1 / 19

Amanda Kuhnley

The Impact of Tacit K nowledge T ransfer during Technical Training in Online Learning Environments. Amanda Kuhnley. Objectives. Define tacit knowledge Introduce research problem Review literature & significance State the research question & hypothesis

collin
Télécharger la présentation

Amanda Kuhnley

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Impact of Tacit Knowledge Transfer during Technical Training in Online Learning Environments Amanda Kuhnley

  2. Objectives Define tacit knowledge Introduce research problem Review literature & significance State the research question & hypothesis Describe instrument, sample & data collection Address limitations & contingency plan Clarify contribution to the field List references

  3. Tacit Knowledge Howells (1996) describes tacit knowledge as non-codified, disembodied knowledge that is acquired through the informal take-up of learned behavior and procedures. Michael Polanyi (1966) argued that tacit knowledge is more fundamental than explicit knowledge. He is famously quoted, “we can know more than we can tell” (p. 4). Yi (2006) lists criteria to differentiate tacit knowledge from explicit knowledge. These criteria include (a) personal, (b) difficult to communicate, (c) problematic, and (d) contextual. Zack (1999) describes tacit knowledge as subconsciously understood and applied while being difficult to articulate, developed from direct experience, and shared through interactive conversation, storytelling, and shared experience. Zack (1999) describes tacit knowledge as subconsciously understood and applied while being difficult to articulate, developed from direct experience, and shared through interactive conversation, storytelling, and shared experience. Durrance (1998) claims tacit knowledge to live in an individual’s “hunches, intuition, emotions, values, and beliefs” (p. 24).

  4. Why Tacit Knowledge? • Undergraduate research • Problem-based learning • Designed curriculum • “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” – Socrates • Undergraduate degrees • Technology • Design

  5. Research Problem Significance global economic competition, traditional education is not enough tacit knowledge is overlooked in the U.S. tacit knowledge = competitive performance among organizations technology allows for “tacit knowledge networks”

  6. Literature Review

  7. Assumptions Tacit knowledge can be shared through online learning environments Shared experience is the most effective way to transfer tacit knowledge in online learning environments Transfer of tacit knowledge requires the active participation of the employee during technical training

  8. Question and Hypothesis Can the believability of a training simulation influence the transfer of tacit knowledge in an online learning environment for technical training? Employees will be more open to completing technical training and engaging in the transfer of tacit knowledge if they can believe in the training simulation.

  9. Variables

  10. Decision for Survey Research

  11. Survey Questions

  12. Survey Instrument

  13. Example Results

  14. Population and Sample • Field Service Technicians • Fortune 500 Company – PepsiCo • Convenience Sample – Virginia Market Unit • All 100 field service technicians • All complete computer-based technical training • Goal: 50 responses • HR Representative Kristen McCullough

  15. Contingency Plan • Sample size • Other market units • Interview protocol • Unlikely to not meet sample size!

  16. Data Collection and Timeline

  17. Limitations • Common threats to survey research: location, instrumentation, instrument decay, and mortality • Location – one market unit • Instrumentation – closed questions, Likert scale • Instrument decay – short time period, no changes • Mortality – individual experiences • Generalizability – limited in size and scope

  18. Contribution to the Field • Quantitative study of tacit knowledge – novel idea • Step toward validating the measure of tacit knowledge • General framework and survey • Could be solicited to larger/more diverse samples

  19. References Alic, J. A. (2008). Technical knowledge and experiential learning: what people know and can do. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(4), 427-442. doi:10.1080/09537320802141403 Durrance, B. (1998). Some explicit thoughts on tacit learning. Training & Development, 52(12), 24-29. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Eraut, M. (2000, March). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology. pp. 113-136. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Foos, T., Schum, G., & Rothernburg, S. (2006). Tacit knowledge transfer and the knowledge disconnect. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10 (1), 6-18. Doi: 10.1108/13673270610650067 Harris, R. J. (2009). Improving tacit knowledge transfer within SMEs through e-collaboration. Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(3), 215-231. Doi: 10.1108/03090590910950587 Howells, J. (1996). Tacit knowledge, innovation and technology transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 8(2), 91-106. Doi: 10.1080/00420980220128354 Likert, R. (1932). A technique for measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22 (140), 1-55. Moallem, M. (2003). An interactive online course: a collaborative design model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 85-103. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Nelson, R. & Winter, S.G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Ozdemir, S. (2008). E-learning’s effect on knowledge: Can you download tacit knowledge? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 552-554. Doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2007.00764x Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension / Michael Polanyi. Gloucester, Mass. ; Peter Smith, 1983. Retrieved from JAMES MADISON UNIV's Catalog database. Sclove, S. L. (2011). Notes on Likert scales. University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved from, http://www.uic.edu/classes/idsc/ids270sls/likert.htm Tee, M. Y., & Karney, D. (2010). Sharing and cultivating tacit knowledge in an online learning environment. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 385-413. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509-533. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Tsoukas, H. (2003). Do we really understand tacit knowledge? [Electronic source: http://is.lse.ac.uk/Events/ESRCseminars/tsoukas.pdf]. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. Malden: Blackwell Pub. Werner, J. M., & DeSimone, R. L. (2009). Human resource development. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Yi, J. (2006). Externalization of tacit knowledge in online environments. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(4), 663-674. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing Codified Knowledge. (cover story). Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 45-58. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Zollo, M. & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberative learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13 (3), 339-351. Retrieved from http://www/jstor.org/stable.3086025

More Related