https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-75902020000100064

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/143861469.pdf

Here are few links that shows the three concept based learning examples and discussion in modern education .

Workplaces are where much, if not most, of the learning for work and working lives, and is therefore central to human resource development (HRD). Over the past two decades, when interviewing workers from a range of occupations about how they learn through and for work, consistently they described it being premised upon: i) engagement in work activities, ii) observing and listening and iii) ‘just being in the workplace’ (Billett 1994, 2001, 2008). These findings were recently supported again in national study of how workers maintain their employability and secure advancement across their working lives (Billett et al., 2014). These premises for building and sustaining the kinds of capacities that are the focus of HRD practices seem distinct from those usually associated with intentional learning interludes in educational institutions or in training programmes and centres. Instead, most markedly, they are characterised as being initiated and realised by learners, themselves, rather than through interventions such training, training programs or mentoring by others that are the focus of much (HRD) practice. So, we need to know more about these learning processes and how they might be utilised more fully and enhanced to address workers’ and workplaces’ needs and be incorporated in and promoted through HRD practices. The first of these (i.e. engaging in work activities) can be explained through socio-cultural constructivist (Cole, 1985; Rogoff, 1990; Scribner, 1984) and cognitive accounts (Anderson, 1982; Sun, Merrill, & Peterson, 2001) of the process and outcomes of individuals’ engagement in goal-directed activities that hold learning to be the legacy of such engagements. This explanation addresses not only the development of procedural capacities (i.e. ability to achieve work goals), but also conceptual (i.e. understanding) and dispositional (i.e. values and interest) capacities that arise concurrently (Gott, 1989), as they are all deployed and changed through these processes. The explanatory bases for why workers consistently referred to ‘observing and listening’ and, in particular, ‘just being there’ in workplaces are less readily identified. References by workers to observation and listening are often associated with understanding goal states (i.e. what has to be done, achieved etc.), overall procedural responses (i.e. how it might have to be done) and how tasks are to be completed (i.e. appropriate outcomes). Therefore, if these contributions are as effective as worker-informants report, work-related learning realised through observing and listening is central to understanding and enacting (i.e. learning) work-related activities. This case is seemingly never more so, than when it is also taken as comprising supporting processes of individuals engaging in and securing increasingly mature approximations of observed goals. That is the progressive processes of developing skillfulness (Gott, 1989). These leaning processes are central to the project of HRD. Yet, rather than being the product of training programs and the like, this developmental process necessarily positions ‘observing and listening’ as being an active learning process that is initiated and exercised by those who are learners. Similarly, informants’ references to ‘just being there’ are associable with active engagement contributions to their thinking and acting (and learning) furnished by the social and physical environments in which these activities occur, as has been long suggested in anthropological accounts (Lave, Murtaugh, & de la Roche, 1984; Marchand, 2008; Pelissier, 1991). All of this suggests that as workers participate in active meaning-making processes when engaging in work activities and interactions learning of the kind prized by HRD practitioners arises. As such, these processes warrant a more comprehensive elaboration than is provided through informants’ self-reports alone. Instead, there is a need for a more informed and comprehensive explanatory account about how processes such as observation and imitation (i.e. mimesis) shape this learning, and considerations of how these can be embraced by HRD practitioners. The explanatory concerns relevant to HRD here are at least threefold. First, elaborating further the processes through which contributions from physical and social environments (e.g. workplace or training settings) shape individuals’ learning. This elaboration includes accounting for how these contributions are mediated by individuals themselves, as well as inter-personally by more informed social partners (e.g. supervisors, trainers). Second, contributions from anthropology and advances from behavioural, developmental and cognitive science together provide new concepts and evidence informing these processes of human learning and development that are relevant to the HRD project. Hence, a consideration of mimesis seems timely and can be used to inform what occurs in work settings by drawing upon these new concepts and insights. Third, given that considerations of learning of socially-derived knowledge (such as that required for occupations) are usually associated with close personal interactions with more informed partners, the processes of learning occurring outside of training program and mentoring arrangements needs to be understood, and, where appropriate, brought more centre stage when considering how learning through for and through work progresses (i.e. processes central to HRD). There is also a range of procedural considerations that are relevant to HRD. These extend to how HRD practices can more effectively support and promote workers’ learning outside of those characterised by close guidance and interactions with others. This consideration includes how worker-learners might be prepared for, engaged in, and monitored and guided when learning without close interactions by more experienced partners. Not the least of these imperatives is to re-consider an emphasis of taught processes and practices. Within contemporary ‘schooled societies’, there is an orthodoxy and privileging of direct guidance by others (as in teaching) that may diminish the legitimacy and standing of individuals’ learning outside of circumstances where they are taught, guided and supervised, which extends to labelling as ‘informal’ learning (Marsick & Watkins, 1990). In advancing its case, this paper elaborates the processes of learning through observation and imitation through and for work and promoting the concept of mimesis, through drawing on contributions from a range of disciplines. The case progresses by, first, discussing - everyday learning and mimesis – and how much, if not the majority, of learning occurs across individuals’ lives outside of direct interpersonal interactions with more informed partners. Next, the paper draws upon historical, anthropological and recent accounts from behavioural and cognitive science to elaborate more fully, the nature and effectiveness of mimetic bases of learning, including intra-psychological mediation (i.e. that within the person). In conclusion, and in setting out what might comprise foundations for a theory of mimesis at work, three sets of premises for HRD practice are advanced through accounts of: i) processes, ii) outcomes and iii) procedural implications for promoting learning in and through the circumstances of work, all of which seem relevant to HRD. Everyday workplace learning through mimesis When consideration is given to understanding and promoting human learning associated with realising worthwhile personal or social goals, such as paid work, there is a tendency to look towards how this learning can be promoted inter-personally. That is, how more informed social partners (e.g. teachers, experts, more experienced partners, supervisors or co-workers) can act to assist, support and guide individuals’ learning. Such considerations are particularly emphasised and exercised in the contemporary era where schooling and teaching is privileged and practices within educational institutions are legitimised. References to ‘schooling’, of course, extend beyond those associated with compulsory education (i.e. primary and high schools) to what occurs in colleges, universities, training rooms, corporate development programs etc where intentional learning is supported by specific educational intents, processes and instructors of some kind. The inter-personal emphasis in schooling provisions is through both unidirectional transmissions (e.g. presentation) and individuals’ bi-directional interactions with others (e.g. interactions with other workers and trainers) (Valsiner & van der Veer, 2000). Even efforts to promote individuals‘ self- directed learning are often advanced through engagement with others whose role is primarily about promoting and guiding others’ learning, variously titled as facilitators, coaches, mentors etc,. Interestingly, the exceptions here, such as engagement in more solitary critical reflection or reflexivity, tend to emphasise higher-order learning outcomes enacted intra-personally (i.e. within individual) through introspection, albeit often framed by particular purposes (e.g. reflection on practice). However, importantly, the worth of inter-personal activities and interactions is not questioned here. Given most of what needs to be learnt arises from the social world, and learning for occupations is no exception, close guidance by more informed others can be very helpful. Indeed, independent epistemological learning adventures may be unhelpful, inappropriate or even downright dangerous. Certainly, accessing social sources of knowledge through more expert or experienced partners is helpful and, at times, essential, because the knowledge would otherwise not be learnt, and is central to much of practice with HRD activities. This need was reinforced in the recent project on workers’ learning to sustain employability in which ‘learning through everyday work – individually’ was ranked the most preferred, it was followed by ‘learning through everyday work – supported by educational interventions’ (Billett et al., 2014). The contemporary apprenticeship approach to learning is also premised on the guidance of more expert and experienced others (Billett, 2011a; Rogoff, 1990), for instance. So, it is certainly the case that much of human learning arises from circumstances where others tell, teach, instruct, demonstrate, or otherwise guide individuals’ learning inter-personally, and learning for and through work are no exceptions. However, human learning of the kind required for effective work is not restricted to circumstances where it is directly and intentionally mediated by others. Instead, it is ongoing across our lives as we continuously engage in everyday conscious thinking and acting, and cognitive processes (i.e. micro-genesis or moment by moment learning) occurs both within and outside of circumstances of direct guidance. Indeed, much, and perhaps most, of learning across individuals’ working lives arises in circumstances not directly and immediately shaped by intentions of and interactions with other workers, and this appears to be the case across human history (Billett, 2014b). In an early explanation, Baldwin (1894) referred to children's observational learning leading them to identify and understand inconsistencies and ambiguities in what the social world suggested to them. That is, they engaged actively and brought critical capacities to how they construed what they experienced. Similarly, children in the second month of their lives are held to demonstrate versatility in imitation (Inhelder & Piaget, 1924). Learning the capacities required to be effective in schooling also arises in children before the age of five in the absence direct teaching and even parental engagement – realised through mimesis: observation and imitation (Kosslyn, 1980). The point here is that this interdependent form of learning is not an adult trait, but seemingly a central process through which humans of all ages engage in learning through what they experience. Indeed, Baldwin first, then Piaget and Inhelder (1924) and Vygotsky (Scribner 1985) proposed that as we think and act, we continually learn micro-genetically (i.e. through moment-by-moment processes) in response to what we experience. This response includes what we elect or are pressed to engage with, and how we direct our cognitive and sensory efforts and resources in these processes. Our responses and, hence, learning, are both shaped by and contribute to ways of knowing and knowledge that arise from our socially-shaped personal histories (i.e. ontogenies), in person-particular ways. So, rather than learning being something reserved for and privileged by experiences within educational institutions and training rooms, there alone through interpersonal engagements, it occurs continuously as individuals construe what is experienced and construct knowledge from those experiences micro-genetically. Moreover, rather than being a process of transmission, learning arises through individuals construing and constructing what they experience. This process has been described variously as securing equilibrium (Piaget, 1971), realising ontological security (Giddens, 1991) or maintaining viability (Van Lehn, 1989). Indeed, across human history, the process of learning culturally and socially-derived knowledge, such as that required for work, seems to have arisen through individuals’ engagement in everyday practices, rather than being explicitly taught by others (Billett, 2011b). Indeed, before they existed and outside of ‘schooled societies’ there is consistent evidence that close interactions of the kind referred to now as teaching are quite rare and reserved for the kinds of learning that cannot be realised through individuals’ action and discovery alone (e.g. Bunn, 1999), (Singleton, 1989). Historical and anthropological accounts consistently propose that much of the locus for this learning resides within those positioned as learners and that this is how human development has always largely occurred (e.g. Menon & Varma, 2010). As Jordan (1989) suggests: It is clear that now and for a long stretch of our evolutionary past, the overwhelming bulk of behaviours, from feeding to grooming, is and has been learnt in this way (p. 931). Yet, more personally-directed processes of construing and constructing knowledge receive relatively limited attention in the workplace learning literature. This is despite the personal mediation of what is experienced is probably the most common of learning processes (Billett, 2014a) and its reach likely extends to all circumstances and activities (including within HRD interventions and training programs). If nothing else, direct guidance occurs only relatively infrequently, whereas individuals are constantly engaged in conscious thinking and acting (i.e. learning micro genetically). Indeed, despite being a fundamental and salient learning process, mimesis (i.e. observation and imitation) rarely features in such accounts. Perhaps this is because in the current educational discourse mimesis is often seen as being associated with mindless mimicry, when it is far from that (Byrne & Russon, 1998; Tomasello, 1998). This view also says something about how processes for supporting adult learning and development have predominantly come to be considered primarily as being mediated by others. Yet, cognitive processes bringing about change (i.e. learning and or development) within individuals (i.e. intra-psychologically) are now widely accepted as orthodox within constructivist paradigms as being ongoing and active as individuals make sense of what they experience, consider and enact responses and then appraise the consequences. Not fully accounting for intra-personal processes of learning through work is particularly curious given the extensive literature form behavioural science whose theorisations inform mimesis (Byrne, 2003; Byrne & Russon, 1998; Tomasello, 1998). These accounts offer helpful concepts for understanding, explaining and, perhaps, promoting mimesis in adults as they engage in their paid work. All of these concerns are relevant and important for HRD practices, which need to be founded on informed accounts of human cognition and learning. Typically, distinctions in psychological accounts are those between how the mediation of the immediate social world (i.e. social constructivism) and individuals’ socially shaped ontogenies (i.e. individual constructivism) shape that learning. There are also ongoing deliberations about the degree to which this constructive process is a product of the organism’s (e.g. individual’s) generation of knowledge from what is experienced (i.e. empiricists’ view) and the extent to which organisms have such capacities as a biological legacy of evolution (i.e. the nativist view). Yet, doubtless few, if any, nativist accounts would claim that specific forms of knowledge, such as those required for work, arise from biological legacies. So, the HRD project needs to be informed by the ways humans construct meaning. Importantly, it seems that much of this learning process and its outcomes are person-dependent: shaped by earlier experiences and reconciliations of those experiences. The outcomes include personallyparticular and possibly idiosyncratic orderings of knowledge and its representations by and within individuals. That is, a person-particular socially-derived ontogenetic development arises through individuals’ experiences and processes of experiencing (Billett, 2009). This is not an account that positions the social and personal are being oppositional, rather viewing them as being relationally engaged. This learning is, however, directly mediated by individuals themselves, albeit set within and against the mediating milieu of the social world with its norms, forms and practices where it is experienced. Even for the most cosseted of children, ordered soldiers, tightly supervised workers and didactically taught students, learning is far from being wholly mediated by others. Whether expressed or appropriated without expression, these children, soldiers, workers and students’ learning is mediated by how they construe and construct what is suggested to them. Yet, this proposition about person-dependence does not imply some form of ‘anything-goes’ individual constructivism or highly idiosyncratic epistemological adventures, although that might potentially occur. So, whilst being person-dependent, individuals’ cognition is also shaped by sets of social norms, forms and practices in which they are immersed or saturated, as Gergen (2000) claims. For example, Harris (2007) suggests the mediaeval notion of Hell owed much to people's daily encounters with fire and burns. Social and brute facts such as these mediate individuals’ conceptions and their learning (Billett, 2009). Yet, conversely, individuals’ cognition is not a process of socialisation: merely replicating what is suggested by the social world. Not the least here, it is that this suggestion is not readily or unambiguously projected (Berger & Luckman, 1967). So, most, and perhaps the majority, of human learning likely occurs in this way and including through not wholly explicit means (Jordan, 2011) and those requiring directed conscious thought (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). What is rendered seemingly unconscious becomes part of tacit knowing, and, possibly, ultimately intuitive acts. These capacities permit performance at work to occur without engaging conscious thinking and acting. Hence, much of what is experienced when walking, driving, talking et cetera is premised upon these kinds of capacities. Yet, these activities are not enacted mindlessly, but make minimal demands upon conscious thinking processes, so that individuals may not be conscious of them. Much intentional and socially mediated everyday learning, such as that work, occurs in this way and outside of inter-personal interactions with close social partners. To understand more about human learning and development aligned with intentional and worthwhile purposes, such as those required for work and are the focus of HRD practice, necessitates considering the intra-psychological processes supporting that learning.