The wiki as knowledge repository: Using a wiki in a community of practice to strengthen K-12 education

Note: The following article was published in the November/December 2008 issue of TechTrends (Volume 52, Number 6). The publication agreement allows me to publish it on my personal website, so here it is for you to enjoy.

The concept of managing an organization’s knowledge has caught on in recent years (Sallis & Jones, 2002). Dubbed knowledge management, the field has grown as it addresses key characteristics of knowledge, like the concept that knowledge cannot be separated from a knower (Hilsop, 2002; Sallis & Jones, 2002) and the idea that there are two types of knowledge: tacit, which is intangible know-how, and explicit, which is objective and formal knowledge that can be communicated easily (Sallis & Jones, 2002). One of the great challenges of the knowledge management field is sharing tacit knowledge in a way that passes it along to others or even converts it into something like explicit knowledge (Carroll et al., 2003; Santo, 2005).

Sallis and Jones (2002) and Santo (2005) note that education has not been quick to adopt techniques of knowledge management. While addressing the reason is well beyond the scope of this paper, it is worth mentioning that the slow adoption is not for lack of need. With high stakes testing and high pressure for improvement burdening schools-especially those in K-12 public education-educators have a need to use the knowledge that resides in their local communities as strategically as possible. They also have a need to create new knowledge that will launch innovative approaches to their local and specific concerns (Carroll et al., 2003; Coakes & Smith, 2007). Strategic use of knowledge management should ultimately help these schools improve in tangible ways. Santo (2005) suggests that an “accumulation of both explicit and tacit knowledge can contribute to data-driven decision making” and an organization’s effectiveness (p. 45), a characteristic few school administrators would overlook.

Attempting even a small knowledge management effort, however, needs to be an intentional effort. There is no reason to assume that employees will seek to share their knowledge (Hilsop, 2002), particularly teachers, who can be protective of their work (Parr & Ward, 2006). To succeed, an environment conducive to knowledge sharing is a must-a culture of trust where incentives and rewards exist for sharing knowledge instead of hoarding it (Hilsop, 2002; Foon Hew, & Hara, 2007; Parr & Ward, 2006).

Creating such an environment is a difficult task, and implementers of knowledge management must recognize characteristics of knowledge and of the individuals under their influence. If knowledge resides in people, knowledge management cannot be controlled or distributed by a few administrators or executives. An organization’s knowledge is spread throughout the organization, which means when one seeks to harness, distribute, and create knowledge and innovation, one must consider the entire scope of people in the organization-for a school, this means the staff as well as the faculty (Carroll et al., 2003; Santo, 2005).

Teachers share knowledge for various reasons in various contexts. Foon Hew and Hara (2007) found that teachers shared knowledge because they sensed they would gain something from it personally-whether it be a stronger understanding of an idea or a better reputation-and because they felt an obligation to their community-whether the obligation arose from a sense of principle or compassion. Schlager and Fusco (2003) observed that teachers also share this knowledge most often within their specific areas of work, with their immediate colleagues, or in response to the real difficulties of their working day-as opposed to sharing it within special in-services or professional development programs. Such a situation is not surprising when one considers that the very knowledge they are sharing is so intimately tied to the environment where it is used and the manner in which it is used (Hilsop, 2002).
Knowledge management efforts in education should therefore spread their fingers into all parts of the school and its existing organizational boundaries, growing an environment where sharing within the daily routine is encouraged and nurtured.

Communities of Practice

The most obvious strategy for managing knowledge in the educational context would be nurturing communities of practice. Communities of practice, as defined by Wenger (1998 ), are the communities in which there exists “the sustained pursuit of shared enterprise” (p. 45). In these communities, knowledge sharing is actually a by-product of the engagement that regularly exists (Carroll et al., 2003; Wenger, 1998 ). Hilsop (2002) points out that the community of practice attains such a high level of common language and assumptions that sharing knowledge becomes a “relatively straightforward” process (p. 173).

Straightforward maybe, but setting up the context for that exchange is not an easy task. Parr and Ward (2006) observed that a common state in schools is for teachers to engage in only a partial collaboration, where independence is respected so highly that members of a community do not probe deeply into professional issues with one another. Thus, the teacher is generally isolated from colleagues, working in a separate classroom with separate students teaching separate lessons, often totally unaware of what any other teacher is doing (Carroll et al., 2003). Where collaboration does occur, it occurs on a voluntary basis, which at best creates pockets of innovation that do not penetrate beyond the volunteers’ reach (Parr & Ward, 2006). Ironically, all the teachers-not just the pockets of collaborators-are working toward the same goal; but they work essentially separately from one another, creating a dynamic Weick (1976) dubbed “loose coupling” (as cited in Parr & Ward, 2006, p. 783).

The independence and isolation is magnified by the touchy nature of the teaching business. Teaching is a deeply personal pursuit and when one critiques the teacher’s practice, one is critiquing that person (Santo, 2005). Thus, a teacher might not share with colleagues for fear of the vulnerability involved – what they share could be determined not good enough (Parr & Ward, 2006; Foon Hew & Hara, 2007) and admitted weaknesses or observed failures could be used against them by administrators (Carroll et al., 2003).

Despite the obstacles, the community of practice model can work in education for a number of reasons. For one, the bottom-up feel to the creation of knowledge eliminates some of the fear teachers may have when sharing knowledge under the direct observation of an administrator (Carroll et al., 2003; Parr & Ward, 2006; Santo, 2005; Schlager & Fusco, 2003).The bottom-up aspect asserts itself when the community of practice is encouraged to capitalize on social interactions. Social interactions cannot be overlooked. Though commonly dismissed as “water cooler talk,” these exchanges are necessary for building the trust required to express a genuine vulnerability-to admit that one needs new knowledge (Santo, 2005). When opportunities to build trust are supplied, it becomes easier, even for independent-minded teachers, – to submit to the interdependent nature of a community of practice and to adopt a collective responsibility for the actions of the group (Hartnell-Young, 2006; Wagner, 2006). In fact, Hilsop (2002) warns explicitly that if these social factors of knowledge-exchange and communities of practice are ignored, a knowledge management plan is at risk of collapse.

Additionally, the community of practice transfers the acquisition of knowledge to the point of need (Schlager & Fusco, 2003). Tacit knowledge is most often passed along through conversation (Wagner, 2006) and stories of personal experience (Yi, 2006), and these stories tend to surface when the subject is most appropriate-in conversation with those closest to the situation and most trusted by the seeker of knowledge (Hilsop, 2002; Schlager, Fusco, & Schank, 1998; Wagner, 2006). Granger, Morbey, Lotherington, Owston, and Wideman (2002) found this “just in time learning” to be the preferred method of knowledge acquisition for teachers, a finding that meshes well with the propositions of Schlager, Fusco, and Schank (1998 ) and Schlager and Fusco (2003) that teacher professional development is most effective when delivered in the context of practice instead of in separate professional development opportunities. Thus, key characteristics of a community of practice-its root at the point of practice and its dependence upon social interactions-specifically address some of the traditional obstacles of K-12 teachers’ practice.

The diffusion of wikis – a question no one asked me

Sometimes I feel the obligation to answer the questions that no one is asking. It’s very generous on my part, I realize. It also allows me to address topics in writing where I can be the authority, since no one else is talking about such nonsense.

Today’s question: If tools like wikis are so astoundingly amazing, why has their rate of adoption by educators been so slow?

Now, the first issue one might take up with this question is the concept of it being slow. Slow according to whom? To this objection I have no legitimate answer. All I can say is that it sometimes feels slow to me, which is natural since with this technology, as I mapped out recently, I fall into the innovator category of adopters. Thus, I’m driving 95 miles an hour and wondering why all these cars look like they’re standing still – even though they’re actually moving 55 mph.

Also, I have attempted to aid the diffusion of wikis – another concept I’ve addressed at too much length here – and in those attempts I have encountered enough difficulties and seen enough of people’s response to wikis that I claim at least a wee legitimacy to my initial question and the use of the word “slow.”

Still, maybe the slow concept is an overstatement and I should rephrase the question. Instead, I might say it this way: What do we innovators need to do differently if the innovation of wikis is to move from the bottom of the S-curve of typical innovations’ diffusion up the steep side of the curve?

As an answer, I suggest there are three issues interested parties must address, all of which arise from my current reading of Everett Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovation.

The first issue is that characteristics of wikis and other ICT, personal computer technology make adoption difficult. Specifically, trialability is difficult because the complexity of the technology is rather high (and, as Rogers asserts, an innovation’s trialability is positively correlated with its rate of adoption). It may not be NASA, but it is complex to the people looking to adopt it, and that is what counts. Wikis are astoundingly easy for a person once the related tools become familiar, but they are not so simple for the uninitiated. We who present one hour sessions at conferences and then wonder why wikis have not “taken off” in education should be more cognizant of this concept.

A closely related issued is that if how-to knowledge of the wikis is not gained in time, rejection of the innovation is likely. When we say to a learner, “Head over to this site and try it” without providing hands-on, in-person guidance, rejection is what happens – I’m convinced. I know so many colleagues who have been introduced to wikis and then given a URL and a link to a video to help them figure it out later. That’s no good anymore. Videos and URL’s are fine way to help innovators like me (and maybe you), but not the folks that fall under other adopter categories. We innovators should remember this and quit trying to lure the early and late majorities with innovator and early innovator techniques. This is not how we teach our students, and it’s not how we should be teaching each other; if we don’t change our ways or adapt somehow, we will continue to create rejectors.

Lastly, we’re also creating a unique situation for the adoption of the innovation, the wiki. The usual innovation-decision process goes from

• Knowledge to
• Persuasion, to
• Decision, to
• Implementation, to
• Confirmation.

But for many the above mentioned decision has already occurred – to reject. Maybe they rejected blogs after not envisioning potential applications. Maybe they rejected wikis when they couldn’t make sense of the software. Maybe they rejected anything Web2.0 after a bad experience at a conference, in-service, or on an online recertification course. Whatever the scenario, we now have to persuade the one-time rejectors not by reconstructing the decision stage only, but by

1. convincing them to return to the beginning of the process and then
2. re-creating the original knowledge of the tool, being careful not to neglect a nurturing introduction to the how-to knowledge of it.

I am my own audience here, the one that needs to ask the question no one asked me. The diffusion of wikis is something for which I hold an interest. I teach a summer class on wikis, blogs, and web tools; I am attempting to use a wiki as a collaborative tool with the colleagues in my department; I have been slated to present a session about wikis for a technology conference (that one was canceled due to low interest). But I think if I am interested in actually progressing that development, it will take more effort from me than the quick creation of a Jing movie.

Knowing that in advance – a knowledge that removes surprises and the risk of disillusionment – I am willing to make the effort.

Thanks for reading.

When I push two innovations in one, it is important to know my adopters

Reading Everett Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovation is an interesting process. So much of what he says is basically obvious that it is tempting to skim through it and miss the insight or the application to appropriate situations. For example, as I read about the typical adopter categories relating to innovations, I found myself wondering about the fruit of attempting to combat them or even address them. When I refer to this concern, I am mostly considering the knowledge repository / wiki I am constructing and launching for my department, but I am also broadening it to include any item or idea I might be attempting to diffuse through the educational ranks.

With whatever innovation of a particular moment, I find myself reacting against the categories of adopters with a bit of a fatalistic streak – the categories exist, why should I change anything simply because I know about them? Will it matter whether I do anything? Won’t the bell curve of typical adoption patterns exist despite my efforts? Why fight the waves when the waves always win? The innovators are already in (that’s me), the early adopters will come when they come, followed someday by the early and late majorities and, eventually, even the laggards. It feels predetermined, and if that’s the case, throwing all my energy into catering to the “late majorities,” for example, is simply wasting energy. It’s pedaling the bicycle when you’re going down a hill so fast that the pedaling is not accomplishing anything.

But the pessimism of this thinking comes when I’m considering only the technical innovation my project advances – the wiki – and the frustration that accompanies diffusing such a tool through the ranks. When it comes to wikis (and blogs and the rest of the broadly labeled Web 2.0 world) I am generally indifferent towards the need to advance the innovation – an indifference that doesn’t sit well with many of my blogging companions, but an indifference nonetheless. I dare say a teacher can teach students effectively for this technologically advancing world without touching a blog or a wiki. Granted, I’m using these tools, but I don’t say everyone else has to as well.

Anyway, in terms only of this project and knowledge repository I’m building, my indifference is fueled by the reality of my goals, which are not to advance a wiki through teachers’ practice, but to increase collaboration among teachers, with the wiki as a suitable tool for achieving that goal.

With that as the reality, I should be extra attuned to these adopter categories that Rogers describes, because if the wiki does not diffuse, then neither will my collaboration innovation. When it comes to the wiki, the late majority in particular will carry enough weight to derail this project; thus it is crucial to keep those adopters’ characteristics in mind and cater to them as best as I can – with both innovations.

As much as I’d like to have it behind me forever, it is a pity that I need to complete this project (which is technically a grad school capstone internship) in one semester, because it presses the time frame for the innovation decision process into too fine a space. My one semester time frame is too quick for a late majority adopter to mull over the wiki and the knowledge repository long enough to adopt. These individuals need to see the product modeled and used by the early and early majority adopters. That’s a crucial element for them, and I’ll do well to remember this in a month or two when I evaluate the project: possibly the majority of my department won’t be ready to use it yet.

In fact, there likely will be only about three people in my department ready to use the wiki eagerly and comfortably by the end of the semester, when the project part of this knowledge repository ends. Amusingly, I have known this all along and can name the three people to whom I’ve catered my work and lobbied directly as I built it. I knew them to be the early adopters (with a pair of crucial opinion leaders) and I figured I had to have them on board for the project to succeed (and by succeed, I mean diffuse).

Early adopters are a more integrated part of the local social system than are innovators . . . This adopter category, more than any other, has the greatest degree of opinion leadership in most systems. Potential adopters look to early adopters for advice and information about the innovation. The early adopter is considered by many as ‘the individual to check with’ before using a new idea. (p. 264)

I should add that another key for me for the two or three early adopters will be to convince them to use the wiki in the ways I intend, by filling out the reflections as much as possible – the reflections attached to each activity and lesson plan that build its context and allow another person to catch a glimpse of what the intentions and possibilities of that activity or lesson are. No one wants to do it, but when they do not, the tools become isolated and less relevant. I anticipate struggling with this as the early and late majorities come to use the wiki – another solid reason to keep these categories of adopters firmly in mind.

Concerning those majorities, I can also name key members of the “early majority” I have subtly wooed, but to be honest I have known I’ll be counting on the early adopters to draw these folks into the effort. I’m too far in my own world to mean much to these folks; to them, I’m the guy who’s off in his own planet going “clickity-clickity” too fast to make sense to anyone else.

The early majority may deliberate for some time before completely adopting a new idea. Their innovation-decision period is relatively longer than that of the innovator and the early adopter. (p. 265)

And that’s not even mentioning what the late majority thinks of me. We all get along great, but to them I represent something totally different than themselves. These folks didn’t sign up for the training sessions I have offered, even with the extra pay offered, but if the early adopters and early majority began to use the knowledge repository often, this late majority might even be ready for some training a year from now.

Adoption may be . . . for the late majority . . . the result of increasing network pressures from peers . . . and the late majority do not adopt until most others in their system have done so. (p. 265)

In a secondary manner, I should view the adopter categories as important in how the wiki and knowledge management tool can aid the rate of diffusion for future worthy innovations. This wiki might be a perfect place for a few of the adoption processes that Rogers defines to occur, in particular the observability, which is a crucial characteristic for an innovation to be adopted at a useful rate, and yet is astoundingly difficult to achieve in an educational setting.

The observability of an innovation, as perceived by members of a social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption. (p. 244)

Thus, the wiki and the reflections that will hopefully go there should create at least something close to observable actions.

Without the observation, how would the late majority in particular learn enough to adopt an innovation? Where is the hands on clarity they need? Hopefully in areas of educational innovations, the wiki I’m creating can help as teachers share the contexts, benefits, and pitfalls of their lessons even as they post the lesson itself into the repository – but really it can only help if we can overcome the big obstacles of the adoption and diffusion of the collaborative tool itself – the wiki.

Thus, despite my own best efforts to ignore the wiki and not care about whether people want to adopt it, I am stuck having to work hard to make sure it is adopted within my department. Alas, the cyclical situation and the ever present responsibility to care.

Thanks for reading.