Collective knowledge advancement as a pedagogical practice in teacher education
An explorative case study of student group work with wiki assignments in the interplay between an offline and a global online setting
Rolf K. Baltzersen
A dissertation for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor Department of Teacher Education and School Research
Faculty of Educational Sciences University of Oslo
2017
© Rolf K. Baltzersen, 2017
Series of dissertations submitted to the
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo No. 276
ISSN 1501-8962
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission.
Cover: Hanne Baadsgaard Utigard.
Print production: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo.
Having come to the end of a long and interesting journey, I want to thank a number of people who have been with me throughout the process. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Andreas Lund. You have done a wonderful job supporting me from the initial stages to the final submission through your patience, consideration, and guidance whenever I requested it. Thank you for helping me to stay focused on the data analysis and for all the excellent feedback on those messy draft
versions. Although it was not always fun making major revisions, your advice and challenging questions have been invaluable to the process of writing up a coherent dissertation.
In addition, I would like to thank Professor Trond Eiliv Hauge who was the external reader at the midway evaluation, and Professor Anders Mørch who read a nearly complete draft version of the dissertation. Both of you gave me valuable suggestions for improving my work. I also want to express my thanks to Professor Ola Erstad who made it possible for me to spend a year at the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education at the University of Toronto.
It was inspiring to be part of a research group led by Professor Marlene Scardamalia.
I would also like to acknowledge a few other persons who have been important to me. First, I would like to thank Professor Sigmund Lieberg who motivated me to write my second master dissertation. His help enabled me to pursue an academic career. I also want to recognize Magnus Bliksrud for all the challenging academic discussions we have had since our undergraduate years. In addition, I am grateful for the many conversations on cultural- historical activity theory I have had with Thomas Eri.
Furthermore, I want to express my gratitude to the Faculty of Teacher Education at Østfold University College for funding my PhD-project. A number of excellent colleagues have also helped and encouraged me. I would especially like to mention Odd Eriksen who has
supported the project from the proposal stage until completion. In the early phase, he, Ray Svanberg, and Hans Petter Wille also participated in several important research meetings where we discussed the project. These past few years, Roald Tobiassen, Olav Kolstad, and Knut Ove Æsøy have been inspirational conversation partners. During the PhD-period, I also had the privilege of participating in several seminars arranged by the Norwegian National Research School in Teacher Education, where I made new acquaintances and participated in many interesting academic discussions. The school was also generous in providing me with a grant that made it possible for me to bring my family to Toronto. Additionally, I would like to thank the students who participated in the research study. This dissertation builds on your
“collective voice.”
Finally, and most importantly, I want to thank my family for living with me and my
dissertation all these years. Thanks to my children, Johannes and Silvia, who always remind me that you should live life, not just write about it. You brighten up my day! I also want to express my profound gratitude my mother, my father, Aud, Carl Elias, Eli Sofie, Berit, Kjetil, and Grethe for your kind support. Thanks to my friends who have patiently waited for my return from life as a hermit.
Most of all, my deepest gratitude goes to Hilde, my life partner and best friend. You have stood by my side with endurance and never doubted that I would one day finish this work.
With all your experience and knowledge, you have both challenged and encouraged me.
Several of the core ideas in the dissertation were inspired by lengthy discussions with you. In addition, you have generously given me a lot of extra work time on numerous weekends and vacations. Without your support and patience, it would not have been possible to complete this work. Thank you.
1 Introduction ... 1
1.1 New types of knowledge production on the Internet ... 1
1.2 Knowledge-producing skills in the network society ... 3
1.2.1 Political interest in knowledge-producing skills in formal education ... 3
1.2.2 Students need to learn how to participate in global online communities ... 3
1.2.3 Students need to learn how to develop ideas together in large groups ... 4
1.2.4 Two new core skills ... 5
1.3 The main research question ... 7
1.3.1 Studying CKA as an artifact-mediated pedagogical practice ... 7
1.3.2 Studying the interplay between an offline setting and a global online setting ... 9
1.3.3 Studying CKA as a pedagogical practice that includes participation in a global wiki environment as an online setting ... 11
1.3.4 Studying CKA as a pedagogical practice in the teacher education context as the offline setting 11 1.4 Overview of the contents ... 14
2 A review of tertiary students’ course work in global wiki environments ... 16
2.1 Introduction ... 16
2.1.1 About the articles in the review ... 16
2.1.2 Searching for articles about student participation in global wiki environments ... 17
2.1.3 Searching for articles about students’ use of wikis in teacher education ... 20
2.1.4 Overview of the content in the review ... 22
2.2 The quality of student-produced collective texts... 23
2.2.1 Potential benefits ... 23
2.2.2 Limitations in quality ... 25
2.2.3 Summary ... 26
2.3 Individual learning ... 29
2.3.1 Effect on exam results ... 29
2.3.2 The sharing of the workload ... 29
2.3.3 Individual wiki skills ... 30
2.3.4 Autonomous learning ... 30
2.3.5 Audience motivation ... 31
2.3.6 Socially responsible students ... 31
2.3.7 Summary ... 33
2.4 Peer editing ... 35
2.4.1 Peer editing between students in the same class ... 35
2.4.2 Peer editing outside of class ... 36
2.4.3 Meaning-related revisions ... 36
2.4.4 Collaborative skills ... 36
2.4.5 Time-extended peer editing ... 37
2.4.6 Summary ... 38
2.5 Feedback-driven processes ... 40
2.5.1 Formal peer feedback ... 40
2.5.2 Outsider feedback ... 41
2.5.3 Feedback from the teacher ... 42
2.5.4 Summary ... 43
2.6 The fairness of collective work ... 45
2.6.1 Group grading ... 45
2.6.2 Dividing the tasks ... 45
2.6.3 The assessment criteria ... 46
2.6.4 Summary ... 47
2.7 The three sub-research questions... 48
2.7.1 How does the value of student-produced collective work emerge in teacher education? 49 2.7.2 How does “students’ shared responsibility” emerge in teacher education? ... 50
2.7.3 How does peer learning emerge in teacher education? ... 51
3 Studying a concept in practice ... 52
3.1 Cultural-historical activity theory ... 52
3.2 A new concept will emerge through contradictions ... 54
3.2.1 Analyzing the inherent contradictions in the object ... 54
3.2.2 Contradictions will emerge at four different levels ... 55
3.3 The germ cell of a new concept needs to be identified ... 58
3.3.1 The principle of ascending from the abstract to the concrete ... 58
3.3.2 Step 1. Practical experimentation in a problematic situation ... 59
3.3.3 Step 2. Identification of the germ cell behind the problematic situation ... 60
3.3.4 Step 3. Testing the germ cell ... 61
3.3.5 Step 4. Suggesting a solution to the initial problematic situation ... 62
4 Research design ... 64
4.1 Introduction ... 64
4.2 The explorative case study ... 65
4.2.1 Using the review to frame the sub-research questions ... 65
4.2.2 Exploring a new concept ... 66
4.2.3 The unit of analysis (the three wiki cases) ... 67
4.2.4 The relevance of the cases for the sub-research questions ... 74
4.3 The research site ... 78
4.3.1 The course ... 78
4.3.2 The workshop setting on campus ... 80
4.3.3 The students ... 83
4.4 Data collection ... 85
4.4.1 Introduction ... 85
4.4.2 Group interviews with the students ... 87
4.4.3 The workshop data (video and screen capture data) ... 96
4.4.4 The wiki log data ... 103
4.5 Data analysis ... 106
4.5.1 The analytical strategy ... 106
4.5.2 Phase 1—Inductive coding of the data ... 106
4.5.3 Phase 2—Theory-driven content analysis of the group interviews ... 109
4.5.4 Phase 3—Data triangulation ... 109
4.5.5 Phase 4—Using two CHAT-concepts to analyze the data ... 113
4.6 Transcribing and reporting the data ... 119
4.6.1 The transcription strategy ... 119
4.6.2 Using a case study database ... 119
4.6.3 Transcribing and reporting the interview data ... 120
4.6.4 Transcribing and reporting the workshop data ... 122
4.6.5 Transcribing and reporting the wiki log data ... 123
4.7 Ethical considerations ... 124
4.7.1 Free and informed consent ... 124
4.7.2 The double role of being both teacher and researcher ... 126
4.7.3 Anonymizing the data in the research report ... 129
5 Exploring the value of student-produced collective work in teacher education ... 132
5.1 Supporting new pedagogical practice in classroom teaching ... 132
5.2 Supporting the development of professional teacher knowledge ... 135
5.2.1 Sharing across schools in an online setting ... 135
5.2.2 Sharing within the school ... 136
5.3 Producing knowledge for a “global” audience ... 138
5.4 The influence on the quality of students’ individual learning... 140
5.4.1 Individual learning outcome is low ... 140
5.4.2 Lack of training in technical skills ... 140
5.4.3 The acquirement of new team skills ... 141
5.4.4 The level of individual background knowledge and interest ... 141
5.5 Summarizing the interview findings and establishing a triangulation strategy ... 144
5.5.1 Inhibitory conditions ... 146
5.5.2 Enabling conditions ... 147
5.5.3 Triangulation strategy ... 148
5.6 Creating valuable knowledge in the teacher education setting ... 150
5.6.1 Creating value for the public ... 150
5.6.2 Producing multimodal textbooks ... 151
5.6.3 Creating value for the professional work setting ... 153
5.7 Individual knowledge-production skills ... 155
5.7.1 Background knowledge ... 155
5.7.2 Information skills ... 155
5.7.3 Revising your own work several times ... 156
5.7.4 Positioning the work within the broader knowledge community ... 158
5.8 Answering the first sub-research question (the value of student-produced collective work) 160 5.8.1 Creating multimodal learning resources ... 160
5.8.2 Adding local perspectives to existing content knowledge ... 160
5.8.3 Introducing the voices of new knowledge producers ... 161
5.8.4 Making the student work available for a multitude of target groups ... 161
6 Exploring “students’ shared responsibility” in teacher education ... 163
6.1 Dividing the tasks ... 163
6.2 Unequal sharing of the workload ... 167
6.3 Grading procedures ... 169
6.4 Leading the project work ... 171
6.5 A peer instructional model ... 173
6.6 Summarizing the interview findings and establishing a triangulation strategy ... 175
6.6.1 Inhibitory conditions ... 176
6.6.2 Enabling conditions ... 177
6.6.3 Triangulation strategy ... 178
6.7 Dividing the tasks with a minimum of discussions ... 180
6.8 The problem with unequal contributions ... 182
6.9 Reducing teacher control... 187
6.9.1 Background ... 187
6.9.2 Episode 1... 187
6.9.3 Episode 2... 189
6.9.4 Episode 3... 191
6.9.5 Episode 4... 193
6.10 Observing others work ... 195
6.11 Answering the second sub-research question (students’ shared responsibility) ... 198
6.11.1 Fair vs. unfair student-student interaction ... 198
6.11.2 Fair vs. unfair student-teacher interaction ... 199
6.11.3 Summary ... 200
7 Exploring peer learning in teacher education ... 201
7.1 The peer relationship has an influence on the quality of the peer learning ... 201
7.2 The size of the group has an influence on peer learning ... 204
7.3 Anonymity has an influence on peer learning ... 208
7.4 Summarizing the interview findings and establishing a triangulation strategy ... 210
7.4.1 Inhibitory conditions ... 211
7.4.2 Enabling conditions ... 212
7.4.3 Triangulation strategy ... 213
7.5 Peer feedback through the raising of your voice ... 216
7.5.1 Asking for a short answer ... 216
7.5.2 Asking for a long answer ... 219
7.5.3 Involving oneself in another conversation ... 223
7.5.4 Showing one’s work to the rest of the group ... 226
7.5.5 The voice in a specific table arrangement ... 231
7.6 Peer learning as the verbalization of ongoing thoughts and actions ... 237
7.6.1 Verbalizing specific screen operations ... 238
7.6.2 Peer feedback as the co-construction of one single utterance ... 242
7.6.3 Posing different questions about the ongoing work ... 248
7.7 Peer editing between students in the class ... 253
7.7.1 Rewriting or removing another student’s text ... 253
7.7.2 The multitude of peer editing activities ... 254
7.8 Extended peer editing ... 256
7.8.1 The different types of extended peer editing ... 256
7.8.2 Removing text made by former students ... 256
7.8.5 Keeping the text as it is ... 258
7.8.6 General tendencies ... 259
7.9 The peer as an outsider ... 261
7.9.1 Building on the work of an anonymous group of outsiders ... 261
7.9.2 Outsider feedback ... 263
7.9.3 Outsider editing ... 267
7.10 Answering the third sub-research question (peer learning) ... 270
7.10.1 “Mind mingling” in the offline setting ... 270
7.10.2 “Mind mingling” in the online setting ... 275
8 Inhibitory conditions of CKA as a pedagogical practice in the teacher education context ... 277
8.1 Introduction ... 277
8.2 Individual learning or collective performance ... 278
8.3 Doing work the same way or doing it differently ... 282
8.3.1 Free vs. constrained task selection ... 282
8.3.2 Similar vs. different tasks ... 282
8.3.3 Different vs. similar distribution of workload ... 283
8.3.4 Tasks divided on a similar premise vs. dissimilar premise ... 284
8.3.5 Balanced vs. unbalanced project management ... 284
8.4 Group grades or individual grades ... 286
8.5 Community ownership or individual ownership over the work ... 289
8.5.1 Community ownership over the work in the class ... 289
8.5.2 Community ownership over the text that is produced ... 290
8.6 Unfairness as the fundamental inhibitor of CKA as a pedagogical practice ... 293
8.6.1 Student-centered project management creates unfairness ... 293
8.6.2 Collaboration creates more unfairness ... 294
8.6.3 Information is reused in an unfair way ... 294
8.6.4 The collective work has a negative influence on the amount of the individual learning 295 8.6.5 Grading becomes unfair ... 295
8.6.6 That teachers have to become knowledge producers is viewed as unfair ... 296
9 The germ cell of CKA as a pedagogical practice ... 299
9.1 Identifying the germ cell ... 299
9.2 “Help on request” ... 301
9.2.1 “Help on request” at a plenary level ... 301
9.2.2 “Help on request” in the dyads ... 302
9.2.3 “Help on request” as peer instruction ... 303
9.2.4 “Help on request” in an online environment ... 304
9.3 “Help without request” ... 305
9.3.1 Giving “help without request” ... 305
9.3.2 Receiving “help without request” ... 307
9.4 The basic conflict of motive ... 310
9.4.1 Conditional help ... 310
9.4.2 Unconditional help ... 314
9.4.3 Conditional vs. unconditional help ... 317
10 The emergence of five conceptual trails (Discussion) ... 319
10.1 Transparent use of artifacts ... 320
10.1.1 Shared display in dyadic collaboration in an offline setting ... 320
10.1.2 Shared display at a plenary level in the offline setting ... 323
10.1.3 Sharing written work in an online setting ... 325
10.2 Nurturing critical feedback ... 327
10.2.1 Close personal interaction in the offline setting ... 327
10.2.2 Anonymous interaction in the online setting ... 329
10.3 Learning by teaching ... 333
10.3.1 Turning the learner into a teacher ... 333
10.3.2 Peer teaching in small groups ... 334
10.3.3 Peer teaching that involves all students in the class ... 336
10.3.4 Teaching unknown others ... 339
10.4 The teacher educator as a team coach ... 341
10.4.1 Ensuring equal participation ... 341
10.4.2 Creating acceptance of discomfort ... 342
10.4.3 Balancing the students’ responsibilities with those of the teacher ... 343
10.5 Creating value beyond the learning period ... 347
10.5.1 “Long-term CKA” ... 347
10.5.2 New modifications made by new students ... 347
10.5.3 New modifications made by outsiders ... 350
10.5.4 Reusing the published student work as it is ... 352
11 Conclusion—Final remarks ... 354
11.1 Answering the main research question ... 354
11.1.1 The germ cell provides the key to the conclusion ... 354
11.1.2 Help as informal peer feedback ... 356
11.1.3 Help as an open publication of student work ... 357
11.1.4 Students being assigned as helpers ... 359
11.1.5 The inner contradictions of CKA as a pedagogical practice in teacher education .... 360
11.2 Contributions and limitations ... 362
11.2.1 Describing different types of informal teaching ... 362
11.2.2 Describing new types of authentic learning ... 363
11.2.3 Turning campus-based teaching into a “practicum period” ... 365
11.2.4 The necessity of studying the interplay between the offline and online setting... 365
11.2.5 Organizing the dissertation according to a specific type of dialectical logic ... 366
11.2.6 Showing how one can identify the germ cell of a specific pedagogical practice ... 369
11.3 Inventing an instructional design that can maximize help ... 372
11.3.1 Maximizing the number of available teaching activities in the learning environment 373 11.3.2 Maximizing the transparency in the learning environment ... 375
11.3.3 Maximizing the potential in anonymous interaction ... 377
11.3.4 Making existing knowledge as available as possible ... 379
11.4 CKA emerges as a polycontextual pedagogical practice in teacher education ... 382
13 Appendix ... 397
13.1 Appendix 1: Glossary of transcript symbols ... 397
13.2 Appendix 2: Interview guide ... 398
13.3 Appendix 3: Information about the research project ... 399
14 Endnotes ... 403
Figure 3.2-a A model of the structure of a human activity system (Engeström, 1987, p. 78). ... 56 Figure 4.3-a The table arrangement in the first wiki assignment. ... 80 Figure 4.3-b The table arrangement in the second wiki assignment. ... 81 Figure 4.3-c Three images of the table arrangement in the workshop related to the third wiki
assignment. ... 82 Figure 6.10-a Image - Two sitting next to another student and receiving guidance on how to use the wiki. ... 196 Figure 7.5-a Image – Student raising her hands over her head to show happiness (action 3 from the excerpt). ... 227 Figure 7.5-b Image - The student turning her laptop screen around to show her work (action 5) .... 229 Figure 7.5-c Image showing where two students (S1 and S2) are seated who discuss an issue across the room. ... 231 Figure 7.5-d Image of a student standing in front of the whole group talking to them. ... 234 Figure 7.6-a Image that shows how two students have visual access to each other’s laptop screens during the project work. ... 237 Figure 11.4-a Model showing how CKA emerges as a polycontextual pedagogical practice. ... 382
Table 2.1.a An overview of the articles in the review list that cover student participation in global wiki
environments. ... 18
Table 2.1.b An overview of the articles in the review list that cover students’ use of wikis in teacher education. ... 20
Table 2.2.a An overview of the findings in the review that examine the benefits of the quality of student-produced collective text. ... 26
Table 2.2.b An overview of the findings in the review that examine the limitations in the quality of student-produced collective text. ... 28
Table 2.3.a An overview of how student-authored wiki projects influence different aspects of learning. ... 33
Table 2.4.a An overview of how students experience different types of peer editing in wikis. ... 38
Table 2.5.a An overview of how students experience types of feedback as a part of the wiki work. .. 43
Table 2.6.a An overview of how different issues of unfairness are related to the students’ wiki work. ... 47
Table 2.7.a An overview of the connection between the sub-research questions and the five research areas, or “problem spaces,” in the review. ... 48
Table 4.2.a A comparison between the three cases according to some key dimensions. ... 68
Table 4.4.a An overview of the connection between the sub-research questions and the different sources of evidence. ... 86
Table 4.4.b Overview of the sizes of the groups and how long the interviews lasted. ... 88
Table 4.4.c An overview of the workshop data in the present research study... 97
Table 4.5.a An overview of the analytical strategy in the present study. ... 106
Table 5.5.a Possible inhibitory and enabling conditions related to the value of the students’ collective work. ... 144
Table 5.5.b An overview of how new data about the value of student-produced collective work are triangulated in relation to the findings from the group interviews. ... 149
Table 5.6.a A comparison between the teacher designed “Example wiki” and the student-designed wiki in the second wiki assignment. ... 152
Table 6.6.a Possible inhibitory and enabling conditions related to how students share responsibility for collective work. ... 175
Table 6.6.b An overview of how new data about students’ shared responsibility are triangulated in relation to the findings from the group interviews. ... 179
Table 6.8.a Excerpt - Students do not want to share their exam notes. ... 183
Table 6.9.a. Selected statements - The teacher introduces the second wiki assignment. ... 187
Table 6.9.b. Excerpt - The teacher appointing a student (S2) to be the student moderator. ... 189
Table 6.9.c Excerpt - The student moderator (S2) is in charge. ... 191
Table 6.9.d Excerpt - The student moderator (S2) appointing a student to do a task. ... 193
Table 6.10.a Excerpt - One student inviting two other students to move over and observe how she uses the wiki. ... 195
Table 7.4.a Possible inhibitory and enabling conditions related to how peer learning emerges. ... 210
Table 7.4.b An overview of how findings from group interviews about peer learning are used to triangulate new data. ... 214
Table 7.5.a Excerpt – Raising your voice to ask for a short answer. ... 216
Table 7.5.b Excerpt – Raising your voice to ask for a long answer... 219
Table 7.5.c Excerpt – Finding a video that can answer the question. ... 220
Table 7.5.d Excerpt – Involving oneself in another dyadic conversation. ... 223
Table 7.5.e Excerpt - A student moves the laptop screen to show her work to the rest of the group. ... 226
Table 7.5.f Excerpt - Two students discussing an issue across the room. ... 232
Table 7.5.g Comparison of the student interaction in two different table arrangements. ... 235
Table 7.6.a Giving support through the co-construction of a single utterance. ... 243
Table 7.6.b Finding the correct answer through the co-construction of a single utterance. ... 245
Table 7.6.c Excerpt – A student poses different questions about the ongoing work. ... 248
Table 7.8.a An overview of the amount of “extended peer editing” in the three different wiki assignments. ... 256
Table 7.9.a Excerpt – Students talking about the work that previous students in the course have done. ... 261
Table 7.9.b An overview of the feedback the students received from outsiders on their work with the Wikipedia article. ... 263
Table 8.6.a A summary of the main inhibitory conditions as identified in the present study and the potential connection to the different components in the triangular model. ... 293
Table 9.1.a An overview of how two different types of help build on different movements between giving and receiving help. ... 300
Table 9.4.a An overview of how conditional help and unconditional help contradict each other. .... 317
Table 10.3.a Overview of different types of “learning by teaching” ... 334
Table 11.1.a The three answers to the main research question. ... 360
Table 11.3.a An overview of how the five different conceptual trails are linked to four instructional design principles. ... 372
1
1 Introduction
1.1 New types of knowledge production on the Internet
Although our society is built upon people producing knowledge together, it is apparent that the Internet is now changing these conditions. For example, well-known scholars like Benkler (2006) and Castells (2010) claim that new forms of large-scale cooperation constitute the most important innovation in the new network society. Benkler (2006, p. 5) claims that these new large-scale cooperative efforts build on peer production of information, knowledge, and culture in an online setting. New collaborative projects are emerging in diverse areas such as encyclopedias, news, entertainment, fan fiction communities, and game communities. One of the most prominent example is the success of the encyclopedia Wikipedia, which allows anyone to make contributions in an online setting (Giles, 2005; Malone, Laubacher, &
Dellarocas, 2009).
The introduction of the term “Web 2.0” marked a turning point (O'Reilly, 2005). While the first generation of web software in the 1990s provided easy access to a vast amount of information, it was still quite difficult to publish information on the web. Web 2.0, or the second generation of Internet technologies, made it much easier for people to interact and collaborate with each other. New online environments attracted an enormous number of users, who could also publish their own content. Since the World Wide Web was created in 1990, it grew from under 40 million Internet users in 1995 to about 1.5 billion users in 2009.
In 2009, more than 60% of the population in developed countries had access to the Internet, and this percentage has been increasing rapidly (Castells, 2010).
Castells (2010) claims that the revolution in communication technologies intensified in the years after the turn of the century. Traditional mass media (television, radio, newspapers) are gradually being replaced by a system of horizontal communication networks that rely on the use of the Internet and wireless communication. These new networks are built upon peoples’ initiatives, interests, and desires. The use of social media (e.g., Facebook) has now become so common that many consider online cultural expressions and personal
experiences to be a fundamental part of our daily lives. The Internet plays an important role in all parts of our lives—in work, personal connections, information, entertainment, public services, politics, and religion. Young people are participating in new online communities and social networks as part of their daily lives. The Internet is now considered to be a more important source of information than other traditional media.
Furthermore, the industrial-based economy is now being transformed into an information- based economy. The Internet is not only changing the way people interact but also how they exchange information. Jobs in the future will rely more on abstract tasks than on routine tasks and manual tasks, the latter of which will be done by machines (Benkler, 2006; Castells, 2010). New types of online networks are also emerging that do not rely on market signals or managerial commands. They disturb the foundations of liberal markets and democracies, because they are radically decentralized, collaborative, and nonproprietary. Resources are shared between widely distributed, loosely connected individuals who cooperate with each other all over the world. While traditional mass media had unidirectional links to the end
2
points, the architecture in the networked information environment is distributed with multidirectional connections among all nodes (Benkler, 2006). These networks let people share all types of digital information, such as unimodal text (e.g., Scribd), photos (e.g., Flickr), and videos (e.g., YouTube). These networks integrate local and global media and transcend traditional space limitations with the establishment of the online setting as a significant new human environment (Castells, 2010).
The most important catalysts behind this development have been new communication technology and the declining price of computation, communication, and storage. The economic costs of becoming a speaker have been radically reduced. In the traditional information economy, only a few people could afford or had access to publishing technology. Today, this technology is broadly distributed in society through personal computers and network connections. Because it is so easy to reach people in an online setting, there has been a huge increase in people who are joining forces and producing collective knowledge together (Benkler, 2006). However, although many people are
publishing and sharing their own work in enormous compilations on social sharing sites, it is unclear to what degree people are actually building new collective knowledge together on the Internet. Regarding this issue, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia is perhaps the most interesting example of how large numbers of people can produce a “knowledge product” of high quality together. It is considered to be one of the most innovative collaborative
enterprises at the beginning of the 21st century (Tapscott & Williams, 2008). As a knowledge production network, the encyclopedia can cope with much more information than
traditional knowledge production networks in an offline setting. For example, in November 2015, the encyclopedia reached five million articles on English Wikipedia (Wikipedia, 2015).
Some researchers have even claimed that Wikipedia constitutes an example of a new type of collective knowledge advancement (CKA) that is made possible by the establishment of the Internet as a significant online setting for human interaction. For example, Castells (2010, p.
xxviii) labels Wikipedia as an example of “mass self-communication”, because it reaches a global audience through the Internet. This is a new type of communication since many persons can communicate with many others. The amount of information or knowledge that is produced is also enormous and incredibly diverse. In addition, the quality is remarkably high even though anyone can contribute to and change the articles (Giles, 2005). The success of Wikipedia has even raised questions as to whether a crowd of amateurs can outperform experts under the right conditions (Surowiecki, 2005). One reason is that the quality of content can be improved by scaling up the numbers of contributors, because this will reduce bias (Kittur & Kraut, 2008). As in anonymous peer review processes in the research
community, these new networks also build on peer collaboration and evaluation as a part of the production of high-quality content (Benkler, 2006). In addition, the Wikipedia project challenges our perspective on knowledge, since it is very different from the printed encyclopedia, which manifests itself with a finite text. Contributions can not only be made anywhere at any time, but one can also freely choose the size of their contribution. The text license permits anyone to copy, modify, and reuse the Wikipedia text (Wikipedia, 2016). It is this new type of CKA in an online setting that constitutes the background for this thesis.
3 1.2 Knowledge-producing skills in the network society
1.2.1 Political interest in knowledge-producing skills in formal education
Because of the rise of the network society (Benkler, 2006; Castells, 2010), collaboration and creativity are skills that are becoming increasingly more important in schools all over the world. Both policymakers and educational researchers emphasize that these 21st-century skills will be essential in future society (e.g., Binkley et al., 2012; Griffin, Care, & McGaw, 2012; Pellegrino & Hilton, 2013; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). One example is the Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills Project (ATC21S), which was established in 2009 with the University of Melbourne as an institutional leader (Griffin & Care, 2015; Griffin et al., 2012).
In this project, assessment demonstrations were designed for two new 21st-century skills relevant for CKA— (1) collaborative problem solving and (2) Learning in Digital Networks – Information Communications Technologies (LDN-ICT) (Wilson & Scalise, 2015). While collaborative problem solving was included in the larger Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) assessment system starting in 2015, less work has been done with learning in digital networks. Both skills suggest that students should be encouraged to collaborate in a range of different groups in both online and offline settings, yet we know little about what kind of skills CKA in formal education will require. Previous research suggests that students need to learn how to participate in global online communities and that they also need to learn how to develop collective ideas in large-group collaboration in an offline setting. These two knowledge-producing skills will be described briefly here.
1.2.2 Students need to learn how to participate in global online communities In one strand, researchers recommend that students should learn how to participate in new online communities. For example, Rudd, Sutch, and Facer (2006) suggest that schools need to move toward the “network logic” of the learning community. Learning in networks is no longer restricted to the boundaries of time and space. Students can easily connect with other people from all over the world. We need to rethink where learning can happen and who is involved in the learning process. Expertise and knowledge do not reside only in the teacher and within the walls of the educational institution. Students will need to learn how they can join and utilize online networks.
According to Jenkins (2009), we are still in an apprenticeship phase, where we have just begun to identify and assess the emerging set of social skills and cultural competencies that will be required in the network society. One common characteristic is that new media literacies move from a traditional focus on individual expression toward a stronger emphasis on community involvement and network skills. It is suggested that literacy should be
understood as a social skill rather than an individual skill. Jenkins (2009, p. 33) also claims that collaboration and knowledge sharing in large-scale online communities should be regarded as the most radical element of new literacies. He claims that all students need to learn how to contribute to and participate in global online communities that go beyond the walls of the classroom. Although he does not use CKA as a term, he suggests that a new type of literacy will need to be developed to support this way of working in schools.
4
Jenkins (2009, p. 33) claims that these new global online environments are ideal for informal learning, because there are no restrictions concerning space, institutional bureaucracy, or adult authority. Collaboration happens across traditional differences, such as age, class, race, gender, and level of education. A variety of persons can contribute according to their specific skills, interests, and expertise. This creates many opportunities for peer-to-peer learning. For example, it is common in informal mentorship arrangements that more experienced
members assist novices. In these communities, most members think that their contributions matter, and they also care about what others think about their work. According to Jenkins (2009) schools should also let children learn how to cooperate with others in these global online communities. This involves giving and receiving authentic feedback to/from outsiders who are members of these communities.
Jenkins (2009) even reinterprets the digital divide as being about a participation gap. The Internet has made artistic expression, civic engagement, and the sharing of creations much easier, but only those who have the education and the skills to use networked technologies will be able to enrich their lives in these ways. Those with less time, less money, and less knowledge about how they can navigate the online cultural system will instead rely on traditional media. There is a risk that this may lead to the creation of a new cultural elite and a new cultural underclass. The school is not doing enough to reduce this participation gap.
1.2.3 Students need to learn how to develop ideas together in large groups According to several published reports about 21st-century skills, in the future it will become even more important to work in multidisciplinary teams in environments that are
technology-rich and digitalized. Enterprises put more emphasis on decentralized decision making, information sharing, teamwork, and innovation. A professional person will need to communicate, share, and use new information to solve complex problems in response to new demands (Binkley et al., 2012; Griffin et al., 2012). Sustained knowledge advancement is considered essential for the development of prosperous societies and the solution of
societal problems. Productive participation in knowledge-intensive work requires that individual professionals, their communities, and organizations continuously create new knowledge (Bereiter, 2002; Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005, p. 535).
The Knowledge Building pedagogy developed by Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006 is one of the most prominent examples of a pedagogy which highlights this perspective. These researchers claim the Internet has for the first time made it possible for students to connect with civilization-wide knowledge building and to make their classroom work an authentic part of this process. Students should not only developing knowledge-building competencies, but also come to see themselves and their work as part of the civilization-wide effort to advance knowledge frontiers. In knowledge creating organizations people are not honored for what is in their minds but for the contributions they make to the organization’s or the community’s knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). The fundamental task of education should be to help youth find a place in this knowledge society. This requires the “(…) same kind of work in the classroom as it is in the research laboratory” (Bereiter, 2002, p. 295). A knowledge-building environment needs to support collective risk-taking with ideas. This is why children need to be treated as junior members of the society of thinkers rather than as trainees (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006, 2014). While school practices and social media tend
5 to personalize ideas, student ideas should at some point become community property and open to collective revision and improvement by the whole community. Like in scientific research groups, it is important to develop theories or models that function as shared knowledge objects in the class in schools (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2014).
According to the Knowledge Building pedagogy, educational technology should not only support productive interaction and feedback between people but also between ideas. This is why students are encouraged to work in teams that go beyond the traditional division of labor and make every member responsible for their joint effort. The idea is to turn over increasingly higher levels of agency to the students, which are normally undertaken by the teacher. This includes activities such as priority setting, evaluating progress, trouble-
shooting, and ensuring inclusiveness. The students are, for example, challenged to evaluate the progress of problem-solving discourse, critically examine goals, and find ways around obstacles (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006, 2014). It is assumed that all learning and
knowledge-production work builds on self-organizing processes. The design challenge is not to control these processes but to facilitate the emergence of higher-level outcomes. The goal is to let the students develop a better explanation or a more coherent understanding
through a collective discourse (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006, 2014). An important innovation in the instructional design is to actually believe that students can become engaged as innovators in a research-intensive process. They represent a resource that is largely wasted and that can be brought into play through network technology. The goal is to give ideas a life of their own without using the technology to enforce centralized control.
The Knowledge Building pedagogy also highlights the importance of collective work and idea development in whole-class projects. One example is the use of “knowledge-building
circles,” where students sit in a circle on the floor. The intention is to facilitate collaboration between the students in an offline setting. Students also share their inquiry-based notes, questions, and comments with all the other students in the class in an online environment called the Knowledge Forum. These notes are discussed over time and will be revised several times. The Knowledge Forum offers an archival record of the group´s knowledge, which is transparent and accessible for everyone in the class. In this way, the students are given access to the distributed expertise and thoughts of others in the school class (Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 2006).
In their research, Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006) have found that the motivation is not primarily children’s interests but rather their desire to connect with what is most dynamic and meaningful in the surrounding society. The fundamental task of education should be to help students find a place in this knowledge-creating culture. The collective resources of the students can be utilized through new network technology. Students need to see themselves and their work as part of the civilization-wide effort to advance knowledge frontiers. Both transmission-orientated pedagogy and constructivist methods appear to be limited in scope (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006).
1.2.4 Two new core skills
The two previous sections (1.2.2 and 1.2.3) show that two new knowledge-producing skills are becoming increasingly important. First, it is assumed that students should be able to
6
develop collective knowledge through participation in global online environments. Although students can acquire new knowledge in these environments, Jenkins emphasizes that it is even more important that the students learn how to get access to knowledge in these environments. In this way, one can use networks to acquire new knowledge. This also requires that students dare to express their own opinions in public. As such, they must learn how to be active participants in different online environments. The fear is that the students who do not learn these participatory skills will become the losers in the future society.
Second, students should learn how to develop knowledge through whole-class projects or large-group collaboration. For example, the Knowledge Building pedagogy challenges our normal conceptions of the upper limits of acceptable group sizes in formal education. This pedagogy emphasizes that large groups of students can work together as a research team to explore different ideas. Digital technology can be used to support this type of creative work.
There is a need to further explore what characterizes these new types of skills.
7 1.3 The main research question
Both the new types of knowledge production on the Internet (1.1) and the need for new knowledge-producing skills (1.2) suggest that there is a need to invent pedagogical practices that to a larger degree can support collective knowledge advancement as a pedagogical practice. As a consequence, this research study will address the following research question:
How does collective knowledge advancement (CKA) as a pedagogical practice in teacher education emerge in the complex interplay between an offline setting and a global online setting?
The following sections will briefly describe the theoretical framework and explain the other key terms in the research question in more detail.
1.3.1 Studying CKA as an artifact-mediated pedagogical practice
In recent decades, we have witnessed a “sociocultural turn” regarding our understanding of the concept of learning. This shift has to a large degree been inspired by the work of Lev Vygotsky (1978). He claims that higher mental functioning such as language, writing, counting, drawing, and memory are all mediated by the use of tools and signs. Language is the primary psychological tool we use to understand the world. Cognitive processes first appear at the social level and then are internalized into individual thinking. Many scholars within the learning sciences build on this theoretical framework and highlight that learning must be understood as an interactive process based on participation in cultural practices.
Learning is defined as a process of becoming a member of a community and acquiring the skills to communicate and act according to its socially negotiated norms (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Sfard (1998) distinguishes between an acquisition metaphor and a participation metaphor in relation to human learning. For example, in the study of creativity it has been suggested that we should move from the idea of individual genius to the study of the social and cultural conditions that inhibit or enable creativity (Sawyer, 2006). New theories of learning also highlight the qualities of group discourse and joint meaning making to a greater degree (Stahl, 2006). Another example is Edwards and Potter (1992), who have introduced a discursive approach to psychology. Discourse, like naturally occurring talk and text, should not be considered a “mirror” of the inner cognitive life of the mind. It should rather be understood as a phenomenon that is constructed and understood in the interaction itself.
Knowledge does not reside inside the heads of individuals but in the practice itself (Flick, 1998; Gergen, 1985). Even memory is considered to be a social or collective process. It is co- constructed by individuals in their daily speech and actions within a community (Middleton
& Edwards, 1990). Although these new theories differ from each other, they all reject the claim that learning is just something that happens inside the individual mind.
On the other hand, some of these new learning approaches have been criticized, because they do not explain how a group of people or communities create new knowledge (Paavola
& Hakkarainen, 2005). A set of new approaches have therefore been employed to investigate collective knowledge advancement as a phenomenon. These studies are
performed with the use of a large variety of different concepts that all describe more or less the same phenomenon. Some of the most prominent examples are knowledge building
8
(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006), expansive learning (Engeström, 2014) and knowledge creation (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005). While some of these theories continue to use the learning concept at a collective level (Engeström, 2014), others reject this linkage and define the collective level of knowledge advancement as something different from individual learning (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). For example, Lund and Smørdal (2006) use
collective cognition as a similar broad term that encompass innovative learning. This process emerges when two or more people reach insights that neither could have reached alone.
The insight cannot be traced back to one particular individual’s contribution, and it can be used to solve problems that are too complex or demanding for an individual. Collective cognition is not a static notion; rather, it should be considered as a dynamic emerging concept that highlights the process of a group coming-to-know. While some of these theories focus on small groups (Stahl, 2006), others highlight knowledge work in larger groups (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006) or activity systems (Engeström, 2014).
Although these theories also differ, they all emphasize that human creativity and knowledge production needs to be understood as a collaborative artifact-mediated practice. Several of these new approaches adhere to Vygotsky (1978) and highlight the position of the artifacts.
Human action is regarded as mediated through artifacts that have been culturally and historically developed. Artifacts include both psychological tools and externally orientated technical tools. They have been shaped by previous interactions that influence or frame the present interaction and accumulation of cultural knowledge. The artifacts in the world and the individual subject constitute each other mutually in a dynamic way (Wertsch, 1991).
In the current study collective knowledge advancement (CKA) will be established as the main concept for describing this type of practice. It is difficult to select the most relevant concept, because this is a new research area with many new practices and few established academic concepts. Note that other concepts could have been taken into use as well. Within the field of learning sciences, there are similar concepts that describe knowledge production at a collective level. Some examples are collaborative learning (Hmelo-Silver, 2013), creativity (Sawyer, 2012), and collaborative knowledge creation (a trialogical approach to learning) (Moen, Mørch, & Paavola, 2012b).
The most important reason why CKA will be used as the main concept is because it is a general and broad concept that is not strongly affiliated with one specific pedagogical theory. At the same time, the concept shows that it is something different from individual cognition. According to Lund (2008), a concept like collective knowledge advancement (CKA) should not be studied as individual acquisition but as artifact-mediated collaborative
participation. Learners in communities will utilize a range of different resources. This includes social resources (other participants, institutional affordances), material resources (PCs, networks, applications), and semiotic resources (signs, genres). Lund (2008) refers to cultural-historical activity theory (Engeström, 1987; Engeström, Miettinen, & Punamäki, 1999) as one such approach, which attempts to include the whole learning ecology as its unit of analysis (agent, object, tool, and community as well as its rules and division of labor).
Other scholars study cognition as coordination between individuals, artifacts, and the environment (Hutchins, 1995; Salomon, 1993).
9 The more specific theory that will be used in the present study is cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) (Engeström, 1987). The first reason is that this theory emphasizes the importance of several different types of artifacts. While most sociocultural theories of
learning highlight the importance of artifacts, some emphasize physical artifacts in a material environment (Hutchins, 1995) and others emphasize conceptual artifacts (Bereiter, 2002;
Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006), while CHAT includes both physical and conceptual artifacts (Engeström, 2014). Second, while many theories emphasize interaction as orientated toward a shared object, the object itself is perceived differently. In the Knowledge Building
pedagogy, the collective object is an idea that needs to be scrutinized and improved (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006), while in CHAT it is assumed that the whole practice in an activity system is orientated toward an object (Engeström, 2014). This analytical perspective will be pursued in this research study.
However, CHAT has been criticized for not fully capturing the new network society and the digitalization of society (Rückriem, 2009). The theory (Engeström, 1987) was originally developed before the age of the Internet. Most CHAT studies, including those related to teacher education, primarily focus on human interaction in an offline environment (Ellis, Edwards, & Smagorinsky, 2010). Although some recently published papers (Engeström, 2009a, 2009b; Engeström & Sannino, 2010) suggest that Internet-based peer production challenges scholars to rethink the shape of activity systems, the new concepts are just briefly described (e.g., runaway objects, knotworking, co-configuration, boundary crossing,
expansive swarming, etc.) (Engeström, 2009a). It is still unclear how the theory can adapt to the new online setting. Although the thesis will not address this specific theoretical
discussion any further, it will instead utilize some of the core concepts (contradictions and germ cell) in the theory in an attempt to better understand CKA in both an offline and online setting.
Note also that the term “advancement” assumes some kind of progress toward that which is better, but this is not necessarily the case when collaboration leads to change. It will
therefore be important to explore characteristics that indicate the quality of progress in the knowledge process or in the knowledge product. CKA will be analyzed as an artifact-
mediated phenomenon with the inclusion of both physical and conceptual artifacts.
The theoretical framework assumes that CKA must be examined as a specific artifact- mediated phenomenon within a specific educational context.
1.3.2 Studying the interplay between an offline setting and a global online setting
This study will investigate how students jointly construct knowledge in a learning
environment that requires participation in both an offline and an online setting. Because of the Internet, several prominent scholars claim that collaboration in online networks is even more important than before (Benkler, 2006; Castells, 2010). It is expected that learners in the future will normally collaborate in a face-to-face setting while at the same time
collaborating in an online setting. This trend has become stronger with the increased access to online environments through many different mobile devices. This has been documented in the Speak Up project of Project Tomorrow from 2014, which included the views of 431,231 K–12 students representing over 8,000 schools from the United States as well as
10
other countries. The findings show that students are increasingly using different mobile devices, such as a laptops or tablets. This gives them personalized access to learning tools anywhere at any time in a blended learning environment. Many school districts provide students with mobile devices and improved Internet connectivity. Project Tomorrow discovered that 45% of the administrators interviewed find that blended learning environments hold great promise for student learning (Project Tomorrow, 2015). This
“double presence” has become even stronger with the wide adoption and use of
smartphones and other handheld technologies. Some research efforts have been initiated under labels such as mobile learning or ubiquitous learning (Hwang & Tsai, 2011) or blended learning (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004), but this field is still underdeveloped and under-
theorized. Few theories have yet attempted to explain how we increasingly participate in both an online and offline setting at the same time.
Not surprisingly, there has been little time to adjust the theories within the learning sciences to this recent development. Many researchers highlight the importance of technology- supported collaboration such as in small groups (Stahl, 2006) or in larger groups such as the whole school class (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006), but they do not explicitly investigate the interplay between an online and an offline setting as two equal analytical components. Most CHAT studies also focus on human interaction in a face-to-face offline setting (Engeström, 2014). Obviously, we cannot avoid being in a physical or material environment, but we are increasingly also participating in online environments at the same time. Few of the
dominating theories within the learning sciences seem to have incorporated this new polycontextual nature of human learning as part of the analysis. It is here suggested that an important goal in educational research is to better understand student learning in the complex interplay between an offline and an online setting.
However, the definition of an online setting needs to be further specified. The global networked technologies also challenge our fundamental ideas of the scope of human learning and collaboration in an online setting. Although some scholars discuss these new global online environments (Jenkins, 2009; Rheingold, 2002), there are few theories of learning that seek to explain human interaction as enacted in two parallel contexts with their own unique characteristics. For example, studies of online environments in the Knowledge Building pedagogy are usually restricted to class projects in a face-to-face setting and do not include student participation in global online networks (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). A range of new interdisciplinary concepts have been introduced that describe large-scale cooperation on the Internet. They attempt to grasp these new trends related to collective knowledge advancement (e.g., collective intelligence (Malone et al., 2009); mass
collaboration (Tapscott & Williams, 2008)). They all build on the same premise that in the in the age of the Internet, CKA will increasingly manifests itself in through participation in a global online environment. The current study of CKA as a pedagogical practice will therefore also include an analysis of participation in an extended global online environment outside the formal educational setting in addition to the local online environment within the educational setting.
11 1.3.3 Studying CKA as a pedagogical practice that includes participation in a
global wiki environment as an online setting
This research question will be investigated by studying how students interact when they are assigned to produce authentic knowledge with the support of different wiki technology. The student work is published in an online environment which stretches far beyond the walls of the classroom (e.g., Wikibooks). These environments are important to study if we want to understand what characterizes how CKA as a pedagogical practice interplays with a global online setting.
Within the learning sciences, several networked technologies have been developed in an attempt to strengthen collaboration in formal education (e.g., Knowledge forum
(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006) and ‘Knowledge Practices Environment’ (Batatia, Hakkarainen, & Mørch, 2012)). However, most of these technologies do not depend on participation in a global online environment. The main exception is the “wiki,” which can be used both in a local online setting and a global online setting. The wiki, a Hawaiian term meaning quick, was first created in 1995 by Ward Cunningham as a tool to support text collaboration over the Internet. It is easy to add to, delete or change any part of the published text. When a page is changed, the new version will be immediately available on the web. All the different page versions are also archived, and it is possible to retrieve an old text version. In addition some wikis have a separate discussion page attached to each page that enables users to communicate about the content (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001). This makes it possible to undo vandal attacks on the open encyclopedia, and the discussion pages also mediate negotiations around the content of the articles. Over the years, many different types of wiki applications have been developed (e.g., MediaWiki, Wikispaces, PBwiki). For example, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia is built on the MediaWiki.
The wiki technology has been studied in relation to how it can support collective knowledge advancement (Cress & Kimmerle, 2008; Lund, 2008). For example, Lund and Smørdal (2006) emphasize that wikis can support an epistemological shift from individually acquired
knowledge to collectively created knowledge. It is assumed that wikis can support knowledge creation and knowledge sharing in both an offline and an online setting.
However, there are few detailed definitions of CKA as a pedagogical practice and most of this research investigates the use of a local wiki in a local classroom setting (Melissa Cole, 2009; Lund & Smørdal, 2006). There are only a few studies that explore student
contributions in global wiki environments such as Wikipedia (Farzan & Kraut, 2013; Lampe, Obar, Ozkaya, Zube, & Velasquez, 2012; Roth, Davis, & Carver, 2013; Schulenburg, Davis, &
Klein, 2011) or Wikibooks (Baltzersen, 2010; Ravid, Kalman, & Rafaeli, 2008). We still know little about how global online environments can be integrated within a formal educational setting.
1.3.4 Studying CKA as a pedagogical practice in the teacher education context as the offline setting
Moreover, CKA as a pedagogical practice will be studied in a teacher education context. The current study will therefore investigate how students in one specific course produce learning
