This article was downloaded by: [41.46.208.30]On: 22 March 2014, At: 06:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Vocational Education & TrainingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjve20

The relative contributions of institutional andworkplace learning environments: an analysis ofapprenticeship trainingRoger Harris a , Peter Willis a , Michele Simons a & Emily Collins aa University of South Australia , Underdale, AustraliaPublished online: 24 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Roger Harris , Peter Willis , Michele Simons & Emily Collins (2001) The relative contributions ofinstitutional and workplace learning environments: an analysis of apprenticeship training, Journal of Vocational Education& Training, 53:2, 263-278, DOI: 10.1080/13636820100200159

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13636820100200159

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Volume 53, Number 2, 2001

263

The Relative Contributions of Institutional and Workplace Learning Environments: an analysis of apprenticeship training

ROGER HARRIS, PETER WILLIS, MICHELE SIMONS & EMILY COLLINS University of South Australia, Underdale, Australia

ABSTRACT This article reports an exploration of the experiences and perceptions of apprentices, workplace host employers and off-the-job teachers engaged in an apprenticeship programme regarding the nature and contributions of on and off-the-job environments to apprentices’ learning. An interpretive (expressive) approach was taken, using individual interviews and focus groups. Learning on-the-job was perceived to be more real life and focused on the ‘how’. Learning off-the-job was less pressured, broader in scope, more theoretical and concerned with ‘why’. The findings indicate that these two environments make valuable, but different contributions to apprentices’ learning and supports the need for both.

Introduction

One of the key reform initiatives in the last decade is a shift in emphasis away from institutionalised to workplace learning. This has occurred despite the fact that the nature of learning at work is not clearly understood (Hawke, 1998), and despite a general lack of agreement on the extent and ways in which the on- and off-job environments contribute to learning. Bryce (1995, p. 19) has concluded: ‘the development and implementation of policy has taken place from a minimalist research base’.

There is now a slowly growing number of studies that seriously consider these two environments as learning contexts (Harris et al, 1995). Many researchers have noted the advantages of learning on the job; according to Hamilton & Hamilton (1992), learners readily engage in the educational process because there are opportunities for immediate application of knowledge. Billett (1994) has argued that to embed vocational knowledge in the context of its use, learning should be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

Roger Harris et al

264

pursued within an ‘authentic’ culture of work practice. However, he also maintains that, while the workplace is ideal for securing vocational and procedural knowledge, opportunities for the development of conceptual knowledge are limited (Billett & Rose, 1997). A study by the Box Hill Institute of Technical and Further Education (TAFE) Consortium (1996, p. 4) reports that, although employees overwhelmingly preferred learning on-the-job, they also cited inhibiting factors to learning, such as the feeling of being pressured by the demands of production and the unpredictable quality of workplace trainers in terms of ability to impart knowledge and skills.

Billett (1996) cites six possible limitations to the effectiveness of workplace learning:

the construction of inappropriate knowledge; limits on access to authentic activities; reluctance of experts; access to expertise; opaqueness of some knowledge; access to instructional media.

Furthermore, some researchers question the suitability of an environment where student learning needs are not the primary interest; in a study of the hospitality industry, Cornford & Gunn (1998) found that small-medium business owners had little concern for their employees’ learning and little understanding of how to facilitate it in their environment.

The institution also has its share of critics and advocates. While in a recent study of youth apprenticeship programmes, students alleged that school-based vocational learning did not prepare them for work (Evanciew & Rojewski, 1999), Brooker & Butler (1997, p. 81) have argued that institutions, such as technical and further education (TAFE) are ‘necessary for teaching to go beyond specific instances’. In their comparison study (Butler & Brooker, 1998), apprentices claimed that the strengths of TAFE lay in its opportunities for practice with teacher feedback ‘without the press of production’, and its offering of a core of generalised skills and common knowledge. Fooks et al (1997) have claimed that institutional education provides ‘coherence in educational strategy’, builds learning support mechanisms and aids in the development of learning resources. However, these claims have not been tested through research.

There have been few thorough critical analyses of the relative merits of both on- and off-job environments, to compare what may be most effectively learned in each. Casey (1993, p. 31) concludes that both on-job and off-job partners need to ‘clarify their respective roles in the provision of a supportive learning environment’. Indeed, attending to the relative contributions of each environment is imperative for determining how

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

INSTITUTIONAL AND WORKPLACE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

265

their ‘best features’ can be capitalised on (Evans, 1993), to establish effective integrated models of training.

The Context: apprenticeship training in the building and construction industry

The building and construction industry is an appropriate case for comparative study of on- and off-job learning contexts, as it has a heavy reliance on apprenticeships as a means of training (Hayton et al, 1993), the structure of which involves components in both workplace and institutional environments. Some researchers have begun such work through general investigations into skill formation in the industry.

A qualitative analysis by Smith (1996) found that most construction industry employers and apprentices agreed that skills used at work are learned on-the-job, rather than at trade school, but external training is also required to back up, validate and extend training on-site, and to develop ‘craft consciousness’. Wallace et al (1989) have reported that many respondents believed on-site training was the best method, with appropriate off-site support as required, but the quality of on-site training was ‘hard to assess, can be very variable and in some cases is almost non-existent’ (p. 55).

Hayton (1993) has pinpointed a number of difficulties in the training process of both environments in the industry. These include lack of integration between workplace and institutional learning, lack of awareness of current building methods by TAFE teachers, and failure of workplaces to provide opportunities for incidental learning to be formalised or reinforced. ‘The overall picture which emerges is one of opportunities lost on both sides’, is Hawke’s verdict (1995, p. 23).

One of the main drawbacks in attending systematically to this industry’s problems is the lack of a strong research base, particularly at the micro-level. The present authors contend that more research needs to be undertaken in general on the perceptions of sponsors, trainers and apprentices regarding the relevance and relationship of learning in the on- and off-job environments across the spectrum of industries. Brooker & Butler have significantly contributed to this area through their qualitative studies of apprenticeships in metal arc welding. However, they investigated the TAFE context from the perspective of the workplace, as construed by apprentices and their supervisors; TAFE teachers’ perceived contributions and strategies for the training of apprentices were notably absent.

In the current qualitative study, all three perspectives – TAFE teachers, work employers and apprentices – were sought on both environments. The voices of both employers and teachers are represented regarding training aims and perceived contributions of their respective environments to apprentice learning. Moreover, as the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

Roger Harris et al

266

apprentices are the only subjects who actually experience both environments directly, a key focus of this article is their views on what they find effective and problematic in each context – as learners striving to get the best out of ‘both worlds’ to achieve their chosen vocation. This work is part of a larger study that included a quantitative survey of similar cohorts in two other Australian states, the results of which have been reported elsewhere (Harris & Simons, 1999).

Methods

Research Objectives and Approach

The key objective of this study was to analyse the relative contributions of the workplace and provider environments to the learning of apprentices. This objective gave rise to a number of research questions that initially helped to shape and then guide the nature and focus of the project. Some examples include: ‘What is the nature of the learning that is occurring in each environment?’ and ‘What are perceived to be the benefits of each learning environment?’ To elucidate participants’ perceptions of experiences, an interpretative approach was adopted.

Data Sources

The on- and off-job learning environments comprised the building site and the TAFE Institute, respectively. Apprentices were those indentured with the South Australian Division of the Housing Industry Association (HIA) under a 48-month contract. The TAFE teachers were the educational providers of the apprentices’ off-job training. The host employers were sub-contractors in the housing industry who had agreed to take on an apprentice from the HIA as employer.

Data Collection and Analysis

Fifty-nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 apprentices (of a possible 45), 21 host employers (of a possible 34) and six TAFE teachers (of a possible seven). Participants were encouraged to provide in their answers as much example, detail or story as they liked. Each interview lasted approximately 1 hour and was audiotaped. The texts were transcribed and returned to the interviewees for verification prior to analysis. Observations and case notes were made of the workplace contexts in which the interviews were held. To follow-up on significant themes from individual interviews, four focus groups were held for each of the following groups – current apprentices, first-year graduates (to provide a retrospective view on issues relating to the training they had

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

INSTITUTIONAL AND WORKPLACE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

267

experienced), host employers and TAFE teachers. Each was audiotaped and the texts transcribed for analysis.

The word-processed and verified transcripts from the individual and group interviews were coded and analysed, using NUD.ist software, according to thematic categories that emerged from the text.

Results

Background of Sample

Apprentices. The sample of apprentices contained 31 males and one female. Thirteen (42%) had worked during their training with four or more host employers, and three with more than 10. Eleven (35%) had worked with only one or two host employers. The sample showed a spread by length of service with the HIA; five (16%) had worked for 1 year and 11 (34%) had worked for 3-4 years. Most were attending TAFE, while seven (22%) had already completed the TAFE component.

Host Employers. All 21 host employers in the SA sample were male and had completed a trade qualification, and one-quarter of respondents held a builders’ license. Two host employers reported they held or were in the process of completing post-trade qualifications or courses conducted by a private provider such as the HIA. The average time spent in the building industry was 20 years, over a range from 6 to 35 years. As a group, the host employers had not had extensive experience in training apprentices. One had worked with 10 apprentices in the past, another with six. One-quarter reported that their current apprentice was the first one they had worked with in a long-term manner.

TAFE Teachers. All six TAFE teachers in the sample were male. They were trade qualified, had spent a considerable amount of time in the building industry prior to becoming a teacher and had been employed by TAFE for a long time.

In general, the results supported the quantitative data on some of the issues commonly explored in the other two cohorts (Harris & Simons, 1999). The following section is a portrayal of the on-job learning environment that host employers believed they were constructing for the apprentices, including their aims, strategies and overall perceived contributions.

On-the-job Learning Environment

According to the host employers, on-site training was important for bringing apprentices into the trade, to ‘get the feel’ of it or to ‘give the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

Roger Harris et al

268

apprentice a good insight into what the trade is all about.’ It also grounded knowledge in the ‘real world’ of building practice. Another common view related to how being on site helped the apprentice to see the practical implications of theoretical ideas used in building. Accompanying the benefit of grounded knowledge, the workplace provided context for ‘basic skills’; skills shaped by their being applicable on site during the building process. The workplace was seen as an ideal context for instilling commitment to competence, trade discipline and motivation: ‘… It is hard to teach that motivation at TAFE or just in general, but out on site working in the building industry, it is the main thing to get the job done’.

Host employers commonly saw their training task as reproducing themselves in the apprentices, ‘to teach them basically everything I know ...’, ‘Teaching them the lurks and perks of the trade ...’. One host employer spoke of his ‘building system’ as offering an appropriate learning environment for apprentices, while others thought that apprentices received their training by being with host employers and sharing in their knowledge. On the job, host employers felt able to ‘teach them how to do the job properly’, and help apprentices to ‘work in a proper tradesman-like manner, to do things structurally and safely ...’.

They offered learning opportunities through a variety of strategies, most commonly being close; ‘staying with the apprentices’ on-site. Building upon this closeness, some host employers encouraged apprentices to try their hand: ‘I just show him what I want, and let him have a go at it’. Others built on the watchfulness of the attendant apprentice, adding explanation where appropriate and time permitting. Some host employers created space in the building process to show their apprentice a procedure, and then made further space for him or her to have a go at doing it. Other techniques included direct instruction, either remaining to supervise, or leaving the apprentice to find their own way. Some host employers recruited a ‘start–take-over–finish’ strategy:

He’s got to watch how I do it, then I’ll give him parts of it to do. I might do part of it and then say, ‘Finish it’. Another time I might say, ‘Start it,’ and then I finish it; and then it gets to the stage where I give him the whole job to do.

To capitalise on the learning autonomy of apprentices, one host employer developed their active questioning. Others gave apprentices ‘free rein’ or initiated an ongoing working dialogue, encouraging them to think for themselves and try their own approaches before asking for help.

Overall, host employers viewed the workplace contribution as significant both to an apprentice’s learning as a worker on-site and as a student off-site; some believed apprentices were able to ‘breeze through’ sections of their TAFE studies, having seen as well as done tasks on-site. Others reinforce the importance of the coincidence of learning and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

INSTITUTIONAL AND WORKPLACE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

269

working. In summary, they claim that it is on-site that apprentices learned to improvise and solve problems, receive an ‘opening up to the big world’ and have opportunities for practical hands-on work.

The TAFE teachers also expressed their perceptions of the learning environment they were creating for the apprentices, i.e. off-the-job.

Off-the-job Learning Environment

TAFE teachers see the purpose of off-job training as complementing what apprentices do on-site and providing what industry does not. Within the ‘confines of the college’, the teachers endeavoured to provide apprentices with meaningful exercises to work on. One example was the building of a transportable building that was subsequently sold.

In addition to team teaching, a variety of methods and resources were used to effect these aims: e.g. book exercises, hands-on practicals, training videos and providing reference materials, such as manufacturer’s literature. The teachers viewed the key competencies as important, so they set problem-based projects and emphasised teamwork skills: ‘I make them work as a team and always issue out roles to individual people, like one’s a supervisor, and one’s a leading hand and one’s going to do the orders’. They also focused on technology and mathematical ideas, and provided guidance in terms of resources (e.g. extra notes, going back over segments) and attitudinal aspects – highlighting the value of doing quality work and conserving materials.

The TAFE teachers saw their role as one of introducing apprentices to different techniques and materials, teaching new skills and instilling confidence to work. They also encouraged a broader understanding of a given method; how it was developed, and the reasons for using it: ‘... I see myself much of the time as being a person who can give them the why’s and the wherefore’s ... at the same time as giving them a practical demonstration of that reason’.

The teachers also perceived their contribution as one of providing opportunities to ‘tackle things that they might not necessarily do’ on the job, either because the scope of the work was not broad enough or because the subcontractor did not entrust the apprentice with the full range of tasks. Reference was made to developing small business skills, such as estimating and costing projects and computing; to fostering appropriate attitudes to occupational health and safety and correct work standards; and to teaching basic principles. They believed they were providing a supportive climate that was conducive to learning in terms of less pressure, and the opportunity to work with other learners. Through providing knowledge and skills for apprentices, teachers believed they were contributing to the continuing professional development of host employers, especially in terms of standards, codes and correct methods.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

Roger Harris et al

270

Most importantly, the apprentices related their experiences of the constructed on- and off-job learning environments, highlighting differences between the two and the aspects they found of particular or limited use in each.

Apprentices

Learning on-the-job. Most apprentices were of the opinion that their learning in the workplace ‘just happened’, as a consequence of the job being undertaken at the time. The process of learning was also linked to being able to ‘pick up on the routine’ of the host employer. Learning was seen as undertaken alongside, rather than with, the host employer. Many apprentices expressed that learning opportunities were often created through a realisation by the host employer that he needed help. Sometimes the job necessitated that the apprentice learn a particular skill at a point in time.

Analysis revealed that the nature of on-the-job learning changed over the period of the apprenticeship. Apprentices on the job for less than 12 months reported learning through having mistakes corrected. Progressively, it was common to do tasks ‘on your own’ with ‘a few pointers’ and to do a job ‘together’ with a host employer. Eventually, apprentices were ‘asked to do the job’.

Learning off-the-job. The most common recollection of ‘how’ learning took place off-the-job revolved around the use of direct instruction methods by the TAFE teacher; in a teacher-centred, tightly regulated environment. The use of guest speakers, field trips and team teaching approaches were seen as opportunities to observe contrasting approaches to different tasks. Apprentices made frequent reference to the use of textbooks by teachers or in their own independent learning. The place of teacher feedback was also a prominent theme. Only one reference was made to opportunity for apprentices to draw on prior experiences in the workplace.

Significant learning events for apprentices included subjects, as well as skills, such as learning how to use different tools, types of timber, the timber code, safety and drawing plans. References were made to learning the ‘basics’: ‘The things that carpenters have forgotten because they know it naturally and they just go ahead and do it and expect everybody else to just know it’. Some apprentices also listed the learning of ‘small things’ that you ‘keep in the back of your mind’, suggesting that some of the learning may not be directly applicable to the apprentices’ immediate work situation, but perhaps only utilised when a particular set of circumstances arises. Apprentices also noted exposure to new ideas, and opportunities to learn ‘more in depth’ and to develop skills related, but not identical to those learnt on-site. A minority expressed the view that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

INSTITUTIONAL AND WORKPLACE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

271

specific topics or skills were not ‘learnt’ per se (as in new or novel); TAFE merely provided opportunities to ‘go over’ or revise areas.

Table I gives a comparative summary of the nature of learning in these two environments, according to the reported experiences of apprentices.

Learning on-the-job

Learning off-the-job

Is more practical and meaningful

Is more theoretical, trivial and focused on ‘why’

Is more pressured, has time limits

Has little or no pressure or time limits

Requires quick and efficient working

Allows time to think and ask questions

Involves observation of how things fit together

Focuses on explanations, rather than observation

Is less detailed, as opportunities to acquire detail may be affected by business pressures

Is more detailed and slower in pace

Comes from workplace mentors ‘passing on’ what they know

Comes from providers ‘teaching’ more formally

Requires improvisation and use of judgment in an environment that can be unpredictable

Involves tasks that are set out in workbooks in an environment that is more predictable

Promotes ways that are more effective and efficient, but not necessarily correct

Is ‘done by the book’ and allows opportunities to pick up on details that may have been missed

Results in something to show for the learning at the end of the day

Affords a break from the job and time to meet new people

Has more opportunities to use latest equipment and methods

Often involves equipment and methods that are old and outdated

Is characterised by ‘you watch and then do it’ methods

Is characterised by ‘they talk and you listen’ methods

Is more individual and involves learning from mistakes

Is more group-orientated and collaborative

Focuses on what is relevant for immediate use; apprentices learn because they have to

Focuses more on the long-term; apprentices learn because they ‘might need it one day’

Table I. Apprentices’ perceived differences between learning on- and off-the-job. Aspects of workplace learning that apprentices found useful or of limited use. The contribution of the workplace to apprentices’ learning was very much dependent upon the orientation of the host employer and the quality of their relationship with the apprentice. Apprentices valued the workplace for providing opportunities for practice and repetition of a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

Roger Harris et al

272

skill. Approaches valued by apprentices included being shown a task and provided with details during the demonstration, and being allowed time to adjust to a new task. They appreciated host employers who displayed an approachable manner and used positive reinforcement, and who tried different methods to facilitate their understanding. Relationships characterised by open and honest communication, the ability to ‘work well’ with people, and clear expectations were mentioned as making a valuable contribution to learning experiences.

Similarly, the experiences apprentices did not value were largely determined by the approaches of their host employer. They perceived little benefit if host employers told, rather than showed them how to approach a task. How their host employer dealt with mistakes could either make or break a learning experience. Having mistakes explained and being allowed to correct them was perceived as highly valuable, but if the host employer ‘did not know how to go about showing you that you’ve done something wrong’, apprentices reported gaining little other than a serious blow to their confidence.

Some apprentices cited examples of unrealistic expectations, such as being expected to be able to undertake a task after having been shown only once, being ‘rushed’ or placed in an ‘impossible’ position, where their role as a learner was ignored:

That made it difficult ... to put me from second to first-fix, back to second-fix, made me do a bit of first-fix and then in the end sending me out on my own, saying you should know how to do this, half-way through my third year. One of the jobs I had spent three months on by myself, by hand, no power-tools, I can’t see the value ... how can you learn?

The aspect mentioned most frequently by apprentices was the notion of ‘unlearning’ due to working with various host employers who had different ideas about how a task should be carried out. While some apprentices were able to capitalise on this to broaden their skills, others found it hindered their learning:

The first guy I was with for two and a half years, so I learnt a lot of the way he did things. Then I got sent off with other people and you’d have to try and forget it all, so that was the hardest part.

Other perceived limitations for learning included contextual factors such as weather extremes and defective tools, and the structure of the work; lack of variety could contribute to ‘missed opportunities’, particularly if the apprentice had little experience:

... if you are just a nail hand and you have got jobs to do, like nailing frames constantly together ... then you don’t even get a chance to see what is going on ...

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

INSTITUTIONAL AND WORKPLACE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

273

Aspects of TAFE learning that apprentices found useful or of limited use. The less experienced apprentices appreciated the slow pace of TAFE, because it allowed them to build accuracy. TAFE was also perceived as a valuable ‘back up’ to the on-site experience, and as a provider of opportunities to broaden knowledge and skills through exposure to variations on work methods. Some saw it as ‘a holiday’ from work, being less demanding and affording escape from extremes of climate, and a place to share experiences with other apprentices.

Some apprentices valued learning ‘by the book’ at TAFE; methods not dependent on the vagaries of the workplace or adapted to accommodate employer biases or habits. However, book-based learning was also equated with the ‘long’ or the ‘slow’ way, suggesting that the learning at TAFE was focused on methods that would be adapted or discarded in the workplace due to the need to work efficiently. A number of apprentices also experienced difficulty engaging in this particular style of learning required by TAFE:

I am not one for theory work, so I don’t really like it much. Too much written work and reading to do. Practical side I pass on, but theory I have to sit back and think.

Almost one-third of apprentices described the work as ‘boring’ and ‘tedious’, and many viewed the information as ‘trivial’ and ‘not relevant’ to workplace tasks: ‘It is just very repetitive, you do a lot of what seems meaningless tasks that don’t seem to achieve much’. Many apprentices also expressed concern about the currency of permanent teachers’ skills and the material they taught: ‘... as you’re going through the book, the lecturers will say, “Don’t worry about this because you don’t do this any more, or we don’t worry about that because it’s wrong”’.

Discussion

It is apparent that the learnings at each site sit in contrast to one another and place different demands on the apprentice, who is effectively lodged between ‘two worlds’ (Harris & Simons, 1999, p. 59). The workplace emphasises skills-driven competence, so that the apprentice can be productive as soon as possible. To enable the apprentice to work anywhere in the industry, the institution favours credentials-driven competence. The two environments also have different theories, methods and standards; work is more first-person, active, practical, experiential, while TAFE is more third-person, passive, conceptual and reflective. Furthermore, there are clearly different dimensions of time, in that the work perspective is short-term, employer-specific and ‘just in time’, while TAFE is long-term, industry-wide and ‘just in case’.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

Roger Harris et al

274

The Workplace

In this study, on-site training took shape as host employers made decisions based on work availability, traditional practice, their own personal ‘theories’ of training and learning and pragmatic considerations. Both workplace trainers and apprentices placed great emphasis on the usefulness of learning in the context of the ‘real world’, in an environment where skills and knowledge can be applied as they develop. This learning preference has been commonly expressed in other micro-level studies (e.g. Brooker & Butler, 1997; Butler & Brooker, 1998; Evanciew & Rojewski, 1999; Harris & Simons, 1999). The embeddedness of learning in working, and the resultant shaping of each other, makes for a potentially fruitful learning experience.

The data from this study suggest that a core competency in apprenticeship is ‘squeezing learning out of work’. The host employer needs to ‘engineer’ work activities so that the apprentice can derive learning from them. Billett’s (1993) notion of ‘guided apprenticeship’, involving such processes as modelling, coaching and scaffolding, played a significant part in the learning of these apprentices. It is particularly important that host employers know how and when to ‘fade’ (Billett, 1993; Collins et al, 1989), such that the apprentice becomes progressively empowered with confidence and responsibility to tackle tasks in a self-directed manner.

As emphasised by such writers as Evanciew & Rojewski (1999), this research reinforces the role of the workplace mentor as the most critical factor in worksite learning; the quality of that learning is dependent upon the mentor’s enthusiasm, standards, values, knowledge and mentoring skills. As supported by Butler & Brooker (1998), the workplace contribution here was also notably mediated by a number of other factors, such as the relationship between the apprentice and supervisor, and the physical and social aspects of the learning environment.

It was observed that being present and working on a building site does not always mean that learning will take place. The quality of learning varied here, depending on the nature of the work specific to a given site. Similarly, some second-year apprentices in a study by Butler & Brooker (1998) reported learning more about welding at TAFE, because they had been given limited, repetitive work on-site. These apprentices actually contested the notion of the workplace as a learning environment, with the view that the production ethic was disruptive to their learning. Similarly, and in agreement with the findings of researchers such as Cornford & Gunn (1998), it was also noted here that the conditions that enable learning were at times absent from the work environment or subordinated to the need to ensure that the business remained viable and competitive.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

INSTITUTIONAL AND WORKPLACE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

275

The Educational Institution

Although a ‘less than real’ environment, the institutional off-job context, nevertheless, made a valuable contribution to apprentices’ learning. It complemented by aiming to furnish the principles underpinning the apprentices’ on-site practice, to provide consolidation of skills and theory through more formal instruction in a relatively unpressured context, and to allow further development of the problem-solving and paperwork skills of the vocation. It also supplemented by providing a broad range of learning opportunities that may not have been possible in the busyness of on-site labour or because the work was too specialised to permit sufficient all-round training.

The institutional learning environment enabled apprentices to move beyond the surface, easily observed components of the skills they were learning on-site, and to appreciate and understand complexities in their work by providing the links between the component parts of tasks or skills. It offered apprentices the opportunity to develop a richer and more transferable skills base, to ‘go beyond their experience of the workplace world’ (Butler & Brooker, 1998, p. 82). It should be noted that the TAFE teachers in the study of Harris & Simons (1999) also highly rated themselves as providers of a wider scope of learning, in addition to a non-pressured learning environment.

It is unclear whether the dissatisfaction of the apprentices with the relevance and currency of their off-job course is specific to this case example. It does, however, seem a continuing problem within this industry; 1997 TAFE graduates across Australia gave a below average rating for the extent to which course content reflected industry practice (National Centre for Vocational Education Research, 1998), although they were generally satisfied with their off-job course compared with other industries surveyed. Comparatively, the comments of apprentices in the 1998 study by Butler & Brooker were more positive regarding their institutional context on factors, such as relevance and usefulness as a learning environment, although their course appeared to have a greater emphasis on the practical, perhaps a reflection of the nature of their particular field (metal-arc welding).

Policy Implications

One of the fundamental issues raised by this study is the value of apprentices’ learning in both on- and off-job environments. The findings in this study indicate that both types of environments make valuable, but different contributions to apprentices’ learning. They also both have limitations.

This study has highlighted that any increased competition within the climate of an open training market will be a positive force to the extent that it succeeds in stimulating off-job providers to be relevant, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

Roger Harris et al

276

up-to-date in content and flexible in approach. It reinforces the urgent need for policy initiatives directed towards technical update for teachers and increased collaborative arrangements with industry. Under the ‘user choice’ policy of 1998, industry associations (such as the HIA) now have choice over provider and aspects of the training delivery, location and timing. There is potential here for increasing the relevance and contextualisation of training.

The trend towards greater emphasis on workplace training will require sensitive monitoring to avoid potentially narrow practices that serve the immediate requirements of individual worksites at the possible expense of longer-term industry needs and the career needs of apprentices themselves. What may result is only ‘just-in-time’ learning (predominantly acquired on-the-job due to immediacy and relevance) at the expense of ‘just-in-case’ learning (acquired off-the-job for future application). This study has reinforced the advantages of having both environments involved in apprentice learning; the growth of totally on-job apprenticeships in the current policy climate therefore requires careful attention.

Furthermore, if the worksite is going to be increasingly relied upon as a learning environment, professional development activities will be required. Most host employers in this study would not categorise themselves as workplace ‘trainers’, and many did not have the skills, knowledge and attributes to be such – their goals and motivations were focused in a different direction. In fact, a relatively recent survey by an industry representative revealed that only seven percent of industry were aware of the standards for workplace trainers, due to poor access to information on changes in training arrangements and legislation (Greening, 1998). Relaying their frustration, Greening (p. 15) claimed that ‘industry is saying, basically, that enough is enough and they will find it difficult to participate in the “learning environment” until such time as they can effectively get a handle on what exactly is meant by the “learning environment”’.

Considering the significant appreciation of the apprentices in this study for the opportunity to contextualise their learning in the ‘real world’ of the on-site environment, it is vital for policymakers to facilitate further the quality of that workplace training. Policymakers need to inform and actively involve host employers in delineating their roles and responsibilities for the vocational development of apprentices – the future industry professionals.

Conclusions

From evidence in this study, we conclude that both sites make contributions to the confidence, competence and independence of the apprentice. However, as stated by Butler & Brooker (1998, p. 80), ‘All contexts enable certain learning developments and exclude others’, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

INSTITUTIONAL AND WORKPLACE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

277

what is deemed interesting, relevant and important may vary considerably in different learning environments. The important task remains for researchers and policymakers to debate and structure the whole agenda of learning in the best interests of apprentices, where each environment is recognised and valued as the most appropriate for particular types of learning.

Correspondence

Emily Collins, Centre for Research in Education, Equity and Work, University of South Australia, Holbrooks Road, Underdale, South Australia 5032, Australia (emily.collins@unisa.edu.au).

References Billett, S. (1993) Learning is Working When Working is Learning: a guide to learning

in the workplace. Brisbane: Centre for Skill Formation Research and Development, Griffith University.

Billett, S. (1994) Authenticity in Workplace Learning Settings, in J. Stevenson (Ed.) Cognition at Work: the development of vocational expertise. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

Billett, S. (1996) Towards a Model of Workplace Learning: the learning curriculum, Studies in Continuing Education, 18(1), pp. 43-58.

Billett, S. & Rose, J. (1997) Securing Conceptual Development in Workplaces, Australian Journal of Adult and Community Education, 36(1), pp. 12-26.

Box Hill Institute of TAFE Consortium. (1996) Factors Affecting Learning in the Workplace, paper presented at the Australian National Training Authority Research Advisory Council Third Annual Conference: Researching and Learning Together, Melbourne, Victoria, 31 October–1 November.

Brooker, J. & Butler, R. (1997) The Learning Context within the Workplace: as perceived by apprentices and their workplace trainers, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 49, pp. 487-510.

Bryce, M. (Ed.) (1995) Delivering Training Reform: the critical role of employers and the workplace, Working Paper No. 36. Sydney: Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Teaching, University of Sydney.

Butler, J. & Brooker, R. (1998) The Learning Context within Technical and Further Education Colleges as Perceived by Apprentices and their Workplace Supervisors, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 50, pp. 79-96.

Casey, D. (1993) Assessment: the process of quality assurance for education and training, in Testing Times: a national conference on assessment for competency-based training: conference papers, pp. 28-33. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

Collins, A., Brown, J.S. & Newman, S.E. (1989) Cognitive Apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics, in L.B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, Learning and Instruction: essays in honour of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale: Erlbaum & Associates.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4

Roger Harris et al

278

Cornford, I. & Gunn, I. (1998) Work-based Learning of Commercial Cookery Apprentices in the New South Wales Hospitality Industry, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 50, pp. 549-567.

Evanciew, C.E.P. & Rojewski, J.W. (1999) Skill and Knowledge Acquisition in the Workplace: a case study of mentor-apprentice relationships in youth apprenticeship programs, Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36, pp. 24-53.

Evans, G. (1993) Institutions: formal or informal learning? Keynote address at International Conference After Competence: the future of compulsory education and training, Centre for Skill Formation Research and Development, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, 1-3 December.

Fooks, D., Ryan, R. & Schofield, K. (1997) Making TAFE Competitive. A Discussion Paper. Canberra: Australian College of Education.

Greening, D. (1998) Current Policy: facilitator or foe? Training Agenda: a Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 6(1), pp. 14-15.

Hamilton, S.F. & Hamilton, M.A. (1992) Learning at Work, in J.E. Rosenbaum, D. Stern, M.A. Hamilton, S.F. Hamilton, S.E. Berryman & R. Kazis (Eds) Youth Apprenticeship in America: guidelines for building an effective system. Washington, DC: William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Youth and America’s Future.

Harris, R. & Simons, M. (1999) Views through Three Windows: a study of the purposes and usefulness of on- and off-job training, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research, 7(2), pp. 55-80.

Harris, R., Guthrie, H., Hobart, B. & Lundberg, D. (1995) Competency-based Education and Training: between a rock and a whirlpool. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.

Hawke, G. (1995) Work-based Learning: advice from the literature. Sydney: Educational Policy Research Unit, NSW TAFE.

Hawke, G. (1998) Learning, Workplaces and Public Policy, in J. McIntyre & M. Barrett (Eds) VET Research: influencing policy and practice. Sydney: Australian Vocational Education Training Research Association.

Hayton, G. (1993) Skill Formation in the Construction Industry: some key issues, paper presented to the Conference on Vocational Education and Training Research, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, 1-2 July.

Hayton, G., Garrick, J. & Guthrie, H. (1993) Learning Construction: skill formation in the construction industry. Sydney: Construction Industry Development Agency.

National Centre for Vocational Education Research. (1998) The Outlook for Training in Australia’s Industries. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

Smith, E. (1996) Making Sense of Apprenticeships: a study into the attitudes and practices of employers, apprentices and TAFE teachers in the construction trade in Wagga Wagga. Unpublished report, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga.

Wallace, L., Hayton, G., Guthrie, H. & Brown, A. (1989) Articulated Training: models for the building industry, Vols 1-3. Adelaide: Technical and Further Education National Centre for Research and Development.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

41.4

6.20

8.30

] at

06:

08 2

2 M

arch

201

4