In terms of military technical training/ education, the AM PM divide is sound. Though this appears wholly dependent upon our assessment what is really being tested in order to do the job. Therefore our assessment strategy for that particular element of a course is critical. We require trainees to grasp fact, information in terms of concepts, notions, principles and ideas but also to be able to apply those in the work place. Therefore we generate scenarios for assessment purposes which demonstrate acquisition of knowledge and the demonstration of AE good practice. So I see strong comparators with teaching nursing, pharmacy or other 'professional' skills.
The risk of creating holes in the countryside is considered significant enough for Air Engineering in particular to take steps to create not only technicians but ‘air mindedness’ within technicians. This is about integrity, procedure, supervision and so on. This PM is central to learning in the AE world, though until Sfard, I’d not seen it articulated in such a way. It raises questions over whether our assessment strategies for AE is indeed correct in all cases. Often I have intervened in systems where the ‘wrong’ thing was being assessed. This delineation gives me a principle to hang those arguments upon.
The suggestion of a single metaphor which catches all is ambitious. Furthermore I like the idea that the AM / PM divide highlights weakness in the other and moves towards what Lynda Hine suggest is a more critical approach to understanding what learning is about.
Lastly, the question of whether the AE learning is individual or socially contextual. It has to be both. The individual has responsibility for their actions but the system is designed to reduce bad practice and error. Knowing where you as a technician sit within that system is, I would suggest as contextual learning as it gets.
