Metaskills for Inquiry in
higher education
Hanni Muukkonen
Minna Lakkala
Centre for Research on Networked Learning
and Knowledge Building
Dept. Psychology, University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/networkedlearning
2.12.2005, INTERLEARN, Helsinki
Development of expertise
Ability to develop content-specific knowledge and apply it in
situations often co-evolves with the development of general
thinking skills and metacognitive strategies (Davidson &
Sternberg, 1998).
Even if learners’ expertise is bound to a specific field of
inquiry, there are many skills and competencies, which are
generalizable and provide intellectual resources for
managing new problem-solving situations.
Prior courses: practices of metalevel evaluation that went
beyond individual metacognition in the sense that students
were not only monitoring and reflecting on their own
advancement, but also looking after a collective
advancement simultaneously (Muukkonen, Lakkala, &
Hakkarainen, 2005).
Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring:
how do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14,
527-565.
Conceptualizations to build on
Self-regulative and metacognitive skills (cf., Boekaerts,
Zeidner & Pintrich, 1999; Hofer, 2004;Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter,
2000)
Social metacognition (Jost, Kruglanski, & Nelson, 1998; Salomon
& Perkins, 1998; Salonen, Vauras, & Efklides, 2005).
Reflective and critical thinking skills (King & Kitchener, 1994; D.
Kuhn, 1991)
Academic literacy in reading and writing (e.g., Geisler, 1994;
Wineburg, 1991)
Skills of collaboration and interaction (Brown & Campione,
1994)
Knowledge building and Epistemic agency (Bereiter, 2002;
Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; 2003).
Knowledge-creation metaphor of learning: Sustained work
to advance and elaborate ideas across situations and
contexts (Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2004).
Three metaphors of learning
and expertise
(Paavola et al. 2004; Hakkarainen et al. 2004; Sfard
1998)
Emphasis
on
individuals
and
conceptual
knowledge
Acquisition
metaphor
”Monological”
within mind
Participation
metaphor
”Dialogical”
interaction,
situated
cognition
Knowledgecreation metaphor
Emphasis on
cultural
practices,
social
interaction,
and situated
cognition
”Trialogical”
developing shared
objects and artefacts
collaboratively Co-evolution of inquirers,
communities, and objects of
activity
Aims
Exploring metaskills based on analysing
students’ engagement in collaborative inquiry
Analysing how students evaluated their own
engagement and ability to take part in a selfdirected inquiry process.
Data:


database discourse in FLE3 (http://fle3.uiah.fi/)
environment
students’ self-evaluations
Qualitative content analysis
Course “Psychology of modern
learning environments”
12 students (3+5+4)
11 weeks, seven seminar meetings (3-4 hours)
and collaboration within the FLE3
(http://fle3.uiah.fi/) environment
monitored by three tutors
cognitive responsibility for the advancement of
inquiry in the hands of the students
student-generated themes



Qualities of networked environments that support
collaborative learning
Creative process in a networked community
Teachers’ and learners’ roles in a collaborative
networked environment
Elements of Progressive Inquiry
(Hakkarainen, 1998)
Constructing Working
Theories
Setting up Research
Questions
Critical Evaluation
Creating the
Context
Distributed
Expertise
Refocusing the Inquiry Process
Generating
Subordinate Questions
Back
Searching Deepening
Knowledge
Principles behind
Progressive Inquiry
A pedagogical and epistemological model for
representing principal features of (scientific) inquiry.
Students’ genuine questions and previous knowledge
of the phenomena as a starting point.
Attention to main concepts and deep principles of the
domain.
Deepening process, where the aim is understanding
and explanation of phenomena.
Students and teachers share their expertise and build
new knowledge collaboratively.
Discourse evolution
Group 1
OO
O
TQSS
QQSTTTT
QQSSTSSSSQSS
QQSSSSSOQT
T
TQS
TSS
Group 2
QSSSSSSSSSS
QQSSQTQSS
QSTTT
QTSTTQQSSS
QTTS
TT
TOO
T
O
T
TTO
Q Question
S Substantive knowing
T Theoretical knowing
M Metaknowing
O Organization
Tutor’s message
Group 3
TQT
QSQSSSSQSTTMOMMOTTTQOOTMM
QSSTT
QSTSSSS
S
T
QTTOO
QT
QTTST
TS
TMOOOO
Challenges based on the
database discourse
Move from substantive knowledge to the use
of theoretical knowledge
Use of questions to direct inquiry process
(even in new domains)
Explicit reflection and monitoring of the
collaboration (done more in face-to-face?)
Production of a genuinely collective object
Most experienced students in group 3
showed particular skills for engaging in and
regulating collaborative inquiry.
Paula (Group 3): …there is a problem of relevance with
the articles (at least some of them), which we already
discussed in the group. It is that a part of the articles
cover single research experiments and because the
course is so short, its impossible for a student to
make summaries (or critically reflect on them
considering the research context) just based on single
research and their findings presented in articles. I
consider that more appropriate sources would be
different ready summaries, which draw together
general lines on research findings. Just selecting and
evaluating knowledge can take too much time, which
makes getting to the point a little difficult. It would
ideal if there was enough time for focusing on a
couple of research articles and the general lines.
itm
co
m
m
itm
in
di
v
co
m
m
KB
en
t
en
co
t
lle
ct
iv
e
in
KB
di
v.
gu
co
id
lle
an
ct
ce
iv
e
gu
co
id
an
ur
se
ce
ev
al
ua
ti o
n
co
lle
ct
iv
e
in
di
v.
Percent
Distribution of selfevaluations
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
group1
group2
group3
Challenges based on selfevaluations
Commitment and own responsibility
Learning a new way of working
Sharing unfinished ideas

trust, openness to new ideas, self-criticism
Collaborative knowledge building takes time
Role of prior knowledge and authentic
knowledge sources
Ill-defined beginning of inquiry process
Monitoring the collective process from database
discourse
Lauri (group 3): Our group was working very
much on its own, but we could do it in a selfregulated environment due to the longer
studying experiences of the (other ;)
members of our group, so we proceeded well.
Taru (group 3): Definitely more demanding and
also harder. Nevertheless, it felt good not to
be alone responsible for own work, but the
whole group shared equally a responsibility
for the advancement of the process. In more
traditional seminars it often happens do that
you work on your own and on the last
moment write everything ready and miss all
ideas from others. Although collaboration
slows work down at first, I think that it
becomes a strength and richness as the
process progresses.
Conclusions: metaskills for
collaborative inquiry
Self-regulation




Planning
Strategy
selection,
Resources,
Volitional
control
Monitoring individual and
collective process
Comprehension
 Advancement and obstacles
 Dealing with uncertainty and
new knowledge-fields
 Scientific argumentation
 Collective process advances
through individuals’
participation

Understanding
collaborative
inquiry
A shared object
of inquiry
 Sharing,
publishing, and
building on
half-baked
ideas

Regulation of
collaborative inquiry
We propose a framework that consists of
three encompassing levels:
(1) monitoring and regulating individual
process,
(2) monitoring and regulating collective
process and
(3) monitoring and regulating efforts in
terms of knowledge building and
advancement of shared objects.
Previous findings
Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technologymediation and tutoring: how do they shape progressive inquiry discourse?
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 527-565.
Scaffolding by technology supported
practices of




problem-setting
meta-reflection
collective efforts
object-oriented inquiry
Non-technology groups


more own explanations
focus on understanding and presenting theoretical content
Role of tutoring in scaffolding towards


an iterative and deepening inquiry process
returning to earlier ideas, questions, and re-addressing them