Discussion, collaborative knowledge work and epistemic fluency Peter Goodyear

Discussion, collaborative knowledge work and epistemic fluency

Peter GoodyearProfessor of EducationCo-director, CoCo Research CentreUniversity of Sydney

Networked Learning Conference Lancaster University, April 10, 2006

ThemesUnderstanding discussion from the students’ points of view

Becoming properly ambitious about involvement in knowledge work

SequenceTask - activity - outcomeEpistemic fluency & engaging in the improvement of ideasLearning through discussion: students’ conceptions and approachesDiscussion and knowledge-construction

changing one’s own ideas vs changing ideas in the worldlearning to play epistemic games

Some implications for research and practice

Learning outcomes

Learning activity

Learning tasks Affordances

PlaceCommunity

SpaceOrganisational forms

Discussion & Epistemic fluencyEpistemic forms are target knowledge building structures characteristic of, and made available by, a culture. They are guides to enquiry. Examples of epistemic forms are models (of various kinds, such as systems dynamics models, developmental sequence models), hierarchies, taxonomies, lists and axiom systems

Epistemic games are 'sets of moves, constraints, and strategies that guide the construction of knowledge around a particular epistemic form' … An epistemic game is a way of constructing knowledge. In the complex societies of late modernity, there are many ways of knowing – many kinds of epistemic game.

The development of epistemic fluency – the ability to recognise and practice a variety of epistemic games – occurs through participation in epistemic games, not just by watching them or being told about them. Epistemic fluency develops through interaction with other people who are already relatively more fluent

Morrison & Collins (1996)

Carl Bereiter & Learning in the Knowledge Age

World 1An objective world, world of physically existing things external to me (you, others, rain, rocks & sheep)

World 2My subjective/inner world (mental states, beliefs, feelings)

World 3An objective world of ideas, theories etc: ‘science’

Participation in the application and improvement of conceptual artefacts

Epistemic fluencyAcademic Apprenticeship for research;

understanding from a meta-theoretical perspective; reasoning from axioms;

Vocational Fusing knowledge and action; learning and using organisational fictions;

Critical/Reflexive Fields of knowledge as open & contestable

Baumann/McWilliams

From ‘forgetting’ to paradigm/frame-shifts

On discussion: student perspectives“Enabling students to discuss them in length & detail with each other, you’re actually forming your own ideas and verbalising them. Your sitting there discussing your ideas, and as you’re trying to explain it to someone else you’re actually getting your ideas as concise as you possible can. So you’re actually thinking this is what I’m trying to say. Oh my God, this is what I’ve just said, quick let me write it down because this is what we believe, this is my theory, this is what I’ve learned”

(Askell-Williams & Lawson, 2005, 96; student interview transcript)

Uses of discussion: student perspectivesInformation acquisition Askell-Williams & Lawson (2005, 99-103)

Discussions help me gather informationDiscussions help me to clarify information

Knowledge constructionDiscussions open my eyes to new points of viewContributing to discussions helps me to formulate my own thoughtsDiscussions help me to clarify my own opinionsDiscussions with a mentor help me expand my thinkingDiscussions facilitate co-construction of knowledge

MotivationDiscussions make the lesson more interestingDiscussions generate engagement

RememberingDiscussions trigger my memoryDiscussions reinforce my learning

ComparisonsDiscussions allow me to compare myself with other peopleDiscussions inform self-efficacy beliefs

NL, approaches to study, conceptions of learningSome evidence of a positive association

between (a)deep & strategic approaches to learning and (b) positive engagement in, and feelings about,

NL

Similarly, negative associations between surface/apathetic approaches and NL

No correlation between conception of learning and feelings about NL

(Light & Light, 1999; Gibbs, 1999; Goodyear, Jones, Asensio, Hodgson & Steeples, 2005)

Conceptions/approaches: learning through online and

face-to-face discussion• Three fociConceptions of learning through discussionApproaches to F2F discussion; Approaches to online discussion

• Instruments– Likert item Questionnaire: 3 part; 16 items in each part– Open ended questionnaire: 3 open questions– F2F interviews: same 3 open questions + prompts

• What did you learn through discussion?• How did you approach engaging in (F2F/online) discussions?

– What did you do? (strategy); why? (intention)• Students

Psych for Social Work (c100 students; c51 questionnaires; 19 interviews)

Ellis, Goodyear, Prosser & O’Hara (forthcoming)

Interviews (n=19)

– Taped & transcribed– Each read independently by the researchers;

illuminating phrases & main themes noted and compared; further independent reading; categories proposed & refined; independent allocation of transcripts to categories; comparison between researchers; discussion; final agreement

– This done for each of the three sections: conceptions, F2F approaches, online approaches

Inter-researcher agreement

Conceptions (Q1) Face-to-face approaches (Q2) On-line approaches (Q3)

% agreementafter initialcategorisation

% agreementafterconsultation





Researcher2

71% 88% 88% 100% 88% 100%

Researcher3

88% 100% 71% 88% 100% 100%

Agreement between Researcher 1 and Researchers 2 & 3

% of transcript segments coded into same category

Categories of conception of learning through discussion

Category Description

A Challenging ideas Discussions as a way of challenging ideas and beliefs in order toarrive at a more complete understanding

B Developing ideas Discussions as a way of challenging and improving your ideas

C Acquiring ideas Discussions as a way of collecting ideas

D Checking ideas Discussions as a way of checking your ideas are right

Categories of approaches to learning through discussion

Description

Engaging in face-to-face discussions to analyse experiences and opinions through feedback

A Engaging in online discussions to evaluate postings to reflect on key ideas

Engaging in face-to-face discussions to analyse experiences and opinions

B Engaging in online discussions to evaluate postings to challenge ideas

Engaging in face-to-face discussions to hear other experiences and ideas

C Engaging in online discussions to use postings to add to ideas

Engaging in face-to-face discussions to fulfill task requirements

D Engaging in online discussions to read postings to avoid repetition

Distribution of conceptions & approachesConception/Approach n % of responses

ConceptionCohesive A 5 9%

B 19 36% 45%Fragmented C 23 45%

D 4 8% 53%Total 51 100%

Approach Face-to-FaceDeep A 2 4%

B 7 14% 18%Surface C 24 47%

D 18 35% 82%Total 51 100%Approach OnlineDeep A 2 4%

B 13 25% 29%Surface C 24 47%

D 12 24% 71%Total 51 100%

Conceptions/approaches & course mark

N=51, *p<0.05, #Mark out of 100

Approaches F2F: Difference between final marks was not significant

Final Mark Aspects of learning through discussions Mean# SD Conceptions

Fragmented Cohesive

T test: T=

63.5 70.0

2.8*

8.4 8.4

Approaches online Surface

Deep T test: T =

64.9 70.6

2.2*

8.6 8.7

Conceptions/approaches & course mark

From closed-ended questionnaires; same course

Variable cc fc dfa sfa doa soa cm Conceptions

Cohesive conceptions (cc) 1 -.20 .77** -.30* .41** .13 .10

Fragmented conceptions (fc) 1 -.08 .35* .030 .089 -.31*

Face-to-face approaches

Deep face-to-face approach (dfa) 1 -.13 .41** .18 -.10

Surface face-to-face approach (sfa) 1 -.10 .06 -.09

On-line approaches

Deep on-line approach (doa) 1 .06 .06

Surface on-line approach (soa) 1 -.21

Achievement

Course mark (cm) 1 *p<0.01, **p<0.00 N=48

Tentative implications for practice from this study

Worthwhile learning through discussion is more likely to occur when:

• it is understood that the purpose of discussions is to encourage holistic thinking and understanding through challenging ideas and beliefs

• face-to-face approaches involve analyses of experiences and opinions to reflect on the key ideas of the topics under discussion; and

• on-line approaches involve an intention to reflect on postings to evaluate them so that the key ideas being discussed can be challenged

But are we sufficiently ambitious?

Categories of conception of learning through discussion

Category Description





D: Checking ideasCategory Description





Representative quotation

Getting the teacher’s point of view…it’s good being able to talk and make sure you are really learning what you are supposed to be learning. It is just sort of reassuring

C: Acquiring ideasCategory Description






It elaborates the readings even more like it sort of expands the readings out a bit…when you go to the tutorials and you express your ideas, it sort of makes them valid to yourself. Like you sort of remember it a bit more by the end of the tutorial…you just get to learn a bit more about the other people’s ideas.

B: Developing ideasCategory Description






It sort of gives you different views of what people are getting out of the readings and stuff…it helps me, I guess, just because I am not getting stuck in just this one mindset, it sort of makes me for a topic to go deeper, and just get other perspectives…I guess it gives me an appreciation that people do see it differently, that it’s not clear cut. It’s one thing having my opinion, and it will mean different things to different people.

A: Challenging ideasCategory Description






It (discussing) challenges my beliefs, which is always good…because a belief is something that is based on knowledge and experience and your understanding of the world, and if it is being challenged you are testing it…If my beliefs are challenged, I believe that my understanding of concepts is more complete. .

Conceptions of learning & the development of epistemic

fluency• Paradox: As one moves ‘up’ the categories, there’s a

shift from outer to inner, from others’ ideas to one’s own

• The highest levels are concerned with inner change, (and even with ‘change as a person’)

• But coming to a richer, deeper, more elaborate understanding of ideas in a field, and of oneself in relation to such ideas, isn’t sufficient for apprenticeship in knowledge construction

• One needs personal, practical engagement in epistemic games to develop epistemic fluency - it’s not enough to reflect on the outcomes of the games played by others.

Knowledge-building communities:

weak & strong interpretationsA community in which interaction between members, e.g. through discussion, promotes individual knowledge building (World 2)– Weinberger & Fischer (2006); Schrire (2004)

A community in which conceptual artefacts are created & improved (World 3) - and individual k-b occurs?– Bereiter (2002) CSILE/Knowledge Forum; JITOL,

SHARP (Goodyear, 2005; Steeples & Goodyear, 1999)

Concluding points: 1Students are active interpreters of task requirements; their beliefs about learning and their work as learners have profound effects on the chain connecting designed tasks to activities to learning outcomes

Apprenticeship in knowledge work requires involvement in epistemic games, not just watching them or reflecting on their results

The development of epistemic fluency - the ability to recognise and practice a variety of epistemic games - is (will be? Should be?) a core purpose in HE

Concluding points: 2

1. Knowing that there are different epistemic games is good

2. Being able to recognise some of them is even better

3. Being able to play some of the games that turn out to be important in your own life (work, community involvement, etc) is really what matters. Thinking for a living; knowledgeable social/political action…

If you have been, thanks for listening…

http://coco.edfac.usyd.edu.au

http://coco.edfac.usyd.edu.au/

http://coco.edfac.usyd.edu.au/

Call for papers closes 24 July 2006

Call for papers closes 24 July 2006

Documents

Discussion, collaborative knowledge work and epistemic fluency Peter Goodyear