本文以这一批判分析为主题，对“行动学习者有效学习者”这一课题进行了研究。在他的研究已经确定了一些个人经验的作用此外作者还发现在他的研究中的一些问题，如参与学习的注意力，确定个人的学习风格和学习风格，结合周期为行动学习导向的行动学习；由不同机构的行动学习计划的一部分学习日志或日记的使用；和个人的学习经验。 本文有许多优点值得考虑，例如Â作者已确定在同伴评价在行动学习，这种方法耗费更多的时间和更少的优势进行缺陷。他还确定了通过电子设备的媒介进行行动学习集的新方法。作者还强调了使用学习日志和日记的行动学习集，这是一个非常重要的因素，以评估团队的表现。 文章还存在一些不足之处，如作者没有对读者澄清的重要内容进行界定和解释，也没有证据证明作者在研究中使用的原始资料的合理性和合理性。同样含糊不清存在澄清的主要愿望的研究，目前还不清楚的主要原因背后的作者的意图进行研究这个主题。此外，有没有强有力的论据的一部分，作者证明的关键问题，已确定在他的研究。同样，笔者提到了ALS规模的问题，但没有澄清。
In the article which is the subject matter of this critical analysis, the author has conducted a research on the subject of “effective learners in action learning sets”. In his research the author has identified a number of personal experience of Action Furthermore the author has also identified a number of issues in his research, such as engaging attention to learning, identifying individual learning styles, integrating the cycle and learning styles into action learning orientation to action learning; the use of learning logs or diaries by different institutions as part of Action Learning programme; and personal learning experience.The article has a number of strengths which worth considering, for instance, Â the author has identified defects in peer assessment in Action Learning that this method is more time consuming and carries less advantage. He has also identified the new method of conducting Action Learning Sets through the medium of an electronic device. The author has also emphasized on using learning logs and diaries in Action Learning Sets which is again a very important factor for assessing team performance.The article also carries a number of weaknesses, such as the author did not define and explain the subject matter which is very important for clarification to the readers, and no evidence has been given to prove and justify the use of primary data which the author has used in his research. Similarly, ambiguity exists in clarifying the main aspiration of the research and it is unclear to understand the main reason behind the author’s intention of conducting research on this topic. Furthermore, there are no strong arguments on part of the author to justify the key issues which have been identified in his research. Similarly, the author has mentioned issues in the size of ALS but no clarification has been given.