 |
|
|
|
|
Download
full report (280k) HINT: right click and save the file to your
hard disk before opening)
or purchase the printed
report online
A report for the Cooperative Venture For Capacity Building
by Sue Kilpatrick and Pat Millar
November 2006
RIRDC Publication No 06/125 RIRDC Project No UT-48A
Executive Summary
What the report is about
Farm businesses which participate
in training are more likely to make changes designed to improve profitability.
Education and training are vital components of rural capacity building,
encouraging greater adoption of the innovative technical and business practices
necessary for sustainable futures.
Extension (industry training) and the VET sector, the formal Vocational Education and Training system, each a vital part of Australia’s education and training for agriculture, have developed and are seen as separate training domains, but there is reason to believe that better alignment of the two would improve outcomes from investment in training, and improve rural capacity building.
Who is the report targeted
at?
The findings of this project
should assist the Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building for Innovation
in Rural Industries and providers of extension and VET in designing and
promoting policies and programs that make efficient use of industry resources
to provide practical, quality training for primary producers
Aims/Objectives
This objectives of the research
were to explore the justification for and ways of better aligning extension
with the VET sector. Through analysis of literature and web sources, supplemented
by emails and telephone calls, the project aimed to:
Methods used
Methodology consisted of
four components:
Literature Review
Research on extension and
VET tends to be separate and rarely draws links between the two. More recent
literature, however, while noting that there is little articulation between
the sectors, suggests that the potential of alignment should be further
explored.
The extension sector consists of many small private companies providing usually non-certified courses. The publicly funded VET sector involves formal, usually institutional, accredited training in a quality-assured national framework of educational recognition. The VET sector provides qualifications such as Certificate IV in Agriculture (Production Horticulture), Diploma of Agriculture (Sheep and Wool) and Advanced Diploma of Agriculture, each made up of a number of competencies, which are set out in national training packages, particularly the Rural Production Training Package.
The FarmBis training subsidy program favours VET-system Registered Training Organisations (RTOs). But despite this incentive for producers to access VET, the number of people in the rural industry sector doing VET-provided training at management skills levels has declined. While VET appears to be meeting the needs of career establishers and new entrants in the livestock industry, only a small number of RTOs are attracting ongoing market share from farmers already running businesses.
Producers and managers are increasingly interested in part-time training and flexible delivery, a fast response to new learning needs, and a commercial orientation. The extension sector is therefore attractive to this client base, as it is more likely to fit an immediate and practical need.
Extension courses are largely unassessed. Assessment in VET is competency based, with a diversity of assessment methods available for use. The RPL/RCC process (recognition of prior learning/current competence) is an important VET assessment alternative which can recognise competencies achieved through extension training or through the experience of doing a job, on a case by case basis.
Quality of trainers, crucial to effective training in both extension and VET sectors, varies, with trainer qualifications being diverse as to type, level and date at which they were gained. The VET sector provides some quality assurance in relation to the training skills of its trainers, however the credibility of VET sector trainers has been questioned.
Framework for Analysis
The literature review provided
information from which a framework was devised for the analysis of data
in the study. It included characteristics of the courses (such as topics,
duration, marketing approach, delivery, assessment and any target group-specific
considerations) and elements of good practice in the linking of courses
to provide various pathways for learners.
Data Collection and Analysis
Methodology for this report
uses a two-level approach: Sample A lists 77 extension products which came
to our attention through our recent research into management
skill training1.
As available and recent literature on extension products in agriculture
is limited, this was deemed an appropriate source for sampling. Our own
data was supplemented, however, by reference to Coutts’ Capacity Building
Projects Database (www.couttsjr.com.au/pd/). Sample B broadens our scope
of extension products by sampling from offerings on a FarmBis website.
In three states (Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia), alignment
of extension courses to training package products is now compulsory for
FarmBis eligibility. For the purposes of this study into the extent of
alignment between the two sectors, it was appropriate to choose a state
where mapping to training package competencies is not compulsory. We therefore
chose FarmBis Victoria. Ten per cent of extension products on that website
were examined, followed by telephone calls and emails to obtain relevant
information not supplied on the website.
Results / Key findings
Pathways between the sectors
are generally present for those wanting to move from extension training
to VET. Eighty-four percent of extension courses in our sample are aligned
with training package competencies. Through RPL/RCC, VET may recognise
and accredit training done in the extension sector and have this count
toward a qualification or allow entry into a higher level qualification.
By having courses mapped to competencies, the extension sector facilitates
the process.
RPL/RCC involves an assessment of trainee performance. Much extension training includes no assessment, and offers only a certificate of participation or attendance. By itself, such certification may be insufficient to assess skills learned, but it is a beginning that facilitates movement from extension to VET.
There are some anomalies in attitudes to assessment. Some providers make the fact that courses are aligned to national training package competencies a feature in their marketing. One major Victorian provider succeeds in having clients complete the assessment associated with their extension training.
Another provider listing competencies aligned with its extension courses is the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (DPI), which offers a training subsidy program (PROfarm) replacing FarmBis in that state; but the DPI says their clients mostly choose not to do the assessment. Other providers do not refer at all to assessment, training package competencies, or accreditation, through most of their extension courses are aligned. Spokespersons said they believe their clients are not interested in qualifications. Clearly, VET qualifications are not yet seen as useful for marketing by many extension providers or RTOs that are targeting current farmers for management level training.
The main motivation for aligning extension to VET competencies at present is financial; in particular, providers are able to access FarmBis funding that would not otherwise be available, depending on the State. It is likely that younger farmers who have VET qualifications will expect management level training to be part of a pathway to further VET qualifications in the future.
There are few other links and partnerships between the sectors, such as extension providers on VET course advisory committees.
Options and recommendations identified in this report will assist the Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries and providers of extension and VET in designing and promoting policies and programs that make efficient use of industry resources to provide practical, quality training for primary producers.
The following options emerge from the findings of this study:
Option 1
The situation be allowed
to go on developing as it is. A considerable degree of alignment has been
achieved, especially in extension courses mapped to training package competencies.
The extension and VET sectors, as they are, play an important role in servicing
the training needs of the agricultural industry.
Financial incentives (for example, FarmBis and similar training subsidies) and new career pathways involving younger people are gradually favouring the formal education and training sector, including VET, which already is an important provider of career-establishing training (for example, in its agricultural colleges and TAFEs).
The extension sector needs to be aware of these younger people coming through with VET qualifications, and prepare to build on these by offering courses that continuously upgrade the cohort’s skills.
Option 2
Industry, the extension
and VET sectors, government and the Agri-food Industry Skills Council work
together to consider ways of better aligning extension and VET, and strengthening
collaboration between the sectors.
‘Capacity building,’ as Macadam et al. (2004, p. 29) say, ‘requires the taking of action.’ It may therefore be appropriate to take action with regard to aligning extension and VET. As Fulton et al.
(2003) point out, relationships between organisations such as extension and VET influence learning and on-farm change. It is therefore in the interests of rural industries that this relationship be strengthened.
Alignment between extension courses and VET competencies could be strengthened by continued active industry involvement with the Agri-food Industry Skills Council and with RTOs, to ensure appropriate credit is assigned for training done in extension courses. Credit must reflect similar levels of learning as that done by VET clients.
Pathways from extension to VET and from VET to extension should be clarified and publicised by both extension and VET providers at industry and regional levels. This will assist farmers to identify an appropriate learning pathway for their needs.
Extension should be upskilled in appropriate ways of assessment that are integrated into the course/workshop, sparing participants an unwanted commitment of time and stress for post-course assessment.
Links and partnerships between the extension and VET sectors could be strengthened and extended, with representation of the other sector on Advisory Boards etc.
It is important to ensure that what is good about extension remains, and that aligning with VET is not to the detriment of extension. The move should be as much (if not more) to better align VET with extension as vice versa.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
The CVCB should build on
moves to better align VET with extension through encouragement of industry
involvement with the Agri-food Industry Skills Council and with RTOs and
strengthening of links and partnerships with representation of the other
sector on Advisory Boards.
Recommendation 2
CVCB to encourage training
brokers to assist in further coordination of training efforts in the two
sectors.
Training brokers consider the whole suite of present and potential training opportunities and actively match needs to training, acting in the best interests of clients. Brokers could be used to facilitate better coordination between extension and the VET sector at a regional level. They can assist farmers to work through the range of available training and negotiate the learning pathway best suited to their individual needs.
Recommendation 3
Quantitative data on producers’
attitudes towards VET and extension, and outcomes of VET and extension
training, should be collected by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and
Resource Economics, the National Centre for Vocational Education Research,
or an independent organisation.
VET and extension providers’ feedback from clients regarding their perceptions of their training experiences may lack the sort of detail that would enable an effective response to target market criticisms. Good quantitative data about producers’ attitudes towards VET and extension training, their experience of it, and outcomes of attending courses would be useful to inform Industry, the extension and VET sectors, government and the Agri-food Industry Skills Council in working together to consider ways of better aligning extension and VET.
Recommendation 4
Extension and VET providers
should look to employing credible industry people and upskill these as
trainers. Training organisations should encourage people working in extension
to become trainers through raising the profile of trainers, e.g., by scholarships,
awards and promotion in industry newsletters.
High quality, credible trainers with up-to-date technical expertise, industry background and ongoing professional development are vital to successful training outcomes. Both the VET and extension sector trainers require ongoing professional development.
Suggestions for further research
Assessment of extension
courses
As reported above, our research
that shows some providers make a marketing feature of the fact that courses
are aligned to national training package competencies and encourage clients
to complete the assessment associated with their extension training. Other
providers do not focus on the alignment of their courses because they believe
their clients are not interested in qualifications. There is a need for
further research on how extension providers present the idea of assessment,
how it can best be seamlessly integrated into the training, and how clients
respond to this.
Use of VET’s RPL/RCC process in recognition of competencies gained in extension training Learning pathways between extension and VET depend on an RPL/RCC process in which there remain certain inconsistencies. This is a weakness in the system which needs attention. The issue is in the degree of competency achieved through the extension training, and whether it is equivalent to that indicated by an AQF level. Further research into VET RTOs’ use of the process is needed.
1 See Kilpatrick & Millar (2006), and Kilpatrick, Fulton, Johns & Weatherley (forthcoming).
 
|