Educational innovation in economics and business pedagogy, technology and innovation

VAN WOERDEN & NYNKEJOSMIT Using the Web for Problem-Based Learning 189 NYNKEJOSMIT, MAARTEN VAN RIEMSDIJK& JAN VAN DER VEEN Effects of Problem-Based Learning in Business Education: A Com

Volume 8

The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume.

Educational Innovation in Economics and Business

VIII Pedagogy, Technology and Innovation

School of Business and Finance, Sheffield Hallam University, U.K.

SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved

© 2004

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording

or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception

of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered

and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 200

Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 200

ISBN 978-90-481-6505-6 ISBN 978-94-017-1386-3 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-1386-3

4 4

Contributors ix Acknowledgements xiii

Editors xv Preface xvii

How E-Learning Businesses Meet Client and End User Needs:

DAVID RUSSELL, DAVID CALVEY & MARK BANKS

Business Process, Experience and Memory: Educational Approaches

and Technology Tools for a Global Workforce 19

DANIEL M CARCHIDI & DAVID J MCCARTHY

Part II: Challenges for the Academy 41From High Level Clarity to Ground Level Confusion: Exactly Where

do IT-Mediated Education Policies Fit? 43STEPHEN D REEVE & STEPHEN H FLOWERS

Moving a University Toward On-line Learning: Opportunities,

DREW PARKER & ANDREW GEMINO

Linking Pedagogical Innovation and Information Technology to

SERGIO VASQUEZ BRONFMAN

The Experience of Self-Organized Learning Through the Use of

Learning Plans for Knowledge Management 93VIVIEN LEE LOOICHNG & STEVEN COOMBS

Part III: Team and Collaborative Learning 111Using Student Consulting Team Assignments as a Vehicle to Teach a

SYLNOVIE MERCHANT

Using Team Learning in the Classroom: Experiences and Lessons 129 LEROYF CHRIST, MARY Y CHRIST, A STEVEN GRAHAM,

MICHAEL K MCCUDDY& WENDYL PIRIE

Using Teams in the Classroom: Meeting the Challenge of Evaluating

MICHAEL K MCCUDDY& WENDYL PIRIE

International Management: Early Experience in Multicultural Virtual

KENMORSE

Part IV : Problem Based Learning 173

PRAXIS: A Practice-Based Instructional System in the First Year of

WILLEM M VAN WOERDEN & NYNKEJOSMIT

Using the Web for Problem-Based Learning 189

NYNKEJOSMIT, MAARTEN VAN RIEMSDIJK& JAN VAN DER VEEN

Effects of Problem-Based Learning in Business Education: A

Comparison Between a PBL and a Conventional Educational

Approach 205 PIET VAN DEN BOSSCHE, MIENSEGERS, DAVID GIJBELS&

FILIP DOCHY

Learning about Teaching Information Systems in a Problem-Based

Curriculum: An Exploratory Study of the Impact of Students’

Individual Differences on their Conception and Perception of

JAN NIJHUIS, MIENSEGERS & WIMGIJSELAERS

Part V : Distance and On Line Learning 253

The Use of a Virtual Learning Environment to Support Learners

LENBIRD

Distance Learning: The Experience of Accounting at the University

ANTHONY B LUMBY & ADRIAN D SAVILLE

Creating and Improving a “Virtual Object” Through Web-Mediated

Discourse 289 GORDONWELLS

Testing Social Information Processing Theories in Distance

Education 315

WM BENJAMIN MARTZ, JR.& MORGAN M SHEPHERD

PART VI : Specific Applications of Learning Technology 331

Electronic Tutorial for Moral Reasoning in Business Education:

A Technological Learning Tool to Facilitate Students’

MARGARITA ALEMÁN VARGAS

The Five Key Benefits of On-line Final Examinations

JEREMYB WILLIAMS

Assertion-Reason Assessment in Formative and Summative Tests:

Results from Two Graduate Case Studies 359

Margarita Aleman Vargas, Faculty Member of Bilingual High

School, The Monterrey Institute of Technology Campus, Guadalajara, México maleman@itesm.mx

Mireia Asensio Department of Management Learning, The School

of Management, Lancaster University, UK.m.asensio@lancaster.ac.uk

Mark Banks, Manchester Institute for Popular Culture,

Manchester Metropolitan University, M15 6LL, UK.

m.o.banks@mmu.ac.uk

Len Bird, Work-based Learning Unit, Coventry Business School,

Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK.

l.bird@coventry.ac.uk

David Calvey, Centre for Employment Research, Manchester

Institute for Telematics and Employment Research, Manchester Metropolitan University, M15 6LL, UK d.calvey@mmu.ac.uk

Daniel Carchidi, Knowledge Systems GE Capital, Performance

Technology Solutions, USA daniel.carchidi@gecapital.com

Leroy Christ, College of Business Administration, Valparaiso

University, Indiana, USA leroy.christ@valpo.edu

Mary Christ, College of Business Administration, Valparaiso

University, Indiana, USA mary.christ@valpo.edu

Luke Connelly, Brisbane Graduate School of Business,

Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Q

4001, Australia l.connelly@qut.edu.au

Steven Coombs, Department of Curriculum Studies & Secondary

Education, School of Education, Sonoma State University, 1801 East Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park Ca 94928-3609, USA.

steven.coombs@sonoma.edu

Filip Dochy Educational Innovation and Information Technology

(EDIT), Faculty of Law, University of Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Filip.dochy@edit.unimaas.nl

Stephen Flowers, University of Brighton Business School, UK.

shf@bton.ac.uk

Andrew Gemino, Faculty of Business Administration, Simon

Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada gemino@sfu.ca

David Gijbels, Educational Innovation and Information

Technology (EDIT), Faculty of Law, University of Maastricht, the Netherlands David.gijbels@edit.unimaas.nl

Wim Gijselaers, Department of Educational Development and

Educational Research, University of Maastricht, PO Box 616, 6200

MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands w.gijselaers@educ.unimaas.nl

Steven Graham, Purdue University North Central, Indiana, USA.

stevenvalpo@hotmail.com

Vivien Hodgson, Department of Management Learning, The

School of Management, Lancaster University, UK.

v.hodgson@lancaster.ac.uk

Vivien Lee Looi Chng, Temasek Polytechnic 21 Temasek Avenue 1

Singapore 529 757 looichng@tp.edu.sg

Anthony Lumby, Faculty of Management Studies, University of

Natal (Durban), South Africa lumby@nu.ac.za

Wm Benjamin Martz, Information Systems Department, College of

Business, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, USA.

wmartz@uccs.edu

Sylnovie Merchant Department of Management, California State

University, Sacramento, California, USA smerchant@csus.edu

David McCarthy, Run Fast Inc, USA djmrunfast@aol.com

Michael McCuddy, College of Business Administration,

Valparaiso University, Indiana, USA mike.mccuddy@valpo.edu

Kenneth Morse, Department of Marketing & International

Management, Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand.

k.morse@mngt.waikato.ac.nz

Jan Nijhuis, Department of Management Science, Faculty of

Economics and Business Administration, University of Maastricht, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands.

j.nijhuis@mw.unimaas.nl

Drew Parker, Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser

University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada drew@sfu.ca

Wendy Pirie, College of Business Administration, Valparaiso

University, Indiana, USA wendy.pirie@valpo.edu

Stephen Reeve, University of Brighton Business School, UK.

s.d.reeve@bton.ac.uk

Maarten van Riemsdijk, Faculty of Technology & Management,

University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

m.j.vanriemsdijk@sms.utwente.nl

David Russell, Centre for Employment Research, Manchester

Institute for Telematics and Employment Research, Manchester

Metropolitan University, M15 6LL, UK d.russell@mmu.ac.uk

Adrian Saville, School of Economics and Management, University

of Natal (Durban), South Africa saville@nu.ac.za

Mien Segers, Department of Educational Development and

Research, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration,

University of Maastricht, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands m.segers@educ.unimaas.nl

Morgan Shepherd, Information Systems Department, College of

Business, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, USA.

mshepher@ uccs.edu

Nynke Smit, Faculty of Technology & Management, University of

Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands, n.j.smit@sms.utwente.nl

Piet van den Bossche, Department of Educational Research and

Development, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Maastricht, the Netherlands.

piet.vandenbossche@educ.unimaas.nl

Jan van der Veen, University of Twente, Enschede, the

Netherlands j.t.vanderveen@dinkel.utwente.nl

Sergio Vasquez Bronfman, ESCP-EAP, 79 Avenue de la

République; 75011 Paris; France vasquez@escp-eap.net

Gordon Wells, Dept of Education, University of California, 1156

High St.,Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA gwells@cats.ucsc.edu

Jeremy Williams, Brisbane Graduate School of Business,

Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia jb.williams@qut.edu.au

Willem van Woerden, Faculty of Technology & Management,

University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

w.m.vanwoerden@sms.utwente.nl

xiii

It would not have been possible to produce this book without support and help from a wide variety of sources First, we are very grateful to all those

who attended the EDiNEB VIII conference in Nice and submitted papers for

our consideration While this presented us with many challenges in drawing

up a short list of those to include, it clearly demonstrated the high degree of interest in, and the wealth of experience of, educational innovation amongst

the membership of the EDiNEB network Second, thanks are due to staff of

EDHEC School of Management who hosted and helped to organize such a successful conference in a very attractive location Last, but by no means

least, we greatly appreciate the help received from EDiNEB personnel We

particularly wish to acknowledge the contribution of Bob Janssen Steenberg and Henny Dankers who coped admirably with the very difficult task of getting the book into a camera-ready format

xv

Roger Ottewill (BSc Econ, University of London) currently combines a

part-time research post in the Centre for Learning and Teaching (CLT) at the University of Southampton with a very active semi-retirement Prior to joining the CLT on 1st October 2001, he was employed as a lecturer for 28 years by Sheffield Hallam University During this period he supported learners on a wide variety of courses at many levels from sub-degree to postgraduate His principal subject areas were in the fields of public administration and business and management From the early 1990s he became increasingly involved in education research and development and played a key role in projects relating to aspects of resource based learning, vocational education, course evaluation, language learning and cross-cultural skill development These resulted in conference papers, including contributions to two papers included in earlier volumes of this series; articles

in a wide variety of academic journals; and co-editorship (with Bruce

Macfarlane) of a book Effective Learning and Teaching in Business and Management, published by Kogan Page in 2001 As a member of the CLT

he is helping to enhance the quality of learning, teaching and assessment by promoting good practice and fostering innovation He retains his links with Sheffield Hallam University through a Visiting Fellowship with the School

of Business and Finance

Liz Borredon (MA in Management Education by Research, Lancaster

University) is a Professor in the Department of Management and Strategy and Deputy Head of Centre for Languages and International Communication at the EDHEC Business School, Lille, France She is on the Board of Directors of the European Mentoring and Coaching Centre and on the Mentoring Committee of the Academy of Management (AoM) USA

Her research is in mentoring, dialogue and organisational learning Her present studies focus on the role of mentor within collaborative learning and knowledge creation processes She has published numerous articles and regularly contributes to AoM annual meetings

Laurent Falque (PhD, University of Tours) is a Professor in Human

Resource Management in the EDHEC School of Management, Lille Previously, he worked as human resources manager for 11 years At EDHEC

he introduced problem-based learning in 1997 He is a member of the

EDiNEB board During his studies for his PhD he moved gradually into the

field of decision-making research Currently, he is focusing on discernment and deliberation in decision making and acting as a coach

Bruce Macfarlane (PhD, University of London) is Reader in Higher

Education at City University, London Before joining City University in October, 2000 he worked for 13 years as a business and management lecturer in higher education His research interests incorporate values in higher education and the pedagogy of business and management education

He recently co-edited (with Roger Ottewill) the first book in a new Institute

for Learning and Teaching/Kogan Page subject series entitled Effective Learning and Teaching in Business and Management (2001) His

professional activities incorporate work as an accreditor for the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, membership of the editorial

boards of Teaching in Higher Education; the Journal of Management Development; and the Journal of Business Ethics Education and the

organisation of conferences on the teaching of business ethics in collaboration with the European Business Ethics Network (UK) Currently,

he is writing a book on the ethics of teaching in higher education

Ann Wall (BA, University of Nottingham) is currently a Senior Lecturer

at Sheffield Hallam University in the School of Business and Finance For more than twenty years she has been involved with students on a variety of courses at a variety of levels, from sub-degree to postgraduate Her principal subject areas are public and social administration, particularly health care policy Since the early 1990s she has also been interested in education research and development and has contributed to several projects relating to aspects of resource based learning, vocational education and course

evaluation She has presented papers at three EDiNEB conferences, one of

which was included in an earlier volume in this series Other publications include four textbooks on the NHS and community health services; and a

number of contributions to pedagogic journals such as, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Quality Assurance in Education and Education and Training She

has also written case studies on general practice for use in GP training and open learning materials for the Open University

xvii

As business and management educators seek to respond positively to the ever-changing environment within which they practice, so there is an increasing need to keep abreast of developments in pedagogy and technology Without an appreciation of current pedagogic and/or technological thinking it is unlikely that innovations in educational practice will be as robust as might otherwise be the case Thus, it is incumbent on educators to ensure that in seeking to improve the learning experience of their students they are prepared to be reflective and evidence-driven in their approach The papers in this edited volume illustrate many different aspects

of such a process They have been contributed by educators from a variety of countries thereby providing a truly international perspective on pedagogy, technology and innovation

Some of the papers focus on the broader institutional and corporate context, others on more specific aspects of pedagogy and approaches to learning, teaching and assessment In a number there is a strong research focus with both qualitative and quantitative methodologies being represented Others are essentially evaluative reports of a particular innovation based on the personal reflections and practice-based analysis of those involved The papers are also illustrative of the range and variety of

subject areas in which EDiNEB members have an interest, from economics

to business ethics and from knowledge management to accountancy Likewise, there are differences relating to level and context Some relate to undergraduate education others to postgraduate Many are concerned with campus-based provision, but distance education and learning in the workplace are also covered Notwithstanding this diversity, what all the papers have in common is that the underlying motivation for what they

report is an enhancement of the quality of the learning environment for those seeking a deeper knowledge and understanding of the world of business, management, economics and finance

Naturally, within this collection there is a strong emphasis on the application of learning technology but this is not at the expense of non-technologically informed aspects of pedagogy Indeed one of the important messages is that technology should be seen, at least in an educational context, as a means to an end and not as an end in itself That end, as indicated earlier, should always be the enrichment of the student learning experience and/or an extension of the range of learning outcomes being pursued

In organising the papers selected for inclusion in the book, the editors have “worked with the grain” of what was submitted for consideration by

contributors to the eighth EDiNEB international conference held in Nice

rather than a pre-determined plan What has emerged is a structure in which the earlier papers tend to deal with macro-level issues, reflecting business and institution-wide change, and the later papers with more micro-level topics, focusing on specific teaching contexts and strategies

To assist readers the book has been divided into 6 parts However, these should not be regarded as watertight compartments since a number of papers deal with a variety of topics and could easily be allocated to more than one part of the book That said, as far as possible, papers have been grouped according to their major theme

Part I: The Business Context

The two papers which make up this part of the book both, in their different ways, illustrate developments within the business world One by Russell, Calvey and Banks focuses on e-learning businesses that have emerged to meet particular training needs of the business community Depending on perspective, these can be seen as either complementing or competing with traditional academic providers, such as universities and colleges The other paper by McCarthy and Carchidi considers how a large conglomerate, General Electric, is using technology to meet the development needs of its staff Together, these papers are a reminder to those in academic institutions that for business related subjects, at least, the educational community extends well beyond the hallowed walls of academe Additionally, they indicate some lessons and potential challenges for colleagues working in universities and colleges

Part II: Challenges for the Academy

This part of the book includes papers that deal with challenges facing those working in an academic environment All have a particular resonance for business and management educators and those in related disciplines Here, however, the focus is more inward looking Most of the challenges relate to the learning environment, in particular technological enhancement, and to the needs of educators and of learners in this respect

Two papers by Reeve and Flowers and Parker and Gemino adopt a sector level and an institutional level perspective respectively Reeve and Flowers raise some very pertinent questions regarding the way forward for IT mediated learning in higher education While most of their empirical material relates to the UK, it does have a worldwide significance Arguably Parker and Gemino are more positive but still recognise the difficulties involved in “moving a university towards on-line learning” Again, while this is a case study of one Canadian university, the lessons are universal The other three papers concentrate on challenges that relate more directly

to students and their learning Vasquz Bronfman, writing from a French perspective, seeks to address the question of how to “link information technology and active learning methods in order to add value to business education” Drawing upon evidence from three case studies he reaches the conclusion that in exploiting the potential of information technology, it is important to avoid the dangers of technocentrism and put pedagogical considerations first

While the World Wide Web represents a significant resource for learning one of the key issues facing educators is how to get students to use the information it provides in an informed and critical way Lee and Coombs address this challenge arguing that self-organized learning is an important way to overcome the “‘cut and paste’ mentality” Using economic concepts and principles as examples, they recommend learning plans as a way of building the competence of students in this respect

Part III: Team and Collaborative Learning

In this part of the book various aspects of one type of response to some of the developments/challenges highlighted in Parts I and II are explored As the title indicates, this involves the use of teamwork to enrich the learning experiences of students

Marchant’s contribution is intended as a guide to those wishing to improve teaching effectiveness and students learning within the

Management Information Science/Systems disciplines In the case described, student-consulting teams were used to prepare students for the realities of designing systems for actual organisations The success of the programme explained lies in the course reflecting what systems analysts do, together with the tools and techniques used in this discipline A complementary strength of the courses is learning about team management and team dynamics

Pirie, Christ and colleagues encourage faculty to develop interactive team learning situations They explain how courses conducted at Valparaiso and Purdue Universities provide “exceptional learning opportunities” Students’ subject mastery was enhanced and, in addition, their time management, study skills and behavioural competencies were developed as a result of learning collaboratively Their analysis is complemented by that of McCuddy and Pirie, who demonstrate how peer assessment enhances learning and, within this process, the need to focus on concrete behaviour rather than abstractions The authors are adamant about the faculty guiding students in developing capacities in this area

Morse focuses on the successes and limitations of virtual team exercises

in multicultural environments In terms of success, he highlights how a diverse group from different locations can be brought together without significant expense enhancing the participants’ perception of the realistic nature of their education and, in the process, creating a flexible virtual learning space that facilitates communication The difficulties are primarily technological, exacerbated by reliance on a single language (English); by cultural behaviour patterns which differ with regard to ease and openness in seeking assistance; and by the amount of time participants spend on familiarising themselves with personal isolation embodied in electronic communication

Part IV: Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

One pedagogic innovation that has had a considerable impact in the

Netherlands and with which EDiNEB has been particularly associated is

PBL Thus, not surprisingly, the four papers, which comprise this part of the book, all have Dutch authors Each deals with different aspects of this very influential approach in contemporary business education

Learners in the field of business, management and economics are often attracted by the prospect of a qualification that will lead directly to material success For educators working with students impatient to see the relevance

of learning to a practical context this can represent a significant motivational challenge Prompted by concerns about the enthusiasm and success rate of their students, Van Woerden and Smit contend that a highly structured

approach to problem-based group learning is a way of motivating students to work harder and improving their academic success It is also, they argue, a means of easing the difficulties students experience in adapting to the demands of university education

Smit and colleagues demonstrate how the introduction of web support has stimulated the use of theoretical material in case study exercises They also explain how on-campus students have gained “added value” from having a shared electronic workspace facility

In their paper, a group from the University of Maastricht (Van den Bossche, Segers, Gijbels and Dochy) compare PBL with a conventional educational approach Using a quasi-experimental research methodology their results suggest that students learning in a problem based environment score perform better than their counterparts in a conventional environment with respect to knowledge acquisition and case studies However, they found

no statistically significant difference for the application of knowledge or skill development They argue that the results confirm PBL as a “powerful learning environment”

The paper by Nijhuis and colleagues reports the results of research into a problem based, information systems course The findings suggest that motivation and guidance are important task elements regardless of the preferred learning style or personality of students and that this should be taken into account by tutors when designing problem based tasks However, what is also needed is similar research in other subject areas in order to contain further insights into the relevance of course content in the design of tasks

Part V: Distance and On-Line Learning

This group of papers is particularly international in composition including contributions from the UK, South Africa and the USA They also carry a clear and optimistic message Distance and on-line learning can, if used thoughtfully and in conjunction with face-to-face learning, not only enhance student learning but can compensate for some of the shortcomings

of traditional methods

Bird describes how a virtual learning environment was used to create a

“community of practice” for work-based students that successfully combined the university, workplace and wider professional community A distance learning programme for accountants, described by Lumby and Saville, increased the participation of part time, non- white students in accountancy education Wells explores the use of the Web Knowledge Forum to generate discourse amongst student and teachers in between their class meetings In the final paper, by Martz and Shepherd, a comparison is made between

distance and on-campus students, in particular the affiliation needs of students and how these can be met in a distance learning context

Part VI: Specific Applications of Learning

The authors of the next two papers, Williams and Connelly, are from the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia Their particular interest is the role that technology can play in student assessment Williams agues that appropriately designed and implemented on-line examinations can present educators and students with a number of important benefits including a reduction in cheating and stress and an enhancement in the quality of learning Connelly sees on-line assessment as facilitating formative, as well

as summative, assessment This is particularly important given the increasing pressure on the time available for tutors to support learning by providing students with opportunities to practice and obtain constructive feedback One very specialised type of technology, videoconferencing, and its application in educational settings is the theme of a final paper by Hodgson and Ascensio Perceived problems with videoconferencing, the authors claim, are more to do with the way the learning event has been designed than with the shortcomings of the media itself Two aspects are explained as critical: the first is “social presence”, the second the degree of student

“engagement” Hodgson and Asensio provide a framework for understanding learners’ needs and programme design components for entering a new era of programme delivery

It is anticipated that this collection of papers will inspire and encourage others to innovate and will contribute to the forging of partnerships across national boundaries There is much to be gained from international

collaboration in those spheres of education of particular concern to EDiNEB

members and, indeed, all involved in business and economics education worldwide Internationalisation in the business world needs to be matched by developments in the academic world Technology is eroding old divisions, such as those between the academic and corporate worlds, thereby

contributing to the globalisation of business knowledge and educational processes Thus, it is vital for educators to keep abreast of what is

happening Clearly, in this respect, EDiNEB has played and will continue to

play an increasingly important role

THE BUSINESS CONTEXT

Needs: Analysing the Collaborative Contexts

David Russell1, David Calvey2 & Mark Banks2

1

Centre for Employment Research, Manchester Institute for Telematics and Employment Research, Manchester Metropolitan Unversity, UK; 2 Department of Sociology, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

This paper reports on research undertaken into the emerging e-learning industry in the North West of England It is based on findings from SMILE (Skills for the Missing Industry’s Leaders and Enterprises), a research project part sponsored by the ESF/Adapt-University for Industry The research has assessed and evaluated management skills within small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), specifically those producing digital media based educational and training materials, hereafter known as e-learning products, a fast growing and economically important sub-sector which has emerged to meet increased demand for multimedia based learning and training materials in educational and workplace environments Previous research has argued that creative management skills may be lacking in the

UK industry context – potentially leading to job losses and thus a “missing industry” (Speake & Powell, 1997) Our research has aimed to identify just how, and how far, managers in such firms can ensure that the creators of education and training materials are able to meet demands for new and innovative products, that not only utilize the best of convergent technologies, but can respond to consumer demands for both bespoke and generic learning products The chapter examines the ways in which SMEs that provide e-learning products collaborate and communicate with their clients, customers and/or end users

Our premise is this: given the increased demands for more sophisticated and “learning centered” products, it is becoming increasingly crucial for firms to source and exploit content, education, knowledge and expertise that

is external to the traditional boundaries of the firm This predominantly occurs in three ways Firstly, there is the sourcing of content from the client – material that can be shaped into or inform the e-learning product in question Secondly, and increasingly, there is the need to draw advice from external learning experts It is now necessary for firms to open up their organization to exterior knowledge to create new collaborations that can position learning in the production process Thirdly, given the necessity of providing effective learning that is sensitive to end user needs, it is now more common to involve or conceptualize the end user within the development process Ensuring that learning products are able to engage with and enhance the learning of the end user involves more consultation, partnership and interaction with the learner than ever before These shifts raise a set of problems related to how firms can effectively interact, exchange and collaborate with external agencies in order to create, distribute and evolve effective learning tools and products

Using case study examples from our qualitative research of over 20 companies, we show how firms are attempting to expand (and expound) new

“learning communities” in order to effect progressive e-learning products The phrase “learning community” we use to describe the interactions between the collection of “communities of practice” integral to the firm, and the range of external experts, clients and end-users implicated in the creation

of an e-learning product We feel that given the need for flexibility and creativity in this sub-sector (Swanson & Wise, 1997), the more firms can exploit or integrate external expertise, client creativity and learners’ knowledge and viewpoints, the more effective these learning communities and their products will be However as we will reveal, while some successes have been identified, the strategies and pathways adopted in forming these new communities are often partial and uncertain We conclude by observing that firms in the digital education and training sector need to more fully conceptualize and engage with the possibilities of expanding their learning communities to ensure the continued production of innovative e-learning products

It is expected that the number of SMEs in the e-learning field will grow, yet businesses vary in the extent to which they possess detailed knowledge

or interest in learning We have identified a number of advertising,

management training and publishing companies now adopting e-learning as

a new delivery channel but many lack a grounding or understanding, or willingness to engage with, the philosophy or practices of learning While some see issues of learning as central, amongst the majority of firms we studied, learning is often a secondary consideration to the provision of a

“technical solution” or “design impact” The lack of recognition of the specific ways in which firms can proactively shape or deliver education and learning activities, for varied constituencies of end users, was a recurrent finding of our research Firms were either largely content to leave the learning input to the providers of content (e.g academic departments, corporate trainers) or to assume that learning would proceed unproblematically at the point of delivery (in schools, workplace etc.) But

we argue that the demand for more effective bespoke and tailored learning products, now demands that firms pay more attention to learning design, processes and outcomes Increasingly, learning about learning is good business sense

Learning is necessary but, we argue, cannot be contained within the conventional understanding of the firm as a bounded set of communities of practice A more open ended conceptualization is required, we feel, in order

to capture the layers of communities that must inter-relate to produce quality e-learning materials We want to show how extending communities of practice into learning communities is one route that firms can follow to enhance the quality of e-learning products and help create of a more open and reflexive attitude to learning within the firm itself

The firm is often seen as a key organization that can house the expertise, skills and knowledge necessary for efficient and effective e-learning production Fransman’s (1994) conception of the firm as a “processor of knowledge” (see Amin, 2000) is perhaps an apposite description of how digital media firms operate The firms we have been involved with are processing knowledge for their own uses but they also trade in knowledge They draw upon the knowledge of in-house experts and build this knowledge into products They comprise sections, each with responsibility for, or claiming to own, part of the design and production process

With these issues in mind, in recent years it has become common to refer

to firms as a composite or collection of different communities of practice.The idea of a community of practice was developed by Lave and Wenger (1990) as a theory for practice-based learning in which one could undertake

“legitimate participation”, to serve a kind of apprenticeship with a group of

insiders in an organization The theory was referred to by Brown and Duguid (1991) to support their contention that the separation of knowledge from practice is unsound They argued that the ways in which people actually work differ from official descriptions and that “learning in working” is a better way to improve performance and most characteristic of how firms share and develop knowledge Wenger and Snyder (2000) later described a community of practice as a “group of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise”, with members inevitably sharing knowledge in order to solve problems in their organization Yet, while these communities might be informal and resistant to supervision, they cannot exist without management support and structure They are bounded,

to varying degrees, within the bureaucratic organization of the firm

Given the ways in which communities of practice are often associated with firms working in the creative or cultural industries (Raffo, et al., 2000),

we felt bound to test out how far our digital media firms were acting as communities of practice in the production of e-learning products However, while the theory could be observed in action, at a number of levels, we began to stumble over some key questions

• Can communities of practice operate across different organizations/ groups?

• Can they operate without geographical proximity?

• How far does the involvement of the external expert, client or learner constitute enhancement, supervision or interference in the community of practice?

We became concerned with how far agencies and forces external to the organization – whether in conflict, co-operation or collaboration with the firm – are able to penetrate or impact upon Wenger’s (1998) “locally negotiated regime of competence” and “shared histories of learning” that make up the community of practice (Amin, 2000) We observed that trading

in knowledge and putting in the “learning” involves several complex processes of negotiation, particularly around companies that produce speculative and bespoke products The firm negotiates with clients who commission products, with the experts who are selling their knowledge, with the end users and with the firm’s own staff who design and produce the learning products The types of exchanges and relative bargaining positions

of the parties to these negotiations vary according to the stage in the production, but there is an officially encouraged series of challenges to the material as it passes through the production process Knowledge is constantly passing through these firms and we considered that firms ought be able to benefit from these internal and external challenges in terms of enhancing their own performance We thus concluded that as long as we considered the community of practice to be synonymous only with the firm,

we were unable to fully account for the complexities of the production process and understanding of learning that we were detecting in our digital media SMEs

From the existing literature, communities of practice as defined cannot be multi or inter-organizational The groups studied by writers on communities

of practice are usually involved in discrete firms or task based activities, for instance Wenger’s (1998) dealing with insurance claims, where there is a set

of closed procedures as a framework but decisions can be made within this framework on the basis of tacit knowledge or unwritten convention The emphasis is on close study of single organizations, rather than on the diffuse and diverse networks that make up the production process in, for example, the e-learning sector In a sector where management skills and knowledge for effective production can be acquired through extended and exterior communities of clients, experts and learners, where mechanisms for the creation, exchange and possession of knowledge are much harder to define and where relying on others (non-firm members) is a necessary imperative, the received notion of a community of practice begins to unravel Thus we needed to develop a more appropriate understanding of how communities of practice operate within the context of production in the e-learning SME sector

Examples from our case studies are chosen to shed light on the extended and more complex role of community in the e-learning production process

We build on Brown and Duguid’s (1991) argument that an organization can

be perceived as a “collective of communities” and extend this into our analysis of e-learning producers - small firms who must engage with a wider collection of communities in addition to the ones internally embedded within the firm

Before we examine the components of the learning community with examples from our case studies, it is useful to reflect on the particular kinds

of e-learning products that our companies were producing Most commonly, firms were producing interactive CD ROM’s or web based products, sometimes converging the two, and while the content of products differedmarkedly, we identified three broad product “types” Each involves a different level of community involvement from the four key parties involved: the firm, external experts, the client and the end-user or learner These categories broadly describe the main parties involved Often, however, the boundaries are blurred For example the client and the end-user may be one and the same; the firm may merely be a single operator who acts

as a hub for a range of external experts We use the categories schematically for analytical clarity

In certain cases, the material is ready made and it is converted into technology based training (TBT) In turn, some of this is rule based, for example the conversion of client companies’ internal regulations or induction procedures The appreciation of how learners learn should not be underestimated, but the client companies’ needs and those of their learners are relatively easy to define Much of the work concerns creating rule sets and programming There are many models for doing TBT and a growing literature on instructional design (Christian-Carter, 2001) In these products the learning and learning design are largely the province of the firm and the client External experts and learners are less likely to be involved in this learning community

In the production of bespoke business learning materials, there is a growing emphasis upon client and end-user needs, which are often difficult

to establish or easily build into a client brief Hence open ended and non-rule based learning is becoming more popular We argue that this is one factor that differentiates this sub-sector from other creative media businesses such

as advertising Firms are therefore beginning to involve the client or end user

in the creative process and this requires the involvement of figures such as the learning designer (see below), in order to create or facilitate specific products and/or forms of delivery The concentration of firms on the clients’

or end users’ learning requirements leads us to argue for a complex assessment of the types of creativity necessary for effective production, one that incorporates understanding of the interpretation of client needs, the design of the learning approach and the graphic design and technical elements In these products the firm, the client and the end-user are often closely involved in the design, development and evaluation – potentially a creative learning community

Some e-learning products may be generic, often developed for use across

a range of clients’ companies or divisions, or targeted at a particular market, education or industry sector In other cases the product is produced for retail

in the high street Whichever the case, the company producing the products

has to acquire knowledge and decide on the outcomes and objectives of the

learning In generic high street retail products, the firm and its designers will usually not have any sustained engagement or full knowledge of the client or end users themselves Thus, the notion that end users are engaged in the wider learning community is limited Although depending on what that product is, they may of course decide to form their own community of practice In this kind of speculative production, the notion of a learning community may be firm-led, drawing more upon historical or established models of design and learning delivery or market research

It is in the case of “high–end” corporate or management generic learning products, supported by a range of tools and e-coaches, that the learning community may come more into play Individual or small groups of learners might be invited to register from different organizations at different times Their learning is not situated in an organization, as in a community of practice, but in their professional arena It may also be subject to evaluation and formal review

There is no necessary relationship between the type of product produced and the strength and scale of the learning community However, as a learning-led approach emerges it is becoming increasingly necessary for firms to strengthen their learning community, whether involved in the creation of more tailored or bespoke non–rule based products or to cope with the increased potential for interactivity even in generic or rule based sets

INTO LEARNING COMMUNITIES

As argued, in e-learning production the extension of a community of practice into a learning community involves integration and exchange between the firm and its internal communities with the external world – most notably freelance or exterior experts, the client and end-users While client and end-users may be one and the same (such as someone who buys an e-learning product in the high street) it is more common for large firms, schools or universities to act as the client and its staff or students to be identified as the end users By showing how each of these constituencies have a role in the production of e-learning products we hope to show how effective e-learning production can be better obtained through a more open and open ended approach to learning, one embedded within informal learning communities

5.1 The Firm in the Learning Community

While the firm, as a set of communities of practice, is engaged in formal, structured, but also informal and tacit, modes of learning (Amin, 2000), for e-learning firms, learning must take on a more upfront and central role It is,

after all, the raw material and raison d’etre of the firm We find that the

successful e-learning SME is one that is pushing the learning dimension much more to the fore, both in terms of product and production process

In terms of product, the way in which this is most evident is in the increased creation of specific roles for an in-house expert in the design and delivery of learning Often referred to as the “learning designer”, this figure acts as the designer, director and evaluator of learning needs and outcomes

in the production process

The role of a learning designer will vary from firm to firm but, most crucially, an outward looking, experimental approach to learning is key For the learning designer the parameters of learning are worked out, in and through the production process, in a manner contingent on a range of issues including client needs, resource constraints and pedagogic (and andragogic) principles It is against the background of this process of negotiation with external agencies that firms have increased the development of learning dialogues and attempted to redefine and reposition the role of a learning designer

Good designers have been described by one respondent as “experts in not knowing” and can ideally work with any type of content We wonder if this

is true, but clearly a figure that can manage and manipulate any kind of content to effect and implement an effective learning process must clearly be attractive in a burgeoning e-learning marketplace

As well as employing learning designers, in terms of production firms are becoming more outward looking and experimental in their search to create a

“learning organization”, involving wider engagement with prospective members of a learning community This involves integrating external experts into the learning dialogue

Given that many SMEs are unable to employ a full time learning designer

or expert, and with the need for ultimate flexibility in a fast changing and nascent market place, the role of external experts, such as freelance learning designers, evaluators and educators becomes more crucial As this respondent offered:

“We have recently, with the training, we’ve had a group of experts in the field writing materials for us, to put together, to create a program, which has been quite interesting because they’ve all been very, very much their own people, very much with their own ideas.”

The role of these external experts has grown in recent years as digital firms with strong technical and design competence but little in the way of educational expertise are looking to factor the learning dimension into the product and production process These experts are often members of close knit and informal networks, often, but not necessarily, geographically clustered around the commissioning firm and bound together by a history of collaboration, shared experience and know how Given the high levels of self-employment and freelance work in this sector, the role of the external expert is more pronounced and vital than in other, more traditional, industry sectors, making them key members of any learning partnerships

The client must play a central role in the formation and maintenance of

an operative learning community Attitudes to clients varied among the firms

we interviewed, with some of them talking about managing their clients’ expectations and the “whole process being managing the client to accept the creative” These remarks were often from firms with advertising backgrounds However the ones with their origins in education or management consultancy took a different view, seeing the clients’ creative contribution as a central part of developing learning products and enhancing learning practices

For the firms that we would call “learning-led”, the negotiations with clients and the meeting of their needs assumed a central role:

“… there may be a group of people who are involved on the project and I’d like to meet with them, so I’d ask them if I could get together with them and it might be that there’d be two or three meetings there in order just to begin to get a handle on, what are the specs, what do they want the project to be able to do at the end of it and what, what do they want?” While the extent to which clients are engaged in a learning dialogue with firms will vary, it was clearly evident that more successful and progressive firms understood the client as central in the definition and delivery of learning, not merely a hindrance to be “managed” out of the production equation This ensures that the issue of learning, for both parties, remains open and subject to creative development

5.4 The End Users in the Learning Community

While firms, external experts and clients can often generate productive learning communities, the involvement of end users/learners is an area that needs more work The needs of both individual, and groups of, learners are often subordinated to concerns over development and design, timescale, budget, distribution, price and so on But there are a number of other, more hidden, reasons why end user learning needs and experiences are often secondary concerns It may be that in the provision of tried and tested rule based software, learners’ needs are assumed to be simple and straightforward and unworthy of detailed consideration Further, it is often the case that clients assume that their staff or student learning needs are homogenous or easily predetermined Consultation and testing at the point of learning may not therefore occur Also, firms themselves may feel uncertain in challenging clients’ identification of what constitute the key learner issues in practice, particularly in cases where, for example, the client is an educational institution Even when partnerships involve the end user, there is no guarantee that the learners input will be as valued as that of the firm or the experts In short, we observe much of what constitutes the debate over learning has often missed out the learners themselves

However for a growing number of firms, the integration of the end user into the learning dialogue is now deemed crucial We found firms where it was considered vital to know the learner and develop learning technology that is positively learner centered, and seek to develop partnerships with them in a collaborative learning network

“If you look at it from three points of view, the first point of view is, what does the learner require? What are the specific requirements of the individual learner? The second point of view is, do we want to make a profit from this? The third point of view is what level of quality should

we be aiming for? In all cases the primary focus of attention needs to be

on the needs of the learner.”

Not only are firms looking to expand their testing, evaluation and feedback strategies, an increasing tendency now is to generate a dynamic among learners in “softer” skill areas and encourage them to share learning experiences and stories and to generally engage more widely with the providers and producers of e-learning materials and developments in the learning community The idea of “recursive loops” for learning is suggested, with the goal being to create a set of mechanisms whereby all parties can provide feedback and engage for the duration of the production process How this can be achieved, however, remains a crucial question

6 MECHANISMS FOR MANAGING THE

LEARNING COMMUNITY

How are these four disparate constituents of learning communities able to bind and act to effect the development of learning and learning products? Our respondents indicated that certain emotional and conceptual leaps must

be made to open out the organization to the influence of the other – an openness which requires the cultivation of new relations of trust, as well as the management of both face-to-face and virtual or distance relationships

It was apparent that many of our e-learning firms were driven by pure economic considerations, employing low cost strategies and traditional approaches to management that, for them, meant the necessity of remaining afloat in a competitive and uncertain market But in more progressive e-learning SMEs, the common management style is an empowered one where facilitation, trust and ethics are valued In this case the sharing and common exploitation of knowledge was frequently referred to:

“The guys are constantly – well the way we’ve got the office set up in a huge great big circle – they’re constantly skidding around to one another’s machines, there are no prima donnas in there and nobody’s precious about knowledge and if somebody has knowledge they share it It’s as simple as that.”

The role of trust in maintaining a learning community is clearly important Once the community of practice extends beyond the traditional boundaries

of the firm then it becomes more of an imperative to create and sustain active mechanisms of trust and reciprocal exchange (Banks, et al., 2000) As Giddens (1991) notes, since social relations are now less dependent upon physical locality or place than previously, new “relational communities” (Amin, 2000) must be developed and sustained across space and time

Geographical proximity remains important in production; to involve clients, external experts and learners in face-to-face exchanges remains the best way for identifying and agreeing objectives, processes and outcomes and for helping to facilitate the levels of “active trust” (Giddens, 1991) deemed necessary to bind the learning community It was noted that face-to- face meetings avoided “endless e-mails”, course content was largely written

within face-to-face meetings and problems caused by the lack of understanding of each other’s functions and of the development process itself could be overcome with face-to-face exchanges It was stated by many firms that personal meetings are essential throughout the development process:

“I like to be able to see the actual learners and meet with them and discuss the kinds of things they do, so, step one then is, I like to be able

to define what the problem is and what the product has to be able to do.”

“I’ve got to define what the client needs and that will involve probably some meetings with the people who are responsible for the project themselves I’d also like to see and meet with some of the end users and I’d like to go into their workplace, like to see them working in their situation.”

There was also evidence that firms wished to strengthen local networks in order to provide some context and comparison for their activities with other firms in the sub-sector – geographical proximity then still being seen to provide a strong basis for networking and collaborative mechanisms

Where it is not possible to meet the clients or external experts directly, a secondary option is to use information and communication technologies to enable relationships to be maintained across distance More commonly, it is often impossible to meet or engage with the learners (at least not all of them) But if learners are to become more central to the learning community then mechanisms for integration must be found Ensuring integration into the learning community over geographical space becomes a key issue for the firm This is one example of the mechanisms one firm provided to support relational communities of learners from different organizations over space:

“From the home page, you can go to the parts you are allowed access to, for instance, course material, discussion groups, chat, where you are up

to individually, syllabus, personal pages [There is access to] course material – accessed via the menu bar – material, management of material, links and live unit activities There are five levels of collaboration open

to individual learners – to other individuals, to the present activity, to the cohort [group of learners on course], to the curriculum [others on the same program but at a different stage], to all others on all programs.” Additionally, “e-coaches” now assume a central role in cementing the dispersed body of learners into the learning community For example, to link

the coaches to the learners there may be devices such as a “personal adviser” tool This also links the coaches to the units they are facilitating and they can check on the progress of individual learners

Some of our SMEs now intend to make it a priority to update knowledge and to provide toolkits, interactive resource centers, with archived documents and links to material, and more opportunities for learners to do things themselves Learners may be more engaged in feedback activities, or even privy to on-going consultation and development discussions One respondent referred to this as the provision of “facilitated communities of application” This involves allowing learners to create content and put it on line themselves and to facilitate networking with other learners and community members, across cultures and continents, thereby meeting the overall aim of raising the profile and enhancing the contribution of learners

in the e-learning process

LEARNING COMMUNITIES

We have, quite selectively, revealed some of the possibilities and strategies of new learning communities, as they take shape around our e-learning SMEs However, it would be misleading to suggest that this is a general or even a widespread process Many firms remain locked into the traditional separation of the firm from the external world, the prioritization

of the firm’s expertise over external knowledge and giving short shrift to opening up the debate on learning within the firm or problematising the learning qualities of their products:

“Everyone has a first class honors here, they get the training they require when [they] switch the computer on, that’s it Go and learn it….You need the Internet to learn and we don’t need anything else.”

“We shout and they learn it.”

Clients too are often treated as distractions, or even irritations, rather than potential partners in the development of appropriate learning:

“I don’t think many clients understand the work that’s needed on their side in order to hand us the content that has to go into it…If you want a quote they think we’ve got a magical content generator in the building.” One of the firms where we interviewed spoke of encouraging its staff to experiment and make mistakes; it wanted to avoid the “blame culture” it had encountered among its clients Another, however, while claiming that its size

and attitude allowed it the “luxury of debate” on learning theory, was later criticized by its own staff for its concentration on deadlines and profits which discouraged staff from being innovative It seems clear that while learners are encouraged to use tools experimentally to construct their learning, create their own content and upload whatever they like into their shared space, the capacity of many SMEs to experiment, make mistakes and survive is limited The economic pressures placed upon a small firm may make it difficult to enjoy the luxury of debate on learning – this is accepted All activities take place within budgetary, human resource and time limitations Even if the firm wishes to develop a network of external experts, clients and learners a decision has to be made on whether to formalize and structure this network and incur maintenance costs through communication, meetings, events and so on, or to leave it open ended and informal, but potentially losing impetus and the leakage of its key asset – productive encounters between different knowledges and communities Finally, even when learning communities are in evidence, the power relationships within that network may be asymmetrical Not everyone is able to shape the direction or definition of learning exactly as they would wish

The formation of e-learning businesses and the creation of the learning products involve new convergences of technology, media, skills and, increasingly, individuals and organizations themselves The management of firms and production processes must now focus on the human aspects of these convergences – the learning community In our sample, this has led to the emergence of learning designers, as well as the increased utilization of client knowledge and, where required, the involvement of the external experts, clients and end-users in the creative learning process, providing an additional, challenging dimension

Furthermore, the issues of distance and “what happens when you cannot meet” apply not only to the users of the material but also to the providers of the knowledge There are differences among the tools and procedures firms and learners use to acquire their knowledge As more firms enter this business sub-sector and as learning design has the potential to become a profession in its own right, the need to acquire knowledge from outside sources will increase This question of knowledge acquisition over distance therefore applies to developers as well as learners and is one of those addressed in our project There seemed to be an irony in that firms find face-to-face meetings essential in the development of distance learning products –

a necessity perhaps only partially offset by new relational communities that

are emerging across geographical space The end result is a loosely bounded learning community comprising members from a variety of organizations and groups interacting face-to-face and at distance

As more and more firms look to enter the e-learning market, not all will come ready equipped with learning designers or a discrete learning philosophy We argue that this may, but certainly not always, undermine the quality and effectiveness of learning products But by engaging in reflexive and extensive debate with those who do have an understanding of the power and potential of a learning led approach (other firms, learning and education experts) and by engaging with the wider communities in the e-learning marketplace – clients, experts and crucially learners – firms can go a long way to resolving some of the current dilemmas of this emergent industry, namely how to provide materials that are sufficiently researched and piloted, pedagogically and andragogically appropriate and serve the needs of clients and the diverse, and fast expanding, communities of end users

REFERENCES

Amin, A (2000) Organisational learning through communities of practice Paper presented

at Millennium Schumpeter Conference, University of Manchester, June

Banks, M., Lovatt, A., O’Connor, J., & Raffo, C (2000) Risk and trust in the cultural

industries Geoforum, 31 (4), 453-464

Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P (1991) Organizational knowledge and communities of practice

Organization Science, 2 (1), 40-57

Christian-Carter, J (2001) Mastering Instructional Design in Technology-Based Training.

London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Fransman, M (1994) Information, knowledge, vision and theories of the firm Industrial and

Corporate Change, 3 (3)

Giddens, A (1991) Modernity and Self Identity Cambridge: Polity Press

Lave, J., & Wenger, E (1990) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Raffo, C., O’Connor, J., Lovatt, A., & Banks, M (2000) Attitudes to formal business training and learning amongst entrepreneurs in the cultural industries: Situated learning through

‘doing with others’ Journal of Education and Work, 13, 215-230

Speake, T., & Powell, J (1997) Skills for the missing industry: An exploratory study

University of Salford: Training Technology Unit, Dep for Education and Employment

Swanson, G., & Wise, P (1997) Digital futures: Women’s employment in the multimedia

industries Brisbane: Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy

Wenger, E.C (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Wenger, E.C & Snyder, W.M (2000) Communities of practice: The organisational frontier.

Harvard Business Review, Jan 1st.

Educational Approaches and Technology Tools for a Global Workforce

Daniel M Carchidi1 & David J McCarthy2

1 GE Capital, Learning Services, USA, 2 Run Fast, Inc, USA

The great Internet shakeout of 2000 has made all of us take a step back and think hard about the net-based economy and the type of ventures that will succeed or fail in turbulent times In many cases, the success or failure

of a net-based venture or industry segment is not necessarily based on the underlying technologies, but rather the application of technology in an appropriate context What is clear is that there seems to be little abatement in the application of new technologies in all types of business contexts

The early 21st Century is an era marked by rapid technological innovation that is fuelling globalization The trend toward globalization has sparked an upswing in cross-border mergers and acquisitions These cross-border mergers and acquisitions have created a host of cultural and political issues that must be addressed by training communities that are increasingly being asked to do more with less The e-learning trend is certainly not a US only phenomenon as efforts such as the “eLearning: Designing tomorrow’s education” initiative (European Commission, 2000) and the recently released, “eLearning Action Plan” (European Commission, 2001) suggest The European Commission is getting serious about the role that technology-mediated learning can have on the economic development of that region For many in the training community, e-learning may provide tangible benefits such as cutting costs for travel and living expenses A study by

Hambrecht and Company (2000) reveals that $500 million was spent on Internet training in 1999 Spending projections for 2002 are expected to explode to over $7 billion While cost savings may be on the minds of many, the results from the shift may actually improve learning

As Hall (2000) has pointed out, e-learning is beginning to demonstrate clear benefits for management education He notes the value in consistency

of information and content integrity, as advantages over instructor led training, since the dynamics of interaction that the student experiences are more uniform in an e-learning format E-learning also allows students of varied capability levels to learn at their own pace, which can speed the time

to competency for some students Mastering knowledge in a rapidly changing business environment is a challenging task as there is less and less time available for training Hall explains that learning that is accessible

“anytime, anywhere,” “in the right amount” and “suited to the individual’s needs” makes sense given the pace of business today While acknowledging that technology cannot solve all training issues, Hall does make a strong case for e-learning development

In this paper, we will consider two ideas for understanding e-learning and targeting processes that will help e-learning efforts succeed The first presents a method for linking business process, experience and institutional memory, which supports the e-learning development process The second concerns linkages between the learning or cognitive level and the extent of the business process being modeled, which we term the isomorphic model The isomorphic model is intended to enable trainers to select the most appropriate educational approach and technology to address e-learning development in an environment marked by globalization, mergers and acquisitions and shifts in culture and politics We believe that concentrating

on the extent of business process being modeled and the level of learning will provide educators with an effective approach for selecting the appropriate e-learning solution Three e-learning projects from the General Electric Company (GE) are then examined Finally, we offer lessons learned and implications for educators considering e-learning development efforts

LEARNING) ENVIRONMENT

For over 120 years GE has been a major player in the US and global economies In 2000, GE’s net earnings were $12.7 billion on revenues of

$129.9 billion GE has been named the “world's most respected company”

by The Financial Times in 1998, 1999 and 2000, “America’s most admired company” by Fortune in 1998, 1999, 2000 & 2001 and e-business of the