The project is a feasibility study of  models of competencies and corresponding measurement tools in vocational education and training (VET). It departs from the initiative taken by Baethge et al (2006) to develop a framework and instruments for large scale assessment of competencies in vocational education and training.  We will review some of the cross-national and national (Norwegian) evaluations of the core elements of this concept called the VET-LSA (Olsen & Mikkelsen, 2009).  It will be contrasted with another model for measuring VET-competencies developed by ITB, Bremen University (Rauner et. al., 2009) in the project COMET (Competence Development and Assessment in TVET).  Whereas the VET-LSA-studies were aiming at constructing a tool that primarily would support international comparisons, the COMET project is designed as a longitudinal study “focusing on the effects of different pedagogical approaches on the competence development of students and not so much on the description between test groups” (Rauner, 2009). However this type of “competence diagnostics” of domain-specific cognitive abilities is also meant to provide the basis for comparative studies, and the present paper discusses preliminary experiences with piloting the COMET- model in different trades of the Norwegian VET-system. Our main questions are addressing the dilemmas between the development of a measurement tool that serves formative purposes and at the same has a standardized format that allows comparisons between VET-systems.  Another design challenge is the balance between curricular and professional validity of the test dimensions.  Most scholars in this field put a high priority on the latter, but disagree on the definitions of competencies and methods for measuring these (McDonald et al., 1994; Tillema, 2000; Rychen & Salganik, 2003; Haasler & Erpenbeck, 2008; Becker et al, 2010).  We will refer to this research - with a focus on assessment for learning.

The concepts and design strategies for VET-LSA and COMET are presented in several publications (Baethge et al, 2006; Rauner et al., 2009).  In addition to their respective priorities – comparative and developmental objectives – they represent different approaches to the operationalization of professional competencies. The VET-LSA defined domain-specific and cross-occupational skills on the basis of  a standardized US  job classification system (tasks and skill requirements), the o*net database (Baethge & Arends, 2009) whereas the COMET-project has chosen a model-based strategy. In short the latter represent a differentiated concept of multiple competence derived from characteristic professional work tasks and structured according to a developmental logic (from novice to expert, Benner, 1994). It can be described by means of eight competence dimensions and three competence levels. 

Baethge, M & Arends, L (2009): Feasability Study VET-LSA. A comparative analysis of occupational profiles and VET programmes in 8 European countries – International report. Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany:Vocational Training Research volume 8, Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag Baethge, M. et al (2006): PISA-VET. A feasibility study. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Becker, Matthias; Fischer, Martin & Spöttl, Georg (Hrsg.) (2010): Von der Arbeitsanalyse zur Diagnose beruflicher Kompetenzen: Methoden und methodologische Beiträge aus der Berufsbildungsforschung, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Haasler, B. & Erpenbeck, J (2008): Assessing vocational competences. In Rauner, F. & MacLean, R. (2008) Handbook of technical and vocational education and training research. Springer Media Lahn, L.C. (2010) Professional learning as epistemic trajectories. In Ludvigsen, S & Säljö, R. (eds) Learning across sites. New tools, infrastructures and practices. Oxford: Pergamon. Olsen, O.J & S. Mikkelsen. (2009): Feasability Study VET-LSA. National report from Norway. Department of Sociology, University of Bergen, Bergen May 13th 2009 Rauner, Felix u.a. / et al (2009b): Messen beruflicher Kompetenzen, Band II Ergebnisse KOMET 2008, Berlin: LIT Verlag