Learning

Wenger (1998: 4) offers a conceptual perspective for a social theory of learning that starts with four premises.

“We are social beings. Far from being trivially true, this fact is a central aspect of learning.

Knowledge is a matter of competence with respect to valued enterprises – such as […]

Knowing is a matter of participating in the pursuit of such enterprises, that is, of active engagement in the world.

Meaning – our ability to experience the world and our engagement with it as meaningful – is ultimately what learning is to produce”.

Wenger (1998:4) states that, the primary focus of this theory is on learning as social participation. One of the main aspects of the Pathfinder Project was to create a social environment for learning to take place. Another key theme was the use of developmental mentoring to give a structured framework for the social interaction between all participants so that a sense of belonging to a cohesive group could be sustained throughout the length of the project. In previous staff development initiatives where retreats were used this did not happen and staff commented on the rapid fading of knowledge and the fact that when they returned to their discipline-based duties the learning gained was often put to one side as “life got in the way”.

When that social interaction broke down or was seen as unequal e.g. more of a sponsorship mentoring approach was used, participants disengaged with the activities and in two cases dropped out of the project.

In the first Pathfinder retreat, the social participation was a key aim to build rapport between all those involved. Those who for whatever reason did not attend were never able to gain full entry into the project. This also followed through into the identity that other participants gave them once the project activities stopped and became part of the mainstream learning and teaching operations as an element within the Blended Learning Strategy. What the Pathfinder Project did, by using a mix of retreats and developmental mentoring, was to offer an environment that complemented and enabled learning.

In my conceptual model I was hoping that by using developmental mentoring both technical and pedagogic skills would be shared and developed in a way that did not mean they had to be directly taught but would naturally occur as an enabling dialogue between various team members. This would involve a sharing of both individual and collective experiences in formal and informal settings. The informal settings, such as in the evening and over meal breaks were often the most rich environments as members of the teams broke into social groupings rather than in the formal settings where they were more discipline-based. A key success factor of the retreats, but one which is difficult to quantify, is the time and space they provided for informal learning. In the current climate of cuts and reduction in funding then to be seen to pay for people to go away for staff development particularly if it involves a stay in a nice hotel can hit the headlines.

For those, for whatever reason, e.g. family commitments, who are not able to participate in the social setting then consideration needs to given to how they can gain membership of the community that might have moved on. For example, I observed a mentor working with two mentees, one of whom could not stay overnight. In the previous afternoon the mentor was in three-way dialogue with both mentees. The now two-way conversation carried on into the evening. By the start of the next formal session on the next day the three-way dialogue had changed into two separate conversations. I noticed what had happened so as the organisers of the retreat we added an extra slot into the programme to encourage teams to share their experiences and to start community dialogues again. Through the types activities in the Pathfinder Project I was seeking to find a way of working that would develop relationships and understanding between

like-minded but disparate groups who were all trying to achieve the same end creating a sense of identity and community. This was done to ultimately develop an understanding of how we (ILE) and the discipline-based staff perceive ourselves. As Knight and Trowler (2001:101) comment,

“Learning takes place within communities of practice and activity systems that have their own sub-cultures and discursive repertoires”.

The Pathfinder Project was one way of helping to evolve a community and activity system. The sub-cultures I would identify as being primarily based around such elements as disciplines areas and physical locations e.g. disciplines based on a specific campus.

Wenger offers a model of the components of a social theory of learning (Figure 36: 164) that I see as pulling together what I was hoping to achieve.

Figure 36 Wenger’s (1998:5) components of a social theory of learning: an initial inventory

Looking at the Wenger model I was struck by a synergy between the elements and the characteristics of developmental mentoring (Figure 37: 165). In my project the conceptual model of developmental mentoring in a tri-mentoring relationship is obvious as it was tested in a real world comparison through a given internal and external identity – the Pathfinder Project. However, once that project finished the community of practice, though still in existence, is much less

obvious. One of the reasons for this is that as the Pathfinder Project completed its funding cycle. The participants lost their unique identity with the created community of practice becoming disparate, subtle and mainstream. Some participants retired and others moved into different roles within their discipline.

Figure 37 Wenger with characteristics of developmental mentoring