TAE40116 – dare we believe it?

TAE40116 – dare we believe it?

Latest news!
In case you haven’t heard, IBSA has released drafts of the revised assessment units from the Cert IV TAE.  Visit the IBSA website for more latest information, or read my summary below:

To catch up on why these changes are being asked for, read my post from September 2015.

Between September and December, IBSA conducted extensive industry consultations.  They were looking for suggestions about how to enhance the TAE assessment units, as requested by ASQA.

View information about the three options IBSA presented to industry (us) to give feedback about.

In case you’re interested, click here to view the submission that a few colleagues and I made to IBSA in response to their options paper.

So now…
IBSA has reviewed all of our feedback and has offered drafts of enhanced Cert IV TAE assessment-field units for consideration.  Visit the IBSA Feedback Hub to view drafts of the new units and give your feedback.  Feedback closes on 15 January 2016.

What the new draft units say
IBSA has enhanced the requirements for all three assessment-field units. They have:

1. modified the performance criteria and performance evidence of all units, to more explicitly describe quality practice

2. increased the number of assessments participants must plan / conduct / validate to be deemed competent.  According to the new draft units, participants must:

  • develop 5 assessment plans (includes 2 RPL plans)
  • assess competence on 5 occasions (includes 1 RPL assessment)
  • participate in assessment validation on 3 occasions (includes both ‘validation’ of both assessment tools and assessment decisions).

My thoughts about these drafts
I struggle to see how increasing the quantity of assessments will produce QUALITY assessors. I want to see in the units:

  • A clear definition that ‘competence’ means… (then refer to definition of competence in the Glossary of the Standards for RTOs)
  • A clear expectation that ‘assessment’ means the entire unit and its assessment requirements – i.e. numerous assessment methods per unit

I prefer that participants develop fewer assessment plans.  Rationale:  new trainers/assessors do not generally have to plan assessments.  They must assess competence (very well).  I am not opposed to participants conducting 5 assessments, but I am opposed to participants developing 5 assessment plans.

Those are my thoughts.

Want to contribute to active discussions?
Check out this LinkedIn discussion: