High-quality traineeships: Identifying what works—Support document

Erica SmithUniversity of Ballarat

Paul ComynSmith-Comyn & Associates

Ros Brennan KemmisCharles Sturt University

Andy SmithUniversity of Ballarat

The views and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author/project team and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government, state and territory governments or NCVER
Any interpretation of data is the responsibility of the author/project team.

Contents

Appendix 1 – Research methods

Background

Research methods

References

Appendix 2 – Overview of high-level stakeholder interviews

High-level stakeholder interviews

Appendix 3 – About the case studies

Justification of industry areas for case studies

Case study interview protocols

Appendix 4 – Industry case studies

Industry case study reports

Detailed case studies

Appendix 5 – Application of quality features

Application of quality features in different phases of
a traineeship

Appendix 6 – Facilitators and inhibitors of quality features

Facilitators and inhibitors of quality features

How high-impact features work in practice

Appendix 7 – Hypothetical case histories

Hypothetical trainee case histories

Appendix 1 – Research methods

Background

Like apprenticeships, traineeships involve employment with an employer and delivery of a qualification by a training provider. This arrangement is often known as ‘contracted training’. It is now over 20 years since traineeships were established in Australia as a result of the Kirby report (Kirby, 1985). Traineeships were introduced to increase the reach of contracted training to a wider range of occupations and industries (Ray, 2001), and to a broader range of learners (particularly women), and to improve the labour market prospects of young people. Apprenticeships had been confined very much to manual occupations dominated by males (with the exception of hairdressing) and reflected the industry structure and the organised labour influences of the mid-twentieth century. After a slow start, traineeships began to grow rapidly in numbers in the mid-1990s so that of the 415,000 Australian Apprentices (apprentices and trainees) in 2006 (NCVER, 2007), 245,000 were trainees with a smaller number of 170,000 traditional apprentices. The relative proportion of commencing trainees is considerably higher than apprentices, as apprentices tend to be in training for three to four years compared to one to two years for trainees. Traineeships initially focused on entry-level qualifications; however, the days when traineeships were predominantly at Certificate II level have long passed; well over two-thirds of traineeships are now at Certificate III level or higher (NCVER, 2007a).

The curriculum for apprenticeship and traineeship qualifications alike consists of units of competency taken from the sets of competency standards in national Training Packages (Smith and Keating 2003). The units of competency set out required skills and underpinning knowledge, and offer advice (and sometimes prescription) on assessment. Each Training Package contains a number of qualifications relevant to the industry or occupational area. The Training Package offers no advice on delivery of the qualification and units, except by proxy through prescription of assessment site or method. In general, apprentices attend a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) for one day a week or in block periods, for two or three years. Trainees may also attend an RTO in this way, but it is also common for trainees to be trained 100% on the job. However, even in the latter case the RTO must oversee the training and is responsible for the assessment and the award of the qualification. There is not usually any regulation associated with the on the job training provided by the employer, beyond a mandatory training plan required by State Training Authorities which provides a brief summary of employer responsibilities.

There are however a number of regulatory arrangements associated with traineeships, as with apprenticeships. Contracts of training must be signed by employers, by employees (and by parents where the employees are aged under 18) and by the RTO. The contracts are registered with the State or Territory Training Authority. Employment incentives are supplied by the federal government, and in certain cases also by State and Territory governments, on commencement and completion, and off-the-job training is funded by the State Training Authority through what is known as ‘user choice’ funding. State Training Authorities and the federal government alike maintain regional and local offices where staff work to promote traineeships (and apprenticeships) and, very importantly, to manage their quality. Complaints from trainees, and sometimes their parents are handled by local offices of State Training Authorities. In addition to these long-established processes, traineeships are now promoted through school education systems because they can be commenced (and in some cases completed) on a part-time basis while students are still at school (e.g. Smith & Wilson, 2002).

Funding is an important issue for traineeships as it is with all other parts of the VET system and indeed the education system as a whole. While employment incentives and ‘user choice’ funding are available, they are not always available. Employment incentives may be limited depending on the previous qualifications gained by the trainee; ‘user choice’ funding may be limited in certain industries, for certain qualification levels, for workers who are not new to the company, and for certain types of RTOs (Smith & Keating, 2003: 98). ‘User choice’ regulations are made by States and Territories and there can be variations among States and Territories and from time to time. Incentives may also be increased particularly for equity groups such as indigenous trainees. Because of these variations, employers and trainees are generally advised to consult an Australian Apprenticeship Centre (see below) for advice. Employers receive an additional financial benefit since, as with apprentices, they are allowed to pay lower than the normal rate to compensate for time spent in training.

There are two sets of intermediary organisations that directly contribute to the traineeship (and apprenticeship) system and a number of others that make an indirect contribution. The two direct contributors are group training organisations (GTOs) formerly known as group training companies (GTCs) and Australian Apprenticeship Centres (AACs) formerly known as New Apprenticeship Centres (NACs). Group Training Organisations act as employers of apprentices and trainees, placing them with host companies and thereby relieving companies both of the risk of taking on trainees (or apprentices)for a lengthy period and of the paperwork associated with employing them (Buchanan & Evesson, 2004; Hill and Dalley-Tim 2008). Australian Apprenticeship Centres (AACs) are newer than GTOs and were set up in the mid-1990s to increase the number of people entering traineeships and apprenticeships (Smith, 2008a). AACs market traineeships and apprenticeships to potential employers and workers, manage the signing-up process, and make sure that appropriate employment and completion incentives are paid. They also make employers aware of special incentives that may be available for employing trainees and apprentices from disadvantaged groups, e.g. indigenous or disabled people. AACs are also expected to have a role in making sure that the employer-worker relationship proceeds smoothly and to report any problems to the appropriate authority, normally the local office of the State Training Authority.

As well as these agencies, other agencies have some role in promoting traineeships. RTOs have an interest in employers recruiting trainees, because they can then access user choice funding by providing the training for the trainees. Job network providers, who provide an employment brokerage service, often they place their clients in jobs that include a contract of training. As the labour market became increasingly tight in Australia it has been more and more common for unemployed people to require pre-employment training before entering a traineeship (Guenther, Falk & Arnott, 2008). Industry skills councils promote traineeships to industry because then there will be greater take-up of the Training Packages which they oversee. In some industry areas ISCs and their State or Territory counterparts have become heavily involved in school-based traineeships to try to improve the supply of labour to their industries (Brennan Kemmis, Smith & O’Meara, 2006). Thus there are many stakeholders involved in making traineeships succeed and holding a stake in their continued existence.

Research methods

The research was carried out in two major stages during 2007-8 as follows:

Stage 1: Interviews with 13 ‘high-level stakeholders’ who were senior officers in nine national-level bodies and institutions concerned with traineeships (October-December 2007).

Stage 2: Case studies in six industry areas, comprising stakeholder interviews and company examples (November 2007 to March 2008).

A small project reference group of major stakeholders was established, members of which met twice by teleconference during the project life and reviewed all reports produced. In addition, the final draft report was sent for validation and comment to a larger advisory group, comprising Industry Skills Council CEOs from the industry areas and the high-level stakeholders interviewed in Stage 1 of the research, and four apprenticeship researchers in the UK and Germany.

Qualitative methods were used in the research because we were attempting to find out ‘how’ and ‘why’ answers as well as ‘what’ answers (Yin, 1994). Since the variables of positive features of traineeships have not previously been identified in a systematic way, quantitative research would not be appropriate. Qualitative methods are particularly suitable to identify and account for different perspectives (Maxwell, 2002) which are of importance in traineeship research because of the large number of stakeholders. The groups chosen as participants in the research were the major players in the traineeship system: industry, training providers, trainees, employers, peak bodies representing employers and unions, and skills councils. In total, 126 individual participants were involved.

Stage 1: The list of senior stakeholders was drawn up in consultation with the project reference group and included a range of personnel from government (Federal and State), industry, trade unions and intermediary organisations. They represent the major national stakeholders in traineeships, although several interviewees wished it to be understood that the views that they offered were their own and not necessarily the official position of their organisations. The interview protocol was loose, to allow for a broad expression of views. The questions were as follows:

What is your organisation’s role with respect to traineeships?

What are your expectations of traineeships?

What can be described as a high quality traineeship? (Perhaps you have an example you could discuss?)

What features contribute to high quality traineeships?

What are the effects of variables such as employment practices industry area, Training Package content and structure, industry traditions?

How far are the features replicable in other traineeships and how can this be done?

What is necessary, or what needs to change, to improve the quality of traineeships?

Interviews lasted between 40 and 90 minutes and were taped (with permission) and transcribed. Two interviews took place face to face and the remainder were undertaken by phone.

Stage 2: Six industry areas were proposed for case studies and were supported by the reference group as being appropriate: financial services, children’s services, asset maintenance (cleaning), construction, retail and meat processing (abattoirs). Selecting specific industry areas follows the example of Kodz et al (2000) in an overseas study in a similar area that likewise selected six occupations. The reason for choosing the particular industry areas was to provide a mix of features that had been identified, together with NCVER, as being important in possible effects on quality. These features were: high completion rates, high volume of participants, pathways to higher qualifications, presence of traditional apprenticeships, and impact of regulation, public regard, and occupational identity. See appendix 6for the features as they apply to the each of the six industry areas.

Each industry case study comprised two phases. Phase A comprised interviews with a representative of the following stakeholder groups:

Skills Council

Employer association

Employee association

Manager responsible for curriculum in a particular industry area – TAFE

Manager responsible for curriculum – private RTO

Group Training Organisation specialising in the industry

In some cases there was a little variation, or alternatively additional people were interviewed following recommendations.

Phase B of Stage 2 comprised ‘company examples’ involving site visits to two companies in each industry area (12 altogether) and their partnering RTOs. We ensured that some of the companies were small or medium enterprises. All site visits to company examples were in the Eastern States for budgetary reasons. Within company examples the following interviews were sought:

Interview with HR Manager or senior line manager with HR responsibility

Interview with training manager or equivalent

Interview with at least one supervisor with responsibility for trainees

Interview with trainees (at least two, and up to ten in focus groups in larger companies)

Interviews with ex-trainees still working at the site, if available

Interviews with course co-ordinator and/or teacher from the relevant RTO(s)

In small companies and other non-standard instances such as GTOs there was variation from this pattern. Interviews and focus groups were from 30-90 minutes in length and in most cases the interviews were taped and transcribed, with permission. The interviews in Stage 2 utilised detailed protocols (see appendix 3 ) which were based on the conception of quality described in the Introduction and were also influenced by the data collected in Phase 1 (high-level stakeholder interviews).

Data analysis: The high-level stakeholder interviews were written up and analysed initially, forming a backdrop to the detailed fieldwork. The twelve company examples were written up individually; then the six traineeship case studies (which each included two company examples) were written up and circulated among the researchers. The case study reports can be found at appendix 4. The data were coded and analysed in a cross-case analysis (Stake, 1995) using data reduction and display techniques (Miles and Huberman, 1994), such as the use of tables to record emerging issues, to identify the major themes. To draw the diverse data together for theoretical models and policy lessons, we used Ritchie & Spencer’s ‘framework’ analysis approach (2002), which they devised specifically for qualitative data analysis for policy research. This framework approach considers four categories of questions:

Contextual: identifying the form and nature of what exists;

Diagnostic: examining the reasons for, or causes of, what exists;

Evaluative: appraising the effectiveness of what exists;

Strategic: identifying new theories, policies, plans and actions.

(Ritchie & Spencer, 2002, p307)

This framework enabled the research team to explore all aspects of traineeships, including the reason for the features that we encountered, the quality features of what we found, and the possibilities for improvement. The initial descriptive analysis was through 'etic' issues (Stake, 1995, p20) - issues 'brought in from outside' - which were based on the quality components described in the introduction. We then went on to examine 'emic' issues – those arising from the participants' interests and responses (Stake, 1995, p20).

The process of reporting to the reference group, presenting initial findings to conferences of practitioners and researchers (in local, State and national events), and the larger advisory group whose comments were sought at the draft final report stage, assisted in constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of the findings.

References

Blythe, A & Bowman, K 2005, Employers and qualifications at a glance, NCVER, Adelaide.

Booth, R, Roy, S, Jenkins, H, Clayton, B & Sutcliffe, S 2005, Workplace training practices in the residential aged care sector, NCVER,Adelaide.

Brennan Kemmis, R, Smith, E & O’Meara, B 2006, ‘Evaluation of NSW ‘HSC On Line’ web pages for VET curriculum frameworks’, Charles Sturt University,Wagga Wagga.

Buchanan, J & Evesson, J 2004, Creating markets or decent jobs? Group training and the future of work, NCVER,Adelaide.

Bush, A & Smith, E 2007, ‘Group training organisations: Bellwethers or shepherds?’, Evolution, revolution or status quo? The new context for VET. 10th conference of the Australian VET Research Association, Victoria University, Footscray Park, Vic., 11–13 April.

Commonwealth of Australia 2007, Users’ guide to the essential standards for registration. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Cullinane, N. & Dundon, T. (2006 The psychological contract: A critical review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8:2, 113-129.

Cully, M. (2006). Kirby comes of age: the birth, difficult adolescence, and future prospects of traineeships. Sydney: Dusseldorp Skills Forum.

Dumbrell, T. (2004, Literature review for review of traineeships in NSW. Sydney: Dumbrell Consulting Pty Ltd.

Favero, J. (2003, Quality training: Challenges for teachers of workplace training for trainees and apprentices. Sixth Annual Conference of AVETRA, 9-11 April, Sydney.

Ferguson, J. (2007, Skilling young Australians: Young people’s views on improving skills, training & welfare. Sydney: Youth Action & Policy Association.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006, Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219-245.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967, The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine: Chicago.

Guenther, J., Flak, I. & Arnott, A. (2008, The role of vocational education and training in welfare to work. Adelaide: NCVER.

Hall, R., Buchanan, J. & Considine, G. (2002, “You value what you pay for”: Enhancing employers’ contributions to skill formation and use. A discussion paper for the Dusseldorp Skills Forum. Sydney: ACIRRT.

Harris, Willis, Simons & Underwood (1998) Learning the job: Juggling the messages in on- and off-the job training. Adelaide: NCVER.

Hill, A., & Dalley-Tim, L. (2008, Hanging in there: What makes a difference in the first year of an apprenticeship. Youth Studies Australia, 27(1), 36-42.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Indigenous Australians at work: Successful initiatives in indigenous employment. Canberra: House of Representatives Publishing Unit.