Corporate Learning

Synthesizing Higher Education and Corporate Learning Strategies

By Bruce LaRue and Stephanie Galindo

"The acquisition and distribution of formal knowledge has come to occupy a place in the politics of the knowledge society in the same way that acquisition and distribution of property and income have had a powerful influence in the Age of Capitalism over the last 2-3 centuries." --Peter Drucker

The conceptual foundations underpinning this chapter are based on doctoral research and consulting activities conducted by Bruce LaRue in consultation with diverse multinational organizations representing network technology, forest products, commercial airlines, wireless telecommunications, financial services, surgical products, chemical manufacturing, management consulting, and the U.S. Department of Defense. While the organizations span various levels of technological complexity and their workers function at various levels of professional competence, each organization relies increasingly on the use of network technologies to conduct routine business affairs across cultural and national borders and each faces similar challenges in addressing the need for increased skill and knowledge requirements of its dispersed workforce. Each is also facing heightened levels of competition and rapid change due in large measure to economic forces propelled by the burgeoning use of information and communication technologies, leading to what has become known as the knowledge economy.

This chapter also draws upon Stephanie Galindo’s experience in higher education administration, curriculum management, and instructional design. Both authors have designed programming for mid-career graduate students from major global organizations who are conducting their studies through an online learning environment. These students seek to design models for managing vision and change in highly complex organizational contexts in international and multi-national settings as diverse as Iceland, Mexico, Canada, and Qatar. Other students focus on themes such as integrity, loyalty, trust, and faith, leveraging their impact in the organizational environment.

We argue in this chapter that knowledge work [1] is predicated on a significantly heightened level of epistemological development and theoretical reasoning capacity wherein otherwise tacit systems of inference, inductive, and deductive schemata are made explicit as a basis of communication and coordinated action within and between knowledge-intensive organizational environments. This characterization of the geographically dispersed knowledge worker forms the basis for a model of networked learning that integrates selective aspects of higher education and corporate training with emerging forms of social networking technologies.

According to U.S. News & World Report in 1994, “…knowledge workers in North America outnumber all other workers by a four-to-one margin” (Haag, Cummings, McCubbrey, Pinsonneault, & Donovan, 2006, p. 4). Given the progression of economic trends that promote outsourcing and automation of workers and work processes deemed peripheral to the core competence of contemporary organizations, it is likely the proportion of knowledge work, and the share of economic productivity this work contributes to society, will continue to rise (see Appendix A).

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2007) “The long-term shift from goods-producing to service-providing employment is expected to continue, “and the high-flex networked firm appears to be a natural consequence of this shift from a manufacturing to a service economy. Unlike products, services cannot be stockpiled during an economic downturn; hence, firms are increasingly flexing their workforce. Information and communication technologies have, in turn, given rise to various forms of networked organizations characterized by highly flexible relationships among organizational subunits; among multiple “core” firms, and between these firms and their suppliers, contractors, and workers. Furthermore, advances in technology, together with an efficient global transportation infrastructure, have meant that these new flexible relationships increasingly occur with few constraints of space and time.

Revisiting the Role of the University

From the standpoint of the knowledge worker, contradictions are surfacing with alarming rapidity between the reality encountered in the college classroom and the reality encountered in the workplace. These contradictions are no more apparent than when the knowledge worker, motivated by wrenching changes in the workplace, makes the “pilgrimage” to the University for further education. Here it appears (perhaps deliberately) that little has changed for hundreds of years, and the harsh reality of the workplace that originally compelled their journey does not appear to be an imperative for the traditional university.

Public policy debates about crises in higher education have been framed largely in terms of the need for increased access. In fact, more than 2500 higher education institutions in one study cited improved access as their top reason for offering online courses and programs (Allen & Seaman, 2007, p. 2). Yet we argue that traditional pedagogical principles associated with the university may be ill suited to the learning needs of an increasingly sophisticated and mobile workforce. The integrated use of information and communication technologies has given rise to new organizational forms that appear unrecognizable from their predecessors. Handy (1996a, 1996b, 2000) refers to the basic structure of these new organizational hybrids as the “shamrock” firm, characterized by a small core of essential executives and workers surrounded by outside contractors and part-time help. The growth in the use of part-time adjunct faculty suggests a similar evolutionary process in higher education.

When discussing flexible workplace and learning models one must also consider that “Today, over 35 million people in North America telecommute, and that figure is expected to grow by 20 percent over the next several years.” (Haag et al., 2006, pg. 4). One example of the need for a change might be the paradox of conflicting timelines, priorities of higher education and modern knowledge work. At the university, research and development of solutions can take many years, yet “A healthy organization is one that is effective and efficient in the short and the long run.” (Adizes, 2004, p. 42).

Although the rise of new for-profit higher education models may indicate that the traditional university model is not meeting the current challenge of continuous knowledge worker development, at the same time these for-profits may be, paradoxically, sacrificing critical intellectual contributions that are able to evolve from the traditional university system. It is important to recognize that “…most institutions that plan to offer online education are now doing so,” and “Future growth in online enrollments will most likely come from those institutions that are currently the most engaged.” (Allen & Seaman, 2007, p. 2)

According to the Sloan Consortium (Allen & Seaman, 2007) few new institutions are likely to emerge to fill the widening vacuum developing between traditional higher education and the demands of today’s knowledge-intensive workplace. [2] Therefore, we argue that the quality and character of programming offered is likely to be where real evolution must take place. Programs will need to adequately balance the long and short term objectives of the workforce to blend academic rigor with workplace relevance.

Synthesizing Corporate and Higher Education Learning Strategies

The rise of the flexible network firm also has implications for the education of workers. According to the Business and Higher Education Forum (BHEF) position paper on Public Accountability for Student Learning in Higher Education (BHEF, 2004, p. 11), an increasing number of Americans will be going to college through 2015, boosting enrolment by 2.5 million students. The enrolment of older, working adults is expected to grow. Further, over 40% of the online student population is in graduate programming. [3]

The flexible firm also carries far-reaching implications for the manner in which we conceive of learning, education, and training. Whereas skills connote specific abilities that can be readily imparted to the individual in preparation for pre-specified organizational needs and objectives, flexibility implies something quite different. Flexibility connotes the embodiment of a quality or characteristic rather than a specific, definable, even ‘codifiable’ content of knowledge or ability. Formal education and training, although certainly important, may not be well suited to preparing workers for non-routine, context-dependent occurrences that increasingly characterize today’s rapidly changing work environment. The flexing corporate structure is likely to also impact the traditional communication hierarchy, as ‘need to know’ may be redefined to facilitate strategic thinking at deeper levels within the organization, greater connectivity within the internal and external operating environment, and recognition of value added and the potential for bottom line repercussions throughout the operation (LaRue, Childs, & Larson, 2006).

As firms react to competitors from home and abroad, and respond to local demographic changes internally caused by declining birthrates and retirement of the Baby Boom generation, the form that this advanced education should take remains in question. One of the four primary concerns stated by The Business and Higher Education Forum (BHEF, 2004) is the educational sector’s ability to respond to the corporate need for sophisticated and skilled workers. They emphasize that, “The economic and social vitality of our country depends upon the future success of our postsecondary educational system. Accomplishing this agenda will require not just preserving past successes, but also building new models for the future.” They further state that, “A number of economic, demographic, and labor force trends are shaping this discussion, which will persist long after the political mood shifts. From these trends, a national agenda for higher education is emerging…”

Yet the different ideological assumptions rigorously defended by business and higher education are so profound that they have been described as a “chasm” to be spanned. According to the BHEF, closing the degree attainment gap could add as much as $230 billion to the national wealth, but employers are looking for something more: …a combination of skills and knowledge, including proficiency in leadership, teamwork, problem solving, analytical, critical thinking, communication, and writing skills. They want employees who have the skills to succeed in a global, multicultural environment. They also place a premium on colleagues who are proficient at multitasking and able to upgrade their skills continuously. (2004, p. 10)

The BHEF discussion (above) is focused on the outcomes of the baccalaureate degree, rather than graduate level curriculum, identifying a need to develop strategic and critical thinking skills early in educational process. However, continuing and professional education is increasingly demanded by students and a primary objective of the U.S. higher education institutions providing online offerings. [4]

Based on the need for increased quality and responsiveness of accelerated learning programs, it may be worthwhile for larger corporations to consider designing their own advance educational programming. One potential disadvantage to this approach is the lack of transferable university credentials. If university credentials are not required, the model we outline in the sections that follow will work equally well for in-house corporate training and development programs. With this thought in mind, we now return to the particular learning requirements of knowledge workers and the extent to which these requirements are being addressed through existing means.

Knowledge Work and the Professions in Historical Perspective

It appears that many of the qualities and characteristics that increasingly define educational processes for workers in today’s high-flex organizations were previously the carefully guarded domain of a minority of elite specialists in craftsman’s guilds and apprenticeship programs. These programs typically required years of study — and a combination of theory and practice to excel. It is perhaps no accident that the burgeoning “new professional class” shares one important characteristic with knowledge workers: the increasing amount of formal schooling combined with practical experience they require. We argue that it is the rising prominence of the knowledge worker that poses the greatest challenge to those institutions charged with preparing this new breed of professional for sustained social and economic engagement.

As Drucker (1994) pointed out, for approximately the last 200 years in the West, to be an educated person meant that one shared a common stock of knowledge or what the Germans called “Allgemeine Bildung”, a term known later by the English and 19th-century Americans as the liberal arts. In the shadow of the hard sciences, this form of knowledge fell into severe disrepute, as both the German and the Anglo-American liberal arts had no utility or practical application whatsoever.

Since the time of ancient Greece, the question about what constitutes “verifiable knowledge and truth” has been at the heart of the Western philosophical tradition and has become the sole pursuit of the branch of philosophy known as epistemology. Plato’s Socrates, more than 2,500 years ago, refused to refer to applicable knowledge as knowledge at all but instead referred to it as “techne” or mere skill.

The modern reincarnation of the controversy over what constitutes verifiable truth (or, for our purposes, knowledge) is perhaps best portrayed in the classic debate between the Continental rationalists and the British empiricists represented by René Descartes and John Locke, respectively. Whereas rationalism holds that verifiable knowledge is arrived at through deduction from irreducible axioms, concepts, or laws, empiricism holds that knowledge is arrived at through induction based on sense perception.

The present discussion over legitimate forms of knowledge is most often referred to in terms of theory and practice. These two terms, which arguably should be hyphenated, instead appear as an irreconcilable dichotomy of two concepts that seem to be as far removed from one another as the ivory tower is from the shop floor. Reframing the classic debate about verifiable knowledge, the late Donald Schön (1983, 1987) saw profoundly negative consequences for professionals brought about by the hallowed distinctions between theory and practice. Professionals, he believed, are typically different from other workers in that they do not learn technical rules that are then unilaterally applied. Instead, they must learn to think like lawyers, architects, or doctors: Learning takes place under conditions of surprise, anomaly, and non-routine circumstances that require heightened awareness, experimentation, and determination of the underlying nature of a problem. “The situations of practice are not problems to be solved, but problematic situations characterized by uncertainty, disorder, and indeterminacy.” (Schön, 1983, p. 15) Such situations often require critical reflection and careful epistemological analysis of taken-for-granted assumptions and beliefs that may underlie one’s approach to the problem.

This ability to think like a professional is very close to the qualities required of workers in today’s high-flex workplace. However, the development of such qualities appears, in some important respects, incompatible with the preparation that one receives in the modern university.

In the varied topography of professional practice, there is a high, hard ground overlooking a swamp. On the high ground, manageable problems lend themselves to solution through the application of research-based theory and technique. In the swampy lowland, messy, confusing problems defy technical solution. The irony of this situation is that the problems of the high ground tend to be relatively unimportant to individuals or society at large, however great their technical interest may be, while in the swamp lie the problems of greatest human concern. The practitioner must choose. Shall he remain on the high ground where he can solve relatively unimportant problems according to prevailing standards of rigor, or shall he descend to the swamp of important problems and non-rigorous inquiry? (Schön, 1987, p. 3)

Schön saw this dilemma of what he terms “rigor versus relevance” arising from two related sources: “first, the prevailing idea of rigorous academic knowledge, based on technical rationality, and second, awareness of indeterminate, swampy zones of practice that lie beyond its canons” (p. 3). Technical rationality, he held, has its origins in a positivist epistemology that finds its roots in the very foundations of the modern research university. According to this view, a practitioner is ideally an instrumental problem solver, trained in the application of particular techniques “derived from systematic, preferably scientific knowledge” (p. 4).

To further complicate this situation, as more and more workers reach retirement age, those with the ability to conceptualize and think strategically may be at a loss with regard to how to pass this type of insight on to their traditionally trained subordinates. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007), “Professional and related occupations are projected to be one of the two fastest growing major occupational groups, and are expected to add more jobs than any other major occupational group, about 5 million, by 2016. However, the majority of job openings are expected to come from more than 6 million replacements.”

Research demonstrates that U.S. schools have been quick to embrace distance learning systems primarily as a means for increasing student access (Allen & Seaman, 2007, p. 2) to the otherwise traditional classroom. We posit that many schools and corporations may have embraced this increased access model of distance learning without testing and evaluating the epistemological and pedagogical underpinnings of the learning and knowledge transfer model embodied in this approach. According to the BHEF (2004, p. 22), “Too often, ‘productivity’ is seen as a way to cut costs, rather than a way to protect and improve quality.”

Rather than focusing primarily on increasing access to higher education, we argue that we must also incorporate the need for improvisational, intellectual bootstrapping and strategic thinking in our workforce into our higher education model. Brown and Duguid (2002) also offered serious reservations about mainstreaming programs that focus on increasing numbers of students without preserving and expanding on the university’s core competencies, especially those that will provide access to and full engagement in what they call “communities of practice,” or what Gary Hamel (2007) referred to in the contemporary workplace as “communities of purpose. ”Formulating a new middle ground on this age-old debate, we argue that the learning needs of knowledge workers can best be met today through integrating information and communication technologies in authentic learning scenarios tied to the core competencies of organizations and universities.

We agree that higher education, taken as an entire system, has certain core competencies that must be not only preserved but expanded and improved on if today’s knowledge worker is to be adequately served. Equally important are the development of effective feedback systems between the domains of higher education and the arenas of practice in which workers apply their knowledge. The model of “networked learning” explored in this chapter directly addresses these crucial and highly interdependent issues. Let us now examine the respective core competencies of both domains in closer detail.

To develop closer relationships between the university and modern organizations we look at an important historical precedent. That is, although through one lens the university and the modern business organization may hold divergent ideological assumptions, a slightly different lens may reveal a highly complementary relationship enabled through modern technology.

Lewis Mumford, in The City in History, (1961)described the university’s original role in the development of society as an exalted form of the craftsman’s guild, professional schools for the study of law, medicine, and theology. It was precisely its detachment from the standards of the market and politics that permitted the university to perform its important function. It may now be important for universities to re-evaluate the balance of both areas of detachment and engagement. In the last century, universities have often been perceived as exercising their power in the political arena as gatekeepers for knowledge. This has given rise to questions of higher purpose and academic freedom, as well as the role of the university as a bastion of knowledge.

In the university, the pursuit of knowledge was elevated into an enduring structure which did not depend for its continuance upon any single group of priests, scholars, or texts. The system of knowledge was more important than the thing known. In the university, the functions of cultural storage, dissemination and interchange, and creative addition—perhaps the three most essential functions of the city—were adequately performed. The very independence of the university from the standards of the market and the city fostered the special sort of authority it exercised: the sanction of verifiable truth. Too often, the major contributions to knowledge, from Newton to Einstein, from Gilbert to Faraday, have been made outside the university’s walls. Nevertheless, the enlargement and transmission of the intellectual heritage would have been inconceivable, on the scale actually achieved since the thirteenth century, without the agency of the university. (pp. 275-276)

We build here on Mumford’s description of the university as an institution founded for the “enlargement and transmission of the intellectual heritage” to manage “the functions of cultural storage, dissemination, interchange, and creative addition.” However, we challenge the role of the university as the sole means of “sanctioning” verifiable truth in that this function must also be seen in light of the need for knowledge that can be applied in practice to improve the effectiveness of the modern workplace and to provide continuous development of knowledge workers.

Looking at theory and practice in simplified terms, the former has generally been viewed (often disparagingly) as the domain of academia, whereas the “swampy zones of practice” are the realm of the professions. Perhaps the problem lies in inadequate feedback loops that would allow the function of “enlargement and transmission”, “dissemination and interchange, and creative addition” to more adequately and immediately inform the realms of practice and vice versa (Eastman & Mallach, 1998).

In addition, viewing modern organizations as an important social variant of complex adaptive systems (Stacey, 2007; Middleton-Kelley, 2003) indicates a growing sophistication of interaction between organizations and their environments. This leads to the need for “enabling infrastructures”, “the socio-cultural and technical conditions that facilitate the emergence of new ways of organizing, allowing the new patterns of relationships and ways of working to emerge” (Middleton- Kelley, 2003, p. 14).

Brown and Duguid (1995, 2002) hold that the university must be viewed as a system that is also evolving due to a changing environment. They feel that core competencies arise from the unique relationship that universities create among pedagogy, credentials, and communities of practice, and that the core must be recognized and preserved as part of any system reform effort. To preserve these core competencies while also expanding access to the university for nontraditional students, they espouse a system called “open learning.” This system includes the development of social, institutional, and technological arrangements in support of the following key criteria: access to authentic communities of learning, interpretation, exploration, and knowledge creation; resources to help them work with both distant and local communities; and widely accepted representations for learning and work (Brown & Duguid, 2002, p. 232).

A central theme in Brown and Duguid’s conception of open learning is the university’s responsibility for knowledge generation, conferring of credentials, and engagement in communities of practice to be extended to the distant arenas in which learning takes place. For Brown and Duguid, the central competency of the university is the community of practice. Students learn “what it takes to join a particular community. In so doing, they may progress from learning ‘about’ to learning ‘to be’, from, that is, learning about a group of different communities toward learning to be a member of one” (2002, p. 220).

Without full engagement in communities of practice, a phenomenon not unlike traditional apprenticeships, Brown and Duguid (2002) maintain that ‘knowledge generation and credentials’ are rendered dubious at best. With this in mind, they hold suspect any reformulation of the university based solely on more efficient means of “delivery.” This includes many conceptions of distance learning to the degree that these preclude the development of, and active engagement in, authentic communities of practice.

Universities which attempt to create a ‘community of practice’ often ask students to engage in their own workplace, or to develop personal access to another professional environment for ‘experimentation’ or research purposes. We argue that while it is appropriate to expect students to conceptualize and conduct research, it may be inappropriate at times to expect them to experiment using their own professional environment as a staging ground, essentially putting their jobs and personal network on the line as an academic burden. Either way, we feel that the university should take responsibility for developing authentic communities of practice that provide access to cutting edge thought, studies, experts and activities in the field. The student would be provided with opportunities to develop expert relationships through the university resources, and encouraged to build upon that knowledge by developing applications that may be appropriate for the professional environment, whether action is taken in that particular context or not. This connectivity would engage the energetic fellowship currently emerging from web-based social networks. Applications would be grounded in, and verified, by supporting research. This would facilitate the development of both theory and practice, supporting the university’s core competencies on one hand, and providing an opportunity for the application of informed professionally-based studies where ever viable.

In modern corporate and military settings (LaRue & Ivany, 2005), the expectation to impact the immediate professional environment is paramount and has the effect of developing action leaders and action learning teams (ALTs) able to assess, develop, apply, and refine plans within the action context: Action-learning teams are charged with developing specialized capabilities to close process gaps or generate new capacity. [They] tend to be cross-functional and cross-organizational, drawing together individuals with specialized knowledge to collaborate on the development and application of new forms of knowledge. The ALT process is designed to enhance current leadership development initiatives. The knowledge workers and executives who remain in the core of today’s firms require significant development to keep up with the increasing pace of change, heightened competition from emerging economies, technological complexity, succession planning, and shifting demographics. (LaRue, 2006) [5]

In the following section, we outline a model that attempts to integrate the core competencies of the university with the “swampy zones” of practice where workers apply their knowledge.

The 4-Plex Model of Networked Learning

Although the following model finds its theoretical basis in the preceding arguments, the model also emerged as a result of the authors’ work with graduate students performing their studies in a networked learning environment and applying their knowledge in a wide variety of public and private sector organizations, and in national contexts. In addition, while not operating under the auspices of a university system, we have also used these principles in executive and organization development initiatives in a variety of settings. The major objectives of the 4-Plex Model of networked learning are as follows:

1. Provide the infrastructure for an expanded community of practice with authentic engagement that transcends boundaries of distance, particular organizations and rigid disciplinary domains.
2. Offer ready and timely access to an arena for systematic theoretical inquiry and discourse based on the mechanisms of cultural storage, dissemination, interchange, and creative addition.
3. Provide transferable credentials as well as a ready means for keeping these credentials current.
4. Carry out the preceding functions in a manner consistent with the geographic, time, and developmental demands of adult professionals/knowledge workers.

In the decade of work and thought following the original observations, and in the years following the publication of the first edition of this text, we can say that the model appears to be on solid ground. The following diagram will illustrate the model graphically as an aid to understanding its functionality:

Figure 12.1. The 4-Plex Model of Networked Learning [6]

The four main components of this model—question, theory, validate and reflection—are arranged in a circular matrix designed to indicate a nonlinear movement through each respective domain. The question and validate (or vertical) dimension of the diagram is intended to represent the practice domain, and the reflection and theory (or horizontal) dimension is intended to represent the academic domain. That these two domains are joined by a common axis indicates a “unification” of the two fields, and their distinct quadrants represent their relative autonomy and distinct character. This aspect of the model is intended to directly address the need for the relevance of academic study to the arenas where workers apply their knowledge. In reverse, one cannot sacrifice rigor lest relevance become suspect. The various dimensions of the model have the following distinct purpose and function:

Question and Validate Dimension: The Practice Domain

The vertical axis, or the “swampy” zones of practice wherein problematic situations are encountered, is where questions arise, as do processes for evaluating the effectiveness of potential solutions. This dimension is designed to provide grounding for theory and a basis for evaluating the relevance of learning through its direct application in the workplace. This axis provides authenticity and relevance.

Reflection and Theory: The Academic Dimension

The horizontal dimension offers an arena for informing questions derived in the practice domain with literature and academic research, potentially operable information which may provide foundational structure and sustainability to solutions. It is also a domain of abstracted or “decontextualized” thought and reflection that affords the chance to examine the problem from multiple critical perspectives, including prior studies in parallel fields. Reflection also refers to evaluation of outcomes, where intellectual and practical feedback is sought with academic rigor. Theory also refers to theoretical reasoning based on the development of cognitive and epistemological competencies required for knowledge work.

Simultaneous Processing

All domains are accessible from all other points in the matrix at all times. Each domain can be used separately or simultaneously in both distant and local arenas. Both academic and practice arenas can be engaged simultaneously through appropriate technologies so that problems encountered at work can be reflected on in the academic environment and vice versa. This dimension of the model is designed to tighten and strengthen feedback loops between academia and complex modern work environments.

A/Synchronous Multi-Platforming

Work at any point (or among points) of the matrix can be accomplished by using any appropriate technological media in both synchronous and asynchronous modes. User-friendly media include various collaborative network platforms, phone, video conferencing, and e-mail accessed wherever and whenever circumstances, time, and geographic proximity warrant. This dimension of the model is designed to address the need for greater mobility and flexibility in workforce learning through the leveraging of appropriate technologies.[7]

Academic Community

This dimension refers to ready access to academic resources and realms of intellectual capital, not only research libraries, networks, databases, journals, and books, but individuals and groups with academic and practical expertise. These communities of scholars, practitioners, and researchers are engaged through college courses, degree programs, on and off campus activities and support services. This dimension of the model is designed to explicitly conceive of the university as an “infrastructure for expanded communities of practice” that extends beyond traditional practice arenas to encompass various academic disciplines, economic sectors, and social forums. It is expected that the academic community can be engaged by a variety of means, both on and off campus, locally and through virtual linkages. This aspect of the model is also intended to address the need for increased mobility and the flexible time constraints of knowledge workers.

Synthesizing Learning Strategies

The rapid pace and highly volatile character of organizational environments today do not lend themselves easily to reflection or to informing actions through relevant theory embodied in academic or professional research. The decentralized American educational system presents a similar context; its ability to connect with evolving realms of practice is limited to all but the most specific circumstances. The result is that many organizations and educational institutions inadvertently find themselves in the unenviable position of “reinventing the wheel” as they confront problematic issues that have been the subject of academic inquiry or practical integration elsewhere. Students and knowledge workers must each be able to obtain the skills for locating and judging the relevance of research as it applies to their particular situations. They must also become adept at making contributions to existing knowledge that reach a broader community.

Practice Community

The practice community refers to colleagues and team members within organizations and also includes professional networks outside of the organization, including those in academia. This dimension of the model is intended to address the workers’ need for full engagement in professional networks as an integral component of their learning and developmental process. This dimension also addresses the need for learning accomplished outside the educational institution to be more relevant to the practice domain [8].

Example of the 4-Plex Model in Action

The central organizing principle of the model assumes that network technologies are, first and foremost, enablers of simultaneous functioning within all domains represented in the matrix. For example, a student who is also a member of an organization identifies a complex problem (or question) in his or her organization and attempts to generate a solution through dialogue with colleagues (reflection and practice community) through use of a/synchronous multi-platforming. Assuming that solutions are not forthcoming, dialogue concerning the problem extends to the Internet discussion groups, outreach to experts, a conversation with peers, or a conference hosted by a professional association (professional networks [9]).

As a participant in a university program, the problem can be addressed with peers in a course related to the subject. The student draws from the expertise of faculty and student peers, as well as expert liaisons facilitated by the school (reflection and academic community), those who work in other industries and may have dealt with similar problems, or who, through the course of dialogue, may be able to help reframe the problem and identify actionable concepts.

The individual discovers a body of literature on the subject (theory) that can help him or her to understand the problem in a broader and more systemic context (theoretical reasoning), and studies in parallel fields that may have practical relevance. This process may, in turn, lead to a reframing of the problem as it is informed by relevant literature and further reflection with professional colleagues, academic experts and peers.

It is this action-learning context that can bring authenticity to learning, and bring learning to life with a balance of relevance and rigor in the learning forum (LaRue et al, 2006). “Action Research is used when the research is expected to be responsive to situation or when circumstances require flexibility and organizational change must take place quickly or holistically. Action Research is a powerful methodology for large-scale change and transformation along with knowledge creation.” (Madhu, 2006, p. 179)

Defining what now appears to be a suitable solution, the student writes a proposal (submitted for credit in the academic community) that is informed by a broad array of resources and experts. The plan may be implemented on a pilot basis in the student’s professional environment or evaluated through the community of practice facilitated by the university, and the next iteration of the cycle begins. One or several cycles might present a longitudinal study with suggestions for ongoing evolution.

Existing theory may be insufficient to describe the problematic phenomena, providing the student with an ideal opportunity to add to the body of literature on the subject through further research in cross-disciplinary literature, theory building (grounded theory), validation or data collection using qualitative or quantitative methods, and reflection informed by an expansive array of colleagues and peers.

A central point of this model is that learning, enabled by the use of appropriate technologies, is now capable of occurring in both local and distant arenas simultaneously, with virtually seamless feedback between the domains of academia and practice. Network technologies are not viewed as mechanisms of “delivery”; instead, they are viewed as more or less transparent tools for dialogue and outreach, participatory action, documentation and research. The core competencies of academia and business are also preserved, maintaining their respective autonomy while informing one another in a seamless flow of questioning, theorizing, validation, and reflecting, thereby re-conceptualizing the relationship among theory, learning, and practice.

Appendix A: Higher Education and the New Professional Class

Projected changes in the composition of the labor force during the decade from 2006-2016 were released in December 2007 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This report provides evidence that attention must be paid to the continuing education and training of an active workforce, which includes higher education practitioners themselves.

The BLS estimates that the labor force will grow by 15.6 million jobs in the next decade, most of which will be in services rather than goods-producing industries. There will be an additional 12.6 to 12.8 million workers, representing a 10% increase, slightly less than the previous decades: 1996-2006 at 11% and 14% from 1986 to 1996.

Public and private educational services will add 1.4 million new jobs through 2016. “Rising student enrollments at all levels of education will create demand for educational services.”

• Employment in professional, scientific, and technical services will add 2.1 million new jobs by 2016.
• The professional and business services ‘supersector’ of the labor industry will add over 4 million new jobs by 2016.
• Employment in the information and management sectors specifically are expected to add 482,000 jobs.

Together, these sectors account for close to half of the overall increase in jobs in the coming decade. Education will play an important role within key occupations:

• For 15 of the 30 fastest growing occupations, a bachelor’s or higher degree is the most significant source of postsecondary education or training.
• On-the-job training and work experience are the most significant source of postsecondary education or training for 24 of the 30 occupations projected to have the most total job openings due to growth and net replacements. (BLS, 2007)

Employment and total job openings by category of post-secondary education are also cited. 12-13% of occupations will continue to require a Bachelor’s degree for employment. 4% will require the Bachelors Degree and work experience, and almost 9% will require a Masters, Doctorate or other first professional degree. About 52% of these occupations will also require moderate or short-term on the job training, and another 7% will require long-term training.

Synthesizing Learning Strategies

The average age of workers is also increasing according to the BLS: “As the baby boomers continue to age, the 55 to 64 age group will increase by 30.3% or 9.5 million persons, more than any other group.” (BLS, 2007) As previously discussed, different levels of training and education are likely to be required to replace expertise in industry, as compared to the expansion of traditional sectors. “Professional and related occupations are projected to be one of the two fastest growing major occupational groups, and are expected to add more jobs than any other major occupational group, about 5 million, by 2016. However, the majority of job openings are expected to come from more than 6 million replacements. ”In sum, these statistics indicate that to obtain the jobs in the fastest growing, highest wage sectors of the economy during the coming decade, it is imperative that increasingly older, mid-career workers are provided with authentic multi-dimensional models for education and professional training.

References

---

[1] LaRue, B. and S. Galindo (2008). Synthesizing Corporate and Higher Education Learning Strategies. Handbook of online learning : innovations in higher education and corporate training. K. E. Rudestam and J. Schoenholtz-Read. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications.

---

[1] The “Knowledge worker”, a term coined by Peter Drucker in 1959, is an individual who works primarily with information or one who develops and uses knowledge in the workplace, such as individuals who create, research, develop and invent in many contexts –throughout the arts and sciences, and particularly those in ‘technology’ management. Technology is a term that has come to mean innovation and change or modification processes within an environment, and the various forms of acquisition, integration, management, communication and dissemination of information.

[2] All U.S. higher education institutions in the United States were classified by the Sloan Consortium (Allen and Seaman, 2007) based on their adoption of, and strategic view of, online education. 53% were identified as integrating online learning into their long term strategic plan. 5% of schools see the value and may implement. 41% of the schools surveyed were categorized as Not Interested or Not Strategic. These results indicated to the authors that new institutions with online programming are unlikely to emerge. Therefore, those schools which currently offer online programming are the institutions where overarching objectives will need to evolve to meet the needs of the workforce. The schools were divided into five categories:

Not Interested: These schools neither have nor are interested in offering online learning. They do not see it as part of their long term strategy due to questions of legitimacy and value added. This category includes about 800 smaller institutions, or 18% of the total number of post-secondary degree granting institutions in the U.S., handling about 5.5% of higher education enrollments.

Not Strategic: These schools offer some online programming but do not see it as an important part of their long term strategy. This category includes about 1000 schools, or 23%, hosting 27% of enrollments.

Not Yet Engaged: A small group of institutions (5%) sees online learning as critical to long term strategy but haven’t yet engaged due to perceived cost for development and delivery of programming, and other factors.

Engaged: This category includes about 800 (18%) institutions which currently have online offerings and believe they are critical to long term strategy. However, they may not have included online learning in their formal strategic plan. These schools represent 23% of all enrollments.

Fully Engaged: About 1500 schools (35%) have fully integrated online learning into their formal long term plan. Most offer online degree programs (69%) in addition to a variety of course offerings. They host 43% of all students in the United States, and 73% of all online students. 94% of these schools believe that students will continue to demand online programming in increasing numbers.

[3] “Online enrollments have continued to grow at rates far in excess of the total higher education student population, albeit at slower rates than for previous years..” About 40% of the online student population is in graduate programming, with 73% of online students at 35% of U.S. schools (Allen, and Seaman, 2007, p. 1, 7, 10).

[4] According to The Sloan Consortium analysis (Allen and Seaman, 2007, p. 1), continuing and professional education is a primary objective of the institutions providing online offerings overall. 67-72.7% of Chief Academic Officers surveyed at higher education institutions in the US agree that online graduate level programming and enrollment will continue to rise (p. 12). At schools with a positive outlook towards this type of programming (58% of all degree-granting post-secondary schools in the United States), the overwhelming majority anticipate increased graduate programming online (84-85.7%) and increased student demand (86-93.5%).

[5] For an example of Action Learning Teams (ALTs) in practical scenarios, reference Larue and Ivany (2005). Major General Robert Ivany (ret.), former President of the U.S. Army War College, explored the application of action learning in national defense scenarios in this article and in the book, Leading Organizations from the Inside Out (LaRue, Childs and Larson, 2006).

[6] Thanks to Charles Handy for his ‘wheel of learning’, the “question, theory, test, and reflect” elements of this model arranged in circular clockwise configuration (Handy, 1996a; 2000). We updated the model with the term ‘validation’ rather than ‘testing’ because we feel that a variety of learning processes may be engaged at this stage. The Kolb learning cycle, consisting of reflection, conceptualization, experimentation, and experience, also shares some resemblance to the 4-Plex Model. However, the integration of the four components of network technologies, academic and practice communities, the principle of simultaneous processing, and the addition of nonlinear sequencing among the various components all are unique to the 4-Plex Model.

[7] The learning environments considered in this study are based on intense dialogue among course participants and professors. Students were routinely required to analyze problematic organizational issues in light of relevant theory, and vice versa, as an integral part of their formal assignments. These assignments then became the subject of structured course dialogue and feedback, wherein participants would offer supportive yet critical evaluations of one another’s assignments under the guidance and facilitation of faculty. The level of theoretical discourse resulted not only from discussion of specific organizational theories presented in course materials but also from demands on students to explicate their otherwise tacit knowledge as a basis of their communicative competence (Chandon, 2000).

Theoretical discourse also emerged as a result of students challenging the premises and inferences underlying extant theory in their field of inquiry when such theory failed to provide sufficient explanatory capability. Such discourse based on an examination of the premises and systems of inference underlying theory represents a qualitative shift in the developmental level of students, for example, from Kegan’s (1994) third-to fourth-order level of consciousness. This is also a fundamental component of what Zuboff (1988) refers to as “intellective skill” (p. 95).

[8] As students engaged in theoretical discourse and dialogue around problematic organizational issues, they would then routinely apply their new and deepened understanding in their work contexts. Often, this would result in changes in these contexts, which in turn became the basis of further reflection within the course forum in a process of multiple iterations (Chandon, 2000). This entire process occurred more or less seamlessly as students engaged in both activities simultaneously through access to the course forum from work, from home, or while traveling abroad.

In comparison, interactive technologies used in K12 classrooms, where hardware access is often limited, have developed curricula to inspire collaborative outreach with global knowledge centers and their experts, as well as various approaches to learning styles, with a level of reflection and conscientiousness that isn’t always emulated in mainstream university curriculum design or corporate learning environments. In the K12 environment instructor training strategies may focus on the creation of authentic student experiences to enhance learning outcomes (Shelly, Cashman, Gunter and Gunter, 2004). Rather than only using case studies and simulations, there is, ideally, actual engagement in ‘real world’ activities through expert contacts facilitated by the school.; K12 classrooms seek to make use of technology as a creative means for bringing information to life, for creating connectivity rather than as a point of student access to data, or school access to increasing student numbers. This once again touches on the need for university reflection on parameters selected for engagement with (and detachment from) various environments impacting the university system.

[9] The importance of this element of the model has already been given substantial attention in this chapter. Adult students engaged in professional endeavors increasingly desire knowledge that is relevant to their immediate professional endeavors. They also tend to make significant and routine use of formal and informal networks of colleagues both within and outside of their current organizations as an integral component of their learning process. Within the networked learning environment examined here, students routinely commented on how invaluable the dialogue with their peers from industries all over the world has been in their learning process (see, e.g., Chandon, 2000, p. 172).

© 2010 Bruce LaRue