After in-company training of apprentices became part of the formal education system in Norway in 1994, a number of training offices were established. Training offices are owned by training establishments and are either trade-specific or interdisciplinary. The apprenticeship contract is defined between the apprentice and the training office, while the training is mainly company-based. Today, 75-80 % of the apprentices have training contracts with a training office in addition to their temporary employment contract with a company (Deichman Sørensen, 2007, Michelsen & Høst, 2013).Thus, training offices play an essential role in the Norwegian VET-system and this institution has received a growing international attention. It has been suggested that they represent a new structure that radically influence the work-based learning characterized by traditional apprenticeship regimes and the ideology of master learning (Kvale & Nielsen, 2009).

Norwegian VET is a dual system with a normal track of 2 years in school followed by 2 years in companies.  A reform in 2006 (the Knowledge Promotion), introduced common competence goals for the school-based and company-based part of VET. The trainers are expected to develop local plans, content and activities based on a state regulated curriculum and to secure that the objectives are realized through assessment practices. This is what Wittig and Deitmer (2010) call an integrated output model. There seems to be a tension between the old master learning and such a model, which can also serve as a driver for innovative apprenticeship (Grollman & Rauner, 2007).

In recent years, training offices together with branch organizations have contributed to the development of e-portfolios to be used as a transparent tool between the apprentice, the training establishment and the training office. The use of e-portfolios is increasing, after a trial period with skepticism among participants (Høst et al., 2012). This study also showed a tension between documenting the quality of work performance and documenting levels of achievement according to curricula. How apprentices are using their e-portfolios depends on the guidance they receive. Kirpal (2010) outlines two different trainers: one supporting the performing of tasks and one guiding learning processes. The training offices’ responsibility is tied to the latter, but the intention of e-portfolios was to bridge the gap between daily work and learning activities. Such an integration process, however, requires interaction over time and a shared understanding of a common goal (Guile, 2008). Also Engeström & Toiviainen (2011) points out that the development of a technological collaboration tool requires a collaborative design. We question whether all stakeholders have been involved in the development of adequate tools.

The use of e-portfolios mediates in certain ways the learning processes of apprentices (Attwell and Pumilia, 2007) by stimulating the articulation and reflection of knowledge, experience and learning.  Could they function as tools for cognitive apprenticeship (Ghefaili , 2003)? Such an extension of the learning process and the systemic role of the training offices could be seen as building stones for an expansive or innovative apprenticeship (Fuller & Unwin, 2010, Fuller et al., 2012). On the other hand, the use of e -portfolios is limited by the language, structure and methods used in the technological tool (Engeström & Toiviainen, 2011).

In this paper we will outline two parallel learning structures in Norwegian VET, traditional work-based learning and a curriculum-based track mediated by documentation systems and training offices.  How do these processes generate tensions in the system of apprenticeship and to what extent are they integrated?  What are the factors that define learning content and assessment practices?  Could we expect a transition towards a period of modern apprenticeship that enhances hybrid qualifications, both vocational and academic (Davey & Fuller, 2013)?

Attwell G. & Pumilia P (2007) The New Pedagogy of Open Content: Bringing Together Production, Knowledge, Development, and Learning. Data Science Journal, Vol 6, April 2007 Davey, G. & Fuller, A. (2013) Hybrid Qualifications, Institutional Expectations and Youth Transitions: A Case of Swimming with or Against the Tide. Sociological research online, 18, 1. Deichman- Sørensen, T. (2007) Mot en ny infrastruktur for læring og kontroll. Kvalitetsvurdering i fag- og yrkesopplæringen. Rapport fra evaluering av Nasjonalt kvalitetsvurderingssystem i grunnopplæringen. Oslo: Arbeidsforskningsinstituttet. AFI-rapport 3/2007 Engeström, Y. & Toiviainen, H. (2010) Co –configurational design of learning instrumentalities: an activity-theoretical perspective. In S. Ludvigsen and R. Säljö (eds.), Learning across sites. New tools, infrastructures and practices, Oxford: Pergamon. Fuller, A. & Unwin, L. (2010) Can apprenticeship be innovative? Reconceptualising the learning journey in the knowledge economy. In F. Rauner & E. Smith (eds.) Rediscovering apprenticeship. Research findings of the International Network on Innovative Apprenticeship (INAP), Dordrecht: Springer. Fuller, A.,et al (2012) Creating and using knowledge. An Analysis of the Differentiated Nature of Workplace Learning Environments, in D.W Livingstone and D .Guile (eds), The Knowledge Economy and Lifelong Learning: A Critical Reader, 191-206. Sense Publishers Ghefaili, A. (2003) Cognitive Apprenticeship, technology, and the Contextualization of Learning Environments. Journal of Educational Computing, Design & Online learning 4 Grollmann, & Rauner,F.(2007) Exploring innovative apprenticeship: Quality and costs. Education and Training Vol. 49 No. 6, 2007 pp. 431-446 Høst, H. (ed) (2012). Kunnskapsgrunnlag og faglige perspektiver for en studie av kvalitet i fag- og yrkesopplæringen. Rapport 1 Forskning på kvalitet i fag- og yrkesopplæringen. Oslo: NIFU, FAFO & HIOA Høst, H., Skålholt, A., Nore, H., Tønder, A.H. (2012) Gjennomgående dokumentasjon, eller opplæringsboka i ny form? Evaluering av forsøket med gjennomgående dokumentasjon i fag- og yrkesopplæringen. Oslo: NIFU. Rapport 16/2012 Kirpal, S. (2010) Trainers’ changing role and continuing learning in different VET systems: a comparative perspective. In F. Rauner & E. Smith (eds.) Rediscovering apprenticeship. Research findings of the International Network on Innovative Apprenticeship (INAP), Dordrecht: Springer. Kvale, S., Nielsen, K., Bureid, G. & Jensen, K. (1999). Mesterlære: læring som sosial praksis. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Michelsen, S. & Høst, H. (2013) Nasjonalt system og lokalt arbeid: Om kvalitet i fag- og yrkesopplæringen. In H. Høst (ed) Kvalitet i fag- og yrkesopplæringen. Fokus på skoleopplæringen. Oslo: NIFU, Fafo, HiOA og UiB