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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Note, this example is based on a case that pharmacy students have been exploring in the Cardiovascular and Renal course and our reinterpretation of key features of epistemic games and forms following Perkins (1997).
- 2.
In our studies, we saw how this game and form were blended with additional pedagogical elements (such as peer collaboration and feedback from collaborating teachers) employed by preservice teachers in action learning projects implemented during school placements.
- 3.
These overarching problem-solving games are broadly parallel to what Ohlsson (1993) called ‘compositional schemas’ . However, they are situated and mesh together symbolic and socio-material aspects – they are not just mental.
- 4.
By ‘public’ we mean that the artefact moves into a more public arena, though there may nevertheless be strict controls on who can access it.
- 5.
‘Public’ in the qualified sense, mentioned above.
References
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.
Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner: The relational turn in expertise. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. M. (Eds.). (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. New York: Springer.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.
Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361–367.
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.
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.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32, 361–375.
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
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.
Nerland, M. (2008). Knowledge cultures and the shaping of work-based learning: The case of computer engineering. Vocations and Learning, 1(1), 49–69.
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.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ohlsson, S. (1993). Abstract schemas. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 51–66. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2801_5.
Perkins, D. N. (1997). Epistemic games. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(1), 49–61.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. The Educational Record, 43, 197–205.
Schwab, J. J. (1970). The practical: A language for curriculum. Washington, DC: National Education Association, Center for the Study of Instruction.
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.
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.
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.
Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Wittgenstein, L. (1963). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Markauskaite, L., Goodyear, P. (2017). Professional Epistemic Games. 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_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4368-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4369-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)