Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Workshop: Assessment as boundary work: between the discipline and the profession

Workshop: Assessment as boundary work: between the discipline and the profession

Download to read offline

This workshop is for academics, learning designers and academic leaders who work with developing assessment tasks across the spectrum of work integrated learning initiatives. Participants are asked to come with an assessment task that they have used, or plan to use, for students preparing for, or reflecting on, a work placement, practicum or simulated work experience. The workshop will explore how these types of assessment tasks create a dialogue at the boundary between academic discipline knowledge and the reflexive knowledge of a skilled practitioner. Peter and Lina will draw on their recent work on epistemic fluency to introduce the workshop. They have analysed a range of assessment task designs in a variety of professional education contexts to try to identify the multiple forms of knowledge and ways of knowing with which students have to become fluent in preparing for professional practice. Many aspects of professional work involve the creation of new understandings – such as in inter-professional dialogues or client consultations. Often this epistemic work goes unnoticed, though sometimes it involves conscious problem-solving and innovation. The workshop will be a hands-on investigation of how these ideas about epistemic fluency, knowledge work and actionable knowledge can be applied in designing better assessment tasks.

This workshop is for academics, learning designers and academic leaders who work with developing assessment tasks across the spectrum of work integrated learning initiatives. Participants are asked to come with an assessment task that they have used, or plan to use, for students preparing for, or reflecting on, a work placement, practicum or simulated work experience. The workshop will explore how these types of assessment tasks create a dialogue at the boundary between academic discipline knowledge and the reflexive knowledge of a skilled practitioner. Peter and Lina will draw on their recent work on epistemic fluency to introduce the workshop. They have analysed a range of assessment task designs in a variety of professional education contexts to try to identify the multiple forms of knowledge and ways of knowing with which students have to become fluent in preparing for professional practice. Many aspects of professional work involve the creation of new understandings – such as in inter-professional dialogues or client consultations. Often this epistemic work goes unnoticed, though sometimes it involves conscious problem-solving and innovation. The workshop will be a hands-on investigation of how these ideas about epistemic fluency, knowledge work and actionable knowledge can be applied in designing better assessment tasks.

More Related Content

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Workshop: Assessment as boundary work: between the discipline and the profession

  1. 1. The University of Sydney Page 1 Workshop Assessment as boundary work: between the discipline and the professionPeter Goodyear & Lina Markauskaite Centre for Research on Learning and Innovation Sydney School of Education and Social Work Deakin 16 November, 2017
  2. 2. The University of Sydney Page 2 Outline 1. Context 2. Insights into assessments – What do students learn (Objects) – What do students produce (Artefacts) – *What is involved in production (Epistemic games and tools/infrastructures) 3. Final notes
  3. 3. The University of Sydney Page 3 Background
  4. 4. The University of Sydney Page 4 Link to eBook Epistemic fluency Our view of professional knowledge – Professional expertise is inseparable from capacities to (co)construct environments that enhance knowledgeable actions – Such expertise is grounded in embodied, situated professional knowledge work – Much of this work is done by (co)creating professional artefacts that embody actionable knowledge – Skilful work requires mastering professional epistemic tools and ways of knowing (epistemic games)
  5. 5. The University of Sydney Page 5 Action and knowledge Actionable knowledge is “knowledge that is particularly useful to get things accomplished in practical activities” (After Yinger & Lee, 1993, 100) Knowledgeable action is “an extension and development of this practical sense away from automatic or habituated practice” (After Schirato & Webb, 2002, 255)
  6. 6. The University of Sydney Page 6 Our empirical study – Nursing, pharmacy, social work, teaching, school counselling – 20 professional courses – Workplace-related assessment tasks
  7. 7. The University of Sydney Page 7 Insights into the assessments on the boundary
  8. 8. The University of Sydney Page 8 Objects What students learn
  9. 9. The University of Sydney Page 9 Objects of assessment tasks Focus Fine-tuning skill and knowledge Shaping professional vision Making professional artefacts Key specific skills and knowledge Eg. Administering reading assessments Hardest elements of practice Eg. Teaching lessons of most difficult topics Core inquiry frameworks Eg. Mastering a generic framework for pharmacy practice Hidden elements of professional practice Eg. Seeing social justice in a lesson plan Artefacts for/in action Eg. Designing a plan, writing a report Generic artefacts- tools Eg. Creating guidelines, teaching kits Core aspects Hard/hidden/rare aspects
  10. 10. The University of Sydney Page 10 Artefacts What students produce
  11. 11. The University of Sydney Page 11 Assessment artefacts Cultural artefactsConceptual artefacts Epistemic artefacts Action Meaning Practice artefacts Action artefacts Design artefactsAnalytical artefacts
  12. 12. The University of Sydney Page 12 Cultural artefacts Artefacts Description Action artefacts Main products of professional work E.g. A conducted lesson, dispensed medications Practice artefacts Artefacts that mediate daily professional work E.g. completed assessment instruments, interviewing notes
  13. 13. The University of Sydney Page 13 Conceptual artefacts Artefacts Description Analytical artefacts Products of a deliberative inquiry for professional judgements (‘know that’) E.g. Professional critiques, evaluations, interpretations, reflections, deconstructions Design artefacts Products of deliberative knowledge work constructing actionable knowledge (‘know how’) E.g. Plans, concepts, models, designs
  14. 14. The University of Sydney Page 14 Epistemic artefacts Artefacts Examples Epistemic artefacts Artefacts that link conceptual (‘know why’, ‘know that’ and ‘know how’) with cultural (‘know how’ and ‘know when’) aspects of professional knowledge E.g. Best practice guidelines, teaching “kits”
  15. 15. The University of Sydney Page 15 Objects & artefacts Focus Core aspects Hard/hidden/rare aspects Fine-tuning skill and knowledge Cultural action artefacts Cultural practice artefacts Cultural action artefacts Cultural practice artefacts Conceptual design artefacts Shaping professional vision Cultural practice artefacts Cultural action artefacts Conceptual analytical artefacts Cultural practice artefacts Making professional artefacts Conceptual design artefacts Cultural practice artefacts Cultural action artefacts Epistemic artefacts Conceptual analytical artefacts Conceptual design artefacts Cultural practice artefacts
  16. 16. The University of Sydney Page 16 Assessment artefacts Cultural artefactsConceptual artefacts Epistemic artefacts Action Meaning Practice artefacts Action artefacts Design artefactsAnalytical artefacts ReadyKnowledgeable Capable
  17. 17. The University of Sydney Page 17 Concluding insights 1. Programs should create the right mix of tasks that involve production of cultural, epistemic and conceptual artefacts 2. ‘Unusual’ objects often involve epistemic qualities that we don’t see in everyday objects 3. The value of artefacts comes from knowing involved in production and knowledge they embody 4. Developmental tasks are an important element of professional learning
  18. 18. The University of Sydney Page 18 Epistemic games & tools
  19. 19. The University of Sydney Page 19 Epistemic games “When people engage in investigations – legal, scientific, moral, political, or other kinds – characteristic moves occur again and again” (Perkins, 1997, 50) Epistemic games are patterns of inquiry that have characteristic forms, moves, goals and rules used by different epistemic communities to conduct inquiries (Morrison & Collins, 1996) Roots Wittgenstein: language-game, form of life, family resemblance Examples – Creating a list – Creating a taxonomy – Making a comparison – Proving a theorem – Doing a controlled experiment – Planning a lesson
  20. 20. The University of Sydney Page 20 Professional epistemic games Professional epistemic games – patterns of inquiry which contribute to the way practitioners generate (situated) knowledge that informs their action
  21. 21. The University of Sydney Page 21 Professional epistemic games Epistemic games 2. Situated problem-solving games 3. Meta-professional games Research games Producing games Coding games Concept combination games Articulation games Evaluation games Making games 4. Trans-professional games Sense-making games Exchanging games 1. Propositional games 6. Weaving games 5. Translational public games Conceptual tool- making games Routine games Semi-scripted games Concept games Public tool- making games Organising games Open games Investigative discourse games Decomposing & assembling games Flexible games Semi-constrained games Situation-specific games Standardisation discourse games Conceptual discourse games Informal discourse games
  22. 22. The University of Sydney Page 22 Propositional (formal) games Research games Concept combination games Conceptual tool games Example: A conceptual tool game Epistemic agenda – to enhance conceptual understanding that informs action
  23. 23. The University of Sydney Page 23 Situated problem-solving games Coding Producing Fitting Making Example: A producing game 2 Epistemic agenda – to enhance situated understanding of a particular problem
  24. 24. The University of Sydney Page 24 Meta-professional discourse games Articulation games Evaluation games Example: An evaluation game 2 Epistemic agenda – to enhance professional perception by redescribing products and actions from a (shared) professional community frame
  25. 25. The University of Sydney Page 25 Trans-professional discourse games Exchanging games Sensemaking games Example: An exchanging game Epistemic agenda – to create links between different professional knowledges and enhance joint knowledgeable actions
  26. 26. The University of Sydney Page 26 Translational public discourse games Reading games Concept games Public tool-making games Example: A tool-making game Epistemic agenda – to extend professional knowledgeable action to the actions of others in everyday world
  27. 27. The University of Sydney Page 27 Weaving games Open games Semi-scripted games Routine games Example: An open game Epistemic agenda – to weave language, physical and symbolic actions for enhancing functionality of professional knowledgeable work
  28. 28. The University of Sydney Page 28 Epistemic games Examples Propositional games Constructing a taxonomy of a disease, nursing “best practice” guidelines Situated problem-solving games Creating a lesson plan, a pharmacy layout Meta-professional discourse games Evaluating a teaching resource, a lesson plan Trans-professional discourse games Mastering discourse for communicating with a doctor Translational public discourse games Mastering communication strategies for dispensing medications
  29. 29. The University of Sydney Page 29 Summary: Professional epistemic games Game Epistemic agenda Propositional games Enhancing conceptual understanding Situated problem-solving Enhancing situated understanding Meta-professional games Enhancing professional perception Trans-professional games Enhancing joint knowledgeable action Translational public games Extending professional knowledgeable action to “lay” others “Weaving” games Enhancing functionality of professional knowledgeable work through embodied action, and social and material environment
  30. 30. The University of Sydney Page 31 Professional epistemic toolbox Epistemic tools 2. Epistemic devices 3. Epistemic instruments & equipment Epistemi c forms Epistemic concepts Inquiry strategies Epistemic statements Data & information gathering tools Processing & sense- making tools Output generating tools Evaluation & reflection tools 1. Epistemic frames (Intra) professional epistemes General epistemic frames Domain- specific conceptual models Professional perspectives & approaches Inquiry structures Inquiry processes Problem-solving strategies
  31. 31. The University of Sydney Page 32 Main insights 1. Learning to use powerful epistemic tools and play powerful epistemic games are among those key aspects of professional epistemic practice that could/should be taught at universities 2. Professions/disciplines would benefit from much more articulated and precise understanding of their epistemic toolkit 3. Epistemic tools, games and artefacts, could provide a concrete foundation for preparing students for professions and for assessing
  32. 32. The University of Sydney Page 33 Further insights Email: Follow our website: https://epistemicfluency.com Lina.Marakauskaite@sydney.edu.au

Editor's Notes

  • Workshop 1: Assessment as boundary work: between the discipline and the profession
    16 November 2017
    Deakin University
     
    Summary
    This workshop is for academics, learning designers and academic leaders who work with developing assessment tasks across the spectrum of work integrated learning initiatives. Participants are asked to come with an assessment task that they have used, or plan to use, for students preparing for, or reflecting on, a work placement, practicum or simulated work experience. The workshop will explore how these types of assessment tasks create a dialogue at the boundary between academic discipline knowledge and the reflexive knowledge of a skilled practitioner. Peter and Lina will draw on their recent work on epistemic fluency to introduce the workshop. They have analysed a range of assessment task designs in a variety of professional education contexts to try to identify the multiple forms of knowledge and ways of knowing with which students have to become fluent in preparing for professional practice. Many aspects of professional work involve the creation of new understandings – such as in inter-professional dialogues or client consultations. Often this epistemic work goes unnoticed, though sometimes it involves conscious problem-solving and innovation. The workshop will be a hands-on investigation of how these ideas about epistemic fluency, knowledge work and actionable knowledge can be applied in designing better assessment tasks.

    Pre-workshop preparation
    Each workshop participant should bring an example assessment task to share with a small group of other participants. Ideally, the assessment task will:
    be from a course/program where students undertake some work experience (e.g. a practicum, placement or internship).
    ‘bridge’ between academic and workplace knowledge and cultures. If possible, please bring four printed copies of:
    The assessment task – as set for the students (e.g. a copy of what they will have received)
    A rubric for marking and giving feedback on the assessment task
    Relevant extracts from course documents that describe the intended learning outcomes onto which the assessment task maps: course-specific, professional and/or generic graduate attributes.
     Recommended reading prior to the workshop:
     
    Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Preparing students for the workplace through designing productive assessment tasks: An actionable knowledge perspective. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society Australia (HERDSA), Sydney. [pdf provided]
     
     
    Further reading and resources
    Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer. (esp. Chapter 3)
    Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2012). Pedagogic designs, technology and practice-based education. In J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billett, M. Hutchings, & F. Trede (Eds.), Practice‐based education: perspectives and strategies (pp. 131-144). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
    Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (forthcoming). Epistemic resourcefulness and the development of evaluative judgement. In D. Boud & R. Ajjawi (Eds.), Using assessment to develop evaluative judgement in higher education. Abingdon: Routledge.
     
    Our website: https://epistemicfluency.com
     
  • Rethinking professional learning and knowledge from the epistemic fluency perspective: as a capacity to work with and combine different kinds knowledge and different ways of knowing, particularly knowledge that underpins understanding (know why) and knowledge that underpins action (know that and know how).
    Among most important aspects of our elaborated view is that:
    Professional expertise is inseparable from capacities to (co-)construct epistemic environments that enhance knowledgeable actions.
    Such expertise is grounded in embodied, situated professional knowledge work.
    It requires mastering professional epistemic tools and ways of knowing (epistemic games)
    Much of this work is done by (co-)creating epistemic artefacts that embody actionable knowledge.
  • The main focus is on how two ways of knowing could be mastered and productively intertwined: academic discipline knowledge, practical knowledge and the reflexive knowledge of a skilled practitioner

    “Practical knowledge (le sens pratique) refers to a ‘feel for the game’, while reflexivity—or reflexive knowledge—is an extension and development of this practical sense away from automatic or habituated practice to a more aware and evaluative relation to oneself and one’s contexts. Where the practical sense develops as a consequence of experience and practice (in the sense of repetition), Bourdieu argues that reflexivity is capable of being taught and learned, and consciously incorporated into different levels of praxis.” (p 255)
    Tony Schirato & Jen Webb (2002) Bourdieu's Notion of Reflexive Knowledge, Social Semiotics, 12:3, 255-268, DOI: 10.1080/10350330216373
  • Professional learning and assessment in higher education often evolves around certain objects (mastering something distinct, certain purpose) and involve production of various artefacts, such as lesson plans and reflections in teaching, assessment reports and case studies in counselling, drawings and portfolios in architecture.

    What is the nature of the objects that teachers choose for professional learning and assessment tasks?
    What are the epistemic qualities of the artefacts that students construct in such tasks?

    Focus: Developmental assessment tasks in courses that prepare for workplace practice

  • The nature of the objects that teachers choose for professional learning and assessment tasks
  • How teachers objectify course goals in specific assessment tasks

    Doing, seeing, producing
    The main objects (motives) were expressed in terms professional skill/capability that underpin professional expertise and identity.
    Many assessment tasks involved assemblages of objects: eg. designing lesson and teaching.
    A production of material artefact was not always the goal, yet assessment tasks often involved this
  • Related Paper
    Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Preparing students for the workplace through designing productive assessment tasks: An actionable knowledge perspective. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society Australia (HERDSA), Sydney. 
    Download a copy from Vol 40 of HERDSA proceedings http://www.herdsa.org.au/publications/conference_proceedings [or ask Peter or Lina for pdf]
  • Five example from nursing
  • The second column is mainly Constellations of cultural artefacts and conceptual artefacts

  • Programs should create the right mix of tasks that involve production of cultural, epistemic and conceptual artefacts
    ‘Unusual’ objects often involve production of conceptual and epistemic artefacts
    The value of the artefacts comes from knowing involved in production and knowledge they embody
    Developmental tasks are an important element of professional learning
    Much of the value of the epistemic artefacts comes from their dual, deeply entangled nature: They embody actionable knowledge, and the activity through which they are constructed embodies knowledgeable action. They are simultaneously: objective and grounded in situated experiences; reflective and projective.



  • Related chapters
    Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer. (esp. Chapters 13 (Tools) and 14 (Games))
    Download the book http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789400743687 (it uis free if your university provides free SpringerLink access) [or ask Peter or Lina for pdf of a chapter pre-print if needed]

  • Epistemic games, in simple words are practical methods, that practitioners use to generate knowledge (characteristic ways of conducting inquiries and producing new knowledge)
    Epistemic games is one (important) kind of such actionable knowledge
    The idea of epistemic games:
    Knowledge and knowing producing activity has an underpinning structure.
    “When people engage in investigations - legal, scientific, moral, political, or other kinds - characteristic moves occur again and again” (Perkins, 1997, 50)

    Epistemic games – patterns of inquiry that have characteristic forms, moves, goals and rules used by different disciplinary and professional communities to guide inquiry

    “…there is a bond between the demands of particular disciplines or professions, as they have been socially constituted, and epistemic games. <…> One cannot deal with the law in any serious manner without facility in dealing with rule and precedence-based reasoning.” (Perkins, 1997, 50)
    “Different contexts (communities of practice) support different ways of knowing, and therefore different kinds of epistemic games...” (Morrison & Collins, 1996, 108)

    Parallels wit language games
    Ludvig Wittgenstein:
    Language game is a form of language that is used by people, but much simpler than the entire language
    Language is not separate and does not mirror reality. Concepts do not need to be clearly defined to be meaningful. We know the meaning by family resemblance.
    Speaking of language is part of activity, form of life









  • Epistemic fluency:
    People who are good at recognising and participating in a range of epistemic games are said to possess “epistemic fluency”; they are flexible and adept with respect to different ways of knowing about the world (Collins, in press; Collins & Ferguson, 1993; Morrison & Collins, 1996).

    “An important goal of a school is to help people to become epistemically fluent, i.e., to be able to use and recognise a relatively large number of epistemic games” (Morrison & Collins, 1996, 108)

    But the notion that has its origins in (school) science teaching needs extension ...
  • As a part of our study we tried to create a taxonomy of professional epistemic games (just to identify main kinds).
    See if it is possible and productive to think about prof learning in this way.
    What we got, is clearly shows that prof games go far beyond formal, what became very obvious that if we think about prof education in this way we could be much more articulated in what we want students to master.

    Main classes of epistemic games
    Propositional games
    Contribute to professional knowledge base
    Constructing a taxonomy of a disease, nursing “best practice” guidelines

    Situated problem-solving games
    Solve specific professional problems
    Creating a lesson plan, a pharmacy layout

    Meta-professional discourse games
    Evaluate professional products and actions
    Evaluating a teaching resource, a lesson plan

    Trans-professional discourse games
    Solve jointly a shared problem on the intersection of several professional fields
    Mastering discourse for communicating with a doctor

    Translational public discourse games
    Get information for decisions, communicate outcomes and/or take joint action
    Mastering communication strategies for dispensing medications

    “Weaving” games
    Integrate problem-solving with discourse games and embodied action
    Administering reading proficiency test.
    Interviewing a patient in home environment


  • Research games: trailing an innovative pedagogical design
    Knowledge combination games: a taxonomy of symptoms for diagnosing a disease
    Conceptual tool games: guidelines for nursing, based on “best practice”

    Epistemic qualities
    Epistemic focus To contribute to professional knowledge base
    Epistemological agenda To enhance conceptual understanding that informs action
    Characteristic objects Generic knowledge artefacts and tools

  • Could be illustrated using a lesson plan or medication review report
    Typical steps/sub-games:

    Coding: translating information from the patient into a form suitable for processing
    Producing: working out potential issues and solutions
    Fitting: prioritising issues and integrating into a recommendation
    Making: producing a recommendation in agreed format

    Epistemic qualities
    Open games: design of a pharmacy layout
    Semi-constrained games: design a lesson plan
    Situation-specific games: a medication review for a patient with multiple diseases

    Epistemic focus To solve a specific professional problem
    Epistemological agenda To enhance situated understanding of a particular problem
    Characteristic objects Professional knowledge artefacts: case reports, lesson plans, etc.

    Main sub-games: coding, producing, organising/fitting, making
  • Articulation games: reflection, inscription of a good practice
    Evaluation games: evaluation of a lesson or of a plan

    Epistemic qualities
    Epistemic focus To evaluate professional products and actions
    Epistemological agenda To redescribe products and actions from a (shared) professional community frame
    Characteristic objects Meta-artefacts: analyses, reflections, evaluations
  • Exchanging games: writing referrals and recommendations
    Sense-making games: interpreting curriculum requirements, choosing a textbook

    Epistemic qualities
    Epistemic focus To enhance joint knowledgeable action
    Epistemological agenda To create links between different professional knowledges and actions
    Characteristic objects Boundary artefacts: referrals, manuals, case conferences
  • Public tool-making games: producing handouts, information sheets
    Reading games: patient’s interview
    Concept games: explaining a therapy or a diet for a patient

    Epistemic qualities
    Epistemic focus Extended knowlegeable action (of a micro system)
    Epistemological agenda Extend professional knowledgeable action to the actions of others in everyday world
    Characteristic objects Boundary artefacts and discourse (consultations)
  • Open games: interview with a patient in her home
    Semi-scripted: dispensing a medication without prescription, teaching a lesson
    Routine games: dispensing a prescription, administering a reading test

    Epistemic qualities
    Epistemic focus Relevance, feasibility and functionality of knowledge for action
    Epistemological agenda Switch between and weave multiple ways of knowing and blend multiple forms of knowledge for enhancing functionality of knowledge for action, and action for knowledge
    Characteristic objects Unfolding situated action/co-constructed environment: meaning-making, social interaction and skilled performance

  • Increasingly expands from an individual to others
    From object to the environment
  • In order to understand professional learning for knowledgeable action we need to move beyond formal epistemic games and standard learning as knowledge-building agendas

    Expanding focus of epistemic games:
    From cognitive and discourse structures to physicality and materiality of epistemic games (ie. body, brain, and matter – all matter)
    From constructing individual understanding to enhancing microsystem’s capacity for knowledgeable action
    From an object to a system and its environment for knowledgeable activity

    Knowledge blending, coordination and integration are most complex epistemic games
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Alternative conclusions/synthesis
    Beyond standard epistemological agendas of formal epistemic games:
    Problem-solving and decision-making are important functional epistemic games
    Different translational discourses and embodied skills play important roles
    Game coordination and blending are most complex epistemic games
  • We did similar activity with epistemic tools.
    These things just gives more precise vocabulary to talk what professionals do and what we may want to teach


  • Learning to use powerful epistemic tools and play powerful epistemic games are among those key epistemic aspects of professional practice that could be taught at universities
    In order to understand learning and readiness for knowledgeable action we need to understand professional epistemic toolkit
    Teaching would benefit from a profession-specific taxonomy/theory of epistemic games (and other epistemic tools)
    Epistemic tools and games could provide a concrete foundation for preparing students and for assessing
  • Related Papers
    Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Preparing students for the workplace through designing productive assessment tasks: An actionable knowledge perspective. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society Australia (HERDSA), Sydney. 
    Download a copy from Vol 40 of HERDSA proceedings http://www.herdsa.org.au/publications/conference_proceedings [or ask Peter or Lina for pdf]

    Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer. (esp. Chapters 13 (Tools) and 14 (Games))
    Download the book http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789400743687 (it is free if your university provides free SpringerLink access) [or ask Peter or Lina for pdf of a chapter pre-print if needed]

    Further reading and resources
    Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer. (esp. Chapter 3)
    Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2012). Pedagogic designs, technology and practice-based education. In J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billett, M. Hutchings, & F. Trede (Eds.), Practice‐based education: perspectives and strategies (pp. 131-144). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
    Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2018, forthcoming). Epistemic resourcefulness and the development of evaluative judgement. In D. Boud & R. Ajjawi (Eds.), Using assessment to develop evaluative judgement in higher education. Abingdon: Routledge.
     
    Our website: https://epistemicfluency.com
     

×