JLynn

Bransford begins this article by explaining why we need anchored instruction. In short the reason is transferability. He explains how logarithms were able to make life so much easier for astronomers of the 1600s. It's really a great example of how learning can address a real need.

And I totally agree that students "treat the knowledge as ends rather than means to an important ends." It's true classroom learning tends to remain separate from a student's list of tools for life.

The astronomers' learning context held such meaning for them because it was actually part of their real life - their work-life, probably. But most examples of anchored instruction that Bransford uses, and that I've come across elsewhere, are contrived. The contexts aren't ones that would naturally be in the student's life. Students first need to step out of himself, taking on some kind of artificial role, then take part in the learning context. Once completed, the student still needs to integrate that learning into their own reality - essentially the knowledge remains an end in itself. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of anchored instruction is great. And that placing knowledge acquisition into some kind of context is better than teaching that knowledge with no context at all - at least the students are getting to see their learning in action rather than an isolated (inert) element. I wonder, however, in what situations can we place learning so that it truly addresses a students' reality?