Journal of the Institute of Training and Occupational Learning Volume 1 No.1
ITOL, PO Box 69, Hazel Grove, Stockport SK7 4FR
ISSN 1469-977X
http://www.itol.co.uk
Out now
The aims and scope of the journal are: "…to promote issues and trends to those involved in the fields of training and development. This bi-annual, multi-disciplinary, learned journal publishes practitioner articles, academic research, conference papers and case studies."
On seeing the cover I confess to some pre-judging of the contents - I don't know what I was expecting but my first reaction was a feeling that, if it could speak, would have said, "this is going to be dull." However, I'm delighted to report that the journal does exactly what it says on the tin. It does promote issues and trends to those involved blah, blah, blah. There are eight contributions in this first issue and two of them in particular have set several mental hares running in my playing field, to such an extent that I'm at risk of being stirred to action.
The first: "Old? New? Borrowed? True? Some Questions about the rise of Emotional Intelligence". Given the current momentum of EQ it was intriguing to read some criticisms around the notion. More interesting were the reflections it provoked on how we, as a learning and development community, adopt and perpetuate new trends, ideas and products.
[Climbs onto soapbox]
This might reflect more upon where I spend my time but it seems to me that, in general, management and organisation development could do with more rigour. How is it that some half-arsed management models (personal opinion of course) continue to be used as major developmental planks in spite of having the depth and coverage of a fag packet? Others - for example Chris Argyris' body of work around defensive routines - continue as minority sports in spite of their potential to illuminate change and development strategies that make a difference instead of reinforcing the status quo.
[Returns to ground level]
So, the initiative from me is to invite comment. Am I just ranting or are there others who want to explore this sort of thing? Some sort of open space event is appealing, any takers?
The second contribution, "Is it useful to know your preferred learning styles?" provoked a few questions:
With reference to experiential learning, have you noticed how many trainers (I include myself) introduce it with a theoretical input?
What learning style preference do inventories appeal to?
Why is it that in Kolb's model of experiential learning the part of the process at 9 o'clock is called active experimentation - trying something out - but in Honey and Mumford's model it becomes planning next steps? To me, this small linguistic step takes us a long way from Kolb and what I consider to be the nature of learning.
There are many more but my hobby horse is looking as if it needs some rest.
In summary this journal has done the job as far as I'm concerned - I've been encouraged to think again about quite a few things I thought I already knew.
Jon Kendall
Director
Castleton Partners Limited
jon.kendall@castletonpartners.co.uk
