Powerpoint Presentation

Learning to Become a Machine Operator: The Dialogical Relationship Between Context, Self, and Content Julie L. Brockman, John M. Dirkx As work organizations restructure to remain competitive, problem solving is being pushed down to frontline workers, and emphasis is increasingly placed on workplace learning. In this exploratory, qualitative study, we focus on workers’ experiences of problems within the context of their work and how these contexts foster their learning and development. To that end, we examined the informal learning processes associated with problem-solving contexts among twenty manufacturing workers from three organizations.

The ﬁndings suggest that operators perceive learning to be integral to problem solving, relational and dialogical in nature, and intimately bound up with an evolving machine operator identity. This research also holds implications for problem-solving training within the workplace, the role of managers and supervisors in relation to the development of expertise, the role of the human resource professional as adult educator, and the role of adult educators in general.

Recent changes in the nature of work and the workplace are renewing emphasis on work-related learning. Many of these changes are being imple- mented to help organizations remain competitive. Yet what approaches to use to foster this work-related learning remains unclear. The need for enhancing workers’ problem-solving abilities and skills reﬂects an area that illustrates the tensions surrounding this issue. Within the United States, manufacturing ﬁrms are pushing problem solving and decision mak- ing to frontline production employees. Machine operators, laborers, and HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY , vol. 17, no. 2, Summer 2006 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.1169 199 200 Brockman, Dirkx craftspeople are increasingly expected to be today’s operational problem solvers (Rowden, 1996; Applebaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000; Livingstone & Sawchuck, 2003; Moran, 2003).

To help them meet these new expectations, many of these ﬁrms are creat- ing formal training in problem solving, delivered through classroom-based instruction, on-the-job training, and targeted training workshops. These training programs, however, tend to reﬂect problem solving as a decontextu- alized, linear, and technical process, one that can be superimposed on a variety of work situations (Jonassen, 2000; Torraco, 1999). Furthermore, research sug- gests that what is taught in these programs rarely transfers to job performance (Broad, 1997; Foxx & Faw, 2000; Holton, 2000). Such studies raise questions about the applicability of formal workplace education and training to what it is that workers need to know (Jonassen, 2000; Torraco, 1999).

Questions regarding the efﬁcacy of formal workplace learning programs have led to increased attention to the role of informal learning in the work- place in enhancing job performance and the role that the work context itself plays in developing requisite knowledge and skills among manufac- turing workers (Leslie, Airing, & Brand, 1998; Livingstone, 2001; Marsick & Watkins, 2001; Verespej, 1998). Recent empirical studies report that the majority of what employees need to know to perform their work require- ments is acquired through informal learning in the workplace (Verespej, 1998; Leslie et al., 1998; Livingstone, 2001; Boud & Middleton, 2003).

Despite the important role that informal learning plays in the development of workplace expertise, it receives considerably less attention when compared to more formal training programs, particularly in the area of workplace learning related to problem solving. Few studies, however, have carefully examined the role that problem solving plays in what and how manufacturing workers learn in an informal way, the nature of the learning that occurs in the production process, and the forms of knowledge derived from these experiences.

Without careful and systematic study of workplace learning within the context of problem solving, we risk not effectively using the learning that workers are apparently deriving from and in their work (Livingstone, 2001).

Learning through problem-solving situations represents a major untapped potential in workers’ knowledge and skill that can be mobilized for mutual beneﬁt of the organization, the individual worker, and the human resource development (HRD) community. Developing a deeper understanding of infor- mal learning through these problem-solving contexts is needed for organiza- tions to beneﬁt from its manifestation in the workplace, for employees to be recognized for developing it, and for HRD practitioners to be able to effectively use it to inform their practice.

In this study, we focus on the nature of informal learning associated with the workers’ experiences of problems within the context of their work and how these contexts foster their learning and development.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq Review of Literature This study is informed by scholarly work on the nature of informal learning, problem solving in everyday contexts, and the development of expertise and occupational identity.

Informal Learning.Informal learning is deﬁned as “learning that is pre- dominantly unstructured, experiential and noninstitutional” (Marsick & Volpe, 1999, p. 4). It is often characterized as holistic, contextual, experience based, arising in situations where learning is not the main purpose, activated by indi- vidual learners rather than by trainers, and often collaborative or collegial (Beckett & Hager, 2002). The majority of informal learning in the workplace occurs in the course of the routine social and individual work activities, in which employees interact, share ideas and resources, and perform their jobs (Leslie et al., 1998). A frontline worker’s informal learning occurs most often when his or her job scope expands to include more skills and responsibilities than he or she had previously performed or mastered, such as increased responsibility to solve operational or organizational problems (Educational Development Center, 1998).

Research on informal learning in the workplace has burgeoned in the past twenty years, focusing on the informal learning of individuals within a variety of occupations while performing a variety of different activities (Andrew, 1998; Clark, 1998; Schön, 1983; Siebert, 1999; Yelon, 1997). More recent research (Coyle & Ellinger, 2001; Garrick, 1998; Jannings & Armitage, 2001; Walker & Marsick, 2001) supports earlier ﬁndings that informal learning is prevalent in the workplace. The research to date suggests that informal learning (1) cuts across a variety of occupations, (2) is contextual, (3) involves engagement among and between persons, (4) varies among individuals, and (5) requires reﬂection on the experience. What seems to be missing, however, is an analy- sis of the way the social and cultural context interacts with the informal learn- ing associated with a particular activity. For example, Walker and Marsick’s study (2001) used the activity of decision making as a context to study infor- mal learning. However, the analysis of critical incidents was content oriented and therefore failed to tie the informal learning with social contextual factors of the organization.

In addition, relatively little research focuses on the informal learning of front- line employees. Foley (1999) argues that much of the literature on informal learning is treated as a technical process, to be facilitated by professionals on behalf of management. Garrick (1998) concurs, suggesting that informal learn- ing is currently being deﬁned narrowly and instrumentally. The contradictory and contested dynamics of workplace relations are not explored in depth. The notion of workers’ learning being autonomous and resistant barely appears in the literature (Foley, 1999). Others argue for a model that places more attention on the “kinds of work individuals are asked to perform and the ways in which that work is structured and organized. These issues provide opportunities for Learning to Become a Machine Operator 201 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq 202 Brockman, Dirkx workers to engage in thoughtful, meaningful and critical ways of learning and inﬂuencing their work environments” (Dirkx, 1996, p. 46).

Some studies, however, are attempting to capture the informal learning experiences of workers within industry (Billett, 1993; Foley, 1998; Livingstone, 2001; Orr, 1996; Payne, 2000; Quarter & Midha, 2001; Skiba, 2000). These studies encourage a dialogue regarding the informal learning of frontline employees. However, they lack sufﬁcient depth within a particular activity (such as problem solving) that is new and therefore problematic for the worker.

It is under these conditions that most learning occurs, as problem solving, by virtue of its action orientation, provides the opportunity for creating experi- ences that lead to informal learning (Walker & Marsick, 2001). These studies also fail to compare informal learning experiences across multiple sites within one occupational group.

In response to this shortcoming, the Educational Development Center (1998) studied informal learning within eight manufacturing sites. Results from this study are quite comprehensive, detailing speciﬁc informal learning that occurs during speciﬁc activities at work. However, they categorize these activities broadly. For example, they studied the informal learning that occurs as a result of performing one’s job. One of the four skills learned was identi- ﬁed as problem solving. Our study, however, views problem solving as a space where informal learning occurs, not as a learned outcome of one’s daily work.

The Educational Development Center study also states, “For the purposes of this project, we will focus on learning that is beneﬁcial to organizations and will not address workplace learning that is destructive or otherwise inconsis- tent with the organization’s goals” (p. 35). This perspective severely limits the depth and breadth of the informal learning that occurs in the workplace.

Organizations can potentially beneﬁt from understanding “destructive or inconsistent learning.” Everyday Problem Solving.Everyday problem solving is deﬁned as the reasoning processes and strategies individuals use to solve problems that have more direct pertinence in their lives than problems traditionally used in problem-solving research (Berg & Klaczynski, 1996). Martinez (1998) argues that “citizens of the 21st century must become adept problem solvers, able to wrestle with ill-deﬁned problems. Problem solving ability is the cognitive passport to the future” (p. 605). Clearly, the manufacturing world is quickly applying for and being granted this “passport.” Scholars continue to call for further research on everyday problem solv- ing (Foxx & Faw, 2000; Jonassen, 2000; Roth, 1997). By virtue of its action orientation, problem solving provides the opportunity for creating experiences that lead to informal learning (Lohman, 2003; Walker & Marsick, 2001). Even within the classroom, problem-solving scenarios are most often used by edu- cators to create opportunities for student learning (Roth, 1997). In addition, a comprehensive study of one thousand workers concludes that it is mostly through informal learning that employees learn the intrapsychic skills for HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq successful problem solving (Verespej, 1998). Therefore, problem-solving situ- ations provide effective contexts for studying informal learning.

The informal learning of frontline workers occurs most often when their job scope expands to include more skills and responsibilities than they had previously performed or mastered (Educational Development Center, 1998).

Problem solving, as a new requirement for frontline employees, has created a new space within which informal learning can be studied.

Developing Expertise and Identity.Workplace expertise is often believed to be developed solely through formal training, which may include classroom- led instruction, computer-based training, structured hands-on application, operation of a key task, or some other traditional planned method (Conlon, 2004). However, the majority of learning how to perform our work occurs informally. Woll (2002) suggests that for the most part, the expert-novice research has not dealt with everyday knowledge or with the kinds of ill-deﬁned or ill-structured problems that are characteristic of everyday situations. He argues that “. . . attempts to take everyday skills out of their everyday context or to study isolated components or simulations of them is to alter the skill entirely” (p. 286).

Within the situated learning literature, Lave and Wenger (1991) describe in detail the process of becoming an expert within ﬁve studies of apprentice- ship. One of many conclusions they draw from these studies is that access to workplace practice is a critical resource for learning. Billett (2001) uses the data from these studies to inform his development of guided learning, a form of instruction encompassing direct interactions with experts and collaborative problem solving to help develop the robust knowledge required for vocational expertise. Workplace learning represents complex sociocultural and psycho- logical processes that engage aspects of workers’ sense of meaning, identity, and interpersonal relationships (Fenwick, 2001; Garrick, 1998; Welton, 1991; Wenger, 1998). While researchers have begun to explore the social and cul- tural dimensions of this learning through such concepts as the learning orga- nization (Senge, 1990) and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), HRD researchers have paid less attention to the role of the self (Kuchinke, 2005) in workplace learning and the ways in which informal learning involves and con- tributes to frontline workers’ developing sense of who they are as machine operators.

Theoretical Framework This study focused on the following questions:

• What is the nature of the learning associated with frontline employees’ expe- riences of problems within the context of their work?

• How do these contexts foster their learning and development as machine operators?

Learning to Become a Machine Operator 203 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq 204 Brockman, Dirkx These questions were approached broadly from the perspective of informal workplace learning (Garrick, 1998). This theoretical perspective is informed by both the literature on informal and incidental learning (Marsick & Watkins, 1990, 2001) and work as a location for learning and development (Billett, 2001; Boud & Garrick, 1999; Welton, 1991). Our interest in this context for learning reﬂects both its potential value to organizations in enhancing perfor- mance and productivity and its value to individuals and groups of workers in contributing to their sense of identity and agency. Although informal work- place learning represented a broad theoretical point of departure, emerging analysis of the data suggested the relevance of additional theoretical ideas as well, such as experiential learning (Boud, Cohen & Walker, 1996), worker identity (Garrick, 1998), situated cognition (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Scribner, 1997), and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). All of these theories have their roots in whole or in part within the writings of John Dewey (1859–1952), arguably the most inﬂuential thinker on education in the twentieth century.

Learning through experience is one aspect of learning that receives much less attention than does formal learning (Boud et al., 1996). Experiential learn- ing recognizes that outcomes of learning are socially and culturally constructed and that learners make sense of their own experience in the context of their social and cultural values. Situated cognition theory (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991) suggests that learning is inherently social in nature and that thinking or knowing is situated. That is, it is depen- dent on the particular situation at hand (Woll, 2002). Learning is shaped through the nature of the interactions among learners, the tools they use within their interactions, the activity itself, and the social context in which the activ- ity takes place (Torraco, 1999). Situated cognition research supplements the social nature of learning as it distinguishes between the application of knowl- edge and skills across different contexts (Lave, Murtaugh, & de la Rocha, 1984). Informal learning is therefore a function of the context in which both the organization and the individual operate (Leslie et al., 1998). Within this tradition, Wenger (1998) found that informal learning has been shown to take place within communities of practice. Within the workplace, communities of practice are naturally occurring informal groups that develop, evolve, and disperse according to the rhythms and energies of the participants. Wenger’s work was especially helpful in illuminating the dynamic and complex inter- relationship among one’s work, learning, and identity. In addition, the ideas of situated learning and communities of practice reﬂect the inherently social and relational nature of learning that occurs among machine operators.

These theories have contributed to our understanding of informal learn- ing as an activity that can be enhanced through reﬂection; as contextual due to the psychological, social, and cultural factors with one’s environment; and as arising from experience and involvement within a community of practice.

This study adds depth to these theoretical perspectives through its study of one occupation (machine operator), one activity ﬁeld (problem solving), HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq across multiple contexts (work arrangements), within the same industry (manufacturing).

Methods This study reﬂects an exploratory, qualitative approach that makes use of a narrative perspective called the critical incident technique (CIT) (Flanagan, 1954). This technique is essentially a narrative approach used as “an inves- tigative tool in organizational analysis from within an interpretive or phenom- enological paradigm” (Chell, 1998, p. 51). Narrative approaches to the study of work are endorsed by the National Research Council (1999). Through the participants’ relating stories around particular incidents within their work experiences, the CIT facilitates the investigation of signiﬁcant occurrences (events, incidents, processes, or issues) identiﬁed by the respondent, the way they are managed, and the outcomes in terms of perceived effects. The objec- tive is to gain an understanding of the incident from the perspective of the individual, taking into account cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements (Chell, 1998). This technique has been successfully used to capture the nature of informal learning (Ellinger, 2005; Eraut et al., 2003; Marsick, 2003).

Selection of Site and Participants.Twenty-nine manufacturing sites within the U.S. Midwest were initially contacted as potential sites for this research study. Five of the twenty-nine sites agreed to allow access to machine operators for the purpose of individual interviews. However, two of the ﬁve sites withdrew due to substantial increases in production. Three sites agreed to allow the researchers access to individual machine operators. These sites were workplaces in which management was, to some extent, attempting to push problem-solving responsibilities to machine operators. All sites employ three shifts and are unionized.

Site A produces a variety of parts for the aerospace industry. The machin- ists make these parts by operating state-of-the-art Computerized Numeric Control (CNC) machines. Most machining operations are arranged in cells, otherwise known as cell manufacturing. Basically, cell manufacturing is at the opposite end of the work structuring continuum from traditional assembly- line manufacturing. A traditional assembly-line work structure employs indi- viduals to handle one aspect of the production of a unit to be sold, whereas a cell manufacturing work structure requires one individual to handle most of the operations necessary to make a single unit of product. Although each shift employs one supervisor, machinists at Site A work autonomously, some stat- ing that there are days when they have no contact at all with supervision.

Site B produces wheat and ﬂour for the cookie, cracker, and baked goods industry. Of the ﬁve machine operators interviewed, three have responsibili- ties to operate the ﬂour mills, and two machine operators are responsible for a variety of jobs within the ﬁnished product warehouse. Like most other sec- ondary food manufacturers, Site B runs a continuous operation. Operators are Learning to Become a Machine Operator 205 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq 206 Brockman, Dirkx assisted by programmable logic computers located within a closed room with large acrylic plastic windows near the equipment they tend. Operators spend as much time watching the computer screens as they do physically walking through their areas to check on the equipment and the product itself, and they worked closely with their supervisors.

Site C manufactures transportation vehicles. Study participants use a vari- ety of small machines to assist in assembling vehicles. Each operator is respon- sible for one part of the assembly operation and is physically stationed in one area of that operation. Some of the operators work within a team structure led by a team coordinator with rotating job responsibilities, whereas some of the participants work individually with little to no rotation. These operators, as well as those working with the team, are highly supervised compared to the machinists working for Site A and Site B.

All study participants were machine operators. They have considerable mobility within their work space, are responsible for on-line production, are generally regarded as highly skilled within their area of operation, and are often expected to resolve a multiplicity of issues or problems. In addition, the job of operating a machine is characteristic of most manufacturing operations. The criteria for selection of participants among this group included current employ- ment with the respective organization; currently working as a machine opera- tor; responsible for solving work-related organizational or operational problems; and willing to be interviewed. In addition, the researcher requested that the site contact who was responsible for asking machine operators to participate choose operators based on certain characteristics in order that the sample approximate the overall population of machine operators in the United States.

Of the twenty participants in this study, thirteen were white male Cau- casian, ﬁve were white female Caucasian, one was an African American female, and one was a Mexican American male. Two participants were in their early thirties, twelve in their forties, four in their ﬁfties, and one in his sixties. In terms of their current position, six participants have held their machine operator posi- tion less than three years, seven participants have held their position between four and seven years, and seven participants have held their position for eight or more years. With regard to seniority as machine operators overall, four had operated a machine less than three years, three had operated a machine between four and seven years, and eleven had operated a machine for eight years or more. The twenty participants in this study reﬂected the gender, race, and age of the overall population of machine operators in the United States (U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001). Finally, because the amount of experience individuals possess has a strong impact on how problems are solved (Kahney, 1993), the participants in this study approximated diversity of experience.

Data Collection and Analysis.The primary data collection method was the semistructured interview, guided by the CIT. Three pilot interviews were conducted to test the initial interview protocol. From the experience of HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq administering and reviewing the data from these interviews, changes were made to the interview protocol. Then one-hour individual interviews were conducted and audio tape-recorded with twenty machine operators across the three sites. In addition to gathering background information on each operator, these interviews focused on collecting speciﬁc information related to two or three critical incidents of problem solving identiﬁed by the participants as experienced on the job. Each interview was transcribed verbatim, and the tapes and transcripts were used for analysis. On completion of a preliminary analysis, letters were sent to each of the twenty participants requesting their voluntary attendance in a two-hour focus group session. Eight of the twenty participants, representing the three manufacturing sites, agreed to attend at a convenient location. This session also used a semistructured interview process, allowing the prepared protocol to guide our questions while remaining open to explore further insights of the participants. This interview was tape-recorded and transcribed. The focus group was intended to clarify questions and issues identiﬁed from the earlier interviews as well as to provide support for some of the key ﬁndings emerging from the analysis. For example, a typical response to a variety of questions during the individual interviews was, “I learn through experience.” In the focus group, the researchers were able to pursue what the participants meant by this comment. Feedback from the focus group partici- pants also helped to establish the veracity of our perceptions and conclusions regarding overall themes or categories.

Interview data were subjected to inductive analysis, using Hycner’s (1985) phenomenological analysis of interview data as a guide, coupled with the con- stant comparative method. The constant comparative method of analysis, orig- inally developed for use in the grounded theory methodology of Glaser and Strauss (1967), allows “important analysis dimensions to emerge from patterns found in the cases under study without presupposing in advance what the important dimensions will be” (Patton, 2002, p. 56). This method was used to constantly compare incidents with incidents until categories and themes emerge (Creswell, 1994). In this study, the researchers read the verbatim tran- scripts (over ﬁve hundred pages altogether) numerous times during which cat- egories and themes emerged, coupled with listening intently to over twenty hours of audiotaped interviews. Listening to the spoken word, though identi- cal to the transcripts, added another dimension to this analysis. Both researchers participated in this process, conﬁrming each other’s analysis and interpretations of the spoken word. Data from the focus group interview were analyzed in a similar manner.

Findings The ﬁndings suggest that machine operators perceive problem-solving con- texts as critical locations for learning. Furthermore, the learning processes asso- ciated with these problem-solving situations are intimately bound up with the Learning to Become a Machine Operator 207 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq 208 Brockman, Dirkx development of a machine operator identity. In this section, we summarize our ﬁndings around three major themes: problem solving as learning, learning as a relational and dialogical process, and outcomes derived from learning through problem solving.

Problem Solving as Learning.Machine operators identiﬁed and described seventy incidents of solving problems within the context of their work. As reﬂected in their descriptions, the actual problem-solving process involves two major dimensions: (1) a trigger event or an incident that gains the attention of the machine operator and (2) responses to the trigger event. Operators were often alerted to the presence of a problem by an unexpected event on the line—for example, an unusual machine noise, a blinking warning light on a computer screen, or an unacceptable ﬁnished product. As one machine oper- ator explained, “I went in and I started programming it and hit a button. . . . I looked around, dusty all the way to the side of the building. You couldn’t see out the window. Dust!” The second dimension of the problem-solving process involved the oper- ator’s response to the trigger event. The manifestation of an anomaly or unex- pected event on the line required a response from the operator. The operators’ stories delineate the process through which they both framed and addressed the problems suggested by the trigger event. One operator explained, “It hap- pened several times, and I said to Char, I said, ‘What am I doing wrong here?’ because it wasn’t hurting anything. It was just making the buzzers go off. And she goes, ‘You’re doing it too quick.’ Well that was really simple. I never did it again after that’ and now every job that I go on to, I make sure they light. So I learned’ and so now every time I go on a job I look for it. I have experience.” In general, the problem-solving incidents that the machine operators described were generally regarded as opportunities or locations for learn- ing. Despite the fact that the interview protocol did not directly ask them to describe actual learning events, in their stories of solving problems, they described eighty-one signiﬁcant learning events. Many of the participants volunteered comments related to how often they learn in and through their work. Their individual stories were ﬁlled with references to learning. For example, Patty, with less than one year of experience, says, “As time’s gone on, it gets better and better—I have gone home every night with a headache—but every day is a learning experience.” Even among those who have been on the job for twenty or more years, the operators ﬁnd learning to be a positive aspect of their work and a positive experience for themselves personally. Hank, the most experienced operator among the participants, with twenty-three years’ experience, said, “Even though I’ve run the machine for years and years, I still make a mistake—something I never thought of before—and my boss helped me out. I like to learn something every day— whether it’s big or small.” Hank’s observation characterizes the stories of learning we gathered from operators across experience levels and across the three organizations participating in this study.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq Despite the fact that our interview protocol focused on problem solving within the operators’ work contexts, their descriptions were punctuated with numerous references to learning and their beliefs and attitudes about the importance of learning in their everyday work. This observation was reiterated during the focus group interview. One member noted, “There are all sorts of things that could go wrong. That’s a learning in itself.” Another said, “If you think you’ve learned it all, you just better get out of there.” In other words, there is always something to learn, no matter how many years one has as an operator.

Learning as a Relational and Dialogical Process.After the trigger event and the associated emotions occurred, machine operators worked to resolve the problem. Machine operators across all three organizations attempted to use a variety of strategies to solve the problem at hand or personal strategies that allowed them to be proactive in an attempt to lessen or eliminate future prob- lem incidents. The nature of these strategies seemed to point toward the desire for self-sufﬁciency, yet they reﬂected the relational and dialogical nature of the problem-solving and learning process. Aaron, an experienced operator, summed up the experience of most of the participants: “I learn how to solve problems through past experience, other operators, and job training. . . . Most of it is just from working.” Machine operators relied on both internal and external resources to solve everyday problems while performing their work. Three kinds of resources were identiﬁed: prior knowledge, use of printed material, and personal strategies in working through the problem-solving process. Machine operators use their own prior knowledge to assist them in solving problems. Their prior knowl- edge is mainly derived from past experience through making mistakes, broad exposure to the production process, stories from others, watching others per- form their work, receiving feedback while doing the work, job aids, home- work, and simple trial and error. For example, Denny, one machine operator, stated, “If you don’t make mistakes, you’re not going to learn a lot.” Machine operators also used printed material to supplement the knowl- edge they have previously gained. They spoke of using operations manuals, machine blueprints, checklists, and other types of procedural manuals. Other information comes in the form of procedures: the grievance procedure, the job task procedure, and the programming procedures, to name a few.

However, these forms of information are thought to be more theoretical than practical. Many develop their own personal strategies to ﬁnd the cause of a prob- lem and work it through. Reed starts by “. . . walking back through . . .” the process to ﬁnd the cause of the problem. Similarly, Corey, a Gant Company oper- ator, said, “We try to back step you know, to see. . . the last station. What did they do in that station? Okay, so we go to that station, and we watch it.” Aaron, an experienced Emmer Corp. operator, uses the “process of elimination.” The operators’ stories, however, also accentuate the importance of others in the problem-solving and learning process. Operators relied on others to Learning to Become a Machine Operator 209 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq 210 Brockman, Dirkx assist them in resolving problems, primarily operators who were perceived to be more experienced and supervisors who were perceived as knowledgeable about machine operations. Across all operators and organizations, the person most sought after for help is the experienced machine operator. In fact, Carla stated, “You’ve got to be real patient and don’t be afraid to ask for help, because that’s what the other experienced operators are here for.” Another told us, “It’s the operators that give me knowledge, not the ofﬁce people [management].” The machine operators recognized that for gaining knowledge, sharing information from operator to operator is critical. As one operator suggested, “[Learning] is a together process . . . so if I learn something from someone, then you remember it and you tell somebody else about it. It’s kind of a con- tinuation. It’s like a drag bucket I guess.” The drag bucket, a large bucket that scrapes dirt across the ground, is a metaphor he used to describe the move- ment of information created when people share their knowledge. Reed, another operator, exempliﬁed this effect: “People before me passed on things to me, and I have always told people that have gone on after me—if you have any questions and I can help.” Denny suggested, “When you learn a little trick, you pass it down to the next worker that is coming on the job—if you don’t work together, you’d go nuts.” In summary, the problem-solving process is characterized by the machine operators as relational and dialogical. The process and the learning derived from it occur within the context of social relationships, fellow operators, and supervisors. Furthermore, this learning is facilitated through dialogues in which the operators engage with themselves, the work context, and others in that context.

Outcomes Derived from Learning Through Problem Solving.As machine operators attempt to solve problems, they construct new knowledge that they then use to further their performance and address future problems. Through the engagement in problem-solving activity, the individual’s existing knowl- edge is extended and transformed. From the operators’ perspectives, this process contributes to their becoming an experienced machine operator.

Because most of the problems described were technical in nature, new knowl- edge often came in the form of concepts and procedures. The literature refers to these two forms of knowledge as “propositional knowledge” and “procedural knowledge” (Billett, 2001). As can be expected, past knowledge gained by a more experienced operator will greatly affect the problems they face on the job.

One operator, Blake, explains, “I just get a feeling from maybe some past expe- rience here that it might not be exactly the same thing we’re dealing with but maybe that it is close.” Beyond descriptions of propositional and procedural knowledge, however, the operators also described learning outcomes not directly related to the tech- nical nature of their work or their tasks. The vast majority of the problems operators face on a day-to-day basis are technical in nature. Yet over half of the learning events described in association with problem-solving incidents HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq reﬂected deep involvement of the self and others. Machine operators in this study gained new knowledge about themselves, others, their organization, and learning in general through solving technical problems. Judy explains, “Well, I learned that if you put your mind to something, you can do anything. This [job] was just put in front of my face, and I took the opportunity. . . . I want to be the best I can be.” These learning outcomes are consistent with what is described as an indi- vidual’s dispositional knowledge (Billett, 2001), but we want to underscore the importance of the idea of self-reﬂexive nature of the knowledge derived from their learning. In contrast to the more declarative or instrumental nature of propositional and procedural knowledge, this latter form of knowledge is often affective in nature, reﬂecting not only awareness of self and others but powerful feelings about what is known.

The ﬁndings suggest that the learning associated with the problem-solving process is intimately bound up with the process of becoming a machine operator. This process most often occurs within a dialogical and triadic rela- tionship among the worker, the context within which the task is being per- formed, and the content of the work itself. Learning to become a machine operator involves participation in a series of these overlapping and interacting triadic relationships, suggestive of communities of practice that deﬁne levels of participation (Wenger, 1998).

Discussion and Implications In this study, the researchers explored the nature of the learning associated with frontline employees’ experiences of problems within the context of their work and how these contexts foster their learning and development as machine operators. For the machine operators, the problem-solving contexts of their everyday work world represent the locations in which they learn what it means to be a machine operator. This process occurs through solving day- to-day problems within a community and is mediated through dialogical rela- tionships among the worker (the self), the work (the task), and the machine (the context). Descriptions provided by the operators suggest that this rela- tionship is explicit and personal. The ﬁndings are discussed within the two research questions directing this study:

•What is the nature of learning associated with frontline employees’ experi- ences of problems within the context of their work? The operators’ descriptions of learning suggest the development of forms of knowledge that comes from a sense of holistic patterns and relationships derived through prior knowledge and experience. Through maintaining a dialogical relationship between them- selves as the worker, the task, and the machine, they create new knowledge.

Prior knowledge is bridged with the current situation within particular problem- solving contexts. Knowledge of how to solve operational problems is derived Learning to Become a Machine Operator 211 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq 212 Brockman, Dirkx from this dialogical relationship. Development and awareness of and ability to use this relationship, however, occurs over time, signifying the develop- ment of expertise. Experienced operators tended to rely ﬁrst on themselves to resolve problems they encountered. Newcomers, on the other hand, do not yet have that dialogical relationship with the work and the machine and there- fore must search for the dialogue from someone who does. Because the knowledge inherent within the dialogical relationship is contextual, its devel- opment relies on the practitioner’s ability to ﬁnd and interpret subtle visual, aural, and tactile cues. Newcomers typically experience difﬁculty perceiving these cues and rely on others to help them develop this ability and knowledge (Woll, 2002).

This view of workplace learning reﬂects a process of social participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Torraco, 1999) or communities of practice, wherein people learn as they participate and become involved with a community or culture of learning. Individuals interact with the community and learn to understand and participate in its history, assumptions, and cultural values and rules. Furthermore, as they enter into and interact with triadic, dialogical rela- tionships of other operators, their identities are strengthened, and they increase their participation within the community of practice of which they are becom- ing a member. As one machine operator, Lana, explains, “When things go wrong, you’ve just got more people who are more knowledgeable. . . . Now the whole team is taking the responsibility for all the operations, not just one guy or one woman. . . . I mean people feel more connected through their work.” As they become full members of the community of practice and inter- act with other operators, their identities are strengthened. Workers themselves refer to the demarcations of knowledge and skills with varying levels of experience as they discuss other operators as new and experienced.

The learning that machine operators experience within the context of solv- ing problems on the line is shaped by belonging to a community and also helps contribute to their ability to participate in that community. However, individ- ual workers bring to this participation a dialogical relationship that they estab- lish as an individual with the task and machine that they operate. How machine operators experience their job, what they understand about what they do, what they know, and what they do not want to know are not simply indi- vidual choices or the result of assignment to the “machine operator” classiﬁ- cation. The meanings they attribute to their experience and their learning are shaped by belonging to a community but with a unique identity reﬂected in the relationships they hold with the tasks they perform and the machines they operate.

How, then, do our observations of a community of practice comprising these individual dialogical relationships relate to what we know about infor- mal workplace learning? The ﬁndings reinforce previous ﬁndings of the value of informal learning within the workplace (Billett, 2001; Boud & Garrick, 1999; Day, 1998; Garrick, 1998; Marsick & Watkins, 1990, 2001). Our HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq ﬁndings, however, suggest that this learning reﬂects the dialogical relationship the operators establish for themselves with the task and the machines they operate, as well as the relationships they establish with fellow operators and their supervisors. We can represent this informal learning as sets of overlap- ping communities of practice or as informal networks contingent on work ﬂow and organizational practices that may change quite signiﬁcantly over time (Boud & Middleton, 2003).

Participants echo the observations of Lave and Wenger (1991) who sug- gest that “learning is a process that takes place in a participation framework, not in an individual mind” (p. 15). Learning is mediated by the differences of perspective among coparticipants. That is, the informal learning that occurs among the participants takes place within and reﬂects the inﬂuence of the community of practice of which they are a part. Similar to Orr’s ﬁndings (1996), operators do not work as isolated individuals, nor do they only learn and act on an application of information supplied by the company’s docu- mentation. Rather, the informal learning the operators described suggests a kind of learning that arises from the interaction among the individual, the content, and the context.

•How do these contexts foster their learning and development as machine oper- ators? An aspect of what the machine operators learn involves a deeper sense of themselves, of who they are as machine operators. From the perspective of participation in communities of practice, this process occurs in part through an increasingly clear deﬁnition of the “other.” The consequences of not partic- ipating in the community were made clear by participants who described oper- ators who profess to “know it all” and refused to participate as a learner: “If you make that remark out there, ‘. . . Well I know—I don’t need any help, I know how to do that,’ they’re not going to help you. The word gets around that you made that remark and you think you’re a know-it-all.” Such workers are threatened with disqualiﬁcation from the community by management or the community itself. Crash was an operator who thought he knew everything about running his machine: “There was this one guy and he’s on 3rd [shift].

His nickname ended up being ‘Crash’ because he crashed every night. He wouldn’t listen. So they just said okay, there you go.” Smith and Berg (1997) write, “For any entity to be able to think about itself, it must be able to . . . make the distinction between what it is and what it is not” (p. 53). Mead (1934) argues that the self is socially emergent, that we are the product of social interaction. In this sense, understanding and situat- ing others inside and outside the community is really an attempt to understand and situate ourselves. The community of operator practitioners may allow Crash to fail, and possibly disqualify himself, by way of management, from the community altogether.

The ﬁndings support Wenger’s use (1998) of identity as a pivot between the social and individual realms of the development of identity, learning, and thought, the powerful role of emotions in workplace learning, and the need to Learning to Become a Machine Operator 213 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq 214 Brockman, Dirkx address this critical component of workplace learning (Goleman, 1998).

Although Marsick and Watkins (2001) suggest that emotional factors come into play when people do not have the same skill or awareness around con- textual factors, this study suggests that despite workers’ skill and awareness, emotional factors are always present within the problem-solving context. This study clearly shows emotion as an integral part of learning that spans from the initial trigger event of a problem-solving incident through the creation of new knowledge.

Thus, participants in this study perceive the learning associated with prob- lem solving to be integral to their evolving sense of what it means to be a machine operator. As we have seen, this process of learning and development involves the self in ongoing dialogue with the task and the machine, as well as the broader community of practice of which they are becoming a part. These relationships and interactions are often emotion laden, and the making of meaning, learning, and identity development is inextricably bound up with the practice of problem solving. The everyday problem-solving contexts of frontline machine operators represent locations for important forms of infor- mal learning that contribute to the person’s emerging expertise and sense of self as a machine operator.

Theoretical Implications for HRD.Theories related to the process by which individuals learn in the workplace have contributed to our under- standing of informal learning as an activity that can be enhanced through reﬂection; as contextual due to the psychological, social, and cultural fac- tors with one’s environment; and as arising from experience and involvement within a community of practice. Hence, scholars have called for a more inte- grated view of work and learning (Torraco, 1999). The ﬁndings of this study strongly support the view that considerable learning and development occurs in and through the work that one does on the job. In particular, the machine operators readily recognized and freely described the problem-solving contexts as powerful locations for learning and development.

In addition to afﬁrming these various aspects of the interrelationship of learning and work, the results of this study suggest several additional dimensions of workplace learning that have received less attention in the HRD literature. As Kuchinke (2005) and Garrick (1998) suggest, the bulk of HRD research and theorizing is largely silent on the issue of the self in learning. In this study, however, the operators provided descriptions of problem solving in which the self of the worker plays a prominent role in the learning. As prior studies suggest, this sense of self is relational. The operators learned through their dialogical interactions with fellow workers and supervisors. But these results also suggest that dialogical relationships with one’s machine or task, as well as with one’s self, were important dimen- sions of the informal learning described by the machine operators. In addressing the issues that arose, they reported talking with their machines or with themselves, as if talking through the problem. For example, one HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq machine operator stated, “It [the machine] comes over and grabs this part.

But it’s very quiet about it. It doesn’t go ‘choooo,’ it doesn’t make that air release or anything like this you know. It’s sneaky about it.” The learning these operators described reﬂects a self in relation to others, to one’s self, and to the task or work at hand.

The machine operators described an experience of learning that is inher- ently subjective and, because of this point of view, affect laden. In contrast to commonly held views that emotions detract from or even prevent effective learning (Tennant, 1997), the experience of emotion often alerted the workers to the presence of a problem, focused their attention on the matter at hand, and served to guide their working through of the problem. One machine oper- ator, Larry, remembers the day when dust started ﬂying all over his building:

“I went in and I started programming it. . . . I looked around, dusty all the way to the side of the building. . . . Dust! . . . I said, my god, what am I going to do? What am I going to do? How do you shut this off! Quick! Quick!” For the operators in this study, emotionality seemed integral to their experience of the self and of learning within the context of work.

The centrality of the self in the learning process suggests that for these workers, learning involved more than just developing competence or exper- tise in the operation of their machine or in increased productivity. Their descriptions of these incidents clearly indicate that learning through problem solving contributed to their evolving sense of self as machine operators. Devel- oping relationships with fellow workers revolved around more than just a sense of shared expertise. Rather, these operators described a process through which they increasingly saw themselves as members of a community of prac- tice, of moving from the periphery of their community to a more central role (Wenger, 1998). In the words of one worker, learning to solve problems was their “signature,” a way to convey their sense of identity as a machine opera- tor. These descriptions of learning through problem solving reﬂect the inter- relationship of institutional processes of work and self-formation (Casey, 1995; Garrick, 1998; Kuchinke, 2005). For these operators, learning and develop- ing a sense of identity as a machine operator were intertwined, ongoing, and continuous.

Although much of the research and theory in HRD does not address questions of identity and identity formation, Turnbull and Elliott (2005) suggest that identity formation represents an important role of learning in organizations. While modest efforts in this area have been explored with managers, the HRD literature offers very little information as to the nature of these processes among frontline production workers, such as the machine operators in this study.

Practical Implications for HRD.The nature of learning within the problem-solving process as experienced by machine operators reﬂects both unique aspects of the individual operator deﬁned through his or her relation- ship with the task and the machine they operate and social relationships that Learning to Become a Machine Operator 215 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq 216 Brockman, Dirkx operators establish through their participation in communities of practice.

These complex sets of relationships intertwine and contribute to the individ- ual’s sense of expertise, self-authorship, and eventual identity as a machine operator (Welton, 1991; Wenger, 1998). This perspective on workplace learn- ing presents new and different challenges for the practice of HRD.

These ﬁndings underscore the need to explore planning frameworks that place more emphasis on the emergent and contingent nature of workplace learning, such as the framework suggested by Torraco (1999). These frame- works emphasize educative workplace experiences rather than speciﬁc behav- ioral objectives or competencies, collaboration among team participants, and sharing of expertise.

One of the most compelling challenges for workplace educators and HRD practitioners will be to help people and organizations coordinate and negoti- ate working knowledge, relationships, and practices of the workplace. Skule (2004) states, “Along with education and formal training, informal learning is seen as a key to corporate competitiveness as well as to employment and employability, and is thus recognized as a major target area for companies’ human resource policies . . .” (p. 8). Considerable value rests with rendering learning visible so that it can be consciously deployed in enhancing work and the quality of work life (Boud & Middleton, 2003).

These ﬁndings underscore the powerful inﬂuence that informal learning and social relationships play in a worker’s development of knowledge and expertise. Yet such learning often remains at odds with organizational practices that typically structure such learning tasks as problem solving through algo- rithmic and bureaucratic structures and procedures that delimit and constrain worker authority and learning. In this case, learning to effectively solve prob- lems within one’s work requires a recognition and integration of the experience and practical knowledge workers already possess with regard to problem- solving skills and the sociocultural contexts of their practice with the working knowledge required by their employers. Such a model of problem-solving train- ing resembles the integrated theme-based approach to teaching adults (Dirkx, 1996), which grounds the development of academic skills, life skills, and the processes of problem solving, learning-to-learn, and critical thinking within the context of particular thematic issues of importance to the learner.

The ﬁndings also suggest support for the importance of the emerging notion of the manager as a facilitator of learning (Ellinger, 2005) in the devel- opment of work-related expertise and occupational development. Whereas problems that occur on the job are often viewed as unwanted, managers and supervisors can in fact embrace problems as opportunities to capture learning opportunities. Conner (2004, p. 93) suggests that although informal learn- ing cannot be scheduled, one can “acknowledge, uncover, liberate, access, promote, jump-start, nurture, integrate, encourage, follow, and even cele- brate” informal learning. The informal learning of frontline workers is enhanced mostly through coworkers and managers or supervisors (Billett, 2001; HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq Eraut et al., 2003; Orr, 1996). The role of managers and supervisors is there- fore a critical component of the informal learning process.

Helping supervisors and managers understand and recognize the power of the work context in shaping learning, development, and identity forma- tion of frontline workers represents an important goal for HRD practice.

Critical to this role is the fostering of an appropriate degree of worker autonomy within the learning process, together with appropriate support (Torraco, 1999).

The ﬁndings of this study suggest that the learning experienced by the machine operators was more powerful when the workers perceived some sense of autonomy and responsibility in the problem-solving process and when they had access to experienced coworkers and supervisors to help them work through the problems they were confronting.

Finally, these ﬁndings reemphasize the critical importance of the social, relational, and dialogical context in the learning process. Individual workers might struggle with problems they encounter in addressing assigned work tasks, but they rely on the broader community of practitioners within their context to help them learn and work through these problems. Helping teams become better at these processes involves providing and facilitating opportu- nities for the team to periodically reﬂect on, assess, and debrief their processes.

Individual and team dynamics, processes, and development are intimately bound up with one another (Smith & Berg, 1997). Fostering the learning and development of the individual requires attention to the learning and develop- ment of the team as well.

While these do not necessarily represent new ideas for HRD practice, they demonstrate avenues of practice that receive considerably less attention from both researchers and practitioners compared with more formal, systematic, and intentional efforts. Taken seriously and adopted on a widespread scale, such implications would have profound effects on both the professional preparation and practice of workplace educators.

Future Research.Problem-solving contexts represent one important loca- tion for informal learning, but other contexts of the workplace need to be uncovered and their contribution to learning and development made more explicit. Since the apparent divide between worker and management no longer captures what people do at work, major issues for future research should con- sist of modifying practices that rely on this divide or other outmoded images of work (National Research Council, 1999). Changing the images of work and going beyond abstract arguments about learning, knowledge, and skill require detailed and rich description and data reported from direct experiences of workers. Workers on the front line have experienced an unprecedented change in the way they work. Although it is important to continue to conduct research on the managerial or professional level, we must also pay an equal amount of attention to the frontline worker.

Many current training programs do not align with the reality of how machine operators learn their craft. Therefore, experiential teaching methods Learning to Become a Machine Operator 217 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq 218 Brockman, Dirkx need further study and evaluation. The current concept of experiential learning and teaching explores the cyclical pattern of all learning from experience through reﬂection, and conceptualization to action, and then again to further experience (Beard & Wilson, 2002). Training experiences need to go beyond developing the requirements for routine workplace activities to develop the attributes required to respond to the nonroutine tasks likely to be encountered in the workplace.

References Andrew, M. (1998). The dilemmas of experiential teaching: Toward an interpretive approach.

Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 29 (2), 73–78.

Applebaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg P., & Kalleberg, A. L. (2000).Manufacturing advantage: Why high performance work systems pay off.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Beard, C., & Wilson, J. P. (2002). The power of experiential learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Beckett D., & Hager, P. (2002).Life, work, and learning: Practice in postmodernity.London:

Routledge.

Berg, C. A., & Klaczynski, P. A. (1996). Practical intelligence and problem solving: Searching for perspectives. In F. Blanchard-Fields & T. M. Hess (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive change in adult- hood and aging(pp. 323–357). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Billett, S. (1993). What’s in a setting? Learning in the workplace. Australian Journal of Adult and Community Education, 33 (1), 4–14.

Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace.Crows Nest, Australia: Allen and Unwind.

Boud, D., and Garrick, J. (1999). Understanding learning at work.New York: Routledge.

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (1996).Using experience for learning.Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (Eds.). (1999). Understanding learning at work.New York: Routledge.

Boud, D., & Middleton, H. (2003). Learning from others at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15 (5), 194–203.

Broad, M. (1997). Overview of transfer of training: From learning to performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10 (2), 7–21.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18,32–42.

Casey, C. (1995). Work, self and society: After industrialism.London: Routledge.

Chell, E. (1998). Critical incident technique. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative meth- ods and analysis in organizational research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clark, A. (1998). Born of incidents but thematic in nature: Knowledge construction in practicum settings. Canadian Journal of Education, 23 (1), 47–62.

Conlon, T. J. (2004). A review of informal learning literature, theory and implications for practice in developing global professional competence. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28 (2–4), 283–290.

Conner, M. (2004). Informal learning: Developing a value for discovery. In M. Goldsmith, H.

Morgan, & A. Ogg (Eds.),Leading organizational learning(pp. 91–102). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Coyle, H., & Ellinger, A. (2001).Learning beliefs and strategies of female entrepreneurs: The importance of relational context in informal and incidental learning. Paper presented at the Twenty- Seventh AHRD Conference, Tulsa, OK.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Day, N. (1998). Informal learning gets results. Workforce, 77(6), 30.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq Dirkx, J. M. (1996). Human resource development as adult education: Fostering the educative workplace. In R. W. Rowden (Ed.), Workplace learning: Debating ﬁve critical questions of theory and practice (pp. 41–47). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Educational Development Center. (1998).The teaching ﬁrm: Where productive work and learning converge.Newton, MA: Center for Workforce Development.

Ellinger, A. D. (2005). Contextual factors inﬂuencing informal learning in the workplace setting:

The case of “Reinventing Itself Company.” Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16 (3), 389–415.

Eraut, M., Maillardet, F., Miller, C. Steadman, S., Ali, A., Blackman, C., & Furner, J. (2003, April).

Learning in the ﬁrst professional job: The ﬁrst year of full time employment after college for accoun- tants, engineers and nurses.Paper presented at the Eighty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Fenwick, T. (2001). Tides of change: New themes and questions in workplace learning. In T.

Fenwick (Ed.),Sociological perspectives on learning through work(pp. 3–18). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51 (4), 327–358.

Foley, G. (1998). What about the workers? Informal learning in workplace change. In J. McIntyre & M. Barrett (Eds.), VET research: Inﬂuencing policy and practice. Proceedings of the National Con- ference of the Australian VocEd and Training Research Association. Alexandria, Australia: Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association.

Foley, G. (1999).Learning in social action: A contribution to understanding informal education.

London: Zed Books.

Foxx, R. M., & Faw, G. D. (2000). The pursuit of actual problem solving behavior: An opportu- nity for behavior analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 10,71–81.

Garrick, J. (1998). Informal learning in the workplace: Unmasking human resource development.

London: Routledge.

Gagné, G. (1980). The conditions of learning.New York: Holt.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence: Strategies for qualitative research.New York: Bantam.

Holton, E. (2000). Making transfer happen: Managing and changing learning transfer systems.

In E. Holton, T. Baldwin, & S. Naquin (Eds.), Advances in developing human resources (pp. 23–35). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Hycner, R. H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.),Qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jannings, W., & Armitage, S. (2001). Informal education: A hidden element of clinical nurse con- sultant practice. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 32 (2), 54–59.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (4), 63–85.

Kahney, H. (1993). Problem solving: Current issues. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Kuchinke, K. P. (2005). The self at work: Theories of persons, meaning of work and their impli- cations for HRD. In E. Elliott & S. Turnbull (Eds.), Critical thinking in human resource develop- ment(pp. 140–154). London: Routledge.

Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping.

In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context(pp. 67–94).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Leslie, B., Aring, M., & Brand, B. (1998). Informal learning: The new frontier of employee and organizational development. Economic Development Review, 15 (4), 12–18.

Livingstone, D. W. (2001).Basic patterns of work and learning in Canada: Findings of the 1998 NALL survey of informal learning and related statistics Canada survey. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Learning to Become a Machine Operator 219 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq 220 Brockman, Dirkx Livingstone, D. W., & Sawchuck, P. H. (2003).Hidden knowledge: Organized labor in the informa- tion age. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littleﬁeld.

Lohman, M. C. (2003). Work situations triggering participation in informal learning in the work- place: A case study of public school teachers.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16 (1), 40–54.

Marsick, V. J. (2003). Invited reaction: Informal learning and the transfer of learning: How man- agers develop proﬁciency. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14 (4), 389–395.

Marsick, V. J., & Volpe, M. (1999). The nature and need for informal learning. Advances in Devel- oping Human Resources, 3, 1–9.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1990).Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. London:

Routledge.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory(pp. 25–34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Martinez, M. E. (1998). What is problem solving? Phi Delta Kappan, 79 (8), 605–609.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago:

University of Chicago.

Moran, L. (2003). A case study of informal learning among production team workers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (02), 370. (University Microﬁlms No. 3080067) National Research Council. (1999).The changing nature of work: Implications for occupational analysis.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Orr, J. E. (1996). Talking about machines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2002).Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Payne, J. (2000). Local perspectives on globalization and learning: A case study of the printing and packaging industry in South West England. In C. Symes (Ed.),Working knowledge produc- tive learning at work.Proceedings of the International Conference. Sydney, Australia: UTS Research Centre for Vocational Education and Training, University of Technology.

Quarter, J., & Midha, H. (2001).Informal learning processes in a worker cooperative.Toronto:

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Roth, W. (1997). Toward a new perspective on problem solving. Canadian Journal of Education, 22,18–32.

Rowden, R. W. (1996). Current realities and future challenges. In R. W. Rowden (Ed.), Work- place learning: Debating ﬁve critical questions of theory and practice(pp. 3–12). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Schön, D. (1983). The reﬂective practitioner.New York: Basic Books.

Scribner, S. (1997). Thinking in action: Some characteristics of practical thought. In E. Tobach, R. Falamagne, M. Parlee, L. Martin, & A. Kapelman (Eds.),Mind and social practice (pp. 319–337). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Senge, P. (1990).The ﬁfth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.New York:

Doubleday.

Siebert, K. W. (1999). Reﬂection-in-action: Tools for cultivating on-the-job learning conditions.

Organizational Dynamics, 27 (3), 54–65.

Skiba, M. (2000). A naturalistic inquiry of the relationship between organizational change and informal learning in the workplace.Dissertation Abstracts, 60 (7-A), 2581.

Skule, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: A framework to understand and assess informal learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8 (1), 8–20.

Smith, K., & Berg, D. (1997). Paradoxes of group life.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tennant, M. (1997).Psychology and adult learning (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Thomas, C. A. (2002, May 6). Get your hands dirty. Time,43.

Torraco, R. J. (1999). Integrating learning with working: A reconception of the role of workplace learning.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10 (3), 249–270.

Turnbull, S., & Elliott, C. (2005). Pedagogies of HRD: The socio-political implications. In E.

Elliott & S. Turnbull (Eds.), Critical thinking in human resource development(pp. 189–201).

London: Routledge.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2001). Demographic characteristics.Retrieved April 23, 2003, from http://www.bls.org.

Verespej, M. A. (1998). Formal training: “Secondary” education? Industry Week, 247,42–44.

Walker, A. R., & Marsick, V. J. (2001). A study of informal learning in the context of decision making. InAcademy of Human Resource Development 2001 Conference Proceedings.Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Welton, M. (1991).Toward development work: The workplace as a learning environment. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Woll, S. (2002). Everyday thinking.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Yelon, S. (1997). Medical fellows tell stories of application: A grounded theory on the dynamics of transfer. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10 (2), 134–155.

Julie L. Brockman is assistant professor in the School of Labor and Industrial Relations at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

John M. Dirkx is professor in the Department of Educational Administration at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Learning to Become a Machine Operator 221 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq