This article was downloaded by: [Central U Library of Bucharest] On: 03 December 2013, At: 00:56 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Teacher Education

Implementing a technology-supported model for cross-organisational learning and knowledge building for teachers
Kairit Tammets , Kai Pata & Mart Laanpere
a a a a

Institute of Informatics, Tallinn University , Tallinn, Estonia Published online: 01 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Kairit Tammets , Kai Pata & Mart Laanpere (2012) Implementing a technologysupported model for cross-organisational learning and knowledge building for teachers, European Journal of Teacher Education, 35:1, 57-75, DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2011.633997 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.633997

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

European Journal of Teacher Education Vol. 35, No. 1, February 2012, 5775

Implementing a technology-supported model for cross-organisational learning and knowledge building for teachers
Kairit Tammets*, Kai Pata and Mart Laanpere
Institute of Informatics, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

This study proposed using the elaborated learning and knowledge building model (LKB model) derived from Nonaka and Takeuchis knowledge management model for supporting cross-organisational teacher development in the temporarily extended organisations composed of universities and schools. It investigated the main LKB model components in the context of teachers professional development; the kind of technological barriers to be overcome in order to implement such a model; and what the application scenarios of an LKB model are. Four groups of stakeholders, altogether 10 persons, were interviewed for the study. Data were analysed using a qualitative framework analysis method. The main ndings of the study exposed the following difculties in applying an LKB model for extended organisations for teacher development: teachers sense of identity, technical issues and organisational barriers. Several scenarios were proposed for the use of technology to facilitate the LKB model in the teacher development context using the e-portfolio and social learning resources repository. Keywords: teacher education; professional development; portfolio-based learning environment; pre-service studies

Introduction Many young teachers perceive a gap between the academic knowledge acquired during teacher training studies and the knowledge that is claimed to be really relevant learned from more experienced colleagues (Bozhuisen, Brommen, and Gruber 2004). Experienced practitioners often claim that knowledge gained during the academic part of the education should be forgotten because it was too abstract and not appropriate (Bozhuisen, Brommen, and Gruber 2004). Combining and constructing professional knowledge across the boundary between schools and teacher training institutions is rare and mainly unidirectional: from university towards schools (Jrvel 2001). This results in low integration of academic and practice-based knowledge, separation of the academic community from the teachers community, and conict about who should test and validate educational innovations in practice and provide feedback to the applied theoretical pedagogical ideas. In this paper we explore how the better integration of practical and academic knowledge can be facilitated by a technology supported LKB model in the teacher training context. The LKB model, in present use, is derived from the knowledge management model introduced by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), and in this paper we contextualise how

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

58

K. Tammets et al.

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

teachers could implement the model in their professional development in an intelligent learning extended organisation. An intelligent learning extended organisation framework represents a learning community that emerges as a temporal integration of two or more industrial, educational and/or research organisations with different cultures (Stokic et al. 2008; Kieslinger, Pata, and Fabian 2009). We focus particularly on developing the technological support systems and relevant workow scenarios for implementing the model for teacher development in the competencybased and portfolio-based learning environment, integrated with the national teachers information portal Koolielu (http://koolielu.ee) and the social knowledge repository LeMill (http://lemill.net). In order to develop the technological support systems and workow scenarios based on the LKB model, a case study of teachers professional development was conducted which identied and mapped the gaps in the LKB between the schools and universities, and among the various stakeholders related to the professional teacher development in these organisations. Several scenarios for using the novel portfolio-based system to enhance cross-organisational LKB in teachers professional development were developed and validated with the stakeholders using the design based research method. The following research questions were investigated:  Which are the main components of the LKB model adapted for the context of teacher development?  What kind of barrier inhibits the implementation of the adapted LKB model that facilitates teacher development, which is supported by existing online tools?  What are the suitable workow scenarios that effectively support the application of an LKB model for teacher development? After identifying barriers to the developed theoretical LKB model and suitable workow scenarios, we provide, as an outcome of the study, guidelines for implementation and sample tasks in a technological environment. The cross-organisational LKB model for teacher development In order to describe processes in creative organisations, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) have developed the cyclical knowledge management model, which contains four phases of knowledge conversion within an organisation: socialisation, externalisation, combination and internalisation (SECI phases). They propose that in organisational knowledge-creation, personal subjective tacit knowledge has to be externalised into objective explicit knowledge to be shared, combined and synthesised within and beyond organisations. These SECI phases could also be used for supporting LKB. For example, Naeve et al. (2008) have used SECI phases for describing learning process in the workplace, focusing on reective practices in networking and collaboration. In this paper, based on original SECI phases, we propose the LKB model (see Figure 1), which also considers self-directed planning, and reection for competence development. According to Pata and Laanpere (2008), Nonakas and Takeuchis (1995) knowledge conversion phases offer some ideas about what might be important in supporting the knowledge conversion process in intelligent learning extended organisations. The LKB model in extended

European Journal of Teacher Education

59

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

Figure 1. SECI phases in teacher professional development context. Notes: i indicates the individual as teacher or teacher trainer, o can be seen as an organisation such as a school or university, g represents a group of pre-service study teacher students or group of mathematics teachers, and co indicates cross-organisational, meaning that in those phases the cross-organisational LKB activities take place.

learning organisations is rooted in the idea that any creation of a new LKB is based on cross-boundary translation acts. Frstenau (2003) refers to the boundarycrossing transitions as processes that take place within work and educational organisations and between these organisations. Based on that idea, Pata and Laanpere (2008) have suggested the following processes take place in the LKB model in cross-organisational settings. Socialisation of tacit knowledge happens when individuals (in-service and preservice teachers, university and school facilitators) are prompted to accumulate knowledge through physical proximity and interaction with colleagues from different schools and from the university in the apprenticeship manner. The main aims of the socialisation phase focus on participating in social networks across various boundaries, talking about, sharing and taking ownership of institutional standards and community norms and visions. In this mode, different organisational objectives, norms and standards should be accessible for individuals from different organisations and also shareable between them in electronic format to understand the work situations. Several researchers, for example Garrison (1999), have documented that collaboration strengthens the active exchange of ideas within small groups and increases the intrinsic motivation among participants to share knowledge. Kilduff and Tsai (2003) have found in their study that mutual exchange of knowledge increases the motivation to share knowledge.

60

K. Tammets et al.

Externalisation of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge should happen as part of the school-practice or accreditation process. This occurs when pre- or in-service teachers are prompted to create and articulate tacit concepts through deductive thinking, the use of metaphors for concept creation, the use of models, diagrams or prototypes. For example, they could write down their plans and reect about the activities, but they need to consider the organisational norms and community expectations as guidelines in their reections. Two aims are important in the externalisation process: (a) teachers and teacher trainers need to individually reect why, how and what they do in their professional practice, and harmonise that knowledge with organisational visions, norms, and expected competences; (b) they must be provided with access to documents from different organisational repositories that convey information about such visions, norms and organisational expectations. The issue of raising the intrinsic motivation of the teachers and teacher trainers to externalise their tacit knowledge regularly, and to share it publicly or semi-publicly with colleagues and senior members of organisations would be central in applying the LKB model. The teachers do not have the habit of reecting about their work, sharing such reections with their colleagues, and learning from the feedback (Helleve 2009). Recording personal experiences might help the teachers to monitor their own progress, aiding their development, and thus increasing their intrinsic motivation for reection practices (Lin 2001). Combination activities of explicit knowledge are primarily group-based and can be supported by organising community discussions, where individuals with different perspectives can discuss and negotiate about the externalised concepts and knowledge objects. The aim of the combination phase is to keep the organisational knowledge, rules and objectives updated with the real work processes and develop new norms and visions for organisations. In the combination phase of the LKB model, the individualorganisation and organisationorganisation exchange should take place simultaneously. This would increase the cross-organisational translation possibilities, validate theory in practice and bring best practice-based ideas at the theory level. Empirical research in the eld of organisational learning has revealed several factors which strongly inuence the collaborative knowledge sharing and contributing behaviour of individuals in organisations (Davenport, De Long, and Beers 1998; Ardichvili, Page, and Wentiling 2003). Networked individuals play a crucial role in the new LKB model, taking different roles in different institutions and communities of practice (Pata and Laanpere 2008). The internalisation phase is mainly an individual planning and learning process. Two aspects are important in internalisation: (a) it includes planning and externally reecting on what competencies teachers want to achieve, simultaneously harmonising their plans with organisational visions, norms and expected competencies; (b) planning professional development suggests learning from other professionals experiences and combining it with academic knowledge. In the internalisation, phase the resources created in the externalisation phase should be accessed and used for planning personal learning ows. The plans created in this phase can be realised in professional practice, discussed in the socialisation phase and the achievements would be reected in the externalisation phase. Such interpretation of the internalisation phase differs from the original SECI model, described by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), as their model did not focus on self-directed learning with regard to selfdirected learners in the workplace. Kop and Hill (2008) have suggested that an intrinsically motivated learning process has to be cyclical, where learners are

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

European Journal of Teacher Education

61

expected to connect to a network in order to share and nd new information; after that, learners could modify their beliefs on the basis of new learning, and could connect to a network to share these realisations and nd new information again. Technical support for implementing the LKB model for teacher development Initially Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) did not assume that SECI phases should be processed using technology. However, modern society presumes more or less that the teacher uses some technology for professional development and life-long learning (European Commission 2009). Several technology supported versions of achieving knowledge management using SECI have been documented (Carvalho and Ferreira 2001; Chatti et al. 2007), but so far, technology support in the LKB model aimed at teacher development has not been described, and this novel idea needs to be tested with teachers involved in design-based research themselves. A portfolio-based community environment could be a useful software application for LKB model implementation between schools and universities. Barrett (2010) sees e-portfolio as an electronic collection of evidence that shows a persons learning journey over time, and may relate to specic academic elds or to lifelong learning. Teachers could use personal portfolios for self-reection about the teaching processes, in order to become more conscious of the theories and assumptions that guide these practices and document their professional development (Helleve 2009). Using a portfolio may be efcient, as it supports the construction of personal knowledge and competence development (Zeichner and Wray 2001). Individuals may freely connect their portfolios with networks for monitoring and supporting other professionals, or initiate or join with the portfolio communities. In this article the technological support possibilities for the LKB model is illustrated with the examples of two software products developed for Estonian teachers the integrated portfolio community, learning resources repository and information portal Koolielu (http://koolielu.ee) (Sillaots and Laanpere 2009) and the social and learning resource repository for collaborative co-construction LeMill (http://lemill.net) (Leinonen et al. 2010). Koolielu and LeMill include Web 2.0 services with social media thus providing many possibilities for LKB activities such as networking, information management, ltering, meshing, nding, sharing and contributing. In considering the phases of SECI, Koolielu and LeMill support the externalisation of knowledge and collaborative authoring of Web-based learning resources. Both tools also provide possibilities for documenting competence development and individual reection. The interoperability of the portfolio-based community environment Koolielu with LeMill and other social software tools freely available on the Internet, enable users to form various combinations of distributed systems for LKB. For example, videos and images stored in Youtube and Flickr could be embedded into the learning materials that the teacher prepares for the student and for sharing in the LeMill social repository. Further, these learning materials could be extracted and embedded as evidences of professional practice into the personal portfolios in Koolielu and then reected upon. Using a social learning resources repository such as LeMill, provides wider opportunities for collaboration and knowledge sharing between pre- and in-service teachers, and teacher trainers in the university.

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

62

K. Tammets et al.

The implementation of the SECI phases in the LKB model together with technology may make the LKB process more efcient and provide more options in terms of how people can interact across organisational boundaries, record and use their knowledge and advance their own professional development simultaneously with the development of the organisations. Methodology Research design This study was conducted in the context of an EU IST programme project, IntelLEO (20092012). A design-based research method was used for determining how the application of the LKB model should be developed in order to support teacher development. The Design-based Research Collective (2003) claims that the main focus of a design-based research method is to design and explore the whole range of designed innovations: artefacts, as well as less concrete aspects such as activity structures, institutions, scaffolds, and curricula. Wang and Hannan (2005) have dened design-based research as methodology aimed at improving educational practices through systematic, exible, and iterative review, analysis, design, development and implementation. It is based upon collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings and leading to design principles or theories. Therefore the teachers and teacher trainers were involved in the development process as stakeholders. Design-based research was the main element for developing the framework for the pedagogical and technological solution for this study. For this study, two pre-studies teachers, three induction year teachers, two in-service teachers and three teacher trainers were interviewed separately in each group. Clearly, this study is limited primarily by the small sample size. In the software development process, Beyer and Holtzblatt (1998) have recommended that, depending on the study, 6 to 12 users should be involved. Hackos and Redish (1998) claim that even with 5 to 10 participants it is possible to achieve a breadth among the participant users. However, several studies show that even six users may provide extremely useful information for development (Kujula and Mntyl 2000). Design-Based Research Collective (2003) has claimed that design-based research typically triangulates multiple sources and kinds of data to connect intended and unintended outcomes to processes of enactment. Reliability of ndings and measures can be promoted through triangulation from multiple data sources and repetition of analyses across cycles of enactment. Validity of ndings is often addressed by the partnerships and iteration typical of design-based research, which results in increasing alignment of theory, design, practice, and measurement over time. In our study we addressed the reliability issues of design-based research through several data collection instruments (interviews and schemas) and multiple iterations of data collection from the same stakeholders. By involving the teachers in the iterative design process, we avoided the misinterpretation of collected data. Data collection, instruments and analysis Based on the theoretical cross-organisational LKB model discussed above, we developed questions for an unstructured interview. Data were collected with focus group interviews. Each interview lasted about 1.5 hours and interviews were recorded with the Dictaphone. The rst phase of the interview focused on validation

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

European Journal of Teacher Education

63

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

of the theoretical cross-organisational LKB model in teacher development context. We received feedback regarding the LKB processes and the barriers to it, formulated the current LKB process and the expected situation. The next phase was conducted as the design session, where stakeholders and researchers collaboratively developed and designed the potential scenarios, in which the LKB model in a teacher development context should be implemented. Stakeholders analysed what barriers they might anticipate from the viewpoint of the individual and also from the organisational aspect when following these LKB scenarios. Data based on focus group interviews, gave input for validating the initial LKB model for teachers professional development. As a result of the design sessions, the main implementation scenarios were developed to support the LKB model application according to the SECI phases. These scenarios will be empirically validated in the teacher development context in the next phase of IntelLEO project. In order to analyse the data received from the interviews, a framework analysis method was used. Framework analysis, as described by Ritchie and Spencer (1994), is an analytical process which involves a number of distinct though highly interconnected stages. The ve key stages outlined are: familiarisation; identifying a thematic framework; indexing; charting; mapping and interpretation. In the context of this study, we conducted the following steps. After data collection, we became familiar with the recordings, and audio recordings were transcribed. The next step was writing the memos in the margins of the text including questions, ideas, phrases, which then led us to the development of categories (see Figure 2). In the fourth stage, we took the quotes from the original context and re-arranged them in the newly developed appropriate thematic context. The categories of pre-service studies; induction year programme and in-service teacher development context were identied separately in each stakeholder group. Results and discussion Firstly we provide the developed and validated cross-organisational LKB model in the teacher development context with the support of e-portfolio. Secondly, we discuss the barriers to be overcome when applying the LKB model, and thirdly we present scenarios developed together with the stakeholders, using LeMill and

Figure 2. Categories.

64

K. Tammets et al.

Koolielu as a portfolio-based learning environment that supports the application of the cross-organisational LKB model. Cross-organisational LKB model in teacher development context From the discussions with the stakeholders about the cross-organisational LKB model in teacher development context, the model was validated. Specically, we presented the current situation in the teacher development context without technological support; secondly, we described which activities the stakeholders would be willing participate in with ICT support. These results, regarding current and expected activities, are presented in Table 1. As Table 1 indicates, most of the expected LKB activities can be implemented with existing technologies (Koolielu and LeMill), while some of the functionalities need to be developed. However, our study indicated that the technology is still not currently used in the teacher development context. The study conducted with the participants however, demonstrated that applying the LKB model in a teacher development context could be successful as there are many innovative educators who are ready to test the LKB activities with technology support in their professional activities. Therefore it could be assumed that the absence of technology use could be connected with being unaware of the existing possibilities. Cross-organisational LKB between schools and universities is currently not clear and is not effectively organised. The proposed LKB model with the technological support might be effective from the point of view of individuals and organisations. It could be supportive for the professional development of teachers, but it also provides many opportunities for learning organisations. Using the cross-organisational LKB model systematically, teachers professional development could be efciently supported, from the beginning (pre-service studies) to the end of their professional career. Barriers to applying the cross-organisational LKB model Several barriers in the LKB between school and university may be identied based on our study and literature. Tensions can be identied in: (a) individuals and organisations motivation to follow and promote SECI activities in their organisations and (b) in-service teachers, teacher trainers and pre-service teacher students feeling of identity and the sense of belonging to the community. However in order to ensure the continuity in professional development of teachers, it is essential to connect the three stages: initial training, induction year, and continuous professional development (Feiman-Nemser 2001). Participants who were involved in this study pointed out that not every teacher is ready to use the LKB model in their professional activities. All stakeholders agreed that older generation teachers are the most problematic target group, and it is probably easier to involve young teachers. The main issues that should be considered are the teachers habits for documenting and externalising their knowledge, participation in cross-organisational communities of educators, and their technical preparedness. Teachers habit for documenting and externalising their knowledge An important aspect of implementing the LKB model is reection on teachers actions. According to our study, reection is not used in professional activities of

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

Table 1. Current and expected SECI phases situations in teacher professional development context.

Current situation with paper-based portfolio x x x x x x x x x x x x

Expected situation with the portfolio-based learning environment

Currently in Koolielu

Currently in LeMill x x x x x x

Socialisation

 Teacher trainer, who observes lesson of prestudies teachers, gives written feedback  No feedback is provided by the peers  Created learning materials are paper-based  Discussions between teachers take place mainly in seminars

Externalisation  Stored paper-based lesson plans, self-analysis, reections are not available to peers  Practice documentation is mainly paper-based  Do not provide possibilities for sharing reections  Paper-based learning materials cant include audio or video clips, photos, links, slides

System should:  Store feedback for learning purposes  Support the development of teachers communities  Store created learning materials  Allow discussions between teachers  Provide possibilities for teachers to learn through peers experiences, learning materials, reections.  Provide simplied possibilities to share organisational norm-document System should:  Provide possibilities for getting access to peers portfolios in order to learn from them  Provide possibilities to present the practice documentation electronically  Provide possibilities for sharing reections publicly  Allow to enrich the learning materials with photos, audio and video clips

x x

Combination

Teachers collaboratively create norm-documents or templates of learning method for their workplace

European Journal of Teacher Education

System should:  Provide collaborative activities between peers  Provide possibilities to collaborate for university, school and learners by using the system (practice issues)  Provide possibilities for adopting different learning materials electronically  Allow collaborative discussion and, therefore, the improvement of organisational norm documents

(Continued)

65

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

Table 1. (Continued ).

66

Current situation with paper-based portfolio x x x System should:  Allow individuals to store learning materials, plans, observations, reections  Provide possibilities to support the planning of the individual professional development by the weblog, competence management  Provide tool My Dashboard, for personalisation of the environment.

Expected situation with the portfolio-based learning environment

Currently in Koolielu

Currently in LeMill x

K. Tammets et al.

Internalisation

 Reections, analysis, plans are based on the main norm-document teachers professional qualication standard  No possibilities to see previous practice portfolios in order to learn from them

European Journal of Teacher Education

67

teachers. In-service teachers main reason for not reecting upon their activities appeared to be the lack of time. But also, as many of them reported, I have no habit of written reection; I prefer to analyse my activities in my mind. In order to support the development of the reection habit, and to make reections a natural part of professional development, our study proposes that reection should be made on a compulsory basis during pre-service studies. The older generation may focus more on supervising the students and collaboration with colleagues and when the portfolio-based learning environment becomes more familiar, the habit for reection might become a natural part of their activities. Teachers participation in cross-organisational communities There are several reasons why teachers do not feel part of the larger teachers community and why the pre-service, induction year and in-service teacher training are not a unied system. One aspect is the perceived difference in professional status between the pre- and in-service teachers. Pre-service teachers pointed out that when they enter into school practice, in-service teachers do not consider the student as an equal colleague, and the in-service teachers themselves confronted this statement. As one of the school supervisors stated: Pre-service teachers are also shy and they knock on the door when entering the teachers room, if they go to this room at all, because most of the time they choose to be on their own. If a young teacher, who is at school for the rst or second time, does not feel that s/he belongs there, it might inuence the future decision about working at that school. Teacher students feel excluded from the teachers community, which is why they are afraid of sharing their learning materials in public, the pre-service teachers admitted. Another barrier related to the LKB model implementation in the teacher development context is the contradiction between communities of didactics and communities of practitioners. Several researches have also discovered that networks and communities that integrate both teachers and teacher trainers are less common (Lambert 2003; Helleve 2009). Teacher trainers tend to think, Theory which comes from university is the right knowledge. Teachers from school are sure that academic theory is important, but the reality in school is something else, as the in-service teachers said. But both sides asserted that as long as school and university do not cooperate, academic knowledge will remain different from reality at school, and more young teachers will experience reality shock when they begin school practice or the induction year. This barrier is related to the lack of habit in creating collaborative knowledge between teachers with various professional expertise levels, and involving the teacher trainers in this process, as Cassidy et al. (2008) have also claimed. Moreover, the lack of empirical testing of the innovative educational sciences paradigms at schools by pre-service teacher students and experienced teachers, and the resulting lack of feedback to the teacher training institutions, slows down dynamic changes particularly and the development of the educational sciences generally in schools (Valli 2000; Vavasseur and MacGregor 2008). This barrier relates to the in-service teachers communities. To some extent, there are already small communities among teachers who are teaching the same subject, such as biology teachers or mathematics teachers. But there should be more collaboration between regions. History teachers may collaborate in the same city or neighbour village, said one of the pre-service teachers. Also, one of the school practice supervisors mentioned, these communities would enable pre-service teachers to feel

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

68

K. Tammets et al.

part of the community as soon as they begin school practice, if the supervisor introduced the regional subject teachers within the community at the same time. Teachers technological preparedness For example Vavasseur and MacGregor (2008) have claimed that the social networks and communities of educators of our day have begun to appear by means of technology support. But in our study, teachers stated that using technology takes extra time and decreases face-to-face communication, emphasising the negative role of technology, rather than seeing how technology might enhance their professional activities. Teacher trainers in our study believe that if teachers could see that their individual contribution inuences their organisation and colleagues, and that they can benet from such information made available by their colleagues from different schools and university teacher-training centres, this may change their negative attitude towards technology-supported LKB activities. However, a few teachers said:
. . . technological system should certainly be introduced for the pre-service teacher students and induction year teachers (and maybe in the beginning it should be compulsory), so that there would be a habit developed of using the portfolio from the beginning of their studies.

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

Privacy and intellectual property rights were issues mentioned in the discussion, as there are teachers who believe that learning materials can be stolen after sharing them on the Internet with colleagues. On the other hand, as a paradox, teachers stated, It would be more motivating for me to create and share learning materials with colleagues, if more experienced colleagues would start doing it rst, so I could follow the activities. And another commented by asking Should I be motivated if other teachers would like to use my learning materials in their lesson? No, it is extra work for me; I have to check the spelling etc. Organisational barrier Another important consideration in implementing the LKB activities is the organisational barrier. Teachers pointed out that their school board does not support different activities related to professional development. Training courses, new learning materials created with technology, innovative learning methods and so on, can take too much of my time. Additionally, collaboration between school and university can be a barrier that inuences efcient LKB, as one of the teachers said: My school does not want teachers or teacher students to reect in public on how the work is organised in their institution, even if it is for learning purposes. Those organisational barriers can inuence teachers motivation to use the proposed LKB model in their activities, because this model assumes collaboration between organisations and the support for the individuals LKB activities from the organisations. Applying the cross-organisational LKB model to portfolio-based system design This section provides two scenarios together with workows and functionalities of the system in order to illustrate the implementation of the LKB model developed in the design sessions together with stakeholders who are willing to test them empirically. We present only the scenarios related to pre-service development. Alternative

European Journal of Teacher Education

69

scenarios for the induction year programme and for the in-service teachers accreditation and training have been developed as well, together with participants using the design-based research method. The following scenarios describe how pre-service teacher education might be supported in extended organisations using the technology-enhanced LKB model that highlights SECI phases. Scenarios are all related to each other, but could be used separately as well. Usage scenario 1: facilitator s preparations for learners school practice
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013
Using a community page in e-portfolio, the facilitator of pre-service school practice prepares observation tasks for school practice for the group of learners. The facilitator uploads the school practice documentation (e.g. practice guide and observation tasks introductions) to the community les and connects them with tasks if needed. In the preparation of learning tasks for school practice the facilitator browses the portfolios with personal learning materials of learners from previous years and combines the normative document, thus, utilising actual experiences and cases from teaching practice. The facilitator relates the documentation to competences using the competence tool available in the portfolio by choosing the competence motivating the students in classroom from the teacher s qualication standard. Finally, the facilitator harmonises

Figure 3. Facilitator s preparations for learners school practice.

70

K. Tammets et al.
the tasks with the supervisor from the school, where the practice takes place. It means that the facilitator prepares the materials in a practice group community page and sends the message through the system to the school supervisor by asking her to have a look at the material and make any changes where needed. After modication of the materials by the school supervisor, the university facilitator gives the tasks to the learners through the community page in the portfolio, by using wikipages or forum. The learner then nds from the forum task observation task No. 1. Please observe the teacher during the lesson and reect here in the forum: (a) how did she start the lesson, what ice-breaking methods did she use; (b) how did she move from one activity to another (for example from reading from a textbook to solving tasks in a worksheet); and (c) how did she end the class.

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

In this scenario LKB activities are related to the internalisation, socialisation and externalisation phases of the SECI model in the teacher development context (see Figure 3). This scenario encourages cross-organisational activities between two organisations, when school and university supervisors harmonise the school practice tasks and goals between themselves. Usage scenario 2: collaborative creation of learning materials
The university supervisor asks pre-service teachers to collaboratively prepare the lesson that includes the active learning methods. The material should include illustrative materials. Pre-service teachers then divide themselves into groups and share the responsibilities. One group decides to focus on m-learning in biology class. They decide to use the learning resources repository LeMill for the creation of learning materials. In LeMill, they will create a group Biology with m-learning and they list all the ideas, materials and resources that can be used. Those who are responsible for illustrative materials can embed videos and add photos to the materials. Each pre-service teacher has access for editing and modifying the same learning material. After nishing the material about m-learning combined with the theoretical part of the biology class, example tasks with m-learning devices and guidance on how to use these devices will be shared in LeMill and Koolielu with the university supervisor and the school supervisor. The school supervisor adds comments about the material whether it can be implemented in school or what barriers these materials may face. She comments primarily on the technological aspects, for example how students might face some barriers when lming and photographing different mushrooms and uploading les. The pre-service teachers in several groups will assess the material during the school practice activities in different schools. After the lesson, the groups will reect in the Koolielu community, how the material was implemented, and how the material should be improved for the next time. For that, they will create a discussion in the forum discussion implementing m-learning in biology class and each of them will add their remarks and reections. Group reections will get feedback from university and school supervisors. The university supervisor will discuss the quality of the learning materials, how the active learning methods were used and the pedagogical aspects of the material. The school supervisor focuses on the conduct of the practical activities and how the lesson was generally performed.

The described scenario supports the combination and socialisation phase in the SECI model. This scenario encourages pre-service teachers to collaboratively create learning material, although each of them has a personal goal, which needs to be realised by socialisation with each other (see Figure 4). The scenario focuses on cross-organisational activities between school and university, because both of the supervisors share the feedback about the quality of the material and about the implementation process.

European Journal of Teacher Education

71

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

Figure 4. Collaborative creation of learning materials.

These scenarios demonstrate how individual knowledge may be transformed into the organisations shared knowledge, as Figure 3 and 4 illustrate. For example, due to the school supervisors feedback on the pre-service teachers reections, materials and tasks, content becomes more relevant during the school practice compared with the initial materials that university supervisors provided. This brings school supervisors closer to the university and encourages the collaboration between them. On the other hand, the pre-service teachers have a chance to learn from their peers selfanalyses and reections with supervisors feedback and this supports becoming closer to school activities in reality. All these aspects inuence the barriers discussed in Chapter 4.2 and should have an impact on diminishing them. Guidelines for implementation of the theoretical LKB model in a technological environment For replication purposes, we provide guidelines for educational institutions interested in implementing our proposed LKB model in a technological environment. (1) Initialisation phase: setting up the cross-organisational context: (a) Identify and engage key stakeholders in organisations;

72

K. Tammets et al.

(b) Form cross-organisational design-based research teams between school and university; (c) Identify and select a set of digital tools, which are familiar to teachers and which support LKB activities. (2) Analysis phase: collecting data: (a) Conduct a cross-organisational analysis for LKB needs and opportunities. For example, focus group interviews may be used to analyse what technology is available and how it is used for LKB currently and what the possible future use is; (b) Identify the organisations LKB vision (collaboration, scaffolding, networking, individual competence development) and related policies; (c) Identify gaps and opportunities, which different stakeholders perceive with the implementation of the LKB model and how the control processes should be considered. (3) Design phase: developing implementation scenarios and support services: (a) Implement participatory design sessions for producing the possible scenarios for different educational organisations that consider technological possibilities and LKB practices; (b) Provide scaffolding services (training, guidelines, learning technology advisors) for staff involved in the project, both in schools and in universities. (4) Evaluation phase: (a) Monitor and measure participants motivation and ownership for learning and knowledge building activities; (b) Communicate the outcome to the participants; (c) Evaluate the LKB changes in different organisations but also across organisations, combining different data collection methods (interviews, analysis of reective accounts, data mining in portal log les, survey questionnaires). Conclusion In this paper we propose that in teachers professional development, using the crossorganisational LKB model might better connect individual and organisational learning and promote teacher professional development. Together with different stakeholders who are related to teachers professional development, we developed the LKB scenarios for a portfolio-based learning environment. These scenarios follow SECI phases across schools and universities, and thereby support collaboration between pre-service and in-service activities in schools and universities. This study demonstrated that teachers are interested in organising their professional learning activities more systematically in order to benet from the synergetic LKB activities. Such an application of LKB activities also provides synergy between group actions (such as supervising and collaboration), and individual competence development.

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

European Journal of Teacher Education

73

We stated that it is important that teachers be motivated to plan their competence development, to document it with evidence, and to share these reections in the community, where the university teachers, in-service teachers and students are all members. We emphasised that some barriers should be taken into consideration such as the intrinsic motivation of teachers, technical preparedness and the teachers weak sense of identity across schools and universities. In order to reduce the barriers as much as possible, we suggested that teachers should be involved in the design process of the framework for the LKB model, and also in development of the scenarios with the technical environments. As a result, we also provide some guidelines for implementation of the technology-supported model for cross-organisational learning and knowledge building for teachers.
Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

Acknowledgements
This study was funded by ESF grant 7663 and MER targeted research 0130159s08, but also by IntelLEO project. IntelLEO Intelligent Learning Extended Organization is a research project supported by the ICT program of the European Commission (DG Information Society and Media, project no. 231590). This document does not represent the opinion of the European Community, and the European Community is not responsible for any use that might be made of its content. Additionally we thank the reviewer for his/her thorough review and highly appreciate the comments and suggestions, which signicantly contributed to improving the quality of the publication.

Notes on contributors
Kairit Tammets is a junior researcher in the Center for Educational Technology in Tallinn University and PhD student of Faculty of Education in Turku University and Institute of Education in Tallinn University. Her PhD research theme is focusing on cross-border learning and knowledge building in teachers professional development with the support of e-portfolio. Her main interest is related with e-portfolios in teacher education and in open education. Kai Pata is a senior researcher in the Center for Educational Technology in Tallinn University. She has the background in natural sciences and technology enhanced learning. She has been the pedagogical expert in several Estonian and European Framework Technology Enhanced Learning and Science projects. Her research initiatives in e-learning cover scaffolding collaborative decision-making, model-based inquiry in natural sciences, self-directed learning in higher education, and modelling workplace learning. She is interested in the application of systemic and ecological knowledge-building models in instructional design for open education. Mart Laanpere is a researcher and head of the Centre for Educational Technology in Tallinn University. His research interests are concerned with task-centered instructional design models, competence management with e-portoios and conceptual design of blog-based personal learning environments. He has been involved in several international and nationallevel research projects focusing at open educational resources, use of social media in higher education, collaborative learning and knowledge building at workplace. He has been working as educational technology policy consultant in the Republic of Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Croatia.

References
Ardichvili, A., V. Page, and T. Wentiling. 2003. Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management 7, no. 1: 6477. Barrett, H. 2010. Balancing the two faces of eportfolios. Educao, Formao and Tecnologias 3, no. 1: 614.

74

K. Tammets et al.

Beyer, H., and K. Holtzblatt. 1998. Contextual design: Dening customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Bozhuisen, H.P.A., R. Brommer, and H. Gruber. 2004. Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert. New York: Kluwer Academic. Carvalho, R.B., and M.A.T. Ferreira. 2001. Using information technology to support knowledge conversion processes. Information Research 7, no. 1. Cassidy, C., D. Chrisite, D. Coutts, J. Dunn, C. Sinclair, D. Skinner, and A. Wilson. 2008. Building communities of educational inquiry. Oxford Review of Education 34, no. 2: 21735. Chatti, A., R. Klamma, M. Jarke, and A. Naeve. 2007. The Web 2.0 driven SECI model based learning process. Paper presented at the International Conference of Advanced Learning Technologies. In the Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 780782. IEEE Computer Society. Davenport, T.H., D.W. De Long, and M.C. Beers. 1998. Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review 39, no. 2: 4357. Design-Based Research Collective 2003. Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher 32, no. 1: 58. 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. Feiman-Nemser, S. 2001. From preparation to practice. Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record 103, no. 6: 101355. Frstenau, B. 2003. Exploration of an industrial enterprise as a method of boundary-crossing in vocational education. In Between school and work, new perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing, ed. T. Tuomi-Grhn and Y. Engestrm. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Garrison, D.R. 1999. Will distance disappear in distance studies? A reaction. Journal of Distance Education 14, no. 2: 19. Hackos, J.T., and J.C. Redish. 1998. User and task analysis for interface design. New York: Wiley. Helleve, I. 2009. Theoretical foundations of teachers professional development. In Online learning communities and teacher professional development: Methods for improved education delivery, ed. J.O. Lindberg and A.D. Olofson, 119. Hershey, PA: IGI-Global. Jrvel, 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. Jrvel. New York: Pergamon. Kieslinger, B., K. Pata, and C.M. Fabian. 2009. Participatory design approach for the support of collaborative learning and knowledge building in networked organizations. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Leaning 2, no. 3. Kilduff, M., and W. Tsai. 2003. Social networks and organizations. London: Sage. Kop, R., and A. Hill. 2008. Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 9, no. 3. Kujula, S., and M. Mntyl. 2000. How effective are user studies? In People and computers XIV, ed. S. McDonald, Y. Waern, and G. Cockton, 6171. New York: Springer-Verlag. Lambert, P. 2003. Promoting developmental transfer in vocational teacher education. In Between school and work. New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing, ed. T. Tuomi-Grhn and Y. Engestrm, 23354. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Leinonen, T., J. Purma, H. Pldoja, and T. Toikkanen. 2010. Information architecture and design solutions scaffolding authoring of open educational resources. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 3, no. 2: 11628. Lin, X. 2001. Designing meta-cognitive activities. Educational Technology Research and Development 49, no. 2: 2340. Naeve, A., P. Yli-Luoma, M. Kravcik, and M.D. Lytras. 2008. A modeling approach to study learning processes with a focus on knowledge creation. International Journal Technology Enhanced Learning 1, no. 1/2: 134. Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

European Journal of Teacher Education

75

Downloaded by [Central U Library of Bucharest] at 00:56 03 December 2013

Pata, K., and M. Laanpere. 2008. Supporting cross-institutional knowledge-building with Web 2.0 enhanced digital portfolios. In The 8th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2008), Santander, Cantabria, Spain, ed. P. Diaz, I. Aedo, and E. Mora, 798800. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press. Ritchie, J., and L. Spencer. 1994. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Analysing qualitative data, ed. A. Byrman and R.G. Burgess, 17394. London: Routledge. Sillaots, M., and M. Laanpere. 2009. Building the Next-generation educational portal for Estonian Schools. Paper presented at the Open Classroom Eden Conference, October 17, in Porto, Portugal. Stokic, D., K. Pata, V. Devedzic, J. Jovanovic, L. Urosevic, D. Gasevic, B. Kieslinger, and J. Wild. 2008. Intelligent learning extended organizations. Proceedings of TELearn2008, Hanoi, Vietnam, CD Edition. Valli, L. 2000. Connecting teacher development and school improvement: Ironic consequences of a pre-service action research course. Teaching and Teacher Education 16, no. 7: 71530. Vavasseur, C.B., and S.K. MacGregor. 2008. Extending content-focused professional development through online communities of practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 40, no. 4: 51736. Wang, F., and M.J. Hannan. 2005. Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development 53, no. 4: 523. Zeichner, K., and S. Wray. 2001. The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: What we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, no. 5: 61322.