While reading Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning by Brown et. al., I was curious by the various comparisons they made throughout their paper: vocabulary and the way situations structure cognition; tool usage and conceptual knowledge; comparing Just Plain Folk to student learning and practitioners actions are just a few examples. Curious in regards to how they were going to weave the two together and impressed by how they effectively did so. I felt they made a strong case for the importance of situated cognition and authentic activity. Upon reflection, I recall a time in education when “authentic instruction” and “authentic experiences” were the big buzz words. It always made me wonder what that really meant. Weren’t all the science activities I was providing for my students authentic? What exactly did that mean? I know am beginning to understand what the “community” meant by authentic activities…and I wonder how many of my colleagues really understood this concept? And did this buzz word start with this work?
However, what was really interesting was reading other researchers responses to this “new” idea of situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship. The discourse provided by Palincsar was fascinating. It really drove home many points. The first is how scientific argumentation is important in science education research as in science research. I loved how she took to task their lack of previous researchers work which influenced their work: John Dewey, Vygotski, and Bruner. I also thought it interesting how she took apart some of the claims and countered them with other work, in addition to questioning some of their claims. However, she tried to soften her “criticisms” with the ending statement of “However, with each such foray, we, as a discipline, are better situated to improve the educational process” (pg. 7). Another point for me was how important it is to be thorough in your writing. While you can’t anticipate every criticism other academics might find with your research, it is important to site your philosophical and theoretical frameworks so readers are clear about your beliefs and foundation for your research. This was an area Wineburg was questioning. Is it really new or a new twist on an old idea. While I felt Palincsar was too critical of their work, she attempted to back up her concerns with research and practical points. Of course Brown et al.’s rebuttal was also interesting to read, as they could back up or clarify Palincsar’s comments. I felt like I was witnessing the scientific practices and discourse discussed in TSTS and one which teachers and students often don’t realize are an important aspect of science education!
Tags: pals
Well the blog ate my least attempt at a comment so here goes try #2:
I think we are more comfortable with this idea since we have taught and we are strong in our content areas. Taking science courses at university and then teaching is different than working in a lab doing research or in a job. You really do see the culture. I can feel a slight shift in my perspectives as I become more immersed in this sci ed. grad school thing ( not that I can spout epistimology at the drop of a hat – or spell it correctly apparently). Can we expect the same of students who are nort focussed on one are as we are. They have 6 different subjects!
I know that to outsiders that many of my lessons seem suthentic, but I know they are more school science. At least there are fewer of those than when I started. It take effort to immerse Ss in science culture when they have been teethed on science as vocab. Do we need content specialists at thelower grades? How can an already overwhelmed elementary teacher immerse Ss in all those cultures which requires for them ot be intimtely familar with them.
Leah,
Interesting that you share the idea of “weren’t all the experiences…authentic.” I too, in thinking back on my teaching days (as if they have ended) and the experiences that I shared with my students. In the back of my mind, I was always trying to make them as tangible as possible to everyone. In remembering that and reading TSTS, I thought back to how different students in different classes had different attitudes towards science. Can I type different again in that sentence? Then my mind would shift back to the age old student question of “when am I going to use this?” My answer was always something to the effect of: “this will expand your knowledge which will make you a better thinker” or some other canned response. In reading more about “situated cognition”, JPFs, students, and practioners…I am beginning to think more in terms of the validity of situated cognition. I am going to have to read more about this and see how it applies to me and my educational experiences.