Advertisement

Professional Epistemic Games

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

Abstract

Chapter 14 maps the different varieties of epistemic games to be found in professional work. In general terms, epistemic games are generative patterns of inquiry, and we show how this notion can provide insights into ways of working creatively with knowledge in professional fields, not just in the domains of scientific inquiry in which the term ‘epistemic game’ originated. Using distinguishing qualities of epistemic games – such as the sorts of knowledge each produces and the skills needed to play each game – we identify six main types of professional epistemic games and illustrate how they are played in professional work and learning. But we also note that these games are rarely played just one at a time. They are often woven together into one gradually unfolding situated activity.

Keywords

Epistemic games Propositional games Situated problem-solving games Discourse games 

References

  1. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. (1977). The outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Stahl, E. (2008). Knowledge and epistemological beliefs: An intimate but complicate relationship. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 423–441). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins, A. (2011). Representational competence: A commentary on the Greeno analysis of classroom practice. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (Vol. 1, pp. 105–111). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner: The relational turn in expertise. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. M. (Eds.). (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361–367.Google Scholar
  11. Hayek, F. A. (1972). The primacy of the abstract. In A. Koestler & J. R. Smythies (Eds.), Beyond reductionism: New perspectives in the life sciences (pp. 309–333). London: Hutchimson.Google Scholar
  12. Henning, P. H. (2004). Everyday cognition and situated action. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 143–168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32, 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lavorini, F., Magnan, A., Christophe Dubus, J., Voshaar, T., Corbetta, L., Broeders, M., et al. (2008). Effect of incorrect use of dry powder inhalers on management of patients with asthma and COPD. Respiratory Medicine, 102(4), 593–604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2007.11.003
  15. Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliott, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., Miller, J., et al. (2005). Frameworks for thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nerland, M. (2008). Knowledge cultures and the shaping of work-based learning: The case of computer engineering. Vocations and Learning, 1(1), 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nerland, M. (2010). Transnational discourses of knowledge and learning in professional work: Examples from computer engineering. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(2), 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ohlsson, S. (1993). Abstract schemas. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 51–66. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2801_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Perkins, D. N. (1997). Epistemic games. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(1), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. The Educational Record, 43, 197–205.Google Scholar
  26. Schwab, J. J. (1970). The practical: A language for curriculum. Washington, DC: National Education Association, Center for the Study of Instruction.Google Scholar
  27. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & Education, 46(3), 223–234. doi: http://dx.doi.org/  10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser & M. N. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 37–54). Pitman, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19(4), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Weddle, A. B., & Hollan, J. D. (2010). Professional perception and expert action: Scaffolding embodied practices in professional education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17(2), 119–148. doi: 10.1080/10749030902721754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wittgenstein, L. (1963). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google 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