Discussion,
collaborative knowledge
work and epistemic fluency
Peter Goodyear
Professor of Education
Co-director, CoCo Research Centre
University of Sydney
Networked Learning Conference
Lancaster University, April 10, 2006
Themes
Understanding discussion from the students’ points of view
Becoming properly ambitious about involvement in knowledge work
Sequence
Task - activity - outcome
Epistemic fluency & engaging in the improvement of ideas
Learning through discussion: students’ conceptions and approaches
Discussion and knowledge-construction
changing one’s own ideas vs changing ideas in the world
learning to play epistemic games
Some implications for research and practice
Organisational
forms
Space
Learning outcomes
Community
Place
Learning activity
Learning tasks
Affordances
Discussion & Epistemic fluency
Epistemic 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 1
An objective world, world of physically existing
things external to me (you, others, rain, rocks &
sheep)
World 2
My subjective/inner world (mental states, beliefs,
feelings)
World 3
An objective world of ideas, theories etc: ‘science’
Participation in the application and
improvement of conceptual artefacts
Epistemic fluency
Academic
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/McWilliam
s
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
perspectives
Information acquisition
Askell-Williams & Lawson (2005, 99-
103)
Discussions help me gather information
Discussions help me to clarify information
Knowledge construction
Discussions open my eyes to new points of view
Contributing to discussions helps me to formulate my own thoughts
Discussions help me to clarify my own opinions
Discussions with a mentor help me expand my thinking
Discussions facilitate co-construction of knowledge
Motivation
Discussions make the lesson more interesting
Discussions generate engagement
Remembering
Discussions trigger my memory
Discussions reinforce my learning
Comparisons
Discussions allow me to compare myself with other people
Discussions inform self-efficacy beliefs
NL, approaches to study,
conceptions of learning
Some 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 foci
Conceptions of learning through discussion
Approaches 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
Researche r
2
Researche r
3
Conceptions (Q1)
Face-to-face approaches (Q2)
On-line approaches (Q3)
% agreement
after initial
categorisation
% agreement
after
consultation
% agreement
after initial
% agreement
after
consultation
% agreement
after initial
categorisation
71%
88%
88%
100%
88%
100%
88%
100%
71%
88%
100%
100%
categorisation
% agreement
after
consultation
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 belief s in order to
arrive 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 collec ting 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 & approaches
Conception/Approach
Conception
Cohesive
Fragmented
n
A
B
C
D
5
19
23
4
51
9%
36%
45%
8%
A
B
C
D
2
7
24
18
51
4%
14%
47%
35%
A
B
C
D
2
13
24
12
51
4%
25%
47%
24%
Total
Approach Face-to-Face
Deep
Surface
Total
Approach Online
Deep
Surface
Total
% of responses
45%
53%
100%
18%
82%
100%
29%
71%
100%
Conceptions/approaches & course mark
Aspects of learning
through discussions
Conceptions
Fragmented
Cohesive
T test: T=
Approaches online
Surface
Deep
T test: T =
Final Mark
Mean#
SD
63.5
70.0
2.8*
8.4
8.4
64.9
70.6
2.2*
8.6
8.7
N=51, *p<0.05, #Mark out of 100
Approaches F2F: Difference between final marks was not significant
Conceptions/approaches & course mark
Variable
cc
fc
dfa
sfa
doa
soa
cm
Conceptions
Cohesive conceptions
(cc)
Fragmented
conceptions (fc)
1
-.20
.77**
-.30*
.41**
.13
.10
1
-.08
.35*
.030
.089
-.31*
-.13
.41**
.18
-.10
1
-.10
.06
-.09
1
.06
.06
1
-.21
Face-to-face approaches
Deep face-to-face
approach (dfa)
Surface face-to-face
approach (sfa)
1
On-line approaches
Deep on-line
approach (doa)
Surface on-line
approach (soa)
Achievement
Course mark (cm)
*p<0.01, **p<0.00
N=48
From closed-ended questionnaires; same course
1
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
A
Challenging ideas
Discussions as a way of challenging ideas and belief s in order to
arrive 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 collec ting ideas
D
Checking ideas
Discussions as a way of checking your ideas are right
D: Checking ideas
Category
Description
A
Challenging ideas
Discussions as a way of challenging ideas and belief s in order to
arrive 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 collec ting ideas
D
Checking ideas
Discussions as a way of checking your ideas are right
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 ideas
Category
Description
A
Challenging ideas
Discussions as a way of challenging ideas and belief s in order to
arrive 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 collec ting ideas
D
Checking ideas
Discussions as a way of checking your ideas are right
Representative quotation
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 ideas
Category
Description
A
Challenging ideas
Discussions as a way of challenging ideas and belief s in order to
arrive 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 collec ting ideas
D
Checking ideas
Discussions as a way of checking your ideas are right
Representative quotation
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 ideas
Category
Description
A
Challenging ideas
Discussions as a way of challenging ideas and belief s in order to
arrive 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 collec ting ideas
D
Checking ideas
Discussions as a way of checking your ideas are right
Representative quotation
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 interpretations
A 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: 1
Students 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
Call for papers closes 24 July 2006
Call for papers closes 24 July 2006