Here Lave begins to challenge where learning takes place. She proposes that learning not only becomes more effective when it is situated in practice, but that cognitive learning takes place through the participation of the practice in which it is situated. The weight of learning thus moves from the primary emphasis of cognitive development in the classroom to the cognitive development in the concrete setting of where the concept is practiced or applied.
“The notion of situated learning now appears to be a transitory concept, a bridge between a view according to which cognitive processes (and this learning) are primary and a view according to which social practice is the primary, generative phenomenon, and learning is one of its characteristics. There is a significant contrast between a theory of learning in which practice is subsumed within processes of learning and one in which learning is taken to be an integral aspect of practice, in our view, learning is not merely situated in practice – as if it were some independently reifiable process that just happened to be located somewhere; learning is an integral part of generative social practice in the lived world. Legitimate peripheral participation is proposed as a descriptor of engagement in social practice that entails learning as an integral constituent.” Lave 34
This is shift of perspective of where learning takes place is an important consideration. Up until now, learning has been viewed as primarily cognitive, and our indigenous student has been identified as primarily concrete in their processing of information. If this is true, and if Western learning is primarily accomplished in cognitive settings, then we are crippling our indigenous students when we delegate the practice of learning as an application of cognitive development rather than an agent of developing the cognitive mind.
Any thoughts here?
Comments