Week 5 of the course has started and the first assignment (which I haven't started) is due in soon and my blog has only got up to week 2 so far... This is not good!
During this week, we mainly focussed on metaphors of learning i.e. ways in which we can understand and describe what learning is. During week 4, we then went on to look at definitions of learning.
Hypothesis
Learning is complex and as a result humans use metaphors to help understand what it is but no one metaphor is a complete description so it is important to maintain an understanding of when you are using a metahpor, why and ensuring that no one metahpor clouds your thinking or teaching/work disproportionately.
Discussion
Sfard (1998) argues that the language of teaching and learning commonsly revolves around the metaphor of learning as acquistionse e.g. gaining or accumulating knowledge, attaining understanding etc. This acquisition metaphor (AM) is prevalent in teacher-centred education and is essentially orthodoxy.
Other metaphors used include a participation metaphor (PM) that replace static concepts of knowlege with active ones like knowing and use socail verbs like "reflective discourse" and "development through participation"
Even some social theories of learning rely more on AM than PM i.e. the idea that collective understanding is transferred to the individual through interaction and then internalised. This is predominantly AM rather than PM as the participation is only really a means of transferring knowledge, not constructing it (Sfard, 1998).
Bayne (2205) ilustrated another metaphor, that of identity change (IC) whereby identity is key e.g. the identity of the learner and that these identities can shift as learning takes place. As students learn enough to begin to teach their peers, their view of their own identity shifts and this is a way of representing learning. A classic example is the journey from apprentice to journeyman and ultimately master; as the apprentice learns so their identity changes.
There was then significant debate about these metaphors and how useful they were. There was a general feeling that PM was more applicable to an understanding of how learning can be developed rather than what it is.
Conclusion
Metahors are useful in that, when you reflect upon them for what they are and look beneath them, they can reveal cultural or philosophical bias and also that they can help you challenge orthodox understandings of what learning (and teaching) are.
The broad consensus was was acquisition can be useful for understanding part of the process of learning i.e. the learner taking something from their environment (teacher, peer group, resources etc). However, that was just one dimention, real learning was when this was reflected upon, and a shift in competence or self-perception (IC) took place. PM was more useful in understaning potential mechanisms by which learning could take place rather than understanding what learning itself was.
------------
References
On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing one Sfard, 1998
http://edr.sagepub.com/content/27/2/4.short
Deceot. desire and control - the identities of learners and teachers in cyberspace. Bayne 2005