Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge sharing

  • RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The focus of this study was to understand knowledge flows among teachers by examining what types of knowledge was shared by teachers, as well as what motivates or hinders teachers to share knowledge online. We examined an electronic mailing list (listserv) supporting a community of practice of literacy teachers. Data were gathered on the teachers in the listserv through online observations. Additional data were collected through semi-structured telephone interviews with 20 teachers. Findings suggest that two motives of community involvement––collectivism, and principlism appear to be the main motivators for knowledge sharers to share knowledge, while lack of knowledge and competing priority appear to be the main barriers. Practical implications for knowledge sharing and suggestions for future research are discussed. The findings of this study inform teachers, listserv moderators, teacher associations, as well as researchers of educational technology who are interested in knowledge sharing among teachers within communities of practice mediated by computer networks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in online knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banik, B. J. (1993). Applying triangulation in nursing research. Applied Nursing Research, 6(1), 47–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., MaKinster, J. G., Moore, J. A., Cunningham, D. J. (2001). Designing and building an online community: The struggle to support sociability in the Inquiry Learning Forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 71–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., & Tsang, J. A. (2002). Four motives for community involvement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 429–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggam, J. (2001). Defining knowledge: An epistemological foundation for knowledge management. Paper presented at the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

  • Boisot, M., & Griffiths, D. (1999). Possession is nine tenths of the law: Managing a firm’s knowledge base in a regime of weak appropriability. International Journal of Technology Management, 17, 662–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1996). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. In M. D. Cohen & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning, (pp. 58–82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budd, R., Thorp, R., & Donohew, L. (1967). Content analysis of communication. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 720–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. M., Choo, C. W., Dunlap, D. R., Isenhour, P. L., Kerr, S. T., MacLean, A., & Rosson, M. B. (2003). Knowledge management support for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 42–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, C. M. Y., Shek, S. P. W., & Sia, C. L. (2004). Online community of consumers: Why people are willing to contribute? Paper presented at the Eighth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai, China.

  • Ciborra, C. U., & Patriota, G. (1998). Groupware and teamwork in R&D: Limits to learning and innovation. R&D Management, 28(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching for high standards: What policymakers need to know and be able to do (Consortium for Policy Research in Education). National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future.

  • Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, L., Bourhis, A., & Jacob, R. (2003). Towards a typology of online communities of practice. Retrieved on November 11, 2005 from http://gresi.hec.ca/cahier.asp.

  • Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers’ successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 480–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community-of-practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 20–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N. (2007). IT support for communities of practice: How public defenders learn about winning and losing in court. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 76–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazel, H. (2001). Input-friendliness: Motivating knowledge sharing across intranets. Journal of Information Science, 27(3), 139–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heron, R., & Hammond, F. (2001). Partnerships and educational benefits in post graduate nursing education. Australasian Journal of Neuroscience, 14(2), 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(2), 282–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 45(1), 65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H.I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated vs. face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology research and Development, 49(1), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane, B. T., & Mason, R. M. (2006). On the nature of knowledge. Rethinking popular assumptions. Paper presented at the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

  • Kiesler, S. (1986). The hidden messages in computer networks. Harvard Business Review, 64(1), 46–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., & Hunter, A. (2005). Receiver influences on knowledge sharing. Paper presented at the 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Regensburg: Germany.

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2000). Shrewd investments. Science, 288, 819–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, J. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca NY: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preece, J. (2004). Etiquette online: From nice to necessary. Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 56–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, P., Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J. E., & Thomas, M. D. (1996). Responses on computer surveys: Impression management, social desirability, and the big brother syndrome. Computers in Human Behavior, 12(2), 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The Information Society, 19(3), 203–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharratt, M., & Usoro, A. (2003). Understanding knowledge-sharing in online communities of practice. Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management, 1(2), 187–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, W., Wenger, E., & Briggs, X. S. (2004). Communities of practice in government: Leveraging Knowledge for Performance. The Public Manager, 32(4), 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soh, K. B. K. (1998). Job analysis, appraisal and performance assessments of a surgeon––A multifaceted approach. Singapore Medical Journal, 39(4). Retrieved on August 20, 2006 from http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/3904/articles/3904ra1.html.

  • Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(1), 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurmond, V. A. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(3), 253–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2003). Assessing motivation of contribution in online communities: An empirical investigation of an online travel community. Electronic Markets, 13(1), 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does:” Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 155–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (n.d.). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm on September 2, 2006.

  • Wenger, E., McDermont, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C., & Chen, L. C. (2007). Can organizational knowledge capabilities affect knowledge sharing behavior? Journal of Information Science, 33(1), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Sciences and Technologies Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Block 2-Level 3-Room 25, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Khe Foon Hew

  2. Indiana University Bloomington, 1320 East 10th Street, Room LI 025, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Noriko Hara

Authors
  1. Khe Foon Hew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noriko Hara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khe Foon Hew.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hew, K.F., Hara, N. Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge sharing. Education Tech Research Dev 55, 573–595 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9049-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9049-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation