{"title":"非正规和非正规学习验证政策中的非正规学习概念:奥地利和意大利的比较","authors":"Philipp Assinger, Chiara Biasin","doi":"10.1111/ijtd.12313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>In 2012</i>, European Union Member States committed to implement policies for the <i>Validation of Nonformal and Informal Learning</i> (VNFIL). In this article, we examine Austria and Italy and ask how VNFIL policies in these two countries relate to <i>informal learning</i> (IL) and how this can be interpreted from a <i>workplace learning</i> (WPL) perspective. The notion of IL in VNFIL is largely based on a psychological understanding of learning. We argue that a WPL perspective complements this understanding and serves to better understand learning at work. Based on assumptions concerning the influence of national education and training systems on VNFIL, a comparison is made along three categories: the preferred type of VNFIL, the notion of IL, and the references to workplaces. Despite preferences for summative types of VNFIL, Austria acknowledges a range of types, while Italy is still in the process of development and prefers the so-called autonomous type. Findings suggest a minimalistic understanding of IL in Austria contrasting with Italy, in which IL is seen as firmly embedded within Lifelong Learning. The references to workplaces are weak in both countries. We finally address the role of employers as a delicate issue for VNFIL, when embedded in educational policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":46817,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Training and Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The notion of informal learning within policies for the validation of nonformal and informal learning: A comparison between Austria and Italy\",\"authors\":\"Philipp Assinger, Chiara Biasin\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ijtd.12313\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><i>In 2012</i>, European Union Member States committed to implement policies for the <i>Validation of Nonformal and Informal Learning</i> (VNFIL). In this article, we examine Austria and Italy and ask how VNFIL policies in these two countries relate to <i>informal learning</i> (IL) and how this can be interpreted from a <i>workplace learning</i> (WPL) perspective. The notion of IL in VNFIL is largely based on a psychological understanding of learning. We argue that a WPL perspective complements this understanding and serves to better understand learning at work. Based on assumptions concerning the influence of national education and training systems on VNFIL, a comparison is made along three categories: the preferred type of VNFIL, the notion of IL, and the references to workplaces. Despite preferences for summative types of VNFIL, Austria acknowledges a range of types, while Italy is still in the process of development and prefers the so-called autonomous type. Findings suggest a minimalistic understanding of IL in Austria contrasting with Italy, in which IL is seen as firmly embedded within Lifelong Learning. The references to workplaces are weak in both countries. We finally address the role of employers as a delicate issue for VNFIL, when embedded in educational policies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46817,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Training and Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Training and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijtd.12313\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Training and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijtd.12313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
The notion of informal learning within policies for the validation of nonformal and informal learning: A comparison between Austria and Italy
In 2012, European Union Member States committed to implement policies for the Validation of Nonformal and Informal Learning (VNFIL). In this article, we examine Austria and Italy and ask how VNFIL policies in these two countries relate to informal learning (IL) and how this can be interpreted from a workplace learning (WPL) perspective. The notion of IL in VNFIL is largely based on a psychological understanding of learning. We argue that a WPL perspective complements this understanding and serves to better understand learning at work. Based on assumptions concerning the influence of national education and training systems on VNFIL, a comparison is made along three categories: the preferred type of VNFIL, the notion of IL, and the references to workplaces. Despite preferences for summative types of VNFIL, Austria acknowledges a range of types, while Italy is still in the process of development and prefers the so-called autonomous type. Findings suggest a minimalistic understanding of IL in Austria contrasting with Italy, in which IL is seen as firmly embedded within Lifelong Learning. The references to workplaces are weak in both countries. We finally address the role of employers as a delicate issue for VNFIL, when embedded in educational policies.
期刊介绍:
Increasing international competition has led governments and corporations to focus on ways of improving national and corporate economic performance. The effective use of human resources is seen as a prerequisite, and the training and development of employees as paramount. The growth of training and development as an academic subject reflects its growth in practice. The International Journal of Training and Development is an international forum for the reporting of high-quality, original, empirical research. Multidisciplinary, international and comparative, the journal publishes research which ranges from the theoretical, conceptual and methodological to more policy-oriented types of work. The scope of the Journal is training and development, broadly defined. This includes: The determinants of training specifying and testing the explanatory variables which may be related to training identifying and analysing specific factors which give rise to a need for training and development as well as the processes by which those needs become defined, for example, training needs analysis the need for performance improvement the training and development implications of various performance improvement techniques, such as appraisal and assessment the analysis of competence Training and development practice the design, development and delivery of training the learning and development process itself competency-based approaches evaluation: the relationship between training and individual, corporate and macroeconomic performance Policy and strategy organisational aspects of training and development public policy issues questions of infrastructure issues relating to the training and development profession The Journal’s scope encompasses both corporate and public policy analysis. International and comparative work is particularly welcome, as is research which embraces emerging issues and developments.