Best Practice - Work Based Learning - Literature review Example

?BEST PRACTICE REVIEW- WORK BASED LEARNING INTRODUCTION Recognizing the importance of learning for development and has led to the origination of large number of methodologies. The single objective working behind development of leanings methodologies has been to improving the level of effectiveness (Kolb, 1984). Among various methodologies introduced for the purpose, Work Based Learning is most recognized and accepted one. As the name signifies Work Based Learning refers to the learning that predominantly takes place through work (Garnett, 2001). Learning in work place maintains focus on job. Work based learning is being associated with on job training, skill development and experiential learning that is being provided to the students in the employment environment; hence reducing the gap of between pedagogical learning and work based experiences of learning and doing. Though considerable development is being made on the matter and great variety of models and themes have been devised there is still gap existing between the work-based learning demands as the opportunities facilitated by the workplace to align on same page. Hence, along with development of the field towards success the criticism has also been coming along. REVIEW FROM LITERATURE Eraut and Hirsh (2007) have suggested in contrast to the traditional forma l learning settings; work based learning is accredited with greater knowledge and skill development along with higher level of effectiveness based on the knowledge that is adopted by being part of the work environment . It further refers that strength of the knowledge is developed from responding to the issues originating from pieces of work. Work based learning is not only regarded as the form of combination of theory and practice but at the same time it is conceptual development that has combination of explicit and tacit forms knowledge (Brodie, and Irving, 2007). The combination of the explicit as well as tacit knowledge is further generated from the dual aspects facilitated from the knowledge. Learner in the work based learning environment develops tacit and explicit knowledge on both levels of individual as well as collective level as given presented below: (Raelin, 1998) Hence, the combination of the work based learning best practices has to facilitate the combination of these factors in a negotiated combination in order to achieve the effective and robust results (Lester, 2002). Settings; however, may vary with respect to the need of the learner and the facilitator. For instance, the methodology of work based learning that is applied at Middlesex University is of format that has negotiation as critical element. Work based learning in Middlesex University is designed with high level of negotiation between the parties involved such as the learner, the facilitator as well as the employer that provides learning set up. Such negotiated learning results in developing the learner that reflects greater commitment to work and self development. However, the commitment of learners within this format and self development is dependent on the level of motivation provided by the employers; especially in work activities that does not offer learner some level of discretion with respect to decision making as well as authority to take action (Zembylas, 2006). Work based learning settings also offer a distinctive form of learning where learners are provided with conceptual development. The learning is since provided with vocational training therefore the conceptual development is conducted with experiences and reflections (Reeve, and Gallacher, 2005). Further, the concept of action research that facilitates learning with conducting research in order to solve the real world problems is also accepted influential methodology. In the mentioned settings the solution to the problem is more democratic as it is arrived by collaborative discussions on work place or any other structured format that falls in the category of work based learning. Hence, in every context the success is derived from pragmatic concept of knowing and doing. One of the best examples for the aforementioned concept is witness-able in Harvard Business School. Harvard Business School added to its curriculum for 2011-2012 the separate program entitled FIELD program for “Field Based Immersion Experience of Leadership and Development “. The program required students to launch the micro business to establish leadership skill along with direct advisory and consultancy from international consultants and collaborative efforts to meet the challenges with reflection of their personal commitment; collaborative learning with discussion with peers about personal and respective challenges in business as well as guidance from the expert resources for practical and pedagogical support. All these sets the work based learning as a combination of trans-disciplinary format of learning that develops the combination of the explicit and implicit learning methodologies uniting the effective constituents of work experience and the traditional learning settings. Further, such learning methodologies have own norms, values and practices set out along with main structure aimed at learning. For instance, work based learning contrary to traditional learning settings have shifted the paradigm of tutor’s role. The shift in role accounts in tutor being more a facilitator and expert resource with wide variations. Tutor plays the role of advisor or consultant for the learner whereas the facilitator shall be supporting to the learner not only in problem solving but helping as facilitator in identifying the aspiration, defining the process of learning, identifying both work related and ethical issues and finally developing learner’s ability of critical assessment. In addition to formal arrangement that are developed between the employers, institute and learner; the work based learning can also arise from doing any form of work that gave rise to the learning such as voluntary services to the community. Such jobs are usually not paid and result in one contribution to the social value in central and economic value in general; however, such works do not result in the any form of remuneration other than token of appreciation and leanings. Success of the methodology has resulted in the acceptance of the model by various universities as well as corporate levels with objective of long term human capital development needs. These collaborations are broadly adopted at the wider level between the organizations and the institutes such as collaborations by the business for strategic level for human capital development for intellectual and structural level; middle level employees for conducting business at general levels and resolving day to day business issues. Further such arrangements are also developed for employees at lower level of management as individual’s initiative by professionals and managers. Hence, the base of learning that forms central point of the understudy methodology also allows considerable variations and flexibility in formats. CHALLENGES AND CRITIQUE Tough variety of formats has been developed for the work based learning; there has also raised some challenges posed as criticism for the fact. One very critical critic that is posed to the criteria for the work to be accounted as work based learning is that fact there remains majority of the learning in the work place yet is not acknowledged as the work based learning for the reason of being conducted in the informal settings that does not include the formal component of theory. The other major criticisms that are posed to increased integration of work based learning in employment and educational setting are combined in the following postulates: Work based learning move in contradiction to set traditional formats such as it does not undertakes any assessment of the employees and hence equates the skill development of all participants at same level that is not the case in reality (Carr, and Kemmis, 1986). The change in the role of institution as well as tutor to expert resource facilitator is changing the paradigm of performance of both employer as well tutors; hence requiring both components to play the part of each others’ role. The most important being the intruding level of commercialism in the work based learning where businesses being academic resource centre offer program that leads to preparing jack of all and master of neither the academics section nor the practices (Wang, 2008). Negotiations between the learner, institution and the employer or between any two of the trio-components are self source of concern. The resultant product may emerge as product suiting to the need of any one of two at the cost of the third party. Further, even the negotiated parties succeed in developing the desired product suiting to all it may meet the needs of all parties at the expense of essence both extreme learning paradigm of experience and learning. Further, the parameter of the success of work based learning is based on the learning without deviation from the human driven ideology in respective setting. For instance, learning of corporate ideology in corporate environment where as on other extreme of social ideology in case of community social services though results in learning but unchallenging dimension of learning in single aspect; hence ignoring the other aspect (Wang, 2008). CONCLUSION Work Based learning has gained an immense importance and acknowledgement since recent past. Driving reason for the successful acceptance of methodology is an attempt to meet the challenge of gap between knowing and doing. Various formats have been designed while each offering some benefit to the trio of learner, employer and facilitator; another critical reason of acceptance. The criticism are also posed Work based learning; however, shedding light on them explores that all are based on concern that arise upon the development of any new dimension and hence, requires some set of standardization. References Brodie, P., and Irving, K. (2007). ‘Assessment in work based learning: Investigating a pedagogical approach to enhance student learning’. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 11–19. Carr, W., and Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Lewes: Falmer Press. Eraut, M., and Hirsh, W. (2007). The significance of workplace learning for individuals, groups and organizations. Oxford: University of Oxford. Garnett, J. (2001). ‘Work based learning and the intellectual capital of universities and employers’. The Learning Organization, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 78–82. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning. New York: Prentice Hall. Lester, S. (2002). ‘Negotiated work-based learning: From delivery systems to realization systems’. Capability, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 6–9. Raelin, J. A. (1998). ‘Work-based learning in practice’. Journal of Workplace Learning, vol.10, no. 6/7, pp. 280-283. Reeve, F., and Gallacher, J. (2005). ‘Employer–university ‘partnerships’: A key problem for work-based learning programmes?’. Journal of Education and Work, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 219–33. Wang, L. (2008). ‘Work-based learning: A critique’. International Journal of Learning, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 189–96. Zembylas, M. (2006). ‘Work-based learning, power and subjectivity: Creating space for a Foucauldian research ethic’. Journal of Education and Work, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 291–303. Read More