Michael McMaster commented:
"I don't know where learning appears as learning. Learning itself is a
non-material and, as far as I can see, non-measureable phenomenon - except
after the fact and by inference."
Maybe I am over-simplifying, but when we studied history, we came away
with a body of knowledge, and we were tested to see if we understood it,
and in some rare cases, if we understood some consequences. We took an
increase in the knowledge base as proof of learning. Likewise, in courses
on team collaboration, we send people who have demonstrated some level of
inability to work effectively in a team, and after the course, we clearly
observe different behavior -- improved collaboration. We accept this as
proof of learning.
The key in both cases was that when there was a demonstrated change, we
took that as proof that learning occurred. Of course, as soon as the
environment becomes reasonably complex -- like, for example, real life --
then this becomes very difficult to sort out. Nevertheless, as Marilyn
suggested, if we focus on observing a demonstrated change -- preferably
improvement -- in performance of the organization's basic task, then we
might conclude that effective learning took place.
Part of the issue is to decipher _what_ learning. In many cases, for
example, basic accounting will not add a lot of value to organizational
performance. This, it seems, is the big issue. What should we learn that
will lead inexorably to improved performance? If we can only identify
that, then in principle, we can measure gains.
--Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc. 76234.3636@compuserve.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>