Orienting the work‐based curriculum towards work process knowledge: a rationale and a German case study

Abstract

The term ‘work process knowledge’ refers to the knowledge needed for working in flexible and innovative business environments, including those in which information and communication technologies have been introduced to integrate previously separated production functions. It involves a systems‐level understanding of the work process in the organization as a whole, enabling employees to understand how their own actions interconnect with actions being taken elsewhere in the system. Work process knowledge is ‘active’ knowledge that is used directly in the performance of work, and is typically constructed by employees when they are solving problems in the workplace. It is more than simple know‐how because constructing it involves synthesizing know‐how with theoretical understanding. The paper outlines principles for constructing a work‐based curriculum when work process knowledge is a desired outcome. These are illustrated by a case study of a vocational curriculum currently being adopted by a leading volume car manufacturer in Germany. The key features of this approach are—using a model of the work process as the curriculum framework, co‐producing (and co‐delivering) the curriculum using integrated teams of staff from the vocational school and the workplace, and fusing the different knowledge resources of the vocational school and the workplace into a single activity system.

Notes

Institute of Education, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK. Email: [email protected]

At this point, a significant difference needs to be noted between activity theory and ‘situated learning’, the version of socio‐cultural educational theory developed by Lave and Wenger (1991). Activity theory recognizes that vocational competence requires structured teaching and learning in classrooms as well as acculturation in workplaces. This follows from Leont'ev's (1978) postulation of a hierarchy of human behaviour: at the top of the hierarchy, collective activity is directed towards a common goal; on the next level, individual action is directed towards sub‐goals of the overall activity; and at the lowest level, operations—basic behaviours such as perceptual discrimination—develop naturally from basic biological processes and can be nurtured through educational activities outside the context of work itself. So while the higher psychological functions come into existence only within collective activity, there remains the considerable educational task of developing educational foundations before the individual is ready to participate in socio‐cultural activity in the workplace. This carries with it the important implication that there is a distinctive role for conventional classroom instruction in preparing youngsters for a subsequent apprenticeship. This stands in marked contrast to the concept of apprenticeship that underpins Lave and Wenger's theory of situated learning. According to the latter, all learning occurs through ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ in the activity in question, such as the working practices of a community of tailors. Lave and Wenger's socio‐cultural theory of learning does not have anything corresponding to Leont'ev's hierarchy of human behaviour, with its implication of a need to nurture the emerging psychological functions through one‐to‐one pedagogy. Consequently, as its name implies, there is no place for schooling per se in situated learning, resulting in the inevitable dismissal of learning in the classroom (as distinct from the workplace) as inauthentic.

In full, Gescha¨fts‐und arbeitsprozeßorienterte, dual‐kooperative Ausbildung in ausgewa¨hlten Industrieberifen mit optionaler Fachhochschulreife.

Leonardo da Vinci project EVABCOM reference No. 2003 D/03/B/F/PP.

In a recent paper referring to the WHOLE project, Griffiths and Guile (2003) present a typology of work experience that contrasts the ‘work process model’ with the ‘connective model’. They define the purpose of the former as ‘attunement to the work environment’ and contrast it with the ‘reflexivity’ of the connective model (p. 72). However, the example of the GAB curriculum discussed in the present paper reveals this to be a misunderstanding. When curriculum development is informed by the concept of work process knowledge it does not aim to attune learners to existing working practices. The aim is rather to provide work experiences that promote reflectiveness, such as the learning bays and working and learning tasks described in this paper. In learning environments such as these, apprentices construct their own practices by reflecting on contradictions in the existing work system, and this equips them to adapt to industrial change by constructing new ways of working. Work process knowledge itself is constructed by reflective activity, and this is an intended outcome of the work process oriented curriculum.