Discussion, collaborative knowledge work and epistemic fluency Peter Goodyear

1. 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

2. ThemesUnderstanding discussion from the students’ points of viewBecoming 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-constructionchanging one’s own ideas vs changing ideas in the world learning to play epistemic gamesSome implications for research and practice

3. Organisational forms Space Learning outcomes Community Place Learning activity Affordances Learning tasks

4. 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)

5. 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

6. Epistemic fluency

7. 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)

8. 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

9. NL, approaches to study, conceptions of learning Some evidence of a positive association between 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)

10. 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)

11. 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

12. Inter-researcher agreement Agreement between Researcher 1 and Researchers 2 & 3 % of transcript segments coded into same category

13. Categories of conception of learning through discussion

14. Categories of approaches to learning through discussion

15. Distribution of conceptions & approaches

16. Conceptions/approaches & course mark N=51, *p<0.05, #Mark out of 100 Approaches F2F: Difference between final marks was not significant

17. Conceptions/approaches & course mark From closed-ended questionnaires; same course

18. 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?

19. Categories of conception of learning through discussion

20. D: Checking ideas 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

21. C: Acquiring ideas 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.

22. B: Developing ideas 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.

23. A: Challenging ideas 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. .

24. 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.

25. 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)

26. 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

27. Concluding points: 2 • Knowing that there are different epistemic games is good • Being able to recognise some of them is even better • 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…

28. If you have been, thanks for listening… http://coco.edfac.usyd.edu.au

29. Call for papers closes 24 July 2006

30. Call for papers closes 24 July 2006