collaboration, knowledge building, reflective thinking, activity theory, zone of

proximal development

Current studies in collaborative knowledge building (CKB) concentrate on the processes involved

in group of participant’s coming together to learn and create knowledge. The focus has gradually

shifted from analysing learning outcomes (Lipponen, Hakkarainen, & Paavola, 2004) and studying

effective conditions for collaborative learning (CL) to understanding the processes involved

(Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & O'Malley, 1996). There is a lack of explanation and a cohesive

theory regarding the underlying processes involved in CKB. Based on the evidence from our own

constructivist teaching strategies and current literature on CKB, we present an initial study undertaken

as part of investigating and documenting the CKB process. The study also explores the role

of reflective thinking and collaborative reflective discourse in helping participants achieve shared

understanding as part of the CKB process. The analysis adds to the existing body of knowledge

relating to learning objects within the specific domain of collaboration of learners as identified in

the life cycle of the e-learning process (Convertini, Albanese, Marengo, Marengo, & Scalera,

2006).

The concept of CKB was introduced by

Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) in their

study of learning at school, in which

they proposed that schools should function

as knowledge building communities.

Knowledge building refers to collective

work for the advancement and

elaboration of conceptual artefacts

(Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen,

Material published as part of this publication, either on-line or

in print, is copyrighted by the Informing Science Institute.

Permission to make digital or paper copy of part or all of these

works for personal or classroom use is granted without fee

provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit

or commercial advantage AND that copies 1) bear this notice

in full and 2) give the full citation on the first page. It is permissible

to abstract these works so long as credit is given. To

copy in all other cases or to republish or to post on a server or

to redistribute to lists requires specific permission and payment

of a fee. Contact [email protected] to request

redistribution permission.

An Integrated Model of Collaborative Knowledge Building

86

2002). This knowledge building approach and knowledge building process aims at facilitating

collaborative work for sharing and advancing knowledge and artefacts (Scardamalia & Bereiter,

1994). CKB is conceptualized as a social process in which participants co-construct knowledge

through social interactions (Lipponen, 2002; Stahl, 2000a).

Though there are studies documenting CKB (Campos, 2004; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994), exploring

the distributed nature of knowledge building in the collaborative context (Aalst, Kamimura,

& Chan, 2005), identifying conditions necessary to support knowledge building communities

(Gilbert & Driscoll, 2002) and identifying knowledge building indicators (Lipponen, 2000),

disagreement still exists regarding the nature and process of CKB. It is not yet clear as to how

participants develop shared understanding, the nature of interactions involved in CKB or how

conceptual change is brought about in the CKB process. There are a range of views explaining

the development of shared understanding including group cognition (Stahl, 2006), grounding

(Baker et al, 1999, as cited in Stahl, 2006), contribution theory (Clark & Brennan, 1999, as cited

in Stahl, 2006) and intersubjective understanding (Yukawa, 2006).

The process of CKB and the sub-activity of achieving shared understanding moves through constant

breakdowns in meaning making between the participants. The participants interpret meaning

and develop shared understanding by constantly interacting with each other using language and

jointly constructed artefacts. The case study presented here further explores the use of reflective

thinking and collaborative reflective discourse as mediating tools for achieving shared understanding

and articulating tacit knowledge as part of the CKB process.

Collaborative reflective social discourse serves to make one’s experience and viewpoint visible to

peers for the purpose of getting a different perspective. Lin, Hmelo, Kinzer, & Secules (1999)

highlight three benefits for reflective social discourse: (a) increased interaction between participants,

(b) reflection is more motivating when there is a public audience, and (c) reflection helps

ideas and thoughts to become artefacts or objects for further reflection. Yukawa (2006) in his

study of online group action learning provided evidence of the potential of collaborative reflection

as a core process in group learning.

Viewed from an Informing Science framework the paper analyses how a group of participants

construct knowledge and how technology-enabled group activities can be designed to support

problem based learning (Cohen & Nycz, 2006). The paper develops a theoretical and conceptual

model for CKB process by modifying Stahl’s (2000a) model of CKB, pedagogy of reflective

thinking (Herrington & Oliver, 2002; Rodgers, 2002), and uses constructs of cultural historical

activity theory (CHAT) (Engestrom, 2001) for analysing the data. The theoretical support for

Stahl’s CKB model, apart from other perspectives, focuses on group and personal perspectives,

learning and knowledge building being mediated by physical and symbolic artefacts , and internalisation

of cognitive artefacts (Stahl, 2002). These perspectives are consistent with the basic

constructs of CHAT.

CHAT is compatible with CKB, as they both take as their unit of analysis the group. In order to

reach a shared understanding, the group must work through a number of breakdowns, as individuals

present and explain their meaning and others question these meanings. Within CHAT,

breakdowns are referred to as contradictions, which are defined as “historically accumulating

structural tensions within and between activity systems and are not the same as problems or conflicts”

(Engestrom, 2001, p137). Identification of contradictions within a dialogue provides the

researcher with a method of showing how the contradictions transform the activity. Transformation

of the activity leads to a more culturally advanced activity.

The research questions being examined are:

Singh, Hawkins, & Whymark

87

•

What is the role of collaborative reflective discourse in a collaborative knowledge building

process?

•

What is the relation between reflective thinking and collaborative reflective discourse in

the context of CKB?

The next section provides an introduction to CKB and discusses the underlying theory informing

its practice. It also provides a rationale for studying and promoting reflective thinking as part of

CKB process. The section on unit of analysis discusses the constructs of CHAT that are helpful in

analysing the process of CKB. This leads to the section on the case study that provides a background

to the case examined and conceptualises CKB as an activity system.

The section on data analysis is divided into three phases. Phase 1 analyzes the use of reflective

thinking as a tool for articulating knowledge and discusses the role of individual reflective thinking

for articulating tacit knowledge, the role of reflective conceptual artefacts and the use of reflective

thinking as a tool mediating the activity. Phase 2 describes the participants engaging in

collaborative reflective discourse and achieving shared understanding about the sub-process of

developing categories. In Phase 3 the participants use the outcome from the previous activity

(shared understanding) to collaboratively build knowledge. Based on historically sequencing the

transformations in the CKB activity system, phase 3 presents an integrated model of CKB.

Stahl (2000a) in his study of CKB breaks down the process into a number of important phases

including cycles of personal understanding and social knowledge building. His model for the

CKB process stresses the need to focus on group activities and notes the importance of conceptual

artefacts. According to Stahl (2001) CKB is a process of communication where groups of

people construct new knowledge through interaction of their ideas and perspectives and is preserved

in artefacts (conceptual or written documents). The CKB process, or the way knowledge is

built and shared is described as a “synergistic moment” (Stahl, 2000b) by which the group

reaches a shared understanding by participating in the socio-cultural process (Stahl, 2001). Each

member of the group brings their personal perspective and interpretations of experiences. The

process by which a group reaches shared understanding and inter-subjectivity through constant

interactions is broken down into smaller knowledge building activities within Stahl’s model.

The genesis of new knowledge constructed jointly by participants in a collaborative environment

can be explained by the knowledge creation metaphor of learning (a pedagogical approach)

(Paavola et al., 2002) and the collaborative knowledge building model (pedagogical model)

(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; Stahl, 2000a). The knowledge creation metaphor provides for a

theoretical base by which the CKB model can be understood, applied and explained. Knowledge

building involves production and continual improvement of ideas which are of value to a community

(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). Within a community the ideas can be considered as conceptual

artefacts that can be examined and improved on by means of public discourse. The

knowledge creation metaphor of learning conceptualises knowledge advancement and learning as

a collaborative process for developing shared objects of activity which can only be accomplished

by participating in cultural practices and by becoming members of knowledge communities

(Paavola et al., 2002). Conceptualising CKB as a social process suggests the examination of the

process as an activity system (using CHAT), which will be discussed later in this paper. But the

question or the problem that needs attention is how participants develop shared understanding and

are able to co-create knowledge. Documenting these underlying processes may help in the design

of possible technological scaffolds to support the process of CKB.

Aalst and Hill (2006) propose self monitoring of knowledge as an important characteristic and

capability that needs to be promoted to develop support for participants in CKB processes. Self

An

Integrated Model of Collaborative Knowledge Building

88

monitoring involves a meta-cognitive understanding and an insight into one’s own learning process.

Engaging in reflective thinking can be a useful way of explicating tacit knowledge (Tillema

& Van der Westhuizen, 2006), internalizing newly acquired knowledge (Kim & Lee, 2002), and

facilitating knowledge construction (Andrusyszyn & Davie, 1997). Many researchers (Baker &

Lund, 1997; Mayer, 1991, as cited in Y. Kim, 2005; Tishman, Jay, & Perkins, 1993, as cited Y.

Kim, 2005) have identified that reflective thinking (meta-cognition) is an important capability

that needs to be cultivated in learning and knowledge building situations. For the purpose of this

paper, reflective thinking is described as an active thinking process for monitoring one’s own

learning process to bring about effective conceptual change. The premise being investigated is the

notion of reflective thinking and collaborative reflective discourse being used as mediating tools

in the CKB process. The understanding of these underlying processes would help in documenting

the process of CKB and developing a theoretical model to explain the process.

Having established the rationale for examining the role of reflective thinking and collaborative

reflective discourse within CKB, the next section presents a background to the case study.