40+ years experience as a trainer, instructional designer, quality manager, project manager, program manager, RTO auditor, RTO manager and VET adviser.
Many people undertaking the TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification find it difficult. Here are six reasons why.
1. High volume of learning
The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) indicates that a Certificate IV typically requires 600 to 2400 hours of learning. Even with prior experience, a significant time commitment is necessary. Training providers often recommend around 10 to 12 hours of study per week for a 6-month duration. And sometimes the duration is greater than 6 months.
2. In-depth knowledge requirements
The TAE40122 qualification demands a significant amount of knowledge, especially regarding the VET sector’s unique requirements and terminology. Furthermore, learning, navigating, and complying with the VET regulatory framework adds complexity.
3. Complex assessment tasks
Assessment instructions can be overly precise and detailed, paradoxically leading to confusion and making it difficult for learners to understand what is required. Also, the emphasis on simply completing assessment tasks can overshadow the importance of meaningful learning.
4. Emphasis on VET-specific skills
The qualification is heavily focused on the VET sector. Individuals without prior experience in this sector might find the specific terminology, regulations, and practices challenging to grasp.
5. Insufficient training and support
Some training providers may provide inadequate training, with brief or superficial sessions that don’t fully equip learners with the necessary knowledge and skills. Insufficient or non-existent support can leave learners feeling lost and struggling to understand requirements.
6. Repetitive content
The structure of the qualification, with multiple units having overlapping requirements, can lead to repetition in learning and assessment, which some learners find tedious and frustrating.
In conclusion
The TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment demands a significant commitment to learning, a strong grasp of VET-specific knowledge and regulations, and the ability to effectively perform a range of training and assessment tasks. Many people did not know, or did not expect, the TAE40122 qualification to be difficult. They can be shocked by how difficult it is.
Many people find it difficult. Many people find it extremely time-consuming. And many people get confused and frustrated. Are you one of those people?
Do you need help with your TAE studies?
Are you a doing the TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment, and are you struggling with your studies? Do you need help with your TAE studies?
During the first week of May 2025, I conducted a LinkedIn poll asking people who work for a TAFE or other types of RTO the following question, “What is the typical size of a group of learners?”
Here are the results.
The results of this poll would indicate that a competent trainer working in the Australian VET sector should have the ability to deliver training to a group of at least 9 learners.
The TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment is the current qualification designed for trainers working in the Australian VET sector. It requires a person to have the ability to deliver training to a group of 4 learners. This group size is significantly less than what’s required. More than 80% of the poll respondents said that the typical group size is more than 9 learners.
Why is there a discrepancy relating to group size?
The following table shows the history of group size requirements for the current and previous two Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualifications.
In 2010, the TAE40110 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment did not specify a group size. There was significant inconsistency relating to group size because each RTO delivering the qualification determined what was an acceptable group size. The committee with the responsibility for updating the qualification had to determine what was a group size that would be relevant for trainers working in the Australian VET sector. It decided that the minimum group size would be 8 learners. Therefore, in 2016, the TAE40116 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment specified that a trainer should have the ability to deliver training to a group of at least 8 learners.
The next committee (different to the previous committee) with the responsibility for updating the qualification received submissions from RTOs delivering the qualification saying that it was often difficult for their learners to organise at least 8 people, being the specified group size. This is not a valid reason for reducing group size. Group size should be determined by the realistic requirements of performing the role of a trainer. Trainers working for a TAFE or other types of RTO will typically be expected to delivery training to nine or more learners.
Anyway, in 2022, the TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment specified that a trainer should have the ability to deliver to a group of at least 4 learners. This group size is significantly less than what’s required to perform the job. Competency is defined as the consistency application of knowledge and skills to the standard of performance required in the workplace. Hence, a competent trainer should be able to delivery training to at least 9 learners, and the current TAE40122 qualification does not represent this reality.
Sadly, many newly trained TAE40122 graduates will not have the ability to perform the role of trainer. They will not be work-ready. This isn’t how the Australian VET system should work.
Does group size matter?
Group size does matter. Communication complexity and the impact of other challengers increases with increased group size.
Communication complexity
The following dramatically shows how communication complexity increases with the increased number of people.
The greater number of people, the greater number of lines of communication. And the greater number of lines of communication, the greater the communication complexity.
The following shows the increasing communication complexity for 5 people, 9 people, and 17 people.
In the above table, the complexity of training 8 learners compared with training 4 learners is more than threefold. And the complexity of training 16 learners compared with training 8 learners is again more than threefold.
It is important to note that 33% of poll respondents said that trainers had to deliver training to group sizes greater than 16 learners. This tells us that trainers need the ability to deliver training in learning environments with high communication complexity. This performance standard is not adequately addressed by the current TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification. Also worth noting, is that more than 80% of the poll respondents said that trainers had group sizes greater than 8 learners. The current training of people entering the Australian VET workforce as trainers is inadequate.
Impact of other challengers
A group of 4 learners is a small group. The challengers associated with training a small group are limited compared with training a typical group size. My LinkedIn poll indicates that a typical group size is greater than 9 learners, and in many cases, it is greater than 16 learners.
Increasing group size in training can lead to a range of challengers, for example:
Reduced individual attention
Decreased participation
Superficial discussions
Logistical challenges
Weaker group cohesion
Potential for disengagement
Difficulty in addressing individual needs.
Reduced individual attention
Trainers have less time to dedicate to each participant, potentially leading to some learners feeling overlooked or not receiving the specific guidance they need. This can be particularly challenging when participants have diverse learning needs or paces.
Decreased participation
Larger groups can make some individuals, especially those who are less confident or hesitant to speak up, ask questions, or actively participate in discussions and activities. This can limit their learning and the overall richness of the group’s experience.
Superficial discussions
With more people wanting to contribute, discussions may become less in-depth, and there might be less opportunity for individuals to share detailed insights or experiences.
Logistical challenges
Managing larger groups can be more complex. Activities may take longer to complete, and organising breakout sessions or individual feedback can become cumbersome.
Weaker group cohesion
It can be harder to build a strong sense of community and trust in a larger group, which can affect the willingness of participants to share openly and learn from each other.
Potential for disengagement
If participants feel lost in the crowd or that their individual needs aren’t being met, they may become disengaged from the training.
Difficulty in addressing individual needs
Identifying and addressing specific learning gaps or challenges becomes more difficult for the trainer in a larger setting.
Trainers need the ability to adapt their training techniques
While increasing group size can offer some advantages in terms of cost and diversity, it often introduces communication complexity and significant challenges related to individual attention, participation, and engagement. Trainers need the ability to adapt their training techniques to mitigate the negative impacts of challengers associated with larger groups.
There are some skills and knowledge required to deliver training to a small group of 4 learners that are the same as those required to deliver training to a larger group. But the ability to deliver training to a larger group is different. The current TAE40122 qualification is not adequately covering the capabilities required to be a trainer working in the Australian VET sector.
In conclusion
I think the committee responsible for the TAE40122 qualification got it wrong. Having the ability to train 4 learners is insufficient. The committee responsible for the TAE40116 qualification would have deliberated the group size that would allow for a relatively realistic assessment of a person’s ability to deliver training to a group. The group size does not need to be 16 or more learners. A group of at least 8 learners is probably about right. A group of at least 8 learners add sufficient complexity and challengers.
There are many things wrong with the TAE40122 qualification. This article has only addressed one of those things: group size of 4 learners is not sufficient.
Let’s hope that a future committee with the responsibility for updating the TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment will not make the mistakes made by the previous committee. I had predicted that the previous committee would make mistakes, and it did. It did not want to listen to me. Maybe it should’ve.
There is no timeline for reviewing and updating the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification. However, the qualification or credential designed for trainers working in the Australian VET sector has been updated every 6 years: 1992, 1998, 2004, 2010, 2016, and 2022. If this pattern continues, the next Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification is due in 2028. Usually, it takes about 2 years to gain project approval, obtain project funding, review, design, and develop the qualification and associated units of competency.
The TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment is not fit-for-purpose. The qualification design is wrong, and there are many things wrong with the TAE units of competency.
This qualification is important for the quality of the entire Australian VET system. It is too important to get wrong again.
The current Australian VET system was implemented in 1992. Since it was implemented, there has been many changes. One of those changes is how units of competency have been documented. The initial units of competency looked very different to today’s units of competency.
The first training packages in the Australian VET system were endorsed in 1997. This began the standardisation of units of competency across the different industry sectors. It should be noted that ‘standardisation’ has never resulted in all units of competency looking the same. There have always been some variations.
In 2012, a ‘new’ format for units of competency was introduced. The Standards of Training Packages specified this new format.
The changes specified by the Standards of Training Packages included:
Inclusion of Foundation Skills
Separation of the Unit of Competency and Assessment Requirements (to separate documents).
It took ten years before all units of competency complied with the 2012 Standards of Training Packages.
And this year, effective from the 1st of July 2025, there will be another ‘new’ format for units of competency. However, to add to the complexity of the Australian VET system, there will be two new formats for units of competency, rather than one. One of the new formats is very similar to the current format, but the other new format looks more like a description of curriculum, rather than a description of competency. This is turning back the clock to before 1992, because it was 1992 when competency-based training and assessment was being introduced to replace the failing curriculum-based system.
The ability to make presentations has not significantly changed over the past decade. However, the relevant unit of competency was updated in 2015, and updated again in 2020. Why did we need to change from the 2015 BSBCMM401 Make a presentation unit to the 2020 BSBCMM411 Make presentations unit? Let’s quickly compare these two units.
The first difference is that the BSBCMM401 Make a presentation unit is singular, and the BSBCMM411 Make presentations unit is plural. Singular refers to making one presentation, while plural refers to making more than one presentation. It could be argued that if you can competently make a presentation, you would have the ability to make another presentation.
The second difference which follows on from the first difference relates to the performance evidence. The performance evidence for the BSBCMM411 Make presentations specifies the delivery of two presentations, while the performance evidence for the BSBCMM401 Make a presentation unit specified that at least one presentation was delivered. This change is underwhelming.
The following table compares the elements and performance criteria for the two units.
The above shows that there are three differences:
Performance criteria 1.4 for the BSBCMM401 unit has been removed
Rewording has reduced the size of some performance criteria, and in some cases, this makes the performance criteria easier to read
The number of performance criteria for Element 2 has been reduced from six to three.
This last point about a reduced number of performance criteria is deceptive because two of the three performance criteria that have removed from Element 2 are covered by the Foundation Skills for the BSBCMM411 unit. Overall, the change from BSBCMM401 to BSBCMM411 made a slight improvement. It is debatable that the change was necessary.
Déjà vu: changing units of competency
People who are new to the Australian VET system may not experience it, but many people who have been around for a while may experience déjà vu relating to the current and future changes to the units of competency. One document became two documents, then two documents have become one document again.
In 2012, a unit of competency was one document with two parts:
Unit of Competency
Evidence Guide.
After 2012, we introduced a ‘new’ format for units of competency consisting of two documents:
Unit of Competency
Assessment Requirements (replaced the Evidence Guide).
In April 2025, the training.gov.au website combined the two parts of the units of competency into one document again. This document has two parts:
Unit of Competency
Assessment Requirements.
The following illustrates how the make presentations unit has changed over the past decade, from one document to two documents, and back to being one document.
This recent change to a ‘one document format’ is consistent with the format for units of competency specified by the Training Package Organising Framework.
In conclusion
It seems that much effort goes into making changes, and the implementation of every change costs money and consumes valuable resources. Units of competency changing from one document to two documents, and back to one document may be considered trivial.
But be aware, the change from competency-based training and assessment to curriculum-based training and assessment is significant. Especially, if the providers of training and assessment begin to determine the curriculum, rather than industry and employers determining the competencies.
We seem to be returning the Australian VET system back to before 1992. It wasn’t great then, and it won’t be great for our future.
As a trainer and assessor, I have been delivering the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification since it was released in 2004. Over the past two decades I have seen many changes. A new phenomenon has recently appeared.
Over the past two years the answers to knowledge questions that are submitted for assessment have significantly improved. Two years ago, I would have seen many poorly written answers with spelling and grammatical errors. Last year, there was a noticeable improvement with far less spelling and grammatical errors. This year, most answers to knowledge questions are very well written.
Usually, at least half of the participants attending my Certificate IV in Training and Assessment courses have English as their second language. And I have come to expect spelling and grammatical errors. But things have changed. Miraculously, I am now assessing written answers to questions that seem to be too good to believe.
Also, I am seeing many more people spelling words using American English rather than Australian English. I am seeing the letter ‘z’ far too often.
What has happened?
Over the past two years there has been a substantial uptake in people using AI. Like many people, I too use AI often. And like many people, I find it to be useful.
As a trainer, I tell my participants that AI may be useful. However, I asked them not to use AI for answering their knowledge questions. I tell them that there are five ways I can tell if a response has been generated by AI:
Consistency: AI responses are often highly consistent in tone, style, and factual accuracy, making them seem almost too perfect.
Pattern Recognition: Look for repetitive phrases, unnatural sentence structures, or overreliance on certain keywords.
American English Bias: AI may favor American English, using “z” instead of “s” in words like “analyze” or “realize.”
Numbered Lists: AI often generates numbered lists, even when they are not explicitly requested.
Key Phrase Followed by Colon: Pay attention to responses that frequently use a key phrase followed by a colon, followed by additional information. This is a common pattern in AI-generated text.
By the way, I used AI to generate the above list.
People are using AI
I am assuming that many participants studying for a vocational education and training (VET) qualification are using AI. And I will assume that the number of participants using AI will grow. It is likely that some participants will be tempted to use AI to help them answer their knowledge questions.
Some participants make it easy to identify when an answer has been generated by AI. I see answers with the following characteristics:
Key Phrase Followed by Colon: Responses that have used a key phrase followed by a colon, followed by additional information.
Over capitalisation (using too many capital letters)
The letter ‘z’.
Grammarly is AI
Recently, I asked one of my participants if they were using AI to answer the knowledge questions. They told me that they were not. As I showed the participant why I had asked my question, they told me that they use Grammarly. Luckily, I knew that Grammarly is AI because I was able to inform them that the use of this application was likely to be doing more than just correcting spelling and grammatical errors. The participant agreed and said that they would immediately remove the application.
The following is a snippet from the Grammarly homepage.
Grammarly will write text, not just correct spelling and grammar. The same thing is likely to be happening for people with English as their second language when they are using translation apps. I’m not sure, but if you know, I would be happy to hear from you.
Using AI to investigate the use of AI
Many answers to knowledge questions are looking too perfect to have been written by a human. But, how do I know if an answer has been generated by AI? I provided the answer from one of my participants and I asked AI if it had been written by AI. Here is AI’s response.
AI tells me that it is highly probable that the text was generated by AI.
This backs up my hunch that the participant’s answer to the knowledge question was likely to have been generated by AI. And I have a hunch that many participants are using AI to write answers to their knowledge questions.
AI is getting better
Two years ago, even a year ago, I would have been getting many more incorrect answers from AI. It is continuously getting better and because it is connected to the internet, the AI-generated responses can be astonishingly accurate. Here are examples when I have asked AI to answer two different knowledge questions.
Example 1
I did not provide the table. AI generated it.
Example 2
There was no need to go to the website. AI provided the link.
AI can give wrong answers
Although AI is getting better, it still can give the incorrect answers.
Here is an answer to a knowledge question submitted by a participant.
The correct answer that I’m looking for is, ‘JSA stands for Jobs and Skills Australia’.
I asked AI, ‘what does JSA stand for’, and the following is what I got.
This tells me that the participant probably got their answer from AI. As an assessor, it is good that AI is still providing some incorrect answers.
In conclusion
Participants studying for VET qualifications are using AI. On one hand we are encouraging our participants to use AI to help them perform their work. But on the other hand, we tell our participants not to use AI to answer the knowledge questions.
Regardless of what we say, some participants are using AI to answer their knowledge questions. Their answers may have the following characteristics:
Answers that are very well written without spelling and grammatical errors
Answers that are in a format that looks AI-generated
Answers with the letter ‘z’
Answers that are obviously incorrect.
I believe that many participants will use AI. And I believe that many participants will not use AI as a tool to help them learn something. Instead, it is only being used to blindly answer questions – no thinking involved.
Using AI is not learning.
It would be good to hear what you think about this topic.
Please contact me, Alan Maguire on 0493 065 396, if you need to learn how to legitimately use AI as a trainer and assessor, or legitimately use AI if you are studying for their TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification.
Do you need help with your TAE studies?
Are you a doing the TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment, and are you struggling with your studies? Do you want help with your TAE studies?
Students in the TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment course will unpack at least two units of competency before they develop training programs for them. Usually, unpacking a unit of competency requires:
Interpretation
Contextualisation
Reconstruction.
Annotating the unit
By actively annotating the unit of competency and assessment requirements, you unpack the unit, effectively reading and analysing it to determine the content for a competency-based training program.
Competency-based training is training based on the competency, and competency is described by the unit of competency and assessment requirements.
Unpacking the unit of competency will identify:
Task or tasks to be performed
Knowledge required to perform the task or tasks
Skills required to perform the task or tasks.
The annotated unit is a disposable document
The annotated unit of competency and assessment requirements is a disposable document. It can be disposed of after the training program has been developed. And it does not matter if anyone else can read your annotations. It is your document for you to identify and understand the content of the training program.
The process of unpacking a unit to what’s important, not the document resulting from the ‘unpacking process’.
Annotation techniques
Unpacking can be done using:
Pen on paper
On the computer using the Word version of the complete unit of competency and assessment requirements.
The annotation techniques that can be used include:
Write text
Use colours
Use highlighting
Use arrows, circles or other shapes
Give numbers to foundation skills (FS), performance evidence (PE), and knowledge evidence (KE)
Make connections.
Every unit of competency is unique
There are different types of units:
Some units are procedural and clearly describe the performance of a task
Some units are procedural and relate to the performance of more than one task
Some units are not procedural but do relate to the performance of one or more tasks
Some units relate to learning a skill and do not directly relate to performance of a task
Some units relate to learning knowledge and do not directly relate to the performance of a task
Some units are vague and attempt to describe interpersonal and behavioural traits.
We should expect all units to be unique. And we should expect all units to be ambiguous, and this will require us to interpret and contextualise the unit.
Unfortunately, we can expect some units to have been badly written.
This article has been published as an introduction to how to unpack a unit of competency. Additional information shall be published and linked to this article.
Please contact me, Alan Maguire on 0493 065 396, if you need to learn how to unpack a unit of competency.
Do you need help with your TAE studies?
Are you a doing the TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment, and are you struggling with your studies? Do you want help with your TAE studies?
On Target Work Skills 