Advertisement

Sharing and cultivating tacit knowledge in an online learning environment

  • Meng Yew Tee
  • Dennis Karney
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Research on knowledge cultivation often focuses on explicit forms of knowledge. However, knowledge can also take a tacit form—a form that is often difficult or impossible to tease out, even when it is considered critical in an educational context. A review of the literature revealed that few studies have examined tacit knowledge issues in online learning environments. The purpose of this study was to develop a greater understanding of the conditions and processes that help promote the sharing or cultivation of tacit knowledge in a formal online course setting. Using naturalistic inquiry as the methodology of this study, an online graduate business course offered at a private, non-profit United States-based university was purposively selected as the research site. The study found that the online course encouraged processes and created conditions consistent with Nonaka‘s model of knowledge creation and the concept of ba (or shared context)—encouraging students to share, and to construct knowledge through socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. The results suggest that purposefully developing a ba-like environment may be a useful approach to facilitating online learning, creating a strong potential to support learning processes necessary for students to cultivate tacit knowledge.

Keywords

Tacit knowledge Knowledge construction Learning environment Socialization Externalization Combination Internalization 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Garcia and his students for making this study possible as well as the peer debriefers and reviewers, whose insightful comments and probing questions greatly improved the quality and readability of this work.

References

  1. Arvaja, M. (2007). Contextual perspective in analysing collaborative knowledge construction of two small groups in web-based discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(2–3), 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, R. H., III. (1998). The importance of tacit knowledge in strategic liberations and decisions. Management Decision, 36(9), 589–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  5. Brockmann, E. N., & Simmonds, P. G. (1997). Strategic decision making: The influence of CEO experience and use of tacit knowledge. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9(4), 454–467.Google Scholar
  6. Brockmann, E. N., & Anthony, W. P. (2002). Tacit knowledge and strategic decision making. Group & Organization Management, 27(4), 436–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  8. Buckingham Shum, S. (1998). Negotiating the construction of organisational memories. In U. M. Borghoff & R. Pareschi (Eds.), Information technology for knowledge management (pp. 55–78 (Reprinted from: Journal of Universal Computer Science, 53 (58), 1997, 1899–1928)). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Eisner, E. W. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  11. Goguen, J. A. (1997). Toward a social, ethical theory of information. In G. C. Bowker, S. L. Star, W. Turner, & L. Gasser (Eds.), Social science, technical systems and cooperative work: Beyond the great divide (pp. 27–56). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Granger, D., & Bowman, M. (2003). Constructing knowledge at a distance: The learner in context. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), The handbook of distance education (pp. 169–180). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayek, F. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–513.Google Scholar
  15. Jarvis, P. (2002). The theory & practice of teaching. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  16. Kanfer, A., Bruce, B., Haythornthwaite, C., Burbules, N., Wade, J., Bowker, G., et al. (2000). Modeling distributed knowledge processes in next generation multidisciplinary alliances. Information Systems Frontiers, 2(3/4), 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Lyman, P., & Varian, H. R. (2004). How much information. Retrieved September 10, 2004, from http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/how-much-info-2003
  20. Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Muukkonen, H., & Lakkala, M. (2009). Exploring metaskills of knowledge-creating inquiry in higher education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 4, 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Noble, D. F. (2001). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. New York: Monthly Review.Google Scholar
  23. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40, 15.Google Scholar
  25. Nonaka, I., & Nishiguchi, T. (2001). Knowledge emergence: Social, technical, and evolutionary dimensions of knowledge creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Byosiere, P. (2001). A theory of organizational knowledge creation: Understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge. In M. Dierkes, A. Berthoin Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 491–517). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge; towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & K. Paul.Google Scholar
  31. Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(3), 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/79/152
  33. Simpson, D. J., Jackson, M. J. B., & Aycock, J. C. (2005). John Dewey and the art of teaching: Toward reflective and imaginative practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Skrtic, T. (1985). Doing naturalistic research into education organizations. In Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Organization theory and inquiry: The paradigm revolution (pp. 185–220). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Stahl, G. (2003). Meaning and interpretation in collaboration. Paper presented at the Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL ’03), Bergen, Norway. In Stahl, G. (2006) Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge: MIT. Pp. 331–346.Google Scholar
  36. Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1999). Tacit knowledge in professional practice: Researcher and practitioner perspectives. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (2004). Hitotsubashi on knowledge management. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons (Asia).Google Scholar
  38. Tee, M. Y. (2005). Sharing and cultivating tacit knowledge in an e-learning environment: A naturalistic study. Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  39. Teece, D. J. (1998). Research directions for knowledge management. California Management Review, 40(3), 289–292.Google Scholar
  40. Thompson, A., & Stappenbeck, G. (2002). The business strategy game (Version 7th ed., version 7.20 (w/disc)). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Nestor-Baker, N. (2004). The tacit knowledge of productive scholars in education. Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1484–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tsoukas, H. (2003). Do we really understand tacit knowledge? [Electronic source: http://is.lse.ac.uk/Events/ESRCseminars/tsoukas.pdf]. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. Malden: Blackwell Pub.
  43. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Wurman, R. S. (1989). Information anxiety (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options