Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 71–81
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
Mucking in and mucking out: Vocational learning in Animal Care Jane Salisbury*, Martin Jephcote School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Ave., Cardiff, Wales CF10 3WT, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 15 January 2009 Received in revised form 30 September 2009 Accepted 30 September 2009
The paper draws upon empirical material from a two year qualitative research project. The paper briefly outlines the key research questions, research design and data collection strategies. The following sections draw on observational, interview and journal data from the learning sites and the teachers and students who work and learn in them are used to show how college-based learning (CBL) is also work-based learning (WBL). We argue that to differentiate between CBL and WBL in this particular case is unhelpful and three separate contexts are identified to show where learning typically occurs for students of animal care. The discussion draws upon Lave and Wenger’s ‘communities of practice’ and Fuller and Unwin’s notion of ‘expansive learning environments’ to illustrate the ways in which full time students of animal care undertake valuable real work (albeit mostly unwaged) on farms, in stables and in reptile houses. Characteristics of communities of practice, namely, recognition of distributed expertise, inclusive language and interactions, ways of communicating about animals and nurturing teacher–student and student–student relations are identified. We differentiate situated learning for vocational students and more fully acknowledge the work-based learning which actually occurs in college. The consensual, inclusive language identified in the two departments is briefly explored with examples of anthropomorphism used to illustrate the indexical way staff and students talk about animals. ‘Communities of practice’ is a useful metaphor for thinking about the particular learning cultures of the animal care departments. Both departments are characterised by an ethic of care and staff go to great lengths to ‘look after the whole student’. What unites the students and their teachers is a real passion for animals. This is a prerequisite for winning a place on an Animal Care course. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Communities of practice Expansive learning environments Vocational education and training Ethnography
1. Introduction and background The paper draws upon empirical material from a two year qualitative research project on Learning and Working in Further Education Colleges in Wales [1]. The overall aim of the research was to explore the relationships between the social organisation of Further Education (FE) in Wales (one of the four nations that make up the UK), the interactions between teachers and students and learning outcomes for both groups. We know very little about what it is like to be a teacher or a student in the further education sector compared to experiences in other phases of education. Indeed our knowledge of vocational education and training sites is limited. Ethnographic research in the late 1980s and oft reported in the early 1990s (see for example, Bates, 1990, 1991; Riseborough, 1992; Valli, 1985; Weiss, 1985) did reveal how training programmes played an important part in mediating between social class,
* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses:
[email protected], (J. Salisbury).
[email protected]
0742-051X/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.018
families and careers. Thick descriptions rendered visible socialisation processes in catering, secretarial, institutional care and fashion design programmes and were an important contribution to our knowledge about young people’s training. Nevertheless qualitative research by anthropologists and sociologists of education in the UK and USA has tended to concentrate on compulsory school sectors with post compulsory sites of learning being largely neglected. (Delamont & Atkinson, 1995). Of course, the now classic occupational socialisation studies are an exception with Geer (1972), Davis (1977) and Becker, Geer, Hughes, and Strauss (1961) work illuminating situated learning in a variety of occupational learning and working contexts. Further education in the UK, vocational education in the USA, however remain an under researched area, even though recent projects conducted under the auspices of the UK’s Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) projects have generated important evidence about settings elsewhere in the UK (James & Biesta, 2007; Menter & McNally, 2009). The FE sector is, of course complex. Teachers in further education colleges are expected to deliver a far more diverse range of education and training programmes, to a wider range of clients, in a broader range of contexts,
72
J. Salisbury, M. Jephcote / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 71–81
than any other educational sector and they are increasingly expected to balance managerial and professional responsibilities (Gleeson & James, 2007; Guile & Lucas, 1999; Salisbury, Jephcote, & Roberts, 2008). The paper briefly outlines the key research questions, research design and data collection strategies. The remaining sections focus in closely upon two animal care departments in two colleges of further education to consider the ways learning is situated in different spaces and places and the affordances provided by these for students and staff to learn and develop expertise. Observational, interview and journal data from the learning sites and the teachers and students who work and learn in them are used to show how collegebased learning (CBL) is also work-based learning (WBL). We argue that to differentiate between CBL and WBL in this particular case is unhelpful and three separate contexts are identified to show where learning typically occurs for students of animal care. The ensuing discussion draws upon Lave and Wenger’s (1991) ‘‘communities of practice’’ and Fuller and Unwin’s (2004) notion of ‘‘expansive learning environments’’ to illustrate the ways in which full time students of animal care undertake valuable real work (albeit mostly unwaged) on farms, in stables and in reptile houses. Characteristics of communities of practice, namely, recognition of distributed expertise, inclusive language and interactions, ways of communicating about animals and nurturing teacher–student and student– student relations are identified. The paper raises questions (no more) about how we might usefully differentiate situated learning for vocational students and more fully acknowledge the work-based learning which actually occurs in college. Becker’s (1972) assertion that ‘‘school is a lousy place to learn anything in’’ is reappraised.
The research design employed a multi-method qualitative approach. A range of subject areas were identified so that, we could sample both teachers and learners from within different courses and programmes of study. (For a fuller reflexive account which describes the research team’s progress in navigating and entering a complex research field see Jephcote & Salisbury, 2005; Salisbury & Jephcote, 2009) At each college we recruited a sample of nine teachers and fifteen students to reflect the diverse nature of FE, such as modes of study, the ages of students and so on. These 27 teachers and 45 students became our ‘‘core participants’’ and thus became key informants. Each of them participated in in-depth interviews at various stages of the two year project and in regular completion of a structured learning journal. On seven occasions participants were sent a loose agenda of questions or frames to stimulate written responses. The frames were created to focus the research and triangulate between methods (Denzin, 1978). Their entries were collated into individual learning journals. A further 112 students selected from the sampled courses, were drawn into focus group interviews (Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, & Robson, 2000) at the mid-point and towards the end of the project. Perhaps most importantly, the research included extensive first-hand ethnographic observation of teaching and learning in a variety of settings including classrooms, open learning centres, studios, workshops and farms. The ethnography was of a traditional sociological kind informed by principles and practices discussed in Hammersley and Atkinson’s (2007) volume. The full time ethnographer followed the activities of the core students and teachers observing and capturing in field notes and expanded accounts their day to day work. Occasionally, participant observation more accurately characterised the fieldwork when for example Salisbury was asked to ‘‘join in’’ the learning exercise or practical task underway.
2. About the research project
2.2. Data analysis
2.1. Aims and methods
A large volume of qualitative data was generated. All interviews and focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed and coded initially for matters related to the research questions, the interview schedule itself and later for emerging themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). NVivo software was later used to code from the initial set of teacher interviews (27) to verify analytic themes identified manually. Teacher and student learning journal entries were a mix of handwritten and typed texts and usually posted into the team in hard copy though some teachers and students did occasionally submit by email attachment. Journals were indexed, multiple copies made and then subjected to content analyses which usually informed the ongoing observations. Handwritten observational field notes were converted into typed ones and fuller expanded accounts (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995, Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, chap. 24 2001; Spradley, 1980) using voice recognition software (Dragon Voice Naturally speaking V 8). Expanded accounts and field notes were physically sorted, carefully indexed and manually coded using margin annotations and coloured pencils on hard copies. Extracts of passages and chunks of relevant observational notes were then copied and pasted into theme files where the source of the data chunk was always noted (Bryman & Burgess, 1994). Analytic memoranda in an ‘‘out of the field’’ journal were word processed for the research team discussion meetings. Between investigator triangulation where at least two researchers scrutinised the data systematically, occurred at several points in the study when transcripts were coded and field notes shared (Denzin, 1978). Analysis was an ongoing activity across the two year project. The documents collected during fieldwork visits to different campuses and departments were numbered, logged and stored in box files, after they were read. Analytic memos cross referenced (Prior, 2003; Scott, 1991) to them were created and these helped
This research project set out to provide a better understanding of learning processes in further education. Its distinctive focus was on the ways in which learning outcomes (of all kinds) are a product of the social interaction of students and teachers. The study also examined the ways in which learning processes are influenced by the wider economic and social contexts as well as the policy framework through which further education is regulated in Wales (see Jephcote, Salisbury, & Rees, 2009). The research was conducted in three colleges of further education in South Wales which were selected to reflect a range of economic and social contexts. This paper draws closely upon fieldwork in animal care departments in two college campuses some eighty miles apart. Given the focus on learning outcomes as a product of social interactions, we were interested in the kinds of social engagement and social conditions that provide a context for learning to take place. Broadly, five focussing frames formed the foreshadowed agenda for the study. Three of these initial frames focussing the research give a flavour of our project concerns and are particularly relevant to this paper. These were: C
C
C
the nature of social interactions between students and teachers and how diverse learning outcomes are produced from this interaction; how the characteristics of the settings in which learning takes place influence the character of the interaction between students and teachers; how teachers construct their professional practice and how learning processes and outcomes are affected by these dispositions;
J. Salisbury, M. Jephcote / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 71–81
not only to answer our questions but to identify fresh ones and progressively focus the observations, and informal interviews. The varied contents of public notice boards offered potentially valuable insights for the progressive focussing of the fieldwork, questions to ask and matters to discover. Conventional field notes (Sanjeck, 1990) and where possible photographs with a digital camera helped to capture these documentary displays. Visual methods (Banks, 2001, 2008) were not data collection strategies listed in our original armoury but grew out from the opportunistic stance of the key fieldworker and her keenness to capture physical realities quickly. 2.3. Ethical considerations and sensitivities Assurances of confidentiality, anonymity and a rigorous approach to informed consent, were given to all audiences and potential participants in the research project. We emphasised that the research project would be conducted in compliance with guidelines devised by the Economic and Social Research Council (2005) which stipulates that ‘‘research must be designed, reviewed and undertaken to ensure integrity and quality’’(ESRC, 2005, p. 1). Recently revised ethical guidelines for undertaking educational research (BERA, 2004) also underpinned the various stages of data collection, analysis and dissemination. We were mindful that one of the central dilemmas of depth qualitative/ ethnographic research, is that it amplifies privately voiced comments to the public stage, this is of particular concern in the comparatively small world of further education in Wales which has only 23 colleges. Painstaking briefings at the group and individual level however secured a complete set of signed informed consent agreements from the core teacher and student participants and from the 112 students who were later recruited to the focus groups. The central idea then was to follow the ‘learning journeys’ of students and teachers over a two year period from when students embark on a learning programme through to its completion or their earlier entry into the labour market. We sought to create the same sort of rich ethnographic account achieved by Fordham (1996) who studied the lives of black students, their families, teachers, and administrators at ‘‘Capital High’’. Thus our data collection strategies, designed to ‘bring us up close’ to learners their teachers and their learning settings, shed much needed light on what it means to be a participant in further education. This paper takes as its focus learning and working in Animal Care departments. From all of the FE courses and departments we studied – full time and part-time, academic and vocational, it was in the functioning of the two Animal Care departments that Lave and Wenger’s (1991) ‘‘communities of practice’’ (COP) and ‘‘legitimate peripheral participation’’ (LPP) concepts were of use analytically. Fuller and Unwin’s (2004) writings on expansive and restrictive learning environments in the workplace also resonated with the data collected from these specific vocational departments and the opening empirical section begins with a discussion of this. The consensual, inclusive language identified in the two departments is briefly explored with examples of anthropomorphism used to illustrate the indexical way staff and students talk about animals. Later empirical sections show how ‘‘communities of practice’’ is a useful metaphor for thinking about the particular learning cultures of the animal care departments. Both departments were characterised by an ethic of care (Noddings, 1992) and teaching and technical staff went to great lengths to ‘‘look after the whole student’’. What united the students and their teachers was a real passion for animals. Apart from a minimum set of entry requirements, this zeal was a prerequisite for winning a place on an Animal Care course.
73
3. Communities of practice 3.1. Expansive learning environments: the animal care unit as ‘‘authentic’’ work-based learning site Unlike students of child care who learned to bathe babies using life sized baby dolls (Skeggs, 1986) and Clayton’s (2008) beginner hair and beauty students who wash and style the hair of false heads known as training blocks, the students of Animal Care learn and acquire skills by undertaking real work in authentic contexts in college farms, stables in equine studies, in ‘‘exotics’’ hot houses and small animal care units. [.] Its real work here, you’ve seen us all shovelling shit when its frozen solid. Sorry, manure. That’s not pretend work its hard graft. You’ve helped us weigh and check the animals yourself. It’s not pretend and that’s why the vet has employed me on Saturdays. He knows that I don’t just do theory and projects. (Evan Jones [2], 17 student, College A) In terms of student competence and interest, it is useful to refer to recent research that has analysed how work organisations differ in the ways that they create and manage themselves as learning environments (Evans, Hodkinson, Rainbird, & Unwin, 2006; Fuller & Unwin, 2004; Fuller, Unwin, Felstead, Jewson, & Kakavelakis, 2007). These writers have developed the conceptual framework of an ‘‘expansive-restrictive’’ continuum of workplace factors which provides a perspective on understanding the interaction between institutional context, workplace learning environment, and individual learning. This provides a useful vehicle for bringing together the pedagogical, organisational and cultural factors that contribute to students becoming competent qualified animal carers. Emulating the work of these writers, we sought to identify features of the Animal Care programmes that ‘‘influence the extent to which the workplace as a whole creates opportunities for, or barriers to, learning’’ (Evans et al., 2006, p. 35). In this case, the college is the institution, the department the workplace of teachers and for considerable portion of the timetable, the workplace of students. For the teachers on the payroll, affordances for learning were available not just through annual whole college staff development days, but in varied ways which involved their interactions with learners. The Animal Care departments, Equine Studies centres and farms are important learning sites physically located on two rural college campuses. Courses delivered are typical of those within the contemporary vocational curriculum of UK Further Education and range from a very basic level 1 pet shop management course to a more advanced, Higher National Certificate (HNC) course which successfully completed might enable its holder to enter a degree programme in a university. The college farms are working ones with cattle, sheep and pigs. The learning opportunities and affordances for developing practical skills and knowledge in such non-simulated contexts were recognised by staff and students alike. Key expansive factors identified by the teaching staff as being formative to their own professional development were the opportunities to handle exotics and creatures brought in by students or donated by breeders. ‘‘We had two bearded dragons donated recently and we all set to and did research and boned up on its needs. It was a genuine find out task for all of us-students and staff alike. I just didn’t know the detail and it was good for the class to realise that I didn’t know [.] to see that teachers don’t always have a monopoly on the knowledge.’’ (Tracey, newly qualified teacher, College A) That knowledge is distributed, out there to be found, discovered or even created and disseminated [in animal care log books,
74
J. Salisbury, M. Jephcote / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 71–81
student seminar presentations and assignments], was a powerful message that teachers in both departments conveyed. In particular, Kim emphasised this to her students with considerable regularity. ‘‘You will each share your findings and we can build up an evidence file and handbook for handling this species.’’ [.] ‘‘We’ll all spend some find out time on this. You can do a poster or if you prefer a briefing sheet and get it laminated. It can then go up in the unit [reptile house].’’ (Kim, Teacher, College A) Reflecting upon syllabus items they were required to cover, teachers spoke of ‘‘find out tasks,’’ researching developmental needs, breeding and nutrition. The animal care students came to see that they often had valid and relevant knowledge and expertise acquired through hobbies and part-time work. Students after a term of ten weeks recognised that ‘‘its not all in the books’’ and that information seeking and interviewing animal experts not only helped them find out facts but also develop communication skills and provide evidence for the ‘‘Working with Others Key Skills portfolio’’ required in the UK by most vocational programmes of study. As departmental communities students and staff also participated in local agricultural or animal shows, regional competitions and even Crufts – the UK annual televised dog breed competition. All of these opportunities and events were referred to in terms of affordances for learning – albeit in different vocabularies. ‘‘The Riverbank summer agricultural show at the Country Park showground is always brilliant. Last year’s students told us about it and we saw the photos.We have a stand, a big tent and we are responsible for everything to do with the event. We do handling demonstrations, explain the course syllabus, we make posters. We have a rota for talking to the public.’’ (Kayleigh 17, student College B) Evan Jones and others in his cohort (who participated in focus groups) agreed with their teachers on the need for a mix of learning experiences. Teachers referred to the balance between ‘‘theory work or off the job training’’ and ‘‘inside college on-thejob’’ training as well as the learning that derived from work undertaken outside college on-the-job training. The latter was achieved through mandatory work experience, part-time employment and voluntary work. For some students who were keen to build up their curriculum vitaes, all three elements enabled them to generate evidence for their course work portfolios and clock up ‘‘working hours’’ which were counter signed and verified by employers. Chart 1 presented below summarises three learning
contexts which are recognised by students and teachers as situations in which learning occurs. It is increasingly recognised that learning will take place in different contexts, spaces and situations and is unlikely to be provided by a single training or learning provider (Cross, 2006). There have been some moves to recognise informal learning though most effort in the European Union has been focussed on how to assess and certify it. While skills-building approaches to vocational subjects tend to focus upon the provision of formal skills-based training, accounts of ‘situated learning’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) focus upon how tacit forms of knowledge and skill are acquired. Lave and Wenger propose that the initial participation in a community of practice can be looking on from the outer edge or periphery, what they term ‘‘legitimate peripheral participation’’ (LPP). Here the participant, a novice, moves from the role of observer, as learning and observation in the culture increase, to a fully functioning member. The progression towards fuller participation helps the learner to piece together the culture and establish their identity. ‘‘Knowing is inherent in the growth and transformation of identities and it is located among practitioners, their practice, the artefacts of that practice, and the social organisation.of communities of practice.’’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 122) Animal care students through legitimate peripheral participation in departmental ‘communities of practice’ (COP) learn in real work-based activities. As novices they learn through ‘doing’ with expert guidance, the focus on learning is linked to the everyday working practices of the Animal Care Unit or Farm or Equestrian Centre rather than solely upon formal classroom provision. Task based learning in which the students are given explicit tasks (requiring research and application) allow them to contextualise knowledge, apply it, while at the same time developing skills of critical appraisal and adaptability (O’Hallorhan, 2001). We maintain that new students joining the animal care department of their college can begin to absorb and enact the often taken for granted features of animal care work by working alongside and collaborating with others. Teachers, technicians, students just one year ahead of the beginner, and also those in the same cohort, provide a social setting which scaffolds learning. This environment facilitates and supports the development of a shared set of norms, values, and social practices for caring about animals. Lave and Wenger insist that legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) is not itself an educational form, much less a pedagogical strategy or a teaching technique.
Chart 1 Learning, training and working: spaces, places and topics. Learning and training
Location space and place
Learning topic/training activity/work roles & activity
‘‘Theory work, assignment work, folder work or off the job training’’
Classrooms, Learning Resource Centres [LRCs], Libraries, Micro-labs/computing suites
Inside ‘‘college on-the-job’’ training Work based
Small animal care unit, Exotics house, Reptile house and Aquarium Equine stables, The Farm
Outside of college, on-the-job training.
Work experience or part-time employment or voluntary work in :VET Practice, Deer Parks, Animal Rescue Centres, Pet shops, Reptile Centres, Grooming Parlours, Catteries & Kennels
E.g. 1. Central nervous system of Mammals [lecture, & electronic white board visual aids] 2. Tuberculosis & badger culling [formal debate] 3. Parasites [lecture with electronic white board visual aids & microscope study] E.g. 1. Cleansing out and setting up the calving or lambing pens 2.Taking rectal temperature readings of a horse 3. Binding a horse’s lower leg 4. Weighing and measuring exotics e.g. iguanas and snakes E.g. 1. Assisting a vet in cat neutering surgery 2. Canine micro chipping of cats and dogs 3. Clipping dogs’ fur and de lousing domestic pets
J. Salisbury, M. Jephcote / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 71–81
‘‘It is an analytic viewpoint on learning, a way of understanding learning.learning through LPP takes place no matter which educational form provides a context for learning, or whether there is any intentional educational form at all. Indeed, this viewpoint makes a fundamental distinction between learning and intentional instruction.’’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 40) Experiential learning or learning by participation is regarded by some as an inadequate model which does not fully account for the complexities of ‘‘becoming’’ a skilled and knowledgeable doer, in this particular case – animal carer. Recent critics have found the Lave and Wenger concepts ‘‘slippery and elusive’’ (Barton & Tusting, 2005, p. 5) for various reasons. Flores Timmons (2007) considers LPP as neglecting prior learning and ignoring the abilities or experiences that individuals bring to the setting that may influence their development. She problematises the way it fails to consider movement across multiple activity settings and considers the concept unhelpful in understanding the individual trajectories of learner teachers who tack back and forth between placements and formal classrooms experiencing tensions and cultural conflicts. Tusting has argued that social practices approaches struggle to account for how communities might change due to participation by newcomers: ‘‘much more attention is given to how these processes maintain communities in existence than to how communities themselves change’’ (Tusting, 2005, p. 44). Lave and Wenger’s LPP and COP concepts have, despite some caveats, served as an analytical framework for exploring learning in a number of contexts. Tilley (2003) used LPP to analyse the learning experiences of a researcher and transcriber which resulted from their co-participation on a research project about incarcerated women. In a riveting auto-ethnography the anthropologist Watson-Gegeo (2005) describes how patient communities in a medical clinic and its environmentally controlled condos were locuses of situated cognition and learning. She asserts that the particular patient experience is classic example of LPP and COP and a more ‘‘prototypical example than classroom learning or skill apprenticeship because patient communities were about reciprocal teaching and learning that embraced the whole person and their life experience’’ (2005, p. 410). Patients worked together to create new knowledge based on experiences and readings of medical research thereby changing and enriching the community. We now turn to a discussion of this in the next section.
3.2. Enrichment of the community of practice The annual arrival of incoming ‘‘new’’ students each September does change the community according to the accounts of teachers and their support staff. Technicians in both colleges were central to the smooth, safe running of the animal care departments and hugely knowledgeable and skilled. Like efficient hospital ward sisters, briefing the next shift of nurses, Tara and Mark appeared omnipresent, were always about ready to watch over and facilitate for the next teacher and student group. Busy checking food supplies, tending to freezers of dead rats, organising cleansing and monitoring temperatures with vigilance, they were easily approachable. As front line members of the departmental community, the technicians got to know the students very quickly indeed. ‘‘Our intake always has a few surprises. Some turn up with far better GCSEs [3] [qualifications] than their school references had predicted back last March. Then you find out that someone’s actually quite experienced or has just bought a vivarium, or has been volunteering in a deer park or reservation or something.’’ (Tara 40, Technician, College A)
75
‘‘As teachers we have to deliver some serious inputs. There’s a syllabus to follow and course work to get covered. Its busy from day one and there is a lot for them to learn about and learn how to do. But, I can honestly say that as a staff we are also learning too. Yes from them!’’[.] (Tracy, newly qualified teacher, College A) ‘‘It sounds odd but some of the best staff development – for me personally-comes from the students. The know how and facts that many of them bring here to share with us all is truly amazing.’’ (Mary Jarvis, HOD/Teacher College B) Young people can be teachers and learners as the fieldwork in both departments quickly revealed. Unwin (2003) has already challenged the usefulness of the novice expert dichotomy. Clearly this is an oversimplification which fails to capture the more nuanced learning journeys of teachers and their students. Lave and Wenger suggest that all learning is situated and the skills are acquired in the process of participating with an expert. The expert ‘‘hat’’ may, we argue, shift quite frequently amongst students, teachers and technicians. Teachers and technicians, though on different salary grades and with different job specifications, were, it appeared, equally knowledgeable about the animals, and the syllabus course work required of students. Both sets of staff were involved in setting up conditions for formative and summative assessments. This was emphasised by both heads of department who readily acknowledged the centrality of the technician role in supporting specialist learning. ‘‘Mark is a gifted teacher. I use the term deliberately because, though he is paid at technician grade, he is an expert and is really deployed as a tutor here. The Animal Centre would not function without him – he knows and we know this. He walks miles in the snow at week ends to check generators are working and that the temperatures are safe. He is dedicated. The students regard him as a teacher.’’ (Head of Department, Mary Jarvis, College B) Occupational labels can be misleading indicators of the knowledge, skill and learning experience of workers in an organisation (Felstead, 2008). In the British FE sector there has been a proliferation of job titles which characterise practitioners’ work (e.g. lecturer, teacher, tutor, key skills co-ordinator, work-based assessor) but as recent research has demonstrated, duties undertaken and expertise shared are frequently not captured in the job description and actual work undertaken (see James & Biesta, 2007). In-depth observational fieldwork and interviews with teachers and students alerted us to the ways existing communities of practice in the two animal care departments were responsive to the newly arriving students. 3.2.1. Induction socialisation and joining a community of practice Successful socialisation into the student role would combat attrition and help maintain sound retention figures, was a strong belief held by the staff. Teachers recognised this phase of transition from school as having the potential to be ‘‘pessimistic’’ (Ball, 1980; Salisbury & Jephcote, 2008). Furthermore this separate phase was viewed as enabling students to begin to embrace an identity as a student of a particular course or programme. Animal care students wore with pride, lab coats, waterproof gear (College A) and sweat shirts and polo shirts with departmental logos embroidered on them (College B). Students interviewed individually and in focus groups did not report any shortcomings in their access to situated forms of learning but valued them. Writing in their structured learning journals they stated what they believed worked for them as
76
J. Salisbury, M. Jephcote / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 71–81
learners in response to the writing frame stimulus question: ‘‘How do you think you learn best?’’ ‘‘By watching the teachers and students do it. For e.g. Washing and shampooing a ferret and using a hair dryer to dry it. I like having it demonstrated to me and to have at least two goes before I get assessed.’’ (Male 18 college A) ‘‘Hands-on practicals and doing shared tasks with partners or small groups’’ (Female 17 college B) ‘‘Having it explained to me individually especially if its difficult theory stuff. I tend to panic if I don’t get it first time round and I don’t want to look like rem.’’[i.e., remedial or slow learning pupil] (Male 17 college A) ‘‘When I have to do a presentation to the class I have to select what I want to say then I learn it. I find that this really helps me. I like teaching the others.’’ (Female 19 college B) (Source: Sample of extracts from students’ Learning Journals) The teachers spoke tentatively of a ‘‘hands-on skill building’’ or ‘‘practical approach to support the theory’’ with one technician describing animal care students as having ‘‘something like a loose sort of apprenticeship with lots of mundane jobs alongside the really exciting stuff.’’ Across the data sets overall, there was a privileging of the practical and a strong sense in which different forms of knowledge and skill learning ‘‘are embedded’’ in the everyday practices characteristic of the work of the animal care unit, the farm, the stables and the wider college organisation within which these sections are located. So powerful were the informants’ sense of approval and claims for ‘‘situated learning’’ and learning as participation that Howard Becker’s (1972) argument that ‘‘school is a lousy place to learn anything in’’ is somewhat undermined. The affordances of college-based real work in authentic sites for learning is clear from student and teacher accounts. A particular consensuality prevailed in both departments whereby staff went to great pains to ‘‘look after’’ the students they had recruited for interview and finally selected as suitable for their programmes of study. Put differently, heads of section, teaching and technical staff invested time and effort in nurturing the ‘‘whole student’’ (Salisbury et al., 2008). A later section which uses student vignettes illustrates the strategies that concerned and caring animal care staff used and the actions they took to support, protect and nurture ‘‘at risk’’ students. 4. Language in use in communities of practice 4.1. Consenuality, inclusion, camararderie The ethnographic observations conducted in the two animal care departments revealed the sense of community and shared responsibility engendered by teachers the ways in which they spoke to students, issued instructions and explained activities. Relistening to and coding the audio recorded interviews enabled us to hear and note particularly distinctive features of talk. Unlike Edwards and Westgate (1987) and the education researchers they discuss, we did not set out to ‘‘investigate classroom talk’’ or to conduct socio linguistic analysis. Rather the members’ terms, vocabularies and modes of expression were captured alongside other phenomena during observations. In talking about teaching and student learning opportunities and in their interactions with students the language used by teachers was inclusive and peppered with ‘‘our’’ and ‘‘we’’. This was a noticeable feature of Animal Care in comparison with other vocational courses such as Construction Studies or Engineering
where staff instructed the students using more direct imperatives: ‘‘You must now draw a cross section through the right angled joint to show what is going on inside the conduit piping’’ and ‘‘each pair must sign out the theodolyte gear before you go off to do the survey, its college equipment and costly!’’ In contrast to this, Animal Care staff spoke about the livestock and equipment in such a way as to convey a kind of collective ownership amongst students. This also fostered a sense of responsibility in the students who undertook the more mundane duties readily and in general, without any complaint. Rotas for mucking out stables, animal pens and tanks were deemed equitable and accepted as norms and part of what most jobs with animals would involve. ‘‘Ok people, listen up. Boiler suits and wellies [rubber Wellington boots] on now. We are going across to the farm and we are going to tackle the pens and set them up with bedding for the next lot of calving. See you over there in 10 min. Get your shovels, your pitch forks and set up two hoses.’’ [.15 mins later.] Students have donned flowery Wellington boots and waterproof over trousers or boiler suits. Teacher arrives and is indistinguishable from her group except that she has a clip board with a rota list which divides the labour; ‘‘Evan and Jess, fetch our wheel barrows. Tim and Jody go and get four yard brushes – we’ve got new ones – don’t bring the old ones!’’ [our italics] (Fieldnotes: Kitting up and mucking out on the farm, Tracey, teacher, College A) A team spirit was evident in both animal care departments and a sense of camaraderie around learning and working together prevailed in both. Co-participation was the norm for the majority of academic and practical activities. The courses were structured to manage effectively a division of participation which provided for growth on the part of the student. Rotas, charts and lists of responsibilities, project deadlines and dates for paired student presentations made students aware of expectations and work loads. Equipment was routinely washed and stored appropriately and though occasional water fights and antics with hose pipes occurred after farm work, the staff seldom nagged or criticised their students about this: ‘‘If the work has been done, what’s the harm in allowing 5 minutes of fun? A laugh and bit of fun helps the group relationships. I sometimes join in and they love that!’’ (Tracy 28, Teacher, College A) In College B notice boards sometimes displayed posters and bulletins about animals which had given birth and warned students of imminent deliveries and likely dates where they might see young species arrive. Students were described by Mark (the technician) as behaving like ‘‘expectant fathers who keep popping in during lunch and coffee breaks for progress updates!’’ The learning cultures across both department sites was characterised by community atmosphere resembling a family of carers and cared for. Teachers and technicians seem to foster inclusive practices – no one was left out, everyone got a chance to hold a new creature, as well as clean its abode!. 4.2. Anthropomorphism A fascinating feature of ‘‘classroom talk’’ common to both departments was the way in which animals were discussed by students and teachers. All creatures had names. Often competitions and a vote or ballot was used to select a name. In College A these were on laminated cards attached to cages, tanks or wall surfaces and also recorded in an individualised animal log book and departmental stock book. College B staff vetoed names somewhat preferring ones that appeared to resonate for their own generation, for example: John and
J. Salisbury, M. Jephcote / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 71–81
Yoko, for a pair of spotted cane toads, Hendrix for a Boa constrictor, Elvis for a cane toad rather than more contemporary pop star or celebrity names such as Madonna, Jacko or Prince. Observations in various spaces and teaching episodes revealed the attribution of human qualities, emotions and feelings to animals by students and the staff. As a community of carers practicing and learning the skills of animal husbandry, the discussion, informal and less formal talk and gossip was intriguing. A selection of extracts from field notes will suffice to illustrate this point and these are presented in Chart 2. Perspectives on the animal mind research in learned journals like Biology and Philosophy (see Keeley, 2004) address ethical debates on the appropriateness of attributing human qualities and characteristics to animal species. Anthropomorphism is discussed as a problematic and increasingly permeating feature of the ways animals are presented in zoos and animal theme parks. Davis (1997) in her detailed ethnographic analysis of Sea World in USA refers to the ‘‘Disneyfication’’ of wild animals trained to perform human-like actions via Skinnerian operant conditioning. A number of scholars from different disciplines have written critically about the tendency for anthropomorphic talk to both oversimplify and actually misinterpret animal behaviour (Horowitz & Bekoff, 2007; Keeley, 2004; Skipper, 2004). Animal Care departments in the current study were quite clearly contributing to and perpetuating this form of talk and socialising students into this mode (Fig. 1). 5. Peer support and teacher empathy with learners inside the community of practice The community of learners practicing animal care under the tutelage of staff was forged and made solid because of the latter’s patience and resourcefulness. Teacher’s abilities to empathise and understand students’ personal and domestic situations were commonly reported to the researchers during interviews and observational fieldwork in many subject programmes not least Animal Care. One 32 year old male student of Animal Care, Joe described himself as ‘‘severely dyslexic’’ at interview and in subsequent informal chats. [.] In the library I sit with the three Animal Care students who have set about their task to find some good diagrams of a dog’s
77
Fig. 1. Student struggling to measure the length of a ‘‘frisky’’ Iguana, hormonal.
innards. They are well focussed, pouring over and flicking through six books. They and stop to compare different ink drawings with more colourful glossy anatomical illustrations. Joe makes a good point, ‘‘the coloured one is really good but don’t forget we’ve got to draw it so the line drawing is better.’’ Others agree. Amy suggests that the labelling is more detailed in the coloured photograph and suggests ‘‘Why don’t we draw the simplified pic and put in all the labels we can from the other ones?’’ All agree that teacher will be ‘‘well impressed’’. Joe pipes up, ‘‘Will you lot check my spellings again ’cos Mary [teacher] says it’s a good idea? She knows that when you’re copying down from books it can come out wrong because she’s dyslexic too. She always gets someone to check her diagrams.’’ Amy teases Joe saying that she will, but only if he buys her a bar of chocolate! [.] Joe explains to me later over coffee that ‘‘Mary tells us all that she’s dyslexic too! I don’t feel so bad about the stuff I hand in then, she understands.’’[.] (Field note extract, Animal care session, College B)
Chart 2 Instances of Anthropomorphism in student and teacher talk. Situation/space
Utterance/talk
1. An Iguana, Ziggy, has been removed from her floor level walk- in space[2m 3m] by a student using gentle movements with gauntleted hands. Ziggy roams freely around the Exotics unit floor. 2. Formal classroom with U seating layout. Two ferrets run furiously and freely across desks and through 2 m long cardboard tunnels (acquired from a carpet warehouse). Lesson is on habitats.
‘‘Ziggy is hormonal and she’ll flail her tail if you invade her space. Teacher (f 36) who is supervising the weekly She is really antisocial at the moment take care there! observations which include practicals:- measuring She is moody – note that in your observations.’’ weighing and cleansing the habitat. College A ‘‘Blondie is so destructive and shows off wicked Student (f 17) who has in previous lesson hour when she’s been blow dried’’. de -musked and washed, shampooed and used a hair dryer on the frisky ferret for an official formal assessment. College A ‘‘He won’t come out if he knows we are all watching. Student (m 17) Talking to researcher, a friend and Will you ?.You needs a girl friend to make the frog during class observational and feeding some nippers with don’t you ?’’ session. College B Student (m 25) ‘‘Ziggy needs a fuck. She’s lonely and needs Speaks to peers then following a jab in the back some real lurving up!’’ from a friend apologises to researcher for swearing. College A ‘‘ He’s a real beauty but once he’s had his fill Students (f 17 and f 18) he’s bound to disobey. Discussing the horse Jasper’s No one can go on eating can they? Its like me compliance and rewards and both empathising with a curry on a Friday night.’’ with him. ‘‘He’s called Jasper. Yep. No one can force him to eat. College B I don’t blame him if he does a runner. He’s eaten tons of those nuts, he must be feeling sick.’’
3. Exotics Hot Room. 12 students with clip boards write up brief observational notes and circulate around each tank and before feeding routines begin. 4. Ziggy the iguana is not eating. Students are in discussion and comparing their data and record sheets on her for past week. 5. Horse indoor paddock/hangar. A guest demonstrator ‘‘Horse psychologist’’ with Clicker device and bum bag [fanny bag] of pony nuts is demonstrating classical conditioning. Horse owners, equine studies specialists and animal care students have come together for guest demonstration.
By teacher or student
78
J. Salisbury, M. Jephcote / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 71–81
Teachers shared with small groups and individuals aspects of their biographies and disclosed matters about themselves as ‘‘late learners’’ who returned to study as mature students with families or as ‘‘dyslexic learners’’. The uniting glue between staff and students was an overtly declared passion for animals. After temporarily dropping out of her course for half a term because of inadequate child care arrangements for her two year old daughter, Donna a single mother received advice and financial support to scaffold her re-entry into the programme. The department head, teaching staff and dedicated ‘‘inclusion officer’’ at College B collaborated to find a ‘‘a pot of gold’’ or European funding for widening participation. This enabled her to place her toddler in a super ‘‘state of the art’’ cre`che. The funding also freed up cash for Donna to pay for herself to train in domestic pet micro chipping. As an outcome and before she had completed the second year of her studies this student was ‘‘demonstrating the technical gear to other students and staff and earning from a lucrative part-time business!’’ Donna had business cards and publicity pamphlets advertising her micro chipping service and was fulsome in her praise for teacher and technician who ‘‘could have let me disappear but really sorted me out.’’ ‘‘I just could not have done it without Mary’s and Mark’s help. I left and they chased me and the rest is history! I am now a business woman and want to eventually set up a kennels!’’ (Donna, 19 student, College B) College B animal care staff also ‘‘rescued’’ a homeless student who was sleeping rough in an abandoned car. The pastoral duties were significant and teachers ‘‘cared’’ for their often needy students in ways which would help them not only continue as students but function in their outside lives also. The individual vignettes presented below which are constructed from the interview, journal and observational data sets illustrate this:
Matt Rees 34 part-time student. Brief biographic vignette: A nurse for physically disabled or mental ill health patients doing lots of night shifts. Matt is a passionate keeper of snakes, has two sons but limited access to them and un civil relations with their Mum. Major conflicts at work in a local health trust led to a suspension then dismissal. He is currently ‘‘sacked’’ and unemployed and very preoccupied about the scenarios which escalated at work. Matt is appealing against unfair dismissal. [allegations of using a fireman’s lift for carrying a patient etc]. Four months into his course, Matt was homeless and sleeping rough in car when a girl friend chucked him out. He was most distressed and had to have a police escort to collect his snakes from her house. Very stressful and demoralised at this time. At second interview Matt was registered unemployed and conscripted to a Jobseekers’ Scheme and still dreaming of a future with snakes. Ideally he would like to own a reptile shop and has done pet shop management on an earlier course. Enjoyed Mary Jones’ teaching and in particular her stories of animals as well as her use of regular short tests and quizzes. Matt enjoyed revising for these and doing well. College staff including Mary the head of department and Mark the technician think ‘‘he is a great guy’’ and took in his snakes when he was chucked out and experiencing domestic difficulties; ‘‘These were a really excellent resource for the students and expanded what we could teach’’. Matt’s records were kept ‘‘live ‘‘on file by staff so that he would be able to re enter the part-time course, access his course work marks at any point in the next five years. (Compiled from fieldnotes, interviews and journals-College B)
Similarly, Evan who won ‘‘Student of the Year’’ in 2006 at the rural campus of College A was employed by the college staff to help to prevent him getting into further debt. His expertise was impressive and he could be trusted with thousands of pounds worth of stock and specialist equipment. On two occasions Evan took the ethnographer on a guided tour of each section of the animal care unit to introduce newly acquired stock. His knowledge of diet, handling, origins, breeding and habitats were most impressive and it was clear that Evan was not participating at the periphery but a valued student member of the community of practice.
Evan Jones 17, full time student. Brief biographic vignette: Mixed GCSE examination results but achieved four passes at grade C, enough for entry to college. Evan did not like school. He mainly completes college assignments on site in Learning Resource Centre [LRC] or during classroom time. He does not have access to a computer at home. Does take some work home if deadlines loom. Adores all practical work and learns from ‘‘hands on’’. Fostered out some years ago after major family dysfunctions and violence. Lives with Grandmother at occasional week ends some eight miles away. The day before his 18th birthday in March 2007, he was told ‘‘Now we don’t get any money for you, you’ll have to leave!’’ by rather instrumental foster parents. Fears of homelessness and of his abilities to maintain studies were expressed by the close knit staff in the Animal Care unit. Doing really well at college with distinctions on majority of units[comprising different modules of study]. Earned a distinction in First Diploma in Animal Care 2005–6 and now has just completed the 1st year of First Diploma in Animal Management. Staff have rallied and tried to organise accommodation in an on-campus hostel. But this is difficult as Evan works seven evenings per week in a Fish and Chip shop [and non-waged] work experience in a pet shop on Saturday and Sunday to get enough money to pay rent and stay in his foster home. Recently he reports exhaustion, faints, and had lost weight. Evan won the 2006 Student of Year in animal care prize at the annual summer awards ceremony and now has goals set on a Higher Education course at Heatherton college in Gladstone. Teachers believe that he is ‘‘well capable of degree work provided his personal situation remains stable.he is at risk but is hugely motivated to get a career as a veterinary nurse or something!’’ His current veterinary work experience venue have offered him some paid evening hours next year assisting as a nurse because he was efficient and resourceful. Evan is so completely trusted by Animal Care staff at College A that he will is paid to feed and clean the animals each morning at the Animal Unit, throughout staff vacation periods, and has security codes and keys etc. Recent good news shared at final interview is that his social worker has organised a newly built one bedroom flat for him in Coldbrook which is to be completed by late August 2007! He is also now talking to his Mum on the telephone, ‘‘usually weekly,’’ but has a minimal social life as he is too busy now earning enough to pay for his keep [board and lodgings] (Compiled from fieldnotes, interviews and journalsCollege A)
J. Salisbury, M. Jephcote / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 71–81
Evan is an example of a student with a complex set of personal and social situations who ‘‘against all odds’’ was doing very well. He thrived in, and was a valued member of the community of practice to whom students and teachers referred on many matters. Evan had his expertise validated by wages for the part-time casual employment he was given. Lave and Wenger (1991, p. 57) see communities of practice as being engaged in the generative process of producing their own future. In this light the pastoral and learning support given to students (whatever their level of knowledge and expertise) can be seen as helping to ensure success.
6. Imagined work futures: ‘‘when I have my own dog kennels’’ In relation to future career paths, there existed significant diversity amongst the students. While some intend progressing through to foundation degree following Higher National Diplomas (HND) and possibly onto Colleges of Higher Education to specialise in animal husbandry, others were more focussed on securing employment more quickly in zoos, wildlife parks or as veterinary assistants. Accounts suggested that students had been successfully socialised into the habitus (Bourdieu, 1977) of passionate animal carers and all could see an occupational life beyond the immediate departmental community of practice in which they co-participated in learning and working. It was a norm for former students to make return visits to each department and share their narratives of employment in informal talks to current students. A significant number (n ¼ 26) of animal care students who took part in four of the focus groups and whom we knew from two years of sustained fieldwork in these settings and study programmes saw themselves as specialist animal carers. Each intended to continue working in relevant occupational settings in the longer term. ‘‘I0 m lucky to have won a place on the course here. I won’t be wasting it.’’ There was a strong sense of pride at having been selected for a limited supply of places and teachers did occasionally remind students of the applications which were rejected. ‘‘There a few people in here who are already doing well in terms of units passed and experienced gained. Not everyone wants to micro chip dogs but it is a lucrative income earner as we know from our resident expert!’’ Mary nods in the direction of Donna who has this qualification and smiles.[.] Students seem to have some business cards and promotional flyers and are looking at them in pairs and as individuals. Donna has tabled her business card which is bold and laminated. (Field note, College B) Teachers in FE have mixed occupational and academic backgrounds, some with professional qualifications, some with more ‘traditional’, ‘academic’ qualifications and some with both. As we have reported elsewhere (Jephcote & Salisbury, 2009) many: ‘drew on their occupational experiences, for example, as engineers to inform their attitudes towards teaching building studies, as nurses to inform how they taught social care and zoo keeping to illustrate a commitment to animal care as a subject of study (see Clow, 2001), and many maintained an allegiance to their former occupational identity (Robson, 1998). References to the prevalent standards in their own areas of professional practice were often used to justify their expectations of what their students should aspire to and to make clear to students when their work was below par’. Although sometimes staffed by mixed groups, departments in colleges of FE tend to be representative of what Bernstein (1996)
79
referred to as either ‘singular’ or ‘generic’ modes. Singulars, are, in the main specialist, ‘traditional’ or ‘academic’ subjects, strongly bounded with rules of entry and examinations. These include subjects such as mathematics, history, physics, and modern languages. ‘Regional’ modes, such as architecture, medicine and engineering operate in higher education, and work to recontextualize singulars ‘into larger units which operate in the intellectual field of the disciplines and of external practice’ (p. 66). However, unlike the ‘generic’ modes, that is the vocational areas that operate in FE, such as travel and tourism, catering and animal care, ‘regional’ modes enjoy high status. In contrast, ‘generic’ modes continue to be viewed in lower esteem and at their base is the concept of what Bernstein called ‘trainability’, open to political, technological, and market contingencies and, therefore constantly reformed. Borrowing from Bernstein, we suggest that teachers’ identities, and in turn, those of the students they enculturate and socialize into the community of practice, happen at the interface between individual careers and the social or collective base, arising ‘out of a particular social order, through relations which the identity enters into with other identities of reciprocal recognition, support, mutual legitimization and finally through a negotiated collective purpose’ (Bernstein, 1996, p. 73). It would seem to us that Animal Care operates as a ‘generic’ mode, enjoying none of the privileges of a ‘singular’, its knowledge base a weaker version of animal science and zoology. The indexical, anthropomorphic language used to provide an interface between teacher and learner further signifies its low status. Students on these programmes are, therefore, not destined to be veterinarians, zoologists or animal scientists, they are not being equipped with the intellectual rigors of a ‘science’ subject, but instead are likely to be consigned to more menial roles, attracting lower status and pay. Like Raissiguier’s (1994) working class female secretarial students of French and Algerian descent who find themselves vertically and horizontally segregated in vocational lycees destined for low level administration or secretarial jobs, the animal care students are likely to be ‘‘mucking out’’ in pet shops! Similarly, the catering and hotel management students depicted in Riseborough’s (1992) ethnography though upwardly aspiring, would also be likely to be engaged in mundane repetitive catering or service duties. Riseborough maintains however that the overall lived experience (of training) is an ideal preparation for work in their chosen industry and life. 7. Concluding remarks Notions of student centred learning positioned as opposite locations and locations of opposition need to be put aside according to Edwards and Usher (2000). In Pedagogy: Space, place and identity they argue that there is a need to move from a focus on teaching and learning as bounded practices to an examination of new and complex patterns of interconnectedness. Two years of sustained observational fieldwork has revealed that pedagogic spaces are not just mediated through teachers but through other social actors hitherto marginalised – learners, teaching assistants and technicians. Our research project recognises this and our qualitative data helps us to emphasise the social nature of learning and the ways students bring knowledge and expertise from outside college. Clearly, as several researchers including Felstead (2008) have recently pointed out, student characteristics, dispositions and biographies are also important influences, but in seeking to demonstrate the power of individual agency, researchers can often lose sight of the contextual factors in learning settings that combine to create particular learning cultures (James & Biesta, 2007) and generate valuable learning outcomes. The Learning and Working in Further Education Colleges (ESRC/ TLRP, 2008) research took the ethnographer into different college
80
J. Salisbury, M. Jephcote / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 71–81
campuses and a variety of subject courses over a period of two years. This generated volumes of field notes, expanded accounts, journal entries and interview transcripts from students and teachers. To date, the study provides the only detailed ethnographic investigation of further education sites in Wales and the UK more widely. What is presented here about two Animal Care departments is but the tip of an iceberg. Until further ethnographic work is carried out in such settings we will not know if the fieldwork data reported here are typical or can be generalised to other situations. Reflecting on the future of anthropology and education Singleton (1999) calls for ‘‘extending the ‘‘field’’ of fieldwork and extending studies beyond compulsory education’’. Varenne (2008) has argued that anthropologists of education must fulfil their public role as legitimate participants in the conversations about understanding and transforming schooling and could do this by focussing on what people do to educate themselves outside the constraints constituting the problematics of schooling. Ethnographic work such as Fine’s (1996) on kitchens and chefs is a relevant example of research which embraces occupational work-based learning. Indeed Fine’s detailed findings on how restaurants work and how chefs learn to adapt and cope resonates with things observed in Animal care departments. Like chefs concerned about the consequences of ‘‘falling behind on backup sour cream and tartare sauce’’ (Fine, 1996, p. 22), the animal care students were very mindful of stock control and breeding enough insects, crickets and flies and keeping freezers well loaded with dead rats and various specialist feed items. Failure to prepare the correct proportions and mixes of nutrients for the various creatures would have serious consequences resulting in their illness or death and subsequent financial repercussions arising in replacement costs. The paper has served to celebrate the cultural uniqueness of college animal care departments and portrayed them as arena where ‘‘novice to expert’’ trajectories are less predictable and linear. They are also spaces where teachers and students collaborate and co-participate in sharing and developing knowledge and skills. The research alerted us to the need for an even closer analysis of the ways in which different college organisations and their subject departments provide expansive learning environments for students and staff or indeed, whether their set-ups/organisational relations are restrictive and hinder and limit the development of these. The paper makes no claims for conceptual advance rather it uses meso level theory as an heuristic. Lave and Wenger’s (1991) twin concepts COP and LPP were used originally to help make sense of situated learning in apprenticeship and other non-formal learning contexts. We believe these still have mileage and are relevant analytic concepts for understanding the learning and working of students and teachers in Animal Care departments. We suggest that these ideas probably have wider application to other vocational programmes of study in compulsory schooling and those in contemporary further and higher education. We argue here that when teachers recognise the distributed expertise and knowledge of their students and staff, embrace this to foster co-participation in both theoretical tasks and practical work and nurture student’s confidence, effective COPs result. Our evidence allows us to refute Becker’s (1972) claim that ‘‘school is a lousy place to learn anything in.’’ The college-based learning we have described with its affordances for authentic, real work tasks and co-participation in a nurturing, inclusive departmental community, quite clearly contributed to positive learner identities. 8. Notes 1. Colleges of Further Education in the UK are similar to institutes of Technical and Further Education in Australia and, to a lesser extent, Community Colleges in North America.
2. Pseudonyms are used for all staff, students and their ‘‘named’’ animals to provide anonymity for participants. 3. A note on Qualifications: GCSEs are General Certificates of Secondary Education which pupils take at the end of compulsory schooling at around age 16 years. A GCSE examination is available in a wide range of subjects reflecting the National Curriculums in England and Wales. Acknowledgement 1. The paper arises out of an ESRC funded research project Learning and Working in Further Education in Wales which is part of the Economic and Social Research Council’s Teaching and Learning Research Programme [ESRC/TLRP] Gareth Rees and John Roberts were members of the research team. 2. We are indebted to the participating colleges whose management, teaching staff and students who have shared experiences. In particular we wish to thank those Animal Care staff who opened their classrooms, reptile houses, stables and barn doors and occasionally shared Wellington boots and lab coats. 3. We are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers and editor who provided constructive comments on an earlier version of the paper.
References Ball, S. J. (1980). Initial encounters in the classroom and the process of establishment. In P. Woods (Ed.), Pupil strategies (pp. 257–259). London: Croom Helm. Banks, M. (2001). Visual methods in social research. London: Sage. Banks, M. (2008). Using visual data in social research. London: Sage. Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond communities of practice. Language, power and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bates, I. (1990). No roughs and no really brainy ones": the interaction between family background, gender and vocational training on a BTEC national fashion design course. Journal of Education and Work, 4(1), 79–90. Bates, I. (1991). Closely observed training: an exploration of links between social structures, training and identity. International Studies in the Sociology of Education, 1(1&2). 225–243. Becker, H. (1972). ‘‘School is a lousy place to learn anything in" American behavioral scientist. reproduced. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), (1995) Howard Becker on education (pp. 85–105). Buckingham: Open University Press. Becker, H., Geer, B., Hughes, E., & Strauss, A. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in a medical school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. BERA. (2004). Revised ethical guidelines for educational research 2004. Nottingham: British Education Research Association. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor and Francis. Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2000). Focus groups in social research. London: Sage. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bryman, A., & Burgess, R. G. (Eds.). (1994). Analysing qualitative data. London: Sage. Clayton, A. (2008). You can’t do that in a salon!: An ethnographic study of a vocational course. Unpublished MSc dissertation. Cardiff University. Clow, R. (2001). ‘Further education teachers’ constructions of professionalism. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 53(3), 407–419. Cross, J. (2006). Informal learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance. New York: Pffeifer. Davis, F. (1977). Professional socialisation as subjective experience; the doctrinal conversion among student nurses. In C. Cox, & A. Mead (Eds.), A sociology of medical practice (pp. 116–131). London: Collier Macmillan. Davis, S. G. (1997). Spectacular nature: Corporate culture and the sea World experience. London: University of California Press. Delamont, S., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Fighting familiarity: Essays on educational ethnography. New Jersey: Hampton. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act. New York: McGraw-Hill. Edwards, A., & Westgate, D. P. G. (1987). Investigating classroom talk. Lewes: Falmer Press. Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (2000). Pedagogy: space, place and identity. London: Routledge Falmer. Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (2001). Participant observation and fieldnotes. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 352–368). London: Sage. ESRC. (2005). Research ethics framework. Swindon: ESRC.
J. Salisbury, M. Jephcote / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 71–81 ESRC/TLRP. (2008). TLRP research briefing no 52 : Inside further education: The social context of learning. Swindon: ESRC. Evans, K., Hodkinson, P., Rainbird, H., & Unwin, L. (2006). Improving workplace learning. London: Routledge. Felstead, A. (2008). TLRP research briefing no 55: Improving working as learning. Swindon: ESRC. Fine, G. A. (1996). Kitchens: The culture of restaurant work. California: University of California Press. Flores Timmons, M. (2007). Navigating contradictory communities of practice in learning to teach for social justice. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(4), 380–402. Fordham, S. (1996). Blacked out: Dilemmas of race, identity, and success at capital high. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2004). Expansive learning environments. Integrating organisational and personal development. In A. Fuller, H. Rainbird, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 126–144). London: Routledge. Fuller, A., Unwin, L., Felstead, A., Jewson, N., & Kakavelakis, K. (2007). Creating and using knowledge: an analysis of the differentiated nature of workplace learning environments. in. British Educational Research Journal, 33(5), 743–761. Geer, B. (Ed.). (1972). Learning work. Beverley Hills: Sage. Gleeson, D., & James, D. (2007). Professionality in FE learning cultures. In D. James, & G. Biesta (Eds.), Improving learning cultures in further education (pp. 126–140). London: Routledge. Guile, D., & Lucas, N. (1999). Rethinking initial teacher education and professional development. In A. Green, & N. Lucas (Eds.), FE and lifelong learning: Realigning the sector for the twenty-first century (pp. 113–138). London: Institute of Education University of London. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles and practice (2nd edition). London: Routledge. Horowitz, A. C., & Bekoff, M. (2007). Naturalizing anthropomorphism: behavioral ¨s, 20, 23–36. prompts to our humanizing of animals. Anthrozoo James, D., & Biesta, G. (2007). Improving learning cultures in further education. London: Routledge. Jephcote, M., & Salisbury, J. (2005). Entering the field: Researching further education. Cardiff University School of Social Sciences. Project Working Paper No. 1: accessed at www.furthereducation.org. Jephcote, M., & Salisbury, J. (2009). Further education teachers’ accounts of their professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(7), 966–972. Jephcote, M., Salisbury, J., & Rees, G. (2009). ‘The learning journey students’ experiences of further education in Wales. Contemporary Wales, 22(1), 141–157. Keeley, B. (2004). Anthropomorphism, primatomorphism, mammalomorphism: understanding cross species comparisons. Biology & Philosophy, 19(4), 521–540. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Menter, I., & McNally, J. (2009). Teacher learning and development in the UK. Special Issue. International Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(7). Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
81
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. New York: Teachers’ College Press. O’Hallorhan, D. (2001). Task based learning: a way of promoting transferable skills. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 53(1), 101–120. Prior, L. (2003). Using documents in social research. London: Sage. Raissiguier, C. (1994). Becoming women, becoming workers: Identity formation in a French vocational school. New York: New York State University Press. Riseborough, G. (1992). "The cream team": an ethnography of BTEC national diploma (catering and hotel management) students in a tertiary college. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 13(2), 215–245. Robson, J. (1998). A profession in crisis: status, culture and identity in the further education college. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 50(4), 585–607. Salisbury, J., & Jephcote, M. (2008). Initial encounters of an FE kind. Research in Post Compulsory Education, 13(2), 149–162. Salisbury, J. and Jephcote, M. (2009). Interviews, participant journals, observations and focus groups: The affordances of using multiple methods for the study of students and teachers’. Paper presented at the Annual EDUlearn Conference. Barcelona 6–8th July. Salisbury, J., Jephcote, M., & Roberts, J. (2008). FE teachers talking about learning. Research Papers in Education, 23(1), 1420–1446. Sanjeck, R. (Ed.). (1990). Fieldnotes: The makings of anthropology. New York: Cornell University Press. Scott, J. (1991). A matter of record: Documentary analysis in social research. London: Sage. Skeggs, B. (1986). Gender reproduction and further education: domestic apprenticeships. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 9(2), 131–149. Skipper, B. L. (2004). Perspectives on the animal mind. Biology & Philosophy, 19(4), 483–487. Singleton, J. (1999). Reflecting on the reflections: where did we come from? Where are we going? Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30(4), 455–459. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Tilley, S. A. (2003). Transcription work: learning through co participation in research practices. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(6), 835–851. Tusting, K. (2005). Language and power in communities of practice. In D. Barton, & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice. Language, power and social context (pp. 36–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Unwin, L. (2003). Young people as teachers and learners in the workplace: challenging the novice-expert dichotomy. Paper presented at the Annual European educational research association. University of Hamburg, September 2003. Valli, L. (1985). Becoming clerical workers. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Varenne, H. (2008). Culture, education, anthropology. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 39(4), 356–368. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2005). Journey to the ‘‘new normal’’ and beyond: reflections on learning in a community of practice. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(4), 399–424. Weiss, L. (1985). Between two Worlds. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.