 |
Module training is an answer
to the increasing demand of flexibility and individualization
of vocational training. On one hand these two trends arise a
considerable potential of emancipation, but on the other one
they might cause insecurity and dependence, so that the introduction
of measures able to recompose the heterogeneity in trainings
composed by different units – more or less independent
– and bearings of different internal logics becomes necessary.
Following our thoughts and experiences at the ISPFP, the educator
belonging to the module training format must adopt three roles:
the manager, the teacher and the "scaffolder". The
first one has duties connected with the structure of the training
and management; the teacher, whose duties normally unfold in
a well-defined module, must rebuild the knowledge – not
referring to the discipline anymore – following new criteria,
for example the outline of an aimed competence. Then, scaffolding
gains more and more importance in the relationship aspects (a
reference point for the person in the formation process) and
supporting the learning procedures (metacognition, use of different
formation instruments). Thus, the module structure formation
concentrates itself on its methodological and relationship aspects
with a specific focus on competence procedures, which can’t
be given for granted anymore.
The duties, which characterize the three roles previously seen,
can combine themselves in a different way according to the contingent
situations and more specifically to the type of module training.
This peculiarity of module training faces us up to a series
of questions relating to the educator’s identity: if the
emerging tendency is the subdivision of the work, requiring
the three professional roles becoming more and more specialized
in their respective competence sectors, what will be the induced
representations and the expectations of the people in the process
of formation? What will be the educator’s perception of
his own professional identity? |
|
