Philosophy Statement 1
Running Head: PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT
Learning as Negotiation:
Inquiry, New Literacies, and Global Participation
J. Gregory McVerry
University of Connecticut
Philosophy Statement 2
Philosophy Statement
The colloquial definition of learning usually revolves around the concept of change
Shuell (1986), for example, defined learning as “an enduring change in behavior, or in the
capacity to behave in a given fashion, which results from practice or other forms of
experience” (p. 417). Learning therefore has been seen as the agent (A) interacting with
experience or the environment (B) resulting in new behaviors or knowledge (AB). Thus
A+B->AB. Traditionally learning has been defined has a type of synthesis or composition
that leads to a new state.
Learning, however, is more of a negotiation than a change in state, or in symbolic
expression, A+BAB. As the agent interacts with experiences and environments her
knowledge continuously is reconstructed while she also affects the environment or
experience from which she is learning (Bruner, 1990). Thus, “any form of knowledge
always lies in the power to renegotiate the meaning of the past and future in constructing
the meaning of present circumstances” (Lave & Wegner, p . 34). By centering a definition of
learning on negotiation rather than change it allows for acceptance of multiple realities
(Labbo & Reinking, 1999) in which truth is not an objective reality, but a perception based
on many socio-cultural factors.
Therefore I define learning as a negotiation of space, stuff, and self during the active
process of meaning making. This definition draws on variety of perspectives specifically,
pragmatism (Dewey, 1938), new literacies (Corio, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008; New
London Group, 1996), and constructivism (Phillips, 1995).
Pragmatism
The concept of learning being more a process of negotiation rather than change is
Philosophy Statement 3
first based in my pragmatic philosophy. While pragmatist movements of the early
twentieth century influenced a variety of fields, and thus utilized diverse terminology to
describe philosophic underpinnings, a major focus of pragmatism is a rejection of dualism
or polar opposites. Dewey (1879, p. 5), for example, wrote “psychological and social sides
are organically related and that education cannot be regarded as a compromise between
the two, or a superimposition of one upon the other.” Thus both psychological and social
situations play a role in education. Learning, from Dewey’s perspective involved a constant
negotiation between the learner, society, and the environment. In fact , “For Dewey, we do
not enter into a situation; we are integrated with it and continually re-construct it through
lived inquiry” (Bruce, 2008. pg 10).
New Literacies
The concept of learning being rooted in the negotiation of space, stuff and the self is
also rooted in new literacies perspectives. New literacies perspectives are diverse and
emerged from socio-cultural definitions of literacy as a social practice (Heath, 1983; Street,
1984) that recognized the multiple ways language use is shaped by our identity (Gee,
1996).
As literacy tools move from page to screen (Kress, 2003) new literacies perspectives
recognized a shift in literacy practices due to the rapid rise of the Internet. Scholars have
examined the changes by describing shifts in the “space” and “stuff” of learning (Lankshear
& Knobel 2003) and identity formation (Gee, 1996). Yet as Dewey did not accept a
complete separation of the psychological and social aspects of education, I argue that new
literacies perspectives must also recognize that shifts in the self involve both negotiation of
identity and also in the cognitive tools utilized as we learn.
Philosophy Statement 4
Pragmatically speaking, it is therefore important to unify multiple New Literacies
perspectives. A recent review of New Literacies research (Coiro et al., 2008) has suggested
that there are four principles common to all new literacies perspectives: 1) the Internet is
this generation’s defining technology for literacy and learning; 2) new literacies are central
to civic, economic, and personal participation in a globalized community and, as a result,
the education of all students; 3) new literacies regularly change as their defining
technologies change; 4) and new literacies require new skills, strategies, dispositions, and
social practices. Thus New Literacies research operates under a large umbrella informing
these principles (Leu, O’Byrne, Zawilinski, Mcverry, Evertt-Cacaporda, 2009). Within this
larger domain of New Literacies research scholars from diverse fields investigate the affect
that digital texts have on everyday lives. These lower level new literacies fields, then in turn
inform the lager field of New Literacies research (Leu et al., 2009).
New literacies of online reading comprehension (Leu et al., 2007) is a theoretical
perspective used to examine the shift in how we learn when reading online, while also
recognizing new social practices, discourses, and dispositions involved in the much
broader field of New Literacies research. It defines online reading comprehension as a selfdirected problem-solving task with informational texts. Specifically research using new
literacies of online reading comprehension framework investigates the skills, strategies,
and dispositions students need to: formulate questions, locate information, critically
evaluate information, synthesize what they read, and then communicate with others (Leu
et al., 2004).
However, I believe the skills and strategies a student uses are situated in different
domains, contexts and discourses. Gee (1996) in his little-d/Big D discourse theory outlines
Philosophy Statement 5
a difference between language utterances (little d) and identity kits (big D) which involve
ways of using language to signify memberships in different groups. Thus the skills and
strategies used in online reading comprehension will not be universal, but will vary based
on contexts and Discourses of different social groups.
Constructivism
I ground my concept of learning involving the negotiation of space, stuff, and self
during the active process of meaning making in constructivism. Constructivism as a
learning theory encompasses many perspectives, that all recognize learning as an active
process. However these theories are also complex and interrelated (Phillips, 1995). For
example Dewey (1916), Piaget (1973), Vygotsky (1978) and Bruner (1978) suggested
learners could actively construct meaning, but each theory has both shared and contrasting
principles. First Dewey (1916) emphasized the role of the situation in the process of
meaning making. Piaget (1973) argued that holistic approaches to teaching lead to
developmental phases and new knowledge. Vygotsksy (1978) emphasized the importance
of the social context of learning, specifically in more expert learners facilitating meaning
making. Finally Bruner (1966; 1996) suggested that learners utilize both the social and
physical worlds and he also believed learners need the skills to manipulate tools to allow
them to construct meaning.
These different influences on constructivist theories can be considered to exist on a
continuum of theory (Doolittle, 1997; Phillips, 1995). Phillips (1995), for example, argued
constructivist theories could be compared on three dimensions: the role of the individual
versus role of the public; the agent as learner or nature as instructor; and active
construction of knowledge involving individual cognition or social processes. I would
Philosophy Statement 6
argue that the dualistic nature of these poles does not allow common principles to emerge
and would place my constructivist theories in the middle. Therefore learning as a
negotiation of the agent and environment requires: active participation and an emphasis on
social learning. However, I would not remove the individual cognition from the equation.
To unite the principles of constructivist theories to which I subscribe with the
shifting nature of the stuff and space of learning I draw on cognitive flexibility theory.
Cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991) is a constructivistlearning framework that defines prior knowledge as something that is constructed based
on the situation rather than retrieved. The theory suggests learners need to flexibly adapt
what they know to novel situations. In fact learning processes that have previously been
successful for students may not easily transfer to new and more complicated situations or
concepts as the stuff and space of learning shifts (Spiro, 2004).
This constructivist viewpoint of cognitive flexibility theory contrasts with the
computer metaphor models common in information retrieval theories for reading texts and
documents. Information retrieval (IR) frameworks encompass cognitive processes involved
in the searching, organizing, and accessing of information from documents (Singhal, 1997).
Theories of information retrieval are closely related to information processing models that
use the computer for a metaphor as a brain. Learners do not simply store information. They
constantly renegotiate meanings based on their flexible application of prior knowledge, the
environment and social situations.
Pedagogical Implications
The three tenets of my philosophy of learning: pragmatism, New Literacies, and
constructivism translate into a simple pedagogy: we learn by doing; teach by example.
Philosophy Statement 7
Therefore I would argue for teaching approaches that are inquiry based (Bruce & Davidson,
2006; Bruner, 1965; Dewey, 1938), use cognitive apprenticeships (Brown, Collins, &
Duguid, 1989), and encourage expression of agency (Gee, 1996) and global participation.
Inquiry Learning
Dewey is often credited with formulating theories of inquiry learning that continue
affect education (Bruce & Davidson, 1996, as cited in Bruce, 2008). Dewey (1910)
suggested that inquiry practices that connected schooled experience with real-life
experience were essential and that curriculum should be built on the impulses of learners:
the social instinct, the instinct of making, instinct of investigating, and expressive instinct
which is a desire to make meaning. Thus the self is central to inquiry learning.
Many inquiry models share common principles. For example, Bruce & Bishop (2002,
as cited in Casey et al., 2009) suggest a recursive non-linear model that involves the acts of
asking, investigating, creating, discussing, and reflecting. Eagelton and Dobler (2007)
suggested an Internet inquiry model involving questioning, understanding resources,
evaluating, synthesizing, and transforming. These models were similar to new literacies of
online reading comprehension (Leu et al., 2004), which involved questioning, locating,
evaluating, synthesizing, and communicating.
These three models of inquiry whether applied to all learning or online
environments involve a recursive overlapping process of reflective thinking which,
“involves the overcoming of inertia that inclines one to accept suggestions at face
value…reflective thinking in short means judgment suspended during further inquiry”
(Dewey, 1910, p. 13). In essence we learn by doing while engaged in reflective thinking and
challenging the world.
Philosophy Statement 8
Cognitive Apprenticeships
Learners benefit from interaction with a guide during inquiry. These cognitive
apprenticeships involve an expert learner and a novice (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989)
and take form as the more experienced learner describes their own actions and thoughts
as they engage in an activity with a less experienced learner. The pedagogy of cognitive
apprenticeships has roots in strategy instruction in reading that incorporated Vygotskian
principles of social learning theory (Palisnscar & Brown, 1984) and anthropological studies
of traditional apprenticeships (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Thus successful use of cognitive
apprenticeships involved six features common to these traditions: observation, coaching,
scaffolding, modeling, fading, and reflection (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1989). These
apprenticeships can involve teachers (Palinscar & Brown, 1984), students, or even
multiple and diverse cases (Spiro et al., 1992). Educators need to both act and recognize
students as cognitive apprenticeships. Educators and learners need to teach by leading, and
lead by example.
Agency and Global Participation
Education is central to democratic involvement (Dewey, 1938) and language use is
shaped and influenced by identities (Gee, 1996). Therefore successful teaching should
encourage the expression of the self while also ensuring that, “all students benefit from
learning in ways that allow them to participate fully in public, community, and economic
life” (New London Group, 1996, introduction). Thus students need opportunities to engage
in curriculum that allows the learner to explore themselves, embeds important skills, and
hopefully makes the world a better place. As the Internet, has connected us at speeds
recently unimaginable this participation will quickly become necessary on a global scale.
Philosophy Statement 9
Vision of the Future
The problems the world will face in the near future will be too large for any one
nation to solve. Therefore we are going to need increased communication, collaboration,
critical thinking, and creativity across continents (Partnership for 21st Century Skills,
2005). These 21st first century skills, while cemented in theories of the early twentieth
century, will connect classrooms. Teachers in the near future will have to engage in global
cross-cultural inquiry projects in order to tackle the challenges the worlds will face in the
next 25 years.
In order to turn these challenges into future promise, schools will become
increasingly specialized at the intermediate and secondary level while also becoming
greater community centers. Student determined inquiry projects will expand beyond
choice of curricular projects and into careers. Secondary schools, in the future, will allow
students to explore hands-on in different fields such as computers, media, forensics,
medical sciences, etc.
Finally the inquiry and cognitive apprenticeship models will continue to expand the
relationship of the teacher educator and the classroom teacher. A greater bridge will
develop between theory and practice. Specifically, teachers must be trained as researchers
constantly engaged in reflective practices. Teacher education programs must make
classroom experience central to learning. Secondly, graduate school training must be
rooted in practice. Both research and graduate teacher education programs must connect
the advisor, the student, and the classroom. Through these apprenticeships and real life
experience a community can develop to turn educational challenges into future promise
Philosophy Statement 10
References:
Brown, J. S.; Collins, A. & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
Bruce, B. (2008, September). From Hull House to Paseo Boricua:The theory and practice of
community inquiry. Paper presented at Philosophy of Pragmatism: Salient Inquiries,
Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.
Casey, L, Bruce, B. C., Martin, A., Reynolds, A., Shiel, G., Coffey, et al. (2009, March). Digital
literacy: New approaches to participation and inquiry learning to foster literacy skills
among primary school children. Dublin, Ireland: Centre for Research and Innovation
in Learning and Teaching, National College of Ireland.
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D.J. (Eds). (2008). Handbook of research on new
literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eagleton, M. & Dobler, E. (2007). Reading the Web. New York: Guilford Press.
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54, 77-80.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: DC Heath and Company Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education. New York: Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
Gee, J. (1996). Socio linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer.
Philosophy Statement 11
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in Communities and
classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Labbo, L. D., & Reinking, D. (1999). Negotiating the multiple realities of technology in
literacy research and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 478-492.
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge University Press: New York.
Leu, D.J., Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies
emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies.
In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, (3rd
ed., pp. 1568-1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B., Liu, Y., et al. (2007). What is
new about the new literacies of onlinereading comprehension? In L. Rush, J. Eakle, &
A. Berger, (Eds.). Secondary school literacy: What research reveals for classroom
practices. (37-68). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies designing social futures. Havard
Educational Review, 66(1). Retrived from
http://wwwstatic.kern.org/filer/blogWrite44ManilaWebsite/paul/articles/A_Peda
gogy_of_Multiliteracies_Designing_Social_Futures.htm.
O’Byrne, I. W. & McVerry, J. G. (in press). Develpoing an inrtument to measure the
dispositions of online reading comprehension. National Reading Conference
Yearbook. .
Philosophy Statement 12
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-75.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.
Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York: Grossman.
Shuell, T.J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56,
411-436.
Spiro, R. (2004). Principled pluralism for adaptive flexibility in teaching and learning to
read. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading
(5th ed., pp.654-659). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. I., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility,
constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge
acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 35, 24-33.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. L., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility,
constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge
acquisition in ill-structured domains. [Electronic Version] In T. Duffy and D.
Jonassesn (Eds.) Constructivism and the technology of instuction. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.
Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.