FLIP: ASSIGNMENT # 1

COURSE: Fostering Learning in Practice

ASSIGNMENT # 1

A hot issue in my workplace and its relationship to learning and identity

Link to my website

Link to my e-portfolio

integral paper available at: O_VALLAZZA_Assignment1_FLIP.doc

Comments:

Yolanda pointed out that my paper includes my learning from other courses.. This is the way I see the ALGC. Didn’t we start with the capability envelop and our learning plan? A pivotal part of mine was/is the “making sense” of my life/professional/academic experiences, in an attempt to organize all that into a systemic whole. This course has been so far very helpful in that regard.  I try to stick to a systemic view, which implies making references across disciplines and contexts. My assignment 1 links some of my reflections to previous learning experiences, hopefully not to the detriment of the assignment’s specific requirements. Feedback from teachers will tell.

Next week’s tasks seem to offer a great opportunity for all of us to address our learning experience. I look fwd to the discussion.

Issues of access and power in future scenarios

COURSE: WORK AND LEARNING

FORUM: The future of work and education

TOPICS: Doornbos, power, access, active citizenship, motivation, elite workforce,

Doornbos, A.J., Bolhuis, S. and Simons, P.R. (2004): Modeling Work-related Learning on the Basis of Intentionality and Developmental Relatedness: A Noneducational Perspective. (link to Itslearning)

As pointed out in other posts on this last block of readings, issues of power, inequality, and access will continue to affect future policies of work and learning.

I believe that there is a real danger of creating a framework of affordances that is restricted to those who are “in the system,” leaving the others out. Examples of such a development are at hand both in workplace training and in formal education.

Doornbos et al. – however – recognize the impact of issues of power and access in workplace learning contexts, whereas they assume equality of access in formal education settings.

“Cliques, politics, and power may intentionally or unintentionally influence the distribution of opportunities to learn. Those with more access to power can claim learning opportunities, and they can also deny opportunities for learning, whereas those with less power may find access to what they want difficult. In contrast, access to learning is assumed to be equal within a formal education setting” (p. 257).

Unfortunately, the article does not seem to add much with respect to such assessment. This could lead to the establishment of what Rifkin calls (see his article) an elite workforce.

The risk is real, as also recognized by George Papadopoulos in his assessment of access policies. (see article Lifelong Learning and the Changing Policy Environment)

I feel that current and future policies of work and learning should frame the discussion within an open system approach similar to the one suggested by Marsick and Watkins. That would ensure permeability of access within and across interrelated work-and-learning contexts. By doing so, we could transform (and not just reform) today’s approach into a new challenging and promising platform that would offer opportunities for open participation, motivated interaction, transnational co-operation, active citizenship, and diversity of learning styles and educational pathways.

ISSUES OF POWER AND EXCLUSION

COURSE: WORK AND LEARNING

FORUM: Participation in education and work; identity and social exclusion.(BLOCK 2)

TOPICS:  ISSUES OF POWER AND EXCLUSION  (REVIEW OF THE READINGS)

ISSUES OF POWER AND EXCLUSION (link to itslearning)

Hi there,

After reviewing many of the articles for this segment of the course, I would like to share some thoughts on how issues of power and exclusions have been presented.

The first thing I noticed is that – when addressing such issues – the articles contextualize them in the work and learning environment of western economies. With the exception of Bennel’s article, the other articles do not deal with “power and exclusion” as factors of economic and social imbalances at the level of the globalized economy. This role is limited to workplace dynamics (mainly western) and to the impact on the delivery of on-the-job training within learning communities at work.

Across the articles, one finds the following definitions of “power” :

In Berrings et al. (Conceptualising On-the-job Learning Styles. Human Resource Development Review)

“Poell and van Moorsel (1998) define the learning climate as follows: “The temporary manifestation of the dominant norms, insights and rules regarding learning of a group, department or organization in shared practices in the field of learning which implicitly influences the learning activities employees undertake” (p. 35).” (p. 382)

In Billet (Co-participation at work)”power” is recognized as having an influence on affordances and co-participation in communities of practice. He says, citing others, that “the invitational qualities of the workplace are far from benign or evenly distributed. They are socially determined and are the product of power relations (Fenwick, 2001, Solomon, 1999).” (p.200)

In Defreitas (Segmented labor) there is a clear description of how segmented labor theory informs issues of power and exclusion.

In Huzzard (Communities of domination), power is discussed in its “managerial” brand, although the article makes an attempt at defining the different variations that can be observed in power. He, for example, criticizes the absence of attention for the power dimension in the original discussion on community of practices [ “the power dimension was arguably lost in a process whereby the communities of practice became “popularised” to appeal to a management audience (Brown and Duguid, 1991).” (p. 352) ]

He also offers the following definitions, that I find interesting as they help my understanding of these issues:

General definition of power: power, loosely, can be understood as the capacity of individuals to exert their will over others(Buchanan and Badham, 1999).(p.353)

Radical view of power: Lukes’ “radical” view on power (Lukes, 1974), sees organisations as arenas of domination whereby the powerful are in control of socialisation processes and political agendas.[…] Power, accordingly, can be exercised subconsciously – disconnected from any notion of intent. (p.354)

Relational  view: this view would situate power at the interface of work relations.

He also recognizes the role of language in power-related issues:

“In unequal power relations, the dominant party may actively choose to communicate or construct reality by selecting certain linguistic formations, or may simply communicate in the taken-for-granted formations which seem appropriate in context.”(p. 355)
In Wojecki‘s article (What’s identity got to do with it) collaborative learning and relational trust practices in workplace learning are presented as ways to re-direct power issues:

“Formal learning and vocational educational practices predominantly exercise an extraordinary amount of power in the structuring of training programmes, thus shaping imbalanced power relationships, particularly between educators and adult learners.” (p.178)

As we move forward with our group assignment, I hope that the above will serve as a base for further discussion within our group.