A review of twenty years of competency-based training in the Australian vocational education and training system

ijtd_340 54..64

A review of twenty years ofcompetency-based training in the

Australian vocational education andtraining system

Erica Smith

In this paper, the author reflects, both as an academicresearcher and as a senior practitioner, on the experience ofcompetency-based training (CBT) in the Australian vocationaleducation and training system. She seeks to draw conclusionsabout the Australian experience using a typology drawn fromthe academic literature which focuses on the philosophical,educational, technical and market aspects of CBT. She con-cludes that, despite many improvements over the past 10 years,some potential problems remain. The system is controlledoverly tightly by the interests of industry and it also exhibitssome inflexibilities. Both of these act to disadvantage somegroups of learners. Teachers and trainers do not have adequateskills to work skilfully and critically with CBT, leading to thinpedagogy and a narrow focus on assessment of individualitems of performance.

IntroductionIn a paper published in 1999, the author wrote about the first 10 years of competency-based training (CBT) in Australia (Smith, 1999). The current paper brings the reader upto date with CBT in Australia in 2009, describing and critiquing the way in which thesystem has evolved over the subsequent 10 years. The paper is based on the author’sresearch and her experiences as a senior practitioner within the vocational educationand training (VET) sector.

The VET system in Australia

In Australia, formal VET is carried out in public Technical and Further Education(TAFE) colleges and a range of other government-accredited Registered Training

❒ Erica Smith, Professor of Education and Dean of Graduate Studies at the University of Ballarat, P.O.Box 663, Ballarat, Victoria 3353, Australia. Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Training and Development 14:1ISSN 1360-3736

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

54 International Journal of Training and Development

Organizations (RTOs) as well as being increasingly delivered in workplaces, either byenterprises that have become enterprise RTOs, or in partnership with RTOs (Smithet al., 2006). All VET qualifications are now competency-based. Approximatelyone-quarter of the 1.7 million participants in Australian VET are employed in appren-ticeships or traineeships (National Centre for Vocational Education Research, 2008)which involve employment in a job and incorporate on- and off-the-job trainingleading to formal qualifications. Traineeships are newer and usually shorter forms oftraditional apprenticeships, generally in service industries but sometimes in traditionaltrade areas, introduced in the 1980s to broaden access to apprentice-like training (Smith& Keating, 2003). Training that is more informal is also carried out in training providersand in enterprises; some enterprises still have their own list of competency standards,although increasingly enterprises are aligning themselves with the national system.Similarly, in community education colleges, which traditionally have offered ‘hobby’courses and ‘access’ courses for disadvantaged groups in society, programs are increas-ingly making use of national competency standards (Foley, 2007). The quality of train-ing in formal VET is monitored through the Australian Quality Training Framework(AQTF) which includes an audit process.

The Australian concept of competence

The Australian VET system is overwhelmingly competency-based. The key character-istics of CBT in Australia were described in 1997 in the following terms:

• the focus of the training is on the outcome of the training;• the outcome is measured against specified standards not against other students;

and• the standards relate to the relevant industry (Smith & Keating, 1997, p. 102).

While the definition remains appropriate for 2009, the form in which competency-based curriculum is presented has changed, as training packages are now the dominantform of CBT. These were progressively introduced from 1997 and have been describedas ‘second generation CBT’ (Barratt-Pugh & Soutar, 2002). Training packages are dis-cussed further below, but at this point it should be explained that they consist ofindustry- or occupation-based collections of units of competency which are ‘packaged’together into qualifications at different levels. They are produced through a nationalconsultation process.

The Australian approach to CBT is of a particular nature, firmly based on industry-derived competency standards. As Westera (2001) and many others have stated, theword ‘competence’ has a range of meanings. CBT in Australia is based on training toundertake tasks in a workplace; in this sense, the Australian system is similar to theBritish system, particularly that section of it based on National Vocational Qualifications(NVQs) (West, 2004). It does not bear a great deal of relationship to current Europeannotions of competence, which as Mulder et al. (2007) point out, provide what is adifferent, and may be seen as a broader, view of the term. This review is written withinthe context of the Australian/British meaning of CBT. While this may seem a narrowfocus, in fact this type of CBT system has also been adopted in several Asian andMiddle Eastern countries (see, for example, Law, 2009), partly because of the presenceof Australian and British advisers to governments on the development of their VETsystems, and hence has wide applicability.

The evolution of CBT in AustraliaOverview of developments

Over the past 20 years, there has been a revolution in the way in which curriculumdesign and implementation in VET has been undertaken in Australia. The emphasis hasmoved from curriculum developed locally by training providers including State TAFEsystems to nationally recognized qualifications based on competency standards as

Twenty years of competency-based training in the Australian VET system 55© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

expressed in national training packages (Smith & Keating, 2003). Training packages aredeveloped with considerable input from industry as well as from educators, and havebeen developed for newer occupational areas as well as older areas that were coveredby the old form of curriculum which was developed by training providers. There hasbeen increased adoption of formal VET curriculum by enterprises (Down, 2002). Thechange in curriculum, which has been highly contested, is now more or less completeand the emphasis both in scholarly writing and in the field moved over time fromoutright and stubborn opposition (for example, Jackson, 1993) to discussion of ways ofworking skilfully and in a principled manner with the new system (for example,Down, 2002).

There were moves towards competency-based pedagogy even earlier than 20 yearsago. Harris and Hodge (2009) consider CBT to have a 25-year history in Australia,referring to an early phase which was teacher-led and based in a small number of TAFEinstitutes’ trades1 teaching areas, such as automotive and sheet metal working. At thispoint, CBT was based on US models and was confined to stand-alone programs basedon competency development and self-pacing within individual institutions. Harris andHodge (2009, p. 2) refer to this phase as the ‘educators’ version’ of CBT.

CBT as a national movement, from the late 1980s onwards, is referred to by Harrisand Hodge (2009) as the ‘training reform’ version of CBT. This is because it wasintimately tied up with other so-called ‘reforms’ (often hotly contested) to the nationalVET system such as marketization and national alignment. It was set in motion bydecisions at national and state ministerial level in the late 1980s to adopt CBT as a formof curriculum throughout VET. During the period 1989–1999, some competency-basedattributes were progressively included in curriculum. Syllabus documents, owned byindividual training providers including State TAFE systems, were rewritten with afocus on learning outcomes rather than content, assessment became focused on skillsrather than knowledge, and recognition of prior learning (RPL) was introduced so thatlearners did not have to repeat items they already knew or could do (Smith et al., 1996).However, implementation was piecemeal, and generally, curriculum documents werestill owned by individual training providers. In some cases, national modules weredeveloped by industry-specific bodies set up for that purpose, meaning that a commoncurriculum was used by a range of training providers. This system of CBT is describedby Smith (1999).

The introduction of training packages, 1997

After the initial period of implementation, it became clear that the system had somepoints of weakness. Training packages were introduced from 1997 to attempt toaddress these weaknesses (Australian National Training Authority [ANTA], 1996) toregularize VET curriculum offerings and bring about national consistency, to maketraining align more closely with industry competency standards (rather than beingmediated through privately owned curriculum documents) and to make accreditedtraining easier to deliver in a range of environments. Training packages provide asimple, ‘building block’ approach to curriculum development, with units of compe-tency making up qualifications which in turn are contained within the package (Smith& Keating, 2003). Over 80 training packages are currently endorsed and a wide rangeof industry areas are included, many of which did not previously have accreditedtraining. Several company-specific training packages are also endorsed. Training pack-ages are available to anyone to purchase in hard copy, and the content of trainingpackages can be viewed free of charge on the National Training Information Servicewebsite http://www.ntis.gov.au. Thus employers, for example, who wish to use com-petency standards for training of their workers, do not need to purchase the trainingpackage unless they wish to have the training accredited. Individuals can inspect the

1 In Australian VET, the word ‘trades’ is used to refer to craft and manufacturing occupations that arecovered by the apprenticeship system.

56 International Journal of Training and Development© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

competencies required to operate in an industry and judge whether they would like tobe trained, or perhaps to apply for RPL for part or all of a qualification. The system istransparent for all users.

Each training package consists of a number of units of competency (known en masseas competency standards) and instructions as to how they may be packaged to makeapproved national qualifications. A package may contain only a few qualifications –for example the current Training and Assessment Training Package (whose code isTAA04) contains only a Certificate IV and a Diploma; or may contain many differentqualifications – the Health Training Package (HLT07) has hundreds of units making up89 qualifications. Training packages also include guidelines on assessment. Publiclyfunded support materials (formerly called ‘non-endorsed components’) are also devel-oped: these include learner guides, resources for teachers and so on (Smith, 2002). Thustraining packages are a form of CBT; their special nature lies in the way in which theypresent units of competency.

Training packages are developed and reviewed by the relevant national industryskills council. Skills councils cover most of Australian industry, and include on theirboards representations of employers, unions and other stakeholders. Links to eachskills council’s website can be found at http://www.ntis.gov.au/?isc/all. The skillscouncil’s development or revision of a training package is overseen by a nationalsteering committee which includes representatives of industry, trade unions, trainingproviders, state governments and relevant professional bodies. Training providers wereat one time excluded, in a rather clumsy attempt to have industry ‘own’ the process, buthave been included now for some years in the recognition that the main use of trainingpackages is for training, and therefore the expertise of trainers is needed.

The process of development involves extensive consultations with all stakeholders.There are strict guidelines as to how the package is developed and how it looks; theseguidelines were produced by ANTA in the late 1990s and have changed over time.ANTA was disestablished in 2005 and its functions are now subsumed within thenational government’s Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Rela-tions. Completed training packages are formally approved by the National QualityCouncil and then processed within individual States. The process includes recommen-dations at State level about ‘nominal hours’ for the delivery of the qualifications and theunits but alignment of nominal hours nationally has been considerably delayed by thedisestablishment of ANTA.

Review of training packages, 2003–2004

In 2003–2004, the Australian National Training Authority carried out a fundamentalreview of training packages (Schofield & McDonald, 2004). Its report advocated actionsin six areas: (1) better agreement among stakeholders about what training packages areand what they are not; (2) better design of training packages; (3) tighter developmentand review processes; (4) more use of skill sets which are sub-sets of qualifications;(5) more education of teachers, to work with training packages better; and (6) betterpathways into and out of training packages (Schofield & McDonald, 2004, pp. 14–32).Although developments were impeded by the disestablishment of ANTA, some ofthese recommended actions have been taken up in a large national project known as‘VET Training Products for the 21st Century’ (National Quality Council and Council ofAustralian Governments, 2009) which included national consultations through the firsthalf of 2009 and established that there was widespread support on the whole for theAustralian definition of CBT and for the training package system. European concepts ofcompetency were explicitly considered but were not supported by those consulted.

Summary of major changes

The major changes in CBT in Australia over the past 20 years are summarized inTable 1. The column headed ‘through’ refers to the pre-training package stage of CBT,which as we have seen involved some competency-based features in locally developed


curriculum and in some cases, national modules. Some industry areas did not have thisintermediate stage because there were no qualifications (or singleton qualifications butno qualification structures) in those industry areas until the late 1990s.

Table 1 addresses changes to curriculum, to the location of delivery, changes to therelationship of VET practitioners with industry and enterprises, and changes in assess-ment practice. As has been mentioned previously, training packages are constantlyevolving and assessment has been the focus of much national attention throughout thetwo decades of CBT. Assessment practices in the early days were often fragmented andbased on observation of work performance only (often known as ‘tick and flick’ assess-ment) but there has been an effort to encourage practitioners to assess more holisticallyand to ensure that underpinning knowledge is adequately addressed. However, it isgenerally agreed that there remains room for improvement in this area.

While Table 1 focuses on curriculum, delivery and assessment issues, another majorchange in CBT over the past 20 years has been the convergence of institutional-basedCBT practices and enterprise-based practices (see Smith, 1999 on CBT in trainingproviders and Kellie, 1999 on CBT in enterprises). In the latter paper, Kellie noted that‘the national training reform agenda had yet to make its mark at the organisation level’and reported on some case studies, in most of which, companies had developed theirown competencies. In 2009, larger companies are far more likely than in 1999 to beusing national competency standards and to be actively involved in national trainingdevelopments (Smith et al., 2005); and smaller companies are likely to have at leastsome involvement in national CBT through the employment of apprentices and/ortrainees.

Many contextual changes have also occurred during 1999–2009, including the devel-opment of an extremely tight labour market in Australia. This has led companies tothink of ways in which they could market themselves to potential employees, andmany believe that offering qualifications to workers is a good way of doing this (Smithet al., 2009). Despite the global financial crisis, unemployment in Australia remainsrelatively low by international standards, and employers in many industries are stillexperiencing labour shortages.

Finally, some attention needs to be paid to those who deliver CBT. Whether in RTOsor in enterprises, those who deliver or assess national VET qualifications are nowrequired to hold a Certificate IV in Training and Assessment, in itself a competency-based qualification. While most States in Australia formerly required, and often funded,degree-level teaching qualifications for TAFE teachers, the hegemony of the Trainingand Assessment Training Package has meant that the mandated Certificate IV in Train-ing and Assessment is now often the maximum as well as minimum qualification(Simons & Smith, 2008). Research indicates clearly that VET teachers and trainerswho have only a Certificate IV level qualification have a much less sophisticatedand nuanced understanding of CBT than those with a degree (Lowrie et al., 1999).Yet, Schofield and McDonald (2004) emphasize that teaching with training packagesrequires very high-level teaching skills.

A critical review of the Australian experience of CBTViews about CBT

Throughout the first 10 years of ‘training reform’ CBT (1987–1997), the notion of CBTwas hotly contested; as Harris and Hodge (2009, p. 1) say, CBT had the ‘propensity topolarize’ between those who saw CBT as an answer to many problems related tonational skill formation and those who saw it as mechanistic, overly vocational, behav-iourist and limiting. A range of positions were adopted by authors in the field.Smith and Keating (1997, pp. 113–119) summarize these early objections to CBT as‘philosophical’ objections, educational objections and practical problems associatedwith implementation. West (2004) has provided a similar summary of early objectionsto NVQs in the UK. He divides objections into ‘technical’, ‘moral’ and ‘market’critiques. Market critiques were related to the penetration of NVQs into the VET


Tab

le1:

Maj

orch

ange

sto

VE

Tcu

rric

ulum

and

asse

ssm

ent

1989

–200

9

Cur

ricu

lum

feat

ure

From

Thro

ugh

To

Cur

ricu

lum

phas

eN

on-c

ompe

tenc

y-ba

sed

Nat

iona

lmod

ules

and

priv

atel

yow

ned

curr

icul

umw

ith

som

eC

BT

feat

ures

Trai

ning

Pack

ages

Basi

sof

curr

icul

umC

onte

nt-b

ased

Out

com

es-b

ased

Cap

abili

ty-b

ased

Loc

atio

nof

curr

icul

umL

ocal

Loc

al/

nati

onal

Nat

iona

lN

atur

eof

curr

icul

umD

escr

ipti

vean

dpr

escr

ipti

vePr

escr

ipti

vePe

rmis

sive

Loc

atio

nof

del

iver

yC

lass

room

Cla

ssro

oman

dw

orkp

lace

Cla

ssro

oman

dw

orkp

lace

Ind

epen

den

ceof

teac

her

Teac

her

asm

outh

piec

eTe

ache

ras

mou

thpi

ece

Teac

her

aspl

anne

rR

ole

ofR

TOte

ache

rvi

s-à-

vis

ente

rpri

ses

Gat

ekee

per

Han

dm

aid

enN

egot

iato

r

Basi

sof

asse

ssm

ent

Con

tent

and

skill

sSk

ills

Skill

san

dun

der

pinn

ing

know

led

geN

atur

eof

asse

ssm

ent

Ass

essm

ent

asaf

tert

houg

ht‘T

ick

and

flic

k’A

holis

tic

eval

uati

onof

lear

ners

’w

orkp

lace

capa

bilit

yan

dkn

owle

dge

VE

T=

voca

tion

aled

ucat

ion

and

trai

ning

,CB

T=

com

pete

ncy-

base

dtr

aini

ng,R

TO=

Reg

iste

red

Trai

ning

Org

aniz

atio

n.


qualification market, and do not apply to the Australian context, as the hegemony of theAustralian form of CBT has been complete because of the absence of the plethora ofawarding bodies that create diversity in the UK VET market. Despite such differencesbetween the Australian and British context, West’s analysis of the underpinning valuesconflicts which led to such a heated debate over CBT rings true for Australia. West(2004, pp. 26–27) states that the three underpinning areas of debate were:

• vocationalism versus liberal or academic education;• centralism versus devolution; and• the way in which NVQs could be used to measure and control national VET

activity.

It is important to recognize that for some scholarly commentators and practitioners,these issues remain buried not far beneath the surface. Buchanan et al. (2009, p. 29) haverecently referred to Australian CBT disparagingly as ‘a “pick-a box” vision of skill’; thisterm refers to their view that the development of individual units of competency hasatomized notions of the skill involved in occupations.

Benefits of competence-based training

Interviews with managers, workers and other stakeholders, including trade unions,have shown that CBT has brought many benefits to companies and workers including,particularly, the ability of people of lower educational achievement to attain a qualifi-cation because of the emphasis on ‘doing’ rather than ‘academic’ work (Smith et al.,2005, 2009). Also, enterprises were finding the competency standards within trainingpackages useful for other, non-training, purposes such as performance managementand job descriptions (Smith et al., 2005).

The nature and structure of training packages

Training packages have generally been viewed favourably but there have also beenconcerns. Some employers complain that training packages are variously not up to date,too general or not sufficiently relevant (Smith et al., 2005). In some cases, their com-plaints seem to be due to insufficient understanding of the ways in which packagescould legitimately be contextualized, or to insufficient awareness of the range of pack-ages that could be of use to the company. Sometimes, this was because RTOs could beunable or unwilling to offer companies the full range of choices. Companies did betterif they employed what Smith et al. (2005) called ‘VET evangelists’, who understood theVET system well enough to negotiate effectively with RTOs and who knew the ways inwhich training packages could be used. However, it is clear that employers’ criticismswere often well-founded and pointed to deficiencies in training packages such as aninsufficient emphasis on underpinning knowledge. Smith et al. (2009) have identifiedfurther the need for good quality learning materials beyond the generic ‘supportmaterials’ that are often produced as part of training package development. Suchsupport materials are often in the form of simplistic workbooks which as one employersaid ‘all look the same’. In relation to training package structures, there is a need forclear, sound, pathways from one qualification level to the next and appropriate align-ment of qualifications to qualification levels. Political manoeuvring was not uncom-monly used to frustrate this desired outcome. For example, there were no properpathways available from lower-level qualifications in the 2003 General ConstructionTraining Package because the national construction industry trade union was unwillingto recognize anything less than full apprentice training at Certificate III level.

Challenges of delivery and assessment

Although CBT is attractive in principle, enterprises and RTOs are still strugglingwith how to deliver it well. A favourite method of delivering CBT in enterprises isembedding it within normal work and performance management processes but some


RTOs and enterprises recognized that this leads to training that is too enterprise-specific and are beginning to move away from this model. There was a perceived needfor off-the-job training, not always seen as a necessity for some advocates of CBT. SomeRTOs and individual teachers within them had developed sophisticated means ofdelivering this off-the-job training, utilizing holistic but rigorous delivery and assess-ment of units of competency while others proceeded in a less sophisticated unit-by-unit manner. Sometimes, learners complained that the assessment tasks were too easyand that people were ‘let through’ who should not have been. They also complained ifthey were not given sufficient off-the-job training and if the learning materials weresub-standard (Smith et al., 2005). Companies and learners alike were unhappy if RTOsemployed ‘generic’ trainers without sufficient content expertise; but a few RTOs werereported to believe that it was acceptable that their staff had general assessment exper-tise and that employers should provide all the training and specialist assessmentadvice. RPL, often seen as being an integral part of CBT, proved problematic. While itwas understood that RPL removed the need for unnecessary training and that itvalidates previous job experience, enterprises were highly suspicious of ‘over-RPLing’.They often preferred to pay for their staff to undertake training again because they didnot trust previous levels of attainment. Learners, too, wanted the chance to recap ontheir learning. The conclusion reached was that RPL should be used conservatively.

The implication of the findings on delivery and assessment, including RPL, is thatteachers and trainers, both in RTOs and in enterprises, needed high-level educationalskills and qualifications in order to deliver CBT properly.

Challenges in the development of training packages

Training package development and review is a highly consultative process which,while it appears on face value to be desirable, in fact presents some challenges. Theconsultation process can involve literally thousands of people and take extensiveamounts of time. If people’s views are not eventually included in the package they maybecome disgruntled. The major stakeholder groups such as employer associations andtrade unions can block progress for considerable lengths of time. For example, theHairdressing Training Package, endorsed in 2000, had been delayed for over 5 yearsbecause of several issues including an argument about barbering units. Stakeholderswith resource issues at stake can distort the integrity of training packages: for instance,training providers may lobby for movement of units from core to elective to make thequalification easier to deliver. Also, because the system is competency-based, no firmrules can be laid down regarding the amount of training time required for learners toachieve competence. Therefore, ‘nominal hours’ are allocated, which are quite politicalin their nature because they are related to funding if the qualifications are likely toattract funding by state VET systems. The process of allocating nominal hours istherefore subject to lobbying from interest groups. For example, in the Health ServicesAssistant (Pharmacy) qualifications, some units that were relatively quick to teach wereallocated high numbers of nominal hours because the required equipment was expen-sive for training providers to purchase.

ConclusionsIt has been noted by several researchers that practitioners, once they were actuallyworking with training packages, were finding ways to combat some of the problemsthey had feared (Australian Council for Private Education and Training [ACPET], 2000;Down, 2002). Outright opposition to CBT and training packages seemed by the early21st century to have reduced considerably; practitioners seemed to have ‘learned tolove’ them – or perhaps to ‘live with them’.

However, this very acceptance and familiarity breeds its own challenges. Whilepeople were still vocally opposed to CBT, they were able easily to articulate what it isthat makes CBT problematic. For example, work by Boorman (2001), while perhapsunnecessarily critical of training packages, arguing that they represented an extreme


form of Taylorism, was very explicit about the problems involved in trying to delivertraining packages, with their rather unnatural and manufactured workplace bias, in atraining provider context. His arguments led providers to consider ways in which theycould overcome the disadvantages of delivery within providers. In the research andprofessional experience outlined in this paper, an impression has developed that prac-titioners now tend towards passive acceptance of CBT and training packages ratherthan constructive and critical engagement. This leads to a lack of critical focus onpedagogical issues, which in many cases has been replaced with a focus on compliancewith national audit frameworks such as the AQTF. One reason for a lack of engagementwith bigger issues of teaching and learning may be that VET teachers are becomingprogressively de-skilled because of reduced requirements for degree-level VETteacher-training, as discussed earlier.

A number of CBT issues remain or have emerged recently and may be receivinginsufficient attention because of general satisfaction with the competency-basedsystem. In analysing these here, use is made of the frameworks described by Smith andKeating (1997) and West (2004), described earlier. The two frameworks are elided toprovide a four-fold typology of critiques of CBT: philosophical critiques; technicaldefects; pedagogical defects; and centralization and control. A fifth critique is added:lack of teacher capability in a system that demands such capability.

‘Philosophical’ critiques

CBT remains predicated upon the needs of industry, and those wishing for a moreliberal or academic education can no longer find it within the VET system. Industryclamours in ever louder voices for its needs to be met through the VET system.

Technical defects

Training packages clearly display some flaws that still need addressing. The develop-ment process is too long and complex; it seems to create dissension rather than agree-ment; and does not lend itself to swift changes in industry or occupations. Progressionfor learners from one level to another is not always available. These conclusions concurwith a 2008 OECD review of Australian VET policy (Hoeckel et al., 2008). Some of thepolitical factors, while not necessarily arising from the competency-based nature oftraining packages, may delay implementation, and jaundice stakeholders’ views oftraining packages and of CBT more generally.

West’s (2004) summary of arguments about technical defects in CBT hinged upontwo issues. First, that competency standards cannot create a sensible and sound sylla-bus that teachers can deliver. Second, that it is difficult for a competency-based system,despite its focus on criteria, to enable effective communication of desired performancestandards. Hoeckel et al. (2008) support the latter issue, criticizing the Australiansystem for not having national assessment practices. In the training package system,both the construction of the syllabus and the standards of assessment are in fact left tothe discretion of teachers and trainers, within the constraints of the RTO’s practices andthe AQTF audit system. Thus there can be no demonstrable assurance of parity ofstudent outcomes.

‘Educational’ or pedagogical critiques

Because of CBT’s focus upon industry, the paramount consideration is whether alearner can do the job after having been trained and/or assessed. This considerationaffects both delivery and assessment, because teachers are nervous about placing toomuch emphasis on knowledge, focusing instead on performance. The evidence sug-gests that enterprises and learners alike would have preferred more attention to under-pinning knowledge.


Centralization and control

CBT as implemented in Australia has certainly aided the centralization of the VETsystem; non-Training Package qualifications have almost disappeared. While this hashad many functional effects including a better understanding of VET qualifications andfreer movement of workers and students among States, there have been criticisms thatflexibility is reduced, particularly for client groups such as those with disabilitiesand international students. Governments have used a tighter and better-defined set ofqualifications as the basis for funding and for rewarding behaviour for companies andtraining providers, as West (2004) describes in relation to NVQs. This has both advan-tages (such as governmental transparency in making funding decisions) and disadvan-tages (such as reducing the scope for innovation).

Lack of teacher capability

This is perhaps the missing link in previous critiques of CBT. CBT requires anddemands a level of teacher expertise that rarely exists, especially when teachers them-selves are taught both their technical and their pedagogical skills in a competency-based system, and leads to the criticisms, described previously, of poor trainingdelivery and ‘too easy’ assessment. As has long been recognized but not yet properlyaddressed, units of competency are simply too difficult and complex for many teachersor trainers to understand. It is likely that many teachers and trainers may not evenknow how to deliver CBT, let alone engage in a critical use of the pedagogy. Teachers’de-skilling leaves them without the power to argue the case; in fact many do not seemto see a case to argue.

During a VET conference in 2008, a senior curriculum officer in the TAFE systemstated ’Nobody problematises Training Packages’. This statement, referring to the cor-nerstone of the competency-based system, and appearing to attract general agreementamongst those present, indicated that earlier, heated, debates about CBT have beenalmost forgotten in many quarters. The dysfunctional consequence of this complacencyhas been that, with no other system with which to compare CBT, practitioners are lessable to recognize its deficiencies and thereby work for improvement. The improve-ments made during 1989–2009, reflected in Table 1, have arisen only because of out-spoken criticism over a period of 20 years, so the current complacency has its dangers.It might therefore be productive for Australians to re-learn how to critique CBT.

ReferencesAustralian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET) (2000), ‘Enhancing Creativity,

Flexibility and Competitiveness? The Impact of Training Packages on Private Sector Providers’,Report prepared for ANTA (Sydney: ACPET).

Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) (1996), Training Packages in the National TrainingFramework (Brisbane: ANTA).

Barratt-Pugh, L. and Soutar, K. (2002), Paradise Nearly Gained (Adelaide: NCVER).Boorman, A. (2001), ‘How Institutions Respond to Training Packages. Research to Reality’ in

Putting VET Research to Work, 4th Australian VET Research Association Conference, Adelaide,Australia (28–30 March). Available at http://www.avetra.org.au (accessed 15 December 2009).

Buchanan, J., Yu, S., Marginson, S. and Wheelahan, L. (2009), Education, Work & Economic Renewal:An Issues Paper Prepared for the Australian Education Union (Sydney: Workplace Research Centre,University of Sydney).

Down, C. (2002), Qualitative Impact of Training Packages on Vocational Education and Training Clients(Brisbane: ANTA).

Foley, A. (2007), ‘ACE Working Within/Outside VET, Evolution, Revolution or Status Quo? TheNew Context for VET’ in 10th Conference of the Australian VET Research Association, VictoriaUniversity, Footscray Park, Victoria, Australia (11–13 April). Available at http://www.avetra.org.au (accessed 15 December 2009).

Harris, R. and Hodge, S. (2009), ‘A Quarter of a Century of CBT: The Vicissitudes of an Idea’ inAligning Participants, Policy and Pedagogy: Tractions and Tensions in VET Research, 12th Conferenceof the Australian VET Research Association, Crowne Plaza, Coogee, Sydney, Australia (16–17April). Available at http://www.avetra.org.au (accessed 15 December 2009).


Hoeckel, K., Field, S., Justesen, T. and Kim, M. (2008), Learning for Jobs. OECD Reviews of VocationalEducation and Training (VET) – Australia (Paris: OECD).

Jackson, N. (1993), ‘Competence: a game of smokes and mirrors?’, in C. Collins (ed.), Competen-cies: The Competencies Debate in Australian Education & Training (Canberra: Australian College ofEducation), pp. 154–61.

Kellie, D. (1999), ‘The Australian way: competency-based training in the corporate sector’, Inter-national Journal of Training and Development, 3, 2, 118–31.

Law, S.-S. (2009), ‘A Journey of Transformation in Vocational and Technical Education: TheSingapore Story’, in Big Skills Conference, Sydney, Australia (2–5 March).

Lowrie, T., Smith, E. and Hill, D. (1999), Competency Based Training: A Staff Development Perspective(Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research [NCVER]).

Mulder, M., Wieigel, T. and Collins, K. (2007), ‘The concept of competence in the development ofvocational education & training in selected EU member states: a critical analysis’, Journal ofVocational Education & Training, 59, 1, 67–88.

National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) (2008), Australian Vocational Educa-tion & Training Statistics: Apprentices & Trainees, Annual (NCVER: Adelaide).

National Quality Council and Council of Australian Governments (2009), VET Training Productsfor the 21st Century, Consultation Paper (Melbourne: National Quality Council).

Schofield, K. and McDonald, R. (2004), Moving On: Report of the High Level Review of TrainingPackages (Melbourne: ANTA).

Simons, M. and Smith, E. (2008), ‘The understandings about learners and learning that areimparted in Certificate IV level courses for VET teachers and trainers’, International Journal ofTraining Research, 6, 1, 23–43.

Smith, E. (1999), ‘Ten years of competency-based training: the experience of accredited trainingproviders in Australia’, International Journal of Training and Development, 3, 2, 106–17.

Smith, E. (2002), ‘Training packages: debates around a new curriculum system’, Issues in Educa-tional Research, 12, 1, 64–84.

Smith, E. and Keating, J. (1997), Making Sense of Training Reform and Competency-Based Training(Wentworth Falls, NSW: Social Science Press).

Smith, E. and Keating, J. (2003), From Training Reform to Training Packages (Tuggerah Lakes, NSW:Social Science Press).

Smith, E., Hill, D., Smith, A., Perry, P., Roberts, P. and Bush, A. (1996), The Availability ofCompetency-Based Training in TAFE and Non-TAFE Settings in 1994 (Canberra: AGPS).

Smith, E., Pickersgill, R., Smith, A. and Rushbrook, P. (2005), Enterprises’ Commitment to NationallyRecognised Training for Existing Workers (Adelaide: NCVER). Available at http://www.ncver.edu.au/publications/1550.html (accessed 15 December 2009).

Smith, E., Smith, A., Pickersgill, R. and Rushbrook, P. (2006), ‘Qualifying the workforce: the useof accredited training in Australian companies’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 30, 8,592–607.

Smith, E., Comyn, P., Brennan Kemmis, R. and Smith, A. (2009), High Quality Traineeships:Identifying What Works (Adelaide: NCVER).

West, J. (2004), Dreams & Nightmares: The NVQ Experience. Working paper No. 45, Centre forLabour Market Studies (CLMS) (Leicester: CLMS).

Westera, W. (2001), ‘Competences in education: a confusion of tongues’, Journal of CurriculumStudies, 33, 1, 75–88.


Documents

A review of twenty years of competency-based training in the Australian vocational education and training system