The Dual Nature Of Workplace Learning Programmes

Workplace learning continues to be an emerging and dynamic field. As a means of achieving enhanced or improved human performance, workplace learning programs must continue to be dynamic in order to be the foundation of organizational learning in workplace settings. Because workplace learning programs exist within the context of a specific subject matter within an organization, the design and evaluation of these programs must be reviewed from both the learning and content perspectives. These dual perspectives on workplace learning place a heavy demand on the design of learning activities and the accountability measures of the learning programs. In this themed issue of the Journal of Workplace Learning, we will examine the dual nature of workplace learning programs. Each paper presented here focuses on the design and accountability or evaluation of workplace learning programs. This issue asserts that the dual nature of workplace learning programs exist regardless of the type of workplace organization. James Burrow and Paula Berardinelli from the USA discuss their experiences from a collaboration with members of a training department of a global manufacturing organization. This paper reviews the relationships between learning, job performance and organizational results and how these three entities can be linked to planned learning. The authors assert that if the organizational measures are too broad, they cannot be clearly connected to individual performance improvement and to planned learning. Hence, a redefinition and refinement of training evaluation is proposed. This proposed refinement fits within the traditional four-level evaluation process of Kirpatrick. Burrow and Berardinelli call this level 3.5 to fit between Kirpatrick’s model of level 3 (behavior) and level 4 (results). Peter Miller reports on action learning as a new way to develop capacities within organizations. He describes an action learning approach that facilitated and implemented workplace learning strategies. This approach was used to assist managers to enhance their capacity to learn and respond to organizational issues. Miller describes the formal process of action learning and how it was adopted into the workplace learning setting. His four-phase methodology was used to measure the effectiveness of the training program for the group of managers. This paper offers six lessons for workplace learning that can be applied in any workplace learning setting. There can be almost no discussion of workplace learning design and evaluation without an emphasis on technology. Two papers in this issue focus on e-learning design and evaluation for workplace learning. Brosnan and Burgess utilize a defined learning architecture as a conceptual framework to analyze the design of a Webbased continuing professional development course. The importance of a design that focuses upon social networks within the workplace is emphasized. The authors conclude that this type of design provides a