Introduction

In the workplace, learning and training have many functions, including to develop individual and collective knowledge and skills to effectively perform operational and organisational tasks and roles (Eiter & Bellanca, 2020), adapt to new processes and technologies (Kraiger & Ford, 2021), build mastery (Kraiger & Ford, 2021), reskill and upskill employees (Eiter & Bellanca, 2020; Li, 2022), promote employee wellbeing (Talati et al., 2018), and foster safe work practices (Eiter & Bellanca, 2020; van Wyk & de Villiers, 2019). In high-risk industries like the mining and resources sector, training programs are integral to developing knowledge and skills in operations, safe work practices, and risk awareness (Eiter & Bellanca, 2020). Effective training is essential in this industry, particularly in response to challenges posed by hazardous environments, workforce turnover and technological changes. Understanding how, where, why, and what employees learn through training is key to ensuring individual, organisational, and industry outcomes (Kraiger & Ford, 2021).

Background

In Australia, the mining industry significantly contributes to the economy (Minerals Council of Australia [MCA], 2023), employing over 264 000 people (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023). The industry provides essential raw materials and critical minerals needed to support modern society. However, it is currently facing unprecedented challenges on multiple fronts (MCA, 2023). Rising demand for minerals and resources, driven by the transition to low carbon technologies and infrastructure, is pushing the industry’s workforce and operational limits (The World Bank, 2020). Increasingly, there is a need for industry employees to transition into new roles, upskill, cross-skill and/ or re-skill, illustrating the urgency of developing an agile, adaptable workforce who can respond to new technologies and new ways of working (MCA, 2019). The sector is also contending with a significant workforce shortfall. This challenge is intensified by a downturn in recruitment and the departure of experienced workers (MCA, 2019; 2023). Consequently, this not only impacts production but also safety, as roles typically held by experienced personnel are increasingly filled by less experienced staff.

Within the industry, the overarching outcome of training is to promote safe production—or as the industry says, ‘ensure every worker goes home safely after every shift’. This outcome is crucial due to the work’s inherent risks, as employees often endure long hours in challenging and hazardous conditions, handling heavy and complex machinery. Despite widespread training, accidents still occur. Between 2002 and 2022, there were 169 fatalities on mine sites in Australia (Safework Australia, n.d.), and between January 2000 and July 2022, there were 53 fatalities on mine sites in Queensland alone (Brady, 2019). The nature and quality of training has been linked to accidents and fatalities, highlighting the need for improved training practices (Brady, 2019; Palka, 2017; Velikanov et al., 2017).

While the industry acknowledges that understanding and addressing the quality of training for frontline workers is an urgent priority, it is unsure how to go about it. A better understanding of the current factors and processes involved in preparing and sustaining frontline worker knowledge, skills, and capabilities is needed. This research project is part of an ongoing research-practice partnership between The University of Queensland Learning Lab and key stakeholders from the Australian mining industry. Our long-term goal is to establish an industry-wide shared understanding of ‘what good looks like’ in learning and training for safe production, and to establish processes for how it can be actioned into sustainable practice across the industry. Here we start by gathering a ‘lay of the land’: capturing the voices of diverse industry employees and their insights and experiences of work-related training and learning. Using a grounded, qualitative approach we aimed to explore the individual, contextual, organisational, and workplace factors and processes that frontline workers perceived as supporting or hindering effective training and capability development for themselves and the industry more broadly. Therefore,the overarching research question for this project was: What are the barriers and enablers to effective training in the mining industry?

This research makes a unique contribution to the literature by engaging the voices of frontline workers. By grounding this work in real-world practice and gathering insights into employee perspectives of workplace learning and training, this research aims to create new industry-specific knowledge about how employees learn and the factors and processes they report as promoting or hindering the development of capabilities to perform their roles effectively and safely. Personal and contextual insight will provide practical recommendations for the industry to enact now and guide the identification of priority areas for further collaborative research and action in the future. It will lay the foundations for future evidence-informed approaches to workplace learning that prepare and support frontline workers who can be agile, adapting and responding to new technologies, new roles and ways of working, ensuring a strong, safe industry in the future.

Literature Review

Workplace learning is complex and multifaceted, encompassing a wide range of formal, informal, and incidental learning experiences (Eraut, 2004; Marsick & Watkins, 1990; Marsick et al., 2017; Messmann et al., 2018). Formal learning involves structured programs and training sessions, such as workshops and courses, that are intentionally designed to impart specific skills or knowledge. Informal learning occurs through unstructured, everyday interactions and activities, such as mentoring, peer discussions, and on-the-job experiences. These learning opportunities are often spontaneous and driven by the learner’s immediate needs and interests. Incidental learning, on the other hand, happens as an unintended by-product of other activities, often without the learner’s conscious awareness (Marsick & Watkins, 1990). This type of learning can occur through everyday problem-solving, reflections on work experiences, casual conversations with workmates, and through trial and error.

While formal learning and training programs are more easily designed and quantifiable, informal learning that occurs on-the-job on a continuous basis may not be as easily captured (Eraut, 2004). In fact, Eraut (2004) argues that most of the learning in the workplace is informal, occurring through participation in work activities, observation of others, and engagement in social interactions. Similarly, Billet (2004) emphasises the significance of workplace affordances, such as access to resources, guidance, and opportunities for participation, in shaping employees’ learning experiences and outcomes. These perspectives support the notion that workplace learning doesn’t occur in ‘atomised’ moments but rather is an ongoing process deeply embedded in the work context (Hager, 2013; Webster-Wright, 2009; Wenger, 2018).

In the mining industry, regulated formal training for frontline workers is delivered through structured training programs. This includes site-based inductions that familiarise new employees with the specific operational procedures, safety protocols, and the unique hazards of the mining site. Frontline workers also receive competency training to ensure proficiency in specific roles, covering areas such as machinery operation, safety practices, and emergency response. For skilled trades, such as electricians and other technical roles, formal learning involves obtaining trade certifications that demonstrate their capability to perform specialised tasks. These certifications are typically obtained through technical schools, vocational education and training institutions, and apprenticeship programs. Supervisors often undergo generic training courses which cover essential supervisory skills, workplace health and safety, and risk management.

While these regulated training programs are evident across the industry, there is limited knowledge about how frontline workers engage with or draw upon this training, and how they learn through informal or incidental means. It is well established that most learning that occurs in the workplace occurs on-the-job, both incidentally and intentionally, and sometimes in contexts and environments that do not initially have learning in mind (Eraut, 2004; Marsick et al., 2017). Therefore, this study aimed to explore frontline workers’ experiences and perceptions of workplace learning, investigating how, where and when they develop capabilities in addition to regulated training programs. By examining these aspects of informal learning, the study seeks to provide insights into the holistic learning experiences of frontline workers in the mining industry.

Workplace learning is a highly individualised process, shaped by a person’s prior knowledge, personal experiences, and attributes (Billet, 2018). At the same time, it is situated within and influenced by the physical and organisational limitations and expectations of the work environment (Goodyear, et al., 2021; Wenger, 2018). The specific characteristics of a work site, along with the available tools and resources, shape how individuals and teams learn and behave (Goodyear, et al., 2021).

To better understand these complex dynamics within the mining industry, this study adopts a constructivist approach, which suggests that learning is an active, constructed process where individuals build their knowledge and skills through personal experiences, social interactions, and engagement with their environment (Brown et al., 1989; McInerney, 2013). This perspective acknowledges the importance of individual and collective learning processes in shaping effective workplace practices. Building upon this foundation, the study draws insights from social learning theories, such as Bandura’s social learning theory (1977) and situated learning theory (Lave, 1991), which emphasise the role of observational learning, social participation, and engagement in communities of practice. These theories highlight how employees engage with their socio-cultural context and learn through interactions with others, be it peers, mentors, or experts.

Despite the growing body of research on workplace learning, there remains a need for more industry-specific studies that examine the unique challenges and opportunities for learning in high-risk sectors such as the mining industry. This is particularly important given repeated recommendations that the industry improve training as part of their response to workplace accident prevention. Additionally, while the literature has explored various factors that influence workplace learning, there is a lack of comprehensive frameworks that integrate theoretical and frontline worker insights and provide a structured approach for analysing the barriers and enablers to effective learning in specific organisational contexts.

To address this gap, the 3P model of workplace learning (Tynjälä, 2013) offers a comprehensive framework for understanding and analysing the complex interplay of factors shaping learning experiences and outcomes in the workplace. This model considers presage, process, and product factors. Presage focuses on the learning factors, such as prior knowledge, skills, motivation, and self-efficacy, as well as the learning context, which includes the organisational environment, culture, social interactions, and resources that support or hinder learning. Process focuses on the learning activities and experiences that employees engage in to acquire knowledge, skills, and competencies. This includes formal training programs, informal workplace learning, social interactions, and reflective practices. Product refers to the learning outcomes resulting from the interaction between the presage and process factors. These outcomes can include the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and competencies, as well as changes in attitudes, behaviours, and professional identity.

In the context of this study, the 3P model provides a valuable framework for examining the barriers and enablers to effective learning in the mining industry. By considering the presage factors, such as employees’ prior experience and the organisational culture, the study can identify the contextual factors that influence learning. The process component allows for an in-depth exploration of the learning activities and experiences that employees engage in, including formal training, on-the-job learning, and social interactions. By examining employees’ perceptions of these factors, the study aims to gain insights into the barriers and enablers to effective learning in the mining industry, ultimately contributing to the development of strategies that support the desired product: task performance and safe production.

Methods

Study Design

The mining industry, with its diverse workforce, predominantly conducts formal training onsite. To explore individual and contextual factors that influence workplace learning and the processes (activities) that diverse employees participate in across various roles to develop the competencies that enable safe production, we engaged directly with industry stakeholders and employees through a qualitative approach. Semi-structured interviews were employed, balancing structured research inquiries with the opportunity for participants to freely share experiences beyond pre-determined prompts.

Participants

Participants were from three distinct operational mine sites in Queensland, Australia. The sites comprised one above-ground (Open Cut) and two underground mines. A total of 83 industry employees participated, representative of diverse roles across the industry, from nippers to mine management. Participants’ experience in the industry ranged from those new to the industry (termed “greens”) with only months of experience, to highly experienced employees with over 40 years’ experience.

Measures and Procedure

From October 2022 to January 2023, our research team conducted semi-structured interviews at three sites. Access to sites was granted following gatekeeper consent, and recruitment invitations were disseminated with the help of industry stakeholders. Semi-structured interviews were scheduled during participants’ rostered shifts to ensure convenience and minimal disruption to daily operations. All interviews were audio-recorded for transcription. Participation was voluntary, with the option to withdraw at any time. Participants were asked to reflect on their broader industry experiences spanning multiple sites and organisations. There were two sets of questions: one for operators and non-supervisory staff and the other for those in leadership roles, such as supervisors and managers (see Table 1).

Table 1 Sample interview questions
Full size table

Data Analysis

The audio recordings were transcribed in full, checked for accuracy and each participant was ascribed a unique identifying code. We conducted a thematic analysis, using both deductive and inductive approaches. Initial conceptual bins (topics including Barriers, Enablers, Training experiences) were drawn from the Research Question and semi-structured interview questions, with the data analysed deductively using these concepts. Deidentified transcripts were analysed using NVivo, where a first cycle of coding was conducted. During the initial coding phase, the researchers met on multiple occasions to discuss their coding, ensuring reliability through regular reviews. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. Through multiple iterations of analysis, the codes were expanded, refined, and sometimes merged (Braun & Clark, 2022), leading to the identification of six distinct but interrelated themes as the researchers’ comprehension of the data became more nuanced.

Results

As articulated by Goodyear et al., (2021), workplace learning is shaped by individual, social, organisational, and physical dimensions across the micro, meso, and macro levels of the system. Systems-level barriers and enablers to learning and training were identified in this study across the 3P’s of presage, process, and product, from the ‘micro’ individual level to the ‘meso’ organisational level and the ‘macro’ industry level (see Table 2).

Table 2 Perceived systems-based enablers and barriers
Full size table

Frontline workers in this study conceptualised ‘training’ and ‘learning’ distinctively, reflecting the multifaceted nature of workplace learning described in the literature (see Eraut, 2004; Marsick et al., 2017; Marsick & Watkins, 1990; Messmann et al., 2018): Participants described training as a noun - as the ‘formal’, ‘classroom-based’ experience in which information is communicated to employees:

“I guess training is a formal process that we make sure we have boxes ticked.” (WGLL225); “training to me is more formal, the things that you need to do along the way to be qualified and competent in new roles” (WGLL227).

In contrast, ‘learning’ was described as a verb, as what you do actively with your knowledge:

“I think about learning as an experience and … your development as a person and a professional …every day you learn something and you get better at what you do and learn a little bit more about your role and the rest of the business” (WGLL227).

The following section presents the main findings surrounding the perceived barriers and enablers.

Barriers

Process - Activities

In the 3P model of workplace learning, learning activities and experiences that employees engage in to acquire knowledge, skills, and competencies constitute Process. Process activities include formal training programs, informal learning through work tasks, social interactions, and reflective practices.

Inconsistencies in training and scattered approaches were reported by participants as a frustration and a barrier to effective learning:

“So there's massive inconsistencies [in training across the industry]…We need a standardised programme” (WGLL322).

Participants identified that training experiences were often poorly designed and decontextualised - isolated, ill-timed, and disconnected from their practical application:

“I think that you've got to follow up on the training…, I've been to some training courses, and I've not used it for another two years, and I might as well not have gone on the training course. So, I think if you're going to do a training course, you've got to have a purpose for it to be applied” (WGLL201).

Training inconsistencies and gaps were identified in supporting role transitions within and across the industry, such as integrating new workers and graduates into the industry:

“I think probably the other place that training could be improved would be graduate stuff. It's very hit and miss. I know very few graduates that have had a pain free process coming through” (WGLL201).

Frontline workers moving between different operational roles or from operations to administrative roles reported the need for more transitional training:

“The transition from being an operator to being an office person was quite different ” (WGLL202).

Likewise, those transitioning out of the industry or out of an operational role also reported feeling unprepared:

“It's pretty daunting … we've been doing this a long time, and then say, you know, it starts to hurt and you start getting busted up. What are you going to do?...what else am I good at? (WGLL112).

These findings suggest that there is a need for more targeted training to support frontline workers to transition, reskill, upskill, and cross-skill.

Within the mining industry, an integral role to support learning and task execution is mentoring. In this study, the role of mentors was described as pivotal to the quality of learning and for developing the knowledge, skill, awareness, and confidence of novice operators and crew across all roles:

"… I think mentorship is really, really important” (WGLL229).

However, despite the importance of quality mentoring, there was no evidence provided of any formalised mentor training, with mentoring skills reported by participants as often being acquired through day-to-day experience:

“Only experience and being shown by other people on site really, which varies a lot, depending on the experience level they've got. There's no real…set way of doing stuff. It can vary. [I’m] relying on who showed me to show me the right way…” (WGLL316).

The industry is currently experiencing a broader skills shortage, and the resulting loss of experience is placing pressure on organisations to progress employees through roles quicker than in the past. With less experience in the role, employees have less opportunity to build comprehensive knowledge and skills relating to their role, resulting in a practice of concern to many participants of “greens training greens” — inexperienced workers mentoring other inexperienced workers:

“You do your theory and then you get mentored by someone who might only be doing the job for six months longer than you” (WGLL115).

Participants suggested that the outcome was a deterioration of knowledge as it was passed on:

“So then we ended up with fruit from a contaminated tree. Johnny hasn’t learnt properly, now Johnny's teaching someone else — Johnny's teaching this person the best he can, but he's only got 80% of the knowledge. So, this guy's only getting 80%” (WGLL202).

Furthermore, no systematic processes for selecting mentors were outlined, instead individuals are selected by supervisors based on a ‘hunch’ or judgement of their dispositions. Participants suggested mentor training would be beneficial:

“I think that it would be useful to … come up with a training plan for mentoring…the managing skills, I feel like I have learned all of those … the hard way, by making a mistake and being like, ‘ah, that wasn't right’, particularly as you're promoted” (WGLL201).

The activity of “greens training greens” was reported to be disintegrating the quality of knowledge and practice being shared, and therefore lowering the standard of task performance and competence by individuals, In the mining industry, competency is a standard measure of a worker's skills. While competency-based checklists are used, there's a tendency to rely on subjective evaluations:

“You can just see...by seeing someone operate a piece of machinery, you can tell straight away if they’ve done it for a while or not...” (WGLL201).

These assessments often draw on the observer's subjectivity rather than clear, objective criteria:

“I guess you can probably …pick, if you're an experienced trainer, how the trainees coping” (WGLL301).

When asked about how competency is evaluated, confidence and other observable outcomes were also often equated with competence and used as a method of evaluation:

“Confident in what they do...I guess, safe...tidy work... You can observe that...Willing to help others as well, because you know that if they would be willing to help someone else and give them advice, you've obviously got a bit of experience behind you” (WGLL302).

These findings suggest there is a need to build more robust, evidence-informed, objective evaluation processes. More generally, there was an absence of evidence-informed and systematic approaches to learning and training for frontline workers and mentors. While there were illustrations of practices that were reflective of the evidence surrounding effective learning, many of these resulted from instructor or mentor intuition, trial and error, or as a reflection to how they themselves learnt:

“…it's worked for me” (WGLL117).

However, the use of effective evidence-informed learning, training, and mentoring practices was largely scattered, accidental, and unsystematic.

Presage - Learning Context

Several integrated contextual barriers to quality learning and training were identified, including operational pressures, industry value of training, loss of experiential knowledge, and industry-wide skills shortage. The context in which workplace training and practice occur is greatly influenced by workplace culture. Participants in this study reflected on the different workplace cultures they had experienced over their career, recognising how culture influences operational targets. Operational pressures to meet production targets were often cited by participants as placing pressure on time to train and learn:

“…it’s like ‘ok well where's the designated time for us to learn?’ (WGLL322),

as well as on practical resources, and therefore opportunities for training:

“I think just getting to spend more time with the people rather than just rushing them off to their job straight away. And being able to show them around and show them the right way of doing things…you know, more on the job type of things” (WGLL204).

Supervisors, trainers, leading hands all recognise the importance of having time to share knowledge and experience with “greens” but said it was often difficult to find the time:

“So being able to go from the induction then go to their job site and spend time with them on that and talking to them...ideally, we should be… down there sharing our wisdom more—our knowledge and…our concerns for them, but we just don't get the time to do it” (WGLL204).

Time was also seen as a barrier in terms of an employee having time to process new knowledge and skills:

“You're always under the pump,… just being…under the pump can be quite difficult to actually retain that knowledge…you're moving on to the next thing very quickly” (WGLL229).

Participants recognised a correlation between the time given to training and the value the industry or organisation placed upon it’s worth:

“So, I think time management, but also acknowledging how important is to allocate time for it, not just … every now and then, … make it a priority” (WGLL322).

The current industry skills shortage is exacerbated by experienced workers leaving the industry or retiring (MCA, 2023). The loss of experiential wisdom was a concern for many participants:

“We've still got very experienced older fellas there that can pass their knowledge down. I'm hoping we don't lose that. I'm hoping we can get enough people in the industry and trained and … pass that information down from generation to generation” (WGLL317).

Summary of Barriers

In summary, the barriers identified by participants in the mining industry — ranging from inconsistent training approaches and the subjective nature of competency evaluations to the challenges posed by workforce shortages and the lack of formal mentorship programs — highlight critical areas in need of attention and improvement. These challenges not only impact the effectiveness of current training practices but also have broader implications for workforce development and safe production. However, alongside these barriers, participants also identified key enablers that offer promising avenues for enhancing the quality of learning and training. The following section delves into these enablers, shedding light on the potential strategies and practices that can support and strengthen learning and training in the mining industry.

Enablers

Process – Learning Activities

Participants unanimously agreed that both formal training and informal and incidental on-the-job learning are essential for acquiring the knowledge, skills, and competencies that facilitate safe production in the mining industry. They indicated that formal training programs lay the groundwork, imparting essential knowledge on operations, safety, policies, procedures, and site orientation:

“I think the physical and then the manual training, you know, like being out there actually doing it sticks better than reading or doing a PowerPoint. I think…though, you need to have both… You need to have some background before you go out and do … the practical side of things…especially in mining because …there's a lot going on…” (WGLL307).

However, while training plays a role in supporting learning, participants reported that the most valuable learning occurred “on-the-job”. Hands-on, informal, or incidental learning was reported as effective across all roles and frequently described as situated and ongoing:

“…you do learn a lot underground, on the job, as you go” (WGLL207).

Having the opportunity to observe and apply skills in-context brought meaning to theoretical or formal training for front line workers:

“I think you can do all the courses in the world. But if you don't have hands on, it doesn't take you anywhere…you don't know what you're talking about” (WGLL204),

and for supervisors:

“They’ve already got that bit of an understanding from reading it, but it doesn't really lock in until they're actually down there on the shop floor” (WGLL202).

Presage – Learning Context

Contextual factors relating to organisational culture and workplace interactions featured heavily in frontline workers perceptions of how they most effectively learn. In particular, participants described the power of learning with and from others on-the-job, especially more experienced colleagues:

“… other miner’s experience, that's probably where I've learned the most to be honest” (WGLL207).

Interactions with crew, colleagues, and mentors provided opportunities for learning through observation, with participants speaking frequently of how they learn by “watching other people” (WGLL204) and picking up important “tricks of the trade”. Observational learning was powerful not just in frontline operational and service roles, but also in supervisory and management roles:

"And observation is another one, just through experience in mining the… 13 years or whatever I've been mining… I've worked under numerous shift bosses and just seeing how different people run things and different people do things.” (WGLL223).

The importance of social learning and workplace culture for learning on-the-job was clear throughout the study, with workers actively involved in supporting each other's learning. Common organisational practices that were highly valued by participants involved different degrees of formalised mentoring, pairing less experienced workers with more experienced colleagues to build their knowledge and confidence:

“If we're training a truck driver, they spend a lot of time underground with another operator, and vice versa. We always have someone with [a worker] that's training on the plant.—” (WGLL202).

In fact, mentorship was highly praised as a crucial enabler of effective learning:

“We learn by doing things with a mentor” (WGLL310).

Employees are generally assigned a mentor who supports them as they transition into the workplace environment or a new role. Participants reported that mentors were usually valued as they were seen as ‘near-peers’ — colleagues who had recency, experience, and perhaps expertise in the role currently being learnt:

“I believe you have to have a mentor, a good person, and someone that looks out for you…make sure when [you] do the job, [you] do the right job” (WGLL310).

The value of mentors appeared to be in their proximity to the task, enabling timely and relevant advice and feedback, and scaffolded support to solve task challenges and problem-solve collaboratively:

“... we sit down and we break the job down into steps. We'll start with ‘righto, we're going to set this job up. What do we look at when we're setting this up?’ [We] make sure that before we start, everything's in place, then we'll break the job down into steps” (WGLL307).

Overwhelmingly, the role of mentors was described as pivotal to the quality of learning and for developing the knowledge, skill, awareness, and confidence of novice operators:

"… I think mentorship is really, really important” (WGLL229).

Given the importance of observation, modelling, and mentoring for supporting quality workplace learning, industry experience is highly valued:

“I'd prefer to take it off a very knowledgeable person that's been doing it for 30 years compared to someone that's green” (WGLL101).

Many experienced workers—now in mentoring, supervisory, or training roles—described practices they use to support learning within their teams or crews, illustrating some evidence-informed practices. These practices included engaging in dialogic feedback processes:

“So I think feedback for me is one of the most crucial things for a supervisor. And good supervisors will give feedback constantly—it opens that dialogue so you can talk to someone” (WGLL122);

active learning and positive reinforcement:

“I never tell them how to do it. I [ask] them how they think they should do it. And then I sort of build on new ideas, and positive reinforcement of feedback. I don't believe that any form of negativity is a good way to learn a lot of the time (WGLL117);

supporting attention and situational awareness:

“We do like a risk assessment on pretty much everything. That can be as basic as a simple take five, it's just a little 2-minute…you know, make sure there's no trip hazards on the floor” (WGLL307);

supporting the development of self-awareness:

“I just talk and just tell him get himself comfortable and poke along. I always tell him drive at what they're comfortable with, don’t push yourself...” (WGLL208);

and scaffolding that gradually releases responsibility to the operator:

“If you're in a truck, for example, which is our starter level, you'll spend quite a while in the dicky seat of this truck, driving up and down, and then having somebody with you as you drive up and down, before your released [on your own]” (WGLL225).

Participants also recounted other important strategies they had learnt for keeping themselves and others safe on-the-job. These included revisiting training over time, monitoring cognitive load, asking questions, monitoring their awareness of the environment, and building procedural knowledge. While there were illustrations of practices that were reflective of the evidence surrounding effective learning, many of these resulted from instructor or mentor intuition, trial and error, or as a reflection of how they themselves learnt: “…it's worked for me” (WGLL117). However, the use of effective evidence-informed learning practices was scattered and unsystematic.

Regardless of role, one common perception amongst participants was that quality social interactions and interpersonal relationships were essential for enabling effective workplace learning and safe production:

“I find we've got a really good crew, and everyone's… really helpful and happy to help you learn and not make you feel stupid for asking” (WGLL228).

Quality workplace relationships were described in terms of support: “Nice to get a lot of support here… We all look after one another” (WGLL121), and in terms of friendship and ‘family’:

“I'm very close to my team, if they are upset or sick or whatever. We are a close team. So, you feel like you become a little family …we look out for each other” (WGLL310).

Given the nature of the work — the hazards, the long hours, the weeks away from home, the fly-in-fly-out lifestyle — quality relationships were integral, not just in day-to-day operations, but also to overall wellbeing, sense of belonging, and workplace culture.

In summary, our participants highlighted several key factors that enhance learning in the mining industry. They valued a mix of formal training and on-the-job experiences, emphasising active engagement in work tasks and learning from experienced colleagues through observation and mentoring. Frontline workers stressed the importance of collaborative problem solving, timely feedback, strong workplace relationships, and psychological safety. These insights highlight the complex nature of effective learning in mining, where structured training complements the rich learning opportunities embedded in daily work.

Discussion

For the mining industry to advance quality workplace learning, establishing an understanding of current practices and experiences is crucial. This study used a grounded approach to gather employees’ views on their learning and training experiences and the factors and processes that facilitate or impede effective learning. Although the study’s scope was limited to three Queensland sites, it drew on the broad experiences of participants, inviting them to reflect across their careers across both underground and open-cut mining environments, providing a spectrum of frontline insights. The findings of this qualitative research, together with insights from the literature, have yielded six overarching themes of practical significance for the industry.

Theme 1: Take a Learning-centric Rather Than a Training-centric Approach

Our findings reveal a disconnect between industry and frontline worker perspectives on effective and valuable workplace learning. Currently, the industry has a focus on formal training to improve safe production. However, participants in our study, regardless of their role or years of experience, recognised the multifaceted nature of workplace learning. Participants described formal training as an essential process, valuable for communicating safety procedures, operational protocols, site orientation, and for career advancement, but also placed great value upon the ongoing, situated learning that occurred daily with colleagues. Participants spoke often about training providing the ‘theory’ and the protocols, but that real learning occurred once they put that knowledge into practice.

Learning was described as a dynamic and continuous process, with their workplace knowledge and practice shaped by personal, contextual, and organisational factors and processes (Billet, 2018; Tynjälä, 2013). Frontline workers recognised that it was learning, not the activity of training, that built their knowledge and capabilities. They recognised that learning was subjective and that training alone cannot cause learning (Billett, 2018; Goodyear et al., 2021). The multiplicity of learning as described by frontline workers illustrated the integration and iterative nature of presage, process, and product (Tynjälä, 2013).

Our study suggests that the industry is over-emphasising formal training and underappreciating other forms of informal and incidental workplace learning, and therefore overlooking powerful opportunities to enhance learning for safe production. This neglect may be due to the difficulty in capturing informal learning that occurs continuously on-the-job (Eraut, 2004). Our study highlights the need for innovative approaches to investigate these less structured but equally vital forms of learning, making them more visible and intentional within the mining context.

In the same way that training itself does not directly impact learning (Billett, 2018; Goodyear et al., 2021), training in and of itself does not directly impact safe production outcomes. Billet (2002) argues that all learning experiences should be seen as intentional as they all contribute to the continuation of workplace practices and outcomes. Therefore, understanding how knowledge, skills, and capabilities are developed in the workplace will provide the industry with valuable avenues through which to enhance workplace practices. Shifting the focus from training to learning is an important first step for the industry.

Theme 2: Learning is Social, Situated and Occurs On-the-Job

A key insight from our interviews is that workplace learning for frontline workers in the mining industry is inherently social and situated, occurring through social interactions within the working environment (Billett, 2004; Leiß, & Rausch, 2023; Mikkonen et al., 2017; Wenger, 2018). Across all roles, participants stressed the significance of on-the-job learning, illustrating that social interactions play a crucial role in facilitating learning and knowledge transfer in the workplace (Billett, 2004; Leiß & Rausch, 2023; Mikkonen et al., 2017; Wenger, 2018).

Social learning was evident in processes involving observation and mentoring and underpinned by positive interpersonal relationships and a sense of psychological safety, again illustrating the integration of presage and process (Tynjälä, 2013). According to Social Learning Theory, people learn not only through direct instruction but also by observing the actions, attitudes, and outcomes of others (Bandura, 1977). By observing more experienced colleagues in action, participants reported gaining insights into how to navigate complex situations, make decisions, and develop professional skills that are not easily taught through explicit instruction.

Participants described mentors as central to building site-specific knowledge, skills, and behaviours, as well as being important for demonstrating and encouraging positive and productive dispositions and attitudes. Mentoring refers to the monitoring and support of learning, development, and workplace practice over time, and can be undertaken with an individual, a team, or peers (Wisker et al., 2013). It is an effective means of transferring tacit knowledge in the workplace —the kind of knowledge that is difficult to convey through written or verbal instructions alone (Al-Zoubi et al., 2020; Laiho & Brandt, 2012; Marsick et al., 2017; Swap et al., 2001).

Participants valued insights from those with similar experiences and reported feeling more comfortable asking questions of ‘near-peers’ rather than supervisors. They described a sense of vulnerability exposed by the potential power imbalance between, for example, an operator and a supervisor. Moorosi (2012) highlights the complexity of mentoring models and suggests that higher levels of dissimilarity in a mentoring relationship may lead to disadvantage. In learning and working environments where real or perceived power imbalances or hierarchies exist, opportunities to build interpersonal connections and to reduce perceived power imbalances could be beneficial for promoting workplace learning.

While mentoring was common, not all experiences were positive or helpful. Poor role modelling or mentoring can lead to the transfer of bad habits or unethical behaviour, and effectiveness varies based on the quality of the mentor, the receptiveness of the mentee, and the context in which the mentoring relationship exists (Lankau et al., 2006; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). Despite the need for adequate preparation and support for mentors (Fernandez et al., 2018), and the prevalence of mentoring across roles, evidence-informed mentor training programs within the industry in Australia are limited. We recommended that the industry prioritise the development of evidence-informed training and support programs for mentors. Quality mentoring is currently a poorly understood and under-utilised workplace learning resource that could have considerable positive implications for promoting safe production.

Positive interpersonal relationships and psychologically safe workplace cultures were identified as essential conditions for effective workplace learning. This is particularly important in the mining industry given the long shifts and residential nature of fly-in-fly-out operations. Participants emphasised that positive relationships with colleagues promote effective on-the-job learning by creating conditions of trust, honesty, connection, belonging, and psychological safety. Psychological safety improves communication and teamwork, allowing individuals to be comfortable expressing and being themselves, and sharing concerns and mistakes without fear of embarrassment, shame, ridicule, or retribution (Torralba et al., 2020). The psychological climate experienced by a team is influenced by the coaching behaviour of leaders and strengthens the effect of knowledge-sharing behaviour within the team (Qian et al., 2020).

Understanding how to work effectively in teams, communicate, manage conflict, and build positive interpersonal connections were all identified as important for promoting quality workplace cultures and conditions for learning, particularly for mentors, supervisors, and managers. Despite the widely held belief that these enabling capabilities were fundamental to culture, participants reported that these skills were not currently adequately addressed in training programs, and the opportunity to develop these skills would be greatly valued.

Theme 3: BuildIng From Competence to Mastery

Participants valued the opportunity for career progression within the industry and to build mastery, not just competence. They expressed a need for clear benchmarks for ‘what good looks like’ beyond competence, providing a framework for continuous career growth. The principles of deliberate practice—goal directed, structured, repetitive training with consistent feedback and mentor guidance—could be particularly effective in meeting their developmental needs (Ericsson & Harwell, 2019). Implementing deliberate practice can provide clear guidelines for skill refinement and career progression, offering a structured approach to gradually build expertise over time (Debatin et al., 2023; Ericsson, 2007; Ericsson et al., 1993; Miller et al., 2018).

Our participants shared that the knowledge and skills of experienced colleagues are greatly valued. However, concerns were raised about the practice of “greens training greens”, potentially lowering standards. Learning is person-dependent—prior knowledge, personal experiences, and attributes all shape what an individual knows, can do, and what they value and believe (Billet, 2018). These factors will also therefore influence the knowledge and skills that they demonstrate, share, and illicit in others. As such, the industry needs to reconsider its mentoring approach, replacing “greens training greens” with deliberate practice under experienced mentors.

Our study also highlighted a growing concern about the loss of valuable experiential knowledge in the industry. This ‘knowledge erosion’, where organisations fail to capture and transfer the tacit knowledge of their most experienced employees, hinders the development of new talent and the sustainable growth of the organisation (Martin de Holan & Phillips, 2004). Given the importance of tacit knowledge for achieving mastery, capturing the expertise of workers would provide powerful insights for designing learning for novices and less experienced employees.

Theme 4: Supporting Boundary Crossing, Transitions and Transfer

Our findings revealed a need to better understand and support frontline workers to transition between roles and transfer knowledge and skills across contexts. Additionally, the industry must consider ways to better support frontline workers in the industry to upskill, reskill, and cross skill, particularly as the industry evolves (MCA, 2019). Quality learning often requires navigating various boundaries, from formal educational settings to on-the-job learning. In the mining industry, ‘boundary crossing’ is essential for effective learning and training. This concept encompasses transitions from traditional learning environments to the worksite as well as shifts within the workplace, such as adopting new equipment, changing roles, or transitioning in or out of the industry.

The transfer of learning between situations is influenced by a variety of factors, including surface similarities, the ability to discern structural relationships, prior knowledge, and cognitive load (Chi et al., 1981; Gentner et al., 2009; Gick & Holyoak, 1980; Waltz et al., 2000). Surface similarities can play a crucial role in ensuring that learning transfers effectively from the training environment to the actual workspace—the more closely the learning environment mimics the actual work environment, the better (e.g., Gick & Holyoak, 1980; Holyoak & Koh, 1987). Indeed, participants emphasised that hands-on experiences were invaluable for their learning, indicating that realistic training environments are essential. Given the high-risk nature of some of the activities performed in mining, the industry should leverage training simulations to ensure transfer.

To facilitate learning transfer, training should not only cover ‘how’ a task should be completed but also the ‘why’ behind each step (Gentner et al., 2009). Participants noted that much of their learning occurs through observing experienced colleagues and learning from others in real-time. However, they may or may not get this deeper understanding through observation alone. 360-degree hypervideos can be particularly useful here in developing this deeper understanding (Cattaneo et al., 2019). These interactive videos, enhanced with hyperlinks and textual annotations, offer an immersive experience that could replicate the complexities of mining operations. This approach ensures that workers not only see how tasks are performed but also understand the underlying reasons for each step, promoting ecological validity between theoretical learning and practical application (Cattaneo et al., 2019).

The mining industry operates in a highly dynamic environment where rapid adaptation to new roles, technologies, and processes is crucial. By designing realistic training scenarios that mirror actual work conditions, leveraging the extensive prior knowledge of experienced workers, and managing cognitive load through incremental learning, the industry can significantly enhance the effectiveness of its learning processes.

Theme 5: Learning by Design

Participants illustrated numerous learning and training processes that align with evidence-based principles of effective learning. They spoke of the value of active, hands-on experiences, timely and targeted feedback, reflective questioning, and periodic review of knowledge and skills. Collaboratively observing, analysing best practices, scaffolding, and problem-solving, were also noted as key to clarifying understanding and reinforcing learning. Many participants mentioned the benefits of revisiting training or the opportunity to perform a task, a strategy known as retrieval practice evidenced to strengthen memory (Bjork et al., 2013). These practices are all well-supported by research (see Brown et al., 2014) and are integral to instructional design in both traditional and online settings (Kraiger & Ford, 2021; Mayer, 2008, 2019). Although the application of instructional design principles appeared sporadic and unstructured, there was a clear appreciation for evidence-informed strategies that fostered advancement towards mastery.

Observation was frequently reported as valuable for workplace learning. However, experts and novices have shown differences in observation and professional vision, and how they choose to act in response to these observations (Caruso et al., 2019). Metacognitive skills are important for effective observational learning as it encompasses knowledge about one’s cognitive abilities, the skills to apply effective strategies, and the ability to monitor and evaluate one’s progress (Efklides, 2008, 2014). Professional reflection engages metacognitive processes, and is central to workplace problem solving and situational awareness (Schön, 1983). Embedding metacognitive strategies into workplace learning practices would be advantageous.

While our findings demonstrated instances of evidence-informed learning approaches, these were scattered, inconsistent, and unsystematic in their use: often included by-chance rather than by design. We recommend that the industry develops knowledge and capabilities within learning and training teams to implement evidence-informed principles of learning systematically into practice.

Theme 6: Supportive Systems and Workplace Culture

Our findings highlighted that achieving safe production requires supportive systems and workplace cultures that value learning. The scattered and inconsistent approach to industry training is compounded by a tendency towards reactive rather than proactive training, restricted by production pressures and lack of designated training time. Onsite management, supervisors, and trainers bear the primary responsibility for fostering a learning-focused environment. These leaders need support to cultivate a culture of continuous learning, empowering workers to take an active role in both their own development and that of their colleagues (Eraut et al., 2012). Given the link between learning outcomes and safety outcomes (product), establishing proactive, cohesive workplace learning experiences (presage and process) is crucial.

We found that workplace learning in the mining industry was situated within and influenced by physical and organisational limitations and expectations (Goodyear, et al., 2021; Wenger, 2018). The specific characteristics of a worksite, along with the available tools and resources, shape how individuals and teams learn and behave (Goodyear, et al., 2021). For fly-in-fly-out employees, who reside onsite for prolonged periods of time, the physical attributes of the workplace uniquely affect not only their job-related knowledge and practices but also their sense of belonging and integration into the community.

Our findings suggest that there is a need for industry-wide systems and cultures that promote shared understanding and valuing of learning and training, and that enable consistent, proactive approaches. This requires addressing barriers and implementing enabling practices at the individual (micro), organisational (meso), and industry (macro) levels (Goodyear, et al., 2021), and across presage, process, and product (Tynjälä, 2013). A systems-based approach offers a lens to understand and promote effective learning that considers the entire ecosystem of the mining industry. Creating a workplace culture that values learning requires aligning all system levels—from individual to industry norms (Goodyear et al., 2021).

Limitations and Further Research

Our research demonstrates that while training is integral to safe production, it represents only a fragment of the learning that takes place within the industry. The rich, yet often overlooked, learning that happens on-the-job is a valuable asset yet to be fully leveraged. However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our study. Our sample, while diverse, was limited to three mine sites in Queensland, Australia which may restrict generalisability of our findings to other regions or countries. The qualitative nature of our study, while providing in-depth insights, also limits broader generalisation and validity of our findings. Our approach, which relied solely on interviews, captures participants’ perceptions and self-reported experiences, which may not always accurately reflect actual workplace practices and learning processes. This discrepancy between reported and actual behaviour is a significant limitation of interview-based research.

To address these limitations in future studies, observation techniques and behavioural data could be valuable. Further research could harness digital technologies and innovative methodologies to capture on-the-job learning, mentoring, and expertise. For example, wearable cameras or augmented reality devices could be used to capture and analyse real-time interactions between experienced workers and novices, providing data on informal learning processes and tacit knowledge developed through experience. These technologies would allow us to observe and quantify the frequency and nature of learning interactions, capture non-verbal communication and implicit knowledge transfer, and monitor the real-time application of skills and knowledge. Such observational data, when combined with interview data, would provide a more comprehensive and accurate picture of workplace learning, enhancing the validity and reliability of the findings.

Nonetheless, our research provides a valuable starting point for exploring workplace learning in the mining industry. Triangulating our insights with literature could inform the design of site-specific and industry-wide guiding principles, frameworks, and resources to facilitate the implementation and evaluation of evidence-informed practices to promote safe production. Findings from future research, including measures and industry-focused tools, could have transferrable application and relevance to other industries where on-the-job learning is common.

Conclusion

Our study has provided unique insights into how people learn in the high-risk mining industry. We suggest that for effective learning practices to be actioned, sustained, and scaled within the industry, a systems-wide approach is needed: one that recognises that learning is continuous and socially constructed; one that promotes opportunities for on-the-job learning supported by qualified mentors and informed by expertise and evidence; and one that values and embraces the complexities and possibilities of a broader conceptualisation of ‘learning’. Building a shared understanding of ‘what good looks like’ is essential for the implementation of a cohesive, industry-wide strategy that moves beyond reactive training to more proactive, evidence-based learning experiences that can support the current and future needs of the industry.

This research suggests that perhaps the mining industry is suffering from what is commonly referred to as the ‘streetlamp effect’—it is looking for the answers to safe production where it is easiest to see—that is, at training. By recognising the multifaceted nature of workplace learning, and taking a systems-based, evidence-informed approach to understanding and promoting ‘what good looks like’ in learning and training, the industry can support actionable, scalable, and sustainable change that can build and sustain capabilities from within the industry, shifting the focus from ‘training’ to learning.