Lifelong Learning in Work Contexts

Research in Post-Compulsory Education
ISSN: 1359-6748 (Print) 1747-5112 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpce20
Lifelong learning in work contexts
Roger Harris
To cite this article: Roger Harris (1999) Lifelong learning in work contexts, Research in Post-
Compulsory Education, 4:2, 161-182, DOI: 10.1080/13596749900200055
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13596749900200055
Published online: 06 Aug 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 129
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpce20
Download by: [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] Date: 18 October 2015, At: 07:43
Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Volume 4, Number 2, 1999
Lifelong Learning in Work Contexts

ROGER HARRIS
University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
ABSTRACT Lifelong learning within work environments is a complex and yet

increasingly important issue in today’s rapidly changing society. This article highlights
the shift in meaning in the notion(s) of lifelong education in the early 1970s and the
notion(s) of lifelong learning in the late 1990s. This shift can be largely accounted for
by the changed milieu in which these terms have emerged and from which they derive
Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:43 18 October 2015
their meaning. Within the current economic-technological climate, the learning that
occurs in workplaces is an important phenomenon to research if we are to understand
the possibilities in lifelong learning. The article analyses several key elements of current
Australian policy in terms of their potential contribution to the fostering of a training
(or learning) culture, seen officially as a support for lifelong learning. The article also
draws on a number of research studies into the nature of workplace learning and the
role of the workplace ‘trainer’ as key ingredients in this process.
Introduction
Lifelong learning is an increasingly important phenomenon in society today.
The label of ‘lifelong learning’ is becoming more prevalent in pronouncements
of policy and in the rhetoric of practice. Whether or not it is formally
recognised, lifelong learning in some shape or form is occurring every day in
formal educational contexts as well as in more informal and incidental
situations.
Lifelong learning was officially enshrined in UNESCO’s adoption of the
term ‘lifelong education’ in 1965 and was promoted particularly through the
Faure report, Learning to be, in 1972 (Duke, 1976, p. 23). This report, labelled as
‘an important landmark in education’ (Dave, 1973, p. 7), reinforced UNESCO’s
commitment to lifelong education as ‘the master concept for educational policies
in the years to come for both developed and developing countries’ (Faure et al,
1972, p.182). That this vision was to have a significant impact on educational
thinking particularly in the Western world is a relatively well-documented story.
This article highlights the shift in meaning of lifelong learning from its
official emergence in the late 1960s–early 1970s to its increasing popularity in
the late 1990s. Then, with particular reference to the current Australian policy
161
Roger Harris
context and to research studies on workplace learning (particularly focusing on

those from the Centre in which the author works), the article explores the
possibilities of lifelong learning in work environments.
‘Lifelong Learning’ in the Early 1970s

The article focuses on three characteristics of the construct of ‘lifelong learning’
in examining its transformation over these years.
The first characteristic concerns rationale. The discourse of the early 70s
focused heavily on the social benefits of lifelong learning – social capital was
the emphasis. Such learning was perceived as being for individual development
and therefore for citizenship and the good of society. Dave talks about ‘the
fullest development of human potential’ (p. 3), ‘quality of life’ (p. 12), lifelong
learning ‘as a potent instrument to keep up and accelerate all-sided
development’ (p. 12) and ‘as a means of attaining the highest form of self-
realisation’ (p. 12). ‘The ultimate aim of lifelong learning is to improve the
‘quality of life’ in a positive spiral’ (p. 30). Duke (1976, pp. 17–18) claims the
‘values which lifelong learning expresses or within which it is entwined’ include
equal opportunity, openness, participation, access, individualism, cultural

pluralism and community. As he states, ‘education cannot adequately be
considered in a vacuum from other parts of the social system’, and these values
were intricately bound up with societal trends of the time. Molineux (1974)
highlights the fundamental basis of the two major Canadian reports of the early
1970s – the Worth and Wright Reports in Alberta and Ontario respectively –
as ‘the humanist-based “person-centred society”’. A learning society where
education was open equally to all was seen as the ‘best guarantee for the
harmony of a democratic society’ (p. 111).
The second characteristic is related to focus – a pre-occupation with
formal educational contexts. This focus largely stemmed from a widespread
fundamental critique of schooling that was a feature of this time (e.g. Illich,
1970; Reimer, 1971; Toffler, 1971). Dave (1973) writes in terms of lifelong
education being ‘a corrective measure for the existing system of education’ and
how it ‘acts as an organising principle for all education and provides direction
for the development and modification of the total system of education’ (p. 30).
Cropley and Dave (1977) talk of the ways in which teacher training needed to
be modified to be more consistent with the principles of lifelong education.
Duke (1976) discussed criticisms of formal education, including the isolation of
students and teachers from the ‘real world’ and the seeming irrelevance of both
secondary and tertiary institutions to prepare their students for the world of
work.
The third characteristic, closely related to the second, is to be found in
terminology – the frequency of the word ‘education’. ‘Lifelong education’,
‘permanent education’ and ‘recurrent education’ were the catch cries, gracing
almost all official reports and general writings of the time on this subject.
162
LIFELONG LEARNING IN WORK CONTEXTS
A landmark example of these characteristics in Australia was the famous

Kangan Report of 1974 – TAFE in Australia: report on needs in technical and further
education. This report heralded what has been gloriously called ‘TAFE’s Golden
Age’ (Ryan, 1999). From this report, Technical and Further Education (TAFE)
became a reality as a sector and gained an identity, increased status and much-
needed funding (Rushbrook & Mackinnon, 1998, pp. 159, 163). Central to the
report was the philosophy of lifelong education and priority on the needs of the
individual. Matthews & Fitzgerald (1975) stated that ‘it rejected the manpower
objective of producing skilled personnel for the economy and adopted a social
and educational emphasis on enabling people to develop their potentialities as
individuals’. Duke (1976, p. 61) labelled this report ‘the most unequivocal
exponent of lifelong and recurrent education among official reports ...’. It is
revealing, however, that Kangan himself, when addressing a national conference
of TAFE principals in 1981, reportedly stated ‘quietly and disappointedly that
TAFE’s inability to adapt to my philosophy is too silly for me to have to correct’
(Holdforth, 1998, p. 166).
‘Lifelong Learning’ in the Late 1990s

So what does the notion(s) of lifelong learning mean in the late 1990s? The
pendulum has swung dramatically in favour of the economic rather than the
social. In different eras, different values assume the ascendancy, and the
relationship between the economic and social goals of education in all its forms
is always changing. Today, though the importance of social goals continues to
be affirmed, there is ‘considerable evidence to suggest that they have lost
ground to economic goals’ (Ferrier & Anderson, 1998). Economic factors are
increasingly becoming the rationale for educational policy decisions and the
means of measuring their success (Harris et al, 1995, p. 11). Rather than the
primary role of education being to assist individuals to realise their full
potential, thereby also contributing to social and cultural development, the focus
is more on it contributing to the achievement of national economic success by
developing the human resource capital required by industries and enterprises.
In terms of the second characteristic, the emphasis in the discourse on
lifelong learning is now on learning in the workplace. That context may be
senior secondary schools (e.g. the press for vocational education in schools),
universities (e.g. the interest in models of cooperative education) or further
education institutes (e.g. the concern for various forms of integrated training),
but it is also increasingly enterprises (e.g. the renewed importance accorded to
learning on-the-job and the push for it to be officially recognised). Earlier
versions of lifelong education implied episodes of education between episodes
of work or other activity (Ryan, 1999); now learning is seen as continuous, as
embedded in work and other experiences and as including both formal and
informal learning.
As for the third characteristic, the preferred terminology now appears to
be ‘lifelong learning’ rather than ‘lifelong education’, reflecting a realisation that
163
Roger Harris
learning is the key attribute and that it occurs in a much wider theatre than
simply the educational domain of life.
There are voices crying out against this pendulum swing towards an
economic-technological version of lifelong learning. For example, Seddon
(1998, p. 244) has recently warned that neglect of social goals of education and
training threatens economic goals:
What is challenging about our moment in history is that it appears to be a time
of transition. The nation-building state has changed its mind. It seeks
simultaneously to upskill the national human stock and to undermine the social
organisation of expertise by treating knowledge and values as simple
commodities that can be exchanged in the marketplace ... The pre-occupation
with the economic goals of education and training reflects this curious
contradiction. It captures the contribution of education and training to human
capital investment but is blind to the social organisation of knowledge and
communities which continuously construct and protect cultural resources.
Again, Falk (1998, p. 157) has decried the present vocational education and
training (VET) system in Australia as one which has taken the emphasis off
inputs and accentuated outputs. He advocates:
a learning society as being integral for any response to present and future needs
in VET and certainly as the only means we have of reconciling the differences
between the economic and social to the greater good. Yet learning itself is being
relegated to the status of being ‘only’ an input ... The point is that we must pay
attention to these inputs if we are to achieve the characteristics of a learning
society. It will be counter-productive and far more costly in economic and
social terms to de-emphasise learning as an input.
Despite these warnings, however, the meanings of lifelong learning today
appear to be intricately enveloped in the web of economic rationalist discourse.
So how does this notion of lifelong learning, then, fit into the policy scenario of
the late 1990s? How does it manifest itself in this changed climate?
The Notion of ‘Lifelong Learning’

in Today’s Policy Environment
The present Australian Government has given ‘an unequivocal commitment to
the concept of lifelong learning and the promotion of a learning society’ in
response to the Report of the Senate Employment, Education and Training
References Committee, Beyond Cinderella – towards the learning society (Crombie,
1998, p. 1). It has undertaken ‘to imbue its education policies and associated
funding mechanisms with the values and principles of lifelong learning for all
Australians’ (Hansard, 27 May 1998). The rhetoric, however, does not always
translate into practice, and while there are separate visions in sectoral
documents, there is as yet no comprehensive national policy for lifelong
learning.
164
Adult Learning Australia, the peak body for the adult and community
education sector as well as many other individuals and organisations involved in
adult learning in general, continues to push for a national policy framework for
lifelong learning. It has progressively through the 1990s taken on the
responsibility of a national advocate for lifelong learning, expressed perhaps
most clearly in the initiation and leadership of Adult Learners Week. Its ACE
(Adult and Community Education) National Policy, endorsed in 1997, has
lifelong learning firmly positioned at the centre of its role. This policy is
directed towards the creation of a learning society in Australia and records the
increasing importance of fostering a culture of learning in Australian society and
organisations, and collaborating with all education and training sectors within a
context of lifelong learning. Adult Learning Australia has recently been
lobbying government with proposals for the stimulation and support of
increased participation in adult learning (Crombie, 1998, p. 4). These inter-
connected lifelong learning initiatives (many already being trialled elsewhere)
include:
· employee development programmes (employers providing their workers with
cash limited learning entitlements);
· a learning cities network (aimed at promoting collaborative learning

partnerships, better use of resources, integration of economic, social and
educational development, and social cohesion and an inclusive society);
· enhancement of information, guidance and counselling services for adult
learners;
· government support for citizen education through learning circles;
· a national ‘State of Learning’ report of participation in adult learning (regular
surveys of who, what, why, where, attitudes towards learning and future
intentions, in order to monitor progress towards increasing participation in
lifelong learning);
· integration of Adult Learners Week into a lifelong learning policy framework
(to support a more central role for this week as a sustained national
promotion of lifelong learning);
· a review of taxation and learning (so as to gauge the impact of the taxation
system on learning and how it might be used to encourage learning);
· individual learning accounts (a demand-side initiative targeting certain
categories of adults and requiring a contribution from them).
There are other sources for proclamations of lifelong learning in Australia. For
example, many universities include lifelong learning in the list of graduate
qualities they strive to cultivate, and publicise practices in their teaching that
will most clearly enhance lifelong learning – these directions were stimulated by
an influential report by Candy et al (1994), Developing Lifelong Learners through
Undergraduate Education. The recent ‘West Report’ (West, 1998) includes
recognition of the importance of lifelong learning and a vision of how higher
education could contribute to a learning society. Also, the University of the
Third Age movement by its very existence continues to publicise that learning
can continue into later life. However, the most influential voice is undoubtedly
165
Roger Harris
the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA), the key political body for
decision-making and funding in the VET sector. The discussion here focuses on
ANTA and the VET sector, not only because in this climate it is the most
powerful voice but because it is in this sector that the transformations described
above are most visible.
In contrast to the Adult Learning Australia National Policy, the two
National Strategy for VET documents (ANTA, 1994, 1998) in the 1990s do
not have lifelong learning as a central objective or as a part of the mission of the
sector; rather, the emphasis is more on training. In the Strategy for 1998–2003,
the two mentions of the notion are that qualifications are to ‘provide a platform’
for, and alternative pathways are to support, lifelong learning (ANTA, 1998, pp.
5, 7). There have been several manifestations of the attempt to stimulate training
(and by implication learning) in the VET sector during the 1990s. There was,
for instance, the introduction of a training levy on employers – the Training
Guarantee Scheme – in 1990, which went some of the way but was later
suspended then finally abolished in 1996. One could argue that the
introduction of competency-based training (CBT) was another attempt, insofar
as implied in this concept are notions of ‘building block learning’, flexible
pathways, open entry/open exit and articulation with other awards and
qualifications.
The most recent attempt is the government policy on development of a
‘Training Culture’ within industry. There is some irony here in the discourse.
Governmental policy for some time now has been at pains to focus heavily on
the demand rather than the supply side of the equation. But labelling it as
‘training’ implies that the emphasis is still on supply; one would imagine that to
be consistent, the focus should be on the learner, the demand factor.
Nevertheless, this policy is and will be a very important one. For example, it is
the essence of one of the five objectives in the current National Strategy for
VET (ANTA, 1998, pp. 17–20) and it is the first of the six key priorities listed
in the 1999 round of VET research funding.
‘Training Culture’ is officially defined as ‘a set of instinctive behaviours,
beliefs and values, shared by all Australians ... which leads them to a lifelong
interest in VET and a visible commitment to participating and investing in both
formal and informal training’ (ANTA, 1998, p. 20). Four objectives have been
set for the development of such a culture (ANTA, 1998, p. 18):
· to improve industry attitudes and commitment to training, with leadership by
industry being essential;
· to improve community attitudes and demand for VET;
· to improve institutional practices to support a training culture;
· to develop more effective government policies and programmes to support a
training culture.
Significantly, the key research priority is described as ‘training/learning culture’
and it is here that we catch a clearer glimpse of its relationship to lifelong
learning. With the emerging knowledge-based economy and changing nature of
166
work, it is recognised that it is time to explore the implications of such a culture

and the extent to which it is contributing to lifelong learning. In official
discussions on training culture, the focus has been on the need to value training,
and how government policy might encourage an industry training culture that
will in turn contribute to the development of a learning culture (ANTA, 1999, p.
6).
Four Current Policy Issues and the Development of a

Training/Learning Culture as a Basis for Lifelong Learning
One of the key driving forces for change is the shift from an industrial and
service economy to a knowledge-based economy. In this situation, brainpower
is the source of strategic competitive advantage, and concepts of work and jobs
are being redefined (Kearns et al, 1999, p. 17). This scenario furnishes a
compelling case for lifelong learning in a fluid and uncertain society. But will
current policy stimulate the practice needed for bringing about lifelong learning
possibilities? The article highlights four key issues here (while acknowledging
there are many others that could be raised), drawing upon research in general,
though focusing on work undertaken in the research centre in which the author
works. These four issues are: competency-based training; increasing demand-
side responsibility for training; greater emphasis on workplace learning; and the
role of workplace trainers.
Competency-based Training
The first issue is the policy imperative of competency-based training (CBT).
CBT is firmly enshrined as government policy in VET and has been since 1992
(Harris et al, 1995; Smith & Keating, 1997). But whether CBT as currently
constructed in policy is the appropriate framework for building the desired
training/learning culture is a moot point. The Australian National Training
Authority obviously hopes so, especially through the much-trumpeted enhanced
flexibility that is meant to be inherent in the new Training Packages – for
example, flexibility for non-traditional pathways, assessing in workplaces and
customising training in the absence of accredited curricula.
There are many critical voices, however, proclaiming that CBT limits
possibilities for the creation of certain kinds of competence, learning and
innovation through its concentration on the development of outcomes rather
than processes. While standards-based approaches may be appropriate for
certain types of work, Mulcahy (1999, p. 26) perceives them to be far less
suited to new learning and innovation at work, such as setting problems,
creating new knowledge, fashioning processes of co-working and co-learning,
and changing the social relations of the workplace. Gonczi (1998, p. 144)
prophesies that training providers, in order to satisfy the requirements of
Training Packages, will be forced to break up coherent curriculum into a series
167
Roger Harris
of tasks/skills with no cohesion or intellectual credibility, and that the ‘only

repository of a trained and intellectually credible workforce in VET, the TAFE
system, ... will be reduced to a rump’! Others such as Ryan (1999, p. 8) contend
that the version of CBT ‘mandated by government fiat in Australia [is] in many
ways the antithesis of the ideals of lifelong learning’; he claims that being
serious about lifelong learning means placing the individual in the primary
position as the client of VET, and yet the policy framework acts as though only
enterprises matter.
One of the fascinating twists in the implementation of change is that
policy often undergoes quite radical transformation when translated at the
coalface! Simons (1997) is investigating this issue in relation to how VET
teachers have interpreted and used CBT in their workplaces. She concludes that
‘the weight of evidence suggests CBT has been implemented in a variety of
ways with varying degrees of success’ (p. 8). Teachers have been ‘actively
resisting some of the changes or actively reshaping components to
accommodate existing practices’ (p. 15), and through this process, ‘CBT
emerges and re-emerges, chameleon-like, taking on different aspects depending
on the actions and reactions of the teachers’ (p. 16). Therein perhaps lie the
seeds of confidence for believing that a ‘training culture’ can be developed, but
that it is likely to evolve distinctively in each workplace according to the

interpretations of its inhabitants rather than through government fiat.
Increasing Demand-side Responsibility for Training

A second issue is the policy direction for increased demand-side responsibility
for training. In question here is the level of industry commitment to training. To
date, the response of enterprises has been varied. Figures from the Australian
Bureau of Statistics reveal that almost all large enterprises provide training to
their employees (Robinson, 1998, p. 2). Small business, in contrast, is under-
represented in formal education and training activities with studies finding that
less than a quarter have participated in training since commencing business
(Kilpatrick & Crowley, 1999, p. 1). What researchers have generally noted is a
decreasing expenditure on training – between 1993 and 1996, employers’
expenditure on training as a percentage of gross wages and salaries fell (Misson,
1998, p. 3). Smith & Hayton (1999, pp. 264, 267) found that few enterprises in
their Australian study were engaged with governmental training and that the
impact of the training guarantee was very limited. Instead, workplace change
consistently emerged as the driver of training, strongly correlated with both
volume and diversity of training.
Small business continues to remain an enigma for government attempts at
training reform, as this type of environment is qualitatively different from those
in medium or large businesses. It is not altogether surprising that small business
has largely ignored, or remains largely ignorant of, training reform. The
increasing press towards specialisation to survive and the inclination to see
training as an expense rather than an investment, when coupled with a mobile
168
workforce, does not predispose small business towards training for its own sake.
The priority usually is to buy in expertise from the labour market, not to train
for it. The continuing difficulty in fathoming and appreciating the small
business environment and the government’s continuing attempts to promote a
‘training culture’ in such an environment generates a tension that demands close
monitoring, and indeed questioning.
All this is not to say that enterprises, and in particular small enterprises, do
not value training. However, within the VET sector there has been a tendency
either to see training and learning as synonymous, or to place a higher value on
training which is structured and delivered, and therefore able to be controlled
(Field, 1998). Training of this type tends to lose its relevance, especially in the
context of smaller enterprises. As Smith (1997) points out, this does not mean
that the smaller enterprises are less committed to learning. Rather, they rely on
different types of learning from those promoted in VET policies and by VET
providers.
In contrast with large enterprises, training in smaller enterprises tends to
be informal, enterprise-specific, undertaken on-the-job and related to day-to-
day operations (Seagraves & Osborne, 1997, p. 47). Fundamentally, it is
learning through work, where learning is integrated into doing the job. This type
of learning contrasts sharply with learning for work, which is usually associated
with vocational training that can occur at any number of sites (for example, at a
TAFE institute), and learning at work, which is often referred to as learning
undertaken within an enterprise but removed from the worksite (that is, training
provided off-the-job but in-house by a training department or an external
consultant) (Seagraves & Osborne, 1997).
The learning environment in an enterprise, particularly a small one,
provides a context where learning is embedded in or co-terminous with work.
Observation in the workplace reveals one set of behaviours. Scribner & Sachs
(1990) rightly point out, however, that this hides two streams of activity – one
associated with getting the job done, the other with learning. (The article
returns to this later in discussion of the two networks.) This form of learning is
distinctive because it is task focused; occurs in a social context where status
differences can exist between workers and there are often clear demarcation
lines between groups of workers; often grows out of an experience such as a
problem, crisis or novel event; occurs in an environment where people receive
remuneration for their work; and entails different cognitive processes from those
used in an off-site environment (Retallick, 1993; Billett, 1994, 1996). In small
business, learning is very often facilitated on a one-to-one basis. The ‘training’ is
often unplanned, unscheduled, unrehearsed and spontaneous, often in response
to a crisis or problem, and therefore often intuitive (Vallence, 1997, p. 120).
This training is characterised by the absence of dedicated training staff, and is
often undertaken by the person(s) nearest the crisis who usually has little or no
training expertise (Hawke, 1998).
One of the main conclusions of the influential report, Successful Reform
(Allen Consulting Group, 1994), was the apparent lack of support by business –
169
Roger Harris
and especially small business – for training reform, and the concern that many
enterprises have failed to lift the strategic role of training within their own
organisations to best practice. The research of Wyatt et al (1999) on the links
between school vocational programmes and small enterprises revealed a serious
disjuncture between these two parts of a lifelong learning system. Even in the
cases where links existed, understanding and valuing of each others’ roles and
of the benefits of such links were meagre (see Figure 1).
1 Neither the schools nor the enterprises had a consistent definition of either
work experience or structured workplace learning
2 Few of the enterprise representatives seemed to have any understanding of the
reforms and processes associated with vocational education, and structured
workplace learning in particular
3 Enterprise representatives do not see many benefits to the enterprise from
providing structured workplace learning opportunities (community
goodwill/benefit was most often identified as the rationale for involvement in
such arrangements)
4 Councils and regional development boards are playing an increasingly
important role in generating the ‘area’ change agenda

5 Schools need to promote what they are doing in VET and structured workplace
learning far more than they do
6 TAFE/school relationships have not enhanced the potential for school initiated
structured workplace learning
7 Small enterprises experience participation in structured workplace learning
differently than larger enterprises
8 Teachers have mixed views of the priority to be given to structured workplace
learning
Figure 1. Some key issues and themes from a study on the links between small
enterprises and schools on structured workplace learning (Wyatt et al, 1999).
Overall, Kearns et al (1999, p. 32) have recently concluded that the level of
employer involvement in lifelong learning programmes in general remains
inadequate. They found from their consultations across Australia that the
significance of lifelong learning was not well understood so that lifelong
learning appeared marginal to the work of VET and is afforded little priority (p.
vi). Similarly, Gonczi (1998, p. 144) despairs that:
… there is not sufficient understanding in the sector of the complexities of
educational issues in order for changes to be implemented successfully. These
complexities include: the nature of competency, the link between practice and
understanding, the importance and limits of workplace learning, ... and the
place of lifelong learning.
170
Greater Emphasis on Workplace Learning

The third issue is the national press towards greater emphasis on workplace
learning (as distinct from off-the-job learning). At issue here is the nature of and
balance in learning that occurs in the workplace. While the workplace has
strengths for learning, it is not without its limitations, and a number of
researchers (e.g. Scribner & Sachs, 1990; Casey, 1993; Billett, 1996; Harris et
al, 1998) have highlighted these. Billett’s (1996, p. 50) view is that
‘workplaces, like any other settings, are inherently value-laden’. An
organisation’s values influence the nature, type and access to learning activities.
Specifically, he sees the following as six possible limitations to the effectiveness
of workplace learning: the construction of inappropriate knowledge; access to
authentic activities; reluctance of experts; access to expertise; opaqueness of
some knowledge; and access to instructional media. This caution is also
heralded, albeit rather dramatically, by Casey (1993, p. 29) who claims that ‘the
on-job component is at best hit and miss and at worst a complete farce’.
Thus government policy in this direction requires sensitive monitoring.
The increasing emphasis and value placed on the on-the-job, with the
concomitant decreasing emphasis and value on the off-the-job environment, has
the potential if the pendulum swings too far to result in narrowly conceived
practices that may serve the immediate requirements of individual worksites but
not the longer-term needs of the industry nor the learners themselves. What
may result is only ‘just-in-time’ learning (learning predominantly acquired on-
the-job that is appealing because of its immediacy and relevance) without the
reinforcing of ‘just-in-case’ learning (learning predominantly acquired off-the-
job that is more long-term and for future application). Other studies have also
confirmed that workplaces tend to favour the development of procedural
knowledge over propositional knowledge. Research evidence points to the
value of both types of learning and to the importance of achieving a productive
balance between the two (Hager, 1997, p. 9; Harris et al., 1998, pp. 189–190).
In research on apprentice learning on- and off-the-job, Harris et al (1998)
drew from the interviews essential differences in the learning environments.
Learning on-the-job is perceived to be more real-life, contextualised and relevant,
concerned primarily with the ‘how’, efficient though not necessarily correct,
more observational and manipulative, more immediate, more time-pressured,
more just-in-time and improvised, and more incidental and one-to-one in
nature. On the other hand, learning off-the job is perceived to be more theoretical
and by the book, concerned primarily with the ‘why’, less up-to-date in method
and equipment, more explanatory, detached, less time-pressured, more detailed
and deliberate, broader in scope and more group-oriented and paced in nature.
A summary from this research of the contributions of on-the-job and off-the-job
learning environments is provided in Figure 2.
Another sociological point about learning in the workplace is that
workplace culture has a very strong influence on learners, particularly younger
ones. Our research (Harris et al, 1998) on building apprentices revealed that the
171
Roger Harris
apprentices very early and readily assimilate the worksite culture, which
frequently has as central tenets that theory is not worth having, learning off-the-
job is bookish and teachers are out of touch with the real world of industry. In
contrast, they spend most of their time on-site where they are receiving
substantial reinforcement of their on-the-job work as the ‘real’ work, that this is
what is relevant to their career and what earns them their pay-packet. This
study has shown how the apprentices tended to take on the identities of their
host employers, even to the point of dressing and speaking like them. They pick
up derogatory comments and throw-away lines about off-the-job learning.
Doing work, earning money and building relationships with their host
employer and site colleagues all contribute to the gradual shaping of their
conception of reality. They have rites of passage to navigate, worksite pecking
orders to assimilate, and customs and traditions to learn and observe as they are
introduced to their new vocation. Such movement is a difficult process that can
involve negotiation, compromise, stalling, back-sliding, self-deception and the
possibility of failure.
This transforming process causes them to view ‘going back to school’ (i.e.
any off-the-job provider) in a very different light. Tension is very likely to result
given the strength of the workplace culture and the amount of time they spend
in that environment. The scales are naturally tipped in favour of the worksite. In
many ways, the worlds are complementary or at least have the potential to be so
– yet so often in reality the broader knowledge and range of different practices
on offer from the off-the-job learning environment are deliberately ignored and
therefore devalued. Current policy moves to allow the possibility of totally on-
the-job learning for apprentices and trainees will need careful monitoring to
ensure that the potential for lifelong learning is not thwarted by a workplace
culture that may not be as conducive to developing a ‘training culture’ as policy-
makers believe.
The Role of Workplace Trainers

The fourth issue is the role of workplace ‘trainers’. In question here is the quality
in facilitation of workplace learning that will require close attention if the policy
intention to develop a ‘training culture’ to support lifelong learning is to be
realised. Many workers in a wide cross-section of enterprises are increasingly
being asked to take responsibility for facilitating the learning of colleagues.
Despite this shift there has been precious little research relating to the role of
trainers, particularly the link with quality (Simons & Harris, 1997, p. 6). In
particular, there has been little attention paid to the conceptualisation of the role
of the trainer as it might apply in an enterprise setting and how this role might
vary according to the nature of the learning and working undertaken in the
enterprise. Close examination of the role of the ‘trainer’ is critical to an
understanding of these developments in workplace learning.
172
On-site contributions Off-site contributions

A real world environment where task Greater detail in the learning process
management and contingency
management skills are integrated into
the learning process
A one-to-one learning relationship More time to think
(although this may not always be
possible or desirable)
Work experience which facilitates Revision of what has been learned on-
learning site
Confidence to approach the more Opportunities to clarify learning
formal components of their training,
especially in relation to assessment
Increased independence of apprentices Opportunities to contribute to the
both as learners and workers learning of workplace mentors and
other apprentices
The development of apprentices as self- A collaborative learning environment
directed learners more conducive to learning in groups
The development of critical awareness A solid grounding in the basic skills and
in apprentices knowledge
Opportunities to learn in a more A more controlled environment
naturalistic manner (in a way that
mirrors the rhythm of the workplace)
The development of declarative and The development of theoretical
strategic knowledge knowledge
Learning that tends to be more future-
orientated
Confidence to be able to work
independently and with less supervision
on-site
Figure 2. Summary of contributions of on-the-job and off-the-job learning

environments (Harris et al, 1998).
Current research has highlighted the critical place of the workplace ‘trainer’ in
learning (Harris et al, 1998, 1999). Especially in small business environments,
this person plays many roles. In the current press towards workplace training
and assessing, more research is urgently required on the extent of ‘readiness,
willingness and ability’ of workers in various industries to take on and
effectively fulfil these various roles, as well as the concomitant impacts upon
their own work organisation and productivity. The current Workplace Trainer
Competency Standards, while providing considerable detail on the technical
aspects of training, do not fully address the competencies which apprentices
believed workplace trainers need (Harris et al, 1998), nor is their appeal to more
structured training situations particularly suited to training within small business
173
Roger Harris
(Harris et al, 1999). Garrick & McDonald (1992) have underlined their skills
deficit notion of training; and they appear to lack any real links with emerging
ideas such as the learning organisation or the growing body of knowledge
which emphasises learning embedded in daily work practices and occurring in
an informal or incidental manner (Marsick & Watkins, 1990). In fact, the
standards reflect more of an attempt to legitimise moving the work of a trainer
or teacher from an off-site environment such as a TAFE institute to the
workplace, than an attempt to capture the complexity of encouraging and
supporting learning in a real work environment (Simons et al, 1999, p. 5). Even
the recently released Training Package for Assessment and Workplace Training,
incorporating a new unit on training in small groups, still has an overwhelming
emphasis on training rather than facilitating learning, and formalised on-site
training is still valued almost to the exclusion of informal and incidental
learning processes.
Recent research (Harris et al, 1999) investigated individuals who have
responsibilities for facilitating the learning of colleagues within three industries
– information technology, real estate and construction. Figure 3, developed
from detailed analysis of interview transcripts and observation reports, presents
some of the actions of these workplace ‘trainers’. In the course of the research,
evidence was gathered that does lend support to the description of the
workplace trainer as embedded in the current standards (for example, trainers
were observed and spoke about preparing for training, delivering and reviewing
training). However, there was also significant evidence of ways of working that
seemed reflective of approaches which placed learning and work alongside each
other and where formalised approaches to learning co-existed with informal and
incidental learning.
This research explored new ways of conceptualising this role in an attempt
to bring together a more contextually based and holistic view. It questioned the
generally accepted notions of ‘workplace trainer’ as enshrined in official
competency standards, as embodied in the discourse of national talkfests of
training ‘best practice’, and as traditionally practised in large enterprises with
dedicated human resource departments.
For all the critique of workplaces as learning environments, however, it is
inevitable that this domain will remain a significant site for learning – in policy
(as governments find it increasingly problematic to fund large-scale training
initiatives) and in practice (because informal learning carries on regardless and is
now beginning to be recognised as important as formal learning). It is important
therefore to learn more about how learning occurs in the workplace, if the
policy direction of developing a ‘training/learning culture’ is to be realised as a
basis for lifelong learning.
174
Organises learning collaboratively with the trainee/learner

s organises time, activities, resources to support learning
s negotiates tasks, goals for learning within the work activities to be completed
s negotiates learning and assessment to link to work tasks or future learning opportunities
Learns together with others
s shares experiences (attending events such as training sessions, meetings, conferences, telling
‘war stories’, working with each other on a task, working alongside each other on related tasks)
Promotes independence and self-direction in learners/trainees
s organises (including selection of tasks that match learner/trainee’s level of skill, knowledge,
experience, etc.) tasks which the learner-/trainee tackles on his own
s encourages others in the workplace to be supportive of learning efforts of trainee/learner
Advocates on behalf of learners/trainees
s negotiates access to resources
s liaises with external training providers and resources
Reconciles experiences of work and learning
s makes links between the requirements of a formalised training programme or immediate
learning needs and modifies work or learning programme to achieve a better fit
Works alongside learner/trainee
s draws the learner/trainee into the patterns of work
s connects work tasks with the learning goals, programme

s fits facilitating learning into the stream of work commitments
s alters the pattern of work to make space, time for the learning process
s makes judgements about the balance between the learning needs of the trainee/learner and
the need to deal with the immediate task
s monitors the work flow and quality of the learner /trainee as the job/task proceeds
Draws on others in the workplace to help facilitate the learning process (this includes asking
others in the workplace to work with the trainee/learner; bringing in other people to the
learning discussions, etc.)
Discusses learning experiences with trainee/learner (these could be experiences shared in
common or ones that the learner/trainee had experienced on his own. This can occur at a time
apart from work, but also often occurs during the course of work. This discussion can relate to
the task at hand or, if the work at hand is routine, to other topics of learning that are of interest
to the learner/trainee)
s asks questions (to monitor progress, to check understanding, to encourage reflection and self
evaluation, to draw the learner/trainees towards developing their own knowledge rather than
‘just telling them’)
s challenges ideas and thinking by telling ‘war stories’
s corrects mistakes in a positive, non-threatening manner
s extrapolates learning from current task into other situations and encourages trainee/learner
to do likewise
s provides feedback (for reinforcement, correction, encouragement)
Assesses (this can include informal assessment or assessment as part of a structured learning
programme)
Demonstrates techniques, processes, etc.
Figure 3. Actions of workplace ‘trainers’ in helping colleagues learn in the workplace (Harris,
1999).
175
Roger Harris
Learning in the Workplace

There are a number of theories in which workplace learning can be grounded.
The author and colleagues have been exploring the possibilities of network
theory for understanding workplace learning across several industries. This
theory holds that organisations are made up of (as well as being located within)
a series of networks that are constantly being shaped by the actions of workers.
In understanding workplace learning, two networks are of particular importance
– the learning network and the work network. Each of these networks is
created and recreated over time, as the actions of the workers and the structures
within an organisation impact on each other and shape the networks that
emerge over time. They are best expressed by the phrase, ‘the way we do things
here’.
There are different types of organisations, and each type is characterised
by different learning and work networks (Poell, 1998). Within each type, a
certain form of work pattern is dominant, and is visible in the way work is
undertaken and constructed over time by the workers in the network. In a
similar way, key workers shaping the structure of the learning processes create
the learning network. This includes both formal programmes (offered internally
and externally) as well as informal and incidental learning that occurs in the
course of work. Perrow (1983) wrote about vertical and horizontal networks,
and Taylor (1997) added personal networks and the cybernetwork. Extending
these ideas, Van der Krogt (1998) theorised different types of learning networks
along three axes: self-initiated–vertical; self-initiated–horizontal and self-
initiated–external, where:
· self-initiated indicates that the learner has freedom to organise his/her
learning, and the learner’s interests and needs are of paramount importance;
· the vertical dimension encompasses learning that is underpinned by structural
supports such as needs identification, training plans, use of trainers, etc.;
· the horizontal dimension encompasses learning where people form groups as
a basis for undertaking learning;
· the external dimension encompasses learning that is predominantly
stimulated by external contacts such as professional associations, universities,
colleges, consultants or personal networks; new developments, scientific
discoveries, etc. drive the learning.
The three-dimensional space of the learning network can thus be depicted as in
Figure 4. This conception of a learning network indicates that in an
organisation a learning system can be created along these dimensions where the
exact nature of the learning system will depend upon the degree to which the
vertical, horizontal and external dimensions are utilised. It is important to
acknowledge that self-initiated learning will also continue to take place,
alongside developments on the other dimensions.
In various research studies, the author and colleagues have noticed how
workplace learning is considerably shaped by the way in which the work of a
particular enterprise is undertaken. For example, within real estate enterprises,
176
workplace learning tends to be focused on an individual who often works

exclusively with one other staff member. Much of the learning is undertaken in
a self-directed manner (that is, the learner works through a section of a module
or on a work project and then consults with another staff member to check
progress). This seems to mirror the way in which work is undertaken in that
industry – each employee in a real estate business has a portfolio of properties
that is managed fairly much independently from other employees. This is a
common pattern also in the construction industry. In contrast, learning within
the information technology industry and police services is mostly along the
horizontal axis, as it tends to be team-based because work is organised more
around ‘projects’. Individual members of the group often have expert
knowledge in an area that they share with other members of the group, with
the support and encouragement of a team leader or supervisor.
Vertical learning
system
Self-initiated Horizontal
learning system learning system
External learning
system
Figure 4. The learning network (adapted from Van der Krogt, 1998).
In the same way that the structure of work shapes learning episodes, so too does
the degree to which the learning is formalised, sometimes by an external player.
For instance, in the real estate industry it tends to be the Real Estate Institute, in
construction it is a TAFE institute, and in information technology it is often
short courses organised by other specialised industry training providers (e.g.
Microsoft, Novell). These external factors play a part in shaping the way
learners tackle learning tasks and the manner in which workplace ‘trainers’
enact their role. However, in all cases, incidental and informal learning still
plays an important and integral role in the development of workers’ knowledge
and skill.
People acting as ‘trainers’ (‘informal trainers’ or ‘learning helpers’) in
enterprises become key players in such learning networks. They also remain
actors within work networks. The extent of their involvement in each of these
networks is determined by the manner in which the work network is structured.
Workplace trainers and their activities are shaped by the work network which,
in turn, is shaped by the learning network. The synergistic relationship between
177
Roger Harris
the two networks implies that the workplace trainer serves as a ‘boundary rider’
between the two systems. An effective workplace trainer will have knowledge
of how the learning network can be shaped by the actions of the workers in
that network and how the learning network interacts and is shaped by the work
network.
We believe that network learning theory provides a new way of
conceptualising the role of the workplace trainer beyond that of an actor in a
(formalised) vertical learning system. It values the actions of the workplace
trainer in supporting informal and incidental learning within an enterprise and
the important contribution that these forms of learning can make to the overall
development of a learning network within an enterprise. It acknowledges the
interrelationships between learning and work. It offers a way of grasping
(though not totally reconciling or ignoring) the tension between the learning
needs, capacities and desires of individual workers and the need for work
relevant learning.
It may well be that government attempts to promote a ‘training culture’ as
a basis for lifelong learning will not succeed without clear recognition of and
due consideration given to systems other than the vertical. To chat benignly
about learning organisations being those where learning is co-terminous with
(and by implication, ‘happily married’ to) work, or to attempt to implement

formal training using a top-down, needs deficit approach – either of these is
only a part of the picture. The first lacks reality and may be destined to remain
in glossy managerial documents as an attractive philosophy with little hope of
actual implementation; the second is somewhat colonial and is appropriate only
for certain types of organisational culture, comforting for systems that need to
count numbers in formal training programmes, at best short-term and not
feasible for small businesses which comprise a huge proportion of the Australian
economy.
There is a need for more research across different industries so that the
various jigsaw pieces can eventually be fitted together to form a meaningful
cover picture. There is also a need for more conceptualisation so that we can
theorise more about the nature and extent of formation of a training culture. A
deeper understanding of how learning in its various forms occurs within the
workplace and a re-conceptualisation of the role of ‘workplace trainer’ would
both appear to have much to offer those promoting government policy to
develop a ‘training/learning culture’ within enterprises as a basis for lifelong
learning.
Conclusion
This article has highlighted the shift in essence from notion(s) of lifelong
education in the early 1970s to notion(s) of lifelong learning in the late 1990s.
This shift can be largely accounted for by the changed milieu in which these
terms have been embedded and from which they derive their meaning. A
manifestation of the early 1970s notion was the influential Kangan Report of
178
1974, which had lifelong education and the pre-eminence of the individual
learner at its core. A manifestation of the late 1990s notion is the current
government policy on the establishment of a ‘training culture’, which has the
promotion of training in workplaces and increased competitiveness of industry
at its core.
Within the more economic-technological climate of today, therefore, the
learning that occurs in workplaces is an important phenomenon to research if
we are to understand the possibilities of lifelong learning. Several key elements
of current Australian policy, particularly in the VET sector, have been analysed
in terms of their potential contribution to the fostering of a training/learning
culture, seen as an essential prerequisite to any promotion of lifelong learning.
The complexity of issues in this process make the prospects problematic. The
challenge lies ahead, as it does in every country, to lay the foundations for a
wider and deeper implementation of lifelong learning philosophy. While there
is much that could be said in this regard, what this article has specifically
focused on is that:
· at the macro level, there is a need for re-framing VET policy in Australia such
that there is a more explicit recognition of lifelong learning that meshes with
the visions articulated by other components of the educational system, and a

more balanced acknowledgement of social-cultural as well as economic-
technological goals; and
· at the micro level, there is a need for closer examination of how learning in its
various forms occurs in the workplace, as this arena is an under-researched
and rapidly-changing component within a lifelong learning philosophy that
needs to be constructed around the increasingly information-based economy
of the 21st century.
Correspondence
Roger Harris, Centre for Research in Education, Equity and Work, University of
South Australia, Holbrooks Road, Underdale, South Australia 5032, Australia
(roger.harris@unisa.edu.au).
References
Allen Consulting Group (1994) Successful Reform. Competitive skills for Australians and
Australian enterprises. Melbourne: Allen Consulting Group.
Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) (1994) Towards a Skilled Australia: a
national strategy for VET. Brisbane: ANTA.
ANTA (1998) A Bridge to the Future: Australia’s national strategy for VET, 1998–2003.
Brisbane: ANTA.
ANTA (1999) Briefing Notes for the 1999 Key Research Priorities. Brisbane: ANTA
Billett, S. (1994) Situated Learning – a Workplace Experience, Australian Journal of Adult
and Community Education, 34, pp. 112–130.
179
Roger Harris
Billett, S. (1996) Towards a Model of Workplace Learning: the Learning Curriculum,

Studies in Continuing Education, 18, pp. 43–58.
Candy, P., Crebert, G. & O’Leary, J. (1994) Developing Lifelong Learners Through
Undergraduate Education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Casey, D. (1993) Assessment: the Process of Quality Assurance for Education and
Training, in Testing Times. Proceedings of the National Conference on Assessment for
Competency-based Training, pp. 28–33s. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational
Education Research.
Crombie, A. (1998) Promoting Lifelong Learning in Australia – the Adult Learning
Contribution, Adult Learning Australia, 5, November, pp. 1, 3–4.
Cropley, A. J. & Dave, R. H. (1977) Lifelong Education and the Training of Teachers.
Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education.
Dave, R. H. (1973) Lifelong Education and School Curriculum. Hamburg: UNESCO
Institute for Education.
Duke, C. (1976) Australian Perspectives on Lifelong Education, Australian Education
Review, No. 6. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Falk, I. (1998) You Can Take the $ out of the $ocial, but it Doesn’t Make Much
‘Cents’: the learning ‘community’ as the means of reconciliation, in F. Ferrier &
D. Anderson (Eds) Different Drums One Beat? Adelaide: National Centre for
Vocational Education Research..

Faure, E., Herrera, F., Kaddoura, A.R., Petrovsky, A., Rahnenla, M. & Ward, F. (1972)
Learning to be: the world of education today and tomorrow. Paris: UNESCO International
Commission on the Development of Education.
Ferrier, F. & Anderson, D. (Eds) (1998) Different Drums One Beat? Adelaide: National
Centre for Vocational Education Research.
Field, L. (1998) Shifting the Focus from ‘Training’ to ‘Learning’: the case of Australian
small business, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research, 6,
pp. 49–68.
Garrick, J. & McDonald, R. (1992) Competency-based Standards for Industry Trainers:
a critical comparison of international models, Studies in Continuing Education, 14,
pp. 166–186.
Gonczi, A. (1998) The Potential Destruction of the Vocational Education and Training
System, F. Ferrier & D. Anderson (Eds) Different Drums One Beat? Adelaide: National
Hager, P. (1997) Learning in the Workplace. Review ofRresearch. Adelaide: National Centre
for Vocational Education Research.
Harris, R., Guthrie, H., Hobart, B. & Lundberg, D. (1995) Competency-based Education and
Training: between a rock and a whirlpool. Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.
Harris, R., Simons, M. & Bone, J. (1999) More Than Meets the Eye: the role of the workplace
trainer in the business environment. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education
Research.
Harris, R., Willis, P., Simons, M. & Underwood, F. (1998) Learning the Job: juggling the
messages in on- and off-job training. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational
Education Research.
180
Hawke, G. (1998) Learning, Workplaces and Public Policy, in J. McIntyre & M. Barrett
(Eds) VET Research. Influencing policy and practice. Sydney: Australian VET Research
Association.
Holdforth, D. (1998) VET and Higher Education Relations: a response to Marginson, in
F. Ferrier & D. Anderson (Eds) Different Drums One Beat? Adelaide: National Centre
for Vocational Education Research...
Illich, I. (1970) Deschooling Society. New York: Harper & Row.
Kearns, P., McDonald, R., Candy, P., Knights, S. & Papadopoulos, G. (1999) VET in the
Learning Age: the challenge of lifelong learning for all. Adelaide: National Centre for
Vocational Education Research.
Kilpatrick, S. & Crowley, S. (1999) Learning in Small Business, paper presented at the
Second National Conference of the Australian VET Research Association, Royal
Melbourne Institute of Technology.
Marsick, V. & K. Watkins (1990) Informal and Incidental Learning Workplace Learning.
New York: Croom Helm.
Matthews, J. K. & Fitzgerald, R. T. (1975) Educational Policy and Political Platform,
Australian Educational Review No. 5. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational
Research.
Misson, E. (1998) What’s the Difference?, Australian Training Review, 38, p. 3.
Molineux, F. (1974) International Perspectives, in V. Houghton & K. Richardson (Eds),

Recurrent Education. A plea for lifelong learning. London: Ward Lock Educational.
Mulcahy, D. (1999) Training for New Times: changing relations of competence,
learning and innovation, Working Paper Series No.15. Melbourne: Department of
Vocational Education and Training, The University of Melbourne.
Perrow, C. B. (1993) Small Firm Networks, in S-E. Sjostrand (Ed.) Institutional Change:
theory and empirical findings. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Poell, R. F. (1998) Organizing Work-related Learning Projects. A network approach.
Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit.
Reimer, E. (1971) School is Dead. Harmondsworth: Penguin Education.
Retallick, J. (1993) Teachers’ Workplace Learning, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of
the Australian Association for Research in Education, available online at:
http://www.swin.edu.au/aare.conf93.html
Robinson, C. (1998) Is Training an Effective Strategy for Small Business?, Australian
Training Review, 38, p. 2.
Rushbrook, P. & Mackinnon, R. (1998) Technocrat or Visionary? Reflections on the
Kangan legacy, in F. Ferrier & D. Anderson (Eds) Different Drums One Beat?
Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.
Ryan, R. (1999) The Revival of Lifelong Learning, Campus Review, 9(11), p. 8.
Scribner, S. & Sachs, S. (1990) A Study of On-The-job Training. New York: Institute on
Education and the Economy, Teachers’ College, Columbia University.
Seagraves, L. & Osborn, M. (1997) Participants in a Work-based Learning Programme:
small and medium enterprises and their employees, Good Thinking, Good Practice.
Research perspectives on learning and work, Volume 2. Brisbane: Griffith University.
181
Roger Harris
Seddon, T. (1998) Different Drums, Different Drummers: but whose beat is authorised?
in F. Ferrier & D. Anderson (Eds) Different Drums One Beat? Adelaide: National
Simons, M. (1997) Making it and Making it Happen – TAFE teachers’ ways of working
with competency-based training. Paper presented at the Australian Association for
Research in Education Conference, Brisbane.
Simons, M. & Harris, R. (1997) Perceptions of VET Staff Towards Recent National
Training Reforms, in ANTA, Research Reports into Professional Development. Brisbane:
Australian National Training Authority, pp. 33–49.
Simons, M., Harris, R. & Bone, J. (1999) Workplace Mentors in Business Environments:
what do they do? Paper presented at the Second National Conference of the
Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association (AVETRA),
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, February.
Smith, A. (1997) Making False Assumptions: examining some popular preconceptions
about enterprise training, Good Thinking, Good Practice. Research perspectives on
learning and work, Volume 2. Brisbane: Griffith University, pp. 143–154.
Smith, A. & Hayton, G. (1999) What Drives Enterprise Training? Evidence from
Australia, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, pp. 251–272.
Smith, E. & Keating, J. (1997) Making Sense of Training Reform and Competency Based
Training. Wentworth Falls, NSW: Social Science Press.

Taylor, R. (1997) Everyday Learning in the Workplace: back to the future? in Good
Thinking, Good Practice. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Post-
compulsory Education and Training, Griffith University, November, pp. 139–151.
Toffler, A. (1971) Future Shock. London: Pan Books.
Vallence, K. (1997) Training One-To-One: out of sight, out of mind, Good Thinking,
Good Practice. Research perspectives on learning and work, Volume 2. Brisbane: Griffith
University, pp. 119–130.
Van der Krogt, F.J. (1998) Learning Network Theory: the tension between learning
systems and work systems in organizations, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9,
pp. 157–177.
West (1998) Report of the Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy (‘West
Report’), Learning for Life. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs.
Wyatt, F., Harris, R., Turner, P., Gibson, T. & Mulraney, J. (1999) Structured
Workplace Learning in Small Enterprises, unpublished discussion paper. Adelaide:
Enterprise Partnerships & Centre for Research in Education, Equity and Work,
University of South Australia.
182

Lifelong Learning in Work Contexts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lifelong Learning in Work Contexts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research in Post-Compulsory Education

ISSN: 1359-6748 (Print) 1747-5112 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpce20

Lifelong learning in work contexts

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13596749900200055

Published online: 06 Aug 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 129

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Lifelong Learning in Work Contexts

ABSTRACT Lifelong learning within work environments is a complex and yet

context and to research studies on workplace learning (particularly focusing on

‘Lifelong Learning’ in the Early 1970s

equal opportunity, openness, participation, access, individualism, cultural

A landmark example of these characteristics in Australia was the famous

‘Lifelong Learning’ in the Late 1990s

The Notion of ‘Lifelong Learning’

· a learning cities network (aimed at promoting collaborative learning

work, it is recognised that it is time to explore the implications of such a culture

Four Current Policy Issues and the Development of a

of tasks/skills with no cohesion or intellectual credibility, and that the ‘only

that it is likely to evolve distinctively in each workplace according to the

Increasing Demand-side Responsibility for Training

important role in generating the ‘area’ change agenda

Greater Emphasis on Workplace Learning

The Role of Workplace Trainers

On-site contributions Off-site contributions

Figure 2. Summary of contributions of on-the-job and off-the-job learning

Organises learning collaboratively with the trainee/learner

s connects work tasks with the learning goals, programme

Learning in the Workplace

workplace learning tends to be focused on an individual who often works

(and by implication, ‘happily married’ to) work, or to attempt to implement

the visions articulated by other components of the educational system, and a

Billett, S. (1996) Towards a Model of Workplace Learning: the Learning Curriculum,

Vocational Education Research..

Molineux, F. (1974) International Perspectives, in V. Houghton & K. Richardson (Eds),

Training. Wentworth Falls, NSW: Social Science Press.

You might also like