MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2551466563 · doi:10.51976/ijari.131317

Life Long Learning System Plays an Important Role in Leading Corporate World

2013· article· en· W2551466563 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mehta Jaydip Chandrakant

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Advance Research and Innovation · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHigher Education Learning Practices
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLifelong learningOperationalizationFlexibility (engineering)Public relationsSet (abstract data type)Knowledge managementBusinessPolitical sciencePsychologyManagementComputer sciencePedagogyEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In the past several decades, we have witnessed unprecedented social and technological change that has had profound implications for the nature of work. Such acceleration of change necessitates flexibility, the ability and ambition to continuously learn, and a willingness to experiment and take risks. In response, many national governments and industry leaders have emphasized the virtues of facilitating lifelong learning at work. Indeed, facilitating lifelong learning has been touted as a solution to remaining competitive. However, lifelong learning is only a concept. For it to be practical, it must be operationalized into steps from which organizations can follow. The extant research literature is scant in telling us how organizations actually implement lifelong learning practices and policies. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to describe how lifelong learning is grounded in practice. We do this by introducing a new conceptual framework that was developed on the basis of interviews with a number of leading edge corporations from Canada, the USA, India and Korea. At the heart of our model, and any effective lifelong learning system, is a performance management system. The performance management system allows for an ongoing interaction between managers and employees whereby challenging performance and learning goals are set, and concrete plans are made to achieve them. Those plans involve three types of learning activities. First, employees may be encouraged to engage in formal learning. This could be provided in-house, or the employee may take a leave of absence and return to school. Second, managers may deploy their subordinates to different departments or teams, so that they can take part in new work-based learning opportunities. Finally, employees may be encouraged to learn on their own time. By this we mean learning after organizational hours through firm-sponsored 5 programs, such as e-learning courses. Fueled by the performance management system, we posit that these three learning outlets lead to effective lifelong learning in organizations. Our model also stipulates that the three avenues of learning are mutually reinforcing. Formal training may enable an employee to participate in a work assignment in a different department. A work assignment may encourage employees to complete e-learning courses to support their work-based learning. Learning on one’s own time may lead to a promotion, and more formal training. In sum, the three ways of engaging in learning are mutually reinforcing. They are directed by the performance management system to ensure that learning is focused on organizational objectives. This paper provides texture to our theoretical model. We demonstrate how leading organizations use performance management systems to encourage lifelong learning. We also provide examples of how formal training is used to meet organizational goals, how work assignments are leveraged so that individuals have the ability to learn, and how organizations are increasingly providing opportunities for individuals to learn on their own time.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,222
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,465

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,003
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,106
Tête enseignante GPT0,463
Écart entre enseignants0,357 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal of Advance Research and InnovationMême sujetHigher Education Learning PracticesTravaux en français237 207