Introduction
Knowledge building, implementation, and discourse
Knowledge building
Nature of online discourse and knowledge-building discourse
Methods
Research context and participants
Grade 5 (n = 38) science | Grade 10 (n = 19) visual arts | Grade 10 (n = 82) liberal studies | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
No. of notes created | 8.7 | 5.1 | 15.4 | 9.11 | 1.5 | 1.63 |
No. of revisions | 0.8 | 1.8 | 5 | 11.8 | 0.3 | 1 |
No. of reference in notes | 0.2 | 0.5 | 3.6 | 7.8 | 0.1 | 0.4 |
% of notes linked | 80.9 | 30.8 | 91 | 9.5 | 76.4 | 41.4 |
% of notes with keywords | 39.4 | 30.13 | 6.5 | 13.4 | 9.2 | 27.01 |
% of notes read | 28.0 | 21.9 | 80.9 | 22.8 | 30 | 24.2 |
Qualitative analysis
Component 1: Thematic analysis
Component 2: Qualitative coding
Codes | Brief description |
---|---|
Social-Affective-communal | Socio-affective-emotional -aspect of the interactions |
Agreement | Acknowledging and expressing agreement on an idea |
Compliment | Showing gratitude for another’s contribution |
Different views | Raising different views /Expressing disagreement over an idea |
Disclose personal issue | Disclosing personal issues such as like/dislike, prior experience, or personal philosophy |
Disclose vulnerability | Admitting mistakes or acknowledging weaknesses |
Emotion | Expressing feeling by emoticons, punctuation, or conspicuous capitalization |
Humor | Engaging in such social activities as teasing, joking, irony, sarcasm, or kidding |
Salutation | Expressing social activities such as greeting, closure, or self-introduction |
Seeking views# | Inviting contributions from others |
Shared experience | Referring to past or future joint activities |
Team spirit | Expressing a sense of belonging or commitment to the group |
Information | Use of information in interaction and collaboration |
Information stated | Information stated with no explanation or elaboration |
Information introduced# | Information introduced not -relevant to - the problem at hand |
Information source | Discussing issues relating to the source of knowledge |
Information interpreted# | Using information to construct a solution to the problem at hand |
Question | Asking Questions –and engagement in inquiry processes |
Fact seeking# | Asking close-ended questions seeking definite answers |
Clarification# | Clarifying ambiguities arising from previous ideas |
Explanation seeking# | Asking open-ended questions seeking elaborative explanations |
Sustained | Specific questions formulated based on the previous idea |
Codes | Brief Description |
Idea | Focus on putting forth and development of ideas |
Fact# | Stating brief facts |
Opinion# | Making subjective judgments |
Analogy | Using analogical reasoning to develop ideas |
Conjecture# | Using personal theories to construct a partial explanation |
Elaboration# | Elaborate and build on ideas often including source materials - |
Explanation# | Construct explanation to improve ideas using principles and source materials |
Summary/synthesis | Summarizing ideas from multiple notes to synthesize and rise above |
Linking | Referring to Knowledge Forum affordances |
Bridging knowledge | Linking to Web materials to enrich community knowledge |
Referencing | Using the reference function in KF to quote others’ ideas |
Agency | Task and social regulation processes |
Metacognitive knowing | Expressing what students currently know, need, or do not need to know, or the reasons behind their knowledge |
Metacognitive knowing evaluation | Commenting on the quality or validity of another’s idea |
Metastrategic knowing | Scaffolding others to construct a more coherent explanation |
Metastrategic knowing evaluation | Guarding the question-and-explanation exchange processes against unintentional digression |
Shared regulation | Repairing the conversations and sustaining the willingness to learn |
Community: Meta-discourse | Discourse used to raise the bar of collective knowledge |
Lending community support# | Meta-discourse efforts looking back at what has been discussed and Proposing to move to a new stage of inquiry |
Problem analysis & synthesis | Analyzing a problem and synthesize from a higher-level perspective |
Problem transfer | Transferring a question from one context to another |
Component 3: Narrative analysis
Managing subjectivity
Results
Qualitative coding
Grade 5 science | Grade 10 visual art | Grade 10 liberal studies | Total | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | |
Social-Affective-communal | 22 | 6.21 | 141 | 35.70 | 27 | 16.9 | 190 | 20.90 |
Agreement | 16 | 4.52 | 39 | 9.87 | 20 | 12.5 | 75 | 8.25 |
Compliment | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.51 | 1 | 0.63 | 3 | 0.33 |
Different views | 2 | 0.56 | 9 | 2.28 | 6 | 3.75 | 17 | 1.87 |
Disclose personal issues | 0 | 0.00 | 6 | 1.52 | 0 | 0.00 | 6 | 0.66 |
Disclose vulnerability | 0 | 0.00 | 6 | 1.52 | 0 | 0.00 | 6 | 0.66 |
Emotions | 0 | 0.00 | 34 | 8.61 | 0 | 0.00 | 34 | 3.74 |
Humor | 4 | 1.13 | 18 | 4.56 | 0 | 0.00 | 22 | 2.42 |
Salutation | 0 | 0.00 | 16 | 4.05 | 0 | 0.00 | 16 | 1.76 |
Seeking views | 0 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.76 | 0 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.33 |
Shared experience | 0 | 0.00 | 6 | 1.52 | 0 | 0.00 | 6 | 0.66 |
Team spirit | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.51 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.22 |
Information | 29 | 8.19 | 13 | 3.29 | 3 | 1.88 | 45 | 4.95 |
Information stated | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 1.25 | 2 | 0.22 |
Information introduced | 26 | 7.34 | 1 | 0.25 | 0 | 0.00 | 27 | 2.97 |
Information source | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.25 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.11 |
Information interpreted | 3 | 0.85 | 11 | 2.78 | 1 | 0.63 | 15 | 1.65 |
Question | 84 | 23.73 | 54 | 13.67 | 12 | 7.50 | 150 | 16.50 |
Fact seeking | 17 | 4.80 | 6 | 1.52 | 1 | 0.63 | 24 | 2.64 |
Clarification | 0 | 0.00 | 12 | 3.04 | 0 | 0.00 | 12 | 1.32 |
Explanation seeking | 18 | 5.08 | 13 | 3.29 | 2 | 1.25 | 33 | 3.63 |
Sustained | 49 | 13.84 | 23 | 5.82 | 9 | 5.63 | 81 | 8.91 |
Idea | 191 | 53.95 | 132 | 33.42 | 94 | 58.7 | 417 | 45.87 |
Fact | 103 | 29.10 | 24 | 6.08 | 8 | 5.00 | 135 | 14.85 |
Opinion | 21 | 5.93 | 23 | 5.82 | 33 | 20.6 | 77 | 8.47 |
Analogy | 4 | 1.13 | 2 | 0.51 | 2 | 1.25 | 8 | 0.88 |
Conjecture | 13 | 3.67 | 61 | 15.44 | 42 | 26.3 | 116 | 12.76 |
Elaboration | 37 | 10.45 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 37 | 4.07 |
Explanation | 13 | 3.67 | 20 | 5.06 | 9 | 5.63 | 42 | 4.62 |
Summary/synthesis | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.51 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.22 |
Linking | 7 | 1.98 | 17 | 4.30 | 4 | 2.50 | 28 | 3.08 |
Bridging knowledge | 1 | 0.28 | 7 | 1.77 | 0 | 0.00 | 8 | 0.88 |
Referencing | 6 | 1.69 | 10 | 2.53 | 4 | 2.50 | 20 | 2.20 |
Agency | 20 | 5.65 | 31 | 7.85 | 18 | 11.3 | 69 | 7.59 |
Metacognitive knowing | 5 | 1.41 | 4 | 1.01 | 1 | 0.63 | 10 | 1.10 |
Metacognition knowing evaluation | 12 | 3.39 | 13 | 3.29 | 15 | 9.38 | 40 | 4.40 |
Metastrategic knowing | 1 | 0.28 | 5 | 1.27 | 2 | 1.25 | 8 | 0.88 |
Metastrategic knowing evaluation | 1 | 0.28 | 5 | 1.27 | 0 | 0.00 | 6 | 0.66 |
Shared regulation | 1 | 0.28 | 4 | 1.02 | 0 | 0.00 | 5 | 0.55 |
Community: Meta-discourse | 1 | 0.28 | 7 | 1.77 | 2 | 1.25 | 10 | 1.10 |
Lending community support | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.25 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.11 |
Problem synthesis & analysis | 1 | 0.28 | 3 | 0.76 | 2 | 1.25 | 6 | 0.66 |
Problem transfer | 0 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.76 | 0 | 0.00 | 3 | 0.33 |
Narrative analysis
Discourse and pattern | Features | G5S | G10VA | G10LS | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge sharing | Question-and-answer exchanges focusing on sharing information and personal ideas | 46 | |||
• Fact-oriented | Asking fact-oriented questions and sharing factual information | 9 | - | - | 9 |
• Cumulative | Focusing on confirmation and repetition, and conflicting ideas being ignored and assimilated | 5 | 5 | 2 | 12 |
• Repetitive | Merely responding to a seed note or question and lack of interactions | 8 | 7 | 1 | 16 |
• Simple argumentation | Defending own position, and rebuttal is eitherabsent or blocked out | - | - | 2 | 2 |
• Disputational | Finding out “who’s right and who’s wrong” and “what’s wrong with your idea” | - | 6 | 1 | 7 |
Knowledge construction | Ideas are elaborated, explained and inquired into working towards construction of knowledge and understanding | 12 | |||
• Explanatory & problem-centered inquiry | Posing problems; elaborated explanation, and viewing ideas as problematic that need further inquiry | 3 | 7 | 1 | 11 |
• Complex argumentation | Constructing understanding through argumentation that bring ideas to higher levels | - | - | 1 | 1 |
Knowledge building | Community knowledge advancement through sustained inquiry | 5 | |||
• Progressive inquiry | Engaging in deepening explanation and emerging questions for continual idea improvement; problem analysis and transfer | - | 1 | 1 | 2 |
• Sustained discourse for community advance | Contributing to high-level ideas and problems to advance problems of community interest; lending support to community advances; persisting in producing knowledge that is relevant to the community members | - | 2 | 1 | 3 |
Knowledge-sharing discourse
Fact-oriented discourse
5A19 Why does contact between fire and electricity trigger an explosion?5A23 Explosion means … [factual information copied]. Moreover, a chemical reaction caused by a crash of astronomical objects and lightning can be also called an explosion.5A01 What is an astronomical object?5A30 The sun is the most nearby fixed star of the earth … [factual information copied].5A21 Astronomical object is also known as starts … [factual information copied and a website].
Cumulative discourse
5A29 Why do conductors allow the flow of electric charge?5A37 Copper, iron, silver, etc. are good electrical conductors.5A07 All good electrical conductors are metal.5A33 Of course not! Apart from metal, iron is also a good electrical conductor.5A35 Iron is also a kind of metal. For example, iron, gold, copper, silver, and water are good electricity conductors.
5A10 Aluminum too!5A08 Water is too!5A02 Water contains metal objects.5A10 Also mineral.
Repetitive discourse
5A21 Water itself is not an electronic conductor; its metallic minerals are.5A06 Anything can be an electronic conductor as long as the voltage is high. Pure water is not electrically conductive given that it is at a certain level of voltage.5A26 Drinkable water is an electronic conductor because it contains metallic minerals.5A28 Drinkable water itself is not an electronic conductor, but it has metallic minerals.5A19 Electricity can flow along with water flow.5A03 Because water is a conductor.
Simple argumentation
4E16 A lot of Hong Kong people use a “confrontational” approach to express their dissatisfaction with the government, such as demonstrations and protests. …Why don’t we use a “dialogical” approach? We need to have conversation to solve problems. Problems cannot be solved by violence.4E28 I do not agree. The reason why people use the confrontational approach is that the dialogical approach does not work. If the government listened to public opinions, people would not use the confrontational approach.4E08 I do not agree. The government may not make compromises, even if people resorted to violence. We should use the dialogical approach to solve problems.4E28 Violence may not solve all problems. But if soft approaches cannot get the government’s attention, we can only resort to radical approaches.4E16 If we do not use the “dialogical” approach to resolve differences, the “confrontational” situation will last. In the long term, this will produce a negative social climate.
Disputational discourse
4C12 … what kinds of artwork can be regarded as “reflecting a community’s characteristics”?4A11 You succeed if others can immediately recognize which community you are working on!!4C02 Objection!! Does it mean that you fail if others cannot immediately recognize which community you are working on? It may not be the case.4E26 Yes! Every artist has a personal style! For example …4A11 Okay! I am wrong.4C02 If we do things very well all the time, we don’t have a chance to make improvements …
Knowledge-construction discourse
Explanatory and problem-centered inquiry
5A29 Why do conductors allow the flow of electric charge?5A37 Copper, iron, and silver are good electricity conductors.5A03 What are good electrical conductors? Are there any bad electrical conductors?5A35 Poor electrical conductors are known as insulators. They are objects that electricity cannot pass through easily…5A10 Air is also an insulator.5A20 Supplement. An insulator is a substance that can prevent heat and electrical current…5A37 So what is the mechanism?5A20 There is a big distance between the valence band and conducting band in insulators…
4A28 How can community art be used to preserve heritage?4D11 Community art can be used to magnify the information, so more people can get to know the history of a community.4A28 How can it be used to magnify?4D07 We create a piece of artwork to tell people why a particular community must be preserved.4E11 Yes. For example, we recently created a piece of artwork in school. Our goal was to disseminate the importance of community conservation and heritage preservation.4D16 I agree. Our artwork not only publicized the importance of community conservation, but also illustrated the characteristics of the target community. The three Chinese letters represented …4E11 I agree that our artwork illustrated the characteristics of that community. But how did our artwork publicize the importance of community conservation? Did it relate to some sort of meaning on a deeper level?
Complex argumentation
4A06 Radical behavior in the society is getting more and more serious because the fundamental social conflict is growing. What are the underlying factors?
4A14 … the factors are incubated for a long time. The public cannot tolerate the government’s policy which leads them to take violent action … For example, the government said that it is difficult to have fine-tuning in the financial budget. But as there is a growing anger shown by the public, the government withdrew the previous remark and planned to distribute HK$6000 to Hong Kong permanent residents aged over 18 years old … it shows the perfunctory attitude of the government in performing the duty …4A07 …the government should reflect the underlying factors for causing social conflicts. The government only undertook superficial policies perfunctorily to regain people’s support. However, the fundamental social problems still cannot be solved… According to the financial budget, although every Hong Kong citizens aged 18 years old can get HK$6000, this cannot solve the issue related to the extreme disparity between the rich and the poor …4A25 There is communication gap between the government and the public and the government is lack of transparency in policy making … For example, the public continuously expressed a request for minimum wage for 5 years ... Distributing HK$6000 to Hong Kong people is just a mean to prevent the event from exacerbating ...
4E01 … The radical behavior will only make the government respond to people’s need promptly. This in turns inspires the government to deal with the social problems perfunctorily … Distributing HK$6000 is a good example. The government wanted to satisfying the people’s need and demotivating them using radical means to express their opinion. People should make a concession to leave more space for government officials to solve the problem devotionally.4E05 The government is not unwilling to solve the fundamental social conflicts. The government cannot solve all social problems in one step… it takes time … For example, the government launched a housing scheme that would help people who lack initial deposit money buy a flat. The scheme was organized by …4A02I agree with what you said … the government launched the housing scheme in view of the high housing prices … However, this scheme is criticized in every aspect … An onion can serve as an analogy for describing our social problems …the government is trying to unleash the skin of onion step by step, eventually the core problem can be solved, but it takes time.
Knowledge-building discourse
Progressive inquiry
4A11 Does collective memory involve aesthetic value?4E16 What does it mean by aesthetic value?4E11 Aesthetic value refers to your feeling and experience of appreciating aesthetic objects. From the feeling of like or dislike, you obtain the perception of value.4A28 In other words, aesthetic value is a subjective issue that is not affected by external factors4E11 Nope, Nope. Although aesthetic value is mainly influenced by subjective factors, it is also influenced by objective factors. As I said earlier, your judgment that bases on your knowledge and understanding of an art work involves objective factors.
4E16 Your understanding and conception of an art work is equal to personal perception?4E11 Yes, to a certain extent, one’s conception of an art work is equal personal perception. However, this kind of perception is a more objective sort of judgment.4E16 People from different backgrounds perceive an art work differently. Where does the objectivity come from? If the judgment is objective, it is just a consensus toward an art work.4E11 I agree with your idea. Different people have different perceptions. Apparently, it is subjective thinking, but there is also another level – objectivity. Objectivity is different from subjectivity. Objectivity is from the third person perspective. It is independent and deals with facts. A principle that everybody knows and ascertains does not mean subjective thinking. For example ... Consensuses are formed by a negotiation between objectivity and subjectivity.4E11 Objective conception and subjective judgment is good for differentiating different things. For example, let’s says John’s height is 1.8 meter; that is an objective statement; whether John is tall or short is a subjective statement … All objective matters can be “measured” but they cannot be “judged”; all subjective matters can be “judged” but they cannot be “measured” …Objectivity solves “what” and “how” kinds of questions; subjectivity solves “good or bad” and “how” kind of questions ... http://baike.baidu.com/view/176035.htm#5
Sustained discourse for community advance
4D07 Can community art facilitate community development@@?4D16 It can. Community art may reflect public dissatisfaction with the current community. This may contribute to community development.4D15 What does “reflecting dissatisfaction with the current community” mean?4E16 Dissatisfaction with the problems that exist in the current community—for example, environmental and hygienic issues. The government intended to build a garbage incinerator on an island, and the island residents were worried …so they created a banner in their community to express their concerns.4E11 … Does anything dissatisfy the residents in your own community, causing them to reflect on the community development? Can you elaborate on it?
4D16 Here is an example of dissatisfaction from my community. Regarding the construction of the high-speed rail, the residents are worried … A thousand of them went to protest. This dissatisfaction leads us to contemplate the community development…4E11 But can this discontent facilitate idea exchanges among communities? Are there better approaches?4D16 … public protest is a kind of human right about personal freedom. I personally… don’t want to see this right disappear …4E11 I remember… a student from another school proposed that we needed to rationally deal with problems. I agree with him … We can peacefully write down our perspectives on the Internet…4D16 To work along both lines… Based on our knowledge, it is better to use both means, which include concrete action (demonstration) and word expression (Web)…4E11What I mean is…A survey shows that… According to the statistics of “Internet World Stats”… The Chief Executive said … I think that words can be another way of letting people express their views, which in turn makes the government policies cater to people’s demand.
4A13 How do all these relate to community art?4D16 … These are about the options in a community. The options refer to the ways in which we express our perspectives and expectations of the society…
Usability of the discourse patterns
First dataset: Knowledge building in elementary school science
First-year cohort | Second-year cohort | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
No. of students | 40 | 39 | ||
No. of notes created | 339 | 663 | ||
No. of narrative units identified | 24 | 45 | ||
Knowledge-sharing discourse | 19 (79.2 %) | 27 (60 %) | ||
– Fact-oriented | 3 | 1 | ||
– Cumulative | 1 | |||
– Repetitive | 16 | 25 | ||
Knowledge-construction discourse | 2 (8 %) | 10 (22.2 %) | ||
– Explanatory & problem-centered inquiry | 2 | 10 | ||
#Emerging Knowledge-Building | 3 (12.5 %) | 7 (15.5 %) |