A Method and Model for Studying the Learning of Body Techniques: Analyzing Bodily Transposition in Dinghy Sailing

  • Joacim Andersson
  • Jim Garrison
  • Leif Östman
Chapter
Part of the The Cultural and Social Foundations of Education book series (CSFE)

Abstract

This chapter introduces the SER model and PEA method as elaborated tools to empirically answer three paradigmatic questions about learning: (a) how learning is connected to continuity and change, (b) what constitutes learning, and (c) what influences learning. The SER model draws on Dewey’s theory of inquiry and the distinctions between anoetic experience, significant and immanent meaning while the first-person perspective and transactionalism is used to provide a primarily transactional understanding of PEA. This framework is then applied to the mobility practice of dinghy sailing and an empirical analysis that explains the process and content of learning the body technique of roller-tacking is employed. In so doing, the SER model provides descriptions and explanations regarding learning processes and products from data collected using PEA.

Keywords

Anoetic experience Transactionalism Sailing Roller-tacking 

Bibliography

  1. Almqvist, J., & Östman, L. (2006). Privileging and artifacts: On the use of information technology in science education. Interchange, 37(3), 225–250.Google Scholar
  2. Altman, B., & Rogoff, B. (1987). Worldviews in psychology: Trait, interactional, organismic and transactional perspectives. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 7–40). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Andersson, J., & Garrison, J. (2016). Embodying meaning: Qualities, feelings, selective attention, and habits. Quest, 68(2), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson, J., & Östman, L. (2015). A transactional way of analysing the learning of ‘tacit knowledge’. Interchange, 46(3), 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson, J., Östman, L., & Öhman, M. (2015). I am sailing—Towards a transactional analysis of ‘body techniques’. Sport, Education and Society, 20(6), 722–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cavell, S. (1999). The claim of reason: Wittgenstein, skepticism, morality and tragedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, A. (1998). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Fann, K. T. (1993). Ludwig Wittgenstein. En introduktion. Göteborg: Daidalos. (Original work published 1969. Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
  10. Fogel, A. (2009). What is transaction? In A. Sameroff (Ed.), The transactional model of development (pp. 271–280). Washington, DC: Americano Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  11. Gendlin, E. (1997). Experiencing and the creation of meaning – A philosophical and psychological approach to the subjective. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gould, D. (2010). On affect and protest. In J. Staiger, A. Cvetkovich, & A. Reynolds (Eds.), Political emotions: New agendas in communication (pp. 18–44). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Hartig, T. (1993). Nature experience in transactional perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 25, 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hedberg, J. (1999). Exit, segling i små båtar: dokumentär av en döende art (Exit, small boat sailing: a documentary about a dying art). Norway: Exit bokförlag.Google Scholar
  15. Hofverberg, H., & Maivorsdotter, N. (2017). Recycling, crafting and learning – An empirical analysis of how students learn with garments and textile refuse in a school remake project. Environmental Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1338672.
  16. Jakobson, B., & Wickman, P.-O. (2008). The roles of aesthetic experience in elementary school science. Research in Science Education, 38, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. James, W. (1907/1975). Pragmatism. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, M. (2007). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klaar, S., & Öhman, J. (2012). Action with friction: A transactional approach to toddlers’ physical meaning making of natural phenomena and processes in preschool. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 20(3), 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. AMC, 10, 12.Google Scholar
  21. Lave, J. (1996). The practice of learning. In S. Chaklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice. Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lehman, D. R., Chiu, C.-Y., & Schaller, M. (2004). Psychology and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 689–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lidar, M., Lundquist, E., & Östman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom. Science Education, 90(1), 148–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maivorsdotter, N., & Quennerstedt, M. (2012). The act of running: A practical epistemology analysis of aesthetic experience in sport. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 4(3), 362–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maivorsdotter, N., & Wickman, P. O. (2011). Skating in a life context: Examining the significance of aesthetic experience in sport using practical epistemology analysis. Sport, Education and Society, 16(5), 613–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Massumi, B. (1995). The autonomy of affect. Cultural Critique, (31), 83–109.Google Scholar
  27. Monk, R. (1991). Ludwig Wittgenstein – The duty of genius. London: Cape.Google Scholar
  28. Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2007). Continuity and change in moral meaning-making—A transactional approach. Journal of Moral Education, 36(2), 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Östman, L. (2010). ESD and discursivity: Transactional analyses of moral meaning making and companion meanings. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Östman, L., & Wickman, P.-O. (2001). Practical epistemology, learning and socialisation. Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.Google Scholar
  31. Pepper, SC. (1942/1970). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  32. Quennerstedt, M. (2013). Practical epistemologies in physical education practice. Sport, Education and Society, 18(3), 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth, Philosophical papers (Vol. I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Sameroff, A. (Ed.). (2009). The transactional model of development: How children and context shape each other. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  36. Shilling, C. (2012). The body and social theory. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shilling, C. (2016). Body pedagogics: Embodiment, cognition and cultural transmission. Sociology.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038516641868.
  38. Shilling, C. (2017). Embodying culture: Body pedagogics, situated encounters and empirical research. The Sociological Review.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026117716630.
  39. Shilling, C., & Mellor, P. A. (2007). Cultures of embodied experience: Technology, religion and body pedagogics. The Sociological Review, 55(3), 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stenlund, S. (2000). Filosofiska uppsatser [Philosophical essays]. Skellefteå: Norma.Google Scholar
  41. Stokols, D. (1988). Transformational processes in people-environment relations. In J. E. MacGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time (pp. 233–252). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Sullivan, S. (2001). Living across and through skins. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Van Poeck, K., & Östman, L. (2017). Creating space for ‘the political’ in environmental and sustainability education practice: A political move analysis of educators’ actions. Environmental Education Research.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1306835.
  44. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wickman, P.-O. (2006). Aesthetic experience in science education: Learning and meaning-making as situated talk and action. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2001). Students’ practical epistemologies during laboratory work. Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.Google Scholar
  47. Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002a). Induction as an empirical problem: How students generalize during practical work. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002b). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86(5), 601–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joacim Andersson
    • 1
  • Jim Garrison
    • 2
  • Leif Östman
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Health SciencesÖrebro UniversityÖrebroSweden
  2. 2.Learning Sciences & TechVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  3. 3.Teacher EducationUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations