Advertisement

Rethinking the Material, the Embodied and the Social for Professional Education

  • Lina Markauskaite
  • Peter Goodyear
Chapter
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 14)

Abstract

In this chapter, we revisit some key insights into how the social, the material and the embodied enter professional work and learning. We argue that knowledge work and knowledgeable action are constitutively entangled with embodied practices in the material and social worlds. We show how matter matters in professional work, and how a ‘socially extended mind’ enables thinking with others. This entangling of mind, body and world raises some difficult questions about what is important to teach in the classroom – and what is reasonable to expect students to learn there – and what needs to be learned in real workplaces. As a part of our argument, we revisit some well-known ideas about the dialectical, dialogical and trialogical approaches to knowing and learning. We return to the notion of mediation in professional learning and work. We specifically point to the central, yet often obscured, mediating role of self-as-knower, with a resourceful mind and bodily skills, able to act within, and shape, materially and socially rich work environments. Seeing the self as a mediator, coordinator and active constructor of work and learning environments has strong implications for how we should think about professional skilfulness and the professional capacity to learn.

Keywords

Mediation Entanglement of mind, body, world Extended mind Coordination Self-as-knower Self-engineering 

References

  1. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckett, D. (2004). Embodied competence and generic skill: The emergence of inferential understanding. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(5), 497–508. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2004.086_1.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Billett, S. (2014). Mimetic learning at work: Learning in the circumstances of practice. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Boivin, N. (2008). Material cultures, material minds: The impact of things on human thought, society and evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, A. (2011). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action and cognitive extension. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, A. E., & Fujimura, J. H. (Eds.). (1992). The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth-century life sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Coopmans, C., Vertesi, J., Lynch, M. E., & Woolgar, S. (Eds.). (2014). Representation in scientific practice revisited. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Damasio, A. R. (2012). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, K. E. (1997). Embodied practices: Feminist perspectives on the body. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1916). Essays in experimental logic. Chicago: University of Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donald, M. (2001). A mind so rare: The evolution of human consciousness. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  15. Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner: The relational turn in expertise. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Falconer, I., & Littlejohn, A. (2009). Representing models of practice. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennet, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects (pp. 20–40). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gleick, J. (1993). Genius: The life and science of Richard Feynman. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  18. Goodwin, C. (2005). Seeing in depth. In S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 85–121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Grasseni, C. (Ed.). (2010). Skilled visions: Between apprenticeship and standards. Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  20. Håkanson, L. (2007). Creating knowledge: The power and logic of articulation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(1), 51–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, R., Stevens, R., & Torralba, T. (2002). Disrupting representational infrastructure in conversations across disciplines. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(3), 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heidegger, M. (1927/1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  23. Hutchins, E. (2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 705–715. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01089.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engestrom & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 15–34). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keller, C. M., & Keller, J. D. (1996). Cognition and tool use: The blacksmith at work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 513–549. doi: 10.1016/0364-0213(94)90007-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Law, J. (2003). Political philosophy and disabled specificities. Retrieved from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Law-Political-Philosophy-and-Disabilities.pdf
  30. Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Miettinen, R., & Virkkunen, J. (2005). Epistemic objects, artefacts and organizational change. Organization, 12(3), 437–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mulcahy, D. (2000). Body matters in vocational education: The case of the competently trained. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(6), 506–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction (pp. 17–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor – an emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14(6), 535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rabardel, P., & Beguin, P. (2005). Instrument mediated activity: From subject development to anthropocentric design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 429–461. doi: 10.1080/14639220500078179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ravenscroft, A., Wegerif, R., & Hartley, R. (2007). Reclaiming thinking: Dialectic, dialogic and learning in the digital age. Learning Through Digital Technologies, 1(1), 39–57.Google Scholar
  40. Rheinberger, H. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Säljö, R. (1995). Mental and physical artifacts in cognitive practices. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 83–95). London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, E. R., Barrett, L. F., & Mesquita, B. (Eds.). (2010). The mind in context. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  44. Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.). (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turnbull, D. (2000). Masons, tricksters and cartographers: Comparative studies in the sociology of scientific and indigenous knowledge. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vaesen, K. (2012). The cognitive bases of human tool use. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(04), 203–218. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11001452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Valsiner, J., & Rosa, A. (Eds.). (2007). The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1930). The instrumental method in psychology. Text of a talk given in 1930 at the Krupskaya Academy of Communist Education. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/instrumental.htm
  50. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wegerif, R. (2011). From dialectic to dialogic. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (Vol. 1, pp. 201–221). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lina Markauskaite
    • 1
  • Peter Goodyear
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Research on Learning and Innovation (CRLI), Faculty of Education & Social WorkThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations