Reflection for Designing Contexts in Lifelong Learning

I was pleased with this class as an extension of learning from GSLL 6206 Lifelong Learning Perspectives. The Designing Contexts in Lifelong Learning class was a great opportunity to take the learning from the Perspectives class and create a context where the knowledge was applied in a practical situation. Although the practical vignette created was a fictional scenario, we were all challenged to create a learning context which was as real as possible.

An interesting mix of students was in this class. This has been a recurring theme in the lifelong learning program. In each class there is ancillary learning which occurs that is unexpected but makes the learning experience as a whole more meaningful.

Looking around the room during the first class there were both familiar and new faces. After introductions I realized that the eclectic mix of age, race, profession, and personal perspectives was likely to provide a rich environment for learning. It was very interesting that during the process of dividing into groups, four people of very different backgrounds chose the same topic for the wiki project. Our chosen topic was Professional Development in Lifelong Learning. The other members of the group were Faiza, Lindsay, and Beth. In our initial meeting we discussed what this topic meant to each of us. We all had a slightly different perception of professional development based on individual experiences. Through discussing several options we discovered we could all relate to our chosen theme of a medical clinic. I believe this topic worked for everyone because we had all interacted with physicians in our past either as patients or professionals. This allowed for each of us to provide input to give the vignette and subsequent work a real foundation.

Three of the members of the group had taken the Lifelong Learning Perspectives course in the winter semester while one member had not. The member who had not is not enrolled in the lifelong learning program and was taking the course as an elective. In the Perspectives course we read and reviewed two books by Wenger relating to his social theory of learning and Communities of Practice. Our group member who was not familiar with Wenger expressed that she had catching-up to do to as the remainder of our group had the knowledge from the previous course. It reminded me of Wenger’s description of a newcomer’s struggles to enter an existing community. I would not think of Lindsay, Faiza, and I as a community, however, because of our preexisting learning experience Beth thought of us this way. In this regard Beth saw us as the old timers. We had the joint enterprise of the Perspectives course, the mutual engagement to explore Wenger’s ideas, and subsequently the shared repertoire built from the knowledge of Wenger’s concepts. It is really interesting to reflect on this experience within Wenger’s ideas. Beth was a very quick study so this did not result in any problems within our group. She was a legitimate participant to us.

It was useful to read the book Getting to Yes prior to starting this course. There is always negotiation required to complete work in groups. In this exercise we were asked to create a vignette and then design a supporting education program utilizing the Scientific Management Method. Following this, we offered a critique using Wenger’s theory of learning, and then a further critique informed by the ideas of Cervero and Wilson. Finally, we made recommendations to create a positive context for learning based on our vignette. Throughout this process we negotiated as a group. It began as we first came together to begin brainstorming about our vignette idea. It was evident at the outset that the members of our group had agreeable personalities and were interested in getting a quick start on the wiki project. Two members of the group chose their preferred focus areas for the wiki as they felt they were strong in the subject matter. The remaining member and I came to an agreement about the other areas after a brief discussion. I wouldn’t have chosen the vignette as my focus area had I been given first choice. I was more interested in learning about application of Wenger’s theory in practice or the ideas of Cervero and Wilson. However, based on the outline of the project, I could be involved in contributing to each piece so I agreed. In retrospect, it was a useful exercise to write the vignette. I had not done this before and it was an important piece of the project. The vignette provides the tie between the theories and what the outcome looks like in a practice setting. Knowledge of all three of the theories was required to write a vignette that allowed for exploration and development of the concepts.

As we were making decisions throughout the project I realized that we were involved in a practice that Fisher and Ury discuss in Getting to Yes as soft negotiating. This practice seems to fit in the student learning environment. Fisher and Ury describe soft negotiating as emphasizing the importance of building and maintaining a relationship. They also say soft negotiating produces results quickly and in an efficient manner. I had existing relationships with two of my group members and had done group work with both of them before. We knew as a group we had limited time to get the work done to complete our project. Both of these conditions likely caused this negotiation tactic to evolve. In this learning encounter it seemed to work well. We didn’t have a hard bargainer in our group so each member was able to express their opinions and felt comfortable to work with the other members. Following the last class we had discussion that our group did work very well together. We were fortunate that our individual personalities and work styles were agreeable to each other. Negotiating through the work on this project, we designed our own positive context for learning within our group.

Using the wiki format for sharing information caused me to be more thoughtful about what I posted and what changes I suggested. There is comfort in face to face communication because you can evaluate the non-verbal communication that is ongoing in discussions with other people. It is also easier to have an open dialogue. I was hesitant to change another group member's work on the wiki and support the change in a written note. It was a risk because the person may take the change as a criticism versus a constructive suggestion. When our group met face to face we discussed that we all had similar feelings. This factor was the reason we had a face to face meeting. The face to face meeting was very productive and we made better advances in the project. The face to face discussions allowed for more openness and negotiation about specific content. This realization has led me to wonder about communication broadly in our world. More and more communication is done through email or texting, blog sites, teleconferences, or video meetings on-line. I wonder as a society if we are losing some of the effectiveness of communication and space for negotiation because of the reduced amount of face to face time we spend with each other?

The positive outcome for this course was being able to see the theories in action. My experience in designing learning contexts up until now has been primarily based on using the Scientific Management Method (SMM). In my workplace I am regularly asked to participate in creating goals and objectives, supporting programs, and an evaluation of learning. In some instances this process works well. Straightforward education plans such as those for learning to use a piece of equipment or how to wash your hands effectively are adequately addressed using the SMM. However, learning which may be more complex based on the area to be addressed requires a more thoughtful process. Determining the most advantageous environment for learning, as we have learned, is not always as straightforward as it may seem. Going through the process of designing a learning context within my group and then listening to the views of the other three groups was really enlightening. I think everyone in the class would agree that the Designing Contexts course itself was a good example of the creation of an open and rich environment for us as lifelong learners.

Self-Analysis: Are You Up for It?

When I am teaching at my best I am like a ___________? This question is posed by Bracher (2006) on page 141 in his book Radical Pedagogy. Bracher takes this question from the work of Palmer. He describes this as a technique used in workshops to elicit images or metaphors for self-reflection as a teacher. Palmer contends that by answering this question swiftly you are allowing your unconscious to produce a metaphor which embodies insights into your identity. His idea is that by stating the first thing that comes to mind you are accessing your unconscious. If we take time to ponder a question like this our answer becomes tempered by our key identity contents and maintenance strategies.

            I tried this exercise but unfortunately because I had read it through completely I was unable to answer in the swift manner described. Instead of being defeated I settled on an answer and then decided to try to analyze it in comparison to my key identity signifiers. I was able to see how the answer I chose supported how I view myself in teaching situations and how I want others to view me. When I am teaching at my best I am like a Labrador retriever, loyal, trustworthy, non-judgmental, courageous, and strong. These are words I would use to describe qualities of a good teacher and so if I can embody these qualities I would be a good teacher.

Bracher uses this example in his description of one of the components in the process of self-analysis for teachers. According to Bracher, there are four components of self-analysis which can be useful in trying to examine our own pedagogical practices. These are: rectification with the real, the operation of transference, interpretation, and working through. The question posed above is discussed in the section relating to interpretation.

Rectification with the real describes recognition that teaching practices we have employed in the past may have had negative consequences for learning even though we assumed they were beneficial. Bracher contends that recognizing this fact can lead to motivation to begin alterations in practice based on development of new identity supports. As stated by Bracher “our most profound identity support (as is the case with everyone) comes in the form of recognition from the real: evidence that we have made a significant contribution to the lives of others” (2006, p. 137). When we are able to recognize that our current practices are not productive our devotion to maintaining them is weakened. Once this realization has occurred, alternatives which are more beneficial to students are able to be considered. The benefit to the teacher in embracing the alternative practice comes in the form of recognition. The fact that others have been impacted by the new practice in a positive way provides significant and renewed identity support.

The second component for teacher self-analysis is the operation of transference. It is described as ever present in teaching as evidenced by how we organize our environment, relate to students, and impart the material to be taught. There is self-awareness of the teacher in terms of their identity-supporting strategies to some degree. The suggestion here, however, is that the operation of transference involves a deeper examination of our identity as a teacher. Bracher suggests a structure for this form of self-analysis using a questioning technique. By questioning ourselves about reasons for becoming a teacher, goals we have for students, what type of recognition we want for ourselves, and what identity needs our current practice supports, we position ourselves to better understand and control our behaviors. This type of exercise is a direct analysis of why we teach the way we do.

Conversely in the third component of self-analysis, interpreting our images and experiences of teaching, there is indirect examination of pedagogical practice. This involves exploration into experiences as a teacher when we have found satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Examining the reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction in a variety of teaching situations allows an opportunity to focus on addressing counterproductive practices. Through identification of situations which reinforce our identity supports we can begin to understand the consequences to pedagogical practice. Bracher suggests an exercise to assist teachers in identifying their supports. It involves an in-depth reflection of writing down the specifics of negative and positive teaching experiences. The idea of this exercise is to help a teacher identify and understand how past experiences have shaped their teaching practices through receiving or not receiving the recognition they desired. It is through this deeper understanding that a teacher can navigate the balance of empowering and supporting student development while still being affirmed as a good teacher.

The final component of the self-analysis process is working through. Here the teacher examines if their own teaching practices which yield personal identity support are, in fact, contributing to student identity development. Bracher notes that while working through this identification a teacher will be more likely to develop complex identity structures. He describes capacity for empathy and the ability to balance the needs of individuals and groups against the needs of those not within our realm of immediate experience. Additionally, he discusses the power to look beyond system rules to attend to those individuals or groups which are often without a voice. It is through this enlightenment that Bracher suggests we can “redirect our recognition-seeking away from behaviors that interfere with student development and towards behaviors that foster it” (2006, p. 146).

Critically evaluating yourself using this self-analysis process requires considerable effort. Anyone who is involved in teaching others likely believes that the work they do is in support of student learning. We all want to think the work we do as a teacher is helping students develop; why else would we do it? However, taking a serious look into our own pedagogical practices might reveal a different truth. Teaching practices employed may be revealed as self-serving to personal identity needs. Improved understanding of yourself and why you teach the way you do holds the potential to have a significant positive impact for both students and teachers. It will cause us to leave our comfort zone but I am learning that personal growth is not usually comfortable.

References:

Bracher, M. (2006). Radical pedagogy: Identity, generativity, and social transformation, New York, N.Y. : Palgrave MacMillan.

Identity-Bearing Signifiers and Beliefs – Can You Identify With This?

All of us have ways which we think about ourselves and how we participate in the world.  We are a good friend because we listen and keep confidences.  We are smart because we have successfully completed post-secondary education.  We are charitable because we contribute to the United Way through payroll deduction.  We are creative because we are left-handed.  And so on.  Identity is within us and surrounds us.  We talk about it in pop culture, such as in movies when a person needs to create a new identity to avoid some type of persecution, to denouncing a female pop star we see as promiscuous because we can’t identify with her.  We put our identity on display for others when we carry particular types of identification in our wallets.  A Gold Card identifies we are professionally successful, a gym membership card identifies we are fit and healthy. 

            Bracher describes the ways in which we think about ourselves, our attributes, and our beliefs as our identity-bearing signifiers.  He states

“…identity-bearing signifiers embody socially valued ideals and attributes that we strive either to enact or to avoid embodying in our behavior.  Our identity depends, first, on the integrity and status of such master signifiers and, second, on our assurance that we actually embody these signifiers” (2006, p. 18).

In other words, we determine as individuals what personal characteristics are valued by the society we live in and then focus on modeling our behavior to be viewed as representing these characteristics.  The construction of identity is more complex but this is a simplified way of explaining the concept.

            People talk about identity as if it is well understood and a self-evident notion arising from personal experiences.  In a course I completed last winter I wrote a paper on professional identity construct and the role of formal education in becoming a teacher.  In doing research I was surprised that is was difficult to find a clear definition of identity.  I did find a few definitions that captured the idea well.  In an article by Sfard and Prusak they described identity as collections of stories about persons, or more specifically, as those narratives about individuals that are reifying, endorsable, and significant (2005, p. 16). I liked this definition because of its reference to stories and narratives as I always find myself wondering what a person’s story is.  I can see now the similarity to Bracher in his description of narratives as diachronic systems of meaning (2006, p. 17).  Another definition which I quoted was in a 2008 study by Horn, Nolen, Ward and Campbell, who defined identity as the way a person understands and views himself, and is often viewed by others, at least in certain situations – a perception of self that can be fairly constantly achieved (p. 62).  Again there seems to be a tie to the work of Bracher and his description of self-perception as our identity-bearing signifiers.  In a 2008 paper by Olsen, he described identity as a continuum rather than, discrete linear parts (p. 23).  I can relate to identity in this description because our life experiences are impacting and causing changes to the way we see ourselves in different situations on an ongoing basis. 

            In terms of learning, Bracher describes ability or failure to learn as partially motivated by the need to maintain one’s identity-bearing signifiers (2006, p.18).  In post-secondary education examples of this are evident.  In the first book we reviewed this term by Tomasello, I found myself wondering if there were students in the class who might have difficulty in reading the book because of a belief in divine creation.  Would they have trouble identifying with the material because they deny evidence of evolution?  Bracher discusses this as an instance where learning can be undermined because the knowledge being discussed is divergent from a person’s core beliefs and therefore triggers resistance to consider it.  Additionally, I think of friends who have chosen to pursue a career path because they perceived the profession to be something they identified with.  In some cases they were right and excelled in their program of choice because their identity-bearing signifiers and beliefs were congruent with that of the profession.  In another instance, one friend was in the initial stages of a dentistry program when they decided that they could not deal with having to cause pain to others in the course of their work.  They just could not identify with this part of the job; they were not a person that caused others to feel pain.  Bracher (2006) describes a degree of identity destabilization as almost inevitable in university students.  The ability of students to be comfortable enough with their own identity to allow pursuit and exploration of belief-threatening information is important to development of critical thinking skills.  This doesn’t mean that core beliefs will always be changed but being open to questioning and exploring alternatives allows for new knowledge and better understanding of yourself and others.  I liken this point to the idea of being comfortable in your own skin.  If you know who you are and why you are who you are, it becomes easier to open yourself to considering new meanings.  I think this is what being a lifelong learner is all about.

References:

Bracher, M. (2006). Radical pedagogy: Identity, generativity, and social transformation, New York,  N.Y. : Palgrave MacMillan.

Horn, I.S., Nolen, S.B., Ward, C. & Campbell, S.S. (2008). Developing practices in multiple worlds: the role of identity in learning to teach. Teacher Education Quarterly, 2, 61-72.

Olsen, B. (2008). How reasons for entry into the profession illuminate teacher identity development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 2, 23-40.

Sfard, A. & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: in search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14-22.

Brokering in Communities of Practice: Challenging Territory

 I found the concept of brokering in Communities of Practice – Learning, Meaning, and Identity to be most relevant of all of the readings, theories, and concepts we have encountered thus far in this course. Wenger (1998) describes brokering in communities of practice as the translation, coordination, and alignment between perspectives. Brokering links practices through facilitating transactions between communities of practice. Practice elements of one community are introduced to another leading to learning. Wenger describes brokering as a process that provides participative connections between communities of practice. A person acting as a broker shares their experiences from another community of practice. Connections provided by brokers have the potential for new negotiation and for learning to occur.

As a manager, I link this process strongly to my work. Wenger states that the role of a manager is construed in terms of directing people but that a good part of the activities have more to do with brokering across boundaries between practices (1998, p. 109). The role of many types of managers is in coordinating people. They introduce groups to new ideas from other groups, and lead them through change. During this exchange they must convince the community that they are justifiable and have the knowledge to be trusted in this role. Wenger suggests that in order for a broker to be successful in this enterprise they need to have enough legitimacy to influence the development of a practice, mobilize attention, and address conflicting interests (1998, p.109). In some instances and depending on the manager, this can be a challenging endeavor.

Several times in my recent career a new manager was asked to introduce an idea to a community of practice I was involved in. I struggled with their role because I did not see them as legitimate to the community, even in the periphery. The manager did not have enough legitimacy because I did not see their educational background or experience as being substantive to give me confidence in their ability. This is a difficult position to be in as a manager. Wenger describes this occurrence for people in brokering roles as uprootedness. Wenger states that because communities of practice focus on their own enterprise, boundaries can lack the kind of negotiated understanding found at the core of practices about what constitutes competence. This makes recognizing the value of brokering difficult to assess (1998, p. 110).

I have always had a strong belief that being a successful manager involves collaborating with people in a workplace to create an environment which fosters teaching and learning. In many workplaces there are multiple communities of practice which come in contact with one another through various types of boundary encounters. Wenger describes these as one-on-one, immersion, and delegation. Whichever the type of encounter, the broker plays an important role.

In my current position, I am often asked to work as a project manager to advance new policies or initiatives towards making improvements in the organization. The role of project manager is an excellent example of brokering in communities of practice. Presently, I am working on a project which involves several communities of practice across two provinces. This has been very challenging and through it I have thought of my role as a mediator. It is complex work to help communities of practice negotiate understanding with one another even in the face of conflicting interests.

Wenger describes the process of brokering as complex and it is. At the outset of a project the difficulty lies in becoming recognized as legitimate. Once the project is advancing the difficulty is in staying in the periphery and not becoming so immersed in the work to be seen as a full community member. Wenger states that some people seem to thrive on being brokers. I have never really thought of myself in that way but have been doing this type of negotiating work for several years. It is isolating but gratifying at the same time. You bring a different perspective but understand the current way of thinking. You enable coordination between communities of practice, paving the way for new meanings to be created. People acting in the role of brokers can be viewed by communities of practice as those that create work and cause conflict. However, without the insertion of this person with a differing point of view, communities of practice will themselves become isolated and closed to new members. The possibility of growing through new learning and meaning is reduced threatening the survival of the community. The role of a broker can cause discomfort because of the potential for change. Conflict is common but understanding that this is, as Wenger states, an occupational hazard is giving me new insight on my own expectations.

References:

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity, New York, N.Y.:

Cambridge University Press.

Participation & Reification – Clear Definitions and the Link to Educational Support

     My (very old) Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary provides short definitions of reification and participation that I found very clear and helpful:

Reification - to regard (something abstract) as a material thing

Participation – the state of being related to a larger whole

     When I look at these two simple but poignant definitions it is clear to me why Wenger chose these two words as his descriptors for the processes at work within a community of practice. People coming together in mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire, the three dimensions of a community of practice as suggested by Wenger (1998), clearly are involved in something that is larger than them and intertwined with others. They are, through their participation, contributing to a larger whole. Subsequently, when people are together as part of a larger whole they are creating the shared history of meaning which is how things that are meaningful to the group become reified. It is the shared understanding of abstract things as material that contributes to linking people together in the community. Wenger (1998) spends a significant amount of time in his book Communities of Practice – Learning, Meaning, and Identity describing reification and participation. They are important concepts to review and consider in order to deepen our appreciation of communities of practice as complex functioning units in and of themselves.

     As discussed in class, communities of practice function productively when there is an complementarity between participation and reification. A community of practice which is governed by too many rules and regulations can be viewed as dictatorial in that there is little room for members of the group to create new meanings or alter existing practices. Conversely, a community of practice which is almost fully participatory and holds few reified ideas can be viewed as chaotic with little order or communal construction.

It is interesting to me to contemplate how a community of practice can navigate their path to create the most advantageous mix of participation and reification without ever thinking about it in terms of these concepts. Although the individuals may never know these words to describe their group and what they do, they are still actively involved in the process. People in communities of practice are negotiating new meaning, challenging reified ideas, and creating updated normalcy as part of the course of doing regular business.

     For example, in the nursing profession (like many other professional bodies) there is an enduring assessment and discussion of what it means to be competent. The word competent is reified to mean capable and knowledgeable to be able to do all the duties and activities prescribed for a Registered Nurse. A competent Registered Nurse in 2011, however, would look quite different in terms of their skills and abilities than a Registered Nurse in 1950. Both are deemed competent at the point in time but what defines competence has changed significantly. So, the term competent has remained reified for many years in the nursing profession but new meanings to support the understanding of it have been negotiated by the members of this community of practice. The educational community which supports the education of nurses has been required to respond to the increasing demands of nurses to complete more complex clinical procedures and take on a leadership role within health care teams. The scope of practice for a Registered Nurse has become broader and deeper creating higher expectations when measuring competence. Nursing educators have had to take direction from the regulatory body for the nursing profession (influenced by the health care sector) to re-create curriculum to meet new and increasing expectations. As educators, this has meant the need to adapt to considerable change and formulation of new ways of teaching and opportunities for learning which have not been explored before. It is a responsibility and challenge for educators to ensure that today’s Registered Nurses are competent as defined by the community of practice.

     Few people are likely familiar with the terms community of practice, and reification and participation in this context. However, as discussed above, all people in communities of practice are involved in these processes as part of their everyday interactions with others. As an educator involved with a community of practice it is beneficial to understand how communities operate and what conditions foster an environment for negotiating meaning and collaboration within the group. Supporting an environment where there is complementarity of participation and reification creates an opportunity for growth but with stability and order within the community.

References

Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. (1963). Thomas Allen Limited, Toronto: Ontario.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.

New Versus Old – Finding Common Ground in Communities of Practice

 

Attempting to join or participate in any kind of an established group can evoke a nervous response for many people. Established groups can seem closed and unwelcoming to a new person hoping to fit in. A sense of belonging and being seen as legitimate is important to people striving for acceptance by others. But how do people trying to fit in get to the stage of feeling that they truly belong?

Lave and Wenger (1991) describe people endeavouring to participate in communities of practitioners for the purpose of obtaining mastery of the skills and knowledge of the group as legitimate peripheral participants. They use the concept of apprenticeship to describe people as learners who are new to a community of practice. I have always thought of the term apprentice as associated with skilled trades but Lave and Wenger use this term more broadly to describe anyone who is new to a practice community and working towards the ultimate goal of achieving full participation through learning about the community including its activities, identities, knowledge, and artifacts.

One of my experiences as a legitimate peripheral participant arose following completion of my undergraduate degree. I was required to complete a one-year internship program, which for me took place in a hospital setting, to become a registered professional within the licensing body. In this case it would seem that internship and apprenticeship were a like experience. I identify with the description provided by Lave and Wenger when they detail the initial experiences of newcomers as associated with “tasks positioned at the end of the branches of work processes, rather than in the middle of linked work segments” (1991, p. 110). I recall beginning as an intern and being given work to complete that was simple and straightforward, and as well being tasked with lots of reading and reviewing of policies and procedures, guidelines, and even commonly used language including acceptable abbreviations and symbols. I understand now that this was a part of the process for me to start understanding the shared knowledge and skills within this community of professionals. As I progressed through my internship year, my contributions to the processes of work became increasingly more skilled and valued and the sense of belonging to this community of practitioners was influencing how I saw myself within the group. I recall towards the end of my year being offered the opportunity to complete a staff-relief placement where I would be acting in the role of the professional during their planned absence. This was my sign that I belonged. This community of practitioners had given me the opportunity to work with them as a full participant within their community.

I retell my experience above as though it was a smooth, fulfilling experience of entry into that community of practice that followed the stages of apprenticeship as described by Lave and Wenger. I did become a full participant within the community but the journey was not smooth or predictable. There were some members within the community that did not support or value my input as a newcomer. Their interest in interactions with me seemed more focused on ensuring that I would be the type of practitioner that they saw as legitimate within the community. Lave and Wenger (1991) discuss people within communities who act upon newcomers with the intent to change them to conform to established practices as didactic caretakers. In some instances, old-timers in a group who have a history of shared meaning and learning within the community can act this way in an effort to preserve their own sense of the community and how it should be maintained. The old-timers in a community are usually those who have the respect of newcomers. If there are old-timers acting in the capacity of didactic caretakers it is problematic because newcomers, who are unsure of themselves and their abilities, may bend to conform to the expectations of the old-timers. This is an exertion of power within the community and can potentially impact the formation of identity in newcomers and as well limit the creation of a communally constructed community where all participants hold value in forming and sustaining the community of practice. Lave and Wenger (1991) describe the communal construction of a community of practice as advantageous related to the contributions from differing perspectives of all members which benefit the community overall by creating a rich history of shared experience. In my internship example there were times when I questioned my own abilities and contributions based on participation in the community of practitioners because it was restricted by some of the old-timers. I would suggest that facing this situation as a newcomer to a community of practice is more common than uncommon. There is pride in belonging to a community of practice and when newcomers are entering some of the old-timers may feel threatened and worried that change may lay ahead.

Navigating successfully as a legitimate peripheral participant to become a full practising member in a community of practice can be a tricky endeavour. As lifelong learners and educators, understanding the perspective of both newcomers and old-timers holds great potential to be useful in mediating and assisting people to reach common ground in their communities of practice.

References:

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation, New York, N.Y.:

            Cambridge University Press.

Language & Culture – The Connection

It is difficult to imagine a world without language.  Communication with others occurs in many ways other than through language but the spoken word occurs on all continents, in all countries, cities, towns and villages throughout the world in some form.  Although there are many different languages, almost all cultures use language as a primary means of communication.  Due to the fact that most cultures use language to communicate it is therefore important that each generation of children acquire language for this purpose to support this most common way of interacting with others.  Even in situations where spoken word is not used, for example in people who are hearing impaired, Tomasello discusses the efficacy of this type of language by saying

            And it seems to be the case empirically that various substitutes and variations on linguistic symbols, such as manual sign languages, are all equally effective as language in directing attention and cognition if they are, like natural languages, based on intersubjectively shared and perspectivally based conventional symbols (1999, p. 160).

Tomasello spends significant time in chapters four and five of his novel, The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition, explaining and outlining at length the details of the various stages of the acquisition of the English language in young children.  By his account this is a very intricate process involving several stages of language construction as the child's ability to more fully utilize language develops.  Throughout his discussion of language acquisition there is a common thread of the child's understanding of the meaning and intent of the words they are hearing and beginning to use.  According to Tomasello, in the early stages of language acquisition between the ages of one to four years, children are often imitative in their interactions with adults because they are unsure of what to do so they choose to do what they have seen others do in similar situations.  It is only as their mastery of the artifacts and conventions of their culture increases do they begin to act creatively and formulate spontaneous advances in their use of communication through language. 

Thus, the early stages of a child's language acquisition are vitally influential on their future ability to be able to interact in their world in a contributory way.   Tomasello (p. 160) notes that many adults when faced with an uncertain situation will resort back to imitation when trying to problem-solve.   If a child's early language development is inhibited for some reason, such as limited exposure to the external environment by highly overprotective parents, they will only learn the interactions of their cultural environment in that very narrow arena and will struggle when faced at older ages with the barrage of linguistic symbols and constructions in a more open environment of multiple adults and other children. 

The impact of language on cultural development stems from ability to hold conversations with others where ideas and opinions are traded in a back and forth discourse creating an ongoing shift of perspectives.  As children grow and develop they move from an understanding of themselves and others as intentional agents to themselves and others as mental agents with thoughts and beliefs which may differ from each other.  Through this understanding the intentions, viewpoints, and perspectives of others can be processed and considered to improve overall understanding in societal situations.  Tomasello (1999) discusses several stages in the progression of children in becoming mental agents including disagreements and misunderstandings, requests for clarification, communicative breakdown and repair, and moral understanding.  These more advanced thought processes enable children to better understand the world they live in and give them the ability to contribute to their culture through the use of language to share their thoughts, ideas, and opinions.  Discourse explored through the use of language gives great insight into the thoughts of others and opens an avenue to explore the cultural foundations in societies.  Words can be thought of as just words without shared meaning and understanding.  Each culture has its own rich tapestry of beliefs and constructions.  The sharing of common language amongst the people who participate in the culture allows for ongoing and deep investigation and elaborations that would not exist in its absence.

References:

Tomassello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition, Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University       Press.

The Ratchet Effect: What is it and what does it mean in the context of the evolution of primates and humans?

In the first two weeks of our class discussions we have begun to review and contemplate what it is that separates us cognitively from primates and other mammals and how this difference may have occurred in our evolution. Tomassello's account in The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition approaches this topic by offering a hypothesis of cultural or social transmission which is species-unique in humans (Tomasello, 1999, p. 4) to account for the swift time scale of human evolution. According to Tomassello, there are very distinct abilities we have as humans that are not evident in the world of primates or other mammals. Specifically, one of the major abilities we hold as humans is our capacity for cultural learning. Through historical examples, Tomasello contends that we have continued to improve cognitively as a species because of our ongoing ability to build on our knowledge and performances through transmission of what we know between ourselves and additionally improvements of what we know through collaborations with other humans. An example of this historical evolution discussed by Tomasello is that of the hammer in its beginnings as a simple stone tool through to mechanical hammers of today. In effect, Tomasselo suggests that it is these two abilities, transmission and collaboration, that enable humans to move forward and progress. Tomasello, Kruger, and Ratner (1993) discuss human ability to make improvements or modifications to a process or object individually or in groups again and again over time as cumulative cultural evolution or the ratchet effect. Conversely, Tomasselo argues that primates do not possess this cognitive capacity for cultural transmission so that learned skills and abilities are not transmitted culturally between primates and are lost over time thus limiting evolutionary progression within the species; non-human primates do not have the ability to produce the ratchet effect.

If this hypothesis of the ability for cumulative cultural evolution as species-unique to humans is true then I wonder what is it that prevents non-human primates from this same ability if it is not, at least in part, biology. Tomasello briefly outlines another hypothesis discussed by Boyd and Richerson (1996) where they posit that non-human primates do practice cumulative cultural evolution but the difference may be quantitative. They argue that the ratchet effect does occur in non-human primates but not consistently enough or in the same breadth of contexts to advance the species cognitively through cultural learning. This does offer another alternative but it still leads me to ask the question about biology. I suggest that perhaps there is a combination of these two reasons, biology and culture, which in concert could explain why non-human primates cannot produce the ratchet effect consistently and in the same breadth of contexts as humans.

I have never considered any explanation of the differences between primates and humans other than that of sheer biology. I have seen the videos and news stories touting the amazing abilities of enculturated apes and agreed that they were quite remarkable. My understanding of what happened to allow these primates to improve beyond what I would perceive as normal primate intelligence was that they held some additional capacity to learn which was advanced by careful staging of scientific experimentation. While that still may be true, it is a new opportunity to contemplate the role of culture versus biology in human evolution and in explanation of the differences between humans and non-human primates. Understanding that historically humans at some point learned how to learn differently, namely through cultural transmission, is a key piece in the further exploration of the evolutionary puzzle.

References:

Tomassello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition, Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.

Tomasselo, M., Kruger, A.C. & Ratner, H.H. (1993). Cultural Learning, Behavioural and Brain Sciences. 16, 495-552.

Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. (1996). Why culture is common but cultural evolution is rare. Proceedings

of the British Academy. 88, 77-93.