Cedefop info

Cedefop — European Centre For The Development Of Vocational Training

Description

Vocational training in Europe1/06
Vocational training
Target audience: Specialised/Technical

Sujets

• Vocational education
• Information
• Periodical publication

Informations

• Publié par: CEDEFOP-EUROPEAN-CENTRE-FOR-THE-DEVELOPMENT-OF-VOCATIONAL-TRAINING
• Nombre de lectures: 22
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

InfoEN_1_2006Final.qxd 27-04-06 19:58 Page 1

Vo c catio e nal tr d aining e in f Euro o pe 1/ p 06 info

Cedefop - In our own voice Starting with this issue, Cedefop Info will give the floor - works decide on their own priorities and collect and dis- in no particular order - to its own in-house experts. As the seminate good examples of practice in areas that are pri- occasion arises they will provide insights into work at Cede- orities for VET teachers and trainers in their own coun- fop and their project activities in conversation with the ed- tries. Common activities focus on shared priorities which itors. are also consistent with the EU policy in this field. In this We begin this series with Mara Brugia, who heads Area B way, Cedefop fosters coherent action and the Communi- – 'Reporting and Facilitating a Concerted Approach' – and ty added value of networking. Let me give you an exam- is also Coordinator of the Training of Trainers Network (TTnet). ple. In its recently completed PROFF project, TTnet looked Mara Brugia holds a Masters degree in Law, Economics at trends in professionalisation of VET teachers in six coun- and Politics of the European Union and has been working tries ( 1 To give another example, the network has exam-). in Cedefop since 1994. ined whether and how elearning and ICT have an impact A specialist in VET trainers and teachers, since 1999 she on teachers' and trainers' activities and competences ( 2 ). coordinates the Training of Trainers Network, a Europe-wide Yet another TTnet project is analysing 30 examples, drawn network of national networks uniting some 400 local, re- from practice, of validation of non-formal learning for VET gional and national organisations. She has co-authored a teachers and trainers. So you see we have our fingers in number of Cedefop publications in this domain and has re- various pies. sponsibility for monitoring the virtual collaboration activities One activity we're excited about this year is the TTnet pi- of the network. lot project to define five VET professions, in line with the Mara Brugia is responsible for the overall management European Qualifications Framework. of the area B's activities: reporting on VET developments, It is important to say that the outcomes of all TTnet cross- networking and support to the Commission in the imple- country thematic projects are user-oriented and contain rec- mentation of Education and Training 2010 agenda. ommendations and tools for practitioners and policy-mak- ers in the specific working field. CEDEFOP INFO:good channels of communication are of para-Of course TTnet is now eight years old and has 21 national net-mount importance to us. Right now, TTnet maintains a vir- works. What is the role and aims of TTnet at Europeantual community with around 1300 members. This highlights level, and what are those of the individual national net-the work of the national networks and brings everyone works?together to discuss particularly important topics. MARA BRUGIA: CEDEFOP INFO: Our main purpose is to promote the professional devel-In November of last year, the German TTnet network was is concerned at the moment: the training and learning needs opment of VET teachers and trainers to enable them to meetset up in Berlin. What do the Germans expect from the net- of VET teachers and trainers, the identification and valida- the challenges posed by changing labour market conditionswork? tion of non-formal learning, the European Qualifications and increasing expectations of their target groups. To achieveMARA BRUGIA: Framework. this, TTnet promotes the sharing, development and dis- I think TTnet will be able to highlight major German con- CEDEFOP INFO: semination of knowledge about the training and profes- cerns at a European level. Vocational teachers and trainers is interesting that you mentioned the identity of theIt sional development of VET personnel. One major break- are fundamental to the success of the German dual system. Who, in fact, is defined as a trainer?trainer. through at EU level, which placed our work on a firm insti- Our efforts to make trainers more professional, to capture MARA BRUGIA: tutional footing, was the Maastricht Communiqué of De- and record trainer profiles at European level - in short, the  Well, naturally the terms 'teacher' and 'trainer' cover cember 2004: this expressly named the continuing further whole question of the identity of the trainer, which we place  a wide range of activities: they are multipliers, instructors, development of vocational teachers' and trainers' skills as at the heart of our work - will help to enhance the recog-  organisers, judges of character, conflict-solvers... Trainers one of the priorities in the field of VET at national and EU nition given to this professional group in Germany, as else-  are today increasingly turning into moderators and coach- level. where. But at the same time we hope that Germany will  es, planning, developing and deciding for themselves. It’s CEDEFOP INFO:  all very different have much to contribute to the network on the subject of from the 'traditional' trainer, whose main So how does it work: how do the national networks and  used to be one-directional teaching of specialist activity how to make the training of trainers more relevant to new TTnet at European level fit together?developments in the labour market.  The emphasis has shifted now to group work, knowledge. MARA BRUGIA:I would expect that the German TTnet will be very active  information, and personal responsibility. exchanging TTnet is not a centralised structure - the national net- in several European themes with which TTnet as a whole Continued on page 3 EUROPEAN UNION Cedefop at Online Educa Berlin 2005 Commission urges Member Now in its 11th year, Online Educa Berlin has gained a During the three days a host of workshops and seminars States to modernise training reputation as the world’s leading international conference attempted to address the many differing issues and fields on technology supported learning. From November 29 to relating to elearning. There was a total of 4 plenary ses-  In calling upon the EU Member States to modernise December 4, close to 1900 participants from 73 countries sions and 84 parallel sessions. Cedefop, represented also  their education and training (E&T) and continuing training gathered to listen to opinion-makers, to share experienceby Ms Virginie Aimard, Mr Franz Gramlinger and Mr ( m C i T s ) s   i s o y n st   e se m e s   , E  t & h T e     a C s o   u m n o c r il e     o t f  h t a h n e     j E u U s   t a  a n   d f   a t c h t e  o E r  u f r o o r p   e e a co n  n C o o m m ic - with colleagues and to make contacts and gain the bene- Colin Mc Cullough, participated actively in three workshops.  growth. In E e struggling to maintain its social mod- fits of new stimuli and new ideas.Ms Aimard spoke on collaborative elearning and compe- el, the soc   i a al  u d r i op ension of E&T is increasingly in the Mara Brugia, Head of Area B in Cedefop, had thetence development looking at the specificities of Virtual limelight. This exp m laihy ‘investment in human capital‘ honour of opening the first plenary session of the event. Learning Environments and how they foster learning and  ns w In her opening remarks she outlined that over the pastlanguage learning in particular. Mr Gramlinger contributed r a e n q d u   i ‘ r a e d m ap e t n i t n s g  ‘     E w &T e   r s e y  i st n e co m r s p  i o n r   a r t e e s d po in n t s o e     t t h o  e n  g e u w i   d w el o i r n k e p s l   a f c o e r five years Europe has witnessed a visible change in focus to a panel discussion on e-skills and elearning for enter- in the elearning landscape. The first generation was, un- prises and presented the current efforts for a European e-  employment. Moreover, as youth unemployment in the EU fortunately, marked with the stamp of user dissatisfac-skills meta-framework. Mr Mc Cullough chaired a session i t s h  o e  n E  average double the overall unemployment rate, both tion. In the meantime the industry is turning increas-on the implications of elearning for lifelong learning. fronti u n r g o   p d e e a m n  o Y g o r u a t p h  h P i a c  c c t  h ( 1 nan a - egolidew sy bearit- ) and the GerneP pareC no- ingly to the questions of content and pedagogical meth-  en ods. The initial practice of simply making the traditional t fo w r e  yo   u g n e g n   e p r e a o ti p o l n e  s i   n o   f t   h M e a  t r r c a h n   s 2 it 0 i 0 o 5 n     c fr a o ll  m fo E r  & b T e   t t t o e   r  w su or p k p i o n r g t   classroom experience available online is now being su-  life. But to achieve this aim, we will need to apply com- perseded with the realisation that technology and learn- a dna ecs ylluf e thn  oenernfcoi fnhtreitnoroamFur f.5dp2_00optrop/fdp/moc.acuderee_ncrefeon_cstwolnaoed c nab  d e .online-d at www ropefo tammur yredcegsinhe tro p prehensive strategies. er-centred technology has much greater implications . on the way we learn. Source: Cedefop mb/vai/cmc Continued on page 7

cedefop info 1/2006

1

InfoEN_1_2006Final.qxd 27-04-06 19:58 Page 2

EUROPEAN UNION Summary of responses received to the Commission’s consultation on the EQF during the 2nd half of 2005 This paper ( 1 ) summarising the responses to the EQF stronger focus on the crucial translation function is national qualification framework will eventually be their consultation process is based on a preliminary report seen by many as a condition for success. main ‘relational entity’ to a future EQF. By this is meant prepared for the Commission by the Pôle Universitaire that the process of placing or aligning a particular qual- Européen de Lorraine and an analysis by Cedefop ( 2 ). Testing ification to the EQF would be carried out through their The Commission consulted the 32 countries par-  The emphasis on simplification was in many cases  National Qualifications Framework, whether existing ticipating in the work programme Education & Train-  accompanied by a request for a pilot phase and test-  or still to be developed. While differing in emphasis ing 2010, the European social partner organisations  ing (e.g. Slovakia, Germany, Luxembourg, Finland,  and detail, the consultation responses tend to agree (employers and trade unions), European associations  UNICE, etc.). This reflects the common view that the  that the following minimum requirements have to be and NGOs in the area of education and training, Euro-  EQF requires long-term development allowing for  met when setting up an NQF: pean industry sector associations and DG Education  improvements based on practical experiences. ñIt must be based on learning outcomes. and Culture committees and networks (e.g. Eurogu-ñIt will require a ‘self-certification’ process support- idance, NARIC). The additional 13 countries which take Key areas for further development ing consistency and mutual trust. part in the Bologna process were also informed.  In addition to the general need for clarification, sim- ñIt will require the inclusion and acceptance of all na- The Commission has received approx. 120 respons-  plification and testing, responses focus on certain key-  tional stakeholders, not only in education and training es from 31 European countries (the responses are ac-  issues:  but also involving the labour market. cessible on the following website: ñdescriptors, ñIt will require integrated systems for the validation http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/educ/eqf ñthe link to the higher education framework and the  of non-formal and informal learning. /resultsconsult_en.html). The largest group of responses  Bologna process ñIt will require robust, transparent and trustworthy comes from national and regional authorities (35 % ñ  quality national qualifications systems and their link to the  assurance mechanisms. of responses), followed by education associations and  EQF NGOs (23 %), the sectors (14 %) and the social part- ñthe role of sectors Sectors ners (8 % from employers, 4 % from the trades unions). Descri t There is a wide-spread concern by countries that the It should be noted that responses in most cases build  27 % p of o r rs ndents agree that the proposed de-  development and promotion of international sectoral on extensive national and Europewide consultation scriptors cap e t spo he complexity of lifelong learning, “qualifications” could reduce transparency, threaten processes. The number of stakeholders actually involved while 44 % ag u r r e e  e t  to someand 5.5 % disagree quality and undermine mutual trust towards publicly in the consultation process is therefore significantly  extent  recognised qualifications which are the responsibility higher than the approx. 120 listed above. t w o i r t s h     h t a his p o r   o b p e o   s r i e ti v o is n e .  d T  a hi n s d  i   n re d f i i c n a e t d e . s    that the descrip- of national education and training authorities. The op- ve t  posite position is represented by a number of sec- Areas of broad consensus  organisations and associations arguing that the toral Criticism is, in particular, directed towards the In general, the EQF is seen as a constructive initia- thir s d o  c n a a t l e  c g o o m ry p  o e f t   e d n e c s e c s r ’ i . p   t W or h s il ,  e ‘  a w d id m e i r t   t p in ro g f   e h ssio  t n h a i l s     a ca nd rapid changes in markets and in technology require tive which should contribute significantly to the trans-  per t at t-  European or international qualifications. parency, transfer and recognition of qualifications with-  egory covers many important learning outcomes, many uro arket. The EQF is also seen Other issues i a n s     t a h n e  i   n E itiat p iv e e a   n w  l h a i b c o h  u s r  h m ould stimulate national and r s e u s b p - o c n at d e e g n o t r s i  f e i s n )  d a  t n h d e     d p if r f o ic p u o l s t  a t l  o t   o a   p b p e l   y o  i v n e   rl p y r   a c c o ti m se p   l ( e h x o  ( w 4 In addition to the above issues, which were high- l the consulta-  lighted in most responses, the following issues attracted t s i e o c n t   o s r h a o l r w e   form processes. The repies to issues to measure personal competences?). This could in- less attention: broad  agreem n e d n   t b   r o o n a  t d h l e following : crease the difficulty of aligning national qualifica- ñThe Directive on the Recognition of Professional ñ ñ anceelevhe rce terudna dQE Fht e icctra por folto a sa FQE eht fo  cita d l e a n f t i s   t : h h e t r o   i r s e n s m a i r t i e t e n   o l O i . m l b a e c r   d o   o n e u p k f a   t   s o   m f - o C   o s h r a e   d C l e o r h m e bP eh h s o i   r w a.e( t .g uQ ra;yatntn iod ane usuohsb dlov etnul y relevna;t isti pmelem EQe thcen si Fa yrasse toisnt  o ñthe  pon EQF should remain a common reference or meta-  on the relationship between the EQF and commented framework, acting as a translation device at the Euro- i me t r o c o e     h a i n e d r   a I r n c d h u i s c t a r l y   ) a  b n e d l   i l e i v n e e   a t r h ,  e a   r C ti o fi m ci m al i l s y s   i p o l n a ’s c   i a n p g  p a r   o p a e c r h - the Directive underlined the need for complementar- pean level;  s  h ame level across the knowledge, skills and  ity between these instruments. ñe thF EQuo gmoctael ninrsebaond stmue  b bet ghmi eht neh e   s y ; tilaers descriptors, wocpmteneec  nost tas e ñCredit transfer and recognition: the majority of those 8-level structu  who replied believe that a credit system was necessary ñ ñssA naruec proposedthe  QE eht ;elbatpecacy dloabrs  ire l i   l EQionaF.roa freta npo es F must be underpinned by Quaty that he or she appears at a different level for each of ñEuropass: most respondents who answered this ñ pl an ;rpicni believe that theqeu - ts e o r i     p n ah thtyeni totw lders po stakeho .eeemoSesehrht t uld be l EQF shoniek dot mi  opera   t s i t o a n k a e l h  E ol Q d F e   rs w   i a ll t  require substantial com- ceived to be omissions or imbalances, e.g. not enough Europass, with ministries and regional authorities re- the t   m la e r n g t e     b m y ajority of countr   i t e h s, e     c n o a u t l i d o   n re a s l  u l l e t v  i e n l   t a h n e d   , d  i e n - e pe m t p e h n a c s e i s s .  on non-formal learning or professional com- sponding most favourably to this idea. velopment of overarching National Qualifications Frame-  Particular attention has been given to the descrip- works. This feedback may be seen as offering a strong  tors under levels 6 to 8. Some find them too much ori- mandate for the further development and imple- a e l  n q te ua d l   i t fi o ca w ti a o rd n s s    ( a A c u a s d tr e ia m ,  ic M  a a t lt  t a) h .  e  O e t x h p er e s n  a s r e e  o  o f  f  v t o h cat o i p o i n n - - mentation of the EQF.  e ion that levels 6-8 should be the exclusive responsibil- The need for clarification, simplification and ity of higher education and the Bologna process. further development The broad support to the EQF outlined above has The EQF’s relationship with the Bologna been made conditional on further development and pr R o e c s e p s o s ndents called for more clarity in the EQF’s re- refinement. Many respondents find the proposal com - plex and abstract and point to the need for clarifica-  lationship with the Bologna Process (i.e. the develop- tion, simplification and testing. s m ta e k n e t  h o o f l  t d h e e r   s E   u w r e o r p e e  c a o n  n A c r e e r a n   e of d     H t i h g a h t  e t r h  E e d  E u Q ca F t   io m n i ) g .  h S t  o ru me n Clarification be incompatible with the Bologna Pro-in parallel or There is considerable concern as to the clarity of con- c r e e s s s s  o e r d     e t v hi en  c s o u n p c p e l r a n n   t a   s i   t. d   i U d n   i a v  n er u si m ti b e e s  r i   n o   f p  c a o rt u ic n u tr l i a e r s     e i x n - - cepts underlying the EQF proposal. This applies in par- p cluding the s     Netherlands, Ireland, Dek and Croa- ticular to the definitions of concepts like qualification,  nmar competence and sector. Many of the respondents un-  tia. Others emphasise, however, that high level quali- derline that conceptual agreement is a prerequisite for fica d ti t o ra n i s n  s in h g ou  - l   d v   o b c e  a p ti r o o n m a o l  t a e s d    i w n e   l a l l   l a  f s i   e g ld e s n   e o r f  a e l. d  F u o c r a   t t i h o i n s practical co-operation. The definitions of (national and  an meta) qualifications frameworks seem to have been  purpose levels 6-8 should be relevant to qualifications accepted and contributed to the clarity of the responses.  also outside the academic field. (1) Established by Jens Bjørnåvold on the basis of the national responses adopted on the EQF Conference held in Budapest on 28.2.2006. Simplification and focus on key objectives  Na C t e i r o ta n i a n l     c Q ou u n a t l r i i f e i s c   a h t a i v o e n i s n   d s i y c s at t e e d m t s hat they do not and functions   (2reflected in the conference workshop issues papers (1-5).) The analysis of Cedefop is also Further information: Jens Bjørnåvold, Project Manager, Cedefop Many of the responses express concern that the pro- i a n n te d  n t d h   i t s o  i   s e   s n t o a t b   l a i   s p h r   e a r  n e a q t u i i o si n t a e l  f q o u r  a l l i i n fi k c i a n ti g o  u ns p     f t r o a  t m h e e  w E o Q r F k race Burkart Sellin, Project Manager Cedefop ([e-mail]) posal is too complex and that it tries to emb too However, the large majority    of countries intend that a . opa.eu)[e-mail](JBjs.naor many objectives and functions at the same time. A Continued on Page 5

2