Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: pages, title. Add: pmid, doi, jstor, s2cid, authors 1-1. Removed parameters. Formatted dashes. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Corvus florensis | #UCB_webform 2123/3500 |
||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Ability to do something}}
'''Procedural knowledge''' (also known as '''[[Know-how|knowing-how]]''', and sometimes referred to as '''practical knowledge''', '''imperative knowledge''', or '''performative knowledge''')<ref>{{Cite book|title=The First-Person Point of View|last=Carl|first=Wolfgang|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|year=2014|isbn=9783110362855|pages=147}}</ref> is the knowledge exercised in the performance of some task. Unlike [[descriptive knowledge]] (also known as "declarative knowledge" or "propositional knowledge" or "knowing-that"), which involves knowledge of specific facts or propositions (e.g. "I know that snow is white"), procedural knowledge involves one's ability to ''do'' something (e.g. "I know how to change a flat tire"). A person doesn't need to be able to verbally articulate their procedural knowledge in order for it to count as knowledge, since procedural knowledge requires only knowing how to correctly perform an action or exercise a skill.<ref name=SEP>{{cite web |title=Knowledge How |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-how/ |website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=14 June 2020}}</ref><ref name="Stanley 2001 411–444">{{Cite journal|
The term "procedural knowledge" has narrower but related technical uses in both [[cognitive psychology]] and [[intellectual property|intellectual property law]].
Line 10:
== Definition ==
Procedural knowledge is the “know how” attributed to technology defined by cognitive psychologists, which is simply ‘know how to do it’ knowledge. Part of the complexity of it comes in trying to link it to terms such as ‘process’, ‘problem solving’, ‘strategic thinking’ and the like, which in turn requires distinguishing different levels of procedure.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCormick|first=Robert|date=1997-01-01|title=Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge|url=https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008819912213|journal=International Journal of Technology and Design Education|language=en|volume=7|issue=1|pages=141–159|doi=10.1023/A:1008819912213|issn=1573-1804}}</ref> It is the ability to execute action sequences to solve problems. This type of knowledge is tied to specific problem types and therefore is not widely generalizable.<ref>{{Cite journal|
The term “procedural knowledge” is also widely used in mathematics educational researches. The well-influential definition of procedural knowledge in this ___domain comes from the introductory chapter by Hiebert and Lefevre (1986) of the seminal book “Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics”, they divided procedural knowledge into two categories. The first one is a familiarity with the individual symbols of the system and with the syntactic conventions for acceptable configurations of symbols. The second one consists of rules or procedures of solving mathematical problems. In other words, they define procedural knowledge as knowledge of the syntax, steps conventions and rules for manipulating symbols.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Hiebert|first=James|title=Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics.}}</ref> Many of the procedures that students possess probably are chains of prescriptions for manipulating symbols. In their definition, procedural knowledge includes algorithms, which means if one executes the procedural steps in a predetermined order and without errors, one is guaranteed to get the solutions, but not includes heuristics, which are abstract, sophisticated and deep procedures knowledges that are tremendously powerful assets in problem solving. <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Schoenfeld|first=Alan H.|date=1979|title=Explicit Heuristic Training as a Variable in Problem-Solving Performance|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/748805|journal=Journal for Research in Mathematics Education|volume=10|issue=3|pages=
== Development ==
The development of procedural knowledge is always entangled with the development of [[declarative knowledge]]. Researchers suggested that initial problem solving involves explicitly referring to examples, participants start with pure example-based processing.<ref>{{Cite journal|
However, in certain occasions, procedural and declarative knowledge can be acquired independently. Researches with amnesic patients found that they can learn motor skills without the ability to recollect the episodes in which they learned them, also learned and retained the ability to read mirror-reversed words efficiently, yet were severely impaired in recognizing those words, which give evidences about the neurological basis differences in procedural and declarative knowledge.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Corkin|first=Suzanne|date=1968|title=Acquisition of motor skill after bilateral medial temporal-lobe excision|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(68)90024-9|journal=Neuropsychologia|volume=6|issue=3|pages=255–265|doi=10.1016/0028-3932(68)90024-9|issn=0028-3932}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|
== Activation ==
Lashley (1951) proposed that behavioral sequences are typically controlled with central plans, and the structure of the plans is hierarchical. Some evidences also support this hypothesis. Same behaviors can have different functional interpretations depending on the context in which they occur. The same sound pattern can be interpreted differently depending on where it occurs in a sentence, for example, “there” and “their”. Such contextual dependence is only possible with functionally overarching states of the sort implied by hierarchical plans. <ref>{{Cite book|last=Lashley|first=K. S.|title=The problem of serial order in behavior}}</ref> The initiation time of a movement sequence and the inter-response times of the sequence elements can increase with its length.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|
As for process of behavior plan forming, Rosenhaum et al. (2007) proposed that plans are not formed from scratch for each successive movement sequence but instead are formed by making whatever changes are needed to distinguish the movement sequence to be performed next from the movement sequence that has just been performed.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|
== Interaction with conceptual knowledge ==
The most common understanding in relation to the procedural and conceptual knowledge is of the contrast of ‘knowing how’ and ‘knowing that’.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Ryle|first=G.|title=The concept of mind|year=1949}}</ref> Some see the distinction as a contrast between the tacit knowledge of technology and the explicit knowledge of science.<ref>{{Cite book|
Several evidence from mathematics learning researches support the idea that conceptual understanding plays a role in generation and adoption of procedures. Children with greater conceptual understanding tend to have greater procedural skill.<ref>{{Cite journal|
== Technical uses of the phrase ==
Line 36:
{{main|Tacit knowledge}}
In ''[[cognitive psychology]]'', procedural knowledge is the knowledge exercised in the accomplishment of a task, and thus includes knowledge which, unlike [[declarative knowledge]], cannot be easily articulated by the individual, since it is typically nonconscious (or tacit). Many times, the individual learns procedural knowledge without even being aware that they are learning.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Stadler|first1=Michael A.|title=On learning complex procedural knowledge.|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition|volume=15|issue=6|year=1989|pages=1061–1069|doi=10.1037/0278-7393.15.6.1061|pmid=2530306 }}</ref> For example, most individuals can easily recognize a specific face as "attractive" or a specific joke as "funny", but they cannot explain how exactly they arrived at that conclusion or they cannot provide a working definition of "attractiveness" or being "funny". This example illustrates the difference between procedural knowledge and the ordinary notion of knowing how, a distinction which is acknowledged by many cognitive psychologists.<ref>Stillings, Neil; Weisler, Steven E. and Chase, Christopher H. (1995) ''Cognitive Science: An Introduction'', 2nd edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p. 396. {{isbn|0262691752}}</ref>
Ordinarily, we would not say that one who is able to recognize a face as attractive is one who knows how to recognize a face as attractive. One knows how to recognize faces as attractive no more than one knows how to recognize certain arrangements of leptons, quarks, etc. as tables. Recognizing faces as attractive, like recognizing certain arrangements of leptons, quarks, etc. as tables, is simply something that one does, or is able to do. It is, therefore, an instance of procedural knowledge, but it is not an instance of know-how. Of course, both forms of knowledge are, in many cases, nonconscious.
| |||