Paradigm – loose ends, tidy thinking Part 2
Knowing about knowledge Part 2
Superficially it seems that we know enough about knowledge to be able to talk
about it fluently. It comes in two forms: procedural and declaritive. Procedural
knowledge can be directly applied to a task, for example solving a problem, and
the knowledge is formed by doing the problem solving task. Declaritive
knowledge here could be called knowledge about problem solving. However,
from my understanding of knowledge and information, what’s called declaritive
knowledge looks more like information and prodedural knowledge more of a
process than an object. This isn’t a settled field. Maybe we don’t know enough. Or
maybe I don’t.
Luiztavio Barros writing about language acquisition says:
http://www.luizotaviobarros.com/2010/09/procedural-vs-declarativeknowledge.html
“Procedural knowledge is (….) knowing how to do something. It contrasts
with declarative knowledge, which is knowledge about something.
For example, I may read about the importance of perfect arm strokes and
coordination while swimming and yet drown like a stone when inside the pool.
This may sound obvious, I know, but as far as language learning goes, there’s
more to it than meets the eye. Declarative knowledge enables a student
to describe a rule and perhaps apply it in a drill or a gapfill. Procedural knowledge, on the other hand, enables the student to apply that
rule in real language use.
Not surprisingly, procedural knowledge does not translate automatically into
declarative knowledge – try asking a native speaker to explain why exactly she
said “I’ve been there” rather than “I went there”. In the same way, declarative
knowledge does not automatically cross over into communicative language use.
In other words, students may be able to describe a grammar rule and manipulate
it through controlled exercises, but consistently fail to apply the rule in
communication – spoken or written.”
Educational psychology puts things differently.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology#Educational_psychology)
‘Declarative knowledge is a persons 'encyclopedic' knowledge base, whereas
procedural knowledge is specific knowledge relating to performing particular
tasks. The application of these cognitive paradigms to education attempts to
augment a student's ability to integrate declarative knowledge into newly
learned procedures in an effort to facilitate accelerated learning.’
This suggests that knowing how to do something is a fixed procedure deploying
specific knowledge for a specific task without reference to the context of the
action. Declarative and procedural knowledge are treated as discrete but
amenable to integration. This is quite a different notion to mine, outlined in my
previous post, about information and knowledge being different from one
another, knowledge being uniquely created and deployed in the moment of
action.. Rewriting this using ‘information’ and ‘knowledge’ as I understand them,
would look more like this:
“Know-what is a person’s encyclopaedic information base, including the specific
step-by-step information of the actions necessary to complete a specific task, a task
related skill. Teaching a student the information contained in routines or
hierarchies of action may produce more rapid and consistent action on their part.
The student’s performance of the action, seen as know-how, may become automatic
if they are given the opportunity to practice. The student’s know-what can be
assessed by standardised testing; their know-how by recording their actual
performance and interpreting the performance of the skill – for example by
recording the performance on video and asking asking them to comment on it).”
‘In the field of second language learning other writers ( e.g. Krashen
http://wac.colostate.edu/jbw/v5n2/tricomi.pdf ) claim that declarative and
procedural knowledge are two separate entities, (language acquisition being
associated with comprehensible input, language learning with exposure to
grammar) while others believe that declarative knowledge can
be proceduralized through practice. There’s a third group that argues that
it’s noticing (and renoticing) rather than practice that will push students’
interlanguage development forward. In other words, there is far from unanimous
agreement that practice makes perfect as far as language learning goes.’
In the context of the classroom, a student brings some procedural knowledge
with them into the classroom and adds to it, for example by learning about
learning strategies, the rules, actions/action sequences, and skills that result in
successful learning.
In the business world knowledge and information are described in non-technical
terms. Procedural knowledge is called ‘Know-how’, practical knowledge on how
get something done. Declarative knowledge is called “Know-what”, facts and
information. There are also the categories “know-why” (science) and “knowwho” (communication) containing know-how and know-what specific to these
areas of activity. Know-how is seen as often tacit and difficult to transfer to
another person by means of writing it down or speaking it. The opposite of tacit
knowledge is explicit knowledge that is readily communicated. Interestingly
Know-how is recognized in U.S. Tax regulations as an industrial property.
Services by individuals having know-how are not.
‘A chief practice of technological development is the codification of tacit
knowledge into explicit programmed operations so that processes previously
requiring skilled employees can be automated for greater efficiency and
consistency at lower cost. Such codification involves mechanically replicating the
performance of persons who possess relevant tacit knowledge; in doing so,
however, the ability of the skilled practitioner to innovate and adapt to
unforeseen circumstances based on the tacit "feel" of the situation is often lost.
Expert know-how is broad and deep, say of a chess grandmaster. Even with
massive processing power current computers cannot achieve this “feel”.’
Note: Information technologists seem to be ambiguous about the relationship
between tacit and explicit knowledge and in the use of terminology in talking
about information and knowledge.
‘The conflicts (…..) are reflected in Ikujiro Nonaka's model of organizational
knowledge creation, in which he proposes that tacit knowledge can be converted
to explicit knowledge. Transforming tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge is
known as codification. In that model tacit knowledge is presented variously as
uncodifiable ("tacit aspects of knowledge are those that cannot be codified") and
codifiable. This ambiguity is common in the knowledge management literature.
Nonaka's view may be contrasted with Polanyi's original view of "tacit knowing."
Polanyi believed that while declarative knowledge may be needed for acquiring
skills, it is unnecessary for using those skills once the novice becomes an expert.
And indeed, it does seem to be the case that, as Polanyi argued, when we acquire
a skill we acquire a corresponding understanding that defies articulation.’
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tacit_knowledge&action )
an end note on noticing
(https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=schmidt+2001 )
‘Traditional information processing models explain acquisition as the conversion
of declarative knowledge, obtained through explicit instruction, into procedural
knowledge through processing practice which involves the automatisation of
controlled processing.
The Noticing hypothesis reverses this process: implicit knowledge is acquired
through focusing attention on a form which becomes procedural knowledge;
declarative knowledge may develop later with practice.
Schmidt defines
noticing in a special sense, meaning apperception as opposed to conscious
attention. Conscious attention is a metalinguistic process which leads to
metalinguistic knowledge; noticing is a more subtle phenomenon.
Doughty
claims that:
People learn about the structure of a complex system without necessarily intending
to do so, and in such a way that the resulting knowledge is difficult to express.
(Doughty 2003)
Automatic processing is activation of a learned sequence of elements in longterm memory that is initiated by appropriate inputs and then proceeds
automatically – without subject control, without stressing the capacity limitation
of the system, and without necessarily demanding attention. Controlled
processing is a temporary activation of a sequence of elements that can be set up
quickly and easily but requires attention, is capacity-limited (usually serial in
nature), and is controlled by the subject. (http//:unt.unice.fr) (Schneider &
Shiffrin, 1977)’
According to this idea, there two kinds of skills
skills as sets of information coming straight out of the information store, knowwhat rather than know-how, automatic, fast, no capacity limitations, light on
processing power demands not demanding processing resource of attention
skills as know-how, an on-demand set of know-what elements, capacity limited
and controlled by the performer, context related and resource hungry.
Does that sound plausible?