CHAPTER FIVE
2.7 EMPIRICAL LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE PROCESS OF KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION
The knowledge construction process relates to the extent to which teachers help students to understand, investigate and determine how the implicit cultural
assumptions, frames of references, perspectives and biases within a discipline which influence the ways in which knowledge is constructed within it. Schellens and
Valcke (2006) conducted a study on fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of the shared space on students’ behaviours in a computer- supported collaborative learning environment. The results confirmed that students in the discussion groups were very task-oriented and that higher proportions of high phases of knowledge construction were observed. According to these two
researchers, group size is a significant interaction variable. Discussion in smaller groups reflected larger proportions of higher levels of knowledge construction (Schellens & Valcke, 2006).
In another study done by Wessel (2004) on knowledge construction in high school, the researcher examined the learning of physics with the aim of exploring and attempting to develop a more complete understanding of the process of knowledge construction. This author concluded that for teachers to develop models of student knowledge construction, interactions among students and teachers have to occur openly. In a classroom which is highly teacher-centred, this type of model is not possible because students do not have opportunities to talk and reflect about their developing concepts with the teacher or with each other (Wessel, 2004).
Oliver et al. (2002) conducted research exploring ways to formalize generic descriptions of some learning designs that foster knowledge construction and problem solving. Their findings were that learning is achieved by the active construction of knowledge supported by multiple perspectives within meaningful contexts and the social interactions amongst students are seen to play a critical role in the processes of learning and cognition. They came up with a framework for
describing learning designs that are conducive to knowledge construction (Oliver et al., 2002).
Lu and Jeng (2006) conducted a study to investigate how teachers constructed new knowledge, the extent of knowledge construction achieved and how instructors participated in and facilitated the online discussion to affect knowledge
construction. One of the findings was that most teachers seemed to favour
discussion activities at the stage of knowledge confirmation rather than knowledge construction. Another finding was that some facilitation approaches used by the instructors were helpful for enhancing knowledge construction (Lu & Jeng, 2006).
In a study done by Miller (2002) titled Examining the interplay between
constructivism and different learning styles, the researcher looked at the interplay between constructivism and different learning styles in the teaching and learning of introductory statistics at Drury University in the USA. According to this writer, the instructional strategies that support constructivism are: group problem solving and discussion; allowing students to have multiple representations; think time and wait time; interaction time with peers; activity-based learning; written and oral
presentations; and group and individual projects.
Miller (2002) emphasized that instructional strategies that support knowledge construction enhance students’ learning and understanding. The conclusion of the researcher in this paper was that it does not matter how researchers define learning styles. What does matter, according to Miller (2002), is that the teacher comes from a paradigm that supports knowledge construction. The researcher indicated that
teachers who come from a constructivist paradigm will naturally make use of multiple instructional strategies to promote the construction of knowledge and, thus, enhance the learning of all students (Miller, 2002).
Yuen and Hau (2006) conducted a case study of an undergraduate Educational Psychology course that incorporated both constructivist and teacher-centred
teaching. The learning processes and higher-level learning outcomes were examined through participant observation, interviews with students and analyses of student assignments. In general, the results were that the constructivist teaching facilitated students’ creation of their own knowledge as they were given more freedom to think over the problems together and to generate original ideas. Students’ performances in recalling, critiquing and generating with the knowledge gained in the constructivist teaching context were also better than those in the teacher-centred context. This could be explained by deeper processing of the material, the activation of students’
prior knowledge and the similarity between the situations of knowledge construction and knowledge application (Yuen & Hau, 2006).
Von Glasersfeld (1995, 1996) proposed three essential epistemological tenets of knowledge construction to which a fourth has been added in the light of more recent writings. These four fundamental tenets provide the foundation for the basic
principles of the teaching, learning and knowing process as described by von
Glaserfeld (1995). These are: (a) knowledge is not passively accumulated, but rather the result of active cognizing by the individual; (b) cognition is an adaptive process that functions to make an individual's behaviour more viable given a particular environment; (c) cognition organizes and makes sense of one’s experience and is
not a process to render an accurate representation of reality and; (d) knowing has roots in both biological or neurological construction as well as social, cultural and language based interactions. Thus it is acknowledged that the learner plays an active role in the personal creation of knowledge. The importance of experience (both individual and social) in this knowledge creation process, and the realization that the knowledge created will vary in its degree of validity, is an accurate representation of reality (von Glaserfeld, 1995, 1996).
On the same lines, Garrison and Archer in 2003 proposed a four phased model of knowledge construction. These phases include a triggering event, exploration, integration and the generation of a solution or hypothesis of a dilemma or problem.
According to Garrison and Archer (2003), the phases might continue in a cycle with the solution or hypothesis leading to further problems and new triggering events. Lu and Jeng (2006) reported on another frequently used knowledge construction model, being the Interaction Analysis Model (IAM). This model was developed by
Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson in 1997 who suggest that knowledge
construction is made up of five phases which are sharing or comparing observations, dissonance, negotiation, construction, testing and application. According to the authors, these phases do not always occur in the same sequence.
Again, Garrison, Anderson and Archer, in 2000, proposed another model, a
Practical Inquiry Model (PIM), which is based on Dewey’s concept that education is the collaborative reconstruction of experience. According to this model, an
educational experience intended to achieve higher order critical thinking outcomes is best embedded in a community of inquiry. The community of inquiry provides a
rich collaborative and reflective environment for the higher order-learning which is required for knowledge construction (Lu & Jeng, 2006).
Comparing the above presented models (IAM & PIM), Lu and Jeng (2006) state that both these models provide a theoretical framework for assessing the levels of knowledge that is socially constructed. These authors, however, favour the IAM model. According to Lu and Jeng (2006), the IAM model is stronger than the PIM because it identifies more specific types of cognitive activities in critical discourse such as argument, resource and evidence of changes. As a result, IAM provides researchers with more specific codes to investigate the knowledge construction process. It provides a holistic view of the discussion flow and knowledge construction and is more practical for analysing a discourse (Lu & Jeng, 2006).
Klein (1997) conducted research, also mathematics based, looking at the
“supportive” environment of the pedagogy in mathematical pre-service teacher education. This author posits that mathematics teaching in pre-service education should allow students to construct their own knowledge through problem-solving, exploration, conjecture, invention, working in groups and learning to communicate mathematically (Klein, 1997).
In research done by Kanuka and Anderson (1998) titled, Online social interchange, discord and knowledge construction, the researchers used a interaction analysis model developed by Gunawardena et al. (1997) to help understand and assess online learning. The model describes the phases that are attributed to learning development in an online forum. Online forums provide potential for new forms of collaborative
work, study and community service that reduce barriers of time and distance, yet the types of interaction and means by which individuals create new knowledge in online environments are not well understood. These researchers concluded that the
interaction analysis model developed by Gunawardena et al. (1997) used to analyse the data for evidence of knowledge construction was a useful preliminary tool for transcript analysis. Specifically, the model provided sufficient conceptual density to assess accurately the construction of knowledge in an online environment.
Implications for facilitating the construction of new knowledge in an online environment include: (a) the provision of learning opportunities that capitalize on inconsistencies and contradictions between participants; and (b) the incorporation of activities that help participants become explicit about their own understanding by comparing it with that of other participants (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998).