The Digitalisation and Modernisation of Vocational Training

Or how vocational education loses Its digital and technological compass

License Creative Commons

Antoni Hernández-Fernández

At times, I feel as though I am living in an upside-down world. This feeling arises when I hear colleagues in vocational training (VT) recount how school administrators, faced with the lack of up-to-date materials in workshops, advise them to resort to theoretical exams, multiple-choice tests, or similar alternatives. Meanwhile, in compulsory secondary education, depending on the region, project-based learning is implemented across various subjects, as if to avoid excessive exams. Worse still, no one seems to consider that a methodology that is effective for one subject or educational level may not necessarily work for all, creating chaos in faculty discussions.

When we take our motorbike or car to a workshop, and it is less than fifteen years old, it will likely contain significant electronic components. Diagnosing such a vehicle requires a specialised electronic device—equipment that many VT centres lack. Instead, students are left assembling and disassembling old, clapped-out vehicles salvaged at low cost from the local scrapyard. In some personal image or aesthetics courses, students may not encounter the latest in pulsed laser hair removal machines; they are handed a pair of tweezers instead. This is not to say that such analogue practices are useless—they are undoubtedly important—but they are not incompatible with modern technology. These new technologies require substantial, and above all, thoughtful investment.

In the name of democracy, decision-makers have sent projectors and screens to all theoretical classrooms, yet the digitisation of studies remains far from genuine. But not to worry: the new VT legislation includes a Digitalisation subject. A cosmetic fix. Pigments from Pompeii and Herculaneum. With some luck, however, students may encounter cutting-edge technology during their work placements, possibly through dual VT programmes, plunging them into a work environment for which they are barely prepared. Life will teach them the hard way.

The peak of nonsense is that digitisation was reduced to the distribution of giant screens to anyone and everyone, in the name of equity. Addressing the specific needs of each field of study appears to be a Herculean task. Consulting teachers seems even more daunting. Why is there no interest in asking educators what they genuinely need to foster authentic digitisation—an imperative for the 21st century? Considering VT, how can the requirements of a mechanics programme possibly equate to those of aesthetics, administration, cabinetmaking, or hairdressing? Attention to diversity seems reserved for whatever aligns with certain interests. Meanwhile, curbing the sale of oversized screens—endorsed and funded by European grants—would certainly sink their business.

The modernisation of VT necessitates a connection to the realities of the business world, which goes far beyond extending work placement hours at the expense of effective training time in educational institutions. Digitisation requires an understanding of the technical specificities of each programme, avoiding generic provisions that, in some cases, create more problems than solutions. It also requires acknowledging that some traditional technologies, such as chalkboards, remain highly effective in workshops and should coexist with state-of-the-art digital tools. Students need access to these modern devices to practice thoroughly before entering the workforce. The presence of an elevator does not negate the usefulness of stairs.

Society requires professionals who are attuned to new technologies and up-to-date practices in VT centres—not a system-wide planned obsolescence, which only serves as a lucrative business model for tech companies and intermediaries.

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons