The organization I currently work for has this mission statement:
"Our mission is to promote and advance healthy lifestyles through participation opportunities, educational experiences, and supportive services."
This guides everything we do, especially our training and development week. We train our staff how to create a safe & comfortable environment, how to have difficult conversations for "teachable moments" and skills to providing quality service. Everything we do is guided by our mission statement and the division of student affairs.
2-4 major implications:
1. There are problems identified only during one person's shift.
2. Through evals & observations, this seems to be the only person who is not performing.
3. This one person has asked for training.
Team &/or group learning makes sense when the gap isn't easily or obviously identified to one specific person or couple people. When there is a process issue or a systems issue, team &/or group learning makes sense. It does not make sense to do that when any of the 3 things above are the issue.
Number four doesn't make any sense to me. At all. For question five though, T & D needs to make sure everyone is doing their job to fulfill the mission and vision of the company. If someone is doing a job and they don't see how it fits into the big picture, then they'll never strive to become experts in what they are doing.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Chapter 10 Reflection
Expertise is still not defined clearly. Throughout the chapter it gives various theories and ideas for expertise in different areas. Basically though, expertise, or being an expert, really comes down to being knowledgeable enough about a certain topic to have a comprehensive view of many aspects. Also though, I think expertise is all relative to a certain degree. For example, I am the expert roller skater in our AHRD program, but on a national level I am not. Which is part of the reason why defining it is so difficult. Ha, sort of like the definition difference between a mountain and a hill.
Well, I just sort of gave an example of expertise with my skating background. Even when I was younger and actually practicing hard core, I really got it & understood what I was supposed to do based off of my experiences & knowledge & the feedback I had received from my competitions, placing 2nd & 3rd in the nation at age 8 & 9, respectively. Because of all this, I was deemed credible enough to help teach of children of all ages, either younger than me, my age, or even older than me up to about 14. There is even a story on the news about me & I try to teach the adult reporter how to skate. (I remember even as a 4 year old I was annoyed at how terrible he was). But yeah, I was seen as an expert by many, even at a young age... but of course to my coaches I was still very much an amateur.
Knowledge plays a role in competence & expertise & directly relates to them. Knowledge is basically information gained and acquired about the subject/area. Competence is having the ability to perform (in my opinion) to a certain standard. Both combined along with other things make up expertise. Knowledge can carry on solo, competence needs knowledge, but not expertise, and expertise needs all.
HRD and T & D would differ if committed to knowledge vs. expertise. Expertise is more about being able to apply knowledge gained and use it in many ways. A person could acquire a great deal of knowledge, but without knowing how to use that knowledge, they could not be an expert. Therefor, if HRD and T & D moved to knowledge only, it wouldn't move beyond knowledge intentionally and I would fear inadequate training.
Competence vs. expertise is a better battle, however, I think that comptence = standards (the minimum), & expertise = above average. Like in our program, AHRD. Completing the degree with all B-'s would make you competent. However, completing with all A's would lean you more towards expertise. Not saying that a straight A student is an expert, but pushing just for competency doesn't stretch far enough I think. Sort of like Veronika's argument that AP should be the standard issue in Tuesday night's class.
Issues that arise are defining what expertise is and how to measure it. It's important enough that we use it and all have a basic understanding and concept of it, however, its also abstract enough that not everyone can have the same perception of it. This poses a problem. Just like what's the difference between a mountain & a hill, as mentioned above.
Well, I just sort of gave an example of expertise with my skating background. Even when I was younger and actually practicing hard core, I really got it & understood what I was supposed to do based off of my experiences & knowledge & the feedback I had received from my competitions, placing 2nd & 3rd in the nation at age 8 & 9, respectively. Because of all this, I was deemed credible enough to help teach of children of all ages, either younger than me, my age, or even older than me up to about 14. There is even a story on the news about me & I try to teach the adult reporter how to skate. (I remember even as a 4 year old I was annoyed at how terrible he was). But yeah, I was seen as an expert by many, even at a young age... but of course to my coaches I was still very much an amateur.
Knowledge plays a role in competence & expertise & directly relates to them. Knowledge is basically information gained and acquired about the subject/area. Competence is having the ability to perform (in my opinion) to a certain standard. Both combined along with other things make up expertise. Knowledge can carry on solo, competence needs knowledge, but not expertise, and expertise needs all.
HRD and T & D would differ if committed to knowledge vs. expertise. Expertise is more about being able to apply knowledge gained and use it in many ways. A person could acquire a great deal of knowledge, but without knowing how to use that knowledge, they could not be an expert. Therefor, if HRD and T & D moved to knowledge only, it wouldn't move beyond knowledge intentionally and I would fear inadequate training.
Competence vs. expertise is a better battle, however, I think that comptence = standards (the minimum), & expertise = above average. Like in our program, AHRD. Completing the degree with all B-'s would make you competent. However, completing with all A's would lean you more towards expertise. Not saying that a straight A student is an expert, but pushing just for competency doesn't stretch far enough I think. Sort of like Veronika's argument that AP should be the standard issue in Tuesday night's class.
Issues that arise are defining what expertise is and how to measure it. It's important enough that we use it and all have a basic understanding and concept of it, however, its also abstract enough that not everyone can have the same perception of it. This poses a problem. Just like what's the difference between a mountain & a hill, as mentioned above.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Chapter 9 Reflection
Training and Develop is basically expanding knowledge and expertise in people (training) and causing them to grow beyond where they began, as people, as workers, and as humans (Development). HRD is related because basically it involves developing people through knowledge expansion & expertise. Training and development is one and many components of HRD.
The basic role of informal & incidental learning is allowing learning to take place outside of a classroom. This is more typical & important for the workplace. The knowledge gained from experience, on the job, and over time is usually much more practical than sitting in a classroom.
Gee, the unique aspects, huh? I had a professor in Undergrad who taught chemistry and she was known for always saying, "By Golly Gee..." It was hilarious and that sentence just reminded me of her. Anyway, in just a general sense, I think one of the most unique aspects about T & D in HRD is that there are so many different ways to interpret it. As this chapter outlines, there are many templates and designs that people use for Training and Development. In many areas of studies you are taught one way and people follow, however this is unique because T & D can be developed however one thinks that it can work. And in most cases, if all bases and angles are covered, then the exact design and template doesn't make a huge difference.
Purposes (In a nutshell):
Analyze - To get an overall view of what is going on and identify a gap.
Design - Create strategies for people to develop the necessary needs to fill the gap.
Develop - Acquire the needed materials to assist the design so you can implement the strategies.
Implement - Deliver teh strategies and information to participants.
Evaluate - Determine effectiveness of implementations and strategies and see if the gap was closed.
The relationship is that it is a process... one leads to the next & you can't do one without the other.
The biggest thing that T & D does is forces analysis and to really look at the problem. If participants and leaders really buy into the strategies, then the system can be changed and performance gaps can be closed. It helps organizations eliminate "band-aid" solutions and create explanations that affect the entire system.
The basic role of informal & incidental learning is allowing learning to take place outside of a classroom. This is more typical & important for the workplace. The knowledge gained from experience, on the job, and over time is usually much more practical than sitting in a classroom.
Gee, the unique aspects, huh? I had a professor in Undergrad who taught chemistry and she was known for always saying, "By Golly Gee..." It was hilarious and that sentence just reminded me of her. Anyway, in just a general sense, I think one of the most unique aspects about T & D in HRD is that there are so many different ways to interpret it. As this chapter outlines, there are many templates and designs that people use for Training and Development. In many areas of studies you are taught one way and people follow, however this is unique because T & D can be developed however one thinks that it can work. And in most cases, if all bases and angles are covered, then the exact design and template doesn't make a huge difference.
Purposes (In a nutshell):
Analyze - To get an overall view of what is going on and identify a gap.
Design - Create strategies for people to develop the necessary needs to fill the gap.
Develop - Acquire the needed materials to assist the design so you can implement the strategies.
Implement - Deliver teh strategies and information to participants.
Evaluate - Determine effectiveness of implementations and strategies and see if the gap was closed.
The relationship is that it is a process... one leads to the next & you can't do one without the other.
The biggest thing that T & D does is forces analysis and to really look at the problem. If participants and leaders really buy into the strategies, then the system can be changed and performance gaps can be closed. It helps organizations eliminate "band-aid" solutions and create explanations that affect the entire system.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Chapter 7 Reflection
I think the easiest way to make learning more powerful would be to follow the andragogical process design:
1. Preparing learners for the program.
2. Establishing a climate conducive to learning.
3. Involving learners in mutual planning.
4. Involving participants in diagnosing their learning needs.
5. Involving learners in forming their learning objectives.
6. Involving learners in designing learning plans.
7. Helping learners carry out their learning plans.
8. Involving learners in evaluating their learning outcomes.
Most of the models or methods that we are learning about in HRD seem to have a collective influence from all or most of the metatheories. to summarize this thought:
Behaviorism comes into play when a theory deals with conditioning or training and teaching for a response. Cognitivism is present when a theory presents that the adult needs to remember and recall information. According to cognitivism, learning is remembering and if this is the case, then any form of development uses this theory. The metatheory "humanism" is an underlying factor for most theories, but in my opinion is not emphasized enough. It has to be a main part because Human Resource Development's main subject IS humans! But is some theories, the emphasis is on improving humans as a whole, but rather preparing them for the good of the organization only. In dealing with social learning metatheory, I'd say this was more apparent in early times and theories, than later, however, it is back on the rise. Apprenticeship is an example of social learning, because the apprentice learns by working with a master and the times he/she learns from observing is a clear case of this metatheory. As on the job training continues to grow, I think this is coming back, however it is more structured. So structured social learning is sort of becoming the new trend. Lastly, constructivism is mainstream in all of our theories because it deals with development. It stresses that all knowledge is bound to other knowledge and individuals make meaning of what they learn (Bruner/Vygotsky). Binding new knowledge to old knowledge and furthering growth is learning as development. Therefor, all combined creating human resource DEVELOPMENT. :)
The andragogical in practice model can be applied by understanding your audience and target group. By using the first step to find out what the motivation of the learner is, you can tailor the rest of your training around that. In practice, everything is applied in the model and it gives you perspective to different reasons for learning. Providing knowledge for someone to learn can be challenging if these issues aren't addressed in the process. This model can be applied by assessing the learner based on the outer layers and then being sure to address the inside principles.
I believe that organizations are a sum of individual learning. This is humanistic approach and I feel that if this were not the case then the field of human resource development would not be on the rise so much, instead it would be organizational develop only. But humans make up organizations and that synergy they produce creates the organizations. There would be no CEO of a company without the development of that human. Organizations learn only because the humans within them learn.
1. Preparing learners for the program.
2. Establishing a climate conducive to learning.
3. Involving learners in mutual planning.
4. Involving participants in diagnosing their learning needs.
5. Involving learners in forming their learning objectives.
6. Involving learners in designing learning plans.
7. Helping learners carry out their learning plans.
8. Involving learners in evaluating their learning outcomes.
Most of the models or methods that we are learning about in HRD seem to have a collective influence from all or most of the metatheories. to summarize this thought:
Behaviorism comes into play when a theory deals with conditioning or training and teaching for a response. Cognitivism is present when a theory presents that the adult needs to remember and recall information. According to cognitivism, learning is remembering and if this is the case, then any form of development uses this theory. The metatheory "humanism" is an underlying factor for most theories, but in my opinion is not emphasized enough. It has to be a main part because Human Resource Development's main subject IS humans! But is some theories, the emphasis is on improving humans as a whole, but rather preparing them for the good of the organization only. In dealing with social learning metatheory, I'd say this was more apparent in early times and theories, than later, however, it is back on the rise. Apprenticeship is an example of social learning, because the apprentice learns by working with a master and the times he/she learns from observing is a clear case of this metatheory. As on the job training continues to grow, I think this is coming back, however it is more structured. So structured social learning is sort of becoming the new trend. Lastly, constructivism is mainstream in all of our theories because it deals with development. It stresses that all knowledge is bound to other knowledge and individuals make meaning of what they learn (Bruner/Vygotsky). Binding new knowledge to old knowledge and furthering growth is learning as development. Therefor, all combined creating human resource DEVELOPMENT. :)
The andragogical in practice model can be applied by understanding your audience and target group. By using the first step to find out what the motivation of the learner is, you can tailor the rest of your training around that. In practice, everything is applied in the model and it gives you perspective to different reasons for learning. Providing knowledge for someone to learn can be challenging if these issues aren't addressed in the process. This model can be applied by assessing the learner based on the outer layers and then being sure to address the inside principles.
I believe that organizations are a sum of individual learning. This is humanistic approach and I feel that if this were not the case then the field of human resource development would not be on the rise so much, instead it would be organizational develop only. But humans make up organizations and that synergy they produce creates the organizations. There would be no CEO of a company without the development of that human. Organizations learn only because the humans within them learn.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Chapter 6 Reflection
The paradigm that I would most likely adopt is the learning paradigm, however, I do feel that I would integrate parts from the performance paradigm. I do believe that it is the humans that make up an organization, therefor their development individually should be the first priority. Through their development, personally and together, the organization develops as well. However, I don't disagree with the performance paradigm, like the book says many do, I would just chose learning over it.
I see the paradigms more as reinforcing rather that competing. I feel that in order to have a performance paradigm, you need to have the learning paradigm first. Also, in order for the learning paradigm to reach its full potential, you need the mission and organization outputs to drive the individual learning. Therefor, they go hand in hand.
First, to ensure that human development isn't neglected in a performance paradigm, the organization can not put its primary mission on profit and outputs. Although these may by the end-resulting goals, it can not be its sole purpose, for then the employees will only be seen as a means to accomplish this & become dehumanized. Second, if seeing the organization as a system (Which seems that most organizations having a performance paradigm does), they need to acknowledge and nurture all parts of the system, which includes the inputs, i.e. its human resources. These two things alone, along with many others can help the performance paradigm be successful & ensure human development is supported.
In order for HRD to operate as a learning paradigm, it must pull some aspects of performance paradigm to be successful. Some things that a learning paradigm would need to develop in order to play a strategic role would be to educate "the learners" (As Dr. Hollenbeck likes so much) that they are part of a whole. They need to see that although they are trying to reach their maximum potential individually, reaching that high level of achievement with a group of people is an even greater task. Empower them to see the impact they can have on the whole and that their learning is important because it assists a bigger good.
I think that an employee & employee manager would view this issue the same & mostly see things from a learning paradigm perspective. I would expect that the CEO would be able to view both paradigm & have a balance between both. The CEO may favor the performance paradigm, because most likely his job is to lead to success in profitability. However, one would think after a CEO working his way up the chain he wouldn't forget his roots and not be naive to see that those underneath him, his human resources, are the driving force of his company.
Knowledge management could really fit into both and almost be a link between the two. To manage the knowledge in which employees receive could do two things. First, employees knowledge would be part of their individual development and if this is properly managed then they could very well prosper as humans. Second, if this knowledge is managed strategically, it could train the employees to be on board with the company to get a conceptual view and understanding what it is and what its missions are. I almost feel that knowledge management may be the most important thing.
I see the paradigms more as reinforcing rather that competing. I feel that in order to have a performance paradigm, you need to have the learning paradigm first. Also, in order for the learning paradigm to reach its full potential, you need the mission and organization outputs to drive the individual learning. Therefor, they go hand in hand.
First, to ensure that human development isn't neglected in a performance paradigm, the organization can not put its primary mission on profit and outputs. Although these may by the end-resulting goals, it can not be its sole purpose, for then the employees will only be seen as a means to accomplish this & become dehumanized. Second, if seeing the organization as a system (Which seems that most organizations having a performance paradigm does), they need to acknowledge and nurture all parts of the system, which includes the inputs, i.e. its human resources. These two things alone, along with many others can help the performance paradigm be successful & ensure human development is supported.
In order for HRD to operate as a learning paradigm, it must pull some aspects of performance paradigm to be successful. Some things that a learning paradigm would need to develop in order to play a strategic role would be to educate "the learners" (As Dr. Hollenbeck likes so much) that they are part of a whole. They need to see that although they are trying to reach their maximum potential individually, reaching that high level of achievement with a group of people is an even greater task. Empower them to see the impact they can have on the whole and that their learning is important because it assists a bigger good.
I think that an employee & employee manager would view this issue the same & mostly see things from a learning paradigm perspective. I would expect that the CEO would be able to view both paradigm & have a balance between both. The CEO may favor the performance paradigm, because most likely his job is to lead to success in profitability. However, one would think after a CEO working his way up the chain he wouldn't forget his roots and not be naive to see that those underneath him, his human resources, are the driving force of his company.
Knowledge management could really fit into both and almost be a link between the two. To manage the knowledge in which employees receive could do two things. First, employees knowledge would be part of their individual development and if this is properly managed then they could very well prosper as humans. Second, if this knowledge is managed strategically, it could train the employees to be on board with the company to get a conceptual view and understanding what it is and what its missions are. I almost feel that knowledge management may be the most important thing.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Chapter 5 Reflection
Models are guides. They aren't tested, they are not theories. Models help explain concepts or ideas and because of this they can stand with or without a theory attached to it, just as theories can stand with or without a model. A theory can have a supporting model, however, it is not required. Theories are researched, they have a hypothesis, and they are trying to prove something. "A theory simply explains what a phenomenon is and how it works" (Torraco, 1997, p. 115) Models don't explain a phenomenon, they demonstrate a basic explanation of something. This is why models can accompany theories, but neither needs each other.
There is no universal view or agreement on the theory or multiple theories that support HRD as a discipline. However, there are not any complaints about the theories being proposed. Ha, I like how the book states that the alternative is having random activity by greedy consultants. These three theories provide a means of understanding the model of human resource development within the organization and environment.
The relationship between the HRD definition and HRD model is in the most basic sense, both are processes. "Developing and unleashing expertise", says the definition. "Purpose - Create - Implement," the model demonstrates. The model visually summates development through the suggested process.
The greatest contributions from a psychology perspective is rectifying that in this field we see humans as resources. Humans behave and process things mentally and are not machines. Acknowledging psychological factors alone is a great addition to HRD Theory.
For economic theory, it is important that we see humans as investments, as resources to an organization just as equipment, finances, and supplies. Without this concept, humans would be objectified.
Lastly, the greatest thing about systems theory is that it allows for adaptability and influence to be acknowledged. Seeing the connections from various sources, both internally & externally, are critical in this field. This is the area that systems theory contributes.
There is no universal view or agreement on the theory or multiple theories that support HRD as a discipline. However, there are not any complaints about the theories being proposed. Ha, I like how the book states that the alternative is having random activity by greedy consultants. These three theories provide a means of understanding the model of human resource development within the organization and environment.
The relationship between the HRD definition and HRD model is in the most basic sense, both are processes. "Developing and unleashing expertise", says the definition. "Purpose - Create - Implement," the model demonstrates. The model visually summates development through the suggested process.
The greatest contributions from a psychology perspective is rectifying that in this field we see humans as resources. Humans behave and process things mentally and are not machines. Acknowledging psychological factors alone is a great addition to HRD Theory.
For economic theory, it is important that we see humans as investments, as resources to an organization just as equipment, finances, and supplies. Without this concept, humans would be objectified.
Lastly, the greatest thing about systems theory is that it allows for adaptability and influence to be acknowledged. Seeing the connections from various sources, both internally & externally, are critical in this field. This is the area that systems theory contributes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)