Skip to main content
Log in

Towards an agential realist concept of learning

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Subjectivity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article develops an agential realist concept of learning by thinking through existing learning theory and some of the discussions I consider essential in the field. Based on an excerpt from a field note, central concepts such as acquisition and transfer are rethought and the argument is made that intra-activity and ‘leaps’ are characteristic aspects of learning. Reconfigurations are seen as pivotal for this way of thinking about learning and break with the tendency to understand learning as either more of the same or as radical change. Finally, I relate the concept of learning developed in the article to other posthuman understandings of learning and discuss the contribution of agential realism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this wonderful article, Mol discusses distinctions between a subject and an apple, including the questions of when an apple is an apple, and when the apple that is eaten, becomes part of the subject. The research field is thus another and as far as I know, she is not inspired by agential realism. She draws primarily on actor network theory and has contributed greatly to the reorientation thereof called post-ANT. Nevertheless, Mol raises a number of questions that I find useful for understanding and communicating the agential realist absence of boundaries between the learner and what is learned.

  2. Here, one could obviously also open up discussions of mattering and how things are made to matter. How is it made to matter that one should learn English or to learn it through analysis of word order? How is co-operating with the teacher’s plan made to matter? I have done so elsewhere but so far unfortunately only in Danish (Plauborg 2016).

  3. As far as is discernible, the terms ‘social practice theory’ and ‘situated learning’ are used interchangeably. The term ‘situated learning’ is used by the current author in relation to learning theories that focus on learning as situated (not only Lave and Wenger, although they are usually referenced), and ‘social practice’ as an umbrella term for theories that focus on practice and action. Thus, the interpretation presented here understands situated learning theories as often being part of a social practice theory.

  4. I could also have highlighted Hickey-Moody et al’s work here, as they argue for the co-implication of bodies and content within the process of learning (2016).

References

  • Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist Performativity: How Matter Comes to Matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28 (3): 801–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. 2010. Vibrant Matter. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bringuier, J. 2006. Samtaler med Piaget. Aarhus: Forlaget Klim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceder, S. 2015. Cutting Through Water. Towards a Posthuman Theory of Educational Relationality. Doctoral dissertation, Lund: Lund University.

  • De Freitas, E., and N. Sinclair. 2014. Mathematics and the Body. Material Entanglements in the Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dreier, O. 1999. Læring som ændring af personlig deltagelse i sociale kontekster. In Mesterlære. Læring som Social Praksis, ed. K. Nielsen and S. Kvale, 76–99. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey-Moody, A., H. Palmer, and E. Sayers. 2016. Diffractive Pedagogies: Dancing Across New Materialist Imaginaries. Gender and Education 28 (2): 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzkamp, K. 1995. Lernen: Subjektwissenschaftliche Grundlegung. New York: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juelskjær, M. (forthcoming) At tænke med Karen Barads agentiale realisme, Umulige tænkere, Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.

  • Juelskjær, M. 2013. Gendered Subjectivities of Spacetimematter. Gender and Education 25 (6): 754–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juelskjær, M., and H. Plauborg. 2013. Læring og didaktik udsat for poststrukturalistisk tænkning. In Læringsteori og didaktik, ed. A. Qvortrup and M. Wiberg, 257–287. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juelskjær, M., and N. Schwennesen. 2012. Intra-active Entanglements—An Interview with Karen Barad. Kvinder, Køn og Forskning 1–2: 10–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. 1999. Læring, mesterlære, social praksis. In Mesterlære—læring som social praksis, ed. K. Nielsen and S. Kvale, 35–53. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lenz Taguchi, H.L. 2010. Going Beyond the Theory/Practice Divide in Early Childhood Education. Introducing an intra-active pedagogy. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Y., and B. Alberti. 2014. A Matter of Difference: Karen Barad, Ontology and Archaeological Bodies. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 24 (1): 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. 2008. I eat an apple. On Theorizing Subjectivities. Subjectivity 22: 28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkins, I. 2008. Building a Feminist Theory of Fashion. Australian Feminist Studies 23 (58): 500–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plauborg, H. 2016. Klasseledelse gentænkt. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

  • Quinn, J. 2013. Theorising Learning and Nature: Post-human Possibilities and Problems. Gender and Education 25 (6): 738–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C., and J.H. Freiberg. 1969. Freedom to Learn. New York: Maxwell Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. 1990. Apprenticeship in Thinking. Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. 1998. On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One. Educational Researcher 27 (2): 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. 2009. The Materiality of Learning. Technology and Knowledge in Educational Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. 2013. Object, Bodies and Space: Gender and Embodied Practices of Mattering in the Classroom. Gender and Education 25 (6): 688–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woelfle-Erskine, C. 2015. Thinking with Salmon About Rain Tanks: Commons as Intra-actions. Local Environment 20 (5): 581–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziehe, T., and Stubenrauch, H. 1983. Ny ungdom og usædvanlige læreprocesser. Kulturel frisættelse og subjektivitet. Viborg: politisk revy, pp 97-167.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Anna Sfard (The University of Haifa and Michigan State University), Malou Juelskjær and Dorte Marie Søndergaard for instructive and insightful comments on earlier drafts of the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helle Plauborg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Plauborg, H. Towards an agential realist concept of learning. Subjectivity 11, 322–338 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41286-018-0059-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41286-018-0059-9

Keywords

Navigation