Meta-Analysis Of Nonaka & Takeuchi’s
Knowledge Management Model In The Context Of Lifelong Learning
Kairit Tammets, Tallinn University , Estonia
ABSTRACT:
Recently the application of Nonaka & Takeuchi’s organizational knowledge management SECI model for learning has been studied a lot in different settings in learning contexts. A survey-type of study about SECI model is needed for getting better insight about practical aspects of application of the model, also in teacher training context. Study analyzes with qualitative meta-analysis the state of art of using SECI model from 20 research papers. For data analysis an open-ended coding matrix was developed to delineate each study’s purpose, method, learning settings, outcome and technological aspect. Meta-study revealed that SECI is mainly studied in organizational level in the industries’ settings and individual learning has not been in the focus. As a result the paper discusses the main findings of SECI meta-study in teacher training context and proposes a concept of cross-organizational SECI activities that may support teachers’ lifelong learning and professional development.
Keywords: SECI model, Teacher training, Organizational learning, Lifelong learning
Introduction
In today’s knowledge society, a firm understanding of the interplay between
the management of knowledge and learning is strategically important for creating
and maintaining effective learning processes in a large variety of
non-traditional learning situations (Lytras et al., 2005). According to Grace
and
Another relevant system model, that could actually integrate reflective double-loop learning, is the model of a knowledge spiral developed by Nonaka and associates (e.g. Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Nonaka et al. 2000). The SECI model has been broadly accepted, especially among management practitioners, due to its intuitive logic and clear delineation of knowledge types between tacit and explicit knowledge, although due to the heavy employment of philosophical elements in the SECI framework makes empirical research in the area difficult (Rice & Rice 2005). This study analyzes SECI not because of its broad use, but because it has been used in several empirical studies and model describes the cognitive organizational processes and associates them with activities that are potentially observable. Lastly SECI model handles the knowledge as something that changes cyclically and is influenced by organization and individuals, not as knowledge that is transferred from one to other.
Yeh, et al. (2011) have said that knowledge management has not been applied in teacher training programs on numerous occasions. Same time they suggest that knowledge management could be implemented in teacher training context because it supports focusing on helping teachers to identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable the adoption of good teaching practices in collaborative settings. They believe that SECI model could be useful for teachers’ professional development. But as there has been limited research to validate the SECI model and empirical research involving SECI is even rarer (Haag, 2010), especially in educational settings and within the context of multi-organizational settings, then the usefulness of SECI model in teacher training context grounds more on assumptions. Therefore the aim of this study is to investigate:
v What kind of different aspects (for example individual and organizational learning aspects, technological aspects) have been analyzed in different SECI-related contexts?
v How the application of SECI model has been methodologically studied?
v What aspects of the SECI meta-study could be transferred to teacher training context?
With the result of conducted meta-analysis we propose the underlying mechanisms that could contribute to the successful knowledge management based teacher training for supporting teachers’ lifelong learning and therefore influencing the knowledge of teacher education being cyclically updated.
SECI Model
For describing processes in creative organizations, Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995) have developed the cyclical knowledge management model, which
contains four phases of knowledge conversion within an organization:
socialization, externalization, combination and internalization (SECI phases).
They propose that in organizational knowledge-creation, personal subjective
tacit knowledge has to be externalized into objective explicit knowledge in
order to be shared, combined and synthesized within and beyond organizations.
Model describes how explicit and tacit knowledge is generated, transferred, and
recreated in organizations (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 The SECI Model Of Knowledge Creation (Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995).
“Socialization” is the process of sharing tacit knowledge through observation, imitation, practice, and participation in formal and informal communities. Socialization usually begins with building a field or space of social interaction. “Externalization” is a process of articulating tacit knowledge- as-explicit concepts; this is the key to knowledge creation. “Combination” is the process of integrating concepts into a knowledge system to integrate multiple bodies of explicit knowledge. “Internalization” is the process of embodying explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Hosseini (2011) have said precisely that knowledge is created and improved when it flows between different levels of organization and between individuals and groups. It is important to consider that all four phases have to be satisfied in order to achieve successful knowledge conversion within and across the organization.
A Critique Of SEC Model
Although SECI model is the most known knowledge management model and has gained lot of attention in terms of organizational and workplace learning, many authors have critizised the model. The main critics of the model is Gourlay (2006) who claimed that there is no evidence to prove that the knowledge creation process is not different from information creation and thus knowledge conversion has been conflated with knowledge transfer in the matrix. Additionally, according to Stacey (2001) Nonaka and his colleagues belong to mainstream organizational learning and knowledge theorists, who believe that knowledge can be treated like a ‘thing’ that can be possessed and understand knowledge creation as a system. Stacey, argues that knowledge is not a ‘thing’ or a system but an active process of relating. He also claims that knowledge cannot be managed, and there is no need to manage it, because knowledge is participative self-organizing processes patterning themselves in coherent ways. Haarmakorpi & Melkas (2005) responded to that comment that in newer writings, Nonaka and his colleagues underline the importance of understanding the dynamic process of knowledge creation that contains an interplay between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge (Nonaka et al., 2001). Despite of the criticism related with SECI model, it has potentials to be useful knowledge conversion model in different contexts and therefore it should be studied in what circumstances the model could be used in educational settings and for example supporting teachers’ lifelong learning.
Methods
Qualitative meta-analysis was conducted for synthesizing the theories, methods, and findings of both qualitative and quantitative inquiries of application of SECI model. Glass (1976) have described the meta-analysis as the analysis of analyses - the statistical analysis of a large collection of analysis results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings. Qualitative meta-analysis basically follows the same, replicable procedure of a quantitative meta-analysis, but is more interpretative than aggregative. Instead of a statistical data analysis, texts are analyzed for developing new interpretations in the analysis process. Reis et al. (2003) have said that although meta-analysis of quantitative research is a well-established technique, the synthesis or aggregation of qualitative studies remains rare and controversial. Therefore, they claim, that questions of feasibility, validity, study selection, mechanism, and interpretation are usual.
Data Collection
A set of criteria was specified to select appropriate research for this study (Slavin, 1986). Preliminary criteria included:
v Content relevance - research focused on the application SECI model in the context of learning
v Year of publication was 2003-2011
v English-language publications
The data search was systematic within the data pool consisting of electronic databases (i.e., EHIS, ISI Web of Knowledge, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis databases) that were accessible by the author. A total of 58 studies were reviewed for this analysis and 38 out of them were excluded:
v 23 studies were either development articles that described the proposed design of application of SECI model or discussion articles that described opinions of implementing SECI model without empirical or systematically presented evidence;
v 15 of reviewed studies focused on analysis and comparing several knowledge management models, including SECI, and the evaluation framework of learning did not focus on only SECI phases.
Meta-analysis included analysis of purposes, learning settings, technological aspect, methods, and findings. These aspects were analyzed by one researcher for getting insight why and how the SECI was implemented and studied, how was the learning process organized and if it was technologically supported (individual and/or organizational) and what were the SECI related results of implementation process. Such aspects allow to analyze how the individual and learning aspects could be studied in teacher training context, but also what other aspects should be considered in the implementation phase. An initial open-ended coding matrix was developed for studied aspects. In the next phase the synthesis of implications and results was performed.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) have suggested that in qualitative studies it is important to assure the credibility, transferability and dependability in order to reach the “emphatic neutrality” of the research. It means that it is not important to have large sampling, but rather the richness of information and researcher’s ability to interpret the different types of collected data. In this study the different type of data was collected among existing studies and the results have been interpreted to the teacher-training context. Transferability means that in the qualitative studies the generalizations should be able to transferred to different contexts as well. Therefore the general findings of this meta-study can be used for understanding how the SECI model have been used in different organizational settings, how the individual and organizational learning aspects have been analyzed and what general aspects should be considered when implementing SECI in organizations.
Results
This section presents answers to the research questions of this study.
What kind of different aspects have been analyzed in different SECI-related contexts?
Meta-analysis analyzed the contexts of SECI model, used
methodologies in SECI studies, role of technology in the implementation process
and the focus of learning settings (individual, organizational or
cross-organizational). Figure 2 illustrates the results of the meta-analysis in
the form of concept map. Numbers behind the concepts were used to identify the
studies that were carried out.
Figure
2: Concept Map Of The Results Of SECI Meta-Study
Meta-analysis of SECI model indicated that model has been mainly implemented in the context of the industries and enterprises with the aim to analyze how the implementation of SECI in organization may influence the organization’s a) productivity; b) performance; c) motivation of employees. Less have been focused on studying the SECI model in academic settings or in the context of informal networks.
Also the analysis of SECI model studies may hint that cross-organizational learning is not studied yet, especially from the simultaneous individual and organizational learning aspects. It would be interesting to study how the learning goals and activities could be harmonized with the purpose of dynamic development of organizational and employees’ knowledge. Individual learning of employee was stressed seldom in the studies, less than half of the studies mentioned that individual learning and organizational learning influence and support each other. It is presumed that development of organization is tightly connected with the individual development. For increasing and supporting the organizational learning, employees have to develop professionally. The results of the meta-study indicate that so far the organizational performance is more important than individual growth and the development of employees’ goals and organization’s ones do not seem to be harmonized.
For filling in the gap in current research, it is important to study how the SECI model could be implemented in school-university partnership for supporting teachers’ lifelong learning, development of the professional knowledge of teacher education and harmonization of the learning goals of teachers, communities and organizations.
How the application of SECI model has been methodologically studied?
Table 1 illustrates the research methods used by different SECI studies.
Method was defined by the author of this study accordingly what instruments
were used and how the data was analyzed. It seemed that quantitative studies
(mainly questionnaires) were used for analyzing the organizational knowledge
conversion processes. Individual learning was studied with qualitative methods
(interviews and observations). Mixed methods were used for analyzing the
organizational and individual learning aspects. It hints that mixed method
might be the more systematic method as it enables studying the simultaneous
organizational and individual aspects of learning. Most of the studies did not
use triangulation methods for studying different learning aspect (for example
questionnaire for studying organization level knowledge and social network
analysis for studying individuals in the community). Both aspects are still
important to study for understanding how the individuals share and construct
the professional knowledge and how the knowledge of organization changes
through the actions of individuals.
Table1: Used Methods In SECI Studies
|
|
Authors |
Purpose and Context |
Technological aspect |
Learning settings |
Method and
Sampling |
Main finding, new to SECI |
|
1 |
Lwoga, Ngulube & Stilwell (2010) |
Assessment of SECI
model in managing agricultural indigenous knowledge for agricultural
practice |
ICT support suggested |
Individual learning not emphasized, knowledge sharing
stressed. Network learning. |
Mixed methods. Interviews and observations. Sampling
– 181 farmers from two villages. |
Farmers’ knowledge is tacit and created through
conversion. E,C,I phases are less presented. |
|
2 |
Chaikrongrag & Angkasith (2010) |
Analyzes a missing link between team and production
operators in manufacturing |
ICT support suggested |
Individual learning not emphasized. Collaboration in
workplace settings stressed. |
Mixed methods. Questionnaire and observations.
Sampling –organization’s two units |
Socialization and combination phase dod not work. A
"Knowledge Agent" was hired as missing link between units and to
bridge the knowledge. |
|
3 |
Ramirez & Garcia Morales (2011) |
Analyzes how the knowledge creation of the firm
(reuse of materials and products) influence the performance of it. |
n/a |
Learning is not emphasized, knowledge creation is
imporant at workplace. |
Quantitative method. The LISREL 8.70 program was used
to test the theoretical model. Sampling – 284 Spanish firms |
SECI affects the importance of firm - the greater
presence of the processes of knowledge creation in the organization, more
important are the processes of firm, enhancing its performance. |
|
4 |
Haarmakorpi & Melkas (2005) |
Investigates knowledge creation and management in
regional innovation networks |
ICT-support suggested |
Collective learning within the innovation network
emphasized. |
Mixed method, |
Self-transcending knowledge was added to SECI. |
|
5 |
Kantola & Hautala (2008) |
Network of people working with internationalisation
in Finnish universities of applied sciences |
ICT-support suggested |
Individual learning shapes the learning network |
Qualitative – questionnaire combined with the SNA.
Sampling - 29 members |
Suggest using SNA for analyzing process in network,
like sharing tacit knowledge and co-operation |
|
6 |
Chalikiti & Sigala (2008) |
Studies the social networking and knowledge creation
capabilities and affordances of online forums to support tourism
professionals. |
ICT-support suggested |
Individual learning should be fostered in order to
create knowledge through the exchange information amongst members of the
community. |
Qualitative – Participants’ observation,
questionnaire, SNA. Sampling – 28 members questionnaire; 149 observed |
Internalization was hard to examine by studying and
observing the online interactions, interview should be done for studying how
did they use forum discussions for own learning. |
|
7 |
Tan, Lye, Ng & Lim (2010) |
Investigates and examines the motivational factors
that encourages the widespread sharing of knowledge among bank employees |
ICT-support suggested |
Employee’s learning is intrinsic motivational factor
that may influence the knowledge sharing in organization |
Quantitative method – questionnaire. Sampling 114
respondents from 7 banks |
Motivational factors and knowledge sharing process by
applying SECI had a influence in determining the success of the sharing of
warranted knowledge among bank employees in achieving organizational
competitiveness. |
|
8 |
Roy & Gupta, (2007) |
Attempts to re-examine the SECI model in the context
of a small manufacturing organization in |
ICT-support suggested |
Learning of individuals not emphasized. Exchange of the
knowledge is important |
Qualitative - observations, interviews. Case study of
organization (300 employees) |
Examination of observations and behavior of the firm
reveals that the processes of tacit–explicit transformation vary in good
measure from the description of the model. |
|
9 |
Wickes, Leslie & Lettice (2003) |
Presents a findings of the project that focused on
developing the knowledge transfer tool for corporations |
ICT-support suggested |
Learning not focused, individual knowledge
transferred to organization level and across organizations is focused |
Qualitative method - Interviews, document analysis |
Tool was developed that supports operationalization
of SECI model |
|
10 |
Li, Huang & Tsai (2008) |
Study examines the relationships among entrepreneurial
orientation, knowledge creation process, and firm performance |
n/a |
Focus only on organizational learning, all items of
questionnaire focused on processes of firm not employees |
Quantitative method – questionnaire. Respondents 165 |
Managers should choose and design appropriate methods
according to the SECI process to facilitate knowledge creation. Firms need to
enhance employees' involvement and participation in SECI activities. |
|
11 |
Hosseini (2010) |
Aims to define SECI model of knowledge creation as a
framework of Virtual class management |
ICT-supported |
Focus on collaborative learning in virtual learning
environment |
Qualitative method - observations and interviews. |
Proposing SECI model to educators a possibility for knowledge
creation processes In formal courses. |
|
12 |
Yeh, Huang & Yeh (2010) |
Purpose was to develop a teacher-training program
that integrates SECI and blended learning for supporting professional
development |
ICT-supported |
Individual learning of pre-service teachers in
collaborative settings |
Mixed methods - Likert-scale and reflective
questionnaire, observations. Sampling
- 44 pre-service teachers |
The SECI model and blended learning may be integrated
to create a new paradigm for teacher training |
|
13 |
Travaille & Hendriks (2010) |
Examines how processes of knowledge creation
contribute to success in academia |
n/a |
Focus is in individual development and therefor
influencing community capacity |
Qualitative method –interviews. Sampling – 17
academic staff |
SE work, CI don’t |
|
14 |
Lopez-Nicolas &
Soto-Acosta (2010) |
Investigates the influence of the adoption and use of
ICT on organizational learning (OL) of Spanish enterprises. The focus is on
knowledge, creation, and the SECI. |
ICT-supported |
Focus on organizational knowledge creation – all
questions of the survey begin with “my organization” |
Quantitative method - questionnaire. Sampling - 297
employees of Spanish SMEs |
ICT oriented to communication and workflow is found,
to produce a significant positive impact on knowledge creation processes,
except for, socialization process |
|
15 |
Martın-de-Castro, Lopez-Saez & Navas-Lopez (2008) |
The purpose of the research was to test empirically
the SECI in two different settings. Asks: do the knowledge creation processes
that can be found in real firms follow the scheme of the SECI model |
n/a |
Organizational knowledge creation process, individual
learning not mentioned |
Quantitative method - questionnaire. Sampling 52
American firms & 63 Spanish firms |
There is no unique way of learning, but knowledge
creation is conditioned by context-based considerations. |
|
16 |
Samuel, Goury, Gunasekaran, Spalanzani (2011) |
Analyzes how the knowledge creation process can be
adapted to supply chains and which factors enable that process |
n/a |
Organizational knowledge creation process, |
Quantitative method - questionnaire. Sampling 179
employees from France Supply chain management enterprises |
SECI process not complete, especially C-phase occurs
seldom. Learning can be realized across company borders. |
|
17 |
Vaccaro, Veloso & Brusoni (2009) |
Examines the organizational knowledge creation processes
in two virtual teams involved in new product development projects in the
automotive industry |
ICT-supported |
Organizational knowledge creation process with a
small emphasis on individual development of employees |
Mixed methods - project documentation, observations,
interviews. Sampling – two organizations |
Externalization with ICT was not found |
|
18 |
Chou & He (2004) |
Investigates the interrelations among four categories
of knowledge assets and four knowledge creation processes (SECI) in variety
of organizations in |
ICT-supported |
Organizational processes related with knowledge
assets |
Quantitative method - questionnaire. Sampling - 204
employees. |
There are correlations between SECI phases and
different types of knowledge assets |
|
19 |
Halley &
Beaulieu (2005) |
Studies the relationship between supply chain and
knowledge management practices in Canadian manufacturing companies |
n/a |
Organizational learning emphasized, individual
learning not studied yet |
Quantitative method - questionnaire. Sampling 163
employees |
Indicates that SECI model could be used in
cross-organizational settings in order to support efficient knowledge
management |
|
20 |
Holocher et al (2011) |
Studies the motivational aspects of SECI model in
cross-organizational settings |
ICT-supported |
Organizational and individual learning emphasized |
Qualitative method – scenarios and focus-group interview.
Sampling – 10 employees |
Technology can support individual’s motivation to
share knowledge and to become self-regulated learner |
Likert-scale questions with the focus on organizational performance may not entirely reflect actual SECI phases in organization. Using mixed methods for studying SECI enables to study the organizational and individual level learning more thoroughly. Triangulation of data with the mixed methods supports focusing on two different viewpoints – what will the individuals receive from the organization and what does the organization learn from the individuals.
What results of the studied SECI aspects could be transferred to teacher training context?
This section synthesizes the most relevant results of the SECI model meta-study for the teacher-training context for supporting teachers’ professional development and lifelong learning.
Table 2 illustrates the results of the studies that analyzed what SECI phases were less dominant. It can be assumed that socialization and externalization activities are more performed by the members of the organization, whereas internalization and combination activities have been less practiced.
Table
2: SECI Phases Studied And The Related Gaps
|
|
Socialization |
Externalization |
Combination |
Internalization |
|
Chalkiti & Sigala (2008) |
|
|
|
Internalization of individuals in the professional network is difficult
to observe |
|
Travaille & Hendriks (2010) |
|
|
Played less dominant role |
Played less dominant role |
|
Samuel, Goury, Gunasekaran, Spalanzani (2011) |
|
|
Less frequently mentioned |
|
|
Chaikrongrag & Angkasith (2010) |
Inefficient |
|
Inefficient |
|
|
Lwoga, Ngulube & Stilwell (2010) |
|
Practiced at low rate |
Practiced at low rate |
Practiced at low rate |
According to Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), for successful knowledge conversion, all the SECI phases have to be performed. Without internalization or combination activities organizations’ development could be inefficient, because employees’ “know-how” and professional knowledge develops in internalize phase and collective knowledge in combination phase.
Technology Support For SECI Model
Kimmerle et al. (2010) claimed that although SECI model does not deal with knowledge transfer with the computer-based technologies, they suggest that some aspects of SECI model can be applied with the technology support. Cartelli (2007) proposed that integrating SECI with technology could improve students’ learning, knowledge construction, and meaningful learning. Study by Lopez-Nicolas & Soto-Acosta (2010) identified that technology supports the performance of SECI phases and the organizational learning, but authors were less sure what is the influence of technology-supported SECI phases to individual learning. Yeh et al. (2010) studied SECI model in teacher training context with the blended learning approach and their study indicated that SECI model is suitable for teacher training and especially for improving teachers’ professional knowledge. Also society presumes that teacher uses some technology for professional development and lifelong learning (European Commission, 2007). Therefore it might be suggested that implementing SECI model in teacher training context could be technologically supported. One possibility is using e-portfolio for the SECI activities. The portfolio recognizes individualized learning in a self-reflexive and self-regulated mode (Imhof & Picard, 2009) and allows personal growth in a cooperative and learning-oriented community (Tillema, 2001) by addressing the individual and community-based learning.
Organizational Culture For Supporting
SECI Implementation
Study of Tan et al. (2010) focused on motivational aspects of using SECI model in professional activities and their results indicated that employees’ motivation to share knowledge is influenced by the organizational culture, which was considered as external motivation factor. For example Riege (2005) have discussed as well that existing corporate culture does not provide sufficient support for sharing practices; lack of social network; knowledge retention of highly skilled and experienced staff is not a high priority; low awareness and realization of the value and benefit of possessed knowledge to others; dominance in sharing explicit over tacit knowledge such as know-how and experience that requires hands-on learning, observation, dialogue and interactive problem solving.
Technology-supported SECI activities seem applicable in teacher training context, because model encourages individual learning in the group and organizational level. On the other hand the implementation of SECI model to teacher training context should consider certain aspects that were identified in this meta-study. Firstly it is important to focus on individual learning aspects, not only on organizational performance. Secondly the technology-supported portfolio-based community should be selected for supporting individual professional development by reflecting and construction of learning materials and same time community building aspects that allows collaboration between community members. Thirdly the culture of organization should encourage teachers and pre-service teachers to externalize their tacit knowledge, collaborate, co-construct learning materials, analyse themselves and feedback peers’ reflections.
SECI In Teacher Training Context
For summarizing the discussion of SECI meta-analysis this section proposes the SECI model in teacher training context (see Figure 3).
Figure
3: SECI Activities In The Teacher-Training Context
SECI activities as proposed in the Figure 3, may support teacher’s professional development. Teacher plans individual development, externalizes professional knowledge in the portfolio, shares it with the community and together with colleagues works on the documents guided by organizational normative. As discussed above, meta-study identified that combination phase plays less dominant role in organizations. It might be presumed that combination phase may be insufficient in teacher training context as well. OECD Talis (2009) report indicated that teachers’ collaboration involves exchanging the learning materials and discussing about them, talking about students’ development and participating in the conferences. Less has been focused on collaborative knowledge building, co-teaching, observing and analyzing each other. Although teachers tend to discuss with other teachers (Talis, 2009), they do not have habit of sharing their professional knowledge in the form of reflection with colleagues (Helleve, 2009). Baran & Cagiltay (2010) suggest in their study that online communities support teachers to turn their implicit knowledge to explicit and share it with the colleagues online.
Currently in
Conclusion
This paper conducted meta-analysis of Nonaka & Takeuchi SECI model for studying different practices of SECI model, how the SECI phases have been studied and how the SECI model could be used in cross-organizational teacher education settings. Qualitative meta-analysis was conducted among 20 empirical studies about SECI model. Results indicated that mainly SECI model is used in the companies for increasing the performance and achievements of organization but employees’ individual learning and professional development have been emphasized less. Additionally cross-organizational studies about SECI implementation are rare. Based on the analysis, this study proposes that analyze of the SECI model’s effectiveness in teacher training context could focus on combining the questionnaires with the interviews by enabling teachers to describe how do they learn from colleagues, make their knowledge explicit, take into account the organizational regulations in their professional development process and so on. Additionally observations of teachers in portfolio-based community or social network analysis are good additional instruments for studying SECI model as they illustrate the real actions performed in the organization.
Article also proposes that implementing SECI in cross-organizational school-university partnership may influence the development of teacher professionalism in individual and organizational level. Teachers’ professional activities inspired from SECI phases like documenting professional activities, learning from peers’, sharing the resources, collaborative activities, giving feedback to colleagues makes the teacher education knowledge to flow and therefore keeps it cyclically updated and supports the balance between theory and practice. Same time SECI activities shape the teacher’s habit to plan the development and competence, analyze the activities and therefore support the lifelong learning. Still, the meta-analysis of SECI model indicates that fostering the individual learning, using technology support and focus on organizational culture should be addressed for more efficient lifelong learning of teachers.
Acknowledgements
Study was conducted in
collaboration by MER targeted research 0130159s08.
References
Baran, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). The Dynamics of Online Communities in the Activity Theory Framework. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (4), 155–166.
Chaikrongrag, P., & Angkasith, V. (2010). Organizing Knowledge Creation: The Implementation of SECI Model in Slider Fabrication in Hard Disk Drive Industry. KMUTT Research & Development Journal, 33(3), 216-222
Argyris, C. 1977. Double loop learning in organisations. Harvard Business Review, 55 (5), 115-126
Chalkiti, K., & Sigala, M. (2008). Information Sharing and Knowledge Creation in Online Forums: The Case of the Greek Online Forum ‘DIALOGOI, Current Issues in Tourism, 11(5), 381-406
Chou, S.W., & He, M.Y. (2004). Knowledge management: the distinctive roles of knowledge assets in facilitating knowledge creation, Journal of Information Science, 30(2), 146–164.
Cartelli, A. (2007). Socio-technical theory and knowledge construction: towards new pedagogical paradigms? Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 4(27), 1–14.
European Commission. (2007). Improving the Quality of Teacher Education - Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council.
Glass, G. V. 1976. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research, Educational Researcher, 5, 351-379.
Gourlay, S. (2006). Conceptualizing knowledge creation: a critique of Nonaka’s theory. Journal of Management Studies 43 (7), 1415–1436.
Grace, A., &
Haag, M. (2010) Personal Knowledge Development in Online Learning
Environments: A Personal Value Perspective. PhD thesis.
Halley, A., Beaulieu, M., 2005. Knowledge management practices in the context of supply chain integration: the Canadian experience, Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal 6 (1), 66–81.
Harmaakorpi, V., & Melkas, H. (2005). Knowledge management in regional
innovation networks: The case of
Helleve, I. (2009). Theoretical Foundations of Teachers‟ Professional Development In Lindberg and Olofson (eds), Online Learning Communities and Teacher professional development: Methods for Improved Education Delivery, 1-19. IGI-Global, US
Holocher-Ertl, T., Fabian, C.M., Siadaty, M., Jovanovic, J., Pata, K., Gašecic, D. (2011). Self-regulated Learners and Collaboration: How innovative Tools Can Address the Motivation to Learn at Workplace? In Proceedings of EC-TEL 2011, LNCS 6964, 506-511.
Hosseini, S.M. (2011). The application of SECI model as a framework of knowledge creation in virtual learning
Case study of IUST Virtual Classes, Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(2), 263-270.
Imhof, M. & Picard, C. (2009). Views on using portfolio in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 149-155.
Järvelä, S. (2001). Shifting research on motivation and cognition to an
integrated approach on learning and motivation in context. In Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical
advances and methodological implications, (ed. S. Volet and S. Järvelä).
Kantola, M., & Hautala, J. (2008). Internationalisation Network: A Finnish Experience, Tertiary Education and Management, 14(1), 43-56.
Kimmerle, J., Cress, U. & Held, C. (2010) The interplay between individual and collective knowledge: Technologies for organisational learning and knowledge building. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 8(1), 33-44.
Li, Y.H., Huang, J.W., & Tsai, M.T. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of knowledge creation process. Industrial Marketing Management, 38, 440–449.
Lopez-Nicolas, C., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2010). Analyzing ICT adoption and use effects on knowledge creation: An empirical investigation in SMEs, International Journal of Information Management, 30(6), 521-528.
Luik, P., Voltri, O., Taimalu, M.
& Kalk, K. (2011) On the use of
student teacher blogs during teaching practice. Social and Behavioral Sciences 11, 165-169.
Lwoga, E.T., Ngulube, P. & Stilwell, C. ( 2010). Understanding indigenous knowledge: bridging the knowledge gap through a knowledge creation model for agricultural development. South African Journal of Information Management 12(1), 436- 444.
Lytras, M.D., Naeve, A. & Pouloudi, A. (2005). Knowledge management as a reference theory for e-learning: a conceptual and technological perspective, International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (Special Issue on Knowledge Management Technologies for E-Learning), 3(2), 1–12.
Martın-de-Castro, G., Lopez-Saez, P. and Navas-Lopez, J. E. (2008).
Processes of knowledge creation in knowledge-intensive firms: Empirical
evidence from
Nonaka,
Nonaka, I.,
Nonaka, I.,
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
Ramirez, A.M., & Garcia Morales, V.J. (2011). Improving Competitiveness Trough Creation of Knowledge and Reverse Logistics. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 22(4), 443-450.
Reis, S., Hermoni, D, Van-Raalte, R, Dahan, R and Borkan, J. Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies:
From Theory to Practice: In the Domain of Patient Priorities and Evaluations of General
Practice/Family Medicine, Tehnion Israel Institute of Technology and
Rice J., & Rice, B. (2005). The applicability of the SECI model to multi-organisational endeavours: an integrative review‖, International Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 9(8), 671-682.
Riege A. 2005. Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35.
Roy, A., & Gupta, R.K. (2007). Knowledge Processes in Small Manufacturing: Re-examining Nonaka and Takeuchis' Model in the Indian Context, Journal of Entrepreneurship, 16, 77-93.
Samuel, K.E., Goury, L.M., Gunasekaran, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2011).
Knowledge management in supply chain: An empirical study from
Slavin, R.E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researchers, 15(9), 5-11.
Stacey, R. D. (2001). Complex
Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and Knowledge Creation.
TALIS, (2009). Teaching and Learning International Survey. Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments. From http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/51/43023606.pdf
Tammets, K., Pata, K. & Laanpere, M. (2012). Implementing A Technology-
Supported Model for Cross-Organisational Learning and
Tan, N.L., Lye, Y.H., Ng, T.H., & Lim, Y.S. (2010). Motivational factors
in influencing knowledge sharing among banks in
Tillema, H. (2001). Portfolios as developmental assessment tools. International Journal of Training and Development, 5, 126–135.
Travaille, A.M, & Hendriks, P.H.J. (2010). What keeps science spiralling? Unravelling the critical success factors of knowledge creation in university research, Higher Education, 59, 423-439.
Timoštšuk, I. & Ugaste, A. (2010). Student Teachers` Professional Identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1563 - 1570.
Vaccaro, A., Veloso, F., & Brusoni, S. (2009). The impact of virtual technologies on knowledge-based processes: An empirical study, Research Policy, 38, 1278–1287.
Wickes, M,, Leslie, A., & Lettice, F. (2003). A Perspective of Nonaka's
SECI Model From Programme Management: Combining Management Information,
Performance Measurement and Information Design. Paper presented at the 4th
Conference on Organisational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities (OKLC),
Yeh, Y.C., Huang, L.Y., & Yeh, Y.L. (2011). Knowledge management in blended learning: Effects on professional development in creativity instruction, Computers & Education, 56, 146–156.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work
and Power, Basic Books,
Contact the Author:
Kairit Tammets, Centre for Educational Technology, Tallinn University, Estonia;
Email: kairit@tlu.ee