Student support in work based Learning: interpreting cultural differences
Kate Martin, Department of Community Education, University of Dundee
Symposium paper, Scottish Educational Research Association Conference
27th -29th November 2003, Perth, Scotland
My interest in work based learning stems from community education practice in the rural Highlands of Scotland, where local volunteers, youth workers and community activists may have been disadvantaged by the predominantly centralised and full-time nature of professional training. Recent developments in work based routes to a degree and professional qualification in community education have begun to address this problem. In my current role as a tutor with undergraduate and postgraduate work based students, I have a particular interest in ways in which student support needs and responses may impact on the learning experience.
This paper will draw from previous small-scale research with undergraduate work based students on their support needs and resources; from personal reflection and learning from my practice as a support tutor and from increasing research and literature on the topic of work based learning.
First I will consider reasons why undergraduate students choose work based routes to a degree in community education and consider some contested meanings of work based learning. I will discuss issues of difference between the workplace and the academy and examine some difficulties which students may experience in balancing the demands of work and study. I will explore what kinds of support mechanisms may be recommended in literature on the topic, and conclude by proposing closer collaboration between the academy and the workplace as a means of creating necessary problem-posing dialogical conditions for active, reflective, creative learning.
Why choose a work based route?
Cultural, social, financial, educational and geographical factors feature among reasons given by students for choosing work based learning routes. Comments from students have included: “it’s a good opportunity to gain the qualification without having to leave home, I’ve got a young family and it wouldn’t be easy”; “I felt I had underachieved, and it’s good to get the opportunity to learn where I live and work”; “I had always wanted to do a degree, but my family came along” and “I can’t afford to give up my job, I have a child to support”. Most students cited distance, finance and family responsibilities as primary reasons for their choice, indicating that they welcomed the opportunity to study in the workplace and might be otherwise unable to gain a professional qualification
In discussion of adults returning to learning, McGivney (2000) suggests that "the groups least represented in education and training provision in the UK are also those who are the most socially and economically disadvantage", citing as examples rural adults; single parents; members of minority ethnic communities; people with limited qualifications; and low-wage earners, with women representing the majority of this latter category. From student responses, there seem to be links between this consideration of excluded groups and some of the factors suggested by students for choosing a work based route.
In a previous study, McGivney considers women returners to education to have particular and often practical barriers to learning, such as childcare, care of the elderly and domestic constraints and ‘downward mobility’ due to detachment from the workplace during child rearing; factors which may present additional disadvantage to women as work based learners in terms of their support needs. (McGivney, 1999).
A difficulty for work based learners may be restriction of availability of programmes. In a 1999 study of the Lothian Apprenticeship Scheme of Training, Tett suggests that choice is a limiting factor for work based learners: “courses were chosen from what the provider had to offer, rather than what the students wanted”, where the selected course was often perceived as the only one available. Thus, Tett argues, ‘choice’ for non-traditional learners is restricted in comparison to that of traditional school-leavers.
For many community education work based students, the achievement of a professional qualification may represent the difference between low paid temporary or part-time work and a full-time permanent job with a higher salary. Academic study towards a degree might be a secondary aspect of their decision to undertake the programme, where the main aim may be ‘getting the bit of paper’ and achieving aspects of personal and professional confidence which accompany qualification. Motivation for work based learners may lean more towards developing practice skills and less towards interest in or commitment to learning. For community education, focus on ‘excluded learners’, who may be less confident about or committed to academic study, may lead to wider learning support issues than some other higher education work based initiatives.
The context of work based learning
The past two decades have seen a marked increase in interest in work based learning in higher education in the UK, stemming from the changing nature of the labour market and the rapid expansion and diversification of the higher education sector.
Current government policies promote the idea of ‘a learning society’ in which lifelong learning is encouraged to meet the requirements of rapidly changing work systems and methodologies, the advance of new technologies and routine changes of career, with the suggestion that learning will increasingly take place in the workplace rather than in educational institutions. The 1998 UK Government Green Paper, ‘The Learning Age’, launched plans for a University for Industry, which aimed “ to encourage more work based learning, both to support the development of specific work related skills and knowledge and to exploit the fact that many people are more willing to engage in learning in the workplace than in educational institutions” (DfEE, 1997).
Recent developments in community education training propose the development of work based learning. The 2002 national review of community education training in Scotland presented an option of work based learning as central to future qualifying training: “ to the extent that it becomes the main route to a professional qualification. (Malcolm et al, 2002).
The subsequent Scottish Executive response, ‘Empowered to Practice’, (2003) agrees that work based and part-time routes should be expanded. The Scottish Executive sees the consultation and strategic response as “an opportunity to restructure the training and support for this area of work in a way that would enable the total workforce to demonstrate and promote inclusion and capacity building” (Scottish Executive, 2003).
These proposals indicate commitment to ideas of work based learning across the profession, not just involving pre-qualifying student-workers but promoting continuing professional development as part of the ethos of the profession.
However, one issue which has merged from discussion with current students is the lack of time allocated within the workplace for learning. This raises the possibility of different interpretations of the term work based learning, which may lead to complications in the expectations of the university, workplace and student.
What is meant by ‘work based learning?
Reeve, Gallacher and Mayes (1998) consider work based learning to be “learning which occurs as a result of the employee engaging in the experiences, activities and purposes of the workplace”. Reeve et al suggest that theoretical frameworks concerning work based learning are most appropriately drawn from experiential learning (Kolb, 1984, Boud et al 1985) and reflective practice (Schon, 1983). Brennan and Little (1996) agree that learning can be derived from the experience of carrying out work, ‘providing that it can be evidenced and assessed’. They define work based learning as “Learning resulting from doing a job of work which could be recognised by higher education in terms of credit towards an academic reward”. (Brennan & Little, 1996:10)
Boud (2001) suggests six common factors are shared by work based higher education programmes: partnership between the university and external organisation; a contractual relationship between student and the workplace organisation; a curriculum which draws from the workplace experience; students entering the programme at a stage which meets their level of ability: learning projects in the workplace, and assessment to standards of the educational institution.
Some programmes may have variations of these factors, for example the partnership between university and workplace may have formal or informal agreement, based on factors such as the number of participants, any financial contracts and the commitment of the external agency to acting as a ‘learning organisation’ and the degree of flexibility and innovation operated by the academic institution. The degree to which a programme is work based, rather than part-time or distance learning, seems to focus on the extent to which the curriculum is derived from work, as opposed to predetermined by the university and delivered to students using different methods and settings, for example ICT.
In their 1996 study, Brennan and Little identify four main categories of work based learning, and indicate that the main dimensions of work based learning are the curriculum focus, content and control, which may be influenced by the university, any external professional body, the employer and ‘above all, the learner’. Learner-centredness is a key feature of the type considered by some respondents as the ‘purest form’ of work based learning, where the curriculum focus and content is designed mainly by the learner in the workplace and the framework is controlled by the university. (Brennan & Little, 1996)
Next I will consider factors of difference between the workplace and academy, and how these may affect support needs for learners.
Workplace and University – some cultural differences
Brennan and Little ( 1996) suggest that differences in culture and values may exist between the workplace and academic institution, leading to tensions for the student/worker. Their research considers academic teaching to focus on ‘knowing about’, with an emphasis on teaching cognitive skills in understanding and interpreting while work based learning focuses on ‘knowing how to’ with more emphasis on transferable skills and students ability to reflect on and refine their own practice.
Candy and Crebert’s 1991 study of differences between work and university as learning environments investigates difficulties for graduates experiencing a ‘reality shock’ moving between the ‘controlled, supervised and ordered university culture’ and the ‘problem-solving, messy, unstructured’ world of work.
Higher education, they suggest, presents students with a pre-determined curriculum in which they apply ‘abstract intellectual processes to problem-solving’; are used to long timescales for writing discursive assignments and reports and work towards personal research and learning goals. In contrast, workplace learners operate within a problem-based environment; think critically; pose and solve problems; express thoughts and ideas verbally; produce written or oral reports at short notice; determine and monitor targets, and undergo self and external appraisal. Workplace learners are expected to be ‘team players’, predominantly working towards collective goals, as opposed to the individual inclination of academic learning achievement.
Foster and Saunders reinforce the potential difficulties of switching from one culture or discourse to another: “When two cultures meet, and use the same vocabulary, or confront the same reality, two sets of culturally derived perceptions present new barriers to the mutual support of the workplace learner, and to the development of a shared understanding of a learning culture or learning society.” Foster and Saunders (1996)
The role of support to the work based learner may thus involve facilitating translation from one language to another, awareness-raising about the benefits of the other, facilitation of a collaborative understanding and the development of shared goals, values and responsibilities.
Support Needs
Students identified some barriers to their learning as pressure of work; lack of confidence or of time; relevance of job, together with workplace, cultural and gender issues. Uncertainty about line management was a particular area of concern although those who had clear lines of communication with managers identified them as a key source of support. One student said they would appreciate “recognition from my line manager of the value of the course – if they value what I’m doing, they’ll be giving me the support I need”.
Eraut et al consider the role of the manager to be central to learner achievement: “a major factor affecting a person's learning at work is the personality, interpersonal skills, knowledge and learning orientation of their manager. While approaches to management development normally emphasise motivation, productivity and appraisal, comparatively little attention is given to supporting the learning of subordinates, allocating and organising work, and creating a climate which promotes informal learning”. (Eraut et al, 1997)
The idea of a learning organisation seems to be a key factor in the success of work based learners. If others in the workplace are engaged in learning, an ethos of respect, collaborative learning and spontaneous coaching may emerge.
Brennan and Little stress the need for certain interventions which will ‘for the learner, transform experiential knowledge to propositional knowledge’ (Boud et al, 1985) and suggest that time needs to be set aside for such intervention. In order to effectively support experience based learning, the researchers suggest that the academic institution and workplace managers need to co-operate in establishing a team of supporters, including tutors, a workplace mentor, other learners and a supportive employer.
The support model outlined for the undergraduate work based route to the BA/BA(Hons) in the University of Dundee suggests three key areas of support: the workplace, the university and the student cohort. The model identifies workplace support from a line manager, work colleagues and a workplace- associated mentor; administrative, resource and tutor support from the university and peer support through contact with other learners using ICT and local study groups.
Brennan and Little (1996) identify a supportive working environment as a significant aspect of learner support, suggesting that it is important for the institution and workplace partners to bridge the gap between values and practices of the academic institution and those of the workplace.
Eraut et al (1998) agree that learners benefit mainly from the challenge of work itself and from others around the workplace, arguing that “managers best promote learning through their organisation of work to stimulate challenging tasks and roles and through their development of a microclimate favourable to learning from others.” (Eraut et al, 1997) Similarly, Marsick and Watkins (1990) consider ‘proactivity, critical reflectivity and creativity’ to enhance informal learning in the workplace. Proactivity, they argue, is an expression of empowerment and involves the learner in taking the initiative in exploring new ideas, reframing and questioning assumptions through critical reflectivity, and posing alternative views and insights through creative thinking.