Knowledge-sharing patterns of undergraduate

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0024-2535.htm

Knowledge-sharing patterns of undergraduate students in Singapore Ting Jer Yuen and M. Shaheen Majid Division of Information Studies, School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Abstract

Knowledgesharing patterns

485 Received 17 September 2006 Reviewed 20 October 2006 Accepted 25 October 2006

Purpose – The objective of this study is to investigate the knowledge-sharing behavior of undergraduate students in Singapore and to cover areas such as the purpose of sharing knowledge, communication channels preferred for sharing, and factors that inhibit or motivate knowledge sharing among students. Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire was used for collecting data and 180 students from three public universities in Singapore participated in the study. Findings – It was found that, generally, students displayed a positive attitude towards knowledge sharing and were appreciative of its importance in peer learning. However, it was interesting to note that the respondents were less inclined to share knowledge for academic activities that were graded. The study also revealed that competition among students to outperform their fellow students and lack of depth in peer relationship were the two main factors that inhibited knowledge sharing. Practical implications – The paper argues that fresh approaches to learning are desirable to make it less competitive, which is likely to encourage active knowledge sharing among students. Originality/value – A majority of the studies on knowledge sharing have been conducted in an organizational context. Only limited work has been done on the knowledge-sharing behavior of students. As a majority of the university students are expected to join the workforce after graduation, it is desirable their knowledge-sharing behavior should be thoroughly investigated. Keywords Knowledge sharing, Learning, Students, Singapore Paper type Research paper

Introduction Advancements in Information and Communication Technology (ICT), like many other disciplines, have revolutionized the education sector by opening new avenues of learning and knowledge sharing. Tertiary students today are blessed with a cornucopia of information for their studies and research in comparison with the preIT era, especially more so following the explosion of the World Wide Web (WWW). These developments unquestionably establish the foundation and significance of information and knowledge sharing among learners worldwide as the WWW is one of the most convenient and effective way to obtain and publish information (Potelle and Rouet, 2003). In addition, sharing of knowledge among students in the physical class environment has been enhanced and accentuated by the convenience and ability to seek studies-related help from other web users globally. Nevertheless, knowledge exchanges among students through face-to-face interactions should not be overlooked as these essentially facilitate achieving desired outcomes of collective learning. Research has provided much evidence that knowledge sharing during collaborative learning results in reflection and learning (Walker, 2002), and all participants benefit in terms of cognitive gains and positive learning outcomes (Rafaeli and Ravid, 2003). It is also found that students achieve more academically and interpersonally in cooperative interaction as compared to competitive or individualistic interaction

Library Review Vol. 56 No. 6, 2007 pp. 485-494 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0024-2535 DOI 10.1108/00242530710760382

LR 56,6

486

(Johnson and Johnson, 1988). Nevertheless, in many circumstances, students show a tendency of ‘‘hoarding’’ information or feel reluctant to share knowledge with their peers. As scarcity creates value, the unwillingness to share is stronger whenever information or knowledge is treated as possessions (Senge, 1997). Student learning styles Educators have, for many years, noticed that different students prefer certain methods of learning more than the others and have a general tendency to adopt particular learning strategies. These traits, referred to as learning styles, describe how a student naturally takes in information and process it according to his/her own individual perception when approaching a learning task (Mills, 2002). Different learning styles, according to their social aspect, can broadly be divided into two general groups: individual-oriented (independent and avoidant learners) and collaborative-oriented (dependent, collaborative, competitive, and participant learners). As social communication is considered to be an essential component of educational activities, another popular learning style called the interactive learning style, is gaining popularity (McShannon and Derlin, 1999). It is defined as the person or persons with whom the student interacts when learning, such as the faculty or other students, and is very much similar to the aforementioned collaborative learning style. This increased realization among many educators of the benefits of interaction on learning outcomes have led to many learning institutions, especially higher education institutions, to incorporate group discussions and other team activities in the learning process to encourage more interaction and collaboration among students. As a result, where a teacher’s role as information transmitter has been reduced, the student’s role has shifted to a group participant and decision maker in these learning processes. This interactive learning style brings benefits such as higher student achievement, better communication skills, improved group dynamics, and active information and knowledge sharing (Emmer and Gerwels, 2002). Information and knowledge sharing An important factor in the successful collaborative learning is the active and voluntarily sharing of information among students. Such knowledge exchanges help students answer questions, solve problems, learn new things, increase understanding regarding a particular subject, or merely acts as a means to help one another (Hogberg and Edvinsson, 1998). These exchanges could be in the form of explicit knowledge (also known as information) which can be captured and documented, and the tacit knowledge in the form of skills and competencies. Unlike information which is usually context-independent, tacit knowledge is personal and can only be shared through socialization, interaction, and training which often requires face-to-face communication, or in most cases, transferred through observation, imitation, practice, and interaction with the environment (Al-Hawamdeh, 2003). Information and knowledge-sharing barriers Despite various advantages associated with knowledge sharing, there are many situations where knowledge is not shared effectively. During the learning process, whether lessons are conducted in collaborative groups or not, there are many circumstances where students do not share their personal knowledge on a certain topic

or issue. This could be attributed to various physical, technological, psychological, personality, and cultural factors (Riege, 2005; Yuan et al., 2005). In general, problems attributed to the lack of knowledge sharing among students could be studied on the same lines as in organizational settings. Probably the main difference between these two types of organizations is their mission, goals, and context, where universities aim to cultivate a highly educated society by providing tertiarylevel education, while other organizations strive to generate profits or provide services (Robert and Barbara, 2002). It seems one common barrier that prevails in all types of organizations is the ‘‘Knowledge is Power’’ mentality that results in knowledge being regarded as an individual’s private asset and competitive advantage that makes one reluctant to share information and results in ‘‘information hoarding’’ (Chaudhry, 2005; McLure and Faraj, 2005). Droege and Hoobler (2003) highlighted that reciprocity together with trust promotes knowledge sharing. The lack of trust is an important factor as it is the key to positive interpersonal relationships in various circumstances which encourages knowledge sharing (Alstyne, 2005). Besides that, the lack of in-depth relationship between the source and recipient of knowledge (Cross and Baird, 2000), lack of motivation or rewards to share (Smith and McKeen, 2003), lack of time, and non-existence of knowledge sharing culture in the learning environment (Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004) are likely to impede knowledge sharing among students. As students are the most crucial segment of a society and the main driving force for future growth and development, the Singapore government is putting a lot of emphasis on educating a new breed of citizens who are well prepared to play an effective role in the knowledge society. To realize this goal, students are expected to fully understand and appreciate the role of knowledge-sharing in their learning and development. It would, therefore, be interesting to study the knowledge-sharing patterns of university students in Singapore. The objectives of this study were to explore the general attitude of students towards knowledgesharing, situations where knowledge is more likely to be shared, the communication channels preferred for sharing, and factors that inhibit or motivate knowledge sharing among the undergraduate students. It is expected that this study would help contribute in developing a general understanding about the knowledge-sharing behavior of university students, which will help educators select appropriate learning approaches to encourage more interaction and knowledge sharing among students. Methodology The target respondents of this study were undergraduate students pursuing any course of study at three public universities in Singapore: Nanyang Technological University, National University of Singapore, and Singapore Management University. A questionnaire was used for soliciting responses and the survey instrument consisted of four sections, containing a total of 14 closed- and openended questions. The first section of the questionnaire collected information about the respondents whereas the second section sought information related to the purposes and methods used for knowledge sharing. The next section collected data on the types of communication channels preferred, while the last section was on knowledge-sharing inhibitors and motivators. Based on the feedback collected during the pre-testing of the instrument, an online version of the questionnaire,

Knowledgesharing patterns

487

LR 56,6

488

using NSurvey, was constructed as it was considered to be more advantageous as compared to attaching a softcopy of the questionnaire with the email. In addition, error checking could be incorporated to the submitted responses to ensure that all the questions were properly answered. Besides, the functions of consolidation and tabulation of results provided by the software also saved much time and reduced human error in manually collating the large amount of data. The information about the study was disseminated to the potential respondents by sending an email indicating the web address of the survey. The survey was conducted in April 2005 and a total of 180 students participated in the study. The respondents represented different subject areas such as arts, business, engineering, sciences, computer science and IT, and other disciplines. Findings General attitude towards knowledge sharing The respondents were given a mix of positive and negative statements for understanding their general attitude towards knowledge sharing. A big majority of the respondents (71.6 per cent) ‘‘agreed’’ or ‘‘strongly agreed’’ that sharing knowledge with peers would benefit all students (Table I). When asked to indicate their opinion on the statement that knowledge should only be shared when approached by peers, 34.5 per cent of the respondents ‘‘agreed’’ or ‘‘strongly agreed’’ to this stance, while 36.1 per cent of the respondents either ‘‘disagreed’’ or ‘‘strongly disagreed’’ with this viewpoint. Although a majority of the respondents (53.9 per cent) ‘‘agreed’’ or ‘‘strongly agreed’’ that students should voluntarily share information with their peers, many others did not express their opinion. The statement ‘‘sharing is caring’’ also yielded a

Perception

Table I. General attitude towards knowledge sharing

I feel that it is important to share knowledge with other students for the benefit of all Students should share knowledge with their peers only when approached Students should voluntarily share their knowledge with peers I feel that ‘‘sharing is caring’’ It is better to avoid sharing information with peers whenever possible Many students have the mindset that sharing knowledge is a type of plagiarism Many students feel that they might be penalised by the lecturer for sharing information and knowledge

Number of responses (%) Strongly No agree Agree opinion

Disagree

Strongly disagree

26 (14.4)

103 (57.2)

44 (24.4)

6 (3.3)

1 (0.6)

3 (1.7)

59 (32.8)

53 (29.4)

61 (33.9)

4 (2.2)

14 (7.8) 11 (6.1)

83 (46.1) 70 (38.9)

56 (31.1) 67 (37.2)

25 (13.9) 27 (15.0)

2 (1.1) 5 (2.8)

3 (1.7)

6 (3.3)

27 (15.0)

103 (57.2)

41 (22.8)

3 (1.7)

18 (10.0)

17 (9.4)

107 (59.4)

35 (19.4)

5 (2.8)

21 (11.7)

14 (7.8)

96 (53.3)

44 (24.4)

somewhat similar trend where 45 per cent of the respondents either ‘‘agreed’’ or ‘‘strongly agreed’’ with it. On the other hand, an overwhelming majority of the respondents rejected three statements presenting knowledge sharing in a somewhat negative context. Some 80 per cent of the respondents ‘‘disagreed’’ or ‘‘strong disagreed’’ that knowledge sharing should be avoided whenever possible. Similarly, 78.8 per cent of the respondents rejected the suggestion that information and knowledge sharing is a type of plagiarism. Almost a similar trend was recorded for the suggestion that many students do not share information and knowledge out of the fear that they might be penalised by their lecturers. It was encouraging to note that the respondents generally possessed a positive attitude towards knowledge sharing and were aware of its importance in the learning process. They also rejected some misperceptions associated with knowledge sharing which reflected their level of understanding and maturity.

Knowledgesharing patterns

489

Preferred sources for study-related tasks The respondents were asked what sources they prefer, on a scale of 1-5, to consult while seeking information on certain study-related tasks. The purpose was to explore their likelihood of approaching their fellow students for getting the need information. As shown in Table II, after the internet, the most preferred source for obtaining studyrelated information was their fellow students (mean score 3.84). It appeared that students realise the fact that their peers, probably due to common understanding of the task, were one of the most useful sources in obtaining study-related information and knowledge. Knowledge sharing in different study-related situations Through an indirect question, the respondents were asked to express their opinion on how often their classmates share knowledge with their peers for different studyrelated tasks. A clear majority (69.4 per cent) of the respondents said that their classmates ‘‘frequently’’ share knowledge with other students during tutorials and laboratory sessions (Table III). However, 115 (63.9 per cent) of the respondents felt that their peers share knowledge ‘‘less frequently’’ while working on individual assignments. An overwhelming majority (92.8 per cent) of the respondents expressed the opinion that their classmates ‘‘frequently’’ share knowledge with their team members while working on group assignments. On the other hand, some 116 (64.4 per cent) of the respondents said that their fellow students ‘‘less frequently’’ share knowledge with students from other groups.

Source Use the Internet Consult other fellow students Use library resources to get more information on the topic Consult the course professor/tutor Consult friends outside the university Scale: 1, least preferred; 5, most preferred

Mean score

Standard deviation

4.28 3.84

0.92 0.98

3.25 3.22 1.99

1.23 1.17 1.07

Table II. Preferred sources for study-related tasks

LR 56,6

490

An interesting situation emerged when the respondents were asked to indicate the likelihood of knowledge sharing by their classmates if the assignments were not to be graded (situations ‘‘b’’ and ‘‘d’’ in Table III). For the individual assignments, over 53 per cent of the respondents felt that now it is likely that their peers will ‘‘frequently’’ share their knowledge with other students (over 31 per cent increase). Similarly, 54.4 per cent of the respondents thought that their peers would ‘‘frequently’’ share knowledge with students from other groups if the group assignments were not to be graded (an increase of 31.1 per cent). It appeared that probably intense competition among students to achieve better grades was hindering active knowledge sharing with their peers. It is, therefore, desirable that academic institutions should consider other alternative ways of assessing students’ performances so that over emphasis on grades should not hamper knowledge sharing. Types of knowledge shared The respondents were asked that what type of knowledge is often shared by their classmates with their peers. Some 87.2 per cent of the respondents reported that often knowledge sharing is through expressing opinions on certain study-related matters (Table IV). Two other possible knowledge sharing avenues were: for providing answers to improve understanding (64.4 per cent respondents) and through sharing URLs of relevant websites (62.8 per cent respondents). Comparatively a small number of the respondents felt that their classmates exchange personal materials, or share their database searching, software use, and library use skills and knowledge with peers. On the whole, it appeared that students were willing to share their thoughts on certain issues as well as share certain public domain information sources whereas fewer

Situation

Table III. Perceived frequency of knowledge sharing for study-related tasks

(a) During tutorials/labs (b) While working on individual assignments (c) While working on group assignments (within their own group) (d) While working on group assignments (with students from other groups)

Number of responses (%) Frequently Less frequently

Never

125 (69.4) 40 (22.2)

52 (28.9) 115 (63.9)

3 (1.7) 25 (13.9)

167 (92.8)

12 (6.7)

1 (0.5)

42 (23.3)

116 (64.4)

22 (12.2)

By expressing their opinion on study-related matters By providing answers to improve understanding of other students By sharing URLs of relevant websites By providing examination related materials (past year exam questions, exam solutions, etc.) By providing their personal books and lecture notes By assisting other students in database search, software use, library use, etc.

157 (87.2) 116 (64.4) 113 (62.8)

Type of information and knowledge

Table IV. Types of information and knowledge shared

77 (42.8) 74 (41.1) 68 (37.8)

students were willing to share their personal collections or teach basic information literacy skills to their fellow students. Probably, they felt that it was wastage of their time and other students should search and locate their own information. Preferred channels for knowledge sharing As illustrated in Table V, it was found that face-to-face communication was the most preferred form of sharing knowledge, followed by online chat, email, and telephone, with the online message board being least preferred. The proliferation of other communication channels which could adequately meet the students’ needs could also be a factor that rendered the decreased use of the online message board. The faceto-face communication was probably preferred because it provides instant feedback, help seek clarifications, and offer non-verbal clues. The respondents were also asked about the possible reasons for preferring certain communication channels over others. The two most important attributes, as identified by the respondents, for choosing a communication channel, were the ability of the channel to convey messages accurately (85 per cent respondents) and the fast feedback (50 per cent respondents).

Knowledgesharing patterns

491

Factors inhibiting knowledge sharing The respondents were asked to indicate the possible factors that, in their opinion, pose hurdles in active knowledge sharing by their fellow students. An overwhelming majority (87.2 per cent) of the respondents felt that it was due to lack of depth in relationship between students (Table VI). Another important finding was where 76.7 per cent of the respondents felt that their classmates do not share knowledge with peers because they fear these students would outperform them. Other barriers to knowledge sharing, as identified by the respondents, were the lack of reciprocity in sharing, apprehension to be perceived as a show-off, and the fear of providing wrong information. It appeared that probably lack of depth in relationship and the pressure to outperform others, as well as certain other fears, were hindering active knowledge sharing among students. Motivators for knowledge sharing The findings presented in Table VII show that the main motivator for knowledge sharing among the participating students was the intention to learn from each other, followed by the desire to help others. Certain self-centred reasons for knowledge sharing with other students were less pervasive, where 17.2 per cent of the respondents said they share knowledge for receiving reward or recognition, while for 6.1 per cent of the respondents it was an opportunity to develop the image

Communication channel Face-to-face Online chat (ICQ, MSN Messenger, etc.) Email Telephone Online message board

Mean score

Standard deviation

4.67 3.22 3.18 2.91 2.32

0.64 1.27 1.11 1.15 1.22

Table V. Preferred channels for knowledge sharing

LR 56,6

Reason

492

Lack of depth in relationship Afraid that others would perform better People only share with those who share with them Do not want to be perceived as a ‘‘show-off’’ Afraid to provide the wrong information Lack of knowledge-sharing culture Shy to provide own opinions Lack of time Lack of appreciation of knowledge sharing Afraid that an opinion mismatch would offend others Do not know what to share

Table VI. Factors limiting knowledge sharing

Motivation

Table VII. Knowledge sharing motivators

To learn from each other To help others As an exchange or feedback Self satisfaction To obtain reward or recognition To cultivate image of expertise

Number of responses (%) 157 138 118 113 112 106 106 83 82 66 58

(87.2) (76.7) (65.6) (62.8) (62.2) (58.9) (58.9) (46.1) (45.6) (36.7) (32.2)

Number of responses (%) 114 91 74 36 31 11

(63.3) (50.6) (41.1) (20.0) (17.2) (6.1)

of an expert among the peers. On the whole, it appeared that the respondents were convinced that information and knowledge sharing was beneficial to all parties involved in the process and they did not want to gain any personal advantage from it. In response to an open-ended question, through which the respondents were asked to suggest measures for encouraging knowledge sharing, a majority of the participants felt that a culture of knowledge sharing needs to be developed. They felt it could be achieved through placing less emphasis on grades and by reducing unnecessary competition in the learning environment. They believed that more group-based assignments, tutorials, lab sessions, and projects would reduce competition to some extent and encourage knowledge sharing. Some of them also felt that more interactive classes and giving difficult assignments could also be useful as it would spur discussions among the students. The respondents also stressed on providing incentives for sharing, for example, giving bonus marks for active participation in class discussions. They also proposed fostering acquaintance and interaction among students through arranging informal social events which would help develop depth in relationship. In addition, access to sophisticated user-friendly features of online forums and discussion boards could stimulate discussion and knowledge sharing, even by those who wish to stay anonymous. Conclusion Active and voluntarily sharing of knowledge is an essential element of effective and meaningful learning at the tertiary level. As many students are expected to join the

workforce after finishing their undergraduate studies, a positive attitude towards knowledge sharing would make them more useful to their employing organizations. On the other hand, if their unwillingness to share information and knowledge with peers is left unchecked, it is likely that this attitude would become part of their personality and they will continue exhibiting the same mindset at their work place. It was interesting to note that the respondents of this study valued their peers as an important source of knowledge and, on the whole, showed a positive attitude towards information and knowledge sharing. However, a lack of depth in peer relationship and the pressure to outperform classmates academically were the two main factors that inhibited knowledge sharing. As mutual trust and respect are considered important in knowledge sharing, academic institutions should make efforts to foster cordial relationship among students through providing ample interaction opportunities through organizing informal social events. Similarly, it is desirable that academic institutions should reconsider their teaching approaches and put more emphasis on collaborative learning to avoid unnecessary competition among students. Once students start regarding their fellow students as their learning partners instead of competitors, they are likely to share their ideas and knowledge more frequently. References Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2003), Knowledge Management: Cultivating Knowledge Professionals, Chandos, Oxford. Alstyne, M.W.V. (2005), ‘‘Create colleagues, not competitors’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83 No. 9, pp. 24-5. Chaudhry, A.S. (2005), ‘‘Knowledge sharing practices in Asian institutions: a multi-cultural perspective from Singapore’’, available at: www.ifla.org/IV/ifla71/Programme.htm (accessed 25 February 2006). Cross, R. and Baird, L. (2000), ‘‘Technology is not enough: improving performance by building organisational memory’’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 67-78. Droege, S.B. and Hoobler, J.M. (2003), ‘‘Employee turnover and tacit knowledge diffusion: a network perspective’’, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 50-65. Emmer, E.T. and Gerwels, M.C. (2002), ‘‘Cooperative learning in elementary classrooms: teaching practices and lesson characteristics’’, Elementary School Journal, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 75-92. Hogberg, C. and Edvinsson, L. (1998), ‘‘A design for futurising knowledge networking’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 81-92. Ikhsan, S. and Rowland, F. (2004), ‘‘Knowledge management in a public organization: a study on the relationship between organizational elements and the performance of knowledge transfer’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 95-111. Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1988), ‘‘Cooperative learning: two heads learn better than one’’, available at: www.context.org/ICLIB/IC18/Johnson.htm (accessed 24 June 2006). McLure, W.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), ‘‘Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice’’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57. McShannon, J.R. and Derlin, R. (1999), ‘‘Interactive learning styles of undergraduate engineering students in New Mexico: a new model’’, paper presented at the Annual Conference for the American Society of Engineering Education, Dallas, TX, March. Mills, D.W. (2002), ‘‘Applying what we know – student learning styles’’, available at: www.csrnet.org/csrnet/articles/student-learning-styles.html (accessed 24 June 2006).

Knowledgesharing patterns

493

LR 56,6

494

Potelle, H. and Rouet, J.F. (2003), ‘‘Effect of content representation and readers’ prior knowledge on the comprehension of hypertext’’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 327-45. Rafaeli, S. and Ravid, G. (2003), ‘‘Information sharing as enabler for the virtual team: an experimental approach to assessing the role of electronic mail in disintermediation’’, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 191-206. Riege, A. (2005), ‘‘Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35. Robert, S. and Barbara, M. (2002), Library and Information Centre Management, 6th ed., Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO. Senge, P. (1997), ‘‘Sharing knowledge’’, Executive Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 11, pp. 17-19. Smith, H.A. and McKeen, J.D. (2003), ‘‘Instilling a knowledge-sharing culture’’, available at: business.queensu.ca/knowledge/workingpapers/working/working_03-11.pdf (accessed 23 June 2006). Walker, J.W. (2002), ‘‘Research, knowledge sharing, and you’’, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 10-13. Yuan, Y., Fulk, J. and Shumate, M. (2005), ‘‘Individual participation in organizational information commons: the impact of team level social influence and technology-specific competence’’, Human Communication Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 212-40. Corresponding author M. Shaheen Majid can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints