Exploring metaskills of knowledge-creating inquiry in higher education
- 405 Downloads
The skills of knowledge-creating inquiry are explored as a challenge for higher education. The knowledge-creation approach to learning provides a theoretical tool for addressing them: In addition to the individual and social aspects in regulation of inquiry, the knowledge-creation approach focuses on aspects related to advancing shared objects of inquiry. The development of corresponding metaskills is suggested as an important long-term goal for higher education; these pertain, simultaneously to the individual, collective, and object-oriented aspects of monitoring inquiry. Taking part in collaborative inquiry toward advancing a shared knowledge object is foreseen as a means to facilitate the development of metaskills; the present study examines one undergraduate university course in psychology with that aim. The data consisted of a database discourse and students’ self-reflections after the course, examined by qualitative content analysis. Three analyses investigated discourse evolution, knowledge advancement, and the challenge of the inquiry practices. The student-groups differed markedly in their engagement in the inquiry efforts. The study gave insights concerning novel challenges evoked by knowledge-creating inquiry, relating in particular to commitment, epistemic involvement, dealing with confusion, and the iterative nature of knowledge advancement. We propose the following implication for educational practices: Although dealing with uncertainty and areas beyond one’s expertise, as well as engaging in self-directed collaborative inquiry, may seem overly demanding for students, such experiences are decisive for developing one’s skills in dealing with open-ended knowledge objects in a longer time frame.
KeywordsInquiry learning Knowledge-creation Higher education Metaskills Progressive inquiry model Trialogical learning framework Collaborative learning Epistemic objects
The first author has been supported by a grant from the Finnish Cultural Foundation in preparing this article. We thank Crina Damsa, Kai Hakkarainen, Sami Paavola, and Hal White for their useful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper.
- Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Handbook of the learning sciences, pp. 443–459. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Bielaszyc, K., & Blake, P. (2006). Models of knowledge and learning. In S. Barab, K. Hay & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2006, pp. 50–58. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Boekarts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
- Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organisations, pp. 333–380. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
- Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Smart problem solving: How metacognition helps. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice, pp. 47–68. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.Google Scholar
- Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
- Gutwin, C., & Greenberger, S. (2004). The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed collaboration. In E. Salas & S. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance, pp. 177–201. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Järvelä, S., Hurme, T-R., & Järvenoja, H. (in press). Self-regulation and motivation in computer supported collaborative learning environments. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lin, X., Schwarz, D.L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers' adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40, 245–255. Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title∼content=t775653642∼db=all∼tab=issueslist∼branches=40 - v40 .
- Mandl, H., Grüber, H., & Renkl, A. (1996). Communities of practice toward expertise: social foundation of university instruction. In P. B. Baltes & U. M. Staudenger (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition, pp. 394–412. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., & Lakkala, M. (1999). Collaborative technology for facilitating progressive inquiry: The Future Learning Environment tools. In C. Hoadley, & J. Roschelle (Eds.), (1999). Computer support for collaborative learning: Designing new media for a new millennium. Proceedings of CSCL 1999. Palo Alto, CA, USA. Available at: http://kn.cilt.org/cscl99/A51/A51.HTM.
- Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Paavola, S. (in press). Promoting knowledge creation and object-oriented inquiry in university courses. S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-plus: a distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations, pp. 88–110. Cambridge; UK: Cambridge University Press.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. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
- Schatzki, T. (2000). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory, pp. 1–14. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13.Google Scholar
- Tuomi-Gröhn, T., & Engeström, Y. (2003). Conceptualizing transfer: From standard notions to developmental perspectives. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing, pp. 19–38. Kidlington, UK: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
- Walker, D., & Nocon, H. (2007). Boundary-crossing competence: theoretical considerations and educational design. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(3), 178–195.Google Scholar
- Virkkunen, J. (2006). Hybrid agency in co-configuration work. Outlines, 8, 61–75.Google Scholar