Introduction:
The
paper critics the four central claims of situated learning in education
specially in mathematics namely, (1) action is grounded in the concrete
situation, (2) knowledge does not transfer between tasks, (3) training by
abstraction is of little use and (4) instruction must be done in social
environments. The authors argue that further research in cognitive psychology
find stronger and productive links between psychology and mathematics as
compared to that of situated learning as also supported by Lesh and Lamen (1992
p. 18-19). At present, two movements, situated learning and constructivism
guide the educational research. Constructivism being primarily a philosophical
concept whereas situated learning having empirical consequences. Situated learning
(Lave 1988; Lave and Wenger 1991; Greeno, Smith, Moore, 1992) emphasis they
learning takes place when present in a context and it stands true for all
aspects of education. This movement have brought light to what is learned in
the classroom and what is needed outside, in the larger world. However, the
authors argue that not all claims of situated learning are accurate thus
discussing each of the four claims with empirical data.
Claim
1: Action is grounded in the concrete situation
This
being the central concept of situated learning, the authors believe that it is
exaggerated to all forms of education, especially mathematics. A frequently
cited example if Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann’s (1985) account of
Brazilian street children who could easily perform mathematics related to sales
were unable to solve similar problems in a school context. Thus, the real life
situations do not generalize to school context. And surely, the converse does
not stand true. Thus it calls for closer analysis and a need to achieve balance
between generality practiced in schools and its applications in the real world
scenarios. In other words, it stands for contextualization of learning stated
much earlier by (Godden & Baddeley 1975; Smith, Glenberg & Bjork 1978).
There are also examples of divers where learning takes place across contexts
and of failures of context sensitivity that often frustrate researchers. Thus
the concept of learning being bound to the context, depends on the kind of
knowledge. One general result is that knowledge is more context bound when it
is just taught in a single context (Bjork & Richardson-Klavehn, 1989).
To
Lave’s (1986, 1988, p. 195) comment of school-taught mathematics serving only
the arbitrary class structure, the authors sternly argue with numerous studies
showing moderate to large correlation between school achievement and work
performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984); Bossiere, Knight & Sabot 1985).
They also suggest further research on the hypothesis “context-independence of
mathematical knowledge”.
Claim
2: Knowledge does not transfer between tasks
This
claim is actually corollary to the first to which the authors refer Weber in
1944 and Fechner in 1858 who demonstrates large, modest, no or even negative
transfers in psychology. The relationship however depends on the experimental
situation and the material learnt prior to it, the amount of practice and the
representation of the transfer task. Recent studies show failures as well as
successful transfers of knowledge. Transfer between tasks is a function of the
degree to which the tasks share cognitive elements (Singley & Anderson
1989). Also, a number of studies point out that transfer is enhanced if exposed
to multiple examples. (Bransford, Franks, Vye & Sherwood 1989).
Claim
3: Training by abstraction is of little use
This
too is a corollary of the above-discussed claims. However, it has been extended
into an advocacy for the apprenticeship model (Brown, Collins & Duguid
1989) where the claim that the most effective training is real apprenticeship in
their real world environments. The stronger version challenges the school based
abstract learning. The authors argue that this has more to do with the design
of the classroom and method of instruction than the idea of the instruction
itself. Alternatively, they also state with reference to an unpublished
research that abstract instruction leads to successful transfers as compared to
concrete instructions. However, this might be true for mathematic knowledge.
Theories in cognitive psychology suggest ‘learning by doing’ which suggests a
balance between abstract instruction and concrete instructions of learning.
This is supported by an experiment performed by Scholckow and Judd (Judd, 1908;
Hendruckson & Schroeder, 1941) where two groups practiced throwing darts on
an under water target. One was exposed to the abstract knowledge of refraction along
with practice, while the other only practiced. Both did equally well. However,
when changed the task and decreased the distance of the target underwater, the
first group did better.
Claim
4: Instruction must be done in social environments
Another
aspect to situated learning is ‘co-operative learning’ as an instructional tool
(Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Co-operative learning is alternatively known as
‘communities of practice’ or ‘group learning’ which differs from tutoring in
the aspect of people of the equal status work together. However few studies
have successfully shown the superiority of co-operative learning over
individual learning (Solomon and Globerson, 1989) where a number of detrimental
effects like free riders, sucker and ganging up exist. It is because of these
reasons it is difficult to practice as an academic panacea. However, there is a
gap in structuring or scripting the co-operative learning aspects to make it
effective which may lead to benefits of motivating and sharing of goals.
Supporting the argument in colleges group projects are increasingly becoming
popular.
Conclusion
Studies
in cognitive psychology show knowledge to be partly context-dependent and also
partly context-independent. There are drastic failures as well as dramatic
success in knowledge transfer. Abstract as well as concrete instructions both
help in the leaning process. Some may benefit hugely by the social contexts and
the environment whereas it might be difficult of few others. Thus the concept
of situated learning seems biased or ignores a few phenomena in cognitive
psychology that has earlier been proven empirically. The authors thus suggest further
research to identification of circumstances when broader or narrower contexts
are required to narrower or broader skills for effective and efficient
learning. They further state, even through situated learning has helped in
raising awareness and consciousness to learning methods, it might misguide
blind practitioners when they choose to implement the methods in all
circumstances, contexts and learning environments.
No comments:
Post a Comment