Comparing Two Cases of Training Practice – Implications for Trainers' Professional Development

How to measure the efficacy of VET workplace learning: the FET-WL model

“…As shown in Table V, there is interference from other variables in the emerged factors, but there are three theoretical constructs that maintain the same meaning: school tutor's role, host company tutor's role and student's motivation. This confirms the theoretical approach on the importance of the school tutor (Suárez and Ledezma, 2005;Kuczera et al, 2008), on the role played by the company tutor (Grollman and Kämäräinen, 2008;Virtanen and Tynjälä, 2008) and student's motivation for WL efficacy. Even if, in this context, motivation may seem irrelevant, due to the fact that WL is compulsory to complete the course, the theory underpins the notion that motivation is essential for any task to be completed successfully (Gegenfurtner, 2012), hence it is important to know the student's degree of motivation to complete WL.…”

“…Likewise, cooperation between the tutors of both institutions may increase WL efficacy (Peris, 2006;Virtanen and Tynjälä, 2008). The company dimension focuses on the role of the tutor and the work environment during WL (Peris, 2006;Grollman and Kämäräinen, 2008;Smith & Kemmis, 2010). We also included the VET school dimension because effective WL requires good coherence between the training at the school and the activity carried out in the company, (Abdala, 2000;Suárez and Ledezma, 2005;CEDEFOP, 2010).…”

“…In this case, it contains aspects from prior knowledge acquired in the secondary school, the characteristics of the workplace where the student is carrying out the internship, and the support of the tutor from the secondary school in carrying out WL successfully (Grollman and Kämäräinen, 2008;Virtanen and Tynjälä, 2008).…”

“…(3) Company: the characteristics of the company and the attention given to the student have an immense influence on WL efficacy. The role of the company tutor is pivotal; their availability, involvement, profile, level of training and motivation are important variables that have a bearing on the efficacy of WL (Robertson, 1998;Peris, 2006;Grollman and Kämäräinen, 2008;Virtanen and Tynjälä, 2008;Pineda, 2010). Other aspects that influence efficacy are the time the company dedicates to WL (Ashton et al, 2008), the support the student receives from the supervisor and from other workers, and the student's relationship with them (Virtanen and Tynjälä, 2008;Chiaburu et al, 2010).…”

Micro firms matter. How do they deal with the tension between production and training?

“…In dual VET systems, workplace trainers are important educational actors because they are responsible for acquiring practical skills in the workplace in a nationwide defined apprenticeship scheme. They should be closely connected to the apprentice, conduct daily training, and are regarded as being experts on learning and training in the workplace, as well as on the 'local knowledge' of work processes, tasks, and functions (Grollmann 2010). However, firms also differ in range and capabilities of the staff that fulfil this specific pedagogic role (Unwin et al 2007).…”