the adoption of blended learning in the TAE sector). These efforts are undergirded by the mission of SkillsFuture Singapore to develop a responsive and forward looking TAE and workforce development system that can help steer Singapore through uncertainties and challenges. Though local research has provided us with some understanding of TAE professionals and their practice (Brown, Karmel & Ye, 2013; Freebody, Bound & Lin, 2013; Karmel, Bound & Rushbrook, 2013; Tan & Freebody, 2011), our knowledge of their profile at the national and sectorial level is still limited. For example, what tasks do they mainly perform? What TAE providers do they currently serve? What qualifications and experiences do they have? What is their work quality? What are their needs for professional development (PD)? Do they have sufficient access to PD? What are their preferred modes of learning for PD? What are their challenges to survive and thrive in the changing TAE market? Are they ready for more blended learning as we move towards a technology-enabled TAE? How do they respond to TAE policies and initiatives, such as iN.LEARN 2020. These are important missing pieces in our knowledge about the TAE professionals which this study is trying to address. The knowledge gap about training providers (TPs) is even more acute. We do not have a clear picture of their profile, business models and strategies to strengthen operational efficiency and processes. How do they deliver training? How do they innovate programme offerings and establish partnerships? How do they manage their manpower resources and skills development? What are the challenges they face in rolling out blended learning? Are they ready for technology-enabled learning and development and use of analytics? Are they aware of TAE-related initiatives and policies? What challenges do they have when tapping on those initiatives and policies? In order to support the TAE sector’s development in a systematic, integrated and holistic manner, it is important for us to gain a better and deeper understanding of the current state of the TAE sector. This study provides the baseline information of the profile and practices of TAE professionals and providers, their beliefs on learning and development, challenges and barriers for development, and how they perceive TAE-related policies. The results of this study will help to close the above mentioned knowledge gaps about TAE in Singapore.
1.2 Focus of the study This project addresses many of the missing pieces in our current knowledge about the TAE providers and professionals, who are the key players of the TAE sector, and therefore the research focus of this study. A short description of the TPs and each group of TAE professionals, namely, adult educators (AEs), training managers (TMs), human resource developers (HRDs), are provided below; the detailed profile of them as gathered from this study are presented in the next chapter. TAE providers. TAE providers are the training organisations and companies that TAE professionals work in. In our study, we sought out Training Providers that provide adult continuing education and training as their main business. Given this focus, we excluded: enrichment or tutoring centres, music/art schools, private education institutions that offer pre-employment education and degree program, and sports training. There are seven main categories of TAE providers identified for our study: government-approved training providers, private education institutes, post-secondary education institutes, public sector training institutions, private training organizations, association and professional bodies’ training arm/functions, in-house and others (IAL, unpublished). These organizations provide a wide range of programmes, covering both private and public sector and stretch from PET (Pre-employment Training) to TAE. With no clear-cut boundaries existing between PET and TAE and the distinctions increasingly blurring, there could be more overlaps between the
13
