Abstract
Continuing vocational training benefits from the employees’ ability to share individual experience and expertise with their co-workers, as these assets constitute competitive advantages for companies. IT-supported systems can facilitate processes of knowledge elicitation (e. g. as part of collaborative co-creation) to ensure retainment of preferred qualitative characteristics of the resulting knowledge artifacts and provide ample opportunities to manage and configure a growing number of such artifacts in a company’s repository. It remains unclear however, how such collaborative and digital co-creation processes can benefit the individual co-creators’ expertise development. To address this gap in research and practice, an IT-supported co-creation system for microlearnings is designed and evaluated with master craftsman trainees of an inter-company vocational training center. With the deployment of the co-creation system, knowledge elaboration was examined via a qualitative evaluation of concept maps. By applying categories of the maps’ semantic properties and comparing features of expert knowledge derived from expertise research and concept mapping literature, we evaluate the process’ function to support expert knowledge elaboration as a desirable learning outcome for co-creators of shared digital artifacts. Analysis of the concept maps shows an absence of theoretical reasoning and an emphasis on contextual factors with minute details of work processes, indicating more practical than expert knowledge formation when co-creating shared digital artifacts. To improve the IT system’s effective support for expert knowledge elicitation, adjustments to the structured procedure are discussed and future research directions and limitations of this study are addressed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
In vocational education and training (VET), an increasing number of instructional IT-systems promise to leverage the potential of a thorough work process integration (Baceviciute et al., 2021; Howe, 2008) and collaboration in the informal self-directed learning of employees (Coll et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016). With the accelerated digitization and automation of work, these instructional IT-systems are widely used in on-the-job training that addresses the decreasing half-life of skills acquired in formal educational settings (Senderek, 2016), thus making an important contribution to lifelong learning (Teo et al., 2021). In this context, the inadequacy of learning resources to address specific training needs in enterprises serves as an obstacle for work-process-integrated training (Schmidt, 2007). Approaches of so-called co-creation (Bovill, 2020) have gained popularity, which aim at harnessing expert knowledge of concrete work processes and sharing it among employees. By using IT-Systems that support the elicitation and extension of expert knowledge, these collaborative methods can guide the generation of truly new knowledge or support the formation of shared digital knowledge artifacts, such as microlearnings (MLEs) (Bovill, 2020; Schaefer et al., 2019), with a convergence of a company’s vocational training and knowledge management efforts as a by-product (Bittner & Leimeister, 2014).
However, in order to establish a continuing vocational training with MLEs, these IT-systems must be adapted and integrated into work processes, thus gaining access to the necessary contexts and sources of diverse media content of such knowledge artifacts (Jalonen et al., 2011; Langreiter & Bolka, 2006). Since MLEs have been established to cope with the aforementioned changes in the reality of work, the co-creation of MLE at the workplace opens up new possibilities for work-process-integrated training (Horst & Dörner, 2019; Langreiter & Bolka, 2006). Therefore, we anticipate that IT-supported co-creation systems, as a procedural framework for MLE generation, can support the role of MLE in professional development in continuing vocational training by facilitating knowledge elicitation efforts and considering social and contextual aspects of learning (Bovill et al., 2016; Gerbaudo et al., 2021).
While both institutional and potential learner benefits of MLE co-creation have been well researched (Langreiter & Bolka, 2006; Ley, 2020; Puah et al., 2021), little is known about the implications for co-creators beyond increased motivation and self-efficacy in the case of co-creating shared digital MLE artifacts (Bovill, 2020; Nikou & Economides, 2018). Therefore, this paper aims to explore possible advances in expert knowledge formation by focusing on the elaborative nature of IT-supported co-creation and the knowledge elicitation involved. In this context, we highlight the distinctive nature of IT-supported co-creation that warrants a fresh look at MLE on a conceptual level against the background of co-creation and knowledge elaboration, e.g., by harnessing the pedagogical benefits of self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 2007) and social meta-learning practices (Cook-Sather et al., 2014). We have initiated the development of an IT-supported co-creation system, which has been adapted to the conditions of manufacturing to facilitate both learning with MLE as well as co-creating MLE in the process of work. In doing so, we aim to demonstrate whether the elicitation of expert knowledge in IT-supported co-creation of MLE promotes individual elaboration of expert knowledge as a desirable learning outcome for co-creators. Thus, this study aims to answer the following research question (RQ):
-
RQ: To what extent does the implementation of an IT-supported MLE co-creation system enhance knowledge elaboration among co-creators?
To evaluate the effects of the IT-supported co-creation system on knowledge elaboration, we employed concept maps (CM) as an assessment and evaluation tool to visualize knowledge structures before and after MLE co-creation (Chang et al., 2022; Chang & Yang, 2022). From the central research question, we derived a qualitative hypothesis in line with the current state of research on expertise and expert knowledge as well as co-creation.
-
H1: IT-supported co-creation positively influences the elaboration of expert knowledge of co-creators on a semantic and structural level, exemplified by their knowledge elicitation in a concept mapping task.
We assume that IT-supported co-creation will have a positive impact on both the meaning-making process (semantic level) and several structural characteristics of knowledge representations. To substantiate this assumption we briefly present the theoretical background of our study in the next section. We then explain our methodology for data collection and analysis in an inter-company vocational training center. Finally, we discuss the role of co-creation in knowledge elaboration and derive implications for IT-supported knowledge elicitation with MLE co-creation. In addition, we contribute to CM research by providing insights into the application of the method in VET research (Chang et al., 2022). The development of the IT-system was embedded in a larger research project (Thiel de Gafenco et al. 2018; Weinert et al., 2023).
2 Related work
2.1 Knowledge elaboration in VET
The explication of tacit knowledge is still a major challenge for companies’ knowledge management and learning initiatives (He & Wei, 2009). Various approaches, typically IT-supported, try to overcome this challenge. For example, Nakano et al. (2013) point out that an engaging environment can support knowledge elicitation. Pentland and Feldman (2008) show that certain routines in IT-systems can support the elicitation of tacit knowledge, especially work process knowledge. Work process knowledge is understood as the knowledge that is directly needed in the work process (Rauner & Maclean, 2008) and includes, at least in part, concrete work experience. To understand the importance of work process knowledge for work-process-integrated learning, the theory of situated cognition can be used. The theory, first posed by Dewey (1938), remains highly relevant for both the design of various forms of IT-supported learning (e.g., mobile learning) and to VET research. Here, knowledge is inseparable from action and situated in activities in diverse social, cultural, and physical contexts (Mensah et al., 2020). These activities can be of physical or representational nature, with the latter enabled by interactive systems (Levi, 2020). Collaborative knowledge elicitation and expansion, as well as support mechanisms such as coaching and scaffolding (Herrington & Oliver, 2000), are essential to leverage situated cognition for situated learning. Pérez-Sanagustín et al. (2015), as well as Hämäläinen et al. (2008), show that authentic situated learning environments with embedded interaction elements are beneficial for knowledge elaboration. Furthermore, shared contextual cues, such as the real work environment, can enhance shared knowledge elaboration (Ding, 2009).
Knowledge elaboration, as often associated with collaborative learning, occurs when individuals connect pieces of information in their minds (Ritchie & Karge, 1996), including restructuring and interconnecting of new information with prior knowledge (Reigeluth et al., 1980). By encouraging learner interaction, knowledge processing and modification of knowledge structures can be further promoted (Baker, 2003; Suthers et al., 2010), and both knowledge elaboration and extension can be stimulated through collaborative learning (Zheng et al., 2015). For IT-supported collaborative learning environments, elaborative explanations shared among learners are considered essential for knowledge expansion (Ding, 2009; Hämäläinen et al., 2008) and collaborative success. The negotiation of meaning during both collaborative learning (Lee et al., 2017) and collective design processes (Durall Gazulla et al., 2023) can thus be seen as one of the reasons for the co-construction of genuinely new (design) knowledge (Tseng et al., 2008; van Boxtel et al., 2000) and the building of expertise.
2.2 Expertise and expert knowledge
The term expertise is used by scholars, particularly in psychology, to refer to the manifestation of skills and understandings that lead to superior and reproducible performance in domain-specific tasks (Chi, 2006b; Posner, 1988). With the rise of IT-supported learning and knowledge management, the integration of different sources of smaller units of elicited knowledge into a broader representation of expert or work-process-knowledge remains a challenge (Sabitha et al., 2015). Furthermore, despite many uncertainties about the interconnectedness of practical and theoretical knowledge (Röben, 2008), both deliberate practice and learning are essential for expertise development (Chi, 2006b). Practice is not to be confused with formal process specifications (e.g., standard operating procedures) of what kind of work is to be done (Clancey, 2006). Instead, the distinction lies in the expectations of practitioners and their context-dependent (e.g., timing and location constraints) dynamic engagement with activities as individual expressions or summaries of work processes (Clancey, 2002). These practical characteristics of expertise also become important against the theoretical background of situated cognition and their respective IT-supported learning environments (Pérez-Sanagustín et al., 2015). Contextual cues or information, which include the use of technology in the work-process (McLellan, 1993), are prerequisites for experts to demonstrate their high level of performance (Chi, 2006b).
In addition to practice, the development of an extensive knowledge base is necessary for expert performance, and thedistinction between novices and experts can be implemented as an examination of their individual knowledge representations. These models differ in their (a) knowledge extent, measured by counting the number of factual statements, procedures, or similar units; (b) knowledge organization, often hierarchical, with missing levels or preferences regarding levels on which an individual operates; (c) depth of knowledge, with abstraction and concreteness or function and structure as variables to describe expertise; and (d) consolidation and integration, which allow for faster retrieval and processing of the represented knowledge (Chi, 2006a). Concept mapping is one of the most prominent methods to investigate these mental models or representations (Hoffman, 2002), which in turn can be used to build knowledge bases and interfaces for corporate knowledge management systems (Hoffman & Lintern, 2006), and can serve as learning support in professional training (C.-C. Chang & Hwang, 2022).
2.3 Co-creation of microlearnings
The dynamic nature of MLE typically involves the continuous creation, revision, and application of small units of information (Jahnke et al., 2020; Job et al., 2012). This type of learning resource is an innovative format to share digital knowledge artifacts easily (Hersh, 2017). By providing situationally embedded microcontent that addresses specific topics and is optimized for rapid consumption (Horst & Dörner, 2019), MLEs have adequate instructional properties to address the aforementioned challenges of work-process-integrated learning and expert knowledge dissemination. Their brevity implies not only effortless consumption but also production directly at the workplace, with both aspects being reinforced by an increasing availability of smart devices such as phones and tablet computers as access points and support channels for employees (Winkler et al., 2021). MLEs can be used in a targeted manner "on demand" by providing relevant standard procedures or problem solutions to satisfy information and learning needs that arise in the short term (Gerbaudo et al., 2021), as well as promoting the use of expert knowledge among employees when it emerges from knowledge elicitation (Ley, 2020; Tseng et al., 2008). However, to consider the necessary situational references of MLEs and the collaborative creation of artifacts, both processes and associated systems are needed to support employees in the systematic design of learning content.
In research, as well as in practice, an increasing number of ventures are trying to enable an employee-driven approach to the design of learning content by applying the concept of IT-supported co-creation. One reason for this is the positive influence on learners’ engagement during co-creation and the resulting positive effects on their motivation (Eisenkopf, 2010). Co-creation, peer creation, or peers as teammates are terms that are often used interchangeably (Bovill, 2020). Generally, all these approaches are based on theories of social constructivism and refer to learning with and from colleagues, classmates, or fellow students, indicating the importance of mutual learning among those who participate in co-creation (Durall Gazulla et al., 2023). For vocational training, these concepts include processes that enable employees to design meaningful artifacts, such as digital learning materials, as they work. Employees add value to these digital artifacts by contributing their knowledge and collaboratively developing the artifact in digital collaborative learning environments (Tan et al., 2021).
In addition to the benefits of applying digital MLEs to corporate training, studies in other contexts (e.g., higher education) have shown that the process of co-creating digital learning resources can be beneficial to the co-creators (Bovill, 2020) by increasing autonomy, self-regulation, and responsibility (Deeley & Bovill, 2017), improving performance in higher education (Coetzee et al., 2015), or increasing critical reflection and communication skills (Deeley & Bovill, 2017). There are significant differences in the application of co-creation concepts, which can either focus on different contexts, actors, and goals, such as stimulating knowledge sharing in collaborative and elaborative processes in organizations (Bittner et al., 2021), or increasing student engagement in higher education courses (Howson & Weller, 2016).
Adapting a co-creation process to its application domain and the participants’ contexts is critical for success (Bovill, 2020). In manufacturing, where documentation requirements are high, this includes the integration into daily work, enabled by the meaningful use of smart devices such as tablet computers and accompanying learning platforms. Our goal is to iteratively develop and progressively adapt a system for manufacturing as a general training environment by providing sufficient supporting design choices and features for MLE co-creation.
3 Method
3.1 Study overview
To answer our research question, we used a web-based co-creation system designed to support employees in developing and applying MLE for work-process-integrated learning. The development and adaptation of the IT-system was informed by the concept of co-creation as well as considerations of work-process-integrated learning in manufacturing and is embedded in a larger international action design research project (Billert et al., 2022; Thiel de Gafenco et al., 2018; Weinert et al., 2023). The system’s deployment and evaluation procedure for the intervention study is shown in Fig. 1.
3.2 IT-supported co-creation intervention
Co-creation scenarios without IT-support may rely on more knowledgeable peers, such as supervisors, to support knowledge elicitation and elaboration (Janson et al., 2020; Wood et al., 1976). Daily work routines often preclude extensive collaborative efforts, making IT-support-systems more attractive for facilitating co-creation. Therefore, we initiated the development of an IT-based co-creation system suitable for work-process integration. The developmental practices approach (Dohn et al., 2020) provides a framework for an object-oriented activity design for such IT systems. Objects in this case refer to the shared digital artifacts, the MLEs, and the collaborative efforts of knowledge creation. Since our system aims to facilitate the acquisition of expert knowledge by employees, we follow the design principles of the developmental practices approach (Moen et al., 2012) and complement them with our own requirements for a learning system in manufacturing (Weinert et al., 2023). Furthermore, the system aims to provide means for collaborative knowledge work by making the processes of creating and improving digital artifacts visible and facilitating their distribution. Co-creators simultaneously take responsibility for their own work and for collaborative efforts in which individual expertise merges with the co-creation of knowledge. The co-creation process, i.e. the platform as well as the practices learned during the creation process, supports the creative reuse of previous activities and MLE, thus providing the basis for knowledge transfer and transformation. Since work processes are usually intertwined, the IT-supported development of MLE emphasizes the interaction between practices, conceptualizations, as well as different types of knowledge. VET entails different learning contexts (e.g., formalized in vocational schools and informal workplace learning), which means that both the MLEs and the co-creation process are relevant outside of strictly educational settings and institutions, thus promoting the cross-fertilization (Moen et al., 2012) of knowledge practices across institutions and communities. Finally, IT enables the co-creation of knowledge artifacts by mediating epistemic, pragmatic, social, and reflective aspects of work.
The system is one of the core elements of this study, as it is intended to promote the knowledge elicitation of employees as co-creators of MLE. The system consists of an IT-supported co-creation process that can be accessed through any standard browser and is therefore device independent. The system is based on the existing content management system (CMS) WordPress, using the Frontier PostFootnote 1 plugin to add a review process for the front end and the BuddypressFootnote 2 plugin to create and organize different membership levels. An overview of the system is shown in Fig. 1.
The system includes several features to support employees in co-creating and storing MLEs in a coherent way (Fig. 2). In the first step (Knowledge Categorization), learning material is tagged to a work process and individual process steps to facilitate retrieval and the development of learning arrangements that cover entire work processes. Thus, (A) the employee must select the appropriate work process, (B) select a process step, (C) select whether the MLE explains a standard procedure or troubleshooting, and (D) select a unique name. After the assignment, the actual content development for the MLE follows (second step—Knowledge Dissemination). By asking guiding, clear but open questions, the creators are encouraged to interact with the platform and reflect on their work (Pérez-Sanagustín et al., 2015; Quadir et al., 2022). This reflection in action stimulates the cognitive processes of the participants and should promote knowledge elicitation (Schmidt, 2007). The documentation is divided into sub-steps. First, employees describe the process steps in writing. This description can be supplemented with photos, which in turn can be expanded with text and graphic elements. Every sub-step is structured in this way. It is important to note that there was no limit to the number of possible sub-steps, as this further accommodated the scope for knowledge dissemination by individuals. Finally, in the third step (Feedback and Review), participants see an overview of the MLE and can redo their entries. Each MLE is published in the CMS system, but is only visible to the creators. To ensure sufficient quality, MLEs are reviewed by supervisors after submission by the employee. Supervisors can comment the material and return it to the employee or correct the material themselves.
3.3 Background and setting
In order to evaluate the effect of the IT-supported co-creation system on the knowledge elaboration of the co-creators, we created a pre-post evaluation in an inter-company vocational training center. The center was chosen because it had the necessary facilities and had previously used adequate teaching concepts that were identical or very similar to work process integrated learning arrangements in companies. In addition, this setting allowed us to gather a larger group of participants, since evaluation directly in manufacturing companies often involves interruptions in production. The CNC (Computerized Numerical Control) and metalworking department of the training center focuses on training employees for production-related professions, such as machine operator or precision mechanic. The intervention begins with a theoretical introduction, followed by a practical session integrated with the work process in the workshop. For this study, we focused on work processes that are highly dependent on one or more machines or tools, facilitating the process of diverse media production for the participants.
3.4 Sample
Participants, i.e. co-creators, in this study were (N = 8) master craftsman trainees (two tool mechanics, two mechanical and plant engineering trainees, and four precision mechanics; all state-recognized training occupations in the German vocational training system). The participants were selected because of a particular overlap in the curricula of the first-year trainees, i.e., the subject matter of initial start-up of CNC lathes and locating and setting a zero reference point. Among other common topics, this work process was identified as a suitable MLE case during previous expert interviews with teaching staff. The interventions took place on two different dates, one in Q1 2020 (tool mechanics and mechanical and plant engineering trainees), the other in Q3 2020 (precision mechanics trainees), in suitable workshops of the inter-company vocational training center, which provided a learning context similar to real manufacturing environments.
3.5 Task and co-creation design
At the beginning of the workshops, teams of two are formed to ensure that participants perform both a demonstration of a work process (as the content of the MLE) and its documentation using tablet computers. In addition, this arrangement facilitates collaborative work in the creation process, which is generally associated with a positive influence on the quality of the results (Howson & Weller, 2016), and promotes the inclusion of all employees (Bovill et al., 2016), which may further encourage knowledge elicitation and elaboration (Hämäläinen et al., 2008). The pre-post design of the evaluation is shown in Fig. 1 and described below.
The workshop itself consisted of three phases. (1) In the preparation phase, the participants received an initial briefing on the workshop procedure, the concept mapping method and the platform itself. In this way, the participants developed a basic understanding of the co-creation process of learning materials and the underlying methodology. An example task (making coffee) was used to illustrate the process in a playful way (see Appendix Figs. 6 and 7). At the end of the preparation, the participants created CMs about the initial startup of CNC lathes as well as locating and setting a zero reference point to record a baseline of elaboration in terms of work process knowledge. (2) In the main part of the workshop, the creators used the IT-supported co-creation platform to co-create learning materials in groups of two. They were free to decide how to integrate the creation process into their work. During the process, one participant managed the workflow and the other created the MLE. In the last step of the workshop (3), the creators had to revise their CM. By comparing the two states of the CMs, we want to determine whether the collaborative development of MLEs benefits (expert) knowledge elaboration.
3.6 Measurement and analysis approach
3.6.1 Concept maps
To assess the influence of the process on the individual co-creator's knowledge elaboration, we used CMs to distinguish types of elaborated knowledge by examining semantic properties and expert knowledge features embedded in them (Chang et al., 2022). As two-dimensional representations of knowledge structures, CMs depict a network of concepts (framed one- or multi-word terms) as nodes and the relationships (labeled directional arrows) between concepts (Cañas et al., 2005). Pairs of two concepts and a connecting relationship are called propositions (Ruiz-Primo, 2000) and constitute the smallest identifiable knowledge element. Typically, CMs can be distinguished from similar methods of knowledge representation, such as mind maps, by the hierarchization of concepts (Novak, 2002). With this in mind, our use of concept mapping to reveal different types of knowledge is based on the approach of Kinchin et al. (2019), who use a translation and plotting procedure with roots in legitimation code theory (Maton & Chen, 2016) for evaluative purposes. This approach seems fruitful to explain the qualitative differences in knowledge structures modified or acquired through IT-supported co-creation activities, as it takes into account the contextuality of knowledge construction and activation, which is paramount in VET. In addition, we examined individual CMs on the basis of structural and content characteristics derived from expertise research (Chi, 2006a) and CM literature (Cañas et al., 2005) to justify further adjustments to the co-creation process.
3.6.2 Data generation and procedure
Using Kinchin et al.'s (2019) three-step process for data generation for the semantic level, map construction and revision (step one) was performed by the creators of the MLE. The linking phrases present in the participants' CMs were translated into expressions of semantic gravity and semantic density (step two). The resulting codes were plotted on the semantic plane (step three). In addition, hierarchies and content knowledge represented in individual CMs were analyzed as relevant features of expert knowledge (Cañas et al., 2005; Chi, 2006a).
3.6.3 Map construction and coding of propositions
In order to properly relate our qualitative approach and the results of the concept mapping to the existing literature and further research, we used an additional framework of CM assessments based on the meta-evaluation of Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson (1996). The task was designed as a single task in which no components of the map (concepts, relations, hierarchies) were given. There were no additional tasks other than the CMs. The role of the mapper was assumed by the creator of the MLE. Subsequently, following Kinchin et al. (2019), the evaluation of the CM results was performed at the propositional level, including the accentuation of crosslinks (Ding, 2009) for their role in the morphological aspects of concept mapping and the content of the proposition. Differences between pre- and post-CMs are located within their respective hierarchies (upper, middle, and lower levels). As there was no grading/scoring intention behind the evaluation, no weighting was done. After the IT-supported co-creation process of MLE was completed, the second concept mapping phase was conducted under the same conditions, but the creators could decide whether to add to their existing map or to create a new one.
By transforming the relations between concepts into descriptions of their semantic density (SD) and semantic gravity (SG), the CMs could be translated into comments on the knowledge types represented in them. SG serves as a dimension of context specificity, distinguishing between sensible (SG +) and strong (SG + +) ties of the articulated knowledge to a particular context, as well as generalizable (SG-) and very generalizable (SG–) views of the represented topic. The translations of the SD dimension outlined the degree of meaning condensation, distinguishing between simple, everyday language (SD- or SD–) and the use of technical terms with a significant amount of meaning (SD + or SD + +) (Kinchin et al., 2019). The translation devices shown in Tables 1 and 2 contrast the eight different characteristics and their associated coding criteria. Two of the authors involved in this study served as translators (raters) after a coding consensus was reached.
The translation was performed using MAXQDA 12, a qualitative data analysis software, with SG and SD as top categories and their respective complexions as subcategories. Due to the two-dimensional nature of Kinchin et al.'s (2019) approach, the propositions required two codes each, resulting in overlap when displayed simultaneously in MAXQDA 12. Once the relationships were transformed, the codes were plotted on the semantic plane (Fig. 3), indicating which knowledge types and map structures predominated. As this study employed a pre-post design, the results from both CM phases were incorporated into learner-specific plots and an aggregated plot. The latter guided the initial examination of participants' CM performance, as shown in the following section.
4 Results
In this section the results obtained from the data analysis are carried out. The results are arranged according to the semantic plane results and their plotting, as well as according to the CM characteristics.
4.1 Aggregated results on the semantic plane
Overall, the CMs show numerous propositions that indicate the existence of practical and expert knowledge of the creators. An example MLE result and a corresponding coding of the CM is shown in Fig. 4.
It is noticeable that strictly theoretical knowledge, although necessary for the development of expert knowledge, was hardly made explicit and the elicitation of novice knowledge was negligible. The aggregated plot (Fig. 5) shows that the changes in the CMs occurred mainly in the SG.
The increase in SD propositions was less clear: a similar number of propositions were added in the SD- and SD– domains as in the SD + and SD + + domains. Regarding practical knowledge, the number of propositions almost doubled, and expert knowledge elicitation also increased significantly. The structure of the CM is similar to the structure of the proposed design of the MLE in the co-creation system, which may be a reason for the high number of practical propositions, since the system promotes the representation of knowledge in the form of a step-by-step sequence. However, the differences before and after the intervention changed the relationship between the number of experts and practical knowledge propositions.
4.2 Analysis of CM characteristics
Table 3 lists the heterogeneous evolution of the structural characteristics of the creators’ CMs and complements the plot of propositions with aspects of relative differentiation between novices and experts that help optimize the co-creation processes. Changes in knowledge representations have been examined primarily in terms of hierarchical manipulation (Chi, 2006a) and content (Cañas et al., 2015).
Knowledge extent
For the number of propositions as a characteristic of knowledge extent and a unit of measurement for it, a positive development could be derived from the pre- and post-results. In the case of co-creators with only a few propositions after the first CM phase, the comprehensibility of the work process increased significantly by expressing more process steps in the MLE. This was directly related to the increased focus on practical knowledge elicitation (MPE1, MPE2, PM3).
Organization
The more pronounced emergence of practical knowledge in the aggregated plot and the changed ratio between practical and expert knowledge was the result of some additions made to the CMs, which mainly revolved around machine-specific input or handling procedures of the initial start-up and process steps for configuring the zero reference point. These changes took place primarily on the lower levels of the CM hierarchies (TM2, MPE1, MPE2, PM2). The importance of earlier representations, which were very abstract, was greatly reduced, especially for MPE2, which had a less elaborate CM prior to the co-creation.
Knowledge depth
The depth of knowledge is most closely represented by the plotting results, as Kinchin and colleagues’ procedure (2019) worked with the levels of abstraction and concreteness on a semantic level. Here, like with the additions of very specific work process steps to the lower hierarchical levels, the loss of the degree of abstraction in the representations can also be mentioned, which is reflected by the roughly equal increase of propositions in SD–/SD- and SD + + /SD + .
Consolidation and integration
Only limited statements can be made about this. However, it is noticeable that despite the direction towards more practical knowledge, there was an increased formation of networked structures among individual participants. Among these participants, a change took place in the middle hierarchical levels with the use of cross-links that did not refer to the specific machine (PM1, PM3, PM4).
5 Discussion
In this study, we answered the question to what extent the implementation of an IT-supported MLE co-creation system enhances knowledge elaboration among co-creators. Contrary to our hypothesis, IT-supported co-creation had a positive effect on the elicitation and elaboration of both expert and practical knowledge, as evidenced at both the semantic and structural levels of CM changes. By this means, this qualitative and rather exploratory study in the field has one overall contribution to the literature: We show that the developed IT-supported co-creation process for MLE in work-process-integrated learning scenarios has a considerable impact on specific kinds of knowledge elaboration. By utilizing an innovative CM approach for VET research (Chang et al., 2022) we were able to identify differences in the knowledge structures of the employees and, thus, investigate the effects of the co-creation process. With the combination of Kinchin et al.’s (2019) semantic plane approach and Chi’s (2006a) hierarchies of knowledge, we provided a novel perspective on co-creation in VET. Further, our findings suggest that co-creation systems can support the development of cross-links between knowledge structures (Ding, 2009), including the integration of previous knowledge in the ML, resulting in knowledge elaboration of co-creators (Kalyuga, 2009; Ritchie & Karge, 1996). In the following, we discuss this overall contribution and the findings of the study in detail.
Our findings indicate that the promotion of practical knowledge shown in the aggregated plot of SD and SG can be a result of the guidance the co-creators were given by the IT-support system. The system maps the existing routines of the work process (Pentland & Feldman, 2008), which indicates an increase of (practical) knowledge elaboration. As we observed that the developed CMs and MLEs represent a step-by-step sequence of the work process in practice, the ostensive but especially performative aspects of the work process were outlined by the study participants (Wolthuis et al., 2022). Therefore, the design of the researched IT-supported co-creation system could reinforce the elicitation of practical knowledge in particular. In turn, knowledge elicitation could provide positive effects on the knowledge elaboration overall, not exclusively expert knowledge.
In relation to the co-creation process itself, our findings indicate that it should not overly emphasize sequences of work-steps but rather open up the mode of response to capture the individual interpretations of work processes (Clancey, 2002, 2006). Especially for the case of technical knowledge, this could encourage the use of according terminology, e.g., by utilizing just-in-time prompts (Koszalka et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2018) delivered by the platform. Negotiating the quality of MLE content across participants may become more extensive as a result. At the same time, our qualitative observations indicate that process structure through guiding questions in the development of the MLEs is still necessary. As co-creators usually lack didactic competencies, such a structure prevents that co-creators are overwhelmed by the process itself. Thus, our findings also highlight that the interaction with the system itself (Engelmann et al., 2014; Pérez-Sanagustín et al., 2015; Quadir et al., 2022) and fellow co-creators contributed to an exchange of different perspectives in situated learnings environments (Hämäläinen et al., 2008; Pérez-Sanagustín et al., 2015).
With the help of the detailed analysis of the domain-specific content, we discovered the repeated appearance of the CNC lathe as a contextual factor in the creators’ post-intervention CMs, with only limited integration into the CM structure already present at that point. This led to an overweighting of practical knowledge in the translation and plotting of propositions, thus indicating an unfavorable result of the IT-supported co-creation process (Pentland & Feldman, 2008) at first glance. Nonetheless, by promoting the integration of contextual information as examples during knowledge elicitation (Ruiz-Primo & Shavelson, 1996), generalizable and context-specific aspects of work processes could be captured in MLEs.
The results also suggest that the expert handling of changes in one's own mental representations (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995) manifests itself structurally through a broader activation of knowledge, reorganization of knowledge across hierarchical levels (e.g., by employing cross-links), and more diverse representations in terms of content (Cañas et al., 2015; Lee & Clariana, 2022). Furthermore, the process optimization encourages the inclusion of theoretical knowledge to associate work-process steps across different hierarchical levels and eventually different work processes to promote knowledge consolidation and integration.
6 Practical implications, limitation and future research
To leverage the potential of IT-supported co-creation systems for MLE content, practitioners should consider several aspects when integrating co-creation practices into their instructional designs. Providing co-creators with necessary resources is essential for facilitating these processes in the first place. Obvious but often neglected aspects relate to the relevant hardware, e.g., rugged tablets or smartphones for industry use instead of bring-your-own-device to also consider security and privacy aspects. Further, participants should be empowered through training and simply time resources for these processes. By considering concepts such as lead users, organizations could engage these co-creation processes through key educators in the organization. This is especially relevant for ensuring that the content is adequate in terms content quality. Findings from internal crowdsourcing could provide valuable starting points for practitioners to broadly implement high-quality co-creation into organizations and VET processes (Zuchowski et al., 2016).
Considering the empowerment of co-creators, motivation is also a key aspect to foster a conducive environment for co-creation and communication among participants. This might include considerations such as gamification to simply make co-creation processes “fun” (Schöbel et al., 2020). The role of facilitators to overcome power dynamics among co-contributors is also important to consider. Research from collaboration engineering provides valuable examples of how digital artifacts themselves address power dynamics (Briggs et al., 2013), for example by simply adding layers of anonymity to engage collaboration (Briggs, 2006). In addition, digital facilitators could guide the co-creation process, provide feedback and encouragement, and mediate conflicts or disagreements (Seeber et al., 2019). By additionally relying on collaboration scripts from education (Kollar et al., 2006), we could seek to overcome power dynamics in practice, which entails a culture of trust, respect, and collaboration, to avoid hierarchical or competitive relationships among co-creators.
The present study is not without limitations. First, we are not in a position to determine the long-term effects of the co-creation of MLEs on knowledge elaboration for VET. Additionally, since only one work process was employed for co-creational MLE development, no statements can be made about the dependence of the domain-specific content and knowledge elicitation. Second, the small sample size of eight participants prohibits the use of the approach taken by Kinchin et al. (2019) for the quantitative evaluation of IT-supported co-creation. As we worked with an inter-company vocational training center in this study, fully replicating the detrimental effects of work contexts (sounds, etc.) was also not possible. Nonetheless, we acknowledge this limitation consciously to provide a high-degree of ecological validity to our findings. Third, the promotion of practical knowledge can be a result of the CM task itself, reinforcing the representation of work processes step-by-step (Metcalf et al., 2018; Ruiz-Primo & Shavelson, 1996). The limitations mentioned have already been addressed in the continued development of the platform, as well as in further workshops of a larger study at the time of writing this article. Methodologically, it should be added that self-imposed limitations due to structural/morphological map characteristics and decreasing commitment in the CM task can be assumed for the post-intervention phase.
Future research should focus on just-in-time support features, such as chatbots and prompts, while overall designing a less rigid procedure of work process documentation (Bittner et al., 2021; Thomaz et al., 2020). At the same time, these approaches accommodate knowledge elicitation of expert knowledge, as they can be better adapted to the individual context of the employees as well as to their working conditions.
7 Conclusion
Our study answered the question of how an IT supported co-creation system can support the individual knowledge elaboration of expert knowledge in VET. With our study in a vocational training center, we were able to show that the use of IT-supported co-creation systems in the development process of MLE has a positive effect on the knowledge elaboration of employees, more precisely by revealing how the elicitation of expert knowledge has improved compared to other kinds of knowledge. The high number of practical propositions currently implies that our IT-supported co-creation system can support the development of practical knowledge in particular. The co-creators showed an increased knowledge extent and a better organization of their maps after working with the co-creation system. The study provides empirical evidence for the usefulness of co-creation systems for the development of MLE and subsequent effects on knowledge elaboration of co-creators.
Data availability
The generated and analyzed data is not publicly available due to privacy concerns.
References
Baceviciute, S., Cordoba, A. L., Wismer, P., Jensen, T. V., Klausen, M., & Makransky, G. (2021). Investigating the value of immersive virtual reality tools for organizational training: An applied international study in the biotech industry. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Article jcal.12630. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12630
Baker, M. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments (1st ed., pp. 47–78). Springer.
Baxter Magolda, M. (2007). Self-authorship: The foundation for twenty-first-century education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2007(109), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.266
Billert, M. S., Weinert, T., Thiel de Gafenco, M., Janson, A., Klusmeyer, J., & Leimeister, J. M. (2022). Vocational training with microlearning - How low-immersive 360-degree learning environments support work-process-integrated learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2022.3176777
Bittner, E. A. C., & Leimeister, J. M. (2014). Creating Shared Understanding in Heterogeneous Work Groups: Why It Matters and How to Achieve It. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(1), 111–144. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222310106
Bittner, E. A. C., Mirbabaie, M., & Morana, S. (2021). Digital Facilitation Assistance for Collaborative, Creative Design Processes. HICCS’21: Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference of System Science, Manoa, Hawaii, 5–8 January 2021. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/70655
Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4
Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creation in learning and teaching: The case for a whole-class approach in higher education. Higher Education, 79(6), 1023–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00453-w
Briggs, R. O. (2006). On theory-driven design and deployment of collaboration systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies., 64(7), 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02.003
Briggs, R. O., Kolfschoten, G. L., de Vreede, G.-J., Lukosch, S., & Albrecht, C. C. (2013). Facilitator-in-a-Box: Process Support Applications to Help Practitioners Realize the Potential of Collaboration Technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 159–193.
Cañas, A. J., Carff, R., Hill, G., Carvalho, M., Arguedas, M., Eskridge, T. C., Lott, J., & Carvajal, R. (2005). Concept Maps: Integrating Knowledge and Information Visualization. In S.-O. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), State-of-the-art survey: Vol. 3426. Knowledge and information visualization: Searching for synergies (pp. 205–219). Springer.
Cañas, A. J., Novak, J. D. , & Reiska, P. (2015). How good is my concept map? Am I a good Cmapper? Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 7(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2015.07.002
Chang, C.‑Y., & Yang, J. C. (2022). Concept mapping in computer-supported learning environments: a bibliometric analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2043385
Chang, C.‑C., & Hwang, G.‑J (2022). A structured reflection-based graphic organizer approach for professional training: A technology-supported AQSR approach. Computers & Education, 183, 104502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104502
Chang, C.‑C., Hwang, G.‑J., & Tu, Y.‑F. (2022). Roles, applications, and trends of concept map-supported learning: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of publications from 1992 to 2020 in selected educational technology journals. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2027457
Chi, M. T. H. (2006a). Laboratory Methods for Assessing Experts’ and Novices’ Knowledge. In K. A. Ericsson, N. H. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 167–184). Cambridge Univ. Press.
Chi, M. T. H. (2006b). Two Approaches to the Study of Experts’ Characteristics. In K. A. Ericsson, N. H. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 21–30). Cambridge Univ. Press.
Clancey, W. J. (2002). Stimulating activities: Relating motives, deliberation, and attentive coordination. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00053-0
Clancey, W. J. (2006). Observation of Work Practices in Natural Settings. In K. A. Ericsson, N. H. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 127–145). Cambridge Univ. Press.
Coetzee, D., Lim, S., Fox, A., Hartmann, B., & Hearst, M. A. (2015). Structuring Interactions for Large-Scale Synchronous Peer Learning. CSCW’15: Proceedings of the 15th Computer Supported Collaborative Work, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 14–18 March 2015, 1139–1152. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675251
Coll, C., Rochera, M. J., & Gispert, I. de (2014). Supporting online collaborative learning in small groups: Teacher feedback on learning content, academic task and social participation. Computers & Education, (75), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.015
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (Eds.). (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching. A guide for faculty (The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Deeley, S. J., & Bovill, C. (2017). Staff student partnership in assessment: Enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1126551
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. Simon and Schuster.
Ding, N. (2009). Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 52(2), 509–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.009
Dohn, N. B., Markauskaite, L., & Hachmann, R. (2020). Enhancing Knowledge Transfer. In M. J. Bishop, E. Boling, J. Elen, & V. Svihla (Eds.), Springer eBook Collection. Handbook of Research in Educational Communications and Technology: Learning Design (5th ed., pp. 73–96). Springer International Publishing; Imprint Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36119-8_5
Durall Gazulla, E., Martins, L., & Fernández-Ferrer, M. (2023). Designing learning technology collaboratively: Analysis of a chatbot co-design. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11162-w
Eisenkopf, G. (2010). Peer effects, motivation, and learning. Economics of Education Review, 29(3), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.08.005
Engelmann, T., Kozlov, M. D., Kolodziej, R., & Clariana, R. B. (2014). Fostering group norm development and orientation while creating awareness contents for improving net-based collaborative problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 298–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.052
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211
Gerbaudo, R., Gaspar, R., & Gonçalves Lins, R. (2021). Novel online video model for learning information technology based on micro learning and multimedia micro content. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 5637–5665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10537-9
Hämäläinen, R., Oksanen, K., & Häkkinen, P. (2008). Designing and analyzing collaboration in a scripted game for vocational education. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2496–2506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.010
He, W., & Wei, K.-K. (2009). What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of knowledge-contribution and -seeking beliefs. Decision Support Systems, 46(4), 826–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.11.007
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856
Hoffman, R. R. (2002). An empirical comparison of methods for eliciting and modeling expert knowledge. In Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (Chair), Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: 46th Annual Meeting. Symposium conducted at the meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Hoffman, R. R., & Lintern, G. (2006). Eliciting and Representing the Knowledge of Experts. In K. A. Ericsson, N. H. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 203–222). Cambridge Univ. Press.
Horst, R., & Dörner, R. (2019). Mining virtual reality nuggets: A pattern-based approach for creating virtual reality content based on microlearning methodology. Tale’19: IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Education, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 10–13 Dezember 2019, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE48000.2019.9225867
Howe, F. (2008). Task-Oriented Learning. In F. Rauner & R. Maclean (Eds.), Handbook of technical and vocational education and training research (pp. 536–542). Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
Howson, C. K., & Weller, S. (2016). Defining Pedagogic Expertise: Students and New Lecturers as Co-Developers in Learning and Teaching. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 4(2), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.4.2.6
Jalonen, S., Lakkala, M., & Paavola, S. (2011). Investigating knowledge creation technology in an engineering course. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1930–1942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.017
Janson, A., Söllner, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2020). Ladders for Learning: Is Scaffolding the Key to Teaching Problem Solving in Technology-mediated Learning Contexts? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19(4), 469–468. https://doi.org/10.5465/aMLEe.2018.0078
Kalyuga, S. (2009). Knowledge elaboration: A cognitive load perspective. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 402–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.003
Kinchin, I. M., Möllits, A., & Reiska, P. (2019). Uncovering Types of Knowledge in Concept Maps. Education Sciences, 9(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020131
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration Scripts - A Conceptual Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2
Koszalka, T. A., Wilhelm-Chapin, M. K., Hromalik, C. D., Pavlov, Y., & Zhang, L. (2019). Prompting Deep Learning with Interactive Technologies: Theoretical Perspectives in Designing Interactive Learning Resources and Environments. In P. Díaz, A. Ioannou, K. K. Bhagat, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Smart Computing and Intelligence. Learning in a Digital World (pp. 13–36). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8265-9_2
Langreiter, C., & Bolka, A. (2006). Snips & Spaces: Managing Microlearning: (On Microlearning and Microknowledge in a Microcontent-based Web). In T. Hug, M. Lindner, & P. A. Bruck (Eds.), Microlearning: Emerging Concepts, Practices and Technologies after e-Learning (1st ed., pp. 79–97). Innsbruck University Press.
Lee, L., Lajoie, S. P., Poitras, E. G., Nkangu, M., & Doleck, T. (2017). Co-regulation and knowledge construction in an online synchronous problem based learning setting. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1623–1650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9509-6
Lee, M., & Clariana, R. B. (2022). The influence of external concept structures on an individual’s knowledge structures. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(5), 1657–1674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10144-6
Levi, D. J. (2020). Group Dynamics for Teams. Sage Publications.
Ley, T. (2020). Knowledge structures for integrating working and learning: A reflection on a decade of learning technology research for workplace learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(2), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12835
Maton, K., & Chen, R. T.‑H. (2016). LCT in qualitative research: Creating a translation device for studying constructivist pedagogy. In K. Maton, S. Hood, & S. Shay (Eds.), Knowledge-building: Educational studies in legitimation code theory (pp. 27–48). Taylor & Francis Group.
McLellan, H. (1993). Evaluation in a situated learning environment. Educational Technology, 33(3), 39–45.
Mensah, A. O., Adom, A. Y., Agyapong, J.-A.M., & Kumi-Korsah, A. N. A. (2020). Creating the Difference: Making Shared Experience Meaningful at the Workplace. Journal of Business and Administrative Studies, 12(2), 87–107.
Metcalf, S. J., Reilly, J. M., Kamarainen, A. M., King, J., Grotzer, T. A., & Dede, C. (2018). Supports for deeper learning of inquiry-based ecosystem science in virtual environments - Comparing virtual and physical concept mapping. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.018
Moen, A., Mørch, A. I., & Paavola, S. (2012). Collaborative Knowledge Creation: Practices, Tools, Concepts. Technology Enhanced Learning: Vol. 7. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-004-0
Nakano, D., Muniz, J., & Dias Batista, E. (2013). Engaging environments: Tacit knowledge sharing on the shop floor. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271311315222
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2018). Mobile-Based micro-Learning and Assessment: Impact on learning performance and motivation of high school students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12240
Novak, J. D. [Joseph Donald]. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571.https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10032
Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information and Organization, 18(4), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.08.001
Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Alario-Hoyos, C., Soldani, X., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2015). Lessons learned from the design of situated learning environments to support collaborative knowledge construction. Computers & Education, 87, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.019
Posner, M. I. (1988). Introduction: What is it to be an expert. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xxix–xxxvi). Erlbaum.
Puah, S., Bin Mohmad Khalid, M. I. S., Looi, C. K., & Khor, E. T. (2021). Investigating working adults’ intentions to participate in microlearning using the decomposed theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Educational Technology, Article bjet.13170. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13170
Quadir, B., Yang, J. C., & Chen, N.-S. (2022). The effects of interaction types on learning outcomes in a blog-based interactive learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(2), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1652835
Rauner, F., & Maclean, R. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of technical and vocational education and training research. Springer Science & Business Media B.V. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8347-1
Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., Wilson, B. G., & Spiller, R. T. (1980). The elaboration theory of instruction: A model for sequencing and synthesizing instruction. Instructional Science, 9(3), 195–219.
Ritchie, D., & Karge, B. D. (1996). Making Information Memorable: Enhanced Knowledge Retention and Recall Through the Elaboration Process. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 41(1), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.1996.9944681
Röben, P. (2008). Competence and Expertise Research. In F. Rauner & R. Maclean (Eds.), Handbook of technical and vocational education and training research (pp. 371–379). Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2000). On the Use of Concept Maps as an Assessment Tool in Science: What We Have Learned so far. Revista Electrónica De Investigación Educativa (REDIE), 2(1), 29–53.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569–600. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199608)33:6%3c569::AID-TEA1%3e3.0.CO;2-M
Sabitha, S., Mehrotra, D., & Bansal, A. (2015). Knowledge Enriched Learning by Converging Knowledge Object & Learning Object. The Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 13(1), 3–13.
Schaefer, T., Rahn, J., Kopp, T., Fabian, C. M., & Brown, A. (2019). Fostering online learning at the workplace: A scheme to identify and analyse collaboration processes in asynchronous discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1354–1367. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12617
Schmidt, A. (2007). Microlearning and the knowledge maturing process: Towards conceptual foundations for work-integrated microlearning support. In T. Hug, M. Lindner, & P. A. Bruck (Eds.), Micromedia and Corporate Learning. Proceedings of the 3rd International Microlearning 2007 (pp. 99–105). Innsbruck University Press.
Schöbel, S. M., Janson, A., & Söllner, M. (2020). Capturing the complexity of gamification elements: A holistic approach for analysing existing and deriving novel gamification designs. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(6), 641–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1796531
Seeber, I., Bittner, E., Briggs, R. O., Vreede, T. de, Vreede, G.-J. de, Elkins, A., Maier, R., Merz, A. B., Oeste-Reiß, S., Randrup, N., Schwabe, G., & Söllner, M. (2019). Machines as teammates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration. Information & Management, 57(2), 103174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103174
Senderek, R. (2016). The systematic integration of technology enhanced learning for lifelong competence development in a corporate context. In D. Burgos, R. Gonzalez Crespo, & A. Khoroshilov (Eds.), Integration of formal and informal contexts, for a better learning and a better teaching. UNESCO and UNIR ICT and Education Latam Congress 2016 (pp. 142–151). Universidad Internacional de La Rioja.
Suthers, D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2010). A framework for conceptualizing, representing, and analyzing distributed interaction. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 5–42.
Tan, E., de Weerd, J. G., & Stoyanov, S. (2021). Supporting interdisciplinary collaborative concept mapping with individual preparation phase. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 607–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09963-w
Teo, T., Unwin, S., Scherer, R., & Gardiner, V. (2021). Initial teacher training for twenty-first century skills in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR 4.0): A scoping review. Computers & Education, 170, 104223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104223
Thiel de Gafenco, M., Janson, A., & Schneider, T. (2018). KoLeArn – Smarte und kontextsensitive Aus- und Weiterbildung für die chinesische Industrie. In D. Krömker & U. Schroeder (Eds.), DeLFI 2018 - Die 16. E-Learning Fachtagung Informatik (pp. 281–282). Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/21053
Thomaz, F., Salge, C., Karahanna, E., & Hulland, J. (2020). Learning from the Dark Web: Leveraging conversational agents in the era of hyper-privacy to enhance marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00704-3
Tseng, K.-H., Chiang, F. K., & Hsu, W.-H. (2008). Interactive processes and learning attitudes in a web-based problem-based learning (PBL) platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 940–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.02.023
van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00002-5
Weinert, T., Billert, M., Thiel de Gafenco, M., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2023). Designing a co-creation system for the development of work-process-related learning material in manufacturing. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 32(1), 5–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-021-09420-5
Winkler, R., Söllner, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2021). Enhancing problem-solving skills with smart personal assistant technology. Computers & Education, 165, 104148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104148
Wolthuis, F., Hubers, M. D., van Veen, K., & de Vries, S. (2022). The Concept of Organizational Routines and Its Potential for Investigating Educational Initiatives in Practice: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 92(2), 249–287. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211051424
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Wu, C.‑H., Chen, Y.‑S., & Chen, T. (2018). An Adaptive e-Learning System for Enhancing Learning Performance: Based on Dynamic Scaffolding Theory. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(3), 903–913. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/81061
Zhang, B., Yin, C., David, B., Xiong, Z., & Niu, W. (2016). Facilitating professionals’ work-based learning with context-aware mobile system. Science of Computer Programming, 129, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2016.01.008
Zheng, L., Huang, R., Hwang, G.‑J [G.-J.], & Yang, K. (2015). Measuring Knowledge Elaboration Based on a Computer-Assisted Knowledge Map Analytical Approach to Collaborative Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 321–336.
Zuchowski, O., Posegga, O., Schlagwein, D., & Fischbach, K. (2016). Internal Crowdsourcing: Conceptual Framework, Structured Review, and Research Agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 31(2), 166–184. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2016.1
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all participants of B. Braun Company, BZ Bildungszentrum Kassel and Reinhold Büchler, without whose support the study would not have been possible. We would also like to thank Matthias Simon Billert for his work in developing the co-creation system.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The research presented in this paper was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research in the course of project KoLeArn (www.kolearn.de), Grant no. 01BE17008A. In addition, the third author acknowledges funding from the Basic Research Fund of the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
All evaluations were conducted under the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the data processing rules of the University of Kassel to protect the personal data of the participants.
Informed consent
All study participants signed an informed consent.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that there are no other potential conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Thiel de Gafenco, M., Weinert, T., Janson, A. et al. Shared digital artifacts – Co-creators as beneficiaries in microlearning development. Educ Inf Technol 29, 7129–7154 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12074-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12074-z