A focus on training: balancing outcomes and development in Australian Vocational Education and Training

Many professionals involved in adult learning are perplexed by the dichotomy of ‘competent’ or ‘not yet competent’ as the two main outcomes recognised in vocational education and training (VET). Reports of poor quality in the VET sector often relate to people being assessed as competent when they are not able to perform all of the functions described in competency standards to the standard required in a workplace, as per the current definition of competency: …the consistent application of knowledge and skills to the standard of performance required in the workplace. It embodies the ability to transfer and apply skills and knowledge to new situations and environments. (Federal Register of Legislation, Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C00663) This study was driven by the apparent contrast between the VET sector’s current competency paradigm and the reality, perceived by learning and development professionals, that competency is not a yes or no proposition. Competency is developed over time, with various levels of expertise gained from ongoing experience in the performance of work functions under specific operating conditions. This belief is regularly voiced by trainers and industry stakeholders as Skills Impact goes about its contracted work to develop national skills standards, commonly known as competency standards and qualifications, on behalf of industry. To explore this issue, Skills Impact engaged Griffith University, to conduct a literature review of recent and legacy publications and develop a survey, conducted in 2019, which was aimed at VET professionals and stakeholders. The research questions whether a system that only defines competency outcomes can reliably guide an individual’s competency journey. It posits that the current system would benefit by balancing its focus on outcomes with a focus on process. Central to conceptualising a balanced system is understanding the relationship between the outcomes expressed in units of competency and the process of developing competency on students’ learning journeys. The report draws three main conclusions: 1. The system is focused more on competency outcomes than learning and developmental processes, which is to the detriment of students, trainers and the consistency and quality of outcomes. 2. Competency is developed over time, through a learner’s developmental journey. A system focused only on outcomes perpetuates unacceptably wide variance in the student journey and the assessment of competence. 3. National curriculum to support learning and development processes is seen as an important solution. While not currently part of the VET system, national curriculum would help to balance the system’s focus on outcomes with a focus on process, including a greater emphasis on workplace-based learning. For the VET system to be successful, industry needs to continue to define the competency outcomes required and more emphasis needs to be placed on the learning and development process leading to those outcomes. Overall, the research shows that developmental processes in Australian VET could be better supported with the formulation of training objectives within newly designed curriculum and assessment resources, and by a greater role for workplace experience throughout students’ learning journeys.