EUROTRAINER II
Network to Support VET Trainers in Europe
134128-LLP-2007-UK-NLW
Project website: www.trainersineurope.org

This project has been funded with support from the European Commissiom through the Lifelong Learning Programme.

The Network to Support Trainers in Europe is a direct result of two studies on trainers in VET that the European Commission commissioned in 2006. One major reason for the studies has been the fact that very little data and material is available on the situation, work and qualification of trainers as their field of activities is closely linked to informal, work-based learning, which is difficult to define and assess. At the same time has the promotion of a knowledge society and the developing impact of lifelong learning led to ever wider contexts and processes of learning, in which trainers take a new and increasingly important role. Recent research indicates a need for both initial and continuing training for trainers, linked to practice. Research also suggests that numbers of trainers who combine training responsibilities as part of their occupational profile is increasing. Against this situation, the EU has identified an urgent need to put programmes and actions in place, which on the one hand can generate more information on the situation of trainers, their training needs and future trends, and, on the other hand, can support the development of strategies and policies to meet actual and projected future needs.

The network is a major initiative to meet both requirements. It is set out to compile and synthesise, but also generate new data and information on the situation, work and qualification needs of trainers across Europe. Thereby it places an emphasis on the development and accessibility of tools and e-learning approaches, which can directly be applied by practitioners and programme managers. Concurrently, the network is fostering the political dialogue and exchange to identify strategies for improving the situation and qualification of trainers both at the national level, but also in a European perspective. It aims at combining information and content with a programmatic strategy and recommendations of how such a strategy can be put into practice at sectoral and national level as well as a European level.

We believe that mutual exchange, learning and communication among experts and practitioners is the best way to achieve this goal. Thus, community building is a key approach of the network as is an inclusive approach that can reach out to as many countries and members of the target group as possible by applying innovative web-based tools and technology. The network’s platform in particular is piloting innovative e-features for knowledge sharing and distribution. Apart from organising two major joint network activities for data collection and developing a European ‘roadmap’ for the continuing professional development of trainers, the network organises two e-conferences. With those media the network introduces and pilots an innovative tool of exchange, communication and dissemination to an audience and target group typically not familiar with that kind of media. Thus, it involves an element of continuing e-learning for the beneficiaries, who are being challenged to broaden and advance their e-competences. The network’s approach also supports self-initiated and self-directed learning.

There is particular need to address the work of people who have responsibility for coaching, mentoring and as peer group experts, both face to face in the workplace and as part of more distributed communities of practice. The Leonardo ICT and SME project has shown the growth of the use of ICT for just-in-time, peer group learning through distributed communities of practice on the Internet. This work would indicate a need for both initial and continuing training for trainers, linked to practice. As a key objective the network seeks to address this need.

The network also aims at a systematic documentation of tools and materials on non-formal training and learning with emphasising work-based learning and seeks to create linkages to other European projects and initiatives in the area. The TTPlus project on the Framework for the Continuing Professional Development of trainers, for example, is linking the training of trainers with vocational and occupational learning within the wider field of vocational educational and training in Europe. However, rather than limiting the approach to the issue of the training of trainers as an issue for national systemic reform and provision, our approach is based on the idea of a community of practice of trainers and the development of a framework to facilitate integration within that community.

The network addresses three main target groups. Firstly, VET trainers and practitioners in companies and (private and public) institutions, which the network seeks to involve in the first place through the creation of national networks. Secondly, those responsible for training and training policies, i.e. individuals who design and implement training activities and/or are involved in the training of trainers, and decision makers who decide upon training programmes and policies. Third, all those who have an interest in the training of trainers and the broader VET community. Thus, the direct target group for the network are a range of actors including practitioners, managers and administrators, SME managers, curriculum developers and trainers of trainers, who cover a wide range of contexts and settings for both initial and continuing vocational education and training including vocational schools, apprenticeships, training centres, continuing vocational training, distance learning, work-based learning and informal learning. Further is the network also accessible to individuals who provide training such as trainers, tutors, coaches, mentors and ‘peer group experts’ in enterprises, workplaces and institutions. It directly addresses this group by providing tools for the implementation of training, other support measures and valuable resources and contact information at a national level.

The proliferation of new technologies and internet tools is fundamentally changing the way we live and work. The lifelong learning sector is no exception with technology having a major impact on teaching and learning. This in turn is affecting the skills needs of the learning delivery workforce.

Last September, together with Jenny Hughes I undertook a literature review on new pedagogical approaches to the use of technologies for teaching and learning. You can access the full (86 pages) document below.

The research was commissioned by LLUK to feed into the review then being undertaken of teaching qualifications in the Lifelong Learning sector in the UK. The review was designed to ensure the qualifications are up to date and will support the development of the skills needed by the modern teacher, tutor or trainer.

However, we recognised that the gap in technology related skills required by teaching and learning professionals cannot be bridged by qualifications alone or by initial training and a programme of opportunities for continuing professional development (CPD) is also needed to enable people to remain up to date.

The literature review is intended to

• identify new and emerging pedagogies;
• determine what constitutes effective use of technology in teaching and learning
• look at new developments in teacher training qualifications to ensure that they are at the cutting edge of learning theory and classroom practice
• make suggestions as to how teachers can continually update their skills.

Pedagogical Appraches for Using Technology Literature Review January 11 FINAL 1

“Crossing Boundaries: The multiple roles of trainers and teachers in vocational education and training” Trainers in Europe Network Conference

This conference took place from the 14^th – 15^th of October in Kostelec near Prague. On the first day we had a Sounds of the Bazaar LIVE radio programme from the conference venue in the “Big Knight Hall” in the Castle of Kostelec. Now you can listen here to the podcast of the live programme.

More information about the conference you find here: www.trainersineurope.org.

The music at the begining and the end is from the song “pixel song1” by The Dada Weatherman of his album “The Green Waltz” to be found on the great music site Jamendo.com.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

With my recent blog postings (Revisiting Kostelec 1-3 ) I have given an account on the recent international conference with the theme “Crossing Boundaries: The multiple roles of trainers and teachers in vocational education and training”. With this posting it is time to shift the emphasis from the memories and to consider the way(s) forward.

In this context it is essential to note that the organiser of the conference – the network “Trainers in Europe” – is coming to the end of its EU-funded working period. As things stand now, it is apparent that the follow-up phase will be characterised by distributed successor activities (for which the platform can serve as a home base).

For the further discussion on the frollow-up activities I have made the following observations on parallel working agendas that were present in the conference and merit to be considered:

1. The professionalisation of trainers (and parity of esteem between trainers and teachers in VET)

This agenda is stimulated by debates on academic drift and on vocational progression routes. It is overshadowed by the Bologna process and the degree structures. Yet, it can also bring into discussion the value of work-related learning opportunities. In the conference this agenda was represented by the presentation of Alrun Schleiff and Simone Wanken on ‘learning tandems’ and ‘cross-mentoring’. In the preparation phase some other proposals were adressing this context.  After the conference it is worthwhile to explore, what is happening with such initiatives at the national and European level.

2. Trans-national mobility (and comparability of qualifications) of trainers across EU

This agenda is stimulated by policies to promote mobility of trainers (in a similar way as mobility of teachers) across Europe. However, the hitherto perceived diversity of training contexts and professional profiles has made it difficult to promote such initiatives effectively and to get the target groups inspired. Yet, in the light of internationalisation of production and services this is a real challenge. In the conference this agenda was represented by the presentation of Sandie Gay on skills verification and identification of common core areas.

3. Promotion of specific (pedagogic, ICT-related and sectoral) competences of trainers

This agenda covers a wide range of initiatives that are linked to specific aspects of trainers’ competences (pedagogic, multimedial, sectoral) and are looking for ways to address these aspects in a European context. As a contrast to the above mentioned ones, these initiatives do not necessarily raise questions on teh formal qualification frameworks or on recognition issues as their starting points.  In the conference this agenda was represented by the presenations on the development/utilisation of e-learning and of self-assessment approaches.

4. Promotion of process innovations in training contexts and rethinking the role of training functions

This agenda focuses on the limits of hitherto developed models for in-company training or training in external centres. The main thrust of the agenda is to link the efforts of different parties (workplace trainers/mentors, internal experts, external service providers, intermediate agencies) to real-time innovation agendas and to working with cutting-edge knowledge. In this context the focal point is not in achieving certain formal standards (or using specific know-how) but in bringing different elements into an ongoing innovation process. In the conference this perspective was addressed most explicitly by the presentation of Johannes Koch.

The above presented list of parallel working agendas is probably not exhaustive and there are several overlaps of interest and approaches. However, in my view these agendas can be seen as mutually complementing developments that (at least currentlky) have their own dynamics.

In my view this observation strengthens the final proposal of Europe-wide consultation process on a new type of Innovation Forum that puts the interests of trainers into the centre (instead of highlighting national or European policy frameworks). To me, the conference at Kostelec refreshed the menories of the best consultation seminars and their dialogue-oriented spirit. I think that it is good to build on this heritage.

Looking forward to further discussion!

Pekka

In my two previous blog postings – Revisiting Kostelec 1 and 2 – I have presented my general impression of the conference and then an overview of the thematic sessions that I attended. However, this alone is not enough to give an idea, what made the conference such a positive experience – what brought into being the spirit of Kostelec. Here, I try to give some additional aspects that come up when I refresh my memories.

1) Working and learning together

Already from the first paper sessions I noticed that this conference has the spirit of working and learning together. Surely, the tandem presentation on ‘learning tandems’ was a good start. However, the further sessions continued with the same pattern. Instead of having had a succession of rushed monologues, we had a possibility to go into discussions and to build bridges between the current presentation and the previous ones.

2) Creative interactive spaces

Instead of filling the programme with paper sessions and symposia, the organisers had encouraged the presenters to use more interactive sessions (e.g. speed learning cafe or interactive workshop). These were not perceived as marginal ‘entertainment’ but as valuable sessions and the participants made good use of these.

3) Smart use of poster session

The organisers had encouraged participants to prepare posters. However, on the spot some creativity was needed to organise a well-functioning poster session. The solution was that posters were lying on tables and the presenters were sitting behind the table. The audience had the opportunity to sit down and have a talk over the poster that was on the table. This proved to be a good solution. (It provided also the possibility to reschedule on paper presentation that had to be cancelled because the presenters had been directed to a wrong Kostelec.)

4) The online radio show

Pontydysgu had made preparations for an online radio show live from Kostelec.  Also this event was run in a smart and participative way. When the conference had already reached the halfway stage, the participants were ready to reflect on the event and what they had gained so far. Several ideas were also raised for further discussion.

5) The online exhibition

During the preparation the organisers had welcomed contributions to the online exhibition. Before the conference most of the posters had already been made available via this facility. Also, some videos had been made to be presented in this area. During the conference this work was continued and the participants were encoraged to submit more content to the exhibition area.

6) The concluding debate

The wrap-up session of the conference was not organised as a series of speeches that look back at the sessions. Instead, the participants were invited into a debate. The participants had to submit motions (critical statements) to be debated. By means of lottery, some participants were picked as promoters (and secondants) and others as opponents (and secondants. After each mini-debate the participants were asked to formulate their own statements and then the debate was concluded by a vote. This all added up to the picture of a genuine learning event.

I guess this is enough for this posting. In my next blog I will leave the Kostelec experience and discuss the way forward.

Watch this space!

Pekka

In my previous blog posting I presented my positive impression on the international conference “Crossing Boundaries: The multiple roles of trainers and teachers in vocational education and training” (14.-15.10.2010 in Kostelec, near Prague). With this posting I want to look back at the sessions and to what made the conference such a positive experience.

Firstly, it is worthwhile to note that I am writing primarily as a conference participant (my role as a member of the organising network was not a central one). However, I also had some duties as a facilitator, so I had to pay attention, how to get the sessions running well and with good spirit. Yet, I must emphasise that the key factor in the success was the fact that the participants were interesting in building up a good dialogue-oriented event.

The first thematic session that I attended, was based on two contributions from Germany.

• Alrun Schleiff and Simone Wanken from the University of Trier gave a presentation on “The learning tandems”. Their university is piloting with a special curriculum that combines the learning processes of traditional students (doing their degrees in adult education) and non-traditional students (training specialists in companies, who are in a certificate programme). The fascination of this programme lies in the cross-mentoring approach that supports both target groups and brings them into a cross-mentoring relation during the field studies.

• Johannes Koch from Friedrichsdorfer Büro für Bildungsplanung gave a presentation on lifelong learning in production contexts. In this presentation he examined the transition of workplace learning into internet-supported and innovation-oriented learning. In this context the role of intermediate agencies is to support the search processes, election processes and utilisation of cutting-edge knowledge.

The second thematic session was dedicated to professionalisation of teachers and trainers in VET in Spain.

• Jose Luis Garcia Molina gave a comprehensive picture on the professionalisation of VET teachers and trainers in Spain and on the role of tripartite cooperation. Interestingly enough, both topics that had been taken up in the previous session were also discussed in the light of the Spanish input.

The third thematic session was based on contributions from the host country, Czech Republic.

• Stanislave Michek provided insights into quality assurance in the Czech vocational schools via self-assessment and self-evaluation.
• Jan Sperl presented the development of National Educational Portal and provided insights into the use of the different resource areas  by teachers and trainers.
• Lubomir Valenta gave an overview of the development of Europass tools and of the use of these tools in the Czech Republic.
• My general impression of the discussion was that all these presentations were presenting cutting-edge European developments and putting the host country into a European group picture. Also, I could notice that the participants from Nigeria and Romania made good use of this information.

The fourth thematic session was shaped as ‘speed learning cafe’ during which two short presentations are discussed parallel to each other. After half an hour the groups change the table and the presenters start a new discussion. The two presentations focused on workplace learning and  developmental tools in Germany and on assessment of workplace learning in Norway.

• The presentation by Ludger Deitmer and myself focused on the role of holistic working and learning tasks and on the role of participative development tools. The two groups emphasised the importance of genuine and well-thought working and learning tasks as well as the role of dialogue-oriented tools. However, it was emphasised that the tools alone cannot guarantee the result if the participants are not well prepared for self-organised learning and for self-assessment.
• The presentation of Haege Nore problematised the boundaries of learning and raised the question “who are the right assessors”. The presentation also brought into picture the potential role of co-participating researchers (basic inquiries, interactive accompaniment and evaluation).
• Here, the groups made good use of the time but it was difficult to share the results across the two groups (discussion to be continued at a later occasion).

The fifth thematic session that I attended was also planned as a speed learning cafe with two presenters. However, one of the presenters had to cancel his participation. Thus, the session was transformed into an interactive workshop with one presentation.

• Sandra Sukhan from Canada (originally from Guayana) gave a lengthy and highly inspiring account on her internship as a marketing manager of a newly launched training centre in Botswana. Her real life story gtave a deeper meaning to the topic “crossing boundaries” and to the necessity for taking new roles in a challenging training context (where the sustainability of the training centre and learning results were at risk all the time). Also here, the participants were not left as passive audience but were invited to think loud, what kind of lessons could be learned (when the story was told halfway). Then, this discussion was continued with further insights into the concluding phase of project (and the real life strory).

Here I think it is appropriate to stop this overview. In my next posting I try to make a shorter comment on the working climate in the conference.

Watch this space!

Pekka

Just one week ago (14.10. -15.10.2010) the Trainers in Europe network organised a successful international conference. The theme of the  was “Crossing Boundaries: The multiple roles of trainers and teachers in vocational education and training”. My impression as a participant was that the title was appropriate and that the conference really tried to work its way to a better understanding on new challenges and on changing roles of vocational trainers.

It is worthwhile to note that the main organiser – the Trainers in Europe network has had to struggle to find its role on the crowded terrain of European cooperation. As we know. the network has been the successor of the Eurotrainer project that was doing studies and surveys on the position of trainers in Europe. At the same time the TTnet network of Cedefop has been the meeting point of national networks and the summarising arena of country sudies. Moreover, in 2008 – 2009 the European Commission (DG EAC) launched a Europe-wide but regionalisedconsultation process on the role of VET Teachers and Trainers as key actors for lifelong learning. Given all these activities (some of which have already been completed), what could be proposed as a possible way forward?

Looking back at the Kostelec experience, it is important to emphasise that this conference was not shaped as a traditional academic conference or as a conference of country representatives. Instead the conference – taking place in an old castle outside Prague – provided interactive sessions and creative spaces for knowledge sharing.  The particpants came with messages and questions that were related to the position of trainers and to future-oriented initiatives. The formats of the sessions supported active discussion and learning from each other – rather than lengthy monologues that would have tired the participants. Also, the work with online exhibition and with the online radio show have given insights into potentials that have not yet been fully exhausted.

In my subsequent postings I will try to give a picture, what was happening in the sessions (next one) and on some working agendas for follow-up activities.

Watch this space!

Pekka

Sadly an overworked period led to a standstill in my blogging just when I had wished to become more active on this front. Given the circumstances, I understand that Pontydysgu relocated my blog to “Speakers’ corner” (the so-called Hyde Park area of Pontydysgu blogs). In practice this area seems to have become a “sleepers’ corner” for hibernating blogs that may come up or fall into coma.

Now I think it is time to take the floor with some messages from the recently organised conference of the “Trainers in Europe” network (see the conference information on the network website

http://www.trainersineurope.org/conference-2010

I will try to give some insights into the conference (as the whole), into the sessions that I experienced and into issues that arise for follow-up activities.

Watch this space!

Pekka

There has been a lot of discussion about the impact of the economic crisis on the future of education and training. Sadly much of this discussion has led nowhere. In this video Nikitas Patiniotis, from Athens, explains the impact of the crisis on education and training in Greece and reflects on the future in an uncertain post recession world. The video was produced for the Network of Trainers in Europe,

Another post in our ongoing series on pedagogies and the use of technology for tecahing and learning.

Over the last few years there has been a considerable emphasis placed on Continuing Professional Development for teachers and trainers to support them in using technology. At least in the UK, there seems to be a tension between an approach based on raising the personal Information and Communication skills of teachers and encouraging teachers to explore new pedagogic approaches to using technology for teaching and learning.

There has been a great many different models and processes in Continuing Professional Development. It seems fair to say that research has not yet caught up with the explosion in activity. Based on a literature review we are undertaking, in this blog we explore what we believe are the key factors critical to effective CPD in the use of technology for tecahing and learning.

• Peer learning / skill sharing

Teachers who have more experience are given structured opportunities to share with those who have less and there are no hierarchical divisions between ‘experts’ and ‘non-experts’. Most importantly, this sharing process is valued and legitimated. This depends on the institution having a strong sense of community and a shared ethos of peer learning. This has to be built rather than imposed.

• Small group learning

There has been a trend away from mass ‘Inset’ sessions towards group work as a valid form of CPD activity. Groups may be based around skill levels, different software interests, subject specialities or different target groups (e.g Women returners, Special Educational Needs etc).  There are many positive reports on the effectiveness of this approach as a vehicle for discussing practice and planning new approaches.

• Informal learning

Informal leaning may be more important than formal courses.

“Informal conversations are vital, as is dedicated time to allow teachers to talk together and plan for new approaches in terms of their use of ICT in learning and teaching.” (Daly, Pachler and Pelletier, 2009)

Informal learning, by definition, cannot be planned but can be facillitated by creating time and space for networking, inclusive leadership styles, democratic staff relationships and the development of staff as a learning community.

• Clear links between CPD and practice

The additional benefits of using ICT must be very clear. CPD activities have to be immediately relevant to the individual teacher and applicable in the classroom.

As teachers become more familiar with the technology, there is an increasing demand for subject specialist CPD, an area which is not well developed and frequently not a priority. It is also likely to be one in which there is least in-house expertise available.

• A sound pedagogic base and reflexivit

There should be a shared of understanding of how learning occurs, how it can be planned and facilitated and what constitutes effective teaching and learning.  This may be stating the obvious but there criticisms of some commercial providers who were perceived as having a different baseline.

The design of the ICT CPD should incorporate effective use of ICT for learning. That is, it should practice what it preaches. Teachers need to experience and participate in e-learning activities as part of their professional developmen

“The incorporation of group work, collaborative problem-solving, independent thinking, articulation of thought and creative presentation of ideas are examples of the ways in which teachers’ CPD might focus on pedagogy, with a view to how technologies can support these processes.”  (Daly, Pachler and Pelletier, 2009).

• Leadership

A clear vision for ICT CPD focused on pedagogy and teacher development was seen as a prime factor by staff and providers.

If the overall objectives and a coherent strategy are in place this can help avoid or overcome operational problems of time and funding.  Effective leaders can build capacity by maximising the range of expertise that staff already have and drawing them together as part of a co-ordinated approach to CPD. This could include, for example,  identifying excellent practitioners who use creative approaches in the classroom (using traditional pedagogies), staff with ICT skills, staff with experience of facilitating peer learning groups, staff with staff training and communication skills.

• Working with newly qualified and trainee teachers

New teachers, particularly younger ones, may be able to make a valuable contribution to the ICT CPD of established staff and this should not be over-looked.

• Ownership of equipment:

Teachers and lecturers need to feel that they can ‘play’ with their own kit in order to develop familiarity and confidence , that they can use it for learning outside working hours and that they can customise it in a way which reflects their particular needs. This was a big issue for teachers but often at odds with institutional policy despite the fact that the preparedness of teachers to use their own time for learning actually saves money!

• Time useage

Teachers resented time wasted on a lot of formal CPD, especially if it was not directly related to classroom practice, but valued time they could spend with colleagues to generate ideas and plan activities that could be implemented in the classroom.

“It has been shown that teachers need regular time during the standard working week in order to discuss Teaching and Learning. They need both knowledge of the research base and continuing ‘structured opportunities for new learning, practice, reflection and adjustment’  (Coffield, 2008)

• Involvement of non-teaching staff

Senior management felt that this was important but perceived as less so by teachers.

• Use of mentors or learning coaches

Apprenticeship and support are very important for in-service teachers in acquiring knowledge and adopting innovatory approaches in their classrooms.

• Observation of practice

According to Daly, Pachler and Pelletier (2009), watching colleagues use ICT in the classroom was seen by the majority of teachers as one of the most valuable forms of CPD. However, very few had had the opportunity to do so.  Another strategy which was popular was chance to observe and work with external experts who visit classrooms to teach CPD by working with students.

• Networks and communities of practice

Kirsti Ala-Mutka et al (2008) recognise the usefulness of social software in ICT CPD. They argue that establishing and participating in teacher networks and following innovative practice development in the field is a crucial part of effective CPD

“Initial and in-service teacher training should disseminate insights and best practices with new innovative approaches, encouraging teachers to experiment with digital and media technologies and to reflect on the learning impacts of their own teaching practices.”

• The use of E-portfolios as a tool in ICT CPD

The OECD (2010) recommends that all teachers develop an e-portfolio to support, record and reflect  their CPD. This serves three purposes. Firstly, it encourages teachers to use ICT regularly and systematically to support learning. Secondly, they will understand the potential of using e-portfolios with their students and will have first hand experiences of the issues, problems and benefits they offer. Thirdly, it will serve as a model to encourage student teachers to use ICT during their ITT.

iCatalyst from MirandaNet are CPD providers. In their publicity they describe key features of the programmes they provide.  Many of these can be transferred and generalised across ICT CPD.

• a mixed-methods or blended learning programme which provides mentoring and resources to scaffold learning about subjects that are relevant to the challenges for teachers in schools
• [opportunities for] the learners to negotiate customised programmes based upon their own practice and the vision of their institution (these may be individual or based on small groups).
• the use of internet technologies to maximise flexibility of where and when the programme is accessed;
• the creation of mature sustainable e-communities of practice where views and knowledge both of teachers and of students, can be shared to the benefit of all.
• the development of Knowledge Hubs where all resources developed are made available to the community of practice and where new knowledge and evidence-based theory can be created as a result
• leadership development so that participants will eventually become field tutors and run the programme themselves
• an approach which is based on co-production of knowledge, a co-determination of meaning, collective problem solving and multiple perspectives among learners
• work-based accreditation techniques that motivate participants to continue to learn and contribute to the community of practice.

I wrote a blog post earlier this week abut how much of our present training system is based on a deficit model – of looking at what skills and knowledge we think workers in particular occupation should have, at measuring what skills and knowledge they do have and then providing training to match the gap. I suggested this was an inefficient and reductionist approach, instead suggesting we should build from the skills an knowledge people have now to that which they could have with support for learning.

Today a call for tender dropped into my email box from the European Centre for  Vocational Education and Training (CEDEFOP). The tender is for data collection for skills obsolescence for older workers. And to my mind it illustrates just what we should not be doing. The tender says:

“Parallel and in close connection to its skill demand and skill supply activities, Cedefop is also analysing skill mismatch at various levels. To guide such analysis, five priorities for research have been identified. These priorities are: 1) improve measurement of skills and skill mismatch; 2) examine the persistence of skill mismatch and its impacts; 3) improve understanding of skill mismatch processes, its dynamics and the consequences of skill mismatch; 4) focus on skill mismatch for vulnerable groups on the labour market; and 5) improve data availability and use. The work carried out in the context of this tender and subsequent analysis by Cedefop aims to address aspects present in all research priorities simultaneously.

Attention among policy makers for skill obsolescence as an explanation for mismatch has increased significantly as a result of increasing changes in work and organisations. Cedefop (2009) concluded that from a lifelong learning policy perspective, the question of how and how fast skills become obsolete is crucial. However, this preoccupation has not been endorsed by current research, with most empirical studies dating back to the 1970’s and early 1980’s. Current research on skills obsolescence tends to focus on its impact on wages. Apart from some insights dating back to classical studies among engineers (for an overview, see Cedefop, 2009 and De Grip et al, 2002), little is known about how fast different types of skills become obsolete, how skill obsolescence interacts with training and skill development and how skills obsolescence processes work.”

The idea of matching the skills of individuals and the skills needed in an economy is a futile dream. Skills needs and usage are dynamic and constantly changing. Even more critical is that such approaches ignore the potential of skilled workers to shape production and work processes – and thus to develop innovation. The skills matching approach assumes a pseudo semi scientific, econometric formula for measuring skills. But lets look at the wording again. Much depends on how we interpret skills and I suspect this tender is very much based on a narrow Anglo Saxon understanding of skills and competences. But it is not the skills of the worker (or the worker themselves) who become obsolescent. rather it is that changing work processes and changing forms of production require new skills and knowledge – skills and knowledge that build on past learning. And older workers are often those with the experience to teach others – to be a Significantly Knowledgeable Other to use Vygotsky’s term.

A policy of innovation should be based on using to the full the skills and competences and workers and on developing workplaces to facilitate learning through meaningful work tasks – rather than using tools to measure how obsolescent older workers skills are.