This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 21 November 2014, At: 11:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Media InternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/remi20

Integrating Web 2.0-based informallearning with workplace trainingFang Zhao a & Linzi J. Kemp aa School of Business and Management , American University ofSharjah , Sharjah , United Arab EmiratesPublished online: 13 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Fang Zhao & Linzi J. Kemp (2012) Integrating Web 2.0-based informallearning with workplace training, Educational Media International, 49:3, 231-245, DOI:10.1080/09523987.2012.738015

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.738015

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Integrating Web 2.0-based informal learning with workplacetraining

Fang Zhao* and Linzi J. Kemp

School of Business and Management, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United ArabEmirates

(Received 8 July 2012; final version received 5 October 2012)

Informal learning takes place in the workplace through connection and collabo-ration mediated by Web 2.0 applications. However, little research has yet beenpublished that explores informal learning and how to integrate it with workplacetraining. We aim to address this research gap by developing a conceptual Web2.0-based workplace learning and training model. The model draws significantlyon the theories and research of communities of practice, informal learning, andresearch on the application of social networking tools to informal learning.Implications of our study for workplace learning and training are discussed fromtheoretical and practical perspectives. Limitations and areas for future researchare identified.

Keywords: communities of practice; informal learning; workplace training;Web 2.0

The use of Web 2.0 technology and applications has rapidly gained momentum overthe past few years. Social networking sites (SNSs), for example, Facebook,LinkedIn and MySpace, have been widely embraced internationally. At regional orcountry level, there are widely adopted SNSs, e.g. Friendster in Asia, Hi5 in Span-ish-speaking countries, Orkut in Brazil and India, Cyworld in Korea, and QQ inChina. Facebook (2011) reports that it has more than 500 million active users, ofwhom 50% log on the site in any given day. The average user of Facebook spendsapproximately six hours per month on it connecting with 130 friends. In terms ofmode of access, more than 250 million active users currently access Facebookthrough their mobile devices (Facebook, 2011). LinkedIn (2011) claims to be theworld’s largest professional network on the Internet and has more than 100 millionmembers in over 200 countries. There are currently more than 2 million companieswith company pages on LinkedIn. It was reported that there were nearly two billionpeople searches on LinkedIn in 2010 (LinkedIn, 2011). Some independent studieson SNSs show that around one-third of employees are part of the Facebooknetwork, and an equal number of employees have LinkedIn accounts (Skeels &Grudin, 2009).

Informal learning through connection and collaboration on various Web 2.0platforms happens and is growing in the workplace with or without it being

*Corresponding author. Email: fzhao@aus.edu

Educational Media InternationalVol. 49, No. 3, September 2012, 231–245

ISSN 0952-3987 print/ISSN 1469-5790 online� 2012 International Council for Educational Mediahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.738015http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

formally recognized. The technology of Web 2.0 for workplace learning supportsthe creation of knowledge derived from the social context of collaboration throughnetworking (Chatti, Klamma, Jarke, & Naeve, 2007). The integration of informaland formal learning mediated by Web 2.0 technology is of substantial interest toemployers for its effect on organizational learning and development. In spite of thepotential benefits and increasing ubiquity of Web 2.0 technologies and applications,there are critically important questions to be answered with respect to the practicalimpact and implications of Web 2.0 for workplace learning and training. Our pri-mary research question addresses the interest of both researchers and practitioners:how to integrate Web 2.0-based informal learning with workplace training for thepurpose of organizational learning and development?

Our review of the relevant literature has found that some of the extant researchtends to focus on user behavior on SNSs (Boyd 2006, 2008; Ellison, Steifield, &Lampe, 2007; Hargittai, 2007; Madge, Meek, Wellens, & Hooley, 2009; Tian, Yu,Vogel, & Ron Chi-Wai Kwok, 2011). Other authors concentrate on various concernsand issues in regard to employees’ use of Web 2.0 in the workplace and/or theadoption of Web 2.0 by organizations mainly for marketing and sales (DiMicco,Geyer, Millen, Dugan, & Brownholtz, 2009; Hasan & Pfaff, 2006; Jackson, Yates,& Orlikowski, 2007; Kim, Lee, & Hwang, 2008; Millen, Feinberg, Kerr, & Dogear,2006; Skeels & Grudin, 2009). However, little research is found that addresses Web2.0-based informal learning in the workplace. In this paper, we aim to address theknowledge gap. We will conceptually draw on the constructs of communities ofpractice (CoP) and the latest research on the utilization of social networking toolsfor learning.

In the following sections, we first review the extant research on the key areasthat are studied in this paper. Drawing on the review, we propose a Web 2.0-basedworkplace learning and training model. Then we discuss the implications of themodel from both theoretical and practical perspectives. The paper finishes with astatement of identified limitations to this study and areas for future research.

Web 2.0 in the workplace

Web 2.0 technology and its potential for learning

Web 2.0 is defined as the second generation of Web technologies which allowsusers to connect and interact with one another. Thus, it is also called the “socialWeb” (O’Reilly, 2005). Wigand, Wood, and Mande (2010) define Web 2.0 as a par-adigm shift in which users create contents. McLoughlin and Lee (2007) describeWeb 2.0 as a personalized and communicative form of the Internet, which enablesactive participation, connectivity, collaboration, and sharing of knowledge and ideasamong users. These definitions indicate the key functions and capabilities of Web2.0. But due to its newness, there is no consensus in the way that Web 2.0 isdefined (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).

As far as learning is concerned, Web 2.0 has been enthusiastically heralded as apotential means to enhance learning because it presents a dynamic social platformwhere members can share, participate, interact, create, and learn (Lucas & Moreira,2009). A study by Skeels and Grudin (2009) found that people use Web 2.0 forprofessional information gathering, and they locate or offer expertise through onlineCoP on SNSs. Status updates and/or posts on SNSs help members remain currentboth with trends in their own field and with new developments and changes in

232 F. Zhao and L.J. Kemp

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

other members’ professions and industries. Together, these may shed insight intobroader professional trends in the future. A study of Lucas and Moreira (2009)shows that blogs are a forum for discussion and reflection, wikis are used for devel-oping group collaborative projects, podcasts and webcasts are means for presentingand sharing learning contents, ideas, and expertise, and Twitter updates peers onnews and new developments in the professional arena.

The applications of Web 2.0 in the workplace

There is a significant body of research that looks into the pattern of user behaviorwith Web 2.0 in the workplace. Employees tend to use blogs, social bookmarks, andwikis to a greater extent when searching for, and obtaining company information,than when attempting to connect with fellow employees or for relationship building(Hasan & Pfaff, 2006; Jackson et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2008). Other research showsthat the main purpose of using SNSs, e.g. Facebook in the workplace is to maintainand develop connections with nonwork friends, whereas LinkedIn is mainly used todevelop professional networks with people outside of and/or within a user’s com-pany. For example, the results of a survey show that most employees use an SNS atMicrosoft, they tend to use Facebook for four purposes: to maintain awareness ofcolleagues, to build rapport and stronger working relationships, to reconnect withformer colleagues, and to build social capital (Skeels & Grudin, 2009). DiMiccoet al. (2009) studied the use of Beehive, a social networking site, at IBM. The studyfound that the most popular action taken on Beehive was to connect with others on apersonal level, with 81.4% of users making at least one connection on the site(DiMicco et al., 2009). The study also found that IBM employees used Beehive toshare a blend of both personal information and professional information. The studyfocuses on the technical issues in design and the features of an Intranet-based socialnetworking site, and does not discuss in any depth the actual value of the SNS tothe company. Nor does the study discuss the impact that the SNS has on employees’connection and collaboration. Nevertheless, the study is one of the few thatexamines in detail the behavior patterns of SNS adoption in the workplace.

The adoption of Web 2.0 in the workplace has raised several issues andchallenges for organizations. One of the most important effects of Web 2.0 onemployees is that it blurs the boundaries between personal and professional lives aswell as personal and professional connections (Kreiner, Holensbe, & Sheep, 2009).Controversy over social network site usage in the workplace is debated equally asmuch as the use of email and instant messaging. For example, concerns are raisedby managers and employers that their employees may spend a significant amount ofwork time on social network sites, thereby dealing with nonwork-related personalaffairs in company time (Shepherd, 2011).

Papworth (2009) collected 40 social media staff guidelines internationally, theseincluded employee blogging policies, enterprise social networking guidelines, andpolicies in regard to employee engagement in online communities. The guidelinesand policies are manifestations of the concerns of employers and authorities, whothen introduce administrative measures to control the use of social Web in theworkplace. From the results of their survey and interviews, Skeels and Grudin(2009, p. 95) identify four key issues in SNS usage in the workplace: “the legiti-macy of workplace use of SNSs, tensions from mixing personal and professional

Educational Media International 233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

personas, tensions from crossing hierarchy, status, and power boundaries, andtension over disclosing confidential information.” Skeels and Grudin (2009) do con-clude that there is no evidence, or it is difficult to prove, that the use of social Webin the workplace contributes to less productivity. There are other issues related tothe use of Web 2.0 in the workplace. For example, although social networking toolsallow users to have personal control over whom they want to connect and interactwith, trust and privacy are a major concern for employees as well as for employers(Acquisti & Gross, 2006; Dwyer, Hiltz, & Passerini, 2007).

As shown above, the use of Web 2.0 in the workplace has gained momentum,which offers opportunities for workplace learning. However, conflicts exist betweenemployees and organizations in terms of purposes, motivations, and effects of theuse of Web 2.0 in the workplace. One of the primary interests in the application ofWeb 2.0 is how to turn the use of Web 2.0 in the workplace into workplacelearning which leads to organizational learning and development. To better answerthis question, we need to clarify the definition of workplace learning and the rela-tionship between workplace learning and training and organizational learning anddevelopment.

Workplace learning and training and organizational learning and development

Workplace learning can be divided into informal and formal learning. We first dis-cuss the concept of informal learning. There are various definitions of informallearning. Knowles (1950) defines informal learning as self-directed learning thattakes place outside the classroom, in contrast to formal learning which is formallystructured, institutionalized, and classroom-based. By self-directed learning, itmeans that learning is not controlled by institutions and it is self-driven in thehands of the learner who takes responsibility for his/her own learning. Tough(1979) considers that informal learning may be intentional in the case of project-based and/or problem-based learning and that learning may also be unintentional,namely, acquiring information by accident. Likewise, Livingstone (2000) differenti-ates informal learning as two forms – explicit (intentional) informal learning andtacit (unintentional) informal learning.

Watkins and Marsick (1992) identify seven characteristics of informal learningand incidental learning (a subset of informal learning) in the workplace. They are:(1) learning from experience, (2) the organizational context, (3) a focus on action,(4) nonroutine conditions, (5) the tacit dimension of knowledge, (6) delimiters tolearning (which influences the way that problem is framed and the extent of workcapacity), and (7) enhancers of learning. The conceptualization outlines the keyattributes and process of informal learning in the workplace, where people learnfrom doing (experience) and interaction with each other, and it identifies the impor-tant role that an organization plays in the learning process. According to Cross’study (2007), formal learning constitutes only 13% of the impact on jobs, whereasinformal learning generates overwhelmingly 87%. Likewise, Jarvis (2010) considersthat people learn in a variety of contexts – in educational institutions, at work, athome, and in leisure activities – and informal learning happens throughout life,namely, lifelong learning. As the workplace environment is often a social one,informal learning in the workplace often takes place in a dialectical and ongoingprocess where learning is acquired through collaboration, mutual problem-solving,and the sharing of experience; as Watkins and Marsick (1992, p. 292) put it:

234 F. Zhao and L.J. Kemp

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Workplace learning involved a social contract among individuals and often occurs in ateam environment. Therefore, it is in the form of collective learning that is differentfrom individual learning for one’s own goals.

With Web 2.0 technology gaining momentum in the workplace, some informallearning in the workplace tends to be Web 2.0 based. This paper studies workplacelearning that occurs through connections and collaborations amongst employeesusing Web 2.0 technology in the workplace. This learning is largely not institution-alized or controlled by institutions. We, therefore, define Web 2.0-based workplacelearning as an informal learning that takes place in the workplace through connec-tions and collaborations mediated by Web 2.0 technology.

Having discussed informal learning in the workplace, we acknowledge thatworkplace learning often takes place formally. Formal working place learning refersto the learning processes and activities that employees are required to participate in,ranging from developing basic to high-level skills in technology, and developingcompetency in management, immediately applicable to employees’ job duties and/or roles (Raelin, 1998). Such learning is usually gained through institutionalizedworkplace training programs, and therefore it is a part of workplace training whichis intended to contribute to organizational learning. The implication is that bothindividuals learn in an organization and the organization develops as a learningorganization (Easterby-Smith, Araujo, & Burgoyne, 1999). Organizations “learn andcreate knowledge through dynamic interactions between employees” (Boateng,Mbarika, & Thomas , 2010, p. 17). Watkins and Marsick (1992, p. 298) illustratethe relationship between individual learning and organizational learning as follows:

Learning is sought out by individuals and shared among employees at various levels… As a result, learning is embedded in an organization’s memory of past wisdom,current repertoire of beliefs and actions, and future thinking process … Individuallearning is placed within the organizational context that it seeks to affect: the sharedsystem of norms, beliefs, values, policies and procedures that both influence what theindividual does and can be impacted on by individual actions.

Based on the discussion in this section, we theorize workplace learning, formalor informal, as shared, context – or task-based, organizationally goal-oriented andorganizationally culture-bound, which may contribute to, and be influenced by,organizational learning. Workplace training is intended to foster workplace learningwith the primary objective of improving work performance and ultimately enhanceorganizational learning and development. We, therefore, posit that Web 2.0-basedinformal learning in the workplace will lead to organizational learning and develop-ment if it is integrated with workplace training and formal workplace learning.

CoP

To further study informal workplace learning behavior, we draw on the theory ofCoP. Influenced by social constructivism, Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002)developed a social theory of learning which maintains that learning occurs in CoPand is a social process.

Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion forsomething they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. (Wenger,2006, p. 1)

Educational Media International 235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

There are three crucial elements that define CoP in terms of learning: thedomain, the community, and the practice. A CoP should have an “identity definedby a shared domain of interest” (Wenger, 2006, p. 1). Members in the communityare inclined to commit to the community and have a shared competence that distin-guishes them from others external to the community. The community supports mem-ber interaction and facilitates learning from each other. The practice means thatmembers have a shared practice within a community of practice, for example,nurses may develop a shared repertoire of knowledge about patient care when theymeet regularly for lunch in a hospital cafeteria (Wenger, 2006). Although theconcept of CoP is relatively new, the actual practice of a CoP has been around farlonger, because collective learning can occur and take place everywhere (at homeand at work/school, domestically or internationally) and online and offline.

In contrast to viewing learning as knowledge transmission from an instructor toa learner, the concept of CoP theorizes the meaning and process of learning as partof social activity. Another important dimension of CoP is the so-called “legitimateperipheral participation” (LPP). Lave and Wenger (1991, p. 29) define “LPP” as aprocess in the following way:

Legitimate peripheral participation provides a way to speak about the relationsbetween newcomers and old-timers, and about activities, identities, artifacts, and com-munities of knowledge and practice. It concerns the process by which newcomersbecome part of a community of practice.

Brown and Duguid (1991) explain from the LPP perspective that learninginvolves becoming an “insider” in the community of practice. Learners acquire notexplicit and formal knowledge, but the ability to behave as community members.The notion of LPP may refer to the power relationship (expert-to-apprentice) thatcan occur in the social structure of CoP, for example, newcomers may pose a threatto “old timers.” Fuller, Heather, Phil, and Lorna (2005, p. 52) interpret Lave andWenger’s LPP in a different way, saying that “people learn through mutual engage-ment in an activity which is defined by the negotiation of meanings both inside andoutside the community.”

Research has been conducted to examine the effect of CoP on organizationallearning and development. For example, Lesser and Storck (2001) study the rela-tionship between CoP and organizational performance from a social capital perspec-tive. They view a community as an engine for the development of social capitaland assume that the social capital generated through knowledge sharing in CoPcontributes to behavioral change. That change helps enhance business performance.They empirically tested their assumption in seven organizations where a CoP wassponsored by the organizations and claimed to be creating value to the organiza-tions. The study found that the positive outcomes from CoP were associated withbasic dimensions of social capital – “connections among practitioners, relationshipsthat build a sense of trust and mutual obligation, and a common language and con-text that can be shared by community members” (Lesser & Storck, 2001, p. 831).This study provides empirical evidence to demonstrate that CoP creates organiza-tional value through knowledge sharing. However, it is limited in terms of whatorganization and management can do to foster CoP.

Based upon the research on CoP summarized above, we conclude that: (1) CoPoffers an important insight into the nature and process of learning in the workplace,

236 F. Zhao and L.J. Kemp

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

where the central issue in learning is to become a practitioner rather than to learnabout practice; (2) CoP is an intentional form of informal learning because commu-nity members have the intention and interest in learning from each other; (3)learning and social activities can go beyond a community or CoP and within orbeyond the boundaries of a workplace; and (4) CoP may help improve organiza-tional development through knowledge sharing. Therefore, we posit that CoP sup-ports workplace learning where members with shared interest and practice learn,interact, and contribute.

Web 2.0-based CoP

Although literature is sparse, research on Web 2.0-based CoP is emerging. Basedupon their own experiment and CoP theories, Gunawardena et al. (2009) developeda working framework to build a Web 2.0-based CoP utilizing social networkingtools. In the Web 2.0-based CoP, SNSs facilitate the formation of the domain. Thedomain is formed as Web 2.0 technologies present a forum for discussion and inter-action, and provide the common ground where members share their ideas, knowl-edge, and stories. Social networking tools such as wikis and blogs can help to buildthe community through dialog and conversation among participants who share thesame interest. The practice is the specific knowledge the community develops,shares, and maintains. Through participation in discussion and connection on theSNSs, members with shared interests and practice learn from, adjust and influence,each other. That collaboration leads to the generation of new ideas and knowledgein their practicing field. In the Web 2.0-based CoP of Gunawardena et al. (2009),members go through five phases in a spiraling learning process – context, discourse,action, reflection, and reorganization. The collective intelligence creation starts incontext, namely, the context of the site and the context of individuals using the site.In the context, participants develop discourses, namely, their own way of using lan-guage to determine meaning and make sense. In the action phase, socially mediatedcognition starts when participants identify and agree upon a leaning goal and takeaction to accomplish it using Web 2.0-based tools. The reflection phase involves areflection on personal experience and group thinking with a focus on collaborationand the integration of unfamiliar points of view. This phase is followed by the reor-ganization phase when, mediated by interactive technology, participants bring newunderstanding and insight to advance a shared learning goal. Thus a “shared meta-cognition is revealed” which reaches the sixth phase: socially mediated metacogni-tion. The six phases “can progress in multiple iterations as more users join andcontribute to the wiki resulting in an evolving process of collective intelligencegathering” (Gunawardena et al., 2009, pp. 12–13).

This framework helps understand the CoP learning process that involves Web2.0 technologies and it contributes to the development of our proposition. However,the framework limits the context to “the site and the context of individuals usingthe site” and fails to consider the impact of the organization. If Web 2.0-based CoPtakes place in the workplace, learning that occurs in the CoP will inevitably involvethe organization.

Kamel Boulos and Wheeler (2007) studied the practicality in the use of Web2.0 social technology and social software in health care organizations. They foundthat although the technologies and applications look very promising and potentiallyfit with CoP, careful thinking, testing, and evaluation are still needed to leverage

Educational Media International 237

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

these emerging technologies to support continuing medical education/professionaldevelopment and patient education. Kamel Boulos and Wheeler (2007) believe thatWeb 2.0-based CoP can be developed to facilitate sharing of advice and expertiseamong members, enhancement of multimedia clinical elements, and collaboration intheir specialties. The Web 2.0-based CoP is particularly valuable in its “anytime,anywhere” features for the disadvantaged clinicians living in remote and rural areas.

Drawing on the research in the field as discussed in this section, we can see thatas social Web 2.0 technology gains momentum and becomes an important part ofpeople’s life, it changes the way that learning occurs in a CoP. Web 2.0-based CoPtends to be more dynamic and has less power relationships and hierarchies than aface-to-face CoP, as it is a network-based community and offers greater flexibilityfor joining and leaving.

Leveraging Web 2.0 for workplace learning and training

Although little research has been published that addresses the integration of Web2.0-based informal learning with workplace training, there are two streams ofresearch that are relevant – leveraging Web 2.0 for formal education in educationalinstitutions and workplace e-learning.

Our literature review has found that a significant number of Web 2.0 researchfocuses on student and/or youth use of SNSs with respect to the extent of usageand the purposes and motivations of use (Boyd 2006, 2008; Ellison et al., 2007;Hargittai, 2007; Harris, 2007; Koutsabasis, Stavrakis, Spyrou, & Darzentas, 2011;Tian et al., 2011). Some of the studies examine the informal learning of youths, theso-called “net generation,” which occurs through interaction and participation onSNSs, and how to incorporate that informal learning into formal education inschools and universities (Boyd, 2006; Harris, 2007). A recent empirical study con-ducted by Tian et al. (2011) in China and Hong Kong found that online SNSs, suchas Facebook, can help students become academically and socially integrated andimprove their learning outcomes. The study demonstrates the increasingly importantrole that the social Web can play in educational institutions. As Facebook usagehas reached around 90% on many campuses, it is not surprising to see educationalinstitutions working to capitalize on social networking to enhance students’ learningexperience and outcomes (Madge, Meek, Wellens, & Hooley, 2009). This stream ofresearch sheds some light on how informal learning takes place on the social Weband what educational institutions have done to leverage Web 2.0-based learning forformal education.

Another stream of research that is relevant to Web 2.0-based learning in theworkplace is e-learning. However, e-learning in the workplace is mainly referred toas formal learning and training in the workplace as it often takes the form ofblended or online courses. Wang (2011) studies workplace e-learning and attemptsto integrate a key performance indicator (KPI) model with Web 2.0 technologies toalign individual learning needs, organizational objectives, and social networking.The proposed KPI-oriented workplace e-learning model has three main functions:(1) defining organizational goals and linking the goals with competences requiredof individuals; (2) building a knowledge network by linking learning resources to aset of competences to be developed and connecting people who wish to share, cre-ate, and evaluate their knowledge with peers in the network (called “KPI-orientedsocial learning network”); and (3) profiling, based upon KPIs, each individual in

238 F. Zhao and L.J. Kemp

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

relation to his/her expertise, performance, learning need, work context, etc. Thestudy addresses a major concern over a lack of focus and overall strategies in usingWeb 2.0 technologies for the purpose of organizational learning (Moon, Birchall,Williams, & Charalambos, 2005; Ran & Wang 2008; Roy & Raymond, 2008;Shepherd, 2011; Skeels & Grudin, 2009; Tynjala & Hakkinen, 2005). The study isone of the few that explores the interface between social learning and organizationalgoals. However, as acknowledged by the author, the model focuses only on short-term learning needs related to job performance, but does not address long-termcareer development of workers. Moreover, the model deals mostly with technicaldesign issues associated with the use of Web 2.0 applications rather than withhuman side issues. The issues may include the motivations and perceptions ofemployees on the use of Web 2.0 for workplace learning and training and theorganizational culture for knowledge sharing and generation.

The two streams of research suggest that learning through Web 2.0 technologycan be integrated with formal learning and training to improve learning outcomesand achieve learning goals as set by institutions. By analogy, we see the likelihoodof integration of Web 2.0-based informal learning with formal training in the work-place. The following section answers the question of “how.”

AWeb 2.0-based workplace learning and training model

The preceding review of the extant literature entails us to propose a generic Web2.0-based workplace learning and training model. In this model, we conceptualizethe nature of informal learning impacted by Web 2.0, capture the interrelationshipsamong the key variables, and propose strategies and tactics to integrate Web2.0-based informal learning with workplace training.

The model illustrated in Figure 1 is comprehensive and is based upon the learn-ing theories and research on CoP, informal learning, and the application of socialnetworking tools to informal learning. The model is comprehensive in a holisticsense to address the Web 2.0-based issues for informal learning in the workplace.Informal learning often occurs in fluid, situated, dynamic, and highly social con-texts. The model addresses individual and organizational as well as other contextualfactors in the process of informal learning in the workplace. The model identifiesthe crucial role that an organization plays in fostering a learning culture in theworkplace to support organizational learning and ultimately to achieve organiza-tional strategic goals. The model identifies and presents the relationships and inter-play between individuals, learning networks and communities, and organizations,and their implications for workplace training.

We begin our model with employees who are the center of workplace learningand training and are members of Web 2.0-based social networks and CoP. Themodel illustrates the nature of informal learning in the workplace that often occursin a CoP, where learning is largely self-directed (not controlled by institutions),social, context-and task-based as part of workplace learning and is therefore inten-tional and explicit. The impact of Web 2.0 on workplace learning in the model isdescribed as “Web 2.0-based informal workplace learning.” That means, employeeslearn by participating and engaging in the social Web (internal and/or external)through networking, connecting, interacting, and collaborating to gain or shareinformation and/or knowledge by means of Web 2.0 tools. Examples are the use ofSNSs for information gathering and status updating and the use of blogs for

Educational Media International 239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

discussion and reflection. Compared with offline informal learning, Web 2.0-basedinformal workplace learning tends to be more network-directed, rather than self-directed, more dynamic (nonlinear) and multidimensional. Impacted by the socialWeb, information shared could be content from both personal and professional net-works. To address the concern over social Web use in the workplace, we proposethat workplace training should integrate Web 2.0-based informal learning with theneeds of organizational development and learning. To achieve that, we suggest anunobtrusive model which could take the form of peer-to-peer mentoring with a trai-ner acting as an observer/facilitator and member of CoP, rather than as an instructorintervening in the informal learning with training courses. To realize the potentialbenefits of Web 2.0-based informal workplace learning, we suggest that organiza-tions support rather than restrict the use of the social Web in the workplace. In thisregard, organizations need to develop a long-term strategy and implement actionplans to capitalize on Web 2.0-based informal learning. Developing a learningculture which supports the long-term career development of staff and adds value toorganizational learning and development is also important. Without a learningculture, it is unlikely that any kind of workplace training can be successful.

In addition, organizations need to provide technical and IT support for the useof external social Web and/or designing an internal Intranet social Web. It is of

Communities of PracticeInformal learning theories

Employees

Informal learning in the workplace • Social • Self-directed • Learning from experience • Context - & task -based • Lifelong learning • Intentional/explicit

Web 2.0 tools operation • SNS – Information gathering, status

updating, social networking, relationship building, etc.

• Blog – Discussion & reflection • Wiki – Presenting & sharing ideas • Twitter – Updating peers with news

Web 2.0-based informal workplace learning: • Network-based and directed • Social & collective (CoP) • Mixing professional & personal

networks and contents • Multi-dimensional • Non-linear

Organizational learning & development: • Vision/Mission • Strategic context

Workplace training: • Incorporating Web 2.0-based

social/informal learning into organizational learning & development

Organizational support: • Strategy & action plans • Culture • IT support • Policies • guidelines

Tactics • Unobtrusive • Peer-to-peer mentoring • Trainer as CoP member

Figure 1. A Web 2.0-based workplace learning and training model.

240 F. Zhao and L.J. Kemp

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

interest to note that a survey conducted by McKinsey found that the majority (75%)of executives were positive that investment in Web 2.0 tools would foster desiredbehavior such as collaboration (Schneckenberg, 2009). Organizations are primarilyabout people, and learning too is basically about people, thus organizational supportmoves from a technology driven focus to a focus on support for employees (Chattiet al., 2007). Training of employees in the use of Web 2.0 tools is also needed.Organizational support for new resourcing is then more concentrated on the peoplethan on technology as a resource. In illustration, Cochrane (2010) examples the roleof “technology steward” in a CoP as replacement for the traditional basic informa-tion technology only support. Such a steward is a member of the CoP; as an insiderhe/she provokes changes to organizational support based on their ability to graspwhat technology will lead to learning in the context of Web 2.0 (Cochrane, 2010).This is an inside-out model as organizational support is commanded from within,rather than a top-down resourcing of technology tools.

Implications and future study

We consider that our model holds important theoretical and practical implicationsfor Web 2.0-based workplace learning and training.

Implications for theory

Our model offers several important theoretical contributions. First, our modeladdresses a knowledge gap in how to integrate Web 2.0-based informal learning withworkplace training (Gunawardena et al., 2009). The Web 2.0-based workplace learn-ing and training model that we have developed contributes to the first step of theoret-ical development in the study fields of informal learning and workplace training.Second, with respect to the use of Web 2.0 to build online CoP, this study extendsprior work by identifying the importance of institutional factors in the learning pro-cess in CoP. The existing research such as that of Gunawardena et al. (2009) focusesonly on individual factors in CoP, which is insufficient given that Web 2.0-basedinformal learning takes place in the workplace and therefore organizational training/development strategies has an important role to play. Third, we take a holisticapproach to address the issues of Web 2.0-based informal learning and workplacetraining, which is different to the extant studies. As our literature review shows, theextant research focuses either on technical design issues of Web 2.0 in the workplace[e.g. (DiMicco et al., 2009)] or on how to align e-learning programs (formal educa-tional programs) with workplace training (Wang, 2011).The body of such literaturerarely deals with the “soft side” issues such as the role of organizations, culture, andpeople in the learning process. Our proposed model is integrative and comprehen-sive, in that, it takes into account all the key variables (i.e. technology, employees,organizations, strategy, and culture) and the relationships between them in the learn-ing process from self-directed and individual learning to network-directed and collec-tive learning and to organizational learning. This holistic and integrative approachopens up a new channel for further study about the nature of Web 2.0-based informallearning in the workplace and its relationship with workplace training.

Implications for practice

In addition to the theoretical contributions discussed above, this study has importantimplications for the practice of workplace training. First, the model contributes to a

Educational Media International 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

better understanding about the impact of Web 2.0 on informal learning in the work-place and its implications for workplace training. This will help managers and train-ers to formulate strategy to capitalize on Web 2.0-based informal learning. Second,we demonstrate in our model that informal learning is likely to take place throughWeb 2.0-based CoP in the workplace, and what organizations can do to integratethe social learning process with workplace training. This contribution will helpaddress the general concern of employers and managers over the use of Web 2.0 inthe workplace, and will also help management to take a positive perspective on theimpact of the social Web. Third, we propose tactics to integrate Web 2.0-basedsocial learning into workplace training including unobtrusive peer-to-peer mentoringand a trainer being a member of the online CoP. These tactics will help workplacetraining staff guide informal learning in the workplace in the direction of improvingorganizational performance, without such guidance being intrusive and formal.

Limitations and future research

As the social Web is becoming ubiquitous as described in this paper, learning thatis derived from the social Web is attracting attention from various perspectives.Many employers and managers are raising the question about the actual value ofthe social Web for workplace learning and ultimately the question is to what extentit impacts on an organization’s bottom line. There are obviously many issues fromboth theoretical and practical perspectives in understanding the informal learningprocess in Web 2.0, as well as in leveraging Web 2.0-based informal learning toimprove job performance and ultimately organizational development. This paperendeavors to address some of the issues within the limited space.

We acknowledge that our conceptual model proposed in this paper is prelimin-ary and has not been empirically tested, but it points to a clear direction for futureresearch. By building on the core ideas presented in this model, future research willbe able to develop more sophisticated frameworks in which to explain the complexnature of multilateral relationships involved in network-based and self-directedlearning. There are other questions derived from this study that deserve futureresearch. First, as far as pedagogy is concerned, what are the issues in regard to therole change for workplace instructors and trainers? A change from delivering face-to-face and/or online training courses to being an unobtrusive participant in a Web2.0-based CoP, while still achieving training targets? How can workplace trainingbe designed if the social Web is used as a medium for workplace training? Howcan the quality of content be improved in the context of Web 2.0-based CoP?Second, in terms of the technical side, how can a sustained level of participation inthe social Web be maintained if it is used for workplace training purposes?Research indicates that withdrawing is the greatest problem with a virtual CoP(Johnson, 2001). Third, how can workplace training that intends to embrace Web2.0-based informal learning deal with the issue of trust, privacy, and confidentialinformation, without restricting access to the rich learning resources offered in pub-lic Web 2.0? The possible breach of trust, privacy, and confidential informationwhen using Web 2.0 are the major concerns of employees as well as employers,according to the research by Acquisti and Gross (2006) and Dwyer et al. (2007).IBM addresses this issue by designing an Intranet-based SNS, but employees arehindered from capitalizing on the learning resources that they can acquire from theirexternal networks because they cannot connect or import their professional contacts

242 F. Zhao and L.J. Kemp

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

from outside of the company (DiMicco et al., 2009). Finally, there is the issue ofpower boundary and hierarchy in workplace use of Web 2.0 (Skeels & Grudin,2009) as well as the issue of LPP in CoP (Lave & Wenger, 1991). These issues areall related to the power relationships in learning networks which can affect the pro-cess and outcomes of learning and therefore need to be addressed in future study.

ReferencesAcquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing,

and Privacy on the Facebook. Proceedings of 6th Workshop on Privacy EnhancingTechnologies, 28–30 June (pp. 36–58). Cambridge: Robinson College.

Boateng, R., Victor Mbarika, & Carlos Thomas (2010). When Web 2.0 becomes anorganizational learning tool: Evaluating Web 2.0 tools. Development and Learning inOrganizations, 24(3), 17–20.

Boyd, D. (2006). Identity production in a networked culture: Why youth heart myspace.Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/AAAS2006.html

Boyd, D. (2008). Taken out of context: American Teen sociality in networked publics (PhDThesis, University of California, Berkeley).

Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1). http://www.jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Brown, J.S., & Paul Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-Practice:Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1),40–57.

Chatti, M.A., Klamma, A., Jarke, M., & Naeve, A. (2007). The Web 2.0 driven SECI modelbased learning process. Proceedings of Conference on seventh IEEE InternationalConference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 18–20 July 2007, ConferencePublications (pp. 780–782). Kerkyra.

Cochrane, T. (2010). Beyond the yellow brick road: Mobile Web 2.0 informing a new insti-tutional e-learning strategy. Research In Learning Technology, 18(3), 221–231.doi:10.3402/rlt.v18i3.10766

Cross, J. (2007). Informal learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innova-tion and performance. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

DiMicco, J., Geyer, W., Millen, D.R., Dugan, C., & Brownholtz, B. (2009), Peoplesensemaking and relationship building on an enterprise social networking site. Proceed-ings of HICSS 2009. Hawaii, HI.

Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S.R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within socialnetworking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of AmericasConference on Information System, 2007. Colorado, CO.

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

Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends’’: Explor-ing the relationship between college students’ use of online social networks and socialcapital. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html

Facebook. (2011). Facebook statistics [online]. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

Fuller, A., Heather, H.H., Phil, H.P., & Lorna, U.L. (2005). Learning as peripheral participa-tion in communities of practice: A reassessment of key concepts in workplace learning.British Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 49–68.

Gunawardena, C.N., Hermans, M.B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R.(2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with socialnetworking tools. Educational Media International, 46(1), 3–16.

Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social networksites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276–297.

Harris, F. (2007). I found it on the Internet: Coming of age online. American Library Asso-ciation.

Educational Media International 243

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Hasan, H., & Pfaff, C.C. (2006). The Wiki: An environment to revolutionize employees’interaction with corporate knowledge. Proceedings of the Australasian Computer-HumanInteraction Conference (pp. 377–380). Sydney.

Jackson, A., Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (2007). Corporate blogging: Building communitythrough persistent digital talk. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii InternationalConference on System Sciences, January 3–6, 2007 (pp. 80–94). Hawaii, HI.

Jarvis, P. (2010). Inquiry into the future of lifelong learning. International Journal ofLifelong Education, 29(4), 397–400.

Johnson, C.M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. TheInternet and Higher Education, 4(1), 45–60.

Kamel Boulos, M.N., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: Anenabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. HealthInformation & Libraries Journal, 24, 2–23.

Kim, S.T., Lee, C.K., & Hwang, T. (2008). Investigating the influence of employee bloggingon IT workers’ organisational citizenship behaviour. International Journal of InformationTechnology and Management, 7(2), 178–189.

Knowles, M.S. (1950). Informal Adult Education. New York, NY: Association Press.Koutsabasis, P., Stavrakis, M., Spyrou, T., & Darzentas, J. (2011). Perceived impact of

asynchronous e-Learning after long-term use: Implications for design and development.International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(2), 191–213.

Kreiner, G.E., Holensbe, E.G., & Sheep, M.L. (2009). Balancing borders and bridges: Nego-tiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of ManagementJournal, 52(4), 704–730.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

Lesser, E.J., & Storck, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance’.IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 831–841.

LinkedIn. (2011). LinkedIn Facts [online]. Retrieved from http://press.linkedin.com/about/Livingstone, D. (2000). Exploring the iceberg of adult learning: Findings of the First

Canadian Survey of Informal Learning Practices. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studiesin Education. University of Toronto.

Lucas, M., & Moreira, A. (2009). Bridging formal and informal learning – A case study onstudents’ perceptions of the use of social networking tools. Proceedings of 4th EuropeanConference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL, 2009, Nice, France.

Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration andinformal learning at university: ‘It is more for socialising and talking to friends aboutwork than for actually doing work’. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155.

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M.J.W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagog-ical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. ICT: Providing choices forlearners and learning. Proceedings of ASCILITE, December 2–5, 2007. Singapore.

Millen, D.R., Feinberg, J., & Kerr, B., Dogear. (2006). Social bookmarking in the enterprise.Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 22–27, 2006(pp. 111–120). Quebec.

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

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generationof software [online]. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Papworth, L. (2009). List of 40 Social Media Staff Guidelines. Retrieved from http://laurel-papworth.com/enterprise-list-of-40-social-media-staff-guidelines/

Raelin, J.A. (1998). Work-based learning in practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 10(6/7), 280–283.

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

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

244 F. Zhao and L.J. Kemp

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Schneckenberg, D. (2009). Web 2.0 and the empowerment of the knowledge worker. Journalof Knowledge Management, 13(6), 509–520.

Shepherd, C. (2011). Does social media have a place in workplace learning? StrategicDirection, 27(2), 3–4.

Skeels, M.M., & Grudin, J. (2009). When social networks cross boundaries: A case study ofworkplace use of Facebook and LinedIn. Proceedings of GROUP, May 10–13, 2009 (pp.95–103). Florida, FL.

Tian, S.W., Yu, A.Y., Vogel, D., & Ron Chi-Wai Kwok, R.C. (2011). The impact of onlinesocial networking on learning: A social integration perspective. International Journal ofNetworking and Virtual Organisations, 8(3/4), 264–280.

Tough, A. (1979), The Adult’s Learning Projects, 2nd ed. Toronto: Ontario Institute forStudies in Education.

Tynjala, P., & Hakkinen, P. (2005). E-leaming at work: Theoretical underpinnings andpedagogical challenges. The Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(5/6), 318–336.

Wang, M. (2011). Integrating organizational, social, and individual perspectives in Web2.0-based workplace e-learning. Information System Front, 13, 191–205.

Watkins, K.E., & Marsick, V.J. (1992). Towards a theory of informal and incidental learningin organizations. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 11(4), 287–300.

Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: A brief introduction Retrieved from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/

Wenger, E., McDermott, R.A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice:A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Wigand, R T., Wood, J D., & Mande, D M. (2010). Taming the social network jungle: fromWeb 2.0 to social media. AMCIS 2010 Proceedings, Paper 416. Lima.

Educational Media International 245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:23

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14