HELP! DSO Discussion Paper
Phill Bevan
Advisor | Strategy, Technology, Capability ??????????????????~????????????????????~???????????????? ??????????????????
HELP!
For my VET sector connections, I am hoping you can assist me to decipher some items in the new DSO Discussion Paper: Towards a new model for the development of digital skills just released.
For background, the Digital Skills Organisation (DSO) was established in 2020 with funding from the Australian Government. It is an independent, registered company with a Board of Directors that primarily comprises employers. So, an industry / employer focused body.
"The VET sector is uniquely placed to deliver cost effective and diverse training approaches, suitable for a range of workers including those looking to upskill in their current role and future workers who are yet to join the workforce. The VET sector can also be valuable for employers by offering industry specific skills training."
I am a big fan of the start.
“The current VET system is based on occupational skills standards, set out in units of competency within training packages and accredited courses. It focuses on training a person to carry out formalised tasks aligned to existing job roles, e.g. Information Technology Manager. This limits the knowledge acquired to areas that can be immediately applied and observed within work.”
But hang-on, isn’t the definition of “competency” under the Standards for RTO’s 2015:
“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.”
Further from the DSO paper…
“A skills-based approach to learning develops skills that are adaptable to future needs by enabling individual learners to achieve skills that are transferable across different jobs, occupations and contexts.”
Yep that’s it – so you mean competency, don’t you?
The paper goes on…
“Competency based training makes the system slower to respond to the pace of change driven by technology. Training packages are prescriptive and do not sufficiently reflect employers’ needs.”
But Competency Based Training is “A method of training which develops the skills, knowledge and attitudes required to achieve competency.”
And training packages are specifically designed by industry, with extensive employer input, to directly reflect industry and employers' needs.
“The purpose of the Standards for Training Packages is to ensure Training Packages are of high quality and meet the workforce development needs of industry, enterprises and individuals.”
The DSO paper continues about competency based training…
“This form of training also limits the potential for learners to apply knowledge in a range of contexts. An alternative to Competency based training is to focus on skills.”
Ahh no… as above the very definition of competency requires ‘learners to apply knowledge in a range of contexts.’ And the definition of competency also explicitly includes skills.
Hmm… I am lost – let’s go back. The paper said:
“A skills-based approach to learning develops skills that are adaptable to future needs by enabling individual learners to achieve skills that are transferable across different jobs, occupations and contexts.”
But then defines a “skill” as:
“A skill is defined as the capabilities needed to complete a task within a job function.”
How is competing a task within a job function transferable? Assumed?
Competency on the other hand requires transferability of skills by definition.
The paper continues…
“The Digital Skills Development Model is underpinned by the digital skills standard.
领英推荐
The skills standards define the critical work skills (technical, enterprise and leadership) required by an individual to undertake specified digital functions and depict the minimum skill level required to perform those functions in the workplace.”
Hang on, what was the purpose of Training Packages again…
“Training packages specify the knowledge and skills required by individuals to perform effectively in the workplace, which are expressed in units of competency.”
“Compared to Competency based training, a skills-based model adapts more quickly to the changing needs of digital workers.”
But we've already said, Competency Based Training is “A method of training which develops the skills, knowledge and attitudes required to achieve competency.”
So this new skill-based model will not ensure that workplace performance is confirmed?
Or it somehow has an instructional method that achieves ready and performing graduates faster than Competency based training?
Hmm… I am lost again – let’s go back. The paper said about the new model:
“A skills-based approach to learning develops skills that are adaptable to future needs by enabling individual learners to achieve skills that are transferable across different jobs, occupations and contexts.”
Yep we’ve covered this – that’s the definition of competency…
Perhaps what the paper is saying is that the current government structure for the development of curriculum (training packages) is slow?
If so, why would that be "Competency based training's" fault?
The speed of the development / adaptation of the curriculum is a separate consideration to the effective instructional models of Competency based training delivery.
Hmm... let’s move onto assessment
“Assessment Against the Standard
Confidence in the outcomes of skills standards is provided through assessing learners against the standard.”
“The assessment of skills will be independent of training delivery and be aligned to achievement against the relevant digital skills standards.”
Ooh not achievement-based assessment?
So we are going to criterion-reference assessments?
Candidates will not have to demonstrate consistent application of knowledge and skill to the standard of performance required? (There’s that definition of competency again).
So how will employers rely on the skills that students did achieve?
The paper summarises:
“Training solutions that follow a skills-based approach can be more flexible and adaptable to future needs, enabling individual learners to achieve skills and capabilities that are transferable across different jobs, occupations and contexts.”
How more flexible and adaptable??
As earlier…
“Compared to Competency based training, a skills-based model adapts more quickly to the changing needs of digital workers.”
How more flexible and adaptable??
Because there is not a rigid Quality Assurance process across the development of curriculum?
Because there is a shift to “achievement” rather than “competency” based assessment practices that do not confirm student performance?
And how is that transferability being achieved again?
I welcome your help VET educator colleagues to decipher the language being used by the DSO, as a primarily employer body, so that we might all understand what is the approach and instructional practice that is being suggested.
Advisor | Strategy, Technology, Capability ??????????????????~????????????????????~???????????????? ??????????????????
1 年Has it really been a year? Time flies...
Self Assurance Specialist at TAFE NSW
2 年I think the paper is confusing ‘Unit of Competency’ with competency based training, which makes it very confusing. If you substitute’unit of competency’ for every reference to ‘competency based training’ it starts to make more sense. If you then substitute ‘skills based training’ to ‘learning outcomes’ (or the collection of individual outcomes the student needs to achieve to get the unit of competency, like demonstrated ability to export document in at least 3 file formats) then you can turn it upside down and get an idea of where they are going. My take is they want to split the UOC into smaller subsections that ca be assessed individually, and therefore each can be updated more rapidly. So if the industry needs changes “demonstrated ability to export document in at least 3 file formats” can be changed to “demonstrated ability to export document in at least 3 file formats, one of which is cvs’ can be changed, updated and implemented more rapidly. This is where the microcredential seem to be going.
The creator of Prickly2sweet. The system saving thousands in time and money whilst reviewing assessment.
2 年Wow, how much did this paper cost?
On Target Work Skills
2 年Thank you, Phill, for publishing your analysis and thoughts. Well done! I assume we can expect the language used by each Industry Cluster will be different. The future of VET in Australia is headed for chaos.
Dream Maker at inception.net.au | Founder, Trainer, Training Programs, Business Development
2 年Check out the difussion of innovation for clarification on the Phill. Basically technology doubles every 18 months, and as RTOs only have to update their resources every 3-5 years in their validation cycle, the technology RTOs deliver training on is usually superseded twice. So they ate delivering technology to laggards, which make up 16% of the population, so the formal VET sector is poorly placed. However, early adopters and the early majority, the domain of informal learning provider, is 13.5%+34% (47.5%) and ideally placed as it there training content is update every 6 months. Which is what the government is trying to cash in on with the micro-credentials framework, which relies on rapid development of training packages from 5 years to guess what?... 6 months. ?? the hand brake for educators is their instance on prioritising explicit knowledge over tacit knowledge. Informal learning providers know you don't need to know how the engine words to drive a car, which is why informal providers training products are superseded 3 times in the time it took to teach out the BSB7.0 update. Diffusion of innovation is finite gamer thinking and educators see a qualification as an outcome. It's a different mindset.