为了正常的体验网站,请在浏览器设置里面开启Javascript功能!

(DOC)-外文翻译--学习与培训:开发有胜任力的学习者-其他专业

2017-12-29 12页 doc 40KB 5阅读

用户头像

is_037433

暂无简介

举报
(DOC)-外文翻译--学习与培训:开发有胜任力的学习者-其他专业(DOC)-外文翻译--学习与培训:开发有胜任力的学习者-其他专业 中文2710字 本科毕业论文(设计) 外 文 翻 译 外文出处 Journal of European Industrial Training. Volume. 27.2003(09) .P473 – 480 外文作者 David Robotham 原文: Learning and training: developing the competent learner Improving learning during training The...
(DOC)-外文翻译--学习与培训:开发有胜任力的学习者-其他专业
(DOC)-外文翻译--学习与:开发有胜任力的学习者-其他专业 中文2710字 本科毕业() 外 文 翻 译 外文出处 Journal of European Industrial Training. Volume. 27.2003(09) .P473 – 480 外文作者 David Robotham 原文: Learning and training: developing the competent learner Improving learning during training The improvement of learning in the context of training is an objective which often appears to be of secondary importance. Indeed one could reasonably argue that learning itself appears to warrant little interest in the majority of training programmes. This view is supported by Antonacopoulou (1999) who, from an extensive review of the review of the management development literature, concluded that: A central priority of management development is the improvement of organisational competitiveness, productivity, and ultimately efficiency. These definitions often neglect that an integral part of the development process is learning. Even when reference is made to learning there is hardly any indication that there is flexibility and that individual differences in learning styles are taken into account (Antonacopoulou, 1999, p. 16). This lack of focus on the importance of learning may be due in part to the attitudes of employees, who regard training as simply a means for improving job prospects (Rigg, 1989). The organisation may also mitigate against learning being seen as important during training through a failure to provide an appropriate infrastructure to support learning after training has taken place (Antonacopoulou, 2001). It is also due in part to the historical distinction that is made between education, training, development and learning. They are typically presented as being separate activities. This distinction is in some ways artificial and not one that sits well with contemporary thinking about learning. It is perhaps more appropriate to adopt the view put forward by Garavan (1997, p. 47) who argues that: Increasing an individual’s capacity to learn and their involvement in the process of learning should be a primary concern. A focus on learning in an organizational context, rather than separate activities of training, development and education, seem best to facilitate this process. From this viewpoint improvement in learning becomes of primary importance. A view that is supported by Berge et al. (2002) who argue that in learning the focus is on the employee – the person doing the learning – whereas in training the focus is on the trainer. However, it is unclear whether it is possible to improve the ability of an individual to learn. This is apparent because it is not clear whether improvement in learning refers to improving constituent process elements of the overall learning process, such as study skills, or an improvement in the outcome of learning. This is an important distinction as attaining effectiveness in learning requires a consideration of both the learning process and the product of learning. For as Harri-Augstein and Thomas (1991, p. 48) point out: Thinking about learning as results or products is very different from considering learning as a process. Personal knowledge is a product of learning. Knowing how you came to acquire such knowledge is awareness of learning as a process. The question how do you learn demands quite different answers from the question what have you learned. It would seem logical to assume that improving the relative efficiency and effectiveness of learning sub-processes would improve the outcome of training, but this does not necessarily follow. For example, an individual could become highly proficient at note-taking and yet not necessarily achieve greater understanding of the topic on which they were taking notes. While they may be more adept at the mechanical process of note-taking, this does not mean they are able to decide what to take notes on (Cloete and Shochet, 1986). This is because effective learning requires the integration by the learner of a range of learning process elements, rather than enhanced ability at any single element of learning (Nisbet and Shucksmith, 1986). This has not prevented the development of a range of study skills courses as an attempt to improve the effectiveness of learning. However, the effectiveness of such courses is at best questionable. In a review of study skill programmes, Weinstein and Underwood (1985) concluded: There is no consistent definition as to exactly what study skills are; most of the so-called good study skills practices have not been empirically validated; no diagnostic instrument of study skill requirements has been validated; and most of the instruments used to assess study skills can be readily faked by students. Main (1980) in a similar review found more than 80 per cent of study skills courses revolved almost wholly around memory skills. This would indicate that study skills programmes adopt too narrow a focus as a means for improving learning. Improving learning requires the adoption of a broader focus that considers learning how to learn. In an educational context, improvement in learning is a process the system assumes is occurring naturally as individuals progress through the formal education system. In a training and development context, it is likely that individuals may need to learn how to learn. There is a need to develop the subject knowledge identified as being necessary for that course, and an associated and complementary need to develop knowledge of how one learns. Essential to this process of learning to learn is the development of metacognition, where individuals are able to metaphorically stand back and observe their learning. Only by developing in individuals an awareness of how they learn, can learning be improved. This view is supported by learning theorists who suggest that learners should be able to reflect on their learning (Kolb, 1976; Honey and Mumford, 1992). Bringing together the issues presented the issues discussed in this section, it is apparent that effectiveness in learning can be taught by:developing task specific knowledge as a support for further learning, enhancing awareness of, and skill in, employing learning approaches appropriate to particular learning tasks, and seeking to match course requirements and personal goals. Although there is a risk one may restrict learning capability by developing specialised strategies applicable to a limited range of problems (Dansereau, 1985). To avoid this one needs to consider how individuals learn and examine their learning style. Learning style in improving learning One approach to achieving effective learning, and one that is widely used in training and development, is an awareness and application of knowledge about an individual’s learning style. The learning style(s) of individuals in a training and management education environment should be an important consideration for trainers (Buch and Bartley, 2002), not only in the development and design of any programme, but also in the subsequent delivery of that programme (see Jackson’s 1995 study for example). An awareness of the learning preferences, or learning style, of trainees may facilitate the development of an appropriate framework within which training should be carried out to optimise effectiveness. It is unclear however whether once having identified an individual’s learning style, it is then more effective to match the training style used to that particular learning style, or to aim for a deliberate mismatch between training style and learning style (Hayes and Allinson, 1996). By selecting an approach to training that it is known will not be readily accessible and amenable to an individual’s preferred learning style, it could be argued that the learner will be forced to increase their learning versatility through the required use of unfamiliar learning approaches. Although there is a danger that in such a situation, where there is lack of congruency between the preferred learning style(s) of individuals and the approach adopted by the trainer, the trainee may choose to mentally opt-out of the programme, while still physically attending. This possibility must be countered with the recognition that to continually direct training activities to a single learning style, may promote the adoption of a narrow learning focus within a particular individual (Robotham, 1995). At a more fundamental level, it is questionable however whether the style approach to learning, i.e. slotting people into pre-ordained categories, is actually appropriate. Whilst this learning stereotyping will subsequently allow a degree of tailoring of programmes to meet the needs of small groups within a large group, there is an inherent danger in encouraging individuals to adopt a particular learning style, in the belief that it constitutes a “good” style. Individuals may become intellectually short-sighted and tend to avoid, either consciously or subconsciously, learning situations that do not fall within their personal learning range. In addition to this criticism, it is arguable that a truly proficient learner is not someone who demonstrates capability within a narrow band of activities, as defined by a particular learning style, but rather someone who demonstrates the ability to select an appropriate learning style from a range of styles, according to the demands of the situation, and their learning capability. This will be particularly true in a work environment, where the inherent flexibility to be able to respond to the specific needs of different situations, is clearly a desirable personal attribute. This would seem to suggest that to focus only on learning styles as a basis for maximising learning is rather too limited. An alternative solution could be to aim to develop the competent learner by seeking to develop in individuals a broader range of learning abilities or competencies. Conclusion The aim here has been to demonstrate how it is possible to enhance the effectiveness of training through amalgamating theoretical propositions from two areas of thinking; learning theory and the competence movement. It has been argued that underlying any training course should be a consideration of the learning ability of those being trained. By seeking to enhance the learning competence of trainees as a central component of any course, one will be improving the likelihood of attaining defined learning outcomes. However, enhancing an individual’s learning competence does not refer to simply providing study skills such as note-taking. It also involves more than identifying an individual’s learning style. Competence in learning is concerned with deeper, underlying factors such as an awareness of how one learns, and the ability to integrate existing knowledge with new knowledge. Knowledge about an individual’s learning style appears to offer a means for enhancing learning, but its usefulness is at best limited. Learning style is only a constituent element of the totality of learning and has been widely criticised. Whilst an awareness of one’s learning style may be beneficial in promoting effective learning, it is only part of the process in seeking to develop a competent learner. A competent learner is consciously aware of their learning processes and seeks to adapt that process to the perceived requirements of a particular learning task. The challenge for trainers lies in firstly becoming more aware of their own learning and developing a greater understanding of how individuals learn. Through such introspection trainers will then be in a more favourable position for developing competent learners and so enhance the effectiveness of training and development. 外文出处:Journal of European Industrial Training. Volume. 27.2003(09) .P473 - 480 译文: 学习与培训:开发有胜任力的学习者 一、在训练中提高学习能力 在培训中提高学习能力常常被认为是次要的目标。事实上,人们完全有理由认为在大多数的培训中对学习兴趣并不大。这一观点被Antonacopoulou所支持(1999),根据管理层的发展文献并回顾广泛的审查,总结出了: 一个管理发展的中心是组织竞争力,生产力,并最终提高效率的重要性。这些定义往往忽视发展进程的一个组成部分,那就是学习。即使提到了学习也几乎没有任何迹象表明,而且也没有把学习风格的个别差异考虑在内(Antonacopoulou,1999年,第16页)。 对学习不够重视一部分原因可能是由于员工的态度,他们把培训只是看做提高就业前景的工具。(里格,1989年)该组织也可通过在培训过程中不提供适当的基础设施来支持训练以减轻学习的重要性。(Antonacopoulou,2001年)还有部分原因是由于在教育,培训,发展和学习中的历史差别。他们通常表现为单独的活动。这种区分在某些方面是人工的,而不是对学习的暂时性思考。这也许更适宜采用Garavan提出的观点,(1997年,第47页)他认为: 提高个人的学习能力,并且使他们融入到学习中去应该是一个主要的关注点。一个在组织环境中,关注学习,而不仅仅是培训、发展和教育等独立的活动,似乎能最好地促进这一进程。 从这个观点来看,在培训中提高学习成为最重要的关注点。这个观点由贝格等人的支持,他们认为在学习的过程中,重点是员工个人的学习,而在培训中则更着眼于培训员。不过,目前还不清楚是否有可能提高个人的学习能力。这很明显,因为它目前尚不清楚是否可以改善在学习过程中提高有关学习的有关方面能力,如学习技能,或者学习成果的改善。这是一个为达到学习效果的重要区别,需要将学习过程和学习产品都考虑在内。正如哈里曼和托马斯(1991年,第48页)指出:不同的学习过程会产生很大区别的学习成果。个人知识是学习的产物。了解你是如何获得这种知识要认识到学习是一个过程。关于你是怎么了解学习需 求这个问题可以得到完全不同的答案。 提高学习效率和相应的子过程效果将提高培训效果,这似乎是合乎逻辑的假设,但是这并不一定完全合理。例如,一个人可以非常精通记笔记,但并不一定在更大的话题上取得成绩,他们只是理解如何做笔记。虽然他们可能在记笔记更擅长机械加工,这并不意味着他们能够决定如何采取有效措施。(克卢蒂和Shochet,1986)。这是因为有效的学习需要学习者整合一个学习的过程范围的元素,而不是学习的单个元素的能力的增强。(尼斯贝特和Shucksmith,1986)这并没有阻止提高学习成效的这样一种尝试。然而,在技能的学习方案,这类课程的有效性充其量是值得商榷的。这是温斯坦和安德伍德审查(1985年)的结论: 关于学习技能到底是什么没有确切的一致的定义,所谓的最良好的学习能力没有得到实践的验证,学习的诊断仪器技能要求没有得到证实,以及用于评估学习技巧的手段最容易被学生伪造。在一个类似的审查中Main(1980年)发现,超过八成的学习技巧课程几乎都是围绕记忆力。这表明通过学习技巧课程的手段来提高学习过于狭窄。改善学习需要一个更广泛的焦点,需要关注如何学习。 在教育方面,通过正规教育体系使学习提高被看做是一个过程来促进个人进步。在培训和发展方面,很可能是个人可能需要明白应如何学习。有必要制定这个过程中这方面的知识,以及相关的和补充的需要来制定一个关于如何学习的知识。这种学习基本的学习过程是元认知。只有使他们明白是如何学习,才可能使他们的学习得到改善。这种观点由学习理论家(科尔布,1976年)所支持。 整合本节所讨论所提出的问题可以发现,很明显,学习的成效也可以通过教育来提高,作为具体知识的学习,通过提高认识和技巧,运用适合于特定的学习任务的学习方法,并寻求符合课程要求和个人的目标。虽然是有风险的,但是可以通过制定适用于学习的问题的专门的战略把问题控制在有限范围内。(Dansereau,1985) 为了避免这种情况需要考虑个人如何学习和检查他们的学习方式。 二、改善学习中的学习风格 实现有效的学习的一个办法,并被广泛使用于培训开发中的一个办法,是认识和了解个人的学习风格的知识的应用。学习风格在一个培训和管理教育环境个体应为培训人员高度重视(Buch和巴特利,2002),不仅在开发中,而且在任何 方案的设计中,都要考虑这样的因素(见杰克逊的,例如1995年的研究)。学习偏好,学习风格或学员认识的提高,可能有利于一个适当的框架,应进行培训以优化发展的成效。 目前还不清楚首先确定一个人的学习风格,然后更有效地匹配培训风格,或瞄准的培训方式和学习风格之间的不匹配之处以做出改善(海耶斯和阿林森,1996年)。通过选择培训方式,学员可能将被迫使用不熟悉的学习方法。虽然有一定的危险,但是在这种情况下,学员采用的自己所喜欢的学习风格和培训员所采用的方法会缺乏一致性,学员可以选择退出该,同时仍实际参加培训。这样很有可能遭到反击,认识到以一个单一的学习方式直接参加培训活动,可以促进一个特定的个人接受狭窄的学习重点。(Robotham,1995年) 从更基本的层面上看,这种风格是否适合学习方式是值得怀疑的,例如将预定的人安排到相关位置上,实际上是适当的。虽然这个学习定型满足大型集团内的小群体的需求,有一个特定的学习方式,但这种学习风格构成了潜在危险。个人可以成为智力短视,往往有意无意地回避,学习情况不属于其个人的学习范围。除了这个批评,还有的争议是,一个真正精通学习者不是有人在演示活动,而是一个人演示能力,选择合适的学习方式,根据形势的要求,以提高他们的学习能力。特别是在工作环境中,这有着固有的灵活性,以便能够应对具体的不同情况。这似乎表明,把重点放在学习,使一种学习的基础风格实现最大化。另一种解决办法是旨在发展中寻求个人发展的学习能力或能力范围更广的有胜任力的学习者。 三、结论 本文的目的是要证明它是如何通过合并两方面的思想理论命题来增强培训效果,这两方面是指学习理论和运动能力。有人认为,任何培训课程基础应该是对那些考虑学员的学习能力的。通过寻求加强学员学习能力的任何课程,可以达到提高学习成果的可能性。然而,提高个人的学习能力不是指简单地提供诸如记笔记的学习技巧。它还涉及比如识别一个人的学习风格。这与学习能力等相关因素有关,如一个关于如何学习的认识,并能够整合现有的知识与新知识。关于个人的学习风格作为加强学习的一种手段,它只是一个学习的整体的组成部分,并已受到广泛的批评。虽然一个人对学习风格的认识,可促进有效的学习,但是它 只是在寻求发展的有胜任力的学习者这个过程的一部分。一个称职的学习者有意 识地了解他们的学习过程,并寻求适应这一进程的一个特定的学习任务。对于培 训的挑战在于首先越来越意识到自己的学习和发展个人如何学习更多的了解。通 过这样的反省培训将在开发有胜任力的学习者更有利的位置,因此必须加强培训 开发效果。 外文出处:Journal of European Industrial Training. Volume. 27.2003(09) .P473 - 480
/
本文档为【(DOC)-外文翻译--学习与培训:开发有胜任力的学习者-其他专业】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑, 图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。 本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。 网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。

历史搜索

    清空历史搜索