Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Knowledge building: idea-centered drawing and writing to advance community knowledge

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores the dynamic, interactive nature of digital drawings and writing in a knowledge building community in which students used a multimedia online environment—Knowledge Forum—to represent and advance ideas in the field of optics. The research employs a mixed-methods case study to collect and analyze multimedia notes created by 22 fourth-grade students. Graphical notes—notes containing drawings—included more idea units and more sophisticated ideas than non-graphical notes. Quality of drawing also correlated with idea improvement in Knowledge Forum notes, with ratings of idea improvement based on conceptual understanding of optics. Overall, findings revealed significant advantages of online drawing for Grade 4 students, with case-study analysis revealing the many ways in which graphics complement writing and contribute to knowledge building.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P., & Bennett, K. (2008). SPSS for the health & behavioral sciences. Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J., & Bower, G. (1973). Human associative memory. Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 73–93). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., Bogouslavsky, M., Tsuji, W., & Scardamalia, M. (in press). Knowledge Building: Improving Ideas, Improving writing. In R. Horowitz (Ed) Handbook of research on writing, Routledge, Taylor.

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology. (Vol. 2). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching higher-order skills in reading and writing. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bissex, G. (1980). A child learns to write and read. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brittain, W. L. (1979). Creativity, art, and the young child. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. (2013). A blended approach to reading and writing graphic stories. The Reading Teacher, 67(3), 208–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budd, R., Thorp, R., & Donohew, L. (1967). Content analysis of communications. The Collier-McMillan Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, H., & Moore, B. H. (1991). The art of writing: Drawing as preparation for narrative writing in the primary grades. Studies in Art Education, 32(4), 207–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, R. K. (1963). Recent research in originality. Elementary English, 40, 583–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. A. (1991). Drawing into meaning: A powerful writing tool. English Journal, 80(6), 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 266–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, B., Resendes, M., Chai, C. S., & Hong, H. Y. (2017). Two tales of time: Uncovering the significance of sequential patterns among contribution types in knowledge-building discourse. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(2), 162–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analysis of verbal data. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chuy, M., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2012). Development of ideational writing through knowledge building: Theoretical and empirical bases. In E. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D. Preiss (Eds.), Handbook of Writing: A Mosaic of New Perspectives (pp. 175–190). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clay, M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of a complex behavior (2nd ed.). Heinemann Educational Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C., Kenway, J., & Mcleod, J. (2000). Factors influencing the educational performance of males and females in school and their initial destinations after leaving school. Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs, AGPS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 100.

    Google Scholar 

  • DuCharme, C. C. (1991). “Pictures make me know more ideas”: Lessons from three young writers. Day Care and Early Education., 19(6), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durst, R., & Newell, G. E. (1989). The uses of functions: James Britton’s category system and research on writing. Review of Educational Research, 58, 375–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dziedziewicz, D., Oledzka, D., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Developing 4-to 6-year-old children’s figural creativity using a doodle-book program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 85–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. (1981). Mind as cultural achievement. Educational Leadership, 38(7), 466–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, H. (1999). Gender and achievement in secondary education in Jamaica. Planning Institute of Jamaica Policy Development Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (1997). Dynamic development of psychological structures in action and thought. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 467–561). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, D. (2009). Writing about what we know: Generating ideas in writing. The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 48–64). SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gan, Y., Scardamalia, M., Hong, H. Y., & Zhang, J. (2010). Early development of graphical literacy through knowledge building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 36(1).

  • Graham, S., Hebert, M., Paige Sandbank, M., & Harris, K. R. (2016). Assessing the writing achievement of young struggling writers: Application of generalizability theory. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(2), 72–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halperin, W. A., Smith, M. L., & Smith, R. L. (2013). Drawing children into reading: Studies of art lessons’ effects on literacy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 901–927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrlinger, S., Höffler, T. N., Opfermann, M., & Leutner, D. (2017). When do pictures help learning from expository text? Multimedia and modality effects in primary schools. Research in Science Education, 47(3), 685–704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H. Y., Ma, L., Lin, P. Y., & Lee, K. Y. H. (2020). Advancing third graders’ reading comprehension through collaborative Knowledge Building: A comparative study in Taiwan. Computers & Education, 157, 103962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S., & Myhill, D. A. (2007). Discourses of difference? Examining gender in linguistic characteristics of writing. Canadian Journal of Education., 30(2), 456–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, M. L., & Rental, K. (1981). Research update. Conveying meaning in written text. Language Arts, 58(6), 721–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klemm, E. B., & Iding, M. (1997). Exploring the use of visual learning logs in an elementary science methods class. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Cincinnati.

  • Knight, L., & Dooley, K. (2015). Drawing and writing on the screen. In M. Dezuanni, K. Dooley, S. Gattenhof, & L. Knight (Eds.), iPads in the early years: Developing literacy and creativity (pp. 44–65). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, F., & Chan, C. K. (2018). Promoting elementary students’ epistemology of science through computer-supported knowledge-building discourse and epistemic reflection. International Journal of Science Education, 40(6), 668–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, L. (2003). Why johnny can’t write. Administrator, 23(3), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, L., Tan, S., Teo, C. L., & Kamsan, M. A. (2017). Using rotating leadership to visualize students’ epistemic agency and collective responsibility for knowledge advancement. In B. K. Smith, M. Borge, E. Mercier, & K. Y. Lim (Eds.), Making a difference: prioritizing equity and access in CSCL, the computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference 2017 (Vol. 1, pp. 455–462). The International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, N. (2011). From drawing to writing: What happens when you shift teaching priorities in the first six months of school? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, the, 34(3), 322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., & Swett, S. (1987). Metamemory for narrative text. Memory & Cognition, 15(1), 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, J., & Seow, P. (2007). Electronic paint: Understanding children’s representation through their interactions with digital paint. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 26(3), 251–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavers, D. (2011). Children’s drawing and writing: The remarkable in the unremarkable. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millard, E., & Marsh, J. (2001). Words with pictures: The role of visual literacy in writing and its implication for schooling. READING Literacy and Language, 35(2), 54–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myhill, D. A. (2001). Writing: Creating and crafting. English in Education, 35(3), 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011. Institute of Educational Sciences U.S Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A., Rumelhart, P. E., & LNR Research Group. (1975). Exploration in cognition. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oshima, J., Oshima, R., & Saruwatari, S. (2020). Analysis of students’ ideas and conceptual artifacts in knowledge-building discourse. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1308–1321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (2014). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papandreou, M. (2014). Communicating and thinking through drawing activity in early childhood. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28(1), 85–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, J., Reeve, R., & Halewood, C. (2006). Young children’s knowledge building and literacy development through Knowledge Forum®. Early Education & Development, 17(3), 323–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puranik, C. S., & AlOtaiba, S. (2012). Examining the contribution of handwriting and spelling to written expression in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1523–1546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puranik, C. S., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). From scribbles to scrabble: Preschool children’s developing knowledge of written language. Reading and Writing, 24(5), 567–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, R. Z. (1994). Using pictures to assist in comprehension and recall. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29(5), 271–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goelman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing abilities. In N. Nystrand (Ed.), What Writers Know (pp. 173–210). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1993). Technologies for knowledge-building discourse. Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. Encyclopedia of education (2nd edn) (pp. 1370–1373). Cham: Macmillan Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C., (2010). A brief history of knowledge building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1). Retrieved July 22, 2016, from https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/cjlt/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26367

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 397–417). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N., Boraschi, D., & Özkula, S. M. (2009). Drawing digital pictures: An investigation of primary pupils’ representations of ICT and schools. British Educational Research Journal, 35(6), 909–928.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silberman, A. (1989). Growing up writing: Teaching our children to write, think, and learn. Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, B. (2014). Drawing Path for Children. eBook Partnership. Retrieved on June 14, 2020, from http://drawnet.duetsoftware.net/

  • Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. E. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education (p. 159). Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh & E. Kelly (Eds.), New methodologies in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–307). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., Zhang, J., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Developing deep understanding and literacy while addressing a gender-based literacy gap. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. https://doi.org/10.21432/T20P4D

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2007). The dynamics of idea generation during writing: An online study. In G. Rijlaarsdam, M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Vol. 20, pp. 125–150). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanstreet, C. E., & Stein, D. S. (2011). Gender and collaborative knowledge building in an online community of inquiry. Encyclopedia of information communication technologies and adult education integration (pp. 707–722). IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. D. (2014). Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory, and practice. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 531–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (2010). Understanding creativity in early childhood: Meaning-making and children’s drawing. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westwood, P. S. (2008). What teachers need to know about reading and writing difficulties. ACER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, Y., & Brown, S. (2015). Drawing and writing: An ALE meta-analysis of sensorimotor activations. Brain and Cognition, 98, 15–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada, Protocol # 00032092 (Digitally-mediated group knowledge processes to enhance individual achievement in literacy and numeracy) and by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, # MOST107-2511-H-004-004-MY3/109-2511-H-004-002-MY3. We owe special thanks to the students and their teacher, Richard Messina, for insights, accomplishments, and research opportunities that enabled this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, Toronto, ON, Canada

    YongCheng Gan

  2. Department of Education, National Chengchi University, 64, Sec.2, ZhiNan Rd., Wenshan District, Taipei City, 11605, Taiwan

    Huang-Yao Hong

  3. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Bodong Chen

  4. OISE, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Marlene Scardamalia

Authors
  1. YongCheng Gan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Huang-Yao Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bodong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marlene Scardamalia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huang-Yao Hong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Fig. 11.

Fig. 11
figure 11

Number of drawings in Knowledge Forum views developed weekly

Full size image

Appendix 2

See Table 6.

Table 6 Coding framework for content analysis of idea units
Full size table

Appendix 3

See Table 7.

Table 7 Coding framework for drawing rubric
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gan, Y., Hong, HY., Chen, B. et al. Knowledge building: idea-centered drawing and writing to advance community knowledge. Education Tech Research Dev 69, 2423–2449 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10022-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10022-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation