Acquisition and Participation Metaphors of Learning

Acquisition and Participation Metaphors of LearningIntroductionA wealth of seek has been devoted to the goal of understanding an array of different theories of companionship which demand emerged indoors the last 50 years. The focus of this paper is to address two specific paradigms, within which cultivation is now understood. These consist of the acquisition allegory and the participatory metaphor of training. The relative merits of each paradigm, has been evinced through a coalescence of scientific research, appropriating findings from an array of emerging fields of inquiry. Greeno (199714) notes that progression in the field of cognitive science has illuminated our understanding of the processes of problem-solving, reasoning, understanding and memory, whilst advancements in understanding social interaction ar derived from ethnography, ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, discourse analysis, and socio ethnic psychology. In broad(a) hurt, these two intelligible lines of inquiry feel fuelled the alternate metaphors of acquisition and participation, as modal values of thinking nigh the personality of learning. When paradigms such as these develop, they bring with them the typical array of conditioninology characteristic of the intellectual currents, which spawn them. wire-haired pointing griffon (2003 68) helpfully ac familiaritys that the reason in part why the lines of inquiry about learning have been divergent is that different authors have used different terminology to describe the types of learning that they have studied. Greeno (1997 14) rightly concedes that the prospects for theoretical advancement are improved if the scientific agenda prizes synthesis. The proverbial maxim that iron sharpens iron is relevant here, where the two metaphors of learning have lived through an intellectual period in binary opposition, illustrated by aspects of Brown, collins and Duguid (1988) Andersen, Reder and Simon (1996) and Greeno (1997). Indeed, as Greeno (1997 15) notes in his concluding remarks, the cognitive and situative perspectives are both valuable for informing discussions of educational practice, but in rather different ways.The prismatic-like dimensions of learning have allowed it to be categorised variously, reflective of a variety of operating paradigms. Binary categorisations including single or double loop (Argyris and Schn, 1978) maintenance or advance(a) (Botkin et al 1979) banking or problem-posing (Freire 1972) reflective or non-reflective (Jarvis 1992) formative or transformative (Mezirow 1991) or surface or deep (Marton 1982) are all noted by Griffin (2003 68-72). These theoretical constructions of learning, can be in part at least, subsumed within the ambit of the two metaphors in question, namely learning as acquisition or learning as participation.Jonassen and Land (2000 28), note that Resnick (1987), in her presidential address to the American educational Research Association, examined the practices i n schools, which are predicated most strongly on the acquisition metaphor, comparing them to how individuals learn and use knowledge outside of schools. Her analysis focused attention on the collaborative, contextualised, and concrete character of learning outside of school, as opposed to the individual and face-lift character of learning that occurs inside of school. Arguably, it was this analysis that served as one of the principal stimuli for the development of the participatory perspective with its emphasis on situated activity.The Participatory MetaphorWhile the field of cognitive psychology is well established, the fields of social psychology and cultural studies are emergent fields. The participatory metaphor of learning has grown out of these to a great extent recently emerging psychological and sociological disciplines. Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) observed that methods of learning that try to teach slip concepts independent of authentic situations overlook the way u nderstanding is acquired and developed through continued, situated use. These researchers also assert that understanding is reliant upon complex social interactions and negotiations. Brown, Collins and Duguids (1989) assertion that the nature of language acquisition is analogous to the nature of all knowledge acquisition is a useful interpretive device. Language style acquisition is a relatively rapid and efficient process when learners are participants in authentic situations, in this object lesson explained as situations where a genuine serviceable need for language acquisition exists in order for individuals to participate in the flow of real life conversations. Herein, learners are active participants with practitioners, indeed cognitive apprentices as Brown, Collins and Duguid (1988) postulate. An authentic language acquisition environment, encourages the awareness of nuance and the practice of negotiation to promptly deal with uncertainty, an option, arguably not as availab le to students in conventional classroom settings. By way of contrast, Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) describe typical language acquisition commencees in schools as extremely inefficient, due to the level of contrivance, belying the order of formal definition and memorisation without regular practice.According to Brown, Collins and Duguid (19891), knowing is inextricably situated in the somatogenic and social context of its acquisition and use. This delegacy of knowing resonates with Jonassen and Lands (2000 28) comments that, knowing about refers to an activity not a thing. Knowing about is always contextualised not abstract knowing about is reciprocally constructed within the individual-environment interaction not objectively gear upd or subjectively created and knowing about is a functional stance on the interactionnot a truth. Participatory advocates underline the inseparability of knowing and doing, an assertion, which, if widely true, raises enormous challenges for s chools and other formalised educational institutions.Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989), explore the enticing notion of cognitive apprenticeship, berth teachers as masters of apprentices, who utilise authentic domain activity. They make the astute observations that, social interaction, social construction of knowledge is significant, therefore conversation, narrative and anecdote, should not be dismissed as noise. Furthermore, they assert legitimate peripheral participation is significant for it ofttimes involves apprentices, attempting to enter the culture. This articulation of genuine learning imbibes the sociological significance of the learning frame march. The participatory metaphor of learning empowers the individual and the social group within the learning context. Other common terms noted amidst situated cognition adherents, terms such as participatory, brokering and negotiating, elevate the status and significance of the learner within the learning environment, implying an a ctive, engaged and enculturated role on behalf of the learner, in relation to the learning process. These concepts prefigure the premise that learning is an active process, and certainly not an inert, static crossway, such as an intact body of rarefied knowledge, permanently beyond dispute or modification. This framework for understanding learning has real currency at a time when geo- governmental shifts in an increasingly globalised world and village, exposes the tentative nature of knowledge, which may have been perceived as immutably fixated in previous centuries. The elevation of the learners status in relation to the act and process of knowing, is an appealing way to view the nature of learning.A logical extension of this interpretation of learning, is its predilection according to Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989), for collective problem solving, enacting multiple roles, confronting ineffective strategies, and utilising collaborative work skills. The corresponding conviction, that learning is a transaction, also pinpoints a false assumption. In this light, it is deemed to be false, that knowledge is individual and self-structured, that schools are neutral in terms of what is wise(p) in them, that concepts are abstract and immutable, and are independent of the context in which they are acquired, that (JPF) behaviour should be discouraged.Johansen and Land (2000 84) notes situated cognition, (or SitCog to its pundits), while place any(prenominal) advantages over previous foundations, does not presently offer a comprehensive account of cognition. For SitCog to fully serve as an integrating framework, a convey of accommodating multiple perspectives needs to be developed, to allow inclusion of selected ideas and practices from behaviourism, symbolic cognition, and other theories, both psychological and non-psychological.Johansen and Land (2000) note that SitCog also presents an opportunity to define the designers role in new ways. The design task is seen in interactional, or participatory (rather than rational-planning), terms. They assert that (200084) design and control become situated within the political and social context of actual learning environments. Rather than applying the best learning theory, designers and participants of learning environments honour the constraints and affordances of the local situation. A situated view of design, then, is one that supports the good practices of participants and stakeholders, using whatever theories, tools, or technologies at their disposal.New situations continually recast concepts in a more densely textured form- concepts are ever evolving. Concepts are always under construction and defy categorical descriptionBrown et al (1988) provide a clear account of situated cognition, a term noted frequently in the literature review which draws attention to the critical role of situation or context in the process of learning. The concept of situativity, is a find component of the participat ory metaphor of learning. It asserts that knowledge is a product of a specific learning situation, embodying a set of cultural assumptions, which facilitate the cultural construction of knowledgeThe researchers advocate the inseparability of knowing and doing, which has enormous implications for education and learning, if their further assertion is correct, than conventional educational settings and theories of mind, disassociate knowing and doing as two distinct practices.This conceptualisation of learning acknowledges the significance of the activity, whereby authentic activities are defined as ordinary activities of the practitioners of a culture. Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989), indicate school activities are hybrid- framed within the values of one culture- school, (while attributed to the culture of another domain, such as that of the historian or the mathematician). Proponents of the need for authentic learning activities, applaud the participatory metaphor of learning. These researchers bank learning activities congruent with what practitioners do, a noble aspiration embracing the insights of the apprentice model of admission and enculturation, into the beliefs and practices of particular learning communities. The corollary, amongst some situative theorists, most notably Lave, is regrettably a fairly strident expose of the limitations of schooling, since knowing becomes transmuted within school contexts, so school culture replaces, rather than allows access to the authentic domain of knowledge. substantiate that growing body of research into cognition undermines the notion that abstract knowledge can readily be transferred from the minds of teachers to the minds of students. Knowing is inextricably situated in the physical and social context of its acquisition and use p1 If extracted from these, it is irretrievably transformed.Anderson, Reder and Simon (1996) attempt to distil four key claims posed by the situative learning proponents, then to systema tically denudate each one, from a viewpoint more akin to the acquisition metaphor of learning. To complicate this debate, Greenos (1997) rejoinder, asserts that Anderson et al (1996), misreads the paradigm of situative cognition, providing an overly simplistic distillation of the case for the SitCogs.Andersen et al (1996), state that sitcogs claim all knowledge is context specific or context bound, insofar this is going too far. Their rebuttal suggests research yet to be conducted may show that knowledge is made more transferable, when initial explicit instructions that transferability of knowledge concepts is articulated and value. They also found some research failed to find evidence of context specificity in relation to learning that how tightly knowledge is bound to context depends upon the nature of the knowledge. Furthermore, they concluded that knowledge is more context-bound when taught in a single context, moreover links between school based competencies and workplace com petencies show some correlation, diffusing a degree of the potency of some situated learning advocates.The Acquisition MetaphorThe consolidated field of cognitive psychology, shaping theories of learning over several decades, has espoused the view that knowledge is a product that is capable of consumption and acquisition. This more long-standing understanding of learning has not surprisingly felt threatened by the situative cognition view. It is seen by many as a conservative or conventional conceptualisation of learning, attuned to the enculturation process of traditional schooling.A belief from within this camp, is the notion of the existence and value of abstract knowledge deemed to be valuable in its supposed dexterity, to be able to reappear for reapplication in relation to additional contexts in meaningful ways for learners. Greeno (199715) admits that while more drawn to the situative learning paradigm, nonetheless, the cognitive perspective clarifies aspects of intellectual performance and learning, with its emphasis on and clarification of informational structures of skill, knowledge, strategies and understanding.While the situative camp has to some extent charged knowledge with an inability to be transferred, once stripped of the original context in which it is learnt, Greeno (1997), defends the participatory model. He suggests its recognition that the notion of transferability of knowledge must be examined with greater subtlety and detection of nuance. Andersen et al (1996), cites evidence of studies to show the full gamut of opinion about degrees to which knowledge transfers or not, which superficially appears to undermine the situative, participatory view, that knowledge distant from its context is diminished. The further claim attributed by Andersen et al (1996), to the situative view of knowledge and seeming attack upon the acquisition pundits, is the assertion that training by abstraction is of microscopical use. The writers support the use o f abstract instruction combined with concrete examples as a powerful approach to knowledge acquisition, citing studies which purport to demonstrate the efficacy of abstract knowledge. Finally, they pose the claim by situative proponents, that instruction needs to be done in complex social environments. To counter this, Andersen et al notes that part training is often more effective than holistic training, exemplified through tax code being better learnt whilst removed from the social context of interaction with a tax thickening thereby removed from the social environment. Furthermore, cooperative, group learning studies which are deemed to be inclusive, yet studies do not categorically show group learning to be necessarily superior.Recommendations and ConclusionsBrown, Collins and Duguid (1989) recommend that since situated learning postulates that activity and perception precede conceptualisation, they therefore need to be better understood. In line with this, key terms used to b olster both the participatory and the acquisitional metaphors of learning need more precise definition.It seems that both conceptualisations of learning recognise much of the merit in the opposing camp, as well as (at least in an intuitive manner) the artificiality of binary opposition in fields of academic research and inquiry. The dialectical approach to research within the relevant scientific disciplines, appear to recognise the value and goal of synthesis, in order that robust progress in understanding of the nature of learning occurs.BibliographyBooksGriffin, C et al (2003) The Theory Practice of Learning, London. Kogan PressJonassen, D.H., and Land, S.M., (2000) Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments.. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesJournal ArticlesAnderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., Simon H. A. (1996). Situated Learning and Education, Educational Researcher, Vol 25, No. 4, pp 5-11, American Educational Research AssociationBrown, J.S., Collins, A. Duguid, S. (1 989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher,Vol 18, No. 1, pages 32-42. American Educational Research AssociationGreeno, J,G. (Jan. to Feb. 1997) Response On Claims That Answer the ill-treat Questions, Educational Researcher, Vol 26, No. 1, pages 5-17, American Educational Research Association