Context of the evaluation. The first EU developments in the field of sport took place in the late 90‟s (e.g. the recognition of non-economic aspects of sport, setting up the sport unit). The specific nature of sport and its important role were first formally recognised in the “Nice Declaration” (2000). The Declaration required that EU policies and decisions should take account of the specific characteristics of sport and be sport-friendly. The 2004 European Year of Education through Sport gave an impetus to enhance the role of sport in education and training. Around 200 projects relating to sport were co-financed by the Commission and accompanied by a communication campaign. Also in 2004, specific provisions on sport were included in the draft Constitutional Treaty and EU Sport Ministers adopted a Rolling Agenda for Sport. The Agenda defined priority themes for discussions on sport among the Member States and the Commission. It was not until 2007 that there was a comprehensive vision for sport in the EU. For the first time, the Commission presented a complete picture on the relationships between the EU and sport in a high-profile policy document. The White Paper on Sport (2007) identified three dimensions of sport (social, economic and organisational) that should be taken into account when developing the EU‟s approach. The accompanying Action Plan (“Xxxxxx xx Xxxxxxxxx”) suggested a number of actions to be implemented at EU level.. Following the White Paper and Action Plan, in 2008 the European Parliament adopted a resolution welcoming the vision presented by the Commission and requesting a special budget line for Preparatory Actions in the field of sport.
Context of the evaluation. The dual higher education model is based on the recognition that the company is a special learning space where new knowledge is generated. Therefore, all concepts originate from the same root, the need to bring academia and business together and to integrate these two worlds. According to Xxxx (1998), it is the interaction of a priori two contradictory types of logic: the logic of transmission of knowledge from the university and the logic of production of the company. The integration of these two logics cannot be done by simple juxtaposition of periods of dominance. In this respect, dual education is not a simple model; it requires the construction of a systematic suitable relationship between the higher education institution and the company. It is not merely alternating between theory and practice, it involves building a system in which the relationships are bidirectional. Dual education is an original model for professionalization. "The relationship between knowledge and competence is not a simple cause and effect relation, it depends on the commitment of the person in action. It is through a confrontation with the world as it is that the individual builds its skills, mobilizing its personality, its knowledge in use and the capabilities of formalization. Therefore, activity and competition are inseparable and articulation of various educational spaces of the school and the world of work is necessary" (Malglaive, 1993: 44). Given the pedagogical and educational dimension, in dual education a series of relationships between the actors involved in the training are established. In these relationships between actors double tutelage arises. Indeed, the student is accompanied throughout its training path by both the company and higher education institution, in particular by company and academic tutors. Double mentoring appears to ensure and regulate the student ́s progress. In this regard, the company tutor plays a key role in the workplace for its ability to organize the learning and define the objectives; the academic tutor is in charge of relations with the tutor of the company to adjust the training process of the student. Success lies in being able to integrate and combine the different learning from the higher education institution and company. Since there are at least two realities involved nobody except the student has a complete overview. Thus, the student becomes a process owner, responsible for the “integration” part of the learning process. Part of th...
