Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating organizational, social, and individual perspectives in Web 2.0-based workplace e-learning

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

E-learning is emerging as a popular approach of education in the workplace by virtue of its flexibility to access, just-in-time delivery, and cost-effectiveness. To improve social interaction and knowledge sharing in e-learning, Web 2.0 is increasingly utilized and integrated with e-learning applications. However, existing social learning systems fail to align learning with organizational goals and individual needs in a systemic way. The dominance of technology-oriented approaches makes e-learning applications less goal-effective and poor in quality and design. To solve the problem, we address the requirement of integrating organizational, social, and individual perspectives in the development of Web 2.0 e-learning systems. To fulfill the requirement, a key performance indicator (KPI)-oriented approach is presented in this study. By integrating a KPI model with Web 2.0 technologies, our approach is able to: 1) set up organizational goals and link the goals with expertise required for individuals; 2) build a knowledge network by linking learning resources to a set of competences to be developed and a group of people who learn and contribute to the knowledge network through knowledge creation, sharing, and peer evaluation; and 3) improve social networking and knowledge sharing by identifying each individual’s work context, expertise, learning need, performance, and contribution. The mechanism of the approach is explored and elaborated with conceptual frameworks and implementation technologies. A prototype system for Web 2.0 e-learning has been developed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aczel, J. C., Peake, S. R., & Hardy, P. (2008). Designing capacity-building in e-learning expertise: Challenges and strategies. Computers & Education archive, 50(2), 499–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akhras, F. N., & Self, J. A. (2000). System intelligence in constructivist learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 334–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41, 32–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attwell, G. (2007). Web 2.0 and the changing ways we are using computers for learning: What are the implications for pedagogy and curriculum? eLearning Papers, http://www.elearningpapers.eu/index.php?page=home.

  • Baker, T. (1995). Key performance indicators manual: A practical guide for the best practice development, implementation and use of KPIs. South Melbourne: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertolino, A. (2001). Chapter 5 — Software Testing. In Abran, A. and Moore, J. W. (Eds), Swebok: Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge: Trial Version 1.00, IEEE.

  • Bontis, N., Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies, 39(4), 437–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (1999). Understanding learning at work: Routledge.

  • Carchiolo, V., Longheu, A., Malgeri, M., & Mangioni, G. (2007). A model for a web-based learning system. Information Systems Frontiers, 9(2–3), 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrillo, P. M., Robinson, H. S., Anumba, C. J., & Al-Ghassani, A. M. (2003). IMPaKT: A framework for linking knowledge management to business performance. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management (EJKM), 1(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collin, K. (2006). Connecting work and learning: Design engineers’ learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(7/8), 403–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constant, D., Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1994). What is mine is ours, or is it? Information Systems Research, 5, 400–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, R. L. (1996). The ASTD training and development handbook: A guide to human resource development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, J, & Bobeva, M. (2006). Using a balanced scorecard approach for evaluating an integrated learning environment for undergraduate. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information, Italy.

  • Driscoll, M. (1998). Web-based training: Using technology to design adult learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M., & Carliner, S. (2005). Advanced web-based training strategies: Unlocking instructionally sound online learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, a Wiley Imprint.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith, M., Araujo, L., & Burgoyne, J. (1999). Organizational learning and the learning organization: Developments in theory and practice. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garavan, T. N., & McGuire, D. (2001). Competencies and workplace learning: Some reflections on the rhetoric and the reality. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(4), 144–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. C. (1999). Building robust competencies: Linking human resource systems to organizational strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, T. R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal Human-Computer Studies, 43(5–6), 907–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, H. (2001). Input friendly Intranets: Motivating knowledge sharing across Intranets. Journal of Information Science, 27(3), 139–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illeris, K. (2003). Workplace learning and learning theory. The Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(4), 167–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. C. (2000). Systems approaches to management. New York: Kluwer, Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Houston: Gulf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korossy, K. (1997). Extending the theory of knowledge spaces: A competence-performance approach. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 205, 53–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS quarterly, 19(3), 265–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ley, T., & Albert, D. (2003). Identifying employee competencies in dynamic work domains: Methodological considerations and a case study. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 9(12), 1500–1518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucia, A. D., & Lepsinger, R. (1999). Competency models: Pinpointing critical success factors in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2007). Using Web 2.0 for learning in the community. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 196–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. (2001). Androgeny and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. In S. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory (pp. 3–13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, S., Birchall, D., Williams, S., & Charalambos, V. (2005). Developing design principles for an e-learning programme for SME managers to support accelerated learning at the workplace. The Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(5/6), 370–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noy, N. F., Fergerson, R. W., & Musen, M. A. (2000). The knowledge model of Protege-2000: Combining interoperability and flexibility. 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW’2000), France.

  • O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.

  • Parmenter, D. (2007). Key performance indicators (KPI): Developing, implementing, and using winning KPIs. Hoboken: J. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piskurich, G. M., Beckschi, P., & Hall, B. (2000). The ASTD handbook of training design and delivery: A comprehensive guide to creating and delivering training programs, instructor-led, computer-based, or self-directed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raelin, J. A. (1998). Work-based learning in practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 10(6/7), 280–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ran, W., & Wang, M. (2008). Develop adaptive workplace e-learning environments by using performance measurement systems. Proceedings of International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS), Barcelona.

  • Ran, W., Wang, M., & Law, N. (2008). Develop a workplace e-learning environment by using key performance indicator. Proceedings of International Conference on e-Learning in the Workplace (ICELW), New York.

  • Rodrigues, L. L. R., & Pai, R. (2005). Preparation and validation of KM measurement instrument: an empirical study in educational and IT sectors. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Knowledge Management, North Carolina, USA, 582–593.

  • Rollett, H., Lux, M., Strohmaier, M., & Dosinger, G. (2007). The Web 2.0 way of learning with technologies. International Journal of Learning Technology, 3(1), 87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, A., & Raymond, L. (2008). Identifying and lowering the barriers to e-learning for SMEs, Proceedings of International Conference on e-Learning in the Workplace (ICELW), New York.

  • Sambrook, S. (2003). E-learning in small organizations. Education + Training, 45(8/9), 506–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Servage, L. (2005). Strategizing for workplace e-learning: Some critical considerations. The Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(5/6), 304–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sicilia, M. A., & Naeve, A. (2007). Competencies and organizational learning: A conceptual framework. In M. A. Sicilia (Ed.), Competencies in organizational e-learning: Concepts and tools (pp. 1–9). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G. (2005). A learning theory for the digital age, http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.

  • Slizyte, A., & Bakanauskiene, I. (2007). Designing performance measurement system in organization. Organizacij Vadyba: Sisteminiai Tyrimai, 43, 135–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. J., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2006). Learning in organizations: Complexities and diversities. London; New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapinos, E., Dyson, R. G., & Meadows, M. (2005). The impact of performance measurement systems in setting the ‘direction’ in the University of Warwick. Production Planning & Control, 16(2), 189–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. (2001). Improving performance indicators in higher education: The academics’ perspective. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25(3), 379–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tynjälä, P., & Häkkinen, P. (2005). E-learning at work: Theoretical underpinnings and pedagogical challenges. The Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(5/6), 318–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M., & Yang, S. J. H. (2009). Editorial: Knowledge Management and E-Learning. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal (KM&EL), 1(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, E., Wanberg, C., Brown, K., & Simmering, M. (2003). E-learning: Emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 245–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K.; New York, N.Y: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, D., & Nunamaker, J. (2003). Powering e-learning in the new millennium: An overview of e-learning and enabling technology. Information System Frontiers, 5(2), 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Weijia Ran and Jian Liao who provided valuable help in system development. This research is supported by a UGC GRF Grant (No. 717708) from the Hong Kong SAR Government and a Seeding Funding for Basic Research (200711159052) from The University of Hong Kong.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Information & Technology Studies, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

    Minhong Wang

Authors
  1. Minhong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minhong Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, M. Integrating organizational, social, and individual perspectives in Web 2.0-based workplace e-learning. Inf Syst Front 13, 191–205 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9191-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9191-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation