Advertisement

Considerations for the Integration of Students’ Experiences

  • Sarojni ChoyEmail author
  • Gun-Britt Wärvik
  • Viveca Lindberg
Chapter
Part of the Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (TVET, volume 29)

Abstract

Educational institutions are fundamentally designed for teaching and learning, whereas learning in workplaces remains a secondary function supported through engagement in routine and nonroutine work tasks, direct and indirect guidance and opportunities and accessibility to a range of work tasks to gain experience (Billett, Stud Contin Educ 23(1):19–35, 2001). Development of skilled workers demands that learning at educational institutions and in workplaces is well connected and integrated. Without deliberate efforts from teachers, guides, mentors or other actors to make connections between learning at different sites, students could likely remain ‘passive bystanders’ during scheduled practice periods in workplaces. It therefore becomes necessary to develop learners’ capacities to help mediate between the curriculum organised by their educational institutions and the curriculum situated in the everyday business of workplaces where they gain vocational experiences. Further to empowering learners to access and engage in learning, there are other considerations necessary for effective integration of learning in different sites. In this chapter we draw on the cases presented in Part II to propose broad considerations for integration around four imperatives: social-cultural arrangements, negotiated curriculum, the roles of stakeholders and learner preparedness. Imperatives and implications for students’ learning are discussed. In the summary of the chapter, we recapitulate the main ideas about supporting integration of learning in educational institutions and workplaces and stress the significance of a collective and reciprocal approach for integration.

Keywords

Integration Connections Learner preparedness Agency Considerations for integration Supporting integration 

References

  1. Allais, S. M. (2011). The impact and implementation of national qualifications frameworks: A comparison of 16 countries. Journal of Education and Work, 24(3–4), 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allais, S. (2012). Claims vs. practicalities: Lessons about using learning outcomes. Journal of Education and Work, 25(3), 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, T. R., Hughes, K. L., et al. (2004). Working knowledge: Work-based learning and educational reform. New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(3), 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billett, S. (2001). Learning throughout working life: Activities and interdependencies. Studies in Continuing Education, 23(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Billett, S. (2006). Constituting the workplace curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Billett, S. (2014). Integrating learning experiences across tertiary education and practice settings: A socio-personal account. Educational Research Review, 12, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Billett, S. (2015). Integrating practice-based experiences into higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Billett, S., Henderson, A., Choy, S., Dymock, D., Beven, F., Kelly, A., James, I., Lewis, J., & Smith, R. (2012). Continuing education and training models and strategies: An initial appraisal. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.Google Scholar
  10. Brennan Kemmis, R., & Wärvik, G.-B. (2011). Editorial. International Journal of Training Research., 11(2), 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CEDEFOP. (2017). Sharing knowledge about vocational education and training. doi: 10.2801/168888.Google Scholar
  12. Choy, S., & Sappa, V. (2016). Australian stakeholders’ conceptions of connecting learning at TAFE and workplaces. International Journal of Training Research  https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2016.1200237.
  13. Diart, M. (2009). Potentiale des ECVET-Leistungspunktesystems für GVA im Handwerk [The potentials of the performance system ECVET for collaborative cross-border vocational education and training (GVA) in craft]. Köln: Forschungsinstitut für Berufsbildung im Handwerk an der Universität zu Köln (FBH).Google Scholar
  14. Dittman, D., & Zielke, T. (2009). Didaktische Parallellität und Lernortsflexibilisierung (DiPal) – Praxisbeispiel kfz4me.de [Didactic parallelism and flexibility of learning-sites – the praxis example kfz4me.de] In: C. Fenzel, G. Spöttl, F. Howe, & M. Becker (Eds.), Berufsarbeit von morgen in gewerblich-technischen Domäne [The work of tomorrow in the domain of technical business] (pp. 74–79). Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
  15. Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2010). The Bruges Communiqué on enhanced European Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training for the period 2011–2020. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC/2014/WEF_GAC_Employment_MatchingSkillsLabourMarket_Report_2014.pdf
  17. Gherardi, S. (2009). Community of practice or practices of community? In S. Armstrong & C. Fukami (Eds.), The Sage handbook of management learning, education, and development (pp. 514–530). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, D. (2015). Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 350–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kemmis, S., & Smith, T. J. (Eds.). (2008). Enabling praxis: Challenges for education. Rotterdam: Sense Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Kilbrink, N., & Bjurulf, V. (2012). Transfer of knowledge in technical vocational education: A narrative study in Swedish upper secondary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(519–535)  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9201-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Konkoloa, R., Tuomi-Grohn, T., Lambert, P., & Ludvigsen, S. (2007). Promoting learning and transfer between school and workplace. Journal of Education and Work, 20(3), 211–228.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080701464483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lambert, P. (2001). Oppimistehtävät kehittävän siirtovaikutuksen tuottajina [Tasks as producers of developmental transfer effects]. In: T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Koulun ja työn rajavyöhykkeellä. Uusia työssä oppimisen mahdollisuuksia [On the border between school and work. New possibilities for work-based learning] (pp. 96–147). Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.Google Scholar
  23. Lambert, P. (2003). Promoting developmental transfer in vocational teacher education. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Between education and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary crossing (pp. 233–254). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  24. Lauterbach, U., & Grollmann, P. (1998). The dual system – A static system? TNTEE Publication, 1, 67–78.Google Scholar
  25. Lemar, S., & Olofsson, J. (2010). Bilaga 4. Om lärlingsrådens funktioner [Appendix 4. On the function of apprenticeship councils]. In: Nationella lärlingskommittén (Ed.), Gymnasial lärlingsutbildning – utbildning för jobb: erfarenheter efter två års försök med lärlingsutbildning. SOU 2010:75 (s. 283–s. 324). Stockholm: Fritzes. Retrieved in January 2011 from www.regeringen.se
  26. Lindberg, V. (2003). Yrkesutbildning i omvandling: en studie av lärandepraktiker och kunskapstransformationer [Vocational education in change: A study of learning practices and knowledge transformations]. Stockholm: Lärarhögskolan i Stockholm.Google Scholar
  27. Lorenzo, J. M. A. (2012). Integracion Educacion-Trabajo: Necesidad de La Formacion Profesional [Integration of school and work: A necessity for the formation of professionals – in Spanish]. Editorial Académica Española.Google Scholar
  28. Lundahl, L., & Sanders, T. (1998). Introduction: Germany and Sweden – Two different systems of vocational education? TNTEE Publications, 1 (1). http://tntee.umu.se.publication, Downloaded June 15, 2001.
  29. Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2015). Conditions for apprentices’ learning activities at work. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 67(4), 578–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nilsson, L. (1983). Vocational education in Swedish secondary schools: Trends and Reforms. European Journal of Education, 18(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nyen, T., & Tønder, A. H. (2012). Fleksibilitet eller faglighet? En studie av innføringen av faget prosjekt til fordypning i Kunnskapsløftet. Fafo-rapport 2012:47. Oslo: Fafo.Google Scholar
  32. OECD. (2014). Skills beyond School: Synthesis Report. OECD reviews of vocational education and training. OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264214682-en.
  33. Paul, E. (2017). Skriftbruk som yrkeskunnande i gymnasial lärlingsutbildning. Vård- och omsorgselevers möte med det arbetsplatsförlagda lärandets skriftpraktiker [Literacies as vocational knowing in Upper Secondary Apprenticeship Education: Apprentice students’ participation in literacy practices during workplace based learning in health care and social work]. Diss. Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  34. Poortman, C. L., Reenalda, M., Nijhof, W. J., & Nieuwenhuis, L. F. M. (2014). Workplace learning in dual higher professional education. Vocations and Learning, 7(2), 167–190.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-014-9111-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rose, M. (2005). The mind at work: Valuing the intelligence of the American worker. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  36. Säljö, R. (2003). Epilogue: From transfer to boundary crossing. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 311–322). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  37. Sappa, V., Choy, S. & Aprea, C. (2016). Stakeholders’ conceptions of connecting learning at different sites in two national systems. Journal of Vocational Education and Training  https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2016.1201845.
  38. Schlottau, W. (2003). Verbundausbildung sichert hochwertige Ausbildungsplätze. In: Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung (BIBB), Verbundausbildung: Organisationsformen, Förderung, Praxisbeispiele, Rechtsfragen. Bonn: BIBB.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2001). Long-term influences of portfolios on professional development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(2), 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  41. Tuomi-Gröhn, T., & Engeström, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 311–322). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  42. UNESCO. (2016). Annex revised recommendation concerning technical and vocational education (2001). http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13145&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Downloaded February 2017.
  43. Valsiner, J. (2000). Culture and human development. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Veillard, I. (2012). Transfer of learning as a special case of transition between learning contexts in a French work-integrated learning programme. Vocations and Learning, 5(3), 251–276.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9076-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. World Economic Forum. (2014). Global Agenda Council on Employment. Matching skills and labour market needs building social partnerships for better skills and better jobs. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GAC/2014/WEF_GAC_Employment_MatchingSkillsLabourMarket_Report_2014.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations