Learning in context: Extensively computerized work groups as communities-of-practice

Joey F. George, Suzanne Iacono, Rob Kling
{"title":"Learning in context: Extensively computerized work groups as communities-of-practice","authors":"Joey F. George,&nbsp;Suzanne Iacono,&nbsp;Rob Kling","doi":"10.1016/0959-8022(95)00012-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As computing becomes increasingly integral to organizational life, how work groups learn to successfully use computing becomes a critical issue. The current focus in the management information systems literature is on individual training and teaching methods. The context in which people and groups learn is overlooked in these studies. But work groups provide different types of learning environments, some which encourage learning while others discourage it. Three characteristics of work group environments help explain why learning varies: differential valuation of work roles in organizations (clerical vs professional work groups); differential participation in legitimate peripheral learning (through the presence of local expertise and time to interact and learn); and differential levels of participation in noncanonical communities-of-practice (especially through grass roots computing implementations). Two contrasting case studies illustrate how these concepts result in different learning environments. Professional work groups are more highly valued in organizations and members are given more autonomy to participate in legitimate peripheral learning and emerging communities-of-practice, while clerical groups are less valued, isolated from other practitioners and more rigorously held to canonical work practices. Participation in computing implementations also provides opportunities for learning that are missing in groups that have computing forced on them by management.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100011,"journal":{"name":"Accounting, Management and Information Technologies","volume":"5 3","pages":"Pages 185-202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0959-8022(95)00012-7","citationCount":"55","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting, Management and Information Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0959802295000127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 55

Abstract

As computing becomes increasingly integral to organizational life, how work groups learn to successfully use computing becomes a critical issue. The current focus in the management information systems literature is on individual training and teaching methods. The context in which people and groups learn is overlooked in these studies. But work groups provide different types of learning environments, some which encourage learning while others discourage it. Three characteristics of work group environments help explain why learning varies: differential valuation of work roles in organizations (clerical vs professional work groups); differential participation in legitimate peripheral learning (through the presence of local expertise and time to interact and learn); and differential levels of participation in noncanonical communities-of-practice (especially through grass roots computing implementations). Two contrasting case studies illustrate how these concepts result in different learning environments. Professional work groups are more highly valued in organizations and members are given more autonomy to participate in legitimate peripheral learning and emerging communities-of-practice, while clerical groups are less valued, isolated from other practitioners and more rigorously held to canonical work practices. Participation in computing implementations also provides opportunities for learning that are missing in groups that have computing forced on them by management.

上下文学习:作为实践社区的广泛计算机化工作组
随着计算越来越成为组织生活的一部分,工作小组如何学会成功地使用计算成为一个关键问题。目前管理信息系统文献的重点是个人培训和教学方法。在这些研究中,人们和群体学习的环境被忽视了。但是工作小组提供了不同类型的学习环境,有些鼓励学习,有些则不鼓励学习。工作组环境的三个特征有助于解释为什么学习是不同的:组织中对工作角色的不同评价(文书与专业工作组);在合法的外围学习中的差异参与(通过当地专业知识的存在和互动和学习的时间);以及参与非规范实践社区的不同程度(特别是通过基层计算实现)。两个对比的案例研究说明了这些概念如何导致不同的学习环境。专业工作小组在组织中受到更高的重视,成员被赋予更多的自主权来参与合法的外围学习和新兴的实践社区,而神职人员小组的价值较低,与其他实践者隔离,并且更严格地遵守规范的工作实践。参与计算实现还提供了学习的机会,这些机会在管理人员强迫计算的小组中是缺失的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信