If we train teachers to organize learning processes, that refer to special working processes (for instance in specific enterprises), then we have to account for the different levels of action and of knowledge. Each level is included in the next and binds to the next with preconditions. Every reframing reflection points to the more fundamental conditions that can be recognized within the frame: First, every time we are acting in a situation, we do it with some kind of intention; second, in process we realize what we want to do for instance, with an object, or in which way we apply a procedure, and how much effort is required, or what skills we do not possess. Because we recognize we can change the procedure; we are able to develop our skills; we can determine, which aims are really important. While we are realizing the important aims, we are objectifying ourselves. On the third level, if the activities are not successful, we must think about us, as actors in particular contexts, and about our aims in relation to the object: Are these aims making sense? Is the object suitable, we deal with? Consequently, we may choose a differ- ent object, a different procedure, different tools, and so on.⫺This is the aspect of the work in enterprise we need to analyse and understand.
Reflecting
Actor B: e.g. comparing the procedures Observer (B) Actor A Communication social process Procedure Procedure Object Actor B, reflecting on process regarding to Actor A
{ }
Particularly in the educational context, this is valid, because the learning processes are mediated in multiple ways: As teachers, we have to consider the challenges, which we want to offer to the learners in a learning environment (for example
regarding to produce a sophisticated work piece of specific material). The learners’ tasks are interrelated to the teachers’ tasks. Based on a reflection about communi- cation, the actions of the learner and/or the feedback from the learners, we can encompass a triangulation:
• the learner‘s intentions,
• how his actions were guided by us and how we have to correct the acting, • which information we have to make available about the concerned subject
disciplines, and how we inform the learner about it.
In this way, I hope, the theory and method of reflection levels support the planning of complex VET teaching situations in Germany, as well as in other countries, even of the “third world”. To achieve this, VET-teachers have to know both the professional interactions, e.g. in farming, craft, industry and/or service (as domain experts) ⫺and the associated teaching activities in school (as professional teach- ers). The analysis of professional situations helps to identify and differentiate the most important challenges, tasks and competences. An example is the installation of an off-grid-system for a private home or a village based on a costumers request. In the same field, but much more complex is the installation of the hybrid electri- cal system for a fish market or hospital that consists e.g. of the components photo- voltaic system, windmill and diesel generator set. Based on this tasks and de- pending on the competencies of the students (perhaps they worked before in informal sector), more or less complex learning situations have to be elaborated and structured via different reflection levels. This and considerations targeting the challenges of the labour market, led us during the development of a curriculum for further education in photovoltaic in cooperation with institutions in Senegal (see the article of Eric Wendkouni Sawadogo at this conference). We hope that this supports the growth of employment to a level of prosperity entrepreneurship.
Conclusion
The theory and method of reflection levels can be a good tool for the analysis, planning, and development of complex learning situations. It opens the eye for the structure and the logic of the work and action processes (and the methods used) at different levels. It shows the dependencies and interactions which are in complex situations of the practice or in the mind of the various stakeholders. Whether we deal with the production of work piece due to an order of a customer, with various techniques (such as drilling, filing or milling) and appropriate tools or with the installation of a simple PV home system, taking into account the conditions and the financial aspects. In either case, the facts (e.g. to the materials to the system to the relevant interactions, processes) and the execution of the procedures have to be learned. But more than that: The complex interactions of materials and systems have to be understood in process of production, of instal- lation, and of use of the products and systems (quality assurance). Furthermore, they must be understood as interaction in problem fields e.g. of natural science, technology, ecology, and as social, economic and cultural interactions.
References
Csikszentmiha´lyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. The Experience of Play in Work and Games. San Francisco, Washington, London: Jossey Bass Publishers. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. (1980). A five-stage model of mental activities involved in
directed skill acquisition. Unpublished report. University of California at Berkley. Eicker, F., & Hartmann, M. (2002).Regional network learning in Vocational Education
and Training: The Case of Germany.Industry and Higher Education, pp. 369⫺377. Erpenbeck, J., & Rosenstiel, L. (2007).Handbuch der Kompetenzmessung. Erkennen, ver-
stehen und bewerten von Kompetenzen in der betrieblichen, pädagogischen und psycholog- ischen Praxis(2nd ed.). Stuttgart: Schäfer Poeschel.
Hartmann, M. (2005).Theorie der Praxis. Entwurf einer Reflexionsstufentheorie am Beispiel der Berufsbildung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Hartmann, M., & Mayer, S. (2012).Erneuerbare Energien ⫺ Neue Ausbildungsfelder für die Zukunft. Didaktik und Ausgestaltung von zusätzlichen Qualifikationsangeboten. Bi- elefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
Hartmann, M., & Niethammer, M. (2015).Modellierung beruflicher Kompetenz von Lehrkräften im beruflichen Lehramt. In M. Niethammer & M. Hartmann (Eds.),
Kooperative Ausbildung im technischen Lehramt (pp. 23⫺53). Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
Husserl, E. (1973).Experience and Judgement. London: Routledge.
Husserl, E. (1982).Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philsophy ⫺ First Book: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology. The Hague: Nijhoff.
Lederer, B. (2014).Kompetenz oder Bildung? Eine Analyse jüngerer Konnotationsverschie- bungen des Bildungsbegriffs und Plädoyer für eine Rück- und Neubesinnung auf ein trans- instrumentelles Bildungsverständnis. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
Neuweg, G. H. (2004).Könnerschaft und implizites Wissen. Zur lehr-lerntheoretischen Bede- utung der Erkenntnis- und Wissenstheorie Michael Polanyis(3rd ed.). Münster etc.: Wax- mann.
Piaget, J. (1971).Biology and knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Polanyi, M. (1983).The Tacit Dimension(Reprinted.). Gloucester, Mass: P. Smith. Reich, K. (1998).Die Ordnung der Blicke. Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Ryle, G. (1949).The Concept of Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1998). Problem based learning: An instructional model
and its constructivist framework. InConstructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design (pp. 135⫺147). New Jersey: Educational Technology Publi- cations.
Schmidt, S. J. (1991). Der Diskurs des radikalen Konstruktivismus (4th ed.). Frankfurt/ Main: Suhrkamp.
Schön, D. A. (1983).The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.