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”.
UGC NET Paper 1 Mathematical Reasoning & Aptitude.pdf
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)