Developing Workplace Learning, Training and Development Interventions - Literature review Example

Developing Workplace Learning, Training and Development Interventions Developing Workplace Learning, Training and Development Interventions The need for learning in the workplace has been recognized by management over the years as a major requirement in the development of the work force and growth of the company. There has been a dramatic change over recent years away from viewing educational and vocational institutions as the principal places of learning to focus more on the importance and development of the workplace as a site of learning (Toulmin & Gustavsn, 1996). With the current rapid changes in technology, increased competition, specializing in service delivery and globalization of the marketplace the need to be updated and effective in adapting new concepts has increased the demand for effective learning at work. Learning in work- based contexts involve student “having to come to terms with a dual agenda. They not only have to learn how to draw upon their formal learning and use it to interrogate workplace practices; they also have to learn how to participate within workplace activities and culture” (Billett, 2001) Workplace learning can be categorized into three groups: workplace as a site for learning, workplace as the learning environment and learning and working are inextricably linked (Argyris & Schön, 1996). The first approach is whereby there is a separation between the place where work is done and the training facility which is typical with in-house training. The second approach training is done within the working environment during work. With the third approach learning is a continuous process where employees learn skills related to their job and those of other workers. It occurs informally in the workplace through teamwork, problem solving and interaction. Workplace learning theories center around two different paradigms of learning each with different beliefs about knowing and knowledge. The ‘standard paradigm of learning’ found in education institutions, beliefs that knowledge is something that exists independently of the knower but is that which the knower can acquire, internalize, own and exhibit (Beckett and Hager, 2002). The other ‘paradigm of learning as acquisition’ centers on cognitive aspects of work performance; reflection followed by application. Argyris and Schon 1978 identified two processes of learning: ‘single loop learning’ where the learner reacts and adapts to circumstance as they change but in relation to existing briefs and understanding and the ‘double loop learning’ where across changing circumstances the learner build upon prior learning in ways that may challenge their existing system of beliefs and understanding (Duggan, 2013). The emerging paradigm of learning and learning as participation sees knowledge as a fluid that is produced and continually reconstructed through the relationships and interaction between individuals, rather than as an object which is acquired, internalized and owned. Learning is the relatively durable changes in the individuals or group level of competence which is achieved through interaction of the individual or group with the environment (Cervai, Kekale, and Thompson, 2007) Thus learning is something that is stimulated and produced through social interactions. These different approaches across the learning paradigms highlight how the term learning is subject to multiple definitions within literature The learning process can be differentiated into two between formal and informal learning. As described earlier formal learning occurs within boundaries of educational institutions, the ‘paradigm of learning’. The informal learning refers to learning that occurs in everyday life or at work, ‘paradigm of learning by acquisition’ (Ashton and Sung, 2002). In modern life formal and informal education complement each other we cannot have one without the other in the working environment. Formal learning can be effective only if it’s backed up by informal learning, (Barnett, 2000, 12). Conversely informal learning presupposes conceptual tools and explicit knowledge about the task has been gained through formal learning that cannot normally be acquired through experimental learning at work. This combination of the formal and informal learning results in reflective learning. Learning cannot be equated to education because education offers theoretical knowledge which may not be used in the practical way of life unlike learning that is factual. Organizational Structure Until relatively recently most commentators within workplace learning have focused upon the characteristics of learning for individual learners at work and have paid relatively little attention to the ways in which organizational structure and workplace context may shape and interact with learning activities (Ashton, 2004, 12). A few commentators have been concerned with how organizational structure and workplace contexts constitute sites of engagement for individual learners, how they shape, facilitate or restrict their learning within the workplace. By analyzing the organizational structure we can explain why workers will develop and acquire different levels of knowledge and skill within the workplace. Ashton carried out an empirical research in a large organization in Malaysia where he conducted interviews with staff across all grades in the organization. He identified the structural factors that impacted learning to include: hierarchical structuring of relationships, the design of jobs and movement of employees, organizations decisions about learning and the reward system in the organization. The hierarchical structuring of relationships produced uneven learning opportunities and access to knowledge is vital. For example the senior staff had access to specialized training and a professional development programme was in place for these employees unlike training for clerical staff which was on the job training that was only concentrated on their work activities. The senior managers were trained on broader perspectives on the organization and external factors that affected the organization. The senior position movement was within the training program while that for clerical work is often random which does not facilitate continuity; hence it limits the opportunity to gain further knowledge and skill (Beckett and Hager, 2002). The organizations decision on the support available to the learner was more favorable to senior staff, particularly graduate trainees that had extensive support. The junior staff on the other hand their learning was dependent on the attitudes and abilities of their managers and supervisors which would very often (Duggan, 2013). The reward system offered monetary rewards to senior staff as they gained more knowledge and as they moved up in their careers. There was less progression in the junior staff and their rewards were only on performance based on their supervisors who rarely recognized their learning and efforts to learn. From this finding Ashton concluded that learning for supervisors was expected and encouraged and their jobs designed to in ways this could be maximized. However for the more junior staff learning was focused on the task and contained the immediate needs, it was more restricted and with that limited in room for growth. The formal and informal relations between staff also influenced the means by which knowledge is gained and also the availability of opportunities to learn. There is a great deal of the knowledge that transmitted in the immediate work context, through ongoing interpersonal relations. In this context the attitude and behavior of management, supervisors and co-workers is crucial as there are all in a position to act as gatekeepers to knowledge (Kolb, 1995). Access to knowledge within an organization is influenced by senior managers who are keen to protect their position within the hierarchy and also among staff on the same level who see their knowledge as a competitive edge. Access to greater learning opportunities is skewed towards knowing the right people and being in favorable terms with them. Thus these informal structures which arise through the ongoing interrelationships between worker within and across various job groups can be seen as significant in shaping of the learning in organizations (William, Sanders, and Soper, 1999). The education of an individual leads to personal development but does not necessarily lead to organizational development. In a follow up study by the Swedish national fund for work improvement, a regression analysis was carried out on the education measures taken and the change in productivity (Eraut, 2000). The analysis showed there is no correlation between education efforts and productivity. This however does not mean that educational efforts are meaningless but that the precondition is that they are connected to organizational changes in the workplace. In a situation where we have some organizational changes which require additional knowledge will create a demand for such education that is relevant to the organization. In this case there is bound to be a correlation between the investment in the education of the individual and the organization development. In adult education, it has been found that a practical aspect is more effective than the theoretical approach, hence a company adopted a training system where half way through orientation a company a company sends their new staff to the branches for attachment under a mentor (Beckett and Hager, 2002). These effectively changes their education to a learning experience by offering a mentor to guide the student through the work that pertains to their duties. The new recruits then go back to the orientation program where they are taught mainly the technical aspects, it is thus possible for them to reflect on their attachment experience and learn more effectively. Education institutions have been devising courses and programmes to meet the continuous demand for training and learning to develop staff. Such courses or programmes offer general information on the topic that is standardized for all the participants despite differences in the way they apply the knowledge gained. Let’s take a case where an employer sends a group to learn about computers, they may be drawn from different departments and also their work duties differ on how they use the computer but they will all receive one standardized curriculum to follow for all. Rob and Marianne (2011) suggest that if this was applied in the work placed learning system the person would be taught skills that are defined in his area of work, it will be more specialized knowledge and more relevant and effective. The content and planning of such a programme can be through the analysis of the requirements of the individuals and the company both short term and long term. You can also have a discussion with the employees on their expectations and motivations of the programme. With this analysis you will be able to come up participatory approach in planning, preparation, implementation and follow up on the training (Argyris & Schön, 1994). One way to develop workplace learning is to use invest in projects in order to develop new approaches to adult learning. An example of one such a project is the Blasterung Project: A Project for Lifelong Learning in an Organizational Context carried out in Sweden. It was described by those particularly responsible for labour and educational systems representatives as one of the most innovative and hence interesting development projects (Ashton, 2004). The project had the following aims was to make education accessible to companies and their employees, particularly for small and medium sized companies. It would make education practically useful and cheaper by being adapted to production. The use of mini learning centers was a way for decentralizing learning and steering it by demand. The presence of a qualified supervisor was a must. One way to increase accessibility was to carry out the education at the workplace through the use of mini learning centre. A mini learning center can use existing knowledge in the company in an interactive way by using employees who are experts in their areas of specialization to supervise the learning process. Accessibility is not just the closeness to the organization but also being flexible in the way the education process is planned, flexibility in the way examination and assessments are carried out and also the literature used. In order for the education to be of practical use it had to be incorporated into the operations of the organization. In the Blasterugn project the company leadership was involved in the planning and forming of the learning process (Argyris & Schön, 1996). The programme would not send out employees to study rather they would be offered opportunities to study at their own pace and at times which were suitable to them and the organization. The use of multimedia at the mini learning centers enabled participants to access more information from books, internet, external database and libraries. Study supervision was used to encourage reflection in order to create a deeper understanding their studies. Unlike traditional supervision which was based on formal instructions on this project the supervisors engaged learners in dialogue to develop an interest in the learning process and also allowed them to access personal supervisors in their work area for support and motivation. “Supervisors receive special training before the learning program is carried out and on pedagogies in order for their support to function” (Kolb, 1995). The supervisors on the Blasterugn project emphasized the importance of participants receiving certificates to serve as confirmation to all that the participants had fulfilled the requirements for knowledge. In conclusion, The Blasterugn project represents a method of workplace learning that brings into question the traditional approach in terms of places, work forms, pedagogic, forms of communication, supervision and teaching role. It also showed how developmentally oriented learning centers can contribute toward renewal of adult education through close collaboration with companies concerned. Grounding learning in production and together with the employees is necessary in order to integrate the individuals’ education to the organizations learning. References Kolb, D.A., 1995. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, New York: Prentice Hall. Toulmin, S., & Gustavsn, B., 1996. Beyond Theory: Changing Organization through Participation, Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Corporation. Argyris, C., & Schön, D., 1996. Organizational learning II: theory, method, and practice. Massachussets: Addison-Wesley. Billett, S., 2001. Learning through work: workplace affordances and individual engagement, Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(5), pp. 209-214. Beckett, D., and Hager, P., 2002. Life, Work and Learning: Practice in Postmodernity, London: Routledge. Ashton, D., 2004. The impact of organizational structure and practices on learning in the workplace, International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), pp. 43-53. Eraut, M., 2000. Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), pp. 113-136. Ashton, D., and Sung, J., 2002. Supporting Workplace Learning for High Performance Working, Geneva: ILO. Argyris, C., & Schön, D., 1994. Theory in Practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rob, P., and Marianne, W., 2011. Supporting Workplace Learning, New York: Springer. Duggan, T., 2013. Human Resources: How to Develop a Training Intervention Program. [Online] (updated 12 Mar. 2013) Available at: [Accessed 23 Apr. 2013]. William, J.R., Sanders, S.E., and Soper, J.G., 1999. ASTD Models for Workplace Learning and Performance (ASTD Learning and Performance Workbook), New York: ASTD Press. Cervai, S., Kekale, T., and Thompson, S., 2007. Workplace Performance, Journal of Workplace Learning, 8(12), pp.123-232. Read More