Comparing CPE and HRD Programs: Definitions, Theoretical Foundations, Outcomes, and measures of quality.

Transcription

1 Sleezer et al. / COMPARING CPE AND HRD Comparing CPE and HRD Programs: Definitions, Theoretical Foundations, Outcomes, and Measures of Quality / ARTICLE Advances in Developing Human Resources February 2004 Catherine M. Sleezer Gary J. Conti Robert E. Nolan The problem and the solution. The fields of continuing professional education and human resource development each provide instruction that enables individuals to improve their work performance. However, the fields have different definitions, stakeholder outcomes,and measures of quality,so selecting one type of program rather than the other can greatly influence the instructional experience. This article focuses on how professionals in both fields can improve their practice by better understanding the fields definitions, theoretical foundations, outcomes, and measures of quality. Keywords: continuing professional education;human resource development; theoretical foundations; outcomes; quality In today s economy, where new jobs with higher skill requirements are quickly created and traditional ones with lower skill requirements simultaneously vanish, job and professional skills are viewed as a commodity. Those who purchase continuing professional education (CPE) and human resource development (HRD) programs that develop such skills often choose programs based on price, unaware of the very real but subtle differences between CPE and HRD. When purchasers make poor choices for their needs and are subsequently disappointed with the program results, they may view the fields of CPE and HRD as ineffective. However, it is difficult for CPE and HRD professionals to assist purchasers in wisely choosing between their programs because, as Roth (2004) in the first article of this issue points out, scholars and practitioners have traditionally focused on Advances in Developing Human Resources Vol. 6, No. 1 February DOI: / Copyright 2004 Sage Publications

2 Sleezer et al. / COMPARING CPE AND HRD 21 one field or the other. Most people understand their own field well but have a fuzzy understanding of the other field and lack a framework for communicating the similarities and differences between the fields. There is a needto explore the boundaries between the fields. Indeed, we feel that it is time to get down to the heavy-duty lifting of comparing CPE and HRD definitions, theoretical foundations, outcomes, and measures of quality. As a foundation for these comparisons, the expected future demand for CPE and HRD in the United States is first considered. U.S. demographic trends reveal that fewer new workers will be available to enter the workforce as the current baby boomers retire (Bernstein, 2002), so the nation s future economic growth depends on the ability of adult workers to achieve greater productivity. However, the United States faces a shortage of high-skilled workers (Judy & D Amico, 1997; Meeder & Cude, 2002). Indeed, the Hudson Institute forecast that only 20% of the current workforce will possess the required skills for 60% of all new jobs that are created in the 21st century (Judy & D Amico, 1997). High-skilled jobs that cannot be filled in the United States often move to other regions of the globe thereby creating economic threats for the United States. Thus, the demand in the United States for high-skilled workers is expected to continue and, in turn, fuel a sustained demand for programs that develop job and professional skills. Because CPE and HRD are major providers of such programs, it is critical to understand what each field really offers. We begin by defining the terms CPE and HRD. Defining CPE and HRD CPE and HRD are abstract and socially created concepts. In this section, each concept is explicitly defined and similarities and differences of thedefinitions are identified. Defining CPE CPE is a field of practice and study that is directed to the ongoing learning needs of professionals (Cervero, 2001). The purpose of CPE is to certify and improve professional knowledge and practice. Much of the foundational thinking for CPE was first introduced during the 1980s. For example, Houle (1980) described professionals as Men and women... deeply versed in advanced and subtle bodies of knowledge, which they apply with dedication in solving complex practical problems. They learn by study, apprenticeship, and experience, both by expanding their comprehension of formal disciplines and by finding new ways to use them to achieve specific ends, constantly moving forward and backward from theory to practice so that each enriches the other. Such people protect one another and are sometimes extended special protection by society far beyond that granted to other citizens. The price of pro-

3 22 Advances in Developing Human Resources February 2004 tection is vigilance against poor performance and unethical behavior, and that vigilance is exercised by the privileged person, by others of similar specialization, and by society. (p. 1) Cervero (1989) characterized professions as service- or community-oriented occupations that apply a systematic body of knowledge to problems that are highly relevant to the central values of society, and Schön (1983) stated, Professional activity consists in instrumental problem solving made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique (p. 21). As these descriptions highlight, professions define the social problems with which they deal and, by extension, actually define societal needs. For example, teachers decide the curriculum, and physicians decide both the diagnosis and the cure (Cervero, 1989). Although there is no consensus on the criteria that define a profession, a popular approach among adult educators is to consider all occupations existing on a continuum of professionalization (Cervero, 1989; Houle, 1980). Various views on the purpose of CPE exist, but the functionalist view has the deepest roots and the strongest following in America (Cervero, 1988, 1989). According to this view, the purpose of CPE is to help professionals provide higher quality service to clients by improving their knowledge, competence, or performance (Cervero, 1989, p. 518). In addition to helping professionals, CPE also plays the important role of certifying professional knowledge. Queeney (2000) identified three components of competent professional practice: (a) knowledge of a body of information, (b) the use of that knowledge in a skill, and (c) performance that applies the knowledge and skill within the context of practice. So, individuals engage in CPE to learn the changing knowledge in their professions (Knox, 1993), and certification publicly acknowledges this learning. Individuals then createnew knowledge by applying their learning and by constructing meaning through reflection about the lived experience of their practice (Daley, 2001; Fenwick, 2000). CPE relies on organized educational activities that are offered by a social institution and can be contrasted both with the informal learning that occurs beyond the authority of an educational institution and also with formal education that involves full-time study within state-certified school systems (Livingstone, 1999). Typically, CPE programs address the ongoing learning needs of professionals who have educational requirements that are regulated by an association (e.g., the American Medical Association) or a government agency (e.g., the Federal Aviation Administration). Certification acknowledges and communicates that the individual met the organization s established learning standards and, as such, serves to maintain the credibility of the profession. Furthermore, professions maintain and raise their standards, which benefits society. However, many individuals work in jobs that do not have CPE requirements regulated by either a professional association or a government agency (e.g., management and higher education faculty).

4 Sleezer et al. / COMPARING CPE AND HRD 23 Defining HRD Roth s (2004) article in this issue describes the lack of agreement on the definition of HRD. McLagan s (1989) frequently cited work defines HRD as the the integrated use of training and development, career development, and organizational development to improve individual and organizational effectiveness (p. 7). Sleezer and Sleezer (1997) operationally defined HRD as the study and practice of human interactions in organizations including interactions with processes, tools, systems, other humans, and even the self.... The goal of HRD is to understand the interactions, processes, and systems and to ultimately support and improve individual, process, and organizational learning and performance. (p. 185) Swanson and Holton (2001) stated that HRD is about adult human beings functioning in productive systems. The purpose of HRD is to focus on the resource that humans bring to the success equation both personal success and organizational success (p. 3). McLean and McLean (2001) positioned HRD more broadly as any process or activity that, either initially or over the long term, has the potential to develop adults work-based knowledge, expertise, productivity, and satisfaction, whether for personal or group/team gain, or for the benefit of an organization, community, and nation, or, ultimately, the whole of humanity. (p. 10) Notice that this definition extends the purpose of HRD to include developing satisfaction in addition to developing learning (i.e., developing knowledge and expertise) and performance (i.e., developing productivity). Recently, HRD has been defined as a national agenda that focuses on workforce development (Holton & Naquin, 2002). Today s global-knowledge economy provides an impetus for national HRD: The key source of competitive advantage, be it among regions or industries, is its intellectual capital that is, the knowledge embedded in its people (Kotkin & DeVol, 2001, p. v). Cho and McLean (2002) described how countries focus HRD on community development (e.g., Thailand), manpower development (e.g., Kenya), and national human resource development (NHRD) (e.g., South Korea). One definition of NHRD includes every effort, such as education, training, cultural activities, and institutional improvement at national and societal levels for the purpose of efficient development and utilization of national human resources (Cho & McLean, 2002, p. 255). Comparing this definition to the earlier McLagan (1989) definition reveals an expanded understanding of HRD. Comparing the Definitions of CPE and HRD CPE and HRD definitions reflect their historical roots. CPE is part of the adult education field, which clarified its foundational base in the 1960s and early 1970s and which grounds itself in the works of Houle, Knowles, and

5 24 Advances in Developing Human Resources February 2004 Cervero. However, as Roth (2004) points out, HRD is still grappling with this issue, and recent research indicates that a common core of foundational literature has not yet emerged (Peacock, 2003). Nevertheless, comparing the definitions of CPE and HRD reveals their similarities and differences. CPE and HRD programs share a similar emphasis: improving individual knowledge. Clearly, adult learning is central to the processes of both fields. When working with adults in any kind of learning situation, adult learning is at the heart of the practice. The more we know about adult learning, the more effective our practice in the classroom, in the workplace, or in our communities (Merriam, 2001, p. 1). Differences between CPE and HRD definitions are evident in the areas of purpose, focus, and improvement process (see Table 1). CPE serves the learning needs of professionals and by definition has an explicit purpose that HRD lacks: certifying professional knowledge. Also, CPE s improvement process relies solely on learning. By contrast, HRD s improvement process focuses on both learning and performance. Furthermore, HRD is not limited to improving individual knowledge and practice but, instead, seeks to improve satisfaction, learning, and performance across and within multiple levels of complex systems. For example, HRD improvements can be directed to the individual, the larger system, and also the meso area between the individual and the larger system where components and subsystems interact in complex ways (Fisher, 2000). In addition, CPE focuses on contributing to individual professionals, the professions, and society,whereas HRD focuses on the needs of professionals, nonprofessionals, and collective entities (e.g., work groups, organizations, communities, nations, and humanity). However, this simple categorization based on definitions gets complicated in the real world. HRD professionals often coordinate CPE offerings within their organizations, professional organizations offer their CPE programs to the public, and universities and independent for-profit providers offer programs that they market as both CPE and HRD. Also, some HRD programs certify professional knowledge, such as International Standards Organization 9000 training programs. The increased demand and funding for programs that develop job and professional skills contribute to the fields boundary expansions. Individuals now engage in more lifelong learning after their initial experience with postsecondary education (Meeder & Cude, 2002). Also, average employers in the American Society for Training and Development s (ASTDs) benchmark study increased their total training expenditures from 1.8% of payroll in 1999 to 2.0% in 2000 (ASTD, 2002). In 2001, U.S. organizations with more than 100 employees who participated in Training s annual survey (Galvin, 2003) planned to spend $56.8 billion in employee training with most expenditures targeted to exempt employees (e.g., professionals and managers).

6 Sleezer et al. / COMPARING CPE AND HRD 25 TABLE 1: A Comparison of the Purpose,Improvement Process,and Focus of Continuing Professional Education (CPE) and Human Resource Development (HRD) Programs Purpose Improvement process Focus CPE Programs To certify and improve professional knowledge and practice Learning Individual professionals, professions, and society HRD Programs To improve satisfaction, learning, and performance Learning and performance Individuals, work groups, organizations, communities, nations, and humanity The marketplace for job and professional skill development programs has grown increasingly lucrative and competitive. For example, higher education institutions are now reconstructing themselves as enterprises that compete in the knowledge and skills business (Edwards & Usher, 2000). Currently, professional associations, workplaces, independent for-profit providers, and institutions of higher education provide programs that develop job and professional skills. However, not all providers offer quality experiences. Swanson (1997) asserted that maintaining the present substandard conditions is lucrative for nonprofit professional organizations, for-profit providers of conferences and trade publications, publishers of books and media, circuit celebrities, and fad consultants. Furthermore, he observed that professional associations and pseudoprofessional development companies are often self-serving partners in a cycle of incompetence. The fields theoretical foundations, which are discussed in the next section, provide insight for differentiating among providers. Theoretical Foundations This section compares CPE and HRD theoretical foundations. Extra attention is devoted to individual learning theories because it is an area of commonality. Theoretical Foundations of CPE CPE is embedded in the field of adult education, which relies heavily on Knowles (1970) theory that presents the individual learner as one who is autonomous, free, and growth-oriented (Merriam, 2001, p. 7). The best known, foundational theory of adult learning is andragogy (Merriam & Caffarella, 1991). Andragogy, which was originally proposed by Knowles

7 26 Advances in Developing Human Resources February 2004 (1970), is the art and science of helping adults learn (p. 38). This learner-centered approach to the teaching-learning transaction relies on using the adult s vast reservoir of experiences to address real-life problems. Andragogy provides an important learning foundation for the field of adult education, but some have questioned its application in specific contexts (Merriam, 2001). CPE professionals also rely on other learning theories, such as behaviorism and cognitivism, expanding more recently to situated cognition and transformational learning. CPE research has concentrated on the individual characteristics of professionals and professional knowledge. For example, some recent dissertations have studied such personal factors as attitudes toward continuing education and deterrents to participating in continuing education (Burkey, 2002; Hughes, 2002), decision-making preferences (Hulderman, 2003), and learning-strategy preferences (Birzer, 2000). Studies have shown that an individual s attitudes are a consistent predictor of intentions to participate in CPE (Becker & Gibson, 1998). As Houle (1980) noted, Every memberofaprofession...hasadistinctivestyleoflifelonglearninginfluenced by an individual background, a unique combination of character traits, and the special circumstances of his or her immediate environment (p. 77). This style is apparent when a professional links new knowledge from CPE activities to personal practice and creates new meaning. Furthermore, the new meaning directly relates to the nature of the professional s work (Daley, 2001). Thus, CPE theory and research are concerned with the individual learner. Theoretical Foundations of HRD Roth (2004), in the first article of this issue, discusses HRD s disciplinary foundations. In this section, an overview of some important categories of HRD learning and performance theories is presented. First is the category of individual learning. Swanson and Holton (2001) identified five metatheories of learning on which the HRD profession relies behaviorism, cognitivism, humanism (which is manifested in andragogy and self-directed learning), social learning, and constructivism and they emphasized the importance of behaviorism and cognitivism to their definition of HRD. HRD professionals who rely on behaviorism and cognitivism emphasize rewards, the stimuli that learners receive from the environment, the systematic observation of behavior, and relating new information to previous learning. HRD professionals also rely on theories of individual performance (cf. Gilbert, 1978), theories that describe or predict the learning and performance within a larger system (cf., Rummler & Brache, 1995; Watkins & Marsick, 1993), and theories that focus on the meso area (cf., Fisher, 2000;

8 Sleezer et al. / COMPARING CPE AND HRD 27 Gradous, 1989). They also use theories that offer guidance in change processes (e.g., instructional design and organization development theories). Comparison of CPE and HRD Theoretical Foundations Theoretical foundations shape the CPE and HRD fields. CPE professionals develop learning programs that rely on theories of individual learning (e.g., andragogy). Examples include continuing medical education programs that help physicians maintain current and achieve higher levels of expertise, continuing legal education programs that assist attorneys in learning about new tax laws, and continuing education programs for social workers that address their concerns for interpersonal relations (Knox, 1993). By contrast, HRD professionals rely on theories that shed light on the knowledge, actions, and interactions that occur when individuals contribute to a larger organization or collective entity. For example, a printing firm s HRD program guided management trainees to first use systems theory in analyzing their firm s reward structure and the barriers it created for learning and applying new behaviors and then to work collaboratively in changing the structure. The differences in CPE and HRD theories, especially when combined with the fields purpose, have led CPE professionals to concentrate on the individual learner and HRD professionals to concentrate on individual actions and interactions within a larger collective entity. CPE and HRD Outcomes CPE and HRD are educational processes that produce outcomes. The following sections overview and then compare the outcomes of CPE and HRD programs. CPE Outcomes True to its foundational roots, CPE views outcomes in terms of the benefits to the individual professional that, in turn, contribute to the profession and society. Basic program planning models in adult education were developed from the Tyler (1949) model that has dominated the practice of American schooling since the late 1940 s (Houle, 1980, p. 226). Modifying the Tyler model, the classic adult education program plans of Houle (1972) and Knowles (1970) both included rediagnosis as the final stage. The purpose of this stage is to reinforce the notion that learning is a continuing process (Knowles, 1970, p. 43). During the final stage, results are measured and

9 28 Advances in Developing Human Resources February 2004 appraised. They are examined in terms of the possibility of a new educational activity (Houle, 1972, p. 55). Although the rediagnosis can be used to determine if specific programs will be repeated or to modify programs, the central focus is on whether the learners acquired the content, skills, and expertise and, if they did not, to determine what needs to be done to assure that they accomplish their learning goals. Ultimately, CPE aims to develop reflective practitioners who use unexpected situations to think in novel ways. In this process, they appreciate the nature of the problem, reframe it, and construct a new reality for dealing with it. Reflective practitioners acquire new knowledge for future actionas they reflect upon their responses to these situations (Schön, 1987). For example, Daley (2001) found that professionals acquire new information and then practice it within a context: Transferring information to practice was essential to the process of meaning making because often, in this process of using information, the professionals again changed what the information meant to them based on what they observed (p. 50). Therefore, CPE outcomes focus on helping professionals acquire knowledge, internalize it, and use it to reflect on their experiences. CPE certification that reflectsstandardized levels of job and professional skill acquisition is also an outcome of CPE and communicates to the larger society the status of a profession. HRD Outcomes HRD programs are funded with the expectation that they will benefit the larger system (e.g., the organization or nation). Financial and nonfinancial outcomes can result, but financial outcomes are usually the top priority today. Furthermore, HRD programs can produce both anticipated and unanticipated outcomes for the larger system, the components of the system, and the entities with which the system interacts. To illustrate, a firm s training program can provide employees with new skills that increase their individual productivity, financially benefit the firm, improve the employees quality of life, and contribute to the tax base and quality of life in the community where the firm resides. Summarizing Similarities and Differences in CPE and HRD Outcomes CPE and HRD programs aim for different outcomes: CPE programs aim to improve the individual professional s expertise, and HRD programs aim to improve the larger organization or collective entity. However, both CPE and HRD programs produce outcomes at one level of a system that, in turn, change performance at other levels. CPE programs produce more highly

10 Sleezer et al. / COMPARING CPE AND HRD 29 skilled, reflective practitioners who, in turn, benefit the profession and society. HRD programs produce learning and performance at various levels within complex productive systems to affect learning and performance at other levels. Judgments of Quality Thatisanoutstandingprogram...orisit? Thissectionexamineshow judgments of quality are made for CPE and HRD programs. Judging CPE Quality CPE program evaluation can reflect various frames of reference. Evaluation can (a) measure the results of an educational activity, (b) assess the extent and quality of the abilities developed by professionals, or (c) estimate the overall level of performance of an entire profession (Houle, 1980). Most of these measures focus on the individual. For example, the results of a formal educational activity can be evaluated by measuring the extent of participation, the level of learner satisfaction with the activity, the degree to which a learning plan was accomplished, or the amount of improved performance (Houle, 1980, pp ). Likewise, the results of a total educative process can be evaluated by measuring the contribution that the professional, either individually or as part of a group, makes to the overall profession (Houle, 1980, p. 252). Improving a profession involves interweaving quality controls with continuing education activities (Houle, 1980, p. 269). In CPE, certification reflects judgments of quality. Certification can assess individual learning and a CPE program s contribution to that learning. It can also reflect on the entire profession because it communicates the profession s required standards for learning. Judging HRD Quality HRD program quality is usually judged by the golden rule: The person with the gold makes the rule. Indeed, those who fund HRD programs evaluate effectiveness when they decide to continue, change, or abort a program. Such evaluations usually focus on the benefits to the larger collective entity (e.g., the organization or nation) and can occur before and/or after an HRD program is implemented. In deciding whether to implement an HRD program, decision makers can rely on negotiations, explanations of how the program will instrumentally improve performance, and forecasts of costs and benefits. After a program has been implemented, measures of satisfaction, learning, and performance are common. Individual workers also mea-

11 30 Advances in Developing Human Resources February 2004 sure program quality when they determine their level of commitment to an HRD program. However, the evaluation criteria used by the funders and the participants of HRD programs often vary and, furthermore, are seldom explicitly communicated. Variations in HRD program quality are problematic for the field. Estimates that 50% of HRD efforts are ineffective are common. When quick-fix, faddish programs fail to make lasting, positive impacts on performance, they absorb resources and can leave the larger system in a diminished competitive position. However, purchasing the most effective, least costly, research-based HRD products and services is a daunting task. To be successful, decision makers must access literature on the topic of interest that is written in research-based jargon, and they must have the requisite time and expertise to review and synthesize the information (Bassi, 1998). Instead, many decision makers base their purchasing decisions on vendor materials from mailings and conferences, which may be biased, inaccurate, or misleading. Comparing CPE and HRD Quality Judgments In summary, judgments of CPE program quality are usually made toward the end of a program and emphasize how the individual professionals use the learning. By contrast, HRD program funders judge quality before and/or after an HRD program is implemented and focus primarily on benefits to the larger organization or collective entity. HRD program participants judge quality when determining their own levels of commitment. Conclusions This comparison of CPE and HRD programs reveals areas of similarity and differences. One clear area of similarity is the shared emphasis on adult learning. Adult learning always takes place in some type of context, which for CPE and HRD professionals is the workplace or community. For both CPE and HRD, the acquisition of job and professional skills is a learning process that is internal to an individual and that is applied externally in a workplace or community setting. CPE emphasizes the individual learning, and HRD emphasizes the links between the internal learning and the external environment. The internal and external natures of learning in CPE and HRD are yoked concepts. Yoked concepts are ideas that are so integrally linked that they pull together simultaneously as a team (Forrest, 2002). Although they work together like oxen in a team, each has its own unique characteristics that contribute to the team effort, and each can be viewed from this perspective. A lack of understanding by either member of the pair can prevent the two from pulling together effectively. Therefore, a beginning step to improving

12 Sleezer et al. / COMPARING CPE AND HRD 31 practice is for educators to understand the assumptions and principles that guide their work, examine whether they are the most useful ones, and change them when necessary (Cervero, 1988). When these same educators are members of a yoked pair, they also must understand the assumptions and principles of the other member. For example, additional synergy between CPE and HRD can be gained by recognizing their added contributions to job and professional skill development: CPE emphasizes the individual s learning process, and HRD emphasizes the context for learning and performance. Each profession (e.g., medicine, law, social work, etc.), workplace, or community contributes the specific content for learning. As described earlier, individuals and organizations in the messy world of practice are now integrating CPE and HRD. Furthermore, such integrations are likely to increase in response to the continued high demand for job and professional skill development programs. So, CPE and HRD scholars now need to move beyond determining what the boundaries of the fields should be to researching what the messy boundaries actually are. Specifically, research is needed that describes effective strategies that practitioners currently use to integrate CPE and HRD efforts, the theoretical foundations that underlie such strategies, their outcomes, and their measures of quality. Finally, CPE and HRD practitioners and scholars must exercise vigilance against poor performance and unethical behavior in their own professions. In today s competitive economy, continuous job and professional skill development has moved front and center on the national stage bringing with it great financial rewards for the providers of CPE and HRD programs and also questionable behaviors on the part of some. Therefore, CPE and HRD professional associations need better mechanisms for quickly differentiating innovative practices with the potential for success from charlatan get-rich-quick practices. This issue of Advances in Developing Human Resources makes an important contribution in sharing the advanced and specialized knowledge of CPE and HRD. Similar efforts are needed. To keep fit, we must continue the invigorating exercise of exploring our fields. References American Society for Training and Development. (2002). State of the industry report. Retrieved July 2, 2002, from Bassi, L. J. (1998). Connecting research and practice through the ASTD research committee: Staying relevant in an electronic world. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4), Becker, E. A., & Gibson, C. C. (1998). Fishbein and Ajzen s theory of reasoned action: Accurate prediction of behavioral intentions for enrolling in distance education courses. Adult Education Quarterly, 49(1),

13 32 Advances in Developing Human Resources February 2004 Bernstein, A. (2002, May 20). Too many workers? Not for long [Electronic version]. Business Week Online, 3783, Birzer, M. L. (2000). Learning strategies utilized by police officers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. Burkey, C. H. (2002). Attitudes and deterrents of Oklahoma funeral directors in charge towards continuing education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. Cervero, R. M. (1988). Effective continuing education for professionals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cervero, R. M. (1989). Continuing education for the professions. In S. B. Merriam & P. M. Cunningham (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cervero, R. M. (2001). Continuing professional education in transition, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(1/2), Cho, E., & McLean, G. N. (2002, October). National human resource development: Korean case. Paper presented at the First Asian Conference of the Academy of Human Resources Development, HRD in Asia: Trends and Challenges, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, India. Daley, B. J. (2001). Learning and professional practice: A study of four professions. Adult Education Quarterly, 52(1), Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (2000). Modern field and postmodern moorland: Adult education bound for glory or bound and gagged. In D. Wildemeersch, M. Finger, & T. Jansen (Eds.), Adult education and social responsibility, Vol. 36 (pp ). New York: Peter Lang. Fenwick, T. J. (2000). Expanding conceptions of experiential learning: A review of the five contemporary perspectives on cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(4), Fisher, S. R. (2000). A multilevel theory of organizational performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. Forrest, S. P. (2002). American democracy and adult learning theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. Galvin, T. (2003). The 2003 Training top 100. Training, 40(3), Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gradous, D. (1989). Systems theory applied to human resource development. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development. Holton, E. F., III, & Naquin, S. S. (Eds.). (2002). Workforce development: A guide for developing and implementing workforce development systems [Special issue]. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(2). Houle, C. O. (1972). The design of education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Houle, C. O. (1980). Continuing learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hughes, B. J. (2002). Continuing professional education in athletic training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.

14 Sleezer et al. / COMPARING CPE AND HRD 33 Hulderman, M. A. (2003). Decision-making styles and learning strategies of police officers: Implications for community policing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. Judy, R., & D Amico, C. (1997). Workforce 2020: Work and workers in the 21st century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute. Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education. Chicago: Association Press Follett. Knox, A. B. (1993). Strengthening adult and continuing education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kotkin, J., & DeVol, R. C. (2001). Knowledge-value cities in the digital age. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Institute. Livingstone, D. W. (1999). Lifelong learning and underemployment in the knowledge society: A North American perspective. Comparative Education, 35(2), McLagan, P. A. (1989). The models. A volume in models for HRD practice. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press. McLean, G. N., & McLean, L. D. (2001). If we can t define HRD in one country, how can we define it in an international context? Human Resource Development International, 4(3), Meeder, H., & Cude, R. L. (2002). Building a competitive workforce for the new economy. In C. M. Sleezer, T. L. Wentling, & R. L. Cude (Eds.), Human resource development and information technology: Making global connections (pp ). Boston: Kluwer. Merriam, S. B. (2001). The new update on adult learning theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Peacock, J. A. (2003). The most influential literature of human resource development: An exploratory descriptive study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. Queeney, D. S. (2000). Continuing professional education. In A. Wilson & E. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Roth, G. (2004). CPE and HRD: Research and practice within systems and across boundaries. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(1), Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987). Education the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sleezer, C. M., & Sleezer, J. H. (1997). Finding and using HRD research. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton (Eds.), HRD research handbook: Linking research and practice (pp ). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Swanson, R. A. (1997). TADDS short (Theory Application Deficit Disorder). Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(3),

15 34 Advances in Developing Human Resources February 2004 Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systematic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Catherine M. Sleezer is a professor in human resources/adult education at Oklahoma State University where she conducts research and teaches human resource development (HRD) courses. Her presentations and published works focus on using HRD research and theory to improve workplace learning and performance practices. Gary J. Conti is a professor of adult education at Oklahoma State University. He hasservedaseditorofadult Literacy and Basic Education and as chair of the steering committee for the Adult Education Research Conference. He has worked extensively to conduct research and deliver educational programs in Hispanic and Native American communities. He has also developed instruments for measuring teaching style and learning strategies and for identifying learning strategy preferences. Robert E. Nolan is an associate professor of adult and continuing education at Oklahoma State University. His research interest is in adult basic education with emphasis on second-language learning and cultural adaptation. Sleezer, C. M., Conti, G. J., & Nolan, R. E. (2004). Comparing CPE and HRD programs: Definitions, theoretical foundations, outcomes, and measures of quality. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(1),