Discussion and conclusions

VET institutional settings, development traditions, organizational systems and so-cio-economic contexts are diff erent. Never-theless, the problem to connect work-based initial VET systems with a cultural vision that underlines the importance of reciprocity rela-tionships between all the involved partners is quite common. This problem has its theoret-ical and practtheoret-ical dimensions.

From the theoretical perspective the key questions and issues of research concern implications of the reciprocity relations typ-ical for the inter-institutional links between the main stakeholders and VET providers for the reciprocity relations between trainers and apprentices typical for the education-al processes of work-based VET. Here an analysis of existing literature and research sources suggests that the intensiveness and volume of existing settings of inter-institutional cooperation and social dialogue in the fi eld of work-based VET shape the mutual reci-procity relations between the institutions and stakeholders and create the institutional and socio-economic environment for the develop-ment of reciprocity in the educational relation-ships between the trainers and apprentices.

For example, in the case of the workplace or enterprise-based learning and training with the fragmented involvement of social partners and liberal state policy in the fi eld of VET, the bilateral contracts between enterprises and apprentices facilitate the provision of the knowledge and skills required by the work-places and oriented to the short-term skills needs of enterprises. It reduces the interest

RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 8, n. 1 - June 2016 | 67

and engagement of apprentices in long-term skills development. The labour market situa-tion, restrictive and reductionist approaches of enterprises to the provision of knowledge and skills, as well as competition in the fi eld of employment, human resource development and career have an important infl uence on the reciprocity relationships between trainer and apprentice in the educational process.

In the case of the dual VET the established mechanisms of social partnership on the level of sectors and intensive mutual involvement of labour market stakeholders and VET provid-ers in the provision of training create favour-able conditions for the vocational education oriented to the provision and acquisition of knowledge and skills needed for the master-ing of work processes fostermaster-ing at the same time friendship-based reciprocity between trainers, apprentices and enterprises. In the case of emerging work-based VET in the school-based VET systems the introduction of contractual relationships of work-based vocational education very often takes place in a context of leading role of state institutions, weak social dialogue and low involvement of

social partners. It leads to the fragmentation and instability of contractual reciprocity, what in turn challenges the success of introduction of work-based VET.

From the practice point of view the key issue is to identify and develop the institu-tional, economic, political, legal and didactic measures that would help to create, sustain and balance the contractual, friendship-based and unconditional reciprocity in the diff erent forms and settings of the work-based VET.

Here it is important to understand that the creation of reciprocity in the work-based VET means long-term cultural development, that something cannot be replaced by momentary, fragmented interventionist policy measures.

Reciprocity relations between the parties in-volved in work-based VET can help all social partners (VET providers, enterprises and trade unions) to develop a formative culture of work (and an operational learning concept). They can also help all learners not only to develop professional competences but to get them – through the work-based VET – at work and in everyday life with all its uncertainties.

References

Becker M. (2014). Mit Arbeitsprozessanalysen zu Kompetenzmatrizen für die Berufsbildung. In G. Spöttl, M. Becker & M. Fischer (Eds.), Arbeitsforschung und berufl iches Lernen (pp. 181-200). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Billet S. (2011). Learning in the circumstances of work: the didactics of practice. Education et didactique, 5(2), pp. 125-146.

Brockman M., Clarke, L. & Winch C. (2010). The Apprenticeship Framework in England: a new beginning or a continuing sham?. Journal of Education and Work, 23 (2), pp. 111-127.

Bruni L. (2006). Reciprocità. Dinamiche di cooperazione, economia e società civile. Milano: Mondadori.

Bruni L. (2014). Fondati sul lavoro. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.

Busemeyer M.R. & Trampusch C. (2012). The Comparative Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation.

In M.R. Busemeyer & C. Trampusch, The Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation (pp. 3-38).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cedefop (2011). Glossary - Quality in Education and Training. Luxembourg: Publications Offi ce of the European Union.

Cedefop (2014). Terminology of vocational education and training. Luxembourg: Publications offi ce of the European Union.

Cedefop (2016). Apprenticeship review: Lithuania. Signposting the apprenticeship path in Lithuania.

Luxembourg: Publications Offi ce of the European Union.

Daukilas S. (2008). Metodologinės paradigmos ir pedagoginės technologijos: individualumo ir socialumo ugdymas. Profesinisrengimas: tyrimaiirrealijos, 16, pp. 40-51.

De Nanteuil M. (2016). Rendre justice au travail. Paris: PUF.

Defelix C., Klarsfeld A. & Oiry E. (2006). Nouveaux regards sur la gestion des Compétences. Paris: Vuibert.

European Commission Expert Group on New Skills for New Jobs (2010). New skills for new jobs: Action now. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission (2012). Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for better socio-economic out-comes. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2012) 669. Strasbourg:

European Commission.

Evans K. & Kersh N. (2012). Exploring spaces for learning at work. In L. Chisholm, K. Lunardon, A. Os-tendorf & P.P. Pasqualoni (Eds.), Decoding the meanings of learning at work in Asia and Europe (pp.

23-36). Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.

Fuller A. & Unwin L. (2011). Vocational education and training in the spotlight: back to the future for the UK’s Coalition Government?. London Review of Education, 9 (2), pp. 191-204.

Guile D. & Young M. (1998). Apprenticeship as a conceptual basis for a social theory of learning. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 50(2), pp. 173-193.

Guile D. (2011). Apprenticeship as a model of vocational ‘formation’ and ‘reformation’: the use of Foun-dation Degrees in the aircraft engineering industry. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 63(3), pp. 451-464.

Isfol (2016). Verso il Sistema duale. XVI monitoraggio sull’apprendistato. Roma: Isfol.

Lallement M. (2007). Le travail. Une sociologie contemporaine. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.

Lave J. & Wenger E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Le Goff J. (2014). Travail. In J. Le Goff , J.-C. Schmitt, Dictionnaire raisonné de l’Occident medieval (pp. 1137-1149). Paris: Pluriel.

RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 8, n. 1 - June 2016 | 69 Lemoyne G.B. (1904). Memorie biografi che di D. Giovanni Bosco. Vol. IV. San Beniglio Canavese:

Tipo-grafi a Salesiana.

Nielsen K. & Tanggaard Pedersen L. (2011). Apprenticeship rehabilitated in a postmodern world? Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 63(4), pp. 563-573.

Organisation for Economic and Social Development - OECD (2010). Overcoming school failure: policies that work. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Prellezo J.M. & Zanni N. (2012). Salesian Experience in Technical Education and Vocational Training Past and Present. In X. Xu, G. Malizia, C. Nanni & C. Socol (Eds.), From Training to Education. New Pedagogical Models in Dialogue (pp. 124-135). Hangzhou: Zhejiang University Press.

Retour D., Picq T. & Defélix C. (2009). Gestion des competences. Nouvelles dimensions, nouvelles relations. Paris: Vuibert.

Saniter A. & Tūtlys V. (Eds.) (2012). Implementation and development of apprenticeship in the vocational education and training system of Lithuania. What can be learnt from the experiences of Germany, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom?. Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University.

Santoni Rugiu A. (2008). Breve storia dell’educazione artigiana. Roma: Carocci.

Schön D.A. (1983), The Refl exive Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Sennett R. (2008). The Craftsman. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Sonntag K. & Stegmaier R. (2007). Arbeitsorientiertes Lernen. Zur Psychologie der Integration von Lernen und Arbeit. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.

Spöttl G. (2014). “Intelligente Standards” als Kern einer Curriculumentwicklung. In G. Spöttl, M. Becker & M.

Fischer (Eds.), Arbeitsforschung und berufl iches Lernen (pp. 278-293). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Spöttl G. (2016). Das Duale System der Berufsausbildung als Leitmodell. Struktur, Organisation und Perspektiven der Entwicklung und europäische Einfl üsse. Bern: Lang-Verlag.

Stella P. & Drury J. (1996). Don Bosco: Religious Outlook and Spirituality. New Rochelle, New York:

Salesiana Publishers.

Tacconi G. (2015). Tra scuola e lavoro. Una prospettiva didattica sul secondo ciclo del Sistema educativo di istruzione e formazione. Roma: LAS.

Thelen K. & Busemeyer M.R. (2012). Institutional Change in German Vocational Training: From Collectivism toward Segmentalism. In M.R. Busemeyer & C. Trampusch, The Political Economy of Collective Skill Formation (pp. 68-100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tūtlys V. & Spūdytė I. (2011). Implementing a national qualifi cations framework in Lithuania. Journal of Education and Work, 24(3-4), pp. 429-448.

Tūtlys V., Kaminskienė L. & Winterton J. (2016). Policy borrowing and policy learning in the initial VET reforms of Lithuania after 1990. In S. Bohlinger, T.K. Anh Dang & M. Klatt, Education policy: mapping the landscape and scope (pp. 376-397). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Young M. (2008). Bringing Knowledge Back In. From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. London: Routledge.

Young M. & Muller J. (2010). Three Educational Scenarios for the Future: lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45 (1), pp. 11-27.

Young M. & Muller J. (2013). On the powers of powerful knowledge. Review of Education, 1(3), pp.

229-250.

Vickerstaff S. (2007). ʻI was just the boy around the place’: what made apprenticeships successful?

Journal of Vocational Education&Training, 59(3), pp. 331-347.

Winterton J. (2007). Building Social Dialogue over Training and Learning: European and National Developments. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 13 (3), pp. 281-300.

Edizione: Provincia autonoma di Trento RICERCAZIONE - Vol. 8, n. 1 - June 2016 | 71