The Trialogical Approach as a New form of Mediation

  • Sami Paavola
  • Ritva Engeström
  • Kai Hakkarainen
Part of the Technology Enhanced Learning book series (TEL, volume 7)

Abstract

An emerging trend in theories about human learning and cognition is emphasizing collaboration, creative processes, and the use of new technology. Various changes in modern society form a basis for the change in learning theories, such as: 1) the rapid development of new technology which has formed and continues to form qualitatively new opportunities for distributed interaction and collaboration, 2) the pressure to create – and learn deliberately to create – new knowledge and transform existing practices in various areas of life, and 3) the complexity of modern society which means that people must combine their expertise to solve often unforeseen complex problems because individuals cannot solve problems alone.

Keywords

Design Principle Knowledge Creation Knowledge Building Shared Object Collaborative Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Béguin P, Rabardel P (2000) Designing for instrument-mediated activity. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 12:173–190Google Scholar
  2. Bell P, Hoadley CM, Linn MC (2004) Design-based research in education. In: Linn MC, Davis EA, Bell P (eds) Internet environments for science education. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 73–85Google Scholar
  3. Bereiter C (2002) Education and mind in the knowledge age. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodker S, Andersen PB (2005) Complex mediation. Human-Computer Interaction 20:353–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brockmeier J, Olson DR (2009) The literacy episteme: From Innis to Derrida. In: Olson DR, Torrance N (eds) The Cambridge handbook of literacy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davidson D (2001) Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Engeström R (2009) Who is acting in an Activity System? In: Sannino A, Daniels H, Gutiérrez K (eds) Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Engeström Y (1987) Learning by expanding. An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  9. Enyedy N, Hoadley CM (2006) From dialogue to monologue and back: Middle spaces in computer-mediated learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1(4):413–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ewenstein B, Whyte J (2009) Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects’. Organization Studies 30(01):7–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hakkarainen, K. (2006). Scientific challenges of KP-Lab. Working papers of the KP-Lab.Google Scholar
  12. Hakkarainen, K. (2008). Features of trialogical learning: An introduction of research and development of Knowledge-Practices Laboratory. Working papers of the KP-Lab.Google Scholar
  13. Hakkarainen K, Palonen T, Paavola S, Lehtinen E (2004) Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  14. Kali Y (2006) Collaborative knowledge building using a design principles database. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1(2):187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knorr Cetina, K. (1997). Sociality with objects. Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture & Society 14(4), 1-30.Google Scholar
  16. Knorr Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In Schatzki T.R., Knorr Cetina, K. & von Savigny E. (eds.). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. pp. 175-188. London and NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. KP-Lab (2007). Description of Work 2.1 Months 13 - 30, Part A. A project report, Developing Knowledge Practices Laboratory (project no.: KP-Lab; 027490)Google Scholar
  18. Lakkala, M., Paavola, S., Kosonen, K., Muukkonen, H., Bauters, M., & Markkanen, H. (2009). Main functionalities of the Knowledge Practices Environment (KPE) affording knowledge creation practices in education. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 297-306). Rhodes, Creek: International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS).Google Scholar
  19. Lorino P, Tricard B, Clot Y (2011) Research Methods for Non-Representational Approaches to Organizational Complexity: The Dialogical Mediated Inquiry. Organization Studies 32(6):769–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Markkanen, H., Holi, M., Benmergui, L., Bauters, M., & Richter, C. (2008). The Knowledge Practices Environment: a Virtual Environment for Collaborative Knowledge Creation and Work around Shared Artefacts. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 5035-5040). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  21. McLoughlin C, Lee MJW (2008) The Three P’s of Pedagogy for the Networked Society: Personalization, Participation, and Productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 20(1):10–27Google Scholar
  22. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-Thinking Science. Polity, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. Paavola, S. & Hakkarainen, K. (2009). From meaning making to joint construction of knowledge practices and artefacts: A trialogical approach to CSCL. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 83-92). Rhodes, Creek: International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS).Google Scholar
  25. Paavola S, Lakkala M, Muukkonen H, Kosonen K, Karlgren K (2011) The roles and uses of design principles for developing the trialogical approach on learning. Research in Learning Technology 19(3):233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological Foundations for CSCL: A Comparison of Three Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of the Computer-supported Collaborative Learning 2002 Conference (pp. 24-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Paavola S, Lipponen L, Hakkarainen K (2004) Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research 74(4):557–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 1-6, Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P., eds.; vols. 7-8, Burks, A. W., ed. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. [marked as: CP volume.paragraph]Google Scholar
  29. Rabardel P, Bourmaud G (2003) From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers 15(5):665–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rheinberger HJ (1997) Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  31. Scardamalia M (2002) Collective Cognitive Responsibility for the Advancement of Knowledge. In: Smith B (ed) Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society. Open Court, Chicago, pp 67–98Google Scholar
  32. Schmidt, K. & Wagner, I. (2002). Coordinative Artifacts in Architectural Practice. In Blay-Fornarino et al. (Eds.): Cooperative Systems Design: A Challenge of the Mobility Age (pp. 257-274). [Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP 2002), Saint Raphaël, France, 4-7 June 2002], IOS Press, Amsterdam etc., 2002.Google Scholar
  33. Sfard A (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27:4–13Google Scholar
  34. Stahl G, Koschmann T, Suthers D (2006) Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In: Sawyer RK (ed) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 409–426Google Scholar
  35. Suchman L (1994) Working relations of technology production and use. Computer-Supported Cooperation Work 2:21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tynjälä P, Häkkinen P (2005) E-learning at work: Theoretical underpinnings and pedagogical challenges. The Journal of Workplace Learning 17(5/6):318–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Aalst J (2009) Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 4:259–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sami Paavola
    • 1
  • Ritva Engeström
    • 2
  • Kai Hakkarainen
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Behavioural SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Institute of Behavioural SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Department of EducationUniversity of TurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations