Discussion Paper D4/2001 CRLRA Discussion Paper Series ISSN 1440-480X
CRLRA is a collaborative partnership between:
Issues of Quality Learning: Apprenticeships and traineeships in rural and remote Australia Sue Kilpatrick, Vivienne Hamilton and Ian Falk
UniTAFE Research Group of North Queensland
Contact: University of Western Sydney
Dr Sue Kilpatrick Associate Director, CRLRA University of Tasmania Locked Bag 1-313 Launceston TAS 7250 Ph: 03 6324 3018 Fax: 03 6324 3040 Email:
[email protected] Website: http://www.CRLRA.utas.edu.au
Issues of Quality Learning: Apprenticeships and Traineeships in Rural and Remote Australia Sue Kilpatrick, Vivienne Hamilton and Ian Falk Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia, University of Tasmania
Issues of Quality Learning: Apprenticeships and Traineeships in Rural and Remote Australia Abstract This paper focuses on the quality of vocational learning from the perspective of the learner which is in contrast to the traditional quality assurance approach measured primarily by outcomes. It highlights the specific problems of delivering VET in rural and remote Australia through a discussion and analysis of three main influencing factors: the quality and professional development of educators and workplace trainers, literacy and numeracy as inhibitors of quality learning and the nature and quality of Training Packages. Data is drawn from a major study undertaken by the Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia (CRLRA 2000a, 2000b, and 2001.) This study was based on interviews with training providers, employers, community organisation representatives and learners. The data were analysed thematically and then measured against a set of quality assurance requirements devised specifically for apprentices/trainees (Vocational Learner Checkpoints - VLCs). It was found that the data reflect many of the problems identified and addressed by the VLCs. Issues have emerged however, relating to thin markets and flexible delivery in rural and remote Australia which still need to be specifically addressed in quality assurance standards.
Introduction Despite extensive publications on the topic of quality assurance few writings have ‘any basis in systematic experience of implementing quality measures’ (Hagar 1997, p.4) with most merely ‘reflecting the desire of their authors to see things change for the better’ (Hagar 1997). Hagar concludes that actual research on ‘quality assurance in the VET sector in Australia was very limited and of recent origin’ (1997). A search of NCVER’s VOCED database in July 2001 reveals 80 references to quality assurance published since 1997, with over half referring to overseas systems and institutions, and the majority of the remainder being ‘how to’ manuals or reporting the results of monitoring using existing quality assurance measures. However, in the last three years a small body of literature has emerged which not only attempts new ‘definitions’ of quality vocational learning but also addresses some of the practicalities required to achieve agreed national standards (Schofield 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b, 2001, L. Smith 2000, J Gibb 1999, Vallence 2001, Vallence, Falk & Kilpatrick 2001). The aspect of quality assurance which provides the focus for this paper is identified by Vallence, Falk and Kilpatrick (2001) as the quality of vocational learning from the perspective of the learner. While there have been many attempts over the years to assure the quality of VET provision ‘they have more or less failed to come to grips with a student/participant’s vocational learning. Instead, their emphasis has been on training products, administrative consistency and assessment’ (Vallence, Falk & Kilpatrick 2001, p.3). Historically, quality assurance in VET has focused on outcomes such as increased productivity and work-place relevance on the part of the trainer, or assessment and/or employment options on the part of the apprentice/trainee (J.Gibb 1999, Vallence 2001). In contrast to this ‘traditional’ quality assurance approach, measured by ‘outcomes’, Vallence, Falk and Kilpatrick (2001) focus on the process of the learning experience itself. Ultimately, assuring the quality of the learner’s experience necessitates attention to all aspects which shape the learning experience. These aspects include systems of management, professional standards for VET teachers, national standards of consistency, key competencies, recognition of prior learning and/or the need for the development of underpinning knowledge. Quality learning outcomes should include generic, transferable skills as well as job-specific skills, a need identified by industry and communities, as well as employees: most individuals, as well as industry and community respondents, want course outcomes that are not so enterprise-specific that they inhibit individuals’ mobility or career progress. This concern was not restricted to those seeking employment (Billet & Hayes1998).
1
Quality learning, although only one aspect of VET, is central to quality assurance in VET. Vallence, Falk and Kilpatrick (2001) analyse the vocational learning journey and the determinants of the quality of that journey chronologically from the time a person considers becoming an apprentice/trainee (quality of information) through the learning experience to evaluation and validation of vocational learning after the qualification is earned. By focusing on the core product of the VET system – vocational learning – through a process of definition and evidence gathering, the entire process of vocational learning, including contextual information, organisational aspects and outcomes for all parties, should then automatically be assured of quality (Vallence, Falk & Kilpatrick 2001). The isolation and small class sizes in rural and remote Australia magnify issues of quality vocational learning. A recent position paper by the TAFE Directors Association (TDA) acknowledges the ‘special difficulties in delivering Training Packages in regional areas because of thin markets and distance’ (TDA 2001, p.5). The problems of thin markets for work placements in regional Australia are acknowledged by the Senate inquiry, Aspiring to Excellence 2000 which called for financial incentives to encourage rural employers to meet the demand from potential trainees. Findings from a large scale study of VET in rural and remote Australia (CRLRA 2001) suggest the quality of vocational learning in these areas is strongly influenced by three main factors: • the quality and professional development of educators and workplace trainers • literacy and numeracy as inhibitors of quality learning • the nature and quality of Training Packages. This paper considers research relating to these three issues and outlines a framework for assessing quality vocational learning proposed in response to recent reviews of apprenticeship/traineeship systems (Schofield 1999a, 1999b, 2000a). It then analyses data from the CRLRA (2001) project against the framework.
What is quality vocational learning? If we accept that ‘quality is a journey, not a final destination’ (Hagar 1997, p.23) and that vocational education and training, in addition to the nature of work itself, is changing, then it is clear that quality learning is an evolving concept. Tribus defines quality in education as that which ‘makes learning a pleasure and a joy’ and emphasises the need for teacher/student discussions about the constituents of a quality learning experience. Tribus also recognises the evolving nature of quality: ‘the negotiations and discussions are never done. It takes constant engagement to wed a student to learning’ (Tribus 1991, p.4). This definition of quality is at the level of the learning experience itself whereas: …the usual definition of quality given in VET is along the lines of ‘the level of satisfaction with and effectiveness of vocational education and training organisations, their products and services, established through conformity with the requirements set by clients and stakeholder (J. Gibb 1999). As a beginning point in an attempt to define a quality traineeship system Schofield draws on a definition of quality advocated by the Australian National Audit Office. …In its broadest sense (quality) incorporates assessment of outputs, processes and outcomes and takes into consideration the relevant objectives and resources. Assessment of quality involves the use of information gathered from key interests … to identify differences between expectations and experience of users. (Schofield 1999a, p.i) Schofield asserts that ‘quality must be evident not only in the traineeship system when taken as a whole, but also in relation to each of the major components of the system (Schofield 1999a, p.i). She further notes that ‘the needs of the learners have been neglected’ (Schofield 1999a, p.v) and cites this as a major reason for poor quality. Schofield views this neglect as one consequence of the policy focus on employment and the achievement of job targets. By adopting an outcomesbased approach, which evaluates quality by very significant growth in ‘fully on-the-job’ training
2
and assessment, the commitment to quality training in the traineeship system is being undermined (Schofield 1999a, p.v). As a further consequence the longer-term skill needs of the future workforce are being stifled (Schofield 1999a, p.v). Although a more holistic approach to measuring quality is paid lip service and being documented the traditional ‘outcomes-based’ approach to quality assurance in VET is still the primary measure. While the 2000 Senate inquiry into VET (Parliament of Australia: Senate 2000) recognises that ‘a genuine assessment of quality requires more intensive and qualitative analysis and evaluation of process and outcomes’ (Vallence 2001), it still adopts an outcomes-based approach. Vallence, Falk and Kilpatrick (2001) go some distance in addressing this shortfall by developing a conceptual model of the vocational learning journey and devising a set of Vocational Learner Checkpoints (VLCs) to assure the quality of this metaphorical ‘journey.’ The resulting paper, Assuring the Quality of Vocational Learning and some of the resulting ‘vocational learning checkpoints’ provide a reference tool for the identification or measurement of issues of quality learning in this discussion. While the checkpoints could be applied to VET at a broad national level this paper focuses on their relevance to data collected from interviews about apprenticeships and traineeships in rural and remote Australia. It will be shown that in some cases issues of quality learning are at their most intense in these areas. As the definitions of ‘quality learning’ evolve it becomes clear that changes throughout the entire process of quality assurance must be responsive, not only to the changing nature of work generally, but also to the different workplace contexts, in particular the specific difficulties of rural and remote Australia. These contexts are not passive backdrops against which training is planned and delivered. Rather, they supply the dynamic within which vocational learning occurs and through which the quality of that learning is shaped (Schofield 2001, p.1). Vallence (2001) extends this point: While there are controlling centres in VET, the sector does not have a single product. There are multiple clients who achieve multiple outcomes in diverse learning settings. … It is clear that a national or state or even an [TAFE] institute-wide survey is a very blunt instrument (Vallence 2001, p.8). While practical and technical issues need to be continually monitored, the quality of learning depends on the relationships among trainees, employers and trainers, their shared culture, and workplace values regarding learning and training. Sound vocational learning depends fundamentally on the quality and the nature of the relationships forged between employers and apprentices/trainees, in the first instance and, subsequently, between them individually and together with the training provider. Only when the three parties to the apprenticeship/traineeship are working from a basis of common understanding, shared expectations and clearly defined roles and responsibilities for training can the potential of vocational learning be fully realised (Schofield 2001, p 20).
Quality learning in diverse contexts The quality of learning, whether on-the-job or off-the-job and whether delivered by training providers or employers, with or without Registered Training Organisation (RTO) accreditation depends strongly on particular qualities associated with the designated trainer. Opportunities for informal learning experiences, defined by Jarvis (1996) as learning which takes place through personal interaction, experience, and reflection and is not deliberately structured in an instructional way (La Belle & Ward 1996), are recognised as essential for a quality vocational learning experience. The multiple contexts of training, often within the same community of practice ‘demand and afford different, complementary but also conflicting cognitive tools, rules, and patterns of social interaction’ (Engeström, Engeström & Kärkkäinen 1995, p.319). Employers/workplace
3
supervisors and apprentices/trainees are often divided in their perceptions of the value of ‘formal learning’. Research on apprenticeships reveals that employers often regard days at TAFE as contributing to a loss of productivity and an unravelling of the ‘work ethic’. In contrast, apprentices perceive the quality of the TAFE learning experience to be better because they were not operating in an environment based on time constraints and profit-making and therefore the trainers had ‘quality time’ to spend with them (Butler & Brooker 1998). While the two contexts, the ‘formal’ TAFE environment and the ‘informal’ workplace environment, may invite conflicting perceptions, the ‘two forms of knowledge […] are seen as somehow additive and complementary by the apprentices’ (Butler & Brooker 1998, p.95). Schofield’s report on ‘quality in context’ noted that while designated human resource managers and size of company are influencing factors in quality workplace learning, they are not essential for it: During the reviews, many micro and small companies were able to articulate a comprehensive approach to human resource management encompassing matters as diverse as staff morale and motivation, staff recruitment, progression and retention, staff appraisals, staff output and industrial relations (2001, p.249).
Background to the creation of Vocational Learner Checkpoints (VLCs) Three reviews by Schofield on the Queensland, Tasmanian and Victorian traineeship and apprenticeships systems (Schofield 1999a, 1999b, 2000a) which utilise the Australian Recognition Framework (ARF) as the set of standards for assessing the quality of vocational learning revealed that the ARF would have to be reviewed because it was not providing assurance of quality to any party involved in Apprenticeships or Traineeships. Recommendation 14 of Schofield’s A Risky Business (1999b), a review of the quality of Tasmania’s Traineeship System stated in part: OVET [the then Tasmanian government VET agency] should enter into a benchmarking project with other State Agencies with a view to developing and publishing annually a report card on the performance of Tasmania’s traineeship (and apprenticeship) system (Schofield 1999b). Assuring the Quality of Vocational Learning (2001) is a response to this recommendation. While this project for the Office of Post-Compulsory Education & Training, Tasmania (previously Office of Vocation Education & Training) was in progress, the ARF was comprehensively revised and nationally consistent standards and evidence requirements were established. From the outset it was intended that the VLCs would form a set of standards and evidence requirements for Tasmania but this design was overshadowed by the unexpected revision of the ARF. Now, the residual value of the project and its checkpoints is to act as a model to identify ‘gaps and holes’ in other more comprehensive systems of evaluation and accreditation (Vallence, Falk & Kilpatrick 2001, p. 4).
Synopsis of the Vocational Learner Checkpoints (VLCs) The twelve checkpoints can be loosely grouped into four components of quality learning: • quality of information • quality of the learning experience • quality of organisational aspects • quality of outcomes for all parties. Each checkpoint is preceded by its rationale, a clear standard and the detailed identification of evidence requirements. While this paper examines the quality of the learning experience component (VLCs 5 to 9) its primary focus is on checkpoint 6. – the Apprentice/Trainee’s vocational learning experience. A complete list of the VLCs however, is set out below so they may be viewed in context: 1. 2. 3.
Provision of contextual information Eligibility and selection for employment and training Induction to the Apprenticeship/Traineeship
4
4. 5.
Training information Skills assessment (recognition of current competency) and preparation of an on and off the job Training Plan. 6. The Apprentice/Trainee’s vocational learning experience 7. Competency assessment 8. Provision if the Apprentice/Trainee’s learning is ‘at risk’ 9. Provision of learning feedback 10. Provision of a grievance process 11. Receipt of a qualification 12. Evaluation and validation of vocational learning These checkpoints provide a framework to test three factors found to influence quality learning in rural and remote Australia (CRLRA 2001). These factors, professional development, literacy and numeracy and Training Packages, are highlighted in the following literature review. The quality and professional development of educators and workplace trainers There are many factors which determine the quality of educators and trainers, not the least of which is policy-related funding for which underlies the issues discussed in this section. This paper focuses on three factors: formal qualifications and recognised skills, the specific problems of thin markets and their impact on professional development opportunities and the perceptions of the quality of learning delivered by on-the-job and off-the-job trainers.
Trainers’ skills and qualifications While the quality of relationships between trainers and apprentices/trainees is a contributing factor to quality learning (Schofield 2001), skills in training and assessment are also important. Nationally accredited qualifications for trainers go some distance toward assuring the quality of trainers’ skills. These formal qualifications are addressed by the several of the checkpoints listed in Assuring the Quality of Vocational Learning (Vallence, Falk & Kilpatrick 2001) (see box). Formal qualification checkpoints Vocational Learning Checkpoint (VLC) number 6.6 specifies a minimum standard for an RTO/Employer: ‘that Training/Teaching/Instruction meets the minimum requirements for [Module BSZ404A Train Small Groups or BSZ407A Deliver Training Sessions (both from Cert IV in Assessment and Workplace Training) or VBH779 Facilitate Individual and Group Learning (from Cert IV in VET)] and/or that they have in place a structured and documented mentoring system’ (p11). The documented evidence requirements for this checkpoint include: 6.6.6 training staff have required minimum ‘qualification’ or experience for training and/or mentoring. 6.6.12 the existence of a ‘staff development’ plan to guarantee the training/mentoring skills and industry currency of staff involved with the apprentice/Trainee’s training. In VLC number 6.7, which is a standard for competency assessment, the quality of the educator/trainer is addressed by the first documented evidence requirement: 6.7.1 assessors are trained to an acceptable minimum standard (eg to the Standard specified in the appropriate Training Package). The increasing use of Training Packages places new demands on trainers to develop approaches customised to the requirements of the learner (TDA 2001, p.3). The TAFE Directors Association asserts there is a strong case for establishing recognised professional standards for teachers and requiring RTO staff to be accredited as meeting those standards (2001, p.3). While the importance of formal qualifications on the part of trainers is stressed by Schofield (2001), a lack of people with these qualifications does not automatically preclude quality learning. For example, Field’s (1998) study of learning in small business found that limited reliance on
5
structured training did not mean that learning was limited or ineffective. In another study, A Gibb (1997) notes that small businesses learn effectively from peers, customers and suppliers and from experience.
Trainers in thin markets in rural and remote Australia There are specific difficulties in resourcing quality learning in rural and remote Australia. ‘Trainers and assessors working in rural and remote locations require a broader range of skills than those in metropolitan areas in order to cope with flexible delivery and a more diverse teaching load’ (Kilpatrick & Bell 1998, p.35). It is more difficult for rural clients to identify and access quality training providers because ‘small scattered rural and remote businesses lack bargaining power when procuring training from providers’ and there is limited variety and diversity of training programs offered in smaller centres (Kilpatrick & Bell 1998, p.2), making it difficult for clients to discriminate in favour of quality training providers. From the new ‘knowledge-based economy’ and its concomitant philosophy of lifelong learning, new ‘identities’ in the workplace are developing. As a result of a sharp increase in non-standard work – casual, contractual and New Apprenticeships (with much shorter training times than traditional apprenticeships) – ‘the ‘portfolio worker’ has emerged as a major new identity’ (Falk 2001, p.2). These new workers carry with them a ‘portfolio’ of skills which are, ideally, transferable to multiple workplaces. Much of the responsibility for training the portfolio worker is shifted from the employer to the employee (Hall 2000, p.30). ‘Portfolio workers’ in rural and remote locations face additional difficulties in locating appropriately skilled training providers who are both accessible (physically or electronically) and are qualified to train in the diverse range of skills needed by these workers.
On-the-job and off-the-job trainers Research on employer attitudes to off-the-job training (Butler & Brooker 1998) indicates that goals of employers often conflict with a quality learning experience for the apprentice/trainee. While the statement that ‘the bottom line in a training organisation is not money spent or saved, but improved learning’ (J. Gibb 1999) can be readily embraced by a government funded organisation, it is not likely to be readily accepted by the average profit-focused business that is also acting as a trainer. The study by Butler and Brooker (1998) found that apprentices believed they had gained a lot of knowledge and confidence at TAFE and all appreciated ‘the opportunity to practice with teachers who had a lot of time to watch what they were doing compared to trades-persons at work’ (p.90). Some employer/supervisors, on the other hand, saw large blocks of time away at TAFE as ‘disruptive and as causing apprentices to lose their focus on the work ethic and values’ (pp.91-92). The literature, then, emphasises that issues related to educational skills and attitudes of educators and trainers impact on the quality of the learning experience. It also highlights the tension between employers’ desired outcomes and those of the learner, which reinforces Schofield’s (2001, p.240) concept of ‘different cognitive maps’ with regard to their understanding and judgement of training programs. In addition the dynamics of diverse contexts influence the quality of training but, in the final analysis, ‘good vocational learning swings not so much on technical matters as on two less tangible elements – relationships and culture …’ (Schofield 2001, p.258).
Literacy and numeracy as inhibitors of quality learning Literacy and numeracy skills are becoming increasingly important in the twenty-first century which sees an emphasis on knowledge as ‘product’ and adopts flexible delivery and independent learning as methods for overcoming the problems of delivering training in remote locations. Because literacy and numeracy issues impact and interact with flexible delivery, discussion of flexible delivery has been included under the umbrella of ‘literacy and numeracy as inhibitors of quality learning’.
6
Literacy and numeracy issues are addressed in several of Vallence, Falk and Kilpatrick’s (2001) vocational learning checkpoints (see box). Literacy and numeracy checkpoints The awareness of literacy and numeracy levels of Apprentice/Trainees as a major contributing factor towards the success or failure of training programs is reflected in several of the VLCs’ evidence requirements. Vallence et al (2001)’s Checkpoint 6.5.7 addresses the initial identification of skills and their ‘accommodation’ in the preparation of the program while Checkpoint 6.5.8 allows for preparatory learning if necessary: 6.5.7 [Trainee] agrees and the RTO/Employer can show that there has been explicit identification of the Apprentice/Trainee’s language, literacy and numeracy requirements and underpinning skills in the preparation of his training plan. 6.5.8 [Trainee] has been able to attend preparatory language, literacy and/or numeracy classes where this need has been identified. Checkpoint 6.6.4 ensures that there is agreement between all parties that literacy and numeracy needs are being addressed: 6.6.4 There is agreement that the Apprentice/Trainee is actively involved in his/her training and his/her language literacy, numeracy, underpinning skills and learning strengths have been taken into account in his/her training. while Checkpoints 6.7.8 and 6.8.3 ensures that literacy and numeracy levels remain appropriate as the program progresses: 6.7.8 Language, literacy and numeracy skills are regularly assessed to ensure they support vocational learning requirements. 6.8.3 Language literacy and numeracy skills are periodically evaluated to ensure that language, literacy and numeracy problems are not contributing to the Apprentice/Trainee being ‘at risk’.
Literacy in the new ‘knowledge economy’ Poor functional literacy remains a major inhibitor for quality learning. Functional literacy refers to those literacy skills required to perform certain ‘functional’ tasks, such as those related to managing one’ domestic, work or public life (Falk & Millar, 2001, p.12). Examples include operating a teller machine, reading street and shop signs and writing a list. In addition, the concept of literacy itself has evolved and as a consequence of this evolution further elements of possible disadvantage are identified. The effects of globalisation and advanced technology have increased the need for people to communicate interculturally (Queensland Government: Department of Education 2000, p.7). The concept of intercultural literacy, while recognising the growing multiculturalism of Australian society, is defined more broadly than this. The term intercultural also ‘includes phrases such as computer literacy, mathematical literacy, political literacy, critical literacy and recently Asia literacy’ (Heyward 1999, p.78). This concept of ‘multiple literacies’, multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis 2000), or intercultural literacy is reflected in the recognition of the need to balance narrow workplace specific competencies with generic or ‘transportable skills’ in the design of training programs and Training Packages. A review of Queensland’s Apprenticeships and Traineeships found that ‘one quarter of employers indicated that their apprentice/trainee had a literacy or numeracy difficulty. Almost half of these employers were unaware of this difficulty when they employed the individual’ (Schofield 1999a, p.31). Furthermore, over thirty percent of employers and trainees claimed that the trainee’s training plan did not take into account literacy and numeracy needs (Schofield 1999a, p.50). In many cases the methods of assessment further disadvantaged those with poor literacy and numeracy skills, often because of inadequate educational skills on the part of the trainer or assessor.
7
A significant proportion of trainers/assessors lack the ‘educational’ knowledge, expertise and strategies to effectively train and/or assess students who have inadequate language, literacy, numeracy and general learning skills, or poorly developed work-related competencies (such as effective interpersonal and problem-solving abilities) and personal qualities (such as confidence and self-esteem). (L Smith, 2000 p.v) Some providers/employers believe ‘while literacy and numeracy skills may be low, assessment needs to match the learning outcomes required for their employment’ and that a literacy and numeracy focus ‘may be inappropriate depending on the required learning outcomes’ (Rodwell et al 1996, p.56). This outcomes approach is further reflected in research by O’Neill and Gish (2001) who identify ‘a mismatch between the English language and literacy skills required on the job and the skills required to learn, particularly for jobs which have low level literacy demands’ (A Smith 2001, p.12). This argument ignores the issue of transferable/generic skills which are necessary in the changing pattern of working life. The apprentice/trainee with poor literacy and numeracy skills may cope with one program/job but there is no guarantee their next position will be as undemanding in this area, particularly as recent research indicates that employers are recognising the value of literacy skills as part of a range of generic skills required for the workplace (O’Neill & Gish 2001). Furthermore, ‘around a quarter of people with apprenticeship qualifications go on to be promoted into higher paid managerial jobs’ (L Smith 2001, p.6) with the need for literacy skills almost certainly increasing. By linking the needs of literacy and numeracy solely to the needs of one narrowly defined assessment apprentices/trainees are likely to be disadvantaged in seeking work in the future, particularly promotion. In the new knowledge-based economy people and organisations are linked in ever more intricate and complex ways. Learning and working are conflating more and more … learning a job and doing a job are practically synonymous. Learning and working are both primarily about the formation of social identities (‘kinds of people’) (Gee, Hull & Lankshear 1996, p.165) and new identities both need and create new literacies. It is essential that training takes account of both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ literacies required for work in rural and remote Australia.
Flexible delivery A move towards flexible delivery methods, particularly in rural and remote Australia, has provided both opportunities and barriers for effective training delivery. While overcoming many of the problems of distance and related costs not all students are suited to the independent style of learning which flexible delivery usually requires (Kilpatrick & Bell 1998, p.29). These findings are reinforced by a recent research report into training in rural industry (Rural Industry Working Group 2001) which identifies a need for language, literacy and numeracy training programs with training conducted on farms. Learning through flexible delivery relies on strong literacy skills and in many cases, strong computer literacy is also essential. Furthermore ‘apprentices and trainees … have been required to engage in self-managed learning rather than facilitated training, often regardless of their language, literacy or numeracy levels or preferred learning styles’ (Schofield 2000b, p.14). Flexible delivery issues are addressed in two of Vallence, Falk and Kilpatrick’s (2001) vocational learning checkpoints (see box). Flexible delivery checkpoints The problems of flexible delivery are not explicitly noted in the VLCs but their quality assurance is implicit in the following checkpoint evidence requirements for ‘training requirements’ and ‘essential resource material’: 6.5.1 Has an individual training plan that details both on and off the job training requirements and that has been signed off as acceptable by all relevant parties. 6.6.2 Essential resource materials (as specified) are available for trainer and Apprentice/Trainee use.
8
The nature/quality of training packages Training Packages, a key feature of vocational education and training in Australia, are developed by industry for industry. ‘They define a range of pathways including New Apprenticeships which means people can learn on the job, be formally trained and achieve a national qualification’ (ANTA 2000). Training Packages comprise two components; endorsed material and support material. The recent position paper by TAFE Directors Australia (TDA 2001) sets out Training Packages’ achievements and areas of concern regarding quality learning. The TDA paper calls for increased funding to address the difficulties in delivering Training Packages in regional areas because of thin markets and distance (TDA 2001, p.5). Funding models need to allow for the distance travelled in regional areas for visitation and assessment requirements of on-the-job training. ‘There are a number of instances where TAFE Institute staff have to travel long distances to businesses that employ only one or two trainees’ which in some instances has resulted in the withdrawal of delivering some of their programs (TDA 2001, p.5).
Customisation of Training Packages – quality learning for the learner? With the emphasis in the new ‘knowledge economy,’ on the development of transferable, generic skills the narrow scope of some Training Packages emerges in the research (CRLRA 2001) as an area of concern. One reason for this is a low demand for some modules in thin markets. If there are only one or two potential students, running some modules is not economically viable. Another reason suggested for the narrow scope of Training Packages is the domination of industry (ITABS) with ‘an almost complete marginalisation of educators’ in their development (TDA 2001, p.5). While this industry-domination may suit the specific employer at the time of training its disadvantages are clearly recognised by individual learners who, in today’s work environment, may need to change jobs every few years, and do so across industry sectors as well. Generic skills, highly valued by employers need to be given greater emphasis and prominence in the performance criteria in Training Packages. These skills provide the foundation of cognitive processes necessary for dealing with the range of contingencies that can arise in the workplace. They are also the essential skills for responding to change, achieving job mobility and enabling life long learning (TDA 2001, p.2). ‘Generic skills’ in this context do not refer to enterprise-specific of even industry-specific general skills but rather to skills and strategies which enhance performance in diverse industries and workplaces. L Smith’s (2000) review of assessment in Queensland finds that Training Packages are perceived to be primarily designed as methods of assessment. ‘The deep concern expressed was that these ’assessment packages’ are then used by many providers as ‘the syllabus,’ such that they teach nothing more or less than what is needed to meet the assessment requirements in the Training Packages’ (p.vi). Consequently training is simply becoming the imparting of just sufficient knowledge and skill to meet the assessment requirements of the Training Packages. Training Package issues are addressed in two of Vallence, Falk and Kilpatrick’s (2001) vocational learning checkpoints (see box).
9
Training Package Checkpoints Given the scope of Training Packages in terms of diversity of content, evidence requirements written into the VLC’s (in the checkpoints directed at the quality of the learning experience) are ‘obvious’ ones. The evidence requirements ask for documentation to show: 6.6.1 the correct Training package (or curriculum document) is being used. 6.7.1 assessors are trained to an acceptable minimum standard (eg to the Standard specified in the appropriate Training Package)
Method The research drawn on in this paper is from a major study, The Role of VET in Regional Australia, undertaken by the Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia (CRLRA 2000a, 2000b and 2001). The overall aim of the project was to provide detailed information about what is occurring in the vocational education, training and learning in Australia’s regions. In particular the project findings illustrate a variety of ways VET contributes to the economic and social wellbeing of the regions. Each of the project’s ten sites includes a main centre and at least two other smaller towns which use the main centre as a service centre. The sites were chosen to represent the diversity of regional Australia in terms of location, industry structure and economic prosperity. The communities in the sites range from remote Indigenous communities in central Australia, through coastal towns relying on fishing and agriculture to a peri-urban area on the fringe of Sydney. The data were generated from two main sources: (a) semi-structured face-to-face interviews followed by a questionnaire, and (b) follow-up telephone interviews approximately 12 months later. In order to present a broad cross-section of information and perceptions interviewees were selected from four groups or categories: • training providers • employers • representatives of community organisations • community members (learners involved into VET). When analysing the findings from the interview data it is important to remember that perceptions of ‘quality’ vary according to the perspective of the respondents. This research is based on data from employers, individual apprentice/trainees and training providers who have different cognitive maps with regard to their understanding and judgement of training programs. ‘While the apprenticeship and traineeship system assumes a high degree of mutuality’ (Schofield 2001, p.240) it is necessary to consider each perspective as well as the dynamics of the relationship when seeking to analyse the quality of the learning experience. Interviewees involved in the apprenticeship/traineeship area either as learners, trainers or employer/trainers provide valuable insights into factors that inhibit or facilitate quality learning in regional Australia. Two data analysis techniques have been selected for the reporting in this paper: (a) a thematic analysis, and (b) the VLCs as a measure for quality. Thematic analysis focuses on identifiable themes and patterns. The Role of VET data is in the form of transcripts which are coded and analysed according to patterns. Following the cataloguing of related patterns, themes and sub-themes emerge, as explained by Aronson (1994): Themes are identified by ‘bringing together components or fragments of ideas or experiences, which often are meaningless when viewed alone’ (Leininger 1985, p.60). Themes that emerge from informants’ stories are pieced together to form a comprehensive picture of their collective experience.
10
The themes that are established through the thematic analysis are then reported. The data gathered from the respondents reveals several major themes relating to quality in terms of the learning experience itself. Some of these themes intersect but for the purpose of clarity they will be analysed separately in this paper according to three categories, the quality and professional development of educators and workplace trainers, literacy and numeracy as inhibitors of quality learning, and the nature/quality of training packages.
The VLCs as a measure for quality The second tier of analysis uses the VLCs as a framework for synthesising the thematic analysis. This ‘second cut of the data’ is intended to act as a cross check for the thematic analysis and as a way of focussing the analysis on the issue of quality learning which is the main topic of this paper.
Results and discussion The results and integrated discussion emanate from the literature reviewed and from the thematic analysis of the Role of VET data. They also demonstrate how the VLCs operate as a measure for quality learning. The three themes for discussion are: (a) the quality and professional development of educators and workplace trainers, (b) literacy and numeracy as inhibitors of quality learning and (c) the nature/quality of training packages.
(a) The quality and professional development of educators and workplace trainers The literature reviewed illustrates the importance of shared culture between trainers and apprentice/trainees. Cultural identification serves to strengthen trainer credibility and develop mutual understanding. VLCs 6.6.6 and 6.6.12 address this issue by requesting documented evidence to show that staff have both training and experience in ‘mentoring’. The data also reinforces this aspect of ‘shared culture in the relationships (Schofield 2001) between trainers and apprentice/trainees in both formal and informal learning contexts. The following quotes from the data illustrate that the value of relationships and the ‘qualities’ of trainers, other than formal qualifications and accreditation, is recognised in formal off-the-job and workplace learning also: We feel that the trade students perhaps were not identifying with some of the tutors that we had on board because our tutors were from an educational background rather than a trade so we are particularly looking at changing the mix of our tutors. (Training provider) About 15 apprentices I’ve trained, being a [carpet] layer myself I know what the finished product should be. I think my son out there was, out of all the apprentices I’ve trained, he was the first one to become the Country Award Apprentice, in the State. I’ve had four after him since, every three years win an award for that same title. Only because you know what you should train your staff, what to expect, now that doesn’t come with how good he is at doing the laying, it comes in the handling of people, his attitude to people, his appearance and everything else. (Employer) While formal qualifications and professional development are identified by the VLCs as having an important impact on quality learning the data reveal that the employer’s communication skills are also perceived as a vital element of success in the learning experience. success of the traineeship really depends on the communication skills of the employer as well and if they’re not communicators and they don’t find the training part easy, like they have to be able to talk, … I think the outcome depends on, I guess the mentor’s attitude and how approachable you are …(Training provider) This fundamental need for good communication skills flows on to training providers who need to develop their expertise in terms of negotiation with employers and are often expected to train the employers in their training responsibilities also, as the following quote indicates: Because you have some really great employers who are very very good and enthusiastic but lack the confidence and sometimes then their understanding of how to go about training might not be there, so what happens to them up front, its left to the training
11
provider I think. It’s not written, but it’s almost assumed that you’re the training provider you get them up to scratch to be a teacher. (Training provider) Data from all sites indicates a growing awareness of the importance of professional development. VLC 6.6.12 requires evidence of a staff development plan guaranteeing training/mentoring skills and industry currency but these goals are more difficult to achieve in rural and remote areas. There are many places in the data which note that the actual opportunities/places available for apprentices/trainees are few and to raise standards expected from some workplace trainers, for example, (while essential for quality learning) may reduce these opportunities even further. Recognition of the changing skill levels required for educators, particularly in terms of VET modes of delivery and increasing expectations from employers, are major drivers of professional development. The data reveals that attracting ‘quality’ educators is an inherent difficulty in rural and remote areas. Compounding the problems of isolation is the insecure, contractual nature of many employment opportunities, which makes educators reluctant to uproot from their current location for just a short term: the same with traineeships, you want someone good to conduct the traineeships, to maintain that person you need to be able to offer some sense of security in ongoing employment and at the moment we live in a world of contracts and short term ones and then if the traineeship numbers are not there it’s not viable to have someone on a contract and so you become a year to year proposition with everything. (Training provider) Opportunities for professional development for training providers are perceived to be inhibited by a generic shortage of hire quality relief staff. There is such a severe shortage of casual part time teachers that in many cases teachers can’t take up the option [of professional development], because they just simply can’t be replaced, so a lot of things that are around to assist teachers become a problem for teachers out here because there’s no one to take their place while they’re doing that training. (Training provider) In addition, working-time lost and high fuel costs related to long distance travel, for those in remote areas particularly, adds to overall costs and further reduces professional development opportunities. This is illustrated by the following comments from a TAFE manager: But you try to reduce that travel all we can but again it comes back to if you want professional development, if you want to be involved in what the institute has to offer, if you want to do the things that perhaps are extra curricular stuff like our health and safety … or it might be a range of tasks within perhaps quality management or whatever, if you needed those things, you’ve got to move around, meet with other staff, talk with other staff, be with other staff or go to conferences or workshops with other people. (TAFE manager) The data show that quality teachers were in great demand in rural and remote areas and at times over utilised. Many teachers face conflicting demands on their time, needing to be both ‘out there, in the field’ and back at the institution to deliver ‘run of the mill courses’ which constitute core funding. Consequently, opportunities for professional development in rural and remote Australia are severely limited by distance, funding and lack of replacement trainers. Perceptions varied across the sites surveyed regarding the quality of training (particularly when delivered on-the-job by unqualified employers). Consistent with Butler and Brooker’s (1998) findings, respondents across sites believe the workloads of many employer/trainers allow little time for quality on-the-job training. This is supported by the following comment by a training provider: I know that some employers are just so busy, you go out to do that visitation, they can’t wait for you to leave, they’ve got other things that they’ve got to do and you’re aware of that and you try and minimise the need for them to have to worry, but at the same time
12
they have taken on that role, and I think it’s a shift for the employer and sometimes I believe they haven’t been given the appropriate support mechanisms before they’ve taken on the trainee. (Training provider) There is evidence in the data of Schofield’s (2001) ‘different cognitive maps’ of employers and the education and training system, reflected in different language, but more fundamentally related to different aims and cultures. The aims of improved productivity and quality learning can be highly compatible. One training provider believed that quality learning opportunities for apprentices/trainees could be increased if trainers understood the culture of business and explained the benefits of training in the language of business: You have got to stop talking to the business community in the language of the education system. Because you may as well be speaking Swahili, tell them what it will do for them as employers. And getting the education system to grasp selling a benefit is difficult. (Training provider) Cultural differences reduced the quality of Indigenous people’s vocational learning, with the data revealing a lack of culturally sensitive tutors for Indigenous groups. A substantial and complex area for quality learning, the specific challenges of Indigenous VET will not be explored in this paper. As inhibitors of the quality and professional development of educators and trainers continue to be identified by researchers, policy and practical measures must be developed to address them. Despite the problems of time and communication skills outlined in this section, there are some positive examples regarding the quality of employer delivered training. These claim excellent planning and time investment on the part of employers.
(b) Literacy and numeracy as inhibitors of quality learning The Role of VET project data indicates a discrepancy in the standards of literacy and numeracy assumed by available learning materials and assessment and the standards of literacy and numeracy among students. This discrepancy is perceived to be a major barrier to quality learning across all sites. The problem is more acute in areas with high Indigenous and/or non-English speaking background populations, but is by no means restricted to these sites. Training providers advised that literacy levels were at times, an inhibitor of quality learning in apprenticeships because of the level of written material required for assessment. The problem with some of the apprentices is that some just can’t write. I don’t know how they get through to the end of Year 10 or Year 12 in some cases and I have seen some of the tradesmen come through from other companies they got through and they don’t even know how to work out a volume. (Employer) In addition national Training Packages and associated materials assume high standards of literacy and are therefore not appropriate choices for all students. I feel the pressure that a lot of our students perhaps don’t have the literacy skills or the reading skills to deal with the content of modules so they are constantly reworking things and rephrasing things to meet the needs of the students and that is on an informal basis. I think there is very little recording of that happening or the modules being rewritten to allow for the students’ needs. (Training provider) In accord with the literature reviewed (Kilpatrick & Bell 1998, Rural Industry Working Group 2001) the data suggest that flexible delivery using on-line teaching or distance education materials, while going some way to improving access, is not a panacea for rural training problems. However, concerns about the rationale for flexible delivery, particularly among TAFE representatives, suggest that quality is being sacrificed . There is concern that the rhetoric of flexible delivery is just that, and that there are insufficient resources applied from Government sources to make flexible delivery fully effective. Devoid of the usual support group provided by the social
13
interaction of traditional face-to-face learning, students have only their individual interpretations of materials and supervisor feedback. While literacy courses are available in some rural areas often through TAFE or community learning centres, the programs are not always culturally or intellectually appropriate. Marginalised groups such as the Indigenous or prison inmates whose literacy levels may be particularly poor often require customised courses: I think we are often trying to import our training from environments outside the necessary environment. The courses that we deliver are often pitched at too high a level for some of the company here, that’s very common with people from remote communities who, with their vocabulary, to offer, say a literacy course in the normal way of things, they need some kind of special literacy course and such things can be done. (Training provider) The literature reviewed outlines the need for both functional and multiple literacies in the new ‘knowledge-based economy’ which is comprised of an increasing number of ‘non-standard’ or ‘portfolio’ workers (Hall 2000, Falk 2001). Many of the perceived literacy problems for apprentices/trainees revealed by the data, such as the need for preparatory courses and regular reassessment as training levels advance are addressed by the VLCs (see literacy and numeracy checkpoints box). The Role of VET data indicate that flexible methods of delivery, methods of assessment, and literacy standards required for Training Packages are inhibitors of quality learning for many in rural and remote Australia that need to be addressed in a culturally sensitive manner. While the tailoring of literacy courses and training programs so they are culturally sensitive for particular groups such as Indigenous groups is not specifically identified by the VLCs, VLC 6.5.7 requires that ‘there has been explicit identification of the Apprentice/Trainee’s language, literacy and numeracy requirements and underpinning skills in the preparation of his training plan’. This process should identify any culturally specific gaps that need to be addressed in literacy and numeracy training required at other VLCs.
(c) The nature/quality of Training Packages The need for culturally sensitive material spills over into the design and application of Training Packages. ‘Training Packages call upon the deliverer to develop approaches customised to the requirements of the learner’ (TDA 2001, p.3). It should be noted that this element of customisation is quite different from that required by specific industries. Pressure to abandon courses customised for local markets and adopt national Training Packages has led to some concerns from training providers, across the sites, regarding the quality of learning: Whereas ten years ago TAFE would design it’s own courses and then make decisions about what they thought, what industries they should be trained in and how, that doesn’t do that any more, we’ve got industry training advisory boards, the industry representatives are on them, but not training representatives, … and they make the decisions about what courses to do, so we as TAFE now only deliver the courses which come to us as Training Packages. (Training provider) On the other hand some employers and trainees welcome the shift to national Training Packages because ‘their qualifications are recognised throughout Australia and so they have fully portable qualifications’ (Training provider) within that industry. One training provider in viticulture explained that the courses are developed in conjunction with ANTA but primarily ‘by the wine industry for the wine industry’ which he regards as positive. This training provider also perceives that a choice of modules has allowed for multi-skilling within the industry. Comments from a private training provider exemplifies not only the domination of industry in the design of Training Packages but also the need for an understanding of the ‘local culture’, in this case ‘country’: I liaise quite a bit with the forestry ITABS. I’m going to Melbourne in a couple of week’s time just to be a part of putting the Training Packages together. And because I’ve worked so much with the actual packages, with the guys in the fields, and found lots of difficulties,
14
using them practically … a lot of the jargon, the way the words were set up were not appropriate to these country guys. You know they just didn’t fit. So I’m going down there to hopefully give some plain English type feedback into the operational side of things. (Training provider) A further area for concern is the temptation to focus on ‘just sufficient knowledge for assessment’ (L Smith 2000) which raises the question – does this provide quality learning from the perspective of the learner? Much of the research cited in this paper, emphasising the value of generic/transferable skills like literacy and numeracy, suggests that it does not. Training Packages do not always encompass the skills learners in rural and remote areas need most. A training provider working in remote Indigenous communities was disillusioned, saying ‘Training Packages are just an assessment in the end’. He went on to explain that his students needed to be able to maintain solar powered water pumps, but the Training Package required him to assess them on petrol-driven water pumps, an older technology that had not been used in the community for some time. This could be a case where the training provider had not fully understood the flexibility of Training Packages in terms of tailoring for specific audiences, in which case the policy strategy related to Training Packages has not as yet been well disseminated. To provide quality learning Training Packages must maintain national consistency in accredited standards (based on efforts and achievements) across diverse industries. This is difficult to achieve and is compounded by the problems experienced by instructional designers when tailoring programs to varying literacy levels. Consequently it is perhaps understandable that opinions vary regarding the quality/ consistency of the learning materials that are tailored from the Training Packages and that while some trainers and learners feel material is ‘pitched too high’ for their client groups, others believe it lacks depth and stimulation.
Conclusion The Role of VET data reflect many of the quality assurance issues identified and addressed by Vallence, Falk and Kilpatrick’s (2001) Vocational Learner Checkpoints. While the VLC’s are intended for apprenticeships and traineeships generally, their application to data from the rural and remote Australia has confirmed that they highlight areas of risk in the vocational learning journey. Some issues peculiar to the rural and remote Australian context have emerged. These include the particular problems of thin markets and flexible delivery as they interact with the more generic problems of professional development, literacy and numeracy and those related to the nature of Training Packages. The analysis in this paper confirms that effectiveness of communication between workplace trainers (often employers themselves in the small businesses of rural and remote Australia) and apprentices/trainees, and between training providers and employers, impacts on the quality of the vocational learning journey. Also, professional development of trainers was acknowledged as necessary. Good communication skills, the ability to development a mentoring relationship with apprentices/trainees and appropriate professional development are components of training skills noted in VLC 6.6. A shortage of quality, qualified trainers (including workplace trainers) and poor access to professional development have a negative impact on the quality of vocational learning in rural and remote Australia. There is a discrepancy between the literacy and numeracy skills (including computer literacy and other aspects of multiple literacies such as cultural literacy) of some apprentice/trainees and the skills required by the training materials provided for their learning. This discrepancy is particularly significant where learning is via a flexible mode which relies on print or electronic materials. The VLCs require that apprentice/trainees’ literacy and numeracy skills should be assessed in relation to training requirements and steps taken to bridge any gaps identified. Heavier reliance on flexible modes and particular cultural and other literacy barriers facing Indigenous people mean that literacy and numeracy is a special area of risk for quality vocational learning in rural and remote Australia. While Training Packages’ flexibility is potentially a plus for quality learning, allowing customisation to fit learner and employer needs, the data here suggests that they can lead to
15
assessment-focused training that risks ignoring generic, transferable skills and other knowledge and skills that may be useful to the learners and motivate their interest in vocational learning. Different ‘cognitive maps’ of industry representatives who design the Training Packages, employers, training providers and learners mean that not all stakeholders perceive quality learning in the same way. The Training Package itself is a significant aspect of assuring the quality of learning (VLC 6.6.1), and the analysis in this paper raises some doubts about the degree to which all stakeholders are convinced that Training Packages facilitate quality learning. Concern about the degree to which Training Packages are or can be customised to align with local and cultural needs in the thin markets of rural and remote Australia illustrates risks to quality learning. Finally, there is an even more significant implication to be observed from the present emphasis on industry standards via Training Packages as identified in this analysis. It is that the uniformity sought through consistent single-industry standards of work practices has the potential to undermine the industries’ declared and urgent need for more emphasis on generic skills. After all, if enterprise and industry-specific skills are over-emphasised, then it is difficult to see how this will result in the desired transferable so-called generic skills. And if, as it appears to be at the moment, the weight of national VET resources is put behind specific vocational skills, where are the resources for the generic skills? And how can the long-awaited transferability between workplaces and geographic zones be facilitated without a more liberal view of ‘further education’? It is possible to foresee a time when displaced workers are even more disadvantaged than previously because their industry-specific skills and knowledge do not equip them for the new world of the portfolio worker?
References ANTA (Australian National Training Authority) 2000, Training Package Development Handbook. http://www.anta.gov.au/tp Aronson, J 1994, ‘A pragmatic view of thematic analysis’, The Qualitative Report. vol. .2, no.1, Spring. Billett, S & Hayes, S 1998, ‘Balancing the demand: Realigning VET policy and practice’, conference papers from, Vocational Knowledge and Institutions: Changing relationships, 6th Annual International Conference, Centre for Learning and Work Research, Griffith University, vol. 4, pp.100-107. Butler, J & Brooker, R 1998, ‘The learning context within technical and further education colleges as perceived by apprentices and their workplace supervisors’, Journal of Vocational Education and Training. vol. 50, no. 1, pp.79-96. Cope, B & Kalantzis, M (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures, Routledge, UK. CRLRA 2000a, Managing change through VET: The role of vocational education and training in regional Australia. Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia, University of Tasmania, Launceston. CRLRA 2000b, Interim report to ANTA, Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia University of Tasmania, Launceston, May. CRLRA 2001, Building Dynamic Learning Communities: Ten regional case studies, Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia, University of Tasmania, Launceston. January. Engeström, Y, Engeström, & Kärkkäinen, M. ‘Polycontextuality and Boundary Crossing in expert Cognition: Learning and Problem Solving in Complex work Activities’, Learning and Instruction, Vol.5 pp 319-336, 1995. Falk, I & Millar, P 2001, Review of research: Literacy and numeracy in vocational education and training. NCVER, Adelaide. Falk, I 2001, ‘The future of work and work of the future’, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 44 (6), 566-571. Field, L 1998, Shifting the focus from ‘training’ to ‘learning’: The case of Australian small business, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research, 6 (1) 49-68. Gee, J P, Hull, G & Lankshear, C 1996, The New Work Order. Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, NSW. Gibb, A 1997, ‘Small firms’ training and competitiveness. Building upon small business as a learning organisation,’ International Small Business Journal. vol 15, no 3, pp.13-29. Gibb, J 1999, ‘The quality of learning’, Australian Training Review. no 32. Oct/Nov/Dec, pp.32-33. Hagar, P 1997, Quality assurance in VET. NCVER, Adelaide. Hall, R 2000, ‘“It’s not my problem”: The growth of non-standard work and its impact on vocational education and training in Australia’, The Changing Nature of Work Forum, NCVER, Adelaide. Jarvis, 1996, International Encyclopedia of Adult Education and Training (ed A. Tuijnman), 2nd edn,
16
Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford. p 158-161. Kilpatrick, S & Bell, R 1998, Vocational Education and Training in Rural and Remote Australia. NCVER, Adelaide. La Belle, 1996 International Encyclopedia of Adult Education and Training (ed A. Tuijnman), 2nd edn, Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford. p 228-233. O’Neill, S & Gish, A 2001, ‘Apprentices’ and trainees’ English language and literacy skills in workplace learning and performance’, NCVER, Adelaide. Parliament of Australia: Senate 2000, Aspiring to Excellence, 2000. Queensland Government (Department of Education) 2000, ‘Literate Futures: Report of the Literacy Review for Queensland State Schools’, Queensland. Rodwell, D, Gillanders, J, Novelly, A, Lowe, J & Reilly, D 1996, Best practice projects 1996: Best practice principles for effective delivery of vocational education and training in remote areas, Australian National Training Authority, Brisbane. Rural Industry Working Group (2001), Skill needs now and in the future in the rural industry. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia. Schofield, K, 1999a, ‘Independent Investigation into the Quality of Training in Queensland’s Traineeship System’, Department of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, Queensland. Schofield, K 1999b, ‘A Risky Business: a review of the quality of Tasmania’s traineeship system’, Office of Vocational Education and Training (now Office for Post-Compulsory Education and Training), Hobart. Schofield, K 2000a, Delivering Quality. Report of the Independent Review of the Quality of Training in Victoria’s Apprenticeships and Traineeship System, V1&2, Office of Post Compulsory Education, Melbourne. Training and Employment, Victoria. http://www.otfe.vic.gov.au/publi/qualityreview Schofield, K 2000b, ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Perspectives from Three States on the Quality of Australia’s Apprenticeship and Traineeship System’. Address to 9th Annual VET Researchers Conference, Coffs Harbour, 4-7 July, 2000. Schofield, K 2001, ‘Quality in context: Reflections on factors impacting on the quality of apprenticeship and traineeship training’, Australian Apprenticeships: Research Reading. NCVER, Adelaide. pp.239-260. Smith, A 2001, ‘Transforming Australian Apprenticeships’, Australian Training Review, 38 (April/May/June), pp.4-13. Smith, L 2000, Issues impacting on the quality assessment in VET in Queensland, Department of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, Queensland. TDA (TAFE Directors Australia) 2001, Training Packages: A Position Paper. TDA, Deakin West, ACT. Tribus, M 1991, ‘The Transformation of American Education to a System for Continuously Improved Learning’, Conference Paper Washington DC 1991. Vallence, K 2001 ‘Checkpoints needed to gauge vocational learning success’. Campus Review. March, 14th-20th, p.8. Vallence, K, Falk, I, & Kilpatrick, S 2001, Assuring the Quality of Vocational Learning, Project Report for Office of Post-Compulsory Education & Training (OPCET), Hobart, Tasmania.
17
