Advertisement

Advancing understanding using Nonaka’s model of knowledge creation and problem-based learning

  • Meng Yew Tee
  • Shuh Shing Lee
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Nonaka’s model of knowledge creation can provide guidance for designing learning environments and activities. However, Bereiter is critical of the model because it does not address whether understanding is deepened in the process of socialization, externalization, combination and internalization. To address this issue of understanding, this paper proposed a framework that synthesizes the basic phases of problem-based learning with Nonaka’s model. This paper reports on a study investigating if a course designed based on this authentic framework can help to stimulate knowledge creation based on deepening understanding. Several types of data were collected in this design-based research, namely: reflections by the participants and instructor; group discussions; student-created artifacts; and documents, records and artifacts that reflect the overall design of the course. The findings suggest that the participants demonstrated advancing understanding amidst knowledge creating conditions and processes consistent with Nonaka’s model. Other key implications are also discussed.

Keywords

Knowledge creation Understanding Problem-based learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was submitted to a conference. The authors would like to thank the participants for making this study possible. This research project was funded in part by the University of Malaya Research Grant (UMRG).

References

  1. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993). Ideal problem solver (2nd ed.). New York: W.H Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  5. Collective, D.-B. R. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). Macmillan: New York.Google Scholar
  7. Hammond, T.C., &Manfra, M.M. (2009). Giving, prompting, making: Aligning technology and pedagogy within TPACK for social studies instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss2/socialstudies/article1.cfm
  8. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn. Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.Google Scholar
  11. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 3–30). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Byosiere, P. (2001). A theory of organizational knowledge creation: Understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge. In M. Dierkes, A. BerthoinAntal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 491–517). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmidt, H. G., Muijtjens, A. M. M., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Norman, G. R. (2012). Differential student attrition and exposure mask effects of problem-based learning in curriculum comparison studies. Academic Medicine, 87(4), 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tan, O. S. (2003). Problem-based learning innovation: Using problems to power learning in the 21st century. Singapore: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  22. Tan, S.C., & Tee, M.Y. (2012). Fostering social construction of knowledge in a PBL setting. 3rd International PBL Symposium 2012 Proceedings, 378–386.Google Scholar
  23. Tee, M. Y., & Karney, D. (2010). Sharing and cultivating tacit knowledge in an online learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 5(4), 385–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tee, M. Y., & Lee, S. S. (2011). From socialisation to internalisation: Cultivating technological pedagogical content knowledge through problem-based learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 89–104. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/tee.html.Google Scholar
  25. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D), 53(4), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. and Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options