How to integrate the motivation to learn into TEL enhanced organizational knowledge-management models? Teresa Holocher-Ertl1, Kai Pata2 , Claudia Magdalena Fabian1, 1 Centre for Social Innovation/Technology and Knowledge, Austria 2 Tallinn University, Estonia holocher@zsi.at, kpata@tlu.ee, fabian@zsi.at 1 Introduction Learning at the workplace is said to be “the next big thing” [1], and social learning on ICT-enabled work-communities is foreseen to become the dominant source of educa- tion in areas where new practical knowledge emerges rapidly and has a short lifetime [2]. Being competent becomes more and more a dynamic and social phenomenon, where individual workers are the managers of their learning paths, and the self- determined enhancement of their work-relevant knowledge is based on a frequent ex- perience exchange with colleagues and peers. But engagement in collaborative learn- ing and knowledge building (LKB) activities is still a big challenge for many work- place learning designers and researchers. First, challenges arise on how to make the individual tacit knowledge of experts explicit and useful for other workers, how to combine it to more complex constructs that embody the organizational goals and vi- sions, and how to shape the action and practice in organization with this accumulated knowledge. Second, especially in highly competitive environments motivation for an increased knowledge sharing is an important challenge, as people might feel reluctant to give away too much of their tacit knowledge [3]. One model that explains organizational knowledge management from individuals’ and organizations’ perspective is the knowledge conversion model (also called SECI- model) from Nonaka and Takeuchi [4]. This model has been used to explain how to dynamically update organizational knowledge using organization members experi- ences, but it does not integrate the issues of motivation for learning and knowledge- building (LKB) in the workplace. In IntelLEO, a research project of the 7th Framework program, we aim to increase mo- tivation for LKB within and across organizational borders through innovative tools and procedures [5]. With this aim, the research team took the approach to adapt the model [4] into the projects’ “pedagogic and motivational model”. 2 The organizational knowledge conversion model Nonaka and his co-researchers [4] were one of the pioneers in theorizing about orga- nizational knowledge conversion as the means for achieving adaptive and agile com- panies. This knowledge management model basically describes a spiral continuum of explicit and tacit knowledge that flows between the individual and the organizational levels. The model covers four (SECI) phases: - Socialization with colleagues upon implicit knowledge while working is largely supported by physical proximity and represents the origin of trust and commitment between individuals via apprenticeships, shared experiences and informal meetings; 1 - Externalization of personal implicit work knowledge for organizational purposes is guided by organizational goals and visions and is largely supported by dialog and col- lective reflection requiring shared concepts, visuals and a symbolic language, as well as translation skills, like metaphors or analogies; - Combination of explicit knowledge is the integration and synthesis of the useful ex- periences of different individuals, and serves the purpose of updating organizational visions and goals. By sharing tacit knowledge individuals commit and become part of a group – a process that is largely influenced by the quality of social relations between the group members. They combine existing explicit knowledge with new knowledge, they systemize the new knowledge through editing and processing and they diffuse it within the organization through presentations and meetings. - Internalization is the process of taking the new knowledge into use in work prac- tices. Individuals use explicit knowledge to broaden, extend, and reframe their tacit knowledge through continuous self-refinement. The new explicit knowledge is em- bedded in action and practice through the reading of manuals, the participation in trainings or the integration of new processes in one’s working practice. In general the model has not been used as an organizational learning model. But re- cently, Naeve, Luoma, Kravcik & Lytras [6] have used SECI phases for describing learning process in the workplace, focusing on reflective practices in networking and collaboration. 3 Motivation for LKB in the workplace The new ways of learning in the workplace require self-motivated, proactive learn- ers, to whom Zimmerman B.J. [7] refers to as self-regulated learners, in this context. Self-regulated learning (SRL) activities are learning activities that are under the learner's own direction, and include additional components such as self-monitoring of effectiveness and self-motivation [8]. Self-regulated learners engage in three proc- esses: 1. self-observation, 2. self-judgment, and 3. self-reactions, which can be ongo- ing simultaneously. Self-regulated learners are said to have a higher intrinsic motiva- tion for learning, as observing oneself can help learners to monitor their progression toward their goals. There is extensive evidence that encouraging learners to system- atically monitor their own performance (either through self-recording or external recoding) positively affects their skill, acquisition, motivation, and self-efficacy [7]. Schunk [9] bring also evidence that a particularly effective strategy for reaching long- term goals is the introduction of intermediate goals that are specific, have a plausible difficulty level and are proximal in time. Taking a closer look at the role of motivation in self-regulation of learning, especially recent studies take into consideration cogni- tive theories of motivation, highlighting the relevance of achievement goals [10]. The achievement goal theory differentiates between 1) learning oriented individuals, who want to increase their competence and challenges are seen as an opportunity to learn; and 2) mastery oriented individuals, who want to gain favorable judgments of their competence and challenges are seen as a test to measure competence [11]. While the former demand the comparison with other individuals (social reference norm), the lat- ter seek for comparison with one’s achievements in a specific situation or with exist- ing standards (individual reference norm) [12]. Empirical research brings evidence that individuals, who are oriented towards the enhancement of competences and the excellence within their tasks, show high intrinsic motivation, high task persistency and high self-efficacy beliefs [11]. Latest research on performance goals brings evi- dence that performance-oriented goals can have positive influences on intrinsic moti- vation comparable to learning goals, if they target to attain positive judgments of 2 one’s competences [13]. An important contribution to this multi-goal perspective comes from Wentzel [14] who differentiate between social and academic goals, where the former reflect desires to achieve a particular social outcome. Social goals influ- ence achievement in their own right, as well as together with learning goals. The pur- suit of social goals, as being cooperative, compliant, and willing to share, is positively related with successful learning [14]. Thus, research suggests combining orientation towards learning goals and orientation towards social goals to increase learning and performance. The positive influence of being embedded in a learning community on the learners’ motivation is also confirmed by other scholars. Their research empha- sizes the importance of collaboration for successful learning [15, 16] and suggests that social factors can be as powerfully motivating as intellectual ones in keeping learners on task. 3 Adapting the knowledge conversion model to support motivation for learning and knowledge-building To integrate motivation for learning and knowledge-building into the SECI model, IntelLEO decided to focus on two aspects, and integrate them in the original SECI phases: 1) Support of self-regulated learners, and 2) Support of collaboration and so- cial and organizational embeddedness. Figure 1. An adapted IntelLEO SECI model for motivational aspects of LKB in organizations We understand our adapted knowledge conversion model as an approach, which inte- grates and fosters: Ad 1) Support of self-regulated achievement of learning and performance goals: The planning of one’s competence development and self-regulated learning from oth- ers are activities that are covered in the model’s internalization phase [17], while self- regulated reflecting, documenting and bringing evidence of competence development are supported in the externalization phase (see the dotes squares in Figure 1). Ad2) Support of collaboration and social and organizational embbededdness: The strengthening of the community as a source of motivation will support learning 3 and knowledge sharing activities in all SECI-phases. Pro-social goals, feeling of relat- edness, collaborative discussion and enhancement of learning objects, support and tu- toring for increased self-efficacy are highly relevant factors to motivate people for non-intrinsically motivated tasks. Additional this cluster fosters the social embedded- ness of learners into the goals, norms and visions of organizations. In the socialization phase, Nonaka and his colleagues already emphasize the im- portance of networking and sharing competences with colleagues as the basis of trust and commitment [4, 18]. In the externalization phase, Nonaka et al. [4, 18] stress the importance of dialog when externalizing one’s tacit experiences. When individual ex- periences are externalized, learners commit to a group and identify with it. In the combination phase, activities are mainly group-based, and collaborative discussion and enhancement of existing knowledge take place. We added the aspect of collabora- tion and social embeddedness also to the internalization phase, where individuals as well as groups identify the knowledge relevant for themselves within the organization, negotiate and set their learning goals, internalize external regulations, monitor pro- gress towards achievement and learn based on the externalized experiences of others. These two aspects (1) support of self-regulated learners +2) support of collabora- tion and social/organizational embeddedness) are closely interwoven, as the plan- ning, performance and monitoring processes in self-regulated learning are based on resource, and activities that were constructed and undertaken collaboratively across organizations. Therefore, for successful knowledge creation to occur, newly developed services and tools have to support activities in all four phases of the adapted IntelLEO SECI model. 4 Outlook Following this motivational approach IntelLEO is currently developing innovative generic services for managing collaborative learning activities and contents, as well as an ontological framework for learning context representation. Both, the motivational approach and the related services will be evaluated in three heterogeneous business cases to assess their influence on learners’ motivation for informal learning at the workplace. Acknowledgement. This publication was partially supported/co-funded by the Euro- pean Community/European Union under the Information and Communication Tech- nologies theme of the 7th Framework Program for R&D. This document does not rep- resent the opinion of the European Community, and the European Community is not responsible for any use that might be made of its content. References [1] Straub, R., “Knowledge work in a connected world: is workplace learning the next big thing?” Impact: Journal of Applied Research in Workplace E-learning, 1(1), 2009: pp.5–11. [2] Tuomi, I., “The Future of Learning in the Knowledge Society: Disruptive Changes for Europe by 2020.” for EC-DG Joint Research Centre/ DG Education and Culture: 1-48, 2005 [3] Ardichvili, A., Page, V., Wentiling, T., "Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge sharing communities of practice" Journal of Knowledge Management 7(1), 2003: 64. [4] Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies cre- ate the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, 1995. 4 [5] D1.4 IntelLEO Public Concept, http://intelleo.eu/uploads/tx_abdownloads/files/IntelLEO_Concept_D1.4_v20.pdf [6] Naeve, A., Yli-Luoma, P., Kravcik, M., & Lytras, M. D. (2008). A modeling approach to study learning processes with a focus on knowledge creation. International Journal Technol- ogy Enhanced Learning, 1(1/2), 1–34. [7] Zimmerman, B. J, "A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning." Jour- nal of Educational Psychology 81(3), 1989 [8] Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., Rollett, W., "Motivation and action in self-regulated learn- ing." in Handbook of Self-Regulation, Ed. Monique Boekaerts, Paul P. Pintrich and Moshe Zeidner. London, UK, Elsevier Academic Press, 2000: 503-529. [9] Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B.J. Zimmer- man & D.H. Schunk (Eds.) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, re- search, and practice, New York, Springer Verlag: 83-110. [10] Montalvo, F. T., Gonzalez Torres, M.C., "Self-Regulated Learning: Current and Future Di- rections." Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology 2(1), 2004: 1-34. [11] Covington, M. V., "Goal Theory, Motivation, and School Achievement: An Integrative Review." Annual Review Psychology, 51, 2000: 171-200. [12] Heckhausen, J., Heckhausen H., "Motivation und Handeln." Springer Medizin Verlag Hei- delberg 2006. [13] Rawsthorne, L. J., Elliot, A.J. (1999). "Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review." Personality and Social Psychology Review 3(4): 326-344. [14] Wentzel, K. R. (1998). "Social Relationships and Motivation in Middle School: The Role of Parents, Teachers, and Peers." Journal of Educational Psychology 90(2): 202-209. [15] Dillenbourgh, P., "What do you mean by "collaborative learning"?" In P. Dilenbourg (Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, 1999, Oxfort: Elsevier: 1-19. [16] Alvesson, M., "Social identity and the problem of loyalty in knowledge-intensive organi- zations." Journal of Management Studies 37(8), 2000: 1101-1020. [17] K., Pata, & M., Laanpere, “Supporting cross-institutional knowledgebuilding with Web 2.0 enhanced digital portfolios,” In Proc. of the 8th IEEE Int’l Conf.Advanced Learning Tech. 2008, pp.798 - 800. [18] Nonaka, I., Konno, N., "The Concept of "Ba": Building a Foundation for Knowledge Crea- tion." California Management Review 40(3), 1998: 40-54. 5