In fairness, the whole point of NV(ocational)Qs, is that they are all about 'this is what I do', in the workplace, and in context (the organisational model). And the only way ability and understanding can be assessed is by testing 'what you do' and 'how you do it' and 'why you do it this way'. In the absence of real-life opportunities, simulation, questions and answers, interviews, and 'witness testimony' may be used. The measurement criteria and methodology should be adapted to suit circumstances and needs. But they seldom are!
I agree that the RM NVQs are/were far from perfect. The whole portfolio-gathering requirement is in itself time-consuming, and requires candidates to have certain skills ie: they must be capable of collating and presenting evidence. That is not easy for everyone, especially if they perceive a need to reach a high standard of literacy and so on...if they lack those skills (and some jobs do not require them) it can have a very negative effect. Another reason for their flaws was that they were based on pre-existing models, such as Library NVQs, and we got lumbered with set phrases and structures. A lot of effort was put into re-working them to match RM requirements but, even so, we did shoe-horned some to fit.
However, since the qualification has in effect been withdrawn (ie: no new candidates can enroll) we will have an opportunity to get it right - if there ever is a next time. In that situation, the practical experience Chris and others have had will be invaluable. Personally, I think there is still a lot of scope and demand for a relevant, practical, qualification based on the workplace. They are commonplace here in Switzerland, where trainees sign-up for several years of 'learning the trade' (apprenticeships) and of being constantly assessed by their subject-expert line-managers and peers, in the workplace.
-----Original Message-----
From: Elliott, Christopher [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, 11 March, 2003 11:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: NVQs
**********************************************************************
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL
Please refer to the disclaimer beneath this message
**********************************************************************
As someone who dipped his intellectual toes in the waters of NVQ level 3
(and before you ask - its for Records Officers - people who do the routine
work rather than level 4 which is for people who plan it) I found the NVQ
rather unsatisfactory. The NVQ uses a complicated and elaborate system of
evidence gathering of the "This is what I do" nature, to try and generate a
sense of professional awareness. It's a lot of work for little gain. I knew
what I did but needed a sense of why and this was absent in the rather
abstract NVQ coursebook.
The training that is most beneficial is the sort that gives a context to the
occasionally bizarre practices that we as fledgling records managers are
asked to perform. Short courses in a introduction to RM from tfpl and ASLIB
do pretty much this, as does the rm3 module B1. The rm3 course can take the
whole thing further as required.
I like the sound of looking up OU courses in RM that run as part of business
administration courses. Does it work?
Chris Elliott
TRIM Administrator
Records Management Centre
> http://cmswire/Departments/policycomms/rmc/
Tel 020 7641 3243 Fax 020 7641 2475
--
**********************************************************************
Westminster City Council switchboard:
+44 20 7641 6000
**********************************************************************
This E-Mail may contain information which is
privileged, confidential and protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient
of this E-mail or any part of it, please telephone
Westminster City Council immediately on receipt.
You should not disclose the contents to any other
person or take copies.
**********************************************************************
|