Draft of Paavola, S., Engeström, R. & Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Trialogical approach as a new form of mediation more

Draft of Paavola, S., Engeström, R. & Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Trialogical approach as a new form of mediation. An article to appear in A. Morsh, A. Moen, & S. Paavola (Eds.) Collaborative knowledge creation: Practices, tools, and concepts (pp. 9-23). KP-Lab project (the book will be published online). 1 Trialogical Approach as a New Form of Mediation Sami Paavola, Ritva Engeström & Kai Hakkarainen, University of Helsinki, Finland Abstract: A knowledge-creation metaphor of learning has provided a basis for the trialogical approach to learning developed within the KP-Lab project. In this paper we analyze foundations of both of these conceptions. We make a short review of the use of the knowledge creation metaphor in the literature. There is a growing interest in technology mediated knowledge creation perspectives in new approaches to learning. Then we analyze how the trialogical approach has been influenced both by the knowledge building approach and by the activity theoretical conceptions concerning collaborative learning. This kind of a triangulation of various approaches has been a challenge but at the same time a source for novelties in the KP-Lab project. The trialogical approach focuses on developing tools and concepts for organizing collaborative learning both around knowledge artefacts and practices Introduction A trialogical approach to learning builds on the knowledge-creation metaphor of learning. The knowledge-creation metaphor is a claim that there is an emerging trend on theories about human learning and cognition which aim at understanding how people organize their work and learning collaboratively and with distributed means for developing and creating concrete things (artefacts, practices, processes, ideas) together. This metaphor is a sequel to Anna Sfard’s (1998) famous distinction between acquisition and participation metaphors of learning. It was maintained that this distinction is a very apt characterization of basic theories of learning as such but in order to understand the emerging new phenomena related to collaborative creativity and learning a third basic metaphor of learning should be defined and developed further (Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2002; 2004; Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola, & Lehtinen, 2004). It can be maintained that various changes in modern society form a basis for the knowledge-creation metaphor of learning, like: 1) the rapid development of new technology which has formed and is all the time forming qualitatively new possibilities for distributed interaction and collaboration, 2) the pressure to create– and learn deliberately to create – new knowledge and transform existing practices in various areas of life, and 3) the complexity of modern society which requires people to combine their expertise to solve emerging and often unforeseen complex problems. The knowledge-creation metaphor of learning has formed also a foundation for the KP-Lab (Knowledge Practices Laboratory; see www.kp-lab.org) project. The KP-Lab project is a fiveyear project (started at 2006) consisting of partner organizations representing various approaches to research and development of educational technology. A goal of the project has been to develop theories, tools, practical models, and research methods that elicit deliberate advancement and creation of knowledge as well as transformation of knowledge practices in education and workplaces. The partners in the project represent pedagogical research, technology development, and different theoretical outlook, and have focused on models and tools for higher education, teacher training, and workplaces. Because of the heterogeneity of the project, the knowledge-creation metaphor of learning seemed to be a good theoretical background for the project. Instead of starting from some specific theoretical outlook concerning learning or educational technology, it functions more like an ‘umbrella’ framework emphasizing commonalities between different approaches which all aim at understanding phenomena central to the project’s aims and research, that is, how people collaboratively create and develop novel things with the support of technology. Theories representing the knowledge-creation metaphor of learning were central background for the KP-Lab project, that is, Nonaka & Takeuchi’s (1995) theory of organizational knowledge creation to some extent, but especially Bereiter’s (2002) theory of knowledge building and the research and development of computer-supported collaborative learning in general; as well as activity theory, especially Engeström’s (1987) theory of expansive learning. Drawing on the knowledge-creation metaphor, the trialogical approach aims not to be an overarching theory combining various theories together but an approach for making research and developing technology-mediated collaborative learning where the role of both knowledge artefacts and practices are emphasized. The original aim of the KP-Lab project has been to specify the trialogical approach to learning by triangulating three different perspectives. These are research on collaborative learning, research on technology-mediated learning (i.e. both research traditions contributing separately to the knowledge-creation metaphor of learning as we interpret it) and designing technologies and developing pedagogical models within the actual project work. In this paper we open up more the theoretical bases for the trialogical approach to learning. First, we shortly review how the notion of the knowledge-creation metaphor of learning is treated and received in the literature. If the knowledge-creation metaphor presents emerging ideas in the field the ways of using and referring to it should give ideas of what is essential in the notion and phenomena around it. Then we try to specify the basics of the trialogical approach. Finally we present central theoretical challenges that have pushed forward the theoretical development in the project. Knowledge-creation metaphor of learning and the trialogical approach The notion of the “knowledge creation metaphor” (KCM) of learning was first developed in relation to the computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) in order to broaden or understand better the epistemological basis of technology-mediated learning (Paavola et al 2002). It is quite typical within CSCL, which is quite young research area, to search theoretical and methodological ideas from different areas of research. In line with this, the target of the knowledge creation metaphor of learning was from the start broader than just within computer-supported learning; the aim was to understand collaborative learning and knowledge advancement more generally. Since then we ourselves have developed it in relation to CSCL research (Lipponen et al 2004; Paavola & Hakkarainen 2009), but also more generally in relation to theories of learning (Paavola et al 2004), expertise and human cognition (Hakkarainen, Palonen, & Paavola, 2002; Hakkarainen et al 2004), and inquiry learning (Muukkonen, Lakkala, & Hakkarainen, 2005; Hakkarainen & Paavola 2009). In this chapter we shortly review where and how the knowledge-creation metaphor is referred in the literature. In relation to the historical connection of the notion ‘knowledge creation metaphor’ of learning it is no wonder that it is quite often referred just in the CSCL context (Stahl, Koschmann & Suthers 2006). Strijbos & Firsher (2007) points out that the metaphors of learning bring in the variation within perspectives on collaborative learning and their methodologies. Quite often the KCM is interpreted as a continuation, or even a synonym for knowledge building with the emphasis that the need for knowledge creation (and knowledge building) is much more important in the future (Watkins 2005; Lee, Chan & van Aalst 2006; An, Kim & Kim 2008; Zhang, Scardamalia, Reeve & Messina 2009; Hong & Sullivan 2009; Lonchamp 2009; van Aalst 2009). The KCM is, however, referred also in many other contexts, like when reviewing various approaches to workplace learning and organizational learning (Tynjälä & Häkkinen 2005; Tynjälä 2008), making research on teacher education and teacher communities (Laferriere, Lamon & Chan 2006; Banks 2008; Katz et al 2008; Carroll 2009; Hung et al 2006; Chan & Pang 2006), networked learning (De Laat & Lally 2003), development of networked expertise (Edwards, 2005; 2009; Daniels, Leadbetter, Soares, & MacNab, 2006; Mylopoulos & Regehr 2009), while defining new digital epistemology for schools and teacher education (Krumswik 2006), or analyzing the nature of open source communities (Hemestberger & Reinhardt 2006). The KCM is referred in relation to various technologies, like web 2.0 technology more generally (McLoughlin & Lee 2008a; 2008b; King et al 2009), or more specifically Wikiversity (and wikis) (Leinonen et al 2009), podcasts (Lee, McLoughlin & Chan 2008), ”assistive technology” (Folkes & Carmichael 2006), or young people’s learning in technology and mediarich settings (Ryberg & Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2008). Some writers use KCM to make a difference or an addition to approaches emphasizing participation (De Laat et al 2006; Roberts 2007), or communities of practice (Wilson et al 2007; Zhang 2009). There are less papers starting from the point of view of sociocultural approach or activity theory that refer to the KCM (but see: Roth et al 2009; Cullen et al 2009). The notion of the ‘trialogical’ approach to learning is much less referred in the literature than ‘knowledge creation metaphor’, maybe also because when it was first presented it was almost a synonym for the knowledge creation metaphor of learning (Paavola & Hakkarainen 2005). Later the approach has been specified more (Paavola, Sintonen & Hakkarainen 2006; Hakkarainen, 2008; 2009a; Hakkarainen & Paavola 2008; Paavola & Hakkarainen 2009). When the focus is on trialogical processes organized with technology on developing shared object, the term ‘knowledge creation metaphor’ is used instead of ‘trialogical approach’ (e.g. Hung et al 2006; Singh, Hawkins & Whymark 2009). But also the term trialogical approach is used (Scott et al 2007; van Pol 2007). Trialogical approach in between knowledge building and activity theory While the theoretical basis of the trialogical approach has been influenced by the CSCL research tradition, the approach has drawn a lot from the theory of knowledge building (see also Paavola & Hakkarainen 2009). Kai Hakkarainen with his colleagues developed a progressive inquiry model of learning at late 1990, which is a technology-enhanced inquiry learning model relying on basic ideas of knowledge building and so-called interrogative model of inquiry (see Hakkarainen 1998; Muukkonen et al 2004). Very early on it started to become clear that in order to develop both knowledge building and progressive inquiry processes further the role of social practices should be emphasized (Hakkarainen 2009b; Hakkarainen & Paavola 2009). Knowledge building as developed by Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia (Bereiter 2002; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006) is an approach that focuses on the way how people create and modify “conceptual artefacts” with the help of a technology-built learning environment (‘Knowledge Forum’) developed specifically for that purpose. The focus is not on what is happening within individuals’ minds but on how they are solving, in a sustained way, knowledge problems by modifying and commenting each others’ ideas collaboratively (and with external means, that is, by using Knowledge Forum). A central theoretical basis for the knowledge building is the idea that human beings have an ability to develop cultural or conceptual artefacts which go beyond what is happening in individuals’ minds and “mental” realm (or within material realm). This kind of an ontology is a basis for human creativity as addressed by Karl Popper (1972). The trialogical approach to learning owes a lot to knowledge building because also in the trialogical approach a central focus is on understanding those processes where people are developing and modifying conceptual artefacts collaboratively, and how technology can support these kinds of processes. We think, however, that knowledge building is often too one-sidedly leaning on the role of ideas, and idea-improvement as a basis for human creativity, even in the case of cultural or conceptual artefacts (see Hakkarainen 2009b for extensive constructive criticism of the knowledge building approach). Also conceptual artefacts are “artefacts” just because they are not operating just within conceptual realm but have also material characteristics and close connections to practices where they are used. That is why we have argued that Charles Peirce semiotic and pragmatistic theory provides a better theoretical and ontological basis for the trialogical approach than Popper theory of cultural artefacts (Paavola & Hakkarainen 2009). Peirce’s theory comes close to Popper’s theory of cultural artefacts (Skagestad 1993) but combines, as we interpret it, more closely to material elements and practices. Does this kind of a theoretical dispute have any practical implications? We think it does. Knowledge building approach is specialized for understanding processes related to idea-improvement whereas the trialogical approach aims at understanding conceptual artefacts, and supporting the work with them. All kinds of texts, project plans, models, sketches are conceptual artefacts, not just the ideas that they inhere; and the trialogical approach aims at finding ways of helping people to organize their work and learning around the artefacts. In relation to knowledge building the trialogical approach then loses when it comes to sharpness on idea-improvement, but gains breadth by concentrating on practical work with various kinds of processes and artefacts made for some specific purpose in mind. While the knowledge building approach has its merits in educational environments oriented toward working with “hermetic” ideas (partially isolated from practices and material culture), ideas are fully embodied and merged with material practices in workplace communities. Another central background for the trialogical approach to learning is the socio-cultural theory, and the cultural-historical activity theory. The cultural-historical approach builds on the idea that human activities are mediated by artefacts, used and modified by succeeding generations of human beings and grounded on practical, everyday activities (Cole 1996, 108110). Praxis, or practices, and cultural artefacts are developed in interaction with each other in historically situated and evolving processes (Miettinen & Virkkunen 2005). Human activity has always a history (“historicity” is emphasized) and it is “object-oriented” which means that also collective activity has an object related to the “motive”, or to the concrete outcomes of activity (Engeström 1987; Leontiev 1978) For broadening the understanding on technology-mediated learning where people are developing together knowledge artefacts and practices with distributed means, the activity theory has provided some basic orientations to the trialogical approach. Our aim has been to understand more the intertwined system of material, social and practical components within learning; something which is often missing in theories of learning emphasizing epistemological or conceptual issues. The partners in the KP-Lab project represented in different degrees the activity theoretical approach but the common aim has been to apply activity theoretical concepts and methodological choices for enriching the research approach. The relationship between activity theory and the trialogical approach has, then, caused discussion and forced us to push conceptions of the trialogical approach further. From the perspective of activity theory, Hanna Toiviainen and Yrjö Engeström (2007) have presented three concerns, or questions to the trialogical approach: “1) Emphasizing objects and artifacts in the learning interaction, does the trialogical approach provide an analytical distinction between the object and tools? This is crucial in the ICT-rich activities in which tools easily become quasi-objects. 2) Compared to the dialogical approach, does the trialogical approach adhere to the situational interactionism in which the partners of dialogue are embedded, or does it anchor the community to the institutions and organizations? In the activity-theoretical terms, the analysis of rules and division of labour is important. 3) The first two questions lead to the question of history and historicity: what is their place in the trialogical learning approach?” There are no clear-cut answers to these questions but they help to focus the further clarification of the trialogical approach. At this section of the paper we make use of a theoretical view on epistemic object and its history. Karin Knorr-Cetina (2001) has emphasized those emergent phenomena of modern knowledge society challenge traditional ways of understanding the meaning and nature of practices and objects as a part of human activities. Practices are often defined as recurrent processes and rule-based routines but modern “epistemic practices” challenge this notion. Knowledge-centered work requires a more dynamic, creative, and reflective notion of practice. Knorr-Cetina has also emphasized that the notion of ‘object’ and especially ‘epistemic object” got a new meaning in this situation. Epistemic objects or ‘epistemic things’ (Rheinberger 1997) are knowledge objects, which are in the process of being defined, and more open-ended than traditional ‘objects’. Epistemic objects “appear to have the capacity to unfold indefinitely” (Knorr Cetina 2001, 181). The trialogical approach comes close to these ideas of epistemic practices and epistemic objects, especially when combined to the use and development of collaborative technology. Trialogical learning is then a focused perspective on collaborative, technology mediated learning with the redefined “epistemic object” although it is closely related on more farreaching questions concerning human cognition and activity. We have maintained that trialogical processes can be conceptualized in various theoretical approaches (Paavola & Hakkarainen 2009). From the perspective of activity theory the trialogical approach is closely connected to the role of new technology, and how it transforms practices and activities. New technology has provided and provides new means for organizing people’s joint efforts for developing these mediating artefacts and practices, and is all the time providing new forms of mediation. The trialogical approach is not meant to be an overall theory of human activity but rather an intermediate conception about collaborative, technology-mediated learning. “Trialogical processes”, if considered from the activity theory point of view, should and can be embedded to a larger framework. The trialogical approach concentrates on certain kinds of processes and forms of mediation (and related tools) where a group of people are developing things for some purpose. The notion of shared “object” within trialogical approach is not meant to be the same as “object of activity” within activity theory (see discussion about “object of activity; Kaptelinin & Miettinen 2005). “Trialogical objects” are concrete objects which people develop collaboratively, and there is a clear analytic difference to the object of activity (as a social “motive” for the activity). Trialogical objects are analytically at the same level to the conception of ‘boundary objects’ (Star & Griesemer, 1989) but while boundary objects function mainly at the intersection of various communities of practice, trialogical objects refer to objects (artefact, practices, ideas) created and developed by a group of people in general. Also within the KP-lab project different meanings of ‘objects’ have caused a lot of thinking but also helped to analyze the learning situations anew. On the other hand, knowledge-centered processes with new technology challenge the notions of ‘object’ and ‘tool’ in a fundamental way. Knowledge-laden objects produced for the future use and development have characteristics where their nature as tools or objects must be reconsidered. Trialogical objects are epistemic objects (Knorr-Cetina 2001) which function as tools for the future development. The trialogical approach is targeted to take a longer-term perspective into account than the situational interactionism (this is similar to the knowledge building approach). The focus is on those ways how people collaborative produce artefacts and transform their practices, and these processes happen usually in many iterations and take time. One central focus of the trialogical approach is on designing pedagogical settings and courses so that the artefacts produced and practices modified are re-usable and meant for subsequent use outside the exact pedagogical situation (e.g. one course). Here the new technology is given many new opportunities. The focus on changing practices; by teachers, students, participants; requires that existing practices are taken into account and reflected. The trialogical approach aims at finding new ways of taking this also into account. Still it is true that the core unit of the trialogical approach has been a group of people (representing often different communities) developing shared artefacts and practices. Activity theory provides means and urges of taking longer term cultural and social changes into account, as well as institutional and organizational perspective. Trialogical approach within KP-Lab project (theory, pedagogy, technology) The basic starting points for the trialogical approach have been depicted in the beginning of the KP-Lab project. The approach focuses on developing pedagogical approaches and tools for organizing learners’ activities around shared objects (like texts, conceptual artefacts, externalized ideas but also practices and ways of working). One aim from the start was to concentrate on more focused work around these shared objects than is usually done within approaches emphasizing participatory or dialogical meaning making processes to emphasize joint work around concrete “objects”. These objects or drafts of objects have a prominent role in the interaction (so it is an interaction between subject(s), other subjects, and “objects”, not, for example between subjects). The temporal dimension is also important in trialogues in terms of the shared objects being developed and modified iteratively and by using and developing existing practices; novelty and innovation emerge only through sustained processes. The objects being developed are meant for some subsequent use and/or potentially to be modified later on. In trialogues the object is something concrete (even ideas and conceptions must be externalized to be shared and developed) but at the same time it is something in the process of being developed. Trialogues mean, then, those processes where things are developed collaboratively; there is not just work with static objects. The emphasis is on developing something new collaboratively, not repeating existing knowledge. The basic elements of the trialogical approach can then be depicted (see Figure 1). Figure 1.1: Technology mediated elements of the trialogical approach on learning In order to give starting points for technology design, and to focus the area of pedagogical knowledge practices emphasized in the KP-Lab project, a list of “design principles” have been defined for the trialogical approach. They were defined on the basis and in relation to commonalities of theories representing the knowledge-creation metaphor of learning. The design principles have been somewhat specified during the project with the research and technology development. They specify the essential characteristics of the trialogical approach: 1. Organizing activities around shared “objects” (artefacts, practices) 2. Supporting interaction between personal and social levels, and eliciting individual and collective agency 3. Fostering long-term processes of knowledge advancement 4. Emphasizing development through transformation and reflection between various forms of knowledge and practices 5. Cross fertilization of various knowledge practices across communities and institutions 6. Providing flexible tool mediation We are not going in details of these design principles in this paper. The basic design principle for the trialogical approach is the first one; the aim is to organize collaboration around shared knowledge artefacts and practices. Design principles 2-4 aim at clarifying such elements which support long-term, creative work around these objects. The aim is also to bring in people and approaches representing different institutions and engage people in solving complex, authentic problems and producing objects also for purposes outside the educational institution; an essential aspect of the KP-Lab project is hybridization between schooling/studying and research cultures as promoted in various investigative learning practices (Design principle 5). Finally, the use of modern technology is the essential element of trialogical processes, and KP-Lab has aimed at developing new tools for that purpose (Design principle 6). These design principles in themselves are quite abstract and general. One criticism also early on in the project against these design principles was that actually they are not so much design principles than something else. They do not give guidance very much for designing pedagogical practices or tools supporting these practices. The idea has, however, not been that these design principles would be enough; they rather give an overall frame to be specified further. This kind of a framework was needed to give a general guidance for pedagogical cases and for tool development, and it helps to understand what the trialogical approach is about. But the theoretical approach and the design principles are supposed to be developed in relation to knowledge practices and emerging tools. The purpose of KP-Lab has been to develop knowledge practices prevailing in educational and professional communities toward trialogical direction by relying on technology-mediated instruments and practices. Such an approach based on design-based research is the foundation of KP-Lab rather than simple testing or implementation of the trialogical framework. The KP-Lab project has not been tied to certain pedagogical approaches to be developed further. The pedagogical studies and cases have aspects from various pedagogical approaches emphasizing collaborative and inquiry learning such as knowledge building, project-based learning, learning by design, problem-based learning, or progressive inquiry learning. Some approaches highlight conceptual aspects of inquiry and idea-centered work more (especially knowledge-building approach, as well as progressive inquiry model), other pedagogical approaches highlight pragmatically oriented project work (some versions of learning by design and project-based learning) without much support for idea-centered or epistemic work. KP-Lab system gives support for collaborative, knowledge creation processes, and is applicable for the purposes of various more specific pedagogical approaches. The trialogical approach aims at providing tools and methods for strengthening aspects of collaborative knowledge creation. Rather than attempting to replace any of these widely adopted pedagogical approaches, it can be used to give new focuses and aspects for development on existing pedagogical approaches and models. On the other hand, more specific pedagogical models on trialogical learning will be produced in order to help to disseminate and implement these ideas in various contexts. Technology Within the KP-Lab project various tools are developed which aim at supporting collaboration around shared knowledge object, and transforming and reflecting on knowledge practices, something which goes beyond information genre and communication genre. Enyedy & Hoadley (2006) has identified two main ways of understanding the role of ”computer based media”, i.e. how technology supports learning, either through information genre (and monologues) or communication genre (and dialogues). It is quite easy to combine this to the distinction between the acquisition and the participation metaphors of learning (see Sfard 1998). New technology, emphasis on constant creativity and development, and novel social forms of collaboration and distributed work have brought forward, however, the importance of understanding technology as a medium for collaborative and distributed forms of learning, that is, to support knowledge creation metaphor of learning. KP-Lab technology has provided a basic platform, ‘Knowledge Practices Environment’, (KPE) for supporting these processes, as well as various other tools and functionalities for supporting innovative, reflective and “object-centered” knowledge practices (planning, versioning, commenting, annotating, making semantic search, etc) (see in more detail: Lakkala et al 2009; Markkanen 2008). One representative example is a tool supporting Change laboratory sessions which have been developed in the project. Change laboratory is a specific intervention method based on the conceptual framework of cultural-historical activity theory and expansive learning (Engeström et al 1996). The KPE itself supports longstanding, sustained, and iterative knowledge advancement across several contexts through flexible visual organization and reorganization of knowledge. Shared spaces provide users various ways of representing knowledge, such as content view, process view, and community view. KP-Lab project’s technological design can be examined from the perspective of four types of mediation which have been used for specifying the above mentioned design principles to the general aims of the technology development. These types of mediation are reformulations of the ones introduced by Rabardel and Bourmaud (2003), i.e., epistemic mediation related to creating and working with knowledge artefacts, pragmatic mediation related to organizing and coordinating knowledge-creation processes, collaborative mediation concerning building and managing networked communities and social relations required for carrying out knowledge-advancement efforts, and reflective mediation in terms of making visible, reflecting on, and transforming knowledge practices. The system is designed, then, to support multimediation by providing a shared knowledge space that facilitates all four modes of mediation, and the flexible use of them together. Conclusion: Theoretical challenges of the KP-Lab project In this paper we have shortly described some of those challenges and tensions which have been caused by the dynamic approach within the KP-Lab project, especially from the point of view of the theoretical basis of the project. The KP-Lab project has been developing new technology and novel kinds of knowledge practices with new theoretical conceptualizations of these processes. The trialogical approach has taken influences on many theoretical approaches which has been a ground for innovations but at the same time provided theoretical challenges. Combining theoretical, pedagogical and technological development has been another challenge which has been influenced by the length and size of the project (a five year project with 22 partners in 14 countries). A third big challenge has been to combine theoretical conceptualizations (artefacts) like design principles with the practical development. This kind of a process requires dynamic methodology from the project as a whole. The KP-Lab project itself is a good example of trialogical processes where shared objects (working practices, documents, models, methodologies, theories, etc.) are developed collaboratively and in various iterations, and very much also mediated by technology (e-mails, intranet, video meetings, later: Knowledge Practices Environment, etc.). From the point of view of theory development this kind of a methodology can be understood as such an abductive process (see Paavola 2006) where theories and conceptualizations are not produced primarily for the purpose of testing them, or for the purpose of explaining things (in a strict sense) but in order to guide further activities. This kind of a methodology focuses on the dialectics between theory and practice. Various theory-informed models, such like scenarios, design-principles and first versions of trialogical approach have given guidance to ways of focusing on certain kinds of knowledge practices and the development of supporting tools. These practices then have informed the specification and modifications of these models. These models are epistemic objects which are used as “investigative instruments” of questioning new potentialities rather than explaining (see Mattila, 2006). Arnseth & Ludvigsen (2006) has made a distinction between two basic approaches to computer-supported collaborative learning, that is, systematic approaches and dialogic approaches. The systemic approach is more “theory-driven”. It has its basis on models of how specific features of technological system affect collaboration, and other activities. The idea is to implement these models and see how they work in practice. The dialogic approach works in an opposite way, and emphasizes a “practice-driven” approach. It starts from social practices, and makes research on how meanings, discourse, tools, and knowledge are constituted by social practices and in dialogue between participants. Models are not understood as explanations of and templates for action but rather resources for action (ibid.). In the KP-lab project both of these approaches were supported by different partners. However, both of them alone are problematic from the point of view of a project like KP-lab where the aim is both to design new innovative knowledge practices and tools, and make research on them. A theory-driven approach aims at implementing existing theoretical ideas and is not sensitive to new, emerging practices nor to problems of implementing theoretical ideas in practice. A practice-driven approach easily confirms already existing practices, and does not necessarily provide good basis for new design ideas, or emergent practices. Designing new technology requires conceptual understanding of those knowledge practices which are supported with new technology. On the other, this kind of a conceptual understanding is the result of the research on emerging knowledge practices. The heterogeneous project like KP-Lab needs a groping towards an “object of negotiation” rather than knowing from the beginning what its content will be (Nowotny et al 2001). References An, H., Kim, S., & Kim, B. (2008). Teacher perspectives on online collaborative learning: Factors perceived as facilitating and impeding successful online group work. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(1), 65-83. 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. Banks, F. (2008). Learning in DEPTH: developing a graphical tool for professional thinking for technology teachers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 18(3), 221-229. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning, Educational Researcher 18, 32–42. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, M. (2009) Chartered Teachers and the process of professional enquiry: the experience of five Scottish teachers. Professional Development in Education 35(1), 23-42. Chan, C. K. K. & Pang, M. F. (2006) Teacher Collaboration in Learning Communities. Teacher Education 17(1), 1-5. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology. A Once and Future Discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cullen, J. L., Haworth, P. A., Simmons, H., Schimanski, L., McGarva, P., & Kennedy, E. (2009). Teacher-researchers promoting cultural learning in an intercultural kindergarten in Aotearoa New Zealand. Language, Culture and Curriculum 22(1), 43-56. Daniels, H., Leadbetter, J., Soares, A., & MacNab, N. (2006). Learning in and for cross-school working. In K. Yamazumi (Ed.)., Building activity theory in practice: Toward the next generation (pp. 45-72). Center for Human Activity Theory (CHAT), Kansai University, Technical reports no. 1. De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2003). Complexity, theory and praxis: Researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community. Instructional Science 31: 7-39. De Laat, M., & Lally, V., Simons, R.-J., & Wenger, E. (2006). A selective analysis of empirical findings in networked learning research in higher education: Questing for coherence. Educational Research Review 1: 99-111. Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168-182. Edwards, A. (2009). From the systemic to the relational: Relational agency and activity theory. In A Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.). Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 197-211). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.) (1999). Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., Poikela, R. (1996) Change Laboratory as a tool for transforming Work. Lifelong Learning in Europe 2: 10-17. Enyedy, N. & Hoadley, C. M. (2006). From dialogue to monologue and back: Middle spaces in computer-mediated learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1(4): 413439. Folkes, C., & Carmichael, P. (2006). ‘Learning to assess’ and ‘assessing to learn’: the construction of knowledge about Assistive Technology. Educational Action Research 14(4), 535-545. Hakkarainen, K, Palonen, T, & Paavola, S. (2002) Three perspectives on studying expertise. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: The Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (pp. 131-138). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hakkarainen, K. (1998). Epistemology of inquiry and Computer-supported collaborative Learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Hakkarainen, K. (2009a). Three generations of research on technology-enhanced learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 879-888. Hakkarainen, K. (2009b). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 213-231. Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S. & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hakkarainen,. K. (2008). Toward a trialogical approach to learning: Personal reflections. LLine – Lifelong Learning in Europe, 13, 22-29. Hemetsberger, A. & Reinhardt, C. (2006). Learning and Knowledge-building in Open-source Communities. A Social-experiential Approach. Management Learning 37(2), 187-214. Hong, H.-Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research & Development 57: 613-627. Hung, D., Chen, D.-T., & Koh, T. S. (2006) The reverse LPP process for nurturing a community of practice. Educational Media International 43(4), 299-314. Kaptelinin, V. & Miettinen, R. (2005). Perspectives on the Object of Activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity 12(1), 1-3. Katz, S., Earl, L., Jaafar, S. B., Elgie, S., Foster, L., Halbert, J., & Kaser, L. (2008) Learning networks of schools: The key enablers of successful knowledge communities. McGill Journal of Education 43(2), 111-137. King, T., Duke-Williams, E., and Mottershead, G. (2009). Learning and Knowledge Building with Web 2.0 Technologies: Implications for Teacher Education. 2009 Knowledge Building Summer Institute, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, August. Knorr Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual Practice. In Schatzki T.R., Knorr Cetina, K & von Savigny E. (eds.). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. pp.175-188. London and NY: Routledge. Krumsvik, R. (2006). The digital challenges of school and teacher education in Norway: Some urgent questions and the search for answers. Education & Information Technologies 11: 239-256. Laferriere, T., Lamon, M., Chan, C. K. K. (2006). Emerging E-Trends and Models in Teacher Education and Professional Development. Teacher Education 17(1), 75-90. Lakkala, M., Paavola, S., Kosonen, K., Muukkonen, H., Bauters, M., & Markkanen, H. (2009). Main functionalities of the Knowledge Practices Environment (KPE) affording knowledge creation practices in education. In C. O'Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 297-306). Rhodes, Creek: International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS). Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture of everyday life. Lee, M. J. W., McLoughlin, C., & Chan, A. (2008). Talk the talk: Learner-generated podcasts as catalysts for knowledge creation. British Journal of Educational Technology 39(3), 501521. Leinonen, T., Vaden, T., & Suoranta, J. (2009). Learning in and with an open wiki project: Wikiversity’s potential in global capacity building. First Monday 14 (2) – 2. Lipponen, L., Hakkarainen, K., & Paavola, S. (2004). Practices and orientations of CSCL. In J. Strijbos, P. Kirschner & R. Martens (eds.), What we know about CSCL, and implementing it in higher education (pp. 31-50). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lonchamp, J. (2009). A three-level analysis of collaborative learning in dual-interaction spaces. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 4: 289-317. Markkanen, H., Holi, M., Benmergui, L., Bauters, M., & Richter, C. (2008). The Knowledge Practices Environment: a Virtual Environment for Collaborative Knowledge Creation and Work around Shared Artefacts. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 5035-5040). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Mattila, E. (2006) Questions to Articial Nature. Philosophical Studies from the University of Helsinki 14.Vantaa: Dark Oy. McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The Three P’s of Pedagogy for the Networked Society: Personalization, Participation, and Productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 20(1), 10-27. Miettinen, R. & Virkkunen, J. (2005). Epistemic Objects, Artefacts and Organizational Change. Organization 12(3), 437-456. Miettinen, R. (2006) The Sources of Novelty: A Cultural and Systemic View of Distributed Creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management 15(2): 173–81. Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., & Lakkala, M. (2004). Computer-mediated progressive inquiry in higher education. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice (pp. 28-53). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527-565. Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Paavola, S. (in press). Promoting knowledge creation and object-oriented inquiry in university courses. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, & R. Säljö, R (Eds.) Learning in social practices. ICT and new artifacts - transformation of social and cultural practices. EARLI series: Advances in Learning. Pergamon. Mylopoulos, M., & Regehr, G. (2009). How student models of expertise and innovation impact the development of adaptive expertise in medicine. Medical Education 43: 127-132. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science. Cambridge, UK: Polity Paavola, S. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The Knowledge Creation Metaphor – An Emergent Epistemological Approach to Learning. Science & Education 14(6), 535-557. Paavola, S. & Hakkarainen, K. (2009). From meaning making to joint construction of knowledge practices and artefacts – A trialogical approach to CSCL. In C. O'Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings. (pp. 83-92). Rhodes, Creek: International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS). Paavola, S. (2006). On the Origin of Ideas: An Abductivist Approach to Discovery. Philosophical Studies from the University of Helsinki 15. Introduction available: http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/filos/vk/paavola/ Paavola, S., Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2006) Abduction with Dialogical and Trialogical Means. Logic Journal of the IGPL 14(2), 137-150. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological Foundations for CSCL: A Comparison of Three Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of the Computer-supported Collaborative Learning 2002 Conference (pp. 24-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research 74(4), 557-576. Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: a developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 665-691. Rheinberger, H.J. (1997) Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Roberts, A. G. (2007). Beyond a participation focus. In Atkinson, R.J., McBeath, C., Soong, S. K. A. & Cheers, C. (Eds) (2007). ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 898-903). Centre for Educational Development, Singapore. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/ Roth, W.-M., Lee, Y.-J., & Hsu, P.-L. (2009). A tool for changing the world: possibilities of cultural-historical activity theory to reinvigorate science education. Studies in Science Education 45(2), 131-167. Ryberg, T. & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2008). Power Users and patchworking – An analytical approach to critical studies of young people’s learning with digital media. Educational Media International 45(3), 143-156. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Scott, P. J., Castañeda, L. J., Quick, K. A., & Linney, J. (2007). Trialogical learning in public: FlashMeeting recording and reuse in a peer-learning context. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning 3(4/5), 529-541. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13 Singh, G., Hawkins, L., & Whymark, G. (2009). Collaborative knowledge building process: an activity theory analysis. The journal of information and knowledge management systems 39(3), 223-241. Skagestad, P. (1993). Thinking with machines: Intelligence Augmentation, Evolutionary Epistemology, and Semiotic. The Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 16(2), 157–180. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). New York: Cambridge University Press. Star, S. L. & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19(3), 387-420 Strijbos, J.-W. & Fischer, F. (2007). Methodological challenges for collaborative learning research. Learning and Instruction 17, 389-393. Toiviainen, H. & Engeström, Y. (2007) Analyzing Design of Learning Instrumentalities – Questions to “Trialogical” Approach. A presentation at CSCL 2007 (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) conference, July 16-21, New Brunswick, USA. Tynjälä, P. & Häkkinen, P. (2005). E-learning at work: theoretical underpinnings and pedagogical challenges. The Journal of Workplace Learning 17(5/6), 318-336. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review 3: 130-154. Van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 4: 259287. Van der Pol, J. (2007). Facilitating online learning conversations. Exploring tool affordances in higher education. Dissertation. IVLOS Series, Utrecht. Watkins, C. (2005). Classrooms as learning communities: a review of research. London Review of Education 3(1), 47-64. Zhang, J. (2009). Toward a Creative Social Web for Learners and Teachers. Comments on Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes. Educational Researher 38(4), 274-279. 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