framework paper 04-15 - CiteSeerX

5 downloads 207257 Views 275KB Size Report
the curriculum, schools and employers form a partnership to involve students in ... These skills are recognized as significant to Canada's innovation strategy ..... the vet technician (without the co-op student) using a set of handwritten directions ...
FRAMEWORK PAPER 04-15

CO-OP STUDENTS’ ACCESS TO SHARED KNOWLEDGE IN SCIENCE-RICH WORKPLACES

Jennifer Taylor Hugh Munby Peter Chin Nancy Hutchinson Faculty of Education, Queen’s University May, 2004 Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

1

CO-OP STUDENTS’ ACCESS TO SHARED KNOWLEDGE IN SCIENCE-RICH WORKPLACES

Introduction Many people make the transition from the community of practice of school to the community of practice of their chosen workplace after they have completed their education program. Co-operative (co-op) education students are in the unique position of belonging to both communities of practice simultaneously. Therefore, co-op education offers researchers an exclusive opportunity to study the similarities and differences between these communities of practice, and the issues of brokering and transfer that arise when co-op students attempt to introduce the shared knowledge of one community of practice into the other. Co-op education is extensive and growing in the United States and in Canada. For example, at any given time about 10% of Canada’s grade 11 and 12 high school students enrol in co-op education (Munby, Cunningham, & Chin, 1998). In this part of the curriculum, schools and employers form a partnership to involve students in extended periods of time at a workplace while enrolled in full-time study. Typically students also engage in classroom sessions related to their placements where they prepare for the workplace through studying topics like resume writing and interview skills, unions, and workplace safety. Students spend up to four half-days per week in a workplace, where they are expected to become part of the workplace community of practice. The co-op placement is seen as an alternative learning environment in which students can explore careers, can be recruited to a career, can learn workplace skills such as communication and taking initiative, and can experience academic reinforcement for knowledge and skills presented in the school curriculum (Hutchinson et al., 2001). These skills are recognized as significant to Canada’s innovation strategy (Government of Canada, 2002). While our own research and the research of others confirm that students enrolled in co-op do experience the learning addressed by the first three aims listed above, research also shows that the aim of academic reinforcement is not realized.

Current research in education suggests that bringing school-based learning more in line with work-based learning facilitates the transition between school and work, and to adult functioning in society (Munby, Chin, & Hutchinson, in press) and that co-op and other forms of work-based education present one approach to this challenge (Munby, Hutchinson, Chin, Versnel, & Zanibbi, 2003). The “new economy” or the “knowledge economy” is reflected in changes in the workplace such as: a reduction in the number of lower-skilled jobs, changes in what workers need to know and how they need to know, and limits set on the value of current stock of knowledge and skill (Berryman & Bailey, 1992). A recent report Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

2

published by the Conference Board of Canada (2002) makes it plain that the bar is set high for the current Canadian school leaver. The educational bar has been lifted for job seekers. Only 6 per cent of jobs are open to people without high school graduation, yet 18 per cent of our youth will not graduate from high school….Canadian students receive a high-quality education, but too many have difficulty with the transition from school to work. Increasing business-education partnerships and co-op programs must become a national priority. (p. 119)

The demands of the new economy will stretch the capacity of existing educational arrangements to prepare high school students for the workplace and to ensure their continued learning in the workplace in the face of change. As educators, we need to ensure that the practices of schools are conducive to generating and enacting innovative knowledge and ideas in all aspects of life including the workplace. In part, our research examines the assumption that changing the world of school to better reflect the world of work through co-op education addresses this challenge. In this paper, we draw on the analytical framework of Wenger’s (1998) concept of community of practice to understand why co-op students do not receive academic reinforcement for knowledge learned in school while participating as a member of a workplace. Because our own research has focused on science-rich workplaces, we explore the relationship between school science education and science in the workplace to account for the apparent chasm between the form and function of science in the workplace community of practice and in the community of school. In addition, we draw on cognitive research about knowledge at school and in the workplace (e.g., Clark & Wittrock, 2000), and the Co-operative Education and Workplace Learning (CEWL) group’s previous work on understanding the form and function of workplace science (Chin, Munby, Hutchinson, Taylor, & Clark, 2002) to support our claims. Specifically, our research will examine the access that students have to the shared knowledge of the workplace community of practice, both declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. Our research will address two main questions. First, what kinds of shared knowledge do students have access to, and to what degree? Our second question is, to what extent does the knowledge of the community of practice in the workplace resemble the knowledge shared within the community of school? We hypothesize that the qualitative differences between workplace science and school science may limit the success students have in accessing the science knowledge of the workplace. The paper begins with a description of the concept of community of practice in the workplace, and how the concept may be applied to the science classroom. Next, we look at the concepts of brokering and transfer, issues which come into play when people belong to more than one community of practice, and must introduce the shared knowledge of one community of practice into another. Third, we explore the differences between the community of practice of science-rich workplaces and the community of practice of science classrooms that make the processes of brokering and transfer difficult for co-op students, particularly in terms of academic knowledge. In this section we will introduce data from our own ethnographic case studies of co-op students in Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

3

science-rich workplaces. The data consist of detailed observations of co-op students in their placements, and of ethnographic interviews with co-op students, co-op teachers, and workplace supervisors in the science-rich workplaces. Finally, the paper proposes possible interventions to improve co-op curriculum policy and to provide strategies for co-operative education students, co-operative education supervisors, and workplace supervisors to enhance students’ access to the community of practice of the workplace, and to the shared knowledge in the workplace. Further, the paper will suggest policy changes for the science curriculum in Canada’s secondary schools. These suggestions will be couched within the framework of building a foundation of lifelong learning for youth, with particular attention to the transition from school to work, as advanced in Knowledge Matters (Government of Canada, 2002). Community of Practice The concept of community of practice has been used extensively to study adults in a variety of workplace settings. Lave and Wenger (1991) introduced the notion as a tool for understanding the distributed nature of knowing, the teaching and learning of both new and experienced members of the community, and the maintenance and negotiation of the shared knowledge of the community. Communities are defined primarily by the pursuit of a common enterprise and their shared knowledge (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). These components involve shared tasks, practices, and resources. Members of a community of practice share a common technical language, standards of practice, behaviours, and perspectives. Members of a community of practice may work individually or collaboratively, but even independent work accesses shared materials, social, and conceptual resources, and workplace and discourse practices (Roth, 1995). In science education, as in the workplace, learning communities emphasize collaborative practices. Linn, Songer, and Eylon (1996) stated that in science education, “the most compelling justification for social learning environments is their similarity to communities of practice for expert scientists” (p. 476). Lazarowitz’s and Hertz-Lazarowitz’s (1998) description of scientific research included cooperative activities in addition to individualistic and competitive processes. They noted that scientific breakthroughs (e.g., reaching the moon, decoding DNA, producing lasers, and the development of computers) are always the result of a combination of individual and team efforts. Van der Linden, Erkens, Schmidt, and Renshaw (2000) hypothesized two reasons for the present popularity of community-oriented learning in education. The first reason is the importance attached to forms of cooperation in society at large. Current research in education suggests that bringing school-based learning more in line with workbased learning facilitates the transition between school and work, and adult functioning in society (Munby, Chin, & Hutchinson, in press). Collaboration in school provides an opportunity for students to acquire and practice social skills needed for interaction in society and in the workplace (Lazarowitz & HertzLazarowitz, 1998). Social skills, such as active listening, talking, offering compliments and constructive criticism, taking turns, reaching consensus and conflict resolution are essential to the effective functioning of teams (Korinek & Popp, 1997; Webb & Palinscar, 1996). Second, collaborative learning reflects the changing views of researchers in education on learning and the nature of Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

4

knowledge (van der Linden, et al., 2000; Webb & Palinscar, 1996). According to constructivist and social constructivist theory, individuals must take a more active role in constructing their own knowledge, and knowledge construction is facilitated by interactions with peers, teachers, and resource materials in the learning environment. Driver et al. (1994) declared that a “social constructivist perspective recognizes that learning involves being introduced into a symbolic world” (p. 7). Due to the cultural nature of science, there are some things that students cannot be expected to discover for themselves. In these instances, the teacher must structure lessons so that students encounter these facts and concepts (Driver, 1989). In his introduction to Vygotsky’s work, Bruner (1985) wrote:

The Vygotskian project [is] to find the manner in which aspirant members of a culture learn from their tutors, the vicars of their culture, how to understand the world. That world is a symbolic world in the sense that it consists of conceptually organized, rule bound belief systems about what exists, about how to get to goals, about what is to be valued. There is no way, none, in which a human being could possibly master that world without the aid and assistance of others for, in fact, that world is others. (p. 32) Social constructivist theory and the theory of community of practice share an emphasis on the situatedness of knowledge and learning, that is, learning is influenced, and cannot be understood in isolation from the context in which it was constructed. Doing something in the work world with school-derived knowledge makes the student grasp the knowledge in more elaborate, profound ways. Here is where the notion of situated learning applies to work-based learning: If, as Brown and his colleagues (1989) argue, people learn more effectively when they use knowledge in a meaningful social context, then surely an actual workplace is one such environment. (Hughes, Moore, & Bailey, 1999)

Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

5

Peer group activities that are used to facilitate cognitive knowledge co-construction in science classrooms include: presenting and explaining ideas to peers, thinking and talking about individual or shared experiences, suggesting and trying out new ideas, reflecting on changing ideas, helping peers to clarify their thoughts, and advancing current understanding by making sense of new ideas (Lazarowitz & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1998).

There are relatively few instances of the exact concept of community of practice being used to conceptualize the teaching and learning in classrooms. Roth (1995) used the concept to research a grade 4/5 classroom studying a unit on civil engineering. Specifically, he documented the transformation of the knowledge of the community as resources and practices were shared and adopted by its members while exploring the usefulness of community of practice as a tool for his analysis. However, enough researchers in science education have used the notion of community to explore classroom interactions to make the case that science classrooms, through the use of collaborative communities for learning, provides a useful lens for studying learning in science classrooms as well as the workplace. For example, Roth (1996) and Roth and Bowen (1995) used data from the same grade 4/5 classroom described previously to explore the roles of resources (scientific knowledge), practices (craft knowledge), and culture (resources and practices of a given field) in students’ construction of knowledge about bridges. All three studies concluded that the context of community facilitated the sharing of ideas and the construction and negotiation of knowledge. Scardamalia, Bereiter, and Lamon (1994) created a communal database intended to foster a learning community in science classrooms and studied its effects. The Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE) stores the combined knowledge of a classroom of students. The knowledge stored in the database is communal property—all Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

6

students can access the entire database, add their text, drawings, or pictures to the database, or make comments and ask questions about what their peers have contributed. The construction of knowledge is a social process that is mediated by peers. Scardamalia et al. reported that students participating in CSILE independently engaged in collaborative learning activities, and were intrinsically motivated to learn. Palinscar et al. (2000) explored the use of guided inquiry in inclusive classrooms. They stated that “integral to this orientation is the conception of the classroom as a community of inquiry” (p. 241). Students worked in pairs or small groups to conduct investigations and document data gathered in the course of study. In addition, “a critical feature in the instruction is the reporting phase, during which the investigative teams share their data, speak to the evidence they have gathered to support or refute extant claims, and contribute new claims for the class’s consideration” (p. 241). Bloom’s (1998) book, Creating a Classroom Community of Young Scientists: A Desktop Companion, encourages and supports teachers interested in pursuing collaboration as the primary mode of educating students. Bloom lists the characteristics of classroom communities as responsibility, independence, leadership, collaboration, communication, self-governance, caring and support, and relevance. Wenger’s (1998) notion of community of practice states that individuals can be members of multiple communities of practice simultaneously. Co-op students are members of both the science-rich workplace community of practice and their school science community of practice where science knowledge is qualitatively different. These students are expected to participate in the process of what Wenger describes as “brokering”—to introduce the knowledge of one community into that of another. For novices without guidance, brokering is a difficult process.

Brokering Wenger (1998) defined brokering as “the use of multimembership to transfer some element of one practice into another....Brokers are able to make new connections across Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

7

communities of practice, enable coordination, and—if they are good brokers—open new possibilities for meaning” (p. 109). He continues:

The job of brokering is complex. It involves the processes of translation, coordination, and alignment between perspectives. It requires enough legitimacy to influence the development of a practice, mobilize attention, and address conflicting interests. It also requires the ability to link practices by facilitating transactions between them, and to cause learning by introducing into a practice elements of another. (p. 109) Wenger ascribes a feeling of “uprootedness” to brokers because they find themselves negotiating the boundaries between communities of practice that lack the shared understandings of the core of practices. Wenger paints brokering as a difficult process—and this is what we expect co-op students to accomplish, typically all on their own, when they are still novices in the school subject area, and novices in the workplace. Transfer

In a paper that examined knowledge transfer from cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, Billett (1998) addressed the paucity of transfer between the community of practice of the classroom and the community of practice of the workplace. He defined transfer as “the process of disembedding knowledge from one situation and transforming it to have utility in another” (p. 1). Transfer is ‘near’ if the new situation is similar to the situation in which learning originally occurred, and ‘far’ if it is novel. Transfer fails if the learner is unable to recognize the new situation as similar to the former. “[R]esearch, spanning decades, shows that individuals do not predictably transfer knowledge … they do not predictably transfer school knowledge to everyday practice. They do not predictably transfer sound everyday practice to school endeavors, even when the former seems clearly relevant to the latter” (Berryman & Bailey, 1992). Billett (1998) hypothesized that to improve transferability across classrooms and workplaces, students need specific guided instruction to first embed, and then disembed knowledge in such a way that the knowledge is adaptable to other circumstances. Billett goes on to describe this process as making the transfer as ‘near’ as possible. Barriers to Brokering and Transfer between School and the Workplace Similarly to Hughes, Moore, and Bailey (1999) we ask: Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

8

Do they [students] in fact get the right kind of and enough practice in the use of such [academic] knowledge? Further, do they ever explore the school knowledge in a process that leads them explicitly to think through its implication or its adequacy? Are they held accountable for the competent display of this knowledge? (p. 10)

Our own research on co-op students’ learning in workplaces, other research on co-op education, research on adult learning in the workplace, and research in the area of the philosophy and sociology of science have revealed barriers that make it difficult for students to move academic knowledge between the community of practice of school, and the community of practice of the workplace. These include: the nature of science— purpose, accountability, and substance; the structure of knowledge in each setting, the form content knowledge takes, the sequence that the curriculum is presented in, and the gatekeeping and streaming that occurs around access to knowledge. Purpose, Accountability, and Substance. In past theoretical work, we have found that the concept of “versions” of science helps us to understand how the substance of science, the body of scientific information, laws, theories, and principles that have been made available to us over the centuries, is accessed differently in different contexts (Chin, Munby, Hutchinson, Taylor, & Clark, 2002). Our first version of science represents those professionals who engage in theoretical or experimental science, or bench science. The purpose of bench science is to develop new scientific information, and the accountability of bench science lies in its attention to the validity of the information it generates. The product of bench science is constructions of scientific information, laws, theories, and principles that are relevant to its purpose. Our second version of science is school science, a term used in a previous study (Munby, Cunningham, & Lock, 2000). In contrast to bench science, the purpose of the school science is scientific literacy; and that the accountability of school science lies in assessment and evaluation of students’ learning. The product of school science is constructions of scientific information, laws, theories, and principles that address its teaching and learning goals. Workplace science is our final version of science. Whereas learning and knowledge construction is the primary purpose of school science, the purpose of workplace science is to meet the needs of its clients. For example, although a veterinary clinic may be a co-op setting, its primary purpose is the health and well being of its patients and not the learning of the students (Munby, Chin, & Hutchinson, in press). The purpose of workplace science is to support the goals of the workplace, and the accountability lies in ensuring that the current findings of bench scientists are used appropriately. The product of workplace science is constructions of scientific information, laws, theories, and principles that meet its particular purpose. By depicting the different versions of science in terms of purpose, accountability, and substance, we have begun to articulate how science learning in the formal context of schools is different from the science found in the informal context of a science-rich workplace. Further, our depiction suggests why a student who is successfully participating in a science-rich workplace does not necessarily see a direct relationship between workplace science and school science—within this theoretical framework, a direct relationship does not exist. When Denise, a co-op student in a dental clinic, was asked about ways in which the co-op placement made her think of something she may Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

9

have learned in a science class, she responded “There’s a couple of things. I can’t remember them now, but I remember thinking I had learned that in Biology. Oh there was a couple of times, I can’t remember them now.” However, she did add that the placement was helping her with the anatomy of the head for the short physiology unit in gym class. When asked the same question, Ruth responded “not really, we did genetics and that kind of stuff but we don’t do anything like that in the clinic” (Interview, Apr. 10). She added that in “grade 11 biology you did all the organs... that kind of stuff, but with [senior] biology it’s more getting down to the nitty-gritty... the atoms and that stuff.” Hughes, Moore, and Bailey (1999) and Hennessy (1993) concluded that understanding the connection between the knowledge gained in an academic setting and the knowledge needed to solve real-world problems is critical. The purpose and accountability of the workplace appeared to be major limiting factors in determining students’ access to the science knowledge of the workplace. Students in the veterinary clinic and dental clinic were we conducted our research were given increasing responsibility in animal care and assisting the veterinarian during simple procedures, there were some tasks they were not allowed to try, such as answering client questions over the telephone and assisting alone during surgeries. Kathy, a co-op student in a medical laboratory had even more limited access to learning opportunities. She described how she had learned procedures to conduct the tests on samples in the lab, found it repetitive, and “was starting to get bored about half-way through.” She worked with “few people” and wished she could “see patients” (Interview, Feb. 2). Kathy’s experiences were limited because, as the workplace supervisor stated, “they really can’t get their hands into a lot of different areas because we’re talking real life patients, real life tests and so there are some things that we cannot give them to do. They can’t take the responsibility of it” (Interview, Mar. 23). Kathy’s workplace supervisor perceived that she could not expose the co-op student to many of the roles within the medical laboratory, and thus, Kathy’s role was quite specific. Structure. The structure of school is intended to provide students with access to the content of the curriculum. While this does not guarantee students easy access, they have supports, in the form of teachers and peer tutors whose job it is to help them gain Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

10

access. Conversely, the workplace is not set up for accessing academic knowledge— yet we are using them as learning sites for the reinforcement of academic knowledge learned in the classroom. Billett (2001) describes the complex knowledge of the workplace as opaque—knowledge in the workplace is hidden behind simple practices and routines until the system breaks down. In addition, Stasz and Brewer (1998) found that academic skills were disguised in the work activity because the language of the workplace did not correspond with the topics of the subject areas outlined in the school curricula. For example, in the veterinary clinic, a co-op student, Ruth, was setting up the anaesthetic machine for the next procedure and was organizing the bags on the machine. The following exchange occurred between the researcher, Ruth, and the vet technician. Ruth:

I have the right bag on now.

Researcher: Ruth: Vet tech:

Researcher: Vet tech: Researcher: Vet tech:

How do you determine which bag goes on? You have to have the right size bag for... There’s a certain calculation that you go through if want to be really technical but basically what we do is say that it’s the cat bag size 1. You’re looking about basically the size of their lung capacity. You’re not going to throw a 3 Litre on there, you’d drown the cat. So the bag is more or less the capacity of the lung? It’s supposed to be like total volume and everything but we don’t do that here. We just say 1 is a cat bag, 2 is a small dog bag, and 3 is a large dog bag. It makes it a lot easier. Sometimes there is a dispute over what is a large cat and what is a small dog then? Yes. Sometimes I’ll put something on and he’ll [the vet] rip it off and put something else on. (Observation, May 8)

What is important to note here is the opacity of the workplace knowledge—the biological concepts such as lung capacity and total volume, the language and calculations are simplified into a routine category selection based on the size of the cat or dog. A further layer of opaqueness in science-rich workplaces is created by science knowledge becoming embedded in technology and routines. Available technologies (such as autoclaves and sterilizer tabs) are designed so that their users “can bypass the science knowledge on which they are based” (Fensham, 2002). When the researcher asked Ruth about the role of sterilizer tabs in the process of sterilization, Ruth responded, “all these go green like up to three then it is sterile. It reached the proper temperature, but if it’s a little before green then it is overcooked but still sterile” (Observation, May 29). Ruth’s explanation of the sterilization tabs is given in terms of the pragmatics of clinic procedure rather than in terms of bacteria and heat resistance, which would have been the expected response in a biology classroom. Kathy, a co-op student in a medical laboratory explained her experiences with completing blood tests: I would watch the lab tech and she’d tell me things that were going on but they did so little testing there and a lot of it was on a machine and so they weren’t actually doing the test. So it was like, there is a machine and they put the blood or whatever in the machine and the machine did the work and then they just got the results. (Interview, Feb. 2) Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

11

One needs access to opaque knowledge in order to solve new problems or be useful to the operation. To function effectively when normal routines are not working, one must have access to opaque and implicit knowledge. Billett (2001) notes that the breaking down of normal routines provides opportunities for workers to gain deeper knowledge, but he is writing about adult employees, not students. However, co-op students usually are not given the opportunity to work through problems—they are moved to an area where things are functioning normally. Therefore they have no incentive to get into the opaque knowledge of the workplace. For example, in vet clinic setting, students didn’t get access to a think aloud of the vet solving problems related to patient care, especially when there was a non-routine problem. During one visit to the vet clinic we observed the vet technician (without the co-op student) using a set of handwritten directions in order to prepare a blood sample for a red blood cell count using a microscope and slide. She comments that they are currently in the process of hooking up the new machine (since the old one was just replaced), and that she can hardly wait. She added that she hadn’t done actual red blood cell counts for several years because the machines take care of that. Sequence. In science classrooms, students are presented with content knowledge according to the logical ordering of the discipline itself. Skill development begins with learning declarative knowledge—factual knowledge, or “knowing that” (Anderson, 1982); and learning declarative knowledge is the primary goal of school science. Examples of declarative knowledge in school science include knowledge about different kinds of bacteria, what makes them resistant to heat, and why they pose a threat to animal health. The next step is for students to proceduralize their knowledge, or put it into action. Procedural knowledge is defined as “knowing how” to perform tasks—for example, knowing how to sterilize instruments in a veterinary or dental clinic. However, procedural knowledge is not always dependent on declarative knowledge. Although the experts in the community base their task performance on declarative knowledge, our research shows that co-op students entering the community of practice learn the procedural knowledge necessary to complete routines without having to access the declarative knowledge on which the task of sterilization is based. Workplace knowledge unfolds in a sequence different from school: The basic premise of the school curriculum, rooted in works by Ralph Tyler (1949), Jerome Bruner (1966; 1977) and others, is that exposure to the knowledge of a discipline must be structured in such a way as to build a student’s understanding incrementally from the simple and foundational though the complex and advanced. We start teaching chemistry with fundamental information about elements, for instance, and then move on to more difficult ideas resting on that foundation. That sort of incremental exposure to discipline knowledge does not often appear in naturally-occurring work situations, even in research laboratories. Rather, workers are assumed to have that foundational knowledge, and to perform tasks by drawing on it. The sequence in which they need certain kinds of knowledge stems from the production process in the workplace, and does not typically coincide with the sequence in which they originally learned it in school. (Moore, Hughes, & Bailey, 1999. p. 11)

In the workplace, knowledge use and exposure is dictated by routines, and what is presented through client needs. In the workplace, students experience front-end loading, and repetition. The following excerpt comes from field notes taken during observations in a veterinary clinic. Expected tasks were introduced early on, and were followed by numerous exposures to these tasks to reinforce them through repetition. In the example of learning the task of preparing spay packs, the co-op students were introduced to the required cleaning techniques for surgical Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

12

equipment and the need for maintaining sterile fields. Within the learning associated with preparing a spay pack, a series of gradual steps are implicitly used. These include: (a) showing the students the location of the soap and instructing them on which brushes to use (and which ones not to use), (b) showing the students how to remove scalpel blades during the cleaning technique, (c) instructing the students on which surgical tools (including the names and functions of these tools) go into a spay back, and which ones are put in a “cold” sterile pan, (d) instructing the students how to clean and fold surgical gowns, and (e) showing the students how to properly fold the sterile pack and prepare it for autoclaving. The co-op students were not allowed to perform the autoclaving themselves because the clinic's autoclave was somewhat old and had to be operated in “just the right way” to prevent the spay pack from catching fire. Gatekeeping/streaming. At the workplace, students are given more opportunities to learn (access to more shared knowledge) if they are able to show competence on current tasks. They generally move from tasks requiring less responsibility to more responsibility as they prove themselves. Observations from the veterinary clinic again: The tasks that the co-op students were expected to learn included some very simple daily tasks that were built into their daily routines. On the first day of the placement, the students are told about the job list that they were to work their way through once they arrived at the clinic. This included feeding animals in the kennels, cleaning cages, filling water bowls, and taking the dogs out for walks. The students were given these responsibilities early on, and they were expected to do them without overt supervision. Assuming such responsibilities had the two-fold effect of: (a) making the co-op students immediately feel as contributing clinic team members by doing tasks that needed to be done as part of a functioning clinic, and (b) motivating the co-op students to complete these tasks proficiently so that they could later be available to observe and eventually participate in the more interesting aspects of a clinic—namely, the treatment of animals. The veterinary technician who supervised the co-op students explained: When someone looks like they've got a job, and they know how to do it, and it's down pat now, and it's taking them half as long as it used to, you know that they're ready to do something else. If I see that, then we go on. If I don't see that, we stay at that level for a little while. I usually take it from what I see of them (Interview, Mar. 26). Within a course at school, it seems that students are exposed to new information and tasks regardless of how they perform—the curriculum continues on inexorably. However, students who do not do well in one science course may find themselves moved into a non-academic stream for their next science course where they are exposed to less doing of science—surface learning, learn how to respond without subject knowledge (the community of practice becomes test-taking) or vice versa. Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

13

Summary of Section Our first research question was, “What kinds of shared knowledge do students have access to, and to what degree? Our review of the literature and our analysis of data collected in workplaces like veterinary clinics, dental offices, medical laboratories, and hospitals suggest that students have sufficient support for accessing procedural knowledge, but are not able to access declarative knowledge. Our second question was, “To what extent does the knowledge of the community of practice in the workplace resemble the knowledge shared within the community of school?” We have shown that there are qualitative differences between workplace science and school science that may limit the success students have in accessing the science knowledge of the workplace.

Also the kinds of shared knowledge accessible to co-op students in the workplace vary. The quality of access seems related to the level of cognitive involvement: The more access one has, then the more one is involved in synthesizing, judging, and analyzing. First, school based knowledge may be applied in work settings, and thus reinforced. The student may, for instance, use reading skills learned in school to comprehend instruction manuals, or she may apply arithmetic skills to accounting tasks. This process, we infer, yields a form of practice that solidifies school knowledge. In the terms of Bloom’s (1956) well-known taxonomy, reinforcement may thus be achieved through work activities calling for knowledge and application. (Hughes, Moore, & Bailey, 1999, p. 7)

Changing Schools, Changing Workplaces There is little resemblance between the shared knowledge of the community of practice in the workplace and the shared knowledge of the community of practice in the school. With Hughes, Moore, and Bailey (1999), we suggest that, “If school and work are so different, and individuals do not transfer knowledge gained from one to the other, it follows that in order to be fully prepared, young people should have both. ”

Drawing upon cognitive and sociocultural theory and associated research, the following means are advanced to achieve this goal. These are: (i) developing the forms of knowledge most likely to facilitate the transfer of knowledge; (ii) providing guidance in the securing of this knowledge; (iii) enriching the conditions of knowledge construction through authentic experiences to include opening up possibilities for its application in other circumstances; (iv) pressing learners to abstract principles from a Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

14

particular circumstance and apply them elsewhere (disembedding); and (v) sequencing activities to provide access to the circumstances where the knowledge is to be applied. (Billett, 1998, p. 14-15) We sampled the introductions of Biology grade 11 and 12 curriculum documents from across Canada to discover what curriculum policy made reference to preparation for Workplace Learning, and how such references were followed up the curriculum. In an initial analysis, these references were grouped into three categories. First, the policy documents made blanket statements about the future that referred to preparing students for the New Economy, creating an adaptable workforce, lifelong learning and the changing and ongoing opportunities, responsibilities, and demands of life after graduation. Second the policy documents made general statements about science and work, with references to careers in science and skills needed in the workplace. Third, the documents talked about the applications of science outside of school, such as applying appropriate scientific principles/laws/theories when interacting with society and the environment in specific fields, and possible applications to engineering, medicine, fisheries, forestry. Also, we sampled biology documents to find out what curricular content, if any, was contained within these documents that might be reinforced the setting in which we conducted research—dental clinic, veterinary clinic, or medical laboratory setting (e.g. microbiology, science-technology-society). A review of the grade 11 and 12 biology curriculum documents from Canadian provinces revealed a number of topics with content that could be reinforced in a vet, dental, laboratory or hospital setting, e.g., microbiology, digestive system, and respiratory system. As an example of our findings, a summary is found in Table 1. Table 1 British Columbia Grade 11



Grade 12



Grade 11

o •

Grade 12



Human



Microbiology (viruses, Kingdom Monera, Kingdom Protista) Human Biology (digestive system, circulatory system – circulation and blood/heart structure and function, respiratory system, nervous system – neuron/impulse generation and reflex arc/divisions of system and brain, urinary system, reproductive system) Atlantic introduction to microscope – use of apparatus/ safety/ accuracy Maintaining Dynamic Equilibrium I (homeostatis, circulatory system, respiratory system, digestive system, excretory system, immune system) Maintaining Dynamic Equilibrium II (nervous system, endocrine system) Quebec Function of Nutrition (intake: food & air,

Opportunities for Learning in Co-op Placement • Sterilization in veterinary and dental clinics • Surgery in veterinary clinic; procedures in dental clinic



Culture analysis in veterinary clinic and medical laboratory

• •

Surgery in veterinary clinic; procedures in dental clinic Surgery in veterinary clinic



Care for animals in

Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

15

Biology





veterinary clinic Surgery in veterinary clinic; procedures in dental clinic



Surgery in veterinary clinic

Energy and Matter Exchange by the Human Organism (systems – digestive, respiratory, excretory, circulatory)



Surgery in veterinary clinic; procedures in dental clinic Care for animals in veterinary clinic

Reproduction and Development (complex systems ensure survival of species, reproductive success regulated by chemical control systems, cell differentiation and development in humans – genetic endocrine, and environmental influences)



transformation & selection of Intake – anatomy/physiology /hygiene of digestive & respiratory system, transportation of selected intakes – anatomy/physiology/hygiene of circulatory/cardiovascular systems, metabolism of the intake - cellular structures and activities), utilization of intake – growth/repair/balance of intake & activities, elimination of waste – CO2/kidneys) Function of Reproduction (reproductive system – male/female, procreation)

Alberta Biology 20

Biology 30







Surgery in veterinary clinic

We propose that changes in both the classroom and the workplace are necessary (and possible) in order to penetrate the barriers between the classroom community of practice and the workplace community of practice.

This is not to argue that the work-based learning needs to mirror or duplicate the school-based learning, but only that, if the academic reinforcement thesis is to be confirmed, students should be found actively engaging the school-like knowledge in the course of participating in work activity. Otherwise, the claim will be seen as merely rhetorical. (Moore, Hughes, & Bailey, 1999) School Currently, school knowledge is not organized in such a way as to teach the skills and abilities required for performance outside of school. “Modifying schooling to better enable it to promote skills for learning outside school may simultaneously renew its academic value” (Resnick, 1987, p.18). Resnick advocated a transformation of the classroom “to redirect the focus of schooling to encompass more of the features of successful out-of school functioning” (p. 19). Hardy (2002) called for a reconceptualization of teaching to effect transfer of learning to the workplace. Through the science curriculum, especially the area that links science and technology to society, schools should be teaching how the concepts presented to students at school are used in the workplace. In order to do this effectively, we suggest that subject area Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

16

teachers, as well as co-op teachers, need the opportunity to visit workplaces and speak with workplace supervisors. We believe this would be a valuable form of professional development that would enable teachers to design lessons plans that include applications of science knowledge to workplace settings that have future interest for their students. Many schools and school boards have already entered into relationships with businesses. These partner businesses might be potential sites for teacher professional development about learning about how they can infuse learning about work in the curriculum. The Applications of Work and Learning National Project is a professional development project for educators, funded by Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC, 2000). Participants are placed in a variety of workplace environments to help them connect the curriculum they teach in the classroom with how that curriculum is used in the workplace. Through this program, teachers are “bought out” for a day of professional development. They interview a workplace supervisor, and then spend a day in the workplace observing what goes on. Using what they learn, participants develop relevant classroom activities that are then stored in an easy to use, searchable, electronic database. In preparation for co-op placements, co-op teachers, with the support of subject area teachers, could help students develop questions from their science learning at school that they should seek answers to in the workplace. Hardy (2002) observed deeper learning in the workplace when students sought answers to their own questions. In order to do this effectively, the co-op teacher must have an understanding of the types of tasks a student will be exposed to in the workplace, as well as knowledge of what the student will have covered in the classroom. This may seem a daunting task, but as information is collected about workplaces used frequently as co-op placements, it will become easier. This may also be an area where university researchers can make a direct contribution to curriculum planning. For example, our detailed ethnographic studies of several science-rich workplaces could be used immediately to create information booklets about what academic knowledge students might have the opportunity to reinforce in their workplace destination. Workplace We conceive of two ways that students could better introduce the knowledge of school into the workplace. First, we recommend that the co-op teacher share with the workplace supervisor information about what students have learned at school, perhaps in the form of a list topics and subtopics covered in the related course. As opportunities arose in the workplace in the natural course of the workplace routines, the workplace supervisor could alert the students to the connections, and have them follow up—dig into the opaque knowledge themselves or recommend work-related reading, such as a research article. In this way, the workplace supervisor becomes part of the brokering process, it is not just left to the students. Our second recommendation comes from our previous work on using metacognition to understand the knowledge contained within the routines of the workplace. We have argued that workplace learning can be enhanced by introducing co-op students to ideas about routines and to the questions that learners can ask about the routines in which they are engaged (Munby, Versnel, Hutchinson, Chin, & Berg, in press). Because of the Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

17

obvious success in schools of metacognitive strategy instruction (e.g., Swanson, 2001) we emphasize metacognition––higher order thinking that involves knowledge of one’s cognitive functioning and active control over one’s cognitive processes while engaged in a learning task. Our approach is to ask what is common across varied contexts of work. When we do this, we cannot escape the idea that routines are central to workplaces, although routines are manifested quite differently in different settings. For this reason, we have developed a “Metacognitive Theory of Routines for Workplace Instruction” (Munby et al., in press), based on the functions or general properties of routines: e.g., something initiates them, they proceed until some definable point is reached, and then they repeat. Students can be taught to identify these functions, so that they have metacognitive processes for understanding routines they encounter in the workplace by asking themselves questions like, “What is the routine? What initiates the routine? How do I know when the routine is complete?” Conclusion This paper has been concerned with part of the gulf between school and work. Our paper has shown that part of this gulf is revealed when we look closely at differences between school and workplace knowledge and how knowledge is structured, sequenced, and accessed. The approach taken in this paper, using ideas about communities of practice and research from the CEWL research team, suggests that the differences in knowledge identified here have two clear implications. The first implication is explanatory: here our approach suggests that problems encountered by students when transferring workplace learning to learning in the school curriculum may be the result of differences in the knowledge and in the community of practice. The second implication is for practice. As an immediate recommendation, we suggest that metacognitive instruction can be helpful to students as they attempt to understand how work unfolds in the workplace. Thus we anticipate that metacognition will play a role in helping students reflect on the routines they engage in while in the workplace, and what questions they might ask or strategies they might use to increase their access to the declarative science on which workplace routines are based. Metacognitive instructional interventions are to help workplace supervisors and co-op teachers to support and guide students through a brokering between workplace science and school science, and will teach students metacognitive strategies for making these connections. A recommendation for the longer term comes from asking how school knowledge and learning can be made more like workplace knowledge and learning so that school better reflects the conditions students will face in their after-school lives. Curriculum change is suggested here, possibly a change that views secondary education as pre-vocational education rather than as either academic or vocational (Munby, Hutchinson, Chin, Versnel, & Zanibbi, 2003). The importance to such rethinking is evident in current emphasis on lifelong learning. For example, the text of Knowledge Matters (Government of Canada, 2002) gives specific attention to how the knowledge economy demands a workforce with changing skills. Lifelong learning and helping young Canadians make a successful transition from school to work are two major aims for secondary education (pp. 15-24). We believe that these aims can be fulfilled if the lessons and the curriculum of workplace are considered as models for the communities of practice that support learning in schools. Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

18

References Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369406. Berryman, S. E. & Bailey, T. R. (1992). The double helix of education and the economy. New York, NY: Institute on Education and the Economy, Teachers College. Billett, S. (1998). The transfer problem: distinguishing between levels of social practice. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research, 6(1), pp. 1-26. Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace: Strategies for effective practice. Crowsnest, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals—Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chin, P., Munby, H., Hutchinson, N., Taylor, J., & Clark, F. (2002, April). Where’s the science?: Understanding the form and function of workplace science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Clark, R., & Wittrock, M. C. (2000). Psychological principles in training. In S.Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Training and retraining: A handbook for business, industry, government, and the military (pp. 51-84). New York: Macmillan.

Conference Board of Canada (2002). Performance and Potential Report 20022003. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.

Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

19

Driver, R. (1989). The construction of scientific knowledge in school classrooms. In R. Miller (Ed.), Doing science: Images of science in science education. Basingstoke, UK: Falmer.

Fensham, P. (2002). Time to change drivers for scientific literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2, 9-24. Government of Canada (2002). Knowledge matters: Skills and learning for Canadians. Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada. http://www.innovationstrategy.gc.ca Hardy, M. (2002, November). School-workplace partnership: A case study of four vocational studies programs. Paper presented to the Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kingston. Human Resources Development Canada. (2000). Applications of working and learning national project. Retrieved January 3, 2003 from http:/www.awal.ctt.bc.ca. Hutchinson, N., Munby, H., & Chin, P. (1997). Guidance and career education curriculum background research. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Education and Training for the Province of Ontario. Hutchinson, N. L., Munby, H., Chin, P., Edwards, K. L., Steiner-Bell, K., Chapman, C., Ho, K., & Mills de España, W. (2001). The intended curriculum in co-operative education in Ontario secondary schools: An analysis of school district documents. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 26, 103-140. Korinek, L. & Popp, P. A. (1997). Collaborative mainstream integration of social skills with academic instruction. Preventing School Failure, 41(4), 148-152.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Publishers.

Lazarowitz, R., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1998). Cooperative learning in the science curriculum. In. B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 449-470). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B., Eylon, B. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

20

Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 438-490). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Munby, H., Cunningham, M., & Chin, P. (1998, May). Co-operative education: The functions of experience in workplace learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Ottawa, ON. Munby, H., Chin, P., & Hutchinson, N. L. (in press). Co-operative education, the curriculum, and “working knowledge”. To appear in W. Pinar, W. Doll, D. Trueit, & H. Wang (Eds.), The internationalization of curriculum. New York: Peter Lang. Munby, H., Hutchinson, N. L., Chin, P., Versnel, J., & Zanibbi, M. (2003, February). Curriculum and learning in work-based education: Implications for education in the new economy. Paper presented at “School-to-Work and Vocational Education: The New Synthesis,” a National Invitational Conference sponsored by the Mid-Atlantic Laboratory for Student Success at Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education, Philadelphia. Munby, H., Versnel, J., Hutchinson, N. L., Chin, P., & Berg, D. H. (in press). Workplace learning and the metacognitive functions of routines. Journal of Workplace Learning. Roth, W.-M. (1995). Inventors, copycats, and everyone else: The emergence of shared resources and practices as defining aspects of classroom communities. Science Education, 79, 475-502.

Roth, W.-M. (1996). Knowledge diffusion in a grade 4-5 classroom during a unit on civil engineering: An analysis of a classroom community in terms of its changing resources and practices. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 179-220.

Roth, W.-M. & Bowen, M.G. (1995). Knowing and interacting: A study of culture, practices, and resources in a Grade 8 open-inquiry science classroom guided by a cognitive apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 73-128.

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., and Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE Project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory into classroom practice. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

21

Stasz, C., & Brewer, D. J. (1998). Academic skills at work: Two perspectives. (MDS1193). Berkley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher-order processing. Elementary School Journal, 101, 331-348. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841-873). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. van der Linden, J., Erkens, G., Schmidt, H., & Renshaw, P. (2000). Collaborative learning. In Simons, R.-J., van der Linden, J., & Duffy, T. (Eds.), New learning (pp. 37-54). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises http://www.business.queensu.ca/kbe

22