9027

Work-based trainers in the European community: their roles and development needs

Karen Evans, Diana Holland and Alan Brown, University of Surrey

This paper is based on a recent European Community-wide study designed to ‘profile’ workplace trainers and to compare arrangements for their training and development in six Member States: Federal Republic of Germany, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

Successive meetings of Government representatives of the EC Member States have affirmed the view that learning in the workplace can and should play a major role in post-compulsory education and training. Policy initiatives arising from this view have often failed adequately to consider the population of workplace trainers likely to be involved in the delivery of learning programmes, in terms of their roles, qualifications and experience, training and career development needs.[1]

Six research teams co-operated, through an international working group, in carrying out studies of workplace trainers in their respective countries. The studies were designed to explore the roles, skills and current provision for trainers, focusing particularly on trainers of young people and medium-sized companies.

Table 1: methods used by the national teams

Methods

/ FRG / France / Greece / UK / Ireland / Italy
Documentation /  /  / - /  / - / -
Sample of firms studied / 22 / 8 / 44 / 25 / 65 / -
Interviews: ‘key persons’ /  /  /  /  /  / 
Questionnaire survey / - / ()
limited /  / ()
Assoc. study /  / 

The authors, originally part of the team responsible for the UK study, were commissioned in 1989 to compare and synthesise findings emerging from the six member states.[2]

Findings

Work-based trainers

The UK research[3] clearly identified 3 levels of trainer responsibilities, which were also in evidence in the reports of the other member states involved in the study:

1.Managers of training are generally responsible for the training programme. Many have personnel/management duties in addition to their training role.

2.Supervisory trainers are generally departmental or section heads, or ‘team leaders’. They have part-time responsibilities both for organising and running the training of young people.

3.Worker trainers provide the ‘on-the-job’ training, particularly in Youth Training programmes based on the alternance principle (France: Tuteur Operationnel) (Italy: Affiancatori).

These findings reflect the emergence of training hierarchies consequent upon formalisation of training. Positioning of agents of training to meet the needs of new management strategies rather than manifest needs of workers was observed in several of the national studies.[4]

‘Training of trainer’ arrangements

The UK research highlighted the need for greater national co-ordination and recognition of ‘training for training’ generally, and of incompany trainers of young people, in particular. Comparison with the other participating member states shows that only where there is national co-ordination and accreditation for trainer training’ does it have a recognised and consistently high status.

Similarly, the research from the 6 countries demonstrates a tendency for the training programme aims and the training curriculum to be more limited where there is no national co-ordination of either training or accreditation. This short extract from the report on the situation in Italy, where there is no national co-ordination, illustrates the point:

In-company trainers are seldom offered the opportunity for their own training, particularly in teaching methods and techniques, although it is fairly common for them to go on technical/specialist courses, usually linked with their normal occupational role rather then than their role as trainers.[5]

There was evidence in all countries, that some courses described as trainer training’ were in fact more directly concerned with ‘person management’ skills, ‘team-working’ and ‘motivation’, than with ‘educational methods’ and ‘training process skills’.

A number of differences between the systems, could be identified. Compared with the Federal Republic of Germany (and certain aspects of the French system), the UK provision of trainer training would appear to lack status and central co-ordination and recognition. On the other hand, certain aspects of trainer training within the UK would seem to be meeting some needs identified as unmet in the systems of the other countries. Specifically, the development of Open Learning and Distance Learning packages, the Accredited Training Centre system, and the frameworks and accreditation associated with Industrial Training Organisations (and in particular with Industrial Training Boards), would appear to be important initiatives in a European context.

The need to improve the status of training for trainers of young people, was highlighted by all countries, except the Federal Republic of Germany, where ‘trainer training’ already has national status and recognition for formal trainers[6]. Reference was also made to the need to enhance the status of trainers themselves, and the need for financial and other forms of recognition.

Recommendations regarding the Trainer Training Programme and Curriculum were included by all participating countries. None of the countries surveyed were satisfied with the current provision and recommendations were closely aligned:

  • External incentives, guidance, advice and resourcing are needed for companies training young people
  • Designate providers, such as the Accredited Training Centres, need adequate resourcing, both to publicise their facilities, and to meet the wide range of training needs identified
  • The roles played by all social partners in developing trainer training need to be recognised. The particular role of trade union officials and representatives needs recognition, as well as that of employer representatives.
  • Credible forms of accreditation should be developed
  • Course programmes and the Curriculum for trainers of young people need to cover more adequately the training and support skills they are required to provide; in particular, greater concentration on the training process and associated skills and methods; alternance and the links between on-and-off-the-job training; issues affecting young workers and their training, and skills in relating to young people in the workplace/training context.

A number of recommendations also emphasised, as the UK research did, the need for a range of training opportunities and types of training to be made available including self-directed training and ‘open learning’ opportunities.

The need for specific training advice and counselling services was identified, to ensure that trainers are supported in making their own applications for appropriate training.

The importance of expanding and upgrading provision for Worker Trainers and Supervisory Trainers, alongside the more widespread and highly developed training for Managers of Training, was emphasised. In turn, these recommendations had direct implications for the overall training programme and curriculum.

A wide range of recommendations about the development of training for trainers were put forward. Two specific areas were highlighted:

1.The development of a Charter for Training of Work-Based Trainers

2.The need for the development of A European Dimension to Initiatives for Training Trainers

1. A charter for work-based trainers

The French ‘Charte du Tutorat’, which is currently being developed in the construction industry and the public sector, aims to raise the status of both the supervisory trainer and worker trainer roles, alongside the training of these trainers. As well as outlining the principles of alternance’ training and its operation, the charter aims to show the benefits of training’ and ‘training for training’ to all involved:

An approach based on a ‘system of benefits’ for the enterprises could encourage them to see the training philosophy as being in harmony with their philosophy for the production of goods and services, including the development processes of salaried workers in a tutorship situation.[7]

Definitions relating to trainers in the legislative framework in the Federal Republic of Germany may also be useful in the development of a Charter for Trainers of Young People. It is clear that the legal requirement to have undergone trainer training plays a very significant role in ensuring a high status for such training in West German Industry. It also provides for a context in which such a system can be monitored through representative structures in the workplace:

The Works’ Council, ... has the right to protest against the appointment of a person entrusted with the implementation of vocational education in the firm ... if this person does not have the personal and technical aptitude for training functions or neglects his duties.[8]

In this way, the legal requirement to provide ‘trained’ trainers does not simply rely on the presence of specific qualifications; the assessment of competence is allocated to all social partners through the works council.

The Greek research specially emphasised the very ‘positive effect on labour relations’ where companies had taken the initiative in jointly developing training programmes at company level. Whilst recognising the important role to be played by legislation and national coordination through government action, the Greek research pointed to the importance of local agreements between employers and trade unions operating alongside this framework:

no solution will be effective if it is conceived, formulated and implemented by persons outside the general environment of an enterprise.[9]

2. A European dimension to initiatives for training trainers

The need was identified for information, research, good practice and accreditation of trainer training to be developed throughout Europe. Such a European framework would be able to stimulate initiatives on a national and sectoral basis, as well as within individual enterprises, by raising the profile and organisation of trainer training. Specifically, the research from the Federal Republic of Germany referred to a A European Training Passport.

Accreditation

The six countries covered by the research all have different systems of accreditation for trainer training, with different levels of recognition and status attached to the training.

The Federal Republic of Germany, with its highly developed system of accreditation required for certain trainer positions, can offer a useful example of nationally-recognised accreditation. Another interesting feature of the German system is its continuity with youth training. That is, the ‘working masters’ will be expected to help youth workers achieve full occupational competence. However, the completion of the apprenticeship will not signify this. Even further technical experience and advancement will not suffice. To achieve master status individuals have to demonstrate a training mastery as well as a technical one. In the light of widespread moves towards ‘competence-based’ qualifications throughout Europe as well as the single European Act itself, the development of European standard accreditation of trainer training is a key issue for all member states.

Training advice and counselling service

A key recommendation from a number of participating countries, the establishing of independent Training Advice and Counselling Services would appear to be an other area where development on a European basis could be very effective.

In particular, such a service would need to ensure the pendulum swings away from those who see guidance as directive, with the emphasis upon information giving, and towards those who view guidance as a learner-centred activity with the advisor operating as a facilitator rather than adopting an ‘expert’ role. Ways of fostering learner empowerment through the development of, for example, a learning outcomes approach to advice and guidance will need to be given particular attention.

[1] CEDEFOP (1983) Professional situation and training of trainers in the member states of the European Communities. Berlin: