VET & TAFE
campusreview.com.au
Online VET
Completion rates are lower, but
employment outcomes are similar
for many online VET courses.
By Kate Prendergast
A
t Australian universities and colleges,
online course and subject delivery
is rapidly disrupting more traditional
face-to-face modes. One in six students are
now exclusively enrolled online, and a third
take at least one subject without having to
set foot on campus.
The debate about the effectiveness of
online learning in this sector is robust – in
academic circles, the media and around the
dinner table. There is also a growing body
of research to add authenticity to these
discussions and to inform public policy.
However, far less attention has been paid
to online course delivery for VET students.
In a recent paper, the National Centre for
Vocational Education Research moved to
address this research gap, while identifying
some of the attributes of online VET
courses more likely to progress a student
to graduation.
Given the practical focus of many
VET courses – with qualification often
dependent on the demonstration of
competencies – not all training is suitable
to full online delivery. For instance, a
technician, baker or plumber would unlikely
receive the full scope of training without
an instructor on hand providing real-time
feedback and advice. (The quality of, say, a
loaf of sourdough requires someone there
to inhale its bready aromas, poke at its fluffy
16
texture, assess its symmetry, and finally
sample its baked perfection.)
Still, the report authors found that
close to 9 per cent of all VET program
commencements in 2017 were in courses
delivered fully online, including business
and IT courses. For individual subjects,
the rate has doubled in recent years to
13 per cent. Various types of e-learning
have been incorporated into training
programs for years at a growing rate.
What comes next is more interesting,
however. While withdrawal rates are
10 per cent higher and course completion
rates 10 per cent lower, employment
outcomes for students who do obtain their
qualification are comparable to graduates
of non-online courses, the authors found.
Moreover, while graduates of online
courses were less satisfied with the
teaching, they were “often more likely to
report they had achieved their main reason
for doing the training”.
The ‘why’ behind these findings can only
be hazarded by the authors, who admit
that the data is lacking to provide a full
and accurate explanation. This speaks to
the limited and patchworked pre-existing
research, and also the fact that just seven
of the 82 registered training organisations
they contacted lead to interviews, with only
six subject areas covered. Nonetheless, they
suspect that much comes down to whether
or not an online course matches student
expectations at the outset.
They also note that even courses that are
marketed as fully online do not necessarily
preclude an on-site workplace element,
which can be a non-mandatory suggestion
or a course requirement. This element, they
argue, “ensures that students can learn and
demonstrate competence of their skills in
an authentic workplace”.
Dropouts are hedgingly attributed to
“poor quality training, the delivery mode not
suiting the student, issues with securing a
work placement (if required), or the student
lacking access to the necessary tools or
technology to complete the course”.
The attributes of a good online VET
course are consistent with non-sector
based research (as well as, arguably,
common sense). The attitude and the ethos
of the instructor is seen as paramount, as is
ensuring that the student is well informed
about the nature of the course so that it
suits their “learning style and situation”.
Online programs are audited in the
same manner as non-online programs, the
authors found, with regulators measuring
it against the Standards for RTOs 2015.
Yet many of the teachers/trainers felt that
auditors were biased against online, with
harsher assessments than deserved.
“It’s catch-22. ASQA and the government
encourage the use of technology, but
auditors hate it,” said one instructor.
“It seems a more nuanced balance might
be helpful,” the authors conclude, “whereby
a risk-based approach could be used to
determine where stronger processes
relating to training and assessment could
be adopted. This would reduce the burden
on both the regulator and the training
providers and could make training more
accessible to potential students through
online delivery, especially for those who are
not in the vicinity of a training provider.” ■