Chapter 6: Learning and development

Abbreviations

A list of the abbreviations used in this report is available in the Glossary

Amount of off-the-job learning and development

The amount of off-the-job learning and development reported by employees remains relatively consistent.

In the last 12 months, half of all APS employees participated in either 3–5 days (28%) or 1–2 days, ⁸ (22%) of off-the-job learning and development activity. There appears to be a slight increase in the level of formal off-the-job training in the APS in 2005–06, with the number of employees taking 3–5 days increasing from 25% in 2005 and a corresponding fall in the proportion for 1–2 days from 24%. However, the proportion of employees taking 1–5 days (50%) has not changed significantly since 2003. A further 16% of employees participated in 6–10 days of learning and development, and 13% participated in more than 10 days of learning and development activity.

Twenty-two per cent of employees spent no time in off-the-job learning and development during the last 12 months. This proportion has not changed significantly since 2004.

Although an indication of employees’ access to learning and development opportunities, care must be taken when considering these results. In particular, they do not reflect the amount of on-the-job training received by employees which, depending on the nature of the work and the experience of the employee, may be a more appropriate and effective approach to training.

Access to learning and development was related to several factors, including:

age (employees under 25 years were more likely to have more than 10 days learning and development than other age groups)
sex (more female employees (24%) spent no time in learning and development than male employees (20%), and more male employees (15%) spent more than 10 days in learning and development than females (11%))
agency size (employees working in large agencies were more likely to have spent no time in learning and development than those in small agencies, but when they did undertake training, they were more likely to have spent more than 10 days)
classification (APS 1–6 employees were both more likely to have spent no time in learning and development and more than 10 days on learning and development, than EL and SES employees)
type of work undertaken (employees in administrative support/clerical roles and service delivery to the general public were more likely to have spent no time in training, and employees engaged in research and corporate services were more likely to have spent more than 10 days in learning and development).

Comments provided by employees reflected recognition of the importance of learning and development but highlighted the practical difficulties in undertaking it (comments are not necessarily representative of all employees).

I need the training but don’t have the time. Increased productivity means doing the same job with fewer staff in our agency. Under these circumstances training becomes the victim.

It is difficult to access training when resources are strained, and there is little time to spend on training.

My agency has excellent learning and development programmes, it is just sometimes difficult to fully take advantage of them due to work pressures.

These results also include part day responses.