Critiquing theories of learning and communities of practice

In the aftermath of the tsunami disaster of 2004 in South East Asia a radio journalist reporting from a devastated community in Sri Lanka interpreted the reopening of a school as the first sign of a return to ‘normal life’. He observed: ‘the children can start to learn again.’ His comment was a stark reminder of the received assumptions that surround the concept of learning. First, in relation to space or place, learning is recognized (only) if it happens in a formal educational setting such as a school, college or university. Second, it is assumed that learning is dependent on the presence of a recognized (qualified) teacher. Third, it is believed that learning (always) involves a process of knowledge transmission from an expert (the teacher) to a novice (usually conceived of as a child or young adult). Fourth, learning is conceived as a ‘product’ to be acquired. The product takes the form of codified and stable knowledge, reified in textbooks and distributed to those in receipt of ‘formal schooling’. Fifth, it is assumed that learning is essentially an individual matter. From a cognitive perspective, learning is associated with changes in ‘mental state’, which occur when the individual mind processes information. From a behaviourist perspective learning is associated with observable changes in a person’s behaviour. In their analysis of approaches to learning, Beckett and Hager (2002) suggest that such assumptions can be clustered together as the ‘standard paradigm’ of learning. It was dissatisfaction with the tenets associated with this paradigm that underpinned Lave and Wenger’s (1991) seminal book and which has made such an influential contribution to the emergence in recent years of an alternative theorization of learning or to what Beckett and Hager call ‘the emerging paradigm’.