See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372651190
Legitimate Subjective Observation [LSO] & The Evaluation of Soft Skills in the
Workplace
Conference Paper · May 2002
CITATIONS
READS
7
28
1 author:
Glenn Peter Costin
Deakin University
16 PUBLICATIONS 235 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Glenn Peter Costin on 27 July 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Legitimate Subjective Observation
[LSO]
&
The Evaluation of Soft Skills in the Workplace
A Concurrent Session Briefing Paper
Spotlight on the Provider
The National Training Framework - Training Partnerships
and Regional Development
Albury Convention Centre and Performing Arts Centre
May 2002
Glenn P. Costin
Introduction
Legitimate Subjective Observation [LSO] was developed in response to what, at
the time, was felt to be a missed opportunity. By the end of the year 2000 a
project initiated by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum and WorldSkills Australia [formerly
WorkSkill] known as Quick Hut 2000 had been completed with significant evidence
of soft skill development, yet only a cursory exploration into the evaluation of these
skills had been made. In truth, we did not know at that time how to conduct such
an assessment, nor did we hold a very clear interpretation of what soft skills were.
This, coupled with the drive by both the Australian National Training Authority
[ANTA] and WorldSkills to include the assessment of soft skills within National
Training Packages and hence WorldSkills challenges, made it clear that some
attempt needed to be made, both to define the skills and to find a means by which
they could be evaluated.
This paper sets out to describe the process of LSO as it has been used in recent
WorldSkills Australia skills challenges. In addition, it explores the possible
application of the process to the workplace. To do so however some background
to the activities of WorldSkills Australia leading up to the initial deployment of LSO
must first be given, along with a definition of soft skills and a discussion of their
contextual complexity.
WorldSkills Australia
Over the past 18 years WorldSkills Australia has developed an Australia wide
system of skill challenges which recognise competency attainments at regional,
national and international levels in over 50 occupational categories.
A skills
challenge being an almost sports like event whereby young trades people compete
against one another to demonstrate who is the best in their particular field. In its
most basic form a skills challenge is 2 or more [generally eight or more] same trade
competitors working independently on identical projects with identical time and
material constraints and being 'measured' by an 'objective' marking scale to
national competencies. This marking scale is used to 'rank' competitors in order of
I
those who demonstrated the most skills to those who demonstrated the least, such
performance being reflected in the awarding of medals - gold, silver and bronze.
Through ANTA, WorldSkills has recently begun to generate more formal links with
the mainstream Vocational Education and Training [VET] sector. Such links have
led to several alterations in the design of skills challenges that have brought them
in line with competency assessment and closer to contemporary Australian and
regional industry practice. With this shift came the need to assess a loosely
defined skills grouping referred to as 'soft' skills: skills such as planning, managing,
communication, skills transfer and problem solving. As the National and Regional
designer of WorldSkills challenges in the field of carpentry for the past 7 years, I
was already exploring the possibilities of assessing the 'soft' skills of our
competitors as against, or alongside, the 'hard' skills that we would normally have
focused upon. This exploration was duly encouraged and at the WorldSkills
National Skills Challenge held in Adelaide in 2001 the first carpentry team skills
challenge was held and a process for the 'evaluation' of soft skills was employed.
Based upon the principles of ethnography and naturalistic inquiry [see Lincoln &
Guba 1985], and within the theoretically framework of constructivism and situated
learning [see Lave & Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998], this process has become
known as Legitimate Subjective Observation or LSO.
Skills and Context
To go any way towards developing an understanding of this process, its
application, and its possible value to the evaluation of soft skills in the workplace,
much territory must be covered, not the least being the definition of soft skills and
their relationship to context. However, prior to doing so, an anecdote drawn from
the experience of the Quick Hut 2000 project may help in developing an
understanding of the value both of soft skills and in being able to evaluate them.
After observing the competitors over such an extended period of time, it had
become clear to many of the organisers that of all the competitors one was
significantly skilled at team bonding. The success of the Quick Hut project had led
to one of the teams representing Australia at the 1st APEC Youth Skills Camp held
in Korea 2000. The hut that this team had designed and constructed as part of the
Quick Hut event had been shipped over to Korea and was being reassembled at
the camp using a multinational team, few of whom could speak to each other in any
common tongue. Three of the Australian team aided in the reassembly. Two
trades people and the third, actually a university student studying Early Childhood
development. Whilst the trades people helped in deciding what went where and
how - it was the seemingly odd fit of the non trades person that brought the team
together. It was her skills as a 'peoples' person, a team builder, that bonded the
confusion of languages, both verbal and non verbal, into co-operation and
understanding.
The significance of the above anecdote is two fold, firstly in that here is an obvious
demonstration of the value of soft skills to the workplace [albeit a transposed one]
and the transferability of that skill from context to context. What is also significant
however, and the more relevant in this case, is the capacity of the organisers to
identify and then strategically and successfully employ the individual when and
where needed based upon what can at best be described as subjective evaluation.
II
It was however a trustworthy one, one based upon multiple observations of
performance in context.
This question of what or who can provide a trustworthy evaluation of competence
has produced much debate over recent years [Hager 1995; Jones 1999;
Blackmore 1999; Bolton et.al. 1999; Mulcahy 2000]. This has been particularly so
with regard to soft skills and the generic or 'key' competencies. Crowley, Garrick &
Hager [2002 p.1] have noted for example that despite having determined that
generic competencies are "…relevant to industry improvement…", "…industry has
yet to develop systems and mechanisms for facilitating the optimum transferability
and recognition of such skills". Whilst this paper defines soft skills as differing
from generic competencies, it will be noted that soft skills significantly underpin the
entire generic competency grouping. Thus the process and underlying theoretical
framework of LSO, while informing us of soft skill performance and development
levels, goes some way also to answering [the individual rather than corporate or
industrial aspects of] Crowley, Garrick and Hager's 'Phase Three' question: that
which asks why "Experience and/or expertise in workplace reform do not
necessarily transfer easily from job to job…" [Crowley et al. 2002, p. 1].
In setting out to inform about the process of LSO it should be acknowledged from
the outset that LSO in itself is not a complete evaluation of skilled performance
[though it does cover three of Hagar's (1995) evidence gathering methods and to a
limited extent the other two also: that is 'Simulations', 'Skills tests', 'Direct
observation', and to a lesser degree 'Questioning techniques' and 'Evidence of
prior learning']. However coupled with other more conventional measurement and
assessment processes it is argued that LSO will lead to a clearer picture of this
performance. It being proposed that such an evaluation process offers a
significant, and generally missed, portion of the evidence required to develop a
trustworthy and transferable interpretation of workplace competence. That is to
say, an interpretation of competence that is perhaps more indicative of skilled
performance in other, future, and alternate contexts.
At this point it will have become apparent that the soft skill grouping is much larger
than the rather loose definition given at the outset suggests.
It is therefore
relevant to offer a clearer distinction between hard skills, soft skills and generic
competencies. This will be followed by a brief discussion as to why the concept of
evaluation holds more relevance to soft skill performance than does assessment.
From these descriptions an outline of LSO shall be developed, providing a picture
of what the process must do, as well as what it is.
Soft and Hard Skills - The basic dichotomy
Soft Skills Tend to be: Skills by which the individual interacts with, interprets,
structures, co-ordinates or otherwise informs the social and physical
environments within which physical, societal and or personal product may
be generated.
Soft Skill Examples - Skills of process and community
Planning, preparing, organising, communicating, observing, describing, identifying,
empathising, learning, intuition, sense of timing, attitude, tool development, skill
III
transfer, process development, creativity, ingenuity, design, sense of aesthetics,
endurance…
Hard Skills Tend to be: Skills by which the individual interacts physically with
technology during the generation of physical product.
Hard Skill Examples - Skills of product and individual
Tool use, formula use, text use, measuring, marking, strength, fitness,
endurance…
Note: The term ‘product’ thereby means more than a physical item. The
deployment of hard skills is invariably with the aim of producing a physical product
or item of some kind, acknowledging that this may be no more than an increase or
decrease in human tissue [i.e. weight gain/loss programs]. The deployment of soft
skills however, whilst often used to aid the efficient use of hard skills and hence the
production of a physical item, are equally often used to reach all manner of social,
personal and interpersonal goals. Goals such as: personal well being; peer well
being; group consensus; community spirit and the like. They are not confined to
economic ends.
Having provided a dichotomy, one must be wary of this Anglo-Saxon, European or
‘Western’ penchant [to dichotomise]. With skills, as with so much of human
endeavour and behaviour, the dichotomy approach has some functional value for
limited explanation. A far richer understanding however is had by surveying the
areas of union or melding rather seeking an often indefinable point of fissure or
boundary.
Diagram A below gives a clearer picture of the flow from what may be termed ‘high
end’ soft skills to ‘high end’ hard skills and the skill types that begin to show the
blurring of the distinction [and one reason why dichotomising is a dangerous act]
'High end'
Soft
Skills
Soft Skills
Ingenuity, sense of aesthetics,
empathising, learning, creativity,
intuition, sense of timing, communication
problem solving, attitude, tool development
skills transfer, process development,
Designing, describing, identifying
Planning, preparing, organising
Endurance…
Strength, fitness
'High end'
Hard
Skills
text use, formula use
Tool use
Hard Skills
Diagram 2. The Soft skill - Hard skill continuum
IV
A further reason for being wary of the dichotomy is that its rare to find a hard skill
not underpinned by one or more soft skills. Hard skill performance is hence often
dependent upon soft skill capacity. Learning itself is a soft skill. Skill transfer is a
soft skill. It may be argued therefore that hard skills are developed through the
application of soft skills. The following examples demonstrate this point [soft skills
in bold]
Attitude and perception of quality: endurance [why bother], product finish [near
enough], tool use [rough], formula selection [simplest], choice of method [easiest]
Problem solving, planning, preparing, organising: output, available time to
perform hard skill, material availability, product quality, hard skill acquisition &
development
Tool development, skills transfer, process development: tool use, tool choice,
quality of finish, time to perform hard skills, hard skill acquisition & development
Designing, describing, identifying ingenuity, aesthetics, learning, creativity,
intuition, sense of timing: Choice of formula, text use, tool selection; available
time for hard skill performance. Hard skill acquisition & Development
Empathy, communication: tool use reliant upon teams or groups, product
outcome when multiple hard skills held by multiple practitioners are required. Hard
skill acquisition & development
Finally, and as previously noted, soft skills are integral to all the generic or 'key'
competencies as depicted by the Finn [1991] Mayer [1992] and Carmichael [1992]
reports. These competencies or skill clusters are the obligatory core of all
Australian National training packages. As skill clusters, generic competencies are
in themselves combinations of hard and soft skills with only the competency ‘using
technology’ as being definitively more hard than soft. However as argued
previously, the appropriate and skillful application of hard skills is soft skill
dependent and hence as a competency ‘using technology’ is not the application of
hard skills alone.
Likewise, to perform the other 'softer' key competencies
adequately, one must often become skillful in the use of technology appropriate to
those tasks. For example, communicating ideas and information involves language
[arguably a technology], information transfer systems of some form [even the
humble quill is a piece of technology], and a variety of formula for structuring the
information in a manner best suited to the target audience.
Generic Competencies
Skill groupings
[s=soft, h=hard]
Collecting, analysing and organising information
s/h
Communicating ideas and information
s/h
Planning and organising activities
s/h
Working with others and in teams
s
Using mathematical ideas and techniques
s/h
Solving problems
s
Using technology
h/s
Using cultural understandings
s
V
Transferability
With soft skills underpinning all hard and generic skill activity, it is argued that a
trustworthy evaluation of soft skill level will be far more indicative of future
performance than any measure of hard skill alone.
Measurements and
assessments of hard skill tend to focus upon the 'explicit' or observable, and hence
upon physical product. Transferability however is dependent more upon the skills
that support that product production, the skills of communication, interpretation,
problem solving, team work and so on. Significantly, transferability depends upon
how close the soft skill levels demonstrated in one context, relate to those required
for competent 'over all' [hard and soft] skilled performance in another [Lincoln &
Guba 1985].
Evaluation or Assessment
As Lovat and Smith [1991, p. 160] state evaluation is the "…overarching concept
which both depends upon measurement and assessment, and brings together a
number of measurements, and assessments to make a composite judgement or
decision.". As shall be argued, a trustworthy appraisal of soft skill performance is
only possible when such an appraisal is taken in context. Such being the case, a
variety of measures and assessments must be conducted on this context covering
a raft of intertwined skills before a judgement may be made about any particular
one of them. LSO, it will demonstrated, is conducted whilst a subject, or more
correctly a group of subjects, under go a variety of measurement and assessment
processes in context. What is taking place therefore is more correctly termed an
evaluation of performance, rather than a single assessment of performance.
Indeed, given this contextually embedded and mutually intertwined nature of the
skills, it may be argued that soft skills may only ever be evaluated, and that any
attempt at independent assessment has limited trustworthiness either to the
context of performance or contexts of the future [this latter point being for Lincoln &
Guba (1985, p. 297) the issue of 'transferability' between 'sending' and 'receiving'
contexts].
Evaluating Soft Skills
Having described what soft skills are, the issue of the complexity of evaluation
becomes apparent. Following the description of above, soft skills are skills derived
and developed from the subjective interpretation of the context in which the
performer is embedded, by that performer and or their peers. They are intensely
human and tend to defy objective analysis, particularly when this analysis comes
from outside the context in which they are performed [as against hard skills that are
frequently mechanised and the 'product' of which may be physically measured].
Their performance at a level demonstrably competent in one context, is not always
indicative of skilful performance in another. Any attempt to measure the
performance of a single soft skill in isolation from the whole person and their
context is thus doomed to failure as such does not take into account this human
and contextually dependent nature.
VI
Any process deployed to inform about soft skill performance must therefore provide
judgements in relation to the context as a whole. Any 'instrument' employed must
be able to decipher a context and make a determination, informed during the
demonstration of a whole raft of skills, that a particular skill is or is not being
performed competently to that particular setting. Or that the further development of
a particular skill would enhance this overall skill performance. To do so, this
'instrument' must be familiar not only with the skills under perusal, but also the
context of their performance, and to some degree at least, probable future
performance contexts. Currently there is only one such 'instrument' available to us,
that being a person or persons familiar with the context, experienced in the skills
being assessed, and skilled in observation. They must know where to look, what to
look for, and how to look.
Following on from the above it will also have become apparent that soft skills are
particularly difficult to perceive as individual skills. Deriving from the context in
which they are performed, they form part of that context and as such are
embedded in the overall skill performance. Assuming therefore, by a measure of
end product alone, that if a given task has been completed on time and to an
acceptable standard then the requisite soft skills underpinning that overall skill
performance are likewise at an acceptable standard is a dangerous assumption.
The supporting soft skills, such as planning, management or skill communication
for example, may well have been 'adequate' to bring about a successful conclusion
in that given context. However it is also possible that success came about due to
'luck', or that there where no distractions, or that it suited the mood of the performer
to strive on this occasion, when on another it may not have [a poor attitude
stimulated by the external motivation of the assessment for example]. Soft skills
hence have low objective perceptibility - they are difficult to perceive [observe
within the context of an individual carrying out independent tasks] and do not relate
to objective criteria [one cannot for example state that 3 team meetings, 5 minutes
long and one hour apart, should be held as indicative of competent planning –
context dictates number, duration and timing].
Subjectivity is hence an obvious issue in any measurement of soft skill
performance [and arguably skilled performance generally]. Subjectivity of course
has not been on common ground with the positivistic principles of modern, formal,
Vocational Education and Training [VET] for some time, it has most certainly been
regarded as suspect within the WorldSkills challenge environment. Yet it has long
been acknowledged that subjectivity permeates all human interaction including
modern science and all other forms of educational practice, measurement and
assessment [Lovat & Smith, 1991, Lincoln & Guba 1985]. Any human decision is
based upon context and paradigm. We subjectively chose what to measure
'objectively', we subjectively determine what shall be studied and what shall not be,
we subjectively receive funding for research in one direction, but not in another. As
Lovat and Smith [1991, p. 154] state when discussing assessment, "…all
measurement is itself subjective and rests upon interpretative judgement".
Borrowing from Lincoln and Guba [1985] objectivity and subjectivity are thus best
seen as the two alternate ends of a continuum. It is the paradigm dominant in a
particular context that lends legitimacy to any particular set of measures, and in so
doing provides the 'guise' of objectivity to that which by another paradigm would be
questionable. The issue in workplace assessment is therefore not a question of "is
VII
a process objective?", but "in lending legitimacy to the subjective, how trustworthy
is the information derived from the process as a whole?". Given that there are
various paradigms from which legitimacy may be lent, one paradigm not
necessarily acknowledging the legitimacy of another, it is the issue of
trustworthiness that becomes paramount, and, given the purpose of workplace
assessment, this ultimately infers transferability.
Legitimate Subjective Observation: A Description
Having outlined issues that brought the practice of LSO into being, and the
complexities of that which it has been designed to evaluate, a description of LSO
itself is in order. LSO is very much that which its title expresses: the legitimising of
observations that would otherwise be deemed subjective and illegitimate under the
paradigm of 'modern' training.
Legitimacy
With regard to the observer, legitimacy is offered on strict 'grounding' rules, rules
that demand that the observer be not just familiar, but intimate with the context
within which the observations are made. That is, the observer should be grounded
in the context [therefore a part of it] without the pretence of being objectively
removed from it. They must be skilled in the 'hard' skills being performed when the
'product' [see note to soft and hard skill definitions] of the context is predominantly
derived from such skill. As stated previously, for the observer to hold legitimacy
they must also be proficient in the practice of soft skill observation [that is they
must be knowledgeable of behaviour indicative of the various soft skills being
monitored].
Observation
Observations of skilled performance should be made when such performance is
conducted in the normal context of that performance. That is, carpenters doing
carpentry on a construction or building site, hairdressers doing hairdressing in the
salon atmosphere and so on. Observations conducted outside of the normal
context of performance hold limited legitimacy, such legitimacy decreasing the
further removed from this 'normal context' the observations are made. Any 'offsite' observations [taken during formal training conducted by an RTO for example]
would hence have to be taken within a context contrived to closely mimic the
normal context of performance.
LSO: The WorldSkills Experience
As outlined earlier the conventional skills challenge as conducted by WorldSkills
Australia did not greatly resemble the 'normal context of performance'. In addition,
the standard assessment system employed was almost aggressively 'objective' in
design.
The 1999 National carpentry challenge was a prime example of this
format, with several hundreds of objectively measured criterion used to determine
performance [a system that took several hours to produce a result]. Only the
product was assessed. However as stated earlier, in the year 2000 a project
known as Quick Hut 2000 was conducted by WorldSkills [then WorkSkill] and the
Dusseldorp Skills Forum. This project gave significant insights on a range of
VIII
training and skill development issues, particularly regarding soft skills and the need
for trustworthy process for their evaluation.
The 2001 WorldSkills Nationals held in Adelaide 2001 then saw the introduction of
a skills challenge developed from the information derived from the Quick Hut 2000
project. This was also the first explorative application of LSO. The new skills
challenge, in the form of a carpentry team event, sought to match legitimate
observers with a legitimate context in which to make their observations. The
legitimate context was developed by 'destructuring', a process by which the formal
constraining structure of the event was decreased to allow for more informal
interaction and team based problem solving. In a 'destructured' event, instead of
constructing someone else's solution to a problem, competitors are asked to
confront the problem, and then construct their own solution. They must do this in a
context impacted upon by the same economic, legislative [Australian standards,
OH&S and the like], physical and time constraints as they would in industry.
Destructuring served three purposes. The first and primary, being that it provided a
context closely replicating that of normal performance. Secondly and significantly,
it made soft skills more explicit or observable [being team based, competitors had
to communicate their ideas and solutions to others, and processes had to be
explicit for team members to follow]. Finally, it created a context in which soft skill
development was encouraged. This latter being through peer interaction combined
with the competitive problem based nature of the challenge itself. Destructuring
therefore allowed for this contrived, off site, context to relate more honestly to work
place reality. Observations taken within it could therefore be held to be more
trustworthy and transferable with regard to future workplace activity. That is,
performance in the WorldSkills carpentry challenge as an off site context became
more indicative of performance on site.
Competitors - the Observed
Individuals worked within a team setting to produce a combined result. The task
required individual competitors to complete sections or components by themselves,
as well as sections as a team. Teams and individuals had to do all the things a
competent carpenter did on site, that is: design, engineer, make aesthetic and
economic decisions, order and store materials, work to time lines, interact with
other trades, clients and supervisors, comply with OH&S regulations.
The Judges - the Observers
Judges were deemed legitimate in that they were expert in the trade area [context]
being observed. Legitimate in that they were trained in the observation of soft skills
[to recognise behaviour indicative of sound soft skill performance relevant to that
context], albeit this training was minimal due to time constraints. Legitimate in that
they were part of the context [competitors needing to interact with them when
'ordering' materials or if seeking specialist or expert advice].
Competitors were observed as they constructed a small building [garden shed] to a
given design criteria. Judges observed competitors interacting whilst planning,
budgeting, designing, problem solving and constructing over a 3 day period. One
judge per team, judges observing each team [and therefore individual] for an equal
period of time by rotating shifts. Judges responded to soft skill criteria documents
IX
for both teams and individuals in an openly 'subjective' manner. Results were
averaged across all three judges.
Outcome
The results were significantly informative at two levels. The one being with regard
to the LSO process, the other with regard to the value of the information such a
process may offer industry. As determined by combining the LSO results with the
'objective' measures of hard skill performance, the winning team held both the Gold
and Bronze [first and third] medal winners. The winning team however was
effectively lead [as attested to by all judges and the team members themselves] by
neither medal winner but by a competitor ranked 6th. The gold medal winner and
the No. 6 competitor however held the same overall soft skill scores [the two top
soft skill rankings]. A breakdown of these scores showed however that No. 6 had
the higher leadership level. Hence the results could inform industry both of who
was the better all round carpenter, and who the better choice for foreperson, team
leader or supervisor.
With regard to the process of LSO, the results showed that greater accuracy could
be developed through more targeted criteria specific to a whole raft of differing soft
skills as a given context deemed relevant.
Applying LSO to the work place
In applying the LSO process to the workplace, trustworthiness would arguably
increase due to the closer contextual relevance of the observations obtained.
Trainees would be observed performing tasks in the context of their general
performance. Evidence of 'competent' performance both of soft and hard skills
would be built up over an extended period of time. Evidence would be compiled by
legitimate observers selected from within the workplace and 'overseen' by an
external workplace assessor. Evidence being derived from multiple
sources/observers whenever possible.
Selection the observers: In larger firms it is envisaged that forepersons, team
leaders, trainee supervisors would be the most appropriate. In smaller firms, the
managers or Registered Training Organisations [RTOs] using destructured team
tasks. The ultimate evaluation would be made by the external workplace assessor
based upon a combination of all observations, giving the greatest weight to those
closest to context of performance.
Observer support systems: As LSO is designed to supplement rather than
supplant the existing workplace assessor training programs, assessor would need
to be supported in the observational practice by a number of means. Firstly an
outline of observational best practice would need to be established [overt
observational practices that reduce negative influences, observational reporting
techniques and the like]. Secondly soft skill performance criteria would need to be
identified, written in a manner that allowed for contextual interpretation, yet
retaining a national framework. Observers would need to be provided with
examples of indicative behaviour and settings in which this behaviour is becomes
most explicit.
Determinations would also have to be made on the ultimate
X
relationship between soft skills observed and the generic competencies as
currently defined.
LSO and soft skill development [skill gap training]
LSO provides a framework for the development of soft skills within both the context
of employment and destructured challenges [as conducted by WorldSkills or by
RTOs]. This is achieved by LSOs offering guidance to trainers, employers and the
employees [trainees] themselves as to soft skill gaps.
Future training and
experiences can therefore be maximised through targeting individual needs.
LSOs also mean that soft skills, and their relevance to workplace performance,
become more explicit to both the performer and the observer. It being a given that
the observer shall always influence the observed to some degree, by adhering to
overt practices of positive critic this influence is potentially a motivational influence
for skill development rather than against.
Hence like the WorldSkills model
depicted earlier, a trainee's soft skill development is being supported simply by that
trainee being knowingly involved in the process.
Summary
The process of LSO as modelled in the WorldSkills carpentry skills challenge can
support the existing workplace assessor program by providing insights into those
soft skills that underpin all levels of competent performance. It has been argued
that as the underpinnings of competence, any assessment of skilled performance
that does not include an evaluation of soft skills through some legitimate means
has limited trustworthiness with regard to the context of performance, and limited
transferability with regard to future performance. Soft skills being developed in and
defined by the context of their performance, legitimacy may only be offered when
the means by which evaluations are made are contextually embedded.
LSOs cover this criterion. They are taken by human observers legitimately using
their experience and skill history to make judgements of performance as they see
its relevance and applicability to specific vocational contexts. As such LSOs
provide much needed insights into skilled performance that no 'objective'
assessment is able to. They can perhaps provide the difference between
competency and work readiness.
XI
References:
Blackmore, P. [1999] A Categorisation of Approaches to Occupational Analysis,
Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 51, 1, pp. 61-76
Bolton, A., Brown, R., McCartney, S. [1999] The Capacity Spiral: four weddings
and a funeral, , Journal of Vocational Education and Training 52, 2, pp 585604.
Carmichael, L. [1992]. Australian vocational certificate training system. Canberra:
Australian Government Printing Service.
Crowley, S. Garrick, J. Hager, P. [2002] Construction Work: The Hidden Impact of
Generic Competencies in the Australian Construction Industry, Conference
paper presented at The fifth Australian VET Research Association
Conference - Making a world of difference? Innovation, internationalisation,
new technologies and VET 21-22 March 2002.
Finn, B. [1991]. Young people's participation in post-compulsory education and
training. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.
Hager, P. [1995] Competency Standards - a Help or a Hindrance? An Australian
Perspective, The Vocational Aspect of Education, 47, 2, pp. 141-151.
Jones, A. [1999] The place of Judgement in Competency-based Assessment,
Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 51, 1, pp.145-160.
Mayer, E. [1992]. Putting general education to work: The key competencies report.
Melbourne: Australian Education Council.
Mulcahy, D. [2000] Turning Contradictions of Competence: competency-based
training and beyond, Journal of Vocational Education and Training 52, 2, pp
259-282
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. [1985] Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. [1991] Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation. Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. [1998] Communities of Practice: learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge University Press.
XII
View publication stats