Advertisement

Learning Adaptivity Across Contexts

Chapter
Part of the Education Innovation Series book series (EDIN)

Abstract

Adaptivity across contexts is an important twenty-first century disposition. Schools nurture adaptive domain experts (students) through teacher apprenticeship in Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD). This paper suggests that such interdisciplinary learning may be achieved by deliberate attempts to bridge between formal and informal contexts. The Zone of Adaptivity Development (ZAD) is proposed to illustrate how adaptivity across contexts might be nurtured with the help of a ‘broker-of-learning’. Metacognitive interactions with brokers-of-learning enable learners to analyse learning incidents in the ZPDs. This facilitates the transfer and adaptation of learning strategies across contexts. A case study is described to show how a broker-of-learning used metacognitive brokering and dialoguing to understand a Grade Four pupil’s learning experiences and helped transfer strategies used in bowling to improve grades in Mathematics. Our observations suggest that adaptivity within contexts and metacognitive brokering are useful to appropriate a disposition of adaptivity across contexts. The ZAD is discussed to highlight its preliminary implications for teaching and learning. Although this is an exploratory study, initial observations and implications are significant because they inform how academically weaker students may perform better by being assisted in the recontextualising and transferring of strategies for learning from one context to another.

Keywords

Word Problem Structural Coupling Private Tutor Formal Context Informal Setting 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bransford, J., Brophy, S., & Williams, S. (2000). When computer technologies meet the learning sciences: Issues and opportunities. Journal of the Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, J., Vye, N., Stevens, R., Kuhl, P., Schwartz, D., Bell, P., et al. (2006). Learning theories and education: Toward a decade of synergy. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 209–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Broadfoot, P. (2000). Comparative education for the 21st century. Comparative Education, 36(3), 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J. S. (2006). New learning environments for the 21st century: Exploring the edge. Change, 38(5), 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Centre for Advancement of Informal Science Education. (2010). Making science matter: Collaborations between informal science education organizations and schools. Retrieved from http://caise.insci.org/uploads/docs/MakingScienceMatter.pdf
  7. Cheyne, J. A., & Tarulli, D. (2005). Dialogue, difference and voice in the zone of proximal development. In H. Daniels (Ed.), An introduction to Vygotsky (pp. 125–148). East Sussex, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Corte, E. D. (2007). Learning from instruction: The case of mathematics. Learning Inquiry, 1, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delany, D. (2008). Advanced concept mapping: Developing adaptive expertise. In A. J. Canas, P. Reiska, M. Ahlberg, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on concept mapping, Finland.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, R. (2005). Contexts, boundary zones and boundary objects in lifelong learning. In British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Wales, UK: University of Glamorgan.Google Scholar
  11. Fazey, I., Fazey, J. A., & Fazey, D. M. A. (2005). Learning more effectively from experience. Ecology and Society, 10(2). Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art4/
  12. Fazey, J. A., & Marton, F. (2002). Understanding the space of experiential variation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(3), 234–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat: The globalized world in the twenty-first century. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Flyvberg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammerness, H., Darling-Hammod, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M., et al. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358–389). San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursing continuous innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harland, T. (2003). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and problem-based learning: Linking a theoretical concept with practice through action research. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herr, E. L. (1993a). Contexts and influences on the need for personal flexibility for the 21st century, part I. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 27(3), 148–164.Google Scholar
  20. Herr, E. L. (1993b). Contexts and influences on the need for personal flexibility for the 21st century, part II. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 27(4), 219–235.Google Scholar
  21. Hung, D., Lim, K. Y. T., Chen, V. D.-T., & Koh, T. S. (2008). Leveraging online communities in fostering adaptive schools. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. Vanpatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisitions: An introduction (pp. 197–221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2012a). Ministry of Education, Singapore: Education System: Secondary Education: Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/secondary/cca
  24. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2012b). Primary school education: Preparing your child for tomorrow. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/primary/files/primary-school-education-booklet.pdf
  25. Nevins, M. D., & Stumpf, S. A. (1999). 21st-century leadership: Redefining management education. Strategy & Business, 16, 2–12.Google Scholar
  26. Salonen, P., Vauras, M., & Efklides, A. (2005). Social interaction – What can it tell us about metacognition and coregulation in learning? European Psychologist, 10(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(3). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-3/tellis2.html
  28. Tuomi-Grohn, T., Engestrom, Y., & Young, M. (2003). From transfer to boundary-crossing between school and work as a tool for developing vocational education: An introduction. In T. Tuomi-Grohn & Y. Engestrom (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 1–15). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  29. Van Oers, B. (1998). The fallacy of decontextualization. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5, 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Verona, G., Prandelli, E., & Sawhney, M. (2006). Innovation and virtual environments: Towards virtual knowledge brokers. Organization Studies, 27(6), 765–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Violet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self- and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Walker, D., & Nocon, H. (2007). Boundary-crossing competence: Theoretical considerations and educational design. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(3), 178–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Winn, W., & Windschitl, M. (2001). Towards an explanatory framework for learning in artificial environments. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 8(4), 5–23.Google Scholar
  35. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Ziemke, T. (2003). What’s that thing called embodiment? In Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1305–1310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations