Category: learning theory

Categories
exam readings learning theory tech design

Exam reading: “Practices of distributed intelligence”

Today’s reading ties together several themes from other texts on my reading list: using visualizations & networked tools for understanding science, distributed cognition, activity theory, and participatory learning.

This is my last (!) exam reading- I’m on to taking my final exam this weekend. Next step will be fleshing out my project ideas, so more about that later…

Roy D. Pea. “Practices of Distributed Intelligence.” In Gavriel Simon (ed.) Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Summary: Distributed intelligence framework has implications for educational tech., both computational and social. Knowledge is socially constructed through collaborative efforts, as well as distributed into tools (which are in turn designed by social decision process); however, people are the ones that perform cognition. Intelligence connects means to ends via behavioral or mental adaptations. Object affordances “link perception and action;” objects are designed to be “smart” and simplify our cognition (we don’t notice this when we get used to using them). This includes symbol systems- calculus, numbers, etc. Environmental cues (in objects) help us get from diffuse desires to concrete goals and plans for action. Discusses history of dist. intelligence: AT (people shape/are shaped by their environments in dialectical fashion), computers reorganize (not just augment) mental functions. Some key tools: science visualization tools, “guided participation,” situated cognition. We should teach students to use tools (esp. computers) with the idea that they will change what they need to know, rather than just increase task efficiency. Some trade-offs with this approach: access to activity vs. understanding its foundations, static task definitions vs. dynamic definitions (more difficult to design for dynamic tasks). The main idea is to teach students to use tools (alone or in groups), rather than for individual testing.

Comments: Ties to distributed cognition, visualization, activity theory, and participatory learning. While focus is on school settings, some of these concepts could apply to informal learning situations (e.g., affordances in tools/devices, distinction between doing an activity and actually understanding the concepts behind it).

Links to: Roth (AT); Nersessian (discusses dist. cog. and mental models)

Categories
discourse community/community of practice exam readings learning theory visuals

Exam readings: using visuals to understand science

More on the use of diagrams in understanding science. First, a paper which suggests that a key process of science education is a process of learning how to take observations, make diagrams (or other descriptions), and then communicate about those diagrams with other people. This is a relatively simple concept, but one which is often not emphasized in science education (at least, it’s not emphasized how these skills will help students learn science. The second paper is tangentially connected to this idea. It’s about the challenges in incorporating data visualization tools into community science projects- tools that many scientists have no trouble interpreting, but that members of the public do.

Wolff-Michael Roth and Michelle K. McGinn. “Inscriptions: Toward a Theory of Representing as Social Practice.” Review of Educational Research. 68(1): 35-59, 1998.

Summary: The authors use the concept of inscriptions (=physical graphical displays; distinct from mental representations) to argue for a social, rather than purely individually cognitive, view of activity. Their focus is on emphasizing the conscious consideration of inscription-creating practices during science learning; I’m skipping the discussion of pedagogy/classroom practice. Inscriptions are used in several ways in discussions: talked about, talked over (e.g., used as backgrounds), serve as boundary objects for discussion among different groups, have rhetorical functions (demonstrative), and serve as pedagogical devices. Inscriptions are materially embodied signs: mobile (immutable while moving); can be incorporated into different contexts, rescaled, combined, reproduced easily; can be merged with geometry (i.e., mathematicized/ gridded); and can be “translated” into other inscriptions. The relationship between inscription and inscribed is traditionally thought of as correspondence or “truth;” current thought is that inscriptions are a result of distinct social practice, so distinct from the thing inscribed. Inscriptions’ creation practices determine whether they’ll be accepted by a community; this is grounded in social practice and suggests that inscriptions can’t be properly interpreted outside the context of their use. Also discuss their use as boundary objects with different functions in face-to-face vs. dispersed settings (though they mention that networked presentation tools are allowing a fuller range of discussion using inscriptions among dispersed groups).

Comments: Focus is on formal education environments and framing science practice as a series of creating, interpreting, and sharing inscriptions. Their background discussion helps tie together some of my other readings on communities of participation, distributed cognition, and visualizations.
Links to: various things…

Stephanie Thompson and Rick Bonney. “Evaluating the Impact of Participation in an On-line Citizen Science Project: A Mixed-methods approach.” in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.) Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published March 1, 2007.

Summary: Report on assessment of participant use of eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology online bird sighting tracking software. In eBird, participants enter information about their bird sightings either from a list or on a map; this data is then pooled with other observations. Users can use several tools for data visualization of all bird observations, either selecting one species to focus on or selecting all observations from a particular area. Tools include maps and various types of charts. This project has educational goals, but in entirely self-instructed and –directed (instructions and a FAQ are available). In 2005, CLO conducted a new user survey, which surveyed users on registration and again eight weeks later; this included a standard demographic questionnaire, an assessment of users’ understanding of the “View and Explore Data” tools, and a “Personal Meaning Mapping” about conservation (a short-answer assessment approach). For the data analysis tools, they found that most users who responded didn’t select the correct tools to answer the question asked. In addition, many people didn’t answer this question, probably because they hadn’t used or weren’t comfortable with these tools. The authors suggest that more active instruction in how to use the tools is probably needed.

Comments: This paper mainly presents an example of the challenge in incorporating data visualization tools into an informal learning setting.

Categories
exam readings learning theory pedagogy tech design

Exam readings: mental models and wireless devices

Not really related, but these two readings are on mental models (pretty theoretical) and things to think about when incorporating wireless devices into the classroom (more practical):

Nancy J. Nersessian. “Mental Models in Conceptual Change.” in Stella Vosniadou (ed.) International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, pp. 391-416. New York: Routledge, 2008.

Summary: Nersessian’s main idea is to outline a framework of how mental models work, and using that to support conceptual change (Kuhnian “paradigm shifts” in science & for science learners)- she spends most time on the former. One mechanism for change is building new mental models & conceptual structures. Aspects of mental model framework are debated; one constant is that mental representations are organized into some sort of units with a relational structure. Approach assumes that: “internal” & “external” are valid categories; internal symbolic structure is iconic (perceptual, properties based on those of objects in external world) rather than rule-based or linguistic; skill in modeling is partially biological, partially from learning in social/natural contexts. Discusses four different strands in research: “discourse models” derived primarily from language/instruction (we mentally manipulate these ideas by models, not words); spatial simulation (which seems to be perceptually-based, but not entirely visual); “mental animation” (more advanced-requires causal/behavioral knowledge); and internal-external coupling (we should define external representations as part of our extended cognitive capacities). Idea of embodied representation is that perceptual experience is fundamentally tied to mental modeling processes. Entire system has both modal and amodal aspects; some concepts & processes are grounded in context, others aren’t. For conceptual change, need to explicitly run people through model-changing activities; abstract activities can provide support in the form of mental inventories of affordances and constraints in different domains.

Comments: Specific tools that participate in coupled internal-external representational systems are “cognitive artifacts.” These include writing & diagrams; function as external and social memory supports. Ties together the cognitive model approach with theories of social and distributed cognition.

Links to: Rapp & Kurby (perceptual vs. amodal models of cognition); Lave & Wenger (social cognition); Zhang & Norman (internal-external coupling)

Jeremy Roschelle, Charles Patton, and Roy D. Pea. “To Unlock the Learning Value of Wireless Mobile Devices, Understand Coupling.” Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, 2002.

Summary: The authors feel that handheld computers (wireless internet learning devices-WILDs) could become ubiquitous in classrooms, but conceptual issues need to be resolved before using them on large scale. The issue they focus on is “coupling” between social & informatic worlds with different expectations. Challenges are political, organizational, pedagogical: e.g., how/who to control messaging tech, how to regulate roles in shared info space, how should learning resources be stored & accessed, who decides about privacy levels, and how integrated or segregated should students’ learning environments be. Big issue is who will make these decisions- suggest that these things need to be worked out, or will risk rejection of these tools by students, teachers, or others. They focus on three main design problems. 1) Curricular activity spaces vs. personal learning connections: students perceive devices as comm. tools, teachers want to use to augment classroom activities (students may need separate devices for class). 2) Integrated vs. synchronized educational databases: what info will be centralized & who will have access to it. 3) Broad vs. narrow technological mediation of discourse: face-to-face interaction still important; may want to take minimal mediation route,

Comments: The authors outline some critical issues to take into account before using these devices in a classroom setting. Some of these things to think about would apply to informal settings as well, e.g., how much mediation ,what info is being stored by system (if any). Probably tangentially related to my project.

Links to: Sharples et al. (these concerns relate to AT framework for understanding learning tool use); Borgmann et al. (cyberlearning)

Categories
discourse community/community of practice exam readings learning theory research methods/philosophy

Exam reading: “Expanding conceptions”

Tara J. Fenwick. “Expanding Conceptions of Experiential Learning: A Review of the Five Contemporary Perspectives on Cognition.” Adult Education Quarterly 50: 243-272, 2000.

Summary: Fenwick summarizes & contrasts five current theories of experiential/informal learning. She argues that traditional theory is based on an experience + individual reflection model, which neglects embodied activity and communal processes; these theories include both individual and sociocultural processes. 1) Constructivist: individuals construct meaning from experience to produce knowledge; knowledge is a set of mental constructs. 2) Psychoanalytic: interested in how the unconscious shapes the self; knowledge is driven by passionate tensions. 3) Situative: Adaptive learning through participation; knowledge is based on situated effectiveness, rather than theoretical. 4) Critical-cultural: Focus on power effects and identity; knowledge is emancipation from passive acceptance of identity and dominant cultural critiques. 5) Enactivist: cognition and the environment are simultaneously enacted; cognition is embodied action; knowledge is collective, not individual.

Comments: I’ve left off the critiques for this summary, but she basically looks at each theory through the lens of the other four (mostly based on other researchers’ criticism, but enactivist ideas are pretty new, so for these she uses the looking through the lens approach.) Basically, this is an overview and useful for me in comparing and contrasting. The most relevant frameworks for my research are probably constructivist (more traditional, and a lot of the digital media research seems to build off of this) and situative (e.g., Lave & Wenger). The enactivist approach is newest; not sure if I’ve seen much in that vein at this point…

Links to: Lave & Wenger, others (community participation); Zhang & Norman (constructivist/cognitive)

Categories
exam readings learning theory pedagogy

Exam readings: Activity theory

Activity theory seems to be popular in the educational community. I’ll be reading a few articles that involve it, but I’m still not sure how/if it will fit in with my overall project goals, as it’s used more in formal pedagogical design than for informal learning. Here are two readings that involve it:

Wolff-Michael Roth. “Activity Theory and Education: An Introduction.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 11(1): 1-8, 2004.

Summary: Introduction to a special issue; focuses on several key points about AT. Interest in AT has been increasing in educational circles; the core idea is that individuals have power to transform their communities through their activities (Marxist basis). First, the triangle model (subject, object, community, within tools/means, division of labor, rules) is dynamic, not static (see below for model). The subject & object are in a dialectical relationship; a contradiction between the subject’s mental image and the physical object drives action (e.g., a sculptor will keep sculpting until the sculpture matches her mental image). There’s also overall change- any human activity results in change in all elements in the system (e.g., learning through participation also constitutes participation as having effects on the wider group). Second, individuals produce outcomes, but participation also produces the structure of the community (and his/her overall position as a member of the community)- production drives the historical trajectory of the system. Third, internal contradictions drive the internal system activity- the main one being tensions between individual production and societal production (e.g., crime-fundamental contradiction between societal constraints and the individual actions that are best for society). There are four types of contradictions: within each system component, between components, between system objects of different activity systems, and between system components of different activity systems.

Comments: Gives some examples of contradictions that are present in educational settings, but would have been nice if these examples were explicitly matched up to the 4 types of contradictions. Mentions directions for future research (e.g., what is the nature of change in activity systems); also mentions that dialectical approach might fit poorly with western dualistic systems. This framework is applicable to HCI, but have to put more thought into how it might fit with other stuff.

Links to: Suchman, Sharples et al. (AT examples)

Activity system model from http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/edpy597mappin/modules/module15.html

Mike Sharples, Josie Taylor and Vavoula, Giasemi. “A Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age.” in Richard Andrews and Caroline Haythornthwaite (eds.) The Sage Handbook of E-learning Research, pp. 221–247. London: Sage, 2007.

Summary: The authors use a conversational model and activity theory as a framework for mobile learning (informal, either using mobile tech. or learning while mobile). They frame it as interaction between a learner and technology to advance knowledge. First, conversation, negotiation, and interpretation drive overall learning (“conversation”-sharing of understanding w/in a pervasive medium- this defn. includes human-machine interaction); it’s about becoming informed about others’ representations. 2-level model for learning: acting (problem solving/model building) & description (demonstration/explanation) + constant internal representation. Within this model, teachers/experts don’t really derive authority through expertise, but rather through negotiation (they recognize that this model doesn’t quite apply to a classroom setting). Second, their AT framework describes how tool use helps people learn includes 1st triangle (subject/learner, object/task, community) plus 2nd triangle which mediates 1st (rules/norms, division of labor, tools-physical + signs). The tools (both semiotic and technical) constrain & support learners in goal of transforming their knowledge/skills. Dialectical interaction between nodes in the triangle drives learning; the idea is to use this as a framework to pinpoint “tensions” in the user-tool system that inhibit learning. Agency in learning is a system property, not that of individuals. They describe a case study of mobile technology use in a museum using this framework.

Comments: Mention digital divide, but point out that mobile technologies are being adopted in many places w/o traditional infrastructure. AT framework seems more like a model than a predictive theory, unless the prediction is that when all components are working, learning will occur. The conversational model sets up learning as a process of negotiation, and the AT model describes how tool use facilitates this. The AT aspect seems to be more as an analysis tool that helps design technologies to enhance “conversations” in informal learning settings (not replace traditional learning).

Links to: Roth, Suchman (activity theory)

Categories
exam readings learning theory visuals

Exam reading: “Ins and outs of learning”

This chapter covers current ideas on how memory works and also why visuals are effective for learning:

David N. Rapp and Christopher A. Kurby. “The ‘Ins’ and ‘Outs’ of Learning: Internal Representations and External Visualizations.” In John K. Gilbert, Miriam Reiner, and Mary Nakhleh (eds.) Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education, pp. 29-52. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008.

Summary: This chapter primarily discusses how people learn from visualizations (structure of memory); also provides suggestions for applying research in this area to teaching. Cognitive science & learning research suggests a few things about learning, e.g., external models should match what we want people to remember, and info that’s too abstract may be difficult to apply in specific situations. They discuss three categories of internal representations: visual memory (short-term & long-term recall), visual images (internally-generated & often speculative), and knowledge representations (most complex, focus is on causes and motivations of simulations rather than on just the images.) Sci. viz. should aim to affect viewers’ knowledge representations, and through them, higher-order concepts & processes. They take a “perceptual” view of memory (idea that concepts are linked to the sensory mode by which they’re learned; embodied cognition), as opposed to an “amodal” view (memory concepts aren’t systematically related to real-world experience.) Two models for learning suggest that the mode of learning will influence how memories are represented and how they’re ultimately recalled: “dual-coding” (memories are either verbal or visual; more complex concepts are harder to render visually, so harder to recall) and the “working memory” model (working memory contains acoustic and visuospatial components; relying solely on one or the other can overload the system and lead to poor recall.) The authors suggest that these two models help create a rationale for incorporating multimodal (including visual) components for learning.

Comments: Basically, this chapter provides support for the idea that multimedia (including touch) will create better learning outcomes (though they do touch on the question of whether concepts learned in one mode will transfer to others.) Interpretation of visuals is based on prior knowledge (scaffolding)- cultural aspects are important- this makes analogy & use of conventions helpful. They include touch and sound as well as images in their idea of “visualizations” (basically, like multisensory modalities.)

Links to: Lave & Wenger (not as social as L&W, but some social stuff here); Zhang & Norman (discuss process of having external & internal representations converge, but not explicitly distributed cog.); Burnett (core list; cognition & image-worlds)

Categories
exam readings learning theory visuals

Exam readings: Using visualizations in science education

These two readings are from the literature on science education, about the importance of visualizations for science. These two authors focus on different topics in the broad area of visualizations and science education.

Barbara Tversky. “Prolegomenon to Scientific Visualizations.” in John K. Gilbert (ed.) Visualization in Science Education, pp 29-42. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005.

Summary: Tversky uses the analogy of scientific visualizations (and viz in general) as maps to aid understanding. Effective maps select important information and even distort it for emphasis (schematize it); abstract relationships are often thought of in spatial terms (e.g., good=up), and this mapping seems to hold meaning/be non-arbitrary. While maps are composed of elements (icons + morphograms [simple schematic shapes that are vocabulary-like: lines, arrows, etc.]) and the spatial relations between them, trees and graphs are composed of elements in an order or subset relationship (metaphorically, not directly spatial.) She gives a few examples of how we interpret maps (e.g., bar graphs suggest containers & make comparisons; line graphs suggest links & convey trends.) Tversky outlines two cognitive design principles: congruence (structure/content of viz should correspond to desired mental structure/content) and apprehension (structure/content should be readily & accurately perceived and comprehended.) She discusses two types of narrative in science viz: structure and process (the latter being more complex to depict.) For her, visual narratives should use analogy as well as present facts. While clarity and brevity are good in many situations, complexity sparks discovery and insight, so there are places for multiple types of diagrams.

Comments: Tversky’s general goal is to make use of schematic cognitive structures in the mind for design. She suggests several strategies for conveying concepts about process, including animations, arrows, and series of diagrams (as well as verbal descriptions.) She feels that animations are poorer in analogy, etc. than comic book format is (b/c animation mainly allows temporal links.) Perhaps interactivity would help address some of this concern about making different types of links.

Links to: Tufte 1, 2 (ideas about simplicity); Zhang & Norman (discussion of distributed cognition)

John K. Gilbert. “Visualization: An Emergent Field of Practice and Enquiry” in Science Education.” In John K. Gilbert, Miriam Reiner, and Mary Nakhleh (eds.) Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education, pp. 3-24. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008.

Summary: Gilbert discusses three levels of representation for scientific models: macroscopic, sub-microscopic (e.g., atoms, cells,) and symbolic (qualitative abstractions). External visualizations are used to create internal mental models; a key skill for full understanding is metavisualization, the ability to acquire, monitor, integrate, and extend from visualizations. He suggests two ways of classifying models: purpose (e.g., viz can be larger, smaller, show only processes, etc. of the subject) and dimensionality (e.g., 3-D ball & stick chem. models, 2-D diagrams, 1-D equations.) For metavisualization, people need to be able to understand the representation conventions for different dimensions, be able to translate between modes, construct their own representations, and solve problems using analogy by visualizations. He discusses challenges for mastery of conventions at different levels: macro representations are often taught in labs (they correspond with visible world); sub-micro level creates particular challenges for 3-D structures, but there’s a range of strategies for 2-D structures (e.g., diagrams, animations); and at the symbolic level one issue is differentiating between multiple systems (e.g., for chemical equations.) A key problem is being able to translate between levels (macro-micro-symbolic) or dimensions.

Comments: Traditional approach to mental models (internal vs. external), rather than distributed cognition. A lot of summary of classification systems and lists of skills needed to be visually literate. Goes into some detail about teaching strategies for developing metavisualization skills, which is not my main area of focus (except that multimedia may be good for this purpose.)

Links to: Zhang & Norman (distributed cognition view)

Categories
discourse community/community of practice exam readings knowledge work learning theory

Exam reading: “Minds on fire”

I had a strong reaction to this paper, probably because I’ve been thinking about these issues from a different perspective than the authors. This paper ties into some of my core T&T readings, like “Laws of Cool” and “Datacloud,” that address the knowledge economy and the future of work. However, here the focus is on learning.

John Seely Brown, and Richard P. Adler. “Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0.” Educause Review Jan/Feb 2008.

Summary: Main idea is that an educated workforce with opportunities for lifelong learning is necessary to maintain competitive centers in a globalized world. The need for education for multiple careers and constant re-skilling (my term; they use more positive vocabulary) can be facilitated by Web-based free education & Web 2.0 networking technologies. The Web facilitates social, collaborative learning: work in small groups, “learning to be” a participant plus traditional “learning about” a subject, problem-based collaboration. Idea of legitimate peripheral participation: learners gain both explicit (factual) and implicit (social) knowledge at once. The authors look at online tools for learning: Second Life, “e-science,” informal discussions in social networking sites (I would argue that several of their suggestions aren’t good examples.) Discuss similarities between “long tail” niche marketing being supported by more popular commerce- the Web facilitates this setup- and how online education can be similar (once niche courses are developed, they’re out there forever.) Overall idea is to provide an environment that both facilitates and promotes lifelong learning; they call this “demand-pull” rather than “supply-push” approach.

Comments: Authors do not discuss what to do about the digital divide, the social dislocation associated with constant retraining, how hypothetical developers of free online courses would actually be employed themselves, how to evaluate accurate vs. inaccurate content, erosion of expertise and traditional methods of validating knowledge, etc. Basically, this reads like a Web 2.0 cheerleading piece for non-centralized/distributed education systems, and does not address a wide range of major economic and social justice issues (granted, this is probably not their intent.) The fact that the authors lump in non-online examples into their “online tools for learning” section suggests that they are stretching for examples.

Links to: Howe (discusses crowdsourcing-ultimate result of this educational style? or at least linked); Lave & Wenger (LPP)

Categories
exam readings information representation learning theory visuals

Exam readings: Distributed cognition and visualizations

For today, here are two related papers on distributed cognition (the idea that our thinking processes are intimately tied up with our environments, rather than being just internal) and images. The first paper presents a framework for understanding visualizations as part of distributed cognition, and the second applies that framework to studying interactive visualizations.

Jiajie Zhang, and Donald. A. Norman. “Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks.” Cognitive Science 18(1): 87-122, 1994.

Summary: In this paper, the authors present their theory of distributed cognition to describe how people conceptualize and perform tasks. Tasks are modeled using both internal and external components to create “distributed” representations. There are three basic problems in this view: the distributed representation of information, interaction between internal and external representations, and the nature of external representations. They discuss the “representational effect:” how different representations of the same information can have different cognitive effects (e.g., Roman vs. Arabic numerals and ease of calculation.) At issue here is that there are both internal and external “rules” in all problem representations; some formats contain more explicit or more easily understood external “rules,” which makes it easier to mentally interact with them. They outline a methodology for representational analysis that breaks done representations into component parts (skipping over details of this.) While external representations are aids to memory, they have additional functions: structuring (internal) cognition and providing information that does not need to be internalized in order to form a mental representation (affordances), and changing the fundamental nature of tasks.

Comments: The authors’ model of cognition suggests that differences among external representations will influence internal representations, or how information is learned. Practical implications include applicability of their ideas to effective design of representations. Not sure I will apply their methodology to my work, but theoretical approach is useful.

Links to: Kostelnick & Hassett (take rhetorical, rather than cognitive, approach to representation, point out that efficiency is usually not the driving force behind design); Liu et al. (argument to apply these ideas to info visualization)

Zhicheng Liu, Nancy J. Nersessian, and John T. Stasko. “Distributed Cognition as a Theoretical Framework for Information Visualization.” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 14.6 (2008): 1173-1180.

Summary: The authors suggest using distributed cognition as a framework for information visualization research (not well-developed enough to serve as theory at this point-lacks predictive, prescriptive aspects.) Distributed cognition holds that cognition arises from the interaction of the mind with objects in the environment, rather than as just internal symbol processing as in the traditional view of cognition. The mind works by building an internal representation of an object that coordinates all the viewer’s external observations of the object; bringing the internal and external representations into agreement. Using this framework, we can look at interaction with data representations as the “propagation of representation states in a cognitive system through coordination;” i.e., as the process of building mental models. The act of manipulation helps us understand things (e.g., Tetris.) The authors also discuss the importance of testing how info visualization systems work in practice to help create mental models, rather than testing just ease of use or how well people like using a particular visualization.

Comments: Includes a discussion of Zhang’s and Norman’s “Representations” paper, which I’m also reading. The authors mention importance of linking research in interactive visualization to current cognitive science and perception research. This paper suggests both that interactivity is a useful property for building understanding and that holistic evaluation of mental models is appropriate for evaluating such interactions; they mention “social visualization:” sharing visualizations over the Web for exploring data representations.

Links to: Zhang & Norman

Categories
discourse community/community of practice exam readings identity learning theory

Exam reading: Situated learning

Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger’s Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation is a foundational text for several key concepts.

Summary: Their main thesis is that learning occurs as “legitimate peripheral participation” in communities of practice: it’s not only situated/place-based (negotiated meanings, relational character of knowledge), but an integral part of the social fabric. Knowledge is comprehensive & activity-based (vs. received), and there’s a mutually constitutive relationship between actors, activities, and the world. The traditional approach of learning as internalization is too cerebral; they see learning as a process of increasing participation in the comm. of practice. Their focus is on the “person-in-world,” rather than the solitary learner or abstract knowledge domains. They also take a historical approach; e.g., comms. are constantly renewing themselves through the admission of newcomers and centripetal movement of newcomers into full participation. They discuss several aspects of traditional apprenticeships as case studies: technology use, recruitment, power relations, and organization of activity. The learning process is a set of steps of conferring legitimacy on the newcomer; learning starts as observation of community, who to emulate, etc., while doing peripheral tasks like running errands (core tasks come later.)

Comments: Authors suggest that more research is needed on defining “communities of practice” and power relations within communities. They summarize with a few ways their approach differs from traditional approaches: person becomes practitioner, situated learning becomes LPP in comm. of practice, knowing is inherent in identity transformation, and the social world is always reproducing itself while changing (there’s a conflict between continuity and shifting membership- “displacement contradiction”). They also discuss technology use: tech has both “invisible” (unproblematic/easily integrated use) and “visible” (salience/utility for task) components- these together create the degree of technological “transparency” (tech. that are both easy to use and the user can understand the significance of tech. within the community are transparent.) Their ideas tie into the idea of discourse community (and they do discuss language), but they’re more interested in language as a way to talk about the community than as a vehicle for information transmission.

Links to: foundational text for a lot of stuff…