Evaluation of research on the Knowledge Building pedagogy: a mixed methodological approach

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.26.1.16671

Keywords:

Social Constructivism, Knowledge Building pedagogy, scientometric analysis, Systematic review, Mixed Methods

Abstract

Knowledge Building (KB) is a theoretical framework that promotes collective inquiry through the resolution of knowledge problems that are relevant for certain educational community. There is an increasing number of authors looking into benefits of this approach, thus an overview of the trends of research is needed. The aim of this study is to provide the state of the art concerning the research production on Knowledge Building pedagogy including trends and relevant issues. In this study a sequential explanatory design was applied. Both quantitative (scientometric analysis) and qualitative (systematic review) approaches were applied. The sample was selected from the most recent productions published in journals indexed in the Web of Science database. The scientometric analysis shows a publishing dynamics typical of an up and coming research field. In the qualitative phase, analysis reveals research trends on Knowledge Building as well as the benefits of putting it into practice in a wide range of contexts, exposing that technology is a relevant component of learning based on the pedagogy. These benefits mainly regard to individuals' depth of thinking and collaboration skills within computer supported environments

Author Biographies

Calixto Gutiérrez-Braojos, University of Granada

Associate Profesor at the University of Granada in the department of Research Methods, Assessment and Evaluation. His interests are at the intersection of learning analytics, collaborative learning, high mental functions and Educational Technology. He usually researchs with a mixed methods approach. He has carried out some research stay at the University of Toronto (Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Techonology), University of California-San Diego (Laboratoty of Comparative Human Cognition) and Autonomous University of Barcelona (SINTE research group).

Jesús Montejo Gámez, University of Granada

Assistant professor at the department of Mathematical Education of the University of Granada and a researcher of the Andalusian group "Mathematics Education. Numerical Thinking" FQM-193. He belongs to the Spanish Society of Research on Mathematics Education (SEIEM) and he is Secretary of the Education Committee of the Spanish Royal Mathematical Society. His teaching background includes elementary and secondary teacher training. As a researcher, he is interested in collaborative learning supported by ICT, mathematics teacher formation, and learning of mathematical modelling

Fátima Poza Vílches, University of Granada

Assistant professor in Department of Research Methods of the Faculty of Education Sciences and Member of the Research Group on Evaluation in environmental, social and institutional education of the University of Granada (UGR), Spain. She is an Assistant Professor Doctor in this Department where sheperforms her teaching work on methodology of programs evaluation in education (regulated and unregulated). Her teaching activities comprise face-to-face and distance courses at undergraduate, masters and doctoral level. Her research work is focused on the field of programs evaluation related to education from action research processes. He also works on the evaluation of teacher training for the development of skills and the design of indicators that evaluate teaching practice for improvement. She participates in different research projects and teaching innovation projects both national and international linked to these topics.

Ana Marín-Jiménez, University of Granada

Professor at the Departament of Quantitative Methods for the Economy and Business of the University of Granada. Researcher of the Andalusian group ‘Research and transfer in Health’ (CTS-1068). His teaching profile includes courses at the undergraduate and master's level, in addition to participating and coordinating various teaching innovation projects for the improvement of Higher Education. As a researcher she works in comparing binary tests and in learning Statistics in Social Sciences.

References

Aliaga, F. M. (1999). Análisis de correspondencias: estudio bibliométrico sobre su uso en la investigación educativa. RELIEVE-Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 5(1).

Aliaga, F. M., Gutiérrez-Braojos, C. & Fernández-Cano, A. (2018). Research journals in education: SWOT Analysis. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 36(2), 563-579. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.36.2.312461

Avcı, Ü. (2020). Examining the role of sentence openers, role assignment scaffolds and self-determination in collaborative knowledge building. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 109-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09672-5

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

Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.812533

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching higher-order skills in reading and writing. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179375

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Open Court.

Bueno, Á., & Fernández-Cano, A. (2003). Análisis cientimétrico de la productividad en la Revista de Investigación Educativa (1983-2000). Revista de Investigación Educativa, 21(2), 507-532.

Cacciamani, S. (2017). Experimental learning and knowledge building in higher education: An application of the progressive design method. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(1). 27-38. DOI: 10.20368/1971-8829/1245

Chen, B. (2017). Fostering scientific understanding and epistemic beliefs through judgments of promisingness. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 255-277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9467-0

Chen, B., & Hong, H. Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 266-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1175306

Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2015). Advancing knowledge‐building discourse through judgments of promising ideas. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 345-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9225-z

Comes, M., Cavalcante, F., & Toda, F. (2020). Avaliação do clima organizacional de suporte à criatividade e inovação em programas de pós-graduação stricto sensu. Revista Ciências Administrativas ou Journal of Administrative Sciences, 26(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41380-4

Costello, G. (2020). Teaching of Design and Innovation. Suiza: Springer Nature.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach. Sage.

Cozzens, S., Gatchair, S., Kang, J., Kim, K.S., Lee, H.J., Ordóñez, G., & Porter, A. (2010). Emerging technologies: quantitative identification and measurement. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22, 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537321003647396

Fernández, A. D., Ruiz-Corbella, M., & Galán, A. (2017). Calidad editorial y científica en las revistas de educación. Tendencias y oportunidades en el contexto 2.0. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 35(1), 235-250. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.35.1.244761

Fernández-Bautista, A., Torralbo, M., & Fernández-Cano, A. (2014). Análisis longitudinal de tesis doctorales españolas en educación (1841-2012). RELIEVE-Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.20.2.4479

Fernández-Cano, A., Torralbo, M. & Vallejo, M. (2004) Reconsidering Price's model of scientific growth: An overview. Scientometrics, 61, 301–21. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000045112.11562.11

Fonseca-Mora, M. C., & Aguaded, I. (2014). Las revistas científicas como plataformas para publicar la investigación de excelencia en educación: estrategias para atracción de investigadores. RELIEVE-Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.20.2.4274

Ghazal, S., Al-Samarraie, H., & Wright, B. (2019). A conceptualization of factors affecting collaborative knowledge building in online environments. Online Information Review, 44(1), pp. 62-89. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2019-0046

Goh, A., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Facilitating students’ development of their views on nature of science: A knowledge building approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 521-530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0050-0

Goldman, S. R., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 255-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2013.773217

Gutiérrez-Braojos, C. (2020, March). A sequence for the Knowledge Building Pedagogy. Knowledge Building International. https://ikit.org/kbi/index.php/news/

Gutierrez-Braojos, C., Martín-Romera, A., Casasempere, A., & Fernández Cano, A. (2015). Análisis Cientimétrico de la Grounded Theory en Educación. Revista de Educación, 370 (Octubre-Diciembre), 121-148.

Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Martín-Romera, A., Salmerón-Pérez, H., Casasempere, A., & Fernández Cano, A. (2017). Análisis temático de la investigación educativa soportada por Grounded Theory. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía, 69(1), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.13042/Bordon.2016.41035

Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Montejo-Gámez, J., Ma, L., Chen, B., de Escalona-Fernández, M., Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2019). Exploring collective cognitive responsibility through the emergence and flow of forms of engagement in a knowledge building community. In L.D. (Ed). Didactics of Smart Pedagogy (pp. 213-232). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01551-0_11

Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Montejo-Gámez, J., Marín-Jiménez, A. & Campaña, J. (2019). Hybrid learning environment: Collaborative or competitive learning? Virtual Reality, 23(4), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0358-z

Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Montejo-Gámez, J., Marín-Jiménez, A. E. & Poza-Vilches, F. (2018). A Review of Educational Innovation from a Knowledge-building Pedagogy Perspective. In A.V., M.L., L.D. (Eds), The Future of Innovation and Technology in Education: Policies and Practices for Teaching and Learning Excellence, (41-54). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78756-555-520181005

Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Montejo-Gámez, J., & Poza-Vilches, F. (August 2018). That’s an impactful idea: Using peer citation to explore collective responsibility for knowledge advancement. Poster presented at the 22nd Knowledge Building Summer Institute; Toronto, Canada.

Gutiérrez-Braojos, C. & Salmerón-Pérez, H. (2015). Exploring collective cognitive responsibility and its effects on students' impact in a knowledge building community. Infancia y Aprendizaje. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 38(2), 327-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2015.1016746

Halatchliyski, I., Moskaliuk, J., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2013). Explaining authors’contribution to pivotal artifactsduring mass collaboration in the Wikipedia’s knowledge base.  International Society of the Learning Sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9182-3

Hong, H. Y. (2014). Developing student-centered teaching beliefs through knowledge building among prospective teachers. In Tan, S., So, H., & Yeo (Eds), Knowledge creation in education (pp. 189-204). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-047-6_11

Hong, H-Y., & Chai, C.S. (2017). Principle-based design: Development of adaptive mathematics teaching practices and beliefs in a knowledge building environment. Computers & Education, 115, 38-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.011

Hong, H-Y., Chang, Y-H., & Chai, C.S. (2014). Fostering a collaborative and creative climate in a college class through idea-centered knowledge-building. Instructional Science, 42(3), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9289-y

Hong, H. Y., & Scardamalia, M. (2014). Community knowledge assessment in a knowledge building environment. Computers & Education, 71, 279-288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.009

Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Brendle, D., & Cress, U. (2017). All in good time: Knowledge introduction, restructuring, and development of shared opinions as different stages in collaborative writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(2), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9258-6

Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Oeberst, A., & Cress, U. (2015). Learning and collective knowledge construction with social media: A process-oriented perspective. Educational Psychologist, 50(2), 120-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1036273

Lai, M. & Law, N. (2013) Questioning and the quality of knowledge constructed in a CSCL context: A study on two grade-levels of students. Instructional Science, 41(3), 597-620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9246-1

Lee, Y., & Yoo, S. (2020). Individual profiles and team classes of the climate for creativity: A multilevel latent profile analysis. Creativity and Innovation Management; 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12371

Li, S., Tang, Q., & Shi, P. (2015). Learning analysis on learners’ wiki-based collaborative knowledge building behaviors. In G. Chen, V. Kumar, Kinshuk, R. Huang, & S. C. Kong (Eds.), Emerging Issues in Smart Learning (pp. 217-224). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44188-6_30

Lin, K.Y., Hong, H-Y., & Chai, C. S. (2014). Development and validation of the knowledge-building environment scale. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 124-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.10.018

Lotka, A. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317-323.

MacLeod, J., & Yang, H. H. (2018). Intercultural computer-supported collaborative learning: Theory and Practice. In digital technologies and instructional design for personalized learning, (pp. 80-97). Hershey: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3940-7.ch004

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56

Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79(4), 606-623. https://doi.org/10.1086/354848

Moher, D. A. & Liberati, A. (2010). Revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis: la responsabilidad de los autores, revisores, editores y patrocinadores. Med Clin (Barc), 135, 505-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2010.02.016

Muhonen, H., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A. & Lerkkanen, M. (2017). Knowledge-building patterns in educational dialogue. International Journal of Education Research, 81, 25-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.10.005

Oeberst, A., Halatchliyski, I., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2014). Knowledge construction in Wikipedia: A systemic-constructivist analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 149-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.888352

Park, H., & Park, H. W. (2018). Two-side face of knowledge building using scientometric analysis. Quality & Quantity, 52(6), 2815-2836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0711-z

Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor – An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14, 537-557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-004-5157-0

Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge (Vol. 360). Oxford University Press.

Popper, K. (1994). Knowledge and the mind-body problem: In defence of interaction. (Vol. 134). Routledge.

Porcaro, D. (2014). Educational change in Oman: a design research study of personal, institutional, and societal reactions to collaborative Knowledge Building. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 199-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.802993

Price, D. de S. (1963). Little science, big science. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/pric91844

Price, D. de S. (1976). A general theory of bibliometrics and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5-6), 292-306. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630270505

Price, D. de S. (1986). Little science, big science... and beyond. Columbia University Press.

Resendes, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Chen, B., & Halewood, C. (2015). Group-level formative feedback and metadiscourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 309–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9219-x

Rodríguez Gómez, G., Gil Flores, J., & García Jiménez, E. (1996). Metodología de la investigación cualitativa. Ediciones Aljibe.

Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching. Instructional Science, 42(3), 327-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9283-4

Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society, 97, 67-98.

Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge forum®. Education and technology: An encyclopedia, (183-192). ABC-CLIO.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). CSILE: Trying to bring students into world 3. In K. McGilley (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). MIT Press.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2017). Two modes of thinking in Knowledge Building. Revista Catalana de Pedagogía, 12, 61-83.

Small, H., Boyack, K.W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Identifying emerging topics in science and technology. Research Policy, 43, 1450–1467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.005

Tammets, K., Pata, K., & Laanpere, M. (2013). Promoting teachers’ learning and knowledge building in the socio-technical system. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 14(3), 251-272. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1478

Thagard, P. (1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and brain sciences, 12(3), 435-467. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00057046

Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 55, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-004-0002-8

Wu, Y. T., & Wang, L. J. (2016). Research trends in technology-enhanced knowledge building pedagogies: a review of selected empirical research from 2006 to 2015. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(3), 353-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0065-2

Zhi, Q., & Su, M. (2015, October). Enhance collaborative learning by visualizing process of knowledge building with Padlet. In 2015 International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT) (pp. 221-225). IEEE. Wuhan (China). https://doi.org/10.1109/EITT.2015.54

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2020-10-20

Issue

Vol. 26 No. 1 (2020): Monográfico: Evaluación en la Educación Superior

Section

Research Articles

License

The authors grant non-exclusive rights of exploitation of works published to RELIEVE and consent to be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Use 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC 4.0), which allows third parties to use the published material whenever the authorship of the work and the source of publication is mentioned, and it is used for non-commercial purposes. 

    The authors can reach other additional and independent contractual agreements, for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (for example, by including it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), as long as it is clearly stated that the Original source of publication is this magazine.  

    Authors are encouraged to disseminate their work after it has been published, through the internet (for example, in institutional archives online or on its website) which can generate interesting exchanges and increase work appointments. 

   The fact of sending your paper to RELIEVE implies that you accept these conditions.