Ten years of competency-based training: the experience of accredited training providers in Australia

International Journal of Training and Development 3:2ISSN 1360-3736

Ten years of competency-based training: the

experience of accreditedtraining providers in

Australia

Erica Smith

This article examines ten years of implementation of com-petency-based training (CBT) in the vocational education andtraining sector in Australia. It begins by explaining the mean-ing of CBT in Australia in the 1990s, and the way in whichCBT is organised, and then describes the findings of twonational research projects carried out during the period 1995–1997. The first project reported on the extent of CBT pen-etration and the second examined the effects of CBT on teach-ing and learning. Finally the article speculates on the futuredirection of CBT in Australia, with the introduction of ‘train-ing packages’.

Although CBT has been practised in various forms previously in Australia (eg. Harriset al, 1995), in its current form it was not introduced until the late 1980s. The introduc-tion of CBT, as in many countries, came about as a response to the perceived inad-equacy of Australia’s skill formation system to meet the needs of industry in anincreasingly competitive international environment. In the case of Australia, CBT waspart of a radical overhaul of the vocational education and training (VET) system,known as the training reform agenda (Harris et al, 1995). CBT was seen as the corner-stone of training reform (Hall, 1994; Phillimore, 1997).

The impetus for training reform came from government sources (eg. Dawkins,1988) and also from the trade union movement (ACTU/TDC, 1987). As well as theimperative for up-skilling the workforce, a particular concern of federal and stategovernments was the growth in youth unemployment and the low participation ofyoung people in VET compared with other countries (Sweet, 1996). Hence, several

❒ Erica Smith is a Senior Lecturer in Vocational Education and Training at Charles Sturt University,Wagga Wagga campus, Australia.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, USA.

106 International Journal of Training and Development

government reports in the early 1990s—the three most famous being known as theFinn, Mayer and Carmichael reports—examined different aspects of the VET systemwith particular emphasis on school-to-work pathways and key competencies(Australian Education Council, 1991, AEC/MOVEET, 1993, Employment and SkillsFormation Council, 1992).1 The union movement’s interest in CBT was focusedmainly upon the development of skill-related career paths for workers, and wasclosely tied to industrial relations developments in Australia (Phillimore, 1997: 39).These disparate strands combined to form a distinctively Australian competency-based system. In 1989, a special meeting of Ministers made the decision to embarkon a CBT system, with the establishment of the National Training Board, whose taskit was to facilitate the development of industry competency standards. In late 1990,federal and state ministers responsible for VET agreed on a strategic framework forthe implementation of CBT, with a target of substantial implementation by the endof 1993.

CBT in Australia has been defined in many ways but a widely-accepted defi-nition is

Training geared to the attainment and demonstration of skills to meet industry-specified stan-dards rather than to an individual’s achievement relative to that of others in a group (VEETAC,1992: 5–8).

The key points of CBT in Australia are generally taken to be that

I the focus of training is on the outcome of the trainingI the outcome is measured against specified standards, not against other stu-

dents; andI the standards relate to industry (Smith and Keating, 1997: 102).

There is, however, no consensus on how CBT is defined and how it should be prac-tised. It is generally accepted that CBT in Australia is made up of a number of fea-tures and Elam’s (1971, in Tuxworth 1989) model of ‘essential’ and ‘implied’ charac-teristics has been used or adapted to describe CBT practice. Generally, these featuresinclude some or all of the following: based on competency standards, focussed onoutcomes not inputs, involving industry, recognising prior learning, modularised,self-paced, assessment based on demonstration of skill rather than knowledge, assess-ment criterion-referenced, flexibly delivered, nationally recognised. Understandingof the meaning of CBT has evolved over the 1990s, with CBT generally becomingmore loosely defined in that the concept of competencies has become less narrowlyskills-based and more holistic in the sense of including understanding as well asperformance (Ducker, 1993).

The current CBT systemThe CBT system evolved during the 1990s and by the middle of the decade hadreached a comparative state of equilibrium, in which the institutions and processesto deliver and support CBT were complete, although teachers and trainers were stillstruggling to implement the system on the ground, as will be described later. Thesystem until 1997 consisted of a series of linked components from competency stan-dards through to curriculum, to assessment. From 1998 a new system is beingimplemented, which is described later in this article.

Industry competency standards bodies were responsible, initially with the aid ofthe National Training Board, for drawing up competency standards for all industries.These competency standards described the competencies which workers in thatindustry should possess; a few were cross-industry and a small number wereenterprise-specific. By early 1997 over three-quarters of Australian industry wascovered by competency standards (Smith and Keating, 1997: 105). Providers of

1 Key competencies are those which it was felt that every entrant to the labour market should possess,and include such competencies as ‘using technology’ and ‘working with others in teams’.

Competency-based training in Australia 107 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999.

vocational education and training then drew up, and presented for accreditation toState accreditation bodies, curricula which met the competency standards at variousqualification levels. The criteria for accreditation were set down in the NationalFramework for the Recognition of Training (NFROT). Assessment was based onlearning outcomes which derived from the competency standards. Generally assess-ment in the early 1990s was ungraded, with students receiving ‘pass-fail’ or rather‘competent-not yet competent’ grades. The lack of differentiation between degreesof competence has caused much academic debate and opposition from practitioners(eg. Lundberg, 1996). Graded (but still criterion-referenced) assessment appears tohave become slightly more common in the past few years. (Smith et al., 1997)

CBT delivery methods have not been prescribed, but are usually based aroundmodularisation of courses. In many, but not the majority of cases, students proceedthrough their modules in a self-paced manner; flexible delivery through print, video-conferencing or electronic means sometimes being involved. Recognition of priorlearning (RPL) is also a feature of the Australian CBT system, whereby students ortrainees who have already achieved the competency for a module are not requiredto repeat that module. RPL, although widely available, is not generally widely util-ised unless providers make special support arrangements available to students (eg.Ballantine, 1995). Provision for articulation from one qualification level to anotherhas also been required as part of the accreditation requirements for courses. TheAustralian Qualification Framework (AQF) system, introduced in its current form in1995, consists, in the VET sector, of Certificate Levels I to IV and a, higher, Dip-loma level.

New developments: training packages

There have been a number of criticisms of training reform during the 1990s, and amajor review (Allen Consulting Group, 1994) identified a number of dysfunctions inthe system. For instance it was felt that there were not close enough links betweencompetency standards and curriculum. In addition, despite the intention that trainingreform would streamline curricula to create more national portability of qualifi-cations, a proliferation of curricula had occurred under the accreditation arrange-ments. For these and other reasons, in 1997 a new National Training Frameworkwas introduced. The main change from previous arrangements is that NFROT wasabolished and a new Australian Recognition Framework set up. Curricula will nolonger be accredited, and instead ‘registered training organisations’ (RTOs) will beaccredited through a quality assurance process to deliver certain ‘Training Packages’.These packages replace curriculum documents in the accreditation process, and con-sist of competency standards packaged together to make specified qualifications,together with assessment guidelines (Smith and Keating 1997: 51). The packages maycontain ‘non-endorsed components’ which include learning resources, assessmentmaterials, professional development materials, and so on. The precise way in whichthese packages will be implemented and the future role of curriculum in the VETsystem is at present uncertain (Sobski, 1998).

The context: the Australian VET system

While the CBT system appears fairly straightforward, the process of evolution wasnot simple. One reason for this was that other changes were also taking place in theVET system at the same time, some of which impacted upon the way in which CBTevolved. In Australia vocational education and training is generally taken to refer tonon-school, non-university, employment-focused education (although somevocational education programmes in schools are now regarded as within the VETsector). The main provider of VET in Australia has always been the public provider,TAFE (Technical and Further Education colleges). In 1997 TAFE had over 1,140,000publicly-funded enrolments, constituting 78.2 per cent of publicly-funded traininghours (NCVER, 1998).

108 International Journal of Training and Development Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999.

TAFE is managed by the governments of each of the States and Territories but asustantial proportion (around one-quarter) of TAFE funding now comes from centralgovernment, administered by the new Australian National Training Authority(ANTA), established in 1994. ANTA has since taken over several other bodies withinthe VET system, including the National Training Board and the national curriculumbody (ACTRAC). As in other areas, such as health and industrial relations, the VETsector exhibits continual tension between Federal and State interests and agendas.

During the 1990s the VET market has been opened up considerably, followinginitial recommendations of the Deveson report (Training Costs Review Committee,1991) and in line with general Australian government competition policy(Independent Committee of Inquiry, 1993). Although there have always been privateproviders of VET, accreditation of providers and of courses through NFROT hasgiven ‘respectability’ to these providers, and the non-TAFE sector has been growingrapidly. By 1998 there were 3579 registered non-TAFE providers, according toANTA’s National Training Information Service web-site. Schools and community(Adult Education) colleges are increasingly becoming involved in VET activity, partlybecause of the government funding attached.

In 1998 private provision of VET received a further boost with the national intro-duction of ‘user choice’ whereby government funding of the ‘off-the-job’ componentof apprenticeships and one-year traineeships can be directed to the VET providerchosen by the employer (in consultation, supposedly, with the apprentice or trainee).User choice has been piloted during 1996 and 1997 (Selby Smith et al., 1997) withsome success although there were a number of unresolved issues (ANTA, 1996).There is considerable debate about the extent to which private provision of VET ingeneral should be encouraged (eg. Anderson, 1997).

Concerns about CBT

A number of concerns have been raised from the early days of the ‘new wave’ ofAustralian CBT. The most common objections to CBT have been related to its per-ceived educational narrowness; it has been argued that CBT is highly behaviourist.This is seen as being educationally inappropriate (eg. Lundberg, 1994); ineffective inmeasuring true competence (Collins, 1993) and unlikely to develop the skilled andflexible workers required either by individual organisations (Field, 1996) or by thenational skills pool (Porter et al., 1992). Other writers point to the economic rationalistideology underlying CBT (Jackson, 1993) and to the power disparity CBT is seen toinvolve between managers and teachers and students alike (Soucek, 1993).

Teachers’ concerns about CBT, whilst mirroring VET commentators’ concerns tosome extent, include more practical issues (Smith and Keating, 1997: 117). Only asmall amount of research has been carried out in Australia into teachers and CBT,but its findings are consistent in painting a picture of teachers unsure what they aresupposed to be doing, wary about the value of CBT, and feeling marginalised andunvalued by their managers (eg. Robinson, 1993; Smith and Nangle, 1995; Cornford,1996). Teachers have generally received little staff development in CBT (eg. Simons,1996), although a number of initiatives have taken place at provider, State andnational level. In addition TAFE teachers’ concerns about implementing CBT areoften compounded by other concerns about the increasing necessity for a commercialattitude towards selling their course and increasingly close links with industry. Inthese concerns they echo those described by Burke (1989: 125–127) in his study ofchange and English Further Education lecturers.

CBT implementation in AustraliaThe first major research project described in this article is a 1995 study into the extentof CBT implementation in 1994 (Smith et al., 1996; Smith, 1996), carried out by theGroup for Research in Employment and Training at Charles Sturt University for the


Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.This study examined all accredited TAFE courses offered in 1994 (a total of 2237),as well as the courses offered by a sample of 100 non-TAFE providers.2 A surveyasked a number of questions about each course, designed to find out which of aseries of CBT features were being utilised in that course. It was discovered that theadoption of competency-based training was proceeding at a slow pace, much slowerthan originally planned, with only 29 per cent of TAFE courses and 39 per cent ofnon-TAFE courses conforming to the study’s basic definition of CBT. However, manyof the TAFE CBT courses involved very large enrolments, and thus more studentswere experiencing CBT than the raw figures might suggest. Also, the move to CBThad speeded up since NFROT came into force in 1992.

The study also found that there were considerable variations in the adoption ofCBT across the different States and Territories. These variations could be traced todiffering State educational policies, and the differences between State TAFE systemsin their views of what CBT ‘ought to be’ were great. Certain features of CBT suchas self-paced learning and workplace assessment had not been adopted at that timein any State to any significant extent, however, regardless of State policies (Smith etal., 1996: 77).

The study propounded an indicative categorisation of CBT implementation, divid-ing courses into three bands depending on their possession of certain CBT features.The first band, comprising courses which met the study’s basic definition of CBT,included courses based on competency standards, or if these were unavailable, onformal industry consultation; and which also had course documentation which wasin CBT format. Twenty-nine per cent of TAFE courses and 39 per cent of the non-TAFE sample possessed these characteristics. The next band (7 per cent of TAFEcourses and 20 per cent of the non-TAFE sample) included courses which includedthe features from the first band, and which also had provision for RPL and addition-ally involved industry in course monitoring. The ‘most CBT’ courses (only 1 percent of TAFE courses and 8 per cent of non-TAFE courses) had additionally certainassessment features: assessment was available on demand and also at least partly inthe workplace.

The study concluded that many courses would never reach the ‘most CBT’ bandbecause the assessment features might not be appropriate for various reasons; forinstance students might not have access to a workplace. The adoption of CBT featureswas also found to vary significantly across ‘fields of study’, which describe courses’industry areas. For instance, hospitality courses were more likely to be CBT thanbuilding courses (Smith et al., 1996: 67).

A model, derived from Elam’s (1971, in Tuxworth, 1989: 15) model of CBT with‘essential’ and ‘implied’ characteristics, was suggested in this study to describe theprocess by which CBT features came to be incorporated into VET courses. Anadapted version of this model is presented in Figure 1. This model could be appliedwhatever the mix of CBT features obtaining at a certain time; for instance, the 1995study varied in its mix of features from a previous study carried out in the earlydays of CBT (Thomson et al., 1990).

In Figure 1, government policies (evidenced in accreditation requirements) demanda specified minimum level of CBT features. As not all courses are accredited, and ascourses can run for three to five years without being re-accredited, current practicetends to lag somewhat behind policy imperatives. However, all courses are likely,eventually, to attain the level of CBT desired by government VET policy. Beyondthis point, however, ‘implementation decisions’ are made. The decision may be madeat the point at which the curriculum document is written; at the level of a systemsuch as a State TAFE system; at the level of the individual college, or by the teacheror trainer. The decisions may be conscious, or may be made by default. In all cases,

2 In Victoria, a sample only of TAFE courses was investigated because of data collection difficultiesin that State.


Figure. 1. Implementation of competency-based trainingAdapted from Smith et al. (1996: 76)

however, choices depend upon the four factors shown in the model: institutionalfactors; industry area, nature of the students, and nature of the course.

CBT and its effects on teaching and learningAlthough the first study gave a useful indication of how far CBT had beenimplemented at a specific point in time, it was unable to give any indication of whatwas actually happening in the classroom and the training room. The second study(Smith et al., 1997), carried out by the same research group, for ANTA’s ResearchAdvisory Council, examined the effects of CBT in Australia on teaching and learning.The research was carried out through twelve course-based case studies and twenty-four telephone interviews, across the whole of Australia and every type of provider.These included TAFE colleges, commercial providers, community providers such asSkillshare programmes for unemployed people, industry providers who offer train-ing industry-wide, and enterprise providers—companies’ training departments. Sub-missions were also invited via the Internet.

The case studies and interviews were drawn from three industry areas shown tobe significant in the previous study: building, business and engineering. Engineeringwas an industry area which had moved early into CBT; building had adopted CBTsomewhat later; and business studies was selected as a ‘non-trade’ area, reflectingsome differences in practice in the adoption of CBT between non-trade and tradeareas. Case studies and interviews alike were selected as reflecting the distributionof providers by type and by State or Territory. Case studies involved interviews withmanagers, head teachers, teachers, students or trainees, and staff development andRPL specialists; and observation of teaching or training sessions. The telephone inter-views were carried out with one teacher or trainer at each of the 24 sites.

Different ways of implementing CBT

The study confirmed that CBT was being practised in very different ways. Fourteenfeatures of CBT, derived from the literature and previous research, were used todescribe courses, and although nine of them were heavily utilised, there were fivefeatures which were less commonly used. Three features were present in only aroundhalf or slightly less than half of the courses:

I assessment at least partly in the workplace,


I flexible entry and exit to courses, andI assessment available on demand;

and two features in around three-quarters of the courses:I industry involved in course monitoring, andI non-graded assessment.

The features which were present in the vast majority of courses in the study were:

I course based on industry competency standardsI course documentation in CBT formatI RPL is availableI assessment is criterion-referenced not norm-referencedI modular formatI assessment is based on competency standardsI assessment is based on demonstration of skillsI assessment criteria are made available to studentsI training involves doing as well as watching

Although the sample of courses was small, it was possible to discern some generaltrends. Industry and enterprise providers tended to use fewer CBT features, selectingonly those which suited the needs of their particular clients. TAFE teachers appearedto feel under more pressure to use the full range of CBT features than did prac-titioners working for other VET providers. By industry area, business courses weremore likely to use graded assessment; engineering courses were more likely to haveassessment available on demand; and building courses were least likely to have flex-ible entry or assessment on demand. The evidence about variations with the level ofqualification (AQF level) was thin, but in general it appeared that higher-levelcourses used fewer CBT features, and teachers in these courses seemed to be parti-cularly reluctant to use CBT.

There were clear variations in the suitability of certain CBT features for differentstudent groups. Self-pacing appeared to create difficulties for a number of groups:Aboriginal, non-English speaking background, and long-term unemployed students,as well as recent school-leavers. One teacher said, about younger students,

They are not mature enough, and don’t want to take responsibility for their own learning.

Mature students performed well with self-paced courses, but on the other hand dis-liked non-graded assessment. One teacher explained this as follows:

CBT offers no incentive to excel, as regardless of how well you do, you still receive a ‘competent’.

In general, though, CBT assessment was suitable for most student groups, althoughadaptations had to be made for some equity groups. For instance, Aboriginal stu-dents did not like being formally assessed as they performed tasks, so teachersdevised informal methods of observation. On the other hand, teachers at a com-munity provider found that CBT as a method of learning was appropriate for Abor-iginal students.

Skillshare has had considerable work with Koori (Aboriginal) students who have a low thresholdfor boredom, and doing things helps them through the course.

The findings of the study appeared to support the model presented in Figure 1 asappropriate for describing the variations in CBT practice. Providers appeared to bechoosing not to utilise certain features of CBT, mainly to do with assessment andalso with flexible entry and exit, where the features did not suit the student groupor the industry area.

The effects of CBT on teaching and learning

Although there was still some resistance to CBT from teachers and trainers, most ofthose interviewed seemed to have accepted that CBT was here to stay and that they


had to ‘get on’ with CBT and ensure that it worked. They had devised ways of usingCBT to suit their students and their courses, and in most instances had been verysuccessful, although often feeling guilty that they were not ‘doing CBT right’. Thosewho felt guilty appeared to have a mental picture of what CBT ‘ought’ to be like.One TAFE teacher said,

What we are doing here is pseudo-CBT, that’s all you could call it.

Generally the non-TAFE teachers and trainers had fewer concerns both about theirown performance and about the value of CBT than did the TAFE teachers. In generalteachers had received little staff development in using CBT, and coupled with theoften over-hasty introduction of CBT particularly in some industry areas, the tran-sition to CBT had been made much harder than it needed to be. The move to CBThas affected all those involved in the VET system and the main findings of the reportcan be described according to the implications of CBT for each group.

Providers

Although in general teachers were working constructively with CBT, some providerswere still suffering from the effects of an inappropriate handling of the innovation.CBT has thrown up many staff development requirements, and the research ident-ified a number of areas where training was still needed for teachers and trainers.There was also a need for a forum in which teachers could share their ideas forworking with CBT.

CBT has also led to resourcing demands upon providers. In some cases, moreresources were needed, and in other cases, a different way of deploying resources.For instance, access to machinery at different times to suit self-pacing could beaccommodated by changing staffing arrangements. Administrative procedures alsoneed to be changed to reflect new ways of organising teaching and learning underCBT. For instance, teachers operating self-pacing often found that their college’smethod of recording students’ results could not accommodate self-pacing.

Curriculum developers

Curriculum developers need to be aware of the concerns of teachers in several areas.Teachers were often unhappy with modularisation, feeling that it led to fragmen-tation of course content. They also felt that it encouraged students in short-term learn-ing:

(Students think) been there, done that – I’ve finished one bit and then forget all about it.

They also bemoaned the lack of content in CBT curricula. Some teachers perceivedcompetency standards as being set too low, and others confused industry com-petency standards and module learning outcomes. Teachers and trainers were oftenaugmenting curriculum in a variety of ways, which appears to be a healthy practice,although it was sometimes perceived by teachers as being inappropriate.

Teachers and trainers

The research showed that teachers and trainers were all at differing stages of copingwith CBT; some still felt they were not performing well whilst others had movedbeyond concerns about their own performance to a focus on student outcomes.Almost all agreed that their role had changed, and this was particularly so whereself-pacing was used. In the self-paced environment, teachers and trainers wererequired to become more multi-skilled, for instance it was often necessary to writestudent learning guides to supplement national modules, or to develop relativelysophisticated audio-visual resources. They were also less likely to spend much timein a traditional ‘up-front’ teaching role. Some specific changes to teachers’ roleincluded


I an equalisation of the relationship between teacher and studentI teachers becoming more aware of the needs of individual studentsI teachers spending more time in meetings with other teachers and often team-

teachingI the introduction of newer lower-level teaching positionsI an increase in administrative duties, to track students’ progress through large

numbers of modulesI tailoring learning materials to meet the needs of local industry.

Students and trainees

It was not easy to determine what students and trainees thought about CBT, sincefew of them had studied in VET in both pre-CBT and post-CBT days. In addition,since CBT was generally not graded, it was difficult to measure whether studentoutcomes had improved under CBT. Teachers had widely differing opinions aboutwhether students were now more skilled or less skilled. It was clear, however, thatthere were some changes in the way in which students learned:

I taking more responsibility for managing their learning pathsI taking responsibility for judging when they were ready for assessmentI needing enhanced literacy and language skills when working with self-paced

materialsI needing to be assertive in seeking help when working with self-paced materials

Students and trainees rarely received explicit preparation for these aspects of theirlearning role.

Staff development implications

While effective staff development appeared to be a major factor in successful tran-sition to CBT, some teachers and trainers had received very little training. Othershad undertaken individual studies, but there seemed to be a need for both provider-level and national-level attention to be paid to staff development. Teachers generallywere no longer interested in ‘big picture’ staff development, but needed practicalassistance in working with different CBT features. Some areas identified as importantfor staff development include:

I devising holistic assessment tasks (incorporating several learning outcomes);I motivating students and trainees in the absence of grades;I adapting CBT for specific student groups;I understanding the changed role of the teacher; andI sharing good ideas about teaching under CBT.

Policy-makers

For national and State policy-makers, the research suggested two major areas forattention. Firstly, that appropriate recognition needed to be paid to the diversity ofCBT practice and to an evaluation of the success of certain features. Non-gradedassessment and RPL, it was suggested, should both have less emphasis placed uponthem. Secondly, attention needed to be given to further development of policy andpractice in a number of areas, particularly relating to the changes identified in theroles of teachers and trainers. The roles of students and employers also needed atten-tion, but further research was needed before policy can be formulated.

CBT and training packagesThe introduction of training packages had not been announced at the time of thesecond research project, but the project’s findings concerning confusion about, and


dissatisfaction with, competency standards were significant and need to be con-sidered during the development of packages. Training packages rely heavily on com-petency standards and, with no intervening curriculum required between the stan-dards and the assessment, poor standards could have a damaging effect.

In addition, the lessons learned from the introduction of CBT need to be heededwhen implementing the new system. Although CBT was slow in its implementation,as evidenced by the first study described in this article, individual teachers hadexperienced its implementation as over-hasty, because they had been inadequatelyprepared. In many cases they had received little or no staff development in CBT,and had not been given the chance to familiarise themselves with the new curriculumbefore having to teach it. Teachers are likely to resist the new system if they areinadequately prepared and not given a chance to discuss implications. Unfortunately,early indications are that the implementation of training packages is likely to repeatmany of the mistakes of early CBT implementation. Preliminary research carried outfor a new project on the effects of CBT on teachers’ roles, also by the Group forResearch in Employment and Training, indicates that, within VET providers, aware-ness of training packages is confined to senior managers. In addition there appearsto be little consideration, at a policy level, of the teaching and learning implicationsof packages.

ConclusionThe introduction of competency-based training to the Australian VET system hasbeen controversial and has led to far-reaching changes to the roles of every stake-holder in the system. While some mistakes were made during the implementationof CBT, the system has evolved over the ten years of its implementation to one whichis workable, although there is some doubt about whether it is actually improvingstudent and trainee outcomes and thereby helping to create a more skilled Australianworkforce. Teacher and trainers have worked hard under difficult circumstances tofind ways in which to adapt CBT effectively for their particular industry areas andstudent groups. While CBT as it has evolved does have some problems, it is perhapsunfortunate that further radical change in the form of training packages is now beingimposed whilst it could be argued that further work still needs to be done to consoli-date the changes already made.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistasnce of the team mem-bers of both research projects: Doug Hill, Andy Smith, Paul Perry, Paul Roberts,Tony Bush, Tom Lowrie, Janene Lobegeier, Bruce Wells and Joy Stocker. She wouldalso like to thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments and sugges-tions.

References

ACTU/TDC (1987), Australia reconstructed: A report by the mission members to the ACTU and theTDC. Canberra: AGPS.

Allen Consulting Group (1994), Successful reform. Melbourne: Allen Consulting Group.Anderson, D. (1997), Developing the training market of the future: A review of research literature

prepared as a submission to the Australian National Training Authority. Adelaide: National Centrefor Vocational Education Research (NCVER).

Australian Education Council (AEC) Review Committee (1991), Young people’s participation inpost-compulsory education. (The ‘Finn Report’). Canberra: AGPS.

Australian Education Council/MOVEET (1993). Putting general education to work: The key com-petencies report. (The ‘Mayer Report’) Canberra: AGPS.

Australian National Training Authority (1996), Report to the ANTA Ministerial Council on theimplementation of user choice. Brisbane: ANTA.


Ballantine, M. (1995), Recognition of prior learning for entry to TAFE. Converse: Journal of Networkof Women in Further Education, 1, 14.

Burke, J. (1989), The implementation of NVQs. In J. Burke (Ed). Competency based education andtraining. London: Falmer, 109–131.

Collins, C. (1993), Competencies: For and against. Keynote address, Australian Curriculum StudiesAssociation National Conference, Brisbane, I July.

Cornford, I. (1996), Experienced teachers’ views of competency-based training in NSW TAFE.Learning and Work: The Challenges Conference, December. Griffith University, Gold Coast,December. Conference Papers, 4, 105–116.

Dawkins, J. (1988), Skills for Australia. Canberra: AGPS.Ducker, C. (1993), Key competencies and industry standards: Carrying forward the notion of

competency training. Training Agenda, 1, 1. 6–7.Employment and Skills Formation Council (1992), The Australian vocational certificate training

system (The ‘Carmichael Report’). Canberra: National Board for Employment, Education andTraining (NBEET).

Field, L. (1996), Is there room for CBT in a learning organisation? Australian Training Review.Mar/Apr/May. 24–25.

Hall, W. (1994), Review of research: Competency-based training and assessment. Adelaide: NationalCentre for Vocational Education Research.

Harris, R., Guthrie, H., Hobart, B. and Lundberg, D. (1995), Competency-based education and train-ing: Between a rock and a whirlpool. Melbourne: Macmillan.

Independent Committee of Inquiry into a National Competition Policy (1993), National Compe-tition Policy (‘The Hilmer report’). Canberra: AGPS.

Jackson, N. (1993), Competence: A game of smokes and mirrors? In C. Collins, (Ed) Competencies:The competencies debate in Australian education and training. Canberra: Australian College ofEducation, 162–181.

Lundberg, D. (1996), Steering through rapids: The impact of training reform on TAFE managers.Adelaide: NCVER.

Lundberg, D. (1994), Where are we? Reviewing the training reform agenda. Adelaide: NCVER.National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) (1998), Australian vocational edu-

cation and training statistics 1997 at a glance. Adelaide: NCVER.Phillimore, J. (1997), Trade unions and the national training reform agenda in Australian 1983–

1996. International Journal of Training and Development, 1, 1, 34–48.Porter, P., Rizvi, F. Knight, J., and Lingard, R. (1992), Competencies for a clever country: Building

a house of cards? Unicorn, 18, 3, 50–58.Robinson, P. (1993), Teachers facing change: A small-scale study of teachers working with competency-

based training. Adelaide: NCVER.Selby Smith, J., Selby Smith, C. and Ferrier, R. (1997), National evaluation of the 1996 user choice

projects: Stage 2. Brisbane: ANTA.Simons, M. (1996), Something old . . . something new: TAFE teachers’ ways of working with

CBT. Learning and Work: The Challenges Conference, December. Griffith University, Gold Coast,December. Conference Papers, 3, 23–32.

Smith, E. and Keating, J. (1997), Making sense of training reform and competency-based training.Wentworth Falls, NSW: Social Science Press.

Smith, E., Lowrie, T., Hill, D., Bush, A., and Lobegeier, J. (1997), Making a difference? How com-petency-based training has changed teaching and learning (ANTARAC research project). WaggaWagga: Charles Sturt University.

Smith, E. (1996), A study of the penetration of competency-based training in Australia. Researchin Post-Compulsory Education, 1, 2, 169–186.

Smith, E., Hill, D., Smith, A., Perry, P., Roberts, P., and Bush, A. (1996), The availability of com-petency-based training in TAFE and non-TAFE settings in 1994. Canberra: AGPS.

Smith, E. and Nangle, R. (1995). Workplace communication: TAFE teachers’ experiences ofimplementing a national module. Australian TAFE Teacher, March, 53–54.

Sobski, J. (1998), The future of curriculum. Training Agenda, 6, 3, 12–14.Soucek, V. (1993). Is there a need to redress the balance between systems goals and lifeworld-

oriented goals in public education in Australia? In C. Collins, (Ed), Competencies: The com-petencies debate in Australian education and training. Canberra: Australian College of Education,162–181.

Sweet, R. (1996), How well do our entry level training models fit the labour market of the 1990s?Sydney: Dusseldorp Skills Forum.

Thomson, P., Foyster, J., Tucker, J., Toop, L., and Dean, S. (1990). Competency based training inTAFE. Adelaide: TAFE National Centre for Vocational Education Research.


Training Costs Review Committee (1991). Training costs of award restructuring (The ‘Devesonreport’). Canberra: AGPS.

Tuxworth, E. (1989). Competency-based education and training. In J. Burke (ed.) Competencybased education and training. London: Falmer Press, pp. 10–25.

VEETAC (1992), User’s guide to course design for competency based curriculum. Canberra: AustralianCommittee on Training Curriculum (ACTRAC).


Documents

Ten years of competency-based training: the experience of accredited training providers in Australia