Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
To cite this article: Matthias Pilz, Junmin Li, Roy Canning & Sarah Minty (2017): Modularisation
approaches in Initial Vocational Education: evidence for policy convergence in Europe?, Journal of
Vocational Education & Training, DOI: 10.1080/13636820.2017.1392994
Article views: 8
Download by: [USB Köln / Medizinische Abteilung] Date: 30 October 2017, At: 02:21
Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2017.1392994
1. Introduction
Many countries currently face similar economic, social and political challenges in
tackling issues such as the rapid growth of communications technology, an ageing
society and a shortage of skilled labour. These challenges are having an impact
on the way national vocational training systems develop, prompting change and
adaptation.
One response to these challenges has been a move towards greater flexibil-
ity within vocational training systems (Nijhof, Heikkinen, and Nieuwenhuis 2002;
Kutscha 2003), and there is a substantial literature discussing a range of instru-
ments for broadening flexibility (Nijhof and Streumer 1994; Raffe 1994, inter alia).
training system, so our focus was to investigate whether the global trends set
out above are producing similar trends in modularisation in differing countries.
We have, therefore, taken an outsider’s view of the countries concerned, viewing
trends within each country as internally consistent and focusing solely on the
practical implementation of modularisation. At a theoretical level, we take a pol-
icy convergence approach (see below); it is very surprising that there is so little
research into modularisation trends using this approach. The literature includes
a number of comparative investigations of modularisation, including Pilz (2012),
which, however, focuses solely on modularisation of vocational training in German-
speaking countries. Schreier et al. (2009) also take a comparative approach based
on selected countries, but their perspective is primarily that of promoting disad-
vantaged groups. Ertl (2002) investigated modularisation at the EU level, providing
important insights into the modularisation process and institutional development
at the time of writing. The most recent international research was published by
Cedefop (2015a), which reports on the role of modularisation and unitisation in
vocational training across 15 European countries and identifies divergent trends.1
However, none of these research studies are based on a systematic approach to
policy convergence.
This study therefore selects seven European countries (England, Finland,
Denmark, Poland, Austria, Hungary and France) to conduct a detailed analysis of
whether the introduction of modular forms is, in fact, driven by the same rationales
in different countries. It concludes with a discussion on whether countries that have
introduced modularisation as a response to the same rationales actually design
their modular system in the same way.
We shall begin, however, with a theoretical introduction and by contextualising
the modular debate and outlining the selection of countries and research design.
One way of getting closer to a definition is to develop more or less abstract cri-
teria to describe an ideal type of a radical concept of modularisation (Rasmussen
1998, 40–45; Pilz 2002, 2005). As part of the study, we developed a set of five criteria
with which to define modularisation.
(1) The first criterion is a clear start and end point for a module, governed
by the learning content and/or qualifications in the curriculum. Setting
the timescale within which the module must be passed is optional. This
structure allows a highly flexible combination of different modules,
breaks between participation in different modules and no limits to the
period over which a module must be taken.
(2) Modularisation is, furthermore, an output-orientated system, which can
also be described as outcome based. This means the link between the
formal learning process and the evaluation of the learning outcome is
very weak. Modularisation in its purest form involves assessing some-
one’s skills against a standard without necessarily previously having
taught the individual or having given him or her advice.
(3) Another criterion is the individual certification of each module passed:
this means that each module is well documented and has an independ-
ent value within the education and training system or on the labour
market. This is crucial if modules are to be discrete, free-standing units
of learning.
(4) A modular system, however, imposes no restrictions regarding participa-
tion or the length of participation. Each student may start a module at a
time of his or her choosing, and because each module is free-standing,
no previous knowledge, skills or qualifications are required. The certifica-
tion system also means that students do not have to enrol for qualifying
programmes (the term ‘programme’ is taken here to mean ‘an officially
implemented system’ and not the specific combination of courses taken
by any individual student).
(5) Last but not least, in a radical modular system, there is no regulation
governing which training providers are allowed to offer which kind of
JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING 5
Having outlined the criteria which make up our explanatory framework, we now
expand on the approaches taken to implement modularisation reforms in prac-
tice. There are potentially different forms of modularisation that can be better
understood as representing a range of dimensions across a spectrum, with ‘rad-
ical’ forms of modularisation at one end and traditional ‘holistic’ training, such
Downloaded by [USB Köln / Medizinische Abteilung] at 02:21 30 October 2017
Figure 1. Spectrum between modularisation and the school-based approaches. Source: authors’
own representation, drawing on Pilz (2002).
6 M. PILZ ET AL.
between them mean that European countries tend to face similar problems and
challenges, with a similar impact on their vocational training systems. Second,
because they have all had to meet the criteria for accession to the EU, their mac-
ro-level structures tend to be similar. For example, they all have free democratic sys-
tems and are all industrialised economies (European Commission 2015). However,
despite these convergences, European countries operate very different VET sys-
tems (Greinert 2004, inter alia). The countries to be investigated were selected in
line with Greinert’s basic types of formalised vocational training (2004, 20). This
typology distinguishes between three basic models of formalised vocational train-
ing. In the ‘liberal market economy’ model, the state plays no role or only a marginal
role in the process of vocational training. England is an example of this model.
Downloaded by [USB Köln / Medizinische Abteilung] at 02:21 30 October 2017
in 1978 (Académie de Toulouse 2002, 1). In England, modules have also been a
central feature of the work-related and competence-based National Vocational
Qualifications (Raggatt and Williams 1999). Modularisation has been used in
Danish labour market training programmes since the 1970s (Schreier et al. 2009;
Cort 2011).
There was a cluster of activity in introducing modularised qualification systems
in the mid- to late 1990s in Finland and Poland. Modularisation has been a feature
of Polish IVET since the mid-1990s. In Finland, the concept of flexibility was intro-
duced to upper secondary curricula in 1993–1994. Key reforms followed later in
the 1990s (Cedefop ReferNet Finland 2011).
In the mid-2000s, modularisation occurred in Austria and Hungary. In Austria,
Downloaded by [USB Köln / Medizinische Abteilung] at 02:21 30 October 2017
the first explicit reference to conceptualising the modular system dates back to
February 2003, when it was included in the government’s manifesto. Modularisation,
along with the restructuring of curricula into modules, was then put on a statutory
footing in 2006 (BMWFW 2014). Modularised forms have existed in Hungarian VET
qualifications since 2006; all school-based IVET programmes have been modular-
ised since 2008/2009 (Cedefop ReferNet Hungary 2013).
To summarise, then, modularisation of IVET programmes can be said to be
extensive across the countries in this study, having been gradually introduced
over a period of almost 40 years.
The rationales identify the principal ways of sigma convergence that have been
followed to introduce modular forms. Firstly, the main rationales for introducing
modularisation are summarised. Then the principal ways of sigma convergence
Downloaded by [USB Köln / Medizinische Abteilung] at 02:21 30 October 2017
6.1.1. Meeting changing labour market needs and to promote links with the
labour market
One aspect, which is driving the implementation in England and Hungary, is that
the flexibility of modules means they are easier to tailor to sector requirements,
in particular by replacing or updating individual modules when needed. England
and Hungary are developing a simpler process for updating the curricula that
typify modular forms. One key rationale for modernising IVET systems and intro-
ducing modularised qualification structures is to secure a better coordination
between training and the world of work. The role of learning outcomes and com-
petence-based learning within the modular forms plays an important role here.
Reforms in a range of countries are intended to improve quality and flexibility so
as to better reflect the needs of society and the requirements of employers; in
Finland, for example, Sahlberg (2006) points to a lack of fit between vocational
courses and the world of work (see also Cedefop ReferNet Finland 2014), while the
OECD (1999) refers to ‘dissatisfaction’ in the way that upper secondary vocational
education prepared young people for working life. The most recent development
plan for 2011–2016 displays a continued desire to move VET closer to the world
of work, with an announcement of further funding for pilot projects which pro-
vide more flexible studies to young people through increased on-the-job training
(Cedefop ReferNet Finland 2014). Similar criticisms were levelled at the VET system
in Hungary, though here the concern was that VET qualifications were too theory
based and did not satisfy labour market needs. This led to the revision of the
National Qualification Register (Hungarian abbreviation OKJ) in 2006 and the intro-
duction of a modular qualifications structure. In Austria, modularisation is seen as
just one possible model for organising training occupations. The general view is
that occupational specifications should adopt a modular form only where actual
needs at company or plant level make such restructuring necessary and where it
10 M. PILZ ET AL.
tems in line with EU policies and standards such as European Credit System for
Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) or EQF in a small number of the coun-
tries, as in Hungary and Poland (Kurek and Rachwal 2012). For example, the Reform
Programme in Hungary recognises the need to prepare the educational credit
system to link with ECVET to promote mobility (Cedefop ReferNet Hungary 2013).
In conclusion, it can be said that the growing flexibility of labour markets, the
rapid pace of change in technology and work organisation and the need to make
VET more attractive and flexible for students are increasingly important rationales.
Moreover, the quest for higher mobility between different vocational qualifica-
tions, developments within European VET policy, improved credit accumulation
and transfer and the desire to reduce unemployment of young people play a major
role in the decision to reform of VET along modular lines.
The reference model described above was used to analyse the real form of modu-
larisation used in the selected training programmes of each country and to inves-
tigate the extent of delta convergence.2 The findings reveal both ‘radical’ forms of
modularisation and forms based strongly on ‘holistic’ approaches. They also reveal
12 M. PILZ ET AL.
forms part-way along this spectrum. The forms of modularisation identified do not,
therefore, illustrate a one-to-one match with ideal-typical forms at either end of
the spectrum; rather, they represent simply a strong orientation towards one or
the other end of the spectrum. This allocation relates not to the entire national
vocational training system within the countries under investigation but rather to
the modular vocational training programmes in operation there: depending on
the country, modular systems may apply right across the national VET system or
may constitute only part of it.
their own combination of units. The training is divided into 20% of compulsory
modules and 80% optional modules (Cedefop ReferNet Finland 2014). In recent
years, the National core curriculum has shifted the emphasis away from input
towards an outcome-oriented approach, as demonstrated by the move to new
forms of assessment such as the skills demonstrations. However, Finnish VET is not
yet completely output oriented, as aspects of the inputs-based system remain a
feature, in terms of required training durations or modules for specific subjects
(Cedefop ReferNet Finland 2014). Individual modules are certified separately, and
can be certified at various points, rather than at the end of the final assessment.
Assessment includes an emphasis on formative and self-assessment, and since
1998 has included the use of skills demonstrations, or Ammattiosaamisen näytöt.
Mostly conducted during on-the-job learning, they are designed to replicate real
work situations as closely as possible and consist of tests as either practical work
situations or practical assignments which are designed to show whether trainees
have mastered specific skills (Stenström and Leino 2009). It is also possible for
students to move in and out of the training scheme prior to the final assessment.
Upon completing their studies, students are awarded a qualification certificate.
Those who leave without finishing a vocational qualification receive a leaving
certificate. Partial awards are also available where students have studied several
elements of the overall programme (Cedefop 2008), though more information
is needed as to how much such routes are used. Vocational students are eligible
to take the Matriculation Exam, though Sahlberg (2006) notes that ‘very few do
so’. The number of training providers has reduced in recent years, while at the
same time numbers of students has increased. This is the result of a policy of
merging VET institutions into bigger organisations: there were 180 providers in
2005, reducing to 148 in 2009. These larger institutions and networks are intended
to provide schools with more resources and consequently allow students more
choice. Attempts have been made in recent years to build links between voca-
tional and general upper secondary school, and to make it easier for vocational
students to choose modules from both programmes (Cedefop ReferNet Finland
2014). Such bridging programmes are made possible via local and regional coop-
eration networks made up of the two types of institutions, and are intended to
14 M. PILZ ET AL.
terms, give the teacher scope to design the curriculum to meet learners’ needs
and to respond flexibly to externally changing circumstances. Although modules
are assessed independently within qualifications,3 they often form clusters to pro-
vide awards at Certificate and Diploma level. This structure can accommodate
the recording of individual modules as part of a learner’s record of achievement.
Although the system is modularised, it often does not allow complete freedom of
movement in and out by the learner. Once approved by awarding bodies, a range
of training providers can deliver the vocational qualifications. Currently, there are
more than 150 awarding bodies in England to offer vocational qualifications (BIS
2016). Each awarding body will then approve training and educational providers
to deliver the qualifications. These can be colleges, private training providers and/
or employers. This is intended to provide learner choice and create competition
between suppliers in order to raise standards (BIS 2013; Cedefop ReferNet United
Kingdom 2014), an approach which some have suggested has contributed to an
illusion of informed choice that undermines the quality of vocational qualifications
(Fuller and Unwin 2008; Wolf 2011). It can be claimed that England represents a
more ‘radical’ form of modularisation over the period under consideration and in
relation to the other countries within the study.
All school-based IVET in Hungary is modularised. In terms of learning content,
VET qualifications are made up of core and optional modules, which allow students
a degree of flexibility. The system focuses on the development and assessment
of core competences, which are listed under each task profile which make up the
modules. There has been debate about using the term ‘learning outcomes’, but
the modules list core competences and are mainly task and competence based. A
Hungarian expert described learning outcomes as being learner centred, whereas
the Hungarian system is more task-oriented. Changes are being introduced to
the assessment and exam system. Currently, learners have to sit module exams
after completing each module, and obtain a qualification upon passing all the
module exams. A form of integrated assessment is being introduced under the
new system whereby a more complex exam will cover all the topics within the
module; the exam will be oral, written and/or practical depending on the qual-
ification. The Hungarian VET modular system also includes partial qualifications
JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING 15
represent the more traditional form of holistic training known as the Berufskonzept
(see below) (Greinert 2007).
In Austria, a proportion of occupational qualifications have been modularised;
however, the majority continue to follow the traditional model. Austria represents
a parallel model in that just 4% of training occupations are currently modularised
and are offered alongside a more traditional Berufskonzept model (Tritscher-Archan
2009; BMWFW 2014).
Learning content must be followed in the order specified. Syllabuses are geared
to a specific learning package, and separate sections of learning follow a relatively
linear order. Acquiring a state-approved and protected qualification requires suc-
cessful completion of the entire training course, so there is only limited scope for
independent, flexible learning and module combination, representing an indirect
condition for accreditation. The transfer of the knowledge and skills specified in
the curriculum should be seen in content terms rather than in terms of time spent.
The learning process is very closely linked to the achievement of learning goals.
No trainee may take the examinations without having completed the stipulated
learning process. In terms of certification, ‘building blocks’ may not be taken,
assessed or certified individually. The final assessment takes place at the end of
the training period stipulated in the training contract. Within traditional ‘holistic’
training, access to these modular training occupations is currently restricted to
those with a training contract, so free movement in and out of this kind of training
is limited. Learning is very site-specific and is restricted to specific training provid-
ers; training companies take responsibility for the technical and practical aspects
of training while vocational schools provide the theoretical side. The companies
have to be authorised by the chamber of commerce or handicrafts to get permis-
sion to train (Archan 2005; Tritscher-Archan 2009; Pilz 2012). Overall, the Austrian
model of modularisation stays close to the roots of traditional apprenticeships
within individual training occupations and does not constitute a revolutionary
new concept of training.
16 M. PILZ ET AL.
local context. Since the curricular reform of 2009, there has been a more flexible
approach to teaching and a move towards a learning outcomes-based approach
across the educational system (Bednarczyk 2012). The core curricula for individual
subjects specify learning outcomes in terms of specific skills to be acquired and
are set out in objectives, tasks, content and achievement. As a consequence of
this move to learning outcomes, Duda (2010) notes that pedagogical approaches
have shifted from teacher-oriented lectures towards a focus on the skills that stu-
dents should acquire from their learning. There is the suggestion that learning is
sequential and that modules and individual modular units should be assessed,
marked and certificated separately (Symela et al. 2007). However, in those voca-
tional schools which have adopted modular curricula, some have reported prob-
lems in its implementation; for example, there have been difficulties in combining
general and vocational modules due to the time differences required to cover each
and the rigid exam schedules (Cedefop ReferNet Poland 2011). Movement in and
out of training schemes is possible to an extent. According to a Polish expert, the
emerging modular system allows for horizontal and vertical mobility, and makes
it possible to commence study at different levels. Cedefop ReferNet Poland (2010,
83) describes the modular approach in Poland as a ‘universal structural concept
which offers individuals access to education in different life situations while ensur-
ing vocational mobility’. VET is restricted to specific training providers. Poland’s
modular approach has a mixture of both, the radical modularisation and the more
traditional model.
individual dimensions (see Table 1). Therefore, no delta convergence was evident
in the analysis.
7. Discussion
It is important to acknowledge that different countries in the study were at differ-
ent stages of development in their use of modularised forms. Those countries that
can be said to be ‘early adopters’, e.g. England, have gained significant experience of
implementing modular forms within qualifications, while the ‘late developers’, e.g.
Hungary, are able to share this learning through knowledge exchange practices.
As described above, three different pathways to reach sigma convergence exist.
The present findings on sigma convergence demonstrate that policy convergence
can be attributed to similar problems and challenges at national level (see Table
2). The findings point to some degree of sigma convergence in modularisation of
IVET. But due to the fact that the countries have introduced modular structures
at different stages and that they vary in their experience of modularisation, the
intensity of sigma convergence cannot be identified clearly.
JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING 19
Figure 2. Spectrum of forms of VET modularisation in selected countries. Source: authors’ own
representation.
20 M. PILZ ET AL.
are not in transition towards a common modularisation model. The findings iden-
tified only a level of sigma convergence, not a delta convergence.
8. Conclusion
We now explore some conclusions from these findings.
The findings do show that modularisation of vocational education and training
in the countries investigated follows the pattern of sigma convergence. The type of
convergence is triggered when the vocational training systems of given countries
tackle similar concerns and challenges. However, the stage at which these coun-
tries have introduced modularisation differs from country to country: across the
Downloaded by [USB Köln / Medizinische Abteilung] at 02:21 30 October 2017
seven countries, we identified three phases of introduction. Second, the VET sys-
tems across the seven countries are modularised to differing extents: as explained
above, the Danish vocational training system is only partially modularised, for
example, while the Hungarian system is fully modularised. Third, modular forms
differ from one VET system to another, making it impossible to identify evidence
of delta convergence.
The research findings also point to the fact that trends to modularisation have
not been triggered by formal international agreements. The fact that EU policy
has prompted modularisation in only two countries – Hungary and Poland – rein-
forces this.
But how are we to interpret this finding in the context of the policy convergence
theory set out above?
Our interpretation is based on the theoretical background of sigma and delta
convergence as introduced by Heinze and Knill (2008) (see above). Knill (2005, 770)
notes that the institutional, cultural and socio-economic framework in a country
determines the level of policy convergence, particularly of delta convergence.
Knill and Lenschow (1998) show that a policy measure can be transferred to and
implemented in other countries only to the extent that the institutional structures
in those countries allow for the transfer. The socio-economic framework also plays
a large part (see also Brockmann, Clarke, and Winch 2008b): countries with similar
socio-economic systems have an opportunity to successfully implement similar
policy measures. Knill (2005, 770) argues that the greater the similarity between
countries on these dimensions, the greater the similarity of the form of a policy
between them. The cultural framework within a country is a further influence on
the impact and outcomes of policy measures. National culture shapes the per-
ceptions of and interaction between the actors who come together within the
context of a policy measure. It can be assumed, therefore, that countries with
similar cultures implement policy measures in similar ways (Lenschow, Liefferink,
and Veenman 2005, 801).
However, individual dimensions viewed in isolation cannot be seen as offer-
ing an explanation for differences in policy. For example, focusing solely on the
institutional dimension of vocational training in these countries suggests that, in
JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING 21
terms of Greinert’s basic types of vocational training, Finland, France, Hungary and
Poland, as countries allocated to the state-regulated model, actually represent
differing forms of modularisation. While Finland, France and Poland operate a
combination between the modular and traditional models of vocational training,
each country has a different concept of modularisation. In fact, Hungary may be
seen to have an almost radical form of modularisation. Moreover, the Austrian and
Danish systems, which form part of the dual model, differ widely in their form of
modularisation. Consequently, the design of the vocational training system is the
result of interaction between widely diverse dimensions. All these dimensions
must be considered together to arrive at an explanation of the differing forms of
modularisation in the selected countries.
Downloaded by [USB Köln / Medizinische Abteilung] at 02:21 30 October 2017
The aim of this study was to investigate the situation regarding modularisation
in differing European countries within the context of policy convergence up until
the end of 2013. Subsequent reforms and policy changes within these countries
have occurred since 2013 and may form the basis of further studies. With reference
to the different types of convergence, more detailed work on individual countries
could be undertaken. For example, the different stages of introducing modular
forms in these countries could be investigated in more depth. The methodology
used is capable of transfer to future studies of other areas of VET in which the
issue of convergence is of interest. The findings discussed here may also, however,
serve as the basis for further research into modularisation. A study with a regional
focus could, for example, shed light on the extent to which delta convergence is
present in countries with similar forms of modularisation on the dimensions listed
above. It is possible that the same form of modularisation is being pursued in the
countries making up the United Kingdom since these countries have very similar
institutional, cultural and socio-economic dimensions (Raffe 1998; Young and Raffe
1998; Canning and Cloonan 2002).
Notes
1.
The research results published here are partially based on the research project we
realised for Cedefop and published in Cedefop (2015a).
2.
Like all typologies, the one used here is oversimplified and is intended to give a
direction of travel rather than a precise destination (Pilz 2016).
3.
This statement was valid during the time of data collection before 2015. After 2015,
the Regulated Qualifications Framework has replaced the Qualifications and Credit
Framework (for details see Ofqual 2015).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
22 M. PILZ ET AL.
References
Aarkrog, V., and C. H. Jørgensen, eds. 2008. Divergence and Convergence in Education and Work
(Studies in Vocational and Continuing Education – Vol. 6). Bern: Peter Lang Verlag.
Académie de Toulouse. 2002. Le système des unités capitalisables (U.C.) délivrées par
l’éducation nationale [The System of Capitalisable Units Delivered by the National
Education Board]. http://194.214.239.135/automne_modules_files/standard/public/
p1115_f084725d56d5dc82abdf06b7b604702833_UC_Niveau_V_v2.pdf.
Archan, S. 2005. “Modularisierung – ein Weg zur Steigerung der Attraktivität der Lehre in
Österreich.” [Modularisation – A Way to Increase the Attractiveness of the Teaching in Austria.]
Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft Und Praxis 4: 23–25.
Bednarczyk, H. 2012. “Continuing Vocational Education towards Innovative Future Technologies.”
Polish Journal of Continuing Education 2: 44–53.
Downloaded by [USB Köln / Medizinische Abteilung] at 02:21 30 October 2017
Bennett, C. 1991. “What is Policy Convergence and What Causes It?” British Journal of Political
Science 21: 215–253.
BIS (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) 2013. The Future of Apprenticeships
in England: Implementation Plan. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/253073/bis-13-1175-future-of-apprenticeships-in-england-
implementation-plan.pdf.
BIS (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) 2016. Vocational Qualifications. https://
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/510013/
VocationalQualificationsNote2016.pdf.
BMWFW (Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Wirtschaft) 2014. Die Lehre: Duale
Berufsbildung in Österreich: Moderne Ausbildung mit Zukunft [The Apprenticeship: The Dual
System in Austria: Mondern Apprenticeship with a Future]. Wien: BMWFW.
Brockmann, M., L. Clarke, P. Méhaut, and C. Winch. 2008a. “Competence-based Vocational
Education and Training (VET): the Cases of United Kingdom and France in a European
Perspective.” Vocations and Learning 1 (3): 227–244.
Brockmann, M., L. Clarke, and C. Winch. 2008b. “Knowledge, Skills, Competence: European
Divergences in Vocational Education and Training (VET): The English, German and Dutch
Cases.” Oxford Review of Education 34 (5): 547–567.
Busemeyer, M. R., and C. Trampusch. 2012. “Introduction: The Comparative Political Economy of
Collective Skill Formation.” In The Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation, edited by M.
R. Busemeyer and C. Trampusch, 3–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canning, R., and M. Cloonan. 2002. “The ‘Home International’ Comparison in Vocational
Qualifications.” Comparative Education 38 (2): 189–209.
Cedefop (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training) 2008. Initial Vocational
Education and Training in Europe. A Review. Luxembourg: Publications Office. http://www.
cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/IVET_Review_08.pdf.
Cedefop (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training) 2015a. The Role of
Modularisation and Unitisation in Vocational Education and Training. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union. http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/6126_en.pdf.
Cedefop (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training) 2015b. France: European
Inventory on NQF 2014. http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/de/publications-and-resources/
country-reports/france-european-inventory-nqf-2014.
Cedefop ReferNet Austria. 2012. Austria: VET in Europe – Country Report 2012. www.cedefop.
europa.eu/files/2012_cr_at.pdf.
Cedefop ReferNet Denmark. 2014. Denmark: VET in Europe – Country Report. https://cumulus.
cedefop.europa.eu/files/vetelib/2014/2014_CR_DK.pdf.
JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING 23
Cedefop ReferNet Finland. 2011. Finland: VET in Europe – Country Report. http://libserver.cedefop.
europa.eu/vetelib/2011/2011_CR_FI.pdf.
Cedefop ReferNet Finland. 2014. Finland: VET in Europe – Country Report. https://cumulus.
cedefop.europa.eu/files/vetelib/2014/2014_CR_FI.pdf.
Cedefop ReferNet Hungary. 2013. Hungary: VET in Europe – Country Report. https://cumulus.
cedefop.europa.eu/files/vetelib/2013/2013_CR_HU.pdf.
Cedefop ReferNet Poland. 2010. A Bridge to the Future: European Policy for Vocational Education
and Training 2002–10: National Policy Report – Poland. Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union. http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2010/vetpolicy/2010_NPR_
PL.pdf.
Cedefop ReferNet Poland. 2011. Poland – Reform of Vocational Qualifications. http://www.
cedefop.europa.eu/EN/articles/17144.aspx.
Downloaded by [USB Köln / Medizinische Abteilung] at 02:21 30 October 2017
Cedefop ReferNet United Kingdom. 2014. United Kingdom: VET in Europe – Country Report. https://
cumulus.cedefop.europa.eu/files/vetelib/2014/2014_CR_UK.pdf.
CIMO (Centre for International Mobility) 2010. Finland in Focus: Towards 2020 in Vocational
Education and Training. Helsinki: CIMO.
Cort, P. 2011. Taking the Copenhagen Process Apart: Critical Readings of European Vocational
Education and Training Policy. Aarhus: The Danish School of Education, Aarhus University.
Danish Evaluation Institute. 2011. Referencing the Danish Qualifications Framework for Lifelong
Learning to the European Qualifications Framework. https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/sites/eac-eqf/
files/DK_Qualifications_Framework_Referencing_Report_and_Self-certification_Report.pdf.
Danish Ministry for Children, Education and Gender Equality. 2016. “Vocational Education and
Training (VET).” Danish Ministry for Children. Accessed May 26, 2017. http://eng.uvm.dk/
upper-secondary-education/vocational-education-and-training–vet-
Danish Ministry of Education. 2008. The Danish Vocational Education and Training System. 2nd
ed. Denmark: Danish Ministry of Education. http://static.uvm.dk/Publikationer/2008/VET2/
The_Danish_VET_System_web.pdf.
Duda, A. 2010. European Inventory on Validation of Non-formal and Informal Learning 201:0
Country Report: Poland. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://
libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2011/77475.pdf.
Ertl, H. 2002. The Role of EU Programmes and Approaches to Modularisation in Vocational Education:
Fragmentation or Integration? München: Utz.
European Commission. 2015. European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations:
Conditions for Membership. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/
index_en.htm.
Fuller, A., and L. Unwin. 2008. Towards Expansive Apprenticeships: A Commentary by the Teaching
and Learning Research Programme. Teaching and Learning Research Programme. Swindon:
Economic & Social Research Council. http://learning.gov.wales/docs/learningwales/
publications/140721-towards-expansive-apprenticeships-en.pdf.
Green, A. 1999. “Education and Globalization in Europe and East Asia: Convergent and Divergent
Trends.” Journal of Education Policy 14 (1): 55–71.
Greinert, W.-D. 2004. “European Vocational Training “System” – Some Thoughts on the Theoretical
Context of Their Historical Development.” European Journal of Vocational Training 32: 18–25.
Greinert, W.-D. 2007. “The German Philosophy of Vocational Education.” In Vocational Education:
International Approaches, Developments and Systems, edited by L. Clarke and C. Winch, 49–61.
London: Routledge.
Heinze, T., and C. Knill. 2008. “Analysing the Differential Impact of the Bologna Process: Theoretical
Considerations on National Conditions for International Policy Convergence.” Higher Education
56 (4): 493–510.
24 M. PILZ ET AL.
Vocational Education and Training - an option for Germany? An explorative Study on the
Example of the schottish Modulsystem]. Markt Schwaben: EUSL.
Pilz, M. 2002. “The Contrast between Modular and Occupational Approaches to Modernising
Vocational Training.” European Journal of Vocational Training 25: 27–33.
Pilz, M. 2005. “Modularisierung in der Beruflichen Bildung: Ansätze, Erfahrungen und
Konsequenzen im Europäischen Kontext.” [Modularisation in the Vocational Education and
Training: Approaches, Experiences and Consequences in European Context]. Schweizerische
Zeitschrift Für Bildungswissenschaften 27 (2): 207–230.
Pilz, M. 2012. “Modularisation of Vocational Training in Germany, Austria and Switzerland:
Parallels and Disparities in a Modernisation Process.” Journal of Vocational Education and
Training 64 (2): 169–183.
Pilz, M. 2016. “Typologies in Comparative Vocational Education: Existing Models and a New
Downloaded by [USB Köln / Medizinische Abteilung] at 02:21 30 October 2017
Radom: Institute for Sustainable Technologies – National Research Institute Poland. http://
www.emcet.net/download/pdf/anglia.pdf.
Tritscher-Archan, S. 2009. “Praxis Österreich: Modularisierung der österreichischen Lehrberufe.”
[Practice Austria: Austrian Modularisation of Apprenticeships]. In Modularisierungsansätze
in der Berufsbildung – Deutschland, Österreich, Schweiz sowie Großbritannien im Vergleich
[Modularisation Approaches in VET – Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the UK Compared],
edited by M. Pilz, 71–82. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag.
Warwick, D. 1987. The Modular Curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell.
Winterton, J. 2012. “Varieties of Competence: European Perspectives.” In The Future of Vocational
Education and Training in a Changing World, edited by M. Pilz, 321–340. Wiesbaden: Springer
VS.
Wolf, A. 2011. Review of Vocational Education: The Wolf Report. London: Department of Education.
Downloaded by [USB Köln / Medizinische Abteilung] at 02:21 30 October 2017
Young, M., and D. Raffe. 1998. “The Four Strategies for Promoting Parity of Esteem.” In Strategies
for Achieving Parity of Esteem in European Upper Secondary Education: Final Report, edited by
J. Lasonen and M. Young, 35–46. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.