POE 2003 Conference

The Perspective: The Workplace and Learning
                                from Experience

Panel Organizer:
David Thornton Moore, Associate Professor, Gallatin School of Individualized Study, New York University

Panelists:
Stephen Billett, Associate Professor of Adult and Vocational Education, Griffith University (Australia)

Bridget O’Connor, Professor of Business Education, New York University

Patricia Sachs, Founder and CEO, Social Solutions

Knowledge Broker:
Perrin Cohen, Director of NUCASE (Northeastern University Center for the Advancement of Science Education)

Major Points

David Thornton Moore began the session with a talk on “The Workplace as a Learning Environment: An Educational Perspective.” As an educational anthropologist, David reported on his ethnographic studies of learning in the workplace. David expanded the definitions of “learning,” “pedagogy,” and “curriculum” to accommodate the workplace as a learning environment. He referred to his definitions as “interactional/situation-based and “naturally occurring.” Learning was described as a change (individual or group) in shared knowledge-use through considered action toward a generally shared goal. Pedagogy was expanded to include access to activities and resources in the workplace, and curriculum was referred to as the “socially constructed organization of knowledge in use.” David applied these definitions to examples of learning in the workplace, demonstrating how some workplace situations are better learning environments than others. He suggested that this reframing of educational terms would be beneficial in the traditional classroom as well.

Bridget O’Connor followed with a talk on "Management Theory Frames for Examining Workplace Learning.” As a professor of business education, Bridget spoke about vocational and conceptual preparation for and about business. She briefly spoke about “work-based learning and stakeholder involvement,” the work of Carl Rogers and Kurt Lewin, the education of workplace learning specialists ("Instructional Systems Model" and the "Instructional Systems Design"), and research on the changing role of the expert.

Stephen Billett, professor of Adult and Vocational Education, then spoke on “Affordances, Engagements, Intentionality and Continuity: Conceptualizing Workplaces as Learning Environments.” Stephen proposed a framework for describing the process by which people learn in the workplace.
• First, the workplace provides opportunities (affordances) for students. This is similar to David’s use of “pedagogy” or access to activities or resources in the workplace.
• Secondly, Stephen acknowledged that the worker must actively choose to take advantage of the affordances and gave examples of situations where that did and did not happen. He then described the reciprocal interaction between affordances and individual engagement as co-participation.
• Finally, there is the need to appreciate the employer’s agenda (intentionality) and the workers’ interests/goals (individual continuity).
Like David, Stephen suggested that his workplace-based model of education could be useful for understanding learning in other traditional and non-traditional settings.

Patricia Sachs, CEO and founder of Social Solutions spoke on "Designing Work Environments that Survive the Collision with Reality: Learning and Work in Today’s Workplace.” Patricia gave an overview of the social organization of work and learning in business, focusing on two questions: 1.) How do people think? and 2.) Why do people do what they do?
Patricia also provided a brief summary of the history of work. She pointed out that the history of work has focused on Taylorism, technology, and expert systems, all of which ignore how people learn in the workplace. She advocated a “system of experts” approach (versus an expert system approach) in which organizations and technology can be designed from a learning and social practice perspective. This model would allow people and business to be more productive.

Principal Themes:

Several themes emerged which, for the most part, are best expressed as questions:

a) How does one reframe and expand traditional educational models, concepts (affordance), and terms (e.g., learning, pedagogy, and curriculum) to optimize thinking and theory about learning in the workplace?

b) In practice, what are the relevant variables (e.g., access to activities/resources, student motivation, and employer agenda) that one needs to consider in optimizing learning in the workplace?

c) What is learned in the workplace and how is it different from that which occurs in traditional classroom settings?

d) What does our understanding of work-based learning models add to our understanding of traditional classroom learning?

e) What are the historical trends and current biases that make it difficult for employees to feel empowered, learn and be “experts” in the workplace?

f) What are the benefits to students and employers of empowering employees to learn and become “experts” in the workplace?

g) Is learning in the workplace closer to learning under “natural conditions?” In conceptualizing and researching this natural type of learning, a somewhat greater emphasis is placed on functionality (e.g. measured by productivity) and adaptation rather than structure (e.g., abstract knowledge) although the latter is obviously important as well.

Commentary on Conference Questions:

1. How is the work environment distinctive in its potential as a learning venue?
The work environment provides an array of activities, relationships, collective experiences, and resources that are typically unavailable in the traditional classroom. There are also challenges to learning in the workplace that are a result of historical norms and biases about work (e.g., Taylorism, expert systems, etc.).

2. What is it about work that induces learning in the first place?
Work provides an environment rich in opportunities (affordances) such as group process, activities and resources. It also provides a knowledge base (curriculum) that is practical, conceptual, and social. It includes both cognitive and social learning.

3. What kind of learning is generated by practice?
The workplace provides opportunities for cognitive learning (e.g., construction, reorganization, transformation of knowledge) and group learning (e.g., socially constructed knowledge, situation/interactionally based definitions). Learning tends to focus on functionality as well as abstract knowledge.

4. What processes and methods are necessary to distill learning from work?
It is important to identify key variables that affect learning in the workplace. For example, one needs to be sure that there are opportunities that allow for certain types of learning to occur. One needs to know the workers’ (students’) needs and goals and the institution’s intentions. In terms of optimizing learning, one also needs to be aware of historical biases that undermine learning and empowerment in the workplace.

5. What are the roles of theory and reflection in learning from work?
The speakers did not directly speak about the importance of individual or group reflection. However, the need for reflection was implicit in discussions about employees’ needs or goals. The speakers generally agreed explicitly or implicitly that theory is an important tool for understanding and researching learning in the workplace.

6. Are there thresholds of experience that are required to make work learningful? Is simulated experience sufficient? What makes for effective practice?
The emphasis in this session was more on identifying variables ­ both work conditions as well as the employee’s and student’s background culture, history, expectations ­ that make some type of learning possible. In a “poorly constructed work environment,” there may be few opportunities for learning, but a person may still learn tasks or skills. Effective practice occurs when employer and employee participate in what Stephan Billett refers to as “co-participation at work,” a reciprocal process of engaging in and learning through work. Simulated experience may not afford the spontaneous opportunities for cognitive and social learning and co-participation that are possible in the workplace.

• Return to Reports from the Panel Sessions