Acquisition and participation metaphors

These notes are part of a series for the book. This is a seminal work by Sfard about two metaphors for learning. It provides an explanation of both, and argues that we need both metaphors.

Note: I reference this article in my essay, The duality of participation and reification, and a little Bolero.

Sfard, A. (1998) ‘On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One’, in Murphy, P. and McCormick, R. (eds) (2012) Knowledge and Practice: Representations and Identities, London, SAGE Publications Ltd. in association with The Open University.

Outline

Acquisition metaphor (AM) versus participation metaphor (PM)
1. Acquisition metaphor
2. Participation metaphor
What can go wrong with AM, and how PM can help
1. Foundational dilemmas
2. The question of norms and values
Why do we need AM after all?
1. Research issues: the question of transfer
2. Pedagogical issues: the worry about subject matter
Conclusion: one metaphor is not enough
1. Why do we need more than one metaphor?
2. Living with contradictions

Notes

Metaphors help us talk about a concept while drawing on a possible-unrelated field. ‘What traditionally has been regarded as a mere tool for better understanding and for more effective memorization was now recognized as the primary source of all our concepts’ (Sfard, 1998, p. 31).

This article looks at the debate between two main metaphors for learning (the acquisition metaphor (AM) and participation metaphor (PM)), and concludes that we need both. By using both, we get the best of both worlds and also the two metaphors can balance each other out.

‘[T]oo great a devotion to one particular metaphor and rejection of all the others can lead to theoretical distortions and to undesirable practical consequences’ (Sfard, 2012, p. 31).
‘A trendy mixture of constructivist, social-interactionist, and situationist approaches — which has much to do with the participation metaphor — is often translated into a total banishment of ‘teaching by telling,’ and imperative to make ‘cooperative learning’ mandatory to all, and a complete delegitimization of instruction that is not ‘problem-based’ or not situated in a real-life context…. Because no two students have the same needs and no two students arrive at their best performance in the same way, theoretical exclusivity and didactic single-mindedness can be trusted to make even the best of educational ideas fail’ (Sfard, 1998, p. 41).

One important note is that these two metaphors (AM and PM) are not a renamed rehashing of the individual versus social learning theories. There are aspects of AM and PM in both types of theories. ‘[W]hile the acquisition/participation division is ontological in nature and draws on two radically different answers to the fundamental question, “What is this thing called learning?,” the individual/social dichotomy does not imply a controversy as to the definition of learning, but rather rests on differing visions of the mechanism of learning’ (Sfard, 1998, p. 34).

	Acquisition metaphor (AM)	Participation metaphor (PM)
What is a concept?	'Concept' is a basic unit of knowledge. It is property, a possession or commodity.	'Concept' does not exist, because it is an entity; instead, there is 'knowing'. Knowing is an aspect of practice, discourse, or activity. You do rather than have.
What is learning?	Learning is acquiring concepts and being able to transfer them to other contexts. The mind is seen as a container, and the focus is on the mind and what goes in it.	Learning is participating in, and becoming a member of, a community. Learners are newcomers and potential reformers of the practice. Teachers are preservers of its continuity. The focus is on the bonds between people. This idea of teachers as preservers of continuity struck me. Here's the exact quote: 'The norms themselves are to be negotiated in the process of consolidating the community. While the learners are newcomers and potential reformers of the practice, the teachers are the preservers of its continuity' (Sfard, 1998, p. 33).
Why do people learn?	Individual enrichment	Community building
Which words are used in this metaphor?	Knowledge, concept, conception, idea, notion, misconception, meaning, sense, schema, fact, representation, material, contents Words used for learners: Recipients, consumers, constructors, reconstructors; learners may be gifted and thus this can be measured and learners can be categorized according to it; learners receive, acquire, construct, internalize, appropriate, transmit, attain, develop, accumulate, grasp, apply, transfer (to a different context), share Words used for teachers: Providers, facilitators, mediators; teachers deliver, convey, facilitate, mediate	Practice, discourse, communication Words used for learners: Peripheral participant, apprentice Words used for teachers: Expert participant, preserver of practice or discourse
What is a weakness of this metaphor that is not seen in the other metaphor?	One issue with the AM metaphor is related to norms and values. Because it views knowledge as a commodity: It is somewhat equated with wealth, and this further compounds into roles, identities, and positions in society. '[K]nowledge and material possessions are likely to play similar roles in establishing people's identities and in defining their social positions.... [and] knowledge understood as property is likely to turn into an additional attribute of position and power' (Sfard, 1998, p. 36). See also: This ties in with Lave's comments about the separation of the 'everyday' from culture and as a division of people and their access to knowledge valued by society, Lave, J. (2008) ‘Everyday Life and Learning’. It means that knowledge can belong to someone, and be stolen from someone. See also: One of the main arguments Wiley makes for open educational resources is that knowledge can be shared without being diminished: Open Education and the Future (2010). This causes division instead of collaboration.	A metaphor that fully rejects the idea of transfer is difficult to reconcile with learning. 'Learning transfer means carrying knowledge across contextual boundaries; therefore, when on e refuses to view knowledge as a stand-alone entity and rejects the idea of context as a clearly delineated "area," there is simply nothing to be carried over, and there are no definite boundaries to be crossed' (Sfard, 1998, p. 38). See also: The discussion of adaptive expertise in Rogoff, B. (2003) 'Thinking with the Tools and Institutions of Culture'.