A major challenge for contemporary VET is to enhance its responsiveness. Changing technology (e.g. robots and ICT-applications) and societal demands (e.g. in health and social services) will not only change the content of work but also employment practices (labour market flexibility;  self-employment; short-term contracts; Cedefop, 2016; SER, 2017). Responsiveness can be defined as the ability of (teams of) educational professionals to interpret socio-economic and technological developments for curriculum development in terms of content and pedagogical approach.

In the Netherlands, VET-qualifications are developed on national level by tripartite stakeholders (employers, union representatives and education). Based on these national qualifications, teacher teams in the VET-colleges have to develop curricula. Research in Dutch VET shows that the development of VET-curricula is often a school-internal process with the focus on planning in terms of time and sequence (Hoeve & Van Vlokhoven, 2019). The limited interaction with labour market and enterprises is about organisational aspects (such as the duration of practical periods) but less about occupational content (Hermanussen, Verheijen & Visser, 2013; Cedefop, 2012). Co-makership with business partners is still a rare phenomenon. Furthermore, the time lag between qualification development and graduation of students is a problem: VET-students are trained for the labour market of the day after tomorrow, based on knowledge from the day before yesterday (Nieuwenhuis, 2013).

To tackle both issues, a consortium of six VET-colleges and three research institutes started a collaborative interactive research project (Ellström, 2010), funded by the Dutch Scientific Organisation (NRO-project 405-17-623/3736) in 2017. Interactive research is about joint learning processes of practitioners and researchers which results in knowledge creation through co-development. The aim of the project was to develop a more interactive approach in which school and enterprises are both actively involved in curriculum development. Such an interactive approach requires a responsive protocol, which serves as a standard for a regular dialogue between school and work. In this dialogue teachers and professionals together should identify: a) significant current professional changes and developments, and b) typical work situations and processes that make up an occupational profile. This occupational profile is point of departure to develop the curriculum more in detail. The Kompetenz Werkst@tt (Gessler & Howe, 2015), aimed at to increase responsiveness in German vocational education, was used as a source of inspiration for such a protocol tailored to Dutch VET.

The central research question to be answered was: What are the characteristics of a responsive protocol that VET teacher teams, in co-makership with their business partners, can effectively be used in the development of adaptive, vocation-oriented curricula?    

In the project, representatives of 10 teacher teams participated in an interorganisational professional learning community (iPLG). In the iPLG practitioners and researchers worked together on the design of a responsive protocol for curriculum development. Design discussions took place in the iPLG, as well as in the individual teacher teams (together with their professional partners). Design principles were derived from systematic professional dialogues, and innovative elements of the protocol were tested by the teacher teams and their occupational partners. The interactive research resulted in a guidepost for responsive VET development (digital version as well as hard copy). The guidepost facilitates VET teams to change their perspective on curriculum development from a mostly school-intern process towards a process in which the occupational world outside is deliberately included from the start. Besides, co-makership is encouraged.

The research was set up as a design study in which a protocol for curriculum development is designed and tested. The design process took place in the iPLG. In this learning community representatives from the teacher teams and the researchers were participating. Theoretical, professional and practical knowledge were combined with practitionars experiences. Within the iPLG and within the VET teacher teams social learning processes took place. Interviews and observations were used to map the quality of this interaction, both in terms of process and content (De Laat, Schreurs, & Nijland, 2014; Wenger, Trayner, & De Laat, 2011; Hanraets et al., 2011; Akkerman and Bakker, 2011; Mazereeuw, Woppereis & McKenney 2016). The iPLG designed a tool (guidepost) for VET-teams to organize for responsive VET. In the tool, two agendas are combined: an explorative agenda and a developmental agenda. The explorative agenda comprises the trends ‘outside’, the developments at the labour market and in the professional field. The developmental agenda contains the necessary curriculum components. The agendas are interrelated since developments at occupational level should resonate in the educational programs of the VET-college. Every agenda item of the explorative agenda consists of an objective (what is the rationale of this item) and is devised into different investigating questions to be answered in collaboration with the occupational partners. In addition, potential risks are described when the agenda item is not in the picture of the VET-team. The developmental agenda has a same kind of structure, although not all the items might be answered in dialogue with stakeholders from the labour market. Table Items to expound in the Explorative Agenda: Developments in the professional field; Learning level: novice - competent – proficient; Occupational profile & work processes; Assessment of expertise development Items to expound in the Developmental Agenda: Learning environments – workplace learning- hybrid designs; Stable and dynamic elements; Training of self-regulation; Structure and sequence of the curriculum; Valuation and assessment The guidepost can be used either as an analytical tool (e.g. which agenda elements are solid, which ones are we proud of; which ones need further elaboration) or as a tool to improve particular agenda items in order to increase the responsiveness of the curriculum. By implementing the tool in a team routine, VET-teams will be able to monitor the quality of the responsiveness of their curriculum and make (small) adjustments on regular basis.

In the design of the guidepost, the significant characteristics of a responsive protocol are included (see table), what will answer the central research question. However, the main insight of the project might be professionals need qualified space to anticipate adequately on continuous uncertainty. This implies a perspective shift from controllability towards acceptance of a kind of uncertainty somehow. VET-professionals are looking for a balance between insecurity and security; between robust and volatile/ dynamic aspects of the curriculum. In line with the distinction between ‘spheres and tasks of work’ (Gessler & Howe, 2015) we detected two processes that should be constantly balanced: declining uncertainty as well as stretching the professional space of professionals. The guidepost is a tool for VET teams to support them in balancing these two processes. Workshop: In this workshop we will present the guidepost for responsive VET and give participants a brief experience in using the tool. Next implications of such interactive way of curriculum development are discussed at both practical and more strategic level. Issues with regard to preconditions at team level, and organisation level and system level, will be addressed by guiding questions as: A. Who should be responsible for the developmental agenda in a VET college? Is this the responsibility of a team (member) or staff or management? B. What are specific preconditions of a developmental agenda? At team level and at organizational level? C. What kind of support do educational teams need to be able to work with the developmental agenda? (in terms of professionalization and facilitation). How can interactive curriculum design be embedded in team and organizational routines? D. To what extent are system characteristics (e.g. qualification framework, regulations) productive or obstructive for an interactive curriculum approach? What are experiences from the different European countries?

Akkerman, S.F. & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81, 132-169. Cedefop (2012). Curricula reform in Europe. The impact of learning outcomes. Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union. De Laat, M., Schreurs, B., & Nijland, F. (2014). Communities of practice and Value Creation in networks. The Routledge Companion to Human Resource Development, (1998), 249–257. Ellström, P.E. (2010). Practice-based innovation: a learning perspective. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1/2), 27 – 40. Gessler, M. and Howe, F. (2015). From the reality of work to grounded work-based learning in German vocational education and training: background, concept and tools. International Journal for Research in VET. 2, 3, 214-238. Hanraets, I., Hulsebosch, J., & De Laat, M. (2011). Experiences of pioneers facilitating teacher networks for professional development. Educational Media International, 48(2), 85–99. http://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2011.576513 Hermanussen, J., Verheijen, E., Visser, K. (2013). Leerplanontwikkeling in het middelbaar beroepsonderwijs. De bruikbaarheid van kwalificatiedossiers onderzocht. Den Bosch: ecbo. Hoeve, A. & Van Vlokhoven, H. (2019). Verslag van designteams Beroepsgerichte Didactiek (Rapport). Hogeschool van Arnhem en Nijmegen. Mazereeuw, M., Wopereis, I., McKenney, S. (2016). Extended teams in vocational education: collaboration on the border. Educational Research and Education. 22 (3-4). 1-19. Nieuwenhuis, L. (2013). Werken aan goed beroepsonderwijs. (Designing good vocational education). Nijmegen: Hogeschool van Arnhem en Nijmegen. SER (2017). Toekomstgericht beroepsonderwijs: Deel 2 Voorstellen voor een sterk en innovatief beroepsonderwijs [Future proof vocational education: part 2 Propositions for a strong and innovative VET]. The Hague: The Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands (SER). Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & Laat, M. de. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Heerlen: Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open Universiteit.