INQUIRY AND EXPLORATION

When “acquisition of knowledge” in Practice Theory is perceived as a form of transformation, it means that learning is closely linked to Dewey’s understanding of inquiry (Buch & Elkjaer, 2015; Elkjær & Wiberg, 2013; Frega, 2011; Tashakkori &

Teddlie, 2010). These concepts are a core element of Dewey’s description of what knowledge is and how it is created. Inquiry is the means to resolve emotional tension by using thinking to change the direction and content of the experience (Buch &

Elkjaer, 2015; Elkjær & Wiberg, 2013).

Dewey sees initial thinking as an individual process, but because he understands thinking as actions that are situated, it also becomes a social process. Thinking is about experimenting, making hypotheses, drawing conclusions, and in doing so, reflection becomes the tool that educators can use to support these processes (Buch & Elkjaer, 2015; Dewey, 1933; Elkjær & Wiberg, 2013). Inquiry is an emotional encounter in an experience with an embedded conflict. It is a feeling that something is difficult; an uncertain situation where inquiry is the method to resolve this conflict and make sense (Buch & Elkjaer, 2015; Dewey, 1933; Elkjær & Wiberg, 2013; Horn et al., 2019). To do this, it is necessary to activate past similar experiences by experimenting with different possible paths to make sense of the situation. Therefore, the emotional experience is transformed into something that can be understood cognitively and communicatively through the mediation of thinking and actions (Buch & Elkjaer, 2015; Horn et al., 2019).

Inquiry can, therefore, be understood as a looping process where past experiences create the prerequisite for being able to overcome difficult situations. Experience is, therefore, a series of interconnected situations that Dewey calls “organic circles”.

All situations are interconnected while each has its unique characteristics (Buch &

Elkjaer, 2015; Elkjær & Wiberg, 2013; Horn et al., 2019). Experience formation, therefore, has an experimental nature and Dewey argues that education and teaching are the elements that underpin and guide experience through a systematic approach to the inquiry process to produce “intelligent actions” ( Buch & Elkjaer, 2015; Dewey, 1933, 1938a, 1938b; Elkjær & Wiberg, 2013; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). Kjær (2010) describes it as an educational situation that releases its potential by creating a free space that requires a far-reaching imagination (Kjær, 2010). In such a situation, it is the ability to reflect and investigate that systematically provides the opportunity to react flexibly while taking into consideration the consequences certain activities entail (Dewey, 1933; Kjær, 2010). Dewey thus places the initiative with the learner, pointing out that a prerequisite for creating inquiry is that there is a curiosity to discover and investigate something (Brinkmann & Tanggaard, 2010; Dewey, 1933). Curiosity is thus expressed as an exploration of intellectual purposes through sequences of studies and observations that ties experiences together. In order to create an inquiry process characterised by being reflective, explorative and innovative, it is necessary for the process to contain some form of coherence and continuity. In this context, Dewey speaks of a form of organised mindset where the right balance and distribution of the three dimensions of thought ‒ ease and speed, scale and variation, and depth ‒ create learning processes that incorporate both flexibility and diversity (Dewey, 1933).

Figure 17 ‒ An interpretation of Dewey’s understanding of the three dimensions of thoughts.

This means addressing the situation, activity or curriculum from multiple angles, such as through data and knowledge collection, evaluation and assessment, asking questions, discussions and arguing (Dewey, 1933). Thus, Dewey contributes to Practice Theory ideas about the importance of thinking as he offers a conceptual apparatus that transforms intellectual thoughts into a form of practice. According to Kjær (2010), through this argumentation, it becomes apparent how thinking is an integral part of the action (Dewey, 1933; Kjær, 2010).

ThoughFastts

Low Va riation of Th

oughts

Superficial Thoughts

Slow Thoughts

Big Variation of Thoughts

Deep Thoughts

Brinkmann and Tanggaard (2010) reach the same conclusion and point towards the idea that “thinking is itself an activity in the ongoing process of taking care of problems encountered in everyday life” (Brinkmann & Tanggaard, 2010, p. 250). Inquiry or the exploration process thus assumes that there is an intrusion that needs to be figured out or something unclear that needs to be solved by means of thinking (Dewey, 1933;

Frega, 2011). In order to operationalise this process, there must be a particular order of thought. The consequence of one thought sets in motion the next (consequence).

Frega (2011) describes it as a coherent explanation of things observed or measured.

This also happens when disagreement, moral dilemma, blocked agency or unsatisfying alternatives emerge (Frega, 2011). Dewey, therefore, divides thinking into two phases:

1) a state of doubt, hesitation or confusion, or mental challenges that kick-start the reflection process, and 2) actions characterised by a quest, hunt or study designed to remove the doubt and stop the confusion.

4.2.5. TRAJECTORIES

The significant aspect of Practice Theory’s understanding of learning is the idea that the learning process should be understood as episodic as well as a complex learning trajectory with important prominent qualities that have no definite, immutable end point (Dreier, 2008; Schatzki, 2017). Schatzki (2017) describes it as learning understood as a process that follows a “path” that adds metaphorical and literal meaning (Schatzki, 2017). This path can be described at two different levels: 1) a metaphorical path, which forms a progression where different episodes of activities overlap and build on previous ones, and 2) a literal path, which can be seen as a broken space-time path through bundles of practices and arrangements that create a personal trajectory (Schatzki, 2017).

The path chosen will reflect opportunities for learning given through a specific “space-time” situation in a “bundle”. Which learning opportunities are provided through these situations is determined by the practices that define them, as well as the “material arrangement” involved (Schatzki, 2017). Furthermore, learning can occur unplanned in any practice or bundle, which Dreier calls “concomitant” learning (Dreier, 2008).

Concomitant learning is also about learning that is not goal-oriented but happens along the way. This will intuitively and intentionally help the learner to perform new activities in a particular practice. It could be the execution of specific exercises or techniques.

Several learning activities will directly lead to a current practice being learned while it is being implemented, while others entail generic competencies such as active listening, group work, collaboration, reporting, reflection, etc. (Dreier, 2008; Schatzki, 2017).

Understanding learning as complex learning paths opens up complexity and variation where the learning activities of a given practice are of different duration and composition (Dreier, 2008). As part of an exploration process, the student, therefore, needs to find the “right” path that links and combines the learning activities in a way

that new realisations arise through reflection (Dreier, 2008). In order to find these paths, the student must be able to carry out research processes by reflecting and analysing the events that have an effect both intentionally and unintentionally, and thus disrupt the learning path and create a temporal conception (Dreier, 2008). Schatzki (2017) describes it as a chosen path that over time will reflect opportunities to achieve specific learning based on the dependency relationship between the two concepts proceed and depends ‒ how are the students going to proceed, depending on what they have already learned (Schatzki, 2017). The learning paths thus create incipient thinking or reflection when the student faces an unclear situation, or dilemma, that suggests the alternative (Dewey, 1933). According to Dewey, the desire to stop the confusion acts as the stabilising and guiding factor in the reflection process (Dewey, 1933).

4.2.6. NORMATIVITY

The concept of habit is analytically related to Dewey’s understanding of action concerning how humans adapt or reconstruct the environment. The concept of adaptation can be understood as a form of adjustment in which a passive element is embedded concerning the acceptance of the surroundings, as well as an active element that challenges the environment. Habits are an expression of readiness to act in specific ways depending on the situation. Habits make it possible to predict your own and others’ actions in certain situations and thereby be able to decode a possible learning path. These habits are often governed by social norms of behaviour that change and evolve continuously over time (Buch & Elkjaer, 2015; Dreier, 2008; Elkjær & Wiberg, 2013).

The notion of normativity thus has a crucial bearing on understanding how Practice Theory interprets learning as being situated. A student’s ability to interpret and understand the normative structure influences how they fundamentally act in a given educational situation (Buch & Elkjaer, 2015; Schatzki, 2016, 2017). This means that the student’s actions are linked together through individual normative systems, thereby drawing and characterising the learning path that is formed. Whether the learning process’s activities are considered qualified and competent depends on the standards and procedures described through the student’s existing practical competence and

“know-how” (Schatzki, 2017). Often it is teleoaffective structures that link doings and sayings to a practice. The teleoaffective structures occur when there is a general understanding of what is acceptable or not acceptable in a given situation (Schatzki, 2016b).