Conceptual Resourcefulness and Actionable Concepts: Concepts Revisited

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


This chapter and Chap.  18 explore two areas of resourcefulness that are implicated in professional work. In this chapter we focus on conceptual resourcefulness. We start with an important but neglected distinction between concepts in the mind and concepts in discourse. The two are often conflated. Distinguishing between abstract, contextual and situated concepts allows us to clarify the nature of connections between conceptual knowledge and situated action and to argue that actionable concepts play an important role in professional work. We call the ability to make use of appropriate concepts in the flux and flow of demanding professional work conceptual resourcefulness. We show how this functions, through an example drawn from our studies of preservice teachers planning a lesson.


Actionable concepts Conceptual resourcefulness Abstract concepts Situated concepts 


  1. Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(5–6), 513–562. doi: 10.1080/01690960344000026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.Google Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Situating concepts. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 236–263). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barsalou, L. W., Breazeal, C., & Smith, L. (2007). Cognition as coordinated non-cognition. Cognitive Processing, 8(2), 79–91. doi: 10.1007/s10339-007-0163-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barsalou, L. W., Kyle Simmons, W., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 84–91. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)00029-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2005). Literacy, reification and the dynamics of social interaction. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context (pp. 14–35). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Brown, D. E., & Hammer, D. (2008). Conceptual change in physics. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 127–154). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  10. Chi, M. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clement, J. J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Damsa, C. I., Kirschner, P. A., Andriessen, J. E. B., Erkens, G., & Sins, P. H. M. (2010). Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeLanda, M. (2012). Chapter 2. Interview with Manuel DeLanda. In R. Dolphijn & I. van der Tuin (Eds.), New materialism: Interviews and cartographies (pp. 38–47). Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  15. DeVries, W., & Triplett, T. (2000). Knowledge, mind, and the given: Reading Wilfrid Sellars’s ‘empiricism and the philosophy of mind’. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  16. diSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why “conceptual ecology” is a good idea. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 28–60). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. diSessa, A. A. (2000). Does the mind know the difference between the physical and social worlds? In L. Nucci, G. B. Saxe, & E. Turiel (Eds.), Culture, thought, and development (pp. 141–166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. diSessa, A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elqayam, S., & Evans, J. S. (2011). Subtracting “ought” from “is”: Descriptivism versus normativism in the study of human thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(5), 233–248. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X1100001X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engeström, Y., Nummijoki, J., & Sannino, A. (2012). Embodied germ cell at work: Building an expansive concept of physical mobility in home care. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 287–309. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2012.688177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2012). Concept formation in the wild. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 201–206. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2012.690813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldstone, R. L., Hills, T. T., & Day, S. B. (2010). Concept formation. In I. B. Weiner & W. E. Craighead (Eds.), The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 381–383). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  24. Gramsci, A. (1971). Prison notebooks. New York, NY: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Greeno, J. G. (2012). Concepts in activities and discourses. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 310–313. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2012.691934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gupta, A., Hammer, D., & Redish, E. F. (2010). The case for dynamic models of learners’ ontologies in physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 285–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall, S. (1982). The rediscovery of “ideology”: Return of the repressed in media studies. In M. Gurevitch, T. Bennet, J. Curran, & J. Wollacott (Eds.), Culture, society and the media (pp. 56–90). London, UK: Methuen.Google Scholar
  28. Hall, R., & Seidel Horn, I. (2012). Talk and conceptual change at work: Adequate representation and epistemic stance in a comparative analysis of statistical consulting and teacher workgroups. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 240–258. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2012.688233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hutchins, E. (2012). Concepts in practice as sources of order. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 314–323. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2012.694006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ingold, T. (2011). Redrawing anthropology: Materials, movements, lines. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  32. Kali, Y., Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2011). Researching design practices and design cognition: Contexts, experiences and pedagogical knowledge‐in‐pieces. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), 129–149. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2011.553621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keil, F. C., & Silberstein, C. S. (1998). Schooling and the acquisition of theoretical knowledge. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development (pp. 621–645). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Lobato, J. (2012). The actor-oriented transfer perspective and its contributions to educational research and practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 232–247. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.693353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2014). Tapping into the mental resources of teachers’ working knowledge: Insights into the generative power of intuitive pedagogy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(4), 237–251. doi:
  36. Murphy, G., & Hoffman, A. B. (2012). Concepts. In K. Frankish & W. Ramsey (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive science (pp. 151–170). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nersessian, N. J. (2008a). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Nersessian, N. J. (2008b). Mental modeling in conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 391–416). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. 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. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2012.688232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Philip, T. M. (2011). An “ideology in pieces” approach to studying change in teachers’ sensemaking about race, racism, and racial justice. Cognition and Instruction, 29(3), 297–329. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2011.583369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roth, W.-M., & Duit, R. (2003). Emergence, flexibility, and stabilization of language in a physics classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 869–897. doi: 10.1002/tea.10114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Säljö, R. (1999). Concepts, cognition and discourses: From mental structures to discursive tools. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 81–90). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Schön, D. A. (1963). Displacement of concepts. London, UK: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, L. B. (2005). Cognition as a dynamic system: Principles from embodiment. Developmental Review, 25(3–4), 278–298. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). (2008/2013). International handbook of research on conceptual change, (1st and 2nd eds.) New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 123–183. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1801_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wagner, J. F. (2006). Transfer in pieces. Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 1–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wagner, J. F. (2010). A transfer-in-pieces consideration of the perception of structure in the transfer of learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 443–479.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