Hawke: A Perspective from Practice1 Research on Workplace Learning & Assessment: A perspective from practice Geof Hawke Senior Research Fellow, Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training University of Technology, Sydney In the Australian VET context, `practitioners' are a diverse mob. For the purpose of this paper, the practitioners (whose interests research needs to serve) include industry trainers, HRD managers, TAFE teachers, government officials involved in funding education or training provision, and others who are responsible for providing education and training services to learners, to industry, to government agencies and to enterprises. This paper is derived from two key sources. Firstly an understanding of the needs and wants of practitioners derived from long experience in working with these practitioners, and secondly, from a careful consideration of the papers prepared for this project and the responses of the discussants and the many participants attending the national colloquium. 1.What practitioners need In considering the contribution that research can make to practice it is useful to begin with a clear outline of what practitioners might, reasonably, ask of an effective VET system and, then, to consider what research might do to assist them in achieving those needs. 1.1.A consistent and reasonably stable context The environment within which VET practitioners are operating is one of significant and constant change. These changes have far exceeded the rate of change in the community more generally. For example Hawke and McDonald, 1996 identified twelve significant policy documents concerning just one area of the National VET system between 1992 and 1995. Practitioners are confused as to what may be the policy this week, and frustrated by the need to constantly change their practice and documentation. 1.2.Clear and feasible rules and regulations In addition, much of current policy appears to have been driven by ideological, political and `religious' conviction rather than by any clear understanding of the needs and preferences of the various stakeholders in the VET system. Moreover, policy-makers are being required to work to timeframes which force decisions to be made without adequate reflection, and without the opportunity to test and refine their implementation. This is particularly manifest in the many attempts to define and prescribe regulatory arrangements. Practitioners have consistently defined these as unhelpful, impossible to implement in practice, and unwieldy. 1.3.Clear and useful guidance By the very nature of their role, practitioners are focused on the implementation of policies developed elsewhere and on translating these into effective and useful outcomes for learners and other clients of the system. Because of their background, their interests, the pressures on their time, competing priorities and a host of other causes, practitioners in general don't want to have to constantly re-invent the wheel. Their dominant interest is in providing the best possible service and, to do that, they want to know: „how best to carry out their responsibilities; „how to improve their existing practice; „how to avoid making mistakes. 1.4.Clear information on why various strategies work and/or are more effective than others. Practitioners are often characterised as wanting to know `what' but not `why'. In reality, however, practitioners want to understand the choices they need to make, and are commonly in the position of needing to adapt and modify their work to meet changing client needs and changing contexts. This requires an intelligent and informed understanding of the principles which shape their practice. 2.Factors which have limited the value of VET research to practitioners. 2.1.Problems of currency The constant changes in policy and direction that have been experienced have made much recent research actually or apparently of little value. Frequently, research findings have only been formulated or disseminated after the policy or practice they sought to inform has been abandoned or significantly modified. 2.2.Accessibility Too much of the research to date has been inaccessible to practitioners. This difficulty has two important dimensions: ·a significant proportion of the research has been written in a language and form which is not meaningful to most practitioners; ·the findings of the great majority of research in the area has been published in places and ways which are not normally accessed by practitioners. In particular, one-off research reports have been the principal means of publishing research findings. These are difficult to locate, often out of print or otherwise not available. For academic researchers, academic journals and research reports are commonly used but not often available to practitioners. Even where more `popular' magazines (such as Australian Training Review) have been used, these have limited circulation. 2.3.Credibility Practitioners want facts, not fashion, to be the basis of policy as Ridout observed in her opening address to the Colloquium (Ridout, 1996). Unfortunately, most practitioners recognise that a significant proportion of the recent Australian VET literature is better described, in Laurie Field's words, as based on `religious' beliefs (Field, 1996). In particular, too much `research' has been uncritically promotional, rather than critically evaluative. For example, as Docking notes, practitioners are faced with a plethora of models all purporting to be the `true' or `best' interpretation of CBA (Docking, 1996). They need clearer information on choosing between competing models and, ultimately, better guidance on selecting and using different approaches. 2.4.Different strokes for different folks A recurring theme of the Colloquium was the diversity of interests, needs and values which colour the development of research and policy and, subsequently, the extent of its usefulness to practitioners. Two particular facets of this were highlighted by speakers during the two days. Guy Gattegno noted the wide diversity of understandings of the term `competence' (Gattegno, 1996). He was concerned to identify how we can move forward when, in effect, we're speaking different languages. Similarly, Cassandra Parkinson (Parkinson, 1996) noted the divergence in the needs and expectations of different groups of practitioners. This was driven home by Richard Sweet who noted that virtually every significant feature of a workplace learning system that an employer might regard as cost-effective, an employee might see as expensive, and vice versa (Sweet, 1996). 3.Questions research needs to answer. Practitioners identified a number of significant research questions and themes which need to be given priority. Of these, many have key relevance to the needs of practitioners and, in the following section, these are identified: 3.1.A contribution to resolving the deep `either/or' divides . As noted earlier, a major recurring theme was the extent to which dichotomies have been imposed on the framework within which practitioners are required to operate. What contribution can research make to resolving the deep `either/or' divides which are increasingly being reflected within the disparity between policy/philosophy and practice? Hager, 1996, Billett, 1996, Beckett, 1996 and Butler, 1996 all noted that the major conceptual/philosophic underpinnings of VET have received little or no critical assessment - eg the changing nature of work, the classroom vs the workplace and the debates about broad vs narrow education. 3.2.Critical evaluation of the outcomes of recent reforms Closely related to this issue was the need to identify what features of the reform of VET have worked and which have not. Docking, 1996 noted that many employers remain sceptical of the value of training. Butler expressed the view that key questions were `has the NTRA impacted on the status or future earnings capacity of lower status workers? Has it, indeed, changed their lot in any way?' (Butler, 1996) Throughout the papers can be found a need to clarify what is meant by `work'. Butler in particular highlighted the limiting conceptualisation of work as `paid employment', and the impacts of that on equity outcomes. 3.3.Guidance as to the extent to which common principles of teaching/ learning are appropriate across the full spectrum of workplaces and/or learning environments The powerful role of differing contexts in shaping the outcomes and character of learning in the workplace was also a major recurring theme. While this is now becoming recognised, a detailed understanding of what this means for practice is still to be achieved. For example, Beckett observed that we know little of the effects of context on management practice, let alone on learning (Beckett, 1996). Moreover, both Hager and Docking ask `to what extent are common principles of teaching/learning appropriate across the full spectrum of workplaces and/or learning environments?' (Hager, 1996; Docking, 1996) If they are not appropriate, why is this the case, and what factors imply the need for what different kinds of strategy? Moreover, do these strategies interact with individual characteristics (gender, culture, style, education, intelligence, etc) and how? Butler draws attention to the need to understand the equity implications of this (Butler, 1996). 3.4.Better understanding about the `soft skills' While focused on Management Learning, Beckett makes the broader point that newly emerging areas of `skill requirement' (eg `people skills') are still relatively poorly understood. As a consequence the development of training responses has largely been a `hit & miss' affair. (Beckett, 1996) 3.5.Better guidance on how to make the system operate more effectively Docking, Beckett and Butler all note, in differing ways, the need for research which will assist the system to operate most effectively. This leads to a number of specific questions: `Who really does or should drive the NTRA? What role ought educators to play? What should be the role of workplace learning within the overall education and training system?' Garrick particularised the last issue by posing the question `is informal learning usefully included within formal structures or will the value of informal learning be distorted by attempting to fit `the system'?' (Garrick, 1996). Ivanoff, felt that the issue was `how can the effectiveness of informal learning be maximised?' (Ivanoff, 1996) 3.6.How to expand employer/employee involvement in VET While the issue was not raised in any of the papers prepared for the Colloquium an interesting observation in itself-the most commonly requested information by practitioners is `ammunition they can use to persuade employers (or employees, or both) to recognise the value of education/training.' However Docking, when discussing competency-based assessment, observed that a key reason for the reluctance of workplaces to engage in formal assessment was the lack of convincing evidence of its cost-effectiveness (Docking, 1996). Most practitioners (especially teachers and trainers) are passionate advocates of the value of training. They urgently need research which will assist their cause. Employers remain unconvinced of the value of VET to their bottom line, and employees remain unconvinced that VET offers enough to make the (expected) pain worthwhile. From a different perspective, industry organisations who want to make workplace learning attractive want to ensure that it is properly recognised. As Ridout noted `qualifications must stand for something' (Ridout, 1996). However, considerable scepticism remains as to the quality of workplace qualifications. Ultimately, this is a question comparative research into `equivalent' qualifications can illuminate. 4.Meeting practitioners' needs. While a range of specific research questions (above) were identified as being of great interest to practitioners, the strongest message from the papers and the responses of practitioners on the day was for research which was: More empirical Many papers and many respondents noted that the overwhelming balance of Australian research into learning and assessment in the workplace has been descriptive and qualitative. Very little has sought to quantify or categorise the data. Very little has sought to test explicit hypotheses. This was not a concern about qualitative methodologies as such but rather related to the need for research to be more proactive and critical of the status quo. More critical The strongest theme of the colloquium was the need for research to question received wisdom and policy positions. Practitioners are uncomfortable that significant changes have been introduced to systems, processes and ideas with little or no apparent evidence that the changes will succeed or provide improved outcomes. More evaluative A specific reflection of the desire for more critical research was for research which explicitly sought to evaluate the effectiveness of various approaches to learning and assessment in the workplace, so as to provide practitioners with clearer guidance on choices between methodologies and assistance with their practice. 5.Summary. Practitioners want and need research which informs the choices they make in their daily work. To date, the majority of Australian research on learning and assessment in the workplace has been simply descriptive of other people's practice. Practitioners have not found in such research useful analysis of why some approaches work well under some circumstances, and others do not. They want research which challenges and illuminates practice, and which can ensure that policy-makers act on sound understanding of the implications of their decisions. References Beckett, D. (1996). Management Learning: Research literature survey. National Colloquium on Research Directions for Workplace Learning and Assessment, Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney. Billett, S. (1996). Understanding Workplace Learning: Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. National Colloquium on Research Directions for Workplace Learning and Assessment, Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney. Butler, E. (1996). Equity and Workplace Learning: Emerging discourses and conditions of possibility. National Colloquium on Research Directions for Workplace Learning and Assessment, Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney. Docking, R. (1996). The Assessment of Learning. National Colloquium on Research Directions for Workplace Learning and Assessment, Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney. Field, L. (1996). Learning in Organisations. National Colloquium on Research Directions for Workplace Learning and Assessment, Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney. Garrick, J. (1996). Learning in Organisations - Response. National Colloquium on Research Directions for Workplace Learning and Assessment, Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney. Gattegno, G. (1996). Management Learning - A response. National Colloquium on Research Directions for Workplace Learning and Assessment, Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney. Hager, P. (1996). Understanding Workplace Learning: Assorted perspectives. National Colloquium on Research Directions for Workplace Learning and Assessment, Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney. Hawke, G. A. and McDonald, R. (1996). When Rhetoric Meets Reality: Issues confronting the National Framework for the Recognition of Training. Sydney, Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney. Ivanoff, P. (1996). Management Learning - Discussion. National Colloquium on Research Directions for Workplace Learning and Assessment, Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney. Parkinson, C. (1996). Understanding Workplace Learning - Response. National Colloquium on Research Directions for Workplace Learning and Assessment, , Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney. Ridout, H. (1996). Opening Address. National Colloquium on Research Directions for Workplace Learning and Assessment, , Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney. Sweet, R. (1996). Cost-Benefit Issues - Response. National Colloquium on Research Directions for Workplace Learning and Assessment, , Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology, Sydney.