Abstract

South Africa has embarked upon an ambitious plan to introduce a outcomes-based approach to education and educational assessment and this commitment is clearly indicated in the national Department of Education’s A national adult basic education In terim Guidelines, the draft policy document on Adult Education and Training of April 1997 as well as the Curriculum 2005 document, also from early 1997, relating to the formal school system.

The field of adult education and training, previously, during the apartheid era, an unsystematised and largely non-formal area of education, has become one of the first sectors to experience a system (or at least the assessment part of such a system) of outcomes-based education.

This pilot study of two adult basic education and training (ABET) sites which write Independent Examinations Board (IEB) examinations set out to develop an instrument (an interview schedule) that would enable a larger research project to examine the i mpact (or lack of impact) on teacher behaviour of the introduction of outcomes based education (OBE).

The paper first describes the background to the moves towards an outcomes based curriculum and assessment system in post-apartheid South Africa, particularly in relation to ABET. It notes that while the IEB recently started the implementation of an ou tcomes based ABET assessment system, there was no corresponding development of an OBE curriculum (partly because the NGO sector, the key developers of ABET thinking and practice had been too fragmented to develop a common curriculum (though it developed i nteresting materials that often served a curricular function) and new state ABET policies did not contemplate state development of a core curriculum for ABET (but only of outcome standards). The question of the development of an ABET curriculum is still a n open one.

The paper also outlines the development of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) (Appendix 1 provides a details on the new system as it applies to ABET) and the IEB’s adult basic education examinations which introduced the first OBE assessment processes to ABET. It is noted that because of the absence of an ABET curriculum the IEB’s outcome statements and those of the Interim Guidelines may have de facto begun to function as a curriculum outline.

There is a brief look at the literature on the effects of outcomes based assessment on instructional practices and some criticisms are noted that OBE may lead to neglect of social and political goals (Poe, 1997; Hamilton, 1997) and that the South Afric an teaching corps may not be presently capable of handling the conceptual and administrative demands of an OBE system (Jansen, 1997). John, Aitchison and Butler’s research on ABET teachers in NGOs affirms the possibility of Jansen’s fears being realised.

The research questions, methodology (centred around the development of an interview schedule) and a proposed revision of the research questions and methodology relating to the two case study sites are then described and reflected upon. Because of t he small scale of the survey no generalisable findings are produced but the case for a deeper and more thorough exploration is supported by two case studies (found in Appendix 2 and 3).

The writers note that it may be extremely difficult to separate out the influence of OBE on current ABET practice from that of political changes, new examinations (ABET previously had no national examinations), and the new status that ABET currently en joys. They note that the case studies confirm that there is confusion amongst practitioners about what OBE is and to what extent OBE and outcomes based assessment have to be distinguished. The fact that there is no actual OBE curriculum also complicate s the situation.

Perhaps predictably, the writers suggest that further research is needed and provide details on the research questions and methodology that should be adopted in such a larger enterprise.

South Africa has embarked upon an ambitious plan to introduce an outcomes-based approach to curriculum development, teaching practice, and assessment. In recent years, South Africa has learned much about the outcomes approach to education from foreign countries and notably those that have already developed National Qualifications Frameworks, mainly in the vocational field. The elements of the South African national Department of Education’s planning for a new system can be seen very clearly in docume nts such as Curriculum 2005 (Department of Education, 1997a) and Adult Education and Training in South Africa. Draft Policy Document (Department of Education, 1997b). (See Appendix 1 for a chapter from this latter document th at outlines the key elements in the planned system as they affect ABET.) The ultimate purpose and justification for the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) is to improve the overall quality of education and training in South Africa.

To ensure that the implementation process of this educational change is well monitored and assisted, it is important, firstly, to learn from the experience of implementing such qualification frameworks in other countries and their impact on education, training, and development practitioners and, secondly, to examine, in South Africa, the complexities of the first attempts to implement such outcomes related to qualifications within the new National Qualifications Framework (See diagram on page 2).

Central to the proposed outcomes-based education (OBE) in Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) in South Africa is a learner-centred, flexible curriculum that has as its starting point specific outcomes and is developed using a variety of resources and facilities, including guidance and counselling for the learners. Outcomes-based education is seen as moving away from subject/content-centred instructional methods and materials and demands an outcomes-based assessment system to certify learning. (A s currently understood in South Africa, outcomes-based assessment should be based on learning outcomes, range statements and assessment criteria stated in unit standards.) ABET examinations that are used to assess language, literacy, and numeracy should do so in the context of the adults’ life, not as academic subjects taught in a school based context. In such a system, prior learning is to be officially recognized through the NQF. However, an outcomes-based curriculum for South African ABET has yet to be developed. This void has led to confusion in the definition and implementation of OBE.

The subsystem of assessment and certification bodies that would be necessary to make an OBE system work for ABET have, in effect, been piloted and implemented through the adult examinations division of the Independent Examinations Board (IEB), an indep endent non-governmental organization which has been in the vanguard of the move to create a framework for educational assessment in South Africa. The IEB has developed ABET examinations in Language Communication [ABET sub-levels 1 and 2 in each of the 1 1 official languages; sub-levels 3 and 4 in English and Afrikaans, all in level 1 of the NQF] and in Numeracy. The exams are designed to provide certificates with national credibility. They examine achievement of the ABET outcomes published in the natio nal Department of Education’s A national adult basic education and training framework: Interim Guidelines of September 1995 and provide an assessment of integrated language/literacy and numeracy skills and strategies applied to real life sit uations (French, 1997). Thus, outcomes-based assessment measures the learners’ acquisition of language, literacy, and numeracy skills and strategies applied to everyday life rather than academic language, literacy, and numeracy derived from an academic, s chool-based syllabus. In the United States of America context, it is similar to functional context assessment of adult literacy (e.g., CASAS, NALS) rather than school-based achievement assessment of adult literacy (e.g., TABE, ABLE).

The outcomes-based curriculum approach and the IEB ABET exams are meant to be separate but linked developments. In the current absence of an ABET curriculum or curriculums, the IEB outcome statements have de facto acted as curriculum guidelines. It is not yet clear to what extent they have actually begun to define the curriculum, although anecdotally it has been suggested that they do.

Until recently the only formally accredited adult basic education was that offered in the apartheid-era Department of Education and Training night schools which taught adults the child-centred, formal school syllabus. The political and social ch anges of the 1990s created a demand for more appropriate adult education programmes which took account of adults’ life experiences, background knowledge and skills, and personal needs and objectives. These changes supported the moves begun more than a de cade earlier to revamp adult education in South Africa around principles of learner-centred, relevant, participatory instruction in which adults could develop skills applicable to their lives (Freire, 1972; Knowles, 1970; Millar et al, 1991). A nu mber of calls have been made to develop a curriculum, instructional methodology, and instructional materials using the OBE approach. However, there are no plans at present to produce a national adult basic education curriculum (Department of Education, 1997, p. 33), thus creating a void that could potentially and inappropriately be filled by a outcomes-based assessment framework.

Similarly, the political changes of the 1990s created a demand for a new system of certification of adult learning. Previously, formal certification was issued through a variety of segregated departments of education requiring adults to enter or re-en ter the formal school system and the first nationally recognised qualification was attainable only at the end of Grade 8 (Standard 6). Indeed, many organisations refused to register their students with the education departments because they found their s tandards and content entirely unsatisfactory, if not offensive. The field of adult literacy was characterised by many very different programmes, little attention given to assessing learning outcomes, no shared understanding of literacy levels, and no cons ensus or direction regarding curriculum. Kell (1997, p. 1) expresses the state of ABE as "fragmentation, absence of standards, no cannon, no accredited professional development or teacher training, high attrition rates, lack of resources and ineffici ent use of resources and above all, no measures of effectiveness".

In the early 1990s ABE was placed firmly on the agenda of trades unions (French and King, 1995, p. 6) and the education sections of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) was one of the major influences which led to a demand for national ly determined and commonly understood standards. There was also a growing demand for some measure of accountability from literacy initiatives. The Independent Examinations Board which replaced the old Joint Matriculation Board, established an adult examin ations division in 1992. The aim of the adult division was to "initiate a process of setting certified benchmarks in order to establish a learning pathway for adult learners" (French and King, 1995, p. 1). Throughout 1992 and 1993, the IEB held a series of consultative meetings with a number of interest groups about the development of an assessment system for adult learners. The meetings, which were representative of a number of sectors, including labour (COSATU), employers, key figures in poli cy, the National Training Board, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and academics. The assessment model finally adopted must be seen in the context of the developments in South Africa over this period. The establishment of the NQF (together with and the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) to administer the registration of qualifications) dealing with registered standards expressed in the form of competencies and integrating training and education, played a significant role in bringing a new discourse into the educational sphere and broadening the notion of ‘outcomes’.

Developments in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States of America also influenced the discussion and developments regarding examination and qualification systems, particularly in relation to the development of a set of what are now called critical cross-field outcomes (and which were initially borrowed from Australian sources). Added to this was a firm belief in the notion that good assessment can affect both curriculum and practice. The development of the IEB’s specific outcomes for ABET and its assessment framework were pinned onto the now nationally accepted critical cross-field outcomes (Department of Education, 1997).

The IEB ran national pilot exams at ABET sub-level 3 in both Maths and English Communication in 1994. Since then, the IEB has run national exams twice yearly and has a large and growing number of ABET centres registered as users, primarily from indust ry-based literacy programmes. Although there are still no ABET qualifications recognised by SAQA as yet, the IEB is strategically placed and influences the development of qualifications policy and processes. Given the nature of the development of the IE B, especially the truly consultative process which it undertook, its certificates are now recognised country wide by a wide range of interest groups, most notably, employers in industry.

It is important to note that during the consultative process it became apparent that there was a demand from the field for a core curriculum. However, the IEB saw its role as exclusively that of an examination standard setting body. The gap between cur riculum and assessment still exists today in ABET. When the IEB ‘User Guides’ (a set of materials to help prospective users understand the IEB exam system and outcome statements) were developed, they were based on the notion that there is difference betw een an assessment framework and a curriculum. The problem currently is that the assessment framework is interpreted and used by practitioners and material developers as if it were a curriculum (or, more narrowly, as a syllabus).

There is limited research literature on the effects of outcomes-based assessment on instruction and, as yet, none from South Africa. Outcomes-based or competency-based education has been used effectively in the United States of America, Australi a, and several other countries (though it remains contested and controversial). Their experiences suggest that, indeed, the assessment procedure may affect instruction both positively and negatively (Monjan and Gassner, 1979). Advocates of OBE in these co untries argue that one of the benefits of having the outcomes or competencies clearly stated is that learners get better information about what is to be learned, leading to greater motivation to study. Clear statements of outcomes also help the learner en gage in effective self-assessment of learning. They know what is expected and what progress they are making toward the outcomes. On the other hand, learner knowledge of outcomes may prevent them from participating in a learning experience, especially if they do not see the relevance of the outcomes for their own lives. Another problem that has been noted is the tendency of the learners and instructors to become extremely task-oriented, in effect, putting on "blinders" to any activity or experi ence that they do not believe leads directly to the outcomes (and to success on the assessment of those outcomes). In South Africa that latter concern has also been raised regarding outcomes-based instruction in ABET (Peo, 1997). He notes that ABET must find ways to measure broader outcomes in order to fulfill ABET’s social and political goals. Hamilton (1997) echoes this thought in asking about the social impact of ABET. She states the NQF (and the IEB exam system) "formalises Adult Basic Educatio n and Training through accreditation processes and the development of national qualifications and emphasises the assessment of outcomes accruing to the individual learner. While this move is welcomed, there is a need to elevate the social outcomes of ABET by finding ways to measure its wider impact on development, democracy and social transformation" (p. 47).

There have been similar criticisms in those countries that have espoused OBE that instructors’ may not feel ownership of the outcomes because they may not have participated in setting them. Further, because the outcomes/competencies spell out clearly w hat the learners must demonstrate on the assessment task, the instructors feel they must stick closely to these competencies in order to prepare their learners adequately, thus ignoring the wider social and political uses of literacy. Reviewing studies o f competency-based assessment of literacy for the workplace, Wolf (1995) notes that most of the studies involved actual demonstration of the job-related literacy competencies, rather than paper-and-pencil tasks simulating these tasks. In fact, competency -based education can broaden the types of learning and knowing to be demonstrated, but only if the assessment used also requires demonstration of these expanded strategies and processes (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, and Falk, 1995).

Outcomes-based education for South African schools (Department of Education, 1997a) has been strongly criticized in a widely-circulated and widely-discussed paper by Jansen (1997). He asserts that OBE in South African primary and secondary schools is doomed to fail for several reasons:

1. The language of OBE is too complex (p.2).
2. OBE as curriculum policy makes problematic claims about the relationship between curriculum and society (p. 3).
3. OBE policy is based on flawed assumptions about what happens inside schools, how classrooms are organized, and what kinds of teachers exist within the system (p. 4).
4. The desirability of OBE’s instrumentalist view of knowledge in a democratic school system may be questioned (p. 5).
5. OBE curriculum policy ignores the importance of process (p. 6).
6. The focus on instrumentalism sidesteps the important issue of values in curriculum and enables policy makers to avoid dealing with the question of what education is for at this period of transition in South Africa (p. 6).
7. The management of OBE will multiply the administrative burdens placed on teachers (p.
8. OBE trivializes curriculum content and ignores the important cross-curricular and inter-disciplinary demands encountered in learning a complex task (p. 7).
9. For OBE to success it requires a number of interdependent innovations to happen in the education system simultaneously (p. 8).
10. OBE requires a radical revision of the system of assessment (p. 8).

Simply taking into account the logistics of communicating what OBE is about to South African schoolteachers would suggest that Jansen’s criticisms of the implementation of OBE are right. An evaluation of an attempt by the national Department of Educat ion to communicate the OBE-based Curriculum 2005 to schoolteachers, pupils and parents via a series of twelve newspaper type supplements showed that the attempts to "sell" OBE were one of the less successful features of the supplements and that they contained examples of "appalling failure to communicate what OBE is" (Aitchison et al, 1997, p. 3). The evaluators concluded:

While Jansen was addressing the plan to implement OBE in the schools, many of his concerns also apply to ABET and will be considered in this research study. Kell (1997, p. 2) has also forcefully warned that the rapid acceptance within the literacy/ABET field of competency or outcomes based education is a further consolidation of myths about what literacy can achieve:

A study by John, Aitchison and Butler (1996, p. 31) suggests that the behaviour they observed amongst typical ABET teachers in NGOs in KwaZulu-Natal would make them problematic candidates for the implementation of an OBE system. They observed that (alo ngside many positive behaviours), ABET teachers :

In the state run night schools teachers the situation would not be greatly different. Teachers had rarely been trained in either adult education or literacy. They had in the past followed the rigid school-based syllabus and they would probably have di fficulty teaching a more flexible, non-syllabus-based curriculum - they simply would not have had the knowledge of the literacy process and the sequence of literacy development. Nor would they have had the breadth of experience to locate and adapt a wide variety of texts to use in an open-ended instructional programme.

In order to investigate the effects on teaching practice of the introduction of outcomes-based education in adult basic education, a small pilot study was implemented with two ABET sites where students take IEB exams. Time and financial constraints af fected the scope of this research, limiting it to this pilot study. Therefore, the focus of this report is on developing a methodology for a full study of the research questions. The purpose of the pilot was to develop and try-out an interview schedule an d protocol to answer the following research questions.

An initial Interview Schedule was developed to answer these research questions (see pages 9 and 10).

Two industry-based ABET sites enrolling learners for the IEB were selected, one in Durban and one in Pietermaritzburg. These two sites were selected as a convenience sample of strong programmes using the IEB examinations. It was thought that such progr ammes would provide an adequate pilot of the instrument and procedure.

Personnel interviewed at each site included the programme coordinator, facilitators/ teachers (current and past), and support/resource personnel. Adult learners were not included in the interviews as the research questions addressed the issue of outco mes-based education from the point-of-view of the facilitators and programme providers, not the learners. The interviews attempted to obtain descriptive information about the programme and the individual’s perspective on their pre-outcomes-based/IEB exam ination practices, the transformation in practices with the implementation of outcomes-based curriculum/IEB examination, and the effects of this transformation on teacher behaviours and instructional practices. Interviews were conducted in person or by t elephone and took from 20 to 40 minutes each. In Company X, four persons were interviewed (coordinator, ex-coordinator and two facilitators); in Company Z, five persons were interviewed (coordinator, current and former facilitators, consultant).

Case studies were written up on each site. (See Appendixes 2 and 3 on pages 26-30 and 31-33 respectively). They provide a description of each programme and answers to the research questions posed. No further analysis was appropriate for this small pilo t study of research methodology. No conclusions regarding the success of the programmes can be drawn from this pilot study.

The case studies were used to inform a revision of the interview schedule and our suggestions for a revised methodology for a larger study.

Descriptive Data

1. What is outcomes-based education?

Clearly one of the major problems in this pilot research was whether it is possible to isolate the effects of the introduction of an outcomes based curriculum from other dynamics, namely:

It may be difficult for teachers to reflect in a disinterested and academic way on the challenges/recommended changes, etc. within their own programmes resulting from the introduction of an assessment system. Indeed, through the case studies it became apparent that people did confuse OBE, assessment, exams, methodology, the IEB, learning principles and political changes! This led to our needing to revise the interview schedule by asking more specific questions about respondent’s understandings of OBE.< /P>

The pilot interview instrument was devised to detect possible changes in ABET programme practice following implementation of an outcomes-based curriculum and/or the use of the IEB examinations. Certain presumptions were made about what instructional be haviour might be expected to change or be required to change. Some of these behaviour changes relate to many of the issues raised by Jansen (1997, pp. 2-8) and John, Aitchison and Butler (1996, p. 31).

Another concern we had in developing the interview schedule was to examine the instructors’ understanding of what OBE is and how it relates to assessment. The two case studies suggested that there is indeed confusion in the field about outcomes-based education, outcomes-based assessment, and the IEB exam system. ABET personnel interviewed reported that they found if difficult to distinguish between the IEB examination system and OBE (in the revised interview schedule we drafted questions to more dire ctly probe the teachers’ understanding of, and ability to distinguish between, outcomes-based education, outcomes-based assessment and the particular manifestation of the latter in the IEB assessment system). The problem with a constantly shifting change in what people understand by OBE is that in doing research any changes in practice, performance and development can be attributed to OBE (whatever that is!). Here a crucial question relating to the proposed research study is whether, de facto, we in fact have an outcomes based assessment system as opposed to an outcomes based education system.

The fact that there is no OBE or any other curriculum for ABET makes it difficult to judge anything apart from OBE assessment practices, to whit, the IEB influenced ones. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the IEB-defined list of outcomes (soon to be reg istered as unit standards for assessment at any particular level) are often used as the curriculum by teachers with course and materials developers preparing syllabi and materials based upon them.

The pilot case studies suggest that it is important to ask about instructional materials, instructor training and support, assessment practices beyond those that come with the IEB examinations, and the roles of the learners and the instructors. Furthe r they suggest that the proposed research addresses a critical question in ABET and warrants a full-scale study of the effects on teaching practice of the introduction of outcomes-based education and assessment in ABET.

Based upon these methodological findings, a revised interview schedule was drafted and a full-scale study recommended.

Several questions in the initial interview schedule have been clarified, redundant questions removed, and questions on related topics grouped together. Another question regarding the understanding of the difference between outcomes-based education and the IEB exams has been added. The Revised Interview Schedule is reproduced in Appendix 4 on pages 34 to 35.

During the case study interviews it became clear that there is considerable confusion among adult educators over the definitions of outcomes-based education. There is also confusion about whether or not there is an outcomes-based curriculum or just an outcomes-based assessment system. Therefore, it is recommended that the final research questions be:

the behaviour of teachers?

classroom practice?

programme organisation?

It is proposed that a stratified sample of ABET programmes be included in the research study with stratifications based on location (province, urban/rural), sponsorship/support (municipality, company, parastatal, NGO, etc.), and size (multiple sites, s ingle site). The pilot study indicated that it is important to be able to interview persons affiliated with the programme before the introduction of the IEB exam and after (either the same person or persons who were involved in the transformation process ).

In addition to interviewing programme coordinators, facilitators/instructors, learners, support personnel (both those providing training and those monitoring implementation of the curriculum) and materials developers, it would be important to make sit e visits to a sub-sample of programmes. These visits could include observations of classes and a review of the programme’s curriculum, instructor’s lesson plans, instructional materials available and in use, and on-going (formative) assessment practices. These visits could assist in highlighting differences in practice before and after implementing the IEB exam system.

It would also be important to get input from teacher trainers, researchers, policy makers (including OBE and IEB personnel), and programme sponsors/funders. Focus groups could be conducted with these categories of ABET stakeholders.

We did wonder whether the observation of teaching would be particularly informative. Through our pilot interviews and on reflection it became clear that teaching styles and aspects of classroom practice have not necessarily changed, at least, not eno ugh to be easily and immediately observable. What has changed is the ‘finishing line’, which is there (for the first time). Examination of lessons plans, course outlines and materials may be a better strategy.

Chapter 5 of :

Department of Education. (1997). Adult Education and Training in South Africa. Draft Policy Document. Pretoria: Department of Education.

A CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK FOR ABET

The Ministry of Education is providing a broad national curriculum framework which seeks to support curriculum development at both national and provincial levels. The principles and guidelines of this framework provide both a philosophical base and an organisational structure for the growth of various curriculums in different contexts. The framework serves as a reference point for the development of education and training programmes that will improve the quality and extent of ABET provision.

This curriculum framework and the matching qualifications framework (the National Qualifications Framework) has adopted an outcomes-based approach to education and training because it is believed that it will best serve the transformation and integrati on of the education and training system in South Africa.

An outcomes-based approach is characterised by the following features:

Because the curriculum framework emphasises the outcomes of learning rather than the means or way of learning, it is acknowledged that learners will be able to attain the learning outcomes through a wide range of experiences encountered in a va riety of contexts. Learners will be able to attain these outcomes at different rates of learning in a wide and rich variety of programmes developed at national, provincial and local levels.

The term learning programme has been adopted by the national Department of Education to refer to an education or training programme, course or set of course modules or course units through which learners can achieve agreed upon learning outcomes (spelt out in unit standards). It is termed a learning programme to stress that the focus is upon the outcomes the learner will achieve rather than the syllabus or content that will be taught by a teacher. A numb er of alternative learning programmes may equally well meet the need to help the learner achieve the specific outcomes.

Programme developers will need to plan for a range of learner options and interests. They will need to take into account the immediate individual and family needs of learners together with the need for them to have access to and to cope with the deman ds of continuing and further education. ABET programme developers will have to ensure, therefore, that programmes which are derived from the national curriculum framework have the flexibility and potential to provide the broad foundation and core concept s that learners will need for their future education and training.

In making choices about the development of learning programmes, curriculum developers will need to take into account the policies and criteria formulated and published by the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) in terms of the South African Q ualifications Act of 1995.

These include the following:

SAQA has adopted an eight level qualifications framework (see diagram on next page). Level 1 accommodates three ABET certification levels. The eight levels are divided into three broad bands of :

These are carefully written descriptions of the kinds of knowledge and skills accommodated at the various qualification levels. Exemplars or samples of these will gradually be developed for the particular learning fields.

4. Collect, analyse, organise and critically evaluate information.

1. Demonstrate an understanding of the world as a set of related systems by recognising that problem-solving contexts do not exist in isolation

In order to contribute to the full personal development of each learner and the social and economic development of society at large, it must be the intention underlying any programme of learning to make an individual aware of the importance of:

These are the twelve broad categories of learning fields adopted by SAQA, namely:

01 Agriculture and nature conservation

02 Culture and arts

03 Business, commerce and management studies

04 Communication studies and language

05 Education, training and development

06 Manufacturing, engineering and technology

07 Human and social studies

08 Law, military science and security

09 Health sciences and social services

10 Physical, mathematical, computer and life sciences

11 Services

12 Physical planning and construction

The ABET directorate of the national Department of Education has selected six learning areas for which ABET unit standards should be developed. These learning areas are drawn from the twelve learning fields .

The ABET learning areas are:

Language, Literacy and Communication

Mathematical literacy, Mathematics and Mathematical sciences

Human and Social sciences

Natural sciences

Technology

Economic management

The specific outcomes for each of these learning areas will be specified in unit standards that will be registered by SAQA..

A similar set of eight learning areas has been adopted for school education at Level 1 of the NQF (the additional two areas for school education are Arts and Culture, and Life orientation).

A unit standard is a nationally registered statement of desired education and training outcomes and their associated performance/assessment criteria together with administrative and other necessary information. Unit standards are registered by SAQA at a defined NQF level. The purpose of a unit standard is to provide guidance to the learner on what outcomes are to be assessed, to the assessor on assessment criteria and to the educator who has to prepare the learning material to help the learner reach th e outcome.

Unit standards for each of the learner areas and at various ABET certification levels will be developed using the SAQA unit standards format.

The SAQA format for a unit standard is as follows:

The process of developing national standards for ABET should take into account the following:

All unit standards should provide for or demonstrate:

SAQA will register a National Standards Body for each learning field. Each NSB will have a maximum of 15 members representing key interest groups operating in the field (including Government, Labour, Business and Providers). The NSB will recommend a fr amework of sub-fields, each of which will be served by a Standard Generating Body (SGB). The SGBs will generate and recommend the registration of Unit Standards on the NQF and qualifications to the NSBs.

To ensure that providers of learning programmes are maintaining the quality of registered unit standard and qualifications, SAQA will accredit Education and Training Quality Assurance bodies to oversee the implementation of the new system. ETQAs will m oderate and evaluate assessment in the sub-field, accredit providers in terms of quality management, and certificate learners. An ETQA should not be a direct provider of learning programmes.

SAQA has accepted a credit system by which the achievement of the outcomes specified in a unit standard will lead to a credit. A certain number of credits will be needed to gain a particular qualification.

Although, strictly speaking, an outcomes-based credit should not take into account the amount of time spent learning to achieve an outcome, for practical interim purposes one credit will be given for a notional ten hours of learning. By "notional " is meant an informed estimate of the average time taken (including assignments, home study, etc, and not just the time used for direct instruction) an average learner, entering with the correct level of assumed knowledge, would take to master the s pecific outcomes of the unit standard.

No core curriculum or syllabus will be provided by the national Department of Education for the ABET learning areas.

This is an important change from past practice where syllabi and national core curriculum guidelines laid down what should be taught and how it should be taught. In an outcomes-based approach the focus is on the outcomes of learning. How the learner re aches these outcomes, and by what particular curriculum, is now open and flexible. The actual curriculum the learner can follow to attain the outcomes is left to the initiative and creativity of curriculum developers, materials developers, provider instit utions and learner choice.

In future, education and training qualifications will be registered by SAQA at the appropriate level of the NQF. A particular qualification will be awarded to candidates who have gained the required number of credits for the particular combination of u nit standards that make up the qualification.

The construction of qualifications and rules for the combination of credits is a complex matter and policy on it is still being developed by SAQA.

The National ABET Curriculum Coordinating Committee will develop firm proposals to put to SAQA around adult basic qualifications. Currently an adult learner version of the General Education and Training Certificate (GETC), the final NQF Level 1 qualifi cation, is being considered by the National ABET Coordinating Committee. Such an adult GETC would be seen as equivalent to, but not identical to a school GETC (for example, the rules of combination might be different, the number of credits might be differ ent, or particular learning areas might receive different stress). The committee will also investigate the need for, and structural implications of, multi-level qualifications for adults, for example ABET sub-level unit standards could form part of Specia l Purpose Qualifications at higher levels in industry.

The achievement of specific outcomes, measured against unit standards will serve as the basis for assessing learners and thus, indirectly, the effectiveness of learning processes and learning programmes. Assessment should not be seen as mainly a matter of terminal credentialising examinations. Essential periodical instructional assessment to provide continuous feedback to learners has almost universally been neglected in the South African education system. Assessment practices in all their dimensions ( including diagnosis, guidance, motivation, evaluation, prediction, grading, selection, and standard maintaining) need to form a central element of educator training and teaching.

The national Department of Education has issued a discussion document on ABET assessment which provides details concerning level of complexity, scope and learning context; discusses the issues of transparency, fairness and effectiveness in relation to assessment; and stresses the importance of the "records of learning" produced in instructional situations.

The basic premise of Recognition of Prior Learning is that people, especially mature adults, learn many things outside the formal structures of education and training. This learning, irrespective of where, how and when it was acquired, can, after asses sment, be recognised.

In the past many adults and out of school youth have attended non-formal training programmes and have acquired a great deal of informal knowledge and experience. Such knowledge and experience was not recognised or certificated and this often led to exc lusion from certain jobs, promotion on the job, and from further education and training opportunities, for all of which some kind of "certificate" was considered necessary.

There are a variety of methods used in other countries by which people may gain credit for prior learning. However, the costs implications of applying these in South Africa would be considerable. There is a need to urgently explore the most effective a nd efficient mechanisms for accrediting prior learning. In the short-term, standardised placement tests should be used to establish the entry level of learners in education and training programmes.

The development of provincial or institutional learning programmes based on the national curriculum framework for ABET will need to be accompanied by systematic practitioner development. Special guidelines will be developed in this regard for ABET supe rvisors, coordinators and educators.

Because there will initially be a shortage of learning materials keyed to the new curriculum framework, special attention will be paid to developing interim measures until a broader range of learning materials are available.

The implementation of the national curriculum framework for ABET will be informed by needs assessment, research and monitoring and evaluation of pilot programmes, to ensure its ongoing refinement.

It is hoped that with respect to adult learners the broad national curriculum framework will:

In 1991, Company X, a national utility company, contracted with a national non-profit literacy organisation to provide them with a literacy programme. This contract included literacy teacher training, provision of materials and on-going, in-servi ce support. This relationship proved unsatisfactory for a number of reasons and in 1995 Company X contracted with a Johannesburg-based commercial ABE provider to manage and support their literacy programme. This new company claimed that their course wa s "outcomes -based" and an integral part of their contract was to bring Company X "on board" with the new IEB examination system and to equip teachers to prepare their learners for those exams.

At present, there are 250 learners and 22 teachers at learning centres throughout KwaZulu-Natal, with 8 of those teachers in the greater Durban region. The majority of Company X’s literacy classes are run through a "block release" system, which means that learners attend full-time, 6 week-long courses. A smaller number of courses are run on a part-time basis, 2 - 3 hours a day, 4 days a week.

There is a core of full-time teachers and a number of part-time teachers (the latter a mix of schoolteachers and people who have previously received training from a variety of literacy organisations). The full-time teachers have completed high school qualifications, some technical training and have attended a variety of literacy and adult education training courses.

Company X, as a utility provider, has "customer service" as its mission. Therefore the purpose of the ABET programme is primarily work related "to be able to converse more proficiently with the community, our customers," according to the co-ordinator. ‘Personal development’ of its staff is also high on the company’s agenda.

All of the company’s ABET programmes are overseen by local literacy committees, made up of all stakeholders (teachers, shop stewards, and so forth) but major policy and budget decisions are made by a national committee comprised of senior management.

The KwaZulu-Natal regional ABET budget, submitted by the co-ordinator to the national office is close to R800 000. Of that, R500 000 was for salaries and less than R8 000 for training and resources. The amount requested for these latter items was dra stically cut by the head office.

Company X has had reasonable success with the IEB exams and has had approximately a 65% overall pass rate.

The change from one literacy curriculum to another was initiated by the then KwaZulu-Natal co-ordinator who was generally unhappy with the programme instituted by the non-profit provider. He found the initial literacy materials inappropriate for adults , as they didn’t take into account the learners’ experiences or backgrounds and didn’t develop comprehension and reading strategies. He also complained about the lack of support received from the provider: teachers were not given in-service support, ther e was little or no organisational support and assessment was cursory and did not reveal what skills learners were apparently acquiring. The programme never moved beyond initial literacy. Further, it allowed little room for innovation and teacher develop ment. One of the teachers said that you followed the literacy syllabus exactly and were never allowed to deviate.

Company X’s change to another curriculum, which occurred at the same time as the introduction of the IEB adult exam system in South Africa, offered an "outcomes based" curriculum. The underlying philosophy of the new curriculum is the develo pment of a syllabus to suit the needs of the learners, using the background of the learners as a starting point. From the outset, this curriculum promoted the IEB ABET specific outcomes at ABET sub-levels 1, 2 and 3 and these were used to guide the plann ing of the courses.

Teachers were encouraged to use a variety of relevant, off-the-shelf adult learning materials (workbooks and readers) as well as the materials accompanying by the curriculum. One of the teachers estimated that he used another publisher’s materials 40% of the time, the curriculum materials 10% of the time, and the remainder of the time exercises, worksheets and activities that he generated himself. Although the company does not provide a library, reading materials are purchased from a literacy NGO and are handed out to the learners during the duration of the course to be returned when the course ends. The teachers say they have an enormous amount of flexibility in teaching practice and in syllabus design, although they attribute these developments and richness of materials to their own experience and hard work. In fact, it became clear that since the initial training in 1995, there has been minimal contact between the curriculum provider and this ABET programme.

By 1996, all interviewees agreed that the ABET programme was well on track, attributed to support from a literacy NGO, especially regarding the IEB; exposure to the growing pool of readers and other materials available for literacy learners; and the ex perience and determination of the core literacy staff.

Prior to the introduction of the new curriculum, assessment was described as "a mess". It was comprised of a placement test which was not particularly effective (resulting in a considerable mix of educational levels in any one class), conten t-based weekly tests to "teach and then test what was taught", and content-based "exams" developed by individual teachers with no input either from the curriculum provider or from other teachers. There were no clear guidelines given f or placement, assessment, or examining. One of the teachers said that their staff attempted to set objectives and to look at one another’s exam results. These exams were then sent to the provider for moderation and then the learner "had finished l earning".

The new curriculum’s placement test is apparently much clearer as it is based on the IEB outcomes and although there were confusion and mistakes initially, learners are generally placed in the correct classes now. The IEB ‘performance outcomes’ have been used in setting the weekly tests (mandated by the company). One teacher said that he moved from testing the previous week’s work only to testing in a more integrated way because he knew what was expected from the IEB exams. The IEB exams are used a s mock exams and are written a week before the national exams. The results are used to decide who should write the national exams, although learners are allowed to decide for themselves as they are given the results (although not the paper) of the mock e xam. The exam papers are also used in a more formative way, where particular exercises are attempted in class and the results of these are given back to the learners to highlight strengths and weaknesses and then similar exercises are developed and worke d on to improve performance.

The teachers have created an informal network with teachers from other companies in order to ‘swop’ exams and tests. This is possible to do now that they are all working on the same outcomes. The teachers do not keep record of learner’s work, work fi les or personal progress reports and have no understanding of a portfolio assessment processes.

All interviewees are generally satisfied with the IEB and their learners’ results even if there are failures. Both teachers said that the results bring few surprises and they "use the results to learn." The interviewees said the results wer e used in a number of ways: to effect changes in the work lives and positions of people, to improve peoples lives and to improve production. There have been a number of cases where employees have received promotion on the basis of their IEB results. The results are also used for purpose of public relations. There is an annual graduation ceremony and write ups of the ABET programme appear in the company newspaper.

The programme in its entirety is also used to promote internal ‘good will’ within the organisation.

In looking at how the interviewees understand OBE, it is useful to quote them verbatim:

"OBE is teaching people how to and not what."

When asked why outcomes-based education is used, they responded:

Obviously, when asked how the programme had changed as a result of OBE, the reasons related directly to the interviewees’ interpretation of OBE:

When asked about the effect of OBE on their teaching behaviour, the teachers stressed the fact that there were now clear direction and clear, unambiguous criteria.

Change was also attributed to OBE.

The teachers also expressed the fact that they had to brush up on their content. The IEB outcomes raised the standard of the content they had to teach.

When asked about the role of the IEB, the interviewees expressed their satisfaction with an external examination system. They also acknowledged the difficulty of separating their new curriculum from the IEB from OBE. However, when speaking of his pra ctice, one of the teachers remarked, "When you teach outcomes, it is lifelong learning and not just for exams." External exams had a positive spin off for the teacher who said, "I feel I am contributing. The certificate ceremony gave me a lot of satisfaction."

Again, when asked about the positive aspects of OBE, it was difficult for interviewees to distinguish among OBE, the IEB, and progressive, learner-centred methodology. "You need a standard, national recognition so that the effort is not in vain. This applies to learners and teachers."

This conflation occurred again when the interviewees were asked about the problems and challenges of OBE. Mostly, the answers contained complaints about duration of classes, the difficulty of reaching rural areas and so forth. A teacher said about th e exams:

The former co-ordinator summed up his attitude towards outcomes-based adult education by saying:

It is interesting to note the range of definitions of OBE. Outcomes are at the same time objectives, methodology, adult learning principles, and process. It is not surprising that the introduction of a programme using the ABET level specific outcomes was so readily adopted by the company’s management. This was, I was told, familiar terminology and familiar concepts. It was noted that there was little difference between objectives and outcomes; you need objectives in order to reach your outcomes. I t emerged clearly from the interviews that the change in literacy curricula added to the myriad of factors which impacted on the transformation of the programme and the practices of the teachers. The interviewees found it difficult to distinguish between the IEB and the new curriculum, and conversely, the poor management and programme delivered by their initial curriculum provider was (perhaps) spuriously attributed to a lack of an assessment system in the country. Company X’s ABE programme has changed in profound ways. The programme is organised differently, there are more learners, the methodology is more appropriate, external educational criteria are used, practice is more educationally rigorous and there is recognised, standardised certification. The transformation of the programme can be attributed in part to the political transformation, in part to the new course, and in part to experience and developing skill on the part of the staff. Fundamental to this transformation, in my opinion, is the a dult examination system put into place by the IEB.

Company Z, a large utility company in KwaZulu-Natal, began its Literacy Programme in 1989 as an ad-hoc programme with one facilitator. It became a company-wide programme with a full-time coordinator in 1994. The programme has 12 sites in KwaZulu-Nata l, approximately 300 learners, and a full-time staff of six adult educators (one coordinator and five facilitators). The purposes of the programme are social responsibility, increased productivity, and good public relations. There has been a greater emp hasis on increased productivity in recent years. Policy is set by the company’s ABE Forum and ratified by the Management Committee based on input from the Literacy Coordinator. The budget comes from the company development fund and is given to the Coord inator as a lump sum for her to allocate. The programme is well-funded and supported by the company.

Initially a national literacy curriculum and materials were used; later another national workplace literacy curriculum was adopted. In between there was an attempt to do a needs assessment and to develop a programme with an emphasis on work skills. Bo th curriculum providers offered provided training and support for the facilitators.

The current Coordinator joined the programme about the time that the IEB exams were being piloted. This coincided with a change in the programme to a literacy curriculum developed by the facilitators, centred around the outcomes, with core objectives in reading, writing, communication, life skills, and numeracy. A wide variety of materials (books for new readers, newspapers, real life documents, etc.) are used, including many facilitator-made materials that are regularly shared and developed at staff workshops. The curriculum is very flexible and facilitators have complete autonomy over their instruction. Classes, most of which meet once per week for four hours, are available in Mother Tongue (Zulu) Levels 1 & 2 and English Levels 1 - 4 with n umeracy integrated into both. About 90% of the learners are Company Z employees with 5% from the community and 5% paid learners from other companies. The community learners are 100% unemployed women, while 99% of the workers are male.

Facilitators all have a degree, at least one year of ABE training, extensive experience in ABE, and initial training by a national workplace literacy provider. Several are bilingual (Zulu and English). All their posts have recently been upgraded fro m contract to permanent posts, a factor which should decrease the previously high staff turnover. Facilitators teach approximately 20 hours per week and use the remaining time for travel, planning and preparation, and meetings and workshops. They do a l ot of after-hours preparation.

Prior to the IEB, assessment and placement were done using the assessment materials of one of the literacy providers. The second provider’s placement tests are still used, but more learners are placed in Mother Tongue classes and they remain there lon ger as a result of the IEB exams. Facilitator judgement, class work, past IEB papers are used to determine who should take an IEB exam. Initially, it was trial and error, but experience and participation in IEB training workshops has made the process mo re accurate. A total of 386 learners have taken the exams and passing rates have increased over the four years of administration from 58% to 78% with the highest passing rates at Level 3. The results are used for reporting to the management, programme evaluation, and public relations as well as determining learner progression through the classes.

Each of the persons interviewed had a slightly different perspective on what outcomes-based education is. Responses included: teaching competencies as opposed to content, teaching applications to life and work situations, teaching for transfer of skil ls, and the ability to demonstrate and apply a skill within the context of life skills. All agreed that the programme is now outcomes-based and, as a result, more flexible, more learner-centred, and less dependent on materials. Several stated it was now more focussed on exams (i.e., the IEB ABET exams); more goal-oriented, but less broadly based; and provided more active, learner-based instruction using a wide variety of real life materials.

Everyone agreed the programme had changed as a result of the transformation in curriculum and the introduction of the external exams. Several noted that these changes were both positive and negative. Positively, it was noted that the programme is now more holistic, less skills-based; that is has more focus and direction allowing learners to gain more skills to use in their life and work. Because it is less materials-dependent, it is more flexible, creative, varied, and fun. It is also less teacher-c entred, helping learners to become more self-reliant. Being less materials-dependent is also seen as a negative. Previously the materials defined the sequence of instruction and provided practice in specific skills (e.g., grammar). Although many of the se lessons were irrelevant and inappropriate, the structure and content may have been lost in the change to facilitator-developed curriculum. Facilitators and learners have become more goal-oriented than before, but the goal is the IEB exam, not the outc omes.

The Coordinator believes that it was the introduction of the IEB examination rather than of the outcomes-based curriculum that made a major impact on their programme. Several specific changes were mentioned. Results have indicated that more of their learners should be in Mother Tongue classes and should stay there longer before moving into English. Learners have had to learn how to take exams and to be comfortable in a testing situation. Experience is helping them to be more accurate in judging wh o should sit for the exams. Facilitators use mock exams (old exam papers) to assess their learners’ strengths and weaknesses and to teach those specific tasks. This is especially true in the months just before the exams are given. The exams are importa nt to the company management and to the learners. They are highly motivating for the learners, especially when they do well.

What is the solution to becoming too exam-oriented? More training in staff meetings and workshops to make the facilitators aware of what is happening and to encourage a broader-based programme was emphasized by several respondents. Others noted a nee d to move away from the mock exams and provide more direct instruction in the outcomes themselves in a variety of materials and context.

A concern voiced by at least one facilitator was the reliance at Levels 1 & 2 on a paper-and-pencil, written exam to assess application of skills and strategies in real-life contexts. Learners may be competent in the outcomes, but unable to demon strate their competence in a written exam situation.

This company-based literacy programme is unusually well-funded and supported. Facilitators are very well qualified, highly experienced, and receive constant training, feedback, and support. The programme is completely outcomes-based in philosophy wit h individual facilitator-developed curriculum and a wide variety of instructional materials. The shift to a outcomes-based instruction and assessment has facilitated their holistic approach and supported their efforts to develop skills and strategies app lied in a real-life context. Nevertheless, even within this clearly-defined programme, the introduction of the IEB exam overshadowed the emphasis on outcomes-based education and created tension between desired outcomes and test results. Their programme is theoretically broad, but in practice curtailed by the exam. The staff of this programme is aware of this tension and, through strong leadership and outside resources, is attempting to meet the challenges presented by the IEB.

5. Who has overall authority for the literacy programme?

1. What curriculum was used? How?

2. What instructional materials were used? How?

5. What post-literacy materials were available and used?

1. What assessment, placement, and certification practices were used pre-IEB?

2. What assessment, placement, and certification practices are used post-IEB?

1. What is outcomes-based education?

2. What is outcomes-based assessment?