Advertisement

Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation: One Concept, Two Hills to Climb

Part of the Education Innovation Series book series (EDIN)

Abstract

The terms “knowledge creation” and “knowledge building” represent the same core idea, an idea suggested by the conjunction of the words “creation” and “building”: Knowledge is the product of purposeful acts of creation and comes about through building up a structure of ideas (for instance, a design, a theory, or the solution of a thorny problem) out of simpler ideas. The knowledge creation/knowledge-building proposition is as follows: Student communities, like progressive organizations of all kinds, can go beyond using existing knowledge; they can create knowledge that enables them to progress. Doing this requires moving beyond education’s traditional concern with knowledge defined as “true and justified belief” and adopting an epistemology that treats knowledge as an emergent and improvable product of creative work with ideas. For students to carry out authentic knowledge creation, they need to approach ideas with the same “design thinking” mindset that characterizes knowledge work in innovative organizations of all sorts; they also need supportive knowledge-building communities and technologies to support progressive knowledge-creating discourse. This chapter ends with a challenge and proposed initiative to address that challenge: the challenge, to find a place for everyone in a knowledge-creating culture; the initiative, an international program of research and development with the mission of “building cultural capacity for innovation.”

Keywords

Tacit Knowledge Knowledge Creation Design Mode Knowledge Building Knowledge Work 
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.

References

  1. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Self-organization in conceptual growth: Practical implications. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 504–519). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., & van Merriënboer, J. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unraveling basic components and dimensions (Advances in learning and instruction series, pp. 55–68). Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  5. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Chan, C. K. K. (2013). Collaborative knowledge building: Towards a knowledge-creation perspective. In C. Hmelo-Silver, C. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 437–461). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1928). Education as experience. New York: Collier.Google Scholar
  9. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  10. Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: Online creativity and conceptual change in science. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & S. Vaid (Eds.), Conceptual structures and processes: Emergence, discovery and change (pp. 461–493). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  11. Duncan, B. (2012, April 26). Step 10: Build a sandbox (web log comment). Retrieved from http://foolscap.ca/?p=139
  12. Fahrenheit 212. (2009). White paper: Ideas are the easy part. Retrieved from http://www.fahrenheit-212.com/#/innovation/work/our-thinking/white-papers/ideas-are-the-easy-part/
  13. Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Woodward, J. (1987). Direct instruction research: The third decade. Remedial & Special Education, 8(6), 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gourlay, S. (2006). Conceptualizing knowledge creation: A critique of Nonaka’s theory. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1415–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimally guided instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levin, B. (2011). Mobilising research knowledge in education. London Review of Education, 9(1), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li, Y., & Kettinger, W. J. (2006). An evolutionary information-processing theory of knowledge creation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(9), 593–617.Google Scholar
  18. Lindkvist, L. (2005). Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities. A typology of knowledge work in groups. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1189–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindkvist L., & Bengtsson, M. (2009, April). Extending Nonaka’s knowledge creation theory: How we know more than we can tell and tell more than we can know. Paper presented at International Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities (OLKC), Amsterdam. Retrieved from www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/olkc4/papers/5blarslindkvist.pdf
  20. Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moen, A., Mørch, A. I., & Paavola, S. (Eds.). (2012). Collaborative knowledge creation: Practices, tools, concepts. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Newell, A. (1980). Reasoning, problem solving and decision processes: The problem space as a fundamental category. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. VIII, pp. 693–718). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Nickles, T. (Ed.). (1980). Scientific discovery, logic, and rationality. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  25. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104.Google Scholar
  26. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Paavola, S. (2004). Abduction as a logic and methodology of discovery: The importance of strategies. Foundations of Science, 9(3), 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor—An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14(6), 535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Piaget, J. (1971). Psychology and epistemology: Towards a theory of knowledge. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  31. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  32. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  33. Resendes, M. (2013, August). Effect of formative feedback on enhancing ways of contributing to explanation-seeking dialogue in grade 2. Paper presented at the Summer Institute on Knowledge Building, Puebla, Mexico. www.ikit.org/SI2013-Papers/4803-Resendes.pdf
  34. Rosé, C. P., Wang, Y. C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 237–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 8, 345–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (in press). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/psychology/educational-psychology/cambridge-handbook-learning-sciences-2nd-edition
  39. Scardamalia, M., & Egnatoff, W. (Eds.). (2010). Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Special Issue on Knowledge Building. 36(1). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/issue/current
  40. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilley (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Seaman, J., & Nelsen, P. J. (2011). An overburdened term: Dewey’s concept of “experience” as curriculum theory. Education and Culture, 27(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20, 941–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: Unlocking the mystery of tacit knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Watson, P. (2005). Ideas: A history from fire to Freud. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  49. Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Alfred E. Knopf.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology, Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations