The idea of interconnectedness and relational learning has roots in various educational philosophies and approaches. Philosophers and educators such as Dewey (1928), Vygotsky (1978), and Bruner (1960), among others, have emphasised the importance of context and social interactions in the learning process.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) presents a framework for understanding human development within the context of multiple interacting systems: the evolving interaction between a developing person and the environment. The ecological systems theory highlights the importance of considering the various environmental influences and their dynamic interactions in shaping an individual’s growth and behaviour. He outlines the different levels of environmental systems that affect individuals, including the microsystem (immediate environments like family and school), mesosystem (interactions between microsystems), exosystem (indirect influences like parents’ workplace), macrosystem (cultural beliefs and values), and chronosystem (historical and temporal changes). The theory emphasises that development occurs within the context of these interconnected systems and that understanding these ecological interactions is essential for comprehending human growth and behaviour.
Rhizomatic learning, a concept initially formulated by Deleuze and Guattari in their philosophical work (1980), has found practical applications in the field of education. Educational researcher Cormier has been instrumental in popularising and expanding on the idea of rhizomatic learning in the context of contemporary learning environments (2008). Cormier’s work emphasises the importance of community and collaboration in the learning process, where learners actively engage in co-creating knowledge and negotiate their understanding with both the content and fellow learners. Rhizomatic learning challenges traditional educational models by embracing uncertainty, emergent learning, and the interconnectedness of knowledge. It promotes learner autonomy and adaptive approaches that allow for diverse and dynamic learning pathways to emerge based on learners’ needs and interests. Cormier’s insights on rhizomatic learning have significantly influenced the realm of open education, informal learning, and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), encouraging educators to adopt more learner-centric and flexible pedagogies.
De Landa’s theory (2006) on non-lineair dynamics offers insights into the understanding of complex systems and the dynamics of the world. His concept of “assemblage” highlights the intricate interactions of heterogeneous elements within complex structures, leading to emergent properties. De Landa’s work emphasises the chaotic and unpredictable behaviors that can arise from small changes in initial conditions within systems. The notion of “emergence” underscores how new properties and behaviors can emerge from the interactions of elements in complex systems, rather than being inherent in any individual component. De Landa also explores the concept of “self-organisation,” which describes the spontaneous process through which systems create and maintain their own structure and patterns without external guidance or control. Additionally, his exploration of “intensive magnitudes” and “extensive magnitudes” provides a framework for measuring the intensity or degree of particular properties within a system and the amount or size of those properties, respectively. De Landa’s philosophical approach, grounded in “materialist philosophy,” emphasizes the significance of material reality and physical processes in shaping the world and human experience. His examination of “stratification” delves into the organisation of elements in a system into layers or strata, contributing to the system’s overall stability. Furthermore, De Landa introduces the concept of “virtuality,” referring to potential entities that exist in a state of becoming, waiting to actualise under specific conditions within a system. Finally, his exploration of “singularities” examines points of maximum intensity or potential in a system where new properties or behaviors emerge, leading to significant transformations. De Landa’s work contributes to a deeper understanding of complex systems and offers essential theoretical foundations for comprehending the intricacies of our dynamic world.
Education evolves continuously and sustainably based on a conscious understanding of cultural connections, relationships within layered structures within society. Drawing on these connections, Spierings defined a didactic-pedagogical metonymic relativity (MR) mechanism and the Metonymic Relativity Learning Model (MRLM) in 2020 for the first time and published here in 2023.
Spierings, as a teacher of French and English language and culture in The Netherlands, formulated a (personal) Theory of Practice based on many years of teaching experiences and active professional development with a view to narrowing the gap between sciencetificc research and classroom practices (Biesta & Joldersma,1011). Within this ToP, Metonymic relativity (Spierings, 2023) is a key concept that describes the mechanics of the interconnected and dynamic nature of knowledge and understanding. It suggests that knowledge is not confined to isolated and fixed entities but instead emerges through relational connections and associations between different elements within complex systems. In the context of education, metonymic relativity emphasises the importance of recognising and exploring the interdependence of various domains of knowledge, encouraging a more holistic and integrated approach to learning. This concept highlights the fluid and ever-evolving nature of knowledge and the significance of understanding how different pieces of information relate and interact with one another to form a coherent and comprehensive understanding of the world, a ‘whole’.
Spierings’ concept of metonymic relativity serves as a valuable foundation for understanding the complexities of being human in a technologically driven world. This concept highlights the interconnected nature of human perception and interaction with the world, where knowledge and understanding are formed through relationships and connections rather than in isolation which are in need of neutral analysis.
In language lessons, by critically examining cultural power relations and deconstructing hierarchical micro-, meso-, and macro-structures, students and teachers can create shared meaning, embrace diverse perspectives through open dialogue and overall learning aim becomes learning to suspend judgment in a “spirit of dialogue, [and] the ability to indefinitely withhold closure on any particular point of view, along with a primary concern for creating shared meaning” (Bohm & Peat, 1987).
Education needs pre-conditioned neutral analysis of metonymic relationships based on an instrumental and neutral dynamic node-vector mechanism in time and space. Fostering a deep understanding of the implications of technology on society and ethics will enable learners to contribute to a sustainable future for all. As a result of metonymic mechanics as a principle of learning, a 4D Metonymic Learning Model was created between 2020 and 2023. It runs along these lines and is work in progress:
The 4D Metonymic Relativity Learning Framework (©Spierings 2020-2023):
Dimension 1: Rhizomatic Learning
In this dimension, we emphasise rhizomatic learning as the foundation of the educational model. Rhizomatic learning challenges traditional linear approaches and embraces the interconnected and non-hierarchical nature of knowledge. Learners are encouraged to explore diverse learning pathways, collaborate with peers, and actively engage in co-creating knowledge through language. The focus is on fostering language, learner autonomy and relativity, adaptability, creativity and relationships.
Dimension 2: Pre-conditioned Neutral Analysis
The second dimension centers on the importance of pre-conditioned neutral analysis. It involves cultivating an objective and unbiased approach to understanding metonymic relationships within a given context. Learners are taught to critically assess information by using abstract thinking, acknowledging their own biases and avoiding the imposition of rigid ideologies. This analytical process sets the stage for a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in metonymic relationships.
Dimension 3: Metonymic Node-Vector Mechanism
The third dimension introduces the dynamic node-vector metonymic mechanism. Here, learners explore the interconnectedness and interactions between different elements (nodes) within a system. They understand how these elements influence each other and give rise to emergent properties (vectors) over time and space. This mechanism helps learners grasp the complexity of metonymic relationships and the fluidity of knowledge within a rhizomatic learning framework.
Dimension 4: Time and Space
The fourth dimension incorporates the temporal and spatial aspects of learning. Time emphasises the dynamic nature of knowledge, where new insights and understandings continually emerge and evolve. Space encompasses the diversity of learning environments and experiences that learners engage with, both physical and virtual. Recognising the temporal and spatial dimensions allows learners to appreciate the ever-changing nature of knowledge, its relativity, allowing alternatives, and diverse contextual applications.
Overall, the 4-D Metonymic Learning Framework combines the principles of rhizomatic learning, pre-conditioned neutral analysis, the Metonymic node-vector metonymic mechanism, and the temporal and spatial dimensions to create a holistic and learner-centric educational approach. By embracing uncertainty, promoting critical thinking, and recognising the interconnectedness of knowledge, this model empowers learners to navigate through complex and evolving metonymic relationships and make meaningful connections in the world around them.
The visual representation of the 4-D Metonymic Learning Framework would be a multi-dimensional framework that embodies the interconnected and non-linear nature of knowledge. At its core, there would be a rhizome, symbolizing the foundation of rhizomatic learning, with multiple roots representing diverse learning pathways and connections. Surrounding the rhizome, there would be four interconnected spheres, each representing one dimension of the model.
In Dimension 1: Rhizomatic Learning, the sphere would depict learners engaged in collaborative learning activities, represented by arrows connecting different nodes (representing learners) in various directions, showcasing the exploration of diverse learning pathways and co-creation of knowledge through language in its broadest sense, so anything that information can be extracted from.
In Dimension 2: Pre-conditioned Neutral Analysis, the sphere would represent learners critically examining metonymic relationships within a context. It would showcase learners with magnifying glasses, symbolizing their objective and unbiased approach to analyzing information and understanding the complexities involved.
In Dimension 3: Metonymic Node-Vector Mechanism, the sphere would illustrate the interactions between different elements within a system. It would show dynamic arrows moving between nodes, representing the influence and emergence of vectors (emergent properties) over time and space.
In Dimension 4: Time and Space, the sphere would encompass a clock and a globe, symbolising the temporal and spatial dimensions of learning. The clock would represent the continuous evolution and emergence of knowledge, while the globe would signify the diversity of learning environments and experiences that learners engage with.
Spierings’ visual integrates these four spheres, overlapping and interconnecting with each other, reflecting the interdependent and holistic nature of the model. The rhizome’s roots would extend into each sphere, signifying the foundational role of rhizomatic learning in shaping the other dimensions.
The visual representation communicates the complexity, dynamism, and interconnectedness of the 4-D Metonymic Learning Framework. It inspires a learner-centric and adaptable educational approach that empowers individuals to embrace uncertainty, think critically, and navigate through the ever-changing metonymic relationships in the world around them. The model has conceptualised its properties as follows:
One common method to represent a four-dimensional sphere is through a process called “projection.” We have projected a four-dimensional sphere onto a three-dimensional space, just like a three-dimensional sphere onto a two-dimensional space (like a circle on a flat surface).
In our 4D sphere, the fourth dimension represents the “radius” of the sphere. To visualise this, we started with a three-dimensional sphere, and then used the fourth dimension as a way to represent the changing size of the sphere as it expands or contracts.
We visualised this projection by using an animated GIF and a series of images that show the three-dimensional “cross-sections” of the four-dimensional sphere as it changes size. As the animation progresses, we see the three-dimensional cross-sections expanding and contracting, indicating the changing size of the four-dimensional sphere in the fourth dimension.
While this written representation is not a true visual depiction of a four-dimensional sphere, it can help you grasp the concept and understand how it behaves in higher dimensions. We are currently improving on our 4-D Metonymic Learning Framework. We encourage clever technologists to join in on the improvements.
Other scientists which influenced metonymic thinking:
In this context, modern technology’s role, as described by Heidegger’s philosophy of “Gestell,” might be considered from a ctirical perspective in that Heidegger argues that modern technology frames our understanding of reality, reducing it to a mere resource for human use and control, thereby challenging original essence and meaning from an ontological interpretation. Yet, De Landa’s key concepts offer a rich understanding of mechanisms of complex systems from a non-representational ontology, in a philosophical perspective that rejects the idea of reality being purely representational or reducible to mental constructs, emphasising the material reality and processes in shaping existence. De Landa’s concepts are:
Assemblage: A complex system or structure composed of heterogeneous elements that interact and produce emergent properties.
Non-Linear Dynamics: The behavior of systems where small changes in initial conditions can lead to significantly different outcomes, often characterized by chaotic or unpredictable behavior.
Emergence: The appearance of new properties, structures, or behaviors that arise from the interactions of elements within a complex system, rather than being inherent in any individual component.
Self-Organisation: The spontaneous process through which systems create and maintain their own structure and patterns without external guidance or control.
Intensive Magnitudes: Quantities that measure the intensity or degree of a particular property within a system, such as temperature, pressure, or concentration.
Extensive Magnitudes: Quantities that measure the amount or size of a particular property within a system, such as volume, mass, or population.
Materialist Philosophy: A philosophical approach that emphasizes the primacy of material reality and physical processes in shaping the world and human experience, often contrasted with idealism.
Stratification: The organization of elements in a system into layers or strata based on their properties or interactions, contributing to the system’s overall stability.
Virtuality: Potential or virtual entities that exist in a state of becoming, waiting to actualize under specific conditions within a system.
Singularities: Points of maximum intensity or potential in a system where new properties or behaviors emerge, leading to significant transformations.
In the realm of physics, the intricate relationship between energy, particles, and dynamics illustrates a fascinating interplay, generating both functioning and direction in the universe. Similarly, in the domain of philosophy and educational theory, Susan Sontag’s work “Against Interpretation” and the ideas of philosophers like Levinas and Gert Biesta regarding the construction of the self and the Other contribute to a profound understanding of metonymic or synecdochal relativity with an emphasis on relativity.
Energy and particles dynamically interact in the universe, forming systems and structures that function based on intricate relationships. This functioning is often guided by the direction of energy flow and the interplay of particles, contributing to the continuous evolution and complexity of the universe.
Drawing parallels to educational theory, Sontag’s “Against Interpretation” challenges the conventional understanding of interpreting and interpreting art. Instead of seeking to decipher the intended meaning, Sontag advocates for embracing the sensory and emotional experience that art provokes, emphasising the importance of personal interpretation and relativity in the encounter with artistic expressions.
Similarly, Levinas and Biesta highlight the idea that the construction of the self and the Other is a relational and contextual process. The perception of the Self and the Other is not fixed but shaped by the dynamic interaction between individuals and their surrounding environment. This emphasis on relativity suggests that our identities and understanding of others are not absolute but contingent on the context and relational dynamics in which they exist and interdependent.
By combining these philosophical insights with the scientific notions of energy, particles, and dynamics, a metonymic or synecdochal theory of relativity in education emerges. Just as energy and particles interact to create functioning and direction in the physical universe, so too do the interactions between individuals and their surroundings shape the functioning and direction of knowledge and understanding in the educational realm. This approach recognises the interdependence of individuals and their context, encouraging a more flexible and inclusive perspective in education that embraces the richness of diverse perspectives and interpretations. In this educational theory, the emphasis lies on understanding knowledge and identity as fluid and interconnected, highlighting the importance of the dynamic interplay between individuals and their environment in the pursuit of knowledge and personal growth.
Quantum theory can be integrated into the theory of metonymic or synecdochal relativity, expanding our understanding of how the dynamics between individuals and their environment operate at a fundamental level.
In the theory of metonymic relativity, quantum theory introduces a profound perspective on the interconnectedness of all entities. Just as quantum particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously, the theory posits that individuals and their surroundings are not isolated entities but interconnected and entangled through a complex web of relationships. The functioning and direction of knowledge and understanding are shaped by these intricate connections, where the actions and experiences of one individual can have ripple effects on others and vice versa.
Similarly, within the framework of synecdochal relativity, quantum theory emphasises the inherent uncertainty and unpredictability that exists in the educational process. Just as the principle of uncertainty in quantum mechanics states that certain properties cannot be precisely known simultaneously, the learning journey is filled with ambiguity and unpredictability. Students and educators constantly grapple with novel ideas and interpretations, which contribute to the ever-evolving and dynamic nature of knowledge and understanding.
Quantum theory challenges us to embrace the complexity and relativity in education, recognizing that there are multiple valid perspectives and interpretations of the same information. The emphasis is not on seeking a singular, absolute truth, but on acknowledging the rich diversity of viewpoints and experiences that contribute to a broader understanding of the subject matter.
By incorporating quantum theory into the theory of metonymic or synecdochal relativity, we shift our perspective to view education as a dynamic and interconnected process, where knowledge and understanding are not fixed entities but emerge through the interactions and entanglements of individuals within their educational environment. This integration invites us to embrace the uncertainties and complexities of the learning journey, fostering a more open and inclusive approach to education that celebrates diverse perspectives and encourages continuous exploration and growth.
Metonymy and synecdoche are both figures of speech used in rhetoric and language to create specific effects and convey meaning. While they are closely related and share some similarities, there are distinct differences between the two:
Metonymy is a figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted with another that is closely related or associated with it. The substitution is based on a logical or contextual connection between the two words. The key characteristic of metonymy is that the substitution is based on a particular relationship, such as cause and effect, container and contents, part and whole, or association.
Example in the Dutch language: “The Little Tower issued a statement.” Here, “The Little Tower” is used as a metonym for the Dutch Government or the Dutch Prime Minister.
Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part of something is used to represent the whole or the whole is used to represent a part. It involves using a specific part or element to stand for the entirety or vice versa. Synecdoche is often used to create vivid imagery or emphasize a specific aspect of the subject.
Example: “All hands on deck.” In this phrase, “hands” represent the entire crew of a ship.
Metonymy involves substituting one word with another based on a logical or contextual relationship, while synecdoche involves using a part to represent the whole or the whole to represent a part. Both figures of speech serve to add depth and nuance to language, allowing for creative and evocative expression in writing and speech. Both figures of speech represent relativity between part and whole.
Rogers (2007) emphasised the importance of whole-to-part concept teaching for gifted learners as part of a larger scope of differentiated instructional delivery, with emphasis on providing opportunities for gifted
learners to work with concepts, principles, issues, and generalisations. Rogers defines the “whole-to-part concept teaching” as an instructional approach that involves presenting complex, meaningful, and integrated concepts to students before breaking them down into their individual components or parts. In this approach, students are introduced to the overall concept or big idea first, providing them with a holistic understanding of the topic. Once they have a grasp of the whole, the instruction then proceeds to delve into the specific details, components, or subtopics related to the larger concept. The whole-to-part concept teaching approach (2007) recognises that gifted learners often have the capacity to comprehend complex ideas quickly and can benefit from a deeper and more challenging approach to learning. By starting with the whole and gradually exploring its parts, this method provides gifted students with a more engaging and intellectually stimulating learning experience. It allows them to see the connections and relationships between different elements of the concept, fostering higher-level thinking and understanding.
Metonymic Relativity Learning (Spierings, 2023) happens when learners move from whole-to-part-to-whole in a continuous process which Spierings labeled as ‘The Reflexive Theory of Metonymic Relativity Learning’.
Part-whole relationships can operate through “philosophia in absentia,” a dynamic 4-dimensional process that occurs in time and space. This process involves the mind engaging in semiosis, creating moments of meaning by perceiving what is absent and unseen in language and images. The mind acts as a complex web of connections, filling gaps and interlinking fragments to gain a profound understanding of the whole from its constituent parts. As time unfolds, the moment of semiosis becomes a catalyst for cognitive transformation, constantly shaping and reshaping thinking. This continuous process of sense-making transcends the boundaries of space and time, allowing the mind to explore the vast potential of the absent, and perpetually evolve its understanding of the world. In this dynamic interplay of part and whole, the mind embarks on a timeless journey of meaning creation, forever expanding its perceptions and insights through the intricate dance of philosophia in absentia.
The concept of non-locality in physics was primarily associated with the field of quantum mechanics and was first formulated as an idea within the framework of quantum theory. It originated from the works of several physicists, most notably from the discussions around the famous EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paradox in 1935. These scientists proposed a thought experiment to challenge certain aspects of quantum theory. They argued that the theory seemed to allow for “spooky action at a distance,” where particles could instantaneously influence each other’s states, even when separated by large distances, violating classical notions of causality and locality. The non-locality aspect of quantum theory gained further prominence through the work of John Bell, who formulated Bell’s inequalities in the 1960s. These inequalities provided a means of testing the predictions of quantum mechanics against classical theories, and the experimental results supported the non-local nature of quantum interactions. Subsequent experiments, such as the Aspect experiments conducted by Alain Aspect in the 1980s, further confirmed the presence of non-local correlations between entangled particles. Non-locality is now a well-established concept in quantum mechanics, and it has profound implications for our understanding of the fundamental nature of reality. Spierings suggests more research on “non-temporality” which might be used to describe concepts related to timelessness, eternity, or events that exist outside the conventional framework of past, present, and future. This idea may have connections to certain philosophical or metaphysical discussions, but its precise meaning would depend on the specific context in which it is used.
Consider Einstein’s theory of special relativity, for instance, published in 1905, which revolutionised our understanding of time, space, and the relationship between matter and energy. Consider the analogy with cultural and literary analysis: Einstein’s theory postulates that the laws of physics are the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion. The theory introduces the concept of a constant speed of light in a vacuum, denoted by “c,” which is the maximum speed at which information can travel in the universe. Special relativity also describes the phenomena of time dilation and length contraction, which occur at high speeds relative to an observer’s frame of reference. As an object’s speed approaches the speed of light, time appears to slow down for that object, and its length appears to contract in the direction of motion. Einstein’s theory of general relativity, presented in 1915, is a theory of gravity that expands on the principles of special relativity. General relativity posits that the force of gravity arises due to the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass and energy. In this theory, massive objects, such as planets or stars, create a curvature in spacetime around them, and other objects move along curved paths in response to this curvature. General relativity has been extensively tested and confirmed in various experiments and observations, such as the bending of light around massive objects (gravitational lensing) and the prediction of the existence of black holes. The theory of relativity has profound implications for our understanding of the universe, from the behaviour of particles and the whole, and as such for our collective meaning-making of our world.
Noam Chomsky and the “Linguistic Turn” are significant concepts in the field of linguistics and the broader study of human language. The “Linguistic Turn” refers to a shift in philosophical and scientific thinking that occurred in the mid-20th century, where language and its role in shaping human understanding and knowledge became a central focus of inquiry. In the 1950s and 1960s, Chomsky challenged the prevailing behaviorist perspective on language acquisition, which posited that language learning was a result of environmental conditioning and imitation. Chomsky argued that language acquisition was an innate and biologically driven process, and he proposed the existence of a universal grammar that underlies all human languages. Chomsky’s theory of universal grammar suggests that the capacity to learn language is genetically determined, and that all human beings are born with a mental framework that enables them to acquire language effortlessly during their developmental years. According to Chomsky, the human brain contains a language acquisition device (LAD), which provides the basic structure and rules for language learning. This idea challenged the prevailing view that language was merely a product of cultural and environmental factors. His ideas sparked a renewed interest in the study of language as a key aspect of human cognition and communication. What if this so-called ‘linguistic turn’ keeps on turning, making process as or more relevant than the turn in the study of the nature of human thought and knowledge itself?
Moreover, in a hyperreal society dominated by media narratives, Baudrillard’s concept of the “Simulacrum” blurs the boundaries between reality and representation, presenting a challenge to traditional notions of identity. This idea, while providing valuable insights into the fluidity of identity and the potential for disrupting hierarchical systems, does not consider the ethical implications of merging humans and technology. The non-neutrality with which humans use technology for their own purposes poses an inherent threat, reinforcing the need for neutrality in our metonymic relativity.
Drawing from the theories of De Landa, Deleuze, and Baudrillard, among others, we gain deeper insights into the complexities of human existence in a technologically driven world. De Landa’s assemblage theory emphasises the emergence of complex systems from interactions between heterogeneous elements, while Deleuze’s philosophy explores non-linear dynamics and materialist ontology. These theories provide valuable lenses through which we can analyse the impact of technology on society and the multifaceted nature of human experiences.
Considering the inherent non-neutrality in technology usage and its potential threats, it becomes crucial to educate in ethics. Embracing metonymic relativity and rhizomatic learning, where interconnected relationships shape human perception and interaction, can help us navigate the complexities and uncertainties of the modern world. By fostering a neutral analysis approach, we can avoid biases and distortions in understanding, enabling young people to critically evaluate the impact of technology on society and make informed choices for the collective welfare.
In order to prepare our young people for the challenges of the future world, education must focus on equipping them with a diverse set of skills that foster adaptability, critical thinking, and resilience. The following elements might need much more emphasis in current education:
Digital Literacy: Proficiency in using various digital tools, understanding online information, and navigating digital platforms responsibly.
Critical Thinking: Analysing information critically, evaluating sources, and forming independent judgements.
Problem-Solving: Tackling real-world challenges creatively and collaboratively.
Emotional Intelligence: Understanding and managing emotions effectively, fostering empathy and strong interpersonal relationships.
Adaptability and Resilience: Embracing change positively and overcoming setbacks.
Creativity and Innovation: Thinking outside the box and generating original ideas.
Global Awareness and Cultural Competence: Appreciating diversity and fostering a sense of responsibility as global citizens.
Environmental Sustainability: Promoting environmental awareness and sustainable practices.
Lifelong Learning: Instilling a love for continuous learning and skill development.
Ethical Decision-Making: Encouraging responsible decision-making and integrity.
References:
Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press.
Biesta, G., & Joldersma, C. (2011). How can qualitative research inform educational practice? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(6), 663-676.
Bohm, D. & Peat, F.D. (1987). Science, Order, and Creativity. Bantam, 240-47.
Brantmeier, E.J. (2013). Pedagogy of vulnerability: Definitions, assumptions, and applications. In Lin, J., Oxford, R., Brantmeier, E.J., Re-Envisioning Higher Education: Embodied Pathways to Wisdom and Transformation. Information Age Publishing, forthcoming.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(5).
Cormier, D. (2011). Rhizomatic learning – why we teach? Dave’s Educational Blog. Retrieved from http://davecormier.com/edblog/2011/11/05/rhizomatic-learning-why-learn/
Cormier, D. (2014). Rhizomatic learning: The community is the curriculum. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5).
De Landa, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1980). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. The Macmillan Company.
Heidegger, M. (1954). Die Frage nach der Technik. Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Harper & Row.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.