1. Knowledge creation communities and a trialogical approach to learning Sami Paavola Center for Research on Activity, Development, and Learning (CRADLE) University of Helsinki Email: sami.paavola@helsinki.fi Helsinki Summer School, a course on Activity Theory and Formative Interventions

2. 2 Purpose To present and discuss some central ideas of the Paavola et al 2004 paper (see the copy) A distinction of three basic metaphors of learning A comparison of “knowledge creation communities” To discuss shortly some later developments A “trialogical approach” to learning

3. 3 My own background My main field is philosophy (dissertation on abductive method of discovery at 2006); Interest in theories of learning and human cognition Working in the Centre for Research on Networked Learning and Knowledge Building (led by Kai Hakkarainen) at the University of Helsinki since 1999 – now merged to CRADLE Investigating and developing technology supported collaborative learning – pedagogical models (like the progressive inquiry model, knowledge building) and technology (FLE, KPE)

4. Two metaphors of learning (Sfard 1998) Anna Sfard has made an often used distinction between two basic metaphors of learning 1) Acquisition metaphor: A “traditional view” - learning is seen as a process of transmitting desired pieces of knowledge to the learner; Mind is a container of knowledge; Emphasizes the role of propositional and conceptual knowledge 2) Participation metaphor: Learning is seen as an interactive process of participating in various cultural practices; Transformation of identity emphasized; Activities of "knowing" rather that outcomes or products; Cognition and knowing are distributed over both individuals and their environments; Situated cognition emphasized

5. A need for a third metaphor? Sfard’s distinction is a very apt one in itself but does not capture properly those theories and approaches where the idea is to understand how people collaboratively develop or create something Important for our group because we were especially interested just on those kind of theories and approaches -> A knowledge creation metaphor (Paavola et al 2004) Cf. expansion as a third metaphor (Engeström & Sannino 2010)

6. Basis for the knowledge creation metaphor Theories and models concerning ”innovative knowledge communities” (or ”knowledge creation communities”) Knowledge building (Bereiter et al 2002), and the model of progressive inquiry in our own research group (see Hakkarainen 1998; Hakkarainen et al 2004; Muukkonen et al 2004) Expansive learning (Engeström 1987), Organizational knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995) Difference to ”communities of practice” Despite clear differences there are also common features behind these models/theories

7. Three theories concerning “innovative knowledge communities” C. Bereiter (2002): Knowledge building Y. Engeström (1987): Expansive learning I. Nonaka & H. Takeuchi (1995): Organizational knowledge creation Central objectsConceptual artefacts (instead of learning within mind) Activity systems; practices Products (cars, baking machines, etc.) and product plans Basic processDevelopment of conceptual artefacts supported by specific learning technology Changes in the object and concept of the activity on the basis of disturbances and contradictions within the activity system Tacit knowledge is externalized to explicit knowledge; from personal knowledge to organizational level Epistemology behind Popper’s theory of three “worlds” (material, mental, cultural/conceptual) Mediation by tools and signs (Vygotsky); Marxist dialectics Japanese holistic tradition (overcoming dichotomies); tacit knowledge (Polanyi)

8. Common aspects of the “models of innovative knowledge communities” (Paavola et al 2004) 1) The pursuit of newness 2) Mediating elements to avoid Cartesian dualisms 3) Viewing knowledge creation as a social process 4) Emphasis on the role of individual subjects in knowledge creation 5) Going beyond propositional and conceptual knowledge 6) Recognizing conceptualizations and conceptual artifacts as important 7) Interaction around and through shared “objects” (knowledge artifacts, practices, activity systems, products, etc.)

9. Three metaphors of learning (Paavola et al. 2004; Hakkarainen et al. 2004; Cf. Sfard 1998) The acquisition metaphor Within mind approach Emphasis on individuals and conceptual knowledge The participation metaphor Social interaction, situated cognition Emphasis on cultural practices, social interaction, and situated cognition The knowledge- creation metaphor Developing shared “objects” collaboratively Co-evolution of inquirers, communities, and objects

10. Uses and later developments of the knowledge creation metaphor We have developed it in relation to computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) research (e.g. Paavola & Hakkarainen 2009), networked expertise and human cognition (e.g. Hakkarainen et al 2004), and inquiry learning (e.g. Muukkonen, Lakkala, & Hakkarainen, 2005) Not developed or criticized much by others but referred in quite many contexts, e.g. CSCL context (Stahl, Koschmann & Suthers 2006), knowledge building (e.g. van Aalst 2009), workplace learning and organizational learning (Tynjälä & Häkkinen 2005), teacher education and teacher communities (Laferriere, Lamon & Chan 2006), networked learning (De Laat & Lally 2003), development of networked expertise (Edwards, 2009), open source communities (Hemestberger & Reinhardt 2006), web 2.0 technology (McLoughlin & Lee 2008a), or Wikiversity (and wikis) (Leinonen et al 2009).

11. Main criticism (Engeström & Sannino 2010) Differences between theories under the knowledge creation metaphor (expansive learning, knowledge building, Nonaka & Takeuchi’s organizational knowledge creation) are more important than commonalities Their epistemological basis is very different Danger of eclectism

12. Main criticism - answer True that these theories are epistemologically and methodologically quite different Still it seems that there is a need for understanding ”collaborative knowledge creation” (how people organize their activities for developing some concrete things together); new technology provides new means for this There are different kinds of theories and models trying to understand these processes; can be used for taking influences from each other

13. Three classical lineages of mediation (Engeström 1987) 1) Epistemological lineage from C. Peirce to K. Popper “knowledge and meaning as mediated construction … little cues for grasping how material culture is created in joint activity” 2) From the symbolic interactionism of G. H. Mead to modern interactionist developmental psychology “social, interactive, symbol-mediated construction of reality … not as practical material construction” 3) Cultural-historical psychology from Vygotsky to Leont'ev “concept of activity based on material production, mediated by technical and psychological tools as well as by other human beings”

14. Trialogic(al) approach (Paavola & Hakkarainen 2005; 2009) Instead of focusing on communication or exchange of ideas and perspectives (dialogues) or interaction with the environment (situated cognition), trialogic approach focuses on how activity is organized for developing shared ”objects” (knowledge artefacts, practices, processes, models) collaboratively Changing the focus from meaning making (emphasized often in the computer-supported collaborative learning) towards joint construction of artefacts and practices

15. Knowledge Practices Laboratory (www.kp-lab.org) KP-Lab: a 5-year integrated project funded by EU, started at 2006, coordinated by the Centre for Networked Learning and Knowledge Building (University of Helsinki), 22 partners from 14 countries Investigates ”knowledge practices” and transformations of knowledge practices in workplaces and higher education, and have developed technology to support them (especially a special environment, KPE) How people collaboratively develop knowledge and knowledge artifacts, and organize their ways of working supported by technology; and how in higher education students are solving complex, “authentic” problems (assignments from working life)

16. Trialogic approach - How individuals and a community develop shared, ”authentic”, concrete mediating ”objects” Knowledge artifacts Practices Drafts of ideas Shared objects: Individual subjects Learning community ”Authentic” use of the object Tools– Shared Space Shared objects – their development

17. References Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2003). Complexity, theory and praxis: Researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community. Instructional Science 31: 7- 39. Edwards, A. (2009). From the systemic to the relational: Relational agency and activity theory. In A Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.). Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 197-211). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. & Sannino, Annalisa (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review 5(1), 1-24. Hakkarainen, K. (1998). Epistemology of inquiry and Computer-supported collaborative Learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S. & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hemetsberger, A. & Reinhardt, C. (2006). Learning and Knowledge-building in Open-source Communities. A Social-experiential Approach. Management Learning 37(2), 187-214.

18. References (2) Laferriere, T., Lamon, M., Chan, C. K. K. (2006). Emerging E-Trends and Models in Teacher Education and Professional Development. Teacher Education 17(1), 75-90. Leinonen, T., Vaden, T., & Suoranta, J. (2009). Learning in and with an open wiki project: Wikiversity’s potential in global capacity building. First Monday 14 (2) – 2. McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (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), 10-27. Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., & Lakkala, M. (2004). Computer-mediated progressive inquiry in higher education. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice (pp. 28-53). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. 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. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Paavola, S. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The Knowledge Creation Metaphor – An Emergent Epistemological Approach to Learning. Science & Education 14(6), 535-557.

19. References (3) 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 et al (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings. (pp. 83-92). Rhodes, Creek: International Society of the Learning Sciences. 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. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13 Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). New York: Cambridge University Press. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review 3: 130-154. Tynjälä, P. & Häkkinen, P. (2005). E-learning at work: theoretical underpinnings and pedagogical challenges. The Journal of Workplace Learning 17(5/6), 318-336. Van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 4: 259-287.

20. 20

21. 21 Knowledge Practices Environment (KPE) A virtual environment with integrated tools for working with the shared knowledge artefacts. e.g., file sharing, linking, working spaces with real-time and history- based awareness, wiki, note editor, commenting, chat, semantic tagging and semantic search Designed to provide specific affordances for joint development of concrete, epistemic objects as well as for planning, organizing and reflecting on related tasks and user networks. Support for spatially organizing and flexibly restructuring items.

22. 22 (see Description of Work 4)