in terms of the extent to which the principles of good assessment are upheld.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE
See “Definitions of Terms” for definitions of assessment principles.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 3
Moderation confirms that special needs of candidates have been provided for but without compromising the requirements specified in the relevant outcome statements.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 4
The proportion of assessments selected for checking meets the quality assurance body’s requirements for consistency and reliability. The use of time and resources is justified by the assessment history or record of the assessors and/or assessment agency under consideration.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 5
Appeals against assessment decisions are handled in accordance with organisational appeal procedures.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 6
The moderation decision is consistent with the quality assurance body’s requirements for fairness, validity and reliability of assessments to be achieved.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE
The “moderation decision” includes agreement or disagreement with the results of the assessments.
requirements include the interpretation of assessment criteria and correct application of assessment procedures.
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 4
Advise and support assessors.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 1
The nature and quality of advice facilitates a common understanding of the relevant outcomes and criteria, and issues related to their assessment by assessors.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 2
The nature and quality of advice promotes assessment in accordance with good assessment principles and enhances the development and maintenance of quality management systems in line with ETQA requirements.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE
Advice on quality management systems includes planning, staffing, resourcing, training and recording systems.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 3
Support contributes towards the further development of assessors as needed.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 4
All communications are conducted in accordance with relevant confidentiality requirements.
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 5
Report, record and administer moderation.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 1
Moderation findings are reported to designated role-players within agreed time-frames and according to the quality assurance body’s requirements for format and content.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION RANGE
Role-players could include ETQA or Moderating Body personnel, internal or external moderators and assessors.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 2
Records are maintained in accordance with organisational quality assurance and ETQA requirements.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 3
Confidentiality of information relating to candidates and assessors is preserved in accordance with organisational quality assurance and ETQA requirements.
SPECIFIC OUTCOME 6
Review moderation systems and processes.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 1
Strengths and weaknesses of moderation systems and processes are identified in terms of their manageability and effectiveness in facilitating judgements on the quality and validity of assessment decisions.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 2
Recommendations contribute towards the improvement of moderation systems and processes in line with ETQA requirements and overall manageability.
ASSESSMENT CRITERION 3
The review enhances the credibility and integrity of the recognition system.



UNIT STANDARD ACCREDITATION AND MODERATION OPTIONS
  • A candidate-moderator wishing to be assessed, against this unit standard may apply to an assessment agency, assessor or provider institution accredited by the relevant ETQA.
  • Anyone assessing a candidate-moderator against this unit standard must meet the assessor requirements of the relevant ETQA. In particular, such assessors of candidate-moderators must demonstrate that they assess in terms of the scope and context defined in all the range statements.
  • Any institution offering learning towards this unit standard must be accredited as a provider with the relevant ETQA.
  • External moderation of assessment will be conducted by the relevant ETQA at its discretion.
UNIT STANDARD ESSENTIAL EMBEDDED KNOWLEDGE
The following knowledge is embedded within the unit standard, and will be assessed directly or indirectly through assessment of the specific outcomes in terms of the assessment criteria:

  • Outcomes-based education, training and development
  • The role and function of moderation – directly assessed through assessment criterion ‘Moderation is explained in terms of its contribution to quality assured assessment and recognition systems within the context of principles and regulations concerning the NQF.’ and indirectly assessed throughout the unit standard.
  • Moderation methods – directly assessed through assessment criterion ‘A variety of moderation methods are described and compared in terms of strengths, weaknesses and applications. The descriptions show how moderation is intended to uphold the need for manageable, credible and reliable assessments.’ and ‘Moderation methods and processes are sufficient to deal with all common forms of evidence for the assessments to be moderated, including evidence gathered for recognition of prior learning.’, and indirectly assessed through application throughout the standard.
  • Principles of assessment – directly assessed through assessment criterion ‘Key principles of assessment are described in terms of their importance and effect on the assessment and the application of the assessment results. Examples are provided to show how moderation may be effective in ensuring the principles of assessment are upheld.’, and indirectly assessed via a requirement to judge whether the principles are applied by assessors.
  • Principles and practices of RPL – assessed in terms of the requirement for candidate moderators to moderate RPL-related assessments.
  • Methods of assessment – directly assessed through assessment criterion ‘Examples are provided to show how moderation activities could verify the fairness and appropriateness of assessment methods and activities used by assessors in different assessment situations’, and indirectly when checking the appropriateness and fairness of assessment methods used by assessors
  • Potential barriers to assessment – assessed when dealing with special needs.
  • The principles and mechanisms of the NQF – this knowledge underpins the standard
  • Assessment policies and ETQA requirements
  • Knowledge of quality assurance policy and procedures
  • Understanding of organisational or institutional contexts
  • Understanding the curriculum (where applicable).
UNIT STANDARD DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOME
N/A
UNIT STANDARD LINKAGES
N/A



Critical Cross-field Outcomes (CCFO):
UNIT STANDARD CCFO IDENTIFYING
Identify and solve problems using critical and creative thinking: planning for contingencies, candidates with special needs, problems that arise during moderation, suggesting changes to moderation following review.
UNIT STANDARD CCFO WORKING
Work effectively in a team using critical and creative thinking: working with assessors and other relevant parties during moderation, as well as post-moderation.
UNIT STANDARD CCFO ORGANISING
Organize and manage oneself and ones activities: planning, preparing, conducting and recording the moderation.
UNIT STANDARD CCFO COLLECTING
Collect, analyse, organize and critically evaluate information: gather, evaluate and judge evidence and the assessment process.
UNIT STANDARD CCFO COMMUNICATING
Communicate effectively: communicate with assessors and other relevant parties during moderation, and provide feedback.
UNIT STANDARD CCFO DEMONSTRATING
Demonstrate the world as a set of related systems: understanding the impact of moderation assessment on individuals, organisations and the credibility of recognition through NQF systems.
UNIT STANDARD CCFO CONTRIBUTING
Be culturally and aesthetically sensitive across a range of social contexts: plan, conduct and give feedback on moderation in a culturally sensitive manner.
UNIT STANDARD ASSESSOR CRITERIA
N/A
REREGISTRATION HISTORY
As per the SAQA Board decision/s at that time, this unit standard was Reregistered in 2012; 2015.
UNIT STANDARD NOTES
This unit standard replaces unit standard 9929, “Moderate an assessment”, Level 5, 12 credits.
This unit standard replaces unit standard 7977, “Moderate assessment”, Level 6, 10 credits.Supplementary informationDefinition of TermsThe following terms are defined as used within this and related unit standards:

  • Assessment: – a process in which evidence is gathered and evaluated against agreed criteria in order to make a judgement of competence for developmental and/or recognition purposes.
  • Assessment activities: – what a candidate does or is involved in as a means of producing evidence e.g. designing things, making things, repairing things, reporting on something, answering questions, solving problems, demonstrating techniques.
  • Assessment criteria: – descriptions of the required type and quality of evidence against which candidates are to be assessed.
  • Assessment design: – the analysis of defined outcomes and criteria to produce a detailed description of how an assessment should take place, including all instructions and information regarding the assessment activities and assessment methods. The product of assessment design could be termed an Assessment Guide (see definition below).
  • Assessment facilitator (or evidence facilitator): – a person who works within particular contexts, under the supervision of registered assessors, to help candidates/learners gather, produce and organise evidence for assessment.
  • Assessment Guide: – this is a complete package based on a thorough analysis of specified outcomes and criteria, assessment requirements and a particular assessment context. Assessment Guides are designed primarily for use by assessors to conduct an assessment (or possibly a series of related assessments) in terms of a significant and coherent outcome of learning e.g. a unit standard. Assessment Guides address the following key aspects in detail:
    – How will the assessment take place?
    – What is needed to make the assessment happen?
    – How will evidence be gathered, recorded and judged?
    In general, Assessment Guides include descriptions of the approach to the assessment, assessment conditions, assessment activities, instructions to assessors and candidates/learners, assessment methods, assessment instruments (e.g. scenarios, role-plays, questions, tasks), resource requirements, guidance for contextualising assessments, relevant standard operating procedures, administrative procedures, moderation requirements, assessment outcomes and criteria, observations sheets, checklists, possible or required sources of evidence and guidance on expected quality of evidence including exemplars, memoranda or rubrics.
  • Assessment instruments: – those items that an assessor uses or a candidate uses as part of the assessment e.g. scenarios with questions, case studies, description of tasks to be performed, descriptions of role play situations.
  • Assessment method: – for the most part, assessment methods relate to what an assessor does to gather and evaluate evidence. Assessment methods include observing candidates, questioning candidates, interviewing supervisors/colleagues/managers of candidates, listening to candidates, reviewing written material, testing products.
  • Assessment plan: – an assessment plan is produced at provider level, and gives an overview of the timeframes and responsibilities for assessment and moderation for the agreed delivery period. The plan addresses practical implementation details, including, for example, decisions about the clustering of certain outcomes or unit standards/outcomes for integrated assessment, any planned RPL, and the relation of assessment and moderation to delivery of modules/ programmes in terms of timeframes.
  • Assessment principles: – see more detailed definitions in next section.
  • Candidate/learner: – person whose performance is being assessed by an assessor. Such people include those who may already be competent, but who seek assessment for formal recognition (candidates), as well as those who may have completed or are in the process of completing learning programmes (learners).
  • Candidate-moderator: – the person who is being assessed against this particular unit standard.
  • Evaluative expertise: – the ability to judge the quality of a performance in relation to specified criteria consistently, reliably and with insight. Evaluative expertise implies deep subject matter understanding and knowledge about the outcomes being assessed at a theoretical and practical level, but does not necessarily include practical ability in the outcome.
  • Evidence: – tangible proof produced by or about individuals, that can be perceived with the senses, bearing a direct relationship to defined outcomes and criteria, based on which judgements are made concerning the competence of individuals. Evidence includes plans, products, reports, answers to questions, testimonials, certificates, descriptions of observed performances, peer review reports.
  • Evidence facilitator: – see assessment facilitator
  • Moderation: – a process that supports and evaluates the assessment environment, process and instruments with a view to confirming the reliability and authenticity of assessment results and improving the quality of assessments and assessors.
  • Performance: – includes demonstration of skills, knowledge, understanding and attitudes, and the ability to transfer these to new situations.
  • Portfolio of evidence: – a carefully organised and complete collection of evidence compiled by candidates/learners to prove competence in relation to defined outcomes.
  • RPL – Recognition of Prior Learning means the comparison of the previous learning and experience of a learner against specified learning outcomes required for:
    – The award of credits for a specified unit standard or qualification,
    – Access to further learning,
    – Recognition in terms of meeting minimum requirements for a specific job,
    – Placement at a particular level in an organisation or institution, or
    – Advanced standing or status.
    This means that regardless of where, when or how a person obtained the required skills and knowledge, it could be recognised for credits. In this sense, RPL is an important principle of the NQF. RPL involves an assessment process of preparing for RPL, engaging with RPL candidates, gathering evidence, evaluating and judging evidence in relation to defined criteria, giving feedback and reporting results. Given that the all candidates are assessed against the same criteria, credits awarded through RPL are therefore just as valid as credits awarded through any other assessment process.
  • Outcomes-based assessment: – a planned process for gathering and judging evidence of competence, in relation to pre-determined criteria within an outcomes-based paradigm, for various purposes including further development and recognition of learning achievements.
  • Verifier: – those who operate at systems level to monitor assessment and moderation practices, trends and results.Principles of assessment:Methods of Assessment
  • Appropriate: The method of assessment is suited to the outcome being assessed i.e. is capable of gathering evidence in relation to the intended outcome, and not something else.
  • Fair: The method of assessment does not present any barriers to achievements, which are not related to the achievement of the outcome at hand.
  • Manageable: The methods used make for easily arranged, cost-effective assessments that do not unduly interfere with learning.
  • Integrated into work or learning: Evidence collection is integrated into the work or learning process where this is appropriate and feasible. (Often referred to as naturally occurring evidence).Evidence
  • Valid: The evidence focuses on the requirements laid down in the relevant standard and matches the evidence requirements of the outcome/s at hand under conditions that mirror the conditions of actual performance as closely as possible
  • Current: The evidence is sufficient proof that the candidate is able to perform the assessment outcomes at the time the assessor declares the candidate competent.
  • Authentic: The assessor is satisfied that the evidence is attributable to the person being assessed.
  • Sufficient: The evidence collected establishes that all criteria have been met and that performance to the required standard can be repeated consistently in the future i.e. the performance to standard is not a “once-off”.Overall Assessment Process
  • Systematic: The overall process ensures assessment is fair, effective, repeatable and manageable.
  • Open: The process is transparent i.e. assessment candidates understand the assessment process and the criteria that apply and can contribute to the planning and accumulation of evidence.
  • Reliable/Consistent: The same assessor would make the same judgement again in similar circumstances and judgements match judgements made on similar evidence.

You may also like…

X