Antje Barabasch

Universität Magdeburg, Germany/University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Email: abarabasch1@yahoo.de

Global teaching in VET in Germany and the United States

1. Introduction

In the realm of all the developments that come along with globalization the demand for
internationalizing higher education is increasing. Despite that university teaching in Germany
for the most part still follows very traditional models and methods. A very few classes in
education are concerned with international issues, fewer are addressing national and
international audiences, and it is rare that an exchange of ideas between students and
professors from different cultures is being accommodated. Helping students to become aware
of and understand different cultural concepts is one of the challenges that lecturers and
professors around the world are facing today. To be able to explain different cultural
approaches and concepts one often needs to have been exposed to or lived in another culture.
That is not always realizable. To bridge the gap between theoretical knowing about conceptual
differences and practical understanding it is helpful to have teachers of at least two different
cultures teaching a course that focuses on international perspectives. In vocational education
and training (VET) classes, that are taken by students, who focus on international
development work, it becomes essential to teach about the various approaches to workplace
learning and workforce development.

The Department of Workforce Education at the Ohio State University in the US and the
Department of Vocational Education and Training and Human Resource Development at the
University of Magdeburg in Germany collaborated in the summer semester 2008 in an
interactive video-conferencing class. The context of the class was concerned with workforce
education and global workforce development and drew on literature from the United States,
Australia and Europe. This article outlines the results of the outcomes based evaluation of this
class. Particular attention was drawn towards the efficiency of the teaching method, the
process of cross-cultural communication and understanding in a classroom setting and
students’ evaluation of their learning process.

Video-conferencing as a teaching tool provides the unique opportunity to facilitate an

interaction of students and experts of different countries or cultures without having their
presence to be a necessity. It can increase student motivation and learning by providing
students with experiences and relationships that they would otherwise never be able to have. It
supports the improvement of students English language skills and their intercultural
communication competence. It also familiarizes students with the use of new technology,
interactive teaching, and a new dimension of active engagement in the learning process.

A lot of research has been conducted on intercultural learning of foreign students (Brown,
Aoshima, & Bolen, 2007), intercultural learning using virtual computer-mediated technology
(Ziegahn, 2005) as well as the experiences of teachers in other cultural contexts (Garson,
2005). A few authors have published their experiences with video-conferencing, which is
more often used in the field of engineering than in social science (Annison, 2002; Herder,
Subrahmanian, Talukdar, Turk and Westerberg, 2002; O’Dowd, R., 2007). Not much has been
published yet on this new form of teaching that combines two facilitators as well as two
student groups, who teach and learn together by using modern technology. The teaching
strategy itself is innovative in the field of vocational education and no research has been
found on the learning outcomes of it in this academic discipline. While scientific concepts in
disciplines such as medicine, science, or engineering seem to be easily shared across cultures
and English as the mode of communication among international scientist has been introduced
a long time ago, the social concepts that are used in vocational education and training as well
as human resource development are sometimes unique to a particular culture because they are
embedded in societal structures as well as historically evolved political ideas and laws.
Silverstein (2004) argued that “cultural concepts emerge as stereotyped meanings unevenly
distributed among people and primarily indexical in nature in the sense that they organize the
social field in which a particular interaction takes place” (p. 645). These differences in the
understanding of meaning can be researched when using the same vocabulary, such as
vocational education or workplace learning in different cultures and let people talk about it.
The two terms are understood and explained differently in Germany and the United States.
The respective VET systems in both countries could not differ more than they do. (Barabasch,
2008a, 2008b; Büchtemann, Schupp, & Soloff, 1993; Hamilton & Hurrelmann, 1993; Thelen,
2004).

Therefore, it becomes a challenge for representatives of both countries to explain their own
system and understand the opposite. When the two parties get together for an exchange of
ideas intercultural learning takes place. In this context it can be understood as an interactive
reflective dialog about different views and understandings of a particular subject matter. It is a
process in which members of different cultures learn together, create mutual understanding
and modify their own cultural values. Intercultural teaching aims at the development of
citizens with a critical and sustainable awareness of social, political, and economic matters of
vocational teaching and learning. Through this process students acquire the competence to
understand how to access cultural knowledge, process it and communicate effectively with
other cultures.

2. Methods

The following research questions guided the design of the evaluation: How did the students
and the teachers evaluate their learning outcome in relation to conventional classes? How did
teachers and learners experience the communication in the video-conference classroom? How
did intercultural learning take place? How did the format of the class assist the students in the
process of making meaning of different cultural concepts?

This evaluation was part of an action research approach that intended to improve this
particular class and also learn general strategies about designing and pursuing a video
conference class for VET students. This was the first class and therefore it required a
completely new design with different teaching and learning methods. Its success relied on
everybody’s input that was concurrently provided during the mutual learning process. Based
on the results of this first class and its evaluation, the action research project will be ongoing
and be continued with a class in the summer term of 2009.

Methods used in the evaluation were questionnaires and group discussions, individual non-
standardized interviews and interviews with two observers. The students were interviewed
about their expectations, learning processes, and learning outcomes. Particular attention was
paid to the development of students understanding of cultural concepts such as the
occupational form of work, structured on the job training (SOJT), vocational education and
training, transfer of training and knowledge, as well as informal versus formal learning. The
students understood themselves as active shapers of the class. After each class session 3 to 6
students remained in the classroom and we discussed their evaluations. These discussions
served as member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I as the lecturer of this class received
feedback about my interpretation of the completed questionnaires. The conversations with
two observers as well as my self-reflection were part of a reflection-on-action process (Schön,
1983). Schön talks intensely about the active, persistent, and careful consideration of actions
in the process of teaching in order to understand how teaching methods work together and
impact learning. He views the process of change and problem solving as a mainly intuitive
process rather than technical. The class schedule below indicates the points of time when the
evaluation took place. At each of the three video-conference sessions the class was observed
by one or two professional colleagues. They paid particular attention to the process of social
interaction in class and also evaluated the context that was taught. In this article I will
elaborate on the results of the evaluation and describe strength and weaknesses. I will disclose
by sketching future opportunities for using this format in the education of VET students.

3. The conceptual design of the videoconference seminar

The class had a variety of objectives that are intertwined. It intended to enhance the ability to
communicate with each other effectively while developing mutual trust and understanding.
The class further intended to add a new dimension to the idea of team teaching through the
combination of teachers from two different cultures who can explain their concepts and ideas
while interacting with two student groups. Originally, it was planned to have students from
both countries participating in the class, so that the students would not only have the
opportunity to learn from a U.S./German professor, but also to interact with each other.
Unfortunately, the communication between the students could not be realized. In the U.S.
most VET or Workforce students work part time or full time besides studying. Because of the
time difference between Europe and the U.S. they had to meet in the early afternoon when
U.S. students could not attend the class. Nevertheless, three U.S. students participated in the
first video-conference. The class was a “free-bee” (free of charge) at Ohio State University.
That means students did not have to pay for this class, but could also not earn credit for their
participation. The process of accrediting a new class at a major U.S. university usually takes a
year or longer. The German class met on Wednesday evenings for two to four hours. The class
was announced as an experimental class. The results of its evaluation will be used for the
modification of the design, which would be the foundation for starting the accreditation
process at Ohio State University. The different semester lengths at the two institutions (Ohio
State works on a quarter base, Magdeburg on a two semester base) also complicated the
simultaneous scheduling.

The texts provided in class involved books from the U.S. professor and articles about
workforce education written from authors from around the world. The learning process
included the following three dimensions: 1. Learning international concepts through a review
of international literature. 2. Learning through listening to and questioning the presentation of
a U.S./German professor as well as being challenged by him/her with questions. 3. Learning
through the discussion with two professors and between the students as well as collaborative
work on group research projects.

Course Rationale (U.S. perspective): How do people learn to do their jobs? Research shows
that individuals learn the most in the actual work setting, not in a classroom or other off the
job setting. But much of this learning is unplanned, or unstructured, which often results in
unpredictable training outcomes. This fact has important implications for global
organizations. This course provides the opportunity to become aware of and contribute to the
literature related to planned learning in the work setting.
Objectives. By the conclusion of the course, students will:

A. Describe the dimensions of a conceptual framework for workplace learning.

B. Discuss the theoretical support for learning in the actual work setting.
C. Analyze structured on-the-job training (S-OJT) systems and processes.
D. Discuss the implementation of S-OJT systems in organizations.
E. Analyze the literature related to planned learning in the work setting.
F. Be familiar with different approaches toward workforce education and workplace
learning.
G. Have a better understanding of U.S. versus German concepts.

Table 1: Timetable

Apr. 9 Introduction and course overview

Doing research and writing papers
Clarification of class concept
Discussion of readings
Apr. 16 Lecture First video-conference
Discussion of readings session
U.S. professor presents Ohio State Evaluation
University and his work there
Introductory round
Apr. 23 Lecture U.S. professor and discussion with Second video-conference
students and professors at two campuses in session
Ohio Evaluation
April 30 Reading and research
No meeting in class
May 7 Presentations and Discussion Third video-conference
Lecture U.S. professor and German professor session
Discussion with students Evaluation
May 14 Discussion of readings
Preparation for last video-conference session
May 21 Discussion of readings Fourth video-conference
Lecture U.S. professor and discussion with session
students Evaluation
May 28 Visit of U.S. doctoral student
Preparation of SOJT modules and discussion
June 4 International perspectives
Lecture
Discussion
June 11 Group work presentations
June 18 Discussion of selected readings
Group work presentations
June 25 Discussion of selected readings
Group work presentations
July 2 Summary Evaluation

4. Results of the evaluation

Twelve female and one male student participated in the class of which two were from
Bulgaria, one from Cameron, three from China and 7 students were German. One student had
graduated from an apprenticeship program before she started to study at the university. The
students were in the following programs of study: B.A. Educational Science (3), Teaching
VET (3), M.A. International VET (4) and Computation Linguistics (2). Eight students were
planning to graduate in summer 2009, five students in summer 2010. Four students have had
international experience either as having been an Au Pair or exchange student. For the
majority of the students this class was an elective class, four students had to take this class.
Three students had experienced a video-conference class before.

The reasons for taking this class were: interest in international issues (12), to practice/improve
English skills (10), interest in the teaching method (8), being better prepared for going
abroad/working in an international organization (6), learning about cultural differences and
perspectives (5), as well as interest in comparative studies (3). The African student claimed
that “it might help me to learn how to improve the situation in my country.”

Evaluation of learning experience

English Skills: The level of English communication, writing and reading skills varied widely.
The following table shows how students evaluated their English skills. Although some of the
students were very sceptic at the beginning of the class if they would be able to understand
and communicate, their evaluation and feedback indicated that they left the class with the
satisfaction that they understood most of it and were able to respond to questions of the U.S.
professor.

Table 2: Self-evaluation of English communication, writing and reading skills

Very good Good Fair Not so good poor

Writing 1 8 3 1
Speaking 1 5 5 2
Reading 3 4 5 1
Listening/ 2 9 2
Understanding

U.S. versus German teaching style: The students felt that the U.S. professor, with his more
personal approach to addressing the students, was better able to catch their attention and also
to reduce their fear of speaking up. Some of the students’ responses referred to that:
“I learn more when the class is offered in a simple way, asking questions inbetween.”, “He
was very relaxed and really wanted to know something about us before lecturing. Well, he did
not really lecture, but asked us more questions instead.” “This class is very open.” At the same
time the students felt irritated about the lack of lecturing and the need to respond to many
questions and reflect on ones readings. The students expected more targeted questions instead
of being given the option of freely elaborate on sections of the readings that had a meaning for
oneself. Unfortunately, it occurred that some of the students had not finished their reading in
time and were ill prepared for such discussions. On the other hand to read the books of a
professor who was teaching the course was one reason for attending the class. The students
appreciated the option of asking the author himself about the meaning of his texts. Eight
students claimed that they remembered more context in this class than they usually do. To
have class sessions before the video-conference sessions where the German professor helped
to de-contextualize the U.S. texts were experienced as very helpful. It prepared students better
for the discussion with the U.S. professor and helped in the process of understanding and
memorization.
Use of modern technology: Using modern video-conference equipment with four TV screens
in the room, several highly sensitive microphones and the option of showing power point
presentations at the same time contributed to students’ motivation to actively participate in
this class. They were fascinated by the possibilities that the technology offered (seeing and
communicating with the U.S. professor/students simultaneously, receiving direct personal
feedback) and said that the fun of learning this way increases their motivation. Although, the
late video-conference sessions usually ended at around 9 p.m. students sometimes stayed until
9:30 to discuss the results of this class. Some of the responses were: “It is actually like
watching films. I like watching films and learn a lot from them.” Critique at the technology
only referred to the size of the screens, which should be bigger. At the end of the class the two
Bulgarian students and two Chinese students claimed that they would prefer direct in class
face to face interaction and felt that video-conferencing is less personal.

Intercultural communication and understanding: Advantages of the class were that students
learned new points of view, new approaches and new manners of explaining a context. It
made a difference for the students to have the concepts explained by a native speaker. They
claimed that the U.S. approach to the organization of workplace learning can hardly be
understood from a German perspective and therefore it is difficult to explain them in the
German language. International students expressed that the class provided them with the
opportunity to explore two different approaches and learn more about the contradictions of the
use of several concepts such as structured versus unstructured workplace learning, formal
versus informal learning, the transfer of training outcomes, or just-in-time training. German
students said that they were sometimes confused and based on their cultural knowledge could
not understand the U.S. approach towards vocational learning as well as vocational education
and training. One student claimed : “In Germany the material an apprentice receives for his
learning are more directed towards self-learning and self reflective improvement. In the U.S.
the learner seems to be less involved and is more required to master certain tasks that he was
taught to perform.”, “The socialization at the workplace seems to be stressed more in the
German culture”, “I am uncertain if U.S. Americans and Germans share the same concept of
competencies”, “There seems to be a difference in the understanding of ‘transfer of
knowledge’ towards ‘transfer of training’ in both cultures.” And another one wrote “In the
U.S. they think it’s important for young people to have many choices and that they should not
focus too much on a specific educational track.” Therefore, often the German students would
explain how they understood the readings and then ask for a feedback of the U.S. professor.
At these points it became clear how challenging such an intercultural class can be. Without
enough or the appropriate cultural knowledge about the other site teaching becomes vague
and questionable. Nevertheless, through the repeated reference to several concepts the ideas
behind them became clearer over time. The provision of many international examples helped
a lot. The students wished to have had even more of them. After the discussion of various
theoretical concepts and the familiarization with some practical examples of structured on the
job training and the necessary training modules, the students were required to develop a
training module on their own. The students mastered the assignment well, but wondered about
the transfer of knowledge that is taught in such modules. The conclusion was that short term
training using SOJT modules cannot replace apprenticeships. The concept of an
apprenticeship is not well known in the U.S. Therefore, the discussion about differences in the
two approaches had a dead end. Other, rather cultural lessons learned by the students in
Germany were referring to the way they communicated with the U.S. professor. One student
said: “being polite is very important for Americans and they are very open minded people.”
And another claimed that “U.S. students obviously have to read more for their classes“. An
overall conclusion by the students was the astonishment about U.S. approaches towards
workplace learning/vocational education and training. The students were wondering “How do
U.S. American companies train their employees and prepare them for the job?” and “Why has
VET such a negative reputation in the U.S.?” SOJT seemed to be a short cut that does not
provide what a German apprenticeship would lead to – a comprehensive education and
socialization in a particular workplace environment that allows for active participation and
innovation.

Critical points: Since this class was an elective for most students and an experimental class
the amount of Credit Points (CPS) could not be determined upfront. Although, the students
were very interested in taking this class they finally chose the minimum CPS and did not
always follow up with their readings. They claimed that it was too much reading for two CPS.
Due to this development it was not insured that the students were always appropriately
prepared. At Ohio State University the amount of CPS and the required assignments are the
same for each participating student and no changes are made over the course of a class. The
assignments given were regular participation, the reading of three books and five articles, and
the preparation of a training module and its presentation in class.

Other problems encountered were ordering the English literature via the library, which took a
couple of months. In terms of the interaction between the students and the U.S. professor a
draw back at the beginning was the shyness of the students. After the first two video-
conference sessions questions were asked after the ending of the session instead of during the
session. The U.S. professor needed to get a feeling for the interaction with the German class.
He could not predict to what extent the students in Germany understood or what they had
learned before. Some students felt tired in the evening, but the time difference between
Europe and the U.S. did not allow another scheduling. The video-conference sessions seemed
to be unstructured for the students and they wished to have a more precise timeframe for
different actions taken during one session. They would have preferred to have short lectures
and more provocative questions about their readings. Especially the international students
would have liked to talk more about systemic and cultural differences between the U.S. and
German VET system.

5. Conclusion

The results of the evaluation indicate that video-conferencing in this international context
requires additional preparation for the participating professors. They have to be very familiar
with the concepts in each cultural context. The technology itself adds a new fascination to
teaching and learning that is not only motivating but also enhancing intercultural learning.
Much of its success depends on building a mutual relationship between the participants, since
participation and understanding are supported by a feeling of comfort. The emphasis on the
experimental character of the class seemed to encourage the students to become more engaged
as well as to provide constant feedback. A certain level of confusion about several concepts
lead to further discussions and critical reflection on existing knowledge and perceptions about
the way workplace knowledge should be taught. It would certainly enhance the learning
experience if students from the U.S. and Germany would participate in this class. Further
collaboration could be encouraged between students who would work together on research
projects. They could communicate via Skype. An exchange of students after the class took
place, that would involve an excursion of U.S. students to Germany and vice versa, would
help to intensify the acquired knowledge through practical experience. The visiting students in
Germany could observe vocational education in various facilities and speak to stakeholders of
institutions involved in vocational education, such as the chamber of commerce, teachers and
students in vocational schools, trainers in companies, or representatives of the Department of
Labor. In the U.S. students could visit a variety of institutions that offer vocational and
technical education, such as Career Academies, Community Colleges, Career and Technology
Center, companies that offer apprenticeships, and university classes that host vocational
students from high schools. In Columbus the Center on Education and Training for
Employment (CETE) would also be an interesting partner to talk to. In conclusion this class
has lots of potential to be extended. Besides enhancing the attractiveness of the class another
precondition for an increase in student participation would be to make the knowledge and
understanding of international VET systems and VET concepts a precondition for the final
exams. In this way the examination with these issues as well as the need for studying texts in
at least one other language (English) would be enforced. The general concept of such a video
conference class can be modified in many different ways and be used for the education of
VET students at different levels. The development of international curricula is not only of
interest to professors who teach either German and foreign students in one class or via video
conferencing across cultures, the concept is very useful for university outreach programs
where video conference courses taught in English could be offered around the world.
Australian and U.S. universities are already successful in offering interactive online classes in
various countries. Although there is an interest in VET concepts as well not much has been
done to develop such ways of cooperation with educational institutions around the world.
Global teaching also requires new competencies from the teachers who are offering these
classes. Video-conferencing is certainly a useful tool for the education of global educators and
their interaction with students around the world.

References

Annison, J. (2002). Action Research: Reviewing the implementation of a distance-learning

degree programme utilizing communication and information technologies. IETI, 39(2), 95-
106.

Barabasch, A. (2008a). Vor- und Nachteile des U.S. amerikanischen Berufsbildungssystems.

Die berufsbildende Schule, 3, 76-80.

Barabasch, A. (2008b). Modernisierung und Imageverbesserung der Berufsbildung in den

USA. In D. Münk, P. Gonon, K. Breuer, T. Deißinger (Eds.), Modernisierung der
Berufsbildung. Neue Forschungserträge und Perspektiven der Berufs- und
Wirtschaftspädagogik (58-68). Schriftenreihe der Sektion BWP der DGfE. Opladen.

Brown, M. B., Aoshima, M., & Bolen, L. M. (2007). Cross-cultural learning approaches in
students from the USA, Japan, and Taiwan. School Psychology International, (28)5, 592-604.

Büchtemann, Ch. F., Schupp, J., & Soloff, D. (1993). Roads to work: School-to-work
transition patterns in Germany and the United States. Industrial Relations Journal, 24(2), 97-
111.

Garson, B. (2005). Teaching abroad. A cross-cultural journey. Journal of Education for

Business, July/August, 322-326.

Hamilton, S., & Hurrelmann, K. (1993). Auf der Suche nach dem besten Modell für den
Übergang von der Schule in den Beruf – ein amerikanisch-deutscher Vergleich. Zeitschrift für
Sozialisationsforschung und Erziehungssoziologie, 13, 194-207.

Herder, P. M., Subrahmanian, E., Talukdar, S., Turk, A. L., & Westerberg, A. W. (2002). The
use of video-taped lectures and web-based communications in teaching: a distance-teaching
and cross-Atlantic collaboration experiment. European Journal of Engineering Education,
27(1), 39–48.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

O’Dowd, R. (2007). Evaluating the outcomes of online intercultural exchange. ELT Journal,
61(2), 144-152.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Silverstein, M. (2004). “Cultural” concepts and the language-culture nexus. Current

Anthropology, 45(5), p. 621-652.

Thelen, K. 2004. How institutions evolve. The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain,
the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ziegahn, L. (2005). Critical reflection on cultural difference in the computer conference.

Adult Education Quarterly, 56(1), 39-64.

Words: 4489