ABSTRACT

In this essay, I explore a disagreement with my friend Theodore (Ted) Schatzki about learning. Specifically, the dispute is between views of learning presented in the (2017) book edited by Peter Grootenboer, Christine Edwards-Groves and Sarojni Choy, Practice Theory Perspectives on Pedagogy and Education: Praxis, diversity, and contestation, specifically Schatzki’s ‘Chapter 2: Practices and learning’ and Kemmis, Edwards-Groves, Lloyd, Grootenboer, Hardy and Wilkinson ‘Chapter 3: Learning as being ‘stirred in’ to practices’. Schatzki thinks practice theory can accept the ‘standard’ view of learning as the acquisition of knowledge. I aim to secure an alternative view: that practice theory offers a different conception of learning as happening in the reproduction (with variation) and transformation of practices, and the production of new practices – but the argument also leads me to conclude that learning itself is not a practice.

摘要

在这篇文章中，我探讨了与我的朋友 Theodore (Ted) Schatzki 关于学习的分歧。具体而言，争议发生在 Peter Grootenboer、Christine Edwards-Groves 和 Sarojni Choy 编辑的（2017 年）书中提出的学习观点之间，《教学法和教育实践理论观点：实践、多样性和争论》，特别是 Schatzki 的“第 2 章”：实践和学习”以及 Kemmis、Edwards-Groves、Lloyd、Grootenboer、Hardy 和 Wilkinson“第 3 章：学习被‘搅拌’到实践中”。Schatzki 认为实践理论可以接受将学习视为知识获取的“标准”观点。我的目标是确保另一种观点：实践理论提供了一种不同的学习概念，就像发生在实践的复制（带有变化）和转化，以及新实践的产生——但这个论点也让我得出结论，学习本身不是一种实践。