Theory of Learning

Social Learning Thoery

Social Learning Thoery

Behaviorism theory has been used in this study. Many reconsiders have over the years been made to create an overview of publications on organizational discovering (Dodgson, 1993; Easterby-Smith, 1997; Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Henriksson, 1999; Huber, 1991; Levitt and March, 1988; Miner and Mezias, 1996; Shrivastava, 1983). The amount of reviews has commanded to the following remark: “…there appear to be more reconsiders of organizational learning than there is matter to reconsider” (Weick and Westley, 1996: 440). This chapter is, nevertheless, yet another reconsider of literature on organizational learning. This literature reconsider is, although, a reconsider that is primarily focused on publications on organizational discovering in which the understanding of discovering is based on communal discovering theory. Social discovering theory in organizational discovering literature has been coined under some names such as “situated discovering” (Brown and Duguid, 1991; Richter, 1998), as “practice-based learning” (Gherardi, 2000), and “learning as cultural methods” (Cook and Yanow, 1993; Henriksson, 2000; Yanow, 2000).

Ifavour the period social discovering idea to show that we are in the area of social idea, and that the point of exodus for discovering is the dwelling know-how of everyday life. All communal discovering theory, although, outlook discovering as participation in communal methods emphasizing both matters of understanding, and matters of being and becoming. This means that social learning theory encompasses both the epistemology and the ontology of learning. Thus, social learning theory considers both the issue of human existence and development (ontology), and the issue of people coming to know about themselves and what it means to be part of world and history (epistemology). In social learning theory, development and learning are, in other words, inseparable processes; and they constitute each other in an understanding of learning as participation in social processes.

The overall governing question for this review is: How does social learning theory contribute to an understanding of organizational learning, which differs from a point of departure in individual learning theory? Most of the literature on organizational learning and its counterpart, the Learning Organization, departs from individual learning theory; and social learning theory in organizational learning literature has grown out of a criticism of just that departure (see, for example, Elkjaer, 1999, and the references mentioned in note 1). The criticism is elaborated later, but, in short, it is that individual learning theory focuses on learning as inner mental processes related to the acquisition and processing of information and knowledge. It leads to mind being the locus of learning, and as a consequence, a separation of the individual learner and the context, in this case, the organization, for learning. This, in turn, means that the learning focus is on how people get to know - in a very narrow sense - and not on how the organizational context is a key element in the learning, socialization and development of organizational members. In other words, individual learning theory is criticized for neglecting the ontological dimension of learning and only focusing on the epistemological ...