Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher. 27(3): 4-13
The basic message of this article: As researchers, we seem to be doomed to living
in a reality constructed from a variety of metaphors. We
have to accept the fact that the metaphors we use while theorizing
may be good enough to fit small areas, but none of
them suffice to cover the entire field. In other words, we
must learn to satisfy ourselves with only local sensemaking.
A realistic thinker knows he or she has to give up
the hope that the little patches of coherence will eventually
combine into a consistent global theory. It seems that the
sooner we accept the thought that our work is bound to produce
a patchwork of metaphors rather than a unified, homogeneous
theory of learning, the better for us and for
those whose lives are likely to be affected by our work.
Two metaphors for learning:
1. acquisition metaphor
2. participation metaphor
acquisition metaphor: the Collins English
Dictionary defines learning as "the act of gaining knowledge."
Since the time of Piaget and Vygotsky, the growth of
knowledge in the process of learning has been analyzed in
terms of concept development.
The language of "knowledge acquisition" and "concept development"
makes us think about the human mind as a
container to be filled with certain materials and about the
learner as becoming an owner of these materials.
Key words of the frameworks generated
by the acquisition metaphor: knowledge, concept, conception,
idea, notion, misconception, meaning, sense, schema, fact,
representation, material, contents.
Once acquired, the knowledge, like any other
commodity, may now be applied, transferred (to a different
context), and shared with others.
Researchers have offered a range of greatly differing
mechanisms of concept development. First, they simply
talked about passive reception of knowledge, then about its
being actively constructed by the learner; later, they analyzed
the ways in which concepts are transferred from a social
to an individual plane and internalized by the student;
eventually, they envisioned learning as a never-ending,
self-regulating process of emergence in a continuing interaction
with peers, teachers, and texts. As long as they investigated
learning by focusing on the "development of
concepts" and on "acquisition of knowledge," however,
they implicitly agreed that this process can be conceptualized
in terms of the acquisition metaphor.
participation metaphor: learning is seen in terms of
a legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991)
or as an apprenticeship in thinking (Rogoff, 1990).
Learning is now conceived
of as a process of becoming a member of a certain community.
This entails, above all, the ability to communicate in
the language of this community and act according to its particular
norms. 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. From a
lone entrepreneur, the learner turns into an integral part of
"Participation" is almost
synonymous with "taking part" and "being a part,"
and both of these expressions signalize that learning should
be viewed as a process of becoming a part of a greater
While the AM
stresses the individual mind and what goes "into it," the
PM shifts the focus to the evolving bonds between the individual
While AM emphasizes the inward
movement of the object known as knowledge, PM gives
prominence to the aspect of mutuality characteristic of the
Indeed, PM makes salient the dialectic
nature of the learning interaction: The whole and the parts
affect and inform each other. On one hand, the very existence
of the whole is fully dependent on the parts.
other hand, whereas the AM stresses the way in which possession
determines the identity of the possessor, the PM implies
that the identity of an individual, like an identity of a
living organ, is a function of his or her being (or becoming)
a part of a greater entity. Thus, talk about the "stand-alone
learner" and "decontextualized learning" becomes as
pointless as the attempts to define lungs or muscles without
a reference to the living body within which they both exist
Problems with the acquisition metaphor:
1.The conception of knowledge
as property, when not controlled, leads to too literal a translation
of beliefs on material properties into beliefs on learning;
some of the resulting norms and value judgments are
likely to have adverse effects on both the theory and practice
of learning and teaching
2. How do we account for the fact that learners
are able to build for themselves concepts that seem fully
congruent with those of others? Or, to put it differently, how
do people bridge individual and public possessions?
3.If knowledge is conceived of as a commodity, it is only
natural that attitudes toward learning reflect the way the
given society thinks about material wealth.
4. It is noteworthy that within the acquisition paradigm, not
only knowledge, but also the means for gaining it, counts as
a highly priced possession that, if of a superior quality, can
make the possessors themselves superior to others.
5. Students' achievements may depend on environmental
factors. But the teachers feel they can tell students'
real (permanent) potential from their actual performance.
6. The gifts and potentials, like other private possessions, are
believed to be measurable and may therefore be used for
sorting people into categories.
The participation metaphor has a potential to
lead to a new, more democratic practice of learning and
teaching. Because, however, social, normative, and ethical
morals of metaphors are not inscribed in the metaphors
themselves but rather are a matter of interpretation, the intentions
and skills of those who harness the metaphor to
work are of central significance.
Sfard: giving up
the AM is neither desirable nor possible. When it comes to
research, some important things that can be done with the
old metaphor cannot be achieved with the new one. Besides,
the PM, when left alone, may be as dangerous a thing
as the AM proved to be in a similar situation.
Why is the AM needed?
The Question of Transfer: Our ability to prepare
ourselves today to deal with new situations we are going to
encounter tomorrow is the very essence of learning. Competence
means being able to repeat what can be repeated
while changing what needs to be changed. How is all of this
accounted for if we are not allowed to talk about carrying
anything with us from one situation to another?
Greeno (1997) central idea is to provide the old notion with a
new interpretation. Defining learning as "improved participation
in interactive systems," he proceeds to account
"for transfer in terms of transformations of constraints, affordances,
and attunements" (p. 12).
Even if we could
create an AM-free discourse, we probably shouldn't. Within
the participationist framework, some powerful means for
conceptualization of learning are lost, and certain promising
paths toward understanding its mechanism are barred.
Pedagogical issues with PM:
1. More often than not, it is not all that obvious how the
request to disobjectify knowledge and "put it back into
context" should be interpreted.
2. real-life situations that would be likely to
become for mathematics or science students what a craftsman's
workshop is for the apprentice are extremely difficult
3. it is far from clear how we
should construe the term "community of practice" and
whom we should view as "expert practitioners" and the
shapers of a given "practice."
4. The main problem, it seems, is that of a gradual
disappearance of a well-defined subject matter. Without
a clearly delineated content, the whole process of learning
and teaching is in danger of becoming amorphous and losing
Conclusion: One Metaphor Is Not Enough
Why Do We Need More Than One Metaphor?
The relative advantages of each of the two metaphors make
it difficult to give up either of them: Each has something to
offer that the other cannot provide. Moreover, relinquishing
either the AM or the PM may have grave consequences,
whereas metaphorical pluralism embraces a promise of a
better research and a more satisfactory practice. The basic
tension between seemingly conflicting metaphors is our
protection against theoretical excesses, and is a source of
participation metaphor is often translated into a total banishment
of "teaching by telling," an imperative to make
"cooperative learning" mandatory to all, and a complete
delegitimatization of instruction that is not "problem based"
or not situated in a real-life context.
An adequate combination of the acquisition and
participation metaphor would bring to the fore the advantages
of each of them, while keeping their respective drawbacks
Having several theoretical outlooks
at the same thing is a normal practice in science,
where, for instance, chemistry and physics offer two different-
but not incompatible-accounts of matter, while
physiology and psychology bring mutually complementing
outlooks at human beings. In the spirit of this approach,
acquisitionists and participationists might admit that the
difference between them is not a matter of differing opinions
but rather of participating in different, mutually complementing
The metaphors might be incommensurable rather than incompatible.
Clearly, some metaphors may
be more attractive than others because of their accessibility,
flexibility, imaginativeness, or aesthetic value. In the final
account, however, the choice made by individual researchers
would probably depend mainly on what they
want to achieve.
If, for example, one's purpose is to build a
computer program that would simulate human behavior,
then the acquisition metaphor is likely to be chosen as one that
brings forward the issue of representations-something
that has to be constructed and quite literally put into a
If, on the other hand, one is concerned with educational
issues-such as the mechanisms that enable successful
learning or make its failure persistent, then the
participational approach may be more helpful as one that
defies the traditional distinction between cognition and affect,
brings social factors to the fore, and thus deals with an
incomparably wider range of possibly relevant aspects.