Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of work-based learning (WBL) can be implemented along the four dimensions of the IPOO model: Input, Process, Output and Outcome. What does this imply? To begin at the beginning, let’s have a closer look at the first dimension for now.
Input refers to arrangements preceding the actual implementation of work-based learning, and the resources feeding into the process. These can be rather quantitative aspects, such as the supply of and demand for training places or financial resources. And there are rather qualitative aspects, such as the design of curricula or the quality of training staff.
To monitor and evaluate the supply of training places, one should keep an eye on the number of training places and other opportunities for work placements, and on the number (or the share) of companies offering such opportunities. The demand, on the other hand, may refer either to the number of people actively seeking a training place or the share of learners participating in WBL. How can this be done? A nationwide reporting system on the basis of a register of training places, hosted by the national labour market service, is an established approach. In any case, a coordinated network of institutions in charge of the collection and processing of information on the training market, needs to be in place.
The financial resources, again, comprise investments in WBL on three levels: (1) costs for the work-based parts, such as the remuneration of trainers or the wages or allowances for learners, (2) school-based costs, e.g. teachers’ salaries, costs for school equipment and learning materials, (3) costs related to the management and steering of programmes and the whole VET system, such as the regulation and supervision of training. In most countries, the costs for WBL programmes are shared by the government, employers and individuals. Monitoring the costs and benefits provides crucial information for (potentially) involved parties, as shown in Switzerland, a country with longstanding expertise in cost-benefit-analyses. The result (2016): the value of the productive work of an average Swiss apprentice exceeds the gross costs of training, resulting in net benefits (3,173 CHF) for the company. Need any more arguments?
Curricula, as a qualitative factor, need to specify the intended learning outcomes and respective assessment criteria as well as the share of in-company training and classroom instruction. Along with that, curricula need to be reflecting the requirements of the labour market. Hence it is essential that labour market actors are involved in the process of curriculum design. The focus of M&E, at this point, is to check whether features such as the specification of learning outcomes and the representation of social partners are actually in place. A possible quantitative indicator would be the frequency of revisions or updates of VET curricula. In Germany, the latter is made transparent by a yearly data report published by the Federal Institute for Vocational Education (BIBB): Between 2010 and 2019, 122 training occupations were reorganized – among which 118 were modernized and 4 newly created.
Last but not least, the success of WBL also depends on the occupational and pedagogical skills and qualifications of VET teachers and trainers. Possible M&E questions: How strictly are regulations regarding training staff qualifications supervised and enforced? Is continuing education for teachers and trainers mandatory? If so, at what intervals? Are training providers and enterprises subject to accreditation procedures? And what about, by the way, the share of companies with a certified trainer?
What is your experience with monitoring and evaluating the input for WBL?
Are there further (qualitative or quantitative) aspects you consider relevant?
_________________________________________________________________
References:
Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung (BIBB) (2020). Datenreport zum Berufsbildungsbericht 2020. Informationen und Analysen zur Entwicklung der beruflichen Bildung. Bonn: Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung.
Gehret, A.; Aepli, M.; Kuhn, A.; Schweri, J. (2019). Lohnt sich die Lehrlingsausbildung für die Betriebe? Resultate der vierten Kosten-Nutzen-Erhebung. Zollikofen: Eidgenössisches Hochschulinstitut für Berufsbildung.
Please log in or sign up to comment.