The Learning Sciences, and more cottage cheese

I really appreciated the insights in the chapters by Sawyer and Bransford, et. al. explaining what is meant by the new term "learning sciences" and what exactly it encompasses. I am pretty hesitant to hop on board with new, euphemistic catch phrases, and must admit that I rolled my eyes a bit at the phrase "learning sciences" when I first started reading the article, but I really appreciate the value of what the authors are saying.

The most appealing side of the "learning sciences" is that they seek to integrate several different disciplines - psychology, anthropology, sociology... and I think this is vital to really understanding how people learn and then formulating our best approaches to teaching. The less fragmented our disciplines, the more effective and comprehensive our research is going to be. Isn't this what educational theorists themselves are promoting in the curricula we've been designing?

Authentic practice is an important part of the learning sciences approach, which I appreciate. I also like how Sawyer pointed out that as useful as professional experiences are for learners, we also have to find a way to tailor these experiences and make them age-specific. This reminds me of a project I worked on in 6th grade. We were working on independent study projects and the teacher took us as a class to the Denver Public Library. I had a heyday - it was the biggest library I'd ever been in and they had seemingly thousands of books on the subject I was researching - Ancient Greece. I went home with 14.

I had been more eager for the project, though, than I was really emotionally capable to handle. I spent most of the several months I had allotted to me for the project reading random passages of the hugely divergent books, most of which were way beyond my comprehension level. When it came down to the project's due date, I used a children's book on the Greek Gods and wrote a simple summary book-report-type project. The goal of the independent study and the trip to the library - teaching us what authentic research experience was like - was totally lost on me. In retrospect, I think that closer coaching by the teacher and some age-appropriate guidelines would have been more helpful than just setting me loose in the adult world.

Another aspect of the readings that I appreciated was the explanation of intrinsic learning vs. informal learning vs. formal learning. It seems that I've picked up on these phenomena but have yet to see them articulated so well. So much of what we have been talking about in terms of learning theory has been frustrating to me because it exists only in the world of formal learning, when I have been eager to point out the fact that humans are learning all the time. It intrigues me to study further why there is such a disconnect between these three "strands" of learning. Bransford, et.al. point out:

Many children who fail in school demonstrate sophisticated competence in non-school activities. In particular, learners from nondominant cultural or lower SES backgrounds appear to learn resourcefully and productively outside of school, even though they may not do well inside school (e.g., McLaughlin, Irby & Langman, 2001). These asymmetries raise important questions about the design of our school systems and what resources allow for success out of school. (Bransford et. al., p.25)

The difference between intrinsic (mimicry) learning and informal learning is subtle and interesting enough, and I think lies somewhere in the gap between everyday experiences (which are perceptible to our senses) and abstractions (which are not), but the difference between informal learning and formal learning (like the smart children who do poorly in school) still puzzles me. Why the disconnect? What is the difference? And what is the justification for having schools at all if we can't bridge the gap?

.......................

I've been reading another book called Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies by Diana Laurillard that elaborates on the distinction between authentic experience and abstraction, very helpfully. I tend to be an enthusiastic supporter of authentic experience as the only real teacher, but Laurillard brings up some important points. She uses the example from Brown, et.al. (Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.) that we read in class, the example of the dieter trying to figure out how to take 3/4 of a 2/3 cup serving of cottage cheese. Rather than having to figure out a formula, the man has an enlightened moment where he pats the cottage cheese into a circle, cuts it into four quarters, and eats three of them. This is all well and good, Laurillard points out, but what about a situation that does not lend itself as well to the situated cognition approach?

Suppose the weight-watcher were trying to work out his share of a discounted car hire with a couple of friends and had to figure out the logically equivalent problem of one-third of 5 percent off the total cost? The unity between problem, context and solution is not quite so apparent here. The point of an academic education is that knowledge has to be abstracted, and represented formally to become generalisable and therefore more generally useful. (Laurillard, p.16)

She goes on to argue the need for abstraction, and that competently presented. Rather than depending on a single situated context, a concept needs to be represented in multiple contexts before it will be recognized and become generalizable. The cottage cheese problem is possible in an informal learning setting. The fraction formulas necessary to work out the rental car problem are more reminiscent of formal learning environments. Is there no way to reconcile the two?

That's what I want to discover. I want to keep reading the research and I am especially interested in alternative approaches to formal education such as the Montessori system. I see the value for abstraction and carefully constructed guidance of a student's experience, but I am still very conscious of those who learn in informal settings and are very intelligent but who get lost between the cracks of formal education. I'm excited that what we've read so far has brought me exposure to at least the beginnings of these compelling questions.