Author Archives: stuberry

My students decided that they wanted to demonstrate their understanding of a system (??) in my MIS class and as you can see by this innovative group of individuals in the back row they developed the mirror system of communication. Note that in order for the text to be viewable they would have had to have keyed it in backwards. Oh to have more of my students having fun – at least I think that is what this is.

My main academic research interest in a broad sense is in the process of how we know what we know and how we learn what we learn: what factors allow us to learn, what is involved in the process of individual knowledge creation. In approaching these issues, I am more specifically looking at online learning environments and ways we might change these environments to allow current and future learners an opportunity to access and use the learnings of those who have gone before. Most learning environments; face-to-face or online are generally one-off events. Anything that students may have contributed to an existing course vanishes into the air as it is spoken or is deleted at the end of the course to make way for the next group of students as they enter into the following iteration of the course. Contributions of students from prior sections of a course are seldom, if ever made available to subsequent learners.

Online learning environments are ideal laboratories from within which to capture, preserve, and examine the work of students who have taken previous versions of a course and whose recorded contributions could be offered to subsequent learners as an adjunct to their learning processes. Most online courses capture everything that occurs in a course including synchronous and asynchronous activities, threaded discussions, possibly blogs, wikis, and/or Twitter feeds, as well as in some cases, examples of student work in the form of assignments and various group activities. Is there value in these dynamic course resources and how could we use these resources at the end of our courses?

My work is based upon organizational knowledge creation theory. This theory examines the process of knowledge creation, the use of knowledge assets, and the context, which supports the creation of this new knowledge. Although this theory is primarily a business management and leadership theory, I continue to see and believe that much of the way that this theory is outlined can be directly applied to the academic world and related learning environments. Von Krogh, Nonaka, and Rechsteiner (2012) posit a new framework for situational leadership in organizational knowledge creation and in this framework I am again reassured that my use of organization knowledge creation theory and its related concepts are valid and in many ways more solidly reinforced throughout its use in my dissertation.

Organizational knowledge creation theory suggests that the growth of organizations and the development of a body of new knowledge and new ideas in an organization is in many ways attributable to the way that individuals come together in the organization and share their understandings and knowledge in the process of building new layers of knowledge for the organization. Knowledge creation occurs within a context known as “Ba”, a Buddhist construct roughly translated into English meaning space or place. At the core of this theory is a model for knowledge creation known as the SECI model. SECI stands for socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization and these four processes involve the interchange and exchange of tacit and explicit knowledge in a cycle of knowledge creation that forms the basis of the four dimensions of this model.

I believe that learning environments can become the stand-in for the organization in this model, individual learners are the workers and the context or Ba becomes the way that the learning environment is managed and learning is fostered and supported. In a business context there are multiple forms of knowledge assets such as the workers, existing processes, and existing products. In learning environments knowledge assets are the learners, the course curriculum including texts, other readings, and assignments as well as all of the on-going activities to support the learning. What I believe needs to be added to this on the educational side is all of the conversations and discussions of those learners who travelled through a course previously. I believe that these course artifacts contain valuable insights to support and enhance learning in the present. The data I have collected however, is a bit of a challenge in that I have, up-to-now, struggled to see how this data offers insight into my core thesis.

Von Krogh et al (2012) build an interesting framework for a leadership model to support organization knowledge creation theory. They suggest that although organizational knowledge creation theory and its variously related theories on knowledge creation have been extensively examined over the past 20 years there has been little discussion about leadership types and leadership roles in supporting organizational knowledge creation. The authors work through a lengthy literature review as they build their framework and as they outline the various components of their leadership model they talk about how participants in the knowledge creation process collaborate and work together to create new knowledge. This is stated as,

Knowledge creation is set in motion by participants who spontaneously collaborate and shift between leading and following, and gradually seek to formalize their practice to secure the collective pursuit of their interests. This view of knowledge creation is consistent with the view of distributed leadership as activities aimed to formalize successful practices (Gronn, 2002). Sartre (1976) suggested that people who start by being part of a loose gathering begin to form a more coherent group when sharing their (explicit or tacit) knowledge. This implies that they establish reciprocal relationships, discuss pressing issues and ideas, or fix future meetings. Sartre suggested this coherent group becomes a fused group when participants recognize their common interests, individual needs, and unique areas of expertise. A shared group is driven by a curiosity about other people and what they know. Here, participants externalize some part of their knowledge, which results in a sense of ‘interdependence’ (Gronn, 2002), founded on a common belief that tasks require the input and collaboration of group members (without requiring central leadership). Interdependence results from complementarity in participants’ knowledge, or from overlaps, so that the capacity of the group to formulate and solve tasks is enhanced. At this stage, shared knowledge is largely explicit and knowledge creation occurs through combination. (p. 260)

It was this particular language and the subsequent bringing together of the von Krogh et al model that began to open a door for me with my data. I don’t think it is that I have been asking the wrong questions or that having and using an archive is not of value rather it is the nature of the learning process, the nature of the learners, and the learning environment that needs to be further examined. Organizational knowledge creation theory assumes that individuals are working together and sharing their tacit knowledge and building new knowledge for a shared and common purpose. In learning environments our learners are solitary individuals attempting to learn through and from each other but not for a common organizational goal rather for a personal, and in many cases a very divergent goal from their peers. We might want our students to work in teams and share ideas and collaborate in their learning but in the end they are individuals and have individual goals. There is a short paragraph that follows the above quote and I think that this adds to my possibly having to think my research in a slightly different way.

Finally, a group formalizes its knowledge creation practice by making a pledge that organizes participants’ rights and duties. Explicit knowledge is supplemented with knowledge of the pledge and participants’ interests, as well as shared tacit knowledge (transactive memory) about the group process, including emotions and commitments. At this stage of the transformation participants may internalize shared tacit knowledge (von Krogh et al., 2000). (p. 260)

Somehow we need to find ways to allow the learning to not only be shared and collaborative in its process but that there are common goals and there is a common purpose to the learning. I have observed a few learners help each other find suitable artifacts in the course archive but these acts are better seen as disparate and non-connected acts rather than acts serving a common learning purpose. We appear to lose sight of the learning. There is the stuff we learn about and then there is the process of learning the stuff. Western culture teaches us that the stuff is what we are after and not the process: we value the stuff, we test for the stuff, and we send our students off believing that the stuff is what makes them valuable. I think this is wrong and it is as a result of us valuing the stuff that we become individual learners with disparate, individual goals. If we could change the paradigm to value the process with recognition that process is a gateway to the stuff and that the stuff is constantly changing anyway then maybe the concepts of organizational knowledge creation theory might have greater applicability in the world of teaching and learning.

I am unfazed in my belief about the archive and the value of artifacts in online learning environments however I think I am going to have to rethink what we are really asking of learners when we attempt to encourage them to access and benefit from the archive. I see great value in the archive but I think that the structure of our learning, the nature of our learning environments makes the use of these artifacts somewhat limited given the current paradigm.

von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. and Rechsteiner, L. (2012), Leadership in Organizational Knowledge Creation: A Review and Framework. Journal of Management Studies, 49: 240–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00978.x

I keep looking for an analogy that might help better understand why I have found the passionate energy to write the past few personal – family oriented posts but am struggling greatly to step into the warm embrace of my data (translation – doctoral dissertation). As odd as it may sound, the writing of the past few blog pieces was a pleasant catharsis. I think they spoke to my love of expression, my enjoyment in writing and finding ways to speak out my thoughts and ideas. I think it helped to reassure me that I could still do it. I remember writing my Master’s thesis and I really found that a pleasant process, as well, I sometimes really get into the writing of an academic piece so I know I can write and different types of writing are OK. I even have a couple of fictional pieces that are quite far along albeit probably waiting for that same illusive shot of magical, whole-life consumption that grabs the soul and keeps the flow alive.

I have spent the better part of the past 4 years working towards this personal goal of mine; my doctorate, but I have found myself in a mental space where progress is limited. Although stopping is and never has been an option, I know that there is a piece of my passion that is not currently present so I am hoping by talking this out, by allowing my inner turmoil, my private garden of thoughts to be less hidden then maybe I will be able to use my theoretical academic premise to reflect upon my world and be used to help me move forward. Tacit understandings can be made visible and should allow for and assist in the development of new knowledge and new ideas. I have always talked out my problems and do so knowing that through this outward process I get to see what would otherwise have remained invisible on the inside.  I am hoping that, at the very least, I can view my thoughts in a different light and see how I might be able to enkindle this much-needed passion.

I fear that I may have grown beyond my current world of teaching and learning and am struggling to find something that might support my academic interests and spark a broader set of passions. I know that my academic passions are threaded throughout my daily being and I would love to find a different audience within which to generate these conversations. Being public in all of this will present its challenges but what the heck. – May the Ba be with us.