Competency progression and completion: how is the policy being enacted in three trades?

This paper examines how competency progression and completion is implemented in practice in three trades. In particular, it focuses on: interactions between teachers and/or assessors and workplace supervisors; the different approaches used to integrate on- and off-the job training; assessment and sign-off practices; and the ways by which workplace supervisors and teachers and/or assessors ensure the outcomes meet the standards outlined in the respective training packages.

In addition to a literature review and situational analysis, the research method includes interviews with 26 TAFE teacher—assessors teaching Certificate III in Commercial Cookery, Carpentry, and Engineering — Metal Fabrication. Twenty-one workplace supervisors in the cookery, engineering, and building and construction industries were also interviewed.

The concepts of competency-based progression and completion are aligned with the notion that progression through training should be based on the skills attained rather than on the time served. The authors show that competency progression and completion is not a new phenomenon and was an early feature of competency-based approaches to vocational education and training (VET) in Australia. Indeed, trends in the data from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) show that over the past decade there has been a gradual increase in the number of apprentices and trainees across all trades completing their qualifications in shorter periods of time. This report investigates some of the interrelated factors that affect progression and completion and shows that a gap remains between the policy construct and real practice, where the time-based approach to apprentice training is still dominant.

Key messages

• Some of the barriers to competency progression include a lack of flexibility in training providers and employer attitudes to allowing apprentices to complete early.
• Variations to training generally occur through informal negotiations and are not always recognised in the apprentice’s training plan, suggesting that the training plans are not necessarily the dynamic document they are intended to be.
• The most important enabler for competency progression and completion is good communication and information flow between teacher—assessors/and workplace supervisors. However, teacher—assessors are more likely than workplace supervisors to claim that communication between the two is adequate.
• While assessment and validation are generally the collective responsibility of teachers—assessors and workplace supervisors, there is now greater involvement of apprentices in their own assessment through collecting evidence and making decisions about whether they are ready to progress. 

Dr Craig Fowler
Managing Director, NCVER

In 2006 a Council of Australian Governments (COAG) policy sought to remove any ‘artificial time construct’ as a pivotal feature in apprenticeship progression and completion, the aim being to allow apprentices to work as qualified tradesmen and tradeswomen as soon as they had demonstrated competency to industry standards.

The research presented in this report was designed to identify and describe the impacts of the COAG policy on assessment, assessors and workplace supervisors in three trade qualifications: commercial cookery, engineering — metal fabrication and carpentry.

The study examined the approaches being used to integrate training on and off the job and the ways by which teacher—assessors and workplace supervisors were ensuring that the outcomes being achieved met the standards set out in the respective training packages. Four research questions formed the basis of the research. These focused on: the extent and quality of communication between teacher—assessors and workplace supervisors; the integration of apprentice training and assessment; the methods of assessment used to determine competence; and, finally, the processes used to validate assessment.

The research involved a context and situational analysis (including a review of relevant literature), a pre-interview questionnaire and a total of 47 semi-structured interviews. These were undertaken with 26 teacher—assessors in seven TAFE (technical and further education) institutes spread across three states and one territory and 21 workplace supervisors who were directly responsible for providing the work-based learning component for one or more of the apprentices being trained and assessed by the participating teacher—assessors.

The context and situational analysis showed that competency progression and completion is, in reality, not a new phenomenon and was an early feature of competency-based approaches to vocational education and training (VET). Trends in data show that across all trades there has been a gradual increase in the number of apprentices and trainees completing their qualifications in shorter periods of time. While there is a range of reasons for these increases, this report explores one component — competency-based progression and completion. The report investigates the key factors which affect progression and competency in small number of cases and shows that there remains a gap between the policy construct and the lived reality, which has preserved, largely intact, a time-based approach to apprentice training.

The analysis also shows that the key factors affecting the uptake of competency-based progression include employer attitudes and a lack of provider flexibility in adopting the administrative, teaching and assessment approaches that facilitate progression and completion. Assessment is identified as critical to successful apprentice progression and completion, and the literature highlights industry concerns over assessment practices and quality. The quality of the relationship between providers and individual employers is identified as another critical factor.

This study has found that the successful implementation of competency progression and completion policy is affected by a complex set of interrelated factors. The first of these is the uneven level of support for the policy from employers and workplace supervisors. This is caused in large part by concerns about the financial implications of apprentices attainingqualified tradesperson status before employers have gained full value from a reasonably skilled worker at a relatively low cost. Also influential is the view many workplace supervisors hold that apprentices must develop a breadth of experience and demonstrate a level of maturity prior to being signed off. These attributes, they suggest, can only be attained over time and with more opportunities to build their expertise, perhaps to higher and broader levels. Linked to this is the view of supervisors that apprentices on completion are only ‘work-ready’ rather than being competent tradespersons, with full competence taking further time to develop. Finally, the research found that the traditional ‘time served’ remains the standard against which an apprenticeship is measured by many supervisors of apprentices.

A major factor raised by participants is the impact of TAFE funding on the organisations’ ability to provide the flexibilities required to facilitate the progression of apprentices through the off-job components of their training. Indeed, the study highlights the challenges to assessment of the broader conception of the particular trades studied and their often more narrow workplace reality. Finally, the evidence suggests that information about competency progression and completion has not been effectively disseminated to teacher—assessors, workplace supervisors and apprentices. As a result, awareness of the policy and its practice is distinctly lacking.

In relation to communication between teacher—assessors and workplace supervisors, the research found that a variety of media are used and that the frequency of communication met mandated requirements, but more was undertaken, according to need. Teacher—assessors felt that communication processes worked well. Workplace supervisors were more circumspect, with some reporting that the processes, expectations and provision of information about training and assessment were not well communicated to them. The ‘VET language’ and the overall ‘busyness’ of the work environment hindered good communication, and it was particularly problematic in carpentry, where the workplace supervisors and apprentices work on a variety of sites. Communication helped the teacher—assessors establish the training that could be covered at the workplace and where the workplace could be used effectively as a source of assessment evidence. Knowledge of the employer’s business is critical here, but complicated for providers by the large number of small employers with whom they often have to deal. In this case, providers are well served if there are administrative staff focused on record keeping to advise about the units of competency completed and yet to be attained and to help support the training and assessment process.

Training plans can be useful but tend in practice not to be the ‘living’, dynamic documents envisaged in policy and guidelines. Rather, our informants generally saw them as more static, providing a basis for planning training and assessment. Variations tended to be negotiated more informally but not all supervisors realised that negotiation was a possibility and just accepted what the provider proposed. In other cases, mainly larger organisations, a training plan existed, but its influence tended to be subsumed by their own in-house learning and development plans.

Assessment is essential in promoting progression and judging when completion has been achieved. Practices in theory-based assessment do not seem to have changed markedly with the introduction of competency-based progression and completion, but an increase in online assessment is enabling more continuous access to assessment opportunities. Practical assessment continues to rely on the traditional approaches of observation and oral  questioning, checklists, logbooks and portfolios, but these are being enhanced by the use of technology. While authenticated photographs of completed work are valued in both carpentry and metal fabrication, this is less so in cookery, where more concrete evidence is more highly valued. Photographic evidence, however, could be problematic where there was sensitivity at the work site about the work being photographed. What was very clear, however, was that apprentices now need to take considerable responsibility for collecting assessment evidence. Workplace supervisors varied in the role they played in the assessment process and some, especially those in larger companies, were very active, as they themselves were qualified assessors and trainers. The key role for all workplace supervisors was to provide opportunities for the apprentice to practise skills and prepare for and undertake on-the-job assessment. At the very least, supervisors sign off on all of the competencies, including those undertaken only in TAFE. This required a knowledge of, and trust in, TAFE’s training and assessment processes on the part of workplace supervisors, particularly where they could only offer a more limited range of training and work experiences.

Both teacher—assessors and workplace supervisors were highly confident in their assessment decision-making. Assessment was validated through internal and external processes, most often involving panels of teachers with occasional involvement by industry, although their busyness could prevent this even if they were willing. In relation to the final decision regarding competency completion, both on- and off-job evidence was drawn upon, but informants varied on whether one or the other was privileged. In the view of teacher—assessors, the quality of the evidence and the benchmarks and performance levels expected of apprentices by workplaces were more important, but this potentially opened the door to debate about what ‘the standard’ was. Context in competency completion was critical, particularly to workplace supervisors. In making their decisions with confidence they drew both on their own considerable experience as a tradesperson and what they had witnessed of the apprentice’s performance over the duration of their apprenticeship. They also looked for not only tangible trade skills in reaching their final decision, but also for more intangible attitudinal and other attributes.

Signing an apprentice off early was supported by over half of the workplace supervisors. Of the remainder, a number preferred to offer additional opportunities to broaden or deepen the apprentices’ skills rather than participate in early sign-off. When they did agree to early sign-off, the prime candidates were the gifted or more mature apprentices, and these tended to be in the minority. Most apprentices were seen as needing to run the full course of the apprenticeship, or close to it. Others required extra time, often because of learning and other difficulties.

While it is not possible to generalise the findings of this study, there are some important aspects that are worthy of further consideration by those involved in apprentice training, as well as for VET policy-makers who are interested in policy outcomes. Firstly, successful competency progression and completion is dependent upon the broad dissemination of quality information and employer support, together with flexibility in teaching, resourcing, monitoring and the management of apprentice progression. Good working relationships and communication between training providers, individual workplaces and apprentices are essential.

Secondly, for apprentices to progress and complete in a timely way, assessment needs to be viewed as a collective responsibility, with teacher—assessors, workplace supervisors andapprentices acknowledging the important roles that each plays in it. Understandings of assessment requirements and what constitutes competence and acceptable workplace performance must be agreed so that wherever the evidence is gathered each stakeholder knows their role in the process. Online assessment, project-based collaborative assessment activities and ‘just-in-time’ assessment approaches are essential for apprentices seeking to progress more rapidly through their training. Also important is the monitoring of apprentice progress and the validation of the assessment tools and decisions when the determination of competence is made.

Thirdly, as apprentices are increasingly being required to act as evidence gatherers of their own performance in the workplace, they need to be able to self-assess and decide whether they are ready to progress. These abilities do not necessarily reside in all apprentices. Therefore, it is important that teacher—assessors and workplace supervisors provide apprentices with guidance on what constitutes quality evidence, what benchmarks for performance apply, how knowledge as well as skills are to be demonstrated, and how readiness for assessment can be determined.

Competency progression and early completion are viewed as a means of moving the most able of apprentices through their training in a shorter period of time than the stated duration of a contract of training. This research reaffirms that neither competency progression nor early sign-off are appropriate for any but the most gifted apprentices or those who are mature-aged and come with prior work experience. The findings also make clear that, for competency progression and completion to be successfully implemented, there needs to be support, close cooperation and commitment on the part of employers and training providers for the apprentices they serve.