Title: Learning Histories and Curriculum Innovation in Vocational Education and Training: The Case of a Dutch Community College
Authors: Danny Wildemeersch & Henk Ritzen
Danny Wildemeersch, PhD, Full professor of Social and Intercultural Pedagogy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
Head of the Centre for the Research on Lifelong Learning and Participation.
Department of Education
Vesaliusstraat 2 B-3000 Leuven
Belgium
Tel. 00.32.16.326205 Fax: 00.32.16.326211
e-mail:
Henk Ritzen, PhD, Co-ordinator at the ‘Regionaal Opleidingscentrum van Twente’ (Community College of Twente), the Netherlands
Head of Department
Postbus 636 – 7550 AP Hengelo
The Netherlands
Tel. 00.31.74.8503200 Fax: 00.31.74.8503210
e-mail:
The paper has been presented at the Conference ‘Workplace Learning from the Learner’s Perspective’. It was included in the proceedings.
Wildemeersch, D. & Ritzen, H. (2004). Learning Histories on Curriculum Innovation in Vocational Education and Training. In: Illeris, K. ed. Proceedings of the Conference ‘Workplace Learning from the Learner’s Perspective’. Copenhagen, 25-27 November (http://wl-conference2004.lld.dk)
Learning Histories and Curriculum Innovation in Vocational Education and Training
The Case of a Dutch Community College
Abstract
The paper describes and analyzes a case of action research aimed at stimulating a process of curriculum innovation in three departments of a Community College in the Netherlands. The research was commissioned by the board of governors of the college. A PhD researcher, together with a group of staff and students of a Department of Education in a Dutch university engaged in the research. The project was expected to contribute to the solution of a variety of problems in the institution such as unmotivated teachers and learners, drop out of students, inadequate teaching methods, etc. A so-called ‘Learning History Methodology’ was successfully applied and created new perspectives for teaching and learning in three departments of the Community College. The paper presents the goals and the process of the research, the commitments of the college staff and the students, the innovation that came about, the transformative learning process of the participants, and the strengths and weaknesses of the research collaboration.
In this paper we present the methodology and the findings of an action research project which took place in 2000-2002 in the context of a project of curriculum innovation in a Community College in the Netherlands. Community Colleges (Regionale Opleidingencentra) are recent constructions which have been established by law in the midst of the nineties in the Netherlands. They bring together and coordinate all provisions of vocational education and training and adult basic education in a particular region. Four different levels (1,2,3,4) are distinguished, ranging from basic to higher education and training. In the whole of the Netherlands (16 million inhabitants), some 50 Community Colleges have been established. Each college nowadays has between 10.000 and 20.000 students. The merging of all pre-existing schools and programmes into one big institution per region generated a lot of management concerns. In a first stage, priority was given to technical-administrative-financial aspects of the innovation, while the pedagogical dimension was somewhat neglected. A consequence was that quite a few of these institutions struggled with a variety of problems such as a lack of motivation both of practitioners and learners, drop out of learners, etc...
Some colleges tried to solve these problems and engaged into actions to improve the teaching and learning conditions. One of these institutions was the Community College East Netherlands (ROC-van-Twente) in the province of Twente, close to the German border. In this institution, a process of curriculum innovation was started in the year 2000 in three different departments. It lasted two and a half years. The objective was to make the teaching and learning process more relevant for the different stakeholders involved: the students, the teachers, the management. Different forms of project related and work related education and training activities were initiated, whereby the links between the school and the world of work were strengthened, the content of the curriculum was renewed, etc..
This innovation process was accompanied by a process of action research called ‘Meaningful Learning Trajectories’ which was supported by the education department of the University of Nijmegen[1]. The latter partner introduced the ‘learning history method’ – developed originally at the Masachussets Institute of Technology (Kleiner & Roth, 1996) - as a way to stimulate reflectivity about the process of change among the stakeholders of the curriculum innovation activities. With the help of this methodology, researchers collect all kinds of information about the experiences of the participants related to the change process: individual and collective narratives, evaluations, hopes and fears, learning experiences etc.. Research methods are: interviews, observations and document analysis. The research team interprets these data with the help of a two column format (a narrative column and an interpretive column). This interpretation results into a document which is then presented to the community where the innovation process takes place. It is hoped that the mirroring effect triggers a better understanding of the conditions in which one works and results into improvements of the practice at stake.
With the help of students of the Nijmegen University, two learning history documents were made, during two separate years (2000-2001 and 2001-2002), related to two of the three curriculum innovation practices. Below, we will present the main findings of this learning history methodology. However, before doing so, we have to clarify what the whole innovation strategy was about. Finally, the research process and the results will also be evaluated critically from a methodological point of view. It is important to learn not only from the strengths but also from the weaknesses of such research experiences. A post-factum student evaluation (Ronda, 2003) has shown some of the weaknesses. These observations were also helpful to validate the action research findings as part of a broader project of a Ph.D research in which the co-ordinator of the innovative action in the Community College was engaged during and after the experiment (Ritzen, 2004).
Innovation practices and evaluations
The innovation process was originally initiated by the board of governors of the Community College as an attempt to improve the educational practices of the college, especially at the basic levels. Three departments of the college engaged in a two year process of innovation, whereby the traditional ‘transfer of knowledge and skills approaches’ were to a large extent replaced by more experiential, project and problem based oriented learning activities. An important ambition of the innovation process was also to create a better fit between the world of the vocational school and the world of work. Students and staff had experienced the school too much as an isolated island, disconnected from the world of labour. The levels that were addressed in the innovation process were the so-called levels one and two of the learning trajectories in Community Colleges. They provide vocational education and training on an initial level. Students who have successfully passed the primary and secondary level can move further to level three, which offers a high school degree. The top level is level 4 which nowadays offers a college degree (professional bachelor). The focus of the innovation practice and the related research was on levels one and two because various problems had been experienced with the students there, such as drop out and lack of motivation. The age of the students on the two basic levels varies between 16 and 20. The three departments prepare students for jobs in three different professional fields: commerce (e.g. shop assistants), care (e.g. basic nursing) and the information and communication technology sector (e.g. computer and network installation maintenance). This initiative resulted into complex transformations within the institute. They affected the entire teaching and learning process in which staff at different levels and students were involved. All partners in the innovation process engaged in a joint action research programme which, in each of the three departments, consisted of following five phases: problem identification, exploration, general plan, improvement actions, educational results. In the table below, we summarize the main elements of the innovation practices in the three different departments. At each stage we highlight some of the most important aspects.
Department
Phase /CARE
/ICT
/COMMERCE
Problem identification /Teaching and Learning
· Too theoretical· Traditional teaching
· Too numerous classes
· No incentives for active participation
· No individualized approach
Pedagogical relationship
· Lack of competences to motivate students· Teachers want more interaction with students
Lack of practical training
Mentoring not well integrated into the teaching/learning process
/ Frictions concerning the composition of the staffFrictions concerning the quality of the teaching/learning process
Frictions about the material conditions / Discomfort about the collective organization of the curriculum (year groups)
· Lack of discipline
· Content not motivating
· No practice link
· No possibility of independent learning
· Inadequate classrooms
· Too numerous classes
Problems concerning the follow-up of the students
· Lack of coaching skills
· Dysfunctional registration system· Inadequate follow-up system of students
Organizational problems
· High drop-out rate· Inadequate infrastructure
Exploration
/Experiences of students
· Students don’t feel at home very well· Lack of interest among teachers for students
· Negative appreciation of teaching
· School and schedules are chaotic / Experiences of students
· Feelings of alienation
· Not familiar with teachers
· Negative appreciation of teaching
· School and schedules are chaotic / Experiences of students
· Students feel at home
· Lack of interest among teachers for students
· Negative appreciation of teaching
· School and schedules are chaotic
General Plan
/Planning for improvement
· Individual intake· Common basic year
· Max. 16 students per class; supported by 2 mentors
· School-year: 4 periods of 10 weeks
· From second period onwards: every two weeks one week of vocational practice
· Competence tests are developed to judge progress
· A developmental portfolio is developed
· The students act as independent learners / Planning for improvement
· Individual intake
· Vocational practice as a point of departure for the learning process; alternating theory and professional practice
· ICT-practice: project based learning
· Competence based curriculum
· Students act as independent learners
· Teacher acts as coach / Planning for improvement
· Individual intake
· Students of all levels participate in study groups and have collective responsibility for their progress
· School-year: 4 periods of 10 weeks
· Stimulation towards independent learning
· A ‘document centre’ is developed including an open learning centre, a library and a media centre
· No homework (competence development at school)
· Teacher as coach
Implementing improvement / · Careful transfer of responsibilities to students
· In-team flexibility among teachers / · Adequate project contents
· Vocational practice adapted to practice trainers
· Adaptation of physical infrastructure to needs of project based learning
· Intensification of student facilitation / · Integration of coaching roles of teachers
· Investigation of steering role of teacher
· Intensification of the teacher-learner relationship
Educational results / · Extensive individualized intake based on assessment of prior learning experiences
· Educational concept ‘Portfolio Diary’ as a basis for self directed process
· Competence development: vocational and civil competences
· Mentor-groups of 8 students
· Drop Out Prevention through registration system
· Regular capacity testing
· Counselling about future learning or jobs
· Post-study service / · Extensive individualized intake based on assessment of prior learning experiences
· Educational concept: ‘Productive learning’ as a basis for a self-directed process
· Competence development: vocational and civil competences
· Mentor-groups
· Drop Out Prevention through registration system
· Exam bureau organizes the evaluation of projects and modules
· Counselling about future learning or jobs
· Post-study service / · Extensive individualized intake based on assessment of prior learning experiences
· Educational concept: ‘Study Department Store’ as a basis for a self-directed process
· Competence development: vocational and civic competences
· Individualized coaching of students in school and during internship
· Testing via competence based labour tests
· Counselling about future learning or jobs
· Post-study service
The board of governors was fairly precise in defining the roles and responsibilities of the different actors from the very start of the innovation process. This could however not prevent ambiguities emerging along the line. From the beginning of the process already, the teaching staff expressed insecurity about the objectives and responsibilities related to the innovation process. Differences in opinion among the management and the teachers initially influenced the process in a negative way. This was due to a lack of initial clarity of the project. However, once the innovation process really got started, the commitment of most actors belonging to the management and teaching staff was quite intensive. The members of the staff were continually engaged in a reflective process about teaching and learning. They have actively contributed to the development of new practices inspired by new pedagogical ideas. The concern was not only practical but also theoretical. They explored scientific concepts, backgrounds and research data informing them about the nature of the primary process in which they are involved. This resulted into new teaching and learning frameworks and instruments, new kinds of relationships among teachers and students and teachers among themselves. New forms of self-directed learning, project work and group work were explored and introduced. The teaching faculty were mostly positive about the innovations. However, the students sometimes experienced difficulty to engage with the new methods. Group work is often confrontational for the members taking part. Sometimes, the necessary skills to manage tensions and conflicts resulting from the group dynamics were not available. Another aspect concerning teaching and learning has to do with the lack of experience of students to take responsibility over their own learning process. They experience feelings of insecurity, conflict and doubt. This is contrary to the experiences of the teaching staff who considers the autonomy of the students a very important aspect of the new situation. In future however, these contradictory evaluations of the teaching and learning process will have to be taken into account more seriously by the co-ordinators of the innovation process.