Identity, Education, and Learning
by Jeff Bloom
Return to Series "Introduction & Table of Contents"
In this part, I’d like to delve into how learning affects our identities, as well as our relationships [[1]] to our identities. Although most of our learning seems to occur outside of formal educational contexts, I do want to devote some time to how schooling plays a significant role in identity formation and maintenance. But, let’s first explore our learning in everyday life.
From the moment we’re born, and probably a bit before that, we begin to develop an identity. In continuing with the Buddhist psychological perspective , this process begins with the realization that we have a body, that we take on a form. At some point, along the continuum of realizing we have bodies, comes the realization that we can feel “things.” This is the beginning of more full fledged perceptions. I suspect both of these begin before birth, although all of these processes continue throughout our lives. I want to insert a point of clarification here. These developmental aspects are not stages, per see, but may be best thought about as layers. And, they continue as part of our cognition that establishes and attempts to maintain the Buddhist version of “ego.” Up to this point, we might see that the beginnings of dualism are at play. We are noticing that there’s a “me” and there’s other stuff. The next set of cognitive processes are probably much more engaged after birth, when we engage a greater diversity of perception. We’re seeing for the first time, a fuzzy and light world. We’re hearing more and richer sounds. We’re feeling new sensations beyond the warm and soft-squishy places we’ve been in our mothers’ wombs. Then, we’re also beginning to label and categorize the things in our world. At first this is probably more a visual or visualization sort of process, which adds “words” as we learn language from listening and interacting with our parents and others. The coordination of all of these different processes is the final layer. Some scholars refer to this as the “consciousness” layer. As adults, all of these processes are going on as we maintain our sense of self, and especially as we go from one context or community to another. But, for the most part, we are rarely aware of any of these processes. They operate mostly below the surface, but contribute to our learning. It is likely that learning at this level sets up a groundwork of sorts for our relationships to other learning. I am not suggesting that these processes necessarily determine what and how we learn beyond this level of cognition, but rather I am suggesting that the way we relate to and utilize the learning that occurs in and outside of schools may be used to enhance and reinforce our sense of a solid, continuous self. Examples include, scholars who use their vast understandings to bolster their senses of self, or car mechanics who bolster their senses of a solid self on their knowledge and expertise in mechanical repair.
Relationships
- Relationships are not all-or-nothing processes or situations. Relationships vary along a continuum from rather sparse and weak interconnections to dense and strong interconnections.
- Relationships are dynamic sets of connections or a dynamic interplay between two or more ideas, entities, people, and so forth. We have relationships with other people, such as with friends, family, acquaintances, and those we do not like. An intimate partner is hopefully based on a wide variety of deep interconnections and interdependencies that are continually emerging and morphing. From another perspective, the more we really learn about some concept, the deeper and more extensive the interconnections between related ideas and even beyond to similar patterns and ideas in other contexts.
- Relationships suggest certain degrees of interdependency among ideas, entities, and so forth. Interdependency is more than a connection. In some ways is like the bricks in a wall. The wall is built of bricks with interdependencies to other bricks. From a biological perspective, each cell, tissue, and organ in our body is dependent upon other cells, tissues, and organs in a vast matrix of interdependencies. The same holds true for our conceptual understandings, with matrices of interdependencies among ideas.
- Relationships are not static, but involve continuous changes, adjustments, refinements, additions, and so forth. Much of this sort of dynamic occurs below our consciousness or awareness. Nothing is static in complex systems, such as in each cell in our bodies, in each person on Earth, in all of our knowledge, and so forth. To be static is to be dead, but even then what remains of our bodies feeds into larger contexts of living systems.
Learning
Much of our learning occurs through what Nora Bateson has called symmathesy.[[2]] Symmathesy is a sense of mutual learning or learning together that applies not only to individual people, but to and among other organisms, ecosystems, and social systems. In cognitive psychological and educational contexts, subsets of symmathesy include distributed cognition,[[3]] social cognition, [[4]] cultural psychology, [[5]] and situated cognition. [[6]] Almost all, if not all, learning occurs through encountering and/or, to use a technical term, schmoozing positively or negatively with other people, other organisms, our environments, and so forth.
All learning to one degree or another is contextual. We, ourselves, are contexts made of many other contexts (each cell, tissue, organ; our psychological contexts of meaning; [[7]] all of the microbiomes in our bodies). We learn all of the time, even though much of our learning goes unnoticed. Each step we take involves learning about the surfaces upon which we walk, run, trip over, fall, etc. We learn about variations in balance, motion, and all sorts of physical dynamics. If asked, we couldn’t really explain anything about what we’ve learned.
We learn as we calibrate our movements and our communication with others, etc. It’s much like dancing all of the time, where we adjust or calibrate our movements based on what our partner is doing; or like a jazz band improvising in response to other musicians and even the audience.
Our biases affect our learning in a large assortment of ways. We may learn new biases, reinforce or reject existing biases. Biases can taint, enrich, or diminish our learning. I love animals. I see a spider or a snake and I gravitate towards it. I may pick them up and observe them. Other people have much the opposite sort of bias towards animals.
Much of our learning involves stochastic processes. These processes are random and selective. I may be reading, watching a movie, or taking a walk, when an idea pops into my head. I don’t know about you, but most of these are junk ideas, but occasionally one of these random ideas triggers all sorts of connections, or rather, relationships to other ideas I’ve been pondering or to ideas I haven’t thought about for years. This latter sort of temporarily distant re-connection often happens with Gregory Bateson’s work and the work of other scholars in biology, sociology, anthropology, physics, chemistry, ecology, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the visual arts, music, sports, and sometimes, it connects in ways that are humorous. I absolutely love the humorous random selections! Symmathesy involves play, and my particular bias is that play is critical to learning deeply and extensively. Play requires a certain carefree attitude, the willingness to be a fool, the courage to take a leap. We can play through humor. We can play through trying something different or doing something in one or more different ways. We can play with ideas and fantasize different permutations and possibilities. We can play with objects. We can play with how we do the dishes and do the laundry.
Boundaries, or, as Tyler Volk refers to them, borders,[[8]] are always “areas” of rich learning opportunities. Just like the ecotones, or transitions zones between one ecosystem, such as a forest, and another ecosystem, such as a meadow, the boundaries we encounter in thinking, in our social activities, in our relationships, and in our physical activities always involve learning in all of the other aspects of symmathesy. The boundaries can be our biases or the biases of others, or any of a seemingly endless variety of possible visible and invisible boundaries. As nicely described by Edward T. Hall,[[9]] there are a number of spatial boundaries that we and all organisms have. There are, of course, cell members or cell walls and the outer layer of tissue surrounding multicellular organisms. But, then there are invisible spatial layers. According to Hall, for people, there is intimate or close personal space, far personal space, social space, and public space. These spaces or distances vary with culture, and to a lesser extent between people. We get uncomfortable if a stranger gets too close, especially when entering into our intimate space. In crowded subways or elevators, people don’t face each other, but if they have no choice, the look down or look up, and fold their arms. We also arrange our work spaces to establish the kind of spatial or in these cases relational spaces. When you enter an office and speak with someone sitting across the desk from you, the space and relational expectations are that of a more distant social space. If the desk faces a wall and you sit in a chair 2 or 3 feet away, you’ve been invited into personal space and a closer relationship. In other organisms, the same sorts of spaces occur but vary in their metamessaging. I once happened upon a rattlesnake in a forest in central Arizona. I stood about 8 feet away. The snake was alert, but relaxed. I moved a little closer. I could see him tense up. I moved still closer and he coiled up and raised his head. I moved a bit further and he relaxed and uncoiled. His version of personal or critical distance was about 6 feet. In the realm of plants, the tallest trees in a natural forest will avoid infringing upon the branches and leaves of neighboring trees. Walk in a forest and look up! But, we’re always encounter boundaries as we move through or nudge up against new contexts. Walking into a doctor’s, dentist’s, lawyer’s, or tax preparer’s office all involve entering different contexts with a sets of expectations and a variety of emotions.

Time is the last of the features or aspects of symmathesy. Relationships, learning, schmoozing, and so forth all occur over time. And, as Thomas Hylland Erickson [[10]] described, the dynamics of time, from slow time to fast time, has huge effects on our learning as individuals and societies.
Learning through symmathesetic and a large assortment of other processes occurs pretty much all of the time, whether we are in a classroom, at home, or walking through a city or forest. We are learning beings, as are all other living organisms. Learning also occurs in social groups and other bounded contexts such as ecosystems, ant colonies, corporations, and so forth. As we’ve seen, some learning is not particularly evident at the time of learning, while other learning is more intentional and evident. The whole of our learning creates what we refer to as our personal knowledge or, from a Batesonian perspective, as our personal epistemologies.
When we mention “learning” and “knowledge,” we usually think of the more formal meanings of these words — math algorithms, vocabulary words, historical events, some biological features and processes, and so on. And, all too often, we associate memorizing all kinds of material for classroom tests as a primary means of learning. But, we also may learn how to drive, how to write a paragraph, how to solve a math or physics problem, or how to repair a car. But, we learn our primary language or languages, depending on whether our families are monolingual, bilingual, or multilingual, without any instruction at all. We learn how to walk without instruction, although we may receive a bit of initial assistance. Such learning has an very sharp learning curve, especially with language, which is an incredibly abstract dynamic including a complex categorical system and a multilevel abstract representation system that includes metalanguage and metacommunication.
We also learn the cultural, social, and personal biases of our families, then those of our friends and larger social contexts. All of this learning affects our epistemologies. We may not be aware of these effects, but these biases along with emotions, values, aesthetics, interpretive frameworks, and other ways of acting, reacting, and making sense of things are embedded in our ways of thinking and our epistemologies. I’ve referred to this set of dynamic features and processes as Contexts of Meaning.[[11]] All of these processes and features contribute to how we make sense of our world. Even though the assumed intent of classroom learning is that all students “learn” the exact same thing in the exact same way, but that never happens. We all connect to, respond to, develop relationships among, and reformulate new ideas to fit within our own idiosyncratic epistemological or knowledge matrices. And, these matrices are not static. They are in a dynamic flux of adding to, moving, and reconfiguring our understandings and ways of thinking. Even our categorization schemes are undergoing modifications as new information is added or as we rethink our ideas, which again can be occurring below the surface of our conscious awareness.
School Learning
In formal schooling contexts, a lot of what is learned is not a part of the written or explicit curriculum or the lesson plans of teachers. In educational circles, this learning is referred to as part of the “null” and “hidden” or “implicit” curriculums.[[12]] The null curriculum involves what is not taught or addressed. Contemporary examples in some states in the U.S. include, not saying or teaching about slavery, gender identity, sexual preference, evolution, the Vietnam War, etc. Not teaching or mentioning is intended to diminish the relevance, knowledge, or importance of a particular concept, issue, etc. The hidden curriculum may be inferred in curriculum documents, a school’s vision statement, etc. It also may appear as “rules” created by principals and/or teachers. Other hidden curriculum messages occur often without any particular knowledge or intent by teachers. Organizing a classroom with desks in rows and the teacher’s desk at the front of the room sends an implicit message that the teacher is in charge and is the center of attention and that students are supposed to pay attention to the teacher and not interact with each other. In scholarly contexts, these sorts of messages that are implicit in the physical arrangements and processes of a particular context are referred to as manifestation of semiotics, [[13]] which is more or less the study of “signs” or “symbols.” These signs can be the placement of a desk in a classroom or office; the body language of a teacher, boss, employee; the vocal intonations of someone; etc. Gregory Bateson referred to this sort of messaging or communication as “metamessages” or “metacommunication.” [[14]] Bateson was particularly intrigued by how dogs managed to metacommunicate with other dogs that the bite they are making to their necks is play and not aggression. If you’ve observed dogs playing, this metacommunication works most of the time. Only occasionally do the messages get mixed up, but those mix ups are usually resolved fairly quickly.
Much of student learning from the null and hidden curriculums in almost all schools involves learning to obey authority figures, to conform to the expectations of authority figures, and to not challenge or question the action of authority figures,[[15]] which ultimately leads to learning how to live in an authoritarian state. Students who choose not to follow these mostly unwritten edicts end up being marginalized. They are often labelled as trouble-makers, having ADHD, having learning disabilities, and so forth. Many students grow up in families with distinct hierarchical authority structures. After leaving K-12 education, students enter colleges or universities or jobs in factories, offices, or other types of work that don’t require higher educational degrees. What they find in these new settings are a continuation of the authoritarian game book. They also may go to churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples, and still find the same game book. At some point, they may rent an apartment and find that the rules for living in these developments are similarly authoritarian, with penalties for late rents, loud noises, parking in the wrong spot, etc. Or, if they manage to buy a house, they may end up living in an HOA (Home Owners’ Association) development, which may sound like a nice democratic setting in which to live, but HOA’s are notorious for their extreme authoritarian “rule.” And, you may think you own your house, but the HOA can not only tell you what you can and can’t do with, to, or on “your” property, but they can fine you for failures to comply. And, if you don’t pay your fines, they can take possession of your house and have you removed. Although many of us live in so-called democratic societies, our day to day lives are pretty much controlled by authority figures of one sort or another. And, the big questions here are:
- How does growing up and living in these various contexts of society affect our identities?
- How do these contexts affect our beliefs, assumptions, expectations, and personal epistemologies or understandings about our “place,” our roles, and our participation in these contexts and in society as a whole?
- And, how do these contexts affect our view of interpersonal relationships, as well as how we develop and maintain relationships?
Identity Across the Continuum of Rigidity to Flexibility
Up to this point, we should have a taste of how we learn from a variety of contexts and how much of this learning contributes to our identities. What we have learned from families and schools are the major contexts of early life learning. And, this learning can have lasting effects on who we think we are. Growing up in a family before having to go to school lays the major groundwork or the major framework for the development of various qualities many of which can be viewed as continuums between binaries. Some examples include:

These and other qualities tend to be learned within the first 5 or so years of our lives, and most often from family members. And, these qualities set the stage for further learning in and out of schools and throughout our lifespans. However, major shifts to the left or right in these continuums can occur throughout one’s life. My early life was a bit to the right of center, but I can recall a few moments in my life between the ages of 7 and 20 that pushed me to the left on the first two of these continuums. The last four qualities were somewhere near the middle-left in my early life, but these positions began to move to the left beginning at about age 12 through the rest of my life.
I find the first five continuums to be relatively easy to understand in terms of how the familial dynamics can affect children. However, I have been perplexed, and saddened, by the extent of people’s aversion and fear of learning and knowledge. A major part of this aversion and fear has to do with a threat to one’s beliefs and identity, but that in itself is not a particularly satisfying explanation. Why is knowledge a threat? As human’s, we have the incredible ability to learn and understand all sorts of things. We can learn about Natzism, fascism, democracy, authoritarianism, capitalism, communism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so much more, but we don’t have to believe in any of it.
I do not know how or why I changed, but I suspect that I was open enough to allow various triggering events to start processes of re-assessing my life and learning. In educational research contexts, these processes of re-assessment seem to be related to what George Posner and Ken Strike called conceptual change.[[17]] “Conceptual” refers to big conceptions and beliefs, most of which have been developed early in one’s life. Changing these beliefs is not something that someone else, such as a teacher or parent, can “change” through some intentional process of teaching or whatever. Any conceptual change that occurs has to be a personal process, which is most likely embedded in other social contexts, such as what peer group social pressures. However, other people in our social world can trigger one’s re-assessment. I had two significant triggers. One was when I was in grade 10 and my chemistry teacher asked how my live shark was doing. I responded saying that she wasn’t doing well and all that was left to do was “pray.” He responded with an off-the-cuff quip: “won’t do any good.” That phrase stayed in my head and precipitated a major re-assessment and change in my thinking… and my identity. At the beginning of my sophomore year at university, I went to a welcoming event for new freshman. One of freshman was an attractive young woman from Georgia. At one point in our conversation, she asked me in her southern accent, “what to you think about the war in Vietnam?” Up to that point, I hadn’t put much thought into it, but that question precipitated another major re-assessment in my beliefs, ways of thinking, and identity.
The Effects of Learning on Identity Rigidity—Flexibility
The rigidity and flexibility of identity is another example of the complexity of living systems. There is no simple pathway to increasing or decreasing the flexibility of one’s own or someone else’s identity. Affecting or adjusting the rigidity—flexibility continuum involves trans-systemic, transcontextual, and a wide variety of other cognitive processes. Such a situation is classic complexity, even to the point of unpredictability. Thomas Hylland Eriksen and Elisabeth Schober [[18]] contended that learning can increase the flexibility of identities. However, Mark Bracher [[19]] contends that learning can be a threat to one’s identity and further entrench and solidify the rigidity of one’s identity. Learning, both in and out of schools, can trigger defensive reactions as well as questioning and re-assessing reactions.
The dynamic between learning and the rigidity-flexibility of identity is affected by a large number of factors including emotional states and various psychological characteristics like openness to new ideas, curiosity, the personal experiences you’ve had, your biases, beliefs, assumptions, sense of humor, your self-confidence and sense of security, your values, your social and cultural contexts, etc. But, there does seem to be a correlation between how much formal education one has and one’s degree of identity flexibility. Is this due directly to education? We don’t really know. But, there seems to be a pattern that people with more education tend to go into work place contests that require shifting identities depending on the context. And, for many, who actually attend a college or university as opposed to taking courses online, the university context often provides a wide variety of intermixing of people with diverse backgrounds, interests, abilities, and appearances. The learning that occurs from diverse relationships goes a long way towards understanding diversity, as well as developing empathy with others, both of which can affect the flexibility of identity.
Schooling and the Rigidity—Flexibility of Identity
Schooling can affect our identities along a rigidity—flexibility continuum. However, schools alone are not the singular factor in affecting student identity, but schools can be major contributors. A lot depends on individual students and their willingness to submit to the forces of schooling.
Schooling tends to emphasize efficiency in the “delivery” of knowledge, without any concern for how children learn and make sense of new content knowledge. This is a huge problem, which is exacerbated by presenting fragmented bits of information with very little context. And, as Gregory Bateson stated, without context there is no meaning.[[20]] So, what students “learn” has very little cohesiveness, depth, or meaning.
In addition, much of schooling trivializes knowledge. Such trivialization is not necessarily intentional at the level of the teacher and the classroom. But, at the level of curriculum designers, publishers, and creators of education standards, if trivialization is not intentional, it is certainly highly irresponsible of the people who should know better. An example of curriculum trivialization can be seen in a video that accompanies McGraw Hill’s middle school social studies program. In two minutes and 40 seconds, the video takes a broad, sweeping view of how the printing press affected the American Revolution.[[21]] The video starts with a brief look at social media in the present day and draws a direct comparison to the development of the printing press. But, this beginning is an astoundingly awful one. They begin by talking about how social media can be used to spread news very quickly. That’s it! There is no mention of how social media spreads misinformation, disinformation, hate, misogyny, and other problematic information. The video mentions nothing about the role of social media in propagating hate groups, including localized, mini-hate cliques in schools. They only say that social media can help organize protests and revolutions, like the early printing press did. And, there’s no mention of the printing press and social media as vehicles for propaganda. Although the idea of the video is an interesting one, the video falls way, way, way too short of having any degree of depth and complexity needed to develop a reasonably thorough grasp of the social, economic, and political intricacies of the time and the broader patterns that manifest throughout time. A more rigorous approach to the topic should be through exploration and inquiry projects, as well as through a great deal of discussion among students. This topic could be an incredibly dynamic and important topic to delve into through historical and contemporary inquiry. But, our educational systems do not promote or value the development of in-depth understandings about anything.
Such trivialization does nothing to support the development of flexible identities based on rich understandings of the world in which we live. Trivialization of subject matter leads only to faulty and biased understandings. Our systems of education tend to follow a pattern of “teaching” trivialized conceptual and factual content, fragmented information devoid of depth and context, and even out-right fallacious information (not all of the time, but far too frequently).[[22]] The results of such patterns of education not only can lead to long term negative effects of knowledge and identity, but also can be detrimental to the well-being of individuals and society.
On the other hand, schooling can contribute to developing flexible identities. I was fortunate to have a few good teachers who opened up different perspectives and experiences for me in junior and senior high school, but not all children have such luck. But, there are teachers in K-12, who promote children’s playing with different identities. [[23]] In college and university, the opportunities for developing flexible identities are more common. Colleges and universities that have more heterogeneous student and faculty populations tend to offer much greater opportunities for learning about different people, cultures, and belief systems than do more institutions that have more homogeneous faculty and students, which often parallels institutions focused on propagating a particular belief system agenda.
As one moves further through the education system, the more you are exposed to taking on different identities. In medical school, students are encouraged in various ways to adopt the identity of a “doctor.” In business school, students are encouraged to adapt identities of business administrators. In biology, students are encouraged to “become” research biologists. And, some professional tracts require multiple flexible identities. Whether all educational programs encourage flexible identities is not certain, but the professions where multiple, flexible identities are useful include: flight attendants, K-12 school teachers, nurses, social workers, therapists, and physicians. But, I suspect, and maybe this is wishful thinking, that everyone in every profession or vocation would benefit from having flexible identities.
Explorations
- Can you think of any triggering events that precipitated a change in how you thought about yourself, your beliefs, or any other significant feature of your thinking and knowledge?
- Can you think of any instances in your schooling that developed a deep understanding of the experience of living in a democracy?
- Can you think of any instances in your schooling that developed a deep understanding of the experience of living in some other approach to social organization that was not democratic?
- How would you place yourself on a continuum of “comfort with” from obeying and conforming with authority figures TO questioning and defying authority figures if you disagree with their commands?
Return to Series "Introduction & Table of Contents"
NOTES
[[1]] Gregory Bateson maintained that we live in a world of relationships. (Bateson, G., 1979/2002; Bateson, N., 2011)
[[2]] Bateson, N. (2016)
[[3]] Cárdenas-García (2013), Cárdenas-García & Ireland (2017), Michaelian & Sutton (2013)
[[4]] Junttila, et al. (2022), Varnum, et al. (2010)
[[5]] Cohen & Kitayama (2019), Price-Williams (1975), Shweder (1991)
[[6]] Ibáñez & García (2018), Kirshner & Whitson (1997), Robbins & Aydede (2009)
[[7]] Bloom (1990; 1990, April; 1992; 1995)
[[8]] Volk (1995)
[[9]] Hall (1966)
[[10]] Ericksen (2001)
[[11]] Bloom (1990; 1990, April; 1992; 1995)
[[12]] Eisner (1979); Gatto (1991)
[[13]] Bopry (2002); Gautam & Kak (2013); Thomas (1987); Wąsik (2014)
[[14]] Barnlund (1981); Bateson (1972/2000, 1979/2002, 1991)
[[15]] Wood (1990)
[[16]] Bracher (2006) — The notion of “aversion to &/or fear of learning” mostly applies to formal, school learning as opposed to the everyday learning that occurs all of the time.
[[17]] Strike, Posner, Hewson, & Gertzog (1982); Strike & Posner (1985, 1992) — Almost all researchers and educators misinterpreted their work as a model of changing students’ concepts, rather than as an explanation of how big conceptions and beliefs may or may not change.
[[18]] Eriksen & Schober (2016)
[[19]] Bracher (2006)
[[20]] Bateson (1979/2002)
[[21]] An example video “United States History Video” from McGraw-Hills social studies curriculum collection: Secondary Social Studies Middle School | McGraw Hill
[[22]] Gatto (1991); Loewen (2007); Oliver & Gershman (1989); Postman & Weingarten (1969), Wood (1990)
[[23]] Gallas (1997); Hunter (2013); Lawy (2006); Paley (1990)
REFERENCES
Barnlund, D. C. (1981). Toward an ecology of communication. In C. Wilder & J. H. Weakland (Eds.), Rigor & Imagination: Essays from the Legacy of Gregory Bateson (pp. 87-126). New York: Praeger.
Bateson, G. (1970/2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bateson, G. (1979/2002). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Bateson, G. (1991). Sacred unity: Further steps to an ecology of mind (R. E. Donaldson, Ed.). New York: A Cornelia & Michael Bessie Book/Harper Collins.
Bateson, N. (2010). An Ecology of Mind: A Daughter’s Portrait of Gregory Bateson.
Bateson, N. (2015). Symmathesy: A Word in Progress. Nora Bateson. https://norabateson.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/symmathesy-a-word-in-progress/
Bateson, N. (2016). Small Arcs of Larger Circles: Framing Through Other Patterns. Axminster, UK: Triarchy Press.
Bloom, J. W. (1990). Contexts of meaning: Young children’s understanding of biological phenomena. International Journal of Science Education, 12(5), 549–561.
Bloom, J. W. (1990, April). Methodological perspectives in assessing and extending the scope of children’s contexts of meaning: Context maps and drawings. American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Bloom, J. W. (1992). The development of scientific knowledge in elementary school children: A context of meaning perspective. Science Education, 76(4), 399–413.
Bloom, J. W. (1995). Assessing and extending the scope of children’s contexts of meaning: Context maps as a methodological perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 167–187.
Bopry, J. (2002). Semiotics, Epistemology, and Inquiry. Teaching & Learning: The Journal of Natural Inquiry and Reflective Practice, 17(1), 5–18.
Bracher, M. (2006). Radical Pedagogy: Identity, generativity, and social transformation. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Cárdenas-García, J. F. (2013). Distributed Cognition: An Ectoderm-Centric Perspective. Biosemiotics, 6(3), 337–350.
Cárdenas-García, J. F., & Ireland, T. (2017). Human Distributed Cognition from an Organism-in-Its-Environment Perspective. 1–14.
Cohen, D., & Kitayama, S. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of cultural psychology (Second edition). New York: The Guilford Press.
Eisner, E. W. (1979). The Educational Imagination. New York: Macmillan.
Eriksen, T. H. (2001). Tyranny of the moment: Fast and slow time in the information age. London, UK: Pluto Press.
Eriksen, T. H., & Schober, E (2016). Introduction: The Art of Belonging in an Overheated World. In T. H. Eriksen and E. Schober (Eds.), Identity destabilised: Living in an overheated world (pp. 1–19). London, UK: Pluto Press.
Gallas, K. (1997). Sometimes I Can Be Anything: Power, Gender, and Identity in a Primary Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gatto, J. (1991). Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.
Gautam, A., & Kak, S. (2013). Symbols, Meaning, and Origins of Mind. Biosemiotics, 6(3), 301–310.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Anchor/Doubleday.
Hunter, J. (2013). World peace and other 4th-grade achievements. Boston, MA: Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Ibáñez, A., & García, A. M. (2018). Contextual cognition: The sensus communis of a situated mind. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
Junttila, S., Valros, A., Mäki, K., Väätäjä, H., Reunanen, E., & Tiira, K. (2022). Breed differences in social cognition, inhibitory control, and spatial problem-solving ability in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Scientific Reports, 12(1), 22529.
Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (1997). Situated cognition. New York: Routledge.
Lawy, R. (2006). Connective learning: Young people’s identity and knowledge‐making in work and non‐work contexts. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(3), 325–340.
Loewen, J. W. (2007). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong. New York: Touchstone.
Michaelian, K., & Sutton, J. (2013). Distributed Cognition and Memory Research: History and Current Directions. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(1), 1–24.
Oliver, D. W., & Gershman, K. W. (1989). Education, modernity, and fractured meaning: Toward a process theory of teaching and learning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Paley, V. G. (1990). The boy who would be a helicopter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Postman, N., & Weingartner, C. (2007). Teaching As a Subversive Activity. New York: Delta Book.
Price-Williams, D. R. (1975). Explorations in Cross-Cultural Psychology. San Francisco, CA: Chandler & Sharp Publications.
Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shweder, R. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Strike, K. A., Posner, G. J., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
Strike, K. A. & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In West, L. H. T., & Pines, A. L. (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl and R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147-176). New York: State University of New York.
Thomas, D. W. (1987). Semiotics: The Pattern Which Connects. The American Journal of Semiotics, 5(2), 291–302.
Varnum, M. E. W., Grossmann, I., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2010). The Origin of Cultural Differences in Cognition: The Social Orientation Hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 9–13.
Wąsik, Z. (2014). Lectures on the epistemology of semiotics. Wrocław, Poland: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Filologicznej we Wrocławiu.
Wood, G. (1990). Teachers as Curriculum Workers. In J. T. Sears & J. D. Marshall (Eds.), Teaching and thinking about curriculum (pp. 97–109). New York: Teachers College Press.
© 2024 by Jeffrey W Bloom
SHARE:
PLEASE RATE:
This series is very grounding and slows down the rush. I find myself travelling out with the author. Thought clusters.…