Situated learning is seen as a theory that can bridge the gap between knowing and doing (Resnick, cited in Herrington & Oliver, 2000); it is suggested that much of the knowledge at universities does not have direct relevance, as the knowledge obtained consists of “abstract and decontextualized formal concepts” (Brown et al., 1989, p. 32).
Concept, culture and activity are important for understanding how information is taught and how information is used in the real world outside the classroom (Brown et al., 1989; Herrington, Herrington, Oliver, Stoney, & Willis, 2001). The theory of situated cognition developed by Brown, et al.,1989) promotes learning “within the nexus of activity, tool and culture” (Brown et al., 1989, p. 40) and suggests that focused teaching and learning within the classroom should support a learning of knowledge in a way that is similar to the way it is used in real life. Learning should include aspects of the situation which “co-produce knowledge through activity” Brown et al., 1989, p. 32). This theory of learning was developed by looking at successful learning situations, which included apprenticeship, collaboration, reflection, coaching, multiple perspectives and articulation (McLellan, 1991 cited in Herrington, 1997).
Situated learning and social construction acknowledge that learning is a social activity. Furthermore, it is more than just learning by doing, as the student enters into a community in which the apprentices or newcomers learn from the masters or the members who have been in the community longest. Through engagement with the community, real life learning results in students who are able to think creatively, solve problems and use knowledge in an “appropriate and adaptive way” (Herrington, 1997, p. 2).
The theory of situated learning incorporating apprenticeship, collaboration, reflection, coaching, multiple practice and articulation forms the basis for the nine elements of Authentic Learning (AL) (McLellan as cited in Herrington & Oliver, 1995). In addition, learning is
51
related to practice and the application of such knowledge (Schön, 1983; Teater, 2011; Wood, 2015). According to Lave and Wenger (2003), learning is a social activity, and when a member moves into a community of practice, they learn a way of doing, develop their identity, create artefacts and assimilate knowledge in the practice area from the experts and other members in that grouping (Smith,1999; Wenger, 2006).
Communities of practice, learning networks or thematic groups are terms used to describe groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do, and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. Communities of practice view learning as occurring in relationships which are part of society and occur in projects, institutions, and associations (Wenger, 1998). The size of these formal or informal groups may vary, and while some groups may meet face-to-face, other groups meet online. These “communities of practice have been around for as long as human beings have learned together” (Wenger, 2006, p. 3) and people may enter and leave a number of communities of practice in their lifetime. Three aspects that are crucial to describing a group as a community of practice include the following (Wenger, 2006):
1. The domain of interest should be common; there should be shared competence and an appreciation of the collective competence, as well as learning from each other.
2. The community members engage in collective and collaborative activities whereby members help each other and work together. In this way, members learn from each other and engage in some of the following activities:
a. problem solving b. information-sharing
c. sharing personal understanding d. repurposing assets
e. management and synergy f. conversing about developments
g. keeping records and documenting projects h. undertaking visits to project sites
i. researching, planning and identification of constraints
3. Members are seen as practitioners who share resources, experiences, stories, tools and ways of addressing recurring problems, and there is sustained interaction among these members over a period of time.
52 Thus, learning is fostered through mutual exchange.
Despite the benefits of situated learning identified in this chapter, critiques have been levelled against this theory. For example, Anderson, Reder and Simon are of the view that some aspects of situated learning are “overstated and that some of the educational implications that have been taken from these claims are misguided” (1996, p. 5). They argue that the assumption that action should necessarily be grounded in the concrete situation in which it occurs is not correct, and they doubt that knowledge transfers between tasks because, they claim, if knowledge is context-based, then learning will not transfer between contexts. They are of the option that training can occur through abstraction in an environment that is devoid social complexity as suggested by situated learning. Although Anderson et al. (1996) concede that situated learning has improved the link between what is taught in the classroom and the real world, they regard certain claims by situational learning theorists, Lave (1988) and Rogoff (1995), that situated learning theory is dependent on the social context, as “overstated”, as they argue that aspects of cognition are “context independent” (Anderson et al., 1996, p. 10). For example, they point out that the arithmetic and reading practice that occur in the classroom provides students with the skills required to use these skills in real life, since it is possible that these skills are automatically transferred from one context to the other. They also assert that learning transfer is enhanced when training involves multiple examples and students are encouraged to reflect on the potential for transfer.
Anderson et al. (1996) concede however that training by abstraction is of little value when unsupported, given that research has shown how abstract instruction combined with concrete examples is a powerful method of teaching. They argue, however, that there are some tasks which are best learned outside of the social situation. An example they cite is of an accountant who needs to interact with clients, but does not need to learn about tax code or the use of a calculator while engaging with the client or any other team members. They argue, furthermore, that collaboration on projects may produce conflicts and power dynamics that could hamper learning. Learning is promoted by teaching tasks and subtasks, as well as “individual training and training in social settings” (Anderson et al., 1996, p. 10). Thus, Anderson et al. (1996) provide an argument for a more cognitive individualist perspective, whereby the learner has to “remember strategies, rules and patterns” (Hung, 2001, p. 283) while working independently.
53
Cobb and Bowers (1999) are also critical of the merits of cognitive theory and situated learning theory, finding that “many of the instructional recommendations made in the name of situated learning theory are unsubstantiated” (p. 13). For example, they argue that the claim that all learning must occur within the social context in which it is found cannot be substantiated, given that some learning does occur independently. Cobb and Bowers further argue that the study conducted by Anderson et al. (1996) needed to extend beyond the issue of cognitive behaviour, and should also have considered the quality of the students’ interaction and the importance of greater integration between theory and practice. The design-based approach suggested in this study considers that course design for meso practice education adopts a more sociocultural view of classroom learning, based on relationships, and demonstrates how educators research their own practice as they teach. The position adopted in this study is that while cognitive behavioural aspects of learning cannot be disregarded, aspects of context and collaboration are important considerations in course design.
The arguments presented by Anderson et al. (1996) do not, however, acknowledge that professional practice, especially for social work in the real world, is complex and messy, and that students are required to explore multiple perspectives and understand various barriers to social justice (Rule, 2006; Teater, 2011). Furthermore, Anderson et al. (1996) provide little acknowledgment of the value of such discourse which occurs between students as they form a community of learners and work on “real world inquiry problems involving higher-order thinking with an authentic audience beyond the classroom” (Rule, 2006, p. 6). While the use of AL may occur in the classroom and in online spaces, these tasks and activities offer significant links with the outside community (Herrington, Reeves & Oliver, 2007). Thus, the complex task within an AL environment is of value for student learning because it can “enhance the transfer of deep lifelong learning” (Herrington et al., 2010, p. 91).