Analyzing the Work-Based Learning Experiences of Students from Vocational and Technical
1
Analyzing the Work-Based Learning Experiences of Students from Vocational and Technical Education Programs
Dr. Marcelle Hardy
Département d’éducation et formation spécialisées
Université du Québec à Montréal
Paper presented at the Vocational Education and Training Network (VETNET), European Conference on Educational Research, 17-20 September 2003, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
Our most recent research into vocational education programs has demonstrated that, in Québec, work-based learning has been aimed primarily at the rapid insertion of students into the workplace and that it has taken little advantage of the educational resources made available by host companies. These findings have prompted the design of a new project that I am now presenting here. Its general objective is to:Analyze the work-based learning experiences of students in vocational and technical education programs with a view to improving the quality of these students’ work-based learning. The theoretical framework is based on the socio-cultural tradition of learning called Activity Theory, which is characterized by situated learning and the community of practice. Our plans call for conducting research into four programs, two of which are vocational education programs, with the other two being technical education programs in the sectors of computer science and industrial metal fabrication. The methodology is oriented towards analyzing the progression in complexity of students’ learning experiences from the beginning to the end of their studies and towards analyzing the forms of supervision provided by the workplace and the school. Interviews will be held with the students at the end of each of their four one-month periods of work-based learning, as well as with each student’s company mentor and instructors. This project will benefit from partnerships with academic institutions, sectorial workforce committees made up of employer and union representatives, and the Québec Department of Education. These partners have committed to taking part in the various stages of research and to discussing the results of the analyses with a view to improving the quality of work-based learning.
Introduction[1]
In Québec and Canada, as in many other nations, work-based learning occupies an increasingly important place in vocational and technical education programs. However, simply because students spend a portion of their vocational education on the premises of a company does not necessarily mean that their education has been enriched for all that. Even less does this imply that their education has been integrated into the work environment, successfully takes advantage of the learning resources available in the workplaces, stimulates interrelations between theoretical knowledge and practical experiences, or encourages the development of skills in problem-solving and transferring learning experiences. With these concerns in mind, I intend to analyze the work-based learning experiences of students in vocational and technical education programs. After briefly summarizing the context of this research, I will lay out its objectives and specify its theoretical framework. Then, I will devote some time to explicating the research methodology now in the process of being developed, and will highlight various ways in which the quality of work-based learning is expected to benefit from the findings of this research.
1. Research Context
For the last several years, I have conducted research with Ms. Louise Ménard designed to identify a wide range of types of work-based learning in vocational education programs. This research has been based on interviews with vocational education students engaged in internships at companies, their mentors at the companies, their instructors, and administrators from their schools. As a result, we were able to characterize the emergence process surrounding these work-based learning programs by examining the forms of collaboration occurring between participating schools and companies (Hardy & Parent, 2003). Our focus then shifted to the practical framework of intern supervision and the difficulties experienced by instructors and company mentors (Hardy & Parent, 2000; Hardy, Gicali & al., 2001). On the basis of four case studies, we analyzed the viewpoints of several students, instructors, and company mentors regarding the activities of interns as well as the supervision of these future members of the workforce by instructors, mentors, and other company employees (Hardy, Ménard, Gingras & al., 2003; Hardy, Ménard, Semblat & al.,2003; Ménard, Hardy & Bissoonnauth, 2003; Ménard, Hardy & Gingras, 2003).
Basing our research on Guile and Griffiths’ Typology of Work Experience during training (2001), we concentrated our analysis on the learning models with which students come in contact. We demonstrated that the majority of internships or work-based experiences were of a Traditional type and were focused on rapid insertion into the workplace. From this perspective, internships served as a way of acquiring program contents, and students were to learn to manage tasks and instructions. The resources of the host company were, however, used little if at all. Students’ work at companies was supervised rather superficially. On the whole, an intern was viewed as a “container,” who learned whatever had been prescribed in his or her program and who prepared to perform a task associated with his or her future occupation. We noted that at some workplaces, training resembled that of the Experiential model, but that none of the internships came close to presenting the characteristics of the Work process model, let alone the Connective model developed by Guile and Griffiths (Hardy & Ménard, 2001; 2002). The training experiences we observed demonstrate the importance of improving the quality of work-based learning. That is why I proposed a research project[2] analyzing the specific learning experiences developed during internships by students pursuing a Diploma of Vocational Education and Training (VET)[3] and by students pursuing a Diploma of College Studies in Technical Education and Training (TET).[4] We just received the funding required for this research, which will be launched in a few weeks. Thus, today, I will limit my remarks to discussing a project that is now getting underway; the first findings will only be available some time next year.
2. Research Objectives
The general objective of this research project is to:analyze the work-based learning experiences of students in vocational (VET) and technical (TET) education programs with a view to improving the quality of students’ work-based learning.This objective encompasses the following specific goals:
1) Describe and analyze the work-based learning experiences of students engaged in a program that includes 12 to 16 weeks of internship as part of their vocational or technical education.
2) Identify, in conjunction with collaborators from the workplace (above all the mentor, but possibly other employees), opportunities or methods for enriching these students’ work-based learning, while keeping in mind the demands and constraints of production.
3) Identify, in conjunction with collaborators from the school (the instructor and the internship coordinator), ways of enriching these students’ work-based learning, while keeping in mind the requirements of their program and the limits of collaborations between academic institutions and companies.
4) Pinpoint the conditions and methods likely to improve the quality of work-based learning that could be implemented in vocational and technical education programs.
3. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework draws upon the socio-cultural tradition of learning called Activity Theory developed principally by Cole (1995), Engeström (2001), Lave (1990; 1993), Lave and Wenger (1991), Rogoff (1995), Wenger (1998), and Guile and Young (1999). This theoretical orientation considers the context of learning and the community of practice—meaning here the workplace—as key elements influencing the process of knowledge and skill acquisition. Our analysis will draw primarily on the work of Guile and Griffiths (2001) and Griffiths and Guile (2003) characterized by their Typology of Work Experience, wherein they explain students’ various learning contexts, then elaborate the main aspects of the “connective model of learning.” Billett’s research (1994; 1996a; 1996b; 2001; 2002) will also serve to clarify aspects of the observation and analysis of work-based learning. In addition, we will use the analysis of tacit knowledge by Evans (2002) and Evans and Kersh (2003) to refine the examination of students’ learning experiences, and we will refer to the work of Fuller and Unwin (2002; 2003) to discern the pedagogical resources of the workplace and understand the role of the pedagogical relationships between students and employees in the development of students’ knowledge and skills.
Guile and Griffiths (2001) have emphasized the contribution of work experience to the development of competence and occupational identity. They explain how work experience can provide students with a learning context in which they may participate in a community of practice and develop their skills at using the potential offered by their workplace. Their Typology of Work Experience is made up of six elements: 1) the purpose of the work experience, 2) assumptions about learning and development, 3) the practice of work experience, 4) the management of work experience, 5) the outcome of work experience, and 6) the role of the education and training provider. The authors distinguish five models of internships: 1) traditional, 2) experiential, 3) generic, 4) work process, and 5) connective. Students’ learning experiences during their vocational or technical education internships will be examined using elements of Guile and Griffiths’ typology, and will be interpreted in relation to the models identified in it as well. Particular attention will be devoted to identifying aspects of students’ work experience that are likely to contain features that could contribute to the emergence and development of work experience corresponding to the Work Process or Connective models.
Billett’s research will help us to flesh out the explanations developed using Guile and Griffiths’ analysis. As the community of practice and situated learning are also essential components of Billett’s approach to analyzing work-based learning, this researcher’s work will guide our study of the role of both the mentor (Billett, 1996b; 2000; 2001; 2003) and the instructor (Billett, 1996a). In regards to the student, Billett holds that the main sources of work-based learning are:
1)Everyday thinking and acting integrated into the work environment.
2)Learning supervised by the mentor and experienced employees that leads to the acquisition of new knowledge or reinforcement of everyday learning experiences.
The first form of learning is linked to the participation of students in productive activity, wherein they engage, psychologically and socially, in an interactive process of reflection, action, and learning through work activities (Billett, 2002). This engagement with the work environment enables students to gain awareness of the problems connected with these activities, participate in finding solutions to them, and gain access to an indirect, and even direct, form of advice from experienced employees involved in the productive activity. The learning experience is thus contextualized by the requirements of the work activity as part of a process whereby interns are compelled to understand the standards and values associated with the practice of work. The second form of learning is directed more or less strictly, but is nevertheless directed explicitly. Intern supervision can take the form of advice, demonstrations, and explanations of unknown or little known aspects that the mentor explicates by making visible or accessible elements of the work process that otherwise remain obscure for the intern. This type of explanation enables interns to understand why operations are conducted in a given way (Billett, 1994).
More specifically, Billett (1996a) focuses on the role of instructors in the development of a work-based learning environment. He makes an important distinction between a teaching curriculum and a learning curriculum. Accordingly, he appeals to instructors to collaborate on the development of a learning curriculum, which should be composed of three elements:
1)A learning path or training plan featuring a sequence of initially simple and then increasingly complex activities that provide a window on the procedures, processes, and results of various productive activities.
2)Supervision by an experienced mentor, whereby the intern can benefit from individual supervision of various sorts (modelling, coaching, etc.).
3)Access to genuine activities that allow involvement in routine and non-routine activities as well as in problem-solving of a kind that stimulates the development of professional knowledge.
The role of mentor(s) consists essentially in implementing a learning curriculum of the kind presented by Billett (1996b; 2001). This researcher emphasizes that the organization of the work experience enables interns to become actively involved in goal-directed activities such that they are able to develop new knowledge and new skills and thereby enhance and enrich their professional expertise. This process is integrated into a learning curriculum that the mentor is encouraged to develop while also respecting the previously identified principles.
4. Research Methodology
According to the research methodology we have selected, we will examine the learning experience as such, as completed by students in the workplace. This methodology is focused on studying the progression of the complexity of student’s tasks in the workplace from the beginning to the end of their studies, the resolution of technical and socio-professional problems by students, and the use, by these students, of a company’s human and technical resources. This study will be centred on the knowledge and skills that students consolidate and those that they discover during their work-based learning. The research also aims to better discern how students use the knowledge and skills acquired at school; how they perceive the links between what they have learned at school and what they have developed in the workplace; and how and in what circumstances students are able, are able but only with considerable effort, or are unable to overcome the difficulties encountered. The overall thrust is to identify the nature and complexity of the transfers of knowledge and skills performed by students during their various internship experiences. Considering that the quality of students’ learning experiences constitutes the focus of our research, the research team will also look into the various forms of supervision provided by mentors and other individuals at the workplace, as well as the forms of supervision provided in the academic environment. Such forms of supervision will provide additional insight into students’ work-based learning experiences.
This project will employ a qualitative methodology that will involve the case studies of four programs: two in vocational education (VET) and two in technical education (TET). These programs were chosen in two sectors: computer science and industrial metal fabrication. We studied the following programs: System Support (VET), Computer Science (TET); Machining Techniques (VET), Mechanical Engineering Techniques (TET). Data gathering will be completed through semi-directed interviews. The interviews will be conducted with interns, the school staff who prepare or supervise the internships, and the company employees who supervise the interns.
At the VET level, a total of four interviews will be held with each student because the VET program is 1800 hours long and includes four internships of one month each. These interviews will be held at the end of each internship. Ten students from each VET program will be selected, for a total of 40 interviews per program and 80 interviews with VET students. The same procedure will be followed with TET students,who complete a two-month-long summer internship twice—i.e., after their first and second years of study. In each program, we will meet with two groups of 10 technical education students (n=20), one of which will be completing its first internship and the other its second internship. Each student will be met twice: in the middle and at the end of the internship. Thus, we will be holding 40 interviews with students per program, for a total of 80 interviews with TET students. Each interview will be structured around a “critical incident,” to borrow the term developed by Billett (1994; 2000). This approach was chosen with a view to helping students narrate the various aspects and multiple circumstances that had an influence on their work-based learning. In each interview, we will ask each student to identify a “critical incident” that he or she dealt with successfully during the last month spent at the company. Students will be invited to describe this incident: how and why they dealt with it successfully, how they acquired the knowledge put to use, how they solved the problems at hand, who and what helped or hindered them, what they could have done better, etc. Students will then identify a “critical incident” that they did not deal with successfully and answer the same questions as above, indicating what they did more or less well, what they did not know, how they could have learned or compensated for what they did not know, who and what hindered them or did not help them, and who and what helped them, etc. Students will thus describe the circumstances and steps involved in the thinking process devoted to successfully finding a solution to a problem they had encountered, and then again to an unsuccessful response to a different problem. Students will also provide details concerning the perceived learning experiences they acquired through the work-based experience, the tasks they performed, the knowledge they acquired, the knowledge transfer capacities they developed, as well as the type of supervision they received from mentors, workplace employees, and instructors that helped stimulate their learning process.