Sufficient evidence?

In most cases, a simple way to monitor kinds of evidence is through a mapped grid. In most situations, you want two separate kinds of evidence, over an extended time and in various contexts. In fact, if you assess over an extended period, you can be sure of covering a range fo contexts.

It is often difficult to plan an assessment that strictly uses only one kind of evidence, and it is usually quite easy to gather at least three kinds. It is more difficult to ensure that each element is sufficiently assessed, preferably through at least two kinds of evidence.

In this kind of maping, the point is to ensure that each column in the grid has two marks. This can help you check that assessment tools cover everything necessary:

    Element 1 Element 2 Element 3 Element 4
Kind of evidence Supervisor reference X
Oral questioning X X
Practical demonstration X X X
Portfolio X X

According to this mapping, this assessment meets the normal minimum requirement: (at least two kinds of evidence representing an extended time and different contexts). In practice, however, the oral questioning and the employer’s reference and th epracticl demonstration would probably cover more elements, so that most elements could have three or four kinds of evidence.

An expanded table

Here's another version of the same idea. It also shows which assessment tool meets each particular compliance requirement. Sufficiency is inferred from having at least two kinds of evidence for each element. The differences are:

Package requirement Assessment tool:
Written assignment
Assessment tool:
Journal instructions
Assessment tool:
Oral test
Element 1 X X X
Element 2 X X X
Element 3 X X X
Element 4 X X X
Critical aspects X X X
Required knowledge X X
Required skills X X

In this example, the written assignment appears redundant. It is a little more thorough that the journal, but the journal is necessary to cover the requirement of different contexts.