M etaskills for Inquiry in higher education. Hanni Muukkonen Minna Lakkala Centre for Research on Networked Learning and Knowledge Building Dept. Psychology, University of Helsinki http://www.helsinki.fi/science/networkedlearning. Development of expertise.
Centre for Research on Networked Learning and Knowledge Building
Dept. Psychology, University of Helsinki
Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: how do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 527-565.
Emphasis on individuals and conceptual knowledge
Emphasis on cultural practices, social interaction, and situated cognition
developing shared objects and artefacts collaboratively
Co-evolution of inquirers, communities, and objects of activity
Elements of Progressive Inquiry
Constructing Working Theories
Setting up Research Questions
Creating the Context
Refocusing the Inquiry Process
Searching Deepening Knowledge
Generating Subordinate Questions
Q QSTT T T
Q QS STS S S S QS S
Q Q S S S S S O QT
T S S
S Substantive knowing
T Theoretical knowing
QS S S S S S S S S S
Q QS SQ T QS S
Q T ST T Q QS SS
QT T S
T O O
T T O
T Q T
QSQS S S SQST T MOM MO T T TQO OTM M
QS ST T
QSTS S S S
Q T T O O
Q T T S T
T MO O O O
Paula (Group 3): …there is a problem of relevance with the articles (at least some of them), which we already discussed in the group. It is that a part of the articles cover single research experiments and because the course is so short, its impossible for a student to make summaries (or critically reflect on them considering the research context) just based on single research and their findings presented in articles. I consider that more appropriate sources would be different ready summaries, which draw together general lines on research findings. Just selecting and evaluating knowledge can take too much time, which makes getting to the point a little difficult. It would ideal if there was enough time for focusing on a couple of research articles and the general lines.
Lauri (group 3): Our group was working very much on its own, but we could do it in a self-regulated environment due to the longer studying experiences of the (other ;) members of our group, so we proceeded well.
Taru (group 3): Definitely more demanding and also harder. Nevertheless, it felt good not to be alone responsible for own work, but the whole group shared equally a responsibility for the advancement of the process. In more traditional seminars it often happens do that you work on your own and on the last moment write everything ready and miss all ideas from others. Although collaboration slows work down at first, I think that it becomes a strength and richness as the process progresses.
Monitoring individual and collective process
Advancement and obstacles
Dealing with uncertainty and new knowledge-fields
Collective process advances through individuals’ participation
Conclusions: metaskills for collaborative inquiry
We propose a framework that consists of three encompassing levels:
(1) monitoring and regulating individual process,
(2) monitoring and regulating collective process and
(3) monitoring and regulating efforts in terms of knowledge building and advancement of shared objects.
Previous findingsMuukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: how do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 527-565.