Since the beginning of the 1990s, work-related learning has(again) been receiving a great deal of interest from trainers and alarge number of researchers from various disciplines. Fenwick(2002), for example, remarks that sociologists, organisationtheorists, economists and cultural researchers are joiningeducators and are increasingly engaged on this subject. At thesame time there is '(-) a growing concern within anthropology,psychology, communications (-), and cognitive science forredefining the methods and topics that constitute the study ofwork' (Engeström & Middleton, 1998). The main reason for thisbroadly-based interest is, in Fenwick's opinion, the 'massivechanges in the nature of work and its meaning for twenty-firstcentury workers', which have led to 'significant challenges totraditional models of learning and the role of the educator'1.This widespread interest, according to Heikkila and Makinen(2001), is also reflected in the 'numerous theoretical views oflooking at the process of learning at work'. In a number of thesetheoretical views, learning processes occupy a central role, whilein other views, work processes receive greater attention. In thefirst group of approaches, the emphasis is sometimes placed onthe development of the organisation and sometimes on that ofindividual learning processes (see, for example, Russ-Eft, 2001).In the second group, the focus is sometimes directed at societyand sometimes at the actual work processes. Common tovirtually all these approaches, however, is the conviction thatprocesses of learning and working are intertwined and that thecontext of learning is important.The large number of diverse theoretical ideas, which have,moreover, been developed from various disciplines, have led tovarious terms which denote the relationship between learningand work. Some authors speak of workplace learning, others ofwork-based learning and still others of work-related learning.The differences (and any similarities) between the terms are notentirely clear. In publications on work-related learning, usuallynone of the other terms are used. Heikkila & Makinen (2001)make clear that 'Work-related learning can be divided into twocategories: a) informal learning at a workplace and b) a periodof working as a part of formal education'. This term includeslearning that was initiated by regular education, regularvocational education (placements) and by 'forces' in and atwork. Work-based learning and workplace learning are used byseveral authors (for example, Fenwick, 2002; McIntyre, 2000;Sadler-Smith & Smith, 2001) side by side or interchangeably.Sadler-Smith & Smith (2001), like Raelin (in Sadler Smith &Smith), see work-based learning as 'a broad term thatencompasses many conceptualisations of learning and may bedefined in terms of learning for work at work and through work'.McIntyre (2000) appears to put a restriction on this by statingthat: 'Work-based learning, as distinct from workplace learningin general, refers to the formalisation of learning at work'. Hethus regards the first term as a sub-category of the second. Thisprobably also explains why authors (Streumer &van der Klink,2004; Sadler-Smith & Smith, 2001) speak of an umbrella term,which includes many forms of learning. The problem ofdefinition outlined here is further substantively elaborated inSection 1.3. © 2006 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.
Author Keywords
Index Keywords
