Metaphor is better for…

Having read through the second half of Conole’s forthcoming chapter (see previous post), I think I finally have my head around the notion of metaphors for e-learning, well metaphors for anything really, but as this is the context I’m working in at the moment…

I was particularly interested in the use of Morgan’s five metaphors (p.16) for organisations as a lens for contemplating Conole’s main point of her chapter. These five (organisation as machine, brain, organism, culture and political) are certainly evident not only in metaphors for e-learning, but also common in everyday life. The question that arose for me was, are these five examples appropriate for e-learning or should we focus on those metaphors which have their origins in the context being discussed? For example, Sfard’s (Acquisition and participation) metaphors for learning.

Also, a key lessson should be learned form Sfard’s work about the danger of theorizing several metaphors then choosing one or other to work with. I think Conole makes a similar implicit suggestion. She refers to the complexity of e-learning landscape (p.19) and the need for exploring many metaphors to help us understand it.

–

I’m writing my ECA about learning technology in context with HE art, design and media, so I’ve just put a couple of links in here to marry up some thinking with some more focused articles – metaphors in art and design.

Logan, C. (2008) ‘Metaphor and pedagogy in the design practicum’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1–18

Sagan, O. (2008) ‘Playgrounds, studios and hiding places: emotional exchange in creative learning spaces’, Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 173–186

4 A1: Defining learning

“Learning is a process of development concerned with physical and mental competencies of individuals and groups. It may occur in unlimited contexts, but commonalities of learning relate to individual cognition. Teaching catalyzes the learning process, but is not intrinsic to it. The externalization of individual learning may influence the learning of others, the extent of which may depend on interpersonal competencies.”

As I have been thinking about this definition, I could not help but return to Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). I’ve resisted the temptation to include it in the definition, but it has made me think about the relationship between learning and teaching. In trying to identify the essence of learning, I tested my definition by considering it in other contexts, e.g. an animal’s learning. One can learn without help or guidance through acquisition and experience, however teaching may catalyze learning by ‘scaffolding’ learner’s development in a ZPD.

I might also decide to evolve “physical and mental” to reflect a wider diversity of competencies more substantially reflected in Gardner’s description of multiple intelligences (1993), although I have already begun to include the necessary interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences that I would, here, associate with participatory learning, and skills intrinsic to teaching.

–

Gardner, H. (1993) Multiple intelligences: new horizons, [revised ed. 2006], New York, Basic

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Reflection on Elluminate session 25/02/09

I’ve just come out of a very positive Elluminate experience. It was my first real exepreicne of wokring online in this way, I had used Lyceum very briefly on H807, but not in the same structured and purposive way as this. Most f us started to use the chat box once we had got under way, and atthe outset, I did find the silences a little awkward. However, once we got warmed up I thought there was a lot of value in being able to speak to each other online. It was really beneficial to hear the views of other peeople on the Sfard article, for example. We all seemed to struggle a little with this conceptually, but there were some intersting points made about it. The experience has taught me that capturing these comments is the tricky part. Although I have tried to keep some rough notes whilst participating in the session, the level of concentration required made this quite difficult. Looking at my notes after the evnt, and I see that they don’t actually make that much sense. Funnily enough, they look like field notes – except I would normally have a recording to go with those! I’m sure that this is just a case of needing some practice though. I’ll look forward to the next time Elluminate is used.

3b A2: Notes on Sfard

a) Acquisition metaphor (AM)

Initially, I was really struggling to get my head around what exactly a metaphor for learning was. However, reading Sfard’s paper has helped in my understanding of this now. As that understanding has developed, I recognise that even this reflection is an example of the acquisition metaphor. I consider this in terms of a concept, in terms of wanting to acquire it and then repurpose it in a “continuing interaction with peers, teachers and texts.” And I am writing about it using the discourse that Sfard describes (knowledge, concept, development, grasp).

To summarize the acquisition metaphor, Sfard identifies that learning has been seen in terms of concepts upon which further development and learning may take place. Passive knowledge delivery, constructivist theories, social to internalized learning models, formative self-regulated development – they all come back to a focus on the “development of concepts and on acquisition of knowledge.”

Reflection: Interestingly, although I feel I am getting to grips with this now, I am looking forward to comparing my notes to those of others in the group, and having a chat about it in Elluminate. I hadn’t really thought about it before, but I think this process really helps to consolidate my learning. There is an opportunity to tell other people how I interpreted things, and I have no doubt that this will differ from how other people interpreted the paper, so I’ll get some new perspectives on it.

b) Participation metaphor (PM)

Sfard’s opening statement in defining the participation metaphor is that “the acquisition metaphor is so deeply entrenched in our minds that we would probably never become aware of its existence if an alternative metaphor did not start to develop.” Honestly, before having read on, I could begin to think how a participation metaphor would work. However, it became clear to me that this was something that I was already familiar with, I had just not conceptualized in the same way.

I have a working knowledge of Lave and Wenger’s community of practice concept, but was interested to read how one can determine a difference between AM and PM in the kinds of language used to describe them. This shift in discourse ultimately describes the pattern for describing participatory metaphor – learning as action, “the process of becoming a member of a community” or legitimate peripheral participation. I have only come across Lave and Wenger before, so I’m interested to follow up the other participatory conceptual frameworks. However, Sfard does go on to say that the metaphors “should not be mistaken for the well-known distinction between individualist and social perspectives on learning.”

c) What learning is / how learning happens

There is an emphasis one way and the other with the metaphors. The acquisition metaphor inherently describes an onus on the student as a receiver of knowledge. I would go as far to say it implies that the responsibility for this acquisition lies with the learner. Conversely, the PM suggests shared responsibility for learning, and implies that participants in a community are greater than the sum of their parts. A paraphrase of the activity prompt provides an insight into the metaphorical paradigms Sfard puts forward. AM suggests learning is, PM suggests learning happens.

d) Favourite quote from the paper:

“The basic tension between seemingly conflicting metaphors is our protection against theoretical excesses, and is a source of power.”

–

Sfard, A. (1998 ) ‘On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one’, Educational Researcher, 27(2), March 1998, American Educational Research Association