Diverse learners and a platform for joint learning ...

1

Pekka Kämäräinen Jypoly, VTE College

FoU_Diverse-Learners_1.doc Jyväskylä 30.12.2004

Diverse learners and a platform for joint learning and professional development Part I: Reflections on the joint Nordic programme for vocational teachers (1990-1992) from the perspective of diverse individual learning needs and related pedagogic support Contents Introduction 1. The Nordic programme as a platform for joint learning and professional development 2. Boundary conditions for the work in different national groups 3. Analysis of the development of the learning climate within the national groups 4. Conclusions, reflections and open questions for further analyses

Introduction The aim of this combined essay is to provide an insight into the experiences that have been made in a joint Nordic upgrading programme that was organised in the years 1990-1992 under the support of the Nordic Council of Ministers and under the coordination of the Department of Education of the Gothenburg University. The official title of the programme was ‘Upgrading scheme in educational sciences with a focus on R&D in the field of vocational education and training’. The scheme was implemented in the years 1990-1992 by five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) as sandwich curriculum that was based on three joint summers and on individual and group-based work during the interim periods. The author of this essay was involved in the advance planning and became the coordinator of the Finnish group and member of the joint programme committee that consisted of the programme coordinator team and of the five national coordinators. Looking back at the experiences that were made in the early 1990s, it is worthwhile to note the following points of interest that make it worthwhile re-examine both the achievements and the problems that can be related to the said pilot programme: a) The upgrading programme was launched to support the development of a specific research culture (or of Research & Development culture, as it was later on specified) in the field of VET (that was considered as an underdeveloped and weakly covered area of research. In this respect the Nordic initiative of the early 1990s is based on similar motives as the current effort to develop an international community of Master-level programmes in vocational and professional education. b) The upgrading programme was implemented as a joint pilot project of diverse institutions involved in vocational teacher education and in continuing professional development of VET professionals. Furthermore, the pilot project was to establish a joint pattern for such upgrading schemes within the national frameworks. In this respect the programme can be considered as an early forerunner for the Bologna process and for the European initiatives to develop common European frameworks for Master-programmes in the field of VET. c) The upgrading programme was implemented as a joint pilot project that aimed to promote collaboration between dispersed learning communities (i.e. the national groups) that were related to a common platform and framework curriculum. In this respect the programme can be considered as an early forerunner for the ‘tuning projects’ within the Bologna process and for international initiatives to promote trans-national piloting with collaborative Master programmes based on common platforms and framework curricula. This document is the first part of a combined essay and it analyses the experiences with the Nordic programme from the perspective of supporting the learning processes of individual participants. The second part examines the programme from the perspective of ‘organisational learning’.

2

1. The Nordic programme as a platform for joint learning and professional development In the light of the above it is worthwhile to provide a picture of the shaping of the joint Nordic programme. Based on these insights it is possible to present the actual design of the programme and to interpret it as a result of preparatory process. This provides the background for subsequent analyses on the learning processes within the national groups and on the related pedagogic support. 1.1. Insights into the preparatory process In this context it is possible to give a nutshell picture on the making of the programme (in the years 1989 – 1990). In this context it is possible summarise briefly the general course of the debates regarding the goal-setting, the partnership concept and the concept for trans-cultural cooperation. Regarding the last mentioned aspect it is worthwhile to note the pattern of combining the joint platform for collaborative learning and the support for continuing professional development within dispersed learning communities. Firstly, regarding the goal-setting for the programme, it is worthwhile to note that the initiative to launch such a programme was originally taken by a VET-related subgroup of the Coordination group for Nordic educational cooperation. This group consisted mainly of representatives of national educational authorities who were involved in promoting vocational teacher education and VET-related R&D activities. The main concern in the beginning was the lack of properly institutionalised research culture. However, in the process of planning the actual goal-setting was adjusted to the methodological upgrading of R&D activities that can be promoted either by VET colleges themselves or by Vocational teacher education colleges (within their R&D-oriented schemes) or by research partnerships that were based on collaboration between researchers and practitioners. Secondly, regarding the making of the partnership concept, it is worthwhile to note that the above mentioned shift of emphasis (from research culture to R&D culture) had several implications on the focus and on the partnership concept of the future programme. The initial idea of promoting common VET-related research culture had kept several doors open for participation in the programme and for the shaping the partnership concept. Now, due to the revised goals, it was obvious that the programme was to be linked more closely to vocational teacher education and to continuing professional development of teachers and/or training professionals. As a consequence, the leadership was to be taken by institutions that could serve as bridge-builders between academic (or interdisciplinary) research on VET and (initial and continuing) training of VET professionals. In this respect the actual making of the working concept became a ‘closed shop’ of such university institutions and vocational teacher education colleges. However, this limited the scope of potential contributors to the programme. Thirdly, regarding the concept for trans-cultural cooperation, the original ideas were more in favour of ‘joining forces’ and to create a ‘common house’ for promoting Nordic R&D expertise in the field of VET. However, in the process of shaping the administrative modalities it became obvious that the actual implementation would rely on the dispersed work within national groups. Consequently, the joint learning platform (that materialised primarily in the form of the summer courses) could at best support these processes. In this respect the pilot implementation was not primarily piloting with a new stand-alone programme with a clearly trans-national character. Thus, the programme linked to each other five national learning groups via a common framework and via the joint Nordic summer courses. In the light of the above it is worthwhile to note that the above mentioned shifts of emphasis seemed to occur as practical decisions without any critical reflection. However, as regards the role of the programme as an upgrading programme and as a contribution to continuing professional development they had several consequences. Due the above mentioned developments the programme became a closed shop of those who were immediately involved in the actual implementation.

3

1.2. The actual shaping of the implementation concept Below, some brief remarks will be given on the actual shaping of the programme regarding the thematic content areas, regarding the role of the summer course periods, regarding the work in the national groups (during the interim periods) and regarding the role of the treatises of the participants. Firstly, in the process of constituting phase of the programme committee preliminary decisions were made on thematic content areas that should provide the general framework for the curriculum. Also, members of the programme committee were grouped into pairs or teams of three to prepare proposals for the implementation in terms of (guest) lectures, literature assignments, independent study assignments and/or other measures. The thematic areas of expertise that were outlined were the following ones: a) Comparative and international expertise on VET, b) Analyses on changing technologies and changes in working life, c) Analyses on teaching-learning processes and on educational development work, d) Methodological expertise within R&D activities in the field of VET. Due to the fact that constituting phase of the programme committee took place during a very short period of time before the actual start of the programme, the framework was used primarily to shape the contents of the summer courses and as a basis for involving external experts. Once the programme had actually started, it became evident that the programme will turn into an assignment-driven exercise in which the individual treatises of the participants will have a central role and any other activities would be considered as unnecessary side-walking unless keenly linked to the preparation of the treatises. Secondly, the process of shaping the course periods turned into piecemeal design that reflected the transformation of the programme into a treatise-driven exercise. Thus, the first course period was a content-based period that introduced the themes via visits of guest lectures and via joint presentations of the national groups. It also provided ample scope for reflective group work (after the lectures) in mixed groups as well as for planning the treatises in national groups. The second course period (one year later) was designed as an interim station and focused mainly on providing methodological support for the treatises and gave some further insights into some content areas (e.g. comparative and international studies). The third course period (at the end of the two-year programme) then turned out to be the ‘harvesting event’ during which the participants reported to each other of the outcomes of their studies and got feedback from others. However, during this development the initial framework of content areas (that would have been central for identifying the expertise that was promoted and the upgrading contribution of the programme) somehow faded away. Instead, the central role was given to the treatises of the participants and to their role as contributions to (and evidence of) continuing professional development. Thirdly, it is worthwhile to note that a very high responsibility for coaching, tutoring and supervising the participants was left to the national coordinators. Yet, the resources for interim meetings of the national groups or for coaching meetings with individual participants were very limited. Thus, the role of the national coordinator was only that of a sideline activity that had to be accommodated to the main tasks of the persons in question. Furthermore, the participants were not given grants that could have reduced their workload. Therefore, they also had to accommodate their work for the programme to their main duties. Yet, in the light of these limitations, a considerable amount of participants managed to work their way through to a completed treatise or report. However, in the light of the above, it appears that the treatises and reports were primarily reflections of the learning climate within the respective national group rather than indications of a common Nordic learning culture. Likewise, the eventual contradictions between the programme-related goals (‘upgrading’) and the participants goals (‘continuing professional development’) can best be analysed in the context of the national-specific learning climates that characterised the work of the respective groups.

4

2. Boundary conditions for the work in different national groups This section tries to provide insights into the learning climates that developed during the two-year programme within the national groups. Firstly some indications are given on the arrangements for national coaching and supervision. Secondly, the participants of the group are characterised regarding their professional and educational backgrounds and regarding their main orientations within the programme. Thirdly, a brief overview is given on the process of preparing the individual treatises or reports in the respective groups. The characterisation of the starting positions of other national groups is based on the exchanges of information and experiences during the programme. The characterisation of starting position of the Finnish group reflects my own situation assessment as the national coordinator and the initial discussions in the constituting phase of the Finnish national group. a) Boundary conditions for the work of the Swedish group The arrangement for national supervision was unstable until the second course period. First, two experts (one industrial sociologist and one general educationalist) were invited to the task. Neither of them was directly involved in vocational teacher education but they were considered as outstanding researchers in their respective fields. Because of lack of resources the industrial sociologist never started to work with the programme whereas the general educationalist resigned soon after the first course period. Then, the task of the national coordinator was reallocated to a researcher in adult education who was involved in vocational teacher education activities. The participants of the Swedish group (originally six, at the end of the programme four) were either VET teachers, directors of VET colleges or teacher educators. As regards the participants who completed their studies, it is worthwhile to note that three of them had a clearly professional background (electrical engineering, textile & clothing and painting) whereas one of them was general educationalist and social scientist involved in vocational teacher education. Also, it is worthwhile to note that the painter was an immigrant from another European country and a non-native Swedishspeaker. The ones who interrupted the programme were also VET teachers with a professional background (in metal working or in hotel, restaurant and catering). For the Swedish participants the completion of the programme was recognised as an equivalent to similar national programmes and they had a clear frame of reference to which they could compare the upgrading value of the programme (both regarding the formal recognition in terms of educational career and in terms of professional recognition in the context professional career). Regarding the treatises the participants had a very strong interest to contribute to the development of the teaching-learning culture in their respective branches or to the developmental culture in VET colleges (on the whole) and to the pedagogic support of workplace-based learning. However, due to the institutional arrangements (related to the upgrading schemes) they did not feel themselves as owners of their learning processes. Due to the fact that the upgrading schemes were not provided by vocational teacher education colleges but by the faculty departments of educational sciences, they felt the need to comply with the standards that were designed for the training of educational researchers, planners and managers. This led to a contradictory development in which clearly developmentaloriented projects were shaped as exercises in using standard questionnaires and survey-methodologies. b) Boundary conditions for the work of the Norwegian group The Norwegian national coordinator was invited from the leading national college for vocational teacher education (which at that time was an independent college but had a special position within the non-university sector of the Higher Education). He represented expertise in industrial sociology and in vocational teacher education (both within basic courses and in advanced courses). Furthermore, the curriculum framework of the said college provided a clear educational and professional career

5

progression model from the foundation level to interim expertise and to senior position. Thus, the Norwegian participants could relate their interests on educational upgrading and on continuing professional development to the said framework. Furthermore, they could consider their national coordinator as a representative of the said college and of the said framework. The participants of the Norwegian group (altogether four) were VET teachers with different professional backgrounds (two from electrical engineering, one from the construction industry and one from social and home care services). Two of the participants were primarily involved in school-based VET provisions whereas two were mainly involved in apprentice training (or in bridging the transition from school-based learning to apprentice training). Regarding their treatises, the Norwegian group was characterised by a spread of interests. One of the participants was more inclined to develop tools for the inspection of apprentice training. Another wished to prepare a report in his own measures to promote a smooth transition from school-based learning to apprentice training. The third one wished to analyse her experiences with collaborative research-oriented learning as a means to support the professional development of VET teachers. The fourth one wanted to analyse the preconditions for international cooperation in the field of VET. c) Boundary conditions for the work of the Danish group The Danish national coordinator was invited from the national college for vocational teacher education. The supervisor had a long experience as a teacher educator, project manager and as a head of unit. However, unlike in Norway, the Danish college was not part of the Higher Education system and there was no framework for upgrading schemes and for related educational and/or professional recognition. In this respect the joint Nordic pilot served also as a special pilot activity on the basis of which the Danish educational authorities were prepared to draw conclusions concerning the need for similar national programmes. Three of the Danish participants had a clearly professional background (in car mechanics, electric engineering or in hotel, restaurant and catering). Two of the participants were teachers of general and cultural subjects within VET colleges. In addition to this, it is worthwhile to note that some of the Danish participants had considerable experience in promoting and documenting pilot projects that were based on complex teaching-learning arrangements or had been involved in the development of quality management frameworks for their own colleges. In this respect the Danish group was very keen on making use of the programme as a support for their own developmental activities. Moreover, the approach of the national college for vocational teacher education to support such activities (via the work of domain-specific process consultants) encouraged them to position themselves as owners of their own learning processes. Regarding their treatises, two of the Danish participants were prepared to work with branch-specific themes, whereas the two general subject teachers were focusing on the contribution of the Danish language (mother tongue) teaching as a support for vocational learning. One of the participants wanted to produce a report that is related to the ongoing project work with the quality management concept in his vocational education college. In all cases the work with the treatises of the participants was closely linked to collaborative developmental work (or to attempts to initiate such work) in the VET colleges in which the participants were employed as teachers.

6

d) Boundary conditions for the work of the Icelandic group The supervisor of the Icelandic group had been invited from the national teacher education college for the general education system. In addition he was at that time he was completing his doctoral dissertation for a Swedish university. Yet, the task to coach the learning process of vocational teachers and to supervise their treatises was a major challenge for him. On the one hand Iceland did not have a national institution for vocational teacher education (and as a consequence the vocational teachers had been trained abroad). On the other hand there was no clear national model for such upgrading scheme and for related studies. Therefore, the work of the Icelandic group was a pioneering venture that had to create its own standards while trying to comply with the alleged common standards of the programme. The participants of the Icelandic group had different professional backgrounds and had got their vocational teacher education in different Nordic countries. The teacher in hotel, restaurant and catering branch, the teacher in printing branch and one of two teachers in electric engineering had got their vocational teacher education in Denmark. The other teacher in electric engineering had got his teacher education in Norway and the teacher in car mechanics had got his teacher education in Sweden. Consequently, the participants had become familiar with somewhat different approaches in linking subject-related knowledge and work-related learning cultures to each other. Regarding their treatises, the Icelandic participants felt very much challenged by the fact that their country was developing its VET system with the limited resources of a small country which did not provide a basis for specific VET-related research activities or for knowledge-intensive government commissions. Therefore, the Icelandic education and training policies had been characterised by policy-borrowing and by local adaptation, which also gave room for ad hoc solutions. In this respect the teacher of hotel, restaurant and catering and the teacher in printing occupations were concerned of the future of school-based VET provisions (in the light of ongoing policy debates). In a similar way the teachers in electric engineering were concerned of the possibility to provide up-to-date training in their respective professional field. Furthermore, the teacher in car mechanics was confronted with the plan to centralise the teaching in his professional field to the capital area instead of promoting decentralised training provisions that could link car mechanics to complementary fields of specialisation. e) Boundary conditions for the work of the Finnish group In the Finnish case, the national coordinator was first sought from a university department for vocational teacher education (in Swedish language) and then from a university department that was linked to teacher education and to research on learning in working life. When these attempts seemed to be less successful, I was invited to become involved as a supporting coach and as a co-supervisor. However, since the two other candidates for being the main supervisors had declined the offer, I was asked to take the whole task of the national coordinator. My academic background was in social sciences and adult education and I was establishing myself as a comparative researcher on Nordic and European VET systems (within a university-linked interdisciplinary research institute). However, I had no background in vocational teacher education and I was not connected to any university-based upgrading schemes for vocational teachers (that were already being shaped at that time). Unlike in other Nordic countries, the Finnish recruitment had been opened only for vocational teacher educators. Thus, the participants had mostly and academic degree and a professional area of specialisation (or they were completing their academic degree). Originally five participants were selected but two of them resigned because they were looking for a course that would support them in their doctoral studies. The participants who completed the programme were a teacher educator in commercial subjects, a teacher educator in health care and an educational planner of a centre for promoting continuing professional development in the field of VET.

7

For the Finnish participants there was no clear upgrading framework to which they could refer in order to gain educational credentials and/or professional recognition. However, one participant could use the treatise as a basis for her Master’s thesis in educational science. The other two were not in the need for further academic credentials. Instead, for the whole Finnish group the main thing was to be able to participate in a trans-national learning platform and to complete a project that contributes to one’s own professional development (and in this context draws upon the trans-national learning experience). Concerning the emerging themes, the teacher educator in commercial education had been involved in the transformation of subject-based curricula into project-based curricula and was considering this as his topic. The teacher educator in health care was confronted with the introduction of workplace-based traineeship periods and the educational supervision of these curriculum units. The educational planner was preparing a project with general subject teachers and considered this as his topic. In all cases the participants were willing to consider several methodological options and felt the need to link their own project work to related collaboration with their peers. 3. Analysis of the development of the learning climate within the national groups The aim of this section is to explore the development of learning climate in different national groups. On the one hand the issue is related to the aspects of commonality and diversity that characterise the individual studies that were undertaken within the groups. On the other hand the issue is related to thematic evolution, problem shifts and to openness for trans-cultural influences during the process. Furthermore, the issue is related to tutoring, coaching and monitoring support that was provided by the national coordinator. Finally, the issue is related to possible contradictions between the programmerelated goals (‘upgrading’) based on given institutional frameworks and on the individual learning needs (‘continuing professional development’) and on the prospects for linking these needs with the institutional and programme-related boundary conditions. In the light of these introductory remarks I will try to provide compressed analyses on the development of the learning climate in different national groups. In this context it is worthwhile to make a distinction between the other national groups (of which I know only via shared information) and the Finnish group (in which I myself was responsible for providing the coaching, tutoring and supervising support services). 3.1. Analysis of the development of the learning climate in the other national groups Regarding the other national groups I am dependent on the information that was shared during the course periods and in the meetings of the programme committee. Therefore, the following statements can only be considered as my interpretation on the developments in the four parallel groups to which I and the Finnish participants had to match the work of the Finnish group. a) The development of the learning climate in the Swedish group Initially the learning climate of the Swedish group was strongly characterised by the influence of the first national coordinator. She had interpreted her task and her role primarily from the perspective of supervising the treatises of the participants. In this context she understood herself as a representative of the educational research community and as her mission to guide the participants to comply with the methodological principles that were applied in empirical studies that used standard questionnaires and quantitative methodologies. Furthermore, she distanced herself from the programme committee and was not present during the course periods. Therefore, her approach cannot be characterised as an effort to link to each other the programme-related and institutional goals (‘upgrading’) and the learners’ goals (continuing professional development). Instead, her approach can be characterised as a one-sided effort to impose the pre-given institutional understanding of ‘upgrading’ upon the learners.

8

When the change of the national coordinator occurred, the participants had already started to work with their treatises. Therefore, the challenge was to support the work that had been started on the basis of the instructions of the resigned supervisor towards an end-product that could also be seen as a contribution to the professional development of the participants. In this respect the basic contradiction was that the first supervisor had put the main emphasis on preparing technically good-quality questionnaires. Thus, the successor was confronted with a situation in which the participants had already started working with questionnaires without having reached a conceptual clarity of their research problems and of their interests of knowledge. Regarding the study orientation of the learners, the contradiction seemed to be manageable with most participants. Concerning the teacher in electric engineering, he was willing to use questionnaires as means to stimulate debate on the internal development of VET colleges. Concerning the teacher educator in textile and clothing, the use of standard questionnaires served her purposes to map the teachers’ ideas on professional growth and their related training needs. Concerning the teacher educator with a generalist’s background, he could use the questionnaires as a means to contact the teachers in the action contexts in which he wished to monitor and accompany the development of workplace-based learning. On the basis of the accompaniment of developmental work he could link the preparatory work with a questionnaire to an action-oriented accompanying study in the context of developmental measures. Concerning the treatise of the teacher in painting, the relation between quantitative research and his interest of knowledge was more problematic. He himself felt the need to articulate his “practitioner’s theory” on professionalism and professional growth in the occupational action contexts of a painter. This aim was not supported with the instruction to work with standard questionnaire and no clear alternative methodologies could be recommended. Thus, his treatise was an essay that laid down his individual interpretation of professionalism from the perspective of practitioner in painting and related to his work as an active teacher. b) The development of the learning climate in the Norwegian group The learning climate in the Norwegian group was not characterised by similar contradictions since the participants could relate the Nordic programme to a national framework that clearly linked the educational upgrading to a professional career progression ladder. Instead, the main challenge was to go through a transformation of perspective from a practitioner (that contributes to teaching-learning processes and to developmental activities as an actor in the process) to a researcher (that studies and interprets the process as a whole). In general, the Norwegian traditions in social research were characterised by strong schools of action research and the vocational teacher educators had made use of such research designs in their own projects. Yet, in the context of vocational teacher education such methodologies had not been that widespread and there was no general model for making use of them in the context of vocational teacher education programmes. The Norwegian national coordinator felt it essential to support the learning processes of the participants primarily from the perspective of continuing professional development. In this respect he put the priority on the aim to support the participants as developmental actors in their action context and saw his role as a coach that tries to facilitate them to overcome the hurdles they encounter in their respective action context. In this respect his coaching strategy vis-à-vis the treatises was clearly more relativistic than in the Swedish group. He tried to support each of the participants to find his/her way in reaching the knowledge and in processing the knowledge that was needed for his/her process of continuing professional development. Thus, he was open for the methodological diversity and for different capabilities to make use of acquired information. Regarding the study orientation and the capability to process information, the Norwegian group can be characterised as a grouping of diverse learners. The inspector of apprentice training was inclined to work with a questionnaire that focused on the effectiveness of apprenticeship. Thus, he could rely on

9

the responses of his counterparts in VET colleges and enterprises and complete his study without any major methodological difficulties. The teacher in social and household care had the aim to study processes of collaborative learning and professional development among VET teachers. She had gone through a positive experience in her former college and aimed to promote a similar pattern in her new college. However, due to the changing socio-economic and policy-based boundary conditions (= the recession of the early 1990s) the educational climate in her new college did not develop in the way she would have experienced. Therefore, she had to give up her ambition to attach the study to a real ongoing process and to produce a document that reflected her “grounded theory” as a change agent who seeks to support collaborative learning processes among VET teachers. The teacher in construction branch had completed a transformation project in which enterprises had been linked to “training circles” that jointly provided the competences that were required from trainees to become skilled workers and in which students in full-time education who were at the risk of dropping out of the curriculum could complete their training process via apprentice contracts. The pilot itself was of major regional importance. However, when writing the treatise the key promoter found it difficult to transform himself from the position of practical agent (who is advocating for his deeds and strategic choices) towards an accompanying researcher (who would analyse the process from the perspective of its educational and regional importance). Finally, the teacher in electric engineering made several interviews on the plans of local, regional and national authorities to promote internationalisation and trans-national cooperation in the field of VET. However, his dilemma was that within his treatise he found it only manageable to report the results of the interviews as such but he was not in the position to develop a contrastive frame of reference with which he could filter the information and proceed to conclusions regarding his (and his peers’) own professional development as potential promoters of international cooperation in VET. c) The development of the learning climate in the Danish group The learning climate in the Danish group was overshadowed by the fact that the national coordinator and several participants were familiar with relatively strong methodological schools of action research both in social and educational sciences. Furthermore, some participants had been involved as practitioners in collaborative teaching-learning projects whereas others had participated in quality management and/or developmental consultancy. Thus, there was a common ground to build upon. In the Danish group the national coordinator did not feel himself very much constrained since three of the participants were preparing their treatises in the context of ongoing collaborative projects or as an interim activity (between a completed project period and a new one to be started on the basis of the preparatory work for the treatise). One of the participants had made a working agreement with the programme coordinator to replicate the research design that the latter had used in his studies on vocational learning culture. Thus, only one of the participants had to find his way further without the support of a college-embedded project culture or without a methodological model to work with. Concerning the preparation of the treatises, the teacher in electric engineering prepared a generalised framework for quality management in VET colleges (as appropriate for his role as a national process consultant). The teacher in car mechanics prepared a replication study that analysed situated learning, work-related learning assignments and professional development in Danish vocational education (on the basis of a priori study in the Swedish context). The teacher in hotel, restaurant and catering prepared a study on the project-oriented learning culture in her own college. The teacher in general subjects (with prior project experience) prepared a study on the supporting role of mother tongue teaching alongside connective, project-based and interdisciplinary learning in vocational area of specialisation. All these studies could be considered at the same time as conceptual contributions to national knowledge development on project-related or situated learning and at the same time as contributions to joint Nordic pool of pedagogic know-how. Yet, the other teacher of general subjects was not in the position to develop a similar working concept and finalise his study.

10

d) The development of the learning climate in the Icelandic group The learning climate of the Icelandic group was characterised by the twofold challenge to develop their own cultural identity and at the same time to position themselves within a Nordic community of peers. As has been indicated, Iceland had neither a national institute for vocational teacher education nor a specific concept for upgrading the vocational teachers that had been trained abroad. Furthermore, as has been indicated, the educational policies have been characterised by policy-adaptation (mainly based on other Nordic models). However, the social partners have been keen to impose branch-specific ad hoc solutions for organising VET provisions in their respective branches. Thus, several members of the Icelandic group indicated that their area of specialisation was going through such debates. In this context the national coordinator (general educationalist with a researcher’s training in Sweden) put the main emphasis on coaching the participants to prepare technically good questionnaires with the help of which they could gather empirical information from their respective fields. However, he found it difficult to enter the branch-specific debates and to address the moving frontiers that overshadowed the professional future of the participants. In this respect there was criticism on the way that the prior (Danish-based) reform concepts had been implemented in the branch of hotel, restaurant and catering. Furthermore, the training for the printing industries was under pressure to be reorganised according to the German model of dual system of apprenticeship (which would have reduced the amount of schoolbased training). In the branch of transport and car mechanics the leading policy initiative was to disconnect the training from ordinary VET colleges (and from neighbouring branches) and to create a national training centre in the capital area. In the branch of electric engineering there was a struggle whether only foundation courses should be made available in colleges outside the capital area (and more advanced courses should be provided by colleges in the capital area) or whether alternative modes of delivery could be justified. For the Icelandic group the opportunity to participate in trans-national cooperation was essential from the perspective of continuing professional development. On the one hand they could experience that they were not merely at the receiving end in chains of policy-borrowing but that their implementation concepts and modes of adapting policy-models from Europe were followed with genuine interest. Also, they had the chance to experience peer support from colleagues in the same branch or in related branches. Thus, they could overcome the feeling of being isolated and fid strength to work alternative plans if their initial plans to carry out their study met obstacles. Regarding the individual treatises, some of the participants tried to provide a historical insight into the training model that was at use in their respective branch. In some cases these analyses were complemented by empirical analyses on the functioning of current training. This kind of combination was characteristic of the study on the training model for the branch of hotel, restaurant and catering. The study on the training culture in the printing branch reflected upon the evolution of the current training model and on the relative strengths and weaknesses (as a critical starting point for subsequent debates whether a radical change of the pattern could lead to better training). In a similar way the study on the professional development in car mechanics and transport reflected upon the professional links to neighbouring occupations and to the labour market prospects of multi-professionals vis-à-vis “pure” car repair specialists. One of the teachers in electric engineering studied the implementation of branchspecific curriculum as a case of policy-adaptation and raised questions on the room for manoeuvre in colleges outside the capital area. The other teacher in electric engineering presented a plan to organise a national summer course to support the colleges outside the capital area and to complement their training provisions. Since the plan to organise a summer course was not implemented immediately, he also reported on the development of a joint Nordic e-mail communication facility for VET teachers in electric engineering. With these two parts of the study he could present elements for a regionalised strategy to promote professional expertise in remote areas.

11

3.2. The development of the learning climate in the Finnish group As a contrast to the previous analyses (which were based on shared information on other group processes), the analysis of the learning climate in the Finnish group requires critical self-reflection. On the one hand I have to try to interpret my own coaching strategy and consider my own contribution to the learning climate. On the other hand I have to present my view of the learning needs of the Finnish participants and consider how my coaching strategy responded to the needs of the participants. In this respect I try to relate this self-assessment to the analyses of the development in other national groups. Concerning the learning climate, I tried to coach the work of the Finnish group as a collaborative learning process within an open space for piloting and as a methodological reflection process that explored the potentials of vocational teacher educators as researchers (alongside their teaching and/or planning duties). In this respect I could rely on the fact that the participants were looking more for an opportunity to develop themselves as VET professionals rather than to upgrade themselves in terms of academic recognition. As regards the learning needs, I could note that a major point of interest for most Finnish participants was the trans-cultural learning experience that was not guided by the assignments but was inherent as a collective knowledge sharing (and deepening experience). In addition to this, the Finnish participants were also very keen to shape their own treatises as projects that contribute to their self-understanding as VET professionals. In this respect each of the participants was struggling with a conceptual contradiction or with a difficulty to choose between conflicting interests. Below I will characterise these initial contradictions and my coaching contributions at the initial phase of the study projects: •

•

•

The teacher educator in health care was confronted by the fact that workplace-based traineeship period was to be incorporated into the curriculum of the colleges of health care. Thus, there was a need to develop a pattern of assessment for that curriculum element. However, since this period was to be implemented at workplaces with very little resources for guidance and supervision, there was an obvious gap of information that had to be overcome. My recommendation was to explore the possibilities to develop a ‘learning log’ of the trainees as an instrument for critical selfassessment and to use this instrument as a bridging insight into learning at the workplace. The educational planner had the aim to develop courses for general subject teachers in VET colleges (whom he considered as a neglected target group regarding continuing training). In this respect he was interested in the prospects to promote the capability of the teachers to link their teaching to connective and interdisciplinary projects in diverse vocational and professional areas. In this respect I encouraged him to set up an initiative group and to explore possible cases in his immediate vicinity that could be analysed as potential starting points. The teacher educator in commercial education had already been involved in curriculum redesign projects that transformed subject-based curriculum elements into action-oriented learning arenas that combined several subjects under a common narrative framework. Furthermore, in his college this developmental work had been supported by an accompanying researcher who had conceptualised the reconfigured learning process from the perspective of activity theory. However, after the active research period there was a need for further conceptual work for drawing specific conclusions for interpreting the conclusions of such piloting in terms of curriculum development and in terms of teacher education. In this respect I encouraged him to work both backwards (in terms of reprocessing the experience that has already been made) and forwards (in terms of analysing the new initiatives that are being shaped).

As far as I could judge it, my recommendations were well received but due to various intervening factors the actual study projects could not be shaped along the above mentioned lines in two of the three cases. Below, I will characterise the actual evolution of the study projects and reflect upon my role as a coach and supervisor:

12

•

The teacher educator in health care followed my advice and started to develop an action research project that was shaped to support collaborative planning of workplace-based traineeship periods by the college and by the receiving workplaces. Originally the idea of the students’/ trainees’ learning logbooks was at the centre of the project. However, it soon appeared that the students were mostly not in the position to record and to analyse their learning experiences in a reflective way. However, by that time the collaborative preparation of the traineeship periods had become normal practice and appropriate platforms for communication and sharing knowledge had been established. In this context the teacher educator and one of her colleagues had been established as pioneering project managers (with acknowledged responsibilities and with minor resources to support these developments) and they had decided to use this project experience as a basis for their Master theses in Educational Sciences. My role as a coach and supervisor was related to the critical turning points of the project. Firstly, I supported the development of the project towards an action research project with a collaborative framework. Then, at the point when it became obvious that the learning logbooks will not provide adequate insights into the learning that takes place at the workplace, I encouraged the project managers to focus on the achieved collaboration and to analyse why the students are not in the position to give insights into their work-related learning via their logbooks. As a final result the teacher educator in the Nordic group could provide an informative project report. Somewhat later, in collaboration with her fellow colleague, she also completed her Master thesis on the basis of the said project experience.

•

The educational planner tried to work on the basis of the ideas that had been discussed in the initial talks but it pointed out to be difficult to gather an initiative group or to gain material of ongoing pilot cases. Therefore, he decided to change his strategy and to base his study on a standard questionnaire with some open options for qualitative information. Given the fact that he had also several years’ experience as a contracted researcher in a social research institute, this change of perspective was a return to accustomed practice. Furthermore, for his employer (the centre for continuing training schemes in the field of VET) he could justify this as a nation-wide market research without external costs. My role as a coach and supervisor was rather limited once it had become clear that the search for possible candidates to participate in and initiative group had led to no result. During the work with the questionnaire I encouraged the educational planner to pay attention on the hints that could lead to a constitution of an initiative group as a result of the study. However, on the basis of the empirical results we had to conclude that outcome was rather negative in this respect. On the whole, the mapping of the training needs of general subject teachers did not give clear advice for planning of new courses. Also, at the end of the study it was questionable, whether the training centre in question was any longer following a policy that would make it possible to include in its programme training courses for such target group.

•

The teacher educator in commercial education had started to work with the initial ideas that were related to curriculum redesign. However, in the middle of the course he decided to change his orientation and to carry out a statistical examination on school-to-work transition in the field of commercial education. Given the fact that the teacher educator had an academic background in economic sciences and statistics and given the fact that his college supported the acquisition of appropriate date, he was in a position to produce results in a very short time. Furthermore, he was in the position to interpret (as present-day picture) for the Finnish audience. My role as a coach and supervisor was rather limited, because I had been looking forward to collaboration on issues related to curriculum redesign. Nevertheless, I considered the result as an acceptable one. However, on the joint Nordic platform it appeared that this study (and the presentation by the author) was suffering of language barriers. Although the author could get his message through in the national group, he had difficulties in explaining his point for the programme committee. (Looking back, the policy-related relevance of such survey undertaken in the early 1990s can be questioned. Very soon afterwards the employment prospects in the banking sector collapsed due to the recession. The data and the methodology did not provide a basis for anticipating such changes.)

13

4. Conclusions, reflections and open questions for further analyses This essay has been produced in the context of a vocational teacher education programme and within a section that focuses on ‘diverse learners’. In this context the issue ‘diversity’ has been discussed in the context of a trans-national programme that has provided an upgrading scheme for vocational teachers in five Nordic countries. The analyses have focused on the following aspects of ‘diversity’: • diversity of educational and professional backgrounds (as preconditions for learning), • diversity of study orientations of the participants (as resources for overcoming one’s limits), • diversity of cultural starting points in different national groups (as preconditions for social and conceptual facilitation of learning processes) • diversity of the institutional acceptance criteria (as guidelines for combining the goals related to ‘upgrading’ with gals related to ‘continuing professional development’). On the basis of the analyses that have been presented above it is possible to make some interim conclusions and to raise some further questions concerning the following issues: a) In what respect can the joint Nordic programme be characterised as an integrative and inclusive approach regarding the learning needs of its target groups? b) How can my own experience as a national coordinator be characterised as a learning experience with ‘diverse learners’? c) What is the relevance of this pilot programme of the early 1990s in the light of the current debates on promoting international cooperation at the level of Master-programmes in the field of VET? a. On the joint Nordic programme as an example of integrative and inclusive approach The question whether the Nordic programme can be characterised as an example of an integrative approach can be related to two aspects: 1) promotion of integrative learning in the targeted field of expertise (pedagogic expertise in VET), 2) overcoming of cultural barriers and between different national frameworks for promoting pedagogic expertise in the field of VET. Regarding the two aspects, it is worthwhile to note that the original aim was to create a programme that could be considered as ‘integrative’ in both senses. Yet, the chosen mode of implementation transformed the programme into a semi-integrative setting. Thus, the integrative aims were pursued by a programme that was organised around an integrative platform (the summer courses) but in which the strategic learning processes took place in segregated sub-settings (the preparation of treatises within the national groups).Thus, the development of an integrative understanding on the field of expertise was strongly overshadowed by national educational cultures and related acceptance criteria. In this respect it is possible note major differences in the national groups regarding the relative weight of ‘upgrading’ and ‘continuing professional development’. Therefore, in the light of the completed experience it is possible to conclude that stronger emphasis should have been given on developing the programme on the basis of an integrative approach. The question whether the Nordic programme can be characterised as an example of an inclusive approach can also be related to two aspects: 1) openness of the programme for diverse learning needs regarding ‘upgrading’ and ‘continuing professional development’ and 2) openness for promoting cultural exchanges and community-building across national groups. As has been indicated, the degree of openness for diverse learning varied to a great extent in the national groups – depending on the boundary conditions and on the coaching strategy of the national coordinator. In general, the requirement to prepare a written treatise or report turned out to be somewhat overburdening for some of the participants who could have been able to demonstrate their work and learning progress with other means of reporting. On the other hand the inclusiveness in terms of trans-national exchanges was clearly achieved and participants from all countries could

14

consider themselves as equals among their peers. In particular, the first course period and the work in mixed groups contributed to a spirit of a Nordic learning community. However, this collaborative spirit could not be carried on to the concluding phase in which the national institutes started to raise barriers for mutual exchanges and for collaborative follow-up initiatives. b. On my learning experiences with ‘diverse learners’ and diverse learning needs Regarding my own my learning experiences, it is essential to take into account that I had a double role – on the one hand as a national coordinator (with a focus on the Finnish group) and on the other hand as a member of the programme committee (with a general interest in developing the programme). In addition, it is worthwhile to differentiate between the picture of ‘diverse learners’ and ‘diverse learning needs’ that were to be considered in the context of the programme. Concerning my role as the national coordinator of the Finnish group I was not so much challenged by the diversity of the professional backgrounds and the learning histories of the participants (as they all were advanced learners with academic and professional background). Instead, I was more challenged by the changing project goals and ‘environmental’ preconditions for shaping the individual studies. In this respect I had to adjust my coaching strategies and to encourage the participants to find new ways further in the light of changing circumstances. Concerning my role as a member of the programme committee I felt the need to understand and to analyse the learning climates (and eventual contradictions) in the other national groups. This kind of effort to reach mutual understanding made it possible for the national coordinators to support each other and to provide some complementary support for participants from other national groups who felt that their national coordinator was not reaching their areas of concern. c. On the relevance of the Nordic pilot for current initiatives to promote Master-programmes in VET At this point of time (more than ten years after the implementation of the programme) it may seem that looking back at the joint Nordic pilot programme is a waste of time and that the learning experiences are related to out-of date measures. Surely, many new features (in particular the ones that are related to uses of Internet and to uses of ICT-based learning designs) have changed the picture to a considerable extent. However, these new developments do not make redundant the questions that have been raised regarding the integrative aims and the inclusive features of the said pilot programme. On the contrary, much of the latterly gained experience with trans-national cooperation in the European VET-related cooperation projects and networks adds up to the contradictory picture that emerges from the earlier Nordic pilot programme. In the light of the above it appears that the Nordic pilot scheme merits to be re-examined as an early forerunner for the “tuning projects” that have been launched in the context of the Bologna process and with the aim to promote a common European Higher Education Area. In this context the field of pedagogic and professional expertise in VET appears to be a marginalised area with no clear identity. Furthermore, the recent European and international initiatives have brought the issue of promoting Master-level programmes in VET back on the agenda. Therefore, it is worthwhile to analyse the actual development of the learning climate(s) within the said Nordic pilot programme. Furthermore, it is of equal importance to analyse the process of shaping the initiative as a part of the efforts to promote Nordic VET-related cooperation during the early 1990s. In the current situation it is of interest to analyse the behaviour of educational establishments and research institutes as ‘diverse organisational learners’ during the said period and afterwards. This level of analysis is central for the second part of this essay.