The future relationship between workplace learning and workbased learning research in Australia

The future relationship between workplace learning and workbased learning research in Australia

Introduction

The paper forms part of an ongoing research project which is employing elements of action research to further develop workbased learning as a way of delivering higher education services in Australia. An important motivation for this paper arises from the authors’ need to survey developments and research in workbased learning so as to develop a sensible basis for undertaking future research into, the practice of, and the outcomes associated with, workbased learning in Australia. Whilst there have been previous efforts to establish workbased learning as an alternative approach to delivering higher education awards in Australia, there is only one Australian based university [University of Southern Queensland] which is currently offering post graduate awards by way of workbased learning. Our approach to our ongoing research, and to this paper in particular, is informed by the view that our research must have a performative value in contributing to the development required to expand workbased learning in Australia.

In this paper we propose that ongoing research and development into workbased learning in Australia should build on the existing diverse and multidisciplinary pillars of both (a) workplace learning research and (b) workbased learning research.  From our analysis, these are complementary and overlapping areas of research that are serving particular audiences. Workplace learning is oriented towards those with a focus on organisational development; workbased learning is oriented towards those with an emphasis on educational development. Given the particular circumstances appertaining in Australia, we see particular value in placing a focus on the organisational development aspects of both bodies of research. 

This paper reviews the characteristics and research orientations of both workplace learning and workbased learning, places these in an Australian context and then proposes a way forward for future research into workbased learning in Australia.

Workplace Learning

Workplace learning is a wide and deep area of academic interest and enquiry (Sawchuk 2011). This is not surprising because (1) learning is ‘continuous and life long’ and ‘occurs in all contexts in which humans have to live and survive’, (Allix 2011, p. 144) and (2) work ‘....in the form of a job is one of the central aspects of our identity’ (Cairns & Malloch  2011, p. 6). The issue of human identity and its association with work is an important aspect in Illeris’s model of learning in working life, which has at its core the dialectic between ‘working practice’ and ‘working identity’ (Illeris 2011, p.328). Illeris’s model of learning in working life has three main focal points being (1) the individual’s own learning processes, (2) the technical/organisational learning environment and (3) the broader social/cultural learning environment. Illeris contends that learning only occurs when both the acquisition processes [through inner psychological processes] and the interplay processes [through the social interaction between the individual and his or her environment] occur (Illeris 2004, p. 434). It is apparent that contemporary perceptions about human involvement with work [and learning] have moved a long way from the position adopted by the ancient Greeks. Birch and Paul contend that, for the Greeks, work was seen as ‘interfering with the duties of citizens, distracting them from the important pursuits of politics, art, philosophy and what they called leisure’ (in Cairns & Malloch 2011, p.72). We seem to be moving much closer to the position put by Barnett that ‘work has to become learning and learning has to become work’ (in Sawchuk 2011, p.176). Under these conditions, our understanding of workplace learning becomes of increasing import.

Of course, workplaces are diverse in many respects and it follows that they are different in respect to the opportunities that they offer employees for work to ‘become learning’. Fuller and Unwin (2011, pp. 51-­52) have developed a way of thinking about organisational characteristics which categorises them along a continuum- at one end, those organisations that are more supportive [expansive] and at the other end, those organisations that are less supportive of work becoming learning [restrictive]. This involves an assessment of two key dimensions of a workplace - (1) work organisation and (2) pedagogical practices. The result of the assessment is to be able to locate a workplace on the ‘expansive – restrictive’ continuum. They say that more expansive learning environments are ones that allow for ‘substantial horizontal cross-­boundary activity, dialogues and problem-­solving and which generate multi-­dimensional, heterogeneous and reflexive forms of expertise’ (p. 51). In contrast, more restrictive environments have little diversity and participation in learning is limited to ‘a narrow range of homogeneous tasks, knowledges and locations’ (p. 52). An appreciation of these differences becomes increasingly important for those individuals [learner/workers] who are seeking to match their learning needs [and their career aspirations] with the opportunities for learning [and progression] at their workplace. As well, for those educators using workplaces as a site for students to achieve formal recognition of their workplace learning, an appreciation of the factors that support [or otherwise], student learning and development is important. Fuller and Unwin’s assessment framework provides a checklist for supporting such assessment and is an illustration of how workplace learning research is relevant and useful to workbased learning research and practice.

Picking up on this issue of using workplaces as a site for formal recognition of student learning, Baker (2013, p. 78) notes that there is –

 ‘An increasing recognition that people learn in different situations, through a range of experiences and at a their own pace. Terms such as recognition of prior learning (RPL), on-­the-­job and off-­the-­job learning and flexible learning have become key characteristics of vocational education and training and have influenced its delivery.’

Workbased learning in Australia has tended to be focused on vocational education: a good example is the application of workbased apprenticeship training, which is well established in many jurisdictions in Australia. However, it is now apparent that the workplace is the site for much more than just vocational education development. Engestrom (2011, pp.87-88) notes that in contemporary work settings ‘traditional modes of learning are not enough. Nobody knows exactly what needs to be learned. The design of the new activity [externalisation] and the acquisition of the knowledge and skills it requires [internalisation] are increasingly intertwined.............Accelerated concept level changes in work and organisations require generalisation and learning that expand the learners’ horizon and practical grasp up to the level of collective activity system’. Engestrom ( 2011, p. 88) characterises this new type of learning as ‘expansive’ and adds that the need for expansive learning is being compounded because ‘today, the life cycles of entire product, production and business concepts are rapidly becoming shorter’.

Engestrom contends that traditional [learner centric/individual] notions of learning are directed towards a change in the subject [the student]. He says that expansive learning is manifested ‘primarily as changes in the object’ (p. 92). For this reason, it is not surprising that the sequence of learning actions in Engestrom’s expansive learning cycle is very similar to the cycles/spirals used by action researchers where there is an interest in the outcomes associated with both action and knowledge as well as [personal/professional] learning (Cherry, 1999: Dick, 2002). This accommodation or mutuality between individual development and learning on one hand [the subject] and on the other hand, the result of the transformative action or the performance of the action [the object] arises not least in part because the purpose or objective of the firm is not just to achieve individual learning or development (Fuller & Unwin, 2011). A firm’s objective will be generally directed towards the production of goods and services. However, ‘The increasingly societal nature of work processes’ noted by Engestrom (2004, p. 87) is being connected with the organisational need for what Fuller & Unwin (2011) describe as High Performance Working [HPW]. They say HPW is associated with the need to develop ‘much greater employee involvement, the development of higher levels of skill and knowledge creation, and their capacity to innovate’ (p. 49). It appears therefore that the broad interest in workplace learning is being driven not only by new forms of work organisation [such as HPW], but also by a clear recognition that the workplace is a potential place for all levels [and types] of learning. Further, because of technological developments, as well as marketisation, there is an economic need for countries and regions to increase workforce skills (Fuller & Unwin 2011).

Flowing from this, there is strong academic and research interest in the field of workplace learning. This interest is both diverse and multidisciplinary and two typologies of workplace learning research and enquiry highlight these features (Fuller & Unwin 2011: Sawchuk 2011).  Fuller & Unwin (2011, p.47) refer to the areas of workplace learning enquiry being -­

·       Work psychology

·       Labour economics

·       Labour process

·       Organisational studies

·       Human resource development/management

·       Education and sociology.

Sawchuk (2011, pp. 167-176) also suggests six themes that offer the ‘most robust, contemporary research programmes’ and describes them as -­

·       Cognition, expertise and the individual

·       Micro-­interaction, cognition and communication

·       Mediated practice and participation

·       Meaning, identity and organisational life

·       Authority, conflict and control

·       Competitiveness and knowledge management.

There is a strong, if not immediately apparent, connection between these two characterisations of workplace research and enquiry. For example, Fuller & Unwin’s ‘labour process’ can be closely aligned to Sawchuk’s ‘authority, conflict and control’ and ‘organisational studies/human resource development’ can similarly be aligned with ‘competitiveness and knowledge management’. Also, ‘work psychology’ is strongly connected with at the least the first three of Sawchuk’s categories covering ‘cognition’, ‘micro interaction’ and ‘mediated practice’, if not all. The important point is not to favour one typology over another, as they are both relevant and valid; however, it is important to reiterate the point about diversity and multidisciplinarity: it makes efforts at categorisation [such as these] more important and relevant in supporting and connecting strands of enquiry and understanding.

This brief review of workplace learning has covered some features, drivers and lines of enquiry and as such, it is intended to provide the context for [and point of departure] for the next section, which is a discussion of the concept of workbased learning.

Workbased Learning

Both workplace learning and workbased learning can occur in many forms such as structured training [both away from and at the work site], specific practice development, general skills training, ‘on-­the-­job’ training and instruction, and knowledge sharing between colleagues. In this context, Cathcart (2008) notes that workers offer each other advice, share experiences, adapt and adopt new tools, respond to change, share stories and copy behaviours of other workers and that this learning builds on questions or problems that arise as well as reusing and reworking previous solutions and ideas. However, workbased learning is one particular aspect or element of workplace learning. Workbased learning follows from workplace learning in that it is an ‘optional’ outcome of workplace learning. If workplace learning were not an established concept, then workbased learning [as defined in this paper] would not exist. Workbased learning is used in this paper to refer to (a) accredited, (b) problem centred (c) transdisciplinary (d) experiential programs provided by a tertiary education institution. In workbased learning, the majority of the students curriculum is founded on ‘learning at, through and by work’ (Seagraves et al 1996 in Garnett & Workman 2009, p. 4). As such, it is considered distinctly different to work integrated learning [Wil] that is employed by some Australian universities as a work placement or project, which comprises one part or unit of a discipline-­centred, traditional program. It also appears that in some jurisdictions, workbased learning can refer to a specific ‘placement’ [involving a reasonable period of full time work] which is part of a discipline specific tertiary award. Neither of these connotations is covered by this discussion because they do not have the substantial characteristics covered by this paper’s definition of workbased learning, as set out above.

In particular, workbased learning requires a shift away from a fixed or predefined curriculum where the student sits facing the teacher [irrespective of whether they interact ‘face to face’ or ‘on line’] and waits for the teacher to deliver the knowledge and information considered necessary [by the teacher] for the student to know. Workbased learning requires the teacher to sit [side by side, if only virtually] with the student/worker and for them to collaborate in establishing the ‘problem centric’ curriculum that will frame the student’s learning journey. The image of a teacher ‘side by side’ with the student is an important and powerful one and is a foundation for workbased learning programs. This image is associated   with American pragmatist philosopher and educator John Dewey and his particular perspective of ‘experience’ in relation to education. Elkjaer (2008, p. 78) highlights that ‘experience is the concept that Dewey used to denote the relation between subject and worlds as well as action and thinking, between human existence and becoming knowledgeable about selves and the worlds of which they are a part’. Further, ‘experience is an understanding of the subject as being in the world, not outside and looking into the world, as a spectator theory of knowledge would imply’ (p. 79). This is a world where action and learning/research are connected and where not only is the learner/researcher part of that world but that there are connected outcomes/results for both the learner and the world they have acted on. This links strongly with Engestrom’s contemporary working of this issue, in the earlier discussion about transformative change and the development of thinking to respond to many work situations where the answers to problems are not known.

With this in view, workbased learning often sees students employing techniques for engagement and enquiry, which have grown out of the social sciences. Since Dewey, developments in (1) the understanding of situated and expansive learning (Billett 2004 and 2011; Engestrom 2011) and (2) social and organisational research philosophy and approaches (Jarvie 2011; Alvesson & Skoldberg 2000; Berg 2007; Hughes 1990; Jackson 2000; Checkland & Poulter 2006) have coalesced into a practical appreciation and understanding of work as a site for learning, research and action (Armsby & Costley 2000; Costley & Armsby 2007; Lester& Costley 2010; Coghlan & Brannick 2005; Williams 2004). Proponents of workbased learning have therefore established a rigorous framework that sees the standard and quality of student/workers output being on the same footing as other fields of study. In many respects, the foundation for the academic justification and quality of workbased learning outputs is no different to any other field of study –­ its ontologies and epistemologies sit comfortably within developments in academic knowledge, research philosophy and methodology. Like many academic fields of study, the contributions of its students arise in three important areas -­ (1) action (2) learning and (3) knowledge (Cherry 1999). The standard of these contributions is consistent with the standards employed for each of the levels of academic awards established by the jurisdictions in which workbased learning is offered. Workbased learning awards can be offered from undergraduate through to doctoral levels; however, as noted above, in Australia, only one university is offering workbased learning awards and these awards are postgraduate awards only.

In many respects, the extent to which workbased learning is different has been compounded by the need for proponents of workbased learning to win both administrative and political battles, for its survival, within their own educational institutions. In so doing, they must invariably both differentiate and justify the existence of the field of study and its offerings. In reality, when you read any one workbased learning report from a student/worker, there is generally nothing in it that is not within a broad academic tradition. What is probably distinguishing in some respect is that there may be multiple elements of ‘slight’ difference but you would probably find evidence of each of these ‘slight’ differences in a selection of outputs from other fields of study. These ‘differences’ may include the –

·       researcher is working in the place where the research is being undertaken

·       method developed for the research is in itself a ‘contribution’ to knowledge and has been developed after a careful ‘reading’ of organisational circumstances, professional interest and the research literature.

·       issue being explored may not  be a ‘gap in the literature’ but a ‘problem’ in the workplace

·       thesis uses multiple ‘voices’ and numerous ‘artefacts’ to set out its argument and is woven together by a ‘critical commentary’

·       contribution is academically transdisciplinary and boundary crossing in practice

·       actions outlined in the thesis have had a significant impact in a particular ‘community of practice’ even before the matter is examined.

Put another way, if you have a friend who has more than the usual number of quirky characteristics [compared to your other friends], you may think of them as eccentric, but this does not change the fact that they are a friend. The issue of what is ‘different’ about workbased learning is more to do with its application and implementation than any academic or disciplinary issues and whilst there may be a number of small differences, it is in some respect, just another academic field of study.

This issue of disciplinarity is worthy of further discussion and the question whether workbased learning is a mode of study or a location for learning as opposed to it being a ‘subject’ or ‘discipline’ or ‘field of study’ has been on the table for some time (Portwood 2000; Garnett & Workman 2009). Portwood ( 2000, p.17) says -

The question for work based learning is does it qualify as a subject? Controversy raged at Middlesex University in the early 1990s over this very point (see chapter 4). All the academics conceded that learning occurs through and at work and that work applies, reinforces and enhances knowledge. But learning from and in work itself was another matter. That took work based learning from being regarded as a mode of study to being recognised as a subject in its own right. Could this be justified on intellectual grounds?

Portwood goes on to put a case for it being a ‘subject’ in the way that ‘education’ or ‘science’ or ‘marketing’ are subjects. History indicates that at Middlesex, at least, the creation of a faculty and a dean of workbased learning indicates that workbased learning is not a ‘mode’ of study it is a field of study in its own right (Garnett & Workman 2009). Fields of study or subjects are not ‘made in heaven’ -­ they have been developed to distinguish areas of interest and enquiry. These are generally seen as the ‘what’ element of study and students can easily see that the subject of ‘education’ would have courses involving ‘learning’ and ‘teaching’ and that the subject of ‘business’ would have courses such as ‘finance’ and ‘marketing’. Over time however, the ‘how’ aspect of a subject [how we come to learn and know about a subject] has become intrinsically associated with the description of the ‘what’ -­ and in the case of universities the ‘how’ and ‘what’ are key determinants of disciplinary perspectives. In the case of workbased learning, the ‘what’ is not confined or defined by a particular, existing named subject and the ‘how’ is contingent on the student/learners context. Or, in other words, there is no specific ‘what’ and there is no specific ‘how’ -­ and, in our view, it is these particular characteristics that actually define the field of study or subject of workbased learning more so than its particular ‘location’ -­ i.e. at work. In fact the notion of ‘work’ in the title ‘workbased learning’ is very broadly defined and can cover many locations and many circumstances of employment and engagement and is in fact not the most distinguishing feature of the field of study.

This novel approach to describing workbased learning disciplinarity brings to mind the surprise felt when the terms ‘evidenced based medicine’ and ‘participative’ or ‘deliberative’ democracy’ first appeared. To some degree these terms seem redundant and one could be forgiven for thinking that they were an intrinsic part of the definition of the original terms –­ surely modern views of medicine imply evidence is used in determining treatments? Likewise, surely democracy by definition must involve participation or deliberation? The issue is that these terms were introduced to highlight something that was not fully articulated in the contemporary and general use of the terms. So ‘evidence based medicine’ had a particular focus on newly developed capacities for statistical analysis that were not previously available to [or known by] medical practitioners. In a different way, efforts at deliberative democracy were introduced to reiterate the need for citizen engagement in decision making in jurisdictions where voters were perceived as taking their democratic rights for granted.

In this way, work based learning is not well represented in the current ‘how’ and ‘what’ perspectives of existing fields of study and it has not previously been understood to be such a powerful ground for learning and broadly based education. For this reason and bearing in mind that it would not be productive for universities to endeavour to recast their entire organisational orientation towards knowledge [by way of faculties framed on named subject areas and lecturers skilled in these specific areas] to accommodate the emergent knowledge around workbased learning. It therefore makes practical sense [if not being a completely watertight intellectual argument] for workbased learning to be regarded as a field of study or subject area, as it allows workbased learning to be developed effectively and broadly [within its own faculty or department] within an existing university environment. The underlying grounds for this approach rest on the view that the prescriptions of its particular ‘what’ and ‘how’ are sufficiently different to warrant this approach. For the same reason, when one looks at the terms ‘evidence based medicine’ and ‘participative/deliberative’ democracy –­ again, their prescriptions are sufficiently demarked from the current understanding of medicine or democracy to warrant the continued recognition of these terms as distinctive approaches in their own right. Over time however, it will be important for proponents of workbased learning to better delineate and demark its ‘difference’ in a positive, expansive manner as opposed to framing its existence just in comparison to the other disciplinary perspectives.

Finally, as with other fields of study, workbased learning is not conceptually confined to a particular level of learning. However, as already mentioned, workbased learning is dependent on a student not only being a ‘learner’ but on that learner being involved in ‘work’. This therefore precludes those people who are too young to work [or to operate in a work-­like setting] and consequently workbased learning is a post-secondary [tertiary] qualification. In the United Kingdom, universities offer a range of awards from diploma level through to doctoral level including bachelor and masters along with the usual intermediate steps. As noted earlier, the implementation in Australia is limited to postgraduate awards at one university. There are numerous VET [Vocational Education and Training] awards offered by RTOs [Registered Training Organisations] that involve workbased learning, but these are not covered in this paper. Overall, the characteristics of workbased learning, be they regarded as ‘more or less’ similar or ‘more or less’ different to other education pathways, make the area a fertile ground for academic development, research and enquiry.

It was unanticipated therefore that our initial assessment of research into the workbased learning area has not delivered evidence of an articulated framework for more clearly categorising or locating contributions in the field. This is in contrast to the articulated frameworks available for workplace learning research. This may represent an opportunity for the development of a clearer enunciation of the primary themes of workbased learning [akin to Sawchuk’s six themes of workplace learning, that offer the ‘most robust, contemporary research programmes’ (Sawchuk 2011, pp. 167-176)]. None the less, there is a substantial and engaging body of work that goes to a comprehensive understanding of the overall delivery and implementation of workbased learning (e.g. Portwood & Costley 2000; Cunnigham, Dawes & Bennett 2004; Garnett, Costley & Workman 2009; Costley, Eliott & Gibbs 2010; Roodhouse & Mumford 2010). Key issues in this body of work include approaches to learning, teaching, assessment, curriculum design, research methods and so on. In our view, much of what has been written has been designed [most rightly] to justify, to position and to explain workbased learning in relation to the, very broad, education area of research.

There are however, a number of areas where the interface with workplace learning is emerging and this is evident in the areas of organisational change, personal and professional development and organisational capital, for example. The emphasis of workbased learning research in the education area has been an appropriate [and almost necessary] starting point because without it, workbased learning would not have established a foothold in educational institutions, such as universities. Overtime, there will always be a need for some element of the education orientation as a mechanism for improving and developing the theory and practice of workbased learning. Also, as workbased learning matures as a ‘product’ within the education area, the need to expand the understanding of it use, operation and development in the workplace will no doubt provide an impetus for a clear and robust connection with workplace learning research.

Conclusion

As noted at the beginning of this paper, an important motivation for this paper arises from the authors’ need to survey developments and research of workbased learning so as to develop a sensible basis for undertaking research into, the practice of, and the outcomes associated with, workbased learning in Australia. Unlike the research field of workplace learning, there is much less research in the field of workbased learning (Portwood 2000) especially in Australia [where so few students and lecturers are involved in such programs]. This paper seeks to build a preliminary framework for reviewing and researching workbased learning and in so doing, it is also hoped that it will operate to support a more expansive appreciation of the mechanisms that will influence the development and growth of workbased learning in higher education institutions in Australia.

Previous research and analysis by the authors has identified that, in Australia,  (1) the barriers to the implementation of workbased learning in the higher education industry may be considerable, whilst (2) the barriers to the development of workbased learning within workplace settings across the country are as much about lack of awareness and appreciation of what workbased learning has to offer than any clear or apparent objections to its approach (Peach et al, 2014). The provision of education services, such as workbased learning, operates in a similar manner to the supply and demand of economic goods. The market for education services involves providers and sellers on the supply side and customers and users on the demand side. Suppliers in education services include public and private universities and a range of other providers including international universities offering remote/distance based services, as well as accredited private providers of particular programs. Our analysis leads us to the view that it will be more important, in Australia, to focus development of workbased learning research on the ‘demand’ side [made up of workplaces, organisations and students] rather than the ‘supply’ side [made up of institutions of higher education, especially universities]. This leads to a focus on workplace and workbased learning research that emphasises an understanding of knowledge and practice about the development of the organisation and in particular how workbased learning is connected with organisational development. The impact of this reading of the situation leads to the view that the ‘organisational development’ aspects of the two parent research areas holds the key to creating an environment that is open to the value and benefits of workbased learning.  

In order to support this emphasis on organisational development, we propose that workbased learning research be overlaid on the key pillars of workplace learning research. Diagram One below sets out the major themes of workplace learning research, as vertical silos under the horizontal banner of workplace learning. The lines between the silos, in practice, are not solid and do not constrain overlapping by both contiguous and non-­contiguous items. In fact, ‘clouds’ would be a more descriptive way of representing the intention of this diagram. Cutting across these lines of enquiry is a workbased learning banner, which is regarded as an important strata of workplace learning research.

Diagram One: Workbased learning research as a subset of workplace learning research (Based on Sawchuk’s typology of workplace learning themes of research (2011))

As noted earlier, there are different ways of characterising the themes of workplace learning research [but this is not the most important issue for this discussion about workbased learning]. The significant issue is that if workbased learning is to expand in Australia, then it will be helpful to build the research and exploration on the ways in which workbased learning can support organisational development and improvement. For example, the work of Unwin and Fuller (2011) was referenced above: in their workplace learning research, they propose a ‘restrictive –expansive’ continuum to describe the opportunities for workplace learning. This presents a most appropriate lift off point for those working with students in workbased learning programs to explore the opportunities [and threats] for organisational development through workbased learning. Future workbased learning researchers would be well placed to build a layer of workbased learning related knowledge from this workplace learning lift off point. We surmise that the work of Fuller and Unwin could be located in the ‘Knowledge Management’ silo and workbased learning researchers could use their assessment checklist to build greater understanding of the impact of expansive/restrictive company practices on students’ workbased learning and their organisations’ performance. This links strongly with prior work undertaken, as part of workbased learning research, on organisational capital (Garnett 2009) and would help to present a clearer understanding of how the interplay between both workplace and workbased learning can improve organisational outcomes. This could then lead to greater understanding and demand for work based learning in Australia. The shift in the focus to build a shared understanding of organisational development is proposed to support an expanded engagement of workbased learning knowledge and practice with   students and organisations in Australia. At this stage, and as noted earlier, there is limited interest from Australian universities in delivering workbased learning programs (Peach et al, 2014) and therefore our action research approach favours an emphasis in the area where our research is most likely to result in action.

In summary, this paper has sought to highlight the points of difference and the points of connection between workplace learning and workbased learning and to put this in a particular context – namely, Australia. More broadly, this paper is intended to serve as the foundation for looking more deeply at how the worlds of workplace learning and workbased learning would benefit from two - way understanding [between researchers in each area] to achieve more effective outcomes for workbased learning in Australia. The proposed shift of research emphasis from ‘education’ to ‘workplace’ [from ‘supply’ to ‘demand’] is expected to provide Australian workbased learning researchers with the opportunity to make a particular contribution to the global community of practice interested in workbased learning. In this way, it is also hoped to counter the particular difficulties associated with there being a very limited number of programs being offered through workbased learning in Australia and therefore very little benefit to be gained by continued emphasis on workbased learning research being directed towards the ‘education’ area of research. This focus has been helpful in jurisdictions where there is a wider application of workbased learning in the university sector: however, in Australia, the opportunities for expanding workbased learning are more likely through better informed individuals/students and their organisations

List of References

Alvesson, M., Skoldberg, K., 2000. Reflexive Methodology New Vistas for Qualitative Research. SAGE, London.

Armsby, P., Costley, C., 2000. Research Driven Projects, in: Portwood, D., Costley, C. (Eds.), Work Based Learning and the University: New Perspectives and Practices Seda Paper 109. Staff and Educational Development Association [SEDA], Birmingham, pp. 67–71.

Baker, S., 2013. Making the Implicit Explicit: facilitating growth in others to realise effective organisational change (Doctor of Professional Studies by Public Works). Institute of Work Based Learning Middlesex University, Middlesex.

Berg, B.L., 2007. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Pearson, Boston.

Billett, S., 2004. Workplace participatory practices Conceptualising workplaces as learning environments. Journal of Workplace Learning 16, pp. 312–324.

Billett, S., 2011. Subjectivity, self and personal agency in learning through and for Work, in: Malloch, M., Cairns, L., Evans, K., O’Connor, B.N. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning. SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 60–72.

Cairns, L., Malloch, M., 2011. Theories of Work, Place and Learning: New Directions, in: Malloch, M., Cairns, L., Evans, K., O’Connor, B.N. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning. SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 3–16.

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.

Cherry, N., 1999. Action Research: A Pathway to Action, Knowledge and Learning, Qualitative Research Methods. RMIT University Press, Melbourne.

Coghlan, D., Brannick, T., 2005. DOING ACTION RESEARCH IN YOUR OWN ORGANISATION. SAGE, London.

Costley, C., Armsby, P., 2007. Methodologies for undergraduates doing practitioner investigations at work. Journal of Workplace Learning 19, pp.131–145.

Costley, C., Elliott, G.C., Gibbs, P., 2010. Doing Work Based Research. SAGE PUBLICATIONS.

Cunningham, I., Dawes, G., Bennett, B., 2004. The Handbook of Work Based Learning. Gower, Aldershot.

Dick, B., 2002. Postgraduate programs using action research. The Learning Organisation 9, pp.159–170.

Elkjaer, B., 2008. Pragmatism A learning theory for the future, in: IIleris, K. (Ed.), Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning Theorists... In Their Own Words. Routledge, Hoboken.

Engestrom, Y., 2011. Activity Theory and Learning at Work, in: Malloch, M., Cairns, L., Evans, K., O’Connor, B.N. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning. SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 86–104.

Fuller, A., Unwin, L., 2011. Workplace Learning and the Organisation, in: Malloch, M., Cairns, L., Evans, K., O’Connor, B.N. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning. SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 46–59.

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., Costley, C., Workman, B. (Eds.), 2009. Work Based Learning Journeys to the Core of Higher Education. Middlesex University Press, Middlesex.

Hughes, J., 1990. The Philosophy of Social Research, 2nd ed, Aspects of Modern Sociology. Longman, London.

Illeris, K., 2004. A model for learning in working life. Journal of Workplace Learning 16, pp. 431–441.

Illeris, K., 2011. Workplaces and Learning, in: Malloch, M., Cairns, L., Evans, K., O’Connor, B.N. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning. SAGE, Los Angeles.

Jackson, M.C., 2000. Systems Approaches to Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York.

Jarvie, I., 2011. Philosophical Problems of the Social Sciences: Paradigms, Methodology and Ontology, in: Jarvie, I.C., Zamora-Bonilla, J. (Eds.), The Philosophy of Social Sciences. SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 1–36.

Lester, S., Costley, C., 2010. Work-based learning at higher education level: value, practice and critique. Studies in Higher Education 35, pp. 561–575.

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.

Portwood, D., Costley, C. (Eds.), 2000. Work Based Learning and the University: New Perspectives and Practices SEDA Paper 109. Staff and Educational Development Association, Birmingham.

Roodhouse, S., Mumford, J., 2010. Understanding Work-Based Learning. Gower, Surrey.

Sawchuk, P.H., 2011. Researching Workplace Learning: An Overview and Critique, in: Malloch, M., Cairns, L., Evans, K., O’Connor, B.N. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning. SAGE, Los Angeles, pp. 165–180.

Williams, M.C., 2004. Write a Doctoral Thesis About Work: Professional Action Research: A Creative Reader Introducing Rich Modelling. Resource Press, Perth.