Advertisement

Varieties of “Duality”: Work-Based Learning and Vocational Education in International Comparative Research

  • Philipp GrollmannEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (TVET, volume 29)

Abstract

This contribution argues that vocational learning is always bound to more school-based learning settings and practical work contexts. The focus on dual vocational education systems as a specific type of a national vocational education regime has led to overlooking the general “dual nature” of any vocational education and training.

Often vocational education practice goes beyond a mere orientation towards work by making practical work experience part of the vocational education and training curriculum. Yet even in cases of purely school-based settings, the question remains on how far the learning experiences of individuals from school-based instruction match with what they would be required to do in their future jobs and the learning experiences they engage in. Instead of asking how work experience integrates with education, it might also be legitimate and important to question how educational experience is or can be integrated into work.

On the other hand, the widely used term “work-based learning” does not sufficiently address the relevant contextual conditions for understanding the integration problem tackled in this volume. “Work-based learning” will always be strongly shaped by local or national institutional contexts in forms and content, and it only turns into education as soon as there is some kind of “curricular” formalisation and/or acknowledgement. By looking at international educational statistics and comparative research, the contribution in this chapter will show that the “dual nature” could be depicted better by taking into account education as well as employment statistics at the system level. The contribution also discusses where statistics could be misleading. In addition different forms and concepts of dual vocational education and training and practical examples are presented. Conclusions are drawn for further research on curricular integration for a variety of dualities.

Keywords

Germany France Australia Canada Switzerland Denmark Austria Vocational education and training Apprenticeship Alternance Dual system 

References

  1. Berger, S., & Mouillour, I. L.. Frankreich. In P. Grollmann u.a. (Hrsg.), Internationales Handbuch der Berufsbildung. Bielefeld in Vorbereitung.Google Scholar
  2. Boreham, N., Fischer, M., & Samurcay, R. (2002). Work process knowledge. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D. (2004). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Acad. Press.Google Scholar
  4. Buske, R., & Grollmann, P. (2010). Dänemark. In P. Grollmann u.a. (Hrsg.), Internationales Handbuch der Berufsbildung Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  5. Centre d’analyse stratégique. (2013). Berufliche Erstausbildung: ist Deutschland ein Modell für Frankreich? In La note d’analyse 322.Google Scholar
  6. Council of the European Union: Council Recommendation of 10 March 2014 on a Quality Framework for Traineeships 2014/C 88/01.Google Scholar
  7. Demes, H., & Georg, W. (1998). Zum Qualifikationsverstädnis in Japan – Amerkungen aus deutscher Perspektive. In: G. Laske (Hrsg.), Lernen und Innovation in Industriekulturen. Bremen: Donath.Google Scholar
  8. Ertl, H., & Frommberger, D. (2008). Comparative research in VET – Methodological considerations, results and current questions. In F. Rauner, & R. Maclean (Hrsg.), Handbook on research in technical and vocational education and training (pp. 259–266). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Euler, D. (2013). Germany’s dual vocational training system: A model for other countries? Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2015). High-performance apprenticeships & work-based learning: 20 guiding principles. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission, European Social Partners, & Council of the European Union. (2013). European Alliance for Apprenticeships. Declaration of the European Social Partners, the European Commission and the Lithuanian Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Brussels, Leipzig.URL: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/vocational-policy/doc/alliance/joint-declaration_en.pdf (Stand: 28.06.2014)
  12. European Commission u.a. (2012). Study on a comprehensive overview on traineeship arrangements in Member States. Final Synthesis Report. Brussels.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission, & IKEI. (2012). Apprenticehip supply in the Member States of the European Union. Final Synthesis Report. Brussels.Google Scholar
  14. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2003). Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: Creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation. Journal of Education and Work, 16(4), S. 408–S. 426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Georg, W. (1990). Berufsausbildung ohne Beruf: Qualifizierungsstrategie in Japan. In Fernuniversität Hagen (Hrsg.), Arbeit und Ausbildung in Japan (pp. 1–4). Hagen.Google Scholar
  16. Georg, W.. (1996). Kulturelle Tradition und berufliche Bildung. Zur Problematik des internationalen Vergleichs. In W. Greinert (Hrsg.), 30 Jahre Berufsbildungshilfe. Berlin.Google Scholar
  17. Greinert, W.-D.. (1995). Regelungsmuster der beruflichen Bildung: Tradition – Markt – Bürokratie. In Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, 24(5), S.31–S.35Google Scholar
  18. Greinert, W.-D., & Hanf, G. (2004). Towards a history of vocational education and Training (VET) in Europe in a comparative perspective Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  19. Griffiths, T., & Guile, D. (2003). A connective model of learning: The implications for work process knowledge. European Educational Research Journal, 2(1), S.56–S.73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grollmann, P.. (2008). Comparative research in TVET. In R. Felix, & M. Rupert (Hrsg.). Handbook on research in technical and vocational education and training. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  21. Grollmann, P.. (2012). Duale Ausbildung – Nischenexistenz oder auf dem Vormarsch? In K. Eva u.a. (Hrsg.), Akademisierung der Arbeitswelt? Zur Zukunft der beruflichen Bildung (pp. S300–S.312). Hamburg.Google Scholar
  22. Grollmann, P., & Helmrich, R. (2014). Formen betriebsintegrierter Ausbildung in Europa. In BIBB (Hrsg.), Datenreport zum Berufsbildungsbericht (pp. S427–S435). Bonn.Google Scholar
  23. Grollmann, P., & Lewis, M. V. (2004). Lernortkooperation aus internationaler Perspektive – USA. In E. Dieter (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Lernortkooperation (pp. S655–S670). Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  24. Grollmann, P., & Smith, E. (2007). International perspectives on apprenticeship, Special ed. Education and Training, 49, 3.Google Scholar
  25. Grollmann, P., & Wilson, D. N. (2002). Berufliche Bildung in Kanada. Episodenhaftes operieren am Symptom oder nachhaltige Reformen? In L. Uwe (Hrsg.), Internationales Handbuch der Berufsbildung. Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
  26. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2004). Varieties of capitalism : the institutional foundations of comparative advantage (p. S. XVI, 540 S). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Klenk, J. (2013). Nationale Qualifikationsrahmen in dualen Berufsbildungssystemen. Akteure, Interessen und politischer Prozess in Dänemark, Österreich und Deutschland. Bielefeld. URL: http://www.ciando.com/ebook/bid-892403
  28. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning : legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge [u.a.].Google Scholar
  29. Maclean, R., Chinien, C. N., & Wilson, D. N. (Hrsg.). (2008). International handbook on education for the world of work: Bridging academic and vocational education. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  30. Malloch, M. u.a. (Hrsg.). (2011). The Sage handbook of workplace learning. Los Angeles u.a.Google Scholar
  31. Maurice, M., & Sorge, A. M. (1990). Industrielle Entwicklung und Innovationsfähigkeit der Werkzeugmaschinenhersteller in Frankreich und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland : gesellschaftliche Analyse der Beziehungen zwischen Qualifikation und Wirtschaftsstruktur (Discussion paper FS I 90-11). Berlin.Google Scholar
  32. Maurice, M., Sorge, A., & Warner, M. (1982). Societal differences in organizing manufacturing units: A comparison of France, West Germany, and Great Britain. Organization Studies, 1(1), S59–S86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Learning for jobs. Synthesis report of the OECD reviews of Vocational Education and Training. Paris.Google Scholar
  34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Education at a glance OECD indicators. ParisGoogle Scholar
  35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014a). Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators. URL:  https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en (Stand: 22.12.2015).
  36. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014b). OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training. Skills beyond School. Synthesis Report.Google Scholar
  37. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). Education at a Glance 2016. OECD Indicators. Paris. URL: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9616041e.pdf?expires=1490346135&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=B435E0ADDFE65EE8D5DBF529A7CA6AF9
  38. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). OECD thematic studies: Work-based learning in vocational education and training (VET) – Papers and reports. URL: http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/work-based-learning-in-vocational-education-and-training-vet-papers-and-reports.htm
  39. Pilz, M. (2016). Typologies in comparative vocational education: Existing models and a new approach. Vocations and Learning, 9(3), S295–S314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rauner, F., & Maclean, R, (Hrsg.). (2007). Handbook on research in technical and vocational education and training. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  41. Refernet Czech Republic. (2012). Czech Republic. VET in Europe – Country report. Prague.Google Scholar
  42. Robinson, C. (2001). Facts, Fiction and Future. Australian Apprenticeships.Google Scholar
  43. Schmid, J. (2010). Sozialpolitische Schlussfolgerungen und Chancen des Politik-Transfers: Ein Fazit. In (Hrsg.), Wohlfahrtsstaaten im Vergleich (pp. S471–S492).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schriewer, J. (1986). Intermediäre Instanzen, Selbstverwaltung und berufliche Ausbildungsstrukturen im historischen Vergleich. In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 32. Jahrgang 1, S. 69–89.Google Scholar
  45. Steedman, H. (2010). The state of apprenticeship in 2010. International comparisons Australia Austria England France Germany Ireland Sweden Switzerland. London.Google Scholar
  46. Steedman, H. (2012). Overview of apprenticeship systems and issues. ILO contribution to the G20 Task Force on Employment. Genf.Google Scholar
  47. Stenström, M.-L., & Tynjälä, P. (2009). Towards integration of work and learning : strategies for connectivity and transformation. Dordrecht/London.Google Scholar
  48. Stockmann, R. (1998). Transferierbarkeit dualer Systemelemente in Länder der Dritten Welt. Eine Querschnittsanalyse von GTZ-geförderten “Dualprojekten”. In S. Friedhelm, & U. Ernst (Hrsg.), Die Modernität des Unmodernen (pp.S83–S104). Berlin/Bonn.Google Scholar
  49. Stockmann, R. (2000). Wirksamkeit deutscher Berufsbildungszusammenarbeit. Ein Vergleich staatlicher und nicht- staatlicher Programme in der Volksrepublik China. Wiesbaden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trampusch, C., & Busemeyer, M. (2010). Einleitung. Swiss Political Science Review, 16(4), S597–S615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal Institute for Vocational Education and TrainingBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations