Concepts, Purposes and Practices of Integration Across National Curriculum

  • Stephen BillettEmail author
  • Gun-Britt Wärvik
  • Sarojni Choy
Part of the Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (TVET, volume 29)


The concept of integrating two sets of experiences implies a duality, that is, a consideration of the contributions of and relations between these two entities. For vocational education, it means accounting for experiences in at least two separate physical and social settings (i.e. workplaces and educational institutions) and how these can be and are reconciled by learners. These two kinds of settings exist for different purposes and have distinct goals, processes and practices aligned for their continuity. There are also other stakeholders who have an interest in the goals for and processes for realising vocational education, as well as an interest in securing their purposes. National industry groups, employee unions and professional agencies seek to achieve specific outcomes for particular industries and workplaces. All these stakeholders also make particular contributions to the provision of vocational education and implicitly to students, apprentices and workers’ learning. As illustrated in the national cases presented in Section II of this volume, the dual set of experiences in workplace and educational institutions is now an increasingly significant and common feature and characteristic of vocational education. This is the case whether it is enacted by upper secondary schools, specialised technical education institutions or universities. It is experiences in dual settings, the relations between them and how learners come to engage with and reconcile these experiences that make this form of education quite distinct from general education. Thus, integration of these experiences is salient, including how provisions of experiences are enacted and experienced across a wide range of educational and work settings, and in quite distinct ways.


Experiences in dual settings Institutional duality Educational intents Intended curriculum Student engagement Student readiness Connectivity and re-contextualisation 


  1. Billett, S. (2009a). Personal epistemologies, work and learning. Educational Research Review, 4, 210–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billett, S. (2009b). Realising the educational worth of integrating work experiences in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 827–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Billett, S. (2013). Towards a mature provision of vocational education. International Journal of Training Research, 11(2), 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Billett, S. (2014). Integrating learning experiences across tertiary education and practice settings: A socio-personal account. Educational Research Review, 12(C), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billett, S. (2015). Readiness and learning in healthcare education. Clinical Teacher, 12, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. (2003). Curriculum construction. Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  7. Ellström, P.-E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goller, M. (2017). Human agency at work: An active approach towards expertise development. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.Google Scholar
  9. Griffiths, T., & Guile, D. (2003). A connective model of learning: The implications for work process knowledge. European Educational Research Journal, 2(1), 56–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guile, D., & Young, M. (2003). Transfer and transition in vocational education: Some theoretical considerations. In T. Tuomi-Grohn & Y. Engestrom (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary crossing (pp. 63–81). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  11. Malle, B. F., Moses, L. J., & Baldwin, D. A. (2001). Introduction: The significance of intentionality. In B. F. Malle, L. J. Moses, & D. A. Baldwin (Eds.), Intentions and intentionality: foundations of social cognition (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Marsh, C. J. (2004). Key concepts for understanding curriculum. London: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Skilbeck, M. (1984). School based curriculum development. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, D., & Lovatt, T. J. (1990). Curriculum: Action on reflection. Wentworth Falls: Social Science Press.Google Scholar
  16. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Wheeler, D. K. (1967). Curriculum process. London: University of London Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Billett
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gun-Britt Wärvik
    • 2
  • Sarojni Choy
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Education and Professional StudiesGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Education and Special EducationUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations