California Virtual Campus

Jennifer Schmidtberger
February 21, 2009

Class is about to start. Almost half the seats are empty for this full-day training course, but experience tells us that most will wander in, right at the start or a few minutes after. One of the students makes his way to the front of the room to ask a question, one not unfamiliar to the instructor. “I have a meeting I just found out about that starts at 10:00 am. Is it okay if I miss about an hour of class?”
Class begins. Most of the students expect a full day of listening to the instructor talk about something unrelated to their work, while hoping to squeeze in some emails under the table with their Blackberry. Maybe the instructor won’t notice if they come back five minutes late from break, or if they skip the last hour of the class. It’s not like they’re missing much – how does any of this training provide help to get their work done?

Organizations today know that employees entering a new job or a new responsibility within their job need some type of training to help get them “up-to-speed”. What they do not always put together is the fact that “much of the real learning that takes place in the workplace occurs through informal, peer-to-peer interaction. Many workers learn how to solve a problem by observing or asking a fellow employee, not reading the technical manual or attending a class” (King, 2007). No wonder so many traditional training class attendees leave class dissatisfied with the time they have spent in the classroom – often what they heard was either not relevant or not properly applied to their work!

Training to “Check the Box”

While some organizations still flounder to figure out which training courses are important or necessary for new or existing employees to take, others made progress in outlining a curriculum or list of training courses employees should take before being qualified in a certain position. Once the list of courses is identified, it is only a matter of time before the individual can fit it into their schedule to attend each of the specified courses, with the goal of finishing their “checklist” as soon as possible without interfering with the “real” work to be done in their job.
With attitudes like this, it is no surprise that many doubt the “value and cost-effectiveness of traditional training programs” (Smith, 2002, p. 299). After all the time and money invested in training, do they see the results they expect? Even more disturbing is the attitude that some, more experienced, employees exhibit – they think that “knowledge is something they should keep and not share with others. They see it as a source of power” (Neff, 2002, p. 339). If newer employees are not getting the knowledge and experience they need, and the experienced employees are not sharing the knowledge and experience they have, how can the organization even function, much less hope to grow? When an organization focuses on training instead of learning as a goal, their objectives are aimed at providing more training courses as a type of knowledge “dump”, instead of building opportunities and avenues for employees to learn from each other by sharing relevant experiences.

A Community of Learning

What might this type of learning opportunity look like in a corporate setting? In his article, Online Knowledge Communities and Their Role in Organizational Learning, Mark Neff (2002) defines a learning community as “a group of people who take the time to reflect on what they are doing and improve on it so that the next time they do something, they can incorporate the benefits of their learning” (p. 336). If real learning is to be incorporated into training, there must be specific application to the person’s work. Since there are so many different types of work in an organization, the burden of application cannot be on the instructor – it must be on the learner. Instead of going to training courses and expecting to receive “The Golden Rule” for success in their job, employees must actively think about how concepts taught can directly apply to what they are doing at work.
Learning does not stop with the individual, however. Organizational learning occurs “only when knowledge in the organization is managed and transferred throughout the organization” (Smith, 2002, p. 303). One way companies attempt to manage knowledge transfer is to get everyone together in the same place and share their experiences with each other. Yet, in an age where time is precious and employees span continents, this idea is not especially practical or efficient.
Thankfully, the computer and internet world have much to offer in this area. Research done on the effects of asynchronous, interactive, computer-mediated learning (CML) shows that this type of learning “can sustain the training class’s learning environment well beyond the usual face-to-face meeting time” by enabling “extended, focused peer interaction across the boundaries of space and time without travel” (Smith, 2002, p. 315, 307). Without schedule and geography restrictions, CML allows employees to enjoy benefits of face to face (F2F) training sessions (i.e. peer-to-peer interactions), but also enables application of the learning to projects they are working on during and after the course. By providing more time to (1) reflect and digest the knowledge, (2) interact with fellow employees, and (3) apply concepts to work projects, greater results from training are possible, particularly with respect to changing behavior.

Implementing a Learning Community – Taking Steps toward Change

Sure, this sounds great on paper, but how do organizations make the shift from a checklist culture to a learning culture? What will change in employees’ minds to cause them to take a vested interest in learning?
For real change to take place, there must be a commitment to learning at the highest levels of the organization that trickles down through the directors and managers, which eventually reaches the workers. A solitary training group buried in the organization will not be able to effect change without the support of upper management. Identifying a Chief Learning Officer (CLO) is a good step towards making visible impact on the organization. These people must communicate the importance of learning in the organization not only for the benefit of the organization itself, but also for the development of the individuals involved. As Rick Mauer (2008) states in his article, Making a Case for Change, “People will not get interested in what your plan is or in finding ways to make it a success until they can see why it is important.” Thus, management must reinforce and challenge employees to “become responsible for their own continual learning” (King, 2007).
Don’t just stop at conveying a message, however; organizations must put tools and processes in place to encourage and support learning. Select tools that will encourage interaction between peers and support asynchronous communication and distribution of knowledge that extends beyond courses themselves. While employees become used to the idea of online asynchronous communication, organizations should consider use of blended solutions (i.e. F2F with CML) to encourage team development, establish expectations and behavioral norms (Smith, 2002, p. 315).
When selecting and implementing these tools and processes, don’t forget about the people who will be using them and making them work. Organizations must “create an environment in which its employees feel safe,” (Neff, 2002, p. 340) both in using the tools and sharing information and knowledge with fellow employees. When they use the tools for themselves and see the benefits and applications to their own work, not only will employees continue to use the tools to learn, but they will encourage others to do the same, gradually creating an organizational learning community.

Staying the Course – Learning as a Lifelong Process

When benefits of sharing knowledge across the organization are seen through an online community of learning, the focus will then shift from getting employees to use the tools to helping them use the tools most effectively. With new technology being developed daily and business needs growing rapidly, effective use of the tools available is an on-going process, but so is learning itself. Realizing that learning is a lifetime process, as opposed to a one-time event, is only the beginning; yet it opens the doors to drive behavioral and organizational change that right now, is only imaginable.

Jennifer Schmidtberger is an instructor at Westinghouse Electric Company, teaching online and face-to-face courses to engineers and project managers, while pursuing her Masters in Education, Option in Online Teaching & Learning, at California State University East Bay.

References:

King, C. (2007). Chatting up your LMS. American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) Learning Circuits, 2007. Retrieved January 30, 2009 at http://www.astd.org/LC/2007/0607_king.htm

Mauer, R. (2008). Making a case for change. Retrieved February 2, 2009 at http://www.beyondresistance.com/making_case_for_change.htm .

Neff, M.D. (2002). Online knowledge communities and their role in organizational learning. In K.E. Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook of Online Learning (pp. 335-352). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Smith, D. (2002). Real-world learning in the virtual classroom: Computer-mediated learning in the corporate world. In K.E. Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook of Online Learning (pp. 297-316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.