Chapter
2: Literature Review
In attempting to make sense of the observed and experienced diversity in how people learn, there have been different approaches (Reynolds, 1997) to research (experimental, psychometric, phenomenographical); different terms and definitions (style, strategy, process, habit, approach, predisposition, tactic); and different ways (sometimes in terms of more or less stable personality characteristics and sometimes in terms of conscious preferences influenced by contextual factors)
Learning
During
life, everyone learns something. The word ‘learning’ means different things
to different people – it may mean learning to speak different languages or to
play different instruments or to solve hard crossword puzzles or to write
computer programs or to set up a business.
Due
to the experiences of the early school, the term 'learning' has come to mean to
thoroughly grasping what an expert knows. It is not simply a matter of adding
something. However, the generally accepted definition of learning is the
changing of behavior, not simply on a theoretical but the level of everyday
experience (Lossey, 1998). Learning involves a durable change in behavior due to
experience (http://www.mnsfld.edu/~fcraig/teaching/PY101/101_06/ppframe.htm).
There is always reorganization or restructuring. There may be unlearning too. (Schwandt
et al., 2000)
Three
levels of learning: individual, team and organizational have been identified by
Redding (Redding, 1997). Individual learning comprises of self-directed
learning, individual learning plans and continuous learning. Team learning is
made of dialogue and action-reflection learning. Organizational learning is
about strategic action learning, project debriefing and capturing lessons.
(a)
Individual Learning Processes
Kolb
and colleagues (Kolb et al., 1971) defined individual learning as the process
whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. They
defined learning styles as generalized differences in learning orientations
based on the degree to which people emphasize the four modes of the learning
process as measured by a self report test called the Learning Style Inventory.
According to Kolb (as quoted in Starkey, 1996), learning process is both active
and passive, concrete and abstract. It can be conceived of as a four stage
cycle: (1) concrete experience is followed by (2) observation and reflection
which leads to (3) the formation of abstract concepts and generalizations which
lead to (4) hypothesis to be tested in future action which in turn leads to new
experiences. Accordingly, learners, to be effective, need four different kinds
of abilities – concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract
conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation (AE). That is they must be
able to involve themselves fully, openly, and without bias in new experiences
(CE); reflect on and observe these experiences from many perspectives (RO);
create concepts that integrate their observations into logically sound theories
(AC); and use these theories to make decisions and solve problems (AE).
The
most popular definition of learning style is given by R. M. Smith (as qouted in
StrawBridge, 1999). He defines learning style as the individual's characteristic
ways of processing information, feeling, and behaving in learning situations.
Price (as qouted in StrawBridge, 1999) adds that when people learn, they
perceive, think, interact with instructors, methods, and environments developing
tendencies and preferences. This development brings about one's learning style,
a characteristic way of learning.
Gordon
Pask’s research (as quoted in Reynolds, 1997), based on experiments and
protocol analysis with students, identified two learning strategies: holist and
serialist. A holist strategy entails learning in relation to the whole, where as
a serialist strategy involves a step by step approach from one idea to the next
without necessarily considering the overall picture. Pask saw these strategies
appropriate for different learning tasks while he defined style as indicating
some deeper characteristic of the person which was expressed in whether they
leaned to one or the other regardless of the nature of the task. People who
leaned towards holism were described as comprehensive learners, while those
preferring serialism were called operational learners. In addition there was a
third style, versatility, that showed an ability to use either strategy when
necessary.
In
course of time, the ideas developed by the educational researchers began to move
away from assumptions of more or less stable personality characteristics and
placed emphasis on the conscious choices made in selecting an approach to a
learning task. Marton (as quoted in
Gordon et al, 1998) did much of the early work in learning processes laying
emphasis on what students actually do to cope with a particular learning task.
It was recognized that the actual learning processes couldn’t be separated
from the environment and the explanations of perceived world developed the
learner’s understanding. Marton (as quoted in Reynolds, 1997) described two
levels of processing - deep and surface. A deep approach entails looking for
meaning in whatever is being studied and relating it to other ideas and
experience with a questioning attitude. Surface learning is more likely to
depend on memorizing information in isolation from other ideas. Similar concepts
from this perspective can be seen in the work of Biggs (as quoted in Reynolds,
1997), whose taxonomy of learning processes takes account of students’ motives
in learning, whether for interest in what is being learned, qualifications or
the sense of achievement gained.
Richardson described that students manifest a number of different learning approaches that are dependent upon the context, the content, and the demands of the learning task (Richardson, 1994). They may adopt a ‘deep’ approach insofar as they acknowledge the more abstract forms of learning that are demanded in higher education and are motivated by the relevance of the syllabus to their own personal needs and interests. They adopt a ‘surface’ approach insofar as they encounter an overloaded curriculum and methods of assessment, which emphasizes the superficial properties of the material that is to be learned. They adopt a ‘strategic’ approach to the extent that they receive cues about their assessment schemes from members of teaching staff.
Saljo (as quoted in Gordon et al, 1998) analyzed student responses to what learning meant to them and identified five qualitatively different conceptions of what constituted learning. They were - a quantitative increase in knowledge; memorizing; the acquisition of facts, methods, etc which can be retained and used when necessary; the abstraction of meaning and an interpretative process aimed at understanding reality. Purdie and colleagues (as quoted in Gordon et al., 1998) provide evidence to support the relational link between the outcome of a task, the student's approach to the task and the student's construction of what understanding meant.
Lee’s
research (Lee et al., 1996) on implicit and explicit learning brings out that
complex tasks include predominantly implicit learning and simple tasks require
primarily explicit learning. In his study, when subjects were retested a week
later, their explicit knowledge declined and implicit knowledge remained at the
same level. Training research by Fischer and Ford (Fischer et al, 1998) examined the trainee as an active
participant in the learning process. One component of this process involved the
choices learners made about the effort they would apply to the learning task.
Learner effort has been examined in two ways: amount of effort and type of
effort. The results indicated that
mastering orientation and time on task are the strongest predictors of
performance on the knowledge learning outcome, while perceived mental workload
and the use of an example during learning predicted performance on the
application learning outcome.
Entwistle and Ramsden, (as quoted in Gordon et al, 1998) used the terms of ‘reproducing’ and ‘meaning approach’ to correspond to the shallow and deep levels of Marton and Saljo. Subsequently a third qualitative scale, an ‘achieving’ strategy was added to these descriptive scales. Also according to Ramsden (as qouted in Byrne, 1999), an approach to learning concerns the way in which a student relates to and organizes a learning task. It is not something inside a student; it is not a personal characteristic; it is a way of describing how a student responds to a task; it is dynamic.
Dixon
(Dixon, 1999) provides a theoretical framework of individual learning outlining
how data is taken in, how meaning is made of it, and the configuration in which
cognitive psychologists postulate that it is stored. There are 3 ways that
individuals come to know something: Direct experience (the receipt of sensory
data such as color, sound and pain), verbal transmission of information (ideas
voiced by others, reports, books, formulas etc.) and by reorganizing of what we
already know into a new configuration. In fact, most learning involves all three
simultaneously. He also defines meaning structures as ways individuals organize
data in order to make sense of it. Developing meaning structures is a function
of seeing relationships in data, such as what is larger or smaller, what is
similar to something else, what belongs to the same category, what cause
produces what effect, and what comes first, second and third in sequence.
Metacognition - our knowledge or our own cognitive processes – is a type of
meaning structure that refers to the active monitoring of learning processes,
such as self questioning, persistence, relating data sets, purposefully seeking
new information and questioning inferences.
It
is suggested that students' conception of what learning is very closely related
to how they undertake the process of learning. According to Saljo (as quoted in
Gordon et al., 1998) how students perceive the concept of learning explains a
lot of how they approach the learning task. Those students who saw learning as a
quantitative increase in knowledge tended to be more surface in their approach
to learning. Students who saw learning as an acquisition and application of
knowledge and skills were able to employ deeper processes while finally those
students who saw learning as an interpretive process aimed to understand reality
were able to gain the most meaning from learning. Such students had a particular
view of learning that influenced the strategies they adapted to the learning
process.
One
way of accommodating these alternative perspectives is of the kind offered by
Curry (as quoted in Reynolds, 1997) who proposes that learning style theories
and their supporting instruments can be thought of in three levels, resembling
layers of an onion. This model has ‘cognitive personality style’ as
relatively stable at the core, an intermediate and less stable layer of
‘information processing style’, and an outer layer called ‘instructional
format preference indicator’ allowing for the individual choice of learning
environment.
The
hypothesis by Gordon (Gordon et al., 1998) is that of a direct relationship
between the student's conception of learning, his/her overall approach to
learning and the strategies adopted for specific learning tasks and that these
are mediated through the student's social, cultural and individual background
characteristics and the learning situation that the student finds
himself/herself in. Biggs (as quoted in Gordon et al, 1998) concludes that while
there is insufficient evidence to definitively dismiss the concept of deep,
surface and achieving approaches to learning as being cross culturally invalid,
there is sufficient evidence to suggest that, the surface approach should be
treated with the most caution when being applied cross culturally. It may be
that the understanding of what constitutes memorization, repetition and rote
learning is one element that has considerable variation in its purpose and
process between students from different cultures.
Marton
(as quoted in Gordon et al, 1998) also recognized the implications of culture on
learning. He identified that the original deep/surface distinction in the
concept applied to the way European and more particularly Swedish students
approached their learning may not necessarily apply to non-western students. The
way learning and understanding may be linked to the complex role of repetition
and rote learning in the learning process of non-Western students was also
identified. Within a western educational setting, an orientation to rote
learning was shown to be negatively correlated with academic performance. He
indicates that memorisation may be somewhat different for the western and
non-western learner. Moreover, the deep/surface distinction may not be
appropriate for describing the learning of Chinese students. He investigated the
way a Chinese student conceives the concepts of understanding, memorising and
meaning through a phenomenographic approach. Chinese educators saw memorising as
contributing to understanding, not substituting for it. Educators spontaneously
distinguished mechanical memorization from memorization with understanding.
Western conceptions of learning made a distinction between memorising and
understanding. Marton and Biggs have both addressed two seemingly paradoxical
stereotypes of the Asian learner, the ‘brainy’ Asian and the Asian as a
‘rote learner’.
According
to Marton, the surface approach to learning as it applied to western students
and specifically students from Sweden, meant that the students did not seek
meaning from the learning task but focussed on the task itself. The deep
learner, on the other hand, focussed on understanding the purpose of the task
itself. Marton suggests that the original conception does not necessarily
perceive surface and deep learning as such discrete categories and that to do so
may be an oversimplification of the original concept. While the surface approach
is associated with rote learning it is not characterized by it. Rather it is
characterized by a focus on the learning material or the task itself and not the
meaning or purpose behind it. Purdie (as quoted in Gordon et al. 1998)
identified three other categories of learning in a comparison of Japanese and
Australian students. According to him, the other categories were - learning as a
duty; learning as a process not bound by time or context and learning as
developing social competence.
Research
on how to leverage learning by Daudelin and Hall (Daudelin et al., 1997)
identified three steps: using individual, paired and group reflection.
Individual reflection means reviewing learning from a meeting or other activity
using the agenda, personal notes and the reflection questions (wander);
recording specific insight and action implications in a learning log (capture).
Paired reflection means taking turns reporting the most significant insight and
the action implications (share); recording new insight in a learning log
(capture). Group reflection means reporting the insight and its action
implications: one content specific and one personal (share), then going around
the room until everyone has reported those items and finally, facilitators
concluding the session with their own insight.
A person wishing to diagnose his or her style might simply reflect on five or ten learning experiences and describe the content, situation, process, and mental procedure. From this reflection a pattern might emerge. This pattern would indicate one's style. Practically, educators can diagnose learning styles in order to (1) make better program development and instruction decision, (2) help individuals with problems, strengths, and opportunities--to learn how to learn better and (3) more effectively design the learning environment for the learners. Understanding learning, learning theories and learning styles enables the learner to move one step closer to being a truly proactive learner.
Various inventories have been developed to identify learning processes. The Study Processes Questionnaire was developed by Biggs (as qouted in Richardson, 1994). It contains seven items on each of six scales that are intended to measure the respondents' motives and strategies on three approaches to learning (surface, deep and achieving). Instead, the scales appear to define merely two factors: one is a generalized deep approach to studying, measured by deep and achieving motives and strategies; the other is a generalized surface approach to studying, measured by surface and achieving motives and surface strategy
Schmeck, Ribich and Ramanaiah (as qouted in Richardson, 1994) developed the Inventory of Learning Processes on the basis of contemporary theoretical developments in experimental research into human learning and memory. It contains a total of 62 true-false items associated with a 4 point scale defined as synthesis-analysis (assessing deep, as opposed to superficial, information processing), study methods (assessing repetitive, drill-and-practice habits of processing information), fact retention (assessing attention to details and specifics as opposed to generalities) and elaborative processing (assessing elaborative, as opposed to verbatim, information processing) In 1991, Schmeck, Geisler-Brenstein and Cercy (as qouted in Richardson, 1994) supplemented the above with a 7 point scale examining broader aspects of self-concept and personality to produce a Revised Inventory of Learning Processes in which the respondents indicate the extent of agreement or disagreement along 160 items associated with a 6 point scale.
Without doubt, the most widely used questionnaire on student learning in higher education is the Approaches to Studying Inventory devised by Entwistle and his colleagues (as qouted in Richardson, 1994). The ASI incorporates a variety of constructs taken from interview-based work on student learning, and in its final version consists of 64 items associated with a 16 point scale, grouped in turn under four general headings. The specific distinction between ‘deep’, ‘surface’ and ‘strategic’ approaches is subsumed within a somewhat broader classification in terms of a ‘meaning orientation’, a ‘reproducing orientation’ and an ‘achieving orientation’, and supplemented by a fourth domain representing various learning styles and pathologies described by Pask.
Studies
in Individual Learning Processes
Higher
education research by Byrne and colleagues
(Byrne et al., 1999) examined the approaches to learning adopted by
students enrolled on the course in Accounting & Finance and identified the
approach to learning as a significant factor in the overall student learning
experience. If accounting educators are to find ways to improve the educational
experience of their students, they must understand how students learn and the
effects of the learning context on learning approaches. This study sought to
identify the approaches to learning adopted by the students in their study of
accounting and to assess the relationship between contextual variables and
students' learning approaches. The findings suggested that the majority of
students tended to be unsure of their learning approach with only a small
percentage adopting the preferred deep approach. A study within a sample of
community college students by Bobick (Bobick, 1999) in a general biology course investigated the influence of
learning style on concept acquisition.
A study by Martinez (Martinez, 1999) introduces learning orientation as an important learner-difference variable that helps us examine the conative, affective, cognitive, and social influences, a whole-person perspective, on successful learning. The study investigates learning and individual learning differences by measuring the complex interplay between learner orientation, lower-order learning processes, and the learning experience. DeFanti and colleagues (DeFanti, 1999) have aimed to advance the study of conceptual change (the acquisition of new ideas) by focusing on deep learning, the acquisition of ideas that are more fundamental than the learner's prior ideas about the relevant domain. Deep learning is intrinsically connected with the human ability to design, make and share symbols. Symbol systems (language, drawing, algebraic notation, musical score, chemical formulas, sculpture, etc.) have enabled artistic, practical and scientific achievements far beyond the level of cognitive growth that is possible for an unaided mind.
Proposed
distinctions between style, strategy and approach is not always clear and
sometimes used interchangeably. There are nevertheless consistent themes in this
work, which are worth taking notice of. First there is a difference as to the
nature or quality of engagement people show in relation to whatever it is they
are studying or intending to learn. This might be summarized as searching for
meaning through the association of new ideas and information with existing
knowledge and experience, as opposed to a less involved or more instrumental
relationship with information as something to be remembered, without
understanding of significant depth. Second, there is an emphasis of difference
in ‘style’ being the consequence of conscious choice. Marton and Saljo (as
quoted in Reynolds, 1997) see approach to learning as context dependent rather
than as indication of personality characteristics, a view, which Laurillard (as
quoted in Reynolds, 1997) asserts more forcefully. Laurillard’s research into
how students explained their approach to study led her to conclude that they
chose from possible strategies on the basis of theory perceptions of the nature
of the subject matter to be learned, the approach they thought the task would
require, and whether they saw the teacher as likely to help them reach a deeper
understanding of it. The third feature worth noting is that it has underlined
the importance of context and the ways in which the choice of learning approach,
made consciously or not, is affected by the conditions which apply as much to
management learning as any educational domain. Using Marton and Saljo’s
distinctions of deep and surface learning, a more superficial approach to
learning results from anxiety, heavy workload or assessment methods which reward
reproduction of information rather than evidence of deeper understanding.
(b)
Team learning Processes
What
do we mean by collective learning? Well, this is where a change in the behavior
of one individual leads to appropriate responses, perhaps learning responses,
from others in the organization (Lossey, 1998). For this to happen, people need
to be committed to helping each other achieve their learning styles, not simply
to be committed to their own. People need to be involved in and need to
understand the learning activities of their colleagues.
Argyris
has classified the process of organizational learning (as quoted in Fiol et al,
1985) into two, namely single loop learning and double loop learning. These two
differ on the level of insight and association building. Lower level or single
loop learning refers to short term changes for the purpose of adjusting to the
changed circumstances. It can be compared to a thermostat, which turns the heat
on or off when it is too cold or too hot. Double loop learning or higher level
learning occurs through the use of heuristics and insights. There is
considerable evidence to suggest that some type of crisis is necessary for
changes in the higher level learning – for example, a new structure, a new
leader or dramatically altered market conditions. One can know that this higher
level learning has occurred when one sees a new thinking process underlying the
organization’s understanding of the company, markets, competition, technology
etc. and new responses or actions on the new thinking.
In
terms of Swieringa and Wierdsma's model (as quoted in Hayes et al, 1998), single
loop collective learning leads to a refinement of the prevailing mental model
and to a modification of the rules that regulate behavior in organizations.
Higher level double loop learning is more fundamental and involves reviewing
underlying assumptions and principles and the possible reframing of mental
models. The rules in this model are based on insights that represent what is
known and understood. These insights relate to principles, shared assumptions,
and core beliefs, the "taken for granted reality". They constitute the
shared mental models through which organizational members examine and make sense
of their experience. These mental models are like the subjective theories that
are derived from one's experience of how the world operates and serve as
knowledge systems for interpreting and storing information about others.
Collective learning occurs when a group recognizes something that offers a more
effective way of functioning.
In 1976, the Industrial Training Research Unit (ITRU) classified learning into five categories called CRAMP from its initial letters – Comprehension, Reflex action, Appropriate attitudes, Memorizing and Procedural learning. CRAMP (Prior, 1996) is a practical instrument designed to help trainers choose between different types of training methods for different types of learning task. In other words, it relates what is to be learnt and how best to learn it.
Comprehension
in a task refers to understanding how why or when things happen. (For example:
Knowing how to price articles in a shop) Reflex action in a job are skilled
physical movements and fine perceptual capacities developed over a period of
time. (For example, operating a till quickly and efficiently) Appropriate
attitudes are expressed in relationship with other people and in behavior to the
job or task. (For example, showing courtesy to customers even if sales assistant
feels that it is unreasonable) Memorizing is remembering information required in
order carrying out a specific job efficiently. (For example, product prices,
stock location, job numbers) Procedural Learning organizes activities or tasks
into a set or preferred sequence of action. (For example, job aids, checklists,
and so on, can be used by the employee without decreasing performance levels)
In
1981, ITRU published the results of a project undertaken for the Further
Education Unit (FEU) entitled - How do we Learn? The project was commissioned by
FEU to introduce young people and their tutors to the proposition that there are
many ways of learning and to develop a programme to help develop learning
skills. During the project an even simpler way of classifying learning material
into facts, concepts and activities learned by memorizing, understanding and
doing (MUD) was developed. Learning by Memorizing enables individuals to recall
material in the same form as it was originally learned. Learning by
Understanding is an active mental process involving thoughts which link or group
ideas together in new ways that make sense to the individual. Learning by doing
involves learning a procedure and then practicing until the individual becomes
skillful.
Although
individuals act as ‘learning agents’ it would be wrong to conclude that
organizational learning is nothing but the cumulative result of their members
learning. Organizations unlike individuals develop and maintain learning systems
that not only influence their immediate members, but are then transmitted to
others by way of organizational history and norms. (Prior, 1996)
The
ITRU has also looked upon the role of the trainer. Over the years, it has been
doing research into the differences in training style. It was observed that two
trainers might be following the same training plan, using the same visual aids
and yet has very different success rates. The difference between them lay in the
detail of how they put across information and dealt with errors. This difference
was called the training style
Observation
of effective and less effective trainers enabled the identification of
characteristics of style that are important to helping people learn. These
included: developing a rapport with learners; having a flexible approach to
accommodate the individual needs of learners; and trying to adapt to the
different type of learning which jobs involve. In short, effective instruction
has a learner-centered approach to training. (Prior, 1996)
Prior’s
research also noted that the influence an effective learning style has upon
learners is wide ranging. Not only does it bring about better job understanding,
but it also develops self-reliance and confidence in learners. This confidence
instilled in the learners manifests itself in their ability to deal with a
variety of new learning situations successfully. In other words, not only do
effective trainers help learners to learn the specific job skills, but they also
help them to develop their learning skills and to become autonomous learners.
The
following techniques of learning (helping memory, helping understanding and
helping doing) have been identified during various research projects as those
used by effective trainers in helping learners learn and in encouraging
independence in learners.
Helping
memory
·
New
information is presented in a logical sequence and in a series of manageable
chunks. So learners do not have to take in too much at any one time, can revise
than the commonly adopted procedure of reading through a topic from start to
finish which would creep in fewer errors in recall.
·
The
amount of information presented to learners is limited at the beginning of
training to what they need to do the job, not what is thought nice to know. At a
later stage of training, learners would be able to handle more information, but
they are helped to identify the key parts they need to remember; the rest is
detail. Example: ‘that is the most important thing to remember; the rest is
detail’.
·
New
information can be linked with what the learners may already know themselves, or
have covered in a previous session, so that the context of the material is set
and thus the trainees remember more easily. Examples: ‘How is the sewing
machine different from the one you used at school?’ ‘Remember we learnt
something about this when we dealt with’ Next, learners begin to make up
associations to help them remember information more easily.
·
Trainers
ask specific questions at regular intervals in order
to check the new information has been absorbed by the learners, but the
questions are general in nature, such as ‘did you get all that?’. Example:
‘You’ll forget a lot of that detail if you don’t revise it from time to
time, so let’s go over it now’. This is followed by specific questions to
which the trainee must give a detailed answer, not just ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Example: ‘We covered how to do this the other day but we’ll go through it
again now, just to make sure it sticks in your mind’; ‘so tell me why you
do…’; And what would happen if’. Learners
check what they have remembered by testing themselves and each other at regular
intervals.
Helping
Understanding
·
Trainers
ask questions of their learners for explanations of facts and procedures. By
doing this, the learners are mentally involved in the learning process and get
feedback on whether they have understood the information put across. Example:
‘Why do you think we do it this way?’ Learners begin to develop the habit of
thinking things through for themselves, and have confidence to ask questions if
they feel they have not given all the information they require.
·
Trainers
ask questions to help learners understand why their mistakes occurred and how to
prevent them happening in the future. Example: ‘Why do you think it
happened?’; ‘That’s the sort of mistake which will crop up again and again
– you need to work out carefully how to stop it. Have you any ideas?’
Learners begin to work out for themselves why things went wrong and transfer
their knowledge to a variety of different circumstances. They begin to interpret
errors, not as signs of failure, but as opportunities for learning how to
proceed more effectively in the future. This helps them not only to become
independent employees but also independent learners.
·
Trainers
again ask questions to develop their learners’ judgements of their own work
and progress. Examples: ‘Do you think this piece of work is up to the
standard?’ ‘Why?’ Learners can begin to assess their own progress and
identify their own learning needs. Self-assessment is an important life
competence because it contributes to personal growth and independence.
Helping
doing
·
Trainers
state the objectives of each training session at the beginning so that, learners
are reminded of what is to be achieved. Example: ’Today I’m going to show
you how to make…’; ’We’re going to concentrate on three-point runs
today’. Learners realize the importance of setting realistic objectives for
themselves when they set about learning something of their own.
·
Trainers
identify the key point that learners must be aware of before they give a
demonstration. There is a need to demonstrate slowly so that learners have time
to observe such things as body movements, how the tools and materials are held,
and so on. Trainers should also do their demonstration with as little excess
talking as possible so that learners can concentrate on what is going on and ask
questions when they need to. Learners begin to understand how to get the most
out of watching a demonstration. They need to become proficient at getting the
information they need; they need to find out the purpose of the activity, the
procedures involved and to make sure that they get ‘hands on’ experience of
any equipment being used in the course of the demonstration.
·
Trainers
let their learners practice the job or parts of the job as soon as possible,
provided, of course, that there is no danger to the learner or to anyone else
and that expensive materials will not be wasted. Involving the learner
physically in the learning process will give feedback on how much the learner
has taken in. Learners begin to practice various manual skills as soon as it is
practical to do so, and begin to realize that in learning manual skills they
must practice as much as possible.
·
Trainers
identify those mistakes, which may hinder the learning of manual skills, and
should take action to rectify them immediately. Once having gone through a
sequence of movement wrongly, it is difficult for learners to unlearn. This must
be prevented from happening. Example: ‘ Hold on! Before you begin to saw…;
you’re holding the saw wrongly’. Learners concentrate on getting it right
first time when practicing, rather than trying to hurry and consequently make
mistakes. Trainers begin to a strategy for dealing with errors. First by not
allowing those errors to happen which would have serious consequences in terms
of safety, loss of time or expensive materials. Secondly, by identifying those
errors that must be corrected immediately because they will delay learning.
Thirdly, by identifying those errors, which the learners make, that can be
turned into learning opportunities; that is, by getting learners to work out for
themselves the cause of errors, the consequences of the errors and how to
prevent them happening in the future.
Training
Methods and Learning
The
process of learning is critical and the key to educational improvement is to
understand the way individuals learn. One of the current challenges in teaching,
particularly distance teaching over media such as the Internet, is trying to
meet the needs of heterogeneous students. It is expected that styles of
learning, if accommodated, can result in improved attitudes toward learning and
an increase in productivity, academic achievement, and creativity. It is further
supposed that the most effective learning occurs when the learning activities
most closely match the learners' preferred style. Similarly, just as different
learning styles require different learning techniques, different learners with
varied motivations also require different learning styles.
People learn in a variety of ways, and different people prefer to learn things in different ways. Courses should be designed to deal with different learning styles. Information about learning styles can help faculty become more sensitive to the differences students bring into the classroom. And can serve as a guide in designing learning experiences that match students' styles. Identifying a student's style and then providing instruction consistent with that style contribute to more effective learning.
Discussions
of individual learning often include both the process and purpose of learning,
and the portrayal of learning as a linear process. The assumptions that support
the linearity of the construct are based on observations of a linear sequence of
events in the learning process: information intake, action and reflection,
interpretation and integration, and finally storage of knowledge. This
prevailing assumption of linearity limits the use of the individual learning
process as an organizational learning model. The social dynamics of an
organization requires a non-linear systems approach to explain collective
learning. Any knowledge contained in the individual, to be useful to the
organization, must be developed and transmitted through a social network that is
non-linear. This means that we must consider the entire social dynamics
associate with organizational behavior such as turf wars, communication
breakdowns, and power struggles, and how they relate to knowledge creation.
Individual Learning is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for
organizational learning (Schwandt et al, 2000) In the individual, we assign the
whereabouts of the learning process to the body and mind. However, in the
organization, the location of the learning process is contained within the
social dynamic actions and the complexity of the interacting components of any
organization.
Researchers
though have taken an opposite stand on the above. Kim (as quoted in Hayes et al,
1998) offers a conceptual framework that links individual and organizational
learning through mental models. He argues that mental models provide a context
in which to view and interpret new information, and a basis for determining how
stored information will be perceived and related to any given situation. He
views the individual learning cycle as a process that involves modifying beliefs
and encoding these changes into the individual's mental model. Organizational
learning is presented as being dependent on individuals improving their mental
models, making them explicit and developing shared mental models.
Doyle
Conner et al. (as quoted in Hayes & Allinson, 1998) present a parallel
process model, which likewise explores the relationship between individual and
organizational level processing. They argue that, at both levels, information
processing follows a set of stages (attention, encoding or interpretation,
storage and retrieval from memory, choice and outcome). They go on to argue that
at each stage there are mechanisms, which link both processes. For example, at
the first stage, meanings are shared and a consensus emerges about the
categories of information that should be attended to. At the second (encoding)
stage, individual cognition are woven into a collectively shared
"frame" that is used for encoding; and, at the storage/retrieval
stage, organizational members are socialized by established routines to learn
and preserve accepted knowledge and filter out any information that contradicts
preserved knowledge. This model presumes that organizations have a collective
memory, a mental model that is sustained over time despite changes in
organizational membership. Organizational memories are not only dependent on the
knowledge stored in the minds of current members, knowledge can also be stored
in files, procedural manuals, routines, traditions, and conventions that enable
past experience to be applied to current problems.
References
1.
Bobick, S. B. (1999). Learning Style and Concept Acquisition of Community
College Students in Introductory Biology. DAI-A 60/04, Pp. 993. (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb)
2.
Byrne, M., Flood, B. & Wilis, P. (1999). Approaches to Learning of
Irish Students Studying Accounting, CUBS Research Papers 1997 – 1998, No. 36.
(http://www.dcu.ie/business/research_papers/no36.html)
3.
Daudelin, M. W. & Hall, D. P. (1997). Using Reflection to the
Leverage Learning, Vol. 51, No. 12, Training
and Development. Pp. 13-14
4.
DeFanti, T. A., Johnson, A. E., Moher, T. G. & Ohlsson, S. (1999).
Deep Learning and Visualization Technologies. (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/lis/defanti.htm)
5.
Dixon, N. M. (1999). The Organizational Learning Cycle. Gower Publishing
Limited, England.
6.
Fiol, C. M. and Lyles, M. A. (1985) Organizational Learning. Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, Pp 803-813
7.
Fischer, S.L. & Ford, J.K. (1998).
Differential Effects of Learner Effort and Goal Orientation on Two. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 2. Pp. 397-420.
8.
Gordon, M., Cantwell, R. H. & Moore, P. J. (1998). Paper presented at
the 1998 Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Adelaide
(email: fcmg@cc.newcastle.edu.au)
9.
Hayes, J. & Allinson, C. W. (1998) Cognitive style and the theory and
practice of individual and collective learning in organizations. Human
Relations, Vol. 51, No. 7. Pp. 847
10.
Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M. & McIintyre, J. M. (1971). Organizational
Psychology – an experiential approach. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Pp. 23-31
11.
Lee, Y. S. & Vakoch, D. A. (1996). Transfer and retention of implicit
and ecplicit learning. British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 4, Pp. 637-652.
12.
Lossey, P. (1998) Developing a Learning Organization, Kogan Page, London,
Pp 40-42
13.
Martinez, M. A. (1999) An investigation into Successful Learning:
Measuring the Impact of Learning Orientation, a primary Leader-difference
variable, on learning (CAI). DAI-A 60/03. Pp 648 (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb)
14. Prior, J. (1996) Encyclopaedia of Management – Training and Development, Vol 3. , Jaico Publishing House, Delhi
15.
Redding, J. (1997). Hardwiring the Learning Organization. Training and Development, Vol. 51, No. 8, Pp 61-67
16.
Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning Styles: A Critique. Management
Learning, Vol 28., No. 2, Pp. 115-134
17.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1994). Using Questionnaires to Evaluate Student
Learning: Some Health Warnings (http://www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/ocsd-pubs/isltp-richardson.html)
18.
Schwandt,
D. R. & Marquardt, M. J. (2000) Organizational Learning,St. Lucie Press, New
York, Pg 20-21
19.
Starkey, K. (1996). How Organizations Learn. International Thomas
Business Press, United States. Pp. 270 - 287
20.
Strawbridge,
G. (1999) Learning, Learning Theories and Learning Styles (http://www.olsusa.com/reformation/learning.htm)
(e-mail: strawbridge@olsusa.com)