19 en garcia

7/23/2019 19 en Garcia

1/9

VOCATIONAL TRAINING NO 19 EUROPEAN J OURNAL

CEDEFOP

48

Types of vocational

training and their use

Introduction

The Sp anish training system provides vo-cational training u nder three m ain head -

ings, regulated training, occu pationaltraining and continuing training.

Regulated vocational training is a form ofinitial vo cational training p rovided underthe ed ucation system , aim ed at studentsw ith no previous w ork exp erience. It hasdeveloped considerably over tim e (Cano,Lpez an d O rtega, 1993). C urrently itsprim ary objective is to en sure traineesdevelop the abilities necessary to fulfil theroles dem anded of them and cope w ithsituations arising in the course of their

w ork. Regulated training h as to focus onthe acquisition of the vocational com pe-tence requ ired for the job (Royal D ecree676/93). Every certificate of regulated vo -cational training includes an occupationalprofile listing a num ber of w ork activitiesand levels of com petence exp ected ofthose w ho have been trained in their vari-ous w ork situations, referred to as voca-tional achievem ents. Prieto (1994) statesclearly and precisely that the objective ofregulated vocational training should be

to equip trainees to perform a job of w orkthrough acquisition of the necessarycom petences in the form of know ledge,social and technical skills, etc.

O ccupational training is defined by theFond o de Form acin (1992) as the resultof teaching and learning efforts directedat im proving the p reparation of those con-cerned for the w orld o f w ork.A notherdefinition w hich m ight be used for refer-en ce is that of the N ational Institute ofEm ploym ent (IN EM , 1992). It describesoccupational training as training designedto eq uip w orkers, em ployed or unem -ployed, for a given occupation or job bym eans of shorter or longer courses w ith

Migue l

Aure l i o

Alonso

Ga r caDepartm ent of Di f-

ferentia l and In dus-

tri al Psychology

Facul ty of Psychology

University of Mad ri d

This article deals with thevarious types of vocationaltraining - regulated, occupa-tional, continuing and

work-based - in Spain. It

analyses responses recei-ved from a sample of thosewho had undergone voca-tional training in its variousforms and goes on to ana-lyse different perceptionsof the usefulness of thetraining received accordingto the persons sex, occupa-tional group, performanceand degree of satisfaction.The trainees in the surveydistinguish clearly betweenthe various kinds of train-ing and their usefulness.The results suggest a num-ber of points deserving at-tention by academic andpolitical authorities aimingto ensure a high level of

vocational skills.

1) O ne go od exam ple is the p ro-gram m es the Com m une of M adrid hasbeen organising since 1994 throughth e In stitu to M ad rile o p ara laForm acin under the nam e of Finnova.

a m arked practical em phasis. Fras (1994)defines occupational training m ore strictly,as developing a series of com petences inunem ployed p eo ple, or first-tim e job-seekers, so as to facilitate their integra-

tion into the labour m arket. This lim itsthe kind of person at w hom training istargeted, but agrees w ith the other defi-nitions as regards its objectives. It is pro-vided outside the education system andan essential condition of occupationaltraining that distinguishes it from regu-lated vocational training is that it is notacadem ically recognised. A nother is thatit should be exclusively aim ed at provid-ing vocational skills, thereby ruling outtraining of a m ore general nature, or per-son al develop m ent cou rses.

The third category of training is continu-ing training, w hich is for w orkers em -ployed in the public sector at central, au-ton om ou s com m un ity or local level andfor those em ployed in private firm s.

A nother type of training is w ork-basedtraining. B y this is understood those pe-riods of practical w ork in firm s that fol-low a course of occupational training, orw ork exp erience that com bines the ac-

quisition of a body of know ledge w iththe perform ance of a nu m ber of functionsand tasks (A lonso, 1998). These pro-gram m es, w hich do not involve classroo minstruction, nonetheless enable trainees toacquire a com bination of kn ow ledge,skills and attitudes1.

The M inistry of Education and C ulture hasits ow n version of w ork-based training.W hen it recently introduced the new sys-tem of regulated vocational training it cre-ated a Training at w ork cen tresm odule,the chief purpose of w hich is to con cen-trate training activities on a w ork centre(Royal D ecree 676/93). Training at w orkcentres takes place in a real w orking en-

7/23/2019 19 en Garcia

2/9


CEDEFOP

49

We pr oposed a c lass i f i ca -

t i on o f t ra i n i ng d i s t i ngu i sh -

i n g be tween t h r e e t y p e s :

r egu l a t ed voca t i ona l t r a i n -

i ng , occupa t i ona l t r a i n i ng

( w h i ch inc ludes con t i nu ing

t r a i n i n g ) and w o r k - ba s ed

t ra i n i ng .

Table 1

Frequency distribution of variables for types of training

Not Very Reasonably Sufficiently Very at all little

Your VT is suitable for FINNOVA 6 23 46 150 73

VT equips you for work 2 20 97 134 44

OT is useful for work 5 8 48 147 47

FINNOVA is useful for work 2 4 29 132 133

Usefulness of regulated training 7 70 115 97

Usefulness of occupational training 1 18 83 105 36

Usefulness of FINNOVA 2 11 26 98 163

vironm en t. Trainees perform tasks in-volved in different occupations. They be-com e acquainted w ith the w ay produc-tion processes or the provision of serv-ices are organised and w ith relationships

in a w orking environm ent (D irectorate-G eneral for Regu lated Training, 1994).This typ e of training is com pulsory fortrainees pursuing m edium - and higher-level training courses. Courses take upeigh t, ten or fifteen w eeks of the schoolyear in the one or tw o term s after a traineehas covered all the subjects needed forthe relevant qualification. Trainees are notem ployed (Royal D ecree 2317/93) andcann ot be paid for w ork don e du ringtraining.

M artnez (1996) considers the system oftraining at w ork centres run by the M inis-try of Education and Culture w ould bem ore useful if the objectives w ere ex-tended to helping to bo ost the nu m ber oftrainees sub sequen tly finding em ploy-m ent, by evaluating the com petence ofthose trainees w ho do m anage to d o so.

W ork-based training is the m ost exp en-sive form of training. Som e co urses in-clude it as an addition to the p rogram m ebut periods of w ork experience w ith afirm extend ing beyond three m on ths arerare and training leading to qualificationthat is exclusively w ork-based even rarer.

The various types of training have dem -onstrated their usefulness over the years.They have b ecom e w ell established andare supported by governm ent authorities,w ho see them as a m eans of enhancing

individualsqualifications.

For this survey continuing training hasbeen treated as a form of occup ationaltraining as defined by the Fondo deForm acin and IN EM .

W e proposed a classification of trainingdistinguishing betw een three types: regu-lated vo cational training, occupationaltraining (w hich includes co ntinuing train-ing) and w ork-based training. This classi-

fication is used in the em pirical sectionof this article.

Methodology

Objectives

The p urpose of this article is to determ inew hich of the various form s of training -regulated, occupational or w ork-based -the trainees them selves perceive as m ostuseful and, m ore specifically, how theirperceptions differ according to the aca-dem ic qualification involved and w hethertrainees distinguish clearly betw een thedifferent types of training.

7/23/2019 19 en Garcia

3/9


CEDEFOP

50

Table 2:

Validity of candidate selection and the different types of vocational training

Variable FP_ADECU FP_UTIL FO_UTIL FIN_UTIL FP FO F_PRACOverall freq. 298 297 255 300 289 243 300Mean 3.8758 3.6667 3.8745 4.3000 4.0450 3.6461 4.3633Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00Mode 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00Stand. dev. 0.93637 0.83423 0.81324 0.75181 0.82162 0.83706 0.84084Mean error 0.054 0.048 0.050 0.043 0.048 0.053 0.048Coeff. of variation 0.241 0.227 0.209 0.174 0.203 0.229 0.192Min. value 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00Quartile I 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00Quartile III 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.00Max. value 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Population and sample

O ur sam ple com prised 332 you ng peopleof an average age of 24 w ho had attendedsecond-level vocational training coursesand w ho had taken part in the Finn ovaw ork-based training program m e in 1994

and 1995. This program m e lasted a year,its principal objective being to eq uip train-ees w ith the know ledge and skills neces-sary to find em ploym ent. Courses w ereheld at universities and governm ent-runresearch centres of the A uton om ou s Com -m unity of M adrid. Since the survey cov-ered all those taking p art in the p ro-gram m e, the p op ulation and sam ple w ereidentical.

Procedure

The Finnova 94 and Finnova 95 pro-gram m es covered tw o separate groups oftrainees from different years. The first stepw as to check that any differences betw eenthe groups w ere no t sign ificant. O nce thisw as fou nd to b e the case the grou ps w erecom bined in a single population for dataan alysis.

A sho rt qu estion naire w as draw n u p andused tw o years running. Q uestions cen-tred on how useful the trainees consid-ered the various types of training they hadreceived and w ere currently receiving.The high est level of training involved w aslevel 2. A ll w ere taking p art in a w ork-

based training p rogram m e and m any hadalready benefited from occupational train-ing.

The variables for the various form s oftraining, ran ked on a five-point Likertscale, w ere as follow s:

FP_ADECU: Is the kn ow ledge you ac-quired during your specialised trainingcourse sufficient for you to do the jobinvolved in your w ork-based training orplace under the Finn ova schem e?

FP_UTIL: D oes the know ledge you haveacquired during your specialised trainingcourse on its ow n ensure that you aresuitably prep ared for a job in the fieldconcerned?

FO_UTIL: W ill the know ledge you haveacquired on the occupational trainingcourses (CA M , IM A F, IM EM , IM EFE etc.)be useful to you in carrying o ut a job inthe field concerned?

FIN_UTIL: W ill the kn ow ledge you areacquiring under the Finnova schem e beuseful to you in carrying out a job in thefield concerned ?

FP: U sefulness of regulated vocationaltraining (level 2)

FO: U sefulness of occupational trainingcourses

F_PRAC: U sefulness of w ork-based train-ing (Finnova)

Our samp le compr i sed 332

young peop le o f an aver age

age o f 24 wh o ha d a t tended

s e c o n d - l e v e l v o c a t i o n a l

t r a i n i n g cou r s es and who

h a d t a k e n p a r t i n t h e

F i nnova wo r k -based t r a i n -

i ng p r og ramme i n 1994 and

1995.

7/23/2019 19 en Garcia

4/9


CEDEFOP

51

Table 5:

Factors with variables

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3F_PRAC 0.92761FIN_UTIL 0.84577

UTIL 0.83270FO 0.70094

FP_UTIL 0.77950

FP0.60808

FP_ADECU 0.35768

There w ere thus tw o questions concern-ing the usefulness of regulated vocationaltraining (FP_U TIL and FP), tw o relating tooccupational training (FO _U TIL and FO )and tw o to w ork-based training (FIN _U TIL

and F_PRA C). There w as also a questionas to how suitable the training they hadbeen given w as proving for their w ork-based training placem ent (FP_AD EC U ).

W e w orked on the b asis of the averagegrading in the academ ic qualificationsobtained by som e individuals in regulatedvo cational training (grade variable).

The data w as analysed statistically by p ara-m etric and non-param etric m ethods. The

param etric m etho ds u sed w ere factoranalysis using the principal axes w ith K ai-sers norm alisation and equam ax rotationto see the groupings of the various ele-m ents and the C ronbach reliability analy-sis to determ ine the inherent consistencyof the questions asked. The non-param et-ric m ethods w ere Spearm ans coefficientof rank correlation to determ ine the de-gree of relationship betw een the variables,the M ann-W hitney U test to determ ine anystatistically significant differences betw eenthe tw o groups, the K ruskal-W allis (2) test

to analyse the differences betw een m orethan tw o groups and the C ochran Q testw hen the scores w ere dichotom ous andthere w ere m ore than tw o groups.

In the initial phase a check w as m ade toestablish the existence of any statisticallysignifican t differences betw een the vari-ables of the survey as a function of sex,occupational fam ily for w hich practicaltraining w as taking place, and sub jectsperform ance (assessed b y a tutor respon-

sible for each individuals training) andsatisfaction scored on a scale.

To check w hether differences existed be-tw een individual perceptions of trainingusefulness, trainees w ere put into tw ogroups - those w ho rated the usefulnessof training as m edium , low or very low(scores less than 3) and those w ho ratedit high or very high (4 or 5). The vari-ables w ere divided into a series of di-chotom ies w ith the low est scores recordedas zero and the highest as one.

Statistical analyses w ere perform ed usingthe SPSS 7.5 2S softw are package. Chartsw ere draw n using W ord Perfect 8.0.

Table 3:

Usefulness of the different types of training(Average scores out of a maximum of 5)

3.88

3.67

3.87

4.30

4.05

3.65

4.36U sefulness of FIN N O VA

Regulated vocational training useful

for FIN N O VA (FP_AD ECU )

Regulated vocational traininguseful for w ork (FP-U TIL)

O ccupational training useful

for w ork (FO _U TIL)

FIN N O VA useful preparation

for w ork (FIN _U TIL)

U sefulness of regulated

vocational training (FO )

U sefulness of

occupational training (FP)

Table 4:

Coincidence and explained variance of variables

Variable Coinci- * Factor Proper % cumul.dence value variance %

FP_ADECU 0.23167 * 1 2.29905 32.8 32.8FP_UTIL 0.62547 * 2 1.16046 16.6 49.4FO_UTIL 0.76342 * 3 0.69918 10.0 59.4FIN_UTIL 0.75305 *FP 0.37792 *FO 0.52161 *F_PRAC 0.88553 *

7/23/2019 19 en Garcia

5/9


CEDEFOP

52

Results

A reliability check w as carried out for theseven training variables to ensure the in-herent consistency of the survey. Thisshow ed a high coefficient of reliability (= 0.71) w ith statistically significant differ-ences betw een the m eans.

A first step w as to determ ine the fre-quency distribution of the variables (ta-ble 1) to see the trends in the rep lies an dcalculate m easures of cen tral tendenciesand dispersion (table 2) to analyse sub-jectsreplies for each variab le.

The FP_A D ECU variable (the suitabilityof training for a w ork-based trainingplacem ent) w as used to validate the se-lection of trainees for the program m e,nam ely the appropriateness of the require-m ents in term s of regulated training toqualify for a p lace in the p rogram m e.74.8% of respondents considered the re-quirem ents sufficiently or very ap propri-ate. Th e m ean w as 3.88 and the m edian 4(out of a total of 5) points (see table 2).

The validity of selection w as high for bothyears, but especially in the case of thesecond (U =9369.5; P=0.01), dem onstrat-ing the value of previous experience w henan operation has to be repeated severaltim es.

O ther questions related to the usefulnessof the d ifferent typ es of training in gen -eral and for cop ing w ith a p articular jobof w ork. The average scores given aresho w n in table 3; all are high er than 3.5

out of a m axim um of 5.

A ll typ es of training are perceived by train-ees as being u seful for carrying o ut a job,especially w ork-based training w here the

m eans are higher than 4 ou t 5. The aver-ages for the questions concerning the use-fulness of regulated vo cational training

and occupational training are high er than3.6 out of 5 w ith a m edian of 4.

A factor analysis w as carried out (tables3, 4 and 5) to find out how the responsesof individual sub jects to the various ques-tions coincided and w hich type of train-ing the subjects found m ost useful. 59.4%of the data turned out to be exp lainableby three factors. Factor w eigh tings arehigh, except in the case of FP_A D EC U(suitab ility of training for a w ork-basedtraining placem ent) since this variable re-lated to the validity of the selection andw as not con cerned w ith usefulness likethe other variables. W hile excluding itfrom the analysis w ould have the effectof increasing the degree of explained vari-ance - to 66.54% - it w as retained becau seof its contribution to the third factor.

The first factor (W ork-based occupationaltraining) explains 32.8% of the data. Thesecond factor (O ccupational training)explains 16.6% of total variance and the

third factor (Regulated vocational train-ing) explains 10% .

The factor analysis show ed that traineesdistingu ished clearly betw een the threetyp es of training and their usefulness, notonly as regards the kn ow ledge im partedbut also the usefulness of that know ledgeat the actual w orkplace.

Sp earm ans coefficien t of rank correlationonly show s correlations higher than 0.4

betw een the variables for regulated train-ing FP and FP_U TIL (0.41), for occup a-tional training FO and FO _U TIL (0.62) andfor w ork-based training F_P RA C andFIN _U TIL (0.76). In other w ords, the ques-

Table 6:

Sex-based differences

Variable Mann-Whitney test Probability Men Women

Mean rank N Mean rank NFP_UTIL 8778.5 0.0017 135.69 162 164.97 135FIN_UTIL 8687.5 0.0003 135.13 162 168.55 138FP 8619.5 0.0112 134.54 161 158.16 128F_PRAC 8626.0 0.0001 134.58 161 168.94 139

A l l t y p e s o f t r a i n i n g a r e

pe r c ei v e d b y t r a i n e e s a s

b ei n g u s ef u l f o r c a r r y i n g

ou t a jo b , espec ia l l y wor k -ba s ed t r a i n i n g wh e r e t h e

means are h igher th an 4 ou t

5 . T h e a v er a g e s f o r t h e

que s t i o n s c on ce r n i n g t h e

use fu lness o f r egu la ted vo-

ca t i ona l t r a i n i ng and occu -

p a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g a r e

h igher th an 3 .6 ou t o f 5 wi th

a med ia n o f 4 .

7/23/2019 19 en Garcia

6/9


CEDEFOP

53

tions m ost interrelated are those referringto the sam e typ es of training. It w ouldtherefore seem that individuals distinguishclearly betw een the different typ es oftraining w hen rating them , and the datam ay be regarded as valid.

The Cochran Q test (Q =52.25; P=0.0001)

yielded statistically significant differencesbetw een the three types of training. Thetype of training w hich individuals perceiveas the m ost useful is w ork-based train-ing, follow ed by regu lated training andthen occupational training. It sho uld beborne in m ind that this result could beinfluenced by the fact that those ques-tion ed w ere at that m om ent engaged inw ork-based training, w hich could reflectin their replies.

To determ ine w hich type of training w asperceived as m ore useful by trainees w hohad gained the best gradings in their regu-lated training w e used the M ann-W hitneyU test. N o statistically significant differ-ences w ere fou nd (U =232; P=0.319) in theperception of usefulness of regulatedtraining betw een those w ith better orw orse gradings. H ow ever, differen cesw ere found in the case of occupationaltraining (U =114; P=0.008) and w ork-basedtraining (U =62.5; P=0.001) w hich scoredhigher w ith those w ith b etter grades. Thusit w as those trainees w ith the better gradesin regulated vocational training w ho con-sidered occup ational and w ork-basedtraining to be m ore useful.

This finding coincides w ith the Spearm ancoefficien t of rank correlation in that theaverage acad em ic qualification of thetrainee (their grade) has a 0.44 correla-tion w ith the usefulness of the know ledgeacquired in the Finnova program m e forcarrying o ut a job (FIN _U TIL), a correla-tion of 0.42 w ith the u sefulness of the

know ledge acquired in occup ational train-ing for carrying out a job (FO _U TIL) anda co rrelation of 0.44 w ith the usefulnessof occupational training courses (FO ).Th ose trainees w ho m ay be assum ed tohave h ad to m ake a greater effort to getthrough the second-level vocational train-ing find it the m ost useful.

W hen it cam e to sex (table 6) statisticallysignificant differences w ere also found forthe FP_U TIL variable, w hich relates to the

usefulness of know ledge acqu ired in vo-cational training for carrying out a job(2=8778.5; P=0.0017), and for the regu-lated vo catio n al train in g variab leFIN_U TIL, w hich refers to the usefulnessof know ledge acquired under the Finnovap ro gram m e fo r carryin g o u t a jo b(2=8687.5; P=0.0003). In both casesw om en score usefulness higher than m en.The sam e trend em erges w ith regard tothe usefulness of regulated vocationaltraining (FP) (2=8619.5; P=0.0112) andof w ork-based train ing (F_P R A C )(2=8626; P=0.0001).

W om en clearly find regulated training andw ork-based training m ore useful than

Table 7:

Differences as function of occupational family

Variable 2 Proba- Occupational families2

test bility Mean Rank

1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13(N =8) (N =25) (N =11) (N =9) (N =88) (N=9) (N =22) (N =54) (N=45) (N =41) (N =12)

FP_UTIL 39.70 0.00 164.50 142.59 202.50 111.07 168.71 152.75 137.79 105.64 179.43 132.23 100.58FP 34.52 0.00 154.00 152.73 188.00 123.14 162.88 126.13 149.00 133.88 166.89 95.43 86.33FIN_UTIL 25.91 0.01 145.71 119.28 182.75 124.21 165.01 133.75 116.74 133.25 175.43 158.24 96.17F_PRAC 37.89 0.00 136.38 109.75 163.50 130.93 172.91 128.69 116.88 141.95 169.56 159.72 62.38

1. Farm ing2. B uilding co nstruction3. M anufacturing4. A grifood industries

5. H eavy and civil engineering6. C hem ical industry7 . C ultural inform ation and perform ances8. Installation and assem bly

9. Repairs and m aintenan ce10. H ealth12. Corporate services13. Transport and com m un ication s

Thus i t w as those t ra i nees

w i t h t h e bet t er g r a de s i n

r egu l a t ed voca t i ona l t r a i n -

ing w ho cons ider ed occupa-

t i o n a l a n d w o r k - b a se d

t r a i n i ng to be mor e usefu l .

Women c lea r l y f i nd r egu-

l a t ed t r a i n i n g a n d w o r k - based t r a i n i ng mo r e usef u l

tha n men. Ther e are no d i f -

f e r e n c es a s r e g a r d s t h e

use fu lness o f occupa t i ona l

t r a i n i ng .

7/23/2019 19 en Garcia

7/9


CEDEFOP

54

m en. There are no differences as regardsthe usefulness of occupational training.

There are statistically significant differ-ences in traineesperception of the use-fulness of the various typ es of trainingaccording to the o ccupational fam ily ofthe jobs to w hich the trainees w ere allo-cated for their practical training (table 7).These ap pear for the variables for regu-lated training: FP_U T IL (2=39.6984;P=0.0001), FP (2=34.5230; P= 0.0003) andw o rk-based train in g - FIN _U T IL

(2=2 5.9054; P= 0.0067) and F _PR A C(2=37.8869; P=0.0001).

Trainees w ho attribute a greater useful-ness to regulated vo cational training arethose w ith w ork-based training place-m ents in the agrifood, health, chem icaland farm ing occupational categories.Those considering it to be less useful arethose in transport and com m unicationsand repairs and m aintenan ce.

Tho se w ho consider w ork-based trainingto be m ost useful are also in jobs in theagrifood, health and chem ical sectors asw ell as in corporate services. Those w hoconsider it less useful are in transport andcom m un ication s and m anu facturing. Itw ould appear that the occup ations in thefirst group involve m ore varied tasks anda greater learning content w hile those inthe second group are m ore m onotonous.

O ccupational training is perceived aseq ually u seful by all, regardless of thefield concerned .

Those perform ing best in w ork-basedtraining regard all three types of training

as m ore useful than do those perform ingless w ell (Table 8). These differences ap -ply in the case of the regulated trainingvariable FP (U =1952.5; P=0.00l3), the oc-cup ational training FO _U TIL (U =1913.5;P= 0.0401) and FO (U =1701.0; P= 0.0164),and for the w ork-based training variablesFIN _U T IL (U =1539; P= 0.0001) andF_PR A C(U =1579; P=0.0001).

Those individuals m ost satisfied w ith theirw ork-based training placem ent attributeda greater usefulness to occupational train-

ing and w ork-based training than tho sew ho w ere less satisfied (table 9). D iffer-ences app ear in the variables FO _U TIL(U =1918; P= 0.0463), FIN _U TIL (U =1324;P= 0.0001), and F _P R A C (U =1 360.5;P=0.0001). There w ere no differences inthe p erceived usefulness of regulated vo-cational training.

Conclusions

Individuals distinguish very clearly be-tw een the three types of training and theirusefulness. G enerally, they consider w ork-based training the m ost useful, follow edby regulated vocational training, w ith oc-cupational training com ing last.

A closer analysis show s differences in theperception of usefulness as a function of:

sex (w om en attribute greater useful-ness to regulated and w ork-based train-ing than m en);

grade (those obtaining higher gradesin regulated training consider w ork-based

Table 8:

Differences as function of performance

Variable Mann- Probability Low-performance High-performance

Whitney group grouptest RTG < 6 RTG > 6

Mean rank N Mean rank NFP 1952.5 0.0013 93.85 24 146.99 260FO_UTIL 1913.5 0.0401 98.48 22 128.11 228FO 1701.0 0.0164 88.82 22 123.70 218FIN_UTIL 1539.0 0.0001 74.56 25 154.80 270F_PRAC 1579.0 0.0001 76.16 25 154.65 270

7/23/2019 19 en Garcia

8/9


CEDEFOP

55

and occupational training m ore u seful,w hile those w ith p oorer grades prefertraining under the education system );

perform ance (those perform ing best inw ork-based training rate it m ore u sefulthan do those perform ing less w ell);

satisfaction (the m ost satisfied subjectsrate w ork-based and occupational train-ing high er than those w ho are less satis-fied).

The results show that individuals perceivew ork-based training as m ost useful, sug-gesting it w ould be ap propriate to gener-alise the use of w ork-based training forthe m ore usual typ es of training. Thisw ould m ean:

incorporating w ork-based training intow ork centre training program m es, therebym aking it a regular feature of regulatedvocational training and getting it startedw ith the necessary assistance an d re-

sources;

extending the use of w ork-based train-ing in occupational training courses andm aking it a requirem ent for qualification;

increasing the num ber of ad hoc w ork-based training program m es, the successof w hich w ould depend essentially on theclarity of definition of the o ccupationalprofiles involved and a suitable choice oftrainees.

Such a generalisation w ould involve con -cluding agreem ents w ith suitable firm s,w ho norm ally are very receptive to co-operative schem es of this typ e. This

should achieve the tw o-fold objective ofim parting the know ledge, skills and /or at-titudes aim ed at in an y training p ro-gram m e and ensuring they are subse-quently applied in actual w ork situations.

The general use of w ork-based trainingw ould assist trainees in their learningprocess and m ake it easier to d eterm inew hich aspects have been m astered suffi-ciently to be applied in practice on thejob. This w ill doubtless m ake it possibleto assess how w orthw hile training is.

A ppointing a tutor to be responsible forsolving problem s and assessing traineescom petence is extrem ely useful (Sparrow ,1994) and perm its the m onitoring p roc-ess that sho uld form part of any trainingactivity. M onitoring can often be left tothe trainer as the expert on the subject(B uckley and C aple, 1991).

Em ployers w ould then have not only aw orkforce that is suitably trained, but also

one possessed of the practical kn ow -howso often lacking. They w ould have theopportunity to check the ability and atti-tude o f a trainee w hen faced w ith anum ber of tasks and determ ine w hetherthe process o f socialisation at w ork(Prieto, Peir, B ravo and Caballer, 1996)has been successful. These sam ples ofbehaviou r w ou ld undo ub tedly help topredict a trainees future perform an cem ore effectively than do occup ationaltests (Levy-Leboyer, 1992) or training tests(Reilly and M anese, 1979; Robertson andK andola, 1982). If at a later date firm soffering practical w ork experience are inneed of personnel the inform ation w illprove very useful to them .

Table 9:

Differences as function of satisfaction

Variable Mann- Probability Low-satisfaction High-satisfaction

Whitney group grouptest Overall S < 5 Overall S > 5

Mean rank N Mean rank NFO_UTIL 1918.0 0.0463 83.00 28 105.60 176FIN_UTIL 1324.0 0.0001 58.71 31 130.73 211F_PRAC 1360.5 0.0001 59.02 32 131.55 211

The r esu l t s show th a t ind i -v i d u a l s p e r c ei v e w o r k -

based t r a i n i ng as mos t use-

fu l , sugges t i ng i t w ou ld be

app r o p r i a t e t o gener a l i s e

t h e u s e o f w o r k - b a se d

t r a i n i ng f o r t he mo re usua l

types o f t r a i n i ng .

7/23/2019 19 en Garcia

9/9


CEDEFOP

56

The trainees for their part w ill benefit fromm ore attractive curricula and from in-creased job opportunities, w hether in thesam e firm , others in the sam e sector, orin jobs related to the p ractical experien ce

gained.

The task of m aking the use of w ork-basedtraining the norm w ill call for con stanteffort by go vernm ent authorities at all lev-els to m aintain and im prove the three-fold system of regulated vocational, oc-

cupational and continuing training.

Martnez, B. (1996):Relaci ones ent re sistema edu-cativo y mercado de trabajo, Estudios de Juventud38 (1996) pp.9-29.

Prieto, S. (1994):In certidu mbr e y ri esgos de la re-forma de la formaci n pr ofesion al, C uadernos deRelacion es Laborales 4 (1994) pp.33-40.

Prieto, Peir, Bravo and Cabeller (1996):Socia-li zaci n y Desar ollo del Rol Laboral, in J.M . Peirand F. Prieto (Eds.): Tratado de P sicologa d el Tra-bajo, Vol. II: A spectos psicosociales del trabajo, Sn-tesis Psicologa, Valen cia, 1996, pp. 65-100.

Reilly, R. R. and Manese, W. R.(1979):The valid -ity of a mi ni -course for telephone company person-nel, Personnel Psychology 32 (1979) pp . 83-90.

Robertson, I. T. and Kandola, R. S. (1982):Worksample tests: valid ity, ad verse im pact an d appli can treaction, Journal of O ccup ation al Psych ology 55

(1982) pp. 171-183.

Sparrow, P. R. (1994):The psychology of stra tegicmanagement, in: C . Coopers, I. Robertson (Eds.)International Review of Industrial and O rganisationalPsycho logy, Vol.9 (1994), Joh n W iley, Chichester.

Alonso M. A.(1998):Forma cin en Prcti cas y So-ciali zacin Laboral, D octoral Thesis, M adrid, 1998.

Buckley, R. and Caple, J. (1991): La Form acin,teor a y prcti ca, D az de San tos, M adrid, 1991.

Cano, J., Lpez, J. and Ortega, M. (1993): La nu e-va forma cin pr ofesiona l.Ram as, M dulos Profe-sionales y Ciclos form ativos. Escuela Espaola, M a-drid, 1993.

Direccin General de Formacin ProfesionalReglada (1994):Form acin en C entros de Trabajo,M inisterio de Ed ucacin y C iencia, M adrid, 1994.

Fondo de Formacin (1992): M ateriales A FFA , M a-drid, 1992.

Fras, J. (1994):Formacin Professional Occupa-c ional, Cuad ernos de R elacion es Labo rales 4 (1994),pp. 15-22.

INEM(1992):Metodol oga de l os Estu di os Sectori a-les, M adrid, 1992.

Levy-Leboyer, C. (1992):Evalua cin de persona l.Los m todo s a elegir, D az de San tos, M adrid, 1992.

Bibliography

19 en garcia

Documents