Country report for SELFIE WBL piloting : France.
Date: 2021-12-14
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: France, apprenticeship, coronavirus disease, digital literacy, digital technology, education, educational institution, in-service training, new educational methods, research report, sample survey, translation, vocational education, vocational training

Country  report for SELFIE WBL piloting 

France 

Maria João Proença (EfVET) 

Miha Zimšek (Skupnost VSŠ) 

Anita Goltnik Urnaut (Skupnost VSŠ) 

Alicia Leonor Sauli Miklavčič (Skupnost VSŠ) 

Ralph Hippe (JRC) 

2021 

EUR 30933 EN 

This p ublication is a re port by the Joint Research Ce ntre  (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge  s e rv ice .  I t  a ims  to  
p rovide e vidence-based scientific support to the  European p olicymaking p rocess. The scie ntific outp ut exp ressed does not imp ly a  p olicy  
p osition of the European Commission. Neither the  European Commission nor any p e rson a ctin g o n b e half  o f th e  Co mmis sio n is  
re sp onsible  for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the me thodology and quality underlying the data use d 
in this p ublication for which the source  is neither Eurostat nor other Commission service s, users should contact the re ferenced source. The 
de signations employed and the p resentation of material on the maps do not imp ly the exp ression of any opinion whatsoever on the p art 
of the  European Union concerning the le gal status of any country, territory, city or are a or of its authoritie s, or concernin g the delimitation 
of its frontie rs or boundaries. 

Contact information  

Name : Cé sar He rrero 

Addre ss: Edificio Exp o, C/ Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Seville , Spain 

Email: ce sar.herre ro@ec.europa.eu  

EU Scie nce  Hub 

http s://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC125789 

EUR 30933 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-45988-0 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/424070 

Luxe mbourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

© Europ ean Union, 2021 

The  re use p olicy of the European Commission is imp le mented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2 0 1 1 o n th e  
re use  of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p . 39). Exce pt otherwise noted, the re use of this document is authorise d u nde r 
the  Cre ative  Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) lice nce  (http s://cre ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). T h is me ans  th at 
re use  is allowed p rovided appropriate cre dit is give n and any changes are indicated. For any use or re productio n o f  p hoto s o r  o the r 
mate rial that is not owned by the EU, permission must be s ought directly from the copyright holders. 

All  conte nt © European Union, 2021, e xce pt: cover image © j-me l - stock.adobe.com 

How to cite  this re p ort: Proença, M. J., Zimše k, M., Goltnik Urnaut, A., Sauli Miklavčič, A. L., and Hip pe, R., Country re port fo r S EL FI E WB L  
piloting  –  France ,  EUR  30933  EN,  Publications  Office   of  the   Europ e an  Union,  Luxe mbourg,  2021, ISBN 978 -92-76-45988-0, 
doi:10.2760/424070, JRC125789. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

Executive summary.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 

1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 

2. Digital education and WBL policies ................................................................................................................................................................................8 

3. Setting up the pilot........................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 

3.1 Methodology for selecting the pilot schools and companies.....................................................................................................10 

3.2 Methodology for translating and adapting SELFIE materials................................................................................................... 15 

4.

Pilot implementation.....................................................................................................................................................................................................16 

5. Follow up – quantitative and qualitative analyses........................................................................................................................................19 

5.1 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 

5.2 Quantitative results............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 22 

5.3 Qualitative results................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 27 

5.3.1 Initial motivation from participants.....................................................................................................................................................29 

5.3.2 Strengths and weaknesses of the SELFIE WBL tool ..............................................................................................................29 

5.3.3 Questionnaire, content and SELFIE WBL report ..................................................................................................................... 30 

5.3.4 Current and future use of SELFIE WBL ............................................................................................................................................ 30 

5.4 Overall findings ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................31 

6. Lessons learnt and suggestions for future development........................................................................................................................34 

7. Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic................................................................................................................................................................ 36 

8. Conclusions and recommendations.............................................................................................................................................................................37 

References..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 

List of abbreviations and definitions ................................................................................................................................................................................... 41 

List of figures...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................43 

List of tables ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 45 

Annexes............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 47 

Annex 1. Key information on the WBL system..................................................................................................................................................48 

Annex 2. Dominant economic sectors in France .............................................................................................................................................53 

Annex 3. Guidelines and templates for focus groups, semi-structured interviews and a list of challenges

55 

Annex 4. Analysis of open question ‘Suggestions for improvement’ and examples of questions......................67 

Annex 5. School report ‘Overview of areas’..........................................................................................................................................................70 

Annex 6. Figures and tables with results of SELFIE WBL piloting quantitative data..................................................73 

Annex 7. Overview of SELFIE WBL results in France.................................................................................................................................81 

Annex 8. Country fiche..............................................................................................................................................................................................................94 

Annex 9. List of tools similar to SELFIE and other tools used in WBL...................................................................................... 96 

Acknowledgements 

We would like to thank all vocational education and training (VET) schools and companies that, on a voluntary 
basis, have participated in the SELFIE for work-based learning (WBL) piloting  ex perienc e du ring th e m os t 
challenging period of the last century. A word of appreciation goes to the national coo rdination te am wh o, 
tirelessly, assured the engagement with and continuous support to participating schools and comp anies  an d 
provided the valuable information without which the pilot experience and the report wou ld  n ot h ave b een  
possible. 

We  would  also  like  to  thank  DG  Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion and the European T raining 
Foundation (ETF) for the effective collaboration throughout the piloting phase and DG Education and Cu lture 
for the support. In addition, we would like to thank the national coordinators of all nine piloting coun tries for 
the fruitful exchanges and opportunities of mutual learning that have facilitated the piloting process. Las tly, 
the active involvement and support of national VET and WBL stakeholders has been crucial in this endeavou r 
to pilot SELFIE WBL during the COVID-19 crisis.  

1 

Disclaimer 

The aggregated and anonymised data which is presented  in th is d oc umen t has b een  ex tracte d b y the 
European Commission from the SELFIE database and does not necessarily reflect an official o pinion o f the 
Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this document. Neither 
the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which 
may be made of the information contained therein. 

The views expressed in this report are purely those of the authors and may no t in any c ircums tan ces  be 
regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. 

Note: This report was produced within the framework of contract agreement 939680 – 2020 BE E uro pea n 
Forum of Technical and Vocational Education and Training (EfVET) and the  Eu ropean Com mission ’s  Jo int 
Research Centre (JRC) – ‘Piloting SELFIE for work-based learning contexts in VET (SELFIE WBL), Lot 2: France’. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 

This report presents the results of the pilot study of SELFIE for work-based learning c arri ed o ut in  Fran ce 
between  September  and  December  2020.  The  study  aimed  at  testing  the  tool  and  quality  of  the 
questionnaires before its launch online. In total, 15 VET colleges and 18 companies (operating in  d iffere nt 
sectors) were engaged in the pilot, involving 3 365 users (teachers, students, school leaders and in-c ompany 
trainers). In addition, 192 individuals (students, teachers, school leaders, school coordinators and in-compan y 
trainers) participated in the qualitative research carried out after the pilot. This research included in tervie ws  
and focus groups, with the purpose of collecting further feedback. The overall results indicate that the SELFIE 
WBL tool is user-friendly and easy to understand, well designed and inclusive with its 360-degree reflection , 
as it engaged all those involved in WBL activities in the French WBL system. Nevertheless, responde nts als o 
requested a variety of changes to the questionnaires and made recommendations on how to improve the tool. 
The SELFIE WBL tool and the report were seen as providing support to school leaders in the development and 
monitoring of the school’s digital strategy as well as providing relevant information to all stakeholders in  the  
SELFIE WBL pilot, contributing to increasing the effectiveness of learning in VET schools and companies. 

3 

 
 
 
Executive summary 

SELFIE is an online self-reflection tool developed to support schools, including VET, to  ass ess  th eir dig ital 
capacity and preparedness by looking at different dimensions such as school strategies, teaching and learning 
practices, equipment and infrastructure and student competences. 

The tool was developed in 2018 by the JRC and the Directorate-General for E du catio n, Y ou th,  Sport and  
Culture. In early 2020, in cooperation with the Directorate-Gene ral for E mplo ym ent,  So cial Affairs and  
Inclusion, it was adapted to include a module on work-based learning which adds the vie ws  of in-com pan y 
trainers. The aim has been to help improve coordination between VET schools and training companies, and to  
discuss how they could jointly embed digital technology in their training and apprenticeship programmes. This 
also means bringing VET trainers1 and in-company trainers closer together. 

Throughout 2020, the JRC launched a pilot experience of SELFIE for work-based  learning  co ntexts  in VE T 
(SELFIE WBL) in nine different countries. The EfVET in collaboration with the JRC o rganised  th is  in Fran ce, 
Poland, Hungary, Germany. In addition, the JRC managed the p ilot in  Roman ia. Fo ur ad ditional non -E U 
countries (Georgia, Montenegro, the Republic of Serbia and Turkey) piloted SELFIE WBL managed b y th e E TF 
and JRC. The aim of the pilot was to test the WBL extension of th e to ol, wh ich firs t meant an e xten ded 
questionnaire for the existing groups but also a new questionnaire for a new respondent group. Ensurin g th e 
high quality of the new questionnaires was a key objective of the piloting. In addition, a rang e o f te chn ic al 
changes to the tool were piloted. In particular, involving companies in the SELFIE self-reflec tion e xerc is e in 
addition to schools was a new and important endeavour, and it was important to test its conc rete p rac tic al 
implementation. 

The piloting of SELFIE WBL in France was launched in July 2020 and effectively rolled out in September 2020. 
It entailed three main phases: the first related to the translation of all supporting d ocu ments  and th e to ol 
itself; the second to the selection and engagement of stakeholders (including VET schools  an d c ompanies ) ;  
and the third related to the piloting of the SELFIE WBL in the selected VET schools and  co mpanies and  th e 
qualitative research consisting of the organisation of focus groups with learners 2 and trainers in each o ne o f 
the VET schools, in-depth interviews with school directors and in-comp any trainers  a nd ad ditional des k 
research on similar self- reflection and other digital tools in use in the country. 

The  main  emphasis  of  the  piloting  experience  was  on  the  qualitative  research  as  it allowed  quality 
information to be collected with the view to contributing to practice development and improving th e SELFIE  
WBL tool and its further development. 13 schools were involved in the qualitative research, 21 focus  gro up s 
(totalling 84 trainersand 86 learners) and 18 semi-structured interviews  were o rganised  with  14 s ch ool 
leaders and 4 in-company trainers which allowed the collection of relevant feedback regarding the tool. 

The pilot process was disturbed by the COVID-19 pandemic with the confinement m easure s take n b y th e 
government, impacting on the data collection process and requiring great efforts from the national team and 
the school coordinators to assure the delivery, as planned, of all activities. This also had a massive impact o n 
the educational community’s state of mind, making it difficult to motivate and engage participants to fill o ut 
the SELFIE WBL tool. 

The overall feedback received was that the SELFIE WBL tool is user-friendly and e as y to  u nd erstand,  well 
designed and inclusive with its 360-degree reflection, as it engaged all those involved in WBL activities in th e 
French WBL system (learners, trainers, school leaders and in-company trainers). Nevertheless , re sp ond ents  

1 In France, VET school te aching staff are addressed as trainers and not te achers, therefore the te rm ‘trainers’ is the te rm u s e d in  th is 

re p ort re lated to the re sults p rovided during the SELFIE WBL survey under the te rm ‘te achers’. 

2 In France, VET school students are addre ssed as learners and not students, there fore the te rm ‘le arners’ is the te rm used in this re p ort 

re late d to the re sults p rovided during the SELFIE WBL survey under the te rm ‘students’. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
also requested a variety of changes to the questionnaires (for example, a lower total number o f q ues tions ) 
and made recommendations on how to improve and increase the scope of the tool,  s uch  as  p roviding th e 
possibility  to  network  with  other  schools.  Additional  materials  such  as  guides  for learners were also 
mentioned.  

The main challenges identified through the quantitative and qualitative research by school leade rs,  train ers 
and learners proved to be pedagogical support and resources with the digital competences and knowledge of 
trainers, the digital learning skills of learners, the overall implemen tation  of d ig ital te chn ologies  in th e 
classroom and the infrastructure and equipment. Likewise, for in-company trainers, the b igg est c hallenges  
mentioned were the infrastructure and equipment. 

The SELFIE WBL tool and the report provided support to school leaders in the development and monitoring o f 
the school’s digital strategy as well as providing relevant information to all stakeholders in the  SELFIE W BL 
pilot, contributing to increasing the effectiveness of learning. School leaders and trainers have also expressed 
their intention to use it on a regular basis. 

School leaders have also expressed their interest in the next steps o f SELFIE W BL and   exp loring fu rther 
opportunities of SELFIE WBL to facilitate engagement of and impact on all stakeholders.  In  add itio n to  th e 
technological aspect and competences, trainers’ attitudes towards the ‘digital world ’ and  dig italisatio n in 
general also have to be taken into consideration. 

School leaders shared their perspectives regarding the importance of digitalisation not only as a result of th e 
pandemic, but rather as a means to encourage all s takeho lders  (sch ools , c ompanies ) to  inc reas e th e 
effectiveness of teaching and learning. 

Feedback provided was that the SELFIE WBL pilot came at the right time ,  n ot o nly for s cho ols an d th eir 
leaders, but also for trainers, learners and in-company trainers. The next challenge will be to act based on the 
SELFIE WBL report results. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  Introduction 

SELFIE is a self-reflection tool supporting the use of digital technologies for teaching and learning in schoo ls. 
It was launched by the European Commission in October 2018 as part of its Digital Education Action Plan and 
is available in more than 30 languages. After the successful start of SELFIE, a feasibility s tu dy (Broek and 
Buiskool 2020) was conducted that explored how the tool could be adapte d to  the  need s o f wo rk-based  
learning (WBL) contexts, in which a student is learning both in a school an d in a c omp any. Fo llowing th e 
positive results of this study, the extension of the tool was developed.  

The aim of the SELFIE WBL pilot was to test this WBL extension of the tool, which first m ean t an ex tend ed 
questionnaire for the existing groups (school leaders, teachers and students) but also a new questionnaire for 
a new respondent group (in-company trainers). Ensuring the high quality of the new questionnaires was a key 
objective of the piloting. In addition, a range of technical changes to the  too l were pilote d. In  p articu lar,  
involving companies in the SELFIE self-reflection exercise in addition to schools was a new endeavour, an d it 
was crucial to test its concrete practical implementation before the final release of SELFIE WBL. 

The pilot experience of SELFIE WBL was launched in nine countries. The European Foru m of Te chn ic al and  
Vocational Education and Training (EfVET), in collaboration with the European Commission’s Jo int Re search 
Centre (JRC), organised this in France, Poland, Hungary and Germany. The JRC managed the pilot in Romania. 
In addition, the European Training Foundation (ETF), in collaboration with the JRC, piloted the tool in four non-
EU countries, namely Georgia, Montenegro, the Republic of Serbia and Turkey. 

The overall management of the SELFIE WBL pilot in Germany was carried out by the EfVET in  co llabo ration  
with the JRC. The pilot was coordinated at national level by the Societé d´Enseignement Profe ssion nelle d u 
Rhône (SEPR), one of EfVET’s members in France. The qualitative research and reporting of the pilo t was  led 
by an EfVET member in Slovenia – Skupnost višjih strokovnih šol Republike Slovenije (Skupnost VSŠ). 

Overall management of SELFIE WBL in France – specific responsibilities allocated to each organisation were  
as follows. 

EfVET – The European Forum of Technical and Vocational Education and Training was the project coordinato r 
and responsible for the overall project management, quality and reporting. M ore s pe cifically,  th e pro ject 
manager was responsible for the implementation of the work plan and for all administrative and  fin anc ial 
management of the proposal and for assuring each member of the team was p rovided  with  th e s uppo rt 
needed to implement the tasks. The EfVET had one member of the governance responsible for overseeing the 
piloting process and one project manager responsible for the operations and ongoing support to the nat iona l 
coordinators and the liaison with the JRC. 

Skupnost VSŠ – Skupnost višjih strokovnih šol Republike Slovenije was a res earc h p artn er and,  as s uc h, 
responsible for the qualitative research including the conducting of the case studies as well as the final report 
summarising  the  process  of  and  lessons  learnt  from  the  piloting  of  SELFIE  WBL in VET schools and 
companies, and compiling the list of digital tools used in the work-based le arnin g (WBL) s ector fo r each 
country. Skupnost VSŠ had three members who were part of the research team (one senio r an d o ne ju nior 
researcher, and a senior WBL expert), working directly with the EfVET and national coordinators. 

SEPR – The Societé d´Enseignement Professionnelle du Rhône was the national coordinator for France and, as 
such, responsible for the translation and adaptation of SELFIE WBL and supporting materials into French;  for 
reaching out and engaging the stakeholders, VET schools and companies; and for overseeing th e p ilo tin g o f 
the SELFIE WBL tool and supporting the research component. The national coordinator wo rke d very c lose ly 
with school coordinators, providing ongoing support. The national coordinator had a pivotal role in the piloting  
process  for the ongoing support to VET schools and companies.  The SEPR had two members of staff 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
dedicated to the SELFIE WBL pilot – one senior VET expert supporting and one additional member of the team 
responsible for overseeing the operations at national level. 

Management at national level – responsibilities were defined as follows. 

The national coordinator had a pivotal role in the SELFIE WBL pilo tin g p roce ss an d th e s ele ction  of VET 
schools and companies at national level. The national team was responsible for the ongoing sup port to  VE T 
schools, the engagement of national stakeholders, the preparation and delivery of planned webinars, acting as 
a liaison between Skupnost VSŠ and VET schools in everything related to the research component, in clud ing 
the translation of support materials developed for that purpose. The national team was respon sible for th e 
conducting of the interviews with school leaders and company representatives. 

The school coordinators were the main organisational force at institutional level e ngaging  an d m obilising  
companies, school leaders, trainers and learners and offering them ongoing support during the pilot pro cess . 
The school coordinator was also responsible for the organisation of the fo cus  g roup s th at to ok place i n  
schools – one with trainers and the other with learners . The school coordinators were also responsible for the 
management of the relationship with companies and the eventual support that migh t h ave b een re qu ire d 
throughout the SELFIE WBL pilot. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
2.  Digital education and WBL policies 

Work-based learning (WBL) refers to knowledge and skills acquired through carrying out – and reflecting on –  
tasks in a vocational context, either in the workplace or in a VET institution. In France, there are two diffe rent 
pathways for work-based learning, namely (Ministry of Labour, 2017): 

—  full-time study in a vocational school with placements in a company (from 4 to 10 weeks, depending  
on the qualification level). There are public and private vocational schools, both delivering d iploma s 
from the State; 

—  apprenticeship in an apprenticeship training centre (ATC). Most ATCs are private as the legal status is 
non-profit organisation, but the National Board of Education created  so me p ublic ATC s  th at a re 
integrated into public training centres. 

In any case, the same diplomas are awarded at the end of the training. The only difference is the m eth od o f 
training and the time spent at school and in a company. 

The recognition of the value of apprenticeships in France has increased over the years, currently b eing  se en 
as a way to gain work experience and excellence. 

The apprenticeships programmes and curricula are set by the certifier, which may b e (Ministry o f Lab our,  
2017): 

—  for the most part, the Ministry of National Education, Youth and Sport  
—  the Ministry of Labour  
—  the Chambers of Trades and Crafts 
—  the Chamber of Commerce 
—  professional unions.  

An apprenticeship is a very efficient way to enter the labour market with lasting effect: 70% of appre ntices  
have found a job 7 months after the apprenticeship contract ends, and 60% h ave a perm anen t c ontract. 
Companies confirm that an apprenticeship is a great opportunity: 80% are satisfied with their apprentices and 
they hire a new one at the end of the previous contract (Ministry of Labour, 2017). 

DIGITALISATION STRATEGY FOR VET AND APPRENTICESHIPS IN FRANCE 

The topic of digitalisation of education falls under the responsibility of the French Digital Plan fo r Ed ucation 
established in 2015, responsible for the implementation and  d eploymen t of th e dig ital s ervic es in  th e 
Education sector. This is part of a bigger initiative of the French Government related to the dig italisatio n o f 
the public services in recognition of the need to keep up with the latest technological trends co ntribu ting to  
the economic development of the country (French Government, 2017). 

The digital strategy for the education sector (L´Ecole Numérique) was officially launched in 2015,  after an 
extensive consultation carried out by the Ministry of Education in articulation with other Ministries as  it aims 
to bring schools into the digital age (French Government, 2017). 

Its implementation relies on the coordinated mobilisation and action o f d ifferen t s takehold ers (s ch ools , 
teachers, apprentices, managers, ministries and local, regional and other national authorities , u niversities , 
research centres, industry) to put in place the optimal conditions for an efficient development and deployment 
of resources, including access to training. The ambition is to create an e-Education ecosystem so as to enable 
proper use of resources and effective development of skills and services (French Government, 2017). 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Renewed in 2018, the strategy is organised around five main axes: place scho ol d ata at th e h eart o f th e 
ministry's digital strategy; teach in the 21st century with digital; support and s tren gth en th e p rofe ss io nal 
development of teachers; develop apprentices' digital skills and create new links with the school's actors and  
partners. 

—  The  strategy  envisions  the  continued  and  renewed  support  for  the  establishment  of  digital 

(educational) workplaces across the national territory. 

—  Schools have the resources (equipment and materials) to provide digital s ervices  to e xp and  a nd 

enrich the educational offer and to customise the support to apprentices. 

—  Teachers have access to diversified educational resources that can be used on a daily basis, a s  well 
as  to  initial  and continued training and tools, allowing them to monitor their apprentices and 
communicate with families. 

The French Government approved the deployment of 1 billion euros for the period fro m 2016 to  2019 to  
support the different initiatives and project development related to the digitalisation of education. Since 2016, 
several different initiatives and projects have been launched by th e Min is try of E duc ation . A very b rief 
overview of the diversity landscape of these projects is shared as follows (French Government, 2017): 

—  equipping schools. Huge investment was made by national, local and regional authorities to s u pport 
schools with digital equipment and services (individual materials for apprentices, te ac hers  su ch  as  
cabling, internet connections, tablets, digital workspaces, access to digital res ourc es and  tra in in g) 
including support to schools on how to use this equipment and resources; 

—  digital platforms. Integrated set of digital services made available to the educational comm unity o f 
schools. It constitutes a unified entry point allowing users to access (according to th eir pro file a nd  
level of authorisation) their digital content. It is also a platform fo r ex chang e an d c ollab oratio n 
between users (from the same school or other schools). This platform offers services such as dig ital 
textbooks, common workspaces and storage for apprentices and teachers, access to digital resources, 
collaborative tools, blogs, forums, virtual classrooms, etc.; support to school manag ement –  n otes , 
absences, timetables, agendas, etc.; and communication, messaging, staff and family inform ation,  
videoconferencing, etc. These digital workplaces can be accessed by apprentices, parents, te ach ers,  
administrative  staff.  This  initiative  is  also  related  to  one of the strategy goals of simplifying 
administrative  formalities  and  facilitating  the  communication  with  the  broader  educational 
community; 

—  training resources for teachers and trainers. Several online platform s h ave b een d evelop ed with 
different purposes such as: providing digital training to teachers, managers,  tra iners  on  differen t 
areas; sharing resources that can be used daily; disseminating information on existing practices and  
research carried out at national level on the topic of digitalisation. Some of these platforms are fully 
dedicated to the topic of inclusiveness;  

—  the Digital Competence Reference Framework (CRCN). Digital skills reference framework applicable to 
all EQF levels, inspired by the European framework (DigComp) and launched at th e s tart o f 20 19 
school year; 

—  data protection and safety. Appointment in August 2018 of a data protection officer (DPD) for th e 
Ministry of National Education and for the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation  to 
assure  compliance  with  the  European  guidelines  and  support  the educational community in 
understanding how personal data should be collected, processed and stored. In ad dition,  a n  eth ics 
committee on digital data was set up to advise and support on issues re lated  to th e u se  of d ata 
collected and processed in the school context. In this context, training targeting school’s management 
and teachers related to the challenges of using digital data were also d eve loped  an d p art o f th e 
portfolio of online courses were available to teachers on the different platforms. 

For more details on French WBL policies and digital education, see Annex 1. 

9 

 
 
 
 
3.  Setting up the pilot 

3.1 Methodology for selecting the pilot schools and companies 

Selection criteria for VET schools were set to capture and reflect the diversity of VET schools (see Figure  
1) and their environment according to: 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

size of VET schools (as defined in the SELFIE WBL tool), 
location (as defined in the SELFIE WBL tool), 
geographical coverage (result of agreement within the SELFIE WBL pilot team), 
programme area coverage (result of agreement within the SELFIE WBL pilot team), and 
number of VET schools (at least 12 VET schools). 

Figure 1. Selection criteria for VET schools 

Source : Skupnost VSŠ (2020). 

With regard to the school size and location, the decision was to apply the same criteria as defined by the JRC 
in the SELFIE WBL tool. In terms of the different programmes offered by the different VET schools,  this  was 
the result of a consultation with the SELFIE WBL pilot team in the four countries where th e p ilo t h as b een  
overseen by the EfVET. It does not intend to be an exhaustive list of all the programmes in  th e co untry b ut 
rather reflect the common areas identified by the SELFIE WBL pilot team. The agreed minimu m nu mber o f 
VET schools to be engaged in the SELFIE WBL pilot was 12. One important consideration was th e volu nta ry 
participation of schools in the pilots which meant, on a practical level, that the ultimate criteria would  be  the 
school’s  availability  and  willingness  to  participate  in  the  pilot  and  its  commitment  to  the  proposed 
responsibilities.  

Mapping VET Schools in France was achieved by the national coordinator, the SEPR, with the support of: 

- 

- 

- 

the Fédération Nationale des Directeurs de Cerntres de Formation d´Ap prentis  FNADIR  (Natio nal 
Federation of the Apprenticeship Training Centres Leaders) which has advertised the opportu nity to 
participate in the piloting process among its members (600 training centres); 
the  Services  de  láutomobile  et  de  la  mobilité  ANFA  (National  Association  for  Training  in the 
Automotive Sector), which supported the dissemination among its members, enco uraging  them  to 
engage in the piloting; 
the Association Filiére Formation de l´industrie papier carton AFIFOR (French Union Organisation for 
Vocational Training and Apprenticeship in the Sector of Paper and Cardboard), which sup ported  th e 
dissemination among its members, encouraging them to engage in the piloting. The SEPR exclusively 
presented the SELFIE WBL pilot during an annual meeting of the AFIFOR Steerin g Comm itte e with  
school leaders and also at an additional meeting focusing on technology-enhanced learning with th e 
coordinators of the training centres responsible for digitalisation. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Even though a public list of VET schools in France3 exists, the above-mentioned  ap proach –  c ons is ting o f 
reaching out to existing national networks of VET schools – was considered as best given the limited timeline 
of the SELFIE WBL pilot. The registration process was managed by the national team in close communication 
with the above stakeholders. The ultimate decision to participate was made by VET schools. 

Outreach and engagement – the SEPR has established one-to-one communication with e ac h VE T sc hoo l 
that expressed interest and availability to participate in the SELFIE WBL pilot, providing additional information 
regarding the piloting process and the qualitative research, explaining the advantages and  b enefits  of th e 
SELFIE WBL pilot and also providing information on the type of support available should VET schools decide to 
participate. This ongoing communication was critical to ensure VET schools’ engagement and commitment to  
participate in the SELFIE WBL pilot. A Memorandum of Understanding was s en t to all VE T s cho ols to  b e 
signed, to formalise the cooperation between the EfVET, SEPR and each of the VET schools. 

Overall, 15 VET schools from 7 different regions have been engaged in the SELFIE W BL pilot,  co vering a ll 
sizes of VET schools. While most of them are located in urban areas, there is diversity in terms of geog raph y 
and also in terms of programme areas. The summary of VET schools engaged in the SELFIE WBL pilot and the 
diversity of coverage according to above set criteria can be seen in Figures 2 and 3. 

Figure 2. The diversity of selected VET schools according to size, location and programme area  

Source : Skupnost VSŠ (2021). 

3 The  p ublic list of VET schools in France is available at https://www.lapprenti.com/. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
Figure 3. The diversity of selected VET schools and companies according to geographical coverage 

12 

 
 
 
 
Source : Skupnost VSŠ (2021). 

Selection criteria for companies were set to cover and reflect the diversity of companies prio ritis ing th e 
relevant national economic areas (see Annex 2) and the diversity the reof. Th e s election  criteria fo r th e 
diversity of companies (see Figure 4) were set to: 

- 
- 

company size (Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003), and 
economic sector coverage (result of an agreement within the SELFIE WBL pilot team). 

Figure 4. Selection criteria for companies 

Source : Skupnost VSŠ (2020). 

Company engagement was managed by selected VET schools from the pool of companies each VET scho ol 
works with. The above criteria were presented to each VET school by the SEPR. The minimum requirement s et 
for the SELFIE WBL pilot was to engage at least one company per VET school involved. Their engagement was 
based on their availability and willingness to participate and aligned with c riteria s et ab ove, d es pite th e 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
additional measures taken as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of companies engaged was 18 
and the diversity of coverage according to the above criteria set can be seen in Figure 5. 

Figure 5. Selected companies per selection criteria 

Source : Skupnost VSŠ (2021). 

Overall, there was an effort at national level to be as diverse as possible regarding the economic secto rs. As  
Figure 5 reflects, great diversity was achieved regarding the companies’ size but rather mode rate d iversity 
regarding  economic  sectors.  Nevertheless,  the  most  dominant  sectors  such  as  agriculture,  tourism, 
telecommunications, electronics and automotives are represented (see Annex 2). 

Each VET school engaged at least one company resulting in 18 companies from seven different regions  (see 
Figure 3). Initially, it had been planned to have companies ’ re pres entatives  sig ning a M emorand um o f 
Understanding. Given the feedback received by the national coordinator regarding the challenges the proce ss 
of  having  companies  signing  this  document  would  represent,  and  the  wish  of  VET  schools  to  take 
responsibility for the management of the communication and relationship with the companies engaged in the  
SELFIE WBL pilot, the EfVET decided not to proceed with this formalisation o n th e b as is  th at it was n ot 
needed, and it was adding an unnecessary administrative burden. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2 Methodology for translating and adapting SELFIE materials 

The translation and adjustment of SELFIE WBL consisted of 3 main actions, namely: (1) linguistic translation,  
(2) content-focused translation and (3) contextual adaptation and usability. The first refers to the translation 
of the documents provided by the JRC and was carried out by an external c ompany (Kern Lyo n) an d th e 
national team from the SEPR. The second and third actions re lated  to th e tran slatio n were c arried  ou t 
simultaneously and brought together VET and WBL experts from three different VET schools. 

The involvement of external VET and WBL experts was done to ensure that the language and the terminology 
used  were  clear  and  understandable  by  all  those involved and in line with the official  language and 
terminology used in the country. 

The linguistic translation took place in the first 2 months of the project. There was an initial misunderstanding 
regarding the deadlines set for the different actions and some delays were observed in steps 2 and 3. 

Figure 6. Translation process 

Source : Skupnost VSŠ (2020). 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  Pilot implementation 

The SELFIE WBL pilot was implemented in the following steps (see Figure 7). 

Figure 7. Implementation process 

Source : Skupnost VSŠ (2020). 

Step 1) Translation of SELFIE WBL materials was completed fro m Aug us t to Sep tember 20 20 (see 
Chapter 3.2 Methodology for translating and adapting SELFIE materials). 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Step 2) Mobilisation of VET schools and companies took place from  Ju ly to  Septem ber 2020 (s ee 
Chapter 3.1 Methodology for selecting the pilot schools and companies). 

Step 3) Selections of VET schools and companies were conducted from July to Sep tember 20 20 (see 
Chapter  3.1  Methodology  for  selecting  the  pilot  schools  and  companies)  and  the  Memorandums  of 
Understanding were signed with each selected VET school defining the roles and commitments  o f e ach  VET 
school to formalise this cooperation after the selection in September 2020. 

Step 4) A preparatory webinar was organised by the national coordinator to bring togeth er a ll national 
stakeholders, the EfVET, JRC, European Commission as well as VET schools, companies and the research team 
on 14  September 2020. The main objective was to present the aim of the SELFIE WBL, provide an overview of 
implementation steps, school self-reflection report, personalised certificates and digital badges, schools’ and  
companies’ commitments and the timeline. Furthermore, feedback from each  rep resen tative o n p oss ible 
concerns and expectations was discussed as well as the mapping of digital tools for WBL used in the country,  
schools and companies. 

Step 5) Piloting of the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise began by VET schools registering  with th e 
SELFIE tool, planning the activation period, announcing the SELFIE WBL pilot within  the  sc hoo l an d amon g 
partner companies, motivating them to participate by explaining the benefits of th eir participatio n. W hen  
activating  the  SELFIE  WBL  self-reflection  exercise,  school  coordinators  monitored  and  reported  the 
participation rate (40% of WBL learners, 40% of VET trainers and at least 1 in-company trainer) and furth er 
motivated and promoted the participation within the target groups needed. In-company trainers proved to  b e 
the most difficult to motivate as they are not in school and under the management of the school. The SELFIE 
WBL process took place from September until December 20 20,  and th e feed back fro m th e ex ercise  is 
presented in Chapter 5.2 Quantitative results. 

Step 6) A follow-up and guidance webinar was organised by the national coordinator addressing only VET 
schools and company representatives on 20 October 2020. The aim was to follow-up the piloting experience,  
gather initial feedback from school coordinators, address eventual challenges that may have arisen during the 
process, confirm the overall figures in terms of comple tio n o f th e q ues tionn aires an d pre pare  sc hoo l 
coordinators for the conducting of focus groups for learners and trainers and semi-structured interviews  for 
school leaders and company representatives. The school coordinators were asked to provide feedback on their 
experience during the implementation process through the list of challenges provided by the rese arch  team. 
The research team also provided the guidelines and reporting templates for focus group implemen tation as  
well as the list of challenges to school coordinators, guidelines and reporting templates for semi -stru cture d 
interview implementation to the national coordinator. The g uide lin es,  repo rt tem plates , and  the  list o f 
challenges can be found in Annex 3. 

Step 7) Focus groups were coordinated by school coordinators in November 2020 and January 2021. Two  
focus groups were organised per VET school: one with learners and one with teach ing s ta ff to re flec t and 
discuss their interpretation and in-depth understanding of the relevant report results. Due to  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, the school coordinators struggled to organise focus groups and reach the agreed participation rate  
of 10 learners/trainers per focus group (see Chapter 7. Implications of COVID-19). In total, 21 fo cu s g rou ps 
were organised involving 86 learners and 84 trainers. The feedback from the focus groups is integrate d into  
Chapter 5.3 Qualitative results. 

Step 8) In-depth semi-structured interviews were managed by national coordin ators  from No vember 
2020 to February 2021. The aim was to conduct 16 interviews with 4 in-comp any trainers  and d ecis ion-
making  staff  in  VET  schools  (4  pedagogical  managers/directors,  4  sector  heads/managers,  4 board 
heads/directors) to reflect and discuss their interpretation and in-depth understanding of th e re port re su lts 
and to plan improvements based on those results. Interviews were conducted online. Du e to  th e COVID-19 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
pandemic, the national coordinators struggled to engage in-company trainers (see Chapter 7. Implications  of 
COVID-19). In total, 18 interviews were conducted involving 14 decision-making staff in VET schools and 4 in-
company trainers. The feedback from the interviews is integrated into Chapter 5.3 Qualitative results. 

Step 9) An evaluation webinar brought together all national stakeholders, the EfVET, JRC and the research 
team on 11 January 2021. The main purpose was to evalu ate th e e xp erience,  co llect in form ation  an d 
recommendations regarding the SELFIE WBL tool from policy-makers and other institutional representatives  
at national level, the opportunities they see for the broader use of the tool in the W BL s ecto r an d id entify 
possible dissemination actions that could take place. The research team presented the preliminary results and 
discussed  those  with  the  participants.  The  feedback  from  the  webinar  is integrated in to Chapter 5.3 
Qualitative results. 

Step 10) Quantitative and qualitative research was conducted simultaneously and upon the re ceipt o f 
feedback from all above activities from September 2020 to February 2021. The research team prepared th e 
quantitative analysis based on the results of the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise provided by the JRC and  
the qualitative analysis based on the feedback from focus groups (trainers and learners ), s emi-stru ctured  
interviews (school leaders and in-company trainers), the list of challenges (school coordinators), the follow-up 
and evaluation webinars (for details see Chapter 5 Follow up – quantitative and qualitative analyses). 

The timeline of the SELFIE WBL pilot was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and the October 2020 
terrorist attack in France, which delayed the implementation of focus groups, semi-structured interviews , th e 
evaluation  webinar  and  as  a  consequence  the  qualitative and quantitative research. It also affected 
participants’ engagement (see Chapter 7. Implications of COVID-19). 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
5.  Follow up – quantitative and qualitative analyses 

19 

 
 
5.1 Methodology 

This project aimed to explore a broad scope of aspects of the SELFIE  WBL to ol to  co ntribu te to  practice 
development and to improve the SELFIE WBL tool and its further development. To reach th es e aim s and  to 
increase the internal and external validity of the research re su lts, th e re se arch  d esign  is b as ed o n  th e 
methodological triangulation of using several different methods. The research team and its project  p artn ers 
used this as an approach to integrate the quantitative and qualitative methodology. Therefore, the following  
methods and techniques were used (Majchrzak, 1990): 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 

analysis of primary sources – analysis of anonymised data provided by the JRC; 
analysis of secondary sources prepared by the JRC – 4 reports showing aggreg ated  graph s o f SE LFIE 
WBL pilot data which were: ‘Participation’ (numerus and percentage according to different demo grap hic 
variables), ‘Satisfaction’ (percentage and mean for values of overall score and further recommendations), 
‘Main Areas’ (percentage of positive responses for area and each variable) and ‘Additional In fo rmation ’ 
(percentage of answers); 
analysis of school reports generated by school coordinators involved in the SELFIE WBL pilot; 
semi-structured interview reports, involving 2 respon dent g ro ups  (sch ool le ad ers a nd  in -comp any 
trainers) provided by the national coordinator; 
focus group reports, involving the 2 other respondent groups (trainers and learners). 

The quantitative data were collected through the SELFIE WBL questionnaire s, wh ich were  an swered b y 
school leaders, trainers, learners and in-company trainers. The SELFIE WBL tool p rovide s s tate-of -th e-art 
information as perceived by the respondent groups. Respondents were selec ted in  a m an ner s o th at it is  
possible to make a representative conclusion (Ragin, 2007) at institutional level.  

The quantitative results provide detailed information on the number of respondents, their distribution and th e 
differences in the responses of the different groups (school leaders, teachers , s tu dents  and in -company 
trainers). 

We used univariate methods in this study. They are primarily intended to present the distribution of variables ’ 
values; hence, the tables in Chapter 5.2 and Annex 6 display the number of values and additio nal s tatistics  
that we selected: mean (the average value) and standard deviation. In our database, the number of responses 
varied between the variables. When answering the questions for which the quantitative analysis is presented,  
the respondents had a help text and mostly answered on a 5-level scale with the additional option ‘prefer not 
to say’ or ‘not applicable’ (and in two cases on a 10-level scale, one question being for all respondent g rou ps 
and another for two respondent groups). For some questions they had the possibility to select o r no t s elect 
the answer (multiple choice).  

In the following quantitative part (see Chapter 5.2) we present frequency tables and descriptive statistics. The 
tables with descriptive statistics display:  

-  N = number of valid responses from the respondents 
-  mean (M) = the average value of the data points or numbers 
- 

standard deviation (SD) = a measure of the dispersion of a dataset relative to its mean. 

The qualitative research component of the SELFIE WBL pilot had a goal to c ollec t feedback in view o f 
improving the SELFIE WBL tool before it is launched online. The qualitative data were collected throu gh d es k 
research, feedback from school coordinators, focus groups and in-depth semi-structured interviews. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The main goal of the desk research was to map out existing similar self-reflection tools in the country used in 
WBL contexts and to identify other existing digital tools. This mapping and listing was done in two d ifferent 
ways: on the one hand, the research team conducted comprehensive online desk research on all offic ial a nd 
available websites from governmental institutions responsible for overseeing WBL in the country; on the other 
hand, by collecting this information from the different respondent groups engaged in the pilot (see Annex 8). 

Focus groups brought groups of people together with the main purpose of collecting feedback regard ing th e 
SELFIE WBL tool from the users’ perspective. The proposal was to conduct two separate focus groups in eac h 
VET school, one with trainers involved in the pilot and the other with learners (each gathering 10 persons). The 
selection  of  the  learners  and  trainers  did not follow any criteria. The selection was left to the school 
coordinators according to the guidelines; they invited the first 10 trainers/learners who applied. Facilitators o f 
focus groups were given guidelines (how to conduct focus groups, how and what to report) and templates for 
reporting the feedback from the focus groups (see Annex 3). 

The qualitative research method of in-depth semi-structured interviews consisted in posing a series  of o pen 
and closed questions to targeted individuals – i.e. pedagogical managers/directors, sector h eads/m anagers , 
board heads/directors and in-company trainers – with the aim of g aining  s ome in sigh t reg ardin g th eir 
perspective on the topic of digitalisation, their willingness to further explore SELFIE WBL and to integrate th e 
tool into their current work, as well as gathering recommendations regarding possible ways to improve it (see 
Annex 3). 

There were two open questions in SELFIE WBL for learners (digital technology they find us efu l for learning  
and ideas and suggestions to further improve SELFIE WBL). We analysed th em u s in g th ematic  analys es. 
Thematic analysis is a method for examining the content of responses from data collected from open-ende d 
questions, focus group discussions or interviews. It allows emergent topics not explicitly stated in SELFIE WBL 
questions to be identified. It is based on organising key issues in data an d g rou ping th em u nd er th emes  
reflecting important relations in the research questions (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Res ults o f the  the matic 
analysis were included in the qualitative part of the report (see Annex 4). 

The qualitative research method of analysis of school reports generated by school coordinators c on sists  o f 
gathering challenges, advantages of the implementation of SELFIE WBL and further feedback on the  SELFIE 
WBL process from the perspective of school coordinators, who organised an d m onitore d th e SELFIE  WBL 
process within their institutions. To collect feedback, a template was prepared and  pro vid ed to  th e s cho ol 
coordinators (see Annex 3). 

Data collection took place from September 2020 until February 2021. The analys es s tarted in  Decemb er 
2020. All responses to the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise, focus groups, semi-structured interviews and  
analysis of school reports generated by school coordinators remained anonymous and separate from contact 
details to ensure confidentiality. 

The outcomes of the pilot are not representative of the national education and training s yste ms. Ho wever,  
they provide useful insights for schools and companies participating in the pilot and, overall, for sch ools  a nd 
companies providing similar WBL programmes and belonging to the specific economic sectors covered by th e 
pilot. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2 Quantitative results 

Participants in the quantitative analysis were from 13 VET schools. There were  3 365 re spo nden ts in  th e 
database. The participation of school leaders, trainers, learners and in-company trainers was as follows: 

—  53 school leaders 
—  262 trainers 
—  3 033 learners 
—  17 in-company trainers. 

In  the  SELFIE  WBL pilot, the sample of respondents from private schools prevails at 77.9%; 11.2% of 
respondents originated from public VET schools and 10.9% identified themselves  as   ‘not app lic ab le’. Th e 
repondents’ sample is comparable to the national rate of public (20.5%) and private (79.5%) apprentice ship 
VET centres in France (Ministry of Education, 2019). 

53% of respondents were from schools located in c ities  (100  001-1 000 000 in hab itants ),  20.1%  of 
respondents from towns (15 001-100 000 inhabitants), 7.9% of responden ts from s mall towns  (3  001-
15 000 inhabitants), 7.8% from rural areas (1 000 inhabitants or fewer), 7.5% from large cities (m ore th an  
1 000 000 inhabitants) and 3.7% from villages (1 001-3 000 inhabitants). 

The SELFIE WBL self-reflection questionnaire consists of eight areas scored on a 5-point Likert s c ale (1-5). 
Figure 8 displays the percentage of positive responses (i.e. responses on 4 and 5) by main areas . Th e m ost 
positive responses are in the area ‘Pedagogy – Supports and resources’ (60.0%), which is followed by the area 
‘Infrastructure and equipment’ (46.3%) and ‘Students’ digital competence” (42.6%). On th e o ther h an d,  the 
least positive responses from the respondents are seen in the area ‘Continuing profes sion al d evelopme nt’ 
(29.8%). 

Figure 8. P ercentage of positive responses by area 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Source : European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special e xtraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators.  

Table 1 displays average values for main areas per respondent group. The number of questions in th e areas  
differ between the respondent groups. 

There are some differences in the areas in which different respondent groups rated the highest. The area with 
the highest mean in the group of school leaders and in-company trainers is ‘Infrastructure and  networking’ 
(M=3.7 for both groups). Trainers and learners rated ‘Pedago gy – Su pports  and  res ourc es’ th e h ig hes t 
(trainers M=4.3, learners M=3.6). The lowest mean is in the area ‘Assessment practices’ for all groups (sch ool 
leaders M=2.6, trainers M=2.7, learners M=2.8 and in-company trainers M=2.5). 

Average values per respondent groups for all variables are the highest for school leaders (3.3) and the lowest 
for trainers (3.1). 

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for main areas per respondent group 

Main area 

School 
leaders 

N=53 

Trainers 

Learners 

N=262 

N=2 789 

In-company 
trainers 

N=17 

M 

SD 

M 

SD 

M 

SD 

M 

SD 

Leadership  

3.5 

1.3 

2.9 

1.4 

 / 

 / 

2.9 

1.1 

Collaboration and networking 

3.2 

1.1 

2.8 

1.3 

2.8 

1.4 

3.3 

1.1 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Infrastructure and equipment 

3.7 

1.2 

3.3 

1.3 

3.2 

1.6 

3.7 

1.2 

Continuing professional development 

3.4 

1.2 

3.0 

1.8 

 / 

 / 

2.8 

1.3 

Pedagogy – Supports and resources 

3.6 

0.9 

3.7 

1.3 

3.6 

1.4 

2.6 

1.3 

Pedagogy 
classroom 

implementation 

in 

the 

3.0 

1.0 

3.1 

1.5 

3.1 

1.8 

3.1 

1.1 

Assessment practices 

2.6 

1.0 

2.7 

1.5 

2.8 

1.5 

2.5 

1.4 

Students’ digital competence 

3.2 

0.9 

3.0 

1.4 

3.1 

1.6 

3.3 

2.8 

All areas 

3.3 

1.1 

3.1 

1.6 

3.1 

1.6 

3.1 

1.3 

Source : European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special e xtraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. 

Note : M=mean, SD=standard deviation; green: the highest score, grey: the lowest score. 

Figure 9 displays means for overall satisfaction with SELFIE WBL on a 10-level scale per respon den t gro up. 
The highest satisfaction is indicated by school leaders (7.5) and the lowest, yet still above the middle  of th e 
10-level scale, is given by learners (5.8). 

Figure 9. Mean overall score for overall satisfaction with SELFIE WBL per respondent group  

Source : European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special e xtraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators.  

The likelihood of further recommendation of the SELFIE WBL on a 5-level scale was the highest among school 
leaders (M=4.1) and the lowest among trainers (M=2.9) (see Table 5 in annex 6). The percentage of p ositive 
responses (‘Very likely’ and ‘Extremely likely’) in the group of school leaders was 84.9%. On the  oth er h and , 
the highest percentage of negative responses (‘Not at all likely’ and ‘Not very likely’) was  given b y trainers  
(22.1%). The percentage of answer ‘Prefer not to say’ was the highest among trainers (14.9%). 

Learners and in-company trainers were asked about their opinion on the questions inclu ded  in SELFIE  WBL 
(see Table 3 in Annex 6). They rated the relevance of questions on a 10 -level scale. Learners’ average score is 
low (M=5.4); in-company trainers rated questions a little higher (M=6.1). 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise also included questions about respondents. Train ers in dicated th e 
usefulness of ‘Continuing professional development’ (CPD) activities  o n th e ped ag ogical u se o f d igital 
technologies. The percentage of positive responses (i.e. responses on 4 and 5) was the highest for ‘Learning  
through  collaborating’ (57.2%), followed by ‘Other in-house training’ (56.8%) and ‘Online professional 
learning’  (56.2%).  ‘Study  visit’  was  chosen  with  the  lowest  percentage  (31.3%).  The  answer  ‘Did  not 
participate’ was most often used for ‘Study visits’ (68.3%). 

Trainers and in-company trainers were also asked about their confidence in the use of digital tec hno logies 4. 
Trainers (73.2% positive responses) and in-company trainers (62.5%) feel th e mo st c onfiden t in u sing  
technology for ‘preparing lessons’. Trainers (56.4%) and in-company trainers (52.9%) are least c onfiden t in 
using digital technology for ‘Feedback and support’.  

Trainers and in-company trainers also answered the question ‘For what percentage of teaching/trainin g time 
have you used digital technologies in class in the past 3 months?’5. Th ey h ad  five p os sible ans wers . Th e 
highest percentage of trainers (21.4%) chose answer ‘11-25%’ and the highest percen tage  of in-com pany 
trainers (64.7%) chose answer ‘0-10%’. 37.2% trainers and only 6.3% of in-company trainers chose ans wer 
‘51-75%’ or ‘76-100%’. 

The learners reported that they most frequently used technology in and outside of schoo l for fun  (76.4 %). 
Most of them had access to technology outside the school (62.2%). Only 27.9% report using   tech nolo gy a t 
home for school. 

Answers to the question ‘Is teaching/training with digital technologies in your s c hoo l/c omp any n egative ly 
affected by the following factors?’6 displays some differences in the evaluation of facto rs. Sc ho ol leaders  
rated ‘Low digital competence of teachers’ (21.1%) and trainers  ‘Lac k o f fu nding ’ (18.4 %) as  th e mos t 
influential negative factors, and in-company trainers ‘Lack of time for trainers’ (30.8%). The negative fac tor 
that all school leaders (3.5%) and trainers (5.7%) rated lowest is ‘Limited or n o tec hnic al s upp ort ’. Th ree 
factors are least effective according to in-company trainers (‘Lack of funding’, ‘Unreliable o r s low intern et 
connection’ and ‘Low digital competence of students’) with 5.1%. 

Answers to the question ‘Is remote teaching and learning/training with digital technology negatively affected  
by the following factors?’7 display that remote teaching and learning is most often n egatively a ffected  b y 
‘Limited student access to digital devices’ (school leaders 19.7%, trainers  19.7%  an d 24.3%  in-co mpan y 
trainers) and ‘Limited student access to reliable internet connection’ (school leaders 20.8%, trainers  16.3%  
and in-company trainers 13.5%). In-company trainers rated ‘Trainers lacking time to  d evelop m aterial fo r 
remote training’ as the second most negative factor (19.9%).  

The percentage of chosen positive factors for remote teaching, learning  or trainin g8 d is plays  agreeme nt 
between groups. The most positive factor is ‘Teachers collaborating within the school on digital te chn olog y 
use and creation of resources’ (school leaders 16.1%, trainers 17.5%) and ‘Trainers collaborating with in  th e 
company on digital technology use and creation of resources’ (in-company trainers 17.1%). 

4 Traine rs re sponded to the question re garding the situation in their school (te aching), in -company trainers re garding the situation in their 

comp any (training). 

5 Answe rs: 0-10%; 11-25%; 26-50%; 51-75%; 76-100%; Prefer not to say. 

6 School le aders and tra iners re sponded to the question re garding the situation in their school (trainers), in -company trainers  re gard ing 

the  situation in their comp any (in -company trainers). 

7 School le aders and trainers re sponded to the question re garding the situation at their school (trainers, te aching), in -company  tra ine rs  

re garding the situation in their comp any (in -company trainers, training). 

8 School le aders and trainers re sponded to the question re garding the situation in their school a nd te achin g,  in -co mp any  tra ine rs  

re garding the situation in their comp any and training. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                     
For more information on figures, tables and data, see Annex 6. 

26 

 
 
 
 
5.3 Qualitative results 

Thirteen pilot schools were included in the qualitative part of the SELFIE WBL pilot in France. The q ualitative 
analysis was based on feedback from 21 focus groups,18 semi-structured interviews, 13 school reports , th e 
final evaluation webinar, constant communication (emails, zoom calls) with national coordinators as well as  
answers to open questions in the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise (see Chapter 5.2 Quantitative re sults ). 
Focus groups, in which 84 trainers and 86 learners participated, were moderated by national coordinators. The 
latter also conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders: 14 with school leaders and 4 with in -
company  trainers  (see Table 2). Additionally, we received 4 reports of school coordinators identifying 
advantages  of  and  positive  reflections  on  the  SELFIE  WBL  tool,  but  also  challenges  and  possible 
improvements.  

The COVID-19 pandemic influenced and disturbed the process as lockdown m ade it h ard to  re ach  ou t to  
participants. School leaders believe that deviations in answers were caused by the fact that the SELFIE W BL 
pilot was conducted during the lockdown in France, which forced trainers and learners to implement distance 
learning. Consequently, some participants, especially trainers, are worried and wonder what their job will lo ok 
like in the near future. Moreover, school coordinators also mention an impact of terro rist attacks  (teac her 
Samuel Paty was beheaded) on learners and their fear of returning to the school. 

Based on the results of the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise, it was not possible to determine, by deviation, 
the  best  and  worst  performing  school  as  the  results  were  quite similar or differed only in individual 
parameters. Therefore, we decided to present the results o f a ll s ch ools  co vere d as s tu dy cases  in th is 
qualitative part. 

Table 2. Number of learners, trainers, school leaders, in-company trainers and school coordinators involved in the 
qualitative analysis 

School 

Focus groups 
with 
learners 

Focus 
groups 
with 
trainers 

Semi-
structured 
interviews 
with school 
leaders 

Semi-structured 
interviews with 
in-company 
trainers 

School coordinators 
(list of challenges) 

School 1 

School 2 

School 3 

School 4 

School 5 

School 6 

School 7 

School 8 

School 9 

School 
10 

10 

7 

11 

5 

5 

10 

11 

11 

5 

3 

10 

6 

6 

9 

10 

12 

9 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

27 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
School 
11 

School 
12 

School 
13 

School 
14 

School 
15 

8 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

8 

TOTAL 

86 

7 

84 

14 

4 

4 

Source : Own analysis. 

For details on focus groups, semi-structured interviews and challenges, see Annex 3. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3.1 Initial motivation from participants 

Learners were generally happy to be consulted and understood the importance of results to see where th ey 
stand in the use of digital technologies. It is difficult to comment on learners’ expectations, as train ers and  
school leaders asked them to fill out the SELFIE WBL survey. Almost half of learners  d id  n ot rec eive  clear 
information on survey objectives and goals, which had a negative impact. They would  welcome  a m eeting  
before filing out the SELFIE WBL survey to be better prepared. 

Likewise, trainers participated because their school leaders asked them to, although some were g lad to  be 
consulted  and  saw  the  SELFIE  WBL  self-reflexion  exercise  important  for  the  future.  Trainers’  prior 
expectations were primarily to gain an overview of established practices, an overview of the digital ‘situatio n’ 
in their school and to improve the use of digital tools and practices. The SELFIE WBL pilot was therefore s een 
as a way to meet these expectations and move forward together to improve teaching practices. 

On the other hand, school leaders expected to see how the use of dig ital tec hno logy for te ac hing  an d 
learning was running in other VET schools (and abroad), to share good practices and experiences with p eers  
(at national and European level) and to benefit from an overview of their use of digital practices.  

In-company trainers also expected to identify, better understand  an d learn n ew teaching  meth od s at 
national and European level. 

Some participants could not imagine that such tools exist and see the added value of the SELFIE WBL in  th e 
inclusion of multiple stakeholders, especially learners. What participants would like to see is how th e s u rve y 
results will be processed and used for future improvements at school level. 

5.3.2 Strengths and weaknesses of the SELFIE WBL tool 

Participants  filled  out  the  SELFIE  WBL tool on various devices (computers, smartphones and tablets). 
Generally, they did not report technical problems when connecting and completing the question naire. W h at 
works particularly well is that participants are able to complete the survey on their smartphones, especially 
since many learners do not own a personal computer. 

Participants further mention that the SELFIE WBL tool is easy to  u nders tan d, c om plete, allows  smo oth 
navigation and has an advantage of being anonymous. The ‘help text’ feature is useful to h elp p articipa nts 
understand more complex questions. The SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise is a good basis for an invento ry 
– opening the debate, provoking internal exchanges and opening up a dialogue between trainers, learners, in-
company trainers and the school leaders on the use of digital technology for teaching and learning. As such, it 
has a unifying effect. Moreover, the SELFIE WBL report offers school leaders an overview o f s treng ths  a nd 
weaknesses in the use of digital technologies. 

On the other hand, some questions are too general and lack details according to participants9. Some trainers  
believe the current assessment scale (1-5) directs the participant to choose option 3 in case of a d ou bt and  
does not require that participants clearly express their position. That could also ex plain th e s u rve y re su lts 
around the median. For more precision, they propose a Likert scale from 0 to 10. A group of learners  wish ed 
that the interface of the SELFIE WBL tool was more dynamic and modern.  

9 The  p articip ants we re aske d to provide concre te details of such questions, but they could not indicate them.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
The participants also had some recommendations to improve the SELFIE WBL tool:  

- 

- 

- 

since some learners do not own a computer or smartphone, it would also be good to have a ‘pape r 
questionnaire’ enabling equal opportunities for all learners; 
clearly  differentiate  the  questions  for  teachers  of  general  subjects  and  for  trainers  of 
vocational/professional subjects. One group cannot answer the questions related to the other g ro up 
and vice versa; 
add an option of providing a descriptive answer, allowing participants to explain their given answer. If 
a participant disagrees with the statement, there should be an option to  ju stify an d c larify th eir 
choice. 

5.3.3 Questionnaire, content and SELFIE WBL report 

The SELFIE WBL survey is seen as comprehensive. Learners and trainers envisage th at n o o ther to pic o r 
question shall be added to the questionnaire. On the other hand, school leaders s u gges ted  th at qu estion s 
regarding blended learning should be included in the survey as  a n i ndependent a ddi tional s ecti on. 
Participants (around half of learners and trainers) find the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise too long. Some 
of them would rather at least half the number of questions, which would – accord ing to  th em –  make th e 
survey  results  more  meaningful  as  people  would  not  lose  focus  during  the  se lf-reflection  exercise. 
Furthermore, participants had the feeling that the questions were redundant and that they were  filling  ou t 
‘the same thing twice’. 

A minority group of learners mention that questions are not always easy to understand and that the y wo uld 
not be able to complete the questionnaire without explanation from the trainers. Their trainers c on firm th at 
questions are often complex, terminology and vocabulary difficult and in parts not appropriate fo r learners . 
Each of the six trainers and school leaders think the translation and the vocabulary used were not adapted to 
the apprenticeship system. A few learners, trainers and school leaders reveal that some statem ents are  not 
clear enough and it is not always easy to understand to which topic they relate. Hence, participan ts b elieve 
the questions and the questionnaire should be shorter and the vocabulary simple. 

It was difficult for some school leaders to understand and interpret the SELFIE WBL school report with  all 
the  figures  and  bars.  They claim that the averages are not so relevant and do not mean much when 
presenting the survey results to the colleagues. It takes time to go deeper into each ques tion o r s tateme nt 
and really understand the answers. There are some learners who have the impression th at sc hoo l leaders  
overestimated the equipment they have at the school (‘or maybe they have it, but learners cannot s ee it’). A 
few trainers also believe some averages are overestimated. 

5.3.4 Current and future use of SELFIE WBL 

Learners and trainers have generally not seen the SELFIE WBL school report yet but are very interested to see 
the results and the actions that will follow. Their main expectation is to use conclusions and findings from the 
report. For some school leaders, the SELFIE WBL pilot occurred at the right moment as they wanted to write a 
digital strategy but had no specific tools to do so. Therefore, some school leaders plan to distribute the SELFIE 
WBL school report to co-workers in order to identify the problems and jointly determine the action plan. Some 
schools  already have digital strategies formalised and written, and a separate digital committee that 
assesses the strategy in order to continuously improve it. Some schools regularly review their strategies; thus, 
the SELFIE WBL report will be taken into consideration when discussing digital tran sformatio n. However, 
school leaders admit the resources allocated for these improvements are not yet sufficient. 

On the other hand, the questions and statements in the SELFIE WBL to ol m ade traine r s re flec t on  the ir 
practice and subsequently (revealed) their training needs. While they did not expect much at th e b eg in ning , 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
they hoped for an evolution in the future. Based on the SELFIE WBL results , s ch ool le ade rs anticipate 
awareness-raising regarding the lack of digital tools for learners and trainers at the school. For some schools, 
the results highlighted a need to upgrade the skills of trainers and other e mployees  (e.g . c ontract s taff). 
Therefore, several school leaders state training of trainers (e.g. basic software) and learners (e.g. use of social 
networks, digital tools and data exchange) as their priority. They are aware that the following s tep s will no t 
always be easy as some participants will have to step out of their comfort zo nes . On e s cho ol leader h as  
already contacted the project manager regarding digital training, while other s c hoo l lead ers p rop osed  10 
concrete actions that will be implemented in the short and medium term (e.g. trainer training , u se o f to ols , 
support for learners, improved internet speed). Another school leader decided to elect three digital delegates 
(representative of learners, trainers and companies) to identify the needs and report to them directly withou t 
an  intermediary.  Like  other school leaders, they believe the lack of dialogue between the school and 
companies could also be improved thanks to digital technology. 

Several trainers and school leaders would like to know how they compare to other schools with some s ort o f  
ranking. Moreover, they would like to share practical information and good practices with o ther s ch ools   a t 
national and European level, and benefit from advice on important levers as well as pitfalls and d a ngers  to  
avoid. 

The digital transformation of schools and companies is seen as an effective way to  b etter re spon d to  th e 
specificities of the most vulnerable and can therefore lead to better employability. Nevertheless, many school 
leaders point out that remote learning can broaden inequalities between  learn ers  as  th ey do  no t have  a 
comparable level of equipment and work environment. In addition, the dropout rate seems to  be in creasing  
with the transition to remote learning. In this regard, one school leader provides in-class  teaching  at least 
once a week, so that the ‘social link’ makes it possible to avoid dropping out of school. 

5.4 Overall findings 

This chapter presents reflections and main findings from the pilot, gathered  from  b oth  qu an titative  an d 
qualitative analyses and the reflections from the participants. 

School coordinators confirm that school registration process was considered very easy and clear, but th ey 
admit they had to go through and read the instructions very carefully. For some, the number of learn ers  an d 
trainers  they  have  to  insert  upon  registration  in  SELFIE  WBL  pilot  was  not  clear: 40% (the expected 
respondent rate) or 100% (the total number of learners and trainers a t th e VET s c hoo l) o f le arn ers and  
trainers. Namely, upon registration some schools entered 40% of learners an d trainers  which  res ulted  in 
respondent rates of over 100%. Additional confusion was whether to include 40% of all learners  or 4 0% o f 
WBL learners. Furthermore, there was a difference between the recommendations written in the SELFIE  WBL 
tool where it is recommended to reach 20-30% of the learner population, and the recommendations  of  th e 
SELFIE WBL pilot where the percentage was set at 40%. 

Inputting the school and company data was also easy to understand . On e s cho ol co ord in ator h ad a  
problem in that the link was not generated for in-company trainers (for trainers, learners and school leaders it 
was), so they could not ask them to fill out the SELFIE WBL survey. Other school coordinators did n ot re port 
problems when generating links and claimed that it was very easy. E ven th ou gh  they b elieve  th at th e 
SELFIE WBL is already very complete, some school coordinators decided to add two questions for the learners 
and two questions for the trainers in order to focus more on topics important to their school. 

Customising the surveys (i.e. adding the questions) was easy. However, school coordinators  rec ommen d 
adding the ‘help text’ here as well, to make sure everybody understands the question. Additio nally,  sc hoo ls 
have problems with the limit of the 3-week timeslot for the SELFIE WBL survey, because learners are o ut o f 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
school at the company for 2 or 3 weeks, so the school cannot reach them. If VET learners are no t at s c hoo l, 
they do not tend to answer emails and are unreachable. 

School coordinators report several problems when reaching out to participants and motivating them to  
fill out the SELFIE WBL survey. The four biggest barriers were holidays, start o f the n ew s cho ol year, th e 
terrorist attack in France and the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the summer holidays, th ere was  no t en oug h 
time for prior information and promotion of the SELFIE WBL. Some VET schools were closed during last we ek 
of October as it was the autumn holidays, so they only had 2, weeks to pilo t SELFIE W BL. Th e COVID-19 
pandemic brought ordinances with restrictions and a shift in priorities to solve the COVID-19 situation, so th e 
SELFIE WBL pilot was no longer seen as a priority. Considering these circumstances, participan ts felt u nd er 
pressure which could have influenced the overall data gathered. Moreover, spending additional time on SELFIE 
WBL in such circumstances might have led to participants’ demotivation and even potential fu ndin g wou ld 
likely not have helped in motivating them. The trainers and learners saw SELFIE WBL as an additional burde n 
in difficult times when the focus was on how to start remote learning. Although the trainers were happy to be 
asked and to give their opinion, they were mostly focused on how to d eal with  th e  COVID-19 c risis  an d 
remote learning. On the contrary, the SELFIE WBL pilot came ‘at the right time’ for the manag ement o f the  
schools. School leaders were therefore motivated, convinced by the interest in h aving a s tate-of -the-art 
school digital practices, and saw the added-value of the SELFIE WBL and its process. 

School coordinators organised meetings to explain to learners and trainers the aim o f SELFIE  W BL an d its  
importance regarding schools’ digital strategy and practices. While learners were very glad and interes ted in  
giving their opinion, it was later shown that the explanation was not so clear for everyo ne. M oreo ver, it is  
difficult for school coordinators to reach learners when they are not in the classrooms , as n ot all le arne rs 
have (adequate) equipment at home. 

Due  to  the lockdown, there was also a problem for school coordinators to include companies. School 
coordinators did not manage to get in contact with all in-company trainers to ask them to fill out the s urvey. 
Additionally, in-company trainers had to be reminded several times  to fill o ut th e s urvey. Moni toring 
participants was very time-consuming for school coordinators, but it was not difficult to follow and monito r 
the participation rates. Some school coordinators were mon ito ring th e c omp le tio n rate d aily and were  
regularly sending emails to trainers, school leaders and the pedagogical team to encourage the partic ip ants . 
Other school coordinators went to the classrooms to meet the learners and motivate them. 

Participants  find  the  SELFIE WBL school report in PDF very useful and exhaustive. It opens up new 
perspectives like the necessity to improve learners’ and trainers’ digital skills and the need to help and  train  
the trainers who do not feel comfortable enough. The report is furthermore described as  clear, in stru ctive, 
informative and a good starting point for discussion with all stakeholders (learners, trainers , m anageme nt 
team and companies). Participants agree that the SELFIE WBL tool g ene rally h ig hlig h ted s tren gths  and 
weaknesses and is a relevant basis for schools to introduce their digital strategies. Th e  diverg ent ans wers  
between trainers and school leaders are very informative as well, even if it is not so easy for school leaders to 
realise that something is not going as well as they expected. During the next SELFIE WBL exercis e, th ey will 
add more questions to get more precise information from respondents. 

There was also a consensus within schools on the stimulative role of personalised certificates and digital 
badges. School coordinators do not report problems regarding personalised certificates and  op en b a d ges . 
Certificates were downloaded in volumes; all trainers in particular have d ownloaded th eir p artic ip ation 
certificates according to school coordinators. Some schools have already downloaded open badge and  they 
are going to insert it in their electronic signature. Others have not done it yet but are also planning to  ins ert 
the badge in their digital signature, on their school website and on their social networks. 

Participants mostly praised the SELFIE WBL tool as being  very useful and  would  reco mmend  it as a 
powerful self-reflection tool to all schools that need their digital practices to be state-of-th e-art. On e ve ry 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
positive aspect of the SELFIE WBL tool is that they can use it again and thus asses s th eir pro gres s. So me 
school coordinators report that they have to discuss the usefulness of the SELFIE WBL with the companies a s 
well (they could not do it yet as companies are currently closed due to the COVID-19 situation). 

As  a  result  of  the  SELFIE  WBL  report,  some  school  leaders  decided  to invest in new equipment and 
infrastructure;  they  are  planning  training modules on basic digital skills for  learners and trainers and 
beginning to introduce their digital strategy. According to many participants, the challenge of the SELFIE WBL 
remains to include a comparison component between schools. 

There was a question mark around the usefulness of the SELFIE WBL tool for small schools (e.g. less than 50  
learners)  that  are  very  specific and have their own specialities. In such schools, discussion and open 
conversation with learners might be better than the survey. 

Participants  see  the  SELFIE  WBL  as  an  approach  quite  similar  to  the quality approach advocated by 
QUALIOPI10. Schools are audited in order to get the national QUALIOPI certification,  which  certifies th at  a  
school complies with quality processes implemented and thus receives public funds. As such, the SELFIE WBL 
tool could serve as a basis in discussion with decision-makers who are financing schools, bearing in mind that 
after all it is a self-reflection tool, not an auditing tool. Moreover, the SELFIE WBL report is  very u seful for 
schools as both the SELFIE WBL and QUALIOPI are continuous improvement process es . In  that s ens e, th e 
SELFIE WBL could be the ‘armed wing’ of schools’ digital policy, rather than its redundancy. 

The SELFIE WBL tool is a good basis for the start of this ecosystem. While SELFIE  WBL alread y pro vid es 
many things, more is needed. Participants (school leaders, trainers , in -comp any trainers ) wo uld like to  
integrate  SELFIE  WBL  into other national initiatives and processes that already exist. They would also 
appreciate  direct  links  with  other  schools  to  share  practical  information,  good  practic es  and  create 
partnerships in technology-enhanced learning. What they would particularly li ke to  kno w is  wha t kin d o f 
experiments (in the use of digital technologies) have been implemented, wh at works  an d what d oes  no t. 
Based on that, they would ideally like to start new projects, also with other European partners. 

10 QUALIOPI is quality ce rtification for training p roviders (la Ce rtification des Organismes de Formation). 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
6.  Lessons learnt and suggestions for future development 

The SELFIE WBL pilot strengthens the opinion that it is absolutely necessary to involve trainers and learners in 
such self-reflection exercises because they have many things to say, ideas to bring forward and can help gain 
better results. Besides, people are willing to give their opinion, participate in writing the strateg y an d like to  
feel integrated in the school community. Hence, participants believe that the SELFIE WBL pilot confirms  th at 
the more you involve your staff and school community, the more relevant the work done will be. 

Schools have problems with the 3-week timeslot for the SELFIE WBL survey, b ecaus e learners  are  ou t of 
school  at  the  company  for  2  or  3  weeks,  so  the  school  cannot  reach  them.  VET  specifics  shall  be 
acknowledged: VET learners are not like high-school students as they come to VET school only around once a  
month (depending on their study), which is a crucial aspect to take into consideration. Additionally, the COVID-
19 pandemic influenced the process because learners were even less present at their VET school than usual. 
It is very time-consuming to motivate participants each week and it was also stressful b ecause th e SE LFIE 
WBL pilot took place during the second lockdown and the priority of the school leaders and the trainers was to 
organise remote learning and deal with the pandemic. Some learners also suggest that SELFIE  WBL s ho uld 
take place later in the school year, rather than at the very beginning. 

Generally, participants had no problems and/or technical issues with SELFIE WBL. It was ve ry practical fo r 
them to be able to complete the questionnaire online, either on a smartphone or pers onal co mpute r. Th ey 
mostly stated smooth and easy navigation, the importance of ‘help text’ to better unders tan d th e q ues tion 
and the fact that SELFIE WBL offers a good basis for opening up th e d ebate and in ternal ex chang es o f 
opinion regarding the use of digital technology for teaching and learning. Th e fac t th at SELFIE  WBL als o 
includes companies and considers the opinion of the learners is a positive point, as is its anonymity. 

Some participants propose the ‘save function’ when filling out the survey,  h aving th e o ption to  s ave a nd  
return to the previous page without having to re-enter all the answers11. Some learners also repo rted to  th e 
school coordinator that they could not activate the link on their smartpho ne, s o  they h ad to  co me to th e 
school’s library and use a computer. A school coordinator further mentions a problem of ‘a need to disconnect 
before leaving the page, otherwise you have to wait 12 to 24 hours to be able to connect again’12. There were 
also some comments regarding the scale. The current s c ale from  1 to  5 is  not o ptimal be cau se wh en 
participants did not know what to answer, they chose 3. They suggest it would be more useful to have a scale 
from 1 to 4, because it stimulates the participant to take a stand. 

Participants lack an option to compare with other schools at a national and European level. They wou ld also  
like an option to add a descriptive answer, allowing participants to comment on their choice (especially where 
they disagree with the statement). As the texts in the drop-down  men us a re n ot fu lly vis ible o n m obile 
devices, the learners propose that the SELFIE WBL tool to adopt non-uniform  memo ry ac ces s (NUMA) to  
enable access to all the data13.  

The participants find the content of the SELFIE WBL survey exhaustive and complete. The majority would not 
add any topic or question. The majority also did not have any problem understanding the ques tio ns . On  the 
other hand, participants believe the questions and the questionnaire should be shorter and  les s re petitive. 
They believe the SELFIE WBL questionnaire is too long at the moment, especially for learners. Th e y re po rt a 
feeling of many similar questions. Moreover, the questions are sometimes too general and lack details (e.g . 

11 It shall be  noted that the  SELFIE te am has long been aware of this issue which is te chnically curre ntly not p ossible to solve and a t th e  

same  time  still safe guard anonymity.  

12 Unfortunately, we  did not re ceive more information on the p roble m. 

13 NUMA (non-uniform me mory acce ss) is a me thod of configuring a cluste r of microp rocessors in a multip roce ssing system so that th e y  
can share me mory locally, imp roving performance and the ability of the system to be exp anded. The suggestion was identified when 
analysing answers in the database, re ceived by the JRC. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
two school leaders understood the same question differently). Each of the six trainers and school leader think 
that  the  translation and the vocabulary used were not adapted to the French national apprenticeship  
context14. 

Trainers who teach vocational/professional school subjects would have liked the SELFIE WBL to  fo cus  mo re 
precisely on their subject, as they felt the SELFIE WBL is a bit too general. Some participants suggest add in g 
new topics, i.e. prevention of digital addiction, social media, dark side of technology, well-being  o f learners  
and online assessment of learners. 

Participants predominantly believe that the SELFIE WBL school report is a great way to see their strengths  
and weaknesses and, on that basis, improve their practices. Results are encouraging, informative and can also 
be surprising for some stakeholders. In some schools, surprising results led  to in teres ting d isc uss ion s  at 
collective meetings where participants could debate the divergence of opinions. For some sch ool le ad ers,  it 
was not very easy to understand and interpret the SELFIE WBL school report with all the figures and  ch arts . 
They claim charts without explanations are not always useful. Some participants also state that survey results 
in the report are generally median (due to the 1-5 scale, see also explanation above), which d oes  n ot me an 
much. These ‘average scores’ disable clear decision-making. What is also missing from the report is an option 
to compare themselves with other VET schools to see where they stand. 

School coordinators indicate that the certificates were downloaded in volumes. Other than that, partic ip ants  
did not comment on features of SELFIE WBL (badge and certificate) or any possible suggestion  for o ther 
features. 

School coordinators state that data were clearer and better understood when dis cus sed  d uring  the fo cus  
groups. Data comprised no unexpected results; they rather confirmed participants’ thoughts that the state  of 
the art was as they expected. In some schools, results highlighted divergences between schoo l lead ers an d 
trainers, and this allowed them to reflect on why the results differed so much. 

According to participants, SELFIE WBL represents an added value to better identify the directions to take, seek 
funding and support schools. The survey results are generally considered interesting. For some school leaders  
the results will act as a springboard for a (digital) strategy. Others are already discussing th e b est ways to  
use the SELFIE WBL school report and are setting up a digital committee, involving trainers and companies (in 
some cases also learners). 

One very positive aspect of the SELFIE WBL tool is that it can be use d again  an d th us  asse ss a  s ch ool’s 
progress.  But  trainers  would  also like support in concrete examples of uses of tools in other schools. 
Furthermore, trainers would like to discuss the report with other scho ols,  cre ate p artn ersh ip s a nd  sh are 
practical information with them. 

14 The  p articip ants we re aske d to provide concre te details of questions with sp elling errors and outdated vocabulary, but they  c o uld  not 

indicate  specific ite ms, words or questions. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
7.  Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic 

Before the COVID-19 crisis, schools generally did not have a common s trateg y for u sing  tec hno lo gy for 
teaching and learning. It depended on the trainer’s sensibility and ability to use digital tools,  b ut it  was n ot 
officially formalised. The situation was heterogeneous15, and even the use of smartphones during the courses  
for pedagogical purposes was a source of conflict. However, the COVID-19 crisis has been a real acc elerato r 
to initiate the digital approach16. The lockdown made people realise that they have to adapt extremely quickly 
and move forward even faster. 

During the COVID-19 crisis, some schools could not have learners in the classroom and all courses had  to  be 
done remotely. It highlighted the fact that there is a lot of disparity re gard ing d igital practices   between  
trainers and between learners within the same school. Trainers in particu lar h ad  to ad apt th ems elves to  
digital tools. The situation and implementation of remote learning was (is) very disturbing for the trainers who 
have to change their way of teaching. In some schools, a multimedia library played a key role to demonstrate 
to trainers how to use digital tools, and meetings were organised to share good prac tic es amon g trainers . 
Some schools also implemented a training module to give learners basic digital knowledg e. Th ey also h a d 
hybrid training and projects for teaching and learning, fostered teamwork to improve practices and offered a  
strong  digital  service.  Other  schools  are  searching  for  tools and methodologies to share all of these 
experiences, while some, thanks to the SELFIE WBL report, are starting to write their o wn  d ig ital  s trateg y. 
Some schools are going to buy computers that will be lent to learners who do not have any and who c annot 
afford to buy one17. They are also planning to set up a databank with both free digital resources they can us e 
and specific resources they would like to create and will be adapted to their own school subjects. 

At the moment, some schools do approximately 70% remote teaching and are constantly implemen tin g and  
updating digital resources. They feel remote learning has its limits as participants report more work (overload) 
because of remote teaching and learning. Because of the COVID-19 crisis, remote teaching and learn ing will 
probably remain for some time in the future. There is still a very important discussion on how to deal with it 
and how to balance all of these experiences. For some, blended learning will become a standard, while others  
would like to take a step back as they were forced to rush into it during the crisis. 

15 To some  exte nt it still is as le arners (and trainers) state that the re are a lot of different tools, which causes confusion and p roble ms. 

16 According to p articip ants, other acce lerators we re the 2018 vocational training reform in France  and the QUALIOPI certification, w h ich 

sup port distance le arning.  

17 More  schools report that there is significant e conomic and social disparity in acce ss to d igital te chnologie s  ( co mp ute r e quip me nt,  

inte rne t, etc.) as well as in the handling of the digital tools by le arners. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
                                     
8.  Conclusions and recommendations 

The SELFIE WBL pilot came at the right time, as the SELFIE WBL school reports highlight th e s treng ths an d 
areas for improvement. Participants believe the advantage of the SELFIE WBL tool is th at it o pens   up  the  
discussion between stakeholders (also trainers and learners). It was very interesting to see that trainers  an d 
learners felt very concerned, are generally very interested to know the SELFIE WBL results and wou ld like to 
further explore the use of digital technologies. However, they do not want to get involved in the SELFIE W BL 
tool in the future unless they see a considerable improvement at their school based on these results. 

Participants are also interested in the SELFIE WBL results from other countries. The majority express ed th e ir 
interest in having a global reflection involving learners, companies and school leaders. More than e ver, th ey 
remain interested in comparing the results, exchanging good practices with other s ch ools  (an d c oun tries), 
receiving regular updates on each other's practices and proposing learners’ meetings to d is cu ss  the u s e of 
digital technologies. In that sense, learners could be ‘digital ambassadors’. 

One of the findings of the SELFIE WBL school report is that trainers need to be better skilled  to u s e d ig ital 
technology for teaching and learning. On this basis, some schools will organise trainer training . Desp ite  the  
urgency felt, the idea is not to go too fast and not to skip steps. Maybe they will focus on a few issues at th e 
time, as involvement in SELFIE WBL can be seen as a long-term activity including follow-up meetings, actions 
taken based on the results and a SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise over the years. Fo r n ow, s ch ools  are 
discovering SELFIE WBL and are learning to use it.  

Recommendations 

-  SELFIE WBL shall have fewer and shorter questions. 
-  SELFIE WBL shall allow benchmarking – school leaders and trainers want to  c ompare th emse lves  

with other schools in France and other countries and see where they are positioned. 

-  SELFIE  WBL shall enable the possibility of networking with other schools in France (and ot her 
countries) to compare practices, methods and tools used, share examples and have regular updates. 
-  SELFIE WBL shall be more adapted to professions, because the differences in studies and practices  
cannot be highlighted in the current SELFIE WBL (e.g. digital needs are very different for professions  
such as florist, computer scientist, car mechanic). 

-  Customising the surveys in the SELFIE WBL (adding the questions) is easy, but schools did not realise 
the possibility of adding a help text to their own questions and statements  as  well to  make s ure  
everybody understands the question. This should be made clearer in the guidelines. 

- 

-  SELFIE WBL shall have an option to also provide a descriptive answer, allowing participants to explain 
their given answer. If a participant disagrees with a statement, there should be an option  to ju stify 
and clarify the decision. 
There shall be a short guide on the SELFIE WBL tool for learners, to help them unders tan d th e to ol 
before they use it. 
The SELFIE WBL certificate/badge could also be integrated into the Eu ropass  Dig ital Cred entials  
(digital file to store in a wallet in the Europass Library). 

- 

The results of the French pilot are very useful inputs for the SELFIE team in the finalisation  of th e to ol and 
the questionnaires, which reviews all content and recommendations of all p ilo ts in  view o f re leas ing an  
enhanced and final version to the public.  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
References 

Braun, V. & Clarke, V., ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psycholo gy, Vo l. 3(2), 

2006, pp. 77-101. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 

Broek, S. & Buiskool, B., Adapting the SELFIE tool for work-based learning systems in Vocational Education and 
Training, Hippe, R. and Kampylis, P. editor(s), EUR 30079 EN, Publications  Office o f th e E uro pea n 
Union,  Luxembourg,  2020,  ISBN  978-92-76-10623-4  (online),  doi:10.2760/934724  (online), 
JRC119707.  

Centre Inffo, Vocational education and training in Europe – France, Cedefop ReferNet VET in E u rope re ports  

2018, 2019. Available at: https://www.refernet.de/dokumente/pdf/2018_CR_FR.pdf 

Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small an d m edium-siz ed 
enterprises, Official Journal, L 124, pp. 36-41, 2003. Available at:  h ttps: //eu r-lex .eu ropa.eu /lega l -
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003H0361 

European Commission, SELFIE database, special extraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators, 2020. 

Figgou, L. & Pavlopoulos, V., Social Psychology: Research Methods, In: International Encyclopedia of the Soc ial 
(Second  Edition),  Elsevier,  2015,  pp.  544-552.  Available  at: 

&  Behavioral  Sciences 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080970868240282 

French Government, Law of 8 July 2013 for orientation and programming for the refoundation of th e s cho ol 

of the Republic, Légifrance, 2013. Available at: 

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000027677984/ 

French Government, L'école numérique, 2017. Available at: https://www.g ouvern ement.fr/action /l -ec ole-

numerique 

French Government, Law of 5 September 2018 for the freedom to choose one's professional futu re, 20 18, 

Légifrance. Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000037367660/ 

Majchrzak, A., (‘Methods for policy research’, Applied social research methods series, Vol. 3,  19 90, Ne wbu ry 

Park, CA: SAGE Publications. 

Ministry of Education, Repères et références statistiques sur les enseignements, la formation et la rech erch e 
2019,  Direction  de  l'évaluation,  de  la  prospective  et  de  la  performance ,  2019.  Available  at: 
https://www.education.gouv.fr/reperes-et-references-statistiques-sur-les-enseignements-la-formatio n-
et-la-recherche-2019-3806 

Ministry  of  Labour,  Dossier  de  Presse  04/02/2020  –  L´apprentissage  en  2019,  2020.  Available  at: 

http://hauts-de-france.direccte.gouv.fr/sites/hauts-de-
france.direccte.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/dp_apprentissage_web-2.pdf 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ministry of Labour, L’apprentissage, un véritable outil d’insertion dans l’emploi, au servic e d es jeu nes  et d e 
l’entreprise, 2017. Available at: https://travail-emploi.gouv.fr/actualites/l-actualite-du-ministere/article/l-
apprentissage-un-veritable-outil-d-insertion-dans-l-emploi-au-service-des 

Ragin, C. C., Družboslovno raziskovanje: enotnost in raznolikost metode, Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 

2007. 

SAGE Publications, ‘Thematic Analysis of Survey Responses from Undergraduate Students’, SAGE Rese arch  

Methods Datasets, 2019. Available at: 

https://methods.sagepub.com/base/download/DatasetStudentGuide/thematic -analysis-students-
technology 

Skupnost VSŠ, SELFIE WBL Pilot – Guide and Work Plan for National Coordinators, Version 5, 2020. Available  
at: https://www.skupnost-vss.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Guidelines-and-Work-Plan-for-Nation al-
Coordinators_V5.pdf 

SPIRIT Slovenija, Francija – Gospodarske panoge Francije, 2020. Available at:  

https://www.izvoznookno.si/drzave/francija/gospodarske-panoge/ 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
40 

 
 
List of abbreviations and definitions 

ATC 

Apprenticeship training centre 

CEDEFOP 

The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training 

CPD 

Continuing professional development 

CRCN     

The Digital Competence Reference Framework 

CVET     

Continuing vocational education and training 

DigComp 

A framework for developing and understanding Digital Competence in Europe 

EfVET    

European Forum of Technical and Vocational Education and Training 

EQF 

ETF 

European Qualifications Framework 

European Training Foundation 

ISCED    

International Standard Classification of Education 

IVET 

JRC 

N 

M 

Initial vocational education and training 

Joint Research Centre, European Commission 

Number of valid responses from the respondents 

Mean - the average/central value of the data points or numbers 

OPCO     

Opérateur de Compétences 

SD 

Standard deviation – a measure of the dispersion of a dataset relative to its mean 

SEPR     

Societé d´Enseignement Professionnelle du Rhône 

Skupnost VSŠ  Skupnost višjih strokovnih šol Republike Slovenije / Association of Slovene Higher Vocation al 

Colleges 

SME 

Small and medium-sized enterprises 

STEM     

Science, technology, engineering and mathematics 

TEL 

VET 

WBL 

Technology-enhanced learning 

Vocational education and training 

Work-based learning 

41 

 
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
42 

 
 
List of figures 

Figure 1.   Selection criteria for VET schools 

  8 

Figure 2.   The diversity of selected VET schools according to size, location and programme area  

  9 

Figure 3.   The diversity of selected VET schools and companies according to geographical coverage  

10 

Figure 4.   Selection criteria for companies   

Figure 5.   Selected companies per selection criteria  

Figure 6.   Translation process  

Figure 7.   Implementation process  

Figure 8.   Percentage of positive responses by area  

Figure 9.   Mean overall score for overall satisfaction with SELFIE WBL per respondent group  

Figure 10. Increase in number of training centres  

Figure 11. The trend of enrolment onto apprenticeships at EQF Levels 3 and 4  

Figure 12. Increase in apprenticeships across all EQF levels    

Figure 13. French vocational education and training   

Figure 14. Distribution of economic sectors in France  

Figure 15. Overview of area snapshot from an anonymous SELFIE WBL school report    

Figure 16. Mean score for all variables in main areas per respondent group  

Figure 17. Mean likelihood of further recommending SELFIE   

10 

11 

12 

13 

18 

19 

38 

39 

39 

40 

43 

56 

58 

60 

Figure 18. Negative factors for technology use in school and company – percentage per re s pond ent g rou p 

60 

Figure 19. Negative factors for technology use for remote teaching, learning and training  –  p ercen tag e per 

respondent group 

61 

Figure 20. Positive factors for remote teaching, learning and training – percentage per respondent group 62 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
44 

 
 
List of tables 

Table 1.   Descriptive statistics for main areas per respondent group    

   19 

Table 2.   The number of learners, trainers, school leaders, in-company train ers an d s cho ol c oord in ato rs 
   21 

involved in the qualitative analysis  

Table 3.   Thematic analysis of open questions responded to by learners  

   54 

Table 4.   Overall satisfaction with SELFIE – percentage distribution per respondent group  

Table 5.   Relevance of questions per respondent group  

   58 

   59 

Table 6.   Likelihood of further recommendation of the SELFIE tool –- percentage per respondent group.  

   59 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
46 

 
 
Annexes 

Annex 1. Key information on the WBL system 

Annex 2. Dominant economic sectors in France 

Annex 3. Guidelines and templates for focus groups, semi-structured interviews and list of challenges 

Annex 4. Analysis of open question ‘Suggestions for improvement’ and examples of questions 

Annex 5. School report ‘Overview by area’ 

Annex 6. Figures and tables for the SELFIE WBL piloting quantitative analysis 

Annex 7. Overview of SELFIE WBL results in France 

Annex 8. Country fiche 

Annex 9. List of tools similar to SELFIE and other tools used in WBL 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1. Key information on the WBL system 

WORK-BASED LEARNING IN FRANCE 

In  France,  apprenticeship  training  centres  were  created  in  1971; 2 laws gave a legal and a financial 
framework to apprenticeships to make it a ‘modern training pathway’. Since 1971, many important re fo rms 
have been implemented. In 1983, apprenticeships were transferred from national/state level to regional level. 
In 1987, a law stipulated that all qualification levels (from basic level to unive rsity level) are  eligible  fo r 
apprenticeships. 

The latest key reform took place in 2018 (French Government, 2018), with two main goals: 

developing a training supply in apprenticeships; 

- 
-  making apprenticeships more attractive for learners, families  an d c ompanies  an d s ho wing  this  

training pathway as a reliable and excellent one. 

This was a substantial reform as: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

new legal and financial rules were set up. The regional authorities are n o lon ger re sp ons ib le for 
financing apprenticeships. A new financial and governance system has been set up and n ew a ctors  
have emerged such as Opérateur de Compétences (OPCO)18; 
new opportunities were introduced for companies that lack a qualified workforce. Now they have th e 
right to create their own apprenticeship training centre, without asking for any specific and previous  
authorisations on educational or administrative matters; 
apprenticeships are growing as people can sign an apprenticeship contract between the ag es o f 16 
and 29 (vs 16 and 25 before 2018); 
the value of apprenticeships is reasserted through: 
increase in apprentices’ wages; 
financial support for apprentices older than 18 who want to take their driving test; 
financial support for companies with less than 250 employees that sign an apprentices hip 
contract with a learner to prepare for a diploma for EQF levels up to 4. 

o 
o 
o 

Figure 10. Increase in number of training centres 

Source : Ministry of Labour (2020). 

Figure 10 displays the increase in training centres before the reform in 2018 (with a to tal o f 965 training 
centres and on 31 December of 2019 a total of 1 200 training centres). 

18 OPCO = Op érateur de Compétences whose mission is to finance the apprenticeship and support the  professional bra nche s  to  se t u p  
the ir curricula and support SMEs defining their re quire d training. More information at https://www.francecompetences.fr/la-formation-
p rofe ssionnelle/qui-fait-quoi/. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
Apprenticeships strongly progress in France. Since 1990, the number of apprentices has more than doubled in 
France. In February 2020, there were 491 000 apprentices in France vs 220 000 in 1991. Figure 11 re flects  
the apprenticeship trend over the last 7 years and highlights the increase in apprenticeships a t EQF Le vel 3 
and Level 4. After the decline observed in 2013 (-9.3%) and 2014 (-6.8%), the number of learners wh o to ok 
the apprenticeship path and signed an apprenticeship contract rapidly increased in 2019 (+8% in comparison  
to 2018). 

Figure 11. The trend of enrolment onto apprenticeships at EQF Levels 3 and 4 

Source : Ministry of Labour (2020). 

Figure 12 shows the increase of the apprenticeship pathway at all E QF le vels  d is playing  a do uble -dig it 
increase rate (+16%) in 2019. In 2019 there were 491 000 app rentices  in Franc e, a nd  368  000 n ew 
apprenticeship contracts were signed. This trend benefits all the regions with very high rates in some of them 
(+78.3% in French Guiana, +55.8% in Guadeloupe, +27.3% in Corsica and +23.8% in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpe s) 
and economic sectors (+3% in trades and crafts, + 13% in construction industry, + 11% in metal industry). 

Figure 12. Increase in apprenticeships across all EQF levels 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
Source : Ministry of Labour (2020). 

The apprentices split their learning time between the company and the apprenticeship training  cen tre. Th e 
apprenticeship training centre is freely chosen by the company and the apprentice. Most of the time is  s pent 
in the company. During the time at the apprenticeship training centre, the  ap prentice s are c ons idered  as  
employees of the company and are paid for their apprenticeship. 

Vocational education and training consist of two elements, which are relatively independent of one another: 

- 

- 

initial vocational education and training (IVET) for young people within a school c ontex t (fu ll -time 
education) or under an employment contract (apprenticeship); 
continuing vocational education and training (CVET) for young people who have left o r co mpleted  
initial education and for adults on the labour market. 

Among the factors that distinguish IVET and CVET are the difference between the certifier, th e s ou rces  of 
funding and even the objectives. IVET includes various levels of training from  lower s eco ndary up  to th e 
higher level. There are more than 600 vocational diplomas in France that are managed by the National Board 
of Education. They are classified from EQF Level 3 to EQF Level 5. 

Vocational qualifications are developed and awarded by: 

-  Ministries 
o 
o 
o 

the Ministry of National Education, Youth and Sport 
the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation 
the Ministry of Labour 

- 
- 

Professional unions 
Chamber of Trades and Crafts and Chamber of Commerce. 

Figure 13. French vocational education and training. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Work-based learning refers to knowledge and skills acquired through carrying out – and reflecting on – tasks 
in a vocational context, either at the workplace or in a VET institution. 

Source : Ce ntre Inffo (2019). 

In France, there are two different pathways for work-based learning, namely: 

- 

- 

full-time study in a vocational school with placements in a company (from 4 to 10 weeks, depending  
on the qualification level). There are public and private vocational schools, they both grant diploma s 
from the State; 
apprenticeship at an apprenticeship training centre (ATC). Most ATCs are private and their legal status 
is that of a non-profit organisation, but the National Board of Education created so me pu blic ATCs  
that are integrated into public training centres. 

In any case, the same diplomas are awarded at the end of the training. The only d ifferen ce is   thetraining  
method and the time spent at school and at the company. 

The recognition of the value of apprenticeships in France has increased over the years, currently b eing  se en 
as a way to gain work experience and excellence. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The apprenticeships programmes and curricula are set by the certifier, that can be: 

for the most part the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport 

- 
-  Ministry of Labour  
- 
- 
- 

Chamber of Trades and Crafts 
Chamber of Commerce 
professional unions. 

An apprenticeship is a very efficient way to enter the labour market with lasting effect: 70% of appre ntices  
have found a job 7 months after the apprenticeship contract ended, and 60% have a perm ane nt c ontract. 
Companies confirm that apprenticeships are a great opportunity (80% are satisfied with their apprentices and 
they hire a new one at the end of the previous contract) (Ministry of Labour, 2017). 

DIGITALISATION STRATEGY FOR VET AND APPRENTICESHIPS IN FRANCE 

The topic of digitalisation of education falls under the responsibility of the French Digital Plan fo r Ed ucation 
established in 2015. It is responsible for the implementation and deployment of the dig ital s ervices in  th e 
education sector. This is part of a bigger initiative by the French Government related to the dig italisation o f 
the public services in recognition of the need to keep up with the latest technological trends co ntribu ting to  
the economic development of the country. 

The digital strategy for the education sector (L´Ecole Numerique) was officially launched in 2015,  after a n 
extensive consultation carried out by the Ministry of Education in articulation with other ministries at it aimed  
at bringing schools into the digital age. Its implementation relies on a coordinated mobilisation and action  of 
different stakeholders (schools, teachers, apprentices, managers, ministries and  loc al,  regio nal and  oth er 
national authorities, universities, research centres, industry) to put in place the optimal conditions for efficient 
development and deployment of resources, including access to training . Th e ambition is  to  cre ate an e -
education eco-system to enable proper use of resources and the effective development of skills and services. 

Renewed in 2018, the strategy is organised around 5 main pillars, namely: 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

place school data at the heart of the ministry's digital strategy; 
teach digital in the 21st century; 
support and strengthen the professional development of teachers; 
develop apprentices' digital skills; 
create new links with the school's actors and partners. 

The strategy envisions the continued and renewed support to the establish ment o f dig ital (edu cation al) 
workplaces across the national territory, ensuring that:  

- 

- 

schools have the resources (equipment and materials) to provide digital se rvic es to  ex pan d and  
enrich the educational offer and to customise the support to apprentices; 
teachers have access to diversified educational resources that can be used on a daily basis, as we ll 
as  initial  and  continued  training  and  tools  allowing  them  to  monitor  their  apprentices  and 
communicate with families; 

-  apprentices with special needs, and in particular apprentices with disabilities, are o ffered  
customised solutions that will allow them to benefit from education and educational services in  th e 
exact same way as other apprentices. 

The French Government approved the deployment of 1 billion euros for the period of 2016-2019 to  s upp ort 
the different initiatives and project development related to the digitalisation of education. Since 2016, several 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
different initiatives and projects have been launched by the Ministry of Education. A very brief overview of the 
diversity landscape of these projects is shared as follows: 

●  equipping schools. Huge investment was made by natio nal,  lo cal and  reg io nal au thorities  to 
support schools with digital equipment and services (in divid ual m aterials for a p prentice s a nd 
teachers such as cabling, internet connections, tablets, digital workspaces, access to digital resources 
and training) including support to schools on how to use equipment and resources; 

●  digital platforms. Integrated set of digital services made availab le to th e e du catio nal  s ch ool 
community. It constitutes a unified entry point allowing users to access (according to their profile and 
level of authorisation) digital content. It is also a platform for exchange and collaboration b etween 
users  (from  the  same  school  or  within schools). This platform offers services such as digital 
textbooks, common workspaces and storage for apprentices and teachers, access to digital resources, 
collaborative tools, blogs, forum, virtual classroom, etc.; support to s cho ol manag ement  –  n otes , 
absences, timetables, agendas, etc.; and communication, messaging, staff and family inform ation,  
videoconferencing, etc. These digital workplaces can be accessed by apprentices, parents , te ach er s 
and administrative staff. This initiative is also related to one of the strategy g oals for s implifyin g 
administrative  formalities  and  facilitating  the  communication  with  the  broader  educational 
community; 

●  training resources for teachers and trainers. Several online platforms h ave b een  de ve lo ped 
with different purposes, such as providing digital training to teachers, managers, trainers on different 
areas; sharing resources that can be used on a daily basis; disseminating informa tio n o n e xisting  
practices and research carried out at national level on the topic of digitalis ation . Some  of th ese 
platforms are fully dedicated to the topic of inclusiveness. 

●  The Digital Competence Reference Framework (CRCN) – the digital skills reference framework 
applicable to all EQF levels, inspired by the European Framework (DigComp) and launched at the start 
of the 2019 school year. 

●  Data protection and safety – appointment in August 2018 of a data protection officer for 
the Ministry of National Education and for the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation  
to ensure compliance with the European guidelines and su ppo rt th e ed ucatio nal c om munity in  
understanding how personal data should be collected, processed and stored. In addition,   an e thic s 
committee on digital data was set up to advise on and support issues related to th e use of  
data collected and processed in the school context. In  th is c ontex t, training  targeting  s cho ol’s 
management and teachers related to the challenges of using digital data were also develo ped and  
part of the portfolio of online courses available to teachers on the different platforms. 

Specifically focused on the VET sector and acknowledging that, curre ntly, th e attractivenes s o f training  
centres largely depends on the ability to build a quality digital educational offer adapted to th e c hallenge s 
and needs of the labour market, a new digital space was c reate d within th e e xisting  ONISEP platform  
dedicated to the trends in terms of professional paths. In addition,  and to  u nde rstand th e c hanges  th at 
automation and digitalisation will have in current professions, different research studies were conducted an d 
will be made available to training centres in the e-Fran projects platform. 

As mentioned earlier, the approach to all of the above initiatives was to ensure the engageme nt o f all key 
educational stakeholders, of which local authorities. The establishment of a p ub lic  e -edu catio nal s ervice 
required the review of the existing governance approach, ensuring concertation and sharing between all levels 
of public authorities. 

To achieve this, a ‘committee of digital partners for education’ was set up aiming at s truc turing  a nd 
systematising exchanges between all representatives, allowing them to be involved  in th e d efin ition  of a 
global  and  shared  strategy  to  deploy digital education  within the territories. The partners' committee 
contributes to the national digital education strategy at several levels: calls for p rojec ts,  repo si tories  an d 
guides, forward thinking. 

Annex 2. Dominant economic sectors in France 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Gross domestic product (GDP) structure 

Figure 14. Distribution of economic sectors in France  

Source : SPIRIT Slovenija (2020). 

Agricultural sector 

France  is  the  largest  agricultural power in the European Union and accounts for a quarter of its total 
agricultural production. Nevertheless, the agricultural sector accounts for only 2% of the country' s GDP and  
employs 2.6% of the population. The French agricultural sector re ceives  sig nificant s ub sidies  from th e 
European Union. The main agricultural products are wheat, corn, meat and wine. 

Service sector 

The service sector accounts for 79% of the GDP and employs 77.3% of the workforce. Th e m os t important 
segment in the service sector is tourism. 

Industrial sector 

The industrial sector accounts for 19% of the GDP and employs 20.1% of the active workforc e. Th e Fre nch  
manufacturing industry is very diverse. The country is currently in the process of de-industrialisation,  which  
has led to the outsourcing of many activities. The key industries in France are telecommunications, electronics 
and the automotive, aerospace and military industries. In 2019, industrial production grew by 0.4%. For 2020, 
analysts predict a decline in industrial production by -13%, followe d b y 9.2% g ro wth  in 2021 and  2.3%  
growth in industrial production in 2022. 

Source: SPIRIT Slovenija. 2020. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex  3.  Guidelines  and  templates  for  focus  groups,  semi-structured  interviews 
and a list of challenges 

Focus group guidelines 

Objective 

The main objective of the focus groups is to spend some time with each of the two key target groups for th e 
SELFIE WBL project – learners and trainers – and discuss the ‘how’ and ‘why’ behind the main question s and 
answers in the survey.  

We want participants to elaborate further on the key questions in the survey (SELFIE  WBL to ol  p ilot) an d 
explore participants’ views about the tool, the main challenges th ey fac ed in  u sing  th e SE LFIE to ol and  
whether it helps them assess where they stand with regards to learning in the digital age. We want th em to  
speak freely and not be swayed by pre-conceived notions they may have about what are deemed d es irable  
answers as there are no wrong answers. 

Moderators 

The focus group for teaching staff should be moderated by a peer trainer and the focus grou p for le arne rs 
should be moderated by a tutor to create a comfortable an d tru st in g atmos phere  which e nables  ope n 
reflection and discussion. We advise that a note-taker is also assigned to each moderato r to e nable fluen t 
moderation. 

Participants 

Each VET school organises two focus groups: one exclusively with trainers as participants and the oth er with 
learners. Diversity in terms of a school’s size shall be taken into account. The only pre-condition to becom e a 
participant is that they have taken part in the SELFIE WBL pilot survey. 

The optimal size of each focus group is 10 participants which allows all members to participate, and enab les 
the moderator, i.e. institutional coordinator or learners’ tutor, time to be able to tease out the nuances behind  
participants’ answers. 

For online focus groups where plenary discussions/interactions are less straightforward,  a s lig htly s maller 
number of participants (minimum of 5) is acceptable to ensure there is an opportunity for all partic ipan ts to  
have their say, remain engaged and reduce strain on the moderator. 

Duration 

Typically,  a  focus  group  lasts  between  60 –90  minutes.  This  gives  enough  time  to  allow  for deeper 
conversations to take place but does not run for too long, which can lead to participant fatigue. In the case o f 
online focus groups, it is advisable to keep the session time to a maximum of 60 minutes  as  it is  ju st th at 
little bit harder for people to stay focused. 

Moderation 

The focus group will need to be well moderated in order to guide the disc us sion,  u sing  a c omb ination  of 
questions and further probes. The participants should be encouraged to interact with each other as well as  to 
generate deeper insights about the different sub-topics. With an online focus group, it is probably not possible 
to get the same type of feedback or interplay between participants as with face-to-face focus groups, so th e 
role of the moderator is even more important here. The moderator will provide an overview of the project and 
its purpose, ask questions, follow up with more questions and keep the conversation on track and on sub ject. 

Make sure to keep it relaxed, that participants are at ease and feel comfortabl e and s afe in  op ening  an d 
sharing their thoughts. Reminding participants that there are no right or wrong  answers  is a g ood  way to  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
make sure they are not self-censoring. Make sure that the moderator also takes enough time for introductions 
and for participants to become comfortable in the session to ensure individuals engage with one another.  

Normally, all discussions can take place in a normal plenary form, but if the moderator feels the need for it,  
they might use small exercises like brainstorm activities in which the participants write down ideas on (virtual) 
post-it notes, plotting these post-it notes in a matrix or map to prioritise items, or s imply keeping  track of 
inspiration and solutions that come up during the session in a visual way. 

Topics/questions 

Based on experience with similar focus groups, we should have time to address three to four different to pic s 
with open-ended questions, follow-up questions and, in particular, discussion between participants. The topic s 
that we would suggest are as follows. 

The strengths and weaknesses of the SELFIE WBL tool 

Questions to the participants can include: 

− 

− 

what works particularly well in the SELFIE tool? What does not? 

what would you see as the most important challenges for optimal functioning of SELFIE tool? 

Discussion should be encouraged comparing different situations, shared experiences regarding strengths and  
weaknesses, concrete tips & tricks on how to make improvements.  

Discussion on relevant survey results 

Participants shall reflect and discuss their interpretation and in-depth understanding of the re levant s urvey 
results, for example going into different elements of the SELFIE tool (e.g. Le ad ersh ip , In frastru ctu re and 
Equipment, Teaching and Learning, etc.).  

Further follow-up questions can be asked about the reasons why they took part in the SELFIE s urvey if it is  
optimal or more out of necessity and if there are intentions to become either more o r les s in vo lved in  th e 
SELFIE tool in the future. 

Areas where further support is needed/useful 

Questions to the participants can include: 

− 

− 

what are the areas of the SELFIE tool where more information, knowledge, guidanc e, training , e tc. 
would be welcomed by you and/or colleagues in similar roles? 

what potential changes do you anticipate based on the survey results? 

Again, discussion should be encouraged comparing different situations, experiences and visions.  

Equipment/facilities 

Chairs set up in a circular pattern around a table is the most ideal setup for a focus group as you want all the 
participants to be able to see each other easily. In case of an online focus group, a Zoom room can be s et u p 
by the Research Team (contact us19 at least 1 week prior to the event providing an exact date and timeslot). 

The amount of information that is shared in focus groups is not easily captured by a note -taker, as there are 
numerous side conversations that occur. The best way to scrutinise data at a later date is to audio and video  
record the focus group sessions. Please do not forget to get consent from the participants to be recorded an d 
let them know that their responses will remain anonymous and no names will be mentioned in the report. 

19 Re search Team contacts: miha.zimšek@skupnost-vss.si and/or alicia.miklavcic@skupnost-vss.si. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
Focus group report 

Date 

Country 

School 

Moderator(s) 

Participant 

Name and surname 

Trainer/Learners 

Subject/Programme 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Discussion topics 

-  Discussion 1 – Icebreakers 
-  Discussion 2 – The strengths and weaknesses of the SELFIE WBL tool 
-  Discussion 3 – Discussion on relevant survey results 
-  Discussion 4 – Areas where further support is needed/useful 

Topic 1 – Icebreakers 

Suggestions for discussion 

Questions to the participants can include: 

-  what were your expectations of Selfie WBL?  
do you think your expectations were met? 
- 

Common responses / general consensus 

Areas of disagreement / lack of consensus 

Other notes & observations 

Topic 2 – The strengths and weaknesses of the SELFIE WBL tool 

Suggestions for discussion 

Questions to the participants can include: 

−  what works particularly well in the SELFIE WBL tool? What does not? 
−  what would you see as most the important challenges for an optimal functioning SELFIE WBL tool? 

Discussion should be encouraged comparing different situations, shared experiences regarding stre ngth s 
and weaknesses, concrete tips & tricks on how to make improvements.  

Common responses / general consensus 

Areas of disagreement / lack of consensus 

Other notes & observations 

Topic 3 – Discussion on relevant survey results 

Suggestions for discussion 

Participants shall reflect and discuss their interpretation and in-depth understanding of the relevant survey 
results, for example going into different elements of the SELFIE WBL tool (e.g. Leadership, Infras truc ture 
and Equipment, Teaching and Learning etc.). 

Further follow-up questions can be asked about the reasons why they took part in the SELFIE survey, if it 
is optimal or more out of necessity and if there are intentions to become either more or le ss  involved  in 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the SELFIE WBL tool in the future. 

Common responses / general consensus 

Areas of disagreement / lack of consensus 

Other notes & observations 

Topic 4 – Areas where further support is needed/useful 

Suggestions for discussion 

Questions to the participants can include: 

−  what are the areas of the SELFIE WBL tool where more information, knowledge, guidance, training 

etc. would be welcomed by you and/or colleagues in similar roles? 
−  what potential changes do you anticipate based on the survey results? 
−  what kind of technology are you using when you are working in the company? (state specific 

examples about the use of technology in company and in school) 

−  did you start with digital learning because of COVID-19? 
−  what problems did you face because of COVID-19? 
−  did you include blended learning?  
−  did you perform apprenticeships during lockdown (remote mode / distance mode)? 
−  will you use SELFIE WBL in the future? 

Again, discussion should be encouraged comparing different situations, experiences and visions.  

Common responses / general consensus 

Areas of disagreement / lack of consensus 

Other notes & observations 

Additional topics/discussions/ideas/observations  

(Only if the content does not fall into any previous categories/topics above) 

Notes & observations 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In-depth semi-structured interview guidelines 

Objective 

In-depth,  semi-structured  interviews  intend  to  elaborate  further  on  the  report  results  and  foreseen 
improvements based on those results. The interviews are verbal interchanges where the national coordinator 
attempts to elicit information from 4 in-company trainers and decision-making staff in a VET school by asking 
questions. 

Even though the national coordinator prepares a list of predetermined questions, in-depth, s emi-stru ctured  
interviews usually unfold in a conversational manner, offering participants the chance to pursue is su es th ey 
feel are important. In-depth interviews are conducted in order to gain a thorough in sigh t into a p articu lar 
issue, in our case future improvements. 

Interviews are conducted individually and focused on each organisation separately.  

Interviewer 

The interview shall be carried out by a national coordinator. People will talk more when they feel more relaxed 
and at ease, so the questions are not asked in any given order, rather they are asked in a way that d evelops  
the conversation.  

Interviewee 

In-depth semi-structured interviews are carried out with 4 in-company trainers and decision-making staff in a 
VET school (4 pedagogical managers/directors, 4 sector heads/managers, 4 board heads/directors). Th e p re-
condition to become an interviewee is that they have taken part in the SELFIE WBL pilot survey. 

Duration 

Typically, a semi-structured interview lasts between 30–60 minutes. This gives e nou gh  time to  allow fo r 
deeper conversations to take place but does not run too long which can lead to interviewee fatigue. 

Before the interview 

When recruiting interviewees, indicate that you would be happy to conduct the interview at a time and p lac e 
which best suits them. Do not forget to remind the interviewee of the time, date and location of the interview 
(online). 

Before the interview commences, the national coordinator should ask the interviewee if they cons ent to  th e 
interview being digitally recorded. Informed consent can be confirmed by the interviewer reading the cons ent 
form and the interviewee verbally indicating that they agree. 

During the interview 

You need to listen carefully to what the interviewee is saying, for their response might not actu ally answer 
the question. Alternatively, the interviewee may give you a vague response, to which you might h ave to  ask 
for clarification or further explanation. The most important thing to remember when conducting an in terview 
is not to rush through the questioning. Additionally, do not interrupt participants when they are in the midd le 
of a sentence or when they stop in order to collect their thoughts. ‘Could you tell me’ is always a good way o f 
starting an interview or asking an interviewee to explain a particular point of view. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Do not disclose the details or discuss the comments of another interviewee during an interview. This not on ly 
breaches past interviewees’ confidentially, but the present interviewee will doubt your ability to maintain their 
confidence. This is not to say that you cannot talk in generalities (e.g. if an interviewee asks you   ‘wh at h ave 
other people said’ in relation to particular point, you could say ‘well, a lot of interviewees have indicated that’ 
etc.). 

Have your notepad and pen ready because sometimes interviewees can say the most insightful thin gs  when 
the digital recorder has been switched off. 

After the interview 

It is extremely important that you write the report immediately after the interview, whilst you can still vividly 
remember all of the aspects of the interview. The recorded audio of the interview should help you to prep are 
an accurate report. Use your experience from each interview to improve the next interview.   

Topics/questions 

A semi-structured in-depth interview is usually one in which the interviewer has a checklist of topic a reas  or 
questions. The topics that we would suggest are the following. 

- 

Icebreakers 

Questions to the interviewees can include: 

−  what were your expectations of the participation in the survey?  
−  do you think your expectations were met? 
discussion on relevant survey results. 
- 

Interviewees shall reflect and discuss their interpretation and in-depth understanding of the relevan t su rvey 
results, for example, going into different elements of the SELFIE tool (e.g. Le aders hip, In fras truc ture and  
Equipment, Teaching and Learning, etc.).  

Further follow-up questions can be asked about the reasons why they took part in the SELFIE s urvey if it is  
optimal or more out of necessity and if there are intentions to become either more o r les s in vo lved in  th e 
SELFIE tool in the future and/or use its results. 

- 

Future improvements 

After interviewees discuss pilot results, they should consider implementing proposed solutio ns. Th is  means  
that they (plan to) improve the process/WBL and continue to look for ways to make it even b etter for th eir 
organisation. Questions to the interviewees can include: 

−  what would be your potential reactions based on the survey results? 
− 
−  how will you prioritise your reactions to the results? Will resources (e.g. financial capacity, etc.) play a 

is there an action plan to support the implementation of the proposed solutions?  

role in the prioritisation process? 

Equipment/facilities 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In case of an online interview, a Zoom room can be set up by the Research Team (contact us 20 at least 1 week 
prior to the event providing exact date and timeslot). 

20 Re search Team contacts: miha.zimšek@skupnost-vss.si and/or alicia.miklavcic@skupnost-vss.si. 

62 

 
 
 
                                     
In-depth semi-structured interviews report 

Date 

Country 

School 

Facilitator(s) 

Interviewee  

Discussion Topics 

-  Discussion 1 – Icebreakers 
-  Discussion 2 – Discussion on relevant survey results 
-  Discussion 3 – Areas where further support is needed/useful 

Topic 1 – Icebreakers 

Suggestions for discussion 

Questions to the interviewees can include: 

- 
- 

what were your expectations of the participation in the survey?  
do you think your expectations were met? 

Common responses / general consensus 

Areas of disagreement / lack of consensus 

Notes & observations 

Topic 2 – Discussion on relevant survey results 

Suggestions for discussion 

−  What kind of technology are you using when you are working in the company? (state specific 

examples about the use of technology in company and in school) 

−  Did you start with digital learning because of COVID-19? 
−  What problems did you face because of COVID-19? 
−  Did you include blended learning?  
−  Did you perform apprenticeships during the lockdown (remote mode / distance mode)? 
−  Will you use SELFIE WBL in the future? 
−  What are the things you liked about SELFIE WBL? What could be improved?  

Interviewees shall reflect and discuss their interpretation and in-depth u n ders tand ing o f th e re levan t 
survey results, for example going into different elements of the SELFIE tool (e.g. Leadership, Infrastructure 
and Equipment, Teaching and Learning, etc.).  

Further follow-up questions can be asked about the reasons why they took part in the SELFIE survey, if it 
is optimal or more out of necessity and if there are intentions to become either more or le ss  involved  in 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the SELFIE tool in the future and/or use its results. 

Common responses / general consensus 

Areas of disagreement / lack of consensus 

Notes & observations 

Topic 3 – Future improvements 

Suggestions for discussion 

Questions to the participants can include: 

what would be your potential reactions based on the survey results? 

is there an action plan to support the implementation of the proposed solutions? 

− 
−  how will you prioritise your reactions to the results? Will resources (e.g., financial, capacity, etc.) 

play a role in prioritisation process? 

Again, discussion should be encouraged comparing different situations, experiences and visions. 

Common responses / general consensus 

Areas of disagreement / lack of consensus 

Notes & observations 

Additional topics/discussions/ideas/observations  

(Fill in only if the content does not fall into any previous categories/topics above) 

Notes & observations 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
List of challenges 

The following tables are to be filled in by the corresponding participants in the pilot process from 
the beginning of their engagement until 15 November 2020. They will serve the research t eam in 
identifying advantages of and positive reflections on SELFIE WBL but, foremost, identify challenges 
and possibilities of improvement. 

School Coordinator/Leadership 

Country: 

School: 

Process 

Advantages 

Challenges 

School registration process 

Supporting materials and info 

Input of school data 

Customising survey 

Motivating participants 

- 
- 
- 
- 

Learners 
Trainers 
Leaders 
Companies 

Generating links 

Survey content 

Survey technical issues 

Monitoring participation 

- 
- 
- 
- 

Learners 
Trainers 
Leaders 
Companies 

SELFIE WBL Report 

-  Usefulness 
- 

Features lacking 

Reaching  objectives  (40%   of 
learners and 40% of trainers) 

Certificates / Digital badges 

- 
- 

Participants 
School 

Findings (unexpected issues) 

Lessons learnt 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
How COVID-19 was affected /experienced with blended learning, 
description of the profile of school, remote teaching and learning 

COVID-19 impact 

Other 

Add rows, as necessary. 

Source: Skupnost VSŠ, 2020. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4. Analysis of open question ‘Suggestions for improvement’ and examples of 
questions 

Thematic analyses, defined as a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data 
(Braun and Clarke, 2006) was used for analysing an open-ended question on ‘Suggestions for impro vement’ 
provided by learners. 

Description of the process 

We read all answers from learners to open question: ‘How can we improve SELFIE further? Share yo ur id eas  
and  suggestions  with  us.’  We  have  become  familiarised  with  the  data  and  prepared  a  list  of  key 
issues/themes and codes. Text answers of learners was tabulated, and each answer was classified in th emes 
(code). Then we counted the number of answers with the same code and prepared the Table 3. 

Categories/themes 

S – about SELFIE TOOL (satisfaction, critics, missing themes, items to add) 

Q – opinion about questions (length, repeating, complicated) 

A – opinion about answers (number of answers, option of others…) 

L – language (terminology, understandable, more languages) 

D – devices – problems with using different devices for SELFIE 

T – timing of involvement 

I – design 

W – internet connection 

DT – digital technology 

P – praises  

0 – nothing to change 

K – critics 

N - prefer not to answer 

C – linked with COVID-19 

X – not classified. 

Cod
e 

S 

Table 3. Thematic analysis of open question responded to by learners. 

Key words and answers summary 

Frequenc
y 

SELFIE (too many questions, make less questions/issues, too long, provide short tutorial for 
learners, adapt to professions, add explanation and examples) 

71 

Provide training before use 

Q  Questions (improve the question sentences / the issue, too lo ng , c larify,  s implify, s o me 
unnecessary, too similar, better connection to school profile, expand the questions, add open 
questions, open-ended questions, more detailed, p recise,  focu sed  qu estio ns,  easily to 
understand),  

112 

Add: ‘about availability of our trainers’, ‘if we were following the course / exercises online for 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
our learning’ 

A 

Answers – add more answers, adoption other, option to write o wn  answer,  ad d b ox  fo r 
comment, even scale, add more options about profession, not 5-level scale, n ot n umb ers,  
add 0 

L 

Language (vocabulary, do not write in English) 

D 

Devices (we do not see all the proposals on the mobile version in the d rop- d own me nus ; 
transform website for mobile application, adopt for NUMA) 

T 

Timing  

I 

Design (new layout, make course in video, better brightness, add pictures, improve visual) 

W  Wi-Fi (bad) 

Dt  Digital technology (we use little DT in school/practice, equip the school, digital training , b ad  

quality of computer) 

P 

0 

K 

Praises (good, very good, perfect, main there is, well asked, efficient, fair) 

No ideas, no proposals/suggestions, nothing, nothing to add, I don't know, nothing to change  

Critiques (useless, boring, stop it) 

N 

Do not wish to answer 

C 

Linked to COVID-19 

X 

Not sorted – not understandable, poor translation 

Source : Own analysis. 

Examples of questions considered repetitive 

In our school, I have access to the internet for learning 

In my company, I have access to the internet for learning 

In our school, there are computers or tablets for me to use 

In my company, I can learn about operating the relevant (digital) equipment 

In our school, I use technology in different subjects  

In our school, we use technology for projects that combine different subjects 

16 

2 

7 

0 

10 

2 

11 

13 

90 

12 

2 

0 

61 

Examples of questions considered too long and complex 

In our school, I have access to a database of companies providing traineeships, appren tic esh ip s and  oth er 
opportunities  

In our school, trainers give us different activities to do using technology that suits our needs 

In our company, in-company trainers use digital technologies to tailor the training to our individual needs 

In our company, I gain experience in using digital technologies, which makes me more prepared for my future  
profession 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
In our school, we talk with trainers about the advantages and disadvantages of using technology for learning 

In our school, I use technology to understand my strengths and weaknesses as a learner 

In our company, I use digital technology to understand my strengths and weaknesses as a learner 

In our school, I use technology to keep a record of what I have learned relevant to my field of study 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5. School report ‘Overview of areas’ 

Figure 15. Overview of areas snapshot from an anonymous SELFIE WBL school report  

70 

 
 
 
 
71 

 
 
 
 
Source : Anonymous SELFIE WBL school re p ort (2020). 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6. Figures and tables with results of SELFIE WBL piloting quantitative data 

Figure 16 displays average values per respondent group for all variables. The mean on a 5-point Likert s cale 
(1-5) was the highest for school leaders (M=3.3), and equal for trainers, learners and in -c ompany trainers  
(M=3.1). 

Figure 16. Mean score for all variables in main areas per respondent group 

Source : European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special e xtraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators.  

Table 4 displays the percentage of answers concerning the overall satisfaction with SELFIE WBL on 10-level 
scale  per  respondent  group  and  means  for  satisfaction  with  SELFIE  WBL  per respondent group. The 
percentage of scores above the middle of the scale is the highest in the group of school leaders (90.6%) a n d 
the lowest in the group of learners (56.4%). The highest satisfaction is in the group of school leaders (M=7.5) 
and the lowest, still above the middle of the 10-level scale, is in the group of learners (M=5.8). 

Table 4. Overall satisfaction with SELFIE – percentage distribution per respondent group 

Overall 
satisfaction with 
SELFIE 

School 
leaders 

N=53 

Trainers 

Learners 

N=252 

N=2 939 

In-company 
trainers 
N=16 

Total 

N=3 260 

1  

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

9.4% 

11.3% 

2.0% 

4.0% 

4.0% 

4.0% 

18.7% 

15.5% 

73 

8.6% 

2.9% 

5.5% 

7.1% 

19.6% 

12.0% 

6.3% 

0.0% 

12.5% 

6.3% 

6.3% 

12.5% 

7.9% 

2.9% 

5.3% 

6.7% 

19.3% 

12.2% 

 
 
 
 
 
7 

8 

9 

10 

Summary 1-5 

24.5% 

23.0% 

19.5% 

18.8% 

19.9% 

34.0% 

21.0% 

15.2% 

6.3% 

15.9% 

17.0% 

3.8% 

9.4% 

4.8% 

3.2% 

3.6% 

6.1% 

25.0% 

6.3% 

32.7% 

43.7% 

31.4% 

Summary 6-10 

90.6% 

67.5% 

56.4% 

68.9% 

Mean 

7.5 

6.2 

5.8 

6.4 

Source : European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special e xtraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators.  

4.0% 

5.8% 

42.1% 

57.8% 

5.9 

Learners and in-company trainers were asked about their opinion of the questions included in the SELFIE WBL 
self-reflection exercise (Table 5). They rated the relevance of questions on a 10 -level scale. Learners provided 
50.8% of responses in the range of 6-10 (M=5.4), and in-company trainers in 6 2.5% o f re sp ons es in  th e 
range of 6-10 (M=6.1). 

Table 5. Relevance of questions per respondent group 

Score 

Learners N=2 578 

In-company trainers N=16 

Frequency 

Percent 

Frequency 

Percent 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

260 

147 

179 

243 

440 

363 

401 

325 

91 

129 

Summary 1-5 

Summary 6-10 

Mean 

1 269 

1 309 

5.4 

10.1% 

5.7% 

6.9% 

9.4% 

17.1% 

14.1% 

15.6% 

12.6% 

3.5% 

5.0% 

49.2% 

50.8% 

0 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

4 

3 

0 

1 

6 

10 

6.1 

0.0% 

6.3% 

6.3% 

12.5% 

12.5% 

12.5% 

25.0% 

18.8% 

0.0% 

6.3% 

37.5% 

62.5% 

Source : European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special e xtraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators.   

74 

 
 
 
 
Table 6 presents the percentage of answers concerning the likelihood of further recommendation  of SELFIE  
WBL per respondent group on a 5-level scale. The highest percentage of positive responses (‘Very likely’ and  
‘Extremely likely’) is in the group of school leaders (84.9%). In the group of trainers,  th e sh are o f po sitive  
responses is 28.3% and in the group of in-company trainers it is 29.4%. There are 23.5% negative respons es 
of ‘Not at all likely’ and ‘Not very likely’) in the group of in-company trainers. The percentage of answer ‘Prefer 
not to say’ is the highest among in-company trainers (14.9%). 

The average likelihood for further recommendation of the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise is th e h ighes t 
for school leaders (M=4.1) and the lowest for trainers (M=2.9). 

Table 6. Likelihood of further recommendation of SELFIE tool – percentage per respondent group. 

Recommending SELFIE 

School 
leaders 

N=53 

Trainers 

N=262 

In-company 
trainers N=17 

Total 

N=332 

Not at all likely 

Not very likely  

Somewhat likely  

Very likely  

Extremely likely  

Prefer not to say 

Mean 

0.0% 

3.8% 

7.5% 

49.1% 

35.8% 

3.8% 

4.1 

3.4% 

18.7% 

17.9% 

31.7% 

13.4% 

14.9% 

2.9 

5.9% 

17.6% 

11.8% 

35.3% 

17.6% 

11.8% 

3.1 

3.0% 

16.3% 

16.0% 

34.6% 

17.2% 

13.0% 

3.1 

Source : European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special e xtraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators.  

75 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 17 displays the likelihood of further recommendation of the SELFIE  W BL self -reflec tion e xerc is e. 
Means in all groups are above the middle of the 5-level scale. School leaders have the highest mean (3.7) and 
trainers the lowest (3.2). 

Figure 17. Mean likelihood of further recommending SELFIE 

Source : European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special e xtraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators.  

Figure 18 displays shares of factors which negatively affect digital technology use in schools and companies . 
There is disagreement between respondent groups. Sc hoo l lead ers c h ose  ‘Lo w d igital c om petenc e of 
teachers’most frequently (21.1%). Trainers think that ‘Insufficient digital equipment’ is th e m ain affec tive 
factor (18.4%) and in-company trainers chose ‘Lack of time for trainers’ most frequently (30.8%). 

Figure 18. Negative factors for technology use in school and company – percentage per respondent group 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
Source : European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special e xtraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. 

Figure 19 displays shares of factors which negatively affect remote teaching, learning or training. There was 
agreement between school leaders and trainers that the most affective factor is ‘Limited student ac cess  to  
digital devices’. 

Figure 19. Negative factors for technology use for remote teaching, learning and training – percentage per respondent 
group 

77 

 
 
 
Source : European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special e xtraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators.  

78 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 20 displays shares of factors which negatively affect remote teaching, learning  or train in g. Res ults  
show that school leaders and trainers share the opinion that the most influential positive facto r for re mote 
teaching and learning and training with digital technology is ‘Teachers collaborate within the school/compa ny 
on digital technology use and creation of resources’ (school leaders 16.1% , trainers  17.5%). In -com pan y 
trainers chose ‘Trainers’ participation in professional networks’ most frequently (17.1%). 

Figure 20. P ositive factors for remote teaching, learning and training - percentage per respondent group 

Source : European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special e xtraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators.  

79 

 
 
 
80 

 
 
 
 
Annex 7. Overview of SELFIE WBL results in France 

The outcomes of the pilot are not representative of the national education and training systems. They provide 
useful insights for schools and companies participating in the pilot and, overall, for schoo ls and  com pan ies  
providing similar WBL programmes and belonging to the specific economic sectors covered by the pilot. 

Details on all questions can be found in the questionnaires on the SELFIE tool website. 

User participation 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
Note: The six participation categories were answered by school coordinators during school reg istration.  Th e 
categories for ‘disadvantaged homes’ and ‘different language’ are: less than 10%, 10-25%, 26-50% , above 
50%, I don’t know. ‘Didn’t answer’ is also possible, as the questions were optional.  

82 

 
 
SELFIE WBL - Main areas 

Note: positive responses = answers on 4 or 5 on a five-point scale 

83 

84 

 
 
 
85 

 
 
 
SELFIE WBL – Additional areas 

Note: Positive responses = answers on 4 or 5 on a five-point scale 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
87 

 
 
 
 
 
88 

 
 
 
89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
90 

 
 
 
 
 
91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Satisfaction 

Note: Satisfaction with SELFIE WBL, on a scale from 1 to 10. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
Likelihood of recommending SELFIE  

Note: On a scale from 1 to .5 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 8. Country fiche 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 9. List of tools similar to SELFIE and other tools used in WBL 

The goal was to map out existing self-reflection tools and other existing  d ig ital to ols in  th e c ountry an d 
schools used in WBL contexts. This mapping and listing shall include official and  available web sites  from 
governmental institutions responsible for overseeing WBL in the country and  with d ifferent s takeh olders  
engaged in the pilot. 

Name of WBL tool 

Link 

Aim 

Advantages 

SELFIE WBL 

https://ec.europa.eu/educ
ation/schools-go-
digital_en 

SELFIE is a free, o nlin e 
tool  to  help  schools 
assess  how  they  use 
digital technologies  fo r 
innovative and effective 
learning. 

SELFIE  allows  a school 
to  monitor its progress 
over time and can  he lp  
start  a  dialogue  within 
the school on pote ntial 
areas for improvement.  

PIX 

https://pix.fr/ 

and 

PIX  is the online public 
service  for  assessing, 
and 
developing 
certifying  digital  skills 
digital 
and 
basic 
knowledge 
is 
included  in  the  French 
Digital 
Competence 
Reference  Framework 
de 
(CRCN= 
référence 
des 
compétences 
numériques). 

Cadre 

tool 

The 
supports 
assessment in 5 are as , 
including  16 skills at 6 
levels. Areas covered –  
information  and  data, 
communication 
and 
collaboration,  content 
creation, protection an d 
security, 
digital 
environment. 

96 

GETTING  IN TOUCH  WITH  THE EU 

In person 

All  ove r the  European Union there are hundreds of Europe Dire ct information ce ntres. You can find the address of the ce ntre 
ne arest you at: http s://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europ e Dire ct is a service that answers your questions about the  European Union. You can contact this service :  

- by fre e p hone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (ce rtain operators may charge for the se calls),

- at the  following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by e le ctronic mail via: http s://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

FINDING  INFORMATION  ABOUT  THE  EU 

Online 

Information about the  European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available  on the Europa website at: 
http s://europa.eu/european-union/index_en  

EU publications 
You can download or order free and p rice d EU publications from EU Bookshop at: http s://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multip le  cop ies of fre e publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information ce ntre (see 
http s://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

K
J
-
N
A
-
3
0
9
3
3
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10 .2760/424070 

IS BN 9 78-92-76-45988-0