(Re) Interpreting Action, Learning, and Experience: Integrating Action Learning and Experiential Learning for HRD

• Author: Roland K. Yeo,Michael J. Marquardt
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21199
• Published date: 01 March 2015
• Date: 01 March 2015

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 26, no. 1, Spring 2015 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21199 81

(Re) Interpreting Action,

Learning, and Experience:

Integrating Action Learning and

Experiential Learning for HRD

Roland K. Yeo, Michael J. Marquardt

This article provides a comparative analysis and critique of action learning

(AL) and experiential learning (EL), identifying emerging conceptual

perspectives that contribute to human resource development (HRD). By

integrating AL and EL, we gain a deeper understanding of action, learning,

and experience, and how they are enacted based on the interplay of

contextual, experiential, and action orientations. Through an integrative

framework, we demonstrate that the interplay of cognition, behavior, and

context offers insight into how and why learning occurs at multiple levels.

The framework also recognizes the underlying dialectical forces that both

reinforce and contradict schema selection and action framing. Tensions

that facilitate and inhibit the grasping and transformation of experience

create the context for actors to translate ‘knowing’ into ‘becoming’. Critical

pathways that connect different phases of the learning cycle into coherent

patterns of organizing offer some implications for HRD research and

practice.

Keywords: action learning, experiential learning, context, critical

refl ection, mental models, HRD

Introduction

Organization members are expected to learn continuously but many are

often not aware of how learning actually occurs (Marsick & Watkins, 1990;

Raelin, 2000), why they experience learning differently from each other

(Fenwick, 2003a; Kolb, 1984), and what actions follow from learning in

82 Yeo, Marquardt

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

different contexts (Dewey, 1938; Revans, 1980). The purpose of this article

is to explore some of these issues and propose an integrative perspective of

action, experience, and learning by examining the relationship between action

learning (AL) and experiential learning (EL). These two learning processes are

chosen for several reasons. Firstly, the extant literature has not made much

explicit attempt in examining the relationship between AL and EL despite

their individual contribution to HRD research and practice. Secondly, there

are misconceptions of the two processes that could be realized if a deeper

analysis of their interrelation were considered. Thirdly, they could comple-

ment one another to help us understand how learning occurs within and

across contexts.

Both AL and EL have long been well researched; however, there is a lack

of consensus on their clarity in terms of how they operate in organizational

contexts and contribute towards organizational success (e.g. Brook et al.,

2012; Reynolds, 2009). While AL has been criticized for the lack of atten-

tion given to human emotion and power relations that could lead to learning

‘inaction’ (e.g. Trehan & Pedler, 2010; Vince, 2008), EL has been regarded as

a passive and inward-looking process (e.g. Kayes, 2002; Seaman, 2008). The

theoretical position of this article is therefore to offer a deeper understand-

ing of the concepts of action, learning, and experience, particularly how they

operate at different levels in organizations, by comparing, contrasting, and cri-

tiquing these two learning processes. In doing so, the article aims to develop

an integrative framework that illustrates the interplay of action, learning, and

experience that offers potential contribution to HRD research and practice.

The article therefore addresses the following questions:

1. How does the relationship of AL and EL contribute to a deeper

understanding of action, learning, and experience?

2. What are the implications of an integrated framework of action, learning,

and experience for HRD research and practice?

In answering the two questions, the article makes three contributions

to the learning literature. First, it demonstrates a clearer understanding of

context that facilitates and enables AL and EL, illuminating the process of

action, learning, and experience as operating at multiple levels. Comparing

and contrasting AL and EL helps us to see the workings of action, learning,

and experience as individual and intertwined processes in context. Critiquing

AL and EL further helps us to realize what AL and EL are not, and how the

underlying processes of action, learning, and experience could be integrated

to account for learning as occurring in different contexts. Current literature

views AL and EL in isolation without exploring how one could potentially

contribute to the understanding of the other in wider contexts.

Second, the article proposes an integrative framework of action, learn-

ing, and experience by not privileging either AL or EL; rather, this framework