Advertisement

Introduction

  • Lina Markauskaite
  • Peter Goodyear
Chapter
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 14)

Abstract

People who can act knowledgably, who are flexible and adept in their use of different kinds of knowledge and who can shape their environment to generate new insights are demonstrating a capacity which we call ‘epistemic fluency’. This chapter argues that epistemic fluency plays an important, though underappreciated, role in professional life. To understand how knowledge works in routine and innovative professional activities, one needs to look beneath the surface appearance of behaviours and language and find generative patterns – such as epistemic forms and games. This chapter provides an overview of the core conceptual concerns of the book, tracing their development across the 19 chapters that follow. It also provides a summary of the body of empirical research on which we draw when illustrating our arguments.

Keywords

Professional work Epistemic fluency Actionable knowledge Knowledgeable action Innovation 

References

  1. Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Belth, M. (1977). The process of thinking. New York, NY: David McKay.Google Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Biesta, G. (2007). Bridging the gap between educational research and educational practice: The need for critical distance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(3), 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billett, S. (2014). Mimetic learning at work: Learning in the circumstances of practice. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Billett, S., Harteis, C., & Gruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning (Vol. 2). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Billett, S., & Henderson, A. (Eds.). (2011). Developing learning professionals. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, H. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dall’Alba, G. (2009). Learning to be professionals. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Landa, M. (2011). Philosophy and simulation: The emergence of synthetic reason. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
  13. DETYA (Ed.). (2000). The impact of educational research. Canberra, Australia: Higher Education Division, Dept of Education, Training & Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  14. Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner: The relational turn in expertise. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farrell, L., & Fenwick, T. (Eds.). (2007). Educating for the global workforce: Knowledge, knowledge work, and knowledge workers. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Fenwick, T., & Nerland, M. (Eds.). (2014). Reconceptualising professional learning: Sociomaterial knowledges, practices and responsibilities. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Furlong, J. (2012). Education – an anatomy of the discipline: Rescuing the university project? London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Grace, G. (2014). Professions, sacred and profane: Reflections on the changing nature of professionalism. In M. Young & J. Muller (Eds.), Knowledge, expertise and the professions. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Kemmis, S., & Smith, T. (Eds.). (2008). Enabling praxis: Challenges for education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  21. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Land, R., Meyer, J., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (2008). Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  23. Lehtinen, E. (2012). Learning of complex competences: On the need to coordinate multiple theoretical perspectives. In A. Koskensalo, J. Smeds, A. Huguet, & R. de Cillia (Eds.), Language: Competencies – contact – change (pp. 13–28). Berlin, Germany: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Minsky, M. (2006). The emotion machine: Commonsense thinking, artificial intelligence, and the future of the human mind. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  25. Morrison, D., & Collins, A. (1996). Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning environments In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 107–119). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Perkins, D. N. (1997). Epistemic games. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(1), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rabardel, P., & Beguin, P. (2005). Instrument mediated activity: From subject development to anthropocentric design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 6(5), 429–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sawyer, K. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  30. Schatzki, T., Knorr Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of just choosing one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simon, H. A. (1979). Models of thought (Vol. 1–2). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sternberg, R., & Horvath, J. (Eds.). (1999). Tacit knowledge in professional practice: Researcher and practitioner perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Woods, D. D., & Sarter, N. B. (1993). Evaluating the impact of new technology on human-machine cooperation. In J. Wise, V. D. Hopkin, & P. Stager (Eds.), Verification and validation of complex systems: Human factors issues (pp. 133–158). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lina Markauskaite
    • 1
  • Peter Goodyear
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Research on Learning and Innovation (CRLI), Faculty of Education & Social WorkThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations