professional preparation courses, whilst devaluing the theories and .... study of workplaces that were conducive to learning Skule (Skule & Reichborn 2001,.
Conceptualising continuing professional development: compliance, pedestrianism and decontextualisation or richer notions of learning and practice? David Boud and Paul Hager University of Technology, Sydney Abstract A large number of professions have requirements for professional development activities to ensure continuing registration or membership. These typically privilege participation in a limited number of activities. This paper questions whether the assumptions behind such approaches are appropriate and what alternatives might be considered. It explores the suitability of metaphors used for continuing professional education and suggests that continuing professional development might be better conceptually located within a view of learning through practice.
Introduction Over the past many decades, continuing professional development (CPD) has turned from acts engaged in by professionals for their own satisfaction to a systematised and codified set of activities that has consequences for their continued registration, and in many cases, their right to practice their profession. Rather than assume professionals take responsibility for their own development, they have become subject to surveillance, and indeed, self-surveillance. And, because it is easier to measure attendance than almost anything else, CPD is often synonymous with participation in courses or seminars. There has ironically been a move from the outcome of CPD—development—to the input—the educational activity. This paper seeks to extend debate about CPD through focusing on what it is for and how it is conceptualised. It suggests that we must reconceptualise CPD through a focus on the notion of practice, away from a perspective of acquisition of points or hours. It argues that CPD must be located in what professionals do and how they do it, and sketches some of the implications of such a stance. The paper seeks to offer some fresh ideas on how best to understand and manage CPD. By drawing on recent thought on aspects of education that, while not directly concerned with CPD, are nevertheless germane to it, the authors hope to stimulate a rethink of the underpinnings of CPD. We begin with a brief account of the crucial role of metaphors in thought and talk about learning. Whilst metaphors are useful, they also have their limitations. It is suggested that dominant metaphors about learning, and a failure to appreciate their limitations, have served to distort the concept of professional development. Various ways in which CPD has been ill served by these dominant metaphors are discussed. In order to remedy this situation, we argue for a fresh approach based on what is known about how professionals learn from and during practice. This suggests new ways of thinking about professional learning, including some different metaphors for understanding such learning. We explore the notion of what constitutes practice and how a view of professional work as a set of practices can reframe discussions of learning, and we draw attention to the importance of work and context in the fostering of learning. Out of this some elements of a new approach to CPD are sketched.
Metaphors, learning and commonsense Thought or talk about learning inevitably uses metaphors. This is so whether the thought and talk is of the commonsense, unreflective kind or whether it is the work of sophisticated learning researchers and theorists. Because learning, or its absence, is a ubiquitous feature of human life, the language widely used to describe it employs commonsense intuitions. Thus, learning is something that individuals do. When they learn they gain a ‘thing’ that they thereby possess to apply as needed at some later date. The literal truth of such everyday thought and talk about learning is simply taken for granted since it ‘works’. Hence, concepts such ‘acquiring learning’ or ‘transferring learning’ appear to be closely descriptive of concrete reality. Yet ‘acquiring’ and ‘transferring’, when used in relation to learning are
1
actually metaphors. This means that, at most, it is only in some respects that learning is analogous to things being acquired and transferred. The taken-for-granted tangibility of these common learning metaphors is reinforced, perhaps, by their wide deployment within peoples’ experience of compulsory education at all levels. It is precisely because commonsense is typically unexamined, that it comes as a surprise to many to realise that ‘acquisition’ and ‘transfer’, when employed in relation to learning, are metaphors. Long ago, Scheffler warned educators that every metaphor has limitations, “points at which the analogies it indicates break down” (1960, p. 48). He argued for the need to explore the limitations of dominant metaphors, thereby “opening up fresh possibilities of thought and action.” (Scheffler 1960, p. 49).
Limitations of the commonsense ‘acquisition’ and ‘transfer’ metaphors In everyday unreflective thought and talk about learning, it is assumed that the term ‘acquisition’ is used in its normal sense. Closer inspection shows this to be not so. The common-sense view is that when someone acquires (possesses) learning, what they have learnt is inside of them (in their mind/brain for propositional learning; inside of their body for skill learning). But this is not typically so for cases of acquisition and possession. Individuals acquire and possess items such as boats, parcels of land, or art works. But none of these possessions are thereby located inside of their owners. Why should the matter be any different for acquisition and possession of knowledge or skills, if that is really what is going on when learning occurs? In fact, recent work in neuroscience (see Bennett and Hacker 2003) challenges the ‘common sense’ understanding of learning as a ‘thing’ located in the head. The acquisition, possession and transfer metaphors are not descriptive of reality. Likewise the transfer metaphor on closer inspection also raises puzzling conundrums. As we normally employ the term, to transfer something or someone is to convey, remove, or hand them over to a new place or position. To be transferred is literally to leave one place or position and to go to another. Thus a sportsperson is transferred from one sporting club to another. A medical professional, say, is transferred from one health centre to a different one. But this is certainly not how knowledge and skills are ‘transferred’ when they are taught. Professional developers do not literally transfer their knowledge and skills to professionals. Rather, if the professional development session is successful, a new instance of the knowledge or skill is created, seemingly in the professional’s head or body. But the professional developer still retains the skill that has been supposedly ‘transferred’ to the professionals. So this is certainly not transfer in the literal sense. Once again a learning metaphor misleads us. But what about cases where professionals transfer knowledge and skills from place to place, or case to case. Surely this is transfer in the normal sense? No it is not. A professional learns (say) a skill in one work location, before moving to a different location and using the skill (i.e. transferring it). But again this is not quite the normal usage of ‘transfer’. Surely when the professional uses the learnt skill in the second location it is more accurate to say that they applied it to the new situation. It is a truer account of what happened to say that a professional having the skill in question moved from place to place, rather than saying the skill itself was transferred. If professionals literally transferred their skills, they would lose them. As before, a common metaphor can easily mislead us. The moral is that we need to be aware of the limitations of the metaphors that we employ, especially the respects in which the two things being compared are not alike. Otherwise we can be dangerously misled, as the case of CPD illustrates.
Critique of existing professional development theorising and its metaphors Prima facie, ‘professional development’ is a sound concept to express the idea that the professional learning or ongoing education of professionals is something that continues across the various stages of a professional career. Certainly, as dictionaries confirm, the notion of ‘development’ in its primarily sense has biological connotations such as growth, evolution, gradual unfolding, fuller working out, etc. This means that the development metaphor, as employed in ‘professional development’, encapsulates the idea that professionals are in a process of becoming. When its biological connotations are kept in mind, the development metaphor suggests that professional development arises both from within the professional and from happenings around them. Thus, development implies that professionals continuously develop their own capacities, but always in part at least, in response to happenings in their particular professional environment.
2
However, it seems that as the term ‘professional development’ gained widespread currency, these biological connotations have been increasingly forgotten. The major reason for this is that professional development has become increasingly implicated with the ‘acquisition’ and ‘transfer’ metaphors that constitute the common-sense understanding of learning. The result has been a distortion of the notion of professional development by these metaphors. The main ways that the original biological connotations have been dissipated can be summarized as follows: 1.
The acquisition and transfer metaphors suggest pre-specification and standardization of the content that is learnt. In formal education systems, curriculum is decided typically in advance by experts, who ‘know’ what is needed for the learners. Professional development has gradually mimicked this model of delivery of content decided by outside ‘experts’. Rather than connoting an organic unfolding process, development comes to stand for professionals being stocked with pre-packaged material supplied by outside developers. This encourages a reductionist, ‘bits and pieces’ view of professional development. It also promotes a fragmentation of activities, with the focus on selecting sufficient numbers of activities to meet a points accumulation requirement. A further issue is that this pre-specification of learning needs by outside ‘experts’ does not accord well with notions of professional autonomy and agency. Why should the ongoing development of professionals be straight-jacketed to the same curriculum approach that applies to infants and children?
2.
The nature of professional practice is greatly over-simplified by acceptance of the acquisition and transfer metaphors. It becomes virtually inevitable that practice is conceived to be application (transfer) of (acquired) theory. This elevates the theories and understandings taught in formal professional preparation courses, whilst devaluing the theories and understandings that derive informally from experiences of professional practice. This elevation of formal theories and understandings tends to devalue the more tacit and less readily articulated informal aspects of professional practice. This valuing of the explicit fits current performativity agendas quite well, but it results in only some kinds of knowledge and ways of knowing and learning being recognized.
3.
Professional development viewed as the acquisition and subsequent transfer of content prespecified by ‘experts’ ensures that CPD routinely is divorced from actual practice. Typically, CPD is delivered in formal settings of various kinds away from sites of professional practice. Once transmitted and acquired in a CPD event the learning is supposed to be taken back to workplace and applied (transferred). This model of professional development supposes that practice can be changed and updated by acquisition of knowledge that is independent of the particular work context. This is at odds with the biological roots of ‘development’, which imply that professional learning is an interaction of the professional with their particular professional work environment.
4.
Professional development viewed as the acquisition and subsequent transfer of content focuses exclusively on individuals and individual learning. As will be shown later, what we know about professional learning tells us that both individual learning and social learning are key components. Learning metaphors such as participation and becoming are more conducive to social learning.
Overall, the once helpful development metaphor has lost its original biological connotations. The above four trends as a total package create an unhelpful, but inevitable, gap between the rhetoric of professional development and CPD, and the enriching experience of learning from practice over time, usually with others. This gap encourages the perception amongst some, seemingly capable, professionals that continuing professional education and the like is an unnecessary chore that gets in the way of ‘real’ professional learning. Clearly this is an unhealthy educational situation for any profession to be in.
Other influential metaphors In the last several decades, diverse writers about learning have sought to take account of its social and situated character. This theorising has specifically aimed to also encompass learning that occurs outside of formal education settings. The diversity of both this theorising and the cases of learning that it
3
encompasses, suggest that to seek a single general account of learning may be unrealistic. That is, there may be many inherently different types of learning. This work has led some to view learning as a conceptual and linguistic construction, one that is widely used in many societies and cultures, but with very different meanings, which are at least partly contradictory and contested. On this view, there is no external, reified entity that is ‘learning’. Rather, people construct and label certain processes/activities/products as ‘learning’ (Saljö 2003). In these theories, the ideas that ‘learning is a reified thing’ and ‘individuals are the main or only locations of learning’ are both rejected. These newer learning theories include situated learning, socio-cultural activity theory, cognitive apprenticeship, and more. Here we will not attempt a separate account of each category of theory, as that is a lengthy and complex task (see Hager & Hodkinson 2009, also Hager, in press, for a critical overview of these theories as they relate to understanding learning at work). Instead, we will consider the various alternative metaphors that are employed by these newer theories and how our understanding of professional learning is creatively changed by these alternatives. The metaphors that are invoked by these newer learning theories tend to be employed across theories, rather than one particular metaphor being distinctly associated with just one theory. The main metaphors are: participation, construction and becoming. We need to keep in mind that all metaphors have limitations as well as advantages for conceptualising learning. So in investigating the value of alternative metaphors, such as participation, construction and becoming, for conceptualising CPD, the possible advantages and limitations of each of these metaphors should be considered.
How do professionals learn? To identify alternative approaches to CPD we must start with an understanding of what professionals do and the circumstances under which they learn independent of the influences of any particular CPD regime. This requires a perspective on the relationship between learning and working. In our view, learning is a normal part of working. It occurs through practice in work settings from addressing the challenges and problems that arise. Most learning takes place not through formalised activities, but through the exigencies of practice with peers and others, drawing on expertise that is accessed in response to need. Problem-solving in which participants tackle challenges which progressively extend their existing capabilities and learn with and from each other appears to be a common and frequent form of naturalistic development. This has been well recognised in a number of professions for the years of transition from formal educational study to full professional work (eg. medical practitioners have internships that expose them to a wide range of different kinds of practice across a variety of conditions). In some other professions the transition years provide far fewer and more limited experiences. There are two perspectives we wish to consider here: a practice approach and the influences of work on learning.
A practice approach to understanding professional learning ‘Practice’ is increasingly being viewed as a fruitful lens through which to analyse all kinds of human activity. The notion of practice provides a holistic way of thinking that integrates what people do, where they do it, with whom and for what purpose. It links the person with the activity and the context in which the activity occurs (Boud 2009). Practice used in this sense is not counterposed to theory, but is a way of conceptualising any human activity. Practices are, in a theoretical sense, ‘embodied, materially mediated arrays of human activity centrally organised round shared practical understanding’ (Schatzki, 2001, p 2). They can be understood as a ‘nexus of doings and sayings organised by understandings, rules, and teleoaffective structures’ (Schatzki, 1997, p. 3) By this Schatzki is referring to the ‘linking of ends, means, and moods appropriate to a particular practice or set of practices and that governs what it makes sense to do beyond what is specified by particular understandings and rules’. That is, it is purposeful (teleo), people are invested in it (affective) and it generates meanings of its own (understandings and actions). Practice is not, or not simply, the application of knowledge; it is not a simple consequence of learning. In a developmental sense, for an individual, theoretical knowledge can produce a novice practitioner,
4
one who is ready to embark on learning a practice through practice. This process inevitably involves change, both subjective and objective – from novice to expert, etc. It involves a notion of ‘becoming’ (Scanlon forthcoming, Hager & Hodkinson 2009). Neither are practices stable, homogeneous, nor a-historical. Practice involves change, by definition. Practices exist and evolve in historical and social contexts – times, places and circumstances. Practices are also emergent in the sense that the ways that they change are not fully specifiable in advance. They are emergent from the context in unanticipated and unpredictable ways. Thus context transforms practice in an ongoing creative process. The modernist aims of decidability and predictability are unrealistic according to these theories. So the directions of learning can only be characterized in broad, general terms. The kind of control that might be desired by policymakers is not feasible. This emergent character of practices means that there is a close link between learning and becoming a proficient practitioner. Learning is directly implicated in practice, and learning can be represented as an outcome of participating in practice. Johnson and Boud (submitted for publication) embrace a complexity view of learning in organisations and challenge common views of learning that can be taken to imply that features of the work environment can be isolated and manipulated to increase the probability of learning. They take the view that: understanding learning as a constructed, emergent and invitational phenomenon suggests a character to learning that differs from commonly understood meanings that are dominantly cognitive, acquisition-oriented, normative, explicitly or implicitly causative (Kim 1993, Sfard 1998, Steiner 1998). Rather, learning is discovered and generated together with others from a complex web of contextual, interactional and expectational factors. While learning at work involves individuals and their work environment, opportunities for learning are created less from the tension between individual engagement and organizational affordances (Billett 2001a), or the dual reciprocal relationship between individuals and the work environment (Billett cited by Bryson et al. 2006: 293) than from contingently-formed patterns of understandings and interactions when actors enact the practical and situated work activities with others, often using material resources in their environment.
Influences of work and the context of work on professional learning While practices provide useful ways to frame professional activities and the learning that accompanies them, there is also a need to take the context in which this occurs into account. Work itself creates challenges and opportunities and the nature of these drives learning. Research on workplaces has identified the strong influences of organisations and particular organisational environments on learning. Nothing influences learning more powerfully and unconsciously than the everyday circumstances of work itself. Work can both create possibilities for learning and change as well as strongly inhibiting it. A number of studies, while not separating out professional from other kinds of work, draw attention to key features of how work influences learning. For example, Ellström (2001) has discussed factors that foster or inhibit integration of learning and work. From his investigations he identified the following as significant: 1. The learning potential of the task in terms of task complexity, variety and control. 2. Opportunities for feedback, evaluation and reflection on the outcomes of work actions. 3. The type and degree of formalisation of work processes. 4. Organisational arrangements for employee participation in handling problems and developing work processes. 5. Learning resources in terms of eg. time for analysis, interaction and reflection. In a Norwegian study of workplaces that were conducive to learning Skule (Skule & Reichborn 2001, Skule 2004) identified a number of circumstances of work that promoted learning opportunities. These were: 1. A high degree of exposure to demands from customers, management, colleagues and owners. 2. A high degree of exposure to changes in technology, organisation and work methods. 3. Employees having managerial responsibility. 4. Considerable external professional contact. 5. Good opportunities for feedback from work. 6. Support and encouragement for learning from management.
5
7. A high probability that proficiency will be rewarded through interesting tasks, better career possibilities or better pay. They concluded: All things being equal, neither gender, education, the competitive situation, size of company nor type of industry are particularly significant when it comes to the opportunity to learn through work. It is the various properties of work—what we call learning conditions—that are most important in explaining the differences in the opportunity to learn through work. (Skule and Reichborn 2001, p. 10) While it was not conducted in the context of professional work, Fuller and Unwin (2003) in their analysis of successful apprenticeships identified features of what they termed expansive and restrictive participation in work. They used this to categorise organisational circumstances as providing greater or lesser opportunities for learning. Their analysis is pertinent here as it brings together organisational, managerial, learning and work design perspectives to suggest ways in which organisations can foster individual and organisational development. Fig. 1. Expansive and restrictive participation in work Expansive Widely distributed skills Technical skills valued Knowledge and skills of whole workforce developed and valued Cross-disciplinary groups/ communication encouraged Manager/supervisor as enabler Chances to learn new jobs/skills Expanded job design Bottom-up approach to innovation Formative approach to evaluation Individual progression encouraged/ strong internal labour market
Restrictive Polarised distribution of skills Technical skills taken for granted Knowledge and skills of key workers/groups developed and valued Bounded communication and work Manager as controller Lack of workplace mobility Restricted job design Top-down approach to innovation Summative approach to evaluation Weak internal labour market/ recruitment mainly from outside to meet skill needs
As a final example, productive reflection at work was taken up by Boud, Cressey and Docherty (2006). While their main focus was on the use of reflective practices for productive outcomes, they show many ways in which learning and development occurs through collective organisational practices designed to address central issues to the organisation that also have considerable benefit for the development of those who participate in them. We need to be cautious though lest we give the impression that learning and development can be simply prompted by organisational interventions. Boud, Rooney and Solomon (2009) draw attention to the paradox involved in formalising the informal. They point out that: It is important to distinguish between formal interventions that are part of an implemented staff development strategy and everyday learning that goes on in the workplace. It isn’t possible (or desirable) to subordinate one to the other. Nor is it possible to simply replace everyday learning with formal activity or vice versa. A difficulty lies in distinguishing between informal learning initiatives that can be formalised and/or fostered and those that can and/or should not. (p. 333) They go on to suggest that: Through fostering the conditions, spaces and relationships that support everyday learning, structured learning initiatives can promote it. This requires an understanding of the interplay between structured learning and everyday learning. It is not about privileging one over the other or translating one into another, but importantly, it is about understanding the different purposes and places of each. (p. 333) We must recognise the powerful influence of the organisation in which professional practice and the particular work that they do. This can have a more substantial influence on continuing professional
6
learning than any program of study or any professional body to which professional allegiance may be owed. The nature of work is such that both when practitioners specialise or when they are a generalist, they have a particular scope of performance bounded by the type of organization, or part of an organisation, in which they operate and the kinds of practice available to them. Learning opportunities are afforded by and constrained by practice opportunities.
What are the implications of this for continuing development? An important starting point is a conscious focus on the metaphors that are deployed. We suggest that a shift from use of acquisition and transfer to metaphors, such as participation, construction and becoming, that imply active involvement in practice and greater agency and change on the part of the professional is needed. A practice view shifts perspectives on development radically. It suggests that we cannot think simply in terms of attributes of the professional, of their knowledge and skills or even of their competencies. These are not mere possessions of the individual to be acquired but are only of value when they are played out in practices. These practices involve the practitioner operating in complex ways with others in a particular environment that has attributes of its own. It is only this relational combination that reflects the practice, and it is the practice itself that ultimately matters in terms of getting things done in the world. It does not matter what the professional knows or can do if this is not deployed appropriately in a particular context with requisite others. Some forms of work produce fewer challenges or challenges across a narrower range than others. They are less conducive to continuing development. Some work environments have fewer interactions with professional peers. Indeed, in some there is a sole practitioner. While these may provide development opportunities to connect with other professions and occupations, they severely limit possibilities within the principal profession. Lack of peers or lack of opportunities to participate with them also severely restricts opportunities and therefore development. The environment of work both creates opportunities for learning and development and limits them. CPD therefore needs to more effectively utilise the valuable opportunities and find ways of addressing the limitations of this context. Present discussions of CPD appear to downplay both the opportunities and the need for development to be located in and extend practice. More emphasis needs to be given to involving practitioners in environments that afford them opportunities to extend their own practice through participation in the practices of others. It may be that some environments need to be accredited as necessarily generating development, rather than accrediting attendance at activities that may or may not generate anything. A further complexity in CPD arises in the differences between expectations of professional bodies, especially registration bodies and employers. Professional bodies are invariably profession-specific arise from the history of professionalisation in any particular field with deep roots than can be traced back to trade guides. Professions invariably treat members as individuals: they do not have ways of dealing with groups of professionals or across professions. Employers of professionals have a broader obligation: most services they provide are complex and involve many people working together. Their concern is with the total outcome and the full experience of clients interacting with many parties. They have a concern with the ways the totality of professionals (and others) working together operate. While they also have concerns for individual practitioners, this is about them in the wider context of the operation. Greater dialogue between employing and professional organisations is needed to explore the implications of collective and cross-disciplinary practice and to ensure that development meets the actual needs of current and emerging practice, rather than that inscribed in earlier times.
Key features of a fuller notion of continuing professional learning In conclusion, if we want a twenty-first century conception of continuing professional development, we need to locate it in the practices of professionals. The idea that CPD can be conceptualised as participation in a set of decontextualised provisions offered by educators and trainers independent of the practices in which professionals engage is unrealistic. This does not of course mean that courses and training activities are irrelevant, but the ways in which they are presently used in CPD discourse distracts from the main focus of interest, that is, the learning of professionals.
7
Locating CPD in the practice of professionals requires a new emphasis on the learning possibilities of work and what kinds of learning everyday participation in practice does and does not generate. From this perspective, it is clear that some forms of practice are likely to be so circumscribed and limited that continuing engagement in them alone will inhibit the broader development of the professional. This implies that CPD requires far greater opportunities to engage in practices that extend the repertoire of practitioners and that the focus needs to move from an analysis of individual knowledge skills and competencies to an analysis of environments and what the practices in them generate in terms of extending practice scope. Such a view also implies that we need to acknowledge that professionals have particular scopes of practice and can be legitimately competent within them. Professional bodies would need to be more nuanced in their recognition of members, as indeed some are already beginning to be, and accredit specialisations and particular scopes of practice rather than taking a one-size-fits-all stance. What are now required to extend this conceptualisation are studies of how professionals actually learn and how the environments in which they operate influence them and the practices in which they engage. This is a fruitful area of development if professions are seriously to engage in the complex needs of their members.
References Archer M. (1998). Realism and morphogenesis, in R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson & A. Norrie (eds.) Critical Realism. Routledge, London. Bennett, M. and Hacker, P.M.S. (2003). Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Blackwell, Oxford. Boud, D. (2009). Relocating reflection in the context of practice. In Bradbury, H., Frost, N., Kilminster, S. and Zukas, M. (eds). (2009) Beyond Reflective Practice: New Approaches to Professional Lifelong Learning. Routledge, London, 25-36. Boud, D., Rooney, D. and Solomon, N. (2009). Talking up learning at work: cautionary tales in coopting everyday learning, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28:3, 325-336. Ellström, P.-E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12:4, 421-435. Fenwick T. (2009). ‘Re-thinking the “thing”: Sociomaterial approaches to understanding and researching learning at work’, paper presented at The 6th International Conference on Researching Work and Learning, Roskilde University, Denmark, June 28-July 1 2009. Hager, P. (in press). Theories of workplace learning: a critical overview, in M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans and B.N. O’Connor (eds.) The International Handbook of Workplace Learning: Theory, Research, Practice, and Issues. Sage, London. Hager, P. and Hodkinson, P. (2009). Moving beyond the metaphor of transfer of learning, British Educational Research Journal, 35:4, 619-638. Johnsson, M. and Boud, D. (submitted for publication). Towards an emergent view of learning work, Saljö, R. (2003). From transfer to boundary-crossing, in T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.) Between School and Work: new perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing Elsevier, Amsterdam, 311-321. Scanlon L. (ed.) (forthcoming). Becoming a Professional. Springer ,Dordrecht. Schatzki, T R. (2001). Practice theory, in T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina and E. von Savigny (eds), The Practice Turn In Contemporary Theory, Routledge, New York, 1-14. Schatzki, Theodore R. (1997). “Practices and Actions: A Wittgensteinian Critique of Bourdieu and Giddens”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 27:3, 283-308. Scheffler, I. (1960). The Language of Education. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. Sfard A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one, Educational Researcher, 27: 2, 4-13. Skule, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: a framework to understand and assess informal learning in the workplace, International Journal of Training and Development, 8:1, 8-20. Skule, S. and Reichborn, A. (2002). Learning-conducive work: a survey of learning conditions in Norwegian workplaces. CEDEFOP, Luxembourg. Unwin, L. and Fuller, A. (2003). Expanding learning in the workplace: making more of individual and organisational potential. National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, Leicester.
8
