Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–47

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

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

A study of social participation and knowledge sharing in the teachers’online professional community of practice

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

aDepartment of Business and Management, National University of Tainan, No. 33, Sec. 2, Shu-Lin St., Tainan, TaiwanbDepartment 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 2013Received in revised form13 October 2013Accepted 14 October 2013

Keywords:Computer-mediated communicationCooperative/collaborative learningInteractive learning environmentsLearning communities

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886 7 5254731.E-mail addresses: misfctseng@gmail.com (F.-C. Tse

0360-1315/$ – see front matter � 2013 Published byhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.005

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 goalsget together to share their resources, develop working strategies, solve problems, and improve individualas well as organizational performance. In this study, we have collected self-reported knowledge-sharingbehaviors from 321 members of the largest online professional CoP of teachers in Taiwan. The resultsshow that closer connections among online CoP members can lead to greater recognition of and altruismtowards others. Moreover, performance expectation and self-efficacy belief play essential roles inknowledge-sharing participation. Thus, the development of social relationships among online teachermembers 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 theirwillingness to share useful resources and solve other members’ problems, both emotionally andinstrumentally. Consequently, knowledge-sharing behaviors, in terms of knowledge giving and knowingreceiving, 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 tocontinue to work effectively with students’ learning (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Kao & Tsai, 2009; McLaughlin, 2002). A variety of wayshave been employed to empower teachers. For example, one of themost frequently employed is to hire outside experts to inform teachers ofpossible best practices or up-to-date pedagogical knowledge. Yet, depending on outside experts who have little knowledge about localconditions may render teachers to become passive and isolated learners (Hur, Brush, & Bonk, 2012). Alternatively, teachers may preferdeveloping teaching skills that work best for them in their individual classroom, which unfortunately leads to cultures of knowledgehoarding 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 approachfor 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 andworld’ in which people are bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise or goal (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Studieshave shown that the online CoPs can help raise teacher-practitioners’ competence levels, reinforce their professional practice, and satisfy theneed of professional development as well as students’ academic achievement (Clarke, 2009; Meneses, Fabregues, Rodriguez-Gomez, & Ion,2012; Zahner, 2002).

ng), bkuo@mis.nsysu.edu.tw (F.-Y. Kuo).

Elsevier Ltd.

F.-C. Tseng, F.-Y. Kuo / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–4738

To develop effective online professional CoPs, several scholars have cautioned against “Technology Determinism” that assumes the ICTwill 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 byindividuals or groups in certain contexts (Bagozzi, 2007). Indeed, the formation and application of knowledge is embedded in people’severyday 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 beplaced 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 anddissemination of collective intelligence (Gorman & Fischer, 2009). Fischer (2011) therefore advocates the use of ICT to foster ‘cultures ofparticipation’ in which members are supported by not only the technical design at different levels of participation but also the social capitaland cognitive factors like connectedness, trust, empathy, altruism, and reciprocity among social members. As a result, social participation iscritical 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 ofsocial 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 oftheir 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 theregulatory relationships between teachers’ relational ties and cognitionwith 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 onlineknowledge sharing practice. The effectiveness of social participation is also examined on both knowledge-giving and knowledge-receivingbehaviors. 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, andsupport, with a voluntary investment in the social relation and companionship with other members (Brown, Broderick, & Lee, 2007).Granovetter (1973) initially distinguishes strong ties fromweak 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 differentmeanings such as acquaintance, friendships or a shared interest” (Brown & Reingen, 1987; Ryberg & Larsen, 2008). It is therefore notnecessary to dichotomize the interpersonal tie into strong or weak, but assess it as a continuous variable attached to the degree of socialrelation.

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 strongties to boost the achievement of tasks and performance (Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999). Mutual experiences, goal-setting, resourceexchange, and emotional support among social members can invoke creativity and learning efficiency, as well as boost the production andapplication of intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). In the context of online collaboration, Best and Krueger (2006) suggest thatInternet may promote weak ties and subsequently increase generalized trust, integrity, and reciprocity. Similarly, Williams (2006) indicatethat online bridging should have positive correlations with behavior like finding information outside one’s daily routine, while onlinebonding 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 developmentthrough 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 therelational dimension of social capital (Bourdieu, 1983; Lin, 2001), can foster their prosocial actions to benefit other people or achievingshared objectives. The prosociality is basically derived from the altruistic motives – the moral concerns and affective functioning to expresstheir 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 individualprosocial 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 39

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 ownimage, 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 collaborationand 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 orsuggestions to someone in need (Cho et al., 2010; Sproull et al., 2013; Wasko & Faraj, 2005). People exchange advice to provide solutions tosimilar problems, and foster effective learning and cooperation as well. Because of mutual benefits and a sense of responsibility within thegroup, social members with closer community recognition, mutual trust, and obligation awareness are morewilling to express their feelingsand share opinions toward somethingwithout reservation. Sproull et al. (2013) further argue that prosociality emerges not only as a functionof 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 effortto share information or offer emotional support. Since both altruistic and egoistic motives have been identified as a critical facilitator ofproblem 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 possibleresults that will lead to the greatest level of happiness as well as the lowest degree of unpleasantness for them (Siegel & Lane, 1982). Theattractiveness and expectancy of goal attainment affects an individual’s determination to take certain actions by making the effort to fulfillthe goal and not giving up easily (Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987). For instance, pre-service elementary teachers with positive expectancy beliefsin effective teaching and student learning can usually persist longer, overcome teaching barriers, and implement productive teachingstrategies. 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 aswell 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 factorencouraging cooperation and collaboration among online professional CoP teacher members who desire to enhance their professionalperformance as well as career achievement (Hur et al., 2012; Lin et al., 2008). Furthermore, consistent with the perspective of egoisticmotives (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 onlineprofessional CoP will have positive motivations to contribute and get feedback, leading to higher expectations of success in teachingperformance.

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 theexpectation of extrinsic rewards and reciprocal relationships (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005). When members are certain that sharing cancreate mutual benefits or can contribute to the maintaining of reciprocal relationships with others, knowledge sharing will proceedsmoothly. Specifically, individuals expect benefits to result from the sharing and reuse of knowledge, which encourage them to participate inrelated activities (Watson & Hewett, 2006), such as acquiring new knowledge, obtaining more useful resources, enhancing interpersonalcommunication, and promoting professional skills to facilitate problem solving as well as job performance. This implies that there is apositive relationship between individuals’ job performance and participation in knowledge management (Lai, 2009). In order to work andteach effectively in the educational setting and to develop professionally, it is necessary for teachers to learn about and share educationalissues, 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 keyinfluence 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 inhis/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) 37–4740

the persistencewith which they encounter obstacles and adversity, the capacity to recover from setbacks, and the feasibility of achieving theobjectives. Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, and Malone (2006) have demonstrated the influence of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on theirsatisfaction 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, resourceretrieval, effort, and ability to recover from and respond to difficulties (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004). Through collective faith that socialinteraction 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. Thisis achieved through instrumental help or emotional support in a shared context, which further affects the individual’s achievementmotivation. Similarly, online professional CoP members are more confident in their ability to contribute useful knowledge to others, insteadof 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 vicariousexperience produced by the social models help them to realize the possibility of accomplishment toward behaviors. Accordingly, thenetwork ties among members of an online teacher professional CoP will affect the way an individual judges the extent to which he has theability 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-efficacyplays a critical role in predicting one’s altruistic intention and behavior to benefit others, irrespective of whether such behavior is derivedfrom other-oriented empathy or personal confidence in their ability to master their environment. The perceived efficacy beliefs in groupsreflect people’s confidence in their ability to acknowledge other members’ encounters and perspectives, and to respond empathetically toothers’ emotional or instrumental needs (Caprara & Steca, 2005). Accordingly, we argue that, in the collective online context, professionalCoPmembers’ self-efficacy beliefs to share knowledgewith 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-efficacyand outcome expectancy is verified by the finding that people of high self-efficacy expect to use ICT to increase other people’s recognition ofone’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 Internetuse (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 efficacypositively support students’ sense of confidence and academic achievements (Caprara et al., 2006). Hence, we propose the followinghypothesis:

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

organization is the individual’s judgment as to whether he can contribute in the expected way. When organizational employees regardthemselves as having the ability to contribute to better performance and target achievement, they hold a more positive and affirmativeattitude toward knowledge contribution. More specifically, individuals believe that they are able to share information they have and helpsolve 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 amongmembers (Lu, Leung, & Koch, 2006). Therefore, we hypothesize that when online teachermembers’ knowledge-sharing self-efficacy is high, the possibility of their engaging in knowledge sharing activities increases. Therefore, thefollowing hypothesis is proposed:

H8. The knowledge-sharing self-efficacy of online teacher members has a direct and positive influence on their knowledge-sharingbehavior.

Fig. 1. Research model.

F.-C. Tseng, F.-Y. Kuo / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 37–47 41

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 respectedand generally regarded as superior models of wisdom, excellence, and perfection for passing on knowledge to students and help solvestudents’ 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 enhancestudents’ learning performance. In order to boost teachers’ professional development, with the support of authority departments and thecooperation of educational practitioners, SCTNet has become an important means through which teachers can continuously share and learnabout 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 theorywere initially conductedwith forty-nine SCTNet members to elicit narratives about their experiences in school life and participation in SCTNet. Consistent with the suggestionsof Kerlinger and Lee (2008), we relied on these interviews to identify variables and relations as well as to formulate hypotheses of theresearch. The transcripts of interviews were then subjected to content analysis and measurement design. With the assistance of threeSCTNet members to assure the construct validity in terms of ease of understanding, logical consistencies, and context fitness, we were ableto diminish the analysis bias and enhance the construct validity. Subsequently, we adopted a survey methodology to collect and analyze asample of population – SCTNet active members, through their responses to questions. After obtaining permission from the online CoPadministrator, 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. Theremaining 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 tiesamong online CoP members, we do not follow traditional approach in terms of acquaintanceship, emotional closeness, and frequency ofinteraction. Instead, adapted from Brown and Reingen (1987) along with Ryberg and Larsen (2008), we designed three items to evaluate thetype of social relation in SCTNet workshops, discussion groups, and the entire SCTNet community. Initially subjects are asked to respond ifthere is any SCTNet member with whom they share knowledge. If the answer was positive, subjects are further asked to indicate the level ofmembers’ reciprocal identification, ranging from complete unknown strangers to good partners with common goals or interests. Forprosocial commitment, three items are adapted from Trötschel and Gollwitzer (2007) along with Wentzel et al. (2007) to evaluate SCTNetmembers’ dedication to providing teaching resources and opinions to help solve other members’ problems. For example, one item is “As theonline CoP members need teaching resources, I provide what I have for them.” The measurement of performance expectation is adapted

Table 1Demographic information of valid respondents.

Measure Items Frequency Percent

Gender Male 116 36.1Female 205 63.9

Age Under 30 144 44.931–40 117 36.441–50 48 15.051–60 12 3.7

Position Kindergarten teacher 17 5.3Primary school teacher 191 59.5Junior high school teacher 41 12.8Senior high school teacher 4 1.2College teacher 3 0.9Intern teacher 32 10.0Part-time teacher 33 10.3

Work experience (in years) Under 5 151 47.06–10 60 18.711–15 44 13.716–20 31 9.721– 35 10.9

SCTNet member experience (in years) Under 0.5 47 14.60.5–1 45 14.01–2 81 25.23–4 100 31.25– 48 15.0

Table 2Operational definitions of construct.

Construct Operational definition Sources

Tie strength The strength of relationships linking teachers with othermembers in the online teacher professional CoP.

Brown & Reingen, 1987; Ryberg & Larsen, 2008

Prosocial commitment The teachers’ prosocial orientation and dedication to helpingothers in the online teacher professional CoP.

Trötschel & Gollwitzer, 2007; Wentzel et al., 2007

Performance expectation The teachers’ outcome expectation of sharing knowledge in theonline teacher professional CoP to enhance their competenceand work efficiency.

Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Hur et al., 2012

Knowledge-sharing self-efficacy The teachers’ judgment about his ability to undertakeknowledge 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 receiveresources, knowledge, experience, or emotional support withother 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) 37–4742

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 measuresknowledge-sharing self-efficacy by examining the online professional CoPmembers’ levels of confidence in sharing knowledge. Consideringthat SCTNet members may be concerned about possible pressures from and conflicts with other members (Young & Tseng, 2008), eightitems are developed to assess the subjects’ levels of belief in sharing their teaching practices, resources, and personal experiences with othermembers in the online knowledge community. Finally, with regard to knowledge-sharing behaviors in the online professional CoP, thisstudy adopts the perspective from Ridings, Gefen, and Arinze (2002) to classify knowledge sharing into two forms of activities: receivinginformation/advice/skills/support as well as providing other people with what they need. Ten items are developed to measure giving andreceiving behavior in terms of discussion, uploading/downloading teaching resources, exchanging experience or skills, as well as sharingtheir 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 respondentshares knowledge with. If the respondent has shared knowledge with other member in SCTNet, he/she continues to point out the type ofrelation 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). Theother three constructs (prosocial commitment, performance expectation, and knowledge-sharing behavior) are measured on a seven-pointLikert 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 beenwidely 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 exceedthe generally recommended threshold values of 0.7 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Convergent validity refers to the degree towhich differentmeasures all indicate the same meaning of the construct (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2006). It is significant when factor loadings foreach 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 greaterthan the correlations between pairs of constructs. Thus, all the constructs and itemsmeet the requirements of internal reliability, convergentvalidity, and discriminant validity.

4.2. Hypothesis testing

After assessing the validity and reliability of the research construct, we use PLS to test hypotheses bymeasuring the relationship betweenconstructs. First, we examine the influence of individuals’ network ties, prosocial commitment, performance expectation, self-efficacy, andtheir 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, b¼ 0.059, p > 0.05), the remaining paths are significant. The results demonstrate that networkties 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 anddirect 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, b¼ 0.324, p< 0.001), as well as knowledge-giving (H8a, b¼ 0.374, p< 0.001)and receiving (H8b, b¼ 0.335, p < 0.001) behaviors. In addition, the R2 value shows that the online professional CoP members’ network tiesaccount 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 beexplained by prosocial commitment, knowledge-sharing self-efficacy, and performance expectation (Fig. 2).

Table 3CFA results for reliability and validity of measurement items.

Construct Original items Mean SD Factor loading Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability Average varianceextracted

Tie strength Re1 4.072 2.274 0.912 0.812 0.891 0.735Re2 2.405 2.274 0.706Re3 3.922 2.151 0.935

Prosocial commitment Pc1 4.819 1.275 0.922 0.920 0.950 0.863Pc2 4.866 1.299 0.946Pc3 4.679 1.408 0.918

Performance expectation Pe1 5.246 1.304 0.898 0.874 0.915 0.730Pe2 5.548 1.247 0.894Pe3 5.318 1.225 0.901Pe4 4.249 1.518 0.734

Knowledge-sharing self-efficacy Se1 6.402 1.739 0.831 0.934 0.945 0.684Se2 6.308 1.806 0.863Se3 6.396 1.755 0.877Se4 5.978 1.785 0.806Se5 5.850 2.015 0.796Se6 6.118 1.782 0.849Se7 6.199 1.834 0.802Se8 6.645 1.716 0.790

Knowledge-sharing behavior_receiving Ksb1 4.919 1.447 0.822 0.883 0.914 0.681Ksb2 4.676 1.620 0.829Ksb3 4.844 1.477 0.875Ksb4 4.162 1.659 0.824Ksb5 3.785 1.656 0.773

Knowledge-sharing behavior_giving Ksb6 3.857 1.812 0.888 0.928 0.945 0.776Ksb7 3.452 1.960 0.826Ksb8 3.548 1.818 0.921Ksb9 2.925 1.676 0.859Ksb10 3.511 1.834 0.908

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

5. Discussion and conclusion

This study aims to identify critical factors important to nurture cultures of participation and investigate how these factors may impactteachers’ knowledge sharing in the online professional CoP. The results show that closer connections among online CoPmembers can lead togreater recognition of and altruism towards others. In addition, teachers’ membership in the online professional CoP fosters a pro-socialattitude 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 othergroup members is strong. Interestingly, the study by Matzat (2013) also suggests that social participation through offline contacts could

Table 4Discriminant validity for the research constructs.

Construct TS PC PE KSSE KSB_R KSB_G

TS 0.857PC 0.340 0.929PE 0.241 0.557 0.854KSSE 0.407 0.562 0.368 0.827KSB_R 0.374 0.447 0.504 0.499 0.825KSB_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) 37–4744

strengthen the online professional community. In fact, this is consistent with findings from our interviews with 49 SCTNet members, whoreveal that teachers engaged in the online professional CoP may also take part in activities beyond SCTNet. That is, many active SCTNetmembersmeet each other face-to-face to reinforce their mutual trust and share their expertises. Thus, the development of online and offlinesocial relationships among professional CoP members may help them to obtain potential resources and reliable support through their socialnetwork.

Moreover, performance expectation and self-efficacy belief play essential roles in knowledge-sharing participation. While network tiesdo not have a significant effect on individuals’ job performance expectation, there is an indirect relationship between the tie strength andperformance expectation through members’ self-efficacy in sharing knowledge, reflecting a stronger mediating effect on online teachermembers’ knowledge sharing through their prosocial commitment to helping others and performance expectation. This is in agreementwith 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 beingable 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 knowledgereceiving is predicted by and their performance expectation. This is important in that unlike several previous studies that treat knowledgesharing 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 suchrewards may diminish people’s desire to share knowledge. Furthermore, both prosocial commitment and performance expectation arepredicted by self-efficacy beliefs. In practical terms, online professional CoP has become an important approach for teachers’ professionaldevelopment (Zahner, 2002). Teachers need to upgrade their domain knowledge and teaching skills in order to continue to work effectivelywith their students (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; McLaughlin, 2002). When teachers with stronger ties feel confident that they can devotethemselves to knowledge sharing practices, their personal efficacy belief will have direct influences on the commitment to helping otherteachers 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 adjustedwithin 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 ahead full of nonsense if they do not have the expertise of using the Internet or asking the right questions (Drum, 2012). Yet, as the Internetbecomes 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 theiridentity 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 areembedded 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 socialcognitive factors of knowledge sharing in the teachers’ online CoP context. In addition, the findings can be applied to improve knowledgemanagement 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 collectiveaction, and promoting organizational performance. For this reason, it is essential for managers of CoPs to develop mechanisms to helpmembers to strengthen their ties with peers without fear of criticism from their supervisors or other professionals. The CoPmembers shouldbe encouraged to build their confidence in sharing knowledge with their peers, as self-efficacy beliefs are shown to affect an individual’sengagement 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 betweennetwork ties and performance expectation may be due to the mediating effect of self-efficacy. Further research could be conducted toinvestigate the level of self-efficacy and its influence on performance expectation. Also, our research is conducted in an educational settingin Taiwan and the findings may not be generalized to other cultures and countries. Third, for data collection this study relies on conveniencesampling, which inevitably caused self-selection biases and over-representative of those with strong opinion. Indeed, the research resultsindicate 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 thenonresponses sample members. Furthermore, our survey did not consider differences between teachers in primary and high schools. Asteachers may encounter different educational requirements and problems in those two distinct contexts, the factors affecting theirknowledge-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 andlocation 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 45

, 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 thanworrying that it is regarded as showoff.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 SCTNetKsb4: 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 ofManagement 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) 37–4746

Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communication within online communities: conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of InteractiveMarketing, 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

of 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 47

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.