Strengths and Limitations of Viewing Learning as an Apprenticeship - Essay Example

? What are the strengths and limitations of viewing learning as apprenticeship? What implication does this have for educators? by 17 January 2011 What are the strengths and limitations of viewing learning as apprenticeship? What implication does this have for educators? Introduction How to teach children and adults has long been one of the most problematic issues for scholars. Dozens of theories and models were developed, to explain human cognitive development and apply this knowledge to improve various systems of learning and knowledge delivery in educational settings. The current state of educational science is associated with relative flexibility of the learning approaches and openness to the improvement and implementation of the new theories and ideas. In the meantime, older systems of education and cognitive development are being constantly analyzed and improved. Cognitive apprenticeship models are rightly considered as some of the most complicated, controversial, and simultaneously, most productive models of cognitive development and learning. The model exemplifies an essential element of the social constructivist paradigm in learning, emphasizes teamwork, and treats scaffolding as an essential element of the process of training. The apprenticeship model of learning is associated with numerous problems and limitations, including the lack of connectivity with the real-life conditions and the problems, implementation difficulties, and even the risks of distress and dissent in learners. Despite its limitations, cognitive apprenticeship model provides unique learning opportunities and can be readily applied in a variety of learning settings. Learning as apprenticeship: the basic tenets Cognitive apprenticeship is a widely-known form of social learning, which helps novices to become experts in their field of study/ professional development (Dennen 2002). Rooted in the principles of social constructivism, cognitive apprenticeship is a model of social learning, which relies on scaffolding and provides structure and examples to be followed by learners (Dennen 2002). Apprenticeship has long been applied for teaching nurses, constructors and legal professionals (Dennen 2002). Today, cognitive apprenticeship is one of the most popular models of cognitive development and learning in young and adult learners. Social constructivism suggests that the cultural and social context play the dominant role in how knowledge is constructed and understood (Dennen 2002). Developed by Collins, Brown, and Newman in 1989, the model has become one of the basic elements of cognitive development and knowledge delivery in various educational and learning settings. According to Collins, Brown and Newman (1989), “cognitive apprenticeship embeds the learning of skills and knowledge in their social and functional context” (p. 454). From the standpoint of social constructivism, cognitive apprenticeship represents the model of learning and knowledge transmission, which treats guided experience, cognitive, and metacognitive elements as the principal factors of the learning process (Collins, Brown & Newmans 1989). Legitimate peripheral participation and situatedness are at the core of the cognitive apprenticeship model (Lave & Wagner 1991). In simple terms, cognitive apprenticeship implies that learning occurs through the learners’ participation in authentic situations/ settings (Lave & Wenger 1991). Such participation and engagement in practical environments foster the development of transferable, relevant knowledge more than other models of knowledge dissemination (Collins, Brown & Newman 1989). However, cognitive apprenticeship is more than merely the process of learning in authentic settings: rather, the success of cognitive apprenticeship models depends on how deeply learners are embedded into these authentic contexts (Wertsch 1998). It is imperative that the influence of various situational/ contextual factors be considered, whenever the quality and efficiency of such authentic settings are evaluated and discussed (Wertsch 1998). Authentic settings are effective only to the extent, which allows and encourages peripheral participation or, in other words, gradual involvement of the novices in full participation in authentic activities and decisions (Lave & Wagner 1991). On the one hand, these prospects of full participation in authentic settings serve an efficient incentive for learning. On the other hand, these very prospects ensure that the apprentices have successfully learned the basic material and possess sufficient skills and knowledge to cope with larger tasks. The ontogenetical foundations of apprenticeship learning are closely associated with the notions of tactile-kinesthetic realities, imitation, joint attention, and turn-taking. Apparently, the process of learning a rule of language and practicing it through written exercises is inherently different from acquiring and learning practical rules of project management and practicing them in authentic settings. The significance of these ontogenetical foundations of learning is difficult to underestimate. The world is totally intersubjective, which means that bodies move forward and away from one another, with these movements carrying significant semantic implications and meanings (Sheets-Johnstone 2000). The intersubjective world is constituted of the animate forms that communicate and move in a lively manner and are primed for meaning (Sheets-Johnstone 2000). Therefore, it is essential that learners understand and interpret these meanings in a proper way and can improve their own understanding of their professional and learning functions in a complex world of meanings. As a form of social constructivism in learning, cognitive apprenticeship emphasizes Vygotsky’s (1981) “zones of proximal development”, when young learners construct their knowledge of the professional obligations, skills, and tasks based on the authentic settings, in which they operate. Cognitive apprenticeship learning occurs by means of joint attention, imitation, and turn-taking, all of which constitute the ontogenetical foundations of the cognitive apprenticeship model. Joint attention implies that learners have the capacity and skills to develop professional and cultural behaviors that are interpretively coherent within the context of the given community (Sheets-Jonhstone 2000). Joint attention is then followed by imitation, which is rightly considered as one of the core elements of the cognitive apprenticeship model. Imitation is an essential element of the human body-world relationship, when individuals engage in skillful copying of someone else’s actions in ways that let them meet their learning, professional, and cultural goals (Sheets-Johnstone 2000). As a result, the process of learning skills in the apprenticeship model is “capacity of one bodily presence to be attentive to another and to pattern movement along the lines of the other, imitating the way in which the other performs something, but also selecting the occasions in which one will and will not perform according to the methods of another” (Sheets-Johnstone 2000, p.358). This skill-copying capacity is further supplemented by turn-taking, which guarantees that the learners follow the basic rules of professional and cultural conduct and have sufficient opportunities to try their skills in authentic settings (Sheets-Johnstone 2000). However, in distinction from conventional theoretical learning, cognitive apprenticeship avoids the “impersonal” character of turn-taking. Apparently, the process of learning a rule of language and practicing it through written exercises is inherently different from acquiring and learning practical rules of project management and practicing them in authentic settings. All these functions and foundations of apprenticeship learning emphasize the intersubjectivity of the surrounding reality and place learners to the center of the learning environments. These environments provide ample opportunities to construct new meanings about learners’ cultural obligations and community roles and, simultaneously, practice their relevance in authentic settings. Needless to say, the cognitive apprenticeship model has numerous strengths and limitations. The model carries far-reaching implications for educators. One of the principal messages of apprenticeship is in that “learning is about becoming a practitioner, rather than learning about practice” (Brown 1998). Furthermore, cognitive apprenticeship models provide unique opportunities to develop and test learners directly in their expert environments (Brown 1998). Cognitive apprenticeship ties learners to the expert environment, in which they operate, and guarantees that they develop skills and knowledge needed to successfully cope with their real-world obligations. To meet the objectives of the cognitive apprenticeship model, professional educators apply to a wide range of learning techniques. Emphasizing strengths of cognitive apprenticeship That cognitive apprenticeship can operate through a variety of learning models and approaches cannot be denied. This is, probably, one of the most significant advantages of the cognitive apprenticeship model. A long-standing tradition in learning, cognitive apprenticeship and its popularity among scholars have led to the development of numerous practical techniques, aimed at creating, maintaining, and engaging learners in tacit processes, which they can observe, imitate, and practice (Collins, Brown & Newman 1989). For years, the model of apprenticeship flourished among doctors and engineers, later expanded to cover other professions (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation 2001). Today, the popularity of the cognitive apprenticeship model is justified by a widely spreading belief that the success of practical, real-life education lies in the ability of learners to participate in a group of competent professionals, who let these learners progressively participate in their professional community (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation 2001). The variety of learning techniques in apprenticeship learning creates a unique learning atmosphere and lets competent educators adjust their learning goals to the skills and knowledge of their learners. Learning techniques in cognitive apprenticeship range from modeling, through explanation and coaching, to scaffolding, reflection and articulation (Dennen 2002). Scaffolding is one of the most frequently discussed elements of the cognitive apprenticeship model. Scaffolding means providing learning and teaching support to students, so that they can successfully cope with their learning tasks (Dennen 2002). Scaffolding also implies that the teacher slowly withdraws from the learning process, to support progressive involvement of students in more complicated tasks and ensure that they can cope with these tasks on their own (Dennen 2002). The cognitive apprenticeship model serves an efficient driver of socializing learners into collective learning processes. These collective processes exemplify one of the cornerstones of successful learning in practical environments (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation 2001). Apprenticeship models are an integral component of professional education in job environments (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation 2001). These models also “lay the foundation for the development of efficient concepts of on-the-job training through acquisition of practical, formal, codified by explicit knowledge” (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation 2001). For example, apprenticeship models successfully work in teams, in which learners acquire new knowledge and skills from their mentors, practice them in authentic job environments, and gradually progress to become full members of their professional community. Ultimately, cognitive apprenticeship models can be successfully applied across a variety of authentic learning settings cannot. Cognitive apprenticeship is successfully used in nursing and engineering education. The popularity of the cognitive apprenticeship model in practical learning settings is justified by the facts that (a) learners display more favorable attitudes toward apprenticeship models than conventional instruction; (b) learners support and accept scaffolding as a form of progressive incorporation into their professional communities; (c) scaffolding and other models of cognitive apprenticeship lead to better learning results; and (d) cognitive apprenticeship encourages and emphasizes the value of social interactions in technologically rich environments (Dennen 2002). Unfortunately, the cognitive apprenticeship model is not without its limitations. Apprenticeship as a form of learning: Discussing the limitations How realistic and authentic cognitive apprenticeship could be, this model of learning and knowledge delivery cannot fully duplicate and reflect the complexity of the real-life work and professional conditions (Vera & Simon 1993). Cognitive apprenticeship models support and reinforce the link between social and individual cognition in learners (Vygotsky 1981). Yet, the effectiveness of these models is severely reduced by the lack of real-world intersubjectivity and failure to subject learners to the real conditions of professional decision-making (Vera & Simon 1993). Certainly, cognitive apprenticeship models are extremely applicable in practical professional environments. This applicability in authentic settings carries far-reaching implications for educators and scholars. However, educators and learners do not always have sufficient resources to make the implementation of apprenticeship models possible and real. The process of developing and implementing cognitive apprenticeship models in authentic environments can be extremely time-consuming (Vera & Simon 1993). Not always do the beliefs about cognitive apprenticeship in learners and educators coincide – this is one of the principal reasons why the use of apprenticeship models of education can leads to dissent and distress in learners (Tisdale 2001). Ultimately, the efficiency of cognitive apprenticeship models in learning requires further justification and analysis. The current state of research into cognitive apprenticeship resembles a disconnected body of research findings, scattered across a variety of disciplines and personal areas of interest (Dennen 2002). It is imperative for professional educators to define how apprenticeship models of education could be successfully integrated with authentic professional settings, to guarantee that they fit in the changeable conditions of practical professional performance. Cognitive apprenticeship: implications for educators Despite its limitations, cognitive apprenticeship models provide unique learning opportunities and can be successfully applied in a variety of settings. Apprenticeship learning has already become one of the leading educational frameworks for corporate settings (Chan, Miller & Monroe 2009). Some of the most common problems in corporate environments include low profitability, low customer satisfaction, performance deficiencies, as well as failure to meet the principal regulative requirements and standards in business (Chan, Miller & Monroe 2009). The use of cognitive apprenticeship in corporate environments provides opportunities for active involvement of instructors and competent figures and the development of collaborative ties between them and corporate learners (Chan, Miller & Monroe 2009). In corporate environments, apprenticeship learning favors the development and use of practical, hands-on experience (Chan, Miller & Monroe 2009). The latter turns educators into mentors and supports corporate learners, as they are trying to accomplish their tasks on their own (Chan, Miller & Monroe 2009). Scientific reading and writing is just another area of learning, where cognitive apprenticeship models can be successfully applied. Here, scaffolding is actively utilized to divide the whole body of work into separate tasks and support students in their written assignments (Kolikant et al 2006). The use of cognitive apprenticeship to teach scientific reading and writing has proved to be extremely effective in adult learners (Kolikant et al 2006). In a similar fashion, apprenticeship models are successfully used to develop and implement school-based communities of practice, which place individuals in collective learning processes, favor socialization and acquisition of skills to succeed in their areas of practice (Hung & Nichami 2002). For example, a school-based community of junior lawyers could support students, as they are preparing to become professional lawyers in the future and earn a scholarship in legal education. Certainly, the current state of knowledge about apprenticeship warrants the need for the future research into the relevance and efficiency of cognitive apprenticeship models in practical education. Modern educators must realize that although apprenticeship models display extraordinary learning potential, the knowledge and understanding of their efficiency is incomplete. The areas that support the effectiveness of apprenticeship learning application need to be defined. Finally, it is imperative for learners and educators to have similar attitudes toward and expectations about cognitive apprenticeship, to avoid dissent and distress in learning (Tisdale 2001). In its current state, cognitive apprenticeship looks like an extremely promising model of delivering knowledge and instruction to learners in authentic settings, which can be applied across a variety of situations and disciplines and support the progressive integration of learners into collective professional environments. Conclusion Cognitive apprenticeship model is one of the most long-standing traditions in school and professional education, it is rightly considered as some of the most complicated and controversial. Created by Collins, Brown and Newman (1989), “cognitive apprenticeship is an essential element of the social constructionist paradigm, which emphasizes teamwork and scaffolding as the cornerstones of efficient learning” (Collins et al 1989). Cognitive apprenticeship is a model of learning that embeds learners and the process of knowledge transmission into authentic social and functional contexts. The ontogenetical foundations of cognitive apprenticeship include imitation, joint attention, and turn-taking. Cognitive apprenticeship models provide many learning techniques and serve an efficient driver of placing learners into collective learning processes. Unfortunately, cognitive apprenticeship cannot always duplicate the complexity of real-life conditions. The implementation of apprenticeship models in authentic environments can be increasingly time-consuming. Future educators must understand that, although cognitive apprenticeship models can be successfully used in a variety of learning settings, future research into their efficiency is needed, to ensure that these models fit in the changeable conditions of practical professional performance. References Brown, JS 1998, ‘Internet technology in support of the concept of ‘communities-of-practice’: The case of Xerox’, Accounting, Management and Information Technology, vol.8, pp.227-236. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation 2001, Knowledge management in the learning society, OECD Publishing. Chan, P, Miller, R & Monroe, E 2009, ‘Cognitive apprenticeship as an instructional strategy for solving corporate training challenges’, TechTrends, vol.53, no.6, pp.35-42. Collins, A, Brown, J & Newman, S 1989, ‘Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics’, in L Resnick, Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp.453-494. Dennen, VP 2002, ‘Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: Research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies’, Cognitive Apprenticeship in Educational Practice, pp.813-828. Hung, D & Nichani, MR 2002, ‘Bringing communities of practice into schools: Implications for instructional technologies from Vygotskian perspectives’, International Journal of Instructional Media, vol.29, no.2, pp.171-183. Lave, J & Wenger, E 1991, Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sheets-Johnstone, M 2000, ‘Kinetic tactile-kinesthetic bodies: Ontogenetical foundations of apprenticeship learning’, Human Studies, vol.23, pp.343-370. Kolikant, YB, Gatchell, DW, Hirsch, PL & Leisenmeier, RA 2006, ‘A cognitive- apprenticeship-inspired instructional approach for teaching scientific writing and reading’, Journal of College Science Teaching, vol.36, no.3, pp.20-25. Tisdale, K 2001, ‘Dissention and distress in a cognitive apprenticeship in reading’, Reading Research and Instruction, vol.41, no.1, pp.51-82. Vera, AH & Simon, HA 1993, ‘Situated action: A symbolic interpretation’, Cognitive Science, vol.17, no.1, pp. 7-48. Vygotsky, LS 1981, ‘The genesis of higher mental functions’, in JV Wertsch (eds), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology, New York: Sharpe. Wertsch, JV 1998, Mind as action, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More