Formal and informal workplace learning

These notes are part of a series for the book. Eraut did a study involving nurses, engineers, and accountants over a 3-year time span. They were all early in their careers, and Eraut studied how they learned in the workplace, what they learned, and what factors affected the learning efforts. In this article, the author ‘sketches out a framework for describing and supporting professional learning in the workplace…. [H]e argues that sociocultural and cognitivist theories are complementary and he proceeds to draw on both perspectives in developing his framework’ He contends that building relationships is an important part of learning in the workplace, and this part of his argument is sociocultural. (Reader 2, p. xi)

Eraut, M. (2007) ‘Learning from Other People in the Workplace’, in Hall, K., Murphy, P., and Soler, J. (eds) (2012) Pedagogy and Practice: Culture and Identities, London, SAGE Publications Ltd. in association with The Open University.

Outline

Introduction
Towards an epistemology of practice
The development of a new typology of learning processes and activities
Work processes with learning as a by-product
Recognized learning processes
Learning activities located within the processes described above
The factors affecting workplace learning
Conclusions and their implications for enhancing workplace learning

Notes

How he analyzed this

Eraut believes that sociocultural and individual theories of learning are complementary. For example, he sees the following as types of knowledge:

Codified or reified knowledge: For example, this is knowledge that is written down in refereed, peer-reviewed, and edited journals
Cultural knowledge: For example, this might be work-based practices as part of the corporate culture as well as the culture of the profession, seen as just the way things are done
Personal knowledge: This is what a person does with their personal knowledge, more than the truth of that knowledge, and can include everyday actions, memories, skills, attitudes, and emotions (this is something we can study by communicating with the person and also by observing professional performance)

He analyzed performance on three dimensions:

Dimension #1: Assessing, deciding, pursuing, and monitoring:
- Assessing clients and/or situations
- Deciding on an action to take, if any
- Pursuing the agreed-upon action
- Monitoring metacognition
Dimension #2: Time, a continuum that can have three markers, which are context-sensitive rather than a timescale (that is, it depends on the context):
- Instant/reflex (semi-conscious behavior)
- Rapid/intuitive (greater awareness of what you are doing)
- Deliberative/analytic (after considered thought and maybe talking with others)
Dimension #3: Context, for example first-year teachers perform differently than more experienced ones, as they must prioritize work and form routines in order to lessen the cognitive load that makes the first year so difficult. This becomes less true as they gain experience.

How he grouped learning activities

Eraut divided learning activities based on whether the main objective was learning or was working. He then created a middle category for really short activities that could be in either of the previous two (such as asking questions) and using mediating artifacts.

Group A: Learning as a by-product of work processes
- Participation as group processes
- Working alongside others
- Consultation
- Tackling challenging tasks and roles
- Problem solving
- Trying things out
- Consolidating, extending and refining skills
- Working with clients
Group C: Learning as the main objective
- Close to the workplace: being supervised, coached, mentored
- At other workplaces: shadowing, visiting other sites
- Far from the workplace: conferences, short courses, working for a qualification, independent study
Group B: Short activities that could be in Groups A or C
- Asking questions
- Getting information
- Locating resource people
- Listening and observing
- Reflecting
- Learning from mistakes
- Giving and receiving feedback
- Using mediating artifacts

Factors that affect workplace learning

When Eraut previously studied mid-career people, he found that there was a triangle of dependent factors that influence workplace learning: Confidence, challenges, and support. Your confidence increases when you successfully meet challenges, and you have success in challenges when you have support.

In this study, he was able to add to his model, to include factors that influence workplace learning for early-career people. He draws his model as two triangles:

The first triangle shows factors that influence workplace learning for mid-career and early-career people.
The second triangle shows contextual factors that influence early-career people.

Eraut’s two-triangle model (Eraut, 2007, p. 72).

Conclusions for enhancing workplace learning

You must have good relationships for feedback to be most effective. Provide feedback right away. Also provide normative feedback about how well the person is doing, their strengths and weaknesses, and how well they are meeting the company’s objectives.

Give more and better opportunities for consultative work and working alongside others. Make sure that work is allocated in such a way that nobody is over- or under-challenged when you do this.

Increase the manager’s role as one who develops a culture of mutual support and learning — not as one in which the manager is the sole source of support.

Make sure everyone (managers and workers) understands all the ways they can learn in the workplace. Give everyone a chance to talk about their learning needs. Attend to factors that help or hinder learning.

Additional notes

These notes come from The Open University (2008) E846 Study Guide, Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Eraut sets out to find formal and informal instances of learning. He does not take this entirely from a sociocultural view, but what he finds is that learning occurs in both ways, and this is supported by sociocultural views. ‘Wherever people engage for substantial periods of time, day by day, in doing things in which their ongoing activities are interdependent, learning is part of their changing participation in changing practices’ (Lave, cited in The Open University, 2008, p. 174).

‘What is helpful about Eraut’s analysis is that it enables you to consider where pedagogy is explicit — for example, in formal learning situations — and where it is implicit in practice’ (The Open University, 2008, p. 174).

Line managers often provide the type of formal learning that is in group C, close to the workplace (supervising, coaching, and mentoring). ‘However, these pedagogic means are often not explicitly valued as part of a peer’s role or a manger’s [sic] role, and experiencing this aspect of their roles as legitimate in settings would transform practice in many workplaces…. This legitimation would also recognise the learning potential for peers and managers in engaging in these practices. One constraint… might be that asking for help could imply a lack of compentence, thus challenging professional identities’ (The Open University, 2008, pp. 175-6).

Katherine Hinchey