Epistemic complexity and the journeyman-expert transition

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Bing, Thomas J ^a   Redish, Edward F ^b  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b University of Maryland   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857575291     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010105     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. T.J. Bing and E.F. Redish, Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. PRSTCR 1554-9178 5, 020108 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020108
2. J. Tuminaro and E.F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. PRSTCR 1554-9178 3, 020101 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020101
3. T.J. Bing and E.F. Redish, Symbolic manipulators affect mathematical mindsets, Am. J. Phys. 76, 418 (2008). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.2835053
4. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 68, S52 (2000). 10.1119/1.19520
5. E.F. Redish, in A Theoretical Framework for Physics Education Research, Proceedings of the International School of Physics, "Enrico Fermi," Course CLVI, edited by, E.F. Redish, and, M. Vicentini, (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2004).
6. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R.E. Scherr, and E.F. Redish, in Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives, edited by, J. Mestre, (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2004).
7. This paper is based on T. Bing, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 2008. See http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/dissertations/Bing/ for more detail.
8. J. Larkin, J. McDermott, D. Simon, and H. Simon, Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science 208, 1335 (1980). SCIEAS 0036-8075 10.1126/science.208.4450.1335
9. A. Schoenfeld, Mathematical Problem Solving (Academic, Orlando, FL, 1985), pp. 216-241.
10. http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/tools/ResourcesReferences.pdf.
11. D. Hammer and A. Elby, in Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing, edited by, B.K. Hofer, and, P.R. Pintrich, (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2002), pp. 169-190.
12. D. Hammer and A. Elby, Tapping students' epistemological resources, J. Learn. Sci. JLSBE3 1050-8406 12, 53 (2003). 10.1207/S15327809JLS1201-3
13. L. Lising and A. Elby, The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 73, 372 (2005). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.1848115 (Pubitemid 40551393)
14. S. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1958).
15. A warrant is indeed a function of assumed community knowledge. If, in our printing press example, we could assume that our listeners all accepted the idea that "boosting the common citizen's access to knowledge and learning" was of primary importance, we are done. If that community does not all accept that idea, it becomes a claim, and we have to come up with new data and a new warrant. It is the level of common communal agreement that prevents the claim-data-warrant chain from iterating ad infinitum.
16. See L. Carol, What the tortoise said to Achilles, Mind IV, 278 (1895). 0026-4423 10.1093/mind/IV.14.278
17. I. Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (Northeastern University Press, Boston, MA, 1997).
18. Framing in Discourse, edited by D. Tannen (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993).
19. It is possible that these three terms do indeed represent distinct cognitive structures, but proving this would require dissociation studies, something far beyond the scope of this work. For some methods that permit dissociations of apparently unary cognitive processes see, for example, T. Shallice, From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1988).
20. http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/DTS/index.html
21. A. Collins and W. Ferguson, Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry, Educ. Psychol. 28, 25 (1993). EDPSDT 0046-1520 10.1207/s15326985ep2801-3
22. This is an example of selective attention or inattentional blindness.
23. See, for example, D.J. Simmons and C.F. Chabris, Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events, Perception 28, 1059 (1999). PCTNBA 0301-0066 10.1068/p2952
24. D.J. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005).