etec 530 artifact

The Use of Knowledge Building Communities in the Classroom

The Use of Knowledge Building Communities

in the Classroom

Svetlana Gibson

University of British Columbia

ETEC 530

Diana Janes

March 4, 2007

1


Introduction

With the constant barrage of information being thrown at the young and developing

minds of our students it is clear that teachers can no longer serve as repositories of

knowledge but must act as facilitators and coaches in knowledge searches, retrieval and

development. Bereiter and Scardamalia argued that the “Knowledge Age” we are

currently living in “requires increased capacity for innovation, and they suggest that the

knowledge building perspective is one vehicle for moving in that direction.” (Hill,

Cummings, & van Aalst, 2003, p. 4) Knowledge building is a social constructivist

approach to education that is based on the process of expertise in which discourse to

improve communal ideas over time is central. With computers becoming the norm and

not the exception in virtually every classroom, it is time that teachers start to shift their

pedagogical views towards not only incorporating computers in their every-day teaching

but in allowing the students to become owners of their own learning. Using knowledge

building communities in the classroom would allow students to contribute to existing

knowledge. This change must go beyond the classroom and encompass the whole

school. Scardamalia and Bereiter believe that “schools need to be restructured as

communities in which the construction of knowledge is supported as a collective goal,

and the role of educational technology should be to replace classroom discourse patterns

with those having more immediate and natural extensions to knowledge-building

communities outside school walls.” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, p.265) Computer-

supported intentional learning environment (CSILE) is being proposed by Scardamalia

2


and Bereiter as a means for restructuring classroom discourse to ‘support knowledge

building in ways extensible to out-of-school knowledge-advancing enterprises.”

(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, p.265)

Theoretical Background

After researching on the writing process and the process of expertise, Bereiter and

Scardamalia began arguing for educational perspective they call knowledge building.

The knowledge building perspective attempts to make the processes that experts use to

approach new learning central in education in a variety of contexts, including K-12

education, health education, and teacher education. “These processes involve what

Bereiter and Scardamalia have referred to as ‘epistemic agency’, which says that students

can identify gaps in their understanding and take the steps necessary for closing these

gaps; and progressive problem solving (students reinvest learning resources in

understanding a problem at progressively deeper levels).” (Hill, C., Cummings, M., &

van Aalst, 2003, p.3). The epistemological notion that knowledge is not static and certain

but can be improved over time, is also key. Bereiter and Scardamalia have been arguing

that the era that we live in—the so-called “Knowledge Age”—requires increased capacity

for innovation, and they suggest that the knowledge building perspective is one vehicle

for moving in that direction.

3


In order to understand knowledge building, we must understand the interplay between the

individual and the collective and thus, we must look at what role Popper’s three worlds

play in the knowledge building perspective. “Popper’s world 1 consists of material

artifacts. World 2 is the world of conceptual artifacts such as theories, designs, and

proofs.” (Hill et al., 2003, p. 5) The interpretation that world 2 deals with individual

learning and world 3 deals with social learning is incorrect. According to Vygotsky,

“individual students develop understanding first on an inter-subjective plane; language

and social interaction play key roles in this process. (Hill et al., 2003, p. 5) The student

“internalizes” understanding acquired in this way and the beliefs developed in this way

are world 2 objects. According to this view, although the process of learning is social,

“the subject develops personally held beliefs (or knowledge) that can be applied to new

situations.” (Hill et al., 2003, p. 5) When someone contributes an idea to world 3, the

idea is discussed and students try to understand it. Now the purpose is to improve the

idea and not just to understand it. “In world 3, the idea, initially contributed by a specific

person, takes on ‘a life of its own’ and, as a result, belongs to this community.” (Hill et

al., 2003, p. 5) Bereiter points out that in “conventional education students focus on

understanding what has already been understood by others, rather than contributing new

ideas to the world.” (Hill et al., 2003, p. 5) Therefore, conventional education resides

completely in worlds 1 and 2. It is the knowledge building perspective that tries to

expand educational activity to world 3.

The four pedagogical knowledge building principles introduced by van Aalst and Chan

must be looked at in order to further illustrate the social aspects of knowledge building

4


and to characterize the process by which students create new knowledge in classrooms.

The following four principles have been used to assess and scaffold knowledge building

discourse.

1. Working at the cutting edge

This principle is based on the idea that a scholarly community works to advance its

collective knowledge. For example, scientists work on problems that can contribute

something new to a field and not just on problems arising from personal interests. In

order for students to appreciate scholarly discourse, they must become familiar with

previous work on the topic and the problems students formulate become the community’s

problems.

2. Progressive problem solving

“The basic idea is that when experts understand a problem at one level, he or she

reinvests learning resources into new learning.” (Bereiter & Scardamalia,1993)

Characteristics of progressive problem solving in the computer database would include

instances when students have solved certain problems but then reinvest their efforts in

formulating and inquiring problems for deeper understanding. Other characteristics

involve keeping the problem they are pursuing in focus rather than asking topical

questions, and periodically marking progress on the improvement of idea.

3. Collaborative effort

5


This principle focuses on the importance of working on shared goals and values in

developing community knowledge. In classrooms, although competition is present and

can be valuable, cooperation is the more important dynamic.

4. Self-monitoring of knowledge

This principle is based on the idea that in order for knowledge building to work,

metacognitive understanding must be present, that is, students must have insight into their

own learning processes. “It is similar to progressive problem solving in that it documents

the history of ideas or problems—but now the focus is placed on the growth of personal

knowledge.” (Hill et al., 2003, p. 6)

Both social and individual aspects of knowledge are involved in the above four

principles. “Working at the cutting edge requires that students individually identify gaps

in their understanding, but it also requires a social responsibility to raise problems that

have not yet been solved by the community.” (Hill et al., 2003, p. 6) In collaborative

effort students individually do their best to learn the information they encounter, but they

have a responsibility to share what they learn where it is needed by the community

discourse. “While progressive problem solving tends to document the progress the

community makes, “self-monitoring knowledge” does this for the progress the student

makes.” (Hill et al., 2003, p. 5)

Current Research Findings

6


Extensive research shows that using knowledge building principles helps students at all

levels to gain a deeper understanding of subjects studied. Niu and van Aalst looked at two

Social Studies 10 classes with the idea of seeing if knowledge building was for everyone

or for a specific group of students. One class was a regular Socials 10 and the other an

Honours 10. Detailed analyses showed that the two classes of students were more alike

than different as to knowledge building. “The regular students even outperformed the

honors students at knowledge building principles like real ideas, and embedded and

transformative assessment in particular views.” (Niu, & van Aalst, 2005, p.2) The

differences among the students were more at the group level than at the class level, which

implied that group was a better way to verify the differences as to participations patterns

rather than class.

Another study, which involved students in the Masters of Science program offered by a

Division of Biomedical Communication in the Faculty of Medicine at University of

Toronto found that students were able to outperform the previous year’s students in terms

of solving problems they were asked to solve. The students also reported being more

satisfied with the way knowledge building allowed them to build on previous year’s

findings and the feedback they got from professionals in the same field. Students

commented that “knowledge building discourse result[ed] in more than sharing of

knowledge; the knowledge itself [was] refined and transformed through the discursive

practices of the community.” (Lax, Taylor, Wilson-Pauwels, & Scardamalia, 2004, p. 5)

Criticism

7


Although the theoretical value of knowledge building is becoming more widely accepted

by teachers, there are still many who think that knowledge building is too difficult to

carry out in practice. When teachers try to implement knowledge building, they tend to

provide too much structure and management of activities. “This results in sacrificing

essential characteristics of knowledge building like epistemic agency.” (Niu & van Aalst

2005, p. 9) Another concern is that misconceptions will occur during knowledge

building and that students will learn these misconceptions instead of the correct

information. “Knowledge building is also in conflict with the belief of ‘learn first,

produce later’, which implies that creative work can only occur after a long time of

learning existing knowledge.” (Niu & van Aalst 2005, p. 9) The common barriers to

knowledge building include:

1. The assumption that knowledge building will work with certain students, but not with

most students in a typical class

2. The assumption that it is too difficult to integrate knowledge building with the

curriculum. It takes more time, and teachers worry about whether students will be

prepared adequately for external exams and future learning.

3. Uncertainty about the fate of misconceptions. When students discuss their ideas,

misconceptions surface and teachers worry that these may become prominent in student

thinking because they have been brought to the foreground and have not been addressed

adequately. ( Niu & van Aalst 2005, p. 9) It seems that more research is needed in order

to determine the feasibility of knowledge building as an educational approach.

8


Conclusion

Knowledge building allows the production and continual improvement of ideas of value

to the community. It provides a framework for collaboration and development of diverse

ideas. “Knowledge building theory extends the pedagogical agenda beyond the highest

level of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, from evaluation to advancement of

knowledge.” (Lax, et all, 2004, p. 5) Therefore, it is up to the teachers to bring new and

innovative teaching methodology and technology into their classroom and provide their

students with necessary skills and understanding of the world we are living in.

It must become clear to teachers that teaching in the way we have for centuries will have

to change. The advances in technology and the permeation of technology into every facet

of our lives are slowly but permanently changing our world. We must re-evaluate how

we teach and what we teach in this “Age of Technology.” We are no longer able to ask

students to memorize the latest new developments in any field because of the volume and

the fluid nature of information. We must arm our students with tools with which they can

venture forth into the great information highways of this century and become not just

consumers but intelligent critics and contributors to that greater communal knowledge.

One way of doing this is through knowledge building communities. Knowledge building

allows students the medium in which to improve their knowledge and the knowledge of

others.

9


Reference

1. Chan, K. K., van Aalst, J., & Lee, E., (2005). Analysis of Collaborative Knowledge Building Using e-Portfolios. Retrieved February 5, 2007 from http://www.educ.sfu.ca/kb/Papers/Chanetal2005.pdf

2. Hill, C., Cummings, M., & van Aalst, J. (2003). Activity Theory as a Framework for Analyzing Participation within a Knowledge Building Community. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://www.educ.sfu.ca/kb/Papers/Hill_Cummings.pdf

3. Lax, L., Taylor, I., Wilson-Pauwels, L., & Scardamalia, M. (2004) Dynamic Curriculum Design in Biomedical Communications: Integrating a Knowledge Building Approach and a Knowledge Forum Learning Environment in a Medical Legal Visualization Course. The Journal of Biocommunication,30 (1)

4. Niu, H. & van Aalst, J. (2005), Is Knowledge Building Only for Certain Students? An Exploration of Online Interaction Patterns. Retrieved February 5, 2007 from http://www.educ.sfu.ca/kb/Papers/Niu-vanAalst2005.pdf

5. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C., (1994) Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3 (3), 265-283

10

http://www.educ.sfu.ca/kb/Papers/Niu-vanAalst2005.pdf

http://www.educ.sfu.ca/kb/Papers/Hill_Cummings.pdf

http://www.educ.sfu.ca/kb/Papers/Chanetal2005.pdf

etec 530 artifact

Documents