Advertisement

Creating Epistemic Environments: Learning, Teaching and Design

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

Abstract

This chapter outlines a fifth epistemic project, extending and drawing together the set of four epistemic challenges and projects that we presented in Chap.  3. The chapter centres on the idea of ‘grounded actionable knowledge’ – grounding human knowledge and knowing in the physical environment and in an embodied, conscious and conscientious self. Creating and reconfiguring one’s epistemic environment thereby becomes an important accomplishment. We conclude the chapter with some thoughts about educational approaches and designs for learning which can be aligned with this expanded conception of epistemic fluency.

Keywords

Epistemic fluency Grounded actionable knowledge Epistemic environment Design for learning Conscious and conscientious self 

References

  1. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.Google Scholar
  2. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Situating concepts. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 236–263). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barsalou, L. W., Breazeal, C., & Smith, L. (2007). Cognition as coordinated non-cognition. Cognitive Processing, 8(2), 79–91. doi: 10.1007/s10339-007-0163-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (3rd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Briggs, L. (1977). Instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, A. (2011). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action and cognitive extension. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Del Mar, M. (2010). Thinking with the senses in legal playgrounds: A sketch towards multisensory legal education. Paper presented at the BILETA Conference, Vienna. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1552349.
  10. Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education, 69, 485–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillenbourg, P., Jarvela, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 3–21). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dimitriadis, Y., & Goodyear, P. (2013). Forward-oriented design for learning: Illustrating the approach. Research in Learning Technology, 21. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3402/rlt.v21i0.20290.
  13. Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students’ experiences of e-Learning in higher education: The ecology of sustainable innovation. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodyear, P. (2000). Environments for lifelong learning: Ergonomics, architecture and educational design. In J. M. Spector & T. Anderson (Eds.), Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction & technology: Understanding complexity (pp. 1–18). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  17. Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2, 27–50.Google Scholar
  18. Goodyear, P., & Carvalho, L. (2014). Framing the analysis of learning network architectures. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks (pp. 48–70). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Goodyear, P., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2013). In medias res: Reframing design for learning. Research in Learning Technology, 21. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3402/rlt.v21i0.19909.
  20. Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2008). University students’ approaches to learning: Rethinking the place of technology. Distance Education, 29(2), 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (Eds.). (2010). Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  22. Hindmarsh, J., & Pilnick, A. (2007). Knowing bodies at work: Embodiment and ephemeral teamwork in anaesthesia. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1395–1416. doi: 10.1177/0170840607068258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hutchins, E. (2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 705–715. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01089.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Oxon, OX: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mager, R. (1988). Making instruction work. Belmont, CA: Lake Books.Google Scholar
  29. McGann, M., De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2013). Enaction and psychology. Review of General Psychology, 17(2), 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moen, A., Mørch, A., & Paavola, S. (Eds.). (2012). Collaborative knowledge creation: Practices, tools, concepts. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  31. Nersessian, N. J. (2012). Engineering concepts: The interplay between concept formation and modeling practices in bioengineering sciences. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 222–239. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2012.688232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H., Kosonen, K., & Karlgren, K. (2011). The roles and uses of design principles for developing the trialogical approach on learning. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 233–246. doi: 10.1080/21567069.2011.624171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576. doi: 10.3102/00346543074004557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reigeluth, C. (Ed.). (1983). Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Sawyer, K., & Greeno, J. (2009). Situativity and learning. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 347–367). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Shuell, T. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 411–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith, L. B. (2005). Cognition as a dynamic system: Principles from embodiment. Developmental Review, 25(3–4), 278–298. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, L. B., & Sheya, A. (2010). Is cognition enough to explain cognitive development? Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 725–735. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01091.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (2003). Development as a dynamic system. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(8), 343–348. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00156-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turnbull, D. (2000). Masons, tricksters and cartographers: Comparative studies in the sociology of scientific and indigenous knowledge. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wisner, A. (1995). Understanding problem building: Ergonomic work analysis. Ergonomics, 38(3), 595–605.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