Search results

One of the defining characteristics of higher education is the expectation that undergraduates will exercise some responsibility for the management of their learning. In the UK and elsewhere student self‐managed learning has become more salient due to resource constraints and the increasing emphasis on equipping students with what they need to become lifelong learners. At the same time, as a result of widening access policies, developments in compulsory education systems and changing lifestyles, undergraduates appear less well prepared to cope with the demands of self‐managed learning than might have been the case in the past. The problem is further compounded by the diversity of view amongst academic staff concerning the extent and nature of the support, which they should provide in this respect. Although the need for support will vary between institutions, all are faced, to a greater or lesser extent, with the challenge of ensuring that their learning and teaching strategies take account of the contingencies of self‐managed learning

Examines the use of Guglielmino′s Self‐directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) by two major corporations to assess the appropriateness of self‐managed learning systems for a given population of employees. Provides a recommendation for an improved methodology for companies which are considering self‐managed learning systems.

Both the learning organization literature and the self‐managed work team literature have alluded to the potential links between teamwork and learning. However, as yet the link between these two concepts remains undeveloped. This study uses a survey of a random sample of 200 Australian organizations to empirically examine the relationships between self‐managed work teams and the learning organization using performance indicators as a medium. It was found that the learning organization concept displays a moderate to strong link with three measures of performance used in this study: knowledge performance, financial performance and customer satisfaction. Although the self‐managed work team concept did not display any significant relationship with performance, the qualitative component of the survey did emphasize that there is a common belief that self‐managed teams can increase performance in the right setting. While an insignificant relationship between self‐managed teams and the learning organization was also found, this study suggests some methodological concerns for future research into the relationship between self‐managed teams and the learning organization.

The book has generated a passionate dialogue-disagreement (mostly but not entirely) with the book. Dialogue-disagreement is based on challenges, disagreements and rebuttals between opponents, often belonging to different, even irreconcilable, paradigms. The goal of dialogue-disagreement is not so much to convince the opponent to change their mind but rather to critically examine and problematize the two involved paradigms: the authors’ and the reviewer’s. By taking the generated challenges and disagreements seriously, both irreconcilable paradigms can grow through their replies. Dialogue-disagreement gives the participants–opponents the gift of revealing their own paradigmatic blind spots, which are often invisible from within their paradigms. Dialogue-disagreement is exploratory and based on an agnostic relationship between frenemies, i.e. “friendly enemies.”

This is a critical book review essay of Self Managed Learning and the New Educational Paradigm (Cunningham, 2021).

The reviewer views Ian Cunningham’s Self Managed Learning educational paradigm as a hybrid of Progressive and Democratic Education, while the reviewer sees his/her Self-Education paradigm as entirely Democratic (and Dialogic). Elsewhere, the reviewer discussed and critically analyzed the Progressive Education paradigm, which generally involves channeling the student’s learning activism and subjectivity toward learning outcomes desired by an educator. It uses the educator’s manipulation of the student’s subjectivity to make them study what the educator wants them to study. In contrast, the paradigm of Democratic Education assumes that the educatee is the final authority of their own education. The educatee decides whether to study, when to study, what to study, how to study, with whom to study, where to study, for what purpose to study and so on. The educatee makes these decisions by themselves or with the help of other people at the educatee’s discretion and conditions. The reviewer charges that Ian’s Self Managed Learning paradigm is a hybrid of both paradigms, with the Progressive Education paradigm taking the lead and exploiting the Democratic Education paradigm.

The book presented a unique, innovative practice worth a critical analysis. The reviewer’s dialogue-disagreement with the book reveals a particular hybrid of Progressive and Democratic Education which is common to some innovative self-directed learning.

Three consultants in ICL′s corporate HRD unit speak from their experience of self‐managed learning. They ask “Can self‐development provide people with sufficient confidence in their own future to engender a positive attitude to corporate change?” Three key points are illustrated with examples taken from their own experience in ICL: develop yourself to develop others; help others learn the values of self‐managed learning – don′t tell them; be flexible at all times, including the design of solutions. Concludes that self development has a lot to offer – real, relevant, individual development dovetailed into the business needs of the developing organization. There is still much to learn, but their experience in ICL is positive and encouraging. They believe it is right for these “empowering” times, and can indeed help people develop sufficient confidence in their own future to engender a positive attitude towards the inevitable and essential corporate change.

To identify how other authorities in England applied Self managed learning to management development and learning opportunities. The success of the programme within WSCC offered an opportunity to identify good practice.

The article discusses the application of self‐managed learning within West Sussex County Councils Advanced Management Development Programme.

It has been identified that the use of self‐managed learning has proved an invaluable technique for getting individuals to think and learn about their own personal development as well as committing to the development of the county council. It has heightened managers' ability to think more strategically and use their learning in practical applications within the workplace.

This article is a useful case study in applying self managed learning to management development, it is not only a clear and coherent programme but also shows the degree of partnership working that is being undertaken with the local university to ensure that delegates not only get a huge amount of learning and development from it but also succeed in achieving a recognised qualification which can lead to a Masters in strategic management

Defines self‐managed learning and explores some of the issues involved. Discusses the continuum relationship between developers and learners who are trying to take responsibility for their own learning. Describes a programme developed by consultants to establish individual responsibility for long‐term learning.

This study aims to explore a self-managed action learning (SMAL) initiative undertaken by social work assessors in England, which led to insights into the practice of SMAL.

The paper draws upon the experience of the authors in relation to an actual SMAL intervention in a social care context in England.

The paper suggests that, in contrast to extant literature, it is not the absence of an “expert” facilitator, which has proved to be most challenging but rather dealing with the practicalities of managing inter-organisational sets online. Specific individual and inter-organisational learning came about as a result of the SMAL initiative, including the implementation of inter-organisational networking to support isolated assessors.

The ideas and perspectives discussed in this paper will be explored through further empirical research.

The paper illustrates how SMAL can be implemented and suggests how it can facilitate organisational and individual learning.

The paper discusses an initiative with the aim of better supporting assessors of newly qualified social workers; a task of enormous importance to the future of social work practice in England.

The paper contributes to a limited literature on the practice of SMAL. The uniqueness comes from both the multi-organisational aspect of the programme, that it is self-managed and delivered virtually.

This chapter explores the nature of learning required for effective leaders. The case is made that learning is not all one process and the difference between Learning 1 and Learning 2, as proposed by Bateson, is favoured as a model. Put simply learning, for instance, lots of facts (Learning 1) does not necessarily help the leader become more courageous, more self-confidant and more driven by deep values and beliefs. A case study of a Self Managed Learning programme for school heads is used to show the importance of Learning 2 and a way to focus development at this level. There is also a case study of a company that was seen as the best in its field folding due to the emphasis on Learning 1 (particularly technical skill) and lack of attention to Learning 2 qualities.

Describes IKEA’s self‐managed learning programme. The company has a decentralized approach and its trading arm operates at national levels. Their self‐managed learning programme was developed by the UK‐based Roffey Park Management Institute. Roffey Park have also developed a self‐managed MBA programme for six managers from Portugal.