Search

Adult education and human resource development as fields of practice and study share some roots in common but have grown in different directions in their histories. Adult education's roots focused initially on citizenship for a democratic society, whereas human resource development's roots are in performance at work. While they have grown in different directions, they also clearly overlap in important ways; through their focus on helping adults learn, a growing interest in constructivism in the knowledge era, and in broader international and national visions of the field. Differences are also noted, particularly in regard to emphasis on individual growth vs. growth of the organization. The article concludes with a look at three ways of looking at the relationship between the two fields: through the lens of practice, the metaphor of the big tent, and questions associated with philosophical differences.

Third, In the face of escalating interdependence, organizations are merging learning and development with organization development functions to embed core practices in the culture. They work more across the organization, and as Hull commented, "It is also an increasingly integrated role with other parts of the organization and a blurring of boundaries - for example, working hand-in-glove with other HR/People specialists such as reward, talent, OD, learning grouping. Employee ability to learn is not uniform; and organizational norms, mechanisms and practices might not support critical thinking ([19]) Some organizations do scaffold capacity building. Merging Functions While many organizations remain quite siloed, some acknowledge that learning and development is often no longer the province of the unit responsible for it and that enacting changes that add value to the organization requires collaboration with other units, often the organization development function. [Extracted from the article]

The authors describe research aimed at developing a more comprehensive framework for project-based learning in work contexts. This grows out of a cross-cultural reanalysis of data from two previous studies using two different frameworks: actor-centered learning network theory and a critical pragmatist lens on action reflection learning. Findings are based on a cross analysis of a subset of one another's data sets using the authors' respective original frameworks, thus intending to build reflexivity into the latter. The study identifies strengths and weaknesses of each framework and discusses a more comprehensive framework that takes into account both individual and organizational learning at a time when learning in work contexts is increasingly driven by the learner and integrated with work.

Mentoring has been defined in many different ways. Traditionally, mentoring is seen as a relationship between an older, more experienced mentor and a younger, less experienced protege for the purpose of helping and developing the protege's career. Zachary's (2005) description best fits the process discussed in this article: "Mentoring is best described as a reciprocal and collaborative learning relationship between two (or more) individuals who share mutual responsibility and accountability for helping a mentee work toward achievement of clear and mutually defined learning goals." Zachary's emphasis here on learning, and later references in her work to mentoring being a self-directed learning relationship and the need for skillful coaching in the relationship, all have strong tie-ins to the concepts of Action Learning (AL) and Action Learning Conversations (ALC). In this article, the authors describe what AL and ALCs are to show how the role and actions taken speak to peer mentoring. (Contains 1 figure.)

This article lays out a model of action learning for catalyzing strategic innovation in mature organizations that are faced with a new competitive playing field. Central to this model is the development of a set of sophisticated cognitive capabilities--sensemaking, strategic thinking, critical thinking, divergent thinking, conceptual capacity and a malleable learning orientation. The learning design provides challenge, opportunity and support for overcoming organizational orthodoxy that can otherwise hamper innovation. Examples from the Chubb Global Executive Program are used to identify and discuss key cognitive, contextual, learning and design elements of this model. (Contains 4 figures.)

This research describes efforts to develop and validate a multidimensional measure of the learning organization. An instrument was developed based on a critical review of both the conceptualization and practice of this construct. Supporting validity evidence for the instrument was obtained from several sources, including best model-data fit among alternative measurement models, nomological network among dimensions of the learning organization, and organizational performance outcomes. Acceptable reliability estimates were obtained for the seven proposed dimensions. Consequently, the instrument, Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire, was recommended for use in organizational studies.

Enos, Kehrhahn, and Bell have made an important contribution to measuring informal learning and its transfer as proficiency in a set of company-identified managerial skills. Measurement of informal learning is at the crux of research that seeks to link learning outcomes to other indicators of effective performance. The ability to show how informal learning affects managerial proficiency also would help practitioners build a better business case for planning and supporting informal learning. A drawback to the research methodology employed in this study is reliance on self-report, which the authors note but do not fully discuss. Questions also arise about the nature of skills measured and the nature of managerial work in what appears to be a period of transition in the company they examined. I conclude with some thoughts on alternative lenses for considering implications for practice.

Organizational and workplace changes are altering the work of trainers and consequently their professional development needs. Training and development professionals need a foundation in training design and delivery with the ability to incorporate multiple perspectives, delivery systems, and locations and to be responsive to change. (SK)

When the learning organization is used for purposes not originally intended, it can create a culture of fear, in which constant change has a negative impact and employee knowledge is inappropriately exploited. The learning organization is not a destination but a vision of organizations and individuals using learning to build long-term capacity for survival. (SK)

The learning organization learns continually and has the capacity to transform itself. This article presents a model addressing three levels of interrelated learning (individual, team, and organizational) and discusses seven action imperatives. Creating continuous learning opportunities, promoting dialog and inquiry, and building teams are vital steps. (MLH)

Reflective practice through continuous learning in the workplace involves viewing experiences as potential learning and reexamining assumptions, values, methods, policies, and practices. Steps in continuous work/learning are as follows: clarify thinking, be open to questions, notice context, test hunches, investigate, name and rename the problem, uncover what underlies thinking, and experiment. (SK)