Paul Willis提出「傢伙們」表述清晰的「反學校文化」來闡明底層學子在看穿學校機制之後的反應，本文要以農民工的案例來描繪捕捉另一種看穿學校機制之後的反應，即繞開、修復與「移動學習」。透過分析深圳電子廠內一群「不想讀書但很想學習」的青年農民工遠赴深圳工廠打工所展現的學習策略，本文提出「移動學習」――一種不挑戰原有體制，但又能夠為行動者帶來想像、產生願景的學習方式――說明農民工如何以此來修復學校體制失靈的承諾。放棄受教育進城打工的農民工並非「壞學生」，這個標籤既無助於了解他們的處境，也無法透過用資源使他們成為「好學生」而解決中輟的問題。農民工並非落後、無法學習、缺乏動力或不想學習，而是早看穿他們在教育結構化中的不利位置，「提早進城打工」成為替學習尋找替代方案的結果。這反而展現他們在對抗不利結構時的修復能力與能動性。在「移動學習」中，生活、勞動與學習的界線模糊，也無教與學的二分，農民工透過現場觀察、旁聽、模仿、默會、實作、競爭與合作以及經驗分享等方式來習得知識與技術。一方面藉著到城市「合法邊緣參與」該社會場域的知識與技能，拼貼組裝學習資源為己所用；另方面則透過移動所產生的城鄉結構裂隙，去挪移文化品味、社會經驗與象徵符碼成為回鄉後轉換主體性的資本，試圖以此向上流動與提升社會地位。然而，移動學習仍有侷限性，學習所需的資源、機會與每一步的銜接，皆非制度性過程，很大程度上要取決於等待、機遇巧合、主管的賞識和學習者自己的額外勞動（例如表現出忠誠、苦幹或勤奮等）。

In Paul Willis’s “Learning to Labour”, the lads articulate ‘anti-school culture’ as their reaction after penetrating/seeing through the schooling mechanism. This paper will demonstrate some other reactions to seeing through the school system, through the case of migrant workers in Shenzhen China. These reactions are: bypass, repair, and “mobile learning”. By analyzing the learning strategies displayed by a group of young migrant workers in an electronics factory, who left school out of choice but were keen to learn, this paper argues that “mobile learning” allows social actors to imagine and realize new possibilities without challenging the existing structure. Migrant workers use this method to bypass and repair the school system which is falling apart. This paper points out that migrant workers who drop out from school are not “bad students.” This label is not helpful for understanding their situation or for solving their problems. Their problems cannot be solved by exhausting various resources to help them become “good students.” These young migrant workers are not backward, unteachable, unmotivated, or unwilling to learn. Rather, they saw through the middleclass nature of schooling and its urban bias, and realized it cannot possibly help them improve their livelihoods. They become wage labourers in factories in Shenzhen as the result of finding alternatives. Migrant workers who engage in “mobile learning” move to different places and social contexts. On the one hand, through “legitimate peripheral participation,” they gain knowledge and skills in that social context, and they collate and assemble such learning resources for their own use. On the other hand, they mobilize cultural taste, social experiences, and symbols between urban and rural settings, and thus create social, cultural, and symbolic capital which enables them to transform their subjectivities in response to the failure of the schooling system. However, “mobile learning” has its limitations. All the resources, opportunities, and every transition of this learning process is not institutionalized. “Mobile learning” relies largely on waiting, coincidences, the appreciation of supervisors and workers’ own extra labor (such as showing loyalty, hard work, diligence, etc.). In short, the path of migrant workers’ “mobile learning” is thin and easily ruptured.