EnActivism BJET Final
-
Upload
solidteacher -
Category
Documents
-
view
226 -
download
0
Transcript of EnActivism BJET Final
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 1/23
Instructional Design and Technology Grounded in Enactivism: A Paradigm Shift?
Qing Li, Ph.D
Bruce Clark, Ph.DIan Winchester, Ph. D
Paper to be published at the British Journal of Educational Technology
Abstract
Although traditional instructional design and technology (IDT) has largely based on objectivism,
in the past twenty years, constructivism has emerged as a dominant framework for IDT. Both
perspectives, however, present shortcomings. This paper explores enactivism – an emerging new
philosophical world view – as an alternative paradigm. It also investigates the possibilities offered by
this new paradigm to instructional design and technology. The philosophical worldview known as
enactivism is reviewed to illustrate the similarities and differences amongst the 3 philosophical
paradigms, namely objectivism, constructivism, and enactivism. Finally, details of enactivism and its
implications for IDT are explored.
1
1
2
34
5
67
8
910
11
12
1314
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 2/23
INTRODUCTION
This paper explores enactivism and the possibilities offered by this paradigm to instructional
design and technology (IDT). Enactivism, rooted in the phenomenological work of Merleau-Ponty and
Bateson’s biological perspectives, is an emerging philosophical worldview and has flourished
particularly in the field of mathematics education. At a fundamental level, it rejects dualism and focuses
on the importance of embodiment and action to cognition.
In the past two decades, constructivism has emerged as a dominant paradigm in educational
research, substantially influencing IDT. A critical assumption of constructivism is that knowledge is not
something out there to be acquired but rather constructed by learners. This shift of assumptions
challenges the traditional objectivist viewpoints, and demands a reconsideration of our foundational
philosophic and epistemological beliefs (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1995; Jonassen, 2001).
Believing that truth is always relative and contextual, constructivist approaches of instruction “promote
the judgments and evaluations that facilitate personal interpretations and refine understanding”
(Hannafin & Hill, 2002, p.71). Constructivist approaches reject many traditional instructional design
practices such as the focus on instructional objectives, and the employment of task and content analysis
(Jonassen, 2001). Rather, it emphasizes the establishment of a learner-centered environment where
students negotiate their learning goals, focusing on authentic learning problems and contexts, with
activities and assessments in alignment with their needs (Hannafin & Hill, 2002).
Even though many scholars in our field embrace constructivism, a number of criticisms have
arisen (Begg, 2000; Fox, 2006). Such criticisms point to various problems of constructivism that may
undermine educational practices. The following presents several main criticisms that deserve our serious
consideration.
1. There is no mechanism to avoid the construction of undesirable outcomes.
2. There is an undue influence in education and in what constitutes knowledge bythe dominant culture, that is the white middle class.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2526
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 3/23
3. Constructivism is concerned only with cognitive knowledge. It does not explain
unformulated or subconscious knowledge, it does not consider how things might be known
intuitively or instinctively, and it does not consider how emotions are constructed or their role inlearning.
4. There do not seem to be explicit links made between constructivism and the
learning theories that brain-science or neural biology offer.5. While constructivism has numerous forms with respect to an individual and a
social focus, and a relativist or objectivist view of knowledge, no one form of constructivism
seems to consider these differences.(Begg, 2000, p.2)
Davis and his colleagues claim that constructivist theories typically criticize contemporary
teaching practices, yet fall short of providing direct, practical guidance to teachers as to what they might
do more effectively. When these theories are applied in designing learning activities, they lean towards
“the most familiar and accessible (but not necessarily the most significant or appropriate) aspects”
(Davis & Sumara, 2002, p. 420) of the theories.
In the field of IDT, Fox (2006) argues that many research studies (e.g. Dick, 1996;
Hannafin, Hannafin, Land, & Oliver, 1997; Winn, 1997) demonstrate how we still struggle, both
theoretically and practically, with the constructivist viewpoint. One main reason for such
struggle is the lack of philosophical consistency in literature: constructivism includes many
versions ranging from radical constructivism to social constructivism (Davis & Sumara, 2002;
Fox, 2006), often expressing conflicting ideas (Burbules, 2000; Phillips, 2000). Many people
“call themselves constructivists without much awareness of the fundamental differences among
the varieties of constructivism. Nor are they always absolutely clear about the epistemological,
ontological, metaphysical, and moral assumptions, concepts and values that undergird
constructivist beliefs” (McCarty & Schwandt, 2000). They often take aspects from different
versions of constructivism indiscriminately, with little understanding of fundamental distinctions
between these strains, some of which may have contradictory philosophical assumptions. Most
importantly, limited empirical evidence exists at this point to support constructivist theories
3
1
2
34
5
67
8
910
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 4/23
(Driscoll, 1999; Fox, 2006). This lack of empirical support is keenly felt in IDT considering that
this field has such a strong emphasis on empirical research.
While such confusions and criticisms should not diminish the value of constructivism, they do
call for an alternative worldview. The recent emergence of enactivism provides an appealing paradigm.
Enactivism, rooted in biology and phenomenology, has flourished particularly in the field of
mathematics education partly because it provides a more encompassing philosophical stance than other
viewpoints. In fact, Winn (2006) recommends scholars in IDT pay particular attention to enactivism
because it is a “relatively well established and viable framework within which to do research and
development” (p. 57). Yet enactivism has not been well represented in IDT, owing in large part to its
recent emergence. In this paper, therefore, we examine this paradigm and argue that enactivism holds
great promise for IDT. To demonstrate the core philosophical assumptions of enactivism, we first
investigate the enactivist worldview. We then compare the three paradigms: objectivism, constructivism,
and enactivism, to illustrate the similarities and differences. Finally, we explore the implications if we
take enactivism as the basis for IDT.
ENACTIVISM
Before our discussion, it is worth noting the inconsistencies in the literature about whether
enactivism is simply a theory of learning or a philosophy – in other words, a worldview. Some (Begg,
2000; Proulx, 2004; Winn, 2006) consider that enactivism is a new theory of learning while others
believe that it is a “theory of mind”, which, from an enactivist perspective, is the same as epistemology
(Bateson, 1987) – a branch of philosophy. In this paper, we assume that enactivism is not a learning
theory but a worldview from which various theories can be derived.
An Example
Enactivism is a philosophy based on two important premises: cognition and environment are
inseparable, and “systems” enact with each other from which they “learn” (Fenwick, 2000). Consider a
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 5/23
simple event: Jean is learning how to make a peanut butter and jam sandwich. Understanding this event
is not just about the bread pieces, or the peanut butter and jam, just Jean herself, or putting jam on the
bread, the motion of her hands putting two pieces of bread together, or just the room. It is all of the
above and the physical process of making the sandwich (personal enactment with the physical world)
that shapes her understanding of the event. Most importantly, when Jean enacts the task of making the
sandwich, she draws upon specific experiences from her personal history to enable her to understand her
present world. Jean’s learning to make a peanut butter and jam sandwich is connected with her
experience, mirrors her structure (e.g. cognitive), and is embedded in her action. For example, she may
be told, by her mom, that she needs to learn how to make a peanut butter and jam sandwich for her
lunch. She may have found, based on her previous experience, that toasting the bread pieces before
putting peanut butter and jam on would taste better. Likewise, she may notice that holding the bread in
one hand and the knife in the other would make the job easier.
Assuming Jean is a student in China who is learning English from her teacher through this
activity, she may have to use chopsticks instead of a butter knife to spread peanut butter and jam. Or she
may have to use a butter knife but is not sure how to use it. Peanut butter and jam may be stored in
bowls instead of jars. In this scenario, Jean’s limited personal experience with butter knives affects her
understanding of the event. Further, intertwined cognitive, social, and physical systems all shape how
she enacts.
Or, suppose Jean is an astronaut from NASA. She is making a peanut butter and jam sandwich in
a space shuttle in outer space for the first time. Spreading peanut butter and jam on bread thus becomes a
brand new concept even though she may have rich experience of making them in a North American
context. The simple act of “taking out two pieces of bread and putting them on a table” in our normal
sense is no longer possible. What appears to be trivial action (where we may treat it as “habit” or “tacit
knowledge”) in one setting (i.e. on Earth) turns out to be an event that needs a tremendous amount of
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 6/23
consciousness in another setting (i.e. outer space). This suggests that we often realize only a small part
of bodily sensation, attend only to the surface of our thoughts, and are aware of only fragments of our
acts. It highlights that body, mind, and this world are inseparable. Learning is more than simply paying
attention to a series of conscious events and changing some intentional decisions. Instead, learning is a
complex matter, enmeshed in a convoluted web of biological-and-social agents, the incarnation of varied
perceptions, of applying, of abstracting, and of acting that involves both conscious and unconscious
understanding and abilities.
Roots
Enactivism is rooted in two important views: the phenomenological work of Merleau-Ponty and
the biological perspectives of Bateson. Consistent with Merleau-Ponty’s view of ontological
embodiment, which is based on the idea that “the world which is given in perception…is the concrete,
intersubjectively constituted life-world of immediate experience” (Merleau-Ponty, 1964, p. xvi),
enactivism argues that
the world is inseparable from the subject, but from a subject which is nothing but a
project of the world, and the subject is inseparable from the world, but from a world
which the subject itself projects.(Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991, p. 7)
This concept that “things have no meaning independent of the consciousness of the agent
determining meaning” is called double-embodiment. According to the conceivers of enactivism (Varela,
Thompson, & Rosch, 1991), double-embodiment regards the body not only as a lived structure to
experiences, but also the setting for cognition. Built from traditional Buddhist idea of “mindfulness
meditation” that places the mind in
embodied everyday experience…[Our reflection] can change from an abstract,disembodied activity to an embodied (mindful), open-ended reflection. By embodied we
mean reflection in which body and mind are brought together…[Refection] is not just on
experience, but reflection is a form of experience itself and that reflective form of
experience can be performed with mindfulness/awareness…(Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991, p. 27)
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
2728
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 7/23
Embodiment, therefore, refers to the “developing process” of our interaction with the real world.
It is not simply our beliefs or behaviors, rather, it is our ways of living and experiencing our world that
“involves our sensory and motor processes, perceptions, and actions” (Johnson, 1989, pp. 362-363).
Developed from the double-embodiment, enactivism adds another significant aspect by addressing a
fundamental concept regarding the role of reflection.
Origins of enactivism can also be traced to biological perspectives involving systems theory and
cognitive theory (Michie, 2004). Renowned researchers in these areas include Bateson, Capra,
Maturana, and Varela (Bateson, 1972; Capra, 1996, 2002; Maturana & Varela, 1987; Varela, Thompson,
& Rosch, 1991). The idea of autopoiesis, a word about auto-production explaining the circular
organization of living systems, heavily influences these researchers’ thoughts. Enactivism describes
living as systems that produce themselves endlessly (Reid, 1995). Living systems, are not simply
observation objects or interacting systems, but rather autonomous, self-contained, self-referencing and
self-constructing closed systems (Maturana & Varela, 1980, p.v).
A central idea of enactivism is co-emergence. Co-emergence focuses on the concept that
the change of both a living system and its surrounding environment depends on the interaction
between this system and the environment. When a system and an environment interact, they are
structurally coupled and they co-emerge. It is important to note that co-emergence only suggests
that the system and the environment interact but does not guarantee greater or lesser adaptation
to each other (Reid, 1995).
Cognition & Enactivism
Enactivism views that cognition is a complex co-evolving process of systems interacting
and affecting each other and their environments (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2000). Rather
than consider the cognitive system as a processor of information, enactivism regards it as
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 8/23
producer of meaning (Baerveldt & Verheggen, 1999). All living systems have to be involved in
cognition and cognition is active rather than passive. Cognition, contrary to our common ideas, is
a human, social, and biological phenomenon. For example, the current development in
neuroscience and neuroplasticity has demonstrated the plasticity of our senses and brain. Norman
Diodge, in his top selling book – “The Brain That Changes Itself”, provides convincing
arguments and examples to demonstrate that learning can actually increase the volume and
thickness of our brain. Our brain structure and function, therefore, can change through our
thinking and other activities (Diodge, 2007). Learning causes not just mental but also biological
changes.
A living system such as a plant engages in cognition through, for example, the feedback
system in its leaves with chemical pathways. Through these chemical pathways, the plant learns
from and adapts to its environment (e.g. the amount of sunlight, humidity). At the same time, this
plant also contributes to its larger environment/system (i.e. co-evolves). The way the plant knows
about the environment is through its interaction with the environment it lives in. Hence the
plant’s knowledge of its world depends on the environment it lives in and the actions the plant is
capable of (Reid, 1995). The plant neither determines its world, nor is determined by it, but co-
emerges with the world. It is important to note that there is no dichotomy (i.e. the plant and the
environment) because any system and its context are inseparable (Fenwick, 2000).
Challenging historical epistemological-ontological debate on dualism where knowledge
is considered as either merely forms of representation of reality or as discrete agents built by
learners and residing inside their “inner-self”, this new interpretation of cognition changes our
view about knowledge. Knowledge is a domain of possibilities and emerges from a sequence of
“structured coupling” where the change of one system causes responses in the dynamics of the
other when two systems “coincide” in an ever-evolving world (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch,
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 9/23
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 10/23
misinform teaching practice (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2000). A noticeable such shared
assumption is that cognition sits inside the individual’s body isolated from the world and other people.
Reality (the real world) is separated from the mind, even though they have different views about where
it is. Enactivism, on the other hand, rejects dualism that divides self from world, mind from body, or
subject from object. Therefore, both objectivism and constructivism focus on knowledge, whereas
enactivism emphasizes knowing. In this paper, we differentiate action from behavior, although some
people use the two terms interchangeably (e.g. Proulx, 2004). To us, action always involves
consciousness while behavior does not necessary require intention.
Table 1. Comparison of Assumptions Inherent in Objectivism, Constructivism & Enactivism*
Objectivism Constructivism Enactivism
Reality
(real world)• External to the knower
• Structure determined byentities, properties, and
relations;
• Structure can be
modeled
• Determined by the knower
• Dependent upon humanmental activity
• Product of mind
• Symbolic proceduresconstruct reality
• Structure relies onexperience / interpretation
• We and the world aremutually specifying and
co-emerging
• Reality is dependent on
the consciousness of theknower who determines
the meaning (i.e. double-
embodiment)
Mind • Processor of symbols
• Mirror of nature
• Abstract machine for
manipulating symbols
• Builder of symbols
• Perceiver/interpreter of
nature
• Conceptual system for constructing reality
• Placed in embodiedeveryday experience
• Cannot be separated from
nature
• The mind interprets and
affects nature
Cognition • Is interpreted
mechanistically
• Governed by and reflect
external reality
• Independent of human
experience
• Mental is separated from physical
• Action is the only accessto cognition
• Is interpreted
mechanistically
• Cognition is a process of
organizing and
interpretation of one’ssubjective experience
• Mental is separated from
physical
• Is interpreted biologically
• Cognition is a complex
process of enactment of a
world and a mind.
• Mental and physical are
inseparable and co-evolve
Knowledge • External • Embedded inside inner self, • Neither internal nor
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 11/23
• Is a “thing” that can beacquired
• Cognitive/conscious
knowledge only
• Knowledge is mental
• Do not consider emotion
internal
• Is a “thing”
• Constructed by learner
• Cognitive/consciousknowledge only
• Knowledge is mental and physical but essentially
human
• Do not consider emotion
external, it depends.
• Is not a “thing” but a
domain of possibilities.
• Emerges from our ongoin
interpretations necessary
for successful action in anever-evolving world
• Both cognitive and non-conscious knowledge
• Knowledge is both mental
and physical, and notrestricted to human.
• Knowing is knowledge
• Including emotion
Dualism • Inner vs. outer
• Self vs. world/other
• Subject vs. object
• Mind vs. body
• Knower vs. known
• Action vs. mental
• Inner vs. outer
• Self vs. world/other
• Subject vs. object
• Mind vs. body
• Knower vs. known
• Action vs. mental
• No dualism
• Inseparable
Causal
relationship• Change the environment
causes behavior change
• Same stimulus leads tosame response
• Response is unique for each
individual• Learning and environmen
co-evolve constantly
• No outcome can beexactly predicted or
determined (taking theuniverse as a whole)
*objectivist & constructivist assumptions are adapted from Jonassen (2001).
Enactivism and Objectivism
Objectivism assumes that reality is external to the knower, is structured, and structure can be
modeled. The purpose of learning is to mirror this abstract reality and its structure through thinking.
Cognition is governed by the real world and should reflect external reality. Learning is the process of
mapping objective reality onto learners. Since cognition is independent from human experience, teachers
tell students about the real world and students replicate the content and structure (Skinner, 1968;
Thorndike, 1931).
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 12/23
Rejecting the idea of absolute reality independent from the knower, enactivism argues the
knower and the world are mutually specifying and co-emerging. Cognition is a complex process of
enactment of a world and our mind. A well known slogan in enactivist literature is “all doing is knowing
and all knowing is doing” (Maturana & Varela, 1987, p. 27). Action, therefore, bears significant
meaning in enactivism. This view of knowledge as adequate action implies that knowledge usually
involves behavior. “Cognition is as much a physical as a cerebral activity, [and] it extends through the
body to the environment, and by so doing becomes social” (Winn, 2006, p.57). It is important, however,
to recognize that enactivism is not a “step back” towards objectivism.
According to Proulx (2004), two significant accounts distinguish objectivism from enactivism.
The first aspect is the status of action in each view. A fundamental assumption of objectivism is that our
cognitive processes are subjective within a “black box”, and we can only access them through the
observation of an individual’s external behavior. Consequently, objectivists study overt physical actions
in precise detail, often in an attempt to control and change them. Enactivism focuses on action not
because it is the only access to mental process, but precisely because action and mental process are
inseparable – action, then, IS knowledge (Proulx, 2004).
The second important account for the difference between the objectivist and the enactivist views
is the causal relationships. For objectivism, a change in the environment causes a change in action.
Further, the same stimulus can result in the same response in everyone. For enactivism, however,
outcomes can never be predicted or determined because the systems – learning and the environment –
co-evolve constantly.
Holding an objectivist or an enactivist view would have different implications for classroom
practices and IDT. Objectivism considers teachers as the experts who hold the absolute truth and
knowledge to be transmit to students. Lectures predominate as classroom practice and students simply
replicate and try to master factual knowledge and skills. Enactivism asserts that teachers are not the
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 13/23
source of knowledge, but they coauthor knowledge with students through the design of a complex
learning world, considering the integration of our biological systems and electronic media. Rather than
focusing on telling, teachers would guide students’ attention towards the intended possible coevolving
patterns.
Enactivism and Constructivism
Constructivism asserts that reality is determined by a knower, hence is a product of mind.
Constructivism, regardless of the version, assumes that reality is formed from the mind of the knower
through his/her construction (Dewey, 1933; Piaget, 1954; Vygotsky, 1978). Like objectivism,
constructivism accepts dualism and interprets cognition in mechanistic ways. In all its varieties,
constructivism considers that cognition always involves conscious construction of something: an object,
a theory, a concept, a proof, a tool, a place, a way, a tradition. It is, therefore, a human phenomenon.
In contrast, enactivism relies on biological interpretation of cognition. It rejects the idea that
knowledge consists of separate objects different from the world. Rather, “all cognition exists in the
interstices of a complex ecology of organism relationality” (Davis & Sumara, 1997). A key idea of
enactivism is that living systems adjust to their exceedingly complex surroundings in an autopoetic
manner. Cognition, hence, is continuous with what other animals and living systems do when they get
onto something that they adjust to in all its complexity, often something useful about the world they find
themselves in. This may or may not be a cause of conscious construction of anything but rather noticing,
slowly, the light that dawns over the whole in the context of their need(s). One can go from a state of
complete lack of understanding, puzzlement or bafflement and mystification through a series of
unconscious stages until suddenly one can do whatever it is, individually or collectively.
Consider young children coming to grip with daily life outside themselves: walking, talking,
bathing, running, falling…it all looks random but the result in the end is very precise indeed. In some
ways this is similar to initiation, but it differs from it in that with initiation something already exists into
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 14/23
which one is being initiated. For much of enactivist thinking, we are facing a new world into which we
want to or simply do find a way. For example, children often learn the accents in a language of their
school chums rather than those of their parents – something exceedingly important in England. And in
the case of children this is often not consciously constructed, as it might be for an adult, but simply
occurs through their complex interactions with their school environment.
Enactivism also considers the cases in which something already exists. Think, for example, of
Eskimos and how they traditionally learn without conscious teaching on the part of their family.
Children may notice in passing adults building a kayak. Perhaps they fiddle a bit with the same
materials, perhaps they do not. But one day, without any special conscious effort they may know how to
build a kayak and what a kayak is good for. Nobody “taught” them or set them a task. They did not
consciously construct either a theory of kayaks or their building. Nor did they build a kayak before they
found themselves actually needing to do so and as a mater of fact being able to do so too.
Both constructivism and enactivism reject the idea that reality is independent of the knower, but
for different reasons. Constructivism asserts that the knower determines reality because s/he constructs
it. In contrast, enactivism believes that reality is knower-dependent, not because the knower constructs
whatever s/h chooses, but because s/he cannot be separated from the relevant world (Varela, 1999).
An important distinction between enactivism and constructivism is their emphases: on
knowledge or knowing (Begg, 2000). Knowledge, from the constructivist perspective, is a human
construction that needs to fit with the person’s experience. Constructivist views separate self from other,
in that they distinguish between the human being who constructs meaning and what is constructed. This
creates problems because knowledge is considered a constructed phenomenon located in either a
personal or a social space (Davis & Sumara, 2002; Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2000).
Enactivism, in stressing embodied action, finds a middle way between two extreme views about
reality: the objective view considers that reality exists independent of our experience versus the
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 15/23
subjective perspective in which reality is independent of the surrounding world (Maeers, 1996). This
approach, of course, can not be interpreted in linear ways. Rather, it sees the world and us as mutually
specifying and co-emerging. From this standpoint, enactivism avoids the dualistic problem of inner vs.
outer, self vs. world, subject vs. object, mind vs. body, and knower vs. known (Davis, 1994). Classroom
instruction, therefore, differs from either the “‘adult-run’ or ‘children-run’ instruction” (Rogoff, 1994,
p.210).
Enactivism and constructivism are fundamentally different, even though we may find seemingly
parallel aspects. For example, enactivism and situated cognition may look similar. Both consider that
environment plays a vital and integral role in cognition instead of simply supplemental to or a mere
background to our “consciousness”. A close examination at a foundational level reveals distinctions
between the two views. Situated cognition grounds and focuses on individual development through
his/her interaction in a community of practice. Although the individual and the environment are integral
parts, the primacy of individual mind has never been questioned. Enactivism, on the other hand,
emphasizes understanding the world through different systems entangled in processes of self-
organization and interdependence. Consequently, human subjectivity, our mind, and the environment are
all subsumed within larger systems.
The distinction between enactivism and constructivism leads to different practices in classrooms
and IDT. For constructivism, teachers establish learning environments in which students construct
knowledge with teachers’ facilitation. Such environments involve the negotiation of goals and
objectives between the teacher and the students. Students’ learning focuses on promoting their multiple
interpretations of reality based on personal experience. Instructional strategies concentrate on student-
centered activities because it is the students who control the process of learning. Enactivism, in contrast,
includes co-evolving patterns as opposed to pre-determined goals and objectives. Instead of focusing on
a “single best sequence” of lessons for learning (Jonassen, 2001), teachers in enactivist classrooms build
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 16/23
a rich learning world with abundant stimulation, but enough limits to guide students toward possible co-
evolving patterns. Further, the physical, biological, and electronic systems are carefully crafted to
merge together, resulting in a rich learning world.
ENACTIVISM AS THE BASIS FOR IDT
IDT is a field that “encompasses the analysis of learning and performance problems and the
design, development, implementation, evaluation and management of instructional and non-instructional
processes and resources intended to improve learning and performance in a variety of settings” (Reiser,
2002). IDT historically grew out of a behaviorist perspective but has experienced a great shift to
constructivism in the last twenty years. Both paradigms provide valuable frameworks for understanding
of learning and consequently IDT. Each, however, presents its own shortcomings, some of which have
been discussed at the beginning of this paper. We argue that both perspectives are incomplete and
therefore fail to address some critical IDT issues.
Enactivism offers a dynamic new vision for examining learning and performance, and enables us
to see this field in a new light. It claims that our mind, body, and the world are inseparable. Learning is
through the learners’ acts and is acted upon by the world and understanding is embedded in doing. If
practitioners in IDT are to accept some of these enactivist assumptions, many of our deepest
presuppositions would need to be reconsidered. For instance:
1. Traditional instructional design assumes learning and learning outcomes can be
predicted. It is therefore possible to perform analysis, choose approaches, implement and
revise, all independent of actual instruction, until predetermined goals are achieved (Winn,
2004). Since enactivism claims that learning and behavior cannot, in general, be
predetermined, we need to question the independence of design from instruction. According
to Winn (2004), a few educational technologists have been considering this issue, thinking
about concurrent design and instruction rather than pre-design instruction. Examples range
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 17/23
from conceptualization and doing of instruction occurring simultaneously (Schon, 1987), to
establishing learning environments that are adaptive in real time to student actions (Merrill,
1992), to the idea that instructional design should be contextualized if learning is situated in
contexts (McLellan, 1996).
2. Instructional goals would not be pre-determined but rather be constructed, modified
with students during the instruction. This, of course, it not to say that instruction should be
goal-free. Instead, it emphasizes that goals should be framed in such a way that enough
freedom is given for students to learn in their own way and is adaptive to students’
proclivities.
3. IDT would focus on the creation of a collection of stimulating learning conditions,
whose functions are not entirely prescribed. The best ways for students to learn are
determined on the fly and this system is potentially responsive to it (Winn, 2004).
4. A typical constructivist approach concentrates on “task and content analysis…[with]
lesson identifying and prescribing a single, best sequence for learning” (Jonassen, 2001,
p.61). Instead, an enactivist approach would focus on the development of a rich (may be
messy) setting with varied stimulation, as oppose to singular, isolated, neatly organized,
linearly sequenced concepts. Content would be generated by learners rather than pre-given.
5. Since learning is an ongoing enactment of embodied sensibilities rather than a sequence
of conscious decisions, teaching needs to concentrate on directing attention and affecting
interpretations. Strategies such as repetition, well timed questions, highlights, practice,
discussion, and re-symbolization, can help guiding students’ attention, while elaborated
explanations, extended instructions, and de-contextualized formulations should be de-
emphasized. Teachers should focus on the particular while embedding the explicit message
in more generalized, contextual concerns. Instructional approaches should shift from telling
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 18/23
to listening (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2000). We should attend to both conscious and
non-conscious cognition which is deeply rooted in physical engagements with the world.
Consequently, hands-on learning holds significant value in learning. Further, same as the
traditional “conscious cognitive learning”, emotion, intuition, instinct and mindfulness all
play important roles in this learning world.
6. The inseparability of mind, body and the world, as supported by the recent development
in neuroscience and other related fields, points to the possibilities of merging of biological
and electronic ‘platforms’, means of co-laboring and co-emerging (Diodge, 2007; Etkin,
Pittenger, Polan, & Kandel, 2005). Although a more drastic idea for many to accept, IDT
may focus on the use of technology to extend our cognitive systems. As Doidge (2007)
explains:
When computers crash and people have mini-nervous breakdowns, there is more than
a little truth in their cry, "I feel like I've lost my mind!" As we use an electronic
medium, our nervous system extends outward, and the medium extends inward. ...
Electronic media are so effective at altering the nervous system because they bothwork in similar ways and are basically compatible and thus easily linked. ... Because
our nervous system is plastic, it can take advantage of this compatibility and mergewith electronic media, making a single, larger system. Indeed, it is the nature of suchsystems to merge whether they are biological or man-made. ...
(p. 311)
What would it look like?
If we believe that enactivism provides a better and more comprehensive world view and
therefore consider adapting this view, what would it look like in classrooms? What are the implications
for instructional designers?
We propose that the focus for educational technologists and teachers should be the creation of a
comprehensive learning world which mirrors the complex system of our world, considering the merging
of our biological nervous systems and the electronic medium. Although we cannot predetermine any
specific goals, the creation of such a world should consider possible coevolving patterns. This learning
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
171819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 19/23
world should have enough constraints so that students’ attentions are guided towards these possible
coevolving patterns. Further, technology is essential to craft this learning world where the electronic
media and our biological systems merge, to guide students towards these possible coevolving patterns.
Within this learning world, learners create their own learning environments with the support of
technologies, and through their co-emergence, learning occurs. Two aspects of this learning world: 1)
the constraints attached to it and 2) the consideration of merging of electronic and biological systems,
set important distinctions between this learning world and a constructivist learning environment. Unlike
typical constructivist approaches, an enactivist learning world would allow learners to immerse in rich
and stimulating learning experiences while the intentionally built-in constraints foster learners’
development towards the set of intended co-evolving patterns. Further, the possible merging of humans
and the electronic systems implies that technology may play an essential role for learning. This will also
reframe issues of authority and knowledge. Learners, therefore, are co-authors of their learning
environments, their learning, and knowledge.
One possible example of such learning worlds is by using educational games integrating Web 2.0
and associated technologies. Previous work has demonstrated that significant learning of students occurs
through investigating, constructing, and interrogating in hypothetical worlds (de Castell & Jenson, 2005;
Gee, 2003; Jenson & de Castell, 2002; Squire, 2006). Many existing games are designed as complex
environments of interrelated parts, mirroring our real world, that engross players and are controlled to
act in certain ways (Gee, 2003, p.42). Researchers (Gee, 2003; Squire, 2006) note that a core
characteristic of games is doing and that
knowing is at its essence a kind of performance, as learners learn by doing, but within
powerful constraints instantiated through software and social systems. The focus is onexperience that enables students to develop situated understandings, to learn through
failure, and to develop identities as expert problem solvers
(Squire, 2006, p. 26)
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2223
24
25
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 20/23
Players interact, enact in and with this environment, coevolving with not only the cyber world
but also the real world. Game environments can be designed as a multimodal space that reflects not only
the complexity of the creation of cyber worlds but also the ramification of the design of social
relationships/identities in our modern world. This space, with situated meanings, allows players to solve
problems through embodied experiences (Gee, 2003).
For instance, we can develop a learning world where students can create games to teach others
specific content. In this world, students are co-authors and designers of the learning environments
toward the possible coevolving patterns. This world provides a foundation and resource that the students
act and solve problems. As players, students immerse in a world of action through which they learn from
experiences guided by the very design of the learning world. Various constraints are built-in and
students accept a powerful set of values connected to their identity (virtual or real). Through the use of
Web 2.0, students co-emerge with the world through their actions of building mental models, playing the
game, evaluating the outcomes, and revising their actions.
Nature of IDT Research
Research of IDT, from an enactivist standpoint, would focus on studying
relations/connections amongst different components in the systems rather than on isolated
events/elements. We would pay equal attention to the environmental, physical, and mental
aspects, and take holistic approaches for the examination of them. Because experimental
methods and purely cognitive theorizing/research are all valued, we would adapt qualitative,
quantitative, and correlational methods, depending on the nature of the investigation. Our
analyses that emphasize the current and historical context of actions can directly contribute to
educational practices, and these results can provide guidance to change the learning world to
improve educational practice. IDT research, therefore, would center on careful and frequent
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 21/23
examination of the interrelationships between actions and context, including behavioral, mental
and other outcomes in the complex systems.
CONCLUSION
Although both Objectivism and constructivism have contributed significantly to IDT, they fall
short in several ways. They see the world dichotomously, and therefore, the physical is separated from
the mental. Enactivism rejects dualism and argues, pervasively, that the mental and physical are
inseparable.
If IDT chooses to adopt an enactivist worldview, we will need to consider a revolutionary shift in
our philosophical paradigms. This is not to abandon all of our objectivist and constructivist assumptions
and presuppositions in favor of the enactivist ones. Rather, we suggest that enactivism holds important
lessons for us about understanding learning and, by inference, designing environments to enhance
learning. These environments should be rich, as the world is rich, as opposed to a singular or linear
sequence of events. They must contain varied stimulations, where students’ attentions are guided toward
particular content, though the exact results will vary from person to person. This environment attends to
and responds to student needs and the sense they are making.
The intention of this paper is to offer another “analytical lens through which to view human
activity – not a replacement of any other lenses” (Jonassen, 2006, p. 44), which can have significant
implications for IDT. It fundamentally questions the assumptions of IDT that learning can be prescribed
and knowledge is a ‘thing’ to be “acquired”, whether outside (objective knowledge) or inside (subjective
knowledge) the knower. Enactivism argues that learning can only be influenced, knowledge is a domain
of possibilities, and ‘where knowledge is’ depends on the situation (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler,
2000). While we argue that enactivism brings great promises, it, just like any other epistemological
paradigm, should not be considered as the panacea for all the problems in education and training.
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 22/23
8/8/2019 EnActivism BJET Final
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enactivism-bjet-final 23/23
References1
2