Negative Knowledge: Understanding Professional Learning and Expertise

Gartmeier, Martin; Bauer, Johannes; Gruber, Hans; Heid, Helmut

doi:10.1007/s12186-008-9006-1

Cited by 134 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature argues that failure should be welcomed as it: encourages students to generate ideas and consolidate solutions (Kapur, 2008), activates prior knowledge differentiation and allows students to critically assess their current knowledge (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999;Kapur, 2011), can set the stage for noticing critical features of a solution (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999), provides an impetus for prediction and causal reasoning (Schank, 1982;Gartmeier et al, 2010), helps students resolve misconceptions (Gartmeier et al, 2010), and makes it easier to retrieve experiences for future problem solving (Kapur, 2010;Schank, 1999;Gartmeier et al, 2008). Tawfik and colleagues (2015) argue based on the prior research that failure "generates an additional inquiry process at the point of failure that may not exist during successful experience," (p. 977) and they posit that this inquiry process leads to improved conceptual understanding of a phenomenon.…”

Section: Failure In Other Domainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Failure and Idea Evolution in an Elementary Engineering Workshop (Fundamental)

Andrews

2016 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chelsea Andrews is a Ph.D. candidate at Tufts University in the STEM education program. She received a B.S. from Texas A&M University in ocean engineering and an S.M. from MIT in civil and environmental engineering. Her current research includes investigating how children engage in engineering design through in-depth case study analysis.c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Failure and Idea Evolution in an Elementary Engineering Workshop (Fundamental) AbstractIn the engineering education community, failure at the design stage has been promoted by researchers and policy documents, generally in an effort to engage learners in authentic engineering practices. Less often in engineering education, failure has been discussed as productive in its own right. One way failure may be beneficial is by encouraging students to revise and build on their ideas about why their designs are performing as they are. This connects directly to decades-old constructivist ideas that learning occurs through constructing, testing, and refining theories about how the world works.If students are indeed learning from failure, then we can expect to see evidence that their ideas progress over the course of a design task. This raises the questions: How do students' ideas evolve over the course of a failure-prone engineering design task? And, what differences are seen between tasks with repetitive failure and tasks with ready success? To investigate these questions, I draw from literature examining failure in science and mathematics education to better understand the role that failure can play in engineering. I examine video data from a single-day engineering design workshop for 13 upper elementary students. I focus on two consecutive tasks: the wind tunnel task, which featured rapid iteration cycles and repetitive failure, and the water transport task, which featured near-immediate success.I closely examined student groups' discourse and the changes they made to their design constructions following testing for evidence of the ideas informing their design decisions. For the wind task, the factors students attended to were coded, with codes such as, "weight of object," and tracked both across groups and over time. The analysis revealed that some factors, such as weight, were common across all groups and persisted through the design task, while others, such as air flow, were taken up by a few groups, often after a long series of failures. Importantly, the initial factors, such as weight, were not abandoned in order to accommodate later factors, but rather factors appeared concurrently later in the task. In contrast, in the water transport task, there was little evidence that groups closely considered which factors led to the success of their designs and as a result there is little evidence that they built upon their initial ideas.I found that all groups used ideas about how the world works to respond to testing failures, and indeed, students seemed to be designing in a more sophisticated manner, attending to multiple factors of the ta...

show abstract

Section: Failure In Other Domainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Failure and Idea Evolution in an Elementary Engineering Workshop (Fundamental)

Andrews

2016 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One keya ssumption madeb yt he theory of negative knowledge (Gartmeier et al 2008, Minsky 1997,P arviainen/Eriksson 2006 is that in individuals' knowledge,n egations exist which have relevance for cognitive processes, like reflection or decision making,a nd (professional) competencies: Aconcise wayofdefining knowledge is seeing it as a system of justified true beliefs (Lehrer 2000). On the one hand,this definition acknowledgesthe idiosyncratic character of knowledge through describingitasasystem of beliefs.…”

Section: Negative Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Labellingk nowledge as "negative" mayi nitiallye voke misleading associations, such as aperception that this is "detrimental" or "harmful" knowledge (Gartmeier et al 2008). Yet, "negative" is used as adescriptive,not as ajudgmental-term here, similar to referringt o" negative" numbers.…”

Section: Negative Morality and Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…An experience mayserveasastarting point for the acquisition of negative knowledge especiallyincases which raise an actor'sawarenessofhaving wrong assumptions or applying wrongstrategies for solving aproblem at hand. Typically,e rrors are experiences that meet this description (Gartmeier et al 2008). Errors are conceptualized as ac ategory of adverse events that produce "stress, accidents,i nefficient human-machine interaction, qualitya nd performance problems,a nd ab ad climate" (Rybowiak et al 1999,5 28).…”

Section: Acquisition Of Negative Knowledget Hrough Learning From Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Augmented Reality : Reflections on its Contribution to Knowledge Formation

Ariso¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Ad (a): Related to failing in entrepreneurial context, we refer to the theory of "learning from mistakes" and to the so called "negative knowledge" (Gartmeier et al 2008;Oser & Spychiger, 2005). Knowledge determines individuals' perception and appreciation of the circumstances and processes in their environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gains and losses of control: the construct “Sense of Failure” and the competence to “Rescue an Enterprise from Failure”

Oser

Obex

2015

Empirical Res Voc Ed Train

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We posit that nascent entrepreneurs should develop a competence dealing with success and a competence preventing and treating failure. We call these competences "Sense of Success" and "Sense of Failure". Both a sense of success and a sense of failure (Oser & Volery, ERVET, 4,1: 27-44, 2012) are to be modelled and measured, both are necessary for starting an enterprise. While "Sense of Success" is related to capabilities in launching business ventures, "Sense of Failure" focuses on adverse situations in start-up processes and considers mistakes and shaking situations. We suggest "Sense of Failure" (SoF) being a concept which influences a specific form of problem solving competence, the competence to Methods: To validate epistemically the proposed construct SoF and to validate the suggested five stepalgorithm, we use qualitative material and illustrate each element and each step with statements and passages from interviews conducted with nascent entrepreneurs. The target subjects were Swiss entrepreneurs, eight interviews with successful and eight with failed entrepreneurs were conducted. Results: Although the construct is not tested for its intensity, its regressional influence or its extension, we found adequate material for the existence of each element of SoF and each step of REF. Thus, the requirement to describe the construct "Sense of Failure" and the competence to "Rescue an Enterprise from Failure" appears to be satisfactory given. Conclusions: SoF as a construct and REF as a competence can be seen as necessary psychological requirements to deal with adverse and threatening situation during start up processes in entrepreneurial contexts. The next steps in our research process will be (1) the development of instruments to measure the different variables of SoF and (2) to search for a possible method to measure REF.

show abstract

Negative Knowledge: Understanding Professional Learning and Expertise

Cited by 134 publications

References 37 publications

Failure and Idea Evolution in an Elementary Engineering Workshop (Fundamental)

Failure and Idea Evolution in an Elementary Engineering Workshop (Fundamental)

Augmented Reality : Reflections on its Contribution to Knowledge Formation

Gains and losses of control: the construct “Sense of Failure” and the competence to “Rescue an Enterprise from Failure”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About