In the second half of the three-block series (Part 8-10), we have focused on "learning through practice" to promote knowledge creation and organizational learning. In Session 8, we summarized the characteristics of the "marcord style" of action learning as a methodology for human resource development. In Part 9, we have critically examined action learning from the perspective of "problem solving as a human resource development methodology.
Based on the above, in Session 10, Methodology for Organizational Change (3): Critical Approach, the last of the three blocks, we will introduce the perspective of learning models and further examine the possibilities and challenges of "learning through practice.
As explained in Session 8, "action learning" is generally understood to mean "learning through real-world problem solving and programs for that purpose in general," rather than just the R. Revans style of learning that has been systematized in a unique way. The term "training" has been used in the past. Project-based training and problem-solving training, which are widely practiced in corporate education today, would also often be labeled "action learning" in the broadest sense. In everyday contexts, action learning is understood as a form of learning that is not classroom learning or learning through practice. Behind this recognition is a desire to explore the problems with traditional off-the-job training (OFF-JT) educational programs such as training and seminars, and to find a method of human resource development that successfully incorporates "on-the-job learning," such as on-the-job training and the acquisition of knowledge and skills through work. There exists an awareness of the problem.
It is very important to explore the problems of traditional OFF-JT type educational programs in order to realize intellectual productivity improvement that is linked to business performance, and to consider human resource development in the future. However, if the discussion on action learning falls into a simple dichotomy between "classroom-based learning format" and "learning through practice," We will not be able to expect great results. To avoid this, we must be willing to carefully examine the diversity behind the "learning through practice" label. It is necessary to consider "learning through practice" with a full understanding of the different theoretical backgrounds and orientations that exist among the various "non-classroom" learning activities.
From this perspective, we will discuss the following three models of "learning through practice," which have different theoretical backgrounds and orientations, and deepen our understanding of their characteristics.
- Experiential Learning Model
- Critical learning model (=Critical approach)
- Legitimate peripheral participation model
Furthermore, after understanding the differences among the three typical learning models (models of learning activities oriented toward learning through practice) utilized in human resource development in the management field, the possibilities and challenges of "learning through practice" will be clarified. This is the aim of this study.