Emerging models of knowledge construction

Today we live in a liquid society, as defined by Bauman (1991), that is characterized by constant change, uncertainty and instability. Identifying models of knowledge construction to explain actual communication practices in full complexity is an insurmountable task. However, several trends in the scientific literature as well as in expert reports and innovation projects can be identified.

Explanatory models of knowledge construction now integrate the foundations of previous models that were based on cognitive variables. This moves us towards modern theories of a social and intrapsychological nature in which frameworks that acknowledge the importance of ICTs are generated. Examples of such approaches are the model of Knowledge Building (Bereiter, & Scardamalia, 1993), the Expansive Educational Transformation-through ICTs model (Batane, Engeström, Hakkarainen, Newnham, & Virkkunen, 2012), the Spiral Model of Knowledge Creation (Nonaka, & Takeuchi, 1995) and the Trialogic learning model proposed by Paavola and Hakkarainen (2005, 2009). These go beyond models that focus on the individual transmission of information towards multidirectional communication between educators and learners. As suggested by L.S. M. Bakhtin (1979) and Vygotsky (1979), social interaction through dialogue is at the heart of knowledge construction practices. However, much social dialogue today is mediated by ICTs and can connect individuals, groups and communities with shared or overlapping learning and communicative objectives.

Emerging theories of knowledge construction do not focus exclusively on formal education but account for a new ecology of learning experiences based on the ubiquity of the learning experiences enabled by ICT. There is broad consensus concerning the radical change that has taken place in recent decades with respect to the role of learning in our lives and across human society (Banks et al., 2007; Collins and Halverson, 2010; JISC, 2012). These changes, combined with the new economic, social, political and cultural landscape of the Information Society, have been known to create exponential shifts in the new ecology of learning (Ito, & al., 2012). The discussions cited here share the idea that learning is a life-long phenomenon (Banks et al., 2007). The growing acceptance of this idea has led to the concept of Learning Spaces (Leander, Phillips, & Taylor, 2010), bringing about a vision of education in which learning is no longer limited first and only to a single space (like schools) or to formal education. Above all, it has shifted the focus of interest towards the study of learning trajectories (Biesta et al., 2011) and learning pathways through scenarios or contexts of activity (Erstad, & Sefton -Green, 2013).

Personal uses of ICTs and learner identity are gaining strength in explanatory models of knowledge construction. People participate in informal activities and spaces that take advantage, to a greater or lesser extent, of the opportunities and resources provided for learning. These processes are characterized by deeply subjective experiences of learning that result from participation (Coll, 2013). Certainly, the skills and competencies involved in the formation of a competent learner are many and varied but at the base of all these is the learner’s willingness to assume and develop an Apprentice Identity (Coll, & Falsafi, 2010; Falsafi, 2011).

Levels of solidarity in knowledge production, consumption and distribution dynamics

Theories of learning now acknowledge the importance of social interactions between individuals acting in a social world, as being influenced by the opportunities offered by digital technologies. Authors such as Crook (1996), Dillenbourg (2000) Harrasin et al. (2000) and Baker (2003) are important references in the field of collaborative learning mediated by technologies. The theory of situated cognition adds to this discussion, taking as a benchmark the sociocultural perspective of Vygotsky (1978) and, more recently, the work of Rogoff (1993), Bereiter (1997) and Wenger (2001), to name just a few of the best-known authors in the field of education. Social cognition problematizes learning as an activity located in a context that gives the process meaning. All knowledge acquisition is therefore contextualized in some form of social activity. The emphasis is put on meaning situationality, the skills and the strategies needed to interact with others. Learning is taken as a social, collaborative process that is situated, and therefore ordered and nurtured, at the heart of a community, its value systems, goals and participation dynamics. Knowledge acquisition is regarded as a process of social participation. This process is called legitimate peripheral participation as social actors, moving from the periphery towards the center of the community, become more active and more committed to the community culture. New participants progressively assume new roles. According to Lave and Wenger (1991), learning is the result of being part of the community. The authors develop the concept of community of practice to highlight the importance of work as a link between the individual and the community. Communities themselves have the function of legitimizing individual practices.

When we talk about current and emerging trends in the construction of knowledge through ICT, we can identify three progressive and often overlapping levels of solidarity and commitment that link individuals, groups and communities. First is the individual, conscious of his or her own needs and responsible for his or her own personal learning project. Second is the group, which offers individuals the opportunity for interaction with others, responds to their needs and is the beneficiary of information-sharing and feedback processes in knowledge construction. Third is the community, which establishes the means, values and goals shared by the collective. At this level, interactions occur in the framework of a joint project to build knowledge collaboratively in processes that transcend individuals and groups.

At the first level of solidarity we find individuals who are able to recognize, from both the personal and professional perspectives, their own learning needs throughout life and to organize their own personal learning and work environments. They make connections between what they learn, how they learn, and whom they learn with and from. In this sense, ICTs provide individuals with tools for information management and communication that allow them to constantly adapt their learning and knowledge production processes. As examples, we can see uses of learning portfolios and personal learning environments (PLE – Dabbagh, & Kitsantas, 2012; and Castañeda, & Adell, 2013). What is relevant here is not simply the technology used to construct these spaces but all the methodological approaches and actual design processes with important educational and institutional implications.

At the second level of solidarity we find group forms of interaction that promote joint construction of knowledge. ICTs are the medium that allows the creation of communication systems, websites or group editable documents, virtual discussion forums, chat rooms and video conferencing for content negotiation, etc. This introduces new ways of working based on the benefit of feedback for achieving common learning or knowledge production objectives. It is important to bear in mind, however, that technology alone will not create spaces for learning or communication. Educational strategies that promote collaborative learning in environments mediated by technology (CSCL) are necessary.

At the third level of solidarity we find the community. Here, both groups and individuals offer their knowledge to the collective, while benefiting from a global project. Participation is not exclusively directed by individual compensation but by an underlying will to contribute. One example is Wikipedia. We can use Wikipedia to find information at a given moment (first level of solidarity) or we can decide to provide/correct/improve its information (second level of solidarity). However, if we approach Wikipedia from the third level of solidarity, we: value the potential of the project as a tool for the joint construction of knowledge and social participation on a global scale; support it either intellectually or economically; and help organize and enhance strategies users can apply to provide/correct/improve information.

The three levels of solidarity are not mutually exclusive since they can share common aspects. People involved in emerging trends of knowledge production will be participating in different endeavors and expressing different levels of solidarity depending on their goals and values. Decisions are always contextual and situated, and always generate commitment to learning and knowledge construction projects. This highlights the complexity of processes mediated by technology, where individuals and groups of individuals, both in formal and non-formal contexts, express different levels of solidarity and commitment to the project on which they collaborate. These collaboration practices break geographical, time and even cultural barriers. Educational projects using ICT should take into account the social dimension of learning with the different levels of solidarity and commitment described above.

Bottom-up pedagogies

Taking advantage of the opportunities for creating knowledge together is more than a possibility in itself and becomes a condition of knowledge production dynamics. The notion of learning and knowledge as “something” fixed that can be collected, stored and accumulated individually is becoming obsolete. Learning happens in communities. However, communities are not just meetings of individuals but gatherings of potentials in action – networks where learning and knowledge remain, flow, grow, change and move through and by people. There are now a number of theoretical approaches that attempt to provide answers to the challenges posed to education in the face of this new scenario.

Beetham, McGill and Littlejohn (2009: 12) drew up a list of “new pedagogies” that included 2.0 Learning, 2.0 counter evidence Learning, Connectivism, Communities of Enquiry, the Practical Inquiry, Academic Apprenticeship, e-Learning and e-Pedagogy. Attwell and Hughes (2010) have added to this list Constructivism, Communities of Practice, Activity Theory, Vygotsky and Social Constructivism, Scaffolding Learning, Boundary Objects, Models for a Pedagogic Toolkit, Curriculum Development and Rhizomatic Knowledge, Discourse, Collaboration and Meta Cognition, Bricolage and Learning styles. Following the perspective of Snowden and Boone (2007) on complexity, we could say that this is a really –and impressively– complex environment where pedagogical “solutions” and “answers” cannot be prescribed or even discovered. The pedagogies that respond to new knowledge construction dynamics are “emerging” –as is learning (Williams, Karousou, & Mackness, 2011).

These emerging pedagogies have been defined as “the set of pedagogical approaches and ideas, not yet well systematized, that arise around the use of ICT in education and attempt to bring out its communicative, informational, collaborative, interactive, creative and innovative potential in the context of a new culture of learning” (Adell, & Castañeda, 2012, p. 15). Most are proposals developed by educators who are engaged in collaborative environments of practice and, though loosely associated with professional networks, are intensively participative in both discussions and the exchange of experiences on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook or on specific contextualized networks.

The new models of knowledge production presented allow for a change of paradigms in pedagogical approaches. Practitioners (teachers and educators) look for ways of answering new environmental needs through dialog and participation in communities of practice. They engage in profound pedagogical renewal, expressing, through their personal and professional communicative practices, deep levels of solidarity and commitment to knowledge production. Bottom-up pedagogies become influential in pervasive ways, opening space for sharing creative solutions and the critical re-usage of ideas.

Breaking the knowledge boundaries by which we live

In 21st century learning, educational scholars (and popular culture at large) often suggest that because of new digital technologies “everything has changed.” And yet, when we consider the fact that timeless issues of pedagogy and of human thought and learning remain the same, it is clear that in some ways “nothing has changed”. We suggest that both are occurring at the same time – there is a dual reality here in which nothing has changed and yet everything has changed (Kereluik, et al., 2012). It therefore becomes important to consider ways of thinking that are flexible and adaptable and that promote new growth within these expansive environments. It has been noted that there is a “zone of possibility” in smart uses of technology that focuses not just on the technology but keeps humanistic concerns front and center (Dirkin, & Mishra, 2010).

Of specific interest to us in these aspects of 21st century learning is the idea of creativity. One thing that is clear from the research on creativity is that creativity requires a dual view of the world – a strong grounding in a discipline and an ability to break out of the discipline (Root-Bernstein, 1999; Mishra, Henriksen, & the Deep Play Research Group, 2012). Clearly, this view demands new pedagogical structures that respect nonconformity and the urge to explore for the sake of exploration, to value risk-taking and learning from failure and error. In fact, it has been argued that, in contexts characterized by change, fear of failure may actually be the greatest barrier to learning (Amabile, 1996). In this context, a tolerance for risk combined with an ability to re-signify error as not being the “end of the world”, so to speak, but rather as a stepping-stone to future success is of critical importance (Clifford, 1991; and Dewett, 2007).

The biggest task in getting teachers and students to be creative involves helping them see the world as something one can play with, that most of the things we think of as “rules” are actually conventions created by other humans that can be manipulated and changed (Mishra, Henriksen, & The Deep-Play Research Group, 2012). We would argue that the goals require us to construct environments that encourage people to see the world with new eyes and be opportunistic to the potential for these new tools to help us engage with the world in innovative ways.

What we need is what has been described as an “(in)disciplined” pedagogy (Mishra, Henriksen, & the Deep-Play Research Group, 2012; 2013). This concept of “(in)disciplined” pedagogy suggests that being creative in a given domain requires being both knowledgeable and skilled in the domain or discipline while also being able to break away from the domain’s conventions. Research shows that some of the most creative people (in both Sciences and Arts) have widely varied and interdisciplinary interests that are key to their creativity in their professional field. This is a dual focus on developing disciplinary ways of thinking while being flexible in bringing in ideas from outside the discipline. This suggests the value of developing curricula that break traditional boundaries and are driven more by the interests of the learner (and of the teacher) than the typical top-down, lock-step, standard curricular structures we have become stuck within (Giroux, & Schmidt, 2004).

It is important to emphasize that, though the tools we have today are powerful and have great potential for transforming pedagogy, it is far more important to rethink the contexts within which these tools are used. So, when we think about developing learning communities, the availability of social media and user networks is a great boon. Such environments tend to be more bottom-up and driven by user and learner interest, thus fostering collaboration and creativity. As time goes by, these tools will have lower barriers to entry, making them easier to access and use.

These new learning environments, as described above, foster creativity and collaboration through bottom-up pedagogies and new digital tools and are driven by learner interests. They therefore have the potential to bring joy back into the learning process. Successful scientists and professionals often speak about the aesthetic aspects of learning – similar to how artists speak about their work (Root-Bernstein, 1999; 2003). We believe that new tools will truly be able to transform how we develop and apply knowledge in the future.

Liquefying racial-cultural identities

As digital texts and tools enable individuals to engage the world in a multitude of innovative ways, their use also works to liquefy “solid” forms of racial-cultural identification and organization that earlier forces of modernity attempted to inscribe (Bauman, 1991). In their solid form, hierarchies of power and privilege define individuals within constructed (and constrained) racial, cultural, and language categories as part of a larger project of division, domination, and control. Emerging models of knowledge construction mediated by ICT provide new cultural landscapes and ecologies of learning that disrupt traditional inscriptions of individual identities and racial- cultural affinities.

Learning with digital texts and tools “involves taking on and playing with identities in such a way that the learner has real choices (in developing virtual identities) and ample opportunity to mediate the relationship between new identities and old ones” (Gee, 2003, p. 208). As digital and virtual spaces for participatory learning allow for choice and play with new identities, these liquefying processes dissolve the logic and limits of solid, static forms of racial-cultural identification. The term “micro-culture” can be used to indicate the distinct set of practices, prerogatives, and perspectives engaged in by an individual in a specific digitally mediated learning context. These contexts permit multisensory, multidimensional, interactive cyber experiences with an almost infinite range of written, audio, visual, and animated texts. Learners do not just consume and respond to digitally accessed messages and images, they also produce and propagate meanings and representations of their own (including representations of themselves). These meanings can challenge or counter the social constructions of identity from other societal institutions. The re-mixing practices that are characteristic of digital production lend themselves to experimenting, analyzing and performing different realities and different positioning of individual selves (Knobel and Lankshear, 2008; Mahiri, 2011), and the use of online spaces and tools for identity exploration, formulation and expression are pervasive for many learners.

Following authentic, immediate, and customized interests, learners elude local structures of space and place and virtually participate in affinity groups in which they are “bonded primarily through shared endeavors, goals, and practices and not shared race, gender, nation, ethnicity, or culture” (Gee, 2003, p. 197). Aided by avatars and digitally distanced from stereotypes embodied in physical contexts, racial identities and categories can become more ambivalent, if not entirely indeterminant. Identities are constructed through learning and participation in communities of practice (Lave, & Wenger, 1991). However, as a learner moves from the periphery towards the center of a virtual community, the expert may be embedded in the material intelligence of the digital device that mediates the group’s interactions and activities. Essentially, the Internet and other digitally mediated, virtual practices have significantly transformed how 21st century learners leverage online communities and digital texts and tools for exploring, expressing and transforming personal or cultural identities and affinities.