Exploring the Conceptual Frameworks Guiding Developmental Research and Practice in Higher Education: Some Challenges for Transdisciplinary Work ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Article
Human Development 2021;65:1–18 Received: October 22, 2020
Accepted: December 2, 2020
DOI: 10.1159/000514553 Published online: March 10, 2021
Exploring the Conceptual Frameworks Guiding
Developmental Research and Practice in Higher
Education: Some Challenges for Transdisciplinary
Work
Nancy Budwig a Achu Johnson Alexander b
a Department
of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA; b Department of Psychology, Anna Maria College,
Paxton, MA, USA
Keywords others using some aspects of the relational-developmental
Transdisciplinarity · Relational-developmental paradigm · paradigm. We highlight the importance of examining the
Agency · Process · Holism · Identity formation · Higher conceptual frameworks guiding developmental scholarship
education and practice, suggesting that alignment of conceptual
frameworks is an essential ingredient for progress in trans-
disciplinary scholarship and practice to take place. Concep-
Abstract tualizations at the metatheoretical level condition each and
This article examines questions initially raised at a meeting every aspect of theory, research, and practice, giving mean-
that took place 50 years ago on the topic of the development ing to both theoretical and empirical activities and guiding
of knowledge in higher education where Jean Piaget coined practice-based work. Debates often occur at the metatheo-
the term “transdisciplinarity” and distinguished it from inter- retical level, and thus are not open to empirical adjudication.
disciplinarity. We consider the question of why transdisci- We conclude that metatheoretical alignment between
plinary scholarship has been so challenging for the field of scholars and practitioners is critically important to transdis-
developmental science. We argue that shifts in the guiding ciplinary efforts in developmental science and therefore
metatheoretical framework of theory and research, away more attention to the metatheoretical assumptions of the
from split-mechanistic paradigms and towards process-rela- process-relational paradigm is critical for work with practi-
tional ones, do not always align with the conceptual frame- tioners to succeed. © 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel
works used in educational practice. Using the example con-
sidered by Piaget and others at the original conference on
higher education and the development of knowledge and
also examining the domain of identity development, we find Introduction
support for ways developmental scholarship has embraced
the shift to a relational-developmental metatheory. In con- Fifty years ago, Jean Piaget and several other academ-
trast, we argue that the relational-developmental paradigm ics and higher education leaders gathered for a seminar
has not been fully adopted by practitioners, with evidence in France to examine how the study of the development
of some using the Cartesian-split-mechanistic paradigm and of knowledge could contribute to issues of teaching and
karger@karger.com © 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel Nancy Budwig
www.karger.com/hde Department of Psychology, Clark University
950 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610 (USA)
nbudwig @ clarku.eduresearch in universities around the globe (Apostel, 1972). ticular problem can be solved, and the importance of
The epistemology of knowledge was debated and consid- grounding education and research in more socially rele-
ered in light of how best to organize universities for teach- vant ways.
ing and innovation. At that meeting, conclusions were Reading the papers, collected by Apostel (1972), by the
drawn that are central to issues of the development of academics and practitioners that resulted from that meet-
knowledge, particularly the ongoing discussions about ing in France and further discussions on interdisciplinar-
the relation between theory and practice. The seminar ity and transdisciplinarity in the academy, we are struck
brought together scholars who studied the development by how much of the conversation rings true today as it did
of knowledge with practitioners of higher education back then. Although our theories of human development
deeply aware of the daily practices at our institutions of and knowledge have continued to change, the concerns
higher learning seeking to bring about change. voiced still exist at colleges and universities today. With
It was at this meeting that Piaget coined the term some notable exceptions, the majority of universities and
“transdisciplinarity,” and interdisciplinarity and trans- colleges have not been structured based on what we know
disciplinarity were distinguished from one another. about human development and learning or the develop-
When Piaget introduced the term “transdisciplinarity” ment of knowledge. This is not to say that the conference
as something of an afterthought, its use did not go un- with its focus on defining the centrality of interdisciplin-
noticed at the meeting and the decades that followed. arity and transdisciplinarity has not had any impact. In
Piaget, drawing on his anti-positivist stance, adopted a fields such as environmental science and nanotechnolo-
systems approach to knowledge, arguing for the impor- gy, the meeting has led to significant advances in new
tance of knowledge in various disciplines to interact knowledge and practice (Klein et al., 2001; Mittelstrass,
within a larger system of relations. Here, he distin- 2011). For instance, scholars who study sustainability sci-
guished interdisciplinarity – which implied cooperation ence regularly meet up with practitioners whose everyday
between disciplines that have mutual impact on each – efforts aim to address sustainability issues to collaborate
from transdisciplinarity, about which Piaget (1972, on knowledge creation as well as to consider best prac-
p. 138) stated: tices in sustainability efforts.
Finally, we may hope to see a higher stage succeeding the stage However, the field of developmental science has lagged
of interdisciplinary relationships. This would be “transdiscipli- significantly in this area. To state this bluntly, scholars of
narity,” which would not only cover interactions or reciproci- human development in general have not made significant
ties between specialised research projects, but would place progress in linking their work firmly to urgent complex
these relationships within a total system without any firm
societal problems. There have been pleas for theoretical
boundaries between disciplines.
work to align with application, and there have been sug-
Jantsch (1972), in a paper that responded to Piaget’s gestions for the importance for theoretical work to form
proposal about transdisciplinarity, agreed with Piaget’s the foundation of applied efforts in developmental sci-
general position, but pushed further by stressing the im- ence. However, these connections are too often unidirec-
portance of an integrated approach to knowledge that tional with basic researchers suggesting use of develop-
also highlighted the importance of considering the social mental theory and research, with little evidence of suc-
purpose of knowledge. According to Jantsch (1972), “The cess. All too often, the notion of use and user is generic
essential characteristic of a transdisciplinary approach is and underspecified, and only general reference is made to
the co-ordination of activities at all levels of the educa- what some have called “mythical users,” especially in
tion/innovation system towards a common purpose” funding proposals where the goal often is rhetorical and
(p. 114). The emphasis on human activity and purpose to show the value of the proposed research, rather than a
brought to the foreground the consideration of the rela- strong belief in teaming up with specific practitioners
tion between disciplinary knowledge structures and the (Shove & Rip, 2000). At the same time, and as we will
purposes to which knowledge is put to use. show, this is not a one-sided problem. Scholars of human
While Piaget coined the term and got the discussion development depend on the clear articulation of urgent
going, Jantsch’s framework has been more influential to societal problems, and often these are ill-defined by the
recent discussions and elaborations (Klein, 2009). For in- complex range of practitioners who scholars aim to help,
stance, Kockelmans (1979) highlights that across various whether educators, parents and families, policy makers,
uses of the term “transdisciplinarity” is the search for an or other practitioners seeking to improve developmental
overarching framework or worldview from which a par- trajectories of individuals. As we will discuss, both schol-
2 Human Development 2021;65:1–18 Budwig/Alexander
DOI: 10.1159/000514553ars and practitioners bring conceptual frameworks to the Momentum for Changing Conceptual Frameworks in
work they do, and these framings influence the approach- Developmental Science Theorizing and Implications
es taken and the relevance one finds in the work of one for the “Gap” between Knowledge and Practice1
another.
We know from the conference 50 years ago that simply In an important article in Human Development, With-
bringing theoreticians and practitioners together does erington et al. (2018) argued for the importance of recog-
not automatically assure success in aligning scholarship nizing the value of conceptual analysis, and in particular,
with practice, and even clarity of purpose is not a guaran- the way this plays a role in helping organize and make
tee. Even though scholars and practitioners at the confer- sense of our everyday understandings of the world. These
ence agreed on a set of problems, such as the belief that conceptual frameworks consist of what Overton (2015)
most students arrive at university unprepared for the and Witherington et al. (2018) have described as the belief
learning expected of them (Briggs & Michaud, 1972), the systems and assumptions about ontology and epistemol-
problems identified by both scholars and practitioners ogy that we bring to our work, both as individuals and as
have endured. scholars. Evaluating existing scholarship, they have ar-
We believe that the field of developmental science is gued for the existence of a core metatheoretical divide in
positioned to make significant progress on the vexing the developmental sciences that has implicitly framed a
issue of linking scholarship and practice. Recently, lot of discussions and work in the field. This divide has
there has been significant discussion highlighting how been described at the highest level as that between frame-
important metatheoretical alignment is for advancing works embracing the longstanding Cartesian-split-mech-
scientific activity. The field of developmental science anistic paradigm and the relational-developmental sys-
has begun to discuss ways metatheory necessarily con- tems paradigm (Overton, 2015; Witherington et al., 2018)
ditions what constitutes meaningful theory, method, (Fig. 1).
and practice and is therefore not open to empirical ad- These two paradigms are distinct in at least three im-
judication. Without metatheoretical alignment, theo- portant ways that are depicted in Figure 2: views of the
retical debates cannot be resolved through empirical importance of the role of the organism (agency) in devel-
means. In this article, we will review the momentum for opment, the centrality of studying dynamic and unique
changing conceptual frameworks in developmental sci- patterning in human development (process), and the
ence, and propose whether and how these changes in view of the organism as a structured whole and its rela-
conceptual frameworks can contribute to an under- tionship to the environment (holism). First, in relation to
standing of why transdisciplinary work has been so the role of the organism in development, unlike the split-
challenging in the developmental sciences. Our exami- mechanistic paradigm, the relational-developmental par-
nation will focus on the momentum towards the rela- adigm holds a more active, self-organizing view of the
tional-developmental paradigm and away from more organism and supports the view that across human devel-
Cartesian-split-mechanistic models, examining two opment, organisms have agency. Second, regarding the
concrete instantiations in different areas of develop- examination of process in human development, the split-
mental science inquiry. We then specifically examine mechanistic paradigm views development in terms of an
the conceptual paradigm synergy between develop- additive and linear model, while the relational-develop-
mental scholarship and educational practice through mental paradigm highlights the processes of microgenet-
analysis of two distinct areas of developmental theory ic and ontogenetic changes (Overton, 2015; Valsiner,
and practice – namely knowledge development and 1998). Both kinds of metatheoretical paradigms can in-
identity construction in higher education, highlighting voke fixed stages, but the relational-developmental para-
less synergy in one of the two areas. This then leads us digm need not (Tudge et al., 2016). Third, and central to
to explore whether one reason why transdisciplinary the distinction between the two kinds of metatheoretical
work has been challenging for developmental science perspectives, is the relation between the organism and the
has to do with historical shifts and conflicting concep- context within which they develop. The split-mechanistic
tual frameworks that researchers and practitioners
bring to the table. Said differently, we do not need more
1
findings, but rather reflection on and alignment of the We follow Overton (2013, p. 55) in simplifying the cumbersome lan-
guage by referring to the framework that includes relationism as a worldview
conceptual frameworks used by developmental scien- and relational-developmental systems as metatheory by using the phrase re-
tists and practitioners. lational-developmental systems paradigm.
Conceptual Frameworks Guiding Human Development 2021;65:1–18 3
Developmental Research and Practice DOI: 10.1159/000514553Metatheoretical
worldviews or paradigms
Cartesian-split-mechanistic Process-relational
Metatheoretical
mid-range metamodels
• Passive role of the organism in • Active role of the individual in
development development
• Development is additive and • Development is process-oriented
linear and continuous
• Culture is distinct from the • Culture is embodied in the
organism organism
Domain of inquiry
Fig. 1. Worldviews and paradigms as they
relate to theories and domains of inquiry.
Adapted from Witherington et al. (2018).
Active role of Human development
the organism in as a process, not
development additive
Agency Process
Holism
View of the organism as a
whole and its relation to
the environment
Fig. 2. Components of the relational-devel-
opmental paradigm.
paradigm views the organism in terms of separate enti- adopts an integrated view of the organism (holism) as
ties, viewing various parts of the human organism as well as holistic relations between organism and environ-
modular, and with context and culture as separate and ment. Culture, as we will see, is not an entity or a set of
static entities. This contrasts with one of the central fea- variables out there, but part of an integrated view of the
tures of the relational-developmental paradigm, which organism.
4 Human Development 2021;65:1–18 Budwig/Alexander
DOI: 10.1159/000514553Central to the relational-developmental paradigm is a ability leads Kuhn to make a series of recommendations
view of embodiment – the lived body bridges the biolog- about how schools can foster the development of critical
ical, psychological, and cultural through its realization of thinking of students in primary and secondary settings.
the situatedness of humans. As noted by Mueller and She notes that altered conceptualizations of critical think-
Newman (2008, p. 333), ing have impacted measurement tools, and illustrates
Human beings are not just contained in the environment as one ways these changes in conceptualization impact practices
independent object in another independent object (e.g., sand in schools. Similarly, Nucci (2016), in a compelling testi-
in a bucket). Rather, they intrinsically relate to the environ- mony at the National Academy about character develop-
ment, which is why descriptions of human beings and their ac- ment, shared the relational-developmental systems world-
tions must include descriptions of part of the environment
(Taylor, 1989). view and made similar claims about the relationship be-
tween conceptual framework, theory, research, and
It has been argued that the human condition and the abil- practice. He argued that his ongoing research with his col-
ity to create tools and artifacts play a central role in hu- laborators (Gee & Nucci, 2019; Nucci et al., 2015) shows
man functioning and development and create a space how character does not exist as a distinct mental entity,
where body, mind, and environment come together but is best viewed as part of a broader developing system
(Budwig, 2019; Di Paolo et al., 2018). (of which morality is a part). This complex systems ap-
As Lerner (2016) has suggested, developmental sci- proach enables a person to engage the social world. Nucci
ence theory and research is at a crossroads. Without a et al. (2015) discuss and test out educational interventions,
doubt, there has been significant momentum in adopting suggesting new educational practices that secondary
what has been referred to as a relational-developmental schools can utilize based on the more dynamic approach
systems paradigm in studying human development over to human functioning and development. In terms of char-
the last few decades. This has resulted in an emerging acter development, students do not need more teacher
sense that the field of developmental science has moved transmission of core ideas; rather, students need discur-
beyond what in Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) terms can be sive tools with which to reason in everyday contexts.
considered a view of the mind as container, and towards Whether looking at critical thinking as Kuhn has done,
more embodied notions of mentality (Overton et al., or moral reasoning and character development as Nucci’s
2008). The distinction between the Cartesian-split-mech- work has highlighted, what holds this work together is the
anistic and relational paradigms has much to offer to the belief that development takes place when organisms ac-
field of developmental science. We will also be extending tively construct meaning in and through interactions with
the argument to the world of practice. More specifically, others, especially peers, with guidance and support from
practitioners also bring conceptual frameworks to do- more experienced others. Furthermore, both researchers
mains of practice in much the same way scholars bring not only design research based on explicit consideration
frameworks to the domains of inquiry. of their theoretical framework which posits development
Not only has there been momentum for a shift in con- as a process, but also explicitly design educational inter-
ceptual frameworks underlying developmental science re- ventions that involve providing teachers with tools and
search, this shift also has implications for the broader im- protocols to foster these interactive patterns with students
pacts of scholarly efforts in the world of practice. Two con- in attempts to enhance cognitive, social, and moral devel-
crete instances exemplifying positive ways the opment. To this extent, these researchers have made im-
relational-developmental paradigm has been employed in portant connections between changing worldviews in de-
both conceptualizing scholarship and practice can be il- velopmental theorizing and theories of change in school-
lustrated by drawing on the work of cognitive and moral based practices. We should note that the shift towards a
development scholars. In her recent article in Human De- relational paradigm is not unique to developmental sci-
velopment, Kuhn (2019) argues for the importance of ence. Historical evidence can also be found for a gradual
framing critical thinking and its development as a dialog- shift and momentum towards relational paradigms in
ic and shared practice rather than as an individual skill or psychological discourse. Gentner and Grudin (1985) ex-
ability that develops independently. In this sense, critical amined nearly 100 years of writing in the journal Psychol-
thinking (which is often thought of as an essential cogni- ogy Review and identified subtle evidence for the evolution
tive skill) is viewed in light of related social and discursive of the kinds of metaphors researchers discussed, for in-
developments. Viewing it as a dialogic and shared practice stance, moving from vague metaphors involving animacy
engaged in by peers rather than as an individual skill or where mental phenomena are described in relation to
Conceptual Frameworks Guiding Human Development 2021;65:1–18 5
Developmental Research and Practice DOI: 10.1159/000514553creatures early on, to a later evolution of incorporating science, raising the important question of whether theo-
systems metaphors in the third and final phase of their rists and practitioners share similar conceptual frame-
analysis. More specifically, James (1905) compared the works and worldviews, especially when trying to mutually
mind to an animate being in his statement that ideas strug- solve complex problems. We turn to consider two areas of
gle with one another, whereas many years later it was more human development scholarship that not only relate to
common to conceptualize the mind in terms of physical these two points, but also tie back to the discussion of high-
or mathematical systems or analogical devices such as de- er education and teaching that was the focus of the meeting
scribing the human mind in terms of processes such as where Piaget coined the term “transdisciplinarity.” We will
searching and retrieving. Gentner and Grudin (1985) ar- first examine theory and practice related to the develop-
gue that the system metaphor and the appeal to interde- ment of knowledge and turn next to the development of
pendent systems is a surface level indicator of the concep- identity and higher educational practice.
tual frameworks of the time. Empirical evidence of this
sort suggests ways that the field of psychology has evolved
in conceptual frameworks utilized in discussions of men- The Relational-Developmental Paradigm, the
tal phenomena over many decades. Development of Knowledge, and Higher Education
What is known about the conceptual frameworks that Practice
practitioners bring to their work? In this paper, we will
examine this question and compare practitioner perspec- There is little debate that the grand theories of human
tives to those held by developmental scholars. Lakoff and development in the 20th century significantly advanced
Johnson (1980) have argued that metaphors have a pro- our understanding of the development of knowledge and
found impact on how humans think and act, are pervasive did so by emphasizing the organism’s role in acting on
in everyday discourse, and are extensively used to guide and transforming knowledge (Piaget, 1967, 1974/1980).
human reasoning and action. For instance, Lakoff and Furthermore, grand developmental theories such as those
Johnson (1980) have discussed how the mind tends to be proposed by Piaget and Werner emphasized the impor-
viewed as a container, using a Cartesian-split-mechanis- tance of developmental processes in the unfolding of
tic framing. Recent examinations of lay persons’ concep- mental structures and moving from practical to symbolic
tual frameworks for knowledge are said to continue to planes (Piaget, 1954; Werner & Kaplan, 1963).
robustly use mechanistic paradigms, such as employing a By the 21st century, constructivist views of the devel-
container model for the mind (Starmans & Friedman, opment of knowledge impacted educational design and
2012). Looking more specifically at the development of practice by adopting a more active view of the organism
knowledge, Carl Bereiter (2002) has argued that regard- and examining knowledge development as a cognitive
less of whether one looks at views of education from lay process that extends both microgenetically and orthoge-
persons’ acceptance of behavioralist theories or more netically. For instance, the importance of deep learning
constructivist views, the container metaphor (where the principles in discussions of knowledge development en-
mind is viewed as a separate container-like entity) under- couraged educational practices requiring learners to re-
girds most thinking about knowledge. Thinking about late new knowledge to prior knowledge and experience
knowledge at the supraindividual level is just not part and (Bransford et al., 2000). Educational design in schools
parcel to folk conceptions of knowledge and this, accord- and higher education began to focus on the importance
ing to Bereiter, causes confusion since lay persons and of integration of conceptual systems and highlighted the
theorists may use similar terminology with very different need to move from static knowledge handed down as is,
meanings drawing on distinct conceptual frameworks. to creating educational environments encouraging learn-
We argue that there are two important implications re- ers to examine and evaluate knowledge in light of accept-
sulting from the changing conceptual frameworks guiding ed evidence and critical analysis. This view of how knowl-
theorizing in developmental science. First, changing con- edge develops, referred to as deep learning approaches,
ceptual frameworks at the meta-level have influenced how has had a profound impact on educational practices and
scholars approach previously studied areas. This, then, can can readily be found in some visions of primary and sec-
ultimately offer new insights into the implications for con- ondary school and higher education practice, even if not
sidering how users make use of particular findings. Second, fully implemented (Budwig, 2013; Budwig & Alexander,
changes in conceptual frameworks also impact our think- 2020; Sawyer, 2014). Deep learning approaches adopt a
ing about transdisciplinary approaches to developmental relational worldview with regard to views of student
6 Human Development 2021;65:1–18 Budwig/Alexander
DOI: 10.1159/000514553agency, the importance of process in the construction of Central to this conceptual framework for understand-
knowledge, and the holistic organization of the organism ing knowledge building is the view that the individual is
as learner. Nevertheless, they lack a framing of knowledge actively asked to enter the culture and perform activities
development as part of a larger holistic system acknowl- central to the community of practice. To learn in the dis-
edging the relationship between the organism and cul- cipline is not simply acquiring fixed knowledge but
ture. That is, knowledge development is often framed as learning to refine, use, and build new knowledge in ways
an individual and decontextualized process. consistent with the disciplinary culture, rather than
In contrast to the decontextualized and individualistic something handed down from experts to novices (Scar-
accounts of knowledge development, much contempo- damalia & Bereiter, 2014). Relating this framework to
rary sociocultural scholarship about the relationship be- students, the development of knowledge entails learning
tween knowledge, practice, and human development has how to perform and understand disciplinary procedures
emphasized holistic systems and the situatedness of and practices central to problem solving in that area.
knowledge (Bielaczyc et al., 2011; Budwig, 2013; Vy- Scaffolding allows students to engage in authentic activ-
gotsky, 1978; Wortham, 2010). On this view, knowledge ities that introduce them to the sense-making, reflection,
is actively constructed by individuals as they participate and real problem-solving processes necessary to help
in sociohistorical and cultural processes (Saxe, 2014; Vy- students by making activities simpler so that learners can
gotsky, 1978). To this extent, mental life and its develop- engage and learn in valuable ways (Reiser & Tabak,
ment is grounded in sociocultural activities (Bruner, 2014). As Brown et al. (1989) note, the practice of stu-
1996; Nelson, 2017). We claim that three constructs from dents in normal education contexts “is very different
sociocultural accounts alter the way knowledge develop- from what we have in mind when we talk of authentic
ment is framed, all drawing upon a relational-develop- activity, because it is very different from what authentic
mental paradigm. These include scaffolding, knowledge practitioners do” (p. 38).
building, and communities of practice. Without full un- One major way that knowledge has been said to be
derstanding of the implications of these constructs, at- constructed is as part of broader social activities called
tempts to incorporate this more holistic conceptual communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Com-
framework into practice simply does not work as practi- munities of practice consist of people who share a con-
tioners adopting a split-mechanistic framing would have cern or a passion for something they do and learn how to
divergent views of the organism and holism. do it better as they interact regularly. Three core elements
Drawing on Vygotsky’s notion of the zone of proximal of such communities include “mutual engagement,”
development, the scaffolding metaphor views the devel- “joint enterprise,” and “shared repertoire” (Wenger,
opment of knowledge as the completion of complex tasks 1998, pp. 72–73). It is within such communities that in-
where learning takes place from interacting with more dividuals come together and jointly practice using a
experienced others, going beyond what individuals know shared repertoire of symbolic tools and artifacts, which
on their own. To this extent, knowledge takes place less have become part of the practice (Wenger, 1998).
through transfer from expert to novice and more through Central to situated accounts of the development of
the social engagement with others in ongoing processes of knowledge and engaged learning is not simply individu-
interaction. To this extent, knowledge is not located in the al acts of local practice, but rather the process by which
heads of individuals but is constructed in and through participation involves becoming an increasingly active
interaction (Brown et al., 1989; Hanks, 1996; Moore, and engaged participant of a social community over an
2013). Brown et al. (1989, p. 33) argue: extended period of time and “constructing identities in
relation to these communities” (Wenger, 1998, p. 4).
To talk about academic disciplines, professions, or even man- That is, engagement is not simply viewed as local practic-
ual trades as communities or cultures will perhaps seem strange.
Yet communities of practitioners are connected by more than
ing or “doing,” but also consists of the active engagement
their ostensible tasks. (…) The culture and the use of a tool act and changing ways individuals share engagement over
together to determine the way practitioners see the world; and sociohistorical time. On this view, the development of
the way the world appears to them determines the culture’s un- knowledge is conceptualized within a relational-devel-
derstanding of the world and of the tools. Unfortunately, stu- opmental paradigm; it is process-oriented, holistic in
dents are too often asked to use the tools of a discipline without
being able to adopt its culture. To learn to use tools as practi-
that it involves cognitive, social and linguistic develop-
tioners use them, a student, like an apprentice, must enter that ment, and socially situated in authentic and dynamic
community and its culture. contexts.
Conceptual Frameworks Guiding Human Development 2021;65:1–18 7
Developmental Research and Practice DOI: 10.1159/000514553Implications for Higher Education Practice new contexts. Consideration of both the integration and
application of knowledge has been emphasized. By the
While tremendous progress has been made in under- early 2000s, the Association of American Colleges and
standing the development of knowledge and the role of Universities (2002), a leading voice in student learning in
experience in learning, relatively little of this knowledge higher education, noted that a liberal education would
can be directly tied to how academic learning is struc- ideally produce “integrative thinkers who can see connec-
tured in higher education. When developmental scholar- tions in seemingly disparate information” (p. 21).
ship is cited, most frequently it is a general reference to As part of broader national and transnational efforts,
the constructivist theorizing and philosophy of experi- Humphreys (2005) has explored why learning outcomes
ence embedded in Piaget’s (1967) and Dewey’s (1933) such as new focus on integrative and applied learning
frameworks often shared in teaching statements of new were receiving so much attention in the early 2000s. She
faculty under review. While claims about the lack of im- discussed not only linkages to the kinds of knowledge
plementation of these newer theoretical models of the de- needed by employers in the 21st century which is fre-
velopment of knowledge have also been made about pri- quently mentioned, but also argued that the shift drew
mary and secondary education, most would argue that from evidence in the developmental and learning science
the work in schools is further along. For instance, Dar- asserting the importance of constructivist accounts of
ling-Hammond et al. (2019) specifically address ways knowledge. Taking a process account, scholars such as
theory and practice link together in school settings based Colby et al. (2003), Huber and Hutchings (2004), and Hu-
on their explication of new relational-developmental par- ber et al. (2005) argued for the importance of scaffolding,
adigms of knowledge development. In higher education suggesting that higher education faculty play critical roles
though, curricular design typically is owned by faculty, in guiding knowledge integration, as students increasing-
most of whom have little training in human development ly come to do this only over time on their own. The focus
and who hold different conceptualizations of learning on application was originally tied to learning and devel-
and development than those embraced by development opmental science research. Over time though, and this is
scholars. Faculty as practitioners bring to the design of centrally important, as scaffolding from national or trans-
curricular frameworks the worldviews they adopt to- national supports faded and universities began working
wards knowledge. They also draw on broader frameworks independently on reform efforts without the guidance of
of national and transnational organizations that support national or transnational leadership, and we believe the
this work (Budwig & Alexander, 2020). What conceptual focus on engaged learning became integrated into avail-
frameworks do faculty, university officials, and national able worldviews. That is, leadership at individual cam-
and transnational leaders bring to higher education prac- puses often fell back on split-mechanistic frameworks
tice involving students’ development of knowledge? suggesting that one develops knowledge and then takes it
By the start of the 21st century, two changes in higher out into context to use it. Internships and other experien-
education had taken place that led to new visions of high- tial projects also transformed into necessary elements not
er education that, at first glance, seem tied to a new world- of the original construction of knowledge, but became
view of the development of knowledge within a relation- viewed as tools for student preparation to enter the work-
al-developmental systems paradigm. First, disciplines force and civic life, ready to work as part of interdisciplin-
had begun considering what sort of knowledge is essen- ary teams needed in the 21st century (Budwig & Jessen-
tial. As part of what has become known as the Tuning Marshall, 2018).
Project, international disciplinary groups began to reflect Moore (2013), in an excellent review of engaged learn-
on questions of what it means “to know” in a given field, ing in the academy, discusses what he calls the central
highlighting the need to go beyond transfer of knowledge paradox. While those studying the development of knowl-
from experts to novices (Budwig & Alexander, 2020; edge have viewed practice-based learning as central to the
Kehm, 2010; Reichert & Tauch, 2005). A second kind of development of knowledge, colleges and universities have
change, viewed in part as a reaction to the compartmen- for the most part viewed experiential learning as some-
talization of knowledge in universities with the creation thing outside of the academic realm, or at best something
of the “major” and disciplines, has resulted in higher edu- that augments or supplements the development of knowl-
cation leaders discussing the need to help students learn edge that first takes place in the classroom. We argue that
to connect fragmented knowledge especially from differ- this paradox stems from the underlying worldviews high-
ent disciplinary lenses and to apply that knowledge to er education leaders and faculty bring to the table. Lay
8 Human Development 2021;65:1–18 Budwig/Alexander
DOI: 10.1159/000514553conceptions of knowledge build off the container model communicative moves for practice and reflection as a
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) and often lack the embodied means of supporting learners and others to come to a col-
and relational-developmental systems paradigm neces- lective improvement of ideas (Bielaczyc & Collins, 2006;
sary to implement the vision consistent with the systems Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). These tools resemble some
orientation towards agency, process, and holism required of the processes and tools described by Kuhn (2019) in
of the relational worldview. her discussion of secondary students’ development of
Eyler (2009, p. 29), one of the few scholars who has si- critical thinking.
multaneously spoken about students’ development of In summary, we have made three claims in this section
knowledge and higher education vision, has noted: about the relational-developmental systems paradigm
There is a profound mismatch between how students learn in and the development of knowledge. First, we have argued
the classroom and how they will later learn in the community that the worldview associated with the relational-devel-
(Resnick, 1987). In the workplace or in addressing community opmental systems paradigm has significant implications
issues, learning often occurs collaboratively, is organized for reimagining higher education teaching and student
around concrete situations, makes use of tools and resources,
and is iterative, whereas classroom-based learning often in- learning. Second, we have argued that a modern-day re-
volves decontextualized knowledge, manipulation of abstract lational-developmental systems paradigm has advanced
symbols, and highly individual efforts. Knowledge in the class- theorizing by considering a more holistic view of knowl-
room tends to be compartmentalized into disciplines, whereas edge and its development. Here, we especially focused on
in use in the community or workplace it tends to be organized the work of a situated relational-developmental paradigm
around problems or domains of practice.
with the focus on contextualized accounts of knowledge
We claim that even if new worldviews have influenced in practice and notions of scaffolding, knowledge build-
scholars studying knowledge development, it will be nec- ing within authentic practices, and the notion of commu-
essary to make sure key elements of the worldview upon nities of practice as central to knowledge building. Third,
which this body of scholarship rests is better understood we have argued that while higher education has made
in practice communities. For instance, university faculty some progress in creating a new vision, work on imple-
and leaders will need to better understand that students mentation has been more difficult and not been fully suc-
need extensive training before and during experiential cessful. We argue that a partial explanation of this stems
learning, and the experiential and classroom learning from the fact that those implementing the vision do not
should be mutually supportive (see Moore, 2013). In ad- share the relational-developmental worldview, especially
dition, holistic views of student development will be nec- the situated view of embodiment central to implementa-
essary in that the development of knowledge goes hand in tion. The implementation efforts are reinterpreted in
hand with interest and agency in learning, as well as light of more traditional folk theories that imagine knowl-
building a social and professional identity around the en- edge as needing first to get into the mind and then be de-
gagement activities. Students’ development and applica- ployed out into the world of practice. Thus, while there is
tion of knowledge involves more than participating in mutual belief in more engaged styles of learning, differ-
projects or internships; the process of reflecting on and ences in the underlying conceptual frameworks about
sharing one’s growing knowledge through the public dis- how engaged learning works make this work challenging.
play of artifacts and other symbolic tools that members of
a community of practice use when engaging in activities
is central. Such artifacts offer a mechanism for making The Relational-Developmental Paradigm, Identity
knowledge visible to one another (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Development, and Higher Educational Practice
Rogoff, 1995). This transition to communal sharing of
knowledge does not come easily for students who have In this section, we turn to consider the relational-de-
been trained to view the development of knowledge and velopmental systems paradigm and identity develop-
learning individually and will need significant scaffolding ment, arguing for a different relationship between schol-
in the art of collaborative learning (Herrenkohl & Mertl, arship and practice. First, we consider a body of theory
2010). Language as well as other symbolic means offer and research by scholars studying emerging adulthood,
metacognitive guidance for solving complex problems who consider the identity formation process and role of
collaboratively. For example, Bielaczyc and colleagues self in the meaning-making process. More specifically, we
working within K-12 education have designed scaffold- will argue how common conceptual frameworks have led
ing tools that highlight particular knowledge-building student affairs practitioners to structure the college expe-
Conceptual Frameworks Guiding Human Development 2021;65:1–18 9
Developmental Research and Practice DOI: 10.1159/000514553rience in ways supported by identity development schol- … emerging adults aim to reconstruct the past and imagine the
arship. We also will note ways in which some practition future in such a way as to provide their lives in full with some
semblance of meaning, unity, and purpose … the self becomes
ers outside of the student affairs area of higher education fully engaged as an autobiographical author (the I), even as the
hold less aligned of conceptual frameworks, especially I continues to construe itself (the Me) as a social actor and mo-
when we turn to consider academic aspects of student de- tivated agent. (p. 280)
velopment and linkages to identity formation.
At first glance, consideration of students’ identity de- The process of identity formation is viewed as one that
velopment has little connection to higher educational increasingly separates self and other, and the emerging
practice. It was not mentioned directly at the workshop adult is said to come to rely on self-defined norms and
50 years ago, though the American focus on the role of formulas rather than societal-based standards (Magolda
students’ co-curricular activities on their learning was & Taylor, 2016). The capacity to coordinate the internal
considered. Over the past decades, as scholars have exam- voice with that of an external standard initiates the writ-
ined development within more holistic worldviews that ing of a self-defined life narrative and the resulting entry
link social-emotional development with cognitive devel- into adult life.
opment and learning, the relation of identity develop- It has been noted that although adolescents and emerg-
ment and higher educational practice has received more ing adults have been described as self-absorbed, these are
attention. College has been described as a space separated stereotyped descriptions and scholars have noted that ad-
from the rest of society where traditional-aged students olescents and emerging adults seek a greater sense of pur-
(18–21 years) can explore identities and possibilities re- pose and belonging than often given credit. They not only
lated to relationships, love, and work, and as a space are working on questions of “Who am I?”, but show in-
where many of the responsibilities of adult life are kept on tense concern for the world they will inherit and their in-
hold (see Arnett, 2016). College provides a fertile ground volvement in making it a better place (Sokol et al., 2018).
to engage in precisely the sort of identity exploration (Ar- And it is here, in the study of identity formation and char-
nett, 2016; Magolda & Taylor, 2016) said to enhance stu- acter development, that Sokol et al. (2018) argue that the
dent development for traditional-aged students. relational-developmental paradigm can provide helpful
A core aspect of identity exploration, according to the framing to their research to the extent that one examines
emerging adulthood approach, involves the organism’s holistically the relational aspects of adolescent and emerg-
search for a sense of self (Schwartz et al., 2016). Emerging ing adult students and the supports available. For in-
adults are said to be engaged in autonomy taking, cogni- stance, in their studies of first-nation youth across two
tive acumen, and identity-based work, all part of a process historical time periods, they seek to understand the rich
that has been described as an individual struggle to make interplay between youth agency and cultural resources.
meaning and write the first drafts of their life stories (Ma- More specifically, they have examined how youth make
golda & Taylor, 2016; McAdams, 2013, 2016). The em- use of or fail to use family, learning institutions, and com-
phasis in such work is on a series of questions young peo- munity and cultural resources as part of self-interpretive
ple face, including “Who am I?”, “How do I relate to oth- aspects of identity formation. Sokol et al. (2018) argue
ers?”, and “What do I want myself to be?” as they search that young people can draw upon college and commu-
for meaning in life and consider different possibilities. nity experiences in ways that help build resilience and
Initially, young people answer these questions using ex- promote identity formation, especially for youth who are
ternally-defined formulas but increasingly adopt more not experiencing a meaningful vision of their future. To
internally-defined purposes. This shift from more exter- this extent, college can provide a safety net to those oth-
nally-defined to more internally-driven formulas has erwise at risk. Sokol et al. (2018) suggest that the relation-
been described by Magolda (2009) as self-authorship. al-developmental paradigm helps conceptualize “how so-
This internal dialogue is successfully navigated and re- cial contexts intersect with psychological resilience in
solved when the individual feels agentic, self-driven, and young people and their communities” (p. 241).
socially connected (Magolda, 2009; Parks, 2000). The approach to identity formation reviewed here em-
As individuals gather more autonomy from parents braces several aspects of the relational-developmental
and develop self-defined meaning-making structures, systems paradigm. The notion of emerging adults engag-
they make advancements towards writing their life narra- ing in an extended phase of meaning-making that in-
tives on their own terms (McAdams, 2013). McAdams volves linkages between cognitive, emotional, and social
terms this challenge as life authorship where: development is at the heart of this body of work. Identity
10 Human Development 2021;65:1–18 Budwig/Alexander
DOI: 10.1159/000514553formation is viewed dynamically as an individual mean- plorations, emerging adults begin to develop an under-
ing-making process, using experiences with others, to standing of what they excel in or enjoy doing the most and
help shape an individual’s growing sense of self. To this deepen their understanding of the “Who am I?” question.
extent, identity formation and meaning-making are so- As agents, students also are said to have the opportu-
cially situated, with context and culture having bidirec- nity to draw upon learning practices in higher education
tional influences on identity formation. that engage students to work collaboratively and develop
interpersonal competence in ways that contribute to the
development of personal and social responsibility (Ma-
Implications for Higher Education Practice golda, 2008). Such intentionally designed pedagogies and
learning experiences are said to broaden students’ aware-
Consistent with the relational-developmental para- ness of real-world experiences that promote civic-mind-
digm, one of the major developments in higher education edness and capabilities to take on adult roles and gener-
in the United States has been consideration of the whole ally assist students on their journey to form relational
student. Most campuses have a growing emphasis on sup- identity so central to defining how they relate to others
porting the social-emotional development and general (Magolda, 2008). Note that students are expected to ac-
well-being of students. Interestingly, this has been struc- tively construct their identity across time and space.
tured in a way that does not embrace holism to the extent Higher education practitioners embrace the impor-
that there has been compartmentalization with units of tance of process, highlighting that students work on iden-
student affairs being built up to support students’ social tity exploration across the college years, as they are said
development, of which identity development has often to gradually integrate their social and personal identities
been viewed as a central part, distinct from faculty efforts into a coherent or holistic identity. For instance, Azmitia
to support the development of knowledge in the academ- et al. (2008) found that first-year college students dis-
ic arena. Much of the discussion about taking a whole- cussed gender, ethnicity, and social class in isolation
student approach and efforts at programming has taken while seniors stated a more sophisticated understanding
place on US campuses and within the areas of student af- of how their ethnic background and gender identities in-
fairs and alumni relations (Murray & Arnett, 2019). Since fluenced their college major decisions and career choices.
student affairs professionals often have training in higher Azmitia et al. (2008) argue that the college context offers
education and student development, there has been more the privilege to engage in a prolonged period of identity
overlap between theory and research carried out by schol- exploration that began in adolescence and progresses
ars working on identity formation and practice-based ap- through a process of individual exploration towards a
proaches drawing on this work. The question we will turn more intertwined and holistic sense of their identities
to now relates to the conceptual frameworks those imple- during the emerging adulthood years.
menting education practice draws upon when doing this Relational frameworks highlight the holistic nature of
work, and in particular the extent to which aspects of the development, both within the organism and between the
relational-developmental systems paradigm are present organism and contexts within which they develop. Strange
or whether mechanistic conceptualizations are found. In and Banning (2015) have outlined specific intentional as-
particular, we will consider the views of the student and pects of college and university design that are critical to
whether they are considered agentive, whether develop- optimal identity formation. For instance, student success
ment is viewed as a process, and the extent to which a depends on a nested set of conditions including inclusion
holistic view of the student is considered and whether and and safety, student engagement, and sense of community
how the connection between student and environment is (Strange, 2019). According to Strange, these elements in-
conceptualized. vite the “explorative creative processes of emerging adults
Emerging adult theorists argue that, as agents of their at a time when they are most vulnerable, but also most
development, college students explore “alternative politi- ready to pursue the path of this period of life” (p. 148).
cal perspectives, working with people from different so- Furthermore, Strange, drawing on Parks’ (2000) notion
cial backgrounds, and wrestling with a range of perspec- of mentoring communities, clarifies specific environ-
tives on social issues” (Flanagan & Levine, 2010, p. 160). mental design features that facilitate emerging adults’
Furthermore, trying out courses and changing college finding meaning and purpose. These include such fea-
majors are decisive steps towards confirming their career tures as “networks of belonging” and finding a sense of
choices (Schwartz et al., 2016). Through these career ex- purpose (Parks, 2000, p. 146). In addition to campus lead-
Conceptual Frameworks Guiding Human Development 2021;65:1–18 11
Developmental Research and Practice DOI: 10.1159/000514553ers recognizing the importance of infusing a sense of be- Discussion
longing into the campus events students experience from
their first days on campus (e.g., orientation, pep rallies, Since being coined 50 years ago by Jean Piaget, the no-
student clubs and organizations), student affairs leader- tion of transdisciplinarity has been growing in interest. It
ship has increasingly articulated the need to do more. In has led to the idea that knowledge building in the acade-
particular, practitioners have highlighted the importance my must be better anchored in the world of practice, in
of prioritizing inclusion and security, and to focus on terms of our approaches in the academy towards both
events targeted at specialized groups including, for in- teaching and research. First, over the last decades, there
stance, LGBT students, students of color, and interna- has been a changing view of knowledge that highlights the
tional students (Strange, 2019). When structured well, importance of students’ active engagement in learning,
Strange (2019) argues that higher education institutions and the importance of students being able to also apply
not only provide space but also advice and mentoring to their knowledge in new situations. With regard to re-
help emerging adults chart pathways to success. Through- search, there has been increased interest in more directly
out this work, one finds arguments for the importance of anchoring researchers’ new knowledge with the world of
scaffolding the students holistically as they engage in practice (Cantor et al., 2019; Darling-Hammond et al.,
sense-making activities across the college years through 2019; Osher et al., 2020). Looking specifically at higher
coursework, student-faculty advising, and extracurricu- education, we have illustrated some examples of research-
lar activities. ers who have successfully done just this at the individual
Two points are interesting about work in the area of level. We also highlighted how developmental science
linking higher education design to foster identity forma- and those interested in the science of learning have linked
tion around emerging adulthood theory and research. up with educators to better design environments where
First, higher education leaders align well with the concep- what we know about the science of learning and develop-
tualization of emerging adult scholars who view identity ment impacts classroom and school design. We noted
formation in college-going emerging adults as part of an though that this work primarily has been limited to pri-
ongoing process that involves scaffolding to support path- mary and secondary school settings and not been fully
ways to student success (Strange, 2019). Nevertheless, extended to work in higher education circles and that
while student affairs professionals have implemented the generally, across the developmental sciences, transdisci-
kind of supports mentioned by scholars studying identity plinary efforts are at best challenging and often do not
development, such as mentoring communities or net- materialize in practice.
works of belonging as described by Strange (2019), this In our examination of the challenge of transdisci-
work has typically not been successfully extended to aca- plinary work in developmental sciences, we explored the
demic contexts. Few faculty have focused on how college- role that conceptual frameworks play. Here we noted, for
attending students’ identity formation may develop instance, that there has been growing momentum in the
through participation in the sorts of engaged learning developmental sciences in developing theory and re-
pedagogies found in some academic settings. As was not- search using what has been referred to as a relational-
ed above, according to Wenger (1998), learning and iden- developmental paradigm. Drawing on work of others, we
tity are part of the same situated experience. The value of provided evidence for this shift generally in psychology,
participating is not so much tied to specific acts of task as well as in the field of human development, that suggests
knowledge acquired, but acquiring a deeper sense of what that the conceptual frameworks researchers bring to their
it means to be a member of a specific (academic) commu- work, emphasize an increasingly agentive, process-ori-
nity. This indicates that perhaps the divide between aca- ented, and holistic view of development. We raised the
demics and identity formation may be a result of the siloed question of whether practitioners have experienced a
nature of institutional structures separating academic and similar shift, noting that a wealth of evidence has sug-
student development which themselves may be built off of gested that our everyday structuring of knowledge, mind,
the Cartesian-split-mechanistic paradigm noted to guide and identity has largely embraced the Cartesian-split-
many academics’ conceptualization of development (see mechanistic paradigm. We were curious whether a spe-
Budwig & Alexander, 2020). The case of identity forma- cific analysis of scholarship and practice would reveal dif-
tion supports a different relationship between scholars ferent conceptual frameworks underlying the work, and
and practitioners, one where alignment is possible and how that played out in terms of the success of transdisci-
joint work sought out (Murray & Arnett, 2019). plinary efforts.
12 Human Development 2021;65:1–18 Budwig/Alexander
DOI: 10.1159/000514553You can also read
