Fumi Takegami: Teacher Development Through the Metaphorical Construct ofKnowledge Creation

25

Teacher Development Through the Metaphorical Constructof Knowledge Creation

Fumi Takegami

Abstract
Metaphors are powerful influencers on how we conceive the world. In cognitive linguistics a conceptual metaphor crosses domains. This occurs when our understandingof an idea rooted in one domain can be applied to another domain to enrich our understanding of the latter. Recently, curricula are setting goals aimed at critical thinking
skills and new courses that will lead not to a traditional knowledge transmission approach, but toward a knowledge creation one. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an organizational framework by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), considered to be an impressive knowledge creation model developed for the business world,
could shed useful insights into the domain of education for the purposes of conceptualizing the role of knowledge creation in education. In the study, first an examinationof Nonaka and Takeuchi’s business model rooted in Japanese philosophy was carriedout. The thrust of their model is to recognize the significance of tacit knowledge as avaluable resource existing within the individual company-worker and how to convert
it to collective explicit knowledge leading to innovation and knowledge creation. In
their framework, they impart four modes that represent the processes to make theconversion possible: socialization, externalization, combination and internalization(SECI). These modes are all relative to concepts of learning in the domain of education. A well-regarded approach in education known as knowledge building theory wasbrought into the study, to show how the processes of knowledge creation through the
SECI model could be applicable to the domain of education. However, asking teachers to adopt a knowledge building pedagogy with the goal of idea innovation andknowledge creation is a contradiction to traditional teaching knowledge transmission
approaches. Therefore, teacher development is required. The study oﬀers two models
that are applicable to teacher development in helping teachers meet curricula that arefocused on knowledge creation.

26

熊 本 県 立 大 学 文 学 部 紀 要

第 27 巻2021

Key words: curriculum, knowledge building, knowledge creation, explicit knowledge, metaphor, tacit knowledge, teacher development
The metaphor of knowledge creation
Lakoﬀ and Johnson’s (1980) seminal study in Metaphors We Live By pointed out that
our use of metaphors are windows into our minds that oﬀer rich insights into how weconceptualize the world around us. A is not B, but A and B share similarities. This
formula of connecting two diﬀerent domains shows how metaphors are formed. For
example, the famous Japanese baseball player Hideki Matsui was called Godzillawhen he played in the USA. Of course, Matsui is not Godzilla, but they both sharesimilar traits: strong, big, powerful and Japanese. Using characteristics of a fictionalfilm character and imposing them on a real human provided richer conceptualizations,which allowed the public to better be informed of the qualities of the latter. In thesame way, the metaphor of knowledge creation formed in the business world can oﬀer
richer insights into the world of education.
Paavola and Hakkarainen (2005) divided the learning process into three metaphorical descriptions. First, acquisition, which is formed by the theory that individuals are seen as containers of knowledge, in which learning is an implantation of information either enhanced by innate learning abilities or environmental factors thatare cognitively constructed by the individual learner. The participation metaphor isbuilt on the view that learning occurs through interactions with the outside world,
one’s culture, community and so on. Paavola and Hakkarainen argue that althoughthese two metaphors are diﬀerent in that one focuses on the individual and the otherthe social nature of learning, they both share a similarity. Their overall aim is to havethe learner achieve mastery of knowledge whether it is learning the input transmitted to the learner or the artefacts produced by culture and community. On the other
hand, the knowledge creation metaphor oﬀers a third way. It goes from mastery (i.e.,
the learner’s achievement of knowledge transfer) to advancing or constructing new
knowledge:
The basic division is as follows: the acquisition view representsa ‘‘monological’’ view on human cognition and activity, whereimportant things are seen to happen within the human mind,
whereas the participation view represents a ‘‘dialogical’’ view
where the interaction with the culture and other people, [sic] but
also with the surrounding (material) environment is emphasized.

Fumi Takegami: Teacher Development Through the Metaphorical Construct ofKnowledge Creation

27

The knowledge-creation view represents a ‘‘trialogical’’ approach
because the emphasis is not only on individuals or on community,
but on the way people collaboratively develop mediating artifacts(Paavola & Hakkarainen p.539).
The third way conceptualized in the metaphor of knowledge creation allows for areconceptualization of the learning process and its outcomes. People cooperate andinteract not only to acquire or process knowledge, but to advance it. In this paper, thethird way aimed at knowledge creation is studied. The paper attempts to show a direct
relationship between the processes of an organizational knowledge creation framework depicting how workers and managers in the industrial world of corporations
work together to become innovative and how it can be applied to school curricula asan organizational framework in the of domain of education.
The research questions are as follows:• What are the processes of knowledge creation depicted in an organizationalmodel used in industry for purposes of innovation?
• In what ways, can the processes of a knowledge creation framework designed
for innovation in industry, be applied to school curricula and teacher development?
The first question explores the processes of a knowledge creation organizationalframework, a model based on the work culture found in Japanese industry, designed
by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). The model was selected in this study because of its
prominence in work on knowledge creation (Hargreaves, 1999). The second question
looks at how attributes of the organizational framework designed for innovation inindustry have direct relevance to the field of education.
Nonaka and Takeuchi knowledge creation framework
The theme of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s book (1995) is encapsulated in its title: The
Knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Their work looked at how knowledge is created and advanced within a company’s organizational framework. In their book, they oﬀered several case study examples of Japanese companies, such as Honda, Matsushita, and Shiseido. Addressing
their work represents a deliberate attempt in this study to draw on parallels between
the concept of knowledge creation adhered to in the business world and its applicationin the field of education. First, I begin with a look at how they set up their framework
as a Japanese concept by summarizing their discussions about organizational man-28

熊 本 県 立 大 学 文 学 部 紀 要

第 27 巻2021

agement theories, rooted in western tradition and philosophy. This will be followed
by a discussion on how the Japanese philosophical approach to knowledge creation
informed their framework.
In their formulation of the knowledge creation framework, Nonaka and Takeuchi
first drew on philosophical distinctions by focusing on epistemological issues concerned with the Cartesian split and the debate that surrounds it. On the one side is
the dualistic view of Descartes that mind and body, subject and object are separated.
Following this view, contributions to knowledge or what we know can only develop
with rational thinking (the non-material mind) by being objective. Objectivity or
detachment from the object being studied occurs by applying deductive reasoning
and reductive measures that would isolate oneself as the subject from tarnishing theoutcomes. Taste is reflective of an embodied subjectivity. The non-material logicaland objective mind is metaphorically detached from the subjective body or physical matter, which is sensory and subjective. On the other side is the empiricist viewthat knowledge grows out of physical sensory experiences (the body as matter). In
this view, experience and perception shape how we perceive the world; knowledge
therefore, emerges from inductive thinking. Ontologically, the objective view takes
the position that there are universal truths and the subjective view is that truths are
relative depending on the context. Although the two views are poles apart, Nonaka
and Takeuchi argue for a third and more holistic approach.
Their model is built on traditional Japanese intellectual thought, which they believe bridges the gap between the mind and body debate. They oﬀer a “Japaneseapproach to knowledge that integrates the teachings of Buddhism, Confucianism andmajor Western philosophical thoughts” (p.27). They take a holistic rather dualist viewby positing the Japanese concepts of “oneness of humanity and nature…of body andmind …and …of self and other” (p.27). Of importance to their knowledge creation
framework is “oneness of self and other”, which incorporates the other two sense
making concepts of subjectivity and objectivity. In particular, they do not ignore thesignificant role of subjectivity and view it as existing with objectivity. They emphasize that in relation to others, Japanese sense making and conceptualizations develop
out of collective interactions that are subjective and highly intuitive. For example,
Japanese communicate and interact within a high context society using non-verbal
cues, and are therefore not completely bounded by grammatical code. Because lessemphasis on direct language means more openness to interpretation, one has to rely
on tacit knowledge informed by intuition and context to decode ambiguity in interactions. Consequently, Nonaka and Takeuchi point out that the ambiguous nature of

Fumi Takegami: Teacher Development Through the Metaphorical Construct ofKnowledge Creation

29

the Japanese language brings oneness with others. The verb is not conjugated withthe subject. Therefore, the audience can have sympathetic understanding with theperspective of the speaker because the ‘I’ can be avoided. “For the Japanese, you
and I are two parts of a whole, two sides of the same coin” (p.31). By drawing on thecollective nature of Japanese intellectual thought, a significant distinction is made in
regard to their framework:
While Western societies promote the realization of the individual self as thegoal of life, the Japanese ideal of life is to exist among others harmoniously
as a collective self. For the Japanese, to work for others means to work foroneself. The natural tendency for the Japanese is to realize themselves intheir relationships with others.
Nonaka and Takeuchi purposely looked at the Western philosophical traditions topoint out that Cartesian dualism has historically shaped the way knowledge is treatedin corporate management. They claim that organizational theorists erroneously
tended to emphasize objectivity and individuality while underestimating the socialrole of knowledge building that recognizes the value of subjectivity and collectivity
to create knowledge. In oﬀering their third way, Nonaka and Takeuchi turned
to Japanese philosophical thought rooted in tradition as an underpinning for the
epistemological foundations of their knowledge building framework. This is done toshow how Japanese companies have successfully approached knowledge creation in
management practices. Next, their knowledge creation framework is addressed.
Processes of the knowledge creation framework
In order to understand their model, Nonaka and Takeuchi made several distinctions ofterms between information and knowledge, and information processing and innovation. The biggest diﬀerence is that information and information processing are passive
concepts, whereas knowledge and innovation are about action. Although informationand knowledge are about meaning and are relational to context, knowledge is conjoined with beliefs, which in turn are motivators for action. Knowledge is what we
do with information. Information processing is also passive because it is externallydriven and internally processed. On the other hand, new ideas are advanced fromwithin companies to solve problems and adapt to new business climates. “They [companies] actually create new knowledge and information from the inside out” (Nonaka& Takeuchi, p.56).

30

熊 本 県 立 大 学 文 学 部 紀 要

第 27 巻2021

Two other terms that are of utmost importance to their framework are tacit andexplicit knowledge, the two dimensions of knowledge creation. These two terms are
diﬀerent in important ways. Polyani (1958, 1966) coined the phrase tacit knowledge
or tacit knowing as procedural knowledge that cannot be easily written down or verbalized. This is the subjective knowledge of experience (body). Because it cannot be
codified, tacit knowledge is diﬃcult to transfer to others. For example, knowledgeof how to ride a bike, make bread and speak a language is often hard to explicitlytransfer. In other words, the ‘how’ of procedural knowledge does not readily transfer
to the ‘what’ of declarative knowledge. For example, possessing explicit grammaticalknowledge (objective and rational) and knowing what the formal rules are (mind),
does equate implicit knowing of how to use it, as evidenced with children in their native language (or learning a second or foreign language). The dichotomy is summed
up astutely by Polyani (1966), “We can know more than we can tell” (p.4). Nonaka
and Takeuchi visualized explicit knowledge as the tip of an iceberg and tacit knowledge as the deep and hidden foundation of the iceberg. In their model, tacit knowledge
is seen as a rich and untapped resource within company employees: The embodimentof knowledge enriched by experiences of doing their jobs that somehow must be recognized and converted to explicit knowledge and shared for the creation of new ideas.
Four modes of knowledge creation
The processes of converting tacit or implicit knowledge to explicit knowledge arefound in Nonaka and Takeuchi’s organizational framework consisting of four modes,
socialization, externalization, internalization and combination (SECI) as below:
Table1.
Nonaka and Takeuchi’s Four modes of knowledge creation (1995, p.62)
Tacit Knowledge To Explicit Knowledge
Tacit Knowledge

Socialization

Externalization

Internalization

Combination

From
Explicit Knowledge•

Socialization is the core mode. Through sharing tacit knowledge with each

Fumi Takegami: Teacher Development Through the Metaphorical Construct ofKnowledge Creation

31

other in a collective environment within a community of practice (i.e., a workplace or classroom) implicit knowledge is revealed. Nonaka and Takeuchi
provide an example. Matsushita Electrical Industrial Company set out tomake an automatic high-quality bread making machine. The challenge was
how to automatize the dough kneading process, which is reflective in the creative and tacit knowledge found in master bakers. Socialization was carriedout in a community of practice environment as staﬀ members of Matsushita
voluntarily worked under a highly reputed master baker in Osaka.
• Externalization occurs when tacit knowledge is articulated. After spendingtime with the baker, his tacit knowledge was revealed one day when one of
the Matsushita staﬀ noticed he was not only stretching the dough but wasalso adding a twisting motion. Once the master baker could make known
this knowledge, engineers were soon able to convert the tacit knowledge into
explicit knowledge by retooling the machine to create a twisting movement.
• Combination represents the sharing of explicit knowledge as codified knowledge known by diﬀerent members. For example, a management team comprised of managers from diverse backgrounds or fields who bring their professional explicit knowledge expertise into identifying problems and coming
up with innovative solutions.
• Internalization reflects the iterative learning process in knowledge creation,and it develops out of the other three modes. One learns by doing. As new
information is internalized, tacit knowledge is enriched and then nurtured by
the other three modes to become explicit. In this way, knowledge creation
becomes sustainable
Knowledge creation and the four modes in the above were designed to create innovation in the organizational systems of companies. The purpose was not to focus on
worker productivity with the aim to master what they do, but to focus on how they
can use their knowledge to innovate, to advance ideas within a shared community ofpractice. That is, to convert their tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge.
Concepts that underpin the knowledge creation framework are directly applicableto the field of education. The SECI model above should be of interest to educators
because it is very much aligned with social cultural theory put forth by child developmental psychologist, Lev Vygotsky (1978). Learning is a social process (socialization). Children first learn concepts from interacting with the culture they are embedded(externalization). The tool to mediate this interaction is language. Knowledge then isinternalized as language advances thought (internalization), which then is articulated

32

熊 本 県 立 大 学 文 学 部 紀 要

第 27 巻

2021

during social interaction. This ongoing reiterative external-internal-external learning
process driven by social interaction leads to cognitive development and to the advancement of learning (combination). Therefore, like the organizational systems incompanies that are designed for knowledge creation, schooling at all levels should be
actively involved in the ‘business’ of knowledge creation. Similarly, tapping into thevital resources of the tacit knowledge of workers in a shared community of practicehas equal value to recognizing the significance of engaging students’ tacit knowledge
to enhance knowledge creation in the classroom. Next, the ways that the knowledge
creation framework can inform education and teacher development are addressed.
Knowledge creation in schooling
To meet the needs of a rapidly changing global market accelerated by digital technological advances, a workforce with high information processing skills has become
the new model for competitive companies to replace traditional manufacturing enterprises (Castel, 2010). Tan and Tan (2014), who promote knowledge creation in
Singaporean education, write, “In the twenty-first century, new ideas and innovative
products are the new sources of economic growth, more significant than physicaland tangible resources like minerals and land” (p.11). This has brought a change ineconomic-related workplaces from knowledge transition to knowledge creation. The
shift presents a challenge to educational practices, which are still rooted in the industrial age. In too many classes, one finds a lecture style, teacher-centered, knowledgetransfer approach in which information is transferred to the student, who is expected
to recite back or provide the answers expected by teachers, showing he or she has
eﬃciently and accurately understood the transmitted information. However, to develop knowledge creation skills among learners, educational goals in school curriculafrom primary, secondary and tertiary levels must go beyond mastering content. In an
economic organizational knowledge creation model such as in Nonaka and Takeuchi,
workers actively collaborate within a community of practice to focus on innovation
for new products or solving problems. In schooling under a knowledge creation goal,
the focus should be on involving students in an active learning processes that sharpen
knowledge building skills, which include working in collaborative, problem solving
tasks, finding solutions that lead to the improvement of ideas (Scardamalia & Bereiter,
2006).
Knowledge building pedagogy in knowledge creation
The educational practice of knowledge creation can be realized in Scardamalia andFumi Takegami: Teacher Development Through the Metaphorical Construct ofKnowledge Creation

33

Bereiter’s work on knowledge building, a concept they pioneered (2006), which has
been highly recognized in the field of education (Tan & Tan, 2014). Through a knowledge building approach, the aim is to recreate educational practices within a coherent pedagogical model that initiates students into the knowledge creation process.
They write, “One important advantage of knowledge building as an educational approach is that it provides a straightforward way to address the contemporary emphasison knowledge creation and innovation” (p.99). In short, knowledge building occurs
when school curricula emphasize knowledge creation as an overarching learning goal.
In business, innovation leads to creating new products. In education the innovative
key to knowledge building is idea improvement. Ideas are advanced through connectivity. Our brains function as self-organizing networks of interconnected ideas that
accommodate new ideas, which contribute to the formation of larger more robust
concepts. Scardamalia and Bereiter premise their knowledge building model on connectivity, “Explaining conceptual development, however, entails self-organization at
the level of ideas—explaining how more complex ideas can emerge from interactionsof simpler ideas and percepts” (p.110).
Principles that support knowledge building are similar with the SECI model of
Nonaka and Takeuchi. For example, ideas are further advanced through socialization
within in a community of practice (workers within a company; students in a classroom). The conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge is sought after and ismotivated by providing a public space for which the iterative process of exchanging
ideas and knowledge can flourish. In addition to the classroom, a knowledge forum
network is highly suggested in Scardamalia and Bereiter’s knowledge building approach. Through a shared network platform, students conceptualize a solution to a
problem or improve on ideas by outlining their thoughts on a mind map framework.
They also formulate their solutions, write their thoughts about them as they are designing them, and go back and revise what they have written. The revision aspect of
the forum is strongly supported as it allows students to reconceptualize their ideas,
which further inform their solutions.
An important aspect of the knowledge building pedagogy is to conceive of learners not by traditional metaphors as containers or passive receptors of knowledge inwhich teachers deposit information (Freire, 1972), but as active members of a knowledge building community. Scardamalia and Bereiter provide six themes of theirknowledge building pedagogy that curriculum planners should consider for how to
get students to actively take part in the knowledge creation process (p.99~111). The
themes are summarized as follows:

34

熊 本 県 立 大 学 文 学 部 紀 要

第 27 巻2021• Knowledge advancement as a community rather than individual achievement
All too often according to Scardamalia and Bereiter, schooling intensely focuses on
the education of the individual through knowledge transmission emulating the workof scholars that is measured in the achievement of test scores. In a transmission modelof education, to think of the advancement of knowledge for the community is a mental state that does not exist. In contrast, a knowledge building approach holds theprinciple that students should not be rewarded for the information they hold in theirminds, but what they can produce for society, which inevitably and individually enriches them.
• Knowledge advancement as idea improvement
The view that all interesting ideas are improvable. The process of improving ideas
is a spiraling process that is reiterative and can be revisited in the school curricula
at a later date. What children can know about electricity in elementary school canbe reconceptualized and improved on in knowledge building activities in secondary
and university schooling. Moreover, in the real world, contribution to knowledge isacknowledged by new ideas or improving on them, not by emulating or reproducing
them, which is what schools often require and assess.
• Knowledge ‘of’ in contrast to knowledge ‘about’This theme of knowledge building depicts the dichotomy between procedural knowledge of something and declarative knowledge about something. Knowledge of something is a richer concept than knowledge about something. In the former case, one canput knowledge into action; in the latter, one can show they know about a topic as intaking a test without knowing how to use it. The heavy reliance on pedagogy aimed attest taking skills to prepare students to have knowledge about topics at the expense ofdeveloping knowledge of topics is the antithesis of knowledge building. Scardamalia
and Bereiter (2006, p.107) draw a pedagogical distinction between the two areas ofknowledge in the classroom. They write, “To be useful outside the limited areas inwhich knowledge about is suﬃcient, knowledge needs to be organized around problems rather than topics (Bereiter, 1992). Through problem solving, students build on
knowledge through ‘learning by doing’ principle.
• Discourse as collaborative problem solving rather than as argumentation
The role of language as a tool for cognitive development and how we behave canFumi Takegami: Teacher Development Through the Metaphorical Construct ofKnowledge Creation35

be seen in the concept of discourse. The sociolinguist Paul Gee wrote “Discourses
are ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts,
values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes” (p. 7). In schooling, forms of discourse are the main ways weconceptualize and communicate our ideas to others, in conversations, writing reports,
making presentations and responding to questions. In debates for instance, Lakoﬀ andJohnson’s (1980) conceptual metaphor of argument as war is relative. War represents
a non-collaborative domain that is mapped on to the debate argument domain. For
example, discourse would be more argumentative as the students are trying to win theargument: I disagree with you, Your point is incorrect, You should agree with my point
because… . In the constructive nature of knowledge building, socialization skills areneeded in collaborative learning problem solving activities. Students could be given
cooperative discoursal phrases while interacting with each other’s ideas, such as,
That’s right and. . ., Interesting, tell me more about that… OK, and how about…, myidea is a little diﬀerent, I might be wrong, but…, It would help us, if we…
• Constructive use of authoritative information
The content of school learning is heavily influenced by information that often comesfrom experts. Knowledge is transmitted to the learners in a top-down approach that expects learners to unquestionably accept and memorize content uncritically. However,in knowledge building, the authoritative texts should be introduced in ways that allow
the learners to construct their own meanings of the text to enrich their understandings. Using collaborative problem-solving activities that have students try to apply theknowledge gained from authoritative texts would oﬀer co-constructive opportunities
for the learners to interact with the ideas presented to them, critically.
• Understanding as an emergent
The emergence of new ideas contributes to knowledge creation. Scardamalia andBereiter’s concept of connectivity mentioned previously is that smaller ideas connect to larger ideas to form robust conceptualizations of knowledge. Vygotsky (1978)
posited that learning itself is a social activity: language is a psychological tool thatmediates an individual’s cognitive development through social interaction. Viewed inthis manner, the individual’s conceptual growth occurs through the social exchangeof ideas to create more complex ideas. An individual’s knowledge or tacit knowledge
emerges through the socialization process and then internalized for richer implicit understandings. In regard to pedagogy, educators need to think in terms of connectivity,

36

熊 本 県 立 大 学 文 学 部 紀 要

第 27 巻2021

to provide opportunities for students to exchange their ideas with others and throughthis dynamic process of interaction emerges the formation and understanding of more
complex concepts.
The six themes of knowledge building pedagogy provide a bridge between theconcept of knowledge creation from the business world and ways to implement it in
the domain of education. The themes are all relative to contemporary social constructivist approaches in education and to the national curriculum goals of the Ministry of
Education. Students are asked to develop critical thinking skills and create their own
solutions from problem solving tasks. Classes in schools, including courses at universities, should be more socially interactive, requiring collaborative activities. In doingso, students are no longer given content to memorize or master, but to find ways toformulate the emergence of ideas by constructing their own meanings of the texts ormaterials they are engaged with. However, these approaches to teaching underpinned
by social constructivism are in contrast to the heavily relied on traditional, transmission model of pedagogy supported by behaviorist principles of learning. Preparing
teachers to make changes from one approach to another can be problematic, and thesolution is in teacher development.
Knowledge creation and teacher development
The knowledge creating concepts found in the work of Nonaka and Takeuchi wereformed to meet the demands of rapidly changing workplaces. In this era of vast
technological change, workers need skills that require them to be self-organizing,
innovative and flexible (Castel, 2010). In schools, teachers as professional are facedwith similar challenges and need the necessary skills themselves to adequately prepare their students when they enter the work world. Hargreaves argued (1999) that
if school curricula aim at knowledge creation, then teachers must renew their approaches to teaching. In his call for the advancement of teacher development to enable “knowledge creating schools” (p.127), he directly linked organizational changes
regarding innovation in the business world to education. He posited that both schools
and industry, high technology firms, especially, have similar characteristics, whichlead to the creation of professional knowledge because they are required to make
rapid changes in a short amount of time. For example, the Ministry of Education
makes policy changes to the national curriculum every ten years as well as ongoingincremental demands to meet the policy within that period.
Hargreaves cited Nonaka and Takeuchi’s work, which he believed “… is themost impressive model of knowledge creation” (p.127). He applied their SECI mod-

Fumi Takegami: Teacher Development Through the Metaphorical Construct ofKnowledge Creation37

el aimed at converting tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge to teacher training at
schools where a teacher with more experience, referred to by Vygotsky (1978) as amore knowledgeable other (MKO), uses her expertise and knowledge in the role of amentor to guide the developmental process of the new teacher to eventually meet her
potential. As a participant in the process, the MKO benefits as well. The following canbe used to visualize how Hargreaves viewed the SECI model in teacher development:
In the SECI model used in teacher development, the aim is knowledge creation and notknowledge transmission. In other words, the model avoids the traditional top-down,craft model of training, in which knowledge of the trainer as a master is transmitted
to the trainee as an apprentice, who is expected to be a passive recipient and learn by
Figure 1.
Adaption of Hargreaves’ view of the SECI model in teacher development
Processes of professional knowledge creation in teacher development

Socialization• Tacit knowledge begins to emerge• Sharing of knowledge also leads tostimulus for reflection by MKO
Combination• The external/internal process experienced by novice
leads to the interplay ofprevious and new ideasthat interact with MKO’s
established ideas.

Externalization• Articulation of knowledge
and experiences leaddirectly to explicit developmental concepts

Internalization• Opportunities for novice
to put discussed ideas(explicit) in action throughlearning by doing.

38

熊 本 県 立 大 学 文 学 部 紀 要

第 27 巻2021

watching. As cited in this paper, respective of declarative and procedural knowledge,
what we can tell what we know is much less than what we actually know. Therefore,
the knowledge creation model allows for the processes of knowledge creation within
the experienced teachers in the role of supervision to tap into their tacit knowledge,
creating a sort of percolation of robust ideas that are converted to find their way tosurface and become explicit to novices. This process not only benefits the novice, but
the MKO mentor as well as the conversion process also stimulates mentors to reflect
on their teaching, which leads to teacher growth. Importantly, the knowledge creation process is initiated by socialization, which underpins the conversion of implicit
knowledge to explicit knowledge. Through the iterative process of sharing ideas,
knowledge is enhanced through a combination of ideas that are constructed from bothnovice and MKO (Takegami, 2020). It is especially significant that similar to theprinciples and aims of knowledge building pedagogy, novices are not seen as passive
participants, but as active co-constructers of their own teacher development.
Discussion
The overall aims of this study were two-fold. First, the study set out to reintroduce
the ideas found in Nonaka and Takeuchi’s SECI model for knowledge creation. In
the business world “what is the bottom line?” is a popular metaphorical phrase. The
phrase comes from accounting and the last figure on a ledger shows either the amountof profit or loss. The phrase has come to mean the ultimate result that can aﬀect thesurvival of a company. In the 21st century, because of factors such as globalization andthe increasing amount digital technology, the ‘bottom line’ for companies is to be innovative, to either keep up or stay ahead of competition. Thus, in this study the SECI
model was used because it reflected a serious bottom line backed by experience andprofessional knowledge in industry to address the processes of knowledge creation.
Further interest in the model came about because the four powerful and interrelated
forces, socialization, externalization, combination and internalization are brought together for innovation. The major thrust of the model is to convert the rich, untappedresource of workers’ tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. The benefits of thisconversion can be metaphorically visualized in Japan, where there is an abundanceof mineral-rich water flowing and percolating beneath the land. When this resource isdiscovered and brought to the surface, hot springs emerge, resulting in many benefits
for both business and pleasure.
Nonaka and Takeuchi’s organizational framework may be especially applicable
to Japan because it was based on the Japanese work culture, which is collaborative,

Fumi Takegami: Teacher Development Through the Metaphorical Construct ofKnowledge Creation

39

community oriented and holds rewarding Confucian values, such as diligence, loyalty
and public mindedness. However, their model is also appealing because it is a breakfrom certain traditional Confucian values of social top-down hierarchy. The recognition and respect of the employees’ tacit knowledge and the role it plays in innovation
is an example of a horizontal approach to management. The import of creating a caring environment to nurture knowledge creation can be found in a follow-up book by
von Krogh, Ichijo, and Nonaka (2000). They mention that in the first book of Nonaka
and Takeuchi, the phrase ‘knowledge management’ is used. They argue that ‘manage’ implies something that needs to be controlled, i.e. managed. The control overworkers by management stifles creativity. In their book, they continue to improve on
knowledge creation model by replacing managing with enabling. They emphasize theconcept of ba, meaning allowing the workers a creative space whether it is mental or
physical to allow for the process of converting tacit knowledge to emerge, leading
to innovation. The idea of allowing a space for creativity for students as opposed to
traditional teacher-centered instruction was stated above as well in knowledge building pedagogy. In addition, ba is also applicable to creating space for new approaches
in teacher development to meet new curriculum demands, such workshops for faculty
development.
In this paper, it was stated that ideas are advanced through connectivity. The motive for this study was to respond to the research inquiry of drawing connections
to the ways processes of a knowledge creation framework designed for innovation
in industry can be applied to school curricula, pedagogy, and teacher development.
Educators should immediately be able to see that the robust concepts found in theknowledge creation framework are directly related to the field of education. First ofall, the organizational framework discussed in this paper is like a visual mappingof the knowledge creating process in industry grounded in philosophical theories,
methods and techniques that are set in motion to be innovative to foresee the demandsof a rapidly changing market and needs of customers. Likewise, a school curriculum
is an organizational framework, a road map or guideline, grounded in theoretical,
epistemological and technical concerns to adequately prepare students with the necessary skills to be active and creative in the work force. In school curricula, innovative
policies are formed, expected goals are set, courses are selected, subjects are labelled
and detailed in a manner that coheres with the overall aims of a curriculum. Thesecurricula areas embody, explicitly, what should be taught, but are implicit in how theyshould be taught. In other words, a curriculum is written and unwritten. The former isa formal document and the latter hidden. The hidden aspect of the curriculum can be

40

熊 本 県 立 大 学 文 学 部 紀 要

第 27 巻

2021

noted in how teachers interpret the level of implementation of the expected criteria; intheir tacit knowledge of what can be carried out in practice. Therefore, if curriculum
planners expect successful implementation of innovative policies, teacher preparationis needed. In short, they must first recognize the importance of teachers’ tacit knowledge as a valuable resource and this must be addressed with teacher development.
Adequate teacher development is needed to prepare teachers for the necessary
skills to teach knowledge creation in schooling. In my own experience of having morethan 30 years of teaching experience working on curricula in secondary schooling,
and now at the tertiary level, I have found that the ‘how’ of teaching cannot be overlooked. New innovations created in curricula need appropriate teaching approaches
to carry them out. Nonaka and Takeuchi’s framework as shown in this study apply
learning concepts that are applicable to contemporary theories and methods in education that reflect the trends of policies that emerge from the Ministry of Education.
At the national level and in boards of education there are calls for active learning
approaches and the development of critical thinking skills involving students in problem solving activities. These goals are found in knowledge building pedagogy aimed
not at mastery of skills, but at idea innovation. However, the challenge will be to
overcome a heavily reliance on approaches to teaching and learning that emphasize‘active’ teacher centered, lecture type instruction and on the other end are students as‘passive’ recipients of the knowledge being transmitted. This environment puts limitations on knowledge creation or building.
In the following, I designed an original model underpinned by Nonaka and
Takeuchi’s notion to convert tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge and the principles
found in the knowledge building pedagogy. The aim of the model is to inform teacher
development.

Fumi Takegami: Teacher Development Through the Metaphorical Construct ofKnowledge Creation

41

Table 2.
Theory to practice model for knowledge creation and building for teacher development
Learning theory

In Principle

In practiceSocial Cultural Theo- Language has a dualryfunction as a tool for(Vygotsky)
communication and forcognitive development.

Learning occurs through social
interaction that triggers theexternal-internal developmental
processes .

Teaching approach

In Principle

In practiceSocial Constructivism

Educational approachfounded on Vygotsky’s
work that learning issocial.

Classroom is a community ofpractice where students engage
in student-centered activities
promoting the external-internal
developmental process throughexchanging ideas.

Teaching method

In Principle

In practiceCollaborative Learn- Distinct from individualing
learning, collaborating
students can profit fromsharing information andknowledge.

Problem solving interactive
group activities, which have ashared common goal to provide
opportunities for learners tocooperate and not compete witheach other.

Teaching techniques In Principle

In practiceCo-operative learning

Students are given tasks that require diﬀerent roles and responsibilities of students on a team to
perform.

Development of teambuilding skills in whichlearners are accountableto each other.

Subject content ex- In Principle
amples: EFL course
Vertical Farming

In practice

Innovative future concept Plan a vertical farm structure andthink about production, design,cost, and limitations. Negotiate solutions and find common
ground. Then present your ideas.

Waste and Recycling Authentic problem thatneeds innovative ideas

Plan how to reduce waste, what
do with the rest of waste, how
to motivate the community tofollow your plan and think about
design, cost, limitations. Negotiate solutions and find common
ground. Present your ideas.

42

熊 本 県 立 大 学 文 学 部 紀 要

第 27 巻2021

The above illustrates a cohering model from theory to practice, firstly, supported bysocial cultural theory as mentioned, originated by the work of Lev Vygotsky, a Russianchild developmental psychologist (whose ideas were repressed during Stalinist Russia
and since emerged in 1978). A major contribution to the classroom is that learning
emerges through interaction with the community or one’s culture and is socially mediated through language, which operates as a psychological tool for purposes of a dualrole of expressing and cognitively developing one’s thoughts. Social constructivism
is the realization of social cultural theory in the field of education. Both collaborative
learning and cooperative learning cohere with principles of social cultural theory andsocial constructivism, bringing them closer to the classroom. Finally, two activities
are presented from an EFL class as coherent examples of knowledge creation andbuilding activities. The model oﬀers possibilities for ways to incorporate the SECI
model for the conversion of tacit knowledge that students bring with them in a learning environment to become explicit for idea improvement. In this way, Nonaka and
Takeuchi’s organizational framework has informed teacher development as way tovisualize knowledge building and meet the future demands and courses of school
curricula.
Conclusion
This study acknowledged the power of metaphor to form conceptualizations that help
to better inform our knowledge. Metaphors cross one domain with another, whichlead to more robust insights or ways of thinking. In a sense, conceptual metaphorslead to reconceptualizations that help us to see things diﬀerently. Mapping the knowledge creation framework used in the business world on to the domain of education toreconceptualize areas of education was the motivation for this study. The purpose wasto make the case for educational planners to reconceptualize curricula aims that go
beyond knowledge transmission or mastery of subject content to the goals of knowledge creation and idea innovation.
First, the knowledge creation framework of Nonaka and Takeuchi was used to
draw parallels to education. Principles of their framework are rooted in Japanese philosophy of oneness with others. They bring this collective value into their model.
Company employees are not minimized as individual skilled workers who keep theirheads down and do their job. Instead, they are metaphorically looked at as a collective
resource with rich, percolating tacit knowledge hidden within, and if brought to thesurface for conversion will lead to valuable explicit knowledge leading to innovation and company gain. The SECI modes they use bring together principles found inFumi Takegami: Teacher Development Through the Metaphorical Construct ofKnowledge Creation

43

learning. Socialization creates a collective climate conducive to sharing knowledge
that leads to the bubbling up of ideas to the surface and made public. The social
component creates an atmosphere for implicit knowledge to be converted to explicit
knowledge. The process is furthered by the company staﬀ at all levels combining their
explicit professional knowledge. The outcomes of the model result in the formation ofa work culture that leads to idea innovation and knowledge creation.
The premise of this study was to show that idea innovation and knowledge creation should also be the role of education. Knowledge building pedagogy was shown
as a means to map a conceptual framework used in the business community onto thedomain of education. In Scardamalia and Bereiter’s knowledge building approach,the aim was knowledge creation and idea innovation and not knowledge transmission. They argued that at best a knowledge transmission approach gets students tomaster or achieve the knowledge they were taught, but does not go beyond to knowledge creation. Like Nonaka and Takeuchi, their approach was to recognize students’tacit knowledge as a valuable resource that needs to be explicitly converted throughproviding opportunities to engage them in content with a pedagogy aimed at going
beyond understanding to idea improvement. In the latter case, knowledge building isin harmony with the educational aims of the Ministry of Education. They both aim at
the development of critical thinking skills and potential for idea innovation througha collective environment of team cooperation and deeper reflection on topics throughproblem solving activities. Learners work together in student centered classes, sharing ideas with each other, generating new ideas and then presenting them. Knowledge
building pedagogy enables a ‘learning by doing’ community of learning atmosphere.
Moreover, the teacher is metaphorically seen as an enabler and not a classroom manager to control the environment, which can suppress the atmosphere for knowledge
building.
However, as pointed out in this paper, knowledge building pedagogy is in contrast
to traditional teacher-centered teaching approaches that are deeply engaged in knowledge transmission. An outcome of this study was that if curricula planners want toincorporate further courses aimed at knowledge creation, then they must consider thatteachers have to change their teaching approaches to be more reflective of knowledge
building. Two teacher developmental models were presented in this study. First, ateacher development model in practice at school sites (see Figure 1.) directly applied
the SECI framework. Next, a broader theory to practice model for general teacher development to introduce important explicit and contemporary professional knowledge
for teacher training at university or board of education seminars was given (Table 2.).

44

熊 本 県 立 大 学 文 学 部 紀 要

第 27 巻2021

Finally, in this 21st century, the future is quickly advancing toward us. It will comeat a rapid and dynamic pace, and it will mean everchanging challenges for schooling.
In this information age, companies are already reconceptualizing organizational systems that enable their workers to be idea innovators. Accordingly, and in metaphoricalterms, formal education, which begins with schooling, is the fertile domain where theseeds of knowledge creation should be planted and nurtured. Therefore, the systemsof the two domains in business and in education, respectively are linked, and richconceptualizations can be formed by learning from each other.
“The locus of metaphor is not in language at all, but in the way we conceptualize
one mental domain in terms of another”—George Lakoﬀ (1993)

References
Bereiter, C. (1992). Referent-centered and problem-centered knowledge: Elements of an
educational epistemology. Interchange, 23, 337-362.
Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society – The information age: Economy, society
and culture (2nd ed.). West Sussex: Wiley.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer
Press.
Hargreaves, D. (1999). The knowledge-creating school. British Journal of Educational Studies,47 (2), 122–144.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor
and thought(p. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781139173865.013
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: The Universityof Chicago Press,1980.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McMahon, M. (1997, December). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web - A
Paradigm for Learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference. Perth, Australia.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge-creating company: How Japanesecompanies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor – An emergent
epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14(6),35–557.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge.

Fumi Takegami: Teacher Development Through the Metaphorical Construct ofKnowledge Creation

45

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge Towards a post-critical philosophy. London
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, andtechnology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Takegami, F. (2020). Identifying Existing Positive Disharmonies for Reconstructing Teaching
Practice: A Case Study in Japan. International Journal of Education, 12 ( 2), 46-66,
https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v12i2.16885
Tan S.C., Tan Y.H. (2014) Perspectives of knowledge creation and implications for education.
In: Tan S., So H., Yeo J. (eds) Knowledge Creation in Education. Education Innovation
Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-047-6_2
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling Knowledge Creation. How to
Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation. Oxford
University Press, Inc., New York.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.