Search results

The demand for evidence‐based health practices has created a cultural challenge for Indigenous people around the world. This paper reports on the history and evolution of evidence‐based care into its mainstream status within the behavioural health field. Through the leadership of an Alaska Native tribal organisation, an international forum was convened to address the challenges of evidence‐based practice for Indigenous people. Forum participants developed a model for gathering evidence that integrates rigorous research with Indigenous knowledge and values. The model facilitates development of practices and programmes that are culturally congruent for Indigenous people, accepted and validated by the research community, and deemed supportable by private and governmental sponsors.

Indigenous populations and communities around the world confront historical, cultural, socioeconomic and forced geographic limitations that have profound impacts on mental wellness. The impacts of colonialism and, for some indigenous populations, forced residential schooling and the resulting loss of culture and family ties, have contributed to higher risks of mental illness in these groups. In addition, there are barriers to healing and mental wellness, including inconsistent cultural competence of mainstream mental health professionals, coupled with the limited numbers of indigenous mental health professionals. The Wharerata Declaration is a proposed framework to improve indigenous mental health through state‐supported development of indigenous mental health leaders, based on a new indigenous leadership framework. Developed by the Wharerata Group (original membership noted in the acknowledgements section at the end of this article), the framework will be presented for support to the member countries of the International Initiative for Mental Health Leadership (IIMHL) in 2010.

The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe a model of group learning, examine variables that stimulate a group to learn and determine the group's readiness to learn, and provide suggested interventions to enhance group readiness to learn.

This practical paper, based on a model of group learning and recent group, learning, and systems literature, examines what triggers groups to learn and what makes groups ready to learn, and then suggest interventions to enhance group readiness to learn. Learning requires that the group recognizes variables that trigger learning. These may be pressures or opportunities from outside the group or encouragement and direction from group members. In addition, the group needs to be ready to learn when the triggers occur. Readiness to learn is a function of the group's maturity, boundary permeability, and learning orientation.

Based on a review of the literature and the model, the paper suggests ways to diagnose learning triggers and readiness and propose interventions to increase general readiness to learn as well as the group's readiness to learn as the group is forming, when the group makes progress, and as the group concludes its work. Finally, the paper presents a case to demonstrate learning triggers and the importance of readiness to learn.

This paper fulfills an identified need by managers in organizations regarding understanding group learning, what triggers it, and how to enhance group readiness to learn and offers practical help to stimulating a group's readiness to learn.

The aim of this study is to analyze a framework of team learning that includes three learning processes (adaptive, generative, and transformative), factors that stimulate these processes, and consequences of them. The variables provided a field study of the model.

In the field study, 69 project teams of 3 to 11 students and their instructors responded to surveys.

Positive learning stimuli were related to adaptive and generative learning processes, while negative stimuli were related to transformative learning processes. Learning processes were related to individual student learning outcomes. In addition, adaptive and generative learning processes were positively related to team and instructor ratings of outcome quality, while transformative learning was negatively related to team ratings of outcome quality.

The results were subject to the following limitations: cross‐sectional design, mostly self‐report measures, and the lack of control endemic to field research. As such, this study is viewed as an initial test of the team‐learning model in a field setting. Additional research, including longitudinal designs and experimental designs, are called for.

This study adds to the growing literature on group learning. Educators and managers need to be aware that there are different kinds of learning processes in which groups can engage and that these are stimulated to occur differently and have a different impact on outcomes.

Team learning is rarely assessed directly as a construct in its own right and there is a lack of empirical support delineating causes and consequences of team learning. This field study is a first step in this direction.