Factors Influencing Adult, Learning in Technology Based Firm - Essay Example

 Contents Snapshot of the case 3 TYPE OF LEARNING-(PEDAGOGIC OR ANDRAGOGIC) 4 MODEL OF STUDY AND ITS SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION 4 BARRIERS TO THE LEARNING PROCESS 6 Development of a learning organization 7 REFERENCES 9 Snapshot of the case The changing dynamics of the workforce (the decline of the age of the baby bloomers, the increase in the number of the women employees and other factors have contributed to the ever burgeoning necessity for the development of viable adult learning model. The development of such a model comes with its own set of challenges as the applicability of the model has to be verified in terms of the learnibility that it provides. Therefore, this study tends to deconstruct the underlying reasons for the quick intake of the adult education. The teachers or modern practitioners have concluded that there are two different types of teaching methodology, in the andragogic approach; which based on teaching drawn from the experience of the participants and the pedagogic approach. Here the teachings are based completely on the prerogative of the teacher. Studies have proven that in order for an adult to learn, he/she must have the necessary atmosphere. This is necessary because, with the increase in the age, the experiential learning tends to increase, so does the tendency to relate to past happenings of the same vein. All these principles were used to develop the the training program called as CATM. The program tended to put the ideas of adult learning into test and understand the impact and the effect of the same. The program had all the attributes, like modularity, easy approach and peripheral qualities. It was designed for the middle level Managers who had around five to seven years of experience and could base their learning on the experiences. At the end of the program, when the evaluation was asked, they gave flowing tributes about various instructors and their way of teaching, a critical evaluation is made to understand the various facets of the program and the cumulative impact on the behavior of the participants TYPE OF LEARNING-(PEDAGOGIC OR ANDRAGOGIC) He learning methodology followed here is andragogic. There are a certain set of attributes that are applicable to the andragogic approach. The attributes could be discussed and the points justified pertaining to this case. In the andragogic model, the participant’s views are taken into account (Gadamer et al., 2004). The structural base of the learning is modular and the learning is self directed, the onus of the learning process lies in the hand of the participants as they principally drive the class. There is a high amount of emphasis on setting up the adequate type of physical and psychological climate for the learning to happen. The auxiliary factors would include the proper learning environment, the emphasis on self directed learning. During the course of the program, the students were given the complete freedom to express their ideas and discuss them in the relevant groups (Garvin, 2000). There was a general transfer of the attitudes, values and ideas of the groups. Due to the modularization of the study, it became easier to complete the contents. The relevance on the level of ensuing entertainment is also extremely high, with a lot of the emphasis being laid on making the learning process more enjoyable in nature (Hayes et al., 1998) The students were given a lot of chances to explain their own experiences from the various facets of the personal and professional experience to augment the learning process. Therefore, looking at all the attributes, the methodology that was followed here was andragogic in nature. MODEL OF STUDY AND ITS SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION One of the models that have been used here for the purpose of studying the organizational learning is the pedagogical model. This particular model is basically an unidirectional model with the emphasis being on the delivery of the appropriate learning material and the instructors (teachers) (Tsang, 1997). This is mainly because of the fact that this model is unilaterally driven by only the teacher. The instructor sets the material that has to be covered for the class. The principle attributes of this model are basically as follows The learner or participant is a person who is completely dependent on the instructor for the fulfillment of the intellectual needs (Maurik, 2001). So, according to this model, the role of a participant in this model is that of a passive actor The participant has very little or no experience. Therefore, the complete communication flow happens only unidirectional. It is also surmised that the teacher/Instructor has all the requisite knowledge and should transfer the knowledge The participants have no iterative involvement in the learning deliverables. The students are taken to have no knowledge about the content (Bolam & Deal, 1997). All the content of the delivery is developed by the teachers themselves There is almost or no qualitative interaction between the members of a particular group. The transfer of knowledge by sharing is absent in this type of teaching Te structure of the content is another area where it is vastly different. There is no modular or concrete structure followed for the transference of the relevant data. Te structure is decided by the instructor depending on his/her expert knowledge It is assumed that that there is no internal zeal or drives to learn. Therefore the learning has to be externally driven. All the parameters are set by the external agencies. The amount of simulation or any type of abstract thinking is extremely low in this type of process. The thinking is primarily based on concrete data , which does not have space for any kind of visualization The aspect of social relationships is missing from this methodology. The interaction levels are extremely low in this particular methodology. BARRIERS TO THE LEARNING PROCESS There are a lot of barriers to the learning process that this particular model has not expressed (Dixon, 1994). The barriers are being explained here in detail so as to understand the inadequacies of the model Lack of Autonomy and self direction- This particular model hinges the complete responsibility on the shoulders of the instructor (Bolman & Deal, 1997). There is negligible amount of independent thinking on the part of the participants for the achievement of a particular goal. This gives rise to a sense of having no considerable stakeholder ship in the delivery of the program that may create issues. Sharing of life experiences and knowledge- The learning process of the adults truncate as they get older but there is a considerable increase in the depth of the learning. Adults feel empowered if the platform allows them to share their experiences. If they are not able to share the experiences, then the level of affiliation comes down. Goal orientation (Intrinsically oriented) - The adults are completely aware of their expectations out of a program or educational exercise of any kind. Therefore, the act of the instructor telling them the complete exercise and the deliverables may become counter productive and hinder the educational outcomes Practicality- The adults are generally very practical and are completely tuned into the applicability of the things (Argyris & Schon, 1996). In this particular process, where the participation is so less they may not be able to voice out their concerns. Although the model lacks in various areas, small changes could be incorporated for the purpose of adapting it to the adults. The learning could become more participative. Since the instructor decides on the teaching methodology, He/She could encourage the participants to speak about their experiences. A lot of modularity could be introduced in the learning script so as to augment the learning process. The instructor could segregate the individuals based on the teams so as to accentuate the learning. The delivery could also be spaced out in such a way so as to foster a spirit of belonging in the class Development of a learning organization A learning organization is one where there is a total commitment towards the process of continual learning. The employees are always in a process to learn new things and improve them in the process (Senge, 1994). The participants may be made to continuously learn new ideas that would result in the upgradation. Generally, an organization has different types of people and each may function differently. Therefore, this methodology could be extremely useful in establishing some sort of order in the learning process. Otherwise, due to the bottom up approach, a lot of confusion may prevail which would harm the learning process. Secondly, a great chunk of any organization is primarily composed of young people. They do not come in with a lot of experience at their hands. Therefore, the instructor could instill the required learning fundamentals or values in a faster and a more comprehensive manner in them (Castells, 2001). The learning would also be a more streamlined process in this particular case. The instructor may make a general outline of the type of participants in an organization and may develop a study plan according to it. Sometimes, due to great amount of time spent in retelling the personal experiences, valuable time may be lost (Cohen & Prusak, 2001). But, in this case, the instructor may have a look at the type of audience and thereby decide on the amount of time that should be invested in the process. Group formation may not always be desirable as this may lead to the formation of reference or in groups. Therefore, if at all the instructor feels the need; he/she may have a process in place. In conclusion, we can say that the pedagogical method of education can be tailor made to suit the needs of the audience and the participants of an organization to result in its transformation into a learning organization. REFERENCES Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. MA: Addison Wesley. Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Castells, M. (2001) ‘Information technology and global capitalism’ in W. Hutton and A. Giddens (eds.) On the Edge. Living with global capitalism, London: Vintage. Cohen, D. & Prusak, L. (2001). In Good Company. How social capital makes organizations work, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Dixon, N. (1994). The Organizational Learning Cycle. How we can learn collectively, London: McGraw-Hill Gadamer, H.G., Weinsheimer, J. & Marshall, D.G. (2004). Truth and Method. NY: Continuum International Publishing Group. Garvin, D. A. (2000) Learning in Action. A guide to putting the learning organization to work, Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Hayes, R. H., Wheelwright, S. & Clark, K. B. (1998) Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating the learning organization, New York: Free Press. Senge, P. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. Currency, Doubleday. Tsang, E. (1997) ‘Organizational learning and the learning organization: a dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research’, Human Relations, 50(1): 57-70. Read More