Exploring the Learning Potential
in Problem Handling
- an Empirical Study of Process Operator Work[1]
Maria Gustavsson
Department of Education and Psychology
Linköping University Sweden
email:
Paper Presented at theEuropean conference on Educational Research, ECER 98; Lljublijana, Slovenia, 17-20 September 1998.
Introduction
The focus of this paper is the learning potential in problem handling in the work of process operator. The basic assumption is that problems are part of the operator´s work as a consequence of uncertainty and unpredictability inherent in the production process. It is argued that through the handling of these problems, a learning potential is opened up for the operators (Norros, 1996). In the field of research on problem handling in work processes, most studies are inspired by cognitive perspectives, where learning and problem solving are seen as individual processes. However, during recent years the cognitive perspectives have been challenged by contextual perspectives. According to these, learning resides neither in individuals nor in work structures but is seen as a socially distributed activity in and between contexts (Lave, 1993; Lave, 1997). Moreover, it is assumed that learning is a dialectical relationship between individuals and different aspects of the environment (e.g. historical, cultural and social). In this paper, learning is conceptualised according to what is here called contextual perspectives. That is, learning is viewed as being embedded in the operator´s everyday experiences and as being linked to activities in the work situation. The aim of this paper is to explore the learning potential in problem handling on the basis of an empirical example. To explore the learning potential is to focus on how the process operators actually handle the problems. The handling of problems is carried out by operators in different kinds of problem handling activities in their work situations. More specifically, the paper focuses on the following questions:
•Where are the process operators situated?
•What problem handling activities are they participated in?
•What differences are there between problem handling activities in process operator work?
After this brief introduction, the paper has the following disposition. First, a theoretical framework for contextual perspectives on learning is outlined. Second, the case study is described. It builds partly on a method developed within time-geography studies that is based on diaries, partly on interviews with process operators at a paper mill. Third, some results from the study of the process operators at the paper mill are presented. And finally, the results are discussed and conclusions drawn.
Learning and Learning Potentials
Many contextual perspectives have their roots in the work of the Soviet socio-historical, socio-cultural school (e.g. Vygotsky, 1978; Leontev; 1981). Recently, a broader picture of learning and development in a varitey of social contexts has emerged in the domains of psychology, anthropology, education and sociology (e.g. Scribner, 1985, Lave, 1993; Rogoff, 1995; Säljö, 1997). It may be interesting to find out what these contextual perspectives have in common in their view of learning. Learning is assumed to be embedded in an historical-material and cultural-social context of everyday activities. That is, human learning as well as thinking and acting cannot be separated from its environment. Learning always takes place in relation to people and their environments. Lave (1992, p 2-4) argues:
People only learn in practice, they always learn in practice. ... To claim that learning is socially situated is to claim that learning is an aspect of activity in the world, not a separate thing. ... However, if social existence is a matter of people participating in ongoing social practices ... and ongoing practices are always changing, so is participation and so are participants. This has a key implication. If learning is an aspect of all activity, the question of interest for researchers becomes what, not whether, people learn. ... But what is that “what“ that learners are learning? ... Learning is, in this purview, more basically a process of coming to be, of forging identities in activity in the world. In short, learners are never only that, but are becoming certain sorts of subjects with certain ways of participating in the world. Subjects are made and make themselves with others in their humdrum activities, attempts to coordinate their efforts, struggles to get what they want done, in their engagement or disengagement in the communities of practice in which they participate, which themselves are ongoing, interconnected, historically produced, and changing. Subjects occupy different locations, and have different interests, reasons, and understandings of who they are and what they are up to. (Lave, 1992 p 2-4)
There is much more to say about the nature of learning, but the central issue in this perspective is that learning is about being involved in different kinds of activities in everyday practice. What people learn is bound to who they are and what they do in practice. This includes changes in their participation and social relations as well as changes in their movements in and between multiple contexts (Lave, 1997; Østerlund, 1997). However, the main interest of this paper is learning potentials. There are certain ways in which learning comes out in the learning situation (Lave, 1997). One pivotal learning potential is described. That is, the learning potential can be understood as gaining access to learning situations as well as activities.
Access to different situations is tied to what you can actually do, and this depends on different physical (for example time-geographical) and social resources. Access can be described as a zone of proximal development (Engeström, 1987) or a zone of possibilities (Akre & Ludvigsen, 1997). It may also be described as a decision possibility, i.e. space of action (degrees of freedom) (Frese & Zapf, 1994). It may be related to participation and non-participation, which implies possibilities to participate (or not participate) in the social practices (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In this paper the focus is on the latter.
Access may depend on several different factors, ranging from work organisational conditions to interpersonal relations. Work organisational aspects often create similar access for persons at the same hierarchical level in an organisation, such as position. Access may also be created depending on where in the organisation – in which department or section – you are situated. But interpersonal relations may vary from one person to another in the same position, team or department, depending on what happens, where you are, when and together with whom you do certain things. Who takes the initiative to participation in different activities may also be decisive for who will have access. The person participating may take the initiative himself or may be invited to participate by more experienced colleagues. More active participants tend to gain more access to different learning situations than those who remain passive (Akre & Ludvigsen, 1977). Just as access may be given within an organisation, it may also be denied.
Access is created in different relations that may often be problematic, since situations are characterised by unique events that are marked by uncertainty and disorder (Schön, 1983). Situational access is constituted in the problems and the procedures used to handle the problems, as well as in the ideas about who one is, what happens and what should be done (Lave, 1985). This implies that actors must gain access to finding, defining and solving problems. Problems are unique and are created in the relation between problem formulator and the context generating and framing the problem. How problems are formulated also largely influence how actors solve these problems (Murtaugh, 1985). The challenge lies not only in handling the problem but in defining the kind of (problem) situation. The solution to a problem may be fairly routine, while the potential for learning may be found in finding and defining the problem itself.
The Method
The method used in this paper builds on a case study of a paper mill team introduced below. This section describes the method developed within time-geography studies. It is based on diaries and supplementary interviews with process operators. Data from one machine intendent and one winding operator working in the same paper mill team are used in the paper.
The diary study is inspired by time-geography, a physicalistic theory about time and space (Hägerstrand (1974, 1975). Recently it has also begun to consider activity patterns in different settings (Ellegård, 1994a, 1994b). Activities are seen as structured in time and space. The method can be used to study the movements of individuals between time and space and activity patterns in the time-space dimension, that is, limits and opportunities for different kinds of activities, feasible within a certain context. The movements and activity pattern of each individual can be illustrated in a diagram, where space or activities are found on the horizontal axis and time on the vertical axis. The movement between spaces or activities is represented as a continuous line that forms a trajectory for each individual.
In the diaries, focus is on process operator work as actually experienced by the two process operators. The process operators were asked to write a work diary, every day for a ten-days working period. They were instructed to include the following:
•The time when they began to do a work task (an activity) and the time when they changed work tasks (activities);
•Where (space) they were doing the work task (the activity);
•What kind of work task (activity) they were doing;
•With whom they were doing the work task with and perhaps the kind of artifacts used; and
•Comments of clarification of other dimensions in the dairy.
The focus of the analysis was on problem handling activity patterns in relation to time and space. The focus was also on differences between problem handling activities that the process operators participated in. The interviews were made on the basis of the content in the diaries. For instance, the operators were asked to describes what types of problems they encounter and how they used to handle problems in their work. The focus of the analysis was on what process operators do with their problems, what they are able to do as well as limitations and opportunities to act and/or handle problems they encounter in their work. In the next section the empirical study is presented.
The Paper Mill Team
The paper mill team works for a leading company in the paper business with a total of about 700 employees. The team is one of five working at one of the paper machines. The work force is organized in teams, with an hierarchical order among the process operators. Operators work shifts during a ten-days period. While the work is highly automated, the production process is often described as complex and invisible. Operators’ work contents differ as do their skill requirements. The team studied has 13 members, including the work leader. He has the overall control over the production process and is responsible for product quality. Four machine intendents work in the control room, monitoring the whole process from a computer-based control system. Eight process operators dry, re-wind and pack the paper. They usually work in the machine hall at two winding machines and a reel-packing machine. Each operator has a different grade and different level of responsibility. The work leader and machine intendents have the highest skill requirements in the team. The machine intendent performs his work in the middle of the total production process and the winding operator at the end. As mentioned above, data was collected during one working period when one machine intendent and one winding operator worked.
Working Situations
Where are they situated? Time and space are important aspects that frame learning situations (Ellström, Gustavsson & Thunborg, 1997). Figure 1 describes the time-space relations in which the machine intendent and the winding operator carry out their work activities as well as their problem handling activities. The example used is from one night of work during the working period.
Figure 1. One Night of Work for Machine Intendent and Winding Operator at the
Paper Mill.
As seen in figure 1, the space dimension is limited for both process operators. The machine intendent works in the control room most of the time, but he also works in the machine hall. When leaving the control room, he is relieved by another machine intendent. The control room is the centre of the production process and also central location for the machine intendent.
The winding operator has only one place of work: the winding machine. This machine is part of the machine hall but is separated from the paper machine. Figure 1 shows that working space in the paper mill is centred around the machines. This indicates that technology limits the need of the process operator to work away from the machines. It also indicates that the machine hall is the space where different kinds of activities are performed simultaneously by different kinds of personnel. The machine intendent is more free to move around the machine hall. The winding operator is tied to the winding machine to a greater extent. He cannot as easily be relieved as the machine intendent.
Problem Handling Activities
Problems are part of the process operator´s daily work. The problems are handled in different ways and by different process operators depending on what happens. The problem handling can be categorised according to different problem handling activities. So, what are the kinds of problem handling activities that process operators participate in? The problem handling activities of the machine intendents are summarised in table 1.
Table 1.Types of Problem Handling Activities, Number of Occurences and Time Used for Problem Handling Activities during the Working Period of the Machine Intendents.
Types of problem handling Number of occurencesTotal amount of time used activities for problem handling activities in minutes
Interventions 3115
Discussing problems 6140
Follow-up of problems 5115
Fault-detecting 6225
Repairing the paper web 7107
Machine/technical equipment
repair work 3250
Total: 30 952 (15h 52 min)
Table 1 shows the machine intendent being involved in seven types of problem handling activities, 30 occcurences altogether. These activities took 15 hours and 52 minutes to perform, i.e. almost two days of work during the working period. The types of problem handling he participated in include: interventions, discussions and follow-up of problems, all activities related to problems inherent in the production process. These problems are consequenses of instability and uncertainty in the production process, concerning process variable conditions and qualities of the paper pulp, such as lightness and water balance. The machine intendent intervenes in the production process for example by changing variables. He discusses and follows up troublesome problems, such as conditions and measurement values in the process in order to gain control over the production.
Fault-detecting activities take a great deal of time (225 minutes). Fault-detecting relates both to problems in the production process and to problems or faults in the paper machine or other technical equipment. There are two kinds of fault-detecting activities. On the one hand, it makes use of a routine activity for the prevention of problems in the production process or technical equipment. On the other hand, it implies searching for problems that already have occurred. Irrespective of which kind of fault-detecting activity the machine intendent is involved in, prevention or searching, he must discover the problem and/or its cause to be able to handle the problem. If he cannot find the problems or faults, he will not be able to prevent or solve them.
Repairing activity indicates that the problem or its cause are found and that the fault can be repaired. Repair work of the paper web relates to the product, i.e. the paper. Table 1 shows that the paper breaks seven times during the working period. When the paper web breaks, the machine intendent repairs it as quickly as possible. Usually this procedure takes him between 5 and 20 minutes. Repair work in the paper machine/technical equipment relates to faults in the paper machine or technical equipment. If part of the machine is out of order, the machine intendent keeps the production process going, but perhaps with reduced capacity. On rare occasions, such as breakdowns, the paper machine is stopped. In this case, repair work is not done by the machine intendent alone, a situation described later in this section.
What, then, are the kinds of problem handling activities that the winding operator participates in? His activities are shown in table 2.
Table 2.Types of Problem Handling Activities, Number of Occurences and Time Used for Problem Handling Activities during the Working Period of the Winding Operator.
Types of problem handling Number of occurencesTotal amount of time used activities for the problem handling activities in minutes
Machine/technical equipment
repair work 1 15