A Study of Social Information Control Affordances and Gender - - PDF document

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249317310

A Study of Social Information Control Affordances and Gender Difference in Facebook Self-Presentation

Article in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · July 2013

DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0345 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

34

READS

359

4 authors, including: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Ministry of Science and Technology View project Data Literacy, Data Ethics and Data culture View project Fan-Chuan Tseng National University of Tainan

17 PUBLICATIONS 373 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Cathy S. Lin National University of Kaohsiung

30 PUBLICATIONS 843 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Fan-Chuan Tseng on 24 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A study of social participation and knowledge sharing in the teachers’

• nline professional community of practice

Fan-Chuan Tseng a, Feng-Yang Kuo b,*

a Department of Business and Management, National University of Tainan, No. 33, Sec. 2, Shu-Lin St., Tainan, Taiwan b Department of Information Management, National Sun Yat-Sen University, 70 Lien-Hai Road, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 14 June 2013 Received in revised form 13 October 2013 Accepted 14 October 2013 Keywords: Computer-mediated communication Cooperative/collaborative learning Interactive learning environments Learning communities

a b s t r a c t

To facilitate professional development of teachers in the online context, the online community of practice (CoPs) has become an important platform in which individuals with similar interests or common goals get together to share their resources, develop working strategies, solve problems, and improve individual as well as organizational performance. In this study, we have collected self-reported knowledge-sharing behaviors from 321 members of the largest online professional CoP of teachers in Taiwan. The results show that closer connections among online CoP members can lead to greater recognition of and altruism towards others. Moreover, performance expectation and self-efficacy belief play essential roles in knowledge-sharing participation. Thus, the development of social relationships among online teacher members helps them obtain potential resources and reliable support through their social network. Also, teachers’ membership in the online professional CoP fosters a prosocial attitude that heightens their willingness to share useful resources and solve other members’ problems, both emotionally and

• instrumentally. Consequently, knowledge-sharing behaviors, in terms of knowledge giving and knowing

receiving, are significantly predicted by prosocial commitment and performance expectation respec-

• tively. The implications to both research and practice are provided in this paper.

2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

• 1. Introduction

Teacher empowerment has been a critical issue for teachers to update their domain knowledge and expand teaching skills in order to continue to work effectively with students’ learning (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Kao & Tsai, 2009; McLaughlin, 2002). A variety of ways have been employed to empower teachers. For example, one of the most frequently employed is to hire outside experts to inform teachers of possible best practices or up-to-date pedagogical knowledge. Yet, depending on outside experts who have little knowledge about local conditions may render teachers to become passive and isolated learners (Hur, Brush, & Bonk, 2012). Alternatively, teachers may prefer developing teaching skills that work best for them in their individual classroom, which unfortunately leads to cultures of knowledge hoarding and fortifying the boundaries between classrooms and teachers (Carroll et al., 2003). More recently, a growing number of in- formation and technologies (ICTs) have been implemented for teachers’ greater teaching efficiency in the classroom (Lee, Wu, Michko, & Lin, 2013; Türel & Johnson, 2012) as well as engagement in professional growth (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Gla- zewski, Newby, & Ertmer, 2010). Among various ICTs for education, online communities of practices (CoPs) have become a critical approach for teachers to advancing their pedagogical knowledge and teaching skills (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2008; Gairin-Sallan, Rodriguez- Gomez, & Armengol-Asparo, 2010; McKnight, Choudhury, & Kacmar, 2002). A CoP refers to ‘a set of relations among persons, activity and world’ in which people are bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise or goal (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Studies have shown that the online CoPs can help raise teacher-practitioners’ competence levels, reinforce their professional practice, and satisfy the need of professional development as well as students’ academic achievement (Clarke, 2009; Meneses, Fabregues, Rodriguez-Gomez, & Ion, 2012; Zahner, 2002).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886 7 5254731. E-mail addresses: misfctseng@gmail.com (F.-C. Tseng), bkuo@mis.nsysu.edu.tw (F.-Y. Kuo).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

0360-1315/$ – see front matter 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.005 Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–47

To develop effective online professional CoPs, several scholars have cautioned against “Technology Determinism” that assumes the ICT will by itself generate knowledge, or that it will be able to entirely substitute for traditional face-to-face interaction (Dixon, 2000; Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999). An ICT-based system should not be confined only to the advantages of technology functionality, since it has to be used by individuals or groups in certain contexts (Bagozzi, 2007). Indeed, the formation and application of knowledge is embedded in people’s everyday practices, which involve a state of knowing and understanding as well as a process rooted in relationships among members (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Wenger (1998) as well as Kang et al. (2010) both argue that in online professional CoP, social participation ought to be placed at the center of learning process that promotes interactions among individuals and that directly improve members’ negotiation, communication, and coordination with one another. In fact, social participation is useful to enhance communication among peers, encourage them to seek solutions, provide assistance to overcome obstacles in the professional arena, and eventually foster the creation and dissemination of collective intelligence (Gorman & Fischer, 2009). Fischer (2011) therefore advocates the use of ICT to foster ‘cultures of participation’ in which members are supported by not only the technical design at different levels of participation but also the social capital and cognitive factors like connectedness, trust, empathy, altruism, and reciprocity among social members. As a result, social participation is critical for CoP members to share knowledge, which is not an objective, retreating and individual phenomenon (Alavi, Kayworth, & Leidner, 2005–6) but embedded in the close connection among individuals, environment and technology that are constantly under the influence of social background, system regulations, and interpersonal interactions (Miranda & Saunders, 2003; Thomas, Sussman, & Henderson, 2001; Wasko & Faraj, 2000). Previously, several studies have identified the influence on teachers’ professional learning and development through their cognition, value, attitude and self-efficacy in relation to ICT implementation (e.g., Grainger & Tolhurst, 2005; Gu, Zhang, Lin, & Song, 2009; Lee & Lee, 2008; Lin, Lin, & Huang, 2008; Manouselis, Vuorikari, & Assche, 2010). Online CoPs are effective in facilitating members to become aware of their common concerns or interests and to raise their sense of belonging and construction of professional identity (Guldberg & Pilkington, 2006; Ryberg & Larsen, 2008). However, there is little empirical research focusing on issues of social participation and examining the regulatory relationships between teachers’ relational ties and cognition with regard to knowledge sharing in the online professional context. Drawn upon the Social Capital Theory and Social Cognitive Theory, this study aims to explore the elements of social participation in online knowledge sharing practice. The effectiveness of social participation is also examined on both knowledge-giving and knowledge-receiving

• behaviors. Accordingly, our study identifies the following research questions:
• 1. What social capital factors are critical to knowledge sharing in the teachers’ online professional CoP?
• 2. What social cognitive factors are critical to knowledge sharing in the teachers’ online professional CoP?
• 3. How may social capital factors and social cognitive factors influence each other?
• 4. How may social capital factors and social cognitive factors influence online CoP members’ knowledge sharing activities?
• 2. Literature review

2.1. Tie strength to the bond of social participation Tie strength, a multidimensional variable, represents the strength of interpersonal relationships in the aspects of closeness, intimacy, and support, with a voluntary investment in the social relation and companionship with other members (Brown, Broderick, & Lee, 2007). Granovetter (1973) initially distinguishes strong ties from weak ties according to the length of contact frequency, reciprocity, and friendship. Nevertheless, several later researchers have suggested that it is not a critical issue to classify ties based on the strength but “on very different meanings such as acquaintance, friendships or a shared interest” (Brown & Reingen, 1987; Ryberg & Larsen, 2008). It is therefore not necessary to dichotomize the interpersonal tie into strong or weak, but assess it as a continuous variable attached to the degree of social relation. Tie strength is an important factor in knowledge sharing in the online professional CoPs because it facilitates the building of trust, support, and reciprocity among members. According to social capital theory, the formation and maintenance of social relations help in- dividuals acquire the power to obtain available resources through their identity as members of the social network (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Portes, 1995, 1998). Sensitive, complicated, and rapidly-changing information flows more smoothly among members with strong ties to boost the achievement of tasks and performance (Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999). Mutual experiences, goal-setting, resource exchange, and emotional support among social members can invoke creativity and learning efficiency, as well as boost the production and application of intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). In the context of online collaboration, Best and Krueger (2006) suggest that Internet may promote weak ties and subsequently increase generalized trust, integrity, and reciprocity. Similarly, Williams (2006) indicate that online bridging should have positive correlations with behavior like finding information outside one’s daily routine, while online bonding should also be positively correlated with feeling of closeness, trust, support, and community. In addition to online interaction, Matzat (2013) argues that higher integration of offline contacts among teacher members reflects more embeddedness of the online pro- fessional community. As a result, more discussion, sharing, and support significantly contribute to teachers’ professional development through common interests or motivations. 2.2. Prosocial commitment as a collective force to share knowledge According to social capital theory, an individual’s willingness to voluntarily help, share, donate, and cooperate in groups, reflecting the relational dimension of social capital (Bourdieu, 1983; Lin, 2001), can foster their prosocial actions to benefit other people or achieving shared objectives. The prosociality is basically derived from the altruistic motives – the moral concerns and affective functioning to express their empathy about the welfare and rights of others with less egoistic aspiration or threatening behavior (Trötschel & Gollwitzer, 2007; Wentzel, Filisetti, & Looney, 2007). In addition to altruistic motives, egoistic motives also serve as critical factors to influence individual prosocial behavior (Cho, Chen, & Chung, 2010; Sproull, Conley, & Moon, 2013; Wagner & Prasarnphanich, 2007). Individuals may try to

F.-C. Tseng, F.-Y. Kuo / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–47 38

maximize their reputation and welfare through helping others and getting a reciprocal return in the future. Consistent with Blau’s (1964) social exchange perspectives, individuals of strong ties donate their effort to help other people in close relationships to enhance their own image, increase social approval, expect future favors, and maintain ongoing relationships with others (Yu, Jiang, & Chan, 2011). Moreover, egoistic motives are beneficial to improve one’s skills, moods, and sense of distinction and importance, contributing to further collaboration and cooperation in groups (Wagner & Prasarnphanich, 2007). In online professional CoPs, members post a message about a question or request for help while other peers response with comments or suggestions to someone in need (Cho et al., 2010; Sproull et al., 2013; Wasko & Faraj, 2005). People exchange advice to provide solutions to similar problems, and foster effective learning and cooperation as well. Because of mutual benefits and a sense of responsibility within the group, social members with closer community recognition, mutual trust, and obligation awareness are more willing to express their feelings and share opinions toward something without reservation. Sproull et al. (2013) further argue that prosociality emerges not only as a function

• f moral concern for others’ need (altruistic motive) or as a matter of self-interest (egoistic motive), but also responds to the members’

identification with and commitment to their group. Therefore, we propose the first hypothesis as follows, H1. The tie strength of online teacher members has a direct and positive influence on their prosocial commitment in the online profes- sional Cops. Within the voluntary online professional Cops, it is easy for someone to ask for help while others are willing to contribute time and effort to share information or offer emotional support. Since both altruistic and egoistic motives have been identified as a critical facilitator of problem solving, information sharing, intellectual competencies, and social achievement (Sproull et al., 2013; Wagner & Prasarnphanich, 2007), the second hypothesis is therefore proposed: H2. The prosocial commitment of online teacher members has a direct and positive influence on their knowledge-sharing behavior. 2.3. Performance expectation to enhance educational development Outcome expectancy refers to the evaluation of the likely consequences that one specific action will produce (Bandura, 1986). An in- dividual’s action is influenced by not only personal special likes but also his or her judgments on the possibility of expected outcomes (Vroom,1964). In other words, to decide on a certain course of action, individuals may carefully calculate the effort required and the possible results that will lead to the greatest level of happiness as well as the lowest degree of unpleasantness for them (Siegel & Lane, 1982). The attractiveness and expectancy of goal attainment affects an individual’s determination to take certain actions by making the effort to fulfill the goal and not giving up easily (Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987). For instance, pre-service elementary teachers with positive expectancy beliefs in effective teaching and student learning can usually persist longer, overcome teaching barriers, and implement productive teaching

• strategies. In addition, they tend to spend much of their time learning and dealing with issues of classroom management (Wentzel, 1993).

Tie strength, a form of social capital, is a combination of reciprocal relationships, collective identification, trustworthiness, and expec- tations inherent in a closed social network. Such a sense of group belonging and reciprocity increases the awareness of others’ expertise as well as the opportunity for peer appraisal of work quality, which serve to enhance work performance (Cross & Borgatti, 2004; Michailova & Hutchings, 2006). Similarly, the extended linkage beyond the boundary of physical settings has been shown to be a critical factor encouraging cooperation and collaboration among online professional CoP teacher members who desire to enhance their professional performance as well as career achievement (Hur et al., 2012; Lin et al., 2008). Furthermore, consistent with the perspective of egoistic motives (Yu et al., 2011), teachers may engage themselves in the online professional CoP so as to improve their teaching skills and peda- gogical knowledge (Matzat, 2013). Thus, we propose the third hypothesis that teacher members with stronger relationships in the online professional CoP will have positive motivations to contribute and get feedback, leading to higher expectations of success in teaching performance. H3. The tie strength of online teacher members has a direct and positive influence on their performance expectation. Several studies have noted that the individual’s expected consequences of ICT usage, including job-related performance and personal development, have a significant influence on ICT using behavior (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Compeau, Higgins, & Huff, 1999; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992; Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Thompson, Higgins, & Howell, 1991). Similarly, knowledge-sharing behavior is derived from the expectation of extrinsic rewards and reciprocal relationships (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005). When members are certain that sharing can create mutual benefits or can contribute to the maintaining of reciprocal relationships with others, knowledge sharing will proceed

• smoothly. Specifically, individuals expect benefits to result from the sharing and reuse of knowledge, which encourage them to participate in

related activities (Watson & Hewett, 2006), such as acquiring new knowledge, obtaining more useful resources, enhancing interpersonal communication, and promoting professional skills to facilitate problem solving as well as job performance. This implies that there is a positive relationship between individuals’ job performance and participation in knowledge management (Lai, 2009). In order to work and teach effectively in the educational setting and to develop professionally, it is necessary for teachers to learn about and share educational issues, innovative ideas, and instrumental or emotional resources in their professional CoPs (Imants, 2003; Tseng & Kuo, 2010; Zahner, 2002). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis: H4. The performance expectation of online teacher members has a direct and positive influence on knowledge-sharing behavior. 2.4. Self-efficacy as key mediation to influence knowledge sharing behavior The concept of self-efficacy refers to judgment about one’s ability to complete specific tasks (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Self-efficacy is a key influence on the individual’s expectation of possible outcomes and further courses of action. It is regarded as a vital mechanism for self- regulation in the interaction between how an individual faces the environment and his corresponding behavior. An individual’s belief in his/her ability to complete specific tasks can further influence the strategy adopted to achieve the goals, the amount of effort they expend,

F.-C. Tseng, F.-Y. Kuo / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–47 39

the persistence with which they encounter obstacles and adversity, the capacity to recover from setbacks, and the feasibility of achieving the

• bjectives. Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, and Malone (2006) have demonstrated the influence of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on their

satisfaction with teaching and students’ learning achievement. Moreover, self-efficacy belief in using information technology enables in- dividuals to be more effective in the use of ICT to accomplish the learning activities, organizational innovation, and task performance, resulting in enhancement of their subjective well-being and social conditions (Bandura, 2002). Self-efficacy is influenced by the common asset owned by a community formed of social capital, including action strategies, resource retrieval, effort, and ability to recover from and respond to difficulties (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004). Through collective faith that social interaction contributes to sharing, community members pool their knowledge, skills and resources to provide mutual support for members, form alliances, collaborate mutually to solve problems and enhance members’ general quality of life (Bandura, 2000). Martin and Dowson (2009) argue that positive interpersonal relationships are useful for individuals to enhance their feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. This is achieved through instrumental help or emotional support in a shared context, which further affects the individual’s achievement

• motivation. Similarly, online professional CoP members are more confident in their ability to contribute useful knowledge to others, instead
• f being anxious in a social context (Young & Tseng, 2008), when they have common interests and goals with their peers (Hsu, Ju, Yen, &

Chang, 2007; Tseng & Kuo, 2010). Through the establishment and maintaining of relationships between CoP members, the vicarious experience produced by the social models help them to realize the possibility of accomplishment toward behaviors. Accordingly, the network ties among members of an online teacher professional CoP will affect the way an individual judges the extent to which he has the ability to share knowledge, resources or experience. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis: H5. The tie strength of online teacher members has a direct and positive influence on their knowledge-sharing self-efficacy. Self-efficacy does not simply reflect the individual’s beliefs about his/her own capabilities; nor does it contribute only to personal

• benefits. Several studies (e.g., Allen & Rushton, 1983; Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, & Freifeld, 1995) have found that the sense of self-efficacy

plays a critical role in predicting one’s altruistic intention and behavior to benefit others, irrespective of whether such behavior is derived from other-oriented empathy or personal confidence in their ability to master their environment. The perceived efficacy beliefs in groups reflect people’s confidence in their ability to acknowledge other members’ encounters and perspectives, and to respond empathetically to

• thers’ emotional or instrumental needs (Caprara & Steca, 2005). Accordingly, we argue that, in the collective online context, professional

CoP members’ self-efficacy beliefs to share knowledge with others play a critical role in predicting their level of prosocial commitment. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed: H6. The knowledge-sharing self-efficacy of online teacher members has a direct and positive influence on their prosocial commitment. Bandura (1997) further points out that self-efficacy belief levels impact the anticipation of behavioral outcome. Those with higher self- efficacy believe that their actions will lead to good results. In the field of information management, the relationship between self-efficacy and outcome expectancy is verified by the finding that people of high self-efficacy expect to use ICT to increase other people’s recognition of

• ne’s ability, enhance their sense of achievement in work, and to improve their chances of job promotion (Compeau & Higgins, 1995;

Compeau et al., 1999). For example, Internet self-efficacy has been shown to be positively related to the outcome expectancy of Internet use (Eastin & LaRose, 2000), such as receiving peer support, making friends, gathering information, or seeking entertainment on the Internet (Park, Kee, & Valenzuela, 2009; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008). Similarly, teachers with greater assurance of their instructional efficacy positively support students’ sense of confidence and academic achievements (Caprara et al., 2006). Hence, we propose the following hypothesis: H7. The knowledge-sharing self-efficacy of online teacher members has a direct and positive influence on their performance expectation. Finally, Bock and Kim (2002) point out that a key issue affecting the way an individual processes knowledge management activities in an

• rganization is the individual’s judgment as to whether he can contribute in the expected way. When organizational employees regard

themselves as having the ability to contribute to better performance and target achievement, they hold a more positive and affirmative attitude toward knowledge contribution. More specifically, individuals believe that they are able to share information they have and help solve work-related problems, enhance work efficiency, or achieve organizational reformation (Cabrera & Cabrere, 2002; Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei, 2005). On the whole, a high level of knowledge-sharing efficacy can enhance interpersonal collaboration, reduce “free-riding” be- haviors, and boost knowledge contribution among members (Lu, Leung, & Koch, 2006). Therefore, we hypothesize that when online teacher members’ knowledge-sharing self-efficacy is high, the possibility of their engaging in knowledge sharing activities increases. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H8. The knowledge-sharing self-efficacy of online teacher members has a direct and positive influence on their knowledge-sharing behavior.

• Fig. 1. Research model.

F.-C. Tseng, F.-Y. Kuo / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–47 40

• Fig. 1 depicts our research model, which has four variables: members’ tie strength emerging in the professional CoP environment, in-

dividuals’ prosociality-orientation to help address other members’ needs, outcome expectations for job performance, as well as their self- efficacy beliefs with respect to knowledge sharing as a form of social participation.

• 3. Research design

3.1. Participants and data collection This study focuses on a teachers’ online professional community – SCTNet (http://SCTNet.edu.tw), the largest web-based knowledge- sharing community for the teaching profession in Taiwan. Under the stronger influence of Confucian culture, teachers are highly respected and generally regarded as superior models of wisdom, excellence, and perfection for passing on knowledge to students and help solve students’ problems (Young & Tseng, 2008). Since 2001, the Program of Nine Year Curriculum Integration has been implemented in Taiwan. More collaboration among teachers and their continuous professional growth are required to offer new courses as well as to enhance students’ learning performance. In order to boost teachers’ professional development, with the support of authority departments and the cooperation of educational practitioners, SCTNet has become an important means through which teachers can continuously share and learn about education-related knowledge. In this teachers’ online professional CoP, teachers can register and get permission to post messages, participate in discussions, response to others’ posting, as well as to download and upload the instruction materials. In this study, semistructured interviews based on the social capital theory and social cognitive theory were initially conducted with forty- nine SCTNet members to elicit narratives about their experiences in school life and participation in SCTNet. Consistent with the suggestions

• f Kerlinger and Lee (2008), we relied on these interviews to identify variables and relations as well as to formulate hypotheses of the
• research. The transcripts of interviews were then subjected to content analysis and measurement design. With the assistance of three

SCTNet members to assure the construct validity in terms of ease of understanding, logical consistencies, and context fitness, we were able to diminish the analysis bias and enhance the construct validity. Subsequently, we adopted a survey methodology to collect and analyze a sample of population – SCTNet active members, through their responses to questions. After obtaining permission from the online CoP administrator, the questionnaire was placed on the website for members’ voluntary participation. 433 survey responses were received. Incomplete responses and non-service teacher members (e.g., retired teachers, teacher preparation program students) were discarded. The remaining 321 questionnaires were used for examination and analysis. Table 1 shows the valid respondents’ demographic characteristics. 3.2. Measurement instruments Table 2 presents the operational definition and its references for the research model. For measuring the strength of interpersonal ties among online CoP members, we do not follow traditional approach in terms of acquaintanceship, emotional closeness, and frequency of

• interaction. Instead, adapted from Brown and Reingen (1987) along with Ryberg and Larsen (2008), we designed three items to evaluate the

type of social relation in SCTNet workshops, discussion groups, and the entire SCTNet community. Initially subjects are asked to respond if there is any SCTNet member with whom they share knowledge. If the answer was positive, subjects are further asked to indicate the level of members’ reciprocal identification, ranging from complete unknown strangers to good partners with common goals or interests. For prosocial commitment, three items are adapted from Trötschel and Gollwitzer (2007) along with Wentzel et al. (2007) to evaluate SCTNet members’ dedication to providing teaching resources and opinions to help solve other members’ problems. For example, one item is “As the

• nline CoP members need teaching resources, I provide what I have for them.” The measurement of performance expectation is adapted

Table 1 Demographic information of valid respondents. Measure Items Frequency Percent Gender Male 116 36.1 Female 205 63.9 Age Under 30 144 44.9 31–40 117 36.4 41–50 48 15.0 51–60 12 3.7 Position Kindergarten teacher 17 5.3 Primary school teacher 191 59.5 Junior high school teacher 41 12.8 Senior high school teacher 4 1.2 College teacher 3 0.9 Intern teacher 32 10.0 Part-time teacher 33 10.3 Work experience (in years) Under 5 151 47.0 6–10 60 18.7 11–15 44 13.7 16–20 31 9.7 21– 35 10.9 SCTNet member experience (in years) Under 0.5 47 14.6 0.5–1 45 14.0 1–2 81 25.2 3–4 100 31.2 5– 48 15.0 F.-C. Tseng, F.-Y. Kuo / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–47 41

from Compeau and Higgins (1995) as well as Hur et al. (2012) to measure if teacher members may expect to enhance their teaching skills, resources and professional knowledge in order to become a more competent educator. The fourth part of the questionnaire measures knowledge-sharing self-efficacy by examining the online professional CoP members’ levels of confidence in sharing knowledge. Considering that SCTNet members may be concerned about possible pressures from and conflicts with other members (Young & Tseng, 2008), eight items are developed to assess the subjects’ levels of belief in sharing their teaching practices, resources, and personal experiences with other members in the online knowledge community. Finally, with regard to knowledge-sharing behaviors in the online professional CoP, this study adopts the perspective from Ridings, Gefen, and Arinze (2002) to classify knowledge sharing into two forms of activities: receiving information/advice/skills/support as well as providing other people with what they need. Ten items are developed to measure giving and receiving behavior in terms of discussion, uploading/downloading teaching resources, exchanging experience or skills, as well as sharing their own emotional stories, expressing concerns for, or encouragement of other members. All measurement items are presented in the Appendix A. Tie strength is first asked if there is any SCTNet member whom the respondent shares knowledge with. If the respondent has shared knowledge with other member in SCTNet, he/she continues to point out the type of relation from totally unknown strangers to familiar group partners. Besides, knowledge-sharing self-efficacy is measured by using a per- centage scale comprised of ten-point increments, ranging in 10-unit intervals from 0% (not at all confident) to 100% (totally confident). The

• ther three constructs (prosocial commitment, performance expectation, and knowledge-sharing behavior) are measured on a seven-point

Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (¼1) to “strongly agree” (¼7).

• 4. Data analysis and results

4.1. Measurement reliability and validity In this study, the structural equation analysis – partial least square (PLS), is used to test the research hypotheses. PLS analysis has been widely used in IS research not only to confirm theories, but also to suggest exploratory propositions for later testing (Chin,1998, 2010; Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000). The first step in PLS is to assess measurement reliability and validity through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). As indicated in Table 3, the Cronbach’s alpha value of each construct exceeds 0.7 (Cronbach,1951), indicating that the reliability is acceptable. Next, in order to determine internal consistency, the items are calculated by using composite reliability (CR), all of which are found to exceed the generally recommended threshold values of 0.7 (Nunnally & Bernstein,1994). Convergent validity refers to the degree to which different measures all indicate the same meaning of the construct (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2006). It is significant when factor loadings for each item are greater than 0.5 (Steenkamp & Van Trijp,1991). To evaluate discriminant validity, the square root of average variance extracted (AVE) is compared with the correlations among constructs (Chin,1998). As demonstrated in Table 4, all square roots of Ave values are greater than the correlations between pairs of constructs. Thus, all the constructs and items meet the requirements of internal reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. 4.2. Hypothesis testing After assessing the validity and reliability of the research construct, we use PLS to test hypotheses by measuring the relationship between

• constructs. First, we examine the influence of individuals’ network ties, prosocial commitment, performance expectation, self-efficacy, and

their knowledge-sharing behavior. Except for the relationships between individuals’ network ties and performance expectation (H3,

b ¼ 0.110, p > 0.05), prosocial commitment and knowledge-receiving behavior (H2b, b ¼ 0.068, p > 0.05), as well as performance expec-

tation and knowledge-giving behavior (H4a, b ¼ 0.059, p > 0.05), the remaining paths are significant. The results demonstrate that network ties have positive and direct relationships with the online teacher professional CoP members’ prosocial commitment (H1, b ¼ 0.133, p < 0.01) and efficacious belief in knowledge sharing (H5, b ¼ 0.407, p < 0.001). Interestingly, prosocial commitment has a positive and direct relationship with knowledge-giving behavior (H2a, b ¼ 0.210, p < 0.01), while knowledge-receiving behavior is shown to be influ- enced by performance expectation (H4b, b ¼ 0.343, p < 0.001). Finally, knowledge-sharing self-efficacy has both direct and positive re- lationships with individuals’ job performance expectation (H7, b ¼ 0.324, p < 0.001), as well as knowledge-giving (H8a, b ¼ 0.374, p < 0.001) and receiving (H8b, b ¼ 0.335, p < 0.001) behaviors. In addition, the R2 value shows that the online professional CoP members’ network ties account for the variance of prosocial commitment, performance expectation, and knowledge sharing self-efficacy at the level of 33.1%,16.6%, and 14.6% respectively. Furthermore, the variance of 30.7% and 37.0% respectively for knowledge-giving and receiving behaviors can be explained by prosocial commitment, knowledge-sharing self-efficacy, and performance expectation (Fig. 2).

Table 2 Operational definitions of construct. Construct Operational definition Sources Tie strength The strength of relationships linking teachers with other members in the online teacher professional CoP. Brown & Reingen, 1987; Ryberg & Larsen, 2008 Prosocial commitment The teachers’ prosocial orientation and dedication to helping

• thers in the online teacher professional CoP.

Trötschel & Gollwitzer, 2007; Wentzel et al., 2007 Performance expectation The teachers’ outcome expectation of sharing knowledge in the

• nline teacher professional CoP to enhance their competence

and work efficiency. Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Hur et al., 2012 Knowledge-sharing self-efficacy The teachers’ judgment about his ability to undertake knowledge sharing in the online teacher professional CoP. Bandura, 1997, 2002; Caprara et al., 2006; Tseng & Kuo, 2010; Young & Tseng, 2008 Knowledge-sharing behavior The behavior in which teacher members give and receive resources, knowledge, experience, or emotional support with

• ther members in the online teacher professional CoP.

Bock & Kim, 2002; Ridings et al., 2002; Wasko & Faraj, 2000, 2005 F.-C. Tseng, F.-Y. Kuo / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–47 42

• 5. Discussion and conclusion

This study aims to identify critical factors important to nurture cultures of participation and investigate how these factors may impact teachers’ knowledge sharing in the online professional CoP. The results show that closer connections among online CoP members can lead to greater recognition of and altruism towards others. In addition, teachers’ membership in the online professional CoP fosters a pro-social attitude that heightens their willingness to share useful resources and solve other members’ problems, both emotionally and instrumen-

• tally. It is consistent with Cho et al. (2010) that individuals find greater enjoyment in helping others when their sense of attachment to other

group members is strong. Interestingly, the study by Matzat (2013) also suggests that social participation through offline contacts could

Table 3 CFA results for reliability and validity of measurement items. Construct Original items Mean SD Factor loading Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability Average variance extracted Tie strength Re1 4.072 2.274 0.912 0.812 0.891 0.735 Re2 2.405 2.274 0.706 Re3 3.922 2.151 0.935 Prosocial commitment Pc1 4.819 1.275 0.922 0.920 0.950 0.863 Pc2 4.866 1.299 0.946 Pc3 4.679 1.408 0.918 Performance expectation Pe1 5.246 1.304 0.898 0.874 0.915 0.730 Pe2 5.548 1.247 0.894 Pe3 5.318 1.225 0.901 Pe4 4.249 1.518 0.734 Knowledge-sharing self-efficacy Se1 6.402 1.739 0.831 0.934 0.945 0.684 Se2 6.308 1.806 0.863 Se3 6.396 1.755 0.877 Se4 5.978 1.785 0.806 Se5 5.850 2.015 0.796 Se6 6.118 1.782 0.849 Se7 6.199 1.834 0.802 Se8 6.645 1.716 0.790 Knowledge-sharing behavior_receiving Ksb1 4.919 1.447 0.822 0.883 0.914 0.681 Ksb2 4.676 1.620 0.829 Ksb3 4.844 1.477 0.875 Ksb4 4.162 1.659 0.824 Ksb5 3.785 1.656 0.773 Knowledge-sharing behavior_giving Ksb6 3.857 1.812 0.888 0.928 0.945 0.776 Ksb7 3.452 1.960 0.826 Ksb8 3.548 1.818 0.921 Ksb9 2.925 1.676 0.859 Ksb10 3.511 1.834 0.908 Table 4 Discriminant validity for the research constructs. Construct TS PC PE KSSE KSB_R KSB_G TS 0.857 PC 0.340 0.929 PE 0.241 0.557 0.854 KSSE 0.407 0.562 0.368 0.827 KSB_R 0.374 0.447 0.504 0.499 0.825 KSB_G 0.492 0.454 0.314 0.454 0.688 0.881 TS ¼ Tie strength; PC ¼ Prosocial commitment; PE ¼ Performance expectation. KSSE ¼ Knowledge-sharing self-efficacy; KSB_R ¼ Receiving behavior in knowledge sharing; KSB_G ¼ Giving behavior in knowledge sharing. Diagonal elements represent the square root of AVE for each construct; off diagonal elements are correlations among constructs.

• Fig. 2. Model testing results.

F.-C. Tseng, F.-Y. Kuo / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–47 43

strengthen the online professional community. In fact, this is consistent with findings from our interviews with 49 SCTNet members, who reveal that teachers engaged in the online professional CoP may also take part in activities beyond SCTNet. That is, many active SCTNet members meet each other face-to-face to reinforce their mutual trust and share their expertises. Thus, the development of online and offline social relationships among professional CoP members may help them to obtain potential resources and reliable support through their social network. Moreover, performance expectation and self-efficacy belief play essential roles in knowledge-sharing participation. While network ties do not have a significant effect on individuals’ job performance expectation, there is an indirect relationship between the tie strength and performance expectation through members’ self-efficacy in sharing knowledge, reflecting a stronger mediating effect on online teacher members’ knowledge sharing through their prosocial commitment to helping others and performance expectation. This is in agreement with the argument that interpersonal relationship plays a critical role in supporting one’s self-worth and the achievement motivation (Martin & Dowson, 2009). Therefore, through network ties with other CoP members, the greater the teachers’ efficacious beliefs in being able to provide instrumental resources or emotional support to help others, the higher likelihood of a positive evaluation of the job per- formance and the more knowledge they wish to contribute in the online teacher professional CoP. In addition, our findings reveal that knowledge giving is predicted by online teacher members’ prosocial commitment, while knowledge receiving is predicted by and their performance expectation. This is important in that unlike several previous studies that treat knowledge sharing as one holistic activity, our study discovers that they are governed by two distinctive motivators. To cultivate the cultural partic- ipation, the managers therefore cannot rely solely on performance incentives, as suggested by Bock and Kim’s study (2002) that shows such rewards may diminish people’s desire to share knowledge. Furthermore, both prosocial commitment and performance expectation are predicted by self-efficacy beliefs. In practical terms, online professional CoP has become an important approach for teachers’ professional development (Zahner, 2002). Teachers need to upgrade their domain knowledge and teaching skills in order to continue to work effectively with their students (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; McLaughlin, 2002). When teachers with stronger ties feel confident that they can devote themselves to knowledge sharing practices, their personal efficacy belief will have direct influences on the commitment to helping other teachers as well as the educational effectiveness of professional development. To conclude, the success of knowledge sharing in the online teacher professional CoP is not confined to only information systems’ technicalities, as learning and sharing has to be reciprocally adjusted within individuals’ relation, cognition and the environment (Gorman & Fischer, 2009). Indeed, technology alone may lead to unintended adverse effects of cognitive inequality, causing people to end up with a head full of nonsense if they do not have the expertise of using the Internet or asking the right questions (Drum, 2012). Yet, as the Internet becomes widely adopted for external information in which people store and seek information outside themselves (Sparrow, Liu, & Wegner, 2011), online professional CoPs represent a unique cyberspace where people not only share the professional knowledge but also build their identity to enrich their life experience (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007; Matzat, 2013). Theoretically, we demonstrate that through online professional CoPs, the creation, application and distribution of knowledge are embedded in teachers’ everyday activities, involving a process that focuses on both interpersonal relationships (Matzat, 2013) and in- dividuals’ self-regulatory mechanisms. Our study therefore provides a theoretical framework to investigating the social capital and social cognitive factors of knowledge sharing in the teachers’ online CoP context. In addition, the findings can be applied to improve knowledge management practices in various professional CoPs. Consistent with Wenger (1998) and Bagozzi (2007), our findings suggest that inter- personal connection and proactive self-regulation contribute to sharing group resources, formulating working strategies, taking collective action, and promoting organizational performance. For this reason, it is essential for managers of CoPs to develop mechanisms to help members to strengthen their ties with peers without fear of criticism from their supervisors or other professionals. The CoP members should be encouraged to build their confidence in sharing knowledge with their peers, as self-efficacy beliefs are shown to affect an individual’s engagement in respect of both giving and receiving knowledge. 5.1. Limitations and future research There are several limitations and suggestions for future research that should be noted. First, the non-significant relationship between network ties and performance expectation may be due to the mediating effect of self-efficacy. Further research could be conducted to investigate the level of self-efficacy and its influence on performance expectation. Also, our research is conducted in an educational setting in Taiwan and the findings may not be generalized to other cultures and countries. Third, for data collection this study relies on convenience sampling, which inevitably caused self-selection biases and over-representative of those with strong opinion. Indeed, the research results indicate that there are a high percentage of young and less-experienced teacher members (47% with work experience under 5 years; 44.9% with age under 30; 53.8% with SCTNet experience under 2 years) in our study. Thus, this prohibits us to generalize our findings to the nonresponses sample members. Furthermore, our survey did not consider differences between teachers in primary and high schools. As teachers may encounter different educational requirements and problems in those two distinct contexts, the factors affecting their knowledge-sharing behavior may vary. Finally, future research is needed in this respect to explore whether inadequate budgets and re- sources in the practical context as well as online CoPs lead to more knowledge sharing because of the unconstrained limitations of time and location in the online environment, as well as the free nature of Internet resources. Appendix A Tie strength Re1: Is there any SCTNet workshop member with whom you share knowledge? , Yes. Our relationship varies from totally unknown stranger to the partner in the same camp. , No. Re2: Is there any SCTNet discussion group member with whom you share knowledge?

F.-C. Tseng, F.-Y. Kuo / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–47 44

, Yes. Our relationship varies from totally unknown stranger to the partner in the same camp. , No. Re3: Overall, is there any SCTNet member with whom you share knowledge? , Yes. Our relationship varies from totally unknown stranger to the partner in the same camp. , No. Prosocial commitment Al1: As the SCTNet members need teaching resources, I provide what I have to them. Al2: As the SCTNet members need suggestion for teaching, I will provide what I have to them. Al3: As the SCTNet members express their emotion, I will respond and encourage them. Performance expectation Pe1: If I join SCTNet, I will improve my teaching efficiency. Pe2: If I join SCTNet, I will increase my teaching resources. Pe3: If I join SCTNet, I will improve my teaching quality. Pe4: If I join SCTNet, I will spend less time to cope with daily routines in the school. Knowledge-sharing self-efficacy Se1: I have confidence in sharing my teaching experience with other SCTNet members. Se2: I have confidence in sharing my teaching resources with other SCTNet members. Se3: I have confidence in expressing my emotion with other SCTNet members. Se4: Even I have different opinions from other SCTNet members, I have confidence in keeping discussion on related issues. Se5: Even my opinion may be an offense to other SCTNet members, I have confidence in keeping discussion on related issues. Se6: I have confidence in sharing my success or joyfulness with other SCTNet members, rather than worrying that it is regarded as show

• ff.

Se7: I have confidence in sharing my failure or frustration with other SCTNet members, rather than worrying that I may be ridiculed. Se8: I have confidence in engaging the knowledge sharing activities in SCTNet. Knowledge-sharing behavior Ksb1: During the past six months, I read other members’ articles posted in SCTNet. Ksb2: During the past six months, I download the teaching resources from SCTNet. Ksb3: During the past six months, I get other members’ teaching experience, knowledge or skill in SCTNet Ksb4: During the past six months, I read other members’ stories in SCTNet. Ksb5: During the past six months, I get other members’ concern or encouragement in SCTNet. Ksb6: During the past six months, I often respond to the topics discussed in SCTNet. Ksb7: During the past six months, I often upload my teaching resources to SCTNet. Ksb8: During the past six months, I often contribute my teaching experience, knowledge or skill in SCTNet. Ksb9: During the past six months, I often share my emotion in SCTNet. Ksb10: During the past six months, I often express my concern or encouragement to other SCTNet members. References

Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2005–6). An empirical examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 191–224. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136. Allen, N. J., & Rushton, J. P. (1983). Personality characteristics of community mental health volunteers: a review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 12, 36–49. Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244–254. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. Bandura, A. (2002). Growing primacy of human agency in adaptation and change in the electronic era. European Psychologist, 7(1), 2–16. Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. S. (2006). Online interactions and social capital distinguishing between new and existing ties. Social Science Computer Review, 24(4), 395–410. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resource Management Journal, 15(2), 14–21. Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psycho- logical forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111. Bourdieu, P. (1983). Forms of social capital. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, culture. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage. F.-C. Tseng, F.-Y. Kuo / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–47 45

Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communication within online communities: conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 2–20. Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350–362. Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23(5), 687–710. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: a study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473–490. Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of prosocial behavior conducive to life satisfaction across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(2), 191–217. Carroll, J. M., Choo, C. W., Isenhour, P. L., Kerr, S. T., MacLean, A., & Rosson, M. B. (2003). Knowledge management support for teachers. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51(4), 42–64. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least square approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analysis. In V. E. Vinci, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and application (pp. 655–690). London: Springer. Cho, H., Chen, M., & Chung, S. (2010). Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowledge-sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(6), 1198–1212. Clarke, L. (2009). The POD model: using communities of practice theory to conceptualise student teachers’ professional learning online. Computers & Education, 52(3), 521– 529. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad, & C. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review research in education (Vol. 24). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211. Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: a longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 145–158. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 31, 93–96. Cross, R., & Borgatti, S. P. (2004). The ties that share: relational characteristics that facilitate information seeking. In M. Huysman, & V. Wulf (Eds.), Social capital and in- formation technology. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132. Dixon, N. M. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Drum, K. (2012). The internet is a major driver of the growth of cognitive inequality [Electronic Version]. Mother Jones. Retrieved October 7, 2012 from http://www.motherjones. com/kevin-drum/2012/02/internet-major-driver-growth-cognitive-inequality. Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide [Electronic Version] Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6. Retrieved 2007/01/06 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/eastin.html. Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2008). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Fischer, G. (2011). Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of participation. Interactions, 18(3), 42–53. Gairin-Sallan, J., Rodriguez-Gomez, D., & Armengol-Asparo, C. (2010). Who exactly is the moderator? A consideration of online knowledge management network moderation in educational organizations. Computers & Education, 55(1), 304–312. Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1–76. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13. Gorman, A., & Fischer, G. (2009). Toward an analytic framework for understanding and fostering peer-support communities in using and evolving software products. In International conference communities and technologies (C&T 2009) (pp. 1–9). Penn State University. Grainger, R., & Tolhurst, D. (2005). Organisational factors affecting teachers’ use and perception of information & communications technology. In Paper presented at the South East Asian Regional Computer Confederation (SEARCC) 2005. Conference in research and practice in information technology, Sydney, Australia. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380. Gu, X., Zhang, B., Lin, X., & Song, X. (2009). Evaluating online solutions for experiential support of distance learning by teachers in china. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 114–125. Guldberg, K., & Pilkington, R. (2006). A community of practice approach to the development of non-traditional learners through networked learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 159–171. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106–116. Hollenbeck, J. R., & Klein, H. J. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: problems, prospects, and proposals for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 212–220. Hsu, M.-H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C.-H., & Chang, C.-M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: the relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome ex-

• pectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153–169.

Hur, J. W., Brush, T., & Bonk, C. (2012). An analysis of teacher knowledge and emotional sharing in a teacher blog community. In J. M. V. Dennen (Ed.), Virtual professional development and informal learning via social networks (pp. 219–239). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Imants, J. (2003). Two basic mechanisms for organisational learning in schools. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(3), 293–311. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2007). The impact of knowledge coordination of virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 783–808. Kang, L.-J., Palisano, R. J., Orlin, M. N., Chiarello, L. A., King, G. A., & Polansky, M. (2010). Determinants of social participation – with friends and others who are not family members – for youths with cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy, 90(12), 1743–1757. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113–143. Kao, C.-P., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes toward web-based professional development, with relation to internet self-efficacy and beliefs about web-based learning. Computers & Education, 53(1), 66–73. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2008). Foundations of behavioral research (5th ed.). Beverly, MA.: Wadsworth Publishing. Lai, J.-Y. (2009). How reward, computer self-efficacy, and perceived power security affect knowledge management systems success: an empirical investigation in high-tech

• companies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 332–347.

Lee, J. K., & Lee, W. K. (2008). The relationship of e-learner’s self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e-learning environmental quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1), 32–47. Lee, Y. H., Waxman, H., Wu, J. Y., Michko, G., & Lin, G. (2013). Revisit the effect of teaching and learning with technology. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 133–146. Lin, N. (2001). Building a network theory of social capital. In S. N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Lin, F. R., Lin, S. C., & Huang, T. P. (2008). Knowledge sharing and creation in a teachers’ professional virtual community. Computers & Education, 50(3), 742–756. Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. T. (2006). Managerial knowledge sharing: the role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 15–41. Manouselis, N., Vuorikari, R., & Assche, F. V. (2010). Collaborative recommendation of e-learning resources: an experimental investigation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 227–242. Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review

• f Educational Research, 79(1), 327–365.

Matzat, U. (2013). Do blended virtual learning communities enhance teachers’ professional development more than purely virtual ones? A large scale empirical comparison. Computers & Education, 60(1), 40–51. McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: a trust building model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3/4), 297–323. McLaughlin, M. W. (2002). Sites and sources of teachers’ learning. In C. Sugure, & C. Day (Eds.), Developing teachers and teaching practice: International research perspectives. London: Routledge. Meneses, J., Fabregues, S., Rodriguez-Gomez, D., & Ion, G. (2012). Internet in teachers’ professional practice outside the classroom: examining supportive and management uses in primary and secondary schools. Computers & Education, 59(3), 915–924. F.-C. Tseng, F.-Y. Kuo / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–47 46

Michailova, S., & Hutchings, K. (2006). National cultural influences on knowledge sharing: a comparison of china and Russia. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 383–405. Miranda, S. M., & Saunders, C. S. (2003). The social construction of meaning: an alternative perspective on information sharing. Information Systems Research, 14(1), 87–106. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Brush, T. A., Strycker, J., Gronseth, S., Roman, T., Abaci, S., et al. (2012). Preparation versus practice: how do teacher education programs and practicing teachers align in their use of technology to support teaching and learning? Computers & Education, 59(2), 399–411. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: addressing professional and student

• needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335.

Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment: facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 729–733. Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. S. (1995). Measuring the prosocial personality. In J. Butcher, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 10). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (1999). The smart-talk trap. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 134–142. Portes, A. (1995). The economic sociology of immigration. New York: Russell Sage. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 1–24. Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). Myspace and facebook: applying the uses and gratification theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 169–174. Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 271–295. Ryberg, T., & Larsen, M. C. (2008). Networked identities: understanding relationships between strong and weak ties in networked environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 103–115. Siegel, L., & Lane, I. M. (1982). Personnel and organizational psychology. Homewood, Ill: R.D. Irwin. Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. Sproull, L., Conley, C. A., & Moon, J. Y. (2013). Prosocial behavior on the internet. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), The social net: Understanding our online behavior (pp. 143–164). New York: NY Oxford University Pres. Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Van Trijp, H. C. M. (1991). The use of Lisrel in validating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4), 283–299. Thomas, J. B., Sussman, S. W., & Henderson, J. C. (2001). Understanding strategic learning? Linking organizational learning, knowledge management, and sensemaking. Organization Science, 12(3), 331–345. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124–143. Trötschel, R., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2007). Implementation intentions and the willful pursuit of prosocial goals in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 579– 598. Tseng, F. C., & Kuo, F. Y. (2010). The way we share and learn: an exploratory study of the self-regulatory mechanisms in the professional online learning community. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1043–1053. Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381–394. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wagner, C., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2007). Innovating collaborative content creation: the role of altruism and wiki technology. In Paper presented at the 40th Hawaii inter- national conference on system sciences, Big Island, Hawaii. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”: why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2/3), 155–173. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should i share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57. Watson, S., & Hewett, K. (2006). A multi-theoretical model of knowledge transfer in organizations: determinants of knowledge contribution and knowledge reuse. Journal of Management Studies, 43(2), 141–173. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice, learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139–145. Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: the role of multiple classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 4–20. Wentzel, K. R., Filisetti, L., & Looney, L. (2007). Adolescent prosocial behavior: the role of self-processes and contextual cues. Child Development, 78(3), 895–910. Williams, D. (2006). On and off the net: scales for social capital in an online era [Electronic Version] Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11. Retrieved August 19, 2006 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/williams.html. Young, M. L., & Tseng, F. C. (2008). Interplay between physical and virtual settings for online interpersonal trust formation in knowledge-sharing practice. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(1), 55–64. Yu, J., Jiang, Z., & Chan, H. C. (2011). The influence of sociotechnological mechanisms on individual motivation toward knowledge contribution in problem-solving virtual

• communities. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on, 54(2), 152–167.

Zahner, J. (2002). Teachers explore knowledge management and e-learning as models for professional development. TechTrends, 46(3), 11–16. F.-C. Tseng, F.-Y. Kuo / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–47 47

View publication stats View publication stats