Innovation networks in Vocational education
09-January-2007
[
Vet Reforms ,
School To Work Transition ,
Initial VET ,
ECER Conferences ]
Pentti Nikkanen
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
Reports and Messages from ECER'06 in Geneva, Part III: Reflections on the "European Dimension" of the VETNET sessions
20-September-2006
[
Vet Reforms ,
School To Work Transition ,
Work-Based Learning ,
Social Inclusion ,
ECER Conferences ]
The blog series "Reports and message from ECER'06" consists of brief reports and recollections on selected VETNET sessions at ECER'06. The third report discusses the "European dimension" of the VETNET sessions in the light of different examples.
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
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
Reports and Messages from ECER'06 in Geneva, Part II: Insights into the VETNET Opening Colloquium and the VETNET Forum
18-September-2006
[
Vet Reforms ,
ECER Conferences ,
Comparative Education And Training ]
The blog series "Reports and message from ECER'06" consists of brief reports and recollections on selected VETNET sessions at ECER'06. The second report focuses on the joint plenary sessions that had been designed by the VETNET network. The Opening Colloquium gave a picture on alternative options for developing the Swiss VET system in the kight of the neighnouring models. The VETNET Forum focused on the role of the European Qualification Framework for VET-related research in Europe.
For several years the VETNET network has had a tradition to organise two joint plenary sessions that have a somewhat different character. Recently the Opening Colloquium has been profiled as a more conceptually oriented event (although with a clear relevance for European policies). The VETNET Forum has been developed towards an event that challenges the European VET researchers to consider their role (and possible contribution) to the development of European VET policies.
This year there was an interesting tension between the two sessions. On the one had the Opening Colloquium drew attention to the discussions on the reform of VET in Switzerland (which is not a member of the European Union or of the European Economic Area). On the other hand the VETNET Forum focused on the current phase in the preparation of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) - a European policy process that concerns primarily the European Union and the European Economic Area. In this respect the two sessions could have landed into discussions that would have had very little in common. Yet, after the event it is possible to note that this was not the case.
The Opening Colloquium was based on the keynote lecture of prof.em. Rolf Dubs from the University of St. Gallen. In his lively way he managed to chase away stereotype pictures of Switzerland as a self-sufficient fortress that is happy with its own traditions and sceptical vis-à-vis foreign ideas. Instead he gave a picture of dynamic debates in the need to reform the Swiss system of apprenticeship and on the willingness to consider aternative options. In this context comparative analyses onthe developments in the neighbouring countries (e.g. Germany, France and Austria) and outside Europe have had a role to play. Equally, the presentation provided comparative insights into the performance of school-based VET and dual models of apprentice training in Switzerland. All these analyses gave rise to proposals for revitalising the dual system and into enriching into 'trial system' by introducing bridging learning arrangements between traditional full-time education and traditional workplace-based learning. In this respect the main question for Dubs and for his commentators was 'how to make vocational learning meaningful and perspective-opening both for the learners and for the receiving enterprises'. (We hope to get more material on the web page of the session 4 in the coming days).
This year the VETNET Forum was dedicatd to joint re-examination of the preparation of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) in a policyprocess that was steered by the European Commission. On behalf of the VETNET network I presented the bakground of the EQF and gave the floor for the speakers who provided insights into the current phase. Dr Jörg Markowitsch provided a closer look at the most recent phase of the preparatory process. In the next speech prof. Georg Spöttl drew attention to different - and often mutually contradicting expectatons that have been raised during the preparation of the proposal. (We hope to get the contributions of the two speakers in the coming days; the main points of my introductory input have already been presented in an earlier blog entry).
The subsequent discussion was lively and constructive an it merits a more thorough re-examination than is possible at the moment. Of the many important points that were raised it is worthwhile to mention the following ones:
a) Since the European Commission has finalised its own position on EQF the debate has moved to a new phase. Yet, in the current phase all the unresolved contradictions will appear once again as concrete problems how to relate the national and sectoral frameworks to the EQF.
b) The final phase of the preparation has been characterised by some pragmatic compromses (e.g. disconnecting the EQF and the ECVET from each other). This (together with some tacit agreements on the concepts to be used) will make it more difficult to see what the actual role of EQF will be in the next phase.
c) The hopes on the usability of a context-neutral European framework were related to the perspective of reaching common agreements on the levels of competences (and on different aspects of competences to be related to these levels). Yet, in the light of the most recent discussions it appears that the interpretation of the levels is far more context-dependent and culturally specific than has been anticipated by promoters of 'European transparency'.
Yet, already in the open discussion strong points were made that the discussion is heading towards new frameworks and that European VET researchers cannot remain passive. In particular the new member states and the candidate countries consider it necessary that European experts participate in the process with constructive contributions. In this respect my proposal for the VETNET Forum was to start a process of policy motintoring and policy analysis that will be concluded via a specific document ("The VETNET Memorandum") at the ECER'07. This proposal was greeted and subsequently agreed in the VETNET General Assembly. In order to proceed in the work the speakers were requested to submit their contributions to support the further discussion. In the next few days some decisions will have to be taken how to organise the discussion.
Pekka Kämäräinen
This year there was an interesting tension between the two sessions. On the one had the Opening Colloquium drew attention to the discussions on the reform of VET in Switzerland (which is not a member of the European Union or of the European Economic Area). On the other hand the VETNET Forum focused on the current phase in the preparation of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) - a European policy process that concerns primarily the European Union and the European Economic Area. In this respect the two sessions could have landed into discussions that would have had very little in common. Yet, after the event it is possible to note that this was not the case.
The Opening Colloquium was based on the keynote lecture of prof.em. Rolf Dubs from the University of St. Gallen. In his lively way he managed to chase away stereotype pictures of Switzerland as a self-sufficient fortress that is happy with its own traditions and sceptical vis-à-vis foreign ideas. Instead he gave a picture of dynamic debates in the need to reform the Swiss system of apprenticeship and on the willingness to consider aternative options. In this context comparative analyses onthe developments in the neighbouring countries (e.g. Germany, France and Austria) and outside Europe have had a role to play. Equally, the presentation provided comparative insights into the performance of school-based VET and dual models of apprentice training in Switzerland. All these analyses gave rise to proposals for revitalising the dual system and into enriching into 'trial system' by introducing bridging learning arrangements between traditional full-time education and traditional workplace-based learning. In this respect the main question for Dubs and for his commentators was 'how to make vocational learning meaningful and perspective-opening both for the learners and for the receiving enterprises'. (We hope to get more material on the web page of the session 4 in the coming days).
This year the VETNET Forum was dedicatd to joint re-examination of the preparation of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) in a policyprocess that was steered by the European Commission. On behalf of the VETNET network I presented the bakground of the EQF and gave the floor for the speakers who provided insights into the current phase. Dr Jörg Markowitsch provided a closer look at the most recent phase of the preparatory process. In the next speech prof. Georg Spöttl drew attention to different - and often mutually contradicting expectatons that have been raised during the preparation of the proposal. (We hope to get the contributions of the two speakers in the coming days; the main points of my introductory input have already been presented in an earlier blog entry).
The subsequent discussion was lively and constructive an it merits a more thorough re-examination than is possible at the moment. Of the many important points that were raised it is worthwhile to mention the following ones:
a) Since the European Commission has finalised its own position on EQF the debate has moved to a new phase. Yet, in the current phase all the unresolved contradictions will appear once again as concrete problems how to relate the national and sectoral frameworks to the EQF.
b) The final phase of the preparation has been characterised by some pragmatic compromses (e.g. disconnecting the EQF and the ECVET from each other). This (together with some tacit agreements on the concepts to be used) will make it more difficult to see what the actual role of EQF will be in the next phase.
c) The hopes on the usability of a context-neutral European framework were related to the perspective of reaching common agreements on the levels of competences (and on different aspects of competences to be related to these levels). Yet, in the light of the most recent discussions it appears that the interpretation of the levels is far more context-dependent and culturally specific than has been anticipated by promoters of 'European transparency'.
Yet, already in the open discussion strong points were made that the discussion is heading towards new frameworks and that European VET researchers cannot remain passive. In particular the new member states and the candidate countries consider it necessary that European experts participate in the process with constructive contributions. In this respect my proposal for the VETNET Forum was to start a process of policy motintoring and policy analysis that will be concluded via a specific document ("The VETNET Memorandum") at the ECER'07. This proposal was greeted and subsequently agreed in the VETNET General Assembly. In order to proceed in the work the speakers were requested to submit their contributions to support the further discussion. In the next few days some decisions will have to be taken how to organise the discussion.
Pekka Kämäräinen
