Frozen Fluidity: Learning, Memory, and Digital Education
This paper examines two interrelated theoretical frameworks bearing on contemporary education and memory. Drawing on Schraube and Marvakis (2015), it contrasts the transfer model of learning—in which knowledge flows unidirectionally from teacher to student—with expansive learning, a process through which students increase their cultural and social agency. The paper then critiques the rise of digital education as a return to the transfer model, arguing that online commodification "freezes" learning by marginalizing students and teachers from knowledge creation. The second half draws on Brockmeier (2002) to reframe memory as a dynamic, culturally embedded process shaped by past experiences, present cognitive states, and future expectations, in which forgetting holds equal standing with remembering.
- Introduction: The Transfer Model and Its Limits: Contrasts transfer model with expansive learning theory
- Expansive Learning and the Digital Classroom: Digital education commodifies and freezes knowledge
- Memory as Eddy Currents: Brockmeier's Framework: Memory as dynamic interplay of past, present, future
- Culture, Identity, and the Social Dimensions of Memory: Culture shapes memory and social identity formation
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper uses a central metaphor—"frozen fluidity"—to unify two seemingly distinct topics (digital education and cultural memory) under a shared conceptual theme about agency and flow.
- It effectively contrasts competing theoretical models (transfer vs. expansive learning; remembering vs. forgetting) to highlight the stakes of each framework.
- The eddy-current metaphor is developed carefully across two paragraphs, with the paper deliberately inverting the reader's initial interpretation to deepen the argument.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates conceptual synthesis: it weaves together two separate scholarly sources—Schraube & Marvakis on learning theory and Brockmeier on memory—into a coherent argument about cultural agency. Rather than summarizing each source separately, the writer finds the common thread (the role of culture and society in shaping individual cognition) and uses it to move between topics organically.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by introducing the transfer model of learning and its limitations, then introduces expansive learning as a richer alternative. It pivots to critique digital education as a commodifying force that undermines expansive learning. The second half shifts to memory theory, using Brockmeier's eddy-current metaphor to show how memory is culturally situated. The conclusion of that section connects memory and identity formation back to the paper's broader concern with cultural participation and social belonging.
Introduction: The Transfer Model and Its Limits
The transfer model of learning, when taken to its extreme, assumes that the act of teaching implies that learning occurs (Schraube & Marvakis, 2015). From this perspective, as long as the teacher teaches, the student will learn. The flow of knowledge is therefore unidirectional. More contemporary theories of learning account for an individual student's motivation, willingness, and ability to learn, while other models incorporate reciprocal interactions between teacher and student.
When the student seeks to expand their influence over their own life—through a process called expansive learning—society necessarily influences the learning choices the student makes, because expanding one's influence requires consideration of cultural and social expectations. Learning can therefore be a mechanism through which a person increases their ability to make cultural and social contributions, which in turn increases their value to society and thus their security. The expansive learning process, according to Schraube and Marvakis (2015), takes place at brick-and-mortar colleges and universities.
Expansive Learning and the Digital Classroom
The expansive learning process stands in stark contrast to the digital revolution in formal learning environments (Schraube & Marvakis, 2015). Once again, the transfer model appears to be emerging as the dominant model in the learning "marketplace." Course content, institutional and instructor reputations, and convenience are commodities to be bought and sold. What is lost is the community of learning that can only be found on a brick-and-mortar campus.
Accordingly, Schraube and Marvakis (2015) describe this new commodity as frozen, because students and even teachers are increasingly marginalized from the creation of these educational products. The logical conclusion is that society will suffer as a result, because learning outcomes will be less a product of cultural and social expectations and more a product of the education marketplace.
Memory as Eddy Currents: Brockmeier's Framework
Brockmeier (2002) strips away our pedestrian assumptions about memory and its role in our lives. An individual's mind—and its processes of remembering and forgetting—is like a finger stuck into the stream of time. But instead of a continuous flow in one direction, the finger encounters a place filled with eddy currents. Our minds are therefore continuously buffeted between past memories, the influences of our present cognitive and psychological state, and our expectations for the future.
Since our mind is the primary agent in this interpretive process, a Freudian perspective would assume that interpretations of past events are influenced by both the conscious and unconscious mind. This model places equivalent importance on the processes of remembering and forgetting, which stands in stark contrast to the historical emphasis on remembering as the only "good" memory outcome and the corresponding vilification of forgetting.
References
Brockmeier, J. (2002). Remembering and forgetting: Narrative as cultural memory. Culture & Psychology, 8(1), 14–43.
Schraube, E., & Marvakis, A. (2015, in press). Chapter 11: Frozen fluidity: Digital technology and the transformation of students' learning and conduct of everyday life. In E. Schraube & C. Hojholt (Eds.), Psychology and the Conduct of Everyday Life (pp. 1–19). London: Routledge.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.