Across Australian VET, two words echo through audit rooms, resource development meetings and validation workshops: customisation and contextualisation. They appear in Training and Assessment Strategies, pepper ASQA findings and feature prominently in publisher catalogues. Yet behind closed doors, many trainers and assessors quietly admit they are still unsure where the line sits between the two. At the same time, more learners are telling RTOs that their courses feel overwhelming, excessively wordy or impossible to follow.
When you examine these concerns closely, the real culprit is almost never the training package. Instead, it is the way delivery models are constructed, how resources are written, the level of language used and the strength (or weakness) of learner support. Customisation and contextualisation were never intended to be mysterious compliance buzzwords. They are practical design responsibilities that ensure training reflects industry realities while staying accessible for diverse learner cohorts.
This article explores the ongoing confusion in the sector, clarifies what these terms truly mean, highlights common mistakes, and provides a comprehensive roadmap for RTOs seeking to rebuild learning experiences that are accurate, engaging and compliant – without lowering standards or rewriting national benchmarks.
INTRODUCTION: THE INDUSTRY IS TALKING ABOUT THE WRONG PROBLEM
In almost every conversation about quality in the Australian VET sector, the phrase “training package” gets blamed for learner frustration. Yet training packages, while sometimes dense, are not designed to be read by students. They are technical specifications for RTOs, not textbooks or learning guides. The purpose of an RTO is to translate those specifications into meaningful, accessible training while ensuring competency outcomes are preserved.
Unfortunately, many learners report a very different reality. Students are saying they feel lost. They describe learning materials as overly academic, trainers as inconsistent in their explanations, assessments as excessively repetitive and digital platforms as confusing.
These complaints point not to a problem with the qualification but with the design systems wrapped around it.
And this is where the sector repeatedly gets customisation and contextualisation wrong. The two concepts are simple in theory, powerful in practice, but easy to misuse when misunderstood. When RTOs confuse them, the result is misaligned courses, disengaged learners, compliance risk and training that feels disconnected from real workplaces.
To rebuild clarity, we must first reset our understanding of what customisation and contextualisation actually are – and what they most definitely are not.
PART ONE
THE REAL MEANING OF CUSTOMISATION IN AUSTRALIAN VET
Customisation Is Not Editing the Unit – It Is Designing the Learning Journey
Customisation refers to how the RTO shapes the delivery model, structure, activities and learning environment to suit a specific cohort. It is broad, strategic and highly flexible. Customisation sits at the level of program design and delivery, not the content of the unit itself.
A customised program adjusts the how, not the what.
Customisation in Practice: What It Really Looks Like
Consider a Certificate III in Community Services. You may have:
-
New entrants who require structured face-to-face training, foundational LLN support, role-play practice and extended observation hours.
-
Existing workers seeking formal recognition, who need workplace-based assessment, gap training, and flexible submission options.
-
Regional learners who cannot attend weekly classes and require blended delivery combining online sessions with occasional full-day intensives.
-
Culturally diverse learners who benefit from translated glossaries, visual aids and trainers with experience supporting ESL cohorts.
All of these are examples of customisation.
None of these changes the unit outcomes.
All of them change the learning journey.
Why Customisation Matters
Customisation aligns directly with:
-
Standards for RTOs 2015 and 2025, which require RTOs to understand their cohorts and provide appropriate support.
-
ASQA’s learner-centred regulatory approach which expects RTOs to demonstrate how delivery is tailored and accessible.
-
Equity and access principles, ensuring that all learners can achieve competence without unnecessary barriers.
In this sense, customisation is not optional. It is a core quality requirement.
Examples Across Industries
Civil Construction
A construction RTO may organise training around shutdown periods, using real project work as the basis for sequencing. Toolbox talks become learning activities. Pre-start safety checks become part of the assessment. This is customisation because the program is designed around the rhythm of the workplace.
Health and Aged Care
Training may occur during quieter times in the facility. Assessment may be structured into simulated “client shift cycles” that mirror morning, afternoon and evening routines. This ensures learners practise a realistic workflow instead of random tasks.
Hospitality
An RTO may deliver units during actual service periods, aligning learning with kitchen operations. Learners observe mise en place, menu rotation, and customer service patterns that match the host employer’s real-world environment.
Customisation simply acknowledges that effective learning depends on context, not generic delivery templates.
PART TWO
CONTEXTUALISATION: MAKING THE UNIT REAL WITHOUT ALTERING THE REQUIREMENTS
Contextualisation Is About Authenticity, Not Changing the Rules
While customisation is broad, contextualisation is precise. It involves adapting examples, scenarios, language and assessment materials so that they reflect the industry reality of your learners.
It answers the question:
“How do we teach and assess the unit in a way that reflects the real work environment?”
Examples of High-Quality Contextualisation
WHS Units
Hospitality learners may explore hazards like wet floors, steam burns and intoxicated patrons.
Construction learners may focus on trenching, scaffolding and electrical hazards.
The unit requirement – hazard identification and risk control – remains unchanged.
ICT Units
The RTO might integrate the employer’s ticketing software, system architecture, naming conventions and escalation processes into practical tasks. This makes assessment far more realistic.
Early Childhood Education and Care
Case studies may feature children with allergies common in local services, reflect local cultural backgrounds, or include documentation formats used by partner childcare centres.
Where RTOs Often Go Wrong
-
Replacing unit requirements with narrower, employer-specific expectations.
-
Removing tasks because “our workplace doesn’t really do that”.
-
Changing performance criteria wording to simplify it.
-
Adding large amounts of HR material, policies or licensing content without indicating which parts are assessment requirements.
These mistakes can invalidate the assessment decision.
The Red Line: Contextualisation Cannot Undermine Competency
Contextualisation must never:
-
delete unit requirements
-
reduce the breadth of knowledge or skills
-
restrict learners to a single workplace system
-
remove mandatory assessment conditions
-
water down safety, legal or industry compliance expectations
The integrity of the qualification is always paramount.
PART THREE
WHAT CUSTOMISATION AND CONTEXTUALISATION ARE NOT
Despite their importance, these concepts have been consistently misinterpreted across the sector.
Myth 1: “Changing the logo in a case study counts as contextualisation.”
No. A superficial reference to a workplace does not demonstrate relevance or authenticity.
Myth 2: “Copying legislation or workplace policy into a learner guide is customisation.”
This practice often overwhelms learners and contributes nothing to skill development unless contextualised with real workplace examples.
Myth 3: “Adding extra content proves quality.”
Overloading resources with lengthy explanations, additional competencies, or regulatory commentary often confuses learners and dilutes the assessment focus.
Myth 4: “If learners struggle, it must be the unit.”
In most cases, the problem is how the unit is delivered, written, sequenced or assessed – not the national competency outcome.
PART FOUR
WHY LEARNERS SAY THE COURSE IS IMPOSSIBLE – THE REAL BARRIERS
Across industries, learners commonly describe VET courses as confusing, overwhelming or unmanageable. These complaints rarely reflect the complexity of the actual unit.
Instead, the barriers stem from:
1. Dense and inaccessible learning materials
Learner guides often read like policy documents, full of abstract language and long sentences.
2. Poorly structured assessments
Tasks may include vague instructions, duplicated questions, unrealistic evidence expectations and unclear marking guidance.
3. LMS confusion
Digital platforms can be cluttered, inconsistent or unintuitive, making it difficult for students to find key information.
4. Trainer assumptions
Experienced trainers may unknowingly use jargon or assume short-cut knowledge that beginners do not possess.
5. Insufficient LLN support
Learners may be reading at ACSF Level 2 while the materials are written at Level 4. The gap is academic, not cognitive.
6. Lack of clear models and examples
Learners cannot picture “what good looks like” unless they see examples that mirror their environment.
These barriers accumulate until students feel they are drowning in text rather than learning through doing.
PART FIVE
THE SIX PILLARS OF TURNING CONFUSING COURSES INTO CLEAR, COMPLIANT, LEARNER-CENTRED PROGRAMS
Below is a full transformation model for RTOs seeking to redesign training so it becomes accessible, engaging and compliant.
PILLAR ONE
DIAGNOSE THE REAL PROBLEM BEFORE YOU FIX ANYTHING
You Cannot Solve What You Have Not Understood
Instead of guessing, RTOs should conduct targeted diagnostics:
Learner Feedback Diagnostics
Ask learners specifically which parts are confusing:
-
instructions
-
examples
-
readings
-
LMS navigation
-
assessment questions
-
pace
-
prior knowledge assumptions
Generic questions like “How is the course going?” reveal nothing.
LLN and ACSF Analysis
Cross-check resource complexity with learner LLN levels. If:
-
learners are ACSF reading Level 2
-
resources are written at Level 4
…they will struggle regardless of motivation.
Regulatory Lens
ASQA expects RTOs to anticipate barriers, not wait for learners to fail.
Outcome
This process identifies the real causes of confusion so the RTO avoids random fixes that do not align with the actual problem.
PILLAR TWO
SIMPLIFY WITHOUT COMPROMISING – THE ART OF PLAIN ENGLISH
Clarity Protects Learners and Strengthens Compliance
Plain English is not the same as dumbing down. It is about reducing unnecessary cognitive load.
Before:
“The organisation’s WHS procedures must be implemented in accordance with legislative requirements.”
After:
“You must follow your workplace’s WHS procedures every time you do the task.”
The competency standard stays the same. The language becomes human.
Strategies to Improve Clarity
-
Use short, direct sentences.
-
Replace abstract terms with everyday language.
-
Insert explanations exactly where learners need them.
-
Move technical mapping to assessor documents.
Structural Improvements
Break long sections into digestible topics with clear transitions, summaries and examples.
PILLAR THREE
EMBED CONTEXTUALISATION SO EVERY EXAMPLE FEELS REAL
Generic examples lead to learner disengagement. RTOs should adapt:
-
scenarios
-
hazards
-
workflows
-
documentation
-
communication examples
-
imagery
-
terminology
…so they reflect actual industries and workplaces.
Worked Examples Matter
A learner reading a theory about incident reporting may not grasp the expectations. But show them:
-
a completed example
-
with annotations
-
linked to realistic scenarios
…and their understanding changes instantly.
PILLAR FOUR
BUILD STRONG LLN SUPPORT – THE FOUNDATION OF SUCCESS
High-quality training is impossible when LLN needs are ignored.
Improved LLN Systems Include
-
targeted foundation skills workshops
-
integrated reading and writing practice linked to the qualification
-
sentence starters and scaffolds
-
one-to-one mentoring where needed
-
extra time and staged submissions
-
early intervention when learners fall behind
LLN support must be documented and monitored, not implied.
PILLAR FIVE
DESIGN USING UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING PRINCIPLES
UDL is becoming increasingly important in the Australian VET learner support landscape.
Multiple Ways to Engage
Provide content through text, video, demonstrations, infographics and discussion.
Multiple Ways to Show Competence
Where units allow:
-
oral questioning
-
demonstrations
-
digital submissions
-
written responses
-
scenario-based tasks
Avoid forcing every learner into a single assessment method.
Low-Stakes Practice
Short quizzes and practice tasks build confidence early.
PILLAR SIX
REDUCE COGNITIVE LOAD IN ASSESSMENT
Assessment is where many learners finally disengage. A well-designed assessment tool should:
-
eliminate duplicate questions
-
remove double-barrelled questions
-
use clear verbs (“describe”, “explain”, “identify”)
-
provide step-by-step instructions
-
indicate evidence expectations
-
include realistic examples
-
align with TAS assumptions
Aligning TAS with Reality
If TAS documents assume full-time, high-LLN learners, but the actual cohort is low-LLN, part-time or workplace-based, the course will always feel rushed and confusing.
BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER: THE COURSE IS RARELY THE PROBLEM
The misunderstanding of customisation and contextualisation continues because the sector often discusses them at a surface level, as if they are compliance obligations rather than learning design principles.
The truth is simple:
Customisation shapes the journey.
Contextualisation shapes the content.
Neither requires lowering standards. Both require understanding learners, industries and real workplaces.
When a course fails, the answer is not to blame the unit or the student. The answer is to examine how language, structure, examples, LLN support and assessment design either open doors or erect barriers.
By investing in coherent, learner-centred design, RTOs can transform inaccessible, confusing programs into powerful, relevant, engaging training experiences that uphold national standards while genuinely supporting learners.
The training package is not broken.
The learners are not incapable.
The opportunity lies in the design.
