A recognition journey for the experienced practitioner
Some of Margaret’s achievements and background
Reframing the Future Change Agent 2005.
Member of IBSA’S TAA RTO Reference Group.
Project Manager RPL Project funded through Reframing the Future in 2006 to develop an educational leadership group within Challenger TAFE to both promote RPL and become RPL specialist assessors.
AQTF Coordinator for Challenger TAFE 2003 to 2006 providing academic leadership to teaching sections on the implementation of the AQTF Standards.
The challenges of providing Recognition of Prior Learning to a group of highly skilled professionals is difficult enough, but when faced with working across different cultures and in a different country you also need to have an “openness to other people’s points of view and not blinker your outlook”. It also requires extensive application of professional judgement
“VET practitioners are characterized by a seriousness of purpose, an ability to deal with predicaments and an appropriate use of pragmatism” (Jones, 2006)
In her roles as the Skills Recognition Co-ordinator for the Business Skills Centre and Principal Lecturer at Challenger TAFE, WA, Margaret Gannaway has built her repertoire of skills in Recognition and assessment over more than 20 years.
Margaret's view on recognition
Margaret believes Recognition is a continual improvement process where there is “no right or wrong way, you need to use high level skills to analyse each situation within its own context”. Her ability to draw on past experience and knowledge whilst interpreting industry standards and having a deep understanding of the competencies being recognised all contribute to the integrity of the process and the judgements reached.
“As an individual professional’s experience grows so does their ability to make increasingly complex judgements” (Jones, 2006)
A Recognition Journey for the experienced practitioner:
“Judging within an ever changing environment – an environment characterised by increasing diversity in the client base; increasing sophistication in client expectations; change in products and expansion of options for training delivery; changes in employment work roles, team structures and places of work; increasing competition and increasing demand; and globalisation of the training market” (Dickie, Eccles, Fitzgerald and McDonald, 2004, extract from Professional judgement in teaching and learning in VET, Mitchell, 2006)
The project
Challenger TAFE successfully tendered to provide a consultancy service to the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) in Singapore for the introduction of a National Trainer Competency Standards (NTCS) Framework. Margaret was appointed as the trainer and assessor for the RPL part of the project. The project was awarded to support the recognition of existing skills in a professional body of trainers and assessors so they could obtain an Advanced Certificate in Training and Assessment. This new qualification was written in conjunction with various professional associations in Singapore in line with the changes to introduce a competency based system.
The students
The Singaporean students seeking recognition of prior learning were all highly accomplished and recognised trainers, many with higher level qualifications than that being undertaken and years of industry experience. Dealing with such a highly respected contingent of candidates for recognition Margaret embarked on building relationships from the outset. A 3.5 day workshop was the first step in the process where the new NTCS Framework and the Advanced Certificate qualification for trainers was discussed. This framework and the workshop proved to be a good foundation from which to work.
Margaret strongly believes that open discussion and a healthy respect for each other provided the foundations by which the group were able to understand the reasons for their requiring the qualification and the benefits to them as individuals and their industry. This basis of understanding allowed for the building of trust within the group and acknowledgement of their professional backgrounds in line with their experience.
Professional judgement
Whilst Margaret would also agree that following a process was an important consideration in providing recognition services, when asked “what extent professional judgement impacted on the recognition process?” her response was “every time an assessor makes an assessment judgement they are exercising professional judgement”
It is when the evidence being evaluated falls into that “grey” area that we really have to dig deep and make a professional judgement which is based on our industrial experience and understanding of competency. This is particularly so in the higher level qualifications where the skills you are assessing require a person to analyse, deal with theoretical concepts, apply solutions and be creative –“there is no one right answer”.
As assessors we use these types of skills to evaluate the evidence we are presented with. We also draw on past experiences and our current knowledge of what the trends in the industry are. Once a decision is made it is by discussing, comparing and evaluating that decision with other assessors and industry professionals that you improve your decision making. Otherwise personal experience takes over, you must balance the personal view and the gut feeling – you take it to the next level. Ask the question “have they really met the competency standard. If challenged can I justify my decision”.
What support processes were available?
The recognition process took about six months to complete with the only face-to-face being in the initial 3.5 day workshop. In this workshop the group decided on setting up learning circles to help each other through the process. There was also one person at WDA who was allocated as the main support person. This was a great help as it provided us with the developer’s perspective.
As the trainers were representative of various professional associations they also had their own informal meetings to discuss the units in the Advanced Certificate and the type of evidence that was required.
Otherwise, support was mainly via group email communications.
Email was also used as the medium for providing evidence. As such, email communications were intense and prolific. This was a reassurance that the time spent in the initial workshop in building relationships was well spent and led to excellent communication outcomes enabling support of their needs. However, this part of the support was quite intense and Margaret found that she needed to take time to evaluate her written feedback to the group of trainers.
Tip: I found it useful to prepare a draft and reflect overnight on the response I had prepared. Also the emails had to contain feedback that was positive and provide clear advice and examples of additional evidence requirements
“It can be difficult communicating by the written word and especially when there is also a cultural difference, I found it was vital to read and reread and reread again all my emails before sending them off.”
What evidence did you require these experienced practitioners to provide? Was there any direct recognition against their job roles?
The qualification had only four units but each unit would have been the equivalent to four of our units from the Australian TAA (04) Training and Assessment training package.
A range of factors was taken into consideration when deciding how much evidence was required:
- Due to their extensive professional background in the training industry there was less evidence required against the training units. Their current experience in their roles as Trainers and Assessors engaged within the industry provided evidence mapped against the training units. This evidence was deemed sufficient to award direct recognition.
- In the case of the assessment units, evidence in addition to their current job roles was required. This additional evidence was in relation to the elements of the qualification relating to a competency based system. This required them as practitioners to assess differently and therefore required evidence to demonstrate their ability.
The WDA was, however, very keen for the trainers as students to address the units as part of the recognition process to ensure they were fully appraised of the qualification structure and evidence requirements. They felt that this would assist in reinforcement and place an emphasis on the standards which would in turn place value and greater understanding on the importance of meeting the standards.
This could be seen as a value adding and a learning opportunity by the students in working through the recognition process. It raises some important questions about RPL.
Findings
The RPL process supports reflective practice, does this lead to a higher level of understanding?
Margaret’s observations were that “recognition is a starting point – a lot of learning can come as a part of that process” –“once you start to get up in the qualification levels the interaction between assessor and applicant provides for a lot of learning in addition to the assessment... this adds value to the assessment process”
How did you ensure assessment standards were being met and interpreted correctly?
Before the 3.5 day workshop with the trainers, I spent two days with representatives of WDA in Singapore to discuss the content, process and assessment criteria. This gave me the opportunity to learn more about the training system in Singapore but also allowed them to “assess” me to see if I met their requirements. There was also a project team in Challenger where colleagues each had a specific job in relation to the project but which were interrelated. “It’s great to have that sounding board when you are doing something new”.
Workplace evidence
Workplace evidence was used as the primary source of evidence throughout the project by candidates providing samples of work. This was supported by third-party evidence in the form of workplace reports from supervisors. Videoing was an option in place of direct observations where required. Portfolios were developed through evidence provided as a result of the email communications where the dialogue between assessor and assessee provided a simulated interview situation in building a picture of competence.
How were industry/professional standards applied and validated?
The qualification that the trainers were being assessed against was the Advanced Certificate in Training and Assessment which had been written by the WDA in conjunction with various professional associations in Singapore. Part of Challenger’s project was to refine the Advanced Certificate and many meetings were held with WDA and the key players to make sure that this did happen. At the same time as the RPL was being carried out some of the trainers were involved in a pilot program to deliver the Advanced Certificate. Challenger also developed a validation framework so that the assessment outcomes would be reviewed and continuously improved. This framework was based on the Australian model. Feedback regarding the RPL process was sent to WDA and they held a validation meeting with the trainers and members of their professional associations to review the findings.
What are the key insights from your journey?
I believe part of the role of the assessor is to challenge people and assist them to achieve their full potential. Unless you have established a good working relationship with the person you are assessing, which is based on a common understanding of industry standards, trust and respect this will not happen. Developing this relationship is a vital part of the RPL assessment process and should never be overlooked.