34 www.ispi.org • JANUARY 2005

There are different definitions forlearning. It may be viewed aseither an object or a process, orboth. While learning could be

defined as a pertinent change in humanperformance or potential (Driscoll, 1994),Schwen, Kalman, Hara, and Kisling (1998)refer to learning as a process of acquiringknowledge. For a corporate trainingdepartment, the aim of knowledge andlearning activities is to improve job per-formance. Within the context of thisarticle, learning is defined as a process ofdeveloping new knowledge and skills andfinally improving individual and organi-zational performance.

The Nature of Learners and Learning

Within companies, instructional methodsare designed for improving adult learners’knowledge and skills. It is important todistinguish the unique attributes of adultlearners so as to be better able to incorpo-rate the principles of adult learning in thedesign of instruction. Knowles (1996) sug-gests that adults’ and children’s learningis not equivalent, though there is noabsolute boundary between the two. Hesummarized the assumptions of adultlearning: In comparison with children,adults are more self-directed, goal ori-ented, task and problem centered. Theyexperience more diversity and are moreintrinsically motivated.

Before exploring effective methods to fos-ter learning in the corporate context, Iwould also like to clarify my personalbeliefs about knowledge and learning.While objectivists believe that learnersactively take part in a learning process ofknowledge acquisition and processing,constructivists regard learning as aprocess of knowledge constructionthrough the interaction between thelearner and the environment (Ertmer &Newby, 1993; Driscoll, 2002). I placemyself on the side of constructivism. Ibelieve that knowledge is constructedthrough our interaction with the environ-ment and that knowledge is contextdependent. Knowledge is “a function ofhow the individual creates meaning fromhis or her own experiences” (Ertmer &Newby, 1993, p. 62).

To enhance learning, constructivismencourages social negotiation, reflectiveawareness, learning occurring in real-world contexts and problems, and thepresentation of multiple perspectives tochallenge the learners’ thinking (Duffy &Cunningham, 1996). An objectivist(behavioralist) views learning as a processof knowledge acquisition from a realityexternal to learners.

Objectivism does indeed have continuingvalue to instructional designers, and itsmethods are at times similar to construc-tivist learning environments. For example,

by Jialin Yi

Effective Ways to Foster Learning

guiding and facilitating is a major role of instructors in aconstructivist learning environment, which is similar to thepractice and feedback method used frequently in objectivistlearning environments.

Methods of Fostering Learning

In today’s information age employees need to be able tothink creatively and critically, solve problems, work inteams, and make shared decisions (Reigeluth, 1999).Accordingly, to improve their professional skills, employeesneed to enhance their learning of problem solving, interper-sonal, cooperative, and technical skills.

From this grounding in the corporate context, my beliefsabout adult learners, and the constructivist nature of learning,I suggest three general methods that serve to address theserequired skills. The three methods are instructional means tofoster learning ends: problem-based learning, cooperativelearning, and situated learning. Instruction is the deliberatearrangements of events to facilitate learning (Driscoll, 1994;Heinich, Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino, 1999). Most instruc-tional methods include three components: the desired out-comes, learning activities, and methods of evaluation. Eachcomponent is present in all three instructional methods.

Problem-Based Learning

Problem-based learning (PBL) originated from the field ofmedical education (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993) and has beenapplied within corporate settings. The most critical attributeof PBL is that problems drive learning. Problems within PBLare chosen from real workplace problems and are ill defined,leaving learners initially uncertain about content. For exam-ple, a patient case can be presented at the beginning of amedical course for subsequent learning. Duffy andCunningham (1996) point out the knowledge and skillslearners could develop through PBL: critical-thinking skills,self-directed learning skills, and problem-related knowledge.

Firms developing training programs can find PBL useful forthree reasons. First, employees should have the ability tosolve various context-dependent problems. In PBL environ-ments, the design of the problems reflects the real-worldproblems learners need to solve. Empirical evidence alsoshows that PBL can promote improved reasoning, criticalthinking, and problem solving skills and can provide chal-lenging and motivating learning environments (Albanese &Mitchell, 1993; Vernon & Blake, 1993; Dochy, Segers,Bossche, & Gijbels, 2003). Second, PBL is consistent withconstructivist instructional design principles (Savery &Duffy, 1995; Hendry, Frommer, & Walker, 1999).Constructivists support PBL because learners are able to go“beyond the information given” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p.67) and can relate learning activities to a larger task or prob-lem (Savery & Duffy, 1995). Third, since adults learn knowl-

edge and skills with the intention of using it, the adultlearning is problem or task centered (Knowles, 1996). Thistoo is consistent with the aim of PBL. In PBL environments,learners know why they are learning and in what situationsthey can transfer the new knowledge learned.

Designers should be aware of some potential limitations ofPBL as well. Some researchers have indicated that participa-tion in PBL may not guarantee the development of problem-solving skills (Ayres, 2002). However, the success of PBL isdetermined by a critical factor: the facilitating role of theinstructor (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Ayres, 2002). Theinstructor should support, facilitate, and guide employees’learning by asking questions and challenging their thinking,not just answering questions. Simultaneously, learners needto have more responsibility for their own learning.

The general attributes of PBL are as follows:• Outcomes sought: Enhanced analytical, problem-diagnosing,

problem-solving, and critical-thinking skills.• Activities involved: The following brief instructional

process is an example based on the synthesis of theresearch of Ayres (2002), Duffy and Cunningham (1996),Savery and Duffy (1995), and Stonyer and Marshall (2002).– Learners begin with a real problem given by an

instructor, then explore and discuss the problem andcreate hypotheses based on what they currently know.

– Learners identify the gap between what they alreadyknow and what they need to know to solve a prob-lem. This provides clarification regarding whatknowledge they need to learn to address the gap(learning discrepancy) and achieve learning goals.

– Learners engage in self-study by gathering informationthrough various media and sources. The instructor isavailable to help learners prepare their study materials.

– After self-study, learners meet with their group toshare information, search and evaluate resources,and to solve the problem together. The instructor isavailable for assistance and feedback.

– Finally, learners reflect on the process of knowledgeconstruction and problem solution.

• Evaluation applied: Peer and self-evaluations focusingon the learning goals learners identified.

Albanese and Mitchell (1993) argue that PBL is differentfrom other problem-centered methods, for in PBL the prob-lem is given just at the beginning of the class, while othermethods (such as case studies) may present the problemafter teaching some or all the knowledge needed to solve theproblem. PBL provides learners with more opportunities forindependent thinking.

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning (CL) is an instructional method inwhich small groups of learners work together to help each

Performance Improvement • Volume 44 • Number 1 35

36 www.ispi.org • JANUARY 2005

other achieve a common learning goal (Cole & Smith, 1993).The essence of CL is to communicate and negotiate ideas to“improve meaningfulness and retention” (Heinich et al.,1999, p. 314) and make progress together. Siciliano (2001)emphasizes four key attributes for successful CL: • Positive interdependence: Learners should rely on one

another to achieve a common learning goal. To increasepositive interdependence, instructors need to structuremechanisms such as a mutually shared team goal, assignedroles for each member, shared resources, and joint rewards.

• Face-to-face promotive interaction: Learners help, encour-age, and support each other’s efforts to learn. Instructorsshould explain the importance of sharing knowledge witheach other in problem solving, provide time and face-to-face arrangement for discussion, and encourage learners toexchange ideas and help each other learn.

• Individual accountability: Each learner has a responsi-bility to the team’s performance. Individual accountabil-ity can be enhanced by assessing individual performanceduring the process, keeping the size of team small, andinforming teams about each member’s contributions.

• Group processing: Continuously review and improvethe group process. At the end of each learning stage,teams need to determine if the goals have been achieved,if each member contributed to the team, if more effectiveworking relationships can be maintained, and whatimprovements to the team can be made.

CL can be useful to developing training programs for three rea-sons. First, as Reigeluth, Pershing, and Park (1998) point out,the information age increasingly requires collaborative activi-ties within the workplace. Dyson (2002) indicates the mostappealing attribute of CL is its emphasis on the outcomes ofsocial skills such as working together, providing feedback, andenhancing interpersonal skills. Empirical research conductedby Cole and Smith (1993) also justifies that CL encouragesadult learners’ participation, cooperation, and helpfulness,and improves learners’ communication skills.

Second, constructivists encourage the use of small coopera-tive groups in learning (Dyson, 2002). Vygotsky contendsthat learning is inherently social in nature (in Driscoll,1994). His ideas of “learning through a zone of proximaldevelopment” provide strong evidence for cooperativelearning: One person’s learning development depends onothers providing necessary help (in Doolittle, 1995). Thevalue of social interaction in enhancing learning has beengaining more attention (Heinich et al., 1999). CL providesopportunities for social interactions in which performerslearn through sharing knowledge and helping each otherdevelop different points of view.

Third, we know that adults encounter diverse experiences.CL “tap[s] into the accumulated knowledge and skills ofadult learners” (Knowles, 1996, p. 256), allowing them tobenefit from each other’s rich and various experiences.

However, there are also some indictments of CL. For exam-ple, Holt, Michael, and Godfrey (1997) argue that CL maylead to inefficient allocation of student time and lowerlearning quality. However, Siciliano (2001) found that theineffectiveness of CL may be caused because many teamactivities emphasize the task to be accomplished withoutspecific rules for doing so, such as those for interdepen-dence and interaction. Simply putting learners togetherdoes not make for cooperative learning. Effective CL shouldcontain the four critical attributes stated earlier. In addition,the instructor’s support, such as forming the rules and help-ing learners with their negative experiences, is also veryimportant for the success of CL.

The general attributes of CL are as follows:• Outcomes sought: Enhanced cooperative, communica-

tion, and interpersonal skills• Activities involved: The following brief instructional

process is an example based on the synthesis of theresearch of Nelson (1999) and Aronson (2000):– Learners begin with an authentic scenario, case, or

problem. The instructor explains learning goals andproject requirements.

– Learners form small (3–5 person) heterogeneousstudy groups.

– The instructor provides clear instructions and rulesfor group work. The project topic should be dividedinto subtopics so each group member is responsiblefor one subtopic and develops expertise regarding it.

– Group members discuss common goals, roles, tasks,and resources required to complete the learning task.

– After individual study, group members work togetherto share knowledge and help each other, which is aniterative process. Group members rotate to be thegroup leader during different periods. The instructoris available for assistance.

– The group regularly keeps the instructor updated onprogress and gains feedback.

– The instructor arranges some classes for topical instruc-tion, summarizing, and intergroup communications.

– Finally, groups and learners reflect on the process ofknowledge construction and problem solution.

• Evaluation applied: Peer and self-evaluations during thelearning process and final evaluation of team productsand outcomes.

It is important to note that CL is more than just group work(Siciliano, 2001). For example, if every team member doeseach part of the whole work and this individual work isthen combined, there is no real interaction among peopleand no collaboration. CL requires interdependence, interac-tion, and individual accountability.

Situated Learning

Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) hold that since knowl-edge is constructed situationally and can only be transferred

to similar situations, knowing and doing should not be sep-arated. Hence, learning experiences should match the realworld, which is the central attribute of situated learning(SL)—“to create the conditions in which participants willexperience the complexity and ambiguity of learning in thereal world” (Stein, 1998, p. 1). As in PBL and CL, instruc-tors in SL should also play guiding, facilitating, maintain-ing, and assessing roles.

There are three basic reasons for supporting the utility of SLfor training programs. First, since SL makes classroom learn-ing more authentic (that is, like the real world), employeescan become better prepared for their work. The more like thelearning environment the real situation is, the more likely itis that the transfer of learning will occur (Albanese &Mitchell, 1993). Empirical studies also demonstrate that SLcan more effectively translate knowledge and skills to thefuture real work (Artemeva, Logie, & St-Martin, 1999;Wolfson & Willinsky, 1998). Second, SL’s constructivist rootsemphasize that learners’ engagement in meaningful experi-ences is essential to learning (Heinich et al., 1999). Sinceknowledge is contextually dependent, effective learningshould occur in a realistic context (Duffy & Cunningham,1996). For example, if performers are to collaborate with cus-tomers, the instructor must also create a partnership learningenvironment in training. Further, adults have a need to knowwhy they are learning something (Hansman, 2001). SL is justa means for relating the instructional content to the needsand experience of learners.

It is worthwhile to note some potential limitations of SL rel-evant to its learning context. It is important that the uniquelearning context of SL should be not only authentic, but alsocollaborative (Wolfson & Willinsky, 1998). Collaboration is akey component of SL; effective SL includes cooperation andinteraction between instructors/experts and learners, andamong learners themselves.

The general guidelines of SL designed are as follows:• Outcomes sought: Technical skills related to the disci-

plines (the field in which employees would work)• Activities involved: The following brief learning instruc-

tional process is an example based on the synthesis of theresearch of Schank, Berman, and Macpherson (1999) andThiagarajan (1996):– Learners begin with a scenario that reflects the reality of

the work they are expected to do. The instructor explainsthe learning goals, activity rules, and requirements.

– Learners select roles they want to play, or the rolesare assigned by the instructor for the activity (e.g., arole as the consultant or the client). Participation ofall learners is required.

– Learners engage in role playing and discussion withother learners and the instructor. The instructor isavailable for assistance.

– Learners learn by doing, playing the role assignedaccording to the rules. The instructor maintains the

momentum for the activity and provides prompt feed-back when appropriate. Experts may be invited tosupervise the skills the employee practiced in context.

– After the activity, learners and the instructor sharetheir experiences and insights with each other.

– Learners reflect on the process of knowledge con-struction and problem solution.

• Evaluation applied: Degree of participation, performanceassessment, and reflection paper on the learning process.

SL is different from other forms of experiential learning.Participants in SL learn through activities, while in experi-ential learning they learn through discrete content packagedesigned by instructors (Stein, 1998). During the activities,learners interact with each other; their participation is criti-cal for learning to occur.

Conclusion

These methods, applied for different learning goals in dif-ferent situations, can help learners “learn how to learn,”deal with complex problems, work with people, and sup-port each other’s performance. Integrating PBL, CL, and SLis both possible and useful. For instance, Nelson (1999)combines CL and PBL in what she calls collaborative prob-lem solving. Furthermore, with the widespread applicationof technology, the instructional methods outlined herecould also be adapted to technology-based environments.For example, a computer-based scenario program designedby Schank et al. (1999) facilitates the learning-by-doingmethod (similar to situated learning).

These three learning-centered methods can help make learn-ing transferable from classroom to workplace contexts. Toimplement these methods, building a realistic, motivating,supportive, collaborative, flexible, and challenging learningenvironment is critical in the development of new trainingprograms. Both instructors and learners need to adapt to thisnew environment to improve learning and performance.

References

Albanese, M.A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-basedlearning: A review of literature on its outcomes and imple-mentation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52-81.

Artemeva, N., Logie, S., & St-Martin, J. (1999). From page tostage: How theories of genre and situated learning help intro-duce engineering students to discipline-specific communica-tion. Technical Communication Quarterly, 8(3), 301-316.

Aronson, E. (2000). The jigsaw classroom [On-line].Available: http://www.jigsaw.org

Ayres, F. (2002, February). Problem-based learning: The ben-efits to students and organizations. Training Journal, 20-22.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. EducationalResearcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Performance Improvement • Volume 44 • Number 1 37

38 www.ispi.org • JANUARY 2005

Cole, B.C., & Smith, D.L. (1993). Cooperative learningstrategies for teaching adult business English. Journal ofEducation for Business, 68(3), 170-173.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., Bossche, P.V. d., & Gijbels, D. (2003).Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis.Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533-568.

Doolittle, P.E. (1995). Understanding cooperative learningthrough Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Paperpresented at the Lilly National Conference on Excellencein College Teaching, Columbia, SC, June 2-4.

Driscoll, M. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Driscoll, M.P. (2002). Psychological foundations of instruc-tional design. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (eds.), Trendsand issues in instructional design and technology. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Duffy, T.M., & Cunningham, D.J. (1996). Constructivism:Implications for the Design and Delivery of Instruction. InD.J. Jonassen (ed.), Handbook of research for educationalcommunications and technology. New York: Macmillan.

Dyson, B. (2002). The implementation of cooperative learn-ing in an elementary physical education program. Journalof Teaching in Physical Education, 22(1), 69-85.

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T.J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism,constructivism: Comparing critical features from aninstructional design perspective. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-71.

Hansman, C.A. (2001). Context-based adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89(Spring), 43-52.

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S.(1999). Instructional media and technologies for learning(6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.

Hendry, G.D., Frommer, M., & Walker, R.A. (1999).Constructivism and problem-based learning. Journal ofFurther and Higher Education, 23(3), 359-371.

Holt, D.L., Michael, S.C., & Godfrey, J.T. (1997). The caseagainst cooperative learning. Issues in AccountingEducation, 12(1), 191-193.

Knowles, M. (1996). Adult learning. In R.L. Craig (ed.), TheASTD training and development handbook (4th ed.). NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Nelson, L.M. (1999). Collaborative problem solving. InC.M. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional-design theories andmodels: A new paradigm of instructional theories (Vol. II).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reigeluth, C.M., Pershing, J.A., & Park, S.H. (1998). A newparadigm for corporate training. Class note received in 2000.

Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). What is instructional-design theoryand how is it changing? In C.M. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instruc-tional theories (Vol. II). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem based learning:An instructional model and its constructivist framework.Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-38.

Schank, R.C., Berman, T.R., & Macpherson, K.A. (1999).Learning by doing. In C.M. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instruc-tional theories (Vol. II). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schwen, T.M., Kalman, H.K., Hara, N., & Kisling, E.L. (1998).Potential knowledge management contributions to humanperformance technology research and practice. EducationalTechnology Research and Development, 46(4), 73-89.

Siciliano, J.I. (2001). How to incorporate cooperative learningprinciples in the classroom: It is more than just puttingstudents in teams. Journal of Management Education,25(1), 8-20.

Stein, D. (1998). Situated learning in adult education. ERICDigest, No. 195.

Stonyer, H., & Marshall, L. (2002). Moving to problem-based learning in the NZ engineering workplace. Journal ofWorkplace Learning, 14(5/6), 190-197.

Thiagarajan, S. (1996). Instructional games, simulations,and role-plays. In R.L. Craig (ed.), The ASTD training anddevelopment handbook (4 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Vernon, D.T.A., & Blake, R.L. (1993). Does problem-basedlearning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research.Academic Medicine, 68(7), 550-563.

Wolfson, L., & Willinsky, J. (1998). Situated learning in highschool information technology management. Journal ofResearch on Computing in Education, 31(1), 96-110.

Jialin Yi, PhD candidate, is a doctoral student in the Instructional SystemsTechnology department at Indiana University, Bloomington, where she has taughtcomputer skills courses for two years. Her research interests are knowledgemanagement, performance evaluation and improvement, training techniques,instructional design, and distance learning. Her doctoral dissertation is focusedon the measurement of employees’ knowledge-sharing behaviors. Jialin earnedan MS in Instructional Technology from Indiana University Bloomington and amaster’s of management in Industrial Engineering and a bachelor of engineeringin International Trade from Xi’an Jiaotong University in China. She has academicand practical experience in areas of economics, management, industrial engi-neering, and education. She may be reached at jiyi@indiana.edu.