Competency-based training (CBT) is a widely used approach in vocational education and training (VET) in Australia. It has been the main training paradigm for the VET sector for the past 30 years. CBT focuses on developing the skills and knowledge necessary to achieve competency in specific occupations.
In the Australian VET sector, competency is defined as the ability to receive, respond to, and process information in order to achieve a certain level of skill. The Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 provide the framework for defining competency in different occupations. These standards cover a wide range of occupations and provide specific guidance to learners on the skills and competencies they can achieve.
One of the strengths of CBT is its emphasis on outcomes and the demonstration of skills and knowledge through assessment. This allows learners to have a clear understanding of the standards they need to achieve and provides industry with evidence of a learner's competency level. CBT also allows for targeted professional development and improvement activities to enhance work performance.
However, there are also some weaknesses associated with the Australian approach to CBT. These weaknesses include the need for a broader conception of competency in certain industry areas and qualification types. It is important to consider whether a more comprehensive approach to defining and describing competence would be more effective in delivering and assessing teaching and learning in VET.
What is competence?
Competence is a multifaceted concept that encompasses a range of skills, knowledge, abilities, and attributes required to perform effectively in a particular domain or context. It goes beyond the mere demonstration of technical skills and includes cognitive abilities, creativity, problem-solving, communication, adaptability, and other essential qualities. Competence is not limited to a specific task or job but extends to the overall performance and success in a given field.
To understand competence more comprehensively, it is essential to explore its various dimensions and how it is conceptualised in different contexts. In the Australian Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector, competence is defined in the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 as the ability to receive, respond to, and process information to achieve a certain level of skill. This definition highlights the importance of knowledge acquisition, application, and the ability to meet industry standards.
Competence is not a static concept but rather a dynamic and evolving one. It involves continuous learning, development, and adaptation to changing circumstances and demands. It is not limited to technical proficiency but also includes the ability to think critically, solve problems, make informed decisions, and work effectively in teams. Competence is not solely based on theoretical knowledge but also on practical application and the ability to transfer skills and knowledge to real-world situations.
In the context of vocational education and training, competence is often assessed through various methods, including practical demonstrations, assessments, workplace observations, and simulations. These assessments aim to evaluate a learner's ability to apply their knowledge and skills in real or simulated work environments. The assessment criteria are typically aligned with industry standards and expectations, ensuring that learners are prepared for the demands of the workplace.
Competence is not a binary concept but exists on a continuum. It can be measured and assessed at different levels, ranging from basic proficiency to advanced mastery. The level of competence required may vary depending on the specific occupation, industry, or job role. For example, a novice worker may be considered competent if they can perform basic tasks under supervision, while an experienced professional may be expected to demonstrate a higher level of competence and autonomy.
Competence is not solely determined by individual attributes but is also influenced by contextual factors. The demands and expectations of a particular industry, organisation, or job role shape the definition and assessment of competence. Competence is also influenced by cultural, social, and environmental factors that impact the skills and knowledge required in a specific context. Therefore, competence should be understood and assessed within the broader context in which it is applied.
Competence is not a fixed attribute but can be developed and enhanced through education, training, and experience. Competency-based training programs aim to equip learners with the necessary skills, knowledge, and attributes to achieve competence in their chosen field. These programs focus on the acquisition of specific competencies and provide opportunities for learners to practice and apply their skills in real or simulated work settings.
Competence is not limited to technical skills but also includes a range of transferable skills and attributes that are essential for success in the workplace and beyond. These skills, often referred to as employability or soft skills, include communication, teamwork, problem-solving, adaptability, and critical thinking. Employers increasingly value these skills as they contribute to overall job performance, productivity, and career advancement.
Competence is not a one-size-fits-all concept but is shaped by individual differences, strengths, and interests. Different individuals may excel in different areas and demonstrate competence in diverse ways. Recognizing and valuing this diversity is crucial for promoting inclusivity and ensuring that competence assessments are fair and unbiased.
History of Competency-based training (CBT)
Competency-based training (CBT) has a rich history that dates back to the early 20th century. While the term "competency-based" was not widely used until the mid-1960s, the foundations of this training approach can be traced back to earlier educational and training theories and practices.
The origins of competency-based training can be found in the field of education. In the early 1900s, educational theorists began to question the traditional approach to teaching, which focused on rote memorisation and passive learning. They argued for a more student-centered approach that emphasised practical skills and real-world application of knowledge.
One of the key figures in the development of competency-based training was William M. Aiken, who conducted the Eight-Year Study in the 1930s. This study aimed to reform secondary education by focusing on the development of competencies rather than the accumulation of credits. Aiken's work laid the foundation for the idea that education should be based on the mastery of specific skills and knowledge.
In the 1940s, Aiken's ideas were further developed by Benjamin Bloom, who proposed a taxonomy of educational objectives. Bloom's taxonomy categorised learning objectives into different levels, ranging from basic knowledge and comprehension to higher-order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. This taxonomy provided a framework for designing instruction and assessing student learning based on specific competencies.
The concept of competency-based training gained traction in the mid-1960s when state departments of education began promoting the idea. This was driven by concerns about low student achievement, the poor quality of teacher training, and the high costs of education. The focus shifted towards measurable objectives and performance assessments to determine if students had mastered essential skills, attitudes, and knowledge.
The Education Professions Development Act of 1970 further promoted the development of competency-based teacher education (CBTE) programs. These programs aimed to ensure that teachers were equipped with the necessary competencies to effectively teach students. However, the implementation of CBTE programs varied, and there was limited monitoring of whether institutions and faculty actually followed the registered programs.
In the field of social services, competency-based training gained popularity as a curriculum development model. Unlike social work practice, CBT was rooted in a behavioral foundation rather than a humanistic one. It was seen as an effective approach for technical programs and required training for novice workers, where the curriculum could be specified and sequenced.
Throughout the United States, various social services agencies and organisations adopted competency-based training models. For example, New York City's Preservice Academy used a competency-based model to prepare child welfare workers. Other states such as Alaska, Connecticut, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania implemented programs developed by the Institute for Human Services and the Child Welfare League of America.
The effectiveness of competency-based training in the social services field was evaluated through programs like CREST (Criterion-Referenced Testing in Social Services Training). CREST, developed by the Center for Development of Human Services at the State University College at Buffalo, involved trainees completing tests based on specific training objectives. Follow-up surveys were conducted to assess whether critical job-related skills were mastered.
CBT programs typically follow a simple concept. They begin with the identification of clear, general goals or outcomes that describe the purpose of training. These goals serve as the vision for the training program. Needs assessment is then conducted to identify the domains and competencies that need to be addressed. Specific training objectives are developed and organized into instructional units. As the curriculum is developed, domains and competencies are refined and modified.
CBT programs also emphasise the importance of posttest performance assessments to determine if trainees have mastered the essential material. Instructors or supervisors review the assessment data and make appropriate program modifications. Trainees who did not master the material may receive additional instruction and mentoring to ensure competency.
The use of competency-based training in social services training has been widespread, with many states and agencies adopting this approach. However, there is a need for ongoing dialogue and empirical comparison of different training models to improve training practices.
The benefits of competency based training
Competency-based training (CBT) offers several benefits that make it an attractive approach for organisations and learners. Some of the key benefits of competency-based training include:
Clear Learning Objectives: CBT focuses on specific, measurable learning objectives that are directly related to the skills and knowledge required for a particular job or task. This clarity helps learners understand what they need to achieve and provides a roadmap for their learning journey.
Mastery of Essential Skills: CBT emphasises the mastery of essential skills and knowledge. Learners are required to demonstrate their competency through performance assessments, ensuring that they have acquired the necessary skills to perform their job effectively.
Personalised Learning: CBT allows for personalised learning experiences. Learners can progress at their own pace, focusing on areas where they need more practice or support. This individualised approach ensures that learners can fully grasp the concepts and skills before moving on to the next level.
Flexibility and Adaptability: CBT can be flexible and adaptable to different learning styles and needs. Learners can access training materials and resources at their convenience, allowing them to fit their learning around their work or personal commitments. Additionally, CBT can be easily updated and modified to reflect changes in job requirements or industry standards.
Cost-Effective: CBT can be a cost-effective training approach. By focusing on specific competencies, organisations can streamline their training programs, eliminating unnecessary content and reducing training time and costs. Additionally, CBT allows for targeted training interventions for individuals who need additional support, reducing the need for extensive retraining.
Improved Performance and Productivity: CBT is designed to ensure that learners acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to perform their job effectively. By focusing on competency mastery, CBT can lead to improved performance and productivity in the workplace. Learners are better equipped to apply their skills and knowledge to real-world situations, leading to better outcomes.
Enhanced Accountability and Evaluation: CBT provides a clear framework for evaluating learner performance. Performance assessments and evaluations are directly tied to specific competencies, allowing organisations to assess the effectiveness of their training programs and identify areas for improvement. This accountability ensures that learners are held to a high standard and that training programs are continuously evaluated and refined.
Transferable Skills: Competencies acquired through CBT are often transferable across different roles and contexts. Learners develop skills that can be applied to various situations, making them more adaptable and versatile in their careers. This transferability of skills enhances employability and career advancement opportunities.
Alignment with Industry Standards: CBT is often designed to align with industry standards and requirements. This ensures that learners are equipped with the skills and knowledge that are in demand in the job market. Organisations can also use competency-based training to stay up-to-date with industry trends and changes.
Overall, competency-based training offers a learner-centered, performance-focused approach that promotes skill mastery, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness. It provides learners with the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed in their roles and helps organisations meet their training and performance goals.
Disadvantages of competency based training
While competency-based training (CBT) offers several benefits, it is important to consider its potential disadvantages as well. Some of the disadvantages of competency-based training include:
Rigidity and Standardisation: CBT can be rigid and standardised, focusing on specific competencies and predefined learning outcomes. This may limit the flexibility and adaptability of the training program, making it less suitable for complex or dynamic job roles that require a broader range of skills and knowledge.
Lack of Emphasis on Critical Thinking and Creativity: Competency-based training often prioritises the acquisition of specific skills and knowledge, which may result in less emphasis on critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity. These higher-order thinking skills are essential for innovation and adaptability in the workplace, but they may not be adequately addressed in a competency-based approach.
Limited Focus on Soft Skills: Competency-based training tends to focus more on technical or hard skills, such as specific job-related tasks or procedures. Soft skills, such as communication, teamwork, and leadership, which are crucial for success in many roles, may receive less attention in a competency-based approach.
Potential for Overemphasis on Assessment: In competency-based training, assessments play a significant role in determining mastery of competencies. However, an overemphasis on assessments may lead to a "teaching to the test" mentality, where learners focus solely on meeting the assessment criteria rather than gaining a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
Time and Resource Intensive: Developing and implementing a competency-based training program can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. It requires careful analysis of job roles, identification of competencies, and the development of specific learning objectives and assessments. Additionally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation of learner progress can require significant time and effort.
Potential for Narrow Focus: Competency-based training may have a narrow focus on specific job-related skills, potentially overlooking broader knowledge and understanding that could contribute to overall professional development. This narrow focus may limit learners' ability to adapt to changing job requirements or pursue career growth opportunities outside their immediate roles.
Lack of Individualisation: While competency-based training can offer personalised learning experiences, it may not fully address the unique needs and learning styles of individual learners. The standardised nature of competencies and assessments may not account for the diverse backgrounds, experiences, and learning preferences of learners.
Potential for Competency Gaps: In some cases, competency-based training may result in learners acquiring specific skills without developing a comprehensive understanding of the underlying concepts or broader context. This can lead to competency gaps, where learners struggle to apply their skills effectively in real-world situations that require a deeper understanding.
Resistance to Change: Implementing a competency-based training program may face resistance from trainers, learners, or other stakeholders who are accustomed to traditional training approaches. Overcoming this resistance and ensuring buy-in from all parties involved can be a challenge.
It is important to carefully consider these potential disadvantages and assess whether a competency-based approach is the most suitable for the specific training needs and goals of an organisation or individual learners. A balanced approach that incorporates both competency-based training and other training methods may be more effective in addressing the diverse needs of learners and the complexities of the workplace.
In conclusion, competency-based training is a fundamental approach in the Australian VET system. It focuses on developing the skills and knowledge necessary for individuals to achieve competency in specific occupations. While there are strengths to this approach, such as clear outcomes and evidence of achievement, there is also a need to consider broader conceptions of competency in certain industry areas. By addressing the weaknesses and building on the strengths, competency-based training can continue to add value to vocational education and training in Australia.
References:
Nodine, T. R. (2016). How did we get here? A brief history of competency-based higher education in the United States. 1(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbe2.1004
Mccowan, R. (n.d.). Competency- Based Origins of Training. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED501710.pdf
Sider. (2023). Sider.ai. https://sider.ai/chatpdf/E0Y55UARK6
