Recognition

Integrated into our model for recognition is the process for undertaking recognition. Check it out at:

At our Coffs Harbour Workshop on 15 April, we brainstormed //**what was good**//, and **//what was not so good//**, about Recognition as we currently see it. Our aim is to develop a product and/or model that will turn the //not so good// into positive statements. Please add your suggestions as to how we could best achieve this:

Recognition:
**Please add your suggestion to the list** || Daunting packages for assessors and candidates ||  || * Have an initial interview
 * **What's Good** ||  || **What's Not so Good (The Problems)** ||   || **Suggestions to Rectify the Problems**
 * Available ||  || People are scared of it -
 * Keep the information concise, succinct and simple (for candidate and assessor)
 * KISS - Keep it simple
 * Provide visuals to represent the process (flowchart)
 * 'Walk' the candidate through the process
 * Use a matrix ||
 * Minimise interruption to workflow ||  || Too much work, Too hard ||   || * Use a holistic approach
 * Streamline the process
 * Work through the process in bite-sized chunks
 * Do it section by section instead of all together
 * Limit the amount of information provided to the essentials ||
 * Cheaper and Faster - more cost effective ||  || Discouraged by some - poor reputation ||   || * Provide motivating information
 * Work with local Aged Care facilities to explain the process
 * Promote it across facilities
 * Provide more succinct information
 * //Only// //practice and patience will improve this// ||
 * Personal Development ||  || Bureaucracy makes it harder - the paper chase ||   || * Use an online system
 * Make it more aural
 * // Hopefully this project will improve this aspect // ||
 * Morale Booster ||  || RPL is too expensive ||   || * Streamline the process so that there is minimum f2f but with maximum info for students
 * Share more resources around
 * Work in with organisations and their staff development budgets (but that doesn't work for students who aren't working)
 * Group or buddy recognition ||
 * Recognises knowledge and skills they have ||  || Not always inclusive ||   || * Have info available in other languages
 * Check for literacy at interview
 * Use strategies that are inclusive, eg storytelling for Indigenous
 * Use language standard within the industry ||
 * Allows for articulation into other areas ||  || Too much evidence is needed ||   || * Match evidence across units
 * Usually only need to be proven competent on 2 occasions in different contexts (Check Training Package requirements)
 * Group competencies across multiple units
 * Use a matrix to show mapping
 * Let the candidate complete the matrix of evidence ||
 * Terminology is 'out there' ||  || Auditors are inconsistent - don't u/stand the industry ||   || * Meet with an Auditor as a Professional Development opportunity to clarify evidence requirements
 * Make sure there is enough clear evidence, as well as the assessor understanding the unit/s well enough to defend the evidence. ||
 * ||  || Inconsistent standards for acceptability ||   || * More training is required on 'what is acceptable'
 * Perhaps a repository developed through moderations and validation
 * Validation sessions would help
 * The **//Skills Track//** tool should set the standards for Community Colleges ||
 * ||  || Doesn't meet student expectations of what it should be ||   || * Ensure information is clear and check that the student u/stands the process
 * Effective promotion and explanation of the RPL process
 * Perhaps Colleges need to promote the idea more globally
 * Check in with Candidate throughout the process
 * Focus on critical skills and knowledge - not necessarily explaining every element and performance criterion ||
 * ||  || Not holistic enough ||   || * Use a matrix to show results across units
 * RTOS supporting the idea and talking about it in promotion materials
 * Focus on asking questions that pick up elements from more than one unit
 * Ensure the tool provides enough links between the elements of a single unit, and across units ||

At our team meetings held online on 5 and 19 May 2009, participants offered the following ideas for improving aspects of the process - these have been incorporated into the table above: