Alan Holzl (a.holzl@mailbox.uq.edu.au)
Thu, 27 May 1999 09:14:12 +1000
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:14:12 +1000 From: Alan Holzl <a.holzl@mailbox.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 25 May 1999 to 26 May 1999
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.gmd.de/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Philip,
As a "lapsed" behaviourist and a "born-again" social constructivist, I feel
I must respond to your criticisms of "communities of practice" (CoP) and
cognitive apprenticeships. Seriously, I believe that the educational
psychologists have come up with something worthy of further investigation
particularly within the area of higher education. Before we discard this
theory in favour of something else, whether it be cognitive theory or
knowledge management (KM) lets engage in some serious research and
application to practice.
Which brings me to my next point, just about all of the research on social
constructivism seems to take place with children in the K-12 area. Can
anyone direct me to some research conducted with adults, preferably in
higher education i.e. vocational training, college and university, even
industry training?
Despite my earlier comments about my recent "religious conversion", I
believe there may be a case for a general "contingency" or "situational"
model for applying learning theory to teaching practice. In order to apply
this model we need to identify a series of conditions or factors which
exist in the teaching and learning "environment". As part of the
instructional design process, these factors are analysed and an appropriate
theory is chosen. This theory then becomes the "lens we look through" or
the perspective taken for the remainder of the process up to and including
formative and summative evaluation. As part of the evaluation we would
also be evaluating the appropriateness of the theory chosen. The tricky
part is, "what are the situational factors and what deductions do we make
from them?"
Some of them could be, the students (prior knowledge and experience,
personal perceptions of knowledge, motivation, etc etc) teachers (personal
perceptions of knowledge, experience, motivation etc etc) and most
important, the environment (organisational values and culture, timelines
available to develop and deliver the course or subject. organisational
support for good teaching and innovation, facilities and technology
available etc etc.)
I would welcome any comments and suggestions as well as responses to my
earlier request for information about research data.
PS I believe that it is possible to fit CoPs into instructional systems
design by changing the process from one of designing course materials to
designing "constructivist learning environments" in which students learn
through a process of enculturation into a community of practice. The
technology for doing this "online" is already available and can only
improve as "virtual reality" becomes less "virtual" and more "real".
Alan Holzl
>
>fred nickols wrote:
>>
>> I can see clearly why instructional systems design might not be such a good
>> fit with CoPs but, as noted above, I also think CoPs should be of interest
>> and relevant to IFETS and its members.
>>
>Isn't 'communities of practice' just a new term for 'old boys network'?
>How about that for counterpoint? Personally, I believe this whole
>business of West-coast CoPs, along with apprenticeship and all, is a
>distractor away from learning as a truly individual psychological
>process. Isn't CoP just social organization / organizational structure?
>Important in its own right, yes, but not learning. Agreed?
>
>Generally, we are in a time of ferment when new ideas and terminology
>are being tried out - excellent, since the old no longer suffices. I
>just shudder every time I open an ed psych textbook and see how learnign
>is divided up in behavioral, cognitive, etc... KM brings in a different
>perspective, one more in line with online, jit learning in flexible
>configurations outside the boxes that our schools have become. It is
>time for invention. Constructivism showed promise and had some salutary
>effect, but got bogged down in philosophy. Other ventures will push
>forward, even including CoPs perhaps - maybe I was a bit insensitive
>there.
>
>I keep coming back to the question: why do we make learning so
>difficult? Why can it not be more natural? There is surely something to
>learn in there for ID!
>
>Good reflection and imaginative thinking to you all!
>
>Philip Duchastel
>
Alan Holzl
Research and Development Officer
Learning Resources Development Unit _--_|\
The Teaching and Educational Development Institute / *
UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND 4072 \_.--._/
07 33811265 Fax 07 33811252
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu 27 May 1999 - 07:05:07 MET DST