FOI21/22 149 Study Support Guides

With regard to the study support guides which were published online on 07/03/2022 but were intended to be released on 08/03/2022 please could you provide me with the following information:

1. Who produced these study guides within SQA? Who was responsible for their preparation, what role did the individual hold?
2. What time commitment was given for the preparation and review of these documents before being finalised?
3. Who, if anyone, reviewed these documents externally to SQA before being finalised?
4. What sign-off process was adopted to ensure parity across subjects and/or a consistent approach to providing support for students?
5. Was there any senior sign off process in place for these, and if so, who signed them off? In addition to these questions please provide copies of any meeting notes, emails or other correspondence relating to the sign-off of these documents and any briefing documents / emails / correspondence relating to the initial process of drafting these - terms of reference etc.

1) Who produced these study guides within SQA? Who was responsible for their preparation, what role did the individual hold?

Scenario 2 Revision Support For Learners documents were produced by Qualifications teams, which include Qualifications Managers, Qualifications Officers and Subject Implementation Managers employed by SQA for their teaching background and significant experience. Qualifications teams were responsible for drafting the documents or working with key appointees. Principal Assessors and/or Depute Principal Assessors and/or Principal Verifiers and/or Senior Team Leaders, many of whom are practising teachers/lecturers and all are experienced practitioners created or assisted with the creation of the subject specific content of these documents. This involvement varied between subjects relative to the nature of the revision support materials and original modifications made at the start of the session. If/when an opportunity allowed, some Qualifications teams were also able to discuss the type of Scenario 2 support being produced with teachers at meetings which were focusing on other aspects of SQA's work.

It is also important to note that there was considerable discussion externally on the original modifications both for session 2020/21 via an external consultation (for further details please see https://www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/outcomes-national-consultation-2021.pdf and for session 2021/22. The creation of Scenario 2 Revision Support For Learners documents was an extension of this early work.  

2) What time commitment was given for the preparation and review of these documents before being finalised?

The process to enable the creation of Scenario 2 Revision Support For Learners documents started in mid-September 2021 and this process involved a number of steps before Qualifications teams started to draft the documents from early December 2021 onwards. Throughout this process and time period there were several review points by Qualifications teams and the Qualifications Development Management Team (consisting of the Director of Qualifications Development and all Qualifications Development Heads of Service). There was also engagement as detailed below in the response to question 3.

The planning for Scenario 2 Revision Support For Learners documents started in mid-September 2021 with drafting of the documents beginning from early December 2021 onwards.

SQA is not able to separate out the time/cost of creating Scenario 2 revision support materials from the overall time/cost of the Awarding 2022 Programme. Core staff time was utilised in the creation of these documents and that is not tracked at this level of activity.

An extract of the project plan for Scenario 2 has been included along with this FOI response to further detail the activity and related time commitments associated with this piece of work. However, it is not possible to be more specific than this as SQA are not able to separate out the time/cost of creating Scenario 2 revision support materials from the overall time/cost of the Awarding 2022 Programme. Core staff time was utilised in the creation of these documents and that is not tracked at this level of activity.

3) Who, if anyone, reviewed these documents externally to SQA before being finalised?

The documents were reviewed by senior key appointees for example, Principal Assessors and Depute Principal Assessors. In some cases, representatives from the following groups were also involved: National Qualifications Support Teams (NQSTs), Subject Implementation Manager networks, exam teams and/or subject associations. The level of engagement depended on the complexity of the subject requirements. 

Furthermore, a group of learners (who are also members of the SQA Learner Panel) provided feedback that reassured SQA that the support was suitable for the intended audience. The group sense checked the approach being taken via the review of three examples of blank templates. SQA could only share blank templates because of the confidential nature of the content of the documents (to give early sight of the Revision Support for Learners documents would put those learners at an advantage, since many of the documents detail content which will be assessed in the examination). In addition to this, some Qualifications teams worked directly with a small number of presenting centres to enable learners to provide direct feedback on subject specific documents (content, language and layout); this was used to shape the documents before publication.

4) What sign-off process was adopted to ensure parity across subjects and/or a consistent approach to providing support for students?

SQA's Research, Policy and Statistics team created a principles document to consistently guide Qualifications teams in the creation of Scenario 2 support. Based on this guidance and taking the original modifications into consideration, Qualifications teams created proposals for each of their courses. These proposals were then presented to the Qualifications Development Management Team (QDMT) for review and approval. This was an iterative process which involved several loops for some courses, before approval was finally given. A high level summary/overview of the proposals was also presented to the SQA Code of Practice Governance Group (comprised of the Chief Executive, the Director of Qualifications Development, the Director of Operations, the Director of Policy, Research and Statistics and the Director of Communications) prior to presentation to SQA's Advisory Council*; following which the proposals for several courses were again reviewed.

*The SQA Advisory Council was established under the Scottish Qualifications Authority Act 2002 as a body independent from the SQA Board to consider and provide advice to SQA and Scottish Ministers. The Advisory Council is a unique partnership that provides a representation of SQA's stakeholders. The Council’s primary role is to consider and advise on matters relating to SQA’s qualifications, awards and functions. The aim of the Council is to offer sound and well-informed advice to SQA on the needs and views of stakeholders as well as working in such a way that recognises and involves key stakeholders as part of a commitment to openness.

5) Was there any senior sign off process in place for these, and if so, who signed them off?

The proposals for the Scenario 2 Revision Support for Learners documents were signed off by the Qualifications Development Heads of Service and also collectively by the Qualification Development Management Team. The final documents themselves were signed off (following the editing process) by the Qualifications Managers.

In addition to these questions please provide copies of any meeting notes, emails or other correspondence relating to the sign-off of these documents and any briefing documents / emails / correspondence relating to the initial process of drafting these - terms of reference etc.

Please see documents. The names of staff below Head of Service level at SQA have been redacted under section 38(1)(b) as this is deemed to be personal information and accordingly should not be released into the public domain.

It should be noted that much of the initial process of drafting these documents was done verbally both within Qualifications teams and between Qualifications teams and senior appointees, prior to the draft documents being produced and shared with the key appointees (content discussions were held via Microsoft teams meetings); and as such, there are not any meeting notes in this regard. Nevertheless, please find the following documents below:

(1) Policy, Research and Statistics Principles document

(2) Email from Qualifications Portfolio Management to Qualifications teams with the 2022 Revision Support for Learners documents template

(3) 2022 Revision Support for Learners documents template

(4) Email from QD Editorial Team to Qualifications teams re Revision Support for Learners documents being ready for editing

(5) Email from QD Editorial Team to Qualifications teams re Revision Support for Learners documents being ready for sign off

(6) Action Log for the Qualifications Development Management Team Quality Assurance (QDMT QA) meetings

(7) Extract from the Action Log for the Assessment Resources Project Team meetings

1. Policy, Research and Statistics Principles document (197 KB)
2. Email from Qualifications Portfolio Management to Qualifications teams with the 2022 Revision Support for Learners documents template (1.18 MB)
3. 2022 Revision Support for Learners documents template (125 KB)
4. Email from QD Editorial Team to Qualifications teams re Revision Support for Learners documents being ready for editing (98 KB)
5. Email from QD Editorial Team to Qualifications teams re Revision Support for Learners documents being ready for sign off (102 KB)
6. Action Log for the Qualifications Development Management Team Quality Assurance (QDMT QA) meetings (2.50 MB)
7. Extract from the Action Log for the Assessment Resources Project Team meetings (3.07 MB)