The balance between practice-oriented and academically sound training

I'll give some comments on behalf of PILAT (Pacific Institute of Languages, Arts and Translation) - a training arm of SIL PNG and PNG BTA - the more formal side of what we offer at a national level (there is much informal community level / regional training going on, which PILAT seeks to support) We have a wide range of training courses that we offer each year, trying to offer a variety of things that help people progress in their ability, skills, attitudes - wherever they are coming from. The idea is not to turn away anyone who says 'I am interested in helping with Bible translation'. Schooling here is mandated up to grade 8, so this is our official minimum entry level for any training, though in reality we accept many with grade 6 or even down to grade 2 or 3 in exceptional circumstances - eg. schooling was not available for them to progress. If people are weak in English and IT, we recommend they first attend our initial skills course, focussed just on those skills, and critical thinking. Next level is our translator training course, four modules beginning with OT translation and moving into NT by the third module. There are translation assignments between each module, which are completed (usually over two or three years) before returning. Minimum entry here is grade 8, but they also need to pass an English test, or at least have the majority of the team attending pass the test. A variety of Paratext training courses are also offered at this level, and other computer training courses. The level beyond this expects translation experience, and grade 10 level. This includes Discover your Language, Lexicography, OT Intro, NT Intro, Greek 1, Greek 2, Hebrew 1, Hebrew 2. The vast majority of our training uses mentors, or at least a high ratio of staff to students, to give as much help as possible. Courses as based on principles for teaching adults as in Learning that LASTS and other courses - i.e. centred on problem solving, learning activities, interaction rather than lecture style. Biblical languages are taught with an oral focus rather than emphasising writing and analysis. All of these have helped learning progress better. None of this training is currently accredited, which does a disservice to those attending courses - as it does not enable them to progress into further training beyond or outside the SIL / BTA framework. We have been challenged for many years to accredit our training, by our students and colleagues. Much of the discussion has been around getting accreditation through the Higher Education framework (tertiary level) - eg. to structure the courses requiring grade 10 entry into a diploma programme within the higher education sector. However, the vast majority of students we have are not really ready for this level of training, or critical engagement with material. So, our current plan is seeking accreditation through the Technical and Vocational Education and Training sector (TVET). Within this sector, training is focused on competencies for a task / job - training courses need to be geared towards developing competencies, and as participants demonstrate those competencies they can build up to certificates at various levels - certificate 1 being a low level suitable for those with minimal formal education, through certificates 2-4, and then diploma level, which requires critical thinking at a level similar to beginning tertiary education. This is helpful for many reasons: - entry standards become less of an issue, so we should be able to accept more of those we want to work with for training, and they can progress through the system. - accreditation of potential teachers is opened up - within this framework qualified teachers are those with work experience rather than academic qualifications - so BTA members with a lifetime of translation experience (but no degrees) are more qualified to teach their colleagues than I am despite a host of academic degrees. This is the way it should be, IMO. - it forces us to make sure our training is actually building the competencies that are needed for Bible Translation. I'm not sure if we have agreed what these competencies are yet - so see my other questions on MAP as I post them. To me, it seems this approach is going to help us negotiate the balance between academic and practical training - i.e. we can focus on practical for-the-job training - but within a formal framework that provides recognised credentials, and standards for courses and instructors, which should help to keep the quality up. I know AuSIL and other SIL entities in the PAcific have used the Certificate IV in Translation which fits in this framework, but are there others out there who have accredited training through the vocational training sector, rather than higher education sector? Any feedback, cautions, advice? Phil