
























































Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:

http://ijep.hipatiapress.com

Can Collaborative Knowledge Building Promote Both

Scientific Processes and Science Achievement?

Carol K. K. Chan, Ivan C. K. Lam & Raymond W. H. Leung1

1 ) Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Date of Publication: October 24th, 201 2

To cite this article: Chan, C. K. K., Lam, I. C. K., & Leung, R. W. H.

(201 2). Can Collaborative Knowledge Building Promote Both Scientific

Processes and Science Achievement? International Journal of

Educational Psychology, 1(3), 1 99-227. doi: 1 0.4471 /ijep.201 2/1 2

To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/1 0.4471 /ijep.201 2.1 2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System

and to Creative Commons Non-Commercial and Non-Derivative License.

http://ijep.hipatiapress.com
http://dx.doi.org/10.4471/ijep.2012.12


IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychologyVol. 1 No. 3

October 2012 pp.199-227.

Can Collaborative Knowledge
Building Promote Both
Scientific Processes and
Science Achievement?
Carol K. K. Chan, Ivan C. K. Lam & Raymond W. H. Leung

TheUniversity ofHongKong

Abstract

This study investigated the role of collective knowledge building in promoting

scientific inquiry and achievements among Hong Kong high-school chemistry

students. The participants included 34 Grade 10 (15-16 years old) students who

engaged in collective inquiry and progressive discourse, using Knowledge

Forum®, a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. A

comparison class of35 students also participated in the study. The instructional

design, premised on knowledge-building principles including epistemic agency,

improvable ideas and community knowledge, consisted ofseveral components:

developing a collaborative classroom culture, engaging in problem-centered

inquiry, deepening the knowledge-building discourse, and aligning assessment

with collective learning. Quantitative findings show that the students in the

knowledge-building classroom outperformed the comparison students in

scientific understanding with sustained effects in public examination. Analyses

of knowledge-building dynamics indicate that the students showed deeper

engagement and inquiry over time. Students’ collaboration and inquiry on

Knowledge Forum significantly predicted their scientific understanding, over

and above the effects of their prior science achievement. Qualitative analyses

suggest how student’s knowledge-creation discourse, involving explanatory

inquiry, constructive use of information and theory revision, can scaffold

scientific understanding.

Keywords: knowledge building, scientific inquiry, collaboration, technology-
mediated learning.

2012 Hipatia Press

ISSN 2014-3591

DOI: 10.4471/ijep.2012/12



IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychologyVol. 1 No. 3

October 2012 pp.199-227.

¿Puede la construcción
colaborativa del conocimiento
promover los procesos
científicos y el rendimiento en
ciencias?
Carol K. K. Chan, Ivan C. K. Lam & Raymond W. H. Leung

TheUniversity ofHongKong

Resumen
Este estudio investigó el rol de la construcción colectiva del conocimiento en la

promoción de la indagación científica y de los resultados entre estudiantes de química

de instituto de Hong Kong. Las y los participantes fueron 34 estudiantes del décimo

curso (15-16 años) que participaron en indagación colectiva y discurso progresivo,

utilizando el Foro del Conocimiento®, un entorno de aprendizaje basado en el

ordenador. Una clase de comparación de 35 estudiantes también participaron en el

estudio. El diseño instruccional, bajo las premisas de principios de construcción del

conocimiento incluyendo la agencia epistémica, ideas improbables y conocimiento

comunitario, consistieron de muchos componentes: el desarrollo de una cultural de aula

colaborativa, participación en la investigación centrada en problemas, profundización en

el discurso constructor de conocimiento y alienar la evaluación con el aprendizaje

colectivo. Los resultados cuantitativos muestran que las y los estudiantes en el aula de

construcción de conocimiento rindieron por encima de las y los estudiantes del grupo

comparativo en la comprensión científica con efectos sostenidos en la evaluación

pública. Los análisis de la dinámica de construcción de conocimiento indican que las y

los estudiantes mostraron una implicación e indagación más profundas a lo largo del

tiempo. La colaboración e indagación de los y las estudiantes en el Foro del

Conocimiento predijeron de forma significativa la comprensión científica de las y los

estudiantes, por encima de los efectos de su previo rendimiento en ciencias. Los análisis

cualitativos sugieren que el discurso de creación del conocimiento de las y los

estudiantes, que incluye indagación explicativa, revisión de la teoría y uso constructivo

de la información, puede andamiar la comprensión científica.

Palabras clave: creación de conocimiento, indagación científica, colaboración,
aprendizaje mediado por la tecnología

2012 Hipatia Press

ISSN 2014-3591

DOI: 10.4471/ijep.2012/12



learning science (Scott, Asoko & Leach, 2007). Despite much

enthusiasm, science learning is often reduced to surface forms of

constructivist learning, with students busily engaged in gathering

information from the web and completing predetermined tasks

(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006); scientific inquiry is often limited to

sequences of activities and fixed standards that focus on isolated skills

rather than authentic inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). The real goal of

science for the creation of knowledge remains to be investigated, along

with how knowledge-creation can be integrated with school curricula

and assessment in classrooms.

  Although it is widely recognized that students need to engage in

discourse in science learning, less attention has been paid to how the

learning environment can be designed to foster scientific understanding

mediated by collective discursive practice and in particular, how it can

address multiple goals of scientific inquiry, and discourse practice and

school science. The possibilities for developing scientific inquiry

mediated by technology merit investigation; at the same time, there is

also a need to examine how students can learn the science concepts

required by school curricula while working as communities ofscientists

to create new knowledge and improve their scientific practice. This

study reports on an approach that is based on knowledge building,

mediated by a computer-supported collaborative learning environment

called Knowledge Forum® that focuses on students working

collaboratively as members of a scientific community advancing the

frontiers oftheir knowledge.

  A major research strand regarding collaborative learning is the use of

computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments (Stahl,

Koschmann, & Suthers, 2006). An influential example ofan educational

model using CSCL technology is “knowledge building”, also known as

knowledge creation, which is defined as “the production of knowledge

that adds value to the community” (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2010;

Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). This model of knowledge building

postulates that knowledge advancement is the collective work of a

community, analogous to scientific communities, and that knowledge is

t is now widely accepted that students need to work together to

engage in collaborative inquiry and scientific discourse, and to

develop the practice of scientists when they are involved inI

201IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)



improvable through discourse (Bereiter, 2002; Scardamalia & Bereiter,

2006). Knowledge building has been characterized as “knowledge

creation”, a third metaphor for learning (Paavola, Lipponen, &

Hakkarainen, 2004) that integrates the “knowledge-acquisition”

(cognitive) and “participation” (situated) learning metaphors (Sfard,

1998). While knowledge building is now an increasingly popular term

in the education literature, this model goes beyond students sharing and

co-constructing joint understanding, often in group settings; it

emphasizes “collective cognitive responsibility” and collective practices

ofthe community to advance the community knowledge.

  Knowledge Forum™ (see www.knowledgeforum.com), consisting of

a multimedia database, constructed by students themselves, was

designed to support collective knowledge advances and progressive

discourse (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; 2006). In knowledge-building

communities, students make progress not only in improving their

personal knowledge, but also in developing collective knowledge

through progressive inquiry. When learning science in a knowledge-

building classroom, students use Knowledge Forum to pose cutting-

edge problems, generate theories and conjectures, search for scientific

information, elaborate on the ideas of others, and co-construct

explanations, thereby collectively revising and refining their ideas.

  Learning science is difficult because students often have to tackle

information that is different from or contradictory to what they believe.

Many students experience conceptual difficulties in understanding the

various levels (macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic) of scientific

knowledge, and develop alternative conceptions in the complex process

of learning (Treagust, Chittleborough & Mamiala, 2003). Research has

placed increased emphasis on student agency and epistemology;

research into intentional conceptual change, for example, postulates that

such changes need to be regulated and controlled by students (Sinatra &

Pintrich, 2003). This study proposes that knowledge-building pedagogy

that emphasizes students’ epistemic agency and social metacognition

will foster their scientific understanding, because when they collaborate

to build knowledge, they have opportunities to reflect on their beliefs

and understanding by comparing the beliefs and models of others with

their own. Conflictual views can be identified and resolved

collaboratively when students are working as a community of inquirers.

202 Chan, Lam, &Leung-KnowledgeBuilding



Further, when knowledge is constructed through discourse among

student participants, students may understand better that knowledge is

not handed down by authority, and will have opportunities to reflect on

the nature ofscience and sources ofknowledge.

  Various studies have investigated the knowledge-building dynamics

of how knowledge building can support scientific understanding and

knowledge creation (see review, Chan, 2012; Caswell & Bielaczyc,

2001; van Aalst & Truong, 2011). Oshima, Scardamalia and Bereiter

(1996) investigated differences among students with high- and low-

conceptual progress and identified the importance of problem-centred

knowledge. Hakkarainen (2004) analyzed the written productions of

young students in physics posted onto a CSILE database (Computer-

Supported Intentional Learning Environment, the earlier version of

Knowledge Forum). These young students engaged in epistemological

inquiry and pursued explanation-driven inquiry with some moving

toward theoretical scientific explanation. Van Aalst and Chan (2007)

examined how students' collective assessment and meta-discourse using

knowledge-building portfolios can scaffold their conceptual

understanding in high-school science. Zhang, Scardamalia, Reeve and

Messina (2009) examined the socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge

building by investigating the collective cognitive responsibility of

fourth-grade students in advancing their science knowledge.

  Although there has been major progress in research on knowledge

building, there is still a need for stronger empirical evidence to support

the role of collective knowledge building in students’ scientific

understanding. In comparison with other inquiry models, knowledge

building emphasizes the complex dynamics of scientific inquiry and

there may be concerns that science content in school curricula may be

neglected. In particular, since this model of knowledge building

emphasizes collective and community advances, it is useful to examine

whether it has educational benefits for individual students and how

knowledge-building dynamics may contribute to the effects. While

many studies in the knowledge building literature have been conducted

among elementary school students, this study examined high-school

students learning chemistry in Hong Kong classrooms, with a

comparison group, to investigate how the knowledge-building approach

203IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)



and discourse affect students’ scientific understanding. Teachers and

educators may also be interested to see whether the increasingly popular

inquiry-based approach to learning science, in this case knowledge

building, has an effect on standardized tests and assessments used in

public examinations. As the knowledge-building model is implemented

increasingly in different countries, it would also be of interest to

examine how the approach works with students in different cultural

settings, and in particular in educational contexts that emphasize

teacher-centered approaches and examinations.

  Accordingly, this study investigated knowledge building and

scientific understanding among a group of Grade 10 students (aged 15-

16 years) studying chemistry in a high-school classroom in Hong Kong.

The research questions are: (1) Do students involved in knowledge

building perform better on chemistry assessment tasks based on the

school curricula than do their peers? (2) How do knowledge-building

activities predict students’ scientific understanding? and (3) How do

students engage in knowledge-building discourse and how might it

foster their scientific understanding?

Methods

Participants

The participants were thirty-four students in a knowledge-building class

and another thirty-five students in a comparison class attending a Grade

10 (15-16 years old) chemistry course at a Hong Kong Catholic girls’

school. Students had a high-average ability and English was the medium

of instruction in their classrooms. The students studied using English

and wrote on Knowledge Forum in English. The comparison class

studied the same chemistry curriculum during class; after school, while

the knowledge-building students wrote on the forum, the comparison

class worked on text-book exercises. Students in both classes had

similar academic achievements and were taught by the same teacher.

The Classroom Setting

Both classes were taught using the chemistry curriculum determined by

the Education Bureau (Ministry of Education) in Hong Kong. The

204 Chan, Lam, &Leung-KnowledgeBuilding



teacher designed the learning environment, integrating the school

curriculum with knowledge-building pedagogy. Primarily, the goal was

to engage students to interconnect abstract concepts in chemistry on the

macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic levels. The study lasted several

months (Jan-August) and had three periods: Phase 1: Initial Use of

Knowledge Forum (Jan-Feb); Phase 2: Full Use of Knowledge Forum

(March-April); and Phase 3: Use of Knowledge Forum after School

Examinations in the Summer (July-August). Usually schoolwork

finishes at the end of the academic year, which is followed by the

summer holidays. In this study, the knowledge-building class continued

to work beyond the end of term and into the summer months. They

continued their collaborative inquiry, mediated by Knowledge Forum,

despite the absence ofthe teacher.

Principle-Based Instructional Design

The design of the knowledge-building environment was premised on a

set of interrelated knowledge-building principles (Scardamalia, 2002),

and several key principles, including epistemic agency, improvable

ideas, constructive use of authoritative information, and community

knowledge, that inform the classroom design. “Epistemic agency” is a

principle that focuses on having students take high-level agency

charting their own inquiry; the principle of “improvable ideas’ focuses

on students viewing ideas as objects of inquiry that can be improved

continually; “constructive use of authoritative information” emphasizes

students using new information as resources to refine their theories; and

“community knowledge’ focuses on collective inquiry and advances in

collective knowledge. While there were different classroom activities,

the design emphasized developing a knowledge-building culture with

students taking collective cognitive responsibility. Based on other

studies conducted in Hong Kong classrooms, different components were

included (Chan, 2008; Lee et al., 2006) and described as follows:

  Development of a collaborative classroom culture. Before the

implementation ofKnowledge Forum, all of the students were provided

with learning experiences to help create a collaborative knowledge-

building culture. Classroom activities such as jigsaws, collaborative

205IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)



concept mapping and group-based scientific inquiry experiments

may be commonplace now in science classrooms; in this study, the

focus was placed on helping students to put their ideas to the

forefront, and these ideas are public artefacts that can now be open

to inquiry and improvement through students’ collective efforts.

Students own their problems and inquiry with epistemic agency and

they work for collective advances in community knowledge. Through

these principles and design activities, the students began to

acculturate to the knowledge-building practice of asking productive

questions, putting forth theories for revision and solving complex

problems. They also activated their prior knowledge and articulated

the abstract and particulate nature ofchemistry concepts.

  Collaborative problem-centered inquiry. The teacher worked with

the students and designed the Knowledge Forum views to promote

knowledge building and aligned authentic problems with the school

curriculum (e.g., acids and bases, neutralization) (Figure 1). Several

views (discussion areas) were created, based on scientific or

everyday issues (e.g. the nature of 2-in-1 shampoo), and the students

engaged in inquiry into authentic problems. Knowledge Forum

supported epistemic agency and metacognition by having the

students work with scaffolds (metacognitive prompts, e.g., “I need to

understand”, “My theory”). A key principle was that the students

viewed ideas as improvable as they generated questions, posed

alternative theories and hypotheses, brought in new information,

considered different students’ views, and collectively advanced their

community knowledge. Problems emerging from the computer

discourse were discussed in class, and several emergent problems,

such as the chemistry of bleach and antiseptic alcohol, were

formulated by the students. These ideas were integrated with their

prior knowledge of chemistry concepts and were aligned with the

topics in the chemistry curriculum.

206 Chan, Lam, &Leung-KnowledgeBuilding



  Rise-above and deepening the knowledge building discourse. As the

unit continued, there were many more notes in the database but the

discussion could be fragmented and scattered. Knowledge Forum

designs support higher-level themes (theories) emerging from diverse

ideas as students pursue idea improvement and deepening of the

discourse. Over time, the teacher worked with the students to identify

sub-themes, note clusters, and questions that needed further inquiry and

revision. Note clusters were moved into rise-above views to help focus

and extend the collective inquiry. Primarily, students worked

collectively to deepen their inquiry through examining productive ideas

and inquiries, scaffolding emergent discussions and theory refinement.

Online and offline discourse worked together as students engaged in

meta-discourse in knowledge-building classroom talks.

  Concurrent and transformative assessment. Rather than focusing on

teacher-led assessment, this principle emphasizes assessment as

concurrent, embedded and transformative for students' knowledge

Figure 1. A view on Knowledge Forum illustrating students’ collective

inquiry.

207IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)



building. The students reflected on their work and assessed the

knowledge-building discourse, noting high-points in their knowledge

advances. Specifically, the students had to select and write a reflective

summary of four notes to assess the knowledge advances they had

made, guided by the knowledge-building principles. Such reflections

helped to promote a metacognitive understanding of their own

knowledge building process and were rated and attributed as part of the

course assessment.

  The knowledge-building and comparison students both studied the

same curriculum during the semester. However, whereas the

Knowledge-Building students wrote computer notes after class, the

comparison class students were asked to work on textbook exercises and

problems after class.

Measures

  Forum participation. Student participation, interaction and

collaboration on Knowledge Forum was assessed using server log

information via the software program called the Analytic Toolkit (ATK)

developed by the Knowledge Building Research Team at the University

ofToronto (Burtis, 1998). The Analytic Toolkit provides a wide range of

indices to show participation and collaboration in Knowledge Forum,

and we reported several common ones used in the literature: (a) the

number of “note contribution” (notes written); (b) the percentage of

notes “read” that reflect community awareness; (c) the number of

“scaffolds” as metacognitive prompts (e.g., I need to understand, my

theory, a better theory); (d) the number of “note revisions” that reflect

recursive processes; (e) the percentage ofnotes with “keywords” to help

other members identify and access notes; (f) the percentage of notes

“linked” that refer to notes that build onto and notes that make

references to other notes. The ATK measures have been used in

numerous classroom studies and have been validated in other

knowledge-building research studies (Chan & Chan, 2011; van Aalst &

Chan, 2007).

  Question asking and epistemological inquiry. How questions are

posed is an important indicator of epistemological inquiry, as it reflects

how students view ideas as objects of inquiry in knowledge building

208 Chan, Lam, &Leung-KnowledgeBuilding



(Hakkarainen, 2004). In this study, we examined all of the questions in

this chemistry database. Different levels ofquestions emerged, resulting

in a five-point scale characterizing responses ranging from fact-finding

questions to explanatory and scientific-inquiry based questions. The

scale development was based on earlier work on knowledge building

(Chan, Burtis, & Bereiter, 1997) and epistemological inquiry

(Hakkarainen, 2004) and the rating of student questions on Knowledge

Forum (Lee et al., 2006). Examples of different levels of questions are

included in the descriptions that follow. In this study, a second rater

scored 30% of the responses and the inter-rater reliability based on

Pearson correlation was 0.71.

Level 1 - Simple questions. Questions at this level sought a single

piece of information, usually of fact-finding types. These questions

were usually ofthe simple “what” and “yes/no” questions: "What pH do

sweets have?" (#102), "What is ammonium sulphate?" (#29).

Level 2 - Simple questions with personal non-scientific guesses.

Questions at this level were similar to those in Level 1 but they

included some personal presuppositions: "But is the damage as serious

as using dye to dye your hair? I think lemon juice is not that strong as

those dyes...." (#31).

Level 3 - General information-seeking questions. These questions

sought general information about a topic, and were usually ofthe “how”

and “what’ variety: "What happens if concentrated acids react with

metal carbonates/hydrogen carbonates???" (#67).

  Level 4 - Explanation-seeking questions. Questions at this level

sought explanations about a problem:

Many home computers use ink jet printers. The print head works by

squirting minute droplets ofink at the paper. This ink must be liquid

before squirting but must not smudge or rub offonce on the paper.

209IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)



How do we explain ink jet printing involving neutralization?

(#262)

  Level 5 - Scientific conjecture or theory-seeking questions. Questions

at this level identified areas of conflict and put forth some plausible

conjectures. Some may also have been questions that identified conflicts

between ideas, or between conjectures and events, or that had the

potential to modify current views,

A website said that "If you have swallowed some bleach, drink

milk so as to counteract the effect of NaOCl in the body through

neutralization." Does it work?? But milk is slightly acidic, will

chlorine gas evolve in our stomach?? It seems very horrible!

Actually is egg acidic? So is the same reason implied? (#82)

  Scientific understanding. At the end of the semester, students from

both the Knowledge Building and comparison classes were assessed by

an examination in chemistry consisting of questions designed to probe

their conceptual understanding of chemistry based on the school

curriculum. The students had to apply knowledge and explain new

phenomena. The examination consisted of both forced-choice questions

and open-ended questions, related to the curriculum and for examining

scientific understanding. The students were also asked some unfamiliar

questions that required them to show a good understanding of relevant

chemistry concepts. As an example, one question asked, “A student

tested the pH of two aqueous solutions, hydrochloric acid and ethanoic

acid. She found that both had a pH 4. She concluded that the two acids

were equally concentrated and also equally strong. Do you agree?

Explain your answer.” This question tested the students’ understanding

ofthe concepts ofstrength (strong or weak) and concentration (dilute or

concentrated) of the acids. We also examined the students’ public

examination results as a delayed posttest to investigate whether working

on knowledge building had affected their performance in science.

210 Chan, Lam, &Leung-KnowledgeBuilding



Results

We first examined the effects ofthe knowledge-building environment on

the students’ scientific understanding followed by analyses of how

knowledge building dynamics may have contributed to their scientific

understanding.

Effects of Knowledge Building on Scientific Understanding

An ANOVA showed no differences between the two classes in their

prior achievement scores in Grade 9 chemistry. The mean scores for

scientific understanding for the Knowledge Building class and the

comparison class after the program were 80.6 (12.4) and 70.1 (13.3),

respectively (SD in parentheses). An ANCOVA that controlled for prior

chemistry achievement showed a significant difference in scientific

understanding between the two classes, F (1, 67) = 18.73, p<.01,

suggesting the knowledge-building students outperformed the

comparison students.

  We also examined the performance of the two classes in the public

examinations taken one year later as a delayed posttest to investigate the

effects on science achievements and to test whether the students’

understanding was sustained. We translated the letter grades into

numeric values (A=5, B=4, C=3, D=2, E=1) and the results show that

the Knowledge Building class obtained an average score of3.8 (1.1) in

the public examinations, while the comparison class obtained an

average score of 3.5 (1.3). Thus, although the two classes had similar

achievements in chemistry when they started Form Four (Grade 10), the

knowledge-building students had obtained significantly higher chemistry

scores at the end of Form Four, and continued to perform better at the

end ofForm Five (Grade 11) in public examinations.

Student Contribution in Knowledge Forum and Changes Over Time

To investigate knowledge-building dynamics and their possible effects

on scientific understanding and achievements, we examined the

students’ contribution to Knowledge Forum and how these changed over

time. The results from the Analytic Toolkit showed that the overall

211IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)



degree of student participation in Knowledge Forum was high, with

each student creating, on average, 40.6 (17.0) notes and reading 66% of

all notes. The percentages ofnotes linked and notes with keywords were

also high (77% and 74% respectively), suggesting a high degree of

interaction in the Knowledge Forum discussions. Although there is no

norm against which to make a direct evaluation, comparisons with

student participation levels in other computer forum discussions

(Lipponen et al., 2003) indicated that the students were participating

actively in this knowledge-building community.

  We examined changes in the students’ participation over three periods

of Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 (Table 1). A MANOVA showed

significant differences in ATK indices across all three phases,

suggesting change over time. Post-hoc tests showed significant

differences in all ATK indices, indicating gains in participation and

collaboration from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Between Phases 1 and 3, post-

hoc tests also indicated significant gains in the number of notes created

and the percentage ofnotes linked. Taken together, there was significant

growth in ATK indices from Phase 1 to Phase 2, and various indices

were higher in Phase 3 compared to Phase 1.

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

# ofnotes written 3.7 (5.7) 26.0 (13.5)

# ofrevision 0.5 (1.5) 2.7 (4.2) 2.1 (3.2)*

# ofscaffolds 0.7 (1.2) 3.3 (5.5) 1.5 (3.7)*

% ofnotes read

% oflinked notes 30.8 (41.7) 77.5 (21.1) 58.2 (38.9)**

10.9 (8.4)**

43.2 (37.1) 72.6 (30.2) 42.8 (35.1)**

# ofproblems 2.1 (3.1) 9.6 (6.4) 3.1 (3.5)**

% with keywords 42.2 (47.3) 72.0 (15.3) 58.5 (40.7)**

Table 1

Participation andCollaboration in KnowledgeForum OverTime

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01.

212 Chan, Lam, &Leung-KnowledgeBuilding



We examined the frequency and quality of the questions posed over the

three periods (Table 2). We classified the questions as high-level (Levels

4 and 5) or low-level (Levels 1, 2 and 3). The mean number of high-

level questions posed per student was 0.6 in Phase 1, 3.8 in Phase 2 and

1.4 in Phase 3. Combining question quality and frequency generated an

inquiry score; for example, a student who posed one Level 1 question,

one Level 2 question, and two Level 3 questions would have an inquiry

score of 2.25 (the total question value divided by the number of

questions asked).

Epistemological Inquiry and Changes over Time

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

# ofQuestions 1.5 (2.5) 9.6 (6.6)

# ofHigh-Level
Questions

0.6 (0.9) 3.8 (2.9) 1.4 (1.7)**

Inquiry Scores 1.7 (2.0) 2.6 (0.8) 2.4 (1.8)*

3.0 (2.8)**

Table 2

Depth ofInquiry on KnowledgeForum OverTime

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01.

  A MANOVA showed significant differences for all inquiry measures

across the three phases. Post-hoc tests indicated significant differences

on all three measures between Phases 1 and 2 suggesting increased

depth ofinquiry. There were no differences in inquiry scores in Phases 2

and 3, which suggests that the students maintained their levels of

inquiry over the summer. Taken together, the qualitative ratings of the

questions (inquiry) showed a similar pattern with the quantitative

indices of forum participation. There was a general growth trend, and

the students maintained an interest in knowledge-building inquiry,

working on Knowledge Forum by themselves even after their

examinations.

213IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)



Prediction ofKnowledge Building Measures on Scientific Understanding

We conducted analyses to examine how students’ knowledge-building

engagement and inquiry might predict their scientific understanding. We

first combined the six participation (ATK) scores using factor analysis.

Two factor scores were generated; the first termed “Productivity" (notes

written, notes read, revisions and scaffolds) explained 40% of the

variance, and the second, termed “Collaboration” (notes linked,

keywords), explained 22% of variance. “Productivity” included the

indices that focused more on student participation, such as the number

of notes written, revisions made, scaffold uses, and notes read.

“Collaboration” focused on students interacting and collaborating with

each other, such as linking to and referencing the notes of other

classmates, or using keywords to make their notes more accessible in a

search. These two indices have been identified in other studies on

knowledge building (e.g., Lee et al., 2006).

  We found significant correlations among various measures,

specifically that scientific understanding was correlated with prior

science achievement based on the Grade 9 exam results (r = .67,

p<.001) and ATK collaboration (r =.61, p<.001). A hierarchical multiple

regression analysis on scientific understanding was conducted with

prior science achievement (Grade 9 scores) entered first, followed by

ATK collaboration scores, and then the inquiry scores (Table 3). The

results showed that prior science achievement contributed significantly

to scientific understanding (R2= .45). When the ATK collaboration

scores were entered, R2 changed to .56 adding 11% of variance; when

depth of inquiry scores was entered, R2 changed to .63, adding an

additional 6% of the variance. All changes were statistically significant.

These findings suggest that, over and above prior science achievement,

students’ collaboration indices in Knowledge Forum and the quality of

the questions they asked contributed significantly to scientific

understanding. What is ofparticular interest is that it is not productivity

but collaboration that contributes to scientific understanding.

214 Chan, Lam, &Leung-KnowledgeBuilding



R R2 R2 Change

Prior Science Achievement .67 .45

ATK Collaboration .75 .56 .11**

Depth ofInquiry .79 .63 .065*

.45***

Table 3

Multiple Regression of Prior Science Achievement, Collaboration (Analytic

Toolkit), Depth ofInquiry on ScientificUnderstanding

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Knowledge-Building Discourse and Processes

We provide an example based on student writing on Knowledge Forum

to illustrate how knowledge building was manifested and how it might

scaffold students’ scientific understanding. This selection was based on

the teacher’s recollection of how he came to realize that it is possible

for students to pursue problems collectively and engage in creating

knowledge for the community. The example illustrates how students

demonstrate epistemic agency, charting their own course of inquiry and

viewing ideas as improvable and supported by constructive use of

scientific information to refine their explanations.

The inquiry from which the excerpt was taken started with a question

raised by Jacqueline, who wrote: "My mum has gone to the supermarket

for[three] times… but still can't buy bleach [to kill the SARS virus].

Too many people want it nowadays… Can we use alcohol to kill the

bacteria too?" She wanted to know whether alcohol has the same

function as bleach in killing the SARS virus although she mistakenly

used the term “bacteria” instead of “virus”. This wonderment question

sparked an inquiry into the relative properties of the two disinfectants

and their effects on the SARS virus. The discourse continued with

another student’s observation about the strength of commercially sold

alcohol.

215IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)



She wrote: "The normal alcohol [sold on the market] contains 75%

alcohol" (Cindy). This provided more information about household

alcohol and led to further puzzlement: "Why is it 75%?" (Jacqueline).

  A common theme is that students were engaged in posing problems

and puzzlement. These two short exchanges helped the students to think

more deeply about the effects of alcohol on bacteria and viruses and to

question why only 75% alcohol, rather than pure alcohol, is used for

sterilization. The puzzlement leading to a formulated problem brought

about a search for new information; Jacqueline continued the explanatory

discourse and wrote a paraphrased version ofan explanation she found in

a science book. She wrote:

The concentration of pure alcohol is so high that it will, in no

time… completely solidify the protein on the surface of the

bacteria, so forming a layer ofhard membrane. This layer prevents

the alcohol from further diffusing into the bacteria… But the

situation is different for alcohol mixed with water. The diluted

alcohol will not quickly solidify the protein on the surface of the

bacteria; it can diffuse into the bacteria and solidify all the protein

content inside… That is why... diluted alcohol works better than

pure alcohol in sterilization.

This explanation provided a plausible mechanism ofhow alcohol can kill

bacteria at a microscopic level (by solidifying the protein of the bacteria)

and why water is needed for proper disinfectant activity. However, the

discourse did not stop there with this initial explanation. Other members of

the community continued with the search for explanation that deepened the

inquiry –Macy posed herpuzzlement as follows:

Mmm.... but then do you mean that the "protective protein layer"

will block the bacteria from coming out? And [will] they be kept in

our skin? Or even enter the body? Wow.... that's terrifying…But is

the layer formed ON the bacteria... or somewhere else?

216 Chan, Lam, &Leung-KnowledgeBuilding



Macy was trying to clarify two related points pertaining to the

explanation - where the “protective protein layer” is formed and what

the consequences are of such a layer being formed. It can be seen that

the students were posing queries and that they felt comfortable to write

about their ‘uneasiness’ and what might not make sense to them. It is

through such queries that the collective discourse can be deepened for

idea improvement and theory revision. It is interesting to note that Macy

did not refer to the book directly when she posed her questions, but

rather to Jacqueline’s note: “do you mean that…”. It seems that, to

Macy the authoritative information had become Jacqueline’s own ideas.

The second point put the initial explanation to a more rigorous test by

further considering the possible consequences that arose, thus opening

the door for theory revision and “improvable” explanation.

  The explanatory discourse went to a deeper level with another

explanation given by Youde, which she had found in another science

book. She paraphrased and wrote:

Alcohol = ethanol (C
2
H
5
OH)… it has strong diffusing power. It

can drill into the bacteria and denature its protein; and so kill the

bacteria. In the past, people thought […followed by a few lines

paraphrasing Jacqueline’s initial explanation]. But in fact, just

pure alcohol or pure water cannot denature the bacteria’s protein.

It is only with water and alcohol together that has the power…

Protein is composed of long spiral chains... On the inside of the

chains, there are many “base clusters” that dislike water. [On] the

outside are many “base clusters” that like water. There exist

attractive forces between these two different kinds of base

clusters… These attractive forces have to be broken down first…

Since the non-polar part of alcohol [molecules] is –C
2
H
5
, it can

only destroy the attractive forces among the base clusters that

dislike water…and water molecules can only destroy the attractive

forces among the base clusters that like water…so water and

alcohol need to work together in appropriate concentration..to

sterilize.

As the students engaged in the pursuit of deepening inquiry, this new

explanation not only refuted the old one but also brought out more

chemical knowledge about alcohol (Alcohol = ethanol (C
2
H
5
OH)) and

217IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)



the structure of bacteria protein (Protein is composed of…) by giving

more details at the microscopic level. The students’ understanding of

the original problem was revised and deepened continually, illustrating

the characteristics of knowledge-building discourse and reflecting

theory revision in science. Specifically, the problem on finding substitutes

for bleach to kill bacteria (actually a virus) led successfully to a

progressive scientific inquiry. It began with the wonderment question of

whether alcohol can kill bacteria as bleach does. This puzzlement was

formulated into a scientific problem: the role played by the

concentration of alcohol in killing bacteria. These questions then led to

an initial explanation aided by scientific information about how alcohol

can kill bacteria (by solidifying the bacteria’s protein); the original

macroscopic question was examined at the microscopic level. The

discourse continued to progress as the students viewed ideas as objects

of inquiry for refinement, and the initial explanation was subject to

query. New questions were raised and these puzzlements led to

reformulation with a new explanation that elaborated on the

microscopic structure of alcohol (with symbolic formula provided) and

the protein of bacteria. Primarily the students worked collectively

grappling with emergent problems and extending their knowledge.

  Several discourse moves are manifested in this example, including

the posing of wonderment questions, explanatory discourse,

constructive use of information, and theory revision. Quite different

from the knowledge transmission approach common in traditional Hong

Kong classrooms, the students here took the emergent approach of

intertwined questions and explanations in pursuit for idea improvement.

Their discourse shows that the information was not viewed as

something given from outside the community. On the contrary, they

treated it as their public “property” or as an “object” that could be

value-added or modified by any one of them (e.g., “Do you [not the

text] mean…”). This suggests that the knowledge-building approach not

only shaped the way in which the students went about their scientific

inquiry, but also their epistemology of science. Most importantly, they

were inquiring both to learn science content and also as scientists

themselves formulating problems, posting initial ideas, revising their

theories, and working at the cutting edge of the knowledge of the

community.

218 Chan, Lam, &Leung-KnowledgeBuilding



Discussion

This study has investigated the role ofcollaborative knowledge building

mediated by a computer-supported learning environment in fostering

scientific understanding. Our results show that the knowledge-building

students outperformed the comparison students on scientific

understanding; student collaboration and inquiry scores in Knowledge

Forum predicted scientific understanding over and above prior science

achievement. The results also show several productive knowledge-

building discourse moves, including wonderment questions, explanatory

inquiry, constructive use of information, and theory revision that might

help scaffold scientific understanding. Issues relating to the effects and

roles ofknowledge building in fostering scientific inquiry are discussed.

  Whereas earlier studies in knowledge building have included

evaluation designs with comparison groups (Scardamalia, Bereiter &

Lamon, 1994), more recent studies have focused on elucidating the rich

dynamics of knowledge building (see review, Chan, 2012). Since the

knowledge-building approach emphasizes collective agency and

emergent processes, there may be concerns that students, while engaged

actively in knowledge-building inquiry processes, may not be learning

adequate science content. One contribution of this study is that it

provides additional evidence about the positive roles of collective

knowledge building on scientific understanding and achievements,

including a comparison group with delayed tests, thus enriching the

knowledge-building literature. Specifically, our results show that the

students who had experienced knowledge building outperformed the

comparison students in school tests of scientific understanding and

sustained their advantage in public examinations one year later.

Furthermore, within-group comparisons using hierarchical regression

analysis show that collaboration in Knowledge Forum and depth of

inquiry were significant predictors of scientific understanding over and

above the effects of prior science achievement. We have provided

evidence that the students’ active involvement in knowledge building

did influence their science learning scores beyond prior science

achievements.

  It is interesting to note that the knowledge-building students obtained

higher grades in public examinations than did the comparison students.

219IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)



These findings suggest that student gains were not achieved at the

expense of school learning. Rather, by deepening their understanding

through explanation-based knowledge-building discourse, the Knowledge

Forum students might have integrated their knowledge about chemistry

better than did their counterparts in the comparison class. They made

both individual and collective advances as they worked collectively and

there were gains in both science concepts and authentic scientific

practice. Such findings are important for developing knowledge-building

innovations in different school contexts, and in particular those that

emphasize standard curricula and examinations (Chan, 2011).

  Although the quantitative findings provide general support for the

positive effects ofknowledge building on learning science, it is through

examining the knowledge-building dynamics that a deeper

understanding can be gained of how knowledge building scaffolds

scientific understanding. Our findings show that the students’

participation and inquiry improved over time, with them becoming

increasingly engaged in their participation and collaboration in the

forum. The participation indices were much higher than those reported

in the literature for online discussions (Lipponen et al., 2003). In

addition, the students engaged in deeper inquiry over time, moving from

descriptive to explanatory questions. The level of questions asked has

been shown to be important in scientific inquiry in cognitive research

(Chan et al., 1997; Okada & Simon, 1997). Congruent with

epistemological inquiry, idea improvement may be illustrated by

moving scientific inquiry from the descriptive level to the question-

driven explanatory level (Hakkarainen, 2004). The progress of the

students in the Knowledge Forum discussions can be gauged in part by

the level of their question-driven inquiry as represented by the questions

they raised. Elaborating and building on peers’ questions is important

for science understanding in a developing knowledge-building

community. The solving of real-life problems through collaborative

problem-centered inquiry activates prior knowledge to enhance their

problem-solving abilities in the context ofchemistry.

  The importance of question asking and explanatory inquiry has been

well documented (Hakkarainen, 2004; Lee et al., 2006; Zhang et al.,

2009), but we further show that collaboration in Knowledge Forum, as

220 Chan, Lam, &Leung-KnowledgeBuilding



measured by the ATK collaboration index, contributes to science

understanding over and above the effects of prior science achievement.

Importantly, it was not the number of notes the students wrote or even

how many thinking prompts (scaffolds) they used that made the

difference. Rather, it was the extent to which they elaborated and built

on their classmates’ postings, questions and ideas that most enhanced

their scientific understanding. Such empirical findings support theories

of collaborative knowledge building -- they are consistent with the

socio-cognitive dynamics emphasizing community connectedness

(Zhang et al., 2009) and social dynamics (van Aalst, 2009) in

knowledge-building communities. For classroom implications, it is

important to encourage students to work collectively, building on,

linking to, and referencing others' ideas rather than just working on their

own ideas.

  Qualitative analyses suggest that knowledge-building discourse may

support conceptual, social and epistemic goals of science learning. In

chemistry, the conceptual schema includes three levels of

representations including macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic ones

for explaining observed chemical phenomena (Treagust et al., 2003).

Excerpts from the knowledge-building students’ discourse suggest that

collective problem formulation and co-construction help students to

move from one level of representation to another while developing a

deeper understanding of chemical explanations. We have also

demonstrated that, when engaged in knowledge-building discourse,

students had opportunities to articulate their views and to examine their

own understanding with regard to others’ models, thus helping them to

develop metacognition and agency.

  The knowledge-building approach to scientific inquiry focuses on

students working socially and collectively as a community of inquirers,

in which their goal is not only to improve their individual understanding

of science, but also to view the ideas of the community as conceptual

artifacts for improvement. In some ways, knowledge building may be

closer to authentic scientific inquiry when this is understood to mean

idea improvement and collective knowledge advances. The high-school

students in this study were engaged in inquiry processes similar to those

in scientific and scholarly communities – they were engaged in posing

221IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)



problems, forming conjectures and hypotheses, searching for

information, and co-constructing explanations as they deepened their

inquiry and refined their theories. The discourse analyses show how the

students made progress in both scientific concepts and scientific

processes of inquiry through working collaboratively, and emphasizing

collective agency and progressive inquiry.

  Excerpts from the discourse show how the students developed new

ways of viewing the nature of knowledge. Information from science

books is not information “out there”, but a resource for them to build

and revise their theories. They might be developing an epistemic

understanding about the nature of knowledge and the notion that ideas

are improvable. During this process, the students might develop into

active agents and knowledge builders. It is interesting to note that the

students in this study continued their inquiry during the summer without

the presence of the teacher. They may even have developed a different

epistemological understanding, whereby they no longer saw the teacher

as the sole source and authority ofknowledge (Hofer & Pintrich, 2002),

but could possibly see themselves and their peers as resources for

learning and knowledge advancement.

  Knowledge-building inquiry, as shown in this study, may help

students to achieve multiple goals, allowing them simultaneously to

develop an understanding of science concepts, to reconsider their views

ofscience as evolving (“In the past, people thought”), and to engage in

the scientific practice by posing problems, constructing explanations

and improving collective understanding. Knowledge building, through

its primary focus on community knowledge growth, the scaffoldings

provided by its principles and technology, and its focus on research- and

explanatory-based inquiries into authentic problems, may help to

address the persistent problems in science learning, namely difficulties

in studying science, usually with an excessive focus on the symbolic

level, the impoverishment ofstudent metacognition, and students’ views

of science as authoritative rather than evolving knowledge. As noted

above, we conjecture that the students not only developed scientific

understanding and inquiry skills, but also changed their views about

learning and knowledge. However, these possible relationships among

epistemological beliefs, knowledge building, and conceptual change

need to be investigated further.

222 Chan, Lam, &Leung-KnowledgeBuilding



  There are various limitations to this study that point to areas of

further research. First, as in many technology-related studies that

include multiple interacting factors, the comparison class was not a

strong control, and thus the results should be interpreted with caution.

The class curriculum was similar and the comparison students were

asked to complete other work in the time the other students spent on

Knowledge Forum after school. We included the comparison class to

provide some background to our findings; it is noteworthy that intra-

class regression analyses also revealed the benefits of Knowledge

Forum participation and inquiry. Second, scientific understanding was

examined primarily using school examination results. Although the

paper included questions probing for qualitative understanding, and it

has the advantage ofassessing how collaborative inquiry-based learning

such as the knowledge building model can be aligned with school

science, more elaborate measures would be useful. Finally, further

investigation should be undertaken to examine the roles of the teacher

and classroom dynamics in fostering the growth of the knowledge-

building community.

Conclusions

This study has shown how the design of a collaborative knowledge-

building environment supports collaboration, inquiry and explanatory

discourse in ways that facilitate both scientific processes and science

achievement. We have provided additional empirical evidence to the

knowledge-building literature, suggesting that collective knowledge

building can have beneficial effects on school science learning. Such

findings are important in light ofincreased emphasis on both curriculum

standards and reformed approaches. As well, knowledge-building

discourse, mediated by a computer-supported environment, addresses

conceptual, epistemic, and social goals of science learning that allows

students to develop a deeper understanding of science concepts, to

reconsider their views of science, and to work together in a community

to advance their knowledge frontiers. This study suggests that

knowledge building can bridge “real science” and “school science” and

can foster both “science learning” and “learning about science”,

223IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)



because of its emphasis on both the advancement of subject-matter

understanding, together with epistemic beliefs, and scientific practice of

theory building through a knowledge-building community. It also

provides an example of how knowledge building can foster science

learning in a cultural and educational context that places great emphasis

on examinations. How knowledge building can be integrated in

classroom practice in science education is the major question that

requires further investigation.

References

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education andmind in the knowledge age.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Can children really create

knowledge? Canadian Journal ofLearningandTechnology, 36

(1). Retrieved from

http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/585

Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., Cassells, C., & Hewitt, J. G. (1997).

Postmodernism, knowledge-building and elementary science.

Elementary SchoolJournal, 97, 329-340. Retrieved from

http://www.cce.ufsc.br/~fialho/BasesCogInfo/material/inresslearn

ing/1997Postmodernism.pdf

Burtis, J. (1998). TheAnalytic Toolkit. Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education, University ofToronto: Knowledge Building Research

Team.

Caswell, B., & Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Knowledge Forum: Altering the

relationship between students and scientific knowledge.

Education, Communication andInformation, 1, 281-305.

doi: 10.1080/146363102753535240

Chan, C.K.K. (in press, 2012). Collaborative knowledge building:

Towards a knowledge-creation perspective. In C. Hmelo-Silver,

C.A. Chinn, C.K.K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The

international handbookofcollaborative learning. Routledge.

Chan, C. K. K. (2011). Bridging research and practice: Implementing

and sustaining knowledge building in Hong Kong classrooms.

International Journal ofComputer-SupportedCollaborative

224 Chan, Lam, &Leung-KnowledgeBuilding

http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/585
http://www.cce.ufsc.br/~fialho/BasesCogInfo/material/inresslearning/1997Postmodernism.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/146363102753535240


Learning, 6, 147-186. doi: 10.1007/s11412-011-9121-0

Chan, C.K.K., & Chan, Y.Y. (2011). Students’ views ofcollaboration

and their online participation in Knowledge Forum. Computers&

Education, 57, 1445-1457. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.003

Chan, C.K.K. (2008) Pedagogical transformation and knowledge

building for the Chinese learner. Evaluation andResearch in

Education, 21, 235-251. doi: 10.1080/09500790802485245

Chan, C.K.K., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a

mediator ofconflict in conceptual change. Cognition and

Instruction, 15, 1-40. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1501_1

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic

reasoning in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating

inquiry tasks. ScienceEducation, 86, 175-218.

doi: 10.1002/sce.10001

Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Pursuit ofexplanation within a computer-

supported classroom. International Journal ofScienceEducation,

26, 979-996. doi: 10.1080/1468181032000354

Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P.R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal epistemology: The

psychology ofbeliefs about knowledge andknowing. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Lee, E. Y. C., Chan, C.K.K., & vanAalst, J. (2006). Students assessing

their own collaborative knowledge building. International

Journal ofComputer-SupportedCollaborative Learning. 1, 57-87.

doi: 10.1007/s11412-006-6844-4

Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2003).

Patterns ofparticipation and discourse in elementary students’

computer-supported collaborative learning. Learningand

Instruction, 13, 487-509. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00042-7

Oshima, J., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Collaborative

learning processes associated with high and low conceptual

progress. Instructional Science, 24, 125-155.

doi: 10.1007/BF00120486

Okada, T., & Simon, H. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific

domain. Cognitive Science, 21,109-146. doi: 10.1016/S0364-

0213(99)80020-2

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of

225IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9121-0
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500790802485245
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1501_1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1468181032000354
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-6844-4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00042-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00120486
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/s15516709cog2102_1/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/s15516709cog2102_1/abstract


innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of

learning. Review ofEducationalResearch, 74, 557-576.

doi: 10.3102/00346543074004557

Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the

advancement ofknowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education

in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for

knowledge-building communities. Journal ofthe Learning

Sciences, 3, 265-283. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory,

pedagogy and technology. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), TheCambridge

Handbookofthe LearningSciences (pp.97-115). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project:

Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.),

Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory andclassroom

practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and

conceptual learning in science. In S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman

(Eds.), Handbookofresearch on science education (pp.31-56).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of

choosing just one. EducationalResearcher, 27(2), 4-13.

doi: 10.3102/0013189X027002004

Sinatra, G.M., & Pintrich, P.R. (Eds.). (2003). Intentional conceptual

change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-Supported

Collaborative Learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), TheCambridge

handbookofthe learning sciences (pp.409-425). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Treagust, D.F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T.L. (2003). The role of

submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical

explanations. International Journal ofScienceEducation, 25,

1353-1368. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000070306

vanAalst, J., & Chan, C.K.K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of

knowledge building using electronic portfolios. Journal ofthe

226 Chan, Lam, &Leung-KnowledgeBuilding

http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004557
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027002004
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070306


Carol K. K. Chan is Professor in the Faculty of Education at The

University ofHong Kong.

Ivan C. K. Lam is Ph. D. Student in the Faculty of Education at

The University ofHong Kong.

Raymond W. H. Leung is M. Phil. Student in the Faculty of

Education at The University ofHong Kong.

Contact Address: Direct correspondence to Carol K. K. Chan at

ckkchan@hku.hk

227IJEP– International Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 1(3)

LearningSciences, 16, 175-220.

doi: 10.1080/10508400701193697

vanAalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-

construction and knowledge-creation discourses. International

JournalofComputer-SupportedCollaborativeLearning, 4, 259-288.

doi: 10.1007/s11412-009-9069-5

vanAalst, J., & Truong, M.S. (2011). Promoting knowledge creation

discourse in anAsian primary five classroom: Results from an

inquiry into life cycles. International Journal ofScience

Education, 33, 487-515. doi: 10.1080/09500691003649656

Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs

for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building

communities. Journal ofthe LearningSciences, 18, 7-44.

doi: 10.1080/10508400802581676

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400701193697
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9069-5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500691003649656
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400802581676

	Treagust et al., 2003



