Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2015-05
Exploring collective cognitive responsibility and its effects on students’ impact in a knowledge building community / Explorando la responsabilidad cognitiva colectiva y sus efectos sobre el impacto de los estudiantes en una comunidad para la creación del conocimiento
This study analyses and discusses a theoretical model that explains students’ impact in a knowledge community supported by a virtual platform (Knowledge Forum). Participants were 72 university students enrolled in the fifth course of a social sciences degree programme. First, a descriptive study is carried out that includes the explanatory elements of the students’ impact in the knowledge community (commitment to collective cognitive responsibility, cognitive complexity, creativity of the constructions in the platform and efficacy in evaluating impacting contributions generated in the community). Then, the application of a path analysis, using the bootstrap procedure, provides information about the relevance of each element (e.g., cognitive complexity) in explaining the students’ impact in the knowledge community. Based on the results, the article highlights the importance of designing and managing virtual environments that can facilitate the development of competences favouring collective cognitive responsibility and, consequently, increase the symmetry of the students’ impact and the advancement of the community’s knowledge.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BereiterC.ScardamaliaM. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
BerelsonB. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
4.
BiggsJ. B. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Open University Press/McGraw Hill.
5.
BiggsJ. B.CollisK. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York, NY: Academic Press.
6.
BollenK. A.StineR. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 205–229. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002004
7.
BrownN.SmythK.MainkaC. (2006). Looking for evidence of deep learning in constructively aligned online discussions. In BanksS.HodgsonV.JonesC.KempB.McConnellD.SmithC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 315–322). Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University.
8.
Byrne, (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
9.
ChenB.ChuyM.ResendesM.ScardamaliaM. (2010). Big ideas tool as a new feature of knowledge forum. Presented at the 2010 Knowledge Building Summer Institute: New Assessments and Environments for Knowledge Building. Toronto, Canada.
10.
ChenB.ResendesM.ChuyM.TarchiC.BereiterC.ScardamaliaM. (2011). Identificare, selezionare e sviluppare le idee promettenti nel Knowledge Building. Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 6(2), 224–241.
11.
ChenB.ScardamaliaM.AcostaA.ResendesM.KiciD. (2013). Promisingness judgments as facilitators of knowledge building. In RummelN.KapurM.NathanM.PuntambekarS. (Eds.), To see the world and a grain of sand: Learning across levels of space, time, and scale: CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings Volume 2 — Short papers, Panels, Posters, Demos & Community Events (pp. 231–232). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
12.
ChuyM.ZhangJ.ResendesM.ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (2011). Does contributing to a knowledge building dialogue lead to individual advancement of knowledge? In SpadaH.StahlG.MiyakeN.LawN. (Eds.), Connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and practice: CSCL2011 Conference Proceedings (pp. 57–63). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
13.
CollC.BustosA.EngelA. (2011). Perfiles de participación y presencia docente distribuida en redes asincrónicas de aprendizaje: la articulación del análisis estructural y de contenido. Revista de Educación, 354, 657–688. doi:10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2011-354-015
14.
Gutiérrez-BraojosC.ChenB.ResendesM. (2013a). Exploring an index of builders with potential impact on Knowledge Building from SOLO Taxonomy. Presented at the 17th Annual Knowledge Building summer institute: Crossing the educational Chasm. From the basics to creative work with ideas. La Puebla, Mexico.
15.
Gutiérrez-BraojosC.Martin-RomeraA. (2013). La presencia docente como un factor explicativo del aprendizaje en comunidades de indagación. In GázquezJ. J.PérezM. C.MokeroM. M. (Eds.), La convivencia escolar: un acercamiento multidisciplinar (pp. 115–121). Almería: Asunivep.
16.
Gutiérrez-BraojosC.ResendesM.ChenB. (2013b). Exploring a theoretical model about the effectiveness in evaluation of impacting contributions. Presented at the 17th Annual Knowledge Building summer institute: Crossing the educational Chasm. From the basics to creative work with ideas. La Puebla, Mexico.
17.
Gutiérrez-BraojosC.Salmerón-VílchezP. (2012). Building Knowledge: Theoretical model to analyze Knowledge Builders. Presented at the 16th Annual Knowledge Building summer institute: Building Cultural Capacity for Innovation. Toronto, Canada.
18.
Gutiérrez-BraojosC.Salmerón-VílchezP.GarcíaJ. M. (2012). Profiles of student participation in virtual computer learning and building environment. Presented at the 16th Annual Knowledge Building summer institute: Building Cultural Capacity for Innovation. Toronto, Canada.
19.
HamiltonE. C.FriesenN. (2013). Online education: A science and technology studies perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(2), 1–21.
HayesA. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
22.
HewittJ.BrettC.PetersV. (2007). Scan rate: A new metric for the analysis of reading behaviors in asynchronous computer conferencing environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 21, 215–231. doi:10.1080/08923640701595373
23.
HolmesK. (2005). Analysis of asynchronous online discussion using the SOLO Taxonomy. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 5, 117–127.
24.
MonereoC.BadiaA. (2008). La enseñanza y el aprendizaje de estrategias de aprendizaje en entornos virtuales. In CollC.MonereoC. (Eds.), Psicología de la Educación Virtual (pp. 348–367). Madrid: Morata.
25.
PaavolaS.HakkarainenK. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor – An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14, 535–557. doi:10.1007/s11191-004-5157-0
26.
PaavolaS.LipponenL.HakkarainenK. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74, 557–576. doi:10.3102/00346543074004557
27.
ScardamaliaM. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In SmithB. (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
28.
ScardamaliaM. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In KovalchickA.DawsonK. (Eds.), Education and Technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183–192). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
29.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3
30.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC.LamonM. (1994). CSILE: Trying to bring students into world 3. In McGilleyK. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
SchrireS. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers and Education, 46, 49–70. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.006
32.
SternbergR. (2012). The assessment of creativity: An investment-based approach. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 3–12. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.652925
33.
ZhangJ.ScardamaliaM.ReeveR.MessinaR. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 7–44. doi:10.1080/10508400802581676
