Journeypersons are not well prepared for roles as trainers or mentors.

Many employers, labour representatives and some government representatives stressed the important role played by journeypersons in ensuring the quality of on-the-job training for apprentices. One labour spokesperson described mentorship as a means of transferring “head-tohand” experience, which affects the quality of apprentices’ work and their overall value to employers ().

Journeypersons, however, are not well prepared for their role as trainers or mentors (CSLS, 1997; CARS, 1999). In most cases, journeypersons receive no additional pay or recognition when they provide training, which affects the priority they place on this activity ().

Journeypersons may not be sufficiently aware of their roles and responsibilities. While they may be well versed in providing feedback within the context of normal production activities, they are less comfortable with the evaluation process embodied in apprenticeship logbooks. They may also have difficulty dealing with apprentices’ values, habits, demands and mindsets (Balleux, 1997; ).

Employer respondents stressed the importance of finding ways to improve this aspect of journey-persons’ roles, such as courses to achieve certification as trainers (Nova Scotia Labour Market Development Secretariat, 1999; ). One informant suggested introducing financial incentives to journeypersons to encourage them to develop these instruction skills ().

Technical curricula, equipment and instructors’ knowledge may be outdated, reducing the relevance and usefulness of apprenticeship training.

Employers and labour representatives in several sectors pointed out that technological and other types of changes quickly alter the skills required within trades. These changes have implications on the content and relevance of technical training, as well as formal skills required in the trades. One study noted a five- to ten-year lag between the emergence of a new skill and the time apprentices become trained in this skill (O’Grady, 1997).

There was a sense among some respondents, including those in automotive service, manufacturing, baking and hairstylist, that the technical content of training curriculum and the currency of equipment used in training often lag changes in industry training requirements to the point where this content and equipment may become out of date (Even et al, 2002; Smith, 2003; ). Instructors’ knowledge of current styles and practices may face a similar lag as a result of a lack of professional development activity or opportunity. Some labour representatives also expressed the concern that some colleges under-invest in the equipment required to keep curricula current.

Along the same lines, there is a perception that instructors tend to teach courses in a traditional fashion (within a given time frame rather than using a modularized or competency-based approach). A heavy reliance on written testing was also criticized in the context of some provincial apprenticeship systems (Robertson, 2002). A reliance on tradespersons to deliver on-the-job technical training tends to produce instruction modelled on their training.

These barriers may be tied to a fundamental lack of coordination among workplace-training stakeholders and between workplace and in-class training stakeholders (). This absence of coordination often results in improper alignment between what is taught in workplaces and skills learned in classrooms (), and difficulty in adopting a uniform accreditation program.