Knowledge Building: Indices of Impacting Builders to Assess the Collective Cognitive Responsibility

Session Information

16 SES 04.5 PS, General Poster Session

General Poster Session

Time:
2017-08-23
12:00-13:30
Room:
W4.corridor (Poster Area)
Chair:

Contribution

Various researchers have emphasized the importance of adopting pedagogical frameworks that can address the challenges of the 21st century. One of these frameworks is the Knowledge Building Pedagogy (KBP), a pedagogical framework that promotes collective inquiry toward the continual resolution of knowledge problems that are valuable to a community (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, Scardamalia, ).

Scardamalia (2002) suggested that the creation and advancement of knowledge depend on Collective Cognitive Responsibility (CCR). CCR refers to members’ commitment to the discourse constructed for the shared improvement of ideas, rather than to the exactitude of the ideas (Chuy, Zhang, Resendes, Bereiter & Scadarmalia, 2009). In other words, the levels of commitment to the symmetrical distribution and improvement of shared ideas are determining factors in the expansive transformation of knowledge objects.

Gutiérrez-Braojos and colleagues (Gutiérrez-Braojos, Salmerón-Vílchez, & García, 2012; Gutiérrez-Braojos, Chen, & Resendes, 2013; Gutiérrez-Braojos, Resendes, & Chen, 2013) purposed a peers evaluation of impacting ideas to analyse CCR. Thus, they created the concept of impacting builders (IB) to analyse CCR. The IB to refer to students who make a high percentage of contributions that impact the community, whereas impacting contributions to refer to contributions that must perform at least one of two complementary functions: i) they must be perceived and accepted by the community as complex cognitive contributions that facilitate a symmetrical distribution of knowledge. They must helping other members to achieve an integrative understanding of the collective knowledge produced up to that moment; ii) they must be perceived and accepted by the as original and potential solutions to the knowledge problems discussed. Thus, they must be the result of retroductive/abductive reasoning.

In this study, we purpose and discuss Scientometric indices that explains students’ impact in a knowledge community supported by a virtual platform (Knowledge Forum). In order to determine the index of builders with potential impact, students were asked to evaluate and select contributions from the database had a great impact on their learning and on advancing the group’s ideas. In parallel, we performed a content analysis from SOLO Taxonomy in order to identify impacting ideas from criterion of external judges. Finally, we checked every indices regarding the evaluation of external judges to identify better indices.

 

Method

Quantitative and qualitative methods are used in this study. On one hand we used scientometric indices that explains students’ impact in a knowledge community supported by a virtual platform (Knowledge Forum). On the other hand we used qualitative analysis using SOLO taxonomy to analyse the contributions of every students on virtual platform. Participants were 36 undergraduates enrolled in the subject of educational research, University of Granada (Spain). Virtual environment participation was obligatory. The technological support to facilitate asynchronous communication was the Knowledge Forum 5 platform. This virtual environment offered an interface that provided interaction scaffolds to facilitate collective knowledge building (e.g. I need to understand; a better theory; putting our knowledge together). Using this interface, the students produced contributions with the goal of distributing and advancing knowledge about the knowledge problems of the subject. A large set of data were collected based on automatized records from the KF. The records selected for this study were: number of readings, number of contributions, time spent elaborating contributions, and content of contributions written by each student in the community. To collect data on impacting constructions, students were asked to evaluate and select contributions with the greatest impact. Specifically, once each topic had ended, the guidelines were to: i) select contributions made by your peers that had the greatest relevance for you in learning the topic, and ii) select contributions made by your peers that you think were the most novel and valuable for broadening the discussion on the topic.

Expected Outcomes

Our results show that indices are the most effective for identifying impacting Builders. Therefore, these results show the potential utility for an educational context of using the impacting index in order to identify truly impacting builders with a more agile and safe way from community perspective. In addition, we suggest ways to apply this procedure to identify promising ideas most relevant to a knowledge building community.

References

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M (1993). Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2009). Teaching how science really works. Education Canada, 49(1), 14–17. Biggs, J. B. & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press. Biggs, J.B. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Open University Press/McGraw Hill, 2011. Chen, B., Chuy, M., Resendes, M., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Big ideas tool as a new feature of knowledge forum. Presented at the 2010 Knowledge Building Summer Institute: New Assessments and Environments for Knowledge Building. Toronto, Canada. Chen, B., Resendes, M., Chuy, M., Tarchi, C., Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2011). Identificare, selezionare e sviluppare le idee promettenti nel Knowledge Building. Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 6(2), 224–241. Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Chen, B., & Resendes, M. (2013). Exploring an index of builders with potential impact on Knowledge Building from SOLO Taxonomy. Presented at the 17th Annual Knowledge Building summer institute: Crossing the educational Chasm. From the basics to creative work with ideas. La Puebla, Mexico. Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Salmerón-Vílchez, P., García, J.M. (2012). Profiles of Student Participation in Virtual Computer Learning and Building Environment. Presented at the 16th Annual Knowledge Building summer institute: Building Cultural Capacity for Innovation. Toronto, Canada. Holmes, K. (2005). Analysis of asynchronous online discussion using the SOLO Taxonomy. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 5, 117-127. Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: applications for health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 362-376. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of Learning Sciencies, 3(3), 265-283. 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). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 7–44.

Author Information

Calixto Gutierrez Braojos (presenting / submitting)
University of Granada
Research Methods, Assessment and Evaluation in Education
Granada
Jesús Montejo-Gámez (presenting)
Universidad de Córdoba
Mathematics
Córdoba
University of Granada
Vegas del Genil
University of Granada
Business and Management
Ceuta. España.
Granada University
Business Management.
Granada
University of Granada
Nurse
Granada

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.