Making use of research-related tools in developing partnership cooperationand workplace learning - Capitalisation of the toolboxes of recent Europeanprojects

Ludger Deitmer, University of Bremen, Institute Technology and Education (ITB) Draft paper for conference proceedings in the session 11c; Developing Educational Services for Workplace Learning Partnerships

Summary

There are many debates about the future of VET in Europe; like the basic structures of anappropriate VET systems (school, dual or alternance based), or the curriculum design tosupport work based learning, or the institutional conditions needed for schools and trainingcentres. The topic of inter activeness or networking between vocational school and enterpriseswho take young school leavers, trainees, apprentices is now discussed for quite long time anddid not lead to clear answers. Because of the shift from traditional curricula to work basedlearning the cooperation issue is receiving higher interest.This article likes to discuss the collaboration under local VET schools and training companies.Empirical results from surveys on the cooperation of the learning venues show us that in themajority of the cases too little active cooperation is taking place. There is just co-existence of the learning venues and there is missing a good co-ordination of the learning and workingactivities, for exp. under German VET schools and enterprises, while active communicationunder trainers and teachers is taking place to rarely.What does it mean for vocational students when schools and enterprises do not talk with eachother? Good cooperation means that the learner (e.g. apprentice, student or trainee) could geta deeper understanding (in theoretical and practical terms) of the professional field he issituated. Better interaction between work place experiences and systematic, theory basedlearning at school is a good condition for this.Departing from that assumption I will try to make clear how the cooperation of the learningvenues is influencing the professional performance of the students. Possible path ways of learning are to be encountered at the school as well at the companies. This is concluded by the provision of formative tools for self-development. Tools of that kind support self evaluation of the actors involved. They can participate in a self investigation about their current cooperation practise and to find out where are action points for improvements.

Collaboration of the learning venues: Where are the problems?

The debate about the collaboration of the learning venues has received much interest in thosecountries with an dual traditions, like Germany, Danmark, Suisse, or Austria. But also inEuropean countries with an additive or alternance structures, cooperation is discussed. This because schools want to teach in accordance with labour market and business process needsand intend to follow much more work process learning. They are many example like the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway); but as well countries like France, Spain,Ireland, Italy etc., in which the transition of students from the vocational school to thecompany is discussed in its quantities and qualities (Stenström, Tynjäla, 2008).But first I like to discuss the implication from the dual system onto the cooperation issue.Dual arrangements mean first of all a public (publicly offered vocational education)

and

private (private in-company training) learning and working engagement of the apprenticestudents (Greinert 1994, Deissinger 1996). This forces company and school actors tocommunicate with each other because the school programme (classroom learning) and the1

company work programme (on the job learning) in the company are running in parallel andwould need a good coordination.The productivity of the apprentice can be braught up to a 50 to 70 % productivity when thereis a good co-ordination of the work place learning and the classroom learning at school. Thiswas found out in a recent study in the Land of North-Rhine Westfalia (ReformwerkstattBerufliche Bildung, NRW). A good case is given when practical and theoretical learning isintegrated. This supports the professional development of the learner (here in many cases anapprentice student).Main critics argue that in the majority of the cases coordinated action of school and enterprisedoes not take place. In many cases there is only co-existence but no active co-ordination of the learning programmes in the school and the enterprise. Co-existence means that school andcompany know each other but there is no active link between teachers in the school andtrainers in the company. Learning at the school is not seen as well integrated into what andhow the apprentice is learning at the work place. Good partnership practice could mean thatthe more theoretical and systematic learning processes at school are deepening the practicalexperiences made by the apprentice at the work place in industry, service or the craft tradecompany. Systematic and theory-based knowledge development in the school is understood by the student as relevant knowledge which helps him to understand what he does and act inthe company. The learning effectiveness decreases when there is just to be “silent” (so to sayon “stock learning” or bulk learning) learning. This would means that what is learned does notstay in relation to the students other learning processes out side the school. But conceptualknowledge could help to understand better the practical dimension of work. Projects in whichthe students work on a problem case could help to make this learning more interactive.Based on recent studies a regional survey can illustrate this. Over 2000 students in the townand county of Bremerhaven-Wesermünde were asked how they access their own working andlearning situation in their learning company and vocational school. Only in a third of the casesthe relation between training company and local school has been coordinated well and fullysatisfying. Projects under these partners take place only very seldom (3%). In over 90 % onlyknowing and taking notice of each other is the typical pattern of cooperation under the schooland company partners. When teachers and trainers talk they mostly talk about the student’sabsence at school; only in 35 % other more contented topics (like students performance,topics of learning or curricular questions) are discussed. Another result covers the point howthe school are receiving the companies in which the students are trained. Only in 10 % theyare fully happy in about what the school undertakes in the classroom teaching. In over 30 %of the relationships the companies and their apprentices are still not satisfied about theteaching deliveries of the vocational school. This explains why in 13 % the image of theschool is regarded as bad and in close relation to this by over 30 %. Only 4% of the apprenticestudents access the quality of learning venues cooperation as good; in 30% in a satisfactoryfashion and in 67% of the cases the synchronisation of the school versus company learning isseen as not satisfactory and in an problematic condition (13 %). (Rauner, Heinemann 2008)

Programme strategies to develop a closer interaction in local VETcommunities

In the following I like to discuss strategies for both institutional partners to overcome a weak coordination of the learning venues. Because we are confronted with trainers and teacherswho are now expected to co-operate and to develop a better integrated curriculum. Learning partnerships between industry and school affiliate partners from different institutions but the2

partners follow different understandings and orientations. Teachers may be orientated onschool based knowledge and a more systematic learning than their partners from industry.These orient their work on practical problems and the apprentices’ work tasks (Deitmer/Heinemann 2008).The more complex the partnership, the larger the network and diversity of interests of theactors, the more easily such difficulties arise. They wish to co-operate better in their learning partnership but they lack experiences and conceptual knowledge. Formative evaluation mayhelp them to improve their co-operation (Manske et. al., 2002; Smits/ Kuhlmann, 2003,Deitmer, Heinemann et. al. 2003, pp. 111 ).An integrated development plan which contains some measures could help to improve thecooperation practise. In the centre of these plans stays the adaptation of evaluation approachesto support the development of a more interactive and vital co-operation amongst teachers andtrainers

I will suggest some activity fields which could help to make the cooperation of companies and schools better. The plan could concentrate on the following activity areas:

Competence based curricula

Improving the curricula can be seen as a big momentum to improve the quality of Learning atthe enterprise and the school. The vocational disciplines of the profession (e.g. for the field of the

Kaufmann

; business administration, book-keeping, law and correspondence) are based onwork and learning tasks which depart from learning situations to be found at the work placesin industry or commerce. This curricular model should give the apprentice a more coherentand holistic understanding of what he can learn at work and how learning at school cancomplement this.In this respect we face a paradigmatic shift from discipline base curricula towards work process related and competence based curricula. In this respect the

Lernfeld

approach refers tothe European debate about work process knowledge (Boreham 2002, Fischer, Bauer 2007)This transformation from significant work processes to learning situations entails a complexseries of steps beginning with analysis of the work activity and the required competencies,followed by competence based curricula and ending with the design of work process relatedsituations. Different concepts were established for analyzing work processes and occupationaltask as well as different models for developing curricula. There is still a lack of appropriatemethods in qualification research focused on curriculum development (Fischer, Bauer 2007,143).However the article is not discussing the different conceptual guidelines for the design of work based curricula (To be noted here the approaches of Reinhard Bader (Bader 2003) or that of a VET researcher/ teacher team at the University of Bremen, ITB (Reinhold et.al.2002)). Work based curricula are not only effecting on the re-design of the curricular frameworks but also personal and organisational development of trainers and teachers andtheir institutions. With learning arenas and work based learning teachers and trainers aredirectly involved into the design of the curricula to develop a logical progression from thearea of learning to the occupational area, in a circular process. (Sloane 2004, Fischer, Bauer 2007).Therefore a major challenge for this reform is the creation of active, trans-institutional teamsof teachers and trainers. The knowledge flow and the swing of theory and practice have to bere-organized by them. Therefore the reform is not just a new pedagogical process it’s also aninstitutional and personal transformation. What is learned in the classroom shall get intocloser contact with what is learned in practice, or in other words, learning in the classroomshall enable the apprentice to take a much closer relationship to his company’s real work tasksand business processes. Learning for and by problem solving instead of following text booksis part of this approach3