I am not used to writing blogs on current politics. At best I may have picked special events or anniversaries to make some sideline commentaries. But that has been most of it. Likewise, I have not been active in sending ‘Season’s greetings’ in public domain – at best on my Facebook account but that has been it.

This time things are different. For quite some time I have been following the war in Syria and the bombardment of Aleppo – and the difficult efforts of diplomats to get a ceasefire that could bring real help to people who were stuck between the warring parties. Indeed, Aleppo has become to us and pour contemporaries the symbol of similar sufferings as Guernica during the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s and Sarajevo in the Wars arising from the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. This time it has been hard to witness and understand the weakness of the World Community, the UN Security Council and the public opinion. During the most recent days there have been relieving news on ceasefire and the start of evacuations, topped up by the unanimous vote of the UN Security council to send Peace Monitoring teams to support evacuations and international aid. Let us hope that they can provide help for the ones needed and give peace a chance.

However, parallel to these news we get schocking news of terrorist attacks in different places. For me the most striking is the news from Berlin – given that I have lived in over a year in Berlin (1994 – 1995) and I know the places in West Berlin very well. Here, the most striking thing was that the terrorist attacked the Christmas market area at Breitscheidplatz, next to the Gedächtniskirche – the ruin church that has been kept as a memory of the destruction caused by World War II. But equally, what has happened in Zürich (shootings in Islamic Centre) and in Ankara (the murder of the Russian Ambassador), in Yemen and in Somalia (the latter ones hardly attracting the attention of the Western worls) – all this is too much.

What is also striking is, how differently people react. My German Facebook-friends have promptly reacted with messages that express their condolences to the relatives of the victims and injured and condemn terrorist actions, whatever their motivation may have been. At the same time they have expressed their anger about the right-wing demagogues who have tried to pass the blame to all refugees and migrants en bloc. I have been pleased to share their messages and to translate their points in English. They speak the language of peace and understanding (instead of suspicion and xenophobia), they speak for dialogue with well-thought facts and for building bridges (instead of isolating oneselves and building walls around comfort zones).

In this spirit I also want my blog to pass messages of peace and understanding as my Season’s Greetings for the Christmas time and for the New Year 2017:

Let There Be Peace on Earth

Give Peace A Chance

I have already completed my duties with in my daily work, left Bremen behind for a holiday period and landed happily to my domestic Finland. Normally, when I am entering the holiday mood, I give my blog a rest and take some time off as a blogger. Likewise, I have tended to leave behind the habit to send Christmas cards (and switched to e-cards). Now, I am doing something different: I am sending via my blog season’s greetings – food for thought worth keeping over the holiday period and catching up with in the beginning of the year 2017.

All my years as an expatriate in Germany I have learned to appreciat the German radio channel Deutschlandfunk and its Sunday morning program “Essays und Diskurs”.  And during the last few weeks they have had a very special series of these with the heading ‘Political economy of the 21st century – on the actuality of Marx and “Das Kapital”‘. I know that such a heading can provoke different reactions and assumptions, what these programs might be about. To me it was inspiring to listen to some of them – contemporary researches discussing present date problems and issues of social theory – working these issues through with reflective reading on Karl Marx. They were looking at ways to set our current problems into interpretative frameworks and exploring the heritage of Marx with focused reading of “Das Kapital”.

I guess this is enough of introduction, I will give links to the six programs of this series below. And yes, the authors had written their contributions in German and presented them in German. But since my links are to the written contributions, they might be accessible to others than German-speakers as well.  For those, who want to listen to the audios, the pages give links to them as well. So, here we have these special contributions with brief introductions (in German):

RE: Das Kapital (1/6) Aktuelle Brisanz der Marxschen Kategorie

“Vor 150 Jahren erschien eines der Hauptwerke von dem deutschen Philosophen, Ökonom und Gesellschaftstheoretiker Karl Marx – “Das Kapital”. Im ersten Teil einer Deutschlandfunk-Sendereihe erläutert der Publizist Mathias Greffrath wie die Marxsche Kategorie des Mehrwerts heute noch politische Brisanz entfalten kann.” Von Mathias Greffrath

RE: Das Kapital (2/6) Das Verhältnis von Kapitalismus und Gewalt

“Im zweiten Teil der Deutschlandfunk-Sendereihe über die aktuelle Brauchbarkeit von “Das Kapital”: ein Essay des Soziologen Wolfgang Streeck über die “ursprüngliche Akkumulation” und die Gewalt im Kapitalismus.”  Von Wolfgang Streeck

Michael Quante, Professor für Philosophie, beschäftigt sich für den dritten Teil der Sendereihe “Das Kapital” mit dem ökonomischen Hauptwerk von Karl Marx. Er geht dabei auf die Suche nach den Spuren der Entfremdung im Kapitalismus, welche auch heute spürbar sind.  Von Michael Quante

With my previous posts I started to write a serious of blogs with the heading “My journey with Institut Technik & Bildung (ITB)”. These blogs are intended to support the work (or follow-up) of the ITB “Klausurtagung” that will take place on Friday 9. December 2016.  The inspiration to write personal blogs that deal with the history of ITB comes from the Klausurtagung 2015. With this series I try to compensate my absence due to health issues and to pass a message, wah has happened at different times and with different themes. In the first post I tried to cover my first encounters –  my study visit in 1989 and participation in the Hochschultage Berufliche Bildung 1990 conference. In the second post I gave insights into the Modellversuch Schwarze Pumpe and to related European cooperation projects 1995 – 1999. In the third post I discussed the Europrof project, the Unesco International TVET meeting in Hangzhou 2004 and its follow-up. In the fourth post I discussed the  TTplus project and the European Consultation seminars in the years 2007 – 2010. In the fifth blog I discussed the  Work & Learning Partners (2005-2006) and the Euronet-PBL (2009-2010). In this sixth and final post I will discuss the expedition with the Learning Layers project (2012 – 2016).

Here, it is worthwhile to emphasise that this ‘journey’ has taken me and my ITB colleagues through different periods of European cooperation. Not all of our efforts have been that successful. Yet, we have achieved respectable results and we have learned a lot. It is also important to emphasise that there is a strong continuity with underlying theoretical concepts and guiding principles for R&D activities (participation, dialogue and social shaping – all in one word: Gestaltung). With this interim conclusion I try to give a nutshell picture of the latest leg of the journey – our expedition with the EU-funded Learning Layers project (on which I have been blogging the last four years).

The starting points of the Learning Layers project

Thae Learning Layers (LL) project was funded by the 7th Framework Programme of Research, Technology and Development of the European Uninon (EU FP7). The aim was to support informal learning in the context of work and organisations by using digital tools, web resources and mobile devices. Special emphasis was given on addressing SMEs (and their networks) as users and to scale up innovations during the project. As a contrast to the previous projects discussed in this series of blogs, our (= ITB) starting position was completely different:

• Firstly, the previous projects had mainly been initiated and/or led by ITB and carried out with a partnership that we new of the vocational education and training (VET) research community.  In the Learning Layers project we joined in a consortium that was led by research institutions from the fields of educational technology, software solutions, knowledge management and infrastructure architectures. Pontydysgu had made the contact between us and the emerging project consortium.
• Secondly, the project plan had initially envisaged only one field for piloting (the healthcare sector in England, represented by General Practice stations affiliated with the National Health Service, supported in the project by Leeds University). In the final phase of the preparations the construction sector from Germany (supported by ITB) was included into the project plan as the second field for piloting.
• Thirdly. the project concept was relying on a good synchronisation of different contributions from the technical partners in a co-design process, so that the users could easily take up the tools (with the support of an integrated scaffolding model). In this concept there was no clear pre-defined role for us (other than coodination fo the sectoral activities with the application partners in the German construction sector.

The above mentioned plan and project concept were reflected in the set of work packages in which we found our role primarily in the WP7 (deployment and promotion of LL tools in the pilot sectors). However, during the project the ‘cards were mixed and redistributed’ in the processes of co-design, tool development and bringing them to users.

The starting points of the construction pilot

Looking back, the starting point for the construction pilot was somewhat similar as the earlier educational pilot projects (Modellversuche) and the innovation programme on Work and Technology (Arbeit und Technik). Obviously, we could consider that our role was similar to the accompanying research (Begleitforschung). Yet, we had to start with a relatively open research agenda visà-vis the predecessor projects. And, compared to our colleagues in the healthcare sector (Leeds University) we both had an intermediate position between the technical partners and the application partners. Ye, in the course of the project, the pilot activities and our roles developed into somewhat different directions. I will try to summarise the points below:

• As a contrast to the Modellversuche or the AuT programme, the accompanying research team of ITB could not take a pedagogic pilot concept and related working hypotheses (Versuchshypothesen) or explicit programme goals (AuT-Gestaltungsziele) as points of reference.
• Concerning the project concept, the accompanying research team had to take an intermediate and interpretative role regarding the achievement of project goals in the context of apprentice training and within organisational learning in construction sector.
• Concerning the co-design processes, the healthcare pilot worked with three parallel design ideas (and emerging tools) towards a integrative approaches. This process was supported by separate tool development teams of technical partners. In the construction pilot the overarching design idea went through two iterations before the co-design work took the course towards an integrative toolset – the Learning Toolbox. This development process was prepared jointly by the application partners, research partners and intermediate partners, whilst the technical partners joined in later.

In this respect the accompanying research team in the construction pilot had to reconsider its tasks and contributions and to take new roles in the course of the project work.

The R&D dialogue in Bau-ABC – the iterative process

In the co-design process in Bau-ABC (intermediate training centre of of North-German construction industry) was to digitise the Bau-ABC White Folder (collection of training materials, worksheets and reporting documents) and the related training and learning processes. In the initial phase the ITB team engaged heavily Bau-ABC trainers and apprentices by work process analyses and storyboard workshops to identify potential points of intervention (for using digital tools). In the subsequent co-design workshops a lot of attention was paid on haping the tools in such a way that they support vocational learning – and reflective learning. However, in two iteration cycles the joint conclusions was reached to give up the over-ambitious digitisation agenda. Instead, the course was taken to develop a flexible and integrative toolset – the Learning Toolbox – to provide access to web resources, to create own resources and to share knowledge and communicate in real time.

Immediately after this shift into new phase the ITB team together with the LTB developers and colleagues from Bau-ABC started outreach activities that engaged more construction sector professionals and apprentices in discussions on the emerging toolset – on the elementary functions and what could be added upon. These talks were carried out in the Brunnenbauertage trade fair (in Bau-ABC), in the Demo Camp workshop event (also in Bau-ABC) and in the NordBau trade fair (in Neumünster). Also, a closer cooperation with the first interested construction companies was started at this phase.

The training schemes as capacity building and contribution to tool development

Already before the abve mentioned shift in the co-design process the partners in the construction pilot had agreed to start a multimedia training scheme for the trainers in Bau-ABC. The first scheme was developed step by step to equip the participants with basic multimedia competences and capability to assess possibilities for using existing apps or tools and for co-creating and co-developing new ones. In this context the Bau-ABC trainers started working with their domain-specific blogs (Zimmererblog, Maurerblog, Tiefbaublog, Brunnenbauerblog) and to develop them into repositories of their own training materials and supporting content. After the first multimedia training the Bau-ABC trainers (who had participated) produced series of videos pointing to specific contexts for using the toolset to optimise work processes and to support workplace-based learning.

In the next phase a more overarching training programme, based on the “Theme Room” concept (initiated by Bau-ABC trainers) was implemented as a ‘whole organisation’ campaign involving all  training staff of Bau-ABC. The training scheme consisted of four Friday afternoon workshops in November 2015 with focus on two main themes – ‘Use of Social Media’ and ‘Production/Use of Digital Learning Materials’ – with two workshops for each theme. The training staff in Bau-ABC (Rostrup) was divided into four parallel groups (and a fifth group in the branch centre Mellendorf). Each group was tutored by one Bau-ABC trainer and a researcher from ITB team. Altogether this campaign gave a strong push for using digital tools, and web resources in the apprentice training. Moreover, it paved the way for improvements in the infrastructure to enable the piloting with the Learning Toolbox – within the apprentice training of Bau-ABC.

The breakthrough with Learning Toolbox and the completion of the project work

In February-March the Learning Layers project project started the active use of Learning Toolbox in the apprentice training for selected pioneering trades. After the Kick-off event in March the trainers started to spread the piloting via peer tutoring and via joint projects involving several trades. This process was supported by accompanying researchers from ITB, the Learning Toolbox developers and visiting researches from Innsbruck, Espoo and Tallinn. With the jointly implemented evaluation studies in May, August and September we could conclude that the trainers in different trades had found somewhat different ways to use Learning Toolbox – and that the apprentices in their respective trades responded positively to their approaches.

Parallel to the these final activities the Learning Layers partners have prepared their contributions to the final deliverable – a comperehensive reporting website, currently called as ‘the Layers Web’. The main contributions of the construction pilot include the following:

• Impact Cards: C-01 on specific pilot with AchSo video annotation tool in Bau-ABC; C-05 on pilot activities in Verden; C-11 on the use of Learning Toolbox in Bau-ABC, C-12 on Training schemes in Bau-ABC.
• Learning Scenarios: S-02 on use of Learning Toolbox at a construction site (Verden); S-09 on Learning Toolbox as support for Handlungsorientiertes Lernen in Bau-ABC; S-10 on changing and sustaining practices in the pilot sectors.
• Methodology documents: M-10 on accompanying research and participative design; M-11 on Training interventions as capacity-building.

These final documents and many other working documents have been made available as draft versions on the following ResearchGate project spaces:

• Learning Layers project (2012 -2016) – Construction sector pilot and follow-up
• Learning Layers Theory Camp (2014) and follow-up.

The follow-up prospects

The signals from pilots in Bau-ABC have been positive and they have been picked up. Following the example, the application partner organisations in Verden have made their steps in using Learning Toolbox in construction work and in promoting the tool to other actors in construction sector. Based on these pioneering cases, the ITB team has recently organised bilateral talks with interested companies. Some spin-off projects have already been started with other construction sector partners before the Learning Toolbox was fully available (to be integrated to their working concepts). At the moment the ITB team is involved in talks to prepare proposals with new knowledge on the usability of Learning Toolbox in the projects.

I think this is enough of the Learning Layers project – of our experiences, achievements and follow-up prospects. To me it is important to not that this has been an exceptional project with richly documented activities and sustainable results to take further by follow-up activities. And for this reason it is important to continue the ‘harvesting’ of results while preparing further follow-up initiatives. It has been and it it is worthwhile.

More blogs to come …

With my previous posts I started to write a serious of blogs with the heading “My journey with Institut Technik & Bildung (ITB)”. These blogs are intended to support the work (or follow-up) of the ITB “Klausurtagung” that will take place on Friday 9. December 2016.  The inspiration to write personal blogs that deal with the history of ITB comes from the Klausurtagung 2015. With this series I try to compensate my absence due to health issues and to pass a message, wah has happened at different times and with different themes. In the first post I tried to cover my first encounters –  my study visit in 1989 and participation in the Hochschultage Berufliche Bildung 1990 conference. In the second post I gave insights into the Modellversuch Schwarze Pumpe and to related European cooperation projects 1995 – 1999. In the third post I discussed the Europrof project, the Unesco International TVET meeting in Hangzhou 2004 and its follow-up. In the fourth post I discussed the  TTplus project and the European Consultation seminars in the years 2007 – 2010. In this fifth blog I will discuss the development of our work from Work & Learning Partners (2005-2006) to Euronet-PBL on practice-based learning  (2009-2010).

The three previous blogs have discussed reform and innovations concepts with systemic relevance (Doppelqualifikation, New VET professionals) and/or European policy frameworks (Teachers and trainers in VET). As a contrast, the projects to be discussed in this post can be characterised as intermediate innovations (partnerships for workplace learning in VET and for practice-based learning in higher education).

The project Work & Learning Partners (2005-2006)

The Leonardo da Vinci project “Work & Learning Partners (WLP)” was based on the experiences of a successful regional pilot project (Modellversch GoLo) with workplace learning partnerships in the Wilhelmshaven region. This predecessor project demonstrated that a crisis region can cut the declining tendency in apprentice training by grouping SMEs into partnerships that provide training opportunities jointly. Here it is worthwhile to note that in the case of Wilhelmshaven these cooperation arrangements were supported by a local mobilisation of the companies (by the local industrial association) and by training interventions of the pilot team.

The European project (initiated by Philipp Grollmann) tried to promote transfer of innovation by relatively light-weight accompaniment arrangements (with case studies using a GoLo-based “Learning Potential Analysis” (LPA) method. This was originally used to clarify whether the partner enterprises were in the position to cover all content areas in the domain-specific apprentice training – and to identify areas of learning to be covered with partnership cooperation. However, the case studies that were carried out parallel to these analyses gave a picture that the companies involved in the other partner countries were not looking for partnership-based cooperation with other companies by letting apprentices rotate. Instead, in the second phase of the project the partners refocused their fieldwork into examining the kind of cooperation arrangements that could be introduced in their contexts and/or measures to improve their workplace learning with the use of multimedia support. Also, as a support for the initial ideas, the French partner provided an additional case study of the trans-national company Endress + Hauser that has pioneered with rotating ita apprentices between its plants in Switzerland, Germany and France (and completing apprenticeship with certificates recognised in all countries).

Looking back, the the partners had apparently expected more of the willingness of the companies to work in partnerships and of the contribution of the LPA-analyses to the development of workplace learning arrangements. As I came to the project as a replacement of the coordinator (due to an accident and a longer leave of absence), my task was to coach the local partners to find alternative initiatives to be reported. This process history was symptomatic for attempted transfer of innovation with very context-specific innovation concepts to wider European use.

Euronet-PBL – the approach to studying and developing practice-based learning

Some years later the Erasmus project Euronet-PBL was initiated by ITB (by Ludger Deitmer as primus motor). It was shaped as an allrounder-project to study and develop practice-based learning arrangements in three domains: engineering studies, business administration and vocational teacher education. The university partners were working together with partner enterprises to analyse the experieences with hitherto implemented practice-based learning arrangements (case studies), to evaluate the experiences (evaluation workshops) and to collect tools, instruments and support arrangements into a curricular toolbox. Altogether the work was supported by comparative analyses that provided the basis for eventual recommendations that were discussed in valorisation workshops.

Euronet-PBL – student’s projects, evaluation workshops and valorisation workshops

The project worked intensively with its case studies which included context descriptions on the study programs and on the role of practice-based learning arrangements (Praktikum, Company-Action-Projects, Coop-placements). Then, selected students’ projects or placement cases were analysed for more detailed information). based on this interim information the university partners organised with the partner companies and ths students self-evaluation workshops (using an evaluation tool developed in earlier ITB projects). Here, it is worthwhile to note that the use of the evaluatzion tool is linked to the workshop concept and the quantifiying and visualising features of the tool serve the purpose of stimulating discussion and clarification of arguments. On the basis of ‘local’ evaluation workshops the university partners organised valorisation workshops that had the task to validate the findings and to put them into wider (national) group picture.

Euronet-PBL – the role of comparative analyses

Initially the project was expected to produce a common framework or guidelines for supporting the development of practice-based learning arrangements in higher education (in general) and in the participating academic domains. However, the comparative analyses (using the empirical material gathered in the project) came to the conclusion that this is not realistic. Instead, the comparative analyses provided a framework for

• distinguishing different learning arrangements from each other: intensive intervention projects (CAP-projects), series of  students’ short-term projects (Praktikum projects), work experience placements (without study project);
• distinguishing between ‘reference case’ and ‘parallel’ case in the academic domains analysed (project vs. placement);
• making the information on different models and patterns of implementation transparent as a group picture;
• analysing the role of the Bologna process as a background and context for developing different models;
• analysing developments and ambitions in shaping different models (taking into account the European context.

Thus, instead of preparing a ‘framework’ or ‘guideline’ document, the project prepared a secondary analysis of exemplary students’ projects to highlight the potentials of such projects for university-enterprise cooperation.

The role of  the Toolbox of the Euronet-PBL (at that time and looking back)

In the light of the above it is easy to understand, what kind of changes the idea of shping a common toolbox went through during the project and how differently such a task would be approached with present-date understanding. Originally the idea of a common toolbox was linked to the common curricular framework or curricular guidelines (to develop practice-based learning). The toolbox was to collect national or local guidelines, instructions, contract templates, reporting documents, presentation templates, assessment guidelines and forms etc. These materials were to be structured in the light of agreed recommendations or guiding principles.

Once the comparative analyses had suggested the conclusion to support mutual learning and exchanges as the main thrust for developing practice-based learning, the role of the common toolbox changed. Now, it was developed as a resource base for learning from other partners’ models, instruments and tools. From this perspective the “Toolbox” was shaped as a moodle ‘course’ that was based on a process model for implementing practice-based learning. The ‘learning units’ of the course highlighted a phase in the planning, preparation, implementation and assessment of practice-based learning. And exemplary instructions, instruments, tools and reports used by partners were made available to illustrate this phase.

Looking back, it is symptomatic that the project of the years 2009-2010 worked with an idea of a curricular toolbox instead of a learners’ toolbox. Now, with present-date Internet-connections and mobile apps it is easier to think of common toolboxes to support learners’ activities and share information on students’ Praktikum or CAP projects in real time.

– – –

I think this is enough of these intermediate innovation projects (between systemic reforms and ‘local’ development measures). As I have indicated above, many of these projects could be revisited as early anticipations of innovation concepts that now can be shaped in a more user-friendly, dynamic and interactive way.

More blogs to come …

With my previous posts I started to write a serious of blogs with the heading “My journey with Institut Technik & Bildung (ITB)”. These blogs are intended to support the work (or follow-up) of the ITB “Klausurtagung” that will take place on Friday 9. December 2016.  The inspiration to write personal blogs that deal with the history of ITB comes from the Klausurtagung 2015. With this series I try to compensate my absence due to health issues and to pass a message, wah has happened at different times and with different themes. In the first post I tried to cover my first encounters –  my study visit in 1989 and participation in the Hochschultage Berufliche Bildung 1990 conference. In the second post I gave insights into the Modellversuch Schwarze Pumpe and to related European cooperation projects 1995 – 1999. In the third post I discussed the Europrof project, the Unesco International TVET meeting in Hangzhou 2004 and its follow-up. In the fourth post I will discuss the development of our work from the TTplus project to the European Consultation seminars on VET teachers and trainers in the years 2007 – 2010.

Remarks on the earlier history of the theme “Teachers and trainers in VET” at European level

My first encounter with the theme “Teachers and trainers in VET” at European level took place, when I was working in Cedefop (European Centre for the Drevelopment of Vocational Training) as a national seconded expert sent by the Finnish government. Cedefop was being relocated from Berlin to Thessaloniki, Greece and I had just got a new contract with which I would start as a temporary official of the EU in Thessaloniki. At that time the Cedefop project manager who was in charge of the newly started project “Teachers and trainers in VET” asked me to take over this project since she was leaving Cedefop and moving to Eurostat. For her this was a project to be completed when the national reports for all countries are completed.

When I had joined the project, I realised that there was a strong community-building process going on and that it should not be dropped. Yet, I had already got my activities in VET research cooperation started (accompaniment of European projects, joint synergy seminars with top projects, participation in European policy dialogue events with the projects) and I couldn’t concentrate sufficiently on the practitioner network. After a lengthy transition period another Cedefop project manager took over this project and managed the official launch of the TTnet network in 1998 (based on the preparatory work in the years 1995-1997).

From that point on the TTnet seemed to be the natural address to collect European studies and expertise on the theme ‘teachers and trainers’ However, there were two major limitations in the way that the network had been constituted. Firstly, following the Cedefop tradition, the network was built upon national contact points that coordinated the activities and eventually invited further actors. This was a somewhat exclusive mode of participation. Secondly, it was left to each country, whether the contact point is hosted by institutions for vocational teacher education or major training organisations (with ‘training the trainers’ activities) or national VET authorities. As a consequence, the national contact points covered the field from the perspective of their own priorities.

When the European Commission in the years 2005-2006 was looking for ways to analyse more closely the role of VET teachers and trainers as a target group for European policies, these measures were not crried out via TTnet but via new priorities in the Leonardo da Vinci programme and via specific tenders (which also were open for the TTnet members as well). From the thematic pointof view, special emphasis was given on measures that focused on in-company trainers or on trainers in specialised training organisations (beyond the initial VET). This was the background for the many parallel activities on the theme ‘teachers and trainers’ that were carried out by ITB in the years 2006 -2010: The Eurotrainer I survey, the TTplus project, the Consultation seminars and the Eurotrainer II network. Below I will focus on the TTplus project and the Consultation seminars in which I had a major role.

The TTplus project – approaches and initiatives

The TTplus project was set up with the ambitious heading ‘Framework for continuing professional development of trainers’ and building upon the experiences of the Euroframe project (see my previous post). The project took into account from the beginning the fact that the patterns for employing trainers (for workplace-based learning) and the respective arrangements for ‘training of trainers’ vary to a great extent. Therefore, The empirical work was based on three case studies to be carried ou in the particpating countries – then to be followed by policy analyses, reflections on the role of European Qualification Framework (EQF) and recommendations.

Concerning the policies and/or societal boundary conditions for engaging trainers and organising ‘training for trainers’ the case studies and policy analyses provided the following kind of group picture:

• In Germany the exisiting framework for training of trainers (AEVO) had been teamporarily suspended (in order to encourage the companies to take more apprentices. The companies that were studied were interested in supporting training of trainers – and used AEVO as a basis. Yet, they saw AEVO as minimum and were looking for more.
• In Portugal the partners studied private training providers who organised employment schemes commissioned by the employment services. The trainers’ aptitude certificate (CAP) required as minimum standard tended to reduce the pedadgogic room for manoeuvre to traditional frontal teaching.
• In Greece the companies studied were not subject to follow any government policies regarding in-company training – this was up to company-specific decisions. Likewise, it was up to the companies to engage trainers and to consider the competences of trainers from their perspectives. From the analyst’s point of view there was a case for a government intervention to to introduce minimum level training obligations and minimum standards for trainers.
• In Wales the companies contacted had outsourced most of their training activities and these were catered for by freelance-trainers who had developed their career as allrounders (from the content point) and as training technique specialists. Whilst they were in the position to outline frameworks for professional development (but were sceptical whether such frameworks should be applied to freelance trainers).

As these examples already indicate, the European landscape of training at workplace and ‘training of trainers’ was getting more colourful and it was not self-evident, how to promote European policies in an effective way. The approach of the project made it possible to get insights into the training contexts (companies, training providers, training arrangements) and to collect working issues. This all served as good preparation for the forhcoming European activities.

Analyses on the role of the European Qualification Framework(s) (EQF)

in the light of the above it was apparent that the ‘European dimension’ of the project TTplus was not to set common European standards for trainers – neither was there a case to declare a common recommendation for continuing professional development. Instead, the project provided an overview of the challenges and eventual steps forward in different countries (taking into account the organisational, institutional and policy contexts).

In this respect the analysis on the role of  the problems in applying European Qualification Frameworks (EQFs) to the field ‘teachers and trainers in VET’. Whilst in several countries, VET teachers were educated in universities or higher education institutions, this was not  the universal rule across Europe. In this respect the EQF for Higher Education (the Bologna process) provided the general framework. Yet, considering the career models of VET teachers, there was a tension between study programs for full-time students vs. professionals in the middle of career shift.

For the same reasons the European Qualification Framework for VET (or lifelong learning) did not provide an orientative framework for career progression – neither within the context of workplace training nor regarding career shift from training activities fro teacher duties. In this respect the German country report made transparent the initial discussion on such career models (and how to support them with different national frameworks). However, the discussion was at early stage and ITB got at that time linked with the developmental initiatives (after the TTplus project).

The consultation seminars – overall approach and insights into the workshops

In the light of the above it is interesting to note the opportunities provided by the Europe-wide Consultation seminars “VET teachers and trainers” in 2oo8 – 2009. This was a European Commission initiative to pull together knowledge and different stakeholders’ views via series of ‘regional’ workshops that cover all Members States, EEA partners and candidate countries. ITB won the tender with a consortium based on the Eurotrainer projects. The task was originally to organise six regional workshops to cover different European regions and to draw conclusions from hitherto implemented policies and intiatives for common European initiatives. The expectations were rather high regarding conclusions that could support incorporation of VET teachers and trainers into EQFs or under specific EU-level ‘communications’ (from the Commission to the European Parliament).

The workshops were designed as higly participative, interactive and collaborative events with quick shifts between differen kinds of sessions as the following:

• Statements on the wall: Collection of statements on the roles, tasks and development prospects of trainers –  collected and grouped on the wall under respective headings – reflections on different positions and groupings.
• Witness sessions: Quick presentations on recent innovations/initiatives/pilots that the participants bring from their home countries – what were the strengths/weeknesses, what made them sustainable/fragile.
• Mapping European policies/initiatives: Participants were asked to fill in ‘problem’ cards, ‘method/measure’ cards and ‘policy’ cards to outline proposals. The groups collected and grouped the results.
• Priority ranking: Participants were asked to indicate European ‘priorities’ that had been high and should be kept high vs. had been high but should be lowered vs. had been low and should be topped up vs. had been low and should be kept low.

These were some examples of the activities that were managed in the workshops. Altogether they gave the participants a good feeling that their views were respected, their contributions were taken on boards and the the groups worked together. Indeed, as ‘regional’ and trans-national workshops for knowledge sharing and dialogue the events served very well. However, the problem was in brining the European policy level into discussion and developing the feedback processes in such a way that European policy-makers could draw conclusions for their work.

– – –

I think this is enough of the projects and activities of this period. They were rich learning experiences but showed major difficulties in working towards a European synthesis – and at the same time shaping recommendations for development activities in particular VET contexts. This challenge will be explored in the forthcoming blogs.

More blogs to come … 

With my previous posts I started to write a serious of blogs with the heading “My journey with Institut Technik & Bildung (ITB)”. These blogs are intended to support the work (or follow-up) of the ITB “Klausurtagung” that will take place on Friday 9. December 2016.  The inspiration to write personal blogs that deal with the history of ITB comes from the Klausurtagung 2015. With this series I try to compensate my absence due to health issues and to pass a message, wah has happened at different times and with different themes. In the first post I tried to cover my first encounters –  my study visit in 1989 and participation in the Hochschultage Berufliche Bildung 1990 conference. In the second post I gave insights into the Modellversuch Schwarze Pumpe and to related European cooperation projects 1995 – 1999. In this post I will discuss the Europrof and the further work with its core ideas towards the Unesco International TVET meeting in Hangzhou 2004 and its follow-up.

The Europrof project 1996-1998: Training of new VET professionals

In my first post of this series I referred to my talks on the regional pilot project of ITB on the theme “Qualifizierung der Berufspädagogen für alle Lerorten”.  Whilst that one was a small-scale pilot, it expressed the idea to overcome the divisions between vocational education and training (VET) professionals – vocational subject teachers, in-company trainers and training managers – with an integrative concept. This idea was taken further by the ITB initiative to launch a European cooperation project that seeks to cross the accustomed boundaries and outline a new European framework.

In this spirit the Europrof project launched a new debate on the education of VET professionals. The main aim was to to overcome the cultural barriers between expertise in VET (teaching-learning processes) and in HRD (workplace-based learning and continuing professional development). At the same time the project tried to support debates on the renewal of vocational teacher education and on the strengthening of European research culture in the field of VET.

Regarding the contribution of the Europrof project to Europe-wide knowledge development it is worthwhile to note that the project brought together participants that had different views and orientations on the theme “education of new VET professionals”. In this respect the project managed to organise a Europe-wide “invisible college” in terms of a cross-cultural learning community. However, after the development of the “cornerstones” (and after the incorporation of the research themes of the affiliated experts) the project started to experience difficulties in working towards a common core structure for curriculum development that would take the debate further from the ‘cornerstones’ and from the attached research themes. Therefore, the Europrof project completed its work with a gallery of country studies and of supporting research themes.

The project history of Europrof was characterised by an attempt to avoid the transition of the partners into advocates of their national educational models (and of related VET cultures). Therefore, the Europrof project tried to reduce the amount of comparative analyses and to push the partners towards collaborative research & development work. However, after certain interim workshops the project was no longer able to promote a common change agenda, since the national partners could not show indications of changes in their national contexts. Instead, the project was concluded with reports on supporting research themes.

The Euroframe project 1999-2000: Partition of the follow-up agenda

The multiplier-effect project Euroframe tried to avoid pursuing an over-ambitious agenda by dividing its work into two parallel strands of work (taking into account different priorities in the participating countries).  The two strands referred to different educational concepts and target groups (and corresponding models of European cooperation):

• The more ‘academic’ strand developed as proposal for a European inter-university institute with a mission to promote VET-related research and research-based expertise in educationa and training of VET professional.
• a set of case studies on research & development activities that could link the work of such an institute to pilot projects and regional initiatives with a broader social context.

However, the two strands became independent of each other and the underlying conceptual approaches started to grow apart from each other instead of working towards a cohesive framework.

As a consequence of the differentiation of the project dynamics, the case studies were not in the position to give a clear illustration how the common framework (and the related inter-university institute) could support the developmental activities (that were linking the issue ‘continuing professional development’ to broader social and regional contexts). Thus, the project histories revealed the need for bridging concepts and methodologies that could link such strands to each other on the basis of ‘coherent diversity’ and ‘mutual enrichment.

The new start with the UNESCO-UNEVOC centre – the Hamburg workshop (September 2004)

Whilst the follow-up at the European level fell for some time to latency, ITB had in the meantime created contacts with the newly established UNESCO-UNEVOC centre (now based in Bonn). This cooperation had already led to joint publication projects – a new book series on international reference publications on TVET development and TVET research (in the UNESCO terminology the overarching concept is ‘technical and vocational education and training’ – TVET). In this context the issue of developing an international agenda for supporting TVET teacher education and for promoting TVET research. Also, at that time ITB was also involved in a major European consortium that provided an interim assessment on European VET policies after the EU-summit in Lisbon 2000  – prepared to the meeting of Education miniters in Maastricht 2004 (Leney, T. et al. 2004: Achieving the Lisbon goal: The contribution of VET. Final report to the European Commission. Brussels.). In this report the contribution of ITB (Philipp Grollmann) was the analysis of European developments in vocational teacher education and training of VET professionals.

The main international initiative – promoted by Felix Rauner from ITB and director Rupert MacLean from UNESCO-UNEVOC centre – was taken further with Chinese counterparts and supported with a preparatory conference in China (Spring 2004). In Europe a similar preparatory event was organised in collaboration with the European research network VETNET as an international workshop of the GTW-Herbstkonferenz in Hamburg 2004. This workshop discussed firstly policy-analyses with reference to Lisbon summit and to the above mentioned Maastricht-study. Then it explored the situation of TVET teacher education and current initiatives in the participating countries (including Germany, Norway, Finland, Hungary and Greece). In this way the Hamburg workshop prepared the grounds for the forthcoming international event and for European follow-up activities.

The UNESCO International TVET meeting in Hangzhou (November 2004)

This UNESCO International TVET meeting in Hangzhou had the theme “Innovation and excellence in TVET teacher education”. It was organised jointly by the Chinese UNESCO-commission, the UNESCO-UNEVOC centre and the Asian UNESCO-offices. The participants represented all major global regions. In particular it is worthwhile to note that Asian and European countries were widely represented.

The main thrust of the conference was to analyse current needs for TVET-related expertise, to prepare a common curricular framework for Master-level programmes, to reflect upon the progression strategies related to short-cycle models and to outline a common approach for promoting professionalisation and quality awareness. In the light of these tasks, the shaping of the common curricular framework became the crucial task. In this respect the working document on the curricular framework was presented for general acceptance and put forward as the “Hangzhou framework”.

Concerning the initial starting points of the discussion it is worthwhile to note the following points:

• The document took professional areas of specialisation (”vocational disciplines”) as core structures for pedagogic and professional knowledge development in the field of TVET. Thus, the document distanced itself from approaches that would consider general educational sciences or subject-disciplines as the leading disciplines within the development of TVET.
• The document had used a very limited number of exemplary vocational fields of specialisation (’vocational disciplines’) to make the general picture transparent. In this respect the document did not contain a comprehensive catalogue of possible fields of specialisation.
• The document did not discuss in detail the role of transversal and connective pedagogic aspects as a support for the kind of learning and knowledge development that is based on professional areas of specialisation (‘vocational disciplines’). However, in this context it is worthwhile to note that such integrative know-how is of vital importance for bringing the field-specific vocational disciplines under a common framework.

The working group took the approach based on professional areas of specialisation (’vocational disciplines’) as its common starting point. Thus, the discussion tried to find the best composition of such professional areas to make the framework comprehensive and transparent. In this respect the group tried to identify professional areas (or clusters of areas) that can be considered as mutually supporting in the education of TVET professionals and as a basis for the scientific development of ’vocational disciplines’. In this context it became apparent that it is not possible to include several professional areas into an international framework because some areas appear in different clusters in different global regions.

Concluding remarks

The event in Hangzhou was the peak point but at the same time the turning point. It was easy to agree on a common declaration but far more difficult to organise a follow-up and to proceed to implementation. There were two ‘regional’ follow-up conferences in Asia (Tiensin 2005 and Colombo 2006) and one in Europe (Oslo/Lilleström 2006) but no major steps could be taken forward as joint actions. At best a follow-up agenda could be outlined in the ITB-led Asia-Link project TT-TVET project 2006 – 2009, but also in the project the agendas for promoting TVET teacher education moved from common core principles to pragmatic steps forward in each participating country.

In this context it is worthwhile to note that my role changed considerably at different phases of this process history. During the work of Europrof and Euroframe projects I was employed as a project manager of Cedefop (European Centre for Development of Vocational Training) and accompanied the work of these projects. During the Hamburg workshop and the international Hangzhou meeting I was employed by Jyväskylä Polytechnic, but I was already acknowldged as Visiting Fellow (Gastwissenschaftler) of ITB. In the follow-up phase (from Summer 2005 on) I had started working as a project-based researcher in ITB.

– – –

I think this is enough of the development of this theme from the Europrof project to the Hangzhou framework. Whilst the follow-up in the European context died out rather soon, it provided a basis for other  activities regarding professional development of VET teachers and trainers in Europe.

More blogs to come …

With my previous post I started to write a serious of blogs with the heading “My journey with Institut Technik & Bildung (ITB)”. These blogs are intended to support the work (or follow-up) of the ITB “Klausurtagung” that will take place on Friday 9. December 2016.  The inspiration to write personal blogs that deal with the history of ITB comes from the Klausurtagung 2015, when we had a presentation by Klaus Ruth on some highlights of the history of ITB. With this series I try to compensate my absence due to health issues and to pass a message, wah has happened at different times and with different themes. In the first post I tried to cover my first encounters –  my study visit in 1989 and participation in the Hochschultage Berufliche Bildung 1990 conference. In this second post I will give insights into the Modellversuch Schwarze Pumpe – the pilot project with which ITB worked in European cooperation projects 1995 – 1999.

‘Gleichwertigkeit’ and ‘Doppelqualifikation’ as emerging themes

As I indicated already in my previous post, at the end of 1980s and in the beginning of 1990s Finland was preparing structural reforms in the educational system. The mergers and upgradings in higher vocational education – the creation of the Finnish Fachhochschulen was less controversial and was implemented quickly. However, the corollary issue – how to keep a balance between ‘academic’ and ‘vocational’ learning pathways in the upper secondary eduvcation, was more problematic. Traditionally Finland had followed in its educational policies the Swedish reforms that emphasised comprehensivisation and unification of educational institutions and getting rid of separate ‘academic’ and ‘vocational’ tracks. However, in the above mentioned debates the Finns were distancing themselves from what they felt ‘academisation’ of vocational learning and were looking for alternative models. From this perspective, alternative models of curricular cooperation between ‘academic’ and ‘vocational’ learning were explores – as means to improve the attractiveness of vocational education- were discussed. And during these debated Gerald Heidegger from ITB was invited as visiting expert to contribute to such debates. Later on, when the Finnish upper secondary experiments (with curricular cooperation between Gymnasium and Vocational schools) was launched, Günter Kutscha from the University of Duisburg was invited to the international evaluation team (with his expertise on the Kollegschule implementation).

‘Modellversuch Schwarze Pumpe’ takes off

In the light of the above it is worthwhile to note that the German educational policies in the 1990s were looking for new ways to enhance vocational learning and vocational progression routes. To a major extent this was motivated by efforts to re-integrate some of the educational models of DDR into the sytemic frameworks of BRD. From this perspective the ‘new’ Federal states launched several pilot projects (Modellversuche) to incorporate curricula with dually valid qualifications (Doppelqualifikationen). Whilst these ‘pilots’ were mainly based on existing established (and mostly successful) practice of the late DDR, there was a need to accommodate such programs under the dual system of vocational education and training (VET) and to clarify the progression models. In this context the pilots were setting new accents.

In this context the ‘Modellversuch Schwarze Pumpe’ played a special role. Firstly, this was due to the industrial partner and the technologies involved- the energy plant LauBAG was relying on the regional brown coal resources. and related energy production. From the ecological point of view this couldn’t be characterised as sustainable, neither was the company at that time profitable. However, it was the major energy provider for a wide region and a major employer in the regional labour market. Yet, in the light of the inevitable exit from brown coal, the company had to find a balance between measures to keep skilled workforce for current production and preparing them for alternative occupational prospects after the brown coal era. Secondly, the educational concept of the pilot project was to introduce vocational curricula that provided dually valid qualification (craftsman certicate and access to higher education – Berufsqualifikation mit Fachhochschulreife) in integrated learning arrangements.  Thirdly, as a special accent of ITB (as responsible for accompanying research) and due to the aptitude of local teachers and trainers, there was a special possibilty to develop integrative working and learning arrangements in which social shaping and self-organised project work played a major role. (I personally could experience this last mentioned aspect in the conferences hosted by MV Schwarze Pumpe in 1995 and in 1997 8n which the apprentices (Azubis) demonstrated their projects). So, in 1994 the combined Modellversuch started with Gerald Heidegger in charge of the accompanying research team in which Rainer Bremer was responsible for accompanying the school pilot and Hans-Dieter Höpfner on the pilot in the in-company training.

Project Post-16 strategies and follow-up

In the light of the above it is understandable that the ITB approach in emphasising the Gestaltung (social shaping) idea and enhancement of vocational learning attracted European attention – in particular, when the MV Schwarze Pumpe provided a pilot ground to be studied. This possibility was picked by the Finnish-led project initiative “Finding new Strategies for Post-16 Edutacation (Acronym: Post-16 strategies). This initiative was inspired by the Finnish upper secondary pilot and its international review and the preparation of the project supported by the Finnish educational authorities. The project was approved as one with the strongest resources in the Leonardo da Vinci programme, strand ‘surveys and analyses’.

The project, coordinated by Johanna Lasonen (University of Jyväskylä)  focused on the policy issue, how to promote parity of esteem between ‘academic’ and ‘vocational’ learning (Gleichwertigkeit allgemeiner und beruflicher Bildung). At an early phase the project identified four kinds of strategies:

• Unification (Unified frameworks for  upper secondary education – in the project covered by Scotland and  Sweden)
• Mutual enrichment (Curricular cooperation between general and vocational education – covered  by Finland and Norway)
• Linkages (Introducation of parallel ‘Bacalaureat’ diplomas for bringing general and vocational education to same level –  covered by France and England (at the level of initiative))
• Vocational enhancement (Upgrading of vocational curricula via internal development and enrichment – in the project covered by Germany and Austria. German contribution was provided by ITB on the basis of MV Schwarze Pumpe.).

Having identified these main types the project avoided the trap to enter a ‘system competition’ between them – to ‘mainstream the winner’. Instead the project worked in small groups to learn more of the boundary conditions, pattern variances and relative strenghts/weaknesses of the types. Furthermore, the project promoted dialogue between the groups in order to find points for learning from each other. Finally, the project organised short mutual study visits of practitioners between differently positioned countries. Altogether, the project created an interesting European group picture.

Unfortunately the immediate follow-up project Spes-Net didn’t have similar resources to keep the initial partners involved when new partners were brought in to carry out similar analyses and to position themselves vis-à-vis the above mentioned  strategy types. Nevertheless, some level of dialogue could be maintained and some movements in the strategies observed.

Project Intequal and follow-up

In addition to the above mentioned project Post-16 strategies, ITB and MV Schwarze Pumpe were involved also in another European project funded by the programme Leonardo da Vinci, surveys and analyses. The project ‘Integrated qualifications’ (Acronym: Intequal) was initiated by the German comparative VET researcher Sabine Manning (Research Forum WiFo). She had already in the early 1990s studied the newer German pilot projects on ‘Doppelqualifikation’ from the perspective of international comparisons. At the European level she had worked in a pioneering European project on ‘Modularisation’ in the field of VET. In this respect her project focused on the meso- and micro-systemic implementation of vocational curricula or schemes providing dually oriented qualifications.

The countries and the schemes involved were the following ones:

• Germany – ITB and MV Schwarze Pumpe as well as ISB München and a similar pilot project from Bayern,
• Sweden – HLS (latterly Stockholm University) and the integrated upper secondary education,
• Norway – SYH (latterly HIAK, latterly HIOA) and the integrated aupperr secondary/transition to apprenticeship,
• the Netherlands – SCO-KohnstammInstituut and the MBO (middenbare beroepsonderwijs) scheme,
• England – University of Warwick and the GNVQ (general national vocational qualification) scheme,
• France – CEREQ and the schemes of Baccalaureat professionelle,
• Austria  – IBW and the WiFi Academies schemes in vocational adult education (supported by chambers of commerce).

The Intequal project avoided debates at the systemic level and focused on the level of curriculum implementation, learning arrangements, assessment and learning careers. In this way the project gathered insights into the shaping of the curricula and on the feedback data that informed on the acceptance of the schemes. At the end of the initial project itsv work was continued by a multiplier-effect project ‘Duoqual’, but – in a similar way as with ‘Spes-Net’, the funding could only support the work of new partner countries but not effectively the dialogue with initial partners. Nevertheless, the mapping of curricula and schemes (promoting dually oriented qualifications) could be continued across Europe.

– – –

I think this is enough of the MV Schwarze Pumpe and of the European projects in which it was involved as the German case. Here, it is worthwhile to mention that I was involved in these activities with a new role. From 1994 on I worked as a project manager at Cedefop (European Centre for Development of Vocational Training) and was accompanying European projects – and promoting cooperation, synergy and mutual exchanges across them. The two above mentioned projects developed most intensive cooperation and were strongly present in European events (e.g. ECER conferences and EU-presidency conferences of that time. Such networking and promotion of research cooperation was also practiced with other themes and projects.

More blogs to come …

This week (on Friday) our institute will have a special event “Klausurtag” to reflect on the development of our patterns of work. This event is supported by a particular pilot activity inspired by the Learning Layers (LL) project. Our LL team has created together with the developers of the Learning Toolbox a specific stack “Klausurtag” to share information and to work with specific issues raised in the last year’s event or to take further issues that are discussed this year. As I cannot participate due to health issues, I have chosen a special program for me. Last year it became apparent that our young colleagues are interested to know more about the history of our institute – and not only of the facts that are written down in history documents but more about the lived practice in research – in projects, networks and communities. As an oldtimer with a special relation with our institute – Institut Technik & Bildung (shortly ITB) – I have decided to write a serious of blogs with the heading “My journey with Institut Technik & Bildung (ITB)”.  In this first post I try to cover my first encounters during the years 1989 and 1990 – which in many respect were ‘magic years’ for Germany and for me.

My study visit in October-November 1989: Five weeks travelling around Germany

My contacts with ITB started in 1989 when I had got grants from the DAAD and my university to carry out a five weeks’ study visit program involving German research institutes in the fields on vocational education and training (VET), industrial sociology and industrial relations. This study visit was part of my effort to prepare the grounds for similar approaches in the newly created Work Research Centre of the University of Tampere. In this respect I tried to collect impressions from several neighbouring research approaches and inform myself of similarities, differences and synergies. During this trip ITB in Bremen was my first station and remained as my major cooperation partner. Yet, I found that at that time there were several evaluative measures going on in which many of my counterparts were involved. From that point of view the visit was well timed. However, the most impressive experience during the trip was the possibility to follow from close distance the erosion of the DDR-regime – which culminated in the opening of Berlin wall three days after I had returned to Finland.

Talks in ITB and on ITB projects: Berufspädagogen, Berufsbilder 2000, CAPIRN, Landesprogramm AuT

In ITB my two-day visit was hosted by Gerald Heidegger. With him we discussed firstly the general picture of the relatively new institute – its commitment to vocational teacher education and to interdisciplinary research in VET and the importance of the guiding principle ‘Gestaltung’ (social shaping of work, technology, work organisations and vocational learning). On the more specific talks on different projects of that time I can recall the following impressions:

• Pilot project “Qualifizierung der Berufspädagogen für alle Lernorte” (discussions with Peter Gerds and Helmuth Passe-Tietjen): This project was a smaller local pilot the sought find flexible solutions that enable career shifts between teacher/trainer/training manager positions. I do not remember the details of the approach and of the boundary conditions under which it worked. Nevertheless, the programmatic to address all learning venues with an integrative approach made an impression.
• Scenario project “Berufsbilder 2000” (discussions with Gerald Heidegger): This project explored the prospects for skilled workers (Facharbeiter) in the context of computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM) – an early predecessor debate of the current one on ‘Industry 4.0’. The project explored several branch-specific technologies and drafted different policy scenarios for the use of semi-skilled vs. skilled workforce. Here the specific point was to highlight the policy choices and the ole of social shaping (at the organisational level and as the contribution of skilled workers).
• Industry culture project CAPIRN (discussions with Klaus Ruth): This project and the subsequent network initiative focused on different policy choices in designing CNC-tools – whether they are designed for lowly skilled workforce (little prospects for social shaping and users’ own programming) vs, skilled workforce (more options for social shaping and users own input). The first comparative studies had already ben carried out and the network was expanding to new countries.
• Landesprogramm Arbeit  und Technik (discussions with Ludger Deitmer): As I had interpreted it, Germany was in a transition from one generation of socio-technic innovation prohrams (with focus on ‘Humanisation of Work’ (Humanisierung der Arbeit – HdA) to a new focus on social shaping of ‘Work and Technology’ (Arbeit und Technik – AuT). In this transition Bremen was playing a pioneering role and had appointed an expert commission to outline a regional innovation program. Ludger, who had been supporting the expert commission gave a report on the shaping of the forthcoming program and the way it is expected to implemented.

Discussions on cross-cutting themes and on overarching expert hearings and evaluation studies

Already in the themes discussed in ITB I could see a set of cross-cutting themes coming up whilst some other themes came up in further institutes. Likewise, in several institutes I was informed of overarching expert hearings and evaluation studies to which my counterparts were contributing. Without going into details (and recapitulating particular talks) I try to give a group picture of such talks and different positions or contributions:

• Kollegschule NRW (KS), Doppelqualifizierende Bildungsgänge Hessen (talks with Kalrheinz Fingerle, Gerald Heidegger, Arnulf Bojanowski, Antonius Lipsmeier): At that time Finland was discussing reforms in educational structures. The integrated framework fo upper secondary education – as piloted in the Kollegschule in Nordrhein-Westphalen wasone of the interesting models. I got a lot of materials and reflections why such reform concepts fell between mainstream institutions and how the curriculum innovations with ‘integrated’ qualifications tended to lack the ‘grounding’ in occupational work. Therefore, Gerald emphasised the importance of such pilots that are based on apprentice training (instead of other vocational paths).
• Bundestag Enquete-Kommission “Zukunft der Arbeit”: (talks with Gerald Heidegger, Burkart Lutz): The above mentioned scenario project “Berufsbilder 2000” was one of the projects invited to the expert commission of the German parliament to explore the future of skilled work in Germany. It appeared that the industrial sociologists saw the risk of polarisation as the likely option, whilst VET researchers emphasised the role of social shaping of work, technology and work organisations.
• DFG-Denkschrift “Berufsbildungsforschung” (talks with Burkart Lutz, Laszlo Alex, Wolfgang Lempert): The German Research Council had set up an expert commission to examine the status and resources of research in VET – in the universities and in non-university institutes. The general picture was that the more policy-related research was concentrated in bigger public R&D institutions (BIBB, IAB) and in university affiliated institutes (MPI Berlin, SOFI, ISF) whilst the research in pedgaogics of VET (Breufspädagogik) was fragmented. Here, the former mentioned instititutes were recommending cooperation to create centres of excellence based on inter-university cooperation, whilst the university representatives wer expecting ‘natural growth’ of some top institutes.
• Modellversuchsforschung (talks with Heiz Holz, Dieter Weissker, Peter Dehnbostel, Brigitte Wolff, Gerhard Zimmer): In BIBB I had discussions on the current stand of pilot projects (Modellversuche) and related accompanying research (Begleitforschung). The coordination unit was supporting thematic clusters (Modellversuchsreihen) of pilot projects in order to promote synergy and learning from each other.
• HdA- & AuT-Begleitforschung (talks with Gerhard Bosch, Rainer Lichte, Else Fricke, Eva Kuda, Norbert Altmann, Ingrid Drexel, Christoph Köhler, Frieder Naschold): In the institutes that were affiliated to trade unions and/or specialised in industrial reations and labour process research I had several talks on the experiences of the eatrlier HdA-program and the related accompanying research (with which the researchers had note always been in good terms with the social partners). Now I couls see that in the successful cases the researchers were moving from observational into co-shaping approaches (e.g. regarding the introduction of apprentice training models alongside automation). In this way resewarch teams were supporting workers’ participation and social shaping of work processes.

I guess this is enough of  my impressions on the discussions. At the same time when I was approaching Berlin, my last station, the old regime of DDR came to dead end and had to give up. After a rupture period the political process took the course to unification.

Hochschultage Berufliche Bildung 1st to 3rd of October 1990 in Magdeburg

Almost one year after I had another opportunity to visit Germany by participating in the conference “Hochschultage Berufliche Bildung” 1990 in Magdeburg. This conference was initiated by the founders of ITB in the 1980s (before the ITB was founded) and it served as a joint forum of researchers in VET and active practitioners with interest in research. In addition to plenary sessions the conference had several regular domain-specific sessions (Fachtagung) and another set of thematic workshops (which may vary from one year to another). The conference of the 1990 was originally given for Stuttgart but it was relocated to Magdeburg – as a sign to build good neighbourhood relations between the Federal Republic of Germany (BRD) and the German Democratic Republic (DDR) which was in transition. However, shortly after this decision had been made, it appeared that the two German states will be unified during the conference dates. Thus, the conference was started in Magdeburg, DDR and finished in Magdeburg, BRD. And the announced main theme ‘Key qualifications’ was overshadowed by questions, challenges and anxieties regarding the rapid unification.

The big picture of unification – and the instant implementation of the legislation of BRD in the ‘new Federal states’ dominated the plenary sessions. They were expected to make a rapid transition from the school-based and company-affiliated vocational education system into the dual system of apprenticeship. This was a major organisational, administrative and educational challenge. At the some of the educational solutions of DDR that were valued by West-German educationalists, were given up. These issues were discussed openly and the participants from West tried to to show very cleatrly their solidarity to their Eastern colleagues who were implementing changes with very tight schedules.

From the specific sessions I remember that I followed firstly the discussions in the Fachtagung “Metalltechnik” chaired by Prof. Hoppe from ITB. Then I moved to Fachtagung “Wirtschaft und Verwaltung” in which I followed the presentations of Dr. Benteler on the Modellversuch at Klöckner Stahl (rotating clerk-apprentices through different production units of the steelworks to give them an organisational overview) and of Dr.Rischmüller on Modellversuch WoKI on the training of clerk-apprentices at VW in Wolfsburg.

The highlight for me was the possibility join in the International workshop initiated by Cedefop (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training) and to give a presentation on Scandinavian reforms in VET. In the relatively heterogeneous program of the workshop (with rather conversational presentations) my comparative view attracted attention and I got an invitation to the Soviet-European exchange seminar in Moscow (organised by the Soviet Academy of Educational Sciences and Cedefop).

– – –

I think this is enough of these ‘magic years’. I think I have made it clear, why I use this expression – both regarding the political processes and my individual experiences. I had started the journey to familiarise meself with the German VET and working life research. Very soon I was received as a contributor from Scandinavia to enter the European arenas of exchanges and cooperation in VET research. In the next phase on this career path I continued my cooperation with ITB.

More blogs to come …

In my three previous posts I have been writing a series of blogs to celebrate the 99th Independence Day of Finland. The first post gave a brief overview of the time before independence and the second one discussed the process of nation-building. In the third post I discussed the struggle for independence and on the first decades of independence – including the many wars during the World War II. In this final post I will discuss the post-war decades of the Finnish experience.

The years of post-war reconstruction, tensions, and recovery (1946 – 1956)

The first years after the interim peace have recently been characterised as a period of ‘uneasy peace’ (rauhaton rauha), since the return to the new normality was not merely in the hands of the Finns. The allies had set a Control Commission (led by a leading Soviet politician A. Zhdanov) to monitor that Finland is properly implementing the terms of the peace treaty – such as abolishing the ‘fascist’ and and similar parties and voluntary organisations, taking the pre-war leading politicians to a court that will judge them as guilty of war etc. And at the same time the political, economic and cultural life was to be given a new start. These were years of change – the radical right-wing party was abolished and the traditional conservative party landed to opposition, The government was relying on centre and left wing parties. Yet, the political leadership was handed over to the veteran politician J.K: Paasikivi, who served firstly as the prime minister and then as a president of republic 1946 – 1956. (Paasikivi had already been prime minister in 1918 and he had led the Finnish delegations in the peace treaty negotiations in 1920 and during the World War II.)

Paasikivi was able to work together with different post-war government coalitions and with his firm conviction to rebuild the relations with the Soviet Union on the basis of trust between the neighbours he tried to educate the Finnish people understand the new realities and take bitter pills if needed. In this way the transition period from the interim peace to the peace treaty of Paris passed without major complications. The special trial of the pre-war politicians sentenced some of them to 2-6 years in jail – but no more than that (and their reputation was not ruined – they just had to suffer the punishment of the country being on the wrong side in the war). Yet, after this chapter was put behind, the Paris treaty came into force and the Control Commission was abolished.

In addition to political tensions (and fears of possible Soviet intervention) there was a great economic pressure on Finland. The peace treaty required Finland to pay major sums of compensation in industrial products to Soviet Union for the damage caused in the war. This, however, helped the country to start new industries and to support the development of different regions by allocating industrial plants to different parts of the country. A major role in this development was played by state-own industries in mining, steel production, machinery and chemical products. These compensation payments were completed by 1952. Two years later – after the death of Stalin – the Soviet government gave up the military base in Porkkala and ended the ‘tenant’ contract. Thus, by the end of his second term of presidency, Paasikivi had ‘schippered’ the country through the uneasy post-war years to new stability.

The era of president Kekkonen (1956 – 1981): Peaceful co-existence, welfare state and CSCE

When Urho Kekkonen started his term as president, he was a controversial politician from the agrarian (centre) party – very experienced but ambitious. Also, the political life in the country was disturbed by internal splits in several parties and in the trade union movement. This had triggered a tariff conflict and a general strike in 1956. Also, during the first term of Kekkonen several government coalitions were fragile and short-lived. Whilst the governments may have not been so successful, Kekkonen’s authority due to his success in foreign policies – in particular in creating personal relations with the Soviet leader Nikita Hruštšev. This became apparent during the period of the Cuban crisis, when some of the fringes of that tension reached the Finnish-Soviet relations.

After being re-elected for the second term Kekkonen together with a newer generation of political leaders and social partners was forging new patterns of national consensus. The newer broad-based centre-left government coalitions (led by social democrats) and the tripartite framework agreements on trades and tariffs paved the way for major social reforms (comprehensive education, public health services, social insurance, national pensions, children’s daycare). All these created systems of social welfare state that enabled a massive transition from traditional agriculture to industries and services. And if the employment opportunities were not available in Finland, then in Sweden – and the unified Nordic labour markets were already at place. At the same time the bilateral trade with Soviet Union was upgraded with major projects – such as building new industrial town complexes on the Soviet side by Finnish companies and by building the first Finnish nuclear plant by a Soviet company.

In this way Finland, led by Kekkonen, was in the position to host the first Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) between the US and Soviet governments in the early 1970s. And shortly afterwards Finland took the initiative to host the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) that took place between 1973 (foreign ministers’ conference in Helsinki), 1973-1975 (expert commissions in Geneva) and 1975 (concluding summit in Helsinki). This conference stabilised the intergovernmental relations in Europe, eased the tensions between the military blocks and set new standards infree movement people and ideas. After this success the whole nation and all major political parties were supporting Kekkonen for yet another term of presidency in 1978. However, due to health reasons he had to give up in 1981.

(In the light of recent experiences with the armed conflict in East Ukraina, it is worthwhile to note the work of the CSCE was continued by Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OCSE) – and it appears to be the body that maintains communication channels that give some hope for solutions in the said conflict.)

The years of unchallenged neutrality and the end of Cold War (1981 – 1995)

During the first term of presidency of Kekkonen’s successor, Mauno Koivisto the old bilateral agreements with the Soviet Union were renewed to ensure further bilateral trade projects and mutual trust. However, the shift of emphasis in foreign trade was moving to increasingly towards Western economic integration. Yet, the old centre-left governments, supported by smaller parties (including the agrarian populist party) were keeping a rather traditional course. But during his second presidency a new coalition emerged between the conservatives and social democrats (leaving the centre in the opposition). This new coalition took major steps liberalise the financial markets and opened the access of wider circles to obtain loans in foreign currencies – which was good when the economy was growing but when the growth of the late 1980s ceased, the recession of the early 1990s hit badly the Finnish economy – the bank crisis, the crisis of major ‘rustbelt’ industries and a rapid growth of unemployment.

In the meantime there had been major changes in the leadership of the Soviet Union. Mihail Gorbatshov had declared perestroika (reconstruction) and glasnost (openness) as the new guiding principles. That was taken positively in Finland but the economic erosion in the Eastern block brought new problems – people were losing confidence and the old regimes started to lose power. And this led to a chain reaction. Critical situations were experiences when the Baltic states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were ready to take the decisive steps to  re-establish their independence. The coup d’`état of the traditionalists of Soviet Union raised once again worries but ended with the collapse of Soviet regime and in the dissolution of the Union into set of independent states. This, for Finland caused economic problems because the bilateral trade ceased and several industrial sectors (reliant on Soviet trade) collapsed, when global competition took over their domestic markets.

The years of prosperity and European integration (1994 to present date)

Already Koivisto had expressed a priority to shift the emphsis from president-led policies to stronger parliamentarism. After his presidency the successor, Martti Ahtisaari, was a former UN-diplomat and civil servant with less involvement in Finnish  politics. In the beginning of his period the centre-right coalition was struggling with the recession and with the challenge to negotiate the terms of membership for Finland to join in the European Union. In the next phase a new government coalition was led by Paavo Lipponen with top politicians of the social democrats and conservatives – involving the whole spectrum of parties in the ‘rainbow coalition’. This coalition had the challenge to pull Finland out of recession but at the same time it had the parliamentary support to bring Finland to the Euro-zone and to the inner circles of the EU with maximum involvement. At the same time the Nokia boom helped the national economy to overcome the crisis.

In 2000 Tarja Halonen, the social democratic foreign minister of the rainbow coalition became the first female president of republic. Lipponen continued as prime minister with his second rainbow coalition government. In the next elections in 2003 the centre party came into power and formed a coalition with social democrats. By that time all parties had already been in coalition with all possible counterparts. Finland was deeply involved in the EU but kept itself outside NATO – except for the partnership of peace program. After Halonen’s two terms as president the former minister of finance of the rainbow coalitions, Sauli Niinistö was elected as the first conservative president after Paasikivi. During his presidency the government coalitions have been led by younger conservative or centre-party politicians. Yet, as president, Niinistö has emphasised continuity in Finnish neutrality – even if the ministers have been favouring membership in NATO. Yet, as the crisis in Ukraina aggravated, Niinistö was the head of state to maintain communication channels between EU and Russia.

– – –

I think this is enough of the developments during the post-war decades. During this perod Finland made its way through from post-war reconstruction to stability, prosperity and and into European integration. This was reflected in the self-esteem of Finnish people and Finnish popular culture. This will be reflected in the way in which the pop-star Juice Leskinen celebrates his rural home municipality – which in terms celebrates its own celebrity. See the video “Juankoski here I come”:

With this celebration of Finnish (rural) identity I conclude this series of blogs.

More blogs to come …

In my previous post I started a series of blogs to celebrate the 99th Independence Day of Finland. The first post gave a brief overview of the time before independence and the second post discussed the process of nation-building and of making Finnish language a national language. In the third post I will try to give an overview on the struggle for independence and on the first decades of independence with the multitude of experiences made by the young nation.

The periods of oppression and resistance (1900 – 1916)

As I have mentioned in my previous posts, Finland had got a special status as an autonomous Grand Duchy under the Russian rule. This was topped up with the reforms that gave Finland its own currency (the Finnish Mark) and its own language rule (recognition of Finnish and Swedish as equal domestic languages). In the beginning the of the 20th century the new Czar Nikolai II was pushed by the pan-slavist movement of Russia to try to to abolish this autonomous status and the specific legislation inherited from Swedish era. These attempts are known in the Finnish history as the first and the second period of oppression (led by the General governors Bobrikoff and Seyn). The interventions of the Czar and the General governors met massive protests – petitions, demonstrations and campaigns for solidarity in Europe. Finally, the bigger events worked in favour of the small nation. In 1905 Russia lost the war against Japan and this led to a turmoil. As a concession, Czar Nikolai had to give up. Russia got its parliament – the Duma – and Finland got its own one-chambered parliament with equal voting rights for men and women (irrespective of social status).

Finland – with its newly elected parliament – was being consolidated as a nation state but the panslavists pushing the Czar did not give up. New attempts were made to withdraw the concessions and to stop the parliament working by dissolving it time and again. However, the times had changes. Already during the years of turmoil (1905-1906) bourgeois parties and the labour movement had started to set up their own armed forces to protect themselves from Russian police forces. And when the World War I broke out, many things changed. Firstly, Russia brought into Finland its own soldiers and refrained from calling Finns to military service. Secondly, part of the protest movement took steps towards armed resistance and sought cooperation with Germany. Thus, nearly 2000 young Finns travelled illegally to Germany to get military training there – and subsequently fought against Russia during the war.

The declaration of independence in 1917 and the civil war in 1918

The collapse of the czarist regime in 1917 led to a new situation. The Finnish (socialist-led) parliament took the course towards independence. The provisional government in Russia (led by Kerenski) blocked this and dissolved the parliament – once again (and this was supported by some bourgeois parties in Finland). When the new parliament was elected and constituted, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia changed the situation once more. Now, all parties were ready to take the step to full independence. The declaration of independence was approved in the Finnish parliament on the 6th of December 1917.

However, the newly declared independence did not remove the tensions. In January 1918 a civil war broke out between the armed forces of the bourgeois parties (the White guard) and of the radical labour movement (the Red guard).  The young nation was divided – socially and geographically. A bitter civil war with atrocities on both sides was fought and finally, the White guard was winning. At that time the returners from military training in Germany came back with contingents of German troops and gave their ‘helping hand’ in conquering Helsinki from the Reds.

So, in the beginning of the period of independence the country was split – part of the elected parliament was either jailed or exiled. The bourgeois majority took initiative to set up a kingdom with a German royal house. But then Germany lost the war and the German troops left Finland. So, the time was ripe to start as a republic with a democratic constitution (originally drafted by the first president Ståhlberg) and to to try to bring the nation together again.

The years of reconstruction, unrest and recovery (the 1920s and 1930s)

The first years of the young republic were characterised by post-war reconstruction and by rebuilding the nation with its own institutions and modes of governance. Education, healthcare and public transport were reorganised. The economy started to recover and foreign trade started to boom – the forestry sector was in the lead. A major factor in good and bad was the struggle with the prohibition law – smuggle and distribution of illegal alcohol created powerful commercial networks. But – the end of the prohibition law led them to legal business rather than criminal networks.

In politics the country remained divided. When the economic development turned towards depression, the political life was polarised. The country was shaken by a fascist-like mass movement that terrorised left-wing politicians and bourgeois liberals and was about to start a military coup d’état. The bold measures of the conservative president Svinhufvud (one of the leaders of the earlier independence movement) stopped these attempts and paved the way for years of appeasement. Thus, the latter half of the 1930s was characterised by economic recovery, political cooperation between the social democrats and the agrarian party (the centre party). And these years are also remembered because of long and hot summers.

The three wars during the World War II (1939 – 1945)

Once again, bigger events intervened into the destiny of the small country. By the end of the 1930s the expansive and aggressive policies of Nazi-Germany gave clear signs of the coming war. But the crucial strike for Finland was the Hitler-Stalin agreement and their secret agreements on zones of interest (regarding countries between Germany and Soviet Union. Accordingly, Soviet Union made a proposal that Finland should give away an area at the Karelian isthmus and get as compensation another area from the Soviet Karelia (further north). Finland did not accept the proposal and a war broke out. In this “Winter war” 1939-1940 Finland was fighting alone against Soviet army. However, the Finns had a powerful ally – the coldest winter of the century. The Finnish troops were better used to the climate whilst the Soviet troops were badly equipped and were not prepared for hard resistance. After 100 days of fighting and major losses on both sides a ceasefire was agreed and the peace treaty of Moscow was negotiated. Although Finland had been able to defend its territory, the defense had reached its limits and therefore the terms were hard – the Karelian isthmus and the municipalities around the Ladoga lake, the Petsamo (Petshenga) mining area in Lapland and some smaller areas were given away. In addition, the Soviet Union got the the right to have a military base in Hanko (near Helsinki, opposite Tallinn) as a ‘tenant’.

The following period (1940-1941) was already at that time called the ‘interim peace’ and the the bigger picture moved to that direction. When Nazi-Germany with its allies attached the Soviet Union, it declared Finland as one of the allies. Although there was no written agreement between the governments, preparations had already been made for a second war – counting on being on the same side as the Germans. I would like to emphasise that Finland was not ruled by Nazi-minded puppet government (like Quisling in Norway) but by coalitions that would have preferred to side with Western allies. But that was not on the cards. So, when the Germans attacked, war broke out between Finland and Soviet Union as well. This time the Soviet army was retreating and the Finnish army was conquering back old Finnish territory – and continued to those parts of Karealia that was never part of Finland. Then, for quite a while the fronts were stable. But in 1944 there was a massive offensive of the Soviet forces – and the Finns had to retreat. The final defense battles were fought on the ‘old’ and ‘newer’ borderlines – and the defense held. At that time the Soviets were more keen to get rid of this minor battlefield and move their troops further – to reach Germany and Berlin before their Western allies. So, in summer a separate interim peace was reached between Finland and Soviet Union and the new borders were drawn (on the basis of the 1940 peace treaty). And now, instead of Hanko, the Soviets wanted a military base from Porkkala (closer to Helsinki and Tallinn), again as a ‘tenant’. This was the end of the ‘Continuation war’ (1941 – 1944) as the Finns call it.

Once again, the lost areas from Karelia were to be emptied from Finnish inhabitants (if they had not already been evacuated) and other terms of the interim peace had to be respected (see more in the next post). But the most important obligation led to the third war in which the Finns fought during the World War II – the War of Lapland (1944 – 1945).

The background of this war dates back to the years 1940-1941. At that time Germany had occupied Norway and had agreed transit rights for German troops (going on holidays and returning) via Finnish territory to the Northern part of Norway. In 1941 when Germany attacked Soviet Union, it sent several contingents of such ‘transiters’ to Northern Finland. And in a short while a mutual agreement was reached that these contingents will be based in Lapland and they will be in charge of the Northern fronts (next to the Petsamo/Petshenga mining area). Now, when Finland got its separate peace agreement, the Finnish government got a strict deadline to chase the German troops out of its territory – peacefully or with arms. The Germans had no intent to go quickly nor quietly, so another period of war was fought – and the retreating Germans burned down all towns and villages before they left. By April 1945 the last German contingents had left Finland. The mission was completed – and the Soviet troops had entered the Finnish territory – ‘to give a helping hand’. Finland had fulfilled its obligations and was trying to return to the new normality.

– – –

I think this is enough of the first decades of the Finnish independence and the hard ride of the young nation alongside the European turmoils. As the musical theme I add “Evakon laulu” – the song of a family evacuated from Karelia. The pictures of that period give a clear impression on, what kind of story the lyrics tell.

In my final post I will continue the story of Finnish independence with the post-war decades.

More blogs to come ...