Advertisement

ePortfolios as Hybrid Learning Arenas in Vocational Education and Training

  • Leif Christian LahnEmail author
  • Hæge Nore
Chapter
Part of the Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (TVET, volume 29)

Abstract

The use of ePortfolios has become a common integrating element of vocational education and training (VET) in many countries (Attwell G, Pumilia P, Data Sci J 6(3):S211–S219, 2007). They serve different purposes but are often recommended as an effective tool for the documentation and assessment of learning and experiences (Cambridge D, Eportfolios for lifelong learning and assessment. Wiley, New York, 2010). Schools have claimed that this technology could bridge the gap between school and work in VET and stimulate the articulation and reflection of “tacit” knowledge, experience, and learning (Rauner F, MacLean R, Handbook of technical and vocational education and training research, vol 49. Springer, Dordrecht, 2008). In this article, we introduce the concept of hybrid learning arenas, derived from hybrid qualifications in VET, which refers to a combination of general and vocational learning (outcomes) (Davey G, Fuller A, Sociol Res Online 18(1):1–10, 2013). Within the Norwegian dual VET system, we add an institutional dimension by positioning the ePortfolio systems as a liaison device between apprentices, training offices, schools, and companies by analyzing to what extent this tool supports innovative apprenticeship (Deitmer L, Hauschildt U, Rauner F, Zelloth H, The architecture of innovative apprenticeship, vol 18. Springer, Dordrecht, 2012). Based on a study of ePortfolios in Norwegian VET, our discussion is guided by two research questions: In what ways do ePortfolios represent a new structure that could be characterized as a hybrid learning arena? What kind of learning processes take place in these arenas?

Our study is based on interviews with 47 apprentices and 58 in-company trainers and staff from 11 training offices in 3 different vocations: plumbing, industrial mechanics, and sales. The interview data were validated and elaborated by documentary evidence from ePortfolios, local training plans, task descriptions, assignments, assessment schemes, and other reports submitted to the training offices by the apprentices or trainers.

Findings from these data show that ePortfolios are used very differently across the vocations observed. This also goes for their ability to mediate or integrate between the different institutions in the dual model.

Keywords

ePortfolio Vocational education and boundary crossing Hybrid learning arenas 

References

  1. Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2012). Crossing boundaries between school and work during apprenticeships. Vocations and Learning, 5(2), 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attwell, G., & Elferink, E. (2008). Developing tools to support work based competence development: ePortfolios and apprenticeship. Network of innovative apprenticeship. http://www.pontydysgu.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/toolsforapprenticeship.pdf
  4. Attwell, G., & Pumilia, P. (2007). The new pedagogy of open content: Bringing together production, knowledge, development, and learning. Data Science Journal, 6(3), S211–S219. http://dsj.codataweb.org CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett, H. C. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: The REFLECT initiative. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(2), 436–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, J. S. (2008). How to connect technology and passion in the service of learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(8), A99.Google Scholar
  9. Bryant, L. H., & Chittum, J. R. (2013). ePortfolio effectiveness: A(n Ill-Fated) search for empirical support. International Journal of ePortfolio, 3 (2), 189–198. http://www.theijep.com, ISSN 2157-622X.
  10. Burchert, J., & Schulte, S. (2011). Qualität in der beruflichen Bildung–Ansatz und Ziel der Reflexion von Berichtshefteinträgen. bwp@ Berufs-und Wirtschaftspädagogik-Online, Ausgabe, 21.Google Scholar
  11. Butz, N. T., & Stubinsky, R. H. (2016). A mixed methods study of graduate students’ self-determined motivation in synchronous hybrid learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cambridge, D. (2010). Eportfolios for lifelong learning and assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Chang, C. C., Liang, C., Shu, K. M., Tseng, K. H., & Lin, C. Y. (2016). Does using e-portfolios for reflective writing enhance high school students’ self-regulated learning? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(3), 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daunert, A. L., & Price, L. (2014). E-portfolio: A practical tool for self-directed, reflective, and collaborative professional learning. In C. Harteis et al. (Eds.), Discourses on professional learning (pp. 231–251). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  15. Davey, G., & Fuller, A. (2013). Hybrid qualifications, institutional expectations and youth transitions: A case of swimming with or against the tide. Sociological Research Online, 18(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deichman-Sørensen, T. (2007). Mot en ny infrastruktur for læring og kontroll. Kvalitetsvurdering i fag- og yrkesopplæringen. Rapport fra evaluering av Nasjonalt kvalitetsvurderingssystem i grunnopplæringen. Oslo: Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet. AFI-rapport 3/2007.Google Scholar
  17. Deitmer, L., Hauschildt, U., Rauner, F., & Zelloth, H. (Eds.). (2012). The architecture of innovative apprenticeship (Vol. 18). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Elsholz, U., & Knutzen, S. (2010). Der Einsatz von E-portfolios in der Berufsausbildung-Konzeption und Potenziale. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 18, 1–16.Google Scholar
  19. Finch, C., Mulder, M., Attwell, G., & Streumer, J. (2007). International comparisons of school to work transitions. European Education Research Association Journal, 3(2), 3–15.Google Scholar
  20. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2010). Can apprenticeship be innovative? Reconceptualising the learning journey in the knowledge economy. In F. Rauner & E. Smith (Eds.), Rediscovering apprenticeship. Research findings of the international network on innovative apprenticeship (INAP). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Gessler, M., & Freund, L. (Eds.). (2015). Crossing boundaries in vocational education and training: Innovative concepts for the 21st century, Evaluate Europe handbook series volume 6. Bremen: University of Bremen. ISSN 1861-6828.Google Scholar
  22. Gikandi, J. W., & Morrow, D. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers and Education, 57, 2333–2351.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grollmann, P., & Rauner, F. (2007). Exploring innovative apprenticeship: Quality and costs. Education and Training, 49(6), 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guile, D., & Griffiths, T. (2001). Learning through work experience. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gutierrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of education. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 445–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Häcker, T. (2005). Portfolio als Instrument der Kompetenzdarstellung und reflexiven Lernprozesssteuerung. Beruf – und Wirtschaftspädagogik – online. www.bwpat.de bwp@ Nr. 8; ISSN 1618-8543 1.
  27. Hagen, A., Nadim, M., & Nyen, T. (2010). Fagopplæring på nye felt. En kartlegging av virksomhetenes holdninger til nyere fag i tjenesteytende virksomhet. Oslo: Fafo-rapport 2010:12.Google Scholar
  28. Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(1), 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Havn, V., Kvalsvik Teige, B., Buland, T., Tønseth, C., Finbak, L., Lian, R., & Hybertsen Lysø, I. (2009). Første delrapport for prosjektet Kunnskapsløftet – et løft også for fag- og yrkesopplæringen. Trondheim: SINTEF Rapport A8578.Google Scholar
  30. Helms Jørgensen, C., & Juul, I. (2009). Bedre samspill mellom skolepraktik og ordinær virksomhetspraktik. Kbh: Undervisningsministeriets centrale analyse og prognosevirksomhed for erhvervsuddannelserne 2009–10. http://www.pontydysgu.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/toolsforapprenticeship.pdf
  31. Høst, H., & Michelsen, S. (2014). Opplæringskontorenes rolle i kvalitetsarbeidet. In H. Høst (Ed.), Kvalitet i fag-og yrkesopplæringen. Fokus på opplæringen i bedrift. Rapport 3 Forskning på kvalitet i fag- og yrkesopplæringen. Oslo: NIFU Rapport 12/2014.Google Scholar
  32. Høst, H., Skålholt, A., Nore, H., & Tønder, A. H. (2012). Gjennomgående dokumentasjon, eller opplæringsboka i ny form? Evaluering av forsøket med gjennomgående dokumentasjon i fag- og yrkesopplæringen. Oslo: NIFU. Rapport 16/2012.Google Scholar
  33. Høst, H., Skålholt, A., Reiling, R. B., & Gjerustad, C. (2014). Opplæringskontorene i fag- og yrkesopplæringen–avgjørende bindeledd eller institusjon utenfor kontroll? Oslo: NIFU Rapport 51/2014.Google Scholar
  34. Leemann, R. J., Da Rin, S., & Imdorf, C. (2015). Training networks in VET as innovative concepts-reasons and boundaries for training companies to participate. In M. Gessler & L. Freund (Eds.), Crossing boundaries in vocational education and training: Innovative concepts for the 21st century (Vol 6, pp. 123–127). Conference proceedings. Bremen: Evaluate Europe Handbook Series.Google Scholar
  35. Leigh Star, S. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mason, R., Pegler, C., & Weller, M. (2004). E-portfolios: An assessment tool for online courses. British Journal of Learning Technology, 35(6), 717–727.Google Scholar
  37. Michelsen, S., & Høst, H. (2013). Nasjonalt system og lokalt arbeid: Om kvalitet i fag- og yrkesopplæringen. In H. Høst (Ed.), Kvalitet i fag- og yrkesopplæringen. Fokus på skoleopplæringen. Rapport 2 Forskning på kvalitet i fag- og yrkesopplæringen. Oslo: NIFU rapport 21/2013.Google Scholar
  38. Nore, H. (2015). Re-contextualizing vocational didactics in Norwegian vocational education and training. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET), 2(3, Special Issue), 182–194.  https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.2.3.4.
  39. Nore, H., & Lahn, L. C. (2014). Bridging the gap between work and education in vocational education and training. A study of Norwegian apprenticeship training offices and E-portfolio systems. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 1(1), 21–34.  https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.1.1.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Onstenk, J. (2010). Coaching and collaborative work-based learning in Dutch VET: The “TEAMstages’ project”. In F. Rauner & E. Smith (Eds.), Rediscovering apprenticeship. Research findings of the International Network on Innovative Apprenticeship (INAP) (pp. 161–170). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Pedró, F. (2006). The new millennium learners: Challenging our view on ICT and learning. Paris: OECD-CERI.Google Scholar
  42. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–410.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rauner, F., & Maclean, R. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of technical and vocational education and training research (Vol. 49). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Rauner, F., & Smith, E. (Eds.). (2010). Rediscovering apprenticeship, technical and vocational education and training: Issues, concerns and prospects (Vol. 11). Dordrecht: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3116-7_10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rauner, F., Wittig, W., & Deitmer, L. (2010). Plural administration in dual systems in selected European countries. In F. Rauner & E. Smith (Eds.), Rediscovering apprenticeship (pp. 31–43). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schatzki, T. (2005). Introduction: Practice theory. In K. K. Cetina, T. R. Schatzki, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 10–23). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Schwendimann, B. A., Cattaneo, A. A., Dehler Zufferey, J., Gurtner, J. L., Bétrancourt, M., & Dillenbourg, P. (2015). The ‘Erfahrraum’: A pedagogical model for designing educational technologies in dual vocational systems. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 67(3), 367–396.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2015.1061041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, E. (2010). We’re here to help: Agencies dealing with apprenticeships in Australia. In F. Rauner & E. Smith (Eds.), Rediscovering apprenticeship. Research findings of the International Network on Innovative Apprenticeship (INAP). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Engeström, Y., & Young, M. (2003). From transfer to boundary-crossing between school and work as a tool for developing vocational education: An introduction. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn et al. (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 1–15). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  51. Zitter, I. & Hoeve, A. (2012). Hybrid learning environments: Merging learning and work processes to facilitate knowledge integration and transitions (Education working papers, Vol. 81). Paris: OECD Publishing  https://doi.org/10.1787/5k97785xwdvf-en.
  52. Zitter, I., Hoeve, A., & de Bruijn, E. (2016). A design perspective on the school-work boundary: A hybrid curriculum model. Vocations and Learning, 9(1), 111–131.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-016-9150-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Vocational Teacher EducationUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Vocational Teacher EducationOslo and Akershus University College of Applied SciencesOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations