Recent publications and work have made me think about the nature of competency in Australian VET, and perhaps why it needs rethinking. The concept of competency goes back a fair way of course, and there is literature going back to the late 1980s and early 1990s and even well before.
In 2000, John Bowden presented a conference paper that notes that, historically, “the competency debate has never been a subdued one”, and also that
“the competency movement has embraced some narrow, educationally suspect practices which have attracted due criticism. On the other hand, it has certain elements which are shared with other educational reform agendas and in that sense it is valuable but not unique.”
It pointed out that competency-based education is also very much focused on the needs of workplaces as well as training outcomes and demonstrated and observable performances. It’s a very good historical account of where the competence and CBT movement came from. Steven Hodge also took a look at it historically in a 2007 paper, also noting its behaviourally oriented foundations.
But one of the really pivotal moments for Australia, I think, was a publication by the (then) National Training Board, which really set the scene both for what competence would come to mean in Australia and also laying the strong foundations of the move from an educator-led to industry-led VET system.
It defined the concept of competency as focused on “what is expected of an employee in the workplace rather than on the learning process; it embodies the ability to transfer and apply skills and knowledge to new situations and environments.” It noted that that not only were there task skills, but also skills in task and contingency management as well as job/environmental skills.
The evolution of the current official definition dates to the 2009 review of training packages. One of its recommendations was that the notion of competency be redefined as:
“the consistent application of knowledge and skill to the standard of performance required in the workplace. It embodies the ability to transfer and apply skills and knowledge to new situations and environments.”
Thus, it was focused very much on the needs of industry, industry sectors, enterprises and workplaces, although individuals rated a mention.
Arguably however, this definition, which has persisted to the present day, seems to represent a relatively minor rethink at best of original notions, but it did – in fairness – reference generic and employability skills incorporating the development of personal capabilities and attributes and placing greater emphasis on cognitive rather than functional (technical) skills’.
However, in earlier work, Schofield and McDonald, their 2004 review of training packages, saw the need for a broader conception of competence (as did many other VET educators before and after), noting its conceptual complexity and the a need to emphasise that competency is a broader concept than the ability to perform workplace tasks. It has, they suggested, a strong personal dimension as well, in particular to develop essential personally held skills and capabilities. As I noted in a paper in 2009: “competence can be conceptualised in two broad ways. One takes a view that competence is a personal construct, while the other grounds competence in the context of an occupation and even a particular workplace.”
I therefore suggested that a balance needs to be struck between these two constructs, and that competence is a holistic concept which can have a contextual element. So, conceptually, the ‘whole’ of what it means to be competent is greater than the ‘sum of the parts’ identified in competency standards, and I therefore described competence as a ‘fuzzy’ term, and that fuzziness reflects the conflation of a range of distinct concepts and usages of it.
Most recently, Josie Misko and Michelle Circelli argued for an examination of European conceptions of what competence means, including the ability and readiness of the individual to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and methodological competences and conduct himself or herself in a considered and individually and socially responsible manner. This includes the ‘cognitive’ (involving the use of logical, intuitive and creative thinking) and the ‘practical’ (involving manual dexterity and the use of methods, materials, tools and instruments). It also includes decision-making ability, cooperation, teamwork and even entrepreneurship, and the development and maintenance of competence is seen as a lifelong learning journey.
Thus, the development and assessment of competence is very much dependent on the approaches to delivery. This is why VET providers and their staff are such an important part of the process and can make or break the attainment of real competence. This is why I think they have to have a greater role in determining what competence is and how it’s attained and measured. I therefore argue that it’s now time for us to reconceptualise and broaden our thinking on the concept and move on to a better and more inclusive approach to helping our learners to be competent.
