>Lave and Wenger 'Situated Learning' and Saxe 'culture and cognitive
>development...' describe apprenticeship across vocational practices, not
>really 'cognitive' apprenticeship, however. The difference is that folks
>like Allan Collins think of this as learning thinking and problem solving:
>
>"The basic method of apprenticeship involves modeling, coaching, and
>fading; that is, first showing apprentices what to do, next observing and
>helping them as they try to do it themselves, and then fading the help as
>they take on more responsibility. Cognitive apprenticeship attempts to
>apply this approach to teach thinking and problem solving. But unlike the
>kinds of skills taught with traditional apprenticeship, thinking is not
>visible. So cognitive apprenticeship stresses the importance of techniques
>to make thinking visible, such as articulating and reflecting on cognitive
>processes." (Collins, in press, "Design issues for learning environments,"
>p. 3)
Bill,
My view is pretty different from your distinction between Lave and Collins
as you already saw.
The formulating Lave and Wenger's view on apprenticeship as that
across vocational practices seems to be too narrow.
The confusion between research field and theoretical view often
happens.
Collin' s formulating "cognitive" apprenticeship is
based on cognitivisits' view. The only terminolgy looks new and trendy.
For example, I cannot understand why he tries to distingush thinking
from acting or interacting.
Or he wants to say the kinds of skills taught with traditional
apprenticeship in "vocational practice" does not need thinking or
cognition at all? It looks like very political distinction.
What is the meaning of 'higher-level' functions?
It means thinking in school like activity?
According to my personal impression, after experinces of workplace
research, rather, it is quite difficult for me to say that thinking in school
like activity or thinking as such Collins describes is
'higher-level' functions.
>Rogoff 's 'Apprenticeship in thinking..' causes me to step back a bit on
>your question and reevaluate. That is, we cannot forget (no pun intended)
>that, for example, memory serves cognitive functions and that students
>learning to take notes, being required to keep day-planners, remembering
>what their homework is, can all be considered cognitive apprenticeship. I
>think CA has focussed on 'higher-level' functions.
I have to read Rogoff again. However, if her 'Apprenticeship in thinking..'
is like you described, again only the terminology such as apprenticeship
is new. If so, there is no good reason to use the new term such as
"apprenticeship".
It seems to me that "apprenticeship" only in thinking or cognition
is impossible. That is the view of "apprenticeship".
Naoki Ueno
NIER, Tokyo