Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:09 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
02 SES 14 C: Cooperation & Collaboration
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
02. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Paper Collaboration between Vocational Institutions and Workplaces: An Educational Policy Perspective Häme University of Applied Sciences, Finland Presenting Author:Collaboration between vocational education and training (VET) institutions and workplaces has been widely examined, for instance, from the perspectives of learning and pedagogy (e.g., Nykänen et al., 2022), VET relevance (Hiim, 2023), as well as regional and sectoral development (e.g., Buchanan et al., 2017). While cooperation between VET and the world of work is often regarded as self-evident in contemporary VET systems, this study takes a closer look at how policy documents frame both the need for such collaboration and the ways in which it is expected to materialise. Building on Weber’s (2015) view that formal, written documents function as key instruments through which modern bureaucracies define, stabilise, and legitimise institutional practices, analysing policy texts becomes essential for understanding how collaboration between VET institutions and workplaces is conceptualised and justified. Europeanization refers to the process through which EU‑level goals, rules, and policy paradigms shape national policies, often leading to greater convergence across member states (see Loogma, 2016). However, European and national policy documents are shaped by distinct systems, which may frame and prioritise collaboration between VET institutions and workplaces in different ways. For this reason, the study examines policy documents at both the EU and national (Finland) level and addresses the following research questions: RQ1) How is collaboration between VET institutions and workplaces conceptualised in European educational policy documents? RQ2) How is collaboration between VET institutions and workplaces conceptualised in Finnish educational policy documents? RQ3) What are the main (in)consistencies in the framing of collaboration between VET institutions and workplaces between Finnish and European policy documents? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Document analysis is a qualitative approach that enables researchers to trace how policy texts are constructed, justified, and framed through specific discourses and value positions (Cardno, 2018). It is particularly suitable for analysing official strategies and policies that cannot be directly observed through methods such as interviews. In this study, we approach policy documents primarily as texts that make different policy contexts visible (Ball, 2015). Our focus is on what the policy states and how it is linguistically and structurally formulated, rather than on its practical implementation or outcomes. At the same time, we acknowledge that policy documents are not merely descriptive texts; policy can also be understood as discourse that, when enacted, shapes practices and actors in VET. For this reason, we do not treat policy documents as neutral or innocent representations of reality (cf. Nikander & Vehviläinen, 2010). The data consists of ten Finnish policy documents and eight EU-level policy documents published between 2002 and 2025, covering the period following the Copenhagen Process, which established a voluntary cooperation mechanism to improve the quality and attractiveness of VET. During the analysis, expressions relating to cooperation or collaboration were systematically coded from the documents. The coding process was guided by the analytical questions what, why, and how, which directed attention to how collaboration is described, justified, and constructed. Coding emphasised semantic content, capturing explicit meanings and links related to cooperation and collaboration between education and work in the text (Saldaña, 2016). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings In the European policy documents, the terms cooperation or collaboration are used only sparingly. Instead, the texts emphasise the labour market relevance of VET, which is expected to be achieved through various forms of partnerships (e.g., public–private partnerships, strategic partnerships, active and relevant partnerships). Alongside partnerships, collaboration is operationalised through the combination of education and work, particularly by promoting work-based learning and companies as learning environments. In the Finnish documents, strengthening collaboration between VET institutions and the world of work is explicitly framed as a policy goal. Collaboration is presented as a means to enhance the quality and labour market relevance of VET, secure a skilled workforce, support regional and workplace development, and respond to the needs of different learner groups. A key distinction between the two levels is that European policy documents focus primarily on justifying the need for collaboration (labour market relevance) and defining its structural forms (partnerships), whereas Finnish policy documents frame collaboration itself as a central objective of VET policy. By revealing the differences in how collaboration is conceptualised, justified, and operationalised, the study contributes to the broader discussion on policy convergence and divergence and shows that collaboration between education and the world of work is not necessarily framed in the same way across EU and national policy levels. The analysis also offers a lens through which European researchers and practitioners can examine their own national contexts. References Ball, S. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(3), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1015279 Buchanan, J., Anderson, P., & Power, G. (2017). Skills ecosystems. In C. Warhurst, K. Mayhew, D. Finegold & J. Buchanan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of skills and training (pp. 444–465). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199655366.013.21 Cardno, C. (2018). Policy document analysis: A practical educational leadership tool and a qualitative research method. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 24(4), 623–640. Hiim, H. (2023). How can collaboration between schools and workplaces contribute to relevant vocational education? Results of an action research project in the school-based part of Norwegian vocational education and training. Vocations and Learning, 16, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-022-09300-z Loogma, K. (2016). Europeanization in VET policy as a process of reshaping the educational space. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET), 3(1), 16-28. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:12193 Nikander, P., & Vehviläinen, S. (2010). Discourse analysis. In P. L. Peterson, E. L. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia in Education, vol 6 (pp. 373–379). Elsevier. Nykänen, M., Kurki, A.-L., & Airila, A. (2022). Promoting workplace guidance and workplace–school collaboration in vocational training: A mixed-methods pilot study. Vocations and Learning, 15(2), 317–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-022-09289-5 Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage. Weber, M. (2015). Bureaucracy. In: T. Waters & D. Waters (Eds.), Rationalism and modern society: New translations on politics, bureaucracy, and social stratification. Palgrave MacMillan. 02. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Paper Promoting Vocational Education, Higher Education, and Industry Collaboration: Regulation, Governance, and Financing of Integrative Pathways in Germany and Hungary 1: Technical University of Dortmund, Germany; 2: University of Dunaújváros, Hungary Presenting Author:The green transition and technological change are reshaping European labour markets. Automation is reducing routine and low-skilled work, while demand is growing for highly qualified workers with competences combining theoretical understanding and practical problem-solving (European Commission, 2023; Cedefop, 2025). Employers increasingly seek graduates who can apply knowledge flexibly in real settings (European Commission DG EAC, 2024). Against this backdrop, linear education pathways often don't provide sufficiently smooth transitions across sectors. Integrative training models that link vocational education and training (VET), higher education (HE), and company-based learning are therefore gaining attention. These models aim to reduce fragmentation and increase permeability across levels and sectors, supporting learner mobility and employability (Cedefop, 2022; Bjørnåvold & Pouliou, 2023). Although the German education system remains sharply divided between vocational and general education, dual study programmes and vocational academies have become established routes for bridging this divide and enhancing the appeal of VET (cf. Wolter, 2019; Mordhorst & Jennert, 2023). In recent years, it has tested and expanded formats (e.g. apprenticeship-integrating dual HE programs and the HE-integrating apprenticeship) that explicitly combine VET, HE, and workplace learning, and innovation and transfer initiatives such as InnoVET (cf. Euler & Severing, 2017; Ertl, 2020). Hungary, under different institutional conditions, has also reformed VET to strengthen links between vocational and academic tracks and to increase labour-market relevance and cooperation with industry, particularly through the 2019 VET reform (Act LXXX of 2019; Ministry of Innovation and Technology, 2019). In both countries, stronger VET-HE-company collaboration is expected to reduce skills mismatches, improve employability, and support innovation. Despite these shared aims and the continued importance of apprenticeship-based training, the institutional settings in which skills matching and recruitment pressures are addressed differ substantially (cf. Cedefop, 2023; Euler, 2023). In Hungary, demographic decline coincides with a reform trajectory marked by strong central steering and governance consolidation, alongside selective adoption of dual-training elements often associated with Germany (cf. Cedefop & ReferNet, 2024). Germany, by contrast, has pursued incremental development by combining the dual system with hybrid progression routes and programme-based innovation and transfer initiatives (cf. Cedefop, 2020; Ertl, 2020). These differences point to policy transfer without simple convergence and provide a strong basis for examining how multi-actor collaboration is organised to meet changing labour-market demands (cf. Ciantar, 2025). In the initial phase of the study, this paper aims to explore how Germany and Hungary promote collaboration between education sectors and industry at the national policy level. By examining and comparing the regulatory frameworks, governance arrangements, institutional configurations, and financing mechanisms underpinning the tripartite collaboration of VET, HE, and companies, this study reveals differences in institutionalization and governance of the integrative VET-HE-Companies models between the two countries. The analytical approach is grounded in the three-perspective model for international VET comparison developed by Cedefop (2023). The study conceptualises “integrative VET-HE-Companies models” as institutionalised coordination arrangements that link educational provision with labour-market participation and progression into HE through stable rules, actor relations, and resource commitments. Drawing on the Education System and Socioeconomic perspectives, institutionalisation is operationalised through: national VET aims and quality values; the organisation of VET and HE at programme and institutional levels; governance and coordination across education and work; provider autonomy within national standards; outcomes and access rights to occupations and further education; quality assurance arrangements; and the financing mechanisms for sustaining integration. Within this framework, integration is treated as a governance achievement that can vary across systems. To interpret cross-national differences, the study also draws on perspectives from historical institutionalism and collective skill formation, which explain how similar goals can lead to different institutional arrangements under corporatist versus state-led governance (Busemeyer & Trampusch, 2012). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopts an exploratory, comparative case study design, analysing Germany and Hungary as two distinct national cases. The methodology is centered on a qualitative document analysis, employing a structured yet flexible thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2021; Kuckartz, 2013). The thematic analysis framework was applied to the document corpus, which comprises national legislation, strategic policy documents, and relevant international reports. The primary coding structure was deductively derived from the predefined analytical dimensions of the Cedefop model (2023). This structured coding was supplemented by open coding to capture emergent themes and nuances not anticipated by the initial framework, ensuring both theoretical grounding and empirical responsiveness. Country selection was guided by a combination of purposive and convenience sampling. The purposive rationale is grounded in the two cases shared institutional characteristics -specifically, their commitment to dual-system initial VET (Cedefop, 2023) - as well as comparable enrolment challenges (Cedefop, 2025) and aligned socioeconomic policy goals for VET development (e.g., Euler, 2023; Ministry of Innovation and Technology, 2019). Furthermore, the pairing addresses a gap in recent comparative literature on these two systems. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This research provides an initial comparative analysis of how Germany and Hungary institutionalise and govern integrative models that combine VET, HE and industries. The findings reveal that while both systems strive to realise the core education system aims of effective skills matching, adequate learner provision, and individual career capability development, they pursue these objectives through distinct institutional logics and governance structures. The principal difference lies in their foundational integrative paradigm. Germany operates a model of differentiated coordination. It maintains strong, historically distinct institutional spheres - the dual apprenticeship, the school-based VET, and the academic HE. Integration is achieved not by merging these spheres but by creating carefully constructed, legally defined hybrid interfaces (e.g., duales Studium) and regulated sequential pathways between them. Governance is characterised by decentralised corporatist coordination, where the state sets the framework but delegates substantial co-decision authority to social partners, resulting in a complex, multi-pillar system of shared responsibility and funding. Conversely, Hungary exemplifies a model of unified integration. It seeks to build a coherent, prestigious VET pillar where general education, VET, and HE preparation are pedagogically and administratively combined within institutional programmes (e.g., okleveles technikusképzés) from the outset. The governance model is of a centralised nature, with the government assuming a directive role through the implementation of unified administrative and quality assurance framework. The utilisation of economic actors is primarily limited to their role as executive partners, although they participate in central decision making to some extent (e.g. ÁKK, SZIT). Thus, integration governs the main VET structure, rather than a supplementary bridge between separate sub-systems. The preliminary findings of this comparative analysis highlight the absence of a single path to effective skills ecosystems, emphasising nationally distinct configurations for mediating the nexus between vocational training, work, and higher education. References Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE. Busemeyer, M., & Trampusch, C. (2012). The Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation. OUP. Bjørnåvold, J., & Pouliou, A. (2023). Decline or expansion: Where is European VET heading? Key Results from Cedefop’s work on the Future of VET 2015-2022 [Webinar presentation]. UNEVOC Webinar: “Future of VET in Europe: Trends and lessons for a global debate”. Cedefop. (2020). Vocational education and training in Europe, 1995-2035: Scenarios for European vocational education and training in the 21st century. Publications Office of the EU. Cedefop. (2022). The future of vocational education and training in Europe: Volume 2: Delivering IVET: Institutional diversification and/or expansion?. Publications Office of the EU. Cedefop. (2023). The future of vocational education and training in Europe: 50 dimensions of vocational education and training: Cedefop’s analytical framework for comparing VET. Publications Office of the EU. Cedefop. (2025). Skills empower workers in the AI revolution: First findings from Cedefop’s AI skills survey. Publications Office of the EU. Cedefop, & ReferNet. (2024). Spotlight on VET: VET in Hungary. Ciantar, M. (2025). Researching policy transfer of vocational education and training across the European Union: a systematic literature review. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 77(5), 1235-1259. Ertl, H. (2020). Dual study programmes in Germany: Blurring the boundaries between higher education and vocational training? Oxford Review of Education, 46(1), 79-95. Euler, D. (2023). Roadmap to high-quality dual vocational education and training. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Euler, D., & Severing, E. (2017). Studienintegrierende Ausbildung–ein neuer Weg zur Verzahnung von Ausbildung und Studium. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 113(4), 681-689. European Comission (2023). Employment and social developments in Europe: Addressing labour shortages and skills gaps in the EU. Annual Review 2023. Publications Office of the EU. European Commission DG EAC (2024). Education and training monitor 2024: Comparative report. Publications Office of the EU. Hungary. (2019). Act LXXX of 2019 on Vocational Education and Training. Magyar Közlöny [Hungarian Gazette]. Kuckartz, U. (2013). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice & use of software. SAGE. Ministry for Innovation and Technology. (2019). Szakképzés 4.0 stratégia [VET 4.0 Strategy]. Mordhorst, L. & Jenert, T. (2022). Curricular integration of academic and vocational education: A theorybased empirical typology of dual study programmes in Germany. Higher Education, 85, 1257-1279. Wolter, A. (2019). Abschied vom Bildungsschisma? In D. Euler, V. Meyer-Guckel, & E. Severing (eds), Studienintegrierende Ausbildung (pp. 21-41). Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft. 02. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Paper Nothing More Practical Than a Good Theory: Using Cultural-Historical Activity Theory to Improve School-company Cooperation in Dual VET VDI/VDE-IT, Germany Presenting Author:Alternation between learning venues is a key principle of dual VET systems. By combining school-based learning and company-based training, it holds the promise of enabling learners to recontextualize knowledge across different settings, and to develop comprehensive occupational competences (Grollmann, 2018). While alternation is commonly underpinned by institutions such as training ordinances and VET-related legislation, research shows that this does not necessarily translate into active, sustainable cooperation between learning venues. In practice, VET schools and training companies engage in different ways (Gössling et al. 2025). In the 1990s and early 2000s, a first wave of research developed models and typologies describing the cooperation of learning venues in Germany based on large empirical studies (Berger&Walden, 1994). The underlying theoretical approaches were mainly systems theory, neo-institutionalism, organisational theory, and action- or actor-centred approaches (Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, 2005). Studies focused on organisational-technical aspects of cooperation and led to the formulation of policy recommendations and pilot projects to institutionalise closer cooperation between learning venues. In 2005, the principle of cooperation was introduced in the TVET law on Germany and subsequently, the topic almost disappeared from the research agenda. Since the 2020s, a revival of research on cooperation in VET can be observed in German-speaking countries(Schwede, 2025). During the past decade, the number and diversity of learning venues involved in German VET have increased due to digitalisation and more complex qualification requirements, making cooperation more complex but also more vital to ensure the quality of training (Dehnbostel, 2020;Freiling et al. 2022;Gössling, 2025). Moreover, in a context of demographic change, in which companies find it difficult to attract young talents and the VET system struggles to maintain its attractiveness, cooperation is seen as a means to make dual apprenticeships more attractive and to prevent dropout. Digitalisation also provides new means to enhance communication between different learning venues (Hackel et al. 2017;Seufert, 2025;Wagner-Herrbach, 2022). Drawing on research on School-Workplace-Connectivity (Griffiths&Guile, 2003;Tynjälä, 2008), the concept of “boundary crossing” started to be used to examine cooperation in dual VET systems in Switzerland and Austria, and later in Germany as well (Aprea et al. 2020). Boundary crossing is theoretically grounded in Engeström’s Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). With CHAT, learning venues can be conceptualised as different activity systems with different but overlapping objects, artefacts mediating their interactions, contradictions and tensions relevant for cooperation. The argument put forward here is, that CHAT, rather than boundary crossing as a standalone concept, is particularly well suited to analyse how cooperation works and to identify points of action for strengthening cooperation both on technical-organisational as well as on pedagogical-didactical aspects (Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, 2005;Euler, 1999). Building on the empirical case of a pilot project focusing on improving cooperation between learning venues in German dual VET, this study develops an analytical framework based on CHAT to describe and understand cooperation between learning venues. The framework is applied to understand the pilot project’s theory of change (ToC) and to compare it to empirical evidence on success factors and barriers for cooperation. The research questions are: - How can CHAT be operationalized to describe and understand the pilot project’s ToC and learning venue cooperation more generally? - To what extent does the ToC fit with existing findings about cooperation processes between learning venues in dual VET? The European relevance of the study is grounded in the further development of CHAT as analytical framework to understand cooperation between learning venues in VET and to develop targeted strategies and activities aiming at improving cooperation long-term. The relevance of insights gained is not limited to the German context but can be transferred to a variety of settings of alternance between learning venues in skill formation systems. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The research paper is conceived as a case study focusing on a project funded by the Federal Ministry of Education in Germany within the InnoVET PLUS programme (2024-2028). In a first step, the project’s theory of change is explicated, based on Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. CHAT is used to link the different aspects of the project’s theory of change to the elements of the activity systems that represent different learning venues, especially training companies and VET schools. Empirical data for the reconstruction of the project’s theory of change include project documents (e.g. proposal, interim report, minutes of key project meetings and project presentations) as well as information collected through the project’s formative evaluation. In the framework of the evaluation, which is conducted externally by the authors of this paper, workshops are conducted on a regular basis every three to four months to reflect on the project implementation, challenges and plans. Engeström’s (1987) activity system model consists of seven building blocks and describes human activity as an interconnected structure shaped by social and organisational factors. At the centre of the activity systems is the subject, referring to an individual or group carrying out the activity. The subject works to achieve an object, which represents the purpose or motivation. This process is supported by tools, including both physical artifacts and social interactions. The activity is guided by rules that influence how actions are performed, whether formally defined or implicitly understood. Activities takes place within a community to which the subject belongs, and responsibilities are distributed through a division of labour. Together, these elements interact to produce the outcome, which is the final result of the activity. By analysing the theory of change of the project through the analytical lens of CHAT, the underlying assumptions about how the project’s interventions might induce changes in the learning venues i.e. activity systems are revealed. In a second step, based on findings gained from an extensive literature review on cooperation between learning venues in VET, the different elements of the activity systems developed in the first step will be assessed, guided by the following questions: To what extent does extant literature confirm or question the relevance of the project’s theory of change? Are there additional factors, that are not integrated into the theory of change but are proven to have an impact on cooperation between learning venues? Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This research endeavour seeks to establish whether Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) can be a suitable approach to open the black box of (non)cooperation between learning venues in VET and to support cooperation more systematically. By conceptualising learning venues as activity systems, the tension points, misalignments and opportunities for action towards improved cooperation become visible. These aspects are relevant for VET stakeholders as they can make informed decisions about establishing or institutionalising cooperation. Preliminary findings indicate that CHAT can be used not only to analyse existing cooperation practices but also to inform the development of targeted interventions, shared tools, and coordination mechanisms that support more coherent and sustainable collaboration across learning venues. References Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit. Euler, D. (1999). Lernortkooperation in der beruflichen Bildung. Stand und Perspektiven aus Sicht wirtschaftspädagogischer Forschung. In K. Harney & H.-E. Tenorth (Eds.), Beruf und Berufsbildung. Situation, Reformperspektiven, Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten (pp. 249–272). Beltz. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:8520 Grollmann, P. (2018). Varieties of “duality”: Work-based learning and vocational education in international comparative research. In S. Choy, G. B. Wärvik, & V. Lindberg (Eds.), Integration of vocational education and training experiences (Vol. 29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8857-5_4 Schwede, J., Heisler, D., & Harteis, C. (2025). Integrating practice-based learning into formal education: Stakeholder perspectives on the challenges of learning location cooperation (LLC) in Germany’s dual VET system. Social Sciences, 14, Article 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14030117 Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O. (2005). Kooperation zwischen Ausbildungsinstitutionen und Lernorten in der beruflichen Bildung – eine multidisziplinäre Betrachtung. Bildungsforschung, 2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4670 | ||