Powered by ProofFactor - Social Proof Notifications

Comparison and Contrast: Learning in School Verses Learning in Workplace

Oct 25, 2018 | 0 comments

Oct 25, 2018 | Essays | 0 comments

Rate this post

Comparison and Contrast: Learning in School Verses Learning in Workplace

For several decades, people around the globe have linked the concept of ‘learning’ to formal education or the school knowledge. However, its relevance in the perspective and milieu of work is comparatively a recent phenomenon whose attention has significantly expanded in the recent times. From the conception of 1990, working environments have submerged into the idea of workplace learning and the area has witnessed massive growth due to the exceptional swift changes that have taken place in the working life and the society as a whole. Therefore, this paper tries to explore the differences and the similarities between the two sets of learning environments.

In the current times, learning is widely recognized as an occurrence located in a particular cultural perspective (Brown, Andy, and Hugh 54). For that reason, learning in school setup differs from learning in the workplace. The main difference is that the schooling system depends on formal and officially planned educational actions or programs while learning at work is naturally informal. What’s more, the school learning mostly focuses on individual practices or activities while learning in an outside activity entails sharing ideas communally or collectively. Despite the growing familiarity with the grouping activities at schools, students ultimately fall into judgment and evaluation from the perspective of an individual work and examination. On the disparity, most workplace activities need teamwork with other individuals, and everyone’s capability to work successfully lies on the presentations of numerous individuals.

Furthermore, the school focuses on intellectual activities while, in the work environment, people apply a broad range of tools. For instance, the routine evaluation of learning in the formal system bases on memory only, while, in the workplace learning, both physical and mental tools are more imperative than the exemption. Classroom or school learning involves teachers who guides the students and give them insights on the subjects they are supposed to undertake. Particular tools, which make it distinct from the workplace learning, include books, school uniform, calculators, and playing grounds. As well, the school education requires close monitoring of learners and routine evaluations or tests as a way of gauging their mental growth. On the other hand, workers evaluation entails methodologies, which do not intend to test their mental increase but their performance standards.

Regardless of the significant differences between workplace learning and school learning, there are connections as well. The workplace in correspondence to the schooling system would function as a background or framework for official employee training. Of late, corporate training has been familiar in the large firms and the universities have played a significant responsibility in programs and activities on corporate training (Brown, Andy, and Hugh 93). A good example is the role of the university in the interactive business learning, where they extend their reach to workplaces and organizations, which in the process motivates learning. Fundamentally, formal education and training perform a vital role in the organizational growth and development. Strengthening the cooperation between work and education would transform the way of learning in both circumstances, and the end may result in entirely new kinds of learning opportunities. Comparatively, the schooling system has emphasized learning in an organized school environment as a way of reserving an ongoing learning process; as well, the workplace learning has encouraged learning as a continued process of acquiring new skills.

On the losing end, investigations on the outcomes of education, notably at the tertiary level, have revealed the gap between the skills and knowledge acquired from formal education and the knowledge required to work. Brown, Andy, and Hugh classify methodological knowledge, theoretical knowledge, generic skills, practical techniques and competencies, and general knowledge about the career in question as the types of knowledge, which the professional and vocational education systems claim to offer (107). Thereupon, he asserts that even though many of these types of knowledge are transferable in the description, the evidence supporting the extent to which students acquire generic skills, methodological knowledge, and general knowledge of an occupation is very negligible. As well, he highlights that there is limited proof concerning the possibilities of practical skills and theoretical knowledge being transferable into the workplace. In a study involving university and polytechnic graduates, findings revealed their inadequacy of working skills and most of them confirmed that the acquisition of the skills they had occurred at the workplace (Brown, Andy and Hugh 101)

.

Work Cited

Brown, Phillip, Andy Green, and Hugh Lauder. High Skills: Globalization, Competitiveness, and Skill Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.

Don`t copy text!