Unlocking the value of Web 2.0 technologies for training and development: The shift from instructor‐controlled, adaptive learning to learner‐driven, generative learning

Abstract

Traditional instruction is adaptive-that is, instructor-driven, face-to-face and/or online training to teach skills and knowledge and convey information, policies, and procedures. In contrast, generative learning is learner-driven, collaborative, and problem-focused. Web 2.0 technologies can support both types of learning but are especially valuable for generative learning. This article reviews learning processes and Web 2.0 capabilities, describes two case examples, outlines ways to design Web 2.0 training applications, and discusses the changing role of learning professionals from delivering structured, one-way adaptive learning to designing and facilitating generative learning opportunities. The article concludes with ideas for corporate education and research on Web 2.0-based learning processes, including utilizing the technology to track and improve learning.

Do social media enhance constructive employee voice all of the time or just some of the time?

“…Powerful social media, including online blogs, microblogging, social networking sites, wikis, media sharing sites and gaming technologies, have become increasingly accessible through mobile technology (Kaplan and Haenlein, ). These media are being widely adopted by the HR function in e‐HR, talent management, communications, and learning and knowledge management strategies (Martin et al ., ; Kristl Davison et al ., ; London and Hall, ; Reddington and Francis, ). In doing so, the function seeks to transform its contribution to the economic and social aims of organisations (Martin et al ., ; Marler, ; Parry and Solidaro, ; Bissola and Imperatori, ).…”

Web 2.0 and Transfer: Trainers' Use of Technology to Support Employees' Learning Transfer on the Job

“…We first asked trainers to select all the Web 2.0 tools they use to support learning transfer in their firm. Using London and Hall (2011) and Stone (2009), we presented a list of 16 Web 2.0 tools grouped into four categories (see Table 1), including descriptions of how the tools might be used in respondents’ training and human resource development jobs. Additionally, each Web 2.0 tool was defined, and a list of examples of sample tools was provided.…”

“…Prior research examining self-reported levels of usage has been criticized (Straub & Burton-Jones, 2007 ); thus, in response we incorporated four variables to provide a comprehensive measure of the respondents' usage of Web 2.0 tools to support transfer (Benbasat & Barki, 2007 ;Igbaria, Pavri, & Huff , 1989 We fi rst asked trainers to select all the Web 2.0 tools they use to support learning transfer in their fi rm. Using London and Hall ( 2011 ) and Stone ( 2009 ), we presented a list of 16 Web 2.0 tools grouped into four categories (see Table 1 ), including descriptions of how the tools might be used in respondents' training and human resource development jobs. Additionally, each Web 2.0 tool was defi ned, and a list of examples of sample tools was provided.…”

Improving e-learning motivation using social software

“…Unfortunately, research on social software in e-learning primarily focuses on technical possibilities or the impact on the learning process or learning outcome [e.g., 6,31,33,51]. Unfortunately, it is not yet concerned with the motivation to participate.…”