2016 AQTF (Australian Quality Training Framework) Registering Body Report
Information Explanatory notes: specific contexts to consider when interpreting survey results
These reports represent a small sample of the feedback on Phillips Institute’s overall training services, and demonstrate one aspect of the organisation’s training evaluation system. Other methods of evaluation used by the RTO include, but are not limited to, informal feedback from students, candidates, trainers and prospective students, validation findings, employer and industry consultation and feedback, completion rates, government department feedback, compliments and complaints.
The AQTF annual survey on quality indicators is a requirement of Phillips Institute’s registration. As the RTO does not currently deliver apprenticeship or traineeship models, the employer population and response rate is therefore modest.
For the 2016 Calendar Year, the survey was conducted electronically therefore the response rate is considerably lower than in previous years when the survey was completed by students using paper-based forms and data was entered manually by RTO staff. The change to digital delivery was implemented in order to allow for easier administration and more effective analysis of survey data.
The students and employers surveyed for these indicators were selected by this organisation in accordance with national guidelines. For 2016, the indicators are based on a survey of 242 students, or 65 per cent of this organisation’s training delivery in the 2016 calendar year. Of the 242 email invitations sent, 146 were opened, 89 were unopened and 5 bounced. Of the opened responses, 35 responded, with 26 completing all parts of the survey and 9 partially completing. This response represents 14.46% of these 242 recipients. To improve this response rate for the 2017 year, the RTO will schedule the emailed survey invitations at the end of each quarter to capture this information when it is fresh in the minds of completed students.
Analysis of this data demonstrates that learner satisfaction scores continue to be very high, ranging from 82.3% up to 100%. This is an increase on the previous year’s results. The lower end figures indicate some students are not aware of trainer expectations or course requirements, or felt they had not had enough opportunity to work with people. As the surveys are across all programs, it is difficult to know if this is due to the different delivery models, or whether it is a program specific issue, but program managers will pay attention to these issues in future program development and design. For several of the indicators, there was 100% satisfaction which is extremely encouraging for the RTO, although it needs to be noted that the sample is relatively small.
The response rate for employer surveys delivered digitally was a little disappointing this year, however, verbal feedback directly from these representatives suggests a very high satisfaction rating with training services and student outcomes. This is based on feedback about Phillips Institute students’ placement performance and subsequently high employment rates. In some cases, organisations have called the RTO directly to request completed students who may be suitable for them to employ. This leads us to believe the training provided by Phillips Institute is closely aligned with industry expectations. To improve response rates, the completion of these surveys is to be delegated to placement assessors and supervisors in 2017. As these staff have an existing relationship with the placement staff, they are better placed to ensure the collection of this important data in a more formalised way so that consistent analysis can be made.
Very useful feedback for 2016 regarding the various models of program delivery has been collected through these surveys. This feedback refers to the quality and/or quantity of learning resource materials, training support provided to students, and quality of trainer knowledge and facilitation practice.
Main ways data has been used for continuous improvement include reviews of trainer and assessor knowledge and skill, flexibility of program delivery, and particularly, contextualisation of the training and assessment to industry requirements. RPL candidates and other learners have also commented on the quality of the services provided by all organisation staff and the resulting positive experience.
In 2016, modifications were made according to the feedback received in 2015, such as discontinued use of some resource materials, deployment of assessment checklists and streamlining of assessment processes. Strong positive feedback appears to confirm these improvements have contributed to increased learner satisfaction.
In line with our registration requirements, see our latest registering body report here: Registration Report
Competency Completions Reports:
Competency completions, in this case, are a measure of volume. Students enrolled who have not completed by year end may have started their course late in the year, or may have requested course extensions. They are encouraged to continue with completing their studies in the following year, therefore the competency completion rate does not reflect actual completions, but is simply a “point in time” end of the calendar year statistic, and the actual completion rates for our students is higher than the figures given here.
See our summary 2016 AQTF report on our quality indicators, including Learner satisfaction and Employer satisfaction outcomes, here.
Return to Home Page