The Working & Learning blog is now actively contributing to the start of the Learning Layers project (EU FP7). In the forthcoming posts there will be insights into the Learning Layers projects and into the tasks we (ITB and other partners) are carrying out to support workplace learning, work processes and professional development with the help of web applications, services and learning technologies.

However, in order to get new insights there is also a need to look back what has been achieved with prior (European and country-specific) knowledge development. So, there is a need to keep lessons from the past in picture while looking for new findings. Let us see what we find while we are working and learning in the new project …

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

Again I have disappointed myself and possible readers by letting my blog go quiet after the Christmas and New Year break. Looking back, the return to project work after holidays was overshadowed by several efforts that did not leave much energy for blogging. The imperative that was hanging upon me (and my colleagues): “Try to catch up with the tight schedules and  put in some new bids.” So, we were working our ways through and there was little time to look forward, backward or sideways.

However, this is precisely the trap that I or  we (speaking for my colleagues as well) should avoid. It appears to me that we tend to get squeezed to produce the promised project results (“survival documents”) and to concentrate with all our capacity on that. However, in order to draw conclusions from our working and learning we need to be able to produce reflective commentaries (“surplus documents”) and to share our learning results.

From this perspective I am afraid that we have gou ourselves hooked to a pattern of “working and rushing forward” instead of “working and learning from each others’ experiences and conlusions”.

Why have these thoughts come to my mind just now? Firstly, I was just interviewed by Martin Lawn who is studying the history of the European Educational Research Association (EERA) and of the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER). In our discussion we could conclude that the evolution of VETNET network of European vocational education and training (VET) researchers has also been a complex process with many features. Once again I noticed that my old logbooks on the development of VETNET and ECER have been buried to the backstage of the old VETNET homepage and hardly accessible to anyone else than myself.

Another reason is the fact that I have been recently involved in several European projects and initiatives to promote professional development of VET teachers and trainers (such as the TTplus project, the European Consultation seminars and the Trainers in Europe network). Many of these have been parallel to each other and producing their ‘own’ results. Now, there is a chance to look, what kind of group picture could be composed on the basis of these – altogether. I am not suggesting that there would not be contradictions or missing pieces. Yet, there is a chance to get an overview and to discuss, how the interim results could best be used for the next phase.

Thirdly, my friends and colleagues at Pontydysgu have been considering, how to make the best use of their blogs. At the moment it is clear that Graham’s Wales-Wide-Web continues as the flaghsip and the regular bloggers are encouraged to continue. I was kindly asked to consider, if I could get myself back to regular blogging (because there is an interest to blog postings from the areas I want to cover). There was also discussion on another option (I leave it to Graham and others to announce their new ideas when the time is ripe).

So, I am looking forward to a spring season with more postings and with efforts to discuss lessons from earlier history of VET research (vis-à-vis the current phase) and the group picture of more recent activities with focus on trainers, teachers and workplace learning. In this context I try to make appropriate use of discussions in projects and networks (and on their blogs) as well.

Before I take any steps to comment current European developments in Vocational Education and Training (VET) it is worthwhile to look at theparallel developments in Higher Education (HE). During the recent weeks the German student protests on the implementation of HE reforms have made headlines. The protests have swept all over Germany:  students are occupying the main auditories and the university rectors tend to express their understanding. Also polititicians tend to sympathise with the students’ concerns.

So what is going on:

• What is the reason for these protests?
• Why do all show so much understanding?
• What kind of changes are being sought?

Obviously, the HE reform that has caused so much dissatisfaction is linked to the implementation of the Bologna Process. Paradoxically, so far the Bologna Process has made positive publicity: the idea of common degree structures and access to mobility across European Higher Education Area have been widely greeted. Yet, the implementation of Bologna Process has brought into daylight less inspiring features of students’ everyday life.

Looking at the implementation of the Bologna Process in Germany it is worthwhile to note the following changes:

• The hitherto successful single-cycle study programmes (Dipl.-Ing., Dipl.-Päd. etc.) have been chopped into Bachelor-Master structures. Often the old contents have been packed into new degree structures.
• Not all Bachelor graduates have access to Masters programmes. Therefore, the increased number of examinations serves as a selection mechnism that narrows down students’ options.
• For the traditional civil servants’ careers the Bachelor degree is not accepted as an entrance qualification. Therefore, the alleged polyvalency of Bachelor degree is not a reality.
• During the lats years the universities have complained that they are underfunded. The students experience this as tight and inflexible schedules that narrow down the freedom of choice (that is officially given in the curricula).
• The students’ possibilities to follow the pre-given schedules are narrowed down by other practical difficulties (the overcrowded lectures, queueing to seminars,  distribution of learning events to different locations, need to work during the studies, need to commute from other places to the university town).

All these issues have been taken up now. The students have made their point: something has to be done!

As I have mentioned, the public debate has shown mainly understanding and sympatthy to the students’ concerns. However, the statements that have been made by politicians, leading government officials and university rectors are not necessarily outlining a clear change agenda. In fact the discussion is moving in some kind of Bermuda triangle: No one seems to be responsible for the problems and no one seems to be in a position to introduce necessary changes. The Federal givernment (Bund) refers to the legislative power of the Federal states (Länder). The officials of the Länder refer to the realtive autonomy of the universities. the university representatives refer to the lack of resources.

It is also more striking that alongside students the discussion on the Bologna Process and of the current developments in germany has been taken up by journalists. Not many researchers have been that visible in the debate. This can be a matter of time: it is the task of the journalists to respond quickly to hot issues. For researchers it is more challenging to analyse the conflicts in which they are themselves involved as university staff members.

I myself do not wish to get deeper involved in the debate on Bologna Process (or on the German HE reform) on a general level. Surely, I have to come back to the issue with some of my project themes (European cooperation on VET teachers and trainers; The role of practice-based learning in some areas of HE). But the current protests (and the issues that have been raised) are also symptomatic for other areas of European educational policies:

• What are the side-effects of seemingly successful European policies?
• What kind of context-specific issues are linked to national (or regional) implementation of European reforms?
• What kind of creative spaces and new learning opportunities can be promoted (or narrowed down)  in the context of European reforms?

I think this is enough for the moment. I will get back to these questions with my next posts.

I started my blogging with the heading “I-Europe”. I wanted to cover discussions on European innovations in Vocational Education and Training (VET). However, I soon realised that I was trying to make an analysis on a creative period in European VET research (1995-2000) and confronting it with a less creative period after 2000.

My questions in my early blogs were of the type:

“What has happened to the European dimension/ interdisciplinarity/ innovations?” or

“What has happened to trans-national cooperation/ networks/ knowledge sharing?”

Now, looking back, I see that those were questions that are put forward by an observer or a historian. They do not bring you forward with the questions:

“How can we influence the European cooperation climate in the field of VET and of VET research?” or

“How can we make better use of knowledge sharing and knowledge development in European networks?”

These are questions that do not necessarily lead to a big picture or to an overarching change agenda. Yet, they are questions that give a role for the working and learning processes that we are going through in European cooperation. With the new heading of my blog I want to discuss this type of questions.

The new heading has also another meaning: This kind of questions have to reach the ground – the reality of vocational teaching/learning processes and the reality of working and learning contexts.

In this spirit I will try to discuss the projects with which I have been working and what challenges they raise for the new year 2010. I will also try to make some remarks on issues that are hot in the educational debate (such as the implementation of the Bologna process in German universities and Higher Education policies. And – alongside these contributions I will try to make some remarks on the European cooperation climate and how we (different actors in the field can respond to the ongoing climate change (I do believe that something like this is going on).

OK, This was my opening statement. I will come back soon with one of the above mentioned issues.