Towards the end of last year NCVER released a paper which sought to look at the strengths and weaknesses of CBT as it is currently applied to the Australian VET system.
Authored by Josie Misko and Michelle Circelli and entitled ‘Adding value to competency-based training’ it considers “whether there is cause to consider a broader approach to defining and describing competence and, hence, considering how teaching and learning in VET is most effectively delivered and assessed.”
CBT has been contentious since the get go!
Looking back over time CBT has had its supporters and detractors in Australia. Often the debate gets down to the narrowness of the definition of what constitutes ‘competence’. Definitions of CBT and competence have proved resistant to change over the concept’s life course in Australia. Guthrie had a go in discussing the issue of what competence and CBT was in the late 2000s, but the definition and the concept of what competence involves has proved pretty resistant to change.
Recent papers by Steven Hodge and Erica Smith take a hard look at CBT. Steven describes its ‘problematic role’ and Erica examines the possible extent to which CBT exposed VET to risk. And hence this current NCVER paper!
What the paper says
Josie and Michelle point out that the strength of the CBT approach in Australia is that “the technical skills a learner needs to achieve to be deemed competent in a workplace are clearly defined.”
However, they note that “a broader conception of what it means to be competent is needed, one that explicitly acknowledges the importance of ‘non-technical’ skills and capabilities, those such as critical thinking, learning from others, collaboration, creativity and innovation, and self-direction, and their role in helping learners to transfer the knowledge and skills acquired in one context to another.”
Josie and Michelle argue that:
“A case can now be made for a differentiated training and assessment paradigm
for some qualifications; for example, VET qualifications at the diploma level and above in the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), or those in the creative and caring sectors, where personal attributes and capabilities are seen as more critical, in terms of establishing the key elements of what it means to be ‘competent’.”
One definition of competence the paper looks at is that used in Europe. Competence there is defined as:
“a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes appropriate to the context. Competence indicates the ability to apply learning outcomes adequately in a defined context (education, work, personal or professional development). Competence is not limited to cognitive elements (involving the use of theory, concepts or tacit knowledge); it also encompasses functional aspects (involving technical skills) as well as interpersonal attributes (e.g., social or organisational skills) and ethical values. Competences can be domain-specific, e.g., relating to knowledge, skills and attitudes within one specific subject or discipline, or general/transversal because they have relevance to all domains/subjects. In some contexts, the term ‘skills’ (in a broader sense) is sometimes used as an equivalent of ‘competences’.”
This means looking at aspects that are concerned with thinking critically, interacting with others and staying relevant. The issue of grading ‘competence’ and proficiency also raises its head in the paper.
So, maybe this broader approach to thinking about what competency involves is worthy of consideration as we seek to look hard at the nature of training packages and other key elements of our system as part of the current movement to promote ‘skills reform’?
