CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.5 Research Limitations
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
1.4.2 Systematic Review
Majumder (2015) defined systematic review as a method which systematically searches, identifies, selects, appraises, and synthesizes research evidences relevant to the research questions. Boland, Cherry, and Dickson (2014) viewed the systematic review as synthesizing findings from various studies to investigate similar research questions and draw powerful conclusions supported with evidences. Green (2005) defined systematic review as a scientific method to appraise, summarize, and communicate the findings from numerous research studies. Kitchenham (2004) defined systematic review as a method of identifying, evaluating, and interpreting all relevant research studies to a specific interest topic or particular research questions.
To summarize, systematic review is a research method which systematically searches, identifies, selects, appraises, and synthesizes findings from various studies relevant to
particular research questions. This study adopted the systematic review method to synthesize findings from KB studies which involve pedagogical design and implementation based on KBPs.
1.5 Research Limitations
Egger, Dickersin, and Smith (2008) have summarized several limitations in conducting a systematic review. One of the limitations in conducting a systematic review is related to publication bias. This study only selects published articles from the Scopus database. This study excludes data sources from conference papers, review articles, book chapters, and so forth. Thus, this study is unable to generalize the overall trend in KB studies from different sources of findings. Another limitation is that this study only selects articles published in English. Other language articles related to KB studies are excluded from the search results.
In conclusion, publication bias and language bias are considered as issues of
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
7
conducting a systematic review in this study. Thus, this study adopted the search strategy described in Chapter 3 in order to reduce biases.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
Corresponding to the research questions mentioned in the first chapter, this chapter synthesizes all relevant knowledge building (KB) studies into five sections. The first section is related to KB pedagogy, which is followed by an online learning platform called
Knowledge Forum (KF) (Section 2) and KB tools (Section 3). Section 4 introduces 12 knowledge building principles (KBPs).The final section explores the learning outcomes that have been examined in previous KB studies.
2.1 Knowledge Building Pedagogy
Scardamalia and Bereiter (2010) defined KB as a collaborative process for students to develop their ideas with community members. Hong et al. (2016) highlighted three
fundamental ideas for novice teachers in clarifying KB for constructivist learning. Through understanding these concepts (idea-centered, principle-based, and community-focused), novice teachers are able to implement pedagogical designs based on KBPs in their teaching.
To work with KB pedagogical design, novice teachers have to understand Popper’s World 3 epistemology.
Popper (1978) introduced World 1 as a physical world which subdivides the physical world into non-living physical objects and biological objects. World 2 is a mental or psychological world that focuses on the world of subjective experiences. Hence, Popper distinguishes the psychological world from subconscious experiences. World 3 is a human- mind-products world, which includes languages, scientific theories, stories, and so forth.
Thus, Popper distinguishes the science world from the fiction world. Bereiter (1994) noted that Popper’s World 3 emphasizes two components (knowledge as objects and education as learning to function) in World 3. In other words, students use fundamental knowledge from authoritative sources to construct the meaning of the world. Students generate their ideas
‧
from personal experience to share with their peers.
Being idea-centered is one of the characteristics of KB (Hong et al., 2016). To further explore this characteristic, the concepts of idea-centered and concept-based pedagogy should be clarified first. All traditional pedagogy is marked as a concept-based approach. Teachers are the authoritative source of knowledge. Hence, teachers teach concepts directly from the textbooks. In contrast, inquiry-based pedagogy is marked as an idea-centered approach.
Teachers work as facilitators by providing students with scaffolds to solve authentic problems in learning. Routine expertise and adaptive expertise proposed by Hatano and Inagaki (1986) could distinguish between both concept-based and idea-centered approaches. Teachers from a perspective of routine expertise are concerned with the truth concept from textbooks. Hence, they convey knowledge to students directly from textbooks. However, adaptive expertise teachers encourage students to tinker and adapt emergent diverse ideas rather than being concerned with only the truth concept. Teachers in adaptive teaching believe that students are able to provide diverse ideas in solving authentic problems. Therefore, routine teaching teachers should change their minds and allow students to generate ideas.
On the other hand, KB emphasizes a principle-based approach rather than a
procedure-based approach in sustaining improvement of ideas. By employing principle-based KB, teachers do not rely on script teaching, but rather, they customize their pedagogical design to be more flexible (Zhang, Hong, Scardamalia, Teo, & Morley, 2011). Traditional pedagogy is considered to be procedure-based, where teachers plan the script for their
teaching. Although procedure-based pedagogy allows teachers to follow teaching procedures, there are many emergent situations that happen beyond the script teaching. Undeniably, procedure-based teaching is more effective for teachers who are completing a required syllabus. Unfortunately, it may restrict students’ motivation to learn.
Another characteristic of KB is that it is community-focused (Hong et al., 2016).
‧
Previous KB studies have proven the importance of community-focused teaching. Findings reveal that students who are active in sharing their ideas have a higher intensity of idea improvement (Hong et al., 2016). Scardamalia (2002) pointed out that every student has the responsibility for sharing ideas with other members. In addition, Hong et al. (2016)
emphasized that KB is not individual-focused, but rather community-focused. Collaborative group discussion is a common way to produce diverse ideas. Zhang, Hong, and Scardamalia (2010) added the group dynamic to the KB community, as shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1
Group Dynamic in KB Community Low
Social talk or chat Lack of value, coherence, and utility of ideas
High
participant interaction
Lack of fresh ideas or perspectives
A group of open source programmers work collaboratively and opportunistically with epistemic artifacts
Note. Adapted from “Knowledge Society Network: Toward a Dynamic, Sustained Network for Building Knowledge,” by J. Zhang, H.-Y. Hong, and M. Scardamalia, 2010, Educational Theory and Practice Faculty Scholarship, 4, p.8.
To summarize, KB is an idea-centered practice working with principle-based
pedagogical design within a community-focused environment in order to achieve community goals and sustain improvable ideas. Scardamalia (2004) suggested that Knowledge Forum (KF) can assist learners in promoting KB practice through online.
2.2 Knowledge Forum (KF)
KF is a web-based environment which focuses on learners’ ideas. Differing from traditional teaching and learning, KF provides a flexible space for learners to tinker and produce ideas collaboratively. The design of KF fully supports the implementation of a KB
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
pedagogical design based on KBPs. Scardamalia (2004) noted that KF is not only an online education environment for educators in promoting KB pedagogy. Moreover, KF can be applied in different sectors according to different age groups in a cross-cultural context.
KF has two different interfaces, which consist of a web-based interface and a graphical-based interface (Chan & Chan, 2011). Based on these interfaces, learners can generate personal ideas while analyzing authentic problems within groups. In addition, Chan and Chan suggested that learners can revise their original ideas throughout KB discourse with other members in KF. There are many tools to support learners in generating ideas from authentic problems. The next section will further explore different types of KB tools available for novice teachers.
2.3 Knowledge Building Tools
KB tools are designed to foster KB processes for different purposes. Most KB tools are embedded in KF, including scaffolds, contribution tools, social network tools, semantic overlap tools, a vocabulary analyzer, and writing tools. However, some of the KB tools are not embedded in KF, such as the Knowledge Connection Analyzer (KCA) and Analytic Toolkit (ATK).
2.3.1 Scaffolds
Table 2-3 shows six kinds of scaffolds that help learners to work with their ideas. “My theory” is one of the scaffolds that assist students with organizing their personal thoughts on the emergent authentic problems based on their own prior knowledge and experiences.
Learners can apply the second scaffold, called “I need to understand”, in order to clarify what is needed for sustaining improvable ideas. Hence, another scaffold called “New information”
is needed to find useful information that can help learners generate better ideas. This
‧
information can either be searched for online or participants can seek help from experts or their peers’ opinions. After scanning the information, learners can apply the scaffold called
“This theory cannot explain”. Sometimes information cannot be used in solving authentic problems and hence, learners can use another scaffold, “A better theory”, to analyze which ideas can be used for solving particular problems. Learners can choose the scaffold of
“Putting our knowledge together” by synthesizing personal ideas with supporting information in order to generate better ideas.
Table 2-2
Six Scaffolds in KF
KF scaffold Description
My theory To organize personal thoughts on the emergent authentic problems based on prior knowledge and experience
I need to understand To clarify what is needed to sustain ideas improvement
New information To find useful information that can help learners generate better ideas
This theory cannot explain
To clarify which information cannot be used to solve authentic problems
A better theory To analyze which ideas can be used to solve particular problems Putting our knowledge
together
To synthesize personal ideas with supporting information to generate better ideas
According to Yücel and Usluel (2016), scaffolds in KF play an important role in supporting learners to express their own thoughts. When they are supported by these scaffolds, learners can express their ideas in concrete ways. In addition, Yücel and Usluel also viewed that different scaffolds allow students to generate better ideas when they work collaboratively with peers. Thus, scaffolds in KF can be considered as sharing tools for exchanging information from different perspectives.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2.3.2 Contribution Tool
The contribution tool is designed to measure the quantity of notes posted by learners, especially in measuring both individual and group quality of notes contributed in KF
(Teplovs, Donoahue, Scardamalia, & Philip, 2007). In other words, this KB tool is focused on calculating the number of notes posted and measuring the number of views of other’s notes.
Teplovs et al. mentioned that the contribution tool provides information regarding how learners contribute in a group, but this tool does not provide information on the interactions between learners.
2.3.3 Semantic Overlap Tool
The semantic overlap tool is designed to parse the frequency of similar words that appear in various notes. This tool can help teachers identify the homogeneity of ideas shared among learners within a group (Hong, Scardamalia, Messina, & Teo, 2015). In addition, Hong et al. highlighted how the semantic overlap tool can examine the overlapping keywords on learners’ notes and select evaluative criteria from various resources. In other words, teachers can make use of this tool to examine the similar notes contributed by different learners in a group. Moreover, this tool can identify the overlap terms of learners’ notes from authoritative resources.
2.3.4 Social Network Tool
The social network tool is designed to track the social interactions among learners who contribute notes in KF. This tool can detect the density of social connection among group members based on the frequency of links, annotations, and references in KF (Hong et al., 2015; Teplovs et al., 2007). Hong et al. verified that if a learner is isolated by other members, that is because there is a lack of interaction. For this reason, the social network tool is
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
15
recognized as a powerful social interaction indicator of KB practice in KF.
2.3.5 Vocabulary Analyzer
The vocabulary analyzer is used to measure learners’ vocabulary level growth as the notes build up. This tool provides a standard vocabulary indicator to examine the status of contribution of particular words, especially when learners enter a particular vocabulary into predefined dictionaries (Hong, Scardamalia, Messina, & Teo, 2008; 2015). In other words, the vocabulary analyzer can help learners to further trace their vocabulary usage based on predefined dictionaries. In this case, English teachers can apply this tool to develop a deeper understanding of learners’ vocabulary performance.
2.3.6 Writing Tool
The writing tool is designed to measure the mean length of learners’ sentences in KF.
Therefore, this tool helps overcome the complexity of sentences and seeks for uniqueness of the sentences based on the length of notes contributed by learners (Teplovs et al., 2007). In other words, English teachers can use this tool to examine the different types of learners’
writing style in KF. This tool can also provide insights for English teachers to allow them to adjust their pedagogical design.
2.3.7 Knowledge Connection Analyzer (KCA)
The KCA is a separate online assessment tool that emphasizes analyzing individual roles and collective efforts of students in KF (Yang, van Aalst, & Chan, 2012). Yang et al. applied four questions to assist learners by reflecting their online discourse. For instance, “Are we a community that collaborates?”, “Are we putting our knowledge together?”, “How does the community’s knowledge develop?”, and “What is happening to my own notes?” Based on
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
these statements, Yang et al. suggested that the first three questions are related to analysis of community collective efforts while the last question is related to self-assessment on an individual’s ideas in KB. All four questions correspond to particular KBPs. For instance, the last question of KCA, “What is happening to my own notes” corresponds to the last KBP called concurrent, embedded, and transformative assessment.
2.3.8 Analytic Toolkit (ATK)
ATK is another KB tool that is designed separately from KF. Burtis (as cited in Yücel &
Usluel, 2016) explained that ATK was developed to record log data from individual participation and community interaction during the KB process. ATK has applied various indexes to run a comprehensive database analysis in recording required log data.
Both the KF and KB tools introduced above have a strong connection with knowledge building principles (KBPs). Scardamalia (2004) pointed out that KF is a web-based learning platform which is constructed based on KBPs. KB tools embedded in KF are developed from KBPs. Yang et al. (2012) highlighted question statements that show how KCA are concerned with particular KBPs. Thus, next section will introduce these KBPs in detail.
2.4 Knowledge Building Principles (KBPs)
Scardamalia and Bereiter (2010) summarized 12 KBPs that provide a powerful theoretical framework for this study. Chen and Hong (2016) organized these 12 KBPs into three categories, as shown in Figure 2-1. Each category contains four relevant KBPs. The first category is idea-related KBPs, where learners generate ideas according to these KBPs.
The second category is agent-related KBPs, where learners implement these KBPs to foster KB process. The third category is practice-related KBPs, where learners implement both idea-related and agent-related KBPs to the online and offline pedagogy environment. Table
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
17
2-3 provides a detailed description of each KBP based on these categories.
Figure 2-1 Three Categories of KBPs
Note. Adapted from “Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research,” by B. Chen and H.-Y. Hong, 2016, Educational Psychologist, 51(2), p.272.
‧
Three Categories of KBPs with Description
Category KBP Description
Ideas
Real ideas,
authentic problems
Learners are able to generate concrete ideas that can solve authentic problems that rely on learners understanding the world they live in. In other words, learners need to realize real life problems and generate ideas for solving authentic problems.
Improvable ideas All ideas generated by learners are incomplete notions. Therefore, ideas are improvable when learners work collaboratively in the community.
Idea diversity In the KB process, learners need to pay attention to diverse ideas rather than merely relying on a single idea. Diverse ideas are fundamental to knowledge innovation through distinction and recombination with others’ ideas. Subsequently, learners are able to refine ideas after comparing and contrasting ideas with other members.
Rise above Learners need more comprehensive principles and higher-level formulation of problems to achieve creative KB goals. In other words, learners who work with complex and diverse problems can achieve a higher-level formulation of problems that assists them in moving beyond KB practice.
Agents
Epistemic agency Learners need to pay attention to both personal and collective responsibility for sustaining knowledge advancement. Learners provide their own personal ideas. Meanwhile, they also need to work with others’ ideas. Learners need to negotiate both their own and others’ ideas. Learners need to deal with the problems of goals, motivation, assessment, and systematic planning that are normally left to teachers.
Constructive uses of authoritative sources
To understand a discipline, learners should be aware of the authoritative sources that represent the
current state of knowledge and its frontiers. By respecting these sources, students should develop a critical stance toward them.
‧
KB discourse KB discourse among community members is mainly represented in the form of knowledge sharing. Knowledge itself is refined and transformed through an intellectual discourse among community members which considers community knowledge advancement as an explicit goal.
Concurrent, embedded, and transformative assessment
Assessment is a part of knowledge advancement. It is used to identify knowledge problems embedded in the school. Community members engaging in self-reflection assessments need to be more rigorous than they do with external assessment.
Practices
Community knowledge, collective responsibility
KB is emphasized in order to produce valuable ideas shared with others. Learners have to
contribute their ideas in achieving top-level goals of community. Furthermore, it brings learners
knowledge growth. As a part of a community, learners have to share the collective responsibility in generating ideas among the community.
Democratizing knowledge
All learners are legitimate contributors to the shared goals of community. Therefore, they share the honors when they achieve goals as a member of the community. There are no separations between innovator and non-innovator since all learners are empowered to engage in knowledge innovation.
Symmetric knowledge advancement
Expertise of learners is distributed within and between communities. Knowledge is not solely shared through having more expertise from multiple learners. However, it depends on the amount of participation of learners within and between communities. Distributed expertise of learners is highly valued when they collaboratively participate and exchange their ideas.
Pervasive KB All knowledge is integrated with creative ideas, all tasks and activities are remarked as an occasion of knowledge works. Hence, knowledge innovation extends outside of the school rather than being limited to a particular occasion.
Note. Adapted from “A Brief History of Knowledge Building,” by M. Scardamalia and C.
Bereiter, 2010, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36, p.9-11.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
There are abundant research findings showing the effectiveness of pedagogical design and implementation based on KBPs. The three categories of learning outcomes in KB studies are presented in the next section.
2.5 Related Studies on Learning Outcomes 2.5.1 Cognitive Domain Outcomes
Cesareni, Cacciamani, and Fujita (2016) discovered significant differences between role takers and non-role takers on writing and reading activities. Results showed that role takers perform better in writing and reading compared to non-role takers in post-test. In other words,
Cesareni, Cacciamani, and Fujita (2016) discovered significant differences between role takers and non-role takers on writing and reading activities. Results showed that role takers perform better in writing and reading compared to non-role takers in post-test. In other words,