Tynjälä (2008) calls for an integrative approach to institutional and work-based learning. She argues that expertise consists of theoretical, practical and self-regulative knowledge and proposes a model of "integrative pedagogics" (Fig. 3, p. 145). How does this model compare with other authors perspectives? For Tynjälä, one implication of this model is that theory and practice cannot be separated in the development of vocational and professional expertise. What are your views on this position, conceptually, educationally and practically?With the rise in necessity of the lifelong-learner, the popularity of workplace learning too has experienced correlational growth (Tynjala, 2008, p. 131). Learning is a social and dependant upon the surrounding context (Tynjala, 2008; Erault, 2004). Tynjala (2008, p. 132) describes different levels of learning:
Workplace learning is similar to, and different from, school learning (Tynjala, 2008, p. 133). As such, educational institutions and workplaces must collaborate to ensure citizens are participating in both types of learning described above (for both are necessary). Tynjala (2008. P. 134) explains people learn at work when they:
Further, Tynjala (2008, p. 134) categorises work-based learning outcomes as follows:
Knotworking, the process of “tying, untying and retying together otherwise separate threads of activity” (Tynjala, 2008, p. 136) helps novices gain expertise. Tynjala proposes a model of integrative pedagogics (2008, p. 145) which encapsulates the need for educational institutions and workplaces to work together to support learning. The concept itself is wonderful and it is my belief that this would mean students would have the different types of knowledge and experiences to move from novice, to competent employee, to expert. However, integrative pedagogics does present challenges. For example if the workplace has ‘unsuitable’ practices, a ‘negative’ culture, or simply does not have the work ‘on the books’ to provide the learning experience the student needs in order to meet the requirements of the educational institute, the student is disadvantaged. Further, the educational setting and workplace setting could have misaligned visions. From a practical perspective, it does set challenges: there are large numbers of students and many workplaces do not have the time or resources to invest heavily into students – the students themselves may not be a willing participant! If for example universities were to move toward a dominant integrative pedagocical model, it could potentially dilute the value of the tertiary degree, as the university may not know for certain whether a student has met the learning outcomes. This then brings into question the competency-based learning debate. References Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3, 130-154. Eraut, M. (2004). Transfer of knowledge between education and workplace settings (Chapter 12, pp. 201-221). In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller & A. Munro (Eds.).Workplace learning in context. London: Routledge.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
|