Assessment Strategy, Version 8
VRQ Qualification
Level 3 Award in Waste and Resource Management
Assessment Strategy
Version 8, October 2013
1
Assessment Strategy, Version 8
Contents
1.
Guidance and Assessment Strategy ................................................................................................ 2
2.
People and terminology involved in VRQ delivery, assessment and quality assurance process ... 3
3.
Unit Achievement and Timescales .................................................................................................. 5
4.
Assessing the unit project ............................................................................................................... 6
5.
Moderation of assessment for the unit project(s).......................................................................... 7
5.1 Unit Project Moderation ............................................................................................................... 7
Appendix 1: Form for Submission of Unit Results for VRQ ..................................................................... 8
Appendix 2: Authenticity Form for VRQ Unit Assessments .................................................................... 9
Appendix 3: Glossary of Words used in the Assessment/Marking Criteria .......................................... 10
1
Assessment Strategy, Version 8
1. Guidance and Assessment Strategy
The Level 3 Award in Waste and Resource Management (QCF) is delivered as a VRQ style
qualification (the term VRQ is used to differentiate the qualification from a total competence based
eg NVQ type qualification). It is made up of a total of 6 Units. Units 1 to 5 are Mandatory Units and
Unit 6 has five versions of which the learner must choose one: 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d and 6e currently.
Further options may be added at a later date. The relevant ‘Unit 6’ is chosen to match the site
requirements of the learner. Further details can be found in the Award Structure and copies of the
individual units.
Each Unit will usually be ‘taught’ in a classroom/e-learning environment with the Learning Outcomes
for each unit assessed by a written mini-project issued by WAMITAB, or approved Centre
Assessments. Each mini-project will cover one unit. A proportion of the project will be based on an
appropriate sustainable waste management facility (usually the learner’s site, existing or proposed).
Where learners do not have a proposed or existing site, the project should be based on a site with
which they are familiar. If the learner wishes to use RPL to exclude them from the need to have
teaching then they will just be asked to do the assessment for each unit. However it is important for
centres to discuss the content with the learner to ensure they do not require participation in the
learning before assessment.
The completed Unit Projects should be submitted electronically to the External Moderator once the
internal assessment and quality assurance has taken place, and providing that is feasible. If they are
submitted in written format, the centre should scan them into a digital format so they can be
submitted to the External Moderator electronically where possible.
Successful completion of the VRQ will be achieved when the learner attains ALL Assessment Criteria
for every Unit. (Units 1-5 plus the relevant ‘Unit 6’)
Centres should ensure that learners understand the ‘taught and tested’ approach to this
qualification. If necessary literacy and numeracy should be checked to ensure achievement is
possible, and supplementary skills development qualifications offered where basic skills do not allow
learners to fulfil the necessary requirements for assessment by project.
If the learner has any disabilities or barriers are perceived which may make the standard assessment
procedure unacceptable then it is possible for the Centre to request an appropriate Reasonable
Adjustment. Requirements for Reasonable Adjustment should be discussed with the relevant EV for
each learner affected. A Reasonable Adjustment is any action that helps to reduce the effect of a
disability or difficulty that places the learner at a substantial disadvantage in the assessment
situation.
Each year centres will also come together for a standardisation session led by the WAMITAB External
Moderators to ensure standards are maintained across centres and across the units.
2
Assessment Strategy, Version 8
2. People and terminology involved in VRQ delivery,
assessment and quality assurance process
Trainer: the person who delivers the learning on behalf of the centre. The trainer must not be the
person who does the final assessment for the unit they deliver. The trainer should have the
appropriate knowledge base and must demonstrate regular CPD to ensure an up to date knowledge
of the technical content and the assessment for this qualification. The trainer may also act as a
mentor/supporter for the learner and be involved in checking drafts of the assessment or if the
learner fails to achieve the LOs (see further detail later in this document).
Assessor: someone appointed by the Centre delivering the qualification who assesses the Unit
Project (may be different people for different units). The Assessor must have the appropriate
knowledge base for the unit being marked and must demonstrate regular CPD to ensure an up-todate knowledge of both Assessment and the technical subject content.
The Assessor must not be the trainer who delivered the unit content. Whilst it is not a regulatory
requirement it is considered best practice for assessors to have achieved the relevant VRQ
assessment unit: Level 3 Assess Vocational Skills, Knowledge and Understanding or the L3 Award in
Assessing Vocationally Related Achievement. At very least assessors should assess according to the
standards set by Level 3 Assess Vocational Skills, Knowledge and Understanding
Internal moderator: someone appointed by the Centre to internally moderate the Assessment
standards and accuracy of the marker. This should be done by a complete re-Assessment of a
sample of the work using the Assessment content and requirements. It is completely different from
the Internal Verification process used for NVQ/QCF qualifications, as its purpose is to ensure
consistency and accuracy of the actual Assessment using the Assessment criteria.
Moderation should happen as soon as possible after the successful Assessment of the mini-projects
so that certification is not held up. The moderation should be recorded on the attached form and be
sent to the External Moderator by email. Whilst it is not a regulatory requirement it is considered
best practice for Internal Moderators to have achieved the relevant VRQ quality assurance unit:
Level 4 Award in Assessment Process and Practice. At the very least Internal Moderators should
quality assure to the standards set by the unit L4 Internally Assure the Quality of Assessment.
External moderator: someone appointed by WAMITAB to sample the assessment of the Unit
Projects to ensure consistency of assessment and proper application of the Assessment
requirements. This person may also be the Centre EV although that is not always the case. Centres
will be told who the External Moderator is for their VRQ. This person will receive the Unit Results
form and then request learner work for sampling. Centres should liaise with the External Moderator
to determine sample size. The external moderator should quality assure to the standards of Level 4
Externally assure the quality of assessment.
3
Assessment Strategy, Version 8
Authentication: For each Unit Project the learner is required to sign an authentication statement
declaring the work as their own (see Annex to this document). When assessing the unit projects
assessors should look carefully for authenticity and plagiarism issues. If there is any thought that the
work is not that of the learner, e.g. because the language used changes throughout the unit project,
then the assessor should require the learner to have a discussion regarding some of the content to
ensure that there are no plagiarism issues.
If the language issue is raised then the course trainer, who may be better placed to compare the
learner’s usual language style to that used in the project, can be consulted by the assessor. Equally it
is useful for the work of learners from the same site or location to be carefully checked for
plagiarism. Pasting un-referenced answers into internet search engines is also a good tool when
checking for plagiarism.
4
Assessment Strategy, Version 8
3. Unit Achievement and Timescales
Each Unit comprises a number of Learning Outcomes and related Assessment Criteria. Learners are
tested for their knowledge and understanding of each Unit by sitting a project which is generally
scenario based. WAMITAB will provide Centres with assessment materials which can be used for
learners.
Alternatively, Centre’s are able to develop assessment materials against the stated assessment
criteria. Centres must send proposed assessment materials to WAMITAB for approval prior to use.
The project can be done away from the centre. Learners will be required to achieve all units within
12 months of registration with WAMITAB and should be made aware of this requirement before
commencing the course.
Learners who do not achieve all units within the 12 month period will be required to re-register for
the qualification with WAMITAB. Learners will then be required to undergo assessment of those
units, or parts of units, that they have not achieved. There will be no maximum number of project
submissions and Centres may manage this as appropriate.
Centres may choose to allow learners to submit the first draft of the project to the trainer (not the
assessor) so that the trainer can check:
a) The depth of content is at the right level;
b) Each learning outcome is met;
c) The timeframe appears to have been complied with in terms of the amount produced.
The trainer should not, obviously, tell the learner the correct answers but just clarify the above to
support the learner to achieve success for the unit.
If the learner cannot complete the qualification within the 12 month period because of illness or
unexpected occurrences outside of their control such as bereavement, etc then Special
Consideration should be applied for by the centre to the EV. Doctor’s certificates etc will need to be
submitted as evidence. WAMITAB will then consider the circumstances and advise whether extra
time can be allowed. Extra work commitments and planned holidays are not accepted as part of
special considerations so the learner’s employer should be made aware of the 12 month
requirement before registering the learner for the course.
The project can be done under ‘open-book’ conditions, which means that the learner can use all
sources of information available to them for further learning or within their answers, providing that
they reference anything copied directly from books, leaflets, course materials, company materials,
websites, etc. In each case they should put where the copied work is taken from: page number,
author, date of issue or web link. This ensures that plagiarism can then be more easily identified
where no referencing has taken place.
Unit Certificates will be awarded to learners at any such time as the Centre claims them. Learners
who are unable to achieve the full qualification will also receive Unit Certificates. In all instances the
learner must achieve all Assessment Criteria in the relevant Unit for a Unit Certificate to be issued.
5
Assessment Strategy, Version 8
4. Assessing the unit project
Each unit project will be assessed by an assessor who is independent of the training process.
The assessor will determine with reference to the Assessment Guide/unit content requirements
(shown on a unit template against each Assessment Criteria) whether the learner has achieved the
minimum requirements for each assessment criteria to record the answer as successful. Trainers
delivering the course should ensure learners understand how much they need to write for each
answer. WAMITAB has produced a guidance document detailing the various verbs used in the
Assessment Criteria and suggestions for what is required to meet the verb requirements. Assessors
will judge the learner’s response in accordance with the Assessment Guide and determine whether
the answer can be considered correct. Assessors will judge the accuracy of response to each part of
the project using the typical answers/content provided in the Assessment Guide as an example of
the responses expected. However, if they think the answer is valid but not included in the
Assessment Guide they should check with their External Moderator or WAMITAB before accepting
the response.
Resubmission if Pass (achievement of all Assessment Criteria) is not achieved
If a learner does not achieve all Assessment Criteria in the project then the Centre is permitted to
request additional information to be submitted by the learner. The request should be put in writing
to the learner and/or trainer and state which Assessment Criteria have not been answered correctly
or in enough detail but should not obviously state the answers required. The trainer/assessor may
then contact the learner (preferably by phone or face to face) to discuss the issues and guide the
learner towards completion (without giving them the right answer). The learner will then need to
revise the answers previously submitted in writing and re-submit them to the assessor. There is no
limit on the number of resubmissions that may be required, provided that the full qualification is
achieved within a 12 month period.
The Assessment process should include the assessor annotating in the right margin of the submitted
answer where he/she believes each relevant Assessment Criteria has been achieved.
6
Assessment Strategy, Version 8
5. Moderation of assessment for the unit project(s)
Assessment of the qualification projects should be Internally Moderated. Sampling should be based
on the experience of the assessor in Assessment of VRQs against Assessment criteria rather than
assessment of QCF Competence qualifications or earlier NVQs and should be completely separate to
the more traditional Internal Verification process.
5.1 Unit Project Moderation
The Internal Moderator should determine a sample based on risk assessment of the process and
subsequently either:


Agree the Assessment decisions by ticking against the learners sampled or
Disagree the Assessment decisions, and put comments as to why the Assessment is not
agreed. The assessor should then adjust the Assessment or re-assess for all learners if
relevant.
This process can all be done electronically if at all possible.
If any learner is required to re-submit the project or part of it, following the moderation process,
then these should be sent automatically to the Internal Moderator for checking after the assessor
has carried out a re-assessment.
Centres should develop a plan of assessment and moderation, including an indication of timescales
for assessment, submission for moderation and moderation processes. This plan should be discussed
with the individuals responsible for these functions to ensure that learners are not disadvantaged by
the logistical workings of the process.
The achievement record (see attached form) for learners should be prepared once successful
assessments have been achieved. Centres are given opportunity to manage the timescales for
submitting this to the moderator (as above). The record should then be submitted to the External
Moderator who will then determine a sample based on risk assessment from across the scripts (not
necessarily the ones sampled by the Internal Moderator) and request these to be sent to him/her for
External Moderation.
Until the results have been agreed as valid by the External Moderator then submission of results to
WAMITAB for unit claims should not be made.
Once the External Moderator has agreed Direct Claim status the centre may use their own quality
assurance process as above and then submit the achievements to WAMITAB as normal. Direct Claim
Status will be given to each Centre on an individual basis and should be discussed with the EV. All
certificated assessments should be retained (with the required assessment documentation) for the
External Moderator to quality assures those assessments if required, at least twice during the year,
to maintain the Direct Claim status. This will be done electronically as and when the External
Moderator requests. Centres may also be required to bring a selection of claimed assessments to
the annual standardisation meeting.
7
Assessment Strategy, Version 8
Appendix 1: Form for Submission of Unit Results for VRQ
Centre Name:
Learner Name:
Date of initial training course:
Learner Number:
Please complete the form below which determines learner’s state of achievement.
Unit achievement:
Assessor:
Internal Moderator:
Centres should send this form to the External moderator electronically and the External Moderator
will then respond requesting which scripts are required for the moderation process.
8
Assessment Strategy, Version 8
Appendix 2: Authenticity Form for VRQ Unit Assessments
This form should be completed and submitted by each learner and each assessor for each unit
assessment.
Learner Name:
WAMITAB Learner Number:
Unit Title:
Date of Training Course for this
unit:
Date of required submission of
unit assessment :
Centre Name:
Notice to Learners:
The work you submit for assessment must be your own. You may be disqualified from at least the
unit concerned if you copy from someone else, allow another learner to copy from you, or if you
cheat in any other way. All information used within this assessment but owned/produced by
someone else should be referenced with the author/website/title to show that you are not
suggesting this is your work.
Declaration of Authentication
I have read and understood the Notice to Learners above. I have produced the attached work
without assistance, other than that which my centre has explained is acceptable within the
assessment strategy.
Learner Signature:
Date:
Declaration by Centre-Assessor
I confirm that the learner’s work was conducted under the conditions laid out by the specification.
I have authenticated the learner’s work and am satisfied that to the best of my knowledge the
work produced is solely that of the learner.
Signed (Centre-Assessor):
Date:
Name (Block capitals):
9
Assessment Strategy, Version 8
Appendix 3: Glossary of Words used in the
Assessment/Marking Criteria
Explain: show an understanding of the content/process mentioned. Include what it is, how it works,
what it looks like, what it does, how it happens, why it happens, relevant reasons. The answer
should make it plain or comprehensible.
Describe: provide a vivid picture of what it is. Use of imagery, adjectives and adverbs make it vivid
and more understandable. Describe may also convey an idea and impart facts.
Evaluate/Justify: learner must look at whatever the required content/process, etc is and suggest
other the relevance/significance/ possible outcomes/results/ possibilities. It is the process of
exploring, checking and suggesting a likely outcome with reasons
Analyse: look at something/a process/etc using given classifications/principles to gain a further
understanding
Demonstrate: a doing verb which requires the learner to show he can actually do whatever the AC
requires. The learner will have to provide evidence of him/her actually doing the requirements of
the AC/task. It is about application of knowledge and skills rather than just talking about them. The
evidence for this can be the learner discussing the task with an assessor and then showing that he
has done it by nature of documentation, video, etc. It is not enough to actually just write about it
unless the task requires such evidence as the production of a balance sheet, health and safety
guidance, etc
List: produce a number of relevant items which apply to the question. Further description is not
required.
Identify: for most ACs this requires the learner to list and describe what is required or relevant to
produce a required outcome or requires the learner to make choices to achieve a particular aspect
of their job. At levels 4, 5 and 6 this would require the learner to say what is available, make the
choice and then to explain or justify why the choice was made.
Develop: Build a process or activity or understanding either from scratch or forward from the
existing product into something workable.
Manage: after a development process ensure that the product/process etc works using relevant
management techniques. This is very much a “doing” activity.
Apply: put something into action – a “doing” task which requires “real” evidence from a workplace
scenario.
Implement: A “doing” task. After a development process, ensure that the product/process is actually
employed and/or used by self and others during work activities.
Differentiate: look at the characteristics of an item or situation and explain the differences.
10
Assessment Strategy, Version 8
Distinguish: look at the characteristics of an item or activity and explain the difference. Use this
evaluation to pick an appropriate item/activity in the context of the requirements of the assessment
criteria.
Compare: look at the characteristics of an item or activity and note the similarities and differences.
This is more often used at level 1 and 2.
Critically Compare: look at the characteristics of an item or situation, note the similarities and
differences and their respective positive and negative aspects. In some cases, the can include the
use of the comparison in context as the basis for decision making. This is generally used at level 3
and above.
Recognise: be aware of, familiar with and able to identify an activity or product.
Terms often used to provide a qualitative benchmark for assessment evidence
Appropriate: provide evidence which is specific to the assessment criteria and relevant to the
operation.
Suitable: Due consideration has been given to the context of the site/waste type/operation/safety
regulations in the formulation of the response/evidence.
Compliant/compliance: Evidence/response meets clearly defined operational and/or regulatory
guidance in relation to the work activity.
Constructive: Possibilities for positive improvement have been considered, perhaps with examples
of suggested improvements and the positive/negative aspects of the work activity.
Proper: that which would be expected based on the regulatory/operational/procedural guidelines
for the work activity.
11
Assessment Strategy, Version 8
Notes
12
Assessment Strategy, Version 8
WAMITAB
Peterbridge House
3 The Lakes
Northampton
NN4 7HE
Tel: 01604 231950
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.wamitab.org.uk
13