Preparing teachers for knowledgeable action: Epistemic fluency, innovation pedagogy and work-capable graduates
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•583 views
This presentation is around the theme “Preparing teachers for knowledgeable action”. I mainly talk about the nature of teachers' actionable knowledge and productive learning and assessment tasks. Main topics 1. Seeing teachers’ knowledge and learning form a ‘practice' perspective (I briefly introduce ways in which we have been looking at professional skilfulness and preparation) 2. Unpacking teachers’ resourcefulness for knowledgeable action (I briefly give some insights into what we call "epistemic fluency", particularly what makes teacher’s action “knowledgeable” and knowledge “actionable") 3. Assessment artefacts: what do they say us about work readiness, knowledgeability, and capability for knowledgeable action? (here, I will give some insights into what kinds of artefacts teachers are actually asked to produce and submit for assessment and what they say us about what teachers know and should be able to do) 4. Innovation pedagogy as an approach to prepare and assess work-capable graduates (some examples into how learning through innovation looks like and some (provocative) suggestions how ‘measurement’ of teachers’ readiness could look like).
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (10)
Similar to Preparing teachers for knowledgeable action: Epistemic fluency, innovation pedagogy and work-capable graduates
Similar to Preparing teachers for knowledgeable action: Epistemic fluency, innovation pedagogy and work-capable graduates (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Preparing teachers for knowledgeable action: Epistemic fluency, innovation pedagogy and work-capable graduates
- 1. The University of Sydney Page 1 Preparing teachers for knowledgeable action: Epistemic fluency, innovation pedagogy and work-capable graduates Lina Markauskaite Acknowledgements: Peter Goodyear & DP0988307 Centre for Research on Learning and Innovation Sydney School of Education and Social Work ITEPL@ QUT, Brisbane 20 February, 2017
- 2. The University of Sydney Page 2 Link to eBook Context: Epistemic fluency Grounded (extended) view of cognition and professional knowledge – 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 professional (epistemic) artefacts that embody actionable knowledge
- 3. The University of Sydney Page 3 Today 1. Actionable knowledge 2. Epistemic tools, games and fluency 3. Assessment artefacts 4. Innovation pedagogy 5. Some provocative suggestions Our empirical study – nursing, pharmacy, social work, teaching, school counseling – 20 professional courses – workplace-related assessment tasks
- 4. The University of Sydney Page 4 Why should teachers come to university? WORK Professional practices (resourcefulness) RESEARCH Epistemic practices LEARNING Knowledge practices (cultures) Knowledge, but… Evidence- using practice Evidence- producing practice Knowledge- using practice Knowledge- generating practice Knowlegeable action Actionable knowledge
- 5. The University of Sydney Page 5 Actionable knowledge Actionable knowledge is “knowledge that is particularly useful to get things accomplished in practical activities” (After Yinger & Lee, 1993, 100) “…knowledge is conceived largely as a form of mastery that is expressed in the capacity to carry out a social and material activity. Knowledge is thus always a way of knowing shared with others, a set of practical methods acquired through learning, inscribed in objects, embodied, and only partially articulated in discourse” (Nicolini, 2013, 5)
- 6. The University of Sydney Page 6 Knowledge(ing): Culture, practice and resourcefulness (Personal) epistemic- conceptual resourcefulness/fluency (Local) epistemic practices (Global) knowledge cultures Actionable knowledge(ing) Innovation
- 7. The University of Sydney Page 7 Epistemic games and toolsas one aspect of epistemic fluency
- 8. The University of Sydney Page 8 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
- 9. The University of Sydney Page 9 Epistemic fluency & functional epistemic games Epistemic fluency is an ability “to use and recognise a relatively large number of epistemic games” (Morrison & Collins, 1996, 108) Functional epistemic games – patterns of inquiry which contribute to the way practitioners generate (situated) knowledge that informs their action 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)
- 10. The University of Sydney Page 10 Playing & weaving 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
- 11. The University of Sydney Page 11 Mastering epistemic tools and professional infrastructure 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
- 12. The University of Sydney Page 12 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. Teaching would benefit from much more articulated and precise understanding of its epistemic toolkit 3. Epistemic tools and games could provide a concrete foundation for preparing teachers and for assessing
- 13. The University of Sydney Page 13 Assessment objects and artefacts
- 14. The University of Sydney Page 14 Learning through making artefacts We should look for foundations of enduring professional practices, discovery and innovation in objects and artefacts (After Nicolini, Mengis and Swan, 2012) 1. What is it that students are expected to learn and produce for assessment? 2. How does students’ work on making assessment artefacts help them bridge knowledge learnt at university with knowing in workplaces?
- 15. The University of Sydney Page 15 Objects of tasks Motives/Objects Everyday practices Unusual practices Fine-tuning skill and knowledge Key specific skills and knowledge Eg. Administering reading assessments Hardest elements of practice Eg. Teaching lessons of most difficult topics Shaping professional vision Core inquiry frameworks Eg. Using Bloom’s taxonomy question prompts Hidden elements of professional practice Eg. Seeing social justice in a lesson plan Making professional artefacts Artefacts for/in action Eg. Designing a plan Generic artefacts-tools Eg. Creating guidelines, teaching kits
- 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. The University of Sydney Page 17 Main 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
- 18. The University of Sydney Page 18 Innovation pedagogy Teachers as constructors of professional tools for knowledgeable action
- 19. The University of Sydney Page 19 Learning through innovation 1. A productive way to ‘package’ many aspects of epistemic fluency 2. Developing a special skillset for practical innovation 3. Value of the product Three modes of inquiry System s thinkin g Design practice Responsiv e action
- 20. The University of Sydney Page 20 IV. Constructing shareable principled- practical knowledge products Making knowledge actionable and action knowledgeable I. Learning methods (epistemic tools and games) for inquiring into complex social systems III. Learning to create their own innovation environment iPad Journey (MLS&T, 2011) II. Grounding theory and methods in practical sense-making and action
- 21. The University of Sydney Page 21 Learning analytics for deep learning Challenges the students chose to address Ipad journey: Introducing iPads in a Secondary School Overcoming isolation in online learning Learning on-the-go: Mobile learning in higher education E-type guide: Moving from print to online in higher education Redesigning learning spaces: Learning through making Developing students’ creative potential Google brain: Utilising power of digital knowledge tools for learning Creating an engaging school
- 22. The University of Sydney Page 22 What the students valued… – Novelty of pedagogical approach – Motivation and engagement – Teamwork experience – Autonomy and agency – Relevancy of theoretical knowledge – … “Really enjoyed the group work challenge, the assessment piece was appropriate and the reflection was a good way to consolidate the learning.” (MLS&T, 2013) “I learnt far more doing the teamwork than I'd expected to. There was a great exchange of ideas and knowledge. Overall, a different but very rewarding course for me.” (MLS&T, 2013) “[The best aspect of the course is] the innovative ways that the course is designed to encourage, or actually demand, autonomous learning.” (MLS&T, 2013) “This unit was a challenge for me, a completely new and different way to learn, but very effective!!” (MLS&T, 2013) “I really appreciated the benefits of covering (usually) one reading a week and then writing a post which connects it to my work experience.” (MLS&T, 2013) “The Innovation Challenge gave us opportunity to work as a team on an ill-structured problem, which was highly motivating and great learning experience.” (MLS&T, 2013) “We can explore and have ideas without pressure” (MLS&T, 2015)
- 23. The University of Sydney Page 23 (Re)imagining assessment and ‘measurement’ of readiness 1. Using epistemic games and tools as a guide what students are expected to master 2. Developing professional resourcefulness through construction of principled-practical professional artefacts-tools 3. An open, ‘live’ database of professional tools constructed by (pre- service) teachers… 4. …and possibly multiple evidence how these tools work in various contexts
- 24. The University of Sydney Page 24 Most importantly… 1. Moving away from a ‘blind’ evidence culture to an epistemic culture and practice that values professional ways of knowing 2. Taking pre-service teachers’ capacities seriously and leaving behind a ‘deficit’ view Related ideas 1. Principled-practical knowledge (Bereiter) 2. Family resemblance of expertise (Sternberg & Horvath) 3. Deliberative expertise (Hatano & Inagaki)
- 25. The University of Sydney Page 25 If you are interested... Email: Follow our website: https://epistemicfluency.com Lina.Marakauskaite@sydney.edu.au
Editor's Notes
- This presentation is around the theme “Preparing teachers for knowledgeable action”. I mainly talk about the nature of teachers' actionable knowledge and productive learning and assessment tasks. Main topics 1. Seeing teachers’ knowledge and learning form a ‘practice' perspective (I briefly introduce ways in which we have been looking at professional skilfulness and preparation) 2. Unpacking teachers’ resourcefulness for knowledgeable action (I briefly give some insights into what we call "epistemic fluency", particularly what makes teacher’s action “knowledgeable” and knowledge “actionable") 3. Assessment artefacts: what do they say us about work readiness, knowledgeability, and capability for knowledgeable action? (here, I will give some insights into what kinds of artefacts teachers are actually asked to produce and submit for assessment and what they say us about what teachers know and should be able to do) 4. Innovation pedagogy as an approach to prepare and assess work-capable graduates (some examples into how learning through innovation looks like and some (provocative) suggestions how ‘measurement’ of teachers’ readiness could look like). The Initial Teacher Education and Professional Learning (ITEPL) Research Group invites you to University prepared teachers and our impact on classroom readiness: How do we know it’s because of us? Recent pressures on providers of Initial Teacher Education is mounting to ‘ provide a set of measures that assess the effectiveness of [our] programs in achieving successful graduate outcomes’ (Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, 2014, p. 12). Hot debates resound around graduates teachers’ ‘classroom readiness’, and even whether alternative providers may even be able to ‘do better’ in preparing teachers for the complex climate in which they will be expected to teach (. It is notoriously difficult to prove our impact. We need new and innovative evidence –based ways to measure impact, yet many of us are reluctant to go down what we see as flawed paths, for instance trying to prove that it is because of their university preparation that teachers are able to make a difference in their students NAPLAN results. But what, then? It is with a sense of some urgency that we produce the kinds of research needed to demonstrate our impact. This seminar offers the views of three leaders in the field of initial teacher education to open up that debate so that we can better explain our influence in producing classroom ready teachers in order to impact on government and policy makers before it is too late. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Professor Tania Broadley is currently the Assistant Dean Teaching & Learning in the Faculty of Education at Queensland University of Technology. Tania provides leadership in teaching and learning within the Faculty of Education at QUT. Her previous role at Curtin University, involved the establishment of the Curtin Learning Institute which developed 21st century professional learning & academic development. In this role she was integral in the redesign and development of new generation learning spaces across Curtin University., including collaborative and project based learning spaces. Tania’s work in Initial Teacher Education centred on leading the design and development of educational technology courses across undergraduate and postgraduate courses, which were offered face-to-face, fully online and in a blended delivery. Her broad range of educational experience includes research and teaching within the higher education sector, teaching within the early childhood and primary school context and research within secondary schools. Tania’s research areas encompass rural and remote education; technology enhanced learning; professional development of educators and preparation of pre-service teachers. Diane Mayer is Head of School & Dean of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney. She has previously held leadership positions at Victoria University, Deakin University, the University of California at Berkeley and The University of Queensland. Her research focuses on teacher education and beginning teaching, examining issues associated with the policy and practice of teacher education and induction into the profession. Lina Markauskaite is a Senior Lecturer in eResearch (Educational and Social Research Methods) in the Centre for Research on Computer Supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo), within the Faculty of Education and Social Work, the University of Sydney. She received a PhD in informatics from the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics (Lithuania), in 2000. Before arriving to Australia in 2004, Lina managed ICT implementation and educational change projects; and was the national coordinator of large-scale national and international studies on ICT in schools in Lithuania (such as IEA's study SITES). She also worked in various expert groups for developing national strategies and programs for ICT implementation in Lithuanian education. Date:Monday, 20th February 2017 Time:11:00am - 12:30pm Venue:A Block, Level 3, Conference room A330, QUT Kelvin Grove Campus Registrations close:Friday, 17th February 3:00pm This is a free event hosted by the Faculty of Education Initial Teacher Education and Professional Learning Research Group and included as part of the Office of Education Research, Research Development and Training Framework.
- 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). We draw on the grounded (and extended) view of cognition and argue knowledge and knowing is not what happens in the mind, but in the action and (inter)action between the environment and the embodied mind. One of 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.
- Seeing learning from ‘practice' perspective ”Epistemic fluency", particularly what makes teacher’s action “knowledgeable” and knowledge “actionable") Assessment artefacts: what do they say us about work readiness, knowledgeability, and capability for knowledgeable action? Innovation pedagogy: and some provocative suggestions how ‘measurement’ of teachers’ readiness could look like
- The question seems obvious they come because knowledge, particularly creating knowledge but current discourses somewhat primarily replace knowledge with evidence, even worse evidence production with accountability regimes And they are not the same Evidence that visual representations on average help to learn better is not the same as knowledge why and when this is so Or that after using kids became better at something Knowledge is about mechanisms Thus my first claim, that I order to show that universities make deference in teacher educators develop capacities to produce knowledge But also not to forget that this knowledge should be not a traditional formal knowledge but professional and actionacle My answer: Learning to generate actionable knowledge
- Knowledge from the practice theory perspective is not just a set of cognitive processes in the head, but a situated activity in the world using various material and symbolic artefacts and environment, even one’s body Knowledge is about ability to carry out activity in the world with the diverse tools Working or actionable knowledge: ... and there are certain kinds of knowledge that are particularly handy for this: “Bringing intelligence and action to bear on any activity requires working knowledge” (Yinger) Ie. knowledge is not only a “justified truth” but understanding that is useful (even philosophical notion of knowledge moved beyond Aristotle) Knowledge (including conceptual knowledge) as a tool: Informed by a broader view that knowledge (at least valuable knowledge) is not what we “acquire” (“possess” in our heads), but what we use (enact) when we make sense of the world around us (and act)....
- In world around us we also could see clearly levels at which knowledge and knowing has been studied. Top Global knowledge culture (or formal knowledge). Knowledge that we often see in books, formal methods, etc. Education often is the main consumer of this kind of knowledge and knowing But it is not how scientists or anyone in practice settings actually create knowledge and work with knowledge In STS (Knorr Cetina) through her notion of “epistemic practice and culture” already brings down the notion of “knowledge culture” and “knowledge practice” from ideal, abstract down to the (collective) local settings and machineries of knowledge production. Practical methods that scientists use. Practical methods, artefacts, etc (Piaget with his developmental stages somewhat confused all education, formal knowledge does not replace, functional intuitive ways of knowing, but complemen) In education, it is necessary to make one further step and bring it down to individual resourcefulness and capacities to work with knowledge Personal epistemic and conceptual resourcefulness that enables to make knowledgeable actions that on one side are sensitive to concrete situations, on the other draws on the resources of local and global cultures Today I mainly focus tools, methods, artefacts that we see at the second level
- Our interest was to understand practical knowledge generation methods (epistemic games) and epistemic tools that practitioners use
- 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 Epistemic games were taken up almost simultaneously in cognitive and sociocultural sides of ed research in 80s. Schemas as a powerful kind of knowledge that allows to understand claims without details of content (Ohlsson) “…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) 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 o 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
- We did similar activity with epistemic tools. These things just gives more precise vocabulary to talk what professionals do and what we nay 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 teachers and for assessing
- Professional learning and assessment in higher education often involve production of various artefacts, such as lesson plans and reflections in teaching, assessment reports and case studies in counselling Focus Assessment objects and artefacts in courses that prepare students for professional practice What is it that students are expected to learn and produce for assessment? How does students’ work on making assessment artefacts help them bridge knowledge learnt at university with knowing in workplaces?
- How teachers objectify course goals in specific assessment tasks 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
- 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 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.
- Could be seen in several ways Just a motivating shell or A shell with a lot of substance A productive way to package many aspects of epistemic fluency Developing a special skillset for practical innovation
- Enacting theory and methods in making sense of experiences and organising own innovation process
- Using epistemic games and tools for constructing situated understanding as to guide what students are expected to master Helping students to become much more skillful and knowledgeable about epistemic infrastructure of their profession (epistemic games, tools, etc.)