Literature Review
Informal Learning
To further understand informal learning, Marsick & Watkins (1990, p. 12) contrasted informal learning versus formal learning as follows:
Formal learning is typically institutionally sponsored, classroom-based, and highly structured. Informal learning…may occur in institutions, but it is not typically classroom-based or highly structured, and control of learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner…[Furthermore, it] can be deliberately encouraged by an organization or it can take place despite an environment not highly conducive to learning.
Characteristics of informal learning include a learning process that (a) is integrated with daily routines, (b) is prompted by an unexpected internal or external event, (c) is mostly unconscious, random, and influenced by chance, (d) includes opportunities for reflection and action, and (e) links to the learning of others (Marsick & Volpe as cited in Marsick & Watkins, 2001, p. 28).
Marsick & Watkins’ informal learning model.
Marsick & Watkins (1990) developed a model for enhancing informal learning, which they further modified in later work (Cseh, Watkins, & Marsick, as cited in Marsick & Watkins, 2001). View image
In their model, the center circle of Work and outer circle of Context represent Marsick & Watkins’ “belief that learning grows out of everyday encounters while working and living in a given context” (2001, p. 29). Informal learning begins with Triggers, the perception of which are influenced or framed by our previous experiences. The learner then progresses through the remaining phases not necessarily in sequential order, but rather as Marsick & Watkins characterize as “an ebb and flow as people begin to make sense of a situation” (2001, p. 29). The new situation is experienced and the learner applies different strategies to examine the situation and devise potential solutions. Once this portion of the cycle is complete, the learner implements the selected solution. Ideally, the learner continues the cycle by reflecting on the selected course of action to evaluate its consequences and identify lessons learned. The first phases of the informal learning model are where the learner is applying his/her meta-learning skills to the new situation. Reflection and evaluation are key components of the middle portion. Then, in the final portion of Marsick & Watkins’ informal learning model, the process concludes with the identification of lessons learned—and therein lies the greatest potential for capturing newly created knowledge so that it can then be shared with and applied by others.
Additional theorists’ contributions.
Building upon Marsick & Watkins’ work, additional theorists have made noteworthy contributions to the study of informal learning. Eraut (2004) has developed and revised a typology of informal learning modes further breaking down informal learning into implicit learning, reactive learning, and deliberative learning—all of which can occur in the past, present, or future. With Marsick acting as their dissertation sponsor, Wallace & Colbert (2001) focused on implementing the theory of informal learning by identifying the factors most important to learning in daily work situations versus in problem solving situations; these factors included talking, perspective sharing, reflection, and trust. They also developed a set of recommendations for how “to structure an organization to support a community of work-learners and…ways to build collaborative work and learning skills” (2001, p. Abstract). Eraut, Alderton, Cole, & Senker (2002) defined and provided examples of informal learning methods, or what the authors termed ‘organized learning support’ that include mentoring and coaching; rotations, visits, and shadowing; and designated experts. They also provided examples of how work group collaboration and learning from outside one’s workgroup can support informal and lifelong learning. Skule (2004) identified seven learning conditions that affect informal learning at work, creating measurable factors that can be used to quantitatively assess workplace informal learning; these factors included exposure to change and high demands, the extent of one’s professional network, feedback, management support for learning, and rewarding proficiency. Clarke (2005) provided empirical evidence of the effect that different aspects of the learning environment have on informal learning in the workplace such as opportunities for independent on-the-job learning, empowerment, and support for reflection and job challenges.
Communities of Practice
The study of CoPs began with predominantly ethnographic studies, progressed through to qualitative studies, and then more recently has expanded into quantitative studies that are attempting to display a link between CoPs and improvements in organizational performance. Wenger is considered by many to be the seminal theorist on CoPs and has published much on the subject. Through an impressive ethnographic study in his dissertation, Wenger (1990) began his investigation into the characteristics of communities and the people and practices that make up those communities. In 1991, Wenger first published on the subject of CoPs. His article introduced the idea of “learning as a social phenomenon… [where] information only takes meaning in the context of the social practices of the communities that give it cultural life… [Furthermore,] through our membership in their communities…we come to know—and be empowered by what we know” (Wenger, 1991, p. 83). This concept was further reinforced in Wenger’s work that year with Lave where they first identified the CoP concept in their “research toward a ‘social theory of learning’” (Zboralski, Salomo, & Gemuendon, 2006, p. 535).
In 1997, Snyder built on Wenger’s and others’ early work by identifying CoPs as a tool for enhancing organizational learning, building organizational competencies, and improving organizational performance. To support this claim, Snyder (1997) argued that “competencies in the current environment are rarely static, so high-performance [CoPs] engage in continuous learning activities to ensure that competencies are built, shared, and applied effectively” (p. 8-9). Furthermore, CoPs:
“…are aligned with competencies…they both enact competencies…and develop and renew competencies through a variety of learning activities. [They] “also constitute influential organization conditions…that influence communication and coordination… [and] are aligned, therefore, with several of the factors associated with a performance-based model of organizational learning.” (Snyder, 1997, p. 9)
Snyder’s most important contribution in his 1997 article was the introduction of a “set of [33] testable hypotheses about how CoPs influence performance, how they learn competence, and what conditions facilitate competence development” (p. 14). These 33 hypotheses can be used to test the interrelation between CoPs and organizational learning, organizational competence, and organizational performance. In fact, this set of hypotheses for testing the interrelation between CoPs and organizational learning, organizational competence, and organizational performance went on to encourage many research efforts including those by Lesser & Prusak; Dove; Lorenz; Smith & McKeen; Webb, Wunram, Lettice & Klein; Lucas; and more.
In 2002, Snyder and Wenger collaborated (along with McDermott) on the writing of the seminal book Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. In it, they introduced seven design principles for CoPs:
1. Design for evolution
2. Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives
3. Invite different levels of participation
4. Develop both public and private community spaces
5. Focus on value
6. Combine familiarity and excitement
7. Create a rhythm for the community
(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 51)
This work also led to the creation of Wenger’s quick start-up guide that succinctly presented the major concepts related to CoPs (Wenger, 2002). View image In 2004, Wenger reinforced his earlier proposition of the social nature of knowledge by arguing that “communities of practice [are] the social fabric of knowledge” (p. 1). He further described the three elements of a community of practice (domain, community, and practice) and defined the role of management sponsorship to “enable communities to thrive and have an impact on the performance of the organization” (Wenger, 2004, p. 7).
Knowledge Creation Model
Providing an application for both informal learning and knowledge management, CoPs can be a very effective mechanism for knowledge creation and conversion. As defined by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), knowledge is created through processes by which an individual’s tacit or explicit knowledge is converted through socialization, externalization, combination, or internalization. View image Socialization is the conversion of tacit to tacit knowledge, often involving face-to-face interactions; this is a common method of knowledge conversion seen in informal learning and CoPs. Externalization is the conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge, often involving interviews or other methods to capture another’s expertise; this is a common method of knowledge conversion most often seen in formal learning (particularly in the process of instructional designers working with subject matter experts in the creation of learning programs). Combination is the conversion of explicit to explicit knowledge, often involving the synthesis of existing data, information, or knowledge in a new way; this is another common method of knowledge conversion seen in formal learning programs. Internalization is the conversion of explicit to tacit knowledge, often involving ‘learning by doing’ so that the knowledge or skill becomes deeply internalized and rote; this is a common method of knowledge conversion seen in both informal and formal learning through mentoring and apprenticeships. In CoPs, socialization is the primary knowledge conversion mechanism employed, while the others can play supporting roles. For example, if CoPs are taking steps to capture their knowledge, externalization will be an additional source of knowledge conversion.
Next:
We'll explore the applied research that has been conducted on informal learning and knowledge management, as well as communities of practice and knowledge management.
References:
http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/references_knowledge_creation.html
- Robin
Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com
