OFFICE OF THE TASMANIAN BRIEFING NOTE NO: 23/14 QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY BRIEFING NOTE FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE TASMANIAN QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY SUBJECT: Basic Road Safety TQA 1, size value 5 and Road Safety Education TQA level 2, size value 5 PURPOSE: To seek accreditation of the proposed courses. BACKGROUND: At its meeting of 5 June 2013 (item 2.3) the Authority noted that the courses Basic Road Safety and Road Safety Education had accreditation expiring at the end of 2014. The Authority accepted a proposal to develop specifications for the development of replacement courses in this area. At its meeting of 2 October 2013 (Agenda Item 2.3) the Authority noted work required related to development of replacement courses. The Office has communicated with Officers from the Department of State Growth about specifications for replacement courses. These noted the need to: • express learning outcomes as end points of learning • review the currency of course contents • refine standards to meet current guidelines. The Office was able to support Officers from the Department of State Growth in actioning this work. On 2 September 2014 we received a letter from the General Manager Land Transport Safety, Department of State Growth requesting that the courses be considered for accreditation (see Attachment A). We published an exposure drafts of these courses as part of the accreditation process in the period 22 August to 5 September 2014. one comment was received. Dean Warwick (the Hutchins School) suggested the inclusion of drugs to the list of risk factors in the TQA 1 course. This has been actioned. The proposed course was analysed against the TQA’s Course Accreditation Criteria (see Attachment B). In light of the analysis typographical errors have been corrected and the CA award has been removed from the Qualifications Available section.
Transcript
OFFICE OF THE TASMANIAN BRIEFING NOTE NO: 23/14 QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY
BRIEFING NOTE FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE TASMANIAN QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY
SUBJECT: Basic Road Safety TQA 1, size value 5 and Road Safety Education
TQA level 2, size value 5 PURPOSE: To seek accreditation of the proposed courses. BACKGROUND: At its meeting of 5 June 2013 (item 2.3) the Authority noted that
the courses Basic Road Safety and Road Safety Education had accreditation expiring at the end of 2014. The Authority accepted a proposal to develop specifications for the development of replacement courses in this area. At its meeting of 2 October 2013 (Agenda Item 2.3) the Authority noted work required related to development of replacement courses. The Office has communicated with Officers from the Department of State Growth about specifications for replacement courses. These noted the need to:
• express learning outcomes as end points of learning • review the currency of course contents • refine standards to meet current guidelines.
The Office was able to support Officers from the Department of State Growth in actioning this work. On 2 September 2014 we received a letter from the General Manager Land Transport Safety, Department of State Growth requesting that the courses be considered for accreditation (see Attachment A). We published an exposure drafts of these courses as part of the accreditation process in the period 22 August to 5 September 2014. one comment was received. Dean Warwick (the Hutchins School) suggested the inclusion of drugs to the list of risk factors in the TQA 1 course. This has been actioned. The proposed course was analysed against the TQA’s Course Accreditation Criteria (see Attachment B). In light of the analysis typographical errors have been corrected and the CA award has been removed from the Qualifications Available section.
The analysis suggested that the course outcomes of Road Safety Education might meet requirements for units from the Road Safety Skill Set. While there is a very strong relationship between the course outcomes/standards and these units, the course does not meet the complete set of performance criteria for any of the units. For example, in unit TLIF0077A ‘Demonstrate knowledge of risk factors and consequences in interacting with other road users’ Performance Criteria 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 can be directly mapped to standards in the course, but 2.2; 2.3 and 3.1 cannot.
CURRENT SITUATION: The following course document is ready for accreditation consideration (Attachment C): New course: Replacing: Basic Road Safety TQA level 1, size value 5
Basic Road Safety TQA level 1, size value 5
Road Safety Education TQA level 2, size value 5
Road Safety Education TQA level 2, size value 5
ISSUES: 1. It is clear from audits of the provision of the current courses
that some providers do not have the institutional capacity to plan, deliver and assess these courses (see Authority Meeting 5 October 2011, Item 3.3). Quality assurance of these courses has special significance because:
a. past experience has shown that the reliability and validity of awards in these courses recommended by non-‐traditional providers requires close monitoring
b. quality assurance processes and related opportunities for continuous improvement are means by which institutional capacity can be developed.
Quality assurance of the proposed courses will have resource implications.
2. The analysis makes reference to the TQA Algorithm Guidelines. These guidelines are out of date and will be reviewed (e.g. they recommend a PA for satisfactory achievement in 3 of 4 criteria, and an SA for 4 of 4. The upward pressure on the single criterion is no longer considered acceptable).
VIEWS: We do not have systematic information on the views of community and other stakeholders.
RECOMMENDATIONS: That the courses be accredited for use from 1 January 2015 to 31
December 2019. That the course be assigned a robustness level of 2. That the courses be assigned the following characteristics for the TCE: Course: Basic Road Safety TQA level 1, size value 5
TCE Contribution: level/credit points towards participation and achievement standard for PA or higher 5 credit points at TQA 1 TCE contribution: ‘Everyday Adult’ standard for SA award of higher Nil
Course: Road Safety Education TQA level 2, size value 5
TCE Contribution: level/credit points towards participation and achievement standard for PA or higher 5 credit points at TQA 2 TCE contribution: ‘Everyday Adult’ standard for SA award of higher Nil
PREPARED BY: Dr Mike Jenkins Liaison and Development Officer
Date: 8 September 2014
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 courses meet the Authority’s Senior Secondary Course Accreditation Criteria. See Attached Report.
Accreditation of the proposed course is consistent with Authority policy decisions, including the need to streamline the number of courses.
On 5 June 2013 (Item 2.3) the Authority decided that replacement courses were 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 17 September 2014. It was agreed that accreditation of the 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 (i.e. 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 courses replace existing courses. They are not ‘new’ courses.
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 Dr Reg Allen CEO, Tasmanian Qualifications Authority Date: 17 September 2014 Acting under delegation from the Tasmanian Qualifications Authority to accredit senior secondary courses.
Attachments: A: Letter from the General Manager Land Transport Safety, Department of State Growth B: TQA Senior Secondary Course Analysis Report C: Proposed Courses
ATTACHMENT A: letter from the General Manager Land Transport Safety, Department of State Growth
Accreditation History: Version 1 (of both courses).
• Basic Road Safety (TQA 1; size 5) replaces RSE105110 Basic Road Safety (TQA 1; size 5) which was accredited from 12 January 2010 to 31 December 2014.
• Road Safety Education (TQA 2; size 5) replaces RSE205110 Road Safety Education (TQA 2; size 5) which was accredited from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2014.
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.
Strategic Need and Demand The Authority has previously decided that replacement courses for Basic Road Safety and Road Safety Education are required for use in 2015. Both courses have been prepared by the Department of State Growth (Tasmania) with input by the Authority. Student Enrolment History (2010-2013) Basic Road Safety experienced a decline in enrolments between 2011-13, while Road Safety Education almost halved its student enrolments between 2012-13 (as depicted in the chart below).
Source: TQA, TCE Subject Result Summary 2010-2013, http://www.tqa.tas.gov.au/1782
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
Educational Aims The Aims statement in both Exposure Drafts (below) is identical:
The course aims to minimise road trauma among young people by equipping them with the knowledge to make informed decisions as drivers, pedestrians, passengers and cyclists, and to develop positive attitudes that are demonstrated in safe road user behaviour.
The course is intended to enhance a person’s life skills by providing a system of behavioural and attitudinal appraisal and self reflection tools. In addition, it provides a platform for constructing risk assessment skills useful in the workplace and other settings.
Learning Outcomes Five of the six Learning Outcomes expressed in each Exposure Draft resembles the following outcomes of the national RYDA* program (which according to its website holds a partnership with the Tasmanian Government): • Identify risks of car travel (to young driver and passenger)
including life-long consequences • Identify contributing factors to crashes and understand how
these are preventable (crashes aren’t accidents) • Identify what a low-risk driver/passenger is and compare to
self (in relation to low-risk attributes) • Investigate ways to manage and eliminate road risk by
developing and rehearsing personal strategies • Prepare steps (safer driver and passenger behaviour change)
to lower identified personal risks and be a socially responsible road user.
*RYDA is for 16-18 year old students who are approaching that crucial time in their lives where they start to drive independently or are travelling as passengers of novice drivers.
Source: http://www.rse.org.au/programs/ryda/
• must be at least at the equivalent of the types of competencies characteristic of AQF Cert I
Basic Road Safety (TQA 1) The criteria and standards included in the Exposure Draft are equivalent to competencies characteristic of an AQF Certificate I (foundational knowledge for everyday life and further learning). Road Safety Education (TQA 2) The criteria and standards expressed in the Exposure Draft are equivalent to competencies characteristic of an AQF Certificate II (basic factual, technical and procedural knowledge of a defined area of work and learning).
2. Coherence (cont)
2.a General Coherence (cont)
The proposed course:
• has a balance of learning of both domain-specific and generic skills and knowledge
It could be argued that neither course offers a balance of learning, as both are fully focused on road safety (100% domain-specific).
However, the intent of both courses is to: a) enhance a person’s life skills by providing a system of
behavioural and attitudinal appraisal and self reflection tools b) provide a platform for constructing risk assessment skills that
may be useful in the workplace and other settings.
On this basis, the balance of learning in both courses could be regarded as 50% domain-specific and 50% generic.
• meets the TQA’s specifications document (if applicable).
N/A
2.b Internal Coherence
• there is clarity regarding what content is compulsory, and what (if any) is optional. Language used reflects this (e.g. ‘must’ or ‘will’ not ‘should’ or ‘could’)
Yes.
Basic Road Safety (TQA 1) comprises four compulsory units with no optional content. Road Safety Education (TQA 2) comprises five compulsory units with no optional content. The language of both Exposure Drafts clearly reflects this.
• (if applicable) the degree of optional content (e.g. choice between units/topics) is limited. Options allow for some specialisation, but there is a significant ‘core’ of common content
N/A.
There is no optional content in either course.
• there is clarity regarding the sequence for delivery of content (e.g. notations to say if the order in which contents listed in the document reflects compulsory or suggested delivery sequencing)
Yes. Basic Road Safety
This course comprises four compulsory units (1 to 4) which must be delivered in the given sequence.
Yes. Road Safety Education
This course comprises five compulsory units (1 to 5). Apart from the requirement for Unit 1 to be delivered first, no advice is provided on the sequence for delivering the course. The Exposure Draft clearly states that the order in which Units 2 to 5 are delivered is not prescribed.
2. Coherence (cont)
2.b Internal Coherence (cont)
• there is a clear match between the stated Learning Outcomes Content and Criteria/Standards.
Yes.
The use of the transitive verb “identify” in the Criteria of both Exposure Drafts has ensured a clear match between the Learning Outcomes, Content and Criteria/Standards.
This is in contrast to the non-specific, generalised ‘demonstrate understanding of’ learning outcomes and standard descriptors in the current RSE105110 and RSE205110 courses.
2.c Coherence with Other Courses
• (if applicable) there are clear linkages between a TQA 3 course and a ‘Foundation’ course at level 2 (or other specified TQA accredited pathway courses).
N/A.
However, Basic Road Safety (TQA 1) can provide a pathway to Road Safety Education (TQA 2).
3. Overlap with Other Courses
Does the proposed course duplicate, by titles or coverage:
• other TQA senior secondary accredited courses?
No.
• nationally accredited VET courses?
No.
If relevant, 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.
No.
The Road Safety Education Exposure Draft should identify that the course outcomes meet the requirements of some (if not all) of the following units from the Road Safety Skill Set (Transport and Logistics Training Package): • Demonstrate awareness of interacting with other road users • Demonstrate awareness of factors to reduce road harm • Demonstrate knowledge of risk factors and consequences in
interacting with other road users • Recognise motor vehicle road crash risks and post crash
This skill set provides a basic introduction to road safety on the road for those interacting with other road users. It is intended for use by year 10 through to year 12 students to equip them with a broader knowledge of the underpinning concepts of road use and road safety. This skill set may support other road safety or road use programs.
4. Assessment
• there is clarity regarding any prescribed assessment instruments and work requirements
No.
Basic Road Safety (TQA 1) The Exposure Draft offers no guidance on assessment instruments or student work requirements. Road Safety Education (TQA 2) The Exposure Draft includes a list of assessment activities, but no guidance is offered on assessment instruments or student work requirements.
• the standards are expressed in clear, unambiguous language.
Yes.
The only real difference between the previous course documents and the current Exposure Drafts is the much-improved wording of the course criteria and standards.
Possible Wording Suggestion Criterion 5: Identify and describe the Tasmanian licensing system in Road Safety Education (TQA 2) could be reworded as follows: • Describe the Tasmanian licensing system.
• (if applicable) the standards are comparable with ACARA/ CCAFFL /VET standards in regard to their level of complexity and wording
ACARA Standards N/A.
VET Standards Yes.
The standards are almost identical to VET standards in regard to their wording. As a comparison, the following wording is taken from TLIF0078A Recognise motor vehicle road crash risks and post crash actions: 1. Identify the types of motor vehicle crashes
1.1 Common types of motor vehicle crashes are identified and described
1.2 Possible risk factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes are identified
2. Identify risks and causes of motor vehicle crashes 2.1 The common causes of motor vehicle crashes are
described 2.2 The human, environmental and vehicular factors that
contribute to motor vehicle crashes are identified and described
2.3 Measures to prevent the most common road crashes are identified
3. Identify the actions to be taken post crash by drivers and others 3.1 The legal obligations of drivers and others after a motor
vehicle crash are described 3.2 Practical strategies that can be applied to a crash scene to
decrease further risk are identified
4. Assessment (cont)
• 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
No.
From a cursory reading, the following comparisons to accredited courses have been made.
Basic Road Safety (TQA 1; size 5) The degree of difficulty/complexity of the standards and the range of criteria in the Exposure Draft is not easily comparable with the TQA-accredited course BHY105111 You, Your Family and the Community (TQA 1, size 5). The criteria in BHY105111 is mostly generic (e.g. communicate information about a range of issues) and there are three standards per criterion (C, B and A). Basic Road Safety is a single standard course (i.e. it only has one standard per criterion). Road Safety Education (TQA 2; size 5) The degree of difficulty/complexity of the standards and the range of criteria in the Exposure Draft is not easily comparable with the following TQA-accredited courses: • CSL205113 Community Service Learning (TQA 2, size 5) • RLP205110 Making Moral Decisions (TQA 2, size 5) Generic skills are integrated throughout the criteria and standards of CSL205113 and RLP205110 (e.g. correctly follow sequences in routine activities; communicate ideas and information; identify and organise given information; think critically and use reasoned argument), while the ‘A’ ratings are stand-alone as opposed to being additional to the ‘C’ standard elements. The above courses (used for comparison) align to ASCED Broad Field 09 Society and Culture (SOSE).
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.
Yes.
The course titles are relevant and readily understandable.
Are the names used for awards/title consistent with current TQA practice?
Yes.
The language used to describe the course, assessment and standards is simple, plain and readily understandable by practitioners.
Yes.
The language throughout the Exposure Drafts is reasonably clear and generally inclusive.
6. Delivery
The methods of delivering the proposed course are likely to achieve the purposes, aims and learning outcomes of the course.
N/A
The Exposure Drafts do not identify delivery methods. In the Course Delivery section of both documents, it is clearly stated that course providers will select modes of delivery based on the needs of learners.
The Exposure Draft for Road Safety Education (TQA 2) includes suggested delivery hours for each unit (totalling 50 hours).
7. Access
(If applicable) any limitations to access based on age, gender, employment, cultural, social or educational background are explicit, clearly stated and justified.
N/A
The Exposure Drafts do not identify limitations to the courses.
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
This text is included in the Quality Assurance Processes section of both Exposure Drafts.
• a level of comparability of results/awards essentially the same as for all other Authority accredited courses; and
Basic Road Safety (TQA 1) The Award Requirements section of the Exposure Draft does not apply a typical TQA algorithm for an internally assessed course with 4 ratings and 1 standard per criterion. The TQA Algorithm Guidelines suggest: • 3C ratings for Preliminary Achievement (PA). Road Safety Education (TQA 2) The Award Requirements section of the Exposure Draft does not apply a typical TQA algorithm for an internally assessed course with 6 ratings and 2 standards per criterion. The TQA Algorithm Guidelines suggest: • No award for Exceptional Achievement (EA).
Source: TQA, Algorithm Guidelines (March 2010) Source: TQA website, Single Standard Courses (http://www.tqa.tas.gov.au/2553)
• community confidence in the integrity and meaning of results.
This text is included in the Quality Assurance Processes section of the Exposure Draft.
9. Resource Requirements
• What, if any, special requirements are there for providers of the course (e.g. special equipment, resources)?
N/A
The Exposure Drafts do not identify any special requirements for providers of the courses.
• Are these clearly described? N/A
• What requirements are there for the TQA (e.g. quality assurance, external assessment)?
1. Road Safety Education Course Guide (the TQA currently lists this Guide on its website at http://www.tqa.tas.gov.au/2639 and http://www.tqa.tas.gov.au/2618)
2. Quality assurance processes (the TQA will check a provider’s learner attendance records and course delivery plans, and this process usually includes interviews with past/present learners)
3. Course evaluation (the TQA will evaluate the course in the year prior to the expiry of accreditation).
10. Evaluation
The proposed course must identify:
• course evaluation processes.
The Course Evaluation section of the Exposure Draft includes the TQA-standard statement on course evaluation processes.
11. Size /Complexity
• Are the level of complexity and size value of the course clearly described?
Yes.
Basic Road Safety has a complexity level of TQA 1 and a size value of 5.
Road Safety Education has a complexity level of TQA 2 and a size value of 5.
• Does the ‘amount’ of content / assessment regime match the size value indicated?
Yes.
Basic Road Safety and Road Safety Education comprise a limited volume of learning across 4 and 5 compulsory units respectively. It is therefore reasonable to assign both courses a size value of 5.
• Does the nature/aim/purpose of the course, its content, learning outcomes and assessment standards match the characteristics of the learning at this level of complexity?
Yes.
The TQA-standard statements for course size and complexity at TQA levels 1 and 2 (as included in the Exposure Drafts) clearly match the nature, aim and purpose of both courses.
12. Qualifications
• List the qualifications (including award types) to be conferred on successful completion of the course
Basic Road Safety, TQA level 1 (with the award of): • Satisfactory Achievement (SA) • Preliminary Achievement (PA) Road Safety Education, TQA level 2 (with the award of): • Exceptional Achievement (EA)* • High Achievement (HA) • Commendable Achievement (CA)** • Satisfactory Achievement (SA) • Preliminary Achievement (PA) *Possible Algorithm Error Exceptional Achievement (EA) may need to be removed from the Qualifications Available section of Road Safety Education, as this does not meet the TQA’s Algorithm Guidelines for an internally assessed course with 6 ratings/2 standards per criterion. **Possible Typing Error Commendable Achievement (CA) should be removed from the Qualifications Available section of Road Safety Education, as this qualification is not described in the Award Requirements section, and it also does not meet the TQA’s Algorithm Guidelines for an internally assessed course with 6 ratings/2 standards per criterion.
• Is this information included in the course documentation?
Yes.
Overall Observations The amended course criteria and standards are well-written. Course Guide The TQA will need to consider one of the following options for the Road Safety Education Course Guide: • Update the guide to align with the new course document; or • Discontinue the guide and remove it from the TQA website. Guidance to New Teachers In the interests of providing adequate guidance to new teachers, the TQA may consider incorporating the following: • methods of delivery (including sequence for content delivery) • prescribed (internal) assessment instruments • student work requirements.
ATTACHMENT C: Proposed Courses Please visit www.tqa.tas.gov.au/3435 to access the courses documents.
