Abstract
Workplace learning is a necessity for the organizational growth of all types of organizations, including higher education institutions. There are different directions proposed on how to make the implementation of workplace learning realistic, however, the best practices in one context may not apply well in another. This paper investigated the conditions required for the implementation of workplace learning in the case study of Laotian higher education. Firstly, 12 faculty members were invited to a semi-structured interview. The study employed a deductive category assignment of QCA in analyzing the data. The findings revealed that three conditions, namely, individual-related, organizational-related, and environmental-related conditions, appear to be key and are taken into account in developing favorable workplace learning. A further quantitative study in this area is strongly recommended.
Introduction
Since the world changes over time, the perceptions of societies towards learning have also shifted. Educational institutions may not be the only main learning sources, but workplaces can be also valid sites for learning (Boud & Garrick, 1999). Existing literature has highlighted that universities do not seem to engage themselves in implementing workplace learning effectively, even though learning is their main task or function, or purpose (Bauman, 2005). Concerned by this, Bauman proposed a reason why these institutions may lack key attributes of workplace learning. That reason relates to a university's system of learning, considered to be more of a traditional learning mode and different from a workplace learning approach (Schmidt & Gibbs, 2009). Hübner (2002) noted that an organization fails to implement workplace learning due to its defensive schedules and complex systems. It could be that universities ignore supportive and flexible systems of learning management, especially for full-time individuals (Garnett et al., 2008, in Garnett, 2016). Another reason may be due to the faculty members' perceptions, whereby learning activities may not fulfill their needs in teaching practice improvement (Gugssa & Kabeta, 2021). Likewise, all the aforementioned assumptions are well supportive of what Garvin (1993, p. 80) wrote: “many universities fail to qualify [because] …these organizations have been effective at creating or acquiring new knowledge but notably less successful in applying that knowledge to their own activities” (cited in Bauman, 2005). Consistently, Bratianu (2018) accepts that workplace learning implementation may exist in any workplace but it is not easy for all of them to learn from their learning and to become learning organizations. Recent studies (e.g., Bratianu, 2018) have attempted to find out the required conditions for universities to become learning organizations and ways how to strengthen universities and/or faculty staff in knowledge management in order for themselves to face competitiveness in the new era.
The concept of workplace learning has been of great interest to many educators and researchers for decades. Regarding the definition of workplace learning, it has been made in different statements. For Fenwick (2010), workplace learning refers to a process of changing an organization on a collective basis, through creating knowledge for innovation and extending this pursuit as organizational routines. A major aspect of workplace learning is the relationship between individual learning and organizational change (Garnett, 2016). Bratianu (2018, p. 2) put that “Organizational learning is a process of transferring knowledge from individuals to a social structure which is able of developing a specific memory and specific routines in its collective behaviour”. In the literature, the terminology choice for “workplace learning” varies. Some authors (e.g., Abbasi, Akbari, & Tajeddini, 2015; Bauman, 2005; Bratianu, 2018; etc.) use the term “organizational learning” to represent the same concept of workplace learning, describing the learning processes/activities within a company, institution, and a workplace. The authors of the present paper preferred the term “workplace learning” and used it throughout the paper because it would be easily understood to claim that the concept discusses individuals' learning for work, learning at work that happens in their own offices/divisions/departments. In summary, what workplace learning means in this paper is the employees' learning engagement and their participation in any learning processes that lead to personal growth and transformation of the workplace. Workplace learning plays a great role in the change in organizations. Several authors (Čepić & Krstović, 2011; Gugssa & Kabeta, 2021; Hartono, Wahyudi, Harahap, & Yuniawan, 2017; McEwen & Trede, 2014; Prasanwan, 2005) have confirmed the significance of workplace learning in the growth of universities. According to Čepić and Krstović (2011), workplace learning is a necessity for empowerment in all types of workplaces, including higher education institutions. Similarly, new changes in globalization challenge not only industries and companies but also universities (Sutanto, 2017), because these institutions produce professionals and build skills and enable the transfer of knowledge (Aminbeidokhti, Jamshidi, & Hoseini, 2016; Ponnuswamy & Manohar, 2016). It is, therefore, necessary for higher institutions to seek creative methods to overcome the challenges. Simply put, universities need to transform themselves into learning organizations and more importantly, the faculty staff must be also responsible for their learning engagement/participation in order to respond to the changing world and a highly competitive environment.
Endeavors in promoting workplace learning in higher education are not a new phenomenon. An overwhelming array of research papers (e.g., Abbasi et al., 2015; Aminbeidokhti et al., 2016; Bui & Baruch, 2012; Hartono et al., 2017; Ponnuswamy & Manohar, 2016; etc.) have employed a quantitative research paradigm to understand the topic. A qualitative study exists, too: Bauman (2005) investigated how workplace learning arises in universities and colleges. The study found three key conditions: the presence of innovative ideas, the questioning and reflecting in a group, and the creation and distribution of information. However, this research was conducted with an observational study design which may not include the participants' self-reporting. A more recent paper by Vannasy and Sengsouliya (2022) identified seven predictors of the implementation of workplace learning in higher education; however, the study did not provide any empirical evidence.
In the context of Laos, all the colleges and universities are forced to strengthen themselves in order to meet the standards of other higher education institutions both regionally and internationally. Taking a closer look, professional development as part of workplace learning is fundamentally included in the Lao national strategic vision for modernization. Specifically, the national agenda on educational development for 2030 calls the Laotian institutions to put great efforts into globalization and the transformation into a knowledgeable society, aiming to be a learning organization (MoES, 2020). However, the implementation of workplace learning in Laotian higher education institutions is more individualistic, they follow their own cultures and traditional methods of learning and it seems challenging when striving to be learning organizations. Likewise, little research on this area has been done in the Laotian context. In order to contribute to the existing knowledge body in the area, especially how universities can succeed in the implementation of workplace learning, more research in different contexts seems warranted. The purpose of this paper is to probe into the conditions for enhancing workplace learning in Laotian higher education, by hearing the self-reflection of Laotian faculty members. The guiding question for the paper is “Which conditions do Laotian faculty members take into account for implementing workplace learning?” The term “condition” here refers to a necessity for the occurrence of workplace learning.
This paper is structured with the following sections: In the first section, the authors present the literature review in which readers are introduced to theoretical concepts and models of workplace learning, as well as the key conditions of workplace learning found in the existing literature. The second section discusses the methodology including sampling, data collection procedures, and analysis strategy. The third section presents the findings and, in the section, follows that it is the discussion in which the authors link the findings to existing studies before presenting or positing the final conclusion.
Theoretical framework
Basic concepts, characteristics, and aims of workplace learning
Boud and Garrick (1999) mentioned that ideas about learning have been changing due to knowledge societies; there is now a shift away from seeing educational institutions as the main places of learning towards accepting workplaces as sites of learning. According to Cairns and Malloch (2011), the workplace learning concept is basically associated with three terms: work, place, and learning; work is related to tasks and how individuals engage with activities to have the tasks done while the place refers to physical and spiritual spaces where individuals think, learn, and interact with others (as cited in Zhao & Ko, 2018). Zhao and Ko (2018) proposed a similar view, describing a workplace as a site or situation where work occurs, and workplace learning touches on a site where there exist opportunities for learning about work and improving work practice. A question may be raised about how learning occurs within a workplace. Past authors (Eraut et al., 2000, as cited in Eraut & Hirsh, 2010) pointed out that most learning activities within the workplace are more informal settings; learning happens through consultation and collaboration outside and within the working group and “by the challenge of the work itself” (p. 25). An example of workplace learning activity covers learning through observation and from senior colleagues (Billett et al., 2008). Some authors (i.e. Slotte, Tynjälä, & Hytönen, 2004) further noted that informal and formal learning are key elements of workplace learning; These two forms of learning are equally significant but have different methods and outcomes. Slotte and her colleagues explained that informal learning happens as part of performing everyday tasks at work and creates tacit knowledge, while formal learning occurs in classroom-based learning activities or through structured training and develops explicit knowledge. It is also claimed that promoting learning at work more effectively requires a combination of both informal and formal education approaches (Slotte et al., 2004).
For Jones and Hendry (1994), workplace learning is naturally associated with training which focuses on sharing knowledge and discussing work practices within a workplace. Furthermore, workplace learning refers to a process of changing an organization as a whole by creating new knowledge and extending this pursuit into organizational routines (Fenwick, 2010). According to these perspectives, workplace learning is essentially about the participation of all employees in any learning activities that lead to personal growth and transformation of the workplace. Rowley (1998) pointed out that there are two key elements, namely individual learning and workplace learning while Huang and Shih (2011) mentioned that workplace learning is basically related to three levels, as the learning normally arises from an individual, then this individual knowledge is expanded to a group, and this knowledge is then further spread at an organizational level. Tynjälä (2008) acknowledged that workplace learning takes place at different levels. People do learn at work, for instance, through participating in every work process, collaborating and ideas exchanging with colleagues, as well as problem-solving. However, learning at individual and/or group levels may not be enough, and learning at this level mainly creates tacit knowledge only. In order to turn tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge and skills and make it acceptable learning that leads to the development of expertise, the workplace should consider lifelong learning as a necessity within its environments and develop the workplace as a space for learning (Tynjälä, 2008). Much evidence also pointed out that learning of individuals in the workplace is generally good, but it is probably much better if the individuals learn particular things that are in response to the workplace's goals. Workplace learning is not only about individual learning because the learning outcomes must be for the whole workplace (Bratianu, 2018). According to Billett (1995), acceptable learning of individuals must be appropriate and, most importantly, it must meet the needs of the workplace. Consistently, Rowley (1998) further noted that the outcomes of individual learning may not lead the workplace to significant transformation because workplaces often depend on “acceptable learning” by the members supporting the direction of the workplace as a whole and this learning also guides how members ought to behave within the workplace (Jones & Hendry, 1994). According to Shaffer (1992), what is included in workplace learning are “expectational learning” and “experiential learning”. In these two patterns of learning it is believed that workplaces determine options based on the expectation of outcomes and the workplaces apply lessons learned from partners when moving for changes. This might refer to how a workplace engages in learning. Workplace learning has some unique attributes that might be in contrast to a traditional mode of learning (Schmidt & Gibbs, 2009). Moreover, the aim of workplace learning is to equip learners with problem-solving skills that they can apply in their work practices (Mills & Whittaker, 2001). According to Argyris (1999, cited in Bratianu, 2018), by implementing workplace learning “whole organizations or their components adapt to changing environments by generating and selectively adopting organizational routines” (p. 8). Several workplaces have the aim to transform themselves to become learning organizations in which learning is considered a key activity and the concepts of learning at work and for work can be extended among the members within the workplace. That reflects the need to encourage all employees to engage in learning in order to adapt themselves to the new world of work.
Having discussed the above-mentioned theories of workplace learning, the professional development concept appears to be intertwined. Villegas-Reimers (2003) wrote that “Professional development, in a broad sense, refers to the development of a person in his or her professional role” (p. 11). Some authors (eg. Zhao & Ko, 2018) claimed that workplace learning serves as a key part of teacher professional development. According to the literature, the concepts of workplace learning and professional development are intertwined. For instance, Schuller (2021) explained that both perspectives have a similar characteristic, they are more social in nature, having individuals learn things through discussion and interaction about practices. Schuller (2021) further adds that professional development plays an important role in workplace learning as it promotes implementing work skills development activities; higher education institutions, in particular, integrate the teacher professional development concept into strengthening their members' occupational and professional capabilities.
Conditions for the implementation of workplace learning
Prior to discussing the conditions for implementing workplace learning, the authors of the present paper introduce a key model that explains the necessities a workplace should pay attention to when enhancing workplace learning. An early well-known and frequently applied model of workplace learning is the so-called “Cycle of organizational learning”, developed by March and Olsen (1975). The model supports the influence of individuals' actions. This model describes the “action-response cycle” in which it is shown that the organization's members take action in response to their external environment based on their own beliefs, and these actions are considered to be fundamental to organizational learning. Organizational learning results in organizational actions and these actions in turn lead to the organization's adaptations that encourage the external environments and complete the cycle (cited in Shaffer, 1992). Shaffer also tested the model in his study on adaptations of organizations of continuing higher education and asserts that if the members learn and take action, their organization also learns. The authors of the present paper review a combination of previous studies in order to conceptualize the theoretical foundation to investigate the conditions for workplace learning implementation in higher education. A detailed discussion of the previous studies is presented below. By reviewing a wide array of earlier works, several key conditions are found to be correlated with the chances for the successful implementation of workplace learning, such as individual-related (e.g., Rowley, 1998; etc.), where this condition concerns an individual's dedication to and efforts in learning at work, as well as their personal contributions into the development of their workplace; organizational-related (e.g., Bui & Baruch, 2012; Shaffer, 1992; etc.), and this dimension refers to the management, leadership, values, and practices of the workplace in integrating learning for change; and lastly, environmental-related conditions (e.g., Mills & Whittaker, 2001), meaning the need to understand external factors, such as networking with others as well as following national directions. The descriptions of these conditions are discussed next.
Individual-related Conditions
According to some authors (e.g., Rowley, 1998; Shaffer, 1992), workplace learning arises if the individuals in the workplace learn. Similarly, individual learning seems to correspond to the theory of adult learning because it is also about personal acceptance, leading to changes in attitudes and perceived values (Huang & Shih, 2011). The learning of individuals is influenced by personal motivation and commitment (Keeling et al., 1998), perceived self-efficacy (Maxwell, 2014), a role model (Farmer et al., 1992, cited in Kerka, 1997), according to Garnett (2016), and “individual knowledge” which is extremely important if it can be shared with others. More importantly, individual learning can be developed within the social context (Kerka, 1997; Prasanwan, 2005; Toma, 2012). Every individual member has the potential to develop or contribute to a team's dialogues and discussions (Khasawneh, 2011). An observation study by Bauman (2005) confirmed that workplace learning can be promoted through the members' actions for learning, including (1) faculty members seeking new knowledge - Bauman explained that innovative ideas and new knowledge come about through an individual's efforts, such as by performing daily work practices, experimenting, and seeking out new information; (2) probing into common knowledge and reflecting among colleagues; and (3) the creation and transfer of knowledge by faculty members. More interestingly, a review study, recently published, found individual learning to be one of the seven key predictors of workplace learning (Vannasy & Sengsouliya, 2022). Based on the perspectives above-mentioned, it can be summarized that individual-related conditions relate to the presence of personal attributes, such as ambition, commitment, learning with others, perceived self-confidence, and a role model, all of which are needed for engaging in workplace learning.
Organizational-related Conditions
Existing literature has pointed out that the workplace itself plays a significant role in workplace learning. Čierna, Sujová, Hąbek, Horská, and Kapsdorferová (2017) proposed that the system provided by the workplace functions as a guide in unleashing the best potential of organization members, and a good organization prioritizes innovative management methods. An effective management system is a fundamental element because it supports the members in speaking out with their ideas (Juceviciene & Edintaite, 2012; Voolaid & Ehrlich, 2017). According to Shaffer (1992), support from the organization may include different forms such as recruiting more professional staff members or providing facilities, funding, and philosophical assistance (practical advice). The lack of a well-organized learning management system causes problems, meaning collective learning among the members hardly happens (Shaffer, 1992; Voolaid & Ehrlich, 2017). Moreover, workplace learning can be facilitated by good relationships within the workplace. Costley (2011) reminds us of some problems that happen in promoting the learning of individuals within the workplace, especially the matter of conflict, a mismatch in the interests and the benefits of individuals and the organization. Schmidt and Gibbs (2009) stress the importance of the institutions' overall strategies. As suggested by Salaman and Butler (1994), in order for higher education institutions to become a learning environment, urgent consideration must be given to internal analysis, their processes, and their environments and to the identification of the preferences, appropriate responses, and implementation methods to take action (cited in Rowley, 1998). Furthermore, some other authors (e.g., Bui & Baruch, 2012; Hartono et al., 2017; Ponnuswamy & Manohar, 2016) strongly agree with the importance of the presence of leadership because good leadership may be linked to an organization's culture of learning. In developing workplace learning, universities should also pay attention to human resource development. Cebrián, Grace, and Humphris (2013) also stressed the importance of strong leadership in promoting workplace learning. Consistently, the first thing for a workplace to consider is to develop a culture of learning and to sustain this (Habtoor, Arshad, & Hassan, 2019; Ponnuswamy & Manohar, 2016). To conclude, it is noticeable that organizational-related conditions relate to key attributes of the workplace, such as the organizational culture of learning, its leadership, and the faculty's system for promoting learning, needed for implementing workplace learning.
Environmental-related Conditions
Several authors have confirmed environmental factors as strong predictors of workplace learning implementation. It is vital for a workplace to learn based on external feedback, that is, from partners (Shaffer, 1992). Understanding social trends and having networks with external environments is important in the work focus, particularly for the learning of individuals and the organization itself (Garnett, 2016). Learning from others may occur through recruiting, hiring, or training staff (Schmidt & Gibbs, 2009). Some authors tend to stress the influence of state policy and regulations. Mills and Whittaker (2001) contend that governmental support, such as acknowledgment, understanding, and system support, is necessary for the implementation of workplace learning. More authors (e.g., Čepić & Krstović, 2011) seem to agree with this view, that government policy has a strong impact on the implementation process of workplace learning. From these perspectives, it could be stated that universities' actions need to be in line with the relevant ministry's policy and systems. The ministry's policy and systems could reflect the national vision and directions that all the organizations at the grassroots level have to follow. A study by Lauer and Wilkesmann (2017) highlighted that the system (top-down management approach) influences the activities of universities, for instance, an update in the curriculum needs to incorporate the relevant regulations (as cited in Souza & Takahashi, 2019). To sum up, it is noticeable that environmental-related conditions relate to key attributes of the workplace, such as the partnership and the respect of national policy and directions, needed for implementing workplace learning.
Lao universities as a research context
Lao universities are actively committed to workplace learning by having close collaborations with partner institutions locally and internationally. A typical situation of workplace learning in Laotian higher education is characterized by receiving outsider experts for in-home country training and/or sending trainees to a host institution for training on-site. The Lao national agenda on educational development up to 2030 supports higher education institutions in globalizing and transforming themselves as learning organizations. With this in mind, the government of Laos has developed laws regarding human resources, for instance, Article 4, which states that all officials need to learn morals, and political direction as well as improve their specialized knowledge. The essence of this article is to encourage officials to learn and develop themselves in order to be prepared and apply their new knowledge to work practices (Lao National Assembly, 2015).
Methodology
Research design
As mentioned earlier, this paper has a guiding research question “Which conditions do Laotian faculty members take into account for implementing workplace learning?” and the paper aims to hear views reflected by the participants on the conditions required for implementing workplace learning at their workplace. In the literature reviewed, little research on the related area has been conducted qualitatively. This paper, therefore, employed a qualitative research method to examine the conditions for the implementation of workplace learning in Laotian higher education. Through this research approach, participants are encouraged to share their views and experiences on how learning can be promoted within their workplace. A qualitative research design offers space for participants to express their attitudes, behaviors, experiences, and thoughts regarding a particular situation (Boyce & Neale, 2006; Dawson, 2002).
Sample and participant selection
In this study, 12 faculty members from a Laotian university faculty were invited to a face-to-face interview, using a purposive sampling technique (Laerd Dissertation, 2012). In the hope of hearing the views of faculty members with different characteristics, the authors of the present study selected the participants based on variations in work experience (5–10 years, 11–15 years, and 16 years or more), gender, and position (Dean, vice-dean, department heads, division heads and teaching faculty members). Moreover, since the sampled faculty is characterized as diverse in its disciplines; its faculty members are from diverse backgrounds/specializations, and the recruited informants were selected based on their subjects: soft sciences and hard sciences, which it is assumed are in relation to different learning attributes.
Interviews and procedures
The interviews were scheduled with the faculty participants. A semi-structured interview was the research instrument for this study in which the participants gave specific responses and were also probed further where necessary (Dawson, 2002). In each interview, the key conversation focused on asking and answering regarding topics, such as what and how participants learn at work, how participants get encouraged/inspired to learn things, including the facilities and limitations for them to learn at work and for work, etc. Key questions in the interviews included: “Could you describe how you've developed yourself as you are promoted/tenured at your current position? What are the typical workplace learning activities at the faculty? What comes to your mind when discussing the need for the implementation of workplace learning? What could you see as the barriers and contributors to implementing workplace learning at your faculty?” Some follow-up probes were also made. To ensure the validity of the research instrument, the interview questions were reviewed by an expert in the field of adult education and some wording was revised accordingly. During the interview, Lao was the language of conversation. At the beginning of each interview, the participants were asked to introduce themselves and present their personal views on workplace learning at the faculty. Before conducting the interviews, the interviewer asked for permission to record the conversations. The interview time ranged from 24 to 49 min. All the interviews were transcribed into Lao and the English translation was made only for the purpose of publication.
Analysis strategy
The current paper was a qualitative content analysis, using a deductive category assignment. Free software, called “QCAmap” developed by Mayring (2014) was used for processing the data. According to the process, a coding framework, which includes category definitions, anchor examples, and coding rules needs to be established beforehand. A coding frame is the most important part of qualitative content analysis as it covers all the aspects of the description and the interpretation of the study (Schreier, 2014).
After this step, the obtained data were transcribed into texts to prepare for the analyses. The text materials were then coded line by line. Moreover, during the coding process, both a formative check (for a revision of the categories and the coding guidelines) and a summative check of reliability (as a final check of the texts) were conducted (Mayring, 2000). The finalized categories applied in the analysis strategy for this study include three groups of categories/codes and ten sub-categories, they are “Individual-related condition”, which refers to physical and psychological attributes, including C1: Individual commitment, C2: Personal ambition, C3: Self-efficacy, C4: Role models, and C5: Learning from others; Organizational-related condition, which refers to the organizational elements that influence the way the organization and its members behave, including C6: Organizational culture, C7: Leadership, and C8: Faculty's support system for learning; Environmental-related condition, which refers to the government's policy and directions, as well as the situations of external partners, including C9: Globalization, and C10: Respect of national directions. The coding guideline of the present study is presented in Table 1.
The coding framework
| Category groupings & definitions | Anchor examples |
| Individual-related condition | |
| C1: Individual commitment An individual's self-investment and sacrifice for learning (Keeling et al., 1998) | “For my learning, it is from my self-learning. Furthermore, I put myself to learning from reading materials, learning with YouTube, and TV” (Case 10). |
| C2: Personal ambition A person's level of satisfaction with regard to opportunities offered within the workplace (Bauman, 2005) | “…I am always happy and more than ready to learn whatever I can be exposed to learning with others, and further develop myself and the faculty” (Case 1). |
| C3: Self-efficacy An individual's firm belief in his or her capacity to participate in learning activities, as well as their self-perception of strength (Maxwell, 2014) | “As I am offered many opportunities at work I may be qualified in different aspects: my qualification, knowledge, experience, leadership as well as my personality” (Case 6). |
| C4: Role model A person serves as an ideal one/a good example to be imitated (Farmer et al., 1992, cited in Kerka, 1997) | “I imitate someone who is a good example in his or her work life. I also like to learn and follow the styles of working of a successful colleague. That taught me a lot about how to be successful” (Case 7). |
| C5: Learning from others Any learning opportunities shared by surrounded people/colleagues, as well as making one's changes based on others (Khasawneh, 2011) | “I care much for others and adapt myself to the way how the others behave, but with valid reasonings” (Case 12) |
| Organizational-related condition | |
| C6: Organizational culture The faculty's perceived values, and practices for modernizing the organization (Habtoor et al., 2019; Ponnuswamy & Manohar, 2016) | “I am quite positive towards the faculty's professional development activities because they improve the solidarity with the organization and I support continuing such learning activities” (Case 10) |
| C7: Leadership The faculty's leaders and their actions leading the members (Cebrián et al. (2013) | “My personal habit is to think and plan ahead beforehand and I must share my ideas with the subordinates and ensure they know about all of my plans” (Case 9) |
| C8: Faculty's support system for learning Faculty's motivation of members to participate in learning activities and the offering incentives/rewarding for such participation (Juceviciene & Edintaite, 2012; Voolaid & Ehrlich, 2017) | “In order to encourage staff to participate in a learning activity, you, as a leader needs to push and/or awake the members up and make sure the leader also need to treat every staff equally” (Case 3) |
| Environmental-related condition | |
| C9: Globalization Learning based on external feedback/partners and understanding social/new trends (Shaffer, 1992) | “It does matter if new ideas about work practices are ignored and/or unaccepted due to implementing only traditional ways of practices” (Case 2) |
| C10: Respect of national directions The faculty's attention to the government's policy, support and future directions (Čepić & Krstović, 2011) | “Learning of one's own organization's culture, the local context in management system and principles are crucial elements of learning at this 21st century” (Case 3) |
Findings
Through analyzing the interview data collected, this paper is based on the pre-developed coding framework and uses a deductive category assignment approach. The findings found 3 dimensions that are key conditions taken into account when implementing workplace learning, as shared by the sampled faculty members, including individual-related conditions, organizational conditions, and environmental conditions. The description of each condition follows.
Individual-related conditions
I am more engaged in self-regulated learning. I make myself
learn from reading materials, learning with YouTube, and TV, (Case 10).
Exchanging ideas with others is very important. If one works alone, we never reach the goal. Success can be achieved through collaboration and the lessons learned with colleagues, (Case 6).
In addition, self-perceived efficacy is critical for learning as well. Taking part in every single learning activity, the feeling of belonging within a workplace grows, and having this trust they become self-confident and dare to take more risks. Personal ambition is another factor: if one seeks to learn for oneself and for the growth of the workplace, new ideas and knowledge arise. Moreover, the present study also points out that having a role model is also key because the model can motivate others and guide them in their actions, by showing how to behave and sharing their thoughts.
Organizational-related conditions
The workplace must care to develop clear implementation, have a close follow-up to find out what problems there are and how they can be solved, including how faculty members become motivated and how they are improved professionally, (Case 4).
In general, I find that many employees have always attended learning activities, on the other hand, many others have not. I would like to recommend that the leader considers this issue more thoroughly, (Case 2).
Environmental-related conditions
One important thing for the implementation of workplace learning is to learn from external situations, and the learning of science, technology and contemporary society, (Case 3).
I think that in order to learn and achieve professionally in the workplace, the employees have to understand the national directions, for instance, the rules of the organization. Even if a faculty member is knowledgeable, he or she needs to learn and understand the governmental directions, (Case 6).
Discussion, limitations and implications for future research
Discussion
Individual-related conditions, among others, are likely to be key elements taken into account by the faculty participants when implementing workplace learning. The majority of the faculty participants in this paper also claimed that they undertook self-searching for learning such as through reading materials, social media, and others. This learning pattern truly represents how adults learn (Knowles, 1980). They also reported that it is necessary for every employee to find out ways to sharpen his or her knowledge. In the absence of seeking new knowledge, workplace learning is impossible. This notion stresses the importance of personal actions and commitment to learning (March & Olsen, 1975). Shaffer also confirmed the influence of individual actions on the growth of the workplace. This study seems to be the same as a study of Bauman (2005), finding three conditions: the absence of new ideas, the questioning among colleagues, and the knowledge transfer among colleagues. These three key components also reflect the individuals' actions and commitment within the workplace. By engaging themselves in learning, employees' knowledge and innovative practices can be updated because the nature of learning within the workplace is more through cognitive apprenticeship (Kerka, 1997). Furthermore, this current study also revealed that learning with others can serve to determine the problems and navigate the solutions for these issues. This is the truth, as confirmed by the participants. According to Jones and Hendry (1994), “workplace learning” refers to training focusing on sharing knowledge and discussing the conditions of work. Despite finding the need for individual-related conditions, the individual's actions for learning appear to be strongly linked to the workplace's vision, mission, and the entire system. That means individual knowledge cannot be shared when there is a lack of support from the workplace: learning in the workplace does not seem to take place.
Additionally, the faculty participants reported that developing a positive culture of learning within the workplace is a must. Creating knowledge and innovation should be accepted as a routine within the workplace (Čierna et al., 2017; Fenwick, 2010; Souza & Takahashi, 2019). More importantly, a sustained learning culture is essential (Habtoor et al., 2019; Ponnuswamy & Manohar, 2016). The sustainability of this can be enhanced through team learning and empowerment among the members (Toma, 2012). According to the participants, equal treatment by the employer in the provision of learning opportunities is needed. They claimed that workplace learning can be promoted if everyone within the workplace learns together. This finding supports Rowley (1998): it is crucial for the leader to integrate the learning task as a central responsibility, emphasizing the equal participation of all members, not restricted to only a professional group. Quality leadership may create feelings of belonging among colleagues/coworkers which is achieved by developing institutional strategies, visions, and other action plans to further organizational learning (Cebrián et al., 2013; Voolaid & Ehrlich, 2017). The present study points out that the participants take into consideration environmental conditions, such as collaboration and partnership. According to them, it is critical for a workplace to be exposed to the reality of society as well as to the world of technology. Workplace learning constitutes a continuous process in which an organization interacts with its external networks (Shaffer, 1992). Shaffer further noted that a workplace can borrow recipes from partners and incorporate them into innovation and changes. An organization will never become empowered without learning from its surrounding environment and its competitors (Schmidt & Gibbs, 2009; Toma, 2012). Consistently, Garnett and colleagues (2008, cited in Garnett, 2016) also proposed that structures, regulations, and procedures should enhance the partnership with other stakeholders. According to the participants, it is also a necessity to receive external feedback and make use of it in improving the practices of the workplace. The conduct of learning within the workplace would not be supported accordingly unless the state policy is integrated into its practices. Mills and Whittaker (2001) noted that the process of workplace learning (for instance, access to workplace learning resources, competitiveness, and innovative pedagogy) needs appropriate policies and contributions from the government.
Limitations and implications for future research
This study reveals several interesting findings that may contribute to the understanding of the conditions required for implementing workplace learning. However, the findings should be used by scholars and/or future research with some caution regarding limitations. One limitation is that since the present study involved a qualitative research method, interviewing 12 faculty members working at a faculty in a Laotian university, the findings may not explain the conditions in other institutions. Future inquiries may include faculty members from different sectors to get further details. The interpretation of this study was dependent on the interviewees' self-reporting: they were asked to describe their thoughts on and experiences of workplace learning; and the responses from the interviews were analyzed according to the qualitative content analysis, and the deductive category assignment (Mayring, 2014). Another limitation, since the present study expected to get interviewees' descriptions of workplace learning in their organization, is that the interview questions were more open-ended and included less probing, so some responses obtained were fairly general. According to the present paper, three conditions appear to be key conditions in the implementation of workplace learning. However, these findings could be further tested by a quantitative research design.
Conclusion
The present paper is a case study among Asian contexts as it investigates the conditions required for implementing workplace learning in Laotian higher education. The empirical evidence pointed out a well-consistent tendency with theoretical perspectives and past works, of which the findings revealed 3 major conditions, taken into account by the sampled faculty members: (1) individual-related; (2) organizational-related; and (3) environmental-related conditions. Individual-related conditions appear to be foremost in the implementation of workplace learning in this case study; the individuals' actions regarding their learning are fundamental as this factor is a starting point for learning. However, the learning of individuals also appears to be subject to organizational-related and environmental-related conditions. That means individuals' knowledge cannot be shared when there is a lack of support within the workplace, as otherwise, learning does not occur. In the same vein, if the individuals' actions regarding their learning do not respond to the workplace's vision, mission, and goals, and do not respect the organizational rules, policy, nor the whole national direction, the learning may bring no outcomes/benefits to the workplace. Future research on the relationships among the three conditions (individual-related; organizational-related; and environmental-related) is strongly recommended.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the DVV International regional and country office in the Lao PDR.
References
Abbasi, E., Akbari, M., & Tajeddini, K. (2015). Organizational learning capabilities: Evidence from the Iranian agricultural higher education system. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 8(1), 117–138. https://doi.org/10.22059/IJMS.2015.52319.
Aminbeidokhti, A., Jamshidi, L., & Hoseini, A. M. (2016). The effect of the total quality management on organizational innovation in higher education mediated by organizational learning. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1153–1166. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.966667.
Bauman, G. L. (2005). Promoting organizational learning in higher education to achieve equity in educational outcomes. New Direction for Higher Education, 131, 23–35.
Billett, S. (1995). Workplace learning: Its potential and limitations. Education and Training, 37(4), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400919510089103.
Billett, S. (2008). Emerging perspectives on workplace learning (pp. 1–15). Brill.
Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (1999). Understanding learning at work. Routledge.
Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input (2). Watertown, MA: Pathfinder International.
Bratianu, C. (2018). Universities as learning organizations: Challenges and strategies. In Bratianu, C., Zbuchea, A. & Vitelar, A. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 6th Edition of the International Conference STRATEGICA, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, 11–12 October 2018, Bucharest, Romania, pp. 546–555.
Bui, H. T. M., & Baruch, Y. (2012). Learning organizations in higher education: An empirical evaluation within an international context. Management Learning, 43(5), 515–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507611431212.
Čepić, R., & Krstović, J. (2011). Through lifelong learning and learning organisations towards a sustainable future. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 10(2), 194–213. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2011.041797.
Čierna, H., Sujová, E., Hąbek, P., Horská, E., & Kapsdorferová, Z. (2017). Learning organization at higher education institutions in the EU: Proposal for implementing philosophy of learning organization—results from research. Quality & Quantity, 51(3), 1305–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0332-3.
Cebrián, G., Grace, M., & Humphris, D. (2013). Organisational learning towards sustainability in higher education. Management and Policy Journal, 4(3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2012-0043.
Costley, C. (2011). Workplace learning and higher education. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. N. O‘Connor (Eds.), The sage handbook of workplace learning (pp. 395–406). Sage.
Dawson, C. (2002). Practical research method: A user-friendly guide to measuring research. UK: How To Books.
Eraut, M., & Hirsh, W. (2010). The significance of workplace learning for individuals, groups and organisations (Publisher's version). ESRC Centre on Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance (SKOPE). Available at: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:903bda08-1eab-4695-949a-1601e1af5273
Fenwick, T. (2010). Workplace ‘learning’ and adult education: Messy objects, blurry maps and making a difference. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 1(1–2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4151.
Garnett, J. (2016). Work-based learning: A critical challenge to the subject discipline structures and practices of higher education. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 6(3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-04-2016-0023.
Gugssa, M. A., & Kabeta, G. G. (2021). Instructors’ workplace learning activities and inhibitors in Ethiopian higher learning institutions: Bahir Dar University in focus. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 3(2021).
Hübner, S. (2002). Building a learning organization. UNIcert IV.
Habtoor, A. S., Arshad, D., & Hassan, H. (2019). Do competitive strategies moderate the relationship between learning organization and performance of higher education institutions? Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 18(2), 1–11.
Hartono, E., Wahyudi, S., Harahap, P., & Yuniawan, A. (2017). Does organizational learning affect the performance of higher education lecturers in Indonesia? The mediating role of teaching competence. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 12(4), 865–878.
Huang, Y. C., & Shih, H. C. (2011). A new mode of learning organization. International Journal of Manpower, 32(5/6), 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437721111158233.
Jones, A. M., & Hendry, C. (1994). The learning organization: Adult learning and organizational transformation. British Journal of Management, 5(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1994.tb00075.x.
Juceviciene, P., & Edintaite, G. (2012, September 6–7). Organizational learning of teachers in higher education: Challenges and opportunities of knowledge management [Conference paper]. 13th European conference on knowledge management, Cartagena, Spain.
Keeling, D., Jones, E., Botterill, D., & Gray, C. (1998). Work-based learning, motivation and employer-employee interaction: Implications for lifelong learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(4), 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800980350403.
Kerka, S. (1997). Constructivism, workplace learning, and vocational education. ERIC Digest No. 181, Accession No. ED407573). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education.
Khasawneh, S. (2011). Learning organization disciplines in higher education institutions: An approach to human resource development in Jordan. Innovative Higher Education, 36(4), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-010-9170-8.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult Education: From pedagogy to andragogy(Revised and updated). Cambridge, The Adult Education Company.
Laerd Dissertation (2012). Purposive sampling. https://dissertation.laerd.com/purposive-sampling.php.
Lao National Assembly (2015). President’s decree on governmental officials law. Vientiane capital. Lao PDR.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1975). The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3(2), 147–171.
Maxwell, B. (2014). Improving workplace learning of lifelong learning sector trainee teachers in the UK. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(3), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2013.831036.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 20. http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/.
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solutions. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.
McEwen, C., & Trede, F. (2014). The value of workplace learning in the first year for university students from under-represented groups. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 15(1), 55–67.
Mills, V., & Whittaker, S. (2001). Work based learning in Scottish higher education: Policy and practice. The Learning organization, 8(2), 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470110388008.
Ministry of Education and Sports (2020). The education and sports sector development plan 2020–2021. The ministry’s printing house, Vientiane capital, Lao PDR.
Ponnuswamy, I., & Manohar, H. L. (2016). Impact of learning organization culture on performance in higher education institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.914920.
Prasanwan, J. (2005). Workplace learning for faculty professionals in the changing Thai university context: A case study of Sripatum university, Chonburi Campus. (A dissertation). Victoria University
Rowley, J. (1998). Creating a learning organisation in higher education. Industrial and Commercial Training, 30(1), 16–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197859810197708.
Schmidt, R., & Gibbs, P. (2009). The challenges of work-based learning in the changing context of European higher education. European Journal of Education, 44(3), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01393.x.
Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis (in the sage handbook of qualitative data analysis, edited by Uwe Flick), SAGE.
Schuller, A. (2021). Workplaces as sights (sites) for learning: An investigation of the value of teacher industry placements. Doctoral dissertation. Victoria University.
Shaffer, T. E. (1992). Continuing higher education: Organizational learning. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 40(3), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377366.1992.10400853.
Slotte, V., Tynjälä, P., & Hytönen, T. (2004). How do HRD practitioners describe learning at work? Human Resource Development International, 7(4), 481–499.
Souza, C. P. S., & Takahashi, A. R. W. (2019). Dynamic capabilities, organizational learning and ambidexterity in a higher education institution. The Learning Organization, 26(4), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-03-2018-0047.
Sutanto, E. M. (2017). The influence of organizational learning capability and organizational creativity on organizational innovation of Universities in East Java, Indonesia. Asia Pacific Management Review, 22, 128–135.
Toma, S. G. (2012). A pilot study on the relationship among organizational learning, change, and sustainability in a responsible Romanian higher education institution. Amfiteatru Economic, 14(32), 420–435.
Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational research review, 3(2), 130–154.
Vannasy, V., & Sengsouliya, S. (2022). Key predictors of the implementation of workplace learning in higher education. Andragoška spoznanja/Studies in Adult Education and Learning, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4312/as/10447.
Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international review of the literature. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Voolaid, K., & Ehrlich, Ü. (2017). Organizational learning of higher education institutions: The case of Estonia. The Learning Organization, 24(5), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-02-2017-0013.
Zhao, Y., & Ko, J. (2018). Workplace learning in the professional development of vocational education teachers. Studia Paedagogica, 23(2), 43–58.
