eLAC 2009

Factors Affecting Teachers' Knowledge Sharing Behaviors

and Motivation: System Functions that Work
Chun-an Lin 1*, Mei-chi Chen2,
1
Ph. D. Student, Department of Business Education, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
2
Professor, Department of Business Education, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.

Abstract
The biggest challenge to online knowledge sharing probably lies in people’s willingness to share and their
frequency of sharing. Past study showed that teachers and educators acknowledge the advantages of online
knowledge sharing within their community. Factors affecting the success of knowledge sharing among teachers
appear to be of social aspect; particularly, knowledge self-efficacy, enjoyment in helping others, collective cog-
nitive responsibility, individual outcome expectations and identification-based trust are suggested to be the fac-
tors that encourage the motivation and behaviors of knowledge sharing (Kankanhalli et al, 2005; Hsu, et al,
2007; Bandura, 1997; Compeau and Higgins, 1995; Bishop, 2007; Scardamalia, 2002). Therefore, this study
looks into these factors and how they should be embodied in online knowledge sharing or knowledge manage-
ment platforms in order for the teacher community to effectively conduct knowledge sharing.

Keywords: e-learning, teachers’ knowledge sharing, motivation factors, education, knowledge management

*Corresponding author: National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan. E-mail: ann6688@cht.com.tw

eLAC 2009 Factors Affecting Teachers' Knowledge Sharing

Introduction
Enterprises and organizations around the world develop and implement information technology of various
kinds to enhance the knowledge management mechanism within their organizations. Their goal is laid on im-
proving the quality of knowledge sharing, contributed by their members, through which they learn to have a
better understanding about the environment and their members take initial to learn and share knowledge. The
cooperation, communication, coordination and even challenge among members stimulate them to learn from one
another (Carroll et al, 2003). Schools, like enterprises, develop knowledge from their operation, i.e. the proc-
esses of teaching and learning; however, struck by the same challenge encountered by enterprises, schools or
learning institutes do not have the necessary capability to manage the generation and diffusion of knowledge
within their organizations (Carroll et al, 2003). Petrides & Guiney (2002) described the deficiency of informa-
tion sharing system in schools as lacking transparency, consolidation and timeliness, thus, emerging the needs
for data mining, data warehousing, information management, and knowledge management.
Knowledge, itself, is a perplexing concept, difficult to be embodied; especially the tacit knowledge pos-
sessed by individuals, it is even more difficult to obtain. There would be methodological issues for those who
attempted to exploit and benefit from the tacit knowledge of others, for the notion of knowledge is well hidden
within specific social contexts, making it genuinely complex to gain from the tacit knowledge of others (Fernie,
2003). However, educational workers also have the need for knowledge sharing. McAndrew et al (2004) indi-
cated that fellow teachers in their school “want to know what colleagues are currently thinking, what methods
and approaches are currently being used; and they want the opportunity to discuss ideas with colleagues across
the university. But no one has time to attend workshops or other face-to-face events to facilitate these needs.” In
addition, through online knowledge sharing, teachers are allowed to evaluate online resources or to understand
how other teachers evaluated similar resources, presenting the following potential advantages, including learn-
ing to analyze Websites and online resources, creating a series of Web lists with commentaries, comparing the
evaluation and comments made by themselves and others, learning to interact with others, sharing online re-
sources for teaching with colleagues, and so on. Developers receiving feedback from teachers are also benefited
from understanding the perception of potential adopters, increasing the awareness of the Websites for people
who read the reviews made by teachers (Ravitz & Hoadley, 2005). Knowledge management, from the perspec-
tive of practice and policy, may yield support for educational administration and subsequently give support to
teaching and learning (Petrides & Guiney, 2002).
However, the genuine difficulty of knowledge management lies in how one individual can transfer knowl-
edge to another, when the core of knowledge management is about the process of shifting data to information
and then to knowledge. When designing knowledge network for Open University (UK), McAndrew et al (2004)
considered three important issues: First, who can contribute knowledge? Second, how will existing knowledge
sharing mechanism develop? Third, what can motivate community to participate in knowledge sharing? The
answers lie in a series of designing and testing, making it possible for every community member to contribute
and publish knowledge. By connecting community and knowledge network, existing knowledge sharing system
or mechanism can be sustained; though systems must be equipped with powerful search engine, transferring
different types of data and information effectively and efficiently, encouraging active participation and knowl-
edge sharing among community members, with the hope to transform the knowledge culture within and to en-
courage more sharing.
Ravitz & Hoadley (2005) explained why it is necessary to examine digital resources for teaching with a sys-
temic method; it is mainly because relevant stakeholders of teaching resources acknowledge the need for sys-
temic evolution to facilitate effective use of digital resources. Teachers want to search for materials of the high-
est quality; policymakers and evaluators hope to locate tested and credited programs; developers desire to refine
their tools and target right users. When teachers make use of online resources or materials, they not only have to
consider the basic quality for the design of online sites, but also have to understand their structure and applica-
tion, in order to evaluate their overall suitability for teaching and learning. In addition, they need to take into
consideration of artifacts of resource use, including student work, project inspiration, lesson plans or rubrics
(Ravitz & Hoadley, 2005). It was further indicated that teachers review online resources and give feedback or
comments accordingly, providing references to themselves and other teachers, and conforming to the notion of
participatory evaluation proposed by Riding, Fowell & Levy (1995). The research conducted by Ravitz & Hoad-
ley in 2005 highlighted the influence of online learning or online knowledge sharing on teacher growth, in the
meanwhile, anticipating the network formed by educators and developers to apply and converge on the effects
of systematic evaluation.

Research Purpose
The biggest challenge to online knowledge sharing probably lies in people’s willingness to share and fre-
quency of sharing. In other words, factors motivating teachers’ knowledge sharing or stimulating their willing-
ness to share can be attributed to social aspect (Ruppel and Harrington 2001). With information technology be-
ing the basis of online knowledge creation and sharing, the behaviors and motive of knowledge sharing actually

2
eLAC 2009 Factors Affecting Teachers' Knowledge Sharing

underscore the interaction from a social and cultural perspective. Past study concluded that factors motivating
knowledge sharing include knowledge self-efficacy, enjoyment in helping others, collective cognitive responsi-
bility, individual outcome expectations and identification-based trust (Kankanhalli et al, 2005; Hsu, et al, 2007;
Bandura, 1997; Compeau and Higgins, 1995; Bishop, 2007; Scardamalia, 2002). Therefore, this study aims to
look into these factors and how they should be embodied in online knowledge sharing or knowledge manage-
ment platforms in order for the teacher community to effectively conduct knowledge sharing.

Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge sharing refers to individuals propagating the knowledge they have acquired and distributing
them within organizations (Ryu et al.,2003). In knowledge management systems, the most often observed prob-
lem is the low degree of participation for knowledge sharing or shared database use (Kankanhalli et al, 2005).
Regardless of the context, being it online conferences or virtual classrooms, individuals often participated pas-
sively in information exchange, merely viewing information or data provided by others, rather than contributing
them. Accordingly, past research have investigated factors affecting, and even deciding individual’s willingness
to share knowledge, including cost and benefit, incentive mechanism, external and intrinsic motivation, organ-
izational climate, and the support from the management (Bock and Kim,2002; Bock et al.,2005; Kankanhalli et
al.,2005; Purvis et al.,2001; Wasko and Faraj,2000). In fact, past study has attempted to further examine social
and technical obstacles to knowledge sharing system (McDermott 1999; Zack 1999), in order to discover possi-
ble advantages exploited from the implementation of knowledge management (Davenport et al. 1998; O'Dell
and Grayson 1998).
Erikssom & Dickson (2000) concluded four preliminary elements for knowledge sharing: (1) shared knowl-
edge creation process: the process of creating and distributing knowledge; (2) IT (information technology) infra-
structure: the system and tools that support information dissemination; (3) catalysts: media that facilitate and
promote knowledge sharing; (4) values, standard and procedure: social and cultural values that influence per-
sonal mind set. Please refer to Figure 1. Erikssom & Dickson (2000) further pointed out even if the basic infra-
structure of information technology serves as the key factor of knowledge creation and sharing, the behavior of
sharing actually lies in social and cultural interaction. That is to say, although technical aspects are important,
the adoption of refined knowledge management platform or system does not necessarily reinforce knowledge
sharing to an effective extent, or stimulate incentive for knowledge sharing (Cross and Baird 2000; McDermott
1999), for social factors are one of the major elements reassuring its success (Ruppel and Harrington 2001).

Figure 1. Four Elements for Knowledge Sharing

Source: Erikssom & Dickson (2000)

Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing Motivation

Kankanhalli et al (2005) adopted social exchange theory to verify factors affecting people’s use of electronic
knowledge databases, and their research showed that knowledge self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others
have comprehensible impact on knowledge contributors’ use of electronic knowledge databases; in addition,
their research results also indicated that the effect of external motivating factors such as reciprocity and organ-
izational rewards on knowledge sharing is constrained by contexts; while internal motivating factors like knowl-
edge self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others are not limited by contexts.

3
eLAC 2009 Factors Affecting Teachers' Knowledge Sharing

Self-efficacy refers to people’s perception of their own ability and skills (Bandura 1986). When individuals
share with other members their professional knowledge that’s beneficial to their organization, their confidence
level is then lifted, and they have more faith in what they are able to achieve, benefiting from enhanced self-
efficacy (Constant et al. 1994). Such beliefs drive knowledge contributors to supply more information into
knowledge management system (Bock and Kim 2002). When individuals believe in their intrinsic knowledge
for solving work-related problems, and they take initial to provide such knowledge, they are said to have knowl-
edge self-efficacy. The notion of self-efficacy is endorsed for knowledge management. Research carried out by
Hsu et al (2007) proved that one’s knowledge self-efficacy has a positive influence on knowledge sharing be-
haviors.
In terms of enjoyment in helping others, past study indicated that knowledge contributors gain enjoyment
through altruism (Wasko and Faraj 2000), and such enjoyment evolves from helping others (Ba, 2001; Constant
et al. 1994). Knowledge owners who feel the enjoyment in helping others are keen to contribute to knowledge
sharing or management. Additionally, and very importantly, the influence of enjoyment in helping others is not
confined to contexts.
Another factor affecting the behaviors and motivation of knowledge sharing is individual outcome expecta-
tions, which is claimed to have a positive impact. Outcome expectations is one of the constructs identified by
established cognitive-based theories, such as social cognitive theory. It refers to the expected benefits and costs
of performing a behavior (Bandura, 1997; Compeau and Higgins, 1995; Lave, 1991). There are three forms of
outcome expectations: (1) physical outcome expectations, such as the feelings of pleasantness, pain or uncom-
fortableness; (2) social outcome expectations, such as social recognition, financial rewards, power, praise and so
on; (3) self-evaluative outcome expectations, including self satisfaction, self devaluation and the like (Bandura,
1997). Whatever forms that one may experience, positive outcome expectations serve as great incentive for hu-
man behaviors, and then exert a constructive influence on knowledge sharing.
In addition, through identification-based trust, it is also possible to predict the behaviors of knowledge shar-
ing (Hsu et al, 2007). Identification-based trust happens when both parties fully understand, agree with, and
identify with each other’s needs. Both parties believe that their interests will be guarded and protected, and no
supervision is needed. In virtual communities, how organizational members perceive identification-based trust
has a positive impact on knowledge sharing behaviors and motivation. Therefore, trust is apparently one of the
keys to knowledge sharing among members (Hsu, M. H. et al , 2007). Nelson and Cooprider (1996) investigated
the potential effects of knowledge sharing on information technology worker groups, and they found that knowl-
edge sharing is achieved through the mutual trust and influence among organizational members; while the
evaluation of mutual trust, i.e. members’ commitment to their organization, is linked with affection factors that
help to build identification-based trust.
The research conducted by Bishop (2007) proposed the conceptual structure for the participatory situation of
online community members, and it concluded the above-mentioned factors affecting individual knowledge shar-
ing behaviors. First, any action or behavior of online community members are inspired by their personal desire,
not personal needs. Second, their participatory behaviors or extent are influenced by their own goals, plans, val-
ues, beliefs and interests. Whether they act to prove their self-efficacy, or to gain enjoyment in helping others, or
to fulfill individual outcome expectations, their desires take lead for their actions, which eventually produce a
series of plans which live up to community members’ goals, values and beliefs, and at the same time, these ac-
tions would affect their perception on community environment. Therefore, online community managers should
try to change members’ beliefs, even if it may not be consistent with individual member’s perception.
Collective cognitive responsibility, the collective efforts made by all members for the success of a group
rather than the individual responsibility concentrated in the leader, involves a cognitive dimension in modern
enterprises, and this dimension along with the more tangible and practical aspects affect the operation of the
community. This is even more true to organizations specialized in research or knowledge-output-related work.
Collectively, members are responsible for the transfer of knowledge within their organization, with each and
every one responsible for cognitive responsibility in order to understand events currently happening and to keep
up with any organizational updates (Scardamalia, 2002). Educational workers also have the need for knowledge
sharing, as McAndrew et al (2004) pointed out that school teachers like to learn about their colleagues’ opinions
and ideas, their methods and approaches, and hope to discuss with others through conferences or workshops,
emphasizing the importance of collective cognitive responsibility.

Knowledge Management Structure

Knowledge management/sharing system should be equipped with three levels of knowledge flow, from tan-
gible to intangible, including (1) the transfer of tangible resources; (2) the transfer of activity plans; (3) the
transfer of material prototypes (Carroll, & et al., 2003). In addition, Carroll et al. (2003) proposed three essential
features for knowledge sharing systems. First, the systems should be compelling and easy to use; second, the
systems need to provide abounding tools for interactive purpose with which users can write and create; third, the
systems should be helpful when users need to locate immediate knowledge for professional purpose, encourag-

4
eLAC 2009 Factors Affecting Teachers' Knowledge Sharing

ing the face-to-face interaction among users after they logged out of the system. McAndrew et al (2004) have
concluded that the biggest incentive for knowledge sharing lies in the system itself, motivating users to give and
take knowledge. An effective system, as he claimed, should include a shared database, a simple user interface, a
powerful search engine, as well as rich contents.
The biological knowledge management structure designed by Petrides & Guiney (2002) consists of the
processes that turn data into information, and information into knowledge among all of the possible information
stakeholders (e.g. principal, administration workers, teachers, and students) in a campus. The processes of con-
text, accumulation of data, sense making, synthesis, and reflection make it possible for information to be trans-
formed into knowledge, and such knowledge would be relevant, or even crucial, to educational decision making
within a school (Petrides & Guiney, 2002). Muthukumar & Hedberg (2005) developed a framework based on
the notion of knowledge spiral proposed by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), accounting for the four processes of
knowledge spiral: internalization, combination, socialization and externalization. Knowledge management struc-
ture is then highlighted on three aspects: collective learning, learning how to learn, and idea facilitation, stress-
ing the concept of online resource other than online discussion, so that users can create functional resources for
each other through knowledge management systems. In short, the principles for building a knowledge commu-
nity is, primarily, to set the goal on member cooperation of deeper levels, and then to learn how to learn, and
finally to introduce idea facilitators with Epistemology (Aalst, 2006).

System Design and User Interface for Teachers and Educational Workers
Learning communities based on the Internet should qualify the following attributes of effective knowledge
sharing and management: (1) individual users are able to learn and construct knowledge spontaneously; (2)
members of one community can share ideas and provide information from within; (3) the management of dis-
tributed knowledge and expertise should be made possible (Chang, 2003). With the user-oriented interface, the
distributive knowledge network of learning community designed by Chang (2003) is featured with functions
including account management, identity verification center, bulletin board, counter of online user number, dis-
cussion board, course center, bulletin board for learning activities, learning resource browsing and sharing, user
profile center, expert consultation, Website resource searching, opinion bulletin board, point accumulation sys-
tem, Web-based learning record, and system management. These functions are suggested to work with various
databases that provide information of the users, experts, Website-resource, and file-resource as well as record of
discussion posting, discussion replying, opinion posting, and conferencing.
The knowledge management system developed by Carroll et al (2003) for teachers and educational workers
is designed to provide a full editor that is capable of delivering functions including chat room, image processing
tools, user list, browser and so on, allowing users to make spontaneous and immediate edition to every object
within the Web space, only under the circumstances that every edition lives up to the requirements of system
safety. Moreover, a collaborative discussion space is available in the system, offering services such as naviga-
tion, shared text editor, chat, user list, and editable room description. A collaborative workspace for the system
incorporates the following means of application: user list, timeline of document revisions, shared documents and
document list, and workspace chat. For the management of explicit knowledge, one possible solution is to adopt
an electronic document management system and, in an integrated fashion, to store and configure explicit knowl-
edge. A search engine is suggested to pair up with the system to provide direct link to the input of every avail-
able document of explicit knowledge (Amaral & Rozenfeld, 2001). In addition, Websites as well as software
like Lotus Notes can be applied to construct space for multimedia storage, in order to effectively accumulate the
explicit knowledge of digital form (Muthukumar & Hedberg, 2005; Twining & Rico, 2002).
Database plays an important role in knowledge management system, even if it may not be as interesting or
fun-prone as other online learning instruments. Nevertheless, when teaming up with a simple user interface, a
powerful search engine as well as copious contents, databases can unquestionably work as the most effective
knowledge management tool, supporting the independent learning of users. In terms of technological aspects,
the stability of system is as crucial as the design of user interface, and the following needs to be concerned:
steady server service, stable system software, real-time user support for technical problems, shortened waiting
time for Web browsing, user-friendly interface, and easy to access system contents.
The user interface of the knowledge management system for teacher communities needs to conform to not
only the above-mentioned principles, but also the special demands of the teacher group, and to fulfill these de-
mands through function design. Following are the system functions for the interactive purpose proposed by the
current research; please refer to Table 1.

Table 1. Interactive User Interface Design

Design Element Description
Voice Message Users are allowed to leave voice messages in the system, and have the option of
Function turning the messages into recorded data that is available for other users when nec-
essary.

5
eLAC 2009 Factors Affecting Teachers' Knowledge Sharing

Conferencing The conferencing function makes synchronous communication easy through the
Recording Internet; with the additional function of video recoding, the video-taped message
Function or information gives users quick access to the records of past discussion.
Instant This function provides users with real-time interaction of both audio and video
Audio/Video forms, enhancing the effectiveness of their communication.
Interaction
Sketching and Within the shared Web space of the system, this sketching and drawing function
Drawing provides users with the convenience of jotting down their ideas or opinions spon-
taneously and sharing them with other users quickly.
Individual Every community member ought to have their own blog for expressing and keep-
Member Blog ing track of the knowledge they have absorbed. The personal blog serves as the
mediating space that transforms implicit knowledge into explicit knowledge.
Categorized The Web space for categorized discussion topics offers users a space to have free
Discussion discussion with each other for the topics of their interests as they like.
Board
Feedback and Users make comments, give feedback and provide suggestion for the overall de-
Suggestion sign of the system, helping to eliminate the possible drawbacks of the system.
Search Engine The search engine allows users to locate the information and knowledge they need.
for Using key words to search for information gives users an immediate access to
General Purpose online resources.
Alerts for After users set key words for information they would like to search, they can set
Regular Search alerts for search results on a regular basis, for which the system would automati-
Results cally forward search results, responding to the key words, to users regularly, keep-
ing users updated for the information they need.
Online The online classroom provides a platform for practice teachers to demonstrate their
Classroom teaching skills and experiences with other members through the Internet, and in
for Practice return they receive feedback and comments from others.
Teaching

Voice message, conferencing recording and instant audio/video interaction are functions that are adopted
to help teachers overcome the constraint of time and space, for they are often limited by their much differenti-
ated schedule which prohibited them from having face-to-face discussion or meetings of physical forms. In ad-
dition, audio or video recording gives users the convenience of keeping account of their ideas, concepts or the
information/implicit knowledge they have just obtained. Such functions serve to provide means of input for us-
ers, consistent with the notion of user controllability. As for functions that support user output, including sketch-
ing and drawing, individual member blog, and categorized discussion board, they are spaces for users to express
their ideas and disseminate information freely; after reading other members’ blogs or information, users can
respond, reply or comment on others’ information using marked commentaries. These output-oriented functions
conform to the feedback-harnessing tendency of user interface. Search engine for general purpose and alerts for
regular search results collaborating with a shared database that stores abounding information respond well to the
concept proposed by McAndrew et al in 2004 that an effective knowledge management system serves to be the
strongest incentive for users to conduct knowledge sharing.
System log can be applied to observe and record the frequency and number of times that each user logs into
the system to use individual function available on the user interface; this is a great way to understand individual
user’s needs for the system functions and interface design as well as their appraisal for each utility; moreover,
this design along with the mechanism to harvest feedback and comments from users can enhance the overall
suitability of the system.

Conclusion
The goal of designing and implementing a knowledge management or sharing system could be a challenge
that triggers school reforms from top down. Even if the school authorities show determination for initiatives to
start top-down reforms, the changes made could be superficial as they only provide the prerequisites for trans-
forming the culture of teaching. In order to really make the reforms work, the adaptation of the system must be
deliberately completed by and coordinated with innovations in teachers’ professional practice; particularly when
the innovations are peer-driven. Although teachers can be benefited from working together with each other, the
culture of knowledge sharing is weak when it comes to the sharing, assessment, and collaboration of profes-
sional knowledge. Therefore, effective systemic reforms still require bottom-up changes and innovations among
teachers for professional development.

6
eLAC 2009 Factors Affecting Teachers' Knowledge Sharing

References
Aalst, J. V.(2006) Rethinking the nature of online work in asynchronous learning networks. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 37, 2, 279-288.
Ba, S., (2001). Establishing online trust through a community responsibility system. Decision Support Systems,
31, 4, 323–336.
Bandura, A., (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A., (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, New York, NY.
Bishop, J. (2007). Increasing participation in online communities: A framework for human–computer interaction.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1881-1893.
Bock, G.W., Kim, Y.G., (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes about knowl-
edge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal, 15, 2, 14–21.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y., Lee, J., (2005). Behavioral intention formation knowledge sharing: Examin-
ing roles of extrinsic motivators, social–psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly,
29, 1, 87–111.
Carroll, J.M, Choo, C. W., Dunlap, D. R., Isenhour, P. L.; et al. (2003) Knowledge management support for
teachers. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51, 4, 42-64.
Chang, C. C. (2003) Towards a distributed Web-based learning community. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 40, 1, 27-42.
Compeau, D.R., Higgins, C.A., (1995). Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills.
Information Systems Research, 6, 2, 118-143.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., (1994). What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about informa-
tion sharing. Information Systems Research, 5, 4, 400–421.
Cross, R., and Baird, L. (2000). Technology Is Not Enough: Improving Performance by Building Organizational
Memory, Sloan Management Review, 41, 3, 69-78.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., and Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful Knowledge Management Projects,
Sloan Management Review, 39, 2, 43-57
Fernie, S, Green, S, Weller, S and Newcombe, R. (2003). Knowledge sharing: context, confusion and contro-
versy. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 3, 177-187.
Hsu, M. H. et al (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust,
self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 153-169.
Kankanhalli, A, Tan, B, Kwok-Kee, W. (2005). Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories:
An Empirical Investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 1, 113-143.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Lin, C.B., Young, S.S.C., Chan, T.W., Chen, Y.H. (2005). Teacher-oriented adaptive Web-based environment
for supporting practical teaching models: a case study of “school for all.” Computers & Education 44,
155–172
McAndrew, P., Clow, D., Taylor, J. & Aczel, J. (2004). The evolutionary design of a knowledge network to
support knowledge management and sharing for lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Tech-
nology, 35, 6, 739–746.
McDermott, R. (1999). Why Information Technology Inspired but Cannot Deliver Knowledge Management,
California Management Review, 41, 4, 103-117.
Muthukumar, S. L. & Hedberg, J. G. (2005) A knowledge management technology architecture for educational
research organizations: Scaffolding research projects and workflow processing. British Journal of Educa-
tional Technology, 36, 3, 379-395.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, K.M., Cooprider, J.G.., (1996). The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS
Quarterly, 21, 4, 409-429.
O'Dell, C, and Grayson, C. J. (1998). If Only We Knew What We Know: Identification and Transfer of Internal
Best Practices, California Management Review, 40, 3, 154-174.
Petrides, L. A. & Guiney, S. Z. (2002) Knowledge management for school leaders: An ecological framework for
thinking schools. Computers & Education, 44, 155-172.
Purvis, R.L., Sambamurthy, V., Zmud, R.W., (2001). The assimilation of knowledge platforms in organizations:
an empirical investigation. Organization Science, 12, 2, 117-135.
Ravitz, J. & Hoadley, C. (2005) Supporting change and scholarship through review of online resources in pro-
fessional development settings. British Journal of Educational Technology. 36, 6: 957-974.
Riding, P., Fowell, S.P., and Levy, P.C.M.,(1995) "An action research approach to curriculum development",
Information Research News 5(3).

7
eLAC 2009 Factors Affecting Teachers' Knowledge Sharing

Ruppel, C. P., and Harrington, S. J. (2001).Spreading Knowledge through Intranets: An Analysis of the Organ-
izational Culture Leading to Intranet Adoption and Use, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communica-
tions, 44, 1, 37-52.
Ryu, S., Ho, S.H., Han, I., (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals. Expert Systems with
Applications, 25, 1, 113–122.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith
(Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Taylor, J. & Aczel, J. (2004). The evolutionary design of a knowledge network to support knowledge manage-
ment and sharing for lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 6, 739–746.
Twining, P. & Rico, M. (2002). Knowledge network evaluation—final report. retrieved online 28 November
2007 at http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?docid=2582.
Van den Hooff, B. and Van Weenen, F. de L. (2004).Committed to share: commitment and CMC use as antece-
dents of knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 11, 1, 13-24.
Wasko, M.M., Faraj, S., (2000). It is what one does: why people participate and help others in electronic com-
munities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 2–3, 155–173.
Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing Codified Knowledge, Sloan Management Review, 40, 4, 45-58.