Knowledge creation communities and a trialogical approach to learning

Sami Paavola

Center for Research on Activity, Development, and

Learning (CRADLE)

University of Helsinki

Email: sami.paavola@helsinki.fi

Helsinki Summer School,

a course on Activity Theory and Formative Interventions

2

Purpose

To present and discuss some central ideas of the

Paavola et al 2004 paper (see the copy)A distinction of three basic metaphors of learningA comparison of “knowledge creation communities”

To discuss shortly some later developmentsA “trialogical approach” to learning

3

My own background

My main field is philosophy (dissertation on

abductive method of discovery at 2006); Interest in

theories of learning and human cognitionWorking in the Centre for Research on Networked

Learning and Knowledge Building (led by Kai

Hakkarainen) at the University of Helsinki since

1999 – now merged to CRADLE Investigating and developing technology supported

collaborative learning – pedagogical models (like the

progressive inquiry model, knowledge building) and

technology (FLE, KPE)

Two metaphors of learning (Sfard 1998)

Anna Sfard has made an often used distinction between two basic metaphors of learning

1) Acquisition metaphor: A “traditional view” - learning is seen as a process of transmitting desired pieces of knowledge to the learner; Mind is a container of knowledge; Emphasizes the role of propositional and conceptual knowledge

2) Participation metaphor: Learning is seen as an interactive process of participating in various cultural practices; Transformation of identity emphasized; Activities of "knowing" rather that outcomes or products; Cognition and knowing are distributed over both individuals and their environments; Situated cognition emphasized

A need for a third metaphor?

Sfard’s distinction is a very apt one in itself but does not capture properly those theories and approaches where the idea is to understand how people collaboratively develop or create something

Important for our group because we were especially interested just on those kind of theories and approaches-> A knowledge creation metaphor (Paavola et al 2004)

Cf. expansion as a third metaphor (Engeström & Sannino 2010)

Basis for the knowledge creation metaphor

Theories and models concerning ”innovative knowledge communities” (or ”knowledge creation communities”)

Knowledge building (Bereiter et al 2002), and the model of progressive inquiry in our own research group (see Hakkarainen 1998; Hakkarainen et al 2004; Muukkonen et al 2004)

Expansive learning (Engeström 1987), Organizational knowledge creation (Nonaka and

Takeuchi 1995)Difference to ”communities of practice”Despite clear differences there are also common

features behind these models/theories

Three theories concerning “innovative knowledge communities”

  C. Bereiter (2002):Knowledge building

Y. Engeström (1987):Expansive learning

I. Nonaka & H. Takeuchi (1995): Organizational knowledge creation

Central objects Conceptual artefacts (instead of learning within mind)

Activity systems; practices

Products (cars, baking machines, etc.) and product plans

Basic process Development of conceptual artefacts supported by specific learning technology

Changes in the object and concept of the activity on the basis of disturbances and contradictions within the activity system

Tacit knowledge is externalized to explicit knowledge; from personal knowledge to organizational level

Epistemology behind

Popper’s theory of three “worlds” (material, mental, cultural/conceptual)

Mediation by tools and signs (Vygotsky); Marxist dialectics

Japanese holistic tradition (overcoming dichotomies); tacit knowledge (Polanyi)

Common aspects of the “models of innovative knowledge communities” (Paavola et al 2004)

1) The pursuit of newness2) Mediating elements to avoid Cartesian dualisms3) Viewing knowledge creation as a social process4) Emphasis on the role of individual subjects in knowledge

creation5) Going beyond propositional and conceptual knowledge 6) Recognizing conceptualizations and conceptual artifacts

as important7) Interaction around and through shared “objects”

(knowledge artifacts, practices, activity systems, products, etc.)

Three metaphors of learning (Paavola et al. 2004; Hakkarainen et al. 2004; Cf. Sfard 1998)

The acquisition metaphorWithin mind

approach

Emphasis on individuals and conceptual knowledge

The participation

metaphorSocial interaction,situated cognition

Emphasis on cultural practices, social interaction, and situated cognition

The knowledge-

creation metaphorDeveloping shared

“objects” collaboratively

Co-evolution of inquirers, communities, and objects

Uses and later developments of the knowledge creation metaphor

We have developed it in relation to computer-supported collaborative

learning (CSCL) research (e.g. Paavola & Hakkarainen 2009), networked

expertise and human cognition (e.g. Hakkarainen et al 2004), and inquiry

learning (e.g. Muukkonen, Lakkala, & Hakkarainen, 2005) Not developed or criticized much by others but referred in quite many

contexts, e.g. CSCL context (Stahl, Koschmann & Suthers 2006),

knowledge building (e.g. van Aalst 2009), workplace learning and

organizational learning (Tynjälä & Häkkinen 2005), teacher education and

teacher communities (Laferriere, Lamon & Chan 2006), networked

learning (De Laat & Lally 2003), development of networked expertise

(Edwards, 2009), open source communities (Hemestberger & Reinhardt

2006), web 2.0 technology (McLoughlin & Lee 2008a), or Wikiversity (and

wikis) (Leinonen et al 2009).

Main criticism (Engeström & Sannino 2010)

Differences between theories under the knowledge creation metaphor (expansive learning, knowledge building, Nonaka & Takeuchi’s organizational knowledge creation) are more important than commonalities

Their epistemological basis is very differentDanger of eclectism

Main criticism - answer

True that these theories are epistemologically and methodologically quite different

Still it seems that there is a need for understanding ”collaborative knowledge creation” (how people organize their activities for developing some concrete things together); new technology provides new means for this

There are different kinds of theories and models trying to understand these processes; can be used for taking influences from each other

Three classical lineages of mediation (Engeström 1987)

1) Epistemological lineage from C. Peirce to K. Popper

• “knowledge and meaning as mediated construction … little cues for grasping how material culture is created in joint activity”

2) From the symbolic interactionism of  G. H. Mead to modern interactionist developmental psychology

• “social, interactive, symbol-mediated construction of reality … not as practical material construction”

3) Cultural-historical psychology from Vygotsky to Leont'ev

• “concept of activity based on material production, mediated by technical and psychological tools as well as by other human beings”

Trialogic(al) approach (Paavola & Hakkarainen 2005; 2009)

Instead of focusing on communication or exchange of ideas and perspectives (dialogues) or interaction with the environment (situated cognition), trialogic approach focuses on how activity is organized for developing shared ”objects” (knowledge artefacts, practices, processes, models) collaboratively

Changing the focus from meaning making (emphasized often in the computer-supported collaborative learning) towards joint construction of artefacts and practices

Knowledge Practices Laboratory (www.kp-lab.org)

KP-Lab: a 5-year integrated project funded by EU, started at 2006, coordinated by the Centre for Networked Learning and Knowledge Building (University of Helsinki), 22 partners from 14 countries

Investigates ”knowledge practices” and transformations of knowledge practices in workplaces and higher education, and have developed technology to support them (especially a special environment, KPE)

How people collaboratively develop knowledge and knowledge artifacts, and organize their ways of working supported by technology; and how in higher education students are solving complex, “authentic” problems (assignments from working life)

Trialogic approach - How individuals and a community develop shared,

”authentic”, concrete mediating ”objects”

Knowledge artifactsPracticesDrafts of ideas

Shared objects:

Individual subjects Learning community

”Authentic” use of the object

Tools– Shared Space

Shared objects – their development

References

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2003). Complexity, theory and praxis: Researching collaborative

learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community. Instructional Science 31: 7-

39.

Edwards, A. (2009). From the systemic to the relational: Relational agency and activity theory. In

A Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.). Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp.

197-211). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Engeström, Y. & Sannino, Annalisa (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings

and future challenges. Educational Research Review 5(1), 1-24.

Hakkarainen, K. (1998). Epistemology of inquiry and Computer-supported collaborative

Learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S. & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked

expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Advances in Learning and Instruction

Series. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Hemetsberger, A. & Reinhardt, C. (2006). Learning and Knowledge-building in Open-source

Communities. A Social-experiential Approach. Management Learning 37(2), 187-214.

References (2)

Laferriere, T., Lamon, M., Chan, C. K. K. (2006). Emerging E-Trends and Models in Teacher

Education and Professional Development. Teacher Education 17(1), 75-90.

Leinonen, T., Vaden, T., & Suoranta, J. (2009). Learning in and with an open wiki project:

Wikiversity’s potential in global capacity building. First Monday 14 (2) – 2.

McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The Three P’s of Pedagogy for the Networked Society:

Personalization, Participation, and Productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning

in Higher Education 20(1), 10-27.

Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., & Lakkala, M. (2004). Computer-mediated progressive

inquiry in higher education. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and

Practice (pp. 28-53). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring:

How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4),

527-565.

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese

Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Paavola, S. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The Knowledge Creation Metaphor – An Emergent

Epistemological Approach to Learning. Science & Education 14(6), 535-557.

References (3)

Paavola, S. & Hakkarainen, K. (2009). From meaning making to joint construction of knowledge

practices and artefacts – A trialogical approach to CSCL. In C. O'Malley et al (Eds.), Computer

Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings. (pp. 83-92).

Rhodes, Creek: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Paavola, S, Lipponen, L, & Hakkarainen, K (2004). Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities

and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research 74(4), 557-576.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.

Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An

historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.

409-426). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review 3:

130-154.

Tynjälä, P. & Häkkinen, P. (2005). E-learning at work: theoretical underpinnings and pedagogical

challenges. The Journal of Workplace Learning 17(5/6), 318-336.

Van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-

creation discourses. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 4: 259-287.

20

21

Knowledge Practices Environment (KPE)

A virtual environment with integrated tools for working with the

shared knowledge artefacts. e.g., file sharing, linking, working spaces with real-time and history-

based awareness, wiki, note editor, commenting, chat, semantic

tagging and semantic search

Designed to provide specific affordances for joint development of

concrete, epistemic objects as well as for planning, organizing and

reflecting on related tasks and user networks. Support for spatially organizing and flexibly restructuring items.

22(see Description of Work 4)