Evaluation of Workplace Learning Environment - Term Paper Example

Running Head: Evaluation of Workplace Learning Environment (School) Evaluation of Workplace Learning Environment Introduction Cutthroat competition and marked dynamism of economies necessitate the establishment of a ‘knowledge economy (Figgis et al. 2001, 23; Reeve & Gallacher, 1999, pg. 125). In turn, this has dictated the need for increasing the competencies of schools so that they may adapt to the requirements of the new age. I think workplace learning is perceived as a useful form of learning which allows teachers to be involved in renewing and continuous development. In addition, it also focuses on the development of knowledge and learning forms which are specifically useful towards the performance of the learner’s job. Given this acknowledgement of the importance of workplace learning, I proceed by investigating the utility of learning theories in identifying barriers to such learning. Evaluation of Workplace Learning: Workplace learning has been defined as “learning or training undertaken in the workplace, usually on the job, including on-the-job training under normal operational conditions, and onsite training, which is conducted away from the work process (e.g. in a training room” (Australian National Training Authority, online). It critical to undertake workplace learning since it accords the key competencies needed by the school to stay competitive. How is a workplace ideal for learning envisioned? Smith & Hayton (1999, p. 252) puts forth that the school’s openness to change is a critical factor in the progress of training and development. They have also stated that there are external and moderating variables that influence training levels. The interplay among these factors is the key determinant to the kind of training which shall be prioritized by the firm (Ridoutt et al., 2002, p. 14). Moreover, it has also been presented that smaller-sized schools were more involved in informal training compared to larger ones. There are several drivers that affect and push training within any school, as follows: 1.) Openness to change – Change encompasses various activities, including those which have to do with activities and school structure. 2.) Quality – A pledge to live quality. This could be covered under openness and willingness to change. 3.) Strategies – The priority accorded to training is reflected in the business strategies of the school. 4.) Industrial relations – The training plan is also influenced by industrial factors such as protocol which prescribes inclusion of teachers training (Riddout et al., 2002, p. 13). Approaches: Having pointed out this distinction, it may be worthwhile for me to delve more lengthily on learning processes which may be more applicable to the work setting, including action learning, situated learning, and incidental learning. Action learning is defined as a systematic way through which learning transpires by application of theory or by doing. It is anchored on the assumption that learning necessitates action and that this in turn needs input from learning. Learning per se is the expected result of action learning, and it does not intend to focus on the resolution of a problem (Lewis & Williams, 1994, p. 12). Brown et al (1988) presents a learning approach which is more applicable to the workplace, situated learning (p. 85). In using this, knowledge and skills are imparted to the learner in settings in which they will more likely be utilized. One concrete example of this learning approach is cognitive apprenticeship in which learners are engaged in a learning group that constantly interacts and initiates activity (McLellan, 1994, p. 7). This type of learning is not done deliberately; instead, learning is yielded in an inadvertent manner. While these approaches may be applicable to workplace learning, they may still not be helpful to identifying barriers in workplace learning, considering the fact that there are a host of other factors that influence these obstacles. School determinants of training effectiveness include expounding on the factors that affect training; I take a more holistic view of the determinants of workplace learning. Size: First is the size of the school. The impact of the size of the school has been popularly acknowledged, and research outcomes have suggested that this is indeed a significant determinant of workplace learning (Hayton et al, 1996, p. 10). The statistical relationship between the size of the school and the training effort has likewise been demonstrated (e.g. Groot, 1997, p. 27). The correlation between this variable and the progress of training is easily described, and is not linear – such that small to medium-sized schools undertake few training efforts while bigger schools carry out more developmental efforts. Instead, this relationship relies more on the clamor for training and the nature of such a demand. Culture: Prior to this decade, learning and training have been perceived as different concepts. This distinction still persists to this day (Stahl, 1993, p. 14). A training system which is not integrated has lead to disorganized ways of addressing school needs, and this prevents them from undertaking continuous learning and development as a culture. Development: Stahl (1993) presents that developing into a learning school is necessary for the long-term sustainability of the school. Because knowledge is core to the development of a learning school, it is necessary for both the individual teacher and the school to be willing to be converted and to support a culture of learning (p. 15). Part of this process is the adoption of novel perspectives to learning, including new self-learning techniques; a redefinition of the role of the trainer onto having a more consultative role; and as part of the school development portfolio, first line teachers should also redefine their roles. These views point to the fact that learning theories have little impact on workplace learning, as there are a host of factors that affect it. At this point, it may be worthy to differentiate a culture focused on training vis-à-vis a learning culture. The ANTA (online) presents that a culture emphasizing training is characterized by spontaneous behaviors, beliefs, and values…which causes them to a long-term thrust of learning and a clear vow to engage in both formal and informal training? HR and Development Initiatives: Yet another factor which suggests that learning theories alone are not too useful in identifying learning barriers is the support for human resource and development initiatives. Researches by MacDuffie (1995) suggest that such efforts which are practiced in specific work settings accord a significant venue for training to be carried out. Any impact on training is probably influenced by such practices (p. 197). The training initiative has three main aims, namely development of individuals; emphasis on costs vs. benefits; and reinforcing the attainment of human resource goals. Moreover, it has also been found that there is a correlation between these aims and the more encompassing strategies that have been set by a school (Hayton et al, 1996, p. 11). This attests to the fact that workplace learning theories alone are insufficient in detecting workplace learning barriers. In this case, the priority accorded by management to training is a crucial factor. Changing Environment: A change in the process of manufacturing goods or delivering a service will also necessitate change in the level or kind of skill among teachers (Groot, 1997, p. 27). He has also asserted that if technical skills become outdated more quickly than other skills then the returns of investment in this type of training will be less than for other training types. Moreover, technical training may be more specially customized to the organization such that a bigger percentage of returns from the training investment may be yielded for the school instead of the teachers. And yet if the modification in the manufacturing processes suggests a corresponding increase in profitability, then the trained teachers may yield a benefit through salary increases (p. 28). Other Moderators include some of the moderators of training and development are: school size, the functional structure of the school (that is, the ratio of teachers to professional staff, and whether they are full-time, permanent, part-time or casual); and rights of the school (Riddout et al., 2002, p. 13). There are a host of factors that affect the status of training and development in the workplace, which in turn influence the barriers to learning within the school (Australian National Training Authority, p. 11). First, one of the factors which push learning is the degree to which learning is fostered within the school. This pertains to the internal capacity to promote a culture of learning in the workplace. One very important characteristic of such a culture is open communication. Yet another factor is the degree to which training is related to the strategies of the organization. If there is such a clear alignment, then there are fewer barriers to learning since training is encouraged as a priority. There must also be an assessment of the value attached to various forms of training, encompassing informal learning venues. Moreover there must be a deliberate effort on the part of the school to customize training to be able to enhance the level of skill of teachers (Billet 1996, p. 43). Networks and collaboration with other learning entities is also critical in fostering a culture of learning. There should also be ample consideration of the development needs of employees, including the development of both general and functional skills. These may encompass critical thinking and problem solving, effective communication, information technology skills, among others (p. 48). Systematic Approach: Management may consider adopting a more systematic approach to training and identification of workplace learning barriers which ensures a comprehensive training process that remains focused on the needs of the school. The process typically includes the phases: 1. Analyze the schools requirements and recognize training objectives which, when achieved, will provide learners with knowledge and skills to meet the schools requirements. 2. Design a training system that learners and trainers can put into practice to meet the learning goals; typically includes identifying learning objectives (which culminate in reaching the learning goals), required facilities, essential funding, course content, lessons and series of lessons 3. Develop a training "package" of resources and materials, including, e.g., developing audio-visuals, graphics, manuals, etc. 4. Implement the training package, including delivering the training, support group feedback, clarifying training materials, administering tests and conducting the final evaluation. This phase can include administrative activities, such as copying, scheduling facilities, taking attendance data, billing learners, etc. 5. Evaluate training, including before, during and after implementation of training (McNamara, online) In a systematic approach to training, each phase of the process produces results necessary for the next phase. For example, the training analysis phase brings forth learning goals that are used by the next phase, training design. Training design (often called instructional design) references the goals to design methods and materials from which learners can attain the goals and objectives. Each phase usually makes possible continuous evaluation feedback to other phases in order to enhance the overall systems process (McNamara, online). To carry out this approach, an organization first undertakes competency framework development to ensure that the training and development interventions are anchored on business critical competencies. Next, once this framework is in place, employees ought to be assessed in terms of their competency gaps. Management can propose different means of addressing these gaps such as published learning, e-learning or the conventional classroom learning. The Training and Development Department may then be in charge of monitoring whether or not these gaps are closed. Other interventions such as coaching and mentoring may also be considered. Conclusion To sustain competitive advantage, organizations ought to be equipped by competent and well-developed employees who receive sufficient practical training. Acknowledging the differences in the demographic profiles of the workforce, it is commendable to change perspectives from the conventional mode of teaching where there is a strict teacher-student relationship representing those who actively impart knowledge on the one hand, and those who passively receive it on the other. A school which intends to stay constantly competitive ought to promote continuous learning among its employees, which is consistent with the principles of total quality management. On their end, teachers must hold accountability for their work by ensuring the development of both soft and technical skills. On the other hand, staff must facilitate this process and promote a culture conducive to learning. To undertake all these, there must be a comprehensive consideration of all the other factors that affect workplace learning. There must also be an acknowledgement of the fact that taking on a systems view of the school, there are a host of critical factors that cause barriers to learning in the workplace. References Brown, John Seely et al. (1988). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Technical Report. Palo Alto, CA: Palo Alto Research Center, 80-96. Figgis, Jane, & Anna, Alderson, & Anna, Blackwell, & Anne, Butorac, & Keith, Mitchell, and Ann, Zubrick. (2001). What Convinces Enterprises to Value Training and Learning and What Does Not? A Study in Using Case Studies to Develop Cultures of Training and Learning. Adelaide: NCVER, 1-65. Reeve, Fiona, & Jim, Gallacher. (10-12th Sept, 1999). How are the discourses of work-based learning influencing practice?, Researching Work and Learning: A first International Conference. Trinity and All Saints College, University of Leeds, 124-137. Hayton, Geoff, & John, McIntyre, & Robert, Sweet, & Robert, McDonald, & Mark, Noble, & Ann, Smith, & Paul, Roberts. (1996). Final Report: Enterprise training in Australia. Office of Training and Further Education, Brisbane: Melbourne and Australian National Training Authority, 10-15. Billett, S. (1996). Towards a model of workplace learning: The learning curriculum. Studies in Continuing Education. 18(1), 43-58. Groot, Wim. (1997). Enterprise-related Training: A Survey. Monash University, Melbourne: ACER Centre for the Economics of Education and Training, 27-36. Lewis, Linda, and Carol Williams. (1994). Experiential learning: Past and Present. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 62, 5-16. MacDuffie, John Paul. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organisational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 197-221. McLellan, Hall. (1994). Situated Learning: Continuing the Conversation”. Educational Technology, 34, 7-8. McNamara, Barry. “Systematic Approaches to Learning.” April 20, 2008, . Ridoutt, Lee, & Ralph, Dutneall, & Kevin, Hummel, & Chris, Selby Smith. (2002). Factors Influencing the Implementation of Training and Learning in the Workplace. Adelaide: NCVER, 1-101. Smith, Andrew, & Geoff, Hayton. (1999). What Drives Enterprise Training? Evidence from Australia. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10, 251-272. Stahl, Thomas, & Barry, Nyhan, & Piera, Daloja. (1993). The Learning Organisation: A Vision for Human Resource Development. Brussels, Belgium: Task Force Human Resources Education Training Youth, 5-20. Australian National Training Authority. “A National Marketing Strategy for VET: Meeting Client Needs.” August 16, 2006. . Read More