Download Learning relationships in community-based FE

ESRC Teaching and Learning Research
Programme (TLRP)
Thematic Seminar Series
Contexts, communities, networks:
Mobilising learners’ resources and
relationships in different domains
Seminar One, 15-16 February 2005
Glasgow Caledonian University
Learning relationships in community-based FE
© Terry Mayes & Beth Crossan, Centre for Research in
Lifelong Learning, Glasgow Caledonian University
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Draft for ESRC Contexts Seminar
Learning relationships in community-based FE
Terry Mayes and Beth Crossan
Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning
Glasgow Caledonian University
The main focus of this paper is on the concept of learning relationships. We start by
describing how we have arrived at this focus, and we move to an account of our attempt
to look more closely at learning relationships in the empirical setting of communitybased further education. Our discussion will consider also how our focus on learning
relationships, and our methodological approach to the understanding of these, has
emerged from the cross-disciplinary nature of our research team.
1. A starting point: the importance of learning relationships in
vicarious learning
The first author’s research programme on vicarious learning (Mayes et al, 2001;
McKendree et al, 1998) was aimed at exploring the idea that learning can be facilitated by
providing learners with access to the learning experiences of other learners. As our
research progressed our sense of what was most important about the paradigm came
closer to Bandura’s (1986) original use of the term ‘vicarious learning’. Our emphasis
shifted away from the notion of dialogue towards a process of social learning, in which
the learner’s approach and attitude to learning something is shaped by the observation of
others attempting to learn it. This was a real conceptual move from the original focus on
providing answers to learners’ questions about the subject matter (by compiling lots of
examples of learner questions and tutor answers from previously recorded spontaneous
dialogues). Originally we considered that the advantage of vicarious learning would lie in
the relevance of the dialogue generated by other learners. The unique benefit would
derive from making visible a learner’s perspective on the subject matter, as opposed to a
teacher’s perspective, revealing misconceptions or highlighting questions, raised by the
particular subject matter, for learners at a particular level of conceptual understanding. We
reasoned that this would capitalise on the experience we all have in classroom episodes,
where we often recognise a question asked by a fellow learner as closely articulating our
own incomplete understanding, even though we were not yet ready to frame the question.
Nevertheless, with this conception of vicarious learning we emphasised the direct benefit
for learning specific subject matter. As the research developed so we started to emphasise
the main benefit for vicarious learning as the wider effect of modeling how to engage in
learning dialogues in general. One of the keys to successful learning, of course, is being
able to ask appropriate questions. But it may be that this involves confidence as much as
skill or knowledge, and observing other learners engaged in such dialogues has its effect
by providing a model of good learning behaviour.
Mayes et al (2001) reported the results of experiments with a system called Dissemination
which compiled tertiary courseware from the recordings of students and tutors engaged
in a specially-devised set of ‘task-directed discussions’. In an experiment comparing
learners who were offered this material in addition to conventional courseware we found
that those students who chose to use the vicarious resources tended to model in their
own performance the tasks, language and approaches used in the discussions they had
viewed vicariously. One implication was that the experience of watching other students
learn helped the new learners to model the basic task of learning more effectively.
1
We came to formulate the key issue as the extent to which a learner will choose to model
his or her approach on another learner. This, we hypothesised, will depend on the extent
to which the new learner will identify with the old: the extent to which the (derived)
relationship will seem meaningful to the new learner. To exploit vicarious learning, we
now hypothesised, we had to understand better the salience of the learning relationships
involved.
2. Situating learning relationships
As a research team we have also arrived at a focus on relationships through a
consideration of what is meant by a learning culture. There are perhaps three levels at
which it is useful to think of learning being situated and our thinking about FE cultures
started at the top level: the social-anthropological or cultural perspective, represented by
the work of Lave and Wenger (1991), which emphasises the need to learn to achieve a
desired form of participation in a wider community. The essence of a community of
practice is that, through joint engagement in some activity, an aggregation of people
come to develop and share practices. This is usually interpreted as a stable and relatively
enduring group, teachers say, whose practices involve the development of a specific set
of beliefs, attitudes, values and explicit and implicit knowledge built up over many years.
Yet a community of practice can be built around a common endeavour which has a
much shorter timespan. Greeno et al (1998) give examples of communities of practice
which more closely resemble the groups studied in the social identity literature (eg
Ellemers et al, 1999). Some examples are a garage band, an engineering team, a day care
cooperative, a research group or a kindergarten class. One characteristic of these groups
is that they allow a greater scope for interplay between the psychological (or personal)
and the social in determining practice than do the long-established communities. The
influence of individuals, and of individual relationships, is likely to be greater.
With the concept of a community of practice comes an emphasis on the individual’s
relationship with a group of people rather than, in a different version of the situated
learning approach, the relationship of an activity to the wider practice, even though it is
the practice itself that identifies the community. For Wenger (1998), then, it is not just
the meaning to be attached to an activity that is derived from a community of practice:
the individual’s identity is shaped by their relationship to the group of people who
comprise a community. Social psychologists, such as Turner (1991), make an important
distinction between personal and social identity, a distinction that has been developed
into an approach known as self-categorisation theory. What the social identity literature
seems to tell us is that the salience of a personal or social identity in a specific situation is
crucial, but very hard to predict without knowing a very great deal about all the possibly
relevant individual history. What we can say is that where social identity becomes
relatively more salient than personal identity there is a depersonalisation of the self. The
individual now becomes defined more by a group or community and their motivation to
learn is now derived from the need to carry out the activities of the group. Almost by
definition, they are given a reason to learn. Is this a useful way to consider learning
cultures? At this point in our thinking we began to examine more carefully our
understanding of community, and this led us to consider the second level of situatedness.
At the second level is the learning group. Almost all learning is itself embedded in a social
context – the classroom, or the tutorial group, or the virtual CMC-mediated discussion
group or even the year group. The learner will usually have a strong sense of identifying
2
with such groups, and a strong need to participate as a full member. Such groups can
have the characteristics of a community of practice but here the practice is the learning
itself, in a particular educational or training setting. Or rather it is educational practice,
which may or may not be centred on learning. While there have been many studies of
learning in informal settings (eg Resnick, 1987), there are comparatively few
ethnographic studies of real groups in educational settings to compare with the many
studies of group dynamics in work organisations (see Greeno et al, 1998). Yet it is
evident that there are characteristics of these groups or communities which are powerful
determinants of the nature of the learning that actually occurs in educational institutions.
There are also, of course, many aspects of student behaviour which are determined by
social goals which have little or nothing to do with the curriculum or the formal
characteristics of the learning environment, but much to do with peer esteem.
The third level, though, is the level that came to seem to us most salient. This is the level
of individual relationships. Most learning that is motivated by the other two levels will
actually be mediated through relationships with individual members of the communities
or groups in question. The social categorisation of these individuals will vary according
to the context and nature of particular dialogues. Sometimes their membership of a
group will be most salient, in other situations their personal characteristics will be
perceived as more important. Such relationships will vary according to the characteristics
of the groups involved, the context within which they operate, and the strength of the
relationships.
3. Studying learning relationships in context: community-based FE
Our project: ‘Understanding and Enhancing Learning Cultures in Community-Based Further
Education’ aims to achieve an enhancement of the student experience in community based
further education (FE) through a deeper shared understanding of learning cultures in this
setting. The purpose of the research is to better understand and help make
transformations to the learning cultures of community-based FE, and in doing so
improve the learning experiences of learners and staff within these settings. The project
is a Scottish extension to the Transforming Learning Cultures in Further Education
project (TLC) which is being led by Phil Hodkinson (University of Leeds) and others.
The TLC project does not have community based Further Education as a key
component and therefore the two projects complement each other well.
The idea of a learning culture is central to the research. Learning relationships – the
focus of the current discussion – is at only one of several possible levels of analysis of
the concept of a learning culture, and it is arguable that individual relationships are
outputs of whatever variables shape a learning culture, rather than constituent factors
themselves. Even the concept of a learning relationship can be considered at several
levels.
Fowler & Mayes (1999) defined a learning relationship as existing when we learn from, or
through, others. Such relationships will vary according to the characteristics of the
groups involved, the context within which they operate, and the strength of the
relationships. These relationships may be one of three different forms: one-to-one (eg
parent – child); one-to-many (eg teacher to learners); and many-to-many (eg learning in
peer groups, or networks). The strength and effectiveness of the learning will also vary
within the different kinds of relationships. In an initial attempt to construct a typology of
3
learning relationships, based on a study of 16 year olds attending schools in three
different European countries (ie UK, Finland and Portugal), Fowler & Mayes classified
them as explorative, formative and comparative learning relationships. This categorisation
formed one starting point for our analysis in the current study.
3.1. The current research in brief
The details of the current project are given in Duncan et al. (2004). It is not intentionally
ironic to claim that personal relationships have been key in establishing the basis of our
collaboration with our two partner Further Education colleges, and as we have come to
share a common view of the nature of the research problem, these have shaped our
methodology. During the initial stage we had discussions with our partners both
separately and together, negotiating a number of elements of the research, not least the
concept of ‘sites of research’, and the associated practical implications. We were very
conscious that building good working relationships at this stage would be crucial to the
project’s overall success. We sought to involve our partners as fully as possible in the
development of the project, and to provide them with regular updates on progress.
Two college-based research fellows (one from each college) were appointed at that first
stage, and have become fully integrated members of the research team. Each of these
research fellows is involved with activities that involve both partner colleges. This has
meant that they are able to provide valuable information and insights about their own
college provision, but also can explore aspects of the provision in their colleague’s
college from an informed yet removed stance. Jointly we have arrived at a shared
interpretative stance (which is key to the analysis – see below).
Through detailed discussions it was agreed that the fieldwork would be undertaken in
one community-based learning centre (CLC) attached to each college. The two partner
colleges are somewhat different from each other, and the two CLCs that are the focus of
our fieldwork are very different from each other. One is a fairly new development in the
wing of a secondary school. It is a community facility that has been developed by the
college, and is visibly branded as such. It is located a few miles from one of the main
college campuses, and serves a fairly wide geographical area. The other has evolved from
being an unemployed workers centre into a learning centre for which the college has a
management responsibility. It is also located a few miles from the main college campus,
but serves a much smaller local community.
To understand learning cultures of community based FE, we have undertaken:




Interviews with staff (both teaching and non-teaching staff) and learners.
Ethnographic observation at learning centres: field notes, informal observations (not
of teaching sessions), pictures and descriptions of physical structure.
Contextual study: information gathering about numbers of students; types and levels
of courses; tutors who teach there (e.g. full time or part time), characteristics of the
local area.
Workshops where we have discussed our findings with staff and students and where
they have worked with us to explore potential areas of change.
We set out in the research to explore the role of learning relationships within the
contexts of community based FE. Through our process of detailed data analysis we have
4
confirmed that this is an important aspect, but have as a research group also challenged
and expanded our ideas about the concept of learning relationships.
3.2. Uncovering the meaning of learning relationships
In a break from the research team’s previous approaches to methodology, for this study
we have adopted a method derived primarily from health psychology and little used, to
date, in educational settings. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) has been described
by Smith (2004) in the following way:
‘IPA can be described as having three broad elements. It represents an epistemological position, offers a
set of guidelines for conducting research, and describes a corpus of empirical research. In terms of its
theoretical position, IPA aims to explore in detail participants’ personal lived experience and how
participants make sense of that…It is phenomenological in its concern with individuals’ perceptions of
objects and events, but IPA also recognises the central role for the analyst …and is thus strongly
connected to the interpretative or hermeneutical tradition. The participant is trying to make sense of their
personal and social world; the researcher is trying to make sense of the participant trying to make sense of
their personal and social world’.
The characteristic features of IPA are ideographic and inductive. Our analysis has been
based on transcripts of semi-structured interviews lasting around an hour each and we
have developed an iterative group method for developing the interpretations.
3.3. Classifying relationships
A possible way of classifying the relationships uncovered in our analysis so far is as
follows:




relationships that encourage learners to enter or to re-enter a formal learning
situation, and assist them in gaining access into learning: (accessing relationships)
relationships that either facilitate or present barriers/challenges to participation in a
learning activity: (facilitative or blocking relationships)
relationships that directly support a learner’s engagement with the learning process
(formative, explorative or comparative relationships)
relationships that encourage and facilitate plans for future learning activities (planning
relationships).
Some relationships will, of course, move across these categories, or even display more
than one characteristic simultaneously. Our understanding of the durability of these
characterisations, and the dynamic nature of some relationships, is deepening as the
research proceeds into its second stage.
The following relationship types are based on a less interpretative grouping, following the
more formal properties of the relationship.
3.4. Relationships in earlier learning
5
Unsurprisingly, the first set of learning relationships which we explored are ones which
pre-date involvement in the CLCs and refer to students’ earlier learning histories.
Respondents have a range of previous educational experience. Many have left school
with practically no recognised qualifications, although a small number have qualifications
but have had to change career through illness or disability, for example. Similarly,
respondents have reported a wide range of contact with learning opportunities. Many
have had no involvement with formal learning opportunities for a long time, while others
have undertaken a variety of courses before contact with the CLC. Many respondents
indicated that their previous learning experiences have been negative. In some cases, this
had actively discouraged further study, and had created a significant barrier for the
process of returning to formal learning.
I didn’t particularly enjoy school, I think that might actually be one of the reasons why I’m kind
of put off college, the thought of, because I didn’t even think school was a great place, so I think
maybe thinking about going to college or classing it as the same sort of idea which is probably
one of the reasons that puts me off (L1)
What has also emerged is that the impact of negative relationships, for example with
teachers, does not disappear once someone has accessed a CLC, but remain and resurface at different points, for example at assessments.
3.5. Family relationships
Family relationships with children, with mothers and sisters, and with partners, all
emerge as being of considerable importance:
… if it wasn’t for her [mother] half the time I wouldn’t be able to make it, because if the kids
haven’t been well or I’ve had somewhere to go. But she’s loving it, thinking that I might
manage to do something out of it (L3)
Relationships with spouses or partners are also often mentioned by respondents,
although the influences can be a complex mixture of the positive and negative. While
some respondents report partners who are supportive, a number of women comment on
jealousy regarding their involvement in the CLC and a generally unsupportive attitude on
the part of partners. In these cases, this can act as a barrier to continued study or as a
motivating factor with their involvement in learning as a means of moving towards
independence from their partner.
He’ll have to get on with it himself, that’s my plan (L3)
3.6. Relationships within the community
The place of the CLC in the local community and the relationship between learners
within these communities emerged as an important set of learning relationships. These
informal relationships are important as the means through which many students become
engaged with learning, and are supported in their continued involvement with the centre.
A number of respondents have made it clear that they would not be prepared or able to
attend a course in a more distant and formal setting, and a number of tutors have also
recognised the importance of these CLCs as the initial step for adult learners.
6
These informal relationships are important as the means through which many students
become engaged with learning, and in supporting them in their continued involvement
with the centre.
I actually met a friend on a bus and I asked her what she was doing with herself and she told
me that she was doing the ESF course in here and I had asked her details about it and she said
‘Why don’t you phone up about it?’ and then I phoned up (L1)
A number of respondents have made it clear that they would not be prepared or able to
attend a course in a more remote and formal setting, and a number of tutors have also
recognised the importance of these CLCs as the initial step for adult learners.
3.7. Peer learner relationships
A number of students report that they only became involved with the course because of
someone that they knew who encouraged them to come along. Students also comment
on the importance of a relaxed and friendly environment within the classroom, and the
supportive role of classmates in contributing to the enjoyment of participating in the
learning activity. For example, one woman who had failed her first assessment and was
required to re-sit, told of how she felt like leaving, and how the experience had reminded
her of her school days. It was her peers who made her take the assessment again "we have
all come so far together", more than the persuasions of her tutor.
3.8. Staff-student relationships
Administrative and support staff emerge as important figures for many students. They
are often the first people who learners meet or talk to when thinking about attending the
Centre. In one Centre, the physical layout has been altered so that the reception desk is
clearly visible from the front door. In this Centre a key member of staff is an ex-student
of the Centre and lives locally. In both Centres such staff reported working closely with
students, often in a supportive role:
We do everything from administration to counselling
If someone doesn't attend for a couple of sessions, I will give them a wee call, just to check they
are OK
These staff are also often important in indicating and advising on the opportunities for
further study, and report playing a much wider role then their job descriptions including
informal support, guidance and understanding the learners in a wider context.
Another strong theme to emerge relates to the approach taken by tutors. Most
respondents have commented that tutors have a relaxed and flexible approach to their
teaching, and engage with learners as equals. Characteristics such as patience, sense of
humour, helpfulness and discretion are valued very highly by most respondents in
helping overcome insecurities and building confidence in their role as learners. Tutors are
frequently compared in a favourable light to experiences of teachers at school, and tutors
also recognise this different role:
Well I would say [tutor] was probably one of the nicest and most patient person I’ve ever met
actually, any problems I think you would find it quite easy to go and talk to her … (L3)
7
The importance of continuity of staff both during a course, and over longer timeframe
which enables relationships with families to be developed was also emphasised by a
number of respondents. Teaching staff reported that approaches to teaching and learning
varied between the way that they would work in a main college and the ways they
approaches teaching and learning in the CLC. Often they are teaching at different levels
within the one class:
[The] differences are vast … it’s a juggling act and more balls get added in … I can end up
with five subjects going on in the same room ... (S12)
Staff also report trying to understand learners within the wider cultural context, whilst at
the same time teaching to a level, and being explicit about this, which is equivalent to that
in the main college.
For some people who come here, a 2 hour a week commitment is a huge thing. For them to
keep that commitment is great, and we all work hard at that.
I always tell the students they are [name] college students, and that the work we do here is to the
same standard as at the college. I think its important that we do that.
It is emerging from the data that working in CLC requires skills which can not neatly be
reified on a job description. We are interested in the ways that staff learn such skills, and
the role that the main college has in supporting and developing such skills. The picture
at present is complex. There are instances where staff teaching in CLCs are part time /
temporary. They have little or no contact with the college so opportunities for formal
induction are limited. We also understand that formal induction at college plays little
attention to the different skills required at CLCs. Staff report that they miss out on the
opportunities to meet with peers, to share practice, to learning about assessment
processes, and to discuss teaching materials. There is no identifiable community of
practice with which to gain access to explicit and tacit knowledge about teaching and
learning in CLCs.
4. Conclusions
The study of learning relationships in the community context is very much work in
progress. It already seems clear, however, that understanding learning relationships are
central to further our understanding of teaching and learning in CLCs. We have
identified relationships as important in processes of engagement with learning in the
widest sense. These include relationships in the wider community, relationships between
learners, relationships between staff and learners, and relationships between staff. Our
project is concerned not only with understanding the contexts of community based FE,
but ways to transform such contexts. With staff and learners we are exploring ways that
we might achieve transformations in relationships. Currently our thinking is focusing on
the following areas.

For teaching staff, greater opportunities for peer interaction and the development
of communities of practice of community based staff which will allow for the
construction of both explicit and tacit knowledge.
8

For learners, ways to provide greater opportunities to support the progress to
other learning contexts. Our analysis has raised interesting questions about how
staff can be both supportive but also avoid creating a culture of reliance ("the fur
lined rut").
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are extremely grateful to the other members of the project team for their
contribution to the work and ideas discussed in this paper. In addition to the current
authors the team comprises Jim Gallacher, Briony Duncan, Lorna Smith, and David
Watson. We are also grateful to the ESRC TLRP programme staff for their
encouragement and support, to the members of the TLC project with which our work is
linked, and to other members of the Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A., (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall
Duncan, B., Gallacher, J., Mayes, J.T., Smith, L., & Watson, D. (2004), Understanding Learning
Cultures in Community Based Further Education: working together towards enhancement.
ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme Annual Conference, Cardiff, November,
2004.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (Eds.) (1999), Social identity: context,
commitment, content. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Fowler, C.J.H., & Mayes, J.T. (1999) Learning relationships: from theory to design.
Association for Learning Technology Journal, 7, 3, 6-16
Greeno, J.G., Eckert, P., Stucky, S.U., Sachs, P., and Wenger, E. (1998) Learning in and
for participation in work and society. International conference (US Dept of Education
and OECD) on ‘How adults learn’, April, Washington DC.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge University Press
Mayes, J.T. (2001) Learning Technology and Learning Relationships. In J.Stephenson
(Ed.) Teaching and Learning Online: Pedagogies for New Technologies. Kogan Page:
London.
Mayes, J.T, Dineen, F., McKendree, J., & Lee, J., (2001) Learning from watching others
learn. In C.Steeples & C.Jones (Eds) Networked Learning: Perspectives and Issues.
Springer: London.
McKendree, J. Stenning, K., Mayes, J.T., Lee, J. & Cox, R. (1998) Why observing a
dialogue may benefit learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 110-119
Resnick, L.B. (1987) Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16, 13-20
9
Smith, J.A. (2004), Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological
analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology 1, 39-54.
Turner, J.C. (1991) Social Influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
10