The purpose of this article is to provide a critique of the idea widely promoted by governments and industrial parties in Australia that competency-based training (CBT) is a coherent model of vocation education and training with universal applicability. The critique is made first by way of illustration with reference to case material gathered in the course of a recent national research project on CBT. The argument is made that CBT, contrary to its image in the public policy literature, is not a singular and universal model of vocational education and training (VET). Rather, it embeds a series of radically different decisions or options with regard to notions of competency, and the use of competencies or competency standards. These decisions or options, once enacted, give rise to transformed models of VET. Shifting the critique to more theoretical ground, the argument is made that these models need not be seen as alternatives. Indeed, they are not entirely separate. Rather, they interact, support and/or challenge one another, as well as support and/or challenge CBT. The conclusion is drawn that, while all of these models have a place in the process of competence development as well as their particular strengths and weaknesses, models that maintain the tension between a focus on the outcomes of education and training and a focus on processes of educating and training, rather than resolve this tension in favour of outcomes, are most appropriate in VET. Thus, the models that contribute most to VET tend to be hybrid (e.g. education/training model, training/development model), mirroring the make-up of VET itself. © 2000 Journal of Vocational Education and Trainin. All rights reserved.
Author Keywords
Index Keywords
