No abstract

This paper identifies limitations within the current literature on understanding learning. Overcoming these limitations entails replacing dualist views of learning as either individual or social, by using a theory of learning cultures and a cultural theory of learning, which articulate with each other. To do this, we argue that it is possible and indeed necessary to combine major elements of participatory or situated views of learning with elements of Deweyan embodied construction. Bourdieu's concepts of habitus and field are used to achieve this purpose, together with the use of 'becoming' as a metaphor to help understand learning more holistically. This theorizing has a predominantly heuristic purpose, and we argue that it enables researchers to better explain data. We also suggest that a cultural approach of the sort proposed here leads toward the asking of better questions about learning and its improvement and has high practical significance.

This article explores the strengths and weaknesses of Lave and Wenger's concept of 'legitimate peripheral participation' as a means of understanding workplace learning. It draws on recent ESRC-funded research by the authors in contemporary workplace settings in the UK (manufacturing industry and secondary schools) to establish the extent to which Lave and Wenger's theories can adequately illuminate the nature and process of learning at work. The new research presented here, which was located in complex institutional settings, highlights the diverse nature of patterns and forms of participation. Case study evidence is used to identify individual and contextual factors which underpin and illuminate the ways in which employees learn. The paper argues that whilst Lave and Wenger's work continues to provide an important source of theoretical insight and inspiration for research in to learning at work, it has significant limitations. These limitations relate to the application of their perspective to contemporary workplaces in advanced industrial societies and to the institutional environments in which people work. These complex settings play a crucial role in the configuration of opportunities and barriers to learning that employees encounter.

This paper argues that much contemporary educational policy makes assumptions about learning that are directly contradicted by the best research and theorising of learning that has occurred over the last decade and more. This worrying mismatch is largely attributable to adherence by policy makers (and other key stakeholders such as employers), to 'common sense' notions of learning transfer. In fact, these 'common sense' notions of transfer have increasingly been discarded even in the learning transfer literature. However, we go further in arguing that transfer is a totally inappropriate metaphor for thinking about most learning, but especially for vocational learning. Accepting that thought about learning inevitably involves metaphors, we consider the merits and otherwise of various other learning metaphors including participation and construction. We conclude that the conceptual flaws of transfer can be avoided by employing alternative metaphors. The value of our recommended alternative is illustrated by its power to illuminate data on learning collected from various research projects.Learning transfer is an extraordinarily narrow and barren account of how knowledgeable persons make their way among multiply interrelated settings.

in Journal of Workplace Learning 15 (7/8) 313-318. THE RESEARCHThis paper summarises the results of research commissioned by the Learning and Skills Development Agency of England, to map the conceptual terrain around non-formal learning. The remit was to investigate relevant literature, and clarify the meanings and uses of terms like informal, non-formal and formal learning. Because of Conference length restrictions, what follows is underreferenced (we consulted in excess of 250 texts, some of which were themselves reviews of further literatures). References, together with the full analysis and the detailed evidence that supports our argument, are in Colley et al (2003).The subject of this research is topical. Current EU policies in lifelong learning are raising the profile of informal and non-formal learning. The recognition and enhancement of such learning is seen as vital in improving social inclusion, and increasing economic productivity. This presents a problem and a paradox. The problem is a complete lack of agreement in the literature about what informal, non-formal and formal learning are, or what the boundaries between them might be. The paradox is that there are strong tendencies to formalise the informal -for example through externally prescribed objectives, curriculum structures, assessments and funding. Yet, at least in the UK, there are parallel pressures to informalise formal learning -through the use of less structured approaches to student support, provided by a rapidly growing army of classroom assistants, learning advisers, learning mentors and the like, who lack full teaching qualifications. These trends seem to represent two arms of a concerted movement to integrate informal and formal learning. MethodologyThree parallel lines of analysis were developed. Firstly, we did a major literature trawl, and then selected from within that trawl literature which we already knew or could easily identify, which set out to classify learning as informal, non-formal or formal. We examined a wide range of different positions, looking for criteria used to identify differences. We moved on from this approach when subsequent attempts seemed to reveal no new criteria -that is, we had achieved conceptual saturation. The second approach was to conduct a detailed investigation of a diverse range of learning situations -in work, in Further Education, in adult and community education and in mentoring. Thirdly, we researched the historical development of ideas through the literature. Our work was also informed by widespread consultation, focused on an interim report (Colley et al., 2002).

Despite an extensive literature on the subject of learning, very little has been written about the ways in which young people's dispositions to learning transform over time. This article draws upon a longitudinal research project which focused on such transformations. The article centres on the case of Amanda Ball and considers the implications which her story holds for our understanding of learning. It is shown that dispositions can transform in a short period of time and that such transformations are often linked, in complex ways, to wider social, economic and cultural contexts.

No abstract

No abstract