Apprenticeships can be seen as the ultimate in co-operation between TVET providers and industry as they are based on a combination of work and study. They provide appropriate skills for companies and also all-round occupational and generic skills, as well as providing a tried and tested means of moving young people into the full-time labour market. However there are many different actual and potential models of apprenticeship, which can be confusing for countries looking to begin or re-develop an apprenticeship system. This paper uses part of the work undertaken for a project funded by the International Labour Organization and the World Bank to compare and contrast apprenticeship systems in 11 countries, for the purpose of drawing out some principles of good practice. The project was undertaken to provide suggestions for the process of reform of the Indian apprenticeship system (Planning Commission 2009).

Experiences of other countries, both in the developed and the developing world, indicate that apprenticeship systems cannot be transplanted among countries; however, key features of countries’ systems can be identified and sensitively developed in other countries. The paper explains how an international comparative study arrived at principles for good practice.

In the project, eleven individual country case studies, based on reports, literature and stakeholder comment, were produced by a team of national experts, and subjected to a cross-case analysis to extract these principles. The use of national experts was judged to be more effective than having people write on other countries’ systems. The latter method has proved in many instances to result in inaccurate reports, susceptibility to the influence of limited numbers of stakeholders and a lack of sophistication in analysing trends. The country case studies took into account agreed international benchmarks for describing, analysing and evaluating apprenticeships, based on the framework described in the recently-released memorandum by INAP, the International Network on Innovative Apprenticeship (INAP Commission 2012) and the framework developed by one of the authors in the International Encyclopedia of Education (Smith 2010). The countries were selected to cover a range of variables.

A cross-case analysis was undertaken which drew together data from the countries using a thematic approach and simple data display techniques (Miles & Huberman 1994). The analysis covered both systemic issues and ‘the life cycle of the apprentice’. The data were then further reduced to develop an identified set of principles of good practice in apprenticeship systems. These principles of good practice were then contextualised within a consideration of issues of ‘quality’, expansion and simplification strategies for apprenticeships and incentives for employers and apprentices.

1 Introduction

The project was commissioned by the International Labor Organization and the World Bank to contribute to Indian discussions about the reform of the apprenticeship system. India’s apprenticeship system will be a major contributor to its future growth but in comparison to, for example, Australia or Germany, its apprenticeship system is small (Ministry of Labour and Employment 2011), with only about 0.1% of the formal labour force involved in apprenticeships compared with up to 4% in some countries. The Indian labour force is the world’s second largest (Economist 2011) with 487.6 million workers. The agricultural sector employs most of the national workforce and is second in farm output worldwide. For the economy to continue to grow and expand, it is assumed that a large portion of the workforce will migrate from the primary sector (agriculture) to the secondary and tertiary sectors. However the skills sets that are required in both these sectors are quite different from those in the agricultural sector (ICRA Management Consulting 2010). This implies a large potential skill gap when such a migration occurs. India aims at a skilled workforce of 500 million by 2022 (Ministry of Labour and Employment 2010) and this is an extremely ambitious policy aspiration to which, it is anticipated, a major expansion of the apprenticeship system will contribute.

Some of the obvious challenges that confront the Indian government in its attempts to reform the apprenticeship system include the small size of the apprenticeship system, lack of alignment of expectations of employers and apprentices, uneven quality of curriculum, uneven participation in the apprenticeship system among socio-economic groups and other groupings, lack of confidence in the skills of graduates of the system and the difficulties associated with a predominantly informal economy (Planning Commission Sub Committee 2009). There is also concern about an over-complexity of regulation, the under-representation of women and minority groups in apprenticeships, and the availability and quality of sufficient trainers (ILO and OECD 2011). Under these conditions international good practice principles derived from this research are highly relevant.

As part of the project method, a number of international country case studies were written specifically for the project, which were then analysed by the authors of this paper. The aim of the cross-case analysis was to develop good practice principles and features of a ‘model apprenticeship system’ which were then utilised, following an analysis of the Indian system, to suggest possible options for the Indian system. This paper, however, focuses only on the international comparison and the good practice principles and not on the Indian system or the proposals for reform of the Indian system that have been presented (2012). The research question for the phase of the project reported on in this paper is ‘What are the good practice features internationally that provide principles of good practice in apprenticeship systems?’

2 Background and literature review

Apprenticeship is an institution which, for centuries, has successfully effected entry into working life for young people, and has also been responsible for the maintenance of the skills base of many national economies. Apprenticeships began in medieval times, and perhaps before that in some countries, when young people went to live in their masters’ houses to learn trades, over a period of up to seven years. Although apprenticeships have become less demanding of both master and apprentice, they have survived in many countries over the centuries (Lane 1996).

The essential components of a formal apprenticeship are generally understood to be:

• a training regime set up by, or with the approval of, governments;
• a combination of off and on the job training;
• the assumption of responsibility by the employer for the development of the apprentice;
• The award of a qualification and/or licence and/or some other recognition that enables an occupation to be practised independently once the apprenticeship is successfully completed.

In modern economies, apprenticeships are regarded as important ways of developing skills in the workforce along with their perceived role in reducing youth unemployment. After a period of neglect, apprenticeships have recently returned to centre-stage and they are beginning to take a more prominent role in the way that countries manage their education, training and labour markets (Rauner & Smith 2010).

However, different countries have different expectations of apprenticeships and therefore regulate and manage their apprenticeship systems in different ways (Smith 2010) and thus it is difficult directly to compare systems or to transplant ideas from one country to another.

3 Method

Eleven country case studies of their respective apprenticeship systems were commissioned (Table 1). One was written by one of the authors of this paper and the remainder by nine invited experts, who wrote about countries where they were located (n=8) or with which they were familiar (n=2). One expert wrote about two countries. The countries were selected to cover a range of variables: stages of development, size and reputation of apprenticeship system, global location to ensure that all continents were covered. Some of the selections were suggested by the funding bodies and others were added by the researchers. India was included in the initial case studies to allow comparison with the Indian system from the commencement of the project. The findings from this comparison are the subject of a paper to be published by the International Labour Organization (Smith & Brennan Kemmis, forthcoming, 2013).

Table 1: Countries studied, by state of economic development

After considering other cross-national studies, it was decided that the use of case studies (Yin, 2009) written by national experts would be more effective than having the researchers themselves write on other countries’ systems. Experience has shown that the latter method has proved in many instances to result in inaccurate reports, it is susceptible to the influence of limited numbers of stakeholders and it is not possible to judge accurately the influence of the full range of contextual factors. To help ensure currency and quality, the country experts were requested to interview a senior government official in their country before finalising the writing-up, and also to submit their case study to an independent academic expert at another institution for review. These objectives were achieved, in some instances partially, in seven of the country case studies.

The purpose of the country case studies was firstly to obtain accurate and current information about countries’ apprenticeship systems written by people who had a deep understanding of the culture, politics and economics of the countries as well as the apprenticeship systems. It is well-recognised that apprenticeship systems need to grow from countries’ national economic and cultural contexts and cannot be transplanted as complete entities from one country to another. The second purpose was to obtain targeted information about key features and trends that could be used to develop good practice principles in apprenticeships.

The country case studies took into account agreed international benchmarks for describing, analysing and evaluating apprenticeships. These were the framework described in the recently-released memorandum by INAP, the International Network on Innovative Apprenticeship (INAP Commission 2012) and the framework developed by one of the authors in the International Encyclopedia of Education (Smith 2010). Based on these frameworks, the authors were requested to cover the following: a number of topics under major headings, each of which included up to ten sub-topics. These were as follows:

• Introductory paragraph about the country’s economic and education systems
• Nature of the apprenticeship system
• Occupational coverage
• Participation
• Training and assessment
• Participation of governments and other stakeholder groups (social partners)
• Major issues and learning points (what are the major issues facing apprenticeship in the researched countries and what has been the effectiveness of the policy developments?)

The headings proved more applicable to some countries than others. As simple examples of differences, some countries had more than one major apprenticeship system, and in some countries little official data were available. But all case studies were able to provide at least some information under each major heading, if not each minor heading.

A thematic cross-case analysis was then undertaken (Miles & Huberman 1994). For the cross-case analysis the following guidelines were used to develop the structures and headings:

• The format of the case study guidelines, which was itself developed partly from the project terms of reference but also informed by the following two documents:
  • The INAP memorandum on apprenticeship architecture;
  • Analysis of apprenticeships in the International Encyclopedia of Education (Smith 2010);
• The cross-country analysis in the European Commission report on apprenticeship supply (European Commission 2012); and
• An apprenticeship life-cycle model developed in an Australian study (Smith et al. 2009) to describe the progression through an apprenticeship for the individual apprentice.

However, some themes also arose from the data themselves (Stake 1995). Also, the researchers’ views on issues and policy developments were collated into a table.

The research question for this phase of the project and therefore for this paper is ‘What are good practice features internationally that provide a set of good practice principles for an apprenticeship system?’

4 Findings

The analysis showed that apprenticeship systems could often be grouped together into ‘bands’ in terms of individual features with each ‘band’ representing a cluster of similar characteristics. For example information relating to completion rates, involvement of social partners, payment of apprentices, and target age groups across the different case study countries tended to show distinct similarities and differences and allowed the researchers to develop the typologies discussed below. Two examples are provided below (Tables 2 and 3)

Table 2: Typology of availability of apprenticeships to adults

Table 3: Typology of employment status of apprentices

Such typologies are useful in describing the breadth of practices that occur across various apprenticeship systems across the case study countries. But the arrangements in the various typologies were often combined in different ways. So, for example, it was not possible to produce principles of good practice for a country at a particular stage of development, or for a country that wishes to open its system to adults. The reality is much more complex than that.

The paper proposes groups of good practice principles without proposing particular ‘mixes’ of features. In the discussion that follows, the findings from the cross case analysis are grouped into the following headings: Underlying principles, quality systems, provisions for apprentices and for employers, and expansion strategies.

4.1 Underlying principles

From the country data, underlying good practice principles were drawn out, grouped into four categories: occupational coverage, participation, national government structures and stakeholders. The principles are listed in Table 4. 

Table 4: Underlying principles for a model apprenticeship system

These principles address the major components of a system: who can participate, what is the coverage of the economy, what structures are in place, and which stakeholders are involved.

4.2  Quality systems

It became apparent when analysing the country case studies that good practice principles needed to have an underpinning concern for quality. In some cases, where apprenticeship systems were in their infancy or were historically very small, quality was not a primary consideration, but the need for quality was emphasised throughout. Apprenticeship systems involve many components: employment, training in the workplace, training at training providers, and administrative systems at different levels of government. To address these issues and to suggest strategies, derived from the country case studies, that increased and assured quality, the following points were suggested (Table 5). Instances of each of those were found in one or more of the country case studies.

An important contributor to quality is the provision of resources. Apprenticeship systems involve complex decisions about appropriate use of scarce funds, the relative contributions of governments, industry and individuals, and planning for the future so that financial commitment to the system remains appropriate should the system expand considerably.

Table 5: Systems to improve and maintain quality

The following principles for incentives to employers, training providers and individuals were suggested, derived from practices in the country case studies.

• Financial incentives for enterprises to participate, subject to monitoring of satisfactory performance including audits;
• Additional incentives for employers to employ disabled or disadvantaged people as apprentices;
• Public funding for training providers – wholly or partly funded for apprenticeship training – but could arguably be financed by student loans system;
• Discounted wages for apprentices (either a lower overall rate or non-payment while at off-the-job training), but within the discounted range, higher wages for mature aged people;
• Payment of social contributions for apprentices by the State; and
• Financial incentives to apprentices to complete their contracts and to employers who continue to employ their apprentices on completion.

4.3  Provisions for apprentices and employers

Despite government structures and stakeholder involvement, the basic participants in all apprenticeship systems are apprentices and employers. The ‘lifecycle’ model proposed by Smith et al (2009) focuses on this key relationship, following an apprentice through from recruitment to completion of the contract of training. In the current project, we listed a number of provisions for the apprentice and for the employer (Table 5) which the country experts had identified as good practice. While the table is divided into ‘apprentice’ and ‘employer’ it is apparent that systems that support the apprentice also assist the employer, and vice versa. For example, if there is a ‘fall-back’ system for apprentices whose employer can no longer afford to employ them, this eases pressure on employers and also makes them more willing to employ an apprentice in the first place.

Table 6: Good practice provisions for the apprentice and the employer

4.4  Expansion and simplification strategies

A number of expansion strategies were noted in the country case studies. These included the promotion of the ‘brand’ of apprenticeship by governments, particularly in countries where the status of apprenticeships is low. This often included promotion of apprenticeships as a valued school-leaving pathway with deep connections into secondary schools, and Education of secondary school and other careers staff about apprenticeships. It also included measures to make apprenticeships more attractive through providing pathways to higher level qualifications so that people do not feel the choice is final and through encouragement through industrial relations or other systems for apprentice qualifications to form the basis of recruitment to jobs and/or be rewarded with higher pay. Strategies to increase participation of minority groups both assisted those groups in their labour market outcomes and increased the numbers in apprenticeships. Finally, two of the countries (Australia and, at a later date, England) had introduced a system of third-party employers into the apprenticeship system so that not all apprentices had to be directly employed by an enterprise.

However, without due care being paid, a rapid expansion poses quality risks that are subsequently difficult to address. The experiences of countries trying to increase their apprenticeship rates suggest the following risks:

• A rapid increase can lead to quality problems.
• Employers may be persuaded to participate without being fully aware of their responsibilities.
• Completion rates may be low unless quality is properly managed.
• Rapid establishment in new occupational areas without a tradition of formal training can lead to the risk of low-quality qualifications and workplace curriculum which can be hard to shift later, leading either to persistent negative perceptions of the occupation and the apprenticeship, or to rapid and confusing policy shifts to address the problem.
• The establishment of ‘differently-badged’ systems should be avoided, as it can lead to the newer systems being viewed as inferior, and such perceptions are difficult to shift subsequently (examples: traineeships in Australia, ’modern apprenticeships’ in England).
• Extensive stakeholder involvement is vital.

Therefore countries looking to expand their systems need to be aware of these risks, and while each country is unique, other countries’ experiences can provide useful guidance.

Simplification is another important process for apprenticeship systems which is often allied to expansion because extremely complex systems cannot be scaled up. The country case studies illustrated the following processes which they had used, or which it was evident were needed, to simplify systems.

• Harmonisation across jurisdictions (states and provinces) to enhance mobility and improve understanding of systems.
• Consistency of contract periods (at least no more than two or three set lengths).
• Removal of parallel systems with the same country where feasible; or if not, clear communication processes.

Most of the case study countries were involved in exercises to try to reduce the differences among jurisdictions, in particular.

5 Conclusion

The features mentioned in this paper could be considered by any national or provincial government seeking to review or reform its apprenticeship system, in conjunction with industry representatives. For the scholarly study of apprenticeships, the study provides a set of good practice principles for examining apprenticeship systems. A particular feature of the principles is the need to attend to the quality and relevance of training by TVET providers. The nexus between the principles of good practice and quality of training is undeniable but often overlooked in policy discussions, as the latter often focus on employment aspects. Another unique feature of the principles of good practice is the explicit attention paid to expansion strategies and the risks that such expansion pose for all those involved in administering, developing and participating in apprenticeships.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge the authors of the country case studies: Dr Linda Miller, Dr AbouBakr Abdeen Badawi, Dr M’hamed Dif, Dr Andreas Saniter and Dr Ludger Deitmer, Dr Bibuthi Roy, Nicolas Serriere, Dr Salim Akoojee, Associate Professor Ozlem Unluhisarcikli, and Dr Robert Lerman.

References

Economist (2011): India’s economy: the half-finished revolution. Online: http://www.economist.com/node/18986387   (retrieved 5.4.2013).

European Commission (2012): Apprenticeship Supply in the Member States of the European Union. Final report. European Commission. Luxembourg.

ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited (2010): The Skill Development Landscape in India and Implementing Quality Skills Training. Paper prepared for the 3rd Global Skills Summit of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry. Online:  http://www.ficci.com/SPdocument/20073/IMaCS.pdf   (retrieved 10.4.2013).  

International Labour Organization and OECD (2011): G20 Country Policy Briefs: India, for G20 Meeting of Labour and Employment Ministers, 26-27 September. Paris.

INAP Commission (2012): Memorandum: An Architecture for Modern Apprenticeships – Standards for Structure, Organisation and Management. University of Zurich, Zurich.

Lane, Joan (1996): Apprenticeship in England, 1600-1914. London: UCL Press.

Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994): Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ministry of Labour and Employment (2011): Trade Apprenticeship Training in India, 2009. Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi.

Ministry of Labour and Employment (2010): Annual Report 2008-2009. Online: Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi.

Planning Commission Sub Committee on Re-modelling India’s Apprenticeship Regime (2009): Report and Recommendations. New Delhi.

Rauner, F. & Smith, E. (eds.) (2010): Rediscovering Apprenticeship: Research Findings of the International Network on Innovative Apprenticeship. Dordrecht: Springer.

Smith, E. (2010): “Apprenticeships”. In Peterson, P., McGaw, B., & Baker, E. (eds.): International Encyclopedia of Education. 3rd edn, Vol. 8. Oxford: Elsevier, 312-319.

Smith, E., Comyn, P., Brennan Kemmis, R., & Smith, A. (2009): High Quality Traineeships: Identifying What Works. NCVER, Adelaide.

Smith, E. & Brennan Kemmis, R. (2013, forthcoming): Possible futures for the Indian apprenticeship system. Options paper for India. Geneva: ILO.

Stake, R. (1995): The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. (2009): Case Study Research. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Citation

Smith, E. & Brennan Kemmis, R. (2013). Good practice principles in apprenticeship systems: An international study. In: TVET@Asia, issue 1, 1-12. Online: http://www.tvet-online.asia/issue1/smith_brennan-kemmis_tvet1.pdf (retrieved 30.5.2013).

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).