Functional Epistemic Games for Knowledgeable Action in Professional Learning
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•666 views
Markauskaite, L., Goodyear, P., & Bachfischer, A. (2014) Epistemic games for knowledgeable action in professional learning. In Polman, J. L., Kyza, E. A., O’Neill, D. K., Tabak, I., Penuel, W. R., Jurow, A. S., O’Connor, K., Lee, T., and D’Amico, L. (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014, June 23–27 2014, University of Colorado Boulder. Proceedings (Vol. 3, pp.1289–1292). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://isls.org/icls/2014/downloads/ICLS%202014%20Volume%203%20%28PDF%29-wCover.pdf Introduces a novel concept of “functional epistemic games” and sketches a taxonomy of functional epistemic games in professional learning. Presented at the symposium "Enrollment of higher education students in professional knowledge and practices”.
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (9)
Similar to Functional Epistemic Games for Knowledgeable Action in Professional Learning
Similar to Functional Epistemic Games for Knowledgeable Action in Professional Learning (20)
More from Lina Markauskaite
More from Lina Markauskaite (10)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Functional Epistemic Games for Knowledgeable Action in Professional Learning
- 1. Functional Epistemic Games for Knowledgeable Action in Professional Learning ICLS 2014, 26 June The University of Sydney Centre for Research on Computer Supported Learning and Cognition Lina Markauskaite Peter Goodyear Agnieszka Bachfischer
- 2. Knowledge work for professional action and innovation Some trends & expectations from Higher Education 1. Evidence generating practice 2. Relational expertise 3. “Second-hand” knowledge 4. Open innovation & co- configuration What does it mean for HE? Knowledge Flexibility, Adaptability ? Moving away from knowledge Rethinking knowledge & epistemic fluency “…learning for an unknown future has to be a learning understood neither in terms of knowledge or skills but of human qualities and dispositions.” “Learning for an unknown future” (Barnett, 2004, 247)
- 3. “Knowledgeable action” and “actionable knowledge” Knowledge as a tool › “People who use tools actively rather than just acquire them, by contrast, build an increasingly rich understanding of the world in which they use the tools and of the tools themselves.” (Brown et al, 1989, 33) Working knowledge is “knowledge that is particularly useful to get things accomplished in practical activities.” (Yinger & Lee, 1993, 100) 3 Informed by broader notions of “knowledge as a tool” and “working knowledge”
- 4. Fusing representational & performative views of knowledge Epistemic fluency through epistemic games • Epistemic games are patterns of inquiry that have characteristic forms, moves, goals and rules used by different epistemic communities to guide inquiry (based on Collins & Ferguson, 1993) • Epistemic fluency is an ability “to use and recognise a relatively large number of epistemic games” (Morrison & Collins, 1996, 108) “When people engage in investigations - legal, scientific, moral, political, or other kinds - characteristic moves occur again and again” (Perkins, 1997, 50)
- 5. Epistemic games in professional learning › To uncover characteristic ways of knowing that future professionals learn to enact when they are performing complex knowledge- demanding professional tasks 5 Aim “different disciplines are needed to build a detailed theory of different epistemic forms and games <...> and to identify other forms and games that sophisticated inquirers use” (Collins & Ferguson, 1993, 40)
- 6. From “formal” to “functional” epistemic games But… › “...decision making, problem solving, and like kinds of thinking do not have specifically epistemic goals -- goals of building knowledge and understanding” (Perkins, 1997, 55) › Formal epistemic games - patterns of inquiry that are used in a system of formal professional reasoning and judgement › Functional epistemic games – patterns of inquiry which contribute to the way participants generate (situated) knowledge that informs their action (after Greeno, 2012)
- 7. Method: “Cognitive-cultural archaeology” Phase 1 Phase 2 Disciplines Pharmacy Nursing Social work School counseling Education Pharmacy Education Sample 20 professional practice courses 3 tutorial groups 2 students’ groups Data Course resources Interviews Observations Course resources Open interviews Methods Epistemic interviewing Cognitive task analysis Ethno- audio/video taped observations 7 Analysis of professional practice tasks
- 8. Principles for identifying and sorting out games 1. Distinct functional epistemic goal and recognisable form of the outcome 2. Identifiable characteristic moves, rules and other generative mechanisms and principles of how to proceed 1. Epistemic agenda – what it aims to achieve 2. Epistemic focus – what sort of knowledge it produces 3. Nature of object – what is the nature of epistemic object around which the game unfolds 4. Nature of expertise – what sorts of knowledge and skills do expert players need 8 Sorting out gamesIdentifying games
- 9. Findings 9 Classes of epistemic games 1. Propositional games 2. Situated problem-solving 3. Meta-professional discourse 4. Trans-professional discourse 5. Translational public discourse 6. “Weaving” games
- 10. Propositional (formal) games › Research games: testing an innovative pedagogical design › Concept combination games: creating a taxonomy of symptoms › Conceptual tool games: developing “best practice” guidelines for nursing Example: A conceptual tool game 10 Epistemic agenda – to enhance conceptual understanding that informs action
- 11. Situated problem-solving games › Coding: translating information into a form suitable for processing › Producing: working out potential issues and solutions › Fitting: prioritising and integrating into one recommendation › Making: producing final artefacts (eg. a recommendation, a lesson plan, a case report) Example: A producing game 11 Epistemic agenda – to enhance situated understanding of a particular problem
- 12. Meta-professional discourse games › Articulation games: reflection, inscription of a “good practice” › Evaluation games: evaluation of a lesson or of a plan Example: An evaluation game 12 Epistemic agenda – to enhance professional perception by redescribing products and actions from a (shared) professional community frame
- 13. Trans-professional discourse games › Exchanging games: writing referrals and recommendations › Sensemaking games: interpreting curriculum requirements, choosing a textbook Example: An exchanging game 13 Epistemic agenda – to create links between different professional knowledges and enhance joint knowledgeable actions
- 14. Translational public discourse games › Reading games: patient’s interview › Concept games: explaining a therapy or a diet for a patient › Public tool-making games: producing handouts, information sheets Example: A tool-making game 14 Epistemic agenda – to extend professional knowledgeable action to the actions of others in everyday world
- 15. Weaving games › Open games: interviewing a patient in her home › Semi-scripted games: dispensing a medication without a prescription › Routine games: dispensing a prescription Example: An open game 15 Epistemic agenda – to weave language, physical and symbolic actions for enhancing functionality of professional knowledgeable work
- 16. Summary: Functional epistemic games 16 Game Epistemic focus Epistemic agenda Object Expertise Propositional games Professional knowledge base Enhancing conceptual understanding Generic conceptual tools Meta-contributory expertise Situated problem-solving Solutions of specific professional problems Enhance situated understanding Professional knowledge artefacts Contributory expertise Meta- professional games Understanding of existing professional products & actions Enhancing professional perception Meta-professional discourse & artefacts Interactional expertise Trans- professional games Links between different professional knowledges Enhancing joint knowledgeable action Boundary discourse & artefacts Relational expertise Translational public games Links between professional & lay knolwedges Extending professional knowledgeable action Translational discourse & artefacts Translational expertise “Weaving” games Distributed, embodied knowledgeable action Enhancing functionality of professional knowledgeable work Co-constructed epistemic environment (Professional) Epistemic fluency
- 17. Epistemic games and different kinds of expertise Game Expertise Propositional games Meta-contributory expertise Situated problem-solving games Contributory expertise Meta-professional games Interactional expertise Trans-professional games Relational expertise Translational public games Translational expertise “Weaving” games (Professional) Epistemic fluency (after Harry Collins, 2010; Edwards, 2010) 17 (Professional) Epistemic fluency is ones ability to switch between, coordinate and weave of different expertises in activity
- 18. Key insights 1. From cognitive and discourse structures to physicality and materiality of epistemic games 2. From constructing individual understanding to enhancing microsystem’s capacity for knowledgeable action 3. From an object to a dynamic system and its environment for knowledgeable activity In order to understand professional learning for knowlegeable action we need to move beyond formal epistemic games and standard learning as knowledge-building agendas Lina.Markauskaite@sydney.edu.au 19 Expanding epistemic focus of professional knowlegeability
- 19. SidewaysForward UpDownIn Epistemic fluency (re)defined Epistemic fluency as a capacity… 1. To integrate different kinds of knowledge 2. To coordinate different ways of knowing 3. To assemble an epistemic environment 4. To construct consci(enci)ous self Learning as growing…
Editor's Notes
- Pragmatic roots Demands of what is expected from future professionals and higher education Knowledge work: evidence- informed and evidence generating practice Teamwork: multi-disciplinary work, relational expertise (Edwards) Contributory expertise and interactional expertise Information exposure and the complexity of first-hand knowing (e.g in scences): First-hand knowledge vs second-hand knowledge Open innovation From mass customisation to open innovation and co-configuration
- Informed by a broader notion of “working knowledge” Knowledge (including conceptual) as a tool “Bringing intelligence and action to bear on any activity requires working knowledge”
- Fusing representational & performative views of knowledge Fusing cognitive & sociocultural accounts The idea of epistemic games: Knowledge and knowing producing activity as 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 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). Epistemic games were taken up almost simultaneously in cognitive and sociocultural sides in 80s The idea of epistemic games and epistemic forms, can be used to characterise knowledge cultures, and offer a common basis for studying shared properties of knowledge work and learning. ----------------------------- Notes for writing Roots: Stellan Ohlsson used the notion of game to describe metal schemas that regulate consciousness and regulates formal thinking. Schemas as a powerful kind of knowledge that allows to understand claims without details of content. Perkins – cognitive structures that guide inquiry Ferguson and Collins primarily linked to culture patterned ways of knowing, Wittgenstein’s language games Tuminaro Redish – situated phenomenological view Shaffer – epistemic frames a broader view as a grammar of culture including vales, identity, knowledge, skills, epistemology Shaffer Epistemic frames “Any community of practice has a culture, and that culture has a grammar of skills (things that people within community do), knowledge (understandings that people in community share), values (beliefs that members of community hold), identity (the way members of the community see themselves), epistemology (the warrants that justif actions or claims as legitimate within the community)” (2009) “When people engage in investigations - legal, scientific, moral, political, or other kinds - characteristic moves occur again and again” (Perkins, 1997, 50) ““…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) 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) “Epistemic forms are target structures that guide inquiry. Epistemic games are general purpose strategies for analyzing phenomena in order to fill out a particular epistemic form.”
- “When investigators know what kinds of characterizations figure in a field, what forms explanation takes, and how to justify conclusions, this helps them to know what to look for and how to go about looking for and verifying it.” (Perkins, 1997, 50). “different disciplines are needed to build a detailed theory of different epistemic forms and games <...> and to identify other forms and games that sophisticated inquirers use” (Collins & Ferguson, 1993, 40
- Functional epistemic games Perkins considered many other forms of thinking and knowing – such as those involved in problem-solving and decision-making – as lacking of explicit epistemic agenda, thus giving “epistemological status” primarily to those epistemic games that follow putative pattern of formal reasoning and Western scientific and philosophical thought/logic In contrast, intelligent professional behavior relies on ways of knowing that have an epistemological agenda of expanding ones perception of the problematic situation and enhancing ones capacities for action. Such inquiries follow putative patterns of pragmatic problem-solving, design and sensible decision-making that lead to what could be called “functional knowledge”. The nature of such functional epistemic games that professionals play when they generate situated knowledge that inform their action is little understood. We introduced thus distinction between two kinds of epistemic games (based on Greeno, 2012) Formal epistemic games - patterns of inquiry that are defined explicitly and used in a system of formal professional reasoning and judgement Functional epistemic games – patterns of inquiry that professionals use to generate situated knowledge that inform their actions Formal and functional extends Vygotsky’s scientific and eceryday concepts ------- A formal concept (or a formal use of a concept) refers to a cognitive entity that has a reference class that is determined by an explicit definition and that is used in a system of formal deductive reasoning A functional concept (or a functional use of a concept) I refer to a cognitive entity that has meaning in a kind of activity, in which it contributes to the way participants organize their understanding of what they are doing. 311 The idea of functional concepts (or functional uses of concepts) that I propose also includes Vygotsky’s idea of complex-collections, which he distinguished from concepts, and considered them developmentally less mature than concepts. (Although he explicitly noted that adult reasoning often uses complex-collections.) “Thus, the complex-collection is a generalization of things based on their co-participation in a single practical operation, a generalization of things based on their functional collaboration” (Vygotsky, 1934/1987, p. 139). Formal concepts, and formal uses of concepts, are not limited to the sciences and mathematics, but they are especially prevalent in those domains. As I understand these terms, formal (uses of) concepts are a subset of functional (uses of) concepts. That is, formal (uses of) concepts function by having meaning in activity and supporting the organization of activity. But they also have the properties of being defined explicitly and occurring in formal arguments. By a formal concept (or a formal use of a concept) I refer to a cognitive entity that has a reference class that is determined by an explicit definition and that is used in a system of formal deductive reasoning—that is, a system that uses formal logic or mathematics to derive implications of assertions. By a functional concept (or a functional use of a concept) I refer to a cognitive entity that has meaning in a kind of activity, in which it contributes to the way participants organize their understanding of what they are doing. 311
- Phase 1 Disciplines pharmacy, nursing, social work, school counseling and education Sample 20 professional practice courses 24 projects-assessment tasks 16 academics Data Interviews: 1-3 interviews per course Course materials: outlines, assignments, handouts, examples, etc. Methods Cognitive task analysis (Crandall, Klein, & Hoffman, 2006) Epistemic interviewing (Brinkmann, 2007) Phase 2 pharmacy, education 3 tutorial groups, 6 weeks 2 students’ groups, 4 weeks Observations Course materials, artefacts produced by students Open interviews Ethnographic observations
- Research games: testing 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
- * REPLACE IMAGE 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 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/coo-constructed environment/background: meaning-making, social interaction and skilled performance
- Distributed (to social and material environment) knowlegeable action
- == Probably SKIP ==
- == Probably SKIP ==
- 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 In order to understand professional learning for knowlegeable action we need to move beyond formal epistemic games and standard learning as knowledge-building agendas Knowledge blending, coordination and integration are most complex epistemic games From cognitive and discourse structures to physicality and materiality of epistemic games (ie. body, brain, and matter matters) From constructing individual understanding to enhancing microsystem’s capacity for knowledgeable action From epistemic objects to system and its environment for knowledgeable activity Coordination, game-weaving and blending are most complex epistemic games/forms ----------------------------------------------------- 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 Shifting epistemic agenda – From object to activity and environment enhance microsystems capacity for knowlegeable action Expanding focus from the epistemic objects to a system and its environment Epistemic object as an emerging entity
- =SKIP, but leave for discussion if needed = Five aspects of eFluency (as conscientious inhabiting): To combine concepts (concept combination in Barsalou sense, knowledge integration. Lets reserve blending for cases that include material anchors, including combining/blending multimodal affordances of self- and environment) To coordinate different ways of knowing (includes to co-coordinate those processes that are cognitive, with those that are non cognitive during real world cognition (Barsalou again and playing and weaving different epistemic games in a standard sense and not standard (ours) sense). To assemble epistemic environment to support one’s own knowledgeable action (i.e., bringing in and combining multimodal affordances of self- and environment, designing and building an environment that supports simultaneously pragmatic and epistemic actions, in Kirsh terms) To construct conscious self (seeing acting and cognising self within the system from outside the system, self as knower)