Just doing it

by Lena Bernhardt & Esther Beltermann

The idea of  ‘Learning by doing’ – as a preferred way of workplace learning (Bove & Kroth, 2001) – bases on the constructivist approach which characterizes learning as an activity that is strongly related to the context in which it occurs and to the learner himself. The overall aim is to develop expertise.

By explaining and structuring the main ideas, this article outlines the idea of ‘Learning by doing’. A review of the underlying (learning) theories builds the basis which is replenished by a brief definition of expertise. The benefits and problems of this concept are subsequently demonstrated. We close with an overview on the literature used for this article and abstracts of crucial empirical studies.

Underlying theories

Critical constructivists have had an impact on this approach: Vygotsky (1978) pointed out the relation between learning and the development of the individual. In his concept of the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ he integrates social activity as an important factor for understanding human learning and development (Moll, 1990). In doing so, he established a crucial characteristic of this theory on learning. The idea that construction of knowledge is influenced by the individual’s genetic and socio-cultural background is also represented by Rogoff (1990) and is reflected in the discussed approach. Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) held a similar view. According to them, learning is dependent on the situation that contains individual characteristics and prior knowledge as well as the context itself. This is consequent with Lave and Wenger (1991, p.53) who emphasize that “activities, tasks, functions, and understandings do not exist in isolation; they are part of broader systems of relations in which they have meaning”. Consequently, learning always is embedded in a social context comprising the interactions and activities of the people within it. The situatedness of learning and the constructivist approach become evident through the uniqueness of these elements and build the basis for Lave and Wenger’s idea of ‘Communities of Practice’ (1991). They (Lave, 1991; Wenger, 1998) also mentioned that learners have an active role – they engage in and contribute to the communities of practice – and act more and more autonomous: “Newcomers become oldtimers through a social process of increasingly centripetal participation, which depends on legitimate access to ongoing community practice” (Lave, 1991, p.68). Finally, they appropriate all the necessary skills and become part of the community of experts.

In general expertise means being able to categorize problems correctly and quickly. This comprises resolving problems without making mistakes through monitoring them by falling back on a meta-level. In doing so, problem-solving becomes effective. Moreover, experts deal efficiently with both routine tasks and new complex tasks by transferring their knowledge into new situations (Billett, 2001).

Learning by doing – the individual aspects

Learning is unavoidable to reach the status of an expert. It is influenced by the individual learner and contextual influences. The subject is characterized through his characteristics, attitudes, interests, values, knowledge and standing. These aspects are essential for the construction of knowledge as, according to the constructivist view (von Glasersfeld, 1987), learning depends on prior experience and knowledge. Accordingly, the learner’s characteristics, such as age, gender, education, and his standing in an organization influence the kind of participation in workplace learning. As well Perkins et al. (1993) emphasize in their ‘Dispositional Theory of Thinking’ that the individual’s dispositions, comprising inclinations, sensitivity and abilities, affect thinking and learning. Furthermore, attitudes towards learning and other learners, and the individual knowledge about the content, learning opportunities and own capacities have an impact on the willingness to participate in learning processes as well as on the work activities and consequently on the vocational knowledge, which is constructed (Billett, 2000).

Contextual influences on workplace learning

In addition to the aforementioned individual aspects, contextual aspects influence learning. These influences – corroborated by several studies (e.g. Billett, 2000) – comprise tasks performed by the learner himself, other workers and experts as well as the equipment in the workplace. As opposed to individual aspects, they focus on the engagement and interactions during working and learning. In compliance with constructivist approaches the individual is characterized as active participant in the learning process: In order to construct his own knowledge, the learner must have the opportunity to engage in learning activities and to collect own experiences that can be integrated into existing knowledge.

As Billett (2006) emphasizes, most of what is learnt, is learnt by doing. The learning process is enhanced by being situated in authentic surroundings and performing meaningful tasks. Hence, the learner will solve his tasks by following a structure. At first a problem-solving approach has to be planned and tested. Eventually it has to be modified to face the challenges and problems in the process and to solve the tasks effectively. By repeating the steps, the performance is internalized and the effort for the procedure decreases. In doing so, the learner becomes an efficient problem-solver. Making mistakes is seen as an important aspect to facilitate and improve learning as negative knowledge avoids repeating the same mistakes and thus leads to a better performance (Harteis, Bauer & Gruber, 2008). By this means, both conceptual and procedural knowledge develop. Beyond, knowledge is organized in a meaningful way and enables learners to use their knowledge flexible in various contexts and the learners get routine in their tasks. The increased knowledge and skills and the development of effective problem-solving procedures are important aspects towards expertise. The tasks that a learner is confronted with can be distinguished in routine and non-routine tasks. They differ in matters of consciousness, which is needed to cope with them.

Routine tasks occur subconsciously, because the worker has already accomplished them ‘a hundred times’ and, in doing so, he has formed associations among concepts (chunking) and compiled procedures (Billett, 2001). Finally, he does not have to think about his proceeding anymore – tasks are operated automatically. Consequently, there is more cognitive capacity available for new and unknown tasks.

Through the necessity of control strategies to be able to set goals and evaluate their achievement, it becomes evident that in contrast to routine tasks non-routine tasks occur consciously. During the process of problem-solving, one’s prior knowledge has to be transferred to the situation to handle the requirements and the given circumstances. In that way, new associations are developed and knowledge is transformed and extended. This is consistent with Piaget’s (1976) idea of ‘accommodation’ that is to be contrasted to ‘assimilation’. Assimilating new experience means that new knowledge is integrated into the existing (Piaget, 1966). Instead of developing new knowledge, existing assumptions are strengthened. Thus, it is evident that this process occurs when the learner copes with routine tasks.

Another external influence refers to co-workers and experts as they are able to support the learning of individuals in a direct or indirect way. Direct guidance corresponds to the first four phases of the Cognitive Apprenticeship approach (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1989). Co-workers and experts firstly model the expected behavior so that the novice can observe. Then they coach the learners (e.g. giving hints and feedback) and finally support them in conducting a task, if needed (scaffolding). When the learner is ready to solve the problems himself, the expert fades his support. This kind of guidance occurs in shared problem-solving and collaborative learning. In his study about guided learning at work, Billett (2000) figured out that amongst others understanding the tasks was achieved through modeling whereas coaching assisted the learner’s development.

In identifying and selecting work tasks that match with the learner’s readiness and by monitoring and guiding the learning process, experienced co-workers and experts provide support. By this means, the novice is not overstrained and approaches complex tasks step by step. Moreover the mentee appropriates ‘tricks of the trade’ and knowledge about hidden structures and relations, when they are explained and made explicit by the expert (Billett, 2001). This leads to a deeper understanding of the tasks and a better performance at the same time.

Indirect performance also takes place in the workplace. Learners observe and listen to co-workers to learn work routines and understand the meaning of the different activities. Billett (2001) emphasizes that best-practice examples of the required proceeding in the workplace are very helpful. Attention should be paid on the fact that problems may be caused and inaccurate behavior may be copied through misunderstandings and missing explanations. Even dangerous situations can result from it.

As not only the social aspects, but even the physical environment of a workplace is part on the learning environment, it is important to keep it in mind. The physical environment contains the available equipment, finished products and concepts – cues, models and cues – which help demonstrating and understanding relevant workplace activities.

Apart from the aforementioned problems that go back to misunderstandings and missing explanations, there are other aspects that limit workplace learning. In conducting three studies, Billett (1995) identified the following limitations: (i) inappropriate knowledge, (ii) no access to authentic activities, (iii) reluctance of experts, (iv) absence of expertise, (v) opaque knowledge, (vi) instructional media. Furthermore the fact that workers do not “understand the desired outcomes of their work in order to develop goals for performance” (Billett, 2001, p.88) can hinder the effective learning process.

Summary

In summary, ‘Learning by doing’ is an adequate approach to describe learning through practice as it takes into account the complexity and variety of aspects that have an impact on successful learning. It bases on the assumption that both social and physical aspects influence the learning opportunities and emphasizes that learning does not occur completely self-directed but with the support of a supervisor. Furthermore, the changing requirements of work that go back to technical and societal changes are taken into account. Learning in the workplace allows responding to them as it is more flexible than curricula in vocational education. Besides, it offers the opportunity to repeat procedures and perform tasks that are too specific or complex to be taught during vocational training or at university (e.g. building houses). Consequently, learners develop those skills that are relevant for their work performance and thus get prepared to the requirements of their future work. Moreover, they get a deeper understanding of both the situational multitasking of the workplace which covers the complexity of the process, and the learning process itself. This is of particular importance for communicating knowledge as it can be processed adequately for other learners.

In spite of these benefits, the limitations of learning by doing must not be forgotten. The claim of communicating knowledge is limited by the ability of doing it. This comprises missing or wrong explanations as well as the inability to communicate in general. Furthermore, it must be taken into account that copying other workers’ acting leads to serious problems. As Mohr and Kraus (2006) mentioned, effective learning needs structure. This includes a supervisor who cares about the work process and supports the learner if necessary. Beyond, tasks should be embedded in the work process and increase in their complexity to allow authentic and meaningful learning. Thus there is a danger that learning by doing does not meet all these requirements, if it is not well organized. In addition, shortness of time and a decreasing productivity have a negative impact on the willingness to both supporting learning activities and supervising learners and consequently hinder the progress of the learner.

On the basis of that, we come to the conclusion that ‘Learning by Doing’ should not be overseen as a way of learning, but also should not be blindly overpraised. The following researchers and their work were the most helpful to coming to this attitude and to approaching the topic:

Literature

1. Because of the variety of his contributions to investigations about workplace learning, Billett’s studies build the basis of this essay. His studies give a review on the characteristics of workplace learning and the influences on it.

• Billett, S. (1995). Workplace Learning: its potentials and limitations. Education and Training, 37. 20-27.

As the opportunities for improving workplace learning are important, the focus of Billett’s review bases on three of his prior studies. As a result, he figures out the benefits and limitations of workplace learning.

• Billett, S. (2000). Guided learning at work. Journal of Workplace learning, 12, 272-285.

This study reports and discusses the findings of an investigation that examines the efficacy of guided learning in the workplace (questioning, diagrams/analogies, modeling, coaching). Critical incident interviews in five workplaces pointed out that participation in everyday work is the most effective contributor to workplace learning.

• Billett, S. (2001). Learning through work: workplace affordances and individual engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13, 209-214.

In this article Billett focuses on the learning process at work and how to improve it. He points out the way in which work activities contribute to individual’s learning and the relation between both factors.

• Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace: Strategies for effective practice. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
• Billett, S., Fenwick, T. & Somerville, M. (eds.). (2006). Work, Subjectivity and Learning. Understanding Learning through Working Life. Dordrecht: Springer.

2. The discussed approach of workplace learning bases on the ideas of the following researchers:

• Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
• Collins, A., Brown, J.S. & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In Resnick, L.B. (eds.), Knowinge, Learning and Instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, (pp. 453-4). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Harteis, C., Bauer, J., & Gruber, H. (2008). The culture of learning from mistakes: How employees handle mistakes in everyday work. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 223-231.
• Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in Communities of Practice. In Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M. & Teasley, S.D. (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 17-36). Washington: American Psychological Association.
• Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Moll, L.C. (1990). Vygotsky & Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psycholog. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Perkins, D., Jay, E. & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond Abilities: A Dispositional Theory of Thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 1-21.
• Piaget, J. (1966). Psychology of Intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adam and Co.
• Piaget, J. (1976) Behavior and Evolution. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice – Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Wissen, Sprache und Wirklichkeit. Arbeiten zum radikalen Konstruktivismus. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

3. Other researchers and research groups that represent this approach:

• Harris, R., Simons, M. & Bone, J. (2000). More than meets the eye? Rethinking the role of workplace trainer. Adelaide: NCVER.

In their study of workplace trainers, the researchers found informal workplace learning to be very important. According to them, workplace learning considers both the work activities and the required skills.

4. Other literature

• Bove, B. & Kroth, K. (2001). Workplace learning and generation X. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13, 57-65.
• Cooley, E. (1994). Training an interdisciplinary team in communication and decision-making skills. Small Group Research, 25, 5-25.
• Mohr, B. & Krauß, A. (2006). Neue Produktionsstrukturen, neue Qualifizierungsstrategien in Unternehmen. In Loebe, H. & Severing, E. (eds.), Weiterbildung auf dem Prüfstand – Mehr Innovation und Integration durch neue Wege der Qualifizierung (pp.193-204). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag.
• Poell, R. F., van der Krogt, F.J. (2006). Learning at the workplace reviewed: Theory confronted with empirical research. In Streumer, J.N. (ed.), Work-related learning(pp.71-94). Dortrecht: Springer.

Poell and Van der Krogt give a broad overview of empirical research done in the area of workplace learning. They focus on the following four central topics: Tuning learning programs to the work and to the organization, Work and learning in groups, Learning programs in different work contexts, Views and perceptions of actors. Moreover they introduce a learning-network-theory useable as a reasonable framework for research on workplace learning. Finally they suggest some topics for further empirical investigations.

• Straka, G. A. (1999). Perceived work condition and self-directed learning in the process of work. International Journal of Training and Development, 3, 240-249.

Authors: Esther & Lena