Situated Learning

This brings us to the question of how to implement the experiential process using Web 2.0 tools. It is not the intention to provide detailed methods of instruction to facilitate the experiential methodology, rather to suggest an alternative perspective from which to view the challenge facing vocational education providers. Lave (1988, np.) argued that learning is a ‘function of the activity, context and culture in which it occurs’; therefore, the suggestion is that the acquisition of vocational skills should take place under the same, or at least similar conditions as they would be applied in real life situations, hence learning becomes situated. In many vocational education establishments this may already be the case for students engaged in practical activities; yet cognitive development often employs the use of non-contextual methods in an attempt to impart knowledge. If situated learning can be successfully applied to psychomotor development, then can the same approach be taken towards the cognitive understanding of knowledge that underpins practical vocational skills?

Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) add further weight to the argument by proposing that meaningful learning should be embedded in a social and cultural context, where they put forward the idea of a cognitive apprenticeship which supports the use of contextual learning in a collaborative environment.

‘Cognitive apprenticeship supports learning in a domain by enabling students to acquire, develop and use cognitive tools in authentic domain activity. Learning, both outside and inside school, advances through collaborative social interaction and the social construction of knowledge’ (Brown et al, 1989, p39.).

If the net generation are utilising Web 2.0 tools for the social construction of knowledge outside the school, then should they also be using them inside the school? Hein (1991, online) argued that the acceptance of constructivism places an obligation on educational establishments to ‘provide learners with the opportunity to: a) interact with sensory data, and b) construct their own world’. In cognitive terms, the learner develops their own spaces for learning in a Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) consisting of various Web 2.0 platforms. Providing learners with access to Web 2.0 tools moves away from the process of imparting knowledge, in favour of an environment that encourages critical thought and the construction of knowledge. Education providers should aim to create a technology rich environment that is flexible enough to allow students to personalise the learning space, while promoting an inclusive and motivating experience.

An example of a collaborative situated learning event is the Great Barrier Reef project where a group of students participated in an academic course on ecosystems on a remote island in the reef, working with marine biology staff at a university research centre and continuing with essential course work using Web 2.0 tools.

Straight away, it is clear that while there are enormous benefits to situated learning environments, the Great Barrier Reef project represents a significant undertaking to organise, achieve and finance. It may be that in many cases it is only possible to provide limited opportunities for immersion, or alternatively, there may even be a case for the application of virtual worlds to replicate physical work place experiences in a training environment. A viable option for vocational education could be to extend learning into the work place while collaboration with the training establishment is maintained on Web 2.0 platforms.

Identifying the necessary provisions for an effective situated learning environment can be challenging, however, Herrington and Oliver (1995, p3.) offer some guidance to achieving the right conditions:

Provide authentic context …more

Provide authentic activities… more

Provide access to expert performances and the modelling of processes… more

Provide multiple roles and perspectives… more

Support collaborative construction of knowledge… more

Provide coaching and scaffolding at critical times… more

Promote reflection to enable abstractions to be formed… more

       

Promote articulation to enable tacit knowledge to be made explicit… more

Provide for integrated assessment of learning within the tasks… more

Although Lave and Wenger (1988), Brown et al (1989) demonstrate the merits of situated learning activities, Anderson (1996) questions some of the opinions and empirical evidence surrounding it. Anderson argues that not all knowledge is specific to a situation; some knowledge is transferable across more than one activity. The danger here is that if the learner cannot make that distinction between situated and transferable skills, then they may not be able to utilise those skills unless they are faced with the same situation again. Promoting the use of Web 2.0 tools for the construction of knowledge must not suggest to the learner that they can only use these tools in that situation if it were to occur again, or that the same technology could not be used in other situations. For example, suggesting that the student Google’s a question on a topic, because that is what they would do outside the school, must not mean that more traditional methods of research are suddenly unsuitable. Or conversely, that search engines can only be used to research information on that particular subject. Likewise, asynchronous platforms for discussion and collaboration must not be associated directly to a given task, or exploited at the expense of more appropriate forms of communication (possibly f2f); but merely used as general instruments to facilitate the exchange of a wide range of opinions and information.

Another issue that Anderson highlights is the affiliation that web 2.0 tools have with cooperative learning and the acceptance that cooperative learning amongst peer groups in social environments is preferable to a tutoring. While it is true that there are benefits of collaboration, it is suggested that without the tutors input, detrimental effects such as on-line lurking, ganging up and sabotage are possible, or that the distribution of work within the cooperative becomes unbalanced.  

Maybe the solution lies with Mayer’s suggestion of structured learning activities, which could utilise both f2f methods and technologies like Web 2.0. Indeed, Anderson (1996, p10.) cites evidence that ‘skills in complex tasks, including those with large social components, are usually best taught by a combination of training procedures involving both whole tasks and components and individual training and training in social settings’.

Could it work…

Could the situated learning model extend to cognitive development? – Is the mergence of social and educational environments the way forward? – Could Web 2.0 tools provide a gateway to workplace training?