Understanding learning at work
What does the literature tell us about different types of ‘knowing’?
… learning has escaped the walls of educational institutions and is now seen as an integral and on-going feature of contemporary work
Chappell, 1999
To a greater or lesser degree, many TAFE teachers have been involved in work based learning for a long time. Work placements and on-site courses have been common practice, and we have used strategies such as problem-based learning and work based learning contracts to link to the ‘real’ world of work. However in recent years, industry and business have called for more focus on learning for work and less on the traditional academic curriculum. The workplace now competes with educational sites as the privileged site of learning. This shift means that, as VET practitioners, we need to gain a much clearer understanding of how learning occurs in workplaces so that we can facilitate learning in the most effective way.
Delving into the literature associated with learning at work brings you up against a range of competing ideas. Just for starters, there’s implicit knowledge vs explicit knowledge, and informal versus formal learning. Often there’s the suggestion that these ‘ways of knowing’ are exclusively bound to either the workplace or the educational institution. The reality seems to be more complex than this.
Let’s begin with the issue of implicit or tacit knowledge
What is the relationship between knowing and doing? Kim Kirsner is a psychologist who has studied learning in a range of practical situations, observing fire fighters, nurses and others. He describes a fascinating paradox:
Studies of surgeons in Canada found that surgical skill was positively correlated with practice in carrying out the particular operation. Well, that is hardly surprising news: surgeons, with experience, got better and better at their work. However – and this is curious – despite the fact that their performance improved, their ability to pass the examinations that gave them entry to the profession actually declined until, decades later, they were struggling to answer many basic questions (2002:18).
In other words, we do a huge amount of our thinking unconsciously. And consistently there is this puzzle: performance improves with practice, but the person exercising the skill has less and less conscious access to the knowledge she/he is using.
The contrast between implicit and explicit processes is often referred to as the difference between doing and knowing. Kirsner uses the example of tennis to illustrate this point. It’s quite possible to know the physical and physiological principles underpinning a tennis serve, while being totally unskilled on the court. Conversely, a person can develop a high degree of competence in serving without any of the technical knowledge.
The contrast between implicit and explicit processes is often referred to as the difference between doing and knowing.
Kirsner argues that this distinction applies to most, if not all, human activities: ‘Where performance is an issue, knowledge comes in two forms – implicit and explicit – and these forms of knowledge are subject to different methods of acquisition, delivery and assessment (2002:19). However, both forms contribute to performance.
Implicit processes have been relatively neglected, according to Kirsner, because education and training concentrates on taking people up to a level of competence. This involves predominantly explicit knowledge and it means people are still basically novices when they gain their qualifications. Expertise on the other hand depends on building up a large body of implicit knowledge, and this usually develops later in a person’s working life.
The piece goes on to explore the contributions of explicit and implicit processes, and concludes that in fact they are complementary. Their relative contribution to work performance varies from situation to situation. Kirsner draws on authentic work situations to show that there are certain conditions where each mode has a clear advantage, and others where one mode alone is insufficient.
Industrial process control provides a useful example. People who monitor large amounts of incoming information become expert at the task and develop implicit ‘pattern recognition’ skills which enable them to recognise and manage systems at a glance. Unfortunately, this very expertise can predispose controllers to ‘see’ normal events when in fact they are faced with an unlikely and potentially dangerous event. Some of the best known cases involve accidents at nuclear power stations like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In each case the operators failed to see information that was inconsistent with their hypotheses that the power stations were operating normally. They clung to their normal practices instead of taking action that may have prevented a major disaster. Kirsner argues that it is under these non-routine circumstances that we need to use explicit reasoning and decision-making processes.
Medical diagnosis is another area where people need to call on both implicit and explicit processes. One study compared the performance of two groups of students.
One group was given explicit training - that is, formal knowledge and diagnostic rules of the if/then type. The other group was given implicit training - they were provided with extensive practice involving simulated cases and immediate feedback about their decisions. What were the results? The group given explicit training was better at giving verbal descriptions of the knowledge and at answering questions about abdominal pain. The second clearly performed much better at applying their knowledge in a diagnostic task.
Kirsner sums it up like this: ‘Both forms of knowledge are required. Rapid, automatic and largely implicit processes provide the most efficient mode for normal operating conditions. However the explicit and cognitively more expensive mode may be required to deal with rare and problematic situations (2002:22).
So what are the implications for educators? If we are to make better use of implicit knowledge, we could make the following adjustments to our teaching:
- Give learners more opportunity to practice. It seems that performance goes on improving indefinitely - as long as feedback is provided.
- Improve the quality of feedback by ensuring that it is accurate and given at the point of performance.
- Encourage transfer of training by making sure that the training environment ‘honours’ the characteristics of the operational environment. This doesn’t mean reproducing it exactly. For instance, aircraft simulators only need to include the critical variables.
- Assist learners to know when to make a transition between the two modes of knowledge.
What about the distinctions between formal and informal learning?
This question is taken up by Colley and colleagues (2002) in a report reviewing the literature about formal and informal types of learning.
Formal learning is the type typically fostered by schools, TAFE colleges and universities. It is undertaken intentionally, is structured and generally leads to certification. It is the type of learning that has contributed to the knowledge enabling each generation to know more than its predecessors. It also results in knowledge that can be applied in a wide range of settings.
Informal learning , on the other hand, is often described as learning that results incidentally from daily life activities. It is often achieved unintentionally, is unstructured and generally does not lead to any certification. Its importance may have been underestimated. Many things (for example, language acquisition) are learned more effectively through informal processes. And a great deal of important learning takes place in communities that do not provide for formal learning.
Is a debate about the inherent superiority of one over the other worth having? The debate is certainly linked with issues of empowerment. Formal learning is said to benefit disadvantaged or marginalised groups in that it provides them with access to high status knowledge independently of their level of social connectedness. The counter argument is that access to formal learning through the established forms of the education system continues to be dominated by middle class values and beliefs that serve to protect middle class ideologies.
Colley et al suggest that one of the problems in the debate about which type of learning is better is the extent to which formal and informal learning are accepted as being distinct. Their review suggests that, in fact, few writers believe that these two types of learning are always distinguishable from one another. They say that the best way to understand learning may be through an analysis of the inter-relationships between the learning in different settings.
Even in formal courses, they argue, there are strong elements of informal learning. One of the UK case studies they present concerns a diploma in nursery nursing. Most of the criteria for formal learning are clearly present: the course is delivered on educational premises, there is a syllabus with course work, and assessment focused on a qualification. But the program also has informal dimensions: much of the learning takes place in actual nurseries (where the main purpose of the organisation is not the learning of students). And in addition to the formal coursework, there is important tacit knowledge to be gained about what qualities, attitudes, dress and behaviour are required for membership of the profession. For instance, a tutor might give impromptu advice about why a particular item of clothing would be unsuitable when working in a nursery.
They conclude by arguing that ‘formal and informal dimensions are always, or almost always, present in any learning situation, no matter how small’. Viewing the process of learning in this way avoids oversimplification in assuming that only formal learning is considered in formal settings and only informal learning in informal settings. It may be more helpful for us to pay attention to the ways formal and informal learning inter-relate with each other and to try to ensure that they work together rather than in opposition.
Developing insights into concepts such as these can go a long way towards to resolving some of the dilemmas and contradictions we face. We’re in a better position to integrate different kinds of ‘knowing’ and to help learners get the most out of both institutional and workplace contexts.
References
CHAPPELL, C 1999, Work based learning and vocational education and training practitioners, Working Paper, UTS Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, Sydney, Australia
COLLEY, H, HODKINSON, P and MALCOLM, J 2002, Non-formal learning: mapping the conceptual terrain. A Consultation Report, Leeds: University of Leeds Lifelong Learning Institute.
KIRSNER, K 2002, Implicit knowledge, Knowledge builders: Fresh thinking about learning and learners, pp 18 – 23. ANTA.
Also see
