<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>The  influence  of  collaboration  and  self-­‐regulated   learning  services  on  the  motivation  to  learn  at  the   workplace  </article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>ZSI - Centre for Social Innovation</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Vienna</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="AT">Austria</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>Motivating workplace learners to actively getting involved in learning and sharing knowledge with their colleagues is still a challenging task for researchers and educational designers. In this paper we present results from the two-months evaluation of the IntelLEO motivational concept, investigating the role of ICT-supported collaboration and self-regulated learning activities on the motivation and self-efficacy for learning and knowledge building of workplace learners. This motivational concept was evaluated in three different business cases involving 59 participants.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>workplace learning</kwd>
        <kwd>collaboration</kwd>
        <kwd>self-regulation</kwd>
        <kwd>motivation</kwd>
        <kwd>selfefficacy</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>Learning   at   the   workplace   and   social   learning   on   ICT-­‐enabled  
work-­‐communities   is   foreseen   to   become   the   dominant   source   of  
education  in  areas  where  new  practical  knowledge  emerges  rapidly  
and  has  a  short  lifetime  [1].  But  engagement  in  collaborative  learn-­‐
ing  and  knowledge  building  (LKB)  activities  at  the  workplace  is  still  
a  big  challenge  for  many  educationists  and  researchers.  Challenges  
arise  on  how  to  make  the  individual  tacit  knowledge  of  experts  ex-­‐
plicit   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.  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  [2].    
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  [3].  This  model  has  been  used  to  explain  how  to  dynami-­‐
cally   update   organizational   knowledge   using   organization   mem-­‐
bers  experiences,  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  
aimed  to  increase  mo-­‐  tivation  for  LKB  within  and  across  organiza-­‐
tional   borders   through   innovative   tools   and   procedures   [4].   With  
this   aim,   the   research   team   took   the   approach   to   adapt   the   SECI  
model  [3]  into  the  projects’  “pedagogic  and  motivational  model”.    
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>The IntelLEO motivational model</title>
      <p>To   integrate   motivation   for   learning   and   knowledge-­‐building   into  
the  SECI  model,  IntelLEO  decided  to  focus  on  two  aspects,  and  inte-­‐
grate  them  in  the  original  SECI  phases:  1)  Support  of  self-­‐regulated  
learners  [5],  and  2)  Support  of  collaboration  and  social  and  organi-­‐
zational   embeddedness.   We   understand   our   adapted   knowledge  
conversion  model  as  an  approach,  which  integrates  and  fosters:    
Ad   1)   Support   of   self-­‐regulated   achievement   of   learning   and   per-­‐
formance   goals:   The   planning   of   one’s   competence   development  
and  self-­‐regulated  learning  from  others  are  activities  that  are  cov-­‐
ered  in  the  model’s  internalization  phase  [17],  while  self-­‐  regulated  
reflecting,   documenting   and   bringing   evidence   of   competence   de-­‐
velopment   are   supported   in   the   externalization   phase   (see   the  
dotes  squares  in  Figure  1).    
Ad2)   Support   of   collaboration   and   social   and   organizational   emb-­‐
bededdness:   The   strengthening   of   the   community   as   a   source   of  
motivation  will  support  learning    and  knowledge  sharing  activities  
in   all   SECI-­‐phases.   Pro-­‐social   goals,   feeling   of   relatedness,   collabo-­‐
rative  discussion  and  enhancement  of  learning  objects,  support  and  
tutoring   for   increased   self-­‐efficacy   are   highly   relevant   factors   to  
motivate   people   for   non-­‐intrinsically   motivated   tasks.   Additional  
this   cluster   fosters   the   social   embeddedness   of   learners   into   the  
goals,  norms  and  visions  of  organizations.    
A  more  detailed  introduction  into  the  IntelLEO  pedagogic  and  mo-­‐
tivational  model  was  presented  at  the  last  MATEL  2011  workshop  
[6].    
In   this   workshop   we   want   to   present   the   results   from   the   two-­‐
months   evaluation   of   this   model   in   three   different   Business   Cases  
involving   59   participants   from   industry   and   research   organisa-­‐
tions.  
3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Evaluation of the motivational model</title>
      <p>The   IntelLEO   pedagogic   and   motivational   model   was   evaluated  
during   a   testing   period   of   two   months   with   employees   in   three  
Business  Cases  (BCs).  The  testing  took  place  between  October  2011  
and  January  2012.  All  59  test-­‐participants  were  provided  with  a  set  
of  learning  services,  which  supported  self-­‐regulated  and  collabora-­‐
tive  learning  at  the  workplace  during  this  testing  period,  while  the  
scenarios   for   the   usage   of   these   services   were   adapted   to   the   spe-­‐
cific  needs  and  requirements  of  each  BC.  
The   testing   phase   started   with   an   initial   training   session   for   the  
test-­‐participants,   where   the   services   were   introduced   and   pre-­‐
evaluation   questionnaire   distributed   to   the   employees.   After   the  
two-­‐months   testing   period,   the   evaluation   was   concluded   with   a  
post-­‐evaluation   questionnaire   and   two   focus   groups   per   BC   to   in-­‐
vestigate  the  experiences  of  participants  in  more  detail.  In  addition  
the  facilitators  and  representatives  of  the  management  were  invit-­‐
ed  for  expert  interviews  to  provide  feedback  regarding  the  organi-­‐
zational  point  of  view  on  the  IntelLEO  learning  services  and  peda-­‐
gogic   concept.   The   data   from   the   questionnaires   were   used   to   in-­‐
vestigate   the   participant’s   attitudes   towards   learning   and  
knowledge-­‐sharing,   as   well   as   their   motivation   and   self-­‐efficacy  
towards  self-­‐regulated  and  collaborative  learning  at  the  workplace.  
A   pre-­‐   and   post-­‐data   comparison   tried   to   find   out   in   how   far   the  
two-­‐months   testing   period   changed   these   attitudes   and   motiva-­‐
tional   aspects   of   participants.   Correlation   analysis   tried   to   answer  
in  how  far  positive  attitudes  towards  learning  and  knowledge  shar-­‐
ing   related   to   a   high   motivation   and   self-­‐efficacy   perception   of  
learners.   The   focus   group   discussions   gave   more   insights   into   the  
motivators  and  barriers  of  using  the  learning  services  in  the  differ-­‐
ent  organizational  contexts  and  thus  provided  a  better  understand-­‐
ing   of   factors   influencing   collaborative,   self-­‐regulated   learning   at  
the   workplace.   Besides   this,   open   questions   for   future   research  
projects   were   derived.   The   expert   interviews   provided   more   in-­‐
sights  in  determining  aspects  of  the  implementation  of  the  IntelLEO  
learning  services  and  pedagogic  concept  in  the  organisational  envi-­‐
ronment   and   culture   and   complemented   the   evaluation   from   the  
organisational  perspective.  
 </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>First results from the evaluation</title>
      <p>In  this  chapter  we  will  highlight  some  of  the  outcomes  of  the  evalu-­‐
ation,   which   will   be   presented   and   discussed   in   more   detail   at   the  
MATEL  Workshop  2012:  
 
The   results   show   the   importance   of   collaboration   services   for   an  
increased   motivation   for   learning   and   knowledge   building   (LKB)  
activities,   but   results   have   to   be   interpreted   carefully   due   to   the  
limited  number  of  59  participants  and  the  prototypical  state  of  the  
IntelLEO   services.   The   participants   who   got   involved   in   collabora-­‐
tion  activities  often  were  amongst  the  most  motivated  for  LKB  and  
showed  also  the  highest  self-­‐efficacy  for  LKB.  This  result  was  con-­‐
firmed   by   the   correlation   analysis   of   post-­‐data   on   learning   and  
knowledge   sharing   attitudes,   which   highlighted   the   relationship  
between  collaboration  and  the  motivation  to  learn,  the  willingness  
to   share   knowledge   and   also   the   self-­‐efficacy   for   LKB.   In   addition  
we   found   a   strong   positive   correlation   between   the   motivation   to  
learn   and   self-­‐efficacy   for   LKB,   meaning   that   the   more   self-­‐
confident   a   person   is   with   respect   to   learning   activities   the   more  
motivated   s/he   is   to   actually   learn.   Thus   our   studies   confirm   out-­‐
comes   from   existing   studies   on   self-­‐efficacy   and   learning   motiva-­‐
tion  [7][8].  
The  results  from  the  IntelLEO  evaluation  do  not  allow  us  to  clearly  
define   the   influence   of   self-­‐regulated   learning   activities   on   the  
learners’  motivation.  We  therefore  suggest  more  research  that  spe-­‐
cifically  investigates  the  role  of  these  services  and  its’  influence  on  
self-­‐efficacy   and   motivation   to   learn.   We   found   that   the   group   of  
participants   who   used   high   collaboration   and   high   self-­‐regulated  
learning  services  were  not  among  the  most  motivated  ones,  but  the  
most   motivated   learners   were   those   using   collaboration   services  
often  and  self-­‐regulated  learning  services  not  very  often.  The  quali-­‐
tative   results   show   that   self-­‐regulated   learning   activities,   like   un-­‐
derstanding   organisational   objectives,   self-­‐reflecting,   setting   of  
learning   goals,   and   monitoring   of   the   learning   progress,   are   im-­‐
portant  activities  especially  for  self-­‐motivation  and  keeping  oneself  
on  the  learning  track.  But  it  might  be  that  the  participants  stated  on  
the  one  hand  that  planning  and  monitoring  their  learning  progress  
in   harmonisation   with   the   organisation   is   important   and   on   the  
other   hand,   when   it   comes   to   really   doing   it,   the   less   time   spent  
with   it   the   better   it   is.   So   maybe   if   too   much   time   and   effort   are  
dedicated   to   self-­‐regulated   activities,   it   can   be   perceived   as   de-­‐
motivating  again.    
The   workplace   learners   seem   to   be   more   willing   to   use   services  
that  support  pragmatically  useful  learning  activities  that  they  have  
to   do   as   part   of   their   work   process.   Even   if   they   show   a   positive  
motivation   towards   planning   competences   and   monitoring   their  
learning  process,  the  workplace  learners  seem  to  be  less  willing  to  
use   extra   effort   in   the   work   process   for   computer-­‐supported   self-­‐
regulated  learning  activities.  
Planning   and   monitoring   of   one’s   learning   process   was   perceived  
as   a   means   of   self-­‐control   and   self-­‐motivation,   and   helps   to   make  
efforts  visible.  In  the  informal  learning  context  the  involed  BCs  us-­‐
ing   this   information   to   control   and   evaluate   employees   from   the  
“outside”   is   perceived   as   de-­‐motivating   again.   Also   organisational  
learning  objectives  serve  as  personal  orientation,  but  should  not  be  
used  for  evaluation  purposes.  
 
In   contrast,   the   expert   interviews   with   the   management   showed  
that  self-­‐regulated  learning  services  are  perceived  as  relevant  from  
organisational   point   of   view   as   they   help   organisations   to   manage  
the  positions,  roles  and  competences  that  they  have  and  the  ones  it  
wants  to  achieve.  
5</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Summary</title>
      <p>In  this  paper  we  present  the  results  from  the  evaluation  of  the  In-­‐
telLEO   motivational   model,   which   is   based   on   the   support   of   col-­‐
laborative   and   self-­‐regulated   learning   activities   at   the   workplace.  
The   evaluation   highlighted   the   importance   of   collaboration   if   the  
motivation   and   self-­‐efficacy   to   learn   and   share   knowledge   should  
be  increased  amongst  workplace  leaners.  The  role  of  self-­‐regulated  
learning   services   on   the   motivation   to   learn   in   a   professional   con-­‐
text   could   not   be   clearly   defined   yet   and   would   need   further   re-­‐
search.  
 
1. 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    
2. Ardichvili,  A.,  Page,  V.,  Wentiling,  T.,  "Motivation  and  barriers  to  participation  in  vir-­‐
tual  knowledge  sharing  communities  of  practice"  Journal  of  Knowledge  Management  
7(1),  2003:  64.    
3. Nonaka,  I.,  Takeuchi,  H.,  The  knowledge-­‐creating  company:  How  Japanese  companies  
cre-­‐  ate  the  dynamics  of  innovation.  Oxford  University  Press,  1995.    
4. D1.4  IntelLEO  Public  Concept,  </p>
      <p>http://intelleo.eu/uploads/tx_abdownloads/files/IntelLEO_Concept_D1.4_v20.pdf    
5. Zimmerman,  B.  J,  "A  Social  Cognitive  View  of  Self-­‐Regulated  Academic  Learning."  </p>
      <p>Journal  of  Educational  Psychology  81(3),  1989    
6. Holocher-­‐Ertl,  T.,  Pata,  K.,  Fabian,  C.M.,  “How  to  integrate  the  motivation  to  learn  into  
TEL  enhanced  organizational  knowledge-­‐management  models?“  MATEL  2012  Work-­‐
shop  at  EC-­‐TEL,  Palermo,  Italy  
7. Bandura,  A.  (1986).  "Social  foundations  of  thought  and  action:  A  social  cognitive  theo-­‐
ry."  Englewoood  Cliffs,  NJ:  Prentice-­‐Hall.  
8. Montalvo,  F.  T.,  Gonzalez  Torres,  M.C.  (2004).  "Self-­‐Regulated  Learning:  Current  and  
Future  Directions."  Electronic  Journal  of  Research  in  Educational  Psychology  2(1):  1-­‐
34.  
 </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Acknowledgements</title>
      <p>IntelLEO  [1]  “Intelligent  Learning  Extended  Organization”  is  a  research  project  supported  
by  the  ICT  program  of  the  European  Commission  (DG  Information  Society  and  Media,  
project  no.  231590).  
                                                                                                              
[1] http://www.intelleo.org</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list />
  </back>
</article>