Process-Oriented Learning Requirements for Employees and for Organizations

Authors: Richard Pircher, Lukas Zenk, Hanna Risku

Abstract:

Using activity theory, organisational theory and didactics as theoretical foundations, a comprehensive model of the organisational dimensions relevant for learning and knowledge transfer will be developed. In a second step, a Learning Assessment Guideline will be elaborated. This guideline will be designed to permit a targeted analysis of organisations to identify the status quo in those areas crucial to the implementation of learning and knowledge transfer. In addition, this self-analysis tool will enable learning managers to select adequate didactic models for e- and blended learning. As part of the European Integrated Project "Process-oriented Learning and Information Exchange" (PROLIX), this model of organisational prerequisites for learning and knowledge transfer will be empirically tested in four profit and non-profit organisations in Great Britain, Germany and France (to be finalized in autumn 2006). The findings concern not only the capability of the model of organisational dimensions, but also the predominant perceptions of and obstacles to learning in organisations.

Keywords: Activity theory, knowledge management organisational theory, "Process-oriented Learning and Information Exchange" (PROLIX).

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1063340

References:

[1] Billett, Stephen, 2001: Learning through work: workplace affordances and individual engagement, Journal of Workplace Learning, 13 No. 5, S. 209 - 214.
[2] Bornemann, Manfred; Sammer, Martin, 2003: Assessment methodology to prioritize knowledge management related activities to support organizational excellence, Measuring Business Excellence, 7 No. 2, S. 21 - 28.
[3] Cegarra, Juan G.; Sabater, Ramon, 2005: E-learning: organizational requirements for successful feedback learning, 5/6, The Journal of Workplace Learning, 17, S. 276 - 290.
[4] Engeström, Yrjö, 2001: Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization, Journal of Education and Work, 14, No. 1, S. 133 - 155.
[5] European KM Forum 2002: KM Assessment Model and Tool, http://www.knowledgeboard.com
[14. 4. 2006].
[6] Jonassen, David H.; Rohrer-Murphy, Lucia, 1999: Activity Theory as a Framework for Designing Constructivist Learning Environments, Educational Technology, Research and Development, 47, No. 1, S. 61 - 79.
[7] Lave, Jean; Wenger, Etienne, 1991: Situated learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[8] Malhotra, Yogesh, 2000: Knowledge management for E-business performance, InformationStrategy: The Executives Journal, 16, No. 4, S. 5 - 16.
[9] Mertins, Kai; Heisig, Peter; Vorbeck, Jens, 2001: Knowledge Management - Best Practices in Europe, Berlin: Springer.
[10] Mingers, Susanne, 1999: Wissensmanagement praktisch - Handlungsfelder rund um die Grundpfeiler des Unternehmens, Hernsteiner, 8/99.
[11] Nardi, Bonnie A., 2006: Studying Context: A Comparison of Activity Theory, Situated Action Models, and Distributed Cognition, in: Nardi, Bonnie A. (Hrsg.): Nardi, B. (ed). (1996): Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, MIT Press, Cambridge: MIT Press , S. 35 - 52.
[12] Wiig, Karl M., 2004: People-Focused Knowledge Management, Burlington, MA: Elsevier.