A digital learning environment mediating students' funds of knowledge and knowledge creation

Název: A digital learning environment mediating students' funds of knowledge and knowledge creation
Zdrojový dokument: Studia paedagogica. 2018, roč. 23, č. 4, s. [49]-66
  • ISSN
    1803-7437 (print)
    2336-4521 (online)
Type: Článek
Licence: Neurčená licence
Despite the growing importance and popularity of new digitally enhanced making and design environments, students' knowledge creation is still a fairly unexplored issue within these contexts. To address this research gap, we have drawn on empirical case study data from a public school that is implementing a novel making and design environment called the FUSE Studio. Our data comprise 111 hours of video records of 9–12-year-old students' (N = 94) making and design activities collected during one semester. Drawing from sociocultural and cultural-historical theorizing with a specific focus on the concepts of funds of knowledge and knowledge creation, we ask: 1) How are students' funds of knowledge manifested in the FUSE Studio? 2) How do students' funds of knowledge mediate their knowledge creation activity? "Funds of knowledge" refers to a student's multiple cultural resources that stem from their life worlds in and out of school. Our findings indicate that students' knowledge creation includes vertical knowledge maintenance, horizontal knowledge breaking, and knowledge expansion. The latter involves a tension-laden socio-materially mediated process that opens up opportunities for the creation of innovative solutions and expansion of a student's existing funds of knowledge.
[1] Ahonen, H., Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., & Malhotra, Y. (2000). Knowledge management—the second generation: Creating competencies within and between work communities in the Competence Laboratory. In Y. Malhotra (Ed.), Knowledge management and virtual organizations (pp. 282–305). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

[2] Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge, discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73. | DOI 10.1002/tea.20269

[3] Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[4] Cribbs, J. D., & Linder, S. M. (2013). Teacher practices and hybrid space in a fifth-grade mathematics classroom. The Mathematics Educator, 22(2), 55–81.

[5] Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., … Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53.

[6] Dyson, A. H. (1993). Negotiating the permeable curriculum: On the interplay between teacher's and children's worlds. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

[7] Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[8] Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Suntio, A. (2002). Can a school community learn to master its own future? An activity theoretical study of expansive learning among middle school teachers. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st Century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 211–224). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

[9] Engeström, Y. (2009). From learning environments and implementation to activity systems and expansive learning. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 17–33.

[10] Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situational explanation of transfer in a community of learners' classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 451–498. | DOI 10.1207/s15327809jls1504_2

[11] Erstad, O. (2014). The expanded classroom-spatial relations in classroom practices using ICT. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 1, 8–21.

[12] Fields, D. A., & King, W. L. (2014). "So, I think I'm a programmer now": Developing connected learning for adults in a university craft technologies course. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O'Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O'Connor, T. Lee, & L. D'Amico (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014 (pp. 927–936). Colorado, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

[13] Gonzáles, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[14] Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 286–303.

[15] Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. | DOI 10.3102/0013189X032005019

[16] Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. | DOI 10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3

[17] Hogg, L. (2011). Funds of knowledge: An investigation of coherence within the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 666–677. | DOI 10.1016/j.tate.2010.11.005

[18] Honey, M., & Kanter, D. (Eds.). (2013). Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. New York: Routledge.

[19] Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. | DOI 10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2

[20] Kajamaa, A., & Schultz, K.-P. (2017). From the abstract to the concrete: Implementation of an innovative tool in home care. Health Services Management Research Journal, 31(1), 2–10. | DOI 10.1177/0951484817724581

[21] Kamberelis, G., & Wehunt, M. D. (2012). Hybrid discourse practice and science learning. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(3), 505–534. | DOI 10.1007/s11422-012-9395-1

[22] Kumpulainen, K. (2017). Makerspaces: Why they are important for digital literacy education. In J. Marsh et al. (Eds.), Makerspaces in the early years: A literature review (pp. 12–16). University of Sheffield: Makey Project. Retrieved from http://makeyproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Makey_Literature_Review.pdf

[23] Kumpulainen, K., & Lipponen, L. (2010). Productive interaction as agentic participation in dialogic enquiry. In C. Howe & K. Littleton (Eds.), Educational dialogues: understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 48–63). London: Routledge.

[24] Kumpulainen, K., & Erstad, O. (2017). (Re)searching learning in and across contexts: Conceptual, methodological and empirical considerations. International Journal of Educational Research, 84, 55–57. | DOI 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.08.004

[25] Kumpulainen, K., & Mikkola, A. (2014). Boundary crossing of discourses in pupils' chat interaction during computer-mediated collaboration. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(1), 43–53. | DOI 10.1016/j.lcsi.2013.12.002

[26] Lantz-Andersson, A., Vigmo, S., & Bowen, R. (2013). Crossing boundaries in Facebook: Students' framing of language learning activities as extended spaces. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(3), 293–312. | DOI 10.1007/s11412-013-9177-0

[27] Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 329–394. | DOI 10.3102/0091732X09358129

[28] Marsh, J. (2003). One way traffic? Connections between literacy practices at home and in the nursery. British Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 369–382. | DOI 10.1080/01411920301857

[29] Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M, Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70. | DOI 10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4

[30] Moll, L. C., Amanti, K., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. | DOI 10.1080/00405849209543534

[31] Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576. | DOI 10.3102/00346543074004557

[32] Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27. | DOI 10.1177/003172171309500306

[33] Rajala A., Kumpulainen K., Hilppö J., Paananen M., & Lipponen L. (2016). Connecting learning across school and out-of-school contexts. In O. Erstad, K. Kumpulainen, Å. Mäkitalo, K. C. Schrøder, P. Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, & T. Jóhannsdóttir T. (Eds.), Learning across contexts in the knowledge society. The knowledge economy and education (pp. 15–35). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

[34] Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E, Brennan, K, … Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. | DOI 10.1145/1592761.1592779

[35] Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). "The coat traps all your body heat": Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322–357. | DOI 10.1080/10508406.2010.491752

[36] Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). Game design and meaningful play. In J. Raessens & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of computer game studies (pp. 59–79). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[37] Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Ametller, J. (2011). Pedagogical link making: A fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge. Studies in Science Education, 47(1), 3–36. | DOI 10.1080/03057267.2011.549619

[38] Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L, & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531. | DOI 10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u

[39] Silseth, K. (2018). Students' everyday knowledge and experiences as resources in educational dialogues. Instructional Science, 46(2), 291–313. | DOI 10.1007/s11251-017-9429-x

[40] Silseth, K., & Erstad, O. (2018). Connecting to the outside: Cultural resources teachers use when contextualizing instruction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. Published online before print, February 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.12.002 | DOI 10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.12.002

[41] Stevens, R., Jona, K., Penney, L., Champion, D., Ramey, K., Hilppö, J., … Penuel, W. (2016). FUSE: An alternative infrastructure for empowering learners in schools. In C-K. Looi, J. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners: 12th International conference of the learning sciences (pp. 1025–1032). Retrieved from https://www.isls.org/icls/2016/docs/ICLS2016_Volume_2.pdf

[42] Stevens, R., & Jona, K. (2017). Program design. FUSE Studio Website. Retrieved May 20, 2017 from https://www.fusestudio.net/program-design

[43] Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J. B., & Terence, R. M. (2007). The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1145–1154. | DOI 10.5465/amr.2007.26586080

[44] Vasbø, K. B., Silseth, K., & Erstad, O. (2014). Being a learner using social media in school: The Case of Space2cre8. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 110–126. | DOI 10.1080/00313831.2013.773555

[45] Vélez-Ibáñez, C. G., & Greenberg, J. B. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican households. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23(4), 313–335. | DOI 10.1525/aeq.1992.23.4.05x1582v

[46] Vigmo, S., & Lantz-Andersson, A. (2014). Language in the wild: Living the carnival in social media. Social Sciences, 3(4), 871–892. | DOI 10.3390/socsci3040871

[47] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[48] Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sensemaking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 529–552. | DOI 10.1002/tea.1017

[49] Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models, representation, and the scientific understanding. Boston: Reidel.

[50] Wiseman, A. (2011). Powerful students, powerful words: Students writing and learning in a poetry workshop. Literacy, 45(2), 70–77. | DOI 10.1111/j.1741-4369.2011.00586.x

[51] Wong, L. H., Chin, C. K., Tan, C. L., & Liu, M. (2010). Students' personal and social meaning making in a Chinese idiom mobile learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 15–26.

[52] Zipin, L. (2009). Dark funds of knowledge, deep funds of pedagogy: exploring boundaries between lifeworlds and schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(3), 317–331.