After this week’s readings, it is apparent that some people mean different things when they discuss situated cognition and relatedly, cognitive apprenticeship. TSS, Ch6 started with the caveat that developmental trends and base-line competencies can be expected. However, they also state that inferences from this research are inappropriate and are likely to yield underestimates. They further discuss that it is not clear to what extent limitations are due to developmental stage as opposed to adequacy of instructional opportunity or other experiences. As a developmental psychologist, I understand their concern; however, I do think it is appropriate to consider these developmental trends when creating instruction or curriculum. I do agree with them about individual differences and that some children may not have these “limits”, but they should still be an integral part to designing instruction. Much of the field of developmental psychology focuses on understanding these developmental cognitive barriers (e.g., information processing, working memory, spatial reasoning, etc.) to learning.
One notion that I really enjoyed was the idea of controversy. TSS notes that students are rarely taught about controversy, which may help explain why they fail to understand that controversy is a part of science. TSS, Ch 7 discusses two types of argument (scientific vs. everyday) and that children do not understand the differences between these two. However, I personally think that some adult experts in their field of study cannot differentiate between the two, which can also be problematic.
The commentaries between Brown et al, Palinscar, Wineburg, and Brown et al are truly interesting because they all bring up excellent points to situated cognition. Overall, I think they can all agree that situated cognition is a tool to use when learning in new situations. Situated cognition should also help students form sound epistemological framework and give students a sense of agency in learning. I do think the issue of culture is strongly debated and still is. I must admit I am still a little confused as to where I stand as well. The student has to implicitly understand parts of the specific culture’s belief system in order to acquire its skills (e.g., math). Brown then discusses the use of authentic activity in the way that people make sense of concepts through engaging in activity that circumscribes those concepts. However, I’m still a little unsure of what exactly constitutes a culture and its associated authentic activities.
The Vanderbilt group discusses anchored instruction in two interesting examples. They discuss anchored instruction in initial regards to overcoming the inert knowledge problem. This is done by creating environments that encourage sustained exploration by students and teachers that allow them to understand kinds of problems that experts in various fields encounter and the knowledge that these experts use as “tools.” This type of instruction simulates apprenticeships that comprise of authentic activities. Anchored cognition is evident through their two examples with younger children, but how is it done with older populations (e.g., high school and college students)?
Hi Cori-
I liked that you brought up cognitive barriers that may influence when and how a child learns. I agree that a child’s developmental stage does need to be taken into account when designing curriculum and when trying to understand what a child is learning. Controversy, argumentation, different conclusions based on the same data, and all the other not-black-and-white aspects that are the hallmarks of science are difficult concepts to grasp. They are difficult concepts to teach as well. Because the current educational system seems to be hyper-focused on assessment can curriculum be designed that can convey the openendedness and continual question development of authentic science plus black and white answers to single questions?
While reading Brown et al I had some difficulties with how and why cultures of specific disciplines were going to be worked into the classroom. Paliscar (p.6) did a good job of compiling a list of questions that I thought Brown et al needed to address about logistics—how many different disciplines and related cultures are going to be introduced; how are the teachers going to know what a discipline’s culture is, etc. It was her last question of this series that really stood out for me—“twenty years from now careers will be markedly different” so why try to enculturate students into cultures that will change, possibly many times over before they are out of school? I am also unsure of what constitutes a disipline’s culture and associated activities and how to instill those into the existing culture of a classroom. More useful to students, I think, is to employ situated cognition in learning environments that will enable students to build a broad platform of knowledge and curiosity that they can tap into to develop questions and find the information that will help them develop and verify answers to those questions. In this scenario, can knowledge be more realistically characterized as a tool?
Julianne
Cori,
I read the Taking Science to School (2007) chapters prior to reading the debate between Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989), Palincsar (1989), and Wineburg (1989). Because of this, I did not have a clear idea of what was meant by situated learning or cognitive apprenticeship when reading Taking Science to School (2007). I thought that the developmental stages that the authors described were interesting and I could identify myself at some of the stages at points in my life; however, I wasn’t sure how these stages fit into situated learning or cognitive apprenticeship.
Although Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) presented a thorough explanation of their view of cognitive apprenticeship, I was left wondering what they meant by authentic activity as well. However, you raise a good point about the meaning of culture. This was not something that I thought about when reading the article; however, it is important to know what constitutes a culture and when it is appropriate and worthwhile to engage in the practices of a particular culture.
Is anchored instruction a specific way of teaching when following the cognitive apprenticeship learning model?
KeriAnn