Will current conditions see the end of training outside of a workplace?
- Specialised VET Services
- 4 days ago
- 5 min read
The convergence of the 2025 Standards for RTOs, AI’s rapid escalation, and industry’s demand for genuinely job-ready graduates puts the sector at a crossroads we can no longer sidestep.
One of the great things about VET is its flexibility and via that, ability to offer training and education to diverse learners in diverse ways. In the past, that flexibility encompassed the opportunity for students not yet in the workplace, or students in a different workplace, to be able to train and undertake assessment in simulated environments. Often, training providers would base material on entire organisations ‘in a box’. Meaning the whole context, customer and policy and procedure collateral, and operations history and projections would be crafted especially for the purpose of scaffolding learners without a genuine workplace and/or without access to authentic workplace systems to support course progression.
Over time however, this seems to have dwindled from what was, I’m sure, a genuine intent to offer support and flexibility, to an over-reliance on simulations and fabricated contexts. That in itself has called into question any possible dilution of true skills and knowledge acquisition required to support competent, safe and effective workplace performance, with the Training Package developers strengthening the expectation that any skills demonstration at time of assessment is done under conditions that reflect real working conditions. And to my mind, this is a good thing.
However, one element that has crept in alongside the simulations, is the propensity of some resource developers to over rely on theory-driven/written responses to case study scenarios. While in some cases this may be acceptable as a vehicle to test applied knowledge, we’re now training vocational education in the era of generative AI tools that are so advanced, some have even passed the Turing Test – convincing human judges they were interacting with humans, and not bots. With each assessment tool that asks for anything less than observation of skill and dynamic questioning of “why?” – e.g. Why did you do it that way? Why did you choose that over this? Why did you decide to not do that? etc – providers are left open to evidence potentially created by a machine. This then raises further questions we should we consider beyond the obvious risks to authenticity and academic integrity. What about regulatory focus on competencies achieved under conditions that reflect industry practice? What about duty of care of providers to ensure learners are ready to perform safely? What about loss of reputation of the VET sector’s capability to provide work-ready graduates? AI-enabled substitution of learning is not just a compliance issue, it is a direct threat to learner safety, client outcomes and industry trust.
Combined, a situation worthy of urgent attention is being produced by the lack of training in an authentic workplace which allows for demonstration of skills in the onsite context, and the ability for students to access artificial intelligence that can do the heavy lifting of study requirements for them. I fear we have reached the crosspoint of “where to next?” for vocational education and a necessary recalibration of what it means to assess after training. If the purpose of assessment is to confirm the knowledge, skills and attributes required for safe, effective workplace performance, are we achieving our purpose in circumstances manufactured to embed flexibility but that now expose a gaping flaw in how much of our system is designed?
Further, consideration must be given for what it means to be “industry aligned and realistic”. Workplaces are increasingly becoming more complex, digitised, regulated and specialised – not an easy feat to simulate at scale, especially given the requirements for many workers to interact with others as well as the complex, digital tools, systems and software commonplace in many places of employment.
Yet, despite the expectation embedded in some units of competency for work placement, RTOs are often times hesitant to seek places, or if and when they do, find it incredibly difficult to secure those placements for students. And then, if they are lucky enough to have a workplace willing to contribute to the training process, providers must then contend with logistics, insurance and risk obligations, quality of supervision and direction offered to students, and trainer workload to manage the placement relationship.
Under these circumstances, one could see the attraction of a simulated environment, however despite these tensions, the cost-benefit equation is tipping. The risk of avoiding workplace exposure may now exceed the ‘trouble’ of organising it. I certainly don’t want my family or friends serviced by graduate who produced a flawless risk assessment for a construction site they have never set foot on, or who generated a complete behaviour support plan for an aged care resident they have never met. Do you?
Without the vocation in VET, we are at risk of drifting into an education system that resembles higher education more than vocational training. Is now the time where instructional designers, resource developers, RTOs and industry come together to redefine expectations for what assessment means and how competency is determined? For the first time in VET’s history, a student can quickly and almost imperceptibly generate answers that make them appear competent on paper while possessing none of the underpinning knowledge required for consistently safe, effective workplace performance. If this isn’t a wake-up call through a loud hailer, I don’t know what is.
If VET is to remain credible, the sector must now redefine not just how we teach, but where competence is proven. The question is no longer whether workplace exposure is important - it is whether we can afford to assess without it.
This article is a copy of one submitted to VET Perspectives.
-This article is AITA Scale Rating 1
What is the AITA Scale?
What do you think?
Share your perspective! Discuss. Reflect.
Join the conversation on this and other VET Perspectives in the VET PD Group Community of Practice on LinkedIn
Download your free VET Perspectives PD Record
About the author
Michelle Charlton works in the Australian VET sector to support VET professionals and providers with matters related to validation, quality assurance (QA) services, and professional development information and activities.
About this series
VET Perspectives is a collaboration between Skills Education/Specialised VET Services and HBTA to strengthen constructive dialogue on issues that matter across the Australian VET sector.
This article is one in a series highlighting key professional insights. The full series archive is available from HERE.
Look out for opportunities to attend live panel discussions with the authors of particular articles
HBTA is a leading provider of nationally recognised TAE and Business Qualifications, sought-after for their flexible delivery and genuine 1:1 support to students
Skills Education offers PD via live webinars, on-demand recordings, and memberships to professional learning communities. They are part of Specialised VET Services.
Contributions
Contributions are welcomed that explore perspectives in a professional, polite and non-inflammatory manner. All published articles are rated 1-3 on the AITA Scale, meaning you're hearing from sector colleagues (not a robot) sharing genuine expertise and insights.
Articles may be sent to ceo@hbta.edu.au for consideration.
Full attribution and relevant links will be provided for published contributors.
