Strategic Learning Design ICELW New York Columbia University

8/9/2019 Strategic Learning Design ICELW New York Columbia University

1/5

ICELW 2008 June 12-13, New York, NY, USA

The International Conference on E-Learning in the Workplace 2008, www.icelw.org 1

Strategic E-Learning in the Workplace

R. Pircher1, E. Mayr2, L. Zenk2 and H. Risku21 University of Applied Sciences bfi Vienna, Vienna, Austria

2 Department for Knowledge and Communication Management, Danube University Krems, Austria

AbstractEmpirical research suggests that there is an

impact of organizational characteristics on individual work-

related learning processes. In this paper, we propose a

model of relevant organizational factors. An assessment

methodology based on a literature survey and activity

theory is summarized. First results of an empirical

validation are presented with an emphasis on prerequisites

for e-learning.

Index Termsdidactics, e-learning, individual learning,

knowledge management, learning design, organizational

learning, work-related learning

I. INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNINGIndividual and organizational learning in the workplace

are interconnected processes [1] [2]. They influence eachother substantially and are difficult to differentiate. Thispaper develops an approach designed to assess theorganizational environment with respect to both learningprocesses. The emphasis lies on prerequisites and successfactors for e-learning. On the basis of the assessmentresults, decision support for instructional designers andmanagers is provided. This assessment methodology and

decision support are empirically evaluated in differentorganizations, for example from the health care andtelecom sector.

A. Research Approaches to Learning in OrganizationsA number of different scientific disciplines occupy

themselves with the topics of learning and knowledgeexchange in organizations. The fields of Human ResourceDevelopment (HRD), Training, and Workplace Learningfocus primarily on individual learning and aim atimproving job performance. In contrast, the fields ofOrganizational Learning (OL) and KnowledgeManagement (KM) concentrate not on individual, but onorganizational learning. Their main interest lies in the

understanding and management of the collectivecapabilities of organizations enabled by organizationallearning and knowledge. However, this is, in turn, alsobased on the systemic interaction and integration ofindividual learning and human resource capabilities.Consequently, although these two different (andextensive) areas of applied research are relatively distinct,they both nonetheless deal with topics which are stronglylinked.

Placing the focus on the role of the organizationalcontext in both fields raises the following researchquestions: In HRD [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], organizationalfactors should be identified which systematicallyinfluence the outcomes of individual learning. In OL/KM

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] the question of whether theoutcomes of work-related learning and knowledge sharingin organizations can be improved by an assessment and

intervention in the organizational context of learningshould be addressed. These questions were explored bymeans of an extensive literature review.

B. The Impact of Organizational Characteristics onIndividual Learning

Since the late 80s, literature has become available

which recognizes not only the impact of the individual

but also the impact of the organization on individual

learning processes and/or training success. Several

authors in the HRD field highlight the significance of the

organizational context for learning outcomes andmotivation [4] [15]. Other publications analyze

organizational factors affecting work-related learning [3]

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8].

To study the transfer of knowledge and capabilities in

organizations, one must first clarify the nature of such

knowledge and capabilities. From a mechanistic point of

view, they can be regarded as easily transferable

commodities. However, research findings suggest that the

use of data and information in organizations depends on

the subjective interpretation of those individuals and

groups who transform this input into actions and

performance. Particular emphasis is given to this aspect

in situated approaches to knowledge and learning [16].

Within the situated approach it has been proposed that

companies must seek to influence and support knowledge

management capabilities in several different areas (e.g.,

leadership and company culture) by deploying and

integrating available methods, instruments and

technologies to provide a beneficial environment for the

use and creation of knowledge and competencies. In

doing so, organizations must also actively encourage and

support participation 0. Since individuals can be seen as

operating both independently and interdependently, theirsocially-derived personal history, values, and ways of

knowing mediate the way they participate and learn in the

workplace. They need to find meaning and value in the

learning activities offered. Inconsistencies between

organizational and individual values may lead to

resistance. Different skills, abilities, and ways of

motivating employees to participate are required, for

example, to attract the interest of and motivate reluctant

employees. Opportunities to participate and receive

support are essential for rich learning outcomes [15].

Approaches like situated learning emphasize the

social context of learning processes and regard

knowledge as socially constructed [16]. Working as such

is recognized as a source of learning. Informal learningdoes not occur in the absence of actions like formal

training but in the presence of both action and reflection.


2/5



Consequently, a shift from training to learning can be

observed in the field of HRD [17]: Learning

arrangements closely linked to the workplace are at the

center of attention, for example, mentoring, self-study,learning-by-doing, intercollegiate consultation, special

work assignments, reflection-in-action, work-related

learning projects, coaching, and work experiments [18]quoted in [17].

An organizations potential to provide a supportivelearning environment depends very much on the waywork is organized and on the work processes [19] p. 160.Consequently, the complete working and learning contextmust be analyzed: if we are to further our understandingof the process of workplace learning then we must movebeyond a narrow focus on the process of interaction in theimmediate workplace that has characterized recentresearch [19], p. 160.

II. MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL DIMENSIONSOn the basis of the literature review, a Model of

Organizational Dimensions (MOD) is proposed, which

consists of factors that have major impact on process-

oriented learning and knowledge transfer. The model

aims to integrate three different research approaches to

learning within organizations: HRD, OL/KM, and

Activity Theory.

The success of instruments and methods aimed at

fostering organizational learning and the development of

an organizational knowledge base is influenced by both

the characteristics of the organization in question and the

habits of its employees. Within the OL/KM discourse, a

variety of structuring frameworks have been developed

and several models and assessment methods proposed

which are relevant for the analysis of organizations [20]

[21].

Knowledge transfer constitutes a very important

objective of OL/KM. For this reason, these two

approaches were both regarded relevant for the definition

and outcomes of a learning assessment guideline (LAG)based on the proposed MOD. A number of different

OL/KM models were also used in the development of the

MOD.

Activity theory focuses on the interaction between

human activity and consciousness within the relevant

environmental context. It provides a framework for

analyzing learning needs, tasks and outcomes within

organizations. The socio-cultural, socio-historical lens of

activity theory helps managers and learning designers to

analyze human activity systems. One fundamental

assumption in this approach is the notion that conscious

learning emerges from, not prior to, activity [22].

Production

Community

Division of

labour

Object Outcome

Tools

Rules

Subject

Relevant

Characteristics ofTarget Groups, HRM

Work Design,

Office Architecture

Data, ICT,

Information

Organisational

Culture,

Leadership

Strategy,

Controlling

Processes

Figure 1. Model of the organizational dimensions relevant for learning

and knowledge transfer within an activity system (MOD) (adaptation of

[23], p. 135)

As shown in Fig. 1, an activity system can be

visualized in the shape of a triangle [23], p. 135. Basedon the relevant literature mentioned above, organizational

factors relevant for learning and knowledge transfer have

been identified and are pictured in the rectangles in Fig. 1

(see also [24]). The dimensions of activity theory

(subject, tools, object, etc.) have been related to

corresponding organizational factors (characteristics,

data, strategy, etc.) in the structure of a human activity

system. The relevant characteristics of the target groups

and users relate to the subject, i.e. an individual or group

engaged in the activity. Data, information, and ICTs have

been attached to the tools which mediate between the

subject and the object, i.e. the physical or mental product.

Organizational culture includes common espoused valuesand basic underlying assumptions. Leadership has the

potential to influence organizational culture to certain

extent. The community, on the other hand, shares a

common set of rules. For this reason, the organizational

culture and leadership factors have been clustered with

rules and community. Work design and office

architecture are connected to task specialization and

division of labor. The organizational functions of strategydefinition/implementation and controlling have been

added to the outcome of the activity, because they focus

on the targets and verification of the results of the

activities in line with strategy.

III. LEARNING ASSESSMENT GUIDELINEBased on the proposed MOD, a questionnaire, the

learning assessment guideline (LAG), was developed.

The LAG assesses organisational factors relevant for

individual and organisational learning. Research findings

from the fields of HRD and OL/KM were used to

generate an initial item pool. The design and evaluation

of the LAG in the test environments consisted of two

empirical phases. In the first phase, face-to-face and

written interviews with managers provided information

relevant for the implementation of process-oriented

learning with a focus on a management perspective.Results from these interviews were used in the second


3/5



phase to develop an online survey which gathered

information on the employees perspective on workplace

learning.

A pool of 129 items was developed based on both theliterature review and the interviews with managers, and

an online survey was conducted in January and February

2008 using this item pool. Overall, 191 employees fromfive different organisations answered the LAG. This data

was used to analyze the structure of the questionnaire and

select appropriate items with good test statistics.

Orthogonal factor analysis with Varimax rotation

revealed seven factors (explaining 50 % of the overallvariance). To reduce the complexity of the factor

structure, items loaded substantially on more than one

factor were excluded. Within each factor, a reliability

analysis was conducted for the remaining items. Items

which correlated with a factor score of less than .30, were

successively excluded. The final scales exhibited

satisfactory reliabilities (Cronbachs Alpha) between .66

and .91. Consequently, the final version of the LAGcontains 63 items relating to seven factors: organizational

learning orientation (OLO, 21 items), appropriateness of

didactics in prior training (DFT, 11 items), availability of

infrastructure for e-learning (IEL, 9 items), extrinsic

motivation for training (EMT, 6 items), workload (WL, 6

items), preference to learn individually (PIL, 5 items),

and preference to learn collaboratively (PCL, 6 items).To further validate the organizational nature of the

dimensions assessed by the LAG, intraclass correlations

(ICC) were computed for each scale on both an

organizational and a team level. High intraclass

correlations indicate very similar scale values within an

organization/team. This analysis confirmed that the LAGassesses mostly organisational factors: OLO, IEL, and

PIL are both significantly correlated within the

organization and the team. DFT, EMT, and WL are

significantly correlated within organizations.

Interestingly, PCL seems to be more an individual than

an organisational dimension.

IV. EMPIRICAL RESULTS FROM TWO ORGANIZATIONSTo visualize assessment with the LAG, data from two

organizations, one from the telecommunication sector and

one from the health care sector, was further analyzed and

compared. 20 employees from the telecom company

(mean age = 37.42 yrs, mean length of service incompany = 5.83 yrs, 11 % management) and 25

employees from the health care company (mean age =

43.25 yrs, mean length of service in company = 17.26

yrs, 27 % management) answered the questionnaire. As

the descriptive characteristics of both samples show,

these companies differ greatly both in employee age

structure and frequency of employee change. However,despite these descriptive differences the two companies

are fairly similar in many of the LAG scales (BFT,

WMT, WL, and PCL, cp. Fig. 2).

1

1,52

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

OLO

DFT

IEL

EMTWL

PIL

PCL

health care

telecom

Figure 2. Assessment results from the telecommunication and the

health care sector

However, the comparison also shows substantial

differences in three scales. Results for the health care

organization, for instance, show a higher degree of

organizational learning orientation (OLO). In contrast,

the telecom company has better infrastructure for e-

learning (IEL) and a higher preference for individuallearning (PIL).

This indicates that the learning environment at the

telecom company is suited to e-learning. In contrast, the

introduction of e-learning at the health care company

would require changes in the organizational environment.

However, this company does have a higher overall

learning orientation, which is beneficial for individualand organizational learning at the workplace.

As was shown for these two organizations, the results

of the LAG provide a basis for improving the

organizational factors relevant for workplace learning.

Additionally, the results can be used to select appropriate

didactic strategies.

V. DECISION SUPPORTThere is still a lack of research on the correlation of

organizational characteristics and suitable didactic

measures. However, based on the literature survey andanalysis, a number of factors have been identified which

appear to be linked to this issue. Through the empiricalwork carried out in the EU project PROLIX (Process

oriented learning and knowledge exchange), data will be

collected from a series of individual test bed

organizations and should serve as the basis for

verification of our assumptions.

A. Decision Support for Didactic StrategiesIn accordance with the literature analysis, the

following organizational aspects can be identified as

relevant for the definition of a didactic strategy: ICT

skills, peer support, supervisor support, workload,

feedback, goal orientation, learning culture, and work

processes (ability and authorization to self-organize thework required).


4/5



The following have been defined for each of these

organizational factors:

Occurrences which support or do not support

learning Potential challenges faced by the use of specific

didactic models and underlying assumptions

Potential benefits of using appropriate didacticmodels and related assumptions.

Based on the assumptions which had to be made, an

attribute can be defined for each individual organizational

factor as follows: ICT skills are relevant for e-learningand blended learning. Helpful peer support increases

motivation for collaborative learning. Supervisor support

can increase the willingness of employees to participate

in learning processes which require high levels of

motivation and personal involvement. A very heavy

workload obstructs self-organized learning. Employees

should be familiar with providing and receiving feedback

if this is required by the didactic models. A mastery goalorientation favors collaborative learning processes. A

strong learning culture supports collaborative learning. A

high degree of standardization implies less familiarity on

the part of the workforce with self-organized learning.

These attributes can be summarized as follows:

Required usage of ICT (e-learning)

Collaboration Self-organization

Feedback.

Following the description of didactic models listed in

deliverable 4.2 of the PROLIX project (University of

Vienna, see also [10]), it is expected to be possible to

search for these attributes to establish a connectionbetween the organizational status quo and the selection of

didactic models.

It should, however, also be noted that learning design

rules in general should be understood in a probabilistic,

not a deterministic sense. Applying a rule does not

guarantee that we reach the desired outcome, but it does

increase the probability that we will. ([18], p. 5). This

also applies to the proposed decision support information.

B. Decision Support for Management MeasuresThere are close links between individual learning and

OL/KM and for this reason it is proposed to provide

decision support for management measures based on bothHRD and OL/KM and directed by the outcomes of the

LAG.

OL/KM literature provides a rich portfolio of

instruments and methods for interventions in

organizations (e.g. [15]) HRD also provides valuable

inputs for appropriate organizational measures (e.g. [4],

p. 621). This allows a precise proposal of management

measures to be provided based on any specific

deficiencies identified by the LAG.

The assessment results enable the provision of

decision support for the respective management team.

Appropriate measures and instruments can be proposed

for a specific organization in line with the mostsignificant areas identified for improvement,.

VI. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOKThis project provided a validated version of an

assessment of the organizational factors that influencework-related learning. Further steps in this research willapply this version of the LAG to gather additional data.The significance of this data will be evaluated in relation

to individual didactic preferences of training participants.Furthermore, the applicability and usefulness of theresultant decision support for didactic strategy andmanagement measures will be tested.

REFERENCES

[1] D. H. Kim, "The Link between Individual and Organizational

Learning", MIT Sloane Management Review, Fall 1993 1993,

pp. 37-50

[2] M. Schwaninger, "Intelligent Organizations - Powerful

Models for Systemic Management", Springer, Berlin, 2006

[3] D. S. Chiaburu, A. G. Tekleab, "Individual and contextual

influences on multiple dimensions of training effectiveness",

Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 29 No. 8 2005

[4] D. S. Chiaburu, S. V. Marinova, "What predicts skill transfer?

An exploratory study of goal orientation, traning self-efficacy

and organizational supports", International Journal of

Training and Development, 9:2 2005, pp. 110-123

[5] D. Russ-Eft, "A Typology of Training Design and Work

Environment Factors Affecting Workplace Learning and

Transfer", Human Ressource Development Review , Vol. 1

No. 1 2002, pp. 45-65

[6] P. Gardiner, "Soaring to new heights with learning orientated

companies", Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 11 No. 7

1999, pp. 255-265

[7] S. J. Confessore, W. J. Kops, "Self-Directed Learning and the

Learning Organization: Examining the Connection Between

the Individual and the Learning Environment", Human

Resource Development Quarterly , Vol. 9. no. 4 1998, pp.

365-375[8] S. I. Tannenbaum, "Enhancing continuous learning:

diagnostic findings from multiple companies", Human

Resource Management, Vol. 36 No. 4 1997, pp. 437-452

[9] CEN, "European Guide to good Practice in Knowledge

Management CWA 14924",

http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/businessdomains/businessdomains

/isss/cwa/knowledge+management.asp, abgerufen am

15.5.2007 2004

[10] European KM Forum, "KM Assessment Model and Tool -

D2.2 IST Project No 2000-26393",

http://www.knowledgeboard.com/library/deliverables/ekmf_d

22_v04_2002_02_28_iat.pdf, abgerufen am 4.7.2007 2002

[11] K. Mertins, P. Heisig, and J. Vorbeck, "Knowledge

Management - Best Practices in Europe", Springer, Berlin,

2001

[12] W. R. Bukowitz, R. L. Williams, "The KnowledgeManagement Fieldbook", Pearson Education Limited,

Harlow, 1999

[13] K. M. Wiig, "People-Focused Knowledge Management",

Elsevier, Burlington, MA, 2004

[14] D. Snowden, "The Social Ecology of Knowledge

Management", in: Charles Despres, Daniele Chauvel,

Knowledge Horizons, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 2000,

pp. 237-265

[15] S. Billett, "Learning through work: workplace affordances

and individual engagement", Journal of Workplace Learning,

13 No. 5 2001, pp. 209-214

[16] J. Lave, E. Wenger, "Situated learning", Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, 1991

[17] R. F. Poell, K. van Dam, and P. T. van den Berg, "Organising

Learning in Work Contexts", Applied Psychology, 53 (4)

2004, pp. 529-540[18] J. N. Streumer, "Work-Related Learning", Kluwer, Dordrecht,

2004


5/5



[19] D. Ashton, "The dynamics of workplace learning: the role of

work organizations", in: Karen Evans, Phil Hodkinson, Lorna

Unwin, Working to Learn: Transforming Learning in the

Workplace, Routledge, London, 2002, pp. 149-162

[20] R. Pircher, "Gestaltungsdimensionen der organisatorischen

Wissensbasis - ein integratives Modell mit Analyserahmen

zur wissensorientierten Begleitung zielgerichteter

Vernderung von Organisationen", Dissertation, Karl-

Franzens-Universitt Graz, 2004[21] P. Heisig, R. Orth, "Wissensmanagement Frameworks aus

Forschung und Praxis Eine inhaltliche Analyse", eureki,

Berlin, 2005

[22] D. H. Jonassen, L. Rohrer-Murphy, "Activity Theory as a

Framework for Designing Constructivist Learning

Environments", Educational Technology, Research and

Development, 47, No. 1 1999, pp. 61-79

[23] Y. Engestrm, "Expansive Learning at Work: toward an

activity theoretical reconceptualization", Journal of

Education and Work, 14, No. 1 2001, pp. 133-155

[24] R. Pircher, L. Zenk, and H. Risku, "The impact of

organizational characteristics on learning and knowledge

transfer - Assessment structure for individual and

organisational learning management in the ongoing project

PROLIX", in: Norbert Gronau, 4th conference on

professional knowledge management experiences and visionsBand 2, 208, Gito, Berlin, 2007, pp. -201

AUTHORS

R. Pircher is Director of Studies for Banking andFinance at the University of Applied Sciences bfi Vienna,Austria (e-mail: [email protected])

E. Mayr is a researcher at the KnowComm ResearchCenter at the Danube University Krems, Austria (e-mail:

[email protected]).L. Zenk, is a researcher at the KnowComm Research

Center at the Danube University Krems, Austria (e-mail:[email protected]).

H. Risku is Head of the Department of Knowledge andCommunication Management at the Danube UniversityKrems, Austria (e-mail: [email protected]).

Manuscript received 14 December 2007. This work isco-funded bythe European Commission under the Sixth Framework Programme,Priority 2 "Information Society Technologies".

Published as submitted by the authors.

Documents

Strategic Learning Design ICELW New York Columbia University