Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Epistemic Tools and Artefacts in Epistemic Practices and Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Epistemic Fluency and Professional Education

Part of the book series: Professional and Practice-based Learning ((PPBL,volume 14))

Abstract

This chapter extends Chap. 8 by following tools and other artefacts into their broader contexts of use. This helps understand how they function in professional work and learning in the larger systems of professional practice. An important feature of this chapter is that we draw upon the different but interwoven epistemic cultures of learning, research and the professions: cultures which come together in the hybrid spaces of the university. We show that epistemic artefacts, produced by students as a part of professional learning, often have multiple functions and, most importantly, that they combine different epistemic qualities. We illustrate these qualities and argue that they provide important bridges between ‘learning to do’ and ‘learning to understand’ – thereby underpinning epistemic fluency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We discussed the notions of epistemic culture and knowledge culture in Chap. 5.

  2. 2.

    A detailed review of different definitions and usages of terms ‘tool’ and ‘artefact’ can be found in McDonald et al. (2005).

  3. 3.

    Bereiter (2002) also agrees there are benefits in regarding conceptual artefacts in a similar way, such that one can see the same object as a tool in one situation and as an object of inquiry in another, depending on their function at the time.

  4. 4.

    He referred to ‘language’ in his text.

  5. 5.

    This view may be traced back to ancient insights into human practical activity . For example, Aristotle (1934), describing human practice, made a similar distinction between two fundamental instrumentalities: ‘making ’ or production (i.e. tool use ) and ‘doing ’ or communication (i.e. language ). While the former instrumentality is a part of productive practice , the latter instrumentality is a part of practical wisdom – a rarer and higher ‘intellectual virtue’.

  6. 6.

    We return to this case and discuss the design features of the assessment task in detail in Chapter 11. For a quick preview, see the description of the task in Fig. 11.2.

References

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1934) Nicomachean ethics (H. Rackham, Trans.) (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, T., & Gillinson, S. (2007). A D&R system for education. UK: Innovation unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (3rd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnen, M., & Burrell, G. (2013). Journals à la mode? Twenty years of living alongside Mode 2 and the new production of knowledge. Organization, 20(1), 25–37. doi:10.1177/1350508412460992.

  • 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 

  • Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1999). Soft systems methodology in action (New ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2011). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action and cognitive extension. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. E., & Fujimura, J. H. (Eds.). (1992). The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth-century life sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a living: How to get better performance and results from knowledge workers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1929/2008). Experience and nature. Republished in John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1953. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why “conceptual ecology” is a good idea. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 28–60). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, R. I. M., Gamble, C., & Gowlett, J. E. (2010). Social brain, distributed mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1990). When is a tool? Multiple meanings of artifacts in human activity. In Y. Engeström (Ed.), Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory (pp. 171–195). Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettenen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. doi:10.1080/13639080020028747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2006). From well-bounded ethnographies to intervening in mycorrhizae activities. Organization Studies, 27(12), 1783–1793. doi:10.1177/0170840606071898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, J. (1995). Intellectual and manual labor: Implications for developmental theory. In L. Martin, K. Nelson, & E. Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice of doing and knowing (pp. 357–382). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2005). Seeing in depth. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 85–121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2007). The development of epistemic fluency: Learning to think for a living. In A. Brew & J. Sachs (Eds.), The transformed university: The scholarship of teaching and learning in practice (pp. 75–86). Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P., & Steeples, C. (1998). Creating shareable representations of practice. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 6(3), 16–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hey, T., Tansley, S., & Tolle, K. (Eds.). (2009). The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery. Remond, WA: Microsoft Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1555–1577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2011). Redrawing anthropology: Materials, movements, lines. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. V. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 175–188). London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32, 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. (2010). The epistemics of information: A consumption model. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(2), 171–201. doi:10.1177/1469540510366641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampland, M., & Star, S. L. (Eds.). (2009). Standards and their stories: How quantifying, classifying, and formalizing practices shape everyday life. London, UK: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Limbu, L., & Markauskaite, L. (2015). How do learners experience joint writing: university students’ conceptions of online collaborative writing tasks and environments. Computers & Education, 82, 393–408. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.024

  • Linn, M. C. (2006). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 243–264). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margaryan, A., Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2011). Validation of Davenport’s classification structure of knowledge-intensive processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(4), 568–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, G., Le, H., Higgins, J., & Podmore, V. (2005). Artifacts, tools, and classrooms. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(2), 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen, R., & Virkkunen, J. (2005). Epistemic objects, artefacts and organizational change. Organization, 12(3), 437–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Nersessian, N. J. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions. In M. E. Gorman, R. D. Tweney, D. C. Gooding, & A. P. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 17–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. J. (2006). The cognitive-cultural systems of the research laboratory. Organization Studies, 27(1), 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice theory, work and organization: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (2004). The knowledge creating company. In H. Takeuchi & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Hitotsubashi on knowledge creation (pp. 29–46). Singapore, Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking science: Knowledge in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor – an emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14(6), 535–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rheinberger, H. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Säljö, R. (1995). Mental and physical artifacts in cognitive practices. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 83–95). London, UK: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. V. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London, UK: RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. The Educational Record, 43, 197–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (2005). Affiliative objects. Organization, 12(3), 379–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victor, B., & Boynton, A. C. (1998). Invented here: Maximizing your organization’s internal growth and profitability. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1930). The instrumental method in psychology. Text of a talk given in 1930 at the Krupskaya Academy of Communist Education. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/instrumental.htm

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wartofsky, M. W. (1987). Epistemology historicized. In A. Shimony & D. Nails (Eds.), Naturalistic epistemology: A symposium of two decades (pp. 357–374). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research on Learning and Innovation (CRLI), Faculty of Education & Social Work, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Lina Markauskaite & Peter Goodyear

Authors
  1. Lina Markauskaite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Goodyear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Markauskaite, L., Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic Tools and Artefacts in Epistemic Practices and Systems. In: Epistemic Fluency and Professional Education. Professional and Practice-based Learning, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4368-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4369-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation