Modularisation for flexibility and mobility in VET for flexibility and mobility in VET -Findings...

Modularisation for flexibility

and mobility in VET -Findings from 15 European countries

Matthias Pilz

University of Cologne

IoE, London, 23.01.2014

Universität zu Köln

Lehrstuhl für Wirtschafts- und Sozialpädagogik

Universität zu Köln Lehrstuhl für Wirtschafts- und Sozialpädagogik

‘Modularization and outcomes-based approaches

could erode the potency of the key organizing

principle of the German Dual System- the concept

of the Beruf- and disturb the careful balance of

checks and incentives which lay at the heart of a

strong set of imperatives for both employers and

young people to participate in IVET’

(Tim Oates 2010)

Fears

… the ‘work of the devil’ (Kloas 2007)

Content



• Aims of the project

• Methodology and definitions

• Key findings

• What works (not)?

• Conclusion



Aims of the project

Aims of the Project

1. Provide an analysis of the existing patterns of

modularisation and different countries. This

includes the history, purpose, status, intensity

and characteristics of each of the programmes

and qualifications.

2. Determine how such programmes and

qualifications impact the wider vocational

education and training system. Included are the

legal, regulatory and institutional aspects of

such provisions.





Partners in the project

Dr. Roy Canning and Sarah Minty

University of Sterling, Scotland

Prof. Dr. Matthias Pilz and Junmin Li

University of Cologne, Germany

Funding organisation: CEDEFOP



Methodology and

definitions


Methodology

The 15 countries:

Austria, Denmark, England, Finland, France,

Germany, Italy, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg,

the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Scotland,

Slovenia


Methodology

Stage 1: Secondary data sources:

– A comprehensive review of literature in each

country

– Telephone interviews/ written communication

with key experts in each country

Stage 2: Primary data sources

– Case studies from 3 countries: Germany, the

Netherlands and Scotland

>>>> details below …



Definitions not unproblematic

• Cedefop (2008):

Modules are ‘components of education and training

programmes’ and units are ‘a set of learning outcomes

which constitute a coherent part of a qualification’.

• Raffe (1994):

Modules are self-contained units of learning: ‘They are

short; they may be combined in different ways to form

programmes of study; and […] they are separately and

concurrently assessed’.



Key findings (stage 1 of the project;

15 countries)



Extent of modularisation practices: ‘A quiet revolution’

• Widespread use of modularisation within VET

qualifications in Europe.

• All countries have implemented or are planning to

implement some form of modularisation in the

future.

– …Though in some cases this effects only specific

qualifications or parts of qualifications rather than

the whole IVET system.



Extent of modularisation and

unitisation in the study countries


Modularisation timeline

• Countries in the study are at different stages in the

development of modular qualifications.

• Modularisation have been introduced in four

distinct phases:

– Phase I (late 1970s and 1980s): France, the

Netherlands, Scotland, England

– Phase II (1990s): Finland, Denmark, Germany,

Italy, Poland, Slovenia

– Phase III (2000s): Austria, Hungary, Portugal,

Luxembourg

– Phase IV (2010s): Latvia

Four phases of modularisation




Rationales for modularisation activity in different countries

• Rationales vary across the 15 countries

• …but flexibility is key across all.

• The gradual introduction of modular structures has

mainly been employer oriented and is responsive to

stakeholders’ needs.

• Student choice and individualisation is a factor to a

lesser extent.



Other rationales

Other frequently occurring rationales include:

– To make VET more attractive and to raise its

status

– To increase participation rates and reduce early

drop-outs

– To create mobility between pathways in VET

– To make the VET system more transparent

– To help with accumulation and transfer

– To adhere to EU policies



Key actors and decision-making processes

‘Bottom-up’ approaches

• Driven by needs of businesses, schools, social

partners or other stakeholders

‘Top-down’ approaches

• Driven by the needs of the State are the most

prevalent



Modularisation Structures

• The structures adopted are varied and typically

respond to local needs.

• The four main types of modular forms are:

– mandatory structures,

– core and elective structures,

– specialisation structures and

– introductory modules.

• It is reasonable to claim that some countries have a

preference for particular forms of module structures,

largely reflecting historical and cultural differences.



The modularisation spectrum

Although the debate has often been

polarized between traditional training

(holistic) and radical forms of

modularisation in reality the majority of

countries in our study have adopted

moderate forms of modularisation that have

been developed over time in response to

employer and student needs.



21

Radical concept of

modularisation

Mixed concepts

Restriction of learning content

and/or qualifications, flexible

combination of different

modules

Output-orientation

Certification of each module

Unrestricted entrance and exit

opportunities for participants

Unrestricted options to offer all

types of modules by all kinds

of schools and training

providers

Mixed

concepts

‘Traditional holistic training’

such as apprenticeships and

other school-based approaches

Unified programme of

vocational education,

linear structure of learning

contents

Strong link between the

learning process and the

learning goal

Certification after the

successful completion of the

end assessment

No certified exit opportunities

for participants before passing

the final assessments

Options to offer vocational

education only by special

training and learning providers



Stage 2:

The case studies (Scotland, the Netherlands

and Germany)



Methodology of the case studies

• In total, 48 interviews were conducted in relation

to qualifications in six occupational areas:

– Automotive

– Butchery

– Financial Services

– Hairdressing

– Retail

– Warehousing and logistics

• Included interviews with both social partners and

practitioners

Key findings of the case

studies

• All 3 countries (I) :

– Qualifications are highly responsive to needs

of employers

– Trainees have little choice in how they

structure their qualifications

– Flexibility is allowed in terms of training

duration



• The Netherlands and Germany are moving

towards more flexible qualifications.

Key findings from the case

studies

• All 3 countries (II) :

– Partial qualifications are not widely used

– Progression, credit transfer and RPL may be

limited by institutional factors and funding



Comparison of modularisation in the 3 countries



Germany Netherlands Scotland

Types of

qualification

under

consideration

Elective programmes

(Wahlqualifikationen)

Training building blocks

(Ausbildungsbausteine)

MBO Diplomas SVQs

Modern Apprenticeships

Forms of

modularisation

Only the pilot training

building blocks and

elective programmes are

modular in form. Most

IVET under the dual

system is traditional,

holistic training.

Combination of both

forms of

modularisation

Radical form of

modularisation

School, college

or dual-based

system

Electives: Predominantly

dual system

Training building blocks:

wide variety of schools

and training providers,

e.g. vocational schools,

companies and private

training providers.

Work-based (BBL)

School/college-

based (BOL)

College-based and

work-based




Individually

certified?

Electives are not

individually certified.

Each building block is

individually documented

by the training provider,

but no credit is attached.

Recognition depends on

the Chamber of Trade and

Industry.

Up to schools whether

individually certified, but

no credit attached and

not recognised by the

labour market

Individually certified,

credit-based units.

Group award made up

of credit-based units.

Partial

qualifications?

No partial qualifications No partial qualifications No, but each student

has a Record of

Attainment for every

unit for the purpose of

internal administration.

Level of

student

flexibility

No student flexibility Currently no student

flexibility but plans to

introduce this in 2014

Some flexibility for the

student



Modularisation: What works

(not)?


What works

• Provides flexibility for employers to train their workforce in skills

which suit their needs, but is still embedded in an overall

framework or programme.

• Allows qualifications to respond quickly to changes in the labour

market.

• Allows learners to select courses and competences which most

suit their needs.

• Provides greater opportunities for learners to move in and out of

the IVET system, as well as providing some options for

recognition of prior learning and progression inside the VET

system.

• Potential to reduce drop outs due to regular assessment (formal

or informal learning).


Potential Concerns

• Some fears exist that learners will leave the system

with only partial qualifications.

• Concerns that flexible structures can be difficult to

understand for all groups involved.

• A provider focused educational market designed

around outcome-based foundation tends to restrict

student flexibility and mobility.


Conclusions

• There has been a quiet revolution taking place

in Europe in the use of modularisation forms of

IVET.

• This revolution has occurred over distinct

development phases across different countries

in Europe.

Conclusions

• It happened to adopt to employer-focused and

learning centered approaches of IVET.

• Different countries have adopted different forms

of modularisation: from the more radical form to

the more traditional (holistic)

• Next phase?



Literature

• CEDEFOP Report will be published very soon!

• Pilz, Matthias (2012), Modularisation of vocational training in

Germany, Austria and Switzerland: parallels and disparities in a

modernisation process. In: Journal of Vocational Education and

Training, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 169-183

• Pilz, Matthias (2002), The contrast between modular and

occupational approaches to modernising vocational training. In:

European Journal of Vocational Training, No. 25, pp. 27-33


Thank you for

listening.

Hope to see you in Cologne

very soon!


22 -24 September 2014

YOUTH IN TRANSITION:

VET IN TIMES OF ECONOMIC CRISIS

2nd International Conference of the German Research Center

for Comparative Vocational Education and Training

(G.R.E.A.T.)

University of Cologne





Types of

qualification

under

consideration

Elective programmes

(Wahlqualifikationen)


(Ausbildungsbausteine)

MBO Diplomas SVQs

Modern Apprenticeships

Forms of

modularisation

Only the pilot training

building blocks and elective

programmes are modular in

form. Most IVET under the

dual system is traditional,

holistic training.

Combination of both

forms of modularisation

Radical form of modularisation

School, college

or dual-based

system

Electives: Predominantly

dual system


wide variety of schools and

training providers, e.g.

vocational schools,

companies and private

training providers.

Work-based (BBL)

School/college-based

(BOL)

College-based and work-

based


Terminology Electives


Core tasks and work

processes and in some cases

modules

Units, broken down into

elements (LOs) and

performance criteria

Input or

output-

based

Pilots (training building

blocks) are competence and

outputs based

Competence-based Competence-based

Basic

structures

Elective programmes:

specialisation


mandatory

Mandatory: core tasks, broken

down into work processes and

associated competences

Core and elective:

combination of core and

optional units, broken down

into elements (work

processes)







Individually

certified?

Electives are not

individually certified.

Each building block is

individually documented

by the training provider,

but no credit is attached.

Recognition depends on

the Chamber of Trade and

Industry.

Up to schools whether

individually certified, but no

credit attached and not

recognised by the labour

market

Individually certified, credit-

based units. Group award

made up of credit-based

units.

Partial

qualifications?

No partial qualifications No partial qualifications No, but each student has a

Record of Attainment for

every unit for the purpose of

internal administration.

Level of

student

flexibility

No student flexibility Currently no student flexibility

but plans to introduce this in

2014

Some flexibility for the

student



Potential for

credit transfer

No possibilities for transfer Transfer is possible in some

cases, but it is up to the

schools to decide

Possibilities for transfer

available; subject to funding

RPL Not possible At the discretion of schools System is in place for this

but not widely used

Movement in

and out of

training


and electives: There are no

options to do so freely, only

in certain exceptions.

Generally possible - at the

discretion of schools

Possible – dependent upon

funding





Potential for

progression

No progression possible

within the context of

modularisation. After the

trainees finished the

training by building blocks,

they have the same

possibilities for further

training as graduates from

the dual system.

Progression embedded in the

qualification structure; subject

to funding

Discretionary progression

system in place; subject to

funding.

EU mobility

and ECVET

A few feasibility projects

are running. ECVET is not

currently widely used at a

practitioner level.

System in place for this.

Changes have been made

but at a broader level for

flexibility in the widest sense.

Some evidence of this,

though not under the formal

auspices of ECVET




Modularisation for flexibility and mobility in VET for flexibility and mobility in VET -Findings...

Documents

Transcript of Modularisation for flexibility and mobility in VET for flexibility and mobility in VET -Findings...