It’s that ‘back to school’ time of year, and this week I have been training some staff from a residential college for young adults. During the sessions we got to discussing the nature of what students learn when given access to Intensive Interaction.
To further that discussion, below I set out (actually mainly just copy) a section from a chapter I wrote a while ago for the book ‘Intensive Interaction: Theoretical Perspectives‘ (Ed D. Hewett, 2011. Sage Publications). As knowledge and knowledge creation are a bit tricky to explain, then so is this excerpt, but please give it a go … you never know, some new ‘knowing’ might be created! Here we go then …
Some discussion on the nature of ‘knowledge’ with respect to Intensive Interaction …
As well as undertaking an analysis of the learning processes involved in Intensive Interaction, a similar analysis might be useful when looking to understand the nature of any actual learning thus created. However, there are a number of competing views or interpretations as to the actual nature of any learning or knowledge that accrues or is constructed from engaging in different types of learning activities.
Initially, and perhaps simplistically, if we were to analyse the engagement of a person with learning disabilities in the process of Intensive Interaction, this might lead us to view their learning in terms of them developing, or ‘constructing’ an individual understanding of the nature and uses of fundamental communication and sociability practices [e.g. the communicative nature and uses of eye contact, physical contact, vocalisations, joint behavioural sequencing and/or turn-taking, etc.]
Of course, not all the learning takes place on the part of the learning-disabled person, and it could be argued that during the early ‘social inclusion’ process (Firth, 2008) of Intensive Interaction, any learning that does accrue will most likely be that developed by the practitioner or communication partner. Thus practical engagement in the process of Intensive Interaction will facilitate the development of ‘procedural knowledge’ (i.e. knowledge of procedures and/or practical actions) on the part of the practitioner about what a person with a communicative or social impairment can and will actually do in terms of their communication practice.
More generally, proponents of differing theoretical perspectives hold differing views as to the nature of any knowledge that results from a given learning experience. According to one theoretician, Sfard (1998) there are two distinct metaphorical categorisations or conceptualisations that can be applied to knowledge itself, and although she argued that discreet metaphorical categorisations can be problematic, the use of such conceptual metaphors can help us reflect on the processes underlying different learning scenarios.
Firstly Sfard identifies an acquisition metaphor for knowledge, and this is applicable in circumstances when a learner is seen to be individually accumulating or even passively absorbing discrete and unproblematic knowledge in such a way that it can be applied to, or recalled and used individualistically within a given situation. When conceptualising learning in such metaphorical terms, any knowledge is seen as being abstracted from any process of task performance, and therefore is viewed as a decontextualized cognitive representation or structure. Such knowledge is sometimes termed declarative, conceptual and/or theoretical knowledge, and is the type that can be recalled, expressed and shared, mainly through symbolic means.
In contrast, Sfard’s participation metaphor replaces the idea of acquired decontextualized knowledge with a more adaptive conceptualisation of learning, where ‘knowing’ replaces the idea of ‘having knowledge’ and participation in activities is seen as analytically more relevant than the acquisition and storage of knowledge through individualised cognitive structures.
When using such a participation metaphor as an analytic tool, instead of an experience being seen to generate decontextualized knowledge, this view is replaced by the concept of contextualised or ‘situated’ knowing, with such knowing being seen as ‘inseparable from the occasions and activities of which it is the product’ (Bredo, 1999). As such this knowing could be viewed as synonymous with the ‘aspects of practice’ associated with the ‘Community of Practice’ model (Lave & Wenger, 1991), such knowing being postulated as being created through collaborative participation in authentic activity where ‘things gain meaning by being used in a shared experience or joint action’ (Dewey, 1916, in Bredo, 1999).
Such knowledge, or knowing, is therefore viewed as socially diffuse in nature, i.e. it is distributed socially or held collectively by the participants in the given activity. Indeed, the social context for knowledge application and expression is seen as inseparable from the collaborative process of knowledge creation, with both processes contemporaneously occurring, where ‘knowledge guides action, and action guides knowledge’ (McCormick, 1999).
Using the more dynamic descriptive term of ‘knowing’ where knowledge can be seen as more ‘situated’ or even tacit within an activity, such knowledge can in reality only be revealed or expressed when a person is actually engaged in that activity. Such tacit ‘knowing’ is often not available to us to symbolically express or reflect on outside of the context of the activity to which it is related.
Furthermore, from this socio-cultural or ‘situated’ perspective, it is the level of active participation in any activity that is seen as significant, rather than an individual’s possession of, or ability to recall decontextualized knowledge. As far as Intensive Interaction is concerned, instead of the participants accumulating decontextualized individual ‘knowledge’, the collaboratively constructed interactional processes allows for the development of skills or specific ‘aspects of practice’ related to social interaction or fundamental communication, thus illustrating the ‘context specific nature of knowledge’ (McCormick, 1999).
Another issue seen as significant from the socio-cultural viewpoint is the inter-connectedness of knowledge construction and notions of individual identity or esteem, and according to Greeno et al (1999) there is ‘a duality between membership in a community and issues of self-perception and identity’. Barbara Rogoff, a leading proponent of the socio-cultural view, highlighted ‘identity’ as highly significant when proposing that ‘the formation of a sense of identity is learning, and the identity itself is knowledge’ (1999). Thus a person’s view of themselves, or their sense of their own agency and esteem, should never be too far from our minds when we engage in potential learning activities, and perhaps this is especially so if the learner has severe or profound intellectual disabilities and/or autism.
From the Intensive Interaction practitioner’s point of view, a change in identity for a learner from someone who is a socially passive individual, to someone who sees themselves as both socially significant and an active participant in increasingly sophisticated social interactions may be their most significant learning outcome. Thus Intensive Interaction can empower people as active participants in the process of learning about themselves and others as social beings, promoting their sense of esteem and social agency, which according to Bruner (1999) ‘are central to the construction of a concept of self’.
… so, from all that quite complex stuff above, I think we should all understand that it is vitally important that those who have power over the provision of education for our students (i.e. teachers, heads, management, governors, inspectors, and even ministers … especially those who don’t ‘just sit on their arses!‘) need to be knowledgeable about, and fully support, services that use Intensive Interaction to provide this kind of fundamental, participatory, socially situated learning.
References:
Bredo, E. ‘Reconstructing Educational Psychology’. Learners, Learning & Assessment, Murphy, P. (Ed) (1999), London, Chapman Publishing.
Bruner, J. (1996) The Culture of Education, Cambridge, Ma., Harvard University Press.
Dewey, J. (1916) ‘Democracy in Education’ in Bredo, E. ‘Reconstructing Educational Psychology’. Learners, Learning & Assessment, Murphy, P. (Ed) (1999), London, Chapman Publishing.
Firth, G. (2008) ‘A Dual Aspect Process Model of Intensive Interaction’. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 43–49.
Greeno, J., Pearson, P. & Schoenfeld, A. (1999) ‘Achievement and Theories of Knowing and Learning’. McCormick, R. & Paechter, C. (Eds), Learning & Knowledge, London, Chapman Publishing.
Lave, J. & Wenger E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. CUP, New York.
McCormick, R. ‘Practical Knowledge: A View from the Snooker Table’. Learning & Knowledge, McCormick, R. & Paechter, C. (Eds) (1999), London, Chapman Publishing.
Nind, M. & Thomas, G. (2005) ‘Reinstating the value of teachers’ tacit knowledge for the benefit of learners: using ‘Intensive Interaction’, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 5, 3, 97-100.
Rogoff, B. ‘Cognitive Development through Social Interaction: Vygotsky and Piaget’. Learners, Learning & Assessment, Murphy, P. (Ed) (1999), London, Chapman Publishing.
Sfard, A. (1998) ‘On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one’. Educational Researcher 27 (2), 4-13.
Connecting with Intensive Interaction 