Two Distinct Conceptions of Apprenticeship

• In Event: Roundtable Session 4
  In Roundtable Session: Preparation for Working Life: Utilizing Workplace Experiences to Support Initial Occupational Preparation

Abstract

Purpose: This paper examines two distinct conceptions of the apprentice mode of learning occupational knowledge (i.e. close guidance versus personally mediated approaches to learning) and considers aspects of their applicability for initial occupational preparation in contemporary times and workplace requirements. That is, to evaluate models of occupational preparation that, by degree, include experiences in workplace and educational settings, but necessarily need to secure capacities that cannot be premised on those experiences alone. Hence, as apprenticeship models of learning become increasingly discussed and applied it is important to elaborate these two distinct approaches and appraise their applicability for contemporary purposes.

Perspective: Apprenticeships and apprenticeship mode of learning are much discussed. Current conceptions of apprenticeship are often those associated with a novice, usually a young person, being guided in their learning of occupational skills by a more experienced practitioner (e.g. tradesperson). In this conception, it is often the relationship between the more and less experienced individuals which is central to help apprenticeship progresses and what might constitute its effect enactment. However, another view of apprenticeship is that which arises from the original meaning of the term. A key differences with the contemporary account is that rather than being closely associated with (i.e. dependent upon) a more experienced practitioner, this conception positions apprentices’ learning in ways as highly interdependent with the physical and social environment in which they work and learn, but not being directly guided by more experienced practitioners. Given the distinct emphases in these two accounts their particular characteristics and qualities need to be understood.

Method: The method adopted comprised a review of literature from historical, anthropological, and educational sources that addressed the development of occupational capacities through practices in Early Imperial China, Central Asian, Japanese, Hellenic Greece and European countries. This approach used resources, accounts and records to identify the kinds of skills required to be learnt and means of their learning across human history in the past 5000 years. These findings were juxtaposed against what is proposed as models in contemporary schooled societies, and required to be learnt for contemporary workplace requirements.

Findings: A key finding was the need to reconsider the orthodoxy of a reliance on ‘taught’ or closely guided approaches to the initial development of occupational capacities when discussing apprenticeships and also emphasise active learning as a central tenet of this approach. These considerations extend to positioning and preparing learning to apprehend the knowledge they need to learn and actively engage in processes that support that learning. Central here is the role of personal epistemologies, and individuals’ epistemological practices. Yet, given the requirements of contemporary work cannot be learnt through discovery and apprehension alone, how pedagogic practices in both work and educational settings might need to be enacted to secure learning outcomes that will struggle to be realised through discovery and mimetic processes alone.

Significance: The propositions here question some of the orthodoxies and assumptions that underpin the contemporary discussions about apprenticeship mode of learning, and offers a different perspective. Also, by going beyond the orthodoxy, new ways of advancing this mode of learning can be considered.

Author

• Stephen Richard Billett, Griffith University