Epistemic Resourcefulness for Actionable Knowing

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


This chapter mirrors Chap.  17, while shifting the focus to epistemic resourcefulness. We look at how epistemic resources are treated in accounts of the mind and accounts of discourse; both have to be combined in a satisfactory account of epistemic thought and action. We use the case study of preservice teachers’ planning to explain the nature of epistemic resources and to introduce the notion of ‘framing’. Framing is a way of describing how people make sense of a new situation – answering the question ‘what is going on here?’ It helps us to understand what enables people to address the challenges they encounter in work: whether they can respond in innovative and productive, or unproductive, ways. We show that, in solving professional challenges, framing depends upon epistemic resourcefulness – including an ability to coordinate diverse ways of knowing and acting in the world.


Epistemic resources Epistemic resourcefulness Framing Linking the epistemic and conceptual 


  1. Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149(1), 91–130. doi: 10.1016/s0004-3702(03)00054-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateson, G. (1972/2000). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology (New ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2009). Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 5(2), doi:
  4. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, D. E., & Hammer, D. (2008). Conceptual change in physics. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 127–154). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: A short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers, and students. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  7. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1999). Soft systems methodology in action (New ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, A. (1999). Embodied, situated and distributed cognition. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 506–517). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, H. M. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, A. (2011a). 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, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, A. (2011b). A study of expert theory formation: The role of different model types and domain frameworks. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Models and modeling (pp. 23–40). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Damsa, C. I. (2014). Shared epistemic agency and agency of individuals, collaborative groups, and research communities. In E. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, & J. L. Taba Polman (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice, Proceedings of the international conference of the learning sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  14. Damsa, C. I., Kirschner, P. A., Andriessen, J. E. B., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. H. M. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donald, J. G. (2002). Learning to think: Disciplinary perspectives (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 209–234). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ellis, R., Hughes, J., Weyers, M., & Riding, P. (2009). University teacher approaches to design and teaching and concepts of learning technologies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engeström, Y., Nummijoki, J., & Sannino, A. (2012). Embodied germ cell at work: Building an expansive concept of physical mobility in home care. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 287–309. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2012.688177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gioia, D. A. (1986). Symbols, scripts, and sensemaking: Creating meaning in the organizational experience. In H. P. Sims Jr. & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), The thinking organization: Dynamics of organizational social cognition (pp. 49–74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (Eds.). (2010). Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  22. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hall, R., & Seidel Horn, I. (2012). Talk and conceptual change at work: Adequate representation and epistemic stance in a comparative analysis of statistical consulting and teacher workgroups. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 240–258. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2012.688233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  27. Hofer, B. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hofer, B., & Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hutchins, E. (2012). Concepts in practice as sources of order. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 314–323. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2012.694006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jacobson, M. J. (2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices. Complexity, 6(3), 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values and frames. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kember, D., & Kwan, K.-P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to good teaching. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  33. Kirsh, D. (2009). Problem solving and situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 264–306). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 513–549. doi: 10.1016/0364-0213(94)90007-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Knorr Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  36. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kuhn, T. S. (1981). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuhn, D., & Park, S.-O. (2005). Epistemological understanding and the development of intellectual values. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Lobato, J., Rhodehamel, B., & Hohensee, C. (2012). “Noticing” as an alternative transfer of learning process. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(3), 433–482. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2012.682189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57–68. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. McDonald, G., Le, H., Higgins, J., & Podmore, V. (2005). Artifacts, tools, and classrooms. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(2), 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meads, G., & Ashcroft, J. (2005). The case for interprofessional collaboration in health and social care. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Muukkonen, H., & Lakkala, M. (2009). Exploring metaskills of knowledge-creating inquiry in higher education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 187–211. doi: 10.1007/s11412-009-9063-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nersessian, N. J. (2008a). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Nersessian, N. J. (2008b). Mental modeling in conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 391–416). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Ohlsson, S. (1995). Learning to do and learning to understand: A lesson and a challenge for cognitive modelling. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 37–62). London, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  51. Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174–207. doi: 10.1145/196734.196745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pace, D., & Middendorf, J. (Eds.). (2004). Decoding the disciplines: Helping students learn disciplinary ways of thinking. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  53. Perkins, D. N. (1997). Epistemic games. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(1), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248–258. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.693354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  57. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the international school of physics, “Enrico Fermi” Course CLVI. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  59. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  61. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. The Educational Record, 43, 197–205.Google Scholar
  62. Schwab, J. J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sellers-Young, B. (1999). Technique and the embodied actor. Theatre Research International, 24(1), 89–97. doi: 10.1017/S0307883300020290.
  64. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1993). Framing in discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics’ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wagner, J. F. (2006). Transfer in pieces. Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 1–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wagner, J. F. (2010). A transfer-in-pieces consideration of the perception of structure in the transfer of learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 443–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wheelahan, L. (2010). Why knowledge matters in curriculum: A social realist argument. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Wittgenstein, L. (1967/2007). Zettel. G. E. M. Anscombe & G. H. V. Wright (Eds.), (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Berkley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  72. Young, K. (Interviewer), & Rojo, T. (Interviewee). (2014, June 13). Kirsty Young’s castaway this week is the ballerina Tamara Rojo. Desert Island Discs, BBC Broadcast. Retrieved from
  73. Zhang, L., & Sternberg, R. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 1–53. doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-1635-4.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