REVIEW OF THE THEORY OF WORKPLACE LEARNING [WPL] COVERING THE RANGE OF APPROACHES PRESENT IN THE RESEARCH LITERATURE: Social and Political perspectives on WPL

John Konrad

Leeds Metropolitan University

Executive Summary

This paper provides a policy studies perspective on the process of Workplace Learning, contrasting the claims for the development of National Vocational Qualifications [S/NVQs] in the United Kingdom since the mid-1980s with the problems of poor definition, confused conceptualisation, complex language and procedures, dilution of knowledge requirements, and a lack of a reliable and valid system of assessment. This latter problem is likely to have been complicated by the unwillingness of officials to consider that the UK model might have had fundamental flaws, resulting in a significant delay in introducing reforms and improvements.

This experience contrasts with the success of the German "dual system" in its various forms and the likelihood of its providing a model for EU developments which are likely to underpin EU human resources management strategies being developed as part of Agenda 2000.

The analysis of this paper indicates that there are two competing models of "competence" in use, one focussing on the needs of the individual and the other on the needs of employers. Although policies have existed in the UK which aimed to bridge this divide, the prevailing hostility to Trades Unions and the EU concept of "social partnership" under the Conservative governments prior to 1997 effectively prevented the improvement of the UK labour force that ten years of discussion had indicated were necessary for international competitiveness.

The new Qualifications and Curriculum Agency [QCA] took over responsibility for all English qualifications in September 1997. The QCA's overarching aims will be to promote coherence in education and training and to improve the nation's level of attainment in education and training. This brief is likely to prove difficult to achieve, given the missed opportunities of the last decade.

Context of this paper

This paper is written for the Team of the LEONARDO Project "Workplace Learning" for the second meeting in June 1998. It is complementary to the paper prepared by Martin Fischer for the same meeting. The paper examines policy perspectives on the process of Workplace Learning.

The main aim of the project has been defined as "exploring invisible training" (Marconato 1998). This paper argues that the educational goals defined by formal education are merely the "tip of an iceberg" of the whole learning set which is associated with the ability to carry out work responsibilities effectively. A dichotomy between "formal" and "informal" education is postulated; the former being associated with the schooling carried out in off-the-job schools and colleges, while the latter is located within the workplace.

In most of the countries of the European Union [EU], the relationship between these two processes is formalised as a system of "apprenticeship".

"This proposal for a decision which is being presented by the Commission envisages the inclusion of all young people in apprenticeship and work linked training who are supported by the current training systems of the Member States at any level of training, including higher education. … The 'European Training Pathways' are organised on the basis of a few limited common principles. They should each be the result of the co-operation between the training establishment of the country of origin and the enterprise, establishment, or the training establishment of the receiving partners. They have the objective of monitoring the training methodology. They should be finally integrated into the training of the originating Member State. The Training Pathways are accompanied by a Community document called "EUROPASS TRAINING". It constitutes an attestation in the form of a passport certifying that the young person in question is following one or several training pathways within the context of the training framework of the originating country, and describes the competences acquired and the work experience which has been gained. As such the "EUROPASS TRAINING" constitutes an advantage for the integration of participants into the labour market. The implementation of this decision, once adopted by the Council according to the co-operation procedure, will be advanced by the Commission in close co-operation with the Member States, the social partners and the representatives of the organisations for work linked training and apprenticeship, with the prime aim of ensuring that the European Pathways retains a mark of high quality."(European Commission 1997)

The above quotation indicates how far initial vocational training at all levels is defined as conforming to the "dual system" model. In this context, the process of attaining professional status is conditional on a centralised statutory model based on administrative decree where government and social partners are involved in the decision making process[1].

The Origins of competence-based qualifications in the UK

In the UK, the situation is radically different. The role of the State has until recently been confined to ensuring that the labour market functions efficiently and fairly, through such legislation as the Trades Union and Employment Acts. In general, the law only regulates the status, education, and training of major professional occupations such as Architects, Doctors, Engineers, Lawyers, Nurses and other paramedical occupations. The generality of employment training and development issues are normally dealt with in the workplace within a framework of policy and incentive administered through local organisations, such as the Training and Enterprise Councils [TECs] within a strong central policy direction. The extent to which the future development of social and economic policies will converge as part of the EU's Agenda 2000 is a matter of debate. For example:

"The new generation of actions must focus upon a limited number of objectives:

  • increasing access for the citizens of Europe to the full range of Europe's education resources, in support of and as a complement to policies pursued in the Member States;
  • innovation in these resources: pilot projects initiated by the Commission need to be conducted to test new approaches and instruments (such as second-chance schools and the accreditation of skills). The point is to develop new approaches based on the pooling of experiences from different countries. A significant proportion of resources must therefore be set aside for such pilot projects whose subsequent introduction on a more widespread basis is of course principally a matter for national authorities;
  • wide dissemination of good practice in education and better mutual knowledge of systems and activities. Systems for regular survey and analysis of education and training systems and youth policies in the Member States will enable political and economic decision-makers to improve the quality of their initiatives." (European Commission 1997:2)

One of the major tasks of the LEONARDO Project Workplace Learning over the next two years will be to respond to the changes that are taking place in the process of Vocational Education and Training [VET] as the EU prepares for enlargement.

Using competencies at work - the UK experience

Definitions

The early 1990s has seen a growing debate on the nature and definition of competencies. The main issue has been the purpose of the chosen approach to competency.

"These competency frameworks are based, to a lesser or greater extent, on the following (alternatives):

  • A competency model which relates to 'an underlying characteristic of an individual which is causally related to effective or superior performance in a job' [Boyzatis 1982]. Competencies are expressed as the behaviours that an individual needs to demonstrate.
  • A competency model which relates to 'the ability to perform activities within an occupation to a prescribed standard' [Fletcher 1991]. Competencies are expressed as minimum standards of competent performance." (Strebler et al 1997: 3)

These distinctions are extended by a critical appraisal of the methodology of Functional Analysis used to develop the National Vocational Qualifications [NVQs].

"The notion of competence applied here has two characteristics. First that competence consists of specific behaviours on the part of individuals and that certain behaviours lead to superior performance. Second, that these behaviours are associated with personal qualities which are capable of being learned and developed. Boyzatis proposes that effective performance will occur when three components are consistent with each other. They are:

  • the individual's competences;
  • the job's demands; and
  • the organisational environment.

This would suggest that competence is situation specific. [my emphasis]" (Stewart & Sambrook 1995: 97)

In practice, studies show that the theoretical distinction between the behavioural and competence models is often blurred in practice. The most important issue is that employers and employees should be clear about the focus [individual or job] and standard of performance [non-competent or competent or effective or superior].

The starting point for the development of competence-based qualifications has been the analysis of occupational functions. This involves a group of experts in the methodology of functional analysis, rather than the particular area of occupational competence, carrying out a top-down analysis of an occupational area using a model of competence based on "the whole work role".[2]

In the behavioural model, competencies help to define the values of the enterprise as being concerned both with individual and business development. A typical example is the use of the Investors in People UK National Standard.[3]

The "minimum standards" approach to competency is increasingly associated with the introduction of performance management and competency-based pay. (Industrial Society 1996) The newly privatised sectors, such as telecommunications, water, electricity and gas [the "utilities" sector] has made particular use of this approach. In practical terms, this has often meant that standards-based qualifications [in the UK, S/NVQs] have been associated with the early 1990s rise in unemployment, lack of job security and growth of multi-skilled rather than mono-skilled employment.

The contributory impact of financial institutions seeking to maximise shareholder value to the neglect of other stakeholders, especially the workforce, has recently been highlighted as a problem against the background of high rates of job creation in the US economy. (Reich 1998)

The fundamental weakness of the UK approach to competence-based qualifications is related to the functional analysis approach referred to above.

"It is clear from the critical appraisal presented here that functional analysis has arguable weaknesses at a number of levels ..its philosophical and conceptual base is problematic, and empirical assessment of its application suggests failure to achieve claimed and expected benefits. ... There are two major implications …

First, … the result of this conception of competence and functional analysis is a concentration on a narrow range of technical skills. Therefore, enhanced skill levels are unlikely to be developed.

Second, purposes and values other than those associated with employment, which are traditionally pursued through education, are likely to be marginalised. …

It is clearly our view that the method cannot be accepted as a valid and reliable tool for constructing a national system of vocational qualifications." (Stewart & Sambrook 1995: 104-105)

This view is supported by a study of "expert workers" which showed that "expertise", unlike "competence", depended on both the amount of specific skills possessed and the ways that the workers organised their knowledge. (Cornford and Athanasou 1995). In addition, there is some evidence from the UK engineering industry to support the EU "social partnership" approach in that trade unions, workers' expectations and past history will have an important impact on training decisions. (Heyes 1993)

The conclusion that may be drawn from the above analysis is that the development of the NCVQ model of competence-based qualifications represented a flawed model where a small group of enthusiasts seemed to have been unable to consider the fundamental methodological and ideological critiques of the approach. That is not, however, to say that the idea of competence-based qualifications is similarly flawed, merely that any discussion of such an approach needs to consider the issue systematically and without predetermined assumptions.

Users perceptions

The UK Institute for Employment Studies, a research institute of the University of Susses, surveyed 50 managers in each of five organisations. 70% of the managers [184 people] responded. Although the survey was mainly concerned with the use of specific competencies for performance review and appraisal, the views expressed are of more general interest.

Ease of assessment and development of competencies: users' views
Easy to Assess / Hard to assess / Easy to develop / Hard to develop
Communication / Vision / Technical skills / Interpersonal skills
Technical skills / Interpersonal skills / Planning and organising / Problem solving & decision making
Planning and organising / Soft & behavioural competencies / Communication / Soft & behavioural competencies
Measurable outputs / Problem solving & decision making / Knowledge / Leadership & motivation
Team work / Financial and commercial awareness / Customer awareness / Vision
Analytical skills / Analytical skills / Measurable outputs / Analytical skills

In this context, the competencies that are easiest to develop and assess are those that can be:

  • observed;
  • tested;
  • measured.

The interesting issue raised by this study is whether the behaviours where development and assessment are easiest are those that employers regard as the most important. The study suggests that competencies in softer skill areas are difficult to assess because of the way they are defined, overlap with each other, relative to particular situations and difficult to change. [Strebler et al 1997: 48-59]

The Assessment of Competence

The nature of Competence-based assessment

"Competence-based assessment is a form of assessment that is derived from a set of outcomes; that so clearly states both the outcomes - general and specific -that assessors, students and interested third parties can all make reasonably objective judgements with respect to student achievement or non-achievement of these outcomes; and that certifies student achievement of these outcomes. Assessments are not tied to time served in formal educational settings." (Wolf 1995:1)

This quotation from a United States review of the field (Grant et al 1975:5) is a somewhat surprising start to a review of the field, by one of the most authoritative English researchers in the field of competence-based curricula. This view is important in that it makes clear that much of current UK thinking in this field originates in American higher education.

Wolf points out that it

"… encapsulates most of the key features of competence-based assessment … most especially in vocational, technical and professional education and training."

This approach builds on the essential concept of criterion-referenced assessment, which is more associated with criteria derived from school curricula, such as the current English National Curriculum with its statements of competence for schooling between the ages of 5-14 years within a hierarchy of Levels.

The policy context

The acceptance of Competence-based assessment in the UK originates with the opening of the "Great Debate of the late 1970s based on a cross-party consensus that Education was "failing the nation". This ideology provided a policy continuum from the New Training Initiative of 1981, through the National Curriculum of 1988 and 1995, (Konrad 1995) to the priorities of the 1997 Labour Government which were "Education, Education and Education".

A notable aspect of the policy changes of the 1980s in the UK was a challenge to established thinking which was claimed to have neglected the needs of the users of publicly-provided services by an over-emphasis on the interests of providers. In education and training, this was most influentially described by the most prominent figure in the development of the National Standards.

"We have what has been described as a provider-led system. What is frequently neglected is the learner, that is the client or customer of the education and training service. … Learning is a personal experience which can take many forms and can occur in many places. … Nor would anyone question that what they acquire from an education or training process is a personal and selective interpretation of the course which is offered. … If one accepts that the central process with which we are concerned is learning and that learning can take many forms, education and training may be seen as helping to make that possible. … The majority of people are operating in employment, and in life generally, at far below their potential … the country needs to make more effective use of its human resource to remain economically competitive." (Jessup 1991: 3-6)

The N/SVQ framework

The framework for UK competence-based qualifications are National Vocational Qualifications [NVQs] in England and Wales or, in Scotland, they are Scottish Vocational Qualifications [SVQs].

"NVQs and SVQs are based on national standards which describe the expected performance of an individual in a work role. They focus on the required outcomes rather than on the processes or tasks the individual is required to complete. By using outcomes, they can be tied very closely to the industrial and commercial needs of organisations. … NVQs and SVQs are based on the nationally agreed standards of competence. The standards are combined into units of competence. Individuals achieve NVQs and SVQs by accumulating these units. … There are five levels of qualification. The definitions of these are given below:

Level 1 - competence in the performance of a range of varied work activities, most of which may be routine and predictable.

Level 2 - competence in a significant range of varied work activities, performed in a variety of contexts. Some of the activities are complex or non-routine, and there is some individual responsibility or autonomy. Collaboration with others, perhaps through membership of a work group or team, may often be a requirement.

Level 3 - competence in a broad range of varied work activities performed in a wide variety of contexts, most of which are complex and non-routine. There is considerable responsibility, autonomy, and control or guidance of others is often required.

Level 4 - competence in a broad range of complex, technical or professional work activities performed in a wide variety of contexts and with a substantial degree of personal responsibility and autonomy. Responsibility for the work of others and the allocation of resources is often present.