Mandatory Review of Science Qualifications
Minutes for Governance Group Meeting 4
Meeting held by teleconference, Friday 14 February 2014 at 2.30 pm – 4 pm
Attendees:
Angela Beaton
Paul Demchick
Terry Fulljames
Janet Hay
Hugh McMillan
Michele Miller
Peter Osborn
Lee Searle
David Shillington
Nico van Loon
Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec)
Real World Education
NZQA (professional advisor)
Tertiary Education Commission
SGS NZ
NZQA (facilitator)
Open Polytechnic of NZ
Spectrachem Analytical Ltd
Universal College of Learning (UCOL)
Cawthron Institute
Apologies
Jerry Shearman
Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology
Meeting opened at 2.30 pm.
1 Updates
 No additions to the risk register.
 Christine Fenton has withdrawn from GG but will not need replacement as Peter
is also on the ITP Academic Managers’ forum.
 Email received from Jerry with his comments on the summary of consultation.
2 Consultation responses from round 2 were discussed.
Action required
1. Cultural aspects could be included in the graduate profiles, particularly relating to
matauranga Maori. Michele will circulate some examples from other
qualifications and the foundation graduate profiles. GG to comment by email by
February 21.
2. Possible overlap with Foundation and Bridging review at levels 3 and 4. Decided
to continue with the development of these qualifications with a view to altering
them at the next phase. Michele to give the Foundation and Bridging review of
the draft qualification descriptors for the certificates.
3 Application to develop (NZQF 1) is due on 11 April, with a report of the review (NZQF 3).
At this stage, pre-development attestations are submitted from each stakeholder (NZQF
2) and providers will be asked to signal their intent to relinquish their own qualifications
(NZQF 6). Michele will send the drafts of NZQF 1 & 3 to GG for endorsement before it is
submitted online.
4 Qualification developer role
National Qualifications Services has offered to be the interim qualification developer for
the science qualifications. No other volunteers were received.
5 Dates for next meetings
Friday 21 February – contribute by email to discussion on cultural aspects
Friday 28 March – comment on draft application documents
No earlier than July – start of phase 2 (to prepare submission for approval to list).
Discussion of Consultation 2 for Proposed Science Qualifications
24 responses = 5 Private industry, 2 Government, 12 tertiary education organisation, 2 CRI,
2 Associations
Sixteen joint responses: Research and Development Analytical (Fonterra), Cawthron
Institute, SGS Ltd, MPI (Fisheries), Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisor, Bay of
Plenty Polytechnic, Eastern Institute of Technology, Northtec, Te Whare Wananga o
Awanuiarangi, UCOL, Unitec, Victoria University of Wellington, Waiariki Polytechnic,
AgResearch, Science Technicians’ Association of NZ, NZ Institute of Chemistry.
Eight independent responses: W Emson (AUT); M Satterthwaite (CPIT); P Lorentz (ARL); D
Hawke (CPIT), P Coolbear (Ako Aotearoa), P Buchanan (Landcare research), J Love
(private consultant), lecturer (Wintec).
1. Do you agree that the five qualifications proposed provide an adequate range and
pathway of qualifications for people working in scientific technical/technical assistance
roles across the variety of scientific workplaces in NZ? YES = 16
GG agreed that the suite of qualifications is on the right track. The responses from
stakeholders are mostly positive, supporting the flow from levels 3 – 6.
Programme design can circumvent some of the difficulties raised. For example, a
programme which leads to both level 3 and level 4 qualifications would be a suitable
alternative to a single certificate of 120 credits.
There may be overlap with the bridging qualifications at levels 3 and 4. This will need to be
discussed with the foundation and bridging review which began in January.
2. For each qualification, there should be some core knowledge/skills that all graduates
should have. Do you agree with the scope of the knowledge/skills in each of the
proposed new qualifications? YES = 13
Broad qualifications will be the most useful, with the potential for specific endorsements
where required. Multi-disciplinary approach is common in many scientific workplaces.
Cultural aspects must be included, especially those related to matauranga Māori (see action
noted earlier).
There are already very good qualifications for business and management at level 6 which
could be combined into a programme of study, so no need to repeat them in the science
qualifications.
Agreed that ‘science and technology’ is preferable to ‘STEM’ as a term within these
qualification descriptors.
3. Which qualification(s) might be applicable to your particular workplace and/or industry?
Some industries indicated that they would hire graduates with any of the qualifications for
particular roles in their workplaces.
The level 5 and 6 qualifications are the most likely to be offered by providers or used in the
workplace. The New Zealand Certificate in Laboratory Systems Management sounds very
likely to meet specific workplace requirements.
Theoretical knowledge must be backed by a sound understanding of analytical chemistry
and analytical microbiology. Diploma graduates should possess strong practical skills (a
distinction between diploma and degree graduates).
4. & 5. Suggested contexts for the NZ Diploma in Applied Science (Level 6) are: Chemistry,
Microbiology, Biotechnology, Environmental, Would these contexts be useful? Are any
other contexts required?
YES, to some extent = 18. GG noted the need for an unendorsed or general qualification.
This gives graduates more options in applying for jobs. Also the qualification should be able
to be future-proofed, integrate with other disciplines, and include technology. ‘Environmental’
may be in Conservation TROQ. ‘Biotechnology’ questioned.
It may be best to have contexts at the programme (local) level which lead to an unendorsed
or general qualification.
Specific contexts such as geothermal, molecular biology, dairy, digital technology were
suggested. However, different names are only useful if there is a clear difference in what the
student can know/do/be. Agreed that there should be sufficient flexibility for further contexts
to be added at a programme level according to the local need.
Other comments:
Discussed use of word ‘applied’. GG chose this word to indicate that graduates of these
certificates or diplomas will be applying their knowledge in a practical way. It is not intended
to imply that ‘pure’ science is excluded from these qualifications.
Other comments refer to matters outside the scope of this review. For example, medical
laboratory technology is excluded. Each proposed qualification needs to be designed to
meet requirements of employers.
The issue of how much credit is awarded to diplomates if they enter a university was raised
in several submissions. This is outside the scope of this review; historically the universities
examine each case individually according to the content of the diplomate’s qualification. Up
to one year has been awarded to diplomates (equivalent of 120 credits only).