Epistemic Cognition Petr Johanes Fourth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale 2017 04 20
Paper Structure Introduction The State of Epistemic Cognition Research Affordance #1 Additional Explanatory Power for Learner States and Learning Tasks Affordance #2 Additional Insight into/for Learner and Environmental Development Future Work The purpose of the paper is to show how epistemic cognition can enrich large-scale online research both at a high level and at a granular level. The purpose of this presentation is to serve as a primer for the paper. 2
State of Epistemic Cognition Research
Epistemic cognition has roots in philosophy (for millennia) as well as psychology (for decades). related to knowledge and knowing epistemic cognition mental models and processes 4
Epistemic cognition is a mode of cognition that is not always elicited by every learning task. epistemic cognition (e.g., evaluating sources of knowledge) metacognition (e.g., monitoring strategy) Did the author arrive at his/her knowledge claim in a way I consider valid and credible for my purposes? Have I read through the entire text? Do I comprehend everything the author is writing? cognition (e.g., processing) What am I reading? (Kitchener, 1983) 5
Differing epistemologies lead to different interpretations and different learning. F = kqq r 2 E = F/q F = kqq r 2 E = F/q X F = kqq r 2 E = F/q F = kqq r 2 E = F/q (Lising & Elby, 2005)?? (Lising & Elby, 2005) F = kqq r 2 E = F/q 6
Epistemologies influence not only the processes of cognition, but also the artifacts of cognition. Epistemic Misalignment When the epistemological demands of the task differ from the cognitive moves of the learner (Elby & Hammer, 2001) When the epistemological foundation of the material differs from the epistemological profile of the learner (Franco, et al, 2012) Epistemic Climate The overall epistemic influences from the learning environment (e.g., texts, exams, peers) The set of epistemic practices that a community engages in when producing, evaluating, and consuming knowledge (Kelly, 2016) (Feucht, 2010; Muis & Duffy, 2013) 7
Prior research has validated the utility and scalability of epistemic cognition for learning. Curriculum Design Reading Like a Historian for onboarding (Maggioni, VanSledright, & Alexander, 2009; Wineburg, 1991) Statistics course for epistemic change (Muis & Duffy, 2013) Instructional Design Different epistemologies lead to different prior knowledge reconciliations (Lising & Elby, 2005) Epistemological resources can contextualize efficacy of a class discussion (Louca, Elby, Hammer, & Kagey, 2010) Task/Material Design Different representations correlate with different recall and conceptual change (Franco, et al, 2012) Different epistemological beliefs correlating with different text comprehension strategies (Ryan, 1984) 8
Theoretical Models Developmental Stages Stable, synchronous, naturally-occurring, and linearly-evolving beliefs Dimensional Beliefs Independent, asynchronous dimensions of beliefs Measurement Methods (King & Kitchener, 1994, 2004; Perry, 1968) Interviews Discourse analysis Longitudinal observation Measurement Methods (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Schommer-Aikins, 2002) Likert-scale self-reports Surveys Activity performance Situated Resources Distinct, deployable, and context-sensitive mental resources or representations Socio-Cultural Practices Interactional, socialized, and group-based practices/habits Measurement Methods (Elby & Hammer, 2001; Hammer & Elby, 2002) Think-aloud protocols Semi-structured interviews Cognitive interviews Measurement Methods (Kelly, 2016) Video analysis Discourse analysis Semi-structured interviews 9
Affordances to Online Learning Research
Online learning researchers already investigate epistemic cognition without using this literature. Confusion in online discussion forums (Yang, et al, 2015; Clarkes-Nias, et al, 2015) Epistemic affect and epistemic anxiety/curiosity (Pekrun, 2011) Knowledge modeling and knowledge tracing Reflection activities in online environments Student opinion on course epistemology (Corbett & Anderson, 1994; Piech, et al, 2015; ) (Nacu, et al, 2016) (Swan, Day, & Bogle, 2016) 11 Epistemological resources and beliefs Reflection as a developmental mechanism Epistemic practices and climate (Elby & Hammer, 2001 ; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997) (Bråten, 2016; Kitchener, 1983) (Kelly, 2016; Muis & Duffy, 2013)
Affordance #1 Additional Explanatory Power for Learner States and Learning Tasks (Piech, et al, 2015) This analysis requires at its core: (1) mapping of the possible knowledge, (2) modeling of the knower, (3) making of a knowledge trajectory. 12
Two illustrative ways to weave epistemic cognition into existing research. Dimensional Beliefs Cluster learners according to their epistemological beliefs profiles Use epistemological beliefs models and learner performance to infer epistemological foundations for different learning tasks and materials Situated Resources Classify learning tasks according to the epistemological resources they require Code/mine student explanations and reflections for activations of epistemological resources over time 13
Affordance #2 Additional Insight into/for Learner and Environment Development (Kizilcec, Piech, & Schneider, 2013) This analysis requires a sense of (1) which factors are consequential to student disengagement in online learning environments and (2) how individual learner development meshes with the wider learner community. 14
Two illustrative ways to weave epistemic cognition into existing research. Developmental Stages Analyze early disagreements in discussion forums to more precisely identify the epistemological developmental stage that learners are currently in Track learner handling of knowledge over time to trace learner development Socio-cultural Practices Analyze the epistemic climate (e.g., videos, assessments, discussions) for practices the instructional team is strongly promoting and not promoting Track learner adoption and replication of epistemic practices to gauge disciplinary epistemologies 15
Conclusions
When planning online learning research, be mindful of the pervasiveness of epistemology. The epistemological choices we make as learning designers inform the epistemologies and learning of our learners. The epistemological choices we make as learning researchers inform the epistemologies and learning of our colleagues. Many intriguing open questions: How do knowledge state transitions interact with epistemological belief transitions? How does epistemologically-conscious design contribute to a greater inclusivity and diversity in online learning environments? Overlap between epistemic cognition and online learning research will most likely only increase solid foundation for collaborations. 17
Thank You Petr Johanes pjohanes@stanford.edu
References
Reference List (1/2) Bråten, I. (2016). Epistemic cognition interventions. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 360 371). New York: Routledge. Clarkes-Nias, J., Mutahi, J., Kinai, A., Bent, O., Weldemariam, K., & Srivastava, S. (2015). Towards Capturing Learners Sentiment and Context (pp. 217 222). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2724660.2728662 Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1994). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(4), 253 278. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554 567. Feucht, F. C. (2010). Epistemic climate in elementary classrooms. Personal Epistemology in the Classroom: Theory, Research, and Implications for Practice, 55 93. Franco, G. M., Muis, K. R., Kendeou, P., Ranellucci, J., Sampasivam, L., & Wang, X. (2012). Examining the influences of epistemic beliefs and knowledge representations on cognitive processing and conceptual change when learning physics. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 62 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.06.003 Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer (Ed.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169 190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88 140. Kelly, G. J. (2016). Methodological considerations for the study of epistemic cognition in practice. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 393 408). New York: Routledge. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. Jossey- Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and Jossey-Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective Judgment: Theory and Research on the Development of Epistemic Assumptions Through Adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 5 18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_2 Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26(4), 222 232. Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 170 179). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2460330 Lising, L., & Elby, A. (2005). The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 73(4), 372. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1848115 20
Reference List (2/2) Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological Resources: Applying a New Epistemological Framework to Science Instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57 68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_6 Maggioni, L., VanSledright, B., & Alexander, P. A. (2009). Walking on the Borders: A Measure of Epistemic Cognition in History. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(3), 187 214. https://doi.org/10.3200/jexe.77.3.187-214 Muis, K. R., & Duffy, M. C. (2013). Epistemic climate and epistemic change: Instruction designed to change students beliefs and learning strategies and improve achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 213 225. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029690 Nacu, D., Martin, C. K., Schutzenhofer, M., & Pinkard, N. (2016). Beyond Traditional Metrics: Using Automated Log Coding to Understand 21st Century Learning Online (pp. 197 200). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2876034.2893413 Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as Drivers of Learning and Cognitive Development. In R. A. Calvo & S. K. D Mello (Eds.), New Perspectives on Affect and Learning Technologies (pp. 23 39). New York, NY: Springer New York. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4419-9625-1_3 Perry Jr, W. G. (1968). Patterns of Development in Thought and Values of Students in a Liberal Arts College: A Validation of a Scheme. Final Report. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed024315 Piech, C., Bassen, J., Huang, J., Ganguli, S., Sahami, M., Guibas, L. J., & Sohl-Dickstein, J. (2015). Deep knowledge tracing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 505 513). Retrieved from http://papers.nips.cc/paper/5654-deep-knowledge-tracing Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 248 258. Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the Epistemological Belief System: Introducing the Embedded Systemic Model and Coordinated Research Approach. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 19 29. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3 Swan, K., Day, S., & Bogle, L. (2016). Metaphors for Learning and MOOC Pedagogies (pp. 125 128). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2876034.2893385 Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73. Yang, D., Wen, M., Howley, I., Kraut, R., & Rose, C. (2015). Exploring the Effect of Confusion in Discussion Forums of Massive Open Online Courses (pp. 121 130). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2724660.2724677 21