Chapter 4 

Framework for Qualifications of Higher Education in South Africa 
4.1 Introduction

This chapter and the two that follow it lay down the broad parameters within which higher education qualifications and the programmes that deliver them should be constructed, using a qualifications framework as the device for doing so. In terms of the Higher Education Act, public higher education institutions are recognised by statute as qualification-awarding bodies. However, this right is to be exercised within national goals, plans and frameworks as determined by the DoE, SAQA and the CHE/HEQC. The purpose of aligning all South African qualifications on a single qualifications framework is to give coherence to a single, co-ordinated higher education system, thus facilitating the articulation of qualifications, the transfer of credit and mobility and flexibility across the system. A standardised qualifications framework should also help streamline national, regional and institutional planning processes and facilitate the quality assurance tasks of the HEQC. However, it must be stressed that within these standardised parameters, programme diversity and innovation are to be encouraged. Individual institutions and providers of programmes should design their educational offerings to realise their different visions, missions and plans and to meet the varying needs of the clients, communities and regions that they serve. Thus the goal of the qualifications framework should be to facilitate the comparability of qualifications across the system without impeding diversity and innovation, and to set standardised parameters without allowing this to lead to uniformity of provision.

Users of this qualifications framework should understand it as an attempt to build an integrated and co-ordinated system for the programmes and qualifications offered in higher education in which learner progression and mobility is facilitated. As stated in Chapter 3, one of the purposes of the NQF is to facilitate the articulation of qualifications on the framework. This involves clear statements of qualifications’ entry and exit requirements. It also involves the recognition and transfer of credit between qualifications. The mechanisms that a qualifications framework provides for doing this are levels and level descriptors, the level-pegging and credit-rating of recognised qualification types, the description of these in qualification descriptors (see Chapter 6), the recognition of designated variants of these qualification types (see Chapter 6) and finally through the specification of exit-level outcomes for particular qualification specialisations (see diagram below).  
Whilst the framework aims to facilitate articulation, this does not mean that learners should assume that progression and admission to specific programmes is ever guaranteed. Under the Higher Education Act it remains the right and responsibility of higher education institutions to determine their own admission requirements and the entry requirements for particular programmes. Providers also remain responsible for the quality of their provision and for the quality of the qualifications they award. This framework is not intended to undermine these rights and responsibilities, but to provide a common framework within which these can be exercised in a coherent, transparent and consistent manner. In using the framework for academic planning, institutions are urged to exploit the possibilities and flexibility that it offers to design programmes that cater for both intra- and inter-institutional collaboration, the articulation of qualifications and the transfer of credit.

Given the DoE’s insistence in the National Plan that for planning purposes for the next 5 years, universities and technikons continue to be treated as distinct types of institution, this qualifications framework has been deliberately designed to cater for both the short-term transitional period (the next 5 years) and for the long-term. It has built-in flexibility so that the same framework can cater for the present configuration of qualifications, a transitional period (2 rounds of rolling plans, i.e. until the end of 2005), and also for a longer-term vision, which we suggest could begin to be implemented from the beginning of 2003 (see Chapter 8). This is a difficult task and some anomalies will exist, particularly in the short-term, for example, in the transitional phase, the comparability of qualifications between the two sectors will not necessarily be achieved, whilst the coherence and marketability of new exit qualifications still needs to be tested.

4.2 Characteristics of the Qualifications Framework for Higher Education

A new qualifications framework for higher education should demonstrate the following characteristics:

4.3 Definitions of a Qualification and a Programme in an Outcomes- and Programmes-based System

A qualification is the formal recognition and certification of learning achievement awarded by an accredited provider.[1] In the outcomes-based approach intrinsic to the NQF, a qualification signifies and formally certifies the demonstrated achievement by a learner of a planned and purposeful combination of learning outcomes, at a specified level of performance. (See Chapter 3, 3.3). SAQA has stipulated that the learning outcomes of all South African qualifications should include critical cross-field or generic skills as well as discipline, domain-specific or specialised knowledge, skills and reflexivity. SAQA’s format for qualification specification minimally includes the title and purpose of the qualification, its NQF level, credits, rules of combination for its learning components (modules or unit standards), exit-level outcomes and associated assessment criteria, entry requirements, forms of integrated assessment (to ensure that learners synthesize the learning from the various modules) and recognition of prior learning and moderation arrangements.  
A programme[2] is a purposeful and structured set of learning experiences that leads to one or more qualifications; and in an outcomes-based system, a programme is designed to enable learners to achieve pre-specified exit level outcomes. It is the purpose of the programme which gives rise to its learning outcomes and structure. In an outcomes-based system, a programme can be defined as a purposeful and coherent combination of units of learning (modules or unit standards) expressed in an outcomes-based format that lead to one or more qualifications, which serve a general academic or a professional, career-focused purpose. Programmes should have a developmental design and multiple and integrated assessments to ensure that learners not only advance their knowledge, but also integrate the knowledge and skills learnt from the constituent modules. A programme should have recognised entry and exit points and should be constructed from core modules (compulsory for all students on a programme) and elective modules (a group of modules from which a choice must be made in order to achieve the purpose of the qualification and the required number of credits)[3]. Programmes may be general-formative, professional, career-focused, trans-, inter- or multi-disciplinary in nature. In keeping with the DoE’s encouragement of regional collaboration (see National Plan), it should be noted that a programme can also be designed and offered on an inter-institutional basis.  
In an outcomes- and programmes-based approach to curriculum design, the traditional approach to the higher education curriculum, namely apprenticeship in a single discipline, is not assumed. Instead, disciplinary knowledge and skills are to be selected to serve the purpose of the programme and to provide the knowledge and skills required for the development of applied competence (SAQA’s ideal output which integrates education and training) and/or of an institution’s particular definition of ‘graduateness’. This does not mean that the development of disciplinary depth will not be required in most programmes, but it does mean that the tradition of one (or two) disciplinary major(s) per qualification will not necessarily hold. Whilst all programmes should still develop some depth of learning based on sequential learning in a particular area of specialisation or career focus, the degree of depth (and breadth) of a programme will depend on its purpose and its exit-level outcomes.  
By way of introduction, it is important to note that to date in South African higher education, the curriculum focus has been on the broad option of qualifications, which are awarded on the completion of large, planned and coherent units of learning leading to whole qualifications, with a staged or developmental design (i.e. programmes) and not on unit standards. But it is permissible for higher education qualifications to be based on prescribed combinations of unit standards that are individually specified and registered on the NQF,[4] provided that these unit standards combine to form a planned and purposeful qualification and provided that the learning outcomes are assessed in an integrated manner. Public higher education institutions may also offer ‘stand alone’ unit standards for specific market niches, but unless a learner combines these to make up a registered qualification, these will not be funded by the DoE.[5] Apart from this ‘market niche’ enterprise involving short courses and unit standards, the main business of higher education involves the awarding of ‘whole qualifications’ of at least 120 credits of learning (i.e. the equivalent of two traditional full-time semesters).[6] The qualifications awarded by institutions of higher education involve more than the completion of discrete units of learning and the accumulation of credit: learning in higher education should be developmental, focused and integrative, the whole being more than the sum of its parts. Qualifications based on unit standards must therefore also be designed to produce this integrated and cumulative effect (e.g. through a requirement for ‘capstone’ unit standards or modules, and through integrated assessment). This policy document is therefore concerned with qualifications (both those that are, and those that are not, based on unit standards) but not with unit standards per se.

4.4 Describing Learning on a Qualifications Framework.

SAQA's conceptualisation of a National Qualifications Framework is based on an outcomes-based philosophy of education, which focuses on the outputs as opposed to the inputs and processes of an education system. This means that the value, or currency of the system is based on measures of learner attainment demonstrated in assessment as the achievement of specified learning outcomes, irrespective of the nature of the learning inputs or their mode of delivery. The framework is thus a mechanism for making explicit the nature, level and volume of learning outputs represented by particular qualifications. Only that learning which has been assessed (usually against specified learning outcomes and assessment criteria) can be measured and accredited on a qualifications framework.

Learner attainment is measured in two ways on the NQF: qualitatively (what quality or level of complexity of learning is demanded by a particular qualification or its set of exit level learning outcomes?); and also quantitatively (what is the volume of learning achieved or how long does it normally or notionally take the average student to attain this set of learning outcomes?). As mentioned in Chapter 3, 3.3, the NQF system caters for the latter by allocating one credit on the NQF for 10 notional study hours (a quantitative measure). It caters for the former by pegging unit standards and qualifications and their minimum credit values to particular levels on the NQF (a qualitative measure). These levels are defined by level descriptors (see Chapter 5), which are qualitative descriptions of learning captured in generic form. It is important to note that the SAQA outcomes-based system prioritises qualitative measures of learning over quantitative measures. In other words, progress on the NQF is not directly linked to time served in the education system or to the number of credits attained, but rather to the level or complexity of the learning outcomes attained, irrespective of how long it takes a learner to achieve these, provided that a prescribed minimum number of credits (notional hours of learning) have been ‘clocked up’.  

This report advocates a ‘nested approach’ to the specification of qualifications and to the generation of standards, which means that descriptions of learning move from the general and generic to the specialised and specific, with the more specific standards or qualifications always meeting the requirements of the more generic within which they are nested or framed (see diagram below). This means that the NQF levels and their set of level descriptors form the outer and most generic shell or layer of qualification specification. Pegged to these are recognised qualification types, described by qualification descriptors that specify the level of the qualification type, its minimum credit rating and its purpose and characteristics. To sit at a particular NQF level, a qualification type must meet the generic competences described in the level descriptor for the level concerned, e.g. a General Bachelor’s degree must meet the competences described in the level descriptor for Level 7. These basic qualification types should be used as points of departure for the design of more specialised qualifications and the programmes that deliver them. The next layer of qualification specialisation nested within the qualification type is the designated variant, e.g. a General Bachelor of Science. These designated variants only apply to full degrees (and not to Certificates or Diplomas) and are captured in the nomenclature of the degree. There is a prescribed set of designated variants for the degrees in the General Track of the framework,[7] but variants are open-ended in the Career-focused Track (see Chapter 6).[8] The learning outcomes of a designated variant should meet the more generic specifications laid down for the qualification type of which they are a variant, e.g. a Bachelor of Science must comply with the more general requirements for a General Bachelor’s degree. The last and most specific layer of qualification specification, on which most programmes are based, is termed the qualification specialisation, which is reflected in the qualification’s qualifier, e.g. a Bachelor of Science in Geology. This means that the learning outcomes and specifications for a BSc (Geology) meet the learning demands and specifications laid down for a BSc and in addition, include specialised learning outcomes related to the field of Geology. The generic requirements specified in the level descriptors and qualification descriptors are thus realised through their re-contextualisation and re-description in the learning outcomes of specific programmes and qualifications nested within them.  

This nested approach to standards generation and qualification specification will make the design of specialised and/or provider-specific qualifications relatively straightforward, whilst at the same time ensuring articulation possibilities between qualifications that are framed or nested within the same generic or umbrella qualification. This report lays down the outer or generic layers of the process, namely the level descriptors and the qualification descriptors (specifications for each recognised qualification type). Higher education sectoral bodies (SAUVCA and CTP) are currently engaged in a standards generating project for the key high-volume designated variants in the system. Once these are available, an institution wishing to design a Bachelor of Science in Geology will simply have to write the learning outcomes for this particular specialisation and locate them within the learning outcomes already provided by the relevant designated variant (the BSc) and in so doing, will simultaneously meet the requirements for a General Bachelor’s degree and for a Level 7 qualification. Agreement across the higher education system to use a common credit-rating system, a common set of level descriptors, qualification types and designated variants (where applicable) in designing further specialisations will facilitate the recognition and articulation of qualifications across the system. This will also help clarify the distinctiveness of different qualification types pegged at the same level on the NQF. The adoption of such a system will also facilitate the development of a clear and consistent typology and nomenclature for qualifications across the system. It will also provide a starting point for internal and external programme review and accreditation processes. Importantly, the lack of systemic specification at the level of qualification specialisation means that there will continue to be considerable provider discretion as to how the outcomes of a particular qualification and programme are defined, interpreted, taught, learnt and assessed at institutional level.  

Apart from ‘stand-alone’ unit standards or short-courses, the meaning and use of unit standards in higher education will only become evident once they are clustered under a particular whole qualification as constituent parts of a programme. The level and credit-rating of a unit standard in higher education will thus usually be determined on the basis of its contribution to a particular programme and qualification. 

Diagram Showing a Nested Approach to Standards-Generation and Qualification Specification  Chapter 4

LEVEL (level descriptor) e.g. Level 7

QUALIFICATION TYPE (qualification descriptor) e.g. General Bachelor’s Degree

DESIGNATED VARIANT (designator) e.g. Bachelor of Science

QUALIFICATION SPECIALISATION (qualifier)

e.g. Bachelor of Science in Geology

4.4.1 Credits

As explained above, credits provide a measure of the volume of learning as quantified by the number of notional study hours required for achieving the learning outcomes specified for a particular qualification. Credit is awarded regardless of the mode of delivery of learning, provided the attainment of the learning outcomes is demonstrated through appropriate assessment.[9] A qualification can be defined in terms of the total minimum number of credits required for the qualification as a whole, and in terms of the minimum number of credits required at its specified exit level on a qualifications framework; thus establishing minimum expectations in terms of the volume (and level of complexity) of learning required for a particular qualification. The credit ratings specified on the framework are minimum ratings. Depending on their missions, plans and purposes, some institutions and/or specific programmes will offer qualifications with credit ratings well above the suggested minimum. For example, a comprehensive professional degree such as the MBChB may require a volume of learning represented by 600 to 720 credits, but as it is a first professional degree - an Advanced Bachelor’s Degree (see below) - the complexity of learning required remains at Level 8: PG1 on the framework. By comparison, a highly specialised, career-focused qualification such as a Bachelor of Technology (Optometry) worth only 480 credits would also be an Advanced Bachelor’s degree pegged at Level 8: PG1. This suggests that at any level on the NQF, whilst the complexity of learning attained remains comparable, the volume of learning may vary considerably, depending on the different purposes of the qualifications concerned. Thus, the volume of learning or credit rating should not be used to determine the level at which a particular qualification sits on the NQF.[10]  

If a full-time equivalent taught (i.e. time-tabled coursework) academic year is calculated at 30 weeks and the average full-time equivalent student is expected to work a 40-hour week, then, on the SAQA credit-rating system of 10 notional study hours per credit, the minimum number of credits per taught/ coursework academic year is 120.[11] However, in keeping with the UK system, it is proposed that for research-based programmes and qualifications the academic year be calculated at 45 weeks, giving a minimum credit rating of 180 credits per academic year for Master’s and Doctoral programmes.[12]

4.4.2 Level Descriptors

As indicated above, level descriptors are the most outer shell or layer of qualification specification and as such attempt to describe the nature of generic learning achievement, its complexity and relative demand at each level of a qualifications framework. Level descriptors are thus broad generic qualitative statements against which more specific learning outcomes can be compared and located. Sets of level descriptors can be used in a general way to determine the pegging of qualification types on a framework, but because they describe learning across domains and learning pathways, level descriptors are, by definition, general and indicative, which means that they can never be prescriptive or fully comprehensive. They simply serve to provide a shared understanding of the education and training advancement achieved at each level. Thus it is important to understand that the NQF levels and their level descriptors serve only as general reference points for more specific curriculum decisions. These levels of learning need to be re-described more specifically for different qualification types, variants and specialisations and recontextualised in the learning outcomes for particular programmes and qualifications. They are nevertheless essential for the articulation and progression functions of the NQF. (See Chapter 5 for a proposed set of level descriptors).

4.4.3 Qualification Descriptors

Qualification descriptors attempt to capture the specifications (i.e. level and credit-rating) and the purpose and characteristics of the qualification types recognised on the framework. This description provides an accurate and consistent description of a qualification which enables it to be compared with other qualifications in the system. All qualifications using the same qualification type (and where appropriate, designated variant) in their titles should be pegged at the same level and share common minimum credit ratings. Recognised qualification types for the South African higher education system are specified in the table below. (For more detail see Chapter 6, 6.2).

As mentioned above, the high-volume, most popular designated variants are currently being designed by sectoral Standards Generating Bodies in a joint SAUVCA-CTP project, which is recognised by SAQA. Qualification specialisations and the programmes that deliver them should be designed by individual providers using the three outer layers, the level descriptors, qualification descriptors, and where appropriate, the designated variants of these, as parameters within which to nest the design of particular qualifications and programmes.

4.5 A Qualifications Framework for Higher Education 

Notes: Brackets under each qualification indicate the minimum number of credits required at the NQF level at which the qualification is pegged. 

The Certificates specified in the Articulation column are not intended to replace the option of learners acquiring only the articulation credits necessary for entry into mainstream qualifications. 

4.6 An Explanation of the Qualifications Framework for Higher Education 

4.6.1 The Use of the Four Levels Allocated to Higher Education on the NQF
SAQA has assigned 4 levels, Levels 5–8, on the NQF to the Higher Education and Training Band, with Level 8 being open-ended.[13] Traditionally, higher education qualifications have been structured according to years of study in roughly a 7/8-year structure. After consultations between SAQA and the CHE on the need for more levels on the NQF for HE, SAQA has proposed that our current qualifications can best be accommodated on the framework by dedicating Levels 5, 6 and 7 to undergraduate study (i.e. the norm of the first 3 years for full-time students), and by using the open-ended Level 8 to accommodate postgraduate study. An anomaly in this arrangement is the 480 credit Advanced Bachelor’s Degree (normally 4 years), which, although an undergraduate degree, is pegged alongside the postgraduate qualifications at Level 8: PG1. Given the proposal that the minimum for one full-time academic year’s worth of coursework study be 120 credits (1 200 notional study hours) and 180 credits (1 800 notional study hours) for research-based study, it makes sense to allocate a minimum of 120 credits per level to Levels 5 – 8: PG2. Levels 8: PG3 and 4 are based on the 180 credit academic year.  
Thus undergraduate Certificates (a minimum of 120 credits) are pegged at Level 5, undergraduate Diplomas (240 credits) are pegged at Level 6, first Bachelor’s Degrees (360 credits) and the Graduate Certificate (120 credits) are pegged at Level 7, Advanced Bachelor’s Degrees including the Bachelor of Technology (480 credits) are pegged at Level 8 postgraduate sub-level 1 (PG1), as are the Honours Degree, the Postgraduate Diploma and the Postgraduate Certificate, each requiring a minimum of 120 credits after the completion of a 360 credit Bachelor’s Degree. Level 8, postgraduate sub-level 2 (PG2) allows a minimum credit-rating of 120 credits because here are pegged those Master’s level qualifications that do not require an extended piece of independent research, such as the Master’s Certificate and Diploma (120 credits) and some Professional Master’s Degrees that do not require a proper research undertaking. (However, the latter do require the normal minimum of 180 credits for a Master’s Degree). The research component of Master’s Degrees is pegged at Level 8 postgraduate sub-level 3 (PG3), with the Structured Master’s requiring a minimum of 60 credits at this level and the Research Master’s requiring 120. Doctoral Degrees, requiring a minimum of 360 credits (2 x 180), demand a qualitatively higher level of research than Master’s Degrees and are thus accommodated by creating a Level 8: PG4 for which a separate level descriptor has been written. The table below sums up this pragmatic allocation of credits and pegging of qualifications to levels and sub-levels in the Higher Education and Training Band of the NQF.

NQF Levels & HE Sub-levels  Minimum credits
at level 
 Qualifications 
(total minimum credits) 
8: PG4  360  Doctoral Degrees (360) 
8: PG3  120 / 60  Master’s Degrees (180)   
8: PG2  180 
120 
72 		 Professional Master’s (180),
Master’s Diploma (120)
Master’s Certificate (120)   
8: PG1  120 
120 
72 		 Advanced Bachelor’s (480), Honours, Postgraduate Diploma (120) 
Postgraduate Certificate (120) 
7 120 
72 		 Bachelor’s Degrees (360) Graduate Certificate (120) 
6  120  Diplomas (240) 
5  120  Certificates (120) 

4.6.2 Two Distinctive but Articulated Learning Pathways

The qualifications framework for higher education places all mainstream higher education qualifications in two learning pathways or tracks: a General Track (termed formative in the National Plan) and a Career-focused Track (termed career-orientated in the National Plan). These are separated by a central column entitled Articulation Column: horizontal and diagonal articulation (see below) which is designed to facilitate meaningful articulation between qualifications in the two tracks.

The General Track contains those qualifications which traditionally have been offered only by universities and which are based on academic, discipline-based and theory-driven definitions of learning. Traditionally, these qualifications require a sequentially developed depth of knowledge and skill in at least one discipline, with comparative knowledge and conceptual breadth developed through the study of cognate disciplines. In terms of qualification specification and programme design, there is generally more flexibility in the General Track. For example, qualification specification may deliberately not go further than the designated variant (e.g. a BA or BSc), thus allowing greater student choice of specialisation (traditionally one or two majors) and considerable flexibility with respect to elective modules. In the General Track, the issues and problems that learners address tend to be defined from within the disciplines. Graduates with general qualifications tend to have developed strong academic skills, making them eligible for a wide range of careers. This applies to postgraduate study as well, meaning that graduates from the General Track are usually eligible for entry into a number of more specialised postgraduate programmes.

The Career-focused Track contains those qualifications which have traditionally been offered by technikons and also the professional qualifications traditionally offered by universities. However, the term ‘career-focused’ is used rather than the terms ‘technological’ or ‘professional’, in order to broaden the category to include those specialised programmes which have a specific career focus, but are not necessarily linked to a professional or statutory body.
[14] Qualifications in this track are based on vocational, career-based or professional definitions of learning, giving them a more applied, practical and market-orientated focus. The issues and problems that learners address in the Career-focused Track tend to be defined from within the professional, industrial or employment context. Graduates with career-focused qualifications will have been prepared to enter specific careers, professions or areas of application. For this reason, with respect to postgraduate study, a graduate with a career-focused qualification is likely to have less flexibility than those in the General Track, should s/he wish to change direction or track.  
It is proposed below that the distinction between the two tracks, and the assignment of a qualification to a particular track, be reflected in the nomenclature of the qualification (see Chapter 6). However, in keeping with the National Plan’s call to produce graduates with the skills and competences required to participate in the 21st century, all programmes, irrespective of the track in which their qualifications are registered, should ensure that graduates have gained sufficient theoretical depth to be able to adapt their knowledge to new situations, and that they have a foundation of contextualised generic skills on which to draw for continuous professional development and lifelong learning. (The latter is discussed further in Chapter 7, 7.5).  
The two tracks do not coincide with institutional types, signifying that, although the system is moving away from institutional differentiation, it wants to encourage diversity at the level of the programme. In a healthy, diversified system, different foci and degrees of disciplinarity, specialisation, vocationalisation and application should exist across the programmes of all types of institutions.[15] However, the different functions of the two tracks need to be clearly understood in order to maintain a balance between the different qualification types and their purposes and specialisations, and to allow the public higher education system to protect disciplinary/pure/formative/Mode 1 type learning in the General Track from competition with the more interdisciplinary/applied/market-driven/lucrative Mode 2 type learning in the Career-focused Track. The three columns in the framework thus represent an attempt to manage the transition from a trinary to a future unitary system and to manage the global trend towards the marketisation of higher education, by trying to maintain a balance in the system between intrinsically-driven and extrinsically-driven qualifications.In the National Plan, the DoE has taken a cautious position on the integration of the two sectors in the higher education system, stating that, for planning purposes for at least the next five years, technikons and universities will continue to have differentiated missions, with technikons offering primarily career-focused programmes to Diploma level,[16] and universities offering programmes in both tracks up to Level 8 (National Plan, 2001: 4.3.2). This suggests that the distinction between the two tracks will certainly continue in the short-to medium-term. Whether and when they collapse into a single track in the long-term remains an open question. All the same, the qualifications framework has been designed with the long-term vision of a unitary but diversified system in mind, and so, although different in function and purpose and therefore not equivalent, qualifications pegged at the same level and requiring similar credit-ratings are considered to be at least comparable. The basic typology of qualifications is therefore similar in both tracks, with differences arising from designated variation and qualification specialisation which are to be reflected in the nomenclature.

4.6.3 The Articulation Column

A unique feature of the South African higher education qualifications framework is the middle shaded Articulation Column, which provides for horizontal and diagonal articulation. This feature is designed to build flexibility into a framework that would otherwise remain too rigid and crude to accommodate the vast variety of programmes and qualifications offered across the Higher Education and Training Band. Horizontal and diagonal articulation are proposed as a mechanism to facilitate meaningful articulation between qualifications in the two different tracks. Its purpose is to facilitate learner mobility and progression along the framework as efficiently as possible. It can also be used to admit into the system those learners who do not meet the full entry requirements for their target programmes. It is also likely to be the ‘space’ in the system where the recognition of prior learning can most easily be implemented. The horizontal and diagonal articulation mechanism is thus proposed to cater for the learning needs of those whose past learning experiences have not adequately prepared them for a chosen programme, without forcing them to ‘go back to the beginning again’. 

An example of the use of qualifications in the articulation column follows. If a learner wishes to change from the General to the Career-focused Track after his/her first degree at Level 7, s/he may be required to first move horizontally on the framework and attain a Graduate Certificate at Level 7 before being permitted to register for an Advanced Career-focused Bachelor’s degree or Postgraduate Diploma. Alternatively, depending on the nature of his/ her previous degree and on his/her level of attainment, s/he may be permitted to move diagonally on the framework and register for a Postgraduate Certificate at Level 8: PG1 in order to gain entry thereafter to a Master’s programme at Level 8: PG2 and 3 in the Career-focused Track. Alternatively, the learner may not hold a recognised formal degree but may have considerable appropriate experience. His/her prior learning may be assessed against the learning outcomes for a Graduate or Postgraduate Certificate and if successful, s/he may gain entry to a Level 8: PG1 or 2 programme. Generally, horizontal articulation requirements mean that the learner is required to undertake further learning at the same level as his/her highest qualification in order to meet the entry requirements of a target programme. Diagonal articulation requirements generally mean that the learner may proceed to the next level, but will be required to undertake additional enrichment learning in the target area prior to being admitted to a new programme. In some cases, where a learner is better prepared than others, s/he may be required to attain only a certain number of credits in the target area (i.e. register for one or two modules or unit standards rather than a whole qualification in the Articulation Column) prior to being admitted to the target programme. In such cases, if the learning load is not too onerous, s/he may be allowed to register simultaneously for the enrichment learning in the Articulation Column and for the target programme. The use of the Articulation Column in these ways applies equally to both tracks on the framework.  

It is important to understand that the pegging of two qualifications at the same NQF level does not mean that they are equal or even equivalent; it simply means that the programmes leading to these qualifications engage with comparable levels of complexity of learning. This is why the concept of horizontal and diagonal articulation is necessary to facilitate articulation between programmes and qualifications that may differ widely in the nature and scope of required content (foundational competence), skill (practical competence) and requirements for reflexive competence. Provided entry requirements and exit points for particular learning programmes and their qualifications are clearly stated, and provided assessment methods are valid and reliable, then transparent decisions can be made by learners, their curriculum advisors and institutional gate-keepers about what further learning is required before a learner's exit level learning articulates with the entry requirement of a target programme, and vertical progression on the framework can be resumed.

Whilst the framework provides general guidelines and parameters, specific articulation requirements will always be determined by the receiving institution on the basis of publicly declared entry requirements for particular programmes and qualifications. (This is already a requirement for the registration of qualifications with SAQA). A key to ensuring the articulation of qualifications in the Higher Education and Training Band, and to exploiting the flexibility of this framework in practice, will be the clear and public statement of entry and exit requirements for programmes, both in terms of credits at particular levels, and in some cases in particular disciplines/fields, and in terms of statements of learning outcomes, against which learning (both formal and experiential or non-formal) can be assessed and weighted.

As stated in the example above, the Articulation Column can be used as a space where learners achieve ‘articulation credits’ in transit between two programmes, or it can be used to attain whole qualifications. The whole qualifications offered in the Articulation Column are all certificates requiring a minimum of 120 credits in all, with only 72 credits at the level at which they are pegged, thus meeting SAQA’s minimum requirements for whole qualifications.  

However, it is proposed that SAQA consider recognising and registering Certificates of only 60 credits (one semester’s worth of full-time study) in the Articulation Column for the following reasons: firstly, this would speed up the articulation process for experienced and/ or adult learners who can benefit from short, intensive periods of study; secondly it is in keeping with international practice for Certificates to be one semester long; thirdly, this will allow providers to offer short, focused programmes that meet the specific in-service or up-grading needs of adult learners.[17]  

As a generalisation, it is likely that the curricula of the Bridging and Foundation Certificates at Levels 4 and 5 will be more formative and general, focussing on disciplinary content and academic and generic skills (which could for example, be run on a Faculty-wide basis) in order to prepare learners for higher education study. On the other hand, the curricula of the Graduate, Postgraduate and Master’s Certificates are likely to be more specialised and focused, in order to ground learners in new professions or careers, up-grade their current knowledge and skills, or provide them with research training and a methodological grounding for postgraduate study.  

Note: The SAQA Regulations allow a certificate to be offered at any level on the NQF. In theory, this means that if accredited to do so, providers could be permitted to offer the Certificates placed in the Articulation Column of the framework in the mainstream General and Career-focused Tracks as well.

4.6.4 Minimum Credit-Ratings at Qualification Exit Level

The SAQA Regulations (March 1998, 8.2, 8.3) stipulate that only 72 of 120 credits (60%) need to be attained at the exit level at which a qualification is pegged. But given that in the Higher Education and Training Band on the NQF, each level already represents a broad band of learning achievement, it does not make sense to allow the remaining 40% of the total minimum credits for a qualification to be carried up from the level below. Apart from its application to the Certificates in the Articulation Column and at Level 5, this ruling is considered too lenient for higher education and could result in a lowering of the quality of higher education qualifications. For the purposes of curriculum design, administrative norms and government subsidy, fixed minimum credit-ratings for each qualification will need to be linked to full-time equivalent years of study. Thus the following guidelines are suggested for the minimum number of credits required at the exit level at which a qualification type is pegged:

Exit Level 
Qualification Type 
Minimum Credits at Exit Level
(Total minimum credits) 
5 Career-focused Certificate 72 (of 120) 
6  General and Career-focused Diploma  90 (of 240) 
7 General and Career-focused Bachelor’s Degree 120 (of 360)
8: PG1 Bachelor of Technology, Advanced Bachelor’s Degree Honours Degree, General & Career-focused Postgraduate Diploma 120 (of 480)

120 (of 120)

8: PG2  Master’s Diploma Professional Master’s Degree  120 (of 120)

180 (of 180) 

8: PG3  Structured Master’s Degree    60 (of 180) 
8: PG3 Research Master’s Degree 120 (of 180) 
8: PG4 Doctor of Philosophy, Professional Doctorate  360 (of 360)
4, 5, 6, 7,8: 
PG1, 8: PG2 		 All Certificates in the Articulation Column 72 (of 120)

4.6.5 The Use of Entry and Exit Points on the Qualifications Framework

The purpose and characteristics of each qualification type and its articulation possibilities are outlined in the qualification descriptors in Chapter 6. More general issues relating to the use of entry and exit points on the framework are dealt with here.

Firstly, it should not be assumed that the full range of exit qualifications and their associated articulation possibilities shown on the framework will necessarily be applicable to every programme and field of study. Exit qualifications should be determined by the meaningfulness and usefulness of the learning achieved; determined, where relevant, in consultation with the industry, employer or professional body concerned. Exit qualifications should be permitted in a programme only where the exit level outcomes clearly lead on to another programme of study and/or career pathways that are recognised by the labour market.

Secondly, as a learner progresses up the NQF in a particular programme, for as long as s/he remains registered in that programme s/he should not be awarded the exit qualifications en route to his/ her target qualification. The exception to this ruling is where a student chooses, or is obliged, to exit the programme prematurely. In such cases, provided the assessment and credit requirements have been met, a student may be awarded an exit qualification. On returning to the system at a later date, the student may use the exit qualification to gain entry into the next qualification or level, at the discretion of the receiving institution. In cases such as these, where an exit qualification is used as a ‘drop-out’ point for a student who fails to complete the qualification above, it is important that the student is properly re-assessed at the lower level and is required to demonstrate positively the attainment of the exit level outcomes for the lower qualification concerned. Given the different purposes, foci and characteristics of different qualifications, this may often require the candidate to re-work and re-present his/her learning in order to attain different learning outcomes and to meet different assessment criteria.  

Thirdly, a student may not use the same credits for two different qualifications. For example, if a student requires a Postgraduate Diploma in order to meet the entry requirements of a Structured Master’s programme, s/he may not use those same credits (again) towards the coursework credits for the Master’s programme.4.6.6 The Credit-rating of Research Components

 A range of Master’s (and Doctoral degrees) are permitted on the framework to cater for an expanding market, where increasingly Master’s degrees are required for senior managerial or professional positions. Whilst acknowledging that the higher up the framework one goes, the more problematic it becomes to work out a realistic norm for study hours spent, particularly on research dissertations and theses, the research components of research degrees have been credit-rated, simply as a guide to academic staff and students. In the quest for standardisation, some may be tempted to try to link credits directly to research products, e.g. 100 pages of a research report = 60 credits. However, this has been resisted as overly prescriptive and this should rather be determined by academic experts in the discipline/field concerned.  

The following credit ratings have been prescribed for the different-sized research components of Master’s and Doctoral degrees:  

NQF Level  Qualification  Credit-rating for research component
8: PG2  Professional Master’s Degree - 
8: PG3 Structured Master’s Degree 60
8: PG3  Research Master’s Degree 120
8: PG4  Professional Doctor’s Degree 360
8: PG4 Doctor of Philosophy 360
  1. See, for example, ‘RSA Regulations under the South African Qualifications Authority Act, Act No.58 of 1995’, Government Gazette No. 18787, 28 March, 1998. 
  2. In order to avoid the confusion between a programme and a qualification, some institutions have made a distinction between a programme – a broad field of specialization which includes several qualifications, and a learning programme - the structured learning leading to a particular qualification within a programme. 
  3. SAQA has stipulated that all qualifications comprise of three learning categories: core, elective and fundamental learning. The NSB Regulations define core learning as ‘that compulsory learning required in situations contextually relevant to the particular qualification’ (1998: 3). Elective learning is defined as ‘a selection of additional credits at the level of the National Qualifications Framework specified, from which a choice may be made to ensure that the purpose of the qualification is achieved’ (1998: 3). Fundamental learning is defined as ‘that learning which forms the grounding or basis needed to undertake the education, training or further learning required in the obtaining of a qualification…’ (1998: 4). In some programmes, foundation modules designed to develop generic skills will function as the fundamental learning component. In most programmes, generic skills are taught and learnt within the disciplinary content in an integrated manner. Thus for higher education qualifications, a flexible application of these three components of learning is suggested. 
  4. It is important to note that these two models of qualifications are not mutually exclusive. This means that it should be possible to design and register on the NQF a hybrid qualification which is made up of both unit standards (nationally standardised modules) and provider modules (provider designed modules). 
  5. Although they may be indirectly funded by Sectoral Education and Training Authorities with funds raised through the Skills Levy Act. 
  6. It is hoped that in keeping with international practice, SAQA may be persuaded to allow postgraduate certificates of 60 credits to be registered on the NQF. 
  7. The BA, BSc, BComm and BSocSci are the prescribed designated variants for the General Bachelor’s Degree. 
  8. Examples of designated variants of the Career-focused Bachelor’s Degree would be the BEng, BEd, LLB, BTech, BSoc.Work, etc. 
  9. This point is particularly important with respect to determining the credit rating for distance or off-campus learning. As explained in the discussion on Credit-rating Experiential Learning under 7.5 below, any learning (as opposed to experience), including that which takes place in workplace or community contexts, should be credit-rated using the same SAQA system of 10 notional study hours per credit. 
  10. Clearly it is also important to note that there is not a direct relationship between the number of credits required for a qualification and the amount of subsidy received for offering that qualification. 
  11. It is important to bear in mind that these calculations are very ‘notional’ and that empirical studies show an enormous range in the time that students claim to devote to their studies, and that this in turn appears to have little correlation with academic success. 
  12. This will create flexibility in the system, e.g. able full-time students will be able to complete a Master’s degree in one year, whilst less successful or part-time students are likely to require two or more years. 
  13. This means that higher education programmes will be subsidised by the DoE from Levels 5–8. Bridging programmes at Level 4 are unlikely to be recognised for subsidy as ‘academic programmes’ by the DoE. These programmes will need to be provided by the Further Education and Training sector, for example by the Technical Colleges, or by private providers, and ideally through partnerships between Further Education and Training providers and higher education institutions.   
  14. Many ‘named programmes’, using a qualifier that have been recently designed in response to the White Paper’s call to make higher education more relevant, would fall into this category. 
  15. There is currently considerable overlap between universities and technikons in the Career-focused Track
  16. The National Plan is referring here to the current 3-year Diploma which in this report is re-named a Career-focused Bachelor’s Degree. [17] The Department of Labour’s (re)funding of employers to send their employees on such programmes via the Skills Levy Act and the Sectoral Education and Training Authorities is an added incentive to this development.