DOI: https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.26.1.16671

Evaluación de la investigación sobre la pedagogía Construcción de Conocimiento: un enfoque metodológico mixto


Resumen


La Construcción de Conocimiento (CC) es un marco teórico que promueve la indagación colectiva para resolver problemas del conocimiento relevantes en una comunidad educativa. Hay un número cada vez mayor de autores que buscan los beneficios de este enfoque, por lo que se necesita una visión general de las tendencias de la investigación. El objetivo de este estudio es proporcionar el estado del arte relacionado con la producción de investigación sobre la pedagogía de la Construcción de Conocimiento, incluidas las tendencias y temas relevantes. En este estudio se aplicó un diseño explicativo secuencial que combina los enfoques cuantitativos (análisis cienciométrico) y cualitativos (revisión sistemática). La muestra se seleccionó de las producciones más recientes publicadas en revistas indexadas en la base de datos Web of Science. El análisis cienciométrico muestra una dinámica de publicación típica de un campo de investigación emergente. En la fase cualitativa, el análisis revela las tendencias de investigación sobre la creación de conocimiento, así como los beneficios de ponerlo en práctica en una amplia gama de contextos, exponiendo que la tecnología es un componente relevante del aprendizaje basado en la pedagogía. Estos beneficios se refieren principalmente a la profundidad de pensamiento de los individuos y las habilidades de colaboración dentro de entornos de aprendizaje sostenidos por computadora.


Palabras clave


Constructivismo Social; Pedagogía Knowledge Building; Análisis cienciométrico, Revisión temática; Métodos mixtos

Texto completo:

PDF (English) PDF

Referencias


  • Aliaga, F. M. (1999). Análisis de correspondencias: estudio bibliométrico sobre su uso en la investigación educativa. RELIEVE-Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 5(1).

  • Aliaga, F. M., Gutiérrez-Braojos, C. & Fernández-Cano, A. (2018). Research journals in education: SWOT Analysis. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 36(2), 563-579. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.36.2.312461

  • Avcı, Ü. (2020). Examining the role of sentence openers, role assignment scaffolds and self-determination in collaborative knowledge building. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 109-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09672-5

  • Bereiter, C (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.812533

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching higher-order skills in reading and writing. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179375

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Open Court.

  • Bueno, Á., & Fernández-Cano, A. (2003). Análisis cientimétrico de la productividad en la Revista de Investigación Educativa (1983-2000). Revista de Investigación Educativa, 21(2), 507-532.

  • Cacciamani, S. (2017). Experimental learning and knowledge building in higher education: An application of the progressive design method. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(1). 27-38. DOI: 10.20368/1971-8829/1245

  • Chen, B. (2017). Fostering scientific understanding and epistemic beliefs through judgments of promisingness. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 255-277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9467-0

  • Chen, B., & Hong, H. Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 266-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1175306

  • Chen, B., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2015). Advancing knowledge‐building discourse through judgments of promising ideas. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4), 345-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9225-z

  • Comes, M., Cavalcante, F., & Toda, F. (2020). Avaliação do clima organizacional de suporte à criatividade e inovação em programas de pós-graduação stricto sensu. Revista Ciências Administrativas ou Journal of Administrative Sciences, 26(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41380-4

  • Costello, G. (2020). Teaching of Design and Innovation. Suiza: Springer Nature.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach. Sage.

  • Cozzens, S., Gatchair, S., Kang, J., Kim, K.S., Lee, H.J., Ordóñez, G., & Porter, A. (2010). Emerging technologies: quantitative identification and measurement. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22, 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537321003647396

  • Fernández, A. D., Ruiz-Corbella, M., & Galán, A. (2017). Calidad editorial y científica en las revistas de educación. Tendencias y oportunidades en el contexto 2.0. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 35(1), 235-250. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.35.1.244761

  • Fernández-Bautista, A., Torralbo, M., & Fernández-Cano, A. (2014). Análisis longitudinal de tesis doctorales españolas en educación (1841-2012). RELIEVE-Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.20.2.4479

  • Fernández-Cano, A., Torralbo, M. & Vallejo, M. (2004) Reconsidering Price's model of scientific growth: An overview. Scientometrics, 61, 301–21. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000045112.11562.11

  • Fonseca-Mora, M. C., & Aguaded, I. (2014). Las revistas científicas como plataformas para publicar la investigación de excelencia en educación: estrategias para atracción de investigadores. RELIEVE-Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.20.2.4274

  • Ghazal, S., Al-Samarraie, H., & Wright, B. (2019). A conceptualization of factors affecting collaborative knowledge building in online environments. Online Information Review, 44(1), pp. 62-89. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2019-0046

  • Goh, A., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Facilitating students’ development of their views on nature of science: A knowledge building approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 521-530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0050-0

  • Goldman, S. R., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 255-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2013.773217

  • Gutiérrez-Braojos, C. (2020, March). A sequence for the Knowledge Building Pedagogy. Knowledge Building International. https://ikit.org/kbi/index.php/news/

  • Gutierrez-Braojos, C., Martín-Romera, A., Casasempere, A., & Fernández Cano, A. (2015). Análisis Cientimétrico de la Grounded Theory en Educación. Revista de Educación, 370 (Octubre-Diciembre), 121-148.

  • Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Martín-Romera, A., Salmerón-Pérez, H., Casasempere, A., & Fernández Cano, A. (2017). Análisis temático de la investigación educativa soportada por Grounded Theory. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía, 69(1), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.13042/Bordon.2016.41035

  • Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Montejo-Gámez, J., Ma, L., Chen, B., de Escalona-Fernández, M., Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2019). Exploring collective cognitive responsibility through the emergence and flow of forms of engagement in a knowledge building community. In L.D. (Ed). Didactics of Smart Pedagogy (pp. 213-232). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01551-0_11

  • Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Montejo-Gámez, J., Marín-Jiménez, A. & Campaña, J. (2019). Hybrid learning environment: Collaborative or competitive learning? Virtual Reality, 23(4), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0358-z

  • Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Montejo-Gámez, J., Marín-Jiménez, A. E. & Poza-Vilches, F. (2018). A Review of Educational Innovation from a Knowledge-building Pedagogy Perspective. In A.V., M.L., L.D. (Eds), The Future of Innovation and Technology in Education: Policies and Practices for Teaching and Learning Excellence, (41-54). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78756-555-520181005

  • Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Montejo-Gámez, J., & Poza-Vilches, F. (August 2018). That’s an impactful idea: Using peer citation to explore collective responsibility for knowledge advancement. Poster presented at the 22nd Knowledge Building Summer Institute; Toronto, Canada.

  • Gutiérrez-Braojos, C. & Salmerón-Pérez, H. (2015). Exploring collective cognitive responsibility and its effects on students' impact in a knowledge building community. Infancia y Aprendizaje. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 38(2), 327-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2015.1016746

  • Halatchliyski, I., Moskaliuk, J., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2013). Explaining authors’contribution to pivotal artifactsduring mass collaboration in the Wikipedia’s knowledge base.  International Society of the Learning Sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9182-3

  • Hong, H. Y. (2014). Developing student-centered teaching beliefs through knowledge building among prospective teachers. In Tan, S., So, H., & Yeo (Eds), Knowledge creation in education (pp. 189-204). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-047-6_11

  • Hong, H-Y., & Chai, C.S. (2017). Principle-based design: Development of adaptive mathematics teaching practices and beliefs in a knowledge building environment. Computers & Education, 115, 38-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.011

  • Hong, H-Y., Chang, Y-H., & Chai, C.S. (2014). Fostering a collaborative and creative climate in a college class through idea-centered knowledge-building. Instructional Science, 42(3), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9289-y

  • Hong, H. Y., & Scardamalia, M. (2014). Community knowledge assessment in a knowledge building environment. Computers & Education, 71, 279-288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.009

  • Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Brendle, D., & Cress, U. (2017). All in good time: Knowledge introduction, restructuring, and development of shared opinions as different stages in collaborative writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(2), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9258-6

  • Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Oeberst, A., & Cress, U. (2015). Learning and collective knowledge construction with social media: A process-oriented perspective. Educational Psychologist, 50(2), 120-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1036273

  • Lai, M. & Law, N. (2013) Questioning and the quality of knowledge constructed in a CSCL context: A study on two grade-levels of students. Instructional Science, 41(3), 597-620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9246-1

  • Lee, Y., & Yoo, S. (2020). Individual profiles and team classes of the climate for creativity: A multilevel latent profile analysis. Creativity and Innovation Management; 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12371

  • Li, S., Tang, Q., & Shi, P. (2015). Learning analysis on learners’ wiki-based collaborative knowledge building behaviors. In G. Chen, V. Kumar, Kinshuk, R. Huang, & S. C. Kong (Eds.), Emerging Issues in Smart Learning (pp. 217-224). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44188-6_30

  • Lin, K.Y., Hong, H-Y., & Chai, C. S. (2014). Development and validation of the knowledge-building environment scale. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 124-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.10.018

  • Lotka, A. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317-323.

  • MacLeod, J., & Yang, H. H. (2018). Intercultural computer-supported collaborative learning: Theory and Practice. In digital technologies and instructional design for personalized learning, (pp. 80-97). Hershey: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3940-7.ch004

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56

  • Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79(4), 606-623. https://doi.org/10.1086/354848

  • Moher, D. A. & Liberati, A. (2010). Revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis: la responsabilidad de los autores, revisores, editores y patrocinadores. Med Clin (Barc), 135, 505-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2010.02.016

  • Muhonen, H., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A. & Lerkkanen, M. (2017). Knowledge-building patterns in educational dialogue. International Journal of Education Research, 81, 25-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.10.005

  • Oeberst, A., Halatchliyski, I., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2014). Knowledge construction in Wikipedia: A systemic-constructivist analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 149-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.888352

  • Park, H., & Park, H. W. (2018). Two-side face of knowledge building using scientometric analysis. Quality & Quantity, 52(6), 2815-2836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0711-z

  • Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor – An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14, 537-557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-004-5157-0

  • Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge (Vol. 360). Oxford University Press.

  • Popper, K. (1994). Knowledge and the mind-body problem: In defence of interaction. (Vol. 134). Routledge.

  • Porcaro, D. (2014). Educational change in Oman: a design research study of personal, institutional, and societal reactions to collaborative Knowledge Building. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 199-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.802993

  • Price, D. de S. (1963). Little science, big science. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/pric91844

  • Price, D. de S. (1976). A general theory of bibliometrics and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5-6), 292-306. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630270505

  • Price, D. de S. (1986). Little science, big science... and beyond. Columbia University Press.

  • Resendes, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Chen, B., & Halewood, C. (2015). Group-level formative feedback and metadiscourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 309–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9219-x

  • Rodríguez Gómez, G., Gil Flores, J., & García Jiménez, E. (1996). Metodología de la investigación cualitativa. Ediciones Aljibe.

  • Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching. Instructional Science, 42(3), 327-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9283-4

  • Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal education in a knowledge society, 97, 67-98.

  • Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge forum®. Education and technology: An encyclopedia, (183-192). ABC-CLIO.

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). CSILE: Trying to bring students into world 3. In K. McGilley (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). MIT Press.

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2017). Two modes of thinking in Knowledge Building. Revista Catalana de Pedagogía, 12, 61-83.

  • Small, H., Boyack, K.W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Identifying emerging topics in science and technology. Research Policy, 43, 1450–1467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.005

  • Tammets, K., Pata, K., & Laanpere, M. (2013). Promoting teachers’ learning and knowledge building in the socio-technical system. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 14(3), 251-272. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1478

  • Thagard, P. (1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and brain sciences, 12(3), 435-467. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00057046

  • Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 55, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-004-0002-8

  • Wu, Y. T., & Wang, L. J. (2016). Research trends in technology-enhanced knowledge building pedagogies: a review of selected empirical research from 2006 to 2015. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(3), 353-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0065-2

  • Zhi, Q., & Su, M. (2015, October). Enhance collaborative learning by visualizing process of knowledge building with Padlet. In 2015 International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT) (pp. 221-225). IEEE. Wuhan (China). https://doi.org/10.1109/EITT.2015.54


Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.




Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.

https://ojs.uv.es/public/site/images/aliaga/scopus_170  https://ojs.uv.es/public/site/images/aliaga/esci_225