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.
Science 7 - LAND and SEA BREEZE and its Characteristics
Workshop: Assessment as boundary work: between the discipline and the profession
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. 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
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. 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. The University of Sydney Page 6
Our empirical study
– Nursing, pharmacy, social
work, teaching, school
counselling
– 20 professional courses
– Workplace-related
assessment tasks
7. The University of Sydney Page 7
Insights into the
assessments on the
boundary
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
11. The University of Sydney Page 11
Assessment artefacts
Cultural artefactsConceptual artefacts Epistemic artefacts
Action
Meaning
Practice
artefacts Action
artefacts
Design
artefactsAnalytical
artefacts
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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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