Little Mistakes | Communicating Volume of Learning VS Amount of Training (for accidental speeders)

Thanks to the new focus on amount of training at audit, we’re starting to see a new kind of teeny tiny mistake that’s regularly resulting in non-compliance.

When we’re asked about the amount of training, we seem to be explaining the volume of learning instead.

It’s a little mistake. Volume of Learning is the standard, knowing or saying what it is, doesn’t mean you’re necessarily meeting it.

Amount of training is what you’re actually doing.

And, as it turns out, that’s the part that matters. 

Just knowing how to explain it is a drop in the ocean for this issue which has many impacts, but being able to explain what you’re doing helps avoid a simple mistake that’ll see you caught off-guard at audit, and it helps start the conversation about what you might need to start doing differently.

Step 1

So, Step 1: Understand that amount of training is what’s really happening and volume of learning is what (the AQF believe) should be happening.

We all know that clear technical definitions are a bit a dull, so here are some alternative ways to understand the difference. 

Step 2

Step 2 gets a little more complicated and/or time-consuming.

You need to work out what you’re actually doing.

For some this is easy and tools like session plans in face to face are a great starting point.

For others, this is far more difficult.

• How long should it take a student to read (and understand, and refer back to, and think about while grocery shopping) that self-paced workbook or eLearning content?  
• How many times did the student try that quiz in the formative assessment?
• How do we record the amount of training when every student is different?
• Etc.….

Data from LMS’s, experience with previous students and expert judgement will all help.

As really high-level problem finder, simple logic is often the best strategy for finding inaccuracies in your estimates. (e.g. average reading speeds mean you should be estimating 120-250 w/p/m for those with average level LLN, so if you have 1000 words of content and 2 hours estimate further investigation is warranted).

Whatever your strategy in this area, two things are true. It’s going to be a pain to document and there’s a decent chance you’ll be asked to explain how you came up with your numbers at audit.

We’ve worked with some clients over the last few months who had gone to audit with advice to simply state high-level categories (e.g. supervised training 500 hours, unsupervised learning 387 hours) and struggled when asked to explain what these categories meant and how the figures had been calculated. Given the need (and impulse) to go over and above at rectification, this can be a big non-compliance in terms of the work needed to resolve it.  

We’ve seen this same strategy used on quite a few TAS’s since, so it’s one to look out for!

This is a big issue and as it gains more attention we’re seeing a whole variety of tactics developed to deal with it. The point of this quick post is not to discuss all of the tactics and possible processes for meeting amount of training obligations, but at a high level it’s important to be aware of a few key things:

The figure you arrive at for amount of training needs to be checked against volume of learning

If there’s a variance between amount of training and volume of learning

• This needs to be explained and
• Should be based on student work experience and industry needs which are related to the content, not practicality (i.e. not enterprise preferences for quick/cheap/limiting staff time away from work)

You should be ready to explain your amount of training  

• You should know how you’ve considered the content of the units you’re delivering
• You should know the characteristics of the student cohort (open to everyone is not a cohort and segments need to be defined)

If you have a broad student cohort you need to

• Be able to explain how you’ve determined the needs of the segments and individuals
• Be able to explain how you adjust the amount of training to suit these segments and individuals (this should be responsive, i.e. not just shortening total time but knowing what section/class/etc. a student could skip or fast track due to previous experience)

Your marketing and pre-enrolment materials must be consistent with the actual amount of training (often we see a suitable amount of training in the TAS but the website still says 2-4 hours a week for a year)

This list is based on what we’ve seen reported so far in the new audit model; there’s likely more to be considered!

What other impacts are you seeing on how amount of training should be communicated?