At the macro-level, the model differentiates between the skill formation approach and the stratification approach.

The skill formation approach focusses on the interaction between political and socio-economic institutions and other stakeholders in the VET context (Busemeyer/Trampusch 2012). In addition to the influence of stakeholders on VET policy, the issue of direct funding and financial involvement is also of crucial importance (Busemeyer/Trampusch 2012, p. 21). The skill formation model covers four characteristics of different constellations of stakeholders:

(1) the influence of the state on vocational education and training (“state-dominance”);

(2) the potential for activity by and influence from companies (“company-dominance”);

(3) Where both influences are limited, individual influence may be prioritised (“individualised”; for example, participation in individually funded training provision organised by the private sector);

(4) where state and companies have a high level of influence, this may be characterised as a mixed system (or “state and company dominance”).

These differing levels of activity produce different constellations of stakeholders that can then be illustrated in the form of a matrix.

In our approach, stratification forms part of the macro-level and relates to issues of “tracking” and of the marked differentiation of and separation between general training courses from vocational ones. The construct “stratification” (related to the education system) is adopted from the field of sociology where it is defined as “the extent and form of tracking that is pervasive in the educational system” (Shavit & Müller 2000, p. 443). The term “tracking” refers to pupils’ different trajectories through the school system, a view that takes in both the distinction between general and vocational education (and the different routes taken into them) and the differentiation of hierarchical levels by access, selection and transition mechanisms (Allmendinger 1989, p. 233).

Another relevant issue is “indirect stratification” (Pilz/Alexander 2011) resulting from the significance of rankings and league tables for education and training institutions. Stratification should also portray the status and image of vocational training courses within individual societies.

To simplify, “stratification” needs to be expressed in a duopolistic sense – as either “high” or “low”.

For the meso-level, we took up the concept of “standardisation” to describe how the structures and processes underpinning any vocational education and training system are standardised and made subject to binding regulation (Müller/Shavit 1998). Shavit and Müller (2000, p. 443) define standardisation as follows “(…) the degree to which the quality of education meets the same standards nationwide. Variables such as teacher training, school budgets, curricula, and the uniformity of school-leaving examinations are relevant in measuring standardisation.” Specifically, this element focuses not only on certification but also, and in particular, on curriculum, institutions and teaching staff. Standardisation is a duopolistic construct.

Thirdly, on the micro-level, the explicitly vocational-pedagogical perspective enters the equation. Here, the focus is specifically on the concrete relevance to vocational practice or to later roles within the employment system of the teaching and learning processes.

Learning processes

On the one hand, the learning content delivered may be analysed in relation to both its theoretical and its practical content. At operational level, this would, therefore, include aspects such as the skill acquisition expected as a result of a particular learning process or the selection and structuring of the topics covered and the balance between a technical skills orientation and a situational orientation. Of particular significance here is also the question of whether, as part of vocational learning processes, curricula produce a fragmentary and poorly integrated acquisition of skills or whether a system focuses instead on the acquisition of complete and complex performed actions in the context of situated learning (i.e. planning, implementation and review).

Teaching (practices)

The interaction and social relationships between teachers and learners (such as teacher-centred work versus group work or receptive learning versus discovery learning), the level of freedom learners have within the learning process (self-directed learning), and the individualisation of learning processes all play a part. Furthermore, the practical relevance of the media and methods used, including such teaching and learning arrangements as case studies, is also important (see, for example, Grossman et al. 1989).

In short, a duopolistic scale – “high” or “low” – is needed to assess the practical relevance of teaching and learning processes.

Even if in Canada the impact of the college programs in VET are more important than in the USA, the overall situation in Canada is more or less similar to the one in the USA (Lehmann 2014; Taylor 2006; Kopatz/Pilz 2015).

China can be regarded as a country with a strong state influence on vocational education and training (Pilz/Li 2014). The clear separation of vocational training from general education and training, along with restricted scope for ‘progression’ within vocational education and training, suggest a high level of stratification (Shi 2012). Standardisation in VET is “high”, but training is not highly geared to practice (Shi 2012; Pilz/Li 2014).

France, by contrast, is deemed to have a VET system that is primarily state-oriented (Busemeyer/Trampusch 2012, p. 12). Against a backdrop of strongly segmented practice between general and vocational education and training, stratification can be classified as “high” (Géhin 2007). Standardisation is also classified as “high” (Müller/Shavit 1998, p. 14), and teaching and learning processes are strongly theoretically-oriented with a low level of relevance to practice (Brockmann et al. 2008).

Many studies single out Germany for its ‘dual’ training system in which the state and companies share responsibility for vocational training (Busemeyer/Trampusch 2012, p. 12; Deißinger 1995). Both stratification and standardisation are categorised as “high” in Germany (Müller/Shavit 1998, p. 14; Blossfeld 1994), while learning processes are geared to practice or actually form part of practice (Deißinger 1995; Blossfeld 1994).

The dominant context in India is one of low levels of state and company influence, even if some Industrial Training Institutes existing (for a fuller account, see Mehrotra 2014; Pilz 2016). Stratification is considered “high”, in particular because of the strict separation between general and vocational training (Singh 2012; Pilz/Li 2014). By contrast, skill formation in the Indian system is dominated by informal structures and processes, with VET institutions, certificates and formal curricula playing only a minor part. As a result, standardisation is classified as “low”, and within this predominantly informal system, learning processes tend to be directly linked to practice (Singh 2012).

Japan’s vocational education and training system is strongly dominated by companies (Thelen/Kume 1999). Stratification can be categorised as “high” if the informal elements of training, which are of importance in Japan, are given appropriate significance (Pilz/Alexander 2011; Kariya 2011). Standardisation is categorised by Müller and Shavit (1998, p. 14) as “high”, although only if the informal mechanisms are taken into account, while teaching and learning processes within companies are geared to practice (Pilz/Alexander 2011).

In Mexico the situation is quite similar to the one in India. General and academic education is strictly separated from the vocational track. The VET system is very small by number of participants and partially shaped by the different provinces in Mexico to meet their own demands. The formal VET system is predominantly located in state regulated vocational institutions with low connection to the working life. But the major vocational training, which is of interest here, is unorganised and follows a “learning by doing” approach, mostly on the basis of private motivation (Kis/Hoeckel/Santiago 2009).

Within the skill formation approach, the USA is seen as having a liberal approach with a low level of state and company influence and a high level of individual influence (Busemeyer/Trampusch 2012, pp. 12-14). Both stratification and standardisation are characterised as “low” (Müller/Shavit 1998, p. 14). At micro-level, there is a strong practical orientation to “learning by doing” at the workplace if college courses, which tend to focus more on general training, are excluded (Zirkle/Martin 2012) and the widespread model of skill development at the workplace is given priority (Barabasch/Rauner 2012).