SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. The evolution of CBT in Australia
  5. A critical review of the Australian experience of CBT
  6. Conclusions
  7. References

In this paper, the author reflects, both as an academic researcher and as a senior practitioner, on the experience of competency-based training (CBT) in the Australian vocational education and training system. She seeks to draw conclusions about the Australian experience using a typology drawn from the academic literature which focuses on the philosophical, educational, technical and market aspects of CBT. She concludes that, despite many improvements over the past 10 years, some potential problems remain. The system is controlled overly tightly by the interests of industry and it also exhibits some inflexibilities. Both of these act to disadvantage some groups of learners. Teachers and trainers do not have adequate skills to work skilfully and critically with CBT, leading to thin pedagogy and a narrow focus on assessment of individual items of performance.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. The evolution of CBT in Australia
  5. A critical review of the Australian experience of CBT
  6. Conclusions
  7. References

In a paper published in 1999, the author wrote about the first 10 years of competency-based training (CBT) in Australia (Smith, 1999). The current paper brings the reader up to date with CBT in Australia in 2009, describing and critiquing the way in which the system has evolved over the subsequent 10 years. The paper is based on the author's research and her experiences as a senior practitioner within the vocational education and training (VET) sector.

The VET system in Australia

In Australia, formal VET is carried out in public Technical and Further Education (TAFE) colleges and a range of other government-accredited Registered Training Organizations (RTOs) as well as being increasingly delivered in workplaces, either by enterprises that have become enterprise RTOs, or in partnership with RTOs (Smith et al., 2006). All VET qualifications are now competency-based. Approximately one-quarter of the 1.7 million participants in Australian VET are employed in apprenticeships or traineeships (National Centre for Vocational Education Research, 2008) which involve employment in a job and incorporate on- and off-the-job training leading to formal qualifications. Traineeships are newer and usually shorter forms of traditional apprenticeships, generally in service industries but sometimes in traditional trade areas, introduced in the 1980s to broaden access to apprentice-like training (Smith & Keating, 2003). Training that is more informal is also carried out in training providers and in enterprises; some enterprises still have their own list of competency standards, although increasingly enterprises are aligning themselves with the national system. Similarly, in community education colleges, which traditionally have offered ‘hobby’ courses and ‘access’ courses for disadvantaged groups in society, programs are increasingly making use of national competency standards (Foley, 2007). The quality of training in formal VET is monitored through the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF) which includes an audit process.

The Australian concept of competence

The Australian VET system is overwhelmingly competency-based. The key characteristics of CBT in Australia were described in 1997 in the following terms:

  • the focus of the training is on the outcome of the training;
  • the outcome is measured against specified standards not against other students; and
  • the standards relate to the relevant industry (Smith & Keating, 1997, p. 102).

While the definition remains appropriate for 2009, the form in which competency-based curriculum is presented has changed, as training packages are now the dominant form of CBT. These were progressively introduced from 1997 and have been described as ‘second generation CBT’ (Barratt-Pugh & Soutar, 2002). Training packages are discussed further below, but at this point it should be explained that they consist of industry- or occupation-based collections of units of competency which are ‘packaged’ together into qualifications at different levels. They are produced through a national consultation process.

The Australian approach to CBT is of a particular nature, firmly based on industry-derived competency standards. As Westera (2001) and many others have stated, the word ‘competence’ has a range of meanings. CBT in Australia is based on training to undertake tasks in a workplace; in this sense, the Australian system is similar to the British system, particularly that section of it based on National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) (West, 2004). It does not bear a great deal of relationship to current European notions of competence, which as Mulder et al. (2007) point out, provide what is a different, and may be seen as a broader, view of the term. This review is written within the context of the Australian/British meaning of CBT. While this may seem a narrow focus, in fact this type of CBT system has also been adopted in several Asian and Middle Eastern countries (see, for example, Law, 2009), partly because of the presence of Australian and British advisers to governments on the development of their VET systems, and hence has wide applicability.

The evolution of CBT in Australia

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. The evolution of CBT in Australia
  5. A critical review of the Australian experience of CBT
  6. Conclusions
  7. References

Overview of developments

Over the past 20 years, there has been a revolution in the way in which curriculum design and implementation in VET has been undertaken in Australia. The emphasis has moved from curriculum developed locally by training providers including State TAFE systems to nationally recognized qualifications based on competency standards as expressed in national training packages (Smith & Keating, 2003). Training packages are developed with considerable input from industry as well as from educators, and have been developed for newer occupational areas as well as older areas that were covered by the old form of curriculum which was developed by training providers. There has been increased adoption of formal VET curriculum by enterprises (Down, 2002). The change in curriculum, which has been highly contested, is now more or less complete and the emphasis both in scholarly writing and in the field moved over time from outright and stubborn opposition (for example, Jackson, 1993) to discussion of ways of working skilfully and in a principled manner with the new system (for example, Down, 2002).

There were moves towards competency-based pedagogy even earlier than 20 years ago. Harris and Hodge (2009) consider CBT to have a 25-year history in Australia, referring to an early phase which was teacher-led and based in a small number of TAFE institutes' trades1 teaching areas, such as automotive and sheet metal working. At this point, CBT was based on US models and was confined to stand-alone programs based on competency development and self-pacing within individual institutions. Harris and Hodge (2009, p. 2) refer to this phase as the ‘educators' version’ of CBT.

CBT as a national movement, from the late 1980s onwards, is referred to by Harris and Hodge (2009) as the ‘training reform’ version of CBT. This is because it was intimately tied up with other so-called ‘reforms’ (often hotly contested) to the national VET system such as marketization and national alignment. It was set in motion by decisions at national and state ministerial level in the late 1980s to adopt CBT as a form of curriculum throughout VET. During the period 1989–1999, some competency-based attributes were progressively included in curriculum. Syllabus documents, owned by individual training providers including State TAFE systems, were rewritten with a focus on learning outcomes rather than content, assessment became focused on skills rather than knowledge, and recognition of prior learning (RPL) was introduced so that learners did not have to repeat items they already knew or could do (Smith et al., 1996). However, implementation was piecemeal, and generally, curriculum documents were still owned by individual training providers. In some cases, national modules were developed by industry-specific bodies set up for that purpose, meaning that a common curriculum was used by a range of training providers. This system of CBT is described by Smith (1999).

The introduction of training packages, 1997

After the initial period of implementation, it became clear that the system had some points of weakness. Training packages were introduced from 1997 to attempt to address these weaknesses (Australian National Training Authority [ANTA], 1996) to regularize VET curriculum offerings and bring about national consistency, to make training align more closely with industry competency standards (rather than being mediated through privately owned curriculum documents) and to make accredited training easier to deliver in a range of environments. Training packages provide a simple, ‘building block’ approach to curriculum development, with units of competency making up qualifications which in turn are contained within the package (Smith & Keating, 2003). Over 80 training packages are currently endorsed and a wide range of industry areas are included, many of which did not previously have accredited training. Several company-specific training packages are also endorsed. Training packages are available to anyone to purchase in hard copy, and the content of training packages can be viewed free of charge on the National Training Information Service website http://www.ntis.gov.au. Thus employers, for example, who wish to use competency standards for training of their workers, do not need to purchase the training package unless they wish to have the training accredited. Individuals can inspect the competencies required to operate in an industry and judge whether they would like to be trained, or perhaps to apply for RPL for part or all of a qualification. The system is transparent for all users.

Each training package consists of a number of units of competency (known en masse as competency standards) and instructions as to how they may be packaged to make approved national qualifications. A package may contain only a few qualifications – for example the current Training and Assessment Training Package (whose code is TAA04) contains only a Certificate IV and a Diploma; or may contain many different qualifications – the Health Training Package (HLT07) has hundreds of units making up 89 qualifications. Training packages also include guidelines on assessment. Publicly funded support materials (formerly called ‘non-endorsed components’) are also developed: these include learner guides, resources for teachers and so on (Smith, 2002). Thus training packages are a form of CBT; their special nature lies in the way in which they present units of competency.

Training packages are developed and reviewed by the relevant national industry skills council. Skills councils cover most of Australian industry, and include on their boards representations of employers, unions and other stakeholders. Links to each skills council's website can be found at http://www.ntis.gov.au/?isc/all. The skills council's development or revision of a training package is overseen by a national steering committee which includes representatives of industry, trade unions, training providers, state governments and relevant professional bodies. Training providers were at one time excluded, in a rather clumsy attempt to have industry ‘own’ the process, but have been included now for some years in the recognition that the main use of training packages is for training, and therefore the expertise of trainers is needed.

The process of development involves extensive consultations with all stakeholders. There are strict guidelines as to how the package is developed and how it looks; these guidelines were produced by ANTA in the late 1990s and have changed over time. ANTA was disestablished in 2005 and its functions are now subsumed within the national government's Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Completed training packages are formally approved by the National Quality Council and then processed within individual States. The process includes recommendations at State level about ‘nominal hours’ for the delivery of the qualifications and the units but alignment of nominal hours nationally has been considerably delayed by the disestablishment of ANTA.

Review of training packages, 2003–2004

In 2003–2004, the Australian National Training Authority carried out a fundamental review of training packages (Schofield & McDonald, 2004). Its report advocated actions in six areas: (1) better agreement among stakeholders about what training packages are and what they are not; (2) better design of training packages; (3) tighter development and review processes; (4) more use of skill sets which are sub-sets of qualifications; (5) more education of teachers, to work with training packages better; and (6) better pathways into and out of training packages (Schofield & McDonald, 2004, pp. 14–32). Although developments were impeded by the disestablishment of ANTA, some of these recommended actions have been taken up in a large national project known as ‘VET Training Products for the 21st Century’ (National Quality Council and Council of Australian Governments, 2009) which included national consultations through the first half of 2009 and established that there was widespread support on the whole for the Australian definition of CBT and for the training package system. European concepts of competency were explicitly considered but were not supported by those consulted.

Summary of major changes

The major changes in CBT in Australia over the past 20 years are summarized in Table 1. The column headed ‘through’ refers to the pre-training package stage of CBT, which as we have seen involved some competency-based features in locally developed curriculum and in some cases, national modules. Some industry areas did not have this intermediate stage because there were no qualifications (or singleton qualifications but no qualification structures) in those industry areas until the late 1990s.

Table 1. Major changes to VET curriculum and assessment 1989–2009
Curriculum featureFromThroughTo
  1. VET = vocational education and training, CBT = competency-based training, RTO = Registered Training Organization.

Curriculum phaseNon-competency-basedNational modules and privately owned curriculum with some CBT featuresTraining Packages
Basis of curriculumContent-basedOutcomes-basedCapability-based
Location of curriculumLocalLocal/nationalNational
Nature of curriculumDescriptive and prescriptivePrescriptivePermissive
Location of deliveryClassroomClassroom and workplaceClassroom and workplace
Independence of teacherTeacher as mouthpieceTeacher as mouthpieceTeacher as planner
Role of RTO teacher vis-à-vis enterprisesGatekeeperHandmaidenNegotiator
Basis of assessmentContent and skillsSkillsSkills and underpinning knowledge
Nature of assessmentAssessment as afterthought‘Tick and flick’A holistic evaluation of learners' workplace capability and knowledge

Table 1 addresses changes to curriculum, to the location of delivery, changes to the relationship of VET practitioners with industry and enterprises, and changes in assessment practice. As has been mentioned previously, training packages are constantly evolving and assessment has been the focus of much national attention throughout the two decades of CBT. Assessment practices in the early days were often fragmented and based on observation of work performance only (often known as ‘tick and flick’ assessment) but there has been an effort to encourage practitioners to assess more holistically and to ensure that underpinning knowledge is adequately addressed. However, it is generally agreed that there remains room for improvement in this area.

While Table 1 focuses on curriculum, delivery and assessment issues, another major change in CBT over the past 20 years has been the convergence of institutional-based CBT practices and enterprise-based practices (see Smith, 1999 on CBT in training providers and Kellie, 1999 on CBT in enterprises). In the latter paper, Kellie noted that ‘the national training reform agenda had yet to make its mark at the organisation level’ and reported on some case studies, in most of which, companies had developed their own competencies. In 2009, larger companies are far more likely than in 1999 to be using national competency standards and to be actively involved in national training developments (Smith et al., 2005); and smaller companies are likely to have at least some involvement in national CBT through the employment of apprentices and/or trainees.

Many contextual changes have also occurred during 1999–2009, including the development of an extremely tight labour market in Australia. This has led companies to think of ways in which they could market themselves to potential employees, and many believe that offering qualifications to workers is a good way of doing this (Smith et al., 2009). Despite the global financial crisis, unemployment in Australia remains relatively low by international standards, and employers in many industries are still experiencing labour shortages.

Finally, some attention needs to be paid to those who deliver CBT. Whether in RTOs or in enterprises, those who deliver or assess national VET qualifications are now required to hold a Certificate IV in Training and Assessment, in itself a competency-based qualification. While most States in Australia formerly required, and often funded, degree-level teaching qualifications for TAFE teachers, the hegemony of the Training and Assessment Training Package has meant that the mandated Certificate IV in Training and Assessment is now often the maximum as well as minimum qualification (Simons & Smith, 2008). Research indicates clearly that VET teachers and trainers who have only a Certificate IV level qualification have a much less sophisticated and nuanced understanding of CBT than those with a degree (Lowrie et al., 1999). Yet, Schofield and McDonald (2004) emphasize that teaching with training packages requires very high-level teaching skills.

A critical review of the Australian experience of CBT

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. The evolution of CBT in Australia
  5. A critical review of the Australian experience of CBT
  6. Conclusions
  7. References

Views about CBT

Throughout the first 10 years of ‘training reform’ CBT (1987–1997), the notion of CBT was hotly contested; as Harris and Hodge (2009, p. 1) say, CBT had the ‘propensity to polarize’ between those who saw CBT as an answer to many problems related to national skill formation and those who saw it as mechanistic, overly vocational, behaviourist and limiting. A range of positions were adopted by authors in the field. Smith and Keating (1997, pp. 113–119) summarize these early objections to CBT as ‘philosophical’ objections, educational objections and practical problems associated with implementation. West (2004) has provided a similar summary of early objections to NVQs in the UK. He divides objections into ‘technical’, ‘moral’ and ‘market’ critiques. Market critiques were related to the penetration of NVQs into the VET qualification market, and do not apply to the Australian context, as the hegemony of the Australian form of CBT has been complete because of the absence of the plethora of awarding bodies that create diversity in the UK VET market. Despite such differences between the Australian and British context, West's analysis of the underpinning values conflicts which led to such a heated debate over CBT rings true for Australia. West (2004, pp. 26–27) states that the three underpinning areas of debate were:

  • vocationalism versus liberal or academic education;
  • centralism versus devolution; and
  • the way in which NVQs could be used to measure and control national VET activity.

It is important to recognize that for some scholarly commentators and practitioners, these issues remain buried not far beneath the surface. Buchanan et al. (2009, p. 29) have recently referred to Australian CBT disparagingly as ‘a “pick-a box” vision of skill’; this term refers to their view that the development of individual units of competency has atomized notions of the skill involved in occupations.

Benefits of competence-based training

Interviews with managers, workers and other stakeholders, including trade unions, have shown that CBT has brought many benefits to companies and workers including, particularly, the ability of people of lower educational achievement to attain a qualification because of the emphasis on ‘doing’ rather than ‘academic’ work (Smith et al., 2005, 2009). Also, enterprises were finding the competency standards within training packages useful for other, non-training, purposes such as performance management and job descriptions (Smith et al., 2005).

The nature and structure of training packages

Training packages have generally been viewed favourably but there have also been concerns. Some employers complain that training packages are variously not up to date, too general or not sufficiently relevant (Smith et al., 2005). In some cases, their complaints seem to be due to insufficient understanding of the ways in which packages could legitimately be contextualized, or to insufficient awareness of the range of packages that could be of use to the company. Sometimes, this was because RTOs could be unable or unwilling to offer companies the full range of choices. Companies did better if they employed what Smith et al. (2005) called ‘VET evangelists’, who understood the VET system well enough to negotiate effectively with RTOs and who knew the ways in which training packages could be used. However, it is clear that employers' criticisms were often well-founded and pointed to deficiencies in training packages such as an insufficient emphasis on underpinning knowledge. Smith et al. (2009) have identified further the need for good quality learning materials beyond the generic ‘support materials’ that are often produced as part of training package development. Such support materials are often in the form of simplistic workbooks which as one employer said ‘all look the same’. In relation to training package structures, there is a need for clear, sound, pathways from one qualification level to the next and appropriate alignment of qualifications to qualification levels. Political manoeuvring was not uncommonly used to frustrate this desired outcome. For example, there were no proper pathways available from lower-level qualifications in the 2003 General Construction Training Package because the national construction industry trade union was unwilling to recognize anything less than full apprentice training at Certificate III level.

Challenges of delivery and assessment

Although CBT is attractive in principle, enterprises and RTOs are still struggling with how to deliver it well. A favourite method of delivering CBT in enterprises is embedding it within normal work and performance management processes but some RTOs and enterprises recognized that this leads to training that is too enterprise-specific and are beginning to move away from this model. There was a perceived need for off-the-job training, not always seen as a necessity for some advocates of CBT. Some RTOs and individual teachers within them had developed sophisticated means of delivering this off-the-job training, utilizing holistic but rigorous delivery and assessment of units of competency while others proceeded in a less sophisticated unit-by-unit manner. Sometimes, learners complained that the assessment tasks were too easy and that people were ‘let through’ who should not have been. They also complained if they were not given sufficient off-the-job training and if the learning materials were sub-standard (Smith et al., 2005). Companies and learners alike were unhappy if RTOs employed ‘generic’ trainers without sufficient content expertise; but a few RTOs were reported to believe that it was acceptable that their staff had general assessment expertise and that employers should provide all the training and specialist assessment advice. RPL, often seen as being an integral part of CBT, proved problematic. While it was understood that RPL removed the need for unnecessary training and that it validates previous job experience, enterprises were highly suspicious of ‘over-RPLing’. They often preferred to pay for their staff to undertake training again because they did not trust previous levels of attainment. Learners, too, wanted the chance to recap on their learning. The conclusion reached was that RPL should be used conservatively.

The implication of the findings on delivery and assessment, including RPL, is that teachers and trainers, both in RTOs and in enterprises, needed high-level educational skills and qualifications in order to deliver CBT properly.

Challenges in the development of training packages

Training package development and review is a highly consultative process which, while it appears on face value to be desirable, in fact presents some challenges. The consultation process can involve literally thousands of people and take extensive amounts of time. If people's views are not eventually included in the package they may become disgruntled. The major stakeholder groups such as employer associations and trade unions can block progress for considerable lengths of time. For example, the Hairdressing Training Package, endorsed in 2000, had been delayed for over 5 years because of several issues including an argument about barbering units. Stakeholders with resource issues at stake can distort the integrity of training packages: for instance, training providers may lobby for movement of units from core to elective to make the qualification easier to deliver. Also, because the system is competency-based, no firm rules can be laid down regarding the amount of training time required for learners to achieve competence. Therefore, ‘nominal hours’ are allocated, which are quite political in their nature because they are related to funding if the qualifications are likely to attract funding by state VET systems. The process of allocating nominal hours is therefore subject to lobbying from interest groups. For example, in the Health Services Assistant (Pharmacy) qualifications, some units that were relatively quick to teach were allocated high numbers of nominal hours because the required equipment was expensive for training providers to purchase.

Conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. The evolution of CBT in Australia
  5. A critical review of the Australian experience of CBT
  6. Conclusions
  7. References

It has been noted by several researchers that practitioners, once they were actually working with training packages, were finding ways to combat some of the problems they had feared (Australian Council for Private Education and Training [ACPET], 2000; Down, 2002). Outright opposition to CBT and training packages seemed by the early 21st century to have reduced considerably; practitioners seemed to have ‘learned to love’ them – or perhaps to ‘live with them’.

However, this very acceptance and familiarity breeds its own challenges. While people were still vocally opposed to CBT, they were able easily to articulate what it is that makes CBT problematic. For example, work by Boorman (2001), while perhaps unnecessarily critical of training packages, arguing that they represented an extreme form of Taylorism, was very explicit about the problems involved in trying to deliver training packages, with their rather unnatural and manufactured workplace bias, in a training provider context. His arguments led providers to consider ways in which they could overcome the disadvantages of delivery within providers. In the research and professional experience outlined in this paper, an impression has developed that practitioners now tend towards passive acceptance of CBT and training packages rather than constructive and critical engagement. This leads to a lack of critical focus on pedagogical issues, which in many cases has been replaced with a focus on compliance with national audit frameworks such as the AQTF. One reason for a lack of engagement with bigger issues of teaching and learning may be that VET teachers are becoming progressively de-skilled because of reduced requirements for degree-level VET teacher-training, as discussed earlier.

A number of CBT issues remain or have emerged recently and may be receiving insufficient attention because of general satisfaction with the competency-based system. In analysing these here, use is made of the frameworks described by Smith and Keating (1997) and West (2004), described earlier. The two frameworks are elided to provide a four-fold typology of critiques of CBT: philosophical critiques; technical defects; pedagogical defects; and centralization and control. A fifth critique is added: lack of teacher capability in a system that demands such capability.

‘Philosophical’ critiques

CBT remains predicated upon the needs of industry, and those wishing for a more liberal or academic education can no longer find it within the VET system. Industry clamours in ever louder voices for its needs to be met through the VET system.

Technical defects

Training packages clearly display some flaws that still need addressing. The development process is too long and complex; it seems to create dissension rather than agreement; and does not lend itself to swift changes in industry or occupations. Progression for learners from one level to another is not always available. These conclusions concur with a 2008 OECD review of Australian VET policy (Hoeckel et al., 2008). Some of the political factors, while not necessarily arising from the competency-based nature of training packages, may delay implementation, and jaundice stakeholders' views of training packages and of CBT more generally.

West's (2004) summary of arguments about technical defects in CBT hinged upon two issues. First, that competency standards cannot create a sensible and sound syllabus that teachers can deliver. Second, that it is difficult for a competency-based system, despite its focus on criteria, to enable effective communication of desired performance standards. Hoeckel et al. (2008) support the latter issue, criticizing the Australian system for not having national assessment practices. In the training package system, both the construction of the syllabus and the standards of assessment are in fact left to the discretion of teachers and trainers, within the constraints of the RTO's practices and the AQTF audit system. Thus there can be no demonstrable assurance of parity of student outcomes.

‘Educational’ or pedagogical critiques

Because of CBT's focus upon industry, the paramount consideration is whether a learner can do the job after having been trained and/or assessed. This consideration affects both delivery and assessment, because teachers are nervous about placing too much emphasis on knowledge, focusing instead on performance. The evidence suggests that enterprises and learners alike would have preferred more attention to underpinning knowledge.

Centralization and control

CBT as implemented in Australia has certainly aided the centralization of the VET system; non-Training Package qualifications have almost disappeared. While this has had many functional effects including a better understanding of VET qualifications and freer movement of workers and students among States, there have been criticisms that flexibility is reduced, particularly for client groups such as those with disabilities and international students. Governments have used a tighter and better-defined set of qualifications as the basis for funding and for rewarding behaviour for companies and training providers, as West (2004) describes in relation to NVQs. This has both advantages (such as governmental transparency in making funding decisions) and disadvantages (such as reducing the scope for innovation).

Lack of teacher capability

This is perhaps the missing link in previous critiques of CBT. CBT requires and demands a level of teacher expertise that rarely exists, especially when teachers themselves are taught both their technical and their pedagogical skills in a competency-based system, and leads to the criticisms, described previously, of poor training delivery and ‘too easy’ assessment. As has long been recognized but not yet properly addressed, units of competency are simply too difficult and complex for many teachers or trainers to understand. It is likely that many teachers and trainers may not even know how to deliver CBT, let alone engage in a critical use of the pedagogy. Teachers' de-skilling leaves them without the power to argue the case; in fact many do not seem to see a case to argue.

During a VET conference in 2008, a senior curriculum officer in the TAFE system stated 'Nobody problematises Training Packages'. This statement, referring to the cornerstone of the competency-based system, and appearing to attract general agreement amongst those present, indicated that earlier, heated, debates about CBT have been almost forgotten in many quarters. The dysfunctional consequence of this complacency has been that, with no other system with which to compare CBT, practitioners are less able to recognize its deficiencies and thereby work for improvement. The improvements made during 1989–2009, reflected in Table 1, have arisen only because of outspoken criticism over a period of 20 years, so the current complacency has its dangers. It might therefore be productive for Australians to re-learn how to critique CBT.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. The evolution of CBT in Australia
  5. A critical review of the Australian experience of CBT
  6. Conclusions
  7. References
  • Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET) (2000), ‘Enhancing Creativity, Flexibility and Competitiveness? The Impact of Training Packages on Private Sector Providers’, Report prepared for ANTA (Sydney: ACPET).
  • Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) (1996), Training Packages in the National Training Framework (Brisbane: ANTA).
  • Barratt-Pugh, L. and Soutar, K. (2002), Paradise Nearly Gained (Adelaide: NCVER).
  • Boorman, A. (2001), ‘How Institutions Respond to Training Packages. Research to Reality’ in Putting VET Research to Work, 4th Australian VET Research Association Conference, Adelaide, Australia (28–30 March). Available at http://www.avetra.org.au (accessed 15 December 2009).
  • Buchanan, J., Yu, S., Marginson, S. and Wheelahan, L. (2009), Education, Work & Economic Renewal: An Issues Paper Prepared for the Australian Education Union (Sydney: Workplace Research Centre, University of Sydney).
  • Down, C. (2002), Qualitative Impact of Training Packages on Vocational Education and Training Clients (Brisbane: ANTA).
  • Foley, A. (2007), ‘ACE Working Within/Outside VET, Evolution, Revolution or Status Quo? The New Context for VET’ in 10th Conference of the Australian VET Research Association, Victoria University, Footscray Park, Victoria, Australia (11–13 April). Available at http://www.avetra.org.au (accessed 15 December 2009).
  • Harris, R. and Hodge, S. (2009), ‘A Quarter of a Century of CBT: The Vicissitudes of an Idea’ in Aligning Participants, Policy and Pedagogy: Tractions and Tensions in VET Research, 12th Conference of the Australian VET Research Association, Crowne Plaza, Coogee, Sydney, Australia (16–17 April). Available at http://www.avetra.org.au (accessed 15 December 2009).
  • Hoeckel, K., Field, S., Justesen, T. and Kim, M. (2008), Learning for Jobs. OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training (VET) – Australia (Paris: OECD).
  • Jackson, N. (1993), ‘Competence: a game of smokes and mirrors?’, in C.Collins (ed.), Competencies: The Competencies Debate in Australian Education & Training (Canberra: Australian College of Education), pp. 15461.
  • Kellie, D. (1999), ‘The Australian way: competency-based training in the corporate sector’, International Journal of Training and Development, 3, 2, 11831.
    Direct Link:
  • Law, S.-S. (2009), ‘A Journey of Transformation in Vocational and Technical Education: The Singapore Story’, in Big Skills Conference, Sydney, Australia (2–5 March).
  • Lowrie, T., Smith, E. and Hill, D. (1999), Competency Based Training: A Staff Development Perspective (Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research [NCVER]).
  • Mulder, M., Wieigel, T. and Collins, K. (2007), ‘The concept of competence in the development of vocational education & training in selected EU member states: a critical analysis’, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 59, 1, 6788.
  • National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) (2008), Australian Vocational Education & Training Statistics: Apprentices & Trainees, Annual (NCVER: Adelaide).
  • National Quality Council and Council of Australian Governments (2009), VET Training Products for the 21st Century, Consultation Paper (Melbourne: National Quality Council).
  • Schofield, K. and McDonald, R. (2004), Moving On: Report of the High Level Review of Training Packages (Melbourne: ANTA).
  • Simons, M. and Smith, E. (2008), ‘The understandings about learners and learning that are imparted in Certificate IV level courses for VET teachers and trainers’, International Journal of Training Research, 6, 1, 2343.
  • Smith, E. (1999), ‘Ten years of competency-based training: the experience of accredited training providers in Australia’, International Journal of Training and Development, 3, 2, 10617.
    Direct Link:
  • Smith, E. (2002), ‘Training packages: debates around a new curriculum system’, Issues in Educational Research, 12, 1, 6484.
  • Smith, E. and Keating, J. (1997), Making Sense of Training Reform and Competency-Based Training (Wentworth Falls, NSW: Social Science Press).
  • Smith, E. and Keating, J. (2003), From Training Reform to Training Packages (Tuggerah Lakes, NSW: Social Science Press).
  • Smith, E., Hill, D., Smith, A., Perry, P., Roberts, P. and Bush, A. (1996), The Availability of Competency-Based Training in TAFE and Non-TAFE Settings in 1994 (Canberra: AGPS).
  • Smith, E., Pickersgill, R., Smith, A. and Rushbrook, P. (2005), Enterprises' Commitment to Nationally Recognised Training for Existing Workers (Adelaide: NCVER). Available at http://www.ncver.edu.au/publications/1550.html (accessed 15 December 2009).
  • Smith, E., Smith, A., Pickersgill, R. and Rushbrook, P. (2006), ‘Qualifying the workforce: the use of accredited training in Australian companies’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 30, 8, 592607.
  • Smith, E., Comyn, P., Brennan Kemmis, R. and Smith, A. (2009), High Quality Traineeships: Identifying What Works (Adelaide: NCVER).
  • West, J. (2004), Dreams & Nightmares: The NVQ Experience. Working paper No. 45, Centre for Labour Market Studies (CLMS) (Leicester: CLMS).
  • Westera, W. (2001), ‘Competences in education: a confusion of tongues’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33, 1, 7588.
Footnotes
  • 1

    In Australian VET, the word ‘trades’ is used to refer to craft and manufacturing occupations that are covered by the apprenticeship system.