Contextualizing information

One way of making teacher education activities similar to L2 teaching is to situate them in specific teaching contexts, real or imagined. However, traditional notions of schooling argue that the advantages of learning in schools is precisely because of differences between school activities and the “real life” activities which learners are being prepared for. “Schooling is viewed as the institutional site for decontextualizing knowledge so that, abstracted, it may become general and hence generalizable, and therefore transferable to situations of use in the ‘real’ world” (Lave, 1999: 18). In this view, embedding knowledge in specific contexts will make it more difficult to use such knowledge in different circumstances. For example, Bassok and Holyoak researched the extent to which embedding knowledge within specific tasks hinders transfer. In one experiment, six high school students learned to use algebra equations while another six students learned to use isomorphic equations in solving physics problems. All of the algebra students used the algebra solving methods they had learned when solving isomorphic physics problems, but only one of six physics students used the problem-solving methods in attempting to solve isomorphic algebra problems (Bassok &

Holyoak, 1989). This seems to show that when knowledge is presented in an isolated manner, it is easier to transfer than when knowledge is embedded in specific contexts.

However, other studies show that people are able to use embedded knowledge in other contexts. All of the 12 college students in a further study were able to use equations embedded in word problems when solving isomorphic physics problems (Bassok &

Holyoak, 1989). In a later experiment, college students who had learned to solve isomorphic problems embedded in either algebra word problems or banking problems were able to use the formulas they had learned in solving problems from the other context (Bassok, 1990). Thus, it does not seem that embedding knowledge in context per se makes transfer problematic. Why, then, did the physics students have such problems transferring what they had learned? Bassok speculated that “in studying physics, students learn that the physical concepts involved in word problems are critical to the applicability of the relevant equations. Accordingly, they do not expect, and fail to recognize, any direct relation between physics problem-solving procedures and isomorphic problems drawn from non-physics domains” (Bassok & Holyoak, 1989:

165). When learning algebra, students were only working on solving problems using formulas. However, in the physics condition they were not only learning to use equations, but also learning how to view concepts from a physics point of view. The transfer problems, however, only required the application of formula, but not new concepts. In other words, because of the lack of surface similarity (the algebra problems did not involve concepts central to problem-solving in physics), the students did not notice the structural similarity between the problems and, thus, did not use their knowledge even though it was relevant.

Increasingly, it is argued that SLTE programs need to contextualize the knowledge in order for it to be useful for teaching (Brown, 2000; Freeman, 1991b; Johnson, 1996b;

Johnson, 2006). “[F]or teachers to make sense of theory, it must be situated in the familiar context of their own teaching” (Johnson, 1996a: 767). Contextualizing

knowledge is seen as one way to help teachers develop the kind of detailed, sophisticated professional knowledge they need. “[F]or the purposes of educating teachers, any theory of SLA, any classroom methodology, or any description of that English language as content must be understood against the backdrop of teachers’ professional lives, within the settings where they work, and within the circumstances of that work” (Freeman &

Johnson, 1998: 405).

Furthermore, there is a fair amount of research evidence that indicates that contextualizing information does indeed make it easier for learners to acquire and use knowledge. For example, Sherwood and his colleagues (Sherwood, Kinzer, Bransford &

Franks, 1987) studied high school students learning about mass in science class. Students who received information that was contextualized were more likely to recall the information and use it in problem-solving. Similar results were reported by Bullock, Nunner-Winkler, Stern, Lopez, and Ziegler (2003). Huberman (1993a) studied researchers working with vocational education teachers. He found that when researchers spent time understanding specific educational contexts and adapted their findings to fit the questions and constraints of teachers in that context, there was a lot of use of research knowledge by the vocational teachers. However, where researchers simply communicated general research results without specifying them for a particular context, there was little use of such research.

Studies of teachers also indicate that contextualized information is easier to use for teaching. For example, Nunan (1987) found that the five teachers in the study “were knowledgeable about and committed to communicative language teaching” (Nunan, 1987: 137), but their lessons contained little actual communication. Nevertheless, when CLT was contextualized in terms of specific teaching activities, instruction became much more communicative. “[T]he teacher and researcher engaged in a short discussion on the ways of relating content of the picture sequences to the learners’ own lives, and of encouraging learners to bring their background knowledge to discussion… The effect was immediately apparent, and…features, which are characteristic of genuine communication, appeared in the data” (Nunan, 1987: 143). Borko and her colleagues (Borko, Mayfield, Marion, Flexer, & Cumbo, 1997) studied the evolution of ideas about assessment of 14 elementary teachers participating in a year-long professional development project. One of their findings was that teachers found it much easier to implement new ideas about assessment when these ideas were discussed in terms of specific things happening in their classrooms, for example in discussions after class observations or in discussions with other teachers on what works or ways of implementing an idea in the classroom. Moreover, Ryan (2004) studied a high school English teacher and a university professor team teaching a high school English class. She found that they were only able to use the professor’s ideas from the academic literature when these were discussed in terms of specific teaching activities. For example, the idea of using students’ cultural resources in instruction was first integrated into instructional decisions after the teacher and the professor discussed this in terms of how to teach a novel.

These research results have led many to propose that knowledge is social in nature and that learning is not a process of acquiring facts and skills, but of learning how to such facts and skills as legitimate members of communities (Hemsley-Brown & Sharp, 2003;

Johnson, 1996b; Nyikos & Hashimoto, 1997; Rogoff, 2003; Wegner, 1998). “I propose to consider learning not as a process of socially shared cognition that results in the end in

the internalization of knowledge by individuals, but as a process of becoming a member of a community and becoming knowledgeablely skillful are part of the same process, with the former motivating, shaping, and giving meaning to the latter, which it subsumes” (Lave, 1991: 65). For example, Winsor (2001) studied 6 interns in an engineering center. One of her findings was that what the interns learned was not mainly facts or procedures for doing engineering, but an understanding of how to fit into the work culture of the center: “learning involved getting plugged into the activity system around them” (Winsor, 2001: 25).

One argument is that all learning is social in nature and that isolated, individual learning is not useful. For example, Rogoff has claimed that human “development can be understood only in light of the cultural practices and circumstances of their communities” (Rogoff, 2003: 3-4) [emphasis added], while others have argued that

“learning always involves more than one person” (Nyikos & Hashimoto, 1997: 507).

Another argument is that isolated, individual knowledge and skill does not play a major role in learning: “cognitive apprenticeship methods foster learning through cognitive and metacognitive processes rather than through skills and behaviors” (Johnson, 1996b: 26).

This view has been disputed by a number of researchers who argue that it does not account for a substantial amount of research on human learning (Anderson, Reder &

Simon, 1996, 1997; Bereiter, 1997; Kirshner & Whitson, 1998; Vera & Simon, 1993).

Others claim that that (a) the work on the contextualized nature of knowledge has examined central aspects of knowledge which were ignored by previous research, but (b) isolated, individual knowledge is also important in human activity (Greeno & the Middle School Mathematics Through Learning Project Group, 1998; Salomon, 1993). In other words, situated cognition augments and enriches cognitive conceptions of knowledge and learning, but does not replace it. “[I]t is undeniable that many human actions are socially and technologically distributed and that many of these distributions entail…’off-loading’ cognitions onto others or onto technical implements…it is also undeniable that not all cognitions, regardless of their inherent nature, are distributed all the time, by all individuals regardless of situation, purpose, proclivity, or affordance” (Salomon, 1993:

113). Cobb and Bowers (1999) use the example of learning the tax code to exemplify the issues. When an experienced tax accountant receives training in new changes in the tax code, this new information is not understood as separate, isolated bits of information.

Instead, the new information is understood within the social framework of the tax system, preparing returns, and typical dealings of clients (the situated perspective).

However, if the tax accountant is very experienced, there will probably be no need to include all the social aspects of knowledge when presenting her the information; she can incorporate the new knowledge into her existing schemata without this. From a situated perspective, the tax accountant will not follow an exact blueprint from her schemata with robot-like precision when actually preparing a tax return, but her practice will arise out of an interaction of such schemata with social and contextualized factors such as the personality of the client, the present political climate toward tax returns at tax collection agencies, attitudes of supervisors and co-workers, and even the time of day and year.

Those working from a cognitive perspective will point out that this may be well true, but the basis for the tax accountant’s part in all of this will still be dependent on her individual knowledge, schemata and skill.

Thus, instead of seeing situated and cognitive perspectives as conflicting, attention has to be paid to both ends of the situated-individual continuum in SLTE. There needs to be

balance and connections between social and individual aspects of learning. Part of learning is understanding the significance of that knowledge for specific social practices.

However, individual and isolated learning can also play an important role in learning.

Such a cooperation is advocated by Salomon who suggests that learning opportunities feature “a spiral-like development whereby distributed…cognitions and one’s own ‘solo’

competencies are reciprocally developed by each other” (Salomon, 1993: 123).

Furthermore, even individual learning can be seen as part of social learning. When learning specific information about the tax code, an accountant is not just memorizing isolated facts, but is relating these new facts to situated processes of preparing typical tax reports.

Another perspective is that people need to acquire knowledge about social contexts in order to use knowledge. This would mean that knowledge of context is not an addition to content knowledge, but is part of the content that needs to be learned. “The activity in which knowledge is developed and deployed, it is now argued, is not separable from or ancillary to learning and cognition. Nor is it neutral. Rather, it is an integral part of what is learned” (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989: 32). Therefore, knowledge should not be seen as something neutral which can be passed on to learners directly. To take advantage of near transfer, teachers need to learn about contexts and how concepts and knowledge can and are used in a variety of contexts.

Knowledge of context is gained by participating in contextualized, dynamic activities typical such contexts. “The partnership whereby cognitions are distributed can be said to leave cognitive residues in the form of improved competencies, which affect subsequent distributed activities” (Salomon, 1993: 124). As mentioned previously, listening to a lecture is not a neutral activity, but a contextualized vocational practice. “[A]dvanced graduate students in the humanities, the social sciences, and the physical sciences acquire their extremely refined research skills through the apprenticeships they serve with senior researchers. It is then that they, like all apprentices, must recognize and resolve the ill-defined problems that issue out of authentic activity, in contrast to the well-ill-defined exercises that are typically given to them in text books and on exams throughout their earlier schooling” (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989: 40). When novice teachers listen to many lectures, they may gain great facility with that specific vocational practice, but that does not mean that this will help them learn to teach. The activities used for learning about teaching are not just a means for acquiring knowledge, they are, to a large extent, what is learned. This is another reason why similarity between learning activities and target activities makes it easier to use new knowledge.