Duration: 9m21s

AUSMASA Intro: Welcome to the Train-the-Trainer Podcast, proudly brought to you by AUSMASA, Empowering industry to develop essential workforce capabilities for today and tomorrow.

Marc: Hi there, folks! I'm thrilled to be joining you again on another train-the-trainer podcast. My name's Marc Ratcliffe. And in this episode, we're taking our trainer hats off and putting our assessor hats on to look at a common challenge facing our sector - assessing skills fairly in real work conditions. To help me examine the topic and provide some ideas on how assessors can balance practicality with compliance, I'm joined by Ellie Baker. Welcome to the podcast, Ellie!

Ellie: Thanks, Marc. This is certainly an interesting topic, and I'm happy to be your wingwoman on this one today.

Marc: Sounds like a plan, Ellie. Let's dive in!

Marc: Assessing performance fairly is a constant challenge in mining and automotive settings. On one hand, we want the assessment to reflect real work. We want to see people perform tasks in authentic conditions using the actual tools, equipment and procedures. But on the other hand, we also need to meet the requirements of the training packages and Standards for Registered Training Organisations. Now, sometimes those goals are treated like opposites. But do they have to be, Ellie?

Ellie: No. Good workplace assessment can be both user-friendly and audit-friendly if it is designed well.

Marc: Okay, can you explain?

Ellie: Okay. Let's start with fairness. Fair assessment is not about making it easy. It's about making sure the learner understands what's expected and has a genuine opportunity to demonstrate competence.

Marc. I think you're right, Ellie, and I think in real work environments, fairness can be affected by all sorts of things, like production pressures, supervisor interruptions, changes in environmental conditions, and even equipment availability. 

Ellie: Yeah, and if we don't account for these factors, we risk assessing circumstances rather than competence.

Marc: Agreed. One of the best ways to improve fairness is to make the assessment expectations visible upfront. But let's get real for a sec. Imagine we are assessing a learner on an excavator pre-start where it's raining, the shift is about to start, and there's production pressure. How do we handle that?

Ellie: I think this is a real teachable moment. No longer are we testing this in the comfort of the training room. It's a chance to put this in a real-world setting and help the learners work through their approach and application. 

Marc: Like 'what task or tasks need to be demonstrated within the operational conditions or which standards are non-negotiable regardless of the pressures?'

Ellie: Yeah. When learners know the target and understand how to respond when there are variable conditions, they can prepare themselves more appropriately.

Marc: So, you're saying it's important to create an authentic environment for the assessment?

Ellie: For sure. And real work assessment should look and feel like the work itself. If someone is being assessed on that excavator pre-start, as you mentioned, Marc, then the assessment process should involve genuine work tasks where possible. And that includes a range of operational conditions that they are likely to come into contact with. 

Marc: So, no overly artificial exercises that strip away context, right?

Ellie: That's right! At the same time, we need enough structure to support consistency. This is where good assessment tools matter. Things like clear observation criteria, practical checklists, model benchmark answers for questions, and room for reasonable adjustments to be noted. They support the assessor while also creating a useful record.

Marc: And I think you'd agree that an audit-friendly tool is not necessarily the one with the most boxes. It's one that clearly shows what was assessed, how judgment was made, and how the evidence relates to the necessary requirements.

Ellie: But it's not all about auditing, Marc. Like, we want to make sure that we are producing students who can actually do the things they need to do, and the evidence we collect will protect our decisions. 

Marc: That is a great perspective, Ellie. I think another important point is sufficiency over overload. What are your thoughts?

Ellie: Well, some assessors collect too much evidence because they are trying to protect themselves. 

Marc: Yeah, that often creates a greater burden without improving quality. 

Ellie: Right. The better question is: 'What evidence is required to make a sound judgment?' 

Marc: That's when we focus on the VACS - validity, authenticity, currency, and sufficiency.

Ellies: Oh, the V.A.C.S., the Rules of Evidence.

Marc. Yeah, we want to suck up all that great evidence with the VACS.

Ellie: (Laughs)

Marc: Would you agree that judgment in real work conditions also requires flexibility?

Ellie: Yeah. Not every workplace task unfolds neatly. You may need to observe over time, gather third-party input, ask supplementary questions, or combine direct observation with supporting evidence. 

Marc: Can you provide an example?

Ellie: Sure. Let's say you're in an automotive environment; you might be assessing a learner's ability to diagnose and rectify faults in a vehicle's braking system. That task may not unfold in a single, neat observation. The learner might begin by inspecting the vehicle, checking the brake fluid, identifying uneven pad wear, testing pedal feel, and using workshop procedures to narrow down the fault. However, the full evidence of competence may need to be gathered over time. 

Marc: Okay

Ellie: Therefore, you may observe the learner during the initial inspection, then later gather third-party feedback from the workplace supervisor about how consistently they followed safety procedures, communicated with customers, and completed the required documentation. You could also ask supplementary questions such as, 'What would you do if the brake pedal felt spongy after bleeding the system?' or 'How would you confirm whether the issue is hydraulic or mechanical?'

Marc: I guess that would help to confirm the learner understands the principles behind the task, not just the steps they performed on the day.

Ellie! That's right, Marc. Finally, in this example, you could gather supporting evidence, including job cards, service reports, photos of completed work, as well as records of workplace tasks completed across different vehicles. Taken together, this gives a more reliable picture of competence than relying on one brief observation in a simulated workshop activity.

Marc: That's great advice, Ellie! And to add to what you're saying, I think those assessor conversations are critical as well. What I mean here is, if something is not visible during the observation, carefully targeted questions can often help reveal a learner's understanding. 

Ellie: But those questions should still be practical and job-related, not designed to trap the learner or show off the assessor's knowledge.

Marc: Totally! We're not trying to trick them into doing the wrong thing; we are trying to catch them in moments of success.

Ellie: That's a great way of putting it, Marc. 

Marc: Cheers, it's all about the learner experience. Assessment should feel serious and relevant, rather than confusing or hostile. 

Ellie: Yeah, in many workplaces, people perform better when they understand that the assessor is there to gather evidence fairly, not to catch them out.

Marc: No, we don't want any of those 'Got ya' moments for sure, Ellie. 

Ellie: No. Not at all.

Marc: So, do you have any final advice for us?

Ellie: I think moderation is a key factor in creating fairness. As humans, we all have our own perspectives, but as assessors, we have to be on the same page about what "competent" looks like. 

Marc: So, if multiple assessors are involved, regular discussion about standards, expectations, and examples of acceptable evidence will help to reduce inconsistency. 

Ellie: That's right. And lastly, don't forget to document what matters. If a learner was assessed under real conditions with genuine job tasks, write that clearly. If questioning was used to confirm underpinning knowledge, also be clear on how that played out. Then, if adjustments were made for access or context, it's important to record that as well.

Marc: Because the strongest assessments are not the ones that look impressive on paper. They're the ones that reflect real competence and can still stand up to scrutiny.

Ellie: Well said!

Marc: So, Ellie, thanks so much for joining us today and providing so many examples of how we get this fairness thing right when it comes to assessment. 

Ellie: No problems. I've had a blast!

Marc: Fair assessment in real workplace environments is not about making assessment easier — it is about making it clearer, more authentic, and more reliable. Whether in mining, automotive, or any other practical settings for that matter, assessors need to balance real work conditions with the requirements of the training package and the Standards for RTOs. 

Remember, competence is not always captured in one neat observation. As an assessor, you will often need to observe performance over time, gather third-party feedback and use job-related supplementary questions. You should also seek to collect supporting evidence, such as workplace records, photos, and supervisor reports, to put the learners' competence beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, when you conduct your next workplace assessment, keep both audiences in mind: the learner doing the job, and the auditor reviewing the evidence. If your process makes sense to both, you're probably on the right track.

Thanks for listening.

AUSMASA Outro: This was just one resource in the AUSMASA Train-the-trainer suite of tools aimed at bridging the gap for trainers and assessors in the mining and automotive industries. Check out the other learning assets to take your training and assessment to the next level, including videos, scenarios, case studies, job aids, fact sheets and other podcast episodes. 

END.