This study seeks to understand work-based learning by characterizing the social context of students' work experiences and the opportunities to learn a range of knowledge and skills. This study also demonstrates that work context plays a vital role in shaping students' learning experiences, by examining certain characteristics of the work context--the social means by which tasks are initiated, accomplished, and processed; the pedagogy of worksites; and the community of practice. The analysis shows that work settings and, consequently, students' learning opportunities, vary considerably. The differences in the social context discussed here have implications for the design and delivery of WBL programs. Although the sample size in this exploratory study is too small to generalize to the vast variety of WBL experiences that students encounter daily, the study provides many insights about teaching and learning at work. We hope this research stimulates and informs program designers and other practitioners involved with WBL.
Future research might examine other aspects of the social context more closely. The idea of guided learning, for example, is of interest in workplaces and educational institutions, as the amount of direct or indirect guidance is an important dimension of learning through participation. Future studies might assess student learning more directly or determine more precisely how knowledge and skill develop within goal-directed activity.
In the remainder of this section, we first briefly summarize our main findings, then offer some implications and issues for further consideration.
Our analysis of workplaces as learning environments shows, first, that the types of tasks students engage in and the means by which they are established, accomplished, and processed, varies markedly across the three programs. The SBE gives the most latitude to students with respect to choosing work tasks and even work times. Work at the other two sites was more closely monitored and scheduled, but all students had some leeway over the sequencing or pace of their work within a specific time frame.
By and large, the tasks students had to accomplish required little creativity, although a few SBE students had opportunities to be creative. Most of the time, students simply followed directions to complete a variety of tasks. Their coworkers, supervisors, or mentors provided the social supports students needed to learn and do their jobs.
Although students received ample feedback on task performance, they were not always sure what was expected of them. Some tasks, particularly computer-based work, provided real-time feedback that could help students gauge their own progress. Successful completion of simpler tasks, like copying, was self-evident. TCAP incorporated formal evaluation procedures between the worksite and the program, and students were conversant with the frequency and nature of the assessment process.
A second characteristic of the learning environment concerns the pedagogy of worksites, in particular, whether teaching strategies were based on students' needs or on other factors. Not surprisingly, training for the TCAP students, who worked in private, for-profit companies, followed a "show and tell" model. This approach seemed suited to the students' primarily clerical work. One firm was also dedicated to training and staff development, and its intern had more learning opportunities unconnected to productive work.
In contrast, the MMHS students were apprentices in a university science laboratory where teaching is embedded in nearly every activity. In addition, the mentor had extensive teaching experience and a strong desire to help minority students pursue science careers. She created a curriculum tailored to the students' needs and displayed sophisticated teaching skill. Likewise, the SBE advisors had a strategy for teaching students the skills they needed to make a positive contribution to the business and, more generally, to be successful in academic pursuits and in life. To accomplish a variety of teaching and training goals, they utilized a talented mentor pool, outside conferences or workshops, free advice from experts, and opportunities to practice in a fail-safe environment. The adult advisors were also experienced, skillful teachers. Where rational pedagogy is more prevalent, the educative purposes of WBL are as prominent as purposes tied to productive work.
The communities of practice that students entered were also strikingly dissimilar. The TCAP students were junior employees and, for all practical purposes, treated as such. They were there to make a productive contribution to the work and were included in all business activities appropriate to their position. MMHS students had a more difficult time fitting in, as they lacked status in the research laboratory and had no real means to acquire it. To be successful, they had to interact in a complex, sometimes unfriendly social environment. They were included in social activities, like basketball games, but not in the weekly meetings that dealt with the lab's program of research. They were peripheral participants in this community. The SBE students created their own social environment, with guidance from their advisors. Student-owners were decisionmakers. Adults were carefully screened to select those who were willing to relinquish control to students. The SBE students worked in a nurturing environment, where their biggest social challenge was to learn to work with each other.
Of the three sites, the MMHS students were most challenged--they had to learn highly technical knowledge and skills and identify their place in a complex social milieu. Students in the other programs were less challenged socially, and their work was not always demanding. SBE students could develop fairly sophisticated technical skills, if they so chose. All students learned valuable personal lessons about their current career interests and their capabilities.
Students also learned a lot about what it means to work. They learned to take responsibility, to work hard, to meet deadlines, and to be persistent. They learned how to dress and act appropriately to their work situation. The more relaxed SBE environment did not provide as many opportunities as other worksites to develop some valuable work habits, such as being on time or knowing when to dress more formally.
Students engaged in rich problem-solving activities, albeit differentiated by the requirements of the particular job. By and large, students' jobs did not require problem-solving skills around substantive, technical matters. Most of the problems students encountered had to do with the procedural aspects of their work and were easily solved by themselves or with assistance from others. Although the MMHS program's science fair project might have been an opportunity for students to engage in more substantive problem solving, it was unfortunately structured in such a way that students did little of the work on their own. SBE provided some interesting problem-solving events, but these were not available to all students. Since students decide which activities to volunteer for, and since it is hard to tell in advance where complex problems might emerge, the opportunities to develop some skills are left to chance.
TCAP and MMHS students worked independently, for the most part, but learned about job and task interdependencies. Students in the SBE developed some teamwork skills, although teams were loosely organized and their makeup varied across activities. They also utilized a broad array of communication skills because they had more interactions with external audiences and had to communicate for more varied purposes than students at other worksites.
The TCAP and MMHS programs had explicit career awareness or exploration goals and, judging from these worksites, students enhanced their understanding of the transportation and science fields. Individuals at the university lab also had a strong interest in motivating minority students to pursue science careers and, in some ways, went beyond the program's more modest expectations. Although the program views students as volunteer interns, the lab had an interest in turning them into productive assistants and to make more effective and efficient use of their time during the school year. By engaging the students in the research and teaching them enough about it to spark their interest, the mentor hoped to motivate students to seriously pursue science. At SBE, students had opportunities to learn all aspects of running a business, but we were not able to determine how many students took advantage of them. Unlike the other programs, which are of shorter duration, the SBE students are involved in the program for up to three years.
Since school-based learning and WBL are meant to complement one another, we hoped to see stronger links between school and work. The TCAP seemed to do a good job of preparing students to enter the workplace. They conducted workshops for students to help them adjust to an adult working environment, and the school program gave them solid skills that employers could use. But since the work experience is not concurrent with school, the students are left to make these connections on their own. Fortunately, the two students we observed were able to do so. In addition, our survey data shows that TCAP students reported a stronger connection between school and work than students in other programs. In this case, then, school learning appeared to enhance work. To determine how work enhanced school, we would need to follow students back into the classroom after their work experience.
The MMHS program incorporated several structural features for connecting school and work. For example, the program had agreements with resource sites that listed learning objectives for students, and students were required to write journal entries about their work experiences, which teachers collected. The situation was a little different for the students working in the summer, since they were paid employees, not volunteers. The lab work was so advanced that students had little prior knowledge from their school science classes, but found some opportunities to apply math or chemistry knowledge. Somewhat ironically, the science fair project requirements took precedence over real experience. In this case, work appeared to enhance school learning, but was otherwise unconnected to it.
The SBE was perhaps the best kept secret at the high school. With only 40 students participating, from a student body of about 2,500, it is perhaps not surprising that a career counselor we spoke to did not mention the SBE when we asked her about WBL opportunities for interested students. The SBE was also the only program of the three we studied where students did not receive some kind of curriculum credits. The only teacher connected to the program was one of the SBE's original founders. It does not receive school or district funds. Indeed, the enterprise's primary connection to the school is its location on school property. Although the students' school classes were not connected in any way to the SBE, the SBE strongly supported academics. By joining the SBE, students could be tutored in any subject, receive preparation for SAT and ACT testing, and get personal assistance to apply to college. Doing well in school and raising academic aspirations were as important as running the business. Indeed, some of the program's activities to assist academic achievement were in place to make up for shortcomings in the school program. The SBE clearly enhanced school learning and overall academic achievement.
Overall, we conclude that most of what we learned in examining teaching and learning opportunities in these programs was quite positive. The longer-term, fairly intensive WBL experiences studied here provided opportunities for students to learn many work-related skills and attitudes. Students were generally satisfied with their work experience, although, on average, felt work was not very challenging. Although the programs varied with respect to opportunities for learning specific skills, the WBL experiences generally met each program's goals. However, the study does raise some questions and implications that we offer not as criticisms of the programs we studied, but as general lessons to consider when developing educationally valuable WBL opportunities for young people.
In order to adequately prepare students for their work experience, it is important for program staff to understand the social context of the WBL setting. In settings where students are expected to do productive work, such as TCAP, they should be adaptable to just-in-time training and have the social skills to learn on the job such as asking questions or requesting help. Students' attitudes and dispositions toward work are perhaps more important than technical skills, since the jobs they are given are not very demanding to learn and do not require specialized skills. In this environment, to be successful, students must be energetic, meticulous, and sociable. Students who are shy or slow in their work habits are less successful.
Other settings may combine educative and productive purposes. MMHS students have little knowledge when they come into the lab, and it is the responsibility of lab staff to teach them. Their goal is not only for students to contribute to the research but also to appreciate "big science" and to become interested enough to pursue a career in science. In this environment, students must be willing to work hard to learn sophisticated concepts and techniques and, most important, learn to navigate in a complex social system. Again, even from this employer's perspective, attitudes and dispositions are more important than technical knowledge--a successful student will be interested and ask questions and will behave in ways appropriate to his or her status.
A corollary to preparing students for work is to carefully match students and worksites. Program coordinators spend a great deal of time getting to know employers so they can maximize employer satisfaction. A good experience with a student is often the best selling point for a program and the best way to keep employers involved. Although this suggestion may be self-evident, even those coordinators who worked closely with employers did not always make a good match. At one TCAP site, for example, the previous summer's intern did not work out at all--she was too shy and she worked too slowly. In this case, the employer expressed dissatisfaction, and the coordinator made a more successful match the following summer. According to the MMHS students, they were sent to the university research lab because they had the highest grades. However, grades obviously matter far less for success than a student's ability to pick up social cues and learn how to behave in a complex social situation. Since SBE operated over a longer time frame, it could use a trial internship period to weed out any students who did not fit in. In all cases, program coordinators might make better matches by considering whether a student is suited to a particular social context--and vice versa--in addition to making placements on the basis of knowledge or interest.
We heard numerous concerns from adults at all sites that schools do not instill an appropriate orientation toward learning and working. In order for students to learn on the job, they must interact within the social setting to learn their tasks with the goal of eventually carrying them out on their own. Students must know when to ask questions or take the initiative, have the confidence to solve problems, and understand how to work with others. Students must take responsibility for their own learning. Unfortunately, we heard numerous stories that schooling does quite the opposite. Students told us that learning at school means listening, not asking questions. It means working alone, not with other students. It means asking the teacher what to do, not figuring it out for oneself. In school, a good excuse is all you need to get out of doing something.
This situation leads to two very different implications. One obvious remedy is to simply provide WBL experiences for more students because that work experience will provide the best opportunities for students to learn how to learn at work. Indeed, WBL proponents may argue that this study clearly confirms the value of incorporating WBL into high school programs. The problem, then, is one of scaling up. Since job shadowing or other less intensive experiences may not have the desired payoff, how can long-term, intensive school-supervised WBL be offered to more students?
An alternative remedy is to improve school-based teaching to produce active, engaged learners who can work alone and with others, and who will be better prepared to learn how to learn at work. Research shows that it is possible to teach problem solving, teamwork, and other work-related skills and attitudes in high school classrooms, provided they are designed around authentic project work and supported by appropriate teaching methods (Stasz et al., 1990, 1993). But this remedy may require significant changes in curriculum, assessment, teacher preparation, and staff development. Like the previous remedy, this one also entails a long-term, costly school reform strategy.
The WBL sites in this study were quite different with respect to teaching strategies and expertise. Students at the SBE and the university laboratory generally found experienced, skilled teachers, who paid much attention to students' personal needs in designing different learning activities. It is perhaps not surprising to find skilled teachers at the two school-based worksites.
In contrast, at the nonschool worksites where TCAP students intern, the basic teaching strategy was "show and tell." The company with a specific training philosophy also offered more educative experiences than the firm that preferred to hire skills, not train them. The mentors or supervisors at the TCAP worksites had no particular experience teaching high school students and did not receive any special training. While the TCAP, and others we have studied, attempt to incorporate some form of mentor training, programs rarely require that mentors or supervisors attend such training as a condition of participation. The mentors participating in TCAP did not necessarily attend the training sessions. In addition to training, employers must commit human resources to coordinate, manage, coach, and mentor youth in the workplace. Yet many programs do not have written agreements that specify the qualifications of mentors or even articulate the employer's responsibility to the program and student. And we have found that even if such agreements exist on paper, they may or may not be monitored in any systematic way.
It is curious that educators and the public often express concern when teachers can teach with emergency credentials or with little formal knowledge of the subject matter, but seem oblivious to the qualifications of the adults who teach students at work. Our study suggests that much more serious attention be paid to providing appropriate training to worksite mentors and to monitoring their performance as teachers.
These three different programs have one thing in common--all enroll a small number of students. In 1995, each TCAP academy had about 60 students in schools where the student body numbers over 2,000. The MMHS is a magnet school with about 220 students from grades 10-12. SBE can accommodate 40 students in a high school with an enrollment of 2,500. In each case, these programs have a dedicated number of teachers, plus additional staff. Some have dedicated counselors. All have a staffperson who deals with the WBL portion of the program. Someone is paying attention to every student enrolled in these programs. An important question, which we cannot examine but only raise here, is the extent to which the small size and focus of these programs contributes to any positive outcomes. It may be that while WBL or industry exploration provides a focus for the program's activities, the real power in the program, from the students' perspective, is being part of a small group that includes caring adults. The "treatment," per se, may not matter as much as the fact that there is one.
This study corroborates other research on school-to-work programs in finding that school and work are often only loosely connected and that connections are difficult to establish (Hershey et al., 1997; OTA, 1995). But the study also shows that students learn many valuable lessons and develop many skills even though connections between school and work are weak. Students at the science lab, for example, have the opportunity to learn a much higher level of science than can be offered in their high school program. Their WBL experience gave them excellent preparation for college and may even help them be more employable. The desire on the part of school staff to have students compete in the science fair, only placed constraints on the WBL experience. But as the mentor in the lab pointed out, it would be extremely difficult for any science teacher to include the specialized topic of neuromuscular research in the science curriculum or to blend it with the other internships open to students. Does the lack of connection to science class--or for that matter, English, chemistry, or math--make the work experience less valuable to students? Seen in this light, explicitly connecting school-based learning and WBL may not always be a desirable goal.
Similarly, the SBE was connected to school primarily through its location on the high school campus. Students appear to benefit greatly, without any strong connection to the school-based curriculum. Although this school-based enterprise did not provide the same opportunities for learning about work as a real work setting might, it clearly supports learning a variety of skills in addition to enhancing academic achievement.
Perhaps the effort to connect school and work is misplaced. Perhaps the real power of the WBL concept is pedagogical--authentic work experiences should give students opportunities to apply knowledge in useful contexts, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of both their abilities and the opportunities they can create for themselves through experience and/or education. By this criteria, all the programs arguably have value, whether they explicitly connect to school or not. By focusing on how learning happens, rather than where it happens--at school or at work--and how the two are connected, perhaps we can better determine what value WBL provides over other learning opportunities. In the end, learning is a personal, developmental transformation, so we must pay attention to whether or not that transformation occurs, as well as to the context that will make such a transformation possible. It is this context that educators and teachers, in and out of schools, have the most ability to shape.