Epistemic fluency in higher education: bridging actionable knowledgeable and knowledgeable action. Oxford seminar 2016 11 15

The University of Sydney Page 1

Epistemic fluency in higher education: Bridging actionable knowledge and knowledgeable action

Lina Markauskaitė

Acknowledgements: ARC DP0988307Peter Goodyear, Agnieszka Bachfischer and many others

15 November 2016 @ OSAT, Oxford


Why epistemic fluency?

Some trends & expectations from (future) professionals 1. Evidence-generating

practice2. Relational expertise 3. “Second-hand” knowledge4. Open innovation & co-

configuration

What does it mean for HE?

Knowledg

e Flexibility, Adaptability

?Moving

away from knowledge

“…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)

Rethinking knowledge &

skills: Epistemic

fluency


Aims/Questions

1. What is the nature of actionable professional knowledge and knowing?

2. How is such knowledge taught and learnt in professional education?

3. How could this be done better?

To develop a “suitcase” of tools that help us understand learning for complex knowledge-rich professional work

Focus – professional knowledgeable action and innovation


Today

Context1. Roots and key conceptsFew examples2. Professional epistemic games3. Assembling epistemic environments4. Constructing actionable concepts


Roots and key concepts


Actionable knowledge

Knowledge as a tool for action“People who use tools actively rather than just acquire them . . . build an increasingly rich understanding of the world in which they use the tools and of the tools themselves”

(Brown et al, 1989, 33)

Actionable knowledge is “knowledge that is particularly useful to get things accomplished in practical activities”

(After Yinger & Lee, 1993, 100)


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)

Examples– Creating a list– Creating a taxonomy– Making a comparison– Proving a theorem– Doing a controlled experiment


Epistemic fluency defined...

Epistemic fluency is an ability “to use and recognise a relatively large number of epistemic games”

(Morrison & Collins, 1996, 108)

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)

...through epistemic games


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 epistemic environment

4. to construct consci(enci)ous self


Knowledge(ing): Culture, practice and resourcefulness

(Personal) epistemic-conceptual resourcefulness

(Local) epistemic practices

(Global) knowledge cultures

Act

iona

ble

know

ledg

e(in

g)

Inno

vatio

n


Some key concepts

Objects are entities people act towards and/or act with

(Star, 2010) Epistemic objects (artefacts)The lack in completeness of being is crucial: objects of knowledge in many fields have material instantiations, but they must simultaneously be conceived of as unfolding structures of absences...

(Knorr Cetina, 2001)

Objects are the foundation of enduring professional practices, discovery and innovation . . . and human consciousness and

learning

Objectual “epistemic practice” perspective


Some key concepts

“…the amalgam of places, bodies, voices, skills, practices, technical devices, theories, social strategies and collective work, that together constitutes techno-scientific knowledge practices”

(Turnbull, 2000, 44)

Epistemic assemblage


Some key concepts

“Deep learning” & five approaches in psychology

1. Phenomenological2. Neuro-psychological3. Environmentalist4. Situated or sociocultural5. Mentalist

“Closing escape routes” for mind

“Opening escape routes” for mind

Grounded cognition: embodied, extended, enculturated, enacted, existential mind


Information Processing view of mind: Adaptive Control of Thought-Rational (ACT-R) architecture

From “Deep learning”, Ohlsson, 2011


Conceptual understanding is a capacity to construct situated conceptualisations

Some key concepts

1. selected properties2. information about the background settings3. possible actions4. perceptions of internal states: affects, motivations, AND

cognitive states and operations

Grounded, (multi)modal view of conceptual knowledge

Barsalou, 1999, 2009Aspirin


Some key concepts

...a multimodal assemblage that characterises the “machinery” for knowledge construction

(Knorr-Cetina, 2007)

A multimodal view

Epistemic...

(Meta)cognitive

Social

Embodied & Embrained

MaterialEpistemic


Our conceptual-empirical work

1. Epistemic objects and artefacts2. Inscriptions and inscriptional

practices3. Epistemic tools and

infrastructures: creating epistemic assemblages

4. *Epistemic games5. *Conceptual and epistemic

resourcefulness

Analytical lenses

6. *Entwinement of social, material and embodied with cognition in professional knowledge practices


Method: “Cognitive-cultural archaeology”

Phase 1 Phase 2Disciplines Pharmacy

NursingSocial workSchool counselingEducation

PharmacyEducation

Sample 20 professional practice courses24 projects-assessment tasks

3 tutorial groups2 students’ groups

Data Course resourcesInterviews

ObservationsCourse resourcesOpen interviews

Methods Epistemic interviewingCognitive task analysis

Ethno- audio/video taped observations

Analysis of professional practice tasks and students’ activities


Learning to play epistemic games


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

Aim

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)


From “formal” to “functional” epistemic gamesFormal 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)


Principles for identifying and sorting out games

1. A 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 agenda2. Epistemic focus3. Nature of object4. Nature of expertise

Sorting out gamesIdentifying games


Findings: Playing & weaving 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 games4. Trans-professional

games

Sense-making games

Exchanging games

1. Propositionalgames6. 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


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


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


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


Summary: Functional epistemic games

Game Epistemic agendaPropositional 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


Key insights

1. From cognitive and discourse structures to physicality and materiality of epistemic games

2. From enhancing individual understanding to all microsystem’s capacity for knowledgeable action

3. From construction of a knowledge object to a dynamic system and its environment for knowledgeable activity

Professional learning for knowledgeable action goes far beyond formal epistemic games


Epistemic resourcefulnessAssembling epistemic environment


Case: Teaching to “work scientifically”· Preservice primary

teachers· Learning to teach

science through inquiry· Developing lesson plans

& resources, teaching, reflecting/improving

· Teaching about material properties with nappies, chips, etc.


Assembling epistemic environment

Agi: Um two things you could put in the lesson plan. (…) we could do the nametags. (…)Nat: Do you reckon ((seems confused about using nametags))?

Agi: It means when you look at a student, you do – you can use their name.

Nat: I felt so bad for that kid that I was like – I picked her out (…)

Tweaking physical environment to compensate for the lack of situated knowledge

[Environment]

[Environment] [Self-Emotions]

[Self-Cognition][Environment]

[Self-Emotions/Reflection]


Assembling epistemic environment and constructing conscious self

Tweaking an epistemic form to scaffold one’s knowledgeable decisions


Main insights

1. Seeing self, others and environment as a dynamic epistemic assemblage is central to professional knowing

2. Professional actionable knowing is inseparable from capacities to (co)construct epistemic environments that enhance knowledgeable actions


Conceptual resourcefulnessConstructing actionable concepts


Integrating mind, body, social and environment into one (multimodal) actionable concept

Agi: And so they’ve got four – I don’t know how many layers in a nappy. This is layer A, B, C, D ((draws)). So then they test A, B, C, D, for … [4 seconds] I don’t know what it is, like hard err waterproof I think. Maybe we can divide them into groups. Maybe so, group 1 // test = (…)Jill: // And then we also need less stuff, we don’t need to like have… [4 seconds] and if there’s three [groups], are there three things that are being tested then one of us can be in each of these groups.

Designing a worksheet for a “scientific experiment”

[Material][Symbolic][Cognitive/

Conceptual]

[Social][Cognitive/Conceptual]

[Material][Social][Cognitive/Conceptual][Self-Body][Social]


Constructing actionable concepts by grounding

Jill: You could have a jigsaw kind of thing happening. (…) Where you take, so if you’ve got groups, you’ve got everyone in their individual groups and then you switch it around so that you share it with the other people that were not in your group.

(….)Jill: It could get messy, I know, I know, but just as theoretical

– it sounds like it could work, but I don’t know in practice.

(….)Jill: Yeah, but kids, I don’t think there’s gonna be that much

discussion, I just think that’s gonna be more “show me your thing” and then ((shows writing gesture)) copy, copy, copy ((all laugh)). You know how it is.

(….)Nat: But maybe … [4 seconds] (…) ‘cause I remember with –

when we did jigsaw – like the kids ‘d actually test, like we were tested like when we did it in a tutorial, we were tested on it, so it wasn’t just procrastination. They must have actually done something.

From pre-service teachers conversation: “Jigsaw”

[Formal]

[Functional][Formal][Functional]

[Functional][Situated][Functional]

[Situated][Functional][Situated][Functional]


Main insights

1. Social, material and embodied are essential features of actionable concepts

2. Professional learning is not so much about abandoning and replacing one’s “naive” experiential knowledge and ways of knowing, but about capacity to integrate and coordinate productively formal, functional and experiential knowledge and ways of knowing


Final notes


Sideways

Forward

UpDown

In

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 epistemic environment

4. to construct consci(enci)ous self

Learning as growing…

... as consci(enci)ous inhabiting


If you are interested...

Follow our website:https://epistemicfluency.com

Email:[email protected]

eBook link

http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4.