Constructing shared understanding of complex interdisciplinary problems: Epistemic games in interdisciplinary teamwork

References

• Agredo-Delgado, V., Ruiz, P. H., Mon, A., Collazos, C. A., Moreira, F., & Fardoun, H. M. (2022). Applying a process for the shared understanding construction in computer-supported collaborative work: An experiment. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 28(3), 247–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-021-09326-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthars, N. (2021). Co-constructing epistemic environments: An ecological inquiry into complex problem solving in higher education (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Ashby, I., & Exter, M. (2019). Designing for interdisciplinarity in higher education: Considerations for instructional designers. Tech Trends, 63(2), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0352-z
   Google Scholar
• Bammer, G. (2013). Disciplining interdisciplinarity: Integration and implementation sciences for researching complex real-world problems. Australian National University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barry, A., & Born, G. (2013). Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the social and natural sciences. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bielaczyc, K., Kapur, M., & Collins, A. (2013). Cultivating a community of learners in K-12 classrooms. In C. Hmelo-Silver, C. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 233–249). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Boix Mansilla, V. (2017). Interdisciplinary learning: A cognitive–epistemological foundation. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2 ed. pp. 261–275). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221–246). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, S., & Richards, K. (2017). Interdisciplinary discourse: Communicating across disciplines. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2801_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Crowley, K., & Head, B. W. (2017). The enduring challenge of ‘wicked problems’: Revisiting Rittel and Webber. Policy Sciences, 50(4), 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9302-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
   Google Scholar
• Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.2.179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DuRussel, L. A. (2005). Schema (mis)alignment in interdisciplinary teamwork. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: an emerging cognitive science (pp. 187–220). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613073.
   Google Scholar
• Freeth, R., & Caniglia, G. (2020). Learning to collaborate while collaborating: Advancing interdisciplinary sustainability research. Sustainability Science, 15(1), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00701-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gorman, M. E. (Ed.). (2010). Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Graff, H. (2016). The “problem” of interdisciplinarity in theory, practice, and history. Social Science History, 40(4), 775–803. https://doi.org/10.1017/ssh.2016.31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, R., Stevens, R., & Torralba, T. (2002). Disrupting representational infrastructure in conversations across disciplines. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(3), 179–210. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0903_03
   Google Scholar
• Horn, A., Urias, E., & Zweekhorst, M. B. M. (2022). Epistemic stability and epistemic adaptability: Interdisciplinary knowledge integration competencies for complex sustainability issues. Sustainability Science, 17(5), 1959–1976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01113-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubbs, G., O’Rourke, M., & Orzack, S. H. (2021). The toolbox dialogue initiative: The power of cross-disciplinary practice. CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E. (2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 705–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01089.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E. (2014). The cultural ecosystem of human cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 27(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2013.830548
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E., Newsome, W., & Middleton, C. (2009). Conceptualizing spatial relations in flight training. 2009 International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 449–454.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E., & Palen, L. (1997). Constructing meaning from space, gesture, and speech. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning. NATO ASI Series (Vol. 160, pp. 23–40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03362-3_2
   Google Scholar
• Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. (2010). Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy, 39(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jornet, A., & Steier, R. (2015). The matter of space: Bodily performances and the emergence of boundary objects during multidisciplinary design meetings. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22(2), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1024794
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasali, A., & Nersessian, N. J. (2015). Architects in interdisciplinary contexts: Representational practices in healthcare design. Design Studies, 41, 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 15–30). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyall, C., Meagher, L., Bandola, J., & Kettle, A. (2015). Interdisciplinary provision in higher education. University of Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• MacLeod, M. (2018). What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese, 195(2), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markauskaite, L., Carvalho, L., & Damşa, C. (2023). Ecological perspectives on learning and methodological implications for research. In C. Damşa, A. Rajala, G. Ritella, & J. Brouwer (Eds.) Re-theorizing learning and research methods in learning research (pp. 30–46). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003205838-3
   Google Scholar
• Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, D., & Collins, A. (1995). Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology, 35(5), 39–45.
   Google Scholar
• Mulder, I., Swaak, J., & Kessels, J. (2002). Assessing group learning and shared understanding in technology-mediated interaction. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 35–47.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D., & Tessendorf, S. (2013). Body—language—communication (Vol. 1). De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Nersessian, N. J. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions. In M. E. Gorman, R. D. Tweney, D. C. Gooding, & A. P. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 17–56). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Nersessian, N. J. (2012). Engineering concepts: The interplay between concept formation and modeling practices in bioengineering sciences. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 222–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2012.688232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nersessian, N. J. (2019). Interdisciplinarities in action: Cognitive ethnography of bioengineering sciences research laboratories. Perspectives on Science, 27(4), 553–581. https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00316
   Google Scholar
• Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikitina, S. (2005). Pathways of interdisciplinary cognition. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 389–425. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2303_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking science: Knowledge in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Donnell, A. M., & Derry, S. J. (2005). Cognitive processes in interdisciplinary groups: Problems and possibilities. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: an emerging cognitive science (pp. 51–82). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613073.
   Google Scholar
• Odden, T., & Russ, R. (2018). Sensemaking epistemic game: A model of student sensemaking processes in introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(2), 020122. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, D. (2016). A conceptual model for knowledge integration in interdisciplinary teams: Orchestrating individual learning and group processes. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(2), 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0354-5
   Google Scholar
• Pennington, D., Bammer, G., Danielson, A., Gosselin, D., Gouvea, J., Habron, G., Hawthorne, D., Parnell, R., Thompson, K., Vincent, S., & Wei, C. (2016). The EMBeRS project: Employing model-based reasoning in socio-environmental synthesis. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(2), 278–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0335-8
   Google Scholar
• Pennington, D., Vincent, S., Gosselin, D., & Thompson, K. (2021). Learning across disciplines in socio-environmental problem framing. Socio-Environmental Systems Modelling, 3, 17895–17895. https://doi.org/10.18174/sesmo.2021a17895
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. (1997). Epistemic games. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(97)88443-1
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. (1998). What is understanding. In M. S. Wiske. (Ed.), Teaching for Understanding: Linking Research with Practice (pp. 233–249). Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Puntambekar, S. (2006). Analyzing collaborative interactions: Divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge. Computers and Education, 47(3), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renger, M., Kolfschoten, G. L., & de Vreede, G. J. (2008). Challenges in collaborative modeling: A literature review. Advances in enterprise engineering I Proceedings: 4th International Workshop CIAO! and 4th International Workshop EOMAS, Held at CAiSE 2008, Montpellier, France, June 16-17, 2008 (pp. 61–77). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salas, E., Prince, C., Baker, D. P., & Shrestha, L. (2017). Situation awareness in team performance: Implications for measurement and training. In E. Salas (Ed.), Situational awareness (pp. 63–76). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315087924.
   Google Scholar
• Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & Education, 46(3), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Glazer, H. R., Engle, C. L., Harris, R. A., Johnston, S. M., Simons, M. R., & Trinko, L. A. (2007). Creating shared understanding through chats in a community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.02.002
   Google Scholar
• Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. D. (Eds.). (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Teasley, S., Fischer, F., Dillenbourg, P., Kapur, M., Chi, M., Weinberger, A., & Stegmann, K. (2008). Cognitive convergence in collaborative learning. In G. Kanselaar, V. Jonker, P. A. Kirschner, & F. J. Prins (Eds.), International perspectives in the learning sciences: Cre8ing a learning world. Proceedings of the eighth International conference of the learning sciences—ICLS, 3 (pp. 360–367). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Thagard, P. (2005). Being interdisciplinary: Trading zones in cognitive science. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: an emerging cognitive science (pp. 317–339). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613073.
   Google Scholar
• Tuminaro, J., & Redish, E. F. (2007). Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020101
   Google Scholar
• Warr, M., & West, R. E. (2020). Bridging academic disciplines with interdisciplinary project-based learning: Challenges and opportunities. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijpbl.v14i1.28590
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe & R. Rhees, Eds.), (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Woods, C. (2007). Researching and developing interdisciplinary teaching: Towards a conceptual framework for classroom communication. Higher Education, 54(6), 853–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9027-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar