Chapter 3.6
Collaborative Inquiry and Knowledge Building in Networked Multimedia Environments
Carol K.K. Chan, Jan van Aalst
Faculty of Education
The University of Hong Kong
Faculty of Education
The University of Hong Kong
Pokfulam, Hong Kong
Email: ckkchan@hkucc.hku.hk
vanaalst@hkucc.hku.hk
Abstract: This chapter examines the role of networked multimedia environments in
supporting and advancing new educational models that emphasize inquiry, collaboration, and
knowledge building. We argue for the need to examine the integral relations among
cognition, technology and context in addressing the challenge of making ICT relevant for
education. We first examine changing theories and metaphors of learning and consider how
designs of multimedia networked environments are influenced by these changing views.
Following that, we examine three prominent research programs that make use of networked
environments, Knowledge Integration, Collaborative Visualization, and Knowledge Building,
all three examples advance new theories of learning and 21st century learning goals and use
design-based research in fostering innovations in complex classroom systems. We propose
that research and design of networked multimedia environments can enrich the theorizing of
new models of learning and discuss design research as a promising methodology for
promoting educational and technology innovations in classroom.
Key words: networked multimedia environments; inquiry; collaboration; knowledge building;
design-based research
3.6.1. Introduction
Ever since their introduction, personal computers have been used as educational tools
using multimedia to support knowledge acquisition and the development of the Internet has
spawned rapid growth in computing power, bandwidth, and networked learning. There is now
the emergence of networked multimedia environments for supporting collaboration and
inquiry and knowledge construction for participants from distant communities. However,
despite much enthusiasm and progress, the educational benefits of technology on student
learning are assumed but remain unconvincing. Technological advances in World Wide Web
need to be paralleled with their development into powerful educational infra-structures
(Roschelle & Pea, 1999). Major questions remain with the integration of technology,
pedagogy, and learning theories in classroom context.
From an educational perspective, the technological developments are paralleled by
the development of new learning theories in the last two decades that posit learning as a
social and context-dependent process mediated by material and human resources
(Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Sawyer, 2006). Many
researchers argue that more emphasis needs to be placed on having students learn in
communities, on collaborative inquiry into real-world problems, and on enabling students to
play a greater role in managing and evaluating their own learning (Bereiter, 2002; Brown &
Campione, 1994; Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt [CTGV], 1994; Linn & Hsi,
2000). Computer-based learning environments, including networked multimedia
environments, are usually designed with a view to support such epistemological and
metacognitive goals. However, it is proposed here that the integration of networked
multimedia environments with classroom processes remains a problem that requires
substantial pedagogical changes at classroom as well as systemic levels (Salomon, 1996).
Such changes are essential for addressing educational challenges for the 21st century, an
era characterized by a need to prepare students for participation in societies in which
citizens’ ability to contribute to sustained innovation processes is key (Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 2006). To study how to integrate technology with classroom processes, design-
2
based research (DBR) has emerged as a research methodology that examines the
interaction among technology, context of implementation, and learning theory (Brown, 1992;
Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004), and is becoming an important methodology for research
on networked multimedia environments.
The goal of this chapter is to examine progress made in the last two decades toward
integrating the use of networked multimedia environments into classroom learning. Our focus
is not on the technologies per se, but on how these can support new educational models that
emphasize inquiry, collaboration, and knowledge building; thus we examine the integral
relations of learning, technology and context. We first review changes in learning theories
(Section 2) and how these influence design of networked multimedia environments (Section
3). Following that, three traditions of work are reviewed, focusing on learning, technology and
educational context (Section 4); all three examples use DBR – iterations of design,
implementation and formative evaluation – as the main methodology. Finally, Section 5
discusses the theoretical, pedagogical, and methodological implications for future research.
3.6.2 Changing Theories and Metaphors of Learning
From Knowledge Transmission to Knowledge Construction
Learning in traditional school settings is commonly viewed as the acquisition of bits of
knowledge. Early computer-assisted learning based on drill and practice also implied
learning as the accretion of information. In the 1980s research in cognitive psychology
focused on expertise and problem solving. Central to this research is the notion of knowledge
structures – networks of concepts – and substantial research has shown that the knowledge
structures students use in thinking about science are inconsistent with those of scientists
(e.g., McCloskey, 1983). The dissatisfaction with knowledge transmission has led to the
understanding of learning as a constructive process involving prior knowledge, metacognition
and collaboration.
In this climate, researchers examined the potential of computers for creating learning
environments emphasizing more expert-like learning processes. In Mindstorms, Papert
3
(1980) envisaged a new classroom culture characterized by problem solving, creativity, and
focus on understanding. Many endeavors are now given to simulation and modeling with
computer-based environments (e.g., White & Frederiksen, 1998; Jacobson & Kozma, 2000).
Other major efforts include the Schools for Thought project, which tested three learning
models: (a) Fostering Communities of Learners (Brown & Campione, 1994), (b)
mathematical discourse and multimedia environment using the Jasper Woodbury series
(CTGV, 1994), and (c) knowledge building using progressive discourse (Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 1994). The power of networked multimedia learning does not merely focus on
technologies but on the understanding of how people learn that underpins their design.
From Information Exchange to Transformative Communication
Early computer-supported learning environments were based on a transmission
model of communication, and this model continues to dominate the provision of online
education, in which ICT is used to share information and ideas. However, it is now clear that
a conception of communication as the “transmission” of information is no longer adequate.
Pea (1994) argued that “because learning is not only a conserving enterprise, which seeks
ritual belonging in order to perpetuate sameness and tradition, it is also a quest to expand
the ways of knowing. It seeks to expand the problem niches to which past concepts and
strategies and beliefs are applied. It must establish in its communicative activities the
grounds for its own evolution.” (p. 288, emphasis added). Pea therefore proposed a
transformative view of communication in which the sender and receiver interact and create
something that was not part of the information exchanged. In other words, communication is
generative and changes both the sender and the receiver. In the context of ICT, we need to
be wary of communication as the movement of packets of information down the “Information
Highway,” and to additionally examine the extent to which such movements stimulate
knowledge construction.
The design of many computer environments has focused on the transmission of
information. More recently, online discussion has come to be viewed as students
4
participating in a community; however, in a deeper sense, one may need to consider further
how environments can be designed to support learning for transformation purposes. The
idea of movement of information is still useful, since one cannot have communication without
the movement of information, but it is not sufficient for explaining learning. We need to
examine how students are engaged in meaning-making and how technology can be
designed to support it.
From Individual Learning to Knowledge Communities
Earlier cognitive theories of learning were primarily theories of individual learning;
over time these models have gradually incorporated social aspects of cognition, especially
the role of discourse. Since the 1990s cognitive and individual perspectives on learning have
been expanded and integrated with perspectives that make social aspects of learning more
prominent. There are now various models and perspectives emphasizing the social,
distributed and collective nature of learning including situated cognition (Brown, Duguid, &
Collins, 1989), distributed cognition (Salomon, 1993), learning communities (Brown &
Campione, 1994), activity theory (Cole & Engeström, & Salomon, 1993) and knowledge
building (Bereiter, 2002; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). In addition, studies of learning in
non-school settings led to perspectives that emphasize participation in social practices, for
example studies of scientific laboratories (Latour & Woolgar, 1986) and communities of
practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
The paradigm shift towards social aspects of learning is fundamental and underpins
current developments in computer-supported learning. Rather than primarily studying
individual problem solving, researchers now examine collaborative learning by groups of
students, supported by computer technology. The multidisciplinary field of computersupported collaborative learning now examines how computer-mediated collaboration
scaffolds learning and understanding (e.g., Koschmann, Hall & Miyake, 2002). These
developments, as well as the growing influence of sociocultural perspectives, led to
educational perspectives and metaphors positing learning as participation versus views of
5
learning as knowledge acquisition. Some progress has been made to integrate them. As
Sfard (1998) argued we need both of the metaphors. Paavola, Lipponen, and Hakkarainen
(2004) further propose a ‘knowledge-creation metaphor’, in which “the emphasis is not just
on the situatedness of cognition or on social practices alone, but rather on development of
knowledge-building practices and artifacts through mediated activities” (p. 570). Brown
(2008) in this handbook discusses these metaphors extensively.
Twenty years ago, Cuban (1986) argued that educational technology had at that time
failed to deliver on its repeated promise to transform education – beginning with film strips,
radio, television, educational videos, and computers. The criticism is still levied against
computer-supported learning. However, we propose that we are currently in a better position
to advance from this state of affairs. First, it is now recognized that attention to the learning
process must come first and the integration of technology into this process second. The
crucial question is not what technology is needed to support existing educational practices
but to develop a deeper theoretical view of learning and teaching and to examine how ICT
can be used to support the new envisaged learning process as a mediational tool. Second,
the research summarized above has shown that learning is very complex. To understand the
impact of ICT on learning and how students learn, we need to measure not only cognitive
outcomes but also a wide range of moderating factors such as motivation, metacognition,
epistemological understanding, and classroom processes (Bransford et al., 1999), and we
need to examine learning on multiple time scales – from microanalyses of interactions
occurring during learning activities to studies of long-term effects on students’ thinking. Third,
it is widely recognized that a new methodology is needed in which technology development
and theory building stand in a dialectical relationship to each other and educational
innovations need to undergo iterative cycles of design, implementation, and formative
assessment. This methodology, design-based research, though still in its formative stages,
has become one of the main methodologies for research on computer-supported learning
(Collins et al., 2004).
6
3.6.3 Views of Learning with Multimedia and Networked Learning Environments
In this section we propose a scheme illustrating how changing views of learning
influence the design of multimedia and networked environments that vary from (a)
information delivery, (b) task-based learning, (c) inquiry-based knowledge construction, and
(d) community-based knowledge building (Table 1). We discuss multimedia and networked
learning separately to show the parallels of how designs of technology are influenced by
changing views of learning while noting that multimedia and networked learning usually
coexist in learning environments.
1.3.1 Views of Learning and Multimedia Learning Environments
Multimedia learning encompasses complex dimensions but basically refers to the
combined use of words and pictures for enhancing learning (Mayer, 2005). There is much
interest in the capabilities of multimedia environments whether using stand-alone or
networked computers that can provide access to wide-ranging knowledge represented as
text, graphics, video and visual information. Early use of multimedia often involved drill-andpractice and information delivery, in which information was merely transmitted in a more
engaging way; more recently such practices have been extended to the Internet (e.g., by
posting PowerPoint slides on web sites). Though technology is used, we propose that such
uses of multimedia tend to reinforce a transmission view of learning and take little advantage
of their potential to support deep learning.
Table 1
Changing Views of Learning and Design of Networked Multimedia Environments
Multimedia
Learning
Information
Delivery
Task-Based
Learning
Drill & practice;
reinforcement
and response
strengthening;
multi-media
Task &
multimedia
design;
principles of
coherence,
Inquiry-Based
Knowledge
Construction
Simulation,
visualization and
modeling for
knowledge
construction;
Scientific and
Knowledge
Communities
Community and
7
Networked
Learning
used for
presenting
information in
a more
engaging way
continguity and
modality;
matching
design with task
demands
support for
conceptual
understanding,
inquiry process
& metacognition
Websites and
portals for
access to
information;
delivery and
exchange of
information via
internet
Communication
& interaction;
online learning
forums;
structure and
sequencing
tasks
Scaffolds for
collaborative
inquiry &
scientific
argumentation
among groups,
classes and
networks
networked based
environments;
distributed
multimedia and
telecommunication
for scientific practice;
multimedia as
collective conceptual
artifacts; knowledge
management for
collective knowledge
advances; networks
of networks
Some researchers examine multimedia learning focusing on task-based learning and
instructional design of multimedia. Based on decades of research, Mayer and colleagues
(2005) developed a theory with principles for how to arrange multimedia elements such as
maximum coherence and contiguity (e.g., coordinating computers-generated animation and
narration). Different media have various affordances and they need to be matched to the
task demands. These researchers acknowledge generative and constructivist learning and
active roles of students but they focus on task design and knowledge acquisition using
multimedia rather than inquiry-based learning.
With current emphasis on knowledge construction and inquiry, multimedia
environments designs address knowledge structure, conceptual models and strategies.
Kozma (2000) discussed how multimedia affordances are particularly useful to promote
learning of complex science concepts. Novice learners tend to rely on surface features and
therefore have difficulty understanding science. Using multiple representations with
simulation, animation and modeling, researchers can design tools and environments with
features that correspond to the underlying scientific entities and processes. For example, in
ThinkerTools (White & Frederiksen, 1998), researchers designed environments using
simulation to help students represent abstract entities that do not otherwise have a concrete
8
character (e.g., force). Many scientific concepts and processes that are difficult to learn can
now be made explicit and visible using conceptual models with multimedia affordances.
From a constructivist perspective, multimedia learning is often connected with roles of
student agency, reflection and collaboration; it is students themselves who need to create
coherence among different representations. Kozma (2000) showed that student think-aloud,
as well as the combined effects of visualization and discourse could improve student learning
in multimedia learning environments. In classrooms, roles of multimedia and discourse have
been demonstrated well. An early and impressive example was the Jasper Project (CTGV,
1994) in which a multimedia presentation of an authentic situation (e.g., riverboat adventure)
set the stage for (“anchored”) mathematical discourse and problem solving. This project was
an early example of the use of design-based research to articulate design principles. More
advanced views of learning involve using advanced networked learning technologies to
support collaboration, discourse, and knowledge building in communities (see next section).
1.3.2. Views of Learning and Networked Learning Environments
Networked learning is emerging rapidly and one possible definition is “learning in
which ICT is used to promote connections between one learner and other learners; between
learners and tutors; between learning community and its resources” (Goodyear, Banks,
Hodgson & McConnell, 2004, p. 1). Similar to the design of multimedia learning, networked
environments are influenced by different views of learning. At a basic level, networked
learning is considered as the dissemination and exchange of information reflected in the
widespread use of websites and portals. There is also frequent use of bulletin boards and
forums for sharing and exchanging opinions. Similar to traditional forms of multimedia
learning, these practices are based on views of learning as transmission and information
exchange.
Another perspective on networked learning focuses on instructional design for
communication and interaction and knowledge acquisition. Common examples are online
discussion forums, which are designed to promote interaction among students and teachers.
9
Collaborative learning via a network may change the way students and teachers interact,
enhance learning opportunities, and facilitate classroom discussion. Yet there is considerable
evidence that student discussions in such forums are shallow and fragmented (Lipponen,
Rahikainen, Lallimo, & Hakkarainen, 2003); others argue for instructional designs that
include sequenced tasks and structured guidance such as scripting to address these
problems.
With changing perspective on learning, other researchers and designers focus on
collaboration, inquiry and knowledge construction. Though the early computer-based
instruction focused on problem solving by individuals, a central current theme is to examine
collaboration in computer-supported environments (e.g., Stahl, 2006). Computer-supported
collaborative learning has emerged as a major strand of research (Koschmann et al., 2002)
with major efforts to theorize collaboration and designing support to encourage discourse,
inquiry and knowledge construction. Considerable work has been done to help students
develop scientific inquiry and discourse using graphical representation of argumentation
structure (e.g., Belvedere, Suthers, 2003, see lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/lilt/).
A more advanced perspective of networked learning focuses on collaborative
knowledge building in scientific and knowledge communities. Networked and multimedia
capacities are integrated; researchers now use multiple tools and organize discourse around
conceptual and physical artifacts in networked multimedia environments. Asynchronous
discussion and telecommunication using powerful tools foster collaborative inquiry among
students and sometimes even experts from different schools and countries. Going beyond
communication and inquiry, some researchers use networked multimedia technology to
support students’ knowledge creation in communities (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006); this
perspective goes beyond collaboration focusing on collective growth. A new metaphor of
learning has been proposed that examine learning as knowledge creation (Paavola et al.,
2004).
10
3.6.4 Classroom Innovations in Networked Multimedia Environments
In this section we discuss three traditions of work in education research that make
innovative use of networked multimedia environments: Knowledge Integration Framework;
Collaborative Visualization (CoVis); and Collective Knowledge Building. While these have
different emphases reflecting various metaphors, all three examples focus on efforts to make
collaborative inquiry and knowledge construction more prominent in education, as called for
by the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996), and
build on studies of cognition, metacognition, and epistemological understanding (Bransford et
al., 1999). They all employ design-based research as a methodology for examining
innovations in classrooms, and involve partnerships among researchers, scientists, teachers
and designers. We selected these environments to illustrate the range of approaches
examining learning theories, technology advances, and curriculum and classroom systems to
examine how these environments enable collaborative inquiry and knowledge building (also
see Tan, Seah, Yeo, & Hung, this volume).
Knowledge Integration Environment and Scientific Inquiry
Marcia Linn and colleagues aim to scaffold scientific inquiry and understanding supported by
technology (Linn, Davis & Bell, 2004). These researchers argue that science as taught in
school is inaccessible to the majority of students, and aim to bridge science taught in school
to problems from everyday life (Linn et al., 2004, p. 3). The knowledge integration
perspective builds on research on students’ misconceptions and development of scientific
inquiry and argumentation skills; the key notion is to develop a web of knowledge that
integrates such elements as evidence from information sources, experiments, personally
held beliefs, and personal experience through a constructivist process of sense-making (Linn
& Hsi, 2000).
In the knowledge integration perspective, students engage in inquiry using
information from the Internet and they work through problems and controversies connected
to the curriculum that enable them to construct conceptual knowledge about science. Linn
11
and colleagues design scaffolds for inquiry (procedural, cognitive, social), arguing that inquiry
is like a guided tour that helps students to examine science concepts in ways that are
relevant to their lives. Focus is placed on well selected scientific inquiry tasks that are
relevant to the prescribed curriculum. While emphasizing scientific knowledge, knowledge
integration also promotes scientific inquiry via modeling and scaffolding emphasizing use of
evidence and scientific argumentation.
This tradition developed from several earlier projects by Linn and colleagues (Linn et
al., 2004; Linn & Hsi, 2000): the Computer Learning Project (CLP), Knowledge Integration
Environment (KIE), and Web-Based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE, see
wise.berkeley.edu); it has made extensive use of integrated networked and multimedia
learning, and pioneered the use of computers as tools for visualizing scientific phenomena.
Various technologies were developed to scaffold scientific inquiry, including visualization,
information ecologies, online guidance, argumentation and discourse tools. For instance, in
probeware, the use of real-time data collection and visualization reduces the drudgery of
data collection, plotting graphs, and thereby provides more time for interpretation (Linn & Hsi,
2000, p. 49); students use SenseMaker argumentation software to ensure that their
explanations are not merely based on selected evidence but on all the evidence available to
them (Bell & Linn, 2000). Multimedia and collaboration tools were integrated as students
engaged in argumentation examining the evidence. Earlier tools for asynchronous online
discussions used to help students learn from each other were Multimedia Kiosk and its webbased sequel, Speakeasy (Hoadley & Linn, 2000; Linn & Hsi, 2000).
This tradition of work provides one of the most prominent examples of design-based
research for the long sequences of design, formative evaluations guiding revisions to the
designs after each implementation, and a large set of design principles. For over two
decades, Linn and colleagues have also employed a partnership model establishing activity
structures and networks for teachers, researchers, scientists, and technologists to design
and refine designs. As well, Linn and colleagues developed sets of design principles
integrating the use of networked multimedia environments with curricula in classroom
12
context. At the core of KIE were four general pedagogical principles: (a) make science
accessible by connecting to what students know; (b) make science visible by explaining
scientific processes and illustrating connections; (c) help students learn from each other by
building respectful and effective collaborations in the classroom; (d) promote lifelong science
learning by supporting project work, and reflecting on scientific ideas (Linn & Hsi, 2000).
In sum, this research program, through a large series of studies, has led to a
perspective on science learning – the Integrated Knowledge Perspective – described through
four meta-principles and a number of subordinate principles. This perspective has been
developed from work in complex classrooms using carefully sequenced inquiry projects. The
researchers work from the assumption that scientific inquiry is complex and is not natural for
students, and that it requires scaffolding using a variety of computer-supported tools and
pedagogical strategies. In this respect it can be said this research program is not about
technology but about cultivating scientific inquiry as a strategy for lifelong learning; it provides
a strong example of how cognition, curriculum, pedagogy, and the use of computer
technologies can be integrated.
CoVis, Telecommunication, and Telementoring in Scientific Practice
A second major model illustrating advanced use of multi-media networked learning
via telecommunication is the Collaborative Visualization Project (CoVis, see
www.covis.northwestern.edu). This project addressed scientific inquiry through collaborative
project work with advanced networking technologies, collaborative software, and
visualization tools. Whereas Knowledge Integration emphasizes constructive understanding,
CoVis focused on developing scientific practices using project work best illustrated by the
“participation” metaphor. Through the use of collaborative and communicative technologies
and project work, these authors aimed to transform science learning to resemble the
authentic practice of science.
Collaboration and Visualization. The key idea of CoVis was the use of interactive
multimedia technologies connected via a network (Pea & Gomez, 1992). Distributed
13
multimedia environments and network capacities made it possible for participants to express
what they are thinking, to capture traces of those thoughts in new forms of representation,
and to work jointly to create new artifacts. As participants work on joint artifacts, they engage
in “conceptual learning conversations” (Pea & Gomez, 1992), in which they use symbols and
terms in authentic situations to develop shared understanding.
There were two main kinds of tools: scientific visualization tools that use graphics,
images, and motion to present large quantities of data; and collaborative softwares designed
to support students as they conduct scientific inquiries as members of a community.
Researchers aimed to have geographically dispersed teams of students work together on
project-based scientific investigations with teachers and scientists as guides. For example,
the Collaboratory Notebook was a groupware application especially designed to support
students’ collaboration in science projects. By using the Notebook, teachers and students
could plan and track the progress of a project together; they also could share and comment
upon each other’s work. The collaboration tool was tightly integrated with the visualization
software: all the visualization tools automatically generated a log of the experimenting
process; students could annotate the log and put it in Collaboratory Notebook with comments
for reflection and collaboration.
Technology-Supported Inquiry Learning. In a follow-up project, TechnologySupported Inquiry Learning (TSIL), Edelson, Gordin and Pea (1999) examined how to design
technologies and curriculum to take advantage of scientific visualizations. These researchers
developed, tested, and refined versions of software and accompanying curricula. The most
important lesson learned was that “the implementation of TSIL requires an integrated
process of technology and activity design. Specifically, to meet the challenges of inquirybased learning, the TSIL design process must coordinate components that are integral to the
student’s learning processes including (a) the identification of motivational context; (b) the
selection and sequencing of activities, (c) the design of investigation tools, and (d) the
creation of process supports” (p. 440).
14
Telementoring and telecommunication. Another project for developing authentic
science practices premised on transformative communication is telementoring (O’ Neill,
2004, see www.learningrelationslab.org). Working within a community of practice model, the
telementoring model envisages students as newcomers to scientific practice to be advised in
their inquiries by experts and mentors. Besides enabling and scaffolding inquiry, such
models have considerable potential for teaching students about what scientists do as
students develop relationships with scientific experts. While in the past tapping into scientific
expertise was highly impractical, networked communication via the Internet has changed
this. At its core, telementoring is about building learning relationships with experts. O'Neill
(2004) explored the benefits of building “social capital” (i.e., multiple relationships with others
that constitute distributed expertise) by opening up the student-mentor relationships so that
students and telementors can learn from the interactions of other collaborations besides their
own. Telementoring presents another model of inquiry that may overcome problems of
authenticity positing students as “little scientists”. The various relationships students build
with scientists through telementoring may help to create more positive models for students
regarding what scientists do and why it is valuable to society.
CoVis and related projects involved hundreds of teachers and thousands of students
as researchers in “education testbeds” (Gomez, Fishman, & Pea, 1998). While design
experiments are now common forms for refining the design in individual or several
classrooms, these researchers also examined issues of scalability. These projects
emphasize science inquiry as participation and developing authentic science practice;
distributed multimedia environments are used to make possible a transformative form of
communication.
Knowledge Forum and Collective Knowledge Building
A third tradition of work focuses on knowledge building, now recognized as one of five
major models in the learning sciences (Sawyer, 2006). The Knowledge building model aims
to address new educational goals in the 21st century addressing the need of citizens to work
15
with and to produce knowledge. Bereiter and Scardamalia (2006) argue that schools need to
provide students opportunities to work with ideas, and to create and innovate as members of
knowledge-building communities. As in scientific communities, ideas are viewed as
conceptual artifacts that can be examined and improved by means of public discourse within
a knowledge-building community.
Knowledge building, an educational model that embodies the ‘knowledge creation’
metaphor (Paavola et al., 2004), has roots in cognitive studies of expertise and intentional
learning (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993; Chan, Burtis & Bereiter, 1997; Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 1994). As collaborative inquiry, knowledge building encompasses the cognitive
benefits of scientific inquiry (Edelson et al., 1999) and learning how to learn. However,
collaboration in knowledge building goes beyond working with others; it encompasses notion
of “collective cognitive responsibility” for advancing the frontiers of knowledge. Similar to
scientific communities, when students engage in knowledge-building discourse, they pose
cutting-edge questions that help the community to advance its collective understanding. They
take on progressive problem solving, in which they progressively seek to understand
problems at deeper levels. Students make progress not only by improving their personal
ideas but through their contribution to collective knowledge advances.
Integral to the knowledge building approach is the use of an online environment,
Knowledge Forum™ (www.knowledgeforum, formerly CSILE, Computer-Supported
Intentional Learning Environments). Designed in the 1980s, CSILE/Knowledge Forum was
one of the forerunners of networked multimedia environments; it consists of a multimedia
database created by the students who wrote about their ideas and used graphics supported
with cognitive prompts (“scaffolds”) such as “I Need to Understand” or “My Theory”. Students
could read each other’s notes (messages) and comment on them; they could extend the
knowledge-transforming process by returning to their own ideas, and the process was
supported by co-development of the ideas by their peers. Knowledge Forum is designed to
help students to refine, reframe and advance their ideas; when writing a note in Knowledge
Forum, students can add other notes as references, thereby creating an integrated web of
16
notes (ideas) as their work progresses. The visual linkages between ideas provide
multimedia objects created and refined by students that reflect the interconnected, dialogical
and progressive nature of knowledge that underpins the knowledge building perspective.
Discourse aimed at improving ideas is an important component of knowledge-building
discourse that is often absent when online work is conceptualized as an online version of
conversations (van Aalst, 2006).
The notion of improving a community’s collective knowledge was central to the design
from the beginning. In knowledge building classrooms, students pose questions for inquiry
and work collectively to question, examine and improve their collective understanding
through discourse supported by Knowledge Forum. Over the last two decades, knowledge
building has been examined using a design-based approach in classrooms with close
collaboration among teachers, researchers, scientists and technologists for continued
improvement of knowledge building theory, design, and practice (Scardamalia & Bereiter,
2006). Scardamalia (2002) proposed a system of twelve knowledge-building principles to
inform design, pedagogy and research including epistemic agency, real idea/problem, idea
diversity, improvable ideas, rise above, community knowledge, symmetrical knowledge
advances. Different strands of research include knowledge-building inquiry and discourse
(e.g., Zhang, Scardamalia, Lamon, Messina, & Reeve, 2007), design principles for
knowledge building (Hewitt & Scardamalia, 1998), and assessment of knowledge building
(Lee, Chan & van Aalst, 2006; van Aalst & Chan, 2007).
The knowledge building model is now implemented in many schools, organizations,
and workplaces in different countries; efforts to implement and develop it are supported by
the Knowledge Society Network, a knowledge network of researchers, teachers, scientists,
designers working together to examine knowledge creation and technological advances (see
www.ikit.org). The Knowledge Building perspective addresses the 21st century challenge
focusing on knowledge creation and collective work; it is not just about technology but for
designing a new model of thinking and education (Bereiter, 2002; Bereiter & Scardamalia,
2006).
17
3.6.5 Theoretical, Pedagogical and Methodological Issues
This chapter has examined how networked multimedia networked environments can
be used to support and advance new educational models, which emphasize inquiry,
collaboration and knowledge building. We review these three traditions as they reflect
different metaphors and they all involve sustained efforts integrating technology in classroom
and school systems. These developments may help address the challenge of realizing the
benefits of technology in classroom and we discuss lessons learned pertaining to theoretical,
pedagogical and methodological issues for integrating technology in classroom context.
Theoretical Implications and Issues
Primarily, research on networked multimedia environments supports and illustrates
contemporary theories of learning – knowledge is not merely received but socially
constructed, distributed, and situated in communities. A review of various education
approaches has pointed to different emphases of what inquiry and knowledge construction
entail -- While they all encompass different facets of learning, we suggest the Knowledge
Integration focuses more on constructive processing reflecting “knowledge acquisition”;
CoVis focuses on “participation” and authentic science practices supported by
telecommunication; and knowledge building examines collaboration as adding value to the
community focusing on “knowledge creation” through progressive discourse. By examining
different models and networked environments, one can gain a deeper view of different
perspectives of learning. It would be difficult to compare the environments in terms of their
relative effectiveness due to the different contexts and goals; they provide a range of
approaches for theorizing and enriching learning.
Review of these networked multimedia environments also helps to illuminate theories
of collaboration. For example, investigation of collective knowledge building supported by
Knowledge Forum can help us to theorize the notion of “collective agency” and provides
further insight into what “collaboration” means. Traditionally metacognition is individually-
18
based, focusing on how individual learners reflects on personal learning and knowledge; with
collaborative learning in these environments, we now need to consider “social
metacognition,” in which students reflect, monitor and take control of group cognition and
knowledge creation in the community. As well, in networked multimedia environments, new
kinds of collaborative learning will arise from collective work with communal data and objects
not present before. Specifically, teamwork often involves the use of a complex symbolic
representational system in discourse providing the participants the objects about which they
can engage in conversations about complex conceptual entities. Collaboration in
telecommunication contexts would provide new meanings to collaborative representations as
students jointly make meaning. How collaboration takes on new dimensions expanding the
nature of learning in the 21st century needs to be investigated.
The different models and approaches also highlight different forms of scaffolding. In
the Knowledge Integration perspective, scaffolds are used to help students to understand the
tasks (e.g., procedural, social); in CoVis scaffolds help students in their reflection (for
example, scaffolds in Collaborative Notebook help students to reflect and keep track of the
process in collaborative inquiry); and in Knowledge Forum scaffolds are epistemic (e.g., a
better theory, putting our knowledge together) and help students with theory building. While
scaffolds are usually considered to make learning tasks more manageable, some scaffolds
used in knowledge building could make thinking more complex. Reiser (2004) questioned the
nature and meaning of scaffolds and considered their different purposes for structuring as
opposed to problematizing learning. These different uses and designs prompt us to consider
what scaffolding is really about. The design of the networked multimedia environments point
to the need to develop theories of scaffolding that can further support students’ collaborative
inquiry and knowledge building.
Pedagogical Implications and Issues
We have used a scheme illustrating how technology is influenced by changing views
of learning (Table 1) and argue that more awareness is needed of the epistemologies
19
underpinning their development to guide classroom designs. Furthermore, classroom
practice can be enriched with design principles derived from iterative classroom studies.
While there are different emphases, all traditions consider cognitive, social, and technological
dynamics for promoting metacognition, collaborative inquiry, and scientific practice in
research communities; they all highlight the importance of developing rich knowledge and
inquiry, and tackling complex understanding in rich domains. There also are different
emphases. For example, Knowledge Integration focuses more on cognitive and conceptual
principles (e.g., making science accessible) whereas Knowledge Building emphasizes sociocognitive and building of community knowledge (Hewitt & Scardamalia, 1998). For classroom
practice, Knowledge Integration uses sequences of projects for scientific inquiry; CoVis
emphasizes open-ended project work; and in knowledge building, learning designs are most
emergent. There may be different learning goals and contexts and understanding of various
design principles can enrich classroom practice.
For pedagogical and technological change to take place, we also emphasize the roles
of student and teacher epistemology. Iterative design studies can show that emphasis is not
on technology per se; emphasis is given to the understanding of student models of
knowledge as well as the cognitive and collaborative strategies students use in multimedia
networked environments. Teachers need to be aware of how students jointly make meaning;
it is not just the capabilities of these environments but how students make sense of the
activities enabled by technology that matters. It is clear now that successful use of networked
environments does not merely hinge on changing the technology or instruction; it requires
that teachers reflect on their beliefs. Teachers need to change from seeing students as
information receivers to valuable contributors of knowledge; they also need to change from
providers of information to co-learners with students in knowledge-building communities.
How changes in epistemological and pedagogical shifts can take place are critical issues that
need to be explored.
There also are issues of sustainability and scalability that need to be addressed for
impacts of ICT in education. All three of the traditions of work we discussed involve hundreds
20
to thousands of teachers, researchers, and scientists working together in teacher and
knowledge networks. Many challenges exist about how innovative practice can be scaled up
and sustained in ways they are intended and how teachers can be prepared for new modes
of networked multimedia learning. However, networked multimedia environments also
provide opportunities. Not only do students learn from each other, teachers can learn from
each other in building new knowledge. Taking the theoretical underpinning of knowledge
building, teachers and students need to be transformed by means of their own goals and
activities and collectively build new knowledge about innovative practices in communities.
Methodological Implications and Issues
Research on the use of networked multimedia learning in classrooms is complex.
How can researchers conceptualize, design and assess roles of learning and understanding?
We consider methodological issues relating to diversity, context and scope. First, the field is
complex and diverse; not only are there different conceptual models and frameworks,
researchers also use different methodologies such as experiment, cognitive analysis, case
study, ethnography, and design-based methods. These different models, frameworks, and
approaches make the comparisons of learning environments difficult. Nevertheless, it may be
useful to note that different methodologies can provide varied way to examine the nature and
roles of technology and cognition in context.
In this chapter, we have emphasized using design-based approach to study learning
and cognition and technology development in classroom context. Design-based approaches
address the dialectical relations between theory and design. They enable the researchers
and teachers to work with multi-disciplinary teams in designing the environment, while
simultaneously studying the phenomena including student and teacher learning in the
complex environments. All three educational models made use of design-based studies over
several decades for designing and examining innovative practices in the classroom. This
method also provides possibilities to address issues of relevance when teachers work with
researchers jointly to examine problems of technology integration in classroom. While
21
highlighting the value of design-based approach for studying innovations, problems need to
be acknowledged. For example, design-based studies are complex and often efforts to
document changes and improvements over iterations of designs may not be systematic.
Design-based studies are most suitable for tuning designs in classrooms but with increased
need to examine scalability, there is also a need to develop methodology to study change in
systems and networks.
We also need to consider the scope of inquiry as methodology is related to theoretical
and technology advances. We now understand learning cannot just be measured with
academic performance; a complex array of factors and indices need to be examined to trace
progress of learning, cognition, and understanding. The three educational approaches
reviewed examined different facets of learning including cognition and social dynamics of
learning and classroom activities and systems. It is also realized that we need to study
collaboration on different time scales ranging from a few minutes to several weeks or longer.
Despite various complexities, technology also opens up much wider possibilities for research
on learning. For example, we can now have detailed traces of students writing (and thinking)
on the computer and video research has opened up new possibilities. The complexity of
examining learning, technology and context requires continued examination of new
methodological possibilities for making progress.
In summary, this chapter addresses the question of how networked multimedia
environments can meet new goals of education supporting inquiry, collaboration and
knowledge building, and how they can improve our understanding of the learning processes.
We argue for the need to examine the complex interrelationships among cognition,
technology and context in addressing the challenge of making ICT relevant for education.
This chapter reviewed changing perspectives of learning and considered how the design of
technology reflects these changing views. We then examined how theory and design evolve
in classroom context relating to three innovative examples for addressing new goals of
education. These three approaches have different emphases but they all share the
22
commitment of advancing student inquiry, collaboration and knowledge construction for 21st
century learning while illuminating the learning processes in complex classroom context.
There are many challenges and new possibilities with realizing the potentials of
technology in education. We propose that technology needs to be informed by learning
theories and student learning process can be illuminated with investigating how technology is
used in classroom context. The need for theory-design-context integration also calls for new
methodological approaches. In this chapter, we have emphasized the design-based
approach – researchers are not just describing classroom change or testing the effectiveness
of environments, they are designing for change while examining theory and design in
classroom context. There needs to be the development of a classroom culture focusing on
inquiry, collaboration, and knowledge building as well as fundamental changes in pedagogy
and epistemology.
3.6.6 References
Bell, P. & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning
from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797-817.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and
implications of expertise. Chicago and La Salle, IL: Open Court.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age: Design-centred
models of teaching and instruction. In P.A. Alexander & P.H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook
of educational psychology (pp. 695-714). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience and school. Washington DC: National Research Council.
23
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in
creating complex interventions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
Brown, A. & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly
(Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp.
229-270). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
Brown, M. (2008). Interactive learning environments: Review of an old construct with a new
critical twist. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information
technology in primary and secondary education (pp. xxx-xxx). New York: Springer.
Chan, C.K.K., Burtis, P.J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict
in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 1-40.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1994). From visual word problems to learning
communities: Changing conceptions of cognitive research. In K. McGilly (Ed.),
Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 157-200).
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cole, M., Engestrom, Y., & Salomon, G. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed
cognition. In Anonymous (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
Collins, A., Joseph, D. & Bielaczcy, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and
methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 15-42.
Cuban, L. (1986) Teachers and machines. New York: Teachers College Press.
24
Edelson, D.C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R.D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based
learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 8, 391-450.
Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.) (2004). Advances in research
on networked learning. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gomez, L. M., Fishman, B. J., & Pea, R. D. (1998). The CoVis Project: Building a large-scale
science education testbed. Interactive Learning Environment, 6, 59-92.
Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building
processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 75-96.
Hoadley, C.M., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through online peer discussion.
Speakeasy in the Knowledge Integration Environment. International Journal of
Science Education, 22, 839-857.
Jacobson, M. J., & Kozma, R. B. (2000). Innovations in science and mathematics education:
Advanced designs for technologies of learning. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbuam Associates.
Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.), (2002). CSCL2: Carrying forward the
conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kozma, R.B. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of
understanding in chemistry. In M. J. Jacobson, & R. B. Kozma (eds.), Innovations in
science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning
(pp. 11-46). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation:
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986/1979). Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C.K.K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own
collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 1, 277-307.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science
education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers- teachers, peers: Science learning partners.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lipponen, L.,Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Patterns of participation
and discourse in elementary students’ computer-supported collaborative learning.
Learning and Instruction, 13, 487-509.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge
University Press.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naïve theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds), Mental
models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC:
National Academy Press.
O’Neill, D. K. (2004). Building social capital in a knowledge-building community:
Telementoring as a catalyst. Interactive Learning Environments, 12, 179-208.
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge
communities and the three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research,
74, 557-577.
26
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms, children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic
Books..
Pea, R.D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning
environments for transformative communications. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3,
283-298.
Pea, R.D., & Gomez, L. (1992). Distributed multimedia environments: Why and how?
Interactive Learning Environments, 2, 73-109.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and
Problematizing Student Work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273-304..Roschelle, J.,
& Pea, R. (1999). Trajectories from today’s www to a powerful educational
infrastructure. Educational Researcher, 28 (5), 22-25.
Salomon, G, (Ed.) (1993). Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational
considerations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Salomon, G. (1996) Studying novel learning environments as patterns of change. In S.
Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.) International perspectives on
the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 363-377). Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sawyer, R.K. (2006). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. NY: Cambridge
University Press.
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.
27
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265-283.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C., (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy and
technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences
(pp. 97-115). New York: NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher 27, 4-13.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group Cognition: Computer-support for building collaborative knowledge.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Suthers, D.D. (2003). Studies for representational support for collaborative inquiry with
Belvedere. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn:
Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp.
27-460). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Tan, S-C., Seah, L-H., Yeo, J., & Hung, D. (2008). Online learning communities in K-12
settings. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information
technology in primary and secondary education (pp. xxx-xxx). New York: Springer.
van Aalst, J. (2006). Rethinking the nature of online work in asynchronous learning networks.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 279-288.van Aalst, J. & Chan, C.K.K.
(2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building through electronic
portfolios. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 175-220.
White, B. & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling and metacognition: Making science
accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive
dynamics of knowledge building in the work of 9- and 10-year-olds. Educational
Technology Research Development, 55, 117-145.
28
29