Summary

The majority of participants considered the Forum a valuable chance to network and review the current situation, particularly because the training and recognition of Workplace Education practitioners has rarely been the focal point of a national discussion. Participants were afforded the opportunity to celebrate similarities in opinion as well as gaining a greater understanding of the diverse nature of Workplace Education across the country. No decisive steps were taken in any given direction, but through the discussions a general consensus emerged on a number of points.

Firstly, the recognition of diversity was fundamental to all discussions. Different delivery models, working contexts and learner groups require a field of practitioners with a broad range of skills and experience.

Because of this, the variety of individual professional development paths within the field of Workplace Education was considered a great strength and point of pride. Participants stated that professional development efforts should continue to reflect and support the diversity of the field, responding to different levels of experience as well as to different needs and interests. The value of a mix of formal and informal expertise-building, specific training, mentoring and hands-on experience was emphasized. Although professional development efforts might include common elements across the country, participants felt it was important to maintain regional responsiveness. A number of professional development models were discussed.

Next, participants recognized that the diversity of the field - while serving as a strength - could make it difficult to package the work of the Workplace Education Practitioner into a neat list of minimum competencies. Participants re-iterated the role of attitudes, ethics, values and educational philosophy in describing a "good practitioner". As a result, national/regional requirements based on competencies were seen as unwieldy and unnecessary for the time being (set by whom? monitored by whom? required/desired by whom?). Formal recognition could instead be related to training initiatives rather than to national/regional performance measures. Some participants expressed an interest in general "best practices" as an appropriate guide to quality service and programming.

Finally, there was interest in research for and about practitioners, as well as in improved communication between practitioners in the different regions, perhaps through some type of electronic infrastructure. Networking, mentoring and information-sharing were seen as vital elements of professional development.

Workplace Education Practitioners' Forum
Summary Report