Supporting TVET Learners’ Success with Peer-Facilitated Learning and Active Citizenship

  • Nick ZepkeEmail author
Reference work entry


The needs of learners in technical and vocational education and training (TVET) have been widely researched and documented. The same is true of ways to support such learning needs. This chapter addresses one specific question: what support do TVET learners need to enable them to acquire behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes to succeed in TVET, employment, and life? Success appears in many guises. It can mean achieving officially desired outcomes such as retention, completion, and employment. It can also mean achieving less measurable outcomes such as deep learning, well-being, and active citizenship. The chapter first introduces an overarching success framework before exploring how the widely used student engagement pedagogy can support learners to achieve both official and personal success outcomes. It then develops two specific constructs applicable to TVET and found in success frameworks and student engagement: facilitated peer learning and active citizenship. Peer learning is here connected to teacher-facilitated but peer-run mentoring; active citizenship to educational experiences in classrooms, institutions, and workplaces that support flexibility, resilience, openness to change, and diversity. Finally, practical applications of support strategies from one form of peer learning are provided.


Technical and vocational education and training (TVET) Success frameworks Student engagement Peer-facilitated learning Active citizenship 


  1. Arvanitakis J, Hornsby D (2016) Are universities redundant? In: Arvanitakis J, Hornsby D (eds) Universities, the citizen scholar and the future of higher education. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 7–20Google Scholar
  2. Barnett R (2010) Life-wide education: a new and transformative concept for higher education? Enabling a more complete education e-proceedings on-line. Retrieved from
  3. Barr R, Tagg J (1995) From teaching to learning: a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change 27(6):12–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biesta G (2013) Knowledge, judgment and the curriculum: on the past, present and future of the idea of the practical. J Curric Stud 45(5):684–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billett S (2009) Realising the educational worth of integrating work experiences in higher education. Stud High Educ 34(7):827–843. Scholar
  6. Booth K, Cooper D, Karandjeff K et al (2013) Using student voices to redefine support. The Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group) report for the student support (Re)defined study. Retrieved from
  7. Bushe G (2013) The appreciative inquiry model. In: Kessler E (ed) The encyclopedia of management theory. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  8. Butcher B, Foster H, Marsden L, McKibben J, Anderson C (2006) Soft outcomes universal learning: a practical framework for measuring the progress of informal learning. Summary report RS8716. The Research Centre, City College Norwich, Norwich. Retrieved from Scholar
  9. Carey P (2013) Student engagement in university decision-making: policies, processes and the student voice. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, United Kingdom: Lancaster UniversityGoogle Scholar
  10. Chickering A, Gamson Z (1987) Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bull 39:3–7Google Scholar
  11. Entwistle N, Ramsden P (1983) Understanding student learning. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Erwin J, Brotherson M, Summers J (2011) Understanding qualitative meta-synthesis: issues and opportunities in early childhood intervention research. J Early Interv 33(3):186–200. Scholar
  13. Field J (2009) Well-being and happiness. Inquiry into the future for lifelong learning (thematic paper 4). National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  14. Fielding M (2004) Transformative approaches to student voice: theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. Br Educ Res J 30(2):295–311. Scholar
  15. Fostier M, Carey W (2007) Exploration, (7PASS), sharing the experience of The University of Manchester – 480 1st year bioscience students. In: Proceedings of the science teaching and learning Keele conference 2007, 143–9. Retrieved from
  16. Fredricks J, Blumenfeld P, Paris A (2004) School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res 74(1):59–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gill S (2009) Education for well-Being: conceptual framework, principles and approaches. Retrieved from
  18. Gosser Jr D (2015) The PLTL Boost: A Critical Review of Research. Progressions: The Journal of Peer-led Team Learning, 14(1). Summer 2011
  19. Hattie J (2012) Visible learning for teachers. Maximizing impact on achievement. Oxford: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Higher Education Academy (n.d.) Deep learning. Retrieved from
  21. Kahu E (2013) Framing student engagement in higher education. Stud High Educ 38(5):758–773. Scholar
  22. Keenan C (2014) Mapping student-led peer learning in the UK. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from
  23. Klemenčič, M (2011) The public role of higher education and student participation in higher education governance. In J. Brennan & T. Shah (Eds.), Higher education and society in changing times: Looking back and looking forward (pp 74–83). London, UK: Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI)Google Scholar
  24. Kuh G (2009) The national survey of student engagement: conceptual and empirical foundations. New Dir Inst Res 141:5–20. Scholar
  25. Kuh G, Kinzie J, Schuh J, Whitt E, Associates (2005) Student success in college: creating conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuh G, Cruce T, Shoup R, Kinzie J, Gonyea R (2008) Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. J High Educ 79:540–563. Scholar
  27. Lawson M, Lawson H (2013) New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Rev Educ Res 83(3):432–479. Scholar
  28. Leach L (2015) Exploring discipline differences in student engagement in one institution. Unpublished paperGoogle Scholar
  29. Marton F, Säljö R (1976) On qualitative differences in learning: outcome and process. Br J Educ Psychol 46(1):4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McIntosh E, Cross D (2016) Who sets the agenda? In: Students, transitions, achievement, retention and success conference, Perth. Retrieved from
  31. Neary M, Saunders G, Hagyard A, Derricott D (2014) Student as producer: research-engaged teaching, an institutional approach. Project report. HEA. Retrieved from
  32. Nygaard N, Brand S, Bartholomew P, Millard L (2013) Student engagement: identity, motivation and community. Libri Publishing, FaringdonGoogle Scholar
  33. Ody M, Carey W (2013) Peer education. In: Dunne E, Owen D (eds) The student engagement handbook: practice in higher education. Emerald Group Publishing, BingleyGoogle Scholar
  34. Pascarella E, Seifert T, Blaich C (2010) How effective are the NSSE benchmarks in predicting important educational outcomes? Change 42(1):16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramsden P, Callender C (2014) Review of the national student survey: appendix a: literature review. Retrieved from London.
  36. Reschly A, Christenson S (2012) Jingle, jangle and conceptual haziness: evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In: Christenson S, Reschly A, Wylie C (eds) Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer, New York, pp 3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ryan R, Deci E (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well being. Am Psychol 55(1):68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shor I (1996) When students have power: negotiating authority in a critical pedagogy. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tagg J (2003) The learning paradigm college. Anker Publishing, BoltonGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas L (2002) Student retention in higher education: The role of institutional habitus. J Edu Policy 17(4):423–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tinto V (2015) Through the eyes of students. J Coll Stud Retent 19:254. Scholar
  42. Tinto V, Pusser B (2006) Moving from theory to action: building a model of institutional action for student success. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. Retrieved from
  43. Trowler V (2010) Student engagement literature review. Retrieved from
  44. Tyson R (2016) The didactics of vocational Bildung: how stories matter in VET research. J Vocat Educ Train 68(3):359–377. Scholar
  45. UNESCO (2015) Recommendation concerning technical and vocational education and training (TVET). In: The general conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), meeting in Paris from 3 to 18 November 2015, at its 38th session. Retrieved from
  46. van der Meer J, Scott C (2009) Students’ experiences and perceptions of peer assisted study sessions: towards ongoing improvement. J Peer Learn 2(2009):3–22. Retrieved from: Scholar
  47. Voogt J, Pareja Roblin N (2012) A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: implications for national curriculum policies. J Curric Stud 44(3): 299–321. Scholar
  48. Webster N, Sausner E (2017) A focused analysis of TVET: unique opportunities and strategies for investing in and engaging youth in Nicaraguan society. J Vocat Educ Train 69:451. Scholar
  49. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wimpenny K, Savin-Baden M (2013) Alienation, agency and authenticity: a synthesis of the literature on student engagement. Teach High Educ 18(3):311–326. Scholar
  51. Zacharopoulou A, Giles M, Condell J (2015) Enhancing PASS leaders’ employability skills through reflection. J Learn Dev High Educ, Special Edition: Academic Peer Learning. 1–19Google Scholar
  52. Zepke N (2017) Student engagement in neoliberal times: theories and practices for learning and teaching in higher education. Springer, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zepke N, Leach L (2010) Improving student engagement: ten proposals for action. Act Learn High Educ 11(3):167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Section editors and affiliations

  • Joy Papier
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Post-School StudiesUniversity of the Western CapeCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations