1



List of changes:

1. the title has been changed, the subtitle has been removed

2. the abstract has been modified in order to highlight the key question of the article

3. the first paragraph of paragraph 1 has been modified in order to better highlight the analysis of didactic architectures more effectivelyanalysis organisation

4. paragraph 1.2 (web based training) has been moved instead ofto paragraph 1.1. The highlighted paragraph has been slightly modified in order to explain the didactic architecture within the elearning evolution framework

5. the paragraph on elearning 1.0 is now paragraph 1.2.

6. paragraph 1.4.2: includeds the Siemens’ connectionism principles in order to better deepenexplain the elearning 2.0 concept more effectively

7. paragraph 1.4.3: included includes both the O’Really O’Reilly definition and the Attwell quotation in order to better deepenexplain the elearning 2.0 concept more effectively

8. tab 2: modified both the format and the internal wording modified

9. tab 4: modified both the format and the internal wording modified

10. chapter 2 has been divided in two chapters (2 and 3)

11. the bibliography has been updated with the contributions from Attwell and Simon and modified with english version of some bookscontributions

12. chapter 3: the concept of knowledge society has been better explained more effectively

13. the text has been revised corrected by a native English speaker

14. your “minor comments” have been included

Didactic architectures and organization models:

a process of mutual shapingadaptation

Laura Gonella – laura.gonella@csp.it, Eleonora Pantò – eleonora.panto@csp.it

(CSP- ICT Innovation – Knowledge Communities Dep.)

Acknowledgements

The article is based on the work developed by CSP-ICT Innovation for CSI -Piemonte during the year 2007. We would like to thank Marco Grassini, Filippo Ricca, Riccarda Cristofanini and Graziella Testaceni from CSI-Piemonte, for their collaboration.

SA special thanks go to Matteo De Simone and Erica Lavagno from CSP, for their valuable support.

We are moreover also grateful to Andrea Demagistris, Michela Garbarini and Claudia Sibilla, who contributed to this collaborative effort with their valuable suggestions and professional inputs.

Keywords

Informal learning, Training, LMS (Learning Management System), Pedagogy, PLE (Personal Learning Environment), Elearning 2.0.

Summary

Abstract 3

1. Didactic architectures 4

1.1 Web-based training 4

1.2 Elearning 1.0 4

1.3 Online education 5

1.4 Elearning 2.0 6

1.4.1 Definition 6

1.4.2 Pedagogic Approach 6

1.4.3 Technologies 8

1.5 A comparison 9

2. Didactic architectures and organizations 10

2.1 Organizational systems and training 10

2.2 Company structures and organizational models 11

2.2.1 The top-down model 11

2.2.2 The bottom-up model 11

2.2.3 The middle-up-down model 12

3. mutual adaptation 13

Conclusions 15

Bibliography 15

Abstract 3

1. Didactic architectures 4

1.1 Web based training 4

1.2 Elearning 1.0 4

1.3 On line education 5

1.4 Elearning 2.0 6

1.4.1 Definition 6

1.4.2 Pedagogical Approach 6

1.4.3 Technologies 8

1.5 A comparison 9

2. Didactic architectures and organizations 10

2.1 Organizational systems and training 10

2.2 Company structures and organizational models 11

2.2.1 The top-down model 11

2.2.2 The bottom-up model 11

2.2.3 The middle-up-down model 12

3. MA mutual adaptationshaping 1312

Conclusions 1514

Bibliography 1514

Abstract

This article aims at to setting a sort ofestablish a parallelism between the organizational models and the didactic architectures used by the enterprisesbusinesses to for manageing internal training. The objective is to understand if thewhether so-called "elearning 2.0", a kind of elearning based on the tools and approaches typical of web 2.0, can be useful in different frameworks and organisations.

In this viewcontext, the article reviewslooks at if whether it is possible to outline aidentify a mutual process of adaptation among the organizational and the training models here calledwe term didactic architectures. During the analysis, four different organizational models are introduced (industrial society, post-industrial society, enterprise 1.0 and enterprise 2.0), and the and a corresponding evolution of the didactic architectures is suggested (web based training, elearning 1.0, online education, elearning 2.0).

The organizations operating in the knowledge society, where the time-to-market is contractedrapid, and the competence domains are widened and in rapid evolution, are forced to move towards the so-called enterprise 2.0 model, which is characterized by an intensive use of blogs, wikis, social bookmarking and RSS. These organizations have a flat structure and are based on the principle of autonomy principle. The article asserts that in these contexts training and vocational systems based on the same principles - namely autonomy, informal style and an open approach - can be implemented a training and vocational system based on the same principles: autonomy, informal style, wide opening. In other more traditional frameworks, the formal elearning, based on LMS platforms, will keep oncontinue to representing an effective solution: as long as the users won't do not become familiar with the functionalities offered by 2.0 technologies and will thus become the actors of the change.

The document is structured in three parts:

• The first chapter analyses four different didactic architectures, highlighting the differences between elearning 1.0 and elearning 2.0.

• The second chapter describes the organizational models and introduces the relation with the didactic architectures.

• The third chapter underlines highlights the process of mutual shaping adaptation between didactic architectures and organization models.

1. Didactic architectures

The analysis carried out in this document focuses on the web- based distance training and its evolution. The survey also compares different didactic architectures, considered as models for the set up of training activities. Every Each type of didactic architecture is characterized by specific visions, objectives, technologies, methods and practices, and it subtendsunderpinned by a given pedagogic approach.

The analysis carried out in this document takes into considerationlooks at four didactic architectures called: web-based training, elearning 1.0, on-line education and elearning 2.0. The different architectures are described as to thein terms of their referring pedagogic model, the typeology of supported learning, the used tools used and the characteristics of the content characteristics. PA particular attention is devoted to put in evidencehighlighting the differences among betweenthe LMS-based systems (elearning 1.0) and the web 2.0 service-based systems (wikis, blogs, podcasts, social bookmarking, rssRSS, etc.). As we will show demonstrated in the next following chapters, the two models are not only characterized by the use of different technologies but they are founded on very different methods and can therefore satisfy the demands of different types of organizational systems.

1 Web- based training

The name of this didactic architecture recalls the Nineties term for the on-line training programmes implemented within the business framework and based on the on-line distribution of autonomously -used learning materials. The objective was the "training" more rather than the education or learning, terms that today are more focused more on the active role of the end user in the learning process. This didactic method is nowadays used in training programmes that are based on contents, and is effective when the objectives are more focused on the information acquisition rather than the on attainment of analytical skillssis abilities.

In general The the term WBT term (wWeb- based training) can be used for pointing outcovers in general both thethe web-based didactic approachs, the the type typology of contents and the the software used to manage themfor their management.. The contents consist of are constituted by a set of multimedia pages for the user to consult autonomously, enjoyed in an autonomous way, while web-based software distribute delivers additional services. Unlike the current LMS, with these systems it is not possible with these systems to monitor and trace the users (elearning 1.0).

The underlying ttheory etical reference picture is the behaviourism, according to which the tendency stating that our brains, when subjected to a given stimulus, produces an answer that is a behaviour. In the pedagogical theory this requirement is translates into d with the assumption that the workers "exposed" to structured learning material learns its the contents and is are able to apply them in when his working practice. The This is known as a transmissive didactic model is defined transmissive (Trentin, 2001).

2 Elearning 1.0

The Web Based Training model has evolved into the so-called Elearning 1.0 didactic architecture, which is based on elearning platforms called Learning Management Systems (LMS) or Content Learning Content Learning Management Systems (LCCLMS). LMS are very effective in supporting content delivery, management of designing training design, and enrollement registeringof users, monitoring and certifying icationsusers.

The main strengths of strongest functionalities carried out by the elearning platforms, and especially in those implemented for the enterprisesin a business environment, are related toregard facilitatingtate the administration and the management of a high large number of courses and users. The functions dealing withAreas regarding communication, collaboration, knowledge creation and active learning are receive considered with less attention from both the producers and users of the by the platforms producers and the users. Also the pPerformance is mainly assessed evaluation mostly occurs throughby means of objective measurescriteria, such as the number of used pages used and the overcoming of multiple choice tests. A strongMuch attention is given devoted to contents, using with the diffusion of the model of interoperable and re-usable learning objects (SCORM), while the learning process is given low less attention is given to the learning processconsideration.

The adopted didactic model adopted is based on the distribution of the specific learning material to a highn elevated number of users, while the tools to support collaborative work supporting tools are available, but seen as additional elements. In a lot of enterprise business LMS, there is no teacher figure to act as a content expert guiding the students is not provided. There is fore are available both a training coordinator who supervisesing the course, and a mentor, a kind of tutor who provides help when ing only if requested, but does not actively driveing the learning process. Such

This didactic model, which very closely resembles to the transmissive one, can be defined as assisted (Trentin, 2001), because as most of the learning process mostly happens throughis self-learning, with a minimum support from the tutor.

The vision subtending which underliesto this approach is defined termed "curricular" by Sica and Scotti (Sica & Scotti, 2007), and is based on the planning of curricula and didactics through in different stages: defining objectives definition, assessing entry knowledge evaluation, breaking down resolution of the objectives into elementary undersub-objectives, etc. A strongMuch attention is given devoted to identifying the user’s most suitable re fitting learning path, which is automatically managed through competence skills balances[1].

Cognitivism is the theoretical reference framework. It is worth to mentionnoting that, in terms of as to the learning approachesmodalities, behaviourism theories stress the incentive-answer, whereas the cognitivism focuses on how the mind represents the knowledge representation operated by our minds.

3 On line education

By the end of Ninetiesnineties, educational practices based on communication and collaboration, with the use of web-based training initiatives, became more and more frequent. These initiatives, more frequent in academic settings c and schools rather than in the business frameworksenvironment, were, initially , based on very simple technologies such as mailing lists and newsgroups, and later on devoted frameworks such as the conferencing systems[2]. Together with various types of contents proposed by the teacher, and not necessarily multimedia (books, lecture notes, etc.), there are also proposed activities and discussions which actively involveing students and producing produce output used asconstituting learning material for in the subsequentfollowing courses.

The theoretical frame of reference picture is the constructivism, which upholdsing the importance of the active role of the students in the processes of teaching and learning process. The construction of new materials and meanings comes both from materials previously delivered by the teacher or simply from hints and stimulius provided by the teacher or by the tutor, figures which play assuming in these cases aa very central role. It is in fact thought that the students have to be driven, addressed, involved and stimulated by the tutor-moderator. The courses are thus intended as social processes, because they are implemented through by means ofthe interaction among the different subjects involved: teacher, tutor and, students.

The same approach has been adopted by some open- source LMS which focusesing on the communication and collaboration functions. Atutor, for instance, is a suite containing specific software to supporting communication and cooperation (Acollab, Achat, Acomm), integrated with the LMS. Dokeos () includes tools for the videoconferencing and the virtual classrooom.

This model has not been frequently used much in within the oorganizations which started with using in a first stage web-based training systems then subsequently passed to and elearning 1.0 in a second phase. It is more widespread , while they have been diffused especially in the universities.

4 Elearning 2.0

With the diffusion of "social software", the way of we useing the internet for information and to communicate has changed greatlybeen modified a lot. The User contributions are no longer of the users are not restricted to the newsgroups or the forums: anymore, but aalmost all the web sites now allow offer the possibility for the users to upload his their own contributionscontents: this is called "user- generated content"." The process of fruitionusage/-creation process by the users is continuous: the multi-channel fruition usage is now aadays reality, and the availability of wireless connections allows enable us to be always online at all times wherever we areand "ubiquitous.".

New practices of thein web use have furthermore affected the elearning framework. In order to put in evidence highlight these this technological and methodological changes, is frequently used the term “elearning 2.0” termis frequently used. This term first appeared in, an article mentioned for the first time by Stephen Downes in 2005 withinwhich an article showeding how the communities of practice can constitute an interesting new learning interesting model of learning (Downes, 2005).

We will now analyse Hereafter, elearning 2.0 is analysed from the pedagogical and technological points of view.

1 Definition

This e mentioned definition of e-learning 2.0 is from Wikipedia:

eLearning 2.0 refers to a second phase of e-Learning based on Web 2.0 and emerging trends in eLearning. It can include such features as e-Learning where students create content, collaborate with peers to form a learning network with distribution of content creation and responsibilities, e-Learning that takes advantage of many sources of content aggregated together into learning experiences and e-Learning that utilizes various tools including online references, courseware, knowledge management, collaboration and search.

The term suggests that the traditional model of eLearning as a type of content, produced by publishers, organized and structured into courses, and consumed by students, is reversed; so as that content is used rather than read and is more likely to be produced by students than courseware authors.

2 Pedagogical Approach

At On a methodological level, the typical elearning 1.0 model of the transmissive/assisted learning model is turned round:, as with 2.0 tools learning with 2.0 tools is based on bottom-up contents and put into relation to reach forge new meanings. With reference to the Trentin’s classification of Trentin (2001), we can define the didactic model as peer to peer, aimed at the constitution ofcreating collaborative groups which shareing knowledge and experience to enable for tthe whole group to ’s growth.

Siemens has coined the term connectivism (2005) to define this new way of learning modality, which is based on the following principles (Siemens, 2006):

• Learning and knowledge require a diversity of opinions to present the whole…and to permit the selection of the best approach.     

• Learning is a network- formingation process of which connectsing specialized nodes or information sources.    

• Knowledge residests in networks.

• Knowledge may reside in non-human appliances, and learning is enabled/facilitated by technology.

• CCapacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.     

• Learning and knowing are constant, on going processes (not end states or products).     

• Ability to see connections and recognize patterns and make sense between fields, ideas, and concepts is the core skill for individuals today.

• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.

• Decision-making is learning. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.

As effectively explained by Bonaiuti (2006), "the connectivism would like to criticize the main learning theories, synthetically identifiable as behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism, as incapable to of provide providing a suitable theoretical support to the requests demands of coming from the modern on-line learning modalities. (…) It is not a matter of considering the learning process as a progressive accumulation of knowledge accumulation, but rather as a set of connections which making themake access to knowledge possible."

If we consider the typeology of learning involved, there is another substantial difference between elearning 1.0 and elearning 2.0. While the first one is based on formal learning, the second relies predominantly leans on informal processes.

• The fFormal learning consists inis a process developed within a structured and organized context (formal school education, business training courses) leading to an official acknowledgement (diplomas, qualifications, certificates).

• The iInformal learning is the result of the daily activities related to the jobwork, the family and, the leisure time. It is not structured in terms of learning objectives, time and support, and typically it does n't not usually lead to any kind of certification.

Jay Cross (2003) has put in evidence thathighlighted the fact that within organizations, the greater partmost of the learning process (around 80% circa) is comingoccurs during from iinformal moments:

At work we learn more in the break room than in the classroom. We discover how to do our jobs through informal learning -- observing others, asking the person in the next cubicle, calling the help desk, trial-and-error, and simply working with people in the know. Formal learning - classes and workshops and online events - is the source of only 10% to 20% of what we learn at work. (Cross, 2003)

Moreover, Jay Cross draws the attention on to a sort of paradox between the results of formal learning and the related investments.

[pic]

Picture Figure 1. The spending/outcomes paradox in terms of education (source Jay Cross 2003)

As stressed by Bonaiuti (2006), the formal education, the workshops and the other institutionalised training initiatives represent a weakpoor opportunity alternative in comparison to natural and spontaneous learning. We could thus affirm that the model called elearning 2.0 allows to runfosters informal learning dynamics. The perspective consists in exploiting and improving the potentialities of the web’s informal framework, and coming from concretepractical experiences.

3 Technologies

The concepts above explained above in methodological terms can be implemented in practical terms have an actual operative possibility inusing the tools offered by dealing with wweb 2.0. Such tools include: blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, podcasts, collaborative conceptual maps, web feeds and , tagging. Some of these tools can be integrated into the platforms, and the basis thus the ground idea oof this new approach consists in using these tools directly online, exploiting the suppleness flexibility ofcharacterizing the web.

In October 2004 Tim O’Reilly starts began talking about mentioning tthe concept of “the web as a platform”, describing a scenario where the user is centred with respect to services (O’Reilly 2005) and can is working on-line from different places in a sort kind of virtual office. The different services can be “aggregated”, in order to implement an operational and study environment centred on the user and on his or her network of personal resources.

As to for elearning, we can talk about PLE (Personal learning environments) or elearning frameworks (Jones, 2005). George Siemens (2004) describes a learning environment as based on decentralized, learner-in-control, piece-it-together tools.

Siemens underlines that a single tool cannot perform do everything and that it is necessary to connect different functionalities or specializations in a set of tools, making the user the leading actor of in terms of the different areas and personal interests. Some functions are also available also on the current platforms that Siemens (2004) defines in his article as “the wrong place to start learning”.

Attwell (2007) has recently analysed the PLE concept, highlighting its importance from an ethical and pedagogical point of view. The following is a synthesis summary of Attwell’s thoughts:

Personal Learning environments are not an application but rather a new approach to the use of new technologies for learning. (…) PLEs provide learners with their own spaces under their own control to develop and share their ideas. Personal Learning environments are not an application but rather a new approach to the use of new technologies for learning. Moreover, PLEs can provide a more holistic learning environmentss, bringing together sources and contexts for learning hitherto separate. (…)

5 A comparison

The following chart describes the elements which constitute ive and characterizeing elements of the four mentioned didactic architectures mentioned.

|DIDACTIC |WEB BASED TRAINING |ELEARNING 1.0 |ON LINE EDUCATION |ELEARNING 2.0 |

|ARCHITECTURE | | | | |

| |Production system |Behaviourism |Teaching |Training |

|Ford | | | | |

|Taylor |Dimension, marketplace/products |Systemic approach |Instructional design |Individual and |

| | | | |organization |

| | | | |integration |

|Post-industrial |Intellectual capital |Constructivism |Competence Skills and |Organized learning |

| | | |community management | |

Picture Figure 3. The Lipari model on of training logics within organizations (Scotti & Sica, 2007 page 41)

6 Company structures and organizational models

CThe company structures are described following in terms of the dichotomy hierarchic/flat dichotomy, while the classification proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) was is the basis for the organizational model. They analysed the mutual relationship between the knowledge management and the administration of the productionve processes, suggesting an interesting synthesis classification of the different trends describing based on three management models: bottom-up, top-down and middle-up-down. A brief description isThe following paragraphs provide a brief description of these.

1 The top-down model

The top-down model deals regardswith the classical vertical hierarchical model founded on Max Weber’s (197468) remarks observations on bureaucracy and on Frederic Taylor’s (1967) "work’s the scientific organization of work". This model was systematically elaborated by Herbert Simon and asserts the that knowledge creation is a simple matter of processing information elaboration: the vertex top receives simple and selective information from the basebottom, and uses it for the planning before returning it to the bottom base (Weber, 196874; Simon, 1967). The information is elaborated processed at different levels all alongthroughout the hierarchical chain: the top management defines the ground basic concepts that become the operatingonal conditions for the intermediamiddlery managers, who, that have to choose the tools to implement theminstruments for their achievement. The decisions of the intermediamiddlery managementrs, in their turn, determine the operatingonal conditions of the employees applying the decisions. At the production line level, the execution of the operations is mainly routine. The knowledge produced within this model is predominantly encoded and stored in files or database.

This model characterised the large-scale enterprise companies of the Fifties fifties and Sixties sixties or the bureaucracy, because of the which called mechanisms needing for clear and precise rules. Nevertheless, less complex forms of this model also suit are as well fitting for SMEs where the manager is also the owner of the firm. In general terms, the top-down model is the basis for the management of information needed "to define, transmit and achieve the assignments; to define and transmit the rules; to measure and evaluate assessthe performances" (Shockley & Zalaback, 1991).

Within this model, two different orientations can be identified: the top-down directed to the task-orientedassignments, as described above described, and the top-down directed to the people-oriented, withgiving morelarger attention to people, roles and individual abilities, notwithstanding albeit still based on a hierarchical model.

2 The bottom-up model

The bottom-up model is essentially mirrors-like the top-down model, as underlined shown by the schools of by the human relations (Mayo, 19469) and the motivational schools (Likert, 196173).

The principles of vertical hierarchy and activity control are in oppositioned to the autonomy. Instead of a form of knowledge created and checked by the vertextop management, is this model representssustained a knowledge process set which is established and, in a certain measureto a certain extent, also checked by the basefrom the bottom. The shortening flattening of the hierarchy (by eliminating a number of levelsthrough the abatement of some levels) and the a reduction of in the division of work division decreasesshortens the distance between the top management and the production line to three or four managerial levels.

BThe bottom-up organization is therefore flat and horizontal. According As for theto managerial behaviour that characterizesing this type of organization, Likert (196173) has identifiedcame up with the so-calledconcept of "participative" leadership:"participative" leadership: the management gives few orders and instructions, but contemporarily stimulates the collaboration through communicational channels "from the bottomasis", thus exploiting the produced knowledge.

3 The middle-up-down model

The middle-up-down model was elaborated conceived by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and aims at to mergeing the advantages of the top-down and that bottom-up models, becoming as part of that bodycorpora of organization theories defined as post-Fordist. Without analysing thoroughly the various different schools in depth, the post-Fordist theories overcome supersede the Taylorite conception of knowledge as a set of practical rules set for an efficient production and they underlineemphasise their role as a resource to increaseing the enterprise’s value of the business (Di Bernardo & Rullani, 1990).

The middle-up-down model is based on the analysings of the role of intermediary middle management role, which represents constituting the real structure of for the creation and management of the business knowledge: it represents an interface between the top management and the line operators, because it is placedlies at the intersection between the enterprise’s horizontal and vertical informative information flows and is able to combine the operational demands with the business strategy. More in detail, the role of the so-called one "knowledge manager" consists in identifying, collecting, synthesizing, organizing and administrating all the information in his/ her possession or belonging to his /her dominion range of competencess, in order to place it at the company’s disposal.

This model, , which is based on an coming from the analysis of Toyota in the ‘90s Toyota enterprise - based characterized by on the so-called just-in-time production and on different operational formalities procedures in comparison to the traditional production lines - provides some hints insight into, and interesting connections with, the knowledge management: in fact knowledge circulates within the whole firm and whoever anyone can contribute to its production and development. This process is facilitated by "interface structures", people and technological tools that helpfoster, stimulate and allow enable the management of to easily manage the knowledge circulation within the company. In the first case, as described, it is about ththis regards middle e intermediary managers; in the second case we are talking about ICT.

A mutual shapingadaptation

Here we revisit tThe Lipari model shown in Picture Figure 3 (Scotti & Sica, 2007) in greater detail in order to highlight the was here revised and more detailed in order to underline the mutual relationship between the organizational systems and the didactic architectures (Figure Picture 4).

The four didactic architectures illustrated in the first chapter (Figure picture 2) are connected to the organizational structures defined in the second chapter: we have added to the Lipari the Company Structures and the Organizational Models, both described in the previous paragraph.

Therefore the next chart below highlights the existing mutual relationship between the organizational models and the didactic architectures.

ORGANIZATIONSINDUSTRIAL SOCIETYENTERPRISE 1.0SOCIETÀ POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETYEENTERPRISE 2.0Production modelFordismTaylorismPost-industrial Knowledge societyCompany sstructureHierarchicalHierarchicalFlatFlat/LiquidOrganizational modelTop-down assignments task- orientedTop-down people- orientedMiddle- up -downButtom Bottom-upTheoretical FrameworkBehaviourismCognitivism ConstructivismConnectivism Pedadogic

al approachTransmissive (autonomous)AssistitedCollaborativePeer to PeerToolsWeb- deliveredLMSLMS + collaborative toolsWeb as a platformContentsCourse- based trainingLearning objects Mixed production by teachers and studentsCommunity- based, user- generated contentsDIDACTIC ARCHITECTUREWEB BASED TRAININGELEARNING 1.0ON LINE EDUCATIONELEARNING 2.0

Figure Picture 4. The mutual relationship between didactic architectures and organizations

In theThe white part of the chart are listeshowsd the features characteristics of the organizations: industrial society, post-industrial society, enterprise 1.0 and enterprise 2.0. The four models are characterized by different business structures and different organizational models (described in the former previous chapterparagraph). In the grey part of the chart are listed the didactic architectures described in the first chapter.

The analysis of the four models and the mutual relations follows.

The industrial society is characterized by a hierarchical, and top-down, task-oriented model directed to the assignments. Training is seen as the transfer of operational instructions allowing to enablethe workers to use the machinery and implement ies and the operational techniques. The didactic architecture most suited to re suiting this model of enterprise is the web-based training.

The so-called enterprise 1.0 model is a has a very similar organizational model but more directed to the people-oriented: the hierarchy and the delegation mechanisms are runhandled withless smaller rigidlyity. CThe communication technologies have an important role and the business intranets are widely diffusedused. In these organizations both knowledge management and the training model are more articulatedstructured both the knowledge management and the training model. The Ddidactic activity is resolved organized into in stagesphases, organized inby objectives and based on the individual’s cognitive mechanisms (cognitivism). For these reasons the more most appropriate didactic architecture is the so-called elearning 1.0.

The third line column of the chart describes shows the mutual relationship between the so-called post-industrial organizational system, based on a middle-up-down model, and the so-called on-line education didactic architecture. Both the organizational and the training systems are based on intermediateion roles: the intermediary middle managementr in the business organization and the tutor in the training activities. Middle management The intermediary manager could acts as a bridge between the top management and the operators in terms of organization of work organization and information flows, as the tutor is crucial for the communications between the teacher and the student in the training activities. At On a technological level, the most important systems are those which promoteing and supporting the communication.

The fourth line column introduces the features of the so-called enterprise 2.0[3], characterized by a bottom-up structure and by anthe intensive use of web 2.0 tools and technologies. This kind of company is linked to a productivity model that we defined as the “Knowledge knowledge society”, where the intellectual capital and the competences involved in of uupdating and managing the one’s own knowledges, is are more important than the production of goods and services. In For the enterprise 2.0 model, the mostre effective didactical architecture is the elearning 2.0, as it this is mostly based on informal learning and contents generated by social processes.

Conclusions

This document is aims to ed at showing how the training systems have to be adapted to the emerging requests demands of from the different business contexts, and that such demands are strongly influenced by the business’s structure and by the business culture. Where thebusiness business culture is based on hierarchical principles and the production procedures are ve formalities founded on the work’s scientific organization of work, the a Web-based training architecture didactic is justifiedhas a justification.

This model is then evolved into the so-called elearning 1.0 system, based on aa more accurate attentive management of the training process, which is organized into phases, modules and, units. The technology not ies don't only allow the suppldeliversy of multimedia contents, as in the Web-based training model, but also covers the administrative management and the evaluation assessment of processes, expecting entailing the assistance and the tutoring by thefrom trainers. Such This kind of training model, based on competence skills balances and managed through by means of learning management systems, is suitable in contexts where business culture is still primarily top-down, while it is not effective neither or satisfactory suitable forin comparison to the emergingent models of enterprise business organization which characterizeing the companies operating in the knowledge society.

Bibliography

Bonaiuti, G. (by, 2006). Elearning 2.0, Il futuro dell’apprendimento in rete tra formale e informale, Trento: Erickson.

Conner, M. L. (2007). Informal Learning, retrieved March 31, 2008 from .

Cross, J. (2003). Informal Learning – the other 80%, retrieved March 31, 2008 from

Di Bernardo, B. & Rullani E. (1990). Il management e le macchine, Bologna: Il Mulino.

Downes, S. (2005), E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine. October 17, 2005. .

Pfeiffer, J. W. & Jones, J. E. (eds.) (1985). A Handbook of structured Structured experiences Experiences for human Human relations Relations trainingTraining, Vols. 1-10, San Diego: University Associates.

Le Boterf, G. (2000). Construire les compétences individuelles et collectives, Paris: Les Editions d’Organisation.

Likert, R. (1973). Nuovi stili di direzione aziendale, MilanoMilan: Franco Angeli.

Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Approaches that work: how authentic learning is transforming higher education, ELI Paper 5:2007,

Mayo, E. (1969). I problemi umani e socio-politici della civiltà industriale, TorinoTurin: Utet.

Mayo, E. (1949). The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Mosher, B. (2004). The Power of Informal Learning, retrieved March 31, 2008 from

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scotti, E. & Sica, R. (2007). Community managementManagement, MilanoMilan: Apogeo.

Shockley & Zalaback, P. (1991). Fundamentals of Organizational Communication, New York: Longman.

Siemens, G. (2003). Learning Ecology, Communities, and Networks. Extending the classroom, retrieved March 31, 2008 from

Siemens, G. (2004). Learning Management Systems: The wrong place to start learning, retrieved March 31, 2008 from .

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, Vol. 2 No. 1,

Simon. H. (1967), Il comportamento amministrativo, Bologna: Il Mulino.

Taylor, F. W. (1967). L'organizzazione scientifica del lavoro, MilanoMilan: Etas Kompass.

Taylor, F.W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management, New York: Harper.

Trentin, G. (2001). Dalla formazione a distanza all’apprendimento in rete, MilanoMilan: Franco Angeli.

Weber, M. (1974). Economia e società, MilanoMilan: Edizioni Comunità.

Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society. New York: Bedminister Press.

Wegner, E. Communities of practice: a brief introduction, retrieved March 31, 2008 from

-----------------------

|[|

|1|

|]|

|T|

|h|

|e|

|c|

|o|

|m|

|p|

|e|

|t|

|e|

|n|

|c|

|e|

|A|

|s|

|k|

|i|

|l|

|l|

|s|

|b|

|a|

|l|

|a|

|n|

|c|

|e|

|i|

|s|

|a|

|p|

|r|

|o|

|c|

|e|

|d|

|u|

|r|

|e|

|w|

|h|

|i|

|c|

|h|

|e|

|n|

|a|

|b|

|l|

|e|

|s|

|a|

|w|

|o|

|r|

|k|

|e|

|r|

|’|

|s|

|s|

|k|

|i|

|l|

|l|

|s|

|t|

|o|

|b|

|e|

|a|

|s|

|s|

|e|

|s|

|s|

|e|

|d|

|i|

|n|

|c|

|o|

|m|

|p|

|a|

|r|

|i|

|s|

|o|

|n|

|t|

|o|

|h|

|i|

|s|

|o|

|r|

|h|

|e|

|r|

|s|

|s|

|a|

|l|

|l|

|o|

|w|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|e|

|v|

|a|

|l|

|u|

|a|

|t|

|i|

|o|

|n|

|o|

|f|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|c|

|o|

|m|

|p|

|e|

|t|

|e|

|n|

|c|

|e|

|s|

|o|

|f|

|a|

|w|

|o|

|r|

|k|

|e|

|r|

|c|

|o|

|m|

|p|

|a|

|r|

|e|

|d|

|t|

|o|

|h|

|i|

|s|

|p|

|r|

|o|

|f|

|e|

|s|

|s|

|i|

|o|

|n|

|a|

|l|

|p|

|r|

|o|

|f|

|i|

|l|

|e|

|.|

|T|

|h|

|e|

|e|

|x|

|i|

|s|

|t|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|g|

|a|

|p|

|b|

|e|

|t|

|w|

|e|

|e|

|n|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|e|

|x|

|p|

|e|

|c|

|t|

|e|

|d|

|a|

|n|

|d|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|r|

|e|

|a|

|l|

|c|

|o|

|m|

|p|

|e|

|t|

|e|

|n|

|c|

|e|

|s|

|s|

|k|

|i|

|l|

|l|

|s|

|i|

|s|

|f|

|i|

|l|

|l|

|e|

|d|

|b|

|y|

|c|

|o|

|m|

|p|

|l|

|e|

|t|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|t|

|h|

|r|

|o|

|u|

|g|

|h|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|r|

|e|

|a|

|l|

|i|

|z|

|a|

|t|

|i|

|o|

|n|

|o|

|f|

|a|

|c|

|u|

|r|

|r|

|i|

|c|

|u|

|l|

|u|

|m|

|o|

|r|

|a|

|c|

|t|

|i|

|v|

|i|

|t|

|y|

|p|

|l|

|a|

|n|

|w|

|h|

|i|

|c|

|h|

|i|

|n|

|c|

|l|

|u|

|d|

|e|

|s|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|a|

|l|

|l|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|c|

|o|

|u|

|r|

|s|

|e|

|s|

|t|

|h|

|a|

|t|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|w|

|o|

|r|

|k|

|e|

|r|

|a|

|t|

|t|

|e|

|n|

|d|

|s|

|f|

|o|

|r|

|i|

|n|

|o|

|r|

|d|

|e|

|r|

|t|

|o|

|r|

|e|

|a|

|c|

|h|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|o|

|b|

|j|

|e|

|c|

|t|

|i|

|v|

|e|

|s|

|a|

|n|

|d|

|e|

|l|

|i|

|m|

|i|

|n|

|a|

|t|

|e|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|g|

|a|

|p|

|.|

|[|

|2|

|]|

|T|

|h|

|e|

|c|

|C|

|o|

|n|

|f|

|e|

|r|

|e|

|n|

|c|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|s|

|y|

|s|

|t|

|e|

|m|

|s|

|a|

|r|

|e|

|s|

|o|

|f|

|t|

|w|

|a|

|r|

|e|

|p|

|r|

|o|

|g|

|r|

|a|

|m|

|m|

|e|

|s|

|w|

|h|

|i|

|c|

|h|

|w|

|e|

|r|

|e|

|u|

|s|

|e|

|d|

|i|

|n|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|l|

|a|

|t|

|e|

|N|

|i|

|n|

|e|

|t|

|i|

|e|

|s|

|f|

|o|

|r|

|d|

|i|

|s|

|t|

|a|

|n|

|c|

|e|

|l|

|e|

|a|

|r|

|n|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|.|

|T|

|h|

|e|

|y|

|p|

|r|

|o|

|v|

|i|

|d|

|e|

|a|

|f|

|o|

|r|

|u|

|m|

|-|

|l|

|i|

|k|

|e|

|c|

|o|

|m|

|m|

|u|

|n|

|i|

|c|

|a|

|t|

|i|

|o|

|n|

|e|

|n|

|v|

|i|

|r|

|o|

|n|

|m|

|e|

|n|

|t|

|,|

|w|

|h|

|e|

|r|

|e|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|m|

|e|

|s|

|s|

|a|

|g|

|e|

|s|

|a|

|r|

|e|

|o|

|r|

|g|

|a|

|n|

|i|

|z|

|e|

|d|

|i|

|n|

|t|

|o|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|m|

|a|

|t|

|i|

|c|

|a|

|r|

|e|

|a|

|s|

|.|

|T|

|o|

|d|

|a|

|y|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|t|

|e|

|r|

|m|

|i|

|s|

|h|

|a|

|s|

|f|

|a|

|l|

|l|

|e|

|n|

|i|

|n|

|t|

|o|

|d|

|i|

|s|

|u|

|s|

|e|

|a|

|n|

|d|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|s|

|y|

|s|

|t|

|e|

|m|

|s|

|h|

|a|

|v|

|e|

|e|

|v|

|o|

|l|

|v|

|e|

|d|

|,|

|p|

|r|

|o|

|v|

|i|

|d|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|s|

|e|

|v|

|e|

|r|

|a|

|l|

|v|

|a|

|r|

|i|

|o|

|u|

|s|

|t|

|o|

|o|

|l|

|s|

|f|

|u|

|n|

|c|

|t|

|i|

|o|

|n|

|a|

|l|

|i|

|t|

|i|

|e|

|s|

|f|

|o|

|r|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|c|

|o|

|l|

|l|

|a|

|b|

|o|

|r|

|a|

|t|

|i|

|o|

|n|

|a|

|n|

|d|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|c|

|o|

|o|

|p|

|e|

|r|

|a|

|t|

|i|

|o|

|n|

|.|

|[|

|3|

|]|

|T|

|h|

|e|

|t|

|e|

|r|

|m|

|E|

|n|

|t|

|e|

|r|

|p|

|r|

|i|

|s|

|e|

|2|

|.|

|0|

|h|

|a|

|s|

|b|

|e|

|e|

|n|

|w|

|a|

|s|

|i|

|n|

|t|

|r|

|o|

|d|

|u|

|c|

|e|

|d|

|b|

|y|

|A|

|n|

|d|

|r|

|e|

|i|

|M|

|c|

|A|

|f|

|e|

|e|

|,|

|p|

|r|

|o|

|f|

|e|

|s|

|s|

|o|

|r|

|a|

|t|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|H|

|a|

|r|

|v|

|a|

|r|

|d|

|B|

|u|

|s|

|i|

|n|

|e|

|s|

|s|

|S|

|c|

|h|

|o|

|o|

|l|

|.|

|I|

|t|

|e|

|x|

|p|

|e|

|c|

|t|

|s|

|r|

|e|

|f|

|e|

|r|

|s|

|t|

|o|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|u|

|s|

|e|

|o|

|f|

|b|

|l|

|o|

|g|

|s|

|a|

|n|

|d|

|w|

|i|

|k|

|i|

|s|

|,|

|s|

|o|

|c|

|i|

|a|

|l|

|b|

|o|

|o|

|k|

|m|

|a|

|r|

|k|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|,|

|a|

|n|

|d|

|R|

|S|

|S|

|,|

|a|

|n|

|d|

|s|

|o|

|c|

|i|

|a|

|l|

|n|

|e|

|t|

|w|

|o|

|r|

|k|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|f|

|o|

|r|

|c|

|o|

|n|

|n|

|e|

|c|

|t|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|p|

|e|

|o|

|p|

|l|

|e|

|c|

|o|

|n|

|n|

|e|

|c|

|t|

|i|

|o|

|n|

|,|

|c|

|o|

|m|

|m|

|u|

|n|

|i|

|c|

|a|

|t|

|i|

|o|

|n|

|s|

|i|

|n|

|r|

|e|

|a|

|l|

|t|

|i|

|m|

|e|

|,|

|a|

|u|

|d|

|i|

|o|

|-|

|c|

|o|

|n|

|f|

|e|

|r|

|e|

|n|

|c|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|a|

|n|

|d|

|v|

|i|

|d|

|e|

|o|

|a|

|n|

|d|

|v|

|i|

|r|

|t|

|u|

|a|

|l|

|e|

|n|

|v|

|i|

|r|

|o|

|n|

|m|

|e|

|n|

|t|

|s|

|.|

|T|

|h|

|e|

|s|

|e|

|t|

|e|

|c|

|h|

|n|

|o|

|l|

|o|

|g|

|i|

|e|

|s|

|g|

|o|

|a|

|l|

|o|

|n|

|g|

|w|

|i|

|t|

|h|

|a|

|"|

|p|

|h|

|i|

|l|

|o|

|s|

|o|

|p|

|h|

|y|

|i|

|c|

|a|

|l|

|"|

|,|

|a|

|s|

|i|

|n|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|e|

|n|

|t|

|e|

|r|

|p|

|r|

|i|

|s|

|e|

|2|

|.|

|0|

|m|

|o|

|d|

|e|

|l|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|h|

|i|

|e|

|r|

|a|

|r|

|c|

|h|

|i|

|e|

|s|

|a|

|n|

|d|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|b|

|u|

|s|

|i|

|n|

|e|

|s|

|s|

|s|

|c|

|h|

|e|

|m|

|e|

|s|

|f|

|a|

|i|

|l|

|a|

|n|

|d|

|a|

|d|

|e|

|m|

|o|

|c|

|r|

|a|

|t|

|i|

|c|

|,|

|i|

|n|

|f|

|o|

|r|

|m|

|a|

|l|

|s|

|t|

|y|

|l|

|e|

|o|

|f|

|i|

|n|

|f|

|o|

|r|

|m|

|a|

|l|

|a|

|n|

|d|

|d|

|e|

|m|

|o|

|c|

|r|

|a|

|t|

|c|

|o|

|m|

|m|

|u|

|n|

|i|

|c|

|a|

|t|

|i|

|o|

|n|

|g|

|r|

|o|

|w|

|s|

|d|

|e|

|v|

|e|

|l|

|o|

|p|

|s|

|.|

|F|

|o|

|r|

|f|

|u|

|r|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|r|

|i|

|n|

|f|

|o|

|r|

|m|

|a|

|t|

|i|

|o|

|n|

|s|

|e|

|e|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|p|

|o|

|s|

|t|

|b|

|y|

|M|

|c|

|A|

|f|

|e|

|e|

|,|

|T|

|h|

|e|

|i|

|m|

|p|

|a|

|c|

|t|

|I|

|m|

|p|

|a|

|c|

|t|

|o|

|f|

|I|

|n|

|f|

|o|

|r|

|m|

|a|

|t|

|i|

|o|

|n|

|T|

|e|

|c|

|h|

|n|

|o|

|l|

|o|

|g|

|y|

|o|

|n|

|B|

|u|

|s|

|i|

|n|

|e|

|s|

|s|

|e|

|s|

|a|

|n|

|d|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|i|

|r|

|L|

|e|

|a|

|d|

|e|

|r|

|s|

|,|

|(|

|M|

|a|

|r|

|c|

|h|

|2|

|0|

|0|

|6|

|)|

|h|

|t|

|t|

|p|

|:|

|/|

|/|

|b|

|l|

|o|

|g|

|.|

|h|

|b|

|s|

|.|

|e|

|d|

|u|

|/|

|f|

|a|

|c|

|u|

|l|

|t|

|y|

|/|

|a|

|m|

|c|

|a|

|f|

|e|

|e|

|/|

|i|

|n|

|d|

|e|

|x|

|.|

|p|

|h|

|p|

|/|

|f|

|a|

|c|

|u|

|l|

|t|

|y|

|_|

|a|

|m|

|c|

|a|

|f|

|e|

|e|

|_|

|v|

|3|

|/|

|t|

|h|

|e|

|_|

|t|

|h|

|r|

|e|

|e|

|_|

|t|

|r|

|e|

|n|

|d|

|s|

|_|

|u|

|n|

|d|

|e|

|r|

|l|

|y|

|i|

|n|

|g|

|_|

|e|

|n|

|t|

|e|

|r|

|p|

|r|

|i|

|s|

|e|

|_|

|2|

|0|

|/|

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download