This week you had the first literature that represents the situative perspective on learning. You got to hear in the debate in ER some of the historical perspective on where BC&D’s notions of cognitive apprenticeship have their roots. You also saw in TSS how situative ideas have been incorporated into the discourse in science education. So, tonight we will work on developing a model of cognitive apprenticeship, with specific emphasis on looking for the problems they were trying to solve (in schools and learning theory) and what criticisms they received. You all brought up some good questions that need to be dealt with as we work on our model:
- How does cognitive apprenticeship compare as a model to our other models?
- What is culture? What does it mean to be enculturated into disciplinary practices?
- What constitutes authentic activity in the context of learning science?
Here some relevant quotes from your posts:
In response to this concern, Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) state “at best, students will only be able to assimilate partial understandings of any disciplinary cultures” (p. 11). If we do not expect students to develop an understanding of these cultural practices, is it truly necessary for them to engage in the culture in order for learning to occur?
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 authors compare knowledge to tools, in which tools can only be understood through use. This reminded me of the phrase, use or lose it. However, one criticism is that people often use tools incorrectly or not for its intended purpose.
While you certainly can learn things about a tool by using it, there are other things about it that need to be learned in a more traditional, abstract way. I might know how to use a microwave perfectly well, but have no idea how it actually works.
What I found most striking is a shift from Brown et al where the teaching method just needs to be changed for students (the empty vessels that they are) to learn to TSS where students come into the classroom (or any other learning environment) with preexisting ideas and beliefs that may play significant roles in how and what they learn.