F UNDAMENTALS OF WORK - BASED LEARNING

The notion of teacher learning is embedded into schools as this type of learning is observed as professional based learning. Similar to comprehensive understanding of learning, work-based learning theories start with an acknowledgement that learning is not restricted to what is done in schools and to what is taught in classes during one’s education. In particular, work-based learning focuses on learning that appears while working, as well as on learning that is an outcome of working engagement (Eraut, 2007; Lave & Wenger, 1991). This sort of interaction that happens in the workplace can be systematically setup to support learning but, at the same time, it can also be very chaotic and unstructured.

The science that covers learning at work has been interchangeably called workplace learning, work-based learning, learning in the workplace and learning at work (Elkjaer & Wahlgren, 2006). Regardless of the specific term, academics agree that all of these essentially explore the phenomenon of individual adult learning while engaged in a working setting. Elkjaer &

Wahlgren (2006) note that in comparison to the formal learning setting, work-based learning is more than just physical transfer from a school to a workplace and regards a move from a behaviourist learning paradigm towards learning that is owned by the learner. They argue that

“when learning is connected to workplaces, learning is connected to work-related actions and the performance of employees. This is shown either in routinization of practice or in the form of reflection on actions related to a practice” (Elkjaer & Wahlgren, 2006, p. 24), adding that this type of learning involves a high level of hidden and tacit knowledge. Ellström (2001) points out the importance of work-based learning as a way for enhancing productivity, innovation and competitiveness, as well as for reducing stress and developing healthier working conditions.

33

Yet, he argues for a difference between adaptive and development learning when discussing the workplace learning taxonomy. The starting point is the character of the working-learning situation which is a topic that will be elaborated further in the later chapter. Looking from the perspective of adoptive and developmental levels of learning, the following Table 1 presents Ellstörm’s taxonomy.

Table 1: Levels of learning as a function of the scope of action in different aspects of work-learning environment

Aspects of the Work-Learning situation

Adaptive Learning Developmental Learning Reproductive Productive, Type I Productive, Type II Creative

Tasks Given Given Given Not given

Methods Given Given Not given Not given

Results Given Not given Not given Not given Source: Ellström (2001)

These types of learning at work are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. The main distinction for the two developmental types (productive type II and creative) is that they often occur in situations when the learners “encounter novel or unfamiliar situations for which no rules or procedural knowledge (know-how) are available from previous experience” (Ellström, 2001, p. 424). The added complexity to the creative type of learning is that the learner uses her/his own authority and is required also to define the rules and conditions. It will be reaffirmed in the later text as well that due to the complexity of the work that a professional undertakes, it is important to understand that all the forms of learning are equally needed, since on-job effectiveness comes from a balanced routine and non-routine work. Thus, the quality of respond rests on the professional’s level of competence and autonomy over evaluating the situation and the required task or problem (Ellström, 2001).

Work related professional learning is tied with the notions of professional knowledge, and this type of knowledge is in large part tacit and implicit (Eraut, 2007), based on action and reflection (Schön, 1992), and is constructed through engaging with problem solving activities (Høyrup, 2006).

In order to classify and categorise work-based learning, Eraut (2007) proposed a typology of learning at work constructed on the single fact whether the primary goals of the activity at work

34

are purely oriented towards learning, or if learning comes as a side-effect of working. Eraut named this as a typology of early career learning which is presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Typology of early career learning

Source: Eraut (2007)

As presented in the table above, there are “regular” work processes that contain learning as a by-product, intentionally or more often unintentionally. The second column looks at learning activities that are located within the work setting, and most of the times these are very conscious actions that can support efficient delivery of the work. Lastly, and arguably the most structured, formal activities are placed in the third column titled learning processes. These are the undertakings that actively support learning and are in fact aimed to enhance one’s capacities for a more efficient delivery of work.

Finally, as noted in the earlier text, learning also depends on a number of factors some of which are intrinsic and some that are external. Based on that, as well as on some of Eraut’s (2007) research, significant factors in workplace learning include confidence, challenges and the ability to handle challenges successfully, as well as value of work, support and trust, and motivation and commitment. These are interlinked in a fragile way; thus, one might easily impact the other, and altogether influence the work performance, learning outcomes, and future aptitude towards new learning. These issues will be further explored in the section below that specifically deals with the topic of teacher learning.

By looking at the essential concepts of work-based learning it becomes evident that there is a common social structure that holds it together. Lave and Wenger (1991) were committed in arguing that work-based learning is in all its senses a type of situated learning, meaning that it

35

cannot be entirely provided through a theoretical framework. Whereas education can equip a person with a large quantity of knowledge about their future work, only by actually engaging into the exact working setting, the person can really learn (how to work). This kind of knowledge is most frequently highly tacit and implicit, often informed by a spectrum of small, invisible, practical tasks, and always heavily enriched by the working culture of the organisation (Eraut, 2007; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Learning within such a dynamic structure that heavily relies on the people involved is what is commonly called communities of practice.

Explained with exact words:

Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis (Etienne Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 5).

Furthermore, Lave and Wenger explored how newcomers integrate into the workplaces and this brought forth a concept called legitimate peripheral participation. The researcher duo studied how newcomers coped with the new environments and pursued paths to mastery through apprenticeship processes. While originally legitimate peripheral participation looked into understanding how these processes of learning happen in occupations that are not covered by the formal training, many of the aspects can be used for any group of professions, including teaching.

As can be noticed, there are three key components in legitimate peripheral participation, starting from legitimate. The process is legitimate because the person enters communities of practise in an official and accepted way, thus legitimising the process and their further involvement in the learning. Secondly, it is peripheral because when engaging with a new job, especially in the professions that are well-established in practice, the newcomers most frequently linger at the edge of the job’s core mastery. With time, the person gradually gains knowledge, confidence and trust of others in moving towards the centre and acquiring competencies required for the vocation. Finally, participation part of the Lave and Wenger’s concept comes out of the essential understanding that only by actively partaking can one learn and reach the level of mastery. This confirms the understanding that legitimate peripheral participation is a kind of practical and situated learning that happens predominantly through one’s own social, job-related engagement. This is mapped out in the simplified Figure 8.

36

Figure 8: Simplified depiction of legitimate peripheral participation

Source: Lave & Wenger (1991)

Figure 8 tries to portray this process in a simplified way, however it is important to note that Lave and Wenger have not accepted or agreed upon this depiction of legitimate peripheral participation. This is due to the fact that communities of practice quite often overlap and mastery at one job might be a periphery of another, thus creating a highly complex and dynamic graphic that cannot be presented here. This being said, Figure 8 is only used here to present a basic single-layered understanding of what the process might look like.

In context of the teaching profession, legitimate peripheral participation is important to understand because “the mastery of knowledge and skill requires newcomers to move toward full participation in the socio-cultural practices of a community” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p.

29). The authors refer to the interaction of the old-timers and the newcomers, and the set of activities, identities, artefacts and practical knowledge that are seen as essential for gaining mastery. The configuration, as it is, can thus be approached as valuable in terms of passing the knowledge further to the newcomers, but can also be hindering to development of new knowledge and practices, destining a professional stagnation.

In concluding this brief overview of different aspects of work-based learning, it is agreed that people learn in work through one or more or the following activities (Tynjälä in Bakkenes et al., 2010):

37

• By doing the job itself

• Through co-operation and interacting with colleagues

• Through working with clients

• By tackling challenging and new tasks

• By reflecting on and evaluating one’s work experiences

• Through formal education

• Through extra-work contexts.

Ultimately, as noted in the previous section when discussing transformative learning, Laursen (2006) notes that learning through work can also be described as a change or a progression which a priori demands individual and collective (organisational) motivation and active participation. In this sense, work-based “learning is a process, transforming the knowledge base in a certain field of behaviour, producing a progressive change of behaviour, where

‘change of behaviour’ also includes changes in ways of perceiving, feeling, thinking and knowing” (Laursen, 2006, p. 72). The knowledge base implies both of the learner’s know-what and the know-how, and the latter is particularly interesting because it is based in the contextual, implicit forms of knowing. Laursen names this aspect of knowledge base as the part which examines “how people ‘do’ their knowing” (2006, p. 73) and in the workplace this is embedded in the environment, the relations, technologies, routines and changes, and as such corresponds to organisational learning, a notion that is explored in the further text. Two important elements are drawn from this, the first being that transformative and expansive learning impacts the skills, knowledge, and also the mindset of the professional. Secondly, the context makes a large contribution which is why transformative and expansive professional learning is brought up again in the discussion on innovative context as the chapter develops.