Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

In summer 2021, as exams could not take place, GCSE, AS and A level grades in England were awarded by teachers, in accordance with relatively broad official guidance. This guidance stressed that grades had to be based on evidence of candidate work, though what this was, how much was needed or where/when it should come from were not tightly specified. This was to deal with variations in teaching and learning across centres as a consequence of the variable impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The quality of these teacher assessed grades (TAGs) was assured by awarding organisations by sampling a selection of the evidence used. This report looks at samples for GCSE Mathematics and English Language, to try to get an understanding of what this evidence looked like at different centres, how it varied, and how different centres combined evidence to come up with final grades. The data inspected was hugely varied in terms of the detail centres offered on what evidence was used to determine grades and how it was brought together. The report concludes that, while the TAGs process provided assessment outcomes to candidates in what was a difficult situation and that these grades were on the whole accepted by stakeholders and wider society (at least compared to the situation in 2020), there are questions about comparability of standards between centres because of the level of variation found. The report ends with four recommendations for improving possible future teacher assessment processes to enhance consistency, efficiency and comparability of standards. [The title on the report cover differs from the suggested citation. Title on cover: "What Do We Know about the Evidence Sources Teachers Used to Determine Teacher Assessed Grades? "]

Following the financial crisis and the ensuing economic downturn in the past decade, apprenticeship sparked renewed interest among policy-makers both in Brussels and the EU Member States. Since, European and national crisis management strategies have advocated apprenticeship both as a short-term solution to youth unemployment and a useful response to companies' skill needs in the longer term. However, after the initial years of policy implementation and financial investment to increase apprenticeship numbers, social partners and experts have been raising grievances: not all schemes called 'apprenticeships' merited their name, not all ensured high-quality training (or any training), and not all 'apprentices' were entitled to employment or social protection rights. To help promote a common European understanding, Cedefop has identified the basic features a work-based education and training scheme should have to be called 'apprenticeship'. It suggests countries agree on a common denominator made up of the following features: (1) the scheme is backed by a legal framework; (2) it leads to a formal and portable qualification; (3) it relies on a structured alternation between work-based and school-based learning; (4) it implies a commitment for a minimum duration that makes the training alternation meaningful; (5) company and learner sign a specific type of contract; and (6) the learner receives a remuneration. Europe does not -- and should not -- have a single model of apprenticeship. Similarly, no model can simply be copied: the conditions enabling quality apprenticeships differ from country to country. Cedefop is widening and deepening its understanding of these conditions in their respective settings, to help step up transfer and adjustment of best practices in the future.

Following the financial crisis and the ensuing economic downturn in the past decade, apprenticeship sparked renewed interest among policy-makers both in Brussels and the EU Member States. Since, European and national crisis management strategies have advocated apprenticeship both as a short-term solution to youth unemployment and a useful response to companies' skill needs in the longer term. However, after the initial years of policy implementation and financial investment to increase apprenticeship numbers, social partners and experts have been raising grievances: not all schemes called 'apprenticeships' merited their name, not all ensured high-quality training (or any training), and not all 'apprentices' were entitled to employment or social protection rights. To help promote a common European understanding, Cedefop has identified the basic features a work-based education and training scheme should have to be called 'apprenticeship'. It suggests countries agree on a common denominator made up of the following features: (1) the scheme is backed by a legal framework; (2) it leads to a formal and portable qualification; (3) it relies on a structured alternation between work-based and school-based learning; (4) it implies a commitment for a minimum duration that makes the training alternation meaningful; (5) company and learner sign a specific type of contract; and (6) the learner receives a remuneration. Europe does not -- and should not -- have a single model of apprenticeship. Similarly, no model can simply be copied: the conditions enabling quality apprenticeships differ from country to country. Cedefop is widening and deepening its understanding of these conditions in their respective settings, to help step up transfer and adjustment of best practices in the future.

Experiential learning is critical to a smooth transition from higher education to the workforce. Work-based college courses, such as internships and practicums, may be useful in facilitating this transition. This paper applies an innovative text mining technique to identify and analyze work-based courses from transcript data. The paper examines patterns and post-degree labor market outcomes of taking work-based courses at two-year and four-year colleges in a large public college system. Findings show that approximately 15% of enrollees and 30% of graduates took a work-based course in the six years after college entry. Students typically earned credits from work-based courses, and they typically took the courses in later years of their programs. Moreover, work-based coursetaking varied largely across fields of study as well as colleges. While there was no significant racial disparity, female students, students who were younger at enrollment, and U.S.-born students were more likely to take the courses than their counterparts. Results show a positive association between work-based coursetaking in college and the probability of being employed after degree completion among both two-year and four-year degree completers, a positive association with post-degree earnings among four-year completers, and a negative association with post-degree earnings among two-year completers.

Various learning models have been developed and implemented in vocational education in the engineering field, but still have weaknesses, especially in basic matters such as one-sided learning and lack of direct industrial involvement. Moreover, learning in educational institutions is not supported by facilities that match those in the industry, but only simulation tools. Additionally, the media used in educational institutions is not as sophisticated as that used in the industry. This study is a literature review on Work-based Learning (WBL) and the formulation of WBL concepts suitable for vocational education in the engineering field. The results of the literature review showed that the implementation of WBL in various developing and advanced countries is very effective in developing students' competencies. Educational institutions and industries work together to improve the quality of learning to produce job-ready graduates. Industries benefit from the availability of competent and professional workforce who can develop their business for global competition. There are three WBL model concepts that can be applied to vocational education in the engineering field, including integrated student work, teaching factory, and industrial internship. The formation of student competencies can be carried out through a structured program, where students will gain experience and opportunities to gradually sharpen their competencies.