Teachers Vs. Trainers: Distinctive Practices in Tourism & Hospitality Education

Abstract

The aim of this research is to better understand the individual trainer’s implicit judgement policies while conducting assessments in a vocational setting and comparing it to the teacher’s assessment of similar subjects in higher education courses. In the report prepared on assessment issues in VET, Halliday-Wynes and Misko (2012) argue that training and assessment (TAE) qualification “focuses on compliance and meeting the AQTF requirements. It does not focus on strategies of teaching, designing of curriculum, and pedagogical skills. Vast majority of trainers who teach in Australian VET sector do so without any university qualifications in teaching” (p. 19). Currency of the industry skills and knowledge is more highly valued than the teaching skills. The expectation is that the teaching and assessing expertise can be picked up on the job. However, one of the findings of the report on the effects of teacher/trainer qualifications on the quality of VET teaching and training is that “higher level qualifications in VET pedagogy make a significant difference to VET teachers’ confidence and ability in teaching a diversity of learners” (Smith, 2018, p. 2). The proposed study will focus on tourism, culinary and hospitality assessment practices at vocational and higher education levels and investigate if the level of pedagogical education can in fact impact on the quality of teaching and assessing. Critical decision making (CDM); a type of cognitive task analysis, is planned to be used to interview participants of this study. CDM is a retrospective interview technique that involves asking the experts to recall an incident where their judging abilities were tested. Subsequent to the recall, a combination of verbal and think aloud probes are operationalized to enable the expert decision maker to reflect on their cognition, in the course of reaching that decision (Crandall, Klien, & Hoffman, 2006). The various themes that emerge in the conversation between the interviewer and participants; in particular, the points of commonality, differences and tensions as exposed by the assessors when speaking of their assessing practices will be identified and presented.