For decades, the Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector in Australia has been guided by principles designed to ensure assessments are fair, consistent, and reflective of industry standards. However, the introduction of the revised Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) seems to challenge much of what has been accepted as best practice. In particular, Standard 1.4 presents new approaches to the principles of assessment and rules of evidence, prompting questions about the future of competency-based training and assessment in Australia.
With the revised standards, there appears to be a shift in how assessment validity, fairness, flexibility, reliability, and rules of evidence are understood and applied. The broader implications of these changes for RTOs, students, and the industries they serve raise a host of critical questions, especially regarding whether these changes truly enhance quality or simply introduce new forms of complexity and confusion.
The Evolution of Assessment Principles: What Has Changed?
A comparison of Standard 1.4 in the revised standards with the Standards for RTOs 2015 reveals both subtle and significant differences in how the principles of assessment and rules of evidence are defined and applied. These principles and rules are at the core of ensuring that assessments not only measure what they are intended to measure but do so in a way that is consistent, fair, and aligned with industry needs.
1. Fairness
The new standards maintain the essence of fairness but with subtle yet important differences. While both versions emphasise considering learner needs and applying reasonable adjustments, the revised standard places greater emphasis on enabling reassessment if necessary. This shift potentially increases the burden on RTOs to provide multiple assessment opportunities, which could have resource implications.
SRTOs 2015 Definition: Fairness requires that the individual learner’s needs are considered in the assessment process. Adjustments are applied where appropriate, and learners are informed about the assessment process with opportunities for reassessment if necessary.
|
Fairness The individual learner’s needs are considered in the assessment process. Where appropriate, reasonable adjustments are applied by the RTO to take into account the individual learner’s needs. The RTO informs the learner about the assessment process, and provides the learner with the opportunity to challenge the result of the assessment and be reassessed if necessary. |
Revised Standards Definition: Fairness now includes more emphasis on taking VET student needs into account through applying adjustments and enabling reassessment where necessary.
|
Standard 1.4 (i) fairness – assessment takes into account VET student needs, including through applying adjustments where appropriate and enabling reassessment if necessary |
While both versions stress fairness, the revised standards seem to introduce an even broader interpretation of individualisation and adjustments for learners. The question arises: does this provide greater equity or inadvertently dilute the rigour of the assessment process? Flexibility for learners is crucial, but does expanding the focus on fairness come at the cost of consistent standards across the board?
2. Flexibility
The revised standard's definition of flexibility is more concise but potentially less comprehensive. The old standard explicitly mentioned "drawing from a range of assessment methods", which is absent in the new version. This omission might lead to a narrower interpretation of flexibility, potentially limiting the diversity of assessment approaches.
SRTOs 2015 Definition: Flexibility means assessment is adaptable to the individual learner, taking into account how and where competencies have been acquired and drawing from a range of appropriate assessment methods.
|
Flexibility Assessment is flexible to the individual learner by:
|
Revised Standards Definition: Flexibility in the revised standards continues to emphasise that assessment should be appropriate to the context, training product, and VET student, regardless of how or where the skills and knowledge were obtained.
|
(ii) flexibility – assessment is appropriate to the context, training product and VET student, and assesses skills and knowledge held by the VET student irrespective of how or where they have been acquired |
The principle remains largely the same, but with a renewed focus on contextualisation. This suggests that RTOs will need to be even more attentive to how skills and knowledge are demonstrated in varying contexts. Flexibility is essential in competency-based education, but there is concern that over-emphasising flexibility could lead to assessments that are too subjective, making it difficult to maintain national consistency.
3. Validity
The new standard's approach to validity represents a significant departure from the previous version. The revised definition focuses on integrating skills and knowledge assessment with practical application and the ability to demonstrate these in similar situations. This contrasts with the more comprehensive definition in the old standard, which emphasised coverage of essential skills and knowledge, integration with practical application, and alignment with unit requirements.
The shift in focus raises questions about the comprehensiveness of assessment practices. The new definition appears to prioritise practical application over a broader assessment of knowledge and skills, which could potentially lead to gaps in theoretical understanding.
SRTOs 2015 Definition: Validity ensures that assessment decisions are justified based on the evidence of learner performance. It requires that assessments cover the broad range of skills and knowledge required for competent performance and are based on evidence that learners could demonstrate in similar contexts.
|
Validity Any assessment decision of the RTO is justified, based on the evidence of performance of the individual learner. Validity requires: assessment against the unit/s of competency and the associated assessment requirements covers the broad range of skills and knowledge that are essential to competent performance assessment of knowledge and skills is integrated with their practical application assessment to be based on evidence that demonstrates that a learner could demonstrate these skills and knowledge in other similar situations judgement of competence is based on evidence of learner performance that is aligned to the unit/s of competency and associated assessment requirements. |
Revised Standards Definition: Validity in the revised standards is now framed around ensuring that the assessment integrates skills and knowledge with practical application and that learners can demonstrate these in similar situations.
|
(iii) validity – assessment of skills and knowledge is integrated with practical application and would enable the VET student to demonstrate these skills and knowledge in similar situations |
A critical shift in this definition is the focus on practical application as a core measure of validity. While this seems reasonable, there is concern that the definition of validity may have become overly simplified, focusing more on evidentiary outcomes than on whether the assessment itself is designed to measure the right constructs. This presents a challenge for RTOs—ensuring that the assessments themselves are valid instruments for evaluating competencies, not just producing acceptable outcomes based on flawed or incomplete training.
4. Reliability
The new standard's definition of reliability is more succinct but potentially less precise. While both versions emphasise consistent interpretation of evidence, the old standard explicitly mentioned "comparable results irrespective of the assessor." The new version's wording might allow for more subjective interpretations of reliability.
SRTOs 2015 Definition: Reliability ensures that evidence is consistently interpreted and that assessment results are comparable regardless of who conducts the assessment.
|
Reliability Evidence presented for assessment is consistently interpreted and assessment results are comparable irrespective of the assessor conducting the assessment. |
Revised Standards Definition: The revised standards continue to stress that assessment evidence must be interpreted consistently by assessors and that assessment outcomes should be comparable across assessors.
|
(iv) reliability – assessment evidence is interpreted consistently by assessors and the outcomes of assessment are comparable irrespective of the assessor conducting the assessment |
While the principle remains unchanged in essence, the focus in the revised standards places more weight on assessor consistency. The implication here is clear: RTOs must invest in more robust post-validation and moderation processes to ensure that judgments of competency are reliable across different assessors, but this is no easy task given the subjective nature of some assessments.
The Rules of Evidence: A Deeper Look
The rules of evidence in both the SRTOs 2015 and the revised standards are designed to guide assessors in making sound judgements about whether a student is competent. However, the revised rules appear to shift some long-standing interpretations, raising questions about the potential impact on assessment quality.
1. Validity
The revised standard's definition of validity in the rules of evidence is notably different. It focuses on assuring that the student has the skills and knowledge described in the training product. This contrasts with the previous definition, which emphasised alignment with the module or unit of competency requirements. This shift potentially decouples assessment from specific unit requirements, raising questions about standardisation across the sector.
SRTOs 2015 Definition: The evidence presented must assure the assessor that the learner has the skills, knowledge, and attributes described in the unit of competency.
|
Validity The assessor is assured that the learner has the skills, knowledge and attributes as described in the module or unit of competency and associated assessment requirements. |
Revised Standards Definition: The evidence must ensure that the VET student has the skills and knowledge described in the training product.
|
(i) validity – the assessment evidence assures the assessor that the VET student has the skills and knowledge described in the training product |
Here again, the emphasis on practical outcomes in the revised standards raises concerns about whether RTOs are adequately balancing practical assessments with theoretical knowledge and other critical skills. Validity, in the broader sense, should focus on whether the assessment process itself is valid—whether it measures the competencies it claims to measure, not simply whether the evidence aligns with the expected outcomes.
2. Sufficiency
The new definition of sufficiency remains largely consistent with the old standard, maintaining focus on quality, quantity, and relevance of evidence.
SRTOs 2015 Definition: The quality, quantity, and relevance of the evidence must enable a judgment to be made about the learner’s competency.
|
Sufficiency The assessor is assured that the quality, quantity and relevance of the assessment evidence enables a judgement to be made of a learner’s competency. |
Revised Standards Definition: The revised standards retain this definition but appear to place even greater importance on ensuring that evidence is comprehensive and relevant to the context of the training product.
|
(ii) sufficiency – the quality, quantity and relevance of the assessment evidence enables a judgement of competency to be made |
3. Authenticity
Both definitions maintain similar definitions of authenticity, ensuring the evidence is the student's own work.
SRTOs 2015 Definition: The assessor must be assured that the evidence presented is the learner’s own work.
|
Authenticity The assessor is assured that the evidence presented for assessment is the learner’s own work. |
|
(iii) authenticity – the assessment evidence presented is the VET student’s own work |
4. Currency
The revised standard's definition of currency is more open-ended, focusing on demonstrating current skills and knowledge. This contrasts with the previous version's emphasis on evidence from the present or very recent past. This change could allow for more flexible interpretations of what constitutes current competency.
SRTOs 2015 Definition: The assessment evidence must demonstrate that the learner’s skills and knowledge are current, typically meaning evidence from the present or recent past.
|
Currency The assessor is assured that the assessment evidence demonstrates current competency. This requires the assessment evidence to be from the present or the very recent past. |
Revised Standards Definition: The revised standards echo this definition but emphasise that evidence must demonstrate the current skills and knowledge of the VET student.
|
(iv) currency – the assessment evidence demonstrates the current skills and knowledge of the VET student. |
