Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Francisco]On: 28 October 2014, At: 11:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Human Resource DevelopmentInternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhrd20
Authenticity in knowledge-productivelearning: what drives knowledgeconstruction in collaborative inquiry?Harm H. Tillema aa Leiden University ,Published online: 17 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Harm H. Tillema (2006) Authenticity in knowledge-productive learning:what drives knowledge construction in collaborative inquiry?, Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, 9:2, 173-190, DOI: 10.1080/13678860500523122
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678860500523122
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Authenticity in Knowledge-ProductiveLearning: What Drives KnowledgeConstruction in Collaborative Inquiry?
HARM H. TILLEMALeiden University
ABSTRACT Professional learning has recently been studied as informed participation incommunities of inquiry. Acknowledging the social nature of collective knowledge constructionby professionals means emphasizing the individual’s contribution to shared understanding as wellas stressing the need for fruitful outcomes in collaborative learning. In this study we introduce andevaluate the relationship between authenticity in professional learning and the knowledgeproductivity of teams. Authenticity is posited as a concept that points out knowledge-buildingfeatures in collective learning processes, while knowledge productivity is regarded as importantfor understanding team learning results.We use two team learning examples to contrast their collaborative knowledge construction
process and examine the nature of knowledge exchange, as well as the (conceptual) products ofteam learning. A mixed method research design allows our findings to show the relevance ofauthenticity for revealing various constructive elements in knowledge exchange in team learning.Authenticity turned out to be especially important for knowledge sharing because it pointed to theimportance of using direct, ‘local’ knowledge and individual commitment in team learning, which,in turn, can foster knowledge-productive results. Creation of conceptual artifacts that result fromcollaborative learning may drive the professional’s participation in a community of inquiry.
KEY WORDS: Co-construction of knowledge, authenticity, team learning, professionallearning, self regulation, knowledge productivity
Introduction
‘Concepts and conceptions may turn out to be walls, obstructing the view onthe actual space of what really matters’, as Denzo Genpo Merzel puts it in his novelThe Eye Never Sleeps (1993).
All too often we are inclined to recapitulate prevalent thinking rather than tosearch for new directions or redefine our commonly held views and knowledge. Whilethis may not normally be devastating when professionals work together to shareotherwise distributed knowledge (which is true for a community of inquiry (Farr-Darling, 2001)), such an approach is neither fruitful nor knowledge productive.
Correspondence Address: H.H. Tillema, Department of Education, Leiden University, PO Box 9555, 2300
RB Leiden, The Netherlands. Tel: þ31 71 5273388. Fax: þ31 71 5273619.
Email: [email protected]
Human Resource Development International,Vol. 9, No. 2, 173 – 190, June 2006
ISSN 1367-8868 Print/1469-8374 Online/06/020173-18 � 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13678860500523122
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
What, then, is needed to promote knowledge-productive learning when profes-sionals work together collaboratively? Some informative answers have emerged fromstudies on professional knowledge construction (Loughran, 2003; Engestrom, 1994)as well as from the growing literature on community of practice (Wenger et al.,2002). New and challenging perspectives have also been outlined for collaborativeinterventions to exchange knowledge among professionals (Orland Barak andTillema, in press; Boshuizen et al., 2004). The central message of these lines of inquirymay be summarized as follows: reaching knowledge productivity in professionallearning is to a large extent dependent on the arrangement of learning environmentsthat stimulate professionals to develop, exchange and communicate their knowledge.These social contexts in which professionals work and exchange knowledge areinseparable from their learning and opportunities to develop (Palonen et al., 2004).Therefore, creating conditions for active engagement in knowledge building, self-study, collaborative inquiry or creative teamwork may help professionals to reframetheir thinking and encourage them to make their tacit knowledge explicit(Richardson, 1997; Wallace and Louden, 1994; Boshuizen et al., 2004). Eventually,this view of the social and contextual nature of knowledge construction is intended toenhance a professional’s knowledge productivity (Drucker, 1993; Bereiter, 2002).
The Concept of Knowledge Productivity
According to Bereiter, knowledge productivity is the creation of conceptualartefacts, i.e. the production of knowledge in some distributable form (for instance,as a plan, guideline, blueprint, scheme) that may enhance a professional’s practice.The concept of knowledge productivity (Garvey and Williamson, 2002; Harrisonand Kessels, 2004) may help us focus on the importance of achieving desiredoutcomes in knowledge building. As such, it stresses and implies a learning resultingin conceptual artefacts created through inquiry (Farr-Darling, 2001) and innovativethought (Baxter Magolda, 2004). Knowledge productivity may also signal thecreation of shared outcomes in a collaborative practice of professionals, since theefforts put into knowledge construction should eventually help in work situations(Huberman, 1995; Engestrom, 1994). Knowledge productivity as a criterion ofprofessional learning acknowledges the social and communicative nature of the wayprofessionals learn, and recognizes that they are constantly aware of and reflect onwhat they do: ‘through knowledge productive discussion, perspectives are modifiedand developed, and sense is made’ (Garvey and Williamson, 2002, p. 147).Knowledge productivity, therefore, can become a challenging criterion for fruitfulexchange among professionals, and can be profitable to pursue in teams. Knowledgeproductivity as an outcome measure (of producing conceptual artefacts such asprofessional tools, diagrams, plans of action) can be elaborated by identifyingevaluative measures to establish its presence in collaborative teams. Evaluativemeasures as proxies for dealing with the outcomes of collaborative team learninginvolve (Tillema, 2005):
. Raising problem understanding: a key issue in an individual’s evaluation ofprofessional learning is the team’s contribution to increased knowledge,heightened awareness and improved understanding of encountered problems as
174 H. H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
the result of collaborative inquiry. These insights may lead to adding to or fine-tuning the personal knowledge base of a professional (Wallace and Louden,1994; Loughran, 2003). The central evaluative issue is: are the team discussionsseen as relevant and related to the professional’s practice/situation (e.g. ‘Irecognize that the problems being discussed can provide new insights for me’)?
. Shifting perspective: accretion or adding of knowledge may not be sufficientwhen existing knowledge remains unchanged. Restructuring one’s conceptionsand professional ideas involving conceptual change and recognition of others’viewpoints come into play to render the new knowledge as relevant and valid forpractice (Shuell, 1990; Anderson et al., 2000). The central evaluative issue in teamlearning is: are the ideas advanced by others during the team exchanges acceptedand is this knowledge regarded as relevant (e.g. ‘I am open to new ideas offered inthe team’)?
. Showing commitment: not just ‘cold’ conceptual change (Pintrich et al., 1993)but also active involvement in the team’s learning process and genuine interestand partaking in the group’s discussions (Brooks, 1994) are needed to convertknowledge into action. This is embodied in the willingness to engage in socialexchange and interaction with colleagues. The central evaluative issue is: am Iinterested in taking part in this process of mutual understanding (e.g. ‘I takeactive part in the discussions of the team’)?
Essentially, these evaluative measures of knowledge productivity deal with ways to‘capture’ what happens in communities of inquiry (i.e. they seize innovative exchangeand critical awareness that characterizes informed participation in a team). Inmeasuring this process of reaching knowledge productivity (KP), it is of importanceto understand how individual professionals produce conceptual artefacts throughjoint, collaborative inquiry (i.e. how they share distributed knowledge that mayresult in knowledge productivity (Winslow and Bramer, 1994)). Ways to reach KPinvolve many dilemmas centring on individual contributions to the collaborativeprocess and recognizing the tensions between openness and closure explicit, as wellas those between dialogue and keeping information to oneself, between exertingpower and being impulsive, between stability and risk taking, between commitmentand expediency, and between joint destination and individual journey (Tillema andVan der Westhuizen, 2003).
To build a notion of achieving KP, several concepts have been brought forward todirect team learning towards KP (Anderson et al., 2000; Farr-Darling, 2001;Engestrom, 1994; Palonen et al., 2004). These include elements like: reflexivity,innovative inquiry and learning partnership, group boundary crossing andpolycontextuality as well as open, self-organized communities of learners (BaxterMagolda, 2004; Spiro, 1990; Tillema and Van der Westhuizen, 2003; Arnold, 2005).It is proposed here that the concept of authenticity in knowledge construction mightprove to be valuable for integrating these diverse elements.
The Perspective of Authenticity
The concept of authenticity can help integrate some of the major conditions thatfoster KP in team learning. Taylor (1991), who argues for a culture of authenticity in
Authenticity in Knowledge-Productive Learning 175
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
professional learning, identifies authenticity as ‘(A) involving (i) creation andconstruction as well as discovery, (ii) originality, and (iii) frequent opposition to therules. But it also (B) requires (i) openness to horizons of significance . . . and (ii) self-definition in dialogue’ (p. 66).
Studies of professional learning, in particular in organizations (Brooks, 1994;Winslow and Bramer, 1994; Arnold, 2005), point to the importance of the learningcontext as a determinant of people’s willingness to engage in an open, challengingknowledge construction activity, as well as for their innovative potential in problemunderstanding and shift of perspectives (i.e. criteria to achieve KP; see above). Inmany cases professionals in work settings are likely to choose known, familiarroutines and solutions, and thus to fall behind in knowledge productivity. WhenTaylor advocated a culture of authenticity in learning within the workplace, heargued that authenticity is a moral ideal that includes freedom to determine one’sown course and self-organization. Authenticity is about ‘finding my own design oflife and work’, as well as finding relationships to fulfil ourselves; it is a ‘dialogicalfeature of our condition . . . without which human desires are self defeating, and candestroy conditions for realizing authenticity itself’ (1991, p. 35). The notions ofdifference, originality and acceptance of diversity are part of understandingauthenticity (Egan, 1997; Van der Westhuizen, 1993).1
Discovering authenticity in professional (team) learning involves not working inisolation but negotiating meaning through dialogue, partly overt, partly internalized,within social or work contexts. ‘To come together in a mutual recognition ofdifference – that is, of the equal value of different identities – requires that we sharemore than a belief; we have to share also some standards of value on which theidentities concerned check out as equal’ (Taylor, 1992, p. 52). Authenticity incollaborative knowledge construction as a concept could capture these elements,which resembles what Shuell (1990) earlier called ‘active meaningful learning’.Borrowing from the analyses by Taylor (1992) and Shuell (1990) it is thought to becomprised of:
1. a constructive, cumulative, goal-directed learning process (Butler and Winne,1995; Claxton et al., 1996) within
2. learning environments and organizational conditions that promote creativesolutions to daily problems, rather than routine or trained responses (Palonenet al., 2004), and
3. embodied in a culture of communication and collaboration (Reason, 1994).
The concept of authenticity may provide a benchmark or integrative conception forevaluating the diverse, many-sided notions for designing specific interventions tostimulate KP.
A touchstone for authenticity as a unifying and directive concept for reaching KPis its ability to immerse persons in innovative knowledge construction while they areworking under pressure and in normal professional conditions. Acknowledging theinherent potential of professionals as learners, we also need to realize thatprofessionals possess highly encapsulated, implicit (or tacit) knowledge which isdifficult to share (Probst and Buchel, 1997). Furthermore, professionals often workin isolation, with little opportunity for exchange and knowledge distribution
176 H. H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
(Huberman, 1995). Most of the time they act under pressure (Eraut, 1994;Winslow and Bramer, 1993), with little opportunity to reflect. Moreover, conditionsat work itself often provide little opportunity explicitly to renew and (re)create theirknowledge base (Loughran, 2003; Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). There are in factfew, if any, favourable learning conditions available for ordinary work situations(Goodson, 2003), because most work requires responding in given or fixed formats(Edwards et al., 2002). To develop and build on existing knowledge (i.e. reach KP),the concept of authenticity must be able to ground explicit formats andinterventional settings for construction of knowledge.
Establishing Authenticity
Many approaches have been put forward that claim to promote favourable teamlearning outcomes – and which may take different formats (Wallace, 1995; Andersonet al., 2000) – but most of them assign a prominent role to authenticity. By doing so,they often posit certain conditions or features as key interventional elements, such asstarting from available knowledge and beliefs, as well as using existing professionalcontexts as the starting points for learning about new concepts or strategies in work.Nevertheless, we must warn against using a strictly interventionist interpretation ofauthenticity, as this might result in prescriptions and fixed frames for collaborativeknowledge construction. These do not provide authentic solutions or frameinnovative professional learning per se. It has been argued by proponents ofilluminative inquiry and personalized knowledge construction (Eisner, 1994;Clandinin and Connelly, 2000; Polkinghorne, 1988; however, see Cochran-Smithand Lytle, 1993) that authenticity cannot easily be linked to an outcome-orientedperspective (such as KP), since it would damage the authenticity process itself. Butthis position ignores the situation under which most professionals work: that is,demanding environments that require them to renew their knowledge constantly(Eraut, 1994). As already noted, the perspective of authenticity can be manifested indiverse interventional formats and have many expressions. It would be more helpfulto specify and use evaluative criteria by which a diversity of formats can bescrutinized as offering authentic learning spaces. Conceptually, according to Taylor,it would imply at least:
1. ‘Creation and construction’ of new or self-discovered knowledge, i.e. using asituational understanding (Bereiter, 2002), which has its origins in the reflectionsand considerations of a knowledge construction process by people workingtogether. In the process of working together in a team, it uses ‘first-’, not‘second-hand’ knowledge adopted from others who are experts outside theknowledge construction process.
2. ‘Originality’ in inquiry and study, going across domains and perspectives(Palonen et al., 2004), i.e. the ability to go outside existing routes and solutionsthat often lead to repetitive answers. This criterion is frequently accompanied byan opposition to the prevailing rules, and can be found in the content ofdiscovered knowledge (Baxter Magolda, 2004).
3. ‘Openness to horizons of significance’, as Taylor puts it, which means dealingwith polycontextuality in knowledge construction or the ability to include
Authenticity in Knowledge-Productive Learning 177
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
diverse aspects of a problem in the dialogue (Palonen et al., 2004). It includes themany-sidedness of the topics discussed by the team viewed from multipleperspectives.
4. ‘Self-definition in dialogue’, which implies the reciprocal, beneficial effects ofparticipating in a team’s knowledge construction process. As a learningpartnership, a team calls for self-regulation in originating and maintainingone’s own contributions to the team’s knowledge construction process, whichadds to the self-definition or identity of the person involved.
Based on these four criteria of authenticity it may be possible to detect authenticlearning by professionals as knowledge productive (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1994),irrespective of the specific formats, such as dialogue, reflection, inquiry, and self-regulation, being used as the vehicles for exchange. Knowledge productivity itself isestablished by the creation of conceptual artefacts for professional practice (as aproduct measure). In this manner, the perspective of authenticity can serve as a guidefor finding ways to reach KP. The aim of this study, therefore, is to identify therelations that exist between the identified authenticity criteria and the evaluation ofknowledge productivity that has been attained in collaborative settings. Bothconcepts (authenticity and knowledge productivity) converge in this study by askingwhether authentic knowledge construction adds to knowledge productivity asmeasured by the conceptual artifacts professionals collaboratively produce.
Method
Design of the Study
This study uses an outlier evaluation design (Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995) tocontrast the learning process of different teams in their self-selected topics of inquiry.From a total of six teams that adopted a collaborative approach to professionallearning (see below) the two teams with most disparate evaluations of authenticitywere taken for further scrutiny. By taking outlier cases it is ensured that the teams’collaborative study and inquiry can be gauged as opposite instances of reaching KP.These oppositions may highlight differences in process (Tillman, 2002). Moreover,the contrasting cases magnify the intrinsically differential relations between settingsand ongoing activities that give rise to the group outcomes, allowing for greaterdepth in the study of authenticity in teamwork. Both teams’ outcomes are evaluatedagainst the same criteria for KP with respect to the different conditions forauthenticity as perceived by the teams.
The outlier cases were selected from a range of professional teams workingcollaboratively at their regular workplace. These professionals were all teaching staffmembers at institutes of higher education and already had a long-standing history asteams studying issues of common interest, mainly related to quality management intheir schools. The author was invited as a consultant to initiate projects aimed atdeveloping new assessment methods for teaching in higher education. The teachingstaff members adopted, as their method of collaborative learning, the study-teamapproach (Tillema, 2005; Tillema and Van der Westhuizen, 2003) to engage incollaborative inquiry on topics related to assessment and quality appraisal. The
178 H. H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
study team approach starts with scrutinizing accepted perceptions and beliefs in thetopic of interest (i.e. on alternative assessment methods), using the team’s initialideas and perspectives for further joint study and inquiry, eventually to reachpractical outcomes (conceptual tools) for the daily practice of the team members.
The authenticity questionnaire (see instruments) data for six teams (n¼ 48), allworking with the study-team approach, were used to gauge their scores and select theteams most divergent in their perceptions of their learning process. Two such teamswere taken for further study of their knowledge-productive outcomes. These twoteams consisted of teacher educators: in the first case the five teacher educators werefrom an institute for primary teacher education; in the second case the team wascomposed of seven secondary education teacher educators.
Instruments
Authenticity questionnaire. A questionnaire was developed to measure percep-tions of authenticity as experienced from participation in collaborative inquiry.The instrument was intended to detect retrospective evaluations of the pastperformance of a team working together on a regular basis (as colleagues) toexchange and share information. The goal of the instrument was to establishthe degree of innovative potential in the thinking and production of solutions for theteam’s purposes. The questionnaire was administered individually in order to gainperspective on individual responses and understand the ratings from the team’sperspective. Data were gathered from the six study teams (n¼ 48). The individualscores were averaged, and then presented in a special session to the two outlier studyteams for further scrutiny, providing detail by asking for comments on the ratings.In this way the background and rationale of both teams’ authenticity perception canbe better appreciated. The questionnaire itself consisted of four sections each havingfive statements covering the content. These were rated on a 5-point Likert scale(non-applicable to most applicable). Each item was formulated as a factual state-ment about existing conditions during the team’s knowledge construction (i.e. asagreement to a statement of fact about learning).
1. ‘Creation and construction’ of new or self-discovered knowledge. An example ofan item would be: our team has proven that it can merge and share its thinkinginto a single perspective on a problem.
2. ‘Originality’ in inquiry and study. An example would be: our team has shownthat it can produce new and alternative ways of thinking and create newperspectives on problems.
3. ‘Openness to horizons of significance’. An example of an item would be: in ourteam we regularly welcome interesting new areas and routes to explore.
4. ‘Self-definition in dialogue’. An example of an item would be: our team reallyhas renewed my own thinking about the matters discussed.
The twenty-item questionnaire on authenticity was tested using data from all six studyteams (n¼ 48). The item consistency coefficient alphas of the four scales range from.62 to .78, with an overall consistency of .66, which is satisfactory for a multi-facetedinstrument, although the instrument can use some item improvement. The correlation
Authenticity in Knowledge-Productive Learning 179
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
between ‘creation’ and ‘originality’ (content and process of the team’s thinking) wasespecially high (Pearson r¼ .87), which indicates intersection of the two.
Knowledge productivity questionnaire. A questionnaire was afterwards used to appraisethe knowledge construction outcomes of the study teams. The self-assessmentquestionnaire allowed us to determine how each participant evaluated and reviewedthe outcomes of the collective inquiry and each member’s contributions to theproduction of knowledge. The specific items included three evaluative criteria rated ona 5-point Likert scale (ranging from non-existent to present).
. ‘Problem understanding’ consisted of seven items that evaluated the profes-sional’s growth in understanding the topic and insights gained from thediscussions (‘the study team dealt with problems that really mattered’).
. Achieving ‘perspective shift’ consisted of seven items that evaluated the ideasexpressed by others that contributed to the study team’s discussions (i.e. ‘I wasable to accept ideas from others’).
. Showing ‘commitment’ consisted of six items that dealt with active involvementin the study team’s discussions (i.e. ‘I enjoyed being in this group’).
Internal consistency for the items of the three scales was measured. This resulted inthe following Cronbach alpha values: for problem understanding r¼ .83, forachieving perspective r¼ .85 and for commitment r¼ .90, indicating a satisfactoryhomogeneity of scales. The questionnaire, based on previous research on personalepistemologies (Hofer and Pintrich, 2002), had been piloted in several small-scalestudies with similar outcomes (Tillema, 2005).
Procedure
Based on data from the authenticity questionnaire from six teams, the two teamswith the most divergent scores were selected for further study. The average scores ofthe two teams were: 2.43 and 4.61 on a 5-point scale. The authenticity scorerepresents evaluations from previous experiences working together as a team prior tothe collaborative inquiry studied in this paper. The score was presented to the groupfor comment. The low authenticity (LA) team tried to excuse their low score byexplaining that the ranking did not take sufficient account of the group’s potential,and that prevailing conditions may have caused the low score. The LA team alsomentioned the following as mitigating circumstances: the irregular basis forexchange, the ad hoc nature of problems discussed, the lack of a clear discussionformat, the failure to implement the group’s recommendations by management andthe group’s lack of formal status. The second team (high authenticity: HA) seemedsurprised by their high score, attributing it mainly to the setting in which theyoperated: they had regular meetings, were frequently consulted by the managementand had a long history of cooperation.
After initial administration of the questionnaire, both teams of teacher educatorsagreed to participate in a new project/study team aimed at developing performanceappraisal instruments (assessment of student teaching). The researcher provided theteams with the necessary materials and advice for grading the teaching portfolios and
180 H. H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
work sample material from the student teachers. The teams worked as study teams,following their own plan and schedule. The participant researcher/consultant actedin a passive role by providing information only when requested.
Each team worked as a self-organized group (Kelleher, 2003) for close to eightweeks; the teams met in regular weekly meetings. When the team decided it wassatisfied with the product or outcome (i.e. a conceptual tool for grading studentteachers’ work) and wished to end the collaborative inquiry, a special session wasscheduled to rate the team’s knowledge productivity. The knowledge productivityquestionnaire was administered individually. After a group score was established, theteam organized a discussion to interpret the score from the team’s perspective.Clarifying and interpretative comments were also collected to support the team’sratings. The scoring was performed as a retrospective evaluation based on probingquestions: what do you think caused (a certain score on one of the scales)? How doyou think this could have been avoided or how did it promote the outcome? Whatshould have occurred instead?
Analysis
In a preliminary quantitative analysis, the teams’ evaluative ratings on bothquestionnaires were correlated to study the interrelations between these sets ofdata. Mean differences were analysed using t-tests to detect overall differences inknowledge productivity between the teams. In addition, the statements from theteam discussions were used to elaborate on the quantitative data. In this type of‘mixed method approach’ (Burke Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004) data sourcesare used to complement one another, thus revealing the various perspectives andallowing the participants to become better informed on the topic of study. Theevaluation sessions produced collective insights on the data, informing the teammembers about their individual ratings.
Findings
First, we established the correlations between the two questionnaire scales(authenticity and knowledge productivity) based on the data from six study teams.The overall correlation between scales was .39, which shows a moderate reciprocity,indicating the two concepts do not actually coincide. Table 1 provides the specificcorrelations for the subscales.
As is apparent from Table 1, there is a moderately strong interrelation between thesubscales, especially between ‘creation of knowledge’ and ‘problem understanding’and between ‘originality’ and ‘perspective shift’. Also, Table 1 reveals that commitmentdoes not readily correlate with any of the authenticity subscales.
Second, the mean differences between the two teams were tested (independentt-tests; see Table 2 for the means). The analysis indicated that the teams differed withrespect only to perspective shift and not with respect to problem understandingor commitment. It should be kept in mind, however, that these findings are basedon a small sample (n¼ 12).
We then decided to get additional information from the teams themselves byasking them to reflect on the data. This respondent-sensitive approach (Kelly, 2003)
Authenticity in Knowledge-Productive Learning 181
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
gives ‘voice’ to those who brought about the information and includes theirreasoning in interpreting the data. Based on their reflective comments triggered byprobing questions during the retrospective sessions (see above under ‘Procedure’), wederived additional interpretations, which are interspersed in the following analysis.
Describing the Team Process
The low authenticity team did not attain knowledge productivity (as measured bycompletion of a product, i.e. a conceptual tool; in this case, an appraisal scheme forrating student teachers’ performance). After eight weeks the team decided to stop itsinquiries on this issue. The team looked back on this decision from the authenticityperspective as follows (the relevant coding under each measure in italics).
Based on the measure of creation and discovery, team members felt:
Too many issues remain unresolved. We have not managed many preliminary andconditional elements properly. What we need is a far more thorough idea of whatwe want and what we are trying to accomplish. We have only just scratched thesurface, and now definitely know much more about what it really takes to make anappraisal scheme. I think we need to take a fresh start on this.
Others agreed by stating with respect to the team’s originality: ‘Yes, we did come along way toward discovering what we want and that makes you more aware of whatmust still be arranged or settled. We need to establish standards; we need to align
Table 1. Correlations between authenticity and knowledge productivity (n¼ 43)
Knowledge productivity criteria
Authenticity criteria Problem understanding Perspective shift Commitment
Creation and discovery .56* .32 .29Originality .36 .45* .21Openness to new horizons .23 .78** .23Self-discovery and self-regulation .48* .37 .11
Pearson correlations: *p5 .05; **p5 .01.
Table 2. Mean and t-test differences between the teams (total n¼ 43)
Low authenticityteam means
High authenticityteam means
Differencet-test value
Problem understanding(max. score based on the numberof positive items¼ 7)
5.65 5.95 0.94, p4 .05
Perspective shift (max. score¼ 7) 3.29 5.63 2.92, p5 .05Commitment (max. score¼ 6) 4.78 5.19 1.02, p4 .05
182 H. H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
perspectives on grading, and we have different notions on how to grade and valuematerial by students. It has become much, much more complex’.
Also, with respect to openness, the team noted the complexity of the issue: ‘Whatwe seem to have become aware of is the multiplicity of the things that need to becovered, and we can now also acknowledge our own positions better. But it would betoo much to say that we have adopted each other’s views’.
With respect to achieving self-definition and identity, it became evident to the teammembers that they did learn from the experience of working together, although theprocess had its difficult moments: ‘You learn to gauge the possible and the feasible;sometimes an issue cannot be carried to its limits, because when you see how othersreact to it, you have to decide when to give in’.
The team also elaborated on the setting of authenticity at their institute. Themembers indicated that they were not comfortable with the present conditions forcollaborative knowledge building at their institute (see ‘Method’, above). The teammembers agreed that the setting was not favourable for exchanging ideas, but threeof the members attributed their inability to reach a solution to the group’s ownthought processes, stating that there were too many different perspectives on theissue to reach a common product. All agreed that, despite unfavourable conditions,as a team they needed to work more closely together. In time they would probablyhave reached a satisfactory solution.
With regard to the knowledge productivity questionnaire subscales, the team’smost outspoken reactions were (the relevant coding under each measure in italics).
On problem understanding, they said: ‘We certainly have come to understand thematter better; at least we know now what we do not know, and we are definitely awareof the issues that need to be covered beforehand; that is, before we begin to producean appraisal scheme. The actual product would be the finishing touch’. And, indeed,all members agreed they now more fully understood the issue.
On perspective shift it was noted that:
What was most apparent in our discussion was that we hold markedly differentviews on grading, ranging from very summary orientations to more supportive andmentoring views about grading students. We have to decide what kind of grading isnecessary and beneficial for our students because we do not want to scare studentsaway. At the same time we are required to provide a final decision about what thestudents turn in as completed assignments.
The team members’ position on the summary-formative evaluation was notchanged as a result of the team’s collaboration.
On commitment, they mentioned that:
Despite the length and intensity of our discussion, it is a pity that we did notachieve more. We all participated enthusiastically; it was a lively discussion andwell worth participating in. Half-way through, when it became clear we would notbe able to settle the matter and there was a danger that some of the members wouldwithdraw, we managed to get past this and turn to what was missing and wouldbe needed. In a way this is the product of our team: knowing better what we needto know.
Authenticity in Knowledge-Productive Learning 183
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
The team clearly had a high involvement and was directed towards a commonsolution; they had to acknowledge, however, that the matter was too complex to dealwith immediately.
The high authenticity team reached a (provisional) solution by adopting a checklistapproach to grading student teacher work. They were not altogether satisfied withthe product, and agreed that, after implementation, they would need to gatherfurther experiences. They suspected that the instrument was too rigid and notsensitive enough for developmental purposes.
With regard to the authenticity questionnaire, the members stated:
We are aware of each other’s contributions, and know what each person meanswhen he puts a new idea forward. It is not a problem when someone makes anegative comment or puts ideas to the test. We know that only helps to get betterresults. We are quite used to this way of working together. The study team methodprovides a better format for this, that’s all.
As to creation and discovery, the team efforts were quite intense and were ableto reach fruitful solutions. Each team member felt it was commonly understoodthat a concrete, tangible solution had to be reached, since such a solution wasnecessary for their daily work. As a team, they were determined to obtain a finishedproduct but had to acknowledge, even after completing the process, that therewas still need for improvement. The team members, however, were well adaptedto working together as a study team, and were aware of the process and proceduresof this.
The team score for originality came as a surprise. They did not expect agreementon this feature of authenticity. ‘I am pleasantly surprised we agree that we work quitewell together. For me it has been a productive group to work with, and I enjoyedcoming to the meetings. We always seemed to get along quite well’.
Also, with regard to openness, there was strong agreement about the mutual,fruitful exchange of information and sharing of knowledge within the group.
Some informative comments illuminated the knowledge productivity question-naire subscales. On problem understanding, it was noted:
We knew what we wanted; we knew what we were after; but we just could not findwhat we were looking for. Most available instruments do not fit our conception ofmeasurement and approach to grading. We want a situation-specific, student-oriented, developmentally focused, easy way to grade, but we just cannot get it.The problem is that we become immersed in making a checklist system, which isprecisely what we try to avoid conceptually.
The team understanding of the issue was very high beforehand, since the group wasalready oriented in the area of assessment. They decided to have a product-orientedapproach, but in the course of their discussions ended up with a product that was notentirely satisfactory.
On perspective shift, the team mentioned: ‘We came to understand what eachmember’s contribution and what his or her perspective was. Some were more prone toreach a product, while others were more hesitant. We bridged this difference in
184 H. H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
outlook and now understand each other’s position very well; that is what it takes tohave a sensitive and open instrument for grading’.
The team did indeed shift its perspective about half-way into the process bydeciding which features were to be attributed to the grading system as a whole. Therestill remained differences among members: the system is both summary andformative, both developmental and student oriented, as well as standard based.However, the problems of formulating such a system subsequently became apparent.
On commitment, the team stated: ‘We knew we would reach a solution: we worktogether quite often, and nothing is so devastating as a group that cannot reach adecision. We try to avoid that by giving our full potential. We simply have to reach asolution’.
Indeed, the team’s main concern was to reach an outcome. In retrospect, however,they indicated that they were not satisfied with the product.
Contrasting the Teams
Table 3 presents an overview of the main differences between the two groups withrespect to KP criteria.
The overview clearly shows a difference in outcomes and process between theteams. It is clear that the low authenticity group was not accustomed to dealing withissues of common interest collaboratively. For them, the process of learning in teamswas primarily about getting to know the others’ position better and exploring thedomain of conversation. These matters were not issues for the high authenticityteam. They had already functioned as a close-knit group working towards a commongoal; they had a shared procedure, and were accustomed to using joint resources(Wenger’s criterion for a community of practice). Table 3 also shows a link between
Table 3. Contrasting the study teams
Low authenticity team High authenticity team
Reaching knowledgeproductivity
No Yes
Setting characteristics Mandated, incidentallyorganized group
Self-organized, regularworking group
No established collaborativeformat to work in
Experience with self-studyand inquiry
Authenticity featuresCreation and discovery Conservative, stayed on surface Focused on solutionsOriginality Recapitulation of others’ views Fruitful exchangeOpenness Fixed positions Mutual sharingSelf-direction Better awareness of one’s
positionLearning environment
Knowledge productivityProblem understanding Growing understanding Established understandingPerspective shift Recognizing of one another’s
positionChange of position
Commitment High enthusiasm for process Low enthusiasm for product
Authenticity in Knowledge-Productive Learning 185
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
authenticity and the outcomes reached (i.e. with the three KP criteria). While the lowauthenticity team was primarily focused on learning as process and gaining a betterunderstanding of the problem, the high authenticity group was more focused onlearning as product and attaining a changed perspective. Both teams showed highcommitment and involvement in the team’s progress. It is noteworthy that the lowauthenticity team was more favourably oriented towards the team’s work than themore critical high authenticity team. This was probably occasioned by their differentexpectancy evaluations.
Conclusion and Perspective
This study was designed to explore the interrelations among the capacity of teams toengage in collaborative dialogue and its tangible, practical outcomes, as shownthrough the conceptual tools that were produced. In an outlier design that usedcontrasting groups, clear differences were found between the two teams in theirability to reach a satisfactory outcome in their joint inquiry. The selected teams weredifferent in their opportunities for self-organization and in their histories. Thedifferences can be ascribed to the identified features of authenticity in knowledgeconstruction. While the one team (LA) only touched the surface in its search for newinsights, the other team (HA) was more readily focused on finding workablesolutions. As for originality, the LA team was unable to work fruitfully with thevarious members’ input, while the HA team almost immediately engaged in athought-provoking exchange of ideas, pressing for new insights. The LA team choseto pursue known or fixed positions rather than cross boundaries between domains ofexpertise, while the HA team tried to recognize various positions. And, finally, intheir attempts at self-definition the members of the LA team mainly tried to gainpersonal benefits, while the HA team members were much more willing to create acomfort zone in which all could participate.
Particularly of interest to this study, however, is the link between authenticity inknowledge construction and the team’s conceptual fruitfulness or knowledgeproductivity. Some notable interrelations became apparent. First, while the lowauthenticity team mentioned growth in personal understanding as a profitableoutcome, the HA team was only satisfied when it had established a commonunderstanding as a result of perspective shift. This was interpreted as a moreintensive and constructive outcome of the team’s collaborative knowledgeconstruction. Second, the LA team accepted the equivalence of each member’sposition in the sharing of knowledge, while the HA team strove for conceptualchange. Third, being satisfied with the group process was an acceptable outcome forthe low authenticity team, but the high authenticity team would only settle forreaching tangible outcomes. It seems that, when there is low authenticity incollaborative knowledge construction, the dominant modes of inquiry areexploration and a search for adjacency in knowledge exchange. This is typified bya discovery of the grounds, together with equality of positions, without muchchallenge to one another’s positions. The high authenticity knowledge construction,however, can be better described as a testing or studying of one another’s position inthe light of a commonly shared team purpose. The crucial incentive seems to be anaccepted or internalized ultimate goal for the team to pursue.
186 H. H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Linking authenticity to knowledge productivity is meant to combine two differentperspectives on collaborative learning (Orland Barak and Tillema, 2006). On the onehand, it acknowledges the (need for) individual professionals’ contribution toknowledge exchange, and, on the other hand, it recognizes (the condition of) a jointapproach of professionals working together to reach tangible (conceptual) outputsfor their own practice. It seems important to give credit to the context-sensitivenature of professional development as it relates to the individual professional’sexpertise, beliefs and identity (Hofer and Pintrich, 2002; Baldwin and Austin, 1995).A redefinition of professional learning is called for (Boshuizen et al., 2004; Cobb,1994) because of the rapid changes in and collaborative nature of work conditionsthat affect the individual professional’s knowledge construction. This redefinitionshould take account of the need for continuous learning in a profession that hasbecome bound by work (activity) and (organizational) context. In redefiningapproaches to knowledge development, professionals are expected to participate inpractical communities that create tools and artefacts for practice. A situated learningperspective (Lave and Wenger, 1991) suggests that discursive interaction in practicalcommunities will help negotiate meanings. The demanding characteristics ofchanging work conditions, however, also require professionals constantly to update,design and construct new social and cultural artefacts (Engestrom, 1994). It istherefore important to develop an overall perspective that is able not only torecognize the culturally and socially mediated nature of situated learning but also toencourage and stimulate authentic contributions by individual members to createinnovative solutions (through their participative discourse) (Reason, 1994).
Knowledge construction by professionals, therefore, needs to be perceived as alearning challenge so they can construct new knowledge and better situationalunderstanding. In this respect, it requires the perspective of authenticity as well asthe need to attain knowledge productivity. Harteis and Gruber (2004), in their studyon the professional’s perception of favourable conditions for knowledge exchange,point to the importance of flexibility in thinking and independence of thought ascontributing to the output of participation in a community of learners. Palonen et al.(2004), in their study of networked practices, stress the importance of individualinformation gatekeepers in teams who can help others become aware of newsolutions and interesting perspectives, thereby crossing boundaries and opening newpaths of thinking. Baxter Magolda (2004), in her study of reflective thinking,emphasizes the ‘thought provoking’ contribution of learning partnerships resultingin boundary crossing of held perspectives among professional learners. Theindividual’s authentic contribution to knowledge discourse in a community ofpractice may help establish strong networks for knowledge exchange and contributeto mutual knowledge sharing. Jehn et al. (1999) also show us how informationdiversity and individual authentic contributions may lead to improved performanceand a deeper understanding of how groups work together. These studies all point tofeatures of authenticity as delineated above.
To portray this professional, deliberate learning in a knowledge-productivecommunity of inquiry or community of discovery (Garvey and Williamson, 2002),it can be described as an informed participation of individual learners whosecontributions are based on their professional expertise and who are intended toreach a situational understanding of their work-related problems. Their individual
Authenticity in Knowledge-Productive Learning 187
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
contributions become challenges and are exploited through collaboration andinteraction with colleagues. In this respect, the concept of authenticity in knowledgeconstruction is of benefit since it can encompass different perspectives on fostering orstaging collaborative knowledge construction. It recognizes the value of distributedknowledge among professionals who participate in discourse, while also challengingexisting notions and stimulating new insights. Combining the authenticity concept withknowledge productivity adds to the focus on process. It stresses constructive productsas outcomes of knowledge construction that are useful in the practice of professionals.Eventually, collaborative professional learning will be evaluated by its results.
Note
1 A word of caution about the use of the concept of authenticity is warranted, however. Recently,
authenticity has been discussed as a favourable condition for learning because of its bridging the world
of learning environments and the real world (Herrington et al., 2003) (i.e. in the domain of online or
virtual learning environments). In this paper, however, authenticity is a feature of the direct exchange
and discussion among professionals that designates their conceptual input as fruitful and innovative for
learning (i.e. creating first-hand knowledge for their professional world).
References
Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M. and Simon, H. (2000) Perspectives on learning, thinking and
activity, Educational Researcher, 29(4), pp. 11 – 14.
Arnold, J. (2005) Work Psychology; Understanding Human Behaviour in the Workplace (Harlow: Prentice
Hall).
Baldwin, R. G. and Austin, A. E. (1995) Toward greater understanding of faculty research collaboration,
The Review of Higher Education, 19(2), pp. 45 – 70.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004) Evolution of a constructivist conceptualization of epistemological
reflection, Educational Psychologist, 39(1), pp. 31 – 43.
Bereiter, C. (2002) Education and Mind in the Knowledge Society (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Boshuizen, H. P. A., Bromme, R. and Gruber, H. (2004) Professional Learning: Gaps and Transitions on
the Way from Novice to Expert (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
Brooks, A. K. (1994) Power and the production of knowledge: collective team learning in work
organizations, HRD Quarterly, 5, pp. 213 – 28.
Burke Johnson, R. and Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004) Mixed method research, a research paradigm whose time
has come, Educational Researcher, 33(7), pp. 14 – 27.
Butler, D. L. and Winne, P. H. (1995) Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis, Review
of Educational Research, 65(3), pp. 245 – 82.
Clandinin, D. J. and Connelly, F. M. (2000) Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative
Research (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
Claxton, G. (Ed.) (1996) Liberating the Learner (New York: Routledge).
Cobb, P. (1994) Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical
development, Educational Researcher, 23(7), pp. 13 – 20.
Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S. (1993) Inside/Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge (New York:
Teacher’s College Press).
Drucker, P. F. (1993) Post Capitalist Society (New York: HarperCollins).
Edwards, A., Gilroy, P. and Hartley, D. (2002) Rethinking Teacher Education: Collaborative Responses to
Uncertainty (London: Routledge Falmer Press).
Egan, K. (1997) The Educated Mind (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press).
Eisner, E. W. (1994) The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice
(New York: Macmillan).
Engestrom, Y. (1994) Teachers as collaborative thinkers, in: I. Carlgren (Ed.) Teachers’ Minds and Actions
(London: Falmer Press).
188 H. H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Eraut, M. (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence (London: Falmer Press).
Farr-Darling, L. (2001) When conceptions collide: constructing a community of inquiry for teacher
education in British Columbia, Journal of Education for Teaching, 27(1), pp. 7 – 21.
Garvey, B. and Williamson, B. (2002) Beyond Knowledge Management: Dialogue, Creativity and the
Corporate Curriculum (Harlow: Prentice Hall).
Goodson, I. F. (2003) Professional Knowledge, Professional Lives (Buckingham: Open University Press).
Harrison, R. and Kessels, J. (2004) Human Resource Development in a Knowledge Economy (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan).
Harteis, C. and Gruber, H. (2004) Competence supporting working conditions, in: H. P. A. Boshuizen,
R. Bromme and H. Gruber (Eds) Professional Learning: Gaps and Transitions on the Way from Novice to
Expert (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
Herrington, J., Oliver, R. and Reeves, T. (2003) Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning
environments, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), pp. 59 – 71.
Hitchcock, G. and Hughes, D. (1995) Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative Introduction to School Based
Research (London: Routledge).
Hofer, B. and Pintrich, P. R. (2002) Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and
Knowing (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Huberman, M. (1995) Networks that alter teaching, conceptualizations, exchanges and experiments,
Teaching & Teachers, 1, pp. 193 – 212.
Jehn, K., Northcraft, G. B. and Neale, M. A. (1999) Why differences make a difference: conflict and
performance in working groups, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, pp. 741 – 63.
Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith, D. G. (1993) The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High Performance
Organization (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Kelleher, M. (2003) Sponsoring communities of practice: an innovative approach to delivering public
policy, The Learner, 17, pp. 20 – 5.
Kelly, A. E. (2003) The role of design in educational research: theme issue, Educational Researcher, 32(1),
pp. 3 – 35.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Loughran, J. (2003) Knowledge construction and learning to teach. Keynote address for the International
Association of Teachers and Teaching conference. Leiden University, 26 – 30 June.
Merzel, D. G. (1993) The Eye Never Sleeps (in Dutch) (Deventer: Kluwer).
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, N. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization
Science, 5(1), pp. 84 – 103.
Orland Barak, L. and Tillema, H. H. (2006) Collaborative knowledge construction in teams, the dark side
of the moon, Teachers & Teaching; Theory and Practice, 12(1).
Palonen, T., Hakkarainen, K., Talvitie, J. and Lehtinen, E. (2004) Network ties, cognitive centrality
and team interaction within a telecommunication company, in: H. P. A. Boshuizen, R. Bromme and
H. Gruber (Eds) Professional Learning: Gaps and Transitions on the Way from Novice to Expert
(Dordrecht: Kluwer).
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W. and Boyle, R. A. (1993) Beyond cold conceptual change: the role of
motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change, Review of
Educational Research, 63(2), pp. 167 – 200.
Polkinghorne, D. (1988) Narrative Knowing in the Human Science (Albany, NY: SUNY Press).
Probst, G. and Buchel, B. (1997) Organizational Learning: The Competitive Advantage of the Future
(London: Prentice Hall).
Reason, P. (Ed.) (1994) Participation in Human Inquiry (London: Sage).
Richardson, V. (1997) Constructivist Teacher Education: Building a World of New Understandings
(London: Falmer Press).
Shuell, T. J. (1990) Phases of meaningful learning, Review of Educational Research, 60, pp. 531 – 47.
Spiro, R. J. (1990) Cognitive flexibility and hypertext, in: D. Nix and R. Spiro (Eds) Exploring Ideas in
High Technology (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Taylor, C. (1991) The Ethics of Authenticity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Taylor, C. (1992) The politics of recognition, in: E. Gutman (Ed.) Multiculturalism and the Politics of
Recognition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Authenticity in Knowledge-Productive Learning 189
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
Tillema, H. H. (2005) Collaborative knowledge construction in study teams of professionals, Human
Resource Development International, 8(1), pp. 47 – 65.
Tillema, H. H. and Van der Westhuizen, G. (2003) Knowledge productive learning, a concept and tool for
professional development, Lifelong Learning in Europe, 3, pp. 18 – 26.
Tillman, L. C. (2002) Culturally sensitive research approaches, Educational Researcher, 31(9), pp. 3 – 13.
Van der Westhuizen, G. J. (1993) Teacher researcher projects in South Africa: some trends and issues.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of AERA. Atlanta, Georgia.
Wallace, J. and Louden, W. (1994) Collaboration and the growth of teachers’ knowledge, Qualitative
Studies in Education, 7(4), pp. 323 – 34.
Wallace, M. (1995) When is experiential learning not experiential learning, in: G. Claxton (Ed.) Liberating
the Learner (New York: Routledge).
Wenger, E., McDermott, C. and Snyder, B. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press).
Winslow, C. D. and Bramer, W. L. (1994) Future Work: Putting Knowledge to Work in the Knowledge
Economy (New York: Macmillan).
190 H. H. Tillema
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a, S
an F
ranc
isco
] at
11:
47 2
8 O
ctob
er 2
014
