Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Strathclyde]On: 10 October 2014, At: 08:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20
Expanding our understanding of thelearning cultures in community‐basedFurther EducationJim Gallacher a , Beth Crossan a , Terry Mayes a , Paula Cleary a ,Lorna Smith b & David Watson ca Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning , Glasgow CaledonianUniversity , UKb James Watt College , Greenock, UKc Anniesland College Glasgow , UKPublished online: 09 Nov 2007.
To cite this article: Jim Gallacher , Beth Crossan , Terry Mayes , Paula Cleary , Lorna Smith & DavidWatson (2007) Expanding our understanding of the learning cultures in community‐based FurtherEducation, Educational Review, 59:4, 501-517, DOI: 10.1080/00131910701619381
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131910701619381
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Expanding our understanding of the
learning cultures in community-based
Further Education
Jim Gallacher*a, Beth Crossana, Terry Mayesa, Paula Clearya,Lorna Smithb and David Watsonc
aCentre for Research in Lifelong Learning, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK; bJames
Watt College, Greenock, UK; cAnniesland College Glasgow, UK
This paper presents arguments for distinctive features of the learning cultures present within
community-based further education. It draws on an analysis of qualitative data generated through
interviews with staff and learners in two community learning centres (CLCs) attached to two of
Scotland’s Further Education (FE) colleges. The following features are identified: the permeable
boundaries of CLCs; the complex roles of teaching staff and the ‘horizontality’ of the relationships
with learners; the centrality of the role played by non-teaching staff; the tensions created by
balancing formality and informality associated with the impact of the wider field of FE; and the
extent to which CLCs can be come a comfort zone for learners, and make transition difficult. In
the analysis of these empirical observations the concept of ‘learning relationships’ has been
influential. We have also drawn on Bourdieu’s concepts of ‘habitus’, and ‘field’, in understanding
the dispositions and practices of the staff and learners.
Background
Community-based Further Education (FE) is an area of work which is, in many
respects, marginal. This is true in both a physical sense of being situated at a distance
from campus-based provision, and in terms of its status within many colleges. As a
result, it has been relatively neglected in both policy discussions and research.
However, it is of considerable importance in implementing widening access
strategies which have been important aspects of the policy agenda over a number
of years (Gallacher et al., 2002). This paper reports on some of the outcomes from a
research project—Understanding and Enhancing Learning Cultures in Community-
based Further Education—which has been part of the Economic and Social
Research Council (ESRC) funded Teaching and Learning Research Programme
*Corresponding author: Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning, Glasgow Caledonian
University, 6 Rose St, Glasgow, G3 6RB, UK. Email: [email protected]
Educational Review
Vol. 59, No. 4, November 2007, pp. 501–517
ISSN 0013-1911 (print)/ISSN 1465-3397 (online)/07/040501-17
# 2007 Educational Review
DOI: 10.1080/00131910701619381
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
(TLRP).1 In it we attempt to explore distinctive aspects of the learning cultures
which are found in community-based FE learning centres, and how these differ from
those found in other learning sites in FE colleges. We also seek to bring out some of
the implications of this analysis for measures which could support and enhance the
work of these centres.
Our approach to the analysis of learning cultures
Our approach has been to attempt to gain a qualitative understanding of the features
that the learners and staff themselves describe as most salient in their subjective
experience in the two community learning centres (CLCs) we studied. We have then
attempted to bring to bear the collective theoretical perspectives of the research team
in arriving at a consensual view of what constitutes the ‘learning culture’ of these
centres. In so doing two perspectives have been particularly important in shaping our
interpretations.
The first of these has emphasized the importance of learning relationships. This
emerged out of the work of Mayes et al. (2001) on vicarious learning which led to a
direct focus on the nature of the relationships between learners, and then on the
nature of the relationships between learners and people who influence a learner’s
identity in the role of learner. There is a clear link between this work and the various
strands of theorizing that have flowed from the work of Vygotsky (1978), and the
more recent influence of Lave and Wenger’s (1991) work on situated learning and
communities of practice. A distinctive feature of our approach, then, is the emphasis
which we place on the concept of the learning relationship, as a context for
communication and interaction (Mayes & Crossan, 2007). A learning relationship
exists when we learn from or through others, or when a human relationship has an
impact on a learner’s fundamental disposition to learning. These could include
relationships with others in the learning environment, or relationships with people
not directly connected to the learning, but who have an influence on how the
learner views learning and whether they view themselves as learners. In this study
we have recognized and explored the impact, within community-based learning, of
relationships which learners have with family members, friends, and non-teaching
staff, as well as the more obvious learning relationships with tutors and fellow
students.
However, in understanding how these relationships are structured and shaped, the
work of Bourdieu, and the ways in which his approach has been utilized by our
colleagues in the Transforming Learning Cultures in FE (TLC) project, has been
central to our own approach (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Bourdieu, 1989; James &
Diment, 2003; Hodkinson et al., 2004; Hodkinson, Biesta & James, in this issue).
Bourdieu’s concept of habitus has been helpful in developing an understanding of
the ways in which the dispositions and practices of both learners and staff have been
shaped, and have in turn shaped the learning cultures which have emerged within
the community based centres. In understanding these issues Hodkinson et al. (2004)
have suggested that habitus can be seen as social structures operating within and
502 J. Gallacher et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
through individuals, rather than being something outside of us. In this way we can
understand the learning cultures which emerge in community-based FE being
influenced by the communities from which learners come, and the life histories,
dispositions and practices of learners and staff.2 However it is important to see the
learning cultures within CLCs being shaped, not just by the learning relationships
and dispositions of the learners and staff within these centres, but also by the
relationships between the centres and the wider world of FE. In this respect
Bourdieu’s concept of field is valuable in that it enables us to see community-based
FE as a sub-field which ‘connect(s) with, and partly share(s) the principles of the
superordinate …’ field of FE at a national and college level (Grenfell & James, 1998,
p. 20). Bourdieu’s work encourages us to see field as a force field, and one in which
there can be tensions and conflicts. We would suggest that the sub-field of
community based FE is, in part, shaped by the wider field of FE, and we will explore
the importance of this in our analysis.
Methods
The project involved collaboration with two of Scotland’s FE colleges. A central
part of this collaboration was the secondment of a member of teaching staff from
each college to the research team. The nature of this collaboration has been
reported on in greater detail elsewhere (Watson & Smith, 2006). The two partner
colleges involved in this project are somewhat different from each other. College A
is a college based in the city of Glasgow with a very strong history of involvement
in community-based learning as a central aspect of its work. College B is a college
based in a large town, with a second campus in north Ayrshire which serves a
number of towns and villages in the area. While this college recognizes the value of
community-based learning it has not had such a central role in the college’s
mission and strategy.
Through negotiations with college staff we selected two CLCs, one attached to
each college, to be the focus for the study. CLCs are small centres, usually located at
some distance from the college campus which provide opportunities to study in the
communities where learners live. These two CLCs also differ from each other in
significant respects. The one attached to College A is located in a fairly clearly-
defined housing scheme in the north of Glasgow, and clearly serves this community.
Most of the students who attend are female. The College B centre is located in an
area where it serves a number of small/medium-sized towns and the areas around
them. While the student group is also predominantly female, more males attend this
centre. The courses were chosen on the basis that they should represent a diversity of
provision, in terms of subject matter, mode of attendance, levels of learner and
teaching and learning styles. Included in this learner sample are those who were new
to the learning centre, undertaking their first course there, and more established
learners. Including both new and more established learners in our sample enabled us
to focus not only on issues of access but also on changing motivations, processes of
engagement with learning, identity transformations and transitions.
Learning cultures in community-based FE 503
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
The methods and methodologies reflected a qualitative paradigm, combining
different types of interviews, workshops with staff and students, reflective diaries and
limited informal observations. Our initial expectation was that students and teaching
staff would be the primary source of our data. As the project has progressed,
however, we have come to increasingly understand the key role of non-teaching staff
(CLC administrators, support and janitorial staff) in the shaping of learning cultures
and in the formation of learning relationships, both with teaching staff and with
learners. As a result, a significant number of interviews were conducted with these
staff. They have also had a key role in organizing and contributing to a significant
amount of the research process, including the staff/student workshops which were
arranged to review outcomes from the research at key points throughout the project.
The data drawn on for this paper are from analysis of individual interviews with staff
and learners.
Interviews
A total of 81 interviews were conducted over three phases of fieldwork, including
both staff and learners. These comprised 29 staff interviews and 52 learner
interviews. In all, 54 people were interviewed (20 members of staff and 34
learners). Fourteen staff members were interviewed once, three were interviewed
twice, and three were interviewed three times. Of the 20 staff interviewed, 10 were
from each CLC. Some of the teaching staff worked only in the CLCs, while others
worked in both the CLCs and the main college campuses. Of the 34 learners
interviewed, 15 were from Centre A and 19 were from Centre B; 11 were male and
23 female. Of the 34 learners interviewed, 22 were interviewed once, six were
interviewed twice, and six were interviewed three times. After each phase of the
fieldwork workshops were held with staff and students in each centre, followed by
meetings with senior management in each college. At these meetings the emerging
findings from the research were presented and the implications for changes in
practice were discussed.
Analysis
All interviews with staff and students were recorded and transcribed, and all
transcriptions were available to all six members of the research team. As the richness
of these data became apparent the research team agreed to adopt Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as a means of analysing this data. This is an
approach, not previously applied in educational settings, that is focussed on how
individuals make sense of their personal and social worlds, and the meanings that
particular experiences, events and states hold for individuals. Smith (2004) describes
IPA as phenomenological in its focus on the individual’s experience, and strongly
related to the interpretative or hermeneutic tradition in its recognition of the
researcher’s role in interpretation.
504 J. Gallacher et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
The characteristic features of IPA are ideographic and inductive. Our analysis has
been based on transcripts of semi-structured interviews lasting around an hour each.
In the process of the research, we developed an iterative group method for
developing the interpretations. The approach developed from IPA has strongly
influenced our research focus. It has forced us to reflect carefully on the nature of the
interviews, encouraging us to try to listen first to the affective voice of the
interviewee, and then attempting to interview from a frame of reference that makes
sense to the interviewee, rather than being guided by a predetermined set of
constructs derived from theory. The approach requires in-depth qualitative analysis
of the data from each interview, which is produced by detailed readings and (in our
case) discussions of the transcript. It is particularly suited to a context in which rich
and detailed information has been obtained from a relatively small number of
respondents. Our adoption of this methodology occurred after the project had been
originally designed and the number of interviews conducted is very high for an IPA
analysis which is challenging in its time demands. The project’s innovation in this
analytical method has been to introduce a collaborative dimension to the
interpretation of the interview data. Although this has added even further to the
length of time required to adequately analyse each transcript, it has also meant that
our interpretations have been enriched by the differing perspectives within the team.
It is also an important means through which all members of the research team are
equally involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and the conclusions
which are drawn from it.
Identifying distinguishing features of the learning cultures associated with
community-based FE
Hodkinson et al. (2004; Hodkinson, Biesta & James, in this issue) have explored
differences between the learning cultures which are found within the different sites
within FE, and have commented on the need to understand these learning cultures
in terms of the relationship between each site and the wider field of FE. In this
project we have sought to identify some of the distinctive features of community-
based FE. In this process we have emphasized not just the relationship between the
community-based centres and the wider field of FE, but also the learning
relationships which are a central feature of this learning culture. In this way the
experiences of learners in their families and communities, the dispositions which
these give rise to, and the dispositions and practices of staff, can all be seen as having
important influences on the learning cultures which are being created, sustained and
re-created. While we have noted earlier that the two CLCs which were the focus for
our research differed from each other in some respects, key aspects of the learning
cultures found in each were similar. On this basis we would suggest that it is possible
to identify a learning culture associated with community-based FE, however in our
discussion we will also comment on differences between the centres, and the
implications of these differences. The key features of community-based FE which
shape the learning cultures are now discussed.
Learning cultures in community-based FE 505
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
The permeability of boundaries
Firstly, our research has indicated that the boundaries between the CLCs and other
aspects of the lives of learners can be seen to be more permeable than those found in
the main college campuses. The habitus and dispositions of learners reflect their
often complex personal lives. Many are single parents, some have histories of illness,
many have very limited incomes, and almost all are initially lacking in confidence
and very uncertain about their abilities as learners. This reflects their structural
positions in terms of class and gender. Rather than feeling the need to leave the
complexity of their lives at the door of the CLCs, it is, often explicitly, brought into
the learning site. In this way a wide range of relationships become learning
relationships which influence learners’ participation and engagement, and have an
important role in shaping the learning cultures which are found in these centres.
One of the learners in Centre A referred to the wide range of problems which she
had when she entered the centre, and the ways in which the support she received
from one of the tutors enabled her to cope with these problems.
… when I came here to do the interior design I had a lot of problems with my mother
and I had woodworm, they had just moved me into a house, I had three young kids,
they were 1, 3 and 5 years old when we first moved in there and we were only in there
about a year or two when the whole upstairs landing was infested so I was juggling sick
mother, hospital appointments, woodworm in the house, three young kids, husband not
working and doing a course at the same time, so sometimes I came in here and I felt as if
everything was on top of me and she [tutor] would just notice … I’d maybe get a wee bit
upset or something like that and she’d be like ‘oh I’m sorry’ and I think that’s what I
needed.… (Learner 26, Centre A )
The complexities of family life of a rather different kind were also brought out by a
male student in Centre B whose wife had died sometime before he began to attend
the centre. He explains in the following quotation how he is trying to restructure his
life and attending the centre is part of this process.
I’ve had to change my whole life around and I might as well make the best of it, there’s
no point in sitting about saying ‘och I can’t do this and I don’t want to do that’ you’ve
got to get up and get on with it, the kids are my motivation for keeping going, for them.
It’s quite easy to kind of fall into a depression and once you get into that it’s very
difficult to get out of. (Learner 23, Centre B)
This student was able to report how attending the centre had had a very positive
impact on him, and he had gained confidence, as well as completing the course he
was taking. He also acquired a new partner in the process, who was one of the
students on his course. However by the time of his next interview he reported that a
number of family illnesses, affecting his two children were having a continuing
impact on his studies.
… He [son] was in [hospital A] so I was running up and down to there. My daughter
took pneumonia just a couple of weeks just before Christmas. So she was in [hospital
B]. So it was an absolute nightmare for the last year that’s past, 10, 11 months it’s been
a bit of a disaster. Of course I’d already been in here in the September to sign up. I
wanted to do another psychology course but it didn’t, they didn’t get anybody to run it.
506 J. Gallacher et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
So that kind of fell by the wayside and obviously it would have fallen to the wayside
anyway. So that was me… (Learner 23, Centre B)
A number of other students at Centre B, where the student group is more mixed
than Centre A in terms of sex and age, reported that they had had health problems
which had made it difficult or impossible for them to continue with their original
employment, and the centre was providing them with a means of beginning to
reconstruct their lives.
Similar stories regarding the impact of family and personal life on their attitudes
towards studying, and their ability to participate are recounted by many of the
students we interviewed. While in some cases these circumstances made it difficult
for people to participate, in other cases students indicated that attending the centre
provided a respite for them, or was an important means of helping them move on
beyond these difficulties. Thus one student in Centre A discussed the problems
which she had with her husband who is ‘… either jealous or feart [afraid]’. She goes
on to suggest that ‘… maybe he’s feart in case I’m going to get a good job and I’m
going to leave him’ (Learner 03, centre A). This student then goes on to describe the
centre as her ‘wee escape’ and says ‘aye, this is my wee safety valve coming in here’.
Later in the interview she describes the centre in the following way:
It’s my wee saviour, so it is, it’s helped me keep my sanity, gives me a reason to get up in
the morning, even if it’s just to fix your hair, put on a wee bit of mascara, and just get
out the door, something to focus on and make a wee effort for myself and the kids.
(Learner 03, Centre A)
This comment and similar ones made by other respondents help us understand why
CLCs are successful in attracting and retaining students who would otherwise be
unlikely to participate in a more formal educational setting. Rather than feeling that
there are barriers to be overcome in attending the centres, they perceive the CLCs as
welcoming and supportive environments.
Many of our respondents particularly in Centre A have commented that they
decided to attend the centre as a result of recommendations from family or friends
who reassured them that the centres would provide them with the support they
needed to overcome their uncertainty about returning to participate in a formal
educational setting. Many of these students also indicated that they would not have
been likely to attend a course on the main campus, but saw the CLC as a more open
location, within which they felt more comfortable.
The role of teaching staff in CLCs
The more permeable nature of boundaries between the CLCs and other aspects of
lives of learners has important implications for the expectations which both students
and staff have for the role of staff within the CLCs. While it would be wrong to
suggest that the role of staff in the CLCs and on the college campus is quite
different, a number of staff respondents do articulate important differences between
these roles. This difference is commented on by a member of staff who works at both
the CLC and on the main college campuses when he says ‘… we were calling
Learning cultures in community-based FE 507
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
ourselves ‘‘tutors’’ when we work here but ‘‘lecturers’’ in the college …’ He then
goes on to suggest that ‘here [the CLC] it’s a different kind of balance, so we try and
encourage folk as much as we can’ (Teaching Staff 11, Centre B). The same staff
member from Centre B refers to the idea of different boundaries in the CLC.
I think the boundaries are different out here and we know that from the onset. I think in
the college to some extent you’re protecting yourself, you know there’s almost a kind of
norm where you don’t want to be too friendly, … certainly you seem to be less open in
the college. (Teaching Staff 11, Centre B)
This idea of greater openness to students and different boundaries between staff and
students implies a role which is in important respects different from the more
traditional role of teacher or lecturer, and suggests an element of emotional
involvement with students which we will return to later.
A number of tutors emphasized that they see the role as being one of providing
support and encouragement for students, rather than a more traditional teaching
role. This was expressed by a member of the staff in Centre B who describes herself
as a ‘facilitator’.
I would say a facilitator. I think when people come in here and even when I came in here
I expected to maybe, well I don’t know, just give everybody everything they needed, but
this is quite a relaxed environment, as I’ve mentioned in the past and quite a lot of the
courses we do and it’s quite a lot of encouragement I believe in what I’ve read and what
I’ve learned in sort of helping people to help themselves and taking a back row and
helping them facilitate their own learning as opposed to teaching them in perhaps a way
they remember from years back … . (Teaching Staff 04, Centre B)
Many learners commented on the extent to which they value the informal and
supportive nature of the culture within CLCs. They also comment on the
importance of relationships with tutors of relative equality, rather than the more
formal relationships they have been used to in education. However the relationships
between students and teaching staff which emerge from the students’ accounts are
complex ones, and in addition to the elements of informality and relative equality,
supportiveness is also identified as an important dimension of these relationships.
Some of this complexity is referred to in this comment from a female student on
relationships with staff in Centre A.
… we’ve got to know [female tutor] and [male tutor] really well and we have a laugh and
everything else. You can talk to them about anything, it’s not … you don’t feel as if, you
know, I can’t ask this, or I can’t ask that, but at the very beginning before the course
even started or the meeting they did say if there’s anything, that there’s guidance and all
this sort of stuff if you’ve got any personal problems or anything like that. If you feel you
want to speak to them you can, there’s no problem there, and I think that’s because that
was said at the beginning you don’t feel that you can’t, you know if you do have a
problem there is someone you can go to. (Learner 25, Centre A)
This element of complexity in the relationships between learners and staff, in which
the students value both the informality and relative equality, but also recognize that
staff have a role as ‘educators’, emerged as an important element in understanding
the learning cultures of CLCs, and will be discussed further later.
508 J. Gallacher et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
A further dimension to this complexity is the element of control which the
students themselves had over what was considered acceptable behaviour and
approaches to teaching among staff. While students were in general very favourable
in their comments regarding staff, they were also quite ready to criticize staff whom
they felt approached their work in an inappropriate way. This can be seen in these
comments about a new member of staff who was involved with Centre A for a short
time, but was seen to have a ‘wrong’ approach to teaching and her relationships with
the students:
… just in your work in general, she seemed to be, I don’t know because it was a couple
of years ago, but it was only for a few weeks and I just felt as if I wasn’t very comfy with
her, but she was just new to college and that, she came out of school, she was a school
teacher, that’s what the problem was, she came in as a school teacher and she thought
we were all the kids and that ‘oh you never look back, you need to remember that’ and
I’m like no you don’t because as [other male tutor] always says ‘everything’s wrote
down somewhere, you just have to go back and find it to be able to carry on’, but that’s
what it was, she was more school teacher but even then she was really, really nice and
you understood that it was because she didn’t know how to act as well that made the
wee problems, not that she deliberately came in to annoy us because none of them
would do it, I don’t even think the college would allow anybody to come to the centre
that would be like that. (Learner 26, Centre A)
It can be noted that her behaviour is attributed to the fact that ‘she didn’t know how
to act’. It is also assumed that ‘the college’ would not allow the wrong kind of tutor
to come to the centre. The ways in which students could exercise an element of
control over staff was illustrated with respect to the attitudes and behaviour of one of
the other tutors in this centre. Initially he was perceived as going too fast, and ‘not
really listening’, however this approach was seen to have changed during his time in
the centre, and by the time of the interview he was perceived to be acting in ways
which were closer to what the students expected.
Aye he’s ok, he’s eased off, laughing and joking with us now, I get on alright with him
now, having a laugh with him. (Learner 07, Centre A)
The importance of tutors fitting in with the distinctive kind of learning cultures
which exist in the centres was also recognized by one of the non-teaching staff in
Centre B. She commented on a new member of staff who did not appear to
understand the type of approach which was expected of her.
… I think sometimes it can be a problem with new lecturers, like we’ve got a new
lecturer that’s just started and she’s obviously new to the job and new to teaching in the
college, so she’s not really sure how to teach things and I think her way of teaching is
she’s using words that the learners don’t understand and making it too complicated and
the numbers are dropping in the class because I spoke to a student last night about it. So
I’m obviously going to have to address this issue … . (Non-teaching Staff 34, Centre B)
The fact that it was felt that something would have to be done to address this issue
illustrates the ways in which an unwritten consensus had emerged about what was
appropriate behaviour for staff and students, and that they worked together to
sustain this learning culture, and ensure that it was not disrupted by staff bringing in
inappropriate expectations from other parts of the educational system. However this
Learning cultures in community-based FE 509
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
is not to say that the wider field of FE did not influence and shape the relationships
and cultures within the CLCs. We will further discuss this issue later.
The role of non-teaching staff
As the research progressed it became clear that the non-teaching staff in both centres
had a very important role in helping create the learning culture of the centre, and in
particular helping create the informal and supportive environment found in these
centres, and we increasingly set out to explore these roles with these staff in our
interviews. The Centre Manager in Centre A describes her role as ‘a kind of go-
between, between the tutor and the student’. In particular she identified the support
that she and her colleagues are able to provide for students as a key part of their
roles.
… maybe if a student’s struggling with something and they feel they don’t want to say to
the tutor, we can sometimes pick up on things like that and let the tutor know, so
they’re aware of how the student’s feeling, in case the tutor isn’t picking it up within the
class. Things like that, also to make sure the students are ok because a lot of them have
got different problems and different things, so when they come in here we want them to
feel comfortable, safe and enjoy the classes and that they’re coping ok, that they’re not
feeling under pressure, maybe they’re struggling in one of their classes, so it’s to kind of
be aware of the students feelings, that they’re getting a service and if there is anything
that we kind of work on the tutors and make sure the whole service provided is a good
one. (Centre Manager, S18 Centre A)
Although the staff involved are not employed explicitly to undertake work of this
kind, in that they are administrators, secretaries and janitors, they recognize this as
an important aspect of their work. Thus the person responsible for the
administrative work in Centre B describes her role in the following way:
I deal with any enquires, telephone messages, deal with the data base, all the financial
side of everything in the learning centre and obviously coincide with [centre manager]
to get courses up and running. Jack of all trades, there is an awful lot of admin work here
…, but then obviously the job has expanded after that, stuff that other people don’t
recognise … Yeah the caring side of it, obviously if you’ve got a student coming in with
worries and financial worries and things we sit down and talk to them and if somebody’s
not happy, any problems going on at home they seem to bring them in and they’ll sit
and have a chat and its almost like being a counsellor I suppose, but that’s not part of
the job description, we just, well I do it anyway, just as a caring person. (Administrator
S08, Centre B)
This more expansive role is associated with the fact that these are the people who are
in the centre on a permanent basis, whereas the teaching staff come and go, and are
often only in the centres for short periods of time while they take their class. The
non-teaching staff are often the first point of contact for students, both when they
come to the centres in the first place, and when they come in and out for their
classes. This informal supporting role is enhanced in Centre A by the fact that they
are also part of the local community, and often know the students well for this
reason. Several of these staff have themselves been adult returners, and can
empathize with the students for this reason. In this way the habitus of these staff
510 J. Gallacher et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
members becomes important in shaping learning relationships and the learning
culture of the centres. Because of their own histories these staff have dispositions
that incline them to take on these expansive roles, an issue we will discuss further
later.
This work which these members of staff undertake is of considerable importance
for many students and this is clearly recognized in their discussions of the operation
of the centres.
… you have no idea what [Centre Administrator] has to put up with—she is everything,
I swear to god if [she] wasn’t here the centre would fall apart. She does everything.
(Learner 49, Centre A)
While another student goes on to refer explicitly to the supportive role of these staff.
Dead positive I suppose, really, really positive, if you’ve got a problem or you need
something done, but that’s not really their jobs but they would help with anything at all.
You know they’re even ready to listen to you, you know if you’ve got a wee problem in
the house and you come up here and maybe you’re a wee bit upset or something like
that and they’ll say ‘listen do you need a wee word? Do you need a wee minute?’ they’re
just great with everything, there’s nothing I can say about them and [receptionist] she’s
there to keep track of everybody as well, try and keep the attendance right, trying to
keep time keeping and that to a standard. (Learner 26, Centre A)
Are CLC staff underground workers?
It seems clear from many of our interviews with students and staff, both teaching and
non-teaching, that the supportive engagement which staff have with students is a key
aspect of the learning relationships and the learning cultures within CLCs. While
this can be seen as a feature of the role of many staff in colleges, the extent of this role
in the CLCs goes well beyond what would normally be expected of academic staff on
the main campus. Similarly the administrative staff in the CLCs seem prepared to
take on a supportive and caring role which goes well beyond their job descriptions, as
we have indicated in the comments from those staff quoted earlier. The provision of
emotional engagement and support for the people with whom they work has
increasingly been recognized as a key aspect of many roles in recent years. The
concept of emotion work has been developed to cover a range of different activities
of this kind (Simpson & Smith, 2005). This ‘emotion work’ can take a wide variety
of forms, and can form part of workers’ roles in quite different ways. In the CLCs
which we studied it would appear that this aspect of the role is regarded as a key
element by both staff and students. Staff, for their part, seem to readily accept and
even enjoy this aspect of their role. A number of these staff had made positive
choices to work in these community-based settings, and clearly got a great deal of
positive satisfaction out of this type of engagement with the students. One member
of teaching staff explains:
I just think it’s a different experience from being in the main campus and it’s also good
to be working with people who it’s their first experience at education, maybe since they
left school, is here and it’s quite fulfilling. (Teaching Staff 28, Centre B).
Learning cultures in community-based FE 511
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
These staff valued the opportunity to see the personal development of students as a
result of their experiences in the centres. The quotations we have provided earlier
illustrate these points. Students also seem to expect this to be an important part of
the tutor’s role within the CLCs, and, as we have suggested earlier, are critical of
staff whose behaviour is not seen to be sufficiently supportive. Indeed staff are
expected to change their behaviour to conform to the expectations within the centre,
or are unlikely to remain.
This preparedness to undertake work which goes well beyond the official
expectations of the role has been discussed by James and Diment in their analysis (as
part of the TLC project) of the work which has been undertaken by staff in one of
the FE learning sites which they studied. The programme here was a work-based
National Vocational Qualification (NVQ). They suggested that the tutor involved in
this programme consistently undertook a range of work which went well beyond her
official job description, and that she did this to ensure that the students received the
level of support which she felt that they needed if they were to have successful
learning experiences (James & Diment, 2003). In explaining her preparedness to
undertake this work, James and Diment refer to the tutor’s own personal history
which included painful experiences in secondary education, a period in FE and a
recently completed part-time degree. Associated with this is a habitus and
disposition which led this tutor to accept that what James and Diment describe as
‘underground working’ should be part of her role. This underground working refers
to the range of activities ‘that took her well beyond the official definition of the work’
(James & Diment, 2003, p. 414). The same kinds of personal histories and habitus
can be seen in many of the staff who worked in the CLCs. Many of them were
themselves people who had re-entered education as adult returners. Some had then
progressed through Higher National Certificate or Diploma (HNC/D) courses in FE
colleges to degrees. This had also led to dispositions in which they saw their role not
in narrow terms, but in much more inclusive ones, in which engaging with the
personal lives of the students, and providing whatever support was possible was a
recognized part of the role. The question of whether this can best be described as
‘underground working’ is an interesting and debatable one. On the one hand, all of
these staff were clearly undertaking work which would not normally be seen to be
part of the official job description. On the other hand, as we have indicated, this type
of work was an expected part of the role of staff in the centres. This then raises the
issue that the cultural expectations which exist within the centres, and which staff
and students themselves help maintain, impose requirements on staff which the
colleges do not fully recognize and provide resources to support.
Informality and formality: impact of the field of wider FE
Whilst we would suggest that our interviews with students and staff have led us to
recognize the importance of learning relationships in which informality, equality and
supportiveness were key characteristics in shaping the learning cultures of CLCs, we
would suggest that there is also another important dimension to the learning cultures
512 J. Gallacher et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
which can be observed in CLCs. This is the element of formality which derives from
these centres being attached to FE colleges, and in this way part of the wider FE
culture. We would suggest that Bourdieu’s concept of field can be of value in helping
understand this aspect of the learning cultures found in CLCs. Community-based
FE can be understood as a sub-field which ‘connect(s) with, and partly share(s) the
principles of the superordinate …’ field of FE at a national and college level (Grenfell
& James, 1998, p. 20). In this respect the force-field of FE has an important impact
on the CLC. Bourdieu also recognizes that fields can be characterized by conflicts
and tensions, and we can observe this within the sub-field of the community based
FE. The learning cultures which exist within the CLCs are developed partly through
a negotiation with rules, norms and expectations associated with the wider FE
learning culture. Thus, for example, staff cannot ignore assessment regulations, but
make an attempt to reduce the initial impact of these types of constraints on
students. One of the tutors from Centre B outlined the ways in which this
combination of informality and formality is a feature of the work which the staff and
students negotiate.
… you know we have to do certain ‘tasks’, we tend to call them tasks because people
don’t flinch so much as assessments. They have clear guidelines, I think in a way they’re
aware of, like for ECDL testing is very strict and once they get the first one out the way
they’re okay, but I think because there’s so many rules now about you have to have a
passport with you, you have to have photographic this and that and no-one’s allowed in
the room that’s not doing a test and no-one’s allowed to leave the room, so that’s very
formal. Although the rest of the time it’s more, I’m not saying it’s really casual and they
all lie about or anything, you know they get on with their wok and they are keen to work
and they’re keen to utilise their time and you’ll notice in those classes as well that
nobody ever, unless they’re picking someone up from school, nobody ever leaves early,
they’re there right to the end. (Teaching Staff 04, Centre B)
Students also report that it is important for them that they see the CLCs, not just as
‘a wee centre’, but as a part of the college, and they positively value this feeling that
they are part of the college. Thus one of the students from Centre A when asked
how she describes herself said that ‘… actually I try and make a point of saying that
it’s a college course and not just a wee place in [area of CLC] …’ (Learner 03,
Centre A).
Students also comment on the importance of the teaching role of the tutors and
their recognition of the way in which this is carried out. Thus one student in Centre
A comments on the way in which a maths tutor combines informality and a
supportive approach with ensuring that students understand the work and are able to
make progress.
Yes, he’s very, very easy going. A really good laugh, but he’s always there to help you
and it’s not just, he sort of uses like anecdotes and things like that and different things to
help explain things and it’s not just well that’s that and that’s that, he makes sure, if
you’ve got to ask him something, when he goes away you know that you understand it,
he’ll not leave you until he knows that you do understand it. (Learner 25, Centre A)
Teaching staff in the centres, therefore, have to balance their roles of providing a
supportive and informal environment, with roles which enable students to meet the
Learning cultures in community-based FE 513
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
more formal requirements of the educational system provided through the FE
colleges. While relationships within the CLCs can be seen as having a strong element
of what Wenger (2005) describes as ‘horizontality’, Wenger himself points out that
horizontalization does not imply that issues of power disappear. In these ways the
learning culture and learning relationships of CLCs are characterized not just by
informality and equality, but are also shaped by the force-fields of the wider FE
system.
Community learning centres as ‘comfort zones’ and issues of transition
Our analysis of learning cultures within CLCs has pointed to their success in
encouraging students to engage with learning, and the ways in which this had very
positive consequences, with respect to developing self confidence, and achieving
measurable success in learning outcomes. However, evidence from interviews with
students and staff in both centres did indicate that the downside of the very informal,
relaxed and supportive relationships was that the centres could become a ‘comfort
zone’ for students, from which they found it difficult to move on. Indeed one of the
students in Centre B commented that he would not want to study elsewhere, and
when asked why responded in the following way.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t rule it out. Again nothing’s written in stone. I suppose it’s
because I feel so comfortable here I wouldn’t want to move. It’s living in a comfort
zone. (Learner 41, Centre B)
In attempting to analyse the issues which this raises it is useful to relate them to
Hodkinson et al.’s (2004) discussion of learning sites which are characterized by a
high level of synergy. They note that Brown et al. (1989, cited in Hodkinson et al.,
2004, p. 11) suggest that ‘authentic learning occurred when, in their terms,
concepts, contexts and activities were mutually supportive—in synergy’. One of the
learning sites which Hodkinson et al. suggest can be characterized in these terms is
the Entry Level Drama course. In this course there was a strong convergence of
‘dispositions, attitudes and pressures towards what can be described as learning and
enjoying being in a play, but also learning and enjoying being in a second family’
(Hodkinson et al., 2004, pp. 11–12). In these respects the learning culture of this
drama course can be seen as sharing characteristics with those found in our CLCs.
Within the CLCs there is also a convergence of dispositions, activities and learning
relationships which promote much positive learning among the students. However
Hodkinson et al. go on to suggest that in these ‘synergistic’ sites there was a price to
pay. In the case of the drama course, they suggest that ‘the price was the further
isolation of the students from the rest of the college and the local community, and
the reinforcement of their dependency and infantilisation’ (Hodkinson et al., 2004,
p. 12).
In the case of the CLCs the negative consequences do not seem to be quite so
pronounced, but they can be identified. These costs can be observed in a number of
ways. These included evidence that the fact that the student population in Centre A
was almost exclusively female made it very difficult to attract and retain male
514 J. Gallacher et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
students. There was also evidence that while peer group support was generally very
strong and positive, when rifts emerged between students these could be very
damaging. However what was most significant in the context of this discussion was
the danger that students developed a very strong identity with the centres and the
staff within them, and this made it difficult for them to move on to further learning
opportunities. This very strong identification with the centre was expressed by one
student in Centre A in the following way.
… It’s like a wee family, it’s like a wee unit, well that’s the way I feel about it, obviously
there’s other people that don’t and that annoys me … . (Learner 26, Centre A)
However at the time of this interview this student had been attending the centre for 6
years, and still had no clear idea of what she might progress to, as the following
quotation indicates.
Yes see which way direction I’m going to go in. I could maybe go back to interior design
because I did like it and I said, I’ve worked in an office before as well and I said I would
never ever work in an office again, but see with me being so good with the computing
maybe I’ll go that way, I don’t know yet, I really don’t know yet. (Learner 26, Centre A)
The dangers of developing a dependency on particular tutors was also identified as
an issue by one of the staff associated with Centre A when he commented that ‘what
we’ve got to do is to wean them off the fact that they’re coming to a learners’ centre
to [Tutor A’s] class, or [Tutor B’s] class’. (Teaching Staff S01, Centre A).
However while these problems were recognized, and while some learners did
move on to courses on the main campus college or to paid employment, the numbers
making these transitions seemed to be limited in relation to the total numbers
attending the centres. Even for those who did make the transition there was evidence
that for some it was still a difficult process. Thus Learner 04, Centre A, who had
come to the centre with a clear aim of improving her qualifications to move from a
job in a supermarket to an office job, left the centre to study in another college.
However by Christmas she had left this college, and when last interviewed was about
to return to another supermarket job. She attributed her decision to leave the college
to a feeling that she was having to repeat work she had already done to achieve an
HNC before progressing to an HND. However, she was also clearly not happy with
the experience of studying in the college:
The lecturers at college, I don’t know it’s going to say, they were pompous. They were
‘I’m the lecturer, you’re the student, you’ll listen’. Whereas the lecturers here, they’ll
have a laugh and a giggle with you. Do you know what I mean? You seem to forget that
they are lecturers, the ones here. Whereas the ones at the college you couldn’t forget,
because they wouldn’t allow you. Do you know what I mean? So that was another
difference. (Learner 04, Centre A)
As a result she commented that, while her hopes had been ‘away up’, they were then
‘dashed back down’.
This raises issues regarding the level of support and guidance which students
receive to enable them to make these transitions more successfully. Centre B did
have a member of staff with a clear remit to provide guidance to students with regard
Learning cultures in community-based FE 515
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
to progression, and this was positively regarded by students. Underlying these issues
of transition are also questions about the level of support which was provided for the
centres by the colleges, and the extent to which the colleges had a clear strategy
which linked the CLCs to other aspects of the work of the colleges.
Conclusion
In this paper we have sought to identify some of the distinctive features of the
learning cultures which exist in CLCs. In doing this we have explored the learning
relationships which have shaped these learning cultures. We have suggested that, as
a result of the relatively permeable boundaries of these CLCs, students bring many
of the issues from their personal and family lives into the centres. In this way a wide
range of their relationships become learning relationships which influence students’
involvement and participation in the centres. This then places a high level of demand
on both teaching and non-teaching staff. It is important that they maintain
relationships with students which are characterized by informality and relative
equality. However, they are also expected to provide a high level of often demanding
support for students with difficulties, and provide an approach to teaching which
enables students to progress and achieve standards required by external assessments.
These are very complex and demanding roles. We would suggest that if staff are to
be able to undertake them successfully it is essential first of all that colleges appoint
staff with the appropriate dispositions and experience. However, it is also important
that the demands of these roles in terms of training, both initial training and
continuing professional development, are recognized. Staff in these relatively remote
settings also need appropriate structures of support. A further issue identified is the
one of the danger that CLCs can become comfort zones from which students find it
difficult to progress. This is associated with the supportive nature of these centres,
the characteristics of the students, and the relative isolation of these centres. This
area of work has traditionally been of relatively low status in many colleges, and it is
important that colleges develop effective strategies to address all of these issues if the
potential of community-based learning is to be realized.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC),
RES-139-25-0002. The authors are extremely grateful to the staff and learners at
two community learning centres for sharing their experiences with the research
team. We are also grateful to the project’s advisory group and to the ESRC Teaching
and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) staff for their encouragement and
support, to the members of the Transforming Learning Cultures in Further
Education (TLC) project with which our work is linked, and to other members of
the Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning. We would also wish to acknowledge
the value of the referees’ comments on the first draft of this article, in response to
which it has been substantially amended.
516 J. Gallacher et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Notes
1. The project has involved researchers at the Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning (CRLL),
Glasgow Caledonian University, working in partnership with two FE colleges in Scotland. It is
a ‘Scottish Extension’ project, linked to the Phase II TLRP project Transforming Learning
Cultures in Further Education (TLC) to whom we are grateful for their ongoing support.
2. Tett (2000), in her study of working class students in an ‘elite’ university, has also utilized the
concept of ‘habitus’ as a means of helping us understand individuals as a complex amalgam of
past and present, but an amalgam that can potentially change.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1989) Outline of a theory of practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1977) Reproduction in education, society and culture (London, Sage).
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Daguid, P. (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning,
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Gallacher, J., Field, J., Merrill, B. & Crossan, B. (2002) Learning careers and the social space:
exploring fragile identities adult returners and the new further education, International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(6), 493–509.
Grenfell, J. & James, D. (1998) Bourdieu and education—acts of practical theory (London, Falmer).
Hodkinson, P., Anderson, G., Colley, H., Davies, J., Diment, K., Sciafe, T., Tedder, M.,
Wahlberg, M. & Wheeler, E. (2004) Learning cultures in further education, paper presented
at the British Educational Research Association Conference.
James, D. & Diment, K. (2003) Going underground: learning and assessment in an ambiguous
space, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 55(4), 407–422.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press).
Mayes, J. T. & Crossan, B. (2007) Learning relationships in community-based further education,
Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 15(3), 291–301.
Mayes, J. T., Dineen, F., Mckendree, J. & Lee, J. (2001) Learning from watching others learn, in:
C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds) Networked learning: perspectives and issues (London, Springer).
Simpson, R. & Smith, S. (2005) Introduction, International Journal of Work, Organisation and
Emotion, 1(1), 1–3.
Smith, J. A. (2004) Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and
its contribution to qualitative research in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1,
39–54.
Tett, L. (2000) I’m working class and proud of it—gendered experiences of non traditional
participants in higher education, Gender and Education, 12(2), 183–194.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes (Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press).
Watson, D. & Smith, L. (2006) Viewpoint: community partners. Broadcast (Scottish Further
Education Unit Journal), 71, p.10.
Wenger, E. (2005) Learning for a small planet: a research agenda. Available online at: http://
www.ewenger.com/research (accessed 20 February 2007).
Learning cultures in community-based FE 517
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
rath
clyd
e] a
t 08:
35 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
