Final COS shipping paper ADB 1 0.1 rev 10 7.14

COMMUNITY OF SHIPPING – COS; ASIA & PACIFIC REGION

1 | P a g e r t / 2 6 . 9 . 1 3 ; V e r s F i n a l © G l o b a l M E T r e v 1 0 . 7 . 1 4

A Discussion Paper supporting the Asian Development Bank – ADB; study on

the Human Resource Development for the Community of Shipping in the Asia

Pacific to establish:

1. A Maritime Industry Skills Council - MISC and

2. A Maritime Education & Training Standards Authority - METSA

Prepared by: GlobalMET Ltd, The international association for Maritime Education and

Training Institutes

Work Group Members

Capt. Richard Teo Director GlobalMET & Principal PNG Maritime

College

Capt. Rod Short Executive Secretary GlobalMET

Date: 1 July 2013

Copyright and intellectual property © GlobalMET 2013



TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT PAGE

Introduction 2

Current Situation 4

Supply of Seafarers 5

Crew and Seafarer qualifications 5 to 6

Creating a Culture of Excellence 6

Community of Shipping -Guiding Coalition 7

Maritime Education and Training 8

General Delivery of Courses 8

Maritime Industry Skills Council and MET Standards Authority 9/11

Recommendations 11

Conclusion 12

References 14

Annexes 15 to 27

List of Annexes

1. Andragogy and Pedagogy 15

2. Teaching & Learning Resources: Andragogy – Adult 16

3. Competency based training model 18

4. Principles of Assessment 20

5. Australian Industries Skills Councils 21

6. Australian Skills Quality Authority 23

7. Blooms taxonomy 25

8. Learning Style inventory 27



INTRODUCTION

The ADB commissioned a study (Fisher Report 2013) on maritime human resource development

(HRD) in the Asia Pacific region recently. A workshop was carried out on 9 May 2013 in Manila to

present the draft report hosted by the ADB. The final report based on the findings at the Manila

workshop is attached for reference.

This paper is in support of the Fisher report. It is also important to relate the findings to the

International Skills Development forum initiatives by the ADB in 2011/12. See link below.

Skills Forum link: http://www.adb.org/news/events/skills-inclusive-and-sustainable-growth-developing-

asia-pacific-2012

This pre-forum workshop was held on 10 December 2012. The objectives derived at the forum were

Facilitated harnessing new and innovative approaches to developing the most effective strategies and policies which will offer options to DMC representatives to consider practical solutions for skills development in a timely way.

Supported better understanding of the implications and possible solutions to the growth of labor markets in Asia and the demand for skilled workers at middle and higher levels.

Helped develop a multi stakeholder approach to addressing the main challenges in skills development involving government, the private sector, research and training institutions and NGOs.

Took forward policy options and measures for strengthening skills development to serve the needs of inclusive growth, productivity gains, knowledge industries and the greening of economies

In support of the ADB initiatives for HRD - skills development, this paper captures the state of

maritime crew competences and standards in the Community of Shipping, COS in the Asia –Pacific

region. The OECD countries are not included in this study but certain references are made.

Generally, the workforce’s lagging competences and skills currencies on board ships are an ongoing

concern. These are reported in Fisher’s report with suggested initiatives. This paper suggests that

with these in mind, regional strategic workforce planning need to be instituted. This planning will

ensure the development, production and sustainability of quality of workmanship, skills and

services. It will not only help alleviate the issues and problems but also help provide a homogenous

and uniform output in the universal standards (STCW -HTW)) ensuring professional quality outcomes

for the future of seafaring knowledge, skills, and competences. This will support the UN-IMO

strategies in the Human Element Training & Certification - Standards of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping (STCW, Human Element Training & Certification – HTW) convention and code 1978 as

amended.

The global seafaring workforce, (based on manning scales) must perform to very high expectations

(multi skilled with quality workmanship), working on-board all types of ships/vessels operating

worldwide trades. The ships/vessels operate all year round in all-weather with only short breaks for

periodic repairs, maintenance and retrofits. The production and supply of well-trained qualified

personnel do not have a uniform platform and lack Community of Practice (COP). Supply and

demand is highly competitive. The supplying countries in the Asia Pacific region are caught in the

http://www.adb.org/news/events/skills-inclusive-and-sustainable-growth-developing-asia-pacific-2012

http://www.adb.org/news/events/skills-inclusive-and-sustainable-growth-developing-asia-pacific-2012



velocity and economics of the business, to produce and sustain the world’s agreed minimum

standard and quality of products (qualified seafarers) to the STCW 1978 convention as amended.

However, seafarers are expected to perform to higher standards by industry representatives (COS

operators) and Maritime Safety Authorities, e.g. EMSA’s current findings on certain training

institutes in the Philippines. These higher standards are not defined and hence suffer rhetorically at

this time.

There is an emphatic need for the supply of well-managed, well-trained, well-equipped, highly

productive, and multi skilled workforce that embrace best practice principles. The Asia Pacific

countries are major suppliers of skilled seafarers to global shipping. Other suppliers are from Europe

(OECD), the Caribbean, Africa and South America, to name a few. Generally the expectations of

suppliers, operators are inconsistent with the minimum standards (STCW) in the workplace.

Regulatory bodies act independently according to their own National requirements and where

applicable the STCW. Certain association of countries have agreements recognising each other but

would also appear to have some inconsistencies as each pursue their own public policies and

national strategies.

The supply of quality seafarers becomes increasingly urgent as the world shipping industry goes

through a slowing period at this time. The horizon is not looking any rosier for seafarer training and

skills development as regulatory requirements from IMO has shipowners worrying about finance to

fit out “greener ships” in the fight against pollution, for example, emissions controls and water

ballast pollution issues. An estimated $1.7M for each vessel in a world fleet of about 60,000 ships

could result in huge sums to provision for in a freight cutting environment (source -Economist March

April 2013). Ultimately, these rising costs of operations will cut into training dollars.

The current scope of training seafarers is limited to seafaring activities. There has always been a

need to provide for parallel high - skilled occupations in shore establishments. These issues are

exacerbated by an aging population of skilled seafarers at sea and ashore due to a distinct lack of

career pathways and workforce planning. The degradation of seafaring skills also transfers across to

the soft skills required in shore positions particularly for ships officers. Let us examine the critical

situation.

CURRENT SITUATION

The Key players (non-exhaustive) in the Asia-Pacific Community of Shipping - COS are,

Shipowners and operators

Non Ship owning Operators, charterers and brokers

Shipping agencies, agents and representatives

Ship-Managers and management companies

Ports authorities, managers and services

Freight & Logistics operators inclusive supply chain and support services

Maritime Education & Training Institutes/organisations – non ship operators

Maritime Education & Training Institutes – in house organisations of Ship-management and

Shipowner organisations

Flag State Administrations (FSA) encompassing Maritime Safety Authorities -MSA, (National

and IMO-UN member countries)



State and National Education Authorities/Skills Quality & Standards Bodies for Technical &

Vocational Education (TVET) and Higher Education (HED)

Industry Skills Councils that engage with employers, government authorities and educational

institutes(existing examples in Australia-NZ)

Labor Councils, State and National Labour Authorities, Industrial Relations Associations and

Unions that provide advocacy and other services to seafarers and educational organisations

Other stakeholders including industry peak bodies that may engage in seafarer-maritime

education, employment, training and work force planning, e.g. Chamber of Shipping,

Chamber of Commerce, ITF, professional bodies and so on.

Supply of Seafarers

The supply of seafarers has evolved from self-sufficiency by various regional countries to a global

market place over approximately the last four decades. The principal global suppliers in the Asia

Pacific, not in any order of standards, quantum or priority are,

Burma (Myanmar)

Bangladesh

China (including Hong Kong)

India

Indonesia

South Korea

Philippines

Malaysia

Pakistan

Papua New Guinea and Pacific Islands nations group

Singapore

Sri Lanka

Thailand

Vietnam

Crew and Seafarer Qualifications

Despite an international standard for seafarer training and certification, STCW 1978 as amended

(Manila amendments 2010 being latest), promulgated by the IMO, crew and seafarer qualifications

and levels of competence are serious issues. These matters are seriously debated and blogged in

professional websites like LinkedIn where several professional bodies reside, e.g. Nautical Institute,

Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transport, Australian institute of Company Directors, Maritime

CEOs and so on. The discourse is very informative and a good source of evidence of a seriously failing

regional MET and Regulatory systems in certain countries. Much discourse also appears in social

media e.g. Facebook and Twitter. The social discourse also generally lends support to the notion of

MET and Regulatory system degradation in several countries. This degradation impacts upon the

quality of seafarers.

Competence, highly desired skills and best practice attitudes from seafarers appear to be generally

lacking for various reasons. One of which that continues to be of consternation and grave concern is



the quality of products from MET institutions, almost globally. At the same time these shortfalls

transfer to the leadership roles of afloat staff, and eventual shore management postings. These are

reported by the whole-of-industry commercial organisations (shipping, transport and logistics), ports

and harbours, and governmental services such as Marine Safety Authorities -MSAs, serving Masters

and Chief Engineers and so on. Some of the lack of educational parallels or equivalence is due to lack

of engagement and participation by Educational Authorities in most of the lesser developed

countries because of the specialty of the profession.

There is an obvious need for urgent reforms with suitable interventions to bring about

improvements swiftly. Generally the overtone is that an overhaul and retrofit is urgently

required.

“We have reached a turning point in the industry.”

What intervention then, will sustain the whole-of-industry’s progress, economically and effectively

with best practice, quality and competent-skilful seafarers?

The core of seafarer skills and workmanship is birthed in the education and training of each

and every seafarer.

Let us begin here.

Creating a culture of excellence

There is an underlying dissatisfaction from the COS with the quality and standards of seafarers

produced by various supplying countries in the Asia Pacific region (see list in Supply of Seafarers, p 5-

6). However there is only rhetoric and no detailed description of what is the desired optimum except

generally expressing the need for better quality and standards of seafarers, ratings and officers.

Other than countries like Australia, New Zealand and one or two other countries in the region, there

is not a published criterion for essential “Employability Skills” for each grade or level of seafarer. The

Australian Maritime Industry Training Packages (MAR 13) includes employability skills for each

qualification. The lesser developed Asia Pacific supplier countries have yet to have such a

comprehensive training document. Without laid down employability skills, the determination of the

skill/quality gaps is very difficult. Training institutions, stakeholders and MSAs need to work together

and produce such a document for the COS or at least adopt an equivalent policy.

There is therefore a great need to assess the current educational and training methodologies

practised in the various supplier countries and stimulate MET. The stimulation should produce the

intervention policy or policies with accompanying strategies for the participating countries. The ADB

review (Fisher Report) has provided substantial data and Intel to formulate policies and strategies

for improvements. Further assessment of the quality of delivery of training and education to the

required standards (STCW/HTW and beyond) to all seafarers is imperative. This paper hopes to

stimulate certain strategies to not only improve quality of education and training but also the

necessary framework from which such strategies may springboard from, concurrently creating and

inculcating a culture of excellence in the supply of seafarers industry.



COMMUNITY OF SHIPPING – COS AS A GUIDING COALITION

The COS is an initiative that intends to provide the tool with which the “subscribing” countries and

stakeholders in the Asia Pacific can lead, manage and facilitate the sustainability of standards and

quality in the education and training of seafarers.

This Guiding Coalition (Kotter 2012) is an agile strategic operating system body that is quick to

initiate improvements. It will work as a fluid network like structure to continually formulate and

implement strategy. It will alleviate each member country’s traditionally rigid and cumbersome

operating system (maritime and higher education regulators). Maritime education and training will

then function better in the fluid network. The capability and capacity is further presented in this

paper

Traditional Administration

Community of Shipping – Guiding Coalition

Figure 1: Guiding Coalition



Maritime Education & Training - MET

Traditional methodology and beliefs in pedagogy (the teaching of children in general) are practised

in almost all institutions although almost every candidate is an adult or young adult. Senior students

returning for upgrading are in fact mature and experienced adults. So is the learner in MET a child or

an adult?

Pedagogue is defined as “a school teacher – one who instructs in a pedantic manner or dogmatic

manner” (Pedagogue 2007). These model teachers assume responsibility for making decisions about

what is learned and how and when something will be learned. It is teacher-directed or teacher-

centred. Generally it is not outcome based (knowledge and skills to form competences) but directed

learning objectives (content & knowledge only) delivered over lengthy lectures and memory tests.

Andragogy (Raelin 2006) on the other hand, is

The art and science of helping adults learn. There are five assertions,

1. Letting learners know why something is important to learn

2. Showing learners how to direct themselves through information

3. Relating the topic to the learner’s experiences

4. People will not learn until they are ready and motivated to learn

5. This helps overcome inhibitions, behaviours and beliefs about learning

(Conner 1997-2004 p12)

Andragogical skills then of any teacher, trainer lecturer becomes the key to ensuring the learners

learn how to learn and be the owners of their success. It is generally outcome based.

The STCW Code (amended 1995) specified Competency Based Training & Assessments. The

Secretary-General expressed the requirement to practise Competency Based Training at the opening

of the Chennai Maritime University in 2010. This is outcome based delivery to the particular

competence or standard agreed and published in the STCW.

General Delivery of Courses

The delivery of courses (pedagogy) across boundaries is generally time based and consists of

pedantic lectures and instructions in academic studies for both Nautical and Marine Engineering.

These are spread over academic time tables rather than by experiential learning and focussed -

competency based training incorporating “action learning principles” (Raelin 2006).

The transfer of knowledge is almost entirely didactic and a great proportion of rote with a lecturer-

centred or teacher-centred approach. Learners are expected to subsume the required knowledge

(learning objectives) from the person (teacher) standing in front of the class-room and to regurgitate

the contents in timely fashion for “Big Examinations “and “Orals”.

Little or none praxis (Raelin 2006) is assessed in continuous mode of learning and doing mapped to

the standard or competence and hence not “outcome based”. Yet this methodology is expected to

replace the “work-based learning” on board ships when candidates fulfil their “approved sea time”.

The majority of work-books or record of practical experience on board ships are unsupervised and

hence in many cases defeats the whole purpose of “sea time”.



The 1995 amendments to STCW instituted Competency Based Education & Training but the majority

of training providers did not take on this method of delivery of programmes. Worse still the learning

and praxis did not continue whilst candidates served out their sea-time, thus omitting the best

learning and doing period whilst at the work place. This is the philosophy of sea-time.

The reasons are due to the following:

Many untrained and unqualified lecturers, teachers and instructors in shore training

establishments, particularly in Competency Based Education, Training & Assessments, i.e.

CBETA.

MSA’s and authorised examiners (by gazettal) have similar issues to the above.

No published or accepted standard for teaching staff in most countries. ( Noted: Australia,

New Zealand and Singapore have CBETA and Adult Education teacher-training, e.g.

equivalent to TAE 10 -up to Advanced Dip, BVocEd, BTeach up to Doctoral degrees etc.),

processes in place. Most Education faculties in Australian Universities offer postgraduate

studies in vocational education where CBETA is a major source of study for all teachers in

Vocational Education, skills development and so on.

The majority of maritime teaching staff and examiners emulate the way they were brought

up – some good (e.g. British model), mostly poor (unaligned models)

Ignorance of the STCW code and the minimum standards for each qualification and how

teaching and assessment per the code standards is practised. It is not uncommon when you

question any Maritime Educator/Examiner, you will find general ignorance on how to

unpack the STCW code. Some even disregard the requirement and instead give you chapter

and verse on IMO model courses, most of which were not outcome based. Revised model

courses I believe have taken on board CBETA.

Resistance to change and improvements across cultures, norms and behaviours

There exists a clear misunderstanding of the meaning and practice of Competency Based Education,

Training & Assessments; hence there were little or no efforts by many jurisdictions and institutions

to fall in line with IMO’s requirements. Immediately this connotes to not meeting even the minimum

standards let alone the need for higher standards.

The shift in paradigm towards Competency Based Education & Training was instituted in the 1995

amendments to STCW. Only a handful of institutions embraced this methodology and by and large

the others struggled with the implementation. There are several reasons for this. Some are due to,

No formal teacher training in the maritime industry (MET) resulting in large learning gaps

within MET industry. IMO model curse 6.09 is out of date and not CBETA or outcome based

aligned to competences or standards.

Lack of Andragogical & Pedagogical expertise in a very complex industry that demands

exacting knowledge and skills to be transferred on-site (sea-time or work based learning)

and off-site (on-campus)

Little or no knowledge and practice in Competency based delivery/CBETA of training

programmes in both MET institutions and jurisdictions(examiners)

Disregard for CBETA and maintain status quo with didactic approach (see Annex 1)

Notes: Andragogy vs Pedagogy and Competency Based Training & Assessments (see Annexes)



Maritime Industry Skills Council (MISC) and MET Standards Authority (METSA)

(See annex 5 and 6 for the Australian Model)

The Fisher report (p55) presents an overview of a partnership structure and Technical Assistance

(TA). The right business plan and arrangement for seafarer HRD will transform the current

degradation to the successful, highly skilled and competent seafarer that the COS in the Asia Pacific

advocates.

There is currently no group (COS) official body that coordinates the Maritime Industry Training

Needs. Much is dependent on each maritime nation’s jurisdiction to direct and control MET. Not

being trained or qualified educationists this does not work. Furthermore, there is insufficient

capacity or capability to fully oversight, maintain and sustain any form of standardised delivery of

training. The COS should take this matter in hand and administer the standards.

Most countries do not have fully coordinated working relationships between Maritime jurisdictions

and the Educational authority. This opens up many issues on educational standards of institutions,

teaching staff and examiners/assessors. One area of grave concern is the lack of coordination and

knowledge between National Qualifications in Technical & Vocational Education and STCW Marine

qualifications. In most countries, the Educational authority regulates the institutions. However as

there is almost a complete lack of knowledge of maritime/naval science in most educational

authorities, the divide widens and the oversighting of standards fails.

MSA and IMO auditors are invariably non educationalist and their knowledge of training &

assessments is limited to how they grew up in the industry. Some IACS members offer audit and

certification services but by and large are in the same proverbial boat as MSA and IMO auditors.

Very few have gone ahead with improving their knowledge and skills in this area. This believably

would have contributed to the degradation of standards and competences of seafarers.

There is an obvious need to homogenise maritime education. The industry training and assessments

methodologies must meet similar standards. There is a need to collaborate in supervising and

regulating institutions.

This is a difficult role that requires a small group led by professionals with both industry and

educational skills from the Community of Shipping. This body can follow-up continuously with

industry’s needs and demands to coordinate the MET requirements with the members’ state

educational/maritime authorities. The “Overseeing Advisory Board” with the “Executive Agency”

(Fisher Report) should then promulgate and implement the Maritime Industry Skills Council and

consequently the MET Standards Authority.

Maritime Industry Skills Council -MISC

The MISC will work with whole of industry and determine standard competencies to be adopted and

published as Training Packages/Standard outcomes for the COS to use. This will directly satisfy

STCW with electives for additional standards and practice to satisfy shipping operators and or whole-

of- industry. The STCW is too brief in its descriptors and performance criteria resulting in differing

interpretations. It will further function as follows:



1. Work with IMO, Government and jurisdictions both educational and MSAs in collaboration

for the maintenance and sustainability of the Training packages /Standard outcomes

2. Provide consultation and advisory duties to Institutions and maritime authorities.

COMMUNITY OF SHIPPING (Fig 2)

3. Develop educational policy and strategies including teaching standards and training of

teachers for the COS to adopt

4. Accredit and endorse training programmes and courses for the COS

5. Work with COS and Authorities to accredit MET teachers with suitable professional training

and qualifications

6. Provide training and certification for MET auditors in accordance with IMO requirements

and MSAs.

7. Provide the platform for the overall improvement of the Industry through better trained and

qualified maritime personnel for sea going and shore based appointments in a seamless

manner.

MET Standards Authority - METSA

A formal funded organisation or MET Standards Authority- METSA, to work with the Maritime

Industry Skills Council -MISC of the Nations in the Asia Pacific for the maintenance of Standards for

all MET institutions, will regulate all institutions under one single jurisdiction. This METSA will

provide the mechanism for registration of Institutions, maintaining standards and sustainability of

the supply of highly trained, quality skilled seafarers.

This organisation is envisaged to be a formal entity funded through the COS and the Regional

Aid/Donor bodies, like the ADB

1. Nominate auditors to satisfy both IMO White List and Educational authorities of the COS.

2. Report to COS and Fund Managers regularly

Maritime Industry Skills Council & MET

Standards Authoruty

Vessel operators

Ship Managers, Agencies,

Charterers etc

MSA

Education Authorities

Associations, Unions, other stakeholders

etc

MET instituions



RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of the ADB Fisher report and the focus of this article, recommendations are:

1. The Fisher study is extended to develop the Intervention Policy and Plan and Business model

to alleviate the issues that currently cause detriment to maritime knowledge, skills and

competences.

2. Promulgation and organisational development of a Maritime Industry Skills Council and

Standards Authority to implement the Intervention and continual service to the industry &

COS. This same body to formulate and promulgate the Maritime Quality Training Framework

that will enforce the STCW/HTW and excellence that the COS is demanding.

3. Provision for an interim training programme for all MET institutions in the Asia Pacific for the

practice of competency based training & assessment in order to immediately update and

upgrade all MET teaching staff. The interim programme to be managed and sustained by the

Maritime Industry Skills Council.

These recommendations support the Technical Assistance (TA) proposed by the Fisher report. The

development of the ADB TA could adopt the formation of the MET Industry Skills Council and the

Standard’s Authority, METSA. The Skills Council and the Standards Authority would operate together

but having independent responsibilities, accountability and scope of work. These two organisations

would be interdependent to each other, forming a formidable force that will oversight, monitor and

sustain the quality and standards of the Human Resources and their elements. This will sustain the

quality and standards through strategic planning of their development, whilst maintaining close and

intimate relationships with industry activities in the COS.

CONCLUSION

Maritime qualifications and the successful competent candidate is dependent on how well each

person has learned and acted whilst at work and in the training institution. The quality and practice

of facilitating and imparting the necessary competences/skills with the required underpinning

knowledge is an exacting function and task that must be effectively transferred to the many MET

practitioners who have not updated or upgraded themselves to deliver competency based training

programmes. They must also develop the necessary skills to provide for the right learning

environment and strategies to ensure learning happens continuously to the aligned skills and

competences and with the knowledge concurrently, not later or after assessments and or

examinations. Each teacher/trainer must manage the learning process effectively and at the same

time provide for each candidate to responsibly manage their own learning. It is a transformational

and mimetic event and certainly not an all didactic approach favoured by many traditionalists.

For all this to happen, proper and correct MET must be implemented through universally agreed and

defined competences and their performance criteria. These are the outcomes for the relevant

standard or qualification. In this regard, standard training packages need to be designed and

promulgated so that all learning and the management of learning will have standardised approaches

across the Asia Pacific region. These training packages provide for clear descriptors that will contain

the minimum per the STCW plus the additional value added competences that vessel operators

complain about the lack of. These packages also provide for clear instructions for assessment and

the critical evidence required providing as proof of having attained the standards.



There is no established risk management or risk mitigation in place across the Asia Pacific for

providers of MET. Some institutions have modified ISO 9000 series certification that does not certify

established or agreed standards in education and MET. There is also no relevant collective body or

authority that oversights holistically the MET jurisdictions and institutions. Little or no verification

and validation of practice is available during any training or assessment. Moderation is a quite

misunderstood practice and most do not relate to the standards in the STCW but for adjustments to

the grades rather than process. It is pertinent to note that competence is not graded. You have

either attained competency or not. The assessment process is thus very rigorous and critical

evidence must be well defined to the exact accepted published standard practice of knowledge and

skills, not to some one’s personal judgement or a pass mark of 50% or 90%, but to 100% with an

agreed tolerance, and validated by at least one other authorised assessor/examiner.

To ensure consistency of standards and practice, it is strongly recommended that a Maritime

Industry Skills Council and Standards Body be established within the COS

Once the framework is established, the COS, with these organisations enforces the Culture of

Excellence, thus maintaining standards and quality by,

Committing to high standards and continuous improvement

Managing priorities and reducing stress

Communicating and collaborating with efficiency & effectiveness developing positive &

productive relationships demonstrating emotional intelligence, integrity and responsibility

Exhibiting creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving

Leading and serving others living a balanced, purposeful, safe and healthy life

This culture not only provides for human resource development and standards for training and

certification but also have a follow-on effect on vessel, shipping operations and business. The

outcome from the innovations will result in favourable Social Returns on Investment (SROI). The

SROI is a vital measurement in every corporation’s analysis of performance and profitability.

Finally it must be noted that the innovations discussed could be a breakthrough intervention that

will provide for a stable platform for quality and competence with the desired knowledge and skills

for the future of maritime transport, logistics and shipping.

END

NOTE:

Funding is not discussed in this paper. It is obvious that for the recommendations to be implemented, a certain

amount of establishment and recurrent funds have to be budgeted. The Fisher Report (p 55) made very

important mention of funding in the Overview.

It is also imperative to have a Business & Strategic Management Plan in the long term for sustainability. The

Terms of Reference for the organisation that may be required to ensure fruition of the desired outcomes will be

dependent on the scope and range of the organisation.



REFERENCES

Boeve, J. (2012). An overview of Malcolm Knowles Concept of Andragogy, DE Oracle@UMUC Burke, J. (1989). Competency based Education and Training. Routledge Guidelines for assessing competence in VET (4th edn) 2012, Dept. of Training & Workforce Development. Western Australia

Hemstra, R. (1988) Translating personal values and philosophy into practical action, In R. G. Brockett (Ed.), Ethical issues in adult education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education. Knowles, M. S. & Associates. (1984). Andragogy in action. Applying modern principles of adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Kotter, J. P. (2012). The Big Idea, Accelerate, HBR Reprint 11.12 pp. 45-58 Meehan P, Rigby D, Rogers P.(2013) Creating & Sustaining a Winning Culture, HBR Fall 2013 pp16-20 Mendenhall, R. (2012), What is Competency-Based Education? www.huffingpost.com/dr-robert-mendenhall/competency-based-learning-_b_1855374.html Millar & Hall. (2012) Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Performance Measurement. In Public Management Review, DOI:10.1080/14719037.2012.698857, p.4 Pew.S (2007) Andragogy and Pedagogy as Foundational Theory for student motivation in Higher Education, Vol 2 Student Motivation

Raelin J A (2006), The Role of Facilitation in Praxis, Center for Work and Learning, Northeastern University, Boston, appearing in Organisational Dynamics, V35, 1/2006

SC 100966 REG: Human Resource Development in the Maritime Sector in Asia and the Pacific. Final Report 14 June 2013. Fisher Assoc. Ltd, Lymington, UK (Fisher Report)

ANNEXES – please see next page

http://www.huffingpost.com/dr-robert-mendenhall/competency-based-learning-_b_1855374.html

http://www.huffingpost.com/dr-robert-mendenhall/competency-based-learning-_b_1855374.html



ANNEX 1

ANDRAGOGY and PEDAGOGY

"Pedagogy" literally means "leading children."

"Andragogy" was a term coined to refer to the art/science of teaching adults.

Malcolm Knowles and others theorized that methods used to teach children are often not the most effective means of teaching adults. In The Modern Practice of Adult Education (1970), Knowles defined andragogy as "an emerging technology for adult learning." His four andragogical assumptions are that adults:

1) move from dependency to self-directedness; 2) draw upon their reservoir of experience for learning; 3) are ready to learn when they assume new roles; and 4) want to solve problems and apply new knowledge immediately.

Initially defined as, "the art and science of helping adults learn," andragogy has come to be understood as an alternative to pedagogy; a learner-focused approach for people of all ages.

Pedagogy can also be thought of as "teacher-centred or directive" learning, and andragogy as "learner-centred/directed."

Adults over 21 are the fastest-growing segment of today’s "undergraduates," especially in distance and online education. Consideration of andragogical principles in designing courses has become more vital and valid.

Andragogy asserts that adults learn best when:

They feel the need to learn They have some input into what, why, and how they learn The learning’s content and processes have a meaningful

relationship to the learner’s past experience. Their experience is used as a learning resource. (See Bloom's

taxonomy) What is to be learned relates to the individual’s current life

situation and tasks. They have as much autonomy as possible The learning climate minimizes anxiety and encourages freedom

to experiment. Their learning styles are taken into account. There is a cooperative learning climate We create mechanisms for mutual planning We arrange for a diagnosis of learner needs and interests and

enable the formulation of learning objectives based on the diagnosed needs and interests

We design sequential activities for achieving the objectives

Source – Knowles Centre

http://adulted.about.com/library/weekly/aa080899.htm

http://web.njit.edu/~ronkowit/teaching/bloom.htm

http://web.njit.edu/~ronkowit/teaching/bloom.htm

http://web.njit.edu/~ronkowit/teaching/styles/styles.htm



ANNEX 2

Teaching and Learning Resources: Andragogy--Adult Learning Theory Just as there is no one theory that explains how humans learn, no single theory of adult learning has emerged to unify the field. The best known theory of adult learning is Knowles’ andragogy. As a teacher, writer, and leader in the field of adult education, Knowles was an innovator, responding to the needs of the field as he perceived them and, as such, he was a key figure in the growth and practice of adult education throughout the Western world. However, as many critics have noted, both his theory and practice embodied his own value system. It is, as Knowles noted, a set of assumptions providing one piece of the adult learning puzzle. Therefore, despite their limitations, Knowles’ ideas still provides a practical instructional guide for all ages, especially adults Andragogy is a concept popularized by Malcolm Knowles in his 1970 book, The Modern Practice of Adult Education. Knowles’ theory of andragogy was an attempt to create a theory to differentiate learning in childhood from learning in adulthood. The term itself was not new. European adult educators had been using it consistently to refer to both the practical aspects of adult teaching and learning and to the academic study of adult education. In his book, The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy, Knowles (1980, p. 43) contrasts andragogy as “the art and science of helping adults learn” with pedagogy, the art and science of helping children learn. The second edition of his book, however, marked a rethinking in Knowles original conception of andragogy as characterizing only adult learners—as indicated in the change in subtitles from Andragogy Versus Pedagogy to From Pedagogy to Andragogy. His most recent conclusion was that the use of andragogical and pedagogical principles is to be determined by the situation and not by the age of the learner. Andragogy is essentially a “model of assumptions” (Knowles, 1980, p. 43) about the characteristics of adult learners that are different from the traditional pedagogical assumptions about child learners rather than an actual theory of adult learning. Based on humanistic psychology, Knowles’ concept of andragogy presents the individual learner as one who is autonomous, free, and growth-oriented. The two dimensions of andragogy as elaborated by Knowles are its assumptions about the characteristics of adult learners and the process elements of adult education that stem from these characteristics. He initially related four basic assumptions and added a fifth and sixth in later publications. 1. Self-concept: As people mature, they move being a dependent personality toward being more self-directed

2. Experience: As people mature, they amass a growing set of experiences that provide a fertile resource for learning 3. Readiness to learn: As people mature, they are more interested in learning subjects that have immediate relevance to their jobs or personal lives

4. Orientation to learning: As people mature, their time perspective changes from gathering knowledge for future

use to immediate application of knowledge. As such, adult learners become more problem-centred rather than subject entered (Knowles, 1980)

5. Motivation to learn: As people mature, they become more motivated by various internal incentives, such as need

for self-esteem, curiosity, desire to achieve, and satisfaction of accomplishment 6. Relevance: As people mature, they need to know why they need to learn something (Knowles, 1984). Furthermore, because adults manage other aspects of their lives, they are capable of directing or, at least, assisting in the planning and implementation of their own learning. Readiness to Learn People become ready to learn something when they experience a need to learn it in order to cope more satisfyingly with real-life tasks and problems. The educator has a responsibility to create conditions and provide tools and procedures for helping learners discover their "needs to know." Learning programs should be organized around life-application categories and sequenced according to the learners' readiness to learn. Orientation to Learning Learners see education as a process of developing increased competence to achieve their full potential in life. They want to be able to apply whatever knowledge and skill they gain today to living more effectively tomorrow. Accordingly, learning experiences should be organized around competency-development categories. People are performance-centred in their orientation to learning. Self-direction About the same time that Knowles introduced andragogy, self-directed learning appeared as another model to help distinguish adult learners from children. Not only did Knowles indicate that self-directed learning is one of the key assumptions of adult learning, but he also contributed to the literature with his book entitled Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers (1975). His book explains the concept and outlines how to implement it through learning contracts.



According to Knowles (1975), in its broadest sense, self-directed learning describes a process “... in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes” (p. 18). Being self-directed signifies that adult students can and should be allowed to participate in evaluating their learning needs, planning and implementing the learning activities, and evaluating those experiences. Knowles further stated that individuals can be assisted in becoming more self-directed when given appropriate learning tools, resources, experiences, and encouragement. For example, educators might provide assistance to individuals or groups of learners in locating resources or mastering alternative learning strategies. The learners would then seek out this assistance through technology or learning centres. Knowles asserted three reasons for fostering self-direction. First, he argues that convincing evidence reveals that proactive learner, those who take the initiative in learning, learn more and learn better than passive or reactive learners, who wait to be taught by a teacher. “They enter into learning more purposefully and with greater motivation. They also tend to retain and make use of what they learn better and longer than do the reactive learners” (1975, p. 14). Next, self-directed learning parallels the natural processes of psychological development. “An essential aspect of maturing is developing the ability to take increasing responsibility for our own lives—to become increasingly self-directed” (p. 15). Finally, many new developments in education place significant responsibility on the learner to take the initiative in their own learning. “Students entering into these programs without having learned the skills of self-directed inquiry will experience anxiety, frustration, and often failure, and so will their teachers” (p. 15). Grounded in a humanistic philosophy, Knowles suggested that self-directed learning should have as its goal the development the learner’s capacity to be self-directed. Knowles further noted that with the rapidity of change, the continuous creation of new knowledge, and an ever-widening access to information, it is no longer reasonable to define the purpose of education as simply transmitting what is known. Instead, the purpose must be to develop the skills of inquiry (p. 15). Being proactive and responsible for one’s own learning underlie his model. How one actually works through a self-directed learning experience has generated several process models. The earliest models, such as that suggested by Knowles (1975), presented a linear progression from diagnosing and formulating needs to identifying resources and learning strategies to evaluating outcomes. Knowles included numerous resources both for learners and teachers for completing each of the stages. The information on learning contracts and evaluation has proven to be most useful. Later models, such as those suggested by Jack Mezirow (1991), are more interactive. In addition to the learner, the context of the learning experience and the nature of the learning itself are also considered

Source: The Knowles Centre



ANNEX 3

COMPETENCY BASED TRAINING MODEL

Source: The Competency Group (2010)



ANNEX 4

Principles of assessment Assessment principles state that assessments must be valid, reliable, flexible and fair. Assessors must ensure that assessment decisions involve the evaluation of sufficient evidence to enable a judgement to be made on the student’s competence. Validity refers to the extent to which the interpretation and use of an assessment outcome can be supported by evidence. An assessment is valid if the assessment methods and materials reflect the elements, performance criteria and critical aspects of evidence in the evidence guide of the unit(s) of competency, and if the assessment outcome is fully supported by the evidence gathered. Reliability refers to the degree of consistency and accuracy of the assessment outcomes; that is, the extent to which the assessment provides similar outcomes for students with equal competence at different times or places, regardless of the assessor conducting the assessment. If assessments are both valid and reliable, then they should be consistent across RTOs as well as within an RTO. Reliable and valid assessments share a number of characteristics, including:

assessing all four dimensions of competency;

using a process which integrates required knowledge and skills with their practical application for a workplace task, i.e. holistic assessment;

being based on evidence gathered on a number of occasions and in a range of contexts;

covering both on the job and off the job components of training; and

providing for the recognition of competencies no matter how or when they have been acquired.

Flexibility refers to the opportunity for students to negotiate certain aspects of their Assessment, e.g. timing, with their assessor. All students should be fully informed (through the assessment plan) of the purpose of assessment, the assessment criteria, the methods and tools used, and the context and timing of the assessment. Fair assessment does not advantage or disadvantage particular students or groups of students. This may mean that assessment methods are adjusted for particular students (such as people with disabilities or cultural differences) to ensure that the methods do not disadvantage them because of their situation. An assessment should not place unnecessary demands on students which may prevent them from demonstrating competence. For example, an assessment should not demand a higher level of English language or literacy than that required to perform to the workplace standard outlined in the competencies being assessed. (See ‘1. Checklist for principles of assessment – validity, reliability, flexibility and fairness’ in Part B of Section 4.)

There are legislative requirements that the principle of ‘reasonable adjustment’ be applied in the design of assessments. The assessment process should not prevent any persons from demonstrating their competence, skills or knowledge because the design of the assessment failed to take account of their limitations. Refer to the Department’s 2012 publication Reasonable adjustment: A practical guide to assessment for VET students with a disability. Assessment materials used also must:



comply with the relevant training package assessment guidelines;

provide for holistic assessment, i.e. use a process which integrates knowledge and skills

with their practical application in a workplace task;

cover all four dimensions of competency;

target the correct qualification level;

cover relevant employability skills facets; and

be able to be customised. (See ‘1. Checklist for principles of assessment – validity,

reliability, flexibility and fairness’ in Part B of Section 4.)

Source: Guidelines or assessing competence (4th Ed)



ANNEX 5

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES SKILLS COUNCILS – VOCATIONAL

EDUCATION & TRAINING -VET

The competitiveness and productivity of every organisation is highly dependent on it having

access to the skills it needs – today and in the future. As pivotal change agents within the

national training system, the mandate of Australia’s Industry Skills Councils is to bring

together industry, educators and governments and unite them on a common industry-led

agenda for action on skills and workforce development.

Industry Skills Councils are:

recognised and funded by the Australian Government

governed by independent, industry led boards

not-for-profit companies limited by guarantee

Specifically, the formal roles of Industry Skills Councils involve:

providing integrated industry intelligence and advice to the Australian Workforce and

Productivity Agency, government and enterprises on workforce development and

skills needs

actively supporting the development, implementation and continuous improvement of

high quality training and workforce development products and services including

Industry Training Packages.

providing independent skills and training advice to enterprises, including matching

identified training needs with appropriate training solutions; working with enterprises,

employment service providers, Registered Training Organisations and government to

allocate training places under the Enterprise Based Productivity Places Program

engaging with State and Territory Governments, State and Territory industry advisory

bodies and peak representative bodies in their area of industry coverage.

Industry Skills Councils also play a central coordination role in the National Workforce

Development Fund

http://www.skillsaustralia.gov.au/

http://www.skillsaustralia.gov.au/

http://www.innovation.gov.au/Skills/SkillsTrainingAndWorkforceDevelopment/NationalWorkforceDevelopmentFund/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.innovation.gov.au/Skills/SkillsTrainingAndWorkforceDevelopment/NationalWorkforceDevelopmentFund/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.isc.org.au/strategies2010.php



Joint Work

Industry Skills Councils (ISCs) work collaboratively on a day-to-day basis mirroring the interrelationships between

industries and the supply chain nature of modern economies.

From time to time, ISCs also work collectively to produce consolidated, formal advice to government on

contemporary issues that affect industry’s skill needs.

ACIL Tasman Report on the impact of the Enterprise Based Productivity Places

Program (EBPPP)

o ISCs’ media release on ACIL Tasman’s report on EBPPP

o ISCs’ summary of findings from the ACIL Tasman Report on EBPPP

Five good reasons – the case for core skills development

What it takes

No more excuses: An industry response to the language, literacy and numeracy

challenge

Creating Australia’s Future: Together

Training Packages [a story less told]

Environmental Sustainability: An industry response

VET Quality - A National Imperative

Industry Skills Councils (ISCs), as the developers of Industry Training Packages, have undertaken a

project with support from the National Skills Standards Council (NSSC) and the Department of Industry,

Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) to identify whether greater specification

of training delivery and assessment requirements within individual qualifications and/or units of

competency, would improve the quality of Training Package outcomes.

Inconsistent quality of outcomes within the Australian VET sector remains one of the system’s most enduring

issues. With nearly 5,000 RTOs, annual VET revenue of $8.68billion and 1.4 million enrolments in Training

Package qualifications in 2011, the delivery of consistent, high-quality training and assessment is now a national

imperative. Both policymakers and RTOs must move quickly to restore confidence if enterprises, governments

and individuals are to continue their investment in nationally recognised training.

The draft report and ISC statement on the project can be found here:

VET Quality Report (final draft)

ISC statement on ‘VET quality – a national imperative’

Source: www.isc.org.au

http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/REPORT%20-%20EBPPP%20report%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/REPORT%20-%20EBPPP%20report%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/MEDIA%20STATEMENT%20-%20EBPPP%20report%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/SUMMARY%20DOCUMENT%20-%20EBPPP%20report%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/5%20Good%20Reasons%20-%20the%20case%20for%20core%20skills%20development.pdf

http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/What%20it%20Takes%20-%20workplace%20language%20and%20literacy.pdf

http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/NoMoreExcuses_FINAL%20FINAL%20single%20page.pdf

http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/NoMoreExcuses_FINAL%20FINAL%20single%20page.pdf

http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/ISC_Forum%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/training%20packages_a%20story%20less%20told%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/FA_ISC_Sustainability_Report_Single_LR.pdf

http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/VET_Quality_Report-final_draft_8_March_13.pdf

http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/Tracked_Cover_sheet_v3_0.pdf

http://www.isc.org.au/strategies2010.php



ANNEX 6

Australian Skills Quality Authority

Functions, vision and values

Functions ASQA’s functions include:

registering training providers as ‘registered training organisations’ (RTOs)

registering organisations as CRICOS providers—providers that can enrol international students

accrediting vocational education and training (VET) courses

ensuring that organisations comply with the conditions and standards for registration, including by carrying out compliance audits.

ASQA may also collect, analyse and publish information on the VET sector and VET providers.

Vision ASQA’s vision is that students, employers and governments have full confidence in the quality of vocational education and training outcomes delivered by Australian registered training organisations.

Values ASQA is committed to:

independence in our regulatory role and in providing advice

transparency in our regulatory decisions and activities

collaboration with industry bodies, employers, governments and registered training organisations.

Source: www.asqa.gov.au



ANNEX 7

Blooms Taxonomy

BLOOM’S TAXONOMY

Benjamin Bloom categorized learning objectives into subdivisions ranging from the simplest

behaviour students are required to perform to demonstrate what they’ve learned, to the most

complex behaviours they can perform. Bloom found that over 95 % of test questions students

encounter only require them to process at the lowest cognitive level by recalling and

regurgitating information. Bloom’s Taxonomy, summarized below, provides a useful

structure by which to scrutinize learning objectives, test questions, and assignments

hierarchically in terms of student learning and higher order thinking skills.

Knowledge

Knowledge is defined as the remembering of previously learned material. This may involve

the recall of a wide range of material, from specific facts to complete theories, but all that is

required is the bringing to mind of the appropriate information. Knowledge represents the

lowest level of learning outcomes in the cognitive domain. Examples of learning objectives

at this level are: know common terms, know specific facts, know methods and procedures,

know basic concepts, know principles.

Comprehension

Comprehension is defined as the ability to grasp the meaning of material. This may be shown

by translating material from one form to another (words to numbers), by interpreting material

(explaining or summarizing), and by estimating future trends (predicting consequences or

effects). These learning outcomes go one step beyond the simple remembering of material,

and represent the lowest level of understanding. Examples of learning objectives at this level

are: understand facts and principles, interpret verbal material, interpret charts and graphs,

translate verbal material to mathematical formulae, estimate the future consequences implied

in data, justify methods and procedures.

Application

Application refers to the ability to use learned material in new and concrete situations. This

may include the application of such things as rules, methods, concepts, principles, laws, and

theories. Learning outcomes in this area require a higher level of understanding than those

under comprehension. Examples of learning objectives at this level are: apply concepts and

principles to new situations, apply laws and theories to practical situations, solve

mathematical problems, construct graphs and charts, and demonstrate the correct usage of a

method or procedure.

Analysis

Analysis refers to the ability to break down material into its component parts so that its

organizational structure may be understood. This may include the identification of parts,

analysis of the relationship between parts, and recognition of the organizational principles

involved. Learning outcomes here represent a higher intellectual level than comprehension

and application because they require an understanding of both the content and the structural

form of the material. Examples of learning objectives at this level are: recognize unstated

assumptions, recognizes logical fallacies in reasoning, distinguish between facts and



inferences, evaluate the relevancy of data, analyse the organizational structure of a work (art,

music, and writing).

Synthesis

Synthesis refers to the ability to put parts together to form a new whole. This may involve the

production of a unique communication (theme or speech), a plan of operations (research

proposal), or a set of abstract relations (scheme for classifying information). Learning

outcomes in this area stress creative behaviours, with major emphasis on the formulation of

new patterns or structure. Examples of learning objectives at this level are: write a well-

organized theme, gives a well-organized speech writes a creative short story (or poem or

music), propose a plan for an experiment, integrate learning from different areas into a plan

for solving a problem, and formulates a new scheme for classifying objects (or events, or

ideas).

Evaluation

Evaluation is concerned with the ability to judge the value of material (statement, novel,

poem, research report) for a given purpose. The judgments are to be based on definite

criteria. These may be internal criteria (organization) or external criteria (relevance to the

purpose) and the student may determine the criteria or be given them. Learning outcomes in

this area are highest in the cognitive hierarchy because they contain elements of all the other

categories, plus conscious value judgments based on clearly defined criteria. Examples of

learning objectives at this level are: judge the logical consistency of written material, judge

the adequacy with which conclusions are supported by data, judge the value of a work (art,

music, writing) by the use of internal criteria, judge the value of a work (art, music, writing)

by use of external standards of excellence.

Source: http://www.uct.ac.za/projects/cbe/mcqman/mcqappc.html

http://www.uct.ac.za/projects/cbe/mcqman/mcqappc.html



ANNEX 8

Learning Styles

LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY

http://www.personal.psu.edu/bxb11/LSI/LSI.htm

To gain a better understanding of yourself as a learner, you need to evaluate the way you

prefer to learn or process information. By doing so, you will be able to develop strategies

which will enhance your learning potential. The following evaluation is a short, quick way of

assessing your learning style. No studies have validated this inventory. Its main benefit is to

get you to think about yourself, to consider learning alternatives; not to rigidly classify you.

This 24 item survey is not timed. Answer each question as honestly as you can.

NOTE! This page will not work with AOL's browser. Please use IE or Netscape version

4 or better.

Instructions: Click on the appropriate button after each statement. After answering all

questions, click on the Determine Style button below.

QUESTIONS Seldom Sometimes Often

1. Can remember more about a

subject through the lecture method

with information, explanations and

discussion.

2. Prefer information to be presented

the use of visual aids.

3. Like to write things down or to

take notes for visual review.

4. Prefer to make posters, physical

models, or actual practice and some

activities in class.

5. Require explanations of diagrams,

graphs, or visual directions.

6. Enjoy working with my hands or

making things.

7. Am skilful with and enjoy

developing and making graphs and

charts.



8. Can tell if sounds match when

presented with pairs of sounds.

9. Remember best by writing things

down several times.

10. Can understand and follow

directions on maps.

11. Do better at academic subjects

by listening to lectures and tapes as

opposed to reading a textbook.

12. Play with coins or keys in

pockets.

13. Learn to spell better by repeating

the words out loud than by writing

the word on papers.

14. Can better understand a news

article by reading about it in the

paper than by listening to the radio.

15. Chew gum, smoke, or snack

during studies.

16. Feel the best way to remember is

to picture it in your head.

17. Learn spelling by tracing the

letters with my fingers.

18. Would rather listen to a good

lecture or speech than read about the

same material in a textbook.

19. Am good at working and solving

jigsaw puzzles and mazes.

20. Play with objects in hands

during learning period.

21. Remember more by listening to

the news on the radio rather than

reading about it in the newspaper.



22. Obtain information on an

interesting subject by reading

relevant materials.

23. Feel very comfortable touching

others, hugging, handshaking, etc.

24. Follow oral directions better than

written ones.

After answering each question, click on the button below.

ABOUT THE THREE STYLES

If you are an AUDITORY learner, you may wish to use tapes. Tape lectures to help you fill

in the gaps in your notes. But do listen and take notes, reviewing notes frequently. Sit in the

lecture hall or classroom where you can hear well. After you have read something,

summarize it and recite it aloud.

If you are a VISUAL learner, then by all means be sure that you look at all study materials.

Use charts, maps, filmstrips, notes and flashcards. Practice visualizing or picturing

words/concepts in your head. Write out everything for frequent and quick visual review.

If you are a TACTILE learner, trace words as you are saying them. Facts that must be learned

should be written several times. Keep a supply of scratch paper for this purpose. Taking and

keeping lecture notes will be very important. Make study sheets.

Final COS shipping paper ADB 1 0.1 rev 10 7.14

Documents

Transcript of Final COS shipping paper ADB 1 0.1 rev 10 7.14