AN ANTI-DUALISTIC LEARNING APPROACH

In pragmatic learning theory, action and thinking are an integral part of each other.

Based on the preliminary discussion of RPL as a dialectical perspective of learning, illustrated in the model (see Figure 12). In the next Section, Practice Theory is presented to provide a more in-depth theoretical elaboration. The choice of Practice Theory is argued because of the way it describes the boundaries between theory and practice as blurred and in symbiosis with each other. This means that an elaboration of RPL through Practice Theory will constitute the connection of theory and practice as dialectical; here the two concepts are different yet bound to be dependent (see Section 2.1).

A fundamental element of pragmatic philosophy is the compilation of dualisms such as action and thinking, and individual and environment. The analytical perspective, then, is that action cannot be seen as something separate from consciousness. Instead, Dewey refers to it as “intelligent action” (Dewey, 1933; Elkjær & Wiberg, 2013).

According to Schatzki (2017), cognitive learning theory is based on the idea that it is the person who learns: “Learning is the acquisition by individual people of propositional knowledge” (Schatzki, 2017, p. 2). In this understanding, the brain is thus the focal point of learning and hence the accumulation of knowledge. It does not matter whether knowledge is accumulated through personal research, transmitted through books/the Internet or created through interactions (Schatzki, 2017). From a historical and psychological perspective, there has also been a general idea that it is in the brain that this accumulation of knowledge takes place, also called internalisation (Dreier, 2008; Schatzki, 2017). It is this notion of learning that Practice Theory is rebelling against. Brinkmann (2006) describes how Dewey’s work points in the direction that learning and how people recognise are directly linked to social processes. Dewey accepts contingency as a basis for learning, where experimentation and exploration in social communities are key to recognition (Brinkmann, 2006; Dewey, 1933). Both Dewey and Schatzki agree that experience or meaning is created through the practical and often accustomed actions of the practitioners (Dewey, 1938a, 1938b; Schatzki, 2016, 2017). They both try to create oppose against the dualistic view that learning is either a social phenomenon or an individual process. Dewey’s work, in particular, is based on anti-dualism, where learning should instead be understood as procedural activities and relational phenomena (Brinkmann, 2006; Buch & Elkjaer, 2015; Dewey, 1938a, 1938b; Kjær, 2010). Schatzki also talks about how people, based on their motives and intentions, transform the world they are part of. According to him, it is

a dialectical approach where social structures and human agency work together in a dynamic coexistence. Where Dewey sees the boundaries between theory and practice as blurred and in symbiosis with each other (Brinkmann, 2006), Schatzki, on the other hand, believes that the concepts of theory and practice have a dialectical context in which they are different yet bound to be dependent (Schatzki, 2016, 2017).

The peculiarity of Schatzki’s understanding of learning is that he argues that there is an ontological transformation of people and that learning cannot be considered a

“thing” that has a “location” independent of context. Learning is, therefore, about embracing the acquisition of a full set of “features” in combination with learning theory that is based on the acquisition of knowledge (Schatzki, 2017). Therefore, Practice Theory is critical of the idea that learning alone is something that can be taught or transferred from books and scholars’ heads. This means that it is more about changing the perspective of learning by putting the academic disciplines in line with other practical activities (Brinkmann, 2006).

Where Dewey believes that theory and practice are definitively interrelated and inseparable, Schatzki speaks more to the fact that learning is constituted by different ontological understandings of learning theories, which are linked in a dialectical and parallel context (Brinkmann, 2006; Buch & Elkjaer, 2015; Dewey, 1933, 1938a, 1938b;

Elkjær & Wiberg, 2013; Schatzki, 2016, 2017). Thus, Practice Theory argues that the conceptual pairs theory and practice, individual and environment, thinking and acting, goals and means, and facts and values are transactive related, and mutually constitutive in an integrated and holistic whole (Brinkmann, 2006; Buch and Elkjaer, 2015; Dewey, 1933, 1938a, 1938b; Elkjær & Wiberg, 2013; Schatzki, 2016, 2017).

Practice Theory does not create a new understanding of learning but provides new insights into an understanding that the acquisition of knowledge cannot constitute learning alone. Therefore, Practice Theory challenges the traditional conception of learning as a proportional acquisition of knowledge (Dreier, 2008; Schatzki, 2017).

Learning is also the embracement of elements such as normative beliefs, aesthetic judgments, emotions, the power of reflection, self-understanding, the way things matter, character traits, etc. (Schatzki, 2017). Also, teaching should take the concept of “time” into account as a factor, and thus move away from the idea that teaching is based on the assumption that the future will be like the past (Dewey, 1938a, 1938b).

According to Schatzki, learning should instead be seen as a part of a flat ontology, where the practice is the central element that constitutes social phenomena, where two of the essential concepts are “practice” and “material arrangements” (see Figure 14 and 15). The term “practice” deals with spatial and temporal dispersed activities of doings and sayings that are organised with a shared understanding, teleoaffectivities (goals, tasks, emotions) and rules ‒ no one organises the activities. Material arrangements, on the other hand, deal with how bodies, organisms, artefacts and nature, etc. are interconnected (Schatzki, 2016).

Figure 14 – How “practices and arrangements” create bundles.

Figure 15 – How multiple bundles create “landscapes of practices”.

These bundles of practice and material arrangements can be combined in what Schatzki

Practice Arrangement Bundles

Practice Arrangement

Practice Arrangement Practice

Arrangement Constellation

Bundles af Practice and

Material arrangements Constallation - landscape of practices

PRACTICE

Material arrangement

PRACTICE PRACTICE

Material arrangement

Material arrangement

Material arrangement

PRACTICE Material arrangement

PRACTICE

PRACTICE Material

arrangement Material arrangement

PRACTICE

Material arrangement

PRACTICE Material arrangement

PRACTICE

Chains of action

- shared ends and projects

Causal relation physical structurescontiguity

calls a “landscape of practices” (see Figures 14 and 15) (Dreier, 2008; Schatzki, 2016). The combination and connection of different bundles thus create sequences of actions that inform and affect each other.

Reflective Practice-based Learning as a learning theory can thus be argued partly through pragmatic philosophy and partly through Practice Theory, where practical and theoretical reflection creates a transaction and thus learning (Brinkmann, 2006;

Buch & Elkjaer, 2015; Dewey, 1933, 1938a, 1938b; Elkjær & Wiberg, 2013; Frega, 2011; Godfrey-Smith et al., 2015; Kjær, 2010; Schatzki, 2016, 2017; Tashakkori &

Teddlie, 2010). Thus, Reflective Practice-based Learning is a learning approach that aims to pedagogically facilitate a clash, connection, coupling, etc. between practice and theoretical reflection.

4.2.2. EXPERIENCE

A central and fundamental part of Dewey’s work is about experience-based pedagogy, where the concept of exploring plays an important role in establishing learning (Kjær, 2010). Experience has traditionally been understood as an epistemological concept where the purpose is the production and acquisition of knowledge through reflection based on actions. However, Dewey’s understanding of experience must be viewed as an ontological understanding where people will always be situated, and therefore he talks about a transaction between individual and environment (Dewey, 1938a, 1938b).

The concept of experience in Dewey’s thinking is, therefore, something more and something other than mere knowledge gained through past actions, and therefore it cannot be said that experience has a beginning or an end. It is, on the other hand, about the relationship between thinking and action and the relationship between people and the environment (Brinkmann, 2006; Dewey, 1938a, 1938b). Dewey argues, as previously described, that we participate in a world where action and thinking are interconnected, and experience is thus the concept that describes both our connection with the environment and the relationship between action and thinking ‒ it is the transaction itself that is the experience (Dewey, 1938a, 1938b). Experience is thus both active and passive in a way in which it unfolds through experiments and at the same time submits to the consequences of the activities (Kjær, 2010). According to Kjær (2010), it is a misleading simplification when Dewey’s learning concept is summarised as “learning by doing”, which is a derivation of “learn to do by knowing and to know by doing” (Kjær, 2010).

Learning is, therefore, a flow of experiences consisting of continuous “practices” and

“material arrangements” that integrate. According to Dreier (2008), this means that learning is open-ended (Dreier, 2008). The continuous merging of activities means that no gaps, mechanical intersections or dead areas occur when we experience something.

However, the openness of the learning process makes it difficult to define the status of incomplete learning (Dreier, 2008). Dewey, therefore, talks about the need to establish

breaks or rest periods where it is possible to define the quality of progress. The break thus becomes a way to make status, sum up and maintain the experience ( Buch

& Elkjaer, 2015; Dreier, 2008; Elkjær & Wiberg, 2013). One of Deweys metaphor for this is a comparison to the process of boiling water. By turning down the flame, it is possible to prevent all the water from evaporating.

Similarly, the break is used to maintain the experience and prevent it from

“evaporating” (Dewey, 1980). The experience thus expresses both who we are and how we become aware of it (thinking). Experience is both the process of experience (the learning process) and the result thereof (experience). Learning is thus the key to gaining experience, and the concept of inquiry is the method we use to construct knowledge systematically based on our experiences (Buch & Elkjaer, 2015; Dewey, 1980; Elkjær & Wiberg, 2013).

The continuum of experience is basically about being able to distinguish between the experiences that are worth something and those that are not (Dewey, 1938a, 1938b;

Dreier, 2008). A fundamental principle in the continuum of experience is about habits, which, in Dewey’s understanding, should be regarded as something more than just a fixed or habitual pattern of action. The concept of habits thus covers the formation of attitudes, like emotions. And one can add to that the underlying receptivity and way in which new challenges are met or answered (Dewey, 1938a, 1938b).