ECER weblog and discussion space

Hi,

I'm Jeroen Tops, a Master Student at Utrecht University the Netherlands. Currently I'm doing my graduation research on the use of innovaiton networks in vocational education in the Netherlands.

In more detail: The Dutch Vocational Education (called ROC or bve), is undergoing change to allign with market demand. The need to innovate their process and are networking to do so. I'm investigating the current status of such an innovation network and how this can be improved especially focussed on the information exchange. I'm using social network analysis and media richness theory.

I'm looking for more articles linking these subjects. I found this website and am looking for the article "Vocational Education Institutions Creating Innovative Networks" full text and others.

Can anyone help me?

Greetings,

Jeroen Tops
Master Student Utrecht University the Netherlands
email: J.G.M.Tops@students.uu.nl

In the earlier phases of European cooperation VET researchers had to use quite a lot of time to present their own VET systems (and related cultural conventions) and to learn from each other. During the last ten years this need has been reduced because the active researchers have started to become familiar with the VET systems and cultures of their counterparts. Moreover, due to the globalisation of markets (and the related redistribution of employment opportunities) it has become clear that the VET researchers have take into account wider contexts than the emerging European Educational Area.

In this effort to widen their horizons the European VET researchers have got valuable help from the regular visitors from Australia and Canada (Quebec). This year, I could notice an effort to deepen the trans-continental dialogue between Europeans and Australians and to explore new frontiers of knowledge development. Below, I will present some rearks on two sessions that merit further attention:

1. The symposium "Looking at Europe and beyond: Synthesising European and Australian findings on workplace learning" (Session 8C) presented parallel empirical findings from Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In addition, Alan Brown presented a paper on which he had started to cluster the findings for further conceptualisation. This stimulated a discussion on the following questions:

• What kind of commomwealth of knowledge (on workplace learning) is being developed?
• What kind of countries ae involved (and which are not involved) in the said exercise?

The first question referred to the fact that exemplary cases highlighted the contrast between formal education and training provisions (in the prior learning histories) and the informal and 'open context' learning that characterised their current learning alongside working. In the light of the exemplary cases this was a matter to be analysed in the course of the transition from education/training to working life. However, it remained unspecific, how these findings could be related to the delopment of VET provisions.

The second question referred to the fact that countries involved were characterised by relatively clear demarcation lines between the realm of education/ training and the world of work. (In this respect  countries like Denmark and the Netherlands are clearly different from Germany and Switerland). Therefore, the whole gallery of countries represent VET cultures in which VET is perceived as preparation for working life rather than integration and enculturation into the world of work. This, obviously, is related to the assumptions how VET provisions are expected to take into account the contextual, organisational and communicative challenges that are related to modern working life.

2. The questions that I raisd above provided the starting point for the theoretical explorations of Len Cairns (Monash University, Australia) with the heading "The PAM model of adult learning: Being there". Looking back, the theoretical model of Cairns - based on the coordinates "Place", "Agency" and "Mindfulness"  is not only an essential  starting point for the adult learning histories and for developing adult education provisions (as Cairns proposed it). To me, these coordinates were also helpful for analysing wider social assumptions on learning at workplace and/or on vocational learning. However, when taking into picture other concepts from other lingual contexts it is essential to note what kind of changes of perspective are taking place in the respective analysis. This can be demonstrated with the following concentric circles:
a) individual/situated learning: Place - agency - mindfulness
b) workplace-based/organisational learning: Space for activity - Opportunity for participation - Scope for social shaping,
c) vocational-systemic/ socio-culturally specific learning: Connectivity (or Lack of connectivity) between the mode of acquiring competences, the entry to labour market and the general career models in woring life.

It is clear that the underlying assumptions on vocational/ work-related learning are not clarified by quick footnotes to conference papers. However, it is symptomatic that these questions are catalysed by dialogu between Europeans and Australians. In this context it is wirthwhile to note that Australian universities are more closely analysing and supporting the development of new VET structures in the Asian countries that are profiting from the redistribution of industrial workplaces on global markets.

These quick remarks provide an insight into the wider international dimensions that need to be considered in the future VETNET programmes. Howver, one thing is clear. The issue "Looking at Europe and beyond" was not exhausted with one symposium.

Pekka Kämäräinen

For some time the VETNET network has emphasised that the contributions to the VETNET programme should have a "European dimension". Sometimes this concept  creates confusion and mixed feelings. Some people may link this concept only to the European Union and to transnational cooperation within EU programmes. Others may consider that 'European' refers merely to countries that are located in the European continent. Luckily enough, the VETNET community has found its way between the two extremen positions and has developed a broader and more dialogue-open approach.

For a long while there has been a working consensus that gives room for contributions that arise from national research activities as well as for contributions that are based on trans-national cooperation. It has become a social fact that a considerable part of the sessions is based on EU-funded projects. Yet, the programme and the discussions are open for broader European involvement. Moreover, the programme has provided opportunities for wider international dialogue (e.g. with colleagues from Australia, Canada and other global regions).

Below I will give some examples how I experienced "the European dimension" coming through in different sessions of the VETNET programme. In this context I would like to emphasise the importance of the interaction between presenters and active audiences:

1. The discussion on "Job orientation services in Spain" based on the study of two Spanish researchers (see session 2A) gave rise to discussion on different kinds of immigration to Spain ("European immigration" from Central and East Europe", "Hispanic immigragion from Spanish-speaking countries and "Gateway immigration" from African countries via Spain to the whole EU area). In this context the study analysed the efforts of Spanish employment services and other organisations to regularise the life situation, conditions of employment and career prospects with the support of appropriate training provisions. On the basis of this presentation the participants started a lively discussion. The participants compared their countries as receiving vs. sending countries and the kind of services (including training provisions that are available). In this discussion the "European dimension" was present as willingness to learn from each other and to give feedback for the ongoing research project. As a result of the discussion the presenters made contact with the European Guidance Research Forum.

2. The discussion on "Identification and validation of non-formal learning" was based on the European cooperation project Epanil coordinated by the Czech research institute NUOV in Prague (see session 10B). The presentation gave a picture of the efforts to develop common European principles for identification and validation of non-formal learning and to apply these principles in different occupational fields. The presentation also informed of the support materials for different experts (guides and assessors) who were involved in the piloting. Regarding the "European dimension" the main point of interest was not merely the internal development of the project but its impact on the preparation of new legislation in some participating countries (notably in the Czech republic but also in Poland and Slovakia). In this respect the project provided a basis for further policy monitoring at the European level.

3. The discussion on "National training markets in Europe" was based on critical re-examination of a Europe-wide survey by a trans-national project (see session 5C). The project (CVTS2rev) analysed the results of the survey (CVTS2) in seven countries and obtained additional evidence to interpret the results. In particular the project tried to provide a more context-sensitive picture on the functioning of the training markets. In this respect the presenters drew attention to the limits of the data collection in the original survey and to the changing patterns in training and organisational development. In the discussion it becae clear that the project was struggling with moving frontiers: On the one hand it tried to improve the data that presented the training markets as they have developed so far. On the other hand the project was becoming increasingly aware that training and learning activities are becoming more closely integrated with other developmental activities in working life. Therefore, the methodological improvements that are needed for the analysis if recent patterns may need reconsideration in the near future.

4. The discussion on "Workplace learning partnerships" was based on a European cooperation project (see session 9B). The project seeks to develop common support materials, analytical tools, multimedia resources and web-based services for promoters and facilitators of partnerships. In the presentations and in the discussion the main attention was given to different country-specific preconditions and to different partnership concepts that the project could bring forward. In particular the cross-border cooperation betwen Germany, Switzerland and France raised general interest. Another point  of interest was, how the joint multimedia resources and web services could support actual piloting in the field. In this context reference was made on the ongoing pilot activities in Italy (that have drawn upon the ideas of the project) and on the preparatory measures in Estonia (that explore the grounds in the light of the experiences that have been gained elsewhere). More information on this project can be obtained from the project website http://www.workplace-learning-partners.org.

These examples have brought into picture different contributions and differentsessions. To me they provided insights into the "European dimension" of the VETNET programme. The main point of interest  is that European problem-sensitiveness and Europe-wide openness for dialogue does not grow from one root. Instead, it needs encounters, exchanges, common knowledge structures and willingness to enrich the achieved knowledge bases. I was happy to sense that spirit in varrious sessions across the VETNET programme.

Pekka Kämäräinen