Skip to main content

Exploring metaskills of knowledge-creating inquiry in higher education

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  • 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 

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaszyc, K. (2004). Design Research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

    Article  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 

  • Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enyedy, N., & Hoadley, C. M. (2006). From dialogue to monologue and back: Middle spaces in computer-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 413–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 193–223.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Emergence of progressive inquiry culture in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6, 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Nelson, T. O. (1998). Social metacognition: An expansionist review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 137–154.

    Article  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.

  • Järvelä, S., Veermans, M., & Leinonen, P. (2008). Investigating student engagement in computer-supported inquiry: A process-oriented analysis. Social Psychology in Education, 11, 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1997). Sociality with objects: Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture and Society, 14, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahti, H. (2007). Collaboration between students and experts in a virtual design studio. Journal of Design Research, 6(4), 403–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H., Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2008). Designing pedagogical infrastructures in university courses for technology-enhanced collaborative inquiry. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(1), 33–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinonen, P., Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2005). Conceptualizing the awareness of collaboration: A qualitative study of a global virtual team. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14(4), 301–322.

    Article  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 

  • Marton, F., & Trigwell, K. (2000). Variatio est mater studiorum. Higher Education Research & Development, 19, 381–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 63–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen, R., & Virkkunen, J. (2005). Epistemic objects, artefacts and organizational change. Organization, 12, 437–456.

    Article  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., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: how do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Mäkitalo, K., Weinberger, A., Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2005). Epistemic cooperation scripts in online learning environments: fostering learning by reducing uncertainty of discourse? Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 603–622.

    Article  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 

  • Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor–an emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14(6), 535–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39, 199–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005). Social interaction—What can it tell us about metacognition and coregulation of learning? European Psychologist, 10, 199–208.

    Article  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 

  • Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Lahti, H., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Three design experiments for computer-supported collaborative design. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 4(2), 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 297–313.

    Article  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 

  • Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 143–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virkkunen, J. (2006). Hybrid agency in co-configuration work. Outlines, 8, 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Tsikalas, K. E. (2005). Can computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) be used as self-regulatory tools to enhance learning? Educational Psychologist, 40, 267–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanni Muukkonen.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table 4 Discourse evolution analysis categorization and descriptive examples

Appendix B

Table 5 Challenge of inquiry practices analysis categorization and descriptive examples

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. Exploring metaskills of knowledge-creating inquiry in higher education. Computer Supported Learning 4, 187–211 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9063-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9063-y

Keywords

  • Inquiry learning
  • Knowledge-creation
  • Higher education
  • Metaskills
  • Progressive inquiry model
  • Trialogical learning framework
  • Collaborative learning
  • Epistemic objects