… we have to just use what is approved, and no, [it is] non-negotiable. So that’s the part that saddens me, the [lack of] flexibility of it.
Figure 3.2: Tim. Refer to Figure 3.2 for Tim’s profile of WSQ (ticks) and non-WSQ (crosses) programmes, which clearly shows a slant towards instrumental for WSQ courses. The most notable difference between Tim’s WSQ and non-WSQ courses appeared to be ‘goal’, with ‘competency’ and ‘capability’ being the outcomes respectively. There are also notable differences between the two types of curricula across the various parameters. As far as Tim is concerned, he is clear as to how the curricula differ. However, our interview with Charles, a designer in a large school which provides both WSQ and nonWSQ programmes, had yielded responses which are different and illuminating. He could cite the advantages and disadvantages of being in the WSQ framework. His point about non-WSQ programmes being subjected to additional scrutiny by clients is a valid one. Refer to Figure 3.3 for his profile of WSQ (ticks) and non-WSQ (crosses) programmes, which is not as clear in showing a slant towards instrumental for WSQ courses, unlike that depicted by Tim’s curricula profile. Charles commented: Non-WSQ is actually trickier because it’ll probably deviate more … the non-WSQ programme’s starting point is usually the client’s requirements … to always meet all those requirements, … So the learner’s need at the individual level is a lot time subordinated under the organisation as adaptive … it tends to therefore be still … towards the instrumental although … there isn’t another requirement such as WSQ requirements, the curriculum designer can afford to move sometimes more towards the interpretive side.
51
