Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T10:44:59.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Learning and Development as Transaction: Offering a Deweyan Perspective to Extend the Landscape of the Learning Sciences

from PART 3 - FUTURE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

By
Michael A. Evans  and
Sandra B. Schneider
Edited by
Michael A. Evans ,
Martin J. Packer  and
R. Keith Sawyer
Michael A. Evans
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University
Sandra B. Schneider
Affiliation:
Radford University's School of Teacher Education & Leadership
Michael A. Evans
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University
Martin J. Packer
Affiliation:
Universidad de los Andes, Colombia
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access

Summary

The goal of this chapter is to offer as a discussion point a Deweyan perspective on learning and development that could contribute to ongoing conversations in the learning sciences (LS) regarding how we frame, and propose to understand, learning and development. Given that, according to one account (Kolodner, 2004), LS was founded in part on dissatisfaction with how we once studied learning in primarily clinical or contrived settings, it would appear appropriate that continued dialogue on how we come to theorize and understand learning and development would be appropriate. Over the past two decades plus, there have been occasional special issues in journals and critical reviews that corroborate this desire for continual investigation into what should define the field, what values one should hold, and how scholars in LS are expected to do their work (e.g., Barab & Squire, 2004; Brown, 1992; Meltzoff et al., 2009; Nathan & Alibali, 2010). The opportunities for exploration of LS foundations could be appropriate in venues such an edited volume, a special issue, or a journal article, but also at new faculty and doctoral student consortia at field-specific conferences as well as higher education classrooms where LS is covered in a single course or offered as an area of study in a newly formed degree program.

As an assemblage, LS defines a space in which dialogue circulates in the form of published papers, oral presentations, research reports, informal messages, and so on (see Lee, Yuan, Ye & Recker this volume; Packer & Maddox, this volume). Within this narrative constructs are put forward and claims are made about the specific kinds of objects of study recognized by LS. There are several strategies for tracing the network. One can follow key constructs, key texts, or key objects (see several offerings in this volume), but we will mention only the first (constructs). Again, companion chapters in this volume cover key texts and key objects.

Key constructs in LS provide a vocabulary in which knowledge claims about these objects are proposed, contested, and accepted or abandoned. Tracing these concepts sheds light on ways in which LS is dynamic and contested, rather than unified or homogeneous. Key constructs of LS we highlight to serve the overarching goals of this chapter are cognition and interaction. Cognition can be understood as the structures and processes of knowledge, so that the principal goal of teaching and learning is the transformation of cognition.

Type
Chapter
Information
Reflections on the Learning Sciences , pp. 234 - 258
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barab, S. A.Author, A, & Baek, E. (2004). Activity Theory as a lens for characterizing the participatory unit. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, 2nd ed. (pp. 199–214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York; Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Bichelmeyer, B. A., Cagiltay, K., Evans, M. A., Paulas, T., & Soon, J. A. (2005). Collaboration among multicultural virtual teams: Issues, challenges, strategies. In Howard, C., Boettcher, J., Justice, L., Schenk, K., Rogers, P., & Berg, G. (Vol. Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning, Vol. 2 (pp. 256–263). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
Bordo, S. (1987). The flight to objectivity: essays on cartesianism & culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1902). “Relation” (dictionary entry). In Baldwin, J. M. (Ed.), Dictionary of philosophy and psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1911/1978). “Contributions to a cyclopedia of education.” In Boydston, J. A (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works, Vol. 6. Carbondale:Southern Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1922/1983). The middle works, 1899–1924, Vol. 14, edited by Boydston, J.. Cardondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1922/1988). Human nature and conduct: The middle works, 1899–1924, Vol. 12., Edited by Boydston, J.. Cardondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1927/1991). The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press of Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic, the theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction, 4th ed. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P. (1992). The computer as a constructorium: Tools for observing one's own learning. In Elsom-Cook, M. & Moyse, R. (Eds.), Knowledge negotiation. (pp. 185–198) London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., & Evans, M. A. (2011). Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M. A., Feenstra, E., Ryon, E., & McNeill, D. (2011). A multimodal approach to coding discourse: Collaboration, distributed cognition, and geometric reasoning. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M. A., & Powell, A. (2007). Conceptual and practical issues related to the design for and sustainability of communities of practice: The case of e-portfolio use in preservice teacher training. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(2), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M. A., & Schwen, T. M. (2006). Chasing a fault across ship and shore: Explaining the context of troubleshooting in the U.S. Navy. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(2), 211–229.Google Scholar
Evans, M. A., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2011). Social interactions and instructional artifacts: Emergent socio-technical affordances and constraints for children's geometric thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(2), 141–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M., & Sennett, R. (1982). Sexuality and solitude. Humanities in Review, 1, Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction, 4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Garrison, J. (2001). An introduction to Dewey's theory of functional ‘trans-action’: An alternative paradigm for activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(4), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halfon, S. (2006). The disunity of consensus: International population policy coordination as socio-technical practice. Social Studies of Science, 36(5), 783–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Learning for anything everyday. Curriculum Studies, 26(5), 471–489.Google Scholar
Hickman, L. (1990). John Dewey's pragmatic technology. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hollan, J., Edwin, H., & David, K. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7 (2), 174–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joas, H. (1997). G.H. Mead, a contemporary re-examination of his thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J. L. (2004). The learning sciences: Past, present, and future. Educational Technology: The Magazine for Managers of Change in Education, 44(3), 37–42.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation – philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29–69.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of development of mind. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
Lesh, R., Behr, M., & Post, T. (1987). Rational number relations and proportions. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 41–58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Belmont, CA: Fearon Publishers.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2006). Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N., Kuhl, P. K., Movellan, J., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2009). Foundations for a new science of learning. Science, 325, 284–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merrill, M. D. (2001). A knowledge object and mental-model approach to a physics lesson. Educational Technology, 41(1), 36–47.Google Scholar
Mutch, A. (2003). Communities of practice and habitus: A critique. Organizational Studies, 24(3), 383–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, M. J., & Alibali, M. W. (2010). Learning sciences. WIREs Cognitive Science, 1, 329–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Núnez, R. E., Edwards, L. D., & Matos, J. F. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1887–88/1992). A guess at the riddle. In Houser, N. & Kloesel, C. (Eds.), The Essential Peirce, Vol. 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes. In Wertsch, J. V., Río, P. del, & Alvarez, A. (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J. (1996). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborating inquiry. In Day, D. L. & Kovacs, D. K. (Eds.), Computers, communication & mental models (pp. 13–25). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J. (1998). Activity theory: A foundation for designing learning technology?The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(2), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, W-M., & Pozzer-Ardenghi, L. (2006). Tracking situated, distributed, and embodied cognition communication in real-time. In Vanshevsky, M. A. (Ed.), Focus on cognitive psychology research, (pp. 237–261). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, S. B., & Evans, M. A. (2008, October/November). Transforming e-learning into eelearning: The centrality of sociocultural participation. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(1). Retrieved October 30, 2008 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=511
Schwen, T. M. and Hara, N. (2003). Community of practice: A metaphor for online design? In Barab, S., Kling, R., & Gray, J. (Eds.), Building online communities in the service of learning (pp. 154–180). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwen, T. M., Kalman, H. K., & Evans, M. A. (2006). A framework for scholarship in human performance technology. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(5), 5–26.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2012). Theories of cognition in collaborative learning. International Handbook of Collaborative Learning, 74–90.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2013). Theories of collaborative cognition: Foundations for CSCL and CSCW together. In Computer-supported collaborative learning at the workplace (pp. 43–63). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waks, L. (1999). The means-ends continuum and the reconciliation of science and art in the later works of John Dewey. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, XXXV(3).
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. G. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 10–15.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×