Review of the SCQF Level
Descriptors
April 2011 to June 2012
Aims
• Planning the Review of the Level
Descriptors
• Stage 1
• Stage 2
• Plans for the Revised Descriptors
Planning the Review
• Began 2010
–Scope
–Rationale
• Appointment
of consultants
Stage 1
• Literature Review
 35 documents
• Individual Interviews
 25+ interviews with
Board, QC, CRBs and
Experts
 5 Groups
• Focus Groups
• Survey Monkey
Survey
 97 responses
Findings - general
• SCQF Embedded, well used and
respected
• Primary users are practitioners, but being
used more by employers
• Don’t change for the sake of it!
• Must retain relationships with other
frameworks
• Clearer distinction between levels wanted
Findings - descriptors
• 66% said no aspects of the descriptors
caused issues
• Language is technical but also accessible
• Could be a better academic/vocational
balance
• Level 1 descriptor
• Clarity re progression 6/7, 7/8, 8/9
Early findings - guidance
• Mixed views about need for further
guidance, suggestions included:
– A glossary of key terms and their usage
– Summary level descriptors or criteria
– Additional/better contextual material
– Stronger guidance about both the holistic and
cumulative nature of the descriptors
– Need to ensure guidance is consistent
End of Stage 1
• Proposals from the
Consultants
• Quality Committee
Away Day
• Plans for Consultation
and Live Testing
Stage Two
Stage 2
• Consultation
Document agreed
On website
Return Date
16 March 2012
• Live Testing
All levels
Adam Smith College
UWS
SQA
SPC
Employers
Minerva
Momentum
Next Steps
• Amendment to proposals in light of the
consultation
• Recommendation of Quality Committee
• Agreement of Board
• Dissemination of Revised Level
Descriptors
– A 5 Booklet
– Ultimately a revised handbook