Learning from Training: Learning Theories

Learning is perceived to be both a cognitive construct and a social construct.  Some may argue that learning is predominantly cognitive while others would argue that learning is primarily social.  In either case, regardless of which epistemology you prescribe to, learning from training works best when both cognitive and social activities are incorporated.

Learning as a cognitive construct:

Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) identified the cognitive perspective of learning from the camps of Piaget, Kuhn, and Dewey.  This perspective views learning as: "meaning… by the individual and is dependent on the individual's previous and current knowledge structure. Learning is thus an internal cognitive activity" (p. 291). This stream of learning theories view past experiences, existing knowledge, and interactions with the environment as critical to new learning.

Learning as a social construct:

Merriam et al. (2007) identified the social perspective of learning from the campus of Vygotsky and Driver. This perspective views culture and social interaction as being critical to learning.  "This approach involves learning the culturally shared ways of understanding and talking about the world and reality (Merriam et al., 2007, p. 292).  From this perspective culture, artifacts, and social interaction with others is critical to new learning.

The learning spectrum:

Merriam et al. (2007) describe these two learning theories as a type of spectrum, with cognitive theories on one end of the spectrum and social theories on the opposite end of the spectrum.  Realistically, the location one is on this learning spectrum is situational. In some situations the learning could be more cognitive, while in other situations this learning could be mostly social.  

Training and Learning:

Viewing the composite of learning from the middle of the learning spectrum one would view learning as both cognitive and social.  Situationally, this would be the optimal position to maximize learning from training.  Specific learning activities have been identified that would take advantage of both the cognitive and social theories of learning.  Listed below are a few activities / theories that could be used during training to optimize learning.

• Activity Theory (AT): Activity theory 'conceptualizes learning as involving a subject (the learner), and object (the task or activity) and mediating artifacts…. Activity theory… combines the individual and the social (including culture and history) in understanding an activity such as learning' (Merriam et al., 2007, p. 292).

• Action-Based Learning: Action-Based Learning is "a dynamic, real-time method of training that brings a group of individuals together to identify the cause of real problems and arrive at possible solutions…. requiring those solutions to be put into action and the results fed back to the group" (Kirkpatrick, & Kirkpatrick, 2010, p. 116).

• Evaluative Research: Evaluative research can be used in a training environment as a means to combine both a groups knowledge and experience through social interactions.  Evaluative research "involves statements about cause-and-effect relationships" (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2010, p. 12). One example of an evaluative research model is a needs assessment where "a set of procedures for identifying and prioritizing needs related to societal, organizational, and human performance" (McKillip, as cited in Gall et al., 2010, p. 515) is conducted.  Another type of evaluative research would be responsive evaluation, responsive evaluation "focuses on identifying and describing stakeholders' issues… and concerns" (Gall et al. 2010, p. 516).

• Action Research: Action Research is research conducted in the workplace, where the problem exists.  Gall et al. (2010) identified seven steps to an action research project:
• Selection of a Focus for the Study (or training)
• Data Collection
• Analysis and Interpretation of the Data
• Taking Action
• Reflection
• Continuation or Modification of Practices
• Preparing a Report of the Findings (or group presentation)
• *parenthesis include items added, not in original referenced material*

Summary:

Effective training could maximize learning by focusing activities along the middle of the learning spectrum. Various activities are available from the education and research literature that could be used in training situations that provide learning opportunities for participants.  The above activities are only a few of those available that could be used in a training exercise.  Those listed are identified to maximize learning as viewed from the middle of the learning spectrum.

References:

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. (2010). Applying Educational Research (6th ed.). Boston, MS: Pearson.

Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2010). Training on Trial: How Workplace Learning Must Reinvent Itself to Remain Relevant. New York, NY: American Management Association (AMACOM).

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Using Technology in Education / Training

Technology used in education (formal school education) and for training (business training, non-formal education) takes many forms: simulations, communication, interactive, virtual, games, etc…  The use of technology in education and training have been reported to be both effective and non-effective.  Listed below are two examples of recent research relating to using technology in education along with a brief summary of their findings.  Following, I have identified a list of four items to consider prior to using technology in an education or training setting. 

Vanderwater et al. (2006) pointed out that "technology use has no intrinsic value per se, but instead has value only with respect to the activities it displaces" (as cited in Bavelier et al., 2010, p. 694).  For example, if a student is already working on math problems at home, by introducing technology to help with their math abilities probably will not show too much gain.  It is when a student does not work on math problems that introducing technology could aid the student to begin working on math problems - thus benefitting that student.

Vogel et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis which compared traditional teaching methods with games and interactive simulations. They viewed which teaching method had the highest cognitive gains for the learner.  What they found was: "those using interactive simulations or games report higher cognitive gains and better attitudes toward learning compared to those using traditional teaching methods" (Vogel et al., 2006, p. 237).  Some limitations were identified however.  For example, the interactive simulations had to be experiential for the learner, it could not be controlled by the teacher or the program, in order to be effective.  Although this study provided interesting results, highlighting benefits from games and interactive simulations, comparative analyses could not be conducted with traditional teaching methods due to a lack of data from the literature.

When determine which teaching methods and materials to choose for a training program, when the need for a training program has been identified, a few things should be considered.  

1. If technology is to be used as part of the training, the expected outcome from the technology should be determined a priori.  What is the outcome that you expect from the learners through the use of this technology?  Is this outcome possible without the use of the technology?  Do the learners understand what is expected of them prior to using this technology?  This item relates to the point identified above that technology only has value based on the activities it displaces, in this case the outcome expected from using technology in a training environment.
2. When technology is being used for training purposes, are the learners free to experiment, or are they being guided and told what to do at each step?  In order for technology to provide effective training the learners need to have the ability to freely experiment with the content, to be able to interact through the technology, and be able to make mistakes without consequences.  This item relates to the previously mentioned research identifying that interactive simulations or games can provide higher cognitive gains.
3. An additional item to consider is the type of learners that this training will be addressing.  If the learners are mostly self-directed learners than the technology may not be necessary.  Self-directed learners are motivated and they will absorb the material and research beyond the content presented in the training material, with or without new technology.  However, if the learners are not self-directed learners the technology may provide a means for effective learning transfer.  
4. Lastly, a caution to consider is that the technology being used for training cannot be too demanding of the learners.  If the technology is hard to use or learn to use (a steep learning curve) then the learning will be lost.

References

Bavelier, D., Green, S. C., & Dye, M. W. G. (2010). Children, wired: For better and for worse. Neuron, 67, 692-701. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.035

Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computer Research, 34(3), 229-243.

Is Your Workplace Designed for Learning?

As the 21^st century transitions to the knowledge worker (from the industrial / manufacturing worker of the 20^th century & from the agricultural worker from the 19^th century) companies are faced with the responsibility of training their workers to acquire the required knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA’s) for their jobs. Nijhof and Nieuwenhuis (2008) identified that work is shifting toward knowledge-intensive work, with a focus on knowledge production. It is not uncommon today to view a journal article or a newsletter that talks about the knowledge-economy. The primary difference here is that knowledge-economy refers more to a macro perspective, where knowledge production looks more at a micro perspective.

As the requirements for the knowledge worker continually changes to keep up with the global economy and new technologies, the educational system often falls behind these new technologies, thus furthering the burden for the employer to train employees. This new emphasis on training, by the employer, was highlighted by Nijhof and Nieuwenhuis (2008) by stating: “Efficient and effective learning impose requirements on workplaces that are different from those for efficient and effective working” (pp. 6-7). This new requirement on employers causes a shift in the common practices of the organization.

Most views of the workplace take the stand that there is a place to work (the workplace), there is a place to play (at home), and there is a place to learn (at home or at school – both away from the workplace). However, learning new tasks or skills are often required to perform one’s job. Alternatively, in order to successfully perform one’s job, one must be able to learn about the job duties and processes that are involved with that particular job. Nijhof & Nieuwenhius (2008) identified that learning is an intermediate function of work, “the learning potential of the workplace therefore lies in its conditions to support or stimulate learning” (Nijhof & Nieuwenhuis, 2008, p. 5). Thus, the more learning is supported in the workplace, employees have a tendency to be more motivated and productive.

A fully supported learning environment in the workplace could be replicated using the following definition provided by Nijhof and Nieuwenhuis (2008): “The learning potential of the workplace may… be defined as the power of a work setting to integrate learning at work with the result of behavioural changes and the generation of new knowledge” (p. 7).

Is your organization set up to integrate learning in the workplace? I will follow up in the next couple of blogs with a few models that could be implemented to begin a new learning workplace for organizations.

References

Nijhof, W. J. & Nieuwenhuis, L. F. M. (2008). The learning potential of the workforce. In Nijhof, W. J. & Nieuwenhuis, L. F. M. (Eds.), The learning potential of the workplace. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.