Systemvarianten beruflicher Qualifizierung : Eine schottisch-englische Vergleichsskizze im Zeichen der Modularisierungsdebatte

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Date
2001
Authors
Pilz, Matthias
Editors
Contact
Journal ISSN
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliographical data
Publisher
Series
URI (citable link)
DOI (citable link)
ArXiv-ID
International patent number
Link to the license
EU project number
Project
Open Access publication
Restricted until
Title in another language
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Publication type
Journal article
Publication status
Published
Published in
Bildung und Erziehung ; 54 (2001), 4. - pp. 439-458. - ISSN 0006-2456. - eISSN 2194-3834
Abstract
The problem which generates the motivation for comparing VET systems can be seen in the present and refers to the fact that the vocational education and training systems of Europe have one common trait: They differ sharply from one another. The differences in education and training between nations are not always apparent at first sight but surely well up whenever it comes to European integration. The question is whether this may also be said when looking at „intra-national" comparisons or „home internationals". In the case of England and Scotland „individual" training infrastructures may also be traced back to and reconstructed from deep-rooted traditions. On the other hand, the two countries' „educational landscapes" in general appear similar at first sight while two common features of the VET systems strike the eye: the firm belief that companies should be responsible for training and, secondly, the well-documented inclination to implement and even enforce a policy of establishing national qualification frameworks based on modular principles and linked to competence-based assessment. Against this background the article depicts some of the major differences between the two „countries".
Summary in another language
Subject (DDC)
330 Economics
Keywords
Conference
Review
undefined / . - undefined, undefined. - (undefined; undefined)
Cite This
ISO 690PILZ, Matthias, Thomas DEISSINGER, 2001. Systemvarianten beruflicher Qualifizierung : Eine schottisch-englische Vergleichsskizze im Zeichen der Modularisierungsdebatte. In: Bildung und Erziehung. 54(4), pp. 439-458. ISSN 0006-2456. eISSN 2194-3834. Available under: doi: 10.7788/bue.2001.54.4.439
BibTex
@article{Pilz2001Syste-34372,
  year={2001},
  doi={10.7788/bue.2001.54.4.439},
  title={Systemvarianten beruflicher Qualifizierung : Eine schottisch-englische Vergleichsskizze im Zeichen der Modularisierungsdebatte},
  number={4},
  volume={54},
  issn={0006-2456},
  journal={Bildung und Erziehung},
  pages={439--458},
  author={Pilz, Matthias and Deißinger, Thomas}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/34372">
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/34372/1/Pilz_0-342191.pdf"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/46"/>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dc:creator>Pilz, Matthias</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/46"/>
    <dcterms:abstract>The problem which generates the motivation for comparing VET systems can be seen in the present and refers to the fact that the vocational education and training systems of Europe have one common trait: They differ sharply from one another. The differences in education and training between nations are not always apparent at first sight but surely well up whenever it comes to European integration. The question is whether this may also be said when looking at „intra-national" comparisons or „home internationals". In the case of England and Scotland „individual" training infrastructures may also be traced back to and reconstructed from deep-rooted traditions. On the other hand, the two countries' „educational landscapes" in general appear similar at first sight while two common features of the VET systems strike the eye: the firm belief that companies should be responsible for training and, secondly, the well-documented inclination to implement and even enforce a policy of establishing national qualification frameworks based on modular principles and linked to competence-based assessment. Against this background the article depicts some of the major differences between the two „countries".</dcterms:abstract>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/34372"/>
    <dc:language>deu</dc:language>
    <dcterms:issued>2001</dcterms:issued>
    <dcterms:title>Systemvarianten beruflicher Qualifizierung : Eine schottisch-englische Vergleichsskizze im Zeichen der Modularisierungsdebatte</dcterms:title>
    <dc:contributor>Deißinger, Thomas</dc:contributor>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2016-06-13T13:32:54Z</dc:date>
    <dc:creator>Deißinger, Thomas</dc:creator>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/34372/1/Pilz_0-342191.pdf"/>
    <dc:contributor>Pilz, Matthias</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2016-06-13T13:32:54Z</dcterms:available>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Internal note
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Contact
URL of original publication
Test date of URL
Examination date of dissertation
Method of financing
Comment on publication
Alliance license
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
International Co-Authors
Bibliography of Konstanz
No
Refereed