How well is the AQF working for students in the workforce?

 How well is the AQF working for students in the workforce?

NEIL W. PEACH  

Work Based Learning Programs, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia 

And

MALCOLM G. CATHCART  

Institute of Work Based Learning, Middlesex University, Perth, Australia

And

SHAYNE D. BAKER   OAM

Workplace Training Advisor: Training and Education Institute of Australasia, Charters Towers, Australia

Higher education is a significant part of the Australian economy. In 2011, universities had revenue of $23.8 billion (Norton 2013, p. 38). Australian universities have clearly developed the capacity to respond, in broad terms, to the challenges confronting a knowledge based, ‘hourglass’ shaped labour market; however,  existing approaches whilst not broken are coming under pressure.  

This research has been prompted by the authors in the course of undertaking a project that is designed to expand the implementation of work based learning in Australia. Work based learning is an accredited form of university level study that uses the workplace as both a setting  and a mechanism for gaining formal degree qualifications. The authors became interested in the operation of the Australian Qualifications Framework given its overarching putative support for lifelong learning, recognition of different ways of learning and in supporting pathways for people with varying education backgrounds to pursue higher education studies. We were puzzled why more universities were not offering a greater variety of pathways to degree qualifications (including work based learning). We were also interested to note that there was no substantive review of the AQF from a policy perspective and no such review seems likely.This article sets out the results of a broadly based, ‘desk’ review undertaken in relation to the operation of the AQF. For the authors the scope of the review was designed to provide a ‘context’ for undertaking their work to expand workbased learning in Australia.

What we have found is that whilst the AQF has been implemented [and this in itself is regarded as progress, by some] the achievements [towards reform in higher education services] don’t go much beyond that; however, the achievements in consolidating the market standing of the universities, both domestically and internationally are noteworthy.  Our assessment indicates that implementation [of the AQF]  has not made a lot of difference to the navigability of  learning pathways for students seeking a university degree [armed with a non conventional learning background]. Also, it appears that the focus for the AQF has moved from using a qualifications framework to achieve reform to using a qualifications framework to market education services both internally and externally [from an Australian, national perspective]. This may be good for university business but not so good for many students seeking alternative pathways towards formal degree qualifications.

Keywords: work based learning; workplace learning; qualifications frameworks; recognition of prior learning;Introduction

Notions of learning being ‘lifelong’ [as opposed to learning up to when you finish your formal ‘education’] have been evolving in parallel with related social and economic developments [such as changes in the nature of work, the expansion of information technologies and the globalisation of markets] over some 40 years or more  (Andersson et al., 2013; Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency  2013; CEDEFOP 2010; Engestrom 2011; Pitman and Vidovich 2013). During the latter part of this evolution, there has been a development in education management to construct qualifications frameworks [QFs] not only as a means of connecting a person’s own lifelong learning journey with various levels of accredited learning [within the education services industry] but to recognise learning that occurs outside formal education settings (AQF Council 2009 & 2013; CEDEFOP 2013; Education and Culture DG & EQF 2013; Ministry of Science Technology & Innovation 2005).

As a result of this, QFs are now a part of  governments’ education policy menus. From a policy perspective, it appears that one important function of QFs is to build capacity into the education system to be able to respond to the labour market’s need for not only higher levels of skill but also, different skills. However, it is clear that QFs do vary in purpose with these variations spread across a wide spectrum from being ‘transformational devices to descriptive tools’ (CEDEFOP 2010, p. 10). As well, QFs are a mechanism for bringing a level of ‘regulation’ over the education industry and its various layers and sectors.  For example, standards and obligations regarding the transfer, accumulation and  recognition of credit are generally incorporated within QFs. 

This brings the promise of clear pathways of progression, that enable students to not only see  and plan how to progress, but to then use their progressive achievements as the foundation for the next step. As part of the credit process, QFs have been designed to incorporate the recognition of non formal learning [be it from work or personal interests] as well as to give certainty to the credit that will be granted from a previous level of [lower or related] study.  

Building capacity into the education system is an important driver for QFs because contemporary developed economies are facing ongoing challenges to produce sufficient numbers of graduates to meet labour market demands (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency 2013; CEDEFOP 2011; deWeert 2011; Hackett et al., 2012). In recent years in Australia, there has been a significant increase in enrolments in bachelor degree awards (Commonwealth of Australia 2009; Bradley et al., 2008; Norton 2013); however, there are questions as to whether this is sustainable (deWeert 2011; Norton 2013). It seems likely that to achieve longer term continued growth in the number of bachelor degree graduates, the education system in Australia will need to have a number of different pathways for both entry into and progression through undergraduate degrees. 

It is surprising that the Australian university system has been reluctant to embrace some developments which have proved to be effective in other developed countries and regions. For example, this reluctance is evident in the absence of any university in Australia offering undergraduate degrees through workbased learning. In a country noted for its early development of initiatives such as distance education and professional doctorates(National Qualifications Authority 2006), it is surprising that there appears to be such a strong focus on traditional, academic progression as the primary pathway for responding to the emergent needs of the Australian labour market.  Our project needed to better understand the context in which universities were operating in order to frame a sensible future approach to our objective of expanding student access to workbased learning in Australia. 

Australia first established its national qualifications framework in 1995 (AQF Council, 2013; Burke et al., 2009) with important iterations leading up to the current Australian Qualifications Framework [AQF], that came into operation from 2015 (AQF Council 2013). The challenges that have prompted such a policy are clear. One such challenge is that by 2025, according to modelling developed for Australia’s latest workforce strategy, Australia could be 2.8 million short of the number of higher-skilled qualifications that industry will demand. (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency 2013, p.9). At the same time, another important important challenge is that many Australians lack the language, literacy and numeracy skills to participate in training and work. Only just over half (54 per cent) of Australians aged 15 to 74 years have been assessed as having the prose literacy skills needed to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency 2013, p.9). The move from an ‘egg ’ to an ‘hour glass’ shaped labour market (Winter & Bryson, 1997) [with greater numbers of workers at the ‘opposite’ ends of the hour glass] is present in Australia as well as other developed countries and this represents a major challenge for the efficacy of policy tools such as the AQF.

In short, there is a reasonable level of doubt that  the current approach to higher education service delivery in Australia will  achieve the countries desired outcomes in regard to bachelor graduates. [The issues at the other end of the hour glass are just as important but our focus in this article is on higher education and specifically, the university sector.] This review has been undertaken as part of an ongoing project being undertaken by a small group of academics seeking to develop and expand workbased learning in Australia. 

Workbased learning is an important pathway available to students in the United Kingdom [and to varying degrees in other European countries] and the project members set out to initially understand the current performance of the Australian higher education system, especially in relation to bachelor degree targets and especially given the apparent lack of diverse pathways being offered by higher education institutions.  The Australian Qualifications Framework is a broad ranging document that puts forward the expectation that it will facilitate students gaining their qualifications through multiple pathways and being able to use a diverse range of learning achievements along the way. 

The researchers identified from the literature (AQF Council 2009; Bradley et al., 2008; Burke et al., 2009; CEDEFOP 2010 &  2013; CEDEFOP & ETF 2013; Commonwealth of Australia 2009; deWeert 2011; Education and Culture DG & EQF 2013; Guthrie et al., 2011; Hackett et al., 2012), six key issues that would provide the basis for a complete review of performance. The issue headings identified are (1) Labour market (2) Standards and Quality (3) International (4) Credit and RPL (5) Pathways and (6) Responsiveness. The researchers use these issues as the foundation for  a baseline assessment of the AQF that we would anticipate in the future being used to  assess the extent to which new offerings, such as workbased learning, would be likely to lead to improved performance. 

Review of Higher Education Services in Australia

As noted above, the contemporary concepts of  lifelong learning and qualifications frameworks   appear to be the foundation for extensive efforts by governments, educators and business to respond to major changes in labour markets. The characteristics and structure of labour markets are changing, in part, because the nature of work is changing.  Work is changing because both the objects and means of production are changing  and because product life cycles have shortened (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency 2013; Engestrom 2011). As a result, the labour market now requires  more people to have more knowledge skills and it also requires people to change jobs [and to re skill] more often. Andersson et al.,  (2013, p. 406) suggest that – 

As a concept, lifelong learning partly replaces former concepts such as adult education (Lindeman, 1926), and lifelong education (Faure, 1972). Lifelong learning has become the dominant manner in which the education and learning of adults is addressed in policy terms.

No longer is it expected that a person’s original training or qualification will be the primary basis of what they do at work over their working life. 

This is the context within which the  AQF has been developed.  The primary intent of the AQF is usually illustrated as a wheel with equal segments given to each of the  ten levels from leaving high school [Level 1] to the highest academic award [Level 10]  (AQF Council 2013). Such a wheel is sketched in Diagram One below. We have purposely used a simplified, basic format for presenting the AQF to emphasize and underscore that the major purpose of having an AQF is to make a learner’s journey simple, stepwise and fully connected.  . 

 

Diagram One: The Australian Qualifications Framework Wheel

This ‘simple’ wheel is intended to operate in conjunction with detailed descriptions of the learning, and the learning outcomes, expected at each of the ten levels. As well, there are  several supporting policies that underpin the overall objectives of the framework (AQF Council 2013). The material in the AQF is comprehensive and framed in the familiar lexicon of QFs developed in jurisdictions throughout the world.  Even so, this does not detract from the essential thrust of the material and it is very clear that the primary objective of the AQF is to enable a learner to progress around the circle on a supported, rewarding, integrated, open  learning journey. This review endeavours to assess the extent to which this is what is actually experienced by students in Australia. 

As noted above, the framework for this review comprises six key issues[and their related questions] which have been identified from a review of the literature relating to qualifications frameworks. Our objective is to  make a broad assessment of how well what is depicted in Diagram One is actually a reflection of the operation of education services in Australia. Our particular focus is on the university sector of higher education because of its preeminent position in providing degree qualifications in Australia. The primary issue headings identified from the literature along with theie related questions are as follows

1. Labour Market - how are education services linked to the needs of the labour market ?
2. Standards and Quality - is there an integrated system to allow a progressive learning journey for each individual student/learner? 
3. International - to what extent is there ‘mobility’ for  students and workers across national boundaries?  
4. Credit and RPL - are different forms of knowledge recognised and can students gain full recognition of their prior achievements as they progress on their learning journey?
5. Pathways - are there multiple connected/integrated ways in which students can gain their learning and qualifications?
6. Responsiveness - are there a variety of education  products, over time, to suit varying needs of employers and students with different backgrounds? 

Previous reviews and the literature provide a basis for developing these headings/questions along with the objectives expressed within the AQF itself (AQF Council, 2013). The headings/questions are not intended to dictate what education ‘is’ – this is far beyond the scope of this review. However, the questions are designed to focus on the drivers that are prompting the development of QFs as an education policy tool across the world. 

Of the six issues, the last heading of ‘responsiveness’ is probably the least obvious one and it could be argued that the ‘pathways’ heading could cover any issues to be addressed under this additional heading. The inclusion of the ‘responsiveness’ heading within ‘pathways’ could be supported on the basis that implicit in the generic thrust of qualifications frameworks is an expectation of multiple pathways, in order to support the divergent needs and expectations of a diverse student population. However this may not work so well if the evidence indicates that the pathways are less straightforward and fewer in number than desirable.

Consequently, we finally resolved to retain  this sixth heading if for no other reason than to ensure that there was full recognition that at the core of qualifications frameworks was the need for ongoing action and adjustment to changes in social and economic  conditions.

As we reviewed developments in regard to Australia’s qualifications frameworks it was difficult not to note the potential for the ‘reform’ agenda of the AQF to be overtaken by a ‘marketing’ agenda that potentially shifts emphasis from driving change in education services to growing business opportunities and maintaining the status quo. Others have noted the scope for qualifcations frameworks to be simply ‘descriptive’ rather than ‘transformational’. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Australia is moving more towards a ‘descriptive’ QF as evidenced by the dilution of the  strategic agenda of the Australian Qualifications Council, through its narrowing planning objectives over recent years (AQF Council  2014). 

Of course it would not be the first policy agenda to be morphed or neutered by key stakeholders with opposing interests. Australia’s federated system of government and the shared responsibilities between State and Commonwealth for education certainly make reform problematic. Add to that, a university sector made up of a relatively small number of  semi autonomous authorities with prime carriage for  delivering bachelor awards and with relatively daunting barriers to new entrants: the scope for the watering down of reforms [like the AQF] becomes more likely. 

It is against this background that we consider each of the six headings in turn and conclude with a summary ‘answer’ to each issue/question.

Labour Market

For some years now, the Australian Government has been forecasting and incentivising the system, to achieve a significant increase in degree qualified workers (Norton, 2013). From a review of information about enrolments and entry requirements, it appears that the  primary  strategy being employed by the university sector in Australia [to increase graduands of bachelor awards] is to lower entry standards for school leavers (Bradley et al., 2008; Commonwealth of Australia 2009; Marginson & Considine  2000; Norton 2013; Watson et al., 2013). Further, whilst numbers of learners who are able to gain entry to undergraduate degree programs are uncapped and whilst the national government’s funding scheme does not disadvantage anyone for failure rates, this is most likely to be the continuing strategy of choice for universities. 

However, there are some doubts as to the sustainability of this current approach to continue to deliver the longer term expansion in degree qualified workers (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency 2013; deWeert 2011; Norton 2013; Ulicna et al., 2011). The National Workforce Development Strategy (2013, p. 10) suggests that Australian governments will need to support the achievement of a minimum annual growth of 3 per cent in tertiary enrolments in order to keep pace with this shift.

At the same time there are important efforts especially by some ‘dual’ sector universities [which provide both vocational education and training [VET] as well as university degrees] to increase opportunities for a broader range of students [not just school leavers] to progress towards their bachelor degrees. However, based on recent research (Moodie et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2013) it is not clear yet if this is likely to have a significant impact on the overall outcome, nationally. This is because the majority of universities continue to focus on the ‘standard’ degree offering, pitched at school leavers, and because - 

• it seems unlikely entry standards can go any lower 
• budgetary pressures may cause some tightening in financial incentives for both students and universities.

There has been a suggestion that more flexible education offerings by new private entrants [and joint ventures] will provide the boost in the ongoing strategy to achieve the labour markets needs (deWeert 2011)]. 

That Australia is dependent primarily on the public university sector to respond to the labour market’s growing demand for professional bachelor’s degree qualified people is currently a significant medium to long term risk. Especially given the absence of any clear strategies to respond and deal with the emergent market place. 

In regard to the need to expand  the uptake of those from  lower socio economic backgrounds, there appear to be a number of ‘pilot’ and other related projects being undertaken at some universities but it is not clear yet whether any material, long term progress is being made (NCSEHE, 2013). 

The need for a focus on this segment of the student market, appears to arise, at least in  part, from evidence that suggests that Australia’s labour market is, like other developed countries moving from an egg shaped profile [fat in the middle] to an hourglass profile [skinny in the middle and fat at the top and bottom of the profile] (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency 2013). The emergence of this hour glass profile places significant pressure on governments in Australia to ensure that  not only are education services able to respond to the top end professional market, but to ensure that there are pathways available from the bottom to the top of the hour glass. The Australian universities appear to be happy ‘feeding’ on the top of the hour glass and are content to leave it to others to expand  the ‘skinny’ pathway between the top and the bottom. 

Quality and Standards

To continue with the hour glass profile, it could be applied to the operation of higher education services  in Australia. At one end of the hour glass is the VET sector and at the other, the university sector. The other aspect about an hour glass profile that accords with Australia’s higher education services is the very skinny ‘neck’ that joins the two ends. This is analogous to the low percentage of vocationally educated students that move [or flow through] to the university end (Harris et al., 2006; Watson et al., 2013; Wheelahan 2009). And further, and we think remarkably, the  same hour glass profile can be used to characterise the demarcation between the regulators of quality and standards of higher  education in Australia. 

Two separate agencies with different approaches are responsible for regulating these two parts of the market. Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency [TEQSA] is responsible for the university part and Australian Skills Quality Authority [AQSA] for the VET part. Up to the mid levels in the AQF,  students encounter a vocational competency based environment with registered training organisations. For the higher levels, they need to deal with the discipline centric merit environment of the universities. It is as if the ‘system’ has been designed to purposefully   compound the difficulties [in moving from one end of the hour glass to the other] by having separate regulators and regulations. The narrow neck in the middle of the hour glass appears to be ‘no mans’ land and the advocacy, regulation and performance orientation necessary to make the skinny neck wider does not seem to sit clearly with either party. 

Oversight of the whole higher education services ‘hour glass’ sits with The Australian Qualifications Council but there is no evidence of any particular  focus on the narrow neck of the hourglass - be it through either research effort or performance evaluation. This failure of governance ‘design’ significantly inhibits the flow of students from one sector to another and fails to recognise the vocational learner as a major source for building  the professionalisation required by the community and the economy. It is a significant impediment to the effective development of Australia’s education services. 

The tension between the two sectors is long standing and over time, professional associations have put substantial importance on which sector was best placed to  provide the professional education for their members. Goozee (2001, p.8) notes that -

…in the 1890s and early 1900s there was constant friction between Sydney Technical College and Sydney University over who should offer what course. The perceived need to upgrade the status of a profession in the eyes of the community, by requiring a degree as the entry criterion, has not only under-valued TAFE credentials but has also exacerbated the difficulties TAFE has had in creating and maintaining a clear identity”.

This tension is still relevant more than a century later; however, some higher education institutions [especially those offering both ‘VET’ and ‘university’ education services] are moving to build a more integrated educational pathway for students and have indicated that significant improvements in ‘transfer’ rates are achievable (Watson et al., 2013). 

This is reinforced by European experience showing potential rates of transfer of 50% (CEDEFOP and EQF 2013) when currently, the Australian system works at 10% transfer from the VET sector to the university sector (Watson et al., 2013). Unfortunately the higher transfer rates in particular  settings are  being swamped by the  much bigger impact of those universities that see little value in improving such transfer rates. 

The differences between VET and university in Australia are deep seated and long standing and it appears that the major universities are disinclined [because of their success under the circumstances outlined above] to explore more flexible, responsive education services. The continuation of a bifurcated governance arrangement for  higher education services not only inhibits the scope for opening a valuable pathway towards workforce professionalisation, but  provides an opportunity [as a consequence of different rules and regulations for different parts of the system]  for the continuation of sub optimal practices in relation to credit and RPL. This latter issue is covered in more detailed below. 

International

An important outcome expected of qualifications frameworks is to contribute to the mobility of both students and workers across national boundaries. National economies seeking to build their  productivity invariably encounter skills shortages at times within the business cycle. Within the context of national immigration and employment policies, national governments are therefore motivated to ensure that they can ‘recruit’ foreign workers to fill skill shortages in their local labour markets.  

For this to be achieved, it means that -

• The AQF must be in sync with other qualifications frameworks
• The system needs to operate effectively to allow both students and workers to live in Australia and fulfill their educational and or employment aspirations. 

In relation to the  first  point above, reviews have confirmed that there are sufficient commonalities, between Australia’s qualifications frameworks and the frameworks in other jurisdictions, to support the level of flexibility and mobility expected by all parties (Burke et al., 2009; Misko et al., 2007; Ulicna et al., 2011). In fact Ulicna et al., note in looking at the AQF and the EQF that there is a ‘significant degree of correspondence between these two different frameworks in terms of their underlying conceptual bases, definitions of terminology and general approaches to the recognition of learning achievement (Ulicna et al., 2011, p.18). 

In relation to the second point, that goes to the issue of mobility, the success of education service providers in Australia in providing bachelor, master and doctoral degrees to international students is clear and is a reflection of the standards and quality of this traditional academic pathway for delivering higher education. It is interesting to note the differences in ‘international’ demands for education services compared to domestic markets. UNESCO (in Ulcina et al., p. 34) notes that -

• only 9% of mobile students enrol in occupationally oriented types of studies (while 34% of local students in host countries are enrolled in such studies);
• 44% of mobile students enrol in bachelor degree programmes;
• 40% enrol in master’s degree programmes (compared to 7% of local students in host countries);
• 7% enrol in research programmes such as PhD (while only 3% of local students are enrolled in these types of programmes in host countries). 

The complementary nature of the international market with the domestic market for Australian universities is clear and material. 

Therefore an AQF that supports  international recognition and transfer, offers  great benefits for Australian universities and adds weight to the AQF being a very effective marketing mechanism for selling the benefits of degree qualifications from Australian universities. The extent to which this accords with the notion of the same qualifications framework being used as a mechanism for reform inside the Australian education system is of course a very different issue and is picked up later in this paper. 

Moving from students to workers, Ulicna et al., (2011, p.44)  note that in regard to skilled migration into Australia that it ‘is a managed process, geared to meeting the areas of specific demand in the labour market; not surprisingly, this results in high levels of success in finding work by skilled migrants’. The report goes on to note that that while traditional sources (New Zealand and UK) continue to supply Australian immigration needs, there is a significant and growing supply from China, India and other Asian countries. This trend should be interpreted alongside the rapid growth in mobile student numbers from these countries into the Australian education system – these students will acquire Australian qualifications that will enable them to compete strongly for skilled migration places in the future.

As it stands, more than two thirds of those workers recruited to Australia [as part of the skilled immigration program] have bachelor degrees or higher. Mechanisms that assists in the qualifications recognition process, such as the AQF,  are a valuable asset for both the holder [in approaching Australian immigration as a skilled migrant applicant] and for the receiving nation [in filling a gap in the labour market, not provided by the receiving country’s own system]. Recognition that the AQF can contribute as a ‘back up’ to the domestic program for professionalising the workforce, through its role in supporting and enhancing skilled migration, be it either through the attraction of students [who later become workers] or through workers [whose qualifications are recognised]  is a significant plus for adopting such an education services policy. 

However, this beneficial impact is not a sufficient reason for simply seeing the AQF as a  national marketing tool for supporting our education industry. It would be counterproductive to its primary intent if the AQFs  role in supporting the attraction of skilled  migrant workers [to fill local skills shortages]  was a reason for not making important changes to improve Australia’s higher education services. The primary objective must be to ensure that Australia is able to fill most of its own needs for skilled workers, through its own domestic professionalisation of the workforce. 

Credit and RPL

Andersson et al., (2013, p. 407- 408) contend that  articulation, credit transfer and RPL are important mechanisms for giving effect to the lifelong learning discourse and that it does so ‘by a shift in focus from education to learning’. They include learning in and through venues such as the workplace, family life, leisure time, the media, crime prevention and health promotion as part of the ‘focus’. Pitman and Vidovich (2013) suggest that lifelong learning is a cyclical process where the learner brings prior learning into a new environment with the aim of upgrading that learning. As part of this process, ideally, universities would operate as both ‘mobilisers and producers’ of knowledge (Pitman and Broomhall in Pitman and Vidovich 2013, p. 513). 

Qualifications frameworks are generally directed towards an approach that is sympathetic to these perspectives and the AQF is no exception. The experience  for students [who  do not fit the traditional academic pathway] at universities in Australia however, is generally not consistent with these overarching principles [even though those universities’ policies comply with the AQF].  That there is such clear evidence to support this view, from multiple sources (Guthrie et al., 2011; Harris et al., 2006;   Misko et al., 2007; Pitman, 2014; Pitman and Vidovich, 2013 Watson et al., 2013) is a challenge to the putative achievements of  the AQF. 

Clearly universities see little or no value in investing in the work needed to implement an approach to RPL that would support the principles of the AQF. Pitman and Vidovich (2013, p. 513) crystallise the situation as follows-

If prior learning is viewed as a threat to a university’s position within the field of higher education, it is not surprising that it will enact RPL policy in order to restrict knowledge acquired via non-traditional learning processes. Even when these types of prior learning are viewed, per se, as having value, the primary purpose of RPL policy will still be to serve the interests of the institution, not the student. Thus, knowledge is mobilised not for its epistemological value, but for its strategic, organisational value.

Diedrich (2013, p. 509) reiterates this perspective using the concept of ‘capital’ to highlight the result for students who do not fulfill the universities traditional academic needs-

In contrast to the ‘traditional’ student who converts high school academic capital into university academic capital, the vocational student must first convert economic capital into VET academic capital and then into university academic capital. At each stage the conversion process is not entire, meaning that the more steps involved in conversion, the less academic capital is ultimately acquired via RPL 

The disadvantage also applies to those who have invested in their workplace knowledge- 

There is a  large body of literature argues that it is unequal power relations of  the traditional university’s monopoly of a form of knowledge production that privileges individualised and rationalist ways of knowing over collective and contextualised knowledge practices (Michelson, 1996, 2006), that act to block access via RPL.   Armsby, Costley, and Garnett (2006) argue that difficulties in implementing RPL are (in part at least) brought about by the challenge this practice brings to the university’s traditional monopoly of knowledge, (Diedrich 2013, p. 567-568)

In what is now a dated report [but we have found it difficult to get more recent information on this issue], Misko et al., (2007, p. 116-119) note that RPL for higher education students appears to be contracting - 

In 2001, 3.6 per cent of Bachelor degree students had obtained recognition for non-formal learning; by 2005 this had reduced to 2.7 per cent. Similarly, where 8.2 per cent of postgraduate students had received RPL in 2001, this had reduced to 5.1 per cent in 2005. 

All of this points towards a significant disjoint between the aspirations of the AQF and the actions of the Australian universities. 

In this regard, Misko et al., (2007)  note that there are innumerable barriers to RPL in the everyday work settings of university lecturers. Not the least of which is the amount of work and effort involved in speaking with students about their applications, helping them to identify the types of evidence that would be suitable and validating and verifying the evidence once it has been provided. Sometimes this is not reflected or recognised adequately in workloads for teachers, and in recouping the actual costs associated with RPL. Unless groups of students have followed a standard pathway and are claiming a similar amount of credit for similar sorts of activities, each application for credit must be treated on an individual basis. They go on to note that universities are not in the practice of applying appropriate resources and costs to the RPL process and seem disinclined to treat it as a normal assessment process. 

The material set out above seems incongruent with the aspirations underpinning the AQF and at odds with the fact that Australian universities are generally moving to full compliance with the AQF. The reason for this is that the primary requirement in the AQF, about RPL, is that universities have a clear, published policy on RPL. There are no clear prescriptions about what is actually in a particular university’s policy. Further, that RPL is only mentioned in the glossary of terms in the AQF brings to light the substantial inertia within university administrations to embrace measures that would require their institutions to become more flexible and responsive in their service offerings. 

To open the door too widely to students who have not followed a traditional, academic learning journey would potentially cause them to develop new more flexible education services. At the present time, the incentives for succeeding in delivering both domestic and international ‘standard’ awards  for those students on the traditional academic pathway are sufficiently high that spending time and effort on alternative, more flexible  offerings is simply not warranted. That such an implementation may require substantial reform and may involve multiple levels of resistance is picked up later in this paper. 

Pathways

Pathways is a term which  is frequently used in education, and along with lifelong learning, is a key underpinning notion within qualifications framework literature and practice (Wheelahan  2009, p.6). To achieve lifelong learning there is necessarily a journey [towards the learning outcomes] and an individual’s pathway may be relatively smooth, open and accessible, or it may be otherwise. From an education perspective, the characteristics of the pathway comprise multiple elements - the subjects and courses that are studied; the amount of credit received for these courses; the extent to which RPL has been included to facilitate another step on the journey; the extent to which courses or programs in the area the student is interested, are available to them and so on. It is clear that there are numerous elements of the education economy that synthesise to make the pathway either a clear open and smooth one or  a misty, rocky, narrow one. 

It appears that in the education economy, pathways are designed to achieve two purposes. The first is to make the education economy work effectively and efficiently so as to accord with the operation of  the nation’s economy. The overall economy, via the labour market, requires easy, efficient and timely movement of workers and students between different jobs. Recall the ‘hour glass’ profile of Australia’s labour market referenced earlier; an efficient system would have a ‘wide neck’ between the two ends of the system. However, the ‘hour glass’ also  highlights the second purpose for pathways and this is often covered by the term ‘equity’-  ‘Pathways aim to provide opportunities for disadvantaged groups in society by mediating access to higher levels of education with appropriate credit for prior studies (OECD 1998; Raffe 1998; Young 2001 in Wheelahan 2009, p.6). Again, the neck of the hour glass would be a thick one if the system was serving its equity purposes.

A recent study of patterns of movements in the Australian education system  both within and  across fields of study  says 

What was found were not linear and seamless pathways, but rather ‘stepping stones, zig zags or lurches’—crazy paving or stepping stones. These were overlaid with a range of barriers along the learning journey, including finance, juggling work, other commitments, transportation and institutional location, as well as a range of other personal and provider issues  (Harris et al., 2006, p.7). 

Australia’s 2013 National Workforce Development Strategy (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency 2013, p. 76) notes that  

To meet future demand for high level qualifications and skills and to maximise opportunities for students progression the VET and higher education sectors needs further simplification. The move to a more integrated tertiary sector is agreed national policy but hurdles and barriers persist.  

This is well illustrated by a detailed study undertaken by Watson et al., (2013, p.10) into student movements in engineering between VET and universities. 

They identify three clusters of universities and  arrive at the following findings - 

Finally, the low rates of admission of VET award holders in Cluster 3 universities could be exacerbating national skills shortages in occupations where these universities are the dominant providers. In the field of engineering, for example, the 14 universities in Cluster 3 account for well over half of all undergraduate commencements; yet, these institutions admit only 3.3% of students on the basis of a VET award. In contrast, the Cluster 1 universities, which enrol one-fifth of all undergraduate commencing students in engineering, admit over 17% on the basis of a VET award and universities in Cluster 2 (which account for one-quarter of all engineering undergraduate commencements) admit over 10% of engineering students on the basis of a VET award. To the extent that the creation of strong VET to higher education pathways serves to increase the output of higher education graduates, the high enrolment share of Cluster 3 universities in fields experiencing national skills shortages, such as engineering, should be of concern to governments, industry and employers.

There is clear evidence from this research that  some universities are working actively to develop clearer, smoother, open pathways for students. However, as is also demonstrated by this research, for many universities the incentives of gaining a significant share of students on the traditional pathway far outway the broader benefits of making the system easier to navigate for those students on a slightly, less formal or academic pathway.  

However, the concept of pathways in education implies not only a clear and open way of progressing but because it is generally expressed as a plural noun, it infers the need to create more than ‘one way’ to a destination. In education, creating multiple pathways  may involve responding to students with different needs - these different needs  may arise because of socio economic background, cultural or ethnic background, learning style, current work and life style, personal expectations and aspirations and so on. 

However, our analysis indicates that the public university sector in Australia has a focus on one pathway - it starts with school leavers who meet the entrance qualifications for undergraduate awards and then may progress  [for those who have completed the preceding part of the journey] to postgraduate studies. This pathway involves studies in a prescribed discipline and may be part or full time and may be on campus or online or distance. This is more a ‘highway’ than a pathway and dwarfs other pathways provided by  Australian public universities. International students with traditional academic qualifications are  also accommodated on this highway.  For those students who have gone to work without meeting entrance requirements, or gone to VET or for mature age students who have been involved in work for many years and for many other different situations, the visibility and availability of appropriate alternative pathways is low - there are  several ‘alleys’ and ‘lanes’  usually paved with ‘crazy paving or stepping stones’. 

Responsiveness

It is generally thought that universities [not specifically Australian universities] are not noted for being responsive to changing student, community or government needs. However, we have found that there are innumerable  initiatives across universities in relation to improved approaches to learning and teaching that are highly aligned with the AQF and its principles. These initiatives include- a. work integrated learning b. work based learning c. problem based learning d. the flipped classroom d. research centred learning  and e. transdisciplinary learning. Also, there are initiatives aimed at responding to disadvantage and expanding access to tertiary education- all of which are well intentioned, legitimate efforts to be responsive to changes in the world in which universities are operating. 

We have  identified a common theme that unites such initiatives - how hard it is to achieve material progress and change at a whole of enterprise level, let alone at a whole of sector level.  The experiences of one academic in one of these undertakings provides valuable insights into the depth and breadth of this difficulty (Emslie, n.d.). It appears that whilst university leaders agree and support these initiatives, there is a reluctance to provide sufficient leadership and appropriate support [both policy and operational] to achieve a sustainable, enterprise  wide commitment to the reform. Maybe just enough resources to demonstrate interest [and rebuff criticism] but not enough to make a real difference? 

This evidence, in relation to these many worthwhile initiatives,therefore makes the willingness of some Australian [and numerous international] universities to put their knowledge ‘content’ online [through MOOCs - massive open online courses] and in many cases for free, even more surprising.  The Grattan Institute’s 2013 Review of Australian Universities suggests that ‘the biggest story in higher education during 2012 was the rise of MOOCs’ (Norton, 2013, p.21). The report goes on to explain that  MOOCs comprise subjects which are offered online for free, often with no entry requirements and with assessment offered via online tests or peer review from other students. It is therefore very surprising to consider how quickly key players in the university sector have responded to this notion of MOOCs. 

From our preliminary review, it appears that these MOOCs generate little or no revenue. It appears that  few can envisage how MOOCs will play out; however, what does appear to be clear is that there are substantial opportunities for those service providers providing the platforms for these ventures and that this may lead to other services opportunities within the university sector. It follows that these ‘MOOC’ universities are sufficiently confident about their futures and have access to sufficient capital to invest in what could only be described as a risky venture i.e. with no apparent ‘business case’ and little likelihood of substantial returns to their key stakeholders. 

Whilst it remains unclear what ‘problem’ or ‘issue’ the MOOCs are seeking to address, it does go against the general view that universities are generally unresponsive.  We have developed a working hypothesis to explain the varied nature of the circumstances we have so far identified. Could it be that universities are struggling and non responsive when changes may require them to recast or revise  their role and relationship in regard to both course content and students but that if their role and relationship is not in question then they are open to considering large scale change? 

The traditional role of a university has been to hire intelligent people who develop interesting and ingenious courses who then teach students these courses. Under these circumstances the university controls the content and delivers the material to the student and assesses the student’s ability to acquire the provided ‘knowledge’. With this in view many people who work at universities have studied with the aim of being one of the experts who deliver ‘knowledge’ to students. Whether the material is delivered to a student online or in a lecture theatre or in a distance learning handbook the academic model is the same. So, whether it was a 1950s  lecture hall or a 2014 MOOC the academic model is relatively in tact. 

Does the ‘intactness’ of the conventional academic model determine the level of responsiveness by universities? From our analysis it appears that university responsiveness depends on the context. In responding to the substantial increase in student intake the higher education sector has succeeded. As noted earlier, by taking an existing pathway  and simply expanding it  to take more ‘traffic’ we have seen a very considerable and laudable increase in undergraduate student numbers. It appears that universities are comfortable in responding to changes if the student satisfies formal education standards and the university can deliver the program through a standard ‘lecture’ style - be it online, distance or MOOC.  If however, the response involves a change to this model then whether it is being prompted by industry, government or students, it is less likely to be supported by the public university sector. 

This could well be an underlying reason why some authorities have  anticipated a role for  private entities and new structures in responding to the need for more and  different pathways for higher education students in the future(Ulicna et al., 2011, p.16). The report goes on to note there is a significant challenge to 

create structures that also cater for the needs of mature-aged students and students who have not had a conventional pathway to higher education. These students may require tailored support and more flexible delivery options and it is likely that a significant proportion of the sector’s future growth may be in newer, privately funded providers which will operate alongside the established institutions that receive public funding.

It remains to be seen however, how far existing universities will remain focused on their primary learning ‘highway’ if other more flexible and responsive players move into the education marketplace. 

Thus far, it appears that even considerable evidence of encroachment into core university markets has not caused too much shift in universities’s perspectives on their approach to service delivery. In 2011,  Non University Higher Education Providers [NUHEP] enrolled approximately 47,500 full-time [equivalent] students - approximately 5.4 per cent of the total number of reported higher education students in that year  (Norton  2013, p.12). This reflected significant growth over previous years and is an indication that possibly the traditional university sector in Australia  may prefer to avoid too many deviations from its preferred traditional academic model even if material market share is at stake. 

Summary 

This review has focused on a series of questions regarding key elements of the Australian education system. The foregoing analysis provides the basis for preliminary ‘answers’ to those questions and summary answers are listed below. They are preliminary because any such broad ranging desk review can only be undertaken iteratively, given the myriad dimensions and multiple layers of implementation associated with the AQF. 

In considering the answers below, it is important to  reiterate, that the focus of both the questions and answers is the university sector of higher education services in Australia.

Q. Labour Market - how are education services linked to the needs of the labour market?

A. Universities have generally responded positively to expand enrolments and graduates. Also, the mechanisms installed by the national government in relation to (1) demand driven funding model (2) uncapped numbers and (3) student loan scheme, have made the process relatively attractive for universities. The major strategy appears to be based on lowering entrance standards for school leavers. There are potential sustainability issues associated with this current approach and its seems unlikely that the existing strategies will achieve the longer run goal in regard to professionalisation of the workforce. 

Q. Standards and Quality - is there an integrated system to allow a progressive learning journey for each individual student/learner? 

A. That the provision of higher education services is split in two by two different sectors for delivery and that this ‘split’ is matched with a like split in standards and quality  regulation is a substantial failure of governance design and represents a long term flaw in Australia’s higher education services system. The university sector appears to be generally comfortable with this flaw and inspite of the ‘overarching’ principles contained in the AQF regarding lifelong learning and related issues, has not moved significantly away from its formal academic perspective and traditional lecture style delivery. 

Q. International - to what extent is there ‘mobility’ for  students and workers across national boundaries? 

A. The AQF is well aligned with other QFs and there are clear and high levels of both student and worker mobility. The current market suits the university sector’s formal academic orientation and traditional delivery and in fact the success of the approach to  the migration of skilled workers provides a ‘back up’ to shortfalls in the provision of education services domestically.This constitutes a ‘win win’ for the university sector and reduces the likelihood of significant initiatives to improve pathways and responsiveness.

Q.Credit and RPL - are different forms of knowledge recognised and can students gain full recognition of their prior achievements as they progress on their learning journey?

A. The overall approach of the Australian university sector is inadequate, complicated and generally inconsistent with the primary principles of lifelong learning. The universities  are clearly disinclined to open up more flexible pathways through a more contemporary interpretation of prior learning. The current success of the traditional academic approach and the level of system incentives are effective disincentives for improvement in this area.

Q. Pathways - are there multiple connected/integrated ways in which students can gain their learning and qualifications?

A. The Australian public university sector is capable of providing a single pathway based on its traditional academic perspective and delivery. At this stage it  appears that other, alternative pathways, will only be more fully developed by alternative providers. 

Q. Responsiveness - are there a variety of education  products to suit varying needs of students with different needs? 

A. The Australian public universities are responsive to students who ‘fit the university’ but otherwise seem disinclined to look seriously at alternative education program offerings that change the universities role and relationship with its content and its students. 

In summary based on our findings, as well as the analysis of several much larger reviews, it appears that whilst the AQF has been implemented [and this in itself maybe progress] the achievements [towards reform in higher education services] don’t go much below the surface; however, the achievements in consolidating the market standing of the universities, both domestically and internationally are noteworthy.  

The implementation  has not made a lot of difference to the navigability of  learning pathways for students seeking a university degree [armed with a non conventional learning background] and it appears that the focus for the AQF has moved from using a qualifications framework to achieve reform to using a qualifications framework to market education services both internally and externally. Of course, qualifications frameworks  in other parts of the world suffer the same issue - in that they actually can be used to mask underlying inconsistencies and limitations. Important examples of this in Australia are provided by the operation of RPL, the limited availability of genuinely different pathways and the design of the regulatory framework.

Higher education is a significant part of the Australian economy. In 2011, universities had revenue of $23.8 billion (Norton 2013, p. 38). Australian universities have clearly developed the capacity to respond, in broad terms, to the challenges confronting a knowledge based, ‘hourglass’ shaped labour market; however,  existing approaches whilst not broken are coming under pressure. In light of this analysis, the following diagram [Diagram Two] summarises what is regarded as a realistic perspective of the AQF ‘wheel’ at its current level of implementation. Diagram Two is to be contrasted with the ‘whole’ circle illustrated earlier in Diagram One. 

The diagram below illustrates a bifurcated AQF with separate parts residing  in the opposite ends of a stylised ‘hour glass’.  In this hour glass the vocational segments sit in the top part of the hour glass and the university segments reside in the bottom part of the hour glass.

 

Diagram Two: The Bifuracted Australian Qualifications Framework

It is important to note that  the ‘neck’ between the two parts of the education hour glass is very narrow and the journey for those  students  who move between the two ‘extremes’ is not an easy one. Ironically, given what has been said, this depiction of the hour glass necessarily has the vocational segments on top [given that the ‘flow’ is intended to be from this  sector to the undergraduate and postgraduate segments at the bottom of the hour glass]. 

Our assessment is that the simple circle presented at the commencement of this article is not an accurate reflection of the current provision of education services in Australia. We regard the hour glass depicted above as a more accurate depiction of higher education services in Australia at present. Further, when operating under an ‘hour glass’ shaped system, what is very important is the size of the ‘neck’ between the two ends of the hour glass.  It is clear that this neck is currently far too narrow. Overtime what is not yet clear is whether the Australian government will become more prescriptive or more market oriented to seek to overcome these current shortcomings, if and when they more clearly recognised. Given the approach of both major political parties in Australia, it is more likely to be a continued, inevitable move to the market to resolve service prioritisation. In which case, we would anticipate a hardening of the university line to service its ‘core’ market’ and the progressive development of alternative pathways by alternative providers. However, this is only conjecture based on the information available  to date and at this stage there are only relatively small examples of these alternative providers. 

List of References

Andersson, P., Fejes, A., Sandberg, F., 2013. Introducing research on recognition of prior learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education 32, 405–411. doi:10.1080/02601370.2013.778069

Armsby, P., 2000. Methodologies of Work Based Learning, in: Portwood, D., Costley, C. (Eds.), Work Based Learning and the University New Perspectives and Practices Seda Paper 109. Staff and Educational Development Association [SEDA], Birmingham, pp. 35–42.

Armsby, P., Costley, C., 2000. Research Driven Projects, in: Portwood, D., Costley, C. (Eds.), Work Based Learning and the University: New Perspectives and Practices Seda Paper 109. Staff and Educational Development Association [SEDA], Birmingham, pp. 67–71.

AQF Council, 2014. AQF Council’s Terms of Reference and Strategic Plan [WWW Document]. URL http://www.aqf.edu.au/council/about/ref-n-strat-plan/   (accessed 17.1.14).

AQF Council, 2013. Australian Qualifications Framework 2nd Edition 2013.

AQF Council, 2009. Building Better Connected Learning Through Improved Student Pathways (Pathways Project Report). Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency, 2013. Future Focus: 2013 National Workforce Development Strategy.

Ball, I., Manwaring, G., 2010. Making it work: a guidebook exploring work-based learning (Guidebook). Gloucester.

Burke, G., Keating, J., Vickers, A., Fearnside, R., & Bateman, A. (2009). Mapping Qualifications Frameworks across APEC Economies. Singapore: APEC Human Resources Development Working Group. Retrieved from http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv17218 (accessed 16.1.14).

Costley, C., 2000. The Boundaries and Frontiers of Work Based Knowledge, in: Portwood, D., Costley, C. (Eds.), Work Based Learning and the University: New Perspectives and Practices Seda Paper 109. Staff and Education Development Association, Birmingham, pp. 23–33.

Cairns, L., & Malloch, M. (2011). Theories of Work, Place and Learning: New Directions. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. N. O’Connor (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning (pp. 3–16). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Costley, C. (2000). The Boundaries and Frontiers of Work Based Knowledge. In D. Portwood & C. Costley (Eds.), Work Based Learning and the University: New Perspectives and Practices Seda Paper 109 (pp. 23–33). Birmingham: Staff and Education Development Association.

Costley, C. (2011). Workplace Learning and Higher Education. In M. Malloch, Margaret, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. N. O’Connor (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning (pp. 395–406). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Costley, C., Elliott, G.C., Gibbs, P., 2010. Doing Work Based Research. SAGE PUBLICATIONS.

Costley, C., Armsby, P., 2007. Methodologies for undergraduates doing practitioner investigations at work. Journal of Workplace Learning 19, 131–145.

Costley, C., & Lester, S. (2012). Work-based doctorates: professional extension at the highest levels. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 257–269. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.503344

Costley, C., & Stephenson, J. (n.d.). The Impact of workplace Doctorates - a review of 10 case studies at Middlesex.

Cunningham, I., Dawes, G., & Bennett, B. (2004). The Handbook of Work Based Learning. Aldershot: Gower.

CEDEFOP, 2010. Linking credit systems and qualifications frameworks: An international comparative analysis (Research No. Report No. 5). European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training [Cedefop], Luxembourg.

CEDEFOP, 2011. Labour-market polarisation and elementary occupations in Europe (RESEARCH PAPER No. 9). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

CEDEFOP, 2013. Qualifications frameworks in Europe: forging the right links (Briefing Note Report). European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training [Cedefop], Luxembourg.

CEDEFOP, EQF, 2013. Information on the Cedefop study on “Qualifications at level 5 of the EQF”. EQF Advisory Group.

CEDEFOP, ETF, 2013. Global National Qualifications Framework Inventory: Country Cases from EU and ETF Partner Countries (Research Report). European Training Foundation.

Doncaster, K., 2000. Recognising and Accrediting Learning and the Development of Reflective Thinking, in: Work Based Learning and the University: New Perspectives and Practices, SEDA Paper 109. Staff and Education Development Association, Birmingham, pp. 51–57.

Education and Culture DG, EQF, 2013. The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning.

deWeert, E., 2011. Perspectives on Higher Education and the labour market (Review of international policy developments) (Research Report). Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, Netherlands.

Elkjaer, B., 2008. Pragmatism A learning theory for the future, in: IIleris, K. (Ed.), Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning Theorists... In Their Own Words. Routledge, Hoboken.

Garnett, J., 2000. Organisational Culture and the Role of Learning Agreements, in: Portwood, D., Costley, C. (Eds.), Work Based Learning and the University Seda Paper 109. Staff and Educational Develpment Association, Birmingham, pp. 58–66.

Garnett, J., 2010. Recognising, Assessing and Rewarding Work Experience, in: Understanding Work Based Learning. Ashgate Publishing Group, Farnham, Surrey, GBR.

Garnett, J. (2013). Middlesex University Work Based Learning - Work Based Learning field of Study. Middlesex University.

Garnett, J., Costley, C., & Workman, B. (Eds.). (2009). Work Based Learning Journeys to the Core of Higher Education. Middlesex: Middlesex University Press.

Garnett, J., & Workman, B. (2009). The Development  and Implementation of Work Based Learning at Middlesex University. In J. Garnett, C. Costley, & B. Workman (Eds.), Work Based Learning Journeys to the Core of Higher Education (pp. 2–14). Middlesex: Middlesex University Press.

Garnett, J., & Young, D. (Eds.). (2008). Work-based Learning Futures11. University Vocational Awards Council. Retrieved from http://www.uvac.ac.uk/resources/publications/  (accessed 23.11.13).

Garnett, J., & Young, D. (Eds.). (2009). Work-based Learning Futures 111. University Vocational Awards Council. Retrieved from http://www.uvac.ac.uk/resources/publications/  (accessed 13.2.14).

Guthrie, H., Stanwick, J., Karmel, T., 2011. Pathways: developing the skills of Australia’s workforce (Research Report). National Centre for Vocational Education Research, Adelaide, South Australia.

Hackett, L., Shutt, L., Maclachlan, N., 2012. The way we’ll work: Labour market trends and preparing for the hourglass (Research Report). University Alliance.

Halcomb, E., Andrew, S., Peters, K., Salamonson, Y., Jackson, D., 2010. Casualisation of the teaching workforce: implications for nursing education [WWW Document]. Research Online. URL http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1748&context=smhpapers (accessed 23.2.14).

Harris, R., Rainey, L., Sumner, R., 2006. Crazy paving or stepping stones? Learning pathways within and between vocational education and training and higher education (Research Report). National Centre for Vocational Education Research, Adelaide, South Australia.

Holford, J. (2013). Europeanizing Education: Governing a new policy space. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32(4), 571–573. doi:10.1080/02601370.2013.808816

Kennedy, P., 2000. Applying Work Based Learning to Undergraduate Study, in: Portwood, D., Costley, C. (Eds.), Work Based Learning and the University: New Perspectives and Practices. Staff and Educational Development Association Ltd, Birimgham, pp. 85–90.

Lester, S., 2004. Conceptualising the practitioner doctorate. Studies in Higher Education 29, 757–770.

Lester, S., & Costley, C. (2010). Work-based learning at higher education level: value, practice and critique. Studies in Higher Education, 35(5), 561–575.

McKernan, J., 2007. Curriculum and Imagination: Process Theory, Pedagogy and Action Research. Routledge, Florence, KY.

Moodie, G., Fredman, N., Bexley, E., Wheelahan, L., 2013. Vocational Education’s variable links to vocations (Research Report), National Vocational Education and Training Research Program. Commonwealth of Australia, Adelaide.

Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation, 2005. A Framework for Qualifications of The European Higher Education Area.

Misko, J., Beddie, F., & Smith, L. (2007). The Recognition of Non-formal and Informal Learning in Australia Country Background Report prepared for the OECD activity on Recognition of Non-formal and Informal Learning (p. 244). Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://vital.new.voced.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/ngv:33965/SOURCE2 (accessed 18.3.14).

Portwood, D., 2000. An Intellectual Case for Work Based Learning as a Subject, in: Portwood, D., Costley, C. (Eds.), Work Based Learning and the University: New Perspectives and Practices SEDA Paper 109. Staff and Educational Development Association, Birmingham, pp. 17–22.

Portwood, D., & Costley, C. (Eds.). (2000). Work Based Learning and the University: New Perspectives and Practices SEDA Paper 109. Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association.

Pitman, T., 2014. The use of recognition of prior learning in the Australian higher education sector [WWW Document]. URL http://www.waier.org.au/forums/2010/pitman.html (accessed 8.1.14).

Pitman, T., Vidovich, L., 2013. Converting RPL into academic capital: lessons from Australian universities. International Journal of Lifelong Education 32, 501–517. doi:10.1080/02601370.2013.778075

Roodhouse, S., & Mumford, J. (2010). Understanding Work-Based Learning. Surrey: Gower.

Watson, L., Hagel, P., Chesters, J., 2013. A half-open door: pathways for VET award holders into Australian universities (Research Report), National Vocational Education and Training Research Program. Commonwealth of Australia, Adelaide.

Wheelahan, L., 2009. Programs and Pathways: A report prepared for the Pathways Project [WWW Document]. URL http://www.aqf.edu.au/resources/reports/ (accessed 1.6.14).

Notes on Contributors

Corresponding Author:

Dr Neil Peach

Neil is an educational adviser who has been working in the field of work based learning since finishing in his role as the Chief Operating Officer at the University of Southern Queensland some five years ago. Neil has successfully supervised students at the Masters and Doctoral levels in work based learning during this time. Contact: neil.peach@gmail.com

Author:

Dr Malcolm Cathcart

Malcolm has had some twenty-five years experience in educational consultancy and in the delivery of quality training to organisations both within the corporate and government sectors in Australia. Malcolm's educational consultancy to his clients has focused on linking the training programs to accredited courses at all levels of tertiary education.

Author:

Dr Shayne Baker OAM

Shayne brings a strong background in adult education with senior management experience from the vocational, general education and more recently as an educator in the higher education sector. A great deal of Shayne's work involved managing change agendas through embracing the concepts of work based learning and he is actively involved in writing and publishing vocational education material, providing advice at a national & international  level in the field of education and training and promoting the concepts of work based learning to post graduate students.