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.
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.
Similarly, as we explained in Chap. 3, each of the epistemic projects also draws on its own historically developed sets of educational approaches. As a rule, these approaches involve a particular configuration of apprenticeship, design, discussion and reflection.
- 2.
In this, it resembles familiar acts of metacognition or self-regulation – though the focus of attention is on oneself as an agent within a system, rather than on some kind of independent, disembodied mind.
- 3.
This perspective on indirection in design for learning is described in more detail in Goodyear (2000), Goodyear and Retalis (2010) and Goodyear and Dimitriadis (2013). The ‘task–activity’ distinction comes from Wisner (1995), and the insistence on the centrality of learner activity comes from Shuell (1986). Shuell’s exhortation to focus on ‘what the student does’ is at the heart of John Bigg’s work on constructive alignment (e.g. Biggs & Tang, 2007).
- 4.
Designs for learning spend some of their life cycle as inscriptions. In Chap. 10, we talked about a number of the ways in which inscriptions function and commented on their relationship to actual activity. For example, we talked about inscriptions that are idealised and we talked about projective descriptions. These constructs are directly relevant to understanding how designs function in professional education settings.
- 5.
It is very risky to assume that the best way for students to learn how to design their future learning and knowledge-building environments is through discovery or by somehow generating their own actionable design principles through reflecting on their experience of designed environments. In short, it makes pedagogical sense to help them become capable designers by using both experience and direct instruction, including through the articulation of some useful design constructs.
References
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.
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.
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.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (3rd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Briggs, L. (1977). Instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clark, A. (2011). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action and cognitive extension. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
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.
Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education, 69, 485–492.
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.
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.
Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students’ experiences of e-Learning in higher education: The ecology of sustainable innovation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.
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.
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.
Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2, 27–50.
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.
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.
Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2008). University students’ approaches to learning: Rethinking the place of technology. Distance Education, 29(2), 141–152.
Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (Eds.). (2010). Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
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.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hutchins, E. (2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 705–715. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01089.x.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London, UK: Routledge.
Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Oxon, OX: Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mager, R. (1988). Making instruction work. Belmont, CA: Lake Books.
McGann, M., De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2013). Enaction and psychology. Review of General Psychology, 17(2), 203–209.
Moen, A., Mørch, A., & Paavola, S. (Eds.). (2012). Collaborative knowledge creation: Practices, tools, concepts. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
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.
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.
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.
Reigeluth, C. (Ed.). (1983). Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Shuell, T. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 411–436.
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.
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.
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.
Turnbull, D. (2000). Masons, tricksters and cartographers: Comparative studies in the sociology of scientific and indigenous knowledge. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.
Wisner, A. (1995). Understanding problem building: Ergonomic work analysis. Ergonomics, 38(3), 595–605.
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). Creating Epistemic Environments: Learning, Teaching and Design. 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_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4368-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4369-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)