Work at learning; learning at work

Michelle Martin is hosting the work/learning carnival this month with the topic of work at learning; learning at work. In it, Michelle asked us to write about keeping motivated to learn in the work place.

Perhaps because "learning" is my work, and the group I have been studying is also in the "learning" business, I don't see that there is a problem with workers being motivated to learn. Perhaps the problem is more identifying and measuring worker learning.

With very few exceptions, workers are learning every day as their situation changes. There is continually new technology, new policies, new problems, new co-workers, new clients and customers, that a worker faces and needs to adapt to. The problem is that companies want their workers to learn new discreet information that may not apply (at that time or ever) to those situations that face workers every day.

I feel there needs to be a better way of preparing workers for learning and better measures for the informal learning workers do as they adapt to new situations.

For example, when I worked as a market researcher for the natural gas industry, I picked up a lot of information not only about how the pipelines were connected and which companies used natural gas and those that did not, I also learned a lot about the "politics" of the energy industry. Even now, as I hear about the price of oil, the price of gas, the effect of hurricanes on the energy industry, there are also a deeper understanding of the relationship between consumers, suppliers, developers, refiners, and transporters (pipelines, ships, trucks, etc...).

This understanding of the politics, however, was not recognized until I left the job and those in charge suddenly became concerned that I was leaving and taking this information with me, something that could not be contained in the computer or even passed on to other workers. The problem, as I see it, was the bosses were measuring my learning using performance data (# of phone calls made, # of completed questionnaires). They did not recognize that the conversations I had with interviewees were learning moments for me, developing my understanding of the industry (which I had no knowledge of before starting the job).

So this is what I would suggest we start looking at (and asking workers to document) to assess their learning:

• New understanding of the industry in which they work
• Prediction of where their work will be in the next quarter
• Summary of resources (personal, written, electronic) they they use during a given time period
• New skills or techniques they learned during the quarter
• New contacts they made during the quarter
• Suggestion of the areas they would like to learn more about and why

Not only does this make sense in terms of knowledge, it also makes sense in management. Once workers are recognized for the learning they have accomplished, they will be more motivated to take some time out of their schedule to learn more, thus creating a learning cycle.

The problem is to convince management to reward this type of learning and to have workers take the time out to document their (informal) learning.

Is there (should there be) a difference between workplace learning and "academic" learning?

I am beginning to find out the divide that some people have created between "workplace" learning and "academic" learning. As someone who has helped develop and deliver workplace training and taught for a number of years in business and communication education, I just don't see the disconnect.

Granted, I come from a different perspective than many business faculty and from many in the "training" field. Working on my Ph.d. in Education, I find I am fighting (although not alone) the "trainers" who feel that adult education in the workplace is "different" than teaching at the university level. The main differences I have seen have been in expected assessments (which are becoming increasingly dictated by business recruiters), motivation, and price. However, even in the motivation area, I have plenty of students that really want to be in college and many that don't just as I have had participants in a workplace seminar who only wanted to get out of work or did not want to be in training because they had more important things to do along with those that really wanted to learn what I was teaching them so they could do their job better.

So, what are the similarities?

1. Relevant content for the student
2. Student choice
3. Time for reflection (multiple workshops over a long period of time for the workplace; in class time for students to reflect)
4. Theory and practice (in other words, a good explanation as to WHY students or trainees should do things differently)
5. Good classroom management skills and many activities to practice
6. Feedback
7. Developing a safe environment to make mistakes and learn from them
8. Something tangible to take away (a paper, a project, a report, an outline, a check list) that demonstrates what you learned

I was shocked at the line drawn in the Working/Learning Carnival. It was obvious that "academics" were perceived to have nothing to contribute to the "real world". However, I think there needs to be more collaboration between workplace and academic learning specialists especially as there is a greater call to align college graduate standards to business needs. Schools need to start working with the learning specialists in companies to identify what skills are needed and what is working in training, just as learning specialists need to look at what skills are being developed in the "academic" world. Both groups might be surprised to learn what was attempted and what has really worked.