KF

Research Proposal

2003/2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Project Title: Evaluation of a knowledge building discourse

 

 

A practitioner-based enquiry into the effective implementation of knowledge building in the curriculum of an online postgraduate course using a computer-supported intentional learning environment.

 

This project is being carried out by the author, a serving lecturer and academic at the University of Portsmouth, as a practitioner-based enquiry (PBE) into an aspect of her own teaching on a new online unit in the MSc eLearning Technologies course within the Department of Information Systems and Computer Applications. The term knowledge building will be explained in more detail later, but broadly it refers to a pedagogical approach whereby students choose an issue or problem to research, and carry out that research within an environment of debate and discussion to further the knowledge aims of their own group and the wider society (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2002). Ideas are treated as both ‘knowledge objects’ and ‘cultural artefacts’ to be debated and improved by a learning community. Knowledge building (KB) in this sense is supported by a specific software environment  called computer-supported intentional learning environment (CSILE) (Scardamalia, 2004). Knowledge Forumâ (KF) is an example of  such an environment and it will be used in this research project.

 

2. Rationale for the Project

 

2.1 General Aims of this Research

 

This project is the second stage of a PBE which was started in 2001/2002.  The aims of that enquiry were to establish if the KB technique described could be successfully implemented online using a model adapted from face-to-face classroom teaching. This second stages takes some of the findings of the first stage and seeks to remedy specifically the problems identified in the first stage.

 

2.2 Background

 

This research work arose from concerns initially arising from face-to-face teaching of educational technology units on the MSc Information Systems programme in 1998 (King, 2002). It became clear from successive student cohorts that students found it difficult to transfer the theoretical substance of the course to their practical coursework; generally a software artefact for computer-aided learning. During 1998 to 2000, attempts were made to improve the active processing of the course theoretical content by both the introduction of learning journals to improve student reflection and increasingly a more problem-based learning approach to the selection, design and development of the artefact. The outcomes continued to be disappointing. So attempts were made in 2000 to find a more powerful approach, which could be used in online teaching, and met the needs of the recently formed SLONE (Social Learning for Online Networked Environments) research project, funded by HEFCE through an ILT National Teaching Fellowship.

 

The four quadrants in Figure 1. show in turn the development of teaching from the more passive approach, perhaps taken in the past by a traditional lecturing environment, into approaches that promote more active learning (King, 2002). In computing subjects, this would typically comprise small activities based on lecture material. Then problem-solving learning could be regarded as an extension of  this approach but with the advantages that more situated or authentic problems may be set in outline by the tutor, defined by the students according to their own interests; wider in scope so that they extend and integrate specialist areas; and promote collaborative learning in small groups (Boud & Feletti, 1991).  The central shaded area labelled ‘1’ in Figure 3, shows the problem-based learning space occupied by ‘problem-solving learning’.  However this did not solve the original transfer problem because of the basic limitations of ‘activity-based’ learning where the tutor stills establishes the activity emphasis, which in turn defines the range of knowledge needed by the students to complete that activity. What was required was an approach which completed the entirely beneficial learning cycle inherent in Figure 1, where students would loop back from the problem-solving to enquire on new knowledge areas, generating their own activities, finding their own problems.

 

 

 Figure 2 completes the final quadrant with knowledge building. Knowledge building is based on the ‘ideas-centred curriculum’ where students start with ideas as a focus, which are expressed as ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions, and then the students research these ideas, deciding their own knowledge acquisition and possible experiments (activities) and self-generated problems, and in turn more issues and ideas to pursue. It is research focused and facilitates the students in developing their skills of innovation (Bereiter, 2002; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1999). The upper shaded area labelled ‘2’ in Figure 3, shows the problem-based learning space occupied by knowledge building.

 

 

 

 

 

Knowledge building with its focus on problems of explanation which arise for the students from theoretical course material, and which then leads to student research into new knowledge, possibly through experimentation; activities which in turn can generate new problems and new foci of explanation; is essentially collaborative and democratising, and was adopted as a possibly more powerful means of encouraging student engagement with course theoretical material.

 

In addition because of the relatively slow, incremental and reflective nature of knowledge building it was felt to be an excellent approach for online delivery; particularly the asynchronous mode of online discussion; and for this reason was introduced into the Engineering Interactive Learning Applications (DL.EILAM)  unit in the MSc Information Systems programme in Semester 2, 2001/2002, using Knowledge Forumâ (KF)software (King & Scott, 2002).   KF is computer-supported intentional learning environment which has been specifically designed to support knowledge building. Running off a central server at the University of Portsmouth, students can build, access, and amend a database of linked and referenced notes. Such notes can be new, or ‘build-ons’ to existing notes – creating a thread – and there is a facility for the students to pull together ideas from many notes into a summarised position called a ‘rise-above note’. As text and related material (such as images and web links) are placed in notes, they are supported by scaffolds of ‘thinking types’ which allow the students to position their ideas within the research process (Lamon, Reeve & Scardamalia, 2001).  An illustration of a note showing a scaffold can be seen in Figure 4.

 

3. Aims of the Stage 2 PBE

 

The aims are:

 

3.1 Remedy deficiencies identified in Stage 1 of the PBE.

 

These deficiencies took three forms:

 

3.1.1 Content and Structure of Course Activities

 

The student work in KF was controlled and structured by weekly activities in the University Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) called WebCT; all of which were based on course theoretical content, which is this case was learning theory and related topics such as learning cycles and styles. In Stage 1 all the asynchronous discussion took place within KF, including students deciding where the focus of their interests lay for subsequent knowledge building. This gave KF a dual-role, for both everyday knowledge ‘acquisition’ and ‘accretion’ and then later for knowledge building.  While this seems to work in classroom environment, it was  laborious online and also made the transition to ‘pure’ knowledge building more difficult as students needed to switch into a different area of discourse.

 

3.1.2        Quality of Online Moderation

The split in the nature of the use of KF caused problems for the online moderators as, in theory, the aim of knowledge building is to create a community of learners where the online moderator would take a role as both a facilitator but also co-learner.  By starting in a purely facilitation role it was difficult to switch later.

 

3.1.3        Difficulties in learning the KF software environment

Students were placed in the position of gaining skills in two learning environments and working seriously in both simultaneously, which caused difficulties and resulted in many of the good features of KF, such as scaffolds and rise-aboves, being ignored or poorly used.

 

 

 

3.2    To facilitate the successful conclusion of a student collaborative efforts as measured by:

 

3.2 1          Quality of Student Discourse

 

In Stage 1, because of the difficulties already described students were not able to fully develop the research nature of the knowledge building process, and the quality of student discourse varied greatly; much of it little more than ordinary discussion.  The use of ‘thinking types’ in scaffolds was not well exploited in the research process.

 

3.2.2        Efficacy of Student  Discourse

 

Tutors did not intervene in Students in Stage 1 when students sought to reach consensus over key points in KF. The students were left to organise, in their groups, asynchronous discussions as they needed them. Students reported finding that process dispiriting and it reduced their enthusiasm.

 

3.2.3        Student Attitudes to their Own Learning

 

 

As postgraduate students there is a high emphasis placed on critical reflection and evaluation, as well as the development of research skills. In Stage 1, the students were not able to really exploit the knowledge building process to these ends, and appreciate the advantages they may have for their development as learners.

 

 

4. Specific Objectives of Stage 2 of the PBE

 

Applying the findings from the Stage 1 evaluation, curriculum changes will be  implemented in the online unit, “Interface Design for Learning and Cognition” (DL.IDLEP) for Semester 2, 2003/2004 for the student cohort currently in Year 1 of the MSc eLearning Technologies programme.

 

The objectives of Stage 2 will be to evaluate the effectiveness of these changes to see if significant improvements occur in the students experience of knowledge building; their commitment to it; and, overall outcomes from the knowledge building process.

 

The curriculum changes proposed are:

 

·        The re-structuring of weekly activities in WebCT so that all discussions on theoretical content take place in WebCT, with only knowledge building activities moved into KF.

·        An early introduction to the research process in a form that may be most relevant to educational practitioners in elearning, and the theoretical features of knowledge building as a environment for that research.

·        A clear induction phase in KF to the essential features of the software.

·        Specific and early involvement of the students in the use and relevance of scaffolds and the ‘thinking types’ contained in them.

 

5. Research Design

 

This research will be run as a practitioner-based enquiry (PBE) with the author as emoderator and tutor for the KB process. 

 

Major features of PBE in this context are:

 

It is therefore proposed to used a mixed-methods approach, utilising the textual data in the KF database, which lends itself to quantitative analysis techniques, complemented by results from the student learning journals.

 

6. Research Methodology

 

·        Using the Analytic Toolkit on the KF database (Burtis, 2001) to measure the growth in the database over time, particularly with regard to different views created by the students. Compared with the results in 2003, this may give an indication of how differently the students are using the virtual space for different kinds of discourse.

·        Code contents to establish quality of student involvement and KB development. Research data was generated from the KF database in the first phase of research in 2003, viz:

·  frequencies of ‘improving instances’- note pairs in clusters which substantially progressed group understanding or improved ideas – which were a measure of the knowledge building (KB) discourse in the knowledge building community (KBC), compared with the frequencies of other notes or note-pairs. These either introduced new ideas or understandings or, were not part of the KB but were added for encouragement or support, or for student processes such as organising online meetings etc.

·  the use of scaffold supports (either coded by the students or researchers) were mapped against the characteristics of progressive inquiry as an indication of how the nature of that enquiry progressed during the KB process over the 10 weeks of the Semester.

 

It is intended that the same exercise is carried out again using the same coding instructions and the two data sets from 2003 and 2004 compared to see if there is a significant improvement.

 

·        Content analysis of transcripts of online discussions,  and of learning journals for both students and staff to gauge attitudes. These will be compared to similar data obtained in 2003 to gauge changes and possible improvement in student attitudes.

 

·        Telephone interviews  to follow up points arising from above (where necessary).
7. Intended Outcomes

 

Recommendations for ‘best practice’ in the introduction of knowledge building in online courses in higher education.

 

8. Problems or Unintended Outcomes

 

8.1 Ethical issues.

 

 The ethical issues in a PBE of this type are considerable and have been dealt with at some length in the Ethical Approval Form.

 

8.1.1        To summarise, these are the major problems:

 

§          The professional responsibility to improve practice that must be set against the student right not to be compelled to take part in any research study.

§         The problems with informed consent to research with necessarily more vague and changeable research objectives; when students are enrolled on a core unit; when students may feel that their progress on the programme may be threatened by an unwillingness to take part.

§         Objectivity on the part of the tutor during the progress of the taught unit so that research outcomes are not distorted; particularly facilitating students in their own knowledge building enquiries.

8.1.2  The steps taken to address these problems are:

 

Before the start of teaching, the attention of students has been drawn to the following Web documents:

 

 

During the teaching of the unit:

 

 

8. 2 Student time and involvement.

 

The students on this unit are all part-time. Their involvement can vary depending on personal circumstances. Also they have a relatively short period of time to build up a learning community of this type. While these circumstances may be fairly typical of online courses, the author is aware that one problem may be assessing the degree of knowledge building when there has been restricted time to realise its full potential.

 

8.3 Emoderator skill levels

 

One anticipated problem is the need to recognise the high level of training and experience in emoderation that may be required to facilitate online knowledge building and the impact that improved skills of the tutor, over a two year period, may have on research outcomes.

 

9.                  References

 

Bereiter, C. (2002).  Design research for sustained innovation.  Cognitive Studies, Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9, 321-327.

Boud, D. & Feletti, G. (1991).  The Challenge of Problem Based Learning,  Kogan Page.

Burtis, J. (2001). Analytic Toolkit for Knowledge Forum.  Internal Technical Report, OISE, University of Toronto.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical, Falmer Press.

Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change,  Milton Keynes:  Open University Press.

King, T. (2002). Development of Student Skills in Reflective Writing. In Proceedings of the 4th World Conference of the International Consortium for Educational Development in Higher Education, University of Western Australia, Perth, July 3-6. Retrieved February 21, 2004 from Online Refereed Papers, http://www.csd.uwa.edu.au/iced2002/publication/Terry_King.pdf 

King, T. & Scott, H. (2002). Realizing the post-graduate experience in on-line learning.  Paper presentation at IKIT Summer Institute, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada, August 6-9

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis,  Sage Publications.

Lamon, M., Reeve, R. & Scardamalia, M. (2001).  Mapping the growth of deeply principled understandings in a knowledge building community. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.  April. Retrieved January 14, 2004, from OISE, University of Toronto, http://ikit.org/lamon/mapping.html.

Murray, L. & Lawrence, B. (2000).  Practitioner-Based Enquiry; Principles for Postgraduate Research,  Falmer Press.

Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In Education and Technology: An encyclopedia, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1999).  Schools as knowledge building organizations. In D. Keating & C. Hertzman, (Eds.),  Today’s children, tomorrow’s society: The developmental health and wealth of nations (pp. 274-289).  New York:  Guilford.

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2002).  Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.) , New York:  Macmillan Reference, USA.

 

 

 

10.              Bibliography

 

Albanese, M.A. & Mitchell, S. (1993).  Problem-based Learning: A Review of Literature on its Outcomes and Implementation Issues.  Academic Medicine,  68(1), 52-81.

Angeli, C., Valanides, N. & Bonk, C.J. (2003). Communication in a web-based conferencing system: the quality of computer-mediated interactions.  British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 31-43.

Arnseth, H.C., Ludvigsen, S., Wasson, B. & Morch, A. (2001).  Collaboration and Problem Solving in Distributed Collaborative Learning. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Proceedings of the First European Conference on CSCL, Maastricht, the Netherlands: Maastricht McLuhan Institute (pp. 75-82).  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bereiter, C. (1997).  Situated cognition and how to overcome it. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.),  Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives  (pp. 281-300).  Hillsdale, NJ:  Erlbaum.

Bereiter, C. (2002).  Education and mind in the knowledge age,  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),  Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361-392).  Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1996).  Rethinking learning. In D. Olson and N. Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling  (pp. 485-513).  Cambridge, MA:  Basil Blackwell.

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1998).  Beyond Bloom's Taxonomy: Rethinking Knowledge for the Knowledge Age. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.),  International handbook of educational change (pp. 675-692).  Dordrecht:  Kluwer.

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (2000).  Commentary on Part I: Process and product in Problem-Based Learning (PBL) research. In D.H. Evensen & C.E. Hmelo (Eds.),  Problem-Based Learning: A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions (pp. 185-195).  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bereiter, C.& Scardamalia, M. (2003).  Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwhistle, N. & van Merriënboer, J. (Eds.),  Powerful Learning Environments: Unravelling Basic Components and Dimensions,  EARLI Advances in Learning and Instruction Series.

Bielaczyc, K. (2001).  Designing Social Infrastructure: The Challenge of Building Computer-Supported Learning Communities. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Proceedings of the First European Conference on CSCL, Maastricht, the Netherlands: Maastricht McLuhan Institute, ( pp. 106-114).  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Biggs, J. (1999).  Teaching for Quality Learning at University,  SRHE and Open University Press.

Brockbank, A. & McGill, I. (1998).  Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education,  SRHE and Open University.

Chi, M.T.H. (1997).  Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6 (3), 271-315.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000).  Research Methods in Education, 5th Edition, RoutledgeFarmer.

Colliver, J.A. (2000).  Effectiveness of problem-based Learning Curricula: Research and Theory. Academic Medicine, 75(3), 259-266.

Creswell, J.W. (2003).  Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods,  London, UK:  Sage Publications.

Dadds, M. & Hart, S. (2001).  Doing Practitioner Research Differently, RoutledgeFalmer.

Evensen, D.H. & Hmelo, C.E. (Eds.) (2000).  Problem-Based Learning; A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions,  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Frankfort-Nachmias, C. & Nachmias, D. (1996).  Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 5th Edition,  Arnold.

Hakkarainen, K.P.J. (1998).  Epistemology of Scientific Inquiry and Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. PhD Thesis.   Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, University of Toronto. Canada.

Hewitt, J.G. (1996).  Progress Towards a Knowledge Building Community. PhD Thesis.   Graduate Department of Education, University of Toronto. Canada.

Koschmann, T. (2001).  Dewey's Contribution to a Standard of Problem-Based Learning Practice. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Proceedings of the First European Conference on CSCL, Maastricht, the Netherlands: Maastricht McLuhan Institute, (pp. 356-363).  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991).  Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation,  Cambridge University Press.

Lipponen, L. & Hakkarainen, K. (1997).  Developing Culture of Inquiry in Computer-supported Collaborative Learning.  In Proceedings of CSCL '97: The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, OISE, University of Toronto, Dec (pp.164-168). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Macdonald J.  & Twining P. (2002).  Assessing activity–based learning for a networked course.  British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 603-618.

Moon, J.A. (2000). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development,  Kogan Page.

Mulder, I., Swaak, J. & Kessels, J. (2002).  Assessing group learning and shared understanding in technology-mediated interaction.  Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 35-47.

Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. and Hakkarainen, K. (2001).  Characteristics of university students' inquiry in individual and computer-supported collaborative study process. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Proceedings of the First European Conference on CSCL, Maastricht, the Netherlands: Maastricht McLuhan Institute, ( pp. 462-469).  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Oshima, J., Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1996).  Collaborative learning processes associated with high and low conceptual progress.  Instructional Science, 24, 125-155.

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L. and Hakkarainen, K. (2002).  Epistemological Foundations for CSCL: A Comparison of Three Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.),  Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of the Computer-supported Collaborative Learning 2002 Conference  (pp. 24-32).  Hillsdale, NJ:  Erlbaum.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research, Blackwell.

Russell, A. (2002). The role of epistemic agency and knowledge building discourse to foster interprofessional practice in a Canadian hospital.   Symposium conducted at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New Orleans. Session 6.10 . Retrieved January 14, 2004, from OISE, University of Toronto, http://ikit.org/lamon/mapping.html.

Savin-Baden, M. (2000).  Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories,  SRHE and OUP.

Scardamalia, M. (2000).   Can schools enter a knowledge society? In M. Selinger and J. Wynn (Eds.),  Educational technology and the impact on teaching and learning ( pp. 5-9).  Abingdon, Oxon, England:  Research Machines PLC.

Scardamalia, M. (2001).  Getting real about 21st century education.  The Journal of Educational Change, 2, 171-176.

Scardamalia, M. (2002)   Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.),  Liberal education in a knowledge society  (pp. 67-98).  Chicago:  Open Court.

Scardamalia, M. (2003). Going Beyond Best Practice: Knowledge Building Principles and Indicators.  Presentation at IKIT Summer Institute, OISE, University of Toronto, August .

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1996).  Student communities for the advancement of knowledge.  Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 36-37.

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2003).  Beyond brainstorming: Sustained creative work with ideas.  Education Canada, 43(4), 4-7, 44.

Schon, D.A. (1991).  The Reflective Practitioner, Academic Publishing Group.

Van Bruggen, J.M., Kirschner, P.A. & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load.  Learning and Instruction, 12, 121-138.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity,  Cambridge University Press.