According to Brown, Collins and Duguit 1988 paper "Situated Cognition and
Culture
of Learning", "cognitive apprenticeship" addresses a specific learning
activity that
can be applied to a desgin of instruction.
In other words, the term apprenticeship here is related to a specific
historical,
traditional form of learning activity in specific practices.
However, if you try to search the historical books about apprenticeship
in workplaces, you will find out the story is not so simple. For example,
the history
of "craft-persons" in US is very specific and pretty different from Europe,
Africa,
Asia and other areas. How Tylorism was introduced in US at the beginning of
20 century looks like deeply related to the history of "craft-persons" in US.
These historical books will be good resources in order to research on
workplaces
in US.
In their paper, what kind of historical form of aprenticeship Brown and others
tried to imitate is not clear at all.
Further, it is impossible to say that apprenticeship type learning is generally
a better way for instruction.
Finally, I wonder whether their paper overcomes the novice-expert paradigm
in cognitive psychology.
On the other hand, for Lave and Wenger, the term apprenticeship means
the analytical view point, not a specific historical form of learning
activity as they themselve pointed out. (They confessed that, at first,
they themselves would confuse the apprenticeship as the view point with
that as a specific historical forms of learning.)
Related to the issue of apprenticeship,
Lave and Wenger distingush a learning curriculm from a teaching curriculum.
Learning curriculum means a field of learning resources in everyday
practice from viewed from the perspective of learners. On the other hand,
teaching curriculum is contructed for the instruction of newcomer
from external view of what should be known.
If one takes the view of teaching curriculum, it tends to prevent he/she from
seeing what actually occurs in the context of instruction situation.
The view of learning curriculum appears to be similar to the view
of "hidden curriculum".
It is only partially similar, I think.
In fact, "hidden" curriculum is observable for participants. So, one can
observe
and analyse "hidden" curriculum. By contrast, "teaching curriculum" is not
observable for learners, students or observers in the instruction session.
So, I think that "teaching curriculum" is actually hidden for learners or
students.
"Hidden" curriculum from whose view point and how
should be analysed instead of just pointing out the difference between
actually organized events in classroom and the slogans of teaching
curriculum.
I am not sure whether the general distinction between a learning curriculm
and a teaching curriculum is helpful. However, I agree with Lave and
Wenger in their claim that institutionalized agenda of education or official
slogans of school education often prevents people from seeing on going events
in instructional sessions and from expanding the view of learning.