外文翻譯--學(xué)習(xí)與培訓(xùn)開發(fā)有勝任力的學(xué)習(xí)者

1、<p><b>　　中文2710字</b></p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計(jì)）</p><p><b>　　外 文 翻 譯</b></p><p>　　外文出處 Journal of European Industrial Training. Volume. 27.2003(09) .P473 – 48

2、0 </p><p>　　外文作者 David Robotham </p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Learning and training: developing the competen

3、t learner</p><p>　　Improving learning during training</p><p>　　The improvement of learning in the context of training is an objective which often appears to be of secondary importance. Indeed on

4、e could reasonably argue that learning itself appears to warrant little interest in the majority of training programmes. This view is supported by Antonacopoulou (1999) who, from an extensive review of the review of the

5、management development literature, concluded that:</p><p>　　A central priority of management development is the improvement of organisational competitiveness, productivity, and ultimately efficiency. These d

6、efinitions often neglect that an integral part of the development process is learning. Even when reference is made to learning there is hardly any indication that there is flexibility and that individual differences in l

7、earning styles are taken into account (Antonacopoulou, 1999, p. 16). </p><p>　　This lack of focus on the importance of learning may be due in part to the attitudes of employees, who regard training as simply

8、 a means for improving job prospects (Rigg, 1989). The organisation may also mitigate against learning being seen as important during training through a failure to provide an appropriate infrastructure to support learnin

9、g after training has taken place (Antonacopoulou, 2001). It is also due in part to the historical distinction that is made between education, training, </p><p>　　Increasing an individual’s capacity to learn

10、and their involvement in the process of learning should be a primary concern. A focus on learning in an organizational context, rather than separate activities of training, development and education, seem best to facilit

11、ate this process. </p><p>　　From this viewpoint improvement in learning becomes of primary importance. A view that is supported by Berge et al. (2002) who argue that in learning the focus is on the employee

12、– the person doing the learning – whereas in training the focus is on the trainer. However, it is unclear whether it is possible to improve the ability of an individual to learn. This is apparent because it is not clear

13、whether improvement in learning refers to improving constituent process elements of the overall learn</p><p>　　Thinking about learning as results or products is very different from considering learning as a

14、process. Personal knowledge is a product of learning. Knowing how you came to acquire such knowledge is awareness of learning as a process. The question how do you learn demands quite different answers from the question

15、what have you learned. </p><p>　　It would seem logical to assume that improving the relative efficiency and effectiveness of learning sub-processes would improve the outcome of training, but this does not ne

16、cessarily follow. For example, an individual could become highly proficient at note-taking and yet not necessarily achieve greater understanding of the topic on which they were taking notes. While they may be more adept

17、at the mechanical process of note-taking, this does not mean they are able to decide what to take notes on</p><p>　　There is no consistent definition as to exactly what study skills are; most of the so-calle

18、d good study skills practices have not been empirically validated; no diagnostic instrument of study skill requirements has been validated; and most of the instruments used to assess study skills can be readily faked by

19、students. Main (1980) in a similar review found more than 80 per cent of study skills courses revolved almost wholly around memory skills. This would indicate that study skills programmes a</p><p>　　In an ed

20、ucational context, improvement in learning is a process the system assumes is occurring naturally as individuals progress through the formal education system. In a training and development context, it is likely that indi

21、viduals may need to learn how to learn. There is a need to develop the subject knowledge identified as being necessary for that course, and an associated and complementary need to develop knowledge of how one learns. Ess

22、ential to this process of learning to learn is the d</p><p>　　Bringing together the issues presented the issues discussed in this section, it is apparent that effectiveness in learning can be taught by:devel

23、oping task specific knowledge as a support for further learning, enhancing awareness of, and skill in, employing learning approaches appropriate to particular learning tasks, and seeking to match course requirements and

24、personal goals. Although there is a risk one may restrict learning capability by developing specialised strategies applicable to a limi</p><p>　　To avoid this one needs to consider how individuals learn and

25、examine their learning style.</p><p>　　Learning style in improving learning</p><p>　　One approach to achieving effective learning, and one that is widely used in training and development, is an

26、awareness and application of knowledge about an individual’s learning style. The learning style(s) of individuals in a training and management education environment should be an important consideration for trainers (Buch

27、 and Bartley, 2002), not only in the development and design of any programme, but also in the subsequent delivery of that programme (see Jackson’s 1995 study for example).</p><p>　　It is unclear however whet

28、her once having identified an individual’s learning style, it is then more effective to match the training style used to that particular learning style, or to aim for a deliberate mismatch between training style and lear

29、ning style (Hayes and Allinson, 1996). By selecting an approach to training that it is known will not be readily accessible and amenable to an individual’s preferred learning style, it could be argued that the learner wi

30、ll be forced to increase their lea</p><p>　　At a more fundamental level, it is questionable however whether the style approach to learning, i.e. slotting people into pre-ordained categories, is actually appr

31、opriate. Whilst this learning stereotyping will subsequently allow a degree of tailoring of programmes to meet the needs of small groups within a large group, there is an inherent danger in encouraging individuals to ado

32、pt a particular learning style, in the belief that it constitutes a “good” style. Individuals may become intellectual</p><p>　　In addition to this criticism, it is arguable that a truly proficient learner is

33、 not someone who demonstrates capability within a narrow band of activities, as defined by a particular learning style, but rather someone who demonstrates the ability to select an appropriate learning style from a range

34、 of styles, according to the demands of the situation, and their learning capability. This will be particularly true in a work environment, where the inherent flexibility to be able to respond to the </p><p>

35、;　　Conclusion</p><p>　　The aim here has been to demonstrate how it is possible to enhance the effectiveness of training through amalgamating theoretical propositions from two areas of thinking; learning theo

36、ry and the competence movement. It has been argued that underlying any training course should be a consideration of the learning ability of those being trained. By seeking to enhance the learning competence of trainees a

37、s a central component of any course, one will be improving the likelihood of attaining defined l</p><p>　　Knowledge about an individual’s learning style appears to offer a means for enhancing learning, but i

38、ts usefulness is at best limited. Learning style is only a constituent element of the totality of learning and has been widely criticised. Whilst an awareness of one’s learning style may be beneficial in promoting effect

39、ive learning, it is only part of the process in seeking to develop a competent learner. A competent learner is consciously aware of their learning processes and seeks to adapt tha</p><p>　　外文出處：Journal of Eu

40、ropean Industrial Training. Volume. 27.2003(09) .P473 - 480</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　學(xué)習(xí)與培訓(xùn)：開發(fā)有勝任力的學(xué)習(xí)者</p><p>　　一、在訓(xùn)練中提高學(xué)習(xí)能力</p><p>　　在培訓(xùn)中提高學(xué)習(xí)能力常常被認(rèn)為是次要的

41、目標(biāo)。事實(shí)上，人們完全有理由認(rèn)為在大多數(shù)的培訓(xùn)方案中對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)興趣并不大。這一觀點(diǎn)被Antonacopoulou所支持（1999），根據(jù)管理層的發(fā)展文獻(xiàn)并回顧廣泛的審查，總結(jié)出了：</p><p>　　一個(gè)管理發(fā)展的中心是組織競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力，生產(chǎn)力，并最終提高效率的重要性。這些定義往往忽視發(fā)展進(jìn)程的一個(gè)組成部分，那就是學(xué)習(xí)。即使提到了學(xué)習(xí)也幾乎沒有任何跡象表明，而且也沒有把學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)格的個(gè)別差異考慮在內(nèi)（Antonacopoul

42、ou，1999年，第16頁）。</p><p>　　對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)不夠重視一部分原因可能是由于員工的態(tài)度，他們把培訓(xùn)只是看做提高就業(yè)前景的工具。（里格，1989年）該組織也可通過在培訓(xùn)過程中不提供適當(dāng)?shù)幕A(chǔ)設(shè)施來支持訓(xùn)練以減輕學(xué)習(xí)的重要性。（Antonacopoulou，2001年）還有部分原因是由于在教育，培訓(xùn)，發(fā)展和學(xué)習(xí)中的歷史差別。他們通常表現(xiàn)為單獨(dú)的活動(dòng)。這種區(qū)分在某些方面是人工的，而不是對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)的暫時(shí)性思考。這也

43、許更適宜采用Garavan提出的觀點(diǎn)，（1997年，第47頁）他認(rèn)為：</p><p>　　提高個(gè)人的學(xué)習(xí)能力，并且使他們?nèi)谌氲綄W(xué)習(xí)中去應(yīng)該是一個(gè)主要的關(guān)注點(diǎn)。一個(gè)在組織環(huán)境中，關(guān)注學(xué)習(xí)，而不僅僅是培訓(xùn)、發(fā)展和教育等獨(dú)立的活動(dòng)，似乎能最好地促進(jìn)這一進(jìn)程。</p><p>　　從這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)來看，在培訓(xùn)中提高學(xué)習(xí)成為最重要的關(guān)注點(diǎn)。這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)由貝格等人的支持，他們認(rèn)為在學(xué)習(xí)的過程中，重點(diǎn)是員工個(gè)人

44、的學(xué)習(xí)，而在培訓(xùn)中則更著眼于培訓(xùn)員。不過，目前還不清楚是否有可能提高個(gè)人的學(xué)習(xí)能力。這很明顯，因?yàn)樗壳吧胁磺宄欠窨梢愿纳圃趯W(xué)習(xí)過程中提高有關(guān)學(xué)習(xí)的有關(guān)方面能力，如學(xué)習(xí)技能，或者學(xué)習(xí)成果的改善。這是一個(gè)為達(dá)到學(xué)習(xí)效果的重要區(qū)別，需要將學(xué)習(xí)過程和學(xué)習(xí)產(chǎn)品都考慮在內(nèi)。正如哈里曼和托馬斯（1991年，第48頁）指出：不同的學(xué)習(xí)過程會(huì)產(chǎn)生很大區(qū)別的學(xué)習(xí)成果。個(gè)人知識(shí)是學(xué)習(xí)的產(chǎn)物。了解你是如何獲得這種知識(shí)要認(rèn)識(shí)到學(xué)習(xí)是一個(gè)過程。關(guān)于你是怎么了解

45、學(xué)習(xí)需求這個(gè)問題可以得到完全不同的答案。</p><p>　　提高學(xué)習(xí)效率和相應(yīng)的子過程效果將提高培訓(xùn)效果，這似乎是合乎邏輯的假設(shè)，但是這并不一定完全合理。例如，一個(gè)人可以非常精通記筆記，但并不一定在更大的話題上取得成績(jī)，他們只是理解如何做筆記。雖然他們可能在記筆記更擅長(zhǎng)機(jī)械加工，這并不意味著他們能夠決定如何采取有效措施。（克盧蒂和Shochet，1986）。這是因?yàn)橛行У膶W(xué)習(xí)需要學(xué)習(xí)者整合一個(gè)學(xué)習(xí)的過程范圍的元

46、素，而不是學(xué)習(xí)的單個(gè)元素的能力的增強(qiáng)。（尼斯貝特和Shucksmith，1986）這并沒有阻止提高學(xué)習(xí)成效的這樣一種嘗試。然而，在技能的學(xué)習(xí)方案，這類課程的有效性充其量是值得商榷的。這是溫斯坦和安德伍德審查（1985年）的結(jié)論：</p><p>　　關(guān)于學(xué)習(xí)技能到底是什么沒有確切的一致的定義，所謂的最良好的學(xué)習(xí)能力沒有得到實(shí)踐的驗(yàn)證，學(xué)習(xí)的診斷儀器技能要求沒有得到證實(shí)，以及用于評(píng)估學(xué)習(xí)技巧的手段最容易被學(xué)生偽造。

47、在一個(gè)類似的審查中Main（1980年）發(fā)現(xiàn)，超過八成的學(xué)習(xí)技巧課程幾乎都是圍繞記憶力。這表明通過學(xué)習(xí)技巧課程的手段來提高學(xué)習(xí)過于狹窄。改善學(xué)習(xí)需要一個(gè)更廣泛的焦點(diǎn)，需要關(guān)注如何學(xué)習(xí)。</p><p>　　在教育方面，通過正規(guī)教育體系使學(xué)習(xí)提高被看做是一個(gè)過程來促進(jìn)個(gè)人進(jìn)步。在培訓(xùn)和發(fā)展方面，很可能是個(gè)人可能需要明白應(yīng)如何學(xué)習(xí)。有必要制定這個(gè)過程中這方面的知識(shí)，以及相關(guān)的和補(bǔ)充的需要來制定一個(gè)關(guān)于如何學(xué)習(xí)的知識(shí)。

48、這種學(xué)習(xí)基本的學(xué)習(xí)過程是元認(rèn)知。只有使他們明白是如何學(xué)習(xí)，才可能使他們的學(xué)習(xí)得到改善。這種觀點(diǎn)由學(xué)習(xí)理論家（科爾布，1976年）所支持。</p><p>　　整合本節(jié)所討論所提出的問題可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，很明顯，學(xué)習(xí)的成效也可以通過教育來提高，作為具體知識(shí)的學(xué)習(xí)，通過提高認(rèn)識(shí)和技巧，運(yùn)用適合于特定的學(xué)習(xí)任務(wù)的學(xué)習(xí)方法，并尋求符合課程要求和個(gè)人的目標(biāo)。雖然是有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的，但是可以通過制定適用于學(xué)習(xí)的問題的專門的戰(zhàn)略把問題控制在有

49、限范圍內(nèi)。（Dansereau，1985）</p><p>　　為了避免這種情況需要考慮個(gè)人如何學(xué)習(xí)和檢查他們的學(xué)習(xí)方式。</p><p>　　二、改善學(xué)習(xí)中的學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)格</p><p>　　實(shí)現(xiàn)有效的學(xué)習(xí)的一個(gè)辦法，并被廣泛使用于培訓(xùn)開發(fā)中的一個(gè)辦法，是認(rèn)識(shí)和了解個(gè)人的學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)格的知識(shí)的應(yīng)用。學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)格在一個(gè)培訓(xùn)和管理教育環(huán)境個(gè)體應(yīng)為培訓(xùn)人員高度重視（Buch和巴特利，

50、2002），不僅在開發(fā)中，而且在任何方案的設(shè)計(jì)中，都要考慮這樣的因素（見杰克遜的，例如1995年的研究）。學(xué)習(xí)偏好，學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)格或?qū)W員認(rèn)識(shí)的提高，可能有利于一個(gè)適當(dāng)?shù)目蚣?，?yīng)進(jìn)行培訓(xùn)以優(yōu)化發(fā)展的成效。</p><p>　　目前還不清楚首先確定一個(gè)人的學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)格，然后更有效地匹配培訓(xùn)風(fēng)格，或瞄準(zhǔn)的培訓(xùn)方式和學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)格之間的不匹配之處以做出改善（海耶斯和阿林森，1996年）。通過選擇培訓(xùn)方式，學(xué)員可能將被迫使用不熟悉的學(xué)習(xí)方

51、法。雖然有一定的危險(xiǎn)，但是在這種情況下，學(xué)員采用的自己所喜歡的學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)格和培訓(xùn)員所采用的方法會(huì)缺乏一致性，學(xué)員可以選擇退出該計(jì)劃，同時(shí)仍實(shí)際參加培訓(xùn)。這樣很有可能遭到反擊，認(rèn)識(shí)到以一個(gè)單一的學(xué)習(xí)方式直接參加培訓(xùn)活動(dòng)，可以促進(jìn)一個(gè)特定的個(gè)人接受狹窄的學(xué)習(xí)重點(diǎn)。（Robotham，1995年）</p><p>　　從更基本的層面上看，這種風(fēng)格是否適合學(xué)習(xí)方式是值得懷疑的，例如將預(yù)定的人安排到相關(guān)位置上，實(shí)際上是適當(dāng)?shù)摹?/p>

52、雖然這個(gè)學(xué)習(xí)定型滿足大型集團(tuán)內(nèi)的小群體的需求，有一個(gè)特定的學(xué)習(xí)方式，但這種學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)格構(gòu)成了潛在危險(xiǎn)。個(gè)人可以成為智力短視，往往有意無意地回避，學(xué)習(xí)情況不屬于其個(gè)人的學(xué)習(xí)范圍。除了這個(gè)批評(píng)，還有的爭(zhēng)議是，一個(gè)真正精通學(xué)習(xí)者不是有人在演示活動(dòng)，而是一個(gè)人演示能力，選擇合適的學(xué)習(xí)方式，根據(jù)形勢(shì)的要求，以提高他們的學(xué)習(xí)能力。特別是在工作環(huán)境中，這有著固有的靈活性，以便能夠應(yīng)對(duì)具體的不同情況。這似乎表明，把重點(diǎn)放在學(xué)習(xí)，使一種學(xué)習(xí)的基礎(chǔ)風(fēng)格實(shí)現(xiàn)最大

53、化。另一種解決辦法是旨在發(fā)展中尋求個(gè)人發(fā)展的學(xué)習(xí)能力或能力范圍更廣的有勝任力的學(xué)習(xí)者。</p><p><b>　　三、結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　本文的目的是要證明它是如何通過合并兩方面的思想理論命題來增強(qiáng)培訓(xùn)效果，這兩方面是指學(xué)習(xí)理論和運(yùn)動(dòng)能力。有人認(rèn)為，任何培訓(xùn)課程基礎(chǔ)應(yīng)該是對(duì)那些考慮學(xué)員的學(xué)習(xí)能力的。通過尋求加強(qiáng)學(xué)員學(xué)習(xí)能力的任何課程，可以達(dá)到提高學(xué)習(xí)成

54、果的可能性。然而，提高個(gè)人的學(xué)習(xí)能力不是指簡(jiǎn)單地提供諸如記筆記的學(xué)習(xí)技巧。它還涉及比如識(shí)別一個(gè)人的學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)格。這與學(xué)習(xí)能力等相關(guān)因素有關(guān)，如一個(gè)關(guān)于如何學(xué)習(xí)的認(rèn)識(shí)，并能夠整合現(xiàn)有的知識(shí)與新知識(shí)。關(guān)于個(gè)人的學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)格作為加強(qiáng)學(xué)習(xí)的一種手段，它只是一個(gè)學(xué)習(xí)的整體的組成部分，并已受到廣泛的批評(píng)。雖然一個(gè)人對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)格的認(rèn)識(shí)，可促進(jìn)有效的學(xué)習(xí)，但是它只是在尋求發(fā)展的有勝任力的學(xué)習(xí)者這個(gè)過程的一部分。一個(gè)稱職的學(xué)習(xí)者有意識(shí)地了解他們的學(xué)習(xí)過程，并尋求適