Kindle notes

Review of Educational Research Winter 2004, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 557–576 Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning Sami Paavola, Lasse Lipponen, and Kai Hakkarainen University of Helsinki (loc: 10-11)

The authors analyze and compare three models of innovative knowledge communities: Nonaka and Takeuchi’s model of knowledge-creation, Engeström’s model of expansive learning, and Bereiter’s model of knowledge building. (loc: 11-13)

Beyond characterizing learning as knowledge acquisition (the acquisition metaphor) and as participation in a social community (the participation metaphor), the authors of this article distinguish a third aspect: learning (and intelligent activity in general) as knowledge creation (the knowledge-creation metaphor). This approach focuses on investigating mediated processes of knowledge creation that have become especially important in a knowledge society. (loc: 14-17)

In her article “On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One,” Anna Sfard (1998) proposed that there are two main ways of thinking about the genesis of new knowledge, namely, the acquisitionand participation metaphors. Behind these two metaphors is the debate between cognitive and situated (or “situative”) perspectives on learning and human activity (see Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996, 1997; Greeno, 1997). (loc: 18-21)

Hence knowledge is understood as a property or capacity of an individual mind, in which learning is a matter of construction, acquisition, and outcomes, which are realized in the process of transfer (that is, the process of using and applying knowledge in new situations). This view emphasizes computational models of mind and knowledge, aiming to simulate the way that the individual mind operates with knowledge. (loc: 24-27)

In contrast, adherents of the participation metaphor examine learning as a process of participation in various cultural practices and shared learning activities. In this view, the focus is on activities (“knowing”) more than on outcomes or products (“knowledge”). Knowledge does not exist either in a world of its own or in individual minds, but is an aspect of participation in cultural practices (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1988; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Cognition and knowing are distributed over both individuals and their environments, and learning is “situated” in these relations and networks of distributed activities of participation. (loc: 27-31)

In the participation metaphor, learning is a matter of participation in practices and actions (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1997; Greeno, 1997), “enculturation” (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), or “legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In this framework, terms such as acquisition and accumulation are supplemented, or in some cases replaced, by concepts such as discourse, interaction, activity, and participation. (loc: 32-35)

The knowledge-creation model strongly emphasizes the aspect of collective knowledge creation for developing shared objects of activity, an aspect that has not been the focus of the other two models. (loc: 48-49)

Nonaka and Takeuchi’s Model of Knowledge Creation In their book The Knowledge-Creating Company, Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995) presented a model of innovation processes, central to which is an epistemological distinction between two kinds of knowledge, tacit and explicit. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that is easy to articulate and express formally and in clear terms. Tacit knowledge, which is more important in creating innovations, is “personal knowledge embedded in individual experience and involves intangible factors such as personal belief, perspective, and the value system” (viii). Another fundamental point in this model is an “ontological” framework of four levels of “entities” that operate in knowledge creation: the individual, group, organizational, and inter-organizational levels. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi, knowledge is created and transformed in an ascending process, or spiral, from the individual level to the group and organizational levels, and finally between organizations. (loc: 59-66)

A “knowledge spiral” is grounded in four complementary types of knowledge conversion: (a) from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge, labeled socialization; (b) from tacit to explicit knowledge, called externalization; © from explicit to explicit knowledge, or combination; and (d) from explicit to tacit knowledge, or internalization.The (loc: 67-69)

knowledge creation spiral starts from socialization, sharing tacit knowledge and experiences at the group level. In this phase, a close interaction and collaboration within a group is needed. The aim of the socialization process is to create common understanding and trust within the group. The next phase, externalization, is the central one in knowledge creation. In this phase, tacit knowledge is explicated and conceptualized by means of metaphors, analogies, and concepts. In Nonaka and Takeuchi’s model, the basic source of innovation is tacit knowledge, which needs to be explicated in order to be transformed into knowledge that is useful at the levels of the group and the whole organization. At the combination stage, units of already-existing explicit knowledge are combined and exchanged. Finally, to have real effects in an organization, the explicit knowledge of the group or organization must be internalized by individuals and transformed into tacit knowledge and into action through “learning by doing.” After internalization, a new round of the knowledge spiral will begin. (loc: 69-76)

Yrjö Engeström (1999b) has studied and developed innovative learning cycles in work teams by using Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and the theory of expansive learning to provide the framework for his analysis. The central tenet of CHAT is that human beings do not live in a vacuum but are embedded in their sociocultural context, and that their behavior cannot be understood independently of that context (Engeström, 1987; see also Engeström, Miettinen, & Punamäki, 1999). The basic unit of analysis in CHAT is human activity, which is mediated through the conceptual and material cultural artifacts people use. (loc: 88-92)

Engeström’s model of expansive learning in work teams is based on a learning cycle with seven stages in its ideal form (Engeström, 1999b, pp. 383–384; cf. Engeström, 1987, pp. 188–191, 321–336). First, individual participants question and criticize certain existing practices. Second, they analyze the situation; that is, they analyze the historical causes and empirical inner relations of the activity system in question. Third, the participants engage in modeling a new solution to the problematic situation. Fourth, they examine the new model by experimenting to determine whether it works and what potentialities and limitations it has. Fifth, they implement the new model to explore practical action and applications. Sixth, they reflect on and evaluate the process. Finally, they engage in consolidating the new practice in its new form. Through this expansive cycle, in which the participants focus on reconceptualizing their own activity system in relation to their shared objects of activity, both the objects and the existing scripts are reconceptualized; the activity system is transformed; and new motives and objects for the activity system are created. This sequential model should be understood as an ideal or heuristic tool for analyzing elements of expansive learning, because the cycles of expansive learning do not necessarily follow any fixed order. (loc: 92-101)

an intervention method, called the “boundary-crossing laboratory or “change laboratory,” that is used in several types of workplaces—for example, telecommunication companies, hospitals, and schools. The intent of the boundary-crossing laboratory is to guide the members of a workplace community to reflect on their mutual activities with the help of researchers. It is based on an ethnographic approach to observing and recording a community’s everyday activities. (loc: 102-5)

Knowledge building refers to collective work for the advancement and elaboration of conceptual artifacts (product plans, business strategies, marketing plans, theories, ideas, and models), the entities of Karl Popper’s World 3 (the world of cultural knowledge). Popper has emphasized that in addition to physical and material reality (World 1) and the reality that concerns mental states (World 2), there is a third realm (World 3), which includes conceptual entities such as theories and ideas (Popper, 1972). (loc: 114-18)

An important aspect of Bereiter’s theory is to make a conceptual distinction between learning, which operates in the realm of mental states (Popper’s World 2), and knowledge building, which operates in the realm of theories and ideas (Popper’s World 3). (loc: 122-24)

In any case, scientific research groups are typically working with theories and models that may be understood as shared knowledge objects rather than as representing mental states. (loc: 127-28)

The primary goal of members of an innovative expert community is not to learn something (i.e., to change, or simply add to, their own mental states) but to solve problems, originate new thoughts, and advance communal knowledge. In other words, their goal is to create new knowledge and add the value of conceptual artifacts. (loc: 129-31)

Activity theory makes a corresponding distinction by distinguishing between “learning the given new” (i.e., transmitting culturally given knowledge to students, as is typical in formal education) and “learning the societal new” (i.e., innovative learning activity at workplaces that focuses on collaborative mastering of culturally new practices and knowledge) (Sutter, 2002). (loc: 168-71)

Accordingly, new ideas and innovations emerge between rather than within people. (loc: 196-97)

Going Beyond Propositional and Conceptual Knowledge All three models share the idea of going beyond pure propositional and conceptual knowledge. While recognizing the importance of such knowledge, they stress other types of knowledge as well. Without going into detail, a rough distinction between three basic forms of knowledge is recapitulated here (see Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993, pp. 43–47): Declarative knowledge means “formal” or propositional knowledge. Procedural knowledge or know-how means knowledge embedded in skills and not guided by explicit rules or propositional knowledge; rather, it is manifest in rule-like behavior that emerges from knowledgeable action (see Bereiter, 2002). Lastly, hidden knowledge or tacit knowledge is based on impressions and a “sense” of things. This kind of distinction does not take into account the variety of forms or formulations of knowledge, but it can be used to identify a common point in these models of innovative learning. (loc: 207-14)

see also Bereiter, 2002) argue, for example, that knowledge of “promisingness,” which is for them one form of tacit knowledge, is an essential resource of creative experts. Having continuously solved problems in their own area of expertise, creative experts have some sort of sense about what is promising and how to make progress in their field. (loc: 226-28)

in Bereiter’s model, the goal is to develop, evaluate, and modify conceptual artifacts collaboratively. An important aspect of these three models of innovative learning is the “dialectical” interaction between different forms of knowledge, and especially the process of creating conceptual knowledge and conceptual models that can be used in subsequent activity. (loc: 235-37)

Interaction Around and Through Shared Objects (loc: 237-38)

Engeström’s model connects with activity theory, which has its basis in the Vygotskyan idea that both signs and tools (related to conceptual artifacts and material practices, respectively) constitute the starting point for mediated human action (Vygotsky, 1978; see Engeström, 1999a, pp. 23–25). (loc: 288-90)

constructivism has many versions and interpretations (see, e.g., Steffe & Gale, 1995; Phillips, 1997). The term, by itself, has become rather meaningless unless further qualified. Constructivism can, for instance, refer to an enhanced version of the acquisition metaphor of learning if the emphasis is on the basic Kantian idea that knowledge cannot be acquired directly but must be accessed through inborn schemes or the like. Yet constructivism can also have affinities with the participation metaphor of learning if the idea is that social and cultural practices are primarily constructed. (loc: 386-91)