The rationale

Competency-based training (CBT) has had a major impact on the way in which vocational education and training (VET) has evolved in Australia in recent years. Decisions concerning methods of delivery, teaching and learning, assessment, and transferability of qualifications have been strongly influenced by a CBT environment. The VET sector accommodates a diverse range of individuals in many fields of study across thousands of technical and further education (TAFE) and non-TAFE providers. As a result, CBT means different things to different people. In general terms, however, CBT can be explained as having a focus on the outcome of training. These outcomes are measured against specific standards and not against other students and the standards are directly related to industry.

It is reasonable to assume that competency-based approaches have affected individuals in different ways considering the diverse nature of the sector. It can be argued that the greatest effects on people involved with VET have been upon instructors, [see footnote 1] since they have had to change their everyday practice to accommodate CBT. Moreover, they hold the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that CBT makes a difference to VET outcomes.

The focus

The investigation examined the impact CBT has had on the role and responsibilities of instructors across the VET sector. The following five research questions were investigated in the study.

A range of techniques was used to evaluate the extent to which competency-based approaches had influenced, or changed, the role of instructors across the sector. These techniques included:

The survey was designed to assess instructors' level of understanding of CBT and provide information which can be used to interpret individuals' knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and practices related to CBT. The survey can be seen as a way of assessing the extent to which CBT has been accepted by instructors in the VET sector and the extent to which they understand the principles underpinning CBT and how satisfied they are with their progress in establishing CBT practice. Furthermore, the survey permitted the identification of a range of factors that influenced the way instructors have responded to CBT. These factors included:

It is important to note that most of the instructors who responded to the survey were from the TAFE sector.

Case study sites were predominantly from the non-TAFE sector and included a range of different providers in different States and Territories. In most instances, data from case studies were collected over a two-day period, with the researcher interviewing several instructors at each site in both individual and group sessions. The views and perceptions of senior management and educational staff were also sought, and were taken into consideration when analysing data from each site.

Focus groups were formed to monitor and analyse staff development programs that have been run for instructors in CBT. The members of the groups included:

The results

From an analysis of this survey data it appears that:

Data from the case studies revealed that there was still a variety of understandings about the nature and practice of CBT among individuals and groups in the VET sector. At some of the sites CBT was considered to be problematic, whereas at other sites it was uncontroversial. Individual instructors' understanding of CBT was influenced by a range of factors including:

Focus group discussions indicated that staff development needs relating to CBT were not consistent across provider type or industry area. Teachers confirmed that their introduction to CBT was questionable and often inconsistent. In some cases (such as in Certificate IV in Workplace Training) CBT was presented as being unproblematic. In both the case study and focus groups it was apparent that the way in which new teachers first learn about CBT contributed significantly to their understanding of CBT and shaped their attitude towards it. These initial experiences did not always provide new instructors with a solid understanding of CBT. Consequently, it appears that initial staff development is one of the most critical phases in an instructor's understanding of competency-based approaches, and that strategies need to be provided for new instructors in order for them to cope with the challenges posed by CBT.

Conclusion and implications

Findings from the three levels of inquiry showed that the level of understanding of CBT is consistent across the VET sector. However, CBT is practised in a variety of forms that reflect the industry and organisational context of the staff and students involved. In general terms, instructors from non-TAFE providers have a more positive view of competency-based approaches than that of instructors in the TAFE sector. It could be argued that many non-TAFE providers have been able to shape CBT practices to a teaching-learning environment that suit their ‘competitive’ needs more easily than that of TAFE providers. TAFE teachers, for example, appear to be experiencing more difficulty introducing competency standards into their courses than instructors in the non-TAFE sector are. On the other hand, many non-TAFE providers have indicated that a CBT framework is conducive to the training approaches they use.

Instructors who indicated that a CBT framework suited their particular field of study were more likely to have a positive attitude toward CBT in general. An implication of this is that any new innovations in the sector need to address educational and philosophical ideas associated with specific fields of study in order to gain acceptance in the future.

Modifications and adaptations to practice were more likely to occur across provider type (in this case, TAFE versus non-TAFE sectors) and course level (differences across AQF levels). Instructors in the TAFE sector were more likely to modify competency standards and assessment criteria in courses which they taught than non-TAFE instructors. In other words, TAFE providers, who found it more difficult to have their courses based on competency standards and linked to assessment standards, modified their practice more frequently.

It was apparent that instructors appreciated having a variety of avenues for staff development. Moreover, there was a diverse range of preferred staff development options among instructors in the sector. With respect to developing an understanding of CBT, informal on-the-job experiences and collegial support were considered to be most influential in shaping many instructors' attitudes and understandings. Generally, other factors, including initial staff development and initial teacher preparation, made a strong contribution to the way in which teachers/trainers attempted to implement CBT. The way in which new teachers first learnt about CBT tended to shape their attitude toward it.

Staff development that met the immediate needs and concerns of instructors was seen as valuable in the early stages of the implementation of CBT. Furthermore, staff development in a teachers' industry area may be just as important as staff development in teaching. It also appeared that action-learning methods for staff development are as yet unproven in their efficacy.

The study proposes two models depicting staff development relating to externally driven innovations in the VET sector. One model relates to the different levels of responsibility for implementation of the innovation and different phases of implementation and interaction with external stakeholders. The second model describes factors which affect individual instructors' engagement with staff development activities.

[1] For the purposes of this study we will use the term instructor to cover teachers and trainers in the VET sector.