Knowledge objects and knowledge practices in interdisciplinary learning: Example of an organization simulation in higher education

References

• Arora, A. S. (2012). The “organization” as an interdisciplinary learning zone: Using a strategic game to integrate learning about supply chain management and advertising. The Learning Organization, 19(2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471211201489
   Google Scholar
• Barnett, R. (2012). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.642841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry, A., & Born, G. (2013). Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the social and natural sciences. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Boix Mansilla, V. (2017). Interdisciplinary learning: A cognitive–epistemological foundation. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed., pp. 261–275). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boix Mansilla, V., Miller, W. C., & Gardner, H. (2000). On disciplinary lenses and interdisciplinary work. In S. Wineburg & P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges of implementation (pp. 17–38). Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, J. A., & Stoddard, J. D. (2020). A virtual internship to prepare high school students for civic and political action. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(6), 3449–3470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09847-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chernikova, O., Heitzmann, N., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Seidel, T., & Fischer, F. (2020). Simulation-based learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 499–541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, B., & Pak, A. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351–364 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17330451/.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, S. G., & Wallace, R. L. (2015). Integration and interdisciplinarity: Concepts, frameworks, and education. Policy Science, 48(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9210-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damşa, C. I. (2014). The multi-layered nature of small-group learning: Productive interactions in object-oriented collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 247–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9193-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damşa, C. I., Kirschner, P. A., Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 143–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508401003708381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damșa, C., & Muukkonen, H. (2020). Conceptualising pedagogical designs for learning through object-oriented collaboration in higher education. Special issue learning and developing knowledge-work practices in education. Research Papers in Education, 35(1), 82–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1677751
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. (2007). Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: Rethinking theoretical frames. Human Relations, 60(1), 179–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707075288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2004). New forms of learning in co‐configuration work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1/2), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410521477
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2007). From stabilization knowledge to possibility knowledge in organizational learning. Management Learning, 38(3), 271–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607079026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frodeman, R. (2010). Introduction. In R. Frodeman, J. Thompson-Klein, C. Mitcham, & J. B. Holbrook (Eds.), The oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 29–39). University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gormley, G. J., Kajamaa, A., Conn, R. L., & O’Hare, S. (2020). Making the invisible visible: A place for utilizing activity theory within in situ simulation to drive healthcare organizational development? Advances in Simulation, 5(29), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-020-00148-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9064-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Advances in learning and instruction series. Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Heitzmann, N., Seidel, T., Opitz, A., Hetmanek, A., Wecker, C., Fischer, M. R., Ufer, S., Schmidmaier, R., Neuhaus, B., Siebeck, M., Stürmer, K., Obersteiner, A., Reiss, K., Girwidz, R., & Fischer, F. (2019). Facilitating diagnostic competences in simulations in higher education: A framework and a research agenda. Frontline Learning Research, 7(4), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v7i4.384
   Google Scholar
• Hertel, J. P., & Millis, B. (2002). Using simulations to promote learning in higher education: An introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003448594
   Google Scholar
• Hopwood, N., Rooney, D., Boud, D., & Kelly, M. (2016). Simulation in higher education: A sociomaterial view. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2014.971403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jornet, A., & Damşa, C. (2021). Unit of analysis from an ecological perspective: Beyond the individual/social dichotomy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 31(100329), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100329
   Google Scholar
• Kajamaa, A., & Kumpulainen, K. (2020). Students’ multimodal knowledge practices in a makerspace learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(4), 411–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09337-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kajamaa, A., Kumpulainen, K., & Olkinuora, H.-R. (2020). Teacher interventions in students’ collaborative work in a technology-rich educational makerspace. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(2), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kajamaa, A., & Tuunainen, J. (2022). Dialectics of distributed leadership in an interorganizational entrepreneurship hub. Leadership, 18(6), 754–774. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150221130823
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasworm, C. (2011). The influence of the knowledge society: Trends in adult higher education. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(2), 104–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2011.568830
   Google Scholar
• Kidron, A., & Kali, Y. (2015). Boundary breaking for interdisciplinary learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23(26496), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.26496
   Google Scholar
• Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., & Held, C. (2010). The interplay between individual and collective knowledge: Technologies for organisational learning and knowledge building. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 8(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2009.36
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knorr Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practices. In T. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. V. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175–188). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kooloos, J. G. M., Klaassen, T., Vereijken, M., Van Kuppeveld, S., Bolhuis, S., & Vorstenbosch, M. (2011). Collaborative group work: Effects of group size and assignment structure on learning gain, student satisfaction and perceived participation. Medical Teacher, 33(12), 983–988. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.588733
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lattuca, L. R. (2002). Learning interdisciplinarity. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 711–739. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2002.0054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leskinen, J., Kumpulainen, K., Kajamaa, A., & Rajala, A. (2020). The emergence of leadership in students’ group interaction in a school-based makerspace. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(4), 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00509-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Säljö, R. (Eds.). (2011). Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lumivero. (2020). NVivo. https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo/
   Google Scholar
• Lyall, C., & Meagher, L. R. (2012). A masterclass in interdisciplinarity: Research into practice in training the next generation of interdisciplinary researchers. Futures, 44(6), 608–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2012.03.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Martin de Castro, G., López-Sáez, P., & Navas-López, J. E. (2008). Processes of knowledge creation in knowledge-intensive firms: Empirical evidence from Boston’s Route 128 and Spain. Technovation, 28(4), 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLean, S. F. (2016). Case-based learning and its application in medical and health-care fields: A review of worldwide literature. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 22, 577–581. https://doi.org/10.4137/JMECD.S20377
   Google Scholar
• Miettinen, R. (2005). Object of activity and individual motivation. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1201_5
   Google Scholar
• Miettinen, R. (2013). Innovation, human capabilities, and democracy: Towards an enabling welfare state. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., Kaistinen, J., & Nyman, G. (2010). Knowledge creating inquiry in a distributed project management course. Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning, 5(2), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793206810000827
   Google Scholar
• Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., Lahti-Nuuttila, P., Ilomäki, L., Karlgren, K., & Toom, A. (2020). Assessing the development of collaborative knowledge work competence: Scales for higher education course contexts. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(7), 1071–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1647284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nash, P., & Shaffer, D. W. (2013). Epistemic trajectories: Mentoring in a game design practicum. Instructional Science, 41(4), 745–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9255-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in multidisciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikitina, S. (2005). Pathways of interdisciplinary cognition. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 389–425. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2303_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, B., & Jorre de St Jorre, T. (2018). Graduate attributes for 2020 and beyond: Recommendations for Australian higher education providers. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor - An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science and Education, 14(6), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-004-5157-0
   Google Scholar
• Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H., Kosonen, K., & Karlgren, K. (2011). The roles and uses of design principles for developing the trialogical approach on learning. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v19i3.17112
   Google Scholar
• Rheinberger, H. J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Instrument genesis in technology mediated learning: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9144-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W., & Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauve, L., Renaud, L., Kaufman, D., & Marquis, J. S. (2007). Distinguishing between games and simulation: A systematic review. Education Technology & Society, 10(3), 247–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer, K. (2012). Extending sociocultural theory to group creativity. Vocations and Learning, 5(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-011-9066-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith & C. Bereiter (Eds.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Open Court.
   Google Scholar
• Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3
   Google Scholar
• Schatzki, T. (2000). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Slakmon, B., & Schwarz, B. B. (2019). Democratization and education: Conditions and technology for dialogic transformative political education. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook on dialogic education (pp. 485–496). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Song, G., & Wang, Z. (2021). Factors influencing middle school students’ interdisciplinary competence in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(7), 1041–1072. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21692
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorsa, V., & Vaara, E. (2020). How can pluralistic organizations proceed with strategic change? A processual account of rhetorical contestation, convergence, and partial agreement in a Nordic city organization. Organization Science, 31(4), 839–864. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spee, P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2017). Agreeing on what? Creating joint accounts of strategic change. Organization Science, 28(1), 152–176. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spelt, E. J. H., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spelt, E. J. H., Luning, P. A., van Boekel, M. A. J. S., & Mulder, M. (2017). A multidimensional approach to examine student interdisciplinary learning in science and engineering in higher education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(6), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1224228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srivastava, P., & Hopwood, N. (2009). A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800107
   Google Scholar
• Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge-building. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 70–77). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2020). Theories of CSCL. In U. Cress, C. Rose, S. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International handbook of computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 23–43). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stentoft, D. (2017). From saying to doing interdisciplinary learning: Is problem-based learning the answer? Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417693510
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 70–88. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1201_6
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, L. M., & Borenstein, D. (2015). A system dynamics model for long-term planning of the undergraduate education in Brazil. Higher Education, 69(3), 375–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9781-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-9660-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swanson, E., McCulley, L. V., Osman, D. J., Scammacca Lewis, N., & Solis, M. (2019). The effect of team-based learning on content knowledge: A meta-analysis. Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tartas, V., & Muller Mirza, N. (2007). Rethinking collaborative learning through participation in an interdisciplinary research project: Tensions and negotiations as key points in knowledge production. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41(2), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-007-9019-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tight, M. (2021). Twenty-first century skills: Meaning, usage and value. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(2), 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1835517
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tynjälä, P., Slotte, V., Nieminen, J., Lonka, K., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). From university to working life: Graduates’ workplace skills in practice. In P. Tynjälä, J. Välimaa, & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Higher education and working life: Collaborations, confrontations and challenges (pp. 77–88). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 259–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9069-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wertsch, J., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L. P. Steffle & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 159–175). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Wright-Maley, C. (2015). Beyond the “babel problem”: Defining simulations for the social studies. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 39(2), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2014.10.001
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, J., Tao, D., Chen, M.-H., Sun, Y., Judson, D., & Nagvi, S. (2018). Co-organizing the collective journey of inquiry with idea thread mapper. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 390–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1444992
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar