dc.contributor.advisor |
|
en_US |
dc.contributor.advisor |
|
en_US |
dc.contributor.author |
Jafta Corneels H |
en_US |
dc.date.accessioned |
2013-07-02T14:10:04Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2013-07-02T14:10:04Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
19981100 |
en_US |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/11070.1/4121
|
|
dc.description |
Includes bibliographical references |
en_US |
dc.description.abstract |
Abstract provided by author: |
en_US |
dc.description.abstract |
The study found that there were seventeen factors that influenced this process as perceived by the respondents. These factors were classified into five categories: technical, political, economic, administrative and political, and then placed on a matrix with the levels at which they exerted their greatest pressure: external, internal to the professional body, and on the steering group. This classification of factors gave indications of the types of strategies and the level of intervention which may address implementation problems best. The study compiled a list of the factors in order of importance as rated by the respondents. This ranking showed that leadership was the most important factor, followed by experience and expertise of the steering group and the need for and appropriateness of the standards for the professions. The study also found that the Australian government employed inducement, capacity building and facilitation strategies to enhance the successful implementation of the standards, while the professional bodies employed mainly staff development and training as strategies |
en_US |
dc.description.abstract |
The study concluded that Namibian policy makers and implementors can draw the following lessons from the Australian experience:1. there is a need for a balance between pressure and support from government; 2. there is a role for a national implementation plan; 3. the main attraction of national competency standards is still the many uses it can be put to and the many purposes it serves for different organisations; 4. assessment strategies need to be considered from the beginning; 5. the methodology of using a representative steering group to lead standards development is one of the best features of the Australian approach; 6. Over time, the original objectives of the policy became low priority for NOOSR and the government; 7. the classification matrix can be used as a planning tool; and 8. the ranking of the factors indicates the importance of organisational, technical and economic factors |
en_US |
dc.format.extent |
x, 150 p |
en_US |
dc.language.iso |
eng |
en_US |
dc.source.uri |
http://erl.canberra.edu.au./public/adt-AUC20060725.095855
|
en_US |
dc.subject |
Qualification standards |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Vocational training |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Examinations |
en_US |
dc.title |
Implementing national competency standards in the professions in Australia |
en_US |
dc.type |
thesis |
en_US |
dc.identifier.isis |
F004-199299999999999 |
en_US |
dc.description.degree |
Canberra |
en_US |
dc.description.degree |
Australia |
en_US |
dc.description.degree |
University of Canberra |
en_US |
dc.description.degree |
M Ed |
en_US |
dc.masterFileNumber |
2456 |
en_US |