Modularization in Vocational Education and Training

H Ertl and G Hayward, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Modularization is regarded as one of the main approaches to create increased flexibility in vocational education and training (VET). Flexibility of structures, contents, aims, and outcomes in VET is, in turn, a major objective of current modernization processes in many countries globally. The main reasons for this period of change in VET are the economic and social megatrends that are influencing economies and consequentially training systems in similar ways worldwide. While these megatrends have certainly been influential in terms of the relevant policy discourse, the extent to which they have actually lead to convergence in training provisions remains to be seen. However, most commentators would agree that megatrends include globalization, internationalization, individualization, new information technology, and the advent of the knowledge economy (Flitner et al., 1999). Particularly in the 1990s, a far-ranging discussion on more flexible training provision as a consequence of the debate on megatrends ensued. Flexibility in the context of this discussion primarily meant the following:
 The responsiveness of training provision to the chang-

discourse, see, e.g., the comments by Pu tz (1997) and Mu nk (1995); for a discussion of the English context, see Hayward and McNicoll, 2007). It is, therefore, perhaps not surprising that evaluations of modular qualification structures often come to rather negative conclusions regarding the potential benefits of modular approaches. These negative assessments range from modularized programs resulting in fragmented and commodified learning to mechanical and instrumental approaches to teaching (teaching to the test) to overassessment resulting in examination burnout (learners) and excessive administrative burdens (teachers) (see, e.g., Hayward and McNicholl, 2007). An analysis of the debate on modularization also shows that the unclear and ambiguous use of the terms module and modularization is widely acknowledged, but still has detrimental effects on both the debate on modularization and its impact on structuring learning processes in VET (cf. Wiegand, 1996a; Heidegger and Schreier, 2006).

Definitions of Modules in Education

On Using a Comparative Approach Defining the nature of modules in education is no straightforward task. A comparison of selected definitions (Ertl, 2001) suggests that there is no generally accepted explanation of what is meant by organizing the teaching/ learning process in modules (Postlethwait, 1985; Schmidt, 1997a; Kloas, 1996, 1997a; European Commission, 2006). Nevertheless, it seems to be generally accepted that any definition can only be valid and appropriate in the normative context within which it has been developed. Therefore, this article focuses on the concepts of modularization developed in two specific national contexts: Germany and England. An important premise for the comparative approach underlying this article is that systems of education and training are embedded in the cultural environments and traditions of their respective societies. As the discourse in the field of comparative education has demonstrated, it is not advisable to take over arbitrarily selected parts of educational practice from foreign systems to inform the debate in other countries (see, e.g., Noah, 1984; Ochs and Phillips, 2002). The English and the German contexts were chosen for the development of the conceptualizations because they have developed divergent modular structures in the training sector. It has been argued elsewhere that this is due to

ing work environment. This responsiveness is necessary in order to meet the latest skill demands which emphasize comprehensive skills and knowledge structures.  The responsiveness of training provisions to the varying degrees of personal potential of trainees in the form of individualized training pathways. This individualization is also concerned with increasingly individualized pedagogical approaches and assessment procedures (Sloane, 1997: 231; de Bruijn et al., 1993: 1). The main argument in favor of modularized structures is that they can potentially be more rapidly updated than the conventional training provision. This curriculum flexibility is also linked to short-term assessment goals and enhanced motivation of learners due to manageable shortterm goals and regular feedback. Further, proponents of modularity argue that modules can structure a course of learning to allow for appropriate and progressive development of knowledge and skills. Despite these pedagogical aims, the debate regarding modularization in VET in the 1990s seemed to be largely driven by the arguments of political actors and, often, conflicting assessments by the social partners, rather than by arguments concerning pedagogical aspects or the processes of teaching and learning (for the German

383

384

Vocational Education and Training Teaching and Learning

the different origins of modular approaches in the two countries. (It would go beyond the scope of this article to attempt to trace the origins of modularity in VET in the two countries. For details, refer to, e.g., Ertl (2002a), Evans and Kersh (2006), and Hayward and McNicholl (2007).) Research in these two contexts has also substantially contributed to the debate in other countries. The motives for research in this field differ considerably: Whereas the research in the English context has been mainly aimed at the further development of existing modularized qualifications (such as National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) and General NVQs (GNVQs)), research in Germany has been mainly preoccupied with the potential of modularity for the modernization of the dual system of training. (GNVQs are currently being phased out and replaced by applied General Certificates of Secondary Education (GCSEs) and A levels. As a result, the uptake of other vocational qualifications has increased.) Modular structures exist in comparatively small areas of VET in Germany, for example, in the qualification of specific target groups, in certain programs for further training and retraining, schemes for additional qualifications in initial training (see Ertl, 2002b), and prevocational training (see Seyfried, 2002, 2003; BIBB, 2006). For instance, the German crafts sector has developed a structure of building blocs aimed at integrating prevocational, initial, and further training (Kloas, 2003; ZHD, 2004). On Different Definitions of Modules in VET A description of the way a module in VET is to be constructed and embedded in a wider curricular framework, its intended function, and its pedagogical structure cannot be separated from the wider context of VET. The terminology in English and in German is confusing. It is unclear in many cases whether the words unit and module are used interchangeably (Watkins, 1987) or whether they mark a difference. A widely accepted English definition of these terms explains a unit as a coherent set of learning outcomes and a module as a sub set of a learning programme (FEU, 1995). In line with this definition, Stanton (1997: 122) specifies unitization as the analysis of existing qualifications into units of achievement and in contrast modularization as the process of [. . .] subdividing courses into modules of delivery. In Raffes definition, however, this distinction is not as clear: a module is a unit of delivery and a unit of assessment/credit (Raffe, 1994). In the discussion in Germany, both of these meanings are normally ascribed to the term Modul. In most cases, a word for the above-mentioned meaning of unit is not even needed as German vocational qualifications are not defined in outcomes; however, the qualifications are regulated by defining the relevant input factors, such as the

duration of the training course or the qualification of the trainer. Nevertheless, a German term for unit could be necessary in the future if the connection between modularity and the outcomes approach (Young, 1998) follows the patterns established in the post-16 education and training sector in England and Wales. The development of multilingual training profiles as a result of the need for more transparent vocational certificates in the single European market toward the end of the 1990s may be regarded as an initial step to supplement the German provision with outcome criteria (Benner, 1997; Herz and Ja ger, 1998). Following the technical origins of the term, there seems to be agreement that a module is a part of a larger entity or system. Modules are distinguished from conventional courses by their shorter duration (Watkins, 1987; Young, 1995; Lauterbach and Grollman, 1998; European Commission, 2006). In this context, a modularized system is a whole composed of a number of self-contained elements. The comparison of over 20 definitions drawn from the relevant literature in England and Germany (see Ertl, 2001) shows that the understanding of what constitutes modules varies decisively in one key point: the relationship between the qualification system as a whole and modules as the elements of this whole. Some definitions emphasize the self-contained character of modules: they cover a single conceptual unit of subject matter (Postlethwait, 1985), are complete in themselves and examinable as such (Wiegand, 1996b), and independent from other curricular elements (Deissinger, 1996). The other group of definitions emphasize that educational modules can only fulfill their envisaged purpose within the context of other parts of the system: they are primarily part of a whole (Schmidt, 1997a). The whole in the context of VET may be a qualification in the broadest sense which itself is embedded in the horizontal and vertical structure of a qualification system (Reuling and Sauter, 1996). For the attainment of a qualification a designated number of modules is required (Theodossin, 1986). In this line of argument modules only have a logic in terms of the broader qualifications and set of awards of which they form a part (Nasta, 1994). On their own, modules only provide a qualification below the level of occupational and professional needs (Lauterbach and Grollman, 1998). In terms of the curriculum design process, the latter definitions of modules entail a process which starts with considering the qualification as a whole before considering its elements. The learners choice is essentially between one course of study or another. If the former approach toward modules is taken, the building of a curriculum starts from the design of the individual modules and the learner chooses a certain combination of modules instead of a discrete qualification. The contradiction of modules as basically free standing and as only valuable in the context of the wider structure

Modularization in Vocational Education and Training

385

of a qualification may be overcome by the built-up effect as suggested by Ainley (1990): a module can stand alone or form a part of a route picked through the various units on offer, or by Schmidt (1997b): Combining them [modules] like building blocks, they can form an overall qualification. This notion seems to be in line with the twofold character attributed to educational modules by Sloane (1997), who not only regards modules as wholes in themselves, but also requires them to be embedded into a bigger whole. In Youngs (1995, 1998) definition of modularization, an existing curriculum seems to represent such a bigger whole and, therefore, the starting point for the module design process. For instance, Nasta (1994) identifies starting a curriculum design process from the whole as the predominant practice in England, whereas starting from the module is widespread in the American system.

Characteristics of Modules in VET

The relationship between modules and qualifications seems to be a crucial aspect for the setup of a modular structure in VET. In the following, this relationship is clarified by deriving the characteristics of modules from a technical example. The method of induction for defining the functions of modules in education has been applied several times before. For instance, Postlethwait (1985) derives the definition of modules in education from the use of the term in biology and Kloas (1997a) illustrates his definition of modules in VET with the relationship of the elements of a building (modules) and the building as a whole. The method seems to be appropriate as the term module itself originates from technical and biological contexts. In the work by Ertl (2001), the analogy of modules or components in the motor manufacturing industry is utilized to clarify the application of modularization in VET. The following list of characteristics of modules in VET generalizes the analogy:
 Integrative function. An overall qualification consists of a

recognized qualifications. The standard of modules needs to be broad enough to ensure relevance of modules for more than only one or a few companies and providers of qualifications.  Multiple relevance. Modular systems in VET are effective if modules are relevant to several areas of occupation. However, the variability of the temporal sequence of modules is restricted by pedagogic criteria and inherent content structures.  Outcome orientation. Modules are the result of a qualification process and are only of value if they contribute to the overall function of the qualification. Therefore, modules represent categories of outcome or competence. When new competences are necessary, single modules can be modified, replaced, and adapted without changing the overall qualification.  Additional competences. Modules required for a certain vocation can be augmented by additional modules in order to improve the vocational perspectives of the learner. Accepted standards of modules are the precondition for supplementing the overall function of a qualification reasonably (see also Kloas, 1997a, 1997b). The underlying assumption for a number of these characteristics is that modules in education can fulfill their envisaged purpose only in the context of an overarching system. This assumption follows the second line of argumentation in the previous subsection. Following the German notion of Berufskonzept, the ability of the individual to act and work competently in the occupational environment is the superordinate aim of VET (see Ertl, 2000). As we will see in the following section, there are concepts of modularization in which this aim plays a minor or no role. The next section attempts to identify more general principles of modular strategies by analyzing combinations of module characteristics as applied in different modular approaches. The result of this process is a number of different concepts of modularization. Before a number of conceptualizations are introduced, it needs to be reiterated that the sociocultural context in which modules are developed seems to determine the status of and relationship between modules and full qualifications. For instance, the notion of what constitutes the occupational environment differs between and, often, also within national contexts. In England, for instance, the primary aim of new modules is often to develop a specific, narrow piece of occupational competence. Recent examples for this are new modules amending a variety of existing qualifications to fulfill new health and safety requirements. This has resulted in the creation of comparatively small health and safety modules which were then conceptualized as independent certificates. This exemplifies how the distinction between modules and qualifications can become blurred due to the way an occupational environment is structured.

combination of modules or part-qualifications. This combination of modules generates the qualifications function (which might be to develop vocational competence of the individual). This overall function is more than the sum of the single functions of the part-qualifications. Some modules may be utilizable independently from the overall function. This characteristic cannot, however, substitute the overall function of a qualification.  Standard definition. The capability of working competently in an occupational environment is defined by social and economic standards. Some modules are indispensable for basic standards in VET and others improve the individuals capability to work in a highly sophisticated environment. Accepted standards are the precondition for the combination of modules leading to

386

Vocational Education and Training Teaching and Learning

Concepts of Modularization
Conceptualization of Modularization in the German Context In many respects, the German debate about modularity seems to be in the early stages. The assessment by Richardson et al. (1995a: 22) that [. . .] education and training systems which are relatively stable have shown little interest to date in modularity and credit still applies to the case of Germany. However, there is an increasingly intense debate regarding the modernization of the dual system of initial training. This debate is based on the perceived inadequacies of the dual system for meeting the demands of a rapidly changing economic environment. Modularization is regarded as a promising way of reforming the initial training system by increasing the flexibility and responsiveness of training provisions. In the debate, it often remains unclear as to what concept of modularization is under scrutiny. The following three concepts are a synopsis of different conceptualizations developed in the German context:
 Expansion concept. Modules supplement initial training

Conceptualization of Modularization in the English Context In England, the system of NVQs represents a modularized structure of qualifications that has been created to reform an entire existing training and prevocational sector. This task is similar to the role that modularization could play in other countries that have not yet experimented with modularity to a great extent. In the 1990s, research at the London Institute of Education has distinguished three forms of modularization in England: internal, external, and connective. (The conceptualization presented here draws on the work of the Learning for the Future and Unified Learning projects and, in particular, on the work of Michael Young within these projects. The following accounts provide further details: Richardson et al. (1995b), Hodgson and Spours (1997), and Young (1994, 1995, 1998).) For all three forms, modularization means the breaking up of the curriculum of a qualification into discrete and relatively short phases of learning. Each module can be assessed independently from other modules at the end of the learning experience. In order to facilitate the assessment process, the curriculum is expressed in terms of measurable learning outcomes. This outcomes approach contrasts with conventional curricula which are expressed in terms of inputs (teachers and trainers qualifications, class contact hours, training contents, etc.; Koch and Reuling, 1998). Young (1994: 11) identifies three kinds of outcome approaches and provides examples derived from the British education and training system: 1. In the unitized approaches to outcomes, modules (which are mostly termed as units in these approaches) can be assessed on their own and there is no overall curriculum goal. The most important examples of this approach are units of NVQs. 2. In the integrated outcome approaches, outcomes are assessed with regard to an overall curriculum goal, that is, modules are grouped together to form a qualification. These approaches are exemplified in GNVQs (which are currently phased out), and many other (academic and vocational) qualifications in England. 3. In connective outcome approaches, groups of outcomes are related not only to specific qualifications, but also to the individual aspiration of the learner with regard to the curriculum as a whole. Connectivity in this context is regarded by Hodgson and Spours (1997) and Young (1998) as a stepping stone for a curriculum of the future that would not only bridge the vocational/ academic divide, but also create the basis for the lifelong continuation of the learners educational pathway. In theory, all three of these outcome approaches can be combined with the three concepts of modularization in

qualifications to generate additional competences that are typically the subject of further education and training. The overall functions of initial qualifications are expanded. There are two types of organizational implementation: in the consecutive model, the contents of initial and further training remain separated; in the integrative model, the contents of further training are integrated into the initial qualification.  Differentiation concept. Modules are self-contained and can be assessed and credited individually; however, they are only marketable as part of an overall qualification. The framework of the overall qualification regulates the combination of modules. Modules can be the result of restructuring the curricula of existing qualifications. The differentiation concept facilitates the accreditation of prior learning. Modules can be accredited not only toward different vocational qualifications, but also across the academic/vocational divide.  Fragmentation concept. Modules are credited and marketable without the framework of an overall qualification. By combining modules freely, trainees create individualized qualifications that mirror the requirements of a rapidly changing occupational environment. In comparison to the expansion and the differentiation concept, the fragmentation concept offers the greatest opportunities for flexibility and individuality in VET. Unlike the other two concepts, it is not consistent with the German concept of the vocation. This attempt to conceptualize modularization in VET is based on accounts by Deissinger (1996), Zedler (1996), Sloane (1997), Ru tzel (1997), and Kloas (1997a, 1997c).

Modularization in Vocational Education and Training

387

VET as identified by the research at the London Institute of Education:

 Internal modularization. Courses and qualifications are

subdivided into modules of delivery. Modularity is only adopted within a particular qualification. Internal modularization is typically combined with integrated outcome approaches to provide a step-by-step approach to qualifications that allows regular assessment of the trainees progress. There is the opportunity for regular feedback for trainees so that they can build on their strengths over time. Each module is only valid for one specific qualification and not marketable outside this qualification.  External modularization. Modularity is adopted across different qualifications, that is, a particular module can be part of several qualifications. The choice of a particular qualification can be made during the training process as training modules can be taken and accredited toward several qualifications. Credit transfer schemes make this kind of credit accumulation possible, particularly if they are combined with appropriate rules of combination to assemble modules into qualifications. Typically, existing qualifications are restructured, resulting in outcome-oriented provisions. Unitized as well as integrated approaches of outcome-oriented assessment are possible in this concept of modularization. The number and characteristics of overall qualifications are determined by competent bodies. Individual modules are not marketable outside this system of modularized qualifications.  Connective modularization. The disadvantages of restricted forms of modularity are overcome by the adoption of a holistic curriculum approach. Connective modularity combined with connective outcome approaches provides a tool through which trainees can relate specialist vocational knowledge, broad-based general knowledge and skills, and generic skills. This would entail the restructuring of qualifications into a single system based on modules of delivery and on units of assessment. The restructuring would result in a unified curriculum for all young people in the postcompulsory sector. Connective modularization, therefore, would bridge the entrenched division between vocational and academic curricula. Individual modules in such a unified curriculum would be connected not only by an overarching credit framework, but also by value-added models of provisions designed to promote progression and attainment.

aiming for a more integrated system of training and education. Integration in this context can be regarded in two different ways that determine the debates on and conceptualizations of modularization in England and Wales on the one hand and in Germany on the other. First, there is the integration of initial and further training. In both contexts, initial training is no longer regarded as a separate phase in young peoples lives, but as the first part of a lifelong learning and training process. However, the concept of initial training as a separate educational phase seems to be particularly strong in Germany (Sengenberger, 1987). The traditional, chronological pattern of training comprising vocational orientation and preparation, initial vocational training, and further training and education which has determined the careers of the majority of working people in Germany for decades is rapidly dissolving (Kloas, 2003). The expansion concept in particular recognizes these developments and integrates initial and further training in a systematic way. Second, there is the integration of vocational training and general education in the postcompulsory sector. The debates in both national contexts reveal the need for the integration of these two sectors; in addition, in both national contexts, certain concepts of modularization are regarded as particularly suitable reform options. Both the differentiation concept in the German context and external modularization in the English context recognize this type of integration as a central aim of modularity. However, in England the academic/vocational divide is certainly more pronounced than in Germany. Whereas in Germany vocational education always includes subjects providing a certain degree of general education, training provisions in England seem to be more focused on occupation-specific knowledge and skills, in some cases only relevant for certain companies. As a consequence, the concept of a unified curriculum determines the discussion on the further development of modular structures in the training provisions (see Hodgson and Spours, 1997; Young, 1998; Tomlinson, 2004). Connective modularization is mainly regarded as a stepping stone on the way to the ultimate goal of a unified curriculum. As the reaction to the Tomlinson report (Tomlinson, 2004) demonstrated, it has proved to be politically impossible in the English context to achieve this goal.

Trends in Modularity in VET

From the investigation of modular approaches in VET in six European countries (in the work by Ertl (2001), the conceptualizations derived from developments in England and Germany (see previous section) are used as an analytical framework for the investigation of modular approaches in France, Scotland, Spain, and The Netherlands) and an

Concepts of Modularization: Similarities and Differences Concepts of modularization are deeply embedded in the relevant national context. Both conceptualizations are

388

Vocational Education and Training Teaching and Learning

analysis of two international projects on module development (see European Commission (2006) and RRBK (2007)) the following development lines can be identified. Integration of Educational Sectors Modular structures are being increasingly adopted in order to integrate formerly separate sectors of education and training. Modular frameworks can cover vocational preparation, initial, and further training. These frameworks connect the training and education of people in work with training provision for full-time students. This means that modularization is being used to bring schoolbased and work-based training routes closer together. Further, the divide between general and vocational education in the postcompulsory sector can be bridged by establishing modular banks which include both academic and vocational modules. A cohesive system for all postcompulsory education and training may be the outcome of modularization. Integration Rather Than Fragmentation In a number of national contexts, a move away from the fragmentation concept can be identified. Increasingly, overall qualifications that regulate combinations of modules have been developed. This represents a change to the modular strategy: free-standing modules are no longer perceived as marketable part-qualifications. Instead, the attainment of more broadly based combinations of modules in the sense of comprehensive overall qualifications becomes the aim of training. Often, trainees choice of modules has been restricted in order to reduce the number of final overall qualifications. Introduction of Modularity in Mainstream Training Provisions In countries in which modularization has not yet been integrated into regular training provision, modularity is increasingly being adopted in sectors outside initial training. In these countries, modular courses are provided for vocational preparation and orientation, for qualifying specific target groups, and in certain further training schemes. It seems that the experience with modularization at the edges of the mainstream VET system has paved the way for a wider application of modularity. Supranational Development of Modules Currently, projects funded by the European Union aim at developing modules through international cooperation. The emphasis of these projects is to establish common criteria for the format and structure of modules in VET and thereby developing a framework that assures transparency and quality of modular systems (European Commission, 2006; RRBK, 2007).

These recent developments indicate that modularization remains high on the educational agenda internationally. It needs to be stressed that neither the political nor the academic discourse does necessarily use the term module explicitly to refer to self-contained elements of a learning program. However, the potential of relatively small and units or blocs of learning has had an impact not only in all areas of vocational education, but also in other educational sectors, such as academically oriented secondary education and higher education. The emphasis of the discussion has moved towards internationally recognized modules, often developed by consortia of partners from a number of countries, and the development of a quality assurance framework for modular systems.
See also: Curriculum and Structuralist Sociology: The Theory of Codes and Knowledge Structures; Early Childhood Curriculum and Developmental Theory.

Bibliography
Ainley, P. (1990). Vocational Education and Training. London: Cassell Educational Limited. Benner, H. (1997). Entwicklung anerkannter Ausbildungsberufe Fortschreibung u berkommener Regelungen oder Definition nge? In Euler, D. and Sloane, P. F. E. zukunftsbezogener Ausbildungsga (eds.) Duales System im Umbruch. Eine Bestandsaufnahme der Modernisierungsdebatte, pp 5369. Pfaffenweiler, Germany: Centaurus-Verl.-Ges. BIBB (Bundesinstitut fu r Berufsbildung) (2004). Berufsausbildungsvorbereitung Entwicklung von Qualifizierungsbausteinen: Beispiele fu r die Praxis. Bonn, Germany: BIBB. de Bruijn, E., Froissart, C., Tirados, R. M. G., et al. (1993). Current Issues in Modular Training: An Interview Study with Trainers in Six European Countries. Edinburgh, UK: Centre for Educational Sociology at the University of Edinburgh. Deissinger, T. (1996). Modularisierung der Berufsausbildung. Eine didaktisch-curriculare Alternative zum Berufsprinzip? In Beck, K. and Achtenhagen, F. (eds.) Berufserziehung im Umbruch. Didaktische Herausforderungen und Ansa tze zu ihrer Bewa ltigung, pp 189207. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Ertl, H. (2000). Modularisation of Vocational Education in Europe: NVQs and GNVQs as a Model for the Reform of Initial Training Provisions in Germany? Series: Monographs in International Education. Wallingford: Symposium Books. Ertl, H. (2001). Modularisation in Vocational Education and Training: Conceptualisations and Approaches in European Union Countries. Series: Cadernos PRESTiGE. Lisbon: Educa. Ertl, H. (2002a). The Role of European Union Programmes and Approaches to Modularisation in Vocational Education: Fragmentation or Integration? Series: Mu nchner Beitra ge zur Wirtschaftspa dagogik. Mu nchen: Utz Verlag. Ertl, H. (2002b). The concept of modularisation in vocational education and training: The debate in Germany and its implication. Oxford Review of Education 28(1), 5373. European Commission (2006). Modules for Europe: Approval of modules in prevocational education and training. http://www. modules-for-europe.eu/index.html (accessed May 2009). FEU (1995). A Framework for Credit. A Common Framework for Post-14 Education and Training for the Twenty-First Century. London: FEU. Flitner, A., Petry, C., and Richter, I. (eds.) (1999). Wege aus der Ausbildungskrise. Memorandum des Forums Jugend Bildung Arbeit mit Untersuchungsergebnissen des Instituts fu r

Modularization in Vocational Education and Training

Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung der Bundesanstalt fu r Arbeit. Opladen, Germany: Leske Budrich. Hayward, G. and McNicholl, J. (2007). Modular mayhem? A case study of the development of the A level science curriculum in England. Assessment and Education 14, 335351. ger, A. (1998). Module in der Berufsbildung oder des Herz, G. and Ja Kaisers neue Kleider? Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis 27(1), 1420. Hodgson, A. and Spours, K. (1997). Modularization and the 1419 qualifications system. In Hodgson, A. and Spours, K. (eds.) Dearing and Beyond. 1419 Qualifications, Frameworks and Systems, pp 105120. London: Kogan Page. Kloas, P-W. (1996). Modulare Weiterbildung im Verbund mit ftigung Arbeitsmarkt-und bildungspolitische Aspekte eines Bescha strittigen Ansatzes. Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis 25(1), 3946. Kloas, P-W. (1997a). Modularisierung in der beruflichen Bildung. Modebegriff, Streitthema oder konstruktiver Ansatz zur Lo sung von Zukunftsproblemen. Berlin: Bundesinstitut fu r Berufsbildung. Kloas, P-W. (1997b). Modulare Berufsausbildung in Deutschland: Streitthema ohne Wirkung oder Perspektive mit Zukunft? Gewerkschaftliche Bildungspolitik 11/1297, 1825. Kloas, P-W. (1997c). Berufskonzept und Modularisierung in der deutschen Berufsbildung. Modularisierung der Berufsbildung Gleichwertigkeit von allgemeiner und beruflicher Bildung. DeutschBritisches Seminar zur Berufsbildungspolitik 35. Februar 1997 in Berlin, pp 1536. Bonn: BMBF). Kloas, P-W. (2003). Qualifizierungsbausteine Eine Chance fu r rderungsbedarf. Handwerk Jugendliche mit besonderem Fo Magazin 3. Koch, R. and Reuling, J. (1998). Public quality control of vocational training in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. Vocational Education European Journal 15(3), 712. Lauterbach, U. and Grollman, P. (1998). Berufliche Bildung und ltnis, oder: Die Krise des allgemeine Bildung im Spannungsverha Dualen Systems. In Vocational Education and Training in Germany and Sweden. Strategies of Control and Movements of Resistance and Opposition. Series: TNTEE Publications, vol. 1. Osnabru ck: Thematic Network on Teacher Education in Europe. Mu nk, D. (1995). Kein Grund zur Eu(ro)phorie. Anmerkungen zu zentralen berufsbildungspolitischen Kontroversen des Memorandums der Kommission u ber die Berufsausbildungspolitik der Gemeinschaft fu r Berufs-und r die 90er Jahre. Zeitschrift fu Wirtschaftspa dagogik 91(1), 2845. Nasta, T. (1994). How to Design a Vocational Curriculum. A Practical Guide for Schools and Colleges. London: Kogan Page. Noah, H. J. (1984). The use and abuse of comparative education. Comparative Education Review 28(4), 550562. Ochs, K. and Phillips, D. (2002). Towards a Structural Typology of Cross-National Attraction in Education. Lisbon: Educa. Postlethwait, S. N. (1985). Module approach. In Husen, T. and Postlethwaite, N. T. (eds.) The International Encyclopaedia of Education, pp 33983400. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Pu tz, H. (1997). Modularisierung das falsche Thema, ungenu gend bearbeitet, zur ungeeigneten Zeit. In Kloas, P-W. (ed.) Modularisierung in der beruflichen Bildung. Modebegriff, Streitthema oder konstruktiver Ansatz zur Lo sung von Zukunftsproblemen, pp 6275. Berlin: Bundesinstitut fu r Berufsbildung. Raffe, D. (1994). Notes on modular strategies. In Hodgson, A., Hayton, A., Bell, R., Melliss, N., and Young, M. (eds.) Modular Strategies and the Hamlyn/CILNTEC Post-16 Unified Curriculum Project. Series: Unified 16+ Curriculum, vol. 6, pp 3336. London: Institute of Education. Reuling, J. and Sauter, E. (1996). BIBB-Positionen zu aktuellen Herausforderungen in der beruflichen Bildung: V. Modularisierung in der beruflichen Bildung. Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis 25(3), 6f. Richardson, W., Spours, K., Woolhouse, J., and Young, M. (1995a). Learning for the Future: Current Developments in Modularity and Credit. Working Paper 5. London/Warwick: Institute of Education, Post-16 Education Centre, University of London/Centre for Education and Industry, University of Warwick.

389

Richardson, W., Spours, K., Woolhouse, J., and Young, M. (1995b). Learning for the Future: Current 1419 Education and Training. Working Paper 1. London/Warwick: Institute of Education, Post-16 Education Centre, University of London/Centre for Education and Industry, University of Warwick. RRBK (Rudolf Rempel Business College) (2007). Connect cultural and organisational network for new European contents in training. http:// www.connect-web.com/rrbk/english/indexe.html (accessed May 2009). Ru tzel, J. (1997). Reform der beruflichen Bildung durch Modularisierung. Berufsbildung 43, 59. Schmidt, H. (1997a). Vorwort In Kloas, P-W. (ed.) Modularisierung in der beruflichen Bildung. Modebegriff, Streitthema oder konstruktiver Ansatz zur Lo sung von Zukunftsproblemen, pp 3f. Berlin: Bundesinstitut fu r Berufsbildung. Schmidt, H. (1997b). Module in der Berufsbildung Teufelszeug oder Ausweg aus der Krise? Berufsbildung 43, 42. Sengenberger, W. (1987). Struktur und Funktionsweise von Arbeitsma rkten. Die Bundesrepublik im internationalen Vergleich. Frankfurt am: Campus. Seyfried, B. (2002). Qualifizierungsbausteine in der Berufsvorbereitung. Bonn: BIBB. Seyfried, B. (2003). Special Issue: Berufsausbildungsvoerbereitung und Qualifizierungsbausteine.Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, 2123. Sloane, P. F. E. (1997). Modularisierung in der beruflichen Ausbildung oder: Die Suche nach dem Ganzen. In Euler, D. and Sloane, P. F. E. (eds.) Duales System im Umbruch. Eine Bestandsaufnahme der Modernisierungsdebatte, pp 223245. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus-Verl.-Ges. Stanton, G. (1997). Unitization: Developing a common language for describing achievement. In Hodgson, A. and Spours, K. (eds.) Dearing and Beyond. 1419 Qualifications, Frameworks and Systems, pp 121134. London: Kogan Page. Theodossin, E. (1986). The Modular Market. Studies in Further Education. Bristol: Further Education Staff College. Tomlinson, M. (2004). 1419 Curriculum and Qualifications Reform. London: DfES Publications. Watkins, P. (1987). Modular Approaches to the Secondary Curriculum. Series: SCDC Publications. York, UK: Longman. Wiegand, U. (1996a). Reform des Ordnungsrahmens: Modulsysteme oder Flexibilisierung der Ausbildungsordnungen? In Schlaffke, W. and Wei, R. (eds.) Das duale System der Berufsausbildung: Leistung, Qualita t und Reformbedarf. Series: Ko lner Texte & Thesen, ln, Germany: Hundt Druck. pp 260276. Ko Wiegand, U. (1996b). Modules in vocational training. In CEDEFOP (ed.) Pedagogic Innovation. Vocational Training. European Journal, No. 7, pp 2830. Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP. Young, M. (1994). Modularisation as a unifying strategy. In Hodgson, A., Hayton, A., Bell, R., Melliss, N., and Young, M. (eds.) Modular Strategies and the Hamlyn/CILNTEC Post-16 Unified Curriculum Project. Series: Unified 16 Curriculum, vol. 6, pp 520. London: Institute of Education. Young, M. (1995). Modularization and the outcomes approach: Towards a strategy for a curriculum of the future. In Burke, J. W. (ed.) Outcomes, Learning and the Curriculum. Implications for NVQs, GNVQs and Other Qualifications, pp 169181. London: Falmer. Young, M. (1998). The Curriculum of the Future. London: Routledge. ZDH (Zentralstelle fu r die Weiterbildung im Handwerk) (2004). Qualifizierungsbausteine im Handwerk Grundkonzeption. Du sseldorf, Germany: ZDH. Zedler, R. (1997). Modularisierung: keine Perspektive fu r die Berufsausbildung. Berufsbildung 43, 42.

Further Reading
Cornford, I. R. (1997). Ensuring effective learning from modular courses: A cognitive psychology-skill learning perspective. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 49(2), 237251. Dearing, R. (1995). Key Note Address, in Towards the 21st Century with Modular A levels. October 19th 1995, University of London Examinations and Assessment Centre.

390

Vocational Education and Training Teaching and Learning

in linear and modular A-level physics examinations. Educational Research 43(1), 7989. Moon, B. (ed.) (1988). Introducing the modular curriculum to teachers. In Modular Curriculum, London: Paul Chapman. Pilz, M. (1999). Modulare Strukturen in der Beruflichen Bildung Eine Alternative fu r Deutschland? Eine explorative Studie am Beispiel des schottischen Modulsystems. Series: Wirtschaftspa dagogisches Forum, vol. 9. Markt Schwaben, Germany: Eusl. Raffe, D. (1994). Modular strategies for overcoming academic/ vocational divisions: Issues arising from the Scottish experience. Journal of Educational Policy 9(2), 141154. Raffe, D., Spours, K., Young, M., and Howieson, C. (1997). The Unification of Post-Compulsory Education: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Series: Unified Learning Project. Unifying Academic and Vocational Learning: Scottish and English/Welsh Approaches, Working Paper Two. London: Post-16 Education Centre, Institute of Education and Centre for Educational Sociology, University of Edinburgh. Stobart, G. (1995). Modularity in GNVQ and A level, in towards the 21st century with modular A levels. 19th October 1995, University of London Examinations and Assessment Centre. Taverner, S. and Wright, M. (1997). Why go modular? A review of modular A-level mathematics. Educational Research 39(1), 104112. Theodossin, E. (1981). The modularisation of English higher education. Research in Education 26, 89103. Warwick, D. (ed.) (1988). Teaching and Learning through Modules. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

de Bruijn, E. and Howieson, C. (1995). Modular vocational education and training in Scotland and The Netherlands: Between Specificity and Coherence. Comparative Education 31(1), 8399. Gonon, P. (1998). Modularisierung als reflexive Modernisierung. In Euler, D. (ed.) Berufliches Lernen im Wandel Konsequenzen fu r die Lernorte? Dokumentation des 3. Forums Berufsbildungsforschung 1997 an der Friedrich-Alexander-Universita t Erlangen-Nu rnberg. Series: Beitra ge zur Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung, BeitrAB 214, pp 305321. Nu rnberg, Germany: Institut fu r Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung der Bundesanstalt fu r Arbeit. nderu Gonon, P. (2001). Modularisierung als la bergreifende und ngige Modernisierungsstrategie. In (berufsbildungs-) systemunabha Reinisch, H., Bader, R., and Straka, G. (eds.) Modernisierung der Berufsbildung in Europa. Neue Befunde der berufs-und wirtschaftspa dagogischen Forschung, pp 183193. Opladen, Germany: Leske + Budrich. Hayton, A. (1994). The role of the module writers group. In Hodgson, et al. (ed.) pp 2932. Hodgson, A., Hayton, A., Bell, R., Melliss, N., and Young, M. (eds.) (1994). Modular Strategies and the Hamlyn/CILNTEC Post-16 Unified Curriculum Project. Series: Unified 16 Curriculum (vol. 6. London: Institute of Education. Hodgson, A. and Spours, K. (2001). Evaluating Stage 1 of the Hargreaves Review of Curriculum 2000: An Analysis of Teachers and Students Views and the Future of the Reform Process. London: IOE. McClune, B. (2001). Modular A-levels who are the winners and losers? A comparison of lower-sixth and upper-sixth students performance