Get documents about "changes to cgea proposed by wa teachers final
Document Sample
How do the Certificates in General Education for Adults (CGEA) need to change:
Suggestions from Western Australian practitioners March 2006
This paper has been prepared by Cheryl Wiltshire (CGEA State Coordinator for the
CGEA in Western Australia) in consultation with teachers from the CGEA Moderation
Network. The paper has been submitted formally to the Curriculum Maintenance
Managers (CMM) for General Studies & Further Education in Victoria. This group is
responsible for the re-accreditation of the CGEA due in December 2006. The CGEA
curriculum owner is (ACFE).
Western Australia has no formal representation on the CGEA Re-Accreditation Project
Steering Committee, despite the long and extensive use of the curriculum in this state.
The views of teachers in WA must therefore be submitted in writing. This paper is the
first such written submission.
Members of the CGEA Inter-Regional Moderation Network have documented the issues
that teachers in WA would like to see addressed. Those issues are presented in this
paper. The CGEA Inter-Regional Moderation Network anticipates that there will be
further opportunities to provide comment and participate fully in the process to re-
accredit the CGEA. We will seek the opportunities to discuss proposed changes with the
CGEA Re-Accreditation Project Steering Committee and project consultants.
This submission is informed by:
1. The Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the CGEA completed in 2003 (available on
http://vetinfonet.det.wa.edu.au/adultliteracy/CGEA.aspx )
2. The Inter-regional CGEA Moderation meeting on November 18 which considered the
PowerPoint presentation prepared to explain the process at the first CMM forum
about the reaccreditation in Melbourne on November 18th 2005. Notes from the
concurrent Western Australian meeting are available on Vetinfonet (see address
above) as part of the minutes of the November 17th and 18th, 2005 CGEA moderation
meeting. Notes from the Victorian meeting were also considered. These are
available at the CMM online discussion forum under Resources. See
http://tls.vu.edu.au/cf/sitntalk/default.cfm?areaId=2## .
3. A teleconference on February 13th where a draft of this discussion paper was debated
in detail by one or more representatives from every region in Western Australia.
4. The background readings, notes and postings on the SITNTALK on online forum.
5. The work of the WA CGEA network in regularly moderating the CGEA in all regions
of the state.
WA CGEA teachers and other stakeholders have attempted to raise a number of issues on
the open forum so teachers in other state systems using the CGEA can comment but it has
proved quite difficult to submit postings. Unfortunately, to date, no Western Australian
posting has received any response from either the project consultants or users of the
CGEA in other states. We hope that the forum will become more effective later in the
year.
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 1
The remainder of this paper documents specific issues that the CGEA Network has
identified and where possible, recommendations which we would see as resolving the
issue.
Alternate Short Module structure
The CGEA Evaluation in WA proposed an alternative short module structure that would
allow students to get credit sooner and more reliably. The structure was trialled in WA in
all sorts of circumstances. The proviso was made that there was to be concurrent delivery
of two or more short modules clustered together rather than sequential delivery of
individual modules. Occasionally this proviso was breached and teachers reported that in
most cases, it was, as expected, to the detriment of students. Teachers reported it was
important to make sure that students get the underpinning knowledge and to do a holistic
program. One teacher described the best programs as focusing on teaching and learning
instead of training and assessing.
Three examples of the applications trialled are provided:
The short modules were used for a 2 hour evening class in a small regional TAFE
campus. The students nominated two streams of reading and writing for a
semester and then went on to the other streams as soon as these were finished.
Students are able to make a start in the context of the whole module and get credit
as they go along. Students were found to be keener to go on with further areas
once they completed some of the learning outcomes.
A Language, Literacy, Numeracy Programme (LLNP) provider using the short
modules was able to give some formal credit to almost 100 students at their end of
year graduation ceremony. In previous years only 6 or 7 received credit. This is
in the context of the continuous entry and exit programs LLNP usually requires.
Like the evening class, the impact of the increased credit was very positive with
students becoming more focused on the potential to complete the qualification.
A large TAFE converted all delivery of CGEA to short modules. There were
some initial problems because the modules were timetabled sequentially (mostly
for teachers as they were asked to submit assessments and students were not
finished). This was amended to the recommended concurrent enrolment before
the first student group completed. After two full calendar years, this TAFE wishes
to continue to use the CGEA according to this structure as it has both
management and teaching benefits.
The major complaint from teachers is the administrative load since many RTOs are
demanding an extensive array of documents to be completed at the Module level. Where
teachers were permitted to complete this documentation at the cluster level, there was
little additional work apart from some extra resulting as students achieved credit more
often and occasional transfers where students completed a different outcome from one
originally nominated.
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 2
Teachers have suggested a number of possibilities to explore further:
1. Difficulty with the linking of reading and writing together (some students still don't
get to pass the short module) Teachers report there would be more success if reading
and writing separated.
2. Possibility of allowing for different time for short courses (i.e. additional time)
3. Possibility of adding oral communication with reading and writing (recognizing that
this conflicts with Point 1.)
Action recommended for re-accreditation
1. Provide an option that allows smaller chunks of competence to increase the
flexibility for students in achieving credit. It is preferred that the existing long
modules are also available as they work well with many full time students who
attend the majority of the course hours.
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 3
Teaching Qualifications for CGEA
The human resources statement in the accreditation document needs to be clearer to
ensure that staff are engaged who are capable of teaching students to achieve the learning
outcomes required.
Teachers in WA acknowledge the difficulty in recruiting appropriately qualified people
to teach the CGEA in some areas. However, they also recognise that using individuals
without appropriate skills is likely to do still more damage to individuals who have
already been poorly served by the education system. CGEA teachers need to be more
skilled, not less skilled, than their colleagues who work in schools. Teaching
qualifications are not a guarantee of the appropriate attributes to meet adult students
general education needs, any more than medical qualifications ensure our surgeons are
capable. However, just as we would not ask a surgeon without qualifications and training
to operate on us, neither should we appoint unqualified staff to teach the complexities of
language, literacy, mathematics and numeracy to adults. That said, since we draw
effective CGEA teachers from a number of different sectors, it can be difficult to clearly
define the minimum qualifications and skill sets, particularly to define them clearly
enough so those making recruiting decisions are under no doubt as to what is needed.
That part of Section 5.4 of the accreditation document dealing with teaching staff
(‘human resources’) issues should be revised to clarify who is qualified to teach the
CGEA. In revising the section, it should be borne in mind that the CGEA offers students
an educational experience incorporating knowledge and skills across the range usually
learned in primary and junior high school but modified and streamlined to take account of
their adult status and mature interests. It should also be borne in mind that many CGEA
students are either indigenous or of non-English speaking background (NESB).
It follows that the people best equipped to help students achieve the prescribed learning
outcomes are those academically qualified for employment as teachers in schools, or as
adult educators, who have additional tertiary qualifications in adult literacy and numeracy
and/or applied linguistics with an emphasis on cultural and social differences.
Alternatively, they must be able to demonstrate that in addition to acquiring education or
adult education diplomas or degrees they have participated in a range of professional
development courses to an extent commensurate with specialist qualification at the
tertiary level. In some respects, for example in relation to indigenous education and adult
learning, such courses may be more useful than those offered by universities in that they
combine a high level of theoretical insight with a more practical orientation.
Hence the minimum requirement for teaching the CGEA should be possession of a
postgraduate diploma of teaching or education, or an education or adult education degree
to at least undergraduate level. Tertiary qualified teachers who do not have specialist
qualifications as described above or have not taken part in an adequate range of
professional development at an adequate depth must be required to improve their
knowledge and skills accordingly. Combining tertiary study with professional
development is perhaps the best means to that end.
The ‘additional tertiary qualifications’ requirement outlined above should be interpreted
broadly to include individual university level units in relevant areas of study as well as
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 4
entire degrees. The latter may well be too expensive and time-consuming for many
teachers.
There is a need to modify Section 5.4 of the accreditation document to clearly explain
these issues. Above all, it is important to replace ‘should’ be delivered by qualified
teachers with ‘must’. Many RTOs are reading the word ‘should’ as meaning “only if it
suits us”.
Certificate IV in Training and Assessment
It should be acknowledged in the accreditation document that Certificate IV in Training
and Assessment (TAA) is designed as a qualification for lecturers delivering Training
Packages and is not required for CGEA teachers who are working within a curriculum
framework covering general education.
AQTF Standard 7 requires training to be conducted by lecturers who have specified
elements of Certificate IV or can demonstrate equivalent competencies as well as
vocational qualifications or competencies at least equivalent to the level at which they are
lecturing. Qualified teachers or adult educators already have vocational qualifications
recognized in the AQF as considerably more than equivalent to Certificate IV. Lecturers
who are not qualified teachers do not have the vocational qualifications or competencies
required for teaching CGEA, just as CGEA teachers without trade qualifications and
parts of Certificate IV are not qualified to work with Training Packages. Teachers who
are also delivering Training Packages may require Certificate IV TAA, but Certificate IV
TAA is neither necessary nor sufficient for teachers to deliver the CGEA. To suppose
otherwise is to undermine the integrity of the CGEA curriculum framework.
The accreditation document should define that a teaching qualification provides
satisfactory ‘Equivalence’ to the Certificate IV TAA for AQTF purposes (since the type
of assessor and teaching competencies are included in teaching qualifications at a higher
level than TAA). The current statement is often interpreted as meaning Certificate IV is
required though it is by no means certain that this was intended when it was written.
The AQTF supervision rules also cause some problems. Staff who have Cert IV TAA
but are not qualified to teach the CGEA do not add quality by providing supervision to
CGEA teachers. Neither is it particularly helpful to have qualified teachers ‘supervising'
or signing off on CGEA delivery or assessment carried out by staff not thus qualified
since it is at the point of delivery that the specialised skills are needed rather than at the
point of assessment.
General Curriculum Options
The CGEA Network supports maintaining the existing guidelines for General Curriculum
Options (GCOs). GCOs present special requirements and opportunities for both students
and teachers. Where they are entirely vocational, they must be delivered by vocationally
qualified lecturers holding Certificate IV TAA or equivalent or a more advanced training
qualification like the Diploma in Training and Assessment. GCOs that are entirely
educational (e.g. units or modules in science, languages or literature) must be taught by
teachers qualified to teach in those fields.
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 5
Action recommended for re-accreditation
2. Include the following wording in the accreditation document:
Teacher and Assessor qualifications
The CGEA must be delivered by appropriately qualified teachers. CGEA students
are generally adults who have missed out on important aspects of schooling, and are
often of indigenous or NESB background. It is therefore vital that teachers
delivering Reading and Writing, Oral Communication and Numeracy modules of
the CGEA should have a theoretical understanding of adult literacy and numeracy
and related issues, including those that pertain to the special needs of adult students.
That being so, where an RTO appoints a CGEA teacher who does not meet all of
the following criteria, however otherwise qualified, they must ensure the teacher
embarks on a professional development or qualification pathway that will ensure
they achieve the necessary skill sets within 24 months. The major cost of this should
not be borne by the teacher alone, particularly if they are casual or part time.
The CGEA may only be delivered by a person who meets the requirements for
registration as a teacher in their state, or has a teaching qualification such as a
Diploma or Degree in Primary Education or High School Education with majors in
areas that are relevant to the streams they are teaching. Where suitably qualified
persons are unavailable, then individuals with other diploma or degree
qualifications which include suitable specialist areas may be selected. However,
RTOs must ensure that that the individual can demonstrate:
their knowledge of literacy and/or numeracy skills acquisition, and
their understanding of the ways in which literacy and numeracy concepts are
most effectively learned by adults, and
successful experience in teaching reading, writing, oral communication,
numeracy and mathematics.
Copies of the individual’s registration papers and qualifications must be kept by the
relevant registered training organisation.
(Add existing GCO Stream paragraph here, perhaps highlighting this as an exception
that applies to some content for this stream).
Certificate IV TAA is neither necessary nor sufficient as a qualification to deliver
the Reading and Writing, Oral Communication and Numeracy modules of the
CGEA. It is a waste of public resources to require CGEA teachers to undertake
Certificate IV TAA if there is no other requirement for them to do so. For the
purposes of CGEA teaching, teachers who are otherwise qualified to teach the
CGEA, shall be deemed to have ‘equivalence’ as defined in AQTF standard 7.
All teachers must have access to professional development to ensure a thorough
knowledge of the Certificates and of related teaching methodology.
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 6
Assessment issues
Many of the issues described later in this discussion paper are about the wording of
assessment criteria. Often, the issue results from a rather narrow interpretation of the
criteria, one that experienced teachers in the past would have had no difficulty in
discounting as unreasonable. However, teachers are reporting that accountability
requirements resulting from AQTF implementation often leave little space for common-
sense interpretations. The requirement for both internal and external audits mean that
there are now many observers of the assessment recording process, most of whom have
no qualifications or experience in the theory or practice of adult literacy or general
education. Even more problematic, individuals without any educational expertise at all
are often responsible for creating pro-formas which teachers are required to use, usually
unmodified. Many of these pro-formas demand evidence that all assessment criteria are
addressed in teaching and individually assessed and recorded every time a piece of
student work or an activity is used to demonstrate competence. As a result, the wording
of assessment criteria needs to be very clear about what is intended.
The problems are exacerbated by the interpretation of AQTF standard 8.1 (vi) that
requires the evaluation of “sufficient evidence”. Most RTOs have decided that this
means assessed twice. As a result, students are often being required to perform each of
these actions twice for every learning outcome separately (on top of the many times they
may already have partially completed the criteria while building their skills). The WA
CGEA Network is promoting the interpretation that where assessment criteria are the
same for a number of learning outcomes (e.g. four reading learning outcomes), one
complete demonstration of competence is sufficient for each learning outcome in addition
to the partial performances used in the learning process. In other words, students need to
meet all the assessment criteria for Reading at least three times (four for Cert I and II).
The same would apply to Writing.
Action recommended for re-accreditation
3. Add a clear statement that says that each Reading and Writing learning outcome
only needs to be met in whole once except where it is clearly necessary to assess
an outcome in multiple contexts. This may also apply to Numeracy and
Mathematics.
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 7
Reading assessment criteria
Teachers complain that the assessment criteria for the Reading stream as currently
described “take the fun out of reading” and lead to very repetitious and mechanistic
responses.
The current criteria at all levels describe critical analysis of texts and seem to be
preparation for the task most likely to be asked of students in English literature at
Leaving Certificate level.
Teachers who are well trained in adult literacy theory can and do interpret the criteria
loosely enough to deem competent a student who obviously reads and understands the
purpose of a text by using it in a concrete way as part of an activity. However, many
teachers new to adult literacy teaching do not see this as permissible within the
descriptors. Trained English teachers, in particular, find it hard to accept that it is valid to
allow a student to demonstrate their understanding of audience, purpose etc through their
application of knowledge gained from a text rather than in writing a piece of critical
analysis. This discomfort persists even after many years of adult literacy teaching and/or
training and resulting perhaps from their familiarity with the language used in the
assessment criteria in the context of their area of specialisation.
The continual requirement to compare and contrast different texts is particularly onerous
for students and for teachers when they plan activities or negotiate suitable activities with
students.
The WA CGEA Moderation Network is encouraging teachers to use and record evidence
such as oral responses, discussion, and student actions resulting from reading texts.
Action recommended for re-accreditation
4. Amend reading assessment criteria to require students to use texts of various
types, focusing on their ability to interpret the layers of meaning in the text,
incorporate the meaning they made from it into activities, and/or to use it as a
model for texts of their own. At Introductory and Certificate 1 level, it should be
clear that reading texts produced by students themselves or transcribed for them
may be used. (Note: We are attempting to create a draft set of criteria that
captures this recommendation.)
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 8
Reading and Writing stream
Assessment guidelines: At Certificate III and Introductory level, students are deemed
competent if seven out of eight learning outcomes are achieved for Reading and Writing.
Teachers find it hard to understand why this guideline does not apply to Certificate I and
II as well. These certificates cater for the majority of students using the CGEA in
Western Australia. Allowing students some flexibility in what they achieve would enable
more students to complete the course without having to re-enrol. It would enable greater
customisation e.g. for student groups for whom genres such as report writing or argument
are culturally uncomfortable. Retaining the existing rule that teachers should teach all
learning outcomes addresses the objection that students need to be aware of the dominant
genres in Australia regardless of their cultural heritage (especially since students will
still need to either read or write every outcome).
Action recommended for re-accreditation
5. Amend the assessment guidelines for Reading and Writing so demonstrating
competence in seven out of eight learning outcomes is sufficient to be awarded
the full module at all certificate levels.
Separation of Reading and Writing into separate modules
Some teachers point out that combining Reading and Writing Learning Outcomes into a
single module is counter-productive because students progress at different rates in each
area, and sometimes attend class only to improve either their reading or their writing.
The CGEA Network in WA is concerned that an attempt to split them might send the
message that reading should be assessed separately from writing whereas the opposite is
the case: we recommend closer integration of reading and writing as an important part of
effective literacy teaching.
Action recommended for re-accreditation
6. Consider finding a way to allow credit to be awarded for reading separately
from writing competence while sending a strong message about integration.
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 9
Writing outcomes
The assessment criteria for the Writing stream focus on items that reflect features of the
text produced rather than on the actions of the student. Generally the criteria reflect:
An increasing level of mastery of underpinning component skills (grammar,
spelling, length and complexity of text)
Features of the genre
A requirement that text is suited to its purpose.
However, one assessment criterion relates to the process of producing the text: planning,
drafting and editing. This criterion leads teachers to feel that they cannot assess a student
as competent if they did not do a written plan, and then produce several drafts with edits.
Not all situated writing events require these stages (especially when the writer is familiar
with the required task). Using ICT, many of these stages are ephemeral and while they
can sometimes be captured by printing out at various stages prior to completion, this is
wasteful of the class's access to printing facilities (cartridges and paper) if it serves no
purpose apart from complying with the criterion. Drafting and editing are merging into a
single process when working with computers.
The criterion would usually have the effect of reducing the difficulty of the learning
outcome i.e. it is easier to produce a text with the required level of punctuation, spelling
of grammar and features in several reiterations. Therefore, experienced teachers
generally view planning and drafting and editing as optional, applied where necessary to
improve the quality of writing sufficiently to meet the other criteria, although they ensure
students are taught strategies to use as needed to produce high quality texts. However,
other teachers attempt to comply with the "letter of the law" and uniformly require
successive drafts for every writing task considered for assessment. This tends to disrupt
the natural production of texts relevant to students, and at the lower levels, students
sometimes produce less meaningful drafts as they try to comply.
Actions recommended for re-accreditation
7. Modify the wording of the writing assessment criterion to show that planning
drafting and editing processes are only applied when needed, and are not a
requirement of competence i.e. by adding "as needed" to the assessment
criterion. Alternatively, the planning drafting and editing could be moved to a
"condition of assessment" section.
8. Add a discussion to the content section describing the purpose of the drafting
processes, i.e. that the purpose is to reduce the difficulty of the task by allowing
students to produce an unfamiliar or complex text through an iterative process.
It reflects the sort of feedback and editorial comment that most writers access in
the process of preparing an important public text.
9. Add a note that drafting is not required in situations where students are able to
produce a text in a single sitting (with any planning or correction completed
mentally).
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 10
Location of length of text statement for writing
The “length of text” rule for writing is buried towards the end of the underpinning
content.
Action recommended for re-accreditation
10. Where relevant, place the suggested length of the text in words as part of
assessment guidelines or as part of the assessment criteria.
Use of technology for Reading & Writing and Numeracy and Mathematics.
Many students do not have access to Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
in Reading and Writing or Numeracy or Mathematics class time. Computers are only
provided by some RTOs when a specific computer based class is scheduled. This is a
problem when both workplaces and community activities rely so heavily on ICT.
Students who are used to using computers at home, work and school are particularly
disadvantaged by losing access to one of the tools they normally use. And of course,
those with little access to technology need a chance to find how ICT might be useful to
them. Computer technology can no longer be considered an optional extra for adult
literacy students.
The CGEA Network does not support the creation of a separate ICT stream. If students
want more focus on computing for example, electives should be used. We do not want to
create a Certificate I in Business. However, the role that ICT plays in modern society,
including homes, schools, the community and workplaces should be acknowledged by
building in access to ICT as a given for every stream of the CGEA. The resources
section of the accreditation document needs to specify a minimum level of ICT access.
For example, a recent Maths moderation meeting estimated that Numeracy and Maths
classes would better serve the needs of students if they had access to a computer
laboratory at least 25% of the time.
Action recommended for re-accreditation
11. Explicitly list the use of technologies and tools such as the Internet, and word
processing tools in teaching and learning strategies and underpinning knowledge
wherever relevant.
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 11
Dialect diversity in Reading and Writing
The CGEA Oral Communication stream explicitly addresses and allows for diversity of
dialect in the way English is used as well as the impact of first language on the speech of
NESB learners. As a result of professional development activity in bi-dialectal education
in recent years, many WA CGEA teachers are keen to have this issue explicitly addressed
for the Reading and Writing stream as well and to see some updating of the Oral
Communication statement.
Actions recommended for re-accreditation
12. Add a statement in the Introduction to the Reading and Writing stream
describing how the use of a person's first dialect/language supports the
acquisition of standard or target language/dialect (similar to the one already
included for the Oral Communication stream, see page 310 of CGEA
accreditation document).
13. Add information into teaching and learning strategies for each learning
outcome about how dialect difference can be accommodated.
14. Add details of ABC materials to the list of suggested resources for the Reading
and Writing module. (See references section at end of document for a list).
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 12
Issues with Numeracy and Mathematics stream
The following issues have been raised at recent moderation meetings re the Numeracy
and Mathematics stream.
People operating at lower levels are much less likely to need to write large
numbers in words since ATMs/EFTPOS replaced cheques and withdrawal forms for
banking.
Big jump between Cert II & Certificate III Maths: Cert III requires higher level
Maths and is seen as comparative to what Universities do as bridging level Maths.
The CGEA Network recognise that Certificate III Maths is high but believe this is
needed for those students on a pathway that requires Maths at this level. The
existing structure where Certificate II Numeracy and Mathematics is sufficient to
achieve a Certificate III addresses this. Students going on to higher level Maths (e.g.
tertiary entrance level) need more time to build and consolidate concepts of Algebra
and Trigonometry. The current Certificate II structure is ideal for many other
students.
An issue was raised about the focus on place value in the course. Understanding
of place value is assessed at Maths Certificate 1 LO 6 (a), but some believe it needs
to be explicitly included in the Introductory Certificate as underpinning knowledge.
Others argued that you can't have an understanding of number as defined at
Introductory level without some understanding of place value. If we listed everything
that is fundamental, the document would be huge.
Numeracy is very specific, people get lost in all the small criteria at Cert I and II.
Actions recommended for re-accreditation
15. For Numeracy and Mathematics Introductory, amend assessment criteria so
numbers do not need to be written in words.
16. Split Time and Money in Numeracy and Mathematics Learning Outcomes.
(Time could perhaps be combined with Measurement).
17. Add some extra optional learning outcomes at Cert II for Algebra and
Trigonometry. Keep the 6 out of the total rule so overall flexibility is not
reduced.
18. Ensure that the Numeracy and Mathematics stream introduction reminds
teachers that Certificate II is the highest level of Maths that all students must
achieve. Teachers should be enjoined to support Certificate III students to
achieve Certificate II Numeracy and Mathematics if necessary.
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 13
Issues with introductory information and general assessment guidelines
Some general issues which arose through the moderation process are captured in the
recommendations below.
Actions recommended for re-accreditation
19. Replace “level” with "Certificate" for clarity (e.g. Pages 64-65). There is still
considerable confusion with the mismatch between old levels and the new
which could be resolved by using certificate names.
20. The use of ‘reading’ software for students with disabilities needs to be
explicitly addressed in assessment guidelines (see page 24 which describes
adjustments for speech and writing and presumably can be extended to cover
reading). The Oral Communication stream explicitly allows for a student to
use a voice synthesiser or communication board (page 312 Oral
Communication Introduction), and the same specificity would be useful in the
Introduction to Reading and Writing.
21. In the guidelines for inclusion of electives – allow for students to complete
Units of Competence from Training Packages and Accredited Courses at
Certificate Level or above. Currently students might be achieving in a
qualification such as Certificate II in Horticulture while completing a
Certificate I CGEA. Since it is not specifically allowed, some TAFE
Assessment Officers will not allow them to be counted towards students'
Certificate 1 even though it seems self-evident that it should be.
22. Nesting of qualification should be explained in detail. All modules should
explicitly state that achievement of the module includes the one below. Use
wording like: “Student success in any particular module, except Cert I
Introductory, gives automatic credit for the modules from the same stream in (a)
lower certificate(s) e.g. literacy for Self Expression III gives credit for literacy for
Self Expression Introductory, I and II.
23. Strengthen the section on Customisation in the Introduction to make it clear that
students who have literacy support needs and are studying a Training Package
qualification can use the CGEA to learn the LLN skills required.
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 14
GCO criteria
A number of issues were raised regarding the General Curriculum Options stream.
In the evaluation of the CGEA, people who teach computers based on GCO
module sometimes argued that the learning outcomes too vague. However, as
electives from TPs can now be used, this issue can be addressed by using Training
Package units of competence as electives for those students able to achieve them.
New teachers sometimes misinterpret the technology section as being only
computers not other technology: e.g. sewing machines
the language is very formal and the accreditation document could benefit from
some work to achieve Plain English. Lecturers often have difficulty unpacking what
is meant. This is especially a challenge when they have to interpret the language for
students.
Actions recommended for re-accreditation
24. Add some examples of other uses of technology in GCO assessment tasks, and
make sure that assessment tasks based on use of computers are interspersed with
other sorts of technology.
25. Reword the GCO criteria in Plain English e.g. Certificate III Learning Outcome
7 e) Use technological principles to reduce constraints presented by the
environmental conditions and anticipated level of physical ability of the user could
be re-written to something like ' Adapt the technology to suit different
environmental conditions and physical abilities of users'
Name of the CGEA framework
There has been much debate in WA concerning the words in the title “for adults” (and its
implied connection to Adult Learning principles). We need to explicitly address how a
certificate for adults applies to adolescents. There is sometimes a question mark over the
title’s suitability for a program that has often worked well for adolescents. The name
actually helps the CGEA to work for young people (when it does). There is a body of
“adult literacy” and “adult learning” theory that the CGEA connects to. This theory is
very useful when applied to adolescents who find the usual school context and offerings.
The term "adult" in the title opens the way for teachers to discuss the differences between
an adult program and a child’s program with adolescents who use the course, and in this
context they can discuss different classroom management regimes as well as a different
way of choosing activities. To some extent, it is a sales pitch, the title announces to adults
studying the CGEA that it is not just going back to school and when young students don't
act as adults, it pr5ovides a means of dealing positively with the problem.. If we change
the name of the CGEA to remove its specification of being a course for adults, that will
dilute the message to teachers and adult students that this program is different to school
and may even reduce the CGEA’s effectiveness for adolescents. There are sometimes
quality assurance issues when CGEA is used in schools with little or no variation from
the usual school offerings, but changing the title will only make this more likely to occur.
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 15
There has also been some debate about the value of the term "General Education" in the
title. One teacher’s argument is included here:
The term General Education is often useful at assessments, when explaining the
sorts of learning that takes place to potential students. The label General Education
seems to be both more easily understood and better received. People have a wide
range of learning needs and motivations for attending and the term literacy doesn’t
always fit. A person enrolling in our courses that can already read and write tends
not to feel as comfortable with the label of literacy.
I believe the term General Education is also far less loaded with negative
connotations. It does not carry with it the assumption that the student is lacking in
some way. I have never had a student respond with embarrassment or avert their
eyes when I tell them the certificate is a General Education certificate. It is a term
they can comfortably use amongst friends and family when describing their course.
A significant role of Adult Education is that of improving confidence. I believe we
need to avoid existing negative labels where possible. By keeping General
Education in the certificate title we simply recognize that the student is improving
their level of education. It does not pin point a deficiency in any one area. It
indicates a goal for the future that does not hark back to primary school content or
indicate that something was missed.
Most importantly, to me, if the adults in our classes like and understand the term
then we should respect that and allow it to remain.
Actions recommended for re-accreditation
26. Leave the title as it is. It is well known and teachers find elements of it that they
can use with students in explaining how this is not just more school. It also
allows for the wide range of purposes that adults bring to the learning
environment.
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 16
Time to complete course
The most complex outstanding issue regarding which the CGEA Network is struggling to
define a position and to make clear recommendations for the time allocated to nominal
hours for the course. Teachers regularly complain about the gap between Introductory
and Certificate 1 and between Certificate I and II. A great deal of the Evaluation of the
Effectiveness of the CGEA focused on this issue in one way or another.
The accreditation document needs to clearly acknowledge that many students take more
than 80 or 100 hours to complete each module. The document needs to specify that more
time is required for students with different needs to complete the certificate.
For example, students with Intellectual disabilities will usually need a lot more time, but
many others share this need. The curriculum document should allow for this time so
RTOs recognise the need for extra time and allow students to re-enrol. Making modules
160 hours long as proposed in the last re-accreditation does not help as some students
need more than that and other much less. The longer the modules are the more expensive
the delivery for those students who do not need to use, or cannot use, all of the hours
assigned to them.
We need cleverer solutions for the way we hand out more money. It might be possible to
have the curriculum document do something different that takes careful account of the
current purchasing model, and perhaps it can offer two or three options in the form of a
purchasing guide. For example, modules might be created that are simply an enrolment
shell with the learning outcomes listed separately. Whatever approach is taken, there
needs to be a recognition of the actual length of time that students take to complete.
The CGEA Network in WA would like to participate in the decision making that affects
the time available for the courses.
Actions recommended for re-accreditation
27. Wording could be added like: “Consideration needs to be given to the time
required for students of differing needs to complete modules and certificates.
For example a student with an intellectual disability may require longer to
complete certain modules. The gaps between the Certificates are big, and time
required by students to complete them will differ widely depending on individual
needs. RTOs and funding bodies may need to allow students to re-enrol two,
three or four times.”
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 17
To contact the CGEA Network:
Write to:
Cheryl Wiltshire
Curriculum Officer Literacy
VET Teaching and Learning
Department of Education and Training
Level 2 151 Royal Street
East Perth 6004
Telephone 0892644639 Facsimile 0892644646 Email cheryl.wiltshire@det.wa.edu.au
References
Königsberg, Patricia and Collard, Glenys (Eds.) Ways of Being, Ways of Talk.
(2002) East Perth: Department of Education.
Malcolm, I.G., Königsberg, Patricia, Collard, Glenys, Hill, Alison, Grote, Ellen,
Sharifian, Farzad, Kickett, Angela and Sahanna, Eva (2002) Umob Deadly: Recognized
and Unrecognized Literacy Skills of Aboriginal Youth. Report to the Department of
Education, WA. and Edith Cowan University. Mount Lawley, Centre for Applied
Language and Literacy Research, Edith Cowan University.
Malcolm, Ian G., Haig, Yvonne, Königsberg, Patricia, Rochecouste, Judith,
Collard, Glenys, Hill, Alison and Cahill, Rosemary (1999) Towards More User-
Friendly Education for Speakers of Aboriginal English. Mount Lawley: Centre
for Applied Language and Literacy Research, Edith Cowan University and
Education Department of WA.
Malcolm, Ian G., Haig, Yvonne, Königsberg, Patricia, Rochecouste, Judith,
Collard, Glenys, Hill, Alison and Cahill, Rosemary (1999) Two-Way English.
Mount Lawley: Centre for Applied Language and Literacy Research, Edith
Cowan University and Education Department of WA.
Sharifian, Farzad, Rochecouste, Judith, Malcolm, Ian, Königsberg, Patricia and
Collard, Glenys (2004) Improving understanding of Aboriginal literacy: Factors
in text comprehension. East Perth: Department of Education and Training, Government of
Western Australia.
Wiltshire, Cheryl, The Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the CGEA, (2003),
Department of Education and Training, available on
http://vetinfonet.det.wa.edu.au/adultliteracy/CGEA.aspx)
Western Australian CGEA Network Submission 18
