Abstract
This paper takes a step towards a complex understanding of technologies in education and explores enactivism, a cognitive science and philosophy of mind related to the networked learning paradigm. Rooted in biology and phenomenology, with resonances in recent feminist poststructuralism, enactivism contrasts dualistic approaches and focuses on the intertwined multiple interactions between mind, body, and the environment. By considering cognition as situated and embodied, enactivism understands learning as the process of knowing, where experience can generate change. The paper explores the pedagogical implications of this theoretical framework by drawing on empirical evidence from the implementation of a digital learning platform in Danish schools. Two participatory workshops with teachers were organized to understand enactive modelling, considering embodied and situated aspects of the relations between the participants and the digital learning environment. Findings show that the platform implementation takes place in an ecological networked learning system, where imagination and new possibilities arise from the meeting of humans, non-humans, things, and societal entities. In an enactive perspective, this is explained by the fact that different embodiments and sense-making processes give rise to unique worlds and multiple possibilities of becoming.
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
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abram, D. (1988). Merleau-Ponty and the voice of the earth. Environmental Ethics, 10(2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics19881027
Abram, D. (1997). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world. Vintage Books.
Balsamo, A. (2000). The virtual body in cyberspace. In D. Bell & B. Kennedy (Eds.), The cybercultures reader. Routledge.
Bannell, R. (2019). Out of our minds? Learning beyond the brain. In C. Leporace, R. Bannell, E. Rodrigues, E. Santos, et al. (Eds.), A Mente Humana para Além do Cérebro. Universidade de Coimbra.
Banzhaf, W. (2003). Self-organizing systems. In Encyclopedia of physical science and technology (3rd ed.). Academic Press.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
Barnett, R., & Bengsten, S. (2017). Confronting the dark side of higher education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(1), 114–131.
Bateson, G. (1977). Vers une écologie de l'esprit. Éditions du Seuil.
Begg, A. (2002). Interpreting enactivism for learning and teaching. Education, Sciences & Society, 4(1), 81–96.
Biesta, G. (2013). Receiving the gift of teaching: From ‘learning from’ to ‘being taught by’. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 32, 449–461.
Biesta, G., & Osberg, D. (2010). Complexity, education and politics from the inside-out and the outside-in: An introduction. In D. Osberg & G. Biesta (Eds.), Complexity theory and the politics of education. Sense.
Boler, M. (2002). The new digital Cartesianism: Bodies and spaces in online education. Philosophy of Education Yearbook, 2002, 331–340.
Boler, M. (2007). Hypes, hopes and actualities: New digital Cartesianism and bodies in cyberspace. New Media & Society, 9(1), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807067586
Breen, C. (2005). Chapter 9: Dilemmas of change: Seeing the complex rather than the complicated? In R. Vithal, J. Adler, & C. Keite (Eds.), Researching mathematics education in South Africa: Perspectives, practices and possibilities. HSRC Press.
Brophy, J. (1999). Perspectives of classroom management: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In H. Freiberg (Ed.), Beyond behaviorism: Changing the classroom management paradigm (pp. 43–56). Allyn and Bacon.
Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation (1st ed.). Harper Business.
Bruni, A., Gherardi, S., & Parolin, L. (2007). Knowing in a system of fragmented knowledge. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1–2), 83–102.
Budd, B. A. (1998). Running the course: Complexity and enactivism in education. Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia.
Bygholm, A., & Nyvang, T. (2009). An infrastructural perspective on implementing new educational technology: The case of human centered informatics. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Sense Publishers.
Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. P. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems. MIT Press.
Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press.
Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press.
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social science research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage.
Dall’Alba, G. (2005). Improving teaching: Enhancing ways of being university teachers. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 361–372.
Dall’Alba, G. (2009). Learning professional ways of being: Ambiguities of becoming. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41(1), 34–45.
Dall’Alba, G., & Barnacle, R. (2007). An ontological turn for higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 679–691.
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error. Grosset/Putnam.
Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Rasmussen, K. L., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2018). Foundations of online learning and instructional design. In Web-based learning. Springer.
Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging minds: Changing teaching in complex times (2nd ed.). Lawren Erlbaum Associates.
De Jesus, P. (2018). Thinking through enactive agency: Sense-making, bio-semiosis and the ontologies of organismic worlds. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 17, 861–887.
Dewey, J. (1917). Learning to earn: The place of a [1980] vocational education in a comprehensive scheme of public education. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works, 1899–1924 (Vol. 10). Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later [1988] works, 1925–1953 (Vol. 1). Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Perigree.
Dewey, J. (2014 [1910]). How we think. Pergamonmedia.
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2019). Brugerinddragelse i brug og integration af læringsplatforme. Learning tech, 106–132.
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Ræbild, L. C. Ø. (2017). Fremtidsværksted, brugerindflydelse og ejerskab—Om at understøtte det pædagogiske personales ejerskab og fagligt pædagogiske lederskab i brug af læringsplatforme. Aalborg Universitet. Retreived from https://bit.ly/3aRyCOe
Dohn, N. B., Hansen, S. B., & Klausen, S. H. (2018). On the concept of context. Education in Science, 8, 111.
Dollard, N., & Christensen, L. (1996). Constructive classroom management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(2), 1–24.
Dreyfus, H. (1992). What computers still can’t do. A critique of artificial reason (Revised ed.). MIT Press.
Dreyfus, H. (2014). Skillful coping. In M. A. Wrathall (Ed.), Essays in the phenomenology of everyday perception and action. Oxford University Press.
Elander, K., & Cronje, J. C. (2016). Paradigms revisited: A quantitative investigation into a model to integrate objectivism and constructivism in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(3), 389–405.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747
Fenwick, T. (2000). Expanding Conceptions of Experiential Learning: A Review of the Five Contemporary Perspectives on Cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(4), 243–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/07417130022087035
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2014). Networks of knowledge, matters of learning, and criticality in higher education. Higher Education, 67(1), 35–50.
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. Routledge.
Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford University Press.
Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist interventions. Rethinking the mind. Oxford University Press.
Gangopadhyay, N., & Kiverstein, J. (2009). Enactivism and the unity of perception and action. Topoi, 28(1), 63–73.
Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2004). Research on networked learning: An overview. In Advances in research on networked learning. Kluwer.
Hannafin, M., & Hill, J. (2002). Epistemology and the design of learning environments. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 70–82). Prentice Hall.
Haraway, D. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge.
Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. University of Minnesota Press.
Heinsfeld, B. D., & Pischetola, M. (2019). Discourse on technologies in public policies on education. Educação & Pesquisa, 45. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-4634201945205167
Hillman, H. (2014). Finding space for student innovative practices with technology in the classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(2), 169–183.
Holton, D. (2010). Constructivism + embodied cognition = enactivism. AERA Annual Meeting – Denver CO.
Hurley, S. (2001). Perception and action: Alternative views. Synthese, 129, 3–40.
Irzik, G. (2001). Back to basics: A philosophical critique of constructivism. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 20, 157–175.
Ivanov, D. (2016). Enactivism and the problem of consciousness. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 49(3), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.5840/eps201649353
Jackson, P. W. (1995). If we took Dewey’s aesthetics seriously, how would arts be taught? In J. Garrison (Ed.), The new scholarship on Dewey. Kluwer.
Jonassen, D. (2001). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? In D. Ely & T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic writing on instructional technology (Vol. II, pp. 53–65). Libraries Unlimited.
Jones, C. R. (2019). Capital, neoliberalism and educational technology. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2), 288–292.
Jung, R., & Müllert, N. R. (1984). Håndbog i fremtidsværksteder. Politisk revy.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT Press.
Kommunernes Landsforening. (2014). Brugerportalsinitiativet kravspecifikation for læringsplatform—Version 1.0.
Kuutti, K. (1995). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). The MIT Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2001). Le métier de chercheur. Regard d’un anthropologue (2nd ed.). Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique.
Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge University Press.
Li, Q., Clark, B., & Winchester, I. (2010). Instructional design and technology grounded in enactivism: A paradigm shift? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 403–419.
Light, R. (2014). Learner-centred pedagogy for swim coaching: A complex learning theory-informed approach. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 5(2), 167–180.
Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. The MIT Press.
McConnell, D., Hodgson, V., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). Networked learning: A brief history and new trends. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 3–24). Springer.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 54–72.
Miranda, L. V. T., & Pischetola, M. (2020). Teaching as the emergent event of an ecological process: Complexity and choices in one-to-one programmes. Explorations in Media Ecology, 19(4), 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1386/eme_00065_1
Misfeldt, M. (2016). Om projektet “Anvendelse af digitale læringsplatforme og læremidler”. Styrelsen for IT og Læring.
Misfeldt, M., Tamborg, A. L., Qvortrup, A., Petersen, C. K., Svensson, L. Ø., Allsopp, B. B., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2018). Implementering af læringsplatforme: Brug, værdier og samarbejde. Læring og Medier, 10(18). https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v10i18.97013
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press.
Morin, E. (2014). A noção de sujeito. In D. F. Schnitman (Ed.), Novos paradigmas, cultura e subjetividade. Taos Institute Publications/WorldShare Books.
Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC), Gourlay, L., Rodríguez-Illera, J. L., Barberà, E., Bali, M., Gachago, D., et al. (2021). Networked learning in 2021: A community definition. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00222-y
Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning—A cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 763–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00042-2
NLEC—Networked Learning Editorial Collective. (2020). Networked learning: Inviting redefinition. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00167-8
Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. MIT Press.
Nyvang, T., & Bygholm, A. (2012). Implementation of an infrastructure for networked learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0496-5_8
Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: Some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology: Educational technology and determinism. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5), 373–384.
Pecher, D., Boot, I., & Van Dantzig, S. (2011). Abstract concepts: Sensory-motor grounding, metaphors, and beyond. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 54, 217–248.
Pischetola, M. (2020). Exploring the relationship between in-service teachers’ beliefs and technology adoption in Brazilian primary schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09610-0
Pischetola, M. (2021). Teaching Novice Teachers to Enhance Learning in the Hybrid University. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00257-1
Pischetola, M., & Heinsfeld, B. D. (2018). Technologies and teacher’s motivational style: A research study in Brazilian public schools. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, 17, 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1386/cjmc.9.2.253_1
Pischetola, M., & Miranda, L. V. T. (2019). A sala de aula como ecossistema. Tecnologias, complexidade e novos olhares para a educação. Editora PUC-Rio.
Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. J., & Robinson, S. (2018). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.
Ratcliffe, M. (2007). Rethinking commonsense psychology. Palgrave Macmillan.
Shapiro, B. (1994). What children bring to light: A constructivist perspective on children’s learning in science. Teachers College Press.
Shapiro, B. (2005). From despair to success: A case study of support and transformation in an elementary science practicum. In S. Alsop (Ed.), Beyond Cartesian dualism. Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science. Springer.
Shapiro, L. A. (2004). The mind incarnate. MIT Press.
Simpson, B. (2009). Pragmatism, Mead and the practice turn. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1329–1347.
Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 377–391.
Steeples, C., & Jones, C. (Eds.). (2001). Networked learning in higher education. Springer.
Tamborg, A. L. (2019). Organizational and pedagogical implications of implementing digital learning platforms in Danish compulsory schools. Aalborg University Press, Aalborg University.
Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Baran, E., Siddiq, F., Valtonen, T., & Sointu, E. (2019). Teacher educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology integration in education. British Educational Research Association, 50(3), 1189–1209.
Van Den Berg, M. E. S. (2013). An enactivist approach to teaching and learning critical reasoning in ODL. Progressio, 35(1), 192–207.
Varela, F., Maturana, H., & Uribe. (1974). Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems, 5, 187–196.
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An outline of general system theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1, 134–165.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Ward, D., Silverman, D., & Villalobos, M. (2017). Introduction: The varieties of enactivism. Topoi, 36, 365–375.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Ablex.
Wong, D., Pugh, K., & The Dewey Ideas Group. (2001). Learning science: A Deweyan perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 317–336.
Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely appreciate the contribution of the teachers who have participated in the workshops.
Funding: This research was supported by:
-
Grant: Styrelsen for IT og Læring (STIL) [Government office for ICT and learning for IT] AAU projektnumber: 342059.
Project title: Digitale læringsplatforme og læremidler [Digital learning platforms and learning resources]
-
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES) Grant number 88887.363051/2019-00.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pischetola, M., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2021). Exploring Enactivism as a Networked Learning Paradigm for the Use of Digital Learning Platforms. In: Dohn, N.B., Hansen, J.J., Hansen, S.B., Ryberg, T., de Laat, M. (eds) Conceptualizing and Innovating Education and Work with Networked Learning. Research in Networked Learning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85241-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85241-2_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85240-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-85241-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)