The Army Community of Practice: Becoming a Learning Environment
Abstract
In these times of economic frugality, the Army needs to consider all the avenues and opportunities available for the training and development of our soldiers and throw away some long held beliefs about how and by whom competence can be assessed and awarded. This article examines workplace learning and the contribution of Communities of Practice, Learning and Labour Networks to the gaining of knowledge, competence and expertise by our soldiers.
Communities of practice’ is a term coined to describe groups of people bound by shared knowledge and purpose.1 These communities of practice effectively ‘facilitate both individual and organisational learning’.2 In addition, within a community of practice itself, understanding or learning can also occur in a number of ways.3 As a consequence, the practices of the community itself will have significant bearing on the learning that takes place and the way in which this learning occurs.
The Army, as a workplace organisation, is a community of practice within which exists a multitude of diverse communities of practice. As a community of practice, the Army is as much a learning environment as it is a functioning workplace organisation. There are many forms of learning evident within this environment, variously categorised as explicit, tacit, conceptual, procedural or a combination thereof. All these forms of learning occur within the context of ‘learning networks’.4
This article will examine Army communities of practice in light of their contribution to situated learning within the workplace. The discussion ultimately focuses on the ways in which communities of practice and situated learning can be harnessed to enhance the learning environment within the Army.
Dimension Of Knowledge
Knowledge is usually described in terms of two dimensions: the explicit (tangible or observable) and the tacit (intangible)—both of which are required for the effective performance of work.5 Similarly, knowledge can be categorised as procedural (‘knowing how’) or conceptual (‘knowing that’).6 Using these descriptors individually or in combination, it is possible to track the development of knowledge and the forces that act on that development within the various learning networks evident in the workplace. For the purpose of this article, I will focus on the vertical, horizontal and liberal learning networks evident within the Army.
Vertical Learning Networks
Vertical learning networks use linear learning programs in hierarchical structures. Such networks form the backbone of training within the Army workplace. The resulting knowledge is generally of an explicit procedural nature and very task specific. In the early stages of a soldier’s career, the tasks that he or she will be required to perform will generally be of a practical nature and directly related to job function. Some examples include driving a truck, deploying an artillery gun, performing basic clerical tasks or operating a radio. As such, demonstration of the knowledge required will be explicit and in accordance with the procedures for conducting the various tasks. Learners in their ‘novice’ state are described as ‘being without situational experience’ and reliant on ‘context free rules’ to guide them.7 At the stepping-off point in their careers, soldiers require knowledge that will enable them to perform workplace tasks in a safe and effective manner. Thus they will be expected to perform work tasks in accordance with operating drills or procedures.
However, the Australian Army prides itself on the resourcefulness and independent nature of its soldiers and this is embodied in its core values and ‘I am an Australian Soldier’ ethos. These attributes cannot exist if the soldier does not move beyond the simple application of drills, procedures and context-free rules. Thus the Army requires young soldiers and junior leaders to be able to perform tasks while demonstrating some appreciation for the context in which they need to occur. In today’s world, there are many factors that influence the way in which soldiers work—factors that simply did not exist only a few years ago. These factors include the high tempo of military operations in which the Australian Army is involved, the invasive nature of the modern media spotlight, the lack of distinct and identifiable battlefield boundaries and the almost invisible nature of threat and hostile elements. Likewise, the nature of the work soldiers perform can vary significantly within a brief period of time. An Army vehicle mechanic deployed on operations may be servicing vehicles one day, and the next day set out on a security patrol wearing body armour and armed to the teeth. An infantry soldier may be involved in humanitarian assistance in the morning, and in the afternoon be fighting for his life in a contact. This is now the reality of operational deployment. Add to this the need to meet the requirements of governance in OH&S, Equity & Diversity, Cultural Awareness and Risk Management, and it quickly becomes apparent that today’s Australian soldier must be able to draw on an immense database of knowledge and be capable of demonstrating expertise in a number of diverse areas.
It is the acquisition of both procedural and conceptual knowledge that leads to expertise.8 Clearly, Australian soldiers need to be able to employ more than just explicit procedural knowledge to be effective and expert in the workplace. What is required is a deeper conceptual understanding across a broad range of situational dimensions in varying contexts. Soldiers not only need to understand how to do their job, they need to understand the implications of rapidly changing contexts for their performance and actions within the broader workplace picture, whether this workplace is within their barracks or within an area of operations in a foreign country. The message for the Army is that training for explicit procedural knowledge is no longer sufficient. New methodologies are required to ensure that tacit conceptual understanding is developed in concert with explicit procedural knowledge. Key to this will be fully exploring the potential of the other forms of learning networks that exist within the organisation.
Horizontal Learning Networks
Workplaces contribute to learning in two broad areas: ‘those associated with the activities individuals engage in and those related to the support and guidance they receive while undertaking work activities’.9 This engagement in activity and accompanying guidance generally takes place within the network of workplace groups or teams. These interactions form the horizontal learning networks within an organisation.10
Soldiers spend most of their careers in a small team environment. In their early years they are part of a small team ‘at the coalface’ of their workplace, such as in an infantry section, artillery gun detachment, workshop maintenance team or catering kitchen shift. As they progress they may move into command and management teams; however, the one constant will remain their membership of a small team. Within these teams, soldiers will perform work activities and interact with other team members. The team will comprise members with varying types and levels of knowledge and experience, which is shared across the horizontal network of the team and, as such, produces learning opportunities for the other team members. For example, a member who has recently been deployed on operations can share learning gained through the performance of work tasks in a combat zone. Likewise, a member who has completed an exchange posting with an allied nation’s army can share insights into the way other armies tackle similar work issues.
Within these horizontal networks, the application of explicit procedural knowledge, supported by guidance from more experienced co-workers and supervisors, contributes to the development of tacit conceptual knowledge. This is then applied back to the explicit procedural performance to further enhance the depth of tacit conceptual understanding of work tasks and the contexts in which they are performed. The deeper tacit conceptual knowledge and the ‘compilation’ of explicit and tacit learning resulting from interaction within horizontal networks, moves the learner from novice to competent performer.11 As such, it is the learning that takes place in horizontal networks, and the enhanced explicit procedural and tacit conceptual knowledge developed within these networks, which contribute most to the ‘on the job experience and training’ elements of a soldier’s career development.
Liberal Learning Networks
Liberal learning networks are created when learners construct their own learning as a result of workplace experience and reflection.12 Within this network, individuals create their own learning from the repetition of tasks within an organisational context and from interaction with other learners; this is described as ‘experience based learning’.13 David A Kolb explored this concept and created a model of experiential learning to illustrate this process.14
Kolb's Model of Experiential Learning
Soldiers will develop deeper understanding as a result of applying skills and knowledge within the varying contexts of the workplace (concrete experience). These contexts can vary from barracks work in peacetime to combat situations on operations. The reflective observation of individual work performance and the performance of others contributes to tacit knowledge and conceptual understanding (abstract conceptualisation), which is further refined through active experimentation to create new concrete experience, thus resulting in even greater tacit and conceptual knowledge.15 Through this process, a deep level of knowledge and understanding is developed which leads to true expertise. This form of learning is most effective in learners who have the ability to think critically about work performances and outcomes—a fact recognised by the Army, which has initiated research on the development of thinking skills. It is this type of learning network that is ideally suited to supporting the ‘adapt’ phase of the ‘Adaption Cycle’ as described in the Army’s concept of Adaptive Campaigning.16
Of course, as in any essentially uncontrolled process, there is scope for what is described as ‘learning inappropriate knowledge’.17 Examples of this can range from shortcuts resulting in unsafe practices, to unsatisfactory attitudes with respect to OH&S or Equity & Diversity. Inappropriate learning generally results from the less than ideal attitudes and practices of co-workers and also from the offerings of ‘armchair experts’—workers whose professed expertise is substantial, but whose actual expertise is minimal. Once learned, inappropriate knowledge can be very difficult to discard or correct. Commanders and supervisors at all levels within the Army workplace must be vigilant and monitor the learning that takes place within liberal networks to ensure that the knowledge gained is appropriate and complies with workplace requirements and Army values.
Figure 1. Kolb’s model of experiential learning
The Congruence Of Learning Networks And Knowledge
In reality, learning networks in the Army workplace and the type of learning that takes place within these never fall neatly into one category. The vertical paradigm of Army learning is as much a result of the vertical organisational structure as it is a result of design. However, cutting across this at many levels are the horizontal and liberal networks formed among learners and work groups within the organisation. Command learning policies, such as the Commander’s Mission Essential Task Lists, cross all networks and reach into every level of learning. In fact, all training and work activities must link back to the Mission Essential Task Lists in some way so as to provide justification for the expenditure of resources. Likewise, a learning activity may comprise components from different network models. One example is the adoption of a vertical network approach to a learning program which addresses a learning need in a horizontal learning network. Similarly, use of a horizontal approach may be the best way to develop knowledge required for a linearly planned learning policy for career development and management.
Workplace learning—and the resulting knowledge—is just as complex. In any one day a soldier may be exposed to formal, informal and accidental learning opportunities. These may occur as a result of structured learning activities, ad hoc learning activities, the conduct of normal duties, the requirement to conduct other than normal duties, self-reflection and any number of other circumstances. All of these will contribute in some degree to the soldier’s explicit procedural knowledge and his or her tacit and conceptual knowledge.
Situated Learning
The increasing demands placed on the Army today take many forms, the most obvious of which is the tempo of military operations around the globe. Not so visible is the demand to rationalise resource expenditure at all levels. The government and people of Australia expect more ‘bang for their buck’ and, as a result, a significant portion of expenditure is focused on acquiring the personnel and resources with which to achieve results. Training, while necessary to produce these results, does not achieve the high profile of the more visible outputs of the organisation. Training establishments and units are under increasing pressure to find more cost-effective methods for the conduct of training. With this in mind, there is a real need to examine the potential contribution of the many other opportunities for learning that exist within the organisation. In particular, situated learning in the workplace is a key opportunity that needs to be exploited.
Many of the Army’s trades require the learner to complete a period of ‘on the job experience’ as part of a formal qualification. Generally, however, this is applied and managed in an ad hoc fashion at best. In the past, Training Command has demonstrated some reluctance to allow Land Command units to grant qualifications and competency, a reluctance that may be addressed under the new Forces Command structure. Given that the most important knowledge is gained through the actual performance of work in the horizontal and liberal networks of the workplace, a significant opportunity is clearly in danger of being lost. The Army’s units are well structured for the conduct of situated learning. Unit workplaces contain both the equipment used in the performance of work, and competent and qualified personnel to act as instructors, coaches and mentors. In addition, a major component of the focus of daily work is training.
Situated learning is, quite simply, ‘learning through goal-directed activity situated in circumstances which are authentic, in terms of the intended application of the learnt knowledge’. 18 One example of situated learning is the Army’s Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) trade. GBAD soldiers complete formal training at the School of Artillery training establishment and are then posted to the Air Defence Regiment. On arrival in the regiment, they move into a structured on-the-job training and experience program (workplace-situated learning). This program recognises the importance of the learning that takes place within the small team environment of an air defence detachment. The detachment commander assumes responsibility for the soldiers’ ongoing development and sets objectives in accordance with articulated requirements that will see the soldier progress to the level of full job competency and the resulting award of an increase in pay. Through this process, soldiers are mentored and guided by their supervisors and peers in the learning that takes place through the performance of work tasks situated in a range of authentic environments.
Labour Networks As Learning Providers
While the Army’s vertical networks generally support the development of basic explicit procedural knowledge, it is via the horizontal and liberal networks that depth of tacit conceptual knowledge for work will be built. As such, it is these networks that are best able to provide the framework around which effective situated learning can be structured. This is particularly pertinent to situated learning, as it is within the labour networks that situated learning will take place. Learning theorists describe four theoretical types of labour network: entrepreneurial, machine bureaucratic, adhocratic and professional.19 While there are examples of entrepreneurial and professional labour networks in the Army, these are generally limited to highly specialised work situations. Given the Army’s inherent command structure, one would expect that the predominant labour network would be machine bureaucracy.20 To a certain extent, within the context of the learning that takes place early in a soldier’s career, this is the case. Simple tasks and duties are performed under the supervision of the commander or a senior soldier so that the junior soldier can gain experience in a relatively safe and controlled manner. Yet, while this type of labour network is evident within the context of the junior soldier, the Army would not function if it were the predominant form of labour network throughout the entire organisation.
Using the theoretical types proposed, labour networks within the Army workplace could best be described as ‘adhocratic’ work groups influenced by the machine bureaucracy.21 Work can range from the simple and narrow to complex and broad in content. However, this work is team based and organic to the organisation, with a constant focus on improvement or learning. The small team must be able to function both autonomously and within a centrally controlled context, or any variation in between, and the variety of work tasks and contexts requires that the team be multidisciplinary. This form of labour network—and the associated horizontal and liberal learning networks that exist within it—is ideally suited to the facilitation of structured situated learning. The on-the-job training and experience program for GBAD soldiers, for example, owes its success to the effectiveness of learning within this labour network and demonstrates that situated learning is a viable option for many other Army trades.
For the Army to fully reap the benefits offered by situated learning within labour networks, several key barriers need to be addressed. Not the least of these is the tendency to believe that competency and qualifications can only be awarded as a result of attendance on formal ‘off job’ training courses at an Army training school. This is a misconception, as competency is not achieved until learning is transferred to the workplace. No soldier has ever left a training establishment course ‘competent’. Recognition of the contribution of workplace learning and experience, wherever and however gained, also provides a barrier to the implementation of situated learning programs. While the Army currently espouses both Recognition of Current Competency and Recognition of Prior Learning (RCC/RPL) policies, their implementation is problematic. Indeed, many soldiers find it more of an imposition to apply for RCC/RPL than to simply complete the required training. Soldiers are unlikely to support situated learning if it is of no perceived benefit in the long term, particularly if they are going to have to duplicate this training when they attend career and promotion courses. These barriers are often linked to ill-informed attitudes and are present within both the learning and labour networks of the Army. To some extent this is a generational issue. Change in this area is being championed by those who have a genuine desire to become expert in the field and challenge the paradigm.
Communities Of Practice As Learning Providers
Competence develops within the context of the workplace, professional and social communities to which learners belong, and in which competence must be demonstrated.22 Within these ‘communities of practice’, learners develop knowledge and understanding through joint enterprise, mutual engagement and shared repertoire. It follows then that these communities of practice can be invaluable resources in the quest for effective situated learning in the workplace.
Within the Army there are many communities of practice. They exist within the various specialty skill sets and trades, within the individual rank groups and within the individual corps of the Army. Communities of practice such as sporting teams, associations and interest groups also cross many of these boundaries. Soldiers will inevitably belong to several of these communities and it is within these that they will develop and advance through their careers, moving in and out of many communities as they go. The communities to which they belong in the performance of their work will provide context to that work. The communities to which they belong outside, but incidental to the workplace, will provide context to their place in the wider Army. These communities are ideally suited to the support of situated learning.
While these communities of practice currently make a considerable contribution to learning within the Army workplace, the Army is yet to recognise their potential as defined ‘communities of practice’. However, many recent developments across the Australian Defence Force as a whole appear to exhibit a community of practice approach. Such developments include engagement between the three services in combined service operations; engagement with regional and allied forces; adoption of standardised military terminology across allied defence forces; the move to a common model for training (the Defence Training Model); and the move to standardised Standard Operating Procedures.
Option For Discussion
The implementation of structured situated workplace learning programs requires careful management if these programs are to provide the benefits outlined. There is, however, a need for a paradigm shift. This shift involves the recognition that learning in the workplace is a major contributor to knowledge and skill development and the key to expert performance. With this in mind, focus can be directed towards identifying the various communities of practice and labour networks in which this learning is taking place. Once identified, the communities and labour networks can be analysed in order to establish the nature of the learning networks in action and the type of learning taking place. The value and relevance of the learning will need to be assessed, and poor learning and practices rectified and excluded. The result should be a virtual map of learning practices, where these occur, and the learning mechanisms at work. A comparison of the learning map with the competency and career development requirements of the soldiers concerned should allow an assessment of those elements of workplace learning that directly support the development of knowledge and skills necessary for the effective and expert performance of work tasks. As a corollary, learning programs can be designed that capture and direct learning in a structured sequence so that enhanced individual and organisational outcomes can be achieved.
‘The quality of direct interaction accessible in a workplace is a key determinant in the quality of learning outcomes.’23 Direct interaction depends on people. The implementation of situated learning programs will depend on high quality key actors taking responsibility for these programs within the workplace. A training manager— ideally experienced in the areas of trade management, training design and training development—will monitor, guide and evaluate training programs. Trainers will conduct workplace training sessions. As the Army is a registered training organisation, these individuals will require formal qualifications in training delivery and assessment in accordance with the Australian Quality Training Framework. Quality individuals will act as coaches and mentors for learners in the workplace and these individuals should be expert in their field and possess a genuine desire to impart knowledge.
Above all, a more flexible approach to assessment will be required to underpin the implementation of these training programs. Assessment formats are currently prescribed by the training establishment that sponsors the particular qualification. They tend to be rigid, centralised and focused on the training environment. Assessment in support of situated learning must be sufficiently flexible to be adapted to whatever context may be prevalent in the workplace at the time of assessment. If the soldier is deployed, then assessment needs to adapt to this context, providing all critical aspects of performance are met. Quality control will be a key issue in any move to decentralise assessment, and strict guidelines will be required to guarantee the maintenance of quality. One option is to embed training establishment personnel in the workplace while ensuring that they report directly to trade and training sponsors within the relevant training establishment rather than to individual unit commanders.
Conclusion
Situated learning has always existed within the Army workplace, yet it has never received the recognition necessary to harness its potential. The implementation of well planned and robust situated learning programs can provide a viable and effective option for the enhancement of learning outcomes for the Army. Properly designed, developed and resourced, and staffed with competent and committed personnel, situated learning within the Army community of practice can be a key contributor to an optimally functioning Army learning environment.
Endnotes
1 E Wegner and W Snyder, ‘Communities of Practice: The Organisational Frontier’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, No. 1, 2000.
2 J Mitchell, S Wood and S Young, Communities of practice. Reshaping professional practice and improving organisational productivity in the vocational education and training (VET) sector: resources for practitioners, Reframing the Future, Elizabeth, SA, 2001.
3 J Stevenson, ‘Working Knowledge’, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, Vol. 52, No. 3, 2000.
4 R F Poell, G E Chivers, F J Van der Grogt and D A Wildemeersch, ‘Learning-network Theory: Organising the Dynamic Relationships Between Learning and Work’, Management Learning, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2000, pp. 25–49.
5 J Raelin, ‘A Model of Work-based Learning’, Organisation Science, Vol. 8, No. 6, 1997.
6 J R Anderson, ‘Acquisition of Cognitive Skill’, Psychological Review, No. 89, pp. 369–406, 1982.
7 P Benner, ‘From Novice to Expert’, American Journal of Nursing, March 1982, pp. 402-07.
8 S Billett, Learning in the Workplace: Strategies for Effective Practice, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, 2001.
9 Ibid.
10 Poell et al., ‘Learning-network Theory’.
11 Anderson, ‘Acquisition of Cognitive Skill’.
12 Poell et al., ‘Learning-network Theory’.
13 J Garrick, ‘The Dominant Discourses of Learning at Work’ in D Boud and J Garrick, Understanding Learning at Work, Routledge, London, 1999.
14 David A Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1984.
15 Ibid.
16 Future Land Warfare Branch, Adaptive Campaigning: The Land Force Response to Complex Warfighting, Headquarters, Department of Defence, Canberra, 2007, pp. 7-9.
17 Billett, Learning in the Workplace.
18 S Billett, ‘Situated Learning: Bridging Sociocultural and Cognitive Theorising’, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1996.
19 F J Van der Krogt, Learning in Networks: The Many-faceted Job of Organising Learning Networks with a View to Humanity and Work Relevance, Lemma, Utrecht, 1995; F J Van der Krogt, ‘Learning Network Theory: The Tension Between Learning Systems in Organisations’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1998.
20 Machine Bureaucracy - an organisation in which learning and work depend primarily on the standardisation of operating processes for coordination and in which these processes become a key part of the structure. These types of organisations are ‘performance organisations’ not ‘problem solving organisations’. Henry Mintzberg, <http://www.12manage.com/methods_mintzberg_configurations.html>, accessed 20 May 2009.
21 Adhocracy – a term from the theory of management of organisations. Adhocracy refers to the opposite of bureaucracy, or the absence of hierarchy. All members of the organisation have the authority to make decisions and to take actions affecting the future of the organisation. Webster’s Online Dictionary, <http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/adhocracy>, accessed 23 June 2009.
22 Wegner and Snyder, ‘Communities of Practice’.
23 Billett, Learning in the Workplace.
