Designing a LearnScope Work-Based Learning Team

16 May, 2002

Introduction

So. You've looked at the big picture, considered your strategic directions, interrogated your flexible delivery specialist, earmarked resources, rehearsed the funding application in your head. Gosh, you"ve practically achieved the outcomes! All you need to do now is tidy up loose ends "you know" get a team together, choose some learning outcomes. It"s a great project. Getting people on board will be the easy bit.

Will it?

One of the strengths of work based learning is that it is designed to address actual work based learning needs, resulting in a customised, "different strokes for different folks" approach. This is why there"s no such thing as a set of guidelines on what constitutes an "ideal" LearnScope team. This resource aims instead to highlight some of the issues that contribute to the overall successful functioning of work based learning teams.

Innovation and its adoption in organisations
Have you ever noticed that when a new technology is introduced, people"s reactions vary - some people jumping right in; some adopting a "wait and see" approach and others running for cover?

A number of researchers have looked at this phenomenon in an attempt to understand how underlying social, systemic and psychological characteristics influence people"s acceptance of new practices, products or technologies. Their findings suggest that there is a natural bell curve of "adoptor profiles" - a continuum ranging from total acceptance/enthusiasm to deep reluctance/anxiety - that emerge when change is introduced into an organisation or social system.

Becoming aware of these patterns may give you insights about how to manage the "people side" of integrating technology into your organisation"s teaching and learning. A diverse mix of profiles can enrich the project and provide deep opportunities for learning through

Skills Base
The jury is "still out" when it comes to questions about the skills base and skills mix required for a LearnScope project. Some people believe that LearnScope is a program that most benefits groups that have achieved a certain level of sophistication in the use of technology and work based learning processes. Others believe that it"s important not to exclude staff who may not have had the opportunity to achieve these levels of sophistication. However, as a guide, we have the following comments to make:

Avoid creating whole teams of people with rudimentary technical skills " these people may benefit more from face to face instruction or other strategies. Some exposure to technology is a valuable pre-requisite.
Teams containing a broad range of skill levels are appropriate when peer or collaborative learning is a strategy deliberately used to upskill less confident groups and achieve attitudinal change.
A critical factor is the potential for application of skills learned " LearnScope"s focus is on pedagogical applications of new learning technologies not the technologies themselves.

Functional Area
LearnScope teams in 1998 and 1999 have included:

Feedback from some LearnScope teams has suggested that widely distributed teams or teams from a range of organisations have tended not to perform well. This can occur for a range of reasons and highlights the need for common goals, effective project management and sound facilitation.

However, with educational delivery increasingly relying on a "system" of delivery (rather than one person - ie the teacher) cross functional teams can create horizontal links across the organisation(s), reinforcing the interdependence of different parts of the system and providing multiple perspectives from which to learn.

Hierarchy/role
We"ve already discussed how "horizontal links" can be forged by the creation of diverse, cross functional teams. Similarly, the inclusion of staff from a variety of levels within the organisation will also influence your overall outcomes.

The benefits that can result from the inclusion of decision makers and other senior staff are considerable. People at these levels can reinforce the strategic imperatives driving the project and can assist in ensuring that the outcomes of the project continue beyond the funded period. Similarly, people at the "front line" have valuable contributions to make in terms of "grounding" the project in reality and informing the practical applications of the team"s learning. Diversity also promotes team building and multiple perspectives from which to learn.

Group size
LearnScope projects have ranged from groups of 8 to groups of 34. In larger LearnScope projects, it has been common for the team to break into smaller sub-groups who work on specific projects, coming back together at regular intervals to share progress, modify plans and report on learning. Sometimes sub-groups are made up of specialists (such as one group of librarians, another group of IT teachers) working on their specific component of the overall organisational need. In other large projects, sub-groups have been clustered in a way that represents a range of functions within each group (eg each group containing a librarian, an IT teacher etc). This usually occurs when the organisation is wanting to develop a "delivery system" approach to their teaching and learning.

In terms of the "smaller" teams (by far the most usual pattern in terms of LearnScope projects group size), we would recommend 8 - 10 participants as a guide. This achieves a "group dynamic" not always possible with smaller numbers and overcomes the problems associated with people dropping out during the project due to unforeseen circumstances, which can have an adverse affect on the team if it is too small at the outset.

Ultimately, decisions about group size will be guided by the purpose of the project, the learning outcomes being sought, the time and resource commitment available, the staff requiring the professional development and the skills and experience of the project manager and facilitator.

Ownership
"Ownership" refers to the learners" participation in decision making and their active roles in planning the work based learning project.

When participants are

the project has a very high chance of succeeding, provided project management and learning facilitation is managed effectively and supports the needs of the learners.

Adults achieve most when they have the opportunity to direct and make decisions about their learning, are engaged with tasks or problems that are meaningful and relevant and are given the opportunity to actively participate in the learning, shaping it to meet their individual needs and contexts. These principles apply no less to work based learning projects such as those funded by LearnScope.

LearnScope participants also need to be properly inducted and briefed on the overarching organisational context for the project. In John Mitchell"s final LearnScope evaluation for 1999 he reported that "the team member"s awareness of the needs of their organisation for skills in flexible delivery is the single most important factor affecting skill development in LearnScope projects".

Learning Model
The August 1999 LearnScope evaluation recommended that future teams should include participants with previous experience in work-based learning. The February 2000 LearnScope Evaluation reiterated this theme when it reported that work based learning is of limited value when the people have limited experience in using the methodology. In essence, form follows function. Choose your learning model carefully and make sure that participants have the skills and understandings to benefit from the model used.

The Learning from LearnScope resource Learning Models " do we all have to learn the same way? outlines the range work based learning models that have been used in LearnScope projects and can be used to guide your planning.

Final thoughts
Each LearnScope team context is unique and decisions about how to structure the team will vary. Planned carefully - with risk indicators identified, process mechanisms in place, effective project management and facilitation - any team can achieve powerful outcomes, whatever the team makeup. Insufficient planning and management can result in fragmentation, failure to achieve outcomes and staff who have become demotivated to pursue further work based learning opportunities. For these reasons you can safely assume that the following comments can be considered as always being true: