
Kim Schildkamp
Related Authors
Mireille D Hubers
University of Twente
Charles Vanover
University of South Florida
Michelle Van Lare
George Mason University
Louis M Gomez
UCLA Graduate School of Education
Caitlin Farrell
University of Colorado, Boulder
Uploads
Papers by Kim Schildkamp
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative micro-process case study was conducted for two data teams. The modes, transitions and content of the knowledge creation process were analyzed for all data team meetings over a two-year period. In addition, all team members were interviewed twice to triangulate the findings.
Findings – Results show that the knowledge creation process was cyclical across meetings, but more iterative within meetings. Furthermore, engagement in the socialization and internalization mode provided added value in this process. Finally, the SECI model clearly differentiated between team members’ processes. Team members who engaged more often in the socialization and internalization modes and displayed more personal engagement in those modes gained greater and deeper knowledge.
Research limitations/implications – The SECI model is valuable for understanding how teams
gain new knowledge and why they differ in those gains.
Practical implications – Stimulation of active personal engagement in the socialization and
internalization mode is needed.
Originality/value – This is one of the first attempts to concretely observe the process of knowledge creation. It provides essential insights into what educators do in professional development contexts, and how support can best be provided.
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative micro-process case study was conducted for two data teams. The modes, transitions and content of the knowledge creation process were analyzed for all data team meetings over a two-year period. In addition, all team members were interviewed twice to triangulate the findings.
Findings – Results show that the knowledge creation process was cyclical across meetings, but more iterative within meetings. Furthermore, engagement in the socialization and internalization mode provided added value in this process. Finally, the SECI model clearly differentiated between team members’ processes. Team members who engaged more often in the socialization and internalization modes and displayed more personal engagement in those modes gained greater and deeper knowledge.
Research limitations/implications – The SECI model is valuable for understanding how teams
gain new knowledge and why they differ in those gains.
Practical implications – Stimulation of active personal engagement in the socialization and
internalization mode is needed.
Originality/value – This is one of the first attempts to concretely observe the process of knowledge creation. It provides essential insights into what educators do in professional development contexts, and how support can best be provided.