1 / 14

The Learning Practitioner: A performance in five acts

The Learning Practitioner: A performance in five acts. Carolyn Lewis FCIPD. The Learning Practitioner. https://folio.brighton.ac.uk/user/cl78/proposal-the-learning-practitioner-lt728-1

anniethompson
Télécharger la présentation

The Learning Practitioner: A performance in five acts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Learning Practitioner:A performance in five acts Carolyn Lewis FCIPD

  2. The Learning Practitioner • https://folio.brighton.ac.uk/user/cl78/proposal-the-learning-practitioner-lt728-1 • Has my approach to teaching softer management skills aligned to Employee Relations implementation added value to the student experience?  • Are the students stronger and more confident HR professionals as a consequence of facing challenging employees in the interactive case studies?  • What impact, if any, has their learning had on their employing organisations?

  3. The Learning Continuum Kolb (after Lewin) aligned with Honey & Mumford (1986)

  4. Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation of Training Evaluation (1994)

  5. Training Evaluation Level 1 • Reaction of the trainee – how they felt about the training • Method – ‘happy’ sheets, verbal or written feedback, informal feedback, trainer’s observations

  6. Training Evaluation Level 2 • Learning evaluation – measuring the increase in knowledge and skills acquired: the impact on the individual • Methods – assessments or tests before and after training, interview, self assessment or observation

  7. Training Evaluation Level 3 • Behaviour evaluation- how is new learning being applied in the job role: the impact on the team/service delivery • Methods – observation, self assessment, interview, performance indicators to measure improvement after a time period eg 3 -6 months

  8. Training Evaluation Level 4 • Results evaluation:the impact on the business overall • Methods – usual measures of performance for the business eg profits, productivity, complaints, wastage, errors, growth, quality, employee turnover and stability, sales • = Return on investment (ROI)

  9. Training Evaluation Level 5 • Societal Impact:the contribution of the individual and the organisation • Corporate Social Responsibility; workplace wellbeing; social policy • Kaufmann, Keller & Watkins (1995) • see also Aguinis & Kraiger (2009)

  10. Research Findings • https://folio.brighton.ac.uk/user/cl78/research-findings-lt728

  11. Next steps • There is too little data available to facilitate a rigorous analysis of findings against the literature but potential research objectives include • Does practical intervention with scenario-based events (Scribner, 1983) engender greater understanding of contextual Employee Relations than does observation (Lave & Wenger, 1991)? • To what extent is recognition of learning better facilitated by reflective practice? (Dewey, 1933; Bourner, O’Hara & Barlow, 2000) • Does learning preference impact upon one’s understanding if one’s enjoyment is compromised?  (Dick & Johnson, 2002) • What of those students who attended the theory sessions but were not present for the interactive case studies?

  12. References/Bibliography Aguinis H & Kraiger K (2009) ‘Benefits of Training and Development for Individuals and Teams, Organizations and Society’ AnnualReview of PsychologyVolume 60:451–74 Bourner, T, O'Hara, S, & Barlow, J (2000) Only connect: Facilitating reflective learning with statements of relevance.Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37(1), 68-75 Dewey, J (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process (2nd edition). New York: DC Heath Dick, W & Johnson, RB (2002). Evaluation in instructional design: The impact of Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. RA Reiser & JV Dempsey Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 145-153 GiangrecoA, Sebastiano A & Peccei R (2009) ‘Trainees’ Reactions to Training: An analysis of the factors affecting the overall satisfaction with training’, The International Journal of HRM, Volume 20(1) pp96-111 Honey, P & Mumford, A (1986); Using your learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Honey, P and Mumford, A (1992); The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey

  13. References/Bibliography Kaufman, R, Keller, J, and Watkins, R (1995), ‘What Works and What Doesn’t: Evaluation Beyond Kirkpatrick’, Performance & Instructions, Volume 35(2) pp8–12 Kirkpatrick, DL (1994); Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Kolb, DA (1984); Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Lave, J and Wenger, E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lewin K (1942) "Field Theory and Learning" in D Cartwright (ed.) Field Theory in Social Science: selected theoretical papers, London; Social Science Paperbacks, 1951 Scribner, S. (1983, 1997). Mind in action: a functional approach to thinking. Mind, Culture and Activity:Seminal Papers from the Laboratory of Human Cognition. M. Cole, M, Engeström, Y & Vasquez, O (Eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

More Related