I am trying to analyze the cognitive apprenticeship as a theory, and not as a practioner, but that is very difficult. So let me get the “what would this look like in an actual classroom” thoughts out of the way. The Vanderbilt group paper attempted to do this, but I am not convinced that there was an apprenticeship going on there. The videodisc problems (remember videodiscs?) seem more like great problems, but I did not see any culture of mathematicians in there. Instead, it seems like the students were JPFs applying their ideas to a real life problem. Also, the examples given both in the Brown,Collins and Duguid paper as well as the Vanderbilt were at the extremes of elemetary school and then college students. What about the high school? That is where an more sophisticated apprenticeship could occur. Also, most teachers are not practioners of their subject, esp. in lower grades. Can we accurately present the culture?
OK – onto theory…
The idea of immersing students in the culture of a subject makes sense if we are interested in teaching more than useless facts. It could show students the differences and similarities of the diffierent disciplines if they are handled explicitly. But the entire idea seems like an overcomplication of the idea that all knowledge is contextual, like those indexical words. I have had students not use their mathematical knowledge from a previous class in physics until explicitly told to do so. But maybe this is a prior knowledge problem more than context. I think students are not used to the idea that their previous knowledge is still needed – they have the idea of tabula rasa maybe more than teachers. But maybe that could also be a problem of school culture not reflecting real world culture.
I am not convinced that a cultural apprenticeshop theory will increase transfer of learning to other contexts. As Wineburg points out there are studies that transfer increases both with and without strong contexts.
Another passage that bothered me was in the final rejoinder by Brown,Collins and Duguid. On page 11, they address Wineburg;s concern about keeping up with the lstest fad by saying that there is no need since “At best Ss will only be able to assimilate partial understandings of any disciplinary cultures, but that may be adequate for the acquisition of many insights and skills.” That seemed like such a weak argument – Ss won’t get the whole picture, but they may get something out of it. i am not convonced that there is an improvement here.
Looking at this from a nature of science (NOS) perspective, is the cultural apprentice idea related to teaching about NOS? It seems so, but what about content? The magic square example in the original paper left me with the question of what was the content ot be taught? Personally, I can teach physics content and still teach NOS, but is that a cultural apprenticeship?
On the culture of science ed. scholarship – I enjoyed reading the Brown,Collins and Duguid paper and then the replies. Seeing how scholars in the field read the paper gave me insight to how I should read papers.
Tags: pals
Good point regarding most teachers not necessarily being practioners of their disciplines. While it is true that some professionals in science leave the “field” to become teachers, most science teachers have gone through teacher preparation programs. Can we, as science teachers accurately represent the field? Good question. One would hope so. I would assume that your expertise in physics and thinking like a physicist would qualify you as more than just a layperson, but not exactly an expert practioner.
I also was interested in your idea of school culture. In my mind, school is an artifical culture and not really representative of “real world culture”, whatever that may be. I think back to the idea of border crossing…trying to switch from one culture to another, in this case school to real life and vice versa.
I’m intrigued by your comment about how your physics students won’t use their mathematical skills unless specifically instructed to do so. It seems to me that this emphasizes Brown et al.’s comments about “Learning from dictionaries, like any method that tries to teach abstract concepts independently of authentic situations, overlooks the way understanding is developed through continued, situated use. This development, which involves complex social negotiations, does not crystallize into a categorical definition” (pg. 33). It seems that the students have been taught to apply their learning in only one situation, so they are unable to transfer that knowledge until specifically told to do so. According to the TSTS chapter on Participating in Scientific Practices and Discourse, this clear articulation of expectations is important for students from other cultures or socio-economic backgrounds, since they need this support.
I think that was the idea behind the Magic Square Problem and Lampert’s teaching of multiplication. When students are just provided experiences where they just find the answer and move on, they miss the most important aspect of the learning. They miss the conceptual change opportunity of the “ah ha” moment where they understand the context behind the problem, allowing them to apply the learning in other contexts.