Wpl in Malaysia

International Journal of Training and Development 9:1ISSN 1360-3736

62

International Journal of Training and Development

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148,USA.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Oxford, UK and Malden, USA

IJTDInternational Journal of Training and Development1360-3736Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005March 2005

9

16278Articles

Workplace learning in Malaysia: the

learners perspective

r

Department of Professional Development & Continuing Education, Faculty of Educational Studies,Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.

Workplace learning in Malaysia: the learners

perspective

Mazanah Muhamad and Khairuddin Idris

This paper offers a scenario of workplace learning as practicedin Malaysia. Based on survey research, the article describeslearner profiles, learning provision and pattern. The analysisshows that Malaysians participate in formal workplace learn-ing as part of their employment activities. Workplace learningin Malaysia is contextual, promoted by the political-economicagenda of a nation aspiring towards fully developed status.Workplace learning is also affected by factors such as learnerssocio-cultural, economic and psychological status, andemployers role and support.

Introduction

Located in Southeast Asia, Malaysia is made up of Peninsular West Malaysia, borderedby Thailand to the north and Singapore to the south, and East Malaysia, located onBorneo Island. About 80 percent of the nations population of 25.45 million resides inWest Malaysia. Malaysia is a democratic country that has undergone tremendousgrowth and prosperity over the last two decades. After 47 years of independence fromthe British, it is currently one of the most developed countries in Southeast Asia.Malaysia is a multiracial society consisting of 60.7% Malays, 25.3% Chinese, 7.4%Indians and 6.6% other ethnicity. The population is religiously diverse, with Islam,Buddhist, Hindu, Christian and other faiths represented. Native Malays are typicallyMuslim; Islamic values and beliefs influence their culture heavily. Most Chinese areTao Buddhists. Indians are predominantly Hindu. Malaysia has a young population,with a median age of 23.9 years (Government of Malaysia, 2001). Life expectancy is71 years for males, 76 years for females (Department of Statistics, 2004).

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

Workplace learning in Malaysia: the learners perspective

63

Agriculture was the dominant sector of the economy until about 20 years ago. Sincethen, the thrust of the Malaysian economy has shifted to industrialization. The coun-trys gross domestic product (GDP) is MYR 418,044 million (1 USD

=

MYR 3.80). MYRdenotes Malaysian Ringgit, the Malaysian currency. Malaysias main export is elec-trical and electronic products. The average income of the population is MYR 2,472monthly (Government of Malaysia, 2001). At that wage, Malaysia is moving towardsbecoming a middle class society. Political stability, as well as economic and socialenvironment, has contributed to the countrys progress.

Malaysia aspires to be a fully developed nation by 2020. Towards that end, thegovernment has deemed human resource development the primary thrust for nationaldevelopment, as reflected in various policies, programs, and strategies. One suchstrategy is the promotion of workplace learning, as highlighted by the establishmentof the Human Resources Development Fund. Workplace learning is defined as effortsthat workers undertake to acquire knowledge, skills and attitudes. Despite the gov-ernments promotion of workplace learning, little is known about the practice. Whoparticipates in workplace learning? Who provides learning opportunities? How doeslearning take place? Why should employees participate in workplace learning? Whatare appropriate learning outcomes and challenges? What influences learning prac-tices? To inquire into workplace learning practices, specifically addressing the abovequestions, the Malaysian government awarded a grant to a group of researchers fromUniversity Putra Malaysia, under the Intensified Research in Priority Areas (IRPA)program. This article presents the findings of the nationwide survey. It is part of alarger study that examines adult and lifelong learning practices from the learnersperspective in various spheres: workplace, institutions of higher learning, community,and informal self-directed learning efforts.

The following section examines the existing workplace learning context in Malaysia.This section is followed by a literature review on workplace learning, research meth-odology, findings and discussion, and the conclusions and implications of the study.

The context: human resource development agenda

Human resource development is a key strategy in Malaysias development effort. Thisgoal is manifested in their education and training agenda. Othman (2001) reviewededucation and training agendas in Malaysia from the 1960s through the 1990s. Duringthat time, the government implemented seven five-year plans. In the 1960s, educationand training were geared toward nation building and economic development; agricul-ture, industrial science and technology were the main foci. In 1971, Malaysia intro-duced the New Economic Policy (NEP), a long-term planning effort (20 years) aimedat eradicating poverty and restructuring society in order to benefit from equitableparticipation in social and economic development. During the 1970s, education andtraining were aimed at preparing human resources for the implementation of the NEP.

According to Othman (2001), in the 1980s Malaysia geared education and trainingtoward consolidation, embedding efficiency as a variable in meeting manpowerrequirements to achieve the objectives of NEP. The country progressed from anagricultural-based economy to one based on manufacturing activities. Soft skillsbecame an important dimension in the development of the labor force in the 1990s. Toachieve balanced and equitable development, the NEP was followed by the NationalVision Policy (NVP) in 1991. One policy introduced in the NVP addresses the develop-ment of Malaysia into a knowledge-based society. In 1990, the concept Vision 2020was introduced to guide the country toward becoming a united and developed nationby 2020.

Currently, Malaysia is executing the 8th Malaysia Plan or 8MP (20012005). TheEighth plan will incorporate the strategies; program and projects designed to achievethe NVP objectives of growth and strengthen economic resilience as well as create aunited and equitable society (Government of Malaysia, 2001: 3). The policies andstrategies of the 8MP are aimed at achieving sustainable growth and resilience. Theplan addresses challenges resulting from increased globalization and liberalization, as

64



well as the rapid development of technology, especially information and communica-tion technology (ICT). During this period, the thrust of human resource developmentwill be the creation of a strong human resource base to support the developmentof a knowledge-based economy and enhance productivity and competitiveness(Government of Malaysia, 2001: 150).

Competition at global and regional levels is expected to intensify following theimplementation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the ASEAN Free Trade Area(AFTA) and the intensification of bilateral initiatives. To meet global competition,domestic industries need to enhance their productivity, efficiency and innovation.According to the 8MP document, Rapid technical changes and the need to enhancecompetitiveness required employers in all sectors to retrain and upgrade skills of theirworkers (Government of Malaysia, 2001: 150). To finance training, the coverage of theHuman Resources Development Fund (HRDF) was expanded.

The HRDF is a regulation enacted by the Malaysian government that mandatesemployers in the private sector to contribute 1% of their total salary emolument to thefund. The Human Resources Development Berhad, the trustee to HRDF, promotes theretraining and upgrading of private sector employees (in line with business needsand the national economy). Employers may claim rebates for their employees partici-pation in training programs. Between 1993 and February 2004, the HRDF Berhadrecorded 8603 registered employers that contributed to a levy collection of MYR1,373,106,562, and payments of grants of MYR 957,964,219. In this period, there were4,015,653 approved training places for a total of MYR 1,640,3341,514 in various trainingschemes (Ministry of Human Resources, 2004). Formal training programs for publicsector employees are carried out by employers and by private training providers(Azillah & Mazanah, 1999). Many public training providers were set up, and otherformal workplace learning programs initiated, as allocated by the government underthe human resource development program. One of the most established public train-ing institutions in Malaysia is the National Institute of Public Administration (INTAN).This institutes mission is to develop human resources in the public sector through theprovision of quality training (National Institute of Public Administration, 2002).

The above review of government legislation, policies and programs highlightsMalaysias commitment to strengthening human development efforts through educa-tion and training. These efforts include long-term plans such as the NEP and NVP,and short-term five-year plans (1MP to 8MP). These plans are evidence of the nationspolitical will to promote workplace learning as a strategy for becoming a knowledge-based economy, and enhancing productivity and competitiveness.

Literature review

This section examines some theoretical perspectives on workplace learning. Theseinclude desirable elements such as collective, experiential, self reflective and con-textual learning. A case study on local workplace learning serves to provide anotherperspective on this process in practice.

The changing workplace, stiff competition and environmental changes requireworkers to be highly competent and adaptable. Technological advances, especiallyin ICT, have changed traditional notions of the workplace. Todays work environ-ment has become more virtual and technology dependent. Workers are expectedto be highly competent in dealing with the tools of their trade, and with differentcultures. According to Matthews (1999), A workplace is understood to include thephysical location, shared meaning, ideas, behaviors and attitudes which determinethe working environment and relationships. Argyris and Schon (1978) observe thatorganizations are working within an environment marked with instability. Hence,learning must be continuous, not periodic or irregular. Adult education has becomea prominent focus in the age of the dynamic workplace. Training and development,human resource development, re-education, retraining and retooling are some of theterms echoed in organizations striving to upgrade the knowledge and skills of theirworkers.



65

Learning is always situated in a certain context, for example, a workplace (Illeris &Associates, 2004). According to Senker and Hyman (2004), learning at, through, andfrom work has always taken place. This workplace learning refers to the efforts thatemployees undertake to acquire and share knowledge. Garavan

et al.

(2002: 61) defineworkplace learning as a set of processes which occur within specific organizationalcontexts and focus on acquiring and assimilating an integrated cluster of knowledge,skills, values and feelings that result in individuals and teams refocusing and funda-mentally changing their behaviour. Workplace learning can thus be interpretedas context-based and culturally bound. What an individual learns is defined by therequirements of their tasks within the organization.

Raelin (1997), Watkins (1995; 1996), Marsick and Watkins (1990) and Resnick (1987)assert that work-based learning is context-based. The authors distinguish betweendifferent forms of learning, namely

formal, informal

and

incidental

. Formal learning isgenerally organized by the institution for its workers. Training programs, mentoring,and programs that promote the pursuance of a certificate are examples of formallearning. Informal learning takes place outside a formal institutional setting. Incidentallearning is usually unintentional (generally a byproduct of an activity). This canhappen when one learns from mistakes, or gains insights while performing a task.

Collective learning

The promotion of collective learning activities is one way that an organization canexploit the knowledge of individual workers. Workers engaged in collective learningreformulate their concepts, and put them into practice. Raelin (1997), Watkins (1996),Marsick and Watkins (1990) and Resnick (1987) view learning in the workplace as asocial activity. Individuals within a group learn collectively when they are able to sharewhat they know. In their study, Marsick and Watkins (1990) found that managers dobetter when they work in teams and make shared decisions. Watkins (1996: 91) main-tains that organizational learning becomes significant when learning is a collective,interdependent experience.

Experiential, self reflective and learning in context

In their discussion of action learning, Marsick and Watkins (1990) reflect on the rela-tionship between experience and learning. Learning is enhanced when a task at handis combined with reflection and group interaction. They maintain that people are likelyto jump to conclusions when a problem is put to them. By reflecting and doing groupwork, problems tend to be reformulated, allowing individuals to view problems innew ways. As such, solutions can be brought to another level, potentially addressingthe real or underlying problem.

Experience alone may not be enough to solve problems in the ever-changing work-place. Resnick (1987) distinguishes between formal school learning and out-of-schoollearning. She points out that school learning is individualized, as contrasted to thesocial learning of work. School learning consists mainly of pure thought activities,as opposed to tool-related work activity. Further, school learning is merely symbolicwhen compared to the reality of work, and is inherently general, while work issituation-specific. It can thus be concluded that learning in schools does not fulfill therequirements of work, as such learning is detached from the reality of the outsideworld. Of particular concern is the fact that work-related training programs are usingclassroom models of teaching, resulting in detached and generally non-applicableknowledge. This is a problem in the ever-changing workplace, as people may not beable to work around breakdowns or unanticipated problems.

Darrah (1995) shares this opinion of the inadequacy of learning organized awayfrom the workplace. In a case study he found that workers did not benefit fromtraining classes a company organized. However, workers clearly learned powerfullessons through daily life on the production floors (Darrah, 1995: 40). Problems areinevitably encountered in the workplace. Workers may discover that they do not have

66



the capacity to solve a problem, especially if the problem is something they have neverseen before. Further, the solution to a problem may not exist at the organizational level.Such a problem can serve as a jolt that triggers workplace learning.

For people to be able to solve problems, they need what Resnick (1987), quotingGentner and Stevens (1983), describes as a mental model of the system. Workers needto understand the working parts of a system and how these parts relate to each other.More often than not, understanding of a system, in particular how the individual fitsinto it, is typically something that people have to learn for themselves (usually infor-mally or incidentally).

Considering the dynamism and complexity of the workplace, workers may concept-ualize their positions and practice them. This entails the identification of parts, suchas the nature of tasks and their purposes. By understanding the parts, self-understandingcan be developed through experimentation. By manipulating tasks, workers candetermine what works and what works best. Continued practice in doing what worksbest provides the experience necessary to reinforce knowledge. As Raelin (1997)points out, this knowledge, for all intents and purposes, remains tacit in nature. Itbelongs solely to the individual worker. Reflection is required to make this knowledgeexplicit, so that it can be shared and disseminated at the collective level.

A case study of local workplace learning

In a study of Malaysian companies involved in foreign ventures, Khairuddin (1999)found that a globalizing Malaysian company needed five categories of knowledge:

1. Technical and industry appropriate for business.2. Management systems appropriate to local conditions.3. Local customs and culture.4. Partner relations and collaboration.5. Global business mindset.

Senior executives conveyed three modes of learning:

learning from experience, scanning

and

networking.

Hands-on work and learning from mistakes were essential. Peoplelearned by scanning through reading, benchmarking and walking the streets. Theynetworked with peers and counterparts to learn about globalization. Sharing anddissemination of information occurred through personal interaction, formal trainingand conferences, and an organizational mechanism. This mechanism included elec-tronic media such as telephones and Intranet, and procedures such as reports, gatewaycommittees and task analyses.

In general, the literature reviewed indicates that workplace learning is organization-ally situated. How individuals learn is linked to the situational nature of the orga-nization. In todays rapidly changing and multi-tasked working environment,pinpointing learning content can be difficult, as needs can change quickly and dra-stically. Learning must be continuous, and encompass both formal and informalapproaches. Workplace learning need not be task specific in nature, as all types of con-tent may be beneficial given the ever-changing demands of work. Of course, deter-mining appropriate amounts, types and levels of learning and training can be extremelydifficult. Most estimates tend to under-report the total amount of workplace learningoccurring in an organization (Riddout

et al.

, 2002). Informal learning is generally under-represented, as reports emphasize formal learning activities such as training.

Methodology

Residents of Peninsular Malaysia 21 years old and above comprised the study popu-lation. The adult population was defined as Malaysians of voting age. Three thousandadults were sampled, as specified by the research sponsor. Sampling utilized a nationalframe from the Malaysian Statistics Department. Four states (Kedah, Selangor, Treng-ganu, and Malacca) were randomly selected, respectively representing the northern,



67

central, eastern and southern zones of Peninsular Malaysia. Districts were furtherrandomly sampled for each state. 750 respondents were sampled from each state.Stratified sample selection was conducted according to the countrys social economicprofile (gender, ethnicity, age, and urban/rural). Respondents for each stratum wererandomly sampled.

Guided by the research questions, a questionnaire was custom developed from theliterature reviewed. The draft instrument was improved based on feedback from 11respondents. The instrument was pre-tested on 32 respondents, and then analyzed forreliability. Questions on workplace learning sought information on respondent demo-graphics and socio-economic profiles, learning providers (who, where), program fea-tures (duration, what and how they learn), and learning motive, impact and challenge.Questions on learning motive had a 34-item scale. The instrument also sought tomeasure psychological attributes such as self-esteem and attitudes towards learning.Self-esteem was assessed with 24 items guided by the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale(2001). Questions on learning attitude had a 10-item scale. The instrument used aLikert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Trained enumerators collecteddata by personally interviewing respondents at their homes. Each interview tookabout 30 minutes. Enumerators recorded responses on the questionnaire, and latertransferred the responses onto Optical Mark Reading (OMR) forms for scanning anddatabase storage. Data were analyzed for descriptive and inferential statistics usingthe SPSS program. In total, valid responses were obtained from 2262 respondents.

Findings and discussion

This section reports and discusses the studys findings on workplace learning (whichforms only one of Malaysian adults learning spheres). The study shows that 1318(58.27%) of the 2262 adults (21 years old and above) surveyed were working. Thisfigure is slightly less than that reported in the 8RM mid-term review (Government ofMalaysia, 2004). According to that report, the proportion of the population in theworking age group 1564 in 2003 was 62.7%. This discrepancy may be due to twofactors: a different category of respondents, i.e. 21 years old and above for the presentstudy and 1564 years old for the 8RM; and the study data were collected at respon-dents homes on working days, not in the workplace, so those who were working maynot have been included.

Learner profile

Demographic and socio-economic profile

Workplace learning activities may be conducted by organizations at the workplace, oroutside the work premises. Of 1318 working respondents, only 340 (25.79%) reportedparticipating in any form of workplace learning in the last year. By ethnicity, there washigher participation by native Malays (24.75%) and Indians (24.07%) (Table 1). Partic-ipation in workplace learning by women was slightly higher than that of men (Table 1).This suggests that both genders have almost equal access to workplace learning.

Most participants in workplace learning were between 21 and 50 years old; par-ticipation seemed to decrease with age. Generally, Malaysians have to retire at 56,especially in the case of public employees. The data imply that workplace learningparticipants were those in active employment. A majority (280 respondents, or 82.35%)had at least completed high school (O-level or A-level equivalent), compared to only117 respondents (34.4%) with tertiary education. Participation seemed to increase withthe level of education. In the United States, all the National Longitudinal Survey datafrom 1970 to 2000, as well as Panel of Income Dynamics from 1976 to 1993 indicatemore learning at work by respondents who have completed more schooling (Stern

et al.

, 2004). In Norway, Skules (2004) survey of 1300 employees also revealed thateducation is an important pathway to what he refers to as learning intensive jobs.

Participation in workplace learning was higher for individuals proficient in English(Table 1). Participation in all spheres of adult education higher learning institutions,

68



workplace and community tends to be higher for those proficient in English(Mazanah

et al.

, 2003). Although Bahasa Malaysia is the national language, multi-ethnic Malaysians speak different languages. The second language, English (a coloniallegacy), is widely used as a medium of instruction, and in the private sector. Intodays globalized and technological world, more learning opportunities andresources are available in English. Therefore, individuals proficient in English have abetter chance of participating in workplace learning.

Participation in workplace learning is higher among full-time workers (Table 2).Public employees show the highest levels of participation (60.48%), implying greateravailable opportunities. Through various policies and programs, the government hasa significant amount of political power and budgetary allocation to implement itshuman resource development agenda (Government of Malaysia, 2001). For example,

Table 1: Demographic profile

Characteristics Numberworking

Numberparticipate

Percentage

RaceMalay 917 227 24.75Chinese 271 35 12.92Indian 108 26 24.07Others 22 2 9.09Total 1318 340 25.79

GenderMale 900 223 24.77Female 418 117 27.99Total 1318 340 25.79

Age2130 years 455 132 29.013140 years 346 104 30.064150 years 296 74 25.005160 years 165 29 17.58

>

60 years 56 1 1.79Total 1318 340 25.79

EducationNo schooling 57 0 0.00Primary school 261 21 8.05SRP/LCE/PMR (Middle school level) 214 39 18.22SPM/MCE/SPVM (O-level equivalent) 446 143 32.06STPM/HSC/STA (A-level equivalent) 53 20 37.74Diploma 113 49 43.36Degree 113 42 37.19Master 21 13 61.90PhD 1 1 100.00Professional certificate 27 9 33.33Others 12 3 25.00Total 1318 340 25.79

Language proficiency*English 631 229 36.29Bahasa Malaysia 1265 333 26.32Tamil 93 23 24.73Mandarin 256 33 12.89

* Respondent may be proficient in more than one language.



69

INTAN, the leading public employee training institution, trained 40,856 participants(or 260,430 participant days) in 2002 (National Institute of Public Administration,2002). Among job categories, participation is higher among executive/assistantexecutive positions (see Table 2). In the local context, officers (including educationofficers/graduate teachers), and executives are in the mid-level management andprofessional categories. Assistant officers and executives are at a junior level. Incomedata suggests that participation in workplace learning is accessible to all incomegroups. However, participation tended to increase with income up to the MYR 60,001to MYR 70,000 per annum bracket. In the public sector, employees in top managementor professional positions fall into this income bracket.

Psychological profile

Psychological attributes such as beliefs, values, attitudes and perceptions about oneself(or about learning) can affect participation in workplace learning activities. Cross(1981) viewed these attributes as crucial for participation. Darkenwald and Merriam(1982) identified them as dispositional barriers. Likewise, James (2003) found thatlow self-esteem could be a barrier to participation in learning. In the present study,respondent psychological profiles were assessed through self-perceptions of self-

Table 2: Employment status, job category and income

Characteristic Numberworking

Numberparticipate

Percentage

Employment statusSelf-employed 373 11 2.95Part-time worker 16 2 12.50Public employee 210 127 60.48Private sector employee 692 197 28.47Others 27 3 11.11Total 1318 340 25.79

Job categoryManager/Director/Principal/Chief

Executive56 14 25.00

Officer/Education Officer/Executive 87 47 54.02Assistant Officer/Junior Executive 35 23 65.71Others 373 72 19.30Not stated 767 184 23.98Total 1318 340 25.79

Income (MYR per annum)

1,00000 5 2 40.00Not stated 25 10 40.00Total 1318 340 25.79

70



esteem and attitudes towards learning. All respondents perceived themselves as pos-sessing positive self-esteem; the majority (86.2%) scored in the medium range (Table 3).The ANOVA test shows significant differences in reported self-esteem between differ-ent age and income categories. In terms of income, those that earned between MYR50,001 and MYR 60,000 reported the highest levels of self-esteem, as indicated by thehighest mean value (Table 4).

In general, participants indicated positive attitudes towards learning. A high major-ity (89.4%) reported a positive attitude, while the rest (10.6%) ranked themselves asvery positive. The ANOVA test shows significant differences in reported attitudestowards learning between different races (Table 5). A post hoc analysis using the Tukey

Table 3: Self-esteem

Self-esteem Frequency Percentage

Low 1 0.3Medium 293 86.2High 46 13.5

Total 340 100.00

Table 4: Self-esteem by age category and income

Characteristic Mean value F Significant

Age category 3.251 0.0122130 years 80.41673140 years 80.78854150 years 80.10815160 years 78.9310

>

60 years 104.00Income category in MYR per year 1.943 0.039

Less than RM5000 86.307750,00110,000 81.438610,00120,000 79.869220,00130,000 80.069430,00140,000 78.071440,00150,000 81.785750,00160,000 83.000060,00170,000 76.400070,00180,000 79.000080,00190,000 79.0000

>

100,000 74.50

n

=

340.

Table 5: Attitude towards learning by ethnicity

Race Mean value F Significant

Chinese 32.8571 2.864 0.037Indian 32.1154Malay 31.2455Others 31.5000



71

test indicated a significant difference between the Malay and Chinese groups(p

=

0.034), with Chinese reporting a more positive attitude towards learning.

Provision of workplace learning

The majority of respondents (75.9%) indicated that they do not bear any cost forparticipation in learning. Employers sponsored most workplace learning (58.2%), fol-lowed by government institutions (12.1%) and private institutions (7.4%). In line withnational human resource policy, public employers are allocated ample budgets forworkplace learning activities. Private employers may also utilize the HRDF. Numerouspublic and private training providers and sponsors are available to complementemployers efforts.

Figure 1 shows that most learning activities were provided on the organizationspremises, at the workplace/office or a training center. An earlier study on adulteducation providers in Malaysia showed that 72% of surveyed agencies had their owntraining facilities (Azizan, 2001). The establishment of training institutions, and theavailability of learning facilities, makes it possible for workplace learning to be carriedout onsite so that employees and employers can enjoy the associated advantages(Darrah, 1995). The present study shows that employers also organized training atother premises, and sent participants to offsite training centers.

Program features

Duration

Most learning activities were short term, ranging from less than a day to two weeks(Figure 2). According to the HRDF Berhad (2004), the average participant in 2002put in 20.86 hours. Most employees cannot stay away from work for longer periodswithout affecting job performance. Further, an adult learner has to fulfill many obli-gations; he or she has to find time for learning between work and family. Very fewrespondents reported the continuous learning recommended by Argyris and Schon(1978).

Content

Figure 3 shows content areas of workplace learning. Common content areas weretechnical skills, motivation, educational information & general knowledge, and infor-mation technology. Technical skills refers to operational competencies directly relatedto job requirements. According to a progress report on the 8MP, technical and qualityassurance/control courses constituted 36.7% of approved training places, and 33.3%of HRDF fund disbursement, during the reviewed period (Government of Malaysia,

Figure 1: Place of learning.

0102030405060708090

100

Employ

ersTra

ining C

enter

Workpl

ace/ of

fice

Other o

rganiza

tions tr

aining c

enter

Hotels

Public s

chools

Public C

olleges

Private

College

s

Private

training

instituti

on

Public U

niversiti

esOth

ers

Notrep

orted

Freq

uenc

y

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Perc

enta

ge

Frequency

Percentage

72



2004). A strong focus on educational information and general knowledge falls in linewith the national goal of developing K (knowledge) workers. The thrust on infor-mation technology is reflected in almost all government blueprints on human resourcedevelopment. In fact, the goal of a knowledgeable, highly skilled, computer literateand strongly motivated workforce was spelled out as early as the 7MP (Governmentof Malaysia, 1996). Azillah and Mazanahs (1999) study on employers and other train-ing providers showed that they contribute to this goal by offering programs in appro-priate content areas. Concentration on technical skills and information technology isconsistent with literature stressing the importance of learning that addresses thechallenges of an ever-changing workplace (Raelin, 1997; Watkins, 1995, 1996; Marsick& Watkins, 1990; Resnick, 1987).

Learning method and media

The highest percentage of respondents who participated in workplace learningreported that they attended didactic lecture or talk sessions. A talk (locally referredto as a ceramah) is an instructor-led short presentation on a topic or issue, followedby a question and answer session. Next were workshops (working meetings to achievecommon goals), short-term courses or training sessions, seminars/conferences/sym-posia, and so on (Figure 4). A similar frequency of methods was reported by trainingproviders (Azillah & Mazanah, 1999).

The learning media used for workplace learning were overhead projectors, comput-ers, and whiteboards (Figure 5). This is consistent with the findings of an earlier study

Figure 2: Learning duration.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

< 1 da

y

1-3 da

ys

4-7 da

ys

1-2 w

eeks

3-4 w

eeks

1-3 m

onths

4-6 m

onths

6-12 m

onths

1-2 ye

ars

Conti

nuou

s

Not re

porte

d

Freq

uenc

y

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Perc

enta

ge

Frequency

Percentage

Figure 3: Program content.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Tech

nical

skills

Motiv

ation

/ Self

Impro

veme

nt

Educ

Inform

ation

& G

en kn

owled

ge

Inform

ation

tech

nolog

y

Busin

ess /

finan

ce

Engin

eerin

g / ar

chitec

ture

Comm

unica

tion /

lang

uage

Healt

h

Socia

l skill

s

Relig

ion

Arts

/ cult

ure

Sport

s / re

creati

onOt

hers

Freq

uenc

y

05101520253035

Perc

enta

ge

Frequency

Percentage



73

of training providers (Azizan & Bahaman, 2001). Generally, the availability of com-puter facilities is in line with the governments ICT policy (Azillah & Mazanah, 1999).Overall, data on method and media imply that workplace learning is structured andformal. Few respondents reported informal learning modes, such as observation anddiscussion. Numerous authors, such as Raelin (1997) and Resnick (1987), have impliedthe limitations of formal learning.

Learning motives, impact and challenge

Adults participate in learning activities for various reasons. Merriam and Caffarella(1999) reviewed studies on adult learning motives and participation models. Arshads(1993) study of 456 Malaysian public employees attending training at INTAN identi-fied ten motivational factors. Adanans (1998) research on teachers pursuing furtherstudy revealed seven factors. The present study identified seven motives:

1. To acquire knowledge.2. To meet workplace requirements.3. For social welfare (to serve others and community).4. To meet personal goals or interests.5. To socialize.

Figure 4: Learning method.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Lectu

re/tal

k

Work

shop

Cours

e

Semi

nar/c

onfer

ence

/symp

osium

Prac

tical

Demo

nstra

tion

Disc

ussio

n

Obse

rvatio

n

Field

visit

Freq

uenc

y

05101520253035

Perc

enta

ge

Frequency

Percentage

Figure 5: Learning media.

020406080

100120140160180200

OHP Computer White

board

Audio

visual aids

Video LCD TV VC OthersD

Freq

uenc

y

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Perc

enta

ge

Frequency

Percentage

74



6. To meet external expectations, wishes or directives from employers.7. To get away from work routines or alleviate boredom.

Table 6 displays the motives ranking. Most of these motives are consistent with thoseidentified by Arshad (1993) and Adanan (1998). The motive of acquiring knowledgeis also consistent with the findings of Garavan

et al.

(2002).According to Azillah and Mazanah (1999), from the perspective of providers, most

training served to meet the goal of organizational effectiveness. In other words, anorganizations main concerns are with productivity and profitability. These concernsare implied in participants responses with regard to learning impact. Learningimpacts such as enhanced work quality (62.9%) and increased knowledge (37.4%) inFigure 6 are congruent with organizational intent. The mid-term review of the 8MPreported an increase in productivity (as measured by value added per employee)for all industries except selected services sub-sectors for 20012003 (Government ofMalaysia, 2004). As well as work benefits, accreditation and financial return, employ-ees also gained self-satisfaction and chances to socialize from workplace learningactivities.

The majority (72.6%) of participants in workplace learning reported employer sup-port. This included time off for participation and travel, advances on financial needs,and availability of workplace facilities and equipment. These findings are congruentwith those on learning impact. It can be deduced that employers support workplacelearning in order to benefit from more knowledgeable and productive workers. Skuleand Reichborn (2002) reported that support and encouragement from managementpromote learning through work.

Table 6: Learning motives

Learning motive Mean value* Rank

Acquire knowledge 4.3746 1Work requirement 4.3352 2Social welfare 4.1349 3Personal goal 4.1258 4Social relationship 3.8123 5External expectation 3.7233 6Escape/stimulation 3.3333 7

* Scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Figure 6: Learning impact.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Increa

sed w

orkpro

ducti

vity/q

uality

Increa

sed k

nowle

dge

Beco

memo

reop

enmi

nded

Self-s

atisfac

tion

Award

ed a

degre

e/cert

ificate

More

socia

lizing

oppo

rtunit

ies

Oppo

rtunit

y to p

rovide

servi

ce

Increa

sed i

ncom

e

Kept

abrea

st wit

h curr

ent a

ffairs

Impro

ved s

ocial

status

Othe

rs

Freq

uenc

y

010203040506070

Perc

enta

ge

Frequency

Percentage



75

The majority (74%) of participants did not report any workplace learning con-straints. A few reported issues such as time constraints (5.3% reported inadequate timefor learning or busy/heavy workload), difficulty in understanding (3.2%), monotony(2.6%), and lack of concentration (2.1%). These are common challenges for adultlearners.

To summarize, the survey found that about a quarter of the study group participatedin formal workplace learning. All ethnic groups, and both genders, had access toworkplace learning. Participation was higher among younger, better educated, higherincome workers, consistent with the profile of a typical adult learner (Merriam &Caffarella, 1999). Individuals proficient in English were more likely to take advantageof workplace learning opportunities. Participation was higher among full-timeemployees, especially those in the public sector, and in mid-level management andprofessional job categories. Workplace learning participants tended to display highself-esteem and positive attitudes towards learning. These psychological attributessupport Crosss (1981) description of factors that promote participation. Participationin workplace learning seemed to be influenced by learners socio-cultural, economicand psychological situations.

The majority of Malaysian employers provided and supported workplace learning.Most workplace learning was carried out within the environment of the organization,and was generally formal, structured, and short term. Conventional methods suchas didactic and instructor-led strategies were used widely. Common content areasincluded technical skills, motivation, work-related educational information/generalknowledge, and information technology. Generally, present data on workplace learn-ing provision and features is consistent with the findings of an earlier study (Azillah& Mazanah, 1999). Employees are most likely to participate in workplace learning inorder to acquire knowledge and skills to fulfill work requirements. Thus, workplacelearning contributes to increased productivity and quality. Learning provision,program features, and learning motives and impact suggest that formal workplacelearning in practice is in line with Malaysias political-economic thrust, specificallyits human resource development agenda.

Conclusions and implications

Malaysians participate in formal workplace learning as part of their employmentactivities. From the learner perspective, learning is contextual, promoted by thepolitical-economic agenda of a nation aspiring towards fully developed status. Work-place learning is affected by factors such as learners socio-cultural, economic andpsychological status, and employers role and support. The notion of workplace learn-ing as a function of organizational productivity supports Merriam and Brocketts(1998) contention that one major purpose of adult learning is work-related and orga-nizational effectiveness. Political and economic imperatives direct the agenda of train-ing and development in Malaysia. However, there are limitations to workplaceproductivity when learning is viewed as a process of skills acquisition at all stages oflife development. Ideally, learners should be proficient in thinking, doing, and dealingwith life tasks and problematic situations. Hence, the challenge of workplace learninglies in preparing workers to acquire higher-order skills, life enrichment, and risk takingto become proficient in non-routine and frontier skills. In a rapidly changing work-place, these competencies are imperative.

Workplace learning in most organizations tends to be formal in nature. Even ifemployees participate in informal workplace learning activities, these activities are nottypically recognized as learning. When informal learning is not reported as a trainingand development activity, it is not given appropriate emphasis. Moreover, an organi-zations tendency to focus on formal learning activities may result in an unequaldistribution of resources. Organizations may provide funds, facilities and time off fromwork for training and other formal learning activities, inadvertently de-emphasizingcollective learning activities. Formal learning activities in the form of training aresometimes conducted off-site. As such, workers may find it difficult to adopt and

76



readily apply new learning content (Darrah, 1995). The need to justify training fundsmay also result in learning that is directly related to work requirements and workperformance (such as technical skills identified in the present study). Little emphasishas been placed on enhancing work-life quality (health management, interpersonalrelationships, communication and general improvement of work and home life).Understandably, while such programs cannot be linked directly to higher work per-formance, they nevertheless may contribute to the development of a quality workforce.

The extensive use of English in training programs, especially technical courses, maymarginalize workers who are not proficient in English. Malaysian organizations maywant to consider developing more courses conducted in the national language, BahasaMalaysia, or seek to improve the command of English among workers. While formallanguage courses could address these needs, the situated context of language use mustbe taken into account. Workers may learn English informally if they are encouragedto use it in everyday conversations that are free from skepticism and ridicule. As such,organizations should try to develop a culture that promotes the use of English.

It is very important for employees to be permitted to experiment with ideas. Mis-takes in the workplace should be viewed as a part of daily work, and errors consideredopportunities for learning. The ever-changing nature of work necessitates a workplacelearning approach. While technical training can improve routine operations, it maynot assist workers when creativity and adjustments are required. Similarly, the com-plexity of the organization demands that workers be able to identify and solve prob-lems holistically. Thus, workers need to understand the workplace and its systems,such as culture and embedded knowledge.

Organizations need to commit to facilitating all forms of workplace learning. Bypromoting a learning culture, organizations encourage workers to make tacit knowl-edge explicit. Through social processes, this knowledge can be disseminated to itscommunity of practice. This beneficial mode of informal learning is not evidenced inthe present study. Learning can be done on an individual basis, but it is enhancedwhen workers have the opportunity to reflect and receive feedback. The sharingof information contributes to an organizations knowledge about its internal andexternal environment, better equipping workers to deal with complex and ambiguoussituations.

From a research standpoint, the utilization of a framework that can account for allforms of learning that contribute to a holistic perspective on workplace learning assuggested by Skule (2004) is warranted. Although informal learning constitutes themost important way of acquiring and developing competencies at work (Illeris andAssociates, 2004; Skule, 2004), the present study only captured formal learning.However, an earlier qualitative study by Khairuddin (1999) did record other facets ofworkplace learning in Malaysia, the

informal

and

incidental

. There is a need for furtherresearch that can more adequately reveal the reality of workplace learning in differentcontexts and situations.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of other research team members:Adanan Mat Junoh, Azizan Asmuni and Mazalan Kamis. They would also like tothank Othman Omar, Sharan B. Merriam and two anonymous reviewers for helpfulcomments on earlier drafts of this article.

References

Adanan, M. J. (1998),

Motives and motivation of teachers towards distance learning

. UnpublishedM. S. thesis, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, Serdang.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. A. (1978),

What is an organization that it may learn? Organizationallearning: A theory of action perspective

. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Arshad, H. (1993),

Correlates of public employees: Motivational orientations and motivation towardsin-service training in Malaysia

. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti PertanianMalaysia, Serdang.



77

Azillah, A. and Mazanah, M. (1999), Adult and continuing education provider: Training andconsultation. In M. Mazanah (ed.),

Trends & challenges in adult and continuing education inMalaysia

(pp. 1728). Serdang: University Putra Press.Azizan, A. (2001), Resources for adult learning. In M. Mazanah & Associates,

Adult and continu-ing education in Malaysia

(pp. 6584). Hamburg and Serdang: UNESCO Institute for Educationand University Putra Press.

Azizan, A. and Bahaman, A. S. (2001), Methods and techniques in adult learning. In M. Mazanah& Associates,

Adult and continuing education in Malaysia

(pp. 11023). Hamburg and Serdang:UNESCO Institute for Education and University Putra Press.

Cross, K. P. (1981),

Adults as learners: Increasing participation and facilitating learning

. San Francisco:Jossey Bass.

Darkenwald, G. G. and Merriam, S. B. (1982),

Adult education: Foundations of practice

. New York:HarperCollins.

Darrah, C. (1995), Workplace training, workplace learning: A case study,

Human Organization

,

54

, 3141.Department of Statistics Malaysia (2004), http://www.statistics.gov.myGaravan, T. N., Morley, M., Gunigle, P. and McGuire, D. (2002), Human resource development

and workplace learning: Emerging theoretical perspectives and organizational practices,

Journal of European Industrial Training

,

26

2/3/4, 6071.Gentner, D. and Stevens, A. C. (eds) (1983),

Mental Models

. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Government of Malaysia (1996),

Seventh Malaysia Plan, 19962000

. Kuala Lumpur: PercetakanNasional Malaysia Berhad.

Government of Malaysia (2001),

Eighth Malaysia Plan, 20012005

. Kuala Lumpur: PercetakanNasional Malaysia Berhad.

Government of Malaysia (2004),

Mid-Term Review of the Eighth Malaysia Plan 20012005

, http://www.epu.jpm.my/Bi/dev_plan/eighthmp/mtr/mtr.htm

Human Resource Development Berhad (PSMB) (2004), http://www.hrdnet.com.myIlleris, K. and Associates (2004),

Learning in working life

. Copenhagen: Roskilde UniversityPress.

Khairuddin, I. (1999), Organizational learning experiences in Malaysian firms moving towardglobalization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.

James, K. (2003), How low self-esteem affects adult learners.

Adult Learning

,

14

, 5, 2426.Marsick, V. J. and Watkins, K. E. (1990),

Informal and incidental learning in the workplace

. London:Routledge.

Matthews, P. (1999), Workplace learning: developing a holistic model.

The Learning Organization

,

6

, 1, 1829.Mazanah, M., Mazalan, K. and Adanan, M. J. (2003), Bahasa Melayu versus English: A love-hate

relationship? In I. Davidson, D. Murphy and B. Piette (eds),

Proceedings of the 33rd AnnualConference of SCUTREA

, Bangor: University of Wales, 1505.Merriam, S. B. and Brockett, R. G. (1998),

The profession and practice of adult education: An intro-duction

. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Merriam, S. B. and Caffarella, R. S. (1999),

Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide

(2nd edn).San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Ministry of Human Resources (2004), http://www.mohr.gov.myNational Institute of Public Administration (INTAN), Malaysia (2002),

Annual Report, 2002

.Kuala Lumpur: National Institute of Public Administration.

Othman, O. (2001), What adults learn. In M. Mazanah and Associates,

Adult and continuingeducation in Malaysia

(pp. 85109). Hamburg and Serdang: UNESCO Institute for Educationand University Putra Press.

Raelin, J. A. (1997), A model of work-based learning.

Organization Science

,

8

, 56378.Resnick, L. B. (1987), Learning in school and out.

Educational Researcher

,

16

, 9, 1320.Riddout, L., Dutneal, R., Hummel, K. and Selby Smith, C. (2002),

Factors influencing the imple-mentation of training and learning in the workplace

. Adelaide: NCVER.Rosenberg, F. (2001),

The Rosenberg self-esteem scale

, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/grad/socpsy_rosenberg.html

Senker, P. and Hyman, J. (2004), Editorial.


,

8

, 1,37.

Skule, S. (2004), Learning conditions at work: A framework to understand and assessinformal learning in the workplace.


,

8

, 1,820.

Skule, S. and Reichborn, A. N. (2002), Learning-conducive work. A survey of learning conditions inNorwegian workplaces, Cedefop Panaroma series: 30 (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publica-tions of the European Communities).
http://www.statistics.gov.myhttp://http://www.hrdnet.com.myhttp://www.mohr.gov.myhttp://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/grad/

78 International Journal of Training and Development Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

Stern, D., Song, Y. and OBrien, B. (2004), Company training in the United States 19702000: Whathave been the trends over time? Paper presented at the conference Workplace learning fromthe learners perspective, Learning Lab Denmark, Copenhagen, November.

Watkins, K. E. (1995), Workplace learning: Changing times, changing practices. In W. F. Spike,(ed.), Workplace learning: New directions for adult and continuing education (pp. 316). NewDirections in Adult and Continuing Education, No. 68. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Watkins, K. E. (1996), Of course organizations learn. In R. W. Rowden (ed.), Workplace learning:Debating five critical questions of theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Documents

Wpl in Malaysia