The Virtual Learning Environment and Learning Content Integration
With the world constantly changing, learning amongst other things are shifting in a new direction. Technology is making way for virtual interaction and virtual learning. This report looks at how learning can be integrated in the virtual world.
Content
Research Report 1: Mr. L.T. De Koker
The virtual learning environment and learning content integration 200702983
Web and Intranet Management Lecturer: Due Date: Dr. Tanya du Plessis 25/03/2011
______________________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents
1 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 2 What is a virtual learning environment (VLE)? .......................................................................................... 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 The need for a virtual learning environment (VLE). ........................................................................... 3 Limitations of a virtual learning environment (VLE). .......................................................................... 3 Virtual teams. ..................................................................................................................................... 4
3
Knowledge sharing. ................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 3.2 Intellectual capital in knowledge sharing. .......................................................................................... 5 Human capital in knowledge sharing. ................................................................................................ 5
4 5
Analysing the virtual learning environment and learning content integration through SWOT analysis. ... 6 Technology used to enable a virtual learning environment (VLE). ............................................................ 7 5.1 5.2 Web 2.0.............................................................................................................................................. 7 Enterprise 2.0 .................................................................................................................................... 7
6 7 8 9
Social Networks as learning tools. ............................................................................................................. 7 Using Google as a tool to access knowledge. ........................................................................................... 8 Communities of practice ............................................................................................................................ 8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Reference List .................................................................................................................................................. 10
1
1
Introduction
The method, in which learning is taking place, is changing tremendously with the help of technology. Technology is constantly being enhanced, leading to better opportunities for virtually anything. With regards to learning, collaboration, communication and knowledge sharing; virtual learning environments (VLEs) are the modern method in which the above mentioned, are functioning. Of course virtual learning environments are relatively new to the globe; some still don’t know what it is. None theless virtual learning environments are basically the future of learning, collaboration, communication, knowledge sharing and education. Learning content integration can only take place with proper technology, such as Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 technologies. Furthermore people are required to share tacit knowledge; in order to ensure that learning content integration, through the use of virtual learning environments are successful. “...researchers from different disciplines have stressed the significance of knowledge management for organizational success. But there have been quite major shifts in how knowledge is conceived”. “...knowledge is a process rather than a thing, and that it is an active process of relating” (Amamou, Anderson & Harbi 2010:25). Knowledge sharing is one of the most important factors in virtual learning environments; as without knowledge sharing, there would be no purpose for virtual learning environments to exist. Learning, collaboration and communication takes place within knowledge sharing and are only the outputs of knowledge sharing. In order for knowledge sharing to take place within a virtual learning environment, virtual teams or virtual communities are a prerequisite. Virtual teams are made up out of the total people learning, communicating and collaborating tacit knowledge through the use of the abovementioned technology. Virtual teams do not have to be geographically or physically located at the same place; however virtual teams can be dispersed across the globe. Mutual interest on a subject field or any topic brings virtual teams together, virtually. Intellectual capital of the virtual teams grows as a result of virtual learning environments. Within any Information and Knowledge Management aspect, whether it is; Competitive Intelligence, Business Intelligence, Knowledge Sharing, etc, people are the most important tool, as only people consist of tacit knowledge. It is only through knowledge sharing, that tacit knowledge can be shared. The research will show what virtual learning teams are and how learning content integration are facilitated through virtual learning environments. An in-depth literature review had to be done, to facilitate the direction and purpose of the research. Academic articles together with other internet sources were consulted, to contribute to the outcomes of the research. The purpose of the research is to discuss the virtual learning environment and learning content integration. Various aspects contribute towards virtual learning environments and learning content integration, therefore the following will be discussed within the research. The research will firstly show what virtual learning environments is and thereafter focus on various factors, which contribute to virtual learning environments. Factors that contribute to virtual learning environments are; technology, such as Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0, virtual teams, knowledge sharing and the intellectual capital aspect of the virtual teams. A community of practice makes use of virtual learning environments, as it is much more convenient to collaborate, communicate and share knowledge virtually, especially when time and place is a concern. Social networks will also be discussed and focussed on how social networks can be a form of virtual learning environment. The research problem as stated above; the virtual learning environment and learning content integration. Relevant sub-problems that will be discussed throughout the research are: Virtual learning environments, the need for virtual learning environments and limitations of virtual learning environments. Virtual teams, knowledge sharing and intellectual capital, contributing to virtual learning environments will be discussed as the next sub-problem. Lastly, the research will focus on the tools and technology; social networks and communities of practice, with regard to virtual learning environments, as sub-problem.
2
What is a virtual learning environment (VLE)?
According to Holyoke “A virtual learning environment (VLE) is a set of teaching and learning tools designed to enhance a student's learning experience by including computers and the Internet in the learning process” (2011). Even though Holyoke only mentions students, a virtual learning environment is a tool that can be used by any individual in the process of learning. With technology constantly evolving learning institutions has to keep up with the changes. As technology keep on changing, so do people. “A book can hardly be described
2
as a learning environment. But, reading a book in a seminar, discussing with other students, writing a summary for the tutor, do constitute a learning environment. Similarly, a set of Web pages does not constitute a virtual learning environment unless there is social interaction about or around the information” (Dillenbourg 2000:5). Virtual learning environments require interaction between individuals. Interaction in the sense, that communication and collaboration is taking place. Generation X and Y individuals prefer social interaction, and by so doing, learning takes place. For example, students from an academic institute working on a project, would prefer to rather work in a team, as working in a team has much more advantages than working alone. Working in a team, allows for constant collaboration and communication, leading teams to perform better, in comparison o individual projects. Furthermore working in a team, means that more tacit knowledge, ideas and experiences are shared. Through sharing the team will have better opportunities to render a good project, than working alone. “In Web-based environments, learning activities range from multiple choice questionnaires to problem solving. Simulations are indeed virtual learning environments as well. While originally restricted to physical models, they cover now a broad spectrum of domains such as economics, politics, biology… However, what is more specific to virtual learning environments is the set of activities in which the students construct and share objects. Most often these objects are Web pages. Writing activities (producing syntheses, study reports, newspapers ...) are very popular in schools” (Dillenbourg 2000:8). Knowledge sharing is progression. Teamwork further means that one individual’s weakness is strengthened by another individual’s strength; meaning that when one individual is good in for instance, report writing, another individual might be good in conducting research. When establishing strengths and weaknesses in a team, the team will then be able to further decide on specific roles; as to who will do, what work for the team. Linking back to virtual learning environments; teams should have proper guidelines for conducting teamwork. The same principle exists in virtual learning environments. The only differentiating factor between virtual learning environments and physical learning environments is that virtual learning takes place with the use of the internet, in virtual learning environments; and physical learning takes place on a face-to-face basis, in physical learning environments. No matter the setting of where and how the learning takes place, knowledge sharing should be embedded in the culture of all the individuals in the team. Without knowledge sharing the team will fail on any project that has to be done.
2.1
The need for a virtual learning environment (VLE).
“In the last decade, internet access, the nature of the web and contexts for learning have evolved, along with the emergence of desired competencies for learners, instructors, and administrators, and these changes impact constructs for learning, teaching, and paths for future research” (Greenhow 2011:4). According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, people constantly change. As soon as a lower level need has been satisfied, an individual will want to satisfy a higher level need, or the next need within the hierarchy. When evaluating the need for a virtual learning environment; the needs of the people has to be established first, therefore VLEs will commonly be a need within a learning institution. With access to the internet, students or individuals from any organisation can easily collaborate with each other. It is not required for all individuals to be situated geographically in one place, in order for learning to take place and be effective. A virtual learning environment, allows for easy collaboration and learning amongst students or individuals, without having to be face-to-face. “...the notion of a learning activity in virtual learning environments refers to something richer than in individual courseware, closer to the notion of project. The difference between other constructivist environments and what virtual environments potentially offer can be described as making students not only active, but also actors, i.e. members and contributors of the social and information space” (Dillenbourg 2000:8). Research shows that students or individuals prefer working in teams, as learning in teams contributes to more enhancement of intellectual capital. Furthermore learning in teams are fond to students, as it means that learning is fun and therefore not seen as a difficult boring chore, but rather a fun learning activity. “Web-based education is often associated to distance education, while - in the practice- it is also widely used to support presential learning. Actually, the difference between distance education and presential education is fading for several reasons” (Dillenbourg 2000:9). According to Dillenbourg, the reasons are time constraints; “Many Web-based courses combine distance and presence, which makes learning environments more robust” (Dillenbourg 2000:9).
2.2
Limitations of a virtual learning environment (VLE).
“Open professional virtual communities are based on voluntary participation and weak ties, typical of relationships among casual acquaintances and strangers. Encouraging individuals to participate and share knowledge in a virtual community is a difficult task due to weak-tie relationships and no extrinsic monetary rewards for knowledge contribution. Hence the biggest challenge in fostering a virtual community is the supply
3
of knowledge, i.e. the willingness to share knowledge with other members” (Chiu, Fan, Shih & Wang 2010:134). Students would appreciate the usability and features of a virtual learning environment, as it would mean that students do not necessarily have to a attend class. This eliminates the personal feel attached to, face-to-face class gatherings and restricts the extent to which, a teacher or lecturer and a student’s interpersonal relationship could grow. “ Today’s use of ‘virtual learning environment’ is not restricted to well -structured information spaces, but I expect that this criterion will become more salient, as content management becomes a main issue for all teachers involved in virtual learning environments” ( Dillenbourg 2000:3). In the event where a virtual learning environment is primarily designed for peers or students to exchange ideas, etc., little control over the virtual learning environment will be administered. It depends what the purpose basically is for a virtual learning environment, which will establish the governance of the space. “Whatever technology is used, all tools have intrinsic limitations. These limitations do, over time, become real obstacles to learning. Even a small amount of co-presence may solve some of the problems that can hardly be solved at distance. Examples are activities that require presence such as: launching a new project, complex technical assistance, repairing deep conceptual misunderstanding, negotiation” (Dillenbourg 2000:9).
2.3
Virtual teams.
Various definitions for virtual teams exist, but emphasis within all the definitions is that the geographical position of the virtual team members does not have to be the same. “Virtual teams, understood as teams with geographically dispersed members communicating primarily by use of information and communication technologies (ICT), have become a viable form for work in innovation projects involving one or several organizations. Knowledge development and creation of a shared understanding among team members are often stressed as fundamental to successful innovation processes” (Gressgard 201 1:102). Virtual teams operate through the use of ICTs, where collaboration is the primary factor to ensure effectiveness. “Virtual teamwork is regarded as an important form of work in modern organizations as it is capable of complying with the demands of the new business environments characterized by international competition, fragmented and demanding markets, and diverse and rapidly changing technologies” (Gressgard 201 1:102). Virtual teams are sometimes also referred to as virtual communities. Importance is not placed on the name, but rather on the definition of the concept. “The rise of client -side and social networking technology has led to an increased interest in finding the best ways for students to create their own Personal Learning Environments (PLEs )” (Booth & Clark 2009:232). “To some individuals, working alone at home is a terrific option. They like the idea of sitting at their computer terminals in comfy clothes, the dog at their feet. The worker has no need for an office or a parking space. Air pollution and traffic congestion are reduced. Others find the idea a little lonely and somehow disconcerting. They worry that they will miss interaction with their colleagues, and they worry about the pitfalls of the virtual teams: lack of individual recognition, celebrations of team accomplishments, lack of project visibility, the constraints of technology and lack of trust” (Hunsaker & Hunsaker 2008:87). Individuals differ; and in this constant changing environment with many factors contributing to change, it is imperative that individuals perform work activities and learning activities at their own convenience. Time could however be a constraint, but because people are different, it is evident that; various people perform different activities and tasks at different tempo’s and convenience. Innovation will be achieved when an individual is happy with their working or performance conditions. Therefore if an employee prefers working at home, which will in end mean more productivity, it should be allowed. Even though direct control and leading is not possible in this regard; there should be trust between employer and employee, as trust will be the only factor determining success. Virtual teams basically consist of individuals who share the same interest/s. Interest/s could vary depending on the organisation or the institution and the purpose of the virtual team. Purpose of virtual teams differs, as no single individual has the same needs. Reliant on the need of the individuals of the virtual team and the institution or organisation, purpose of the virtual team and further virtual learning environment is established. As mentioned geographical and physical location together with ethnicity and cultures of team members, have no direct negative impact on the virtual team and the purpose of the virtual team.
3
Knowledge sharing.
4
“Knowledge is the central resource of many organizations. The operating core of organizations consists to a great extent of specialists and their expert knowledge. Knowledge transfer among the members of an organization is a basic necessity” (Wilkesmann & Wilkesmann 2011:2). Furthermore it is important to note that “…organisational culture will facilitate a positive attitude towards knowledge sharing and that the opportunities and challenges to fulfill the needs associated with knowledge sharing, will be so rewarding that people will be inclined to stay with the organisation” (Jacobs & Roodt 2011:1). It is however difficult to embed and facilitate a culture of knowledge sharing within organisations, as many individuals believe that their knowledge is their power and security, whereas the opposite; knowledge sharing is power and security. “There seems to be an obvious gap in the literature to evaluate the role of culture and climate in improving IC management systems, especially in an international context” (Herremans, Isaac, Kline, Manassian & Nazari 2011:3). “Knowledge sharing occurs when an individual is willing to assist as well as learn from others in the development of new competencies” (Jacobs & Roodt 2011:1). With regards to learning institutions or even organisations, knowledge sharing can be a good tool to assist with the growth of intellectual capital. Knowledge Cafés can be facilitated in a learning institution or an organisation, as knowledge cafes is a good tool to further enhance knowledge sharing. Through knowledge cafés individuals share knowledge about a certain topic, depending on what the knowledge café is discussing or facilitating. “For innovative firms, knowledge sharing or knowledge transfer promotes innovation by creating and managing new information” (Amamou, Anderson & Harbi 2010:26). According to Burke (2010:5), “Sharing only takes place where there is trust and where there is a shared feeling of ownership of goals. The reasons behind the tendency to share are based on the kind of interpersonal relations between co-workers inherent within the organization and the effects of social relationships within organizational teams. Strengthening the social relationships between individuals in the team is crucial in motivating team members to share knowledge”. “Most modern organisations have realised that their knowledge asset has to dynamically flow between employees in order to gain the full potential of this asset. Thus, knowledge management (KM) activities are deemed as important as other essential business processes. These activities aim to capture, store and share knowledge in various ways” (Khan, Majewski & Usoro 2011:41). Furthermore, Khan, Majewski & Usoro explains that, “…One of the ways and which is supported by research is collaborative virtual environments (CVE): a software environment that emulates some of the features of the real world. The features of the real world that are usually emulated are: the concept of space, the representation of objects including a human (in the form of an avatar), and various tools. The “avatar” feature alone has much potential for unlocking tacit knowledge: instead of the user always dutifully typing instructions or “knowledge” to the system, he can use an avatar to demonstrate what he/she wants to communicate” (Khan, Majewski & Usoro 2011:41). “Many newly developing countries such as those with poor infrastructure, those in poverty, those emerging from communist and state rule are moving towards stability by slowly building up businesses such as smallto medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which are beginning to move towards sharing information both internally within the company and externally to customers, clients and suppliers. Information sharing for many is the first move towards knowledge sharing and for many businesses these are the stages before a full knowledge management (KM) system can realistically be addressed” (Burke 2010:6).
3.1
Intellectual capital in knowledge sharing.
“Academic scholars, as well as profit and non-profit organizations, in many countries have put a mounting emphasis on the successful management of knowledge management and the broader concept of intellectual capital (IC)” (Herremans, Isaac, Kline, Manassian & Nazari 2011:3). Intellectual capital has been defined by Thomas Stewart as: “The sum of everything that everybody in a company knows that gives it a competitive edge . . . the intellectual material . . . that can be put to use to create wealth” (Adrian 2008:242). Adrian further explains that “intellectual capital could, thus, be described as information and knowledge withi n a company. Information is static; whereas, knowledge is dynamic” (Adrian 2008:242). Intellectual capital goes hand -inhand with knowledge and knowledge sharing, which leads to competitive advantage for an organisation and increase of intellectual capital. “In the last decade management literature has paid significant attention to the role of knowledge for global competitiveness in the 21st century. It is recognized as a durable and more sustainable strategic resource to acquire and maintain competitive ad vantages” (Alvani, Amiri, Hosnavi, Jandghi & Ramezan 2010:99). Pretorius explains that, “…e-learning and online learning subsystems create a wealth of knowledge and learning opportunities” (Pretorius 2010:321).
3.2
Human capital in knowledge sharing. 5
“...human capital is most commonly defined as an element of intellectual capital along with social capital, consisting of the relationships and networks that enable the creation and transfer of knowledge, and organizational capital, including the firm’s policies and procedures together with patents and other forms of knowledge owned by the organization rather than individuals. Human capital then is the knowledge, skills and experience of individuals and also their willingness to share these attributes with the organization to create value” (Baron 2011:30). Every single individual within an organisation, or within any form of team; contribute to the total human capital of that organisation or team. The tacit as well as the explicit knowledge, all forms of data and information, all forms of experiences, social interactions, various network relationships and all the data, knowledge and information flow within the organisation or team, contribute to the entire overall human capital, of the specific organisation or team. “...the value of human capital is inherently dependent on its potential to contribute to the competitive advantage or core competence of the firm’’ (Baron 2011:30).
4
Analysing the virtual learning environment and learning content integration through SWOT analysis.
Strengths: A virtual learning environment allows for knowledge sharing at an academic, corporate and social level. Knowledge sharing furthermore enhances intellectual capital, as people learn more from sharing experiences and knowledge. “Human capital represents the individual tacit knowledge embedded in the mind of the employees. Human capital is important as the foundational source of innovation, strategic renewal of a company and the company can thus realize and create value in the knowledge-based economy. Human capital can be defined as a combination of employee’s competence, attitude and creativity” (Alvani, Amiri, Hosnavi, Jandghi & Ramezan 2010:100). Weaknesses: A weakness that is associated with virtual learning environments is that virtual learning environments do not allow for face-to-face communication. Misinterpretation can thus arise, as different people perceive and interpret messages differently. Organisational culture contributes further as a weakness and should be assessed to establish what barriers exist for effective knowledge sharing. Opportunities: Virtual learning environments can grow extensively when weaknesses are overcome. Virtual teams could be arranged at the same geographical and physical location, to overcome communication barriers in terms of misinterpretation. These knowledge cafés or team gatherings can be rotated at different locations, and could maybe be held once a month. “The core knowledge management activities encompass assessing, changing and improving human individual skills and/or behaviour. It is a complex set of dynamic skills and know-how that is constantly changing” (Al-Hawamdeh 2002). Threats: A threat that might arise with regard to virtual learning environments could exist in the event where proper governance is not regulated. In many instances administrators for virtual learning environments do not exist, except for academic institutions where marks are allocated to collaboration. Technology changes and could be a threat if virtual learning environments do not enhance technology as it changes. “In the era of
6
knowledge-based economy, management will need to more effectively identify, develop, use, store and disseminate knowledge” (Cvejic & Mijailovic 2009). Furthermore; if proper guidelines, principles and policies are not embedded in the virtual learning environments culture, governance for knowledge sharing will not be handled properly.
5
Technology used to enable a virtual learning environment (VLE).
In terms of the technology used for virtual learning environments, Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 technologies are used. In recent years Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 technologies has taken effect. These tools or technologies enable collaboration and knowledge sharing amongst peers in a virtual environment.
5.1
Web 2.0
“Web 2.0 is really starting to mean a combination of the technology (like AJAX) allowing the customers to actually interact with the information. Web 2.0 is starting to mean the situation where amateur writers and developers are able to create applications and Web sites that get more credibility than traditional news sources and software vendors” (Kyrnin 2011). Web 2.0 is basically the technology that allows for, unstructured and uncontrolled information and knowledge flows, on various websites, which can be created by anyone. “Web 2.0 provides a platform to achieve unparalleled marketing opportunities across the hospitality industry landscape” (Kasavana, Nusair & Teodosic 2010:70).
5.2
Enterprise 2.0
“In the traditional corporate environment, information flows through an ordered path. Information is passed down the chain from the top to the bottom, and suggestions made from the bottom flow toward the top. Enterprise 2.0 changes this structured order and creates controlled chaos. In an Enterprise 2.0 structure, information flows laterally as well as up and down. In essence, it cuts the chains that hold back collaboration in a traditional office environment” (Nations 2011). Enterprise 2.0 technology basically adopts the principle of Web 2.0 technology. The information and knowledge flow with regard to Enterprise 2.0 is structured and controlled, in a manageable manner. Microsoft SharePoint is an example of Enterprise 2.0 technology, where information and knowledge are managed in a controlled and structured repository.
6
Social Networks as learning tools.
“Young people use social network sites for a wide-range of purposes; they piggy-back on existing online socializing routines to co-opt SNSs as social learning resources in direct and indirect support of educationrelated tasks and values” (Greenhow 2011:7). Nowadays almost no one can imagine their life’s without social networking. Social networking allows many individuals to communicate and collaborate with friends, peers and colleagues. Social networking tools are inexpensive and easy to use. Popular social networks common and used by many are: MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, Mxit, WhatsApp and for individuals with Blackberry cell phones, there is Blackberry messenger (BBM). “Online social networking (OSN), a platform that enables users to publicize personal information and to connect with others with similar interests, is one of the primary activities of Web 2.0 technologies” (Kusava, Nusair & Teodosic 2010:68-69). Social networks give users the freedom to use the space to openly talk and share experiences and knowledge. Through social networks individuals feel safe to communicate and collaborate, in comparison to face-to-face communication. Social networks contain enormous amounts of tacit knowledge, as people share their tacit knowledge on social networks, further contributing to continuous learning. It is the responsibility of the social network user, to understand how to access the tacit knowledge of other individuals. “...the presence of social capital in one’s social networks has been linked to a number of educational outcomes, including educational achievement, educational attainment, and other academic and psychosocial outcomes. In other words, learners tend to do better and persist in educational settings when they feel a strong sense of social belonging and connectedness” (Greenhow 2011:8) Greenhow further explains that “...college students with lower self-esteem gained more from their use of Facebook in terms of bridging social capital than the higher self-esteem respondents”. Furthermore “...Facebook affordances may help reduce barriers some college students experience in forming the kinds of large, diverse networks that are sources of bridging capital” (Greenhow 2011:8).
7
“Moreover, in our research on young people’s use of an social networking application called ‘‘Hot Dish’’ – implemented within Facebook, the world’s largest social network site – we found that through the design of the application we were able to tie users’ online social activities to offline civic behavior. For instance, Hot Dish is an open-source social networking application that facilitates information-sharing about environmental science issues, commentary and debate, and the completion of challenges designed to engage users in proenvironmental behavior around climate change” (Greenhow 2011:9). (Kusava, Nusair & Teodosic explains further that, “Oftentimes it is the unique features of social network sites (SNS) that allow strangers to instantly connect and interact with one another to exchange information, promote concepts or ideas, and establish common interest pipelines. Interconnectivity has been shown to alter the dynamics of a social network by adding channels that often include friends, family, business associates, colleagues, and strangers. Active users tend to participate in multiple networks including a business network, community service network, college alumni network, career colleague network, travel network, hobby-based network, and family and friends” (Kusava, Nusair & Teodosic 2010:70). Online social networks are very popular, and are probably used more daily, than any other online service. According to Kusava, Nusair & Teodosic, “It is projected that there are more than one million self-descriptive personal profiles available across different web-based social network platforms within the US” (Kusava, Nusair & Teodosic 2010:70).
7
Using Google as a tool to access knowledge.
Google contains vast quantities of both tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge resides in the mind of the human being, whereas explicit knowledge is documented in various repositories. When searching for information or knowledge, it is important how to physically search for the information or knowledge that is required. Google is known globally too many as one of the major search engine directories. By simply typing in what is needed in the search engine, the search engine will in a matter of seconds avail various links to other websites, where the information or knowledge can be accessed. A search engine is a good tool to use, when an individual dwells in uncertainty, of where information and knowledge resides. Most individuals globally, access the internet on a daily basis. Many individuals and businesses conduct business only through the internet, in the form of an internet or online business. With all the technologies available it is not required for individuals to be located geographically in the same place. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) allow for real time communication and collaboration; through the internet, email, cellphones, telephones, Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, Skype and much more other tools. When misinterpretation arises, Skype can be used to communicate with other individual’s life through the internet.
8
Communities of practice
“Communities of practice (CoP) can be described, “…as one of the most significant means of fostering knowledge management in the twenty-first century” (Faggian, Iaquinto & Ison 2010:4). Many definitions for communities of practice exist, however the same principle in the various definition foster; and that is that collaboration and communication is key. “The term community of practice (CoP) was coined by Lave and Wenger (1991) to describe an activity system that includes individuals who are united in action and in the meaning that action has for them and for the larger collective. Communities of practice are not formal structures, such as departments or project teams. Instead, they are informal entities, which exist in the minds of their members, and are glued together by the connections the members have with each other, and by their specific shared problems or areas of interest” Ardichvili, Page & Wentling 2003:65). “CoPs can considerably enhance the exchange of expertise, information, collaboration and re sources within organisations” (Faggian, Iaquinto & Ison 2010:4). Communities of practice can also be seen, “…as a style of learning that incorporates components of active participation, identity and situation” (Faggian, Iaquinto & Ison 2010:5). Furthermore according to (Faggian, Iaquinto & Ison), “…three characteristics central to the existence of CoPs – mutual engagement in a shared practice, the creation of a common repertoire, and the negotiation of a joint enterprise” (2010:5). “Over the last two decades, the concept of the community of practice (CoP) has added an important dimension to organisational development, especially in the area of knowledge management (KM), which hails knowledge as an organisation’s critical and strategic asset” (Ng & Retna 20 10:41). Social interaction with regards to
8
communities of practice is very important, as social networking is the factor that basically drives the initiatives of a community of practice. ‘A CoP is a set of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Ng & Retna 2010:41). Furthermore it is important than a social stance, with regard to interaction and networking, is embedded in knowledge management practices; for the social factor will contribute to tacit knowledge being captured from the individuals (Ng & Retna 2010:41). “In recent writing on knowledge management, the most often mentioned strategy for bringing the human side into the KM equation is that of virtual communities of practice enabled by online interactive technologies” (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling 2003:64). Recent research within the field of knowledge management explains that communities of practice are emerging as a preferred knowledge management (KM) tool for more and more, colossal global corporations (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling 2003:64). “Despite the proliferation of virtual communities of practice in business organizations around the world, very little is known about factors leading to their success or failure. One of the critical factors determining a virtual community’s success is its members’ motivation to actively participate in community knowledge generation and sharing activities” (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling 2003:64). According to (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling 2003:64 -65), knowledge sharing within organisations has been and still is a major concerning issue; as the knowledge flow within an organisation is too constructive. Even though thorough practices are approached for knowledge sharing, it still proves unsuccessful. “…the success of knowledge exchange depends on the organizational KM system’s social and technological attributes, and on organizational culture and climate. However, the reasons why individual employees decide to actively participate in virtual knowledge sharing communities of practice are currently not well understood” (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling 2003:65). “The idea of a CoP starts with the recognition that adults in their workplace do not learn solely from formal organised “learning activities”, such as attending a workshop, taking a course or watching an instructional video. Indeed, people learn a lot through everyday activities and experiences. An employee picks up the most relevant know-how in an organisation from day-to-day activities and by watching and talking with other employees. Everyone participates and contributes to a world that is socially and culturally structured and this world is constantly reconstituted by those involved in it thr ough activities” (Ng & Retna 2010:42). Virtually the entire globe is one village or community. Industrialisation and globalisation took effect, pushing the world into a direction; that allows for transparent, real time, life and active communication and collaboration, between and amongst the various parts of the globe. Ng & Retna further explains in their research that, “In such a world, knowledge is manifested by the capacity to participate with a certain level of competence in the complex web of relationships among people and activities. In this context, to learn is to discover and give a reasonable account of the why, what, when, where and how of doing things in that world” (Ng & Retna 2010:42). Imagine how and what the world would have been today, if industrialisation and globalisation had not taken place when it did; communication and collaboration would not have existed in through sense it does today. Various factors of the past contributed to where the world is virtually at, today. Many had to happen successfully and not so successfully, leading in end to lessons learnt from the trenches. “Therefore, rather than being something mainly garnered from books and similar sources of knowledge, learning for most people, most of the time, is a process that takes place among and through other people” (Ng & Retna 2010:42). Furthermore according to researchers Ng & Retna, “Knowledge is a property of relationships. Through complex responsive processes, knowledge is created and transformed through networks of human interaction” (Ng & Retna 2010:42). It is important that, when knowledge sharing takes place; integrity is core to knowledge sharing activities. Integrity should be culture in any organisation or team, allowing for maximum use of the tacit knowledge. In this globalised world, anything that occurs within an organisation or team; further contributes to overall performance of the organisation or team. Therefore knowledge sharing is a continuous activity, in which everyone is affected by the knowledge sharing activities within the organisation or team.
9
Conclusion
As stated in the introduction of this research, the purpose of the research is; the virtual learning environment and learning content integration. Throughout the research report, literature and former research contributed towards the findings of this research. Various factors as explained are embedded within the very fibre of, the virtual learning environment (VLE) and learning content integration. The various factors were discussed under the various headings, and sub-headings further in detail elaborate on other factors contributing to the headings, which in turn contribute as factors to the research problem. The above research with the help of other literature explained that a virtual learning environment (VLE) is made up of various people, in various locations, with various beliefs and cultures. However these factors do not have any major constraints on the success of a
9
virtual learning environment (VLE), on the contrary the factors are actually the reason why virtual learning environments (VLE) exist in the first place. Furthermore the research explained that virtual teams share in most instances the same interests, in terms of subject field or subject matter. Knowledge sharing is very important to ensure successes of virtual learning environments (VLEs), teams and organisations. The above research explains the concept of knowledge sharing and how it contributes towards overall knowledge management. If knowledge sharing is not in place, no innovation takes place, thus teams or organisations will stagnate on the same position. Knowledge sharing is power. “Different resources make up the knowledge capability of a firm. These include technology infrastructure, organizational structure and organizational culture which are linked to a firm’s knowledge infrastructure capability; and knowledge acquisition, knowledge conversion, knowledge application and knowledge protection which are linked to the firm’s knowledge process capability” (Mills & Smith 2011:156). Furthermore cultural factors and personal beliefs are important factors and should be embraced with positivity. The research further explained how intellectual capital and human capital has an impact on virtual learning environments (VLEs), as virtually the most important. People are the most important tools within Knowledge Management. The SWOT analysis explains the various strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of virtual learning environments (VLEs). Evidently virtual learning environments (VLEs) will not be able to operate without technology; therefore technology should be seen as the second most important tool for virtual learning environments (VLEs). The research explained how Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 are used as technological tools, to ensure that virtual learning environments exist. Research confirms that social networks are more commonly being used by the younger generation, for learning activities. Older generation don’t want to be out of the loop therefore also making use of social networks. More and more organisations have realised that, integrating learning, conducting business and social networks are the way forward. Google one of the biggest search engine directories and very popular around the globe, can be used to further access stored knowledge and tap into tacit knowledge through blogging and social networks. To ensure success for virtual learning environments (VLEs) and learning content integration, knowledge sharing is crucial. Creating of communities of practice (CoPs) can further contribute as a success factor. Research has proven and future research will further prove that knowledge sharing is the method; business, learning, communicating and collaboration will survive on.
Reference List
Adrian, A., 2008, ‘Intellectual Capital in the World of Information Economies’, Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, 3(4), 242-246.
10
Al-Hawamdeh, S., 2002, ‘Knowledge management: re-thinking information management and facing the challenge of managing tacit knowledge’, Information Research, 8(1), paper no. 143, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper143.html. Alvani, S.M., Amiri, A.N., Hosnavi, R., Jandghi, G. & Ramezan, M., 2010, ‘Increasing the Intellectual Capital in Organization: Examining the Role of Organizational Learning’, European Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 98-108. Amamou, M., Anderson, A.R. & Harbi, S.E., 2010, ‘Knowledge sharing processes in Tunisian small ICT firms’, Library Review, 60(1), 24-36, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Ardichvili, A., Peace, V. & Wentling, T., 2003, ‘Motivation and barriers to part icipation in virtual knowledgesharing communities of practice’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64-77, viewed 23 February 2011, from http:// http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Baron, A., 2011, ‘Measuring human capital’, Strategic HR Review, 10(2) 30-35, viewed 10 March 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Booth, A.G. & Clark, B.P., 2009, ‘A service-oriented virtual learning environment’, On the Horizon, 17(3), 232244, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Bourgault, M., Drouin, N., & Gervais, C., 2009, ‘Effects of organizational support on components of virtu al project teams’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , 3(4), 625-641, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Burke, M.E., 2010, ‘Knowledge sharing in emerging economies’, Library Review, 60(1), 4-14, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Chiu, C.M., Fan, Y.W., Shih, F.J. & Wang, E.T.G., 2010, ‘Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of expectancy disconfirmation and justice theories’, Online Information Review, 35(1), 134-153, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Cvejic, R. & Mijailovi, J., 2009, ‘Knowledge Management and Changes Management in University Libraries’, ANALELE UNIVERSITĂłII“EFTIMIE MURGU” RESIłA ANUL, XVI(1), 74-82. Dillenbourg, P., 2000, ‘Virtual Learning Environments’, http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.5.18.pdf. viewed 23 February 2011, from
Faggian, R., Iaquinto, B. & Ison, R., 2010, ‘Creating communities of practice: scoping purposeful design’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 4-21, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Greenhow, C., 2011, ‘Online social networks and learning’, O n the Horizon, 19(1), 4-12, viewed 10 March 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Gressgard, l.J., 2011, ‘Virtual team collaboration and innovation in organizations’, Team Performance Management, 17(1/2) 102-119, viewed 10 march 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Holyoke, M., 2011, Virtual learning environment (VLE) or managed learning environment (MLE) 2011, viewed 10 March 2011 from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci866691,00.html. Hunsaker, J.S. & Hunsaker, P.L., 2008, ‘Virtual teams: a leader’s guide’, Team Performance Management, 14(1/2), 86-101, viewed 23 February 2011 from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Jacobs, E.J. & Roodt, G., 2011, ‘The mediating effect of knowledge sharing between organisational culture and turnover intentions of professional nurses’, SA Journal of Information Management, 13(1), 1-6, viewed 10 March 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Kasavana, M.L., Nusair, K. & Teodosic, K., 2010, ‘Online social networking: redefining the human web’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology , 1(1), 68-82, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.
11
Khan, I., Majewski, G. & Usoro, A., 2011, ‘Knowledge sharing in immersive virtual communities of practice’, VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems , 41(1), 41-62, viewed 10 March 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Kyrnin,J., 2011, What is Web 2.0?, http://webdesign.about.com/od/web20/a/aa021306.htm. viewed 10 March 2011, from
Mills, A.M. & Smith, T.A., 2010, ‘Knowledge management and organizational performance: a decomposed view’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 156-171, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Nations, D., 2011, What is Enterprise 2.0?, http://webtrends.about.com/od/office20/a/enterprise-20.htm. viewed 10 March 2011 from
Ng, P.T. & Retna, K.S., 2011, ‘Communities of practice: dynamics and success factors’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(1), 41-59, viewed 10 March 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Pretorius, A., 2010, ‘Factors that contribute towards improving learning effectiveness using a specific learning management system (LMS) at the Military Academy (MA)’, Campus Wide Information Systems, 27(5), 318340, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Wilkesmann, M. & Wilkesmann.U., 2011, ‘Knowledge transfer as interaction between experts and novices supported by technology’, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. ______________________________________________________________________________________
12
The virtual learning environment and learning content integration 200702983
Web and Intranet Management Lecturer: Due Date: Dr. Tanya du Plessis 25/03/2011
______________________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents
1 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 2 What is a virtual learning environment (VLE)? .......................................................................................... 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 The need for a virtual learning environment (VLE). ........................................................................... 3 Limitations of a virtual learning environment (VLE). .......................................................................... 3 Virtual teams. ..................................................................................................................................... 4
3
Knowledge sharing. ................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 3.2 Intellectual capital in knowledge sharing. .......................................................................................... 5 Human capital in knowledge sharing. ................................................................................................ 5
4 5
Analysing the virtual learning environment and learning content integration through SWOT analysis. ... 6 Technology used to enable a virtual learning environment (VLE). ............................................................ 7 5.1 5.2 Web 2.0.............................................................................................................................................. 7 Enterprise 2.0 .................................................................................................................................... 7
6 7 8 9
Social Networks as learning tools. ............................................................................................................. 7 Using Google as a tool to access knowledge. ........................................................................................... 8 Communities of practice ............................................................................................................................ 8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Reference List .................................................................................................................................................. 10
1
1
Introduction
The method, in which learning is taking place, is changing tremendously with the help of technology. Technology is constantly being enhanced, leading to better opportunities for virtually anything. With regards to learning, collaboration, communication and knowledge sharing; virtual learning environments (VLEs) are the modern method in which the above mentioned, are functioning. Of course virtual learning environments are relatively new to the globe; some still don’t know what it is. None theless virtual learning environments are basically the future of learning, collaboration, communication, knowledge sharing and education. Learning content integration can only take place with proper technology, such as Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 technologies. Furthermore people are required to share tacit knowledge; in order to ensure that learning content integration, through the use of virtual learning environments are successful. “...researchers from different disciplines have stressed the significance of knowledge management for organizational success. But there have been quite major shifts in how knowledge is conceived”. “...knowledge is a process rather than a thing, and that it is an active process of relating” (Amamou, Anderson & Harbi 2010:25). Knowledge sharing is one of the most important factors in virtual learning environments; as without knowledge sharing, there would be no purpose for virtual learning environments to exist. Learning, collaboration and communication takes place within knowledge sharing and are only the outputs of knowledge sharing. In order for knowledge sharing to take place within a virtual learning environment, virtual teams or virtual communities are a prerequisite. Virtual teams are made up out of the total people learning, communicating and collaborating tacit knowledge through the use of the abovementioned technology. Virtual teams do not have to be geographically or physically located at the same place; however virtual teams can be dispersed across the globe. Mutual interest on a subject field or any topic brings virtual teams together, virtually. Intellectual capital of the virtual teams grows as a result of virtual learning environments. Within any Information and Knowledge Management aspect, whether it is; Competitive Intelligence, Business Intelligence, Knowledge Sharing, etc, people are the most important tool, as only people consist of tacit knowledge. It is only through knowledge sharing, that tacit knowledge can be shared. The research will show what virtual learning teams are and how learning content integration are facilitated through virtual learning environments. An in-depth literature review had to be done, to facilitate the direction and purpose of the research. Academic articles together with other internet sources were consulted, to contribute to the outcomes of the research. The purpose of the research is to discuss the virtual learning environment and learning content integration. Various aspects contribute towards virtual learning environments and learning content integration, therefore the following will be discussed within the research. The research will firstly show what virtual learning environments is and thereafter focus on various factors, which contribute to virtual learning environments. Factors that contribute to virtual learning environments are; technology, such as Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0, virtual teams, knowledge sharing and the intellectual capital aspect of the virtual teams. A community of practice makes use of virtual learning environments, as it is much more convenient to collaborate, communicate and share knowledge virtually, especially when time and place is a concern. Social networks will also be discussed and focussed on how social networks can be a form of virtual learning environment. The research problem as stated above; the virtual learning environment and learning content integration. Relevant sub-problems that will be discussed throughout the research are: Virtual learning environments, the need for virtual learning environments and limitations of virtual learning environments. Virtual teams, knowledge sharing and intellectual capital, contributing to virtual learning environments will be discussed as the next sub-problem. Lastly, the research will focus on the tools and technology; social networks and communities of practice, with regard to virtual learning environments, as sub-problem.
2
What is a virtual learning environment (VLE)?
According to Holyoke “A virtual learning environment (VLE) is a set of teaching and learning tools designed to enhance a student's learning experience by including computers and the Internet in the learning process” (2011). Even though Holyoke only mentions students, a virtual learning environment is a tool that can be used by any individual in the process of learning. With technology constantly evolving learning institutions has to keep up with the changes. As technology keep on changing, so do people. “A book can hardly be described
2
as a learning environment. But, reading a book in a seminar, discussing with other students, writing a summary for the tutor, do constitute a learning environment. Similarly, a set of Web pages does not constitute a virtual learning environment unless there is social interaction about or around the information” (Dillenbourg 2000:5). Virtual learning environments require interaction between individuals. Interaction in the sense, that communication and collaboration is taking place. Generation X and Y individuals prefer social interaction, and by so doing, learning takes place. For example, students from an academic institute working on a project, would prefer to rather work in a team, as working in a team has much more advantages than working alone. Working in a team, allows for constant collaboration and communication, leading teams to perform better, in comparison o individual projects. Furthermore working in a team, means that more tacit knowledge, ideas and experiences are shared. Through sharing the team will have better opportunities to render a good project, than working alone. “In Web-based environments, learning activities range from multiple choice questionnaires to problem solving. Simulations are indeed virtual learning environments as well. While originally restricted to physical models, they cover now a broad spectrum of domains such as economics, politics, biology… However, what is more specific to virtual learning environments is the set of activities in which the students construct and share objects. Most often these objects are Web pages. Writing activities (producing syntheses, study reports, newspapers ...) are very popular in schools” (Dillenbourg 2000:8). Knowledge sharing is progression. Teamwork further means that one individual’s weakness is strengthened by another individual’s strength; meaning that when one individual is good in for instance, report writing, another individual might be good in conducting research. When establishing strengths and weaknesses in a team, the team will then be able to further decide on specific roles; as to who will do, what work for the team. Linking back to virtual learning environments; teams should have proper guidelines for conducting teamwork. The same principle exists in virtual learning environments. The only differentiating factor between virtual learning environments and physical learning environments is that virtual learning takes place with the use of the internet, in virtual learning environments; and physical learning takes place on a face-to-face basis, in physical learning environments. No matter the setting of where and how the learning takes place, knowledge sharing should be embedded in the culture of all the individuals in the team. Without knowledge sharing the team will fail on any project that has to be done.
2.1
The need for a virtual learning environment (VLE).
“In the last decade, internet access, the nature of the web and contexts for learning have evolved, along with the emergence of desired competencies for learners, instructors, and administrators, and these changes impact constructs for learning, teaching, and paths for future research” (Greenhow 2011:4). According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, people constantly change. As soon as a lower level need has been satisfied, an individual will want to satisfy a higher level need, or the next need within the hierarchy. When evaluating the need for a virtual learning environment; the needs of the people has to be established first, therefore VLEs will commonly be a need within a learning institution. With access to the internet, students or individuals from any organisation can easily collaborate with each other. It is not required for all individuals to be situated geographically in one place, in order for learning to take place and be effective. A virtual learning environment, allows for easy collaboration and learning amongst students or individuals, without having to be face-to-face. “...the notion of a learning activity in virtual learning environments refers to something richer than in individual courseware, closer to the notion of project. The difference between other constructivist environments and what virtual environments potentially offer can be described as making students not only active, but also actors, i.e. members and contributors of the social and information space” (Dillenbourg 2000:8). Research shows that students or individuals prefer working in teams, as learning in teams contributes to more enhancement of intellectual capital. Furthermore learning in teams are fond to students, as it means that learning is fun and therefore not seen as a difficult boring chore, but rather a fun learning activity. “Web-based education is often associated to distance education, while - in the practice- it is also widely used to support presential learning. Actually, the difference between distance education and presential education is fading for several reasons” (Dillenbourg 2000:9). According to Dillenbourg, the reasons are time constraints; “Many Web-based courses combine distance and presence, which makes learning environments more robust” (Dillenbourg 2000:9).
2.2
Limitations of a virtual learning environment (VLE).
“Open professional virtual communities are based on voluntary participation and weak ties, typical of relationships among casual acquaintances and strangers. Encouraging individuals to participate and share knowledge in a virtual community is a difficult task due to weak-tie relationships and no extrinsic monetary rewards for knowledge contribution. Hence the biggest challenge in fostering a virtual community is the supply
3
of knowledge, i.e. the willingness to share knowledge with other members” (Chiu, Fan, Shih & Wang 2010:134). Students would appreciate the usability and features of a virtual learning environment, as it would mean that students do not necessarily have to a attend class. This eliminates the personal feel attached to, face-to-face class gatherings and restricts the extent to which, a teacher or lecturer and a student’s interpersonal relationship could grow. “ Today’s use of ‘virtual learning environment’ is not restricted to well -structured information spaces, but I expect that this criterion will become more salient, as content management becomes a main issue for all teachers involved in virtual learning environments” ( Dillenbourg 2000:3). In the event where a virtual learning environment is primarily designed for peers or students to exchange ideas, etc., little control over the virtual learning environment will be administered. It depends what the purpose basically is for a virtual learning environment, which will establish the governance of the space. “Whatever technology is used, all tools have intrinsic limitations. These limitations do, over time, become real obstacles to learning. Even a small amount of co-presence may solve some of the problems that can hardly be solved at distance. Examples are activities that require presence such as: launching a new project, complex technical assistance, repairing deep conceptual misunderstanding, negotiation” (Dillenbourg 2000:9).
2.3
Virtual teams.
Various definitions for virtual teams exist, but emphasis within all the definitions is that the geographical position of the virtual team members does not have to be the same. “Virtual teams, understood as teams with geographically dispersed members communicating primarily by use of information and communication technologies (ICT), have become a viable form for work in innovation projects involving one or several organizations. Knowledge development and creation of a shared understanding among team members are often stressed as fundamental to successful innovation processes” (Gressgard 201 1:102). Virtual teams operate through the use of ICTs, where collaboration is the primary factor to ensure effectiveness. “Virtual teamwork is regarded as an important form of work in modern organizations as it is capable of complying with the demands of the new business environments characterized by international competition, fragmented and demanding markets, and diverse and rapidly changing technologies” (Gressgard 201 1:102). Virtual teams are sometimes also referred to as virtual communities. Importance is not placed on the name, but rather on the definition of the concept. “The rise of client -side and social networking technology has led to an increased interest in finding the best ways for students to create their own Personal Learning Environments (PLEs )” (Booth & Clark 2009:232). “To some individuals, working alone at home is a terrific option. They like the idea of sitting at their computer terminals in comfy clothes, the dog at their feet. The worker has no need for an office or a parking space. Air pollution and traffic congestion are reduced. Others find the idea a little lonely and somehow disconcerting. They worry that they will miss interaction with their colleagues, and they worry about the pitfalls of the virtual teams: lack of individual recognition, celebrations of team accomplishments, lack of project visibility, the constraints of technology and lack of trust” (Hunsaker & Hunsaker 2008:87). Individuals differ; and in this constant changing environment with many factors contributing to change, it is imperative that individuals perform work activities and learning activities at their own convenience. Time could however be a constraint, but because people are different, it is evident that; various people perform different activities and tasks at different tempo’s and convenience. Innovation will be achieved when an individual is happy with their working or performance conditions. Therefore if an employee prefers working at home, which will in end mean more productivity, it should be allowed. Even though direct control and leading is not possible in this regard; there should be trust between employer and employee, as trust will be the only factor determining success. Virtual teams basically consist of individuals who share the same interest/s. Interest/s could vary depending on the organisation or the institution and the purpose of the virtual team. Purpose of virtual teams differs, as no single individual has the same needs. Reliant on the need of the individuals of the virtual team and the institution or organisation, purpose of the virtual team and further virtual learning environment is established. As mentioned geographical and physical location together with ethnicity and cultures of team members, have no direct negative impact on the virtual team and the purpose of the virtual team.
3
Knowledge sharing.
4
“Knowledge is the central resource of many organizations. The operating core of organizations consists to a great extent of specialists and their expert knowledge. Knowledge transfer among the members of an organization is a basic necessity” (Wilkesmann & Wilkesmann 2011:2). Furthermore it is important to note that “…organisational culture will facilitate a positive attitude towards knowledge sharing and that the opportunities and challenges to fulfill the needs associated with knowledge sharing, will be so rewarding that people will be inclined to stay with the organisation” (Jacobs & Roodt 2011:1). It is however difficult to embed and facilitate a culture of knowledge sharing within organisations, as many individuals believe that their knowledge is their power and security, whereas the opposite; knowledge sharing is power and security. “There seems to be an obvious gap in the literature to evaluate the role of culture and climate in improving IC management systems, especially in an international context” (Herremans, Isaac, Kline, Manassian & Nazari 2011:3). “Knowledge sharing occurs when an individual is willing to assist as well as learn from others in the development of new competencies” (Jacobs & Roodt 2011:1). With regards to learning institutions or even organisations, knowledge sharing can be a good tool to assist with the growth of intellectual capital. Knowledge Cafés can be facilitated in a learning institution or an organisation, as knowledge cafes is a good tool to further enhance knowledge sharing. Through knowledge cafés individuals share knowledge about a certain topic, depending on what the knowledge café is discussing or facilitating. “For innovative firms, knowledge sharing or knowledge transfer promotes innovation by creating and managing new information” (Amamou, Anderson & Harbi 2010:26). According to Burke (2010:5), “Sharing only takes place where there is trust and where there is a shared feeling of ownership of goals. The reasons behind the tendency to share are based on the kind of interpersonal relations between co-workers inherent within the organization and the effects of social relationships within organizational teams. Strengthening the social relationships between individuals in the team is crucial in motivating team members to share knowledge”. “Most modern organisations have realised that their knowledge asset has to dynamically flow between employees in order to gain the full potential of this asset. Thus, knowledge management (KM) activities are deemed as important as other essential business processes. These activities aim to capture, store and share knowledge in various ways” (Khan, Majewski & Usoro 2011:41). Furthermore, Khan, Majewski & Usoro explains that, “…One of the ways and which is supported by research is collaborative virtual environments (CVE): a software environment that emulates some of the features of the real world. The features of the real world that are usually emulated are: the concept of space, the representation of objects including a human (in the form of an avatar), and various tools. The “avatar” feature alone has much potential for unlocking tacit knowledge: instead of the user always dutifully typing instructions or “knowledge” to the system, he can use an avatar to demonstrate what he/she wants to communicate” (Khan, Majewski & Usoro 2011:41). “Many newly developing countries such as those with poor infrastructure, those in poverty, those emerging from communist and state rule are moving towards stability by slowly building up businesses such as smallto medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which are beginning to move towards sharing information both internally within the company and externally to customers, clients and suppliers. Information sharing for many is the first move towards knowledge sharing and for many businesses these are the stages before a full knowledge management (KM) system can realistically be addressed” (Burke 2010:6).
3.1
Intellectual capital in knowledge sharing.
“Academic scholars, as well as profit and non-profit organizations, in many countries have put a mounting emphasis on the successful management of knowledge management and the broader concept of intellectual capital (IC)” (Herremans, Isaac, Kline, Manassian & Nazari 2011:3). Intellectual capital has been defined by Thomas Stewart as: “The sum of everything that everybody in a company knows that gives it a competitive edge . . . the intellectual material . . . that can be put to use to create wealth” (Adrian 2008:242). Adrian further explains that “intellectual capital could, thus, be described as information and knowledge withi n a company. Information is static; whereas, knowledge is dynamic” (Adrian 2008:242). Intellectual capital goes hand -inhand with knowledge and knowledge sharing, which leads to competitive advantage for an organisation and increase of intellectual capital. “In the last decade management literature has paid significant attention to the role of knowledge for global competitiveness in the 21st century. It is recognized as a durable and more sustainable strategic resource to acquire and maintain competitive ad vantages” (Alvani, Amiri, Hosnavi, Jandghi & Ramezan 2010:99). Pretorius explains that, “…e-learning and online learning subsystems create a wealth of knowledge and learning opportunities” (Pretorius 2010:321).
3.2
Human capital in knowledge sharing. 5
“...human capital is most commonly defined as an element of intellectual capital along with social capital, consisting of the relationships and networks that enable the creation and transfer of knowledge, and organizational capital, including the firm’s policies and procedures together with patents and other forms of knowledge owned by the organization rather than individuals. Human capital then is the knowledge, skills and experience of individuals and also their willingness to share these attributes with the organization to create value” (Baron 2011:30). Every single individual within an organisation, or within any form of team; contribute to the total human capital of that organisation or team. The tacit as well as the explicit knowledge, all forms of data and information, all forms of experiences, social interactions, various network relationships and all the data, knowledge and information flow within the organisation or team, contribute to the entire overall human capital, of the specific organisation or team. “...the value of human capital is inherently dependent on its potential to contribute to the competitive advantage or core competence of the firm’’ (Baron 2011:30).
4
Analysing the virtual learning environment and learning content integration through SWOT analysis.
Strengths: A virtual learning environment allows for knowledge sharing at an academic, corporate and social level. Knowledge sharing furthermore enhances intellectual capital, as people learn more from sharing experiences and knowledge. “Human capital represents the individual tacit knowledge embedded in the mind of the employees. Human capital is important as the foundational source of innovation, strategic renewal of a company and the company can thus realize and create value in the knowledge-based economy. Human capital can be defined as a combination of employee’s competence, attitude and creativity” (Alvani, Amiri, Hosnavi, Jandghi & Ramezan 2010:100). Weaknesses: A weakness that is associated with virtual learning environments is that virtual learning environments do not allow for face-to-face communication. Misinterpretation can thus arise, as different people perceive and interpret messages differently. Organisational culture contributes further as a weakness and should be assessed to establish what barriers exist for effective knowledge sharing. Opportunities: Virtual learning environments can grow extensively when weaknesses are overcome. Virtual teams could be arranged at the same geographical and physical location, to overcome communication barriers in terms of misinterpretation. These knowledge cafés or team gatherings can be rotated at different locations, and could maybe be held once a month. “The core knowledge management activities encompass assessing, changing and improving human individual skills and/or behaviour. It is a complex set of dynamic skills and know-how that is constantly changing” (Al-Hawamdeh 2002). Threats: A threat that might arise with regard to virtual learning environments could exist in the event where proper governance is not regulated. In many instances administrators for virtual learning environments do not exist, except for academic institutions where marks are allocated to collaboration. Technology changes and could be a threat if virtual learning environments do not enhance technology as it changes. “In the era of
6
knowledge-based economy, management will need to more effectively identify, develop, use, store and disseminate knowledge” (Cvejic & Mijailovic 2009). Furthermore; if proper guidelines, principles and policies are not embedded in the virtual learning environments culture, governance for knowledge sharing will not be handled properly.
5
Technology used to enable a virtual learning environment (VLE).
In terms of the technology used for virtual learning environments, Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 technologies are used. In recent years Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 technologies has taken effect. These tools or technologies enable collaboration and knowledge sharing amongst peers in a virtual environment.
5.1
Web 2.0
“Web 2.0 is really starting to mean a combination of the technology (like AJAX) allowing the customers to actually interact with the information. Web 2.0 is starting to mean the situation where amateur writers and developers are able to create applications and Web sites that get more credibility than traditional news sources and software vendors” (Kyrnin 2011). Web 2.0 is basically the technology that allows for, unstructured and uncontrolled information and knowledge flows, on various websites, which can be created by anyone. “Web 2.0 provides a platform to achieve unparalleled marketing opportunities across the hospitality industry landscape” (Kasavana, Nusair & Teodosic 2010:70).
5.2
Enterprise 2.0
“In the traditional corporate environment, information flows through an ordered path. Information is passed down the chain from the top to the bottom, and suggestions made from the bottom flow toward the top. Enterprise 2.0 changes this structured order and creates controlled chaos. In an Enterprise 2.0 structure, information flows laterally as well as up and down. In essence, it cuts the chains that hold back collaboration in a traditional office environment” (Nations 2011). Enterprise 2.0 technology basically adopts the principle of Web 2.0 technology. The information and knowledge flow with regard to Enterprise 2.0 is structured and controlled, in a manageable manner. Microsoft SharePoint is an example of Enterprise 2.0 technology, where information and knowledge are managed in a controlled and structured repository.
6
Social Networks as learning tools.
“Young people use social network sites for a wide-range of purposes; they piggy-back on existing online socializing routines to co-opt SNSs as social learning resources in direct and indirect support of educationrelated tasks and values” (Greenhow 2011:7). Nowadays almost no one can imagine their life’s without social networking. Social networking allows many individuals to communicate and collaborate with friends, peers and colleagues. Social networking tools are inexpensive and easy to use. Popular social networks common and used by many are: MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, Mxit, WhatsApp and for individuals with Blackberry cell phones, there is Blackberry messenger (BBM). “Online social networking (OSN), a platform that enables users to publicize personal information and to connect with others with similar interests, is one of the primary activities of Web 2.0 technologies” (Kusava, Nusair & Teodosic 2010:68-69). Social networks give users the freedom to use the space to openly talk and share experiences and knowledge. Through social networks individuals feel safe to communicate and collaborate, in comparison to face-to-face communication. Social networks contain enormous amounts of tacit knowledge, as people share their tacit knowledge on social networks, further contributing to continuous learning. It is the responsibility of the social network user, to understand how to access the tacit knowledge of other individuals. “...the presence of social capital in one’s social networks has been linked to a number of educational outcomes, including educational achievement, educational attainment, and other academic and psychosocial outcomes. In other words, learners tend to do better and persist in educational settings when they feel a strong sense of social belonging and connectedness” (Greenhow 2011:8) Greenhow further explains that “...college students with lower self-esteem gained more from their use of Facebook in terms of bridging social capital than the higher self-esteem respondents”. Furthermore “...Facebook affordances may help reduce barriers some college students experience in forming the kinds of large, diverse networks that are sources of bridging capital” (Greenhow 2011:8).
7
“Moreover, in our research on young people’s use of an social networking application called ‘‘Hot Dish’’ – implemented within Facebook, the world’s largest social network site – we found that through the design of the application we were able to tie users’ online social activities to offline civic behavior. For instance, Hot Dish is an open-source social networking application that facilitates information-sharing about environmental science issues, commentary and debate, and the completion of challenges designed to engage users in proenvironmental behavior around climate change” (Greenhow 2011:9). (Kusava, Nusair & Teodosic explains further that, “Oftentimes it is the unique features of social network sites (SNS) that allow strangers to instantly connect and interact with one another to exchange information, promote concepts or ideas, and establish common interest pipelines. Interconnectivity has been shown to alter the dynamics of a social network by adding channels that often include friends, family, business associates, colleagues, and strangers. Active users tend to participate in multiple networks including a business network, community service network, college alumni network, career colleague network, travel network, hobby-based network, and family and friends” (Kusava, Nusair & Teodosic 2010:70). Online social networks are very popular, and are probably used more daily, than any other online service. According to Kusava, Nusair & Teodosic, “It is projected that there are more than one million self-descriptive personal profiles available across different web-based social network platforms within the US” (Kusava, Nusair & Teodosic 2010:70).
7
Using Google as a tool to access knowledge.
Google contains vast quantities of both tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge resides in the mind of the human being, whereas explicit knowledge is documented in various repositories. When searching for information or knowledge, it is important how to physically search for the information or knowledge that is required. Google is known globally too many as one of the major search engine directories. By simply typing in what is needed in the search engine, the search engine will in a matter of seconds avail various links to other websites, where the information or knowledge can be accessed. A search engine is a good tool to use, when an individual dwells in uncertainty, of where information and knowledge resides. Most individuals globally, access the internet on a daily basis. Many individuals and businesses conduct business only through the internet, in the form of an internet or online business. With all the technologies available it is not required for individuals to be located geographically in the same place. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) allow for real time communication and collaboration; through the internet, email, cellphones, telephones, Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, Skype and much more other tools. When misinterpretation arises, Skype can be used to communicate with other individual’s life through the internet.
8
Communities of practice
“Communities of practice (CoP) can be described, “…as one of the most significant means of fostering knowledge management in the twenty-first century” (Faggian, Iaquinto & Ison 2010:4). Many definitions for communities of practice exist, however the same principle in the various definition foster; and that is that collaboration and communication is key. “The term community of practice (CoP) was coined by Lave and Wenger (1991) to describe an activity system that includes individuals who are united in action and in the meaning that action has for them and for the larger collective. Communities of practice are not formal structures, such as departments or project teams. Instead, they are informal entities, which exist in the minds of their members, and are glued together by the connections the members have with each other, and by their specific shared problems or areas of interest” Ardichvili, Page & Wentling 2003:65). “CoPs can considerably enhance the exchange of expertise, information, collaboration and re sources within organisations” (Faggian, Iaquinto & Ison 2010:4). Communities of practice can also be seen, “…as a style of learning that incorporates components of active participation, identity and situation” (Faggian, Iaquinto & Ison 2010:5). Furthermore according to (Faggian, Iaquinto & Ison), “…three characteristics central to the existence of CoPs – mutual engagement in a shared practice, the creation of a common repertoire, and the negotiation of a joint enterprise” (2010:5). “Over the last two decades, the concept of the community of practice (CoP) has added an important dimension to organisational development, especially in the area of knowledge management (KM), which hails knowledge as an organisation’s critical and strategic asset” (Ng & Retna 20 10:41). Social interaction with regards to
8
communities of practice is very important, as social networking is the factor that basically drives the initiatives of a community of practice. ‘A CoP is a set of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Ng & Retna 2010:41). Furthermore it is important than a social stance, with regard to interaction and networking, is embedded in knowledge management practices; for the social factor will contribute to tacit knowledge being captured from the individuals (Ng & Retna 2010:41). “In recent writing on knowledge management, the most often mentioned strategy for bringing the human side into the KM equation is that of virtual communities of practice enabled by online interactive technologies” (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling 2003:64). Recent research within the field of knowledge management explains that communities of practice are emerging as a preferred knowledge management (KM) tool for more and more, colossal global corporations (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling 2003:64). “Despite the proliferation of virtual communities of practice in business organizations around the world, very little is known about factors leading to their success or failure. One of the critical factors determining a virtual community’s success is its members’ motivation to actively participate in community knowledge generation and sharing activities” (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling 2003:64). According to (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling 2003:64 -65), knowledge sharing within organisations has been and still is a major concerning issue; as the knowledge flow within an organisation is too constructive. Even though thorough practices are approached for knowledge sharing, it still proves unsuccessful. “…the success of knowledge exchange depends on the organizational KM system’s social and technological attributes, and on organizational culture and climate. However, the reasons why individual employees decide to actively participate in virtual knowledge sharing communities of practice are currently not well understood” (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling 2003:65). “The idea of a CoP starts with the recognition that adults in their workplace do not learn solely from formal organised “learning activities”, such as attending a workshop, taking a course or watching an instructional video. Indeed, people learn a lot through everyday activities and experiences. An employee picks up the most relevant know-how in an organisation from day-to-day activities and by watching and talking with other employees. Everyone participates and contributes to a world that is socially and culturally structured and this world is constantly reconstituted by those involved in it thr ough activities” (Ng & Retna 2010:42). Virtually the entire globe is one village or community. Industrialisation and globalisation took effect, pushing the world into a direction; that allows for transparent, real time, life and active communication and collaboration, between and amongst the various parts of the globe. Ng & Retna further explains in their research that, “In such a world, knowledge is manifested by the capacity to participate with a certain level of competence in the complex web of relationships among people and activities. In this context, to learn is to discover and give a reasonable account of the why, what, when, where and how of doing things in that world” (Ng & Retna 2010:42). Imagine how and what the world would have been today, if industrialisation and globalisation had not taken place when it did; communication and collaboration would not have existed in through sense it does today. Various factors of the past contributed to where the world is virtually at, today. Many had to happen successfully and not so successfully, leading in end to lessons learnt from the trenches. “Therefore, rather than being something mainly garnered from books and similar sources of knowledge, learning for most people, most of the time, is a process that takes place among and through other people” (Ng & Retna 2010:42). Furthermore according to researchers Ng & Retna, “Knowledge is a property of relationships. Through complex responsive processes, knowledge is created and transformed through networks of human interaction” (Ng & Retna 2010:42). It is important that, when knowledge sharing takes place; integrity is core to knowledge sharing activities. Integrity should be culture in any organisation or team, allowing for maximum use of the tacit knowledge. In this globalised world, anything that occurs within an organisation or team; further contributes to overall performance of the organisation or team. Therefore knowledge sharing is a continuous activity, in which everyone is affected by the knowledge sharing activities within the organisation or team.
9
Conclusion
As stated in the introduction of this research, the purpose of the research is; the virtual learning environment and learning content integration. Throughout the research report, literature and former research contributed towards the findings of this research. Various factors as explained are embedded within the very fibre of, the virtual learning environment (VLE) and learning content integration. The various factors were discussed under the various headings, and sub-headings further in detail elaborate on other factors contributing to the headings, which in turn contribute as factors to the research problem. The above research with the help of other literature explained that a virtual learning environment (VLE) is made up of various people, in various locations, with various beliefs and cultures. However these factors do not have any major constraints on the success of a
9
virtual learning environment (VLE), on the contrary the factors are actually the reason why virtual learning environments (VLE) exist in the first place. Furthermore the research explained that virtual teams share in most instances the same interests, in terms of subject field or subject matter. Knowledge sharing is very important to ensure successes of virtual learning environments (VLEs), teams and organisations. The above research explains the concept of knowledge sharing and how it contributes towards overall knowledge management. If knowledge sharing is not in place, no innovation takes place, thus teams or organisations will stagnate on the same position. Knowledge sharing is power. “Different resources make up the knowledge capability of a firm. These include technology infrastructure, organizational structure and organizational culture which are linked to a firm’s knowledge infrastructure capability; and knowledge acquisition, knowledge conversion, knowledge application and knowledge protection which are linked to the firm’s knowledge process capability” (Mills & Smith 2011:156). Furthermore cultural factors and personal beliefs are important factors and should be embraced with positivity. The research further explained how intellectual capital and human capital has an impact on virtual learning environments (VLEs), as virtually the most important. People are the most important tools within Knowledge Management. The SWOT analysis explains the various strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of virtual learning environments (VLEs). Evidently virtual learning environments (VLEs) will not be able to operate without technology; therefore technology should be seen as the second most important tool for virtual learning environments (VLEs). The research explained how Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 are used as technological tools, to ensure that virtual learning environments exist. Research confirms that social networks are more commonly being used by the younger generation, for learning activities. Older generation don’t want to be out of the loop therefore also making use of social networks. More and more organisations have realised that, integrating learning, conducting business and social networks are the way forward. Google one of the biggest search engine directories and very popular around the globe, can be used to further access stored knowledge and tap into tacit knowledge through blogging and social networks. To ensure success for virtual learning environments (VLEs) and learning content integration, knowledge sharing is crucial. Creating of communities of practice (CoPs) can further contribute as a success factor. Research has proven and future research will further prove that knowledge sharing is the method; business, learning, communicating and collaboration will survive on.
Reference List
Adrian, A., 2008, ‘Intellectual Capital in the World of Information Economies’, Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, 3(4), 242-246.
10
Al-Hawamdeh, S., 2002, ‘Knowledge management: re-thinking information management and facing the challenge of managing tacit knowledge’, Information Research, 8(1), paper no. 143, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper143.html. Alvani, S.M., Amiri, A.N., Hosnavi, R., Jandghi, G. & Ramezan, M., 2010, ‘Increasing the Intellectual Capital in Organization: Examining the Role of Organizational Learning’, European Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 98-108. Amamou, M., Anderson, A.R. & Harbi, S.E., 2010, ‘Knowledge sharing processes in Tunisian small ICT firms’, Library Review, 60(1), 24-36, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Ardichvili, A., Peace, V. & Wentling, T., 2003, ‘Motivation and barriers to part icipation in virtual knowledgesharing communities of practice’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64-77, viewed 23 February 2011, from http:// http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Baron, A., 2011, ‘Measuring human capital’, Strategic HR Review, 10(2) 30-35, viewed 10 March 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Booth, A.G. & Clark, B.P., 2009, ‘A service-oriented virtual learning environment’, On the Horizon, 17(3), 232244, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Bourgault, M., Drouin, N., & Gervais, C., 2009, ‘Effects of organizational support on components of virtu al project teams’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , 3(4), 625-641, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Burke, M.E., 2010, ‘Knowledge sharing in emerging economies’, Library Review, 60(1), 4-14, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Chiu, C.M., Fan, Y.W., Shih, F.J. & Wang, E.T.G., 2010, ‘Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of expectancy disconfirmation and justice theories’, Online Information Review, 35(1), 134-153, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Cvejic, R. & Mijailovi, J., 2009, ‘Knowledge Management and Changes Management in University Libraries’, ANALELE UNIVERSITĂłII“EFTIMIE MURGU” RESIłA ANUL, XVI(1), 74-82. Dillenbourg, P., 2000, ‘Virtual Learning Environments’, http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.5.18.pdf. viewed 23 February 2011, from
Faggian, R., Iaquinto, B. & Ison, R., 2010, ‘Creating communities of practice: scoping purposeful design’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 4-21, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Greenhow, C., 2011, ‘Online social networks and learning’, O n the Horizon, 19(1), 4-12, viewed 10 March 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Gressgard, l.J., 2011, ‘Virtual team collaboration and innovation in organizations’, Team Performance Management, 17(1/2) 102-119, viewed 10 march 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Holyoke, M., 2011, Virtual learning environment (VLE) or managed learning environment (MLE) 2011, viewed 10 March 2011 from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci866691,00.html. Hunsaker, J.S. & Hunsaker, P.L., 2008, ‘Virtual teams: a leader’s guide’, Team Performance Management, 14(1/2), 86-101, viewed 23 February 2011 from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Jacobs, E.J. & Roodt, G., 2011, ‘The mediating effect of knowledge sharing between organisational culture and turnover intentions of professional nurses’, SA Journal of Information Management, 13(1), 1-6, viewed 10 March 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Kasavana, M.L., Nusair, K. & Teodosic, K., 2010, ‘Online social networking: redefining the human web’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology , 1(1), 68-82, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.
11
Khan, I., Majewski, G. & Usoro, A., 2011, ‘Knowledge sharing in immersive virtual communities of practice’, VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems , 41(1), 41-62, viewed 10 March 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Kyrnin,J., 2011, What is Web 2.0?, http://webdesign.about.com/od/web20/a/aa021306.htm. viewed 10 March 2011, from
Mills, A.M. & Smith, T.A., 2010, ‘Knowledge management and organizational performance: a decomposed view’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 156-171, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Nations, D., 2011, What is Enterprise 2.0?, http://webtrends.about.com/od/office20/a/enterprise-20.htm. viewed 10 March 2011 from
Ng, P.T. & Retna, K.S., 2011, ‘Communities of practice: dynamics and success factors’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(1), 41-59, viewed 10 March 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Pretorius, A., 2010, ‘Factors that contribute towards improving learning effectiveness using a specific learning management system (LMS) at the Military Academy (MA)’, Campus Wide Information Systems, 27(5), 318340, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. Wilkesmann, M. & Wilkesmann.U., 2011, ‘Knowledge transfer as interaction between experts and novices supported by technology’, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, viewed 23 February 2011, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com. ______________________________________________________________________________________
12
