Le projet international de construction des connaissances en tant qu’environnement d’apprentissage innnovateur
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt27920Mots-clés :
construction des connaissances, forum de connaissances, recherche orientée par la conception, environnements d'apprentissage innovateurs, évaluation, innovation dans l'éducationRésumé
Le Projet International de Construction des Connaissances (PICC) (ou Knowledge Building International Project, KBIP, en anglais) mis en œuvre dans un réseau de huit écoles en Catalogne, démontre la valeur d'un environnement d'apprentissage innovateur (EAI) pour soutenir les dimensions dialogique, technologique et systémique dans l'enseignement et l'apprentissage. En utilisant une approche de recherche orientée par la conception (ROC), une enquête a interrogé des enseignants, des étudiants et des intervenants externes sur leurs perceptions de l'innovation pédagogique. Les résultats fournissent à la fois le profil et la nature novatrice de l'ensemble de l'expérience PICC dans chaque école participante. Les principaux résultats permettent d'illustrer le potentiel des méthodologies PICC. Les résultats illustrent la valeur de cette méthode ROC particulière pour évaluer les innovations éducatives.
Références
Akker, J. V. D., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.) (2006). Educational design research (11 Ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203088364
Alegre, M. A., & Ferrer, G. (2010). School regimes and education equity: some insights based on PISA 2006. British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 433-461. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902989193
Arnseth, H. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 167-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-8874-3
Bereiter, C. (2002). Design research for sustained innovation. Cognitive Studies, 9(3), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.11225/jcss.9.321
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Can children really create knowledge? Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 36(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2ZP43
Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., Laferrière, T., Massey, L., Shaw, B. W., Chee, S., & Istance, D. (2016). Beyond tried and true: The challenge of education for innovation. In C. K. Looi, J. Polman, U. Cress & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2016, Volume 1 (pp. 9-15). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/18023/1/ICLS-2016-9_a.pdf
Blackmore, C. (2010). Managing systemic change: Future roles for social learning systems and communities of practice? In C. Blackmore. Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 201-219). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2_12
Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Cloonan, A., Dixon, M., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Senior, K. (2011). Innovative learning environments research study. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Deakin University. http://www.learningspaces.edu.au/docs/learningspaces-final-report.pdf
Brand, S., Felner, R., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A., & Dumas, T. (2003). Middle school improvement and reform: Development and validation of a school-level assessment of climate, cultural pluralism, and school safety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 570-588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.570
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.) New directions in educational technology. NATO ASI series (Series F: Computer and systems sciences), vol 96 (pp. 15-22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-77750-9_2
Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu de Catalunya. (2006). Avaluació del projecte COMconèixer. L'aprenentatge a través de comunitats virtuals. Documents. N. 8. Barcelona: Consell Superior d’Avaluació, Generalitat de Catalunya.
Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu de Catalunya. (2015). Avaluació del projecte COMconèixer 2014. Documents. N. 32. Barcelona: Consell Superior d’Avaluació, Generalitat de Catalunya.
Dexter, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2019). What does technology integration research tell us about the leadership of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 59(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1668316
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. Corwin Press.
Gallifa, J. (2009a). An approach to find out students’ motives and influences in the selection of studies and University. Results from six years of continuing institutional research in a multi-campus system in Spain. Tertiary Education and Management, 15(2), 173-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583880902869539
Gallifa, J. (2009b). Professional integration in higher education: A methodological approach applied to a multi-campus system in Spain. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(3), 229-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800902974302
Gallifa, J. (2018a). Paradigms and methodologies for Knowledge Building. Review of Educational Theory, 1(3), 70-81. https://ojs.bilpublishing.com/index.php/ret/article/view/70
Gallifa, J. (2018b). Research traditions in social sciences and their methodological rationales. Aloma, Revista de Psicologia, Ciències de l’Eduació i de l’Esport, 36(2), 9-20. https://doi.org/10.51698/aloma.2018.36.2.9-20
Gallifa, J., & Batallé, P. (2010). Student perceptions of service quality in a multi-campus higher education system in Spain. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(2), 156-170. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881011035367
Gray, K. C. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of innovation adoption. Action in Teacher Education, 23(2), 30-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2001.10463061
Greenberg, S., & Buxton, B. (2008). Usability evaluation considered harmful (some of the time). Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 111-120). CHI. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357074
Gupta, M. R., Bahri, D., Cotter, A., & Canini, K. (2018). Diminishing returns shape constraints for interpretability and regularization. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 6835-6845). https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2018/file/caa202034f268232c26fac9435f54e15-Paper.pdf
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536
Istance, D., & Dumont, H. (2010). Future directions for learning environments in the 21st century. In Benavides, F., Dumont, H., & Istance, D. (Eds.). The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice (pp. 317-338). Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264086487-15-en
Järvelä, S., Hakkarainen, K., Lehtinen, E., & Lipponen, L. (2001). Creating computer supported collaborative learning in Finnish schools: Research perspectives on sociocognitive effects. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 11(4/5/6), 365. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijceell.2001.000406
Law, N. (2005). Assessing learning outcomes in CSCL settings. In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on computer support for collaborative learning: Learning 2005:The next 10 years! (pp. 373-377). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1149293.1149342
Looney, J. (2009). Assessment and innovation in education. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 24. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/222814543073
Mateo, J., Estruch, J., Ranchal, F., & Amorós, C. (2016). A description and reflection on the different stages of the evaluative cycle of the educational innovation. Journal of the World Federation of Associations of Teacher Education, 1(3a), 132-144. https://www.worldfate.org/docpdf/journal_01-03a.pdf
McKenney, S. (2001). Computer-based support for science education materials developers in Africa: Exploring potentials. (Publication No. 9036516420) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente]. University of Twente Research Information. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/6080267/thesis_S_McKenney.pdf
Nieveen, N. (1999). Prototyping to reach product quality. In Dalam J. Van Den Akker, et al. (Eds.). Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 125-135). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7_10
OECD. (2013). Innovative learning environments. Educational research and innovation. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/20769679
OECD. (2017). The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264277274-en
Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2010). An introduction to educational design research: Proceedings of the seminar conducted at the East China Normal University, Shanghai. SLO - Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Institute. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/14472302/Introduction_20to_20education_20design_20research.pdf
Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In HERDSA 2002 quality conversations (pp. 562-567). Edith Crown University. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4899&context=ecuworks
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, 97, 67-98. https://www.ikit.org/fulltext/inpressCollectiveCog.pdf
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97-116). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511816833.008
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2010). A brief history of knowledge building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 36(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2859M
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.) (pp. 397-417). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.025
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2017). Two modes of thinking in knowledge building. Revista Catalana de Pedagogia, 11, 61-83. https://raco.cat/index.php/RevistaPedagogia/article/view/97331
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
© Josep Gallifa, Mireia Montané, Sandra Lund, Carme Amorós, Mercè Bernaus, Mercè Gisbert, Francesc Martínez-Olmo 2021
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International.
Droits d’auteur
Les auteurs conservent le droit d'auteur et accordent le droit de la première publication de la revue avec le travail simultanément sous une licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC 4.0) qui permet aux autres de partager le travail avec une reconnaissance de la paternité de l'œuvre et la publication initiale dans ce journal.
