Key word "ecological dynamics"
Abrahamson D. (2021) Enactivist How? Rethinking Metaphorizing as Imaginary Constraints Projected on Sensorimotor Interaction Dynamics. Constructivist Foundations 16(3): 275–278. https://cepa.info/7156
Abrahamson D.
(
2021)
Enactivist How? Rethinking Metaphorizing as Imaginary Constraints Projected on Sensorimotor Interaction Dynamics.
Constructivist Foundations 16(3): 275–278.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/7156
Open peer commentary on the article “Enactive Metaphorizing in the Mathematical Experience” by Daniela Díaz-Rojas, Jorge Soto-Andrade & Ronnie Videla-Reyes. Abstract: Welcoming their scholarly focus on metaphorizing, I critique Díaz-Rojas, Soto-Andrade and Videla-Reyes’s selection of the hypothetical constructs “conceptual metaphor” and “enactive metaphor” as guiding the epistemological positioning, educational design, and analytic interpretation of interactive mathematics education purporting to operationalize enactivist theory of cognition - both these constructs, I argue, are incompatible with enactivism. Instead, I draw on ecological dynamics to promote a view of metaphors as projected constraints on action, and I explain how mathematical concepts can be grounded in perceptual reorganization of motor coordination. I end with a note on how metaphors may take us astray and why that, too, is worthwhile.
Hutto D. D. & Sanchez-Garda R. (2015) Choking RECtified: Embodied expertise beyond Dreyfus. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14(2): 309–331. https://cepa.info/5802
Hutto D. D. & Sanchez-Garda R.
(
2015)
Choking RECtified: Embodied expertise beyond Dreyfus.
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14(2): 309–331.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/5802
On a Dreyfusian account performers choke when they reflect upon and interfere with established routines of purely embodied expertise. This basic explanation of choking remains popular even today and apparently enjoys empirical support. Its driving insight can be understood through the lens of diverse philosophical visions of the embodied basis of expertise. These range from accounts of embodied cognition that are ultra conservative with respect to representational theories of cognition to those that are more radically embodied. This paper provides an account of the acquisition of embodied expertise, and explanation of the choking effect, from the most radically enactive, embodied perspective, spelling out some of its practical implications and addressing some possible philosophical challenges. Specifically, we propose: (i) an explanation of how skills can be acquired on the basis of ecological dynamics; and (ii) a non-linear pedagogy that takes into account how contentful representations might scaffold skill acquisition from a radically enactive perspective.
Hutto D. D., Kirchhoff M. D. & Abrahamson D. (2015) The enactive roots of STEM: Rethinking educational design in mathematics. Educational Psychology Review 27(3): 371–389. https://cepa.info/5075
Hutto D. D., Kirchhoff M. D. & Abrahamson D.
(
2015)
The enactive roots of STEM: Rethinking educational design in mathematics.
Educational Psychology Review 27(3): 371–389.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/5075
New and radically reformative thinking about the enactive and embodied basis of cognition holds out the promise of moving forward age-old debates about whether we learn and how we learn. The radical enactive, embodied view of cognition (REC) poses a direct, and unmitigated, challenge to the trademark assumptions of traditional cognitivist theories of mind – those that characterize cognition as always and everywhere grounded in the manipulation of contentful representations of some kind. REC has had some success in understanding how sports skills and expertise are acquired. But, REC approaches appear to encounter a natural obstacle when it comes to understanding skill acquisition in knowledge-rich, conceptually based domains like the hard sciences and mathematics. This paper offers a proof of concept that REC’s reach can be usefully extended into the domain of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning, especially when it comes to understanding the deep roots of such learning. In making this case, this paper has five main parts. The section “Ancient Intellectualism and the REC Challenge” briefly introduces REC and situates it with respect to rival views about the cognitive basis of learning. The “Learning REConceived: from Sports to STEM?” section outlines the substantive contribution REC makes to understanding skill acquisition in the domain of sports and identifies reasons for doubting that it will be possible to apply the same approach to knowledge-rich STEM domains. The “Mathematics as Embodied Practice” section gives the general layout for how to understand mathematics as an embodied practice. The section “The Importance of Attentional Anchors” introduces the concept “attentional anchor” and establishes why attentional anchors are important to educational design in STEM domains like mathematics. Finally, drawing on some exciting new empirical studies, the section “Seeing Attentional Anchors” demonstrates how REC can contribute to understanding the roots of STEM learning and inform its learning design, focusing on the case of mathematics.
Export result page as:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·