here - Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology
Transcripción
here - Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology
17t h Annua l KNOWL E DGE BUI L DI NG S UMME R I NS T I T UT E Cr os s i ng t he E duc a ona l Cha s m: F r om t he Ba s i c s t o Cr ea v e Wor k wi t h I dea s Aug us t 69, 2013 Uni v er s i da d I bea r oa mer i c a na , Puebl a , Me x i c o Pa per s KBSI2013 Papers 17th Annual Knowledge Building Summer Institute Crossing the Educational Chasm: From the Basics to Creative Work with Ideas Conference Co-Organizers: Knowledge Building International (KBI) <http://ikit.org/kbi/> Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology (IKIT) <http://ikit.org/> IKIT Mexico <http://www.ikitmexico.org.mx/> Conference Chairs: Oscar Hernández López & Marlene Scardamalia Review Committee: Oscar Hernández López, Susana La Rosa, María Yadira Rosas Bravo Tomorrow’s Innovators: Angela Durana Espinoza, Oscar Hernández López, Yadira Rosas A special thanks to the colleagues who agreed to help us with the review process: Stephane Allaire Rolf Baltzersen Merce Bernaus Stefano Cacciamani Bodong Chen Rose Chen Maria Chuy Suzanne de Froy Frank de Jong Fernando Diaz del Castillo Hamdi Erkunt Ola Erstad Bruce Forrester Nobuko Fujita Vincent Gagnon Enrique Gonzales Calixto Gutierrez Christine Hamel Oscar Hernandez Anne Hill Huang-Yao Hong Leila Lax Eddy Lee Wincy Lee Beatrice Ligorio Sandy McAuley Cesar Nunes Jun Oshima John Parry Angela Perez Don Philip Fleur Prinsen Richard Reeve Monica Resendes Yadira Rosas Javier Sanchez Pirita Seitamaa Hakkarainen Cherry Rose Tan Chris Teplovs Sinqin Tuya Jan van Aalst Johnny Yuen Jianwei Zhang Yibing Zhang i KBSI2013 Papers 17th Annual Knowledge Building Summer Institute Crossing the Educational Chasm: From the Basics to Creative Work with Ideas The "chasm" referred to in the title of this conference is a metaphor for a condition that has serious social, economic, and personal consequences. On one side of the chasm are students whose deficiencies in basic academic skills and knowledge keep them from moving to the other side, where students have mastered the basics to a level judged sufficient for more advanced content and more challenging tasks. Although basic academic skills are of undeniable importance, the chasm itself is an artifact of educational beliefs. The key belief is that students must master the basics before they can undertake more challenging work with knowledge and ideas. Contrary to this belief is evidence that young children can work creatively with ideas -for instance, modifying ideas in the light of evidence- and that this enhances basic skills. We aim to provide powerful demonstrations and extensions of this finding and the reframing of practices and outcomes resulting from this reorientation. ii KBSI2013 Papers Table of Contents Evaluating knowledge community curricula in secondary science using model-based design research Alisa Acosta, Jim Slotta 1 Metadiscourse in Knowledge Building: A question about written or verbal metadiscourse Rolf Kristian Baltzersen 11 Expanding the metadiscourse concept in knowledge building Rolf Kristian Baltzersen 21 La importancia de las redes sociales como herramienta educativa en el Centro de Estudios Científicos y Tecnológicos No. 1 Nivel Medio Superior del Instituto Politécnico Nacional Ranulfo Dimitri Cab Cordero, Marco Antonio Hernández Pérez 33 Effects of Different Implementations of The “Embedded and Transformative Assessment” Principle on Knowledge Building in Online University Courses Stefano Cacciamani, Vittore Perrucci 40 Promisingness Judgments as Facilitators of Epistemic Growth and Conceptual Change Bodong Chen, Fernando Diaz del Castillo, Jim Slotta 50 “Napoleón era también bajo..." Lectura, escritura y orientación motivacional en una comunidad Knowledge Building de historia Lisa Cingolani, Stefano Cacciamani 71 Las Tecnologías de información y comunicación (Tics) en educación indígena, nuevos espacios con pertinencia cultural y lingüística Salvador Galindo Llaguno 78 Diseño y aplicación de un portal web como herramienta didáctica en la enseñanza-aprendizaje de la química en el nivel medio superior, Ariadna Berenice González Arenas, Enrique Gonzales Vergara 83 Construcción de artefactos conceptuales a partir de foros de discusión en línea Oscar Ernesto Hernández López, Karen Huesca Viveros 96 Influencia del clima institucional en la conducta de los adolescentes Ana María Hernández Reyes 105 A Knowledge Building Discourse Analysis of Proportional Reasoning in Grade 1 Kendra Susanne Hutton, Bodong Chen, Joan Moss 114 iii KBSI2013 Papers A knowledge building journey: Reflections of New Zealand senior secondary teachers Kwok-Wing Lai 129 Desarrollo de habilidades de pensamiento en la formación meta cognitiva del pensamiento crítico en los estudiantes de nuevo ingreso a la licenciatura en educación normal Olga Sara Lamela Rios 139 “Drawing out” students’ voices: Students’ perceptions about learning science through Ideas First, a Knowledge Building approach John Ow, Katerine Bielaczyc 147 La Identidad Cultural en la Educación Superior: El Caso de la Licenciatura en Educación Primaria para el Medio Indígena UPN-211 Eugenia Ramos Hipolito 166 Effect of Formative Feedback on Enhancing Ways of Contributing to a Explanation-Seeking Dialogue in Grade 2 Monica Resendes 174 Responsabilidad compartida a través de la implementación de webquest en los alumnos de primer grado de Telesecundaria Yolanda Ruiz Cervantes, Oscar Hernández López 185 Farmtasia: A Case Study of Knowledge Building Processes in Game-Based Learning Cherry Rose Tan 193 iv KBSI2013 Papers Evaluating knowledge community curricula in secondary science using model-based design research Alisa Acosta, Jim Slotta, OISE/University of Toronto Email: [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT: This paper describes a new approach to design-based research that utilizes a formal model of learning, mapped onto the curriculum design, to assess when, where, why and how the enacted design is achieving or failing to achieve its aims. Model-based design research (MBDR) goes beyond testing whether a particular intervention ‘works’ or ‘doesn’t work,’ allowing researchers to characterize each player within the learning environment, comparing their beliefs, actions, and artifacts with the epistemic aims and assumptions built into the model, and then iteratively refine the design. MBDR refers to a formal theoretical model as a source of design constraint, allowing researchers to identify and justify their choice of design elements and the linkages between them. However this approach goes one step further and adds a means of evaluating curriculum designs in relation to the model. Evaluation thus occurs on two levels: (1) How true was the design to the model; and (2) How true was the enactment to the design. This paper provides a detailed case study of MBDR, including the model that underlies the design, and the two analyses that comprise the study. We evaluate a new secondary biology curriculum that was designed according to the Knowledge Community and Inquiry model, evaluating the design and enactment of the curriculum according to the model, and conclude with a discussion and recommendations for new epistemic elements within the model. 1. Introduction One domain of research that is highly relevant to 21st century learning is that concerned with learning as a knowledge community (Brown & Campione, 1994; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1999; Bielczyc & Collins, 2005), where students are given a high level of agency and responsibility for developing their own questions, exchanging and critiquing ideas with peers, and even evaluating their own progress. Teachers become members of the classroom knowledge community, and participate as peers and mentors. The students within a knowledge community typically create a “knowledge base” of commonly held resources or ideas, which are accessed, re-negotiated, revised and applied during subsequent inquiry activities. Community knowledge resources are captured and represented within a technology-mediated environment that scaffolds students as they add new ideas, revise materials, synthesize arguments or inform their designs (Stahl, 2000; Hoadley & Pea, 2002; Bielczyc & Collins, 2005). This paper describes a new approach to design-based research that utilizes a formal model of learning, mapped onto the curriculum design, to assess when, where, why and how the enacted design is achieving or failing to achieve its aims. As with most design-oriented research methods, the proposed process, called model-based design research (MBDR), goes beyond testing whether a particular intervention ‘works’ or ‘doesn’t work.’ Instead, it allows researchers to characterize each player within the learning environment, comparing their beliefs, actions, and artifacts with the epistemic aims and assumptions built into the model, and then iteratively refine the design such that ‘progress’ can be achieved in the design. 1 KBSI2013 Papers 2. Model-Based Design Research Since its inception in the early 1990s (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992), design-based research has become a widely used and broadly accepted research paradigm in the learning sciences. This approach maintains a commitment to the creation and development of innovative learning environments by simultaneously engaging in design evaluation and theory building throughout the research process (Edelson, 2002). Design-based research typically includes three characteristics: (1) Systematic intervention into a specific learning context, accounting for factors such as the teachers, learners, curricular materials, and available technologies; (2) An interdisciplinary design team consisting of teachers, researchers, technologists, and subject-area specialists; and (3) Iterative design modification in which interim findings are used to improve the design throughout its implementation (Najafi, 2012; Edelson, 2002; Bell, Hoadley & Linn, 2004). Bereiter (2002) highlights that design research is generally not defined by its methods but instead by the goals of those who pursue it. Those engaging in design research are generally committed to specific outcomes, including the development of innovative learning environments or curricula, the characterization of the specific contexts in which the learning designs are employed, as well as general knowledge about the fundamentals of teaching and learning (Sandoval, in press). However, despite its commitment to these research goals, design-based research has been criticized for lacking methodological rigor due to the absence of clearly defined methods and standards (Sandoval, in press; Dede, 2004; Kelly, 2004; Shavelson et al., 2003). Whereas the bulk of scholarly literature on design research within the past decade has focused on the what rather than the how, Sandoval has attempted to address these criticisms by formulating a methodological approach which he calls ‘conjecture mapping’ (Sandoval, 2004; in press). The purpose of conjecture mapping is to explicitly identify and make salient the specific relationships between a learning design and the theoretical conjectures that informed the design (Sandoval, 2004). Sandoval (in press) identifies three types of conjectures: 1. High level conjectures – the broad, theoretical, abstract “big ideas” or learning principles that are typically used to motivate or initiate the design process 2. Design conjectures – theoretical assertions that guide or constrain how particular design features or “embodiments” (e.g. tools and materials, task structures, participant structures, discursive practices) will yield particular mediating processes (e.g. observable interactions, participant artifacts) 3. Theoretical conjectures – theoretical beliefs or assertions that describe how the mediating processes of a design will yield particular outcomes (e.g. learning, interest/motivation, etc.) By explicitly mapping such conjectures onto curriculum designs, researchers are productively required to articulate and justify their choice of design embodiments, mediating processes, outcomes, as well as the means and methods for tracing the linkages between them (Sandoval, in press). In ways that are similar to conjecture mapping, MBDR refers to a formal theoretical model as a source of design constraint, allowing researchers to identify and justify their choice of design elements and the linkages between them. However this approach goes one step further and adds a means of evaluating curriculum designs in relation to the model. Evaluation thus occurs on two levels: (1) How true was the design to the model; and (2) How true was the enactment to the design. 2 KBSI2013 Papers While MDBR is only applicable in cases where a formal structural model exists, and could be seen as a special case of conjecture mapping, it is nonetheless an interesting form of designoriented research, particularly in the sense that the outcomes of an MDBR study can directly inform revisions or improvements to the underlying model. In sections below, we provide a detailed case study of MBDR, including the model that underlies the design, and the two analyses that comprise the study. We conclude with a discussion of the model, including recommendations for new epistemic elements of the model. 3. Case Study: Designing EvoRoom 3.1 The Model: Knowledge Community and Inquiry (KCI) While knowledge community approaches, such as Fostering Communities of Learners (Brown, 1997) and Knowledge Building (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006) have been successfully implemented at the elementary level, current school structures and content-heavy curriculum demands often make those models inaccessible to course instructors – particularly at the secondary level. KCI is a pedagogical model that was developed for secondary science as a means of blending the core philosophies of the knowledge community approach with the structural and scripted affordances of scaffolded inquiry (Slotta & Peters, 2008; Slotta & Najafi, 2010). KCI includes five major design principles, each accompanied by a set of epistemological commitments, pedagogical affordances, and technology elements. Together, these guide the creation of inquiry activities, peer interactions and exchange, and cooperative knowledge construction. The five principles are summarized in Table 1 below: 3 KBSI2013 Epistemological Commitments Papers Pedagogical Affordances Technology Elements 1. Students work collectively as a knowledge community, creating a knowledge base that serves as a resource for their ongoing inquiry within a specific science domain. Students “identify” as a community, The knowledge base is indexed to the Tablets, wikis, semantic web, with the goals and purposes of targeted science domain as well as metadata schemes, science content learning together and advancing the semantic and social variables; standards, tagging schemes community’s knowledge. The Semantic index variables can be knowledge base needs to be designed, as well as user contributed understood and valued as “their or emergent community resource.” 2. The knowledge base that is accessible for use as a resource as well as for editing and improvement by all members. Knowledge building processes: Scripts for jigsaw and collaborative Socially editable media, wikis, notes, improvable ideas, measurable or knowledge construction; or collections of observations; social observable progress within the visualizations and interfaces for tagging; visualizations; recommender knowledge base, emergent content accessing the knowledge base; agents organization (i.e. semantic structure) authorship attributions; versioning and forking 3. Collaborative inquiry activities are designed to address the targeted science learning goals, including assessable outcomes Inquiry learning is fundamentally Learner-centered and idea-centered Web-based learning activities, wikis, constructivist, where students build activities, including critique, Web portal, video editing, on their existing ideas to develop comparison, design and reflection. simulations, tablet-based observation understanding. A social dimension Students create artifacts, reflect on forms, laptop and tablet interfaces of shared ideas, discourse and those artifacts, and apply them as practice also underlies the design of resources within a larger inquiry collaborative inquiry. project. 4. Inquiry activities are designed to engage students with the knowledge base as a resource, and to add new ideas and elements to the knowledge base Inquiry emphasizes the growth of Need for open-ended activity designs, Specific technology tools and individual ideas through reflection to connect to full index of knowledge materials are developed to support and application, but also a social base (i.e. to assure complete inquiry activities. These adhere to a connection, for discourse and coverage), but also to respond to pedagogical “script” that defines the collaboration emergent ideas or themes within the sequence or progression of activities, community; possible dynamic roles, groups, etc. Students may use grouping of students based on shared a variety of technology-based ideas, disagreements or other inquiry- learning environments, carefully oriented variables. designed to support the pedagogical script. 5. The teacher plays a specific role defined within the inquiry script, but also a general orchestration role, scaffolded by the technology environment The teacher’s role is that of an expert The teacher engages in specific Teachers also rely on technology to collaborator or mentor, responding to scripted interactions with students; help orchestrate the flow of activities. student ideas as they emerge, and providing feedback and making They may refer to representations of orchestrating the pedagogical flow of orchestrational decisions based on the the aggregated community activities. The teacher must content of student interactions and knowledge to inform reflective understand student learning as a artifacts. The teacher is responsible discussions (e.g., about what the collective endeavor, and must see his for moving the inquiry forward ‘next steps” should be, in inquiry). or her own role as that of an through a progression of activities, Or they may have specific important community member. but also plays specific roles within technologies designed to support activities (talking with students, their interactions with students (e.g., giving feedback, etc). a teacher tablet). Table 1 – KCI design principles 3.2 – The Design: EvoRoom, Grade 11 Biology, Evolution and Biodiversity Curriculum Use of the word ‘EvoRoom’ is twofold. In one sense it refers to an actual room that was constructed using smart classroom technologies to simulate an immersive rainforest environment. When students enter this “smart classroom”, their interactions – where they go in the room, and with whom – are carefully orchestrated, and depend on real-time ideas and observations that they 4 KBSI2013 Papers enter into their tablets. Their ideas and collective efforts are made visible and accessible to everyone in the room through the use of a persistent aggregate display at the front of the room (see Figure 1). In the other sense of the word, ‘EvoRoom’ refers to a much broader 10-week curriculum for Grade 11 Biology that was designed to fulfill the requirements for evolution and biodiversity. This 10-week curriculum included an online learning portfolio (for which activities were completed both at home and at school); a zoo field trip; ‘traditional’ classroom lessons; as well as two unique activities completed within the EvoRoom itself. Figure 1 – Evoroom: a room-sized immersive simulation where students interact with peers and with elements of the room itself (walls, table, tablets) to conduct collaborative inquiry in the domain of evolution and biodiversity). In order to ensure that the overall curriculum design, including all detailed activities, materials and interactions, was suitable for secondary biology in a high achieving school context, the teacher was a critical member of the design team. The teacher was highly involved in the development of the orchestrational scripts and technology elements that went into the design, and provided valuable feedback with regards to tool development and the overall curricular goals for the evolution and biodiversity units. The co-design team also consisted of two graduate researchers, three computer programmers, and one faculty supervisor. At the time of this writing, the EvoRoom curriculum is just completing its third design iteration. The pilot run for EvoRoom was completed in June 2011; the second iteration was completed between December 2011 and February 2012; and the third (current) iteration was completed between March and May 2013. It includes a 10-week sequence of activities, where students participate in a wide range of classroom activities (including lectures and labs), create a shared classroom knowledge base, and conduct field trip and smart room activities that make use of their knowledge base. As mentioned previously, the EvoRoom curriculum included activities across a number of different contexts, including at home, at school in the students’ regular classroom, at school in the smart classroom, and at the zoo, on a field trip. After conducting inquiry activities in the class, and during homework, students were engaged in a smart classroom activity (i.e., where they were engaged as a group in the “EvoRoom” itself). The interactions within the EvoRoom were carefully designed to explore research questions related to large, immersive environments (Lui & Slotta, 2012). The walls of the room were rendered as large animated simulations of the rainforest at 8 different historical time periods (200, 150, 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 and 2 million years ago). The teacher coordinated students’ investigation of the evolution of the rainforest, as they made use of carefully designed tablet computers to add observations and reflections. A trip to the zoo is used to promote reflections about biodiversity and habitat, followed by another visit to the EvoRoom where students investigate the biodiversity of the present day rainforest, set in various human- and nature-impacted contexts (e.g., from climate change). Further details of the design are provided in the design analysis section. 5 KBSI2013 Papers The school itself was located within a large and ethnically diverse urban setting. The participants for the current iteration consisted of two sections of Grade 11 Biology (n=56). For the majority of the activities, students were divided into groups of 3-4, with different groupings for different activities. It should be noted that, although there were significant changes between each design iteration, and the KCI model served as an important referent and guide for design decisions, none of the designs were explicitly connected to the role of epistemic cognition within KCI. While such elements are clearly essential to the model, they were not at the forefront of concern for researchers, who were focused on activity sequences, as well as specific questions about the smart classroom (Lui & Slotta, 2012). The present research examines the role of epistemic cognition within the EvoRoom designs, performing an MBDR analysis that will serve to strengthen the coherence of the KCI model in terms of its epistemic commitments. 4. Data Analysis 4.1 – Design Analysis The first stage of the MBDR analysis entails mapping the epistemic commitments (EC) of the KCI model onto the EvoRoom curriculum design. Figure 2 connects the five epistemic commitments of KCI to the various components of the EvoRoom curriculum design timeline. As shown, the design of EvoRoom curriculum did address the major epistemic commitments of KCI. However, it notably did not make any explicit attempts to address students’ epistemic cognition, such as through reflections or discussions about the purpose of learning, the goals of the curriculum, etc. Nor did the specified activities include details about the role of epistemic cognition in the inquiry learning (Chinn et al, 2011). 4.2 – Enactment Analysis The second step of the MBDR analysis is to evaluate whether the EvoRoom curriculum was enacted faithfully to the design. Enactment data included the following (see Figure 3): • • • • • Digital learning artifacts, including posts to the online learning portfolio, contributions to the EvoRoom database throughout the Evolution Activity, and evidence/claims collected using Zydeco (for both the Zoo Field Trip and Biodiversity Activity) (n=56); Pre/post summative rating scale instruments and that were completed before and after the entire 10-week curriculum unit (n=56), as well as before and after the Zoo field trip (n=112); Open-ended survey items completed near the beginning and end of the entire 10-week curriculum unit (n=56); Student interviews, completed after the final EvoRoom biodiversity activity (n=4) Researcher field notes for the EvoRoom Evolution Activity, Zoo Field Trip and Biodiversity Activity 6 KBSI2013 Papers EvoRoom Curriculum Design: KCI Model: Epistemic Commitments Epistemic Aims and Value Students identify as a knowledge community with the shared goal of learning together, advancing the community’s knowledge, and developing shared ideas and understandings about the targeted science learning expectations Time Online Learning Portfolio (ongoing) EvoRoom Evolution Activity (Week 2) Zoo Field Trip (Week 8) EvoRoom Biodiversity Activity (Week 10) Students identify as a knowledge community with the shared goal of learning together, advancing the community’s knowledge, and developing shared ideas and understandings about the targeted science learning expectations Structure of Knowledge The structure and organization of knowledge within the knowledge base are emergent, based on student-contributed content; ‘progress’ is made visible Individual blog posts with peer comments; Collaborative wiki pages; scaffolded titles Co-constructed aggregate cladogram, based on realtime observations Shared, multimodal evidence base with folksonomic tagging structure Shared, multimodal evidence base with locationbased tags Sources of Knowledge, Justification and Epistemic Stance Sources: knowledge base is understood as “their community resource”; teacher is regarded as an expert collaborator Justification: gap in model Epistemic Stance: gap in model Epistemic Virtues and Vices Virtues: knowledge community membership, sharing of ideas, (also implicit are shared social conventions and practices, discourse “rules”) Vices: (implicit are ‘knowledge hoarding,’ competitiveness, valuing individual achievement over collective advancement) Sources: authoritative sources; Justification & Epistemic Stance = gap in model Sources: primary observations, peers; Justification & Epistemic Stance = gap in model Sources: primary observations, peers; Justification & Epistemic Stance: Zydeco CER Sources: primary observations, peers; Justification & Epistemic Stance: Zydeco CER Reliable Processes Knowledge-building processes; constructivist inquiry activities; discourse; practice/application; reflection Virtues: meaningful contributions to the shared knowledge bases for each activity; justificatory rigor (i.e. no satisficing throughout knowledge negotiations); prioritizing collective advancement over individual. Vices: lack of contributions to the knowledge base; frequent satisficing of group decisions/knowledge claims, and maintaining a competitive, grades-first mentality throughout the activities Knowledge-building processes; constructivist inquiry activities; discourse; practice/application; reflection Figure 2 – Detailed description of how the epistemic commitments of KCI appear within the EvoRoom curriculum design 7 KBSI2013 Papers Enactment Analysis Findings Online Learning EvoRoom Evolution EvoRoom Biodiversity Activity (Week 10) Portfolio (ongoing) Activity (Week 2) Zoo Field Trip (Week 8) Epistemic Aims & Values • According to an open-ended post-survey, (n=40), the majority of students (67%) perceived the EvoRoom activities as having a greater emphasis on collective knowledge advancement rather than individual learning gains. • Students identified shared goals within all four EvoRoom curriculum activities. However, students felt that shared goals were most prominent in the Zydeco Zoo activity and the Biodiversity Activity. • The majority of students (83%) felt that their own contributions to the shared knowledge base were helpful to the learning of others. • A pre/post likert questionnaire administered before and after the Zoo field trip revealed that students who participated in the EvoRoom curriculum showed a significant improvement in their perceived knowledge communities (t=-2.684, df=37, p-value=0.01081) compared to students who did not participate in the EvoRoom curriculum (t=0.6114, df=26, p-value=0.5463) Structure of Knowledge: The level of completion of Two sessions completed Of the 655 pieces of data The tagging structure of the Borneo Field Guide the activity pencil and that were collected, the data artifacts was assignment (86%) was paper rather than the tablet majority consisted of taxonomic rather than higher than the level of app. Within the paper photos (79%) or the folksonomic. Here, a much completion for the Borneo sessions, the higher-order combination of photos with higher proportion of Timeline wiki pages (47%) reasoning question text (10%). The remaining evidence was used to and the Timeline Summary (question 3) was left blank 11% of data used audio support knowledge claims (12%). by 70% of respondents. (1%), video (3%), text throughout the biodiversity Students who used tablets (4%), or a mix of media activity (42%) compared to worked collaboratively and types (3%). 67% of data the Zoo field trip activity were able to share their artifacts contained at least (15%). knowledge artifacts with one folksonomic tag, while each other such that none 33% remained untagged. of their responses were left blank. Sources of Knowledge, Justification, and Epistemic Stance: • A pre/post open-ended survey was administered to students before and after the EvoRoom curriculum (n=40). Presurvey results indicate a heavy reliance on authoritative sources of knowledge (89%), whereas post-survey results show a more even distribution between authority (33%), peers (28%) and the self (38%) as sources of knowledge. • Justification of knowledge was weakest in the Online Learning Portfolio and in the EvoRoom Evolution Activity, where knowledge contributions were mostly factual and required little negotiation. Justification of knowledge was strongest in the Zydeco Zoo field trip activity because scaffolds to support the justification of knowledge were built into the design of the Zydeco app. Although the Biodiversity activity also used Zydeco, there was evidence of students satisficing their epistemic stance in favour of consensus/agreement within the group (e.g. using approaches such as a ‘group vote’ rather than argumentation/justification of knowledge claims) Epistemic Virtues and Vices: • Most students participated fully in all activities and contributed their findings to the shared knowledge base • There was some evidence of satisficing throughout the Biodiversity Activity, therefore evaluating this epistemic vice requires further evaluation in subsequent designs once the “Justification” and “Epistemic Stance” dimensions have been refined • Students recognized the EvoRoom Curriculum as focusing on collective advancement rather than individual gains Reliable Processes: • The achievement of the epistemic aims can be used as an indicator that the underlying learning processes were, in fact, reliable. • Students were also given an open-ended post-survey in which they were asked how much of the EvoRoom curriculum they were likely to remember next year in comparison to the other units of the course. The majority of students (62%) indicated they would remember more, citing reasons such as ‘active learning,’ ‘application’ and ‘understanding’ (rather than memorization). 17% indicated they would remember less, primarily due to interest in other topics, or preference to learn/study independently rather than with classmates. Figure 3 – The EvoRoom enactment analysis revealed how the designed EC were manifested in the enacted curriculum 8 KBSI2013 Papers 5. Discussion The enacted EvoRoom design provides feedback that may be used to help strengthen the epistemic elements of future design iterations. It also provides insights as to how the epistemic commitments of the KCI model can be improved. One area of feedback into the design is concerned with the semantic organization of the knowledge base. Throughout the EvoRoom curriculum, the ability to search for and retrieve specific artifacts from the knowledge base was limited by the quality of student tagging. Within the smart classroom activities, this issue was less pronounced because there were only 12-16 students contributing to the knowledge base at a time. Here, the teacher was able to circulate the room and remind students to tag data, and the persistent aggregate display in the provided additional visual evidence showing if/when tags were appropriately applied. However, during the Zoo field trip, there was a much larger cohort of students who were simultaneously contributing to the knowledge base (n=112). Due to time constraints, many students chose to collect various multimodal artifacts as evidence and then tag them later (if at all), or otherwise poorly tagged them in haste. This meant that a large quantity of evidence remained unsearchable and unused. One area of theoretical insight that would feed into the KCI model would be considerations of “justification” and “epistemic stance” (Chinn et al, 2011) for collaborative inquiry. Throughout group knowledge negotiations, there was evidence that students were satisficing their true epistemic stance in favour of achieving group consensus, thus compromising the justificatory rigor of the inquiry. It is therefore recommended that the KCI model includes parameters to explicitly support the justification of knowledge throughout collaborative inquiry activities. 6. Conclusion MBDR can be used as an evaluative tool to identify when, where, why and how a particular design is achieving or failing to achieve its curricular aims. This paper examines how the epistemic commitments of the KCI model were mapped onto the design of the EvoRoom curriculum, and – subsequently – how those commitments played out in the enactment of the curriculum. While the EvoRoom curriculum wasn’t designed with epistemic cognition explicitly in mind, it provides an interesting opportunity to take an ‘epistemological pass’ at the design, in order to inform future design iterations. MBDR could be used to evaluate other aspects of the design as well, including technological elements or pedagogical affordances. Similarly, different curricula could be designed, enacted and evaluated using the same model as its basis. The enacted designs are valuable for both informing future design iterations, as well as generating theoretical insights that could contribute to the refinement of the model itself. References: Bell, P., Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2004). Design-based research. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 73-88). Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bereiter, C. (2002). Design research for sustained innovation. Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9(3), 321-327 Bielaczyc, K. and Collins, A. (2005). Technology as a catalyst for fostering knowledge-creating communities. In O’Donnell, A. M., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., and van der Linden, J. (eds.) Collaborative Learning, Reasoning, and Technology, pp 37–60. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178. 9 KBSI2013 Papers Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52(4), 399–413. Brown, A. L. and Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGilly, K. (ed.) Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, pp 229–272. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141–167. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22): Springer-Verlag. Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105-114. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: what we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121. Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115-128. Lui, M., and Slotta, J.D. (2012, July). Designing immersive environments for collective inquiry. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of the Learning Sciences – Volume 2 (pp. 12-14). July 2-6. Sydney, Australia: International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. Najafi, H. (2012). Transforming learning in science classrooms: A blended knowledge community approach. Doctoral dissertation. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto. Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213-223. Sandoval, W. A. (in press). Conjecture mapping: an approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences. Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1999). Schools as knowledge building organizations. In Keating, D. and Hertzman, C. (eds.) Today’s Children, Tomorrow’s Society: The Developmental Health and Wealth of Nations, pp 274–289. New York: Guilford. Scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 97–115. Retrieved from http://ikit.org/fulltext/2006_KBTheory.pdf Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of educational design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25-28. Slotta, J. D., & Najafi, H. (2010). Knowledge communities in the classroom. International encyclopedia of education, 8, 189-196. Slotta, J. D., & Peters, V. L. (2008). A blended model for knowledge communities: Embedding scaffolded inquiry. International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ing a learning world. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences Utrecht. pp. 343-350. International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS). 10 KBSI2013 Papers Metadiscourse in Knowledge Building: A Question about Written or Verbal Metadiscourse Rolf Kristian Baltzersen, Østfold University College, Norway Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT: In Knowledge Building (KB) research, the metadiscourse concept has been taken in use more in recent years. Still, the definitions seem to be quite simple and vague. In this paper, I therefore review how the metadiscourse concept is used in some selected research papers. By comparing these papers, I discuss the degree of similarities and differences in the use of the concept within the field. In addition, I propose a typology that includes both written and verbal metadiscourse and which may be relevant when analyzing knowledge building discourse. 1. Background Research question In recent years, more knowledge building (KB) researchers have started to use the metadiscourse concept (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006; van Aalst, 2009). Still, the definitions seem to be simple and vague. In this paper, I therefore ask: How is the metadiscourse concept used within knowledge building research? I will review how the metadiscourse concept is used by analyzing some selected research papers. A comprehensive definition of metacommunication developed by Baltzersen (2013) will be used as an analytical framework. This metacommunication concept is similar to the metadiscourse concept, although it has some analytic limitations because it only focuses on talk about talk. Still, the definition of metacommunication is considered as relevant enough and is introduced in some detail in Part 1. In Part 2, I review how the metadiscourse concept is used within knowledge building research. Furthermore, in Part 3, I summarize my findings by comparing the use of the metadiscourse concept in the different research papers. I also present a typology that includes both written and verbal metadiscourse. The metacommunication concept People often comment on conversations with phrases such as “What do you mean by saying that?” or “This is an interesting conversation.” This kind of communication is used for several different purposes. Bateson (1972) labeled this kind of communication as metacommunication and claimed it was essential for successful human communication. It was considered very important in order to clarify messages and regulate the communication. Until now there have been few attempts to try and develop a more coherent definition of the concept. One exception is Baltzersen (2013) who reviews the use of the concept and also presents a comprehensive typology. He suggests that verbal metacommunication can be divided into three basic dimensions: what, how and when do you metacommunicate? The "What-dimension" suggests that you will always have to refer to some part of the communication when you metacommunicate. This can be done by metacommunicating about the conversational content, the conversational relationship or the use of conversational time. It’s possible to metacommunicate about the conversational content in several different ways. One example is when a person explicitly suggests a change of conversational topic. Another example is if one tries to explain the intentions behind the conversational content. A third example is discussions about forthcoming conversational content, which is often considered important in 11 KBSI2013 Papers professional conversations. Fourthly, summarizing can be regarded as metacommunication about the conversational content. The second aspect of the “What-dimension” is to metacommunicate about the conversational relationship. This can also be done in many different ways, but is usually related to some kind of evaluation of the relationship between the persons interacting. In this regard, it’s possible to highlight one’s own role or another person’s role in the relationship. A third option is to metacommunicate about the use of conversational time. For example, persons talking to each other can discuss meeting frequency (Baltzersen, 2013). The "How-dimension" suggests that metacommunication itself indicates how people relate to each other. For example, how we use our voice when we are metacommunicating will also influence the interpretation of the metacommunicative utterance. In addition, Baltzersen (2013) distinguishes between monological metacommunication, which refers to a situation where only one person is metacommunicating, while dialogical metacommunication indicates that all persons are metacommunicating. The "When-dimension" suggests that a metacommunicative utterance will always take place at a specific point in the conversation. Firstly, it’s possible to metacommunicate about the ongoing "here-and-now" conversation. This can be done by explaining intentions or by posing questions of clarification. By making such comments, people try to encourage openness in the conversation. Metacommunication within an extended time frame will be about either a past or future conversation which goes beyond the immediate communicative situation. This kind of metacommunication may be important in professional collaboration, where people establish a working alliance (Baltzersen, 2013). 2. The metadiscourse concept in knowledge building research Frequency of use In knowledge building (KB) research, the metadiscourse concept was originally introduced by Scardamalia and Bereiter in a 2006 paper. In recent years, the use of the concept seems to have increased. One reason appears to be the development of new "metadiscourse tools" in Knowledge Forum, the online discussion environment often used by the knowledge building community. With this background, I wish to explore whether a more comprehensive metacommunication concept can increase our understanding of the use of the metadiscourse concept in knowledge building. In an attempt to answer this question, I have reviewed the use of the metadiscourse concept in KB research. A search in Google Scholar with the combination of the two terms “knowledge building” and “metadiscourse” resulted in 142 hits for the period from 2006-2012 (date 8th November 2012). The four research papers that were top ranked were selected for further analysis. They were the only papers that mentioned the metadiscourse concept more than one time (See table 1 below). The following papers were selected: Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology by Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006), Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school by Zhang, Hong, Scardamalia, Teo and Morley (2011), Collaborative productivity as self-sustaining processes in a grade 4 knowledge building community by Zhang and Messina (2010) and Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledgeconstruction, and knowledge-creation discourses by van Aalst (2009). Three of these papers have been peer-reviewed in academic journals, while the paper by Zhang and Messina (2010) is a peerreviewed conference paper. All authors are well known knowledge building researchers. 12 KBSI2013 Papers I also discovered that two similar terms are in use in KB research: both “metadiscourse” and “meta-discourse” with a hyphen. A new search was done with the term “meta-discourse” in combination with the term “knowledge building” to check if the search results were any different. This search gave a total of 41 hits for the period from 2006-2012 (date 8th November 2012), indicating that this term is less used. The top ranked paper is Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities by Zhang, Scardamalia, Reeve, & Messina (2009). This paper was also selected for further analysis. The research paper Knowledge Society Network: Toward a Dynamic, Sustained Network for Building Knowledge by Hong, Scardamalia and Zhang (2010) was ranked number two, but was not selected because the metadiscourse concept was only mentioned once. The paper by van Aalst (2009) was ranked number 3, but had already been included after the first search. In total, five papers were selected. Table 1. Overview of selected research papers according to the frequency of the use of the metadiscourse concept. Selected research paper Number of times the metadiscourse concept is used in the paper Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses (van Aalst 2009). 13 Collaborative productivity as self-sustaining processes in a grade 4 knowledge building community (Zhang and Messina 2010). 4 Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school (Zhang et al. 2011). 3 Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology (Scardamalia and Bereiter 2006). 2 Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities (Zhang et al. 2009). 2 In general we can see that the frequency of use of the metadiscourse concept is low. The exception is the paper by van Aalst (2009). The concept is used 13 times. In the other papers the content descriptions are limited because the concept is only used 2-5 times. Since Zhang is the main author of three of these research papers, I have chosen to present his uses of the concept together. Searches done with other related concepts such as "metatalk" gave very few relevant results. In this paper I will therefore use the term metadiscourse consistently, because this is the term that is most frequently used within KB research. Research paper by Scardamalia and Bereiter According to Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006), the founders of knowledge building, metadiscourse is an important feature that distinguishes knowledge building discourse from other types of discourse. It is part of the knowledge building discourse, but different because it is related to some kind of evaluation of this discourse. In their paper they also emphasize that specific tools developed in Knowledge Forum can encourage metadiscourse in a school 13 KBSI2013 Papers classroom. With the use of epistemological markers or scaffolds (such as “My theory,” “I need to understand,” “New information,” and so on), students can describe their own “thinking types” together with the notes. These scaffolds can be used to stimulate a discussion about what kind of contribution students have made. By linking these contributions together, they can create an emergent hypertext that is collective. As we see, the description of the metadiscourse concept is quite short, but still seems to suggest two main perspectives. Firstly, metadiscourse is described as a specific type of discourse with its own unique qualities. In this paper I will aim to describe this with more precision and I will also give concrete examples from other research papers. Secondly, the different scaffolds developed in Knowledge Forum are seen as important facilitators of metadiscourse and collective knowledge advancement. Still, this perspective cannot be said to be part of the concept on the same level as the first criterion, since it focuses on the technology itself. Research papers by Zhang with others Metadiscourse in the classroom All three research papers by Zhang with others describe, in some detail, the role of metadiscourse in the lesson. In one of the research papers, Zhang et al. (2009) emphasize that metadiscourse is important when students are working collectively in Knowledge Forum. At some point the teacher needs to engage the students in a discussion about their own work. It is often necessary to redefine and narrow down the knowledge problems. Usually this is done by projecting the work in Knowledge Forum onto a screen which is visible for everyone in the class. In this context, the teacher encourages the class to identify significant knowledge advances. This is a kind of metadiscourse that helps students to become aware of their progress and identify learning needs that were not otherwise recognized. The class must discuss both what they have achieved and what needs to be done. Zhang and Messina (2010) present a similar perspective on metadiscourse. The purpose is to let students review conceptual connections and try to identify important emergent questions that can lead to the formulation of deeper interconnected goals. The authors highlight one example where students identify questions such as: "Does light reflect off black opaque objects?" or "How does a mirror reflect light of all colors?" These questions again triggered further idea development. Here metadiscourse is defined as an integrated part of classroom conversations. In another research paper, Zhang et al. (2011) explain that the goal of KB Talksi is to advance students’ understanding and engage them in metadiscourse to reflect on progress (e.g., Is the discourse getting anywhere?), as well as formulate emerging problems and develop action plans to address problems. Metadiscourse is described as a discourse where students are encouraged to take a more comprehensive look at what they are doing. This is done by shifting focus from content-specific discussions to asking questions such as “Are we getting anywhere?” or “Is there an important idea we’re missing?” In this way, metadiscourse supports goal setting, planning, and review of current procedures and processes. In general, the three papers by Zhang indicate a quite consistent use of the metadiscourse concept. The emphasis is on evaluating the collective knowledge advancement. The purpose is to select the ideas one should continue to work with. In Zhang et al. (2009), the metadiscourse concept is related to both prior and forthcoming collective knowledge advancement. In Zhang et al. (2011), several of the examples related to metadiscourse are formulated as specific questions. For example, the question “Is the discourse getting anywhere?” invites students to a critical discussion about the collaboration. Zhang and Messina (2010) also exemplify metadiscourse with questions, but these seem to be related to the ordinary academic discourse. For instance, the 14 KBSI2013 Papers question "How does a mirror reflect light of all colors?" seems, in itself, not to be an example of metadiscourse. Teacher role Interestingly, two of the research papers by Zhang with others also describe the role of the teacher in relation to metadiscourse. Zhang et al. (2009) emphasize that the teacher should facilitate metadiscourse. This is necessary because the teacher needs to understand how the ideas in the groups are emerging. By asking stimulating questions, the teacher can bring important new ideas into student focus. In addition, the metadiscourse concept includes a discussion between teachers in the school about teaching, without the students being present. Zhang and Messina (2010) also give an example of how a knowledge building teacher attempts to engage students in metadiscourse by reviewing ideas, monitoring conflicts and reflecting on progress. The teacher often tries to stimulate deeper analysis by connecting his or her own proposals with students’ ideas and questions. This is done by summarizing what students have said earlier or by identifying contrasting perspectives between the students. Metadiscourse also takes place when the teacher formulates and highlights knowledge goals. This can happen when the teacher creates new view structures in Knowledge Forum in line with such goals. In both these papers, the teacher’s ability to metacommunicate seems to be closely related to his role as a conversational regulator in the class. Research paper by van Aalst Van Aalst (2009) seems to be the only knowledge building researcher who describes the metadiscourse concept in more detail. He defines metadiscourse as a level of discourse that is different from maintaining social relations or building understanding. The concept is related to the existence of long-range goals in a knowledge-creation community. In this regard, he mentions four examples: 1. reviews of the state of knowledge in the community, 2. work aimed at helping new insights diffuse throughout the community, 3. making arguments for a new phase of inquiry and 4. establishing more difficult goals over time. We see that the third and fourth examples focus on future collaboration by emphasizing a new phase of inquiry and the establishment of more difficult goals. Oppositely, example one focuses on metadiscourse as an attempt to summarize past work, while example two has a less clear time focus. According to van Aalst (2009), students may discuss how to improve previous efforts or evaluate the evolution of ideas over a substantial period, such as an entire school year. Later in the paper, this meta-discourse concept is presented as one of five key conditions in an innovation ecology that can stimulate knowledge creation (or knowledge building).1 These five conditions are: 1. the nature of the task, 2. the sense of community, 3. idea-centered discourse, 4. the use of technology and 5. meta-discourse. Furthermore, metadiscourse is used as an empirical indicator when van Aalst (2009) analyzes group discourse. Metadiscourse is defined as one of the seven main codes: Community, Ideas, Questions, Information, Links, Agency, and Meta-Discourse. The metadiscourse concept is further divided into three subcodes: Major review, Deepening inquiry and Lending support. Van Aalst (2009) assumes that the first sub-code, major review, is a more important sub-code in knowledge creation than in knowledge sharing, because it’s a more complex and timeconsuming process. This review process is considered important in discussions about the reorganization of the collective inquiry. 1 Knowledge creation and knowledge building are often used in a similar way, but van Aalst (2009) prefers to use the term knowledge creation in his paper. 15 KBSI2013 Papers The second sub-code, deepening inquiry, is defined as activity that creates deeper reflection around valuable contributions in Knowledge Forum. This requires students to interpret and evaluate information, and to elaborate on this information by providing examples and counterexamples (van Aalst, 2009). It’s not clearly explained in the paper in what way the second sub-code, deepening inquiry, and the third sub-code, lending support, are related to metadiscourse. Van Aalst (2009) refers to one example where a student, in a group discussion about avian flu, attempts to advance the inquiry to a new stage by suggesting a new question: … I guess the question now is how we can make the chickens less likely to develop serious symptoms, and to become more like the wild poultry. And maybe an effective method of keeping the chickens from getting sick and to stop the spread of the Avian flu is by doing something to the wild fowl to make them unable to carry the virus. It raises some interesting questions that can probably be analyzed further! (van Aalst, 2009: 277) The student suggests topics the group can continue to work with, but this is not followed up by the others. The formulation, “It raises some interesting questions that can probably be analyzed further!” illustrates an open-ended initiative. According to van Aalst (2009), this is a failed attempt to establish a metadiscourse. If the group had instead started a discussion about further work they would have been doing metadiscourse, but it is still not explained how this example then would qualify as metadiscourse. Furthermore, van Aalst (2009) admits there are limitations in his study of metadiscourse, partly due to the short duration of the project. All groups in the study engaged in metadiscourse, but it occurred infrequently. 3. Comparison between the research papers By comparing the selected research papers, it’s possible to say something more general about the explicit use of the metadiscourse concept in knowledge building research. In the table below, I give an overview according to the definition developed by Baltzersen (2013): Table 2. Overview of the explicit use of the metadiscourse concept in selected research papers. What do you do metacommunicate about? Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006). How do you meta-communicate? When do you do metacommunicate? Metacommunication about the conversational content (-) Zhang et al. Metacommunication (2009, 2010, 2011) about the conversational content (-) Need for review. Students’ work in KF is becoming too complex. Van Aalst (2009) (-) Need for review. Students’ work in KF is becoming too complex. Metacommunication about the conversational content (-) In general, the research papers indicate a relatively similar use of the metadiscourse concept. Firstly, metadiscourse is described as something different from the ordinary topic-orientated 16 KBSI2013 Papers discourse, but there seems to be little focus on metacommunication about the conversational relationship or the use of conversational time. There is no explicit focus on how you can metacommunicate or on metacommunication as part of the ongoing conversation. Compared with the definition of metacommunication from Part 1, one could claim that the metadiscourse concept focuses mainly on communication about the conversational content. In this regard, all the papers relate the metadiscourse concept to a review of the students’ collective work. A lot of activity in Knowledge Forum will eventually lead to a need to "ease up" (“clear up”) and narrow down the discussions in order to get a better overview. The class needs to select some ideas for further work in a new topic area or view in KF. This review process requires metadiscourse in the way that students try to synthesize notes and create new views (do a “riseabove”). Still, it can be discussed to what degree the class should discuss what they have achieved compared to what they want to do in the future. Regarding a metadiscourse about the future discourse, van Aalst (2009) seems to emphasize a discussion about long-term goals to a larger degree than Zhang with others. An important question in knowledge building will be when and how often this review process is necessary. In his paper, van Aalst (2009) relates the metadiscourse concept to a major review process, thus emphasizing the summarization of the collective work in the class. Since the term "major" implies an important change of direction in the collective knowledge advancement, it is assumed that this can’t be done all the time. Nevertheless, it seems to be difficult to estimate in advance when this should be done, but the need increases proportionally as the work in Knowledge Forum becomes more complex. Sometimes in collective knowledge advancement it is necessary to stop and discuss the further direction, because it’s very difficult to build on all the notes that are contributed in the database. Students are usually invited to discuss and select the promising ideas. These research papers suggest the importance of regular metacommunication, also emphasized by Baltzersen (2013), but because each class will work in a different pace and with different ideas, the timing of the metadiscourse cannot be defined in advance. The research papers also indicate that the researchers have difficulty using a clear-cut definition of the metadiscourse concept. For example, in the paper by van Aalst (2009), subcodes such as deepening inquiry and lending support may also be interpreted as including elements from an ordinary topic-orientated discourse. Oppositely, a subcode such as project planning may also contain elements of metadiscourse even though it is not categorized this way. Another similar example is Zhang et al (2009), who relate the metadiscourse concept to a discussion between teachers about teaching, without students being present. In this regard, the concept is actually being used more broadly than in the definition from Part 1. In addition, there seems to be an important distinction between written and verbal metadiscourse. For example, Zhang and Messina (2010) emphasizes verbal metadiscourse, while van Aalst (2009) describes written metadiscourse, although it is not explicitly labeled in this way. Furthermore, it is possible to distinguish between both written and verbal discourse on a metalevel, but also in relation to the kind of discourse one refers to. In this way one could operate with four different kinds of metadiscourse: Table 3. Typology that describes different kinds of written and verbal metadiscourse. Meta-writing Meta-talk Written discourse 1. Written discourse about a written 2. Verbal discourse discourse. about a written discourse. Verbal discourse 3. Written discourse about a verbal discourse. 4. Verbal discourse about a verbal discourse. 17 KBSI2013 Papers Firstly, one can have a written discussion about a written discussion. Usually this kind of metadiscourse seems to be done in the online discussion environment Knowledge Forum. As previously mentioned, when a class is working with diverse ideas the work will eventually become complex and messy in KF. At some point it will be necessary to do a “rise-above” to simplify the collective knowledge and bring it to a new level. Such “rise-above” notes suggest a possible new synthesis by combining existing ideas. Students may bring the discourse to a higher conceptual plane. Nevertheless, a study by van Aalst (2009) finds limited use of advanced features such as “rise-above” notes. It seems far more common to do major reviews through verbal discussions. Furthermore, van Aalst (2009) asks if KF always provides the best medium for creating knowledge in all situations. In some situations, talking face-to-face might be more effective. While asynchronous writing can support reflective thought, it is time consuming and should only be used when it provides advantages over more social ways of interacting. Still, this kind of metadiscourse seems to be considered as very important for the knowledge building pedagogy (Scardamalia and Bereiter 2006). Secondly, one can engage in a verbal discourse about a written discourse. One example might be a discussion of how to use Knowledge Forum. In addition, the research papers indicate that this kind of metadiscourse usually takes place when the class needs to get an overview of the written discussions in Knowledge Forum. A common strategy seems to be to let the whole class discuss the notes that they have produced in Knowledge Forum (KF) together. This is done by projecting the notes onto a visible screen. The teacher then tries to encourage knowledge advancement by posing open questions and reading aloud some of the written notes in the database. Van Aalst (2009) claims that such verbal discussions are often the best solution when these challenges arise. If these talks are absent, work on Knowledge Forum is disconnected from the educational culture of the class and may feel like a special project. Another reason is that since Knowledge Forum is an asynchronous communication tool without chat features, students might have less opportunity to interchange ideas rapidly. KF also provides different statistical tools that can summarize class activity and can give an overview of how the community is progressing, such as the software Analytic Toolkit (ATK), Applets for Social Network Analyses and the Idea Thread mapper (Chen, Zhang, & Lee, 2013; Zhang, Chen, Chen, & Mico, 2013; Zhang, Lee, & Wilde, 2012). These tools can support metadiscourse in different ways. One example is Chan (2011) who finds that one teacher receives information about to what degree the class is working together as a closely knit social network. These results are discussed with the students, thereby showing that this kind of formative assessment may also be used to facilitate metadiscourse. Thirdly, one can have a written discourse about a verbal discourse. The research papers indicate that this kind of metadiscourse is not so common. For example, one could write a summary about a KB Talk in Knowledge Forum. Another example is if students ask the teacher if they can write their ideas from a class discussion in Knowledge Forum. In addition, chat tools could support an ongoing written metadiscourse about the verbal face-to-face discourse. Fourthly, a verbal discourse about a verbal discourse is possible, but doesn’t seem to be addressed as metadiscourse that often. One example is if the teacher discusses conversational rules or knowledge building norms with the students. 18 KBSI2013 Papers 4. Conclusion In this paper I have reviewed how the metadiscourse concept is used within KB research. Usually the concept describes some kind of planned metadiscourse. Metadiscourse seems to be closely connected to a major review process which requires an intentional goal-orientated effort from both students and teachers. Furthermore, since knowledge building will often include some kind of writing technology, it may be advantageous to distinguish between written and verbal metadiscourse. It is therefore suggested that the metadiscourse typology presented in Part 3 can be used as a comprehensive analytical framework when studying knowledge building discourse. In this regard, the metadiscourse concept is broader than the definition in Part 1, which only focuses on talk about talk or verbal metacommunication. 5. Acknowledgements I have had the opportunity to work at IKIT as a visiting scholar in 2012-2013. This has been an important inspiration for my work with this paper. 6. References Baltzersen, R. K. (2013). The Importance of Metacommunication in Supervision Processes in Higher Education. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 128–140. Retrieved from http://sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/ijhe/article/view/2764 Bateson, G. (1972). Steps toward an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine. Chan, C. (2011). Bridging research and practice: Implementing and sustaining knowledge building in Hong Kong classrooms. … Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11412-011-9121-0 Chen, M. H., Zhang, J., & Lee, J. (2013). Making Collective Progress Visible for Sustained Knowledge Building. In Proceedings of CSCL. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To See the World and a Grain of Sand Learning across Levels of Space Time and Scale CSCL 2013. International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://tccl.rit.albany.edu/wpsite/wpcontent/uploads/2013/03/CSCL13_ITM_zhangetalFinal_proceeding-rev.pdf Hong, H., Scardamalia, M., & Zhang, J. (2010). Knowledge Society Network: Toward a dynamic, sustained network for building knowledge. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1). Retrieved from http://cjlt.csj.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/viewArticle/579 Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 259–287. doi:10.1007/s11412-009-9069-5 Zhang, J., Chen, M.-H., Chen, J., & Mico, T. F. (2013). Computer-Supported Metadiscourse to Foster Collective Progress in Knowledge-Building Communities. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To See the World and a Grain of Sand Learning across Levels of Space Time and Scale CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings Volume 2 — Short Papers, Panels, Posters, Demos & Community Events. (pp. 197–200). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.isls.org/cscl2013/Volume 2 Final CSCL 2013 Proceedings.pdf Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining Knowledge Building as a Principle-Based Innovation at an Elementary School. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.528317 19 KBSI2013 Papers Zhang, J., Lee, J., & Wilde, J. (2012). Metadiscourse to foster collective responsibility for deepening inquiry. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), The Future of Learning: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2012) (Full papers) (pp. 395–402). Sydney, NSW, Australia: International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS). Retrieved from http://tccl.rit.albany.edu/wpsite/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/Spacestudy_icls_final_refined.pdf Zhang, J., & Messina, R. (2010). Collaborative productivity as self-sustaining processes in a grade 4 knowledge building community. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences - Volume 1 (pp. 49–56). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1854360.1854367 Zhang, J., & Scardamalia, M. (2007). Sustaining principle-based knowledge building innovation at an elementary school. In Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://tccl.rit.albany.edu/papers/conferenes/AERA07_KBschool.pdf Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for Collective Cognitive Responsibility in Knowledge-Building Communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44. doi:10.1080/10508400802581676 20 KBSI2013 Papers Expanding the Metadiscourse Concept in Knowledge Building Rolf Kristian Baltzersen, Østfold University College, Norway Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT: In Knowledge Building (KB) research, the metadiscourse concept has been taken in use more in recent years. The concept seems to have been used mainly to inform the academic discourse and the collective advancement of ideas. Still, there have been few attempts to define the concept in a coherent way. In this paper I discuss whether we need to expand our understanding of the concept in order to fully understand knowledge building discourse. By using a comprehensive definition of metacommunication as a theoretical framework, I demonstrate how different kinds of “talk about talk” are present in knowledge building discourse in selected KB research papers, while not being explicitly described as metadiscourse. It is suggested that several new discourse elements should be included in the metadiscourse concept; these are explanations of intentions in the knowledge building discourse, discussions of the relationship between the participants and questions of clarification that may better capture the meta-level in the “ongoing flow” of the knowledge building discourse. In addition, one should focus more on the discourse relationship. 1. Background In recent years, more Knowledge Building (KB) researchers have started to use the metadiscourse concept (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006; van Aalst, 2009). Still, the definitions of this “discourse about the discourse” or “talk about the talk” seem to be simple and, in some cases, not even explicitly defined. Research related to a similar concept, the metacommunication concept, also appears to have had minimal influence on the development and definition of the metadiscourse concept in KB research. One exception is a review study done by Baltzersen (2013a). He finds that the present use of the metadiscourse concept refers mainly to the discussion of ideas within the academic discourse in a class or student group. The concept seems to be closely linked to a major review process which is sometimes necessary in the knowledge building discourse. Interestingly, the metadiscourse concept does not focus on issues related to the conversational relationship or the use of conversational time. In this paper, I therefore ask: Do we need a broader understanding of the metadiscourse concept in order to fully understand knowledge building discourse? A comprehensive definition of metacommunication developed by Baltzersen (2013b) is used as an analytical framework. He divides the concept into three basic dimensions: what, how and when do you metacommunicate? On the basis of this broad definition, the goal is to explore if some aspects of “talk about talk” are present in knowledge building research, but still not emphasized in the analysis by the researchers. In the selection of relevant examples, it was important to use discourse data in order to explore the relationship between metadiscourse and knowledge building discourse in more depth. Furthermore, it was essential to find examples which could be regarded as a legitimate part of “mainstream” knowledge building research. A review study by Baltzersen (2013a) was used to locate research papers which, to some degree, related the metadiscourse concept to the knowledge building discourse: 21 KBSI2013 Papers Table 1. Overview of selected research papers according to the frequency of the use of the metadiscourse concept Top ranked research papers in Google Scholar (A search with the combination of the two terms “knowledge building” and “metadiscourse/meta-discourse” for the period from 2006-2012, date 8th November 2012). Number of times the metadiscourse concept is used in the paper Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses (van Aalst 2009). 13 Collaborative productivity as self-sustaining processes in a grade 4 knowledge building community (Zhang and Messina 2010). 4 Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school (Zhang et al. 2011). 3 Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology (Scardamalia and Bereiter 2006). 2 Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities (Zhang et al. 2009). 2 Table 1 shows that the metadiscourse concept is used only a few times in most research papers. This suggests that the concept has not been thoroughly explained in the theory. The two top ranked research papers were selected as the basic data corpus. These papers were not considered to be representative, but they were rather regarded as being of some significance in knowledge building research. In the paper by Zhang and Messina (2010) there is only one lengthy and detailed text excerpt which illustrates knowledge building discourse. The discourse data here had not been explicitly related to the metadiscourse concept in the analysis in the paper. This excerpt was therefore selected as a relevant example for further analysis. The paper by van Aalst (2009) consists of several short text excerpts. Most of them are used in the section in the paper that presents the community code. These excerpts had not been interpreted as examples of metadiscourse. Four of five excerpts from this section were therefore selected for further analysis. Because these excerpts were shorter in length, more excerpts were chosen than in the paper by Zhang and Messina (2010). Nevertheless, the two cases are similar because they both consist of discourse data, but they differ in the way that Zhang and Messina (2010) refer to a discussion between the teacher and the student in the class, while van Aalst (2009) refers to online discussions between groups of students. Both these cases will be analyzed in order to find out if some aspects of “talk about talk” are present, but have not been emphasized in the analysis by these researchers. One can assume that, in these two research papers, the authors has attempted to describe the meta-level, but still might have excluded parts of this phenomenon. The goal of the paper is not to do an extensive analysis, but rather illustrate a possible further direction for the development of the metadiscourse concept. Regarding the organization of the paper, the two cases from the published research papers will be presented in Part 2. In Part 3, I analyze if other kinds of metacommunication actually are present in these published papers. In Part 4, I discuss whether some types of metacommunication 22 KBSI2013 Papers should be included in a new and broader metadiscourse concept in order to better understand the knowledge building discourse. 2. Examples of knowledge building discourse Case 1 from research paper by van Aalst In the study by van Aalst (2009), secondary school students in 2003 and 2004 were assigned an inquiry project related to different kinds of viruses. Two classes shared a Knowledge Forum database and worked on the same topics. To limit the number of notes they would encounter, the students were divided into four groups. Each group had students from both classes and had their own online environment (“view”) in Knowledge Forum. The separate groups were not expected to interact with each other during the inquiry. Most of the students worked on Knowledge Forum during class a few times per week, and after school hours. In his case study, van Aalst (2009) uses community as one of the seven main codes in a Knowledge Building discourse. This code describes the extent to which the social interactions within a group suggest a “sense of community”, in which people feel they will be treated sympathetically by “their fellows”. The indicators include social processes such as commitment to shared goals, encouragement, giving credit, drawing in participants, and apologizing. He suggests that these processes seem to be a necessary first step for collaborative learning. Whether ideas are appreciated and taken up by the community is seen as important to the formation of students’ identities as community members. Van Aalst (2009) finds several social differences between the studied groups. One of the groups functioned especially well with a shared commitment to the task, a sense of belonging to the group, and an appreciation for all group members’ contributions. Examples 1 and 2 are used to illustrate the encouragement in this group. Students wrote the following comments online: Table 2. Text excerpts from group discussion (van Aalst, 2009: 273). Example 1 Example 2 “I think your ideas for groups are good … It “I really like [S’s] idea of setting would mean that we could get a start on all the ourselves little mini-deadlines so that topics right away. Good job of actually getting everybody will stay on task and finish the job things going!” more efficiently.” Van Aalst (2009) interprets the two excerpts in table 2 as related to encouragement and giving credit, but he doesn’t relate them to the metadiscourse concept. In addition, he gives two examples of conflicts in another group that arose from miscommunication: Table 3. Text excerpts from group discussion (van Aalst, 2009: 276). Example 3 Example 4 In the final phase of the work one student in A student from the Grade 10 class the Grade 11 class wrote to a Grade 10 class: “As responded as follows: “Yeah, alright. If the of now, we have less than 1 week left and rest of our group wants to do it then I guess because your class have not been very active in that’s what’s being done since “we have not 23 KBSI2013 Papers this final phase, we’ve decided to go with these two questions above because we’ve already been researching them and getting information. I’m sorry if this inconveniences you in any way, but you’ve left us no choice. Hopefully this will work out alright with you.” been very active.” I thought we were only supposed to research our own questions first. Are those the only questions that we are doing then? We are sorry that you are not satisfied with the level of our commitment on KF. We weren’t aware that we needed to pick from your questions as well as ours. Sorry for the inconvenience.” All four text excerpts have been coded as community and they have not been explicitly interpreted as related to the metadiscourse concept. In Part 3, I will discuss if it’s possible also to connect these utterances (phrases) to the metacommunication concept. Case 2 from paper by Zhang and Messina (2010) In the research paper by Zhang and Messina (2010) the analysis will be concentrated on a text excerpt where the teacher explains the rules of reflective contributions to the class. As we can see from example 5 in the table below, the teacher reminds the students several times of the basic conversational norms and rules related to collective knowledge advancement. Table 4. Text excerpt with whole class conversation (Zhang and Messina, 2010: 52). Example 5 “Analysis highlight” by Zhang and Messina. - GM: Well, there’[re] bricks, which are still opaque. But they’re not reflective. But I don’t know what they are called, like that kind of opaque. JL (2:20) - Identifying non-reflective opaque materials, using a tentative voice. - JL: I think all opaque materials are reflective, except not all of them reflect light back. … OK, let’s just say um like…a yellow carpet… your eyes would be able to see the yellow of it because it would only reflect yellow light. That means like that sort of like a tissue for example that would only reflect white, except the yellow carpet, since it’s like green mixed with red, I believe. Then the beam of red [and green] light would touch us and your eyes would take it in as yellow. (2:31) - Contributing an alternative idea: All opaque materials are reflective, by analyzing a thought experiment (yellow carpet), drawing on knowledge of primary and secondary colors.) - Teacher: So you’re saying everything is reflective then. Every opaque object is reflective to some degree. Oh, I hear some people disagree. Can you pass it on? [JL: SG.] (3:58) - Revoicing student idea; highlighting contrasting perspectives. - SG: What about wood? Wood isn’t reflective. JL. (4:07) - FJ: I think if wood is shiny and polished, you could see your reflection. I think it’s mostly just shiny objects so it depends on what kind of wood you have, what kind of table you have, if you see your reflection. SG. (4:53) - Bringing in an anomaly. - Re-analyzing and interpreting the instance as non-anomalous. 24 KBSI2013 - SG: Like if you had a glass table. (5:12) Papers - Supporting fact. - Teacher: The question is: Are all opaque objects reflective? Have we answered that? … Do all opaque objects reflect light? Anyone has a theory or evidence to support that? So, SG, it’s yours to pass. [SG: DN.] (5:16) - Highlighting/reminding a focal problem and promoting reflection on progress. - DN: Um, actually all opaque objects do reflect light, because they reflect their own color. So we see them as whatever color they are. TS. [inaudible student talking] (5:35) - Articulating an idea and its supporting thoughts. - Teacher: Hold on, let’s hear him talk. (5:57) - TS: If they didn’t reflect their own color, you wouldn’t see a brick of red, or someone’s t-shirt as purple or whatever. RP. (5:59) - RP: What about black? (6:11) - Maintaining conversation norms. - Extending and elaborating idea. - Bringing in an anomaly. - Teacher: Don’t throw it back to him. Give your theory. (6:14) - Maintaining norms; encourage initial thoughts. - RP: I don’t think black reflects. I think that black might reflect light, but it might not. Because we had a reading today that um all the colors of the rainbow make white light and there is a note in the database about that, and everything reflects its own color. But it didn’t say anything about black. EY. (6:18) - Summarizing a reading and an online note and identifying black as an unaddressed issue. This text excerpt is not explicitly connected to the metadiscourse concept in the published research paper. In Part 3, I will discuss if it’s possible to relate it to the metacommunication concept. 3. The presence of metacommunication in knowledge building discourse In this section, cases 1 and 2 are analyzed according to Baltzersen’s (2013b) definition of metacommunication. The definition is presented together with the analysis of the different examples. Metacommunication about the conversational content According to Baltzersen (2013b), one main option is to metacommunicate about the conversational content. This can be done in several different ways, and usually happens when a speaker is trying to manage or regulate the conversational content. One strategy is to talk about the forthcoming conversational content. There are several examples of this “future-orientated” metacommunication. In example 1, the phrase “We could get a start on all the topics (...)” indicates the presence of a talk about what we are going to talk about. The student representing the group suggests that they should start to work with all topics instead of only a few. The utterance refers to the number of conversational topics. Furthermore, when the student in example 3 writes “(…) we’ve decided to go with these two questions,” he is actually deciding the scope of topics that the group is going to work with. 25 KBSI2013 Papers According to Baltzersen (2013b), one can talk about the intentions behind the conversational content in different ways. For example, it’s possible to either talk about what oneself is saying or what the other person just has said. This kind of metacommunication is illustrated in example 4, when the student says: “I thought we were only supposed to research our own questions first. Are those the only questions that we are doing then? (…) We weren’t aware that we needed to pick from your questions as well as ours.” The student is talking here about the workload in the collaboration. The student is both disclosing the group’s own opinion about the allocation of group work, and also asking for the other group’s opinion about the group work. This utterance can be seen as an attempt to clarify the group’s own position by explaining the task. Furthermore, Baltzersen (2013b) emphasizes that summarizing can also be regarded as metacommunication about the conversational content. In case 2 by Zhang and Messina, (2010) one could claim that there are several such examples. When the teacher says: “So you’re saying everything is reflective then, (...)” this can be interpreted as an attempt to give a short summary of what has just been said. Zhang and Messina (2010) code this utterance as “revoicing a student idea”. In the same excerpt, a student tries to summarize the academic work: “Because we had a reading today that um all the colors of the rainbow make white light and there is a note in the database about that, and everything reflects its own color. But it didn’t say anything about black.” Zhang and Messina (2010) code/interpret this utterance as summarizing a reading and an online note and identifying black as an unaddressed issue. The key to understanding the meta-level is the explicit utterance related to something that has been said earlier. In this example the phrase “because we had a reading today” is of central importance, because it indicates that this is a summary. According to Baltzersen (2013b), one will usually still be talking about the same conversational topic, but this is done within a different communicative “frame”. The important issue here is the explicit attempt to identify the essential prior conversational content. Metacommunication about the conversational relationship According to Baltzersen (2013b), the second main option is to metacommunicate about the conversational relationship. Usually this type of metacommunication is related to some kind of evaluation of the relationship between the persons interacting. There seem to be several such examples in the text excerpt from van Aalst (2009). In example 1, formulations such as “I think your ideas for groups are good,” and “Good job of actually getting things going!” indicate that the groups are evaluating each other’s work positively. In example 4, the evaluation is more negative. Here the student writes that the group has not been very active: “If the rest of our group wants to do it then I guess that’s what’s being done since ‘we have not been very active.’” The group here accepts the other group’s decision since they agree with the assessment of their performance. In one way the group is summarizing the conversational relationship when they say they have not been very active. This message is also repeated in the phrase: “We are sorry that you are not satisfied with the level of our commitment on KF.” The student here apologizes for the group’s lack of work. Baltzersen (2013b) also highlights that one can talk about one’s own role or another person’s role in the relationship. In example 2, the phrase “so that everybody will stay on task and finish the job more efficiently” also indicates the presence of metacommunication about each person’s role in the group relationship. The phrase “stay on task” also suggests something about future expectations concerning how the group should work together. In example 5 by Zhang and Messina (2010) there is also an example of the teacher commenting on the person’s role in the relationship in the class discussion. The teacher says: “Don’t throw it back to him. Give your theory.” The teacher is describing here how a student is not communicating adequately by using the metaphor of “throwing something”. Zhang and Messina codes this utterance as “maintaining norms”. By saying “give your theory” the teacher instructs the student to bring up his own ideas. The utterance is coded as encouraging initial thoughts. 26 KBSI2013 Papers As stated in Baltzersen (2013b), another kind of metacommunication about the conversational relationship is related to the verbalization of a disagreement. This kind of metacommunication is illustrated in example 3 with the phrase: “I’m sorry if this inconveniences you in any way, but you’ve left us no choice. Hopefully this will work out alright with you.” This can be interpreted as an attempt to explicate potential disagreement. With the phrases “I’m sorry if this inconveniences you in any way,” and “Hopefully this will work out alright with you” the student is saying something about possible negative feelings that the other group might get when they read the message. At the same time there is an element of apology and politeness in the critique, with the phrases “I’m sorry (…)” and "hopefully.” At the same time, the phrase “(…) but you’ve left us no choice” explains the intentions behind the communicative message in more detail, and clarifies that the suggested solution is non-negotiable. This discussion about a possible disagreement between the groups is followed up by the other group in example 4. The phrase “Sorry for the inconvenience” indicates regret for the possible difficulties that this group may have created in the group work. The group is referring here to the other group’s experience of their own work. This is also indicated in the phrase “not satisfied.” In example 5 by Zhang and Messina (2010), there are also phrases that can be interpreted as attempts to make disagreements more explicit. For example, the teacher says: “Oh, I hear some people disagree.” This is a verbal opinion about some of the students’ behavior in the class. Zhang and Messina (2010) code this phrase as “highlighting contrasting perspectives.” This utterance can also be interpreted as an assessment of the degree of agreement in the ongoing conversational relationship in the class. Interestingly, this is a recommended metacommunicative strategy within therapy (Baltzersen, 2013b), but it also seems to be potentially beneficial within an educational context. Metacommunication about conversational time-use A third main option is to metacommunicate about the use of conversational time (Baltzersen, 2013b). This can be done in several different ways and also seems to be part of the discussion in the text excerpts in the study by van Aalst (2009). In example 1, the phrase “get a start (...) right away” indicates that the student wants to begin to work immediately. In example 2, the phrase “I really like [S’s] idea of setting ourselves little mini-deadlines so that everybody will stay on task and finish the job more efficiently” can be interpreted as containing two types of metadiscourse. The suggestion about “setting little mini-deadlines” concerns how to organize the time-frame of the collaborative work. According to the definition of metacommunication from part 1, this can be interpreted as a comment about conversational time-use. In example 3, the phrase “we have less than 1 week left” also says something about conversational time-use. In itself this is an objective description of time, but in this context it can also be interpreted as a sign of urgency. In another example by Zhang and Messina (2010) the teacher says: “Hold on, let’s hear him talk.” The student is here given more time to speak. Zhang and Messina (2010) code this utterance as “maintaining conversation norms”. This utterance can be related to the allocation of talking time. One important task for most teachers is to let everybody speak. Monological or dialogical metacommunication? According to Baltzersen (2013b) the metacommunication in itself can also say something about how people relate to each other. In this regard, he distinguishes between monological metacommunication, which refers to a situation where only one person is metacommunicating, while dialogical metacommunication indicates that all persons are involved. Example 5 gives some impression of how the teacher is metacommunicating with the students. In this conversation the teacher is, to a small degree, a content provider, but mainly instead appears to be regulating conversational rules and directing the classroom discussion. Here the ability to metacommunicate seems to play an important role. Nevertheless, the teacher seems to be defining the discussion 27 KBSI2013 Papers rules, making summaries and directing the time-use. In this way the teacher’s behavior is close to a monological metacommunication dominated by one person, though this is not necessarily negative. Still, the communication structure is clearly different from the traditional IRE-structure (initiation, response, evaluation) in which the teacher starts by asking a question, which is followed up by a response from a student, and which then terminates with evaluative feedback from the teacher (Cazden, 2001). In knowledge building, students are supposed to build on each other’s ideas. Still, the teacher needs to sustain the discussion by constantly explaining the conversational rules during the ongoing conversation, like in example 5 with the phrase: "Hold on, let’s hear him talk." This order illustrates what one could call teacher-controlled metacommunication, but paradoxically, the control is used here to facilitate students’ continuous reflections around ideas. One could argue that this kind of metacommunication is necessary because students are used to traditional instruction and don’t know how to do knowledge building. Another important didactical question is to what degree students should be allowed to participate in dialogical metacommunication with the teacher. In a research study by Zhang, Scardamalia, Reeve and Messina (2009), they found that students requested “KB talks” to discuss the Knowledge Forum database with each other. Zhang, Hong, Scardamalia, Teo and Morley (2011) also mention that learning designs and inquiry strategies are often co-constructed by both teachers and students. Together they decide on what views should be created in Knowledge Forum and how different groups might contribute to different facets of the community enterprise. They discuss issues such as: Are we making progress in idea improvement? What are the weak areas that need more research? What experiments need to be conducted to test our theories? When do we need a KB Talk and what should it focus on? What kinds of information should be recorded in Knowledge Forum? This approach would indicate a more dialogical metacommunication since the students here have some degree of executive control over the classroom. When can you metacommunicate? Metacommunication will always happen at a specific time in a discourse. Baltzersen (2013b) suggests that metacommunication can either focus on an extended time frame or on the ongoing "here-and-now" conversation. The ongoing metacommunication can be done in several different ways, for example by explaining intentions or by posing questions of clarification. In example 5 by Zhang and Messina (2010), there are some phrases that illustrate this kind of metacommunication. For example, the utterance: “Have we answered that? … Do all opaque objects reflect light? Anyone has a theory or evidence to support that?” may here be interpreted as a request for clarification of what the class has been talking about. The teacher is raising a question and asking if this topic has already been discussed or talked about. Zhang and Messina (2010) code this as “Highlighting/reminding a focal problem.” The phrase “Anyone has a theory or evidence to support that?” is related to encouraging further reflection around the same topic. The teacher is here asking for more ideas that support the suggested theory and in this way asking for further clarification or reflection around the topic. Zhang and Messina (2010) also code this as “promoting reflection on progress.” Interestingly, these examples are not defined as metadiscourse. 4. Concluding remarks There has been little discussion around the possible existence of qualitatively different types of metadiscourse which may be important for the knowledge building discourse. The current use 28 KBSI2013 Papers of the metadiscourse concept represents only a thin slice of the possibilities available (Baltzersen 2013b). In this paper I have therefore tried to answer the following research question: Do we need a broader and more complex definition of the metadiscourse concept in order to more fully understand the knowledge building discourse? By using a comprehensive definition of metacommunication as a theoretical framework, I have demonstrated the presence of several different kinds of talk about talk in the knowledge building discourse. The analysis of the case descriptions in the two research papers indicates that several types of metacommunication are currently not coded as metadiscourse even though they describe some kind of talk about talk. This includes metacommunication about the conversational content, but also about the group relationship and the organization of the use of time in the collaborative process. For example, large parts of the selected text excerpts from van Aalst (2009) which was originally coded in the category community could also be reinterpreted as being metacommunication. Zhang and Messina (2010) use some coding terms which are closely connected to the metacommunication concept, such as “summarizing.” Other terms such as “maintaining norms” are not as conceptually close to the metacommunication concept. Cases 1 and 2 both also illustrate the metacommunicative complexity on an interactional micro level. Several different types of metacommunication are intertwined and seem to have different functions in the knowledge building discourse. The original metadiscourse concept in knowledge building seems to be used narrowly with more specific normative functions. It seems to mainly focus on metacommunication about the conversational content (Baltzersen, 2013b). One could ask if this is a conceptual problem for the knowledge building theory. Should the metadiscourse concept also include other elements that are used in the metacommunication definition? Even though metacommunication is present in the selected text excerpts, one may ask if this is of any significant importance. What does one gain by using a more coherent framework like Baltzersen’s (2013b)? Firstly, it seems to be necessary to more closely connect the metadiscourse concept to the explanation of intentions in the knowledge building discourse. This issue is mentioned by several knowledge building researchers, but is not specifically related to the metadiscourse concept. For example, Zhang et al (2011:292) refer to a Grade 3 teacher who thinks one needs to be much more explicit about the pedagogy in the classroom with the students: “The whole notion of a knowledge building community is something that . . . has to be made much more explicit. Our investigations have to have a clearer agreed upon direction. . . . Many students honed in on individual questions and connected only minimally to their classmates.” This teacher thinks one should continuously explain the knowledge building pedagogy as a part of the collective knowledge advancement. Similarly, Chan (2011) mentions the importance of talking about knowledge building pedagogy with the class in the beginning of the process. The teacher must help students understand that they should not only work as individuals, but also as a community. Students need to discuss the importance of the pedagogy in relation to their own expectations of the learning processes. Because the knowledge building discourse is so different from the traditional IRE structure, it seems to be even more important than usual to try and explain the pedagogy to the students. The text excerpt by Zhang and Messina (2010) also illustrates that the teacher needs to explain the KB pedagogy continuously. A more detailed definition of metadiscourse can potentially help the teacher to reflect around these questions when implementing Knowledge Building in classrooms. Secondly, one seems to need a metadiscourse concept that can capture meta-levels that are part of the “ongoing flow” of the knowledge building discourse. The text excerpts from van Aalst (2009) and Zhang and Messina (2010) illustrate that several different types of metacommunication are intertwined in the ongoing knowledge building discourse. In present 29 KBSI2013 Papers research, the metadiscourse concept seems to lack such a focus. Van Aalst (2009), for example does not choose to code clarification as part of the metadiscourse concept. Nevertheless, clarification seems to play an important role in the metacommunication concept (Baltzersen, 2013b; Bateson, 1972). One could, for instance, discuss whether short metacommunicative utterances such as clarification should be highlighted as being part of the metadiscourse concept on a “micro level.” Furthermore, Zhang et al. (2009) emphasize the importance of collaborative improvisation in knowledge building discourse. Diverse ideas are generated and critically examined in unpredictable and complex ongoing interactions. When everybody contributes to the flow of the conversation, the students can take on higher level responsibility in deciding what and how to learn. The text excerpt by Zhang and Messina (2010) also illustrates how metacommunication regulates this kind of discourse and does not necessarily inhibit this conversational flow as suggested by Sawyer (2004). There seems to be a need for a metadiscourse concept that can capture the more spontaneous ongoing regulation of the knowledge building discourse in addition to research on more explicit metadiscourse designs (Zhang, Lee, & Wilde, 2012). Thirdly, the text excerpt from Zhang and Messina (2010) illustrates examples of summarizing on a micro level in the ongoing discourse. This kind of summarizing is not included in the metadiscourse concept. This may be a weakness, since the present metadiscourse concept focuses so much on a major review which can be interpreted as an attempt to summarize the discussion of academic ideas within a broader time period. A more complex metadiscourse concept would be useful in order to encompass different ways of reviewing the collective work. Summarizing of collective work also seems to play an essential role in the educational design of knowledge building (Resendes, Chen, Acosta, & Scardamalia, 2013; Zhang et al., 2012). For example, Zhang et al. (2012) examined different designs of metadiscourse in the classroom. Both classes had regular “metacognitive meetings” where students reflected on progress and identified the focus of their further inquiry. Class A reviewed student questions in order to formulate deepening goals, while class B co-monitored key disciplinary concepts. Fourthly, the groups in examples 1-4 are metacommunicating about the conversational relationship by expressing possible conflicts or disagreements in the relationship. Since van Aalst (2009) does not relate this text excerpt to metadiscourse, he implicitly operates with a metadiscourse concept that does not focus on how students regulate social relations. This might be a weakness since these relational components are considered important in the total framework of a knowledge building discourse. It is therefore recommended that the metadiscourse concept should include a new subcategory which is more related to a “discourse about the discourse relationship.” Still, it is not entirely clear how important this kind of metadiscourse is in knowledge building discourse. According to Bereiter and Scardamalia (2010) a dialogue about the group dynamics is subordinate to the most important issue of whether the dialogue is progressing. A group involved in knowledge building, which pauses to evaluate the progress of their dialogue, is usually not mainly concerned with group dynamics. They exemplify a dialogue about the dialogue relationship by whether everyone has had a chance to be heard, how turns are being taken and whether people are paying attention to what others say. To conclude, there seems to be a need to start a more profound theoretical discussion around the importance and the scope of the metadiscourse concept in KB theory. A broad and comprehensive concept might help the teacher in developing more effective strategies when trying to implement knowledge building in the classroom. The metadiscourse concept should also be discussed in relation to other similar concepts as for instance reflective communication (Engeström, 2008). In addition there seems to be an interesting link between the metacognition 30 KBSI2013 Papers concept and the metadiscourse concept which is largely unexplored (Whitebread & O’Sullivan, 2012). 5. Acknowledgements I have had the opportunity to work at Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology (IKIT) as a visiting scholar in 2012-2013. This has been an important inspiration for my work with this paper. 6. References Baltzersen, R. K. (2013a). Metadiscourse in Knowledge Building: A question about written or verbal metadiscourse. Knowledge Building Summer Institute 2013. Toronto: Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology. Baltzersen, R. K. (2013b). The Importance of Metacommunication in Supervision Processes in Higher Education. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 128–140. Retrieved from http://sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/ijhe/article/view/2764 Bateson, G. (1972). Steps toward an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). “Good Moves” in Knowledge-Creating Dialogue: Preliminary Sketch of a Model. Toronto: Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology. University of Toronto. Retrieved from http://ikit.org/dialoguemodel.pdf Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse : the language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth: Heinemann. Chan, C. (2011). Bridging research and practice: Implementing and sustaining knowledge building in Hong Kong classrooms. … Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11412-011-9121-0 Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.lavoisier.fr/livre/notice.asp?ouvrage=1443776 Resendes, M., Chen, B., Acosta, A., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). The Effect of Formative Feedback on Vocabulary Use and Distribution of Vocabulary Knowledge in a Grade Two Knowledge Building Class. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To See the World and a Grain of Sand Learning across Levels of Space Time and Scale CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings Volume 1 Full Papers Symposia (pp. 391–398). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Improvised lessons: collaborative discussion in the constructivist classroom. Teaching Education, 15(2), 189–201. doi:10.1080/1047621042000213610 Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 259–287. doi:10.1007/s11412-009-9069-5 Whitebread, D., & O’Sullivan, L. (2012). Preschool children’s social pretend play: supporting the development of metacommunication, metacognition and self-regulation. International Journal of Play, 1(2), 197–213. doi:10.1080/21594937.2012.693384 Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining Knowledge Building as a Principle-Based Innovation at an Elementary School. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.528317 31 KBSI2013 Papers Zhang, J., Lee, J., & Wilde, J. (2012). Metadiscourse to foster collective responsibility for deepening inquiry. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), The Future of Learning: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2012) (Full papers) (pp. 395–402). Sydney, NSW, Australia: International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS). Retrieved from http://tccl.rit.albany.edu/wpsite/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/Spacestudy_icls_final_refined.pdf Zhang, J., & Messina, R. (2010). Collaborative productivity as self-sustaining processes in a grade 4 knowledge building community. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences - Volume 1 (pp. 49–56). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1854360.1854367 Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for Collective Cognitive Responsibility in Knowledge-Building Communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44. doi:10.1080/10508400802581676 32 KBSI2013 Papers La Importancia de las Redes Sociales como Herramienta Educativa en el Centro de Estudios Científicos y Tecnológicos No. 1 Nivel Medio Superior del Instituto Politécnico Nacional Ranulfo Dimitri Cab Cordero, Marco Antonio Hernández Pérez Centro de Estudios Científicos y Tecnológicos No. 1, Instituto Politécnico Nacional Emails: [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT: This paper describes the results gotten from an investigation made about the impact of social networks in young students applied to learning process. The development of Information Technologies and its democratization via Internet has influenced the society in different grades. Young people are more adaptable, and perceptive to this influence, in a more natural way. Social networks, (as Facebook and Twitter) have become part of their lives, and today not to have it could be cause of exclusion. Different areas of the society must also be adaptable to these changes, and should take advantage of the opportunity that they represent. This report exposes the success gotten during the implementation of social networks in the learning process for high school students at Instituto Politécnico Nacional, and how the social networks can complement the educational platform, and enrich the student experience. Keywords: Information Technologies, Social Networks, Students, Education. RESUMEN: Este artículo describe los resultados conseguidos a partir de investigación realizada sobre impacto de las redes sociales en estudiantes aplicados al proceso de aprendizaje. El desarrollo de las Tecnologías de la Información y su democratización a través de Internet ha influido en la sociedad en diferentes grados. Los jóvenes son más adaptables y perceptivos a esta influencia, de una manera más natural. Las redes sociales (como Facebook y Twitter) se han convertido en parte de su vida, y hoy en día no tenerlas podría ser causa de exclusión. Diferentes áreas de la sociedad también deben adaptarse a estos cambios, y deben aprovechar la oportunidad que representan. Este informe expone el éxito conseguido en la implementación de las redes sociales en el proceso de aprendizaje de los estudiantes de bachillerato en el Instituto Politécnico Nacional, y cómo las redes sociales pueden complementar la plataforma educativa, y enriquecer la experiencia de los estudiantes. Palabras clave: Tecnologías de la información, Redes sociales, Estudiante, Educación. INTRODUCCIÓN. Actualmente podemos decir los que nos dedicamos a la educación que las escuelas de hoy son distintas a las de hace tres años y más distintas aún que las de hace cinco años. Lo anterior implica necesariamente que las escuelas y los docentes tienen que realizar una serie de ajustes a sus estrategias en el proceso enseñanza aprendizaje a la par de los cambios en las características y necesidades de sus alumnos. Sin embargo, aun cuando podemos decir que mucho de ello tiene 33 KBSI2013 Papers que ver con el uso de nuevas tecnologías también es digno de tomar en cuenta que esas mismas tecnologías son para los estudiantes una ventana al mundo demasiado grande y en donde “No todo lo que brilla es oro”. Lo anterior se acentúa más cuando nuestros alumnos están ante modalidades educativas a distancia, virtuales, mixtas o presenciales que permiten la elección de sus trayectorias académicas, -principalmente en nivel medio superior y superior- dentro de un mapa curricular flexible en el que incluso el estudiante puede modificar el tiempo de estancia en su nivel educativo. En la actualidad los estudiantes tienen un contacto con las tecnologías de la información y comunicación prácticamente desde que inician su etapa escolar, es por ello que su uso ya es parte de la vida académica de los jóvenes, al llegar al bachillerato los alumnos tienen un dominio amplio en el uso de las principales herramientas tales como el correo electrónico, redes sociales como Facebook, twitter y de plataformas electrónicas específicas. Sin embargo se observa que uso de dichas herramientas en ningún momento se utiliza con fines que impacten en el desempeño académico de los estudiantes del nivel medio superior, pues su fin queda concentrado a los fines lúdicos y de entretenimiento, encontrando ahí una importante área de oportunidad para proponer por medio del uso de las TIC´s mantener una seguimiento en las actividades de asesoría y discusión de los estudiantes. Pues si bien la tutoría o asesoría de los docentes es una estrategia útil para mejorar el aprovechamiento de sus estudiantes, esta es una estrategia que se usa en la mayoría de los modelos educativos de todos sus niveles. Es importante mencionar que esta actividad en algunos de los casos su eficacia se ve mermada por la falta de tiempo tanto para realizarla como para darle un seguimiento puntual, lo cual se puede englobar como falta de comunicación efectiva entre los actores del proceso enseñanza aprendizaje. Por lo anterior es importante plantear estrategias que permitan una mayor interacción entre docente y alumno para que por medio del uso de diversas plataformas de fácil acceso implique una mejora en el proceso enseñanza aprendizaje por medio de redes de conocimiento. En el entendido que las redes sociales: Permiten una amplia capacidad comunicativa, no requieren grandes capacidades de equipos, gran accesibilidad, y no requieren hasta el momento del pago de licencias por su uso. Este trabajo muestra los resultados parciales de la investigación- acción realizada en una escuela del nivel medio superior del Instituto Politécnico Nacional que es una institución pública de bachillerato en la Ciudad de México. La investigación pretende de primera instancia partir de demostración de la hipótesis que plantea: La viabilidad del uso de las redes sociales como herramienta didáctica para mejorar el proceso enseñanza aprendizaje en los alumnos del nivel medio superior del CECyT 1. Y a partir de ella se desprenden los siguientes objetivos parciales: a) Encontrar el impacto en el aprendizaje cuando se utiliza como herramienta de comunicación las redes sociales; b) Determinar la frecuencia de uso de las redes sociales como herramienta didáctica; c) Encontrar las experiencias exitosas de comunicación a partir del uso de las redes sociales como herramienta didáctica; d) Determinar en función de sus características las estrategias didácticas que pueden ser aplicadas en redes sociales. En el presente trabajo se quiere compartir la experiencia exitosa del uso de las redes sociales como instrumento didáctico en diversas asignaturas, partiendo que la comunicación es un elemento fundamental en la educación y que las redes sociales permiten ser una plataforma útil en cualquier institución educativa al ser un software libre, que además dominan nuestros estudiantes de bachillerato y que su aplicación tiene como límite la propia creatividad del docente 34 KBSI2013 Papers El constructivismo y el aprendizaje en línea. Los modelos educativos actuales consideran al constructivismo como la postura dominante en la que se basa la conceptualización de los procesos de enseñanza aprendizaje. Sin embargo no se puede decir que sea una teoría que tenga un enfoque unificado, ya que no concuerda con un solo modelo de aprendizaje, pero en lo general se establece que la mayor parte de lo que se entiende y aprende es construido por las personas y que su conocimiento del mundo se hace a través de representaciones que el mismo re estructura para su comprensión. Tomando como base lo anterior a continuación se desarrollan los fundamentos que sirven de base a la propuesta que se está realizando es este trabajo. Por ello se ha podido identificar las tres vertientes que nutren este trabajo tales como, la perspectiva sociocultural de Lev Vygotsky, el aprendizaje significativo de Ausubel y el enfoque de la enseñanza para la comprensión apoyado en la teoría de las inteligencias múltiples de Howard Gardner. En todos los casos la propuesta que se formula es la de tomar alguna ideas fundamentales de estos modelos tratando de integrarlas como ejes de aprendizajes constructivistas y el proceso enseñanza- aprendizaje usando las TIC´s como herramienta. Lev Vygotsky y la escuela histórica cultural. Para Vygotsky la función del aprendizaje debe ser la creación de zonas de desarrollo próximo (ZDP) definida como “…La distancia entre el nivel de desarrollo actual, determinado por la solución independiente de problemas, y el nivel de desarrollo potencia, determinado por medio de la solución de problemas bajo la orientación de un adulto o en colaboración con pares más capaces”(Vygotsky, 1978,p86). La zona de desarrollo próximo representa el desarrollo cognitivo prospectivo, o sea que se proyecta a funciones que todavía no maduraron. Es interesante resaltar que esta entidad pone de manifiesto las potencialidades de las funciones mentales como algo abierto y no definitivamente hecho. Lo anterior se vería facilitado por el uso de nuevas tecnologías que a través de diferentes actividades que se pueden llevar a cabo en los entornos virtuales proporcionaría un aprendizaje entendido como un proceso en donde el alumno a progresivamente controlando su actividad y el profesor y/o tutor ayuda a estructurar los contenidos de una acción de enseñanza recíproca. En la teoría de Vygotsky son importantes los instrumentos psicológicos como recursos para dominar los procesos mentales tales como la lengua, los símbolos algebraicos, los diagramas, mapas, entre otros. El hombre para su desarrollo siempre se ha valido de herramientas, específicamente se trata de los sistemas que crea y produce el hombre como producto de su mismo crecimiento. Desde esta perspectiva podemos considerar a la virtualidad como un nuevo escenario donde el uso de la computadora es vista como una aplicación y una proyección de la mente del usuario. Esta herramienta informática mediatiza las relaciones como si las personas estuvieran cara a cara, facilitando un gran número de interacciones. (Bransford et al 2001). Le adjudica las interacciones computacionales, el papel de facilitadoras haciéndolas más fáciles, de tal manera que operan como un auxiliar externo de la propia memoria. Pero también por otra parte pueden ser factores que determinen ciertas configuraciones del pensamiento y de la capacidad cognitiva de los sujetos. (Pea, 2000) Refiere al término cognición distribuida, como aquellos saberes que están presentes en diferentes personas y que, al compartirse, pasan a ser apropiados por los compañeros del grupo, sin embargo para Perkins (2001), la inteligencia distribuida está constituida por los recursos cognitivos del ser humano además de todas las herramientas que ha desarrollado a lo largo de la civilización. En otras palabras la inteligencia se distribuye entre los individuos, el entorno, las representaciones simbólicas externas, las herramientas y los artefactos; Pero también al intercambio de saberes entre los miembros del grupo. 35 KBSI2013 Papers Una oportunidad para distribuir las cogniciones son el establecimiento de redes que puedan ser próximas o distantes dando la oportunidad que se constituyan por medio de las redes sociales, de esta manera la actuación de los instrumentos tecnológicos pasan de ser solitarios, a ser en colaboración. El mundo contemporáneo está lleno de artefactos que se emplean para realizar labores y las TIC desempeñan un papel importante potenciando esas actividades humanas. Una derivación que atañe directamente a proponer un modelo con TIC´s se refiere al diseño de actividades que considere este potencial distribuido de la cognición, en donde el punto de partida se basa en incluir cuestiones profundas relacionadas con los procedimientos de las ciencias, en un acuerdo las teorías enmarcadas en el contexto histórico-cultura. Por lo que con respecto a la manera en la que se concibe el aprendizaje y sus relaciones incide en las definiciones que se tomen para desarrollar un modelo de enseñanza con TIC´s. especialmente las redes sociales al ser una herramienta eficaz de comunicación. David ausubel y el aprendizaje significativo. Ausubel (2000), por ser considerado como uno de autores más importantes y representantes de las teorías del aprendizaje contemporáneo. Resulta valioso el estudio porque es una teoría utilizada en el campo de las ciencias y puede servir de fundamento para los desarrollos de nuevas tecnologías. La principal noción que postula Ausubel es la del aprendizaje significativo, que se define como el proceso a través del cual la tarea de aprendizaje puede relacionarse de manera arbitraria y sustantiva con la estructura cognitiva de la persona que aprende al no arbitrariedad significa que la relación de la nueva información con la estructura cognitiva es específica, se realiza con conocimientos previos ya existentes, ya sean conceptos ideas o proposiciones denominados subsumidores que funcionan como anclaje para los nuevos conocimientos. Traduciendo esto a las actividades que se proponen con las TIC podemos hablar de relaciones que se establecen entre los contenidos y los conocimientos previos de los alumnos: con respecto a la sustantividad nos indica que los que se incorpora es la sustancia del nuevo conocimiento y no a las palabras o elementos utilizados en ello. La interactividad como marco de actuación del docente presencial y virtual. Se han señalado algunas de las relaciones e influencias mutuas que se dan entre los tres elementos instruccionales que acaban conformando las interacciones dinámicas responsables del proceso de construcción de conocimiento. Hay que decir que no todas estas relaciones deben darse de manera que coincidan el profesor y el/los alumno/s y no nos referimos a la diferencia entre enseñanza presencial y en línea. Es por ello que se ha introducido el concepto de interactividad (Coll y Cols, 1995) que supone la evidencia de los intercambios que se producen entre tutor y alumnos en relación al contenido de aprendizaje. Dichos intercambios pueden realizarse de manera directa (presencia compartida entre ellos: en un aula presencial o en línea aunque sea asíncrona, en la que se lleva a cabo una discusión sobre un tema) o de manera indirecta (por ejemplo, cuando los alumnos, de enseñanza presencial o en línea, realizan tareas en sus casas y no hay coincidencia en el tiempo ni en el espacio pero existe una tarea mediadora que los une) y en la mayoría de casos se utiliza el lenguaje verbal como instrumento de comunicación. Por ello es importante puntualizar que la enseñanza en línea no difiere del paradigma teórico que soporta la enseñanza presencial en cuanto, en todo caso, se trata de enseñar y de aprender los saberes culturales que se acercan a los alumnos. A nivel institucional y docente se busca que los alumnos estén preparados para el futuro y para ello se estructura un dispositivo en este caso telemático, por ejemplo, que será el canal educativo pero no la finalidad de la educación en sí misma. 36 KBSI2013 Papers Por tanto, no olvidemos que al hablar de enseñanza en línea estamos hablando de un medio y no de un fin y así hemos de tratar la virtualidad, al servicio de la educación. Naturalmente reconocemos que este dispositivo, como cualquier otro que se utilice, demanda de los alumnos una interacción concreta y funciona de poderoso mediador de sus aprendizajes modelándolos en función delas características y posibilidades del medio. Sin embargo es importante señalar que es la manera cómo se lleva a cabo la comunicación formativa y ello distingue sobremanera un proceso educativo presencial. Sin dejar de tomar en cuenta que para desarrollar una tutoría de calidad es necesario formalizar un plan de tutoría que guía al alumno a lo largo de su formación específica, tanto en el caso de la presencialidad como en el de la enseñanza en línea. METODOLOGÍA. En este proyecto se propuso el uso de las redes sociales como auxiliar en el proceso enseñanza aprendizaje, dicha investigación se plantea la pregunta central de investigación: ¿Cómo influye en el aprendizaje un modelo didáctico, mediante redes sociales que, coadyuven con los principios constructivistas para el nivel medio superior en el CECyT 1 del IPN? La hipótesis del trabajo es la viabilidad del uso de las redes sociales como herramienta didáctica para mejorar el proceso enseñanza aprendizaje en los alumnos del nivel medio superior del CECyT 1. Y a partir de ella se desprenden los siguientes objetivos parciales: a) Encontrar el impacto en el aprendizaje cuando se utiliza como herramienta de comunicación las redes sociales; b) Determinar la frecuencia de uso de las redes sociales como herramienta didáctica; c) Encontrar las experiencias exitosas de comunicación a partir del uso de las redes sociales como herramienta didáctica; d) Determinar en función de sus características las estrategias didácticas que pueden ser aplicadas en redes sociales. Esta investigación se llevará a cabo por medio de investigación-acción de tipo mixto predominantemente de tipo evaluativa. Para ello se tomó una muestra al azar: el grupo 6IV21 será el grupo experimental de la asignatura redes digitales de sexto semestre y un grupo control integrado por dos grupos 6IV22 y 6IV23 de la misma asignatura. Durante el semestre se usaron en el grupo experimental se usaron las redes sociales (Facebook y twitter) para subir evidencias, hacer foros de discusión, captura de evidencias entre otras cosas. Durante el desarrollo de la investigación cada uno de los meses se contabilizó a partir de sus participaciones e ingresos a las plataformas su participación en alguna de las actividades planteadas, tomando como participación valida al menos un ingreso al Facebook o twitter por mes. Se llevó a cabo el registro del aprovechamiento en los tres cortes de evaluación y la evaluación final del curso. Esto en los tres grupos usados en el estudio. Para la puesta en marcha se hizo mediante entrevistas estructuradas en el espacio de tutoría (al menos una vez por semana) se les preguntó a los estudiantes sobre sus opinión, ventajas, comentarios y sugerencias del trabajo para el uso de la herramienta usada. Finalmente también dentro del desarrollo del curso se llevaron a cabo guías de observación de campo en las cuales se tomaron notas de algunas de las características del trabajo desarrollado en relación a su efectividad para cumplir las competencias establecidas en la propia planeación académica de la asignatura. 37 KBSI2013 Papers RESULTADOS. En lo referente a los resultados del aprovechamiento escolar de los estudiantes que utilizaron la herramienta se encontró en las actas de calificaciones que en el grupo experimental el aprovechamiento escolar fue en los primeros dos cortes muy similar al grupo control, sin embargo conforme fue avanzando el semestre el aprovechamiento en el grupo experimental se elevó con respecto al grupo control de la siguiente forma: 1er corte 1%, segundo corte 2%, tercer corte 19% y para finalizar con un 18% en la evaluación final. En lo que respecta al uso de los estudiantes del grupo 6IV21 de alguna de las herramientas se encontró que el ingreso en porcentaje de los alumnos inició en 62% para el mes de enero, terminó siendo su uso del 92%. Pues algunos estudiantes mencionaron que no contaban con cuenta de Facebook y solicitaron que entregar evidencias de forma tradicional. A partir de las entrevistas con los estudiantes se detectó entre otras que algunos de los estudiantes consideraban poca la utilidad del twitter pues consideraban que el Facebook era suficiente y que algunos de ello no contaban con él, sin embargo se les solicito abrieran una cuenta con el fin de usar esta herramienta únicamente para la implementación de foros de discusión. En lo que se refiere a la observación llevada a cabo durante el trabajo, se encontró que en un primer momento el uso de Facebook si bien permitía compartir información el flujo de información personal de los estudiantes dificultaba un poco el trabajo. Sin embargo, se detectó en los estudiantes un amplio dominio en las competencias relacionadas con el uso de las TIC´s y una gran disposición para participar. Sin embargo, consideran que la labor del profesor es importante para su desarrollo académico, - solo cuando existe una verdadera comunicación con ellos- Sin embargo al final del camino los estudiantes manifestaron su aprobación sobre la forma de trabajo colaborativo entre pares y con los profesores. DISCUSIÓN. La discusión principal de esta investigación estriba en el cuestionamiento del por qué usar redes sociales como herramienta educativa, tomando en cuenta que existen en la actualidad diversas plataformas educativas que tienen como fin principal el facilitar el proceso enseñanza aprendizaje. Desde luego en la actualidad existen muchos sistemas auxiliares y todos de mucha utilidad de cuerdo a la necesidad y características de uso, sin embargo aquí se encontró que los alumnos tenían un acceso mayor a las redes sociales, -pues todos los estudiantes las manejan a la perfección- e inclusive dichas redes sociales por sus características tienen aplicaciones que permiten establecer comunicación entre alumnos y maestros, que son programas de uso libre y que una escuela no requiere ninguna inversión más. CONCLUSIONES. De forma preliminar se puede concluir la viabilidad del uso de las redes sociales como una herramienta para coadyuvar en el aprendizaje de los estudiantes de acuerdo a los resultados obtenidos en este inicio del estudio, sin embargo queda como principal pendiente en la investigación la de proponer un modelo basado en experiencias exitosas mismo que deberá ser evaluado de nuevo con un tamaño de muestra mayor. En un inicio, se puede establecer como un hallazgo importante en la ejecución el inconveniente ha sido que a veces la información que fluye y que no necesariamente es valiosa 38 KBSI2013 Papers académicamente invade y satura el canal de comunicación pues por su naturaleza y gustos de los estudiantes contiene demasiados elementos. Sigo sosteniendo -hasta este punto- la pertinencia del uso de plataformas ya establecidas como medio de comunicación y acción –en algunos casos-, entre los estudiantes y su profesor tutor con el fin de mejorar el desempeño académico mediante ese acompañamiento efectivo. Desde luego el modelo deberá ser establecido de acuerdo a las necesidades de los estudiantes, las estrategias planteadas por el profesor y la asignatura que se trate e incluso por la propia institución educativa, ¿por qué no? La implementación con algunos ajustes para lograr la implementación future de un Facebook o un twitter academic para el uso de instituciones educativas con los respectivos ajustes de acuerdo a las necesidades de las universidades. AGRADECIMIENTOS. A nuestros alumnos que son la razón de ser las instituciones educativas. A nuestros profesores que han sido nuestro ejemplo a seguir. REFERENCIAS. AUSUBEL, D, NOVAK, J. D. y HANESIAN, H. (2000). Psicología Educativa un punto de vista cognoscitivo (13ed). México. Trillas. BRANSFORD, J.D, BROWN, A (2000). (Eds.) How People Lear: Mind, Brain, Experiencie and school, Expanded Edition. Washington D.C. National Academy Press. CANO GONZÁLEZ, RUFINO (2009). Tutoría universitaria y aprendizaje por competencias. ¿Cómo lograrlo? REIFOP, 12 (1), 181-204. (Enlace web: http://www.aufop.com/ - : ISSN 1575-0965 · Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 12 (1), 181-204. COLL, C., COLOMINA, R, ONRUBIA, J. Y ROCHERA, M J. (1995). Actividad conjunta y habla: una aproximación a los mecanismos de influencia educativa. En P. Fernández y M. A. Melero (comps.) La interacción social en contextos educativos. Madrid. Siglo XXI, HERNÁNDEZ, P. (1991). Psicología de la instrucción. México, Edit. Trillas. PEA, R (2001). “Prácticas de inteligencia distribuida y diseños para la educación”, en: SALOMÓN, Gavriel (Comp.): Cogniciones distribuidas. Buenos Aires: Norma. PERKINS, D. (2001): “La persona-más. Una visión distribuida del pensamiento y el aprendizaje”, en: SALOMÓN, Gavriel (Comp.): Cogniciones distribuidas. Buenos Aires: Norma. ROMO, A. (2004), “Acompañando el aprendizaje”, Suplemento campus universitario, año 2, num. 90, Milenio Diario, 22 de julio, México SUAREZ, R. (2002). La educación: Teorías educativas. Estrategias de enseñanza aprendizaje, México: Trillas, VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psy-chological processes, (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds.). MA: Harvard University Press. 39 KBSI2013 Papers Effects of Different Implementations of The “Embedded and Transformative Assessment” Principle on Knowledge Building in Online University Courses Stefano Cacciamani and Vittore Perrucci University of Valle d’Aosta [email protected]; [email protected] ABSTRACT: The aim of this study is to analyze different implementations of the KBC principle “Embedded and transformative assessment” in online courses at the University of Valle d’Aosta. For this purpose, using a design based research approach, three online courses, different for the planned phases of the strategies and knowledge assessment, were implemented. The assessment of knowledge and of strategies were considered in face-to-face meetings during the course in the first case, in an online portfolio at the end of each online module of the course in the second case, and or strategies in an online portfolio in the middle of the course, and for knowledge assessment in face to face meetings in the third case (see the excerpts in the Appendix). The results show that in the second implementation interdependence emerges between reading and writing from the module immediately following the online portfolio, but not interdependence among participants in reading and writing, which is probably due to the dimension of the community. Some implications concerning the relationship between the implementation of the “Embedded and transformative assessment “principle and the knowledge building activity, with reference to student Epistemic Agency, have been identified for future direction of inquiry. 1. Introduction The social constructivist perspective applied to designing online courses highlights the importance to consider the active role of students in the knowledge building process (Garrison & Anderson, 2002). In this scenario, Scardamalia and Bereiter (1999) proposed their Knowledge Building Community (KBC) model defined by 12 principles (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006), suggesting that, in educational contexts, it is possible to organize a community that creates new knowledge through a collaborative inquiry activity. One of the 12 KBC model principles, called “Embedded and transformative assessment”, requires the active involvement of students in a continuous evaluation process, focused on the knowledge built by the community and the strategies of work used (Scardamalia, 2002). With reference to the central role of the community engaged in an activity of inquiry, it is important to consider two different aspects in analyzing the efficacy of the knowledge building process in an online course. The first aspect refers to the interdependence between writing and reading: it is only if each member of the community understands the relevance to connect reading and writing activities that the inquiry takes place as a common enterprise. In fact, in online courses when people write without reading others’ texts a self-referential situation is created, where each author remains encapsulated within their own ideas. On the other hand, when people read without writing, it results in a passive participation, typical of “lurking” (Preece, Nonnecke & Andrews, 2004). Hence, the presence of interdependence between reading and writing in the activity of each member of the community is a signal that knowledge building activity works. The second aspect concerns the social interactions inside the community, so relevant in an online course that Garrison and Anderson (2002) introduce the idea of “Social presence” as an 40 KBSI2013 Papers important component of knowledge building. The community works well if in writing and reading it is possible to identify interdependence among the community members that can be studied using the parameter of “density” through Social Network Analysis (Ehrich & Carboni, 2005). Reffay and Chanier (2002), for instance, used “density” to describe the evolution of social interdependence inside four groups involved in online activities and identified a progressive decrease in online interactions among participants, with reference to some changes in the group composition (Mazzoni, 2002). The aim of this study is to analyze different implementations of the KBC model principle, “Embedded and transformative assessment principle”, that has effective functioning in online courses shown by the interdependence between writing and reading, and by the level of interdependence among participants. It follows the Design-Based Research (DBR) methodological approach (The Design Based Research Collective, 2003): a systematic but flexible methodology aimed to improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development and implementation, which is based on collaboration amongst researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leads to contextually-sensitive design and principle theories (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). 2. Method 2.1 Educational Setting The Psychology of Education online course is for first-year students in the Faculty of Science of Education and second-year students in the Faculty of Science for Primary School at the University of University of Valle d’Aosta. It aims to develop a critical understanding of the main approaches and theoretical models of this discipline with reference to learning at school. The course is typically organized into four modules, each of which addresses a specific subject area (e.g. theories of learning, motivation, collaborative learning, classroom observation, disciplinary learning, and the use of new technologies). Three modules are in common among the students of the two faculties and the last one is specific for students of Science Education. Each module starts with a face-to-face meeting in which the teacher introduces the content and sets the conditions to start an online discussion to be held for a period of two weeks. The online environment used for the course is Knowledge Forum (KF herein after), created by the research group of IKIT (Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology) of the University of Toronto. Each student is able to insert notes in KF through written texts to which graphs and images can be added. These notes can also be connected to one another through some links (in this case the notes are called “buildon”), meaning they represent some developments of the knowledge building activity. In KF there are also “views”, which are specific spaces that can be used to organize online discussions about specific topics. 2.2 Participants This DBR project included three different implementations with the following participants: -1st cycle: 16 students (1 male and 15 females), 7 of whom were students enrolled in Science for Primary School and 9 in Science of Education. -2nd cycle: 26 students (5 males and 21 females), including 7 students enrolled in Science for Primary School and 19 students in Science of Education. -3rd cycle: 14 students (2 males and 12 females). Of these, 5 were enrolled in Science for Primary School and 9 in Science of Education. 2.3 Description of Implementations 41 KBSI2013 Papers The different features of the three implementations of the “Embedded and transformative assessment” principle are showed in Table 1. Table 1. The “Embedded and transformative assessment” principle implementation Knowledge Assessment st 1 implementation st 1 phase: each student wrote an “assessment note” in KF in face to face meeting 2 phase: face-to-face meeting discussions of the “assessment notes” take place in small groups 3rd phase: in face-to-face meetings plenary discussion takes place on the issues to be clarified 2nd implementation 1st phase: “online community portfolio” on knowledge built at the end of each module Strategies Assessment 1st phase: in face-to-face meetings in the “assessment note” in KF , description of the strategies used and identification of the strengths and weaknesses 2nd phases: in face-to-face meetings plenary discussion for sharing reflections on the strategies 1st phase “online community portfolio” on the strategies used at the end of each module 2nd phase: in face-to-face meetings small group discussions take place to identify issues to be clarified 3rd phase: in face-to-face meetings plenary discussion takes place on issues to be clarified 3rd implementation 1st phase: face-to-face discussions in small groups to highlight relevant ideas emerged in KF and the most important issues to be clarified 1st phase: mid-course “online community portfolio” on the strategies used 2nd phase: in face-to-face meetings plenary discussion on issues to be clarified First implementation: 2004-2005. In this online course the assessment of knowledge was managed in three phases: each student was asked at the end of each module in the face to face meeting to insert an “assessment note” in KF on the knowledge developed by the community, to indicate from his or her point of view the important ideas that emerged. This assessment was then reviewed in a small group discussion, and asked students to identify the more relevant ideas from the discussion and the most important issues to be clarified. In the third phase issues previously identified were discussed with the teacher in a plenary debate. The strategies assessment took 42 KBSI2013 Papers place in two phases in the face-to-face meeting at the end of each module. First, in the “assessment note” each student described the strategies used to deal with the online course and identified the strengths and weaknesses, and then there was a subsequent discussion with the teacher who facilitated the sharing of reflections on the strategies of the entire community. This implementation of the principle revealed two main limits: the first concerned the difficulties of attending face-to-face meetings by students, the second was the limited time in the meetings, to manage the assessment of knowledge and of the strategies of work Second implementation: 2006-2007. Considering the limits of the previous experience, in the second implementation it was decided to manage the strategies and knowledge assessment online; this was completed in the following way. At the end of each module, an “online community portfolio” was organized, where each student was asked to answer two questions: 1. What are the two most interesting ideas that emerged from the discussion in this module? 2. What strategies did you use? What strengths and critical points did they reveal? The assessment of knowledge developed was completed in a second phase in the face-to-face meetings in small groups, where students were asked to identify the open questions to which they returned in the third phase to discuss with the teacher. Reflecting at the organizational level at the end of the on line course, a problem emerged in this implementation: the compilation of a portfolio at the end of each module seemed to be an expensive request for the students. Third implementation: 2008-2009. In this implementation, considering the limit emerged from the previous one, it was decided to only opt for a single online space for strategies assessment to be carried out mid-course. Each student was asked to describe the strategy used to study in the first part of the online course, highlighting two strengths and two weaknesses. The assessment of knowledge built by the community took place in the face-to-face meetings in two phases: the first was in small groups, asking each group to highlight the relevant ideas and the most important open questions that had emerged. This was followed by the next phase where they were discussed with the teacher. 2.4 Observed Variables The observed variables have been analyzed in the first three modules of each course because they are the modules in common among the students of the two faculties. In particular, the following variables were analyzed: a) Interdependence between reading and writing The notes written and read by each participant have been counted by a specific software program called Analytic Toolkit (ATK). ATK provides summary statistics on activities in a KF database. It shows how many notes are in the database, how connected they are, how many notes a user has created, in which views a user has worked, and what percentage of the notes have been read. The number of notes read by each participant was then calculated using the percentage indicated by ATK. b) Interdependence among members The interdependence among members in writing and reading has been detected using the parameter of “density”, calculated thanks to the Social Network tool provided by Analytic Tools (AT) in KF. Density indicates the number of network edges activated by the members and then divided by the number of the edges potentially available in the community in writing and reading. 43 KBSI2013 Papers 2.5 Data Analysis Due to the small number of cases considered, the interdependence between the read and written notes has been analyzed in each module through the statistical correlation using Rho of Spearman. The density parameter was analyzed in each module with a descriptive approach. 3. Results The correlations between reading and writing in each implementation are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Correlations (Rho of Spearman) between reading and writing Academic Year Participants Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 2004-2005 16 0.31 0.30 0.36 2006-2007 26 0.11 0.44* 0.51** 2008-2009 14 -0.29 0.43 0.49° *p<.05**p<.01 °p=.09 As can be seen, in the first implementation the correlations between writing and reading are not significant in all the modules. In the second implementation, in which the “portfolio” was introduced, the correlation between reading and writing are significant only in the second and third modules. Finally, in the third implementation, there is the emergence of a high correlation between reading and writing in the third module even if it did not reach a significant statistical level. The densities in writing activity among students for each module in each implementation are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Densities in writing activity in each implementation 1st module % 2nd module % 3rd module % Participants Total Network Edge (Network edges activated) (Network edges activated) (Network edges activated) 16 120 21,66% 14,16% 8,33% (26) (17) (10) 6,15% 8,3% 4% (20) (27) (13) 13,18% 31,86% 18,68% (12) (29) (17) Academic Year Number of 2004-2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 26 14 325 91 From the above, it is seen that the second implementation shows a lower level of density in each module when compared to the other implementations. In addition, in the first implementation the density value decreases from the first to the third module, whereas in the 44 KBSI2013 Papers second and the third implementations the density value reaches the higher level in the second module. Densities in the reading activity among students in each implementation are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Densities in reading activity for each module in each implementation Academic Year 2004-2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 Number of Total Network 1st module 2nd module 3rd module Participants Edge % % % (Network edges activated) (Network edges activated) (Network edges activated) 99,16% 98,33% 100% (119) (118) (120) 56,61% 88,92% 44% (184) (289) (143) 100% 86,81% 85,71% (91) (79) (78) 16 26 14 120 325 91 As it is possible to see, the second implementation shows a lower level of density in the first and third modules when compared to the other implementations, which overcome 85 per cent of density in each module. 4. Discussion It is possible to summarize the “lessons learned” from the different implementation cycles in the following aspects. First, the way in which the principle of KBC was implemented in the second cycle seems to have favoured a correlation between reading and writing in the second module of the course (immediately after the first portfolio) and was present in the subsequent module too. This may be connected to the innovation introduced in the assessment of the strategies: the mediation of online writing may have allowed students to examine the strategies used by their colleagues more in depth compared to the oral discussion used in the first implementation. Reflecting on their own strategies and on those of their colleagues, students may have understood the importance of reading the notes of others and intervening with their own contributions. They may have decided to adopt the strategy of “first read then write”, creating the correlation that emerged in the results. This interpretation is consistent with Meyer (2003) that through a content analysis of the threaded on line discussions supported that online discussions promote higher-order thinking, especially by contributing comments that are exploratory, integrative or resolution (cfr. Garrison et al. 2001). In addition Balaji and Chakrabarti (2010) showed that the perceived richness of online discussion forum has significant positive effect on student participation and interaction, and learning, when used along with traditional classroom lecture. The importance of continuity of the strategies assessment seems to be confirmed by the third implementation: a high correlation, although not significant, between reading and writing was found only in the third module following the online metacognitive reflection on strategies. In support of this claim, other studies state that the presence of a space for reflection on the 45 KBSI2013 Papers metacognitive strategies in an online course will encourage the development of discussions (e.g. Cesareni et al., 2008). A second lesson learned concerns the interdependence among community members. The lower level of density in the second implementation can depend on the higher number of participants, compared to other courses. Considering the data of the other implementations, the optimal number of participants in an online course – to ensure a high level of interdependence among individuals – is considered to be around 15. Overcoming this limit implies managing the “Embedded and transformative assessment” principle in a different way to make it more distributive, for instance proposing students assume some roles to improve collaboration (Strijbos & Weinberger, 2010). 5. Conclusion By the results of our study, it is possible to conclude that the implementation which seems to favour the development of a better interdependence between writing and reading is the second one: where metacognitive assessment of knowledge and strategies at the individual level is shared, continuous and available all of the time in the online environment. We need to highlight also some limits in the present study. The main approach used was quantitative analysis of notes: we recognize that this kind of analysis need to be enriched by a qualitative analysis of students’ ideas to verify if different implementations of the embedded and transformative assessment principle support different ways in the advancement of knowledge creation. It could be possible to use a Content Analysis with a coding scheme adopted in previous research (Cacciamani & Ferrini, 2012), for instance, to analyze the development of the Epistemic Agency (Scardamalia, 2002) in students activity. At the same time, it is necessary to pay attention to the dimension of community that can require creating, in a more intentional way, interdependence among participants. However, in this regard it is desirable to conduct further investigations. Acknowledgements We want to express our gratitude to University of University of Valle d’Aosta that provided funds to support the present study. References Anderson, T. & Shattuck, J. (2012) Design-Based Research: A Decade of Progress in Education Research? Educational Researcher 41, 16-25 Balaji, M. S., & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student interactions in online discussion forum: Empirical research from ‘Media Richness Theory’ perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 1-22. Cacciamani, S e Ferrini, T. (2012). Embedded and Transformative Assessment in an Online Course: A Design-Based Research Project. Paper presented at Knowledge Building Summer Institute- University of Toronto. August 2012. Available at: http://ikit.org/SummerInstitute2012/Papers/3011-Cacciamani.pdf Cesareni, D., Albanese O., Cacciamani, S, Castelli, S., De Marco, B. , Fiorilli, C. Luciani, M., Mancini, I., Martini, F. e Vanin L. (2008). Tutorship style and knowledge building in an on line community: cognitive and metacognitive aspects. In B. M. Varisco (Ed.), Psychological pedagogical and sociological models for learning and assessment in virtual communities (pp.13-56) Brescia: Polimetrica. 46 KBSI2013 Papers Ehrich, K & Carboni, I. (2005). Inside Social Network Analysis. IBM Watson Research Center. Available at: http://domino.watson.ibm.com/cambridge/research.nsf/58bac2a2a6b05a1285256b30005b395 3/3f23b2d424be0da6852570a500709975!OpenDocument Retrieved 29.05.13 Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., Archer, W (2001). Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), 7-23. Garrison, R.D. e Anderson, T. (2002). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer Mazzoni, E. (2005). La Social Network Analysis a supporto delle interazioni nelle comunità virtuali per la costruzione di conoscenza. Tecnologie Didattiche, 35 (2) 54-63 Meyer, K. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: the role of time and higher-order thinking. JALN, 7(3), 55-65. Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experience for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 201-223. Reffay, C. & Chanier, T. (2002). Social Network Analysis used for Modelling Collaboration in Distance Learning Group. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, 2363, 31-40. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter C. (2006). Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy and Technology. In Sawyer K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp.97-115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strijbos, J. W. & Weinberger, A. (2010). Emerging and scripted roles in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 491-494. The Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 1, 5-8 47 KBSI2013 Papers Appendix 1st Implementation: Assessment note at the end of each module in face to face meeting Teacher oral instructions in face to face meeting: “Write a note in KF about, in 15 minutes, considering the following questions: 1. Assessment of knowledge created -Which elements of knowledge relevant to me have emerged from the discussion? -What issues remain open or be clarified? 2.Assessment of strategies -What strategies I used in the work in this community? -What are the point of strengths and the aspects that it seems useful to change? Why? " Note in KF by S: “Conclusion” 1a) I must say it was very interesting to know the experiences of other people, find out their ideas on the subject which are then found to be the same or different. Furthermore, the possibility to ask questions quite immediatly.1b) Additional information on the "community of learners" at a practical level. 2a) At first I read the messages of colleagues then later I tried to give my contribute. 2b) Strengths: carry out the task at home - new experience - the exchange of ideas and information 2nd Implementation: on line community portfolio at the end of each module Teacher note in KF: We are at the end of this first module of the online course, where we conducted an analysis of the main theories of learning. I ask each of you to make an assessment on two aspects: 1. What are the two ideas that you think are the most interesting for you emerged from the comparison in this module? 2. What strategy did you use to work? What strengths and what critical points showed? Note in KF by M: “Interesting ideas”. I have noticed that there are two interesting ideas related to the work of a group and the other related to the motivation to study. The team work is very useful because in addition to learning develops social skills (help, understanding and mediation). In the group emerge a theory in which you create reference points to avoid or take into consideration. Through social interaction you can progress in the area of proximal development, crossing thresholds of logical reasoning that it would be very difficult to make by themselves. Even the idea of the project work was very impressing for me because it raises the student's need to know in order to create a product, that it is material or abstract (a model - an explanation). In carrying out the project which is based on real problems rather than theoretical, the student makes his own theories for use in solving the problem, or better yet the sub-problems, who will meet in the course of development. Here comes the utility of the scaffolding from which to draw the answers not pre-packaged. These two ideas of course can be connected together to create a project group work. 48 KBSI2013 Papers Note in KF by M: “Strategies of work” To participate in the KF I started by reading the first two chapters of the book "Psychology for teaching" and then I tried to insert myself in open discussions or responding to direct questions posed by teachers. One of the strengths of this methodology was to understand the questions asked or interventions carried out by my classmates having a common land base. The weak point is that I did not feel ready to intervene until I finished reading the chapter. proposed. One of my weakness that I will try to avoid in the next module is the time delay on the KF, which is related to my time required for the analysis of the material to think about. The weak point of weakness is that I have to improve in search of the essential concepts in the text to be analyzed, without dwelling too much on parts of lesser importance for the intervention of KF. 3rd implementation: mid-course “online community portfolio” on the strategies used Teacher note in KF: Answer the following question: What strategy I'm using to study in this course online? (List the actions that make up the strategy) A point of strength of this strategy is ... A critical point of this strategy is ...: Note in KF by F.: “Strategy” I have not adopted a different strategy than the one I normally use to study: I read the chapter, highlighter in hand, and fixed the most important points (e.g. authors and keywords), then I elaborate schemes of the chapters, to have the material, as well books, with which prepare for the exam. One of the point of strengths I think the passage repeated several times, at different levels of detail, on the topics; a source of concern is the long time period that this strategy requires. 49 KBSI2013 Papers Promisingness Judgments as Facilitators of Epistemic Growth and Conceptual Change Bodong Chen1, Jennifer Gonzalez2, Fernando Diaz del Castillo2, Jim Slotta1 1 OISE/University of Toronto, Canada, 2 Gimnasio La Montana, Colombia Emails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT: Promisingness evaluation plays an important role in knowledge- building discourse, helping the community identify promising ideas and make choices on directions to pursue. This study investigates promisingness judgments carried out by a sixth grade class in their study of a science unit, focusing on the impact of promisingness judgments on students’ conceptual understanding and epistemic beliefs. After being engaged in a pedagogical intervention dis- cussing the meaning of promisingness, students made promisingness judgments on their community ideas on a regular basis, using a Promising Ideas tool that is integrated into Knowledge Forum. Results indicated students’ understanding of promisingness and capability of making promisingness judgments improved in this process. Analysis of student discourse found promisingness judgments had an impact on discourse patterns, such as contribution types, depth of questioning and justification of ideas. Students’ conceptual understanding also improved, reflected by increases of scientific sophistication and epistemic complexity. More- over, students’ epistemic beliefs appeared to co-develop with promisingness knowledge and conceptual understanding. This study opens up rich possibilities of further investigations of promisingness judgments. Perspectives The Knowledge Building Approach to Foster Science Learning Knowledge building as an educational approach was developed with a promise to address the contemporary emphasis on knowledge creation and innovation (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). It treats education as a coherent component of a knowledge-creating society and engages learners in the full process of knowledge creation from an early age (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). The knowledge-building approach, which has been extensively applied in science teaching, has two distinctive characteristics: (1) a “theory-building” approach for deep understanding, and (2) a community-oriented view of learning. The theory-building approach is partially grounded on a strand of conceptual change literature that embraces a “knowledge-as-theories” perspective. According to this perspective, science learning involves revisions of coherent structures grounded in persistent ontological and epistemological commitments (Özdemir & Clark, 2007). For example, Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog (1982) think conceptual change happens when a learner finds the existing conceptual schema inadequate in solving problems and seeks to replace the initial conception with a more scientific one. Similarly, Carey (1985) argues science learning is a process of “restructuring” a coherent theory framework that connects concepts (see also, Carey, Scholnick, & Nelson, 1999). This notion is also in line with research of “mental models,” which views conceptual change as a gradual shift from a learner’s initial models based on their everyday experience, to more scientific ones generated through reinterpreting their presuppositions and synthesizing them with the scientific theories (e.g., Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992). These theories of conceptual change urge educators to take students’ initial ideas seriously in science teaching. The “theory-building” approach represents one example of conceptual 50 KBSI2013 Papers change teaching (Carey & Smith, 1993). It encourages students to produce an explanatory idea and further develop it for a better explanation. Students’ explanatory ideas are always treated as improvable and the goal is to improve them to have stronger “explanatory power” through elaborating, evaluating and refining (Bereiter, 2012). Knowledge building, defined as “continual improvement of ideas” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003), embraces the theory-building approach and treats all student ideas with a development trajectory and subject to further improvement by means of discourse. When it is applied in science learning, students are genuinely engaged in progressive inquiry akin to mature scientific inquiry, seeking increasingly deep levels of explanation (Hakkarainen, 2003). Besides the theory-building approach, knowledge building has a strong emphasis on knowledge advancement as a community enterprise rather than a task of each individual. In the field of science education and learning sciences there have been major shifts from focusing on development of individual minds towards emphasizing on both individual and social aspects of science learning (Vosni- adou, 2008). The social construction of knowledge and discursive interactions in classrooms have been widely investigated in science learning research. For instance, research finds science learning can be promoted by engaging students in explaining and articulating their ideas to peers (Roschelle, 1992). Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) as a field of research and practice has produced numerous tools to support conceptual change by enabling, scaffolding, recording, and analyzing student collaboration (Miyake, 2008). For example, the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE)—a very successful science learning environment—provides functionalities to engage students to carry on scientific debates, review and revise each others’ ideas (Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003); rich empirical evidence shows benefits of such environments on students’ individual learning (Slotta & Linn, 2009). Knowledge building, while sharing many traits with such approaches of science education, rethinks school classrooms as knowledge-creating organizations in which the state of knowledge is more determined by the community rather than individuals (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Based on this understanding, the knowledge-building approach tries to elicit student ideas and treats them as “epistemic artifacts” that can be publicly shared and continuously improved by the community (Zhang, Scardamalia, La- mon, Messina, & Reeve, 2007). To improve their ideas, students take collective cognitive responsibility (Scardamalia, 2002)—which is normally assumed by teachers in other models—in building explanations, designing experiments, intro- ducing resources, synthesizing, and making analogies (Chuy, Zhang, Resendes, Scardamalia, & Bereiter, 2011). The knowledge-building approach was found facilitating conceptual change (Chan, Burtis, & Bereiter, 1997) as well as the development of students’ understanding of nature of science (Chuy et al., 2010). Promisingness Judgments in Knowledge-Building Discourse The theory-building approach adopted in knowledge building provides students the opportunity to go through long-stretches of work which is usually absent in other constructivist models. In this process, students are exposed to risks, uncer- tainty, and choice-making that abound in real-world problem-solving. Promis- ingness evaluation, which is a vital step of “design-mode” thinking in knowledge- building discourse (Bereiter, 2002; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993), helps students distinguish ideas and find the most fruitful direction for idea improvement. As expertise research indicates, this task is a natural component of all kinds of creative processes. In his studies of scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories, Dunbar (1995) highlights that scientists assess risks of research projects and are keen to work on research projects which could produce more promising or fruitful discoveries even though they might have a high probability of failure. In explaining creative process, Howard Gardner (1994) also emphasizes the importance of “promisingness” in helping people intuitively detect “discrepant el- 51 KBSI2013 Papers ements” in their work and encouraging them to invest to deal with these elements. Although the “fruitfulness” (T. S. Kuhn, 1977) of the original idea will only become manifest later—until local coherence that explains these discrepancies is achieved—promisingness does play an important role in committing scientists to challenging lines of scientific inquiry that lead to these breakthroughs. This claim is widely supported by reported experience of creative individuals. For example, when discussing the development of the theory of relativity, Albert Einstein said, “During all those years there was the feeling of direction, of going straight toward something concrete. It is, of course, very hard to express that feeling in words; but it was decidedly the case, and clearly to be distinguished from later considerations about the rational form of the solution (M. Wertheimer & Wertheimer, 1959, p. 228).” Similarly, Michael S. Brown, Nobel laureate in medicine, said, “I think, we almost felt at times that there was almost a hand guiding us. Because we would go from one step to the next, and somehow we would know which was the right way to go.” Bereiter (2002) calls those vague, intuitive feelings of direction knowledge of promisingness, and goes further to stress that the ability of making promisingness judgments as something distinguishing creative experts from non-experts (see also, Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). Thus, the ability to identify promising ideas—ideas that with development might grow to something of consequence—is essential for creative work with ideas and ought to be attended in any form of education for knowledge creation. As mentioned above, collective knowledge building calls for risk taking and judgments of promisingness in order to pursue novel solutions to problems. In knowledge-building classrooms, students’ collective discourse usually starts from their real ideas—composed of naive conceptions in most cases—and gradually advances to more scientific understanding through continuous idea improve- ment. Substantial, long-stretches of work is normally needed to develop students’ naive understanding into something coherent to address their collective knowl- edge goals. Prior studies found students capable of generating theories, posing explanation-seeking questions, designing experiments to collect data, introducing expert sources, and refining their ideas (e.g., Zhang et al., 2007). However, like anyone working in creative contexts, students in knowledge-building classrooms are also confronted with the significant challenge of identifying promising directions to avoid wasting time or becoming entrapped by unpromising ones (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). Other models of learning, such as problem-based learning and inquiry learning, provide extensive scaffolding—from either teacher or technical tools—to support student learning in complex domains; these scaf- folding strategies usually include structures for students to follow or models of performance for students to emulate (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). In knowledge building, although students take greater cognitive responsibility than their counterparts under other instructional models, in many cases the teacher still need to take the “steering-wheel” and make decisions about which direction to follow for students (see Zhang, Scardamalia, Reeve, & Messina, 2009). Given the prominent role of promisingness in creative processes, it is intriguing to explore the possibility of explicitly turning more epistemic agency (Scardamalia, 2002) to students, by engaging them in making promisingness judgments in their knowledge building work. Preliminary work on promisingness judgments has been done in the past few years. Two lines of efforts have been made to support young students’ promis- ingness judgments. Firstly, because the concept of promisingness is naturally challenging for young students (Chen, Chuy, Resendes, Scardamalia, & Bereiter, 2011), pedagogical interventions were designed and tested in knowledge building classrooms to engage them in discussing this concept in meaningful scenarios. Research shows students as young as 8-year-old could grasp the essence of promisingness and apply it in their own knowledge building practice (Chen, Scar- damalia, Resendes, Chuy, & Bereiter, 2012). Results indicated promisingness judgments could lead to greater knowledge advancement and closer collaboration. The second effort was devoted to design and develop technical tools to integrate promisingness judgments as an integral component of knowledge-building dis- course. 52 KBSI2013 Papers In particular, a Promising Ideas (PI) tool has been developed as an add-on of Knowledge Forum and continually refined through a series of design experiments (Chen, Chuy, Resendes, & Scardamalia, 2010; Chen, Scardamalia, Acosta, Resendes, & Kici, 2013; Chen et al., 2012). The current design of the tool allows students to highlight promising ideas in Knowledge Forum notes, tag ideas with specific knowledge goals, and conveniently export them to dedicated workspaces for further inquiry. The tool, coupled with innovative pedagogical designs, has been adopted broadly at various age levels and in several different contexts [e.g., @Boutin2013]. Further design research is needed to explore the impact of promisingness judgments on various aspects of knowledge building. Epistemic Beliefs in Science Learning Students’ epistemological thinking is one of the aspects that appear to be connected with promisingness judgments. Research of epistemic beliefs, or beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing, can be traced back to Perry’s (1970) influential work in 1960s and has come a long way to understand epistemic beliefs in multi-dimensions (Conley, Pintrich, Vekiri, & Harrison, 2004; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Sandoval, 2005; Schommer, 1990; Schommer- Aikins & Hutter, 2002) as well as to recognize the social aspect of epistemology (Kotzee, Eds., 2013). Early work on epistemic beliefs took a Piagetian stage-like developmental approach, tracing changes of epistemological thinking as a whole in a stage-like manner (e.g., Perry, 1970). Later studies challenged this view treating epistemic beliefs as unidimensional and started to distinguish a set of distinct beliefs that develop more or less independently of each other. For example, Schommer (1990) proposes a multi-dimensional model of epistemic beliefs composed of five dimensions, including the structure, certainty, source of knowledge, the control and speed of knowledge acquisition. Hofer & Pintrich (1997) do not agree with these dimensions and suggest four general epistemological dimensions including certainty of knowledge, simplicity of knowledge, source of knowing, and justification for knowing. Although disagreement on dimensions exists among different theories, it is generally agreed that students at all age levels are commonly infested with problematic conception about the nature of scientific knowledge and knowing (Carey & Smith, 1993; e.g., D. Kuhn, 1993; Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992; Sandoval, 2005); students’ epistemic beliefs follow a developmental trajectory but could remain quite naïve even in college (Leach, Driver, Scott, & Wood-Robinson, 1996; Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992). Student understanding of the nature of science knowledge has a direct link with student success in learning (Carey & Smith, 1993; Schommer, 1990). On one hand, students’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing would affect their learning. For example, when encountering complex information, students believing in quick learning tend not to integrate knowledge deeply (Schommer, 1990). On the other hand, many researchers have attended to the importance of epistemic beliefs and have attempted to improve students’ epistemological thinking in science teaching. Researchers argue that conceptual change involves not only changes in concepts, but also changes in students’ views about the nature of science (Duit & Treagust, 2003). Chuy and colleagues (2010) find by emphasizing on theory development and sustained creative work with ideas, students could develop deeper understanding of the nature of theoretical progress, the connections between theories and facts, and the role of ideas in scientific inquiry. Chan & Lam (2010) examine the effect of reflective assessment and find as students examine their own and others’ understanding their metaconceptual and epistemic awareness could grow. Promisingness judgments are associated with epistemological thinking in many potential ways. Firstly, one premise of promisingness is that ideas are complex and tentative and knowledge builders can find promising directions to further advance them. Underlying promisingness lives the belief that knowledge is improvable, which is linked to the epistemological dimension of “certain knowl- edge” (Schommer-Aikins & Hutter, 2002). Second, 53 KBSI2013 Papers promisingness judgments also require students to see knowledge as an evolving and changing subject that needs to be justified by observation and reasoning rather than residing in external authorities (Conley et al., 2004). Finally, while quality promisingness judgments require sophisticated epistemic beliefs, it also sounds promising to study whether by engaging students in making promisingness judgments their epistemological thinking could be improved. This study builds on prior studies on promisingness judgments in knowledge building, introducing epistemic beliefs as another important factor that is potentially related to promisingness. The present study aims to answer the following major questions: (1) To what extent could students’ knowledge of promisingness be improved by pedagogical interven- tion and practice of promisingness judgments? (2) By practicing promisingness judgments, did students reveal any epistemic growth? (3) To what extent was students’ scientific knowledge improved in the process of knowledge building? Methods Participants Twenty six 6th grade students from one class in a Colombian K-12 school participated in this study. This school was a bilingual school; all science lessons in the class were taught in English and all student notes in Knowledge Forum were written in English. Students were from middleupper class families in Bogotá. Before this study, the teacher and students had several years of experience with Knowledge Building and Knowledge Forum so they were comfortable with this pedagogy and technology. The Promising Ideas Tool Promisingness judgments in knowledge building are supported by a Promising Ideas (PI) tool in Knowledge Forum (KF). This tool was first implemented and integrated into KF in 2010 and its functionalities have then been continually revised in a series of design experiments (Chen et al., 2010; 2011; 2013; 2012). The PI tool used in this study included the following major functionalities: (1) Highlighting: Students can highlight promising ideas (and other types of contributions) when reading any note in KF. The PI tool provides a customizable set of promisingness categories—called “highlighters”— which a student can choose from when highlighting ideas in a note. The promisingness categories customized for this study included promising idea, unsolved problem, useful fact, and dead-end. When finding a snippet fitting into any of those categories, a student can choose the related highlighter and highlight the piece of text in the note window. After the highlighting action is completed, a window will pop-up, asking students to intentionally choose or type-in a criterion for the highlighting and further justify the choice of any criterion (see Figure 1, left). 54 KBSI2013 Papers Figure 1: Highlight an idea with the Promising Ideas tool in Knowledge Forum. Note: (1) upper-left–clicking on an “Ideas” button in the note window will activate a set of highlighters to be chosen from for promisingness tagging; (2) lower-left–this window pops-up when a highlight action is completed, and the student is prompted to provide a content-based criterion for this highlight and justify her choice. (2) Reviewing: Firstly, a note containing a highlight, whether it is a promising idea, an unsolved problem or a useful fact, will be embellished with a specific icon in the KF view interface (see Figure 1, right). In this case, a note containing a promising idea is embellished with a light bulb, a note with a unsolved problem gets a question mark, and a note with useful information has an “i” on top of its icon. These icon embellishments draw the community’s attention to arguably more promising directions in their community (depending on the quality of their promisingness judgments). Second, and more importantly, an idea aggregation window that lists all highlighted ideas in a view provides a handy way of reviewing highlights (see Figure 2, left). A few filtering and searching functionalities were implemented in the idea aggregation window to facilitate the reviewing process. 55 KBSI2013 Papers Figure 2: Review ideas in the idea aggregation window, and exporting selected ideas to another view. (3) Exporting: Since the purpose of promisingness judgments is to define next steps of the inquiry, an exporting feature has been introduced since the last version (Chen et al., 2012). When reviewing the aggregated idea list, a student can choose several related ideas to be exported to another workspace for further inquiry (see Figure 2, right). Each time, selected ideas are exported to a single note as references, and the student can further revise this note to explain how these ideas are related and what the next step would be (see Figure 3). Procedures This study was conducted in one semester from January to March in 2013 for around 10 weeks (Colombian school calendar). The sixth grade class was studying a biology unit about “population growth.” There were four lessons in each week, with each lesson lasting for 45 minutes. The knowledge-building approach was applied in the class; students discussed topics around population growth and wrote notes in Knowledge Forum. 56 KBSI2013 Papers Figure 3: Summarize exported ideas in the exported new note using a set of “Summary” scaffolds. The procedures of this study is described in Table 1. Detailed explanation of each activity is provided below: Pre- and post-tests: Pre- and post-tests were designed to measure students’ content knowledge, epistemic skills, and understanding of promisingness. Content knowledge was assessed with a conceptual test about “population dynamics”; the test included 3 multiple-choice items and 7 short-answer questions. Epistemic skills are measured with a questionnaire adapted from Conley et al. (2004), focusing on epistemic dimensions including certainty of knowledge, source of knowledge, development of knowledge, and justification of knowing. Students’ understanding of promisingness was assessed with three items constructed by the authors (see Appendix). All items in the epistemic and promisingness tests were 5-point Likert-scale items. The tests were administered through an online survey, and all students responded together to the tests for one class session each time. Knowledge building: In each phase, students participated in knowledge- building discourse, advancing their collective understanding by face-to-face discussion in classrooms, dialog in Knowledge Forum, use of authoritative sources, and various types of virtual experiments and games related to population growth. Pedagogical intervention: Based on findings from the pre-test and previous studies (Chen et al., 2011), the teacher and researchers identified students’ areas of understanding of promisingness that need to be advanced. Pedagogical intervention was designed to tackle those areas, by asking students to discuss related issues and informing them with examples that confront their current beliefs relevant to promisingness. During this intervention, the teacher or the researcher did not directly teach students the “correct” definition of promisingness. Rather, students were engaged in discussing a series of important questions, including “what do you do next when an idea is 57 KBSI2013 Papers posted in KF”, “what does a promising idea or a promising question mean to you”, “are our promising ideas all right or wrong”, “what is a fact”, “how is fact different from a promising idea”, etc. After students achieve a favorable understanding of promisingness, a demo of the PI tool was conducted to get them familiar with the tool. Table 1: Procedures of the study. Note: KB—knowledge building; PJ—promisingness judgments. Promisingness judgments: After the pedagogical intervention, students were invited to identify promising ideas in their knowledge-building work and were encouraged to do so on a regular basis all through the semester. As introduced in the previous section, the tool guided them to evaluate each contribution and decide whether it fits into one of the four categories, namely “promising ideas”, “unsolved problems”, “useful facts”, and “dead-ends”. Focal interventions (promisingness judgments reviews): At the end of each phase, reflection on students’ promisingness judgments was carried out in a class session. During interventions in Phase 1 and 2, students worked in groups to review the list of ideas in the idea aggregation window. They collaboratively reviewed the community advances, identified frontiers of their knowledge, made connections among identified ideas, and exported related ideas pertinent to any topic they were interested in to a new view. In each group, students collaboratively wrote a synthesis note based on each set of ideas they exported. A set of meta-cognitive scaffolds, including “We used to think”, “We found”, “Now we think”, and “Next we will”, were used to guide their writing. At the end of each intervention, students brought their reflection back to the whole class for discussion. The new view containing these synthesis notes were treated as the starting point of the next phase knowledge building. In Phase 3, the intervention was conducted slightly differently. Given students have already experienced successes and failures in the course of promisingness judgments, they were asked to not only review their judgments made in Phase 2, but also to reflect on all decisions they had made and assess whether ideas they have identified to be promising turn out to be fruitful or not. Students discussed their thoughts as a whole group and each of them wrote a reflection note in KF. The class kept carrying on knowledge building after the reflective intervention; however, knowledge building in Phase 3 was limited because the end of the semester was approaching. 58 KBSI2013 Papers Data Analysis Data collected in this study included students’ responses to the pre- and post- tests, students’ online discourse in Knowledge Forum, and video recordings of classroom discussion. In the pre- and post-tests, students’ responses to the content knowledge test were scored. For the open-ended questions, two raters scored the results and the inter-rater agreement measured by Krippendorff’s alpha was .88. As for epistemic beliefs, each response was scored according to the 5-point Likert-scale in the survey (Conley et al., 2004). Students’ performance on each epistemic dimension was then scored by averaging scores of items under that dimension; the scores of reverse items were adjusted accordingly. An overall score of epistemic beliefs was computed by averaging scores of all four epistemic dimensions. Lastly, students’ responses to the promisingness items were scored with the same technique, and a score of promisingness understanding was represented by the mean score of three promisingness items. In this study, students had worked in three Knowledge Forum views, mapping to three discourse phases. During the process, they wrote notes, read each other’s notes, build on each other, and highlight promising ideas in the communal space. An overview of notes and highlighted ideas in the views is provided in Table 2. Content analysis (Chi, 1997) was conducted on each note focusing on ways of contribution, level of scientific sophistication, and epistemic complexity. For notes under the questioning category in ways of contribution coding, depth of questioning was further analyzed. For notes under the theorizing category, ways of justification was also coded. A summary of coding schemes for content analysis of notes is presented in Table 3. Table 2: An Overview of Dataset 59 KBSI2013 Papers Table 3: Coding schemes for content analysis of KF notes. 60 KBSI2013 Papers Table 4: Coding schemes for content analysis of highlighted ideas. Each idea was also analyzed for the quality of promisingness judgments. This quality rating focused on four different aspects of judgments: (1) promisingness of an idea—how promising an idea is in its knowledge building context from the perspective of an expert; (2) judgment of idea type—for each highlight, how well did a student make choices among four different promisingness categories, including “promising idea”, “unsolved problem”, “useful fact” and “dead-end”; (3) promisingness criterion (or promising for understanding what)—how well did a student identify the criterion each highlight was promising for; and (4) reasoning—how well did a student justify the promisingness criterion. We coded all her highlights in these four aspects. Table 4 presents details of coding schemes for this analysis. Finally, videos of classroom discussion were transcribed and analyzed to track the change of students’ conception of promisingness. Video analysis, combined with students’ final reflection notes of their promisingness judgments, could provide further qualitative accounts of students’ understanding of promisingness as well as their knowledge building work. Results and Discussion Evolution of Students’ Knowledge of Promisingness In this study, we first conducted a pedagogical intervention that elicited students’ prior conceptions of promisingness and engaged students to discuss them among the class. Then students made promisingness judgments on their collective ideas on a regular basis and also had the chance to reflect on their judgments in three focal interventions. According to Bereiter (2002), the knowledge of promisingness accumulates from experiences of successes and failures of promisingness judgments in creative processes. One important research question we investigated was whether students’ knowledge of promisingness had improved in this study. In the pre- and post-tests, students’ promisingness knowledge was assessed with three items. A paired-sample t-test indicated students’ promisingness knowledge measured by these items has 61 KBSI2013 Papers improved significantly during this study, t(24) = -2.03, p < .05. Classroom discussion was further analyzed to make sense of this change. In the pedagogical intervention session, students pondered on the question “what does a promising idea or a promising idea mean to you” and shared their thoughts to the whole class. Analysis of student discussion found their intuitive understanding of promisingness centered on “truthfulness.” For example, two students said, “A promising answer is something that convince you and is a good answer, and we proves that the answer is perfect.”" “It is true. You have the observation that is true.” This notion of promising ideas being true was also found in previous studies (Chen et al., 2011); it could hamper the quality of promisingness judgments and needed to be treated. At the same time, it was interesting a few students held a relativist point of view towards ideas, although their view of promisingness still centered on truthfulness. For example, a few students said, “It is impossible to locate the most promising answer because people have different points of view. So when someone think one answer is correct, but other people think it’s wrong.” “It depends on the person who write the answer because ... if the answer is answered by a scientist, the answer can be more accurate. As well, it depends on the information a person wants.” “Other thing is like the point of view you have. If we are educated that way, we will think it’s promising. But if we are not educated like that way, you will probably not agree.” In the process of discussion, new thoughts of promisingness kept emerging. The relativist point of view challenged the original conception of being true, and some students stepped onto the notion of “possibility,” which is an important element of promisingness (Chen et al., 2012). One girl said, “We think promising idea is like a possible answer. It probably can be correct.” A few students built on this idea and thought promising ideas were not necessarily true but closer to the “correct” idea. For example, “I don’t think it’s absolutely correct because. . . we don’t think promising means absolutely correct but near correct.” “A promising answer is one that is closer to the absolutely correct answer, since there is no absolutely correct answer.” This change of understanding was fundamental because it gave rise to the notion that promising ideas are leading to scientific understanding. One boy began to think that the pursuit of promising ideas does not depend on expertise one has but on the amount of efforts one invests in. “I disagree with . . . I think that’s not necessary an expert can make a promising answer. ... Because the promising question takes time, not like a question you’re doing in a second.” This notion touched the essence of promisingness, which is, as Gardner (1994) explains, the thing that encourages scientists to “cast around” for a long time to achieve local coherence. However, during the pedagogical intervention, this notion was only mentioned by this student, and most students still regarded promising ideas as ideas being correct, accurate or convincing. After two focal interventions engaging students in promisingness judgments on their ideas, students were asked to reflect on their changes of understanding of promisingness. Analysis of 62 KBSI2013 Papers recorded discussion indicated that the conception of being correct was widely replaced with more sophisticated views. For example, one girl explicitly discussed her change in this way, “At the beginning I thought it was . . . it was the correct answer, but now I think it’s not, because there are many different points of view. ... So it’s an idea that can be discussed to get to a ... I don’t know ... a common opinion that can be the conclusion.” Similarly, a few other student shared, “I thought a promising idea is an idea that has a lot of answer. I thought like that. But a promising idea is something has a lot of ‘searching’. . . ” “I think what makes ideas promising is ... it produces interests of further investigation or discussion, to get to a conclusion.” “A promising idea is not the answer, it is the idea that lead you to discussion. As we said before, they are not necessarily the correct answer, but those topics can lead you to discuss and be engaged, and learn a little bit about that topic.” In these examples, it was evident students’ explanation of their understanding of promisingness was a little bit constrained by their vocabulary, as they were struggling to find the proper words to describe promisingness. However, it was clear they had made a lot of progress comparing to their understanding in the pedagogical intervention. Analysis of promisingness test results and student discussion found evident improvement of students’ promisingness knowledge. We further analyzed quality of students’ actual promisingness judgments in knowledge-building discourse to investigate their in-vivo understanding of promisingness. As described in the methods section, quality rating of promisingness judgments focused on four aspects including promisingness of selected “promising” ideas, judgments of idea type, criteria, and reasoning. Because only one idea was highlighted in Phase 3, we only compared the mean scores of each aspect between the first two phases. t-Tests indicated only the reasoning aspect was significantly different between Phase 1 and Phase 2, t(31) = -3.52, p < .01, while differences in the other three dimensions were nonsignificant at the .05 significance level. Means and standard deviations of four dimensions in each phase are presented in Table 5. Further analysis of mean scores found students’ performance on judging idea types already quite high in Phase 1 and left little space to improve in Phase 2. For the other two aspects, i.e. idea promisingness and judgment of criterion, great variance was found among students, implying substantial individual differences on those two dimensions. Overall, analysis of students’ promisingness judgment quality indicated that even though their conception of promisingness has been improved in this study, their actually performance in most important aspect of promisingness judgments was not significantly improved. As Bereiter (2002) notes that knowledge of promisingness is acquired from rich experience; so perhaps students needed more experience to achieve significant improvement on their actually judgments. 63 KBSI2013 Papers Table 5: Improvement of promisingness judgment performance. Impact of Promisingness Judgments on Discourse Patterns Promisingness evaluation as a crucial component of design-mode thinking is expected to have a great impact on knowledge-building discourse. Effective promisingness judgments should help the class focus on promising ideas in the community and keep deepening the inquiry. Promisingness judgments could also promote higher-order thinking and metadiscourse in knowledge building, such as making synthesis and diagnosing knowledge progress. To investigate the impact of discourse patters, we focused on the changes of ways of contributing patterns, depth of questioning, and ways students justify their ideas in different phases. Preliminary analysis of ways of contributing patterns focused on the distribution of contribution types in each phase. According to the results presented in Figure 4, students has maintained a high portion of theorizing contributions across three phases. Questioning contribution has declined, representing a trend of convergence in discourse. The number of synthesizing contributions started to appear in Phase 2 and Phase 3, mostly because in each intervention session students were exporting and synthesizing promising ideas to reset their discourse. Reflecting notes were only present in Phase 3, because students wrote their reflection on promisingness judgment at the end of this unit. To summarize, promisingness judgments had influenced contribution types in many different ways, such as encouraging synthesizing and and promoting convergence. However, to what extent had such impacts promote knowledge advancement is still to be further analyzed. For example, given questions are often regarded as important “boosters” of knowledge building, whether the decline of questions was a good thing is still to be analyzed. We plan to create Chronologically-Ordered Representations of Discourse and Tool-Related Activity (CORDTRA) diagrams (Hmelo-Silver, 2003; Hmelo-Silver, Chernobilsky, & Jordan, 2008) to further interpret the pattern of ways of contribution in discourse, focusing especially on the relations among different contribution types. As for the depth of questioning, a chi-square test of independence found the depth of questions marginally significantly different across three phases, χ2(2) = 5.50, p = .06. Further descriptive analysis found the number of factual questions declined from 16 (out of 31) in Phase 1 to 1 (out of 8) in Phase 2, and to none in Phase 3. Analysis of justification of theories did not confirm a significant improvement across three phases, χ2(2) = 4.62, p = .10. However, the count of theories grounded on evidence was found increasing from 4 (out of 24) in Phase 1 to 7 (out of 23) in Phase 2. Overall, results found an increasingly deep level of questioning and more sophisticated type of justification of ideas across phases. However, it is to be investigated whether these changes should be attributed to promisingness judgments or were just natural progression in knowledge-building discourse. 64 KBSI2013 Papers Figure 4: Changes of contributing types in three phases. Note: Q–questioning; T–theorizing; E– evidence; S–synthesis and analogies; D–supporting discussion; R–reflecting. Conceptual Advancement in Population Dynamics Conceptual quiz. A conceptual quiz was designed to tap into students’ under- standing of the biology unit “population dynamics” and administered in the pre- and post-tests. Items in this quiz were designed based on conceptual literature related to this topic. Each student’s responses were graded. A paired samples t-test was conducted to assess the change of students’ conceptual understanding during this study. Results indicated a significant improvement, t(24) = -5.75, p < .001. The average score was improved from M = 5.44 (SD = 1.74) to M = 8.46 (SD = 3.16). Level of scientific sophistication. The level of scientific sophistication was coded for each note containing a theorizing contribution. We compared mean scores of scientific sophistication between Phase 1 and Phase 2 by two-sampled t-tests. Phase 3 was left out in this comparison because of its limited number of theorizing contributions. Results indicated scientific sophistication of notes had improved significantly from Phase 1 to 2, t(44) = -2.02, p < .05. Notes moved from a hybrid level of scientificness (M = 2.12, SD = 0.85) to a level closer to prescientific (M = 2.65, SD = 0.93). Epistemic complexity. We further evaluated students’ knowledge gains with respect to the level of epistemic complexity. Like analysis of scientific sophisti- cation, all theorizing notes were coded using an epistemic complexity scheme adopted from Zhang et al. (2007). Unfortunately, two-sampled t-tests comparing epistemic complexity between Phase 1 and Phase 2 did not confirm a significant difference, t(44) = -0.68, n.s.. Most contributions stayed between levels of elaborated facts and unelaborated explanations, and there was a great variance among contributions in epistemic complexity. One possible explanation of this result is that epistemic complexity, comparing to scientific sophistication which is more directly related to content knowledge, is naturally harder to improve for younger students. The average epistemic complexity of Grade 4 students’ portfolio notes reported in Zhang et al. (2007) was on the level of elaborated facts, and complexity of thinking by college students in problem-based learning studied by Hmelo-Silver et al. (2008) was still mostly knowledge telling or elaborated telling. Thus, the timespan of this study could be too short to change epistemic complexity in sixth grade students’ knowledge building. 65 KBSI2013 Papers Changes in Students’ Epistemic beliefs One of the most important questions in this study was whether promisingness judgments could facilitate epistemic growth of students. In the pre- and post-tests, students were administered a questionnaire on epistemic beliefs adapted from Conley et al. (2004). This questionnaire measures epistemic beliefs from four independent dimensions, including source of knowledge, certainty of knowledge, development of knowledge, and justification of knowing. To test the consistency of this instrument with previous studies, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. Test of four-dimension hypothesis in CFA was sufficient, χ2 = 307.6, p < .001, with a goodness-of-fit score of 0.94. Detailed inspection on the loading matrix found four identified components were properly loaded on related questionnaire items as expected. To investigate changes of epistemic beliefs happening with students, paired- sample t-testes were conducted on the sum score of epistemic beliefs as well as scores of four specific epistemic dimensions. Results indicated that students had significantly improved on their overall epistemic beliefs (t(24) = -3.80, p < .001), source of knowledge (t(24) = -2.61, p < .05), and justification of knowing (t(24) = -2.96, p < .01). The improvement on the other two epistemic dimensions— certainty of knowledge (t(24) = -1.86, p = .08) and development of knowledge (t(24) = -1.72, p = .10)—was nonsignificant. Means and standard devisions of all dimensions are presented in Table 6. Further inspection on mean scores found students’ epistemic beliefs in the source and certainty dimensions were less developed compared to the other two dimensions. This phenomenon could be related to a school culture that emphasizes on testing. Since the certainty dimension had not significantly improved, we further investigated its change in this study. Because it is widely accepted gender is an important factor for epistemic beliefs (e.g., Perry, 1970), we further conducted a two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the certainty dimension on trial (Pre- vs. Post-tests) and gender (Female vs. Male). Results found gender as the only significant main factor (F(1, 48) = 9.41, p < .01), with girls having more sophisticated epistemic beliefs in certainty of knowledge. However, post-hoc comparisons among four groups indicated girls did not improve much on this dimension (from 3.52 to 3.54), while boys had caught up (from 3.00 to 3.44) during this study. This finding points to an intriguing direction for future studies. To explore which factors might have contributed to the change of epistemic growth, correlation analysis was conducted among various measures, including epistemic beliefs, conceptual understanding, and a number of indices of KF activities. Results indicated overall epistemic growth was significantly correlated with change of promisingness conception (r = .47, p < .05) and conceptual understanding (r = .46, p < .01). Promisingness conception and conceptual understanding were also found significantly correlated (r = .52, p < .01). For each specific dimension, the development of knowledge dimension was found significantly correlated with promisingness conception (r = .42, p < .05) and marginally significantly correlated with conceptual growth (r = .38, p = .06); correlations between changes with other dimensions and promisingness conception and conceptual growth were nonsignificant. Table 6: Improvement of epistemic beliefs from pre- to post-tests 66 KBSI2013 Papers The relation between epistemic growth and a number of KF indices were in- vestigated too. Firstly, using the Analytic Toolkit (ATK, Burtis, 1998) we extracted several important individual measures of students, including number of notes created, number of notes linked, number of notes read, and number of revisions. Correlation analysis between these measures and epistemic growth dimensions only found the correlation between number of revisions and the development dimension was significant, r = .56, p < .05. This correlation is interesting and straightforward because the more a student believes an idea has a development trajectory, the more likely the student will revise their ideas in knowledge building. Based on exported data and content analysis results, we further computed several other KF measures that reflected quality of students’ contributions for analysis. These measures included: average scientific sophistication and epistemic complexity of notes, average word count of notes, average number of promising ideas identified in notes, average times one’s notes were read by other students, and average times one’s notes were referenced by other students. Correlation analysis found overall epistemic skills of students in post- test marginally significantly with average word count of notes, r = .52, p = .07. Average word count of notes were also found marginally significantly correlated the source and development dimensions, r = .53, p = .06 and r = .55, p = .05 respectively. These results implies the more sophisticated epistemic beliefs a student has, the longer notes she writes, or vice versa. In summary, correlation analysis found epistemic beliefs co-developed with con- ceptual knowledge and understanding of promisingness. A number of knowledge building activities may have an impact on the development of some specific aspect of epistemic beliefs. However, it should be noted that these correlation analyses are quite preliminary, and no causal conclusion can be drawn at this point. More advanced analysis, such as path analysis, is needed to distinguish the relations among these variables. Conclusions Promisingness judgments are thought to be the heart of effective, creative actions, and improved by immersing in progressive problem solving (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). In knowledge-building discourse, an important step is to assess promisingness of ideas presented in a community and choose the most promising direction to follow. This study engaged a class of sixth grade students in making promisingness judgments on their own ideas. Results indicated students’ naive understanding of promisingness could be easily treated with a pedagogical intervention that simply invited them to discuss their thoughts about promisingness. Students’ capability of making promisingness judgments, more specifically the ability to justify one’s judgments with reasoning, appeared to improve across different phases. Further, promisingness judgments were found to have an impact on discourse patterns, such as distribution of contribution types, depth of questioning, and justification of theories. In the process, conceptual understanding also significantly improved, reflected by increase of scientific sophistication and epistemic complexity across phases. Last but not the least, students’ epistemic beliefs appeared to co-develop with promisingness knowledge and conceptual understanding. This preliminary study opens possibilities of further investigations on promis- ingness judgments in knowledge-building discourse, especially the effectiveness of promisingness judgments in facilitating students’ epistemic skills. However, it should be noted this study has a few limitations. First of all, the lack of a control class undermines the comparisons made across different discourse phases in this study. Someone could argument that given the absence of a control group, it is unclear whether these improvement in conceptual knowledge and epistemic beliefs could be attributed to promisingness judgments. The second limitation of this study is the small sample size. This class only had twenty-six students, and around half of them were fairly active in using the Promising Ideas tool to make promisingness judgments. This limitation hampers same statistical analysis conducted in this study, especially correlation analyses which requires data from different sources and the valid number of cases further decreased in the data 67 KBSI2013 Papers merging process. Future research with stricter design and larger sample sizes will be conducted to deepen this line of research around promisingness judgments. At the same time, we will also further advance technological design of the Promising Ideas tool and explore its integration with the next generation of Knowledge Forum. Appendix: Items to measure promisingness understanding 1. Presented with two competing ideas, I may not be able to decide which one is true, but I could sense which one is better. 2. When I firstly come up with an idea to explain something, being correct is the most important thing. 3. Scientists often make mistakes, and they’re good at learning from them. References Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Lawrence Erlbaum. Bereiter, C. (2012). Theory Building and Education for Understanding. (M. Peters, P. Ghiraldelli, B. Žarnić, & A. Gibbons, Eds.). http://www.ffst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/doku.php?id=theory_building_and_education_for_un derstanding. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Open Court. Burtis, P. J. (1998). Analytic Toolkit for Knowledge Forum. Centre for Applied Cognitive Science, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. MIT Press. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. (D. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, M. M. West, & M. S. Wiske, Eds.) Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235–251. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2803\_4 Carey, S., Scholnick, E. K., & Nelson, K. (1999). Sources of conceptual change. Conceptual development: Piaget’s legacy, 293–326. Chan, C. K. K., & Lam, I. C. K. (2010). Conceptual change and epistemic growth through reflective assessment in computer-supported knowledge building. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences- Volume 1 (pp. 1063–1070). Chicago, Illinois: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Chan, C. K. K., Burtis, P. J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge Building as a Mediator of Conflict in Conceptual Change (Vol. 15). doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1501\_1 Chen, B., Chuy, M., Resendes, M., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). “Big Ideas Tool” as a New Feature of Knowledge Forum. In 2010 Knowledge Building Summer Institute. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Chen, B., Chuy, M., Resendes, M., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2011). Evaluation by Grade 5 and 6 Students of the Promisingness of Ideas in Knowledge Building Discourse. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: CSCL2011 Conference Proceedings. Volume II - Short Papers and Posters (pp. 571–575). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., Acosta, A., Resendes, M., & Kici, D. (2013). Promis- ingness Judgments as Facilitators of Knowledge Building. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To See the World and a Grain of Sand: Learning across Levels of Space, Time, and Scale: CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings Volume 2 — Short papers, Panels, Posters, Demos & Community Events (pp. 231–232). International Society of the Learning 68 KBSI2013 Papers Sciences. Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., Resendes, M., Chuy, M., & Bereiter, C. (2012). Students’ intuitive understanding of promisingness and promisingness judgments to facilitate knowledge advancement. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2012) – Volume 1, Full Papers (pp. 111–118). Sydney, Australia: ISLS. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603\_1 Chuy, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Prinsen, F., Resendes, M., Messina, R., Chow, A. (2010). Understanding the nature of science and scientific progress: A theory-building approach. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36 (1). Chuy, M., Zhang, J., Resendes, M., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2011). Does Contributing to a Knowledge Building Dialogue lead to Individual Advancement of Knowledge? In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: CSCL2011 Conference Proceedings. Volume I - Long Papers (pp. 57–63). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 186– 204. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.004 Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. doi:10.1080/09500690305016 Dunbar, K. N. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), The Nature of Insight (pp. 365–395). MIT Press. Gardner, H. (1994). More on private intuitions and public symbol systems. Creativity Research Journal, 7(3-4), 265–275. doi:10.1080/10400419409534534 Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported bi- ology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072–1088. doi:10.1002/tea.10121 Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction. Computers & Education, 41(4), 397–420. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2003.07.001 Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chernobilsky, E., & Jordan, R. (2008). Understanding collaborative learning processes in new learning environments. Instructional Science, 36(5-6), 409–430. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9063-8 Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The Development of Epistemological Theories: Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing and Their Relation to Learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. doi:10.3102/00346543067001088 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337. doi:10.1002/sce.3730770306 Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice. In M. Lange (Ed.), Philosophy of Science An Anthology (pp. 320–339). University of Chicago Press. Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1996). Children’s ideas about ecology 2: ideas found in children aged 5-16 about the cycling of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 19–34. doi:10.1080/0950069960180102 Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538. doi:10.1002/sce.10086 Miyake, N. (2008). Conceptual change through collaboration. International handbook of research on conceptual change, 453–478. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New 69 KBSI2013 Papers York: Academic Press. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211– 227. doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207 Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by Collaborating: Convergent Con- ceptual Change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0203\_1 Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ Preconceptions about the Epistemology of Science. Science Education, 76(6), 559–580. doi:10.1002/sce.3730760602 Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656. doi:10.1002/sce.20065 Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 17, pp. 1370–1373). New York, NY: Macmillan Reference. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). Cambridge University Press. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on compre- hension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504. doi:10.1037/0022- 0663.82.3.498 Schommer-Aikins, M., & Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 136(1), 5–20. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE Science: Web-based Inquiry in the Classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Vosniadou, S. (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. Taylor & Francis. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535– 585. doi:10.1016/00100285(92)90018-W Wertheimer, M., & Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. Harper New York. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of 9- and 10- year-olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 117–145. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9019-0 Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for Collective Cognitive Responsibility in Knowledge-Building Communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44. doi:10.1080/10508400802581676 Özdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2007). An overview of conceptual change theories. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 351–361. 70 KBSI2013 Papers “Napoleón era también bajo..." Lectura, escritura y orientación motivacional en una comunidad Knowledge Building de historia Lisa Cingolani, University of Macerata, Italy Email: [email protected] Stefano Cacciamani, University of Valle d’Aosta, Italy Email: [email protected] RESUMEN: En el siguente estudio participaron 25 estudiantes de segundo año de la escuela secundaria inferior. Los estudiantes han desarrollado el estudio de la historia a través de algunas de las discusiones en presencia, que non son objeto de este studio, y de las discusiones en línea. Los resultados mostraron una correlación estadísticamente significativa entre las actividades de lectura y escritura en el segundo y el tercero módulo de discusión en línea. El anàlisis estadìstico ha identificado una correlación entre la orientación motivacional y las notas leydas en el segundo módulo y entre la orientación motivacional y la notas escritas en el tercero módulo. La conciencia de la importancia de la relación entre la lectura y la escritura emerge en los estudiantes gradualmente con el tiempo. En cuanto a la orientación motivacional, los alumnos con metas de maestría, parecen demostrar la necesidad de adquirir la competencia para la tarea, primero leyendo y luego por escrito. INTRODUCCIÓN El modelo de la Knowledge Building Community (KBC en adelante) tiene la intención de volver a la clase en la dirección de una comunidad que se construye el conocimiento (Scardamalia, 2002; Scardamalia y Bereiter, 2006): en ella se mejora la colaboración entre los estudiantes, que no debe centrarse en el aprendizaje de conceptos, sino en la generación de ideas útiles para el desarrollo del conocimiento de toda la comunidad. La actividad de la construcción del conocimiento se apoya en el Knowledge Forum (KF en adelante) en línea y por lo tanto está mediada por la lectura y la escritura de textos. Para ello, es importante que en el proceso de construcción del conocimiento en colaboración, entre la lectura y la escritura en línea que se estableció una relación de interdependencia: el proceso de construcción del conocimiento es un hecho de verdadera colaboración, si todos los miembros de la comunidad escribe textos colocados en relación con los productos de otros miembros. Contribuir relevante y productivo para la construcción del conocimiento con una nota escrita, es importante que después de leer las notas de los otros participantes. Tales consideraciones son apoyados por estudios de escritura colaborativa en entornos en línea, que muestran que la escritura será más eficaz si se apoya en conversaciones y discusiones: facilitar la interacción entre los estudiantes ayuda a pasar de un concepto a una experiencia solitaria de la escritura la visión de la escritura como una actividad social (Sanford, 2012). En base a estas premisas, en una KBC podemos esperar que los estudiantes son muy activos y que participen en el proceso de construcción del conocimiento y que ellos entienden que este proceso requiere que todos vengan con ideas en colaboración con otros miembros de la comunidad. En el presente estudio se ha supuesto que las actividades de lectura y escritura en el entorno en línea pueden estar en relación con la orientación motivacional de los participantes. 71 KBSI2013 Papers Los autores que se han ocupado de este constructo en estudiantes identifican dos tipos de orientación motivacional (Ames y Archer, 1988), la orientación (o objectivo) definida, respectivamente para el rendimiento y la orientación de la maestría. Un objetivo puede ser definida como "la previsión de que una persona se avecina, con el resultado que se pretende lograr o evitar" (Cacciamani, 2002). Los alumnos orientados a el rendimiento, centra su atención en la evaluación de sus capacidades, tiene la intención de lograr buenos resultados y quiere evitar los negativos. Estudia para mostrar lo que sabe y está motivado para obtener comentarios positivos de los demás. En lugar, el estudiante que se orienta hacia la maestría se ha comprometido a mejorar sus habilidades de acuerdo para hacer frente a tareas difíciles, ya que, a riesgo de cometer errores, está motivado por la idea de aprender cosas nuevas. Está estudiando para aprender, independientemente del resultado final (Dweck, 1999). ¿Es posible que los estudiantes con un dominio motivacional orientación tiene un mayor énfasis en la lectura y la escritura en una actividad de construcción de conocimiento en línea en comparación con el rendimiento de los alumnos orientados? El presente estudio tiene como objetivo detectar la existencia de una relación de interdependencia entre la lectura y la escritura dentro de un proceso de construcción del conocimiento y para verificar si existe una relación entre la orientación motivacional de los estudiantes y su enfoque en la lectura y escritura dentro de una KBC. MÉTODO Participantes Participaron en este estudio 25 estudiantes, entre ellos 12 mujeres y 13 varones, pertenecientes al segundo año de la escuela secundaria inferior del Instituto "G. Cingolani" de Montecassiano, Italia. Entorno en línea El entorno en línea utilizado en este estudio es el Knoweldge Forum (http://www.knowledgeforum.com) en la versión 4.8. Se ha desarrollado en el grupo de investigación de la Universidad de Toronto, coordinado por Carl Bereiter y Marlene Scardamalia. En este entorno, los estudiantes pueden crear notas (textos escritos a los que se pueden agregar o imágenes o gráficos), que son objetos que contienen el conocimiento acumulado gradualmente de la comunidad de la clase. Las notas pueden ser citadas en otras notas o resaltar con las palabras clave que también se pueden conectar entre sí mediante enlaces. En este caso, se les conoce con el término build on (literalmente, "construir"), lo que indica que representan la evolución de la construcción del conocimiento. Las notas y los build on se pueden agrupar en las carpetas correspondientes nombrados vista, lo que le permite organizar las áreas temáticas de la actividad de la construcción del conocimiento en su proceso de desarrollo. Para facilitar la discusión de las estructuras lingüísticas son también valores predeterminados actuales, soporte escribir, los tipos de pensamiento (o etiquetas de pensamiento) que tienen la función de los andamios (literalmente "andamiaje") en el sentido de que sirven para crear categorías comunes de la construcción meta-discurso que le permiten comunicarse acerca de los efectos de las propias notas. Estas estructuras son flexibles y personalizables. Descripción La actividad en la clase tenía el objetivo de la reflexión crítica a través del debate en presencia y en línea, sobre dos periodos históricos estudiados: el período napoleónico en Italia y 72 KBSI2013 Papers en Europa y los movimientos revolucionarios de 1820 y 1830 en Italia, seguido de la restauración dell'Antiguo Régimen tras la derrota de Napoleón. La actividad se implementó con referencia al modelo de la KBC en las siguientes fases: 1. La profesora presentó la primera parte de la argumentación de estudio a través de una conferencia y la lectura del libro, y luego en casa, cada alumno ha estudiado de forma individual sobre el argumento del libro 's explicado por la profesora. 2. La clase se dividió en dos grupos heterogéneos de estudiantes y cada grupo fue un debate sobre la propuesta de parte del tema ya cursado, a partir de una cuestión de análisis crítico (“¿Según usted, el período napoleónico tenía más negativa o positiva y por qué ?”). La discusión se llevó a cabo en la presencia, fue guiada por la investigadora y grabó en vídeo. 3. La profesora, con una conferencia posterior, concluyó la explicación del estudio: en casa, cada alumno tiene un estudio en profundidad sobre una base individual. 4. En el aula, los estudiantes han estudiado durante todo el perìodo estudiado a través de un Jigsaw (Aronson, 1978; Aronson, Blane, Stephan, Sikes, y Snapp, 1978), articulada sobre la base de preguntas de orientación, elaborado por la investigadora. 5. La investigadora ha presentado a los estudiantes en el entorno en línea y se ha hecho una primera familiarización con el medio ambiente a través de una vista de la auto-presentación. 6. Posteriormente, la investigadora ha puesto en marcha un debate en línea para el periodo histórico estudiado, desde la misma aplicación de la reflexión crítica dirigida a los estudiantes en la discusión en presencia (“¿Según usted, el período napoleónico tenía más elementos positivos o negativos y por qué?”). Incluso en este caso, los estudiantes fueron divididos en los mismos grupos de la fase 2. Este modelo de trabajo se repitió para cada objeto de estudio presentado por la profesora. Este modelo de trabajo se repitió para cada sujeto de estudio presentado por la profesora. Debido a las necesidades organizativas de la profesora, la actividad de debate en línea sobre el período napoleónico se llevó a cabo después de la discusión de los movimientos revolucionarios. Variables observadas Han sido objeto de estudio de esta investigación las siguientes variables observadas: - La relación entre la lectura y la escritura en cada una de las tres formas de actividades en línea ("Bienvenido", "Los movimientos rivolucionarios”, "Napoleón"); - La orientación motivacional de los estudiantes. Instrumentos La variable sobre la relación entre la lectura y la escritura se ha detectado por el software Analític Toolkit (ATK), que proporciona estadísticas sobre las actividades llevadas a cabo en el KF línea. El software identifica cuántas notas están en la base de datos, cuántas notas están vinculadas, cuántas notas fueron creadas por cada estudiante y el número de notas fueron leídas. Se calcularon para cada estudiante las notas escritas y las notas de lectura, en cada uno de los módulos mencionados. La variable sobre la orientación motivacional se ha detectada a través de una escala de la prueba AMOS 8-15 (Cornoldi, De Beni, Zamperlin y Meneghetti, 2005): la escala QC3O, que se han utilizado 4 artículos relacionados con la orientación motivacional , en comparación con que el sujeto debe elegir una respuesta en una escala Likert. La puntuación entre zero y dieciséis años, expresa una orientación hacia la maestría si es alto, una orientación al rendimiento, si baja. 73 KBSI2013 Papers Análisis de los datos Los datos fueron analizados con el software SPSS, detectando correlaciones, utilizando el coeficiente Rho de Spearman (teniendo en cuenta el número de estudiantes), incluyendo notas escritas, notas leídas y la orientación motivacional de cada estudiante. RESULTADOS Los resultados relativos a la actividad de la lectura y de la escritura en los tres módulos se muestran en la Figura 1. Fig.1. Lectura y escrituras en los tre módulos. 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Notas escritas Notas leydas El módulo con la mayor actividad de la lectura y escritura de notas es Movimientos revolucionarios. Los resultados relativos a la relación entre la lectura y la escritura se presentan en la siguiente tabla (Tabla 1). Tabla 1. Correlación entre la lectura y la escritura en tres módulos. Módulo “Bienvenida” notas escritas e notas leydas “Movimientos revolucionarios” notas escritas e notas leydas “Napoleón” notas escritas e notas leydas Rho di Spearman Sign. -.07 p >.05 .53** p<.01 .80** p<.01 74 KBSI2013 Papers La correlación es estadísticamente significativa en el segundo módulo (Rho = 0,53, p <0,01) y el tercer módulo (Rho = 0,80, p <0,01) de las actividades en línea. Los resultados referentes a la relación entre la orientación motivacional y la lectura se informan en la Tabla 2. Tabla 2. Correlación entre la orientación motivacional y la lectura en tres módulos. Módulo Rho di Spearman Sign. “Bienvenida” Orientación motivaciónal y notas leydas -.03 p >.05 .47** p<.05 .27 p>.05 “Movimientos revolucionarios” Orientación motivaciónal y notas leydas “Napoleón” Orientación motivaciónal y notas leydas Como se muestra, surge una correlación estadísticamente significativa en lel segundo moduló de la actividad en línea (Rho = 0,47, p <0,05). Los resultados referentes a la relación entre la orientación de motivación y la escritura se muestran en la Tabla 3. Tabla 3. Correlación entre la orientación motivacional y la escritura en tres módulos. Módulo “Bienvenida” Orientación motivaciónal y notas escritas “Movimientos revolucionarios” Orientación motivaciónal y notas escritas “Napoleón” Orientación motivaciónal y notas escritas Rho di Spearman Sign. -.25 p >.05 .32 p>.05 .51** p<.01 Como se muestra, surge una correlación estadísticamente significativa en lel tercero módulo de la actividad en línea (Rho = 0,51, p <0,01). DISCUSIÓN Los resultados que se desprenden de este estudio muestran que, en el comienzo de la discusión en línea, leer y escribir notas son considerados por los estudiantes dos actividades 75 KBSI2013 Papers independientes: no captan la necesidad de leer los discursos de los otros participantes para conectar sus propias ideas. Este resultado es coherente con lo encontrado por Cingolani, Hamel & Cacciamani (2010). Además, en la fase de familiarización con el medio ambiente, el tipo de tarea a los estudiantes requeridos, es decir, la presentación de sí mismo, no puede haber implicado la necesidad de leer las notas de otros para escribir su propia contribución. La conciencia de la importancia de la relación entre la lectura y la escritura surge en los dos módulos siguientes, cuando la tarea requiere un trabajo explícito de construir conocimiento: cuando se les pide a los estudiantes a expresar su opinión con respecto a un período histórico crucial estudiado, los estudiantes entienden que el desarrollo de la discusión debe tratar con la opinión expresada por otros participantes. Los resultados que se desprenden de la orientación motivacional pueden estar relacionados con esta interpretación: los estudiantes orientados a la maestría, en la tarea de discusión en línea, sintieron la necesidad de aumentar su competencia, en primera instancia por la actividad de la lectura (segundo módulo), en un segundo tiempo a través de la actividad de la escritura (tercero módulo). En lugar, los estudiantes orientados a la ejecución, que se limitan a la prestación recibida por el investigador, que incluía la elaboración de por lo menos una nota. CONCLUSIÓN El presente estudio ha puesto de relieve la tendencia de los estudiantes a adquirir poco a poco conciencia de la importancia de la relación entre la lectura y la escritura en línea dentro de un proceso de construcción del conocimiento. Los resultados de la investigación confirman la veracidad de la hipótesis avanzada por los estudiantes de la escuela primaria para los estudiantes de la escuela secundaria. Además, el estudio ha revelado un enfoque diferente para la tarea en relación con la diferente orientación motivacional del estudiante. El estudio tiene algunas limitaciones: en primer lugar, el número limitado de sujetos no asegura una amplia generalización de los resultados. Además, el tiempo disponible para la actividad fue muy corto y no permitió la aplicación de otros módulos temáticas previstas. Sería deseable una réplica del estudio para intervenir en los limites y tomar en cuenta el análisis de otras dimensiones motivacionales que podrían jugar un rol de importancia en la lectura y la escritura en una KBC. REFERENCIAS Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267. Aronson, E. (1978). The Jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Aronson, E., Blane, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J. e Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Cacciamani S. (2002). Psicologia per l’insegnamento. Roma: Carocci. Cingolani, I., Hamel, C., Cacciamani, S., (2010). Reading and writing in a Knowledge Building Community: correlation or independence? Poster presented at IKIT Summer Institute, OISEUniversity of Toronto, 3-6 August 2010. Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., Zamperlin, C. & Meneghetti, C. (2005). AMOS 8-15. Abilità e motivazione allo studio: prove di valutazione per ragazzi dagli 8 ai 15 anni. Trento: Erickson. Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Psychology Press. 76 KBSI2013 Papers Sanford, D. (2012). The peer interactive writing center at university of New Mexico. Composition forum, 25. Retrieved from http://compositionforum.com/issue/25/. Scardamalia M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (ed.), Liberal Education in a knowledge society (pp.76-98). Chicago: Open Court Scardamalia M. e Bereiter C. (2006). Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy and Technology. In K. Sawyer (ed.), Cambridge handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp.97-115) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 77 KBSI2013 Papers Las Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación (Tics) en Educación Indígena, Nuevos Espacios con Pertinencia Cultural y Lingüística Salvador Galindo Llaguno, Centro de Estudios y Desarrollo de las Lenguas Indígenas de Oaxaca Email: [email protected] RESUMEN: En la actualidad las nuevas tecnologías de información y comunicación (TIC) se han expandido vertiginosamente en las diferentes estructuras sociales, en donde el sistema educativo no puede quedar exento. Esta interacción y revolución tecnológica demanda entonces la necesidad de un cambio y una modernidad en el contexto educativo, tanto en la profesionalización de agentes educadores como de la creación de programas y entornos virtuales con pertinencia cultural y lingüística, puesto que hoy en día las poblaciones originarias son las más resentidas de estos recursos humanos y tecnológicos por su situación de marginación y exclusión. Por el contacto que tienen con la sociedad occidental las comunidades indígenas demandan de estas nuevas formas de interacción tecnológica a efecto de hacerlas competentes con la modernidad actual, para ello se requiere tomar en cuenta sus características socioculturales y lingüísticas, lo que permitirá fortalecer en el ámbito educativo la identidad de las niñas y niños indígenas, contribuyendo en la formación de sujetos interculturales a partir de una proeficiencia lingüística equilibrada. Considerando que las TIC crean nuevos lenguajes y formas de representación, además de que permiten arribar a nuevos escenarios de aprendizajes; las instituciones educativas del nivel de educación indígena del estado mexicano propiamente del estado de Oaxaca serán las más comprometidas en reducir la brecha digital a partir de diversas estrategias y técnicas de aprendizaje mediante el uso de los diversos recursos tecnológicos que estén a su alcance para promover aprendizajes significativos. INTRODUCCIÓN Entre los países pertenecientes al Continente Americano, México ocupa el segundo lugar en número de lenguas originarias vivas habladas. Aunque hay muchos hablantes del español en este país, existen 68 grupos de lenguas originarias, mismas que integran un total de 364 variantes lingüísticas reconocidas por el Instituto Nacional de lenguas Indígenas (INALI). Del total de las agrupaciones lingüísticas existentes en México, el 47 % perviven en territorio oaxaqueño Caracterizado por esa gran diversidad lingüística, el servicio educativo indígena de Oaxaca atiende a alumnos monolingües en lengua originaria, monolingües en español y bilingües en español y lengua originaria. Además, por temporadas durante el año, en ciertas regiones hay alumnos migrantes provenientes de los Estados Unidos de América y que por tal condición dominan el idioma Inglés. Dicha pluralidad lingüística-cultural requiere cambios fundamentales y acciones alternativas del contexto educativo indígena, por ello, las escuelas deben establecer condiciones necesarias que permitan la atención y tratamiento de la alfabetización digital mediante el uso y apoyo de las TIC, desde una perspectiva cultural-lingüística y con ello, sin atentar contra la diversidad misma, incursionar en la sociedad de comunicación digital y empezar a ser partícipes en el uso democrático, ético e idóneo de las TIC. Al respecto, Pérez Tornero y Variss (2010) plantean que El carácter intercultural de la alfabetización multimedia y la posibilidad de encausarla a favor de una diversidad cultural amenazada por la creciente norteamericanización de la vida en el 78 KBSI2013 Papers mundo, permite plantear la necesidad de promover un diálogo intercultural para luchar contra la brecha digital y cognitiva, estimular la cooperación y participación nacional e internacional, para [...] revitalizar la esfera global pública, e integrar valores comunicacionales (Pérez Tornero y Variss, 2010). Para atender esta realidad, hace falta del Estado mexicano, políticas públicas que atiendan, promuevan y dirijan el uso de las TIC hacia una sociedad de la información de manera innovadora e inclusiva, políticas que no se limiten simplemente a la dotación de equipos (Pcs) o dispositivos tecnológicos (pizarrones digitales), sino desarrollen programas educativos mediante conectividad y soporte digital que atiendan la diversidad cultural y lingüística reconocida en el Artículo 4° de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (SEGOB 2008-2009), de esta manera evitar que las tecnologías de información y comunicación se conviertan en una nueva forma de exclusión y marginación de las comunidades indígenas. Al respecto, el Programa Nacional de Educación 2000-2006 publicado en México, manifestó cierto interés por el uso de las tecnologías de información y comunicación, para lo cual implementó programas emergentes y de expansión acelerada, así como una serie de acciones para promover el acceso a estas tecnologías en diversos contextos (Lucio, 2006-2007). Tal fue el caso del proyecto de apoyo escolar en el nivel de educación básica mediante el Programa “Enciclomedia”, así como la instalación de una infraestructura de telecomunicaciones conocida como Red Satelital de Televisión Educativa (EDUSAT). Los resultados obtenidos por estos programas fueron en su mayoría poco favorables, lo anterior se atribuye a la falta de capacitación permanente de los usuarios, a la falta de: soporte técnico, mantenimiento y contenidos pertinentes al contexto comunitario. Dicha situación ha generado el abandono parcial/total o falta de continuidad de los programas mencionados. Sin embargo, este tipo de experiencias ha permitido apreciar que el acceso a las TIC y demás dispositivos (pizarrón electrónico), así como la conectividad a internet pueden ofrecer nuevas prácticas de enseñanza-aprendizaje además de servir como alternativa para acortar la brecha digital existente entre las escuelas indígenas alejadas de los contextos citadinos y las urbanas. De igual forma y conscientes que la carencia de acceso a las TIC en la actualidad puede desencadenar una serie de incidencias y dificultades hacia los educandos, tales como el contacto tardío, la falta de dominio o analfabetismo digital; los docentes no debemos mantenernos al margen, por el contrario, habrá que tomar en serio la necesidad de la alfabetización digital y ser partícipes del desarrollo de la formación acorde con el contexto local y global. La necesidad de generar y facilitar mejores condiciones respecto al uso de las TIC en los contextos indígenas ciertamente es lenta y costosa, no obstante, el equipamiento y conectividad del servicio son procesos que no parecen ser reversibles. Con esa perspectiva, habrá que proyectar y crear condiciones que fortalezcan la práctica de los docentes y ampliar las oportunidades de aprendizaje de los alumnos mediante la capacitación de los primeros, así como la generación, utilización e interacción de programas multimedia con pertinencia cultural y lingüística, promoviendo la interacción de los sujetos con estos, a fin de contribuir al logro de una mayor participación en la información global, con una intervención pedagógica cuyos rasgos sean democráticos e incluyentes. Propuesta de inserción de las Tics en los programas educativos del nivel de educación indígena Para alumnos y docentes, los materiales o programas alternativos con los que se trabajan actualmente en la mayoría de las escuelas primarias indígenas son nulos o escasos, situación que conduce desfavorablemente a la pérdida del uso de la lengua indígena como medio de instrucción 79 KBSI2013 Papers y como objeto de estudio, influyendo tanto en la desaparición o desplazamiento de lenguas originarias, como en el detrimento de los valores culturales indígenas. Ante tal panorama, se debe generar materiales educativos multimedia, mismos que se concreten en el desarrollo y en la producción de programas y actividades virtuales interactivas grabadas en soporte digital de manera bilingüe o multilingüe, los cuales coadyuven a desarrollar una educación intercultural y bilingüe de manera alternativa; además, apoyar en el fortalecimiento, desarrollo y preservación de las lenguas indígenas, y en la promoción de los valores lingüísticos, culturales y comunitarios. Para el mencionado propósito, se requiere de una participación interdisciplinaria en la que intervengan hablantes nativos de la lengua indígena que será básica en el diseño de los programas interactivos, aunado a la colaboración de los docentes quienes serán capaces de sugerir estrategias y secuencias didácticas que faciliten la comprensión de los contenidos o ejes temáticos. Villavicencio Zarza y Salgado Andrade (2011) manifiestan que: Para garantizar un mejor desarrollo de los programas, será imprescindible la participación de especialistas en educación, capaces de garantizar que los programas estén adecuadamente diseñados y cumplan de manera óptima los objetivos que persigue cada uno Invalid source specified. Procurando que la aportación sea más rica y la sinergia dé mayor efecto, en determinadas ocasiones se demandará la contribución de lingüistas, diseñadores gráficos y programadores, quienes de manera conjunta establecerán las competencias y habilidades indispensables a requerir en el diseño de los materiales multimedia para contextos de diversidad cultural y lingüística. Dadas estas circunstancias, el tipo de materiales que nos ocupa, debe promover procesos de observación, experimentación y conocimiento sobre aspectos culturales y lingüísticos que sirvan como ejes transversales destinados a apoyar los procesos educativos que promuevan la reflexión del usuario sobre la interculturalidad y sobre sus derechos a pertenecer a un determinado grupo étnico. Tal observación será útil durante el correspondiente monitoreo para, según el específico proyecto, en determinados momentos de las correspondientes fases, hacer el análisis respectivo y las adecuaciones consecuentes (realimentación). Relacionadas con este aspecto, se considera una serie de recomendaciones para el desarrollo e inserción de las TIC en los programas educativos correspondientes a educación indígena. Para ello, es pertinente considerar lo siguiente: 1. Los software multimedia deben promover un bilingüismo coordinado, es decir, que el alumno utilice ambas lenguas de manera independiente y adecuada según la situación. 2. Analizar las principales características pertinentes e idóneas que debe presentar el software para su uso en el aula. 3. El software multimedia debe responder a las necesidades específicas del contexto. 4. Procúrese que sean flexibles y con una interfaz2 amigable. 5. Deben ser recursos de aprendizaje para la convivencia y la paz, inculcando valores y principios sociales necesarios para convivir en armonía. 2 Interfaz es un término que procede del vocablo inglés interface (“superficie de contacto”). En informática, esta noción se utiliza para nombrar a la conexión física y funcional entre dos sistemas o dispositivos de cualquier tipo dando una comunicación entre distintos niveles. Su plural es interfaces. 80 KBSI2013 Papers 6. Sean promoventes de un aprendizaje colaborativo, mismo que permita a los alumnos trabajar en equipo. 7. Motivar a los alumnos con respecto a la información y los contenidos educativos mediante su lengua materna. 8. Debe potenciar un aprendizaje significativo, que le permita la reestructuración de conocimientos previos y la construcción de nuevos conocimientos. Así, el bagaje sea más rico. 9. Plantear procesos de evaluación y autoevaluación. 10. Que tenga una función formativa global para el análisis y construcción de nuevos conocimientos. Por lo expuesto en el cuerpo de este trabajo, y tomando como referencia las recomendaciones anteriores concebidas en su mayoría por el Laboratorio de Lengua y Cultura Víctor Franco (LLCVF) que forma parte del los laboratorios del Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (CIESAS), es necesario comenzar a trabajar en el desarrollo de propuestas coherentes sobre el uso de las TIC en contextos indígenas. Pues como lo cita Lourdes C. (2012) en su ponencia “Retos de la expansión de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación en las comunidades indígenas de México”: Tratándose de materiales multimedia que apoyan el aprendizaje y fortalecimiento de las culturas y lenguas indígenas se hace necesario adoptar una perspectiva teórico pedagógica y lingüística desde la cual se construya la propuesta didáctica y se aborde el diseño de situaciones de aprendizaje pertinentes (Lourdes, 2012, p: 34). De antemano, habrá que reconocer que existen muchas limitantes para que las escuelas situadas en comunidades indígenas o rurales reciban los beneficios potenciales que ofrecen las TIC, no obstante, es preciso considerar que las tecnologías de información y comunicación avanzan de manera vertiginosa y cada vez se tornan en herramientas imprescindibles en la vida cotidiana de los individuos, y que se posiciona rápidamente en cualquier espacio geográfico. La situación insatisfactoria ya se ha vislumbrado en algunos centros educativos, pues aunque originalmente no haya sido proyectado su uso para tal fin, la dotación y equipamiento de aulas de cómputo o el establecimiento de aulas de medios, terminan siendo talleres de computación o de paquetería administrativa, como en el caso de las aulas de medios de las escuelas primarias bilingües indígenas de la zona escolar número 039 de Educación Indígena del Estado de Oaxaca. Desvirtuando su propósito principal, que consiste en facilitar a los docentes y estudiantes las herramientas y recursos necesarios para fortalecer la enseñanza-aprendizaje a través de la tecnología. La falta del cumplimiento de los objetivos se debe también a la carencia de programas multimedia pertinentes a los contextos indígenas. Para disminuir ese tipo de situaciones, hoy en día, se debe producir materiales educativos multimedia con enfoques de diversidad lingüística y cultural, de suerte tal, que se vayan construyendo repositorios3 con este tipo de materiales, mismos que estén disponibles en el momento que se requieran, es decir, habrá que planificar y crear materiales para el futuro (que ya nos alcanzó). Para tal efecto, corresponde a los docentes, buscar espacios y mecanismos de capacitación y autoformación en el empleo de las TIC, con la finalidad de hacer un uso formativo de las mismas y colaborar en la construcción de plataformas interactivas con idoneidad cultural y lingüística. Respecto a la conectividad del servicio y equipamiento del mismo, dependerán de la gestoría y/o 3 Un repositorio, depósito o archivo es un sitio centralizado donde se almacena y mantiene información digital, habitualmente en bases de datos o archivos informáticos. 81 KBSI2013 Papers a las políticas públicas que realicen los diversos funcionarios educativos o niveles de gobierno en sus correspondientes instancias, según su responsabilidad. Referencias bibliográficas Carneiro, R., Toscano, J. C., & Díaz, T. (2012). Los desafíos de las TIC para el cambio educativo. Madrid, España: OEI-Fundación Santillana. Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas. (2009). Catálogo de las Lenguas Indígenas Nacionales. México, D.F.: IEPSA. BIBLIOGRAPHY Lourdes, C. M. (XII). Retos de la expansión de la técnologías de la información y la comunicación en las comunidades indígenas de México. Revista científica electrónica de educación y comunicación en la sociedad del conocimiento . Lucio, I. N. (2006-2007). Antología Unidad Estatal de Actualización Para Maestros de Educación Básica en Servicio. El uso educativo de material audiovisual por computadora . Oaxaca de Juárez, Oaxaca, México: ILCE. Pérez Tornero, J. M. y Tapio Variss (2010). Media literacy and new humanism. UNESCO, Institute for information technologies in education. Federación Rusa. SECRETARÍA DE GOBERNACIÓN. (2008 - 2009). Dirección General de Compilación y Consulta del Orden Jurídico Nacional. Recuperado el 07 de Febrero de 2013, de WWW.ORDENJURIDICO.GOB.MX: http://www.ordenjuridico.gob.mx/Constitucion/cn16.pdf Sunkel, G., & Trucco, D. (2012). Las tecnologías digitales frente a los desafíos de una educación inclusiva en América Latina . Santiago de Chile: Publicación de las Naciones Unidas. Villavicencio Zarza, F., & Salgado Andrade, E. (2011). Materiales multimedia en contextos de diversidad lingüística y cultural. México, D.F.: Ducere, S.A. de C.V. 82 KBSI2013 Papers Diseño y aplicación de un portal web como herramienta didáctica en la enseñanza-aprendizaje de la química en el nivel medio superior 1 Ariadna Berenice González Arenas1,2 y Enrique González Vergara1,3 Maestría de Educación en Ciencias. Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla 2 Colegio Humboldt, Puebla 3 Centro de Química ICUAP. Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla ABSTRACT: According to the needs expressed in the objectives of a chemistry course at high school level, an hypermedia tool for teaching-learning chemistry was designed and implemented, providing to the students with various learning resources such as: videos, specialized websites, application exercises, tutorials, lectures on current topics of chemistry, simulators, etc. This tool served tthe students in their classes and homework activities during the development of the course which were evaluated by the teacher as an integral part of students formative and summative assessment. This hipermedia tool allowed the the teacher and students to interact inside the physical classroom and in a virtual environment created by them in a collaborative way, showing the students that they can interact in both, widening their vision of the chemistry field. ANTECEDENTES El uso de los recursos multimedia como herramienta didáctica ha demostrado a lo largo de su corta historia ser un medio de apoyo en la enseñanza de las ciencias, no obstante no debe ser visto como un sustituto entre el binomio alumno- profesor durante el proceso de enseñanzaaprendizaje. Cuando se diseñan las estrategias adecuadas para el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje, la implementación de las TIC´s; facilita de manera considerable el logro de los objetivos planteados durante el curso y abarca no sólo los objetivos procedimentales sino también los actitudinales, ya que se propician espacios para el trabajo colaborativo, despertando así al educando un interés que más allá del trabajo en el aula. En 1924, (Killefer, 1924) describió el uso didáctico de la radio, en charlas sobre temas de química (petróleo, colorantes, alimentos…). En 1929, (Taft, 1929) implementó un sistema de proyección de nombre “Bolopticon” que permitía proyectar tanto diapositivas como objetos oscuros. En el año 1941 (Durban, 1941) utilizó la primera película muda de 16 mm sobre cómo utilizar una balanza analítica. En 1956 se usó por primera vez la televisión para transmitir clases de química en circuito cerrado de televisión (Smith, 1956). Se empezó a hablar de “modern chemistry classrooms” (Barnard et al., 1968) como aulas en donde se combinaba el uso de proyectores, diapositivas, grabadores de audio, televisión y video. El proyecto informático más ambicioso en la primera mitad de la década de los 80´s fue el proyecto “SERAPHIM”: recopilación de software para la enseñanza de la química (Lagowski, 1995). Los sistemas multimedia, flexibles y asociados a la idea de interacción, comenzaron a ser utilizados en la didáctica de la química e incluso de llegó a hablar de un cambio en la enseñanza de la química, catalizado por la tecnología multimedia (Jones y Smith, 1993). La inversión en la educación ha sentado los precedentes para la manifestación de aulas transformadas en espacios con computadoras, por lo que en la actualidad se pueden mencionar 83 KBSI2013 Papers tres espacios educativos, salones sin computadoras, con computadoras y en las que tanto alumnos y docentes hacen uso de las computadoras. (Rosas, et.al., 2009). Según ellos, el desarrollo de aulas inteligentes permite realizar en conjunto una serie de actividades en las que los alumnos desarrollan su conocimiento, incrementan sus habilidades y participan activamente en la construcción de juicios de valor que favorecen el desarrollo de la sociedad. Los alumnos son autores de los mecanismos que utilizan para la regulación de aprendizaje pudiéndolo extender más allá del aula física. Cuando las actividades realizadas en los espacios virtuales se convierten en una evidencia tangible, estos espacios se convierten en aulas visibles (Lynch, 2003). Así es como se debe concebir al aula actual: como un espacio inteligente y visible, donde interactúan tanto alumnos como docentes, en un marco que les permite desarrollar conocimientos, habilidades y actitudes. DEFINICIÓN DEL PROBLEMA En la actualidad, el internet es un medio de difusión de información masiva, lo que conlleva a que los alumnos lo utilicen para estudiar y realizar sus trabajos escolares. El problema de esto es que en muchas ocasiones; no hacen buen uso de todos los recursos disponibles en él porque desconocen la gamma de herramientas educativas, que contiene ya que sólo se limitan a usar un buscador o a consultar el primer sitio web; que encabeza la lista de resultados que encabeza la búsqueda. Otra dificultad es que los sitios especializados en la enseñanza de la química a partir de hipermedia, en su mayoría; están disponibles en otros idiomas distintos al español, lo que limita la búsqueda de información por parte de los alumnos propiciando que no se recurran a ellos y que no amplíen sus fuentes de información, lo cual propicia que no siempre los resultados obtenidos sean los que buscan de acuerdo a los objetivos planteados por el docente, en el diseño curricular de la materia. JUSTIFICACIÓN El uso de internet dentro de las aulas para la adquisición de conocimiento por parte de los alumnos y docentes, es algo tangible que hoy en día permite la diversidad de estilos de aprendizaje en un mismo espacio de manera efectiva y eficiente. Este recurso permite desarrollar la metacognición del alumno a través del aprendizaje basado en el constructivismo, donde él es quien regula la adquisición de su conocimiento haciendo uso de las herramientas diseñadas para cubrir sus necesidades. Así es como el aprendizaje convencional se ve complementado por el uso de hipermedia para el desarrollo de sus habilidades cognitivas. De acuerdo a lo anterior es justificable el diseño y la aplicación de un curso de química en hipermedia, que promueva el aprendizaje significativo y colaborativo, tanto dentro como fuera del aula, ampliando así las posibilidades del alumno de preparatoria, de disponer de información confiable que lo apoye en su aprendizaje de la química. OBJETIVO GENERAL Desarrollar y evaluar un portal web que sirva como apoyo en la enseñanza de la química a nivel medio superior, considerando para su producción, las ideas y conocimientos previos de los estudiantes e incorporando actividades visuales, auditivas y quinestésicas. 84 KBSI2013 Papers OBJETIVOS PARTICULARES • Diseñar un portal web usando Google Sites para aplicarlo durante un curso de química en nivel medio superior. • Evaluar su funcionalidad y las herramientas didácticas que contiene. • Desarrollar ambientes confiables para el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje, donde se promueva el trabajo cooperativo y el desarrollo de valores y actitudes positivas entre la comunidad escolar. • Fortalecer la relación alumno-profesor a través de la retroalimentación que permite el portal, facilitando que el alumno forme parte activa de su aprendizaje. HIPÓTESIS Con el uso del portal web se proveerá al estudiante de las herramientas necesarias que le servirán como fuente de información, a la que podrán recurrir tanto dentro como fuera del aula. El diseño interactivo del portal permitirá que éste le apoye en tanto en sus estudios, como en la realización de sus tareas escolares y facilitará su evaluación por parte del profesor. MARCO TEÓRICO Para Ausubel, Novak y Hanesian (1990) la educación es el conjunto de conocimientos, órdenes y métodos por medio de los cuales se ayuda al individuo en el desarrollo y la mejora de sus facultades intelectuales, morales y físicas. Por lo que un a lo largo de su proceso educativo, un individuo debe ser capaz de desarrollar conocimientos, habilidades y actitudes, en donde este debe manifestarse como sujeto activo y generador de su propio conocimiento a partir de un modelo constructivista que propicie la metacognición. Según Prendes y Solano (2001), existen dos tipos de multimedia de acuerdo al tipo de soporte: soporte físico y en línea. El soporte físico es aquel con el que se encuentra equipada un aula tradicional; es decir, materiales audiovisuales, libros de texto, equipos de sonido, etc., mientras que el soporte en línea es el medio de distribución de los materiales multimedia que, corresponde a la fusión de la tecnología audiovisual con la tecnología informática y con la tecnología telemática o Internet. La primera aplicación documentada de Internet en el campo de la enseñanza de la química la encontramos en 1993 (Varberi, 1993) y se refiere al uso de Internet como fuente de información. Se integró la tecnología multimedia con el hipertexto, creando hipermedia (Tissue, 1996). El potencial de las TICs aumenta y ya no es difícil encontrar referencias al uso de Internet o de otras TICs en la enseñanza de la química: Internet como fuente de información (Holmes y Warden, 1996; Matthews, 1997; Stevens y Stevens, 1996; Waldow et. al, 1997), su uso didáctico a través de los foros de discusión (Paulisse y Polik, 1999) y del correo electrónico (Pence, 1999); el uso de tutoriales en lenguaje html (Parril y Gervay, 1997; Tissue, 1996; 1997) o la realización de ejercicios o informes y confección de exámenes basados en páginas web (Earp y Tissue, 1996; McGowan y Sendall, 1997; Tissue et al., 1996). Además, Internet permite a los docentes y estudiantes poder colaborar superando las barreras espaciales y temporales (Jiménez y Llitjós, 2005; Stout et al., 1997; Towns et al., 1998). Desde la aparición de los primeras computadoras, el uso de éstas ha ido avanzando acorde a las necesidades de la sociedad; por ello es que en la actualidad no es difícil concebir la idea de que se utilicen como herramientas didácticas dentro de un aula, aunado al hecho de que internet se ha convertido en el medio masivo de difusión de información, aparentemente a la mano de cualquier comunidad social; no obstante las limitaciones que se tienen de acuerdo a los estándares económicos de estas comunidades vuelve restringido su uso, sin embargo; en la actualidad debe 85 KBSI2013 Papers entenderse su aplicación como una extensión más en el proceso enseñanza-aprendizaje donde tanto el alumno como el profesor se ven beneficiados . En un recuento histórico sobre la evolución de las TIC´s, Jiménez-Valverde y Llitjós-Viza (2006), afirmaron que la implementación de un nuevo recurso en el contexto escolar generó inicialmente un interés y entusiasmo, que disminuye con el tiempo, lo que lleva al docente a la tarea constante de estarse actualizando para generar nuevas herramientas didácticas que motiven la participación y colaboración de su comunidad escolar. El uso de las herramientas digitales lleva a la creación de internacionales que generan plataformas donde los alumnos pueden participar de manera proactiva en bien de su comunidad generando así no solo un interés con aspectos relacionados con su ambiente escolar, sino también a involucrarse en cuestiones económicas, políticas y sociales del resto de su entorno. Es importante señalar que la enseñanza que hace uso de hipermedia está basada en diferentes modelos que se tratarán a continuación. Uno de los modelos es el sistémico conformado por los siguientes elementos (Keegan, 1999): • • • • • Recursos: necesidades del alumnado, organizaciones, teoría, historia y filosofía. Diseño: instruccional, tecnológico, programa y evaluación. Envío: impreso, audio y video, radio, televisión, audioconferencia, videoconferencia, programas computacionales y red. Interacción: instructores, tutores, consejeros, personal administrativo. Ambiente de aprendizaje: trabajo, casa, salón de clases y centros de aprendizaje Este modelo pretende explicar que el uso de la hipermedia dentro de la educación está íntimamente ligado al contexto en el que se está ubicando. Este autor concibe a este tipo de educación como una integración de todas las partes que conforman dando énfasis a cada una de ellas. El modelo de Silva (2003) considera los siguientes puntos: • • • Fuentes de conocimiento y expertos: en este momento se definen el tipo de información y su transmisión, se fijan metas y objetivos. Diseño de cursos y materiales de apoyo: se define la metodología y tecnología para la transmisión de ellos. Comunicación de información e interacción por medio de tecnologías: comunicación entre el binomio educativo La verdadera función de los aparatos tecnológicos no debe ser la enseñanza en sí misma, sino más bien crear las condiciones para el aprendizaje a través de la articulación de herramientas culturales y herramientas tecnológicas que respondan a los propósitos de la educación (Giordan, 2008) Por ello si los recursos electrónicos son utilizados como apoyo para el docente, este debe entender que no es la herramienta un sustituto ni pretender que funcionará por sí misma, ya que en ocasiones puede tener el efecto contrario en los alumnos; es decir, se convierte en un aspecto negativo para el estudiante cuando esté no consigue avanzar en su proceso de enseñanza, por lo que se ve desmotivado al querer seguir utilizando el entorno virtual. Esta vinculación se desarrolla con técnicas computacionales para la programación de los entornos virtuales de aprendizaje (EVA). De esta manera el profesor se posiciona como un organizador de las actividades de la educación en los EVA y puede mediar en el proceso de desarrollo intelectual de los estudiantes. (Gois 2009) 86 KBSI2013 Papers Un EVA diseñado correctamente puede convertirse en un potenciador del desarrollo de habilidades y actitudes, tanto de los alumnos como del profesor, ya que ambos se ven beneficiados cuando se hace uso correcto de estos espacios de aprendizaje. La visualización de los recursos disponibles para la enseñanza de la química ha evolucionado de manera considerable en la última década, ahora es posible hacer uso de simuladores de procesos que en la práctica resultarían costosos y engorrosos para los estudiantes, además de controlar diversas variables sin tener que invertir grandes cantidades de dinero en la infraestructura de un laboratorio físico, haciéndolo todo a través de una computadora. Las representaciones son una parte importante de los conocimientos químicos, como una ciencia que se ocupa de la materia en una escala nanoscópica, de hecho se han utilizado para comunicar conceptos a los estudiantes en diferentes niveles. Actualmente es de base amplia la idea de que el conocimiento químico se construye con la combinación de las dimensiones macroscópica, nanoscópica y simbólica de la realidad. (Johnstone 1993) Un EVA inclusivo es aquel que promueve que el estudiante sea una parte activa de su elaboración permitiéndole a este desarrollar actividades que considere necesarias para su proceso de enseñanza, generando productos que satisfacen las necesidades de su comunidad escolar. En los últimos años se ha llegado asignar a los materiales en hipermedia el papel de catalizadores de un cambio en la docencia, ya que pueden suplir carencias de los libros de texto en cuanto a interactividad, dinamismo y tridimensionalidad (Jiménez y Llitjós 2006). Debido a esto el aprendizaje se ha visto centrado en el uso de las TIC´s, promoviendo la creación de espacios de colaboración en línea (on line), e incluso se habla de un nuevo paradigma educativo (Hiltz, 1998), en el que el alumno es ahora co- constructor de su propio conocimiento más que consumidor del mismo (Bruffee, 1993) No obstante lo anterior se debe tener en cuenta que aunque el alumno se vuelva parte inclusiva en la formación de su nuevo conocimiento, la guía del docente resulta punto clave para asegurar que se sigue con los objetivos planteados en el curso, debido a que es el que puede verificarlos de acuerdo a las necesidades que se presenten en el proceso. La mayoría de las investigaciones sobre el desarrollo de los EVA demuestran que estos se centran en el aprendizaje de los estudiantes; en las condiciones propicias para lograrlo y el éxito de las actividades que se dan en estos entornos depende también de si el docente asume los nuevos roles que le exige al profesorado la docencia en entornos virtuales: organizativo, social, intelectual o pedagógico (Mason, 1998). Un profesor virtual debe ser una guía para el estudiante durante el proceso de construcción de conocimiento, en vez de ser el experto que transmite sus conocimientos (McFadzean y McKenzie, 2001). Por lo que el docente virtual debe desempeñar los siguientes roles: • • Como organizador, debe crear los espacios virtuales del curso, el horario de trabajo, las reglas para participar en el foro y fomentar la participación activa de la comunidad educativa. Debe revisar periódicamente el ambiente de trabajo para detectar posibles fallos y repararlo a la brevedad, verificar que se cuente siempre con conexión a internet, además de corroborar que los programas elegidos eventualmente sean compatibles con el sistema operativo que se trabaja, así como actualizarlos constantemente. El rol social implica dar un ambiente de bienvenida en el entorno virtual, mensajes de agradecimientos, respuestas a los comentarios elaborados por los estudiantes, generando un ambiente amigable para la comunidad educativa. Conducir las discusiones en el foro apropiadamente promoviendo en respeto e igualdad. 87 KBSI2013 • Papers El rol intelectual o pedagógico implica un nivel cognitivo más alto, para formular y dar respuesta, para proporcionar retroalimentación, unificar criterios, establecer y explicar las tareas, para generar temas para los estudiantes expertos e incrementar paulatinamente el nivel académico del curso en línea (on line). Proporcionar los mecanismos de evaluación acorde a los objetivos planteados de manera inicial en el curso. El conocimiento no existe en el mundo de uno o en las mentes individuales, sino que es un aspecto de participación en prácticas culturales (Leve y Wenger, 1991). Lo que se opone a la teoría de que el aprendizaje es una cuestión y adquisición individual y estos resultados se realizan a través de un proceso de transferencia (Sfard, 1998). Así el aprendizaje es un proceso de interconexiones individuales y sociales, que convergen en un punto donde el individuo es el responsable de los mecanismos que elige para llevarlo a cabo, ya que si bien el conocimiento formal es aquel que se adquiere en las instituciones educativas no es el único lugar para obtenerlo ya que también es conocimiento aquel que se construye a partir de las experiencias vividas en los diferentes contextos del individuo, mediante la interacción con la sociedad en la que habita, pues entonces el aprendizaje puede concebirse como un mecanismo que va de lo individual a lo general, siendo éste determinado por las condiciones sociales y culturales en las que se lleve a cabo. Por lo tanto se puede hacer referencia a esto mismo en el ámbito virtual, si bien el estudiante es quien participa de manera individual, siendo esta participación enriquecida con la incursión en actividades diseñadas para una discusión grupal lo que promueve que esos concomimientos o ideas previas se modifiquen o reconstruyan generando así un nuevo conocimiento, originado por la interacción activa dentro del espacio virtual. METODOLOGÍA Se construyó un portal web en un ambiente virtual gratuito que ofrece Google llamado Google Sites, aprovechando que es una herramienta de fácil manejo que permite que el portal pueda ser modificado constantemente sin necesidad de manejar lenguaje el HTML(Fig.1). Los materiales se encuentran disponibles en el portal web cuya dirección electrónica es: https://sites.google.com/site/portalquimicahumboldt/home. 88 KBSI2013 Papers Para la elaboración del portal web se consideraron los siguientes aspectos: Que los objetivos para el diseño del portal web estuvieran de acuerdo al programa de estudios del curso de química a de nivel preparatoria de la BUAP (Anexo 1). • Que ayude a planificar y organizar la información durante todo el curso. • Que motive el interés de los alumnos al utilizar este medio de información • Que defina los objetivos que se pretenden alcanzar durante el curso al hacer uso de esta herramienta. • Que muestre contenidos significativos y operacionales • Que fomente la participación activa del estudiante volviéndolo protagonista de su propio conocimiento • Que propicie actividades que promuevan respuestas para un análisis posterior. • Que promueva la metacognición, siendo el papel del docente el de guía en el proceso educativo. • Que potencie el trabajo colaborativo. • Que incentive la retroalimentación • Que omente a que los aprendizajes adquiridos sean aplicados a otros contextos. • Que propicie la autoevaluación como medio para reforzar el aprendizaje ya que el alumno identificara sus fortalezas y sus puntos a mejorar. Los puntos anteriores fueron evaluados mediante una serie de rúbricas. (Anexo 2) • En la barra lateral izquierda del “Portal de Química Humboldt” aparece un índice con las siguientes secciones, a las cuales se puede acceder con un sencillo click. Las cuales se citan a continuación: Conferencia. Cada mes se selecciona un tema relacionado con un tópico de interés y se selecciona una conferencia, para después realizar una tarea en base a esta información. Fuentes de información: En esta sección se sugieren a los alumnos sitios web especializados en la materia de química, pueden encontrar tanto bibliotecas como metabuscadores. Páginas web generalizadas: Se pueden encontrar páginas especializadas sobre temas específicos, se les indica a los alumnos lo que podrán encontrar en cada una de ellas. Revistas electrónicas: Se sugieren como medio de información e investigación para la elaboración de trabajos y tareas curriculares y extracurriculares. Bibliotecas. Listado de bibliotecas nacionales e internacionales que manejan su información por web. Biografías. Se escoge un personaje famoso del mes y se publica su vida. Ejercicios que abarcan las siguientes secciones: o Crucigramas para identificar a los elementos químicos o Estequiometría. o Formulación de compuestos químicos o Nomenclatura de química inorgánica y orgánica o Escritura de reacciones Herramientas para construir animaciones. Muestra tutoriales de cómo crear animaciones que ayuden en la elaboración de sus presentaciones. Laboratorios virtuales. En esta sección se pueden encontrar laboratorios en línea (on line) que permiten recrear experimentos. 89 KBSI2013 Papers Simuladores. Se utilizan para recrear situaciones que apoyan a los alumnos para entender un problema planteado. Tabla periódica. Se ofrece una modalidad interactiva para que los alumnos la tengan disponible. Tutoriales en temas de química general, inorgánica y orgánica Videos que apoyan a temas vistos durante el curso IMPLEMENTACIÓN DEL PORTAL WEB A) Se consideró que los materiales didácticos que se podrán encontrar en el portal web deben ser enfocados a una labor tutorial ya que esto facilitará al alumno la comprensión de los contenidos, no sólo se abordará la teoría sino que esta irá acompañada de una serie de ejercicios de aplicación para posteriormente se puedan verificar, promoviendo así el pensamiento constructivista de los alumnos. B) Se realizó una revisión de sitios de internet, que cumplieran con los objetivos planteados del curso y además se ofrecieran ejercicios de aplicación en diferentes niveles cognitivos. C) Los materiales se agruparon en secciones que fueran de fácil acceso para la comunidad educativa y se nombraron de forma sencilla para su rápida localización. EVALUACIÓN DEL PORTAL WEB Para la evaluación del portal web se llevó cabo una investigación cualitativa donde el objetivo de esta fue la interpretación de las conclusiones obtenidas del objeto de estudio. El objeto de estudio para esta investigación se basó en una muestra de 15 estudiantes que están en el curso de Química I durante el primer año de preparatoria, cuyas edades oscilan entre los 15 y 16 años de edad. Los recursos que se utilizaron para la recolección de datos fueron: a) El cuestionario con el cual se pudo recabar información que describía aspectos de la experiencia de los alumnos al hacer uso del hipermedia en el curso de química. Se elaboró a partir de preguntas cerradas para datos de identificación y descripción de los sujetos que son el objeto de estudio. Otra parte estuvo compuesta por preguntas abiertas donde se pudo analizar las opiniones sobre las ventajas y desventajas que se experimentaron durante el curso y recomendaciones que hacen los alumnos para mejorar la eficiencia del uso del portal web. Cuestionario Nombre: _______________________________________________________________ Edad: _____________ Curso: __________________ Grado escolar: _______________ El siguiente cuestionario tiene como finalidad conocer la calidad y funcionalidad del portal web utilizado durante el curso de Química. Para las preguntas del Q1 al Q7 encierra en un círculo tu respuesta, del Q8 al Q10 expresa tus comentarios: Q1. La información contenida es precisa (formato, ortografía, gramática) Sí No Parcialmente 90 KBSI2013 Papers Q2. ¿Es el sitio navegable, bien organizado, fácil de manejar? Sí No Parcialmente Q3. ¿Encuentras actividades didácticas o sólo se exponen contenidos? Sí No Parcialmente Q4. ¿Existe un balance adecuado entre los aspectos técnicos y educativos? Sí No Parcialmente Q5. ¿El sitio web posibilita la interacción entre usuarios? Sí No Parcialmente Q6. ¿Los enlaces están etiquetados de tal manera que ofrezcan una información clara de hacia donde los dirige? Sí No Parcialmente Q7. ¿Puedes encontrar, además del correo del contacto, una dirección física u otra información relevante donde puedas enviar dudas o comentarios? Sí No Parcialmente Q8. ¿Qué tipo de aprendizaje se busca, autónomo, individual, colectivo, colaborativo…? Q9. ¿El enfoque es atractivo o muy similar a otros sitios que hayas consultado para el área de química? ___________________________________________________________________________ Q10. ¿Se ofrecen contenidos útiles o muy similares a otros que materiales que consultaste? ___________________________________________________________________________ b) La entrevista se llevó a cabo con una muestra de 5 estudiantes de la población original con el fin de conocer la experiencia en el uso de tecnologías en la educación, comparación entre material didáctico electrónico y su libro de texto, si la información contenida en el portal web fue relevante para la realización de sus trabajos y si fue de utilidad como herramienta de apoyo para el logro de su aprendizaje en el curso. Para la interpretación de los datos se utilizó la estrategia de triangulación para poder comprender e interpretar lo que los alumnos manifiestan sobre el uso de los materiales didácticos contenidos en el portal web, haciendo énfasis en el análisis de las respuestas una vez que hayan sido categorizadas además de verificar si existe congruencia entre la información aportada por el portal web y el programa de estudios. ENTREVISTA La siguiente entrevista tuvo como propósito conocer los comentarios de algunos alumnos que participaron en el uso de hipermedia como recurso didáctico en un curso de química. 1. ¿Puedes describir la experiencia que tuviste al hacer uso de hipermedia en tu curso de química? 2. ¿Consideras que la utilización de este tipo de materiales didácticos contribuye para la mejora de tu aprendizaje? 91 KBSI2013 Papers 3. ¿Los materiales dispuestos te motivan a la realización de trabajos o tareas extraescolares? 4. ¿Cuáles serían las ventajas o desventajas que encontraste al hacer uso de esta herramienta? 5. En tu siguiente curso de Química II ¿volverías a utilizar el hipermedia? RESULTADOS Resultados para el cuestionario: RESULTADOS DEL CUESTIONARIO SI No. ALUMNOS 15 NO PARCIALMENTE 14 11 11 10 7 6 6 4 0 0 Q1 3 0 0 Q2 Q3 1 5 3 1 Q4 3 3 1 Q5 Q6 Q7 PREGUNTAS Para la pregunta 8 la mayoría opinan que es aprendizaje individual en la mayoría de los casos, y algunas veces es colectivo. Para la pregunta 9 opinan que el enfoque es muy atractivo por los diferentes artículos que se encuentran en la página, pero sin hacer referencia a comparación con otros portales existentes en la web. Para la pregunta 10 se dividen las opiniones entre 50% que opinan que son útiles, mientras el otro 50% dicen que son similares a otras fuentes en la web. Resultados de las entrevistas 1. ¿Puedes describir la experiencia que tuviste al hacer uso de hipermedia en tu curso de química? La mayoría opinó que es muy interesante la experiencia que tuvieron al usar la página ya que les facilitó la realización de la mayoría de sus trabajos tanto dentro como fuera del aula, sin embargo hay algunos que sugieren que la página podría tener un contenido mejor, es decir, con mayores contenidos sobre el curso y con más tutoriales para facilitar su aprendizaje. 92 KBSI2013 Papers 2. ¿Consideras que la utilización de este tipo de materiales didácticos contribuye para la mejora de tu aprendizaje? En todos los casos la respuesta fue afirmativa ya que consideraron a la herramienta como un tutor virtual que los podía auxiliar en caso de requerir apoyo en la comprensión de conceptos o realización de ejercicios. 3. ¿Los materiales dispuestos te motivan a la realización de trabajos o tareas extraescolares? Sólo 2 de 5 contestaron afirmativamente, mostrando cierto desinterés por el hecho de que se hacía referencia a tener que hacer más tareas. 4. ¿Cuáles serían las ventajas o desventajas que encontraste al hacer uso de esta herramienta? Entre las ventajas que mencionan es que no tuvieron que buscar más en otros sitios porque la mayoría de la información solicitada se encontraba disponible en el portal, pero dentro de las desventajas era que algunos temas o ejercicios no estaban bien explicados lo que les dificultaba la comprensión de los mismos. 5. En tu siguiente curso de Química II ¿volverías a utilizar el hipermedia? Todas las respuestas fueron afirmativas. CONCLUSIONES Se desarrolló y evaluó la herramienta didáctica digital conocida como “Portal de Química Humboldt”, que sirvió como apoyo en la enseñanza de química a nivel medio superior, en el Colegio Humboldt durante el ciclo escolar 2012-2013. En la elaboración del portal web se consideraron las ideas y conocimientos previos de los estudiantes, además de englobar actividades visuales, auditivas y quinestésicas. El material contenido dentro de este portal sirvió al estudiante como una guía para la construcción de su conocimiento; sin embargo existen aspectos que se deben mejorar en cuanto a los contenidos y la manera en la que se presentan en el ambiente virtual. Se evaluaron las herramientas didácticas contenidas en el portal web y su funcionalidad, se promovió el trabajo colaborativo creando espacios confiables donde se promovieran valores y actitudes en la comunidad educativa. Se fortaleció la relación entre el binomio alumno-profesor promoviendo el uso de la retroalimentación, volviendo al alumno parte activa de su aprendizaje. Se concluye que se deben buscar estrategias que permitan que el portal web funcione como ambiente de trabajo colaborativo, para que el alumno se sienta motivado a seguir utilizándolo para cursos posteriores. Se pretende que en las próximas modificaciones al portal web sean los propios alumnos los que siguieran los contenidos que aparecerían, además de involucrarlos constantemente en la creación de nuevos materiales. El portal tiene como finalidad ser una guía en el proceso educativo, pero no pretende sustituir el rol que juega el profesor en el aula, está diseñado para complementar su trabajo y apoyar al alumno en los diferentes estilos de aprendizaje. 93 KBSI2013 Papers El ambiente virtual está diseñado con herramientas que además permiten al docente poder evaluar los trabajos realizados en el haciendo uso de herramientas como el portafolio de evidencia, estudios de casos, rúbricas, todos ellos elaborados a partir de los contendidos que se pueden encontrar en él. Aunque en un principio resulte una herramienta novedosa no debe olvidarse que a lo largo del proceso puede volverse monótona, por lo que es responsabilidad del docente el incentivar la motivación de la comunidad escolar, así como la elaboración de materiales que promuevan el uso de esta sin hacerla parecer como el único recurso que se tiene disponible. Finalmente se creó una comunidad educativa comprometida con el proceso enseñanzaaprendizaje en ambiente de trabajo colaborativo que permitió convertir una aula inteligente en una aula visible con las perspectivas de extenderse a otras asignaturas e inclusive a traducirse al Inglés y al Alemán. Es importante hacer notar que aunque no tenemos un entrenamiento en KB y no conocíamos el KF, mucho de lo que se logró en este trabajo está de acuerdo a los doce principios de Knowledge Building, por lo que nos es muy grato compartir nuestros hallazgos en IKIT. AGRADECIMIENTOS Agradecemos los valiosos comentarios del M. en C. Aarón Pérez Benítez. BIBLIOGRAFÍA Barnard, W. R. (1968). Projection screens and chalk boards in the modern chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 45(8), 543-546. Bruffee,K.A(1993).Collaborative learning Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Daza, et.al (2009). Experiencias de enseñanza de la química con el apoyo de las TIC. De Aniversario: La educación y las TIC, 10(2), 320-325. Durban, S.A. (1941). Teaching weighing techniques the aid of a motion picture film. Journal of Chemical Education, 18(11), 520. Earp, R.L. y Tissue, B.M. (1995). A PERL script to generate HTML pages containing multiplechoice questions. The Chemical Educator, 1(5). Consultado el 3/01/2012 en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1333/s00897960055a Giordan, M.(2008). Computadores e linguagens nas aulas de ciencias. Ed. Da Unijuí. Ijuí-RS. P. 328 Gois, J. (2009). Entornos Virtuales de aprendizaje en química: una revisión de la literatura. Educación Química, 3(20), 302. Hiltz, S.R. (1998). “Collaborative learning in asynchronous learning networks: Building leaning communities”, en Proceedings of the WEB’98, Orlando 1998. Holmes, C.O. y Warden, J.T. (1996). CIS Studio: worldwide web-bases, interactive chemical information course. Journal of Chemical Education,73(4), 325-331. Jiménez, G. y Llitjós, A. (2005b). Cooperación en entornos telemáticos en la enseñanza de la química. Revista Eureka sobre enseñanza y divulgación de las Ciencias, 3(1), 115-133. Consultado el 3/01/2012 en: http://www.apaceureka.org/revista/Volumen3/Numero_3_1/Jiménez_y_Llitjos_2006.pdf Jiménez , V.G. y Llitjós, V.A(2006).Una revisión histórica de los recursos didácticos de los recursos didácticos audiovisuales e informáticos en la enseñanza de la química. Revista electrónica de enseñanza de las Ciencias, 5(1), 1-8. 94 KBSI2013 Papers Johnstone, A.H 1993. The Development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand, J. Chem. Educ., 70(2), 701-704 Jones, L.J y Smith, S.G. (1993). Multimedia technology: a catalyst of change in chemical education. Pure vs. Applied Chemistry,65(2), 245-249. Killefer, D.H. (1924). Chemical Education via radio. Journal of Chemical Education, 1(3), 43-48. Keegan, D.(1988). “Problems in Definig the Field of Distance Education”, en The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(2), 12-15. Lagowski, J.J.(1998). Chemical Education: past, present, and future. Journal of Chemical Education,75(4), 425-436. Leve, J. y Wenger, E. (1991). Situed Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lynch C.(2003); The Visible Classroom, EDUCAUSE review, July-August,68. Matthews, F.J. (1997) Chemical literature: a course composed of traditional and online searching techniques. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(2), 1011-1014. Mason, R. (1998) Models of online courses, Asynchronous Learning Networks Magazine. 2(3), 111. McFadzean, E. y McKenzie, J.(2001) Faciliting virtual learning groups. A practical approach, J. Manag. Develop., 20(1), 470-494. McGowan, C. y Sendall, P. (1997). Using the world wide web to enhance writing assignments in introductory chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(4), 391. Pence, L.E (1999). Cooperative electronic mail: effective communication technology for introductory chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education,76(5), 697-698. Parrill, A. L. y Gervay, J. (1997). Discovery-based stereochemistry tutorials available on the world wide web. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 329. Paulisse, K. W. y Polik, W. F. (1999). Use of WWW discussion boards in chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(5), 704-707. Pence, H. E. (1993). Combining cooperative learning and multimedia in general chemistry. Education, 11(3), 375-380. Prendes, M.P. y Solano, I.M. (2001). Multimedia como recurso para la formación. Actas de las III Jornadas Multimedia Educativo,25-26 de junio (pp.460-470).Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona Rosas B.Y, De Ita C.M y González V.E (2009) De aulas visibles e invisibles y hasta inteligentes. Educación Química, 20 (3), 330. Sfard, A.(1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one, Educ. Resear. 20(27), 4-13 Stevens, K.E y Stevens, R.E (1996). Use the world-wide web in lower division chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(10), 923. Stout, R.; Towns, M. H.; Sauder, D.; Zielinski, T. J. y Long, G. (1997). Online cooperative learning in physical chemistry. The Chemical Educator [versión electrónica], 1(2), S14304171(97)01107-2. Consultado el 03/01/2012 en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1333/s00897970107a Tissue, B.M. (1996). Applying hypermedia to chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education,73(1), 65-68. Tissue, B. M. (1997). Overview of interactive programming methods for the world-wide web. Trends in analytical chemistry, 16(9), 490-495. Towns, M. H.; Kreke, K.; Sauder, S.; Stout, R.; Long, G. y Zielinski, T. J. (1998). An assessment of a physical chemistry online activity. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(12), 1653-1657. Varveri, F.S. (1993). Information retrieval in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education,70 (3), 204-208. Waldow, D.A.; Fryhlr, C.B. y Bock, J.C. (1997). CIRRUS: A chemistry internet resource for research by undergraduate students. Journal of Chemical Education, 74 (4), 441-442. 95 KBSI2013 Papers Construcción de Artefactos Conceptuales a Partir de Foros de Discusión en Línea Oscar Ernesto Hernández López, Universidad Iberoamericana Puebla Email: [email protected] Karen Huesca Viveros, Instituto de Estudios Universitarios Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT: This paper presents a way to encourage the development of knowledgebuilding communities using the Moodle online discussion forum. The study focuses on the observation of the development of a conceptual artifact from the contributions of the students made as a community to build knowledge collectively. The task is facilitated by the features added to the Moodle discussion forum, with these modifications is possible to classify inputs according the categories that are selected from a menu, and selecting the contributions that each student considers most appropriate as in Knowledge Forum for the development of an assay. The community under study was a group of doctoral students in online education of the Instituto de Estudios Universitarios of Puebla. The results of this work allow assess how a relationship networks generate individual contributions that allow students to take advantage of all notes shared for improving the process of knowledge building community. The methodology used for the construction of community knowledge corresponds to the 12 principles of Knowledge Building RESUMEN: En este trabajo se presenta una manera de fomentar la creación de comunidades de construcción de conocimiento utilizando el foro de discusión en línea de moodle. El estudio se centra en la observación de la elaboración de un artefacto conceptual a partir de las contribuciones de los alumnos constituidos como comunidad para construir conocimiento colectivamente. La tarea se facilita gracias a las características agregadas al foro de discusión de moodle, con estas modificaciones es posible clasificar las aportaciones de acuerdo a las categorías que se seleccionan de un menú y seleccionar las aportaciones que cada uno considere más convenientes para la elaboración de un ensayo. La comunidad bajo estudio la formaron el grupo de estudiantes del doctorado en educación en línea del IEU online del Instituto de Estudios Universitarios. Los resultados de este trabajo permiten valorar cómo se generan redes de relaciones a partir de las contribuciones individuales que permiten a los alumnos sacar provecho de las participaciones de todos los compañeros mejorando así el proceso de construcción de conocimiento comunitario. La metodología usada para la construcción de conocimiento comunitario corresponde a la propuesta pedagógica Knowledge Building a través de los 12 principios que la sustentan. Palabras clave: Comunidades de construcción de conocimiento, andamiaje plurimedial, artefactos conceptuales, foro de discusión, knowledge building. Introducción Abdul Waheed Khan, siendo subdirector general de la UNESCO para la Comunicación y la Información decía que el concepto de “sociedad de la información” está relacionado con la idea de la innovación tecnológica, mientras que el concepto de “sociedades del conocimiento” implica más la idea de una transformación social, cultural, económica, política e institucional, así como una perspectiva más pluralista y desarrolladora (Burch, 2006), por eso el gran reto educativo de hoy consiste en desarrollar estudiantes y ciudadanos que no solamente posean conocimiento 96 KBSI2013 Papers actualizado sino que sean capaces de participar en la creación de nuevo conocimiento como parte normal de sus vidas. Las escuelas deben ser parte activa de la sociedad del conocimiento produciéndolo y utilizándolo, conocimiento que debe ser socialmente construido a través de colaboraciones y éstas pueden darse entre alumnos dentro de una sala de clase o entre estudiantes de diferentes centros educativos, países y culturas constituyendo así comunidades que construyen conocimiento en ambientes presenciales o en las variadas modalidades de la educación a distancia. Construir conocimiento en una comunidad va más allá del interés por el aprendizaje, significa producir y mejorar las ideas valiosas sin límite de fronteras ni físicas ni geográficas (Hernández, 2008) El concepto constructivista del aprendizaje plantea que éste se logra de manera significativa cuando el alumno participa activamente y estas características se ven favorecidas no solamente con las nuevas tecnologías que tienen la virtud potencial de hacer participar a los estudiantes y de estimular de diferentes modos la percepción mediante los cuales se capta y se procesa la información, también los medios tradicionales como libros y cuadernos juegan un papel importante en el proceso de aprendizaje (Scardamalia & Bereiter,2005). En el campo educativo, últimamente se ha acentuado el énfasis en la investigación colaborativa más que en la individual, se habla de promover el “conocimiento del conocimiento” lo cual tiene muchas implicaciones educativas en una civilización creadora de conocimiento, una de ellas consiste en la transición del aprendizaje cooperativo en el que los estudiantes participan trabajando sólo una parte del problema a la construcción colaborativa del conocimiento en la que todos participan y se responsabilizan en el avance de la frontera del conocimiento. En los entornos virtuales, presenciales o a distancia, se utilizan foros de discusión pero se pueden aprovechar mejor para que un curso, una asignatura, un espacio académico se puedan transformar en una comunidad de construcción de conocimiento facilitando la conexión entre los nodos de la red, es decir, de los miembros de la comunidad. Planteamiento del problema Muchas de las teorías del aprendizaje se centran en el análisis de los procesos individuales, por eso las teorías cognitivas no pueden explicar casi nada acerca del conocimiento que existe en la colectividad (Bereiter, 2002 y Gros, 2007). Bereiter distingue con mucha claridad el aprendizaje de la construcción de conocimiento. Construir conocimiento implica el esfuerzo colectivo para el avance y la elaboración de los artefactos conceptuales tales como las ideas y las teorías mientras que el aprendizaje se orienta hacia el cambio en las estructuras del conocimiento individual. En cuanto a la moderna educación a distancia, prácticamente todos los ambientes virtuales de aprendizaje incluyen foros de discusión, estos espacios permiten la participación de los alumnos en los temas que se proponen o que ellos desean abordar, sin embargo, resulta difícil dar seguimiento a las ideas principales que se generan en ellos y sobre todo, muy pocas veces se obtienen resultados concretos de las discusiones desarrolladas en esos foros, por otra parte, muchos de los cursos en la educación virtual establecen como requisito que los alumnos participen en los foros, los criterios se establecen la mayoría de las veces en función del número de accesos en tiempos determinados, generalmente semanas pero no establecen claramente criterios de pertinencia, y lo que es peor, no se proponen resultados específicos de esos foros, suelen ser espacios en los que los participantes expresan sus creencias, comentan las lecturas y hacen preguntas que muchas veces quedan sin respuesta pero acaban por ser registros que muy pocas veces sirven para lago más (Gros, 2007). Objetivo del trabajo Muchas escuelas en todo el mundo están incorporando la comunicación a través de redes sobre todo basadas en Internet en sus actividades educativas, pero en su mayoría no logran ningún cambio fundamental en el discurso del aula sea ésta presencial o virtual. En algunos casos, 97 KBSI2013 Papers Internet solamente provee una biblioteca de recursos para ser usados, para escribir informes y otros documentos, en otros casos se organizan proyectos de investigación conjuntos entre distintas escuelas pero siempre con la dificultad de organizar la información de las discusiones y su correspondiente seguimiento. El objetivo de este trabajo consistió en crear un ambiente virtual para cursos en línea mediante la adaptación del foro de discusión de moodle conforme a la pedagogía Knowledge Building para que se facilite el análisis de las participaciones de todos los alumnos y que mediante la selección de las que cada alumno considere más adecuadas de acuerdo al enfoque del problema que desee abordar y que haya sido tratado en el foro, pueda crear un artefacto conceptual: un ensayo Enfoque teórico Las ideas rara vez se tratan aisladamente, sistemáticamente se interconectan, una idea asume, contradice, restringe o de alguna forma se relaciona con otras. Lograr la comprensión de una idea es explorar estas interconexiones y profundizar a medida que se sintetiza y construye para tener una perspectiva más amplia. La construcción exitosa de conocimiento, implica el que las ideas se encajen profundamente en estructuras conceptuales más amplias, como en las prácticas de construcción de conocimiento en una comunidad en la que los participantes comparten la responsabilidad por el conocimiento comunitario adicionalmente a los logros individuales, esto es Knowledge Building, provee una alternativa que está dirigida a satisfacer la necesidad de educar personas para un mundo en el que la creación de conocimiento y la innovación se expande cada día. Knowledge Building puede ser definido como la producción y continuo mejoramiento de ideas valiosas para una comunidad, esto quiere decir que se incrementa la probabilidad de que lo que la comunidad puede lograr colaborativamente será mayor a la suma de las contribuciones individuales (Scardamalia, 2002). Knowledge Building puede entenderse mejor y llevarse a la práctica siguiendo los doce principios establecidos como la columna vertebral de este paradigma. Es necesario que los alumnos trabajen con ideas reales para la solución de problemas auténticos (principio 1), para ello se necesita una diversidad de ideas (principio 2), pero se debe ir más lejos por lo que el mejoramiento de las ideas (principio 3) es fundamental, este proceso requiere de una gestión epistémica (principio 4) de parte de todos los integrantes del grupo, la información con respecto al tema o problema que se trata proviene de fuentes de información con autoridad, confiables y diversas (principio 5), el espacio para pensar, discutir, observar y resolver va más allá del aula y la escuela, así se logra una construcción permanente del conocimiento (principio 6), el problema a resolver o trabajo a realizar no debe seguir siendo visto como un rompecabezas en el que cada miembro del equipo se ocupa de una parte y éstas se ensamblan al final, se trata de fomentar la responsabilidad colectiva para el conocimiento comunitario (principio 7) lo que implica el derecho de todos a participar, opinar, disentir y construir, es decir, estamos hablando de una democratización del conocimiento (principio 8), conforme se avanza en la construcción del conocimiento se va generando un discurso transformativo progresivo (principio 9), como en toda discusión hay que rescatar los elementos fundamentales y separarlos de los menos importantes o más triviales para avanzar en lo sustantivo, ir a lo más profundo, por eso es necesario hacer un resumen incremental (principio 10), siguiendo estos principios se logra el avance simétrico del conocimiento (principio 11)y así el grupo alcanza la madurez para realizar una autoevaluación transformativa (principio 12) (Durana, Hernández y Sánchez, 2006). Knowledge Forun (KF) fue desarrollado para hacer operativa la pedagogía Knowledge Building, es un medio asincrónico en el que el conocimiento representado por las notas en la base de datos se preserva y está continuamente disponible para búsquedas, comentarios, referencias y revisiones. Provee varios soportes específicos para la construcción de conocimiento que continúan siendo mejorados en versiones sucesivas de la plataforma. El KF permite que ese encaje profundo vaya mucho más allá de lo que otras plataformas que gestionan conocimiento 98 KBSI2013 Papers permiten, una simple nota del KF se puede ver como la personificación de una idea, esa nota se identifica con un problema y con palabras que constituyen categorías, esas categorías se utilizan como “andamiajes” que le dan a la nota un rol en el trabajo más amplio con ideas como refinamiento de teorías, recolección de evidencia, argumentación, interpretación literaria, etc. Knowledge Forum es una plataforma en red que permite la creación de espacios virtuales para la discusión y la creación conjunta de materiales. El KF no tiene como objetivo crear un foro de intercambio de información u opiniones sino que aspira a ser un espacio de apoyo para la construcción de conocimiento que se genera a partir de las contribuciones individuales y grupales de los participantes. Por otra parte KF no es un LMS, no puede ser usado en cursos en línea como la plataforma sobre la que se diseñe y ejecute un curso virtual porque carece de todas las demás características que se necesitan para un curso en línea y utilizar dos plataformas que se complementan resulta confuso para los estudiantes y difícil de manejar tanto para el profesor como para los estudiantes. Para eliminar este inconveniente y aprovechando la posibilidad que ofrece moodle de modificar el código, hemos incorporado algunas de las características del KF a los foros de este LMS. Estas modificaciones se describen a continuación. Metodología La primera etapa consistió en modificar el código de moodle para que el foro de discusión tuviera las características necesarias para ayudar en la construcción de artefactos conceptuales como por ejemplo un ensayo. En la figura 1 se ilustra la pantalla para la captura de una participación en el foro y se observan dos campos agregados, uno es un menú deslizante para clasificar la aportación y otro es un campo para introducir palabras clave, por ahora este segundo campo no está activado para búsquedas y ordenamiento de información, pero será de mucha utilidad para buscar y agrupar participaciones bajo estas palabras clave. La figura 2 muestra el menú de opciones para clasificar la contribución, es obligatorio seleccionar una de ellas en cada contribución que se haga en el foro. Una vez que las contribuciones han sido realizadas, cuando éstas son consultadas aparecen como se muestra en la figura 3. Cada contribución presenta en la parte superior izquierda, la clasificación utilizada para esta contribución, en este caso “Nueva Información”, se indica con el número 1 encerrado en un círculo rojo, un click sobre este letrero provocará que se muestren todas las contribuciones en el debate clasificadas con este nombre, en este caso se mostrarían todas las contribuciones clasificadas como “nueva información” realizadas por éste y otros autores que hayan clasificado contribuciones con el nombre “nueva información” y que se encuentren en este mismo debate, un click sobre el letrero “T. foro” (todo el foro) mostrará todas las contribuciones con la misma clasificación en todo el foro, es decir, busca y muestra todas las contribuciones que estén clasificadas como “nueva información” en todos los debates de este foro, y un click en el letrero “O. foro” (organiza todo el foto) mostrará todas los contribuciones en el foro de todos los participantes ordenadas por clasificación de acuerdo al orden en la lista de la figura 2. 99 KBSI2013 Papers Fig. 1 Campos para clasificación y Palabras clave agregados a Moodle Un click en el nombre del participante señalado con el número 4 genera la presentación de todas las participaciones de ese usuario en todos los foros de esa base de datos, es decir, si en el curso hay 3 foros, presentará todas las participaciones del usuario en los tres foros del curso. Fig. 2 Clasificaciones posibles para las participaciones en el foro En este reporte se muestra en cada contribución el foro al que pertenece ésta y las etiquetas de las contribuciones que se encuentran en la misma por arriba de la que se consulta como se muestra en la figura 4, la letra “a” encerrada en el circulo rojo indica el foro al que pertenece la contribución, la letra “b” indica el nombre del foro y las etiquetas que forman la rama en la que se encuentra esta contribución, es decir, la contribución de la figura 4 se encuentra en el “foro único” de llama “docencia” y la contribución inicia un debate con la etiqueta “evaluación docente”. 100 KBSI2013 Papers Fig. 3 Funciones de búsqueda y ordenamiento en el foro Un click en el letrero “foro” a un lado del nombre del participante enlista todas las contribuciones de ese participante en ese mismo foro mientras que un click en el letrero debate, enlista todas las contribuciones de ese participante en ese mismo debate. Fig. 4 Claves de ordenamiento Uso del foro de discusión de moodle modificado para generar artefactos conceptuales. La experiencia se tuvo en un curso de Doctorado en línea del Instituto de Estudios Universitarios del ieuOnline que se desarrolló durante tres meses en el año 2010 con la participación de 13 alumnos. Al iniciar el curso, se explicó a los participantes la manera en que funciona el foro y la utilización que se haría de él. Desde las primeras contribuciones de los alumnos, se hizo énfasis en la importancia de clasificar correctamente cada una de ellas ya que esto los ayuda a darse cuenta de su proceso intelectual, el alumno se obliga a ordenar su pensamiento y lo ayuda a reformularse nuevas 101 KBSI2013 Papers preguntas y construir sobre las aportaciones de los compañeros. La incorporación de ideas de diferentes compañeros facilita al alumno ampliar su perspectiva sobre la discusión, este intercambio de ideas favoreció la mejora de las teorías que iban surgiendo y ayudó a que el alumno se diera cuenta de que toda teoría es mejorable siempre. Se pidió a cada alumno la elaboración de un ensayo que recogiera las participaciones en el foro que necesitara para ello, éstas conclusiones constituyen el artefacto conceptual construido colaborativamente, no es la suma del conocimiento individual de los integrantes del grupo sino el conocimiento creado gracias a diversas contribuciones, éstas aparecen en este documento a modo de referencias bibliográficas es decir, gracias a esas y otras contribuciones de esta comunidad fue posible construir ese conocimiento nuevo. Resultado de la experiencia Mediante la utilización de herramientas que favorecen la construcción de conocimiento como el foro de moodle con las modificaciones explicadas en este escrito, se facilita el trabajo colaborativo y sobre todo es posible aprovechar fácilmente la riqueza de los foros para generar artefactos conceptuales que evidencian el conocimiento construido colaborativamente. La utilización de las participaciones de los compañeros en la elaboración del ensayo personal se presenta en la tabla 1 para n= 13. Cada alumno cita a sus compañeros para sustentar su trabajo, tales referencias a su vez están relacionadas a lecturas de los materiales del curso o debates y reflexiones relacionadas a dichas lecturas así como dudas o cuestionamientos que surgen al analizar críticamente los materiales y participaciones en el foro. Promedio de participaciones propias en el ensayo 8 Promedio de participaciones ajenas incluidas en el ensayo 9 Promedio de compañeros citados en los ensayos 7 Promedio de Notas Nueva información utilizadas por ensayo 8 Promedio de notas Necesito entender utilizadas por ensayo 4 Promedio de notas Mi teoría utilizadas por ensayo 5 Promedio de notas Juntando nuestro conocimiento utilizadas por ensayo 3 Tabla 1. Participaciones utilizadas en los ensayos Discusión La Tabla 1 muestra la riqueza de los ensayos presentados en términos de la colaboración entre los estudiantes, aunque todos los ensayos versan sobre el mismo tema que se discutió en el foro, los trabajos individuales están enriquecidos por las colaboraciones comunitarias, cada trabajo individual lleva implícito el trabajo intelectual de los demás, la articulación de las participaciones de los miembros del grupo permite profundizar en el tema en lo grupal y favorece la comprensión simétrica de los alumnos, además, cada alumno es consciente de la importancia de las aportaciones de sus compañeros y las reconoce al citarlos y considerarlos coautores de su propio 102 KBSI2013 Papers trabajo. El resultado recabado de la evaluación del curso demuestra que los alumnos reconocen que su trabajo no hubiera alcanzado la profundidad y claridad obtenida sin la participación de sus compañeros. Conclusiones Los resultados alcanzados en esta experiencia de tipo exploratorio, ya que no se cuenta con información sistematizada que relacione las participaciones de los alumnos en foros de discusión en línea, permiten observar cómo se pueden construir artefactos conceptuales en cursos en línea utilizando foros. Componentes tecnológicos como el foro modificado del moodle pueden ser utilizados para hacer converger diferentes medios que constituyen un andamiaje pluri-medial para aplicar modelos pedagógicos que facilitan la construcción del conocimiento, es decir, que favorezcan el proceso de aprendizaje de los estudiantes y que construyen conocimiento que se plasman en esos artefactos conceptuales como los ensayos elaborados en este curso, la participación de los alumnos en su propio proceso educativo y la reflexión crítica sobre las ideas y el conocimiento son también resultado de esta pedagogía. Las contribuciones en una comunidad basada en conocimiento sirven para crear y compartir un producto intelectual, y dar a las ideas vida más allá de la naturaleza transitoria de una conversación y su aislamiento desde otros discursos. El espacio compartido en el foro de discusión de moodel modificado permite un sistema auto – organizado de interacciones entre participantes y sus ideas y los ayuda a eliminar la necesidad de organizadores externos. El foro de discusión así utilizado involucra a los estudiantes en espacios virtuales directamente en trabajo creativo y sostenible con ideas que lo hacen especialmente promisorio. Agradecimientos. Agradecemos el apoyo otorgado por el Instituto de Estudios Universitarios para la realización de esta investigación y por creer en nosotros, a Cuauhtémoc León quien interpretó perfectamente nuestras indicaciones y realizó la modificación al software. A la fecha, el Moodle utilizado en la institución conserva estas modificaciones. REFERENCIAS Álvarez, I., Ayuste, A., Gros, B., Guerra, V. y Romañá, T. (2005). Construir conocimiento con soporte tecnológico para un aprendizaje colaborativo. Universidad de Barcelona, España. Barragán, R., y Buzón, O. (2004). Un modelo de enseñanza-aprendizaje para la implantación del nuevo sistema de créditos europeos en la materia de Tecnología Educativa. Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa. Vol. 3, 1 Barragán, R. y Buzón, O (2004, junio 24-25). Desarrollo de competencias específicas en la materia Tecnología educativa bajo el marco del Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. En las Jornadas de Tecnología Educativa. Cáceres. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (2002). Schooling and the growth of intentional cognition: Helping children take charge of their own minds. In B.Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 245-277). Chicago: Open Court Bereiter, C. (2002). Design research for sustained innovation. Cognitives studies.Bulletin of the Japanes Cognitive Science Society, 9, 321-327 Burch, S. (2006). Sociedad de la información/Sociedad del conocimiento. Consultado el 24 de agosto de 2010 en: http://vecam.org/article518.html Colom, A., (2002). La (de)construcción del conocimiento pedagógico. Nuevas perspectivas en teoría de la educación. Barcelona: Paidós. 103 KBSI2013 Papers Hernández, O., Durana, A., y Sánchez, J. (2006). Knowledge Building and metacognition: dialogue between two frameworks. Ponencia presentada en el Summer Institute 2006. OISE Uiversity of Toronto, Toronto, Canadá. Hernández, O., Sánchez, J. y Guerra, V. (2005, Agosto). Seeking conditions for collaborative knowledge construction supported by knowledge fórum in higher education. An experience of design research. Ponencia presentada en el Summer Institute 2005. OISE Uiversity of Toronto, Toronto, Canadá. Hernández, O. y Sánchez, J. (2007). Problem Based Learning PBL as a strategy for Knowledge Building (KB) based on informatics technology. Ponencia presentada en el Summer Institute 2007. OISE Uiversity of Toronto, Toronto, Canadá. Hernández, O. (2005). Desarrollo de habilidades cognitivas en educación a distancia usando internet. Tesis doctoral en educación. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Cuernavaca, Morelos. México. Hernández, O. (2008). Modelo educativo de la Preparatoria de la Universidad Iberoamericana Puebla, competencias para la era del conocimiento en la sociedad de la información. Ponencia presentad en el Encuentro Académico sobre el Bachillerato, Noviembre 2008. Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools. Second edition . USA. Prentice hall international. Morin, E. (2000). La mente bien ordenada. Barcelona: Editorial Seix Barral. Morin, E. (2002, Septiembre). Ética y globalización. Conferencia dictada en el marco del Seminario Internacional "Los Desafíos Éticos del Desarrollo", Buenos Aires, Argentina. Morin, E., E. Ciurana y R. Motta. (2003). Educar en la era planetaria. Barcelona, España: Gedisa. Ornelas, C. (2006). El sistema educativo mexicano. México. D.F. Fondo de cultura Económica. Polanco, H. (2002). Entornos virtuales de enseñanza y aprendizaje en la educación a distancia. Sánchez, J. (2008). Criterios y estrategias para la creación de comunidades de construcción de conocimiento con soporte tecnológico. Tesis Doctoral en Educación. Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona, España Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C.(1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 256-283. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2005). Knowledge Building: Theory, pedagogy, and Technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B.Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court 104 KBSI2013 Papers Influencia del clima institucional en la conducta de los adolescentes Ana María Hernández Reyes, Instituto de Estudios IEU Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Inform the conduct of the teenager, as it will influence the institutional climate and seeks to be favorable and adequate since it is fundamental to a wellfunctioning, efficient educational institution, to create conditions for harmonious coexistence. One of the most important recommendations to promote the institutional climate that facilitates change, is the of the institution, making more flexible to respond to the continuous, complex and relevant changes that occur in the social and educational context. It will take place from the perspective of organization capable of learning even of Unlearning and relearning. High school is a conflictive coexistence in modern capitalist societies today. Also the characteristics that must have secondary education, from curricular and educational point of view, are permanent subject of debate in various parts of the world. This phenomenon, in our view, has its origin in the same features of the school as an agent of socialization (and therefore also of social reproduction) and the complexities of the juvenile condition in modern societies that have been tested on several occasions. Cancino and Cornejo, 2001 p. 33-62 The work of a teacher is more than simply give your class, it includes an educational process since it is an educator and trainer, entails the responsibility of knowing why the student doesn't end with a significant learning and in many cases to investigate the social context in which it takes place. Giving pattern to analyze behaviors typical or atypical of the students in the classroom,today the influence of the institutional climate in adolescent behavior influences the work that was carried out in the research that we are discussing, has special characteristics which must be detailed and analysed in all its aspects, in order to clarify what were the elements that were determining the final results. Some teens have problem in its institutional climate and affects their behavior, it is very common and I believe that this issue is of major importance, since students have behaviors and attitudes increasingly unfavorable to their learning such as the lack of interest in school, apathy, isolation and aggression inside and off-campus, that I think interesting dealing with this problem and know what are the causes that originate them. RESUMEN: La escuela secundaria es un espacio de convivencia conflictivo en las sociedades capitalistas modernas actuales. Asimismo las características que debe tener la enseñanza secundaria, desde el punto de vista curricular y formativo, son objeto permanente de debate en distintas partes del mundo. Este fenómeno, a nuestro juicio, tiene su origen en las características mismas de la escuela como agente de socialización (y por lo tanto también de reproducción social) y las complejidades de la condición juvenil en las sociedades modernas que han sido analizadas en repetidas ocasiones. Cancino y Cornejo, 2001 pág. 33-62. PALABRAS CLAVES: Conducta Motriz, Conducta Adaptativa, Conducta de Lenguaje, Conducta Persona- Social, Interaccionista, Atmosfera Psicológica, Clima Escolar, Inteligencia, autoconcepto, Interés, Amenidad. INTRODUCCIÓN DEL TEMA (FINALIDAD DEL ARTÍCULO) Dar a conocer la conducta del adolescente, como va influir en su clima institucional y se busca que sea favorable y adecuada ya que es fundamental para un buen funcionamiento, eficiente de la institución educativa, para crear condiciones de convivencia armoniosa. 105 KBSI2013 Papers Una de las recomendaciones más importantes para promover el clima institucional que facilite el cambio, es la de flexibilizar la institución, para responder a los continuos, complejos y relevantes cambios que se producen en el contexto social y educativo. Ello se realizará desde la perspectiva de organización capaces de aprender incluso de desaprender y volver a aprender. HIPOTESIS: Reconocer y hacerse consciente de los factores climáticos si influyen en el aprendizaje significativo del adolescente de secundaria. En donde las competencias educativas si se ven afectadas por la influencia climática. Y nos ayuda a que los alumnos identifiquen. El como un aprendizaje que se vuelve significativo, sirve para solucionar y prevenir problemas dentro y fuera de la institución. Por lo que se ve reflejado en la conducta que presentan los adolescentes en su desempeño escolar. El sentirse parte del conocimiento da la armonía tanto de cuerpo, espíritu si ayuda a reconocer en que está fallando y le proporciona alternativas de mejora. Dentro de la conducta se enseña a manejar las emociones para llevar un análisis de los pilares de la educación para aprender a conocer y a ser para convivir con los demás esto mejora sus acciones y emociones. Ya que considero que el Método Trascendental, es la base para poder aprender todo ya que tenemos que experimentar, conocer, emitiendo juicios para poder llegar a un juicio de valor. Esto me permite entender lo que están diciendo y haciendo los alumnos ANTECEDENTES TEORICOS Como ya fue señalado en la parte preliminar de mi trabajo, utilizare la estandarización al ambiente mexicano del método de Gesell (1954) pág.23-47, ya que el nos provee con un enfoque global de la conducta del adolescente. En el presente capítulo señalare los fundamentos teóricos que sustentan el método, así como su teoría de aplicación. La clínica de desarrollo fundada por Dr. Arnold Gessell (1954) pág. 23-47 y sus colaboradores, ha venido trabajando en la Universidad de Yale y en el Instituto de Desarrollo Infantil de New Haven desde 1923. Estudia aquellos patrones y formas de conducta que manifiesta. Recientemente este estudio se ha ampliado para abarcar de los 10 a los 16 años. El método elaborado por Gesell, para sus investigaciones ha sufrido variantes desde su concepción inicial hasta llegar al enfoque que se le da actualmente. En sus comienzos se trató de un plan de investigación tendiente a establecer normas tipificadas de conducta, operando mediante conceptos pertinentes al conductismo. Actualmente ha variado el enfoque hacia una postura más biológica, fundamentándose en hechos pertinentes a la neurología, a la embriología y a la biología. El estudio de la conducta global de un gran número de adolescentes, en forma seriada y continua, ha permitido la formulación de la denominada “Escala de Gesell (1954), pág.23-47” que tiene en cuenta, y trata de ilustrar las tendencias básicas del crecimiento infantil y adolescente, haciendo posible la predicción de los cambios subsecuentes de la formas de conducta que han de conducir a la marcha erecta, la manipulación fina de objetivos, la creación de instrumentos de juego y trabajo y la expresión de las vivencias, a través del lenguaje. 106 KBSI2013 Papers El adolescente de doce años es un ser humano maduro y eficaz, sus experiencias posteriores le van a proporcionar solamente oportunidades para entrenar sus adquisiciones previas, aumentando así el repertorio de sus posibilidades. Es sobre la base de la dotación natural del adolescente y a partir del período neonatal, cuando el ambiente externo va a influir modelando las formas de conducta. Los factores ambientales apoyan, influyen o modifican, pero no engendran la progresión del desarrollo, la consistencia de las inclinaciones y secuencias del crecimiento, y las tendencias cíclicas fundamentales del mismo. La conducta del lenguaje engloba toda forma de comunicación entre el adolescente y su ambiente, esto es: el llanto, la risa, los gestos, las actitudes posturales, las vocalizaciones, el lenguaje hablado propio, el lenguaje escrito. INFLUENCIA DEL CLIMA EN OTRAS VARIABLES ESCOLARES Ya en Anderson, (1982), pág. 56-178 planteó que el estudio del clima se centro y podía considerarse la mejor medida de la eficacia institucional (Anderson, 1982). Los resultados se han obtenido en contextos muy diversos y con diferentes instrumentos. Definición de variables e instrumentos: a) Clima escolar: Definición conceptual: según Walberg, Botten Miller, Althousser,1977 pág.78-93, consiste en las percepciones por parte de los alumnos del ambiente socio-psicológico en el que se produce el aprendizaje Definición operacional: para medir la variable de clima escolar se usa el instrumento «School Environment Scale» (ses) desarrollada originalmente por Kevin Marjoribanks, en 1980, Aron A. M y N (1999), pag.78-93, y adaptada a España por Aurelio Villa, que llamaremos de aquí en adelante escala de clima escolar. Ésta mide la percepción que tienen los alumnos sobre las relaciones que establecen con sus maestros en relación a distintos contextos ambientales interrelacionados. b) Inteligencia. Definición conceptual: utilizare la definición de inteligencia como la capacidad básica que determina el rendimiento presente y futuro (Coll, 1991, pág.13-47). Definición operacional: para medir esta variable se opta por la Escala del Factor de Cattell, Erickson, 1985, pág. 23-87, en la adaptación se trabaja sólo con el puntaje directo o bruto total. c) Autoconcepto: Es la percepción y valoración que una persona tiene de sí misma, que se forma a través de sus experiencias y relaciones con el medio (Lecuyer, 1985). Palma, Aron, A.M. y N 1998, pág.78-93. Los Datos generales de caracterización de los jóvenes, se trata de datos que nos permiten caracterizar a los jóvenes según escuela secundaria, curso, sexo, edad y antecedentes sociofamiliares. Los jóvenes participan en el plantel mostrando actitudes positivas al ser tomados en cuenta e incidir en el espacio social en el que se convive. ACTITUDES QUE FAVORECEN EL DESARROLLO DE UN BUEN CLIMA ESCOLAR Se debe respetar al prójimo, como ser humano, evitando interrumpir a quien habla; esperando su turno para poder hablar. Debemos dominar las reacciones agresivas, evitando ser descortés o irónicos. En caso contrario, dé una explicación válida, trate de conocer mejor a los miembros de su grupo, a fin de comprenderlos y adaptarse a la personalidad de cada uno. El reconocimiento y aprovechamiento de las potencialidades del profesorado. Los vínculos: amistad, simpatía, antipatía. El saber ¿Cómo participar en un grupo de trabajo?, ¿Qué se debe 107 KBSI2013 Papers hacer cuando llega un nuevo colega?, ¿Cómo hacer para integrarse?, ¿Cómo evitar discusiones y diferencias?, conocer a los alumnos, a los docentes a sus colegas. Conózcase a sí mismo, al grupo. “El mal humor siempre tiene una razón”. El trabajo en grupo, permite la participación de todos los miembros, permite la liberación de la creatividad, contribuye a un clima de trabajo agradable. Las variables del clima institucional, Martín Bris,1999, plantea el siguiente modelo del clima institucional en el trabajo en las instituciones educativas considerando algunas variables como participación, confianza, motivación, comunicación, creatividad, planificación y liderazgo. Los valores y objetivos que busquen el desarrollar la autoestima y afirmación personal, a través de una adecuada definición de política de motivación y estímulo. El interés es una cualidad que busca producir “influencias positivas”, en el ánimo del destinatario (maestro-alumno), para que concentre su atención en el contenido de la información. Es el deseo de saber y la participación activa, es importante este elemento en muchas formas de las relaciones humana. La evolución de los intereses se cumple en cinco períodos: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Período de los intereses sensoriales (0-2 años). Período de los intereses subjetivos (2-7 años). Período de los intereses objetivos (7-10años). Período de los intereses especializados (10-15 años). Período de los intereses lógicos (15-18años). METODOLOGIA El trabajo que se llevó a cabo en la investigación que nos ocupa reúne características especiales que deben ser detalladas y analizadas en todos sus aspectos, a fin de esclarecer cuales fueron los elementos que actuaron determinando los resultados finales. Los adolescentes estudiados provenientes de un ambiente familiar ordinario, aunque de diferentes niveles sociales, económicos y culturales, generados en varias instituciones educativas a partir de las vivencias cotidianas de sus miembros en la escuela. Este ambiente tiene que ver con las actitudes, creencias, valores y motivaciones que tiene el alumno, directivo, maestro, padres de familia de la institución educativa y que se expresan en las relaciones personales y profesionales. Un hecho muy discutido siempre ha sido tratar de determinar cuáles características humanas están determinadas por la herencia y el clima institucional influye en el adolescente en cómo se desenvuelve el individuo va influir sobre ellos permitiendo el desarrollo de algunas, modificando e inclusive inhibiendo o deformando otras. Esta discusión se ha venido desarrollando en el campo especulativo de la filosofía desde la remota antigüedad, fue heredada por la psicología tradicional especulativa, para reaparecer en la actualidad en el terreno científico de lo biológico, de la psicología experimental y de la genética. Una vez definidas las dimensiones redactare los ítems de la escala. Para su redacción seguimos las indicaciones propuestas por Morales Vallejo en cuanto a la construcción de escalas de actitudes: “Es conveniente planificar la comprobación de la validez desde el principio, de manera que puedan obtenerse datos para comprobar hipótesis. (Morales Vallejo, 2000: 79). ENCUESTADOS APLICADOS ADECUADOS INADECUADOS MAESTROS 100 80 20 ALUMNOS 900 600 300 108 KBSI2013 Papers ADMINISTRATI VOS 20 15 5 PADRES DE FAMILIA 70 40 30 2. ¿Consideras que el lugar donde vives influye de manera relevante en el Aprendizaje significativo que estas desarrollando, tanto en aula como en tu hogar? A) Algunas veces B) Frecuentemente C) No tiene relevancia ENCUESTADOS APLICADOS SI NO MAESTROS 100 70 30 ALUMNOS 900 500 400 ADMINISTRATIVOS 20 13 7 PADRES DE FAMILIA 70 35 5 3.-‐ ¿En la clase se propicia que el alumno construya su propio conocimiento (formule sus definiciones, conclusiones y sus planteamientos)? A) Siempre B) Frecuentemente C) Nunca ENCUESTADOS APLICADOS SIEMPRE NUNCA MAESTROS 100 80 20 ALUMNOS 900 800 100 ADMINISTRATIVOS 20 60 10 PADRES DE FAMILIA 70 18 2 109 KBSI2013 Papers • 4.-‐¿ Se promueve en los adolescentes la auto reflexión del aprendizaje (que aprendí y para que me va servir)? A) Siempre B) Algunas veces C) Nunca ENCUESTADOS APLICADOS SI NO MAESTROS 100 90 10 ALUMNOS 900 800 100 ADMINISTRATIVOS 20 16 4 PADRES DE FAMILIA 70 50 20 6.-‐¿ Se está actualizando constantemente para poner situaciones reales o similares a los de la vida cotidiana del adolescente? A) Siempre B) Algunas veces C) Nunca ENCUESTADOS APLICADOS SIEMPRE NUNCA MAESTROS 100 85 15 ALUMNOS 900 650 250 ADMINISTRATIVOS 20 16 4 PADRES DE FAMILIA 70 50 20 JUSTIFICACIÓN SU DISEÑO Y SU UTILIZACIÓN DISEÑO: Metodología cuantitativa mediante un diseño no experimental, transversal. POBLACIÓN: Delegación (1) MUESTRA: 2 Centros educativos. Muestra incidental es baja cuyas tendencias y limitaciones y perspectivas por la dificultad. INVESTIGACION CUALITATIVA. INSTRUMENTOS: Observación, cuestionarios, entrevistas, videos y grupos de observación. CLIMA INSTITUCIONAL.: Educación 110 KBSI2013 Papers FUENTES: Documentos, Alumnado, Profesores, Padres de familia y Miembros de la comunidad. RESULTADOS Un clima institucional favorable o adecuado es fundamental para un funcionamiento eficiente de la institución educativa, así como crear condiciones de convivencia armoniosa. Centraremos estos resultados y conclusiones en la percepción del clima escolar de parte de los jóvenes, así como la correlación entre esta percepción y otros factores, dejando de lado un análisis a las respuestas de los jóvenes a la encuesta de datos y opinión y los resultados en las variables de autoconcepto e inteligencia.( Cancino y Cornejo) Análisis de la fiabilidad a través del Coeficiente Alfa de Cronbach. Para encontrar este coeficiente de fiabilidad se aplicó la fórmula de Cronbach, obteniéndose los siguientes resultados: factor 1 (interpersonal) a: 0.9081; factor 2 (instruccional) a: 0.8004; factor 3 (disciplinario) a: 0.7012. La fiabilidad de las tres subescalas es estadísticamente aceptable. Análisis de la consistencia interna de la escala a través de las correlaciones ítem-test. Se analiza la consistencia ítems de los ítems de la escala, aplicando una correlación bivariada de Pearson a cada ítem respecto del test total. Los resultados son los siguientes: Item 1 Item 2 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Coeficientes .52 de correlación .66 .63 .64 .64 .51 .50 .66 .64 P .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Item 11 Item 12 Item 14 Item15 Item16 Item17 Item18 Item19 Item20 Coeficientes .40 de correlación .45 .65 .23 .54 .57 .66 .43 .39 P .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Item 21 Item 22 Item 23 Item 24 Item 25 Item 26 Item 27 Item 28 Coeficientes de correlación .62 .71 .46 .48 .43 .64 .26 .48 P .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Como se puede observar, todos los ítems correlacionan con el total de la prueba lógicamente son significativos. Los ítems que presentan una menor correlación con el total del test son los ítems 15 y 27, ambos del factor «disciplinarios» (3 A). No obstante, se ha decidido mantenerlos en la escala tomando en cuenta el carácter experimental del estudio. 111 KBSI2013 Papers DISCUCIONES Una discución fue llegar a las recomendaciones más importantes para promover el clima institucional que facilite el cambio, es la de flexibilizar la institución, para responder a los continuos, complejos y relevantes cambios que se producen en el contexto social y educativo. Ello se realizará desde la perspectiva de organización capaces de aprender incluso de desaprender y volver a aprender. CONCLUSIONES Y LIMITACIONES En primer lugar podemos destacar el hecho que dos de los cuatro contextos del clima escolar originalmente descritos en la escala se funden en un solo factor. Estos contextos son el interpersonal y el imaginativo. Tal como ocurre en las aplicaciones españoles y mexicanas del instrumento en la enseñanza secundaria, la percepción que tienen los jóvenes respecto del contexto imaginativo varía de manera conjunta con la valoración que ellos hacen de otro contexto. Lo interesante es que este otro contexto en México resultó ser el instruccional, más en nuestra muestra este contexto es el interpersonal. Entre las conclusiones fundamentales para un clima institucional favorable se necesita una institución como la que tenemos: La disposición a realizar un trabajo conjunto en equipo, para incorporar innovaciones, generar cambios internos y externos. Las personas y el ambiente de trabajo se basan en la previsión y la planificación. Todo esto es facilitado por la comunicación, la participación, la confianza y el respeto. La labor de un profesor va mas allá de simplemente dar su clase, comprende un proceso educativo ya que es educador y formador, esto conlleva la responsabilidad de saber por qué el alumno no termina con un aprendizaje significativo y en muchos casos a investigar el contexto social en el que se desarrolla. Algunos adolescentes tienen problema en su clima institucional y afecta su conducta, es muy común y considero que este tema es de mayor importancia, ya que los alumnos tienen comportamientos y actitudes cada vez más desfavorables para su aprendizaje tales como la falta de interés por la escuela, apatía, aislamiento, agresividad dentro y fuera del plantel, por eso considero interesante abordar este problema y saber cuáles son los causas que los originan. BIBLIOGRAFIA 1. Anastastasi, A.1954- The Inhereted and Acquired Components of Behavior. Genetics and the Inheritance of Integrated Neurological and Psychialiams, Wilkins Compañy. 2. Avedaño, J. 1955. El Crecimiento Mental del Niño. Tesis Recepcional de la Escuela Nacional de Medicina. México,pág. 567- 720. 3. Davis, A. 1948. Social Class Influences Upon Learning. The English Lecture. Harvard University Press. 4. Freud, A y Burlingham, 1946 Niños sin hogar. Ediciones Imán. Buenos Aires. 5. Althousser, L. (1977): Aparatos ideológicos del Estado. México: Ediciones Quinto Sol. Pág. 1-287 6. Arancibia, V. et al. (1993): Desarrollo socioafectivo en la enseñanza secundaria y media. Santiago: CPU. Pág. 56-178. 112 KBSI2013 Papers 7. Arias, V. (2001): «Autoconcepto en adolescentes, un estudio descriptivo». Pág. 23-87. 8. Arón, A. M. y N. Milicic (1999): Clima social escolar y desarrollo personal. Un programa de mejoramiento. Santiago: Editorial Andrés Bello. Pág. 78-93. 9. Assael, C. (1998): «La teoría de la modificabilidad estructural cognitiva de Reuven Feuerstein». Centro de Desarrollo Cognitivo, Universidad Diego Portales. Pág.221-287. 10. Bellei, C. (2000): «Educación básica, media y juventud en los 90. Actualizando la vieja promesa». Última Década Nº12. Viña del Mar: Ediciones CIDPA. Pág. 565-598. 11. Calvo, F (1990): Estadística aplicada. Ediciones Deusto S. A. 12. Cancino, T. y R. Cornejo (2001): «La percepción del clima escolar en jóvenes estudiantes municipales y particulares subvencionados. Un estudio descriptivo y de factores asociados». Pág.145-190. 13. Cariola, L. y C. Cox (1990): «La educación de los jóvenes: crisis de relevancia y calidad de la educación básica». En Generación (editores): Los jóvenes en México.Pág. 12-124. 14. Casassus, J., S. Cusato, J. E. Froemel y J. C. Palafox (2000): «Primer estudio internacional comparativo sobre lenguaje, matemática y factores asociados, para alumnos del tercer y cuarto grado de la educación básica (segundo informe)». Laboratorio Latinoamericano de Evaluación de la Calidad de la Educación, UNESCO.Pág.18-231. 15. Cere (1993): «Evaluar el contexto educativo». Documento de Estudio. Vitoria: Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Gobierno Vasco.Pág.12-167. 16. CEPAL-UNESCO (1992): Educación y conocimiento. Eje de transformación productiva con equidad. Santiago: CEPAL.pág.12-87. 17. Chadwick, C. (1997): «La psicología del enfoque constructivista». Revista de Educación. SEP. Coleman, J. y T. Husén (1989): Inserción de los jóvenes en una sociedad en cambio. Madrid: OCDE/CERI Narcea Ediciones.Pág. 12-34. 18. Coll, C. (1993): Psicología y currículum. Buenos Aires: Paidós.Pág.12-45. 19. C. Calvo, A. M. Cerda y otros (1993): Prácticas de trabajo y socialización en establecimientos de educación media. Colección de estudios sobre enseñanza media. Santiago: PIIE, U. Católica de Temuco, U. de La Serena y MINEDUC. Pág.45-78. 20. Erickson, E. (1985): Identidad, juventud y crisis. Madrid: Editorial Taurus. Pág.23-87. AGRADECIMIENTOS: A MIS PADRES A MI ESPOSO Y A MI MAESTRO OSCAR QUE SIN EL NO LO HUBIERA LOGRADO. 113 KBSI2013 Papers A Knowledge Building Discourse Analysis of Proportional Reasoning in Grade 1 Kendra Hutton, Bodong Chen, and Joan Moss Institute of Child Study, OISE/UT Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology, OISE/UT [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT: Proportional reasoning can be defined as the consideration of number in relative terms as opposed to absolute terms. This reconceptualization requires for the learner a shift from additive to multiplicative reasoning—a shift that has been shown to be challenging for both children and even many adults. In this study we use the discourse analysis tool Knowledge Building Discourse eXplorer (KBDeX) to analyze the growth and extent of the use of proportional language in a grade one classroom as students engage in material over the course of four specially designed discourse-based lessons in proportional reasoning. The design of the first three lessons (the intervention) was based on psychological and educational research and employed a context integrating both continuous and discrete representations of proportions. The fourth lesson served as an assessment and involved the students solving proportional reasoning problems featuring discrete quantity of the types typically found in math textbooks for students in older grades. Content analysis was conducted on recorded discourse, focusing on students’ multiplicative reasoning and knowledge building behaviours. KBDeX was then used to track frequencies and connectedness of students’ multiplicative reasoning as well as knowledge building behaviours across lessons. The social network of students involved using multiplicative reasoning and knowledge building behaviours was also analyzed. Findings reveal that knowledge building behaviours and multiplicative reasoning (multiplicative comparisons, multiplicative operations, and grouping language) increased between lesson 1 and lesson 4 and that the majority of the students were able to solve the final assessment tasks presented in the fourth lesson. Finally, we present a discussion on the potential of knowledge building discourse for student learning in math. Keywords: discourse, knowledge building, math, proportional reasoning, young children Introduction: A Background on Proportional Reasoning Proportional reasoning can be difficult to define. As Van DeWalle (2006) states, “it is not something that you either can or cannot do but is developed over time through reasoning. It is the ability to think about and compare multiplicative relationships between quantities.” Lanius and Williams (2003) refer to proportional reasoning as a mathematical way of thinking defined by the ability to recognize proportional situations and to use multiple approaches for solving problems involving proportionality. Fernandez, Llinares, Van Dooren, De Bock, and Verschaffel (2009) make the distinction between within-variable and between-variable relationships in proportional contexts. ‘Within’ relationships compare quantities of the same nature, while ‘between’ relationships compare quantities of different nature. The authors assert that competence in proportional reasoning involves not only the ability to solve proportional problems, but also the possession of a deep understanding of the multiplicative relationships between quantities, including the comprehension and use of both within and between relationships. The Ontario 114 KBSI2013 Papers Ministry of Education (MOE; 2012) refers to proportional reasoning as simply the consideration of number in relative rather than absolute terms. All these definitions refer to a very important component of math development that encompasses many aspects of the math curriculum (i.e. equivalent fractions, converting units of measurement, probability, multiplication and division, money amounts, rates of speed etc.). Proportional reasoning is also known to be conceptually very difficult for middle school students (Lamon, 2007; Mitchelmore, White, & McMaster, 2007) and even adults (Lamon, 2007). Exceptional teaching practices are required to ensure a deep understanding of proportional reasoning. Proportional reasoning has been thought of as a topic for older children. The Ontario curriculum does not mention proportional relationships until grade four (MOE, 2005). Similarly, Piaget and Inhelder (1975; Inhelder & Piaget, 1958) have documented that children are not capable of proportional reasoning until about the age of 11.Van Dooren, De Bock, and Verschaffel (2010) found that students in the younger grades almost always incorrectly apply additive strategies to proportional problems. In contrast, other studies have shown that children as young as five (Sophian, 2000; Sophian & Wood, 1997), six (Schlottman, 2001), and seven-years old (Goswami, 1989) can partake in proportional thinking in different contexts. In particular it was discovered that young children can be successful at proportional reasoning when the problem context involves reasoning with continuous, rather than discrete representations (Mix, Huttenlocher, and Levine 2002; Jeong, Levine, & Huttenlocher, 2007). Boyer, Levine, and Huttenlocher (2008) found that children go astray on proportional reasoning tasks when they are asked to match two proportions given in numerical (i.e, discrete) quantities. It has been suggested that students might benefit from proportional reasoning tasks that integrate continuous with discrete contexts or representations. With this kind of integration in mind, Moss and Case (1999) developed a successful experimental lesson sequence for the teaching and learning of rational number that grounded students’ initial understandings of proportion in a linear measurement context of continuous quantity using the numerical language of percents (discrete representation). The analyses revealed that this learning context involving the integration of discrete and continuous quantity played an important part in the development of the students’ understanding of rational number and proportion (Moss, 2005). Since proportional reasoning takes time to develop and is not a result of natural growth (Koeller-Clark & Lesh, 2003), it should be introduced to children even younger than the curriculum suggests. The present case study uses a sequence of lessons designed by Moss, Comay, Stephenson, and Halewood (in preparation) with grade one students exploring the concepts of intuitive (or continuous) and numerical (discrete) proportionality. In this lesson sequence, as we describe in detail in upcoming sections, proportional reasoning tasks were introduced in a fantasy context that used snakes of various lengths (continuous quantity) and numbers of magic pellets (discrete quantity). Discourse and Mathematics Learning Current reforms in mathematics education advocate the establishment of mathematical learning communities in classrooms to support students to engage in productive mathematical discourse. Indeed the importance of mathematical discourse—“math talk” —has been central in reform mathematics education literature in both North America and internationally for over 25 years (NCTM, 2000; National Research Council, 2001). Underlying this shift towards discourse in the teaching and learning of mathematics is the idea that mathematics is primarily about reasoning and not memorization; it is not about remembering and applying a set of procedures but about developing understanding and explaining the processes used to arrive at solutions. 115 KBSI2013 Papers Central to the move towards discourse is the notion that mathematics should be taught in a way that mirrors the nature of the discipline (Lampert, 1990). In this model of mathematics learning, the classroom functions as a community where thinking, talking, agreeing, and disagreeing is encouraged in order to discover important mathematical concepts (Bruce, 2007). Indeed, numerous research studies reveal that students learn mathematics best when they are given opportunities to explain their mathematical reasoning using the language of mathematics (Kazemi & Stipek, 2001). As Martino and Maher (1999) point out, the opportunities to engage in discourse not only increase student’s abilities to problem solve but also increase students’ engagement in the subject matter. However, while research points to the potential benefits of math talk to promote student learning, many studies reveal the problems of discourse classrooms. Indeed, the model of math learning in which students' ideas serve as the basis for class discussion has proven to be challenging for both teachers and students. From a teacher’s perspective, this form of discourse can be difficult to implement. Kilpatrick, Swafford, and Findell (2001) have suggested that managing discourse is one of the most complex tasks of teaching. Sherin (2002) aptly likens the teacher’s role in trying to promote sustained, productive, and meaningful math discourse to a “balancing act” wherein teachers operate within a tension of supporting a student-centered process of mathematical discourse and, simultaneously, facilitating discussions of significant mathematical content. A discourse-based math learning environment also involves many challenges for students. For example, Baxter, Woodward, and Olson (2001) raise the concern that math talk may not suit all students. Many students do not know how to explain their mathematical ideas and are uncomfortable with expressing their understandings (Empson, 2003; Walshaw & Anthony, 2008). However, the greatest challenge is the change in the role of student from passive recipient of math knowledge to an active and responsible member of a learning community (epistemic agents who understand their role as contributors to knowledge). Cazden (2001) points out that each student becomes a significant part of the learning environment, and that in a math discourse classroom, teachers depend on students’ individual contributions for advancing learning in the class (p. 131). Exploring the Use of Knowledge Building in Mathematics The importance and challenges of discourse in mathematical learning are clear. In the present study we experimented with a knowledge building approach to discourse to support grade one students to use multiplicative reasoning for proportions. We speculated that a knowledge building approach might maximize the quantity and quality of discussion amongst the students and thus support them in gaining a strong foundational understanding of this very difficult topic. Knowledge building (KB) pedagogy focuses on collaborative learning experiences where students can openly negotiate their ideas with each other, in which the goal is to improve the community’s understanding as a whole (Chiarotto, 2011). As Scardamalia and Bereiter (2003) put it, “knowledge building results in the creation or modification of public knowledge—knowledge that lives ‘in the world’ and is available to be worked on and used by other people.” In a knowledge building classroom, a student proposes her ideas to the whole class and the responsibility to improve those ideas rests on all students in the class acting as a community. In other words, students doing knowledge building take collective responsibility for continually advancing their community knowledge (Scardamalia, 2002). Thus, shared discourse, face-to-face or online, is central to knowledge building. 116 KBSI2013 Papers In the present study the teacher engaged the students in KB discourse using a circular seating configuration known as a knowledge building (KB) circle (Chiarotto, 2011). The advantage of a KB circle is that it can encourage attentive listening and communication, diminish hierarchy, and foster inclusive respect. A KB circle is not organized according to scripted procedures or rituals (Zhang, Hong, Scardamalia, Teo, & Morley, 2011). Rather, it operates according to a set of twelve knowledge building principles (Scardamalia, 2002), such as community knowledge and collective responsibility, and progress in an emergent manner towards knowledge advancement. Method The present study consists of three intervention sessions on proportional reasoning in the form of knowledge building lessons. The lessons were then followed by an extended discussion where the students were given the opportunity to apply their knowledge to different contexts which assessed their proportional reasoning skills. Participants Eleven grade one students act as participants of the knowledge building circle which was moderated by their teacher. The school culture is one in which knowledge building pedagogy is a central focus and the students have had previous experience using Knowledge Forum to engage in the learning of science topics. These students were sorted by their teacher as the higher achieving half of their class. A few researchers were also present to film and take field notes on the sessions. Materials and Apparatus The materials for the lessons consisted of rectangular construction paper strips representing a long snake, Longy (14 x 2cm), a short snake, Shorty (7 x 2cm), and Baby snake (3.5 x 2cm). Circular counters were also used to represent magic pellets required for the snakes to perform magic tricks. Multiple video cameras were used to record the lessons and to capture the discourse between students in a clear manner. A total of two hours of videos were then transcribed using a personal computer and Microsoft Excel. Analysis was conducted using KBDeX software. Procedure: The Lessons Each of the four lessons was half an hour in length (described in detail below) and used different participation structures. Lesson 1 took place in the form of a knowledge building circle. Lesson 2 was mostly comprised of small group discussions. Lesson 3 was a presentation sequence of student-designed challenges. Lesson 4 (like lesson 1) was a knowledge building circle for extension problems. Lesson 1. To begin the first lesson, the students were presented with two rectangular construction paper strips, one of which was half the length of the other. The teacher told the students that these two strips were actually snakes named Longy and Shorty and asked the students to comment on the relationship of the length of one snake to the other. Once the students offered that the short snake was half the length of the tall snake, they were given their own pairs of rectangular strips and asked to prove this relationship. The goal of this part of the lesson is to have each child experience the 1:2 relationship in the context of continuous quantity—length. Next, they were introduced to the discrete assignment of numerical values in the form of magic pellets the snakes required in order to perform magical feats. They were told and shown using the circular counters that Longy needed exactly four pellets and Shorty needed exactly two pellets to dance on the CN Tower, and then were asked why they thought these were the numbers required. Next, missing-value problems were introduced in the following order. 117 KBSI2013 Papers “If Shorty needs five pellets to sing opera, how many might Longy need?” “If Longy needs eight magic pellets to play the guitar, how many will Shorty need?” “What if we wanted Longy and Shorty to build a tower at structures, out of blocks. Can someone tell me how many pellets Shorty might need and Longy might need to do that? The lesson ended with the introduction of “Baby snake” a 3.5 x 2 cm rectangle, similar to the opening of the lesson, students were asked to prove the 1:4 relationship of the length of Baby to Longy. Lesson 2. The lesson took place two school days after the first lesson. A few new researchers were present so the students were asked to explain to the new visitors what they discovered the other day about the lengths of the snakes. Next, students were asked to find a partner and to design their own missing-value challenge for the class using Baby and Longy (discrete, numerical values for the 1:4 relationship). The lesson concluded with a re-gathering; one group got to share their work with the time that permitted. Lesson 3. The third lesson took place three school days after the second lesson. Students presented their invented missing-value challenges to their classmates. Lesson 4. The last lesson served as an informal assessment offering students the opportunity to extend their knowledge and to attempt to solve proportional reasoning problems in purely discrete, numerical contexts. The lesson began with a brief review of the preceding lessons; children were asked to explain the proportional relations of the lengths amongst the three snakes (continuous relations) and numerical proportions of the pellets (discrete relations), and how the lengths of the snakes related to the numbers of magic pellets required for the snakes to perform magic acts. Next the students were presented with a pair of proportional reasoning problems in written form with accompanying illustrations. The two problems were typical of textbook-style proportional reasoning problems and were as follows: “If 5 candy canes cost 10 cents. How many candy canes can you buy for 30 cents?” “If you need 5 pellets to feed 2 fish. How many pellets do you need to feed 8 fish?” Analysis of Data Coding. The transcript of the discourse was coded in two different ways. The first was for different types of knowledge building behaviours and the second was for different types of multiplicative reasoning. Knowledge Building Behaviour Codes. The following three codes were based directly on knowledge building theory and were used to analyze the different ways that the students contributed to the discourse. Build-on (bdo): A discourse unit was coded as a build-on when the student adds to the conversation, whether it’s a new idea or another strategy (E.g. after a child reports that one snake is longer than the other one, another child adds “one’s half the size of the other.”). Extension (extn): A discourse unit was represented as an extension when a student offers a novel idea to a problem either because it is the first response or because it is a contribution that hasn’t been brought up before (E.g. a student offers the representation of fractions, “the fraction would be, um here's the centre line. The fraction would be 1 out of 2 because two of these blue pieces would make up to one whole.”). Collaboration (clln): A discourse unit is coded as collaboration when a student explicitly references a peer’s idea (E.g. “I’m building onto Nichola’s”), make clear reference to a peer’s 118 KBSI2013 Papers idea (jumping in while students are offering ideas/ responding; E.g. “no that would be half”), or making we statements (ex. “we figured it out” or “we think”) Multiplicative Reasoning Codes. Multiplicative Action (ma): when students refer to or actually fold or cut with scissors or hand gestures. E.g. “So I folded this; and then I opened it back up and then I put this on to see if it was half, and it was.” Multiplicative Comparison (mc): when students refer to at least two multiplicative situations in the same explanation. This could include either within-variable or between-variable reasoning. E.g. “I think that’s it's always going to be that Shorty's always gonna have half less than Longy because he's half shorter, so it's always half lower.” Multiplicative Operation (mo): when students refer to a specific operation such as multiply by, divide by or when they compute using multiplication or division. E.g. “But you can't divide 100 by 40.” Fraction Language (fl): when students use fraction language in explanation. E.g. “The fraction would be 1 out of 2 because two of these blue pieces would make up to one whole.” Count By (cb): when students either explicitly or implicitly suggest counting by strategy. E.g. “‘cause if you count by twos - two, four, six- by counting by twos and then you would put four.” Grouping Language (gl): when students either explicitly refer to grouping for multiplication or it is inferred. E.g. “you use two twos” meaning “you use two (groups of) two.” Halving Language (hl): when students refer to half as a part of a whole, E.g. “this snake is a whole and this snake is a half” or half as a multiplicative operation of halving. E.g. “half of four is two.” Off Task (ot): when students lose focus with the discussion; may include irrelevant features. KBDeX. The discourse was analyzed using a relatively new social network analysis tool called Knowledge Building Discourse eXplorer (KBDeX; Oshima, Oshima, & Matsuzawa, 2012). Given a transcript of discourse, the tool analyzes social networks of learners, based on cooccurrences of a pre-selected list of terms, which can be domain vocabulary, phrases, or content analysis codes. Given a discourse transcript and a list of terms, KBDeX goes through each discourse unit to check co-occurrence of terms. If two terms co-occur in the current unit, a link will be drawn between them; similarly, if two discourse units share a same term, a link will be drawn between them too. At the same time, by attributing each discourse unit to its contributor (e.g., student), KBDeX further infers links between students based on accumulated linkages of discourse units contributed by them. In the end, KBDeX will create a social network of students, a network of discourse units, and a network of terms, all based on co-occurrence of terms. By visually and interactively exploring these three types of networks, researchers can investigate relationships among students from very specific angles. For instance, by interpreting the student network, KBDeX allows one to see which students are integrating terms or phrases similarly to other students and which ones are more isolated in terms of conversation content. By checking the network of tracked terms, KBDeX can display the connectedness of codes in a transcript and provide significant insights about the discourse content. By comparing these networks across different discourse phases, researchers could further inspect changes of discourse across time represented by structure of terms and students. In the present study, by tracking multiplicative reasoning and knowledge building behaviour coding, KBDeX was used to answer our primary 119 KBSI2013 Papers research question of whether there will be an increase or movement to multiplicative language across the lessons as the tasks become more discrete in nature. Research Questions. The present case study attempts to address the following specific research questions. Knowledge Building Behaviours. 1) Did the students collaborate, build onto, and extend each other's ideas? Is there an increase in these behaviours between lesson 1and lesson 4? 2) Did all the students participate in working on the proportion challenges? Were there any off-task behaviours? Were they using a collective use of language? Multiplicative Reasoning. 3) Was there an increase in the number of multiplicative reasoning codes between lesson 1 and lesson 4? 4) Did the students make use of both within and between-variable reasoning, in solving the challenges in lesson 4? Potential Benefit of KB for Multiplicative Reasoning. 5) Is there a co-occurrence of the KB codes and multiplicative reasoning codes that is greater in lesson 4 than lesson 1? Results and Discussion In our analyses we compared lesson 1 to lesson 4. As we described earlier in preceding sections of the paper, both lesson 1 and 4 used the same knowledge building circle format. Both lessons two and three were different. One involved small group activity and the other involved presentation of student-created problems. Therefore for the purpose of these analyses we compared multiplicative reasoning and knowledge building behaviours of lesson 1 and lesson 4. Knowledge Building Behaviours The defined build-on, extension, and collaboration codes were detected abundantly throughout the transcripts. As table 1 indicates, the proportion of each of the coded discourse units to the total number of discourse units were much larger in lesson 4 than lesson 1, suggesting that the children adapted to the KB set-up and made use of these approaches in advancing their knowledge as a group. When one child built onto another child’s idea, further ideas manifested. See Table 1 for these values. Table 1 Proportion of Discourse Units Coded with KB Behaviours Knowledge Building Behaviour Lesson 1 Lesson 4 Build-on (bdo) 19% 47% Extension (extn) 19% 31% Collaboration (clln) 5% 14% 120 KBSI2013 Papers All children were immersed in the discourse and were actively participating. See Figure 1 for a visual representation from KBDeX reflecting the extent to which students were knowledge building and multiplicatively reasoning similarly to their peers. The thickness of the lines indicates the extent to which each student displayed knowledge building behaviours and multiplicative reasoning similarly to other students. A frequency count of only four discourse units, by two students reflected off task behaviours demonstrating a high level of engagement as well. Multiplicative Reasoning Absence of Additive Reasoning. Initially we also coded for additive reasoning, as the literature states young children begin their proportional reasoning using additive strategies (Van Dooren et al., 2010). However, inconsistent with the literature, there was less additive reasoning happening initially (two instances in total). This can be accounted for by the knowledge building structure of the lessons which have been revised many times as a part of a Japanese lesson study (Moss, Comay, Figure 1.Student network based on co-occurring knowledge building behaviours and multiplicative reasoning. The teacher and researchers were taken out of the analysis. Stephenson, & Halewood, in preparation). The absence of additive references could be because the lesson and the questions were structured in such a way to divert thinking away from additive reasoning. For instance, the teacher presented Longy with four pellets and Shorty with two pellets and asked the students why they think these are just the right amounts. The KB circle allowed for discussion to be steered towards more accurate strategy use and misconceptions were quickly addressed by one’s peers through verbal reasoning. Since this was a classroom where knowledge building is a central focus, the students have gained a disposition to partake and contribute to discussions. Growth in Multiplicative Comparison and Operations and Grouping Language. Findings also indicate that proportions of discourse units involving multiplicative comparisons, multiplicative operations, and grouping language were all greater in lesson 4 than lesson 1 indicating more multiplicative reasoning displayed in the discourse by the time the 121 KBSI2013 Papers intervention was complete. Counting by language increased slightly, multiplicative action and fraction language both decreased which can be observed as being due to the nature of the lessons. Lesson 1 involved discussion on showing that Shorty was half of Longy and thus involved folding strategies and a discussion on how he is 1 out of 2 in fraction form. Halving language also decreased which can be expected since the handover to discrete/ numerical proportionality would have encouraged less emphasis on “half” or “halving” and more on multiplicative and divisional operations. These values can be viewed in Table 2. Overall, the students became more multiplicative in their reasoning. Particularly impressive was the way students began to use the language of multiplicative operations by the 4th lesson because in this class the students had no formal instruction in either multiplication or division. The use of multiplicative comparison language- that students refer to two separate multiplicative relations in a single explanation – revealed a sophistication of reasoning pointing to a deep understanding of the proportional relations in the problems. Table 2 Proportion of Discourse Units Coded with Multiplicative Reasoning Multiplicative Reasoning Type Lesson 1 Lesson 4 Multiplicative Action (ma) 13% 0% Multiplicative Comparison (co) 6% 31% Multiplicative Operation (mo) 3% 28% Fraction Language (fl) 14% 6% Counting By (cb) 1% 8% Grouping Language (gl) 3% 11% Halving Language (hl) 14% 8% Within and Between-Variable Reasoning. As stated in the introduction, Fernandez et al. (2009) assert that a deep understanding of proportional reasoning is evident in the use of both within and between-variable relationships. The difference between them can be illustrated with an example; if one can purchase 2lbs of cherries for $8, and one wishes to purchase 5lbs, to determine the cost one could use within or between reasoning; to determine the cost using ‘within-variable’ reasoning relates lbs to lbs (2lbs to the 5lbs desired (2:5)) and then one can apply this ratio to the cost. If one engages in betweenvariable reasoning, one compares lbs to dollars (2lbs to the $8 cost (1:4)). In this study, we analyzed the use of within and between-variable reasoning in lesson 4. Our analysis revealed that the group came up with three different ways of explaining within-variable reasoning and two different ways of explaining between-variable reasoning when solving the candy cane problem. An example of a within-variable explanation is as follows, “I know that three…ten times three is thirty and five times three is 15 so it must be 15.” Here the student compares cost to cost (10 times three is 30) and number of candy canes to number of candy canes (5 times three is 15). An example of a between-variable explanation is as follows, “um it's like two ways… one is half because that (points to five candy canes) is half of ten.” Interestingly, one child used another strategy outside of within and between reasoning, “I realized that um if you ... it's two, each candy cane is two cents and half of 30 is 15.” This child used the strategy of 122 KBSI2013 Papers unitizing – determining how much one candy cane costs and applying this unit price to the new situation. The more difficult fish and pellet question yielded two different within-variable descriptions and a between-variable description. A student who was reasoning within-variables stated, “I looked and saw that there's two and if you divided this (8 fish) by two it's four and I did four times five is 20.” This student used the 2:8 or 1:4 relationship to reason. Between-variable reasoning was stated as follows, “so we saw that two fish need five pellets so two fish make five then two more need 10, two more 15, and two more 20 (2:5 relationship).” One child even explained why he thought another child came to a different answer, “so 2 is 5 so you go five, 10, 15, 20 so you just count by fives except you go like that so you don't do 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 'cause I think that's what Theo and Harrison did 'cause they didn’t look at it's 2 fish equal 5. These students were making great use of discourse and verbalizing their thinking, but one can also see that they have come to very advanced understandings of discrete proportions for children of their age, having used so many different strategies. Potential Benefit of KB for Multiplicative Reasoning Although it cannot be said for sure, it is suggested that the knowledge building context had great influence on this outcome of such multiplicative thinking. The network of coding— knowledge building and multiplicative reasoning codes—displays a noteworthy enhancement between lesson 1 and lesson 4. Despite the different participation structure in lesson 2 (small group discussions), we noticed students were making use of both build-ons and were using more accurate multiplicative reasoning; although the actual analysis compares lesson 1 and 4 due to the similar KB circle structure of the lessons, the network is also displayed from lesson 2 which shows an appropriate middle-ground between lesson 1 and 4. It must also be noted that not all the small group discussions were captured in lesson 2. Figure 2 displays the connections among these codes from lessons 1, 2, and 4; thicker lines indicate more frequent co-occurrences within the same discourse units. 123 KBSI2013 Papers Figure 2.This analysis looked at the co-occurrence of knowledge building behaviours and multiplicative reasoning in lessons 1, 2 and 4. Multiplicative comparisons (mc) and multiplicative operations (mo) are particularly associated with the KB behaviours in lesson 4. 124 KBSI2013 Papers In lesson 1 the salient connections are between extensions, fraction language, and multiplicative comparisons and also between build-ons, halving language, and multiplicative actions. These are noteworthy since they involve both KB behaviour and multiplicative reasoning, however there is a lack of cohesiveness and overall connectedness. Notice that multiplicative operations are not connected to any other code in lesson one; this means students were not using ‘multiplied by’ or ‘divided by’ language at this point while using other reasoning strategies and knowledge building behaviours. In lesson 2, build-ons took a central role in the discourse as one can see in Figure 2. Thick lines indicate strong connections between build-ons and extensions, halving language, multiplicative operations, fraction language, and multiplicative comparisons. The students have begun using extensions that are also classified as build-ons (whereas before an extension may be merely presenting the first idea to the teacher’s question, now students are advancing the groups knowledge by presenting new ideas) while also incorporating multiplicative operations. An example from the discourse that represents a build-on, extension, multiplicative comparison, as well as halving language is as follows, “because if Shorty is half of Longy, then he'll always have less pe- ... half of the number of pellets that Longy has.” His new idea is a generalization that had not been suggested at this point, but he is also building onto the conversation. Multiplicative operations became integrated; for example, with these quotes, “but you can't divide 100 by 40, because you can't divide 10 by 4 and so you can't divide …” and “you're dividing it by 4 because baby is... baby...you can have four Babies to equal Longy.” Here multiplicative operations are being used in conjunction with build-ons, extensions, multiplicative comparisons, and fraction language. Finally, lesson 4 displays a noteworthy web of connections between build-ons, extensions, collaborations, multiplicative comparisons, and multiplicative operations. Here is an example, “I did it on the back of the sheet I did 10 cents equals five 20 cents is two tens 20, and then five plus ten and then 30 another five 15.” This student is presenting a new idea, building on the conversation, making a multiplicative comparison, and is using multiplicative operations. The students came to make use of the knowledge building behaviours to foster their multiplicative reasoning. The thicker lines between the mentioned five codes which indicate that the knowledge building strategies and the multiplicative reasoning are associated which supports the hypothesis that the knowledge building culture of the lessons may be responsible for the advanced, sophisticated outcomes. The lessons began with an intuitive, continuous depiction of proportional reasoning that young children have been shown capable of understanding. Since an intuitive model was explored first, the connections to discrete representations were made more easily through verbal reasoning. To date research shows that young children have great difficulty understanding proportionality when it is presented in the form of numerical applications. The present study demonstrates that an understanding of proportion is possible for children as young as six-years-old when approached appropriately. Furthermore, as outlined in the literature, mathematical discourse is an emphasized and important feature of math learning. However, there are many challenges reported for both students and teachers in math talk classrooms. We speculate that the extent and quality of math discourse would be greatly enhanced if we used a knowledge building framework for the introduction to proportional reasoning. Our results reveal that a knowledge building discourse structure appeared to support students in making gains in their understanding of proportion. The students in the present study made use of knowledge building discourse which resulted in the sharing and refinement of their knowledge (Chiarotto, 2011). The analysis of the transcripts reveals that the knowledge building discourse structure encouraged participation from all students. Based on the large number of extensions noted in the transcripts, epistemic responsibility was held by the students to share their ideas and build on them. In summary, the 125 KBSI2013 Papers knowledge building environment, coupled with the intuitive-to-numerical learning context are likely to have been factors leading to these gains in children’s understanding. Conclusion It is well known in the research literature that proportional reasoning can be challenging to students of all ages. In addition, it is known that while a math discourse classroom is highly desirable to enhance students’ mathematics learning, this kind of discourse class is challenging to achieve. The advanced use of multiplicative reasoning and students’ abilities to solve extension problems shown by these grade one students reveal that in suitable circumstances, even young students can reason proportionally. In addition, the degree of interaction and student input into the class discussions that were discovered in this study support the benefits of a knowledge building framework. Finally, the association between the multiplicative reasoning and the knowledge building behaviour suggests that they do tend to occur together and perhaps knowledge building behaviours foster multiplicative reasoning. However, there were limitations to this study. Since we did not have a control group and did not pre-test the children, it is difficult to make claims about the growth of their understanding. We also cannot know whether different types of school settings would yield the same results. Further research might explore the relationship between knowledge building and mathematics learning. Acknowledgements I’d like to thank my supervisor and colleague of this project, Dr. Joan Moss for her continued support and guidance. She has taught me lot about conference preparation, the research process and about the literature on proportional reasoning and the importance of discourse in mathematics. I’d also like to extend thanks to the members of Joan’s research lab who helped with the data collection. Thanks also to JICS grade one teacher, Zoe Donoahue for teaching the lessons and for allowing us to collect data in her classroom. The research could not have been possible without her and her students. A special thanks also to Jun Oshima and Yoshiaki Matsuzawa who guided us through analyses using KBDeX, as well as Dr. Marlene Scardamalia and Dr. Carl Bereiter for their professional input that contributed to the project. Relevant Conference Themes Intellectual Engagement Sustained Work with Ideas References Baxter, J., Woodward, J., & Olson, D. (2001).Effects of reform-based mathematics instruction on low achievers in five third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 101, 529–549. Boyer, T., Levine, S.C. & Huttenlocher, J. (2008). Development of proportional reasoning: Where young children go wrong. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1478-1490. Bruce, C.D (2007). Student interaction in the math class: Stealing ideas or building understanding. Research Monograph #1. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 126 KBSI2013 Papers Empson, S. (2003). Low performing students and teaching fractions for understanding: An interactions analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 305-343. Goswami, U. (1989). Relational complexity and the development of analogical reasoning. Cognitive development, 4, 251–268. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. NewYork: Basic Books. Jeong, Y., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2007). The Development of Proportional Reasoning: Effect of Continuous Versus Discrete Quantities. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8(2), 237–256. Kazemi, E. & Stipek, D. (2001).Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper elementary mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal 102(1), 59–81. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Koellner-Clark, K. & Lesh, R. (2003).Whodunit? Exploring Proportional Reasoning through the Footprint Problem. School Science and Mathematics.103, 92–98 doi: 10.1111/j.19498594.2003.tb18224.x Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, (pp. 629-666). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-64. Lanius, C. S., & Williams, S. E. (2003).Proportionality: A unifying theme for the middle grades. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 8(8), 392–396. Martino, A. M., & Maher, C. A. (1999). Teacher questioning to promote justification and generalization in mathematics: What research practice has taught us. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18, 53–78. Ministry of Education (2005). The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1-8: Mathematics. Ministry of Education (2012). Paying Attention to Proportional Reasoning K-12: Support Document for Paying Attention to Mathematical Education. Mitchelmore, M., White, P., & McMaster, H. (2007).Teaching ratio and rates for abstraction. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice (Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 503-512). Adelaide: MERGA. Mix, K.S., Huttenlocher, J. & Levine, S. C. (2002).Quantitative development in infancy and early childhood. New York: Oxford. Moss, J. (2005) Pipes, tubes, and beakers: Teaching rational number. In J. Bransford and S. Donovan (Eds.), How Children Learn: History, Science, and Mathematics in the Classroom. National Academy Press. pp 309-351. Moss, J., & Case, R. (1999). Developing children’s understanding of the rational numbers: A new model and an experimental curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 122–147. Moss, Comay, Stephenson, and Halewood (manuscript in preparation).Proportional reasoning learning in early years classrooms: Integrating continuous and discrete representations. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & F. Bradford (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 127 KBSI2013 Papers Chiarotto, L. (2011). Natural Curiosity: A Resource for Teachers. Building Children's Understanding of the World through Environmental Inquiry. Oshawa, Ontario: Maracle Press Ltd. Oshima, J., Oshima, R., & Matsuzawa, Y. (2012). Knowledge Building Discourse Explorer: a social network analysis application for knowledge building discourse. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 903-921. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1975).The origins of the idea of chance in children. New York: Norton. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge Building. In Encyclopedia of Education. (2nd ed., pp.1370-1373).New York: Macmillan Reference, USA. Schlottmann, A. (2001). Children’s Probability intuitions: Understanding the expected value of complex gambles. Child Development, 71, 103–122. Sherin, M. G. (2002). A balancing act: Developing a discourse community in a mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 205-233. Sophian, C. (2000). Perceptions of proportionality in young children: Matching spatial ratios. Cognition,75, 145–170. Sophian, C., & Wood, A. (1997). Proportional reasoning in young children: The parts and the whole of it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 309–317. Van de Walle, J., & Lovin, L.A. (2006). Teaching student-centered mathematics: Grades 5-8. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2010).From addition to multiplication… and back. The development of students‟ additive and multiplicative reasoning skills. Cognition and Instruction, 28(3), 360-381. Walshaw, M. & Anthony, G. (2008). The Teacher's Role in Classroom Discourse: A Review of Recent Research into Mathematics Classrooms Review of Educational Research 78: 516 originally published online 28 August 2008. Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining Knowledge Building as a Principle-Based Innovation at an Elementary School. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.528317. 128 KBSI2013 Papers A Knowledge Building Journey: Reflections of New Zealand Senior Secondary Teachers Kwok-Wing Lai, Centre for Distance Education and Learning Technologies University of Otago College of Education, New Zealand Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT: This paper documents some initial reflections of eight teachers who participated in a two-year Knowledge Building project in New Zealand senior secondary classes in 2012. As a researcher-practitioner project, this project has a specific focus on how the Knowledge Building approach could be successfully integrated into the existing curriculum and implemented in the normal day-to-day classes. As a case study, teachers were interviewed three times in 2012 and a thematic analysis was undertaken to understand the issues related to the implementation process. This paper contributes to a better understanding of some of the practical issues that teachers face in using the Knowledge Building approach and Knowledge Forum in their senior secondary classes in New Zealand. Introduction A two-year project was undertaken in nine New Zealand senior secondary classes (four onsite, five at a distance) in 2012-2013, with a specific focus on how the Knowledge Building community model (Scardamalia & Berieter, 2006) could be successfully integrated into the school curriculum. This paper documents some initial reflections of the eight participating teachers (one teacher took two classes) after they have completed the first year of the project, and its focus is on integration and implementation. It is noted that Knowledge Building research conducted in the last three decades primarily focused at the primary level (e.g., Bielaczyc & Ow, 2010; Oshima, et al., 2006; So, Seah, & Toh-Heng, 2010; Zhang, Scardamalia, Lamo, Messina, & Reeve, 2007), and it is not clear how the knowledge building approach and Knowledge Forum can be effectively integrated into the senior secondary school curriculum where teachers have to meet externally imposed assessment requirements. There is also a concern that Knowledge Building communities may not be effectively established in distance classes since students have limited or no face-to-face communications. This paper aims at contributing to a better understanding of some of the practical issues that teachers face in using the Knowledge Building approach and Knowledge Forum in their senior secondary classes. Participants The eight participating teachers (four male, four female) came from different parts of New Zealand. While only three of them had some prior knowledge of the Knowledge Building pedagogy with two of them having used Knowledge Forum before joining this project, this group of teachers was very much “pre-disposed towards actually using Knowledge Forum and Knowledge Building” (Teacher K). They were experienced computer users and most of them were also leaders of their schools (there were three ePrincipals and two assistant/deputy principals in the group). Two of the teachers did a postgraduate course on Knowledge Building in 2012. A researcher-practitioner community was developed in 2012 with face-to-face and video/audio-conferencing meetings held regularly to support the participating teachers. Teachers participating in this project all aspired to improving their teaching. While all the teachers had some understanding of the constructivist and inquiry-based learning models, they were attracted to the Knowledge Building pedagogy because they wanted to shift towards a more 129 KBSI2013 Papers student-centred style of teaching, as reflected by the following teachers when asked why they participated in this project: I‘m sad to say…it’s not what I want to be but the reality is, yes, I am a knowledge transmitter…it just needs to become a lot more learner centred and greater participation…devolving of control (Teacher CO). [students are] too dependent on me to give information, to learn. I want them to be independent learners and independent of me to an extent…I am the one who’s writing all the material they’re reading (Teacher TA). Of the nine classes in the first year of this project, four of them were on-site classes, and five were distance classes. The on-site classes were located in two main cities and a provincial town, and the distance classes were offered by the New Zealand Virtual Learning Network, with most of the students coming from rural areas. In the distance classes, students met one hour a week via video-conferencing, and they had three additional hours per week to conduct independent study. Teachers typically spent one school term (ten weeks) with their Knowledge Building classes (refer Table 1). Table 1: Summary of participating teachers and classes in Year 1 Subject/Class Year Biology 11 1 9 Art History 13 1 9 Economics (Class 1) 12 1 8 Economics (Class 2) 12 1 9 Economics 13 1 13 Physics 13 1 13 Accounting 12 1 16 Classics 13 1 25 English 11 Total Classroom based Videoconferencing 1 4 Number of students 23 5 124 Data collection A case study approach was used in this study. The participating teachers were interviewed individually twice in 2012, at the beginning and end of the year. In addition, a group meeting was held at the end of the year for teachers to reflect individually and as a group on the process and outcomes of their Knowledge Building classes. As a design-based project, these reflections were used to help re-design the Knowledge Building classes that teachers would teach in the second year of the project. Following Yin (2009), a thematic analysis was undertaken on the interview transcripts to understand the issues related to the implementation process, and to address the following research question: 130 KBSI2013 Papers How can a knowledge building community be designed and effectively integrated into the New Zealand senior secondary classes, both in the classroom-based and distance learning contexts? What factors will affect the roles of the teachers and what teaching strategies and design principles do teachers use to support students’ advancement of knowledge? Findings A real pedagogical shift Using the Knowledge Building approach in teaching requires a huge pedagogical shift for senior secondary teachers. As expressed by Teacher M, for me this Knowledge Building and Knowledge Forum is a true pedagogical approach that requires a real knowledge shift…it’s actually for real. I’ve done things before and it’s just like, ohh yeah, ho hum but…this actually causes something quite significant to shift. Teachers in this project had difficulties in articulating how the Knowledge Building model was different from the other inquiry based learning models. For example, after a year of working with their students in Knowledge Building, when asked how they communicated the Knowledge Building pedagogy to their colleagues, one teacher responded: [teachers] will think it’s just another example of inquiry learning…so it’s nothing new to them…I’ll find it quite hard to explain to them that Knowledge Building is more than just inquiry learning…(Teacher CO). It took time for teachers to develop their own understanding of the Knowledge Building model and their understanding would affect how they taught their classes. For example, for Teacher CO, his initial understanding of Knowledge Building was that “a big part of this Knowledge Building is asking the right questions, you need to ask the right question”, so in his class, the emphasis was not so much on ideas improvement, but asking the right questions and providing the right answers. Eventually after discussing with other teachers and the researchers, his understanding of Knowledge Building has changed, and he began to ask more facilitating type of questions. Similarly, for Teacher S, Knowledge Building is not so much about developing new idea, as “knowledge building is very much the way I teach anyway. I’m about the kinds and them exploring to find the answers and working together”. In contrast, Teacher TO put a huge emphasis on ideas improvement. In the opening note of one of his Knowledge Forum views, he wrote: We are doing great so far but we can do better. We are functioning as a knowledge building community pretty well already. To further enhance our knowledge creation, we need to be thinking more about how useful our contributions are to the rest of the community. Teachers had to spend time and efforts to understand the application of this pedagogy. For Teacher M, it has been a long journey: I need to spend a lot of time with it before I throw it out to students…it feels like the more I learn, the more I need to know and the shift and the changes in my thinking have been really, really interesting and quite profound, I think…a real intense investment in thinking really deeply and it is interesting. It is the same for Teacher D, It took quite a long time to get my head around the practical application and how was it going to work in the classroom and I certainly, right from the get-go, was really keen and understood the approach…I might say my understanding developed over time. 131 KBSI2013 Papers It is also important that teachers are conversant with Knowledge Forum and it takes time for teachers to know how to Knowledge Forum to support discourse effectively. As reflected by Teacher D: It’s one of those tools, the more you use, and the deeper you dig, the more understanding you develop…like Knowledge Building itself, I think there’s still quite a bit more for me to learn. It’s really just a matter of continuing to use it. One teacher waited until the third term before she introduced Knowledge Forum to her class. By then she had lost the confidence of using it and she ended up not using it at all in her class. If you’re using it, it becomes really familiar and you can work out the, the tweaks of it but I waited until…halfway through term two before I started and I’d forgotten…so much and so therefore I lost my confidence… (Teacher CA) Teachers could have a great influence of how students used Knowledge Forum in their classes. For example, Teacher S didn’t like Knowledge Forum, so her students by and large didn’t like it either. Teacher S confessed: It never helps if your teacher doesn’t either…I think that’s always going to influence them. And I just came across as a nag…if the teacher hates (laughs), they are not going to push it with the kids. In the first year of the project, there was not sufficient time for the teachers to use the scaffolding tools effectively, and none of them had used the rise above notes with their students. Teachers also found that it was important to provide a navigational structure for their students to move around from one view to the other, and to provide a structure for discussion, including the expectation of how often and what to contribute by the students. The role of the teacher Similar to what has been reported in the literature (Lee, Chan, & van Aalst, 2006), teachers in this study felt that it is essential to develop a collaborative learning culture and a safe communication environment in the class (both on-site and distance) in order to prepare their students to participate in the Knowledge Building process. One distance teacher established the following “ethos” with her students (Lai et al., 2012): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Safety of the participants Trust of and in the community and the facilitator High expectations Engagement with subject matter and the community Good Communication Netiquette of emails, knowledge forum, internet and video conferencing Encouragement to foster discussion therefore increasing knowledge and advancement of understanding 8. Transferrable skills 9. Regular participation Teachers had difficulties in deciding how much they should be involved in the Knowledge Forum discussions. Table 2 provides a few examples of the amount of contribution of questions by teachers and students in some selected views. For Teacher CO, he just fell back to what he knew best as a teacher, and was deeply involved in asking and answering questions. In contrast, Teacher M used a more hands-free approach, supporting her students to become self-regulated learners. Other than being a distance teacher, she also used the Knowledge Building principles in her on-site class (not part of the project): 132 KBSI2013 Papers …because I’d been introducing this language about Knowledge Building…getting that student to work with that student or how about talk to them about their ideas and see what you come up with…in that first part of the year…having to step back…but quite quickly I saw the students fill that gap, whereas I hadn’t seen like in other years…[they] are in a situation where they learn really effectively from each other and produce really good work out of it…because of an understanding of the Knowledge Building principles. Table 2: Teachers and students’ contributions to question in selected views Class View No tes Contribut ors W hat Q (T) Why/H ow Q (T) W hat Q (S) Why/H ow Q (S) Teache r TO 3rd problem 39 14 0 1 11 5 Teache r CO Cause s of econ growth 56 6 11 5 2 1 Teache rM Best theory 32 7 0 0 3 3 Knowledge Building has created a different class dynamic. As a teacher who used to lecture in his classes, Teacher TO felt that he was redundant. …the first time that I felt redundant in the classroom…it is quite weird…But now that’s what I want, all the time, because then I can get in amongst the kids, you know. Teacher M has changed her way to talk to her students in her distance class: The way that I would sort of lead and prompt a discussion has changed. Like a student might start to explain an idea and then sort of second-guess themselves, I’m able to jump in and say, all of the ideas are important. The tension of assessing students In New Zealand, there is a national curriculum and it was revised in 2007. The importance of building students’ capacity as knowledge creators is emphasized in this revised curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) and students are encouraged to acquire the competency of becoming “competent thinkers and problem solvers, [who] actively seek, use, and create knowledge” (p. 12). So in terms of using the Knowledge Building approach in teaching there should not be an issue, in theory, as pointed out by one of the teachers, In term of the New Zealand curriculum, I think it has actually integrated quite nicely with those sort of key principles of the New Zealand curriculum…in terms of Classics…it has fit in really nicely (Teacher D). However, in practice, how assessments are done may be a problem. In New Zealand, formal schooling starts at the age of 5, and there are six years of primary (Years 1-6), two years of intermediate (Years 7-8), and five years of secondary school (Years 9-13). In the last three years of secondary school (Years 11-13), students are assessed internally and externally, in preparation for entrance to tertiary institutions. The New Zealand's National Certificates of Educational 133 KBSI2013 Papers Achievement (NCEA) are national qualifications for senior secondary school students introduced nationally in 2002. There are three levels in NCEA, each has its achievement standards (AS), assessed through internal and external assessments. Depending on how well students meet these standards, they will gain either achieved, merit or excellence credits. There are also scholarship examinations taken by high achieving students in a number of subjects. NCEA is administered by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA). These achievement standards are driving the curriculum and course content and how teachers teach in senior secondary classes. As commented by Teacher K, assessment in senior secondary is always the elephant in the room and if you don’t figure out…how can we do it differently [using the Knowledge Building approach] which actually challenges the conventional sort of formatively and summatively evaluating what’s going on… There is a tension between NCEA content and the Knowledge Building approach. The NCEA content is very prescriptive. In contrast, the Knowledge Building approach encourages students to generate and develop ideas and ask questions which may not be related directly to the curriculum. Teacher CO had some doubts of whether Knowledge Building was compatible with the curriculum. …with the current assessment approach taken by NZQA, other than for internal assessment, I don’t see us being able to use Knowledge Forum currently as assessment evidence…external, no; internal, yes. There’s a long way to go in that the learning culture [culture of investigation] that we have at the moment that has developed with our students is not one that assist with Knowledge Building…they’re so used to the transmission model…it can be quite frustrating for them because there’s no immediate answer or right and wrong as far as they’re concerned…time was an issue. Teacher M agreed with this observation: The NCEA style of thinking…teaching is fitting, matching the exam…it’s almost like here’s the knowledge, memorise it whereas Knowledge Building is about what is the important knowledge? How can we learn about that? How can we work together to find out what’s important? So there is a huge mismatch…Even for the excellence level, it feels like it’s funneling down rather than opening up. Knowledge Building is about developing ideas within a community, which comes into direct conflict with an examination system which measures individual achievements, as pointed out by Teacher K: There is this quite strong tension between that individual and sort of community action and achievement…this ‘answer’ culture that knowledge is sort of factual rather than knowledge is something which is improvable…The Standards at Level one, are quite neat and defined, that’s problematic… In a credit gaining culture, students could see the Knowledge Building approach as a waste of time, as noted by Teacher CO, I did have a couple of boys who refused to engaged and said it was a waste of time…this culture in secondary schooling of about getting credits…and they look at them as covering content and answering questions correctly. That’s how they see how learning happens…they want to know how does this discussion ensure that I get credits in my end of year exams. While Teacher agreed that there are constraints in using the Knowledge Building approach with NCEA assessment, teacher K was optimistic, 134 KBSI2013 Papers [NCEA] doesn’t constrain the context and the direction where you’re trying to prompt kids to look or go…it’s more a matter of being sufficiently imaginative, I think, to actually almost spark those energetic questions or to recognize those energetic questions which will actually attract the attention of, things that actually do align with curriculum demands. In fact, in a meeting with a NZQA assessment leader to discuss how assessments could be embedded in the Knowledge Building environment, he assured our teachers that NCEA had sufficient flexibility in both its internal and external assessments to accommodate the Knowledge Building approach. So how was assessment being undertaken in the first year of the project in the Knowledge Building classes? In these nine classes assessments were done in three different ways. In Teacher TO class, his Knowledge Building class was an extension class for high achieving Year 13 physics students, with some of them intended to sit for the scholarship examination. He used a problem-based approach and students were asked to solve four problems related to curriculum content. Since students already had a good understanding of the content, they were asked to generate ideas to deepen their understanding and develop new solutions to the problems, as a preparation for external assessment. The teacher has always had an extension class with high achieving students so the Knowledge Building class was not seen as an ‘add-on’ to the curriculum and he was under no stress to cover new materials. No internal assessments were done during his Knowledge Building class. All the other teachers (except one) tied their Knowledge Building classes with some external assessment standards. For example, for Teacher TA, her Knowledge Building class was a Year 11 English class and the topic of study was a Visual Text achievement standard 1.2 (external assessment) to study the film Social Network. In a school term (10 weeks) students had two periods a week using computers in the library to work with Knowledge Forum, individually and in groups. There were also two in-class periods per week where students discussed as a class of what they have done online, clarifying ideas and developing learning techniques via movie and class based activities (Lai at al., 2012). Students were asked to write assignments to demonstrate their understanding in meeting the achievement standard, as a kind of formative assessment, and also served as a ‘practice exam’, in preparation for the external exam held at the end of the year. Teacher D was the only teacher in the group who tied an NCEA internal achievement standard with the Knowledge Forum discussion. At the end of the project he went over all the notes contributed by the students and assessed each student individually. He found it difficult to assess in this way. NCEA, the nature of standard base assessment made it quite difficult…being reasonably prescriptive…it’s quite difficult to go thru students’ work and grade it…I don’t like the idea of grading what they’ve done because it defeats the purpose of it to some extent. So it didn’t fit that well into NCEA. He was planning to do assessment in a different way in the second year of the project. Instead of going through all the notes contributed by each student, he would grade a final product produced by the students, and it shouldn’t be done as a special project, but “more integrated with the normal day to day sort of functions of the class”. Teacher M felt that Knowledge Building could be used more effectively with those students who were heading towards the scholarship exams because the NCEA standards seemed to fit in more with the open-ended questions that students would be getting at the scholarship level. Teacher D agreed: 135 KBSI2013 Papers When I think about external assessment for Classics, it’s fairly content focused whereas Scholarship, the questions are more analytical and they’re more open-ended and far broader, so that would work really well with those sorts of questions. Knowledge Building in distance classes One unique feature of this project was that five of the nine classes were distance classes. How to provide support for students to use Knowledge Forum at a distance and how to develop a collaborative learning culture are two key issues for these classes. For students who have not done any VC classes before, they not only have to know how to use the VC equipment, but also Knowledge Forum. For Teacher CA, who had a large number of immigrant students (with 15 Year 12 students in her class, there were 14 nationalities), it was technically too challenging, so at the end she chose to use Google doc which the students had already knew how to use as the platform for discussion. In face-to-face classes social interactions may be taken for granted but in online classes the provision of social support and community is important. As pointed out by Teacher K, “if you haven’t got participation, you haven’t got community and you can’t do Knowledge Building”. However, it seems that Knowledge Forum is not a good software to support the social aspect of communication. As commented by this teacher, When I think of situations where I’ve been in genuine Knowledge Building, they’ve always been a social community of “Hey look, we’re in this together”…but the technology [Knowledge Forum] itself doesn’t seem to support that very well…I notice certainly [Teacher M] has had a Facebook sort of page going there. Without having a community in distance classes, Knowledge Building is not possible. I started the official module…they did a Ghandi on me, the passive resistance came out, and they just refused to participant, they’d come to the VC, we’d have the discussion…I had to respect their agency, I guess…they don’t like it, in an online environment, you’ve got a bigger challenge…two loners and they were desperate to engage…put notes out and then nothing came back… (Teacher K) In distance classes, we understand that while sometimes extra efforts have to be put in providing technical support and developing a community, it is by no means that it can not be done, and in fact, there may be some positive factors in using Knowledge Forum in distance classes as distance students tend to be more conversant with the use of technologies to support learning. Infrastructural and technical issues A multiple-site license was purchased for the project and a central server was used to host the Knowledge Building databases. Except for one class, students found it difficult to access the enhanced version of Knowledge Forum both from school and at home. Most students thus had to settle with the basic version which they didn’t like. [students] just found that the website [the basic mode] was very 1980…They’re far used to something that looks flasher and so I think the dislike for it was more aesthetic than it was practical…it wasn’t intuitive to start with…they’ve had to learn and I find that sometimes when it comes to using online tools, they prefer something that’s relatively intuitive…(Teacher TA) 136 KBSI2013 Papers Even for the enhanced version where Teacher TO’s students could access in school, they didn’t like it: In terms of the pedagogy, it’s brilliant but the tool, Knowledge Forum tool is a bit of a dog, to be honest. It’s great what it does but it’s not that easy sort of get the kids on to it and I think it’s just really a function of it being quite old…and it’s just all these extra bits and pieces that have to be in place… Three teachers complained that Knowledge Forum was not used much in their Knowledge Building classes primarily due to problems of accessibility. Discussion and conclusion The first year of the project was a learning journey for the teachers and the researchers. It has taken teachers a long time to understand the theory and practice of Knowledge Building but it was definitely a worthwhile experience. Teacher M’s summarises it well (Lai, et al., 2012): Investigating Knowledge Building this year has been very timely. It allowed me to reflect on and reframe my own role as an educator and classroom teacher. Moving to the Knowledge Building paradigm has enabled me to begin restructuring my role as a teacher, which should allow me to work in a much more sustainable and effective way for the foreseeable future, as well as enabling students greater control and understanding of their own learning. I am inspired by the power of Knowledge Building to reveal and destablise outmoded and ineffective educational practices and structures. For me, it is a truly future-focused, twenty- first century pedagogy. Teachers also came to an understanding that using the Knowledge Building approach really couldn’t be a one-off event, as suggested by Teacher K: It isn’t something we switch on…that you don’t turn it off, on for a topic and then off for a topic…you are building a whole course…you’re establishing a way of doing which is fundamentally very different and therefore to actually switch on a class and run it on a fairly conventional way and then sort of say, okay, then we’re into Knowledge Building. Like it was always artificial… Teachers were committed to spend more time with the students in using the Knowledge Building approach in the second year of the project. With the seven classes that are continuing in 2013, all except one have started their Knowledge Building projects in the first term, and they will run through the whole year, so that students can develop the “habits of mind” (Teacher CO) of Knowledge Building. The issues of how to better integrate assessments into a Knowledge Building environment will be a key focus in the second year of the project. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank all the participating teachers, students, and researchers of this project. Ann Trewern has assisted in data collection, and Fiona Stuart in editing this paper. The author also wishes to acknowledge the funding support provided by the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (TLRI), New Zealand Ministry of Education. References Bielaczyc, K. & Ow, J. (June 2010). Making knowledge building moves: toward cultivating Knowledge Building communities in classrooms. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Vol 1. International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/. 137 KBSI2013 Papers Lai, K.W., Bolton, C., Bennett, C., Campbell, M., Kelly, S., Proctor, T.Y., Pullar, K., Sudlow, D., & Zaloum, T. (2012). Designing knowledge building communities in New Zealand secondary schools: Some preliminary reflections. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 24(3), 278-307. Lee, E, Y, C., Chan,C.K.K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 57–87. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Oshima, J., Oshima, R., Murayama, I., Inagaki, S., Takenaka, M., Yamamoto, E., & Nakayama, H. (2006). Knowledge-building activity structures in Japanese elementary science pedagogy. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 229–246 Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-118). New York: Cambridge University Press. So, H-J., Seah, L., & Toh-Heng, H. (2010). Designing collaborative knowledge building environments accessible to all learners: Impacts and design challenge. Computers & Education, 54, 479-490. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina,R., & Reeve R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of 9 and 10 year olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55,117–145. 138 KBSI2013 Papers Desarrollo de Habilidades de Pensamiento en la Formación Meta Cognitiva del Pensamiento Crítico en los Estudiantes de Nuevo Ingreso a la Licenciatura en Educación Normal Olga Sara Lamela Rios, Universidad La Salle Puebla Email: [email protected] RESUMEN: Con la riqueza de diferentes teorías y con base a modelos en estándares de competencias para el pensamiento crítico de enfoque constructivista, se condujo un estudio con una docente a un grupo de 49 estudiantes de nuevo ingreso en la Escuela Normal “Vicente de Paul”. Puebla. Se estableció un objetivo general: demostrar la incidencia del taller de desarrollo de habilidades del pensamiento en la formación metacognitiva del pensamiento crítico en estudiantes de nuevo ingreso a la Licenciatura en Educación Normal, de la Escuela Normal “Vicente de Paul”, durante el periodo escolar 2012-2013. El Trabajo se desarrolló con grupos naturales o intactos y que mostraron interés por tomar el taller, durante diez sesiones de 2hs semanales se realizaron dos tomas de datos, la primera, se aplicó un pre test previo al desarrollo del taller y la segunda, se aplicó un pos test posterior al mismo. El pre test arrojó un diagnóstico que permitió elaborar un programa de formación con predominio de la articulación de la teoría con la práctica privilegiando el análisis reflexivo, crítico y valorativo como un ejercicio sistematizado de las habilidades que se reforzaron en el desarrollo del taller, una necesidad, que estimula el proceso metacognitivo del pensamiento crítico, ejercitando una dinámica de trabajo con enfoque constructivista. El pos-test, permitió reconocer el nivel de dominio de habilidades del pensamiento crítico logrado por los estudiantes con respecto a las variables: comprensión conceptual: se evaluaron los conocimientos conceptuales con respecto al pensamiento crítico, razonamiento, la capacidad de análisis y de comprensión, los resultados se contrastaron entre los obtenidos en la aplicación del pre test con los del pos test marcándose una mejora del 31%. En la variable competencias del pensamiento crítico, se evaluaron, conocimientos, destrezas y actitudes como, las relaciones de causa-efecto, orientación espacial, silogismos, transitividad, clasificación, inferencias, sentido lógico de sus expresiones entre otras necesarias para ejercer su propia actividad en la organización de su trabajo, al comparar las evaluaciones del pre test con las del pos test, se percibió una mejora del 33%. En la Variable. Naturaleza formativa: se evalúo la comprensión de los procesos básicos del pensamiento para ejercitarlos y transformarlos en nuevos conocimientos, enfrentando las diferentes circunstancias propias de las necesidades del ser humano, generar ideas, cadena de palabras, frases u oraciones, mejorar ortografía, leyendo y comprendiendo textos. Haciendo el contraste entre el pre y post test, se notó una mejora de un 49.5% Se practicaron análisis cuantitativos descriptivos, que muestran que en la primera etapa los alumnos de nuevo ingreso evidencian conocer significativamente la conceptualización y características del pensamiento crítico más no piensan críticamente como una herramienta de formación personal, mientras que en la segunda después de tomar el taller los alumnos, mostraron un avance significativo en el desarrollo de los estándares de competencia en habilidades de pensamiento crítico. Diferencia que se observa después del análisis comparativo que se hizo entre las variables a partir del desempeño de los estudiantes en el proceso del taller. 139 KBSI2013 Papers Palabras clave: inteligencia, pensamiento, constructivismo, competencias para el pensamiento crítico, metacognición. ABSTRACT Based on different theories and constructivist competence-standards models for critical thinking, a research was conducted at Escuela Normal “Vicente de Paul” in Puebla, México. The participants were a professor and 49 new students. The general objective for this research was to know the impact of a Thinking Skills Development Workshop on the critical thinking metacognition of these new students in the Bachelor program at Escuela Normal “Vicente de Paul”, during the 2012-2013 period. The work was developed with intact groups of people who showed their interest to take the workshop for ten two-hour weekly sessions. Data was collected twice, one with a pretest applied before the workshops, and another one with a post-test after the workshop. The pre-text results served to diagnose the possibility to develop a formation program in which the predominance was the articulation of the theory and practice favoring the reflective, critical and values thinking as a systematic exercise of the skills which were reinforced with the workshop, a necessity that stimulates the meta-cognitive process of the reflective thinking, performing a constructive-based work dynamic. The post-test led to the identification of the critical thinking skills level reached by the students regarding the variables: a) Theory comprehension, knowledge related to critical thinking concepts, reasoning, and ability to analyze and comprehend were evaluated. The results contrasted with those obtained in the pretest, indicating an improvement of 31%. b) Critical thinking competences, in this variable, there was an evaluation of the knowledge, skills and attitudes such as the cause-effect relationships, spatial orientation, syllogisms, transitivity, classification, inferences, and sense of their expressions, among others considered as basic to carry out their duties in the organization of their work. By comparing these with the results in the pretest, the improvement was 33%. c) Formative Nature, the comprehension of basic process was evaluated so that they could be transformed into new knowledge, facing the circumstances of the human beings’ needs such as the generation of ideas, words, phrases, or sentences chains, improving spelling by reading and understanding texts. The comparison with the pretest results reveals an improvement of 49.5%. After the application of instruments, a descriptive quantitative analysis was carried out. Pretest results show that new students know the concepts and characteristics of critical thinking to a great extent, but they do not use critical thinking as a personal formation tool. Post-test results show a significant progress in the development of competence standards regarding critical thinking skills. The difference is evident after a comparison made between the variables of the student’s performance during the workshop. Keywords: intelligence, thinking, constructivism, critical thinking competences, metacognition. 140 KBSI2013 Papers INTRODUCCIÓN El pensamiento crítico, en el campo educativo, bien podría considerarse un fin fundamental de la educación, que se cristaliza a través del ejercicio académico-didáctico, donde el estudiante aprende a desarrollar sus habilidades básicas del pensamiento: de comprensión, de reflexión, solución de problemas, de manera eficiente y eficaz; dándole la oportunidad de centrase en el pensamiento más que en el aprendizaje de conocimientos. Desde otro enfoque Facione (2007) sostiene que la tarea educativa tiene el compromiso de desarrollar un nivel de pensamiento crítico que permita el desarrollo social de las personas; cultivando a los estudiantes en actitudes, capaces de producir nuevas ideas, formándolos en sujetos que saben pensar crítica, creativa y libremente, para tomar decisiones y orientar su vida de acuerdo a lo que descubren como valioso; cuya tendencia fundamental es la búsqueda de la verdad. De acuerdo con este modo de concebir el pensamiento crítico, Borgo (2006) sostiene que “se siente como una necesidad social”, que permite cuestionar los discursos y motivos políticos, religiosos, conocimientos científicos en diferentes escenarios de modo que se aspire a una sociedad justa y democrática. Se entiende que la acción educativa pretende estructurar cambios positivos, y provocar aprendizajes significativos en los estudiantes, con referencia a los conocimientos que adquieren. Esto se propone el profesor al ejecutar su clase y lo expresa de manera taxativa en los objetivos. Se supone que la estrategia metodológica-didáctica también se estructura en ese sentido; más la experiencia lleva a constatar que el rendimiento escolar denota siempre resultados no acordes con lo que se desea. Esto puede significar: Que los objetivos; proponen una meta muy alta que no se llegan a conseguir con las actividades previstas, o, que el profesor no ejercitó la mediación necesaria; no precisó el desarrollo cognitivo del conjunto de conocimientos que aspiraba promover en el estudiante, o no desarrolló las estrategias de aprendizaje que estimularan los procesos mentales o las formas de cognición necesarios para conseguir una correcta experiencia de aprendizaje. La realidad que presentaron los estudiantes de nuevo ingreso a la Escuela Normal “Vicente de Paul” era un limitado desarrollo de la capacidad para pensar críticamente, a la luz de un trabajo educativo muy teórico donde el poco uso de estrategias de pensamiento, provocaban argumentaciones de bajo nivel cultural y denotaban la poca práctica de la lectura crítica, y comprensiva. Corrobora este planteamiento el análisis de los resultados del examen de ingreso a la Educación Normal. En la época presente, la educación enfrenta retos y desafíos del mundo globalizado y de la sociedad del conocimiento, que exige y reclama una educación de calidad, preparar profesionales competentes y competitivos, provocando cambios de paradigmas en diferentes aspectos educativos, olvidándose de pensar en el ser humano como un sujeto histórico y como persona dotada de valores. Nuestro mundo se caracteriza por una diversidad de estudiantes producto de la masificación de la educación y de los grandes esfuerzos porque todos la tuvieran, esto amerita una educación centrada en el humanismo. Por lo anterior, se realizó un taller: desarrollo del pensamiento crítico en estudiantes de nuevo ingreso a la Licenciatura en Educación Normal, estuvo orientado por los estándares de competencia para el pensamiento crítico como marco de referencia para evaluar las aptitudes de 141 KBSI2013 Papers pensamiento crítico en los estudiantes, permitió determinar que tanto están razonando críticamente sobre un tema, texto, o una asignatura. Estos estándares proporcionaron indicadores para identificar hasta donde los estudiantes usan el pensamiento crítico como la herramienta principal para su aprendizaje. Los que internalizaron estos estándares de competencias vivieron la experiencia de desarrollar habilidades en su comunicación y en la resolución de problemas Paul y Elder (2005) Teniendo en cuenta las exigencias de la Educación Superior contemporánea el taller se enriqueció con una metodología activa de aprendizaje colaborativo con un enfoque social cognitivo constructivista, que considera al conocimiento como producto de la interacción social y de la cultura, poniendo énfasis en los procesos mentales para llegar a conclusiones concretas. ¿Qué es el pensamiento crítico? Querer saber sobre el pensamiento crítico, es hundirse en la profunda historia de la filosofía que nos remite a la Grecia de los siglos VII y VI a.C. La Grecia democrática que tuvo como grandes pensadores a Sócrates, Platón, Aristóteles. Si bien es cierto, que ellos fueron los pioneros de la filosofía como reflexión racional sistemática sobre el mundo y la vida del hombre, van también, desarrollando la crítica filosófica y que se fue relacionando y creciendo con la polis de la Grecia democrática, donde los ciudadanos decidían en debate abierto y a través de muchas discusiones la forma de gobierno que querían. Habría que reconocer que la filosofía griega estuvo orientada hacia la búsqueda de la verdad usando como única estrategia su experiencia personal, la razón y la evidencia misma. Los pensadores gracias a la crítica, fueron ganando respeto y un lugar en la polis. Nos enriquece Luzuriaga (1997) diciendo que, con Grecia empieza una nueva era en la historia de la humanidad, la era de nuestra cultura occidental, de ella se derivan nuestra educación y nuestra pedagogía, donde destaca el descubrimiento del valor humano del hombre en sí de la personalidad independiente de toda autoridad política y religiosa; destaca además el reconocimiento de la razón autónoma de la inteligencia crítica, liberada de algunos dogmas o consideraciones externas. En la polis ateniense, manejaban la estrategia de la retórica como el arte de persuasión. Proponer y comprender críticamente argumentos complejos era una habilidad considerada de gran valor. Entendemos que Sócrates quiso imprimir nuevos rumbos a la filosofía griega, centrándose fundamentalmente en la búsqueda de la naturaleza de la verdad y de la bondad verdaderas. El método socrático, para Paul (2005) constituye la más conocida estrategia de enseñanza de pensamiento crítico y revela la importancia de lograr en procesos de pensamiento tanto claridad como consistencia lógica, Opina, Bunge (2010) que el pensamiento crítico, supera a lo mágico, como a lo religioso, a las ideologías tradicionales, seudociencias y a las seudofilosofías como la fenomenología y el existencialismo, todas estas son doctrinas dogmáticas y que todas ellas merecen la crítica del pensador crítico, el que exige al teólogo que pruebe la existencia de Dios; al neoliberal, que pruebe que el libre comercio elimina la pobreza y que si las elecciones bastan para asegurar la democracia; estas interrogantes no las puede hacer cualquier persona pero sí pensadores críticos con conciencia crítica y no simples repetidores de conocimiento. Explica, Paul (2005) en los últimos años ha habido un despertar y reconocimiento del pensamiento crítico, empezaron primero en los Estados Unidos en la década de los treinta, y luego en diferentes espacios en los cincuenta, sesenta y setenta. En los ochenta y noventa 142 KBSI2013 Papers alcanzaron su máxima difusión pública. Sin embargo, a pesar de toda la información que existe sobre la importancia y el papel que tiene el pensamiento crítico en la educación, existe una mala interpretación; es más ilusión que realidad. Nel Nodding. (2005) profesora de la Universidad de Stanford, plantea, que “los filósofos y los educadores coinciden, en la importancia del pensamiento crítico; pero no han podido ponerse de acuerdo sobre en qué consiste y mucho menos concuerdan en cómo enseñarlo”. Así mismo ofrece en su obra: El Pensamiento Crítico en el Aula (2007) una serie de recursos para trabajar en el aula que ayudan a desarrollar esta capacidad en los estudiantes de Educación Básica y Media, utilizando como estructura articuladora para estos, las 6 destrezas intelectuales para el pensamiento crítico identificadas por el panel de expertos, cuyo consenso se publicó bajo el título del Informe Delphi (The Delphi Report). Las seis destrezas articuladoras son: interpretación, análisis, evaluación, inferencia, explicación y auto regulación. Paul y Elder (2005) presentan una guía para los educadores: Estándares de Competencia para el Pensamiento Crítico, incluyen indicadores para identificar hasta donde los estudiantes emplean el pensamiento crítico como la herramienta principal para el aprendizaje. La autora, Priestley (2009) nos manifiesta que las habilidades del pensamiento son básicas para el proceso de aprendizaje, pero ¿pueden los estudiantes aprender a desarrollarlas y acceder así a niveles más elevados de discernimiento? La experiencia educativa de la autora, durante casi dos décadas, tanto en las escuelas de Estados Unidos como de América Latina, le ha demostrado que no basta con que los alumnos adquieran un cúmulo de conocimientos cuya aplicación práctica sea poco probable. Afirma que en la actualidad es palpable la necesidad de que los educandos desarrollen el pensamiento crítico, y que la enseñanza de sus técnicas y estrategias se incorporen de manera integral a los programas educativos de todos los niveles. Conceptualización y características del pensamiento crítico, Pensar con sentido crítico, nos proporciona la oportunidad de reflexionar y analizar sobre nuestros propios conocimientos, y nos hace percibir una realidad concreta de manera consciente, empática y cada vez más generosa, con la responsabilidad a que ésta compromete, para ponernos en condiciones de poder cambiar y romper las estructuras que nos limitan en nuestra propia formación personal y profesional, con la finalidad de ser partícipes en la conformación de una sociedad justa, armónica e integrada socialmente. El pensamiento crítico según Facione (2007), se puede considerar como un pensamiento de excelente calidad para una mejor calidad de los aprendizajes y de la vida. En esta consideración, Scriben y Paul (2004, citado en Durón y Limbach 2006) explican que pensar es parte de nuestra naturaleza, pero que el sujeto que piensa ha estado por mucho tiempo abandonado en sí mismo y a su suerte, se tenía de él una información parcializada, a menudo sesgada y prejuiciada. Es necesario reconocer que cuando pensamos no lo hacemos en vacío, el pensar está siempre relacionado con contenidos o temas de nuestro interés; pero cuando no lo hacemos de manera responsable caemos en errores con consecuencias muchas veces insalvables, de la calidad de nuestros pensamientos depende la orientación que demos a nuestras vidas y a todo aquello que es parte de nuestro entorno, por eso es de rigor cultivar de manera sistemática el ejercicio de un pensamiento de calidad, es decir crítico. Por su parte, Norris y Ennis (1990, citados en Nava 2005), definen al pensamiento crítico como razonable y reflexivo, que está enfocado hacia el decidir en qué creer o qué hacer. Considera que se debe ser consciente y responsable de lo que pretende asumir, buscar la verdad. 143 KBSI2013 Papers Argumenta, López (2006), que hay que comprender a la criticidad como la tendencia fundamental del hombre a buscar la verdad, y el pensamiento crítico como el pensar claro, sistemático y ordenado, orientado hacia esta búsqueda. La criticidad hay que entenderla como el dinamismo o potencial; que se ejercita a través el pensamiento crítico. Además hay que considerar que los procesos cognitivos se acompañan de la inteligencia emocional, para Goleman (1999), la Inteligencia emocional es: Conciencia, valoración, confianza en sí mismo. Toda persona aspira a pensar bien durante todos los momentos de su vida, pensar no es solamente propio de los inteligentes, exitosos o sabios, el mundo actual demanda que los sujetos deben adaptarse a la dinámica social, que exige mayor preparación, mayores conocimientos, y el desarrollo de habilidades que permitan pensar bien. Teniendo en cuenta lo anterior, pensar críticamente cobra importancia fundamental en la cultura de la época en la primera mitad de la década de los 70, se tenía bastante claro que el desarrollo de la educación tenía que soportarse en uno de sus pilares: el desarrollo de la “criticidad”. La corriente liberadora del educando-educador propuesta por Paulo Freyre, pasaba por la concepción de que educar era desarrollar la “conciencia crítica” centrada en el diálogo de los sujetos. En este sentido tenemos que aceptar que la educación, juega un papel muy importante al tener que comprometer a los docentes a enseñar a sus estudiantes a analizar, problematizar y participar como actores comprometidos con su contexto. Lippman (1990 citado en López, M. 2006), propone tres características fundamentales de pensamiento crítico: • • • Es autocorrectivo, capaz de ir descubriendo sus propias deficiencias e ir reflexionando y corrigiendo sus propios procesos. Es sensible al contexto; por tanto, sabe discernir cómo y en qué momento expresar sus juicios para que sean realmente útiles en el contexto en el que afirman. Se refiere a un parámetro, que es claro en cuanto a los marcos de referencia, los alcances y limitaciones del juicio que emite. Ante las versiones expuestas se impone el desarrollo de una metodología que nos pruebe la hipótesis que se plantea bajo el rigor de un diseño de investigación pre-experimental de un solo grupo, de pre-test - pos- test. HIPÓTESIS A mayor aplicación del taller: desarrollo de habilidades del pensamiento, mayor formación metacognitiva del pensamiento crítico en estudiantes de nuevo ingreso a la Licenciatura en Educación Normal, de la Escuela Normal “Vicente de Paul” durante el periodo 2012-2013 METODOLOGÍA En atención al problema planteado en este artículo, se presenta una investigación con enfoque de corte cuantitativo descriptivo y con soporte cognoscitivo constructivista, realizado con estudiantes de nuevo ingreso a la Escuela Normal “Vicente de Paul”. El estudio reviste un interés especial cuando se comprende que es conveniente la intervención de un taller que desarrolle las 144 KBSI2013 Papers habilidades de pensamiento en la formación metacognitiva del pensamiento crítico, como una de las formas de perfeccionar el perfil profesional. En el taller se pudo combinar el aprender a conocer con el aprender a hacer para aprovechar desarrollar las competencias del pensamiento crítico en un ambiente de colaboración aprendiendo a convivir desarrollando su comprensión con otros y aprendiendo a ser para que florezca su propia personalidad estimulando su autonomía y responsabilidad personal en la construcción de saberes desarrollando su coraje intelectual. El taller se aplicó durante diez intervenciones de dos horas cada una, bajo la mediación de la docente; con el propósito de responder a las preguntas planteadas y para lograr el objetivo de estudio. Los sujetos de estudio fueron conformados por el universo de 49 estudiantes de nuevo ingreso, como grupo natural o intacto. El instrumento: pre prueba-pos prueba, se elaboró teniendo como referencia los estándares de las competencias para evaluar las aptitudes de pensamiento crítico, diseñando previamente un cuadro de especificaciones para tres variables: Comprensión conceptual, Competencias del pensamiento crítico, Naturaleza formativa, de acuerdo al estudio, por cada variable se anotaron algunos indicadores y preguntas que evalúan las competencias que deben dominar los estudiantes para desarrollar el pensamiento crítico; quedando estructurado el instrumento inicialmente por 41 items, después de haber sido sometido al jueceo de dos expertos, un metodólogo, un asesor de tesis, y de haberse realizado el pilotaje por cinco alumnas y después de haberse analizado las observaciones y sugerencias, se hicieron los cambios correspondientes, se enriqueció el instrumento y quedó conformado con 35 preguntas de gran rigor académico. Resultados de propuesta, al finalizar el desarrollo de la propuesta, y después de la aplicación del post test, se notó un cambio positivo en los estudiantes reflejando mayor énfasis en el desarrollo de su atención y escucha, lee y emite mensajes y conceptos en diferentes contextos, sustenta la lógica de sus respuestas ante una pregunta de estructura lógica, argumenta, utiliza con facilidad referentes teóricos y metodológicos. Sigue instrucciones y procedimientos de manera reflexiva, comprendiendo cómo cada uno de sus pasos contribuye al alcance de un objetivo. Discusión Reconociendo que las habilidades de pensamiento crítico se construyen paulatinamente y que abarcan diferentes niveles de complejidad; debe incorporarse en el plan curricular de la educación superior, con la intención de que el desarrollo del pensamiento crítico se de en el proceso de formación de los estudiantes de nuevo ingreso, considerándolo como un componente fundamental en su perfil de egreso. CONCLUSIÓN Un hallazgo importante detectado en este estudio: los alumnos conceptualizaban al pensamiento crítico e identificaban sus elementos, pero no sabían pensar críticamente; sin embargo durante el desarrollo del taller como algo importante se les facilitó las inferencias lógicas y se notó el esfuerzo por mejorar sus modos de pensar, el avance del estudio mostró que la educación debe comprometerse con el concepto y desarrollo del pensamiento crítico, dándole un lugar preferencial en el curriculum, o manejándose de manera transversal y permanente en cada una de las asignaturas para evitar se quede en la oscuridad brindándole al estudiante la oportunidad de centrarse en el pensamiento más que en el aprendizaje de conocimientos. Se debe valorar al pensamiento crítico como una necesidad permanente y consustancial a la vida de las personas. 145 KBSI2013 Papers Se logró en alguna medida que los estudiantes tomen conciencia que pensar críticamente es seguir un proceso reflexivo, justo, que analiza, autorregula el pensamiento, organiza la información de acuerdo con categorías, jerarquías y relaciones. En la variable comprensión conceptual se observó una mejora de un 31 %, un 33% en la variable competencias del pensamiento crítico y un 49.5% en la variable naturaleza formativa. Se manejó la pregunta como poderosa herramienta de formación del pensamiento, en cuatro niveles propuestos por García (2010) Literales, que hacen referencias a los datos que se obtienen en las fuentes de información. Exploratorias, que involucran el análisis y descubrimientos de los propios pensamientos o inquietudes. De procesos, que se refieren a los procesos del pensamiento necesarios para resolver y analizar situaciones complejas. Metacognitivas, consideradas como un atributo clave para el pensamiento formal. Agradecimientos El Presente estudio se ha podido llevar a cabo gracias a la ayuda que se ha recibido. En primer lugar agradezco de manera muy especial a los directivos de la Escuela Normal “Vicente de Paul”, por facilitar se ejecute el proyecto de intervención. Al Dr. Oscar Hernández López, Dr. Edgar Gómez Bonilla, Dr. Julio Allende Hernández, por su invaluable asesoría en el desarrollo de esta investigación, y a los estudiantes participantes que mostraron mucha voluntad para participar en este proyecto. Lista de temas del summer Institute en los que puede ser inducido el trabajo: Más allá en buenas prácticas en el trabajo del conocimiento BIBLIOGRAFÍA Borgo, A. (2006, agosto.). Pensamiento crítico: ¿necesidad o lujo académico?. Segundo congreso Iberoamericano de pensamiento crítico, realizado en Lima, Perú: Versión electronica. Extraído el 02.02.2010. Bunge (2010) Pensamiento crítico vs. Macaneo. Mensaje enviado a la Primera Conferencia Iberoamericana en Arghentina sobre Pensamiento Crítico desde Montreal. Canadá. Durón, R. & Limbach B. (2006). Marco de pensamiento crítico para cualquier disciplina. Versión electrónica. Revista internacional de la Enseñanza y el aprendizaje en la educación superior. 1-9. Extraído el 11.01.2010.http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/12.01. 2010. Http.//manuelgross.bligoo.com/content/view/190786/ Ennis, R. (1.987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. Facione P. (2007). Pensamiento crítico. ¿Qué es y por qué es importante? Versión electrónica. Extraído 02.02.2010. Goleman, D. (1999). La inteligencia emocional, Buenos Aires, Argentina : Verlap. González H. (2006. en prensa). Pensamiento Crítico y El proyecto educativo de la Universidad Icesi.. López, M. (2006). Pensamiento Crítico y Creatividad en el Aula. México: Trillas. Luzuriaga, L. (1997). Historia de la Educación y la Pedagogía. Argentina: Losada. Lippman, M. (2001).Pensamiento Complejo y Educación. Madrid: ediciones de la Torre. Nel Nodding (2007).El pensamiento crítico en el aula. Publicación en Eduteka: agosto 01 de 2007 Paul, R., Elder, L. (2005) Estándares de Competencia para el Pensamiento Crítico. EE.UU. Fundación para el pensamiento crítico. Priestley, M. (2009). Técnicas y Estrategias del Pensamiento Crítico. México: Trelles. Nava, J. (2005).Leer y escribir para ser sujeto. México: KCS. 146 KBSI2013 Papers “Drawing Out” Students’ Voices: Students’ Perceptions about Learning Science Through Ideas First, a Knowledge Building Approach John Ow, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Email: <[email protected]> Katerine Bielaczyc, Hiatt Centre for Urban Education, Clarke University, USA Email: <[email protected]> ABSTRACT: This study presents students’ perspectives of Ideas First, a Knowledge Building approach to learning science in an elementary school. This approach was designed to enact shifts in how classrooms viewed ideas as conceptual artifacts, developed epistemic agency and fostered collective cognitive responsibility, when learning science. These shifts highlight the difference between traditional classrooms and classrooms that are on a trajectory consistent with Knowledge Building Communities. Drawings from 815 students were analyzed to gather insights into the perspectives of students about learning science through the approach. Results from the analysis provide a sense of the shifts that took place in classrooms learning science through Ideas First. They also shed light on the complex nature of Knowledge Building in classrooms making the shifts, which is akin to a “patchwork” of activities taking place through different social arrangements threaded together by the goal of students’ collective work to improve ideas. Keywords: Knowledge Building, Knowledge Building Communities, Ideas First, student drawings Introduction: “I guess the children have no problem…they actually find out about what they know what they do not know and they try to build on that …So the children take responsibility which is a good skill to have because they don’t get spoon fed by teachers.” A teacher articulates the above in response to a question about how students in her grade 4 class learn science through Ideas First (Bielaczyc & Ow, 2010), an approach for learning science based on the socio-techno determinants of a Knowledge Building Community (Scardamalia, 2002). In her response we find the teacher highlighting the students’ agency for idea improvement while learning Science through Ideas First. This and many other quotations from our conversations with teachers, provide us, the design researchers with a good sense of student learning in classrooms, from the perspectives of teachers. This though may not be how students see themselves learning science through the approach. The perspectives of students are important in developing a multi-perspectival understanding of learning through Ideas First. Teachers’ perspectives can provide insights into the pedagogic innovations co-designed to enact Knowledge Building in Ideas First classrooms as well as feedback on the design of Ideas First when implemented in classrooms. These perspectives are valuable in understanding teachers’ enactment of Ideas First in classrooms. However, as design researchers, we are also interested in students’ perspectives of learning through Ideas First. Students’ perspectives can provide insights into the students’ experience of learning in classrooms, potentially uncovering aspects of Ideas First significant and meaningful to students when learning through the approach. Their perspectives also provide important feedback about our design for Ideas First. The focus of the paper is to examine students’ perspectives of learning 147 KBSI2013 Papers science through Ideas First. This program was co-designed with primary school teachers and has been operating in grade 3 and grade 4 classrooms since 2006 (Bielaczyc & Ow, 2007; Ow & Bielaczyc, 2007). The program is based on the vision of a knowledge building community where students work to advance the science understanding of the classroom community by engaging in collectively building knowledge. Knowledge Building Communities The Knowledge Building Communities (KBCs) model and its associated technology Knowledge Forum have been in the field of CSCL for over 20 years (Berieter, 2002; Berieter & Scardamalia, 1993; Scardamalia, 2002; Scardamalia & Berieter, 2006). The vision of classrooms as knowledge building communities is for students to build collective knowledge with “fidelity to the ways work with ideas is carried out in the real world” (Scardamalia, 2002, p.6). The aim of the classroom community is to advance the frontiers of their knowledge. In KBCs, students work to identify problems of understanding, create theories, carry out research and investigations in order to refine their theories over time, revise their problems and strategies, and share and monitor the progress of the community towards its goals. The central ideas of the KBC model are captured in 12 knowledge building principles, which include “real ideas, authentic problems,” “epistemic agency,” and “community knowledge collective responsibility” (Scardamalia, 2002; Zhang, et al., 2011). One of the central challenges faced in the creation of KBC classrooms, is that the KBC model is often enacted in classrooms with an existing culture for learning. This culture for learning can be very different from that of KBCs. Hence bringing the KBC model to life in K-12 classrooms involves designing for shifts in the classroom culture from one that is more traditionally focused on individual learning to another where the emphasis is on the progressive improvement of ideas and collective efforts towards common goals of understanding. Three specific shifts highlight the difference between traditional classrooms and classrooms that have a trajectory consistent with KBCs: ideas as conceptual artifacts, developing epistemic agency and fostering collective cognitive responsibility (Bereiter, 2002; Scardamalia, 2002; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). In KBCs, treating ideas as conceptual artifacts involves treating ideas as public objects, available to the community for its knowledge building endeavors. Developing epistemic agency in KBCs involves students assuming agency to set goals, make plans and carry out the plans to understand the community’s problems. Fostering a sense of collective cognitive responsibility among members of KBCs involves students taking social responsibility to advance not only their knowledge but also that of the community. Designing for these shifts is a long term process. Despite the importance of designing classrooms as KBCs, little is known about actual designs of classrooms as KBCs. The efforts of Caswell and Bielaczyc (2001) provide valuable insights into the structure of learning activities within the classroom to support student inquiry. In their study, they outline the notion of “…knowledge-building activities – ways students can work with ideas and with each other to deepen their understanding in a particular area of inquiry” (p.282). Van Aalst and Truong (2011) provide further details in their design to support knowledge creation in an Asian elementary classroom. They re-surfaced the practice of using the knowledge wall to foster a sense of safety when sharing ideas and to allow students practice with knowledge creation discourse. In their design, they also introduce the practice of “Quality Circle Time” to support whole-class talk. Our design research focuses on the construction of implementation paths or on the design of trajectories that students and teachers can traverse in order to navigate these desired shifts (Bielaczyc, 2006, 2013; Bielaczyc & Collins, 2006). We believe that an important design consideration is the social infrastructure of the learning environment. One way to think about the design for the necessary classroom social infrastructure is through the lens of the Social Infrastructure Framework (Bielaczyc, 2006). This framework 148 KBSI2013 Papers brings attention to the culture and beliefs of the classroom, the practices of the classroom, the arrangements of people around technology and connections to communities external to the class. Attending to these dimensions of the social infrastructure, we have designed an approach for learning science, Ideas First, with supportive tools and practices to help classroom communities navigate shifts that put them on a trajectory consistent with KBCs. Through our design research, we seek to deepen understanding for designing classrooms as KBCs. Ideas First Ideas First is an approach for learning science based on the KBCs model. It has been implemented in all grade three and four science classes of a Singapore elementary school since 2006. Students of all learning abilities learn science through this approach. Prior to the implementation of this approach, science lessons were scheduled in 30-minute periods where topics were segmented into short presentations based on material in textbooks and activities guided by activity books. Given the high stakes nature of the Singaporean exam system, this approach ensured that focus tended toward “coverage” of key topics and practice on examtype questions with “model answers.” In order to move toward knowledge building, we redesigned the school-based curriculum for science in grades 3 and 4. The science content was arranged to support inquiry into specific problems. The resulting structure of Ideas First involves students working together on four problems across each year in Grades 3 and 4. One major problem guides each 10-week term, with a total of eight terms across Grades 3 and 4. This problem oriented focus facilitated students’ extended inquiry and collective efforts to advance the classroom community’s understanding of the problems. During extended inquiry, students carried out investigations in science laboratories and the school gardens; as well as used the Internet and library resources to collect evidence for their collective work to advance understanding on problems. Knowledge Forum was used to share and support the students’ work. In addition, we also designed technologies such as Think Cards, Sun Charts and Hypothetical Game Configurations to help classroom communities navigate the shifts from more traditional classrooms to classrooms on a trajectory consistent with KBCs as well as support students’ work with ideas where the technology of Knowledge Forum was unavailable e.g. in classrooms and science labs (Bielaczyc & Ow, 2007; Bielaczyc & Kapur, 2010; Ow & Bielaczyc, 2007). Our design of Ideas First, consequently, places students’ ideas and their collective work with ideas, in a KBC as the centerpiece of the curriculum. Student drawings Just as students’ ideas are the focus of Ideas First, we seek similarly to bring to the fore students’ perceptions about learning science through Ideas First. Central to finding out students’ perspectives about the learning of science through “Ideas First” are efforts to give a voice to the students. One way to do this is through the use of student drawings. Student drawings can be an alternative way to document educational change, providing young children (Golomb, 1992) and nonverbal communicators (Tovey, 1996) opportunities to shared their perspectives. Based on a three year study of school reform across schools, Haney, et al. (2004), found that the analysis of student drawings “... was a simple and powerful way to document changes in the educational ecology of schools.”(p.244). In addition, they also found that they were able to analyze reliably the features that appeared in student drawings. The use of student drawings though is not widespread in educational research. A body of research exists in science education that investigates students’ images of scientists using the draw a scientist test (Chambers, 1983). Aside from this, student drawings have been used on occasions to elicit students’ conception of schools (Selwyn, Boraschi & Ozkula, 2009; Wang & Tsai, 2012), school experiences (Einarsdottir, 2010) and learning (Lodge, 2007). Student drawings have also been used to assess learning following learning interventions (Bowker, 2007; Chapman, 149 KBSI2013 Papers Greenfield, & Rinaldi, 2010; Cainey, et al., 2012). Although student drawings are not widely used, the researchers who do use them argue for student drawings as a valid way of understanding students’, especially young children’s views about educational issues. The use of student drawings we feel provides us a way to “draw out” students’ perspectives about learning science through Ideas First. Student drawings have been used in a South Asian elementary school context to understand students’ conceptions of traditional classrooms (Wang & Tsai, 2012). This study found that when students in traditional South Asian classrooms were asked to draw themselves learning, students depicted themselves sitting and listening to lectures. Although we are beginning to see glimpses of knowledge building in South Asian classrooms van Aalst & Truong (2011). Little is known about how students in South Asian classrooms see themselves learning through a Knowledge Building approach. Objectives The purpose of this study is to present the largely under-represented perspective of students about learning science through the Ideas First approach. In this paper we seek to answer the following questions: · How do students perceive learning science through the Ideas First approach? · How do students perceptions inform the design of Ideas First, a knowledge building approach for learning science? Methods This study presents students’ perceptions of Ideas First through the analysis of grade three and four students’ drawings (n=815) collected in the second and fourth years of implementing the approach Data collection We carried out student drawing activities in the second and fourth years of implementing the approach. The student drawing activity was carried out in the second year of implementation to gather information about students’ perceptions of learning science during the initial period of implementation. The drawing activity was not carried out in the first year of implementation because teachers were still new to the approach and the design-researchers were still in the process of refining and iterating the design of Ideas First. The subsequent student drawing activity was carried out in the fourth year of implementing the approach. During the fourth year of implementation, there were minimal design changes to the approach and teachers were increasingly familiar with the practices and the underlying principles of Knowledge Building Communities. The student drawing activity carried out during the fourth year allowed us to gather information about students’ perception of learning science through Ideas First in the later stages of implementation. In the second year of implementing Ideas First, students were tasked with a drawing activity. At the commencement of the drawing activity, students were given an instruction sheet with the prompt, “Think about your science class this year. Think about the kinds of things you do when you learn science. Draw a picture of yourself learning science in your science class.” The prompt was also read aloud to the students in English. This prompt was developed based on the prompt used by Haney, et al. (2004) and modified based on accounts by Chapman, et al. (2010) about the confusion from English Language learners regarding the use of “the camera” in the original prompt, hence the omission of the phrase. Students were given an hour to complete their drawings. The drawings were collected from students at the end of the hour. All students present in the grade three and four science classes participated in the activity. This activity was carried out in the third term of the school academic year before the commencement of the term break. We chose to carry out the drawing activity in the third term to allow students to experience 150 KBSI2013 Papers learning science through the Ideas First approach for at least three terms in the academic year. The drawing activity was also carried out during this term to minimize the possible influence of school examinations on classroom practices. In Singapore elementary schools, classroom practices in the fourth term typically shift in order to prepare students for the end of the school academic year examinations. In the fourth year of implementing Ideas First, students were tasked with a similar drawing activity. The instruction sheet given to students was modified to foreground Ideas First as the approach for learning science. The prompt used was “We want to tell other schools about how we are learning science with Ideas First. We want you to help by drawing a picture that helps people understand how you learn science with Ideas First.” As per the previous drawing activity, this prompt was read out loud to students and they were similarly given an hour to complete the activity. The drawings were collected at the end of the hour. Although we attempted to implement the drawing activity in term three as per the previous drawing activity, scheduling constraints in the school prevent us from carrying this out in term three. Consequently, we implemented the drawing activity at the end of term four after the end of the year examinations to reduce the potential effect of the examinations on students’ perceptions of learning science through Ideas First. To enhance the credibility of our attempts to understand students’ perception of learning science through Ideas First, we carried out triangulation across data methods (Creswell, 2013) and embedded ourselves in Ideas First classrooms for the duration of the project. We were present for the science lessons of four classes in the first two years of implementation and two classes during the next two years of implementation. In addition to the use of student drawings, we also interviewed teachers, collected videotape data of science lessons and recorded notes of the lessons in our field journals to help us understand students’ perspectives of learning science. Consequently, we were able to observe, record, reflect and better acquaint ourselves with student learning; enhancing the credibility as well as the confirmability of data gathered. Coding drawings We employed an emergent analytic coding procedure (Charmaz, 2006; Haney, et al., 2004) to code the drawings. One researcher examined 75 drawings and made a checklist of features that appeared through the drawings. Two research assistants then repeated this process. The research assistants examined the 75 drawings independently using the checklist created and coded the drawings for the presence or absence of the features on the checklist. In addition, features that were not present were added to the checklist. After this activity, the research team came together to discuss and finalize the features on the checklist. Based on the finalized checklist of features, we identified 29 variables across 6 different categories. These categories included the presence of teachers, the presence of students, student activities, the arrangement of students around tables, the arrangement of students around Learning Technologies and representations in science lessons. Using the final checklist of 29 variables aggregated into 6 categories, the researchers and research assistants then coded all the student drawings. Results The six categories and associated variables identified from the analysis of the student drawings are presented in the following sections. We analyzed 246 student drawings from grade 3 in year 2, 148 student drawings from grade 3 in year 4, 217 student drawings from grade 4 in year 2 and 204 student drawings from grade 4 in year 4. The frequency counts of variables in student drawings are presented along with the percentages of the variables calculated in relation to the total number of student drawings from the respective grades and years. The results are presented 151 KBSI2013 Papers to facilitate comparisons between the second and fourth years of implementation for grade 3 and grade 4. Presence of teachers The category “Presence of teachers” examined the presence and location of the teacher when students were learning science through Ideas First. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 1. Less than half the student drawings showed the presence of teachers. We noted that for the student drawings from grade 3, the presence of the teacher was depicted in a smaller percentage of student drawings from the fourth year compared to the second year. Student drawings from grade 3 also depicted teachers in front of students and at the whiteboard or screen in a smaller percentage of student drawings from the fourth year compared to the second year. It was encouraging to note a larger percentage of student drawings from grade 3 depicted teachers with students in the fourth year compared to the second year. A different pattern was observed in the student drawings from grade 4. Student drawings from grade 4 showed the presence of teachers in a slightly larger percentage of drawings in the fourth year compared to the second year. A larger percentage of drawings from grade 4 showed teachers in front of students and at the whiteboard or screen in the fourth year compared to the second year. Student drawings depicting teachers with students also decreased in the fourth year compared to the second year. These patterns about the presence of teachers in grade 4 are in contrast to those observed in grade 3. TABLE 1 Presence of teachers Grade 3 Grade 4 Second year of implementing “Ideas First” Fourth year of implementing “Ideas First” Second year of implementing “Ideas First” Fourth year of implementing “Ideas First” Teacher present (104) 42.3% (32) 21.6% (89) 41.0% (89) 43.6% In front of students (92) 37.4% (25) 16.9% (72) 33.2% (74) 36.3% Whiteboard or screen (82) 33.3% (22) 14.9% (64) 29.5% (72) 35.3% With Students (2) 0.8% (3) 2.0% (12) 5.5% (8) 3.9% Presence of students The category “Presence of students” examined the presence of students and how students were grouped in the student drawings. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 2. Not all student drawings had the presence of students. Although a large percentage of student drawings depicted the presence of students. We note that students were depicted in a smaller percentage of 152 KBSI2013 Papers student drawings from the fourth year compared to the second year for both grades 3 and 4. It is encouraging to observe that there was a smaller percentage of student drawings depicting individual students learning science in the fourth year compared to the second year for both grades 3 and 4. TABLE 2 Presence of students Grade 3 Grade 4 Second year of implementing “Ideas First” Fourth year of implementing “Ideas First” Second year of implementing “Ideas First” Fourth year of implementing “Ideas First” Presence of students (235) 95.5% (137) 92.6% (213) 98.2% (168) 82.4% Individuals (138) 56.1% (61) 41.2% (114) 52.5% (74) 36.3% Groups (35) 14.2% (18) 12.2% (53) 24.4% (58) 28.4% Class (29) 11.8% (21) 14.2% (41) 18.9% (44) 21.6% We observed that in grade 4, there was a higher percentage of student drawings in the fourth year depicting students learning in groups compared to the second year. An opposite pattern was observed in grade 3, there was a smaller percentage of student drawings in the fourth year depicting students learning in groups compared to the second year. It is interesting that the results also showed a larger percentage of drawings depicting students learning science as a class in the fourth year compared to the second year for both grades 3 and 4. Student activities The category “Student activities” refers to the activities that students carried out while learning science through Ideas First. These included listening and watching the teacher, reading and writing, presenting, carrying out experiments, doing work on the computer, working on Knowledge Forum and participating in group activities. The difference between the student activities “doing work on the computer” and “working on Knowledge Forum” is illustrated by providing some examples. Examples of students’ depictions of doing work on the computer include carrying out a search on Google and doing word processing on a computer. Examples of students’ work on Knowledge Forum included depictions of students writing notes on Knowledge Forum and students working in the communal space of Knowledge Forum. The results of the analysis of student activities depicted in student drawings are presented in Table 3. We were encouraged to note that the following student activities, presenting, group activity, working on Knowledge Forum were depicted in a higher percentage of student drawings from the fourth year compared to the second year in both grade 3 and grade 4. We noted that a smaller percentage of student drawings depicted students learning science by listening and watching; in drawings form the fourth year compared to the second year for both grades 3 and 4. It was 153 KBSI2013 Papers interesting that there was a higher percentage of student drawings that showed students reading and writing in the fourth year compared to the second year for both grades 3 and 4. Students doing experiments were frequently depicted in student drawings. A higher percentage of student drawings from grade 4 showed students doing experiments compared to year two. Student drawings from grade 3 showed the opposite. There was a smaller percentage of drawings in year four depicting students doing experiments compared to year 2. When we looked at the analysis of student drawings showing work on computers we noted that the pattern observed from student drawings showing the use of Knowledge Forum was not repeated for drawings showing the use of computers for other purposes. There was a higher percentage of student drawings from the fourth year of grade 3 depicting students working on the computer compared to the second year of the same grade. This pattern was reversed for grade 4. There was a lower percentage of student drawings from the fourth year of grade 4 depicting students working on the computer compared to the second year of the same grade. TABLE 3 Student Activities Grade 3 Grade 4 Second year of implementing “Ideas First” Fourth year of implementing “Ideas First” Second year of implementing “Ideas First” Fourth year of implementing “Ideas First” Doing Experiments (101) 41.1% (44) 29.7% (95) 43.8% (94) 46.1% Listening & Watching (55) 22.4% (28) 19.0% (71) 32.7% (63) 30.9% Reading & Writing (28) 11.4% (47) 31.8% (11) 5.1% (42) 20.6% Presenting (9) 3.7% (10) 6.8% (2) 1.0% (4) 2.0% Group activity (12) 4.9% (39) 26.4% (17) 7.8% (43) 21.1% On comp (6) 2.4% (37) 25.0% (44) 20.3% (24) 11.8% On KF (13) 5.3% (26) 17.6% (30) 13.8% (42) 20.6% Arrangement of students around tables The category “Arrangement of students around tables” refers to how students were arranged around tables while learning science. The results of the analysis of student drawings are presented in Table 4. 154 KBSI2013 Papers TABLE 4 Arrangement of students around tables Grade 3 Second year of implementing “Ideas First” Fourth year of implementing “Ideas First” Grade 4 Second year of implementing “Ideas First” Fourth year of implementing “Ideas First” Tables for 1-1 (101) 41.1% (36) 24.3% (79) 36.4% (44) 21.6% Tables for groups (40) 16.3% (11) 7.4% (65) 30.0% (76) 37.3% Rows of tables (9) 3.7% (7) 4.7% (29) 13.4% (7) 3.4% We were encouraged to note that the percentage of student drawings depicting tables arranged for an individual student or “Tables for 1-1” was lower in the fourth year compared with the second year in both grade 3 and grade 4. The student drawings in grade 3 and grade 4 showed two distinct patterns with regards to the arrangement of tables for groups and tables arranged in rows. We noted that in grade 4, there was a smaller percentage of student drawings showing tables arranged in rows in the fourth year compared to the second year. There was also a higher percentage of student drawings that depicted tables arranged for groups. In grade 3, a different pattern was evident. There was a higher percentage of student drawings showing tables arranged in rows in the fourth year compared to the second year. There was also a lower percentage of student drawings in the fourth year showing tables arranged for groups compared to the second year. Arrangement of students around Learning Technologies The category “Arrangement of students around Learning Technologies” refers to how students were arranged around various technologies used in learning science. These include worksheets, the whiteboard or screen and the computer. We provide examples to illustrate the various variables in this category. When student drawings depicted “worksheets 1-1” the drawings showed one student working on one worksheet. Similarly, when student drawings depicted “worksheets many-1” they illustrated a group of students working on one worksheet. This worksheet could take the form a communal artifact like a Sun Chart or a concept map. An example of students’ depiction of “Whiteboard/ screen many-1” was a group of students in front of a whiteboard or computer screen. The illustration of “computer 1-1” is exemplified by the depiction of a drawing of one student working in front of a computer. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 5. We observed that there was a higher percentage of student drawings depicting “worksheets 11”, “whiteboard Many-1” and “computer 1-1” in the fourth year compared to the second year in both grades 3 and 4. We also observed a smaller percentage of student drawings depicting “worksheet many-1” in the fourth year compared to the second year for both grades 3 and 4. 155 KBSI2013 Papers TABLE 5 Arrangement of students around Learning Technologies Grade 3 Grade 4 Second year of implementing “Ideas First” Fourth year of implementing “Ideas First” Second year of implementing “Ideas First” Fourth year of implementing “Ideas First” (54) 22.0% (33) 22.3% (35) 16.1% (65) 31.9% Worksheets Many-1 (11) 4.5% (5) 3.4% (7) 3.2% (4) 2.0% Whiteboard/ Screen (36) 14.6% (28) 18.9% (58) 23.6% (82) 40.2% (14) 5.7% (43) 29.0% (53) 24.4% (60) 29.4% Worksheets 1-1 Many-1 Computer 1-1 Representations in science lessons The category “Representations in science lessons” refers to how ideas and information were represented when students learn science through Ideas First. Ideas and information can be represented as a list, a classification diagram, a flow chart, a communal space of ideas on Knowledge Forum or a worksheet e.g. a Sun Chart; and a note on Knowledge Forum or Think Card. The analysis of this category is presented in Table 6. In general, a small percentage of student drawings had illustrations of representations. It is interesting to note the higher percentage of the following representations, communal space of ideas in Knowledge Forum, the Sun Chart, the personal note in Knowledge Forum and the Think Card depicted in drawings from the fourth year compared to the second year of implementation, in both grades 3 and 4. Other observations of note are the smaller percentage of drawings depicting lists in the fourth year compare to the second year in grade 4; and the smaller percentage of student drawings depicting classification diagrams, flowcharts and concept maps in the fourth year compared to the second year in grade 3. 156 KBSI2013 Papers TABLE 6 Representations in science lessons Grade 3 Grade 4 Second year of implementing “Ideas First” Fourth year of implementing “Ideas First” Second year of implementing “Ideas First” Fourth year of implementing “Ideas First” List (3) 1.2% (2) 1.4% (15) 6.9% (3) 1.5% Classification diagrams (23) 9.3% (2) 1.4% (0) 0% (15) 7.4% Flow Charts (10) 4.1% (2) 1.4% (3) 1.4% (4) 2.0% Concept maps (6) 2.4% (2) 1.4% (4) 1.8% (3) 1.5% Communal Space of ideas (KF)/ Sun Chart (4) 1.6% (8) 5.4% (16) 7.4% (20) 9.8% Personal Note (KF)/ Think Card (4) 1.6% (18) 12.2% (5) 2.3% (16) 7.8% Discussion The analysis of student drawings allowed us to examine students’ perspectives of learning science through Ideas First. The study suggests that students’ drawings depict a general shift over time in the culture of classrooms learning science through Ideas First. This is perhaps exemplified by the contrast between the drawings of a student in grade 3 learning science (Figure 1) in the second year of implementation and that of another student in grade 3 learning science in the fourth year of implementation (Figure 2). 157 KBSI2013 Papers Figure 1. Student drawing from grade 3 depicting learning science in the second year of Ideas First. In the figure 1, we see a depiction akin to a “traditional” South Asian representation of learning (Wang & Tsai, 2012). A student is learning science by sitting at a table listening to the teacher. In figure 2, we see a more complex representation of learning science. The student explains in his write-up about the drawing that he was writing his ideas in Knowledge Forum. He then shared his ideas with his classmates. These ideas were written down. The student then read books to get more information and then shared the information with his friends. The selected drawings provide a visualization of the overall sense of shift in the learning of science as depicted by students. We discuss students’ perceptions of learning science by re-visiting the three critical shifts, which were the focus of our design, between traditional classrooms and classrooms that are on a trajectory consistent with KBCs: ideas as conceptual artifacts, developing epistemic agency and fostering collective cognitive responsibility. 158 KBSI2013 Papers Figure 2. Student drawing from grade 3 depicting learning science in the fourth year of Ideas First. “Fostering collective cognitive responsibility when learning science” The student drawings in general show an emerging sense of collective cognitive responsibility. We noted a decrease in students’ perceptions of learning science as an individual pursuit. This was evident by the decrease in student drawings that depicted students learning science by themselves as well as tables configured for use by only one student. At the same time we also observed an increase in illustrations of group activities. This observation together with the decrease in student drawings that depict students learning science by themselves, suggest an increasing focus on group activities for learning. The group activities in Ideas First can take the form of informal discussions or more deliberately designed student practices supported by communal artifacts (Figure 3). In Figure 3, the drawing depicts student participating in a group pull-together on a Sun Chart, which supports students working together on problems. This small group activity of a pull-together foreshadows students’ later participation in a larger communal space of ideas, in Knowledge Forum, where they work on ideas of other students in the class. 159 KBSI2013 Papers Figure 3. Student drawing depicting students working to pull together ideas using a Sun Chart. It is interesting to note that student drawings showed an increase in the percentage of students depicted as a class. Student drawings also showed an increase in the percentage of students gathered around the whiteboard or screen. These observations appear to suggest a lecture mode of teaching science. Something akin to “Knowledge Telling” by the teacher. However, we would like to bring attention to the increase in the percentage of student drawings depicting representations of the communal space and notes on Knowledge Forum. Many of these illustrations were projected onto screens or put up on whiteboards (Figure 4). Teachers used these representations to support classroom discussion of the ideas in the communal space as well as the knowledge building moves enacted in the communal space. Thus these observations appear to be consistent with the emerging sense of collective cognitive responsibility depicted in student drawings. 160 KBSI2013 Papers Figure 4. Student drawing of the teacher at the screen pointing to a note from Knowledge Forum “Treating ideas as conceptual artifacts when learning science” Student drawings provide evidence that suggests students were beginning to treat ideas as conceptual artifacts when learning science. We noted an increase in the percentage of student drawings depicting students working on Knowledge Forum. Consistent with this observation, there were increases in the percentage of student drawings depicting notes on Knowledge Forum and Think Cards; as well as the communal space of a view in Knowledge Forum and the Sun Chart. Knowledge Forum is the technological support for Knowledge Building. One way that Knowledge Forum supports Knowledge Building is by making ideas of the members in the community public and available for Knowledge Building endeavors. An example of students’ use of Knowledge Forum for learning science is shown in figure 5. The student explained that she was typing her ideas in Knowledge Forum to allow other students to read and improve on her idea. She adds that this helps her friends understand more than they were learning. This drawing demonstrates the beginnings of the student’s understanding of ideas as conceptual objects, that ideas can be made public, shared with and worked on by a community to improve understanding of a problem. In Ideas First, we have also designed technologies such as the Think Card and Sun Chart that serve a similar function. The use of these technologies though are limited to the initial six months of grade 3 and helps to bridge the culture of traditional classrooms and classrooms on a trajectory consistent with KBCs. Students’ illustrations of science learning, specifically the activity of working on Knowledge Forum, is perhaps indicative of a shift in ways classrooms enacting Ideas First treat ideas as conceptual artifacts. 161 KBSI2013 Papers Figure 5. Student drawing depicting a student working on Knowledge Forum “Developing epistemic agency when learning science” Student drawings provide indications that students are beginning to develop epistemic agency when learning science. Developing epistemic agency requires students to make efforts to understand the community’s work on common problems of understanding. One way to do this is by engaging in Knowledge Building on Knowledge Forum, which enables the community to visualize the current state of understanding of the problems. We note an increase in the percentage of student drawings depicting work on Knowledge Forum, suggesting students’ increased participation in an activity that develops epistemic agency. In addition to taking efforts to understand the state of the community’s work on problems, developing epistemic agency also requires students to undertake activities that help advance their understanding of the problem. The student drawings have depicted some of these activities. They include doing experiments, listening and watching the teachers, reading and writing; and carrying out research on computers. These activities are no different from those found in traditional classrooms learning science. But an important distinction to make is that these activities take place in the context of working to improve ideas and advance the community’s understanding of problems. Learning from our design for learning science through Ideas First Emerging from our analysis of student drawings is the visualization of the weaving of activities and different social arrangements that support students’ work with ideas. Designing for classrooms as KBCs, requires thoughtful considerations of offline learning activities that support work with ideas on Knowledge Forum (Caswell & Bielaczyc, 2001; van Aalst & Truong, 2011). Berieter & Scardamalia (2010) acknowledge that traditional learning activities have their place within the context of a larger Knowledge Building framework, but also caution that they cannot be the central focus. Moving forward we suggest visualizing students’ work with ideas as an intricate “patchwork” of activities taking place in many different social arrangements woven tightly together by a single thread representing the focus of students’ principle-based collective efforts to improve ideas. This 162 KBSI2013 Papers visualization does not depart from the central focus of Knowledge Building, students taking collective cognitive responsibility for idea improvement. At the same time there is recognition of carefully considered activities, resources and social arrangements put together to support this focus. These should vary depending on the community’s needs as KBCs. The results of our analysis reflect the diverse patterns of student activities and configurations. We illustrate our notion of a Knowledge Building “patchwork” in figure 6. This drawing depicts a student’s efforts to learning science through Ideas First. This drawing demonstrates the complex nature of learning science through a Knowledge Building approach. We note a variety of activities in the illustration, but with a focus on explaining a problem. This “patchwork” of activities includes “pieces” such as existing cultural practices, the presence of the teacher at the front of the classroom, teaching students. This practice is appropriated however to support students’ work with ideas. We see the teacher using the whiteboard to introduce some phrases to scaffold students’ Knowledge Building discourse during group discussion. Other “pieces” that contribute to the activities also includes students’ use of cultural artifacts that are consistent with “epistemic forms” (Collins & Ferguson, 1993) used by the larger scientific community to communicate ideas; and cultural artifacts such as pen and paper, technologies found in most classrooms to engage in the work of making explicit, contributing and improving ideas. Figure 6. Student drawing depicting Knowledge Building activities. Conclusion This study highlights the use of student drawings to describe shifts in elementary classrooms learning science through Ideas First, a Knowledge Building approach. Through the analysis of the drawings, we sense shifts in the culture of classrooms in relation to how ideas are treated as conceptual artifacts, epistemic agency is developed and collective cognitive responsibility is fostered. The student drawings demonstrate the possibility of designing for social infrastructure supportive of KBCs, albeit over a period of time. The student drawings can overwhelm the observer seeking to proceduralize the approach with its diverse illustrations of learning science through Ideas First. However, the diversity of 163 KBSI2013 Papers illustrations only supports the case for the Knowledge Building approach to be viewed as a principle based educational innovation (Zhang, et al. 2011). When viewed as such, the enactment of our designs for Knowledge Building reflects the different trajectories taken by different communities dependent on their developing understanding of the principles. Based on the analysis of the student drawings, we suggest that a way to visualize and bring coherence to the activities in classrooms learning science through Ideas First is to view them as an intricately woven “patchwork” of activities threaded together by a focus on idea improvement and collective cognitive responsibility. References Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Can children really create knowledge? Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1). Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court. Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301-329. Bielaczyc, K. (2013). Informing Design Research: Learning From Teachers' Designs of Social Infrastructure, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 258-311 Bielaczyc, K. & Collins, A. (2006). Implementation paths: Supporting the trajectory teachers traverse in implementing technology-based learning environments in classroom practice. Educational Technology, 46(3), 8-14. Bielaczyc, K., & Kapur, M. (2010). Playing Epistemic Games in Science and Mathematics Classrooms. Educational Technology, 50(5), 19-25. Bielaczyc, K. & Ow, J. (2007). Shifting the social infrastructure: Investigating transition mechanisms for creating knowledge building communities in classrooms. In Proceedings of the International Conference for Computers in Education. Bielaczyc, K., & Ow, J. (2010, June). Making knowledge building moves: toward cultivating knowledge building communities in classrooms. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-Volume 1 (pp. 865-872). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Bowker, R. (2007). Children’s perceptions and learning about tropical rainforests: an analysis of their drawings. Environmental Education Research, 13(1), 75-96. Cainey, J., Bowker, R., Humphrey, L., & Murray, N. (2012). Assessing informal learning in an aquarium using pre- and post-visit drawings. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal of Theory and Practice, 18(3), 265-281. Caswell, B., & Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Knowledge Forum: altering the relationship between students and scientific knowledge. Education, Communication & Information, 1,(3), 281-305. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies for guiding inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25-42. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage. Chambers, D.W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw a scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255-265. Chapman, L., Greenfield, R., & Rinaldi, C. (2010). “Drawing is a Frame of Mind”: An Evaluation of Students' Perceptions About Reading Instruction Within a Response to Intervention Model. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(2), 113-128. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Einarsdottir, J. (2010). Children’s experiences of the first year of primary school. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(2), 163-180. 164 KBSI2013 Papers Golomb, C. (1992). The child’s creation of a pictorial world. Berkeley: University of California press. Haney, W., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. (2004). Drawing on education: Using drawings to document schooling and support change. Harvard Educational Review, 74(3), 241-271. Lodge, C. (2007). Regarding Learning: Children's drawings of learning in the classroom. Learning Environments Research, 10, 145-156. Ow, J. & Bielaczyc, K. (2007) Epistemic perturbations: Using material artifacts to cultivate a knowledge building culture in classrooms. In Proceedings of the International Conference for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.) Liberal education in the knowledge society. (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-115).Cambridge University Press. Selwyn, N., Boraschi, D., & Ozkula, S.M. (2009). Drawing digital pictures: an investigation of primary pupils’ representations of ICT and schools. British Educational Research Journal, 35(6), 909-928. Tovey, R. (1996). Getting kids into the picture: Student drawings help teachers see themselves more clearly. Harvard Education Letter, 12(6), 5-6. Van Aalst, J., & Truong, M. S. (2011). Promoting knowledge creation discourse in an Asian primary five classroom: Results from an inquiry into life cycles. International Journal of Science Education, 33,(4), 487-515. Wang, H. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2012). An exploration of elementary school students' conceptions of learning: a drawing analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(3), 610-617. Zhang, J., Hong, H-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C.L., & Morley, E.A. (2011). The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 20, 262-307. 165 KBSI2013 Papers La Identidad Cultural en la Educación Superior: El Caso de la Licenciatura en Educación Primaria para el Medio Indígena UPN-211 Eugenia Ramos Hipolito, Universidad La Salle Puebla Email: [email protected] RESUMEN: Con la abundancia de diferentes teorías y con base en distintas formas de abordar la identidad cultural desde la educación, se condujo un estudio con una docente a un grupo de alumnos de séptimo semestre de la Licenciatura en Educación Primaria para el Medio Indígena Plan 90 de la Unidad 211 de la Universidad Pedagógica Nacional de Puebla-México. Se construyó un objetivo general: Encontrar una explicación de raíz sobre el rechazo consciente o inconsciente de la valoración de la lengua y cultura que presentan en forma natural los alumnos de la licenciatura en su participación en el desarrollo de sus clases durante el mes de febrero de 2013. Se realizó un cuestionario con preguntas cerradas y otras utilizando escala Likert. Se practicó análisis cuantitativo para conocer significativamente la conceptualización y características de la identidad cultural con los alumnos participantes de la licenciatura. Las evidencias mostraron dos significados, identidad personal e identidad personal y social a partir de tres variables: Identidad personal y social, lengua y cultura y valoración del plan y programa, todo ello nos permite la explicación de la identidad cultural en la educación superior. Palabras clave: Identidad personal y social, lengua y cultura, identidad cultural en educación superior. ABSTRACT: With the abundance of different theories and based on different approaches to cultural identity from education, we conducted a study with a teacher to a group of students from seventh semester of the undergraduate studies on Primary Education for Indian environment plan 90 Unit 211 of the National Pedagogical University of Puebla, Mexico. We constructed a general objective: Finding a root explanation of conscious or unconscious rejection of the valuation of the language and culture that occurs naturally undergraduate students in their participation in the development of their classes during the month of February 2013. A questionnaire was used with closed questions and others using Likert scale. Quantitative analysis was performed for significantly conceptualization and characteristics of the cultural identity of the participating students. The evidence showed two meanings, personal identity and personal and social identity based on three variables: personal and social identity, language and culture and evaluation of plans and programs, all of which allows us the explanation of cultural identity in higher education. The research contributes to the development of the field by demonstrating that theories developed by Bourdieu, (1972), Berger y Luckmann (1968), Vygotzky (1934), Habermas (2003), Bonfil (1991), Oliveira (1992), Morin (2007) and Stufflbean (1985) are confirmed. The purpose of this study is answering the following questions: how personal and social identity of university pedagogy students for primary indigenous education is strengthened? The questions that guided the study are: is it possible to generate the transformation of education from the valuation of personal and social identity of students taking a degree? Is it feasible that students transform their teaching from the characterization of the language and culture of indigenous education as a teacher? Is the involvement of social identity contributes to achieve high-quality education? How relevant is the development of identity in a multicultural country for high-quality teaching practice? A quantitative approach was used to understand the processes of teacher 166 KBSI2013 Papers education. The results showed the verification of some aspects developed by the theorists: personal and social identity; a greater characterization and importance of the personal identity; minimal presence of social identity; language and culture as a variable; Spanish emerges as the reference language; variable curriculum: the pedagogical sensitivity motivates the student an appreciation of the culture from the family, school and community. Keywords: personal and social identity; language; culture. Introducción La identidad cultural en el campo educativo, conforme al desarrollo del hombre es un perfil fundamental en la educación, que se forma a través de las relaciones que se establecen entre la triangulación del origen del estudiante, su contexto y el plan de estudios, donde el estudiante valora lo propio y ajeno de la cultura y lengua, el aprecio así mismo, el trabajo organizativo y la autoevaluación para asumir un rol con su profesión. Vygotsky (1934), sostiene que la mente no existe fuera de las prácticas socioculturales, el enfoque no es el individuo como tal, sino el individuo en acción. El individuo se forma a partir de su entorno de lo que se va apropiando al ir aprendiendo con las relaciones que establece en familia, amigos y comunidad. En la educación tiene que apropiase de nuevas formas de hacer las cosas, de un trabajo más tecnificado y de formas científicas que lo hacen un sujeto que prende, de un perfil de egreso para desempeñarse profesionalmente. Estas formas las reproduce y las mejorar para su beneficio. El individuo es, resultado de esas prácticas sociales que establece con los otros. Para estar en relación con los demás se implica con una lengua, cultura y forma de ver el mundo deseado desde el hogar, la escuela y comunidad. De acuerdo con este modo de concebir la identidad cultural Berger y Luckman (1988) afirma que la construcción de identidades es un fenómeno que surge entre el individuo y la sociedad, por tanto el aprendizaje es una parte integral de la práctica social en el mundo vivido. Las personas participan de muchas maneras diferentes, algunas adoptan pautas y valores dominantes, otras las rechazan, otras los transforman, de cualquier forma los individuos desarrollan identidades dentro de las cuales se relacionan con las pautas imperantes en una variedad de maneras complejas. La identidad cultural en la educación busca construir a un ciudadano del mundo que reconozca lo diferente y que valore la diversidad cultural y social como una riqueza de convivencia para una sociedad democrática. Se entiende que la educación instituye cambios positivos en los individuos y provoca reflexión y propuestas en los estudiantes con referencia a su perfil de egreso. Esto también se debe proponer el profesor al contextualizarr su clase y expresar de manera determinante los objetivos que desarrolla. Se supone que la estrategia –metodológica también se estructura en ese sentido, mas la experiencia lleva a constatar que las lenguas indígenas se están perdiendo, lo que denota que el perfil de egreso no es acorde con lo que se desea, esto puede significar: Que los perfiles proponen una meta de egreso que no se llega a conseguir con los perfiles de ingreso, o que las actividades previstas por el profesor no toman en cuenta la lengua y la cultura del alumno y no ejercitan la identidad personal y social tan necesaria para formar la identidad cultural del alumno en su profesión. La realidad que mostraron los estudiantes del séptimo semestre de la Unidad 211 de la Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, es que identifican las características personales, pero las sociales están ausentes. A la Luz de un trabajo académico, se muestra muy ajeno al uso de una lengua indígena, lo que provoca en los alumnos la indiferencia a 167 KBSI2013 Papers las lenguas originarias y denota la poca valoración de la cultura de los grupos étnicos existentes en el estado de Puebla. La educación actual afronta luchas y desafíos del mundo globalizado y de la sociedad del conocimiento que exige y reclama una educación intercultural, preparar profesionales competentes y competitivos provocando cambios de paradigmas humanos con aspectos educativos inclusivos que denoten valores de convivencia. El mundo educativo se caracteriza por una diversidad de estudiantes con una diversidad lingüística y cultural, en consecuencia producto de la masificación de la educación y resultado de la marcha de paradigmas homogeneizantes para que todos tuvieran una educación, se olvidó de hacer una educación contextualizada centrada en el humanismo. Por lo anterior, se realizó un cuestionario a los estudiantes de séptimo semestre de la Licenciatura en Educación Primaria para el Medio Indígena orientado por las categorías de identidad personal, identidad social, lengua, cultura, conocimiento sobre el plan de estudios, que tuvo como marco de referencia, para conocer y determinar la Identidad cultural en los estudiantes de educación superior, lo que permitió determinar el grado de identidad cultural que tienen a su egreso de la licenciatura. Estas categorías proporcionaron indicadores para delimitar hasta donde los estudiantes tienen identidad personal y social como instrumento principal para el desarrollo de su profesión. Los estudiantes que dieron respuesta a las preguntas solicitadas, manifestaron que sin el referente de la lengua y la cultura es imposible implicarse con los otros y tener una identidad cultural. ¿Qué es la identidad cultural? Identidad cultural es de alcance mundial, nacional y local, ha sido estudiado desde contextos marcados por la globalización, tomando como punto de partida la educación. La identidad se sustentó en las relaciones humanas y mientras estuvieron sustentadas en la cohabitación, en el contexto mutuo, la identidad no fue preocupación en el pasado, pero en la actualidad la identidad es un problema en la educación, ya que existen estudios que muestran las asimetrías educativas, culturales y lingüísticas en los alumnos. Filosóficamente los postulados de identidad cultural parten de la existencia de una vinculación profunda entre los pueblos con su territorio, lengua, cultura y trabajo, por tanto, su supresión por la educación agrava las divisiones sociales y destruye lentamente la cohesión social. De acuerdo a Bourdieu (1979) los campos sociales son la historia objetiva, cada uno es en su espacio multidimensional de posiciones, definido por la distribución de las formas de capital. De esta manera se identifica que el concepto de identidad está caracterizado de acuerdo a contextos específicos como lo ejemplifica Taylor (1991) en sus investigaciones cuando promueve una identidad compartida, a lo que le llama el secreto de la historia personal. Esto explica, la identidad desde el origen, la personalidad, la familia, el trabajo, el hacer cotidiano. Por tanto, la identidad se puede caracterizar como prácticas simples, prácticas rutinarias, prácticas sofisticadas relacionadas con la creación intelectual y que suponen cambios en las posibilidades de construcción de lazos sociales que desafían la reflexibilidad laboral, la inestabilidad y la desregulación profunda de las relaciones laborales, lo que muestra que la identidad personal y social es una construcción realizada por el ser humano. Salling, (2008) en su indagación habla de la identidad profesional para referirse a un esfuerzo subjetivo de aprendizaje y de identificación de la vida por medio del cual los individuos con sus historias de vida, su género adquiere el conocimiento ya existente y al mismo tiempo que desarrollan de forma colectiva una identidad individual y de grupo para afianzar su propia práctica e identidad. En educación para la formación de formadores, lo que se ha abordado en los programas es sobre lengua y cultura y se dio por hecho que la identidad se vería favorecida. 168 KBSI2013 Papers Desde la mirada de las investigaciones educativas en el mundo sobre identidad sobresalen las Universidades de Barcelona, Granada, Malaga de España realizado por autores como: Coll (2009), el cual, analiza que se ha puesto en duda la educación de los estados multinacionales al homogeneizar la educación y conformar una identidad nacional común entre toda la ciudadanía. Por ello, en el análisis de la evolución de las políticas educativas y lingüísticas en México, desde la afirmación del modelo de una sola lengua o sea un modelo que valora solo el español, hasta la actual defensa de la diversidad cultural como medio de legitimar la importancia de los distintos grupos étnicos y sus lenguas en un mercado lingüístico sometido a la hegemonía del Español. Actualmente se ha realizado cambios en los artículos: 2º, 3º, 4º, 5º, de la Constitución Mexicana, (2010) con la intención de atender el problema de identidad en México, los cuales manifiestan los derechos a la pluralidad, educación, multiculturalidad, cuidado de la salud, profesión o trabajo y educarse en la lengua materna. El Plan de Estudios de Educación Básica (2011) en su perfil de egreso actual propone que los alumnos logren utilizar un lenguaje oral y escrito con claridad, fluidez y adecuadamente, para interactuar en distintos contextos sociales, a fin de reconocer y apreciar la diversidad lingüística del país. Otro ejemplo, es el de Wright, (2012) quien ha promovido el establecimiento de programas bilingües en minorías indígenas en Camboya. El estudio refiere sobre la capacitación a nativos para hacer la función docente y alfabetizar, enseñar a su gente mediante la elaboración de libros con los participantes de la lengua y cultura a fin de valorar la identidad y cosmovisión de cada etnia. Hernández, I. (2012), en Argentina informa que se está atendiendo a las comunidades indígenas (caso mapuche) para lograr la atención de los pueblos originarios a través del pluralismo de programas educativos a fin de articularlos en la aldea global. Entendemos que la identidad al sustentarse en las relaciones humanas, de territorio, contexto mutuo, comunicación, formas de organización, trabajo, aprendizaje, no se evidencia problema alguno, pero si genera falta de aprecio a la persona, omisión de su lengua y cultura de origen, imposición de lengua ajena a la suya, promoción del individualismo para obtener un bien ya es un problema de aprendizaje y a la vez educativo. Berger y Luckmann (1997) nos invita a negociar que es importante convenir para continuar con el desarrollo humano, llevar esto a cabo es tomar en cuenta nuestro origen, y dar continuidad con nuestro desarrollo, es construimos en sociedad e historia. El ser humano, es parecido a un artefacto, por así decir, es un producto de la civilización entrenado a hablar y actuar de formas extrañas a su naturaleza, por tanto es el logro de la cultura. Explica Bourdieu (1993) que la identidad cultural es un producto social e histórico, empleó conceptos como campo social, para capturar la interrelación entre el contexto social y la persona. Siguiendo la idea del autor, el individuo nace en relación con los otros, en consecuencia vive en ella, todo lo que hace es producto de la relación con otros, su trabajo, creatividad, esta realidad asumida la hace interesante cuando se implica en roles, asumiendo un papel en determinado campo de la vida cotidiana, como lo es la profesión. En los últimos años ha habido el acercamiento de la educación a los grupos étnicos, en la década de los sesenta se buscaron nativos para atender las etnias del país, siendo negativo el resultado debido a que en lugar de valorar su lengua, se promovió el uso del español con la creencia de que con ello se lograría el desarrollo del país, 20 años después se promueve el bilingüismo en las escuelas de educación básica, pero ante la carencia de materiales lo que se realizó fue una traducción literal de los programas de español en lugar de hacer un modelo educativo para fortalecer la acción comunicativa en forma bilingüe de acuerdo a cada lengua y conservando la cultura. Es hasta 1994 que un movimiento chiapaneco hace voltear las miradas de las Instituciones a los grupos empobrecidos y se empieza a legislar sobre lengua y cultura, a fin de modificar la Constitución de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos y en 2003 se promulga la ley de derechos lingüísticos en donde se reconoce que todas las lenguas indígenas son nacionales, así como la modificación del artículo 4º de la Constitución Mexicana, reconociendo que México tiene una 169 KBSI2013 Papers identidad multicultural y plurilingüe. Sin embargo a pesar de varios intentos sobre la importancia de una identidad personal y social. Existe una falta de educación pertinente, contextuada, que valore lo diverso desde la lengua y la cultura originaria de los estudiantes. Es más un espejismo que realidad. Ha habido teóricos mexicanos como Aguirre (1970), que impulso programas educativos con castellanizadores nativos de los grupos étnicos, Bonfil (1991) con la teoría del control cultural sobre lo propio y lo ajeno, ha demostrado que cada cultura posee conocimientos, materiales, saberes en salud, símbolos culturales, reglas en las lenguas, todo sobre la importancia de conocer la identidad cultural. Schmelkes (2001) proponer una educación intercultural y bilingüe, con programas a municipios, atención educativa a migrantes en contextos urbanos, materiales realizados por los alumnos que dan a conocer su cultura. Los teóricos educativos, antropólogos, sociólogos, psicológicos y la constitución misma de México, coinciden en una serie de propuestas y recursos para abordar la Identidad Cultural, pero no han podido hacer mella aunque ha habido movimientos sociales. Las tres formas articuladoras para abordar la identidad cultural, lengua y cultura en el aula, segundo identidad personal y social desde el programa de formación docente y tercero, la valoración de lo propio en el campo social. La Dirección General de Educación Indígena (2011) presenta un programa sobre la valoración de las lenguas indígenas: desde la valoración de la educación en Mesoamérica, definición del lenguaje, la diversidad del lenguaje, propósitos de la asignatura, organización de los contenidos generales, perfil del docente. Este programa nos manifiesta que las habilidades comunicativas y culturales son básicas para el aprendizaje con identidad, pero ¿pueden los estudiantes desarrollar una identidad personal y social y así acceder a una identidad cultural profesional? La experiencia de la licenciatura en Educación Primaria para el medio Indígena nos muestra que durante dos décadas tanto los alumnos de estados del norte y del sur de México han demostrado que no basta que estén cursando ésta licenciatura, su identidad es poco probable. Los autores analizados y los programas implementados en México, muestran que en la actualidad está presente la necesidad de fortalecer la identidad y que la valoración de la lengua y la cultura en la educación es urgente e ineludible para todas las escuelas formadoras de docentes para que incorporen de manera integral la identidad cultural a todos los programas educativos. Conceptualización y caracterización de la identidad cultural. Pensar con identidad cultural es reflexionar y analizar sobre nuestra propia cultura y lengua, y nos hace percibir una realidad de manera consciente, empática, comunicativa, y cada vez desprendida con el otro, con la responsabilidad a que esta se compromete, para ponernos en condiciones de valorar lo diverso y poder construir una democracia cada vez más humana y destruir las estructuras que limitan la convivencia armónica y profesional, con la finalidad de implicarse y ser partícipes en la conformación de una sociedad más justa. La identidad cultural es palpable y necesaria para que los educandos desarrollen el aprecio sobre lo propio y que la enseñanza sea contextuada e incorporen de manera integral valoraciones sobre lo propio y ajeno en todas las profesiones. Fornet, (2005) motiva a que las instituciones se impliquen a atender las identidades reales y manifiesta que la preparación de un docente tendría que estar articulada al mismo tiempo con movimientos sociales ligados a otros posibles, la identidad exige una vida diaria y necesita un mundo propio para hacer del pensamiento una conversación social. 170 KBSI2013 Papers En esta consideración Morin, (2007) propone abordar la identidad terrenal como fenómeno de individualidad y de colectivo, así la unidad humana es compartir y ayuda mutua, porque es parte de su naturaleza, porque el sujeto con identidad es de acuerdo a su cultura y se comunica de acuerdo a su lengua de origen. La identidad cultural se puede considera como una imagen de figura pública en la que todo es aprendizaje de él y con los que se relaciona. Para ello es necesario reconocer que cuando nos presentamos ante los otros, no lo hacemos sin referentes, nuestra imagen está relacionada con nuestra historia, nos comunicamos con los contenidos de nuestra cultura, pero no lo hacemos de forma valorada, lo hacemos más de forma irresponsable y discriminamos con efectos que hieren a los demás, pero eso depende de la formación que recibimos y todo aquello que nos forma. Es viable formar en la identidad personal y social desde la valoración de la cultura y lengua propia. Stufflebeam, (1987) con su modelo global sobre evaluación asegura que un modelo educativo de acuerdo al perfil de ingreso, contexto, objetivos de sus programas y perfil de egreso utilizando la evaluación formativa y sumativa como diagnóstico y propuesta, es de rigor analizar y tomar en cuenta las necesidades de los estudiantes y de la sociedad, una de ellas es, cultivar la identidad cultural de manera sistemática, el ejercicio de una identidad cultural profesional, para ser ecuánimes con la diversidad humana. La identidad cultural de la educación superior tiene que tener una imagen de sí misma y en ella reflejarse para comprender que tiene que entender y atender que un solo modelo educativo con la importancia de una sola lengua y cultura ya no es viable, México tiene un capital de lenguas y culturas que ya quisieran otros países del mundo, la realidad existente supera los modelos de una sola cara, y para ello hay que abrir una fisura para formarse como persona y poder lograr la convivencia tan necesaria para educar en lo humano. Sin embargo para lograrlo hay que reproducir la cultura, lengua y formas positivas de ver el mundo que sirvan a la humanidad actual. Un producto social e histórico, es que en la escuela se valore la sabiduría y desarrollo de prácticas comunitarias de tal manera que se fortalezca la identidad personal y social del individuo. Además hay que profundizar sobre la identidad cultural, es buscar a través de la historia de la filosofía que nos remite al origen del hombre en la cual la identidad no era conceptualizada, pero a medida que evoluciona da origen a la identidad territorial y en la actualidad a la identidad cultural en la educación superior. Todo ser humano, al nacer ya está en un ambiente familiar o un espacio en donde se congregan personas que están a su alrededor y se ocupan de él, llega a la escuela y con las relaciones del profesor y compañeros aprende las miradas que le dan a conocer para que mire lo que otros ven y con ello se va formando imágenes para mirar de forma parecida, hasta comparte significados, que él lleva y a medida que se forma en relación con otros profundiza su mirada para ver lo que le dijeron que viera. Teniendo en cuenta lo anterior, pensar con identidad cultural cobra importancia fundamental en la educación justamente en el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2000- 2005 se tenía bastante claro la importancia de la identidad cultural, la educación en México se determina más por sexenios políticos que por necesidades de formación de los mexicanos. La UNESCO (2000) propone se aborde la cultura desde la educación porque el sujeto posee rasgos distintivos de su grupo de origen que refieren a: • Espiritualidad. Creencias específicas sobre las cosas, principalmente sobre la tierra, lugares sagrados que él ha conferido lo sea. • Materiales. Las cosas que crea, como la artesanía, • Intelectuales. Formas de cultivar la tierra y atender los animales. • Afectivos. Atención de respeto a los padres, abuelos, hermanos, matrimonio. 171 KBSI2013 Papers Todo lo anterior son elementos que caracterizan a una sociedad y que abarca las artes y las letras, las tradiciones y formas de vida, las maneras de vivir juntos. En el estado de Puebla, México, existen 7 grupos étnicos, náhuatl que es el mayoritario, hñahñu, totonaco, masateco, mixteco, ngigua y tepehua, los cuales poseen lengua y cultura que los caracteriza. Metodología Con el cuidado que merece el problema en este artículo, se presenta una investigación con enfoque cuantitativo explicativo con soporte transversal, realizado con estudiantes de la unidad 211 de Puebla de la Universidad Pedagógica Nacional. El estudio esta cobijado por una importancia meticulosa cuando se analiza que es conveniente la atención de los grupos étnicos porque poseen una lengua y cultura y se comprende que un estudiante en formación desarrolle el aprecio hacía lo propio como una de las maneras para afinar su perfil profesional. La investigación se realizó por tener la oportunidad de que los alumnos reconozcan que atienden y que también poseen una lengua y cultura y que había que formarlos para la convivencia, que el egocentrismo sobre lo propio nos trajo una visión positiva y que si miramos la riqueza que poseemos todos nos hace más humanos y nos preparamos para la convivencia. El estudio se aplicó durante un día con una intervención de hora y media, bajo la mediación de la docente; con el propósito de responder a las preguntas planteadas y para lograr el objetivo de estudio propuesto, esto implicó el desarrollo de una metodología que prueba la hipótesis que se plantea bajo el diseño no experimental porque no se construye ni se manipula el sujeto, se eligió a un grupo intacto. Hipótesis: La falta de éxito del trabajo docente se debe a la ausencia de identidad cultural en la educación superior. A mayor uso de la lengua y la cultura, mejor fortalecimiento de la identidad personal y social. Los sujetos de estudio fueron 26 estudiantes de séptimo semestre de un grupo intacto. El instrumento fue un cuestionario que se elaboró teniendo como referencia el perfil de egreso de la licenciatura, diseñado previamente mediante un cuadro de especificaciones para tres variables: imagen, ejemplos y formas de localización de la identidad cultural. De acuerdo al estudio, por cada variable se anotaron algunos indicadores y preguntas que permiten determinar la situación de la identidad cultural. Después de haber sometido al jueceo de dos expertas, un metodólogo, un asesor de tesis y haberse realizado el pilotaje, por cinco alumnos y después de haberse analizado las observaciones y sugerencias, se hicieron los cambios correspondientes, se enriqueció el instrumento y quedo conformado por 20 preguntas todas construidas con rigor académico. Resultados de la investigación. El 100% de los estudiantes reflejan mayor énfasis en las características de identidad personal, el 15% habla una lengua indígena, grupo de origen, el 100% manifestó la importancia sobre su proyecto personal y el 50% sobre los valores de grupo. El 100% comprende la importancia de valorar su profesión y que se caracterice por tener una distinción propia. Un hallazgo importante es que en el grupo el 75% sólo habla español, el otro 25% que habla una lengua indígena se intimidan ante la mayoría de sus compañeros. Discusión Reconociendo que la identidad personal y social se construye de la valoración de la lengua y la cultura y que abarca diversos niveles de complejidad debe incorporarse en el plan curricular de la educación superior, con el objetivo de que la formación del estudiante que egresa, lleve las herramientas que le permitirán valorar lo propio y ajeno de su cultura para desarrollar la convivencia en su perfil de egreso. 172 KBSI2013 Papers Conclusión. La identidad personal y social es tan necesaria que es pertinente buscar un intento de reflexión positiva en alumnos de formación docente, manifiestan que la lengua y la cultura son sustantivas para la formación de una identidad fortalecida, principalmente la identidad social que está en relación con la identidad laboral. Valorar la identidad cultural como una necesidad permanente de las personas y mucho más en un ambiente laboral. Agradecimientos El presente estudio se ha podido llevar a cabo gracias a la ayuda que ha recibido la autora. También se agradece profundamente en primer lugar a los directivos de la Unidad 211 de la Universidad Pedagógica Nacional por facilitar se desarrolle el proyecto de investigación. Al Dr. Oscar Ernesto Hernández López, Dr. Edgar Gómez Bonilla, Dra. Fabiola Moreno Benítez, por su invaluable asesoría y a mi compañera de estudio y amiga Olga Sara Lamela que me motivo a participar, y a los estudiantes que tuvieron mucha voluntad en participar en el proyecto. Temática: Cruzando el abismo de la educación, más allá de la transformación educativa Bibliografía Bourdieu, (2001) La reproducción. Editorial Popular, España, 2001. Berger, Peter, y Thomas Lukmann, (1968). La construcción social de la realidad. Buenos Aires. Amorrortu Editores. Bonfil, B. A. (1991). Pensar nuestra cultura. México D. F.: Alianza. Fornet-Betancoutr, R. (2004). Sobre el concepto de interculturalidad. México: Coordinación General de Educación Intercultural y Bbilingue. Habermas, J. (2003). La ética del discurso y la cuestión de la verdad. Barcelona: Paidós. Habermas, J. (1981). Teoría de la acción comunicativa, II. México: Taurus. Morín, E. (2007). Los siete saberes necesarios para la educación del futuro. París: UNESCO. Oliveira, R. C. (1992). Etnicidad y Estructura Social. México: CIESAS. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Pensamiento y lenguaje. México: Alfa y Omega. 173 KBSI2013 Papers Effect of Formative Feedback on Enhancing Ways of Contributing to a Explanation-Seeking Dialogue in Grade 2 Monica Resendes, OISE/University of Toronto Email: <[email protected]> Abstract: This research explores the extent to which a new assessments can help students to enhance their ways of contributing to explanation-seeking discourse, and also investigates the extent to which expanding contribution repertoires helps students to advance community knowledge as a whole. To this end, this study tested both pedagogical and technological supports designed to raise the level of students’ dialogue. Repeated “meta-discourse sessions” were integrated in students Knowledge Building inquiry as a form of pedaogigical support, and students were also exposed to three forms of automated feedback that included Word Clouds, a “MetaDiscourse” bar graph, and Word Network visualizations that displayed important aspects of their discourse. Results indicate that the MetaDiscourse bar graph is particularly conducive to helping students expand their contribution repertories in targeted areas and that repeated meta-discourse sessions are valuable for aiding students in advancing group knowledge in general. Introduction The ability to produce new knowledge can be described as a capacity for “productive work that advances the frontiers of knowledge as these are perceived by [a] community” (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2003). Increasingly, societal capacity for innovation and the creation of new knowledge is required to address the sorts of complex problems that characterize the 21st century, such as accelerating climate change, widespread financial downturns, and global political unrest (David & Foray, 2003; Homer-Dixon, 2000). The research reported in this study is concerned with increasing society’s capacity to create new knowledge by testing educational innovations aimed at enhancing students’ abilities to contribute to knowledge creation processes. Given that new knowledge is generated through the discourse that characterizes a particular knowledge community, this study focuses on testing pedagogical and technological supports that can help students expand the ways they contribute to collaborative explanation-seeking discourse. This research uses a Knowledge Building approach, which is a pedagogy that is uniquely suited to research for developing students’ capacity to work creatively with knowledge. Knowledge Building can be described as “the production and continual improvement of ideas of value to a community” (Scardamalia & Beretier, 2003, p. 1370). Knowledge Building pedagogy is dedicated to immersing students in a culture of knowledge creation that places the advancement of community knowledge as the explicit and shared goal (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). A key aspect of Knowledge Building is the commitment to engaging students in sustained explanationseeking or “progressive discourse” (Beretier, 1994), which can be described as collaborative dialogue that advances through continued efforts to deal with puzzling facts. The Knowledge Forum (KF) online environment is the technology that supports the pedagogy. This environment is specially designed to support knowledge creation processes, the emergence of big ideas and principle-based learning (Scardamalia, 2004). Given that advancing community knowledge is premised on improving the quality of shared discourse (Bereiter, 2010), the questions for educators and researchers working to help build students’ capacities for creating new knowledge ask: how can we boost students’ capacities for “making good moves” in explanation-seeking discourse? How can we help them make diverse contributions that are “on course” and work to advance community knowledge? A growing body of literature shows that a prerequisite for productive collaborative classroom dialogue includes a 174 KBSI2013 Papers dynamic interaction of various contributor roles (de Bono, 1985; Anderson, Holland, & Palinscar, 1997; Hogan, 1999; Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003). Similarly, research has shown that an important indicator of productive and progressing explanation-seeking discourse is the presence of diverse contributions to the shared dialogue (van Aalst, Chan, Wan, & Teplovs, 2010; Matsuzawa, Oshima, Oshima, Niihara, & Sakai, 2011; Oshima et al., 2012). In efforts to identify and chart the particular contribution types that help to carry a knowledge building discourse forward, Authors, (2011a), developed a comprehensive inventory of ways of contributing to explanation-seeking dialogue that charts a range of contribution types one can expect to encounter in the shared discourse of elementary school students. This inventory includes six main contribution types, including “asking thought provoking questions”, “theorizing”, “obtaining information”, ”working with information”, “synthesizing and comparing”, and “supporting discussion”, as well as 24 subcategories corresponding to these main types. Studies that identify meaningful contribution types to collaborative discourse provide a means to assess students’ dialogue and to earmark important contribution types that can serve as targets for innovative design work. For example, using this inventory to explore the work of Knowledge Building students in Grades 1-3, Authors (2011b) identified “asking thoughtprovoking questions” and “theorizing” as the two main contribute types young students engaged most often in their naturally-occurring work, while “obtaining information”, “working with information” and “synthesizing and comparing” were lacking and thus require additional support. The study reported in this paper builds off of this research by targeting low-level contribution types and testing pedagogical and technological supports geared to help primary aged students expand their ways of contributing to explanation-seeking discourse. New Assessments for Explanation-Seeking Discourse With respect to pedagogical supports, this study explores how repeated “meta-discourse” discussions embedded within a Knowledge Building inquiry can help students keep their discourse progressing. “Meta-discourse” can be described as discussion about discussion, and calls for community members to take a “meta-perspective” on their own dialogue. Meta-discourse serves as a type of formative evaluation that can help a knowledge creating community both assess their achievement up to the current point and decide on a future plan of action. In Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (2010) structural model of Knowledge Building discourse, “meta-discourse” represents a discourse move that is peripheral to the “central path” of the dialogue and as such, is often neglected in practice (p. 4) and lacking in online discussion (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). However, the benefits of meta-discourse to Knowledge Building work have been repeatedly documented. For instance, van Aalyst (2009) identifies meta-discourse as a key condition of an innovation ecology that can enable knowledge creation. Studies also show that meta-discourse can help students in a range of important ways, such as recognizing shared knowledge advances, identifying setbacks, setting goals, connecting ideas, and articulating new questions (Zhang & Messina 2010; Zhang, Hong, Scardamalia, Teo, & Morley, 2011). In terms of technological supports, the development of new automated assessments to boost students’ capacity to contribute productively to explanation-seeking discourse represents a goal shared by a growing number of research programs (Teplovs, Donoahue, Scardamalia, & Philip, 2007; Van Aalst, et. al, 2010; Yang, van Aalst & Chan, 2012). The study reported here shares this objective, and experiments with automated feedback that helps students get a “bird’s eye view” of their own dialogue and that targets both the contribution makeup and content of students’ emergent discourse. The feedback supports tested in this study include Word Clouds, a new tool featured in Knowledge Forum called the MetaDiscourse tool (Chen & Resendes, 2012), and Word Network visualizations produced by KBDeX (see Oshima, Oshima, & Matsuzawa, 2012). Each type of feedback is discussed in more detail below: (a) The MetaDiscourse tool: To explore ways to expand students’ contribution repertoires 175 KBSI2013 Papers using automated feedback, we tested visualizations produced by the “MetaDiscourse” tool. This tool allows students to monitor the types of discursive moves that are being made by their community at any given time (see Figure 1 on next page). The bar graph measures correspond to the verbal scaffolds that are featured in the note interfaces in Knowledge Forum (e.g. “My Theory”, or “I need to understand”, etc.). These scaffolds underlie important epistemological processes and help to frame students’ thinking and encourage contribution types conducive to idea improvement. We choose to use this tool to not only facilitate “meta-discourse sessions” but to help introduce two new scaffolds to students that target low-level contribution types—“This information is important because” and “Our improved theory”. The former maps onto the contribution category “obtaining information” and the latter to “synthesizing and comparing”, both of which have been identified as contribution types that require extra support in the discourse of primary level students (Chuy et al., 2011). Figure 1. MetaDiscourse tool visualization showing bar graph of scaffold use. It is important to note here that automated assessments that are built to guide the most important dimensions of Knowledge Building practice visualize data in simple representations that are easy for both students and teachers to use in practice, but are also powerful enough to help boost both the socio-behavioural and cognitive processes necessary for knowledge creation to occur (Yang, van Aalst, & Chan, 2012). The simple graph produced by the MetaDiscourse Tool is accessible to students from a range of ages and provides a simple yet powerful visual to facilitate reflection on important attributes of shared dialogue, for instance, whether a particular discourse is saturated with questions but relatively few ideas, or whether there is an abundance of outside information but no connections between facts and students’ own theories. Furthermore, As van Aalyst (2006) points out, it is critical that students possess an understanding the nature of explanation-seeking discourse in order for automated assessments to be meaningfully integrated within the routines of their knowledge building work. The MetaDiscourse tool can help foster deep understanding of the nature of explanation-seeking discourse by presenting group-level data that can be used to initiate and facilitate whole class, reflective discussions about the contribution types that make up the community’s discourse at any given time in the inquiry, including why different contribution types might be important at different times. By detecting and displaying contribution patterns, feedback provided by the MetaDiscourse tool can help to highlight underrepresented contribution types and bring neglected elements of the discourse to the forefront of students’ attention (Scardamalia, Bransford, Kozam, & Quellmalz, 2012). (b) Word Clouds: To help facilitate meta-discourse discussions, a series of different word clouds were created visualizing key terms and concepts relevant to various streams of inquiry that emerged in students’ own discourse. Word clouds refer to representations of textual data that are 176 KBSI2013 Papers based on schemes of significance or popularity expressed through visual properties like font size, color, position, or weight (Bateman, Gutwin, & Nacenta, 2008). Word clouds have been shown to be educationally beneficial in a number of ways. For example, Word Clouds can act as “suggestive device[s]” for underlying phenomena in source data (Xexéo, Morgado & Fiuza, 2009), can illuminate implicit or hidden relationships in unstructured data (Koutrika, Zadeh, and Garcia- Molina, 2009), and can aid in semantic exploration and comprehension of data by users (Bateman, Gutwin, & Nacenta, 2008). In this study, two different types of Word Clouds were used, including “Concept Clouds” and “Word Networks” (see Figure 2). With respect to “Concept Clouds”, three different types were used: Clouds that depicted the most frequent terms that the students were using in their Figure 2. Concept Clouds including “Our Words”, “Experts’ Words” and “Our Shared Words” naturally-occurring dialogue over time (“Our Words”); clouds that depicted key words that experts frequently used when talking about those same phenomena (“Expert Words”); and clouds that allowed students to assess the extent to which the words characterizing their discourse mapped onto those used in the expert dialogue, by means of colour-coding (“Our Shared Words”). These visualizations were geared to help students gain a sense of the semantic field of their discourse, and to enable the community to trace the use and longevity of new terms in their discourse over time. Furthermore, lack of common vocabulary between students and authoritative sources, as evidenced in the “Our Shared Words” cloud, could show limits of student understanding while also depicting terms that could help them to fruitfully expand their inquiry in new directions. Lastly, feedback that displayed the semantic connections students were making between important terms in their discourse would be displayed via Word Network visualizations (see Figure 3 on next page). These visualizations not only highlight the key words in a dialogue but make explicit the connections and relationships students are making between these words in their discourse. 177 KBSI2013 Papers Figure 3. Word Network visualization produced by KBDeX Research Questions Embedding both meta-discourse and exposure to formative feedback within the regular Knowledge Building practices of a primary grade classroom provides an authentic context to test the extent of each support for building students’ capacity to engage diversely and productively to dialogue oriented to knowledge creation. Accordingly, the main objectives for this study are as follows: to explore the extent to which new supports can help students expand their ways of contributing to collaborative explanation-seeking discourse, and to determine whether expanding contribution repertoires helps students to advance community knowledge as a whole by (a) engaging students in repeated meta-discourse discussions coupled with exposure to contentoriented feedback (b) engaging students in repeated meta-discourse sessions coupled with exposure to both content and contribution-oriented feedback. METHOD Participants Participants for this study include 64 Grade 2 students (34 boys, 32 girls) from three consecutive Grade 2 classes that took place during the 2011, 2012 and 2013 school years. The 21 students from the Grade 2, 2011 class (10 boys, 11 girls) comprise the comparison group for this study, as they received no experimental treatments. The Grade 2, 2012 class (12 boys and 10 girls) were split up into two groups—Group A and Group B. The students in both of these groups comprise the first experimental cohort for this study. Each of these groups received slightly different treatments. The second experimental cohort consisted of 22 students (11 boys and 11 girls) from the Grade 2, 2013 class. All students in this class received the same set of treatments. Table 1 summarizes the different treatments each group received. 178 KBSI2013 Papers Table 1. Outline of treatments for the comparison and experimental groups. Group 2011 class (comparison) Pedagogical Treatment Technological Treatment No treatments No treatments 2012 class – Group A (experimental) Meta-discourse sessions Concept Clouds 2012 class – Group B (experimental) Meta-discourse sessions Concept Clouds + New “Obtaining Information” Scaffold + MetaDiscourse Tool Meta-discourse sessions Concept Clouds + Word Networks + New “Our Improved Theory” + MetaDiscourse Tool 2013 class (experimental) Classroom Context All students across all three years completed a three-month Knowledge Building bird study and followed this up with another three-month inquiry on salmon. All classes examined similar artifacts, such as owl pellets, nests and feathers during their respective inquiries, and all classes participated in the “Lake Ontario Salmon Restoration Program” as part of their salmon study. The same teacher taught all three classes. The Grade 2s typically had one 45-minute session a week dedicated to Knowledge Building. In these sessions, the classes were split up into two groups in which half the students went to the library and the other half engaged in inquiry. Group A and B in the 2012 class correspond to these groups, which were chosen randomly by the teacher. An important component of the inquiries in all classes were “KB talks”, which were whole-group discussions in which students posed questions, introduced ideas and examined artifacts as a group. These talks were generally followed up by 20 minutes of individual work on the Knowledge Forum database. In the 2012 and 2013 experimental classes, regular “KB” talks included a series of metadiscourse sessions that were embedded throughout the inquiry. Students in these classes were also exposed to the various forms of feedback in the context of these reflective discussions. Integrating feedback visuals into meta-discourse sessions was designed to help position them as objects of public discourse that helped to make explicit important elements of the online dialogue as it emerged, and to serve as artifacts that the community could rally around during periods of reflection. Dataset The dataset for the study consists of student work as generated on three distinct Knowledge Forum databases and include the following: i) Grade 2, 2011—240 notes across four views, from both the bird study (111 notes, 3 views) and salmon units (129 notes, 1 view); ii) Grade 2, 2012— 203 notes across eight views from the bird (175 notes, 7 views) and salmon units (90 notes, 1 view) units; i) Grade 2, 2013—259 notes across eight views from their bird (117 notes, 1 view) and salmon databases (143 notes, 1 view). 179 KBSI2013 Papers Plan of analysis Data analysis focused on two main aspects, as described below: i.) Contribution Measures: The “Ways of Contributing to Explanation-Seeking Discourse” coding guide was used to analyze all student notes, which includes 6 main categories and 24 subcategories (see Chuy, Resendes, Tarchi, et al., 2011). If a note exhibited more than one form of contribution, for example, “asking an explanatory question” and “proposing a theory”, that note was coded as displaying two distinct contribution types. Two raters coded all databases. Agreement rates are as follows: 2011 class—97.85%; 2012 class—98.48%; 2013 class—99.34%. ii.) Knowledge Advancement: Notes from the online discourse that were coded under the “theorizing” category were selected and subject to further analysis to assess community knowledge advancement, which was evaluated using scales for “scientificness” and “epistemic complexity” (Zhang, Scardamalia, Lamon, Messina, & Reeve, 2007). Each scale has four levels that trace both increasing levels of scientific accuracy, as well as extent of explanatory elaboration as evident in student work. Overall, agreement rates for “scientificness” and “epistemic complexity” are as follows: 2011 class—94.95% and 89.94%; 2012 class—81.45% and 90.76%; 2013 class—89.13% and 84.77%, respectively. Results i.) Did the experimental groups contribute more diversely than their peers in the comparison group? One-way ANOVA comparisons were conducted to test for differences in contribution repertories among the four groups. Significant differences were found for “theorizing”, F(3, 60) = 2.79, p < .05, and “obtaining information”, F(3, 60) = 3.32, p < .05. Post-hoc tests (TukeyHSD) show that Group B contributed significantly more than the 2013 class with respect to “theorizing” (p < .05, Cohens’ d = 2.86). Differences were also found for a subcategory of “theorizing”, namely “proposing an explanation”, F(3, 60) = 4.82, p < .01. As post-hoc tests show, Group B outperformed the 2011 (p < .05, Cohen’s d = 1.89) and 2013 class on this measure (p < .01, Cohen’s d = 2.32). Similarly, Group B outperformed all other three groups on “obtaining information” (p < .05, Cohen’s d = 1.62). More specifically, significant differences were found on the subcategory “introducing a new fact from a source” F(3, 60) = 4.79, p < .01, with post hoc tests revealing that Group B outdid the 2013 class on this measure (p < .01, Cohen’s d = 1.73). Significant differences were also found for “reporting experimental results” F(3, 60) = 3.69, p < .05, with post hoc tests showing that both the 2013 class and Group B did better on this measure than the 2011 class (p < .05, Cohen’s d = 0.59) (see Figure 6 on next page). Figure 4. Contribution patterns for “Ways of Contributing” main categories 180 KBSI2013 Papers Figure 5. Contribution patterns for “Ways of Contributing” subcategories These results indicate that students who were exposed to the pedagogical support along with both kinds of automated feedback—including both content (Word Clouds) and contributionoriented (MetaDiscourse bar graph) visualizations—expanded their contribution repertoires in statistically significant ways. Among the two experimental groups who were exposed to both forms of automated feedback (Group B and the 2013 group), Group B stands out as showing the most gains. This group expanded their repertoires with respect to contribution types corresponding to “obtaining information” which was targeted, as well as “theorizing”, which was unanticipated. Their performance could be explained in part by two factors: First, this group spent more time explicitly discussing the contribution category of “obtaining information” due to the introduction of the new scaffold, “This information is important because”, in their database. This scaffold was present in the note interfaces in this year, was subsequently depicted on MetaDiscourse bar graphs, and was directly discussed in select group meta-discourse sessions. Thus, talking explicitly about scaffolds directly targeting “obtaining information” helped students to enhance their engagement in the targeted area. While the new scaffold “Our Figure 6. Significant differences between groups on “Ways of Contributing” categories improved theory” was engaged in a similar manner during the inquiry work performed by the experimental group in 2013, the scaffold was used mainly to support collective contributions that emerged from group discussions, and as such these contributions were not included in analysis, 181 KBSI2013 Papers which focused only on individually authored notes. Thus, the fact that the 2013 class did not show any significant gains in this contribution type may be more reflective of a weakness in the study design than any deficiency or failure in student work. However, that the 2013 class also demonstrated significant advancements with respect to the contribution type “reporting experimental results” indicates that students can still benefit and raise lower-level contribution types with the support of content and contribution-oriented feedback and without necessarily engaging in explicit discussion about any one particular way of contributing over another. ii.) Did the experimental group achieve greater knowledge advancement? One-way ANOVA comparisons were also conducted on knowledge advancement measures. Results showed a number of significant differences between groups on both “scientificness” F(3, 57) = 8.51, p < .0001 and “epistemic complexity” F(3, 57) = 3.35, (p < .05) (see Figure 7 on next page). Posthoc tests show that the 2011 class was outperformed by all three experimental groups (p < .01, Cohen’s d = 0.62) for “scientificness” of explanations as well as “epistemic complexity” (p < .05, Cohen’s d = 0.46). Among the experimental groups there were no significant differences. These findings suggest that conducting repeated meta-discourse sessions throughout an inquiry that include reflection on automated feedback that helps give students a “bird’s eye view” of their own discourse can have a positive effect on primary aged students’ Knowledge Building work, and can help them write more scientifically accurate notes and articulate more elaborate scientific explanations. Figure 8. Knowledge advancement scores (M) across four groups Discussion and Conclusions In this study, we tested both pedagogical and technological supports designed to help students enhance their ways of contributing to explanation-seeking discourse. We focused on “metadiscourse sessions” as a pedagogical component and experimented with various forms of automated supports, including content (Word Clouds) and contribution-oriented (the MetaDiscourse bar graph) feedback. Meta-discourse allows students to discuss the progress and setbacks in their inquiry on the whole, while automated visualizations that present formative feedback to students about the ways they are participating help students gain a meta-perspective on the semantic and contribution makeup of their own dialogue. Four groups participated in this study, including one comparison group and three experimental groups, each of which were exposed to a different combination of supports. Results of analysis showed that the MetaDiscourse bar graph in particular is productive for helping students to expand their contribution repertories, as the two experimental groups that were exposed to this feedback both showed significant gains in one or more targeted contribution types. Findings also show that focusing attention on particular contribution types can help trigger 182 KBSI2013 Papers increased engagement with those ways of contributing to a significant degree, as the experimental group who utilized a new scaffold targeting “Obtaining information” boosted the presence of this contribution type as well as its corresponding subtypes more than any other group in the study. Furthermore, findings reveal that meta-discourse sessions that were facilitated by one or both kinds of feedback proved valuable for helping students to reflect on their ideas and to gain a broader perspective of their inquiry, and consequently to advance group knowledge to a greater degree than those students who did not participate in such sessions. Indeed, all three experimental groups who engaged in these reflective discussions showed significantly higher performance scores for knowledge advancement than the group that did not, regardless of the type of feedback visual they were exposed to. The positive effects of these forms of embedded assessments, both technological and pedagogical, was evident in all experimental groups, and support the assertion that these designs reflect examples of productive new assessments to support Knowledge Building work. References Anderson, C., Holland, J., & Palinscar, A. (1997). Canonical and Sociocultural Approaches to Research and Reform in Science Education: The Story of Juan and His Group, The Elementary School Journal, (97)4, The University of Chicago. Authors, (2011a) Authors, (2011b) Bateman, S., Gutwin, C., & Nacenta, M. (2008). Seeing things in the clouds: The effect of visual features on tag cloud selections. Proceedings of HT ’08, June 19-21, 2008. Pittsburgh, PA. Bereiter, C., (2010). How to Make Good Knowledge-Building Discourse Better. Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology. Knowledge Building Summer. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unraveling basic components and dimensions. (Advances in Learning and Instruction Series). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science, p. 55-68. Chen, B., & Resendes, M. (2012). Inviting Students to Reflect: Meta-Discourse Tool in Knowledge Forum / Amener l’apprenant à réfléchir : un outil de méta-discours dans Knowledge Forum. Paper presented at The Canadian Society for the Study of Education Annual Conference (CSSE2012), Waterloo, Canada, May 2012. David, P. A., & Foray, D. (2003). Economic fundamentals of the knowledge society. Policy Futures in Education, 1(1), 20-49. de Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats. Boston: Little, Brown. Hogan, K. (1999). Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 855-882. Homer-Dixon, T. (2000). The ingenuity gap: Facing the economic, environmental, and other challenges of an increasingly complex and unpredictable world. New York: Knopf. Matsuzawa, Y., Oshima, J., Oshima, R., Niihara, Y., Sakai, S. (2011). KBDeX: A platform for exploring discourse in collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 198-207. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.576 Oshima, J., Oshima, R., & Matsuzawa, Y. (2012). Knowledge building discourse explorer: A social network analysis application for knowledge building discourse. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 903–921. 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. Encyclopedia of education, 2, New York; NY: Macmillan, 1370-1373. Scardamalia. M. & Bereiter, C. (1992) Text-based and knowledge based questioning by children. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 177–199. 183 KBSI2013 Papers Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. 1131 Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). New York, NY: 1132 Cambridge University Press. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2010). Good moves in knowledge-creating dialogue: Preliminary sketch of a model. Online. Scardamalia, M., Bransford, J., Kozam, B. and Quellmalz, E. (2012) New Assessments and Environments for Knowledge Building, In P. Griffen, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Springer: New York, 231-300. Teplovs, C., Donoahue, Z., Scardamalia, M., & Philip, D. (2007). Tools for concurrent, embedded, and transformative assessment of knowledge building processes and progress, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Web. N.M., & Mastergeorge, A.N. (2003). Promoting effecting helping in peer-directed groups. Educational Researcher, 39, 73-97. van Aalst, J. Chan, Y., Chan, C., Wan, W., Teplovs, C. (2010). Development of Formative Assessment Tools for Knowledge Building. Paper presented at Development of Formative Assessment Tools for Knowledge Building Workshop, the Knowledge Building Summer Institute, New Assessments and Environments for Knowledge Building. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education OISE/UT, Toronto, Canada. August 3rd-6th. van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing between knowledge sharing, knowledge construction, and knowledge creation discourses, 4(3) International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 259-287. Xexéo, G., Morgado, F., & Fiuza, P. (2009). Differential tag clouds: Highlighting particular features in documents. Proceedings of 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology. Milano, Italy. Yang, Y., Van Aalst, J. & Chan, C. (2012) Exploring patterns of interaction in Knowledge Forum databases using Knowledge Connections Analyzer (KCA). Paper presented at the Knowledge Building Summer Institute, Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology (IKIT), Toronto, Canada. August 7th-10th. Zhang, J., Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307. Taylor \& Francis. Zhang, J., & Messina, R. (2010). Collaborative productivity as self-sustaining processes in a Grade 4 knowledge building community. In K. Gomez, J. Radinsky, & L. Lyons (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences(pp. 49-56). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of nine and ten year-olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55:2, 117– 145. 184 KBSI2013 Papers Responsabilidad compartida a través de la implementación de webquest en los alumnos de primer grado de Telesecundaria Yolanda Ruiz Cervantes, Email: [email protected] Oscar Hernández López Universidad Iberoamericana, Puebla, Mexico Email: [email protected] RESUMEN: En esta investigación se diseñan actividades bajo los principios de Knowledge Building, para aplicarse manejado con webquest para que los aprendizajes resulten ser más significativos. Además, el trabajo colaborativo en el cual los distintos protagonistas del proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje pueden interactuar entre sí de forma instantánea, en cualquier momento, se mejora gracias a las herramientas para hacer efectivas sus respectivas tareas. El presente trabajo de investigación tiene como objetivo: Determinar el impacto de la implementación de webquest como andamios para logar desarrollar competencias investigativas a través del desarrollo del trabajo colaborativo y el principio colaboración compartida para el conocimiento comunitario, uno de los doce principios de la pedagogía Knowledge Building, el estudio se realizó con los alumnos de primer grado grupo “A” de telesecundaria”Dr. Gustavo Baz Prada” de la comunidad de Capula, municipio de Sultepec, Estado de Mèxico. Los resultados de la investigación consideramos especialmente los siguientes: En el grupo en el cual se implementó el recurso didáctico Webquest, el 100% de los alumnos participó obteniendo un alto desarrollo de competencias investigativas. La evaluación de la webquest, demuestra que el proceso de diseño, implementación y gestión de la Webquest siguiendo principios de Knowledge Building, proporciona a los estudiantes las posibilidades de innovar sus tareas de aprendizaje, permitiendo la incorporación activa de las TICs en la educación y de esta manera desarrollar competencias investigativas. Introducción: En la sociedad del siglo XXI llamada también la "era del conocimiento", la riqueza de las sociedades dependen cada vez más de su capacidad para innovar de forma creativa con el conocimiento, la innovación debe ser parte integrante de lo cotidiano. Esto presenta un reto considerablemente nuevo en el ámbito educativo no solamente en la cotidianidad, sino desde la vida escolar para que los alumnos sean capaces de participar en la creación de nuevos conocimientos como parte normal de su vida. ¿Pero cómo logarlo? No existen métodos probados de educar a la gente a ser productores de conocimiento. Debemos pensar en una trayectoria de desarrollo que vaya desde la curiosidad natural del niño a la creatividad disciplinada del productor de conocimiento maduro (científico o investigador). El desafío, entonces, es conseguir que los estudiantes se incorporen en esa trayectoria. Por tal motivo, el objetivo de realizar esta investigación es introducir el kb y observar y contrastar cómo se construye conocimiento de manera colaborativa (Scardamalia, 2003), en alumnos de primer grado de telesecundaria en una la comunidad rural de Capula, municipio de Sultepec, estado de México, México. 185 KBSI2013 Papers Tendencias teóricas: Para Scardamalia (2003), el conocimiento es socialmente construido y se desarrolla mejor a través de colaboraciones diseñadas de tal manera que los participantes compartan conocimiento y aborden proyectos que incorporen características de los equipos de trabajo de los adultos con contenidos del mundo real y utilicen fuentes de información válidas, confiables y variadas. El valor cognitivo de las actividades prácticas aparece dependiendo del rol de esas actividades en el sistema completo de todas las actividades. Es esencial que la participación en actividades concretas no sea considerado como un fin en sí misma sino incluido bajo metas de más alto nivel que incluyan la reflexión, el avance del conocimiento y la comprensión (Hakkarainne, en Bereiter y Scardamalia, 2004). Un buen ambiente Knowledge Building proporciona los medios para iniciar a los estudiantes en -crear conocimiento-crear cultura- y hacer que se sientan parte del esfuerzo de largo plazo de la humanidad por entender su mundo y tomar un cierto control sobre su destino. Si lográramos un consenso sobre cómo debe ser la educación en la Sociedad del Conocimiento, probablemente esta se encontraría en un conjunto de términos que abundan en el discurso: aprendizaje para toda la vida, flexibilidad, creatividad, habilidades de pensamiento superiores o habilidades de pensamiento de orden superior, colaboración, experticia distribuida, organizaciones que aprenden, innovación, alfabetismo tecnológico y muchas más de ese estilo. Aunque en algunos casos estas parecen palabras vacías, pero también pueden ser vistas como esfuerzos por expresar una intención que aún no ha sido formulada de manera suficientemente clara para ser útil en la generación de diseños y políticas educativas. Es necesario determinar cómo pueden ser aplicados tales conceptos para generar un tipo de educación que realmente enfrente los nuevos retos de una manera novedosa (Bereiter y Scardamalia, 2002). Para identificar un problema es necesario observar con detenimiento, plantearse preguntas sobre lo que se observa, ¿qué?, ¿cómo?, ¿para qué?, ¿dónde? … y para que surjan ideas es necesario comprender las relaciones entre los elementos observados buscando respuestas a las puntos de vista de los compañeros, especialmente los que son muy diferentes a los propios. De forma similar a la revolución copernicana, el cambio de paradigma de la educación centrada en actividades a uno centrado en ideas tiene un carácter de todo o nada. La mayoría de los profesores creen que ya ponen las ideas en el centro. La construcción de conocimiento es una forma de enseñanza para la comprensión y es como Bereiter (2002) lo deja claro, constructivista. Pero también radicalmente distinta. Expone doce ideas que combinadas hacen un aula de construcción de conocimiento profundamente diferente. Crear un recurso intelectual compartido y un punto de encuentro para el trabajo comunitario ayuda a proporcionar una alternativa a las tareas, lecciones, proyectos y otros motivadores del trabajo diseñados por expertos, reemplazándolos con un sistema de interacciones alrededor de las ideas que lleva al continuo mejoramiento de estas. o Muchas ideas enriquecen y ofrecen múltiples opciones de solución. o ¿Cómo se puede demostrar que se está abierto a las ideas de los compañeros especialmente de los que difieren mucho de las opiniones propias? Responsabilidad colectiva para el conocimiento comunitario. Este principio se fundamenta en las siguientes premisas: • El conocimiento generado en la comunidad es mayor que la suma de sus partes. 186 KBSI2013 Papers • El conocimiento comunitario es propiedad intelectual compartida. • Todos en la comunidad se hacen responsables del avance de la comprensión unos de otros. • Escuchar cuidadosamente la comprensión creciente de los otros. • Tomar la iniciativa para hacer consciente a la comunidad de las confusiones y las lagunas en la comprensión. • Animar a los tímidos a participar. • Referenciar las ideas de otros cuando se utilicen para construir sobre ellas. Cada miembro compartirá la responsabilidad de aplicar procedimientos, por saber lo que tiene que saberse y asegurarse que los demás también lo sepan. Esto es lo que quiere decir responsabilidad cognitiva compartida. En las escuelas la responsabilidad cognitiva es una de las razones principales de su existencia. Encuadre Metodológico: El trabajo de investigación se trabajó bajo un enfoque evaluativo con datos tanto cualitativos como cuantitativos con los cuales se llegara a realizar propuestas de mejora. Enfoque mixto con una etapa cuantitativa y una evaluativa, se realizaron cuestionarios que nos arrojaron datos cuantitativos y para la obtención de los datos evaluativos consideramos los aportes de las entrevistas y las observaciones realizadas ya que estas nos proporcionaron los elementos de desarrollo de la webquest, como los comportamientos y actitudes que toman los alumnos, si desarrollaron trabajo colaborativo y el desarrollo de competencias investigativas. El método fue la observación de tipo descriptivo y la investigación-acción participante, el investigador participó poniendo en práctica el proyecto en su propia aula, sobre cuestiones de diseño empírico de contextos educativos específicos, realizó la función de un coinvestigador que trabaja con y para la mejora de la realidad de sus alumnos. La reflexión, se encuentra al comienzo del ciclo, en la planeación y en la evaluación o seguimiento de la acción instaurada para transformar la práctica. Dicho proceso se siguió como se menciona en seguida: Se puso en práctica la WEBQUEST “calentamiento global” que con anterioridad se elaboró, cuya metodología de aplicación con objetivos precisos y cumpliendo con los contenidos educativos del nivel, además de contribuir al desarrollo de la responsabilidad compartida para el conocimiento comunitario, uno de los principios de la pedagogía Knowledge Building para la construcción del conocimiento por parte del alumno y también del propio maestro (Scardamalia, 2003). En esta investigación se elaboró la Webquest “CALENTAMIENTO GLOBAL” y se aplicó durante cuatro meses, con la finalidad de contribuir a la formación de competencias para la investigación en los estudiantes del primer grado de nivel medio básico (secundaria) en su modalidad de telesecundaria. El trabajo docente se complementó con la utilización herramientas tecnológicas existentes en el aula de clases (video cámara, DVD, computadoras, internet, pantalla plana, cañón) y el desarrollo presencial de los contenidos en las aulas y como apoyo el principio 7 (responsabilidad compartida para el conocimiento comunitario). En otro momento de dicho proceso se registraron las observaciones de lo que sucede cuando se desarrollen estas prácticas educativas en las aulas de clase, específicamente las que se trabajan en el aula del investigador para ver los efectos que estas tienen en el contexto escolar, en esta parte no solamente se registraron las observaciones de lo que sucedía en el salón de clases sino también de los productos elaborados por los alumnos y también se obtuvieron a través de videos. 187 KBSI2013 Papers El estudio fue un estudio de caso paralelo debido a que las técnicas cuantitativas y evaluativas se emplearon al mismo tiempo. Investigación descriptiva: Por lo cual nuestro trabajo de investigación fue de tipo descriptivo debido a que queremos especificar rasgos y características importantes de la aplicación de las WEBQUEST como herramientas en el salón de clases y saber si a través de estas herramientas se logra el desarrollo de competencias investigativas. De esta forma la metodología Webquest, fue implementada con los estudiantes a través del trabajo colaborativo, en cuya área debieron investigar, plasmar y elaborar una serie de ejercicios que les permitieron obtener las destrezas necesarias en cuanto al uso de la programación, las estrategias didácticas para la resolución de problemas y el desarrollo de un proyecto educativo, para ello, debieron realizar diferentes investigaciones, y el docente debió facilitar gran material a fin de que el estudiante no confundiera la información dada, siendo entonces de esta manera que los estudiantes desarrollaran competencias de investigación. Resultados y discusión de resultados. La dimensión de trabajo colaborativo, se ha trabajado mediante las subdimensiones: responsable del proceso, proceso grupal y aporte individual. 12 (interacción a-a) 2 4. Nula 12 3. Escasa 2. Frecuente 1. Intensa 9 0 0% 39.10% 52.20% 8.60% Tabla que muestra la frecuencia absoluta y relativa a la pregunta 12 interacción alumnoalumno en el cuestionario de Webquest Los alumnos en un 52 % consideran que si hay interacción entre compañeros muy frecuente aunque solamente el 39.1% considera que esta interacción es intensa y un 8.6% que esta es escasa, pero también cabe destacar que no existen alumnos que consideran que esta no se da. De manera general lo más común en la que se presentó en todos los datos fue 2 que es la media en el cuestionarios de Webquest y 4 en la de competencias que está por arriba de la media aritmética por lo cual podemos inferir que los alumnos si consideran se han desarrollado competencias 188 KBSI2013 Papers Cada miembro compartirá la responsabilidad de aplicar procedimientos, por saber lo que tiene que saberse y asegurarse que los demás también lo sepan. Esto es lo que quiere decir responsabilidad cognitiva compartida (Scardamalia, 2002). El coeficiente de asimetría positiva ya tiene una ligera asimetría por lo que los datos se suavizan hacia la derecha y se concentran a la izquierda; lo cual quiere decir que en la escuela telesecundaria los alumnos del primer grado grupo ”A” los alumnos se sienten contentos con esta estrategia y desarrollan a su vez competencias. Analizando la teoría Johnson (1993) realmente origina la construcción de conocimiento porque obliga al individuo a activar el pensamiento individual, a buscar formas de investigar sea en forma independiente o en grupo, y promueve valores en forma semiconsciente como la cooperación, la responsabilidad, la comunicación, el trabajo en equipo, la autoevaluación individual y de los compañeros. La colaboración propicia la comunicación, que se genere un lenguaje común, pues se establecen normas de funcionamiento grupal y se disminuye el temor a la crítica y a la retroalimentación, con esto disminuyen también los sentimientos de aislamiento y gracias a ello puede darse una mejora de las relaciones interpersonales entre personas, pueblos, grupos, de diferentes culturas, profesiones, etnias, etc. Por tal motivo el conocimiento generado en la comunidad es mayor que la suma de sus partes (Bereiter, 2002) En el pretest aplicado con anterioridad a la implementación de la webquest los alumnos contestaron a la interrogante si les gusta el trabajo en equipo. Por lo que respondieron que solamente el 16% de ellos respondieron que siempre no les gustan los equipos de trabajo. En el cuestionario posterior a la implementación de la webquest solamente a dos de los alumnos no les gusta el trabajo en equipo. Revisando la teoría Johnson (1993) nos menciona que con el trabajo colaborativo se impulsa el desarrollo de habilidades sociales al exigir la aceptación de otra persona como cooperante en la labor común de construir conocimientos, en el grupo y/o equipo y al apreciar a los demás como origen para evaluar y desarrollar nuevas habilidades de aprendizaje. Crea una interdependencia efectiva, abarcando las condiciones de la organización y de funcionamiento que deben darse al interior del grupo. Los miembros del equipo se necesitan unos a otros y confían en el entendimiento y éxito de cada sujeto. Analizando la teoría Johnson (1993) nos refiere que el trabajo colaborativo valora la contribución individual dado que cada miembro del grupo asume íntegramente su responsabilidad en la tarea, a la vez que al socializarla recibe las contribuciones del grupo. También estimula habilidades personales y de grupo al permitir que cada individuo participante desarrolle y potencie las habilidades personales y grupales como: escuchar, participar, liderar, coordinar actividades, realizar seguimiento y evaluar el trabajo colaborativo estimula habilidades personales y de grupo al permitir que cada individuo participante desarrolle y potencie las habilidades personales y grupales como: escuchar, participar, liderar, coordinar actividades, realizar seguimiento y evaluar. 189 KBSI2013 Papers Evaluación de producto: Competencias investigativas de alumnos El 88% de los alumnos que trabajaron con la webquest de calentamiento global obtuvieron resultados entre excelente y satisfactorio, mientras el 12% restante se encontró en un rango de bien y ninguno en mejorable, lo que significa que se han logrado los resultados que queríamos. Herramienta del docentes La herramienta de webquest tiene grandes beneficios de acuerdo a los aportes de los docentes quienes encuentran en dicha herramienta sus grandes beneficios. Aportación de los padres de familia Los padres consideran que la forma en que sus hijos aprender es mejor que algunas formas diferentes que sus hijos han trabajo anteriormente. “Yo no sé mucho de educación pero así como han trabajado nuestros hijos me pareció mejor que como habían trabajado en otras ocasiones en donde solamente copian de algunos libros o de internet sin darle importancia a lo que copean” (padre de familia) Conclusiones: El objetivo fue: Determinar el impacto de la implementación de webquest como andamios para logar desarrollar competencias investigativas a través del desarrollo del trabajo colaborativo y el principio 7 (colaboración compartida para el conocimiento comunitario) de la pedagogía Knowledge Building en los alumnos de primer grado grupo “A” de telesecundaria. La presentación de los resultados de la investigación se realizó de la siguiente manera: 1º Resultados de la encuesta pretest. 2º Resultados de la encuesta a maestros. 3º Resultados de las rubricas de la implementación de las webquest. 4º Resultados de las encuesta aplicadas a padres de familia. 5º análisis de videos • Los principales resultados del diagnóstico preliminar (antes de la aplicación de la Webquest) indicaron que los estudiantes tenían dificultades básicas en el dominio de las Tics. La mayoría de estudiantes expresaron no tener una computadora en casa y tampoco conexión a Internet; asimismo, manifestaron que no les era tan aceptable el trabajar con algunos compañeros en equipo. • La “Webquest de calentamiento global” fue elaborada con la finalidad de facilitar a los estudiantes el desarrollo de sus investigaciones. Cada equipo de estudiantes elaboró un video sobre el tema, para lo cual consultó básicamente la Webquest, dado que allí se alojó la información básica requerida. • Las principales competencias para la investigación que se desarrollaron en los estudiantes con la implementación de la webquest fueron: la búsqueda, procesamiento y aplicación de la información; la identificación y formulación de problemas; presentación, exposición y defensa de ideas; elaboración de comentarios, propuestas y evaluación; lectura y redacción y respeto a los aportes de otros autores todo ello a través de la idea de responsabilidad compartida. • De 25 estudiantes que iniciaron la experiencia, la totalidad se encuentran en dicho proceso. •Todos están utilizando la Webquest, en el aula, presentan y sustentan sus investigaciones con información publicada en la “Webquest de calentamiento global”. 190 KBSI2013 Papers •Hemos obtenido que el 88% de los alumnos de primer grado grupo “A” de la escuela telesecundaria adquirieran competencia investigativas entre excelente y sobresaliente. • Se considera en esta investigación que los referentes teóricos coinciden con las competencias que se encuentran trabajando en el aula con los estudiantes del primer grado de telesecundaria, la concreción de las competencias se materializan con los procesos de investigación que se encuentran en proceso con la implementación de la webquest “calentamiento global”. •Las opiniones de los estudiantes respecto al desarrollo de competencias para la Investigación en la implementación de la webquest “calentamiento global” la han recibido con mucho entusiasmo, aunque para algunos (2 alumnos) es una pérdida de tiempo el trabajar en equipos. •Los resultados que estamos recibiendo confirman el efecto positivo que se está obteniendo con esta experiencia pedagógica enriquecida con un proceso de investigación mediado por las TIC, específicamente con la aplicación de una Webquest y los principios de la pedagogía Knowledge Building. Las principales competencias consideradas para efecto de observar resultados en esta investigación a partir de las opiniones de los estudiantes son: • Identificación y formulación de problemas de investigación. • Búsqueda, procesamiento y aplicación de la información • Presentación, exposición y defensa de ideas. • Elaboración de comentarios, propuestas. • Trabajo colaborativo. Síntesis de las ventajas de utilizar la webquest bajo los principios kb para desarrollar habilidades investigativas: 1. Se implementa la Webquest, escenario que permite mejorar el desarrollo de competencias investigativas. 2. Se comprueba la eficacia de la práctica pedagógica del método de Webquest, en el aprendizaje. Esto se vio reflejado en los resultados arrojados por los resultados de los alumnos, según los cuales existieron diferencias significativas entre los rendimientos alcanzados con las pruebas mencionadas. 3. Se destaca la aplicación del aprendizaje significativo, en la metodología de la Webquest que se puede utilizar en la educación. 4. Se establece la ineficacia de los métodos tradicionales de enseñanza, basados en la transmisión de conocimientos sin el concurso de actividades didácticas y de investigación y sin tomar en consideración el hecho de que, cada alumno representa una realidad única e irrepetible con características biológicas, psicológicas, sociales y espirituales particulares que inciden en su proceso de aprendizaje. 5. Las Webquest, tiene utilidad didáctica para el desarrollo del aprendizaje significativo, en alumnos. 6. La Webquest: “calentamiento global” se constituye como una actividad didáctica que propone una tarea factible y atractiva para los estudiantes basada en técnicas de trabajo con responsabilidad compartida en la investigación con actividades básicas de enseñanza-aprendizaje, que posibilita el desarrollo del aprendizaje significativo y desarrollo de competencias investigativas. 191 KBSI2013 Papers 7.- Los niños comprendieron la importancia de buscar información para aclarar las dudas. Aprendieron que la escucha y respeto al otro nos ayuda no sólo a construir conocimiento sino a mantener relaciones armoniosas entre los miembros de una comunidad. Los niños al escoger el problema real están más motivados a conocer sobre él ya que el interés los mantiene adheridos a él, es decir la búsqueda del conocimiento se hace de manera significativa y alegre. Se logró la construcción de conocimiento de manera colectiva. Los alumnos se auto apropiaron de ideas y conceptos claros sobre el problema real. En conclusión podemos resumir que el trabajo realizado con la implementación de webquest, resulta ser una novedosa estrategia con la que los alumnos pueden adquirir competencias investigativas sólidas máxime cuando se potencia la utilización del principio de responsabilidad compartida. Bibliografía: 1.- Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (2002). La escolaridad y el crecimiento del conocimiento intencional: Ayudar a los niños hacerse cargo de sus propias mentes. En B.Smith. Chicago: La educación liberal en la sociedad del conocimiento. 2.- Bereiter, C. (2002). Diseño de investigación para la innovación sostenida. Estudios Cognitivos. Boletín de la Sociedad de Ciencia Cognitiva Japonesa. 3.- Dodge, B. (1995). Webquest: Una técnica de aprendizaje basado en Internet. Distancia Educador. Recuperado el 17 de febrero de 2010 en: webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html (Hakkarainnen et al, 2004). 4.- Dodge, B. (2002). Algunos pensamientos sobre WebQuest. Recuperado el 5 de mayo de 2010 en: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/EdTec596/About_WebQuests.html 5.-Johnson, D.W. Johnson, R.T.,& Holubec, E.J. (1999). El aprendizaje cooperativo en el aula. Barcelona: Paidos. 6.- Johnson, C. (1993). Aprendizaje Colaborativo, referencia virtual del Instituto Tecnológico de Monterrey, México recuperado el 5 de mayo de 2010 en: http://campus.gda.itesm.mx/cite 7.- Scardamalia, M.& Bereiter, C (2003). Knowledge building. En Enciclopedia de educación, segunda edición. New York: Macmillan. 192 KBSI2013 Papers Farmtasia: A Case Study of Knowledge Building Processes in GameBased Learning Cherry Rose Tan, OISE/University of Toronto Email: <[email protected]> ABSTRACT: This essay analyzes the effectiveness of three-dimensional digital gamebased learning (3D-DGBL) environments in supporting knowledge building processes. Scardamalia and Bereiter (2003) define knowledge building as the “production and continual improvement of ideas of value to a community,” resulting in gains in cultural capital. Previous research has linked game-based learning to greater student engagement, multidisciplinary connections, and skill delivery in schools, but less is known about its capacity for innovation (Barab et al., 2005; Gee, 2003). This paper analyzes the first educational game created for knowledge building, known as Farmtasia, a virtual world in which players act as managers to individually run farms (Cheung et al., 2008). This essay argues that Farmtasia does support knowledge building processes using three in-game features: pedagogical scaffolding, situated learning, and communal debriefings. Furthermore, this paper suggests that 3D-DGBL environments are the key to reducing the “educational chasm,” the inequalities that occur from barriers to knowledge and skill attainment, such as geography and wealth. By adopting 3D-DGBL environments as educational problem spaces, knowledge building can be made accessible to all communities regardless of physical or economic barriers. Keywords: game-based learning, knowledge building, educational chasm, situated learning, informational scaffolds Three-dimensional digital game-based learning (3D-DGBL) is the use of virtual environments in education, which encompasses literary-historical spaces for interacting with other players, non-player characters (NPCs), and subject content (Neville & Shelton, 2010). Players are represented in the virtual space by avatars, graphical placeholders that symbolize identity and allow interaction using actions that players select (Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Carteaux, & Tuzun, 2005; Bolter & Grusin, 1999). Avatars can be customized with abilities and items, allowing users to develop unique appearances and to experiment with identities (Barab et al., 2005). Avatars can interact with one another to create complex social networks in-game, with the purpose of achieving specific goals or sharing common interests. In 3D-DGBL, these literary-historical spaces provide unique opportunities for experiential learning, as they can “emulate remote or inaccessible real-world sites, recreate vanished environments, and lend substance to literary spaces” (Thomas, 2004). 3D-DGBL is often delivered through role-playing games (RPGs), in which the player adopts a role within the game context and completes meaningful goals within a storyline (Barab et al., 2005). For example, Quest Atlantis is a role-playing game targeted towards children aged 9 to 15 years old (Barab et al., 2005). Players are tasked to rebuild the Arch of Wisdom, a magical structure containing the knowledge of the Atlantian people. The Arch was destroyed by tyrannical rulers, who were obsessed with technological progress and drove Atlantis into environmental, moral, and social ruin. The Atlantian Council assigns quests, which are entertaining and educational tasks containing scaffolds for exploring and experiencing subject content, such as literacy, science, and social studies. As students complete quests, they learn to address similar, real-life issues, such as environmental awareness and personal agency. Therefore, by empowering students to contribute 193 KBSI2013 Papers in virtual environments, game-based learning has been linked to greater student engagement, multidisciplinary connections, and skill delivery in schools (Barab et al., 2005; Gee, 2003). While game-based learning has been connected to problem solving and inquiry-based learning, less is known about its connection to higher-order processes, such as knowledge building. According to Scardamalia and Bereiter (2003), today’s industry is characterized as the “knowledge age,” in which the success of societies is dependent on the capacity to innovate. Innovation entails not only the sharing and modification of knowledge, but the ability to create new knowledge to meet changing needs. To create knowledge, people must engage in knowledge building, the “production and continual improvement of ideas of value to a community, through means that increase the likelihood that what the community accomplishes will be greater than the sum of individual contributions and part of broader cultural efforts” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). Knowledge building is a social process involving the gathering of information, the designing of experiments, and the evaluation of progress towards the growth of cultural capital. Ideas are treated as objects of inquiry and improvement, which are shared in a public space in order “to be discussed, interconnected, revised, and superseded” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). To make ideas meaningful, people must work with authentic problems, issues that are experienced and relevant in order to make sense of the world (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). However, since ideas must build upon each other to create new knowledge, ideas must be shared with others so that idea improvement becomes sustainable (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Therefore, knowledge advancement is distinguished from individual achievement, and the design of the problem space is critical towards achieving innovation (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Historically, the sharing of knowledge occurred through threaded discussion, in which authors post messages to a discussion site, which are listed in chronological order (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). This problem space is an impairment to higher-level thinking, as information is displayed in a downward-branching tree structure. As a result, while forums allow ideas to be shared in a public domain, users are unable to make meaningful connections between multiple, simultaneous messages. Therefore, traditional tools such as forums limit the potential for knowledge building discourse. Recently, the Centre for the Advancement of Information Technology in Education (CAITE) has released Farmtasia, an educational video game targeted towards knowledge building (Cheung et al., 2008). Farmtasia is a massively multiplayer online game (MMOG), set in a 3D-DGBL virtual space in which players act as managers to individually run farms. Students must learn about cultivation, horticulture, and pasturage in order to develop effective investment and operational strategies. Students must also integrate traditional subject areas, such as literacy, science, and social studies, to form multidisciplinary, sustainable solutions to problems. Success is determined by each player’s financial gain and public reputation, so investments must be mindful of sustainable development and environmental protection. Along the way, students deal with changing conditions in the virtual world, such as natural disasters and neighbourly competition, to be successful. Therefore, students are immersed in a world embodying realistic scenarios that allow for situated learning. This essay analyzes the effectiveness of Farmtasia as a knowledge building environment and suggests that Farmtasia deviates from other educational games, such as Quest Atlantis. Furthermore, this paper argues that Farmtasia is an excellent problem space for knowledge building because it contains three features: pedagogical scaffolding, situated learning, and communal debriefings. In alignment with Scardamalia’s (2002) principles of knowledge building, this essay claims that pedagogical scaffolding encompasses authoritative sources and improvable ideas, that situated learning promotes authentic problems and epistemic agency, and that communal debriefings encourage collective responsibility and democratizing knowledge. Additionally, this essay investigates the impact of game-based learning on the Matthew effect, the phenomenon that “the more you know, the more you can learn” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). 194 KBSI2013 Papers Therefore, by fulfilling these knowledge building principles, 3D-DGBL environments like Farmtasia bridge the “educational chasm,” the inequalities that occur from barriers to knowledge and skill attainment, such as geography and wealth. Pedagogical Scaffolding Pedagogical scaffolding is the use of interactive tools for feedback to support individual and group contributions (Zhang, Hong, Scardamalia, Teo, & Morley, 2011). As previously stated, one of the problems surrounding knowledge building is the educational chasm. For knowledge building to be successful, knowledge must be shared, modified, and created as a community. The process of idea improvement implies that there must be a knowledge base with which to build on (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). However, Scardamalia and Bereiter (2003) note that at all stages of understanding, people are creating knowledge that is useful to themselves. Therefore, knowledge building is not necessarily the creation of radically new ideas, so long as ideas are authentic and novel to their creators. In Farmtasia, multidisciplinary scaffolds provide cheap, accessible sources to authoritative knowledge, such as teachers. At the beginning of the game, teachers convey preliminary information and provide learning resources needed to move onto the next learning phase (Jong, Shang, Lee, & Lee, 2010). One of the learning resources found in-game is the Knowledge Manual, a searchable resource bank containing eight knowledge domains: natural environment, biology, government, economics, technology, production systems, natural hazards, and environmental problems. These domains relate to scenarios or problems encountered in the game, and players can access the manual at any time. In dire situations, a game character named Wise Genie appears and gives hints to struggling players (Cheung et al., 2008). Additionally, Farmtasia has an administrator console for teachers to analyze and prepare data for debriefing lessons. One of the console’s features is the record-and-replay function, which allows teachers to replay any gaming action as a video clip (Jong et al., 2010). Scaffolds can be customized to learner needs, since teachers can identify interesting, problematic, or critical situations to present as case studies with the class. These case studies can be shared using the built-in blogging platform, which allows students to reflect and share their gaming experiences with others (Jong et al., 2010). Based on Scardamalia’s (2002) knowledge building principles, Farmtasia’s pedagogical scaffolding encompasses constructive uses of authoritative sources and improvable ideas. Constructive uses of authoritative sources is critical to knowledge building because people must know a domain in order to advance the knowledge within it. By having awareness of this knowledge, people can critically analyze ideas and advance them. Additionally, the provision of such knowledge through scaffolds leads to idea diversity, which claims that “to understand an idea is to understand the ideas that surround it, including those that stand in contrast to it” (Zhang et al., 2011). When ideas are plentiful, meaningful connections can be made between ideas, leading to new and more refined forms of knowledge. Therefore, Farmtasia’s pedagogical scaffolding provides a large, accessible source of knowledge for users, allowing communities (regardless of geographical or economic status) to work with and build on ideas in meaningful ways. Situated Learning Situated learning is the use of “missions, tasks, and problems that are generative and openended, and there is no prescribed solution” (Jong et al., 2010). Social responsibility is embedded in player decisions, since actions can affect the rest of the virtual space (Jong et al., 2010). To make effective decisions, students must piece together subject-specific knowledge learned from virtual spaces and pedagogical scaffolds. Success in these tasks require problem solving skills applied to many contexts, and there are numerous solutions to solving the same problem. 195 KBSI2013 Papers Therefore, to be competitive in Farmtasia requires the creation, evaluation, and modification of optimal strategies. To make the game realistic, Farmtasia has three types of sudden events around contingency and emergency: farm, market, and mass-decision (Cheung et al., 2008). Farm events are contained in farms and will not affect the rest of the virtual world, such as fire accidents and worker strikes. Market events are local or global, such as price fluctuations on products, leading to consequences on all farms. Mass-decision events involve cooperation and collaboration among players to succeed, such as the building of a dam. Furthermore, teachers can use their console to add natural disasters, making the game challenging and unpredictable. Based on Scardamalia’s (2002) knowledge building principles, Farmtasia’s situated learning promotes authentic problems and epistemic agency. Real ideas and authentic problems are necessary for knowledge building because ideas are created when learners work with relevant problems that are experienced and understood (Scardamalia, 2002). When problems are authentic, the knowledge created is also authentic and useful to themselves and their community (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). As a result, the knowledge produced becomes meaningful and part of a greater societal effort to create progress and innovation (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Additionally, when students solve authentic problems, they develop epistemic agency, the ability to “set goals, assess their work, engage in long-range planning, monitor idea coherence, use contrasting ideas to spark and sustain knowledge advancement, and engage in high-level knowledge work normally left to the teacher” (Zhang et al., 2011). By allowing students to make decisions and to experience their consequences, teachers demonstrate trust and belief in students’ potential for high-level knowledge work (Zhang et al., 2011). Thus, as players experience situated learning, students engage in meaningful decision making in the solving of authentic problems, leading to the empowerment and validation of students through epistemic agency. Communal Debriefings Communal debriefings are public reflections of player experience using Farmtasia’s blogging platform or in-person discussions. As students complete each stage of gaming, they blog their reflections, acting as a formative assessment used to guide later instruction (Jong et al., 2010). To make the reflections meaningful, students are given journal templates or hard scaffolds, which contain prompts or questions to guide discussion. Questions involve decompressing feelings, describing facts, drawing comparisons, and suggesting improvements (Jong et al., 2010). To tie these reflections together, students complete a summative report at the end of the game, giving advice to Mr. Lam, a fictitious character whose farm is closing down (Jong et al., 2010). These blogs are public, so that all students can view and reply to each other, allowing for more selfreflection and discussion amongst players. These reflections can be used by teachers to identify “debriefable moments,” which are memorable actions or scenarios used as case studies in class (Jong, Lee, & Lee, 2011). As a result, this blogging platform serves as a public space to share, modify, and create new knowledge, allowing for sustainable knowledge building through the collective effort of many players. Based on Scardamalia’s (2002) knowledge building principles, Farmtasia’s communal debriefings encourage collective responsibility and democratizing knowledge. When players share their contributions and achievements, they share ideas of value to others, allowing the knowledge to be advanced as a whole by the community (Scardamalia, 2002). Furthermore, through this discussion space, players can work together as a community to achieve broader and more global goals, such as environmental sustainability. This effort allows players to share the responsibility of idea advancement, leading to more valuable and meaningful outcomes. Since players are working in a public space where ideas are made transparent and accessible, democratizing knowledge is also achieved. As a result, players can transcend geographical and economic barriers, gaining and working with the knowledge necessary to make knowledge advances as a community (Scardamalia, 2002). As ideas are treated as communal objects, the 196 KBSI2013 Papers diversity of players becomes strengths, offering multidisciplinary sources of information for idea advancement (Scardamalia, 2002). Therefore, Farmtasia’s communal debriefings provide universal accessibility to knowledge, allowing students to build on ideas as a community and to take responsibility for those outcomes. Discussion This essay has analyzed three of Farmtasia’s features with regards to knowledge building processes, which are: pedagogical scaffolding, situated learning, and communal debriefings. As noted earlier, one of the major criticisms of knowledge building has been its perceived exclusivity due to the Matthew effect (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). In a knowledge-based economy, knowledge is a valuable commodity, and the accessibility of knowledge becomes an influential factor in the ability to compete with other communities. In alignment with Scardamalia and Bereiter (2003), this paper has offered support for the benefits of 3D-DGBL environments in bridging the educational chasm. Online educational games such as Farmtasia help disseminate both specific and multidisciplinary knowledge in authentic and usable forms, so that it can be applied to real-world problems. Teachers are not only able to provide scaffolds that contain preliminary knowledge of a domain, but students themselves are able to use each other as knowledge resources using blogging. Furthermore, Farmtasia is a roleplaying game that allows players to encounter and manage realistic scenarios such as natural disasters, making the gameplay intuitive through its storyline. As a result, there is a low threshold of skill in order to elicit participation, inviting players of all backgrounds to engage in the knowledge building process. Conclusion In conclusion, 3D-DGBL environments provide a powerful, dynamic platform with which to initiate and maintain the knowledge building process. This essay has studied the role-playing game called Farmtasia, an educational game created specifically for knowledge building. Embedding principles of agriculture, government, and finance, students draw from subject areas such as literacy, science, and social studies, creating multidisciplinary strategies to realistic problems. Based on this analysis, Farmtasia supports the knowledge building process using three features: pedagogical scaffolding, situated learning, and communal debriefings. First, pedagogical scaffolding encompasses constructive uses of authoritative sources and improvable ideas, since teachers provide a knowledge base that becomes continually discussed and improved upon in a public domain. Second, situated learning promotes authentic problems and epistemic agency, since students work in a dynamic environment involving plausible events such as natural disasters. By solving these problems in context, students immerse themselves in the problem solving process, empowering students through the creation of usable knowledge for themselves and their community. Third, communal debriefings encourage collective responsibility and democratizing knowledge, since students are able to access, reflect, and build on the learning experiences of peers and teachers. With the blogging platforms, students are able to work with ideas and to turn diversity into assets, advancing knowledge as a community and sharing responsibility for it. Therefore, through accessible, immersive, and engaging environments like 3D-DGBL games, communities can overcome barriers and develop their cultural capital through the process of knowledge building. Acknowledgements The work in this paper was generously supported by Dr. Marlene Scardamalia, Susana La Rosa, Bodong Chen, and the rest of the knowledge building team at the Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology (IKIT), University of Toronto. 197 KBSI2013 Papers Conference Themes This essay was written for the 17th annual Knowledge Building Summer Institute called Crossing the Educational Chasm: From the Basics to Creative Work with Ideas. With regards to design-based research, my paper covers the following themes: parallel advances in basic and advanced knowledge work, sustained work with ideas, and knowledge building partnerships. With regards to knowledge building optimization, my essay analyzes assessment tools for knowledge creation, especially the role of teachers in tracking, accommodating, and scaffolding student progress. References Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86-107. Bolter, J., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Cheung, K. K. F., Jong, M. S. Y., Lee, F-L., Lee, J. H. M., Luk, E. T. H., Shang, J., & Wong, M. K. H. (2008). Farmtasia: An online game-based learning environment based on the VISOLE pedagogy. Virtual Reality, 12, 17-25. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Jong, M. S. Y., Lee, F-L, & Lee, J. H. M. (2011). A case study of an academic achievementoriented student in game-based learning. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 3(4), 7-11. Jong, M. S. Y., Shang, J., Lee, F-L, & Lee, J. H. M. (2010). An evaluative study on VISOLE— Virtual Interactive Student-Oriented Learning Environment. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(4), 307-318. Neville, D. O., & Shelton, B. E. (2010). Literary and historical 3D digital game-based learning: Design guidelines. Simulation & Gaming, 41(4), 607-629. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago, IL: Open Court. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 1370-1373). New York, NY: Macmillan Reference. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, W. (2004). Computing and the historical imagination. In S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, & J. Unsworth (Eds.), A companion to digital humanities (pp. 56-68). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Zhang, J., Hong, H-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 262-307. 198