Actors and roles in workbased Learning
Introduction
This article builds
on the existing body of knowledge about the delivery of workbased learning by
higher education institutions in the United Kingdom (Costley, 2000; Kennedy, 2000; Portwood, 2000; Garnett and
Young, 2008; Garnett and Young, 2009; Lester and Costley, 2010). As well, it seeks to make a
contribution based on five years of learning and teaching experience gained in
Australia by academics involved in the delivery of postgraduate workbased
learning programs. This article is part of a larger project, which is employing
elements of action research, to contribute to the development of workbased
learning in Australia. Specifically, this aspect of the project looks more
closely at the important shifts, implicit in the roles and relationships of key
players, in the workbased learning and teaching model, compared to the traditional
model employed in Australian universities. In so doing this paper puts forward a systems model for workbased learning (Checkland and Poulter, 2006) that seeks to build a more complete picture of the manner in which
this approach operates. As well, several preliminary frameworks for
conceptualising the operation of particular aspects of workbased learning have
been developed as part of the research. The purpose of this research is to enhance the understanding of the benefits, to
both students and teachers, in adopting workbased learning as a viable pathway
for university education in Australia.
Only one Australian public university is
offering postgraduate awards using a comprehensive workbased learning model of
learning and teaching (University of Southern Queensland, 2013). Numerous
universities [outside Australia] have established undergraduate, graduate and
post graduate programs that allow students to build on their work and their
experiences at work, to achieve their tertiary awards/degrees (Garnett &
Workman, 2009). These programs are causing a recasting and a redefining of
roles associated with tertiary education- specifically, the role of the workplace,
the role of the individual [student/worker] and the role of the university.
Each of these has an existing role in traditional models of tertiary education
but they are significantly changed in the workbased learning model of tertiary
education. It is intended to look more closely at the important changes that workbased
learning causes to the way that universities approach learning and teaching.
How different is workbased
learning?
There are a wide number of issues and questions
that workbased learning brings into focus. A sample of these questions will be
used as a way of introducing a more detailed discussion about the operation of a
workbased learning approach. There are three key sites or roles associated with
workbased learning – (1) the workplace (2) the student/worker and (3) the
university. The sample questions are framed from each one of these three
perspectives.
First, the work environment becomes an active element
in the student’s and the university’s curriculum. It is generally acknowledged
that knowledge must have a performative value for firms because firms are not
just there to create knowledge (Garnett, 2009). Typical questions prompted by
workbased learning at a workplace are-
How far does a workplace project need to go to fulfil academic
needs and not go beyond what is required by the firm?
Who owns the results or outcomes from a project that may be highly
sensitive in relation to firm’s market position? How much information must be
disclosed when the information is commercially sensitive?
How does a firm initiate
work based learning and how is it managed in the context of the company’s existing human resource development plans?
Generally speaking, workbased learning requires
a work environment that is positively inclined towards personal and
professional development of staff.
Second, in workbased learning, student workers must
become active participants in their own education. Students are directly
involved in sourcing and designing the way in which their learning needs will
be met. This requires discussion and negotiation with their workplace and the
university. Typical questions are-
Exactly what do I want to know when I complete this project?
Will this project give me the opportunity to learn what I am
looking to know?
Will my project and my eventual qualification be recognised by my
boss?
Is workbased learning an effective way of gaining promotion and
recognition in my current workplace/my industry?
Will my qualification be recognised by other companies and other
universities?
This ‘active’ student/worker role continues
throughout the undertaking of their workbased projects and causes conversations
between the actors that would not generally have been contemplated if the
student was undertaking a conventional coursework degree.
Finally, for the university, having staff who
are cognisant of the demands and issues afoot in contemporary organisational
settings and who are comfortable in engaging with the issues [some of which are
highlighted by the preceding questions] is a significant shift from long held
traditions regarding the core competencies and interests of core teaching
staff. Questions for teaching staff include-
How will I know if the student/worker is progressing if they
don’t attend campus regularly?
How am I expected to support the student/worker whilst they are
doing their project at work?
Does this project go deep enough into the issues to warrant the
level of award being sought?
How much literature needs to be reviewed to provide sufficient
academic foundation for this project?
What is the nature of the contribution that this project will make
to the knowledge base and relevant professional practice?
Further, the transdisciplinary nature of much of
the academic work undertaken as part of workbased learning, in addition to the
often specialist nature of many workplaces, gives rise to very different
demands on academic supervisors and reviewers (Costley, 2011).
These few questions are emblematic of a large
number of questions that point towards the relationships, approaches,
procedures and activities that are required in the implementation of accredited,
problem centred workbased learning degrees. They highlight some important areas
which make workbased learning significantly different to traditional university
programs [based on traditional discipline boundaries and designed without
reference to a particular setting/workplace]. Cairns and Malloch (2011) posit
that continuing to highlight why workbased learning is ‘different’ may in fact
be holding back the development of this approach. They coin the term
‘binding binaries’ to describe how workbased is potentially and simplistically
differentiated from traditional degree delivery and examples of these binaries
are - (1) action versus theory (2) explicit versus implicit (3) experiential
versus theoretical (4) classroom versus workplace and so on (p. 11). They go on
to say that ‘discarding many of these positions might assist the field to
develop in a less bounded manner’ (p. 11). We concur, in so far as much of the
published enquiry and explication of workbased learning to date seems more like
a justification for it [compared to other more traditional modes of education
and development] rather than an exploration of the full potential of it.
However, we do believe that the binaries have
continued to sustain enquiry/debate in the absence of a more complete [new]
picture of workbased learning. One that
brings to light the mechanisms that are driving the recasting and redefining of
the pivotal roles and relationships highlighte through the sample questions
above. In essence, much of what has been said in relation to workbased learning
has tended to assume that there is a system [traditional discipline oriented
course work] and that (a) it is the best [or at least default] system and (b)
even though there may be new ‘modes of delivery’ [such as workbased learning]
the roles and relationships of the main actors in the system would continue to
be bounded and moderated by the traditional approach. Our argument on this
issue is that whilst we agree that the binaries mentality is not productive, it
has arisen in the absence of a new way of thinking and enunciating the full
ramifications of the implementation of workbased learning. We see it much like
what happens if you want to introduce a new technology into an organisation and
this new technology has the impact of changing not only how the computers
operate but also how staff operate/work - it is not helpful to keep
focusing on what’s different about the way the computers operate. This may be
useful in the beginning, but eventually you have to present the complete
picture with the new technology and new job descriptions, the new relationships
expected and the new ways of ‘doing business’. Without this shift, staff
continue to think about doing what they used to, just with a new technology
system to ‘help’.
In regard to university learning and teaching,
it appears that the continued reference to the ‘binaries that bind’ is a mind
set that workbased learning is just a new ‘mode of delivery’ and that whilst it
may have some differences [pedagogically] the actors and their roles would
remain similar to the existing system. As we have noted elsewhere (in Peach et
al., 2014) workbased learning is a field of study in its own right and as such,
it changes all aspects of the system, including the actors and their roles. In
Australia, universities continue to focus on IT oriented enhancements to
traditional learning and teaching (Dealtry, 2006; Norton, 2013). It seems
that such a focus is one way of maintaining the traditional approach to
learning and teaching: a traditional approach in which the university delivers
packaged content knowledge [by discipline] for consumption by recipient
students [be they cohorts in a lecture hall or at the other end of a smart
phone]. In so doing, they continue to avoid dealing with the major revisions
necessary in learning and teaching, to respond to the new environment for
knowledge development, creation and sharing. That new environment is one in
which the main problems are ones that have not been solved before and where
expansive learning is a pre condition for survival in the competitive market
for knowledge (Engestrom, 2007; 2011).
With a view to moving beyond the ‘binding binaries’
the next section outlines workbased learning as a complete integrated system
which requires a recasting and a re engineering of the university learning and
teaching system. This systems description follows a soft systems approach
blended with our action research orientation towards our shared practice in workbased
learning over a five year period. It is a preliminary effort towards moving
away from the binding binaries without overlooking the fundamental differences
at play in workbased learning [when compared with conventional university
program delivery in Australia].
The roles
and relationships in workbased learning
We
introduced earlier that there are three primary sites/actors engaged in
workbased learning. These are -
- a student who works in a workplace
- an academic staff member at the university offering the
workbased learning award.
- an owner or supervisor of the workplace who has
authority in the workplace covering the student
As noted earlier, the workplace is not a passive
‘medium’ for the delivery of a program, it is a critical contributor to the learning
outcomes. This arises through the engagement with the student’s supervisor and
most often with other staff at the workplace. On the university side, whilst
there may be one primary supervisor, because of the transdisciplinary nature of
the award, it is not unusual for other academic specialists to be involved with
the student’s work. As for the student, their engagement with work and
professional colleagues, inside and outside the work setting, is going to play
a critical role in their progression through the program. Hence, whilst there
are only three primary actors there are many support roles associated with each
of these ‘leads’.
Further, we consider that the roles and
relationships of these three actors are played out at several important levels.
These levels are described as follows -
- relationship
- engagement
- environment
The first ‘relationship’ level is where the
three lead actors get to know and deal with one another and do so in an
environment where each is aware of the role and involvement of each other
party. The importance of this latter point is so critical because in other
education relationships, there is either no need or limited value placed on the
‘third party’. This is also the level for direct commercial and or contractual
engagement and where money, services and expectations are negotiated and
documented. The most important issue about this level is recognising that there
are three key actors and that each has a pivotal role. No longer is it sensible
to consider that there is just a ‘one to one’ relationship between university
and student.
Experience is showing that sometimes the workbased
learning relationship starts between the workplace and the university and is
followed by engagement with a student or
a cohort of students. Other times it starts with an individual student/worker.
Also, there are aspects of the relationship between one actor and another that
need to be shared with the ‘third’, other. This requires that there are people
at both the university and in the workplace who understand how workbased
learning works and that they are able to communicate and negotiate a range of
issues associated with student engagement and progression. It also implies that
the student understands that these people are dealing with elements of their
professional development program and, as well, is comfortable to participate in
this context. A number of the questions raised at the beginning of this paper
are mostly resolved through the interaction of the three key actors at the
‘relationship’ level of the workbased learning system. In many instances,
the questions arise progressively, as the actors ‘warm up’ to their parts and
start to fully understand the boundaries of, and the opportunities presented
by, the system in which they are operating.
The second, ‘engagement’ level is where most of
the interaction between the parties occurs through time. This level involves a wide
variety of processes, functions and activities. Our experience has led us
to understand that whilst many of the day to day interactions are dealt with on
their on merits, in broad terms, level two ‘engagement’ is founded on the
interplay between three underlying cycles.
Each actor and or their site, is operating on its own ‘time clock’ or
‘cycle’ which is determined by the nature of their different interests. A firm
does not operate on a semester basis but a university does. An individual
student will have their own set of personal, family and professional obligations
and these are not developed to always coincide with work or study. We have
found that is useful to be alert to these three ‘cycles’ and that many
discussions and interactions in workbased learning revolve around the
coordination and connection of these three
cycles. We have labelled them -
- the student’s ‘development’ cycle – this covers all
personal, family and professional issues that arise during the program
- the company’s ‘planning cycle’ – this covers the
expectation of a business to achieve particular projects or results at
agreed times; to undertake various functions covering business and
personal development and where appropriate to align these with projects
being undertaken as part of the student’s workbased learning award.
- the university’s ‘program’ cycle – this covers the
annual and semester timetables that are required for student enrolment,
examination, assessment and so on.
The effective achievement of a workbased
learning program depends on the actors being able to manage the connections
between these cycles sufficiently well enough so as to enable the student to
complete their work in line with both the university’s program cycle and the
workplace’s planning cycle. In so doing it is anticipated that this will also
achieve the student’s own professional growth as part of their ‘development’
cycle.
The third level is the ‘environment’ and this is
intended to represent the particular circumstances within which the actors and
their organisations work. When RH Coase set out his seminal thinking on ‘The
Nature of the Firm’, he quoted D.H.Roberston in describing firms as ‘islands of
conscious power in this ocean of unconscious co-operation like lumps of butter
coagulating in a pail of buttermilk’ (Coase 1937, p.19). For a description
created in the 1930’s, Coase’s analogy is still a remarkably instructive one.
For the contemporary purposes of workbased learning, this ‘buttermilk’
comprises the communities of practice, the professions, the market place and
the knowledge economy swirling around and bearing on a student’s work and
projects. This ‘buttermilk’ plays an indirect role in regard to particular
activities within a workbased learning award but quite often, it is with an eye
to this third level, that many students are seeking to establish the
credibility of their knowledge and their achievements.
These three levels are illustrated simply in Diagram
One below. The diagram specifically illustrates -
- three primary actors that require an
active relationship, both
separately and jointly, as a condition of effective workbased learning
[viz., student, workplace supervisor, university supervisor]
- three important levels of interaction with
these actors operating both independently and interdependently [viz.,
relationship, engagement and environment]
- three development cycles [within level
2] that are peculiar to each actor: it is a particular condition of workbased
learning programs that these cycles be sufficiently connected for
the parties to achieve their objectives [viz., development, planning and
academic]
There is also a fourth element in this model –
the actions and intentions of each actor as they move between and across
different levels of the model. Following Checkland & Poulter (2006) these
are regarded as lines of ‘puposeful action’. Each actor will move between and
across levels both independently and interdependently during the period of
their relationship. For workbased learning to serve each actor they must be
alert to the need for actors to move freely across the levels for their own
individual or organisational purposes.
Diagram One: Workbased
learning system comprising (a)three actors, (b)three levels and, (c ) three development
cycles
The distinctions between the levels are not
intended to be ‘hard’ or ‘definitive’ ones but they are intended to demonstrate
that the actors are entering into a multilevel relationship which, whilst it
maybe underpinned by the relationships formed at Level One, it is most likely
that the efficacy of the relationship for all parties will be moderated at the
other levels. Further, while the actors are grounded in their relationships by
Level One dealings, there will be much independent and interdependent movement
by the parties through the different levels. The constituent elements in
this system represent a development of the major determinants of the ongoing
evolution of workbased learning as a significant means of workplace learning.
Each of the elements of the model will now be considered more fully.
Relationship: Level One
Each level one ‘engagement’ in workbased
learning is a bespoke one. There are no ‘standard’ or ‘one size fits all’
engagements; this is because there are so many variables at stake and some of
these could include -
- numbers in a cohort
- levels of existing qualifications and experience of
student/workers in the cohort
- nature of work based projects and the
organisation specific needs or requirements
- timing and coordination of work based projects
- timing and coordination of progress monitoring and
review
- linkages between organisational outcomes and program
completion
- relationship between work place supervisors and
university based supervisors
The nature of the work that is undertaken at
Level One by the university’s representative has several key dimensions,
including -
- Account/Relationship Management
- covering all of the overarching commercial and academic dimensions
of the relationship between the actors to establish the immediate and long
term objectives, and performance parameters, that will be used to
determine the success or otherwise of the relationship
- Contract Management - covering
all the detail relating to numbers of students, important delivery dates,
reporting requirements, timing and amounts of particular payments and
specific performance outcomes
- Program Coordination - covering
those elements of academic work needed to establish the award, supervision
and assessment appropriate for each student worker.
The roles, needed on both the university side
and the workplace side, to deal with Level One issues may well be handled by
existing staff. Or if the cohort is sufficiently large, additional resourcing
may be necessary to ensure that this level is effectively managed.
In looking at the workplace side, the
overarching skill set for this level is aligned to a Human Resource Development
[HRD] specialist who is able to deal with workbased learning as one of several
company strategies for the acquisition of knowledge and strategic capability
(Cathcart, 2008). There is very little likelihood that workbased learning would
be the only relevant strategy for an organisation and it will be important for
the HRD specialist to be cognisant of the particular issues and benefits
of workbased learning compared to other strategies. On the university side, the
skill set is aligned to existing roles described as Program Manager or
Academic Administrator (CAAMP, 2013) and requires a combination of both
academic and management perspectives. This role is required to confidently work
between, on one hand, the ‘standards’ and ‘benchmarks’ of the academy and on
the other hand, the ‘cut and thrust’ of day to day operations confronting many
organisation as they struggle to compete and survive in a highly competitive
market place. This is not unlike the battle that Dick (2002) describes as being
confronted by the action researcher – the battle between ‘relevance’ and
‘rigour’. However, the need to maintain a relationship focus, that recognises
semester timetables and appointments as
well as the importance of a ‘two way’ understanding [based on mutual
understanding and agreement and not traditions of academic exclusivity] is of
utmost importance.
Engagement: Level Two
The authors have described, elsewhere, the
confluence of factors driving the emergence of workplace learning and the
consequential development of workbased learning as a mechanism to support
both individual and organisational learning in Australia (Peach et al., 2014). It
is considered that there are three
primary streams of influnce flowing towards
this confluence: these are - (1)
learner/workers seeking to consolidate their work and experience into
transferrable qualifications (2) organisations seeking to develop their
intellectual property and organisational capital and (3) governments and
industries looking for higher numbers and levels of skilled workers through
more flexible offerings by institutions of higher education. As we have
operated in the workbased learning system we have started to see the tensions
and issues that arise during workbased learning
programs and we have formed the view that many of these issues arise
because each of the key actors operate in environments that ‘move to a
different beat’. We consider that this ‘beat’ arises from fundamental ‘cycles’
that operate differently and impact on the actors differently.
Diagram Two below illustrates these cycles and
the key activities associated with these cycles. There is (a) the individual’s
[Personal] Development Cycle, (b) the [Business/Project] Planning Cycle of the
workplace and (c ) the [Academic] Program Cycle of the university. Whether or
not these cycles are specifically named and recognised by each actor
belies the issue that each of these cycles will bear, not only on the
individual actor, but will have consequences for the other two actors. In
essence, the cycles are intrinsic to each actor’s roles [and their
organisations]. The horizontal arrows are intended to indicate that
coordination must not occur only through the ‘middle’ partner but each
cycle must link to each other cycle - hence the multiple sets of horizontal
arrows. Further, there are some elements which are more critical, in each of
these cycles, which need to be coordinated across the cycles and these
especially important elements have been circled. Without appreciation and
understanding of how to align these elements across the cycles, workbased
learning will not operate effectively for one or more of the parties.
Diagram
Two: The three cycles at play
in a workbased learning system.
Our experience has shown us
that the interplay of these cycles can be both demanding and [at times]
stressful for the different players at different points in time. For example,
what may be happening at work does not always mesh neatly with the academic
timetable. Also, at times, what may be happening on the home front for an individual
may not always operate in sync with the peaks and troughs of work/study. And so
on. This means that workbased learning engagement is not suited to a ‘set
and forget’ approach to project and student progression. There is a need to
ensure that students are given the opportunity to achieve the deadlines of the
academic calendar in concert with their work and their personal affairs.
Additionally, elements of
‘professional practice’ come into play - sometimes things are happening ‘too
fast’ with project work to maintain the ‘academic’ element of the project. This
requires that the actors become aware of and support a student’s progression
under circumstances when the tripartite, parallel universes of work, study and
the individual student/worker are not perfectly ‘in harmony’. Sometimes
students need to be reassured that their program will not fail if one of the
three gets out of step. This may involve doing some planning that provides the
steps for ‘catching up’ once a particular road block has been sorted out. Also,
it could involve a revised timetable or it could involve employing a particular
technique of research management or journaling or project management that will
not only overcome the problem but highlight a new area of learning. The role of
‘problems’ or ‘objections’ as a means of enhancing learning is well recognised
(IIleris, 2008) and is most useful in workbased learning.
What is critical however, is
that -
- the university gives sufficient recognition within the
academic cycle to enable workbased learning the scope to succeed
- student/workers are able to manage sufficiently well to
juggle the ‘tripartite parallel universes’ of work, study and themselves
- workplaces and their owner managers are able to provide
a context for cohorts or individual student/workers to learn enough [and
at the appropriate level] to achieve their planned award
Whilst the efficacy of workbased learning for
all parties will be dependent on appropriate relations at all three levels,
Level Two is the level where the actors will spend most of their time. It is
the level where many of the particularities of workbased learning [compared to
other learning and development strategies] come to the fore. It is the level
where many of the binaries referenced earlier come into clear relief and where roadblocks
are most likely to occur. There is an important mechanism that has been
developed as part of Level 2 ‘engagement’ that provides one way of supporting
each actor in knowing what is expected of them and the other parties. This is
the Learning Agreement and it operates in multiple ways to support engagement
in workbased learning.
The workbased Learning Agreement establishes the
individualised description of the eventual ‘contribution’
or the ‘knowledge/subject area’ of the work based award. Recently, in a
discussion with one of our students[1], the
student coined the term ‘sweet spot’ to describe the purpose of the Learning
Agreement. The term ‘sweet spot’ is intended to describe that place [and time]
where divergent elements and forces come together to achieve outstanding
results. For a batsperson in cricket the sweet spot is the place and time when
the batsperson’s skill, judgement and execution come to a confluence and the
ball and bat collide at the ‘sweet spot’ [it is both a place and a time] and
the result is an outstanding shot from the batsperson that sends the ball
racing to the boundary. Its relevance to workbased learning is as follows.
Unlike other programs and
academic awards where what the student learns is what has already been resolved
by the University and included in their course offering, in workbased learning,
what the student learns is resolved through a process of negotiating their
curriculum and this is encapsulated within both a process and a document called
the Learning Agreement. The objective of the Learning Agreement is to identify
that ‘sweet spot’- it provides both the rationale and the subject area of the
student’s work over the ensuing period of their degree. The Learning Agreement formally
brings together the whole workbased learning journey; the components of which
are incorporated in the stylised workbased learning Pyramid set out in Diagram
Three below. This representation has been developed following on the work
of Garnett (2000, p.65) in regard to the UK higher education context.
The components of the pyramid
are as follows -
- Learning Agreement: This document is ‘negotiated’ between the key players
and sets out the learning outcomes, timeframes, unit structure and
resources associated with the student’s intended learning journey. As
noted above, the rationale for the student’s learning outcomes is founded
on a logic that is outside the university’s existing programs, faculties,
disciplines and course offerings but does not exclude the opportunity of
utilising these as sources of input for the student’s learning outcomes.
- The Actors Interests: Are bought to a ‘head’ for a particular student so
that their learning journey is capable of occurring within the workplace
and to satisfy the standards of the academy at the same time as achieving
personal and professional objectives.
- The Elements of workbased
learning: There are considered to be six
primary elements of workbased learning that are incorporated into the
Learning Agreement. These elements cover (1) Research/Enquiry methods -
without knowledge of and reference to these a work based project will not
satisfy the standards of the academy (2) Projects - are the primary
‘units’ of Wbl and it is within one or more projects that students achieve
the learning outcomes of their curriculum (3) Portfolio - is a foundation
element where the student identifies their existing knowledge and
capability and this starts to build their journey in reflective
professional practice (4) Accredited workbased learning - is the
opportunity for students with previous knowledge and experience to gain
credit for prior learning in the workplace (5) Accredited Taught Courses -
provide students with the opportunity to acquire knowledge from existing
sources that will complement their own learning objectives (6)
Benchmarking and Referencing - like research methods, ensures that the
student’s learnings are located within a body of knowledge and capable of
being academically assessed.
Diagram Three: The workbased learning pyramid developed from
initial work by Garnett ( 2000, p. 65)
The authors work with masters
and doctoral workbased learners has shown us that finding the ‘sweet spot’ is
not always straightforward and often
requires significant effort, energy and intellect . In such a setting, it is
apparent that the learner -
·
is not being
directed by one particular interest and must negotiate diligently and carefully
to mark out the ‘sweet spot’
·
must
progressively learn what sits behind each ‘interest’ and become adept at
meeting these needs during the course of the project [not just at the
beginning]
·
will face considerable
risks along the way in righting the balance of these interests as they are
bound to come out of ‘harmony’ at different points in the project
·
will need to
learn how to ‘juggle’ competing demands as different interests compel different
and sometimes competing effort and action
Under these circumstances the
university, in supporting work based learning, needs to
·
provide
expertise, personal support and knowledge infrastructure for each of the
phases of complexity and difficulty encountered by the student
·
assist the
learner to put in place sufficient ‘support’ in the work place to underwrite
the progression of the project/research
·
provide
particular advice to the student as a practitioner researcher to guide the
students understanding of the appropriate [research] methodologies consistent
with both academic and professional expectations
Further, because the academic
starting point for work based learning awards is strikingly different from
other awards, it is important to ensure that
·
the learning
area is not just determined by the academic supervisor’s own research interests
or just the workplace’s needs or for that matter, just the student’s personal
learning interests
·
this is not a
‘gap in the literature’ starting point for the student’s project/s although,
the need to satisfy the level of contribution appropriate to the level of the
award is one of the interests that must be served by the project
·
the daily
battle between ‘relevance and rigour’ (Dick, 2000) will need to be dealt with
by the most appropriate research methods and practice and in many instances
will involve a melding of conventional methodologies that are highly contingent
on the workplace setting as well as the professional and personal circumstances
of the learner/researcher (Lester, 2010)
This section has endeavoured to build the workbased
learning model by looking more closely at the ‘cycles’ that sit behind each of the
actors within the context of the Learning Agreement. Also, the expectations
related to each actor are identified and the core elements of the whole
workbased learning journey are identified. The
next section will look more closely at the ‘buttermilk’, that is the context or
environment, within which the actors live and work.
Environment: Level Three
The broad context within which workbased
learning is emerging has been alluded to earlier, in relation to the three drivers
contributing to its development in Australia. These drivers reflect (1) the
ongoing importance of personal agency in organisational development, (2) the
organisational drive for strategic capability and intellectual capital and (3) the
lesser drive by higher education institutions to respond to the knowledge and
education markets. High-level knowledge is being generated outside universities
and at the same time the employment of sound techniques of academic research
and enquiry are enabling firms to build their intellectual capital. Hence,
there is a blurring of boundaries between individuals, organisations and
academies in relation to knowledge development and creation and this has the
potential to increase beneficial outcomes for all. This provides the scope for
the expansion of workbased learning as a way of helping to reap these benefits.
Other jurisdictions have adopted a policy approach
to underwrite or kick-start development of workbased learning as a means of
responding to the need for advanced economies to expand the skill levels of
workers and workplaces (Garnett & Workman, 2009). Also, professional
associations and industry bodies are consistently seeking to find avenues and
pathways for their members to increase and maintain their qualifications but
unfortunately, the options available to them are limited by what the education
‘market’ has to offer. A small number of large companies are inclined towards
the ‘corporate university’ approach but this does not appear to be a viable
approach for many medium to small enterprises. Finally, individuals have
limited scope for influencing the market in spite of broadly based efforts
towards higher education institutions becoming more student centric.
Our experience indicates that students would
know if workbased learning suited them and their situations, if they saw it. Unfortunately, there is almost no likelihood
of Australian universities showing them workbased learning. And this applies to
SMEs seeking skilled workers as well as professional bodies seeking to maintain
or enhance their members’ qualifications - they simply aren’t given the
opportunity to see what workbased learning looks like - so there is a low
likelihood they will know to ask for it. Workbased learning is designed and
geared to make the most of the ‘buttermilk’ [i.e. the environment, as set out
in Diagram One above] for student/worker/researchers. Students in workbased
learning can make use of industry research, professional association
conferences and information sharing with colleagues within and across
organisational boundaries to enrich and improve their workbased projects. With
so much knowledge both within and outside the conventional academic sources,
students can utilise contemporary developments in their areas of interest with
the aim of improving results for their organisations as well as improving the
quality of their own research. In fact, the effective operation of workbased
learning is dependent on the student/ worker having both an impact on and an interaction
with, the Level Three ‘buttermilk’.
In fact, workbased learning requires the
application and implementation of knowledge so that it makes a difference. It
may make a difference in very divergent ways but unless the worker undertakes
their work/study so that it causes a change in the human activity system
associated with their area of interest then it is not workbased learning.
Whilst workbased students do not have to attend lectures, workbased
learning does seek to take the student/researcher/worker ‘out’ of their normal
environment so as to enrich their knowledge and in so doing, to ‘teach’ them -
it does so by seeking to more fully engage and activate the
student/researcher/worker in and with their chosen field of activity. In so
doing, the student/researcher/worker must become aware of their own role and
actions in different environments and settings and become adept at making the
transitions across these boundaries.
In reality, students who are attracted to work
based learning need to be interested and engaged in dealing with the dynamics associated
with purposeful action across the three levels of the workbased learning
system. For this reason, workbased learning is not the ideal or preferred
approach for some students and workplaces. Many students however see the
opportunities and advantages afforded by such an environment and are able to
take advantage of enmeshing the different roles they have in life with the progression
of their studies. At the moment there is still a relatively small number of
students undertaking workbased learning [compared to conventional, taught
tertiary programs]. Over time, it is anticipated that this number will grow and
one important mechanism for facilitating growing awareness and participation in
workbased learning will be through student engagement with their
professional/industry associations. As well, students undertaking workbased
learning have the opportunity to quickly share knowledge about their particular
projects through the developing databases of successful student awards. One
example of this is the extensive repository of workbased project reports
available from the Middlesex University’s Institute of Work Based Learning (Middlesex
University, 2013). In some respects the authors could see some advantage in
reversing the order of the concentric circles in Diagram One above, such is the
primacy of Level Three to workbased learning.
Conclusion
It seems apposite, having just alluded to a rich
resource of completed workbased learning projects, to refer back to the
beginning of this paper when several questions were posed, that implied the
dramatic changes implicit in workbased learning. The journey the authors have
undertaken in the past five years and which is reflected in this paper accords
with T. S. Eliot’s insight that “We shall not cease
from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we
started and know the place for the first time” (in Dawson 2003, p.114). The questions posed were posed on
behalf of three key actors in workbased learning: the workplace
owner/supervisor; the student/worker/researcher and the academic supervisor/mentor.
Subsequently, the paper has put forward a systems model for workbased learning
that seeks to build a more complete picture of the manner in which this
approach operates. This model is intended to provide a clear point of departure
from the limiting ‘binding binaries’ alluded to above and to provide the
context in which it is feasible to consider the resolution of these questions.
It is considered important that workbased
learning models move beyond those aspects of program delivery that
educationalists have traditionally considered in single level relationships
with student/customers in discipline centric class room based programs. These
traditional perspectives have focused on learning and teaching theories and
models, student learning and assessment approaches and related perspectives on
presentation and justification of research methods all within the traditional
model of higher education delivery. These issues are no less important in workbased
learning but are only part of the emergent model of workbased learning. This
broader model needs to reflect understandings regarding the roles,
relationships and approaches for productively connecting a student’s
development and learning cycle, with the planning cycle of a workplace and the program
cycle of the university. In essence, if academics do not recognise the
new context for their traditional concerns then the ‘binding binaries’ will
continue to be a sub-optimal way of characterising the full implications of workbased
learning.
It appears, from the evidence of the limited
development of workbased learning in Australia, that the barriers to this
approach are very high on the educational institutionl [supply] side and this
paper has highlighted some of the reasons behind this. However, the authors
observations in regard to those students and their employers, who are already
engaged with workbased learning, is that whilst there is limited knowledge
about the operation of workbased learning, the barriers to its adoption are
much lower on the labour market [demand] side of the equation. What emerges from
our research is a simple picture that establishes the different worldviews
implicit in traditional, discipline based, tertiary education versus workbased
learning. The diagram below illustrates, simply, two worldviews of education -
(1) The workbased learning model and (2) The traditional tertiary teaching
model. The workbased model has the following key features-
- student and university facing the
world together
- student selects content in concert
with workplace
- student selects learning outcomes in
context of future personal development/ambitions[no disciplinary
predeterminations]
- university works[side by side] with
student and workplace to facilitate learning outcomes and monitor quality
- student and company gain immediate
benefits from expanded knowledge
- student is learning, working and
contextualising knowledge in sync
The traditional university teaching model
has the following key features
- student dealing with the world but, having
to face the university to gain their award
- university has selected content and
delivery method
- university delivers content from a
position of power [limited choice/flexibility based on predetermined
disciplinary perspective]
- student makes what they can of the
content and connects it with their situation
- student hoping that one day this
knowledge will add value
Diagram
Five: Two worldviews of university
education in Australia -(1) Workbased learning model and (2) Traditional university
teaching model
Diagram Five is a simplified model and it is not
intended to diminish the effort and attention given by many university
lecturers to their students in traditional university settings. However, our
findings are that the barriers to expanded university workbased learning in
Australia are high on the university side and relatively low on the student and
organisation side. The vast majority of those in universities are well invested
in the maintenance of the traditional teaching model. Continuing to debate
about the ‘binding binaries’ avoids the deeper issues as both sides of that
debate depend on the continuation of the same underlying worldview as set out
in the traditional model. Development towards the workbased learning model is
going to be dependent on the extent to which the students and their
organisations drive their expectations to force a change in the traditional
model.
At the moment, with very limited offerings in
Australia that encompass the workbased model, it is difficult for potential students and workplaces to know
about workbased learning. Also, efforts to develop workbased learning in
Australia are most likely to be driven by those outside the Australian public university
system. For workbased learning to grow in Australia it will be most important
for those involved in personal and professional development in medium to large
organisations and industry/professional bodies to continue to seek to find
flexible solutions to university, higher education.
List of References
CAAMP - Chairs and Academic
Administrators Management Program, 2013. CAAMP - Chairs and Academic
Administrators Management Program [WWW Document]. What Describes You. URL
http://www.academicleaders.org/CAAMP_home.cfm
Cathcart, M., 2008. Organisational
learning strategies for developing strategic capability within Australian
Franchised Business Units. University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba,
Australia.
Checkland, P., Poulter, J.,
2006. Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems
Methodology and its use for Practitioners, Teachers and Students. John
Wiley&Sons, Ltd, England.
Coase, R.H., 1937. The Nature
of the Firm, in: Williamson, O.., Winter, S.G. (Eds.), The Nature of the Firm:
Origins, Evolution and Development. Oxford University Press, New York, pp.
18–33.
Costley, C., 2000. The
Boundaries and Frontiers of Work Based Knowledge, in: Portwood, D., Costley, C.
(Eds.), Work Based Learning and the University: New Perspectives and Practices
Seda Paper 109. Staff and Education Development Association, Birmingham, pp.
23–33.
Costley, C., 2011. Workplace
Learning and Higher Education, in: Malloch, Margaret, M., Cairns, L., Evans,
K., O’Connor, B.N. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning. SAGE, Los
Angeles, pp. 395–406.
Dawson, J., 2003. Lifelong
Learning and T.S. Eliot’s Four Quartets. Studies in Continuing Education 25, pp.113–124.
Dick, B., 2002. Postgraduate
programs using action research. The Learning Organisation 9, pp.159–170.
Garnett, J., Workman, B., 2009.
The Development and Implementation of Work Based Learning at Middlesex
University, in: Garnett, J., Costley, C., Workman, B. (Eds.), Work Based
Learning Journeys to the Core of Higher Education. Middlesex University Press,
Middlesex, pp. 2–14.
Garnett, J., 2012. Authentic
work-integrated learning, in: Hunt, L., Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University
Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach. ACER Press, Melbourne, pp.
164–179.
Garnett, J., Young, D. (Eds.),
2008. Work-based Learning Futures11. University Vocational Awards Council.
Garnett, J., Young, D. (Eds.),
2009. Work-based Learning Futures 111. University Vocational Awards Council.
Illeris, K., 2008. A
comprehensive understanding of human learning, in: Illeris, K. (Ed.),
Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning Theories...In Their Own Words.
Routledge, Hoboken.
Kennedy, P., 2000. Applying
Work Based Learning to Undergraduate Study, in: Portwood, D., Costley, C.
(Eds.), Work Based Learning and the University: New Perspectives and Practices.
Staff and Educational Development Association Ltd, Birimgham, pp. 85–90.
Middlesex University, 2013.
Institute of Work Based Learning - Research by Middlesex University staff
and alumni [WWW Document]. URL
https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/view/divisions/work=5Fbased=5Flearning.html (accessed
8.1.13).
Peach, N., Cathcart, M.,
Baker, S., 2014. Workbased Learning as a Pathway for increasing the number of
degree qualified workers in Australia. Not Yet Published.
Portwood, D., 2000. An
Intellectual Case for Work Based Learning as a Subject, in: Portwood, D.,
Costley, C. (Eds.), Work Based Learning and the University: New Perspectives
and Practices SEDA Paper 109. Staff and Educational Development Association,
Birmingham, pp. 17–22.
University of Southern
Queensland, 2013. Programs and Courses [WWW Document]. Master of Professional
Studies. URL http://www.usq.edu.au/handbook/current/arts/MPST.html
Comments
Post a Comment