The ICTICT102 Operate word-processing applications unit of competency was deleted on the 18th of January 2021. This was part of the newly released version of the ICT Information and Communications Technology Training Package (Release 7.0).

In 2015, the ICTICT102 Operate word-processing applications unit of competency replaced the ICAICT102A Operate word-processing applications unit of competency.

In 2011, the ICAICT102A Operate word-processing applications unit of competency had replace the ICAU1129B Operate a word processing application unit of competency.

The ICAU1129B Operate a word processing application unit of competency was released on the 8th of July 2010.

After more than a decade of use a decision has been made to remove the ‘word processing’ unit of competency from the Australian VET system. Up until the last few months we have had the ICTICT102 Operate word-processing applications and BSBITU201 Produce simple word processed documents units of competency to give structure to the training and assessing of word processing skills. Has word processing become a thing of the past, just like dinosaurs?

It seems that the modern worker now needs the BSBTEC201 Use business software applications or ICTICT216 Design and create basic organisational documents unit of competency. However, I think these units can be ‘word processing’ in disguise. We must contextualise the newly released units to ensure people can do what we use to call ‘word processing’, but for some reason we cannot call it word processing.

I think we are witnessing George Orwells’s Newspeak being implemented. I am picking up a trend that makes units of competency extremely vague. I know that units must be written in a way to be somewhat generic, but I feel we are heading towards making units meaningless.

Can anyone give me an answer to the following questions?

• Is ‘word processing’ an antiquated term?
• Does any workplace still use the term ‘word processing’?
• Is Microsoft Word still referred to as a word processing application?

The BSB and ICT Training Packages are both developed by PwC’s Skills for Australia. I assume they hope to be displaying leadership regarding Training Package development. Are they?

Australia’s VET is changing. It is certain that the current VET Reforms are disrupting the system. But will the VET system be improved, or will the VET system be damaged? Could the VET system be destroyed?

The BSB and ICT are not the only Training Packages that are changing. Unfortunately, each Training Package developer seems to be doing their own thing. And then the new Skills Organisations are likely to do different things again. No consistency. A lack of consistency create chaos, confusion, and frustration. How are you feeling? Confused? Frustrated?

Are you looking forward to the full force of the VET Reforms?

Please tell me what you think and how you are feeling.

The aim of this article is to clarify the application and terminology associated with the TAEDEL402 Plan, organise and facilitate learning in the workplace unit of competency.

Application

The TAEDEL402 Plan, organise and facilitate learning in the workplace unit describes skills and knowledge required to plan, organise and facilitate learning for individuals in a workplace, using real work activities as the basis for learning. There is a range of circumstances that are applicable for this unit, including:

• Work placements
• Apprenticeships
• Traineeships.

It is common for VET trainers or TAFE teachers to be involved with coordinating or facilitating workplace training. For example, many qualifications from the Health and Community Services Training Packages require work placement. Trade qualifications are delivered as apprenticeships. And many industry sectors have qualifications that can be delivered as a traineeship.

Terminology

The TAEDEL402 Plan, organise and facilitate learning in the workplace unit has two terms that need to be clarified:

• Work-based learning pathway
• Learning-facilitation relationship.

From my experience, these two terms are not commonly used.

Work-based learning pathway

The work-based learning pathway can be thought of as a training plan. This plan should describe what training is planned, where and when the planned training will occur, and the role and responsibilities of people involved. The development of the training plan is covered by Elements 1 and 2 of the TAEDEL402 Plan, organise and facilitate learning in the workplace unit. And the implementation of the training plan is covered by Element 4.

The following flowchart illustrates three stages of developing and implementing a training plan or pathway.

Learning-facilitation relationship

The learning-facilitation relationship can be thought of the relationships between the trainer and the learner, trainer and the learner’s supervisor in the workplace, and trainer and other people in the workplace. Successful workplace training requires the trainer and the learner’s supervisor working together to support the learner.

The establishment of relationship is covered by Element 3 of the TAEDEL402 Plan, organise and facilitate learning in the workplace unit. The maintenance of relationships is covered by Element 5. And the closure of relationships is covered by Element 6.

The following flowchart illustrates three stages of establishing, maintaining, and closing the relationships.

The following table shows how the TAEDEL402 Plan, organise and facilitate learning in the workplace unit is fundamentally about:

• Developing and implementing a training plan
• Establishing and maintaining relationships.

Competency-based training in the workplace

Training plan are developed to clearly describe a pathway to achieving confirmed learning objectives or goals. In the Australian VET system, competency standards, that have been developed and endorsed by industry, are used to determine the learning objectives.

Competency standards describe the desired outcome. The RTO must develop a training plans and seek agreement from those people involved. Workplace training will always involve the learner’s workplace supervisor. However, there may be other people in the workplace that are involved or need to be informed about the planned training. Training in the workplace can impact upon the normal workflow or operations.

Also, workplace training will require an appropriate level of supervision for the learner. Some work tasks may be dangerous. The health and safety of the learner and others in the workplace is essential. And sometimes mistakes, errors, or work tasks performed incorrectly may be expensive. For example, equipment could be damaged, valuable material wasted, or sub-standard product or poor customer service could lead to a damaged reputation.

Roles and responsibilities

The successful implementation of workplace training requires the roles and responsibilities to be clarified before the training plan is agreed to. The following are some questions that can help clarify roles and responsibilities:

• Who will ensure safety of the learner in the workplace?
• Who will supervise the learner? What level of supervision is appropriate for the learner’s levels of knowledge, skill, and experience?
• How will the the supervisory arrangements be monitored?
• What off-the-job training will be provided? What on-the-job training will be provided? Who will deliver the training? When will the training be delivered?
• Who will monitor the learner’s progress against the training plan? How and when will progress be monitored? Who will be involved?
• What records will be kept to record training and performance of work tasks in the workplace? Will a task book or logbook be used? Are third-party reports required? Who will keep the records?
• What responsibilities does the learner have? What commitment must the learner make?
• What is the process for raising and resolving concerns and issues?

In conclusion

An important role performed by many VET trainers or TAFE teachers is coordinating and monitoring the process of workplace training. The role of coordinator often requires a different set of skills than the skills needed to deliver training or assess competency. Sometimes being a coordinator will require diplomatic skills, meeting skills, issue resolution skills, and highly developed communication and interpersonal skills.

Also, contractual arrangements associated with work placements, apprenticeships and traineeships govern various aspects of workplace training, such as, safety and supervision.

Coordinating workplace learning can be challenging. But the workplace is the best place to truly develop competency. Remembering that competency is defined as the consistent application of knowledge and skill to the standard of performance required in the workplace.

Australia’s VET system

Australia’s vocational education and training (VET) system is complex and forever changing. People studying for their TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification may find useful information on this website. Tap or click on the following ABC logo to find out more.

Contact now!

Training trainers since 1986

The VET Reforms are happening. And we are being asked to contribute to the changes. Generally, I think it is a waste of time for many of us to get involved in the consultation process because changes are being implemented anyway. However, I got an email this morning from the Skills Reform Engagement Team at the Department of Education, Skills and Employment reminding me that time was running out if I wanted to respond to the Qualification Design Survey.

Qualification design elements

I decided to do the survey. It first wanted to know my thoughts about the following key qualification design elements:

• Qualifications based on appropriately grouped occupation and skills clusters to deliver broader vocational outcomes for students (including supporting stronger recognition of cross-sectoral and transferable skills).
• Simplifying products and removing complexity through the separation of occupational and training standards to reduce the level of prescriptive conditions in current qualifications and make better use of industry and educationalist expertise.
• Stand-alone and/or stackable short form training products, with improved pathways advice to support students to rapidly upskill or reskill to pursue new career opportunities (including facilitating stronger articulation pathways between school, VET and Higher Education to support lifelong learning).

Here is my reply to the survey.

The first point, about ‘Qualifications based on appropriately grouped occupation and skills clusters to deliver broader vocational outcomes for students (including supporting stronger recognition of cross-sectoral and transferable skills)’, is a reasonable idea. It is not a new idea, but it has been difficult idea to implement for the past few decades. If competency standards become too vague then they will weaken the VET system in Australia.

Some people do not focus on the details of a skill and how it may differ in different situations or circumstances. For these people they may think it is okay to have a ‘operate a vehicle’ unit of competency. But one unit of competency cannot cover operating a car, taxi, van, truck (different types of truck), forklift, tractor, etc. This is an exaggerated example design to illustrate the concept. We can only go so far in creating generic or cross-sectoral skills.

There has been many examples how generic or cross-sectoral skills have been widely used for many years. For example, first aid and make presentations.

The second point, about ‘Simplifying products and removing complexity through the separation of occupational and training standards to reduce the level of prescriptive conditions in current qualifications and make better use of industry and educationalist expertise’, is a really bad idea.

The separation of occupational and training standards will destroy the founding and fundamental principle of an Australian VET system that is industry-led. This proposal will not simplify or remove the perceived complexity.

Keep educational experts away from prescribing qualifications. In 1993, Australia implemented the new training system that we now know as VET. Industry and employers replaced educational experts as the people who should determine the skills needed by their workforce. Let’s not go back to a system that created unemployable VET graduates.

The third point seems to cover several points:

• Stand-alone and/or stackable short form training products
• Improved pathways advice
• Facilitating stronger articulation pathways between school, VET and Higher Education.

Nothing new about these three sub-points. Skill Sets have been with us for more than a decade. Governments have squandered away millions of taxpayer dollars on creating and re-creating pathway advice. Investment in ‘new’ career advice needs to be done once and then maintained. We should not have to start from scratch everything we have a change of government or change of minister from the same government.

In regard to articulation, this has been an aspirational feature of Australia’s VET system for decades. VET people think it is a good idea. University people seem to have trouble with the idea with some exceptions. For example, dual-sector universities use it as a feed-in strategy to capture students who did not get the ATAR score need to do the higher education qualification. They may offer the student an opportunity to do a diploma for a year, and if successfully completed, the student is offered a second-year placement in a bachelor degree qualification. Articulation is selective and only offered when the university sees a marketing opportunity.

We should stop thinking that articulation is VET Reform. It should be shifted to being a Higher Education Reform.

Overall, the current key design elements of the Australia VET system include:

• Qualifications based on occupations, and in some cases grouped occupations
• Cross-sectoral and transferable units of competency are widely available and used
• Stand-alone and stackable skill sets are widely available and used
• Career pathways advice have been, and continues to be, available
• The possibility of articulation has been available for a long time.

I don’t think these elements need to be tested.

Qualification design objectives

The survey gave the following preamble.

Trials will be underpinned by the following design objectives to ensure they align with the direction of the future training system design:

1. Broader vocational outcomes to recognise skill commonality and promote labour mobility, where feasible.
2. A reduction in unnecessary training product duplication.
3. A reduction in training product complexity, through reducing over-specification and improving training delivery and assessment advice.
4. An enhanced relationship between training products, training needs and pathways to employment and further education.
5. Greater training product flexibility and enhanced responsiveness to changing industry need through short courses (micro-credentials and skill sets).
6. Improved articulation and pathways between education sectors, building on the AQF review recommendations.

And here is my reply to the survey.

1. If the recently released BSB Business Services Training Package is an example for the future of broader vocational outcomes, then we are heading in the wrong direction.

2. The reduction in unnecessary training product duplication has already commenced. Why are we being consulted when it is already happening?

3. During 2020, there was evidence that an attempt to ‘reduce training product complexity’ has commenced. For example, the Release 7.0 of the BSB Business Services Training Package has made changes. But in the name of simplification, we are actually increasing the complexity. We know have training package documents (from training.gov.au), implementation guides and other companion volumes (from vetnet.gov.au), and interpretation guides. Multiple places to look for information, with the quantity of documentation increasing. And every new document seems to have different layout and format.

4. Anyone who knows the Australian VET system can understand the relationship between training products, training needs and pathways to employment and further education. Some people may be ignorant of these relationships. The VET system does not need the enhancements. These people need to learn more about the VET system – it is not that hard to learn.

5. For decades, the Australian VET system has had all the design elements to be flexible and responsive to client needs. It is inflexible and unresponsive RTOs have should be addressed. Many people have incorrectly blamed qualification design for issues. Most qualifications offer great flexibility and units of competency can be contextualised, with the exception being qualifications needing to be more rigid due to a regulator’s requirements.

6. We should stop thinking that articulation is VET Reform. It should be shifted to being a Higher Education Reform. (Articulation was covered by my comments to the previous question.)

In conclusion

The time it took to respond to the survey was probably a waste of time. However, after the VET Reforms have been implemented and the Australian VET system has be damaged, if not destroyed, then I shall have the great pleasure saying that someone should have listened to me.

I think the public consultation process is primarily a sham. The VET Reforms are going to happen anyway, and some reforms have already commenced. There seems to be a big rush to implement something before the next federal election, even if that something has no merit.

What do you think about the tsunami of VET Reforms? Did you know that the changes had already commenced?

Units of competency are often ambiguous or vague. This is not a design fault of the Australian VET system. It is a design feature. When writing the units of competency, the Training Package Developers aim to describe elements and performance criteria as broadly as possible. This allows a single unit to cover a range of circumstances and situations. For example, there is one unit of competency for operating a forklift regardless of the type of forklift, type of work the forklift is being used for, or the industry sector.

The elements of competency and performance criteria need enough details to concisely describe the outcome to demonstrate competence but not too much detail to restricts customisation to meet client, industry, or workplace needs. The process of customisation starts with interpretation and contextualisation.

Trainers, assessors, and designers need to become VET detectives. We need to investigate. We need to read the clues given to us in the units of competency. We need to piece together a clear, concise and coherent understanding about what competence looks like.

Interpretation

We will need to spend time understanding, clarifying, and interpreting a unit of competency. The following is an example of an interpretation for the BSBOPS101 Use business resources unit.

What is a business resource? A business resource includes equipment used in an office. And a typical piece of equipment used in an office will be a printer. Therefore, one interpretation of ‘use business resources’ can be ‘use a printer’.

Other equipment may include:

• Phone system and intercom
• Binding machine
• Laminator
• Coffee machine.

The BSBOPS101 Use business resources unit can be used to cover all types of office equipment. It is the Registered Training Organisation (RTO) that is required to customise the unit to meet the needs of a specific workplace or the typical needs of industry. The RTO has the responsibility to determine the range of office equipment that will be covered during the training and assessment.

Contextualisation

An RTO must contextualise units of competency to reflect client, industry, or workplace needs. However, any contextualisation must ensure the integrity of the outcome of the unit of competency is maintained. In other words, the elements, performance criteria, and assessment requirements cannot be removed.

Units of competency have been written with broad or non-specific words that need to be specified, clarified, and contextualised. For example:

• Policies (what policies?)
• Procedures (what procedures?)
• Equipment (what equipment?)
• Tools (what tools?).

And performance criteria often use adverbial phrases such as ‘within a designated timeframe’ and ‘according to organisational requirements’. These must also be contextualised. What is the timeframe that a task must be performed within? What are the requirements required by an organisation? What is the workplace or industry standards?

The following is an example of contextualisation for the BSBOPS101 Use business resources unit. A typical business resource is the printer. However, there is a plethora of printer types, makes, and models. Training can be contextualised by covering how to use and maintain a particular printer or a range of common types of printers, such as:

• Use Konica Minolta bizhub C558 printer
• Use HP OfficeJet Pro 9010 printer.

Different printers will have different characteristics, features, and functions. The training would need to include learning how to:

• Switch on
• Select paper tray
• Select print quantity
• Select double or single sided printing
• Select collating options
• Replace paper
• Change toner cartridges
• Clear paper jams.

An RTO should cover a range of printer types when delivering the BSBOPS101 Use business resources unit. Therefore, the contextualisation of ‘use business resources’ could include using a large networked multifunctional printer and using a smaller desktop printer. Each type of printer would have unique characteristics to be learnt.

Interpretation Manual

The above example has used the BSBOPS101 Use business resources unit from the BSB Business Service Training Package (Release 7.0). The developer for this Training Package has published a Companion Volume available from the VETNet website. It is known as an Interpretation Manual. Not all Training Packages will have a document like this.

The Interpretation Manual for the BSB Business Service Training Package gives advice to RTOs about how requirements within units of competency may be contextualised for a workplace environment. [1] This manual provides the following interpretation summary for the BSBOPS101 Use business resources unit.

This information from the Interpretation Manual is useful but there are other terms from the BSBOPS101 Use business resources unit that still need to be interpreted and contextualised.

Range Statements

Another source of information to assist with interpreting and contextualising can be Range Statements from superseded ‘old format’ units of competency. I am using the term ‘old format’ to describe units that complied with the pre-2012 Standards for Training Packages. Training Packages have transitioned from the ‘old format’ to the ‘new format’ between 2015 and 2020.

The ‘old format’ units provide some really useful information. These units of competency remain available from the training.gov.au website. The following is an example of using the ‘Range Statements’ to help clarify the requirements for the BSBOPS101 Use business resources unit.

Step 1. Go to the BSBOPS101 Use business resources unit on the training.gov.au website.

Step 2. Click on the link to go to the superseded BSBADM101 Use business equipment and resources unit. You can tell from the BSBADM101 unit code that this is in ‘new format’.

Step 3. Click on the link to go to the superseded BSBADM101A Use business equipment and resources unit. You can tell from the BSBADM101A unit code that this is in ‘old format’ (the code has a letter at the end).

Step 4. Scroll down to the Range Statement for the BSBADM101A Use business equipment and resources unit.

Step 5. Use the Range Statement to help clarify the requirements for the BSBOPS101 Use business resources unit.

Range Statements from the superseded ‘old format’ units of competency can assist with interpreting and contextualising. And these Range Statements can save you time.

Brainstorming and consultation

You will need to use your knowledge and industry experience to interpret and contextualise units of competency. This may include brainstorming ideas with your RTO colleagues. Also, it would be wise to consult with employers, industry experts, industry representatives, and relevant people from the workplace.

In conclusion

Some people complain that units of competency are vague or lack details. These people may need to stop complaining and start contextualising. Having said that, there are some poorly written units of competency that should be reported to the relevant Industry Reference Committee (IRC) to be fixed.

Ambiguous units of competency are a feature of the Australian VET system. This allows training to be customised to meet client needs. We must start by interpreting and contextualising a unit of competency. This will have an impact on what training is delivered and how a unit of competency is assessed.

We need to interpret and contextualise units of competency so that we can communicate clearly, concisely, and in plain English to learners. Learners need to understand what they are going to learn and what will be assessed.

Reference

[1] Business Service Training Package Version 7.0: Interpretation Manual

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?

Ring Alan Maguire on 0493 065 396 to discuss.

Contact now!

Training trainers since 1986