Belief Mode versus Design Mode

Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia describe differences in the use of knowledge in schools versus the business or working world.  They define two types of modes for knowledge use: belief mode and design mode.  They highlight the difference in use here:

When in belief mode, we are concerned with what we and other people believe or
ought to believe. Our response to ideas in this mode is to agree or disagree, to present
arguments and evidence for or against, to express and try to resolve doubts. When in
design mode, we are concerned with the usefulness, adequacy, improvability, and
developmental potential of ideas. Switching back and forth between modes is
common. (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2003)

 Bereiter & Scardamalia believe that good quality educational systems tend to operate and teach students to think in the belief mode only.  Students learn to use evidence, gather data, resist progaganda, and can adequately evaluate claims.  Bereiter & Scardamalia also believe that inadequate educational systems also teach students to operate in belief mode, but their inadequate teaching of this results in unquestioning students who don't really rely on evidence based claims to make judgements of truth. Their contention is that all traditional educational systems operate in belief mode in the realm of ideas.

When ideas are presented for consideration, they
are almost always presented in belief mode. The focus is on whether the idea is true or
warranted. If experiments are conducted, their purpose is to validate, to provide an
empirical basis for accepting the idea. Questions that would be asked in design
mode—questions that would be asked in a real-world knowledge-based organization—
are questions like the following:
What is this idea good for?
What does it do and fail to do?
How could it be improved?.....

Somehow, if the schools are to enculturate students into the
Knowledge Age, they must introduce this dynamic of continual idea improvement.

Bereiter & Scardamalia ennumerate four design-mode approaches in science education:  Learning by Design, as developed at Georgia Tech; Project-Based Science, as developed at the University of Michigan; Problem-Based Learning, as developed at Southern Illinois University; and Knowledge Building, as developed at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto.

In Learning by Design, as described by Holbrook and Kolodner (2000, p. ),
Science learning is achieved through addressing a major design challenge (such
as building a self-powered car that can go a certain distance over a certain
terrain).... To address a challenge, class members develop designs, build
prototypes, gather performance data and use other resources to provide
Knowledge - justification for refining their designs, and they iteratively investigate, redesign, test, and analyze the results of their ideas. They articulate their understanding of science concepts, first in terms of the concrete artifact which they have designed,
then in transfer to similar artifacts or situations, and finally to abstract principles
of science.

As defined by Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway (1997, p. 341),
Project-based science focuses on student-designed inquiry that is organized by
investigations to answer driving questions, includes collaboration among
learners and others, the use of new technology, and the creation of authentic
artifacts that represent student understanding.

As typically employed in medical schools, problem-based work is run according to a
tight schedule and fixed procedures, with only limited opportunity for iterative idea
improvement; but these are not essential features of the approach and are not
mentioned among the minimum requirements for Problem-Based Learning at the
Problem-Based Learning Initiative’s website
(http://www.pbli.org/pbl/generic_pbl.htm). Unlike Project-Based Science, ProblemKnowledge - Based Learning is not focused on a tangible end product. The end product is a problem solution—a purely conceptual artifact. Thus iterative idea improvement is, at least in principle, something that Problem-Based Learning could promote.

“Knowledge Building” may be defined simply as “creative work with ideas that
really matter to the people doing the work” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, in press). It is not
confined to education but applies to creative knowledge work of all kinds. Whether
they are scientists working on an explanation of cell aging or first-graders working on
an explanation of leaves changing color in the fall, knowledge builders engage in similar
processes with a similar goal. That goal is to advance the frontiers of knowledge as they
perceive them.

 Knowledge building is a constructivist approach; some of the most salient examples:

• A focus on idea improvement.
• Problems versus questions.
• Knowledge of value to the community.
• Emergent goals and products.
• Constructive use of authoritative sources.

A comprehensive knowledge building environment would provide a means of initiating students into a knowledge-creating culture—to make them feel a part of
humankind’s long-term effort to understand their world and gain some control over
their destiny. Knowledge would not be seen as something handed down to them from
dead White males. Rather, they would look on those dead White males—and other
intellectual forbears of different race and gender—as fellow workers whose work they
are carrying forward. The Knowledge Society, as it is taking shape today, seems headed
toward a very sharp separation between those who are in it and those who, whether
they live a continent apart or on the same street, are on the outside looking in. A
knowledge building environment should provide all students an opportunity to be on
the inside looking out.

References
•Draft of chapter to appear in E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van
Merriënboer (Eds.), Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning
environments. EARLI Advances in Learning and Instruction Series.
Revised: 16 February, 2003,
Learning to Work Creatively With Knowledge
Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia
OISE/University of Toronto
•Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Learning by Design™: Interations of design challenges for better
learning of science skills. Cognitive Studies, 9(3), 338-350.
•Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting projectbased
science. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341-358.