|
 |
spring 2009
|
When will vocational education training step out from the shadow of academic learning?By Nick Grist I recently spent three months completing my personal training qualification. My experiences on the course, and indeed other vocational courses I have attended, left me with many questions. My life has since changed direction and I have become more involved with the development of vocational training through my work with CSD. I have found answers to some of my questions, discovered numerous examples of good practice and have had the opportunity to discuss concerns with colleagues and practitioners. When analysing and discussing educational reform, the three main areas are curriculum (what is taught), pedagogy (how it is taught) and assessment (how well the teachings are understood). My course raised questions about each of these elements and the ways in which vocational education does, and can do, better than its academic counterpart. Included in the curriculum for my course was ‘sliding filament theory’: the explanation for how muscles produce force at the macromolecular level. I found this fascinating, and I regretted following the advice of my teachers to do Maths rather than Biology at A-level. Whilst I have never used differential calculus or quadratic equations since, I often find myself in situations where I wish I knew more about the human body and how it works! But, while I feasted on the information being given, the troubling question was why we were learning it at all. It wouldn’t make us better trainers and it seemed unfair that many of my fellow students, for whom it was neither interesting nor relevant, would be tested on it in the standardised test of Anatomy and Physiology that governed the academic element of our training. This wholly irrelevant information could mean the difference between passing and failing for some students, preventing them from doing a job at which they would be remarkably good. It seemed to me about as relevant as learning about the neurons and brain area responsible for language acquisition when training to become an English teacher. Reading the book How People Learn (John D. Bransford et al), I discovered three key areas to be addressed when creating a knowledge-centred environment: what is taught, why it is taught and what competence or mastery looks like. And I couldn’t find anyone whose idea of competence or mastery of personal training included the knowledge of sliding filament theory. When I asked why this information was taught, I was told it gave a perceived credibility to our qualification. A perception from an academic viewpoint, I suspected. Pedagogy in the academic sphere is also suffering, due to a lack of government support for innovation by teachers and true recognition of its value. Dr Anthony Seldon, Head Teacher and political commentator, pointed out last month in his inaugural lecture to the College of Teachers, schools are: "dancing to Gradgrind's drumbeat of facts, facts, facts more than ever." He went on to say that: "Government officials have sought, through exams and testing, to make education 'teacher proof' around the world.” Fortunately, this was not the case on my course, where the teachers used innovative and engaging techniques, interspersing theory with practical application and utilising visual, auditory and kinaesthetic (VAK) modalities to maximise learner retention. Whether you subscribe to the VAK model or others, such as Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences, the benefits of choosing a teaching methodology that recognises the diversity of human intelligence have been well documented. I have found vocational training not only naturally lends itself to this method with its emphasis on practical application, but is also currently leading the way in developing further innovative approaches. The assessment element of our course wasn’t just limited to the theoretical paper-based examinations that gave it academic credibility. We also had practical assessments that encouraged learners to seek innovative solutions to problems, thinking outside the box and designing programmes for the kind of unexpected real life scenarios we would encounter. We were given skills that made us work-ready and prepared to face our clients, and these are the skills we all need to develop in a rapidly changing and increasingly unpredictable global marketplace. Vocational training is leading development in all three areas of education but needs to protect against an atavistic deference to the academic practices. According to the Observer, in its discussion of Dr Seldon’s speech, these practices are “developing soulless schools cursed by league tables and dominated by ’formulaic‘ exams squeezing the lifeblood out of education”. It is high time the vocational sector gets the recognition it deserves for its exemplary teaching methods and exceptional teachers. These teachers should receive the same rewards and accolades that charities like the National Teaching Awards [UK] bestow upon those in the school system. We have a lot to learn from each other, and the changing world will continue to challenge us to develop in ways we can’t yet imagine. I for one will continue to enjoy uncovering the wealth of talent in the education sector as a whole and learning more every day. Did you find the article useful? Vote Now The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of CSD. |
also in this issue...
back to... Vocational training is leading development in all three areas of education but needs to protect against an atavistic deference to the academic practices. |
