This article is based on research and detailed empirical work that has been conducted in Australia in the area of transferable skills. The article will review the issues related to transferable skills in the vocational education and training (VET) sector from a historical perspective. Included in the discus­sion are details of recent and current policy development. A commentary is provided on many of the challenges of policy implementation in the current environment. There has been considerable re­search into this issue in Australia, and it is hoped that this article will assist in a broader understanding of the issues surrounding transferable skills.

1 Introduction

In Australia, the discussion about transferable skills has been taking place for a number of years in all educational sectors. There have been a number of high level reviews and extensive consultations with industry and other VET stakeholders. Currently, transferable skills are referred to as employability skills[1] . However they are also now located within a broader category of skills referred to as foundation skills that describe a combination of language, literacy and numeracy skills and other skills required to engage successfully in vocational activities. It is acknowledged that these skills are manifested differently depending on technical and discipline-specific context. The details of research identifying this manifestation will be discussed in more detail.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the Core Skills for Work (CSfW) Framework[2] (previously Employability Skills Framework) outlines three sets of inter-related skills (employability skills, technical or discipline specific skills and core language, literacy and numeracy skills), as well as a range of features, expectations and requirements of the surrounding context, which contribute to work performance. Examples of context include the level of qualification, the type of work (supervisory, strategic or operational), licensing requirements of the industry, industry culture, industrial relation laws and enterprise requirements. CSfW encompasses both employability skills and aspects of the context which impact upon an individual’s ability to develop and demonstrate these skills. Technical or discipline specific skills are detailed in Training Packages and school and higher education curricula, while the core language, literacy and numeracy (LLN) skills of reading, writing, oral communication, numeracy and learning are addressed in the Australian Core Skills Framework. (Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), 2012, 4).

Figure 1: Employability Skills in context (DEEWR, 2012, 5

 It is very much the case that the topic of transferable skills is located in a complex environment of sometimes competing policy initiatives. Some examples of these complex policy factors are the interests of industry bodies, funding bodies, VET practitioners and students. It is also the case that there are inherent tensions in the VET system between technical expertise and transferable skill development that mitigates against a clear understanding of what transferable skills actually are and how they are to be taught, assessed and reported.

2 The concept of transferable skills in VET and vocational teacher[3] education (VTE) policies

2.1 Australia’s national policy on VTE

Teachers and trainers working in the VET system in Australia who deliver nationally accredited training must have as a minimum qualification Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (TAE4110 2012). As is the case with all qualifications in the VET system, this qualification includes a list of the employability skills graduates will demonstrate, and a list of the industry/ enterprise requirements. These are in addition to a set of competencies that focus on the technical vocational aspects of the qualification.

All these requirements are defined in a related training package[4] , including the explicit description of the employability skills. Whilst these skills are mandated in this training package, there is a lot of discussion about the effectiveness of the embedding process and the quality of the teaching and assessing of the employability skills. There is also a lot of discussion about the extent to which teachers and trainers are adequately prepared to deal with this complex topic and how effectively the process of embedding these skills is carried out. It is also contingent on how clearly and concisely these skills are written into the respective training packages. Future policy initiatives will have to address these well-documented and researched issues.

The question that follows from the VTE policy that mandates the minimum qualification for VET practitioners in Australia is: Does this policy emphasise the importance of enhancing the development of transferable skills through VET practitioner education programs? An investigation shows that only one very small item of emphasis can be found in the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment. The compulsory components of this qualification include ten units of competencies, of which only one, Provide Work Skills Instruction, gives any such emphasis. A graduate of this unit must be able to Use measures to ensure learners are acquiring and can use technical and generic skills[5] and knowledge. (Australian Government, 2013). Perhaps it is not surprising then, that research in Australia has identified a general dissatisfaction on the part of many stakeholders with the standard of professional development of VET practitioners in this area.

In research conducted in 2003, Clayton et alfound that despite the general consensus that transferable skills are valuable, practitioners are unclear as to how they should be assessed. Other findings show that VET practitioners also require further professional development support in order that their own skills, knowledge and abilities are sufficient to enable them to deliver and assess transferable skills.

In more recent research conducted by the Commonwealth of Australia in 2012, it was found that industry bodies who advocated the need for significant reform raised a variety of concerns including an improved capability of VET practitioners (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012(a)).

Whilst the regulated national standard is established at the Certificate IV level, a number of diploma and bachelor degree level programs are also offered in Australia for VET practitioners. The place these qualifications hold in terms of the Australian Qualifications Framework can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Australian Qualifications Framework
(Source: Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013. Australian Qualifications Framework, 2nd edition, January 2013)

The diploma and bachelor qualifications are generally offered with advanced standing for entrants’ existing vocational skills and qualifications. Therefore, the programs are generally shorter in length than those in other sectors of education such as lower primary, middle and secondary schools. An analysis of the content of three such bachelor degrees across Australia shows that two make some reference to graduates developing the ability to teach and/or assess transferable skills. The first of these two makes explicit reference to the development of knowledge by incorporating performative learning, situational learning, problem-based learning and workplace learning; (Charles Sturt University, 2011a) and one learning outcome of Using the Core Skills Framework (Charles Sturt University 2014b).

The second bachelor degree identified includes subjects entitled Literacy at Work (Griffith University, 2013a) and Lifelong Learning and Work (Griffith University, 2013b). Whilst these could be seen as aligning with some transferable skills, no specific reference to any of the transferable skills frameworks existing in Australia are made. In addition, there are referen­ces that could be construed as developing VET practitioners’ ability to teach and assess transferable skills. For example, graduates must be able to demonstrate an under­standing of the significance of the need for alignment of the intent, enactments and outcomes of contemporary educational issues and initiatives in adult and vocational education (Griffith University, 2013b). Transferable skills in the form of the variety of frameworks identified in Australia, for example the Core Skills Framework, may fit well within these parameters.

To conclude, the evidence shows a lack of explicit reference to transferable skills as an area for VET practitioner development. It is reasonable to say that Australia does not emphasise the importance of teacher training including pedagogical skills necessary for enhancing the development of transferable skills.

2.2 Practical vocational skills held by VET trainers and assessors

The Australian Vocational Education and Training Quality Framework (VQF) was created through legislation and it includes standards for employment as a vocational trainer and assessor. The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) (2013) states that in order to meet these standards a person must have the relevant vocational competencies at least to the level being delivered or assessed and demonstrate current industry skills directly relevant to the training/assessment being undertaken.

This ensures that VET practitioners must hold practical vocational skills through experiences gained in the world of work. This is a very important, and strongly regulated, feature of VET in Australia. It is likely to be strengthened in future VET developments.

The most commonly used instrument for teaching and assessing in VET is a training package related to a specific industry area. The Construction and Property Services Industry Skills Council in Australia states that people who are considered eligible to deliver and assess quali­fi­cations from the construction, plumbing and services training package, must have the following minimum competency, recognition and experience: 

• formal recognition of competency at least to the level being assessed;
• relevant industry experience, that is, workplace experience within the last two years in the competency area being delivered;
• relevant occupational registration or licensing in areas where this is a regulatory requirement (Australian Government, 2012).

Although this requirement has been established, research indicates that there is some dissatisfaction with its implementation. It is unclear to what extent the industry currency of trainers and assessors is a factor in this dissatisfaction, though it is understood to be a factor (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012).

The fact that VET practitioners are dual professionals (ASQA, 2013) presents a significant challenge. They must hold their industrial currency and qualification, as well as training and assessing currency and qualification. There are issues concerning who is responsible to ensure that these requirements are met. Some are of the opinion that the individual VET practitioner has the responsibility, whilst others consider that the employing body has the responsibility to facilitate this requirement. In this zone of unclear delineation of responsibility it is often the case that this requirement is overlooked or ignored.

The VQF regulatory framework addresses this dilemma to some extent. The requirement to demonstrate that practitioners continue to develop their VET knowledge and skills as well as their industry currency is embedded in the standards. It is clear that ensuring that the ‘dual professionalism’ can be demonstrated is the legal responsibility of the educational institution offering qualifications. It is expected that this aspect of the framework will be strengthened in future versions.

A requirement for continued professional development is a feature of many industries in Australia, such as plumbing and electrical services. Although there is currently no stipulation of volume or type of such development in VET, there is the need to demonstrate that it is continu­ally undertaken. There is considerable contested discussion on whether a benchmark for professional development should be set for VET trainers and assessors (Guthrie, 2010). A number of professional associations exist in Australia for VET practitioners. Membership of these is voluntary and generally not aligned to employment requirements.

Clayton et al (2003) made an important recommendation in their research. They found that not only business and industry, but also the entire Australian community will benefit if trans­ferable skills can be successfully foregrounded in VET. However, substantial investment in the professional development of Australian VET practitioners is a necessary pre-condition for this achievement (Clayton, et al 2003). This recommendation remains true as an aspiration for VET in Australia in 2014.

2.3 Level of implementation of transferable skills

As mentioned earlier, transferable skills have played a significant role in the recent history of Australian VET. The subject of transferable skills featured in key reports that helped to shape Australian VET, in particular the Finn (AEC 1991), Carmichael (1992) and Mayer (AEC/ MOVEET 1992) reports. Key competencies “for effective participation in emerging forms of work and work organisation” (AEC/MOVEET 1992) were supposed to be developed along­side technical or vocational skills in Australia’s competency-based VET system. In 2002, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) and the Business Council of Austra­lia proposed an Employability Skills Framework (Core Skills for Work Framework since 2013) to replace the key competencies. Eight skills are identified in the framework: (1) com­mu­ni­cation, (2) teamwork, (3) problem-solving, (4) initiative and enterprise, (5) planning and organising, (6) self-management, (7) learning; and (8) technology.

In 2005, the National Quality Council (NQC) endorsed the replacement of key competencies by employability skills in VET. Since that time more work has been done on transferable skills frameworks in the schooling and higher education sectors as well as in VET. Transferable skills relevant to VET appear in the Australian Core Skills Framework, which has a literacy and numeracy focus, while the Australian Qualifications Framework, which applies to qualifications in both the VET and higher education sectors, includes transferable skills.

Although the concept of transferable skills has been welcomed by most VET stakeholders, a number of problems relating to implementation have become apparent after nearly two decades of transferable skills development, assessment and reporting. A report by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2012) identified concerns with the current approach to transferable skills, including:

• differing definitions, interpretations and approaches used across sectors, and even within sectors, which create confusion about expectations;
• failure to recognise the context-dependent nature of employability skills and impact of the context upon these skills;
• incorrect assumptions that competence is automatically transferable;
• lack of explicit focus on employability skills in workplaces and in education and training
• insufficient confidence and/or capability of teachers and trainers to address these skills
• the difficulty of measuring, assessing and reporting on employability skills. (DEEWR 2012, 5-6).

The Employability Skills Framework (DEEWR, 2012) seeks to address these issues. It stresses explicitness in relation to employability skills and envisages achieving this overarching goal in four ways. Firstly, developers of training packages, curriculum and programs will be encouraged to “clearly articulate the employability skills required for certain occupations or careers or at particular points in careers development” (2012, 14). Secondly, trainers and teachers will be expected to “more explicitly address the development of these skills in learners” (2012, 14). Thirdly, individuals should be in a position to articulate the employability skills they possess and those they would like to develop. Finally, the framework provides a common reference point for developers of education, training and employment services and products.

The first and second of these strategies highlight particular challenges in implementing transferable skills in Australian VET. While the importance of employability skills and the need for their development has been recognised by stakeholders, training packages have not explicitly identified the transferable components alongside the vocational or technical skills. Rather, specification of vocational skills and knowledge was supposed to embed employability skills so that the development of vocational skills automatically entailed acquisition of employability skills. Units of competency contained a component entitled Employability Skills Information and for all units the information was the same: This unit contains employability skills. This limited guidance has had consequences for the level of implementation of transferable skills in Australia.

The National Skills Standards Council (NSSC) guidelines for the development of training packages introduced in 2012 addressed the goal of making employability skills explicit. According to these guidelines, units of competency must now contain a section on foundation skills (language, literacy, numeracy and employability skills). This policy document states that training package developers must ensure that foundation skills are explicit and recognisable within the training package (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012). These requirements are expressed within the foundation skills field of the unit of competency template. Training packages reflecting these guidelines are currently being phased in.

The second strategy for addressing transferable skill development concerns the role of trainers and educators. These practitioners generally base their work on translating the requirements of training packages into training programs and assessments. While these transferable skills have not been specified in training packages in the past in Australia it was unlikely practitioners would place a lot of emphasis on transferable skills, particularly in an environment where commercial pressures are on providers to teach no more than what is explicitly set out in the training packages.

The Australian government and other stakeholders have been aware that practitioners require support to address employability skills development. Resources for trainers and assessors such as the Department of Education, Science and Training’s (DEST) Employability Skills: From Framework to Practice (2006) set out principles that practitioners can use to promote the development of employability skills. According to this resource, certain pedagogical approaches foster specific employability skills (see Table 1).

Table 1:     Learning approaches and employability skills

Source: Adapted from DEST (2006), 46-47.

It is interesting to note that this kind of specific pedagogical advice is not included in the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment, the mandated minimum qualification for VET teachers in Australia.

3 Implications for policy and practice

Australia had a change of government on 7^th September 2013 and the following possible policy directions and associated practices must be understood within this context.

In regard to transferable skills in VET, there was an overarching policy commitment through the 10-year National Foundation Skills Strategy building around a shared vision for a productive and inclusive Australia. This Strategy had been developed over a number of years and it is useful to articulate its dimensions as it may be used to inform the policy directions of the current new government. In this Strategy, foundation skills are defined as the combination of English language, literacy and numeracy (LLN) – listening, speaking, reading, writing, digital literacy and use of mathematical ideas; and employability skills, such as collabo­ration, problem solving, self-management, learning and information and communication technology (ICT) skills required for participation in modern workplaces and contemporary life.

Foundation skills development includes both skills acquisition and the critical application of these skills in multiple environments for multiple purposes. Foundation skills are fundamental to participation in the workplace, the community and adult education and training. (Standing Committee on Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, 2102, 2)

The Strategy came with a large number of suggested policy actions and practice implications that were then circulated for consultation. It remains to be seen which if any of these policy recommendations will be adopted by the new government. The previous government devoted a lot of time, attention and consultation space to the topic of employability skills.

As part of this policy commitment a high level committee was formed to supervise phase 1 of the employability skills project. The then government was committed to funding the development of a new framework that was to be called the Core Skills for Employment Framework. The consulting group Ithica produced its final report in January 2012: Employability Skills Framework – Stage 1: Final Report (Department of Education, Employ­ment and Workplace Relations, 2012). This report was based on extensive consultations with approximately 700 people and groups across Australia.

“Based on extensive consultation carried out in this first stage of the Framework development, we recommend that the Framework focus specifically on ‘the non-technical skills and knowledge necessary for effective participation in the workforce’ (i.e. employability skills), as distinct from those required more broadly in society. Parti­ci­pation in the workforce could be as an employee, an employer, as a self-employed worker, or a volunteer.” (DEEWR, 2012, 4).

The Committee advising the government made six recommendations[6]which focus specifically on non-technical skills and knowledge to equip people for participation in the world of work; the need for an agreed language around employability skills and the framework; the importance of having a developmental framework and not a static one; and the fact that the framework should not be job specific. These recommendations have not yet been translated into policy action and it is not certain how the new government will react to these. However, there has been persistent and ongoing interest in the concept of employability skills and their importance for the development of qualities such as innovation, productivity and creativity beyond the exigencies of day-to-day work.

For that reason, very training package in Australia contains a section on employability skills and it is the expectation that teachers and trainers will embed these in their teaching and assessment practices. Every training package contains an employability skills summary for each qualification issued in Australia. Training packages are mandatory and therefore employ­ability skills are seen as a necessary component of teaching, training, assessing and reporting.

4 Key findings

In this uncharted and complex policy area a number of issues remain clear irrespective of political persuasions.

The key findings from this study are:

1. Employability skills are regarded by all parties as crucial for the increasing productivity and profitability of the Australian economy;
2. The concept of transferable skills is and has been enthusiastically embraced by the VET sector in Australia;
3. There is a policy commitment to create circumstances under which these transferable skills can be taught, assessed and reported;
4. All sectors of the country agree on the importance of these skills and the role they play in building productivity and international competitiveness;
5. There is a lot of interest and encouragement for the development of transferable skills coming from industry. Prominent business and industry groups have suggested that employability skills need to be more explicitly taught, assessed and reported;
6. Given that employability skills are sometimes best learnt on the job, there is a potential new role for employers in the development of these skills;
7. All Training Packages in Australia have transferable skills embedded into them. Therefore, the policy expectation is that teachers will teach, assess and report on them as part of the student’s results on completion of an individual unit within the qualification being studied;
8. There is no common language for discussing the concepts underlying employability skills and the debate is often very fuzzy;
9. There is little teacher preparation or professional development concerning transferable skills, and a number of reports have explicitly identified the fact that the whole process is stalled at the point of implementation;
10. VET teachers are technical experts in their own discipline areas and are not always well prepared to interpret associated transferable skills and to implement teaching strategies that ensure the development of these skills in their students;
11. There is an inherent tension in the VET system between the highly specified and tangible articulation of the skills to be learnt in a technical area and the intangible and difficult to specify and identify transferable skills;
12. Transferable skills are context specific and each industry area requires a different mix of these skills. This adds to the complexity and sometimes creates confusion in the minds of the VET teachers.

5 Conclusion

The importance of, and commitment to, the development of transferable skills in VET have been endorsed by the majority of stakeholders in Australia. Research conducted over a number of decades has informed Australia’s current position. Further research in this area will continue to inform and enrich the debate in regard to policy and practice. 

In order to gain the most benefit globally from this research, the need for trans-regional and intra-regional collaborations are essential. Australia looks forward to continuing to be a part of the Regional Cooperation Platform (RCP)[7] investing effort in this aspect of VET. The possible benefits of this contribution, not only to business and industry, but also the entire regio­nal community, will be significant.

References

Australian Education Council/Ministers of Vocational Education, Employment and Training (1992). Putting general education together (The Mayer report). Canberra, AGPS.

Australian Education Council Review Committee (1991). Young people’s participation in post-compulsory education and training: report of the AEC Review Committee. Canberra, AGPS.

Australian Government (2012). CPC08 – Construction, Plumbing and Services Training Package (Release 8.0). Online: http://training.gov.au/Training/Details/CPC08 (retrieved 14.09.2013).

Australian Government (n.d.). TAEDL301A Certificate IV in Training and Assessment. Online: http://training.gov.au/Training/Details/TAEDEL301A (retrieved 14.09.2013).

Australian Skills Quality Authority (2013). National VET regulations, VET Quality Frame­work. Online: http://www.asqa.gov.au/about-asqa/national-vet-regulation/vet-quality-framework.html (retrieved 14.09.2013).

Charles Sturt University. 2011. Handbook EEL320 Learning Theories for Post Compulsory Education. Online: http://www.csu.edu.au/handbook/handbook11/subjects/EEL320.html (retrieved 14.09.2013).

Charles Sturt University (2014). Handbook EPT327 Effective Teaching in VET. Online: http://www.csu.edu.au/handbook/subjects/EPT327.html (retrieved 14.09.2013).

Clayton, B.; Blom K.; Meyers, D., & Bateman, A. (2003). Assessing and Certifying Generic Skills. What is happening in vocational education and training? Australian National Training Authority, Australia.

Commonwealth of Australia (2012a). National Skills Standards Council Review of the standards for the regulation of vocational education and training analysis of submissions. Canberra: AGPS

Commonwealth of Australia (2012b).Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations 2012. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F2013L00167 (retrieved 14.09.2013).

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2012) (retrieved 14.09.2013).. Employability Skills Framework, Stage 1 Final Report. Australian Government: Canberra.

Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (20006). Employability skills from framework to practice. Commonwealth of Australia.

Griffith University (2013). Griffith Portal Course profile(retrieved 14.09.2013).s, Literacy at Work. 3015EDN – Sem 1 2013 – Mt Gravatt Campus – Mixed Mode. Online: https://courseprofile.secure.griffith.edu.au/student_section_loader.php?section=2&profileId=70256(retrieved 14.09.2013).

http://www.innovation.gov.au/skills/CoreSkillsForWorkFramework/Documents/CSWF-Framework.pdf

Citation

Brennan Kemmis, R., Hodge, S., & Bowden, A. (2014). Transferable skills in Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET): Implications for TVET teacher policies in Australia. In: TVET@Asia, issue 3, 1-13. Online: http://www.tvet-online.asia/issue3/brennan-kemmis_etal_tvet3.pdf (retrieved 30.06.2014).

In Australia, the level and nature of qualifications for vocational education and training (VET) teachers is a highly contested and political topic. VET teachers are only required to have a pre-university, certificate level, pedagogical qualification, the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment. They possess substantially lower level qualifications than teachers in other education sectors. But this has not always been the case. Nowadays, some VET teachers still choose to undertake university-level pedagogical qualifications. Almost all of these students study part-time while already working as VET teachers. This paper reports on work undertaken by members of the Australian Council of Deans of Education Vocational Education Group to provide an evidence base to argue for higher pedagogical qualifications for VET teachers. The paper draws on two major sources of evidence: data and arguments gathered for submission to a government inquiry on the VET teaching workforce; and a 2013 survey of VET teacher-education students and recent graduates in university VET-teaching qualifications. We conclude that university-level VET teacher education studies help practitioners develop the high level of knowledge and skills required for the complex work of VET teaching, as well as suggesting some further benefits resulting from the dialogue between practitioners and academics.

1 Introduction

While it might seem self-evident that VET teachers who study teaching at a higher level will be better teachers, it is not so easy to prove the assertion. This paper explains some ways in which this has been attempted in Australia. The paper reports on work undertaken by members of the Australian Council of Deans of Education Vocational Education Group (ACDEVEG), including a 2013 survey of VET teacher-education students. The Australian Council of Deans of Education is a national body of leaders of Education faculties at Australian universities. In 2011, a Vocational Education Group was formed, which consists of Deans’ nominees from each university that offers teacher-education programs for teachers in the VET sector. The group was initially formed to provide input into a review of VET teaching by the Australian Productivity Commission, the Australian Government’s independent research and policy advisory body (Productivity Commission 2011). ACDEVEG is now an ongoing working group of the Australian Council of Deans of Education (ACDE 2014).

During the consultation period, the Productivity Commission asked members of ACDEVEG to provide an evidence base to support the claim that higher level qualifications were needed for teaching in the VET sector. At the time there was little firm evidence, even from the school-teaching sector, to support the need for degree level pedagogical qualifications. Members of the ACDEVEG group therefore decided, later, to undertake a survey of VET teacher-education students, as an initial contribution to the future evidence base. In this paper we report on some of the findings from the survey. The paper also includes some non-survey evidence provided to the Productivity Commission in the ACDEVEG submission to the Commission and that has subsequently been further developed within the group.

This paper focuses on four major areas: A comparison of the content of university qualifications for VET teachers with the content of the Certificate IV; VET teachers’ views about what they gain from university pedagogical studies; the ways in which university-level qualifications can be shown to meet identified challenges in VET teachers’ work; and a discussion of the ways in which more take-up of higher-level qualifications might be achieved. The latter issue was identified during the Productivity Commission deliberations as a barrier to a more highly-qualified VET workforce.

2 Literature and background

The VET system in Australia provides occupational-related training to adults and to some secondary school students, normally those aged 16 and over. The curriculum is contained (with a few exceptions) within National Training Packages which are ‘bundles’ of qualifications consisting of units of competency. The VET system consists primarily of the public TAFE (Technical and Further Education) system and around 4000 private training providers. School students undertaking VET courses are mainly catered for by these providers, with a few schools registered as training providers themselves.

Growing concern has been expressed about the educational quality of the VET system, and industry is reported to lack confidence in the outcomes of the VET system (e.g. Skills Australia 2011; Wheelahan & Moodie 2011). A major concern relates to reported deficiencies in teaching and assessment practices (e.g. Halliday-Wynes & Misko 2013). The policy response has, however, been to focus primarily on matters relating to training provider registration and audit, rather than on the contribution of VET teachers to students’ learning outcomes. But in fact, audits of training providers by the national regulatory body ASQA (Australian Skills and Quality Authority) show that training and assessment issues are the largest area of ‘non-compliance’ with national standards (Robinson 2013).

In other education sectors in Australia, the contribution of teachers and trainers to system quality is acknowledged. There are rigorous requirements for lengthy and mandatory university-level teaching qualifications in other education sectors, including, most recently, early childhood education. VET teachers possess substantially lower level qualifications than teachers in other education sectors; however, this was not always the case. Until approximately 20 years ago, most full-time TAFE teachers were required to become qualified pedagogically to degree level, usually studying part-time after they were employed, and were supported by their employers to undertake these studies.

The mandatory pedagogical qualification for VET teachers in Australia is currently the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment. This qualification was declared as the minimum for teaching in VET under the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF) which was introduced in 2002 as the national regulatory framework for VET (Smith & Keating 2003, 48). It was at that point that TAFE colleges began to withdraw from their requirements for VET teachers to have teaching degrees.

The Certificate IV is at the moment in its second iteration (the two versions are known, respectively as ‘TAA’ and ‘TAE’ after the names of different versions of the Training Packages), and prior to that, it held the name ‘Assessment and Workplace Training’. The qualification has always been problematic. It is generally agreed that it is usually poorly delivered (Smith and Keating, 2003). Many have concerns, too, about the adequacy of a Certificate IV (sub-Diploma) level qualification to equip people involved in the complex and demanding job of VET teaching. However, there is some belief that the qualification content itself is adequate, at least for beginning VET teachers, if it is delivered well (e.g. Clayton, Meyers, Bateman and Bluer 2010).

For these reasons, the issue of VET teacher qualifications has raised a great deal of interest over the past five years in Australia. Several reports (e.g. Wheelahan & Moodie 2011; Guthrie, McNaughton & Gamlin 2011) have contemplated this question, but so far the status quo has remained. It is widely recognised, however, that it is not a coincidence that concerns about VET quality have escalated at the same time as the proportion of the VET workforce with degrees has fallen. Logically, then, a more highly qualified and professionalised teaching workforce, in both the public provider (TAFE) and private training providers, should be expected to lead to improvements in VET quality. This topic has been raised constantly in recent government reports (e.g. Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency 2013).

Some recent research from the United Kingdom provides a limited amount of evidence for the utility of high-level qualifications (e.g. Simmons and Walker 2013). Their research compared views of the ‘market value’ of initial teacher-education programs offered in universities compared to those offered in the further education sector, and found that the teachers undertaking the higher education qualification and their teacher educators alike perceived the qualifications delivered in universities to be more intellectually rigorous, and that they related theory to practice. Also in the UK, Bathmaker and Avis (2005) and Lucas and Unwin (2009) in research with ‘pre-service’ and in-service trainee Further Education (FE) teachers respectively, found that trainee FE teachers thought that their expertise was developed better at universities than within FE colleges themselves. A small-scale Australian study (William 2010) reported similar conclusions.

3 Research method

As explained above, the data in this paper are primarily drawn from two sources: selected questions from the survey of students in university-level VET teaching qualifications and analysis that was included in the ACDEVEG submission to the Productivity Commission and subsequently.      

The on-line survey was carried out in late 2013. Ethics approval was gained for the research. Six universities agreed to circulate an email, with a link to the survey, to students currently enrolled in a relevant qualification, and those who had completed such a qualification from 2011 onwards. This represents around half of universities currently offering VET teacher-education qualifications. 135 responses were received, from an estimated population of around 840, an overall response rate of 17.3%. Response rates varied from 40.7% to 12.9% among universities. The population of 840 in these university courses is thought to be around 50% of the total population of currently-enrolled university VET teacher-education students.  

The survey was adapted from an existing ‘learner satisfaction’ survey used widely in the VET sector to satisfy VET-sector regulatory requirements for gathering student feedback, as it was thought that using this well-known survey as a basis might add credibility to the findings. The survey was adapted for the higher education context and included demographic questions and questions about their current job role and previous industry experience. In addition a number of qualitative questions were asked, including: reasons for enrolling, skills, knowledge gained and additional experiences undertaken, as a result of their university qualification, comparison with learning from the Certificate IV, and further study intentions. Frequency data were produced for each question, as well as a listing of qualitative answers. The data presented here come from the questions on skills and knowledge that the respondents said they had gained from their university qualifications.

The other major data source, the submission to the government inquiry (Australian Council of Deans of Education 2011), drew together available data on VET teacher qualifications. The submission had five major parts. The sixth part was minor and comprised comments on some specific points in the draft Productivity Commission report. The five major parts were as follows:

1. University VET teaching qualifications and pathways from Certificate IV TAA.
2. Evidence about the benefits for practitioners of undertaking a university VET teaching qualification compared with a Certificate IV in Training and Assessment.
3. The changing VET environment and the contribution of university VET teaching/training qualifications.
4. Evidence about the different characteristics of degree-qualified people compared with Certificate and Diploma qualified people.
5. Potential barriers to VET practitioners accessing university VET teaching qualifications.

The paper uses data from parts 2, 3 and 5 of the submission. Part 2 of the submission provided data from routine evaluations of students in the university VET teaching qualifications at four universities. These were analysed and gathered under three major headings, addressing the university qualification’s contribution to depth of understanding, its role in transforming practice, and its role in engaging with complex work and initiating improvements. Part 3 provided information about university VET teacher-education courses mapped against the draft Productivity Commission report’s own statements about the demands placed upon VET teachers; and part 5 listed barriers to higher levels of qualification among VET teachers together with strategies for addressing them. In addition, subsequent work was carried out by the authors to analyse the body of knowledge in university VET-teaching courses compared with the Certificate IV.

4 Findings

Table 1 provides an overview of the participating universities’ courses, provided by the relevant academic contacts. All of these courses were offered flexibly (i.e. by distance and predominantly on-line).

4.1 Survey findings about the benefit of university-level studies in VET pedagogy

Table 1 provides an overview of the participating universities’ courses, provided by the relevant academic contacts. All of these courses were offered flexibly (i.e. by distance and predominantly on-line).

Table 1: Overview of courses surveyed, by university

All questions received more than 80 responses, with some receiving almost 100. In general, analysis of students’ responses (Smith, Hodge and Yasukawa 2014) showed that they noticed, as a result of undertaking their course, six main areas of skill improvement: academic writing skills, ICT skills, personal skills, skills related to the VET sector, pedagogical skills and general business and industry skills. They identified the following contributions that the qualification made to their knowledge: self-knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, ICT knowledge, and content knowledge. In terms of VET-sector specific knowledge, they mentioned VET curriculum practices, general VET sector knowledge such as ‘working more effectively with industry’, and VET specific language, literacy and numeracy issues. Pedagogical skills included delivery skills, capacity to improve teaching practice, assessment and understanding learners.

On the whole, students were very happy with their courses, with most items scoring over 90% satisfaction on average across the respondents. The areas where students showed relative dissatisfaction were: matters relating to the mode and patterns of delivery; lack of specific VET content in some university subjects (where subjects were shared with students in teacher-training courses for other sectors); and matters related to assessment of learning, especially around expectations.

These findings indicate that students are clearly able to identify the benefits, for them, of pedagogical studies at university.

4.2 Evidence about the benefits for practitioners of undertaking a university VET teaching qualification compared with a Certificate IV in Training and Assessment

One way of finding out what ‘added value’ is gained from a university-level qualification compared with a Certificate IV-level qualification is to see what students say about that comparison. Four universities provided comments from their students on this topic, as a contribution to the submission to the Productivity Commission. Comments were obtained in most cases through routine evaluations; students were not asked to compare the two qualifications, but offered comments as part of general evaluation responses. The comments are gathered here under three major headings. Salient points from each comment have been highlighted.

A university qualification offers depth of understanding

• ‘My journey so far has provided a deeper appreciation of the reasoning behind why, how and what an educator’s role is. This is certainly not something the Cert IV offers.’ (2011)
• ‘From my perspective I see my university qualification giving me a broader knowledge base to work with instead of the more specifically vocationally based aspect of the Cert IV.’(2011)

A university qualification transforms my practice

• ‘The university qualification encompasses a variety of instructors, who all make you critically think about; not just what you are doing, but why you are doing it and all the possible implications for the learner (and broader society) based on your approach… This has transformed my teaching through the critique of my work from a broader perspective than before. I certainly wasn’t inspired to do this following my completion of Cert IV.’ (2011)

A university qualification allows us to engage with complex work roles and initiate improvement

• ‘A university qualification validates my observations and reflections over years of working in the VET sector, providing credibility when operating at senior management and government level. It also equips me to design, critique and benchmark learner resources and learning strategy design at a level significantly greater than one who has only completed a Cert IV. Researching skills, reporting research results and academic writing is another significant benefit of the higher qual.’ (2011)
• ‘On a professional level, Cert IVs produce workplace and industrial ‘drones’ that often perpetuate and promote the lack of critical thinking in others – they ask us not to examine, discuss, analyse or question. … (The degree qualification) allows the educator to develop astrategy that is inclusive of the diversity within cultures and society rather than the dogma of Cert IV training and competencies.’ (2011)

The 2013 survey included explicit questions comparing outcomes from the Certificate IV with outcomes from higher education qualifications, but those data are not yet fully analysed.

4.3 The role of university qualifications in meeting challenges in VET teachers’ work

The Productivity Commission’s draft research report (2011 p.6.1) listed a number of demands upon the current and future VET workforce. In the submission from ACDEVEG, these were listed, together with a brief explanation of how these demands are addressed in university VET teaching/training qualifications, following analysis of available evidence about the content and nature of those qualifications. This analysis is presented in Table 2.

Table 2: The ways in which university qualifications can be shown to meet identified challenges in VET teachers’ work

Table 2 indicates (in the first column) that the Commission identified a great number of challenges in the work of VET teachers. The second column shows the arguments that were made by the ACDEVEG group to show that university courses are more likely to meet these challenges than a lower-level qualification.

4.4 How can the uptake of higher level qualifications be increased?

As noted above, higher-level qualifications are not mandatory for Australian VET teachers and in fact only a small proportion of teachers currently choose to undertake them. This issue was analysed for the Productivity Commission report.

The potential barriers to VET educators gaining university teaching qualifications can be summarised into three main categories: the nature of the VET workforce and its career pathways; the attitudes and priorities of members of the VET teaching workforce to their own qualifications and professional development; and the perceived suitability of the current structure of university teaching qualifications for the VET teaching workforce.

The VET workforce has characteristics that are distinctive compared with the workforces of other education sectors. Most VET educators in Australia move into VET teaching after establishing themselves in a career within another industry, (Dickie, Eccles, FitzGerald, McDonald, Cully, Blythe, Stanwick and Brooks 2004, 84). These ‘second career’ educators transition into VET teaching from a wide variety of organisations including small and large business enterprises, industry associations, adult education organisations, schools, universities and government departments. (Simons, Harris, Pudney & Clayton 2009). They tend to be older than their other education workforce counterparts. They may have significant family responsibilities. Throughout and often beyond the transition period to VET teaching, most VET educators keep strong professional connections to their original occupation (Simons, Harris, Pudney and Clayton, 2009 45). They may therefore value development in their industry area more highly than that in teaching/training. One solution to this issue is to have a staged progression to higher level qualifications. Thus, building clear articulation pathways from the Certificate IV, through to a Diploma, Associate Degree and then a Bachelor’s degree, or alternatively, having a Bachelor’s degree with early exit qualification points would enable higher qualifications as more achievable for many student teachers.

The attitudes and priorities held by the VET workforce to professional development and qualifications and the level of access to professional development may also create a barrier. Guthrie (2010) has noted resistance to higher-level qualifications among VET teachers. He maintains that the emphasis on learning in the workplace, for VET learners, may transfer into a perception that off the-job learning for VET teachers themselves is inferior to on-the-job learning. There may also be an element of inter-sectoral rivalry in a reluctance to undertake higher education qualifications, which might be underpinned by a perception that in former times university VET teacher-training courses were of variable quality (Guthrie 2010). For historical reasons, there may also be an expectation, amongst the TAFE workforce in particular, which is heavily unionized, that higher-level qualifications should be paid for by the employer and that time release for study should be provided. These perceptions and expectations suggest that there is a need for more consistency about messages sent at national, State, and training provider level about the need for more formal learning leading to higher-level pedagogical qualifications. There are clear benefits at all levels, and these could be more strongly explained. More education is also needed about the shared responsibility for higher-level qualifications, as in other professions.

There may be a need for better communication about the nature of university VET teacher-education programs. VET educators who are unfamiliar with the programs may think that they do not have time to undertake what they may imagine are traditional higher education courses of study, undertaken full-time on campus. They may be unaware that VET teaching/training qualifications are tailored for the VET workforce and are generally offered flexibly, often at a distance, and with credit available for the typical qualifications that VET practitioners have. Thus the barrier may not be the actual structure, but rather perceptions of the structure. Also, those entering the profession with industry qualifications at a lower level may feel that the academic requirements of a university course are beyond them. Again, university VET teaching/ training courses do offer provision and support for such students, but this might not be widely known. Finally, they may be confused by the perceived lack of consistency and nomenclature among the university qualifications. To address all of these perceptions, improving communication and information flows between the VET sector and higher education sector will be a key. The formation of ACDEVEG has itself helped communication by enabling the ACDEVEG members to communicate as a group to major VET stakeholders with a single voice.

4.5 Comparison of content of university courses with the content of the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment

Comparison of the content of the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment and higher education VET teacher qualifications highlights notable differences that could contribute to differences in the quality of work of graduates. The differences include the scope of content, the level of complexity, and application of the content. Work was undertaken by ACDEVEG to identify a VET teacher body of knowledge through a comparative analysis of the curricula of University VET-teaching qualifications. This analysis highlighted ten elements common to Australian higher education VET teacher curricula:

• Context: the multiple contexts of VET, from international developments, national demographics, economic settings and policy frameworks to national and state systems.
• Curriculum, program and learning strategy: the practice and theory of curriculum, including CBT and its alternatives.
• Teaching and learning: learning theories and application and instructional theories and application.
• Literacy and numeracy: the critical area of learner and worker literacy and numeracy.
• Learner diversity: the multiple challenges and opportunities of learner diversity in VET and other post-compulsory learning contexts.
• Assessment and evaluation: the wide range of theories of assessment and evaluation, including assessment practices in Australian VET.
• Workplace and organisational context: workplace, workforce and organisational learning, development and policy.
• The VET profession: the complex issue of the nature and development of the VET professional, including industry knowledge and teaching capability development.
• Research: quantitative and qualitative research methodologies and data collection and analysis methods.
• Leadership and management: organisational leadership and management theories and application.

The core units of competency that make up the current Certificate IV in Training and Assessment areas follows. (There are also three elective units.)

• TAEASS401B Plan assessment activities and processes
• TAEASS402B Assess competence
• TAEASS403B Participate in assessment validation
• TAEDEL401A Plan, organise and deliver group-based learning
• TAEDEL402A Plan, organise and facilitate learning in the workplace
• TAEDES401A Design and develop learning programs
• TAEDES402A Use Training Packages and accredited courses to meet client needs

When the content represented by the ten elements in university courses is compared to the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment units of competency, we find the following. The Certificate IV units can be grouped into three key areas: assessment, pedagogy and curriculum. These align to three elements within the ACDEVEG VET teacher body of knowledge: assessment and evaluation, teaching and learning, and curriculum, program and learning strategy. Beyond this partial alignment, the ACDEVEG qualifications cover a further seven substantial content areas, such as the social and economic contexts of vocational education and professional identity. The wider content scope of these higher qualifications suggest that students in these programs will gain a broader sense of what is involved in VET teaching and will also encounter more complex and challenging forms of knowledge.

In the submission to the Productivity Commission, the level of the qualifications was also discussed, i.e. whether higher education VET teacher qualifications incorporate more challenging and complex knowledge and types of application. To do this, generic outcome descriptions contained in the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) (AQF Council 2011) for Certificate IV and bachelor degree level qualifications respectively were compared. All Australian qualifications are required to comply with the broad descriptors of the relevant AQF level. The analysis showed a large difference between the two levels. For example, according to the AQF, skills outcomes at Level 4 (Certificate IV) are expected to enable graduates to:

• complete routine and non-routine activities; and
• provide and transmit solutions to a variety of predictable and sometimes unpredictable problems.

In contrast, skill outcomes at Level 7 (Bachelor degree) allow graduates to:

• analyse and evaluate information to complete a range of activities;
• analyse, generate and transmit solutions to unpredictable and sometimes complex problems; and
• transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to others.

As is explained earlier in this paper, VET teaching (as confirmed by the Productivity Commission report) is complex and challenging work. It definitely involves analysis of information, facing ‘unpredictable and sometimes complex problems’ and the ability to ‘transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to others’. These are outcomes linked to qualifications at AQF level 7. It was argued, therefore, that the challenges and complexity of VET teaching are such that AQF Level 4 outcomes are not as appropriate to the work of VET teachers as Level 7 outcomes.

5 Conclusions

The VET sector will continue to be influenced and challenged by social, economic and political changes. This means that in addition to the capabilities identified by the Productivity Commission, there must be a critical mass of VET professionals who are able to adapt to future changes. Even considering only those challenges outlined by the Productivity Commission, the analyses above show that university VET-teaching qualifications are more appropriate than the current mandatory Certificate IV. These are not simply arguments mounted in self-interest by academics; they are supported by the views and comments of students in the courses, some of which are recorded above.

Further, we consider that academics and VET practitioners alike benefit from VET practitioners studying at university. VET academics in universities, because they are not working directly within the VET sector, can identify aspects of VET practice that practitioners embedded in the everyday practices within the sector take for granted and do not question. The practitioners enrolled in the universities’ courses are familiar with their sector and bring professional insights and understanding of current concerns. Through constructive dialogue, new knowledge, practices and policies can emerge. Universities provide an environment where VET teachers can discuss the challenges they are facing in their workplaces with fellow professionals and their academic lecturers. During their course, university academics conduct supervision visits in the teachers’ workplaces to observe and give feedback on their teaching practice or have close relationships with local practitioners who share in this task. These matters would be fruitful areas for further research,

Currently there is still a critical mass of universities offering degrees in VET teacher education, and a critical mass of academics within these institutions who specialise in VET and adult education. However, many of these academics will be retiring over the next 10 to 15 years, and there is a need for serious attention to the renewal of this workforce if higher-level qualifications are to continue to be available to VET teachers. Also a strong body of academics is needed to ensure that Australian VET will continue to be informed by national and international research.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all members of ACDEVEG who contributed to the submission to the Productivity Commission, students, and in particular those members who contributed to the Body of Knowledge work. We also thank those universities which allowed the survey to be circulated to their students, and the developers of the national ‘Learner satisfaction survey’ on which our own survey was based.

References

Australian Council of Deans of Education (ACDE) (2014). ACDE Vocational Education Group. Online: http://www.acde.edu.au/networks-and-partnerships/acde-vocational-group/ (retrieved 3.6.2015)

Australian Qualifications Framework Council (AQF Council). (2011). Australian Qualifications Framework First Edition. Adelaide: AQF Council.

Australian Council of Deans of Education (2011). Submission to Productivity Commission inquiry into the vocational education and training workforce. Online: http://www.acde.edu.au/pages/images/ACDE%20PC%20Submission%20Final.pdf (retrieved 1.9.2014).

Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency (AWPA) (2013). Future focus: 2013 National Workforce Development Strategy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Bathmaker, A.M. & Avis, J. (2005) Becoming a lecturer in Further Education in England: The construction of professional identity and the role of communities of practice. In: Journal of Education for Teachers, 31, 1, 47-62.

Clayton, B., Meyers, D., Bateman, A., & Bluer, R. (2010). Practitioner expectations and experiences with the Certificate IV in Training & Assessment. Adelaide: NCVER.

Dickie, M., Eccles, C., FitzGerald, I., McDonald, R., Cully, M., Blythe, A., Stanwick, J., & Brooks, L. (2004). Enhancing the capability of VET professionals project: Final report. Brisbane: ANTA.

Guthrie, H. (2010). A short history of initial VET teacher training. Adelaide: NCVER. Online: http://www.serviceskills.com.au/past-project-reports (retrieved 1.9.2014).

Guthrie, H., McNaughton, A., & Gamlin, T. (2011). Initial Training for VET Teachers: A Portrait within a larger canvas. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

Halliday-Wynes, S. & Misko, J. (2013). Assessment issues in VET: Minimising the level of risk. Adelaide: NCVER.

Lucas, N. & Unwin, L. (2009). Developing teacher expertise at work: In-service trainee teachers in colleges of Further Education in England. In: Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33, 4, 423-433.

Productivity Commission (2011). Vocational education and training workforce. Melbourne: Commonwealth of Australia.

Robinson, C. (Chief Commissioner of ASQA) (2013). Address to conference of the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, Adelaide, 26 August.

Simmons. R. & Walker, M. (2013). A comparative study of awarding organisation and HEI initial teacher training programmes for the lifelong learning sector in England. In: Professional Development in Education, 39, 3, 352-368.

Simons, M., Harris, R., Pudney, V., & Clayton, B. (2009). Careers in vocational education and training: What are they really like? Adelaide: NCVER.

Skills Australia (2011). Skills for prosperity: A roadmap for VET. Melbourne: Skills Australia.

Wheelahan, L. & Moodie, G. (2011). The quality of teaching in VET. Canberra: DEEWR.

Smith, E., Hodge, S., & Yasukawa, K. (2014). Students in Australian VET and adult education teacher education courses: Who are they and what are their views about what they are learning? Oxford: Research in Post-Compulsory Education’s Inaugural International Research Conference of the Further Education Research Association, 11-13 July.

Smith, E. & Keating, J. (2003). From training reform to Training Packages. Tuggerah Lakes, NSW: Social Science Press.

Williams, K. (2010). Examining education qualifications for Australian vocational education practitioners. In: Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 62, 2, 183-194.

Citation

Smith, E., Yasukawa, K., & Hodge, S. (2015). Australian VET teacher education: What Is the benefit of pedagogical studies at University for VET teachers? In: TVET@Asia, issue 5, 1-15. Online: http://www.tvet-online.asia/issue5/smith_etal_tvet5.pdf (retrieved 23.07.2015).