TEACHER PERCEPTION

TEACHER PERCEPTION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SCHOOL
CHU KAI WING
CCC Heep Woh College,
171, Po Kong Village Road, Tze Wan Shan, Kowloon, Hong Kong
E-mail:chukwalex@yahoo.com.hk
MINHONG WANG and ALLAN YUEN
Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong
Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
†E-mail: magwang @hku.hk and hkyuen@hkucc.hku.hk
Teachers are facing waves of challenges in their daily practice, such as student problems, education reform and competition. Teachers need to be equipped with relevant skills to face these challenges and embrace change. However, traditional professional development programs fail to meet teacher needs. They should have some effective ways to satisfy teacher needs. Knowledge Management (KM) has been used as an effective approach to help organizational learning and leverage knowledge assets in commercial sectors. KM can be used as an alternative strategy by schools to improve performance. However, little research has been undertaken on how KM can be applied to teacher learning or even in a school environment. To put KM into action, it is crucial to understand teacher perception of KM at the outset, e.g. how teachers regard KM in the school environment, what they expect to achieve from KM, and what concerns they have while implementing KM. This study aims to look into the key factors of KM implementation in the school environment and teacher perception of the key factors. The study was carried out in a typical Hong Kong secondary school. Interviews, based on relevant KM models, were used to understand teacher perception of KM. Based on the literature review, we designed the interview questions and conducted an interview in the school for this study. The interview involved 4 questions to study teacher perceptions of KM implementation: Understanding of KM, Concerns of KM, Needs for Support of KM and Expected Outcomes of KM. We found that knowledge sharing, people, culture and knowledge storage with IT support were regarded as important from the interviewees’ point of view. Most interviewees might accept that KM can help improve their practice but it needs the support of various dimensions such as people, culture, IT and management. This study was used to kick-start a KM research project in the secondary school. The findings may provide insights on taking further action for KM implementation in the school.
1. Introductions
1.1. Objectives of Knowledge Management
Knowledge has been recognized as an important aspect of human life. Individuals and organizations are starting to understand and appreciate knowledge as the most valued asset in the emerging competitive environment (Bailey and Clarke 2000；Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). Davenport and Prusak (1997) defined knowledge enterprise from the primary activities involved. They identified activities such as acquisition, creation, packaging or application of knowledge. The objective of KM is to improve the quality of the contributions people make to their organizations by helping people to make sense of the context within which the organization exists, to take responsibility, to cooperate and share what they know and learn, and to effectively challenge, negotiate and learn from others. Organizations have the potential to learn and that new knowledge may be effectively incorporated into specific practices, so that the knowledge is accessible when needed.
1.2. Teachers as Knowledge Workers
Teachers, as typical knowledge workers, have their tacit knowledge, such as the specific experiences and personal heuristics in selecting, planning, and carrying out their assigned tasks. Giroux (1988) addressed the role of teacher as being intellectual rather than technical. Teachers should have their own tacit knowledge that in turn helps formalize their competencies in daily practice. The sharing of experiences, a kind of tacit knowledge, is believed to be able to help teachers themselves learn suitable ways to handle tasks. Several recent studies have explicitly called for new research to focus on Knowledge Management in schools (Hargreaves 1999). In Hong Kong, there have been very few empirical studies that shed light on this topic. This study is the starting point of an action research on KM implementation in a secondary school, in an attempt to understand teacher perception of KM with the aid of interviews. The findings of the interviews may in turn provide insight into the design and implementation of KM initiatives in the school and minimize the obstacles in KM practice.
Section 2 gives a brief introduction of KM and discusses the need for KM in schools as well as the importance of teacher attitudes towards KM implementation. In Section 3, the motivation of the study is addressed. These dimensions were used to design the interview questions for investigating teacher perception of KM in this study. Section 4 provides details of the interviews conducted in the selected school. The results of the study are presented in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 concludes the study and gives insight into and suggestions for further work.
2. Background
Several major constructs will be introduced in this section.
2.1. Knowledge Management
KM is not a new concept. Barron (2000) defines KM as “an integrated, systematic approach to identifying, managing and sharing all of an enterprise's information assets, including databases, documents, policies and procedures, as well as previously unarticulated expertise and experience held by individual workers.” According to Zack (1999), a typical KM process includes five stages: acquisition, refining, storage and retrieval, distribution and presentation. Nevertheless, the nature of knowledge is complex; many people try to identify what knowledge is from different perspectives. There are two common ways to distinguish knowledge. Some scholars, like Kogut and Zander (1996), distinguish between know-what and know-how (practical knowledge) while others, like Nonaka (1994), prefer to use the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge based on Polanyi’s (1967) theory. In general, tacit knowledge is hard to articulate and transfer, and has been linked with know-how; explicit knowledge is relatively easy to articulate and codify, and has been linked with know-what. A good KM system must treat all sorts of knowledge, from know-what to know-how, and from tacit to explicit. This is the largest difficulty for the implementation of a KM project. Meanwhile, the complexity of what knowledge means has led to different approaches to managing knowledge.
2.2. Knowledge Management in Schools
In a climate of increased external and internal pressures for improvement, the information needs of school teachers and administrators have never been greater, yet the perils of information overload are real. Schools, like most organizations, should learn and gain knowledge so as to improve decision-making and innovation. KM can be used as an alternative strategy by schools to improve competitive performance. Typically a knowledge worker can individually bring a wealth of tacit knowledge such as his/her specific experiences and personal heuristics in selecting, planning, and carrying out their assigned tasks, so that an organization can build knowledge through the activities and experiences of its employees. Teachers are prime examples of knowledge workers. Teachers always have considerable personal discretion, taking responsibility for analyzing, developing, and implementing goals in their daily work. On the other hand, teachers work independently. It has been found that teachers find it difficult to share because they work in relative isolation, developing and refining techniques that work well for them in their personal classroom culture (Goodlad 1984; Rosenholtz 1991; Tyack and Cuban 1995). In addition, difficulties in reproducing learning results with seemingly similar students and teachers and the absence of a compelling and clear language for describing teaching practice, limit the sharing among teachers. Teacher preparation rarely provides bases for sharing experience in a comparative, analytic, and cumulative way that would enable insights to emerge. KM, as an alternate to learning, helps to improve the use and sharing of data, information and knowledge in decision-making; it is gaining acceptance in the field of education. With respect to KM, schools are quite distinctive on at least two grounds. Firstly, it is more critical for schools to successfully address the challenges of KM; society’s future is at stake. Secondly, schools have fewer resources to address the challenges of KM; school systems cannot afford expensive consultants or business systems and this is unlikely to change dramatically any time soon.
3. Reasons for the Study
Although prior research has pointed out various factors or variables of KM, we will discuss the problem from a new perspective by examining what school teachers themselves think about KM in the school environment. The motivation of the study includes the following two aspects:
Firstly, collecting data regarding employee perception of KM is necessary preparation for any KM practice. Liebowitz (1998) proposed an eight-stage process for KM, with the first stage of the frame being “Identify: Determine core competencies, sourcing strategies, and knowledge domains”. Similarly, in the KM framework according to Wiig (1999), the initial step of a KM project should be “Survey and map the knowledge landscape”. However, most researchers focus on the measurement of an organization’s deposit of knowledge and the characteristics of that knowledge (tacit/explicit), such as (Boisot et al. 2007). They tend to ignore the employee opinion on the way to implementing KM. This, in many cases, will cause the failure of a KM project (McCampbell et al. 1999). Teachers, as the main body of a school, serve as agents of KM in the school. Knowing their perceptions and opinions about KM factors is therefore an important precondition of success of a KM project. In this study, an interview to collect and understand teacher perception of KM implementation was conducted and this method can be a reference for other similar KM projects.
Secondly, this study may inform the differences in terms of KM implementation between schools and other organizational environments. Different types of organizations have different situations; theories and tools developed for business organizations may not be valid in the school context. Although KM technology is now mature enough to be applied in practice, the integration of KM and education administration is still a newborn phenomenon. Most KM researchers do not have a background in education and they always neglect the gap between KM and KM in schools. We claim that a KM project in a school needs knowledge and suggestions from the teachers, who are experts in education and pedagogy. Through this study, we want to explore teacher perception of KM in schools in terms of KM implementation.
4. Methodology
4.1 Background
This study is treated as the first step of action research in a selected secondary school. This is a typical secondary school in Hong Kong. The school was established in 1963 and is located in the New Territories of Hong Kong SAR; it is fully supported by the HK government. The school is an average school with students of average abilities. The school currently has 29 classes, 1121 students, 65 teachers, and 30 support staff. It provides an integrated secondary school education including junior high school, senior high school, and preparatory education. The teaching language of its junior high school classes and the Art subjects in the senior high school and preparatory school classes is Chinese, whilst the senior Science subjects and preparatory school classes adopt English as the teaching medium. 98.4% of the teachers have an undergraduate degree and 35.4% of them hold a postgraduate degree.
The school has already installed an Intranet system with efficient and user-friendly facilities such as e-mail, broadcast, document upload/download, storage of teaching and learning materials and monitoring of student progress. The launch of an e-learning platform for staff and students has also been planned. In regard to teacher professional development last year, the school arranged four “Teachers’ Professional Development Days” and also several workshops for teacher training, interaction and development. Moreover, teachers can also attend courses outside school. However, most staff members expect more time and opportunities to be offered for professional development. The school management team believes that knowledge management can improve school performance and teacher professional development. One researcher of the project holds a management position in the school and the project has achieved full support from the school management team. This means that the project was able to be carried out smoothly.

4.2 Research Framework

The study is based on the KM framework of Rodrigues and Pai (2005). Developing a befitting KM strategy is the key element of KM implementation. The framework advocates a variety of KM strategies as applied to different settings. In order to develop a suitable KM strategy for schools, we need to identify the key factors or variables of KM. The framework of Rodrigues and Pai (2005) was adopted. Three of the six KM models from the KM framework of Rodrigues and Pai (2005) are chosen in this study.
 Organizational KM Model as developed by Arthur (1996)
 Knowledge management is a process comprising of seven steps: identify, collect, adapt, organize, apply, share and create. Leadership, culture, technology and measurement can facilitate the implementation of knowledge management.
 Stage Model by Van der Spek and Spijkervet (1997)
 Knowledge management is an approach of problem solving with four stages : conceptualize, reflect, act, and retrospect
 Knowledge Management Maturity Model (KMMM) as developed by Langen (2002)
 The model consists of an analysis model, a development model, and a defined assessment process to understand KM Development Cycle.

The framework of this study is formed by comparing and combining the above three models to list four interview questions to ask teachers about their perception of KM. The models show that the implementation of KM does take time and involves a number of steps. Before the knowledge can be created, shared or transferred, an organization should have steps to identify the strength and weakness of KM, understand the current status, especially how the members of the organization conceptualize the knowledge they have, and how they perceive knowledge management. The questions are listed as follows:
a、 Understanding of KM:
Have you heard about knowledge management? What’s your understanding of KM? (If not, the interviewer should give a brief introduction of KM to the interviewee)
b、 Concerns about KM
What are your feelings about the implementation of knowledge management in your school? What are your concerns?
c、 Prerequisites for Support of KM :
To put KM into action, we need support from different quarters, such as people, culture, management and IT (explain if possible). What issues do you think are important for putting KM into action in your school, and why are they important?
d、 Expected Outcomes of KM
What do you expect to achieve from promoting and implementing KM in your school?



4.3 Research Procedure
Because organizational knowledge is shared and distributed (von Krogh et al., 1994), and teachers are key players in organization knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), teachers are the core subjects in this study to understand their perception of KM. All teachers were invited to participate in a voluntary interview by means of a letter of consent forwarded by the researcher. Most of the teachers (56 out of 62) were willing to participate. 33 teachers were randomly selected from the teachers who were interested. Two groups of interviewers (each consisting of one main interviewer and one assistant) were allocated to perform interviews with standard interview questions and protocols. Each interview lasted for about 20-30 minutes with voice recording under participants’ agreement. All interviewee answers are summarized, recorded and translated from Cantonese into English in the appendix. Back translation of the results has been done to verify their validity. Interviewee answers have been analyzed to identify the main points or theme occurring in the process. Interviewees are identified using codes like A1 or B12, with letter A or B representing the interview groups and the numbers representing the number of persons in the respective group.
5. Result
Common patterns for analysis were identified in the interviewee responses.

Understanding of KM
Most teachers did know the meaning of Knowledge Management (KM), although their scope of KM was not so broad. They mentioned some main points of KM as follows:

Table 5. Analysis of The Interviewee Response of the question: ‘Have you heard about knowledge management? What’s your understanding of KM?’
Main points mentioned by interviewee Interviewee
Knowledge sharing A3, A4, B9, B10, B14, B18
Knowledge storage A8, B16, B17, B18
Knowledge transfer B6, B13
Conversion of Tacit Knowledge to Explicit Knowledge A6, B12
Knowledge Access A8
Knowledge Categorization A1
Knowledge Searching B11
Protect knowledge A12
Combine knowledge A11
Update knowledge B8

Most interviewees regarded the most important work of KM as the sharing and storage of knowledge. They were aware that knowledge could be an asset of an organization. This knowledge had its values and should be stored, shared and even protected to prevent the loss of knowledge from the organization. They also realised that knowledge should be converted from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, so that it could be readily shared or transferred within the organization. Some interviewees further thought about the reusability of the knowledge; they thought that the knowledge stored in the school should also be categorized, so that the searching of useful information and retrieval could be easily achieved. Furthermore, knowledge also needed to be combined and updated for better use.

Concerns of KM
Most interviewees were concerned about the implementation of Knowledge Management (KM) in school. They mentioned some main points of KM implementation as follows:

Table 6. Analysis of The Interviewee Response of the question: ‘What are your feelings about the implementation of knowledge management in your school? What are your concerns?’
Main points mentioned by interviewee Interviewee
Knowledge sharing A2, A4, A7, A8, A9, A11, A15, B1, B2, , B3, B4, B5,B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B16, B17
Knowledge transfer A5, A6,
Knowledge capture and acquisition A12, A13
IT support A3, A6, A12
Support to Novice teacher A7, A9
Building up a knowledge base A7,A10, B9
Culture A2, B11, B17
Mutual Support B1
Retention or loss of knowledge A5

Most interviewees emphasized knowledge sharing when Knowledge Management (KM) would be implemented in school. Interviewees expected that teachers could share their experience in class teacher work (A6), teaching method or best practice (A7), teaching experience (B5 and B10) and student personal information (B2). Some interviewees thought that sharing could help them perform their job efficiently because teachers could use other teacher experience (B7). Some interviewees were aware that the materials shared might not be useful to all teachers (A15 and B16). Some interviewees were also aware that teachers might not be willing to share their experience with others (A4) or teachers had no time to share (B10).

Interviewees noted the need of sharing, transfer and retention of knowledge, otherwise knowledge would be lost when some teachers left the school (A5 and A6).
From the interviewees’ perspective, IT support was also important to promote the implementation of KM (A3, A6, A12). IT facilities should be strengthened, especially the forum and knowledge repository (storage space) (A7, A10, B9) to set up a platform for sharing and storing of knowledge. Although the school personnel were commonly using the intranet system, it was mostly used to send and receive email and assignments. Its usage could be exploited. Moreover, the system should be well designed to be user friendly and conveniently and commonly used in daily practice.
Some interviewees thought that KM could help experienced teachers transfer their experience to novice teachers, especially teaching method, best practice and the knowledge that could not be easily learned from courses, such as skills in managing student behaviour (A7 and A9).
Culture was also regarded as important in implementation of KM (A2, B11, B17). The interviewees mentioned learning culture (A2), consensus (B11) and sharing culture (B17). A culture with a common positive attitude to learning and sharing was thought to be essential to the implementation of KM.
Finally, one interviewee expressed that knowledge sharing could also bring mutual support to each other (B1).
The points mentioned above were those offered by interviewees about the implementation of KM in this school.

Prerequisites for Support of KM :
People (16), Culture(9), Management(1) and IT(4)
Most interviewees mentioned the prerequisites for support of implementation of Knowledge Management (KM) in school. They mentioned some main prerequisites for support of KM implementation as follows:

Table 7. Analysis of The Interviewee Response of the question: ‘To put KM into action, we need support from different quarters, such as people, culture, management and IT (explain if possible). What are the issues you think more important for putting KM into action in your school? And why are they important?’
Main points mentioned by interviewee Interviewee
All (people, culture, management and IT) A2, A3, A13, B11
People A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B13, B14
Culture A6, A15, B6, B7, B8, B12, B15, B16, B17, B18
IT support A4, A5, A15, B10
Management A14

Some interviewees thought that people, culture, management and IT were all important for Knowledge Management (KM) to be implemented successfully in school (A2, A3, A13, B11). However, out of the four conditions of KM implementation, most of the interviewees regarded “people” (A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B13, B14) and “culture” (A6, A15, B6, B7, B8, B12, B15, B16, B17, B18) as the two most important conditions of KM implementation. These two conditions were quite related and mutually dependent. Therefore, if the school personnel would like to implement KM in school, they should firstly change the perceptions or attitude of people and culture of the organization. Interviewees reflected that they needed communication and interaction to understand the benefits of KM, and they pointed out that the school personnel needed to convince staff to be involved in KM. They noted that they also needed trust to encourage the knowledge sharing and coordination to balance the conflict of interests. Interviewees concluded that a culture of willingness to share their own knowledge and trusting each other are very important to implement KM. Some interviewees reflected that the culture in the researched school at present has not yet been established to allow knowledge sharing and they understood that such culture would need much time to be inculcated.
IT support was also regarded as a condition for KM implementation, such as “categorization of knowledge” and “storage and retrieval” (A4, A5, A15, B10). Some interviewees also complained that the existing system failed to serve teachers not only for knowledge sharing but also for daily practice, and it should be upgraded.
Finally, management support was also regarded as necessary for implementation of KM (A14) but not as important as other conditions. The interviewees pointed out that leadership and top management support would empower staff to implement KM actively.

Expected Outcomes of KM
Most interviewees expressed the expected outcomes of Knowledge Management (KM) in school. They mentioned some main points of the expected outcomes of KM implementation as follows:

Table 8. Analysis of The Interviewee Response of the question: ‘What do you expect to achieve from promoting and implementing KM in your school?’
Main points mentioned by interviewee Interviewee
Learning of experience from others A1, A4, A6, A7, A9, A11, A12, B5, B7, B15
Sharing Knowledge A4, A5, B11, B12, B14, B17, B18
Time saving, efficient work A4, A5, A10, A13, A15, B17
Getting useful information A8, A15, B1, B2, B8, B10
Benefits to students A3, A4, A14, B13
Self enhancement A2, B4
Sharing Culture A5, B9
Problems Solving A7
Enhancing Harmony and Communication A3
Materials storage for future use B4,

Most interviewees emphasized knowledge sharing when Knowledge Management (KM) would be implemented in school. Most interviewees noted that KM could help them learn experience from others (A1, A4, A6, A7, A9, A11, A12, B5, B7, B15) and acquire shared knowledge (A4, A5, B11, B12, B14, B17, B18). They felt that KM could allow them acquire experience and knowledge to improve their practice. They would be more efficient and competent in their practice (A4, A5, A10, A13, A15, B17), and their teaching performance would be better. They felt that it could also help them get information they needed (A8, A15, B1, B2, B8, B10). This could make their practice beneficial to students (A3, A4, A14, B13). Interviewees thought that teachers would also gain self enhancement from the knowledge they acquired (A2, B4). They also felt that a sharing culture would be built up (A5, B9) to facilitate further knowledge sharing. Some interviewees pointed out that KM could help problem solving (A7), enhancing harmony and communication and building up storage of material for future use (B4). They mostly thought that KM could empower their competency to enhance their productivity.
6. Conclusion
This study, an initial investigation of KM implementation in a selected secondary investigated teacher perceptions about KM implementation in the school via an interview. Most existing research has investigated KM in schools from the point of view of experts or even outsiders, and few studies have investigated teachers as end user’s of KM implementation. Therefore, the results might help us understand KM in the school environment from the participants’ viewpoint. This study might also serve as a diagnostic step in further study of KM in schools, i.e., developing a better understanding of key problems to be dealt with in KM implementation in schools. Based on the literature review, we designed the interview questions and conducted interviews in the school in this study. The interview involved 4 questions to study teacher perceptions of KM implementation: Understanding of KM, Concerns of KM, Needs for Support of KM and Expected Outcomes of KM. From the interviewee response to the question of “Understanding of KM”, we found that teachers recognized KM was important for organization to manage knowledge as an asset that can be stored, shared, transferred or transformed among members. From the results of the question of “Concerns of KM”, we found that teachers did emphasize the benefits of knowledge sharing in their daily practice, as well as their worries and drawbacks concerning KM implementation. Teachers further pointed out that IT support and culture were also critical to promote KM implementation. In the part on “Prerequisites for Support of KM”, IT and culture support together with people and management support were further noted for their importance in facilitating KM implementation, and especially people and culture, both of which were widely mentioned among interviewees. Actually, people and culture are regarded in this study as closely related and mutually dependent conditions. Interviewees reflected that communication, interaction and trust among teachers did foster building up community with a sharing culture in schools for KM implementation. For the part on “Expected Outcomes of KM”, most interviewees expected that KM could help them acquire information, experience and knowledge from others to improve their practice and enhance their competence and efficiency in their work. As well, KM was believed to enhance building up of a sharing culture, organizational problem-solving, collegiality and shared resources in school.
We have to admit that, because of the limitations of the interview, the results of this research might not be valid in other scenarios. However, the study contributed to new knowledge by examining perceptions of teachers as end users of KM implementation in a school environment. Since most other research has been performed to develop theoretical approaches, or has investigated KM implementation on a larger scale involving a number of schools, little research has been done concerning teacher perception in a designated school. The research is valuable as it deepens the understanding of KM in schools regarding preparation for KM implementation. These findings in turn provide insight into the further study of KM implementation in schools. In this research, some issues are still unresolved, for example: Do teachers of different subjects and gender really influence teacher attitude to team work and technology in KM? Different methods, such as focus group interviews and surveys, should be further used in this project. Also, further studies should be conducted in other schools with different backgrounds and characteristics in order to validate the results we found in this study, so that a more complete picture of KM implementation in a school environment can be viewed.
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems : Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2003). Knowledge management : cultivating knowledge professionals. Oxford, UK ; Rollinsford, NH: Chandos Pub.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge sharing communities of practice, Journal of Knowledge Management 7(1), 64–77.
Arthur, A. and American Productivity and Quality Center (1996), The knowledge management assessment tool: External Benchmarking Version, APQC
Bailey, C. and Clarke, M. (2000) How do managers use knowledge about knowledge management?, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.4, No.3, pp 235-243.
Barron, T (2000) A smarter Frankenstein: The merging of e-learning and knowledge management, Learning Circuits. Alexandria, VA: ASTD. Retrieved August 8, 2000, from http://www.leamingcircuits.org/ aug200/barron.html
Becerra-Fernandez, I. and R. Sabherwal (2001). Organizational knowledge management: A contingency perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1): 23.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W. and Kim, Y.G. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate, MIS Quarterly 29(1), 87–111.
Boisot, M., MacMillan, L., and Han, K. S (2007) Explorations in Information Space: Knowledge, Agents, and Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chai, K. H. (1998) Managing knowledge in organizations: A literature review and a preliminary conceptual model, Working paper series, Manufacturing and Management Center, Engineering Department, Cambridge University
Choo, C. W. (2000). The Knowledge Organization : How Organizations Use Information To Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, And Make Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Collinson, V., & Cook, T. F. (2004). Learning to share, sharing to learn: Fostering organizational learning through teachers’ dissemination of knowledge. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 312–332.
Davison, R., Martinsons, M. and Kock, N. (2004) Principles of canonical action research, Information System Journal, Vol.14, pp 65–86.
Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. (1997) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Dixon, N. (2002). The neglected receiver of knowledge sharing, Ivey Business Journal 64(4), 35–40.
Giroux, H. A. (1988) Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Goodland, J. I. (1984) A place called school: prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hargreaves, D. H (1999) The Knowledge-Creating School, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.47, No.2, pp 122-144
Hew, K. F, & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge sharing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 573-595.
Hodkinson, H., & Hodkinson, P. (2005). Improving schoolteachers’ workplace learning. Research Papers in Education, 20, 109–131.
Hur, J. W., & Brush, T., A. (2009). Teacher Participation in Online Communities: Why Do Teachers Want to Participate in Self-generated Online Communities of K-12 Teachers? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3), 279.
Huysman, M. and de Wit, D. (2004). Practices of managing knowledge sharing: towards a second wave of knowledge management, Knowledge and Process Management 11(2), 81–92.
Jane, Z. (2002). Teachers explore knowledge management and e-learning as models for professional development. TechTrends, 46(3), 11.
Jones, A., & Preece, J. (2006). Online communities for teachers and lifelong learners: A framework for comparing similarities and identifying differences in communities of practice and communities of interest. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(2-3), 112-137.
Kogut, B., Zander, U. (1996) What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning, Organization Science, Vol.7, No.5, pp 502‐518.
Langen, M. (2000) Knowledge Management Maturity Model, From www.providersedge.com/docs/presentations/Holistic_Development_of_KM_with_KM_Maturity_Model.pdf
Liebowitz, J. (ed.) (1998) Failure and Lessons Learned in Information Technology Management: An International Journal, Cognizant Communication Corp., Elmsford, New York.
McCampbell AS, Clare LM, Gitters SH. (1999) Knowledge management: the new challenge for the 21st century, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.3, No.3, pp 172–179.
Nonaka, I. (1994) “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation”, Organization Science, Vol.5, No.1, pp 14-37.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Petrides, L. A., & Nodine, T. R. (2003). Knowledge Management in Education : Defining the Landscape. (Report). Half Moon Bay, CA.: Institute for the study of Knowledge Management in Education.
Polanyi, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Reynolds, N., Diamantopoulos, A., and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1993) Pretesting in Questionnaire Design: A Review of the Literature and Suggestions for Further Research, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol.35, pp 171–182.
Rodrigues, L. L. R., & Pai, R. (2005). Preparation and Validation of KM measurment instrument : an empirical study in educational and IT sectors. In S. Al-Hawamdeh & M. International Conference on Knowledge (Eds.), Knowledge management : nurturing culture, innovation and technology : proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Knowledge Management, North Carolina, USA, 27-28 October 2005 (pp. 582-593). Singapore ; Hackensack, N.J.: World Scientific.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991) Teachers' workplace: the social organization of schools. New York: Longman.
Senge, P. M. (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organizations. New York: Doubleday
Susman, G.L. and Evered, R.D. (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research, Administrative Sciences Quarterly, Vol.23, pp 582–603.
Tyack, D., and Cuban, L. (1995) Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
van Der Spek, R. and Spijkervet, A. (1977) Knowledge management: Dealing intelligently with knowledge, In Liebowitz, J and Wilcox, L (Eds) Knowledge Management and its Integrative Elements, pp 31-59, CRC Press, New York.
Wiig, K. M. (1994) Knowledge management methods: practical approaches to managing knowledge. Arlington, Tex.: Schema Press.
Wiig KM. (1999) Introducing knowledge management into the enterprise, In Knowledge Management Handbook, Liebowitz J (ed.). CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL; 3.1–3.41.
Zack, M. H. (1999) Developing a Knowledge Strategy, California Management Review, Vol.41, No.3, pp 125-145.