An Analysis of Knowledge Building Contributions in Elementary Science Classes Using Microgenesis Theory

Author(s):

Dorian Stoilescu

Conference:

ECER 2009

Network:

16. ICT in Education and Training

Format:

Paper

Session Information

16 SES 03 B, ICT in Mathematics and Science Education

Paper Session

Time:

2009-09-28

14:00-15:30

Room:

NIG, HS 3C

Chair:

Johan van Braak

Contribution

Introduction Research shows strong evidence about improving science classrooms activities by using knowledge building pedagogies (Hewitt, 1996). However, few research in knowledge building was done in order to provide details about how students contributions evolve over time. The purpose of this study is to reveal insights about how science students are developing skills and knowledge by using the microgenesis theory and to discover what are the major contributions and what are their impacts for the classrooms. The current study was designed for two elementary science classrooms with an enriched technological environment, familiar with knowledge building pedagogies, focusing on detecting and explaining types of contributions that students produce in classrooms. Background Knowledge building (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993) is well known as an educational innovation, designed to provide students a greater involvement in the process of knowledge creation, as researchers experience in knowledge-creating organizations. This approach, initially designed by a group of researchers from Toronto, has been under development for several decades. The work has spread, so that there are now active participants in over twenty countries in different areas of education, health care and business. The theory promotes models of knowledge creation and clearly distinguishes between learning and knowledge building (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). This focus leads to efforts to encourage students to take high levels of responsibility for knowledge advancement, not just their personal knowledge advancement, but that of the community as a whole(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2003). Technology creates a supportive context, helping students to collaborate and coordinate through codeveloped public knowledge spaces. Through collective and social effort they formulate and advance their theories and existing level of knowledge, and epistemic agency, enabling them to feel part of a worldwide effort to produce new knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). My proposed research will explore ways for students to contribute with greater efficiency to the collective resources of their community and analyze the contributions that help advance their own knowledge and that of their peers. Microgenesis theory is used, in order to study details of growth in knowledge and skills in science education. Grannot and Parziale (2002) defined microgenesis as an articulate system able to reveal the process of developing skills. This study analyzes contributions from students and teachers to uncover the nature and types of student-student and student-teacher interactions that facilitate or interfere with knowledge advancement. Also, it explores what enables communities to form as knowledge building communities.

Method

For each team a videocamera records details of verbal and non-verbal interactions. Students create notes using the software environment Knowledge Forum(KF)—an environment specially built to support knowledge advancement as it occurs in knowledge-creating organizations. This study contains two case studies covering an unit of science. The research questions are: 1. How do students' contributions evolve over time? What contributions have an impact, as measured by their uptake and refinement over time and qualitative assessments of their scientific content. 2. How do teachers interact with students to enhance the levels of student contributions? For microgenesis, Grannot and Parziale (2002) defined an articulate system of rules to measure in real time analysis: a)Development and the relationship between levels; b)Direction of development and c)Formulating general tendencies of the system. Interviews with students and teachers will allow validation of findings and detailed accounts of classroom processes.

Expected Outcomes

A pilot study is currently underway to explore teachers’ reflections on student contributions to science understanding, and their current efforts to improve the level of these contributions. Data gathering techniques will be extended to proved more of a micro-analyses of teacher reflections and interactions over time. For research purposes, Knowledge Forum’s Analytical Toolkit (ATK) will be used to determine social network analysis, growth in writing and vocabulary (Scardamalia, 2004). Without a “clarifying aspect” practical knowledge most often remains what Polanyi (1967) described as ‘tacit’ personal knowledge. This study aims to clarify the nature and types of contributions, extending case studies to better inform the design and evolution of knowledge building classrooms. Since I finished my first undergraduate degree in computer science I worked extensively in areas of education, educational software.

References

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Opencourt, Chicago. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. D. Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. V. Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 73-78). Oxford: Elsevier Science. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the Knowledge Age: Design-centered models of teaching and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 695-711). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chan, C. K. K. (1993). Effects of conflict and knowledge-building approach of conceptual change, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto. Creswell, (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design; Sage Publications, London. Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: Online creativity and conceptual change in science. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & S. Vaid (Eds.), Conceptual structures and processes: Emergence, discovery and change (pp. 461-493). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hakkarainen, K. P. J. (1998). Epistemology of scientific inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto. Hewitt, J. G. (1996). Progress toward a knowledge building community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto. Grannot, N & Parziale, J. (2002). Microdevelopment: A process-oriented perspective for studying development and learning. In N. Grannot, & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment - Transition processes in development and learning. Kane, G. C. (2006). Casting the net: A multimodal network perspective on knowledge sharing; Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, 2006, 256 pages; AAT 3234028. Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2004). Knowledge building in elementary science. In K. Leithwood, P. McAdie, N. Bascia, & A. Rodrigue (Eds.), Teaching for deep understanding: Towards the Ontario curriculum we need (pp. 94-99). Toronto: Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario. Oshima, J. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1996). Collaborative learning processes associated with high and low conceptual progress. Instructional Science, 24, 125-155. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Eds.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp.67-98). Chicago, IL: Open Court. Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp.183-192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shaw K. E. (1978) . Understanding the curruculum: The approach through case studies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10(1), 1-17. von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation. New York: Oxford University Press. van Aalst, J. C. W. (1999). Learning, knowledge building, and subject matter knowledge in school science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto. Wasserman, S. & Faust. K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wertch and Stone(1978). Microgenesis as a tool for development anaysis. Quaterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Human Cognition; University of San Diego, 1(1), 8-10.

Author Information

Dorian Stoilescu

University of Toronto

OISE

Galati

179

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.