Evaluation of research on the Knowledge Building pedagogy: a mixed methodological approach

被引:3
|
作者
Gutierrez-Braojos, C. [1 ]
Montejo-Gamez, J. [2 ]
Poza-Vilches, F. [3 ]
Marin-Jimenez, A. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Granada, Dept Res Methods, Granada, Spain
[2] Univ Granada, Dept Math Educ, Granada, Spain
[3] Univ Granada, Granada, Spain
[4] Univ Granada, Dept Quantitat Methods Econ & Business, Granada, Spain
关键词
Social Constructivism; Knowledge Building Pedagogy; Scientometric analysis; Systematic review; Mixed Methods; CUMULATIVE ADVANTAGE; BELIEFS; CONSTRUCTION; JUDGMENTS; EDUCATION; SCIENCE;
D O I
10.7203/relieve.26.1.16671
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Knowledge Building (KB) is a theoretical framework that promotes collective inquiry through the resolution of knowledge problems that are relevant for certain educational community. There is an increasing number of authors looking into benefits of this approach, thus an overview of the trends of research is needed. The aim of this study is to provide the state of the art concerning the research production on Knowledge Building pedagogy including trends and relevant issues. In this study a sequential explanatory design was applied. Both quantitative (scientometric analysis) and qualitative (systematic review) approaches were applied. The sample was selected from the most recent productions published in journals indexed in the Web of Science database. The scientometric analysis shows a publishing dynamics typical of an up and coming research field. In the qualitative phase, analysis reveals research trends on Knowledge Building as well as the benefits of putting it into practice in a wide range of contexts, exposing that technology is a relevant component of learning based on the pedagogy. These benefits mainly regard to individuals' depth of thinking and collaboration skills within computer supported environments.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 22
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Building Categories in Higher Education Pedagogy: from the Generation to the Socialization of Knowledge
    Morosini, Marilia Costa
    Dal Pai Franco, Maria Estela
    [J]. WMSCI 2008: 12TH WORLD MULTI-CONFERENCE ON SYSTEMICS, CYBERNETICS AND INFORMATICS, VOL VII, PROCEEDINGS, 2008, : 294 - +
  • [32] Knowledge-building activity structures in Japanese elementary science pedagogy
    Oshima, Jun
    Oshima, Ritsuko
    Murayama, Isao
    Inagaki, Shigenori
    Takenaka, Makiko
    Yamamoto, Tomokazu
    Yamaguchi, Etsuji
    Nakayama, Hayashi
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING, 2006, 1 (02) : 229 - 246
  • [33] Knowledge-building activity structures in Japanese elementary science pedagogy
    Jun Oshima
    Ritsuko Oshima
    Isao Murayama
    Shigenori Inagaki
    Makiko Takenaka
    Tomokazu Yamamoto
    Etsuji Yamaguchi
    Hayashi Nakayama
    [J]. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2006, 1 : 229 - 246
  • [34] Building fields of education from Pedagogy: knowledge of education and common activity
    Tourinan Lopez, Jose Manuel
    [J]. REVISTA DE INVESTIGACION EN EDUCACION, 2021, 19 (02): : 81 - 111
  • [35] METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN A RESEARCH APPROACH TO SCHIZOPHRENIA
    APTER, NS
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 1955, 112 (04): : 292 - 293
  • [36] Application of the methodological approach of Research in the Arts
    Lucas, Elisa Martins
    [J]. URDIMENTO-REVISTA DE ESTUDOS EM ARTES CENICAS, 2022, 1 (43):
  • [37] Integrating research and pedagogy: An Exploratory Practice approach
    Hanks, Judith
    [J]. SYSTEM, 2017, 68 : 38 - 49
  • [38] Research as pedagogy: building learning communities and religious understanding in RE
    Stern, Julian
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, 2010, 32 (02) : 133 - 146
  • [39] A methodological evaluation of public relations research
    Pasadeos, Yorgo
    Lamme, Margot O.
    Gower, Karla
    Tian, Song
    [J]. PUBLIC RELATIONS REVIEW, 2011, 37 (02) : 163 - 165
  • [40] Methodological quality standards for evaluation research
    Farrington, DP
    [J]. ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, 2003, 587 : 49 - 68