19 Knowledge Building and

Knowledge Creation
Marlene Scardamalia and Carl Bereiter

Knowledge Building engages students directly in the means by which know-

ledge in the world is advanced. It is akin to knowledge creation as practiced in
research laboratories and other frontier-advancing organizations (Loo, 2017),
with added concern for the educational benefit and well-being of participants
(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2014). It is based on evidence that the kind of creative
collaborative work with ideas previously reserved for expert scientists, invent-
ors, planners, business strategists, scholars and others working to advance their
field can be a normal and central part of education at all levels and for all
students (Chan, 2013; Chen & Hong, 2016; Hong & Sullivan, 2009; S. C. Tan,
So, & Yeo, 2014). In a larger sense, Knowledge Building aims to make students
part of a rapidly evolving knowledge-creating culture – a challenge formal
education was not designed for and has yet to face squarely.
Whereas the traditional focus of education has been on knowledge as a
personal good, Knowledge Building embeds this within the more comprehen-
sive conception of knowledge as a “public good” – something out in the world,
available to everyone, for multiple uses, and continuously improvable. The need
for education to take a more active role in promoting knowledge for public
good is dramatized by the proliferation of pathological forms of knowledge
creation: conspiracy theories, fake news, and falsified productions (videos,
photographs, and speech recordings). These have characteristics of knowledge
creation, except that they are unconstrained by facts, lead to an oversimplified
view of the world, and offer no constructive way forward against major
problems.
Not all new knowledge is deliberately created. Some results from discoveries
(e.g., new species, new diseases) and some evolves through interacting with one
another and changing environments (knowledge of digital media, for instance).
But some kinds of knowledge are the result of deliberate efforts at creation –
theories, for example, inventions, proofs, formulations, and solutions of general
problems along with artifacts in which they are embedded. Created knowledge

This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
under Protocol no. 00032092 (Digitally mediated group knowledge processes to enhance individual
achievement in literacy and numeracy). We thank students and teachers throughout the Knowledge
Building International network, with special thanks to colleagues at the Jackman Institute of Child
Study for many of the creative initiatives and research opportunities reported in this chapter.

385

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 386 ma rl en e sc ar da ma li a a n d ca rl b er ei t e r

is needed to address complex problems that pervade the modern world. While
much of the knowledge dealt with in formal education is of the created kind, it
has already been created. Knowledge Building, in contrast, aims to engage
students in the actual creation of new knowledge.
Knowledge creation in education should not be confused with “discovery
learning,” in which students are guided to carry out experiments to find out for
themselves things already known to scientists or mathematicians – for instance,
experimenting with pendulums of different kinds, leading to the “discovery”
that only the length of a pendulum has a measurable effect on the frequency of
oscillation. Most of knowledge creation by students, like most mature know-
ledge creation, builds on what is already known and advances what is known.
In assessing whether students are creating new knowledge, we have argued that
they should not be held to a higher standard than university researchers who
publish and earn tenure on the basis of original contributions to knowledge, but
who are not the Nobel Laureates of their fields (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2010).
In line with modern conceptions of knowledge creation, epistemic artifacts
(Sterelny, 2005) enable further knowledge creation: insightful reinterpretations
or new explanations of the work of others qualify as knowledge creation, as do
identification and clarification of new problems, novel accounts of phenomena,
generating supportive or disconfirming findings, inventing experiments to
advance understanding, offering a different perspective on an issue, introducing
a new distinction, popularizing knowledge advances to put them within reach of
a wider public, curating an exhibit to bring novel perspective, and so forth. All
of these require creative turns of mind. A growing literature shows work of this
sort well within the capacity of students (Chen & Hong, 2016; van Aalst, 2009;
van Aalst & Truong, 2011). Knowledge Building strives to enable this on a
sustained basis integral to the whole of school life.
As concepts, knowledge creation and Knowledge Building are synonymous.
They arose independently – knowledge creation in organizational knowledge
management (Nonaka, 1991), Knowledge Building in the context of educa-
tional innovation (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991; Scardamalia, Bereiter, &
Lamon, 1994). The activities carried out in producing new knowledge are
different enough between the two contexts, however, to warrant separate terms
for the knowledge practices involved. We capitalize “Knowledge Building” to
distinguish the concept and research program discussed in this chapter from
numerous uses of the term in everyday language that have no such connection
to a research program to advance education for knowledge creation. Chen and
Hong (2016) follow the same convention.
To see why knowledge creation and Knowledge Building warrant separate
attention even though they refer to the same concept, consider the difference
between an interdisciplinary team of experts working on the problem of poor
nations’ dependence on fossil fuels and a group of middle school students
working on the same problem. Both groups are engaged in collaborative
problem-solving and are hoping in the process to produce something new –
knowledge of how to enable poor nations to be less dependent on oil-based

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation 387

products to generate electricity, power their buses and cars, and so on. Both
groups are pursuing the same goal. Both are using dialogue as their basic
method of pursuing it. However, there are major differences. The most obvious
is that the experts bring vastly more relevant knowledge to the task. This has
direct implications for practice. A first order of business for the expert team is
getting this knowledge out on the table for shared use, including the “tacit”
knowledge that is not easily made public (von Krogh, Ichijo, & Nonaka, 2000).
For the student group it is likely to be more productive to identify what they do
not know and need to know in order to make progress in solving the problem.
Another difference is that the expert team was presumably selected because of
their relevant skills, knowledge, and previous accomplishments, whereas the
student group is likely to be unselected. Accordingly, the expert team may
encounter social problems of rivalry and status, whereas the student team
may struggle to achieve inclusiveness and a valued role for all participants.
These and other differences of practical consequence point to the conclusion
that knowledge creation in mature knowledge-creating organizations and in
education represent the same concept but two different “hills to climb” in
achieving them (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2014).
All departures from conventional instruction raise concerns about whether
the usual standards of achievement are endangered (cf. Kirschner, Sweller, &
Clark, 2006). As far as conventional learning objectives are concerned, evidence
indicates that Knowledge Building improves learning (Chuy et al., 2010; Lin,
Ma, Chang, Hong, & Lin, 2018; Scardamalia et al., 1992). Additionally, it is
conducive to students’ sense of well-being (Zhu et al., 2020); and as collabora-
tive Knowledge-Building advances, not only does individual learning of subject
matter advance but also capabilities such as teamwork, leadership, interdiscip-
linary thinking, discursive connectedness, design thinking, metadiscourse/meta-
cognition, and promisingness judgments (Chen, Scardamalia, & Bereiter, 2015;
Ma, Tan, Teo, & Kamsan, 2017; Resendes, Scardamalia, Bereiter, Chen, &
Halewood, 2015; Zhang, Scardamalia, Reeve, & Messina, 2009). Advances in
literacy (textual and graphical) have been documented in the absence of read-
ing, writing, and graphical instruction, apparently due to students’ sustained
engagement in Knowledge-Building activities that provide authentic motivation
for clarity and explicitness (Sun, Zhang, & Scardamalia, 2010).
Over and above these objectives, however, is that of equipping students for
the emerging conditions of life and work and innovation-driven knowledge
society. Many contemporary approaches pursue this objective – some through
testing and promoting what are popularly called “twenty-first-century skills,”
others through engaging students in activities that have some of the charac-
teristics of work in knowledge-creating organizations. Knowledge Building,
however, takes a more direct approach, making knowledge creation itself the
constitutive basis of subject matter education – in brief, acquiring competence
in knowledge creation by actually doing it as in successful knowledge-creating
organizations where invention and design are “part-and-parcel of the ordin-
ary, if not routine” (Drucker, 1985, p. 151). In broad terms, this means

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 388 ma rl en e sc ar da ma li a a n d ca rl b er ei t e r

enabling all students to find respected and positive roles as collaborators in

knowledge creation.

19.1 Bringing Knowledge Building into Education: Five Themes

Knowledge Building puts the emphasis on guiding principles rather
than prescribed procedures (Hong & Sullivan, 2009; Scardamalia, 2002; Zhang,
Hong, Scardamalia, Teo, & Morley, 2011). While many innovative educational
approaches enunciate guiding principles, most accompany these with explicit
procedures to help teachers translate the principles into practice – for instance,
the “activity structures” of A. L. Brown and Campione’s (1996) “communities
of learners.” “Orchestration scripts” (Dillenbourg & Jermann, 2006) have made
headway in instructional science by offering explicit proceduralization of group
knowledge processes (Slotta & Acosta, 2017).
Teaching, of course, is carried out through procedures of some kind.
A significant drawback of prescribed procedures, however, is that they can
easily degenerate into what A. L. Brown and Campione (1996) called “lethal
mutations” – procedures that take on a life of their own and evolve in ways that
undermine the purposes for which they were originally designed. Procedures
should evolve. The problem is getting them to evolve in favorable ways, given
that the evolution of practices, like biological evolution, is essentially
uncontrollable and unpredictable as to specifics. Principles such as “real
ideas, authentic problems,” “epistemic agency,” and “improvable ideas”
(Scardamalia, 2002) can serve an important regulative function for both
teachers and students, helping to keep higher-level goals in mind and to prevent
“lethal mutations” or reversion to older practices. Students themselves can
come to use Knowledge-Building principles in conceptualizing their own work
(Toth & Ma, 2018). In an elementary school class in an inner-city school –
identified as one of the neediest in Toronto – students, presenting at an
international conference, described their work explicitly in principled terms,
providing examples of taking responsibility for idea improvement, pervasive
Knowledge Building, and community knowledge. Design principles can also
serve to stimulate invention – by researchers, teachers, administrators, engin-
eers, and students themselves – and guide it toward substantive improvements
in Knowledge-Building practice. The following are five themes that lay out
principles and design concepts that figure prominently in efforts to advance
Knowledge Building/knowledge creation as an educational approach.

19.1.1 Community Knowledge

Knowledge-Building pedagogy is based on the premise that authentic creative
knowledge work can take place in school classrooms – knowledge work that
does not merely replicate the past work of mature scholars or designers but that
substantively advances the state of knowledge in the classroom community and

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation 389

situates it within the larger societal effort to advance the state of knowledge on
all fronts (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2021). As in the scholarly disciplines, the
state of knowledge in any educational setting is an emergent distributed phe-
nomenon that cannot be found in any one person’s mind. Correspondingly, the
state of community knowledge only indirectly reflects the knowledge of individ-
ual members, but a common finding is that gains in individual achievement will
accompany advances in community knowledge (Chen & Hong, 2016). In the
previously cited study by Zhang and colleagues (2009), year-by-year changes in
a teacher’s practice aimed at getting fuller participation in collaborative
Knowledge Building resulted in both sociometric changes in the desired direc-
tion and in progressive improvements in learning results over successive years.

19.1.2 Sustained Idea Improvement and the Role of Metadiscourse

In Knowledge Building, idea improvement is an explicit principle applicable from
the earliest school years (Scardamalia, 2002). More than a pedagogical principle,
idea improvement is promoted as a sociocognitive norm intended to inform the
whole way of life in a Knowledge-Building community. In any educational
program, students are expected to leave with better ideas than they held initially.
Knowledge Building is distinguished by its commitment to enabling students to
take major responsibility for making this happen. As team members find new
information, identify an unsolved problem, and work creatively with ideas,
students come to treat every idea as potentially improvable, experiencing the
pleasure associated with discovery and meaningful teamwork. In such a sociocul-
tural environment, productive thinking is manifested not so much by skepticism
or logical argument as by the pervasive application of “design thinking” (Martin,
2009) – continual application of a “make it better” heuristic rather than an
“arguments for/arguments against” heuristic (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2003).
Idea improvement is challenging creative work and students generally need
considerable support in it – from the teacher, from technology (as discussed in
Section 19.2), and especially from group support of an idea improvement norm
(Caswell & Bielaczyk, 2001). There is an important role here for metadiscourse –
for teacher and students freely discussing how their Knowledge-Building work
is faring, what they could do to make it better, and what they could learn or
master to help community knowledge advance (Resendes et al., 2015).
A pertinent concept in such metadiscourse is promisingness: which among our
ideas are most worth trying to improve, to develop further? A simple software
application that enabled students to flag and collect ideas they judged to be
promising proved to be effective in making the promisingness of ideas an object
of inquiry, even for primary-grade students (Chen et al., 2015).

19.1.3 Knowledge-Creating Dialogue

Discussion in one form or another has been a mainstay of formal education for
centuries. Much recent research has aimed at making it more progressive and

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 390 ma rl en e sc ar da ma li a a n d ca rl b er ei t e r

productive, distancing it from both teacher-led recitation and from adversarial

argument. Alternatives include “exploratory talk” (Mercer, 1995/2000),
“explanatory dialogue” (Keefer, Zeitz, & Resnick, 2000), and “collaborative
argumentation” (Andriessen & Baker, 2014). All of these tend in the direction
of knowledge creation.
Dunbar (1997) showed that the discourse that goes on inside research labora-
tories is fundamentally different from the discourse that goes on in presenta-
tions and papers; it is more cooperative, more concerned with shared goals of
advancing understanding beyond what is currently understood. The creative
role of discourse is also widely recognized in the organizational knowledge-
creation literature; for example, it is the centerpiece of Tsoukas’s (2009) theory
of knowledge creation. Public discourse and collaborative discourse serve com-
plementary functions, and practitioners of a discipline need to be proficient in
both (Woodruff & Meyer, 1997). Drawing on such analyses, we have proposed
a model of “good moves” in knowledge-creating dialogue – essentially speech
acts that may be employed opportunistically in the collaborative production of
new knowledge (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2016).

19.1.4 Constructive Use of Authoritative Information

The use of authoritative information has presented problems for educators ever
since the advent of student-centered and constructivist education. On the one
hand, we do not want students to meekly accept authoritative pronouncements.
On the other hand, it is impossible to function in society without taking large
amounts of information on authority. Even though we want students to learn to
critically examine authoritative pronouncements, doing so effectively depends
on them bringing in other authoritative information as evidence. In Knowledge
Building, “constructive use” implies treating authoritative information along
with other informational resources in “design mode” (Bereiter & Scardamalia,
2003), where design thinking and critical thinking are both used in the service of
idea improvement. Yeo and Tan (2010) analyzed five high school physics
students’ efforts to build an explanation of an actual rollercoaster accident.
Starting with authoritative information from the teacher, who introduced the
concept of energy change and provided a formula for calculating it, the students
went on to seek additional information related to energy change from internet
sources. Through a series of transformations and additions they eventually
arrived at a plausible and coherent explanation of the accident. Yeo and Tan
generalized this process into a model of progressive development of authorita-
tive information into a problem solution.
Use of multiple documents in learning has become an active research area in
the learning sciences (Goldman & Brand-Gruwel, 2018). Beyond judging the
trustworthiness of received information is the problem of synthesizing it into
coherent knowledge – a task that, according to media analyst Alan Liu (2012),
was formerly the responsibility of authors but now falls increasingly on the
reader. Of course, author-imposed coherence may be of a superficial, often

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation 391

linear sort, which Liu (2018) sees digital media liberating us from. Whatever
form or depth it may achieve, however, coherence building is a legitimate type
of knowledge creation, an essential part of making constructive use of available
information rather than a preliminary or an adjunct to it. Students come to see
themselves as expert in working with knowledge resources as opposed to over-
dependence on “ask an expert” learning strategies.

19.1.5 Epistemic Artifacts

The term “building” in “Knowledge Building” is not intended metaphorically.
On the premise that ideas can be treated as real things, it is possible to literally
build things out of ideas. Examples are theories, proofs, explanations, and
plans. Knowledge Building can be understood as producing artifacts, things
of value to a community. These may be physical artifacts, such as models or
computer simulations and laboratory set-ups, but also immaterial artifacts such
as explanations and problem formulations – that is, “conceptual artifacts
(Alter, 2017; Bereiter, 2002). Of particular importance in education are what
Sterelny (2005) has called “epistemic artifacts” – shared community objects
(physical or conceptual) that enable further learning and knowledge creation.
Paramount among these are explanations – essentially theories, which may
undergo progressive development in the direction of greater explanatory coher-
ence that is logically and emotionally satisfying (Thagard, 2000). Arguably,
explanations are what constitute understanding at the level of public discourse
(Bereiter, 2016). But there can also be knowledge-embodying artifacts such as
physical models, tools, and design prototypes, which function as enablers of
further knowledge creation (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Viilo, & Hakkarainen,
2010). Finally, there is principled practical knowledge (Bereiter, 2014), which
is communicable know-how that, although not itself theoretical, meets stand-
ards of coherence with other ideas and knowledge. If Knowledge Building is to
engage all aspects of a full educational program, it will include production of all
these kinds of epistemic artifacts.

19.2 Knowledge-Building Technology

In knowledge-creating organizations idea improvement is woven into the
social fabric. The challenge in designing Knowledge-Building technology has
been to support this dynamic in novice communities (such as classrooms) – a
dynamic that includes “rising above” to higher-level syntheses and explanatory
coherence (Scardamalia, 2002; Thagard, 2000), explanation deepening
(Hakkarainen & Sintonen, 2002), a sense of belonging and well-being (Zhu
et al., 2020), and thinking in “design mode” (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2003).
Knowledge Forum® (and its precursor CSILE – Computer Supported
Intentional Learning Environment – in use since 1983) puts collaborative idea
improvement at the center, with students positioned to take collective

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 392 ma rl en e sc ar da ma li a a n d ca rl b er ei t e r

responsibility for advancing community knowledge (Scardamalia, 2003). It

remains distinctive in this regard. Knowledge Forum has been used at all educa-
tional levels from kindergarten to graduate school and professional work.
Distinctive Knowledge Forum characteristics reflect efforts to support dis-
course forms for knowledge creation that are underrepresented in school contexts
and technologies. Several commonplace discourse technologies fail to provide
needed support. The downward-branching tree structure of threaded discourse,
common in learning management systems, provides no way to create higher-level
organizations of information, to comment simultaneously on a number of notes,
or to make a connection between a message in one thread and a message in
another. Collaborative writing tools such as Google Docs can be turned to
Knowledge-Building purposes, as can makeshift technologies such as sticky notes
on a bulletin board, but they lack many features of purpose-built Knowledge-
Building/knowledge-creating technology. Current versions of Knowledge Forum
include Google Docs as a note type and sticky notes can be imported as editable,
movable knowledge objects to enhance their knowledge-creating potential and
Knowledge Forum capabilities. In the following sections, we describe key fea-
tures of knowledge-creating technology, including (1) user contributions as epi-
stemic objects, (2) “rise above” functionality, (3) integration with other
information technology, and (4) Knowledge-Building analytics for use and design
not only by professionals but by students themselves.

19.2.1 User Contributions as Epistemic Artifacts

Notes and views are the main constituents of a Knowledge Forum community
space. The community knowledge spaces (views) that users create and the ideas
they contribute (notes) are themselves collectively emergent phenomena, repre-
senting the advancing knowledge of the community. The view provides an
organizing context – possibly a diagram, a scene, a model, or a concept
map – that students create to provide a conceptual framework and viewpoint
for their notes dealing with a particular problem or topic. The view’s back-
ground can be created before, during, or after work on the view begins, and can
be edited at any time. Notes are contributed to a view and may be moved about
to create organization within views, may be moved and edited, and may be
copied to other views and linked across views.
Figure 19.1 shows eight views generated by Grade 2 students over the school
year to frame the notes they generated as their research on salmon and salmon
ecology proceeded. Each note in Knowledge Forum can be read by all other
students (unless students specifically identify it as private), with notes built on or
responded to by others. Lines between notes show note linkages resulting from
students building on and referencing each other. In this way, the community
builds knowledge, with its collective contribution displayed on the view, and
each view represents the emergent collective knowledge.
Students using Knowledge Forum do not spend all their Knowledge-Building
time at the computer; they engage in a broad range of activities as suggested in

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation 393

Figure 19.1 Eight student-generated views

these eight student-generated views. They read books and magazines and have
small-group and whole-class discussions (often referred to as “KB talk”).
Several of the views shown in Figure 19.1 are devoted to experiments designed
and carried out by the students. In the other views shown in Figure 19.1,
students record and discuss field trip experiences, consultation with experts,
and practical design ideas (e.g., an ideal salmon habitat, as sketched using
Knowledge Forum’s drawing tool). Throughout their work students link views,
creating a rich, integrated database to support further Knowledge-
Building work.
When used to full advantage, as in the salmon unit example, Knowledge
Forum views and notes constitute more than a record of what has been
accomplished. They are what were discussed in Section 19.1.5 as “epistemic
artifacts” – knowledge objects that aid in the further advancement of know-
ledge. Figure 19.2 shows a note by one student contributor to a community
space using theory-building scaffolds – or, more accurately, theory-building
epistemic markers – as students use these to demarcate epistemic artifacts.
Directly to the left of the note is an easy-to-use pull-down menu (My Theory,
I Need to Understand, New Information, This Theory Cannot Explain, Putting
our Knowledge Together) showing epistemic markers that help students iden-
tify, use, and analyze knowledge-advancing discourse moves. The more general
term “scaffolds” (see Tabak & Reiser, Chapter 3 in this volume) does not
convey this essential characteristic, thus our preference for the more technical
“epistemic marker.”

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 394 ma rl en e sc ar da ma li a a n d ca rl b er ei t e r

Figure 19.2 A note using theory-building epistemic markers

As the note text indicates, this early-primary-grade student has elected the
My Theory scaffold. Students can “build on,” “annotate,” “reference,” and
search for notes sharing the same scaffold type or keywords. Below in Section
19.2.4 on Knowledge-Building Analytics we elaborate on uses of epistemic
markers to further support the evolution of thought.
Knowledge Forum scaffolds/epistemic markers are designed to be used oppor-
tunistically; recommended use is voluntary with no fixed order. Like practically
everything else in Knowledge Forum they are customizable to favor user agency
and emergence. We have seen students actively engaged in designing scaffolds to
support more productive thinking. For instance, students in one fourth-grade
class decided that they were doing too much “knowledge telling” and so they
introduced new scaffolds to focus attention on advancing their ideas.

19.2.2 “Rise Above” Functionality

Knowledge Forum supports movement toward higher-level knowledge con-
structions through “rise above” functionality. The view titled “Knowledge
building for adults in high stakes environments” in the background of
Figure 19.3 was created by students in a university course. The view titled
“Sand + Clay: Photosynthesis” in the foreground was created by Grade 2
students. Views and notes from university and Grade 2 students are juxtaposed,
not because their work was related in any way, but to show rise-above func-
tionality at different grade levels and in different contexts.
Both use rise-above notes (square note icon with leaves under it). The open
Grade 2 rise-above note displays graphics generated by many students to
understand photosynthesis. In the background view a rise-above note created
by university students titled “Using analytics to improve participation” pro-
vides an overview of student designs for use of analytics. Above that note are

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation 395

Figure 19.3 The background screenshot was created by university students; the
foregrounded screenshot was created by Grade 2 students

three “link arrows” that take readers to earlier views and below it an “Initial
Portfolios” section created with drawing tools to reference early work; then in
the upper right a summary note provides links to final portfolios. Through these
various means users convey evolution of thought. In general, it is always
possible in Knowledge Forum to produce a higher-level structure that includes
the present one or to produce another subordinate to it. Students of varying
levels of sophistication have used rise-above functionality to advance commu-
nity knowledge.

19.2.3 Integration with Other Information Technology

Knowledge Forum is being improved to support more integrated use of familiar
technology, programmable tools, and third-party software. For example, in
Knowledge Forum, Google Docs and video annotation (Matsuzawa, 2019)
operate as note types and Hypothes.is annotation software has been linked
with easy incorporation of annotations as a distinctive note type with links back
to source material to bring new information into the discourse of the commu-
nity (Chen et al., 2019). Producing Knowledge Forum notes by dictation is
possible on any device that has speech-to-text functionality.
Figure 19.4 shows graphs imported from data analysis and modeling soft-
ware surrounded by Knowledge Forum notes – graphs and notes all generated
by Grade 6 students. They learned to use graphing software and imported select
graphs into Knowledge Forum to collaboratively interpret them and explore
implications for social studies work they were engaged in. Through discussions
of graphs in Knowledge Forum new issues arose requiring more advanced use

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 396 ma rl en e sc ar da ma li a a n d ca rl b er ei t e r

Figure 19.4 The foregrounded graphs and the surrounding notes were
generated by Grade 6 students

of the graphing software. Given easy movement between graphing software and
Knowledge Forum, they produced increasingly sophisticated graphs with add-
itional data, leading to deeper analysis, interpretation and evidence-based
accounts of their ideas recorded in Knowledge Forum regarding GDP in
nations worldwide, to discuss issues of poverty, inequality, and climate change.
Combining affordances of specialized software and Knowledge-Building
discourse resulted in ratcheting up the level of understanding of concepts as
well as advanced graphical and statistical skills – overall a powerful context for
treating data as an object of discourse (Chen et al., 2019).

19.2.4 Knowledge-Building Analytics

Sustaining idea improvement through metadiscourse, one of the five
Knowledge-Building themes discussed earlier, receives support in Knowledge
Forum through analytic tools that provide information for students to use in
discussing how their Knowledge-Building efforts are progressing, identifying
problems, and indicating promising directions for improvement. These efforts
build on learning analytics tools to support students in integrating large
amounts of data from their own Knowledge-Building environment (see Baker
& Siemens, Chapter 13 in this volume). A number of researchers at different
sites are collaborating in producing tools that collectively constitute
Knowledge-Building analytics (Chen & Zhang, 2016). Figure 19.5 provides
screenshots of ideas currently under development to support evolution of
community knowledge. In this figure community knowledge is viewed from

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation 397

Figure 19.5 Community knowledge viewed from eight different perspectives

eight different perspectives. Each of the eight perspectives can provide a com-
munity view, shown on the left and accessed through an “Our Community” tab,
or an individual view, shown on the right accessed through a “How I Helped”
tab. Individuals can see their contribution relative to those of others, but no
other names are provided. Early trials indicate that students find such feedback
helpful, enabling them to contribute more to collective efforts.
Interdisciplinarity in Knowledge Forum has been investigated by Khanlari,
Zhu, and Scardamalia (2019). Rotating Leadership, based on changing positions
over time in a social-semantic network, has been investigated by Ma and a variety
of collaborators (Ma et al., 2017). Other efforts in the direction of Knowledge-
Building analytics include the Idea Thread Mapper (Zhang, Chen, Chen, &
Mico, 2013), which re-represents Knowledge Forum notes in time-ordered pro-
gressions based on notes referring to preceding notes. KB-Dex is a highly
versatile tool that combines social and semantic analysis for rendering

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 398 ma rl en e sc ar da ma li a a n d ca rl b er ei t e r

social-semantic relations visible and has already been used effectively with stu-
dents working in Knowledge Forum (Oshima, Oshima, & Matsuzawa, 2012).

19.3 Artificial Intelligence and Epistemic Agency

Artificial neural networks (ANNs), which have given us driverless cars
and game-playing programs that can discover new strategies, open up exciting
possibilities for educational transformation and for human-machine collabor-
ation in creative work (J. S. Brown, 2017; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2020).
ANNs also pose dangers in the form of authoritarian control and the embodi-
ment of unwarranted assumptions and biases. First off the mark in ANN-based
artificial intelligence (AI) for education have been vendors who claim to provide
accurate diagnosis of each student’s instructional needs, along with prescrip-
tions for meeting them. This of course raises issues of agency for both teachers
and students. But also at issue is the quality of the diagnoses and prescriptions.
ANN-based machine learning programs could in principle discover diagnoses
and prescriptions if provided with an abundance of high-quality input-output
data in each domain; but this would require a research program that dwarfs all
prior educational and cognitive research. In the foreseeable future, therefore,
diagnosis and prescription programs in education will be trained by corrective
feedback from human trainers – feedback necessarily limited and biased by the
knowledge and dispositions of the trainers.
We believe the future of AI in Knowledge Building and in constructivist
education in general lies in applications for use by students rather than for use
on students. Informal try-out of an ANN-based application in an elementary
school Knowledge-Building class suggested that students quickly establish a
sense of agency if they are allowed to play with the “black box” – trying
different inputs to see what happens, trying to fool the machine or get it to do
foolish things (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2020). We are of course surrounded by
black boxes, complex devices whose inner workings are inscrutable to us (unlike
a mechanical clock, for instance, whose inner workings may appear complex
but which – in contrast to the innards of a digital clock – present a reassuring
picture of one thing perceptibly leading to another). Play is a way that children
become at ease with and in control of black boxes. Play may be the main thing
that accounts for their precocious facility with cell phones and tablet computers.
Accordingly, a requirement for AI in support of Knowledge Building should be
not only that it is usable by students but that it is accessible for playful
manipulation and experimentation.
While the basic design of Knowledge Forum continues to prioritize student
epistemic agency, recent versions have begun to incorporate feedback tools that
work in nontransparent ways. One of these, KBDex, has already been dis-
cussed. In KBDex, colored circles representing ideas in Knowledge Forum
notes or note authors swim about on the computer screen and settle into
arrangements that cluster these in meaningful ways, but not according to any

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation 399

step-wise reasoning. Another is an adaptation of LightSIDE, a machine learn-

ing application for text analysis (Mayfield & Rosé, 2013), trained to analyze
Knowledge Forum notes for content coverage and “scientificness” (Zhang &
Chen, 2019). Both applications are being engineered so as to be usable by
students for feedback on their collaborative Knowledge Building. To ensure
that AI black boxes play a positive role in Knowledge Building, the information
obtained should itself be treated as an object of collaborative inquiry and idea
improvement. Past experience has suggested that students can work with ideas
at surprisingly high levels of sophistication, and that they are impressive design
partners able to help advance designs for knowledge practices and technologies
for sustained work with ideas.

19.4 Meeting the Educational Needs of a Knowledge Society

Designing education to meet the emerging needs of a knowledge society is
a priority of education systems worldwide. An increased emphasis on STEM
subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has been one result,
moderated by efforts to ensure a place for the arts, humanities, and other discip-
lines. There are also efforts to go beyond content changes to enhance the capacity
and disposition of students to engage in creative knowledge work. Currently these
efforts are dominated by test-driven “twenty-first-century skills” approaches –
often with updated names, but still grounded in a 1950s trait psychology (Bereiter
& Scardamalia, 2018; Scardamalia, Bransford, Kozma, & Quellmalz, 2012).
Although no one is likely to question the value of creativity, problem-solving,
collaborativeness, and other items on popular skill lists, or growing efforts to teach
empathy, resilience, and other desirable human traits, enthusiasts tend to gloss
over serious questions of teachability, transfer of learning, and assessment valid-
ity. To educators who have been in the business for enough years, the skills
movement evokes a “been there, done that” reaction. It is not much different
from “higher-order thinking skills” and related movements that have come and
gone over the past six decades. An international Knowledge-Building team aims
to establish a global network of hubs of innovation with students, teachers,
researchers, engineers, and policy makers codesigning the practices and technolo-
gies that take us beyond programs focused on assessing and teaching purported
skills. Students at all levels have proved to be active collaborators –junior
members of a knowledge society and active participants in its core work.

19.5 Conclusion
A survey of 253 learning scientists by Yoon and Hmelo-Silver (2017)
found that “collaborative knowledge building” was the most frequently named
research interest (pp. 177–178). Knowledge Building International, a membership
organization, conducts annual Knowledge Building Summer Institutes (ikit.org/

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 400 ma rl en e sc ar da ma li a a n d ca rl b er ei t e r

kbi/index.php/summer-institutes/) held in various countries and often in conjunc-

tion with other research societies. The Knowledge Building Research International
charity will both sponsor and conduct cross-nation research and development of
Knowledge Building. Its initial project is a design experiment titled “Saving the
Planet, Saving Lives,” including simulations employed in the health and environ-
mental sciences for Knowledge Building by school-aged students. These inter-
national initiatives will also join with a number of other Knowledge-Building
research groups and school–university–government alliances globally.
A case study by Zhang and colleagues (2011) concluded that principle-based
Knowledge Building, if it is to prevail, requires a continuing process of
Knowledge Building by teachers themselves, resulting in educational designs
that achieve continually deeper principles-based practices. Toward this end a
Knowledge Building Innovation Network (Ma & Scardamalia, in press) and
community-based design research network (Teo, 2019) are demonstrating the
power of engaging practitioners in design teams with researchers, engineers, and
policy makers to produce needed conceptual change.
In all of the major Knowledge-Building research groups, there is also local
and sometimes widespread implementation in schools and in teacher education.
For such implementation to succeed, substantial conceptual change is required
and is itself a subject of research (e.g., Laferrière, Law, & Montané, 2012; Y. H.
Tan & Tan, 2020). Even among educators of a progressivist and constructivist
bent there are legacy concepts that stand in the way of progress in Knowledge
Building; for example, (1) basics must be mastered before students can under-
take higher-order work with ideas, (2) instructional planning must start with a
clear specification of the skills and concepts to be learned and steps to attain-
ment, and (3) knowledge processes, whether collaborative or individual, must
be structured for students by the teacher and curriculum designers. These
notions date back to an era before the emergent, self-organizing character of
learning and cognition was well recognized. They are not based so much on
evidence as on what was perceived as common sense in those simpler times.
Much of the force of the expanding field of Knowledge-Building research has
come from providing grounding and research bases for a different kind of
educational common sense – a common sense that recognizes students can
begin creative work with knowledge and ideas before they have mastered basic
skills and knowledge – and this facilitates mastery; that working forward
opportunistically is often preferable to working backward from fixed learning
goals; and that the self-organizing character of collaborative knowledge pro-
cesses with students’ ideas at the center is something to be nurtured and assisted.

References
Alter, S. (2017). Nothing is more practical than a good conceptual artifact . . . which may
be a theory, framework, model, metaphor, paradigm or perhaps some other
abstraction. Information Systems Journal, 27(5), 671–693. doi:10.1111/isj.12116

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation 401

Andriessen, J., & Baker, M. (2014). Arguing to learn. In R. K.. Sawyer (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 439–460). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17.
Bereiter, C. (2016). Theory building and education for understanding. In M. A. Peters
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory. Singapore: Springer
Science+Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_370-1
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In
E. D. Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. V. Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful
learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp.
73–78). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Can children really create knowledge? Canadian
Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1). Retrieved from www.cjlt.ca/index
.php/cjlt/article/view/26377
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation:
One concept, two hills to climb. In S. C. Tan, H. J. So, & J. Yeo (Eds.),
Knowledge creation in education (pp. 35–52). Singapore: Springer Science
+Business Media.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2016). “Good moves” in knowledge-creating dialogue.
Qwerty – Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and
Education, 11(2), 12–26. Retrieved from http://www.ckbg.org/qwerty/index
.php/qwerty/article/view/242
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2018). Fixing Humpty-Dumpty: Putting higher-order
skills and knowledge together again. In L. Kerslake & R. Wegerif (Eds.),
Theory of teaching thinking: International perspectives (pp. 73–88). London;
New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and design of innovative
learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble
& R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education
(pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, J. S. (2017). Sensemaking in our post-AlphaGo world. Retrieved from http://
johnseelybrown.com/SensemakingStanford.pdf
Caswell, B., & Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Knowledge Forum: Altering the relationship
between students and scientific knowledge. Education, Communication &
Information, 1(3), 281–305.
Chan, C. K. K. (2013). Collaborative knowledge building: Towards a knowledge
creation perspective. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, &
A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp.
437–461). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chen, B., Chang, Y.-H., Groos, D., et al. (2019). IdeaMagnets: Bridging Knowledge
Building in schools with public discourse. Institute for Knowledge Innovation
and Technology. Retrieved June 13, 2020 from https://bodong.me/talk/2019-
kbsi-ideamagnets/featured.png
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/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 402 ma rl en e sc ar da ma li a a n d ca rl b er ei t e r

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. doi:10.1007/
s11412-015-9225-z
Chen, B., & Zhang, J. (2016). Analytics for knowledge creation: Towards epistemic
agency and design-mode thinking. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2),
139–163.
Chuy, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., et al. (2010). Understanding the nature of
science and scientific progress: A theory-building approach. Canadian Journal
of Learning and Technology, 36(1). Retrieved from www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/
article/view/26373
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2006). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer,
I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported commu-
nication of knowledge: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives
(pp. 259–288). New York, NY: Springer.
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York,
NY: Harper & Row.
Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: Online creativity and conceptual change in
science. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & S. Vaid (Eds.), Conceptual structures
and processes: Emergence, discovery and change (pp. 461–493). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Goldman, S. R., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). Learning from multiple sources in a digital
society. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann
(Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 86–95). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2002). The interrogative model of inquiry and
computer-supported collaborative learning. Science & Education, 11(1), 25–43.
Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design
approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 57(5), 613–627.
Keefer, M. W., Seitz, C. L., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led
student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 3–81.
Khanlari, A., Zhu, G., & Scardamalia, M. (2019). Knowledge Building analytics to
explore crossing disciplinary and grade-level boundaries. Journal of Learning
Analytics, 6(3), 60–75.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimally guided instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-
based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,
41(2), 75–86.
Laferrière, T., Law, N. W. Y., & Montané, M. (2012). An international knowledge
building network for sustainable curriculum and pedagogical innovation.
International Education Studies, 5(3), 148–160.
Lin, P.-Y., Ma, L., Chang, Y.-H., Hong, H.-Y., & Lin, C. P. (2018). Improving
elementary students’ literacy through knowledge building. In J. Kay &
R. Luckin (Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning
sciences count, 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS)
2018, Vol. 3 (pp. 1527–1528). London, England: International Society of the
Learning Sciences.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation 403

Liu, A. (2012). This is not a book: Transliteracies and long forms of digital attention.
Paper presented at the Translittératies Conference, ENS Cachan, Paris,
November 7, 2012. Retrieved from https://liu.english.ucsb.edu/this-is-not-a-
book-translitteraties-conference-paris/
Liu, A. (2018). Friending the past: The sense of history in the digital age. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Loo, S. (2017). Creative working in the knowledge economy. Abingdon, England:
Routledge.
Ma, L., & Scardamalia, M. (in press). Teachers as designers in knowledge building
innovation networks. In M.-C. Shanahan, B. Kim, K. Koh, A. P. Preciado-
Babb, & M. A. Takeuchi (Eds.), The learning sciences in conversation: Theories,
methodologies, and boundary spaces. Routledge.
Ma, L., Tan, S., Teo, C., & Kamsan, M. (2017). Using rotating leadership to visualize
students’ epistemic agency and collective responsibility for knowledge advance-
ment. In B. K. Smith, M. Borge, E. Mercier, & K. Y. Lim (Eds.), Making a
difference: Prioritizing equity and access in CSCL, 12th International
Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2017,
Vol. 1 (pp. 455–462). Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning
Sciences.
Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive
advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Matsuzawa, Y. (2019). Knowledge Forum video annotation to advance community know-
ledge. Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology. Retrieved
September 9, 2019 from https://macc704.github.io/www/VideoAnnotaionTool
.html
Mayfield, E., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). LightSIDE: Open source machine learning for text.
In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Handbook of automated essay evalu-
ation: Current applications and new directions (pp. 124–135). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Mercer, N. (2000). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and
learners. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. (Originally published
in 1995).
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6),
96–104.
Oshima, J., Oshima, R., & Matsuzawa, Y. (2012). Knowledge Building Discourse
Explorer: A social network analysis application for knowledge building dis-
course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 903–921.
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. doi:10.1007/
s11412-015-9219-x
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of
knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society
(pp. 76–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the
possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam,
& R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269–272).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 404 ma rl en e sc ar da ma li a a n d ca rl b er ei t e r

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in know-
ledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2020). Will knowledge building remain uniquely
human? Qwerty – Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture
and Education, 11(2), 12–26.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2021). Knowledge building: Advancing the state of
community knowledge. In U. Cress, C. Rosé, A. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.),
International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp.
261–279). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Brett, C., Burtis, P. J., Calhoun, C., & Smith Lea, N.
(1992). Educational applications of a networked communal database.
Interactive Learning Environments, 2(1), 45–71.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring
the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilley (Ed.), Classroom lessons:
Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Scardamalia, M., Bransford, J., Kozma, R., & Quellmalz, E. (2012). New assessments
and environments for knowledge building. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care
(Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 231–300). New York,
NY: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Viilo, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Learning by collab-
orative designing: Technology-enhanced knowledge practices. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(2), 109–136.
Slotta, J. D., & Acosta, A. (2017). Scripting and orchestrating learning communities:
A role for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 1,
pp. 343–350). Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Sterelny, K. (2005). Externalism, epistemic artefacts and the extended mind. In
R. Schantz (Ed.), The externalist challenge: New studies on cognition and
intentionality. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
Sun, Y., Zhang. J., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Developing deep understanding and
literacy while addressing a gender-based literacy gap. Canadian Journal of
Learning and Technology, 35(1). Retrieved from www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/
article/view/26369
Tan, Y. H., & Tan, S. C. (2020). Conceptions of knowledge creation, knowledge and
knowing: A phenomenography of Singapore Chinese language teachers.
Singapore: Springer.
Tan, S. C., So, H. J., & Yeo, J. (2014). Knowledge creation in education. Singapore:
Springer.
Teo, C. L. (2019). Community-based design research to sustain classroom innovation
with ICT. In D. Hung, S.-S. Lee, Y. Toh, A. Jamaludin, & L. Wu (Eds.),
Innovations in educational change: Cultivating ecologies for schools
(pp. 103–118). Singapore: Springer.
Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Toth, P., & Ma, L. (2018). Fostering student voice and epistemic agency through
knowledge building. In Knowledge building: A place for everyone in a knowledge
society, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Knowledge Building Summer Institute

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Knowledge Building and Knowledge Creation 405

(pp. 96–104). Toronto, Canada: Knowledge Building International. www

.researchgate.net/publication/329842125
Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organ-
izations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957.
van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and
knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 259–287.
van Aalst, J., & Truong, M. S. (2011). Promoting knowledge creation discourse in an
Asian primary five classroom: Results from an inquiry into life cycles.
International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 487–515.
von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: Unlocking
the mystery of tacit knowledge. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Woodruff, E., & Meyer, K. (1997). Explanations from intra- and intergroup discourse:
Students building knowledge in the science classroom. Research in Science
Education, 27(1), 25–39.
Yeo, J., & Tan, S. C. (2010). Constructive use of authoritative sources in science
meaning making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(13),
1739–1754.
Yoon, S., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2017). What do learning scientists do? A survey of the
ISLS membership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(2), 167–183.
Zhang, J., & Chen, M.-H. (2019). Idea Thread Mapper: Designs for sustaining student-
driven knowledge building across classrooms. In C. Hmelo-Silver et al. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2019). Lyon, France: International Society of
the Learning Sciences.
Zhang, J., Chen, M.-H., Chen, J., & Mico, T. F. (2013). Computer-supported metadis-
course to foster collective progress in knowledge-building communities. In
Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2013). Madison, WI: International Society of
the Learning Sciences.
Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C., & Morley, E. (2011). Sustaining
knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307.
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective
cognitive responsibility in knowledge building communities. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.
Zhu, G., Teo, C. L., Scardamalia, M., et al. (2020). Emotional and cognitive affordances
of collaborative learning environments. In M. Gresalfi & I. S. Horn (Eds.), The
interdisciplinarity of the learning sciences, 14th International Conference of the
Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2020 (Vol. 1, pp. 382–389). Nashville, TN:
International Society of the Learning Sciences.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.024 Published online by Cambridge University Press