collaborative knowledge construction in study teams of professionals
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 17 November 2014, At: 11:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Human Resource DevelopmentInternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhrd20
Collaborative Knowledge Constructionin Study Teams of ProfessionalsHarm Tillemaa Leiden University , The Netherlandsb Department of Education , Leiden University , PO Box 9555, NL,2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands Phone: + 31 (0)71 527 3388 Fax: +31 (0)71 527 3388 E-mail:Published online: 17 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Harm Tillema (2005) Collaborative Knowledge Construction in StudyTeams of Professionals, Human Resource Development International, 8:1, 81-99, DOI:10.1080/1367886042000338263
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1367886042000338263
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Collaborative Knowledge Construction inStudy Teams of Professionals
HARM TILLEMALeiden University, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT In this article knowledge productivity is used to investigate the outcomes ofcollaborative inquiry-oriented activity among professionals. Knowledge productivity is believed tocreate conceptual artifacts, and is conceptually associated with a motivation to learn (self-regulation), the use of different professional perspectives (reflection on action), and a way toshare knowledge while working towards the construction of new knowledge and understanding(conceptual change). A study team approach was adopted to examine how (teaching)professionals worked together as a team to become knowledge-productive learners in their ownwork environment. The outcomes of the study team process were evaluated against three differentevaluative criteria: a) improving knowledge and understanding; b) shifting individual perspectivesc) commitment to the outcomes for professional practice. Evaluations of knowledge productivityby the study teams themselves revealed insights about ways the professionals accepted the studyteam’s (collaborative) outcomes, especially their initial (un)easiness and (un)certainties aboutpracticing the results of their collaborative inquiry. The results of the study suggest that meetingall three evaluative criteria creates a favorable condition for collaborative inquiry. The teams canbe described as helping to establish progressive discourse to improve understanding through jointinquiry and exploration of dispositions, as well as personal involvement in a continuousimplementation of practices.
KEY WORDS: Team learning, collaborative inquiry, knowledge construction
Introduction
Producing knowledge has long been considered as an impetus for being aprofessional, since it is a driving force to ensure (and warrant) professional action(Loughran, 2003; Storck and Hill, 2000). The recent emphasis on collaborativeknowledge construction by professionals in the literature on professional learning(Boshuizen et al., 2004) aims to ensure that knowledge sharing and mutuallearning will be used to enhance easy access to professional resources, connectionsto people, retrieval of useful knowledge, and engagement in conversationsadapted to the demands of professional work. Despite adherence in the literatureon organizational learning and human resource development to the value of
Correspondence Address: Harm Tillema, Department of Education, Leiden University, PO Box 9555, NL
2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands. Tel: + 31 (0)71 527 3388; Fax: + 31 (0)71 527 3619; Email:
Human Resource Development International,Vol. 8, No. 1, 81 – 99, March 2005
ISSN 1367-8868 Print/1469-8374 Online/05/010081-19 # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1367886042000338263
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
collaborative knowledge construction (Harrison and Kessels, 2004) and itscentrality to the work of professionals (Eraut, 1994), little is known about itsproduction. In collaborative learning communities (Wenger et al., 2002; Kelleher,2003) professionals discuss, study, and construct conceptual principles and ideas,generate and enact new strategies for their work environment, and above all shareinsights about what they learn. These collaborative processes of inquiry lead to adynamic co-construction of knowledge, which is advocated as a feature of the‘learning organization’ (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1994). Although positive outcomeshave been associated with participation in collaborative inquiries (Engestrom,1994), there is disagreement about the outcomes of the professional learningproduced in these collaborative contexts. Therefore, a closer look into theprospects of collaborative knowledge building in the profession is warranted(Bereiter, 2002; Brooks, 1994).
The concept of knowledge productivity may be fruitful when studyingcollaborative knowledge construction. This concept denotes the capability ofproducing knowledge in some distributable form that may enhance professionalpractice (Drucker, 1993). Knowledge productivity, according to Bereiter (2002),is the creation of conceptual artifacts. It is conceptually associated with awillingness or motivation to learn (self-regulation) by using different profes-sional perspectives (reflection on action), and sharing knowledge while workingtowards the construction of new knowledge and understanding (conceptualchange). The concept of knowledge productivity (Garvey and Williamson, 2002)may help us focus on the importance of achieving or providing a frameworkfor outcomes in knowledge building by professionals (i.e. how conceptualartifacts are created through collaborative inquiry). Knowledge productivitymay also signal the demand for or acceptance of shared outcomes incollaborative inquiry by professionals, since these efforts will contribute totheir daily work (Huberman, 1995). Conceptual artifacts (Bereiter, 2002, p. 76)are understood as the products or objects of deliberate thinking and reasoningthat can be argued about professionally. They become tangible throughconversation and can be exchanged in the form of plans, approaches, schemes,outlines, or even recipes that help professionals to perform better. In thisrespect it is of interest to see how professionals produce conceptual artifactsthrough collaborative inquiry (i.e. create knowledge productivity) (Winslow andBramer, 1994). Focusing on the outcomes of inquiry (or knowledgeproductivity) should reveal how, through collaboration, professionals canestablish links between their conceptualizations of practice (practice theoriesand perspectives) and their actual performance (Huberman, 1995). For example,when a group of professionals comes together to learn about ‘best practices’,the measure of knowledge productivity could be the extent to which they leavewith a practice they can apply within their own work settings. The outcome ofsuch a collaborative inquiry would be to situate or embed their mutuallearning into practices that can shape their work. It has been claimed that‘communities of inquiry’ (Kelleher, 2003) can support this productivity bytranslating ‘theory into practice’ (also Engestrom, 1994; Miller, 2002). A majorconcern in collaborative knowledge construction, therefore, is to establish waysin which knowledge productivity can be achieved.
82 H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Building Blocks of Knowledge Productivity
Achieving knowledge productivity, the focus of this paper, depends on the type ofcollaborative setting as well the ways in which individuals in this setting arestimulated to develop, exchange, and communicate their knowledge (Wallace andLouden, 1994). The type of arrangement directs the way the social andcommunicative nature of collaboration influences how professionals ‘produce’knowledge (i.e. learn as a team) (Brooks, 1994). Collaborative settings containtensions, however (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993): between openness and closure,between dialogue and keeping information to oneself, between exercising power andopenness of individual expression, between stability and risk taking, betweencommitment and expediency. How knowledge construction is set up in collaborativesettings leads to appropriate building blocks as features of the setting to frame andsupport knowledge productivity. The building blocks that were selected for thispurpose draw heavily from the literature on organizational learning and humanresource development (Harrison and Kessels, 2004), as well as from the developmentof professional expertise (Boshuizen, 2003). As building blocks they are similar toLave and Wenger’s requirements for a community of practice (Wenger et al., 2002):they require a focus on shared interests, joint activities, and a shared repertoire ofresources (experiences, stories, tools, ways to address recurring problems). To frameknowledge productivity in a collaborative inquiry, the following building blocks areuseful.
Conceptual Exchange as Reflection on Action
Deliberate reflection has enormous potential as a way of explicating tacit knowledge.Critics (Eraut, 1994; Gilroy, 1993) of the concept of reflection, however, point to theproblem that individual reflection on action may be implicit and local, and may evenlead to idiosyncratic knowledge that is not open to scrutiny and exchange (Egan,1997). Knowledge productivity requires that implicit beliefs and conceptions bechallenged and open to external debate in order to become relevant for professionalaction. This occurs only when they can be communicated and shared with others.Exchange and dialogue, together with reflection, therefore, are central features forachieving knowledge productivity. Bereiter (2002) in this respect talks about‘progressive discourse’.
Self-regulation as Building Motivation to Learn
A second building block in knowledge productivity is the self-regulation of learnersin a team. This is a process in which learning is directed and controlled to attainspecific goals (Zimmerman and Schunk, 2001), using suitable learning strategies aswell as meta-cognitive monitoring to construct knowledge. Self-regulation providesthe learner with incentives and motivation to learn, and is associated with individualresponsibility to accomplish goals. It requires active, personal involvement inknowledge construction and setting personal standards that can realistically beachieved. In this respect the individual becomes a manager of his or her ownlearning. The learning is not necessarily equated with individual learning per se; it
Collaborative Knowledge Construction 83
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
can also include learning to operate in teams and cooperate with others (Probst andBuchel, 1997).
Commitment as Willingness to Collaborate in a Team
In the supplement to the International Encyclopaedia of Research in Education (1984),collaboration is defined as ‘a relationship that involves ‘‘receptivity of the other’’,one that pays careful attention to the other’s voice’. In their study of professionalcollaboration, Baldwin and Austin (1995) identified six dynamics of collaboration: adegree of joint-ness (distinctive roles vs. shared responsibility), definition of roles andresponsibilities (explicitness vs. openness), flexibility of roles (rigid vs. flexible),similarity of standards and expectations (uniformity vs. different perspectives),proximity of partners (local vs. distant involvement), and depth of relationship(personal and professional vs. strictly work relation). In this description of groupdynamics the elements of exchange and self-regulation in knowledge productivitydescribed above are also present.
Study Teams as an Intervention to Frame Knowledge Productivity
In collaborative inquiry much depends on the nature of interventions; and thereare many types of interventions that aim at knowledge construction in teams(Anderson et al., 2000). In action research projects professionals embark onchanging their work (Somekh, 2003) and scrutinize problems observed in theirpractice to produce new ways of dealing with situations (Hargreaves, 1997). Inexpert groups (Woods, 1995) professionals are challenged to articulate knowledgefrom their own experiences within theoretical frameworks generated by others toproduce new ways of thinking. In focus groups (Craft et al., 2002) professionalsdiscuss their narrative arguments and reasoning to reconstruct their beliefs anddispositions to produce reflections on actions (Gilroy, 1993). The particular formatwe used to capture the building blocks of knowledge productivity as a means tocollaborative inquiry is the study team approach (Joyce et al., 1989; Tillema, 1997).Study teams incorporate an active, collaborative, and inquiry-oriented activity thatis linked to the culture of learning at the workplace (Hamilton, 1998). A studyteam organizes its own learning through self-determined interests (i.e. self-regulation) by studying an issue from different professional perspectives throughsharing existing knowledge (conceptual exchange and dialogue), while workingtogether towards a common goal of generating new knowledge (commitment tocollaboration). The study team intervention of collaborative knowledge construc-tion entails three stages (see Tillema, 1997).
Stage One – Reflection: Raising Problem Awareness by Explicating Knowledge andBeliefs
In a study team great value is attached to discrepancy and confrontation as a way ofarriving at new ideas (Hofer and Pintrich, 2001). Explicating knowledge, motivation,and interests may provide insights about current dispositions and beliefs to enhanceor hinder the knowledge construction process (Pintrich et al., 1993).
84 H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Stage Two – Study: Investigation or Inquiry Using Different Perspectives
To decide whether new ideas are plausible, fruitful, and intelligent (Posner et al.,1982) it is necessary to experiment, study, and investigate them. Studying themcreates opportunities for getting acquainted with new information. To try out newideas (in a non-manipulative, non-threatening way) is an important condition forknowledge productive learning (Brooks, 1994).
Stage Three – Change: Generation of Conceptual Artifacts
Knowledge construction is perceived as acceptable (i.e. coherent or reconcilable withactual practice) when it results in ways to cope with practice (Winslow and Bramer,1994) and allows for a stable and more permanent reconstruction of knowledge.
Criteria for Rating Knowledge Productivity
As a measurement concept, knowledge productivity represents a state or attribute ofthe outcomes reached through collaborative processes. Establishing the outputrequires using a criterion for rating or validating: in this instance, creating aconceptual artifact (whose form is determined by the team’s task). To complete theassessment of knowledge productivity, however, the nature of the collaborativeinquiry that led to the outcome must be appraised: here, the study team approach toframe knowledge productivity. Since the intervention provided a setting toinvestigate how professionals achieved conceptual artifacts, their collaborativeworking together as a team, and the way they constructed knowledge, these shouldall be appraised. Thus, the creation of conceptual artifacts becomes the ultimatecriterion of knowledge productivity, since it measures the products useful forprofessional practice. As a proxy to gauge creation of conceptual artifacts and assessthe process of knowledge construction in teams, the following criteria were selectedto determine the collaborative inquiry process by professionals. These criteria, whichwere taken from the literature on professional learning (Anderson et al., 2000) as keyingredients to measure the process of learning, mirror the above building blocks forachieving knowledge productivity. The criteria include: a) raising knowledge andunderstanding (Gilroy, 1993), b) shifting individual perspectives (Spiro, 1990), and c)commitment to using practical results (Eraut, 1994). In more detail the processinvolves:
. Raising problem understanding: this relates to greater awareness and furtherunderstanding and insights as a result of the collaborative inquiry. These insightsmay lead to adding to or fine-tuning the personal knowledge base of theprofessional (Loughran, 2003). The central issue is: are the discussions seen asrelevant and related to a professional’s own practice/situation (e.g. ‘I recognizethat the problems being discussed can provide new insights for me’)?
. Shifting perspective: this relates to conceptual change and the recognition ofothers’ viewpoints as relevant and valid (Shuell, 1990). The central issue is: arethe ideas advanced by others during the exchange in the study team accepted, andis this knowledge regarded as relevant (e.g. ‘I am open to new ideas’)?
Collaborative Knowledge Construction 85
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
. Showing commitment: this relates to involvement in the group process andinterest in group discussions (Brooks, 1994). It is embodied in the social exchangeand interaction with colleagues working together. The central issue is: am Iinterested in taking part in this process of mutual understanding (e.g. ‘I takeactive part in the discussions’)?
These criteria were used to establish how professionals, working together in studyteams, appraise their collaborative inquiry as being knowledge productive. Thisstudy focuses on how professionals in study teams evaluate their collaborativeinquiry as knowledge productive, using the three criteria.
Method
The Study Team Intervention
The study team approach was adopted by three different groups of professionalsworking together as a collaborative team to produce solutions in their workenvironment. The study team rationale was comprised of ten successive steps,provided as the method to be used in each of the three teams. The steps were: a)to elicit existing knowledge and beliefs (steps 1 – 3), b) to challenge existingknowledge and acquire new knowledge (steps 4 – 7), and c) to link inquiry toaction (i.e. create useful practical outcomes) (steps 8 – 10). The mission and goalof each study team was to work towards a concrete product for their teaching.The researcher acted as instructor at the beginning of the study and as participantobserver during the process. His role was to facilitate the study process and act asresource, in addition to taking notes (see method procedure) to describe theprocess. This dual role made it possible to observe closely the team dynamics ofknowledge construction and to interpret the intended meanings during theexchange of knowledge.
The steps were:
1 Task or problem definition. Determination of the problem situation. In this stepbackground materials were explored and collected about a problematic teachingsituation. To offer a clear focus for activity, the study team had to decide on thepractical outcome it wished to achieve (a professional development plan, anassessment assignment, or conversation guidelines for mentoring).
2 Exploration of knowledge and beliefs. Identification and discussion of the studyteam’s prior experiences of and beliefs about the problem selected. In this step eachmember’s implicit conceptions and tacit knowledge were explicated, and theircoherence and fruitfulness as possible contributions to the proposed outcome wereexamined.
3 Reflection on knowledge and perspectives. Deliberate analysis of strengths andweaknesses in everyone’s ideas about solving the problem. In this step the function ofa study team in validating existing beliefs was stressed, as well as the need for aninquiry into these beliefs and the co-construction of new knowledge.
86 H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
4 Searching for solutions. Open exchange (brainstorming) about possible provisionalbut nonetheless tangible solutions. In this step the objective was to formulate clear,specific questions for further study and to collect missing information or to resolvediscrepancies from earlier discussions.
5 Collecting relevant materials. Exploring relevant information and solutions. In thisstep the study team searched for outside information that would answer thequestions posed or evaluate the materials provided to decide about further inquiryneeds. This step offered the team the opportunity to insert or gather relevantvalidated, or expert, knowledge.
6 Inquiry and research. Inquiry, study, and research about uncertainties andexploring the feasibility of solutions. In this step the study team entered into aresearch-oriented process of testing and analyzing outside information (written textsor expert opinions) that could solve the problem.
7 Producing solutions in the form of conceptual artifacts. Working out solutions in atangible format. In this step the aim was to produce concrete, fruitful teachingproducts as a solution to the problem in the form of papers, charts, materials, andchecklists.
8 Display and presentation. Use of solutions in daily practice or presentation of suchsolutions to others (colleagues, a forum). In this step the feasibility of solutions wasscrutinized and assessed, as well as discussing the acceptance of solutions based onfeedback from others (peers). Feasibility could be tested by trying out the solutionsin work environments, or making presentations or posters for an exhibition.
9 Redefinition of solutions. Determination of the final solution and delivering aconclusive product or outcome, based on the evaluations from the previous step. Inthis step the critiques were gathered together and the feedback and suggestions forchange were dealt with.
10 Process evaluation and learning outcomes. Establishing the study team results andoutcomes. In this step the study team evaluated the working process and reviewedthe initial intentions in steps 2 and 3.
Method of Investigation
Setting and participants. In this study three different groups of teaching professionalswere invited to participate. The teachers regularly worked together and adopted thestudy team approach as a way deliberately to engage in activities of inquiry and tostudy work-related problems. Different groups were used in order to comparefunctioning across settings (i.e. to include variation); moreover, teaching profes-sionals were used to represent a coherent domain of professional thinking (i.e.warrant comparability). A further selection criterion in this study was therequirement that the professionals have regular work relations as colleagues andbe willing to adopt the study team approach as their future way of deliberately
Collaborative Knowledge Construction 87
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
engaging in activities of inquiry and studying work-related problems. Clearly, theprofessionals in this study were self-directed and self-motivated to form acommunity of inquiry (as inquirers) when they chose to engage in study teams.
The first study team consisted of section coordinators in a regional institute ofhigher vocational education. The group consisted of eight professionals, each havingdifferent subject expertise but all involved in managerial and coordinating tasks.
The second study team consisted of mentors in a teacher education college forprimary education. The six professionals were teacher educators with specialresponsibility for coaching and counseling student teachers during their teachingpractice.
The third study team consisted of educational consultants from an agencyinvolved in school counseling and reform. The five professionals were all formerprimary school teachers who now coached teachers in primary education.
In selecting these different groups of professionals we tried to provide differenttypes of professionals who covered a broad range of responsibilities (educators,coordinators, and consultants) within one domain of content expertise (Boshuizen,2003).
Sessions of the study teams. The study teams were held during regular meetings at theprofessionals’ workplace. They took place once a week (often on Friday afternoons)for three to seven weeks, during which time the teaching professionals worked on aproblem or issue of common interest. The coordinators chose as their topic thedevelopment of an appraisal system for assessing work-related activity of students(grading practical assignments), and worked on this problem for five weeks. Thementors worked on the problem of constructing a common route and guidelines forsupervisory conversations with a student teacher (i.e. ways of providing feedback),and constituted a study team for seven weeks. The consultant study team decided toconstruct a personal professional development plan and was active for three weeks.
Procedure. The sessions of each study team were visited by the researcher as aparticipant observer, taking notes to capture the process and construct a narrativeaccount of the meetings afterwards. This account was to be used to interpret orcontextualize the questionnaire ratings. The notes contained a description ofdiscussion topics covered during the meetings as well as the main arguments putforward. Also, the social dynamics of the group process were recorded in generalterms. The teaching professionals were invited to make retrospective evaluations oftheir meetings, looking back on the knowledge construction process as a whole in thediscussion setting.
When the sessions had achieved a tangible product or outcome (a conceptualartifact, which was a requisite for the study team to end its process), or when theteam decided its work was completed (after a few weeks), the questionnaire wasadministered at the last meeting and analyzed for means, range, and standarddeviations of scoring. The result, delivered to the study team the following week, wasevaluated, and the members commented on it. This special evaluation meeting washeld to discuss, clarify, and add to the results of the questionnaire so all the groupmembers could interpret the team’s knowledge productivity. No individual scoringsof the questionnaire were returned. Three data sets were available; these consisted of
88 H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
individual questionnaire appraisals, collective retrospective evaluations, andresearcher notes on the dynamics and content of knowledge construction.
Measurement instruments.Questionnaire on the appraisal of outcomes. A questionnaire was used to appraise theknowledge construction in study teams. By using a self-assessment questionnaire, weattempted to determine how each participant evaluated and reviewed the outcomesof the collective professional inquiry and the members’ contributions to the exchangeof knowledge for a set of specific items covering the three evaluative criteria. Thesequestionnaires were to be rated on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from non-existentto present) (see Appendix A):
. Problem understanding consisted of seven items that evaluated the professional’sgrowth in understanding of the topic and insights gained from the discussions(e.g. ‘the study team dealt with problems that really mattered’).
. Achieving perspective consisted of seven items that evaluated the ideas expressedby others that contributed to the study team’s discussions (e.g. ‘I was able toaccept ideas from others’).
. Commitment consisted of six items that dealt with active involvement in studyteam discussions (e.g. ‘I enjoyed being in this group’).
Internal consistency for these items in the three scales was measured. This resulted inthe following Cronbach alphas values: for problem understanding r = . 83, forachieving perspective r= .85, and for commitment r= .90, indicating a satisfactoryhomogeneity of scales. The questionnaire, based on previous research on personalepistemologies (Hofer and Pintrich, 2002), had been previously piloted in severalsmall-scale studies and had similar outcomes (Tillema, 2003b).
Logbook notes and retrospective evaluations. Qualitative illuminative data werecollected through notes and retrospective evaluations to contextualize thequestionnaire data. Notes were taken by the researcher as a participant observerduring the study team sessions to describe the main arguments and discussion themescovered by each team. Notes were written in kernel sentences to be used as a‘memory aid’ for later reconstruction of the team’s knowledge construction process.The retrospective evaluations were gathered afterwards; professionals interpretedtheir team’s knowledge productivity, using their own perspectives. Comments weregathered verbatim.
Analysis. The design of this study consists of a qualitative cross-case comparison(Yin, 1984), in which three cases are compared along a common set of criteria. Acase-based approach was adopted to account for the authentic nature of group-based processes in knowledge construction. A case approach is particularly sensitiveto developments and changes that occur during the period of activity in a study team(Lundeberg et al., 1999). A mixed methodology was used that combined qualitativemethods to analyze the quantitative questionnaire data (Hitchcock and Hughes,1989). Descriptive notes were taken covering both the process and the reflectivecomments by professionals evaluating the outcomes. These qualitative data were
Collaborative Knowledge Construction 89
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
used to interpret and triangulate the questionnaire findings; they related the threedata sources. This mixed methodology was chosen to explain (Guba and Lincoln,1981) the evaluative questionnaire data further. A comparison of the variation indata sets among the three cases was used to highlight possible influences on orexplanations of the process by the study teams that related to the origin of theoutcomes for the same set of criteria. Comparing the variations among the groupprocesses could also reveal the differential impact on the outcomes. This qualitative,or mixed, approach in studying the process of development of knowledge related toknowledge productivity is particularly helpful for documenting and contextualizingthe learning that occurs among professionals and how its outcomes originate.
Results
Only one of the study teams produced an actual conceptual artifact as the criterionfor knowledge productivity. The coordinators did not complete their construction ofan appraisal system for grading students; the consultants stopped working on theirprofessional development plans. The mentors, however, did construct guidelines fortheir supervision discussions. The three data sets were used to further explicate thisoutcome.
Questionnaire Data
The data of the questionnaire were first presented to show how knowledgeconstruction as a collaborative inquiry process was perceived by the three studyteams of teaching professionals. The findings are presented in Table 1 as means andF values of the analysis of variance.
The consultants rated their team’s knowledge productivity as moderate (asmeasured over the three criteria together, with a mean of 3.12). This was also true forthe mentors (mean is 3.30) and the consultants (mean is 3.52). The groups differedonly with respect to perspective shift – a Scheffe difference of means between thecoordinators and the other teams. Based on these findings, it can be concluded thatthe groups did not differ substantially in rating the productivity of their knowledgeconstruction (remaining within a range of 60 – 70 per cent of acknowledgingknowledge productivity). Also measured for the three criteria individually, the study
Table 1. Means and ANOVAs for three study teams on knowledge productivity criteria (five-point scale)
Coordinators Mentors ConsultantsF. value
(df=2.16)
Problem understanding 3.17 M 3.05 L 3.78 H 4.59Perspective shift 2.90 L 3.75 H 3.65 H 5.79*Commitment 3.30 H 3.10 L 3.14 L 3.11
M=medium; H=high; L= low, as indication of relative position of means within observedrange*=at a significance level of p5 .05.
90 H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
teams rated their productivity as moderate: problem understanding was rated at 66per cent, perspective shift at 68 per cent, and commitment at 63 per cent.
Given the moderate ratings on all the criteria of knowledge productivity, wesought to clarify these findings through the process accounts from the meetings andby retrospective evaluations by the teaching professionals themselves.
Process Account
The log-book notes for the consultant group gauged the deliberations about theconstruction of a personal professional development plan (for more detail, seeTillema and Van der Westhuizen, 2003). The study team had great difficultyestablishing agreement about whether to have the training courses outside work or totake their own work situations as opportunities for development. About half theconsultants favored training and explicit time off for development as requisites forknowledge growth, while others wanted to use the study team itself as a source ofcontinuous learning. In the team discussions the main areas of conflict were ideasabout expertise and learning as process. Following discussions they agreed on theidea of professionalism as learning from and listening to others, but they could notagree on the ‘knowledge authority’ of the other. There were two opposing views: the‘knowledge is external and objective’ group and the dynamic ‘knowledge isimmersed’ group. Although this outcome of the study team was accepted by allparticipants, it did not result in a common approach to further professionaldevelopment. As part of the study team inquiry, the group also explored professionaldevelopment plans deployed in large companies and HRD programs in their field.The duration of the study team (three weeks) was relatively short because of theteam’s dichotomy. From the log-book accounts their high score on problemunderstanding can be readily interpreted, since they did engage in lengthydiscussions. The lower score on commitment to implement is also understandable,since the group did not reach a solution to the problem. The notes do not explain therelatively high positive score for perspective shift, however (which should haveindicated a readiness to accept the views of others as a result of the exchange).
The mentor study team dealt with establishing a joint way to provide feedback tostudent teachers during mentoring conversations. The mentors acknowledged theirdifferences in the way each reacted to student teacher problems, and they wanted toinvestigate a situational rather than an instructional way of delivering feedback(Edwards and Collison, 1996). They read literature about mentoring conversations,especially on clinical supervision and feedback, and drew up a draft of guidelines foropening, maintaining, and closing a conversation, together with probing situationalquestions (mirroring a student’s comments and searching for explanations by thestudents themselves). The study team was very much a hands-on experience, focusedon conceptual artifacts in the form of questions and guidelines to be adopted fromthe literature. The discussion dealt mainly with acceptance of specific wording for theguidelines. Each team member brought in materials, which, after a short discussion,were either accepted and included in the conversation scheme or not. Followingseven sessions, the outcome of this study team was a scheme to which all agreed. Theduration of the study team was also determined by some of the team members tryingout the conversation scheme in actual mentoring conversations and discussing their
Collaborative Knowledge Construction 91
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
observations afterwards in the study team. What is apparent from the questionnaireis the relatively low scores for problem understanding and commitment and thehigher score on perspective shift, for which the log-book account gives no clearindication. On the contrary, the study team had to work hard to find a topic ofcommon interest in a straightforward way. Apparently, some individual differenceswere present below the surface.
The study team of coordinators aimed at constructing a grading system forstudent fieldwork practice assignments. The eight teachers, who came fromdifferent disciplines (business, administration, management), engaged in a fiercediscussion about the use of competence language in determining qualifications(Tillema, 2003a). As part of their inquiry they took competence grading schemesfrom neighboring institutions and tried to use them for rating student practicework to determine the feasibility of the rating scheme. All team members were veryinvolved in the process of individually appraising student materials. These weredistributed among each team member, and the ratings were then compared. Thegroup as a whole could not establish a commonly accepted method forcompetence-based rating, and as a result the study team ended without anyconcrete decision. Nevertheless, the members were all enthusiastic about havingperformed the ‘exercise’. When the results are measured according to the threecriteria of the study, it becomes apparent that the study team had a relatively highcommitment but was low in perspective shift. The log-book notes weresupplemented by the evaluations in the study teams themselves.
Retrospective Evaluations
At the final meeting of each study team the overall questionnaire ratings werepresented to the members, who were asked to provide evaluative comments aboutthe knowledge construction process of the team. Table 2 depicts the main commentsmade by the teaching professionals for all three teams together.
When they reflected on their work and its outcome, almost all the professionalsstated they could have done more – indicating they were not satisfied with theoutcome as it emerged. Table 2 suggests the benefits of the study team were mainlyprocess features (i.e. participating together in knowledge construction was arewarding experience as such). Yet, when reflecting on the outcomes and products,the process of knowledge construction was regarded as cumbersome, inefficient, andnot always productive. The most important drawback seems to be postponement ofdecisions. ‘Not everything needs to be discussed’ was one of the remarks made.
As far as the individual study teams are concerned, the consultant study team hadthe most dissatisfied perception of the outcomes of their work: ‘We talked around incircles and we did not seem to move much in either direction.’ Also, there was littleinterest in investing in the group’s process, according to one of its members: ‘It tookan awful lot of time, and still it is not clear why we could not agree.’ Despite thisdisagreement, the sense of understanding and problem awareness were high in thisstudy team. The group knew what the problem was; only it was simply unable (orunwilling?) to solve it. Based on this state of affairs it is still unclear why the score onperspective shift was relatively high. One member of the study team explained this bysaying: ‘I thought we exchanged good arguments, and I was inclined to accept some
92 H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
of them were it not that the atmosphere of the discussion was not cordial.’ And ‘[i]t[the topic] remained on my mind. We did not work it out. It was not finished.’
The study team of mentors reacted in a positive way to their knowledgeproductivity. ‘I noticed we came up with a pretty good product, and I like to use it inmy conversations because I know how to work with it now.’ There was initialresistance to using the guidelines, but this was overcome when the team membersactually worked with the product. While the mentors felt they had changed (asshown in the higher score on perspective shift), some mentioned they felt uneasyabout the rationale and conceptual underpinning of the product. ‘It seems a goodsolution we came up with, but don’t ask me if it is any good theoretically.’ The lowscore on commitment also seemed puzzling to the study team. The mentors reacted:‘We worked a great deal, but without much discussion. Everyone just seemed to addhis thing. What we need now is to share experiences.’ Apparently the hands-onexperience did not fulfill the need for deliberation and grounding of ideas.
The study team of coordinators believed they did not have enough time to developa grading system. They disagreed among themselves, and their individual positionsbecame more polarized, as was shown in the low score on perspective shift. ‘It wasgood to get to the bottom of things. I know now where I stand.’ The discussion wasintense and in-depth, and the group members appreciated the opportunity to sortthings out – but not to accept the outcome. ‘It was good we talked this over. Welearned a great deal about the cultures in the different sections in our school.’ Inaddition the mean score on problem understanding shows that the discussions wereclear and insightful to the coordinators.
Table 2. Typical benefits and disadvantages mentioned in working together as a study team(n=19)
Benefits Disadvantages
With regard toprocess
With regard tooutcomes
With regard to process With regard tooutcomes
% response=342 % response=163 % response=136 % response=394
. being able to raiseissues together withothers
. greater awarenessof problems andproblem sensitivity
. not knowing whensomeone is an expertor a novice
. having to leave thematter with noclear-cut answers
. exploring mattersin depth
. learning to createproducts that canbe used
. creating an honestdiscussion withoutanyone dominating it
. lengthy process,which is not alwaysefficient
. getting to knoweach other better,both conceptuallyand professionally
. not easy reachingdecisions aboutwhat is best;tendency topostpone decisions
. allowing space fortalking
. tendency to leavethings as they are
. going outside theprocess to reflect
. learning toexplicate thinking
Collaborative Knowledge Construction 93
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Conclusions and Discussion
In this study we set out to investigate how professionals in study teams evaluate theircollaborative inquiry for knowledge productivity. Using the criterion of creatingconceptual artifacts, only one of the study teams achieved knowledge productivity.But, if all three evaluative criteria for collaborative knowledge construction are used,a more subtle picture emerges. Investing in the process of learning (i.e. engaging incollaborative construction of knowledge) lies at the heart of being a professional(Reason, 1994). The study team approach was used in this investigation to gaugeteaching professionals’ knowledge productivity as an outcome of a collaborativelearning activity. Knowledge productivity is the capability of creating conceptualartifacts for professional practice (Bereiter, 2002). This concept focuses on theoutcomes of collaborative knowledge construction. Raising awareness of theoutcomes of collaborative inquiry is intended to sharpen awareness of thefruitfulness and productive nature of collaboration by concentrating on whatcollaborative activity yields through the dynamics of interaction. The goal ofknowledge productivity is to build solutions for dealing with problems inprofessional practice (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1994; Winslow and Bramer, 1994).
The results of our inquiry, interpreted by the study team members themselves,indicate mediocre satisfaction with the knowledge productivity resulting fromworking as a team. The rating for knowledge productivity as measured for the threecriteria on the questionnaire was about 65 per cent. There were, however, markeddifferences between the three study teams with respect to each of the three criteria:problem understanding, perspective shift, and commitment. These differences markthe singularity of each process of knowledge construction. To date, the consultantstudy team that had tried intensely to reach a common ground in their discussionsbut did not in the end, was high on problem understanding, high on perspective shift,but low on commitment to the outcome. The coordinator study team was alsodissatisfied with the outcome when they put their knowledge to the test. There washigh involvement only in the process that reinforced beliefs and dispositions, asshown in the medium score on problem understanding and low score on perspectiveshift. The mentor study team, on the other hand, did strive and succeed in achievinga practical product, but at the cost of low problem understanding. They alsoachieved a shift in perspectives (given their high score), but that did not seem to bevery lasting given the low score on commitment to the product.
This study sought to illuminate the knowledge productivity ratings both in the log-book records of the process in study teams and in the retrospective evaluations of theteaching professionals themselves. The records did not clarify the ratings asmeasured by the three criteria, although they provided a better insight into theprocess of working together in teams (Reason, 1994). The log-book records showedthat the three study teams differed in process (they worked in different ways to reachan outcome). The coordinator study team operated mainly through intense problem-oriented discussions, the mentor team through hands-on activity, and the consultantteam through grounded discussions and arguments about general principles. Onlyone of the study teams created a conceptual artifact for its practice (the mentorsconstructed a system for conversation). Although the coordinators were not able toestablish a common grading system, what they did achieve could be considered as a
94 H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
grading system under construction. The consultants did not even come close todetermining a professional development plan. The records provided insights aboutthe process more than the product (Baldwin and Austin, 1995).
The retrospective evaluations by the teaching professionals revealed more aboutthe moderate productivity results than anything else. Problem understanding as thefirst criterion of knowledge productivity seems to be enhanced by discussion andargument. The consultant group confirmed this in its deliberate discussion about thementors’ lack of information exchange in the hands-on activity. The team membersfelt their work was not sufficiently grounded.
The second criterion of perspective shift may depend more on a team’s workingtogether than on its conceptual discourse. It was especially the mentors thatexperienced the relevance or worth of the conceptual artifact they created, and it mayhave been this that changed their opinions. Although it should be noted thatconsultants explained their perspective shift by their clear understanding ofdifferences: ‘We had a good argument.’
The third criterion of commitment is more difficult to extrapolate from theevaluations by the teaching professionals. Their trust in the process and the opendiscourse, which was most pronounced in the coordinator group, may have been acrucial factor for the study teams. The mentor and consultant teams showed a lowercommitment, probably because they were unable to have an open exchange of ideas.The mentors worked towards their outcome mostly as individuals, while theconsultants disagreed right from the start.
Based on the retrospective evaluations of the professionals, the study teamapproach did much to help promote a favorable view towards collaborativeexchange and inquiry. As an intervention, it is build around three main elements:exchange and dialogue, study or inquiry, and an orientation towards tangibleoutcomes. These three elements belong together, although they are not sufficient toassure a knowledge-productive outcome (i.e. a conceptual artifact for all cases). Still,the approach can be regarded as a powerful learning environment for professionalsto work together on common problems (Kelleher, 2003) because of its explicit focuson knowledge productivity, (i.e. reaching tangible outcomes). The concept ofknowledge productivity itself may help to highlight the relevance of using criteriasuch as problem understanding, conceptual change, and team involvement, whichneed to be fulfilled to reach productivity. These three outcome criteria, together, mayprovide a coherent, differentiated outlook for the construction of knowledge inteams. This study also points to a dangerous side of collaborative team inquiry: thepossible emergence of strong beliefs, shifting perspectives, and bridging the gapbetween problem understanding and reaching practical solutions – to reach thesecriteria in one process – is difficult.
Perspectives
Our findings point to several important features in collaborative inquiry, but alsoraise significant questions about knowledge construction in teams. First, theyacknowledge the importance of prior dispositions and beliefs about knowledge andknowing (Hofer and Pintrich, 2002) as determinants for individual involvement ina collaborative process of knowledge construction. In the consultants’ inquiry it
Collaborative Knowledge Construction 95
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
was clear that prior dispositions, especially the differences in these dispositionsamong the individual team members, hindered an open exchange. If initially therehad been more explication and a greater awareness of individual beliefs, it wouldhave mediated these beliefs. But when differences have been clarified, opendiscourse can be blocked by lack of problem understanding (Cobb, 1994). Acollaborative investment is needed to overcome persistent individual initial beliefs(Katzenbach and Smith, 1993) in order to start a process of progressive knowledgeconstruction (Bereiter, 2002), that is, to continue to work on a problem of commoninterest. The clash between individual dispositions or personal epistemologies(Hofer and Pintrich, 2002) and collective goals remains a moot point in theexchange between professionals, and therefore is correctly the first issue in a studyteam approach.
Second, it became clear from the collaborative inquiry process that manydifficulties could be encountered when shifting perspectives because team membershad different situational understandings (Engestrom, 1994; Brooks, 1994). It is ofinterest to note that the actual construction of a conceptual artifact (as in the mentorstudy team), rather than the explication of beliefs (coordinator team), was helpful inshifting perspectives, although the former is not the same as raising problemunderstanding. Apparently, producing artifacts in itself may be a rewardingenterprise, since it can prove (or disprove) the correctness of previously held beliefsfor those convinced by a practical outcome of the inquiry process. Products seem toconvince.
Third, this study points to the importance of recognizing group dynamics incollaborative inquiry, as it rests on the relations among individual members whovalue and appraise the outcomes. That an individual engages in collaborative inquirydoes not mean he or she has the same motives, nor that each member’s intentions oralignment operate towards a common goal. Therefore, collaborative inquiry cannotdetermine knowledge productivity, as was shown by the consultant group. But thatis not to say that the group or its members did not learn (Kelleher, 2003). Thisduality seems characteristic of collaborative learning.
Last, the extent to which knowledge productivity creates an arena forprofessionals depends in part on the facilitating role of the intervention. It isimportant in a study team approach to accept the authenticity of the language of allthe professionals, their frames of references, and their inner dialogues. Participantsneed to set and widen their horizons for the things that are meaningful to them toachieve knowledge productivity. This may be a lengthier process than is possible fora study team. Again, the consultant team might have reached a more tangible orknowledge productive outcome if it had been given more time. The length of time toallow for such an effort is difficult to decide during an intervention.
True, the teams that were studied did not completely meet all three evaluativecriteria of knowledge productivity. Yet, while it is possible that the study resultssuggest knowledge productivity is best achieved when all three criteria are fully met,this may not always be possible in the real world. Reaching and staging a positiveoutcome for collaborative inquiry may be described in three steps: progressivediscourse to raise understanding and alignment of beliefs; joint inquiry to test andexplore assumptions; and involvement in follow-up for a continuous implementationof practices.
96 H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
References
Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M. and Simon, H. (2000) Perspectives on learning, thinking and
activity, Educational Researcher, 29(4), pp. 11 – 14.
Baldwin, R. G. and Austin, A. E. (1995) Toward greater understanding of faculty research collaboration,
The Review of Higher Education, 19(2), pp. 45 – 70.
Bereiter, C. (2002) Education and Mind in the Knowledge Society (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2003) Expertise Development: The Tradition between School and Work (Haarlem, The
Netherlands: Open University Press).
Boshuizen, H., Bromme, R. and Gruber, H. (2004) Professional Learning: Gaps in the Transition from
Novice to Expert (Kluwer: Dordrecht).
Brooks, A. K. (1994) Power and the production of knowledge, collective team learning in work
organizations, HRD Quarterly, 5, pp. 213 – 228.
Cobb, P. (1994) Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical
development, Educational Researcher, 23(7), pp. 13 – 20.
Craft, A., Martin, D. S. and Tillema, H. H. (2002) Teachers’ learning to develop critical and creative
thinking strategies in their pupils, Journal of Inservice Education, 28(1), pp. 115 – 135.
Drucker, P. F. (1993) Post Capitalist Society (New York: HarperCollins).
Edwards, A. and Collison, J. (1996) Mentoring and Developing Practice in Primary Schools (Buckingham:
Open University Press).
Egan, K. (1997) The Educated Mind (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press).
Eraut, M. (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence (London: Falmer Press).
Engestrom, Y. (1994) Teachers as collaborative thinkers, in: I. Carlgren (Ed.) Teachers’ Minds and Actions
(London: Falmer Press).
Garvey, B. and Williamson, B. (2002) Beyond Knowledge Management (New York: Prentice Hall).
Gilroy, P. (1993) Reflections on Schon: an epistemological critique, in: P. Gilroy and M. Smith (Eds)
International Analysis of Teacher Education (London: Carfax).
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1981) Effective Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).
Hamilton, M. L. (1998) Reconceptualizing Teaching Practice: Self Study in Teacher Education (London:
Falmer Press).
Hargreaves, A. (1997) Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers’ Work and Culture in the Postmodern
Age (London: Cassell).
Harrison, R. and Kessels, J. (2004) Human Resource Development in a Knowledge Society: An
Organizational View (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
Hitchcock, G. and Hughes, D. (1989) Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative Introduction into School
Based Research (London: Routledge).
Hofer, B. and Pintrich, P. R. (2002) Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and
Knowing (Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Huberman, M. (1995) Networks that alter teaching, conceptualizations, exchanges and experiments,
Teaching & Teachers, 1, pp. 193 – 212.
Joyce, B. R., Murphy, C., Showers, B. and Murphy, J. (1989) School renewal as cultural change,
Educational Leadership, 47(3), pp. 70 – 77.
Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith, D. G. (1993) The Wisdom of Teams, Creating the High Performance
Organization (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Kelleher, M. (2003) Sponsoring communities of practice: an innovative approach, The Learner, 17,
pp. 20 – 24.
Loughran, J. (2003) Knowledge construction and learning to teach, Keynote address for the International
Association of Teachers and Teaching conference, Leiden University, 26 – 30 June.
Lundeberg, M., Levin, B. and Harrington, H. (1999) Who Learns What from Cases and How? (Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum).
Miller, M. (2002) Examining the discourses that shape our teachers’ identities, Curriculum Inquiry, 32(4),
pp. 453 – 469.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, N. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization
Science, 5(1), pp. 84 – 103.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W. and Boyle, R. A. (1993) Beyond cold conceptual change: the role of
motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change, Review of
Educational Research, 63(2), pp. 167 – 200.
Collaborative Knowledge Construction 97
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. and Gertzog, W. A. (1982) Accommodation of a scientific
concept, toward a theory of conceptual change, Science Education, 66(2), pp. 211 – 227.
Probst, G. and Buchel, B. (1997) Organizational Learning, The Competitive Advantage of the Future
(London: Prentice Hall).
Reason, P. (Ed.) (1994) Participation in Human Inquiry (London: Sage).
Shuell, T. J. (1990) Phases of meaningful learning, Review of Educational Research, 60, pp. 531 – 547.
Somekh, B. (2003) Developing inter-cultural knowledge and understanding through collaboration. Paper
presented at the EARLI conference, Padua, Italy, 25 – 30 August.
Spiro, R. J. (1990) Cognitive flexibility and hypertext, in: D. Nix and R. Spiro (Eds) Exploring Ideas in
High Technology (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Storck, J. and Hill, P. (2000) Knowledge diffusion through strategic communities, Sloan Management
Review, 41(2), pp. 63 – 74.
Tillema, H. H. (1997) Promoting conceptual change in learning to teach, Asian-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 25(1), pp. 7 – 16.
Tillema, H. H. (2003a) Integrating developmental assessment with student-directed instruction; a case in
vocational education, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 55(1), pp. 113 – 126.
Tillema, H. H. (2003b) Knowledge productivity in study teams of teachers. Paper, Invited Symposium SIG
12 on Teacher Collaborative Action Research, EARLI conference, Padua, Italy, 24 – 31 August.
Tillema, H. H. and van der Westhuizen, G. (2003) Knowledge productive learning, a concept and tool for
professional development, Life Long Learning in Europe, VIII(3), pp. 18 – 26.
Wallace, J. and Louden, W. (1994) Collaboration and the growth of teachers’ knowledge, Qualitative
Studies in Education, 7(4), pp. 323 – 334.
Wenger, E. (2003) The community structure of large-scale learning systems. Keynote address presented at
the WACE conference on Towards a Knowledge Society. The Hague, The Netherlands, 28 August – 1
September.
Wenger, E, McDermott, C. and Snyder, B. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press).
Winslow, C. D. and Bramer, W. L. (1994) Future Work: Putting Knowledge to Work in the Knowledge
Economy (New York: Macmillan).
Woods, P. (1995) Creative Teachers in Primary Schools (Buckingham: Open University Press).
Yin, R. K. (1984) Case Study Research, Design and Methods: Applied Social Science Methods (London and
New York: Sage).
Zimmerman, B. J. and Schunk, D. H. (Eds) (2001) Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement,
2nd edn (New York: Springer Verlag).
Appendix A: Questionnaire Items for the Three Criteria of Knowledge Productivity
(rated on a five-point scale ranging from not present to very much present in thestudy team process).Problem understanding
. The problems being discussed were authentic and realistic
. The discussion was fruitful and interesting
. The issues dealt with I could recognize from my own practice
. I felt we dealt with problems that mattered
. I was already aware of most of the issues being discussed
. I frequently took part in the ideas of the discussion
98 H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Shifting perspective
. I was able to accept ideas from others
. There were many thoughts that changed my mind
. I often experienced new ideas in the discussion
. I often let my thoughts wander in the discussion (and the contrary)
. I enjoyed listening to others
. The contributions others made were very important
. Many important ideas were generated in this group
Commitment
. You have to let others have the opportunity to express their ideas
. You need to refrain from promoting your own ideas too strongly
. I got a great deal of satisfaction from being in this group
. I participated in a process of mutual understanding
. The inter-professional communication was of a high level in this group
. I felt I was really understood in the group’s discussion
Collaborative Knowledge Construction 99
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 11:
51 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014