Abstract
We live in a world filled with material objects, and certainly, the workplace and occupational training are no exception. The purpose of this chapter is to show the value of seriously examining the presence and contributions of technical objects within the context of occupational education and training. The concern is that when objects are freed of their status as mere artefacts – that is, as things having undergone even the slightest human transforming action – and are instead granted the status of technical object, their decisive role in work in the expansiveness of activity, as an ongoing process of growth, can be more fully understood. This chapter introduces some lessons learnt from Francophone perspectives, but also presents emerging conceptions that are opened up by notions such as appropriation and individuation. It is organised into four main parts: We first review the assumptions of the enactive approach and describe how these assumptions differ from objectivist ontology. Then, we examine the concepts of mode of existence and beings of technology to then explain our conception of technical objects. Third, we address the constitutive role of artefacts in learning and development. Finally, some consequences for educational research are discussed. Through this chapter, we aim to elaborate the following: the inaptness of the subject–object dichotomy, the heuristic nature of hybridity that makes human beings ‘technical beings’, the necessity to explore seriously the beingness of technical objects, the triple individuation that characterises the transformation of human activity, the key role of technics in defining standards and training contents, the centrality of appropriation as the fundamental transformation in the activity of actors in training and the potential value of training design as technical invention. Such a wide-ranging genetic interpretation of the relationship between humans and their environment is needed to build future adult education that engages with both social and technological transformations and their appropriation in a perspective that takes into account the omnipresence of individuation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In educational research, Latour is particularly known for his actor–network theory (ANT) (Akrich 1992; Callon 2001; Latour 1996, 1999, 2005). ANT is now a well-established approach (Fenwick 2010b, 2011a, b; Fenwick and Edwards 2010, 2011; Fenwick et al. 2011; Fox 2005; Johri 2011; Nespor 1994, 2002; Sørensen 2007; Waltz 2006), whose most important contribution to educational analysis has been to foreground the significance of materiality in the educational process. For educational researchers, the actant–rhizome ontology offers an interesting way to recognise the materiality and materialising processes that are central to understanding learning and teaching, educational policy, curriculum and implementation, school reform and other educational issues.
- 2.
The word is deliberately capitalised. Moderns are those who believe that others believe. The European/Western Moderns can be summed up by the following formula: ‘We believe that we know. We know that others believe’.
- 3.
Latour prefers to speak directly of the mode of existence of technology or technological beings, rather than the mode of existence of technical objects (2013). For him, the difficulty in grasping what a technological being is arises mainly from the problem of the term ‘technical object’. Nevertheless, for the sake of simplicity, we will continue to use the term ‘technical object’.
References
Adé, D., & de Saint-Georges, I. (Eds.). (2010). Les objets dans la formation Usages, rôles et significations. Toulouse: Octarès.
Akrich, M. (1992). The De-Scription of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambrige, MA: MIT Press.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beguin, P., & Rabardel, P. (2000). Designing for instrument-mediated activity. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12, 173–190.
Bidet, A., & Macé, M. (2011). S’individuer, s’émanciper, risquer un style (autour de Simondon). Revue du Mauss, 38, 269–284.
Bourgine, P., & Stewart, J. (2004). Autopoiesis and cognition. Artificial Life, 10, 327–345.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
Callon, M. (1986). Éléments pour une sociologie de la traduction: la domestication des coquilles Saint-Jacques et des marins-pêcheurs dans la baie de Saint-Brieuc. L’Année sociologique, 36, 169–208.
Callon, M. (2001). Actor network theory. In N. Smelser & P. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 62–66). Oxford: Pergamon.
Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (Eds.). (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. London: Macmillan.
Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1993). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Chateau, J.-Y. (2005). L’invention dans les techniques selon Gilbert Simondon. In G. Simondon (Ed.), L’invention dans les techniques (pp. 11–72). Paris: Seuil.
Chateau, J.-Y. (2014). Présentation. In G. Simondon (Ed.), Sur la technique (1953–1983) (pp. 1–21). Paris: PUF.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (1997). Cognition, complexity, and teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 105–125.
De Boever, A., Murray, A., Roffe, J., & Woodward, A. (Eds.). (2012). Gilbert Simondon: Being and technology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Durand, M. (2008). Un programme de recherche technologique en formation des adultes. Une approche enactive de l’activité humaine et l’accompagnement de son apprentissage : développement. Education et Didactique, 2, 69–93.
Durand, M. (2009). Mutation des relations travail – formation et transformation des savoirs: une perspective enactive en éducation des adultes. Raisons Educatives, 13, 185–200.
Durand, M. (2011). Self-constructed activity, work analysis, and occupational training: An approach to learning objects for adults. In P. Jarvis & M. Watts (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook on learning (pp. 37–45). London: Routledge.
Durand, M. (2013a). Human activity, social practices and lifelong education: An introduction. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32, 1–13.
Durand, M. (2013b). Construction of dispositions and development of human activity. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32, 39–55.
Durand, M., & Perrin, N. (2014). Dispositions et transformations de l’activité d’une professionnelle débutante. In A. Muller & I. Plazaola Giger (Eds.), Dispositions à agir, travail et formation (pp. 14–31). Toulouse: Octarès.
Durand, M., & Poizat, G. (2015). An activity-centred approach to work analysis and the design of vocational training situations. In L. Filliettaz & S. Billett (Eds.), Francophone perspectives of learning through work: Conceptions, traditions and practices. Dordrecht: Springer.
Fenwick, T. (2000). Expanding conceptions of experiential learning: A review of the five contemporary perspectives on cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, 50, 243–272.
Fenwick, T. (2003). Reclaiming and re-embodying experiential learning through complexity science. Studies in the Education of Adults, 35, 123–141.
Fenwick, T. (2009). Responsibility, complexity science and education: Dilemmas and uncertain responses. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28, 101–118.
Fenwick, T. (2010a). Re-thinking the “thing”: Sociomaterial approaches to understanding and researching learning in work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22, 104–116.
Fenwick, T. (2010b). (Un)Doing standards in education with actor-network theory. Journal of Education Policy, 25, 117–133.
Fenwick, T. (2011a). Reading educational reform with actor network theory: Fluid spaces, otherings, and ambivalences. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43, 114–134.
Fenwick, T. (2011b). Accountability practices in adult education: Insights from actor-network theory. Studies in the Education of Adults, 42, 170–185.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. London: Routledge.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2011). Introduction: Reclaiming and renewing actor network theory for educational research. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43, 1–14.
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the socio-material. London: Routledge.
Folcher, V. (2003). Appropriating artifacts as instruments: When design-for-use meets design-in-use. Interacting with Computers, 15, 647–663.
Fox, S. (2005). An actor-network critique of community in higher education: Implications for networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 95–110.
Froese, T. (2012). From adaptive behavior to human cognition: A review of Enaction. Adaptive Behavior, 20, 209–221.
Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2009). Sociality and the life-mind continuity thesis. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8, 439–463.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goudeaux, A. (2013). Activity development and invention in the making and use of technical objects in the workplace. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32, 56–67.
Goudeaux, A., & Poizat, G. (2013). Conservation, invention, distribution: Three key processes in the development of the professional activity of prop makers for the theater. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25, 521–542.
Havelange, V. (2005). De l’outil à la médiation constitutive: pour une réévaluation phénoménologique, biologique et anthropologique de la technique. Arob@se, 1, 8–45.
Havelange, V. (2010). The ontological constitution of cognition and the epistemological constitution of cognitive science: Phenomenology, enaction and technology. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 335–359). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Holton, D. L. (2010, May). Constructivism + Embodied cognition = Enactivism: Theoretical and practical implications for conceptual change. In Communication at the AERA annual conference, Denver, Colorado.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ingold, T. (2007). Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dialogues, 14, 1–16.
Ingold, T. (2010). Bringing things to life: Creative entanglements in a world of materials. World, 44, 1–25.
Ingold, T. (2012). Toward an ecology of materials. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 427–442.
Johri, A. (2011). The socio-materiality of learning practices and implications for the field of learning technology. Research in Learning Technology, 19, 207–217.
Kupper, H. (2012). An enactivist view on developing competence in vocational education. In Proceedings of the ECER VETNET conference, Cadiz, Spain.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1994). Une sociologie sans objets ? Remarques sur l’interobjectivité. Sociologie du travail, 36, 587–607.
Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 228–245.
Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. Actor Network Theory and After, 17, 93–95.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social – An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2009). On the modern cult of the factish gods. Durham: Duke University Press.
Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. NewYork: University Park Press.
Leblanc, S. (2012). Conception d’environnements vidéo numériques de formation: Développement d’un programme de recherche technologique centré sur l’activité dans le domaine de l’éducation. Note de synthèse pour l’obtention d’une Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, Université Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, France.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1993). Gesture and speech (Original work published in 1964). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In F. Geyer & J. Van den Zeuwen (Eds.), Sociocybernetic paradoxes: Observation, control and evolution of self-steering systems (pp. 172–192). London: Sage.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Boston: Reidel.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception (trans: Smith, C.). London: Routledge (Original work published 1945).
Nespor, J. (1994). Knowledge in motion: Space, time and curriculum in undergraduate physics and management. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Nespor, J. (2002). Networks and contexts of reform. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 365–382.
Norman, D. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 17–38). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Piaget, J., & Beth, E. (1961). Épistémologie mathématique et psychologie: essai sur les relations entre la logique formelle et la pensée réelle. Paris: PUF.
Poizat, G., Haradji, Y., & Adé, D. (2013a). When design of everyday things meets lifelong learning…. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32, 68–79.
Poizat, G., Salini, D., & Durand, M. (2013b). Approche énactive de l’activité humaine, simplexité et conception de formations professionnelles. Education, Sciences & Society, 4, 97–112.
Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies, approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Paris: Armand Colin.
Rabardel, P. (2003). From artefact to instrument. Interacting with Computers, 15, 641–645.
Rabardel, P., & Beguin, P. (2005). Instrument mediated activity: From subject development to anthropocentric design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6, 429–461.
Rabardel, P., & Samurçay, R., (2001, March). Artifact mediation in learning. Communication presented at, the international symposium organized by the center for activity theory and developmental work research – New challenges to research on learning, University of Helsinki, Finland.
Ria, L. (2009). Concevoir des formations centrées sur l’analyse de l’activité: le cas de l’enseignement en milieux difficiles. In M. Durand & L. Filliettaz (Eds.), Travail et formation des adultes (pp. 217–243). Paris: PUF.
Schuh, K. L. (2008). Philosophical perspectives. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 67–82). New York: Laurence Erlbaum.
Scribner, S. (1986). Thinking in action: Some characteristics of practical thought. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence – Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world (pp. 13–30). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University.
Simondon, G. (1989). Du mode d’existence des objets techniques. Paris: Aubier.
Simondon, G. (2005a). L’individuation à la lumière des notions de forme et d’information. Grenoble: Millon.
Simondon, G. (2005b). L’invention dans les techniques. Paris: Seuil.
Simondon, G. (2008). Imagination et invention. Chatou: La Transparence.
Simondon, G. (2009). The position of the problem of ontogenesis. PARRHESIA, 7, 4–16.
Simondon, G. (2011). On the mode of existence of technical objects. Deleuze Studies, 5, 407–424.
Sørensen, E. (2007). STS goes to school. Critical Social Studies, 9, 15–28.
Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Souriau, E. (1943). Les différents modes d’existence. Paris: PUF.
Steiner, P. (2010). Philosophie, technologie et cognition: état des lieux et perspectives. Introduction au dossier. Intellectica, 1, 7–40.
Stewart, J. (1996). Cognition = Life: Implications for higher-level cognition. Behavioural Processes, 35, 311–326.
Stewart, J. (2010). Foundational issues in enaction as a paradigm for cognitive science: From the origin of life to consciousness and writing. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 1–31). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and time 1: The fault of epimetheus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Stiegler, B., & Petit, V. (2013). Pharmacologie du Front National – Suivi du Vocabulaire d’Ars Industrialis. Paris: Flamarion.
Stiegler, B., & Rogoff, I. (2010). Transindividuation. Available at: http://www.e-flux.com/journal/transindividuation/. Accessed 28 June 2013.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Theureau, J. (2003). Course-of-action analysis and course-of-action centered design. In E. Hollnagel (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive task design (pp. 55–81). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Theureau, J. (2004). Le cours d’action: la méthode élémentaire. Toulouse: Octarès.
Theureau, J. (2006). Le cours d’action: la méthode développée. Toulouse: Octarès.
Theureau, J. (2011, Juin). Appropriations 1, 2 & 3. Séminaire ErgoIDF, Paris, CNAM.
Varela, F. J. (1979). Principles of biological autonomy. New York: North Holland/Elsevier.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waltz, S. B. (2006). Nonhumans unbound: Actor-network theory and the reconsideration of “things” in educational foundations. Educational Foundations, 20, 51–68.
Zorn, C. D. (2006, May). Enactivism and education. Communication at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Toronto, Canada.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Poizat, G. (2015). Learning Through Interaction with Technical Objects: From the Individuality of the Technical Object to Human Individuation. In: Filliettaz, L., Billett, S. (eds) Francophone Perspectives of Learning Through Work. Professional and Practice-based Learning, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18669-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18669-6_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18668-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18669-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)