Modularisation Approaches in Initial Vocational Education: Evidence For Policy Convergence in Europe?

Journal of Vocational Education & Training
ISSN: 1363-6820 (Print) 1747-5090 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjve20
Modularisation approaches in Initial Vocational

Education: evidence for policy convergence in
Europe?
Matthias Pilz, Junmin Li, Roy Canning & Sarah Minty
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
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2017.1392994
Published online: 26 Oct 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 8
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjve20
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
Modularisation approaches in Initial Vocational

Education: evidence for policy convergence in Europe?
Matthias Pilza, Junmin Lia, Roy Canningb and Sarah Mintyc
a
Economic and Business Education, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany; bSchool of Education,
University of Stirling, Stirling, UK; cMoray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK
Downloaded by [USB Köln / Medizinische Abteilung] at 02:21 30 October 2017
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

One response to challenges of national vocational training Received 6 June 2016
systems has been a move towards greater flexibility within Accepted 14 July 2017
vocational training systems. This article focuses on an KEYWORDS
investigation of modularisation as a tool for achieving VET and development;
this flexibility. Many European countries have introduced comparative VET; policy
modular forms into their vocational training system. We issues; Vocational Education
investigate whether the global trends set out are producing and Training; standards
policy convergence in modularisation in differing countries.
This study selects seven European countries to make a
detailed analysis and entailed an analysis of each country’s
Initial Vocational Education and Training programmes. The
methodology involved both primary and secondary data
collection. The findings demonstrate policy convergence
that can be attributed to similar challenges at national level.
Modularisation in some countries takes a ‘radical’ form. Other
countries have followed a mixed approach. It is clear that no
two countries have adopted the same form of modularisation,
although some countries have cited common challenges in
the modularisation process.
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).
CONTACT Matthias Pilz matthias.pilz@uni-koeln.de

© 2017 The Vocational Aspect of Education Ltd
2 M. PILZ ET AL.
This article focuses on an in-depth investigation of modularisation as a tool for

achieving greater flexibility. The issue of modularising vocational training systems
has been discussed for many years as a response to the need to tackle the cur-
rent and future challenges that result from issues such as greater differentiation
between trainees in terms of prior knowledge or performance and the need to
operate a flexible training system that is capable of rapid adjustment to technical
and organisational change (Raffe 1992; Sellin 1994). The level of critical debate
around modularisation of Vocational Education and Training (VET) varies from
country to country (see e.g. Pilz 2012; Schlögl and Mayerl 2012, 73–81; Li and Pilz
2017). These national fault lines are not, however, the focus of our study: many
European countries have already introduced modular forms into their vocational
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.
2. Theoretical background

Convergence in VET systems is not a new area: a number of studies consider
the influence of EU trends on national VET systems, for example (Aarkrog and
Jørgensen 2008; Brockmann, Clarke, and Winch 2008b). However, it was central
JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING 3
to our study to build on a more general theoretical basis so as to provide a fuller

picture of the influences involved in actual examples of modularisation. We have,
therefore, used a general policy convergence approach, which considers the extent
to which policy measures in differing countries take similar forms (Knill 2005, 768).
It distinguishes between ‘sigma convergence’ and ‘delta convergence’.
Sigma convergence measures the principal ways that trigger convergence
over time between policy measures in differing countries. The literature on policy
convergence distinguishes between three principal ways of sigma convergence.
The first concerns similar problems and challenges faced by a range of countries,
to which these countries respond independently with similar political measures
(Bennett 1991, 231). The second concerns convergence of policy measures as
a result of international or supranational legislation with which countries are

required to comply. The third and final way relates to policy borrowing between
countries. By sharing their experience, countries implement similar key ideas and
policy measures (Green 1999, 56). Green (1999, 56) stresses, however, that suprana-
tional legislation is of only limited impact on convergence and that in most cases,
the most significant way is that of similar problems and challenges. Policy borrow-
ing is often a by-product of facing similar problems and challenges, so the sigma
convergence investigates the question, why do countries introduce similar policy
measures? Due to the fact that the sigma convergence focuses on the rationales
behind the convergence and not on the reference model of convergence itself, the
definition for modularising used for the sigma convergence is a broad definition.
Modularisation is defined here as the process of dividing a training programme
into units of learning that are bounded in both time and content or alternatively
when modules were developed as single standing units and can be combined into
a group or programme (Pilz 2012, 1999, see below in detail).
Delta convergence investigates the extent to which policy measures in differing
countries are based on the same policy model (Heinze and Knill 2008, 498). This
area requires a reference model, so that the degree of approximation of policy
measures across countries can be accounted for by a single policy model. The
delta convergence investigates the question – to what extent has a reference
model of policy measures been adopted? In contrast to sigma convergence, which
focuses on the rationales, the delta convergence focuses on the policy measure
itself. It investigates the real form of implemented policy compared to the refer-
ence model. This bridges the gap between theory and actual vocational training.
Modularisation is an appropriate reference model but must first be defined more
closely (see below).
The distinction between sigma and delta convergence allows a differentiated
investigation of policy convergence. For example,
The analysis of sigma convergence alone does only partially cover empirical realities
as it does not necessarily address whether policy homogenization is synonymous with
increasing proximity to a dominant policy model. (Heinze and Knill 2008, 498)
4 M. PILZ ET AL.
As our research is driven by the question – is the introduction of modular forms

evidence of policy convergence in Europe? – we need to investigate both types
of convergence.
3. Definition of the reference model of modularisation

Modularisation of (vocational) education and training has been an important pol-
icy development in many European countries over recent years (Cedefop 2015a).
Despite this, definitions remain unclear, as do the differing understandings across
countries of the importance of modularisation (Warwick 1987; Howieson 1994;
Ertl 2002).
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
programme. What is more important is the question of the relationship

between the requirements of the curriculum and the ability of provid-
ers to teach, supervise and assess a given module. Any school, college,
private training organisation or company that has been approved by a
recognised awarding body may offer modules.
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
as apprenticeships and some school-based approaches, at the other end. Use of

this range enables the degree of delta convergence in the modularisation of VET
systems to be investigated.
Figure 1 offers a model in which the concept of modularisation and an example
of the traditional holistic approach to VET are extreme types of vocational educa-
tion with a continuum of mixed concepts in between.
Using the framework outlined in Figure 1, we categorised a range of actually
occurring forms of modularisation across selected countries.
4. Selected countries and their experience of modularisation

The study is restricted to European Union (EU) countries for two reasons. First, their
geographical proximity and the high level of economic and political cooperation
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.
In the ‘state-regulated bureaucratic’ model, the vocational training is planned,

organised and overseen by the state. France is an example of this model. In the
‘dual-corporatist’ model, finally, responsibility for the training system is shared
between the state and the private sector. Parts of the Danish system are based
on this model, for example: training takes place partly in vocational schools and
partly within companies (Cedefop ReferNet Denmark 2014).
We therefore selected seven countries: Austria, Denmark, England, Finland,
France, Hungary and Poland. We are unable here to enter into the detail of indi-
vidual national frameworks or the VET system in each country. The study has been
informed by Greinert’s basic types (2004), Busemeyer and Trampusch’s variety of
skill formation systems (2012) and Pilz (2016) typology of VET systems. Brought
together these highlight the dominant models of the VET systems in the relevant
countries. We have to keep in mind that the typology is an ideal type, and that
some programmes inside a national system cannot fully be represented by an
ideal type. Examples of how this can happen are given for England (Keep 2006)
and for Austria (Cedefop ReferNet Austria 2012). Greinert’s basic types (2004) and
Busemeyer and Trampusch’s variety of skill formation systems (2012) show that
Finland, France, Hungary and Poland form part of the state-regulated model of
skill formation (Cedefop 2008, 2015b; Stenström and Virolainen 2014). As set out
above, England fits within the market economy model (Greinert 2004) or liberal
skill formation (Busemeyer and Trampusch 2012; Pilz 2016), while Austria and
Denmark can be allocated to the dual system (Greinert 2004) or collective skill for-
mation (Busemeyer and Trampusch 2012; Cedefop ReferNet Austria 2012; Cedefop
ReferNet Denmark 2014).
For what follows, the experience a specific country already has with the pro-
cess of modularisation is of central importance. Our analysis shows that in some
countries, modular elements were introduced into vocational training back in the
1970s, while in others the process is much more recent.
France, Denmark and England can be considered early adopters of modularisa-
tion forms. The origins of modular Initial Vocational Education and Training (IVET)
qualifications in these countries can be traced back to the late 1970s/early 1980s.
In France, the first step towards modularisation of vocational training was taken
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,
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.
5. Research methodology

Our central focus was IVET. The study entailed a detailed analysis of each country’s
IVET programmes and qualifications. Our methodology involved both primary
and secondary data collection. The data were collected up to and including 2013.
To investigate delta convergence – that is the difference in form of modular-
isation adopted in the selected countries, compared to the reference model –
we accessed secondary data. Secondary data collection involved hermeneutical
analysis of existing literature and documentation within each country to identify
current patterns of modularisation approaches to VET qualifications. This included
source documents in the language of the particular country and broader texts that
have contributed to EU or other supranational organisational studies. This litera-
ture was published through recognised channels or else was ‘grey’ literature used
exclusively within the country of origin for policy or curriculum-making purposes.
Examples of literature included: academic literature pertaining to the modulari-
sation of VET; Cedefop monographs relating to VET systems in the participating
countries; descriptions of national educational systems provided in the Eurydice
database; thematic overviews and/or educational policy analyses provided by the
OECD; government and policy documents published in the participating countries
(including those relating to qualification structures); research and evaluation mate-
rial conducted in participating countries; additional background and statistical
information available on government and relevant sectoral associations’ websites.
8 M. PILZ ET AL.
The search period concentrated on information available from the beginning of

the new millennium onwards. The findings of the secondary data collection were
distributed along the modularisation continuum (see Figure 1).
In allocating modular VET systems to a typology of forms of modularisation,
we used the continuum between a ‘radical concept of modularisation’ and ‘tra-
ditional holistic vocational training programmes’ depicted in Figure 1. Each of
the five dimensions set out above was rated in line with one of three character-
istics: ‘Strongly modular approach’, ‘Strongly traditional holistic approach’ and a
combined approach called ‘mixed concept’. The data generated on the VET pro-
grammes in the individual countries surveyed were structured according to the
five dimensions, with one characteristic attributed to each dimension. The allo-
cation of the VET systems considered here to be a radical form of modularisation,

traditional holistic training or a combined approach is contingent on which char-
acteristic dominates overall. In formal terms, the five dimensions were given the
same weighting, but different characteristics may dominate, depending on the
specific national context. This was taken into account when aggregating individual
data on programmes and their overall assessment. The findings of the analysis are
described in detail below in Section 6.2.
To facilitate investigation of sigma convergence, the methodological approach
was widened. Sigma convergence involves identifying the principal ways of intro-
ducing modular forms. This can be done by identifying the rationales involved in
the introduction of modularisation.
This investigation required not only documentary analysis but also background
knowledge of the institutions involved since in some cases, these rationales are not
publicly documented. We were also able to use the survey to ascertain whether
the documented characteristics had actually been implemented in practice and
the programmes in existence were genuinely modular.
This study therefore also involved the collection of primary data via telephone
interviews with experts from each country (including key decision-makers and
academics in the field). Our contacts were based on both existing networks and
speculative contact with experts/organisations that were found during the course
of the literature searches. Telephone interviews were based on a semi-structured
questionnaire. The questionnaire and, in some cases, draft country reports were
sent by email to contacts for comment prior to telephone conversations. In a num-
ber of instances, contacts indicated they would prefer to respond to queries by
email rather than by telephone (a combination of both time and language factors).
Thus, some experts sent written responses in the place of telephone conversations.
In total, a minimum of three experts in each country contributed to this stage of
the research.
6. Research findings

We shall begin by setting out the principal processes involved in introducing
modularisation into vocational training systems in the selected countries before
describing the model of modularisation adopted in each country.
6.1. Rationales involved in introducing modularisation
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
based on the rationales are identified.

The rationales behind the general move towards the introduction of modulari-
sation amongst the countries in this study are varied. However, it is possible to see
the emergence of several rationales occurring across multiple countries.
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.
will be cost-effective. In Austria, it provides an opportunity to offer in-depth study

in a specialised area, allowing for the streamlining of occupational specifications,
and is intended to make the provision of training more adaptable and to help
tackle the dwindling supply of apprenticeships (Archan 2005; Pilz 2012).
6.1.2. Targeting the need of specific student groups

Greater flexibility is also intended to benefit students themselves, in that a more
flexible system enables them to choose the elements of programme which appeal/
are of interest to them. In Poland, the increasingly flexible and modularised system
was described by one expert as a chance to create individual learning pathway
for students.
A number of countries have set national targets to increase the proportion

of students completing VET qualifications. In Hungary, the government has set
targets to increase participation in vocational schools by 35% and improve its low
status. Although the aims to reduce dropout rates and increase participation have
been important rationales for modularising the IVET system in many countries,
recent research in Denmark has shown that drop-out rates have in fact increased
(Danish Ministry of Education 2008; Cedefop ReferNet Denmark 2014) and enrol-
ment in IVET has decreased in recent years, despite the introduction of modular
qualifications. Denmark is unusual in that the modular qualifications were intro-
duced with inclusive aims in mind (Schreier et al. 2009), but resulted in making
the system harder to navigate for the weaker students which it intended to attract
to VET. Research with similar findings was also conducted in Finland. Finland has
a range of modular pre-vocational and alternative VET programmes targeted at
unemployed young people, ‘weaker’ students, immigrants and the disabled.
In countries where VET traditionally has a lower status than general education
(England and Hungary), reforms in mainstream VET could be seen as being aimed
at meeting the needs of the specific groups of young people who access these
programmes, particularly if general education courses have not been modular-
ised. Literature from Hungary points to the need to provide VET opportunities
for its Roma population, which makes up a large proportion of vocational school
learners and has high levels of drop out. The aims most frequently cited for the
introduction of modularisation do tend to indicate that the target market for
such programmes would be those young people in need of additional support.
Frequently, improved career guidance structures have been introduced alongside
new modular systems, which again is an indication of the participants requiring
extra input. In France, a number of modular programmes between the 1970s and
1990s were targeted at specific groups (disadvantaged young people, young peo-
ple with no school-leaving qualifications, the unemployed, and so on) (Ertl 2002,
175). The Individual Training Credit (CFI) system introduced in 1989 was aimed at
those aged 16–25 who were unemployed and had no formal school leaving qual-
ifications, and enabled them to complete a series of cumulative, discrete and indi-
vidually certified modules. In line with ideas to simplify educational programmes
to recognise learning, and to strengthen European mobility, newer tendencies

in modularising French IVET (a pilot project as part of the Brevet de Technicien
Suprérieur-Diplomas) no longer focus on special target groups alone (Ministère
de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche 2012).
6.1.3. Complying to EU policies to promote mobility within the EU

The notion of credit accumulation and transfer has been mentioned as a specific
force in modularisation and particularly in the newer EU countries. The establish-
ment of a national qualifications framework linked to the European Qualification
Framework (EQF) has gone hand in hand with a modernised VET system. The move
to modular forms is also intended to assist in creating integrated vocational sys-
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.
6.1.4. The principle ways of sigma convergence based on the rationales

In four countries, modular elements were introduced into the vocational training
programme to respond to the rapidly changing labour market needs.
In six of the countries investigated, the aim of introducing modular forms within
the VET system was to better meet the needs of apprentices. It is striking that
supranational rationales for modularisation – specifically, EU policy on greater
European mobility – were of relevance only in Hungary and Poland as newer EU
member states. These two countries were the only ones to base their introduction
of modular forms on international or supranational legislation.
The policy borrowing approach was not evident in any of the countries inves-
tigated. The findings therefore show that there is a level of sigma convergence
between the countries in terms of their response to similar issues and concerns.
6.2. Forms of modularisation in the selected countries
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.
6.2.1. ‘Radical’ forms of modularisation

The modular approaches in Denmark, England, Finland and Hungary can be found
at the ‘radical’ end of the spectrum.

For the purposes of this analysis, we have concentrated only on the modular-
ised Basic Course of the IVET Technical and Commercial programmes in Denmark.
The Main Course of these programmes returns to the more traditional ‘alternance’
apprenticeship model, and is not modularised.
In terms of learning content, the Danish Basic Course of the IVET Technical and
Commercial programmes is quite radical in that it takes a student-centred approach,
and is flexible both in terms of time and content (Cedefop ReferNet Denmark 2014).
There is no requirement for modules to be followed sequentially. Students are able
to learn in different ways, and in different sequences, but what they are required to
achieve remains the same irrespective of how they learn. The modularised form in
the school-based Basic programmes is in line with an output-orientation concept,
whereby students have time to try out different modules and to decide which
vocational path appeals most to them (Danish Ministry for Children, Education and
Gender Equality 2016). Qualifications stress the result of a learning process rather
than length or content of programmes (Danish Evaluation Institute 2011). The
system is increasingly focused upon learning outcomes or competence objectives
(Jensen and Buch 2008; Danish Evaluation Institute 2011). However, there is some
debate as to how fully the output model has been embraced. The Basic Course of
the IVET Technical and Commercial programmes in Denmark also leans towards
the radical form of modularisation in terms of certification and movement in and
out of training schemes. Competences are defined on an individual basis, with
both students and their tutors drawing up and evaluating objectives in the per-
sonal education plan (Schreier et al. 2009). Students are tested between modules
(mainly formatively) to ensure they have achieved the competences described.
Partial, or ‘stepped’, qualifications known as trin are generally split in two and are
available on some IVET programmes. Drawn up by trade committees and targeted
mainly at weaker students, they allow trainees to obtain part qualifications which
count towards a complete qualification which they can complete at a later date.
In practice, the majority of trainees tend to complete the full qualification, partly
as a result of employers attaching less value to stepped qualifications (Schreier
et al. 2009), and amid concern from trade unions that they undermine the value
of skilled workers’ qualifications (Juul and Jørgensen 2011). As a result, stepped

qualifications have been abandoned in some VET programmes (ibid.). Danish VET
programmes are provided mainly by vocational colleges and companies. While
the Basic Course of the IVET Technical and Commercial programmes in Denmark
includes aspects of both radical forms of modularisation and traditional, ‘holistic’,
training, it leans more towards the radical end of the spectrum.
All IVET qualifications in Finland are modular in approach. However, in terms
of learning content, Finland’s IVET qualifications represent a combination of
both models. CIMO (2010) point to the prominent features of Finnish VET qual-
ifications, in that they are broad, prepare learners for more than one profession
and provide students with a degree of choice and individualisation in designing
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.
enable vocational trainees to access a greater choice of modules. Finland’s IVET

qualifications lean towards a more radical concept of modularisation.
In England, all IVET group awards are now composed of modules. Learning
content is a combination of both models, in that it is based on units within quali-
fications which can be combined as core and optional elements and have credits
attached according to learning outcomes. Although modularised, they are linked
to an overarching qualification structure devised by Ofqual and form a coherent
whole, often based upon National Occupational Standards. The competence-based
principles underpinning the qualifications are output oriented and outcome based.
They are focused on achieving the standards required in employment or prepar-
ing learners in terms of employability. This outcome focus can, in pedagogical
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
and complementary qualifications, which can be gained by completing a set of

modules, and therefore allows flexibility and progression. Partial qualifications are
offered mainly by the local special needs vocational schools for those who have
not completed a full VET programme but who have achieved a prescribed number
of modules. Training providers include (upper) secondary, post-secondary and
higher education, although young people can also obtain their first vocational
qualification in adult training (Cedefop ReferNet Hungary 2013). Hungary can be
said to represent a more radical form of modularisation.
6.2.2. Traditional ‘holistic’ training

At the opposite end of the spectrum are Austria’s modular VET programmes, which
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.
6.2.3. The mixed approach: combination of both forms

France’s and Poland’s modular approaches display a combination of both radical
forms of modularisation and more traditional ‘holistic’ training.
France can be said to have a modular-based Diploma system (Malicot 2008, 9).
Only specific parts of the Brevet de technicien supérieur (BTS) diplomas (just one
of a range of IVET qualifications available in France) are fully modularised. Since
2011, 5 BTS diplomas out of a total of 88 have been modularised within a four-year
pilot project (Kéradec 2011, 70).
In terms of learning content, the clustering of reference frameworks into differ-
ent sections or ‘units’ may create the vision of a modularised system. However, the
completion of each individual unit is obligatory and the trainees are not free, either
in the flexible combination of the different units or in their sequential arrangement

(Malicot 2008, 8). These discrete units, which form part of the reference framework
for a specific vocational qualification, are highly standardised and include con-
crete descriptions of the performance criteria to be achieved and detailed exam-
ination regulations (Académie de Toulouse 2002, 5; Cedefop 2015b). Although
the intention of the reference frameworks was to manage the process of skills
acquisition independently of specific input by focusing on the expected learning
outcomes, this outcome orientation is actually not fully realised. One reason for
this is that the state is responsible for approving the reference frameworks while,
at the same time, it functions also as a training provider (Winterton 2012). The cer-
tification framework is developed from the ‘standards of occupation or activity’. It
sets out a grid of competences that are assessed and certified as part of the award
(Brockmann et al. 2008a) and is sub-divided into different certification units. Each
unit is described in outcome terms and is based upon three descriptors: capaci-
ties, skills and knowledge (Project EQF Predict 2009; 1ff.). Movement in and out of
training schemes is possible to an extent; in IVET, units can be accumulated over
time until graduation (in general within the limit of maximum five years of accu-
mulation) (ibid., 6). Nevertheless, the aim for trainees is always to work towards the
full state-recognised award. In contrast, the reference frameworks play a major role
in the recognition of prior learning in continuing VET, allowing for the recognition
of social and vocational competences via the means of the trainees’ dossier. In
France, a holistic concept of training is followed. The state is the only body that is
responsible for approving the reference frameworks and for delivering diplomas.
Furthermore, the state is the main training provider (e.g. within the vocational
full-time schools) (Winterton 2012; Brockmann et al. 2008a; Cedefop 2015b, 3).
France’s modular approach represents a combination of both models.
In Poland, where modularisation is currently applied only to part of the IVET
system, there are plans to extend this to the whole system. It is currently up to local
education providers and schools as to whether they adopt modular curricula pro-
grammes in IVET, and as such modular forms were in place in only 30% of schools
in 2008 (Cedefop ReferNet Poland 2010; Bednarczyk 2012). How learning content
is organised is at the discretion of schools and head teachers who decide whether
to adopt modules or not. However, the system remains somewhat centralised,

with the Minister of National Education for Poland responsible for developing and
carrying out national educational policy, setting the core curricula for general and
vocational education and approving the textbooks used. The National Research
Institute note that although modularisation is not a new concept in Poland and
educational reform allows the vocational schools to develop their own curricula
(approved by the MEN), schools are free to choose for each occupation any cur-
riculum from the list (Cedefop ReferNet Poland 2010), and many schools continue
to use centrally approved programmes. The flexible structures of the modular
programmes allow them to be easily updated and to adjust and replace modules
and modular units according to the needs of individual learners and within the
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.
6.2.4. The extent of delta convergence based on the investigated

modularisation forms
The findings illustrate major differences in the modularisation form adopted by
the selected countries, particularly in specific details (see Table 1).
It is clear that no two countries have adopted exactly the same form of
modularisation.
For example, vocational training programmes in both Finland and Denmark
may be described as combined forms, but their modular VET systems differ on
18 M. PILZ ET AL.
Table 1. Spectrum of VET modularisation in the selected countries.

‘Example of
traditional holistic
training’ such as
Strongly applicable Strongly applicable apprenticeships
Radical concept of of the modular Combination of both of the traditional and other, school-
modularisation approach approaches holistic approach based approaches
Restriction of learn- DK, HU AT, EN, FI, FR, PL Unified programme
ing content and/ of vocational
or qualifications, education, linear
flexible combina- structure of learn-
tion of different ing contents
modules
Output-orientation EN, HU, PL DK, FI, FR AT Strong link between
the learning
process and the

learning goal
Certification of each DK, EN, FI, FR, HU, AT Certification after
module PL the successful
completion of the
end assessment
Unrestricted DK, EN, FI, FR, HU PL AT No certified exit
entrance and exit opportunities
opportunities by by participants
participants before passing
the final assess-
ments
Unrestricted options FI, HU EN, DK AT, FR, PL Options to offer
to offer all types vocational
of modules by all education only by
kinds of schools special training
and training and learning
providers providers
Source: authors’ own representation.
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.
Table 2. Rationales involved in introducing modularisation in vocational training.

Meeting changing labour
market needs and to pro- Complying with EU policies
mote links with the labour Targeting the needs of on promoting mobility
Country market specific student groups within the EU
England x x
Finland x x
Denmark x
Poland x x
Austria x
Hungary x x x
France x
Note: X: Rationale for introducing modularisation.
Source: authors’ own representation.
Table 2 gives an overview of the findings in relation to sigma convergence. The

columns marked with an ‘X’ show the rationales each country had for introducing
modularisation.
With regard to delta convergence, modular training programmes in some coun-
tries take a markedly ‘radical’ form, while only some of the aspects of the concept
have been integrated into the traditional training model in others. Training pro-
grammes in yet other countries have followed a combined approach (see Figure 2).
It is clear that no delta convergence was evident in the survey. None of the
investigated countries have adopted the theoretical concept of radical modu-
larisation explained above nor do two countries have exactly the same form of
modularisation (see Figure 2). Moreover, some countries cite the same principal
approaches to the modularisation process. For example, Austria, Finland, Hungary
and England introduced modular forms across training programmes to achieve
greater coordination between their vocational training system and the private
sector (see Table 2). However, as Figure 2 shows, these countries can be found
right across the spectrum between ‘radical’ modularisation and the traditional
‘holistic’ model of vocational training. The same drivers do not produce identical
forms of modularisation in these countries, so our findings do not demonstrate
delta convergence.
The analysis of the findings from this research suggests that the investigated
countries have a common need to modularise their IVET systems. But the countries
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Howieson, C. 1994. “Modularisation in Vocational Education and Training.” In The International

Encyclopedia of Education, edited by T. Husén and N. T. Postlethwaite, 3890–3896. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Jensen, F., and S. Buch. 2008. Bricklaying Country Report Denmark (Leonardo da Vinci Project
“Bricklayer”). Copenhague: 3F. http://www.fiec.eu/en/cust/documentview.aspx?UID=
f300de18-6b2e-4654-8477-17b1db1e37b3.
Juul, I., and C. H. Jørgensen. 2011. “Challenges for the Dual System and Occupational Self-
governance in Denmark.” Journal of Vocational Education and Training 63 (3): 289–303.
Keep, E. 2006. “State Control of the English Education and Training System: Paying with the
Biggest Train Set in the World.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training 58 (1): 47–64.
Kéradec, H. 2011. “La modularisation en BTS.” [The Modularisation of the Advanced Technical
Diploma.] Économie Et Management 141: 70–74.
Knill, C. 2005. “Introduction: Cross-National Policy Convergence: Concepts, Approaches and

Explanatory Factors.” Journal of European Public Policy 12 (5): 764–774.
Knill, C., and A. Lenschow. 1998. “Coping with Europe: The Implementation of EU Environmental
Policy and Administrative Traditions in Britain and Germany.” Journal of European Public Policy
5 (4): 595–614.
Kurek, S., and T. Rachwal. 2012. “Vocational Education and Training in Poland during Economic
Transition.” In The Future of Vocational Education and Training in a Changing World, edited by
M. Pilz, 321–340. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Kutscha, G. 2003. “General Education and Initial Vocational Training in Germany? The ‘Flexicurity
Route’ of Modernization under Aspects of Flexibility, Transferability and Mobility.” In Milestones
of Vocational Education and Occupational Education and Training – Vol. 2: Institutional
Perspectives of Vocational and Occupational Education and Training, edited by F. Achtenhagen
and E. G. John, 17–40. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.
Lenschow, A., D. Liefferink, and S. Veenman. 2005. “When the Birds Sing. A Framework for
Analyzing Domestic Factors behind Policy Convergence.” Journal of European Public Policy
12 (5): 797–816.
Li, J., and M. Pilz. 2017. “Modularisation in the German VET System: A Study of Policy
Implementation.” Journal of Education and Work 30 (5): 471–485.
Malicot, M. 2008. “Modularisation, Certification, Formation.” CPC Info 47: 7–9.
Ministère de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseigement supérieur et de la recherche. 2012. La
rénovation des sections des techniciens supérieurs [Renovation of the Sections of Senior
Technicians]. http://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid59110/la-renovation-des-
sections-de-techniciens-superieurs.html.
Nijhof, W. J., A. Heikkinen, and L. F. M. Nieuwenhuis, eds. 2002. Shaping Flexibility in Vocational
Education and Training. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Nijhof, W. J., and J. Streumer. 1994. “Flexibility in Vocational Education and Training: An
Introduction.” In Flexibility and Training in Vocational Education, edited by W. J. Nijhof and J.
Streumer, 1–12. Ultrecht: Lemma.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development) 1999. Thematic Review of
Transition from Initial Education to Working Life: Finland: Country Note: November 1999. http://
www.oecd.org/education/country-studies/1908369.pdf.
Ofqual (Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation) 2015. After the QCF: A New
Qualifications Framework: Decisions on Conditions and Guidance for the Regulated Qualifications
Framework (RQF). https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/461401/after-the-qcf-a-new-qualifications-framework-decisions-on-conditions-
and-guidance-for-the-rqf.pdf.
Pilz, M. 1999. Modulare Strukturen in der beruflichen Bildung – eine Alternative für Deutschland?
Eine explorative Studie am Beispiel des schottischen Modulsystems [Modular Structures in the
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
Approach.” Vocations and Learning 9 (3): 295–314.

Project EQF Predict. 2009. The French ‘Reférentiel’ (Standard). http://www.eqf-support.eu/
fileadmin/user_upload/files/EQFpredict_bestpractice_FR.pdf.
Raffe, D., ed. 1992. Modularisation in Initial Vocational Training: Recent Developments in Six
European Countries. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Raffe, D. 1994. “Modular Strategies for Overcoming Academic/Vocational Divisions: Issues Arising
from the Scottish Experience.” Journal of Education Policy 9 (2): 141–154.
Raffe, D. 1998. “Does Learning Begin at Home? The Use of `Home International’ Comparisons in
UK Policy Making.” Journal of Education Policy 13 (5): 591–602.
Raggatt, P., and S. Williams. 1999. Government, Markets and Vocational Qualifications: An Anatomy
of Policy. London: Falmer Press.
Rasmussen, L. B. 1998. “A Cultural Approach to Learning." In Lernen und Innovationen in
Industriekulturen [Learning and Innovation in Industrial Crops], edited by G. Laske, 33–46.
Bremen: Dornat.
Sahlberg, P. 2006. “Raising the Bar: How Finland Responds to the Twin Challenge of Secondary
Education.” Profesorado. Revista de curriculum y formacion del profesorado 10 (1): 1–26. https://
www.ugr.es/~recfpro/rev101ART4ing.pdf.
Schlögl, P., and M. Mayerl. 2012. Neue Wege beruflicher Bildung zur Sicherung lebensbegleitender
Beschäftigungsfähigkeit: Ein österreichisches Berufsbildungsdelphi [New Pathways of the
Vocational Education to Unsure the Life-long Employability: An Austrian Vocational
Educational Delphi]. Wien, Berlin: LIT.
Schreier, C., G. Heidegger, K. de Rick, P. Cort, N. Patiniotis, T. Asimakou, and E. Figueira. 2009.
Inclusive Modules: Moving Young People on. Module. Overview of VET in Germany, Belgium,
Denmark, Greece, Portugal, Romania and United Kingdom. http://www.adam-europe.eu/
prj/3800/prj/Common_Report_I_Overview.pdf.
Sellin, B. 1994. Vocational Training in Europe: Towards a Modular Form? Discussion Paper. Cedefop
Panorama Series. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://gc21.giz.
de/ibt/en/usr/modules/gc21/ws-tvet-magdeburg-portal/info/ibt/download/VET_in_Europe-
Towards_a_modular_form.pdf.
Stenström, M.-L., and L. Leino. 2009. “The Finnish Case of Recognition in Initial Vocational
Education and Training.” In Accreditation of Vocational Learning Outcomes: Perspectives for
a European Transfer, edited by R. Tutschner, W. Wittig, and J. Rami, 34–55. Bremen: Institut
Technik und Bildung (ITB).
Stenström, M.-L., and M. Virolainen. 2014. The Current State and Challenges of Vocational Education
and Training in Finnland. Roskilde: Roskilde University.
Symela, K., L. Łopacińska, N. Lloyd, M. Jacyniuk-Lloyd, N. A. Khan, E. De Angelis, K. De Angelis,
et al. 2007. Modular Vocational Education and Training Examples of Good Practice in Europe.
26 M. PILZ ET AL.
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.
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.

Modularisation Approaches in Initial Vocational Education: Evidence For Policy Convergence in Europe?

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Modularisation Approaches in Initial Vocational Education: Evidence For Policy Convergence in Europe?

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Vocational Education & Training

ISSN: 1363-6820 (Print) 1747-5090 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjve20

Modularisation approaches in Initial Vocational

Matthias Pilz, Junmin Li, Roy Canning & Sarah Minty

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2017.1392994

Published online: 26 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Modularisation approaches in Initial Vocational

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Matthias Pilz matthias.pilz@uni-koeln.de

This article focuses on an in-depth investigation of modularisation as a tool for

2. Theoretical background

to our study to build on a more general theoretical basis so as to provide a fuller

a result of international or supranational legislation with which countries are

As our research is driven by the question – is the introduction of modular forms

3. Definition of the reference model of modularisation

programme. What is more important is the question of the relationship

as apprenticeships and some school-based approaches, at the other end. Use of

4. Selected countries and their experience of modularisation

In the ‘state-regulated bureaucratic’ model, the vocational training is planned,

5. Research methodology

The search period concentrated on information available from the beginning of

cation of the VET systems considered here to be a radical form of modularisation,

6. Research findings

6.1. Rationales involved in introducing modularisation

based on the rationales are identified.

will be cost-effective. In Austria, it provides an opportunity to offer in-depth study

6.1.2. Targeting the need of specific student groups

A number of countries have set national targets to increase the proportion

to recognise learning, and to strengthen European mobility, newer tendencies

6.1.3. Complying to EU policies to promote mobility within the EU

6.1.4. The principle ways of sigma convergence based on the rationales

6.2. Forms of modularisation in the selected countries

6.2.1. ‘Radical’ forms of modularisation

at the ‘radical’ end of the spectrum.

of skilled workers’ qualifications (Juul and Jørgensen 2011). As a result, stepped

enable vocational trainees to access a greater choice of modules. Finland’s IVET

and complementary qualifications, which can be gained by completing a set of

6.2.2. Traditional ‘holistic’ training

6.2.3. The mixed approach: combination of both forms

in the flexible combination of the different units or in their sequential arrangement

to adopt modules or not. However, the system remains somewhat centralised,

6.2.4. The extent of delta convergence based on the investigated

Table 1. Spectrum of VET modularisation in the selected countries.

process and the

Table 2. Rationales involved in introducing modularisation in vocational training.

Table 2 gives an overview of the findings in relation to sigma convergence. The

Howieson, C. 1994. “Modularisation in Vocational Education and Training.” In The International

Knill, C. 2005. “Introduction: Cross-National Policy Convergence: Concepts, Approaches and

Approach.” Vocations and Learning 9 (3): 295–314.

Вам также может понравиться