This is an overview of the application of the theory Perspectivism to Learning Development (LD). The structure of this overview broadly follows the structure of Perspective-Work: A model for Appraising Learning Development Practice given at ALDCon 2024.

My contention is that our theoretical language in learning development doesn’t yet describe learning development as powerfully as it could do. I believe that a theory called Perspectivism allows for this stronger description. It can also offer us a model for appraising daily practice, a model that I am calling perspective-work. This overview focuses on the broad theory and gives only a short overview of the appraisal model.

The Unique Position of LD Theory

Writing on Learning Development often focuses on trying to identify its unique position within higher education. Indeed this is the theme of the 2024 conference. Recent contributions to How to Be a Learning Developer in Higher Eduation (Syska and Bukley, 2024) examine this theoretical position and pick out the idea of what can be broadly called the third space. This space positions us as somewhere near or alongside students as they identify their own roles within their institutions (Johnson and Bishopp-Martin, 2024; Slawson and Eyre, 2024). In this way we engage with emancipatory work that aims to strengthen the student’s identity within the academy (Hilsdon, 2018). LD can be seen as the work between the student and their environment. This has been referred to in multiple ways, such as intermediaries and dialogue partners (Johnson and Bishopp-Martin, 2024), but the nature of this work has not yet been fully described. I suggest that the theoretical model of perspectivism allows for a fuller description of that work.

Perspectivism

The academic field

The term perspectivism as I am using it is referring to a tradition of aligned concepts that stems primarily from the work on cognition and self-organisation by the writers Maturana and Varela (1980; 1992). This tradition is discussed effectively by Alrøe and Noe (2012). There are parallels in this tradition to many aspects of complexity theory (Cilliers, 2002) and social systems theory (e.g. Luhmann, 2012).

The basic premise of perspectivism: perspective as action

The basic idea of perspectivism, is that perspective is not a passive process in which an objective reality is processed in order to ‘compute a behaviour adequate to the perceived situation’ (Maturana and Varela 1980, p.xiv). Instead it is an active and creative process in which the individual perceiver generates a world in which they then operate: ‘percpetion should not be viewed as a grasping of an external reality, but rather a specification of one’ (Maturana and Varela 1980, p.xv). The earlier biologist Von Uexkull (1982: 29-30) describes this as an Umwelt or ‘subjective universe’ and gives an example which I have quoted in full:

*Let us consider, for example, the stem of a blooming meadow-flower and ask ourselves which roles are assigned to it in the following four Umwelts:

In the Umwelt of a girl picking flowers, who gathers herself a bunch of colorful flowers that she uses to adorn her bodice;
In the Umwelt of an ant, which uses the regular design of the stem surface as the ideal path in order to reach its food-area in the flower petals;
In the Umwelt of a cicada-larva, which bores into the sap-paths of the stem and uses it to extract the sap in order to construct the liquid walls of its airy house;
In the Umwelt of a cow, which grasps the stems and the flowers in order to push them into its wide mouth and utilizes them as fodder.*

What is significant here is that these different versions of the same thing, the flowers, are not determined by their objective features but are instead determined by the individual perceiver. The self and the object being perceived are inseparable from each other. In a commonly quoted part of Maturana and Varela (1992: 26) this inseparability is expressed as showing us that ‘every act of knowing [perception] brings forth a world.’

Therefore, the actions, the thoughts, the beliefs, the language that can be used around any specific object are tied entirely to the individual’s perception of that object. We are engaged in a constant, active process, of creating the world around us and acting within the parameters of that world.

Perspectivism and learning development: parallels with academic literacies

I think that this idea from perspectivism is one that learning developers are consistently engaging with. Our foundational theory of academic literacies demonstrates that judgements of what constitutes academic literacy are bound to specific disciplines, institutions and teams. Work that has been done to apply the original ideas of academic literacies further in learning development often work on the clear idea that individuals actually determine what constitutes academic literacy. Indeed, in one-to-ones I find myself often clarifying to students that the marker’s decisions of this topic might change from day to day.

Where academic literacies focuses on the social and the community of practice, perspectivism allows us to apply the same ideas to an individual’s cognitive processes. As a fictional illustrative example we might take a learning outcome: ‘Critically analyse the principles of midwifery care’. If we imagine a class of 60 students and a marking team of four lecturers then we have 64 perspectives of that learning outcome. We have 64 “worlds” that exist around it, 64 sets of thoughts, feelings and actions that can be taken based on those worlds created by those perspectives.

I personally feel that this a fundamental feature of LD, that the recognition of this plurality, and the willingness to work alongside it, is almost what defines being a learning developer.

The theory though can extend to help us understand the process of how these perceptions come to be and how they can change. In doing so it can begin to provide a model for how learning development works.

Perspective-work — How perspectivism describes the working of perspective

The contention that I have expressed here is that Perspectivism improves our description of learning development. That what we are in fact doing is working with peoples’ perspectives of the academic world around them.

Perspectivism offers us something else and that is it can guide us on how to work with peoples’ perspectives. Due to this, I have started developing a critical appraisal model drawn from different expressions of the processes of forming and developing theory. The model, presented below, draws primarily from models from Niklas Luhmann (2012), as well as the foundational theories of Maturana and Varela (1992). I have adapted elements of them, both in line with the values of LD and with other ideas from the LD literature, particularly Academic Literacies.

The model discusses the idea of “the object” which is a purposefully broad term meaning anything that can be specified. This might range from the specific use of a piece of punctuation to the concept of academia itself. Take a hypothetical student who has received the feedback “your paragraph structure is unclear”. Our object, then, is something like “paragraph structure” or perhaps more simply “a paragraph” but may also refer to the unique paragraphs in her writing.

Opportunities for perspectives of…

The way I have been using the model is to take that the different sections of it are signposting us to places where we should provide students with the opportunity to “perceive” the object. This could take the form of reflection, talking through, describing and so forth. I have used the different areas as a sort of code, noting areas within teaching, developing resources and so forth that I have either supported, hindered, or overlooked these opportunities.

It might be noted that within the model there is no instruction for the actions of a learning developer beyond this providing of opportunity and no sense what makes one type of opportunity “better” than another. The reason for this, is that Perspectivism explains that learning really does happen within the individual. Its model of perspective focuses on the internal structure of the perceiver. In this the object, triggers internal changes to the system which we call thought, experience, learning and so on. As Maturana and Varela (1998, p.131) describe: ‘the structure of the environment cannot specify [the organism’s] changes, but can only trigger them.’ (p.131).

Therefore, we can only provide opportunities for perspective-work, we cannot control the nature of that, nor should we attempt to.

The object

The object itself is the core of perspective-work. The individual’s perspective is tied to the object and transforms it into a world in which the individual acts. This then is the core of the work we are doing, is supporting the student to better perceive the object.

Perspectivism’s focus is on the process by which an object is perceived. In short it focuses on the idea that perception works on a process of distinguishing and object (often called a unity) from its background or environment (Maturana and Varela 1992). This process of distinction is taken as essentially synonymous with perception.

If we take our example of “a paragraph” our student has to make a distinction between a paragraph and its environment (say: sentences, words, sections, introductions, points, argument). The way in which this distinction is made determines the nature of the object for the student.

This process is also applicable to the “inside” of the object: taking us distinguishing between parts of the object compared to the whole (opening sentences, closing sentences, sentence starters etc.).

Therefore, this section of the model is looking for chances for the students to determine their view of the object, consider how it relates to its environment, to consider that overtime and to try and “play with the object” by thinking about different ways it relates to the environment.

The Perspective

Most of the theoretical discussions make a distinction between a form of “first-order observation” and a “second order observation” (Luhmann 2012). The first is simply the perception of an object, and the second is the perception of perception. It is this that Maturana and Verela (1992, p.236) exort us to take as the purpose of their book from an ethical perspective, a focus on developing ‘[our] knowledge of [our] knowledge’. In short, in the idea of making a distinction we can see that there is always a ‘blind-spot’ where the perceiver is unaware of the nature of parts of that distinction. The idea of second-order observation is to look at that blind-spot.

Therefore, we need to find ways to try to see our own perceptions. This ties into reflective and meta cognitive ideas — asking students to consider the causes of their perceptions, their motivations and intentions, as well as their emotional connections.

Alternative perspective and authoritative perspectives

Despite Perspectivism’s emphasis on the internal changes to an individual through learning, it does not advocate for a solipsism. Perception is the way in which we interact with the world around us and it functions in close relation to the world around us. The distinctions we make around an object are informed by its background/environment. In the context of learning development this relates primarily to other ways of seeing the object. Either from a non-authoritative perspective, particularly that of the learning developer, or from authoritative perspectives, particularly that related to the institution and discipline.

A lot of our work takes place in the “other perspectives” space. Whereby we are presenting other ways of seeing the object which may allow for change in the student’s perspective of an object. Authoritative perspectives are those of the tutor which form a key part of the environment.

References

Alrøe, H. F. and Noe, E. (2012) ‘Observing Environments’, Constructivist Foundations, 8(1), pp. 39-52, http://constructivist.info/8/1/039.

Cilliers, P. (2002) Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. London: Routledge.

Hilsdon, J. (2018) The significance of the field of practice “Learning Development” in UK higher education. PhD Thesis. University of Plymouth. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.24382/1159 (Accessed: December 1, 2023).

Johnson, I. and Bishopp-Martin, S. (2024) “Conceptual Foundations in Learning Development,” in How to Be a Learning Developer in Higher Education: Critical Perspectives, Community and Practice. Taylor & Francis, pp. 15–24.

Luhmann, N. (2012) Introduction to Systems Theory. Polity.

Maturana H. R. and Varela F. J. (1992) The Tree of Knowledge. Revised edition. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Maturana H. R. and Varela F. J. (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Syska, A. and Buckley, C. (Eds.) (2024) How to Be a Learning Developer in Higher Education: Critical Perspectives, Community and Practice. Taylor & Francis.

Slawson, T. and Eyre, J. (2024) “Theory in LD,” in How to Be a Learning Developer in Higher Education: Critical Perspectives, Community and Practice. Oxford: Taylor & Francis, pp. 7-14.

Uexküll, J. von (1982) ‘The Theory of Meaning,’ Semiotica 42(1), pp. 39-52, https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1982.42.1.25

22 May 2024 Learning Development