The knowledge externalisation cycle (KnEx): development of a systematic cyclic research method to guide researchers ⁸⁸³

Работники умственного труда (например, группа фасилитаторов) рефлексируют и экстернализируют имеющиеся знания в качестве средства для планирования будущей деятельности. Рефлексия и экстернализация знаний могут быть увеличены путем включения в рефлексию с другими людьми посредством диалога. Рефлексия и планирование в группе может помочь при формулировке и передачи неявных знаний. Цикл экстернализации знаний (ЭкЗн) разработан как метод в рамках социального конструктивизма для запечатления и передачи сложности знания в этом контексте. ЭкЗн в качестве отправной точки принимает цикл экспансивного обучения Энгестрёма (ЦЭО), который был разработан как метод исследования и преобразования трудовой деятельности. Первоначальная цель цикла экспансивного обучения заключалась в предоставлении средства практикующему специалисту для рассмотрения своих методов работы, при использовании данных, концептуальных инструментов и руководящих указаний исследователей. Данная статья описывает противоречия, установленные между первоначальной целью ЦЭО (непосредственно помогать практикам) и целью ЭкЗн (создать последовательный циклический исследовательский метод для использования исследователем). Данная работа призвана разъяснить преобразование ЦЭО в ЭкЗн и предоставить подробное описание каждого этапа в течение цикла.

Ключевые слова: цикл экспансивного обучения, экстернализация знания, работники умственного труда, планирование, методология

Рубрика: Проблемы культурно-деятельностной психологии

Тип: научная статья

1. Antunes P. , Ho T. The Design of a GDSS Meeting Preparation Tool // Group Decision and Negotiation,  V. 10. № 1. 2001.
2. Boag-Munroe G. Wrestling with words and meanings: Finding a tool for analysing language in activity theory // Educational Review,  V. 56. № 2. 2004.
3. Bødker S. Applying activity theory to video analysis: how to make sense of video data in human-computer interaction. In Nardi B.(Ed.). Applying activity theory to video analysis: how to make sense of video data in human-computer interaction. V. Cambridge, MA. 1995.
4. Boer N. I., van Baalen P. J. and Kumar K. An activity theory approach for studying the situatedness of knowledge sharing. In 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii. 2002.
5. Braxton J. M. Reflections on a Scholarship of Practice // Review of Higher Education,  V. 28. № 2. 2005.
6. Chinn P. L., Kramer M. K. Theory and nursing: Integrating knowledge development. V. St. Louis. 1999.
7. Cruz Neto G. G., Gomes A. G. and de Castro J. B. Mapping Activity Theory Diagrams into i* Organizational Models // Journal of Computer Science and Technology,  V. 5. № 2. 2005.
8. Engeström Y. Activity theory as a framework for analysing and redesigned work // Ergonomics,  V. 43. № 7. 2000.
9. Engeström Y. Expansive learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization // Journal of Education and Work,  V. 14. № 1. 2001.
10. Engeström Y. Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Engeström Y., Miettinen R. and Punamäki R. L.(Ed.). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. V. Cambridge. 1999.
11. Engeström Y. Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. V. Helsinki. 1987.
12. Engeström Y. Learning by expanding: Ten years after (Lernen durch Expansion). V. Marburg. 1999.
13. Engeström Y. Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels M. C., & J. V. Wertsch(Ed.). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. V. Cambridge, England. 2007.
14. Eraut M. Knowledge creation and knowledge use in professional contexts // Studies in Higher Education,  V. 10. № 2. 1985.
15. Fischer G. Shared understanding, informed participation, and social creativity: Objectives for the next generation of collaborative systems. In COOP’2000: Fourth International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems. Sophia Antipolis, France. 2000.
16. Foot K. A. Cultural historical activity theory as practical theory: Illuminating the development of a conflict monitoring network // Communication Theory,  V. 11. № 1. 2001.
17. Harris S. R. Supporting Learning-in-Use: Some Applications of Activity Theory to the Analysis and Design of ICT-Enabled Collaborative Work and Learning. 2007.
18. Hasan H. A cultural-historical activity theory approach to users, usability and usefulness. In Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS). Auckland. 2007.
19. Hawkins L. A., Whymark G. Increasing the descriptive power of CHAT with culturally advanced notation. 2006.
20. Helle M. Disturbances and contradictions as tools for understanding work in the newsroom // Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems,  V. 12. № 1-2. 2001.
21. Hill R., Capper P., Wilson K., Whatman R. and Wong K. Workplace learning in the New Zealand apple industry network: A new co-design method for government “practice making” // Journal of Workplace Learning,  V. 19. № 6. 2007.
22. Jonassen D. Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. V. San Francisco, CA. 2004.
23. Lapadat J. C. Problematizing transcription: purpose, paradigm and quality // International Journal of Social Research Methodology,  V. 3. № 3. 2000.
24. Lipponen L., Hakkarainen K. and Paavola S. Practices end orientations of computer-supported collaborative learning. In Stribos J., Kirschner P. and MArtens R.(Ed.). Practices end orientations of computer-supported collaborative learning. V. Boston, MA. 2004.
25. Lopez-Mesa B. Selection and use of engineering design methods using creative problem solving. 2006.
26. Malopinsky L. V. Facilitating organisational change: The use of activity theory as a framework for social construction of strategic knowledge. 2008.
27. Mwanza D. Mind the gap: Activity theory and design. In CSCW 2000. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2000.
28. Mwanza D. Where theory meets practice: A case for an Activity Theory based methodology to guide computer system design. In INTERACT’ 2001: Eighth IFIP TC 13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Tokyo, Japan. 2001.
29. Osmond J. Knowledge Use in Social Work Practice: Examining its Functional Possibilities // Journal of Social Work,  V. 6. № 3. 2006.
30. Paavola S., Hakkarainen K. From meaning making to joint construction of knowledge practices and artefacts - A trialogical approach to CSCL. In Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Rhodes, Greece. 2009.
31. Paavola S., Lipponen L. and Hakkarainen K. Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning // Review of Educational Research,  V. 74. № 4. 2004.
32. Patton M. Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. V. Thousand Oaks, CA., 2001.
33. Squire K. Cultural framing of computer/video games // The International Journal of Computer Game Research,  V. 2. № 1. 2002.
34. Stahl G. Can shared knowledge exceed the sum of its parts? In DeRidder R. V. J.(Ed.). Can shared knowledge exceed the sum of its parts? V. Amsterdam, Netherlands. 2003.
35. Uden L. and Helo P. Designing mobile interfaces using activity theory // International Journal of Mobile Communications,  V. 6. № 5. 2008.
36. Wainwright D. Can Sociological Research Be Qualitative, Critical and Valid? // The Qualitative Report,  V. 3. № 2. 1997.
37. Wang Q. Student-facilitators’ roles in moderating online discussions // British Journal of Educational Technology,  V. 39. № 5. 2008.
38. Wilson J. P. Reflecting-on-the-future: a chronological consideration of reflective practice // Reflective Practice,  V. 9. № 2. 2008.
39. Yamagata-Lynch L. C. Confronting Analytical Dilemmas for Understanding Complex Human Interactions in Design-Based Research From a Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) Framework // Journal of the Learning Sciences,  V. 16. № 4. 2007.