Examining the Work and Training of Teacher Aides

A review of the academic literature (literature review)

Adam Green, Murdoch University, ITAC CEO, July 2026.

This literature review explores the recent academic research on the work, roles, responsibilities, problems, challenges, training and management of Teacher Aides (TAs). It has two aims. First, to explore recent Australian and international peer-reviewed studies focused on TAs and the contexts in which they operate. This includes their work, roles, responsibilities, training, development, management and reported benefits and challenges. Second, it reviews competency-based training literature, with a particular focus on the Australian context.

Nomenclature

The term "TA" is used in this review because it is the most common term used by the general public as well as by researchers in both Australia and other English speaking countries. Practising TAs and members of the school community commonly use jurisdictionally specific terms such as Education Assistant or EA (Western Australia), School Support Officer or SSO (South Australia), Integration Aide (Victoria), Learning Support Officer or LSO (NSW) and Teacher Assistant in Queensland. Specific titles can also be assigned to staff working in specialised roles such as Aboriginal and Indigenous Education Officer (AIEO) used in WA, or Special Needs Education Assistant also used in WA.

Current Understanding of Teacher Aide Roles

While teacher aides have existed for many decades, modern research investigating their roles and responsibilities intensified from the early 2000s onwards. Academics began to explore the implications, issues and practices arising from the increased reliance on TAs to fill voids in school staffing needs, e.g. Broer et al. (2005); Giangreco and Broer (2005). Writing from the Unite a broader set of capabilities d States, Giangreco was a prominent first-wave researcher, and his findings are still relevant today. Giangreco (2010a) suggested that the assignment of TA support fails to solve the inclusion problem and argued the presence of a TA often leads to further exclusion. Such efforts provided the foundation for future researchers who sought to build on such work in niche areas, e.g. Armour et al. (2014) focused on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander TAs and mathematics; Carter et al. (2019) focused on professional development needs; Coates et al. (2017) focused on autism training; and Kalogeropoulos et al. (2020) who investigated lead-in sessions as a way of preparing struggling students for whole-of-class mathematical lessons.

Early studies commonly concluded that TAs were ineffective and even detrimental to students’ learning and development (e.g. Blatchford et al., 2007, 2011). These studies found that TAs replaced teachers, instead of supplementing them, resulting in poorer student outcomes (Blatchford et al., 2009a). In recent times however, this sentiment has shifted somewhat. Researchers such as Brock et al. (2021) found that TAs can be effective, such as when providing one-on-one and small group instruction, managing behaviour, and in reducing teacher workload. This is achieved only under certain conditions however, such as when TAs are trained in specific programs or techniques i.e., prompting, and are managed or coached adequately by more experienced classroom teachers (Andersen et al., 2020). Many researchers propose that TAs should only be tasked with implementing highly structured programs such as reading interventions, and not be tasked with roles that require on-the-fly pedagogical decisions (Griffiths & Kelly, 2018; Webster et al., 2011).

The Role and Responsibilities of TAs

The roles and responsibilities of TAs are broad and varied in the literature. In Australia, TAs are employed across all government and non-government schools. Typically, TAs work under the direction of a teacher with the primary role of supporting student learning and development. This includes assisting teachers to monitor and manage student behaviour to maximise learning time. TAs may also undertake non-instructional tasks such as cleaning and record keeping – this helps to reduce teacher workload so they can focus on instructional and other tasks.

While this description reflects global patterns of teacher aide utilisation, jurisdictional differences may exist. Teacher aides predominantly work with students with special-needs, including children with neurological and other learning disorders, physical disabilities, and behavioural issues (Western Australian Department of Training and Workforce Development, 2021).

TAs can be employed in one of three positions. First, and the least common, is general classroom support. This role predominantly exists in lower grades where teachers require additional hands for logistical tasks such as toileting and reading to children. Second, TAs work in a mainstream (integrated) classroom with an assigned student (a child with autism, for example). Focus students, as they are commonly referred to, require one-on-one support for part or all of the day. When assigned this role, a TA will occasionally circulate and help other students (Rutherford, 2012) which is known as roving or circulating. While roving is discussed in the literature, how TAs should divide their time between their assigned student and others is not clearly defined. A third TA role involves supporting students with special educational needs (SEN), typically in schools, centres and programs specialising in this area (Coates et al., 2017; Mackie et al., 2016).

While TAs do not instruct whole classes, Fernandez & Hynes (2016) found that they may be responsible for pull-out sessions. This involves supporting one or more students in a separate room, usually for reading, writing or maths instruction (Kalogeropoulos et al., 2020). Fried et al. (2012) suggest that pull-out sessions are commonly seen as the primary tool for addressing learning issues with students who are at risk of low academic achievement. Moving to another room removes distractions and effectively reduces the size of the main class. This in turn reduces teacher pedagogical workload and stress.

In terms of TAs supporting specific disabilities and disorders, autism was the most common disorder discussed in the research literature, e.g., Coates et al. (2017), Knight et al. (2019), and Page and Ferrett (2018). Other conditions include attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Greenway & Edwards, 2020), intellectual and developmental disabilities (Brock & Carter, 2013), emotional and behavioural disorders (Maggin et al., 2012), language impairment (Towson et al., 2020), visual impairment (Whitburn, 2013), dyslexia (Griffiths & Kelly, 2018) and deaf and hard of hearing (Salter et al., 2017). Some TAs are employed to support physical and personal care needs such as glucose monitoring, toileting and peg feeding (Abbott et al., 2011).

Many argue that the TA’s role and job description are often ambiguous and complex (Clarke & Visser, 2019). As such, a typical day is not easy to describe. Data from the Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools (DISSS) project showed that TAs in the UK spend more than 80% of their time in direct instructional roles and engaged in sustained interactions nine times more often than teachers (Webster et al., 2011).

Similarly, a Queensland study by Harris and Aprile (2015) found that TAs spend most of their time supporting students one-on-one or in small groups and undertake a limited amount of non-instructional work. A 2018 study in the ACT noted that TAs are primarily used to support students with additional needs (Butt, 2018). In an earlier study, the same author found that students with disabilities receive most of their instruction from a TA while teachers mainly instructed non-disabled students or engaged in non-instructional tasks (Butt, 2016b).

Giangreco et al. (2013) surveyed 174 SEN educators from 32 schools and concluded that instructional support and behaviour management were the two most common reasons for deploying TAs. Gibson et al. (2016) confirmed this in the Australian context. They surveyed 65 teachers and TAs in Melbourne to learn that inclusion, curriculum modifications, behaviour management and instructional support were the top reasons for hiring or requesting TAs. Given this, the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that TAs are teachers and do teach, albeit not at the class level.

Regarding behaviour management, Clarke and Visser (2019) argue that TAs walk a fine line between managing children with the most complex needs and the ambiguous and unwritten limits of their power. They are expected to show initiative, work independently and be assertive while simultaneously being mindful of impinging on the teacher’s authority. This further complicates their already ambiguous role.

Skills and Capabilities of Teacher Aides

This section reviews the academic literature on the skills and capabilities of teacher aides with a focus on areas requiring further training and development.

There should be no surprise that teachers have greater pedagogical capabilities than TAs. For example, Radford et al. (2011), analysing 130 maths lessons, found that teachers open up talk while TAs shut it down. For these types of reasons, many studies have recommended that TAs should be better trained in foundational instructional skills such as fading and prompting (Brock & Anderson, 2021). Academics also recommended that TAs learn more advanced teaching and learning strategies such as metacognition, self-scaffolding, self-repair, overlearning, formative assessment, the zone of proximal development and phonics instruction (Bowles et al., 2018; Griffiths & Kelly, 2018; Slater & Gazeley, 2019).

While challenges with the widespread use of TAs are well-known (and have been for many years), the origin and causes of these issues have become more apparent in recent times. Many researchers suggest that a key contributing factor is a lack of training in foundational classroom strategies. Bowles et al. (2018) for instance, suggest a lack of understanding of general scaffolding concepts, e.g. fading, transfer of responsibility, withholding correction, fostering independence and self-scaffolding. Bosanquet and Radford (2019) suggest training to help TAs avoid basic scaffolding mistakes such as moving on after partial self-repair or closing down talk.

There is a lack of awareness among teachers, TAs and trainers regarding basic pedagogical mistakes commonly observed during TA-student interactions. These mistakes are difficult to observe because they have no immediate detrimental effect on learning. For instance, teacher aides almost exclusively focus on task completion instead of concept understanding. Rubie-Davies et al. (2010), showed the tendency of TAs to provide answers to direct questions instead of having students engage in some form of self-repair thereby limiting opportunities for deeper learning.

Aside from instructional skills, many researchers have focused on the TA’s role in behaviour management, e.g., Andersen et al. (2020); Blatchford (2009b); Brock, Cannella-Malone et al. (2017); Griffiths and Kelly (2018), Leslie (2018) and Maggin et al. (2012). This focus is understandable because teachers rate behaviour management as the most crucial task that TAs perform (Butt & Lowe, 2012). A key concern is keeping children on task (see for instance Brock, Seaman et al., 2017 or Webster et al., 2011) as it is a critical task that helps to reduce teacher workload and stress (Page & Ferrett, 2018). Some studies suggest TAs can be trained to implement more advanced evidence-based strategies. Kalogeropoulos et al. (2020), in a qualitative study involving interviews with teachers and TAs in Victoria, proposed a tutoring model based on cognitive load, cognitive-affective and social-cognitive rationales. This was applied to lead-in sessions designed to give struggling students a head start before the main classroom lesson.

Carter et al. (2019) surveyed 361 teaching assistants in New South Wales public schools to find that the most commonly reported task for TAs was keeping students on task. This resulted in behaviour management being the number one self-reported need for professional development amongst TAs. Butt (2018) also noted this and found that TAs desired further training to extend their knowledge of disabilities. Despite these needs, Carter et al. (2019) suggest that many TAs may be over-confident in their abilities and lack awareness of the areas in which they require further professional development.

To work in this space, TAs require training in specific skills, including managing challenging behaviours (such as meltdowns), and implementing strategies to increase independence (Greenway & Edwards, 2020; Page & Ferrett, 2018). This could be achieved in several ways according to Knight et al. (2019), such as by facilitating scaffolded social supports and peer learning. Children with autism often require individual support services (particularly those who are non-verbal or present with comorbidities). They are regularly provided with a dedicated TA resulting in most of their educational experiences coming from a lesser qualified adult. This can be detrimental to student learning, behaviour and development (Coates et al., 2017; Stewart, 2019), particularly in the long run.

Other areas where the skills of TAs may need addressing have been identified in the literature, including non-instructional tasks such as collecting data (Mason et al., 2019), knowledge of school and departmental policies (Butt, 2016a), and planning (Carter et al., 2019). Armour et al. (2014) suggest training in culturally aware instructional practices. Gibson et al. (2015) found that only 26% of TAs felt highly confident implementing individualised programs. Therefore, additional training was essential (especially given that almost all students assigned a TA had been placed on an individualised programs). Harris et al. (2015) noted the need for additional training in reading practices because many TAs struggled to answer basic questions, such as why learning to read is essential. Teacher aides are regularly criticised for their lack of personal literacy and numeracy skills. Regarding mathematics and numeracy, Reaburn (2015) successfully taught TAs to implement pre-planned programs while noting participants requested additional training in areas such as mathematical language.

Benevolent Intentions; Unintended Consequences

While the use of TAs in the classroom stems from the best of intentions, their presence can often give rise to complex hidden challenges. The most noticeable impact of TAs is their physical presence in the room and the effect that has on both children and the teacher. Mason et al. (2020) noted that TAs tend to sit within 2–3 feet of their focus student for the majority (74%) of the day (and may even come to believe that they own the student) (Chopra and French, 2004). From the student’s perspective, hovering in such a way is intrusive (Giangreco et al., 2005, 2010; Whitburn, 2013). However, the most unintended and detrimental consequence is isolating students from their peers. Many researchers have noted this including widely-cited studies by Giangreco (2010a) writing from the United States. This may result in increased stigma (Broer et al., 2005) and is a reason why only 21% of students reported that they wanted a TA compared to 89% of teachers, 96% of SEN educators, 90% of TAs and 88% of families (Giangreco et al., 2013). Findings from these studies seem to suggest that the person most impacted by the provision of TA support (the student) is rarely consulted at any point, e.g. initial deployment, roster, curriculum planning, behavioural plans, role description and boundaries. This raises serious questions of rights, agency and voice (Suter & Giangreco, 2009) and whether the school has met its legal obligations in this regard. The Disability Standards for Education 2005 requires schools to “consult the student” before making any adjustment, as well as to consider “whether there is any other reasonable adjustment that would be less disruptive and intrusive and no less beneficial for the student” (Disability Standards for Education 2005, p. 11).

Why TAs hover and the extent to which they do has not been studied; however, it may be that TAs feel an obligation to focus on their assigned student above all others. They may not feel comfortable roving the room unless invited, or they may not understand the importance of social and independence skills (Egilson & Traustadottir, 2009; Logan, 2006; Rutherford, 2012) or how they are developed.

Research by Blatchford (2009a) showed that primary school TAs roved only 4% of the time, supporting small groups 36% of the time. High school TAs, on the other hand, roved six times more often (22%), only spent 12% of their time with groups of students, and spent around half of their time with an individual learner (45% vs. 10% for primary TAs). Primary school TAs tended to support their focus student and several close neighbours, while high school TAs targeted their focus students and other individuals around the room. The reason for this variance can only be speculated.

Webster et al. (2013) used quantitative data from thousands of students to show that the higher a child’s support needs, the more time a TA will spend with them. While this may not seem problematic at first glance, the result is concerning: students with the most complex needs receive the least amount of attention from the better-qualified teacher. Evidence from this study shows there is a conceptually linear relationship between a student’s level of need and the lack of teacher attention when a TA is present. Other researchers concur with this assessment, with Butt (2016b) noting that students with disabilities receive most of their support from TAs even though they may have no formal education qualifications.

Some research suggests that this issue impacts students’ academic progress. A large-scale, influential quantitative study conducted by Blatchford et al. (2011), based on data from 8000 students, showed that students with TA support made less academic progress in English, maths and science, even when accounting for other factors. As a result, the research typically suggests TAs no longer be expected to teach content other than in a general support capacity or in highly structured programs (Carter et al., 2019). TAs should not be making pedagogical decisions – or at least as few as possible – and especially not on-the-fly with students with complex needs.

Teacher Aide Impact on Student Learning

While earlier researchers, such as Blatchford et al. (2007, 2011), often concluded that TAs were largely detrimental to student learning, recent studies have taken a different view. The training, placement and management of TAs is now recognised as a critical factor that was previously underemphasised. Research published since around 2010 increasingly shows that TAs can have a positive effect on student outcomes provided they work in highly structured programs and are appropriately managed by classroom teachers (see, for example, Johnson (2018) for interventions, Jones et al. (2018) for direct instruction, Fried et al. (2012) for reading, and Hurst and Sparrow (2012) for maths). To be effective in their role, TAs must be adequately trained in the specific program they are assigned to implement. They need ongoing coaching, mentoring and supervision. Without such training, Brock et al. (2020) noted that TAs failed to consistently implement evidence-based strategies even though there was some attempt.

In the United States, Andersen et al. (2020) showed that TAs could improve student reading skills by 13%, provided they were systematically trained to implement the selected program with fidelity. Similar results were found in a Western Australian study involving second language learners (Fried et al., 2012). Providing TAs with a simple system of instruction has an immediate positive effect on student writing skills (Lushen et al., 2012). Even in highly structured environments such as direct instruction, TAs could implement lessons with 95% fidelity following training (Jones et al., 2018). A UK study showed that TAs could be taught instructional strategies to help students progress as much as 1.5 years in 4 months (See et al., 2019). The same study showed that TAs could be as effective as teachers in standard one-on-one instructional activities. Gottfried (2018) showed that TAs in kindergarten classes positively impacted student reading and mathematical skills. These findings applied to students with disabilities as well. Johnson (2018) also found that TAs could be highly effective in early literacy learning.

In addition to instruction, TAs are expected to manage behavioural issues and are often assigned the most challenging students in this regard. Teacher aides are seen as the expert on their focus or assigned student (Griffiths & Kelly, 2018), meaning teachers often assume the TA can manage more serious issues like meltdowns on their own (Page & Ferrett, 2018). Teacher aides are expected to teach pro-social skills (Punch, n.d.) such as structured peer interactions (Robinson & Truscott, 2013) with little to no training in how to do so. In terms of social skills, one benefit of having a TA is students get more opportunities to practice interacting with adults (Blatchford, 2009b).

Organisational Challenges

Page and Ferrett (2018) suggest that to increase TA effectiveness, teachers and school managers must ensure that they are included in the school community. TAs rarely access information that others in the school community take for granted. This is likely due to organisational structures, policies, processes and other barriers that systematically exclude their access, e.g. not being paid to attend staff meetings (Butt, 2016a). In this sense, Bourke and Carrington (2007) argue that TAs are disempowered, ultimately hindering their ability to provide adequate services to their teachers and students.

Whilst TAs are expected to work with students with the most complex needs, they are rarely invited to participate in meetings such as those that focus on developing and reviewing Individual Education Plans (Gretchen & Bailey, 2020). For the most part, they are provided with very little information regarding student background information, medical needs, behavioural history, educational goals, and the findings of diagnostic tests. Few teachers spend time thinking about and planning the best way to use their TAs (Giangreco et al., 2010, 2011) and few share lesson plans or goals in advance (Lehane, 2016). Teacher aides should be invited to plan and collaborate with their teacher (Cockroft & Atkinson, 2015), especially since they know much more about their assigned student than the teacher.

Researchers have been critical of ambiguous and unclear role descriptions, e.g. Clarke and Visser (2019) and Stewart (2019). Basic corporate governance requires position descriptions to be developed for each staff member. It should outline and reflect their individual tasks and responsibilities, including work methods and authority limits. Brock and Carter (2013) argue that TAs should be given straightforward directions on what they can and cannot do, such as behavioural interventions.

These efforts should be part of a whole-of-school approach led by the principal and be planned to include regular professional development and coaching. For instance, Sobeck et al. (2020) showed that performance feedback was highly effective on TAs’ correct and consistent use of behaviour management strategies. Professional development should be targeted to the work of TAs and not simply be teacher-driven activities that TAs are permitted to attend. Schools should be aware of the training trap, whereby attending professional development leads to an expectation of additional responsibilities and pedagogical freedom well beyond their capabilities (Giangreco et al., 2006).

Because of these issues, there have been occasional calls for existing TAs to be upskilled, and for new TAs to hold formal qualifications as a condition of employment, similar to the aged care and childcare sector. Teacher aides should be “qualified in SEN education from an accredited teacher aide training course”, which “should be a condition of additional Commonwealth funding….” (Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee, 2002, Recommendation 1). Similar calls have come from state governments. The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (2012, p. 59) raised the issue of unqualified TAs, noting schools and government should be “ensuring appropriately trained support staff, such as integration aides or teacher support staff, AUSLAN interpreters and note-takers, are made available to the student.”.

The first 5-yearly review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005 noted the sector’s concerns “about the adequacy of training and skills of support staff, such as teachers’ aides…” (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR], 2012, p. 56) and that “teacher aides do not always have the necessary skills to meet the needs of students with disabilities” (DEEWR, 2012, p. 63). The report found that, “There is considerable variation in the skills, knowledge and qualifications of teachers’ aides and paraprofessionals” resulting in issues such as problems developing “tailored learning programs” (DEEWR, 2012, p. 18).

Based on these concerns, submissions from the sector and stakeholders called for “appropriately trained paraprofessionals/teachers’ aides and the need to address the shortage of skilled staff.” (DEEWR, 2012, p. 63). Subsequently, the report advocated for “more comprehensive training, professional development and access to support to assist all teachers in meeting the needs of students with disability. This includes training to ensure the competencies of teacher aides and other specialist support staff.” (DEEWR, 2012, p. 57). Curiously, while the 2010 report noted sector-wide concerns relating to TAs, the 2015 and 2020 reports barely mentioned the work of TAs and did not include them in any recommendation.

Training Packages and the Australian VET Landscape

As previously explored in this review, research suggests that when sufficient training, education and professional learning is provided for TAs they can have a positive impact on the classroom and student learning. In Australia, formal training and qualification of TAs is conducted within the national vocational education and training (VET) system. While not legally required, teacher aides often begin their career by completing at least one nationally recognised qualification – either the CHC30221 Certificate III or CHC40221 Certificate IV in School Based Education Support. The term nationally recognised refers to a program of study which leads to a credential issued by a Registered Training Organisation (Office of the Student Identifiers Registrar, 2021).

In Australia, Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) are approved by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) to deliver, assess and provide credentials to individuals who meet the necessary competencies (ASQA, n.d.-a). There are more than 4000 registered RTOs in Australia (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2021), including public and private providers that serve 2.6 million VET students per annum (NCVER DataBuilder, 2026).

The Australian VET system is based on a hierarchical or cascading system of qualifications and units of competencies (Robertson, 2008, p. 6). These are grouped into sector-specific training packages, and there is considerable debate about them in the literature. Schmidt (2020) argues that training packages offer a reductionist curriculum; Wheelahan (2016) supports this view and describes them as outcome-focused documents built on a competency-based, atomistic ontology. Training packages comprise related qualifications, although sometimes this relationship is tenuous. For example, the CHC training package includes education support, aged care, community services, mental health, relationship counselling and marriage celebrancy. The linking factor in CHC seems to be traditionally female-dominated people or caring occupations. There are 46 qualifications in the CHC training package and there are currently 57 training packages in areas such as Aviation, Correctional Services and Electrotechnology, to name a few (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2022).

A 2–3 page document describes each qualification. This is known in the sector as packaging rules but has the official title of Qualification Details. These documents list the units of competencies that must be completed for an individual to be credentialed by a training provider. For example, CHC40221 Certificate IV in School Based Education Support requires 13 core units and 4 electives. Additional rules state how electives are to be selected. A unit of competency is a two-part document that describes one or more work activities (ASQA, n.d.-b) and the evidence required for a person to be deemed competent in that particular unit. The main sections of all units are Application, Performance Criteria, Performance Evidence, Knowledge Evidence and Assessment Conditions. As noted by Smith (2023), the 2012 streamlining reforms to the Standards for Training Packages formally separated the unit of competency and its assessment requirements into distinct components.

This process for writing and approving changes to training packages has not changed much since competency-based training (CBT) and training packages were mandated in 1997 (Guthrie, 2009). Even earlier than this, the seeds of CBT were planted as far back as the 1974 Kangan report, which helped to shape VET as we know it today (Joyce, 2019). The Kangan report argued for a new system inclusive of “all programs of education with a vocational purpose” and that it should be centrally managed by a federal body (Kangan, 1974, p. 26). This call for national standardisation resulted in a shift from a primarily decentralised system based on non-uniform curriculum documents towards a centralised CBT system built on training packages that the government could easily control (Hodge & Harris, 2012; Schofield & McDonald, 2004). The shift followed similar movements in other countries, such as the United Kingdom.

The VET community and governments widely support the training package system and its underpinning CBT philosophy (Guthrie, 2009). Australia’s so-called industry-led model is heralded as a modern success story, and its effectiveness is rarely questioned. For example, a 2014 review strongly argued that the success of training packages is due to their industry focus, the ability of trainers to tailor courses, and the overarching goal of producing a work-ready, productive labour force (Department of Industry, 2014).

In the research community, however, CBT has been criticised extensively. Some, such as Wheelahan (2016), noted that academics did not favour CBT’s introduction, however, its political advantages were too significant, such as the ability to measure and control provider performance (Graham & Tytler, 1993). Smith and Keating (2003) explain that CBT limits innovation but eliminates practical and effective non-VET short courses from the Australian education landscape. Wheelahan (2016) points out that there can only be one of each qualification, so the stakes in training package development are stressfully high, time-consuming and very political. These sentiments are echoed by others such as Joyce (2019), Schofield and McDonald (2004), Smith and Keating (2003) and Smith (2005).

It is reasonable to say that the general view of the broader research community towards training packages and CBT is critical. This is the case internationally as well, e.g. Köpsén (2019) in Sweden, Bathmaker (2013) in the UK, and Misbah et al. (2020) in Indonesia. These criticisms are explored in more detail below.

Focus on Assessment

Competency-Based Training has been criticised for its narrow and limited focus on workplace tasks (Wheelahan, 2015). This has meant the exclusion of academic learning according to Smith and Keating (2003). Students do not develop a sophisticated understanding of the broad theories, issues, controversies and debates relevant to their field (Avis, 2012; Gamble, 2014; Young, 2013). Wheelahan (2016, 2019) points out that the Australian system does not teach students to question knowledge or the origin of knowledge, to compare theoretical approaches and competing perspectives, or to engage deeply with the academic arguments of the day. Whether this has an effect on national productivity can only be speculated.

The knowledge issue is most pronounced in higher qualifications, such as at the diploma level. According to the Australian Qualifications Framework, a diploma graduate can “apply integrated technical and theoretical concepts in a broad range of contexts to undertake advanced skilled or paraprofessional work” (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013, p. 38). The definition of advanced is highly subjective, and developing qualifications for workers in such roles is challenging from an instructional design and compliance perspective (Roche et al., 2014). It is also very expensive (Wheelahan, 2016), time-consuming to review, develop and implement (Joyce, 2019). This disincentive RTOs from developing diploma and higher level programs.

Franks et al. (2014) explored CBT and pilot training. They found that CBT resulted in a concerning lack of critical thinking and complex time-critical decision-making skills. They noted that a significant degree of professional judgement was expected of assessors even when detailed checklists were provided. Others, such as Köpsén (2019), echoed this and noticed that VET students are taught to do and not to think.

Ryan et al. (2017) focused on nursing students at the diploma level. They recommended a more reflexive approach to learning and a greater focus on critical thinking. Ryan and her colleagues felt that CBT was not conducive to developing professional capabilities in busy, dynamic and fluid workplaces. Ryan et al. (2017) were notably critical of the disjunction between standardised unit requirements and the many skills required to complete complex real-world tasks. Many such tasks demanded high-level skills that were not required of any unit. In other situations, even basic work-based tasks require a person to utilise skills and knowledge from multiple units. Such tasks cannot be described in one-size-fits-all performance criteria.

For experienced workers, West (2004) notes that CBT is not suitable for professional development. One reason for this is a lack of critical reflection. West also argues that the unsuitability of CBT for higher-level qualifications is a crucial driver of low enrolments compared to other levels; enrolments in diploma or higher qualifications account for around 16% of total VET students (NCVER, 2020).

For these reasons, many have called for reforms that would allow students to develop a broader set of capabilities that do not pigeonhole them with niche skills that may not exist in the future (European Commission, 2016). Researchers argue that this would improve graduates’ agency and their ability to transition to new methods of work and other industries or even higher-level tertiary study (Nylund et al., 2017). The behaviouralist focus on discrete work-based tasks and the de-emphasis of knowledge (other than when directly necessary to complete a work-based task) limits learners’ ability to progress from the vocational system to a cognitivist- or constructivist-based tertiary program in the same field.

One of the AQF’s key objectives is to enable students “to move easily and readily between different education and training sectors” (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013, p. 8). However, in practice, the disjunction between VET and universities continues to be substantial. The Australian VET and tertiary sectors have competing ontological and epistemological philosophies and positions, resulting in entrenched sector segregation and distrust. Joyce (2019) notes that both sectors compete against each other which can be counterproductive. While there are exceptions, universities are hesitant to recognise the skills developed in the VET sector. This is the case despite each qualification requiring 600–1200 hours of study. There are exceptions however, notably the Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care which enables graduates to enter the second year of an early childhood degree.

The Australian government’s Review of Training Packages and Accredited Courses: Discussion Paper (2014) noted that not all students have the exact training needs or motivations. It also cited an earlier report that found “stakeholder concerns with the length and complexity of training packages” (Department of Industry, 2014, p. 23, referring to COAG’s VET Products for the 21st Century Report, 2009). Strangely, the report advocated for more specific measures and tighter rules, such as mandated assessment tools and external capstone testing (Department of Industry, 2014). These two positions might be at odds with each other, but serve to highlight the contested nature of the space.

Furthermore, many researchers – both internationally and in Australia – are critical of the binary Competent vs. Not Yet Competent grading system typical of CBT systems. Griffin et al. (2007) explain that this is partly due to a misunderstanding of the principles of CBT, notably that competence is a decision point on a continuum of proficiency – not an endpoint – and that competence decisions are inescapably subjective. There have been many calls to change the VET grading system in Australia, e.g. Skiba (2020). While seemingly simple, a binary system is confusing for trainers and students (Skiba, 2020), and a graded system would allow employers to differentiate between different levels of competence. It would also motivate students to learn beyond the minimum (Franks et al., 2014) and encourage trainers to teach more advanced concepts where students can extend themselves. It would give students feedback on ways to develop their skills after they graduate and enter the workforce.

Schofield and McDonald (2004) argue that a grading system would not undermine CBT, and a new system could involve rubrics and a competency continuum, such as Not Yet Competent, Approaching Competent, Competent, Beyond Competent and High-level Competence. No rule, policy or law prevents trainers in Australia from using such a grading system – and some do – however successfully completing a unit requires a binary competency decision. Many trainers, however, are hesitant to use rubrics (Richards, 2014). They may be unsure whether a rubric would comply with legal requirements, and they may not have the time to develop them. It could also be because they are not taught how to use them. For these reasons, the UK system has promoted the use of a grading system for some time (Newton, 2018).

Reinforcing Inequality

The link between an individual’s education level and earning potential is well established (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020). From this perspective, education is an effective vehicle for lifting people out of poverty. Academics have repeatedly criticised CBT for contributing to social inequality, mainly by limiting access to knowledge (Wheelahan, 2016). Without critical thinking skills, well-developed literacy capabilities and a deep understanding of the theoretical issues of the day, an individual is less able to voice their opinions in a way that may affect change. This problem is a direct result of an industry-led model that prioritises employer needs, such as productivity and efficiency, well above the broader interests of individual citizens (Bathmaker, 2017; Harris, 2015).

Onsando and Billett (2009) argue that students from minority backgrounds may be disadvantaged because training packages are based on the mainstream worldview. Some contest that the system is reminiscent of Taylorism (Scientific Management), referring to how training packages result in a high degree of managerial control over employee work practices to maximise productivity (Boorman, 2001). In other words, training packages are a means for controlling employee behaviour at the macro level of task execution.

Furthermore, researchers have noted the tension that lies between VET and the international student market. Vocational education and training is narrowly focused on the Australian workplace (Wheelahan, 2015) while at the same time actively pursuing an international student market (McKay, 2004) worth billions to the Australian economy. The problem is that students who may never work in Australia must learn to perform tasks that only apply under Australian conditions (regulations, cultural norms, practices, etc.). Trainers report that training packages are unsuitable for international students because they are based on Anglo-European traditions (Tran and Nyland, 2013). Most international students are from Asian countries and will return home for work. Australian domestic students may be disadvantaged too – those who wish to participate in the global workforce may not have the skills to do so.

Competency-Based Training is not a one-size fits all system (Mulcahy, 2000). Hoeckel et al. (2008) reviewed CBT and VET across OECD countries to find that VET and CBT are not helpful for those who want to study without a specific job in mind. As VET is solely focused on producing efficient workers, there are few options available to those who want a more general education or to study areas of interest (pastimes, hobbies, history, literature etc.). Rural students may also be disadvantaged because of thin markets – specialised qualifications that take substantial time and cost to develop mean fewer trainers are available in regional areas which lack scale (Kilpatrick et al., 2002).

Challenges Facing VET Trainers

Many scholars have criticised training packages and their CBT basis because of their technical, design and implementation problems. Smith et al. (2015) investigated the extent to which seven training package qualifications aligned with job roles and found that non-technical skills were vague (e.g. communication), work skills were not integrated fluidly, there was no sense of what a good worker looks like, and that the language of units implied mastery which was usually not obtained until several years after graduation.

Hager (2004) argues that the idea that performance can be comprehensively captured in a written description is flawed (see also Smith, 2023). This is problematic for trainers who must unpack the training package to develop assessments that are subject to high-stakes, external audits. Similar problems arise because training packages are designed for workplace training even though most training activity occurs outside of the workplace (Boorman, 2001; Tran and Nyland, 2013).

Hodge (2014) showed that even experienced trainers struggled to understand what training packages expect of them. Despite this, Hodge (2017) argued that training package developers assume trainers will know what to do simply by reading each unit. This assumption reflects a broader belief that the implementation of training packages is a straightforward process due to trainers being subject matter experts. The instructional skills required to use training packages proficiently have been drastically underestimated primarily because many trainers work in relative isolation (Mitchell et al., 2006). There is evidence that trainers learn to overcome these challenges with workarounds (Southren, 2015), such as by purchasing materials developed by others and over-assessing.

Smith (2010) was highly critical of CBT’s unwavering focus on the final assessment outcome. The regulator focuses almost solely on assessment: assessment tools, mapping, strategies, benchmark answers, and assessment evidence (Australian Skills Quality Authority, n.d.-d; Joyce, 2019; Smith, 2023). There is far less a focus on training despite the term training packages. Trainers and assessors operate within narrowly defined methodologies that aim no further than achieving the very minimum competency standard for each unit (Franks et al., 2014).

Another issue facing trainers is having to deliver outdated work-based tasks and information (Joyce, 2019; Wesselink, 2017). This is usually due to the slow and cumbersome nature of training package development. Many researchers have noted this issue (Joyce, 2019; Robinson, 1997; Schofield & McDonald, 2004; Smith & Keating, 2003; Smith et al., 2005; Wesselink, 2017). Minor updates and revisions are undertaken between major reviews; however, even these processes are protracted, often taking 18–24 months or more. These reviews are based on advice from technical and industry advisory committees and incorporate a process of industry consultation with participation from RTOs, unions, government agencies and employers. The consultation process is discernibly top heavy with comparatively little effort to involve front-line workers (at least in the CHC training package).

A recurring criticism of CBT and training packages is that it disempowers trainers (Hodge, 2016; Santoro, 2001). Training packages are much more detailed than their preceding institutional-level curriculum documents, resulting in less freedom to determine what is and is not relevant to their students (Hager, 2004). Hodge (2016) explains that training packages strip educators of their curriculum decision-making abilities. For example, contextualising skills to local environments, emerging trends and changing work environments can be difficult without the risk of running afoul of unit requirements. Because of this risk, Hager (2004) argues that the trainer is relegated to the transmitter of government-prescribed content requirements.

Due to these issues, many RTOs purchase training and assessment materials or hire curriculum developers to produce course content on their behalf. Sometimes this means they use developers from overseas or professional writers with no related industry experience. There is considerable anxiety around regulatory compliance (Harris, 2015) and a concern that many trainers do not have the instructional capabilities to design compliant training and assessment resources. These combined forces have reduced trainer agency and the profession’s overall skill level.

These debates are included here to situate the contested nature of competence-based training, and to acknowledge the structural environment in which the Australian system operates.

Summary of the Literature

There is no consistently defined description of the work of TAs in the literature; instead, studies present a wide and varied picture of their roles and responsibilities and note the role’s ambiguity (Clarke & Visser, 2019). School managers often hire them to prevent behavioural issues, appease families, and to reduce teacher workload (Giangreco et al., 2013). Teachers frequently rely on them for students with complex needs, to keep students on task, and to meet their inclusion mandate (Webster et al., 2011). Students often rely on them to facilitate social opportunities, personal care, and curriculum accommodations (Suter & Giangreco, 2009). This variability highlights a gap in the research literature: despite relying on TAs to solve an array of problems, there is little consensus on what their role should entail (Giangreco et al., 2010; Sharma & Salend, 2016). This study seeks to address this gap.

Research, however, indicates that an overreliance on TAs can lead to unintended consequences, particularly for students who receive a large amount of instructional time from their assigned TA (Blatchford et al., 2011; Webster et al., 2013). Teacher aides are typically less qualified than teachers and should not be expected to replace them in instructional tasks (Radford et al., 2011). Due to this, school staff should ensure that children have ample opportunities to engage with their peers to develop independence and important social skills (Giangreco, 2010a). To aid in this, TAs should be included in activities such as planning and other meetings (Page & Ferrett, 2018). This will enable them to support students more effectively (Bourke, 2009; Parsons et al., 2012).

The concerns over how TAs are used in schools are closely tied to their training, which is in turn linked to the constraints posed by the Australian training package system (DEEWR, 2012; Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee, 2002; Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, 2012). Competency-based training has challenges and criticisms within the academic literature, while remaining the dominant model in Australian VET policy and practice despite reform efforts (Department of Industry, 2014; Joyce, 2019; Smith, 2010; Wheelahan, 2016). Experienced practitioners often find training packages challenging to navigate even though CBT has underpinned the Australian vocational sector for over 30 years (Smith, 2023). CBT has been criticised for removing teacher agency, its narrow focus on discrete work tasks, and for de-emphasising broader knowledge and critical thinking (Wheelahan, 2016). It is also criticised for contributing to inequality by limiting access to knowledge and limiting worker mobility (Bathmaker, 2017). Several technical problems have also been noted, such as the difficulty of describing high-level, time-sensitive and complex tasks in a one-size-fits-all format (Smith et al., 2015).

References

1. Abbott, L., McConkey, R., & Dobbins, M. (2011). Key players in inclusion: are we meeting the professional needs of learning support assistants for pupils with complex needs? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(2), 215-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.563608
2. Andersen, S. C., Beuchert, L., Nielsen, H. S., & Thomsen, M. K. (2020). The Effect of Teacher's Aides in the Classroom: Evidence from a Randomized Trial. Journal of the European Economic Association, 18(1), 469–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvy048
3. Armour, D., Warren, E., & Miller, J. (2014, November 30-December 4). Confidence and Professional Learning: A Case Study of Indigenous Teacher Assistants Attending Professional Learning [Paper presentation]. Joint Australian Association for Research in Education and New Zealand Association for Research in Education Conference, Brisbane. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED596739
4. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020). Employee earnings August 2020. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-work-hours/employee-earnings/latest-release
5. Australian Qualifications Framework Council. (2013). Australian Qualifications Framework. https://www.aqf.edu.au/publication/aqf-second-edition
6. Australian Skills Quality Authority [ASQA]. (n.d.-a). Become an RTO. https://www.asqa.gov.au/rto/become-rto
7. Australian Skills Quality Authority [ASQA]. (n.d.-b). VAC 7.2. https://www.asqa.gov.au/standards-vac/7.2.
8. Australian Skills Quality Authority [ASQA]. (n.d.-d). Chapter 4 – Training and assessment. Retrieved May 29, 2021, from https://www.asqa.gov.au/standards/training-assessment
9. Avis, J. (2012). Global Reconstructions of Vocational Education and Training. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.646876
10. Bathmaker, A.-M. (2013). Defining ‘Knowledge’ in Vocational Education Qualifications in England: An Analysis of Key Stakeholders and Their Constructions of Knowledge, Purposes and Content. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 65(1), 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2012.755210
11. Bathmaker, A.-M. (2017). Post-Secondary Education and Training, New Vocational and Hybrid Pathways and Questions of Equity, Inequality and Social Mobility: Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 69(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2017.1304680
12. Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Koutsoubou, M., Martin, C., Russell, A., Webster, R., & Rubie-Davies, C. (2009a). Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools: The Impact of Support Staff in Schools (Results from Strand 2, Wave 2). University of London Institute of Education. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10001336/1/Blatchford2008Deployment.pdf
13. Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., & Webster, R. (2009b). The effect of support staff on pupil engagement and individual attention. British Educational Research Journal, 35(5), 661-686. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902878917
14. Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Martin, C., Russell, A., & Webster, R. (2011). The impact of support staff on pupils’ ‘positive approaches to learning’ and their academic progress. British Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 443-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411921003734645
15. Blatchford, P., Russell, A., Bassett, P., Brown, P., & Martin, C. (2007). The role and effects of teaching assistants in English primary schools (Years 4 to 6) 2000-2003. Results from the Class Size and Pupil-Adult Ratios (CSPAR) KS2 project. British Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920601104292
16. Boorman, A. (2001). ‘How Institutions Respond to Training Packages. Research to Reality’ in Putting VET Research to Work, 4th Australian VET Research Association Conference, Adelaide, Australia (28–30 March). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456252.pdf
17. Bosanquet, P., & Radford, J. (2019). Teaching assistant and pupil interactions: The role of repair and topic management in scaffolding learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 177-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12231
18. Bourke, P. E. (2009). Professional development and teacher aides in inclusive education contexts: where to from here? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(8), 817-827. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802128588
19. Bourke, P., & Carrington, S. (2007). Inclusive education reform: Implications for teacher aides. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1030011200025562
20. Bowles, D., Radford, J., & Bakopoulou, I. (2018). Scaffolding as a key role for teaching assistants: Perceptions of their pedagogical strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 499-512. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12197
21. Brock, M. E., & Anderson, E. J. (2021). Training paraprofessionals who work with students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What does the research say? Psychology in the Schools, 58(4), 702-722. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22386
22. Brock, M. E., Barczak, M. A., Anderson, E. J., & Bordner-Williams, N. M. (2021). Efficacy of Tiered Training on Paraeducator Implementation of Systematic Instructional Practices for Students With Severe Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 87(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402920947641
23. Brock, M. E., Barczak, M. A., & Dueker, S. A. (2020). Effects of Delayed Video-Based Feedback and Observing Feedback on Paraprofessional Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices for Students With Severe Disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 35(3), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357620902492
24. Brock, M. E., Cannella-Malone, H. I., Seaman, R. L., Andzik, N. R., Schaefer, J. M., Page, E. J., Barczak, M. A., & Dueker, S. A. (2017). Findings Across Practitioner Training Studies in Special Education: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis. Exceptional Children, 84(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917698008
25. Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2013). A Systematic Review of Paraprofessional-Delivered Educational Practices to Improve Outcomes for Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(4), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079691303800401
26. Brock, M. E., Seaman, R. L., & Downing, C. (2017). Promoting Learning for a Student with a Severe Disability Through Paraprofessional Training. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(4), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917729682
27. Broer, S. M., Doyle, M. B., & Giangreco, M. F. (2005). Perspectives of students with intellectual disabilities about their experiences with paraprofessional support. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 415+. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100401
28. Butt, R. (2016a). Employment procedures and practices challenge teacher assistants in mainstream schools. School Leadership & Management, 36(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1160211
29. Butt, R. (2016b). Teacher assistant support and deployment in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(9), 995-1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1145260
30. Butt, R. (2018). ‘Pulled in off the street’ and available: what qualifications and training do Teacher Assistants really need? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(3), 217-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1362478
31. Butt, R., & Lowe, K. (2012). Teaching assistants and class teachers: differing perceptions, role confusion and the benefits of skills-based training. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(2), 207-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003739678
32. Carter, M., Stephenson, J., & Webster, A. (2019). A survey of professional tasks and training needs of teaching assistants in New South Wales mainstream public schools. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 44(4), 447-456. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2018.1462638
33. Chopra, R., & French, N. (2004). Paraeducator relationships with parents of students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250040701
34. Clarke, E., & Visser, J. (2019). Is a good Teaching Assistant one who ‘knows their place’? Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 24(4), 308-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2019.1625207
35. Coates, M., Lamb, J., Bartlett, B., & Datta, P. (2017). Autism Spectrum Disorder Coursework for Teachers and Teacher-Aides: An Investigation of Courses Offered in Queensland, Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(11), 65-80. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n11.5
36. Cockroft, C., & Atkinson, C. (2015), Using the Wider Pedagogical Role model to establish learning support assistants' views about facilitators and barriers to effective practice. Support for Learning, 30: 88-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12081
37. Department of Education and Training. (2015). Final Report - 2015 Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005. https://www.education.gov.au/swd/resources/final-report-2015-review-disability-standards-education-2005
38. Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (2020). Final Report of the 2020 Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005. Retrieved https://www.education.gov.au/disability-standards-education-2005/resources/final-report-2020-review-disability-standards-education-2005
39. Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (2021). RTO Count. Retrieved May 5, 2021, from https://training.gov.au/Reports/RtoCount
40. Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (2022). All NRT Report. https://training.gov.au/Reports/AllNRTReport
41. Department of Industry. (2014). Review of training packages and accredited courses: Discussion paper. https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A65949
42. Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Cth). (2005, March 22). https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005L00767
43. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR]. (2012). 2010 Report on the Review of Disability Standards for Education 2005. Australian Government. https://www.education.gov.au/swd/resources/2010-report-review-disability-standards-education-2005
44. Egilson, S., & Traustadottir, R. (2009). Assistance to pupils with physical disabilities in regular schools: promoting inclusion or creating dependency? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(1), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250802596766
45. European Commission. (2016). Comparative analysis of the Australian Qualifications Framework and the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning: Joint technical report. https://doi.org/10.2767/899976
46. Fernandez, H., & Hynes, J. W. (2016). The efficacy of pullout programs in elementary schools: Making it work. The Journal of Multidisciplinary Graduate Research, 2(3), 32-47.
47. Franks, P., Hay, S., & Mavin, T. (2014). Can competency-based training fly? An overview of key issues for ab initio pilot training. International Journal of Training Research, 12(2), 132-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2014.11082036
48. Fried, L., Konza, D., & Mulcahy, P. (2012). Paraprofessionals implementing a research-based reading intervention. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 17(1), 35-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2012.674052
49. Gamble, J. (2014). ‘Approaching the Sacred’: Directionality in the relation between curriculum and knowledge structure. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2012.740802
50. Giangreco, M. F. (2010a). One-to-one paraprofessionals for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: Is conventional wisdom wrong? Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-48.1.1
51. Giangreco, M. F., Backus, L., Cichoskikelly, E., Sherman, P., & Mavropoulos, Y. (2011). Paraeducator training materials to facilitate inclusive education: Initial field-test data. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051103000104
52. Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 10-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576050200010201
53. Giangreco, M. F., Smith, C. S., & Pinckney, E. (2006). Addressing the paraprofessional dilemma in inclusive school: A program description. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(3), 215-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079690603100302
54. Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Doyle, M. B. (2010). Paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: A review of recent research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535356
55. Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Hurley, S. M. (2013). Revisiting personnel utilization in inclusion-oriented schools. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911419015
56. Giangreco, M. F., Yuan, S., McKenzie, B., Cameron, P., & Fialka, J. (2005). "Be careful what you wish for ...": Five reasons to be concerned about the assignment of individual paraprofessionals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(5), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990503700504
57. Gibson, D., Paatsch, L., & Toe, D. (2016). an analysis of the role of teachers’ aides in a state secondary school: Perceptions of teaching staff and teachers’ aides. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2015.11
58. Gibson, D., Paatsch, L., Toe, D., Wells, M., & Rawolle, S. (2015). Teachers' aides working in secondary school settings: Preparedness and professional learning. Journal of Education and Learning, 4(3), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v4n3p71
59. Gottfried, M. A. (2018). Teacher's aides in kindergarten: Effects on achievement for students with disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(5), 620-630. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1354174
60. Graham, D., & Tytler, D. (1993). A Lesson for Us All. Routledge
61. Greenway, C. W., & Edwards, A. R. (2020). Knowledge and attitudes towards attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a comparison of teachers and teaching assistants. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 25(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2019.1709875
62. Gretchen, C., & Bailey, L. E. (2020). examining the role of paraeducators when supporting children with complex communication needs: A multiple case study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(2), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419852778
63. Griffin, P., Gillis, S., & Calvitto, L. (2007). Standards-referenced assessment for vocational education and training in schools. Australian Journal of Education, 51(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410705100103
64. Griffiths, D., & Kelly, K. (2018). Beyond the broom cupboard: teaching assistants’ reflections upon the wider impact of their specialist dyslexia training. Reflective Practice, 19(3), 345-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1479685
65. Guthrie, H. (2009). Competence and competency-based training: What the literature says. NCVER. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/31894
66. Hager, P. (2004). The competence affair, or why vocational education and training urgently needs a new understanding of learning. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 56(3), 409-433. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820400200262
67. Harris, L. R., & Aprile, K. T. (2015). ‘I can sort of slot into many different roles’: examining teacher aide roles and their implications for practice. School Leadership & Management, 35(2), 140-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.992774
68. Harris, L.R., Davidson, C.R., & Aprile, K.T. (2015). Understanding teacher aides’ definitions of reading: implications for classroom practice. The Australian Educational Researcher, 42, 627–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0181-4
69. Harris, R. (2015). Quality in the Australian VET sector: what has been happening?. International Journal of Training Research, 13(1), 16-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2015.1051348
70. Hodge, S., & Harris, R. (2012). Discipline, governmentality and 25 years of competency-based training. Studies in the Education of Adults, 44(2), 155-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2012.11661630
71. Hodge, S. (2014). Interpreting competencies in Australian vocational education and training: practices and issues. NCVER. https://www.ncver.edu.au/research-and-statistics/publications/allpublications/ interpreting-competencies-in-australian-vocational-education-and-training-practices-and-issues
72. Hodge, S. (2016). Alienating Curriculum Work in Australian Vocational Education and Training. Critical Studies in Education, 57(2), 143-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2015.1009842
73. Hodge, S. (2017). Standardised curriculum and hermeneutics: the case of Australian vocational educators. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(1), 38-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1278042
74. Hoeckel, K., Field, S., Justesen, T., & Kim, M. (2008). Learning for Jobs. OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training (VET) – Australia. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264113596-en
75. Hurst, C., & Sparrow, L. (2012, July 2-6). professional learning for teaching assistants and its effect on classroom roles. Annual Meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Singapore. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED573274
76. Johnson, G. (2018). Sustainable support: a case of the role and deployment of teaching assistants implementing a unique early literacy intervention. Education 3-13, 46(7), 729-740. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2017.1339723
77. Jones, E., Larsen, R., Sudweeks, R. R., Young, K. R., & Gibb, G. S. (2018). Evaluating paraeducator-led reading interventions in elementary school: A multi-cutoff regression-discontinuity analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(4), 507-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2018.1481164
78. Joyce, D. (2019). Strengthening skills: Expert review of Australia’s vocational education and training system. Australia Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/domestic-policy/vet-review/strengthening-skills-expert-review-australias-vocational-education-and-training-system
79. Kalogeropoulos, P., Russo, J., Russo, T., & Sullivan, P. (2020). Effectively utilising teaching assistants to support mathematics learning: Some insights from the Getting Ready in Numeracy (G.R.I.N.) Program. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/8314
80. Kangan, M. (1974). TAFE in Australia: report on needs in technical and further education. Australian Government Publishing Service. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/17052
81. Kilpatrick, S., Falk, I., & Hamilton, V. (2002). Issues of quality learning: apprenticeships and traineeships in rural and remote Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research, 10(2), 1-26.
82. Knight, V. F., Huber, H. B., Kuntz, E. M., Carter, E. W., & Juarez, A. P. (2019). instructional practices, priorities, and preparedness for educating students with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357618755694
83. Köpsén, J. (2019). Demands-based and employer-driven curricula: Defining knowledge in higher vocational education and training. Studies in Continuing Education, 42(3), 349-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1661238
84. Lehane, T. (2016). “Cooling the mark out”: Experienced teaching assistants’ perceptions of their work in the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream secondary schools. Educational Review, 68(1), 4-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1058753
85. Leslie, A. (2018). Professional learning and development for teacher aides working to support students with challenging behaviour: What are the needs? What works? A review of the literature. Kairaranga, 19(2), 53-59. https://doi.org/10.54322/kairaranga.v19i2.306
86. Logan, A. (2006). The role of the special needs assistant supporting pupils with special educational needs in Irish mainstream primary schools. Support for Learning, 21(2), 92-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2006.00410.x
87. Lushen, K., Kim, O., & Reid, R. (2012). Paraeducator-Led Strategy Instruction for Struggling Writers. Exceptionality, 20(4), 250-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2012.724626
88. Mackie, I., Shipway, B., Dutton, R., & MacLennan, G. (2016). The AEW project: Professional development for teacher aides in remote indigenous communities. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 4(11). https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v4i11.1922
89. Maggin, D., Fallon, L., Sanetti, L., & Ruberto, L. (2012). Training paraeducators to implement a group contingency protocol: direct and collateral effects. Behavioral Disorders, 38(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291203800103
90. Mason, R. A., Schnitz, A. G., Gerow, S., An, Z. G., & Wills, H. P. (2019). Effects of teacher-implemented coaching to increase the accuracy of data collected by paraeducators. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28(2), 204–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-9310-2
91. Mason, R. A., Wills, H. P., Irvin, D., Jia, F., & Kamps, D. M. (2020). Ecobehavioral assessment of paraeducator behaviors that support engagement of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 86(4), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919893693
92. McKay, H. (2004). Locating the fault line: The intersection of internationalisation and competency-based training. International Education Journal, 4(4), 203–211.
93. Misbah, Z., Gulikers, J., Dharma, S., & Mulder, M. (2020). Evaluating competence-based vocational education in Indonesia. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 72(4), 488-515. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2019.1635634
94. Mitchell, J., Chappell, C., Bateman, A., & Roy, S. (2006). Quality is the key: Critical issues in teaching, learning and assessment in vocational education and training. National Centre for Vocational Education Research. https://ncver.edu.au/research-and-statistics/publications/all-publications/quality-is-the-key-critical-issues-in-teaching,-learning-and-assessment-in-vocational-education-and-training
95. Mulcahy, D. (2000). Turning the contradictions of competence: competency-based training and beyond. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 52(2), 259-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820000200120
96. National Centre for Vocational Education Research [NCVER]. (2020). Total VET students and courses 2019. https://www.ncver.edu.au/research-and-statistics/publications/all-publications/total-vet-students-and-courses-2019
97. National Centre for Vocational Education Research [NCVER]. (2026). DataBuilder. https://www.ncver.edu.au/research-and-statistics/data/databuilder
98. Newton, P. E. (2018). Research and Analysis: Overview -Grading Vocational & Technical Assessments. Ofqual
99. Nylund, M., Rosvall, P., & Ledman, K. (2017). The vocational-academic divide in neoliberal upper secondary curricula: The Swedish case. Journal of Education Policy 32(6), 788–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1318455
100. Office of the Student Identifiers Registrar. (2021, January). Nationally recognised training. https://www.usi.gov.au/about/nationally-recognised-training
101. Onsando, G., & Billett, S. (2009). African students from refugee backgrounds in Australian TAFE institutes: A case for transformative learning goals and processes. International Journal of Training Research, 7(2), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.5172/ijtr.7.2.80
102. Page, A., & Ferrett, R. (2018). Teacher aides' views and experiences on the inclusion of students with autism: Perspectives across Two Countries. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 17(2), 60-76. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1184049
103. Parsons, M. B., Rollyson, J. H., & Reid, D. H. (2012). Evidence-based staff training: a guide for practitioners. Behavior analysis in practice, 5(2), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391819
104. Punch, R. (n.d.). Literature review: The use and efficacy of integration aides with students with disabilities in general education settings. https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/department/psdlitreview_IntegrationAides.pdf
105. Radford, J., Blatchford, P., & Webster, R. (2011). Opening up and closing down: How teachers and TAs manage turn-taking, topic and repair in mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 21(5), 625-635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.01.004
106. Reaburn, R. (2015). The practice of teacher aides in Tasmanian primary mathematics classrooms. Annual Meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Sunshine Coast, Queensland. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED572523
107. Richards, J. (2014). An old chestnut revisited: Teachers' opinions and attitudes toward grading within a competency based training framework. International Journal of Training Research, 12(3), 182-191. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=competency-based+training&ff1=locAustralia&ff2=pubJournal+Articles &ff3=dtySince_2012&id=EJ1089679
108. Robertson, I. (2008). VET teachers’ knowledge and expertise. International Journal of Training Research 6(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.5172/ijtr.6.1.1
109. Robinson, P. (1997). The myth of parity of esteem: Earnings and qualifications. Centre For Economic Performance, London School of Economics.
110. Robinson, S., Truscott, J. (2013). Belonging and connection of school students with disability: Centre for Children and Young People, Southern Cross University.
111. Roche, A., Kostadinov, V., & White, M. (2014). Have VET reforms resulted in improvements in quality? Illustrations from the alcohol and other drugs sector. International Journal of Training Research, 12(3), 170-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2014.11082039
112. Rubie-Davies, M., Blatchford, P., Webster, R., Koutsoubou, M., & Bassett, P. (2010). Enhancing learning? A comparison of teacher and teaching assistant interactions with pupils. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(4), 429-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.512800
113. Rutherford, G. (2012). In, out or somewhere in between? Disabled students' and teacher aides' experiences of school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(8), 757-774. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.509818
114. Ryan, M., Gwinner, K., Mallan, K., & Livock, C. (2017). Preparing work-ready nurses: reflexive learning for diverse students in the Australian vocational education and training sector. Studies in Continuing Education, 39(3), 268-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2017.1279136
115. Salter, J. M., Swanwick, R. A., & Pearson, S. E. (2017). Collaborative working practices in inclusive mainstream deaf education settings: teaching assistant perspectives. Deafness & Education International, 19(1), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14643154.2017.1301693
116. Santoro, N. (2001). Teacher or trainer? The shaping of teacher identity in adult education contexts. AARE Annual Conference 2001. https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2001/san01521.pdf
117. Schmidt, T. (2020). Reformed and reduced: Vocational education and structural oppression. Power and Education, 12(3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757743820967027
118. Schofield, K., & McDonald, R. (2004). Moving on: Report of the high Level review of training packages. Australian National Training Authority. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/87259
119. See, B. H., Morris, R., Gorard, S., & Siddiqui, N. (2019). Evaluation of the impact of Maths Counts delivered by teaching assistants on primary school pupils’ attainment in maths. Educational Research and Evaluation, 25(3-4), 203-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2019.1686031
120. Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee. (2002). Education of students with disabilities. Australian Government.
121. Sharma, U., & Salend, S. J. (2016). Teaching Assistants in Inclusive Classrooms: A Systematic Analysis of the International Research. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(8). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n8.7
122. Skiba, R. (2020). Graded assessment models for competency-based training in vocational education and training. World Journal of Education, 10(3) 106-112. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v10n3p106
123. Slater, E., & Gazeley, L. (2019). Deploying teaching assistants to support learning: from models to typologies. Educational Review, 71(5), 547-563. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1457011
124. Smith, E. & Keating, J. (1997). Making sense of training reform and competency based training. Social Science Press.
125. Smith, E., Pickersgill, R., Smith, A., & Rushbrook, P. (2005). Enterprises' Commitment to Nationally Recognised Training for Existing Workers. NCVER. https://www.ncver.edu.au/research-and-statistics/publications/all-publications/enterprises-commitment-to-nationally-recognised-training-for-existing-workers
126. Smith, E. (2010). A review of twenty years of competency‐based training in the Australian vocational education and training system. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(1), 54-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2009.00340.x
127. Smith, E., Smith, A., Hampson, I., & Junor, A. (2015). How closely do Australian training package qualifications reflect the skills in occupations? An empirical investigation of seven qualifications. International Journal of Training Research, 13(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2015.1051351
128. Sobeck, E. E., Robertson, R., & Smith, J. (2020). The effects of didactic instruction and performance feedback on paraeducator implementation of behavior support strategies in inclusive settings. The Journal of Special Education, 53(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919858989
129. Southren, M. (2015). Working with a competency-based training package: A contextual investigation from the perspective of a group of TAFE teachers. International Journal of Training Research, 13(3), 194-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2015.1077722
130. Stewart, E. M. (2019). Reducing ambiguity: Tools to define and communicate paraprofessional roles and responsibilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(1), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218782431
131. Suter, J. C., & Giangreco, M. F. (2009). Numbers that count: Exploring special education and paraprofessional service delivery in inclusion-oriented schools. The Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907313353
132. Towson, A., Green, B., & Abarca, L. (2020). Reading beyond the book: educating paraprofessionals to implement dialogic reading for preschool children with language impairments. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 40(2), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121418821167
133. Tran, L. T., & Nyland, C. (2013). Competency-based training, global skills mobility and the teaching of international students in vocational education and training. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 65(1), 143-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2012.755215
134. Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. (2012). Held back: The experiences of students with disabilities in Victorian schools. State of Victoria. https://www.humanrights.vic.gov.au/static/a6db183a9b13ac2dd426637e362d55eb/Resource-Held_back_report-2012.pdf
135. Webster, R., Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Martin, C., & Russell, A. (2011). The wider pedagogical role of teaching assistants. School Leadership & Management, 31(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.540562
136. Webster, R., Blatchford, P., & Russell, A. (2013). Challenging and changing how schools use teaching assistants: findings from the Effective Deployment of Teaching Assistants project. School Leadership & Management, 33(1), 78-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.724672
137. Wesselink, R., Biemans, H., Gulikers, J., & Mulder, M. (2017). Models and principles for designing competence-based curricula, teaching, learning and assessment. In M. Mulder (Ed.), Competence-Based Vocational and Professional Education: Bridging the Worlds of Work and Education (pp533–553). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_25
138. West, J. (2004). Dreams & Nightmares: The NVQ Experience. Centre for Labour Market Studies, University of Leicester.
139. Western Australian Department of Training and Workforce Development. (2021, May). Teachers Aide. https://www.jobsandskills.wa.gov.au/jobs-and-careers/occupations/teachers-aide
140. Wheelahan, L. (2015). The future of Australian vocational education qualifications depends on a new social settlement. Journal of Education and Work, 28(2), 126-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2014.1001333
141. Wheelahan, L. (2016). Patching bits won't fix vocational education in Australia – a new model is needed. International Journal of Training Research, 14(3), 180-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2016.1254368
142. Wheelahan, L. (2019). Knowledge competence, and vocational education. In D. Guile and L. Unwin (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Vocational Education and Training. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119098713.ch6
143. Whitburn, B. (2013). The dissection of paraprofessional support in inclusive education: ‘You're in mainstream with a chaperone’. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 147-161 . https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2013.12
144. Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.764505