Introduction

Among the different approaches to human development that are currently known, it becomes apparent that knowledge is present in various spheres of people’s social and subjective lives, enabling the advancement of society as a whole (^{Feitosa, 2015}). Understanding how this knowledge consolidates from these realities provides a concrete framework for understanding the evolution of the organizations that make up society. Knowledge Management (KM), in this sense, comes into play as a tool and/or practice that contributes to the development of organizational culture through strategies that allow for the extraction, management, and manipulation of knowledge present in the agents that integrate the organization’s environment (^{Nunes, 2013}). ^{Dalkir (2017}) emphasizes that, although there is no general definition of KM, professionals in the field mostly agree that the objective of KM is to add value to the organization.

Without adequate communication and sharing of information among the agents of Distance Education (DE) who construct learning content - tutors, teachers, educational designers, and coordinators - knowledge can reach students in a weakened and/or fragmented manner through existing channels such as classes, educational material, the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), and contact with teachers, as indicated by ^{Schuelter (2010}) and ^{Nunes (2013}).

In this aspect, knowledge sharing comes to the forefront as an intangible asset that contributes to the evolution of the organization as a whole (^{Choo, 2006}), by providing support for the construction of communication processes within organizations. When discussing organizational culture, the relationship between the agents that comprise the organization and the relevance of the socialization of the knowledge that each agent possesses, which allows for the progress of organizational culture, is implied (^{Dalkir, 2005}). For the present research, knowledge sharing is understood as the action of converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, as well as following the theory of ^{Takeuchi and Nonaka (2008}).

Considering different organizations, institutions offering Distance Education (DE) have stood out for presenting structured and organized teaching in accordance with the advent of information and communication technologies (^{Brazil, 2007}). However, for DE teaching to effectively flourish, there needs to be coordination among the sectors that plan, create, and provide content for students, who are seen as the final agents of the system (^{Lenzi, 2014}).

At the core of the proposal of the object of study of this research, the agents that integrate Distance Education (DE) are distinguished, divided into face-to-face and distance tutoring, course coordination, content teachers, materials team, and administrative staff - based on the definitions present in the quality document of DE (^{Brazil, 2007}). Thus, the Higher Education Institution (HEI) of the case study presents the following organization for its collaborators:

Offline tutoring, comprised of:

offline tutor: responsible for correcting activities and providing feedback to students through the online platform;

manager: responsible for managing the offline tutor team in the development of their activities; and

supervisor: responsible for maintaining the standard of quality and performance of the offline tutors’ work.

Agents of course coordination, comprised of:

manager: responsible for managing the offline tutor team in the development of their activities;

coordinator: responsible for the undergraduate course, as well as for the entire political-pedagogical project and teaching plan;

formative teacher: responsible for teaching classes and creating assessment activities;

online tutor: responsible for direct communication with the student, addressing doubts regarding the content provided by the courses; and

pedagogical tutor: provides assistance to the coordinator in the development of course strategies and attends to students with operational issues.

Through the assistance of offline tutors, students receive support for resolving operational and pedagogical issues, becoming active participants in the pedagogical practice (^{Brazil, 2007}). A successful execution of processes implies intrasectoral synergy, meaning the execution of activities carried out by offline tutors enables knowledge sharing and, consequently, the resolution of adversities that arise throughout the processes.

The relationship between sectors focuses on sharing between offline tutors and course coordination agents, namely course coordinators, online tutors, pedagogical tutors, and formative teachers. Communication among these agents and offline tutors determines the smooth operation of communication processes within the institution, facilitating seamless communication (^{Bentes, 2009}). In this sense, ^{Moresi and Mendes (2010}) assert that knowledge sharing in the organizational environment is directly related to organizational culture and intellectual capital management.

Regarding the above, it is worth noting that the general objective of this research was to analyze the communication processes and knowledge sharing among professionals in Distance Education (DE) who develop content, activities, and assessments, as well as professionals responsible for correcting and providing feedback to students. In ^{Calvi (2019}), an analysis of the intra- and inter-sectoral relationships is presented. This article focuses on presenting an analysis of the communication and knowledge-sharing process between offline tutors and course agents.

Methodology

The research is applied with a quantitative approach (^{Santos, 2005}; ^{Fleury & Werlang, 2016}). To meet the proposed objective, descriptive-exploratory research was conducted at a Higher Education Institution (HEI) for the case study (^{Sampieri, Collado, & Lucio, 2006}; ^{Gil, 2010}; Fleury & Werlang, 2016). The research is descriptive-exploratory because there are gaps regarding the delineation of DE communication processes and how the system’s structure contributes to the sharing among its professionals.

Because it is an investigation involving the participation of active subjects in the HEI of the case study, it is emphasized that it was necessary to ensure the standards and ethical rules of the research. Therefore, the methodological proposal, the methodological procedures, and the research instrument were submitted for evaluation by an Ethics and Research Committee, approved under the number CAAE: 18189119.2.0000.5539. Following the research approval by the Ethics Committee, a pre-test involving a small portion of offline tutors and course coordination agents was conducted. It is noted that the responses obtained in the pre-test were validated and subsequently published in a scientific congress (^{Calvi, Almeida, & Dal Forno, 2020}).

Data collection was conducted through an online questionnaire, with the assistance of the Google Forms platform, to understand the knowledge-sharing process among agents in the offline tutoring sector, as well as among course coordination agents at the Higher Education Institution (HEI).

The sample size collected was 107 respondents, aiming to achieve a 5% margin of error and have a 90% confidence level. The responses to the questions are multiple-choice, dichotomous, or on a Likert scale. For Likert scale responses, weights were calculated through weighted average, where the weight assigned to each response is presented in Table 1.

Next, for responses on the Likert scale, an attempt was made to determine the level of satisfaction/adherence of the respondents, according to the specified range of values in Table 2.

Finally, the data was analyzed, and a proposal was developed to enhance the communication and sharing system among DE agents.

Results and discussion

The structure of the questionnaire applied to coordinators, tutors, pedagogical tutors, and formative teachers consists of eighteen objective questions available on the Google Forms platform, in 2019, with a more homogeneous sample. The questionnaire was configured to ensure the confidentiality of respondents and was sent via email. Table 3 presents the sample size, margin of error, and confidence level obtained; following this section, the collected data and their interpretation are presented through quantitative analysis.

Information regarding ‘work experience, area of expertise, and training and qualifications’ was obtained through questions 1, 1.1, 2, 3, 3.1, and 4, as shown in Table 4. It is noted that the questions inquire about the role of the agents, their tenure at the institution, their area of expertise, and the training and qualifications received.

Figure 1 presents the responses to question 1; however, the number of participants who responded to the questionnaire was 20 (18.7%) coordinators out of a total of 27 employees in the institution; 6 (5.6%) pedagogical tutors out of a total of 17 employees in the institution; 14 (13.1%) formative teachers out of a total of 102 employees in the institution; and 67 (62.6%) online tutors out of a total of 129 employees in the institution.

In Figure 1, there is a low participation rate of formative teachers in the survey: only 13.1% of respondents, out of a total of 102 formative teachers. This may be an initial indication of their involvement and participation in the communication process, considering that the work regime of formative teachers differs from the other surveyed agents, as they are less frequently present in the DE sector. However, their role in developing activities and preparing classes is crucial for the student’s learning process.

It is worth noting that the number of professionals is linked to the specific demands that each of them assumes in the institution. Therefore, the number of formative teachers and online tutors is proportional to the number of students in each course. Hence, if a course accommodates two thousand enrolled students, it will have a higher number of online tutors and formative teachers available to students compared to a course with five hundred enrolled students.

Figure 2 presents the responses to question 1.1, which aims to discover how long the agents have been working at the institution. It can be observed that the percentages in this graph show that 70.1% of the agents have been working at the institution for more than one year. This data indicates that the respondents have experience in their roles and a clear understanding of the communication process, contributing to the research results.

Figure 3 presents the responses to question 2, demonstrating strong participation from agents in all areas of knowledge at the institution. The number of respondents by area was: 16 (7.5%) agents from the education field; 11 (10.3%) agents from the engineering field; 45 (42.1%) agents from the management field; 11 (10.35%) agents from the design field; 2 (1.9%) agents from the food and beverage field; 8 (7.5%) agents from the health and wellness field; 12 (11.2%) agents from the technology field; 2 (1.9%) agents from the social responsibility field. It is noteworthy that this graph shows a diversification of respondents, indicating good participation from all areas of the research.

Next, the dichotomous questions 3 and 3.1 aim to verify whether: (i) the agents underwent any specific training/qualification before performing their duties; and (ii) they meet the needs for carrying out their activities. For question 3, it was noted that 73 agents (68.2%) underwent specific training. Following this, question 3.1 emphasizes that 69 agents (84.1%) indicated that these training/qualifications contributed to the execution of their tasks. Thus, the importance of undergoing specific training is evident, allowing individuals to experience the practice of tasks that will be performed.

The responses to question 4 indicate the relevance of periodic improvements (workshops, lectures, and workshops) for course agents. As shown in Figure 4, it is highlighted that 57% correspond to 61 respondents; 29% correspond to 31 respondents; 9.3% correspond to 10 respondents; and 4.7% correspond to 5 respondents. Following the parameters presented in Table 2, the value of 3.81 is reached, indicating a strong level of satisfaction/adherence from the agents regarding the conducted training sessions; it also demonstrates the awareness of periodic improvements by the agents involved in the courses.

Information regarding ‘the relationship between agents for problem-solving and pedagogical adversities during the development of activities’ was obtained through questions 4, 5, 5.1, 6, and 6.1, as presented in Table 5.

Questions 5 and 5.1 respectively verify if the employees have faced difficulties in performing their tasks due to a lack of knowledge about the subject to be assessed; also, if they request assistance from a colleague to solve them. The results of question 5 indicate that 87% of employees (81.3%) have faced pedagogical adversities.

Figure 5 presents the responses to question 5.1; it is emphasized that 57.3% correspond to 55 respondents; 27.1% correspond to 26 respondents; 13.5% correspond to 13 respondents; and 2.1% correspond to 2 respondents. According to the parameters presented in Table 2, the value of 3.92 indicates a strong level for solving adversities that arise among employees.

Figure 6 presents the responses to question 6, which seeks to understand if employees can define a strategy after receiving help from other colleagues. It is noted that 60.4% correspond to 64 respondents; 37.7% correspond to 40 respondents; and 1.9% correspond to 2 respondents. According to the parameters presented in Table 2, the value of 4.54 indicates a strong level of strategy definition for problem-solving.

From these results, it is observed that there is collaborative work among the agents in the course coordination sector. This collaborative activity is linked to the concept proposed by ^{Takeuchi and Nonaka (2008}), ^{Nunes (2013}), ^{Cheng and Lee (2016}), among other authors, who indicate that collaborative work contributes not only to the creation of intellectual capital but also to the development of individuals within teams.

Question 6.1 aims to discover which professionals the course agents turn to for problem-solving. In Figure 7, it is noted that the online tutor (50.5%) is the most requested for problem-solving, followed by the coordinator (11.2%) for issue resolution. This is indicative that the online tutor is capable of solving certain problems. However, not all issues can be resolved by the online tutor alone; the support of other professionals involved is necessary. The pedagogical tutor (14%) emerges third in the hierarchical line, followed by the formative teacher (9.3%), responsible for question development.

Information regarding ‘the relationship between course agents and offline tutors’ was obtained through questions 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, as presented in Table 6.

Question 7 seeks to determine how agents classify knowledge sharing between them and offline tutors. The percentages for this question show that 39 agents (36.4%) classified it as excellent; 34 agents (31.8%) as sufficient; 19 agents (17.8%) as good; 11 agents (10.3%) as insufficient; and 4 agents (3.7%) as nonexistent. According to Table 2, the value of 3.54 indicates a medium level, thus it can be stated that knowledge sharing occurs between agents and offline tutors. By further observing question 7 and considering the professionals - course coordinator, online tutor, pedagogical tutor, and formative teacher - individually, it is possible to analyze the type of relationship each of them has with the offline tutor. Thus, out of a total of 107 respondents in the survey: 20 (18.69%) are coordinators; 67 (62.61%) are online tutors; 14 (13.1%) are formative teachers; and 6 (5.6%) are pedagogical tutors. Furthermore, Figure 8 demonstrates that it is possible to establish classification percentages of sharing between the relationship of offline tutors with coordinators, online tutors, formative teachers, and pedagogical tutors. Therefore, according to Table 2, the following is analyzed:

Coordinators: The value of 3.30 indicates a medium level, therefore, knowledge sharing should be enhanced, and the relationship between offline tutors and coordinators can be improved. One suggestion would be to encourage sharing meetings between offline tutors and coordinators to discuss pedagogical challenges faced during assessments, as well as for course development strategies;

Online tutors: The value of 3.64 indicates a strong level. Therefore, there is good knowledge sharing between offline tutors and online tutors;

Formative teachers: The value of 3.21 indicates a medium level, showing a sharing that could be enhanced between offline tutors and formative teachers;

Pedagogical tutors: The value of 4.0 indicates a strong level. Thus, there is good sharing among these professionals.

All these data on the classification of knowledge sharing align with what ^{Wiig (1999}), ^{Ipe (2003}), and ^{Lin (2007}) emphasize: the accumulation of knowledge and its accessibility is one of the main functions of conscious knowledge organization; when there is an incentive to share, everyone benefits.

Question 8 seeks to understand if the offline tutor requests the participation of course agents to discuss pedagogical difficulties/doubts. It is observed that the overall percentages of the questions show that 27 agents (25.7%) discuss inconsistencies and/or pedagogical difficulties; 27 agents (25.7%) usually; 21 agents (20%) almost always; 21 agents (20%) sometimes; and 9 agents (8.6%) never. According to the parameters presented in Table 2, the value of 3.28 indicates a medium level for the frequency with which the offline tutor seeks course agents to discuss pedagogical difficulties. It is emphasized that the relationship of the offline tutor with each of the agents is different when analyzed separately. Therefore, according to the data in Figure 9 and Table 2, the following information is obtained:

Offline tutors and coordinators: The value of 2.95 indicates a medium level, and the relationship can be enhanced for discussing adversities;

Offline tutors and online tutors: The value of 3.52 indicates a medium level, and the relationship between these tutors can be facilitated and improved;

Offline tutors and formative teachers: The value of 2.64 indicates a medium level. There is also a relationship for problem-solving, but it could be enhanced;

Offline tutors and pedagogical tutors: The value of 3.33 indicates a medium level, and there is a good relationship between them, which, however, could be improved.

Upon analyzing this data, it is concluded that the relationship of sharing and exchanging experiences in the development of activities can be worked on and encouraged by the HEI, aiming for this exchange to become more frequent and, consequently, improve everyone's experience with the communication process, as advocated by the works of ^{Nunes, Pacheco, Nakayama, Melo, and Rissi (2011}) and ^{Bento (2016}).

Question 9 aims to verify if, when the offline tutor requested help from the course agents - coordinator, online tutor, pedagogical tutor, and formative teacher - the situation was resolved. It is noted that 71 respondents (66.4%) indicate ‘always’; 22 respondents (20.6%) indicate ‘most of the time’; 10 respondents (9.3%) indicate ‘usually’; and 4 respondents (3.7%) indicate ‘never’. According to Table 2, the value of 4.46 indicates a strong level of the frequency with which problems were solved when the offline tutor sought help from any of the course collaborators.

In Figure 10, it is observed that adversities are resolved when shared. This not only ensures the prevention of problems but also integrates essential sectors for the elaboration and development of materials, classes, and activities that students receive. In this sense, the works of ^{Lin (2007}) and ^{Takeuchi and Nonaka (2008}, p. 65) elucidate that “[…] organizational knowledge creation should be understood as a process that organically expands the knowledge created by individuals, crystallizing them as part of the organization’s knowledge network”.

Question 10 checks if the agents would like to receive notifications about pedagogical problems that occur during the development of activities by the students; it also asks to indicate, among available options, which subjects they would like to be notified about. It is observed in Figure 11 that, among the available alternatives, the interest of the agents is focused on the students’ misunderstanding of questions with double interpretation, with 68 agents (63.6%) reporting cases. In other indicators, for example, feedback on how the activities occurred, 51 agents (47.5%) are registered; in the case of discrepancies in the teaching materials, 49 agents (45.8%) are registered, marking a percentage below average. Even though information like this is relevant for the construction of the syllabus content of the disciplines and, consequently, in the way the student relates to learning, once again, it is necessary to raise awareness among the agents about the importance of these indicators.

The next two questions - 11 and 12, respectively - address the contents of the disciplines that could be enhanced through the sharing of knowledge between the agents and the offline tutors, as well as whether the formative teachers are interested in knowing about the performance of the students in the discipline they taught. According to Figure 12 and Table 2, considering that 44 respondents correspond to 41.1%, 39 to 36.4%, 17 to 15.9%, 6 to 5.6%, and 1 to 0.9%, the value of 4.11 is obtained, indicating a strong level of how sharing knowledge can enhance the content of the disciplines.

Question 12 aims to analyze whether there is an interest on the part of the formative teacher of the discipline regarding the performance of the students through the activities developed by them. According to Figure 13 and Table 2, considering that 39 respondents correspond to 36.4%, 22 to 20.6%, 20 to 18.7%, 17 to 15.9%, and 9 to 8.4%, the value of 2.97 is obtained, indicating a medium level of interest of the formative teachers regarding the performance of the students in the disciplines they teach.

Table 7, with questions 13 and 14, is directly related to Knowledge Management (KM) themes regarding the identification of practices and tools, as well as existing barriers in the organizational environment.

Barriers, practices, and tools of KM

Therefore, question 13 deals with the barriers to carrying out activities and sharing. It is observed in Figure 14 that, among the available alternatives, those that stand out are: bureaucracy or hierarchy, with 49 respondents (45.8%), and resistance from individuals involved in the process, with 40 respondents (37.4%). This leads to the perception that the development of strategies to facilitate knowledge-sharing among offline tutors can enable a change in the ways communication and knowledge-sharing processes occur within the HEI, as reported by ^{Disterer (2001}), ^{Ipe (2003}), ^{Ghani (2009}), ^{Lenzi (2014}), and ^{Cheng and Lee (2016}), among other authors, mentioning the relevance of building the organizational climate for processes and sharing among agents to happen effectively.

Question 14 provides twenty-two knowledge management (KM) methods and tools from the ^{Asian Productivity Organization (APO, 2020}) so that agents could identify which ones are present in their daily activities and intra and intersectoral relationships. The results shown in Figure 15 indicate that among the KM practices and tools aimed at knowledge sharing, those with the lower incidence among offline tutors are: 15 agents (14%) - storytelling; 17 agents (15.9%) - knowledge portal; and 17 agents (15.9%) - knowledge bases. In contrast, the practices and tools with higher incidence were: 89 agents (83%) - peer assistance; and 68 agents (63.6%) - mentoring. It is observed that, based on these percentages, the coordination of assessment tutoring and supervisors can promote dynamics that use these practices to ensure communication and knowledge sharing among offline tutors.

From all the answers presented in the questionnaire, the process of communication and sharing in the intra and intersectoral relationship from the perspective of course agents is outlined. Table 8 presents an overall diagnosis of the research results.

Considering the summary presented in Table 8, what stands out is the reflection on improving/expanding the process in the intrasectoral relationship: the need for more frequent training sessions for the development of question banks in which teacher trainers, pedagogical tutors, online tutors, and coordinators should participate. Still in relation to improvements aimed at the intrasectorial process, strategies should be devised to bring the communication process of the educational institution closer to teacher trainers. In the intersectoral relationship, points were also identified aimed at developing strategies for holding regular meetings between agents and offline tutoring, to integrate sectors and, consequently, reducing bureaucracy in the communication process.

Final considerations

From the synthesis of the questionnaire diagnosis of course agents and the content analysis of their general perceptions about the communication and knowledge-sharing process, the reflection emphasizes the improvement/expansion of the intrasectoral relationship where all course agents, i.e., coordinators, online tutors, pedagogical tutors, and especially teacher trainers, should undergo question bank development training more frequently, as some inconsistencies were identified in activity development. Thus, it is necessary to devise strategies so that teacher trainers become more involved in the institution's communication process and consequently understand the sector’s progress and interaction with other departments. Since these professionals do not work at the institution every day, it is important to define strategies that integrate them more effectively into the process.

Regarding intersectoral relationships, topics contributing to the development of strategies were identified, such as: creating regular meetings between agents and offline tutoring to develop planning strategies aimed at greater integration between sectors; and developing communication techniques to reduce hierarchies in communication - for example, when offline tutors identify pedagogical inconsistencies in corrections, the bureaucratic process will consequently decrease.

However, the presented scenario was modified due to the increasing spread of the novel coronavirus. In the educational sector, higher education institutions needed to review the organization of their departments, and consequently, their processes that previously occurred in person, as they began to occur remotely with the assistance of knowledge-sharing tools.

Telecommuting became a reality for many institutions in various sectors, including education, leading to adherence to this form of work and resulting in adaptations in the communication process of the case study institution. In this sense, professionals in this institution were reallocated, and telecommuting was implemented in the evaluation department, where offline tutors responsible for activity corrections and assessment are located. Taking into account the restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, adjustments in the sectors were made. Therefore, as future work, it is suggested to update the diagnosis of this research to analyze how communication and knowledge-sharing processes occur in telecommuting.