than turn to breaking down outcomes into precise tasks, it is important to remember that work is messy and dynamic. As indicated in the previous section, the capabilities required of learners for and in the world of work are complex. This complexity needs to be reflected in assessment (Knight & Yorke, 2003). The following section explores what a practice-based approach to assessment means. 2.2.1. A practice-based approach to learning and assessment Traditionally theorisation of learning has focused on the individual, employing mostly linear metaphors of learning and development, such as the Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) novice-to-expert trajectory. When we use a practice lens, we understand learning as embodying the principles of practice as:
a particular disciplinary field (e.g. mathematics, social sciences); a vocational field (e.g. cheffing, engineering, medicine); kinds of learning (e.g. critical thinking, “deep” learning); or work, that is, learning through engaging in the everyday practices of your work.
A practice lens enables us to strongly connect with our understanding of the changing nature of work. That is, as practices are emergent, not stable, so we understand the world of work to be constantly emergent, albeit to different degrees depending on the form of production, regulatory requirements, the “sticky-ness” of traditional practices and so on. We conceive learning as an ongoing process; the individual and collectives can produce social relations and practices, or change practices (perhaps in quite minute ways) as they make decisions, and take actions within everyday routines (Reckwitz, 2002). These processes may take place under circumstances that are emergent, and/or there may be inadequate information or knowledge on the part of the agent (individual or collective). In the process of engaging in work practices we are constantly in the process of “becoming” an engineer, a cook, a doctor and so on, albeit within the particular circumstances of the working environment. That is, knowledge, values and skills are not separate from the context of practice (Zukas & Kilminster, 2012). So what is a “practice”? A practice is a “constellation of different people’s activities … it embraces multiple people. The activities that compose it … are organised … a practice is an open-ended, spatially-temporally dispersed nexus of doings and sayings” (Schatzki, 2012, pp. 13–14). It is inclusive of rules, understandings, resources, purposes, material “things” and the relations between them. Hager, Lee & Reich (2012) outline five principles for theorising professional practice: practice as knowledgeable action, as embodied and materially mediated doings and sayings, as relational, as evolved in historical and social contexts and power relations, and as emergent (p. 8).
Practice is more than applying ‘theoretical knowledge’ (p. 3) or a product of learning. Knowledge is not static but a process of “knowing in practice”. People are invested in purposeful activity – there is an affective domain to practice; practice generates its own understandings and actions. Practice is embodied and relational. Thus practice is social and dialogical, co-producing ways of knowing in space and over time. Practices are not “stable, homogenous nor ahistorical” (p. 4); they evolve over time, in different places and circumstances. This includes how we govern ourselves and govern others, which in turn accounts for the way we work, learn and practice. Practices are emergent; we cannot specify in advance what they might be. Thus rather than thinking in binaries (e.g. mind–body, structure–agency, etc.), macro-thinking is more appropriate, such as, as ecologies, dynamics.
Through Hager et al.’s (2012) explanation of practice, we can readily see connections between the capabilities and qualities identified in the changing nature of work section that are becoming increasingly important, albeit in different ways and in different settings. For example, identity and agency for learning
26
