Appendiks:
Kommentarer til rapporten

Peter Jarvis: Certificating Teachers of Adults: an epistemological discussion

Teaching is a very practical occupation and for many years it was not considered necessary to train teachers of adults; it was assumed that if they knew their subject matter they could get up and teach. This rather simplistic approach to teaching has been gradually destroyed in some forms of adult teaching, but in others - such as university teaching - it is still hard to break the general belief that teaching is no more than just a matter of lecturing. Perhaps it was necessary to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the learning processes and an understanding of quality assurance before teaching beyond school age children became an occupation for which it was recognised that professional preparation was needed. Indeed, school teaching was for many years the only form of teaching that had professionalised sufficiently to insure that only those with teaching qualifications could enter teaching. Surprisingly, it was nursing that was the next profession in UK to expect that its teachers would become qualified in education and many of these undertook courses in the education of adults (Jarvis and Gibson, 1987,1997; Quinn, 1980). This pointed the way to the recognition that training people in the professions and in higher education to teach was also an intrinsic part of the education of adults.

It was only in the 1970s that the preparation of educators of adults was taken seriously in UK (Elsdon, 1970, 1975; Bestwick and Chadwick, 1977; Haycocks, 1978). While a number of colleges and universities were running the short courses recommended by Haycocks, that would eventually build into a University certificate, the University of Surrey started a Post Graduate Certificate in the Education of Adults in the early 1980s - a post-graduate course that paralleled the post-graduate training of school-teachers.

Even then, however, there were very few studies about the preparation of educators of adults (Graham et al, 1982; Jarvis and Chadwick, 1991).

However, both the role of the teacher and the nature of the field of adult education have changed dramatically since those early days and I want to discuss some of the issues about preparing and certificating teachers of adults from an epistemological perspective. The paper has four parts: the first examines the roles of the teacher; the second at learning practical knowledge; the third at preparing teachers of adults; the final one looks at the nature of qualifications in the education of adults.

Part 1: The Roles of the Teacher

When those early courses were devised the main content was fairly basic. Some of the short introductory courses had a curriculum-type structure - aims and objectives, understanding content; teaching methods; assessing and evaluating teaching. Others were a little more sophisticated, examining subjects such as philosophy, sociology, psychology, personality development, and so on, but these courses were often at Masters level for practising adult educators. Nevertheless, the basic roles of the teacher were not regarded as problematic - teachers would teach and undertake some administration. Indeed, when I became a schoolteacher trainer, I was expected to teach, supervise teaching practice and undertake some administration and, later, when I entered university teaching my role was also regarded as threefold: teaching, researching and administering.

At that time, it was taken for granted that teachers would stand in front of their class and teach - the more expert the teachers the more varied would be their sessions. Teachers' roles were not particularly questioned but with the advent of electronic communication and the global market this was all to change. Electronic communication created a realignment of time and space that led to education having to adopt new forms of delivery which resulted in an expansion in the functions of the teacher. This is illustrated in the following table, although it must be recognised that these are not all separate roles in every teaching and learning event and often performed by the same person:

Table 1:
The Division of Labour in Teaching

(Jarvis, 1995a, p. 186 - slightly amended)

Each of these roles has its own special skills, some of which are traditionally part of the normal adult education courses, but others fall beyond the normal boundaries. For instance, the technical staff may require very advanced computing or satellite engineering skills, etc; programme managers may need all the financial and administrative skills; advisors may require advanced counselling skills or just a wide knowledge of the programmes on the market. The significance of this table, however, is that it begins to outline some of the knowledge and the many skills that educators of adults require and indicates what courses for their preparation might contain. This knowledge and skill is something that is common in all professional groups in which adults are educated, since there is now no discrete field of adult education - education in the post-school sector comprises a number of overlapping fields of practice and study.

In addition, it is important to recognise that since the learning is now central to the exercise, learning theory in its widest sense should form part of the core curriculum. Learning theory, in this sense, is not merely the basic psychological framework that has formed the basis of many educational courses, but it needs to consider both the social and the philosophical aspects of human learning in this contemporary society (See Jarvis, 1992, 1995b, 2001; Jarvis et al 1998, inter alia).

As teaching in all its forms professionalised, it developed its own curriculum for its training courses. When I was a school teacher trainer, for instance, the students came to college for a three-year degree course most of which consisted of the theory that it was thought necessary for them to learn, plus both classroom observation and some teaching practice. It was generally considered that the students would learn the teaching skills after they had left college and entered practice - but they actually needed to have the knowledge first. This was the theory that they then had to apply to practice. Such a formulation presupposed a rather restricted view of both theory and practice.

Part 2: Learning Practical Knowledge

Before exploring the nature of practical knowledge, it is necessary to understand both the nature of knowledge and the processes of learning, and so this section has four subsections: learning, knowledge, tacit knowledge and learning practical knowledge.

Knowledge: While I have defined learning in a comprehensive manner, I want to restrict this discussion to knowledge; in this case knowledge about teaching adults.

The Dictionary of Philosophy (Flew, 1979) discusses three types of knowledge - knowledge:

• that - factual knowledge;
• how - practical knowledge;
• of - knowledge of people and places, etc.

Knowledge that is knowledge based upon argument or research, so that it is possible to claim that 'x' is a fact. Knowledge how is practical knowledge; this is how it is done. There is a sense in which this type of knowledge is also knowledge that since it is shorthand for knowledge that this is how it is done. Knowledge of people and places, and might include the other two, but it need not.

In teacher preparation, theory includes both knowledge that and knowledge that this is how to teach, prepare a lesson, etc. Once the theory had been taught to the students it could be memorised and put into practice. But students were actually not learning how to perform the skill, etc. It was assumed, however, that this theoretical knowledge was true, and that if students were then unable to put it into practice they had not learned their theory properly. However, this is now debatable, but before we explore this further, we need to ask what makes these different types of knowledge true?

Knowledge can be legitimated in at least three different ways: rationalistically, empirically and pragmatically (Scheffler, 1965).

Rationalist: This form of knowledge is legitimated by reason. Pure mathematics is often the example provided for knowledge of this type; mathematicians need no objects beyond the problem and no form of proof that it not to be found within its own logic. Philosophical knowledge is another form of knowledge which is legitimated in the same way.

Empirical: Empirical knowledge relies on the sense experiences; knowledge is true if it can be shown to relate to an empirical phenomenon. Thus, I know that there is something upon which I am sitting - I can feel it and I do not sink to the ground when I sit down. There is a chair here and I know that there is an object here by my sense experience, even though the idea of 'chair' is not a sense experience, the object is! We can have knowledge of a reality beyond ourselves through our senses.

Pragmatic: The pragmatist emphasises the experimental nature of certain forms of experience; individuals try something out and find that it works, or it fails. For instance, students can be told how to lecture but until they have actually done it they do not know that they can lecture. Lyotard (1984), the French social philosopher, suggested that all knowledge is narrative increasingly legitimated by performativity, although he (1992) later modified his assertion and claimed that much knowledge is narrative. Pragmatism presents us with some major ethical problems, since we are forced to ask whether achieving the end at any cost is something that teachers should do. Should teachers get their students through the examination at any cost? Teachers and educational systems do have to consider the issues of beliefs and values in their practice and I have argued elsewhere that teaching is a moral engagement (Jarvis, 1987 - but see also Peters, 1966), so that be beliefs and values should be regarded as part of practice knowledge.

It is possible to teach individuals knowledge that but the other two forms of knowledge cannot be taught, although they can be learned through experience. When something is taught, the learners have a secondary experience; that is they learn about something. In other words its is a mediated experience, and the teacher is the mediator. By contrast, students learn to teach, and know that they can do it, only when they actually do it. When they have a primary experience - and while others could tell them that this is how it is done, it is only proven to them when they have tested it out for themselves. Only then is it their knowledge. It is, therefore, necessary to have a theory of learning that embraces both of these forms of experience.

Processes of Learning: My own research over many years has been into adult learning and I have published various models of the learning processes which relate both to my initial research into it (Jarvis, 1987) and to the continuing developments in the model as I run workshops about the learning processes. Learning is a very complicated process and no diagrams can actually capture the whole process. Figure 1 tries to illustrate something of the process and represents the latest amendments in my own research. The diagram shows a variety of different learning processes; non-learning, incidental self-learning, non-reflective learning and reflective learning. Obviously we cannot spend a great deal of time on the whole diagram and trace all the different routes through this diagram, or even to build new ones, but this is inappropriate at the present time. I do want to take you through a few of the processes, but before I do it is necessary to have a clear understanding of what I mean by learning. As a result of my research, my definition is:

Learning is the process of individuals constructing and transforming experience into knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, beliefs, emotions and the senses.

Figure 1:
A Model of the Processes of Learning

First of all, I want to make it clear that it is people who learn; all learning affects the learners' biography. It is not merely storing knowledge passively in the mind, all learning affects the learners' self - note the shadowed boxes. Learners carry all their previous experiences to their new ones - and they are affected by each one. Since learning is a matter of constructing and transforming experience into knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, beliefs, emotions and the senses; learners always carry the whole of their biography into every new learning situation.

Now, we can see how the first part of this definition takes us from boxes1 to 2 and 3; it is from the actual experience that we learn and we do transform it into not only knowledge but skills, attitudes, beliefs, values and so on.

Now let me illustrate this from the topic of this paper. If we (box 1) are in the classroom as a student (box 2) we will in some way experience this situation and be presented with knowledge that (box 3) - we may be learning nothing (box 3 to 4), or we may seek to memorise what we are being taught (box 3 to 7), or think and reflect about it (box 3 to 8). Our primary experience is being in the classroom but our secondary experience is of the knowledge with which we are presented. What we cannot do is go down the route to practice (box 5) because that is not the role of the student so that we cannot actually learn skills. We can learn skills if we change our role and create a new situation. But if we are in classroom as a teacher of adults we can practise (box 3 to 5) and even experiment (box 5 to 6) with our teaching skills, but we will inevitably also go down the other routes described above. In other words, as we are learning to perform, we are also learning knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and values, etc. It is significant, therefore, that when we learn theory, it is impossible to learn how to do; when we are learning to practise we cannot escape from learning knowledge as well as the skill. We can only learn knowledge how to do something if we are also (the learners) practising it.

When we take our situation for granted, whether it is the classroom as student, or the classroom as teacher, we will move into a non-learning mode (boxes 2 to 4 or 2 to 3 to 4). This is habitualisation. In professional practice this might occur when practitioners have already sufficient knowledge to respond to the situation, or when their tacit knowledge, a concept to which we shall return below, allows the practitioners to presume upon the situation. However, when the student or the teacher cannot take the situation for granted, then a potential learning opportunity occurs. I have called these situations disjuncture, when biography and experience are not in harmony with each other - when individuals do not have the knowledge, or the skill, or both to take their situation for granted. Disjuncture - knowing that we do not know - is fundamental to our understanding learning. By contrast, individuals often act almost instinctively, or tacitly.

Tacit knowledge: Many experienced practitioners have the feeling that 'we can know more than we can tell' (Polanyi 1967,p.4), which is this tacit dimension. Polanyi instances this by pointing out that we can pick out a face from among a million different ones, but we cannot necessarily describe the person accurately - a form of knowledge of. Polanyi recognised that when we focus on specific elements in an experience, we usually see others less consciously but can still give meaning to the whole. This is the tacit dimension to our experience.

In a similar manner, when we habitualise our actions, we might be aware of precisely what we are doing but we often find it difficult, if not impossible, to specify it. Nyiri (1988, pp.20-21) writes:

One becomes an expert not simply by absorbing knowledge of the theory found in textbooks, but through experience, that is, through repeated trials, 'failing, succeeding, wasting time and effort, getting a feel for a problem, learning when to go by the book and when to break the rules'. Human experts thereby gradually absorb 'a repertoire of working rules of thumb, or "heuristics", that, combined with book knowledge, make them expert practitioners'. This practical, heuristic knowledge, as attempts to simulate it on the machine have shown, is 'hardest to get at because experts - or anyone else - rarely have the selfawareness to recognize what it is. So it must be mined out of their heads painstakingly, one jewel at a time.

(All quotes cited from Feigenbaum and McCorduck, 1984)

Tacit knowledge, then, is learned from experience, either preconsciously that is without having ever entered the conscious mind - or else it has been learned consciously but been forgotten. How or when we learned it has been stored away and is no longer conspicuous in our consciousness. Most importantly, we can presume tacitly, precisely because it does work for us. The very essence of tacitness is pragmatic. When we enter different situations, we are able to call upon depths of taken-for-granted knowledge that we may not be able to articulate. Because it works, we can continue to presume upon it. Consequently, we do not learn from it - or else we learn in a pre-conscious manner. Unlike Nyiri, I want to suggest that tacit knowledge is not only the knowledge of experts, it is present in all forms of practical knowledge.

Schon (1983, p. 54) makes similar points about professional's practical knowledge. He suggests that professionals:

• know how to carry out actions spontaneously;
• are not always aware of having learned to do these things;
• are usually unable to describe the knowing which the action needs.

Tacit knowledge, then, can occur in knowledge that, how, when, or of. Since all learning is biographical this tacit dimension is also built into our own biographies and on occasions we all act in a taken-for-granted manner without necessarily being able to articulate the reasons.

Learning Practical Knowledge: From this discussion, we can see that the practice of pragmatism is actually a learning process. The whole of life is, in this sense, based on pragmatic knowledge and we are continually incorporating into our biography the pragmatic knowledge that we learn from life's experiences. In practice, then, teachers build up their own body of knowledge about their practice by learning, doing, thinking and reflecting about what they do. But it is more than knowledge - it is having the skill to undertake the role. It is their body of knowledge about their own practice. Pragmatic knowledge is learned - not taught. We learn this form of knowledge through direct experience but we are taught theory through mediated experience and we have to test it out in order to legitimate it for us. (We can also believe the knowledge because of the status of the professor, and so on, or we can examine the evidence produced by others and accept the validity of the knowledge that). However, it would be false to assume that because practical knowledge works, it necessarily provides the correct or even the best way of doing something - it is merely one way to achieve desired ends.

We are now in a position to depict the practice knowledge of practitioners in the following manner:

Figure 2:
The Nature of Practical Knowledge

Content knowledge in the above diagram is the knowledge of the subject being taught - it is knowledge that, or even more speculative knowledge based on the recognition that there are now few 'truths' to be taught. Bauman (1987, 1992) points out that teachers are now interpreters rather than legislators of knowledge.

Practical knowledge, then, is:

• learned in practice situations;
• practical, and not merely the application of some 'pure' academic discipline to practical situations;
• integrated;
• dynamic, in as much as it is only retained for as long as it works;
• not an academic discipline in the same way as the sciences or the social sciences.

Part 3: Preparing Teachers of Adults

When I was a trainer of school-teachers, we still believed that we had first to teach students the theory and give them a little opportunity to practice the knowledge that they had learned. But, we can see from the foregoing analyses that this is no longer acceptable. Consequently, it might be asked whether I am now advocating that all of the preparation of educators of adults should be undertaken in practice? There is still a place for classroom learning, although I do accept Bauman's argument that we should no longer take it for granted that our content knowledge is true. Nevertheless, I would advocate that a great deal of the preparation, or certification, occur in practice and that practical knowledge should form a basis for a great deal of initial preparation.

Now this poses questions that universities now face in other disciplines, where the new knowledge and skills are generated outside of the university. How can it teach them and how can it assess them?

First, we have to decide for precisely which roles the students are being trained; if we want to introduce them into a wide range of the roles, then we may need to have a modular structure to the course allowing students to opt for a number of different modules, or pathways through the course.

Secondly, there is a place to introduce students to the traditional bodies of knowledge about adult education and also to help them to begin to identify with being a teacher of adults rather than being a student in the educational setting.

Thirdly, I think that we have to recognise that practical knowledge is learned and not taught, so that we have to provide many opportunities for learning. That learning takes place through primary experience and in practice and not in the university. This might mean that a great deal of initial training, and certainly continuing training should be undertaken in the practice situation - which means that we have to devise opportunities for full-time students to teach, or we have to teach a great deal of our courses on a parttime basis.

Fourthly, we have to devise ways whereby we enable students, whether full-time or part-time, to learn more from their practice than merely doing it. This means that we have to change our mode of teaching away from the didactic and towards the Socratic and the facilitative. Additionally, we have to get the learners to generate their own data from practice, through learning journals and peer learning communities; the trainers' role then becomes both Socratic helping learners to interrogate their own journals and facilitative in as much as we facilitate the peer learning community. In this, we can point students to other published works on the subject, etc.

Fifthly, if we are working with teachers in practice, they may only be able to attend universities in evenings and at weekends, so that we may have to alter the times that we teach, so that we teach at times when it is convenient for the students. Additionally, we may have to offer mixedmode delivery, employing some distance teaching methods (hardcopy, on-line material) as well as face-to-face teaching. While distance education is becoming very widely accepted, there is considerable evidence to suggest that students still want and enjoy face-to-face teaching.

Let me illustrate this process in diagrammatic form.

Figure 2:
Relationship between Theory and Practice for Students

Naturally, students continue their learning from theory and books, etc and this is integrated into their own personal theory, which is then tried out in practice again.

Finally, we have to devise new ways of assessing practical knowledge, recognising that this is pragmatic, generated in the practice setting and always changing in the light of new experiences. Consequently, we cannot test 'knowledge' in quite the same way - although we might want to retain some of the more traditional ways of testing that knowledge which is taught in the classroom. We may have to test the ability to analyse, to understand why certain actions should be taken, the ability to reflect and evaluate, and so on.

Part 4: Certification and Qualifications

Figure 2 suggest that teachers keep on learning so that the first conclusion that we can draw about certification is that it should allow for a continuing building on whatever initial qualifications are awarded. Hence there should not merely be a qualification, but a number of qualification routes to higher degrees - especially to practitioner doctorates. Hence it should be possible that practitioners should have the opportunity of obtaining an EdD in the education of adults, or a PhD if their main concern is research. The doctorates should be towards the end of the qualification route, which might start at a Certificate and then grow into a degree and then a Masters degree, or it might start with a post-graduate qualification, if the teacher has a first degree in the content knowledge, and still develop towards a practitioner doctorate.

As we develop a system of credit transfer, it should also be possible for students to gain part of their qualification in different universities, or that they should be able to build on the qualification they obtained at one university by studying in another.

In addition, as education is becoming part of the learning market, it has become a commodity and as such needs signs and symbols so that it can be marketed and so that those who hold the award can prove themselves in the labour market. Baudrillard pointed out, the commodities needed symbols. He suggests that 'in order to become an object of consumption, the object must become a sign' (Baudrillard in Poster, 1988, p. 22) and that consumption is 'a systematic act in the manipulation of signs' (ibid.). Consequently, the symbol being advertised is the qualification, whether it is BSc, MSc, EdD or PhD etc. and education is now being consumed like any other commodity. But it is not just education that is moving in this direction, Bauman (1992, p. 17) writes:

Literature, visual arts, music - indeed, the whole sphere of the humanities - was gradually freed from the burden of carrying the ideological message, and ever more solidly set inside market-led consumption as entertainment. More and more the culture of consumer society was subordinated to the function of producing and reproducing skilful and eager consumers.....

Providers of courses can now seek accreditation for their courses and learners can study for their qualifications with more than one provider. Courses can be given credit rating and new systems, such as Credit Accumulation and Transfer, are emerging. Public recognition has become a qualification which one has and which can be stored for future use.

There is always a danger that the market brings down quality, and I certainly think that this is true in the higher education that I have seen, but the qualification remains the one major way by which educational establishments retain some control over the standards that they expect.

Finally, the qualification is both a motivating goal for learners and obtaining it provides a sense of achievement for all the hard work that they have undertaken.

Conclusion

Qualifying courses in the education of adults are, it seems to me, no different from similar courses in other practical occupations. All are confronted with similar problems about the changing nature of knowledge and also about the validity of practical knowledge. Yet these changes are forcing the universities to change, albeit slowly, since resistance to change is a most common phenomenon.

Additionally, having practice and practical knowledge at the heart of the preparation and continuing education of educators of adults means that universities are having to cooperate closely with the fields of practice in order to find sufficient places for the students to teach, or else they are having to accept teachers in practice on their courses and adapt their own customs accordingly.

It seems to me that the points that I have raised in this paper are not unique but are the ones that will be faced by all universities in the coming years and that we in the education of adults can help pave the way.

References

Baudrillard, J. (1988): A System of Objects. In: Poster, M. (ed.): Jean Baudrillard; A Selection of Writings. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bauman, Z. (1987): Legislators and Interpreters. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bauman Z. (1992): Intimations of Post-Modernity. London: Routledge.

Bestwick, D. and Chadwick, A. (1977): A Cooperative Training Scheme for Part-Time Teachers of Adults. Adult Education, Vol. 50, No. 4. Leicester: NIAE.

Campbell, D. (1984): The New Majority. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.

Elsdon, K. (1975): Training for Adult Education. Nottingham: Dept. of Adult Education.

Feigenbaum, E. and McCorduck, P. (1984): The Fifth Generation. New York: Signet.

Flew, A. (1976): A Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Pan Books.

Haycocks, J. N. (Chair) (1978): The Training of Adult Education and Part-Time Further Education Teachers. London: Advisory Committee for the Supply and Training of Teachers.

Graham, T. B., Daines, J., Sullivan, T., Harris, P & Baum, F. (1982): Training of Part-Time Teachers of Adults. Nottingham: Dept. of Adult Education.

Jarvis, P. (1987): Adult Learning in the Social Context. London: Croom Helm.

Jarvis, P. (1992): Paradoxes of Learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Jarvis, P. (1995a): Educating the Adult Educator in an Information Society: the Role of the University. In: Collins, M. (ed.) The Canmore Proceedings: Educating the Adult Educator. Saskatchwan: University of Saskatchwan.

Jarvis, P. (1995b): Adult and Continuing Education: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge (Second Edition).

Jarvis, P. (1997): Ethics and the Education of Adults in Late Modern Society. Leicester: NIACE.

Jarvis, P. (2001): Learning in Later Life. London: Kogan Page (forthcoming).

Jarvis, P., Holford, J., and Griffin, C. (1998): The Theory and Practice of Learning. London: Kogan Page.

Jarvis, P. and Gibson, S. (1987): The Teacher Practitioner in Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. Croom Helm.

Jarvis, P. and Gibson, S. (1997): The Teacher Practitioner and Mentor in Nursing, Midwifery, Health Visiting and the Social Services. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes (Second Edition).

Jarvis, P. and Chadwick, A. (eds.) (1991) Training Adult Educators in Western Europe. London: Routledge.

Lawton, D., Gordon, P., Ing, M., Gibby. B., Pring, R., and Moore, T. (1978): Theory and Practice of Curriculum Studies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984): The Post-Modern Condition. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1992): The Post-Modern Explained to Children. London: Turnaround.

Nyiri, J. (1988): Tradition and Practical Knowledge. In: Nyiiri, J. and Smith, B. (eds.): Practical Knowledge. London: Croom Helm.

Peters, R. (1966): Ethics and Education. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Polanyi, M. (1967): The tacit Dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Quinn, F. (1980): The Principles and Practice of Nurse Education. London: Croom Helm.

Scheffler, I. (1965): Conditions of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schon, D. (1983): The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Tina Bøgehave Christiansen, Landsforbundet af Voksen- og Ungdomsundervisere

For Landsforbundet af Voksen- og Ungdomsundervisere (LVU)'s underviseres vedkommende er kompetenceudvikling et tema, som står højt på ønskelisten, og et tema som to ud af tre mener i høj grad er vigtigt. Derfor er det af stor betydning, at der eksisterer relevante efter- og videreuddannelsestilbud, at indholdet er brugbart og udvikler deltagerne såvel fagligt som personligt, og at den viden, som lærerne tilegner sig på de forskellige uddannelsesforløb, er anvendelig på arbejdspladsen, så det ikke bliver "en tavs viden", der ikke bidrager til at opbygge institutionens samlede vidensbank.

Tilsvarende den forrige rapport, "Behovet for lærerkvalificering", fra 1999, indeholder denne rapport mange spændende resultater, teser og perspektiver, der vil kunne anvendes i en samlet lærerkvalificeringsstrategi. Samtidig vidner resultaterne klart om, at der fortsat er behov for mere forskning på lærerkvalificeringsområdet.

Som det fremgår af rapporten, får deltagerne, uanset kvalificeringsforløb, et stort udbytte på det personlige plan, i forhold til selvtillid, udvikling af lærerrollen, forholdet til deltagerne/ kursisterne. Kvalificeringen foregår hovedsagelig i forhold til opmærksomhedsplanet frem for et mere handlingsorienteret plan, det der i rapporten kaldes handlekompetencer. De forskellige almene kvalificeringsforløb kommer derfor generelt til at fungere som legitimering af praksis, en fastholdelse af praksis, og i mindre omfang som en teoretisk refleksion som grundlag for praksis.

For LVU er det essentielt, at såvel efter- som videreuddannelsen er tostrenget, så både de faglige og personlige kompetencer bliver styrket og udviklet. Disse kompetencer står ikke i et modsætningsforhold, men er hinandens supplement, og begge er uundværlige for at kunne agere i det videnssamfund, som vi lever i.

Det er derfor positivt, at almenkvalificeringsforløbene er med til at udvikle undervisernes personlige kompetencer; ikke mindst set i lyset af, at der i dag generelt er en større fokusering på underviserpersonligheden, hele forvaltningen af underviserrollen, som grundlaget for et frugtbart læringsmiljø. Bare prøv at spørge deltagerne i uddannelsesforløb hvad god undervisning er, eller hvad en god lærer er, så vil fagligheden oftest komme et pænt stykke nede på listen til fordel for engagement, nærhed, evnen til at lytte og empati. Så undervisernes personlige kompetencer er af stor betydning for læreprocessen, og jeg er ikke i tvivl om, at det gælder på alle niveauer i uddannelsessystemet.

Det er på den anden side selvfølgelig ikke tilfredsstillende, at deltageren på almenkvalificeringsforløbene kun i ringe omfang er i stand til at anvende det teoretiske stof som baggrund for praksis og at reflektere i denne sammenhæng. Det er derfor vigtigt at udvikle metoder og undervisningsformer, der giver en højere grad af anvendelsesmulighed i den praktiske dagligdag. Teoristof skal trænes og ikke blot tilegnes, som det påpeges i rapporten. (Man kan godt undres over, at denne problemstilling stadig fylder så meget, som den gør, da problemet på ingen måde er nyt.)

LVU deltager gerne i et sådant arbejde med at udvikle mere anvendelige efter- og videreuddannelsesforløb. Vi vil for eksempel gerne diskutere, hvordan der kan tilrettelægges almenkvalificeringsforløb, hvor underviseren (på almen kvalificeringsforløbene) i højere grad vejleder og giver supervision af den enkelte deltager på arbejdspladsen i forhold til en konkret undervisningsopgave. På denne måde får deltageren ligeledes mulighed for at få støtte i den svære proces med at give teoristoffet en "egen personlig profil". Derudover vil det være hensigtsmæssigt at udvikle opfølgningskurser/afpudsningskurser/ dage i forhold til de enkelte almenkvalificeringsforløb.

Vi ser frem til initiativer fra de uddannelsesinstitutioner, der udbyder efter- og videreuddannelse/kvalificeringsforløb, da disse må have et vist ansvar for og interesse i, at teorien bliver mere anvendelig i forhold til dagligpædagogiske praksis, og ikke vedbliver at stå i et parallelt forhold, men snarere i et dynamisk samspil. Så på rapportens lidt ledende spørgsmål om, hvorvidt deltagerudbyttet på kvalificeringsforløbene er optimalt, der har jeg ingen problemer med at svare nej.

Det er heller ikke tilfredsstillende, at deltagerne kun i meget begrænset omfang er i stand til at implementere den ny viden på arbejdspladsen på grund af en række forhold, som det ikke umiddelbart er let at gøre noget ved: modsætning mellem nye pædagogiske ideer og rammer for fagene, ressourcer på institutionerne, modkultur blandt kollegaer og lignende.

Jeg tror, at hvis der skal ske en styrkelse af implementeringen af ny viden såvel i undervisningen som på arbejdspladsen, så er det nødvendigt at arbejde med en målrettet og systematisk kompetenceudvikling/uddannelsesplanlægning af hver enkelt medarbejder. At indsatsen er målrettet og systematisk betyder, at kompetenceudviklingen er sat ind i en institutionsudviklingssammenhæng. På denne måde bliver kompetenceudvikling ikke en løsrevet størrelse, som nogle steder mere fungerer som en form for belønning eller som et frirum. Som jeg på et tidspunkt har hørt en uddannelseskvinde sige, så er efteruddannelse løsrevet fra organisationens samlede udvikling, og de opgaver der stilles i dagligdagen, ligesom en sejlads uden kompas; nogle gange kommer man til en tropisk ø - andre gange strander man på et rev.

For at få gang i en sådan systematisk og målrettet kompetenceudvikling er det nødvendigt, at hele institutionen - ledere og medarbejdere - i en fælles dialog definerer, hvordan institutionen skal udvikle sig på kort og længere sigt. Altså: hvor er vi nu? hvor vil vi hen? hvad er vores værdier, vores fælles sprog og forståelse af begreber? hvordan skal vi nå dertil samt hvornår?

Det er vigtigt, at denne proces bygger på en reel fælles dialog, så alle tager ejerskab på projektet. Hvis dette ikke sker, vil processen på et tidspunkt støde på barrierer, der vil opstå modstand, der forhindrer, at de opstillede mål bliver nået. Hvis modstanden kommer, skal den altid tages alvorligt - det er helt essentielt for projektet, at opbakningen er til stede fra alle. Nogle vælger at etablere "gu' vil jeg ej grupper", hvor årsagen til modstanden bliver forsøgt afdækket. Der er ligeledes mange institutioner, som vælger at inddrage en organisations /udviklingskonsulent i denne fase.

Når denne del af processen er overstået, bliver næste led at omsætte målene til blandt andet hvilke kompetencer, disse (mål) forudsætter af ledelsen og medarbejderne; hvad er det for nogle uddannelsesbehov, der skal dækkes, og hvordan kan de blive dækket institutionelt. Her kan det være en hjælp at opstille nogle principper for kompetenceudviklingen, for eksempel at der skal være en sammenhæng mellem teoretisk læring og de konkrete opgaver, og at kompetenceudviklingen skal være strategisk orienteret, hvor både institutionens og den enkeltes behov skal tilgodeses. Her er det igen vigtigt, at alle er med i processen, at den foregår i en dialog, og at eventuelle forskelle medarbejder og ledelse imellem bliver synliggjort og anerkendt.

Herefter er det de enkelte medarbejders og ledelsens kompetencer, der skal afdækkes for at undersøge, hvilke kompetenceløft den enkelte har brug for på kort og langt sigt i forhold til institutionens samlede kompetencebehov og -udvikling. MUS-samtalerne er et udmærket forum at få diskuteret dette. Og så drejer det sig om at få sat handling på disse kompetenceudviklingsplaner i form af interne og eksterne kurser og at få besluttet, hvordan den nye viden skal integreres og følges op på institutionen.

Hvis der skal ske en kvalificeret kompetenceudvikling, så har blandt andet amerikanske undersøgelser vist, at der skal sættes mange initiativer i værk. Ud over inddragelse i beslutningsprocesser, er lønincitamenter og ikke mindst omstrukturering på institutionen vigtige parametre. Det drejer sig om at finde tiden til at skabe interne læringsrum, refleksive rum, hvor handling og refleksion blandt andet i forhold til efteruddannelse kan finde sted, så vi ikke bevidstløst kører videre. Det drejer sig om at få udviklet nye samarbejdsformer, hvor vi kan lære af hinanden, diskutere vores faglige arbejde, udvikle metoder til sidemandsoplæring/coaching, hvor nye lærere kan blive hjulpet i gang og lære af ældre og mere erfarne lærere. Det drejer sig om pædagogisk at arbejde efter "den åbne dørs princip" suppleret med supervision; at få skabt netværk og teams også på tværs af hold/klasser og fag; at få defineret nye arbejdsopgaver, nye måder at løse vante opgaver på, jobbytte, så den enkelte lærer ikke hører til et bestemt sted i en bestemt funktion, men er en del af en helhed: opgaven, projektet. Det er vigtigt at få organiseret institutionen, så undervisere, der har været på efter- og videreuddannelserne, videreformidler den viden, de har tilegnet sig. "Sharing of knowledge", hedder denne læringstankegang. Udgangspunktet er, at viden forgår, hvis den ikke føres ind i netværk, "lærende netværk".

Ved at forpligte underviserne i forhold til hinanden i en sådan bevidst læringsstrategi, kan den konstante mangel på tilstrækkelig efteruddannelse, som præger institutionerne, afhjælpes, og et væsentligt skridt i retningen af "viden til tiden" - som i stigende grad bliver et eksistensvilkår for institutionerne - kan blive taget.

Denne måde at arbejde med kompetenceudvikling på kræver et opgør med den kultur, som dominerer mange institutioner i dag, hvor vi som undervisere ofte er privat praktiserende efter devisen: hver passer sit. Som professor Steen Hildebrandt, Handelshøjskolen i Århus har udtrykt det: "Arbejd aldrig alene. Den, der har lært at enhver passer ikke sit, i teams, når længst!"

Ved at arbejde systematisk med institutionsudvikling/organisationsudvikling herunder kompetenceudvikling, og ved at tænke kompetenceudvikling bredere, så den i høj grad også omfatter udvikling af nye interne læringsformer, som afspejler den refleksive modernitet, bliver det muligt at implementere ny viden i dagligdagens funktioner. Det drejer sig om at udvikle en ny uddannelseskultur på de enkelte institutioner - som Lærerkvalificeringsrapporten også nævner i sin perspektivering. Til gavn for udviklingen af arbejdsmiljøet og kvaliteten i undervisningen, og ikke mindst til gavn for den enkelte undervisers faglige og personlige udvikling.

Lisa Hougaard, Undervisningsministeriet

Rapporten beskriver mange forskellige aspekter af kvalificeringen af voksenundervisere. Jeg har valgt de seks aspekter ud, som jeg synes er de mest interessante.

1. Behovet for voksenunderviseruddannelse

Af rapporten fremgår det, at hvis man - som underviser - ikke får mulighed for at lære pædagogiske teorier og metoder, vil man ofte forholde sig over for sine deltagere, som de lærere, man selv havde i skolen, forholdt sig til en selv. Det kan være både godt og skidt. Det er godt, hvis man selv havde fremragende lærere, og man har talent for at undervise. Det er skidt, hvis det modsatte er tilfældet. Jeg vil dog våge den påstand, at det langt overvejende er skidt, dels fordi man derved sandsynligvis har et ubevidst og ureflekteret forhold til sin egen undervisningspraksis, dels fordi tiderne er skiftet og tilrettelæggelsesformer med deltageraktivitet og ansvaret for egen læring er kommet langt mere i fokus, end de var tidligere.

I rapporten stilles spørgsmålet: "Kan man lære at undervise?" Min egen opfattelse har altid været:
Nogle undervisere er naturtalenter. De kan undervise, allerede inden de begynder en uddannelse. De har måske haft fremragende lærere i skolen, som virker som modeller for dem. Men det betyder ikke, at de ikke kan blive endnu bedre, ved at lære teorier og metoder, der kan få dem til at reflektere over deres praksis. Andre undervisere kan ikke undervise i forvejen. De har måske haft dårlige erfaringer fra deres egen skoletid. Men de kan åbne deres bevidsthed for de processer, der skal befordres i undervisnings- og læringssituationer, ved at lære pædagogiske teorier og metoder og ved at blive bedre til at reflektere over deres praksis. Og så er der en lille gruppe mennesker, der aldrig bliver rigtig gode til at undervise, uanset hvor meget uddannelse de får. De har simpelthen ikke sans for at undervise.

Min opfattelse er blevet bekræftet i denne rapport.

2. Professionalisme kontra den engagerede amatør/ildsjæl

I rapporten bliver begrebet professionalisme diskuteret i forhold til for eksempel undervisningen inden for folkeoplysningen, hvor den engagerede amatør eller ildsjælen ellers betragtes som et unikt fænomen.

Man kan stille spørgsmålet: "Når underviseren er en professionel, hvordan kan han/hun så befordre et ægte ligeværdigt forhold til deltagerne?"

At være professionel betyder for mig, at man kan sit fag, og at man kan formidle det på en hensigtsmæssig måde ud fra pædagogisk viden. Underviseren har derved en merviden i forhold til deltageren. At have en merviden om fag og formidling er ikke nødvendigvis det samme som at være bedrevidende. Især ikke hvis man stiller denne merviden til rådighed på en måde, som er med til at synliggøre nogle af de medmenneskelige processer, der foregår i undervisnings- eller læringssituationerne. Så kan man på trods af sin merviden etablere et ligeværdigt menneskeligt møde med deltageren.

Der er derfor ikke nødvendigvis nogen modsætning imellem det at være professionel, og det at være en engageret amatør eller ildsjæl. Man kan lige så godt antage det modsatte synspunkt, idet muligheden for at reflektere over egen praksis også medfører muligheden for, at man reflekterer over sit eget forhold til deltagerne.

3. Vigtigheden af et teoretisk fundament

De teorier, underviseren gennem uddannelsesforløbet præsenteres for eller arbejder med, er med til, at han/hun finder sit eget pædagogiske ståsted, som bør være i overensstemmelse med hans/hendes menneske-, skole- og samfundssyn. Det bør også være i overensstemmelse med menneske-, skole- og samfundssynet på den uddannelsesinstitution, han/hun underviser på, hvis der skal være sammenhæng og kvalitet i det pædagogiske miljø på institutionen.

Om det forholder sig sådan, kan han/hun kun vurdere ved at kende sit eget ståsted og ved at kunne analysere sig frem til kollegaers og ledelsens syn på tingene ud fra henholdsvis deres praksis og deres holdningstilkendegivelser. Det skal tilføjes, at man på mange uddannelsesinstitutioner arbejder helt bevidst med at finde "fælles pædagogisk fodslag".

En af de vigtigste kvaliteter ved den professionelle underviser er - ifølge rapporten - evnen til at teoretisere. Når man kan det, kan man gennemføre selvevalueringer, hæve sig over den daglige praksis og opfinde og implementere nye ideer i undervisningen.

Kendskabet til fagsproget i de pædagogiske teorier og metoder viser sig at være nødvendige for at kunne argumentere for og reflektere over sin egen pædagogiske praksis i en kollegial sammenhæng og for at kunne finde "fælles pædagogisk fodslag".

Viden om teorier og metoder og dermed muligheden for at analysere sin egen og andres praksis samt evnen til at anvende det pædagogiske fagsprog kan på den måde være med til at forhindre udbrændthed og dermed forhindre, at ildsjælene brænder ud og slukkes.

4. Kunsten at blive en reflekterende praktiker

Det er kendskabet til teorierne og metoderne og det bagvedliggende menneskesyn, der inspirerer til at reflektere i praksis og over praksis - og til at blive en reflekterende praktiker. Teorierne kan derved være med til at skærpe opmærksomheden på praksis.

Man ser som regel ikke det, man ikke ved, eller ikke kan sætte ord på. Man ser oftere, det man ved, og det man godt kan sætte ord på. Det betyder ikke, at den reflekterende underviser hele tiden omsætter teoretisk viden til praksis eller foretager teoretiske analyserer af undervisningssituationerne. Det betyder - ifølge rapporten - at underviseren mere konkret reflekterer over det, der sker, det der virker, og det der ikke virker. Og via refleksion i og refleksion over praksis eksperimenterer læreren sig frem til en forbedret praksis.

5. Undervisernes manglende evne til at foretage metateoretiske overvejelser over egen undervisningspraksis

I rapporten konstateres det, at de fleste af de undervisere, der deltog i de fem udviklingsforløb, fik udbytte af forløbene, at de ændrede deres praksis til det bedre, og at de fik et nyt handlingspotentiale.

Nogle få nåede ikke at ændre ret meget på deres praksis, inden de blev interviewet sidste gang, mens andre ændrede praksis og oven i købet fik et socialt og/eller personligt udbytte ved at deltage i forløbene. Men det konstateredes samtidig, at underviserne ikke blev i stand til at foretage metateoretiske overvejelser over egen undervisningspraksis.

Man må formode, at hvis der bliver fyldt en masse teoretisk viden på de undervisere, der deltager i uddannelse eller mere generelle udviklingsforløb, så må de have et behov for en integrations og omsætningsproces, før effekten af uddannelsen slår fuldt igennem i praksis, og før de kan vurdere effekten af uddannelsen.

Når der bliver sat en erkendelsesproces i gang, kan den i princippet fortsætte i det uendelige, således at deltagerne fortsat reflekterer i og over deres praksis og eksperimenterer med den.

For mig at se er det væsentligste aspekt af uddannelse derfor, at deltagerne lærer at reflektere i og over deres praksis, at de lærer at argumentere for den og bearbejde den med kolleger, eller sagt på en anden måde, at de indgår i den såkaldt kommunikative læring. Så længe den proces er i gang, fortsætter erkendelsen, og risikoen for at brænde ud formindskes. Hvis nogle samtidig reflekterer over de sociale og personlige sammenhænge, de indgår i, forstærker det den positive effekt af forløbene og modvirker i endnu højere grad udbrænding.

I rapporten spørges der, om det er rimeligt, at de undervisere, der deltager i et uddannelses- eller udviklingsforløb ikke bliver i stand til at foretage metateoretiske overvejelser over praksis. Ud fra min opfattelse er dette ikke nødvendigvis et problem, idet jeg betragter uddannelsen eller generelle udviklingsprojekter dels som et forum for at lære nye teorier og metoder, dels som et frirum, hvor deltagerne har mulighed for at komme i en erkendelsesproces på vej mod at finde et nyt pædagogisk ståsted, eller revurdere det pædagogiske ståsted, de havde i forvejen.

Det, at de i forbindelse med et interview ikke er i stand til af foretage metateoretiske overvejelser over forandringen af egen praksis betyder ikke, at de ikke ville kunne gøre det, hvis de igen blev frisat og havde tiden til at fordybe sig. Og at de ikke har de pædagogiske teorier som paratviden udelukker ikke, at nogle af teorierne kan være blevet en integreret del af deres personlighed, som de kan anvende spontant.

At være i stand til at foretage metateoretiske overvejelser over praksis kræver, at man systematisk træner at sætte teoretisk viden på praksis. Det har man åbenbart enten ikke gjort eller ikke gjort nok i forbindelse med de forløb, der indgår i undersøgelsen.

6. Fremtidsperspektiv

Hvis man skulle forbedre undervisernes evne til metateoretiske overvejelser og metateoretisk kommunikation om deres praksis, kunne man eventuelt tilrettelægge uddannelserne således, at uddannelsesmodulerne:

• var forholdsvis korte (det er nemmere at se sammenhængen eller manglen på samme mellem en lille mængde teoretisk viden og praksis end en stor mængde teoretisk viden og praksis)
• havde et mere generelt indhold (deltagerne tvinges til at omsætte de generelle teorier til deres specielle praksis)
• havde deltagere fra forskellige voksenuddannelser (deltagerne tvinges til at se teorierne i en større praksissammenhæng)
• havde længere praktik- eller praksisperioder (mindst en måned), hvor de teoretiske uddannelseselementer skulle omsættes og trænes systematisk (deltagerne får mulighed for at se sammenhængen mellem teori og praksis og får øvelse i at bruge teorier, metoder og teknikker i praksis)
• gav mulighed for jævnlig supervision af praksis via fastholdelsesmedier (deltagerne tvinges til at sætte ord på og foretage metateoretiske overvejelser over egen praksis).

For eksempel kunne den daghøjskoleunderviseruddannelse, der indgår i undersøgelsen, som er af 16 døgns varighed fordelt på 4 gange 4 døgn med mellemliggende praksisperioder og med 3 hjemmeopgaver af henholdsvis 2, 3 og 4 dages varighed, i stedet gennemføres på 8 gange 2 døgn med mellemliggende praksis- eller praktikperioder. Her ville der være mulighed for at træne anvendelsen af de teorier og metoder, der indgik i uddannelsen. Der burde også være mulighed for at træne sig i at analysere praksis f.eks. i forbindelse med det menneskesyn, der ligger bag praksis. Derudover burde der indgå pligt til/mulighed for systematisk supervision via fastholdelsesmedier samt et par større opgaver.

Når jeg siger systematisk træning, mener jeg, at deltagerne bør tvinges til at registrere skriftligt, hvor ofte de anvender de nye teorier, metoder og teknikker samt til at registrere "resultatet" heraf.

Med udgangspunkt i denne rapport kunne man overveje at igangsætte en fælles grunduddannelse for voksenundervisere, der ingen pædagogisk uddannelse har i forvejen, samt en fælles efteruddannelse for de voksenundervisere, der har en pædagogisk grunduddannelse, som blot ikke er rettet mod voksne.

Jeg vil slutte af med at sige, at vi i Undervisningsministeriet er klar over, at det er vigtigt, at voksenunderviserne får mulighed for ikke blot at deltage i en egentlig grunduddannelse, men at de også få mulighed for jævnligt at revurdere deres pædagogiske ståsted via efteruddannelse.

Erling Klinkby, forstander ved VUC

Generelle bemærkninger

Det er nok for tidligt at afgøre, om der hos mig "er sket ændringer i mit handlingspotentiale" ved læsning af denne rapport - for nu at indlede med rapportens definition af læring. Men sådan opfatter jeg det umiddelbart! Jeg synes, min læsning har haft en "opmærksomhedseffekt" i forhold til de problemstillinger, der er på spil, og som må tages i betragtning i lærernes efteruddannelse, om end en del af teoristoffet for mig mest vil have en "parallelfunktion", altså være identitetsskabende i min profession som VUC-forstander - som det fortsat hedder i rapportens sprogbrug.

I hvert fald finder jeg, at der er tale om en meget grundig og spændende undersøgelse, som i høj grad kan berige os, der arbejder med voksenuddannelse. Lad mig pege på tre kvaliteter:

1. De indledende teoriafsnit giver en fin sammenstilling af de forhold, der må tages i betragtning, når vi taler om lærerkvalificering og forsøger at tegne en kvalifikationsprofil. Navnlig finder jeg det vigtigt at anskue kvalificering bredt. På VUC bruger vi ca. 25% af lærerressourcen i direkte kontakt med kursisterne. 60% af lærerressourcen er rettet direkte mod undervisning (undervisningslektioner, forberedelse og rettearbejde). Det vil sige, at hen ved 40% af lærerressourcen bruges til andre relevante læreropgaver: vejledning, kollegialt samarbejde, udvikling, eksamen, pædagogisk administrative opgaver mv. Det er i øvrigt min opfattelse, at det er nødvendigt at lægge betydelig vægt på uddannelseskulturen eller institutionskulturen, også når vi taler om kvalificering, som rapporten meget rigtigt gør det.
      
2. Rapporten forholder sig nøgternt og ydmygt til sit materiale - nogle steder er den efter min opfattelse måske endda for forsigtig. Der gøres opmærksom på de begrænsninger, som materialet har, om rækkevidden og gyldigheden. Imidlertid er det lidt uklart, om gyldigheden alene er voksenundervisning.
       
3. I rapporten gives en meget spændende sammenfatning af undersøgelsens resultater i teseform, som måske ikke bringer så meget nyt, men som alligevel er en god guide i forhold til det videre arbejde, som rapporten også slutter med at give et par pejlinger af. Her fastslås det, at almenkvalificering er vigtig: på det personlige plan, som opmærksomhedsskabende og som formidler af teori som en parallelfunktion, der er vigtig i forbindelse med at danne institutionskulturen, give et afsæt for at tale samme sprog.

Begrænsninger og kritiske punkter

Sammenstillingen af kategorien "folkeoplysning og almen voksenuddannelse" er måske for bred og diffus. Der er tale om en historisk betinget kategori, som jeg mener i nogen grad er under opløsning. For eksempel har VUC på mange måder større sammenhæng og overensstemmelse med erhvervskompetencegivende uddannelse end med de uddannelser/aktivitetsområder, der indgår i den nævnte kategori. Det gælder med hensyn til faglighed og styringsmæssige rammer for undervisningen - bekendtgørelser, eksamen mv. Jeg mener, det er vigtigt, at differentiere mellem de kvalifikationsprofiler, som fordres i de forskellige sektorer herunder graden af faglighed og betydningen af uddannelseskulturen.

Jeg finder, at det er en svaghed ved rapporten, at faglig kvalificering og fagdidaktik helt er adskilt fra det almenpædagogiske. I en VUC-sammenhæng er fagligheden yderst central: formelt set i forhold til rekruttering af lærere, ud fra deltagernes vurdering og i forhold til lærernes selvopfattelse. På VUC er realiteten den, at efteruddannelsesbehovet - sådan som det kommer til udtryk i lærernes egne uddannelsesønsker - typisk er rettet mod faglige og fagdidaktiske emner. I langt mindre grad retter efteruddannelsesbehovet sig mod almenpædagogiske emner - og det gælder både AVU-lærere og hflærere.

Dette styrkes også af de erfaringer, vi har i den praksisnære efteruddannelse. Også her er det den faglige tilgang, der er den centrale. Blandt sådanne praksisnære eksempler på efteruddannelse kan nævnes følgende centrale områder:

• Studiekredse, som gennemføres i forbindelse med planlægning og gennemførelse af undervisning, typisk forsøgsundervisning.
• Udviklingsprojekter i relation til den konkrete undervisning, for eksempel omstilling til flex-undervisning, hvor en gruppe lærere sammen udvikler et tilbud. Efteruddannelsesaspektet vil typisk være såvel af faglig som almenpædagogisk art.
• Kollegial supervision i mindre grupper, hvor almenpædagogiske og fagdidaktiske aspekter blandes.

Fælles for disse eksempler er i øvrigt, at implementeringen af efteruddannelsen sker i sammenhæng med institutionsudvikling. Når man i en ressourceopgørelse fra VUC-området læser, at kun 2% bruges til formel efter- og videreuddannelse, er det ikke et reelt billede af aktiviteten. Efteruddannelse bør ses i en bredere sammenhæng, som ovennævnte eksempler peger på.

Som det fremgår, var det valgte udviklingsprojekt for VUC-lærere ikke noget heldigt valg. Det skyldes kort sagt, at projekt "Standard og profiler" ikke er noget velegnet udviklingsprojekt for lærerkvalificering. Projektet havde oprindeligt et meget centralistisk udspring og tilsnit, som ikke gav lærerne oplevelse af ejerskab til projektet, og som derfor ikke kunne være fremmende for en lærerkvalificering. Mere end udvikling handlede projektet om en slags deklarering af institutionen. Siden er konceptet dog blevet ændret i retning af et mere decentralt redskab til kvalitetsstyring.

Som nævnt finder jeg rapporten god og anvendelig. I forhold til institutionslederen - som især er min synsvinkel - er rapporten et godt redskab, hvor der sættes fokus på lederen som:

• Pædagogisk leder
• Personaleleder
• Institutionsudvikler

Disse ledelsesfelter er yderst vigtige i relation til lærerkvalificeringen ikke mindst i det fremtidsperspektiv, som VEU-reformen tegner, hvor fokuspunkterne blandt andet bliver: effektmåling, evaluering og kvalitetsudvikling.

Denne side indgår i publikationen "Fokus på voksenlæreren" som appendiks 1 af 1
© Undervisningsministeriet 2002