, INTERLEARN, Helsinki Metaskills for Inquiry in higher education Hanni Muukkonen Minna Lakkala Centre for Research on Networked Learning and Knowledge Building Dept. Psychology, University of Helsinki

Development of expertise Ability to develop content-specific knowledge and apply it in situations often co-evolves with the development of general thinking skills and metacognitive strategies (Davidson & Sternberg, 1998). Even if learners’ expertise is bound to a specific field of inquiry, there are many skills and competencies, which are generalizable and provide intellectual resources for managing new problem-solving situations. Prior courses: practices of metalevel evaluation that went beyond individual metacognition in the sense that students were not only monitoring and reflecting on their own advancement, but also looking after a collective advancement simultaneously (Muukkonen, Lakkala, & Hakkarainen, 2005). Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: how do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14,

Conceptualizations to build on Self-regulative and metacognitive skills (cf., Boekaerts, Zeidner & Pintrich, 1999; Hofer, 2004;Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter, 2000) Social metacognition ( Jost, Kruglanski, & Nelson, 1998; Salomon & Perkins, 1998; Salonen, Vauras, & Efklides, 2005). Reflective and critical thinking skills (King & Kitchener, 1994; D. Kuhn, 1991) Academic literacy in reading and writing (e.g., Geisler, 1994; Wineburg, 1991) Skills of collaboration and interaction (Brown & Campione, 1994) Knowledge building and Epistemic agency (Bereiter, 2002; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; 2003). Knowledge-creation metaphor of learning: Sustained work to advance and elaborate ideas across situations and contexts (Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2004).

Three metaphors of learning and expertise (Paavola et al. 2004; Hakkarainen et al. 2004; Sfard 1998) Acquisition metaphor ”Monological” within mind Participation metaphor ”Dialogical” interaction, situated cognition Knowledge- creation metaphor ”Trialogical” developing shared objects and artefacts collaboratively Emphasis on individuals and conceptual knowledge Emphasis on cultural practices, social interaction, and situated cognition Co-evolution of inquirers, communities, and objects of activity

Aims Exploring metaskills based on analysing students’ engagement in collaborative inquiry Analysing how students evaluated their own engagement and ability to take part in a self- directed inquiry process. Data: database discourse in FLE3 ( environmenthttp://fle3.uiah.fi/ students’ self-evaluations Qualitative content analysis

Course “Psychology of modern learning environments” 12 students (3+5+4) 11 weeks, seven seminar meetings (3-4 hours) and collaboration within the FLE3 ( environmenthttp://fle3.uiah.fi/ monitored by three tutors cognitive responsibility for the advancement of inquiry in the hands of the students student-generated themes Qualities of networked environments that support collaborative learning Creative process in a networked community Teachers’ and learners’ roles in a collaborative networked environment

Elements of Progressive Inquiry (Hakkarainen, 1998) Setting up Research Questions Creating the Context Constructing Working Theories Critical Evaluation Searching Deepening Knowledge Generating Subordinate Questions Refocusing the Inquiry Process Distributed Expertise Back

Principles behind Progressive Inquiry A pedagogical and epistemological model for representing principal features of (scientific) inquiry. Students’ genuine questions and previous knowledge of the phenomena as a starting point. Attention to main concepts and deep principles of the domain. Deepening process, where the aim is understanding and explanation of phenomena. Students and teachers share their expertise and build new knowledge collaboratively.

Discourse evolution Group 1 O T Q S S Q Q S T T T T Q Q S S T S S S S Q S S Q Q S S S S S O Q T T T Q S T S S Q Question S Substantive knowing T Theoretical knowing M Metaknowing O Organization Tutor’s message Group 2 Q S S S S S S S S S S Q Q S S Q T Q S S Q S T T T Q T S T T Q Q S S S Q T T S T T O O T O T T T O Group 3 T Q T Q S Q S S S S Q S T T M O M M O T T T Q O O T M M Q S S T T Q S T S S S S S T Q T T O O Q T Q T T S T T S T M O O O O

Challenges based on the database discourse Move from substantive knowledge to the use of theoretical knowledge Use of questions to direct inquiry process (even in new domains) Explicit reflection and monitoring of the collaboration (done more in face-to-face?) Production of a genuinely collective object Most experienced students in group 3 showed particular skills for engaging in and regulating collaborative inquiry.

Paula (Group 3): …there is a problem of relevance with the articles (at least some of them), which we already discussed in the group. It is that a part of the articles cover single research experiments and because the course is so short, its impossible for a student to make summaries (or critically reflect on them considering the research context) just based on single research and their findings presented in articles. I consider that more appropriate sources would be different ready summaries, which draw together general lines on research findings. Just selecting and evaluating knowledge can take too much time, which makes getting to the point a little difficult. It would ideal if there was enough time for focusing on a couple of research articles and the general lines.

Distribution of self- evaluations

Challenges based on self- evaluations Commitment and own responsibility Learning a new way of working Sharing unfinished ideas trust, openness to new ideas, self-criticism Collaborative knowledge building takes time Role of prior knowledge and authentic knowledge sources Ill-defined beginning of inquiry process Monitoring the collective process from database discourse

Lauri (group 3): Our group was working very much on its own, but we could do it in a self- regulated environment due to the longer studying experiences of the (other ;) members of our group, so we proceeded well. Taru (group 3): Definitely more demanding and also harder. Nevertheless, it felt good not to be alone responsible for own work, but the whole group shared equally a responsibility for the advancement of the process. In more traditional seminars it often happens do that you work on your own and on the last moment write everything ready and miss all ideas from others. Although collaboration slows work down at first, I think that it becomes a strength and richness as the process progresses.

Conclusions: metaskills for collaborative inquiry Understanding collaborative inquiry A shared object of inquiry Sharing, publishing, and building on half-baked ideas Self-regulation Planning Strategy selection, Resources, Volitional control Monitoring individual and collective process Comprehension Advancement and obstacles Dealing with uncertainty and new knowledge-fields Scientific argumentation Collective process advances through individuals’ participation

Regulation of collaborative inquiry We propose a framework that consists of three encompassing levels: (1) monitoring and regulating individual process, (2) monitoring and regulating collective process and (3) monitoring and regulating efforts in terms of knowledge building and advancement of shared objects.

Previous findings Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology- mediation and tutoring: how do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, Scaffolding by technology supported practices of problem-setting meta-reflection collective efforts object-oriented inquiry Non-technology groups more own explanations focus on understanding and presenting theoretical content Role of tutoring in scaffolding towards an iterative and deepening inquiry process returning to earlier ideas, questions, and re-addressing them