Reflection on Work Based Learning
Since beginning my career in work based learning I have experienced learning and teaching in many different formats. I began with teaching small groups and one to one coaching, before moving to large group induction training. In the last number of years I have become more involved in e-learning, assisting with the implementation of Moodle as a Learning Management System (LMS) in the organisation I work for and with the development of asynchronous e-learning modules. Now I’m about to move to another format as the organisation introduces virtual classroom technology. The changes in my career reflect the transition the organisation has made from face to face training to a more blended approach. The scenarios and formats I have experienced have each brought their own challenges and issues. This reflection aims to try to define what work based learning is and the challenges faced by work based learners.
There is a challenge in understanding
what work based learning is. Stanley
(2012) suggests it is not a “conventional subject” (p.1), as it is not
supported by an established group of speciality teachers and it is not backed
up by text books, while Boud and Solomon (2001) suggest it is a “disturbing
practise” (p.225) disturbing the perception of academic identity and setting. Jennings (2011) describes it as a “messy
business” that differs from one organisation to another and from one person to
another. Boud and Garrick (1999) contend there is no single way to understand
learning at work. They argue the need
for multiple perceptions arises from the wide range of job roles that exist,
the differences that exist even within a single organisation and because
learning in work is complex. Linehan (2008)
agrees, simply stating that there is no straightforward definition of what work
based learning entails other than it is about learning rather than teaching and
occurs in the workplace instead of on campus.
There are definitions that have arisen from workgroups on the subject, one
such definition is “that learning which derives its purpose from the context of
employment”, Sutherland (as cited in Evans, Hodkinson, Rainbird, & Unwin 2006
p. 7). Evans et al (2006) comment that
this goes beyond training which focusses on the current need of the learner and
the business and iterate that it involves "learning in through and for the
workplace"(p. 7). This notion
relates to Boud’s (2001) suggestion that the characteristic defining work based
learning is the fact that working and learning influence each other. Learning interventions are influenced by the
nature of work and in turn work is influenced by what is learnt. Marsick and Watkins (1999) argue that because
work based learning is more than a simple educational intervention there has
been a development of the concept of work based learning that incorporates knowledge
of pedagogy, organisation behaviour and culture. Boud (2001) summarises the differences that
exist in context which drive the developments of these concepts. They are not just learner differences such as
different backgrounds and levels of knowledge but also different workplaces with
different demands on workers and different expectations of outcomes. Boud and Garrick (1999) argue that to come to
an understanding of work based learning means to recognise the complexities,
rival interests and the individual, political and organisational influences
that affect it. Furthermore they contend
that learning at work should be regarded as not just the basis to improve
performance and develop knowledge but a matter of the “situated ethics” (p3) of
what is being learnt and the learner.
We have seen that work based learning can be difficult to define, but
what of the challenges that face work place learners as they strive to learn in
such a complex context. Boud and Garrick
(1999) argue that there are few places left in the workplace for employees at
any level who do not continue to learn. Illeris (2011) agrees and advises that
the pace of development and the level of constant change place adults in
circumstances where skills development is the only way forward. Employees may be unwilling to change or learn
but Barnett (1999) suggests that eventually this will catch up with them,
Illeris (2011) proposes the view that learning is something that cannot be
avoided exerts pressure and places a burden on the learner. In this context where employees seem to have
no choice but to engage in work based learning Illeris (2011) suggests that
employees often have no concept of their learning needs but Boud (2001)
contends that work based learners need to take a proactive stance and develop
into an active learner. This concept of
the need to be an active learner is echoed by Matthews and Candy (1999) who
posit the effective work based learner is proactively seeking out opportunities
for learning and anticipating the future changes that may occur in the work
place. Just as Stanley (2012) proposes
that work based learning is not a “conventional subject” (p. 1), Boud also points to this lack of
convention with regard to the boundaries that exist between work and learning
for employees (2001). He suggests the
roles of worker and learner are not compatible (2001) and like Linehan (2008)
highlights the need for workers to switch constantly between the both roles. The constant need to adjust means workers may
not be able to dedicate themselves to one role or the other Boud (2001). Barnett (1999) draws attention to the
personal and intellectual challenges of the work based learner. He contends learning is “unsettling” (p. 35)
in personal terms arguing that to admit to being a learner is to admit to being
uncertain which can be particularly unsettling in learning situations given by or
in the company of junior colleagues. He
describes learning challenges as “supercomplex” (p. 38) proposing they demand the learner to
acquire new techniques, ideas and practises which in turn demands the learner
to change personally. Barnett acknowledges
that learners can find these demands so great they can find it difficult to
adopt them. As we have seen workers must
face the fact that learning is part of working life. Perhaps it could be argued that the greatest
competency a worker could have is not one that is learnt but one that is
inherent. Casey (1999) states that
workers must be able to learn and Matthews and Candy (1999) agree that this
ability to learn is regarded as a fundamental competency which will distinguish
the successful work based learner from the unsuccessful.
In dealing with such complexities I have searched for a framework that could be used to optimise training opportunities for learners and the organisation. Evans et al (2006) suggest the improvement of workplace learning requires an analysis of what is currently provided and the structures and regulatory framework within which it takes place, along with an understanding of how workers learn as individuals and collectively. Jennings (2011) and Jarche (2012) both point to the move to informal learning as the area where real learning takes place. However Jarche (2012) contends that there is no one formal methodology to encourage informal learning and there shouldn’t be. Jennings (2011) on the other hand proposes the 70 – 20 – 10 model where 70% of what is learnt is through experience, 20% through other people and only 10% in a formal classroom setting. But again he warns against using the framework without adapting it to the context of the organisation. Marsick and Watkins (1999) discuss four metaphorical lenses through which an organisation may be viewed and examine the learning implications for managers, employees and human resource development. They acknowledge that analysis of an organisation assumes that the organisation falls clearly under one metaphor, which may well not be the case in real life. In some organisations all metaphors may be in operation in different parts simultaneously. Their solution is to start with the prevailing metaphor and move towards one that allows a higher level of learning. Their advice is something that can be acted upon, providing insight why training interventions may have been successful in some parts of the organisation and not in others. The message is clear; there is no one framework or no one methodology which will provide the answer I am looking for. Rather the answer lies in raising awareness of the variations in context culture and individuals I have discussed here and tailoring an appropriate solution.
References
Barnett, R. (1999). Learning to Work and Working to Learn. In Boud, D. & Garrick, J. (Eds.). Understanding Learning at Work. London: Routledge.
Boud, D (2001). Creating a Work Based Curriculum. In Boud, D. & Solomon, N. (Eds.). Work-Based Learning A New Higher Education? . Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Boud, D. (2001). Knowledge at Work – Issues of Learning. In Boud, D. & Solomon, N. (Eds.). Work-Based Learning A New Higher Education? . Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Boud, D. & Garrick, J. (1999). Understandings of Learning at Work. In Boud, D. & Garrick, J. (Eds.). Understanding Learning at Work. London: Routledge.
Boud, D. & Solomon, N. (Eds.). (2001). Work-Based Learning A New Higher Education? . Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Cork Institute of Technology. (2008). Work Based Learning Graduating Through the Workplace. Cork: Dr Margaret Linehan.
Casey, C. (1999). The Changing Contexts of Work. In Boud, D. & Garrick, J. (Eds.). Understanding Learning at Work. London: Routledge.
Evans, K. Hodkinson, P. Rainbird, H. & Unwin, L. (2006). Improving Workplace Learning. Oxford: Routledge.
Huddleston, P. & Stanley, J. (Eds.). (2012). Work-Related Teaching and Learning a guide for teachers and practioners. Oxford: Routledge.
Illeris, K. (2011). The Fundamentals of Workplace Learning Understanding How People Learn in Working Life. Oxford: Routledge.
Jarche, H. (2012, 4th January). Informal Learning the 95% Solution. Retrieved from http://www.jarche.com/2012/01/informal-learning-the-95-solution/
Jennings, C. (2011, 29th December). Through the 70:20:10 Looking Glass. Retrieved from http://charles-jennings.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/through-702010-looking-glass.html
Marsick, V. E. and Watkins, K. E. (1999). Envisioning New Organisations in Learning. In Boud, D. & Garrick, J. (Eds.). Understanding Learning at Work. London: Routledge.
Matthews, J. H. and Candy, P. C. (1999). New Dimensions in the Dynamics of Learning and Knowledge. In Boud, D. & Garrick, J. (Eds.). Understanding Learning at Work. London: Routledge.
